And hey, I should know: I spent a number of years playing bridge with some ... well, older ladies. Heh.
This is like bridge club with a bunch of old ladies.
-- You didn't answer my question.
-- Well you didn' answer mine first!
-- What question?
-- Are you going to bid or pass Martha?!
-- I ... I ... I don't know! I have to use the facilities. Where's my walker?
-- I thought Ralph took it!
I mean, really?
Not sure how to take that. I was being trolled, and called it out.
Don't take it any way. I was just kidding around.
hezetation wrote: »
It's not to protect people's "right to discriminate", that's political bull. It's to protect individuals from a government that can stomp on people's constitutional rights by declaring their views discriminatory.
The basic argument is that businesses are not allowed to discriminate against customers & so therefor businesses can't uphold religious beliefs or let them influence their practice. The problem is that within a business you also have individuals, & their right not to participate in something they see as in conflict with their religion is very clearly spelled out in the constitution. So if a court says to a business "you must make a wedding cake & deliver it to this gay wedding" are they within their jurisdiction to do so because there are 2 entities actually involved, the business & the individual.
Think of it this way, if the business owner was perfectly fine with catering the wedding but one of their employees refused & they fired them, they could take that business to court for wrongful termination under the same principle that protects a person from being discriminated against as a customer. So the court can order the business all day but not the individual.
To overly simplify this by calling it an "anti gay" law is just intellectually dishonest. This issue strikes to the heart of 2 core principles this country was founded on, religious freedom & freedom from persecution. This deserves some serious & intelligent debate and not just a bunch of political mud slinging or media hype. It's an inevitable clash in our culture where freedom of religion meets freedom of individuality. It's not an easy issue to resolve.
celco wrote: »
No one should be discriminated against but he's a CEO not in public office.
Meanwhile Apple is abandoning professionals for the middle masses…
...and we are being left with fashion not function.
Amendments to the original law to clearly state it wasn't about shielding discrimination were reportedly offered during the drafting: and defeated.
Gay-rights advocates said they flagged the problem with the lack of protective language early in the process and pushed minor amendments to the bill, they say, would have largely resolved the issue.
It is unclear whether Pence himself knew about the amendments, but two people familiar with the lobbying effort behind the measures pro-LGBT measures said it was clear very early in the process that the governor did not want any changes to the bill.
“Pence and his party insisted that the bill not be balanced,” said Indiana Representative Ed Delaney, a Democrat and the author of an amendment that would have added the sentence “the protection of civil rights; or the prevention of discrimination; is a compelling government interest” to the bill.
Delaney said Pence’s office either didn’t know or didn’t care about the amendments.
“He’s created this problem,” Delaney said.
Another amendment would have exempted civil rights laws from RFRA—a change modeled after similar laws in Missouri and Texas. (Indiana’s civil rights laws do not protect LGBT individuals—but several local municipalities, like Indianapolis, have laws on the books that extend civil rights protections to the LGBT community).
Both amendments were rejected by the Republican-led Indiana legislature.
The the Georgia legislature had such an amendment to their bill added: and they tabled the bill...
?This wasn't where I originally saw reports on the Delaney amendment but it's what popped up now:
While Jesus Did accept everyone He also told them to Sin no more. He accepts people yes, but he doesn't accept all of people's actions. To take point with the second part of your sentence, Tim Cook is doing just the opposite. He's a CEO of a major company, and he's using his power and influence to justify his personal prejudice.
He's a CEO of a major company, and he's using his power and influence to justify his lack of personal prejudice.