"Brian, The Life of" (familycar)
03/31/2015 at 14:52 • Filed to: None
3
23|
"Brian, The Life of" (familycar)
03/31/2015 at 14:52 • Filed to: None | 3
| 23 |
Is !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! with Indiana.
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
Good on you, NASCAR!
this is not matt farah's foxbodymiata
> Brian, The Life of
03/31/2015 at 15:03 |
|
I think they need to clarify a little there. All this broad talk of diversity and inclusivity has poor ol' Right Turn all worked up.
lucky's pepper
> Brian, The Life of
03/31/2015 at 16:28 |
|
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4YtyUX…
Are you disappointed with every other state with a religious freedom law? I believe there's nineteen of them, including Illinois. And the current occupant of the Oval Office, as an Illinois state senator, actually voted for it instead of just voting present.
How about the Federal government? Are you disappointed in the feds too since there's a federal religious freedom act that was passed by a democrat congress and signed into law by the guy who claimed that he never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky?
I included a link to Bill's speech after signing the bill into law. He sure sounded proud of protecting people's religious freedom. I guess the First Amendment mattered twenty two years ago.
|
Brian, The Life of
> lucky's pepper
03/31/2015 at 16:37 |
|
Are you asking NASCAR or me?
If me, I value the constitution and its mandate that we separate church and state. I also loath fundamentalism wherever it exists. And I doubly loath people who call themselves "Christian" while comporting themselves in a contradictory manner while hiding behind the Cross.
Those people are cowards, are beyond redemption, and should be shamed mercilessly.
|
lucky's pepper
> Brian, The Life of
03/31/2015 at 16:54 |
|
I most definitely was asking you, though it was a rhetorical question since you made it clear in your original post you agreed with NASCAR's position. What's not clear is if your hatred extends to everyone who has supported similar laws in other states and at the federal level, and if so why single out Indiana?
The anti-religious bigotry in this country is astounding. Wonderful that it's now spread to a car site.
|
Brian, The Life of
> lucky's pepper
03/31/2015 at 17:06 |
|
|
lucky's pepper
> Brian, The Life of
03/31/2015 at 19:47 |
|
Who made up this clearly left-leaning list and decided these are the only examples of either instance, or that these examples are even correct? I'd also be interested to hear how any example on this biased list is even relevant to the recently enacted Indiana law.
A actual example of someone's religious liberties being violated would be zealots using the force of the government at any level to compel someone to act against their religious beliefs even when those religious beliefs harm no one. That is what a religious freedom law is designed to protect against.
|
Brian, The Life of
> lucky's pepper
03/31/2015 at 20:30 |
|
"Religious freedom" laws are designed to protect the bigot, full stop. I don't care where they come from or who created them. Christians ARE NOT persecuted in this country, full stop. We do not even know the meaning of the word. When someone is denied service in a public place because the caveman owner hiding behind a Cross doesn't like who they are, it is the business owner who is acting completely COUNTER to both the foundation of this very country as well as the basic tennants of Christianity itself.
It is 2015. It astounds me to no end that we are even having this exchange. Fundamentalism is inherently evil regardless of its source. Christ would be ashamed of "His people."
|
lucky's pepper
> Brian, The Life of
03/31/2015 at 21:05 |
|
You call others bigots then refer to them as "caveman" who are "hiding behind a cross" and claim they would refuse others service simply because they don't "like who they are". Where does the bigotry truly lie?
And why are you singling out Christians? In the photograph of the governor signing the legislation there are a couple of fellows who appear Jewish. Does your disdain cover Jews too or do they get a pass?
crown victor victoria
> lucky's pepper
03/31/2015 at 22:22 |
|
It's pretty clear he's talking about the people intent on using this law as a shield for their own deplorable behavior, not all Christians, as you are trying to suggest.
It isn't bigotry to be disgusted by that. That's just common sense. The avalanche of public disapproval is all the evidence anybody should need to correctly understand this issue.
I won't even ask about the "appear to be jewish" comment because holy shit.
|
lucky's pepper
> crown victor victoria
03/31/2015 at 22:49 |
|
Spare me your phony outrage on the "appear to be Jewish" comment. Have you even seen the picture? They're Hasidic. Would you be equally offended if I said the nuns on stage with the governor "appear to be Christian"?
