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!
Hoss

Hoss

Make America's Team Great Again
<Gold Donor>
27,654
16,099
1987_sl said:
The cake store owners might honestly believe that their opposition to gays stems from the bible, but it doesnt.
Click to expand...
Where did you get this piece of information. I am going to suggest that you make a note of wherever this came from. Maybe write it on a sticky and put it on your computer if it was an internet source. Make a note and be sure to never believe anything they say again. They now have a proven track record of talking out of their asses.

1 corinthians 6:10 is pretty clear in opposing gayness. It equates it to thievery, swindling, and slandering among other things. Not trying to start an argument on rightness or wrongness of this verse, just want to correct your facts so you don't say it again and look foolish in front of someone important.


Flipmode_sl said:
I have to take care of people in hospitals that I can't stand all day. Guess what? They come in, they get service like any other person. I'm not allowed to say, I'm not serving a swastika wearing, black hating skinhead. I still have to treat them as a human being. Shocking, right?
Click to expand...
Cause cakes and medical care are the same. amirite?


AngryGerbil_sl said:
You haven't read this thread.
Like Astrocreep, may I assume that you don't actually know what happened at that cake shop in Indiana? Yes? I think it's pretty obvious.
Click to expand...
I don't know what happened at a cake shop in indiana. Please, fill me in. My google-fu is admittedly weak, but I went ahead and did a google search and nothing came up. I hope you are talking about the cake shop in colorado, because that'll make your smugness here so sweet.



TheRage_sl said:
Maybe they shouldn't suck at their jobs. Or conversly pick a field where they don't have to deal with that. It's not hard. If you're an asshole don't pick a field where people lives and happiness depend on you not being an ass hole.
Click to expand...
Well, the counseling thing was a fallback. What they really wanted to do was bake cakes.
 
khalid

khalid

Unelected Mod
14,071
6,775
Hoss_sl said:
I read it, I didn't see it.
Click to expand...
Literally the entire point of the law is to allow businesses to shun homosexuals. All the politicians pushing for those types of laws want it, started pushing it because of shit like the bakery getting in trouble for discrimination.

Don't pull an Araysar with the whole "well derp, I read the russian anti-gay laws and they were just about protecting children!" when all the supporters of it were wink/nodding about how it would really be used.
 
drtyrm

drtyrm

Lord Nagafen Raider
1,991
155
Tuco dive bombed in here to complain about the pro-gay side bringing up civil rights. He's going to lose his shit when he sees the cake-makers bringing up slavery.
 
Royal

Royal

Connoisseur of Exotic Pictures
15,077
10,643
Hoss_sl said:
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.
Click to expand...
Are there laws in Indiana that grant discrimination protections in either public accommodations, employment, or housing on the basis of sexual orientation?

The answer is yes, though not at the state level. They are all local laws (in the cities of Indianapolis, Bloomington, and South Bend).


Does the Indiana RFRA allow for businesses, business owners, and corporations to raise an undue burden to freedom of religion claim against state and local laws including anti-discrimination laws?

In the original law that answer was obviously yes (I don't know how you could have read it and came away thinking otherwise). This is not a guarantee that such a claim would be upheld in court, but it places a shadow of doubt over such laws being equally applied. For theammendedlaw, the answer is no. The amended law still has an exclusion for churches, religious non-profits, religious schools, and religious figures such as priests, rabbis, etc. (as well it should).
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,378
Hoss is a fucking retard. That's literally the only response I'm giving him, he's so fucking stupid that's all he's worth.

Not even reading his posts anymore.

The one thing I want to make clear really quickly though is this

Hoss_sl said:
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.
Click to expand...
He was given acompletebreakdown of this law and its effects, twice. I even cited the entire Atlantic article,in fullexplaining how this law accomplishes allowing discrimination based on religious beliefs, and how that isentirely analogousto the justifications used for segregation and business discrimination against blacks in the South in the pre Civil Rights era.

Hisrepeated assertionsthat I haven't explained this to him isdishonest, deceitful, demonstrably false on its face.

This is the game he wants to play, I'm not going to play it. He is a dishonest debater, as he proved with the evolution debate. He wants to needle and attack and ignore all evidence contrary to his point of view by claiming that no matter what I have provided,its never good enough. Just like he tried to play fast and loose with the evolution of the mudskipper by going "Durr well what is the mudskipper evolving from and what is it evolving to?" as a means of playingwillfully stupidwith the point being made.

