This is the issue I have with the suposed religious people.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: enlightenedservant

I will simply say this on the subject there has not really been a war fought in recorded history that did not have some form of religious implications. Obviously resources and commodity's play there part regarding conflict, also numerous other factors, but religion rears it ugly head in some form or another sure as night turns to day.

But why? Because some Bush-type mentions religion in an interview? What were the religious implications during Stalin, Lenin, and Mao's communist purges? Or the 1st & 2 Indochina Wars? How can you blame religion or God for something that was obviously about money & power? And what about all of the different ethnic groups who were killed off because of eugenics? Was that also religion's fault?

a reply to: enlightenedservant

I'm not blaming God i'm blaming Man for creating mass genocide and then claiming it was some how Gods will.

Stalin, Lenin, and Mao's purges attempted to remove religious practices and replace it with what amounts to there own brand of state worship, same crap different side of the coin.

Indochina Wars, plenty of missionaries from both French and American sides attempting to bring religious ideologies to numerous locations throughout the region essentially replacing Buddhism with Christianity.

The different ethnic groups the Nazi SS attempted to wipe from the face of our Earth during the second World War, well the Vatican were fully aware of what was transpiring and done next to nothing simply because the SS and Gestapo were doing there work for them. Also keep in mind that Hitler pretty much modeled the SS along the same lines as the Jesuit order.

As i said religion always rears it head especially so in times of conflict and upheavals aka war. Is that the fault of religion? I would have to say its certainly a trend regarding Organised religion.

originally posted by: Onslaught2996
a reply to: Metallicus

Are you dense?

It is a discriminatory law..allowing people to treat gay people as less than a regular member of society.

They are denying them the right to enjoy life without judgement.

How would you feel if you went to any business and was denied because of who you are?

Are you dense?

Businesses can already refuse service to anyone they damn well please, Straight, Gay, Black, White, Martian, whatever.

It amazes me how this law has basically been in effect, well, FOREVER, and nobody gave a single # about it until some liberal lgbt activist decided to take offense.

Next, my right to not allowing someone in my home will be infringed upon by a gay couple who wants to # on my couch.

Random fact:

Did you know the first slave ship to America
was called:

Jesus


“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

― Mahatma Gandhi

a reply to: theCheddar

Businesses can already refuse service to anyone they damn well please, Straight, Gay, Black, White, Martian, whatever.

Not on those grounds they can't except the martian, whatever and is some states sexual preference.

Any business that refuses service based on race, ethnicity, religion, Veteran status, National origin, Sex, Disability, Citizenship, Pregnancy, or Genetic information can and will be prosecuted.


They can make up different reasons for refusing service but if it is repeated enough times with that same status of people they will find themselves in court.

It amazes me how this law has basically been in effect, well, FOREVER, and nobody gave a single # about it until some liberal lgbt activist decided to take offense.

Discrimination laws have not been around "FOREVER".

1963, 1964, 1967, 1968, 1973, 1974, 1990 were all years laws were passed because there was a problem with arses discriminating against people.

A few of those were Affirmative action, Civil Rights Act, Equal Employment Opportunity, Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity.

Next, my right to not allowing someone in my home will be infringed upon by a gay couple who wants to # on my couch.

I am noticing a trend with many people such as yourself. It is like you lack the ability to understand what an equivocation is.

How often do you have strangers #ing on your couch anyway? What kind of place do you live? Sounds shady.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Ok, so apparently that's not good enough for you, even though sexual orientation is NOT a federally protected class of people, and it all comes down to state and local law, which, in this case, has ZERO language that can be construed as discriminating against the LGBT community.

Here, try this one:

If I don't like you, and don't want you in my place of business, why would you want to be there?

Exactly. You know the very first thing these people will do --even if this law doesn't take effect-- is not go to the businesses who don't agree with homosexuality... Which means this big fuss they created over language which doesn't single them out at all, was for nothing except to assert their sexuality on those who don't feel the same way.

Straight people have THE RIGHT to disagree with the lifestyle a gay person leads, whether by choice or by birth. I don't have to HATE someone just because I disagree with them.

I hate to break it to you, but the white majority isn't nearly as intolerant as the the "minorities."

