Gen Con Threatens to move if Indiana Gov signs religious freedom bill


Gamer Life General Discussion

301 to 350 of 662 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

...wow. I haven't seen that argument pulled out in awhile.


Re: Polygamy, King Solomon had wisdom granted to him by God himself and the dude had many, many wives. Maybe God doesn't have a problem with that one.


Yuugasa wrote:
Re: Polygamy, King Solomon had wisdom granted to him by God himself and the dude had many, many wives. Maybe God doesn't have a problem with that one.

King Solomon also regretted it often, loudly, and terribly, or at least noted that it was "all vanity" as it were - i.e. devoid and empty. His marriages were, for the most part, political. It worked very well. He wasn't terribly happy.

This ^, by the way, isn't to say that polygamy is "bad". It's to say that Solomon came by some wisdom naturally, earned other wisdom the hard way, and, over-all, "Solomon did it" isn't necessarily a method to prove that something is a good idea or is ultimately satisfying.

(There are also passages that liken God's love for Judea/Israel akin to a man who marries two sisters that have left him. Make of that what you will, as all people do.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

LGBT freedoms has nothing to do with pedophilia.

Kysune wrote:

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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Obvious troll is obvious.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@-Tacticslion

1 Kings 4:29-34

29 God gave Solomon wisdom and very great insight, and a breadth of understanding as measureless as the sand on the seashore. 30 Solomon’s wisdom was greater than the wisdom of all the people of the East, and greater than all the wisdom of Egypt. 31 He was wiser than anyone else, including Ethan the Ezrahite—wiser than Heman, Kalkol and Darda, the sons of Mahol. And his fame spread to all the surrounding nations. 32 He spoke three thousand proverbs and his songs numbered a thousand and five. 33 He spoke about plant life, from the cedar of Lebanon to the hyssop that grows out of walls. He also spoke about animals and birds, reptiles and fish. 34 From all nations people came to listen to Solomon’s wisdom, sent by all the kings of the world, who had heard of his wisdom.[a]


King David had multiple wives, as did many great men in the bible, polygamy was normal for wealthy men then.

Liberty's Edge

Yuugasa wrote:
Kysune wrote:


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.

I think I missed something, who is forcing anti-gay religions to marry gay couples?

Come on Yuugasa, don't you get the Progressive Conspiracy Weekly like the rest of us evil folks?

Sovereign Court

Yuugasa wrote:
King David had multiple wives, as did many great men in the bible, polygamy was normal for wealthy men then.

Dude you've taken something that I referred to as something that I could see State Laws forcing people to provide services to even when it's against their religious and personal moral code and you've went....I don't know where.

Society dictates what is, and isn't, acceptable and society changes on a whim. What's socially acceptable 2,000 years ago may not be acceptable today. Because a flawed human being did something way back 2,000 years ago doesn't make something right today and...concerning the Bible, all the characters, except God & Jesus, in the Bible had some pretty big flaws, including Solomon. Let's move on before you stir a crusade for Polygamy.....

Silver Crusade

10 people marked this as a favorite.

And with the tired old slippery slope/"if gays then pedophilia!" argument being trotted out, I'm bailing on this topic for a while.

This mess has been upsetting enough as is without taking that ugly step backwards.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Kysune wrote:
Yuugasa wrote:
King David had multiple wives, as did many great men in the bible, polygamy was normal for wealthy men then.

Dude you've taken something that I referred to as something that I could see State Laws forcing people to provide services to even when it's against their religious and personal moral code and you've went....I don't know where.

Society dictates what is, and isn't, acceptable and society changes on a whim. What's socially acceptable 2,000 years ago may not be acceptable today. Because a flawed human being did something way back 2,000 years ago doesn't make something right today and...concerning the Bible, all the characters, except God & Jesus, in the Bible had some pretty big flaws, including Solomon. Let's move on before you stir a crusade for Polygamy.....

Like being anti-gay rights?


What difference does this all make?
What will change when the Law starts being enforced?
I suspect life will go on as normal, I highly doubt more than a tiny handful of businesses will actually ban gay people. Those few shops will get angry letters some of which might go viral and everybody will go on living.

As for Gen Con moving? As I understand it they can't; at least not till after 2020 when their contract expires. The reasons for selecting Indy haven't changed; they need a centrally located city in the US capable of housing close to 60 thousand visitors. There really aren't many cities here that fit the bill... Chicago does but they would have to fit it in around all the other events in that city. No really Indy was their best option for the price and convenience. I seriously think this will have blown over by 2020 and they won't move at all. Just look at all the crazy laws already on the books that aren't enforced, this seems destined to join that pile.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Krensky wrote:
Yuugasa wrote:
Kysune wrote:


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.