That's what he's doing here, again, and its a game I'm not playing.

He can either debate intellectually honestly, or he can get called out on his intellectual dishonesty, but what I'm not going to do is go round and round with him playing obtuse. It isn't smart, it isn't funny, its not a rebuttal. Its just plain facile, childish, and pedantic.

khalid_sl said:
Literally the entire point of the law is to allow businesses to shun homosexuals. All the politicians pushing for those types of laws want it, started pushing it because of shit like the bakery getting in trouble for discrimination.

Don't pull an Araysar with the whole "well derp, I read the russian anti-gay laws and they were just about protecting children!" when all the supporters of it were wink/nodding about how it would really be used.
Click to expand...
This is exactly what he's doing. Its been broken down for him repeatedly, but he wants to claim that until I cite him "chapter and verse" from the law where itexplicitlysays "You can discriminate against homosexuals" he isn't going to be convinced. As if anyone would write the law like that in the first place.

Its willful and maliciously dishonest stupidity on its face.

You have every newspaper in the country breaking this down for him, but he won't accept that because its all "Fear mongering heard elsewhere", which is a strawman. He can fuck off with that shit.
 
iannis

iannis

Musty Nester
31,351
17,657
There are two passages that I know of where Paul says fairly unambigously to not be a faggot.

Now that's just Paul... and he's kinda important but it's not a sin to disagree with Paul. For most Churches.

So when you say, "The anti-gay doesn't come from the bible". Well, it might not -- that's fair. But it easily could. It's a pretty big book full of a lot of context and archaic terms. You can find just about an anti-anything stance in there somewhere.

I mean there aren't these long ranting dissertations in there about the evils of homosexuality (if you ignore the jew parts). It's pretty concise. And it's damn near offhanded. Like Paul admonished his Church to not argue like a pack of women, to not treat their fellow men as they would women. He basically told them to stop acting like fags. On the other hand, that tradition is already established before the Gospels... so there is no need for anything besides an offhanded comment here and there to allude to a pre-existing facet of the culture. The long, ranting, moral dissertations would be if they were pushing for inclusion.

I love you bro. Nohomo.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,378
They really don't use Paul as the justification for anti homosexuality stances anyway.

Its pretty much all Sodom and Gomorrah.

I'm not even sure the Sodom and Gomorrah story ever actually was meant originally to be taken as an anti homosexuality story in the first place.

Reading it seems to imply the real cause of Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction was their lack of respect for the sanctity of visitors in people's homes.

My understanding is that there is a sort of "traveler's rights" granted to people in the region traditionally. Basically if you approach someone and request lodging, they are to give it to you, feed you and provide you with water and protect you while you are in their care. You can see this repeatedly in the Bible at this point in the text. Angels come to Abraham and he invites them into his home and sends Sarah to slaughter like a goat or something to feed them and they tell him about the wickedness of Sodom and God's plan to destroy the city, and Abraham entreaties with them and God in the classic tale where Abraham says to God basically "If there are a 100 good men, will you destroy the city? If there are 50? If there are 10? If there are 5? etc", effectively talking God down to where he agrees if like a handful of good men can be found in the cities then he won't destroy them.

Then the Angels go to Lot's house in Sodom and he offers them lodging and food but the cities' inhabitants come and demand Lot give them these visitors so they can rape them, and Lot offers them his daughters instead.

This is what then causes God to destroy the city.

Angels are, from my understanding, genderless (though they may have been disguised as males in the text) so it doesn't make a lot of sense that the issue here is gay sex, rather than forced rape and the violation of the rights of the guests to be protected in the home of Lot.

That's always been the way I've interpreted it. I think the Sodom and Gomorrah gay sex stuff has always been a bit of a stretch.

What was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?

Question: "What was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?"

Answer: The biblical account of Sodom and Gomorrah is recorded in Genesis chapters 18-19. Genesis chapter 18 records the Lord and two angels coming to speak with Abraham. The Lord informed Abraham that "the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous." Verses 22-33 record Abraham pleading with the Lord to have mercy on Sodom and Gomorrah because Abraham's nephew, Lot, and his family lived in Sodom.

Genesis chapter 19 records the two angels, disguised as human men, visiting Sodom and Gomorrah. Lot met the angels in the city square and urged them to stay at his house. The angels agreed. The Bible then informs us, "Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom - both young and old - surrounded the house. They called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.'" The angels then proceed to blind all the men of Sodom and Gomorrah and urge Lot and his family to flee from the cities to escape the wrath that God was about to deliver. Lot and his family flee the city, and then "the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah - from the LORD out of the heavens. Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in the cities..."

