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!

Therage

Vyemm Raider
875
3,969
The difference between having fair representation in a game and this law is that in Indiana the sjw and trannies wouldn't even be able to buy the fucking game in stores if the store owners decide not to sell to them because they are gay or trans etc. However it doesn't allow you to sue for unfair rep in a game. Get the fuck over it. Don't like it? Get the fuck out of my country. I have to serve dumb people all day at my job. Wish I didn't but I happily do it because it is my fucking job.
 

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,378
I honestly haven't read anything siddar has said, or anyone's responses to him, so I can't comment on them. Where exactly have you objectively proven anything I've said wrong? All my arguments in this thread have been subjective and moral, is it even possible to prove them one way or the other? You haven't offered up evidence that your argument is the morally superior one. You're arguing for compelled action, I'm arguing for individual freedom.
I don't really give a shit what you've read or haven't read, or whether or not you'll recognize that every single facile argument you've both put forward has been roundly rebutted.

Its demonstrable and evident for all other readers to see.

I'm used to the person who is obstinate and unwilling to admit the fallaciousness of their viewpoints digging in their heels and continuing to refuse to recognize their arguments are flawed.

That's the nature of internet debates.

The issue isn't convincing you, any more than the issue is convincing Moon Bat, or Dumar, or whoever you want to point to.

The issue is illustrating for the viewing audience the fallacies of your viewpoint.

And that has been quite successfully accomplished.

By definition, the side that is against discrimination isalwaysthe morally superior one.

And you aren't arguing for
individual freedom
any more than George Wallace was arguing for individual freedom in 1962.

No matter how many times you repeat a lie, it remains a lie.

It doesn't become true simply because you really believe it. It doesn't become true via repetition.
 

Fogel

Mr. Poopybutthole
13,468
53,616
So the KKK walks in to a family friendly restaurant. They then proceed to hold a rally there. Does the owner have the power to deny service? I would say yes, you would say no?
Depends on what you define as rally. If they're all patrons and are not violating anyone's rights like using hate speech then I say they have every right to be there. I'll take that reality to the one where anyone can choose who they can or can't provide service to based on whatever imaginary god they made up.
 

Furry

🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
<Gold Donor>
22,478
29,649
Don't try to distract me from your retardation by appealing to my hatred of SJWs, bro. I don't lose focus. You're likening being forced to treat fags equally to slavery. Own it.

Man it's a real mystery as to why libertarians don't enjoy more representation in our government!
You're right, I think it should be perfectly legal to hate fags or any other group. I can not and will not support a law that compels obedience in the people.

My line is clear and in the sand. Yours is blurry, and the SJW is starting to creep into your blood. Just like I think all things SJW are blatantly wrong, I think this is wrong, even if the ultimate goal and intention of the people supporting it is good.
 

Sebudai

Ssraeszha Raider
12,022
22,504
50 years from now...

"and the Oscar for Best Picture goes to... 12 Years a Business Owner!"
 

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,378
Let's not forget that many of the most effective anti segregation protests took place in businesses that forced blacks and whites to eat at separate counters.

This is entirely legal behavior. Even if I disagree with the KKK, which I do, they have the right to promote their point of view in protests, so long as they aren't engaging in violence.

Same goes for the Westboro Baptist folks.

Courage at the Greensboro Lunch Counter | Arts Culture | Smithsonian

Courage at the Greensboro Lunch Counter

Fifty years ago, four college students sat down to request lunch service at a North Carolina Woolworth's and ignited a struggle

February 1, 1960, four young African-American men, freshmen at the Agricultural and Technical College of North Carolina, entered the Greensboro Woolworth's and sat down on stools that had, until that moment, been occupied exclusively by white customers. The four-Franklin McCain, Ezell Blair Jr., Joseph McNeil and David Richmond-asked to be served, and were refused. But they did not get up and leave. Indeed, they launched a protest that lasted six months and helped change America. A section of that historic counter is now held by the National Museum of American History, where the chairman of the division of politics and reform, Harry Rubenstein, calls it "a significant part of a larger collection about participation in our political system." The story behind it is central to the epic struggle of the civil rights movement

William Yeingst, chairman of the museum's division of home and community life, says the Greensboro protest "inspired similar actions in the state and elsewhere in the South. What the students were confronting was not the law, but rather a cultural system that defined racial relations."

