Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

thejeff's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 17,087 posts (17,886 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 2 Pathfinder Society characters. 6 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 17,087 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Aranna wrote:
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:

The purpose of the law is twofold: to override and eliminate the laws passed by individual counties and municipalities in Indiana that have added sexual orientation as a protected class on which basis it is illegal to discriminate; and to make a political statement that gays are bad mmmkay.

All these people arguing that businesses should have the right to discriminate: I'm guessing you've never been discriminated against for your race, sexual orientation, or religion. It's not just a matter of "oh well, whatever". It's really dehumanizing.

That is not the purpose of the law, someone already explained the history of the law, stop trying to be trollish.

And since you asked I face sexism all the time, and occasionally attacks on my religion as well. If you want to factionalize the country into protected groups fine but don't complain when religion gets protected as well.

Religion has long been protected (more or less and sometimes in name only).

This is different. This isn't protecting the right to practice your religion, which we all agree needs protection. That's what the federal law was intended to do and was until recently used for.
This is protecting the right of the majority to discriminate against others in the name of religion. I'm a lot less happy about that.


Aranna wrote:
pH unbalanced wrote:
Aranna wrote:
Berinor mocking IS how they feel about people acting openly gay in their place of business. God created marriage as a sacred joining of a man and a woman forever for the purpose of raising a strong righteous family. Many things have eroded that institution Gay marriage just being the latest "attack"as they see it on this sacred ceremony. What we really need are two separate ceremonies with the same weight under law that join a couple. Marriage can remain sacred while the new ceremony can be anything the couple wants. However it IS important that the new ceremony grant you the same status in the governments eyes as real marriage, that you have all the same rights as a traditionally married couple.

"Mocking" is a strong word and implies intentionality. "Acting openly gay" is unlikely to be intended as a slight to someone else. Someone who feels *mocked* by that is over-reacting.

Your proposed separation of marriage into religious and civil components is also problematic. My marriage is also sacred, and it took place in a chapel I helped build, presided over by my minister of many years. To me, the most toxic part of this debate is that it assumes that those who are pro-gay marriage are anti-religious. My religion is very important to me, but I don't feel any need to have it "protected" by over-reaching laws like this.

Wow. I had it all figured out and you had to go deflate my bubble by making sense. You are right of course that religious gays are completely overlooked in my split. I guess in light of this it makes little sense at all to divide marriage. But that still doesn't solve anything. I guess maybe I am over complicating it. You know maybe the answer is right there, why not marry gays in a chapel where being gay isn't a thing. All fixed. Service with a smile.

We're essentially there now. In states that allow same-sex marriage, anyway.

You can get married by a Justice of the Peace or by the religious official of your choice. That religious official can choose not to marry you if you don't qualify under the tenets of his or her religion - whether that's because the couple is the same sex, divorced, different religions, whatever.
The case of for-profit chapels that aren't actually religious entities, but just businesses that do marriages for all comers is something of a gray area.

None of this satisfies many of those opposed to marriage equality. They want the laws to reflect their religious beliefs. They don't just want to not have to participate. This is easily seen if you look back at the opposition to civil unions.


John Lance wrote:

Being a PFS rules lawyer, I figured I better read the laws driving this brouhaha. For the record, Indiana SB 101 is a cut-and-paste copy of the federal RFRA legislation that was sponsored by Chuck Shumer (D-NY) and signed into law by Pres. Clinton in 1993. The federal statute was driven by a number of cases, including the punishment of Native Americans who were using peyote and mescaline in religious ceremonies. However, the federal RFPA can't be used to enforce or overturn state law. Therefore, 19 other states have passed similar laws since then so that their state laws mirror the federal law with respect to religion (this includes Rhode Island and Connecticut, by the way). I highly recommend everyone taking 5 minutes to read the federal law and the state law that IA just passed. They're practically identical (and very short, each one runs about three pages, double-spaced):

This state law means that, just like federal law, the state of Indiana must have a compelling reason for placing a burden on someone's practice of religion. That's it. This whole controversy is an internet mountain conjured from a legal mole-hill.

Believe me, if I thought this was some unjust state law that threatened current legal protections for any group of Americans, I would be the first one to blast it in public. This is not that big of a deal, it truly isn't. Definitely not worth relocating a convention for.

I really wish GENCON had waited before throwing the gauntlet down over this, because I think people are going to be underwhelmed when they actually sit down and read the law and the history behind it.

It's really not quite that simple. The recent Hobby Lobby case changed the practical definition of person used in such cases. The federal law had been, prior to that, used to defend individuals and religions from government action - laws against peyote interfering with Native religious ceremonies as you say. The intent of this law is to keep local laws from stopping businesses from discriminating against individuals.

Admittedly the federal law can now be used for the same purposes and I think you'll find that the same people concerned about this law had similar concerns about the Hobby Lobby ruling.

We'll see how it plays out. The backlash has already been significant. We won't really know how things work out until cases start making their way through the courts. I predict quite a few of them. If nothing else, it'll likely embolden those looking for an excuse to discriminate, even if some of those will eventually lose in the courts. There is now far more uncertainty over what the law really is - which protections will survive challenge.


Sissyl wrote:
There are two ways out of this situation. Either the definition of marriage changes to accomodate other constellations than one man and one woman, or, marriage is stripped of legal meaning and the legal importance is moved to a legal process. Making another separate but equal ceremony is like solving the problem of benches only for whites by making an equal number of benches only for blacks. Like it or not, the end result will be one of the two options above.

The first solution is in progress. Much as the definition of marriage has changed so often in the past.

When it comes to selling flowers and wedding cakes, stripping marriage of legal meaning won't have any effect anyway. People will still want ceremonies. Many religions will oblige them, making them "marriages". Other people will still object to that and not be willing to contribute.


pres man wrote:
thejeff wrote:
pres man wrote:
The forcing clergy thing is probably a reference to a wedding chapel that had been doing all kinds of secular and religious weddings, as long as the definition of marriage was legally one man and one woman. When it changed, they refused to accept the new definition and there were/are legal challenges.
If that's the case I'm thinking of it still wasn't clergy being required to do anything. They were renting the space out for weddings and refused to do the same for a gay couple. Who were bringing their own official to perform the ceremony.

