TOPIC: Gen Con's letter to the IN governor re SB101

It might be politics, but if the bill passes and Gen elects to make good their threat, there will be no Gen Con in Indianapolis, which means the True dungeon will have to think about the feasibility and expenses of setting up elsewhere. True Dungeon and Gen Con are now strong partners and I don't see one being completely successful. So this does have an impact here and should be discussed.

To clarify, I was not born here in Indiana, I have lived here longer than any other state. I may have to rethink calling myself a Hoosier. Maybe we can just call them Hosers?

See...

It's because of humans like this that alien life still hasn't contacted us yet. We are not ready because our way of life would corrupt other alien civilizations with greed, intolerance, jealousy, hatred. Our planet probably has beacons all around it screaming out: "Stay away! Planet off limits!"

Ro-gan wrote: See...

It's because of humans like this that alien life still hasn't contacted us yet. We are not ready because our way of life would corrupt other alien civilizations with greed, intolerance, jealousy, hatred. Our planet probably has beacons all around it screaming out: "Stay away! Planet off limits!"

That or that is why alien do come here. To laugh at how stupid we are.

I haven't had the time to look this up, so does anyone know: how does the Indiana law differ from the federal law that was passed in 1993, after being sponsored by Democrats and signed into law by Clinton? Is there a difference in the laws?

if you want to read the Act, here is the link to the official Indiana site where copy of Bill is posted


iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/568

Although I am only a humble bankruptcy attorney, this bill is far broader than the old DOMA which "only" prevented recognition of same sex marriage

Druegar - I was trying to draw a distinction between "participation" and "discrimination."

Five of your six examples were the latter, and in my opinion indefensible. Only the wedding example MIGHT be defensible. Is the baker refusing to make the cake because he thinks the wedding is opposed to his religion somehow? If so, then maybe he shouldn't have to bake it. But, if he simply disagrees with some of the tenets of the Catholic Church, or just doesn't like Catholics, then it's simply discrimination, and it too should not be permitted, either. And if we're talking a birthday cake, there's no question.

So, agreed, this bill needs a veto.

Fiddy wrote: I haven't had the time to look this up, so does anyone know: how does the Indiana law differ from the federal law that was passed in 1993, after being sponsored by Democrats and signed into law by Clinton? Is there a difference in the laws?

The funny thing is that it doesn't matter because under the circumstance we are in war time, where weird stuff happen like the president become super power with his executives power because people mistakenly him as dictator at this point, while other president extend their term in office. But for the meanwhile I become collateral damage that no one will take accountable for my death and I'm waiting for my number to be called by one of many law enforcer to chose from and also our president can break so many promise and tell so many lie because it doesn't count during wartime. It true we can start any war by lying ourselves into it like Vietnam War and Iran War and even redacted War that you are not suppose to know about. It's also doesn't matter how much spending the president decide to use, even if take 18th generation of our children spare as slavery to pay it off the amount of debt and it has to be done for sake of our government will never be accountable of the horror that one day it will rewritten in history as the only president that save the true way of politic and it not useless people that got him electable twice.

If it is discrimination does the reason it is discrimination matter? If he won't sale a wedding cake (though he makes and sales wedding cakes) to an iterracial couple because he believes is against his faith is that okay?

Arcanist Kolixela wrote: I don't have links but I do remember it coming up on the news a few times where a wedding planner had refused to work with a gay couple and where a baker had refused to create a wedding cake for a gay couple. I'm sure someone out there has links

Wow, what an issue to bring up. It can divide people.

I have seen a youtube video (based in California) where a proposed straight wedding was checking on “gay” bakeries to make their cake. They wanted something put on the cake that was not the belief of those “gay” bakeries. I think all refused to make the cake, but in California there is no protection for the straight on this issue, just the gay. Very lopsided.

jedibcg wrote: If it is discrimination does the reason it is discrimination matter? If he won't sale a wedding cake (though he makes and sales wedding cakes) to an iterracial couple because he believes is against his faith is that okay?

My assumption is that bakers are "participants" in the wedding, since they are part of the team putting the event together.

If the baker can prove they have a sincerely held religious belief that interracial marriages are somehow invalid, then that is protected under the First Amendment, but Neanderthal and potentially hateful.

And if a bakery refused my cake on religious grounds, I would be grateful. I wouldn't want that negativity at my event, and I'd want to be able to take all my business to someone who wasn't a bigot or racist. I'm sure a lot of people would want to know about the situation, so they could, too.

I consider myself libertarian. So here's my hypothetical conversation with both parties.
"You're a happy couple. Don't turn your wedding into a political event. If this person can't participate joyfully and willingly, there are plenty of other folks who will.

"And you: if you don't want to bake this cake on religious grounds, you have the FE on your side. No one will make you. But consider this: Jesus hung out around 'sinners' a lot, and showed them nothing but love. I understand you're only human, so you probably can't rise to His level of compassion. And also consider: He said that if you break even one of God's laws, you're guilty of them all. If you ever stole even a paper clip from work, exceeded the speed limit by even one mile an hour, talked back to your parents, or looked at another person with lust in your heart, in your God's eyes you're as much of a sinner as you think these people are. And then finally, remember: Jesus only showed intolerance and disgust for one type of person: hypocrites."

And then I hope the two parties can work things out like adults, without getting the government or lawyers involved.

Brad Mortensen wrote:

jedibcg wrote: If it is discrimination does the reason it is discrimination matter? If he won't sale a wedding cake (though he makes and sales wedding cakes) to an iterracial couple because he believes is against his faith is that okay?

And if a bakery refused my cake on religious grounds, I would be grateful. I wouldn't want that negativity at my event, and I'd want to be able to take all my business to someone who wasn't a bigot or racist. I'm sure a lot of people would want to know about the situation, so they could, too.

As someone that has been discriminated against as times in my life I cannot say that I have always felt well that is fine I don't need you. Being treated less than your peers doesn't feel good even if you know it being done by an ignorant bigot. I don't feel anyone should be treated this way, even if you religion this it is okay to treat someone this way. Again I understand this is my opinion.