Joseph McNeil, 67, now a retired Air Force major general living on Long Island, New York, says the idea of staging a sit-in to protest the ingrained injustice had been around awhile. "I grew up in Wilmington, North Carolina, and even in high school, we thought about doing something like that," he recalls. After graduating, McNeil moved with his family to New York, then returned to the South to study engineering physics at the technical college in Greensboro.

On the way back to school after Christmas vacation during his freshman year, he observed the shift in his status as he traveled south by bus. "In Philadelphia," he remembers, "I could eat anywhere in the bus station. By Maryland, that had changed." And in the Greyhound depot in Richmond, Virginia, McNeil couldn't buy a hot dog at a food counter reserved for whites. "I was still the same person, but I was treated differently." Once at school, he and three of his friends decided to confront segregation. "To face this kind of experience and not challenge it meant we were part of the problem," McNeil recalls.

The Woolworth's itself, with marble stairs and 25,000 square feet of retail space, was one of the company's flagship stores. The lunch counter, where diners faced rose-tinted mirrors, generated significant profits. "It really required incredible courage and sacrifice for those four students to sit down there," Yeingst says.

News of the sit-in spread quickly, thanks in part to a photograph taken the first day by Jack Moebes of the Greensboro Record and stories in the paper by Marvin Sykes and Jo Spivey. Nonviolent demonstrations cropped up outside the store, while other protesters had a turn at the counter. Sit-ins erupted in other North Carolina cities and segregationist states.

By February 4, African-Americans, mainly students, occupied 63 of the 66 seats at the counter (waitresses sat in the remaining three). Protesters ready to assume their place crowded the aisles. After six months of diminished sales and unflattering publicity, Woolworth's desegregated the lunch counter-an astonishing victory for nonviolent protest. "The sit-in at the Greensboro Woolworth's was one of the early and pivotal events that inaugurated the student-led phase of the civil rights movement," Yeingst says.

More than three decades later, in October 1993, Yeingst learned Woolworth's was closing the Greensboro store as part of a company-wide downsizing. "I called the manager right away," he recalls, "and my colleague Lonnie Bunch and I went down and met with African-American city council members and a group called Sit-In Movement Inc." (Bunch is now the director of the National Museum of African American History and Culture.)?Woolworth's officials agreed that a piece of the counter belonged at the Smithsonian, and volunteers from the local carpenters' union removed an eight-foot section with four stools. "We placed the counter within sight of the flag that inspired the national anthem," Yeingst says of the museum exhibit.

When I asked McNeil if he had returned to Woolworth's to eat after the sit-in ended, he laughed, saying: "Well, I went back when I got to school the next September. But the food was bland, and the apple pie wasn't that good. So it's fair to say I didn't go back often."
 

khalid

Unelected Mod
14,071
6,775
This thread depresses the fuck out of me. As a very pro-gun liberal, whenever gun control comes up, these dumbfucks end up being "on my side" of that issue. All they do though, is drive more liberals away from guns and manage to taint the whole idea of personal freedom, changing it to some weird definition where it only stands for the right to oppress or shun people that don't hold their religious beliefs.
 

Fogel

Mr. Poopybutthole
13,468
53,616
You're right, I think it should be perfectly legal to hate fags or any other group
You can hate them all you want. Just remember its company policy to say Sir when you ask them if they want fries with their burger.
 

Furry

🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
<Gold Donor>
22,478
29,649
This thread depresses the fuck out of me. As a very pro-gun liberal, whenever gun control comes up, these dumbfucks end up being "on my side" of that issue. All they do though, is drive more liberals away from guns and manage to taint the whole idea of personal freedom, changing it to some weird definition where it only stands for the right to oppress or shun people that don't hold their religious beliefs.
I'll tell you my stance on gun control for your amusement or non-amusement. It is not entirely libertarian. I believe guns should be legal to have and carry almost anywhere. The only places they should be illegal are places where all people have been thoroughly checked to not have them for good reason, such as airports (airplanes) and court rooms. I am PRO guns being carried in school by teachers and responsible adults, as an example.