The situation was much more grey than that. Here is an article with a good timeline of events.

While I obviously don't know the exact motivations of the individuals involved, I am going to try to extrapolate a possible position for them.

The individuals who were involved were "ordained", whether that makes them "clergy" I would say is an issue for debate, but I think one could claim they do fall into that area (barely). They didn't "rent" out their wedding chapel, they were the only ones they allowed to perform ceremonies there, so that were not just not supportive of their religious beliefs (i.e. secular ceremonies) but were in opposition to it were not allowed there (e.g wiccan wedding ceremonies). So the options were secular wedding or Christian wedding, either one performed by them. Their "ministry" as they saw it was to try to help people leave their sinful relationships and enter into a god accepted one.

Therefore they were able to operated entirely within the secular workspace and fulfill this mission as long as marriage was defined as one man and one woman. Marrying two heterosexual atheist while not as desirable as marrying two heterosexual Christians, still it was better than having them "living in sin" out of wedlock (i.e. the total sinfulness of the individuals was...

Different case than the one I was thinking of.

Still, no actual lawsuit or legal challenge, despite some very dubious claims.


Aranna wrote:

People please keep it calm.

Let's break down the issue because the Gay rights crowd is inflaming the issue, and maybe they are right to do so, we need to talk about these things. But if we can't at some point stop and rationally discuss this then there really isn't any discussion.

First regardless of any outside considerations do merchants have the right to not sell to anyone for any reason? Of course they do, a man tossed from a bar for being drunk or a man tossed from a restaurant for smoking do not have the right to claim any loss due to being denied service. Clearly they were discriminated against as people who didn't follow the merchants rules of behavior.

So then the real issue here is whether or not practicing an activity that mocks a certain religion's beliefs is the same as not following the rules of that merchant for doing business. It would be no different than if a Christian went into an LGBT owned place and told the people there they were going to hell, yet still expecting service from that establishment and even threatening legal action if they tossed him out.

Can you see the other side now? All this law does is affirms the merchant right to determine the rules of behavior in their place of business.

You don't see anything different between "We're gay and going to get married" and "You're going to Hell"? One is someone actively attacking others. The other is just people trying to go about their lives.

Beyond that, there's a good deal of established law limiting those absolute rights "not to do business with anyone for any reason". Federal law prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, religion or gender, for example. Some state and local laws add orientation. Similar laws prohibit discriminating against customers for similar reasons.
There are no absolute rights here. Government is attempting to balance the rights of businesses to conduct business as they choose with the rights of individuals to go about their lives.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
pH unbalanced wrote:
Gigigidge wrote:

In response to earlier comments about how this law won't affect critical things like receiving health care, this:

http://www.indystar.com/story/behind-closed-doors/2015/03/09/eskenazi-healt h-opposes-religious-freedom-bill/24502571/

No, this isn't the super-secret-squirrel assessment delineating in detail how the law will force hospitals to leave gay people to die in dark corners of waiting rooms just because they are gay. But maybe, just maybe, the certainty that some people have that this law will have "no effect" on critical services is a just a bit premature...

And when you start talking about religious objections to medical treatments, transfolk immediately know how that's going to affect them. Because those difficulties aren't hypothetical at all -- they're longstanding and ongoing. (Though much better than they were ten years ago.)

Not to mention things like pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control or PlanB. In some cases also refusing to transfer the prescription elsewhere, meaning the woman has to go back to her doctor.

Or hospitals refusing to provide (or even mention) morning after pills to rape victims. In some cases, where the victim isn't able to leave the hospital due to injuries/trauma.

Because religious freedom.


LazarX wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
What if, and now this is a stretch mind you, the bigots out number the oppressed?
Then the idea of this country being "exceptional" in it's pursuit of liberty and equality has been proven a lie.

I think that's been pretty clear since the beginning. This is only a minor item on the list.


pres man wrote:
The forcing clergy thing is probably a reference to a wedding chapel that had been doing all kinds of secular and religious weddings, as long as the definition of marriage was legally one man and one woman. When it changed, they refused to accept the new definition and there were/are legal challenges.

If that's the case I'm thinking of it still wasn't clergy being required to do anything. They were renting the space out for weddings and refused to do the same for a gay couple. Who were bringing their own official to perform the ceremony.


Kysune wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Kysune wrote:

Hobby Lobby doesn't refuse LGBT's from shopping at their store. Chick-fil-A doesn't either, they actually went out and gave free food and drinks to the LGBT's that were protesting against them right outside their store.

The issue is that for Christians, and I suspect Muslims, that being of a "priest hood" such as Pastor, Minister, Bishop, Reverend, whatever and being FORCED to marry someone that is against their religious code/morals is wrong. You're forcing them to desecrate their religion else you sue to force them to quit serving in the capacity that they were within their religion.

To get really blunt here: It's against Christian morals for a pastor to marry two individuals other than 1 man and 1 woman before God. Marriage is a sacred act between two individuals and within a church setting is done before the Christian/Jewish God. If someone wants married they should find a place that supports their personal beliefs, not force a place that has contradictory beliefs to be forced to "condone" their decision.

It's not against Christian morals to feed or provide people a place to sleep or employ someone that is of another religion or is LGBT. If a company is extending this beyond same sex marriage services then they are just being asshats, like Westboro Baptist and should simply be boycotted and they'll die out over time.

1) No one is forcing clergy to marry gays. That's explicit in every bit of legislation. In much the same way as religious officials before same sex marriage was legal anywhere in the US were not forced to perform marriages for divorcees or for people outside their religion or for anyone other marriage that violated their religion's rules in whatever way.

That's not changing. That's not under debate.
You can bring it up as a slippery slope argument if you want, but not as the issue at hand in the gay marriage debate or this law.

