Canceling trip to HW this world summer

I think that religious freedom is under attack any time someone is forced to do something that flies in the face of their beliefs.

I also think that full religious freedom does not, nor can it, exist in law, and I don't always mind the attacks because of that. I suppose that the way one defines religion could imply that one's moral code isn't necessarily a religion, but even so, some people genuinely subscribe to their own mutations of various religions, creating new religions in the process, that condone things like murder. A pastor who bombs an abortion clinic very well subscribes to his own religion that says it's okay to do that. So did the slave owners of the south. So did the settlers of this country who took a convert-or-die approach to their interactions with Native Americans. They clearly didn't subscribe to the particular brand of Christianity the Bible intends, but it's a true religion and full religious freedom would permit such actions. However, Americans tend to have a whole lot more sense than that, so they put limitations in place to end those horrible atrocities. As such, religious freedom has in fact been eroded, although again, I'd contend that those erosions were very much needed. Sometimes the law is a rather effective tool at straightening out people and pointing out just how far out of touch they, and we as I'm not even remotely perfect or in any position to take any sort of moral high ground myself, have gotten and do get from what our religion is actually telling us we should be doing. I welcome accountability, no matter how uncomfortable it gets.

Edit: again, to the points about the pharmacist, I agree with you all that denying service to the person with AIDS is wrong. If you have some problem with that, you went into the wrong line of work.

I also like the point from earlier about the bakery. If they want to avoid baking cakes for homosexual weddings, they may be in the wrong business. I think if the business itself was part of a religious institution or founded as one, it might be a different situation. Maybe there should be filing guidelines if you want to only serve certain clientele. If you want to, pardon the pun, have your cake and eat it too, though, maybe you shouldn't be able to do so. Maybe you should have to file as a religious organization if you want to go that route.

Anyone can call themselves or anyone else, a Christian, a Muslim, a Communist, or any other label they'd like to attach. It is offensive to me (as you may have figured out, that isn't easy as I'm pretty hard to offend) for a person to call themselves Christian and display behavior that shows anything BUT "love for thy neighbor." NOT what Jesus would have done...IMO.

If you disagree with a person's choices, lifestyle, or whatever....look in the mirror for your own flaws FIRST (my guess is "judging" is right up there).

I would caution that telling someone that something is wrong and judging are two different things in that judgment involves taking the extra step of including a self-righteous attitude, but I agree with your point. An even better way to put it would be that judging involves an attack on the person, not the particular act. Also, as frustrated as you get when people call themselves Christians and then proceed to not love their neighbor, I assure you it frustrates me more, and I get even more frustrated when I'm guilty of it. I am far from perfect in that area and I know I need to do a much better job of it.

The sticking point is the difference in moral codes, obviously, and so that which constitutes loving thy neighbor is going to vary. Regardless of what each of us believes to be right or wrong, though, loving thy neighbor means drawing a line in the sand sometimes. If I had a friend who was a drug addict, I would need to show him or her as much care as I possibly could and never give up on them. However, if he or she tells me that he or she needs a hit, one of the first things I could do about loving that person would be to ensure that taking that hit is prevented from happening.

I apologize for using drug addicts as a point of comparison, but I figured I'd pick a more universally agreed-upon issue to illustrate my point.

I would also like to make a point of telling you all how much I appreciate the civility in this debate. Seriously, it's rare that topics this sensitive get discussed so respectfully.

The law feels 'dirty'. I consider myself a Christian but a compassionate one. I was taught things according to the Catholic church and have rejected quite a few since entering my 20's. It doesn't mean that religion is wrong, but people need to utilize their brains, too. These religions are created from humans and are fallible. Think of eating meat on Fridays in Lent, which I've heard was taught to be a hell-bound offense. But really, do you think God decided to pick out a day during a period of '40 days' in a year to not eat meat?

All I see out of this is a legal way to persecute someone else and not invading your 'freedom of religion.' You are free to believe whatever you want and follow whatever you want. As long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. It's as simple as that. Why do people need to actively persecute another?

Even though this law was signed its not going to stop me from visiting Indiana or any other state. Ohio is just as backwards as the rest.

I just emailed Holiday World and Lake Rudolph asking for an official stance on this bill. I can't imagine that either would support it, but if they do, plans will be cancelled. Luckily, I can get in and out of Indiana without having to buy gas or stop anywhere else along the way. Besides that, every penny I typically spend there is done inside the parks only.

If you don't want to serve all people equally, do not go into a public business!

Unbelievable that our government has reverted back to the pre-civil war days! In the name of "religion". News flash. If a religion doesn't teach you to love everyone, it is not a religion of any true God. It's an exclusive club.

So now if your "religion" tells you to hate a race of people, another religion etc, will it be legal to discriminate against them? Where does it stop? Will the cult religions be legally allowed to do human sacrifices because their religion says it's ok?

Separation in church and state. If not, this is not going to have a good ending.

Was this law put on the ballot or was it just railroaded through by special interest groups and their puppets?

Will the cult religions be legally allowed to do human sacrifices because their religion says it's ok?

That's how I feel about this. Does the passing of this law pave the path to making it not illegal to stone gays to death? What about lynchings? The KKK was a Christain organization, ya know.

I know things will get better for GLTB people, but it's like two steps forward and three steps back.

