The SB 101 (Religious Freedom Restoration) Thread

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Do you mean those in favor of the new bill, or those against? I'm not clear.

Go on any public Facebook site and question the rationality of the outrage and you tell me.

 

[Dead Duck]

If only the brown coats have learned about the pax earlier, all those people wouldn't have suffered......












Sorry - The flashbacks are getting stronger reading this thread.........lived in CA and all........

 

[Jomibe]

If the Right aren't fighting, then what was SB101 - a declaration of love?

Saying "it's okay to be gay, just leave us alone. You do your thing, we'll do ours" was never what "The Culture War" was about. That doesn't sound like fighting to me, that sounds like a truce.

 

[chipbennett]

< sigh > Thanks for the reminder about why I seldom comment in this section. I admitted nothing of the kind. I simply didn't choose to respond to your comment the way you wanted me to. Then you chose to make multiple assumptions about me while attempting a veiled insult. I've said all I need to say here.

Did I misrepresent what you said? It appeared to me that you said that you hadn't read the bill. From your comments, I further inferred that you couldn't be bothered to read the bill, to cite the specific parts that you believe are problematic.

I love discussing issues with people with whom I disagree. However, I have no time or patience for people who remain willfully ignorant, and form opinions based on what is spoon-fed to them - regardless of which side of the aisle they may be on.

 

[chipbennett]

Think he'd be welcome at Chick-fil-A?

Without a doubt. What makes you think otherwise?

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Is there any truth to the rumor that John Gregg had to seek treatment for hyperventilation due to uncontrollable laughter?

 

[chipbennett]

Understanding the legal issues with IRFRA: https://inadvancesheet.wordpress.co...storation-act-an-analysis-of-its-controversy/

Completely unpersuasive - especially his third point, which boils down to, "the people who wrote it hate teh gay".

Also, being that I'm someone who can read the plain language of the constitution, as opposed to being a lawyer, I am opposed in principle to the establishment of any sort of "protected classes" of people. Creation of "protected classes" is a violation of the Equal Protection clause.

 

[Lowe0]

Saying "it's okay to be gay, just leave us alone. You do your thing, we'll do ours" was never what "The Culture War" was about. That doesn't sound like fighting to me, that sounds like a truce.

I don't see either side being particularly "live and let live" at this point. Your side declared war on people like me (not gay, but I don't really fit with the Rights ideal of a good Christian); I think it's a little late for a truce.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Go on any public Facebook site and question the rationality of the outrage and you tell me.

I've never been to Facebook and I don't intend to go there.

Like I've said before, I realize that there are people in this world who have a lot of hate and anger just waiting to spill out. And that's a big reason why I mostly live my life on the quiet side. Maybe that's really why I'm forever in the middle, politically and socially because I believe that once I join a group, any group, I will sooner or later wake up to find myself carrying a torch and a pitchfork and I'll wonder how I got there.

 

[bwframe]

Our governor would do better to stand up rather than waffle. The best thing WE ALL can do for this is quit giving them fuel and shut up. It's the law...........Next subject?

Maybe give a little reminder to the libs that every time they start acting up like this, we gain more and more seats in the legislature.

 

[Bartman]

I see many of the left leaning shamers focusing on the companies that have threatened to take their business out of Indiana over the law being passed. We've had several here (including myself) talk about 'letting the market decide' with regard to individual business owners. I'm content to let the market decide at the state level as well. I would rather endure whatever economic consequences will come about than endure the fact that Indiana law is beholden to corporate policy.


I'm reminded of Magpul pulling out of Colorado. They both seem to be surviving just fine.

 

[Bartman]

Original post deleted.

I see this going the same way the gun control debate after Sandy Hook. It will be a hot topic for a while, but in no time at all the controversy will take a back seat to some other story. The crusaders on both sides will fade into the background again.

 

[MisterChester]

The Left is the only side still fighting. The new Republicans are only "conservative" about taxes.

Culture and attitudes change over time and America is no exception. I predict that when Republicans of the young generation now eventually enter legislatures, they will be much less concerned with social issues than the ones today. They will be much more inclined to fight for conservative economic principles rather than things like LGBT rights and discrimination. Kind of like how decades ago people openly supported segregation, if a politican were to do that now it would be political suicide. In the future it'll be much easier to be shunned by not supporting rights for the LGBT crowd than today.

 

[jamil]

Probably, if I chose to do that amount of research. But like I said, I don't agree with the fact that this law should exist. So why should I be interested in doing that kind of research?