2) With this post I think I see the fundamental problem with your approach: You think there is

I honestly don't see any issue with it. Let them be Westboro Baptist like and people can (and will) go elsewhere. There's no real issue here. So what if 5 businesses in Indiana choose to not accept LGBT's? Go elsewhere, don't support them. The same way that if I was Black I wouldn't want to go to a business, whether they were forced to accept me or not, that was racist against blacks. It's simple, why would I want to put money in the hands of someone that hates me if the government was forcing them to provide a service to me or not?

A amount of businesses that would turn away LGBT's or people of different race is very very small. The social media backlash against them would destroy them anyways. What are you afraid of? Having to choose between one of the hundreds of other businesses that provide the SAME service? You act like it's McDonalds or "that racist anti-gay hating person's burger stand" are your only two choices.

I hope you're right. I hope only a handful of businesses will cause problems and they'll quickly go out of business and there will be plenty of others available.

I'm not quite that optimistic about it. As I keep saying, we're really not just talking Westboro Baptists here.


Tacticslion wrote:
thejeff wrote:

There have been cases of Muslim taxi drivers refusing to carry passengers with alcohol (not drunk passengers, just ones carrying alcohol - duty free from airports mostly). Or worse, blind passengers with guide dogs.

Freedom of religion.

I, for one, don't actually have a problem with the alcohol thing.

I say this as someone who wouldn't drink alcohol, I admit, but that's not the point - the point is that if I wore, say, a Christian cross and iconography or something, and someone looked at me and said, "Look, I'm sorry, but on religious grounds, I can't serve you." I would be extremely frustrated, but also recognize and respect that they had the faith and honor to speak to me and stick by their convictions. And then I'd get someone else to drive me places.

It was apparently a pretty serious problem in some places.

Quote:
There are times where cab after cab will refuse service, and passengers can be waiting for 20 minutes," says Patrick Hogan, spokesman for the Metropolitan Airports Commission. "We've had complaints of people being asked if they had any alcoholic beverages in their luggage."

For just the occasional ride, where you can easily find another, not a big deal.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kysune wrote:

Hobby Lobby doesn't refuse LGBT's from shopping at their store. Chick-fil-A doesn't either, they actually went out and gave free food and drinks to the LGBT's that were protesting against them right outside their store.

The issue is that for Christians, and I suspect Muslims, that being of a "priest hood" such as Pastor, Minister, Bishop, Reverend, whatever and being FORCED to marry someone that is against their religious code/morals is wrong. You're forcing them to desecrate their religion else you sue to force them to quit serving in the capacity that they were within their religion.

To get really blunt here: It's against Christian morals for a pastor to marry two individuals other than 1 man and 1 woman before God. Marriage is a sacred act between two individuals and within a church setting is done before the Christian/Jewish God. If someone wants married they should find a place that supports their personal beliefs, not force a place that has contradictory beliefs to be forced to "condone" their decision.

It's not against Christian morals to feed or provide people a place to sleep or employ someone that is of another religion or is LGBT. If a company is extending this beyond same sex marriage services then they are just being asshats, like Westboro Baptist and should simply be boycotted and they'll die out over time.

1) No one is forcing clergy to marry gays. That's explicit in every bit of legislation. In much the same way as religious officials before same sex marriage was legal anywhere in the US were not forced to perform marriages for divorcees or for people outside their religion or for anyone other marriage that violated their religion's rules in whatever way.

That's not changing. That's not under debate.
You can bring it up as a slippery slope argument if you want, but not as the issue at hand in the gay marriage debate or this law.

2) With this post I think I see the fundamental problem with your approach: You think there is a set of Christian morals that applies here. There isn't. Many Christian churches have no problem with gay marriage. At least one mainstream Protestant denomination is protesting this law. Others, as I suggested earlier, much larger and more influential than Phelp's scam church, are far more bigoted than you seem to think and justify that bigotry with theology.
There are Christians, and not just a tiny minority, who think it's against Christian morals to feed or provide people a place to sleep or employ someone that is of another religion or is LGBT. This law gives them cover. You can argue that it's not really against real Christian morals, but that's a scary legal argument to make, since it requires allowing the courts and government to decide what Christian morals are.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kysune wrote:
EDIT: The only people that would refuse LGBT's a place to sleep or food are the Westboro Baptist and they are a sad display of what an actual Christian is. Some (not saying all) small/private Muslim stores/hotels might also....but why would you be staying at a Muslim store/hotel if you're not Muslim? I personally don't know of any major food chains or hotels in Indiana that are Muslim owned and operated.

Plenty of Christians far more mainstream than the Westboro Baptists kick their own children out of the house when they find out they're gay. Much easier to not let strangers stay at your hotel.


Kysune wrote:

People are so blinded these days.

How many religions refuse people by their color? VERY FEW, and those that do have very few followers. Even more so, a store like that would quickly go out of business if simply boycotted. Using that straw man as an argument is laughable.

You have the freedom to choose where you shop, if you don't like it then shop somewhere else. Business owners should have the freedom to not desecrate and dishonor their religious views.

This country is steadily moving towards a slanted view of personal freedom. I believe polygamy and pedophilia is horrendously wrong but I wouldn't be surprised in a few years if people forced businesses to provide services such as wedding cakes to a polygamist wedding or a couple that's classified as pedophiles (say a 14 year old and a 22 year old) because these people are "in love" and businesses should be forced to provide the same services as they would anyone else, even though it would be against the business owner's personal moral views.

Here's how America goes: You have religious freedom, until you own a business, then you lose that religious freedom and people sue you, then you have nothing. America, the land of the "free."

No changes would be made by any major corporation in Indiana if that law passed. Only small & private businesses may change, and very few if that. You're looking at wedding chapels, wedding cake stores, and very few other places because they're ONLY refusing service because you're trying to force them to take part in something that is against their religious view. Why would you even want to support / get married at a place that disagrees with your personal moral views? Why not go some place that does support your personal moral view and provides the service and support them, who are actually happy that you're getting married?