Do you even know what this law does? I don't think Brian does. It simply provides standing for someone to be a plaintiff or gives them grounds for a defense IN A COURT OF LAW where they would still have to show that their religious freedom was abridged. Apparently Brian and anyone else opposed to this law believe that a certain class of citizen, the religious, don't deserve their due process. Again, this law and every other one like it protects the civil rights of the religious from anti-religious bigotry.
|
crown victor victoria
> lucky's pepper
03/31/2015 at 23:40 |
|
You mean these fine gentlemen? Stop to embarass yourself.
Have you ever seen a hasidic person before? I realize that in the full photo there is one dude, one, on the right with a hat on who also has a beard, but it's a pretty big leap to assume he is jewish based on that alone. Still not sure why you're saying "they" but whatever.
So, no, I wouldn't be offended if you said the nuns were "christian looking" BECAUSE THEY ARE WEARING RELIGIOUS GARMENTS. Stop trying to make this about my perception, please.
Look, we can both cite endless sources to say what this bill is or is not, but I'm looking at things Pence has said previously that are relevant to this, and his refusal to clarify exactly what the point of this bill was until everything blew up in his face 100 different times.
I understand your assertion that this is an innocent, well-intentioned bill, designed only to give people protections against the government when they feel their religious freedoms are being infringed upon, but many, many, many other people and corporations and state governments seem to think there's more to it than that.
I would prefer to skip the part where we argue about this over 12 more comments and just come to terms with the fact that I see this one way and you see it another.
|
lucky's pepper
> crown victor victoria
04/01/2015 at 00:30 |
|
Then don't jump to the defense of someone who hates the religious enough to say "Religious freedom laws are designed to protect the bigot, full stop".
By the way, nice picture you chose, that doesn't show your bias at all. Reminds me of the photo of Clinton signing the federal religious freedom law surrounded by fellow hate mongers like Chuck Schumer, Al Gore and Ted Kennedy. They were all smiles.
Oh and the one guy (I mistakenly remembered two) I said was a Hasidic Jew was identified by the Indianapolis Star as an Orthodox Jew. Wikipedia defines Hasidic Judaism as a branch of Orthodox Judaism.
|
Brian, The Life of
> lucky's pepper
04/01/2015 at 01:04 |
|
I never said I hated the religious. You can disagree with me but don't you dare put words in my mouth. You don't know me from Adam but you've made a number of prejudicial and incorrect assumptions. Just like so many so called "Christians." Honestly, it is exactly people like you that make people like me struggle with what's left of our genuine faith. By the way, that's the kind that you actually feel, is profoundly personal and never worn on one's sleeve in sanctimony.
You make this political; that is anti-Christian. You judge; that is anti-Christian. You are clearly nothing but typical right wing detritus that continues to echo and propagate since Reagan sold his party out to the Religious Right. You people have morphed into the theocrats our founding fathers deplored. "Conservarism" now must mean one passes Fiscal AND Social litmus tests. I used to be a Republican. I voted for Reagan in '84, when I was first able to vote. I didn't leave the party, it left me. The GOP is now unsustainable because more and more people see just how small the tent actually is. It's ironic that you call those people hate mongers when it os so fucking obvious who the real hate mongers actually are: a bunch of scared white people who are absolutely petrified that their dominant place in society is in jeopardy.
|
crown victor victoria
> lucky's pepper
04/01/2015 at 01:36 |
|
Ugh...so is the picture incorrect? Are those not the men being identified? Are the statements made about those individuals incorrect? The photo shows no bias whatsoever, it is using factual information to make a point. I am sorry you never learned this in school. The system has failed you.
Facts are not the same thing as bias. Facts are facts, which wikipedia defines as things that are true and that can be verified. This is the opposite of making wild accusations, which is what you're doing.
And the federal RFRA isn't exactly the same as what Pence signed, so don't equate the two. SB101 supporters have been parroting this from the start while maintaining willful ignorance of the differences. The Indiana bill is much more broad, extending to any corporation, group of people or business. This is where the concern for discrimination has come from because virtually anybody can make the religious persecution claim under those guidelines.