I think I missed something, who is forcing anti-gay religions to marry gay couples?
Come on Yuugasa, don't you get the Progressive Conspiracy Weekly like the rest of us evil folks?

Naw, I was on their mailing list, but I moved and never updated my address.


12 people marked this as a favorite.

The amount of bigotry packaged as liberty in this thread is staggering.


4 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.

Shadow Lodge

Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

I'd advocate Detroit as a relatively centrally-located city that could likely make sure it had the requisite hotel/convention by the time the move happened and could use the money from the convention.

Except I'm sure they'll pass a similar law in Michigan very shortly.


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.

Sovereign Court

Yuugasa wrote:
Kysune wrote:
Yuugasa wrote:
King David had multiple wives, as did many great men in the bible, polygamy was normal for wealthy men then.

Dude you've taken something that I referred to as something that I could see State Laws forcing people to provide services to even when it's against their religious and personal moral code and you've went....I don't know where.

Society dictates what is, and isn't, acceptable and society changes on a whim. What's socially acceptable 2,000 years ago may not be acceptable today. Because a flawed human being did something way back 2,000 years ago doesn't make something right today and...concerning the Bible, all the characters, except God & Jesus, in the Bible had some pretty big flaws, including Solomon. Let's move on before you stir a crusade for Polygamy.....

Like being anti-gay rights?

Like anti-freedom rights?

You fail to see that this bill simply allows people to have the freedom of choice on how to run THEIR personal business that they built with their hard earned money and time. As Aranna mentioned just a moment ago, what difference will it really make if the bill is passed? There may be a total of 5 businesses within all of Indiana's 6.5 million population that choose to disallow LBGT's or even certain races from partaking in their services. If they want to act and behave that way PLENTY of people will refuse to visit their company and will boycott them and they will get little, if any, business. That business will be greatly stunted or will die out and life will continue on.

IF ANYTHING it'll show what businesses uphold what standards and will allow people to "shop around" and remove their business/support from companies with contradictory views. Do you really want to be unknowingly supporting racist bigots or anti-gay business owners if you're of a different race than said racist or are LGBT? Some of you are acting like the sky is falling...


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:

What difference does this all make?

What will change when the Law starts being enforced?
I suspect life will go on as normal, I highly doubt more than a tiny handful of businesses will actually ban gay people. Those few shops will get angry letters some of which might go viral and everybody will go on living.

So legalized discrimination is fine as long as it affects a small enough group?


6 people marked this as a favorite.

'Merica! 'Freedom!

Don't feed the troll, folks.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Kysune wrote:
...what difference will it really make if the bill is passed? There may be a total of 5 businesses within all of Indiana's 6.5 million population that choose to disallow LBGT's or even certain races from partaking in their services. If they want to act and behave that way PLENTY of people will refuse to visit their company and will boycott them and they will get little, if any, business. That business will be greatly stunted or will die out and life will continue on.

So if it isnt going to make any significant difference, what's the point in passing it?

Sovereign Court

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 a set of Christian...

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.

Sovereign Court

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Aranna wrote:

What difference does this all make?

What will change when the Law starts being enforced?
I suspect life will go on as normal, I highly doubt more than a tiny handful of businesses will actually ban gay people. Those few shops will get angry letters some of which might go viral and everybody will go on living.

So legalized discrimination is fine as long as it affects a small enough group?

So legalized removal of freedom (this being religious) is fine as long as it affects a small enough group?

Sovereign Court

Steve Geddes wrote:
Kysune wrote:
...what difference will it really make if the bill is passed? There may be a total of 5 businesses within all of Indiana's 6.5 million population that choose to disallow LBGT's or even certain races from partaking in their services. If they want to act and behave that way PLENTY of people will refuse to visit their company and will boycott them and they will get little, if any, business. That business will be greatly stunted or will die out and life will continue on.
So if it isnt going to make any significant difference, what's the point in passing it?

It's a form of removal of freedom. Regardless of the form, this being religion. They aren't hurting anyone, they are just simply refusing to service certain people. If they want to be asshats let them be and let social media tear them apart. But we shouldn't just be stripping freedom away from the people. Our forefathers fought so that people could have the freedom of choice. Whether it's where they want to eat, sleep, or be married to. But they didn't fight for our freedom so that people would be forced to have to provide services against their personal or religious views. That's stripping away freedom. People have every right to walk down the street and go to a different food joint or hotel if someone only wants to rent their hotel out to dogs or cats.


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.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Kysune wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
So if it isnt going to make any significant difference, what's the point in passing it?
It's a form of removal of freedom. Regardless of the form, this being religion. They aren't hurting anyone, they are just simply refusing to service certain people. If they want to be asshats let them be and let social media tear them apart. But we shouldn't just be stripping freedom away from the people. Our forefathers fought so that people could have the freedom of choice. Whether it's where they want to eat, sleep, or be married to. But they didn't fight for our freedom so that people would be forced to have to provide services against their personal or religious views. That's stripping away freedom. People have every right to walk down the street and go to a different food joint or hotel if someone only wants to rent their hotel out to dogs or cats.

The bolded is the key. I think you're too quick to take the view that discrimination on the basis of sexuality is "not hurting anyone".

Nobody* believes in restricting religious freedom just for the hell of it.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I'd also make the point that you're arguing opponents of this law shouldnt worry since it's consequences are minimal - yet you are being vocal about supporting it on the grounds of principle.

That's also the reason people are opposing it.


Kysune wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Aranna wrote:

What difference does this all make?

What will change when the Law starts being enforced?
I suspect life will go on as normal, I highly doubt more than a tiny handful of businesses will actually ban gay people. Those few shops will get angry letters some of which might go viral and everybody will go on living.

So legalized discrimination is fine as long as it affects a small enough group?
So legalized removal of freedom (this being religious) is fine as long as it affects a small enough group?

But if a large number of business refused to provide services, you would support the removal of their freedom?


bugleyman wrote:
Here's hoping Gencon follows through and bolts.

As I said, it should be in WI anyways.

However, despite their threats, I'd say the safe bet is to say they'll stay put. That's probably YET ANOTHER reason their threats didn't hold much weight.

If I understand right, they have a contract through 2020. How much is that going to cost the organizers to break the contract and can they actually afford that cost?

I think that is the deciding factor, and my guess on a safe bet (which doesn't mean that's how one SHOULD bet...) is that due to this clause, they're stuck until 2020.

Of course I could be completely wrong that there is a contract, but I believe I heard that there was one.


George Takei should become the gay Al Sharpton. Show up and begin the protests for any of these business.

FYI, pedophilia is being attracted to someone that is prepubescent. Excluding individuals living in an area of famine, it is rare for a 14 year old to be so. That doesn't make it not creepy in a cultural sense, but it would not be pedophilia.

GenCon isn't going to move, at least not anytime soon. I read the letter linked at the beginning, it never made any threat of moving, it merely said that they would have to figure it into their future decisions.

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.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Kysune wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Aranna wrote:

What difference does this all make?

What will change when the Law starts being enforced?
I suspect life will go on as normal, I highly doubt more than a tiny handful of businesses will actually ban gay people. Those few shops will get angry letters some of which might go viral and everybody will go on living.

So legalized discrimination is fine as long as it affects a small enough group?
So legalized removal of freedom (this being religious) is fine as long as it affects a small enough group?

You're misusing the word "freedom" here.

Freedoms are personal, individual things. Where you own personal life is concerned, your freedoms are paramount. When you interact in the public sphere, however, it's a very different deal. We sacrifice our individual freedoms for the sake of peaceful and cooperative coexistence: these things we call "societies." A business owner takes advantage of these limited social freedoms to prosper - they have police to enforce laws against theft, courts to arbitrate disputes and punish violations of agreements, taxes to build a working infrastructure, etc. - and in exchange accepts society's constraints on their own actions with regard to their business.

With the Civil Rights Act of 1965, American society as a whole became a place where "I can refuse service for any reason I feel like" was not accepted, in recognition of the damage it caused a meaningful portion of that society. That ship sailed forty years ago, when we realized that wasn't the society we wanted to be.

Simply put, if you want to own and operate a business, you accept that you are doing so within the legal constraints of the society where you operate, that supports and underpins your business.


Oh, apologies for the random bible s$$@ kysune, I read this:

Kysune wrote:


The point with the Polygamy and Pedophilia comment is that our society is getting more and more progressive towards this "Truth is subjective and even though it's not right for you, It's right for me." We could easily see Polygamy become a norm in society in 5, 10, 20 years. Pedophilia is socially looked down on more, yet other cultures married their children as little as age 10 or so to adults and it was acceptable because society said it was ok then. I'm completely against both polygamy and pedophilia but I'm simply saying that there's arguments for it and it comes down to "Who made you God to say what is right for me." and "What's true for you may not be true for me."