The issue that this bill is addressing isn't regarding Racism, if you think that it is or are using Racism as an argument against this bill you're an idiot (sorry). The amount of...

The discussion of racism is mostly an analogy, not an assumption that it will happen again. Used to counter those who argue that all such government regulation of business is both wrong and unnecessary.

Why do you think that only small & private businesses are affected by this law? Large business may be more directly profit driven, but there are also some very large businesses closely held by individuals or small family groups. Some of them are very right wing religious.
The anti-gay rights groups are also still very strong in some areas. It's not at all clear to me that all such businesses will lose business rather than gain support.

I also see no reason why the repercussions of this will be limited to just same sex marriage services. As far as I can tell, this will also apply to employment discrimination, for example.

As for the slippery slope to polygamy & pedophilia, that's ridiculous. There's no pressure groups behind either. No public support. They're not even where gay rights was 50 years ago, being still illegal. The only reason to even think that is the "One icky sex thing leads to another" argument.


Jester David wrote:

Is it just refusing service, though?

The abstract suggests you fire someone on religious grounds. Or refuse to hire them.

I'm not sure what abstract you're referring to. All the stories I've seen talk about customers, not employees.

OTOH, I see no reason the language of the bill couldn't also be used to strike down local employment discrimination laws.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Yuugasa wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

Take it as you will, thejeff... But that study honestly doesn't seem very accurate or unbiased. I don't see how it could not be.

That's a real limitation of studies that rely on what people's impressions. If a scientist said to the participants something like "watch more porn, tell me if you notice any negative effects", how do you know it was an actual increase in negative behaviors rather than an increased in observed/imagined behavior? I doubt the scientists kept tables on the sex life of the participants.

We see this kind of (often unconscious) bias all the time.

It is kinda hard to judge a study without knowing much about it though.

Nah, it's easy. You just judge it by whether it gives the results you want.

If it doesn't, you rely on your gut feelings and anecdotes you've heard.
The study might well be flawed. Everything that doesn't even reach that standard certainly is.


Ms. Pleiades wrote:
Business owners are people, and to some people, there are things more important than business. If they're willing to live with the direct consequences of not having the business of entire groups of people, then they can sit in the hole they dug. What becomes a problem is when a government works to make you do something you disagree with, and a governments go to be an active participant in matters of litigation.

Like for example, some time ago, many business owners didn't like doing business with many minority groups - blacks in particular, but others in various times and places. Luckily we all know how that ended. The loss of black business drove the prejudiced business owners out of business and rational unprejudiced businesses thrived and all was in harmony due to the magic of the free market.

Oh wait, no. That's not what happened. Maybe we should have given businesses a couple more generations after the legal restrictions on blacks were removed.
</snark>

The problem with your theory of letting the businesses sit in the holes they've dug is that often it's the minority that's being discriminated against that winds up in the hole.


pH unbalanced wrote:
Tim Statler wrote:
Dustin Ashe wrote:
Tim Statler wrote:

Thought question:

The Koran specifically forbids men to touch a woman not of his family.
Should a Muslim barber be forced to cut a woman's hair who walked into his shop?

Not a good example. That would force the Muslim man to violate tenets of his faith personally, bodily.

A baker who happens to find homosexuality abhorrent isn't being asked to participate in homosexual acts. He's being asked to bake a cake for a gay wedding. So, he gets up, goes to work, and bakes a cake and delivers it. I don't think any of that violates any long-cherished, deeply-held beliefs.

The question I posed is also part of what this law is designed to address, so it is quite relevant.

As to the second part of your response, some Christians view participating in the wedding, even by baking a cake for it or doing the flower arranging, endorsing the act and lifestyle with which they see as a sin.
hey are not protesting the wedding. They are not cussing the people out. They are saying we do not want to participate. This law is letting them not participate without getting sued.

Having been married to someone who had a business making wedding cakes, I find it very hard to believe that there are wedding service providers who only participate in weddings that they fully approve of.

Or is it also common to refuse to participate in weddings where the couple cohabitated or had children out of wedlock? Or where one of the couple was divorced?

Just don't see how you could keep a business going if you were going to hold yourself to that standard.

Or the marriages were across religions. Or miscegenation. Or even non-religious marriages at all. The horror.

There are any number of reasons a marriage could be viewed as sinful, but only this gets the protection of law.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

From that same story, the Disciples of Christ (which seems to be a mainline Protestant group) is also threatening to cancel a convention in Indianapolis. It's good to see religious groups on the right side. Sometimes it's easy to forget amongst all the grarr of the crazy ones.


Tim Statler wrote:

Thought question:

The Koran specifically forbids men to touch a woman not of his family.
Should a Muslim barber be forced to cut a woman's hair who walked into his shop?

In general I think if you want to take a job you should be willing to do what the job entails. You don't get to have the job and not do it. Religion doesn't change that.

This is similar to the bit I mentioned earlier with Muslim taxi drivers refusing to transport passengers with alcohol or blind passengers with guide dogs. (That may have been in the other thread.)

I would say that it becomes more important, the harder it is for the customer to find a substitute. If the barber just waves you to the next chair and the next barber, that's one thing. If you have to go to a different shop that's another. If it's a common belief and it's hard to find anyone in the area who'll serve you, it's even more of a problem.


Krensky wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Krensky wrote:
But the abstract doesn't give a conclusion. It doesn't even say what the relationship is.

Seriously?

Is there anyway to read that than as "as a result of viewing pornography", "women reported more negative consequences, including lowered body image, partner critical of their body, increased pressure to perform acts seen in pornographic films, and less actual sex, while men reported being more critical of their partners' body and less interested in actual sex."

What more of a conclusion or relationship do you want?

An actual one.

It says there's a symmetrical relationship between men and women and that women reported things characterized as negative, and that men reported things without editorializing.

The only way you can get a conclusion is if you make it up.

