JimF-LowBari Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 (edited) Jim, Your last line is not well stated. Because one backs the law that says govt. cannot interfere or deny religious freedom does not automatically mean that one is anti-homosexual. Maybe it is a surprise to you that even in this thread there have been some identifying themselves as homosexuals who have stated they don't have problems with the law. That's a very poor process of logic you used and would have failed even the most basic forensic argument contest. Two different issues are at work. Some have combined the two for their own purposes. You feed the frenzy and anger by skipping several steps in the progression of thought by your last sentence and failing to note nuance and aim versus possible, but not definite, applications. That's almost as bigoted as those who say homosexuals have no worth. Both religious freedom and homosexuals have worth. Please be more astute. It is a difficult time in Indiana and for many on DCP. Don't add to the frenzy. Thanks VERY bad choice of words in my post. I was thinking of people who would rather not be around homosexuals and mentioning the law had nothing to do with that. Just thought there would be less chances of being around gays in places without the inclusion sticker. Know of an in-law of an in-law who has problems even thinking there might be a gay person nearby and she was on my mind when I typed. She would definitely stay out of the blue sticker places if she had a choice. But was also thinking of people who think this is a bunch of hooey and having a blue "inclusion" sticker adds to the frenzy. So they would rather not patronize places just because of the stickers regardless of how they feel about gay rights. PS Not a surprise as I've read the pro-law posts from the same posters. IMO not bigoted, just a imperfect human who screwed up a post when there are a lot of frayed nerves around..... Oh well I've already been told that I'm ####ed because I have gay friends and people have wondered what HC'ed family members have done to PO God so I'll live. Edited March 30, 2015 by JimF-LowBari Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lincoln Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 (edited) Oh well I've already been told that I'm ####ed because I have gay friends and people have wondered what HC'ed family members have done to PO God so I'll live. That is just sad. The story you relayed about someone moving their desk because of your doctor is almost as sad. Edited March 30, 2015 by Lincoln Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2000Cadet Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 And each side will say that the other side IS trying to impose their views on them. So now what? Then I guess I just spend money to eventually fly to Planet Jupiter. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corpsband Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 (edited) I've been following this thread and even made a few points, but must confess that as it drags on I haven't read every post, so forgive me if this has been mentioned. Set aside for the moment any individual biases about whether the law is OK, an aberration or indifferent. For those suggesting that DCI make a strong stand and perhaps even pull out of Indy I ask - what about their contract? If what I was told last year is correct, there are still 7 or 8 years left on the contract (I was told it was extended to 15 years). For DCI to pull out they would have to break that contract. I for one don't think that DCI should be expending their limited assets on the millions it would likely cost them when they get sued for breach of contract. Regardless about which side of the issue you may be on, I think all agree that the welfare of the activity is (or should be) DCI's top priority. Breaking the contract and pulling out would jeapordize that welfare. Now, if they want to factor in the issue (if it even still exists when the contract is running out) when deciding whether to remain in Indy or move on, that's a different story entirely. But until then, they aren't going anywhere. Nor should they. It's not an either/or proposition. There's plenty of room in between the two extremes. As an organziation with a long history of being way out in front WRT LGBT equality, I have to admit their statement was pretty weak. The activity was so far out in front of treating LGBT persons not just with tolerance but welcoming acceptance. Stronger language which reflected this reality would have been more appropriate. There *is* a balancing of rights in this whole issue. It's not as cut and dried as either side would like to claim. I'd like to believe that all those professing to a religion would find in their scripture "love one another" (a pretty common teaching in most religions). But even now the end game is clear: no religion can lay claim to infringing the rights of any citizen. If your "religion" teaches you to stone the unbeliever, you don't get to practice that teaching here. Edited March 30, 2015 by corpsband Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowtown Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 There is a lot of bad, wrong information in this thread and rather than correct it, I suggest all read a few different sources and sort it out. I can tell who is trying to be a google expert and who is re-writing the Weekly Standard piece which has been mocked roundly for being wrong about almost everything (you know who you are, for shame) More and more are coming out against the act, more so as they understand the difference in how it’s written and what it means compared to other acts, if DCI gets behind on this – it won’t be good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cf144 Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 It's not an either/or proposition. There's plenty oif room in between the two extremes. As an organziation with a long history of being way out in front of the LGBT equality, I have to admit their statement was pretty weak. The activity was so far out in front of treating LGBT persons not just with tolerance but welcoming acceptance. Stronger language which reflected this reality would have been more appropriate. There *is* a balancing of rights in this whole issue. It's not as cut and dried as either side would like to claim. I'd like to believe that all those professing to a religion would find in there scripture "love one another" (a pretty common teaching in most religions). But even now the end game is clear: no religion can lay claim to infringing the rights of any citizen. If your "religion" teaches you to stone the unbeliever, you don't get to practice that teaching here. I was not trying to address anything other than should or would DCI pull out of Indy in response to the new law. My conclusion was and remains a resounding "no" for the reason I mentioned (contract and the likely costs associated with attempting to break it). Whether DCI loves the law, vehemently opposes the law or is somewhere in between - their contract with Indy and their duty to the activity precludes them from leaving Indy as doing so could very likely be a suicidal act for them. Surely no one at any part of the spectrum of viewpoints on this issue wants that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xandandl Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 In light of the Cowtown challenge, here it is: http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/27/text-indianas-religious-freedom-law/70539772/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 This Politifact analysis of the law and Gov. Pence's statements about it may be helpful. I was struck by this quote: The two sides are essentially yelling past one another about a non-issue when they should be working on enacting protections based on sexual orientation in Indiana, said Robin Fretwell Wilson, professor and director of the family law and policy program at the University of Illinois College of Law. "If there’s a license to discriminate in Indiana, it’s the fact there’s an absence of a statewide law that makes a promise to the LGBT community," she said. "RFRA is about minoritarian religion against government, by and large." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 (edited) There is a lot of bad, wrong information in this thread and rather than correct it, I suggest all read a few different sources and sort it out. I can tell who is trying to be a google expert and who is re-writing the Weekly Standard piece which has been mocked roundly for being wrong about almost everything (you know who you are, for shame) More and more are coming out against the act, more so as they understand the difference in how it’s written and what it means compared to other acts, if DCI gets behind on this – it won’t be good. Reading varied sources: Good advice. Accepting only certain sources: Not so good advice. Claiming correctness only via accepted practices: You decide. Please, endow us with at least some of your "correct" information and do, please, only include information that you, singularly, have devised without the benefit of input from outside sources. All I see is an empty challenge (that someone else completed) and accusations. BTW, I have a subscription. Edited March 30, 2015 by garfield Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 BTW, I have a subscription. Ha! While we're obviously on opposite sides of this debate, I do appreciate your dedication, thoughtfulness, and honesty amidst what probably seems like the lion's den. Having to respond to a strong opposition can only help the correct side in the long run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts