Should Final Four be relocated from Indiana to protest recent anti-gay legislation?

[Froob]

What does homosexuality is a lifestyle even mean? Seriously..

For people who think that, it means exactly what it says.

Well it is not a lifestyle. It is not a choice. It is what it is, and you are who you are since birth. People who are ignorant to this should not be protected in anyway whatsoever. They need to be dragged into modern times because in this case, it is not a subjective thing. It's objective. This is basic human rights.

I don't understand why it would even matter if it were a choice to begin with. Who cares what two consenting adults want to do in their personal life as long as they aren't harming anyone.

[Yoshun]

Any business that uses this law to boot people or refuse service will get all the bad press in the world and lose a crap ton of business.

I'm not so sure about this though. I mean, the state passed the law in the first place, so I'm guessing there are a lot of people who actually support it. I'm not sure they will lose all that much business.

This is kind of a tricky situation. It treads the line of: how much control do you want the government to have? On one hand, you want the government to stay out of state level affairs. On the other, you really can't allow laws like this in the US. These kinds of laws have lead to some really bad times in not only American history, but the world's history. Hitler used religious justification as a reason to discriminate in Nazi Germany. The Taliban did stuff like this in the middle east. The list goes on and on, it's a real slippery slope. How much can you allow without taking away freedoms?

To get back to he thread topic, yes I think it should be relocated. It would be good for the NCAA and civil rights.

[Neutral 123]

Check my first post in this thread:



The Grammy's literally turned into a big gay wedding last year. Any business that uses this law to boot people or refuse service will get all the bad press in the world and lose a crap ton of business.

It seems you've forgotten how we've got here, and falsely believe that it is impossible to go back to the way things were. What you offer is acceptance of going backwards. This is very dangerous thinking. Unfortunately, I think a lot of people tend to take a micro vs macro view on a lot of issues, a personal vs community view. Not to pick on you, because I think you are well intentioned here unlike some others, but to suggest for example, that you'd just drive an extra 10 minutes to go to another supermarket, completely ignores those, who may not have that option. We have to spend more time thinking beyond ourselves and personal situations.

I get that and I understand everyone won't have options but I feel like the business owners should have some say over who they want to do business with. My biggest issue with the law is actually that it hides behind religion. And what makes this law so different from the other 15 or so states with the same law? I think there's something wrong with the law but what exactly made this one different from the others? Maybe I'd feel more strongly one way or the other if I actually read up about it and didn't just hear some of my family talking about it .

They can choose who they do business with. They just can't discriminate base on certain protected classes, like religion, race, sex. I think what this boils down to, is some seem to think that freedom includes denying others their freedom. It's a weird line of thinking.

[Jim Naismith]

Oh I can't wait for the days that heterosexuals and christians are discriminated against simply based on their religion and sexual orientation. Imagine the heads that would explode if that happened.

[E-Balla]

It seems you've forgotten how we've got here, and falsely believe that it is impossible to go back to the way things were. What you offer is acceptance of going backwards. This is very dangerous thinking. Unfortunately, I think a lot of people tend to take a micro vs macro view on a lot of issues, a personal vs community view. Not to pick on you, because I think you are well intentioned here unlike some others, but to suggest for example, that you'd just drive an extra 10 minutes to go to another supermarket, completely ignores those, who may not have that option. We have to spend more time thinking beyond ourselves and personal situations.

I get that and I understand everyone won't have options but I feel like the business owners should have some say over who they want to do business with. My biggest issue with the law is actually that it hides behind religion. And what makes this law so different from the other 15 or so states with the same law? I think there's something wrong with the law but what exactly made this one different from the others? Maybe I'd feel more strongly one way or the other if I actually read up about it and didn't just hear some of my family talking about it .

They can choose who they do business with. They just can't discriminate base on certain protected classes, like religion, race, sex. I think what this boils down to, is some seem to think that freedom includes denying others their freedom. It's a weird line of thinking.

So what is the difference between the law in Indiana and other states?

[Neutral 123]

For people who think that, it means exactly what it says.

Lifestyle is a vague word. Is there not a more precise definition? I can't respond, because I'm not even clear on what that even means.

Sorry; when I use 'lifestyle', I mean it in the sense of choice. Some people view homosexuality as a chosen lifestyle; that's what I meant.

It's odd to me that a 'freedom of religion' law would attempt to infringe on the freedoms of others. They are entitled to view homosexuality as a choice, when sexuality is viewed as something that is inherent and not chosen. Allowing them to discriminate based on that view is another matter, and is denying others their freedoms.