And my brain went: "Guy talking about the dangers of moral relativism, prolly means a Christian, they usually forget the bible had morality that changed over time too and thus showed morality to be at least somewhat subjective and..."

Sorry, I've been awake for over two days at this point.


Kysune wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

Polygamy, maybe.

Pedophilia is outright harmful to another person, just like rape (which it is technically classified as in any case). If it ever becomes acceptable I would weep for the fate of humanity.

Of course, none of that has anything to do with the topic so *shrugs*.

I agree whole heartedly with you Rynjin. I was using that as an example for services being forced to provide services to Polygamist and Pedophiles even though it's against their personal or religious morals because the State law forces one to do so.

Actually, I'm not against Polygamy. The ONLY reason it is outlawed is because there was NO separation of religion and state. Due to this, one religion's morals from which US law is descended (Christianity) has become the law of state, whilst other religions (Islam for example) and their traditions are made illegal.

There is a FAR cry between pedophilia and Polygamy. Christians overall (but not all of them) are against Polygamy, and because of the way their law works, only those who are willing to break any and all laws anyways are the ones practicing it. This means that you have more pedophilia in polygamy giving many a strawman argument connecting the two. However, there are MANY civilized nations that allow polygamy, but do not allow pedophilia (and in some cases are MUCH MORE EXTREME against it than the US, for example, get caught with even pedophilia stuff can mean the death penalty).

Of course this is totally off topic, but the persecution against religion due to state sanctioned religion (state sanctioned laws on marriage in regards to polygamy) have been going on for hundreds of years in the US (well, almost two hundred years...ironically it wasn't the Muslims who were persecuted first, it was the Mormons if I recall my history of US religion correctly).

It's a very odd thing, you go to an Islamic nation, they have polygamy and it's not tearing their society apart. In fact, it's far more dealing with other factors which have created problems there than anything with polygamy. However you come to the US and they have weird ideas in regards to marriage. There are a few loopholes however for those Muslims who were in polygamous marriages prior to moving to the US, but the regulations are not easy to get through.

Polygamy has been accepted as a legit form of marriage since ancient times. In my opinion, if Gay Marriage is accepted, and people are using their Bibles, than they shouldn't be so anti-polygamy. However, it's their Christian religion speaking and their inability to separate religion and state...IMO.

But this is FAAAAR off topic.

The bill is far too broad in and of itself. I understand how people feel that they are being forced to support another religion and items which are against their own religion, but at the same time, religion has been used as an excuse to many times in the past.

Due that people cannot realize what is a religious item vs. a personal prejudice, it is far too easy for this to be applied injustly and not just to LGBT. Most who are not Muslim do NOT see just how much prejudice there is. In fact I think there is more prejudice out there than people realize or want to face up to (people actually DO refuse to do business with you, just recently I was turned over to another business man due to one being inable to do business with me, I suspect it had a LOT to do with race/culture).

With problems out there already for several minorities, I don't find it a stretch to see that this could be an actual problem for them and that this could actually cause more problems than some are stating in this thread. People do it already...this bill not only allows them to continue to do so, but gives them justification, and all those who WANTED to do so but were afraid of doing so...now do not have to fear doing the same thing and using religion as an excuse.

Project Manager

17 people marked this as a favorite.
Kysune wrote:
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.

Common scare tactic, but no one's proposing that (it would be an obvious First Amendment violation). Saying that someone in a non-religious, non-romance/marriage/sex-related business shouldn't be allowed to decide not to serve people because of who those people love isn't the same as saying that people performing a religious ceremony should have to perform it for anyone.

Literally no major advocacy group is arguing that. So that's a pretty big strawman.

Quote:
The point with the Polygamy and Pedophilia comment is that our society is getting more and more progressive towards this "Truth is subjective and even though it's not right for you, It's right for me." We could easily see Polygamy become a norm in society in 5, 10, 20 years. Pedophilia is socially looked down on more, yet other cultures married their children as little as age 10 or so to adults and it was acceptable because society said it was ok then. I'm completely against both polygamy and pedophilia but I'm simply saying that there's arguments for it and it comes down to "Who made you God to say what is right for me." and "What's true for you may not be true for me."...

I'd quit doubling down on trying to associate consensual relationships among adults with abusing children.

It will most likely get your posts deleted or this thread locked. A significant number of members of our staff and our community are LGBT, and comparing them to people who take advantage of children isn't acceptable behavior on these forums.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
Wait, do you still have giant ants and/or graboids there?
I don't think so...

That's what a graboid Giant Ant WOULD say.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Jessica Price wrote:

I'd quit doubling down on trying to associate consensual relationships among adults with abusing children.

It will most likely get your posts deleted or this thread locked. A significant number of members of our staff and our community are LGBT, and comparing them to people who take advantage of children isn't acceptable behavior on these forums.

Is it ever acceptable?


Funny, the only groups I can think of that practice polygamy and pedophilia are extremely fundamentalist religious groups, e.g., the FLDS. If you can't see that the slippery slope argument is specious and obnoxious, I am sorry.

Anyhow, religious rights end where the civil rights of others begin. Full stop. You can't beat a child or shoot a person in the head and go "hey, it's my religious right to do so!" Laws are limited in scope by the purview of other laws.

Sovereign Court

Jessica Price wrote:
Kysune wrote:
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.

Common scare tactic, but no one's proposing that (it would be an obvious First Amendment violation). Saying that someone in a non-religious, non-romance/marriage/sex-related business shouldn't be allowed to decide not to serve people because of who those people love isn't the same as saying that people performing a religious ceremony should have to perform it for anyone.

Literally no major advocacy group is arguing that. So that's a pretty big strawman.

Quote:
The point with the Polygamy and Pedophilia comment is that our society is getting more and more progressive towards this "Truth is subjective and even though it's not right for you, It's right for me." We could easily see Polygamy become a norm in society in 5, 10, 20 years. Pedophilia is socially looked down on more, yet other cultures married their children as little as age 10 or so to adults and it was acceptable because society said it was ok then. I'm completely against both polygamy and pedophilia but I'm simply saying that there's arguments for it and it comes down to "Who made you God to say what is right for me." and "What's true for you may not be true for me."...

I'd quit doubling down on trying to associate consensual relationships among adults with abusing children.

It will most likely get your posts deleted or this thread locked. A significant number of members of our staff and our community are LGBT, and comparing them to people who take advantage of children isn't acceptable behavior on these forums.

Sorry, I guess you didn't see my point there. What I was getting at is that polygamy (or someone that is classified as a "pedophile" by being an adult and in a relationship with a child of lets say age 13-17) could become legal and if it did the government could force a company to service those that they may be morally against serving. I in no way meant that LGBT's equal Polygamist or Pedophiles and if it sounded that way at all I apologize. Hopefully after re-reading my posts you'll see what direction I was taking that as I think you quickly read through it without seeing my point.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kysune wrote:
Sorry, I guess you didn't see my point there. What I was getting at is that polygamy (or someone that is classified as a "pedophile" by being an adult and in a relationship with a child of lets say age 13-17) could become legal and if it did the government could force a company to service those that they may be morally against serving. I in no way meant that LGBT's equal Polygamist or Pedophiles and if it sounded that way at all I apologize. Hopefully after re-reading my posts you'll see what direction I was taking that as I think you quickly read through it without seeing my point.

Oh, I think you've made your points abundantly clear.

You're just wrong.

Sovereign Court

Axolotl wrote:

Funny, the only groups I can think of that practice polygamy and pedophilia are extremely fundamentalist religious groups, e.g., the FLDS. If you can't see that the slippery slope argument is specious and obnoxious, I am sorry.

Anyhow, religious rights end where the civil rights of others begin. Full stop. You can't beat a child or shoot a person in the head and go "hey, it's my religious right to do so!" Laws are limited in scope by the purview of other laws.

Physically abusing a child and shooting someone with a gun are quite different than saying "I'm sorry but what you're asking me to do violates my religious freedom." As long as your religious freedom did not hurt someone. I'm not seeing someone getting hurt here, unless you're referring to people's selection of businesses to shop at getting hurt.

EDIT: If you're thinking that the "violation of religious freedom" sentence I said above is obscure you're right. But like I said before, anyone that tries to pull some anti LGBT or Racist thing social media will tear them apart and people can shop elsewhere. There's really no issue there.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Being refused service would hurt, I imagine*.

*Being an extremely privileged white, straight, middle-class male, it's something I've never had to experience, but I count myself fortunate to have the empathy to put myself in somebody else's shoes - something that a notably amount of folks on this thread appear to lack.

Sovereign Court

littlehewy wrote:
Being refused service would hurt, I imagine.

Do we need to form the "Emotion Police" for people's feelings now? We're all adults here. If a restaurant is an asshat to you then go to a different restaurant. It's call customer satisfaction and if you're not satisfied then you have the freedom to complain or go elsewhere. How is this so hard to understand?

EDIT: It seems like some people think that if this bill is passed that 100% of all restaurants are going to refuse LGBT's or all Airlines are going to refuse flights for LGBT's. That's pretty absurd to assume. There's literally thousands of restaurants and many airlines if some crazy company decided to refuse service to certain people. Like I've stated many times before also, they'd have people boycotting, picketing, and complaining all over social media that the company would lose 50-90% of all its business. That right there shifts business to companies that are willing to service those particular people and deters any companies that even thought about denying service from doing so.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Kysune wrote:
littlehewy wrote:
Being refused service would hurt, I imagine.
Do we need to form the "Emotion Police" for people's feelings now? We're all adults here. If a restaurant is an asshat to you then go to a different restaurant. It's call customer satisfaction and if you're not satisfied then you have the freedom to complain or go elsewhere. How is this so hard to understand?

It's been brought up numerous times, but why is it not okay to discriminate against someone of a different skin colour, but okay to do the same on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identification?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

My trouble with libertarians is I think their conception of freedom is too narrow. They tend to treat non-interference as the only worthwhile form of freedom. Government forbids doing something perfectly reasonable? Libertarians properly cry foul. The free market forbids people from doing something perfectly reasonable? Libertarians shrug and say "thems the breaks".

I agree that anytime the government forbids me from doing something that's a constraint on my freedom. Those aren't the only constraints though.

A person who can't visit a majority of the restaurants in town (a black person before the civil rights act for example) has their freedom constrained, even if its a bunch of private businesses doing it. A gay man who finds he can't buy flowers from a homophobe who doesn't want to sell flowers for a gay wedding likewise has his freedom limited. That's true in principle whether its one fundamentalist florist or a thousand bigoted bakers.

When the government says "You can't refuse to hire/serve blacks/homosexuals/jews/women/etc...", sure that's a constraint on their liberty, but it enhances the ability of others to participate as equals in society. It's a tradeoff, and it's hard to get right, but that doesn't mean we don't try.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What if, and now this is a stretch mind you, the bigots out number the oppressed?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pres man wrote:
Never mind, it is a wasted effort.

This. I'm not sure whats worse; he's serious, or he isn't. :(


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Legal analysis (by an actual attorney).

The relevant quote: "The bill would establish a general legal standard, the "compelling interest" test, for evaluating laws and governmental practices that impose substantial burdens on the exercise of religion. This same test already governs federal law under the federal RFRA, which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. And some 30 states have adopted the same standard, either under state-law RFRAs or as a matter of state constitutional law."

If he is correct, then we have to merely look at other states that have instituted a similar law to see what the consequences are - rather than talk about theoretical outcomes or analogies.

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:
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.

Just as a point of order, mainline sect, not mainstream. The terms are similar sounding but mean very different things.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kysune wrote:

Like anti-freedom rights?

You fail to see that this bill simply allows people to have the freedom of choice on how to run THEIR personal business that they built with their hard earned money and time.

And governemnt incentives and postal service and public roads and public infrastructure and police service and fire service and...

If you are running a public accommodation you do not get to discriminate. Full stop. Do not pass go. If your religion requires you to you should find another way to make money.

Kysune wrote:

As Aranna mentioned just a moment ago, what difference will it really make if the bill is passed? There may be a total of 5 businesses within all of Indiana's 6.5 million population that choose to disallow LBGT's or even certain races from partaking in their services. If they want to act and behave that way PLENTY of people will refuse to visit their company and will boycott them and they will get little, if any, business. That business will be greatly stunted or will die out and life will continue on.

IF ANYTHING it'll show what businesses uphold what standards and will allow people to "shop around" and remove their business/support from companies with contradictory views. Do you really want to be unknowingly supporting racist bigots or anti-gay business owners if you're of a different race than said racist or are LGBT? Some of you are acting like the sky is falling...

History says otherwise. So let's see, history 1, libertarian mythology: 0. The free market is a myth. Adam Smith and Friedrich Hayek would be appalled at the horrors and stupidity their names are being applied to.

I mean really, why is it you folks value property rights over human rights?

301 to 350 of 662 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Gen Con Threatens to move if Indiana Gov signs religious freedom bill All Messageboards