Moonlight Graham Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 It would appear that this legislation would also permit refusal to serve blacks or jews or roman catholics on religious grounds. You name the group and there will be a religious denomination that would be able to invoke this nonsense bill. Pretty much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 It seems to me the purpose is not so much to protect the very occasional person who doesn't want to make a cake with two boys on it as to push this as a hot button issue amongst hard right wing Republicans who hate gay people. The Democrats are the ones who enacted the federal RFRA. States are just bringing their laws in line with the federal ones. The Republicans are all about hot button issues now: abortion, guns, gays, birth control and sex education, prayer in schools, and cutting taxes. Democrats have their own hot button issues. One of those is attacking anyone who has any religious conviction as crazy or a bigot. They are playing exactly the same game, while pretending to a phoney high ground. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 Pretty much. That's idiocy. We coddle belief in nonsense far too much (I agree with freedom of religion, but as soon as it steps on someone else's freedom, that should be where it ends). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 Democrats have their own hot button issues. One of those is attacking anyone who has any religious conviction as crazy or a bigot. They are playing exactly the same game, while pretending to a phoney high ground. That's because religion is rather baseless. It's not a reason to give actual bigots (they do exist) free reign to be...bigots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 Society determines what is normal. Gay people are a small minority. They aren't normal. Still nothing wrong with that. I get what you're trying to say, but using the word "normal" and calling them "not normal" isn't a very tactful way to say it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 I get what you're trying to say, but using the word "normal" and calling them "not normal" isn't a very tactful way to say it. You're probably right. It was an academic discussion, so I wasn't really thinking in those terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 Who defines normal? And what is normal? And who cares who is normal? Is a women who wears 5 piercings on her ear normal? Is a man who sleeps with men and women normal? Is a woman who would cover her body with tattoos less normal than a woman who wouldnt or a man who would do the same? Do you feel comfortable defining what is normal? You seem to be equating abnormal with "bad". Being left-handed is not normal. Most people are right handed, so much so that the whole world is designed to accommodate them. They are not expected to spend the money to make sure everything at any business or public place operates equally both ways. Why? Because the normal customer you might encounter doesn't need it, and the few that do are expected to adapt and do things the other way. No one is saying that being a lefty is a bad thing, only that is not the normal condition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 You're probably right. It was an academic discussion, so I wasn't really thinking in those terms. Maybe they'd prefer you'd use the term "deviant". Because that's what it's called in my psych textbooks from university. Deviant also sounds like a "bad" accusation, but it's probably more accurate -- it's a deviation from the norm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 That's because religion is rather baseless. It's not a reason to give actual bigots (they do exist) free reign to be...bigots. That is a very bigoted opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 You seem to be equating abnormal with "bad". Being left-handed is not normal. Most people are right handed, so much so that the whole world is designed to accommodate them. They are not expected to spend the money to make sure everything at any business or public place operates equally both ways. Why? Because the normal customer you might encounter doesn't need it, and the few that do are expected to adapt and do things the other way. No one is saying that being a lefty is a bad thing, only that is not the normal condition. And this has to do with the LGBT community in what way? Please don't insult them in this way. Have a little respect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 Maybe they'd prefer you'd use the term "deviant". Because that's what it's called in my psych textbooks from university. Deviant also sounds like a "bad" accusation, but it's probably more accurate -- it's a deviation from the norm. So we are reduced to discussing the LGBT community as deviant? Is that correct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 And this has to do with the LGBT community in what way? Please don't insult them in this way. Have a little respect. Equating sexual orientation to left-handedness is insulting? What is your thought process there? So we are reduced to discussing the LGBT community as deviant? Is that correct? It's literally the textbook definition. Take it up with the liberal arts universities in this country who are still using those same texts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 Equating sexual orientation to left-handedness is insulting? What is your thought process there? It's literally the textbook definition. Take it up with the liberal arts universities in this country who are still using those same texts. No, I'm taking it up with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 No, I'm taking it up with you. Taking what up? That I mentioned how it's defined in academic textbooks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 Taking what up? That I mentioned how it's defined in academic textbooks?I don't think it is reasonable to use word defined in academic literature in non-academic contexts since the academic meaning of the word can have little or no connection to the widely understood meaning. For example, a "theory" in science refers to a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, however, a "theory" in non-academic contexts is a hypothesis or a guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 Maybe they'd prefer you'd use the term "deviant". Because that's what it's called in my psych textbooks from university. Deviant also sounds like a "bad" accusation, but it's probably more accurate -- it's a deviation from the norm. That's probably a correct word also, yes. In fact, looking at the definition, even more so. That is a very bigoted opinion. Not really. Religion is based on faith - i.e. no evidence. It's baseless. I don't have much respect for it, but tolerance of it and its protection. You seem to be equating abnormal with "bad". Being left-handed is not normal. Most people are right handed, so much so that the whole world is designed to accommodate them. They are not expected to spend the money to make sure everything at any business or public place operates equally both ways. Why? Because the normal customer you might encounter doesn't need it, and the few that do are expected to adapt and do things the other way. No one is saying that being a lefty is a bad thing, only that is not the normal condition. That's exactly what I'm talking about. And this has to do with the LGBT community in what way? Please don't insult them in this way. Have a little respect. It's a comparison. Being left handed is not normal, and neither is being gay. There is nothing wrong with either. So we are reduced to discussing the LGBT community as deviant? Is that correct? The definition of the word fits. Equating sexual orientation to left-handedness is insulting? What is your thought process there? It is when you want you get knee jerk offended by everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted March 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 And this has to do with the LGBT community in what way? Please don't insult them in this way. Have a little respect. Oh FFS calm down. I started this thread because I thought there was an interesting topic at hand, and you've derailed it with a bunch of P.C. whining over the semantics of the term "normal". Small C has clarified what he meant and I would ask that you let it go. You're not helping anything, you're just making yourself look shrill and irrational and cluttering up the thread with a bunch of drivel. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 I don't think it is reasonable to use word defined in academic literature in non-academic contexts since the academic meaning of the word can have little or no connection to the widely understood meaning. For example, a "theory" in science refers to a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, however, a "theory" in non-academic contexts is a hypothesis or a guess. The first definition of deviant (or at least part of it) does fit....though I would say it's now incorrect in that being gay is accepted, but still not normal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 Oh FFS calm down. I started this thread because I thought there was an interesting topic at hand, and you've derailed it with a bunch of P.C. whining over the semantics of the term "normal". Small C has clarified what he meant and I would ask that you let it go. You're not helping anything, you're just making yourself look shrill and irrational and cluttering up the thread with a bunch of drivel. -k Sorry....looks down sheepishly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 Who is FFS? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted March 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 I wonder where the outrage from liberals was when the Democrats enacted the federal RFRA? Well, first off I would point out that it's not 1993 anymore. Secondly, I would point out that it's not just liberals outraged over this, this time. That was one of the interesting things that prompted me to start this topic. It's not just activists who've come out against it, it's business interests. The CEO of Angie's List, for example, isn't a liberal. He's a Republican. He's so Republican that he ran the previous governor's election campaign. And he's not saying "I oppose this law because I'm pro-gay rights," he's saying "I oppose this law because it's bad for my company because it will make it harder for me to recruit professionals to come to Indiana." -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 And exactly who gave you the authority, or more importantly the insight to decide what is normal...Perhaps you are hung up on the idea that procreation is the only acceptable reason for intimate connection between people.It has nothing to do with intimate connections. What Smallc is saying is correct. Being gay isn't normal in that it's abnormal, and not in line with our evolutionary process. You know, the whole science thing. You guys aren't denying science are you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted March 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 Who is FFS? It is short for "for fuddleduddle's sake", and it is an exclamation of exasperation. And after reading about you whining over the use of the word "normal" for 3 pages, apropos to nothing, I have become rather exasperated. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 Well, first off I would point out that it's not 1993 anymore. Secondly, I would point out that it's not just liberals outraged over this, this time. That was one of the interesting things that prompted me to start this topic. It's not just activists who've come out against it, it's business interests. The CEO of Angie's List, for example, isn't a liberal. He's a Republican. He's so Republican that he ran the previous governor's election campaign. And he's not saying "I oppose this law because I'm pro-gay rights," he's saying "I oppose this law because it's bad for my company because it will make it harder for me to recruit professionals to come to Indiana." -k That's because dummies don't know what the law is even about, they are just riding the public wave in an attempt to look progressive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 It is short for "for fuddleduddle's sake", and it is an exclamation of exasperation. And after reading about you whining over the use of the word "normal" for 3 pages, apropos to nothing, I have become rather exasperated. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.