Anti-gay Indiana starts backtracking on hated law after tech pressure The governor of Indiana is quietly backtracking on a law that threatens to legalize discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people – after growing pressure from tech companies. Business portal Angie's List, which is based in the state, has halted its expansion after the law was passed last week. Its CEO …
Actually, the article does not accuse you of being a bigot at all, even if you "support" the legislation. It highlights the fact that any application of the law in order to discriminate against people is likely to be seen as un-American since it would act as a barrier to commerce.
Sorry Kieran, the cat is already out of the bag and the article does nothing to clarify, counter or balance the obviously vitriolic comments it engendered.
You should have said the last sentence of your apology above in the first paragrah of the article when it vaugely hinted at in the last part of the article
There are two sides to every story and yours only covered the side of the theophobes.
Gays or any sect do not have any MORE rights than Christians do and thats what these laws protect us Christians against. All these clickbait articles do is perpetuate a victim mentality that does no one good.
Matt,
Thanks for your contribution, please remem to close the door on the way out.
Ooi if you have young-ish kids, and one of them was brave enough to stand up for their beliefs re exiting the closet, would you then disown them, help them to be 'cured', (good luck with that), or stick your fingers in your ears.
Or love them for whatever they and support them through the many challenges they will be facing?
I am not all religious, and couldn't care less about what religious folk do UNLESS they starting foisting their views on others or using their beliefs to actually or metaphorically treat whole swathes of society like something fragrant your don't want to tread in....
Ymmv.
J
Dear Ac,
Thank you for your contribution (which I do not say in jest).
I am a little perturbed as to the means by which I have the ability to foist and (legislate) my opinions on anyone.
I have never met the aforementioned gentleman (and would happily share grog given an opportunity).
The (any) law has several potential outcomes, based on:
- what it says
- how it may be interpreted (which is the challenging bit...)
- whatever either side can get away with...
Ymmv!!!
J
Yeah, sorry. I had a shit day at work and was just lashing out. The fact is I actually fancy my boss and he's the same sex as me and it's getting really difficult to deal with. Then I come on here and everyone's trying to make out that homosexuality is ok but I know in my heart it's a sin so I just lashed out.
Sorry again everyone. I'm just in a really tricky place right now....
The biggest problem facing humanity....is religion. The sooner the great unwashed start to think for themselves and wise up to the fact that it's all smoke an mirrors and dogma only serves to make good men do evil things, the better or all of us.
Hi, AC,
It is difficult to impossible to disprove and not realise that religion is a phorm of vapourware and just as effective and rewarding.
"The biggest problem facing humanity....is XXXXXX. The sooner the great unwashed start to think for themselves and wise up to the fact that it's all smoke an mirrors and dogma only serves to make good men do evil things, the better or all of us."
XXXXX could be replaced by several things
Religion, Politics, Publicity, Money, Royalty, etc etc take your pick.
E2,
Priests that fiddle with kids?
Nah, surely any respectable church wouldn't condone such behaviour, I mean they wouldn't hide the evidence, ignore the protestations, move the evil feckers (sorry, priests) or let them keep their Church titles would they now?
Moral guidance, ethics, leading by example?
F'ing right....
J.
Much has been written about the florist and photographer who refused to service a gay wedding because it offends their religious beliefs. Regardless of what you may think about their beliefs, why in 2015 is persecution of someone for exercising their faith a good thing? Or rather, what sort of person, when told that what they requests offends a deeply held religious belief, rebuffs, reproves, and then uses force of law to compel servitude? The answer is a narcissist. Only someone who cares not for others and only thinks of themselves would do such a thing.
So, at least in the application of compelling service for a gay wedding, why is the state enabling narcissism and persecution something to be applauded?
The history and power of "Go along to get along" should be enough explanation.
Mom & Pop florists or photographers who ARE willing to do the work for gay marriages will become targets of extremist hate filled anti-gay lobbies. This happens all the time. Shows like Ellen Degeneris's were break throughs because big TV grew the stones (pardon me) to tell the Moral Majority et co to get lost. Don't assume pressure tactics from the right wing religious nuts has stopped because big TV found some profit.
Making it illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation protects the majority who do not have a problem with homosexuality from abuse by the zealots.
Alien because only a space alien could so poorly understand Human politics.
"why in 2015 is persecution of someone for exercising their faith a good thing?"