The statement "Religious freedom laws are designed to protect the bigot, full stop" does not indicate hate for the religious. That's you adding that detail to the narrative you're working to create - that people who oppose this bill and hate for religious people are mutually inclusive. Which is not true.
The main point the OP was making was that there is little need for this kind of a law in the first place. Are Indianans being perpetually persecuted and restricted based on their religious beliefs? Is this a nationwide issue that needs to be addressed? It would seem that the opposite is true, unless you can cite individual examples that would support the need for such legislation. Can you do that? Can you give me even two documented instances where someone in Indiana was forced to act against their religious principles in a business setting? The religious right is one of the most powerful political groups in this country. I think it is completely laughable that we are looking at passing laws that offer them protection against imaginary problems. This is about advantage, not equality.
And congrats on backing into a correct identification of a jewish person. Which is not even the point I was making: You made a judgement based purely on stereotype, and turned out to be correct, which doesn't invalidate the fact that you were stereotyping.
|
lucky's pepper
> Brian, The Life of
04/01/2015 at 01:50 |
|
Wow, are you really that much in denial? Go back and reread your comments, they are literally dripping with venom. You hurl insults at the religious, accusing them of the most loathsome motives while seeking to deny them their rights. But then you throw up your hands and say 'I don't hate religious people! How dare you put words in my mouth!!'
Your tenuous grasp on things is made further apparent in your assertion that I made "prejudicial and incorrect assumptions' about you while you refer to me as a Christian. Really? Did I ever say that? Did I ever say that once? Just add that to that rest of the assumptions you've made, like claiming that the purpose of any religious freedom law is only to protect "bigots" and "cavemen" who would "hide behind the cross".
Of course the cherry on top of the sundae is your claim that I made this political! That's seriously laughable. You made a post on a car site about a political issue then clearly, in no uncertain terms, took a side on that issue. All in the original post!! But that's not political?!
It's a car site. People come here for car topics, not politics. Espouse your's elsewhere. And if you insist on telling us all what your politics are BE CIVIL, be willing to have a discussion and don't claim that anyone who holds a different opinion is a bigot. And if you can't do that expect to get called out.
I'll chalk up the fact that you didn't get the hate monger comment to my poor writing. I called Clinton and his pals hate mongers since you claim anyone supporting such legislation is a bigot.
|
crown victor victoria
> lucky's pepper
04/01/2015 at 01:57 |
|
lol
|
lucky's pepper
> crown victor victoria
04/01/2015 at 02:53 |
|
Oh God, I stereotyped!! How will I ever live with myself?! If you don't do it every day, you're the only person in the world. I made a judgement based on observable evidence. Again, spare me fake outrage.
If we don't need laws like this why do nineteen states and the federal government have them? We have them because of instances like the federal infringement on the religious rights of Hobby Lobby. And why wouldn't a business be covered? What are businesses composed of? People. Not that the Supremes are always right but they've ruled that is the case. See Citizens United.
Since Brian claimed that the sole purpose of this legislation is to protect bigots and you're defending him, how about you name one instance where a religious freedom law was successfully used to defend anti-gay discrimination. I'll answer for you, it's never happened.
Lastly the picture. 'Look these three guys out of twenty or so, they are anti-homosexual, clearly the legislation must be too!'. That's not biased at all.
|
Brian, The Life of
> lucky's pepper
04/01/2015 at 08:56 |
|
Oppositelock is a community roughly organized around cars. I posted a story about a position NASCAR made. NASCAR has something to do with cars. My post was a lot more car-related than many posts here. Also, if we had a rule about NEVER posting content that wasn't 100% about cars (which we don't), I'd be sending posts to people's drafts and/or breaking out the banhammer all day long. I've got a day job, I don't have time for that. And I don't care to waste any more time in this exchange with you. mostly because you aren't worth it.
El Relámpago(LZone) - Humanity First!