And "People like (me)...?" Lol that's a good one. As someone who lived in San Francisco, and worked a block away from the Pride parade, I've seen it all. If I could have, I would have called in sick that week every year. The obscene, lewd, and frankly sickening sex acts, being FORCED on the public is not "OK" just because they're a minority.

I have no problem if you're gay. But I don't force my sexuality on you, you can at least have the decency to not force yours on me.

I was raised in a Christian home, but I don't identify with being a "Christian" these days...

I will, however, admit that Jesus seemed like a really, really interesting guy -- and he's No. 1 on my list of "famous people to have dinner with".

a reply to: theCheddar

I certainly hope you are not making assumptions of my sexual preference or color/ethnicity.

The people taking issue and forcing businesses to comply with the law to not discriminate are not doing it for their personal gain.

They are doing it for the next group of people so they are not discriminated against.

In order for 'evil' to prevail, all that need happen is for 'good' people to do nothing.

You can disagree with whomever you want no one is taking that away from you or businesses.

a reply to: Grimpachi

"You," as in the LBGT community. I don't care if ANYONE is LGBT or Straight, it doesn't matter to me. It doesn't change anything.

But you don't seem to get that there is no discrimination involved in the bill. At all. The same way the business owner can refuse service to a lesbian, the business owner can refuse service to a straight white man. There's no equivocation involved.

If you (the LGBT community, in this case) can't accept the fact that some people don't agree with you, instead of FORCING your beliefs on them, how about you leave them alone? That's called intolerance, and the "minorities" are more guilty of this than the "majority" is.

Here's my absolute last words in this thread:

If you walk into a place of business, how would the business owner know you were gay in order to discriminate against you? Are you going to walk in the building and announce it to the patrons so everyone knows?

SO WHY IS THIS A #ING ISSUE?

It's #ing common sense, and the media makes it's money on the fact that common sense isn't common at all.

a reply to: theCheddar

"You," as in the LBGT community. I don't care if ANYONE is LGBT or Straight, it doesn't matter to me. It doesn't change anything.

That is bulls#t. I am part of the equal rights community. I believe in equality for all not just whom I agree with.

But you don't seem to get that there is no discrimination involved in the bill. At all. The same way the business owner can refuse service to a lesbian, the business owner can refuse service to a straight white man. There's no equivocation involved.

Actually it would be against the law to refuse business to a white man because he is white. Race..you cannot discriminate against race. The bill isn't written to enforce discrimination it is written to "allow" discrimination for"religious reasons".

That is screwed up in several ways. Because someone has a religion they have special privilege. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" sound familiar?

If you (the LGBT community, in this case) can't accept the fact that some people don't agree with you, instead of FORCING your beliefs on them, how about you leave them alone? That's called intolerance, and the "minorities" are more guilty of this than the "majority" is.

The only way that would be true is if you count intolerance of "intolerance" otherwise that is another turd of a statement.

Here's my absolute last words in this thread:

If you walk into a place of business, how would the business owner know you were gay in order to discriminate against you? Are you going to walk in the building and announce it to the patrons so everyone knows?

The very fact that a question like that is raised implying people need to hide who they are shows bigotry is alive and well.

SO WHY IS THIS A #ING ISSUE?

Because bigotry is alive and well with people supporting it.

It's #ing common sense, and the media makes it's money on the fact that common sense isn't common at all.

I find your common sense lacking, but I do agree about the media.

I changed my mind. Here's the ACTUAL wording from the bill. Notice, "exercise of religion," isn't strictly limited to a "system of religious belief." That means, there is no discrimination based on anti-gay religious beliefs. And the "entity" clause basically affords the freedom of "religion" to ALL entities, which happen to include businesses, just as the federal law explicitly states a business is an entity (person).

I urge you to read it, then stop spouting your intolerance for those who may not agree with the LGBT lifestyle for whatever reason. Because it's their right to disagree.

indystar.com

SECTION1.IC34-13-9 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW CHAPTER TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2015]:

Chapter 9. Religious Freedom Restoration

Sec. 1. This chapter applies to all governmental entity statutes, ordinances, resolutions, executive or administrative orders, regulations, customs, and usages, including the implementation or application thereof, regardless of whether they were enacted, adopted, or initiated before, on, or after July 1, 2015.

Sec. 2. A governmental entity statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage may not be construed to be exempt from the application of this chapter unless a state statute expressly exempts the statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage from the application of this chapter by citation to this chapter.