You could've just said that up front then, that no unknown detail of the actual circumstances could possibly exist that would make you change your mind. It's okay. You get to make all the uninformed decisions you want. It's a free country, still, for the time being. But realize that's what gives us social icons like "hands up don't shoot" based on falsehoods.

That said, I'd rather our legislative bodies make new laws when new laws are necessary, not just because they think it will score well with their constituents.

If the Right aren't fighting, then what was SB101 - a declaration of love?

It was an insurance policy of continued tenure.

Go on any public Facebook site and question the rationality of the outrage and you tell me.

I've never been to Facebook and I don't intend to go there.

Like I've said before, I realize that there are people in this world who have a lot of hate and anger just waiting to spill out. And that's a big reason why I mostly live my life on the quiet side. Maybe that's really why I'm forever in the middle, politically and socially because I believe that once I join a group, any group, I will sooner or later wake up to find myself carrying a torch and a pitchfork and I'll wonder how I got there.

I've learned long ago you just can't deprive a person of some yummy righteous indignation. It's just not worth ending up on either end of the pitchfork.

Original post deleted.

I see this going the same way the gun control debate after Sandy Hook. It will be a hot topic for a while, but in no time at all the controversy will take a back seat to some other story. The crusaders on both sides will fade into the background again.

Pretty much.

 

[chipbennett]

In the future it'll be much easier to be shunned by not supporting rights for the LGBT crowd than today.

I assume you're referring to marriage? Marriage is only an issue because the State never should have been involved in a religious matter to begin with. To fix that problem, separate the two. Let the State honor civil marriages for *all* (straight, homosexual, whatever), and have no part of marriage. Churches can condone marriages and conduct wedding ceremonies, and the State can grant and recognize civil unions. The State doesn't violate freedom of religious expression, and equal protection under the law is fully respected.

Aside from the marriage issue, there are no rights of LGBT being infringed. What the militant LGBT want is not merely to be tolerated, but to dictate others' *beliefs*. I couldn't care less how someone else lives their life, or with whom. Why on earth do they care what I or anyone else personally believe?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Culture and attitudes change over time and America is no exception. I predict that when Republicans of the young generation now eventually enter legislatures, they will be much less concerned with social issues than the ones today. They will be much more inclined to fight for conservative economic principles rather than things like LGBT rights and discrimination. Kind of like how decades ago people openly supported segregation, if a politican were to do that now it would be political suicide. In the future it'll be much easier to be shunned by not supporting rights for the LGBT crowd than today.

Actually, politicians are calling for de facto segregation in California by calling for Spanish-only schools. Nobody appears to be calling for their ouster. I take your point, but it seems that "tolerance" is mostly one-way so far.

 

[MisterChester]

I assume you're referring to marriage? Marriage is only an issue because the State never should have been involved in a religious matter to begin with. To fix that problem, separate the two. Let the State honor civil marriages for *all* (straight, homosexual, whatever), and have no part of marriage. Churches can condone marriages and conduct wedding ceremonies, and the State can grant and recognize civil unions. The State doesn't violate freedom of religious expression, and equal protection under the law is fully respected.

Aside from the marriage issue, there are no rights of LGBT being infringed. What the militant LGBT want is not merely to be tolerated, but to dictate others' *beliefs*. I couldn't care less how someone else lives their life, or with whom. Why on earth do they care what I or anyone else personally believe?

I was more so referring to LGBT rights as marriage + protected class status. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when.

I however do not see how they are militant, dictating other beliefs, etc. That is an exaggeration and you know it.

 

[El-Cigarro]

I was more so referring to LGBT rights as marriage + protected class status. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when.

I however do not see how they are militant, dictating other beliefs, etc. That is an exaggeration and you know it.

I don't know about that. They usually go along with the progs/libs on most things political. At least it seems that way if you listen to "Progessive" Radio on the week-ends. Don't know why I tune in. All it does is get my blood pressure up....

 

[chipbennett]

I was more so referring to LGBT rights as marriage + protected class status. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when.

I however do not see how they are militant, dictating other beliefs, etc. That is an exaggeration and you know it.

I can only guess that you're not paying attention, if you claim ignorance of the existence of militant LGBT. It is absolutely not an exaggeration. (And I intentionally used the adjective "militant" in order to differentiate from the vast majority who are live-and-let-live types, just like the vast majority of heterosexuals.)

 

[PistolBob]

Just remember, the definition of bigot is anyone that disagrees with a liberal.