Indiana's Religious Freedom Law

[GreasySpread36]

What you said, by all accounts, is racist man...

"African-Americans need all the paternalism they can get."

Are you serious?

I'm floored honestly.....

p.s.
Before anyone does guilt by association I know for a fact that was not Cratylus' point.

I'm a realist. I just think they need a lot of help. For whatever it's worth, considering how they were brought here and how they've been treated, I think we owe them that.

 

[gourimoko]

I'm a realist. I just think they need a lot of help. For whatever it's worth, considering how they were brought here and how they've been treated, I think we owe them that.

.....do you know what "paternalism" means?

 

[gourimoko]

"Clarify" -- gourimoko's attempt to get away with making false accusations while pretending it was someone else's fault.

I didn't accuse you of bigotry... I'm explaining why Cavatt is.

And even in your clarification, you misrepresented my position yet again. Classic.

I didn't misrepresent your position. I just quoted you.

Here, I'll do it again, these are your words:

"Because in the case of straight couples children, you're usually talking about children who are equally tied, biologically, to the two parents.. That does not exist with gay couples. Second, I see a benefit to children having both a male and female role model that I do not see with having two moms and two dads."

"a gay couple can live together, and the non-biological parent can still assume a parental role, without getting married, if that is preferable. I know some gay couples, none of whom are legally married, who do exactly that. So I still don't see the societal justification for making it marriage."

"It's better still to have a mom and a dad, so that's the relationship we choose to subsidize."

When Cavatt responded with:
"It shouldn't matter what the gender of parents are as long as they aren't shitty human beings."

You stated:
"Well, I think it does. And I think most people would agree, outside this context where there are other agendas,that a mother and father who aren't shitty human beings are preferable to a mother and mother who aren't shitty. Otherwise, the argument must be that not having a mother, or not having a father, has no adverse effect at all."

"If I had a homosexual child, I would not want to see that child be discriminated against. I would not really care if they ever got married or not, because there's no risk of them giving birth to a child with their spouse."

To the extent you want to re-discuss the issue of gay marriage, there was a specific thread for that.

Same issue.. No need to bump that thread.

I'll bump it so this thread doesn't get cluttered up with an irrelevant argument

It's not irrelevant, it's entirely to the point of civil rights.

 

[Jack Brickman]

 

[Otsego Mar]

Maybe he meant "father figures" - less racist and more misguided.

But seriously.....

 

[GreasySpread36]

.....do you know what "paternalism" means?

Yup. It's a word to describe an attitude Progressives usually have but rarely want to admit to.

The funny thing is we probably more or less agree that the government should do a lot to assist African-Americans in whatever way they need assisted, we probably agree that they've by and large been treated extremely unfairly through no real fault of their own, but you're simply hung up on a word I used.

 

[gourimoko]

Yup. It's a word to describe an attitude Progressives usually have but rarely want to admit to.

The funny thing is we probably more or less agree that the government should do a lot to assist African-Americans in whatever way they need assisted, we probably agree that they've by and large been treated extremely unfairly through no real fault of their own, but you're simply hung up on a word I used.

Maybe...

Maybe you misspoke?

pa·ter·nal·ism
pəˈtərnlˌizəm/
noun

1. the policy or practice on the part of people in positions of authority of restricting the freedom and responsibilities of those subordinate to them in the subordinates' supposed best interest.

Is this honestly what you meant to say?

p.s.
I'm definitely a Progressive, by almost any definition of the word. But I'm against Affirmative Action that targets a specific race, racial quotas, or any form of welfare program targeted towards a specific race; so maybe we don't agree.

 

[Otsego Mar]

"the policy or practice on the part of people in positions of authority of restricting the freedom and responsibilities of those subordinate to them in the subordinates' supposed best interest."

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I didn't accuse you of bigotry... I'm explaining why Cavatt is.



I didn't misrepresent your position. I just quoted you.

Here, I'll do it again, these are your words:

"Because in the case of straight couples children, you're usually talking about children who are equally tied, biologically, to the two parents.. That does not exist with gay couples. Second, I see a benefit to children having both a male and female role model that I do not see with having two moms and two dads."

"a gay couple can live together, and the non-biological parent can still assume a parental role, without getting married, if that is preferable. I know some gay couples, none of whom are legally married, who do exactly that. So I still don't see the societal justification for making it marriage."

"It's better still to have a mom and a dad, so that's the relationship we choose to subsidize."

