Time Magazine article on Indana

[Hawk in SEC Country]

Very interesting perspective. If everyone would quit throwing rocks and tantrums over this and sit back and think about what they are demanding.....the author makes perfect sense, and pretty much reflects my view on this entire situation.


http://time.com/3768734/progressives-indiana-law-religious-freedom/

 

[Wahawk56]

Indana sure is beautiful aint it?

 

[BlazinHawk]

Please don't being a sense of fairness to this debate,

Stop it.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[ihhawk]

People really do need to stop and think. There is a unique balance here. You don't want restaurants declining black customers but you also don't want to force someone to do something they don't want to do.

 

[jerryusc]

Originally posted by montross:
People really do need to stop and think. There is a unique balance here. You don't want restaurants declining black customers but you also don't want to force someone to do something they don't want to do.

What if the restuarants decline black customers because it's something they want to do?

 

[Funky Bunch]

I can't think of a single Dana I would like to be in

 

[Lone Clone]

Originally posted by Funky Bunch:
I can't think of a single Dana I would like to be in

 

[joelbc1]

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by Funky Bunch:
I can't think of a single Dana I would like to be in

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by joelbc1:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by Funky Bunch:
I can't think of a single Dana I would like to be in

That's pretty good.

And LOL at the idea that this Cato Institute flyer represents the real issues or a moderate middle ground.

 

[Hawk in SEC Country]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by joelbc1:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by Funky Bunch:
I can't think of a single Dana I would like to be in

That's pretty good.

And LOL at the idea that this Cato Institute flyer represents the real issues or a moderate middle ground.

So you can't debate the points he makes............so, there's that.






This post was edited on 4/5 9:52 AM by Hawk in SEC Country

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by Hawk in SEC Country:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:
That's pretty good.

And LOL at the idea that this Cato Institute flyer represents the real issues or a moderate middle ground.

So you can't debate the points he makes.....so attack who he works for.

Sol Alinsky's corpse just popped a boner.

Why would I debate the points when I don't think he is even arguing the issue? This law was never about wedding cakes for gays IMO. And even if you don't agree with that initial assessment, it certainly isn't about that now with the new language. This law was about appeasing evangelical voters and establishing corporate personhood through the back door. Since that is something Cato also wants, it's very relevant to point out the source and specifically point how that they side step the real issues in this debate with their usual misdirections.

 

[Hawk in SEC Country]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by Hawk in SEC Country:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:
That's pretty good.

And LOL at the idea that this Cato Institute flyer represents the real issues or a moderate middle ground.

So you can't debate the points he makes.....so attack who he works for.

Sol Alinsky's corpse just popped a boner.

Why would I debate the points when I don't think he is even arguing the issue? This law was never about wedding cakes for gays IMO. And even if you don't agree with that initial assessment, it certainly isn't about that now with the new language. This law was about appeasing evangelical voters and establishing corporate personhood through the back door. Since that is something Cato also wants, it's very relevant to point out the source and specifically point how that they side step the real issues in this debate with their usual misdirections.

He DID argue the issue. His point was basically, "at what point to you force a business owner into a contract that he wants no part of?" The MEDIA and Gay groups made this about cakes for a gay couple.

As a business owner myself, I should be able to say no at any point during the business process if I disagree with the contract being presented to me. I shouldn't forced to do business with anyone that I don't wish to do business with just because they come to me and want me to perform a service for them.

BTW...what gay couple/person walks into a bakery and asks for "We support gay marriage" on a cake? The whole "cake" story smells of a set up.

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by Hawk in SEC Country:

He DID argue the issue. His point was basically, "at what point to you force a business owner into a contract that he wants no part of?" The MEDIA and Gay groups made this about cakes for a gay couple.

As a business owner myself, I should be able to say no at any point during the business process if I disagree with the contract being presented to me. I shouldn't forced to do business with anyone that I don't wish to do business with just because they come to me and want me to perform a service for them.

BTW...what gay couple/person walks into a bakery and asks for "We support gay marriage" on a cake? The whole "cake" story smells of a set up.

I don't really disagree with most of this. I agree gay groups took control of the narrative and twisted the law. I also agree contracted services can be denied. I do think the law should force businesses of public accommodation to serve all the public however, but yes I know this law wasn't about that. But that is what the article is arguing about, hence why I don't feel the need to go through his points. If you have an article that takes on the real purposes of the law, I'd be happy to read it and discuss.

 

[mstp1992]

So, you're saying housing and employment discrimination due to sexual orientation is OK with you?

Once again, this is not about cakes and photos. There are much bigger issues to consider.

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by mstp1992:
So, you're saying housing and employment discrimination due to sexual orientation is OK with you?

Once again, this is not about cakes and photos. There are much bigger issues to consider.

But those issues aren't unique to this religious law and given the revised language aren't really impacted one way or the other as I see it. The religious law will be used to nullify Obamacare, not nonexistent civil rights protections. The religious law simply gave people a stage to dramatize the fact that civil rights remain unprotected in Indiana and much of the rest of the nation.

 

[Pepperman]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

But those issues aren't unique to this religious law and given the revised language aren't really impacted one way or the other as I see it. The religious law will be used to nullify Obamacare, not nonexistent civil rights protections. The religious law simply gave people a stage to dramatize the fact that civil rights remain unprotected in Indiana and much of the rest of the nation.

Nobody seems to care at all when OBAMA HIMSELF keeps nullifying it (for certain groups that vote for his party anyway).

As for the issue at hand, what the hell happened to America?

 

[aflachawk]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by Hawk in SEC Country:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:
That's pretty good.

And LOL at the idea that this Cato Institute flyer represents the real issues or a moderate middle ground.

So you can't debate the points he makes.....so attack who he works for.

Sol Alinsky's corpse just popped a boner.

Why would I debate the points when I don't think he is even arguing the issue? This law was never about wedding cakes for gays IMO. And even if you don't agree with that initial assessment, it certainly isn't about that now with the new language. This law was about appeasing evangelical voters and establishing corporate personhood through the back door. Since that is something Cato also wants, it's very relevant to point out the source and specifically point how that they side step the real issues in this debate with their usual misdirections.

The law is many deep blue states also where there is no need to appeasing evangelicals so it certainly was not about that. What the protest is about is not to stand up for people, its about finding a faux issue Hillary can run on. Its a very easy subject to demigod on.

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by aflachawk:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by Hawk in SEC Country:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:
That's pretty good.

And LOL at the idea that this Cato Institute flyer represents the real issues or a moderate middle ground.

So you can't debate the points he makes.....so attack who he works for.

Sol Alinsky's corpse just popped a boner.

Why would I debate the points when I don't think he is even arguing the issue? This law was never about wedding cakes for gays IMO. And even if you don't agree with that initial assessment, it certainly isn't about that now with the new language. This law was about appeasing evangelical voters and establishing corporate personhood through the back door. Since that is something Cato also wants, it's very relevant to point out the source and specifically point how that they side step the real issues in this debate with their usual misdirections.

The law is many deep blue states also where there is no need to appeasing evangelicals so it certainly was not about that. What the protest is about is not to stand up for people, its about finding a faux issue Hillary can run on. Its a very easy subject to demigod on.

You think Hillary is going to run on making gays a protected class at the federal level? That would be cool and finally give me something appealing about her to vote on. IMO she is about as liberal as Bush on labor, trade and foreign policy.

 

[mstp1992]

Originally posted by montross:
People really do need to stop and think. There is a unique balance here. You don't want restaurants declining black customers but you also don't want to force someone to do something they don't want to do.

Race is already a protected class.