Also no one is demanding you change your heart. It's called tolerance, not acceptance. They just want to be treated with basic human dignity.

And if you can't do that, simply abide by the law. We have the constitution for a reason, and it's not because everyone sees freedom the exact same way.

Also no cheeseburgers at any Christian restuarants.

Leviticus 3:17 It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor blood.

Or bacon.

Leviticus 11:7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.

Or polyester.

Leviticus 19:19 Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee..

And they must be unshaven.

Leviticus 19:27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.

Or have tattoos. Like many cooks.

Leviticus 19:28 Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.

They also MUST serve travelers.

Leviticus 19:33 And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him.

And it will be real burdensome to have women work there at all really.

Leviticus 15:13 “‘When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening.

20 “‘Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. 21 Anyone who touches her bed will be unclean; they must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening. 22 Anyone who touches anything she sits on will be unclean; they must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening. 23 Whether it is the bed or anything she was sitting on, when anyone touches it, they will be unclean till evening.

24 “‘If a man has sexual relations with her and her monthly flow touches him, he will be unclean for seven days; any bed he lies on will be unclean.

25 “‘When a woman has a discharge of blood for many days at a time other than her monthly period or has a discharge that continues beyond her period, she will be unclean as long as she has the discharge, just as in the days of her period. 26 Any bed she lies on while her discharge continues will be unclean, as is her bed during her monthly period, and anything she sits on will be unclean, as during her period. 27 Anyone who touches them will be unclean; they must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening.

28 “‘When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. 29 On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the tent of meeting. 30 The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the Lord for the uncleanness of her discharge.

Shall I continue?

Oh that's a sin? I had no idea...

Man, what is it with God and the menstrual flow?

Anyway, the rights of the LGTB community to be served equally in establishments serving the public is directly comparable to the denial of services to blacks under Jim Crow. Southerners were operating under deeply held beliefs, sometimes justified with religion. The freedom to hold racist beliefs is protected. The freedom to deny publicly available services to people based on their race is not. The same should be true for sexual orientation.

In both cases the business owner's right to withhold service is being infringed. It's trumped by the right to not be discriminated against. Also, in both cases the freedom to hold those discriminatory beliefs is upheld; they just can't be used to deny a publicly available service. (You can still deny LGBT people entry to your private clubhouse). Seems pretty clear cut to me.

I think it will pass, but I dont think Gencon will quite follow through with its appearance to relocate just yet. Im pretty sure Gencon gets tax breaks from the State/City to be held where it is. It also has requirements of a space big enough to be held in. Its also far too late to hold it somewhere else this year, and their contract at the current location runs all the way to 2020.

I think the law is ass myself, but we shall see what happens.

I think it will pass, but I dont think Gencon will quite follow through with its appearance to relocate just yet. Im pretty sure Gencon gets tax breaks from the State/City to be held where it is. It also has requirements of a space big enough to be held in. Its also far too late to hold it somewhere else this year, and their contract at the current location runs all the way to 2020.

I think the law is ass myself, but we shall see what happens.

"We have principles, but we like money better."

Didn't you hear? The Civil Rights Act is outdated...

You will pardon me if I have a tough time seeing how being payed to do your job is an undue hardship, as per the Sherbert Test.

And the real issue, is just how the state courts will apply the laws in the states. The Federal Law was gutted pretty hard by the Supreme Court, limiting it to only Federal laws. There are reasonable concerns what a broader law, applicable to state laws, will allow.

Are you being sarcastic and I missed it? Because there is still need for laws preventing discrimination against minorities.

The fight for equality isn't over yet. Racism is still an issue in many parts of America.

Sadly it's not about getting paid to work for some, but rather the right to even work in some states still. Or vote, or have mixed race marriages, or be judged by their character alone. But as race based discrimination gets more and more taboo, bigots are just targeting other groups. That is why it is important now too say we will not suffer their prejudice against fellow human being.

And also, as a humorous aside, wouldnt Leviticus 19:33 prevent any good Christian from denying service to a customer? They are travelers.

Gah. My phone has now eaten my post twice. I'll get back to this later.

EDIT: Okay.

Are you being sarcastic and I missed it? Because there is still need for laws preventing discrimination against minorities.