When Cavatt responded with:
"It shouldn't matter what the gender of parents are as long as they aren't shitty human beings."

You stated:
"Well, I think it does. And I think most people would agree, outside this context where there are other agendas,that a mother and father who aren't shitty human beings are preferable to a mother and mother who aren't shitty. Otherwise, the argument must be that not having a mother, or not having a father, has no adverse effect at all."

"If I had a homosexual child, I would not want to see that child be discriminated against. I would not really care if they ever got married or not, because there's no risk of them giving birth to a child with their spouse."





Same issue.. No need to bump that thread.



It's not irrelevant, it's entirely to the point of civil rights.

I asked veru politely for you to provide a link to the post you're quoting, and you won't. So, I'm done.

 

[gourimoko]

I asked veru politely for you to provide a link to the post you're quoting, and you won't. So, I'm done.

And that's cool, but don't act like you need a link to know your own positions dude.. don't act like you didn't say this shit, and that's why Cavatt called you out, he said it himself when he referenced "other threads."

That's what he's talking about.

You want links, I suggest you learn to use the internet.

 

[NasstyNate]

I think you misread my post.

Ahh, gotcha. We are misreading each other. By ends, I mean both parties want limited governmental intervention.

I'm saying that opposition to government regulation does not remotely mean that you support a discriminator result, or that you don't support other means of combatting discrimination. And while you recognized that, you then went to the "but all bigots want limited government regulation" argument, which I think is an unfair smear against those who are not bigoted but support less government.

That is not a smear at all. It is a simple statement that bigots do not want the government legally prohibiting their discrimination. It is no value judgment at all on non bigots.

So, try it this way:

Cratylus argued upthread that sellers should have the same legal right as buyers to deal, or not deal, with someone for any reason they choose. You believe that "sellers" should not be able to discriminate legally on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.. Right?

Absolutely.

But how about the morality of discrimination by buyers/individuals? Is it morally right to not hire a contractor just because they happen to be black, or gay?

Those actions are immoral, and should be legally prohibited.

To boycott a particular restaurant because the waiters are black, or gay? To not use a black electrician because you just don't like black people? Such discrimination could have a very real impact on someone's livelihood. I assume we'd all agree those actions are immoral.

But, do you support making those actions illegal as well?

Those actions are immoral and should not be legally prohibited.

Because surely, bigots also want to retain the legal freedom not to patronize minority establishments. And if both you and bigots believe that buyers should have the legal right to discriminate, then the statement you made above could be applied to you as well:
So, if you don't want to make buyer discrimination illegal -- don't you want the same ends as bigots?

Again, by ends I mean both you and bigots want limited government regulation. Your reasons are pious, a bigot's are not.

 

[RonG]

I asked veru politely for you to provide a link to the post you're quoting, and you won't. So, I'm done.

Minnesota destroys the sacred institution of Marriage

@The Human Q-Tip

 

[NasstyNate]

I think the law was born primarily out of three motives. One is fine, two are problematic.
...

This is a great answer. The only thing I would add is the state wanted to codify the recent Burwell v Hobby Lobby decision. It is very similar to how states passing recent voter ID laws all had the same language found in Crawford v Marion County. It is very likely that the law was written by some lawyer from ALEC and distributed to state legislatures.

 

[Soda]

The vilification of posters in this thread has gotten pretty rough.. What was once a legal discussion has now become a full-force character smearing. Putting words in the mouths of others to support a personal bias against them shouldn't be happening right now. I'm sorry, but that's what Cavatt has started and what others have carried the torch on. Q-tip isn't fully innocent, but I'm not sure he/she crossed that line..

Keep it legal! After all, I'm pretty sure that's where this back-and-forth started. Not surprisingly, the scope has been widened to discredit the poster, not the point.

 

[MalTalm]

I asked veru politely for you to provide a link to the post you're quoting, and you won't. So, I'm done.

Just wanted to say thank you really quick for your insights the past few pages, it was good getting a view from a completely legal perspective.

That said, you were a bit too dismissive of the importance of Indiana's pending revision. While it's true that the state doesn't offer any protections to the LGBT community, many local municipalities within Indiana do, including Indianapolis. A state law allowing businesses and potentially employers to circumvent those protections still could have carried significant weight, and the state-wide religion protection granted by the RFRA would have trumped whatever local laws had been established. I think that was why so much of the noise came out of Indianapolis, a progressive city which has built a legal foundation for tolerance of varied lifestyle choices.