I usually take news like this personally. It's changed me from the lovable and accepting guy I used to be to a paranoid invisible boy. I know things will get better for GLTB people, but it's like two steps forward and three steps back.

It's not HW fault at all. Like many businesses, they probably don't want to make a public statement about this issue because they want business from both sides. That's not a bad thing. It's smart.

Unfortunately, it's 100% appropriate to boycott Holiday World. Remember even if HW does not support the law there is no guarantee that hotels, restaurants, or any other businesses in the area will not refuse service to American citizens. It's a horrible law that has left great businesses like Holiday World in a horrible position. #boycottIndiana

Remember any tax you pay for admission on merchandise in the park will go to this government that supports this terrible law!!!

I don't think any of the extreme cases referenced are going to be permissible. I would hope you all wouldn't really believe they would. There will still be laws against murder and things like that for that very reason.

I do agree that this does open the door for discrimination, but, and it's unfortunate that this is the case, unpopular opinions have to be given a voice because if we want free speech and such, we have to take the bad with the good. As I mentioned earlier, if it upsets you whenever a religious organization tries to force its beliefs on you (and I agree that it should upset you), you can't turn around and then force them to comply with your way of thinking. That's just the inverse of the problem you had in the first place, and I think this legislation is designed to stop either side from being able to pull that stunt.

I actually think this law is a piece of legislation designed to achieve just that end. The state is basically preventing itself from forcing a single belief system on anyone. It's washing its hands of the situation. It's permitting people to be unpopular, but rather than forcing them to conform to popular opinion, it's putting the decision to try and patronize certain institutions back in the hands of the individual.

RollBackDog said:

Unfortunately, it's 100% appropriate to boycott Holiday World.

It's 100% appropriate to boycott Indiana, not Holiday World. It's a shame that such a great park is in such a terrible State. I should know, I live in Indiana.

RollBackDog said:

Unfortunately, it's 100% appropriate to boycott Holiday World..... #boycottIndiana

At this point HW just happens to be in Indiana, so there is no animus towards HW. Should HW take a favorable stance towards this law, then that's a different issue.

Unfortunately, as I stated above, Elections have consequences, and Indiana has taken a far right turn. As such, my money will take a turn also, to other states.

sirloindude said:

As I mentioned earlier, if it upsets you whenever a religious organization tries to force its beliefs on you (and I agree that it should upset you), you can't turn around and then force them to comply with your way of thinking.

A religious organization is, of course, free to exercise its beliefs. But I would argue that a religious organization or a devout religious individual that seeks to operate a business open to the public cannot force its or their beliefs on customers in violation of existing city, county, state or Federal law. That's not forcing them to comply with a different way of thinking; that's expecting them to respect the laws of the "arena" they've chosen to enter.

It's permitting people to be unpopular, but rather than forcing them to conform to popular opinion, it's putting the decision to try and patronize certain institutions back in the hands of the individual.

Why should that have to be my decision? Why shouldn't I be able to walk down a street and assume that each and every business that has chosen to open its door to the public will accept and serve any member of the public that chooses to walk in the door? Expecting a business or a person to obey the law isn't forcing them to conform to popular opinion -- it's expecting them to be a law-abiding citizen.

Oklahoma considered a similar law earlier this year. A state representative brought up an amendment that would require any business that sought to deny service to post, at the entrance of their business, a sign indicating exactly who they would be denying service to.

It looks like Lloyd Arnold who is the Representative for Holiday World's District (74) voted FOR the law. So yes the park's State Rep believe in the law and so yes it is 100% appropriate to boycott!

All excellent points, and I would argue that the amendment brought up in Oklahoma is a valid one and one I'd support in situations where businesses can deny service.

I don't expect anyone's opinion of me to change based on the following, but if it makes anyone feel any better, I work for a company that wins awards for its contributions to the gay community, and I'm happy to be in a position where I get the chance to serve everyone, no matter what their beliefs, lifestyles, etc.

Now, large multinationals, and even the NCAA, are standing up against this law (yep, it's law unless and until a court decides it's unconstitutional). My question is this: Where were these well-meaning organizations before?

sirloindude: I may get over-excited on this topic, being one of the Horrible Gay Homosexuals that Indiana wants to be careful of...

...but you have been consistently respectful and considerate. Thank you.

My only comment here is that there are other states that have this law in place already. I hope that Indiana isnt just the current trend to boycott and that those boycotting Indiana are also researching what other states do this AND treat them as equally.

I think it would be an amazing PR move for Holiday World, or any other business in Indiana, to publically announce that they are inclusive to all people. I wonder how many customers they would lose if they did that?

It's sad that bigotry is growing so rapidly. Are we moving backwards?

slithernoggin said:

A religious organization is, of course, free to exercise its beliefs. But I would argue that a religious organization or a devout religious individual that seeks to operate a business open to the public cannot force its or their beliefs on customers in violation of existing city, county, state or Federal law. That's not forcing them to comply with a different way of thinking; that's expecting them to respect the laws of the "arena" they've chosen to enter.

This. If the state of Indiana recognizes same-sex marriages as equal to hetero-marriages, how is that not a clear statement for businesses and other enterprises about how they are to treat these couples. If your religion tells you not to serve <minority race> people, you still have to do it by law because the law has proclaimed that they are equal. What's different here?