I am VERY against open carry in urban public use/government lands excepting very limited situations. On private land , it should be the will of the land owner on if they allow or not open carry, and rural areas should have more lax rules (hunting/ect). Weapons are serious and kill, displaying one openly in urban areas is very easy to interpret as a threat. I don't like the level of ambiguity that open carry allows in determining if people with a gun are acting threatening or not. As a juror, I would VERY easily forgive someone who shot a person that was open carrying.

It's not a purely libertarian view, but it is mostly.
 

Furry

🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
<Gold Donor>
22,478
29,649
You can hate them all you want. Just remember its company policy to say Sir when you ask them if they want fries with their burger.
What fun is slapping your cock against the meat patty when they'd probably like it.
 

Merrith

Golden Baronet of the Realm
18,591
7,223
A definition of slavery:the subjection of a person to another person, esp in being forced into work

You see to remove a person's right to say no to work. I'm okay with doctors being slaves in emergency rooms, but only because of the greater benefit to society. What greater benefit to society is there in a gay getting the cake/photographer they want.
 

Royal

Connoisseur of Exotic Pictures
15,077
10,643
So is it fair to say that, once we strip some of the outer layers away and cast the religious arguments aside, that this comes down to those who feel there is a compelling government interest in preventing discrimination in commercial transactions on one side and those who do not on the other? Basically the same test that the courts will be confronted with at some future date.
 

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
56,019
138,767
all that means is you can pick the task, the class relationship remains the same in the end and it's more dressed up and modernized but the relationship is there, when you sell a product you sell what you made, when you rent your labour you're selling yourself.
 

Lithose

Buzzfeed Editor
25,946
113,037
all that means is you can pick the task, the class relationship remains the same in the end and it's more dressed up and modernized but the relationship is there, when you sell a product you sell what you made, when you rent your labour you're selling yourself.
Noam Chomsky, for as smart as he is, has a terrible problem with Qualitative vs Quantitative. Sorry, on no planet is being forced to work a job, but having the ability to freely associate, and personal property protections/protections of self the same as being forced to work a job, but also not having the ability to freely associate and having no inalienable rights, not even to your life.

Chomsky here is just being somewhat obtuse to make a point. He's saying "See, See, you're not FULLY free to do what you want!" Which is true, but in a sophomoric sort of way that relies on only the most generalized of comparisons. It's like saying all mammals are the same, because they share X features. No. But he's like this about a lot of issues--like his war analysis. (Sam Harris did an excellent debunk--first 3 minutes. You could make the same argument here.)

 

Hoss

Make America's Team Great Again
<Gold Donor>
27,654
16,099
Hoss clearly has trouble comprehending the English language.

Hoss, my suggestion to you is to scroll back a few pages, read the Atlantic article Draegan posted, and then realize that your attempts to play dishonest and disingenuous semantics games simply isn't going to fly with me.

You play this obtuse act like you can't understand basic language. You tried it with evolution in relation to the mudskipper, and you're playing it here.

I'm simply not up for your dishonest games. You aren't smart, it isn't funny.

If you can't see how giving business owners a blanket right to refuse service to people based on characteristics such as race, gender, class, sexual orientation, etc. you are allowing discrimination to run rampant in our society, dividing it uselessly along arbitrary and unnecessary lines.

Its clear that you realize you have no leg to stand on here, its been pointed out to you repeatedly. There are no ambiguous statements by me on this issue, and no matter how much you try to generate one out of whole cloth, that ship ain't sailing.

Your argument is literally analogous to sitting here in 1963 and claiming that discrimination against blacks can't happen because they aren't a protected class, and that therefore laws to protect them from segregation and discrimination by business owners are unnecessary.

Its silly. Stop being silly.
lol hodj is hodjing again. You're the only person I've seen be so quick to backpedal yet trip over his own feet every time.

You're the one inserting the emergency conditions into the debate, not I,
Hey look. Hodj is hodjing again. I am shocked. SHOCKED I tell you.

How is he being disingenuous by pointing out the implications of this law?
Oh, I don't know maybe because of his refusal to engage in any actual discussion of the law and instead he just regurgitates fear mongering he heard somewhere else. I'm still waiting on him to quote me chapter and verse of this law (either the old one of the new amended version) that allows people to discriminate against gays. I read it, I didn't see it.