I think he was. The Sherbert test is a piece of jurisprudence that examines whether a particular government action complies with the free-exercise clause of the First Amendment, and Sithborg is saying that he things being paid to do a job doesn't meet one of the requirements of that test--namely, that the government restriction is a "substantial burden" on a person.

Unfortunately, one of the features of the Indiana RFRA (with similar features in the MI one) is this, from page 1:

Sec. 1. (a) As used in this chapter, "burden" means an action
that directly or indirectly:
(1) constrains, inhibits, curtails, or denies the exercise of
religion by a person; or
(2) compels a person to take an action that is contrary to the
person's exercise of religion. 

Sec. 3. (a) As used in this chapter, "exercise of religion" means
the practice or observance of religion.
(b) The term includes a person's ability to:
(1) act; or
(2) refuse to act;
in a manner that is substantially motivated by the person's
sincerely held religious belief, regardless of whether the religious
belief is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief.

So it does directly indemnify people who refuse service for religious reasons, and it also broadens the definition of "exercise of religion". That's why civil-rights groups are up in arms over them.

I think they need an addendum to the bill requiring that any business that will be making use of this policy must post a sign on their front door or window, in a conspicuous location, listing any and all groups that they will not serve (be it gays, blacks, Jews, cross-dressing pygmies, whatever). If their religious convictions are strong enough to turn away business, their convictions are strong enough to post publicly.

So you advocate violating the freedom of religion of a business owner instead? It's a two edged sword. Let those on both sides of the coin do business with whom they choose. Not much "freedom" if you are forced to do something.

Gencon has moved before, no big deal.

So we have to protect business owners from discrimination by allowing them to practice discrimination?

It's not a two edged sword, just admit your bigotry.

EXCUSE ME????????? Would you like to retract your ignorance now?

The basis of the discussion was on religious beliefs not racial. So others comments about not serving Blacks, etc... is not even in the realm of the discussion. When you force someone to do something they do not want to you infringe upon their freedom. This is especially egregious when you force someone to violate their own personal religious beliefs. Supporting the "rights" of one person at the cost of another persons freedom is not justice. You have no "right" to force the behavior of another. Too many today deem government and legislation as their daily care taker, it is much better to respect the wishes and beliefs of others. As in the case of the gay couple and the religious baker who refused their business: Why in the heck would this gay couple even want this baker to provide their cake when they know he disapproves of them? Why in the heck would a baker want to provide service for those he does not agree with yet but is now forced to be a government that claims to protect the freedom of its citizens? This couple should have been glad to not donate any of their money to keeping this bakers shop open and gone elsewhere and the baker should have been glad they brought their money elsewhere also.

There is no right to not be offended by another in this world, get over it.

EXCUSE ME????????? Would you like to retract your ignorance now?

The basis of the discussion was on religious beliefs not racial. So others comments about not serving Blacks, etc... is not even in the realm of the discussion. When you force someone to do something they do not want to you infringe upon their freedom. This is especially egregious when you force someone to violate their own personal religious beliefs. Supporting the "rights" of one person at the cost of another persons freedom is not justice. You have no "right" to force the behavior of another. Too many today deem government and legislation as their daily care taker, it is much better to respect the wishes and beliefs of others. As in the case of the *** couple and the religious baker who refused their business: Why in the heck would this *** couple even want this baker to provide their cake when they know he disapproves of them? Why in the heck would a baker want to provide service for those he does not agree with yet but is now forced to be a government that claims to protect the freedom of its citizens? This couple should have been glad to not donate any of their money to keeping this bakers shop open and gone elsewhere and the baker should have been glad they brought their money elsewhere also.

This problem isn't as clear-cut as you imagine.

Suppose, for instance, that I'm a diabetic living in rural Kansas. The only pharmacy in town decides not to fill my prescription for recombinant insulin because the pharmacist has a sincere religious belief that it's wrong to genetically engineer yeast or E. coli to produce human proteins.

Or instead, suppose I'm a member of the John Birch Society and a member of a fundamentalist Pentecostal group. A man wearing a yarmulke walks into the restaurant where I'm the host, and I turn him away because I have a sincerely held religious belief that Jewish people are evil schemers working toward the one-world government and the ascension of the Antichrist.

