Eleran Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 And now for a musical interlude ... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 (edited) To argue that African Americans had it worse than the LGTB community therefore their struggle for civil rights takes precedence over another group’s struggle is alarming to me. . Unless I missed it I didn't see anyone say one struggle took precedence over another. What I see is some think the level of struggle was/is the same and some disagree. Nit picky as Hell to me either way and wasting time and effort that could be better spent. Edit: (since I finally remembered where I saw it) Trying to rate struggles by comparing one to another reminds me of the "Jaws" scene where drunken Richard Dryfeus and Robert Shaw are playing top me another with bite marks. "Look at this, moray eel got me there". Right after is the "You were on the Indianapolis?" explaination which gives me the creeps more than anythng else in the movie and shows how dumb the arguing really was. Edited March 31, 2015 by JimF-LowBari Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HornTeacher Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 During his interview, he used the time-tested and wholly original, "Adam/Eve, not Adam/Steve" argument, so I'm going out on a limb that there are at least religious underpinnings to his view. I would argue that this is not necessarily true. Rather, it could have been stated by him for no other reason than simple convenience. It wouldn't be the first time that a person has used a commonly-argued excuse to mask something deeper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaddyt Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 I would argue that this is not necessarily true. Rather, it could have been stated by him for no other reason than simple convenience. It wouldn't be the first time that a person has used a commonly-argued excuse to mask something deeper. Which is entirely possible. Another "gray area" laws like this create. Maybe I'm not a devout anything, but just don't like gays. I can claim my refusal of service is based on "deeply held" religious beliefs. How does one prove another's belief is not legitimate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HornTeacher Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Now, personally, I believe that ANYTHING that doesn't hurt anyone (or anything) in anyway should NEVER be in that list. Be it gay, dope smoking whatever. But that is simply me and my views. (GASP!!!) You Godless, immoral, unethical Liberal, you!!! ( ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HornTeacher Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 As I have read the past few pages of this thread, I have become very distressed regarding the "How Many?", "How Long?", "How Strongly?", "How Much Worse?" questions which have been posed as arguments for and/or against the varied instances and types of discrimination which have arisen through discussion. And it suddenly occurred to me that as good, and as necessary, as discussion is in order to address problems, attempts at quantifying and/or qualifying the relative importance of varied types and instances of any form of discrimination is not only futile, but an actual degradation of the whole matter of discrimination when it is done so through the mere application of numbers and statistics. Human beings aren't numbers...human beings aren't statistics. Human beings are human beings. Living, breathing individuals, each with his or her own life (which I might add, we only get one earthly shot at. And that is true for ALL of us). It also occurred to me that as good as we may feel in how we have, by and large, conducted ourselves throughout 55 pages of discussion (and this is no mean feat in such a contentious age and in respect to such a contentious topic), we are not the first to have raised these questions. It made me think of the following, which came to us as a society way back in 1963 (though written in 1962): How many roads must a man walk downBefore you call him a man?Yes, 'n' how many seas must a white dove sailBefore she sleeps in the sand?Yes, 'n' how many times must the cannon balls flyBefore they're forever banned? The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the windThe answer is blowin' in the wind How many years can a mountain existBefore it's washed to the sea?Yes, 'n' how many years can some people existBefore they're allowed to be free?Yes, 'n' how many times can a man turn his headPretending he just doesn't see? The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the windThe answer is blowin' in the wind How many times must a man look upBefore he can see the sky?Yes, 'n' how many ears must one man haveBefore he can hear people cry?Yes, 'n' how many deaths will it take till he knowsThat too many people have died? The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the windThe answer is blowin' in the wind -- Bob Dylan (1962) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skevinp Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Chaddyt I hope no one quotes you out of context. :o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scv_chuck Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Should DCI boycott ALL states that have similar laws. 20 States have almost the exact same law on the books. They were all based off of the 1993 federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. If it's an issue in Indiana, shouldn't it also be an issue in Alabama, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Virginia? Just some food for thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 (edited) Should DCI boycott ALL states that have similar laws. 20 States have almost the exact same law on the books. They were all based off of the 1993 federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. If it's an issue in Indiana, shouldn't it also be an issue in Alabama, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Virginia? Just some food for thought. Wonder how many DCPers or DCI fans from these states even knew their state had laws like this before the stink hit the fan. If nothing else it might help people be better informed what laws are on the books. Edited March 31, 2015 by JimF-LowBari Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Ahhh.... but did he not want to serve gays because of religious beliefs or he just don't like 'em..... Which brings up the question of proving the denial comes from religious reasons. More I read about the new law, think it just makes it easier for people to claim religious reasons without backing proof. But if homosexual rights are not protected, just what the heck difference does it make why they are denied service? Unless people feel better if they can say they are being religious.... Choice of words: Reminds me of the South Park episode where Tom Cruise is hiding in a kids closet because he's hiding from the media. Kid "Mom! Tom Cruise won't come out of the closet!". I have read in one of the links that the law doesn't protect the business owner from a lawsuit, just that it provides a legal rationale for his/her actions. The person suiing the business would be able to make the case about the validity of the claim of the person's religion as the reason for not providing whatever service. In a restaurant, for example, say a gay couple is refused service because the person is Catholic and says it is against his/her religion (though I'm not sure the Catholic Church says it is against their religion to withhold a burger and fries). I would think that the person pushing the suit would then be able to ask in court if the owner had served divorced people, or someone who has had an abortion, or a couple living together without being married, etc...to try and show that no, it was not a Catholic religious dictate that caused the action, but rather a pure case of discrimination that the owner exhitbited, which is not covered by the new law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts