“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman
my response : then why in the **** did you pass it, asshole? answer : because it does exactly what everyone is afraid that it does, and you're mad that gay marriage is now legal in Indiana. that's why. also, a bunch of states had Jim Crow. that doesn't make the law ok. it wasn't right then, and it's still wrong, no matter how many states have versions of it. it's a slap in the face to gay people, and they've been slapped around too much already.
Hehehe, I had you pegged with this line of reasoning 25 pages ago, and I was shocked frankly that you resisted actually saying it until just now.
All I'm going to say is, gee dude, way to skirt the topic. The topic of debate isn't about whether people of conscience should go into business or not, it is that the state of Indiana has decided to protect those people of conscience that ARE in business already, or who may decide to do so in the future? Your little (Although very obvious what you were thinking) dance around Henrin, and Bergers insights notwithstanding, how about you actually address the reality posed by the OP?
The reality (As if it needs to be said once again) is that in Indiana, people of any stripe can refuse business to people that are gay, based on conscientious objection. It also reinforces several constitutional concepts regarding association, speech, and expression thereof. Just like someone now has a right (Although the constitution - not the fluid one libbos like - already says as much) to choose where they patron, likewise a establishment has the right to choose its customers. Not a smart business decision to turn away anyone willing to give you custom for your services and or products, but, in principle the liberty should be there to do so. The market will sort out whether or not this was a good idea in both directions, so time will tell.
The fact that I mention this is actually two-fold. I see where approving of this law has merit and a good solid argument for it, however, you might find that I actually oppose this law as I find it carried out to its logical conclusion is more divisive than what its intentions are. In short, I see where Pence and the people of Indiana where heading with this, and why they felt with recent infringement on religious freedoms, warranted a reaction, but I think that they never really thought it all the way through to its end. Many things could happen, but it follows that Indiana could literally force all gays (As an example) our of their state because what might happen is that once one business does it, others tend to follow, and if everyone disallows gays, then the laws purpose is defeated and the state is left holding whatever bag is left to hold. I'm torn because the founders were very clear about why states have rights, and how they would become laboratories of democracy, and in the end, things that work will stick, and things that don't will not. Other states would be paying attention and learn as well.
It makes sense in so many ways to have it like that, frankly, and as such, Indiana will (If given the chance) let us all know just exactly what impact enacting these kinds of laws will have. In the end I don't think gays should be denied service based simply on their sexual orientation, BUT, someone like a baker, or photographer or wedding planner providing a service that feels that they cannot service their God and homosexuals at the same time with enough conviction to actually take a principled stand insodoing, does have merit, and in all honesty, I fail to see how any gays that sue them for it, actually show material harm was incurred by said baker, planner or photographer for objecting to their lifestyle? There is no harm done, other than hurt feelings, but hurt feelings is not material harm, gee could you imagine what country we'd be if that were the case?
This was all brought about because a small but very vocal contingent of gays seek out this kind of confrontation with the explicit intent of making it an issue. THIS is the kind of tactic that American's are waking up to, and they should tred very lightly, get over themselves and move on. If they had, it wouldn't require that state legislatures enact legislation being asked of them by their constituents. Wake up call to the militant gays among us. Just suck it up, and go elsewhere, not everyone will bend to your will, there are people out there with the guts to take stand, and many will join them. Don't like these laws? Tough, you made it necessary by your overreaching, militant approach to force everyone to accept you.
“When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
“Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher
Confess it, you are wrong on this matter. Dont worry, I wont tell too anybody, well not too many people. Confession is good for the soul. I"ll take yours now.... .
*not that you actually wear the stuff.
Last edited by Cryptic; 03-27-15 at 11:52 AM.