ImTheCaptain
I disagree with you
transexuals
Indiana, the RFRA, and the backlash
- Thread starter Deadbolt
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
transexuals
dartsndeacs
THE quintessential dwarf
Some of your finest nonsense
Wakeforest22890
Snowpom
In what capacity? I would garner a lot of people know people who are trans and aren't even aware of it. I guess I should defer to Palma, the expert on this topic.
EatLeadCommie
Tommy Elrod
If you have a business catering to a gay clientele, go with the trans (see! I'm already steering away from the word tranny!). If not, go with the normal looking girl. It's really no different than having a normal looking girl and a fat chick, or a normal looking girl and a hot girl. You always go with the better option. The only difference is that the trans will have the ability to sue your ass at some point.
myDeaconmyhand
First man to get a team of horses up Bear Mountain
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/...ndment-defeats-anti-gay-discrimination-intent
"The dilemma conservatives claim to care about is actually pretty easy to resolve, if you examine its unspoken elements. But those elements include a presumption that gays and lesbians are generally entitled to the same kinds of legal protections as other minorities. The advocates of Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act aren’t willing to grant that presumption, though, and they thus find themselves hoist on the petard of their own bad faith.
The very notion that a Christian photographer or florist should be able to decline business solicitations from same-sex couples implies that the vast majority of entrepreneurs should not. When you look at the conundrum not just from the perspective of religious persons, but from the perspective of the entire market, the remedy becomes clear. A legal default prohibiting discrimination against LGBT people as a class, with a modest carveout for individuals in creative trades who have religious objections to making things that contribute to the planning and execution of same-sex weddings."
"But if you frame the carveout this way, then the anti-discrimination default comes with it. Conservatives aren’t willing to grant it, so instead we get these kinds of disingenuous or blinkered arguments. Here we have the odd spectacle of National Review’s editors presuming to speak for gays and lesbians in Indiana, as if gay people and religious Christians were similar in their antitheses to Catholics and Protestants, and thus making a mortifying error:
“Gay people and people who object to the idea of homosexual marriage have been coexisting rather easily in Indiana for a great long while now, without the benefit of any state law telling them that this must be.”
Gay people and “people who object to the idea of homosexual marriage” have been coexisting in Indiana “for a great long while,” not because of a law requiring it, but because of one telling gay couples who want to marry that they’re free to leave the state. This may have seemed like "rather easy" coexistence to conservatives, but only because it was forged entirely on their terms.
Marriage equality has been the law of the land in Indiana for less than a year. But rather than update the terms of coexistence to enshrine this new equality generally, creating allowances for ma-and-pa artisan, conservatives set out to erect a barrier of maximal circumference in front of it.
This backfired spectacularly, and predictably, in the only way it could, setting religious conservatives back further from where they started.
When it became clear that Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act created a large theoretical space for entrepreneurs to discriminate—where anti-gay business owners could refuse to serve gay customers and then let judges sort out who was in the right—Indiana Republicans faced demands to amend the law, so that it couldn’t be used to this end.
And that’s what’s happening. The updated Indiana law will prohibit business owners from using the RFRA as a defense against refusing “to offer or provide services, facilities, use of public accommodations, goods, employment, or housing to any member or members of the general public on the basis of race, color religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or United States military service.” (Emphasis added.)
This answers equality concerns by saying anti-discrimination laws trump RFRA. As those laws spread, the legal safe space will shrink and shrink until it disappears entirely. Even for the creative tradespeople.
Conservatives could still create specific carveouts, so that religious bakers and their artisinal colleagues can be excepted. But the problem is that the exception will prove the rule of equality. And conservatives don’t want that rule."
"The dilemma conservatives claim to care about is actually pretty easy to resolve, if you examine its unspoken elements. But those elements include a presumption that gays and lesbians are generally entitled to the same kinds of legal protections as other minorities. The advocates of Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act aren’t willing to grant that presumption, though, and they thus find themselves hoist on the petard of their own bad faith.