I wonder about these people though, if they feel sexuality is a choice, then are they telling us that they will just snap their fingers and decide to be with the same sex? It seems like such an absurd argument because I know personally, I'm not choosing to be attracted to women. I'm not fighting any urge to be with men, or can be with a man as easily. That's a choice. We aren't talking about whether I'm going to drink apple, or orange juice today. These arguments are wrong not just because they are inherently hateful, intrusive, and restrictive of freedoms, but mostly because they are illogical and stupid. The idea that sexuality is a choice has to be one of the dumber things I've heard. It's amazingly stupid.

[Neutral 123]

I get that and I understand everyone won't have options but I feel like the business owners should have some say over who they want to do business with. My biggest issue with the law is actually that it hides behind religion. And what makes this law so different from the other 15 or so states with the same law? I think there's something wrong with the law but what exactly made this one different from the others? Maybe I'd feel more strongly one way or the other if I actually read up about it and didn't just hear some of my family talking about it .

They can choose who they do business with. They just can't discriminate base on certain protected classes, like religion, race, sex. I think what this boils down to, is some seem to think that freedom includes denying others their freedom. It's a weird line of thinking.

So what is the difference between the law in Indiana and other states?

Discrimination based on sexual orientation is not protected in Indiana. So despite this law, business owners are NOT allowed to discriminate based sex, race, religion, even with this law. They can potentially discriminate against gays though.

[Neutral 123]

Oh I can't wait for the days that heterosexuals and christians are discriminated against simply based on their religion and sexual orientation. Imagine the heads that would explode if that happened.

Yes, that's an apt comparison. Indiana has positioned themselves as an American ISIS.

[-Sammy-]

It seems you've forgotten how we've got here, and falsely believe that it is impossible to go back to the way things were. What you offer is acceptance of going backwards. This is very dangerous thinking. Unfortunately, I think a lot of people tend to take a micro vs macro view on a lot of issues, a personal vs community view. Not to pick on you, because I think you are well intentioned here unlike some others, but to suggest for example, that you'd just drive an extra 10 minutes to go to another supermarket, completely ignores those, who may not have that option. We have to spend more time thinking beyond ourselves and personal situations.

I get that and I understand everyone won't have options but I feel like the business owners should have some say over who they want to do business with. My biggest issue with the law is actually that it hides behind religion. And what makes this law so different from the other 15 or so states with the same law? I think there's something wrong with the law but what exactly made this one different from the others? Maybe I'd feel more strongly one way or the other if I actually read up about it and didn't just hear some of my family talking about it .

They can choose who they do business with. They just can't discriminate base on certain protected classes, like religion, race, sex. I think what this boils down to, is some seem to think that freedom includes denying others their freedom. It's a weird line of thinking.

Ultimately, this is the nexus of the controversy. Is it a freedom (in the sense of a legally-protected right) to avail myself of someone's services? I mean, I'm obviously free to REQUEST that someone sell me goods or services, but why doesn't the business-owner have equal freedom to answer that question as he sees fit?

For those who support the legislation, the idea is that I (as a business) don't arbitrarily become obligated to another person simply because he wants something that I sell. I shouldn't be compelled to sell something against my will just because someone else wants me to. His freedom to want it shouldn't take precedence over MY freedom, as its owner, to decide whether or not to sell it to him.

[Neutral 123]

For people who think that, it means exactly what it says.

Well it is not a lifestyle. It is not a choice. It is what it is, and you are who you are since birth. People who are ignorant to this should not be protected in anyway whatsoever. They need to be dragged into modern times because in this case, it is not a subjective thing. It's objective. This is basic human rights.

I don't understand why it would even matter if it were a choice to begin with. Who cares what two consenting adults want to do in their personal life as long as they aren't harming anyone.

That's because those pretending that they are pro freedom with this 'religion freedom' law, cannot seem to handle others being free. For them freedom is only defined by the way they live, and anything outside of that should be subject to different rules. Of course that isn't freedom at all.

[E-Balla]

They can choose who they do business with. They just can't discriminate base on certain protected classes, like religion, race, sex. I think what this boils down to, is some seem to think that freedom includes denying others their freedom. It's a weird line of thinking.

So what is the difference between the law in Indiana and other states?

Discrimination based on sexual orientation is not protected in Indiana. So despite this law, business owners are NOT allowed to discriminate based sex, race, religion, even with this law. They can potentially discriminate against gays though.