In light of the passage, the most common response to the question "What was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?" is that it was homosexuality. That is how the term "sodomy" came to be used to refer to anal sex between two men, whether consensual or forced. Clearly, homosexuality was part of why God destroyed the two cities. The men of Sodom and Gomorrah wanted to perform homosexual gang rape on the two angels (who were disguised as men). At the same time, it is not biblical to say that homosexuality was the exclusive reason why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were definitely not exclusive in terms of the sins in which they indulged.

Ezekiel 16:49-50 declares, "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me..." The Hebrew word translated "detestable" refers to something that is morally disgusting and is the exact same word used in Leviticus 18:22 that refers to homosexuality as an "abomination." Similarly, Jude 7 declares, "...Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion." So, again, while homosexuality was not the only sin in which the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah indulged, it does appear to be the primary reason for the destruction of the cities.

Those who attempt to explain away the biblical condemnations of homosexuality claim that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was inhospitality. The men of Sodom and Gomorrah were certainly being inhospitable.There is probably nothing more inhospitable than homosexual gang rape.But to say God completely destroyed two cities and all their inhabitants for being inhospitable clearly misses the point. While Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of many other horrendous sins, homosexuality was the reason God poured fiery sulfur on the cities, completely destroying them and all of their inhabitants.To this day, the area where Sodom and Gomorrah were located remains a desolate wasteland. Sodom and Gomorrah serve as a powerful example of how God feels about sin in general, and homosexuality specifically.
Click to expand...

Notice how the Christian theologians sort of hand wave away the inhospitality thing, but actually, that shit was sacrosanct for thousands of years in the region, the hospitality rules for visitors, and still exists in tribal cultures of the region today.

They also demonstrate their biases by claiming there is "probably nothing more inhospitable than homosexual gang rape". Well that depends, doesn't it? Wouldn't straight gang rape be just as inhospitable? And of course, being murdered is probably even more inhospitable if you think about it.

So I dunno. I don't buy theology as anything but mythology, but that's how I read the story: Its more about violating basic taboos about how to treat guests in your home, than it is about gay sex. I could be wrong though.
 
ZyyzYzzy

ZyyzYzzy

RIP USA
<Banned>
25,295
48,789
Good motherfucking god. I can't believe the utter rerarded shit I read the past few pages in this thread.
 
ZyyzYzzy

ZyyzYzzy

RIP USA
<Banned>
25,295
48,789
I'ms now in fear of massa when I go into work. Such a hard life Is have. Working for my massa for 8 hours then goings homes. Furry, please frees me from massa.
 
iannis

iannis

Musty Nester
31,351
17,657
At least you don't work at a cake shop.

They's gonna sell you to Cali-forn-i-a, yous keep flappin dem lips boy.
 
Royal

Royal

Connoisseur of Exotic Pictures
15,077
10,643
Obviously pizza is the business to slave in. TheGoFundMeaccount for that shop in Indiana that said it wouldn't cater gay weddings is almost up to $850K ... in 2 days.
 
radditsu

radditsu

Silver Knight of the Realm
4,676
826
Too bad Sodom and Gammorah got hit by a meteor and God and all those stories are made up.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,378
radditsu_sl said:
Too bad Sodom and Gammorah got hit by a meteor and God and all those stories are made up.
Click to expand...
Right. I definitely don't think the cities existed or the story happened in real life in any way shape or form.

But to discuss the story and its interpretations we have to take into context the real historical setting it was written in originally, and cultural meanings the story is meant to relay, as if it were real in that regards.
 
radditsu

radditsu

Silver Knight of the Realm
4,676
826
hodj_sl said:
Right. I definitely don't think the cities existed or the story happened in real life in any way shape or form.

But to discuss the story and its interpretations we have to take into context the real historical setting it was written in originally, and cultural meanings the story is meant to relay, as if it were real in that regards.
Click to expand...
Yes but just remember these stories were a method of social engineering created an untold amount of years ago and written 270 years after the fact. These antiquated stories cause us problems to this day. To give it legitamacy you may as well say zombies are real and witchraft exists. And spooooky ghosts ...and bigfoot...and star wars are all real
 
You must log in or register to reply here.