[quote]sufiandy wrote:
What you said above could have worked too. The big mistake the right made on this one is putting it in the name of religion. This whole thing is just a religion vs anti-religion fight and instead of fixing the underlying problem both sides just want to win.[/quote]
Of course it’s a religious fight…It can’t be anything but a religious fight. Secularists sold out any right to refuse service/a very specific service long time ago. Heard any meaningful secular/agnostic/atheistic movement asking for such a right? Nope. It’s the opposite actually. They’re happy to see the government whittle away, and shape, “proper” state approved religious living and thought. Where are they lining up to join their cause with the religious? Maybe a handful of libertarians begrudgingly siding with the “bigots” on some principle before quickly moving on to (laughingly) argue for the eventual dismantling of the welfare state.
If you used anything (art?!) but a religious argument this issue would’ve been lost (from my perspective), closed, and buried years ago to never be revisited again. The religious, and the religious argument, is the only thing keeping the debate open at all.
[quote]FlatsFarmer wrote:
Rambo III was dedicated to the Taliban! Nobody said shit about it back then.
Things change over time. No way the next Rambo movie is dedicated to the Taliban.
[/quote]
Do you smoke a lot of weed?
Honest question.[/quote]
You didn’t answer the question. Do you think the next Rambo movie will be dedicated to the Taliban?!?!
;)[/quote]
Don’t be ridiculous, it will obviously be a about a former KGB assassin turned Taliban who’s half Vietnamese. With M. Night Shamalon (sp lol) directing I expect the father to be either Rambo himself or the Vietcong commander that was blown apart with an exploding arrow in Rambo first blood part II.
Doesn’t anyone know anything about Hollywood, geezzzz.
[quote]FlatsFarmer wrote:
Rambo III was dedicated to the Taliban! Nobody said shit about it back then.
Things change over time. No way the next Rambo movie is dedicated to the Taliban.
[/quote]
Do you smoke a lot of weed?
Honest question.[/quote]
You didn’t answer the question. Do you think the next Rambo movie will be dedicated to the Taliban?!?!
;)[/quote]
lol, nah north korea.
[/quote]
Absolutely not. No more North Korea movies ever after the Interview! We will go back to demonizing the Russians, they have always been a nice consistent enemy for films.
What you said above could have worked too. The big mistake the right made on this one is putting it in the name of religion. This whole thing is just a religion vs anti-religion fight and instead of fixing the underlying problem both sides just want to win.[/quote]
It really is a religious issue, however, because most of the businesses at the front of this debate nationwide are conservative, evangelical Christians who were asked to provide a service for a same-sex wedding: photographs, accommodations, wedding planners, chapels, florists and bakers are the ones that come to mind. There have been isolated cases of business owners absolutely refusing to serve gays period, such as the article I posted about the doctor who refused treatment to a child of a gay couple, but those cases largely represent a separate issue.
However, for most every sect of evangelical Christianity, same-sex marriages, relationships, sexual behaviors, etc. are inherently sinful according to their interpretation of the direct word of scripture (c.f., Hebrews 13:1-5, Romans 1:26-28, Mark 10:6-9, and so forth). Hence, providing these services or goods obligates the believer/business owner to become complicit in what they view as a sinful act, which is a very sacrilegious offense against that person’s deeply held beliefs on the sanctity of marriage. So yeah, it really is a religious issue from that standpoint, one that pins the Establishment Clause’s protection of free exercise of religion against state and/or local anti-discrimination laws in venues of public accommodation in a commercial marketplace.
[quote]JR249 wrote:
So yeah, it really is a religious issue from that standpoint, one that pins the Establishment Clause’s protection of free exercise of religion against state and/or local anti-discrimination laws in venues of public accommodation in a commercial marketplace.[/quote]
Yup.
There can be no “winner” in this case. One party must face some form of discrimination.
I haven’t paid much attention to this issue, but, FYI, if there’s a baker or florist out there that needs their right to sell less product and reduce their market share vindicated, I’m your guy. As long as you pay my standard hourly rate, I’ll fight till you win or you run out of money. Principles cost money, but they are worth fighting for–you don’t want to let those gays make you complicit in sin.
I haven’t paid much attention to this issue, but, FYI, if there’s a gay couple who needs a wedding cake and can’t get one because of discrimination, I’m your guy. As long as you pay my standard hourly rate, I’ll fight till you win or you run out of money. Principles cost money, but they are worth fighting for–you don’t want to let those religious cooks prevent you from getting the wedding cake of your dreams.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Provide me with an example that shows my way of thinking to be flawed. I do not claim that bad speech will be eradicated from existence, only that it will be outweighed and in more “demand” than the bad speech.[/quote]
Hitler. I think most of us here would agree that he had some terrible ideas, but he became hugely popular and gained great power anyways.
Or, for the conservative folks here, Obama. Apparently enough people in the U.S. agree with his ideology to vote him into office, twice.
Point being- a good idea is not necessarily a popular one, and there is no guarantee that good ideas will win over bad ones.[/quote]
It’s not Hitler’s speech that won out, it was his violence and brutality. The guy never garnered more than about 35% of the vote in the Reichstag, and he certainly wasn’t popular amongst the masses of Germany the way many make him out to be.
And, since half the world ended up mobilizing against him, I’d say it’s pretty clear that good speech won out over bad speech in that one, and decisively so. It was just a messy path to victory.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I have zero problem with this law. I have zero problem with discrimination in general, when it comes from private citizens.
If someone wants to bar blacks or Jews or whatever from their business, so be it. I’d prefer to know exactly who all the racists and bigots are so I can avoid giving them my business. All of these laws that outlaw discrimination make it easier for those people to operate in the shadows. Shit, I don’t even have a problem with some baker flying an ISIS flag outside of his shop. Now I know exactly where NOT to get some pastries and coffee.
On top of all that, the business or organization is someone’s property. Let them dispose of their property however they want. There is no natural right to the purchase of someone else’s property, so discrimination is not an inherent violation of anything other than political law. If a business owner is forced to allow a black patron in his store and accept his legal tender in exchange for a good, that business owner is essentially being forced to make a transaction he wouldn’t normally make, which removes the possibility for an economic gain.
In the free market of ideas, I’d like to think that the good ones will rise to the surface and the bad ideas will never gain traction.[/quote]
I gotta agree. I prefer openly hateful people, I know where they stand. If a baker doesn’t want to bake a cake, he or she should not have to. It’s their business. I’d rather purchase from people I know don’t hate me for who I am. If somebody owns a small business and they have a bigotry, I would rather they put them at the door so when I walk in, I know what they are and if I want to deal with that person or not.
As far as I am concerned the money is green. If I am selling a product or service and somebody wants it, they get it to the best of my ability. If somebody else doesn’t want to, I don’t care.
Any estimates for the economic impact Indiana had already suffered as a result of this law?
The governor of Arizona, who ran-afoul of this same situation last year was not re-elected. What will happen to Pence?
If this was an experiment to see how the free market deals with bigots, Indiana has enough info to write a pretty good research paper.
If this was ant attempt to catch of to the law of the rest of the country, Indiana failed. They don’t recognize sexual preference as a factor to make someone part of a protected class. In effect, their state laws are behind US law. Now, with all the scrutiny, this is sure to be “fixed.”
If this was about “power,” Pence fucked up.
How is it that high AND DRUNK I’m still more politically savvy than the GOVERNOR of Indiana!?
I’ll ask again, why come forward with this law now?
-Beans, if you’re holding I’ll certainly join you.
-You guys were right. Rambo III was dedicated to the Mujanideen, not the Taliban. And I guess things weren’t much different 20 years ago. The Morality Squad were and the “Mono-Culture” were both super active. Remember Dan Quayle and To Live Crew testifying before Congress?! Or Ebonics taught in schools? So my “point(used loosely)” about things changing over time doesn’t really make much sense. But Rambo III was pretty good.
[quote]magick wrote:
I’m honestly surprised that no one has come out and bashed the people who are protesting the law.[/quote]
They’re just exercising their first amendment rights. It isn’t like they are blocking highways to protest a dude who got shot for punching a cop in the face.
Any estimates for the economic impact Indiana had already suffered as a result of this law?
The governor of Arizona, who ran-afoul of this same situation last year was not re-elected. What will happen to Pence?
If this was an experiment to see how the free market deals with bigots, Indiana has enough info to write a pretty good research paper.
If this was ant attempt to catch of to the law of the rest of the country, Indiana failed. They don’t recognize sexual preference as a factor to make someone part of a protected class. In effect, their state laws are behind US law. Now, with all the scrutiny, this is sure to be “fixed.”
If this was about “power,” Pence fucked up.
How is it that high AND DRUNK I’m still more politically savvy than the GOVERNOR of Indiana!?
I’ll ask again, why come forward with this law now?
-Beans, if you’re holding I’ll certainly join you.
-You guys were right. Rambo III was dedicated to the Mujanideen, not the Taliban. And I guess things weren’t much different 20 years ago. The Morality Squad were and the “Mono-Culture” were both super active. Remember Dan Quayle and To Live Crew testifying before Congress?! Or Ebonics taught in schools? So my “point(used loosely)” about things changing over time doesn’t really make much sense. But Rambo III was pretty good.
[/quote]
I doubt a boycott would do much, Arizona lost less than 1% of their tourism economy when people boycotted them over their immigration law.
