Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Coltpower. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Indy boycotts
Topic Started: Mar 26 2015, 11:46 AM (174 Views)
Posted ImageBent20
Member Avatar
Headed to Retirement
Not good. Probably killing the city's chance to host another Super Bowl, too, assuming the law isn't quickly overturned by the courts.

Even the NCAA -- which is less than two weeks from hosting its men's basketball Final Four in Indianapolis -- was critical, saying the organization is "committed to an inclusive environment where all individuals enjoy equal access to events" as it hinted the bill could damage the city's reputation as a host of major sporting events.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/25/politics/mike-pence-religious-freedom-bill-gay-rights/
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Posted ImageIndyColt45
Member Avatar
MVP
That's because nobody bothered to read the damn bill, or do any research into the other 18 states that have similar laws, or the federal law (that was introduced by a Democratic president, mind you).

Before this thread turns into a giant hair on fire meltdown, everyone needs to read this letter to the Star from an IU law professor:

http://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/readers/2015/03/07/indiana-needs-religious-freedom-legislation/24477303/
And, btw, if there's one group of people who don't give a damn about anything but how much money they can make, it's the NFL owners, who are the ones who vote where the Super Bowl is held.
Edited by IndyColt45, Mar 26 2015, 01:32 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Posted ImageBent20
Member Avatar
Headed to Retirement
That explanation is going to do much to change public perception. The message people are getting is that the state is intolerant.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Posted ImageIndyColt45
Member Avatar
MVP
Yeah, well, to hell with reality. Let's all just hop onto the overreaction train, plug our eyes and ears, and have a go.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Posted ImageBent20
Member Avatar
Headed to Retirement
Reality is this might mean Indy loses a lot of business.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheDodo
Member Avatar
Pro Bowl'er
Yeah, the bill doesn't say what a lot of people are trying to say it says, and I'm not sure why they are saying that. At the same time I have no idea why this was even a bill as all it really does is affirm the first amendment.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CanadianColtsFan
Member Avatar
Pro Bowl'er
If you think that the primary reason for this bill passed by Republicans and social conservatives will be to protect muslims and 'people of all faiths' ability to practice their religion, then, well, I don't know what to say.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Posted ImageIndyColt45
Member Avatar
MVP
Yeah. Everyone out to get dem gays.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheDodo
Member Avatar
Pro Bowl'er
CanadianColtsFan
Mar 27 2015, 03:42 PM
If you think that the primary reason for this bill passed by Republicans and social conservatives will be to protect muslims and 'people of all faiths' ability to practice their religion, then, well, I don't know what to say.
The purpose probably not, but it would benefit more restrictive religions like Islam more than Christianity. I mean serving a gay dude a pie isn't a burden on you practicing your religion. If someone is part of a religion that has rules that would forbid a barber from cutting a woman's hair he should have every right to refuse to cut a woman's hair. This example is something that is supposed to be protected by the first amendment, sadly we do not have a government that respects the Constitution. We supposedly live in a free country. People should be free to discriminate if that is what they believe. If you don't like that they discriminate, you can vote with your wallet by not giving them business. The only entity that should not have the right to discriminate in this country is the government.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CanadianColtsFan
Member Avatar
Pro Bowl'er
I agree. The world needs more discrimination!

'Murica!!!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheDodo
Member Avatar
Pro Bowl'er
CanadianColtsFan
Mar 28 2015, 07:58 PM
I agree. The world needs more discrimination!

'Murica!!!
Not what I said. I said the world needs more freedom. Just because people use that freedom in ways I don't agree with does not give me the right, via the government, to control that person. As long as that person is not causing harm to me or anyone else they should be able to go about life and business however they choose.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Posted ImageIndyColt45
Member Avatar
MVP
C'mon. What would a Canadian know about freedom? :-P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheDodo
Member Avatar
Pro Bowl'er
Anyways let's get one thing straight. This law does not actually allow for discrimination. It only allows for a person to refuse to perform an act that would be considered a burden on their ability to practice their religion. So if a gay couple walks into a restaurant to eat dinner, this law cannot legally be applied. In the court of law that would be considered a normal business transaction, so there is no burden on the owner/waiter/whoever in their ability to practice their religion.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · The Pub · Next Topic »
Add Reply

--------
Cooper Blue created by SlyCooperFan1 from Outline & ZNR