Which makes sense because if you have a conclusion from exploratory research you are doing it wrong.

"men reported things without editorializing"? Do you mean "men reported being more critical of their partners' body and less interested in actual sex" is the same as "men reported things without editorializing"? Or am I misreading you?

Cause that's creepy as hell.

More generally what I think you're saying is that it doesn't actually conclude "viewing porn made these things happen"? Though saying "negative consequences" is pretty much a claim for a direct causal connection.


Dustin Ashe wrote:

So, I read the House Bill and, I'm no legal expert, but it sounds this creates a giant loophole in criminal prosecution. As written, I can get away with all sorts of heinous, normally illegal, behavior if I simply claim that it's "motivated by my sincerely held religious belief."

The bill is not just intolerant, it's a piss-poor piece of legislation.

EDIT: Plus, it's taking away Gen Con from my home state.... :(

What I'd say is it creates massive legal challenges: "unless the governmental entity can demonstrate that the burden: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest. Provides a procedure for remedying a violation. "

In practice, it's likely to be an excuse for judges to substitute their religious beliefs for the law. It'll be rare to religious exceptions granted for things the judges don't believe in.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Krensky wrote:
But the abstract doesn't give a conclusion. It doesn't even say what the relationship is.

Seriously?

Is there anyway to read that than as "as a result of viewing pornography", "women reported more negative consequences, including lowered body image, partner critical of their body, increased pressure to perform acts seen in pornographic films, and less actual sex, while men reported being more critical of their partners' body and less interested in actual sex."

What more of a conclusion or relationship do you want?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:

We have to take you at your word on. Not that you are a liar, mind, but still. As it is a study that not even you- whose argument hinges upon it- can not access, taking me to task for a statement based on equal inaccessibility(mine doesn't even exist!) is a bit much. Moreover,to slave it to an accusation of male privilege is where it goes from a bit much to the absurd. I had already pointed out that one does not (and indeed, for safetys sake alone should not) say "yes" each time they are propositioned, and took issue specifically with how the argument itself was made, as to me, it was based on an assumption and (as later revealed) memory, not that refusing to pay for an expensive dinner and refusing sex are the same thing.

That said, in those, and indeed every civilized conversation involving anything, ANY AND ALL refusal should be accepted by all parties, albeit sometimes with a heavy heart and disappointment.

That's about it from me.

"Should" perhaps. In real life, in even the most innocuous of contexts, it isn't. Everyone has been persuaded to do things they at first refused and persuaded others to do things they refused at first. Often, when they finally agreed, it all worked out well.

Hell, I've been persuaded to try sexual things I wasn't interested in at first. Some I never came back to. Others I enjoyed.

It's not that simple and there's a fine but real line between legitimate persuasion and unacceptable pressure. It's a line that's easy to cross in the heat of the moment. That it sometimes does work out makes it even easier.

Complicating all of this is the old cultural tradition that the girl is supposed to resist and not give in too easily even when she wants to.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Old Zathras wrote:
Drejk wrote:
Or Indy has been good to Paizo despite trying (instead of succeeding) to kill Cosmo.

Yes, Zathras understand:

Babylon 5 wrote:
The Shadows believe that for a race to evolve into their full potential, they must do so through a cycle of chaos; growth through pain and struggle, conflict and war. Weak races die. Strong races are made even stronger. With this they developed their First Principles: chaos through warfare; evolution through bloodshed; perfection through victory.
Zathras recommends conventioneers and Cosmo's co-workers keep eyes trained to see if Mr. Morden or other minions show up to receive Cosmo's orders.

"What do you want?"


Dustin Ashe wrote:
Can anyone find an online copy of this bill? I wanted to read it but just got a wall of news articles and no bill.

It was linked in the other thread.


graywulfe wrote:

While I understand the sentiment of you post, I am surprised that you felt the need to ask this of Paizo, of all companies, who has shown a huge propensity towards an inclusive attitude.

But I suppose everyone can use reminders now and again. I am disheartened to learn that Indiana's governor signed this bill, hopefully Gen Con will follow through on the implications of their letter to the governor. Let us also hope that if/when Gen Con moves, they find a city as equally welcoming as Indianapolis has been.

Does anyone know how long Gen Con has remaining on its contract with Indianapolis?

Until 2020.

Moving an event this size takes time anyway.


Freehold DM wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
thejeff wrote:

There have been cases of Muslim taxi drivers refusing to carry passengers with alcohol (not drunk passengers, just ones carrying alcohol - duty free from airports mostly). Or worse, blind passengers with guide dogs.

Freedom of religion.

Never trust anyone or anything that doesn't trust dogs.
CATS RULE!

I do prefer cats, though I've met some awesome dogs.

I don't trust dogs though. At least not strange ones. More accurately, I don't trust strange dog owners. Especially the ones assuring me that their dog, straining at the leash with his ears flat and tail down, is friendly and harmless.

More relevantly I wouldn't slander an entire religion or other group of people that has problems with dogs - even if I think those problems are silly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Krensky wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

I posted a peer-reviewed scientific paper that disagrees with you on this very topic in this very thread.

Do you have any thing to backup your claims or is it just a gut feeling?

Tell me... What do you think is more likely? That those people were (consciously or not) speaking what matches their spiritual beliefs and whatxthey thought the scientists wanted to hear... Or that they actually measured how much satisfaction they felt and how judgemental their partners were?
"Bah. My gut feelings and anecdotes refute your peer-reviewed science."
While tangential to the study in question, assuming it's the posted comments i think it is, there have been a number of studies that demonstrate that what people say turns them on is the opposite of what actually does. Men and women, although my admittedly at times flawed memory is telling me that it's more prevalent with women.

But I suspect the peer reviewed study is more likely to take that into account than anecdotes from random teens.


Kryzbyn wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
If your religion demands you can't sell cakes to gay people, don't open a bakery.

Or, at least, wedding cakes, I guess?