Sec. 3. (a) The following definitions apply throughout this section: (1) "Establishment Clause" refers to the part of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Indiana prohibiting laws respecting the establishment of religion. (2) "Granting", used with respect to government funding, benefits, or exemptions, does not include the denial of government funding, benefits, or exemptions. (b) This chapter may not be construed to affect, interpret, or in any way address the Establishment Clause. (c) Granting government funding, benefits, or exemptions, to the extent permissible under the Establishment Clause, does not constitute a violation of this chapter.

Sec. 4. As used in this chapter, "demonstrates"means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion.

Sec. 5. As used in this chapter, "exercise of religion" includes any exercise of religion,whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.

Sec. 6. As used in this chapter, "governmental entity" includes the whole or any part of a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, official, or other individual or entity acting under color of law of any of the following: (1) State government. (2) A political subdivision (as defined in IC 36-1-2-13). (3) An instrumentality of a governmental entity described in subdivision(1) or (2), including a state educational institution, a body politic, a body corporate and politic, or any other similar entity established by law.

Sec. 7. As used in this chapter, "person" includes the following: (1) An individual. (2) An organization, a religious society, a church, a body of communicants, or a group organized and operated primarily for religious purposes. (3) A partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated association, or another entity that: (A) may sue and be sued; and (B) exercises practices that are compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by: (i) an individual; or (ii) the individuals; who have control and substantial ownership of the entity, regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes.

Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. (b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

Sec. 9. A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding. If the relevant governmental entity is not a party to the proceeding, the governmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene in order to respond to the person's invocation of this chapter.

Sec. 10. (a) If a court or other tribunal in which a violation of this chapter is asserted in conformity with section 9 of this chapter determines that: (1) the person's exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened; and (2) the governmental entity imposing the burden has not demonstrated that application of the burden to the person: (A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest; the court or other tribunal shall allow a defense against any party and shall grant appropriate relief against the governmental entity. (b) Relief against the governmental entity may include any of the following: (1) Declaratory relief or an injunction or mandate that prevents, restrains, corrects, or abates the violation of this chapter. (2) Compensatory damages. (c) In the appropriate case,the court or other tribunal also may award all or part of the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney's fees, to a person that prevails against the governmental entity under this chapter.

Sec. 11. This chapter is not intended to, and shall not be construed or interpreted to, create a claim or private cause of action against any private employer by any applicant, employee, or former employee.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

a reply to: theCheddar

I changed my mind. Here's the ACTUAL wording from the bill. Notice, "exercise of religion," isn't strictly limited to a "system of religious belief."

You didn't read it I see. Words bolded for emphasis.

Sec. 5. As used in this chapter, "exercise of religion" includes any exercise of religion,whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.




Sec. 7. As used in this chapter, "person" includes the following: (1) An individual. (2) An organization, a religious society, a church, a body of communicants, or a group organized and operated primarily for religious purposes. (3) A partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated association, or another entity that: (A) may sue and be sued; and (B) exercises practices that are compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by: (i) an individual; or (ii) the individuals; who have control and substantial ownership of the entity, regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes.

I urge you to read it, then stop spouting your intolerance for those who may not agree with the LGBT lifestyle for whatever reason. Because it's their right to disagree.

Before going off half cocked telling someone to read something you should at least know what you are telling them to read.

BTW you are correct that they have a right to disagree, but here is the kicker so many that support bigotry forget and get pissed off about when reminded. I have a right to disagree with them.

In reference to the OP. I also have found on occasions with my own father a conservative Christian, that I myself a non-religious person have demonstrated a more 'Christian' non-judgemental and compassion view on people's circumstances than my father.

Jesus said and I don't know the references love thy neighbour and treat people how you yourself would like to be treated. If everyone did this and followed those 2 simple statements we wouldn't have half the issues we do.

The need for discriminatory legislation would be void. Discrimination wouldn't exist.

We are all human beings. End of.

a reply to: Grimpachi

I literally explained that part to you:

originally posted by: theCheddar
I changed my mind. Here's the ACTUAL wording from the bill. Notice, "exercise of religion," isn't strictly limited to a "system of religious belief." That means, there is no discrimination based on anti-gay religious beliefs. And the "entity" clause basically affords the freedom of "religion" to ALL entities, which happen to include businesses, just as the federal law explicitly states a business is an entity (person).