The very notion that a Christian photographer or florist should be able to decline business solicitations from same-sex couples implies that the vast majority of entrepreneurs should not. When you look at the conundrum not just from the perspective of religious persons, but from the perspective of the entire market, the remedy becomes clear. A legal default prohibiting discrimination against LGBT people as a class, with a modest carveout for individuals in creative trades who have religious objections to making things that contribute to the planning and execution of same-sex weddings."
"But if you frame the carveout this way, then the anti-discrimination default comes with it. Conservatives aren’t willing to grant it, so instead we get these kinds of disingenuous or blinkered arguments. Here we have the odd spectacle of National Review’s editors presuming to speak for gays and lesbians in Indiana, as if gay people and religious Christians were similar in their antitheses to Catholics and Protestants, and thus making a mortifying error:
“Gay people and people who object to the idea of homosexual marriage have been coexisting rather easily in Indiana for a great long while now, without the benefit of any state law telling them that this must be.”
Gay people and “people who object to the idea of homosexual marriage” have been coexisting in Indiana “for a great long while,” not because of a law requiring it, but because of one telling gay couples who want to marry that they’re free to leave the state. This may have seemed like "rather easy" coexistence to conservatives, but only because it was forged entirely on their terms.
Marriage equality has been the law of the land in Indiana for less than a year. But rather than update the terms of coexistence to enshrine this new equality generally, creating allowances for ma-and-pa artisan, conservatives set out to erect a barrier of maximal circumference in front of it.
This backfired spectacularly, and predictably, in the only way it could, setting religious conservatives back further from where they started.
When it became clear that Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act created a large theoretical space for entrepreneurs to discriminate—where anti-gay business owners could refuse to serve gay customers and then let judges sort out who was in the right—Indiana Republicans faced demands to amend the law, so that it couldn’t be used to this end.
And that’s what’s happening. The updated Indiana law will prohibit business owners from using the RFRA as a defense against refusing “to offer or provide services, facilities, use of public accommodations, goods, employment, or housing to any member or members of the general public on the basis of race, color religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or United States military service.” (Emphasis added.)
This answers equality concerns by saying anti-discrimination laws trump RFRA. As those laws spread, the legal safe space will shrink and shrink until it disappears entirely. Even for the creative tradespeople.
Conservatives could still create specific carveouts, so that religious bakers and their artisinal colleagues can be excepted. But the problem is that the exception will prove the rule of equality. And conservatives don’t want that rule."
i think you missed the point. while generally trolling with my first post, i was also trying to illustrate something. i was using you as an example of how, generally speaking, we become more sensitive to denigrating names for groups with age, exposure, and (as much as some cry about it) political correctness. the corner has obviously turned on the gay community nationally, much like the black community before it. there's still a ways to go, but i think we'll see a nation that's generally more understanding of not only folks that range on the sexual spectrum but gender as well.
Ball State Deac
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2011
- Messages
- 10,553
- Reaction score
- 1,369
do you even lift, brah?
TheTwinAndreBen
3 stacks
Also the whole wedding industry strawman is such bullshit. I mean, its harder to find a non gay florist than a gay one. Wedding services are a gay cottage industry.
i've never heard of a gay pizza parlor that does weddings.
dartsndeacs
THE quintessential dwarf
I work in accounting, fairly sure every boss ive ever had is jewish. Id have no problems asking "are you jewish?" But would feel really out of line if I asked "are you a jew?"
Wakeforest22890
Snowpom
Well as long as you can ask the secretary if she's a tranny or not everything should be fine so just carry on about your day.
TheTwinAndreBen
3 stacks
dartsndeacs
THE quintessential dwarf
The only way i can see someome being this sensitive is if they've been tricked
ONW
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2011
- Messages
- 19,177
- Reaction score
- 658
The floral and wedding service industry will be fine, and if you have a pizza parlor catering your wedding, you're probably not gay.
well the question flows better the way you ask it, but "jew" is not a slur. it is similar to asking if someone is black/gay vs. a black/gay. not sure why you go around asking people about their ethnicity/religion, though.
2&2 Slider To Leyritz
Well-known member
So if somebody says "are you going to jew me over that price", that isn't a slur?
dartsndeacs
THE quintessential dwarf
Are you jewish?