Canceling trip to HW this world summer

RollerCoasterGod said:

That is one of the reason's this law came into being. I gay guy went to use a female bathroom. The small business owner refused. And got sued.

A) Cite a reference, please.

B) Even if true, so what? Why do you connect someone wanting to use an opposite gender bathroom with sexual orientation?

C) Are you confusing gay with transgender?

After watching the Governor fumble and flail over this topic in the last 48 hours, I'm even more certain that the intent of the bill is exactly what everyone is saying it is. His performance in front of George Stephanopolous this morning almost certainly ended whatever thoughts he was having of being JEB Bush's VP.

The only thing that surprised the governor about this bill is the amount of blowback it's getting. damn straight. (yes, two puns intended).

Just to be clear what the intentions of this bill are, here's the quote from one of the smiling bigots who was in attendance at the signing ceremony:

http://www.advanceamerica.com/blog/?p=1849

Relevant quote

"Eric Miller, the Founder and Executive Director of Advance America stated: “It is vitally important to protect religious freedom in Indiana. It’s the right thing to do. It was therefore important to pass Senate Bill 101 in 2015 in order to help protect churches, Christian businesses and individuals from those who want to punish them because of their Biblical beliefs!”

As usual with Christianist (Yes that word again) fundamentalists, he's only worried about Christians. He couldn't give a rat's ass about protecting the interests of the Jewish school, or the Muslim shopkeeper, but he knows those are Classes protected at the Federal level

Again, at this stage the only class that it's permissable to discriminate against is Teh Gay. And he's taking advantage of it.

I'm still trying to understand how it is logical to compare me to a dog. It would be different if they said you couldn't stay there because you were Christian. Do you even understand why pet friendly hotels/rooms exist and why there is a need for hotels that are not pet friendly in addition to those that are?

The dog in a hotel as an example of discrimination makes me laugh. The difference is you don't have to have a dog, or travel with one. Or shop with one. Or buy cakes with one.
How we identify is not something that can be left behind or changed. Like the color of our skin or our nationality, it goes with us no matter what. And it's far more important.

What makes me shake my head is when I hear misinformed notions like gay people get along just fine anywhere as long as they act "normal". You know, like RollerCoasterGod's easy-going hardworking minority employees. As if we should expect them to be anything else. My guess, since he's the boss and they collect a paycheck, is when this conversation comes around they say "uh, yeah sure, boss", roll their eyes and continue to mind their own business. (As long as they've learned to respect others by using the restroom specified for their gender). Jeez.

I hate to say it, because I don't care if I hear from RollerCoasterGod again on this matter, but I'm dying to know just what his wife wasn't allowed to do or say in all those many places and who's denying her rights. And I hope it's not about the dog.

Those who know what is right need to keep up the good work. The governer of is starting to feel the heat. Boycotts and lash back can work. Especially with today's social media.

Arkansas is also doing this. One way to pass your message on the Arkansas no matter where you live is to boycott their biggest national company walmart.

#boycottindiana
#boycottarkansas

"Acting normal" is and always has been code for "pretending you're not who you are."

RollerCoasterGod said:

a_hoffman50 said:

Finding a pet friendly hotel is nothing like being discriminated against.

Actually it is.

I have been refused service in Ohio establishments because I had kids under 2. I went down the street to eat.

You poor thing. What horrible civil rights atrocities you've had to endure.

I guess that means everyone should also boycott The United States.

Since this has been a Federal Law since Bill Clinton signed it.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/indianas-religious-freedom-rest...tml?page=2

kevin38 said:

I guess that means everyone should also boycott The United States.

Since this has been a Federal Law since Bill Clinton signed it.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/indianas-religious-freedom-rest...tml?page=2

Just because two laws are titled nearly the same, doesn't mean they are the same.

The two laws are decidedly different in verbiage and scope:

http://time.com/3762708/indiana-gay-religious-pence-clinton/

"Unlike the federal law which is focused on restricting government action to protect religious freedom, the Indiana version has a broader scope, potentially giving new rights to claim religious beliefs for private parties, like wedding cake vendors, who do not want to serve gay couples."

kevin38 said:

I guess that means everyone should also boycott The United States.

Since this has been a Federal Law since Bill Clinton signed it.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/indianas-religious-freedom-rest...tml?page=2

And just to point out the obvious, the Weekly Standard is a highly partisan, opinion magazine. Not what one would call an ubiased news source.

Then there's this.

In Georgia, similar legislation died when a LGBT-ally Republican representative (Mike Jacobs) added a simple amendment that "would not allow claims of religious liberty to be used to circumvent state and local nondiscrimination protections." That amendment passed in commitee, 9-8, and a supporter of the bill, Barry Fleming, said it would "gut" the legislation, rendering it meaningless and ineffective.

Which basically concedes that the sole purpose of the bill IS to allow discrimination. Eventually, business interests will dismantle these kinds of bills when they realize the economic costs of discrimination. In the meantime however, the burden falls on "individual conscience." Common sense isn't universal, and neither are our ideas of what constitutes discrimination.

You are all sounding like the idiot who bad mouthed a chick-filet employee who got fired 3 years ago. That guy and his whole family are just breaking even since he was fired from a job paying over $200,000.

This is the same law that OBie signed as well as Clinton did in the 90's. A business has the right to refuse service to anyone. If the baker doesn't want to make a cake for a homosexual couple then he has that right not to accept that order. IT may not be right by any of you but in his eyes it is right for him. IT's time to stop being PC and get the govenrment more out of the lives of business and the people who should be the government's master not it's slave.

No, it's not the same law. Those other laws are concerned with interactions only between individuals and the government, to protect their religious liberties against the government. Indiana's expands that to cover interactions between individuals, and in that difference many are concerned the law presents an opportunity to allow overt discrimination.

A business has the right to refuse service, if it so chooses, to people who have dogs, or who aren't wearing shoes or who have children. A business does not have the right to refuse service to a woman, a Baptist or an Indian.

If you are a religious person, Screamlord: what would be your reaction if you walked into a convenience store to buy a soda pop and were told "We don't serve people of your religion -- it's against our religious beliefs. Get out."

a_hoffman50 said:

I'm still trying to understand how it is logical to compare me to a dog. It would be different if they said you couldn't stay there because you were Christian.

Even then, you choose those things.

You choose to own dogs. You choose to have kids, and to a somewhat different degree, you do have choices in your religious beliefs.

You can't be born any of those things.

But you are born with your sexuality.

Exactly.

I've always been a little ... irked? ... by people who say, based on their religious beliefs, that gays shouldn't be given "special" rights because sexual orientation is a chosen behavior. Because one's religion is certainly a chosen behavior. It's always struck me as hypocritical.

Never understood the idea of a "special" right. Is that the idea that everyone else having the same rights as me is unwarranted? Because that is sure how it sounds to me, people asking for the right to live in peace....

I think "special rights" should be a term reserved for those privileges previously granted only to white land-owning heterosexual Christians. Because those seem to be the ones complaining (not including myself).

Now if gays are getting discounts at Dairy Queen, THEN we have an issue...but seriously, privacy, voting, getting married, etc. are rights that are supposed to be guaranteed all of us, not just select groups.

Dairy Queen. You had to go there, right?
:^)

I'd say something, but I'm busy eating this delicious salted caramel truffle Blizzard I got a great discount on at Dairy Queen.....