Started By
Message
re: Indiana Religious Freedom Bill
Posted on 3/26/15 at 9:19 pm to dead money
Posted on 3/26/15 at 9:19 pm to dead money
You don't get it. If you have a business that serves the public, all must be served. No segregation none of this no Irosh no Jews. Discrimination by sexual orientation os illegal. Except in Indiana
2
Posted on 3/26/15 at 9:22 pm to JEAUXBLEAUX
If a homeless person has no shirt or shoes, they can sue businesses for refusing service?
Posted on 3/26/15 at 9:35 pm to Alahunter
quote:
If a homeless person has no shirt or shoes, they can sue businesses for refusing service?
It's discriminating against UT fans.
Posted on 3/26/15 at 9:41 pm to JEAUXBLEAUX
Stop equating sexual orientation with race.
And in the wedding cake scenario, why the hell would a gay couple even want a cake from someone who was forced by law to serve them?
If you sold guns, would you sell a gun to a person you knew was going to kill someone with it?
And in the wedding cake scenario, why the hell would a gay couple even want a cake from someone who was forced by law to serve them?
If you sold guns, would you sell a gun to a person you knew was going to kill someone with it?
Posted on 3/26/15 at 9:49 pm to LittleJerrySeinfield
quote:
It's discriminating against UT fans.
I vouched for you, you son of a bitch
Posted on 3/26/15 at 10:02 pm to Duke
quote:
Why do you care so much about the "truth" of the narrative? So what if some facts are exaggerated by people looking for acceptance for who they are? How will it effect your life in anyway? I just don't understand your investment in it.
"Completely wrong" isn't "exaggerated." And if it's the basis for their reasoning, it seems they should know the truth. Isn't it odd how many of these factoids there are? And how they're foundational to the narratives being advanced? Totally weird.
Meanwhile, Fawx was committed to the narrative but it wasn't weird enough for him to be committed to it for you to call him out. Scratch the itch.
Posted on 3/26/15 at 10:10 pm to Vols&Shaft83
quote:
I vouched for you, you son of a bitch
Ha. Couldn't help myself with the low-hanging fruit.
Posted on 3/26/15 at 10:12 pm to LittleJerrySeinfield
quote:
Ha. Couldn't help myself with the low-hanging fruit.
You had a half dozen other schools to choose from
Posted on 3/26/15 at 10:19 pm to Vols&Shaft83
quote:
You had a half dozen other schools to choose from
But it's just funnier with UT cuz it's true.
Posted on 3/26/15 at 10:23 pm to the808bass
quote:
And how they're foundational to the narratives being advanced?
They're just factoids for arguments. The issue is that society has in large accepted homosexuality. Some people haven't and those who have think those not accepting gays are unfair/wrong. So you get these factoids and arguments trying to convince the other side they're wrong.
I personally don't care who two people want to sleep with each other or make a family with?* I have a hard time understanding why it bothers anyone else. Those who do care can't understand it. So the arguments will continue, but the battle is already won.
*Barring the obvious ridiculous examples like incest that someone is going to come back with.
ETA: Are you raging against factoids being developed to drive narratives in general?
This post was edited on 3/26/15 at 10:26 pm
Posted on 3/27/15 at 7:32 am to the808bass
quote:
That the commonly stated stat of teen gay suicides are at X% is incorrect and based on faulty reasoning.
That addressed ONE study and their FINAL number. There are countless peer reviewed studies that suggest the conclusion in one way or another.
quote:
Ritch Savin Williams has done a bit of work in this area. He is trying to say gay teens can be good now, so his work isn't polemical. But again, you will hold on to your article of faith.
Article of faith? What are you talking about?
Posted on 3/27/15 at 7:40 am to dead money
quote:
The concept of marriage in multiple Christian religions clearly define it as a man and a woman, not through same-sex individuals. It's not like these people made it up to discriminate purposely. It's a valid belief of choice but slowly liberally run states treat the constitution like toilet paper, pretending certain amendments are morally wrong, outdated, or invalid to everyday life. Glad to see Indiana taking a stand for this.
So letting two dudes marry is Unconstitutional?
Posted on 3/27/15 at 7:50 am to AUbagman
quote:
Posted by AUbagman
The Hippocratic oath would take care of that, no?
That oath doesn't mean much, really. If it did, no one would perform abortions or assist in suicides.
Posted on 3/27/15 at 7:54 am to TeLeFaWx
I don't think it's unconstitutional, but it does require a complete redefinition of the term "marriage." This has, in the history of the U.S., always meant one man/one woman. We are legally redefining it to mean two consenting adults (which I'm personally OK with legally, but I don't want my church to perform one).
As with most law, I'd prefer to see this clarified by legislatures choosing to redefine it, rather than judges doing so.
As with most law, I'd prefer to see this clarified by legislatures choosing to redefine it, rather than judges doing so.
Posted on 3/27/15 at 8:13 am to TeLeFaWx
TeLe I was playing devil's advocate and you explained that shite well
Posted on 3/27/15 at 8:31 am to RoyalAir
quote:
This has, in the history of the world, always been between man and woman.
Fify
This post was edited on 3/27/15 at 8:41 am
Posted on 3/27/15 at 8:39 am to Duke
I would argue the factoids have in large part driven the acceptance. If you ask an average guy walking down the street about homosexuality, you have a decent chance of him saying "they were born that way." And it's not true. (Eventually, that myth will be discarded (it's in process now) once it has outlived its usefulness.)
And yes, I do hate factoids driving narratives. When a quasi-scientific study shows up on the cover of TIME (or a gross misinterpretation of an actual study), you know what's coming.
And yes, I do hate factoids driving narratives. When a quasi-scientific study shows up on the cover of TIME (or a gross misinterpretation of an actual study), you know what's coming.
Posted on 3/27/15 at 8:40 am to genro
quote:
King Solomon?
Good point. I edited.
This post was edited on 3/27/15 at 8:41 am
Posted on 3/27/15 at 8:52 am to the808bass
quote:
If you ask an average guy walking down the street about homosexuality, you have a decent chance of him saying "they were born that way." And it's not true. (Eventually, that myth will be discarded (it's in process now) once it has outlived its usefulness.)
Interesting. I'd like to see you expand upon this a little bit. Not inherently disagreeing with you, but very curious.
I think some homosexuals are certainly born with those tendencies. But there are a host of others that I pretty firmly believe turn to/embrace that lifestyle due to outside factors. In particular, I know a few women who are "straight," but have had relationships with other women because of a history of abuse/neglect/abandonment from men. The women in question turned to a lesbian relationship because it was "safer" than being with a man. Every woman I know who has been in such a situation has moved on from it, and is married/in healthy relationships with men, with 0 desire to go back to it.
It's tough for me to say for certain if homosexuality is nature/nurture, but that's largely why I don't commit to either side of the argument. It's simply not something I understand or have been afflicted with (similar to alcoholism or prescription drug addiction).
Page 5 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News