corpsband Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Can't remember the keywords to look it up but same thing last with a Protestant minister in SE PA (Lancaster County?). He officated at his gay sons wedding and was removed from his church. Forget if he was considered no longer a minister or just in limbo because he did not have a church posting (whatever the term is). Still being fought out in some form and just can't remember the denomination. IIRC lot of his former congregation spoke up for him at the hearings and that possibly made the hieracrhy dig in their heels more. And Lincoln think the "Gods punishment" is the flip side of if you are good God will bless you with material things/winning the big games, etc, etc. At the Super Bowl few years back one player said they won because God blessed him/them. My first thought was "Guess God thought the other team was a bunch of heathens". Lebanon County. Interestingly enough he's since been re-instated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 (edited) I may be wrong, but I think this is a reference to the sicko church that shows up to protest at funerals of fallen soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen with signs that say things like "G-d loves dead soldiers" Nope as I posted above it's a reverse form of "If God loves you, he gives you good things/makes good things happen". In this case, if bad things happen then God ain't happy with you or He's giving you a warning to mend your ways. Edit: Thanks corpsband.. eh I was one county off...... Edited March 30, 2015 by JimF-LowBari Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 But since we're parsing the Standard article, the link they provide in the sentence I've bolded doesn't work, because it points to the result of selecting from an interactive map on the Human Rights Campaign's website. However, we can retrace the Standard's steps: if you go to HRC's website and select Resources, and then Maps of State Laws and Policies, and then pick the option for Statewide Public Accommodations Laws & Policies, you'll get a map showing "States that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity" or "States that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation only". Reviewing that map you'll find that only 21 states prohibit such discrimination. This means that the confidence expressed in your statement that I've underlined is misplaced: the Standard author really did mean "prohibited" not "permitted", although he seems to have counted wrong, coming to a total of 28 such states rather than 29.* (If I have miscounted in turn, someone please say so.) That is to say: Indiana has never prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation at public accommodations. As noted earlier, Democrats tried to include language with such a prohibition in the new law, but Republicans rejected it. *From that map, I read those 21 states to be, working from left to right: Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, New York, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Maine. Trivia question: in which of the other 29 states will DCI not have competitions in 2015? I believe this means, by the way, that it was already legal in Indiana for stores to turn away customers based on sexual orientation. If that's correct, the question might be, why didn't DCI comment on such a discriminatory situation before now? (In Indiana and 28 other states.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Lots of Strawmen there Garfield So you pay for bad information, interesting Hopefully, you’ve read more and many of the critics of the article you were cribbing from (the Atlantic’s for example) you were throwing out so much wrong information at the start of this thread; where to begin and why bother, let the plebs chum each other My non-lifted, lifted take on it, the act will be deemed unconstitutional because it grants Religions Special Rights Your choice to enter the discussion or stand aside and toss out invectives. Wrong factually or wrong-opinioned? Your welcome to PM me if you choose but probably best that you not get personal here in the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cf144 Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Nope as I posted above it's a reverse form of "If God loves you, he gives you good things/makes good things happen". In this case, if bad things happen then God ain't happy with you or He's giving you a warning to mend your ways. Edit: Thanks corpsband.. eh I was one county off...... Thanks. I think I was typing my response as you were posting your explanation. Wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Thanks. I think I was typing my response as you were posting your explanation. Wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. I thought possibly you missed seeing it (boy have I done that enough times). Just wanted to make sure no one thought it was one of the Westboro followers. Just some Protestant mainstream on the conservative side people who IMO have never been around HC people enough to think thru their statements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corpsband Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 I believe this means, by the way, that it was already legal in Indiana for stores to turn away customers based on sexual orientation. If that's correct, the question might be, why didn't DCI comment on such a discriminatory situation before now? (In Indiana and 28 other states.) Actually there's local law in Indianapolis itself: http://www.9news.com/story/news/nation/2015/03/29/religious-freedom-law-really-means-indiana/70633532/ LOCAL NONDISCRIMINATION LAWS In Indiana, about a dozen cities, including Indianapolis, have local nondiscrimination laws that specifically protect gays and lesbians in employment, housing, education and public accommodation, which include business transactions. But in much of Indiana there is no such protection. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
year1buick Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 I don't read this thing as giving businesses carte blanche authorization to discriminate at will as some are interpreting it. I just can't imagine someone successfully arguing in court that being forced to serve someone a latte is going to "substantially burden" their religious freedom. (It seems to me that it would take something like the wedding cake case to even attempt to make this argument.) I'm not saying that I agree with any form of discrimination ( I DON'T), just that I don't think this will have the broad application people are attributing it. I also believe-- fervently hope, at least-- that most businesses are decent and not itching for an opportunity to be blindly bigoted and discriminatory. (Then again, I'd also like to buy the world a Coke. Maybe I'm just naive...) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Some more reading to assist everyone. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/indiana-didnt-actually-pass-an-anti-gay-bill-2015-03-30?link=MW_popular Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdaddy Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Not sure if this has been brought up, but the argument that "20 other states have this, so DCI should stay out of those other states as well. And also, there's already a federal law." doesn't hold up quite so well. This Indiana law is unique. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/what-makes-indianas-religious-freedom-law-different/388997/?utm_source=SFFB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts