son of the isolated blurts thread!

[Lord Pmann]

First off, the law requires that the refusal of service is based on a religious conviction. Second, it paves the way for people to deny service to whole classes of people and not just individuals. Let's consider the days when it was impossible for all African Americans to dine at a dime-store lunch counter. That's discrimination against an entire class of people, and under the new law in Indiana bigots would find a way to justify it on religious grounds and get away with it. Is that so hard to see?

I see the difference now. I didn't know that it was ONLY based on religious beliefs. I guess the title of it could have hinted at that.

 

[Lord Pmann]

What's gonna happen is that the lawmakers will eventually realize that "religious freedom" applies not just to Christianity but to other religions as well. When that day arrives, it's gonna be awesome.

It's like when Valarie Hodges in Louisiana withdrew her support of Bobby Jindal's school voucher program once she realized that it would also fund Islamic schools.

Perhaps each group should just have their own places. You know, something separate. But definitely just as nice.

 

[Hypoxia]

Perhaps each group should just have their own places. You know, something separate. But definitely just as nice.

That's "separate but equal", which doesn't work. Separate is inherently unequal.

Or maybe by "their own places" you mean individual churches-temples-mosques? The Scientologists have their place; snake-charmers have theirs; Baptist nudists have theirs. No problem.

 

[Wild_Honey_66]

That's "separate but equal", which doesn't work. Separate is inherently unequal.

Or maybe by "their own places" you mean individual churches-temples-mosques? The Scientologists have their place; snake-charmers have theirs; Baptist nudists have theirs. No problem.

Baptist nudists??

point me in the right direction and slap me on the arse!

 

[Saucyminx]

Baptist nudists??

point me in the right direction and slap me on the arse!

They meet at my house. *waggles eyebrows* I like the music.

blurt:
I HATE giving out bad news to members of the insurance co I work for. First of all it's not my job--I only am supposed to have to deal with the Drs. Second, I hate crying, but my hands are totally tied in this situation (and not in a fun way). Barf. 4:30 pm can't come soon enough.

 

[Wild_Honey_66]

They meet at my house. *waggles eyebrows* I like the music.

blurt:
I HATE giving out bad news to members of the insurance co I work for. First of all it's not my job--I only am supposed to have to deal with the Drs. Second, I hate crying, but my hands are totally tied in this situation (and not in a fun way). Barf. 4:30 pm can't come soon enough.

w00p w00p! i'm so there!

will there be any laying on of hands?


{Saucy}

 

[Lord Pmann]

That's "separate but equal", which doesn't work. Separate is inherently unequal.

Or maybe by "their own places" you mean individual churches-temples-mosques? The Scientologists have their place; snake-charmers have theirs; Baptist nudists have theirs. No problem.

Hahaha. Dude, it was a joke. Clearly "separate but equal" is what I was going for.

 

[Eilan]

Perhaps each group should just have their own places. You know, something separate. But definitely just as nice.

Or maybe people could just own their bigotry instead of hiding behind their religion to justify it.

In other news, Georgia's "religious freedom" bill died in committee because a member of the committee called the sponsor's bluff by introducing a countermeasure which clearly revealed that the purpose of the bill was to discriminate.

 

[unregistered]

 

[midwestyankee]

When they realize that religious beliefs are not limited to Christian beliefs, it's going to get interesting.

Indeed. There's a Satanic group that seems to enjoy trolling these "religious freedom" laws and the end result is always more than entertaining.

 

[unregistered]

 

[fire_breeze]

When they realize that religious beliefs are not limited to Christian beliefs, it's going to get interesting.

Or more precisely, Western White Protestant Christianity... it's gonna get really really interesting.

 

[talikat]

Friday!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[multitalentman]

There's an echo in here.

Its because of those AMAZINGGG boobs of yours!

 

[silverwhisper]

jelly quoth:
exactly. i cannot imagine how reasonable, responsible business owners in indiana must feel right now. they are likely going to feel the pain from something they'd never, ever do.

i'm gonna go with really fucking pissed off. let's see how many industry associations petition the lawmakers to fix it.

interestingly, i understand IN's got a pretty sordid history when it comes to civil rights, but my google-fu is teh sux right now.

yank quoth:
the problem is that a majority of the voters in many areas feel that they have cleaned house and that they have what they want.

yep.

yank quoth:
at least one major business group has already pulled its conference from indiana. others will follow and the legislature will eventually get it that they screwed up and will quietly make things right.

i agree with all of this except the quietly bit. when it's defeated, it's gonna be loud, IMHO.

i saw something i positively loved yesterday:

bakery rule:
we do not cater to those celebrating their 2nd, 3rd, 4th or more weddings.

religious freedom. bitch.

minxy quoth:
i hate giving out bad news to members of the insurance co i work for. first of all it's not my job--i only am supposed to have to deal with the drs. second, i hate crying, but my hands are totally tied in this situation (and not in a fun way). barf. 4:30 pm can't come soon enough.

well, happily it's now been here a few hours. sorry that happened. :<

ed

 

[fire_breeze]

i'm gonna go with really fucking pissed off. let's see how many industry associations petition the lawmakers to fix it.

interestingly, i understand IN's got a pretty sordid history when it comes to civil rights, but my google-fu is teh sux right now.


<snip>

Could you please explain to this Canuck how that is, you know, actually legal?

 

[midwestyankee]

Could you please explain to this Canuck how that is, you know, actually legal?

It's legal in the sense that the law was duly passed through the state legislature and signed by the governor. However, such laws are quite likely not in accord with the U. S. Constitution so they would probably be struck down eventually in a Supreme Court case.

 

[silverwhisper]

i'm sure those with a different perspective will take issue with my characterization, but i'm a bit tipsy so fuck it.

in US politics, gay marriage and anything remotely non-pejorative about homosexuality or the transgendered is the line in the sand for social conservatives*. it's been that way for the past near-decade or so AFAICT.

these folks actually think that, despite the fact that christianity has always had "home field advantage" in US culture, somehow their faith is being persecuted. irrespective of whether that can actually be substantiated to anyone's satisfaction that doesn't already have an opinion, that's still their belief. indeed--and forgive the expression--it's an article of faith with them.

as a consequence there's been an ugly spate of backlash over this perception, and these little carve-outs popping up all over the US are the symptom of the disease.

i personally feel that perception is complete and total propaganda war that's being perpetrated by the hyper-affluent few.

as to the legality: it hinges upon an interpretation of the "freedom of religion" legal precept. i think that reading is utterly fucked in the head, but in US politics, any law that can get the votes gets passed: it's up to the courts for a case to arise that challenges whether any given law is or is not contrary to existing law.

ed

*mitt romney is a mormon, and the US government so characterizes that faith. he was the republican party's candidate of choice for the last presidential election. since US social conservatives are typically some form of protestant, and protestants typically view mormons as heretics, i consider that really fucking telling.

 

[fire_breeze]

It's legal in the sense that the law was duly passed through the state legislature and signed by the governor. However, such laws are quite likely not in accord with the U. S. Constitution so they would probably be struck down eventually in a Supreme Court case.

i'm sure those with a different perspective will take issue with my characterization, but i'm a bit tipsy so fuck it.

in US politics, gay marriage and anything remotely non-pejorative about homosexuality or the transgendered is the line in the sand for social conservatives*. it's been that way for the past near-decade or so AFAICT.

these folks actually think that, despite the fact that christianity has always had "home field advantage" in US culture, somehow their faith is being persecuted. irrespective of whether that can actually be substantiated to anyone's satisfaction that doesn't already have an opinion, that's still their belief. indeed--and forgive the expression--it's an article of faith with them.

as a consequence there's been an ugly spate of backlash over this perception, and these little carve-outs popping up all over the US are the symptom of the disease.

i personally feel that perception is complete and total propaganda war that's being perpetrated by the hyper-affluent few.

as to the legality: it hinges upon an interpretation of the "freedom of religion" legal precept. i think that reading is utterly fucked in the head, but in US politics, any law that can get the votes gets passed: it's up to the courts for a case to arise that challenges whether any given law is or is not contrary to existing law.

ed

*mitt romney is a mormon, and the US government so characterizes that faith. he was the republican party's candidate of choice for the last presidential election. since US social conservatives are typically some form of protestant, and protestants typically view mormons as heretics, i consider that really fucking telling.

Thank you both . I hope that you aren't thinking this as criticism, it was an honest question, and it's a mentality/cultural norm that I really would like to better understand and get to know.

It's very very different to what I am used to up in the Canuckistan, so I am trying to make sense of it... it just boggles the mind that something like this could even be signed into state legislation.

As an outside observer, I will say this: it's a bit ironic that where half of the population are fighting for less government involvement is the same half that are lobbying for laws bills/laws such as the ones that you attempted to explain to me (including bans on gay marriages etc). It's a bit inconsistent.

Either you want more government or you want less of it. There seems to be a lot of cherry-picking....

 

[silverwhisper]

FB quoth:
thank you both .

o, you know me, happy to explain stuff. it's why i hang out in how to in the first place, after all.

FB quoth:
i hope that you aren't thinking this as criticism, it was an honest question, and it's a mentality/cultural norm that i really would like to better understand and get to know.

that makes complete sense. there are a whole host of things i don't grok about canadian culture. :>

FB quoth:
it just boggles the mind that something like this could even be signed into state legislation.

many of my fellow americans are similarly boggled, fwiw. :>

FB quoth:
as an outside observer, i will say this: it's a bit ironic that where half of the population are fighting for less government involvement is the same half that are lobbying for laws bills/laws such as the ones that you attempted to explain to me (including bans on gay marriages etc). it's a bit inconsistent.

either you want more government or you want less of it. there seems to be a lot of cherry-picking....

o, that observation is entirely, 100% on target--but then again, it's true for both sides. there are things about which progressives are goofy about as well, and i say that as a self-identified progressive.

i appreciate that you want to be diplomatic about it, but don't be concerned about it on my account--and i suspect yank would agree.

in political discourse, sturgeon's law most certainly applies. :>

edited to add: you think that law's nuts? did you see this one? or its response?

ed

 

[Eilan]

Either you want more government or you want less of it. There seems to be a lot of cherry-picking....

Oh, the righties and pseudo-Libertarians are all about small government unless there's something they WANT regulated. Like ladyparts.

 

[silverwhisper]

...or them squicky gays.

ed

 

[Eilan]

Ewwwwww! Gheys!

 

[fire_breeze]

o, you know me, happy to explain stuff. it's why i hang out in how to in the first place, after all.


that makes complete sense. there are a whole host of things i don't grok about canadian culture. :>


many of my fellow americans are similarly boggled, fwiw. :>


o, that observation is entirely, 100% on target--but then again, it's true for both sides. there are things about which progressives are goofy about as well, and i say that as a self-identified progressive.

i appreciate that you want to be diplomatic about it, but don't be concerned about it on my account--and i suspect yank would agree.

in political discourse, sturgeon's law most certainly applies. :>

ed

Oh, I know Ed! And I very much appreciate the education from you and Midwestyankee

This is the beauty of the Interwebz - the cultural exchange.

I think what is a bit confusing (aside from the two party system, but I digress) is the seeming contradictions, an almost stubbornness and the extremes. It's almost as if it has to be one or the other, and there can be no middle ground, but I am probably looking into this too deeply

Meh, diplomacy is my middle name. And besides, it's not my country, so how can I judge?
And personally, I like the Hammerhead Principle: almost everything is bullshit

Oh, the righties and pseudo-Libertarians are all about small government unless there's something they WANT regulated. Like ladyparts.

And who you can fuck, apparently... I'm starting to notice.

 

[silverwhisper]

FB quoth:
i think what is a bit confusing (aside from the two party system, but i digress) is the seeming contradictions, an almost stubbornness and the extremes. it's almost as if it has to be one or the other, and there can be no middle ground, but i am probably looking into this too deeply

you are, you pinko communist.

the two party system is IMHO a reflection of the fact that broadly, americans tend towards a simplistic view of things. you see it in most of our major films: the "hollywood ending" is a thing for a reason. we can do dichotomy and binary thinking: just don't ask us to appreciate nuance.

FB quoth:
and besides, it's not my country, so how can i judge?

how unamerican of you. ;>

ed