Well damn. I'm off the fence. I understand that race and sex are different but religion, like sexuality, is a "lifestyle" topic. To allow to (wrongly) discriminate against one and not the other is very hypocritical before even dipping into how wrong it is...

If it really is a "freedom issue" why protect anything outside of race and gender? Let some people deny Christians and Muslims service too if it's such a big freedom issue.

[Rip It]

Oh I can't wait for the days that heterosexuals and christians are discriminated against simply based on their religion and sexual orientation. Imagine the heads that would explode if that happened.

. . . like forcing them to engage in and promote messages they disagree with?

"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."
--Oliver Wendell Holmes

"The right to promote your lifestyle ends where the other man's lifestyle begins."
--Rip It

You can promote your lifestyle to your heart's content; go wild. Just don't think you have the right to force anyone to promote it for you. That's the individual's right, not yours.

[trustykilo]

Anti-taxation laws are important to me. Cancel all games in states with income taxes. Florida and Texas games only.

Sticking with the topic of businesses and discrimination, why shouldn't EVERY business be allowed to refuse service? Most businesses have the sign the right to refuse service, more specifically to rude people they encounter. Why would you want to be a customer of a business that doesn't want you as a customer? Start your own business and become their competitor since they want to exclude you and people like you. All the more reason to write reviews about their bad practices.

Forcing businesses to cater to EVERYONE is wrong. It always has been. The same reason boys can't join the girl scouts, the reason men can't join women's sports. There women's and men's only sororities, there are yoga clubs that cater to women only and won't allow guys there because it makes their other clients uncomfortable. Age discrimination for military, presidency and liquor consumption. Discrimination exists everywhere and still is accepted.

[-Sammy-]

Lifestyle is a vague word. Is there not a more precise definition? I can't respond, because I'm not even clear on what that even means.

Sorry; when I use 'lifestyle', I mean it in the sense of choice. Some people view homosexuality as a chosen lifestyle; that's what I meant.

It's odd to me that a 'freedom of religion' law would attempt to infringe on the freedoms of others. They are entitled to view homosexuality as a choice, when sexuality is viewed as something that is inherent and not chosen. Allowing them to discriminate based on that view is another matter, and is denying others their freedoms.

I wonder about these people though, if they feel sexuality is a choice, then are they telling us that they will just snap their fingers and decide to be with the same sex? It seems like such an absurd argument because I know personally, I'm not choosing to be attracted to women. I'm not fighting any urge to be with men, or can be with a man as easily. That's a choice. We aren't talking about whether I'm going to drink apple, or orange juice today. These arguments are wrong not just because they are inherently hateful, intrusive, and restrictive of freedoms, but mostly because they are illogical and stupid. The idea that sexuality is a choice has to be one of the dumber things I've heard. It's amazingly stupid.

The fact is that that issue is extremely controversial and obfuscated in psychology. Ultimately, sexuality falls into the realm of behavior, not strictly biology, and the behavioral sciences have no consensus as to precisely how it functions.

The position that sexual orientation is inherent has been advanced aggressively in the last quarter-century, in part as a function of its sociopolitical import, but the state of the matter in the psychological disciplines is a lot more complicated.

[Neutral 123]

I get that and I understand everyone won't have options but I feel like the business owners should have some say over who they want to do business with. My biggest issue with the law is actually that it hides behind religion. And what makes this law so different from the other 15 or so states with the same law? I think there's something wrong with the law but what exactly made this one different from the others? Maybe I'd feel more strongly one way or the other if I actually read up about it and didn't just hear some of my family talking about it .

They can choose who they do business with. They just can't discriminate base on certain protected classes, like religion, race, sex. I think what this boils down to, is some seem to think that freedom includes denying others their freedom. It's a weird line of thinking.

Ultimately, this is the nexus of the controversy. Is it a freedom (in the sense of a legally-protected right) to avail myself of someone's services? I mean, I'm obviously free to REQUEST that someone sell me goods or services, but why doesn't he have the equal freedom to answer that question as he sees fit?

For those who support the legislation, the idea is that I (as a business) don't arbitrarily become obligated to another person simply because he wants something that I sell. I shouldn't be compelled to sell something else against my will just because someone else wants me to. His freedom to want it shouldn't take precedence over MY freedom, as its owner, to decide whether or not to sell it to him.

Because there is a history of people choosing to discriminate and take the freedoms of certain groups. We are not talking about an individual, we are talking about groups of people. Groups of people who have been jailed, killed, discriminated against, for being a part of a certain group.