[EDIT: Please note that I don't actually believe those things, and find them fairly repellent.]

The analogy to racial discrimination is a potent one because it calls to mind that second scenario: people being refused service because of some perceived difference. In fact, that second scenario is covered explicitly by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and if the proposed Indiana law passes, it will arguably be legal again.

The right of free association is an important one, but the presumption of the law since the 1960s has been that when you provide what the Civil Rights Act calls a "public accommodation", you agree to provide goods or services to anyone who shows up, within reason. The use of the free-exercise clause as a Constitutional argument for denying public accommodation is a relatively novel one, and in my opinion dangerous--particularly when, as the laws we're talking about define it, the "exercise of religion" is essentially anything I say I believe.

There is no right to not be offended by another in this world, get over it.

That's absolutely true, but not particularly relevant. We're talking about laws that essentially carve out an exception from the Civil Rights Act as long as someone claims to really believe in discrimination. And you seem to be supporting that idea: that as long as someone really believes that he or she shouldn't associate with or provide services to LGBTQ people, that's different from really believing they shouldn't associate with or provide services to other groups of people.

It's not nice to label people as bigots, and it's generally not useful either: it tends to elicit really defensive reactions, which get in the way of genuine communication. But if you find yourself in the position of promoting or defending discrimination against particular groups of people, then regardless of the reasoning that leads you to that position, it's worth stopping and thinking whether the label does in fact apply.

There is no right to not be offended by another in this world, get over it.

Except apparently when your religion is the thing being insulted.

No one's asking not to be insulted; they're asking to be treated like any other member of society. The fact that LGBT lifestyles insult some people's religious beliefs (by their mere existence) should not give anyone the right to refuse service.

And we absolutely do have the right to force the behavior of others, especially concerning actions that affect other people. When I'm walking in a crosswalk, I have a reasonable expectation that a driver is going to stop and not run me over, for example.

Yes, I was being sarcastic, though I was merely paraphrasing the Supreme Court's ruling on voter registration laws.

The Indiana bill has been passed.

Bring GenCon to California! We have cookies!

The Indiana bill has been passed.

Bring GenCon to California! We have cookies!

Assuming they do the smartest possible thing and base their decision on which major metro areas are closer to me (Manhattan, KS) than Indianapolis, that gives them the following cities to choose from:

• Minneapolis
• Chicago
• Louisville
• Memphis
• Dallas
• Santa Fe
• Denver
• Kansas City
• St. Louis

I'd be down for Dallas, since I have family in the area.

Okay I thought you were I just wanted to be clear. I have a dry humor so can sympathize with tone not being apparent.

No I won't apologize, I have not done anything against my moral code. Being a bigot has nothing to do with race. Though the thought line is often the same. And the treatment of minorities and other creeds is relevant because this is a civil liberty issue.

Somedays I'm glad I was born Canadian....

I am caucasian, dyslexic and an atheist, which probably means I won't get service now... because I don't believe in dog.

Somedays I'm glad I was born Canadian....

I am caucasian, dyslexic and an atheist, which probably means I won't get service now... because I don't believe in dog.

This thread is a prime example of why I abandoned my Facebook account so very long ago. Too many of my former brothers-in-arms defending the indefensible with their ultra-conservative fallacies. Sometimes I wonder if I wasn't the only serviceman to escape with his conscience intact.

"I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend."

-- Thomas Jefferson

This thread is a prime example of why I abandoned my Facebook account so very long ago. Too many of my former brothers-in-arms defending the indefensible with their ultra-conservative fallacies. Sometimes I wonder if I wasn't the only serviceman to escape with his conscience intact.

Ooh, me, I did!

I feel you on the Facebook thing though

yes hope it relocates someplace south... besides what the heck is there to see in indy?? Orlando would be cool.

Yus!~ More votes for Orlando! Plus, Disney is opening up a Star Wars World soonish too, so that'll improve on what is already my favorite city in the world!

So GenCon has a contract until 2020 with their current Indiana location. Doubtful they'll back out and pay the breach of contract penalties. GenCon also contributes to $50 million to the local economy.

Come to California. We have cookies.

(Although they are Organic, Gluten-free, Zero trans-fat, free-range, consciously-raised cookies)