TOPIC: Indiana's new discrimination law....

Perhaps this should be moved to the Offtopic area with the rest of these discussions?

jedibcg wrote: We the people have to decide that of course.

But how? By majority rules? Because up until recently the majority believed two men shouldn't be able to get married, but that wasn't very fair to gay men. And in the 1800s the majority in the south felt that slavery was fine, but that didn't make it fair to the slaves, nor did it make it "right". History shows that the majority of people can impose some pretty bizarre rules on the minority.

Don't get me wrong, when your morals and opinions are the ones that are enforced via the legal system then things aren't bad. But most of us have experienced laws that don't match with our beliefs and that can be pretty brutal. I'm a golden rule kind of person: I don't want others legally forcing their beliefs on me, so I therefore won't legally force my beliefs on others.

jedibcg wrote: Someone could think murder or incest is morally acceptable, but as a people we don't.

I guarantee you that there are people who think murder is fine but one could argue we wouldn't have much of a society with murder. So perhaps that is the line. Or perhaps the line is that with murder somebody is using force against you, where a baker who won't bake you a cake isn't. Perhaps the line is crossed when force is involved?

Kirk Bauer wrote: Perhaps this should be moved to the Offtopic area with the rest of these discussions?

jedibcg wrote: We the people have to decide that of course.

But how? By majority rules? Because up until recently the majority believed two men shouldn't be able to get married, but that wasn't very fair to gay men. And in the 1800s the majority in the south felt that slavery was fine, but that didn't make it fair to the slaves, nor did it make it "right". History shows that the majority of people can impose some pretty bizarre rules on the minority.

Don't get me wrong, when your morals and opinions are the ones that are enforced via the legal system then things aren't bad. But most of us have experienced laws that don't match with our beliefs and that can be pretty brutal. I'm a golden rule kind of person: I don't want others legally forcing their beliefs on me, so I therefore won't legally force my beliefs on others.

jedibcg wrote: Someone could think murder or incest is morally acceptable, but as a people we don't.

I guarantee you that there are people who think murder is fine but one could argue we wouldn't have much of a society with murder. So perhaps that is the line. Or perhaps the line is that with murder somebody is using force against you, where a baker who won't bake you a cake isn't. Perhaps the line is crossed when force is involved?

I agree that majority might not be the best choice for choosing where the line is. We agree there needs to be a line. We agree that someone(s) need(s) to determine where that line is. I don't think force is enough but that is fine we don't agree there. I would say that a restaurant that segregates based on race is not forcing people to eat there but I still would say it is wrong and shouldn't be allowed.

Pence is in a press conference right now.

EDIT: Pence definitely did a turn around from Sunday to today.

jedibcg wrote:
I agree that majority might not be the best choice for choosing where the line is. We agree there needs to be a line. We agree that someone(s) need(s) to determine where that line is. I don't think force is enough but that is fine we don't agree there. I would say that a restaurant that segregates based on race is not forcing people to eat there but I still would say it is wrong and shouldn't be allowed.

Absolutely agreed! You have every right to that belief.

There are a lot of shades of gray in the laws that have recently been passed on both sides. As there are shades of gray in determining an individuals rights as spelled out by the constitution.

Draconian response on both sides will not accomplish anything. All you will do is get a huge reactionary push back. SB101 was such a push back and the protest against it is another.

cdsmith wrote: Same sex marriage was outlawed in Ohio's constitution by a majority of The People. It may be that soon that the majority of The People are forced to comply with a law with which they do not agree.

In this specific case, my response is: Too. Fraking. Bad!

Two generations ago, a majority of The South had strongly held religious beliefs that Blacks shouldn't be able to sit in the front of the bus, drink out of the same fountains as Whites, etc. It was necessary for the state to enforce the wrongness of those strongly held beliefs.

Sometimes, only very rarely--I know many reading this will not agree--it is necessary for the government to step in and say enough is enough. Your belief, no matter how strongly you wish to hold onto it, is just plain wrong, unfair, and you will be penalized for acting upon it. (Note, I did not say thinking it!)

It is my opinion that discriminating against sexual minorities (LGBTs) is completely equivalent to discriminating against racial minorities. It is my opinion that in two more generations, American youth will read about this conflict and scratch their heads, wondering what all the fuss was about--just like how we now look at how ridiculous institutionalized racism was two generations ago.

I only brought it up because of his mention of the will of the people. I agree that it is far better to live in a Republic (which we have) as opposed to a Democracy.

Druegar wrote: Sometimes, only very rarely--I know many reading this will not agree--it is necessary for the government to step in and say enough is enough.

It's OK if we don't agree. But theoretically the government getting involved is a reflection of changing attitudes, not the way to change them. Theoretically politicians are elected by and influenced by the people so they aren't going to pass laws that pisses off the vast majority of them. I'm not convinced that the government can actually accelerate these natural changes in attitude, but I am convinced they can trample on freedoms in an attempt to do so.

Druegar wrote: It is my opinion that discriminating against sexual minorities (LGBTs) is completely equivalent to discriminating against racial minorities. It is my opinion that in two more generations, American youth will read about this conflict and scratch their heads, wondering what all the fuss was about--just like how we now look at how ridiculous institutionalized racism was two generations ago.

Agree 100%. And IMO no amount of laws will change this, it is going to happen, it is inevitable, if only because it makes sense, and of course history is a good guide.

Laws evolve as the people who elect officials change.

20 years ago the core demographic of voters grew up in the 1950s and the laws reflected this.

Today the core demographic of voters grew up in the 1970s and the laws are beginning to reflect this as well.

10 years from now the core demographic will be those who grew up in the 1980s and laws will reflect this.