I guess we won't see any Muslim owned BBQ joints anywhere then either?

OMG LOL

There have been cases of Muslim taxi drivers refusing to carry passengers with alcohol (not drunk passengers, just ones carrying alcohol - duty free from airports mostly). Or worse, blind passengers with guide dogs.

Freedom of religion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

I still find it funny how the "but it influences people!" crowd never seem to inude themselves in their claims... Nope. It's always everyone else who is too stupid to separate fantasy from reality. "Porn influences people negatively... Not me, because I'm Oh-So-Enlightned, but everyone else, because they are obviously not nearly as smart as my brilliant self!".

Can we stop assuming that people are stupid? They aren't. Most of them might be uncultured, but they aren't stupid. 99% of the world can (and does) tell the difference between fantasy and reality.

I'm so f!@@ing tired of this holier-than-thou atittude...Saying porn causes body image issues and sets unrealistic expectations about sex is like saying The Matrix sets unrealistic expectations for learning kung fu and makes young martial artists feel bad about themselves because they don't look like Hollywood stars and can't dodge bullets!

And if are going to mention Japan, let's remember that even though rape is a very common theme in Japanese pornography, it's one of the nations with the lowest number of actual occurences of the crime in the world.

I posted a peer-reviewed scientific paper that disagrees with you on this very topic in this very thread.

Do you have any thing to backup your claims or is it just a gut feeling?

Tell me... What do you think is more likely? That those people were (consciously or not) speaking what matches their spiritual beliefs and whatxthey thought the scientists wanted to hear... Or that they actually measured how much satisfaction they felt and how judgemental their partners were?

"Bah. My gut feelings and anecdotes refute your peer-reviewed science."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
I don't see anything wrong with rape fantasies. Humans fantasize about all sorts of thing that we would hate to experience IRL. Just see how many people are excited about the idea of a zombie apocalypse. I doubt any significant number of them would actually enjoy losing their families and friends to undead cannibals..
I suspect the main appeal is the total destruction of civil authority. You can pretty much do whatever you want if you're strong enough, despite all the negative connotations of the situation, it's a pretty strong power fantasy. In fact many of the antagonists, and quite a few of the protagonists are people who lose themselves into that fantasy.

They're fairly common for women as well. (See half the Harlequin romance line.) There the theory is not that women actually want to be raped, but that the rape fantasy removes the guilt they've been taught they should feel for wanting sex and lets them indulge with responsibility.

Similarly for men, it may not be so much the power fantasy, but the "She'd really love it if she just gave me the chance" fantasy. At least for those variations where the women in the fantasy does respond.

Of course, the same line of thinking is seen in real rapist defenses "You could tell she wanted it". Whether the connection is causal or not is a thornier question.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snuggles: Destroyer of Worlds wrote:
Mayor Ballard of Indianapolis has just come out decrying this bill and arguing against it in a letter to Gov. Pence. So not every politician in my state (or even every republican) is an idiot seeking to enact harmful bills that are designed to fracture society instead of bringing it together. Maybe there is hope yet?

Not surprising, since the main effect of the law is to negate laws Indianapolis (and other cities) have passed to protect people.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:

I still find it funny how the "but it influences people!" crowd never seem to inude themselves in their claims... Nope. It's always everyone else who is too stupid to separate fantasy from reality. "Porn influences people negatively... Not me, because I'm Oh-So-Enlightned, but everyone else, because they are obviously not nearly as smart as my brilliant self!".

Can we stop assuming that people are stupid? They aren't. Most of them might be uncultured, but they aren't stupid. 99% of the world can (and does) tell the difference between fantasy and reality.

I'm so f~&!ing tired of this holier-than-thou atittude...Saying porn causes body image issues and sets unrealistic expectations about sex is like saying The Matrix sets unrealistic expectations for learning kung fu and makes young martial artists feel bad about themselves because they don't look like Hollywood stars and can't dodge bullets!

And if are going to mention Japan, let's remember that even though rape is a very common theme in Japanese pornography, it's one of the nations with the lowest number of actual occurences of the crime in the world.

I still find it funny how the "no influence" crowd pretends everything is binary: either porn causes rape, which is easily disproven, or it has no influence at all. Art and culture influence people. Porn is part of that. As are video games and comic books and everything else. It's nowhere near as simple as "can't tell fantasy from reality" and thinking you're living inside the porn movie. But that doesn't mean there's no influence in how you think about sex or women or what your wants or expectations are.

And I've never said I was immune. Nor do I recall anyone else in this thread or others on similar subjects saying that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Uh...either I'm totally misunderstanding Divinitus or Axolotl is completely misreading his statements in the most obtuse possible way.

While Divinitus did say that he thought hospitals should be required to take patients he justified that by saying "because those are pretty much essential for homeostasis these days due to a lack of medical knowledge". He then did advocate teaching everyone trauma surgery in place of useless stuff like geometry and said making your own medications was easier than you think.

To me that implies that if medical knowledge was more widely known, if his suggestions were implemented, he'd have no problem with hospitals being allowed to turn people away for being the wrong (color/gender/religion/orientation/etc).

Admittedly we're mostly poking fun at the concept because the idea that we should all just learn medicine and not need hospitals is so insane.


Axolotl wrote:

Did Divinitus just tell us to synthesize our own drugs? o.0

Who's worked in a lab here? -raises hand-

Even making pharmaceutical grade aspirin to the proper dose isn't trivial. I don't have the lab equipment laying about. The common citizen certainly doesn't. Great smoking FSM. Cannot tell if trolling…Poe's Law in full effect.

He also said we should all be taught trauma surgery, just in case. Replace a semester of trig with it and we're good to go. Who needs years of med school and practice?

We should all also apparently have a fully equipped trauma center in our basements. And nurses, anesthesiologists and all the other specialists needed.

Sure, teaching everyone more first aid wouldn't be a bad idea. But that's about handling minor things and keeping people going until they can reach real medical care, not about replacing the need for hospitals.