Those involved in support of the law, quite a few of them are clearly anti gay, and have offered anti gay propaganda in various forms. You cannot have freedom when some groups are basically being blackballed and blocked from having equal access, equal opportunity, equal freedom.

See in theory, this law would actually allow businesses to discriminate against people who are heterosexual, but of course, we know that is not going to happen, or happen in occurrences so low as to be pretty much negligible. But if I knew a law would now make it more difficult to live my day to day life, yeah, I'd say that is limiting my freedom.

[MiltownHawkeye]

I miss the attitude that used hold so much weight, in past generations. The one where you kinda just new that world does not give a fudge about your sensitivities. You just learned the places you wanted to go, and the places you didn't want to go. You just figured it out.

Now there's organizations, that help you find appropriate organizations, that will teach the proper way to whine about anything at all, to the proper people/media.

A true free market would fix this, as it would most other problems. Free market's been dead for decades now though. So, i guess we just go back to whining about everything...

I too miss the good ol' days of marginalized groups being openly discriminated against and knowing their place in society.

[Neutral 123]

So what is the difference between the law in Indiana and other states?

Discrimination based on sexual orientation is not protected in Indiana. So despite this law, business owners are NOT allowed to discriminate based sex, race, religion, even with this law. They can potentially discriminate against gays though.

Well damn. I'm off the fence. I understand that race and sex are different but religion, like sexuality, is a "lifestyle" topic. To allow to (wrongly) discriminate against one and not the other is very hypocritical before even dipping into how wrong it is...

If it really is a "freedom issue" why protect anything outside of race and gender? Let some people deny Christians and Muslims service too if it's such a big freedom issue.

LOL, this is a 'freedom of religion' law. It is passed with the idea of not allowing discrimination based on religion. The idea ironically is that it would allow people to discriminate against gays, and then hide behind their religion as a reason to do it. So essentially, their lifestyle choice is being used as a weapon against others.

[IDBall]

I get that and I understand everyone won't have options but I feel like the business owners should have some say over who they want to do business with. My biggest issue with the law is actually that it hides behind religion. And what makes this law so different from the other 15 or so states with the same law? I think there's something wrong with the law but what exactly made this one different from the others? Maybe I'd feel more strongly one way or the other if I actually read up about it and didn't just hear some of my family talking about it .

They can choose who they do business with. They just can't discriminate base on certain protected classes, like religion, race, sex. I think what this boils down to, is some seem to think that freedom includes denying others their freedom. It's a weird line of thinking.

So what is the difference between the law in Indiana and other states?

(From The Atlantic) The Indiana statute has two features the federal RFRA—and most state RFRAs—do not. First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to “the free exercise of religion.” The federal RFRA doesn’t contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolina’s; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs.

The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: “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.” Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language.

[-Sammy-]

Because there is a history of people choosing to discriminate and take the freedoms of certain groups. We are not talking about an individual, we are talking about groups of people. Groups of people who have been jailed, killed, discriminated against, for being a part of a certain group.

Well, of course. Nobody's arguing that jailing or killing someone because of his sexual orientation isn't wrong; but selling someone a cake is hardly comparable.

If I kill you, I am actively doing something TO you, which is an obvious impingement on your freedom. If I refuse to make you a cake, I'm not DOING anything to you; I'm choosing NOT to do something FOR you. That's not a limitation on YOUR freedom; it's an expression of MINE.

In other words, your freedom ends where mine begins.

Those involved in support of the law, quite a few of them are clearly anti gay, and have offered anti gay propaganda in various forms. You cannot have freedom when some groups are basically being blackballed and blocked from having equal access, equal opportunity, equal freedom.

I feel like you need to unpack some of these terms. When you talk about equal access, what do you mean? Access to what? To my cakes? They're MY cakes. Why would the issue come down to YOUR access to them?

Equal opportunity for what? For MY cakes? The public doesn't own them; your taxes didn't pay for them to be made. I made them. My right to do what I please with them is at LEAST as important as your right to want to buy them.

[tidho]

That's because those pretending that they are pro freedom with this 'religion freedom' law, cannot seem to handle others being free. For them freedom is only defined by the way they live, and anything outside of that should be subject to different rules. Of course that isn't freedom at all.

Freedom includes a business owner's right to refuse service as they see fit. Being for this law also restricts freedom....that's sorta what happens most of the time when laws are made - freedom is confiscated by the government.