This law SPECIFICALLY grants the right to "religious" freedom to people (and business entities, which are federally designated as people) to those who don't follow an organized religion.

Seriously, this is over. You have no ground to stand on. You're arguing over something you a) don't understand, and b) didn't even read.

a reply to: theCheddar

Errr....wrong.

I know it is for religious beliefs hence me bringing up the "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

So it gives special privileges to people who claim to be religious. No mention of deeply held convictions so if a humanist, atheist or purely secular person tries to pull the same crap as a self-proclaimed Christian they are screwed.

I understand it perfectly you however, do not.


I am not a supporter of the corporations are people bulls#t either so I certainly do not support extending their powers.

Generally at this point the person I am conversing with will say something along the lines of "tough, the ruling states corporations are people" I am not saying you will, but for those who may be thinking the same I will say even though I disagree with it I accept it and when SCOTUS returns with an expected ruling that the LGBT community as a federally protected class I hope it is taken in stride as well.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: chr0naut

From your link:

In her 2004 book, Brainwashing: The Science of Thought Control, neuroscientist and physiologist Kathleen Taylor put forth the theory that the neurological basis for reasoning and cognition in the brain and the self itself are changeable. She describes the physiology behind neurological pathways which include webs of neurons containing dendrites, axons, and synapses; and explains that certain brains with more rigid pathways will be less susceptible to new information or creative stimuli. She utilizes neurological science to show that brainwashed individuals have more rigid pathways, and that rigidity can make it unlikely that the individual will rethink situations or be able to later reorganize these pathways.[72] She explains that repetition is an integral part of brainwashing techniques because connections between neurons become stronger when exposed to incoming signals of frequency and intensity.[73] She argues that people in their teenage years and early twenties are more susceptible to persuasion.Taylor explains that brain activity in the temporal lobe, the region responsible for artistic creativity, also causes spiritual experiences in a process known as lability

Both the targeting of youth and repetition are employed by religious institutions.

I think everyone here is going to be biased as to what does and what doesn't qualify as "brainwashing". That said I wouldn't personally shy away from saying children are indoctrinated with religious beliefs and that's a major component in the perpetuation of religious systems.

I will agree that some "religious groups" utilize dubious control techniques. These same groups are also (in my experience) usually focused on the raising of capital as opposed to the giving of it.

The Bible, however, is not repetitive in that way.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: theCheddar

Errr....wrong.

I know it is for religious beliefs hence me bringing up the "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

So it gives special privileges to people who claim to be religious. No mention of deeply held convictions so if a humanist, atheist or purely secular person tries to pull the same crap as a self-proclaimed Christian they are screwed.

.

Man thats a load of crap right there. Like humanists ect don't already say and do what they want. Church doesn't have control of the public educational curriculum for example.

The reason its in there...."no law respecting the establishment"....is due to state pressure and state approved church pressure on dissenters. No official church, no official government position and freedom from other cultural pressure like america turning into Sodom and Gomorrah. This culture and government can become as rank as its wants but cant use the government, law, to silence the church.

originally posted by: Grimpachi

I know it is for religious beliefs hence me bringing up the "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

", or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

a reply to: Logarock

Man thats a load of crap right there. Like humanists ect don't already say and do what they want.

Your right that humanists say what they want the same as every American can say what they want.

Is your beef that they are not be repressed like in days of old?

Church doesn't have control of the public educational curriculum for example.

That is because this is a secular country.

The reason its in there...."no law respecting the establishment"....is due to state pressure and state approved church pressure on dissenters.

That is verbatim what some websites say that are affiliated to Christian organizations however I side with Thomas Jefferson and Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black.

I understand you have your opinion and you can keep it.

No official church, no official government position and freedom from other cultural pressure like america turning into Sodom and Gomorrah.

Now on that one I think we need some links otherwise it should be dismissed. I have read a lot of things from and about the founders, but nothing sticks out about Sodom and Gomorrah.

This culture and government can become as rank as its wants but cant use the government, law, to silence the church.

The church can keep spewing their crap for all eternity. Most people don't care. Just stay out of politics where you guys try to force your beliefs on others.