Poe's Law may be in effect. It's really hard to tell a parody of a libertarian from an actual libertarian.


Divinitus wrote:
Thejeff wrote:
And if that freedom means that certain people are free to live in poverty because others won't hire them or only live in the bad part of town because people elsewhere won't sell or rent to them or all the other abuse that we've seen happen when the government doesn't interfere with your precious "freedom" to discriminate, that's just the price they have to pay. And of course they'll pay it, not us.
'Precious freedom'? So you support the government invading the lives of its citizens and dictating how they live their lives? I personally do not care for federalism or statism, because we've all seen where those things eventually lead: dictatorships where morality is forced and citizens have to cleave to the societal norms or risk state action. The government was founded to protect the rights of its citizens, not to dictate morality. There IS a difference.

And we've seen where your approach leads too. Allowing businesses to discriminate at will leads, oddly enough, to discrimination. Leads to the despised minority lacking any practical freedom, even if they theoretically have it.

Even outside of discrimination, the same principles lead to abuse by the wealthy few and desperate poverty for the vast majority.

Plenty of states do protect their citizens from discrimination and abuse and pass regulations to ensure their safety without becoming dictatorships as you describe.

Sometimes, shockingly, the middle road actually works best.


Rynjin wrote:
The Purity of Violence wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
but I doubt anyone here wants to see the world after it has been taken over by the morality police (I imagine if would look a lot like Australia will in 20 years, if you pay attention to what's going on over there).
I mustn't have been paying attention. What's going on over here? What's Australia going to look like in 20 years, apart form being more crowded and sun-blasted?

If things keep going the way they're going, with people advocating (and getting bills passed for) censorship, with broad restrictions on entertainment and speech, pretty damn bad.

For example.

Oh my God the horror.

Obviously the government will use that power to censor to completely shut down public debate and silence all their critics, just like all the free speech absolutists here always claim will follow any speech restrictions. Oh wait. The Racial Discrimination Act was passed in 1975. 40 years ago.

Well, I'm sure the morality police will ruin Australia eventually. We'll just leave the law in place for another couple generations. It'll happen.


Zhangar wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Zhangar wrote:

Here's the actual bill.

Paizo's stance should be pretty easy to figure out, without them saying anything - as thejeff already noted, Paizo has various LGBTQ people in their staff. I can't imagine Paizo would approve of any legislation that makes a state less welcoming to its employees.

That being said, it's a weird law. Whether it's going to amount to anything will depend on how the courts interpret "substantial burden." And what constitutes the "least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest."

I like the bit where they specifically exempt any employee from making use of the law against their employer. The employee's religious freedom is unimportant, of course.
Well, actually, it's more that employee v. employer is outside the scope of the bill. The bill is meant to apply to "person" v. "government" interactions (i.e., because I'm a ___ that law doesn't apply to me), and so "person" v. "person" is outside its scope.

As I read it though, it does invalidate any local employment protection laws, or at least requires them to meet the more stringent "least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest" test, if "religious freedom" is claimed.

So while it only applies to "person" v. "government" interactions it does so by invalidating government rules that govern person to person interactions. Except if there was a case where a government rule infringed on an employee person's religious freedom claim against their employer. Those rules explicitly stand.


pres man wrote:
thejeff wrote:
pres man wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I don't think I understand you. It kinda does need to be "all or none", since that's what this bill is doing. The bill does not give any "exceptions" like the one you list. All that matters is it allows businesses to ban certain groups on "religious grounds".
Understand this bill is an overreaction to an overreaction.
If those uppity gays hadn't demanded to be treated like normal people we wouldn't have needed to pass laws letting us discriminate against them. We could have just continued doing so without any new laws.
And again, I would ask, if a Jewish photographer was willing to take pictures of Christians in all kinds of settings (graduations, weddings, family gatherings, etc.), but wasn't willing to take pictures of a baptism, would that mean they weren't treating Christians "like normal people". Does it have to be 100% or 0%? I am not talking about this law specifically, just our society in general.

I don't know. Does that happen?

Do you really think that if the gay agenda had only gone as far as marriage, but not bothered the bakers, photographers and florists, everybody would have been happy and there wouldn't have been any backlash?


MeanDM wrote:
The Fox wrote:

Clearly a lot of people here are unfamiliar with the history of the Civil Rights movement in the U.S.

Have you wondered where all of those "Whites Only" signs have gone? It wasn't the so-called free markets. It was the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

Actually it was the Civil Rights Act which was found Constitutional by reference to The Commerce Clause.

That said, it is interesting how many of the arguments against equal treatment for LGBT folks are the same as those used in opposition to equal rights for African Anericans in the 1960s. Including but not limited to religious claims....

Churches that proudly support unequal rights for LGBT folks based on religion would be aghast at using it to deny people of other colors. What changed was 50 years of normalization after the Civil Rights Act.

I suspect we will need Federal Legislation to address this as well.

Of course, 50 years ago some of those same churches proudly supported unequal rights for black folks based on religion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pres man wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I don't think I understand you. It kinda does need to be "all or none", since that's what this bill is doing. The bill does not give any "exceptions" like the one you list. All that matters is it allows businesses to ban certain groups on "religious grounds".
Understand this bill is an overreaction to an overreaction.

If those uppity gays hadn't demanded to be treated like normal people we wouldn't have needed to pass laws letting us discriminate against them. We could have just continued doing so without any new laws.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Yuugasa wrote:

Looking at various studies about pornography. There is one that shows men consume more pornography than women.

Really?

In other news men scratch their balls more often than women do.

Sometimes it's actually useful to confirm what common wisdom tells us. Sometimes it isn't actually true.


Zhangar wrote:

So it is. That part specifically, anyways. Hmmm. I'm not nearly as up-to-date on this stuff as I should be.

It appears that states are still free to reject legal gay marriages from other states - it appears that part of DOMA still stands, for now.

I'll point out again, as frustrating as this all seems, by legal standards it's moving amazingly fast.

A decade ago, same-sex marriage was just getting mainstream notice. A few states had civil union laws, Massachusetts had just gotten actual marriage. Over the next few election cycles Anti-gay marriage amendments and initiatives were used to drum up conservative votes across the country. Many of them passed.
Now initiatives reliably fail and thanks to both courts and legislatures 36 states allow same-sex marriage. 12 years since Massachusetts.

The Court will rule on same-sex marriage in this session - Obergefell v. Hodges. Given this court, that's not a guarantee, but barring a serious backlash and change in public opinion, I can't imagine such a ruling lasting long. And the Justices know it.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Divinitus wrote:

While I disagree with the notion that anyone should be refused a certain service, in most cases at least, I do believe that business owners are entitled to refuse service to whoever they want. Whether or not it is something of a d*** move is beside the point, because if a person builds up a business and has to pay the exorbitant taxes that entails both for their business AND the income they make off of it, I believe they have the right to run it as they wish.

That said, I believe that certain provisions need to be made in the bill where places such as hospitals and grocery stores cannot refuse service, because those are pretty much essential for ve these days due to a lack of medical knowledge and knowing how to grow one's own food supply.

All in all, I think anyone refusing service to anyone else for anything but an actual religious service is somewhat of a d*** move, but I also think that it is their prerogative one way or the other, so long as it does not endanger another person.

It is not a government's place to regulate such a thing, whether on a state or federal level. America IS supposed to be a land of freedom, after all.

And if that freedom means that certain people are free to live in poverty because others won't hire them or only live in the bad part of town because people elsewhere won't sell or rent to them or all the other abuse that we've seen happen when the government doesn't interfere with your precious "freedom" to discriminate, that's just the price they have to pay. And of course they'll pay it, not us.

I refer you again to the Negro Motorist's Green Book, guiding black travelers to the rare places they could actually stay and get service traveling in Jim Crow America. This is the result of your freedom.

Or look into redlining in the housing and rental industry in the years following Jim Crow. Up until at least the recent past in subtler forms.

It's one thing when it's the occasional merchant who won't do business with you. That's not a big deal, just frustrating and demeaning. When it's more systematic, it's devastating.

And really? "due to a lack of medical knowledge and knowing how to grow one's own food supply"? You don't need a hospital due to a lack of medical knowledge. All the medical knowledge in the world doesn't help you do self surgery or whip up your own prescription meds. Even doctors go to the hospital when they need to.
Same with food, it's not that people don't know how to grow food, though that might be true. Farming is full time work and requires land. It's far more efficient to not have everyone doing their own subsistence agriculture.


Zhangar wrote:

Comparing the two, it looks like the Indiana law more explicitly spells out what you can do against the government (i.e., explains what seeking relief actually entails), but it doesn't seem to go beyond the federal law.

The Indiana version also spells out the definition of a person under its version; the federal one does not. (1 USC 1 defines "persons," so no need to reprint that in the federal statute.)

Blargh. Checking Title 1 for how it defines Persons reminded me that this law exists and needs to get overturned somehow.

I believe that's the section ruled unconstitutional in United States v. Windsor.


Zhangar wrote:

@ Jessex - Actually, it's still relates to the government interacting with individuals - it hypothetically allows individuals to declare "I don't have to follow your anti-discrimination laws because they violate my religious beliefs."

So, basically, it's meant to set a bar on the government's ability to stop people being from being screwheads to each other. The state isn't discriminating against you; the state's just being given an excuse to declare it can't do anything about it when discrimination occurs.

I don't disagree at all that it's meant to allow "No Gays Allowed" stances. (Though it's been noted in the other thread that doing so was probably already legal anyways.)

Incidentally, all this law actually is, is an existing federal law (42 USC Chapter 21B) being enacted at the Indiana state level.

The federal law that SB 101 is based on has been in place since 1993.

Doing so was already legal under state law, but some municipalities and other areas, including Indianapolis, had passed laws giving more protection to LGBTQ people.

This trumps those and removes existing protection.

I think the state law goes beyond the federal one, but I'm not sure of the details.


LazarX wrote:
At this point, it's more of a bit of saber rattling than any real threat, so consultation isn't really neccessary. Facts of the matter is that GenCon is contract locked for five years, and there really isn't that much of an alternative place to go.

Even without the contract lock in it would take a couple of years to move an event that size. It may just be saber rattling, but they're also probably starting the process of looking elsewhere.


Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
LazarX wrote:
The President may win the round. But given that unquestioned support of Israel is a sacred cow that even Democrats give way for, he's not going to win the war.

Agreed. And I should note I don't really have a horse in this race.

But as far as this attempted PR coup, I'd say this one goes to the president. And that serves to underscore just how poorly conceived the plan was to begin with.

And there are some hints there are cracks in that unquestioned support.


Tarondor wrote:

The problem with the law is that it does not accomplish what it set out to do (we gamers could teach them a thing or two about RAI and RAW). Also because it attempts to codify a freedom we already had, thus implying that freedoms not so codified are not permitted.

The law is a bad one because, as written, it legalizes behavior we have as a society already decided is not going to be permissible (e.g., not seating people at a lunch counter (or hotel or movie theater or drinking fountain) because of their race

The law was -intended- to protect this latter sort of behavior. To allow business owners to refuse to engage in certain activities with -anyone- even if they engage in a similar activity (like making cakes with a bride and groom on them).
<snip>
So in part this is down to a very poor choice of broadly-written words and in part this is also down to a split in the society over the value of personal property rights versus the equal protection of the law.

I think that a more carefully written law would fare better. Although I support what I believe was the intention (RAI) of this law, I abhor the law as written and would oppose it if it came up in my state.

I think you're wrong about the intent. I think the intent is pretty clearly to allow open discrimination against gays, not just the kind of examples you approve of.

The effects of the law as written are obvious and there has been the opportunity to do as you suggested and narrow it. As far as I can tell, the legislature and the governor want the broad law.

1 to 50 of 17,087 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.