Indiana...Religious Freedom eh? *sigh*

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Borzak

Borzak

Bronze Baron of the Realm
26,013
34,094
Malinatar_sl said:
rrr_img_93880.jpg
Click to expand...
You realise most of that was people who were dyed in the wool democrats. You couldn't find a democrat in the south until just recently. In fact it was in my lifetime that a lot of counties in the deep south even had a a republican primary for state and local elections.
 
Royal

Royal

Connoisseur of Exotic Pictures
15,077
10,643
Dixiecrats would be a more accurate description, who were socially conservative. You can't find any of them anymore. But yes Democrats .. and pieces of shit.
 
Olscratch

Olscratch

tour de salt
<Banned>
2,114
536
hodj_sl said:
The religious right have been on a tear trying to put themselves up on the cross as the persecuted people in our society, while they are the ones doing all the actual persecution.

I read Hot Air articles for some stupid fucking reason regularly, and they were doing that shit on there, whining that gays are the "politically popular point of view" or some such nonsense, and then proclaiming that the religious right has no rights and all that tripe.

I mean please. Get down off that fucking cross, this society has contorted itself to fit the delusional world views of the religious for generations, and the tiniest bit of pushback against that shit finally starts occurring, and they're all acting like Hitler is marching their asses onto the trains to Sobibor, and not the other way around. Tad crying everyone else is a fascist is a great example of that.

The funniest part is that that'sexactly how Hitler portrayed the Catholic German blue collar labor class that supported himas if they were the ones being persecuted by the Jews, thereby justifying the counter measures used to remove the Jewish "menace" from German society.

It is literally, 100%, undeniably, exactly the type of doublethink nonsense that Orwell was writing about in 1984.

Demanding you stop persecuting others based on their fundamental characteristics, and refusing to pander to your demands to do so, is not, and never will be, discrimination against your religious beliefs.

Its like stepping into an alternative reality trying to talk to these people about these issues. Christians love to pretend that its 250 CE, and they're all being thrown into the Gladiatorial pits with the lions and shit by Nero, when nothing remotely close, not even within the same fucking universe, is actually occurring.
Click to expand...
I listen to AFR because cringey christian hate radio entertains me, much to the disappointment of my wife. I've heard their hosts say "Orwellian" probably 80 times in the last month. As if dumbfuck fundy christians have read Orwell or even comprehend doublespeak. They are trying to distort the meaning of the word so it can't be used against them.
 
Tuco

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
47,959
82,723
Borzak_sl said:
You realise most of that was people who were dyed in the wool democrats. You couldn't find a democrat in the south until just recently. In fact it was in my lifetime that a lot of counties in the deep south even had a a republican primary for state and local elections.
Click to expand...
Weren't the democrats in the south during that time period socially conservative?
 
Malinatar

Malinatar

Lord Nagafen Raider
629
237
Borzak_sl said:
You realise most of that was people who were dyed in the wool democrats. You couldn't find a democrat in the south until just recently. In fact it was in my lifetime that a lot of counties in the deep south even had a a republican primary for state and local elections.
Click to expand...
My point has nothing to do with party lines ...hell wasn't it the Republicans who wanted to abolish slavery? It's just that Republicans currently champion social conservative viewpoint(s)...
 
Kuro

Kuro

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider
9,160
24,300
Shouldn't Christians want to be persecuted? Martyrdom gets you a pretty sweet ticket to heaven.
 
Royal

Royal

Connoisseur of Exotic Pictures
15,077
10,643
Juvarisx_sl said:
People conveniently forget the Southern Strategy when talking about racism in the 50's and 60's
Click to expand...
And they never drop Lyndon Johnson's (supposed) quote from when he signed the Civil Rights Act; "We have lost the South for a generation".
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,378
Its talk radio that has helped the right conveniently forget all these facts about the 50s and 60s and the Civil Rights era, and how the Dixiecrats fled to the Repubs.

They think labels are all that matters, not the substance of the beliefs behind the labels.
 
Furry

Furry

🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
<Gold Donor>
22,504
29,696
So many people in this thread think they are taking the high road by being against this law. This law is simple and effective in its scope, it prevents the government from doing things. WHY IS THIS BAD? Yes it COULD be used to allow discrimination against gays, or furries, or gay furries, or any other number of groups for any reason, but people ignore the fact when they talk about these things of WHY THIS IS BAD. This is an important question that you -have- to answer to take the moral high ground. Why should the government force people to have opinions, why should the government regulate what isn't and isn't allowed morally, decide about moral censorship ect? Take the case of SJWs. So many people on this board are against this law, yet at the same time they are against SJWs doing the same thing with suppression of what they call 'rape culture'. To me it's incomprehensible that someone would support one and be against the other, they are the same fundamental government process, using the government as a tool to enforce the civil discourse that you approve of.

I personally believe gays and whatever else should be treated equally, but I am -extremely- against the government being used to enforce that rule. What is freedom if you can't say "fuck off faggots". If businesses want to do that, why can't we allow people to campaign against it, people decide who they want to support. I don't want to build a fascist empire, I don't approve of the muslim approach where saying troughts or ideas is criminal. Did nobody here read the constitution? To me, the right to be offensive is a strong intrinsic right that it gives to you, and I am very against all laws that impinge on it.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,378
The "things" it prevents the government from doing are...protecting people from discrimination.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,378
If you don't know American history well enough that you have to ask that question, my only suggestion would be to watch this

 
iannis

iannis

Musty Nester
31,351
17,657
I mostly think it's dumb because it seems to have so little bearing on the events which actually spawned it.

A private business absolutely should be able to refuse service to who-ever for what-ever, when-ever. That is the right of an individual. They should be aware that in doing so it may cost them some of the privileges afforded to them through communal governance. Freedom ain't free, and in this case it might actually cost money.

If you DON'T want the furry/baptist/quilting convention staying at your hotel you should be able to tell the guy, "No. We really don't want a convention of Baptist Furry Quilters at our hotel. Thank you for your interest." If you ask the guy, "So this isn't for a bunch of Furry Quilting Baptists is it?" and he goes "Uhhhh... no, of course not." And then a few days later 50 Quilted Baptist Furries show up, you should be well within your rights to tell them to take that shit elsewhere.

But that does not extend to what is my understanding of what actually happened. So foundationally it's sorta bunk.
 
Furry

Furry

🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
<Gold Donor>
22,504
29,696
So you are against the concept of personal responsibility? Glad to see you are for a nanny state. Well lets just slash off the first fucking amendment, who needs the bullshit freedom it comes with anyways. Yes, people will do terrible things to it, but let society fix that- it's not the governments job, and using the government like that IS fascism at its core.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,378
Setting up a strawman because you don't have a rebuttal to the factual history of discrimination by businesses and the federal government in this country is a sure sign you don't have a real rebuttal.

but let society fix that- it's not the governments job
Click to expand...
Government is the arm of society that exists to fix problems.

Thanks for playing.

and using the government like that IS fascism at its core
Click to expand...
You have a very weak grasp of both US history and the history and facts behind what fascism is as well, I see.
 
AngryGerbil

AngryGerbil

Poet Warrior
<Donor>
17,781
25,897
The way I see it Furry, is that it is okay to value religious freedom and place it highly on your ethical ladder. Put itwayup there if you want. It just can't occupy a rung higher than civil rights and discrimination. In my book it's a violation of the Golden Rule.

Another way I see it is that religion is a choice and sexual orientation is not therefore the choice does not get to trump the nature. You don't get to choose to hate someone for something they were born as. Well, you can, but the apparatus of government won't have your back. It is exactly why we (eventually) killed Jim Crow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.