> lucky's pepper
04/01/2015 at 10:49 |
|
By left leaning you mean leaning towards logic, a modern, balanced society and the most basic form of common sense, right? You seem to be a little smarter than the average fundie., so you know that trying to victimize religion and trying to find an excuse for a law that legalizes bulling and discrimination will only make you look like a paranoid tool, right?
|
crown victor victoria
> lucky's pepper
04/01/2015 at 14:13 |
|
"I made a judgement based on observable evidence" No. Observable evidence might lead you to say the guy is in his late 50s, or that he's around 6' in height or that he weighs about 225 lbs. I'm not fake outraged by this. I'm not even real outraged. I'm just explaining to you that making assumptions about race, religion, etc. based only on what you see in a picture can be upsetting to people. You seem to not understand this, or how it is relevant to the greater discussion we are having about discrimination.
You keep ignoring my questions and instead ask some of your own as some kind of a diversion. Your refusal to provide any real evidence to back up your argument just tells me that you have nothing beyond your own feelings on the matter.
The previous RFRA legislation is not what is at issue here, because they were all much more narrowly implemented. These laws have not been used to defend anti-gay discrimination in the past because they were not set up to explicitly permit that. As I said before, that is how SB101 differs. It grants abilities to almost anybody who wants to use them, instead of a smaller, more well-defined group. It opens the door for more and wider-ranging suits, which is how this national scandal started in the first place - the worry that the bill could be used as a weapon, and also because some people see it as petty retaliation by the religious right for same-sex marriage legalization in the state.
So I'll ask you, why do we need this law if there is already a federal version that has proven to be successful re: the Hobby Lobby case? You keep telling me SB101 is the same as that law, and the same as the ones in 19 other states, and it's not a big deal, so what is the purpose of this duplicate legislature, then? Surely it must provide something that the other bills did not. This is where Mike Pence got into trouble, because he has a documented history of saying things regarding certain protected groups, and refused to clarify the bill when directly asked or identify people who helped author the bill.
And again, the picture is not an example of bias. Bias is if I say all GOP members act this way or believe these things. I do not personally believe that is true, and have seen plenty of other Republican politicians from within Indiana and other states have come out to say how ridiculous this bill is.
Evidence you don't like is not bias on my part.
|
lucky's pepper
> crown victor victoria
04/01/2015 at 16:21 |
|
You simply want to define the argument as you see fit, your position being 'I think the law is unnecessary therefore someone must prove that it isn't!'
Nope, I'm not playing. As I've said already this bill is designed to protect against discrimination. Where is your evidence that it could be "used as a weapon?". That's how I define the argument and you clearly don't want to play as you've offered no proof it can. Because there is none.
You continue to reference differences between Indiana's law and those of other states and the federal government as the real problem. My understanding is there are only two real differences and I'm open to correction if I'm wrong. One is Indiana's acknowledgement of businesses as being equal to individuals, which again has already been recognized by the Supreme Court. Second this law does not require the government to be a party to any legal action. So, God forbid, an individual or business can use the law to defend themselves against actions by other individuals or organizations, not just the government. What the hell?! How can we allow that? But the individual or organization still has to prove that their religious beliefs were "substantially burdened" IN COURT.
As to the Jewish fellow, I've no idea what point you're trying to make. Seriously. I can't figure how the fact that I said a Jewish guy "appeared to be Jewish" is even remotely relevant to either your issues with, or my defense of, this law.
Finally your use of the photograph. If you don't think posting a photograph pointing out the alleged activity of three people out of maybe twenty on the stage shows a bias I'm not sure I can help, but I'm going to try. Let me make an analogy:
How many pieces of legislation has Obama signed into law that Harry Reid voted for in the Senate? Probably every one. Reid just admitted in an interview that he lied about Romney not paying his taxes. So would it be fair for me to infer that every piece of legislation signed into law by Obama must have a nefarious purpose since an admitted liar played a role or would that demonstrate a bias on my part?
|
crown victor victoria
> lucky's pepper
04/01/2015 at 16:55 |
|
Haha, ok man. Cool. We are going around in circles here.
You win, I guess. Have a good one.
|
lucky's pepper
> crown victor victoria
04/01/2015 at 17:05 |
|
