Indiana Gov. signs "religious freedom" bill into law

See, I agree that folks shouldn't be forced to wait to have their rights recognized. And, that's a departure from my earlier views. I did previously think that homosexuals were trying to push the nation more quickly than the nation was willing to change. But, they did push, and in retrospect, they were right to do so.

I was wrong.

But, I also recognize that some folks are slower to embrace this kind of societal change than others. Your friend did change his mind, but it took him more time than it took you. And, that doesn't mean he was a terrible person a couple of years ago. And, if you had demonized him, it likely would not have helped to change his mind.

The folks running the pizza place might never change their minds on this issue. We can disagree with them, but demonizing them doesn't help anyone.

 

Not only are you questioning if it is right to make it illegal to discriminate, now you don't even want us to express our disapproval? Sorry. That doesn't fly.

Also, you keep saying you want to take religion out of this. How can you take religion out of a debate when the law that started the discussion is supposedly designed to protect religious freedom? You can't, not if you want to have an honest discussion of the issue.

 

Not at all.

If you want to express your disapproval -- short of making threats or turning to violence -- have at it. Try to demonize them all you want.

I just don't think it's particularly effective, and can if fact result in a backlash against the very cause you support -- see the gofundme support for the hayseed pizza place owners.

Standing outside of an abortion clinic and shouting "murderer" at women is unlikely to change a lot of minds. It's really sort of an ugly activity, isn't it?

So, why are we so eager to shout "bigot" at someone who who doesn't want to cater a gay wedding. Is that going to change their mind?

 

Can the religious business establishments pick and choose their piety or do they have enforce every rule and law in the bible?

 

That's my point.

I don't think the laws should be based on religious views. You shouldn't have to have a religious objection. Not everyone's moral compass is guided by their religious beliefs.

It would be like saying that an atheist couldn't be a contentious objector to participating in war, and that's absurd.

 

Is the Supreme Courtobligated to accomodate religious beliefs? Can a litigant before the court object to having female justices decide their case as CHristianity makes women, by word of God, submissive to men.

 

So, you are against the law. Good. We can agree on something.

 

Love thy neighbor, just not too much if he's a dude.

 

I think we can balance the rights of people with out bringing the religious beliefs of one party into the equation.

I get why religion is in there. If not, then anyone could say they have a right to possess peyote or eagle feathers. But, even that is more cultural than religious. I don't think we require Native Americans to prove how deeply their religious beliefs are. Did we subject the Muslim inmate who wanted to grow a short beard to some religious test?

We respect the religious beliefs and customs of the detainees at GITMO. No one says they've forfeited their right to be considered Muslim because of the actions they've taken.

So, why not just say it's a matter of conscience, and not specifically a religious requirement.

 

Does Indiana's law have the "hot lesbian" exception?

 

No one is against hot lesbians, but they're fucking unicorns.

 

Hot chicks willing to participate in a threesome are even rarer. Fucking bigots.