Because it is not a matter of exercising faith it is a matter of imposing it on others. e.g:
1) Jewish Doctor refuses to prescribe medication because capsules in question have a gelatin component derived from pigs.
2) Jehova Witness Doctor refuses to authorise\recommend a blood transfusion.
3) Muslim Doctor refuses to prescribe medication containing ethanol.
4) Buhddist Doctor refuses to kill ANYTHING ...including MRSA.
5) Hindu Doctor refuses to prescribe anything derived from a bovine byproduct.
6) Politicians insist on passing bovine byproduct legislation.
...in all cases bar '6' the perp in question is going to be summarily shut down for indulging in dangerous, superstitious obscurantism. Arguing that Doctors deal in lives and florists don't is irrelevant to the principle. Relevant religious freedom would be:
1) Freedom to have a Christian Cross (or other equivalent) as part of your corporate branding and insist ALL cakes you bake must carry this brand.
2) Freedom to print W'boro Baptist Church slogans on your company uniform (1st Amendment issue) and PERSONALLY wear said uniform to ALL events.
3) Freedom to refuse to borrow any money at interest due to ursury.
4) Freedom to personally refuse to ACCEPT any medical treatment listed above (but not to extend that to become an imposition on anyone else).
5) Freedom not to include pork, beef, alcohol, meat of any kind or anything else on your restaurant menu.
6) Freedom to "judge not, lest ye be judged".
Essentially, your right to exercise superstition ends at the same point that your right to exercise racism does ("Curse of Ham" anyone?).
Sorry sir. Your argument is totally misplaced. If a doctor has hangups as to blood tranfution or bovine produucts, his patients will reflect his preference. You as a CUSTOMER have a choice to go elsewhere. It is not discrimination. But if it is a monopolistic service which cannot be got elsewhere without undue hardship then it is a different matter and the state ought to step in. Those are extreme conditions as in mathematics we call it "outside the limits of an equation" i.e this equation fails when conditions like infinity are to be calculated. for example zero divided by zero...
Howver if a heart surgeon refuses you heart surgery because you choose to use some parts of your body below your heart line for purposes than it was naturally intended for (in his opinion) then that is discrimination..
I bet no one would refuse a specialized surgery from a doctor of different faith or sexual orientation if he happens to be the only one available on hand. Or if an accident victim is spotted and your offer to help is based on their sexual preference.. that is discrimination.
Just for the sake of argument, giving extreme examples is not smart. All equations fail at extremes.. including the ones used by NASA.
"why in 2015 is persecution of someone for exercising their faith a good thing?"
Persecution would be when they are punished or otherwise harmed for practicing their religion. As in praying, going to church or wearing a cross. Since when is discrimination "excercising faith"? If the FSM doesn't know you're faithful already, discriminating against LGBTs isn't going to help. Try praying harder. Let us know how that works out after you're dead. Oh, wait...
"Much has been written about the florist and photographer who refused to service a gay wedding because it offends their religious beliefs. Regardless of what you may think about their beliefs, why in 2015 is persecution of someone for exercising their faith a good thing?"
Because if that religious belief involves you descriminating against someone who is not breaking a law then you should think long and hard about what you are doing. If your religious belief says you should not service someone who is a murderer, or a thief, or a paedophile, then I would understand, because those people have committed illegal acts. But being homosexual is no longer an illegal act, so you are descriminating against somebody who has committed no crimes against the law of the land (or State) that you live in.
If you are Jewish you should not descriminate against Gentiles; if you are Muslim you should not descriminate against Jews; if you are Protestant you should not descriminate against Catholics, so long as being a Gentile, a Jew, a Muslim, a Protestant, a Catholic...or even an Atheist, is not against the law of the Country or State you live in.
The real answer of course is that you shouldn't discriminate against anyone just because a Holy Book says so. If you do, that makes you a Religious Bigot, and Completely Wrong.
I'm from the UK so it would appear I have a far more tolerant and far less polarised view towards same-sex relationships and marriages than certain people in the US. It still astounds us that a US politician can stand up and state publicly that homosexuality is wrong and will be punished by God. None of our politicians would be stupid enough to do that.
>developing legal workarounds that would enable individuals and businesses to potentially withhold their products and services.
A variant on Jim Crow laws. Not surprisingly, a few conservative strains are being consistently resistant to evolution. Peace, love, ... and thinly-disguised supremacist malevolence and hatred.
This post has been deleted by its author
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
