The Gay Thread

[martha]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

It's a stunt, and California has a weird process by which anyone can introduce a bill.

It will be tossed out very quickly.

It's not a bill, it's an initiative. That means he needs to meet a threshold of signatures of registered voters, and if that requirement is met, the initiative becomes a ballot proposition and we vote on it in the next election. Any citizen can start an initiative and gather signatures to get it on the ballot.

[Irvine511]

Martha knows.

[LuckyNumber7]

That exists in other states.

[Hewson]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

I have a deeply held religious objection to drunken bachelorette parties going to gay bars and treating them like petting zoos.

Is this an actual thing?

[LuckyNumber7]

Minus the religious objection, yes.

[deep]

Boycott Indiana

tapatalk, it works

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Hewson

Is this an actual thing?

Yes. There's this one club in DC that has risers banned heels "because safety." But they were really just trying to make it more difficult for the ladies to infiltrate and drunkenly ogle the shirtless dancing boys.

That said, I think ANYONE should be allowed and welcomed and encouraged to be in a gay bar, and the need for gay bars is declining now that we can go pretty much anywhere. New gay bars are big and open with rooftops and big windows whereas in the past they were in dark, secluded alleyways. Straights go. It's great. BUT there are some ladies who get drunk and act like dudes.

[deep]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

there are some ladies who get drunk and act like dudes.

nothing worse,
like when some guys run like a girl.

[martha]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

Martha knows.

Yeah. It's how we set some of our educational policy.

[LemonMelon]

So someone explain this Indiana bill to me. It basically works on the honor system, right? Is there anything stopping a, let's say, homophobic atheist from using Christianity as a front? I mean, there's no way this entire law can be based off of someone's word alone. But that's how it reads to me right now.

It also sounds like a legal nightmare, if that is the case.

[nbelcik]

Originally Posted by LemonMelon

So someone explain this Indiana bill to me. It basically works on the honor system, right? Is there anything stopping a, let's say, homophobic atheist from using Christianity as a front? I mean, there's no way this entire law can be based off of someone's word alone. But that's how it reads to me right now.

It also sounds like a legal nightmare, if that is the case.

It is based on someone's word, so there isn't anything to stop a homophobic atheist from using Christianity as a front. Anyone can say they have a deeply held religious belief that justifies their personal prejudices.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[LemonMelon]

Originally Posted by nbelcik

It is based on someone's word, so there isn't anything to stop a homophobic atheist from using Christianity as a front. Anyone can say they have a deeply held religious belief that justifies their personal prejudices.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Well, shit.

And I'm sure victims of discrimination, in 2015, will be happy to stand there and take it when there's so physical proof that a business owner even has such a faith. What a fucking trainwreck.

[KoDVooDo]

There are many things in this world I don't understand, but let's focus on those which pertain to this bullshit law. Excepting regulatory or legal requirements, shouldn't a business open to the public be required to be open to the entire public? I understand a person can have "deeply held" religious beliefs, but a business is separate from it's owner, isn't it? This would be a separate issue from Hobby Lobby not paying for health insurance because that's actually the owner spending his/her own money. Also separate from Chik-Fil-A, since they are closed to the entire public on Sundays not just those whom the owners consider immoral. Some may even argue that following their beliefs trumps the laws if man. Haven't been to church in years, but I seem to remember something about "render unto Caesar what is Ceasar's". The churches I went to generally accepted this to mean to live by the laws of the land even if the actions taken seemed at odds with religious teaching.

Just another reason I no longer have faith in religious establishments.

Sent from my SPH-L720T using U2 Interference mobile app

[Galeongirl]

I still find it striking that these intolerant homophobes still have such a strong voice. Here if someone utters something homophobic, it gets a small piece in the paper, everyone's duly outraged and then a day later nobody gives a damn anymore. They simply don't have a platform to shout their messages anymore.

Hopefully the US is gonna reach that point some day. There's a long way to go, but it's starting to go in the right direction.

It would be nice if everywhere around the world people would realise that religion and sexuality are private personal things, but yeah, I know that's pretty damn impossible to hope for.

[bono_212]

Originally Posted by KoDVooDo

Some may even argue that following their beliefs trumps the laws if man. Haven't been to church in years, but I seem to remember something about "render unto Caesar what is Ceasar's". The churches I went to generally accepted this to mean to live by the laws of the land even if the actions taken seemed at odds with religious teaching.

Basically.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by nbelcik

It is based on someone's word, so there isn't anything to stop a homophobic atheist from using Christianity as a front. Anyone can say they have a deeply held religious belief that justifies their personal prejudices.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

But only against the gays. If I say i have a deeply rooted religious belief against baking macaroons for a Bar Mitzvah or seating blacks at my restaurant, I can't refuse to do so. Because that would be discrimination, the bad kind.

So long as it's "deeply held" and "religious" it's automatically about the gays. These are our new code words. Right?

[corianderstem]

Well, we all know if there had been any gays at the wedding at Canaa, Jesus would have been all "GTFO" and not let them have any of his magic fishes or wine.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Galeongirl

I still find it striking that these intolerant homophobes still have such a strong voice. Here if someone utters something homophobic, it gets a small piece in the paper, everyone's duly outraged and then a day later nobody gives a damn anymore. They simply don't have a platform to shout their messages anymore.

Hopefully the US is gonna reach that point some day. There's a long way to go, but it's starting to go in the right direction.

It would be nice if everywhere around the world people would realise that religion and sexuality are private personal things, but yeah, I know that's pretty damn impossible to hope for.

There's a major rural/urban divide in the US. And it's a huge place. There's a reason why this passed in a place like Indiana.

[Galeongirl]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

But only against the gays. If I say i have a deeply rooted religious belief against baking macaroons for a Bar Mitzvah or seating blacks at my restaurant, I can't refuse to do so. Because that would be discrimination, the bad kind.

So long as it's "deeply held" and "religious" it's automatically about the gays. These are our new code words. Right?

Yeah, cause gays apparently aren't equal to 'normal' people. While we have now learned that jews and blacks are.



Man in 50 years this will all sound as ridiculous as it is.

Originally Posted by Irvine511

There's a major rural/urban divide in the US. And it's a huge place. There's a reason why this passed in a place like Indiana.

Fraid I don't have much knowledge on the different states, asides from the usual cliches. I take it Indiana is a bit backwards?

[bono_212]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

But only against the gays. If I say i have a deeply rooted religious belief against baking macaroons for a Bar Mitzvah or seating blacks at my restaurant, I can't refuse to do so. Because that would be discrimination, the bad kind.

So long as it's "deeply held" and "religious" it's automatically about the gays. These are our new code words. Right?

Which is why a law like this bothers me so much. Who's to stop anyone from doing the above?

Originally Posted by corianderstem

Well, we all know if there had been any gays at the wedding at Canaa, Jesus would have been all "GTFO" and not let them have any of his magic fishes or wine.

Again, exactly.

Originally Posted by Irvine511

There's a major rural/urban divide in the US. And it's a huge place. There's a reason why this passed in a place like Indiana.

Actually, Indiana is a lot more complex a state than people give it credit for, which is why this is a very difficult situation for many people who live there, and why my Facebook feed is more blown up with people against this law passing than for it. The entire northwestern portion of the state is completely different from the rest. Blue area, industrial-based, central time zone, etc. The loudest rep against this is from my home city. He's been in the Indiana government for most of my life and I worked a page for him for a day back in 8th grade. You've probably seen a lot of quotes from him in the last few days, he's the House Minority Leader.

There are so many other problems in Indiana right now that this is taking attention from, it's pathetic. The mills are about to have more lay-offs, there's an HIV scare down south, the education system is beyond broken (no thanks to Pence, or his predecessor), but the fact is, if it's not happening in Indianapolis, or the surrounding area, the rest of the state couldn't give two fucks.

I could write a novel the length of A Song of Ice and Fire about how effed up things are in Indiana, and have been for quite some time.