GenCon threatens to exit Indy over 'religious freedom' measure

[Arthur Dent]

No, they're saying that you must celebrate something whether you approve of it or find it objectionable.
This is precisely the sort of thing the Founders started the Revolution over.

Who is saying you have to celebrate anything? What are they saying you have to celebrate?

 

[indiucky]

Say, what do you suppose happens when there is a "culture war"? Do you expect one side to just give up? Or are you so sure of your own opinion that you don't feel you should have to put up with others disagreeing with you? There are plenty of Hoosiers - and others in this nation - who don't believe that the fact that you or anyone else calls us names "homophobe", "hater," "bigot" makes it so. If we want to continue to believe what we were taught as children, or what we came to believe as adults, we have the same rights to those beliefs as you have to yours and - at this point - we have the political will to push back against your beliefs and the strong-arm tactics some people are using to push their agendae on us.

UHHHHHH........You nailed it....Nice response.....This is INGO....Age-ism and Evangelaphobia are allowed...

 

[cobber]

The government has already gotten involved in this "unsolvable" problem by creating another protected class - thereby enhancing the status of a particular (very small) group at the expense of a much larger segment of the citizenry. And, let's face it, "government" exists to create solutions to such problems, otherwise they would oftentimes be solved by bloodshed.

I could have sworn you wrote 'government exists to create problems that will then require "solutions"'. Need new glasses...

No. We're demanding legislators lead based on our fears and intolerance of others. (Not to mention willful disobediance to the Constitution). If we led based on the claimed proficies of what will be if certain laws were passed, we'd never have made the changes to our carry laws in this state.

Yeah, I heard that if you "let" citizens own and bear arms there will be blood in the streets.

 

[Lowe0]

No. We're demanding legislators lead based on our fears and intolerance of others. (Not to mention willful disobediance to the Constitution). If we led based on the claimed proficies of what will be if certain laws were passed, we'd never have made the changes to our carry laws in this state.

That's simple risk assessment; our legislators (correctly) deemed that the risk of rising crime due to relaxing carry laws was outweighed by the government's obligation to preserve the right to bear arms. Getting it right doesn't entitle them to a "get it wrong later free" card.

 

[cobber]

That's simple risk assessment; our legislators (correctly) deemed that the risk of rising crime due to relaxing carry laws was outweighed by the government's obligation to preserve the right to bear arms. Getting it right doesn't entitle them to a "get it wrong later free" card.

Government doesn't have an obligation to preserve the right to bear arms. It has an obligation to get out and keep out of the way.


As to "relaxing laws", who do I thank for that...?

 

[Lowe0]

Government doesn't have an obligation to preserve the right to bear arms. It has an obligation to get out and keep out of the way.


As to "relaxing laws", who do I thank for that...?

Yourself. We elect the government, we fund the government, we are to thank and to blame for anything and everything they do in our name.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I could have sworn you wrote 'government exists to create problems that will then require "solutions"'. Need new glasses...



Yeah, I heard that if you "let" citizens own and bear arms there will be blood in the streets.

I've never written that - but others have However, the sole purpose of a government is to solve problems between individuals without bloodshed. If that were not its reason for existence, there would be no sense in having any sort of government, wouldn't you say?

• • 
    
    
  
  
  

•