By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Indiana Governer signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers.

sc94597 on 27 March 2015
Aura7541 said:
sc94597 said:

Certainly not the only way to measure the amount of racism/homophobia, but I think it is probably the best way we can measure it. It measures how many extremely hateful people there are that they'd commit crimes due to their hate. As for the criteria of the statistics it was the FBI who collected the information, not the state governments. Same with the Canadian statistics, it was their national statistics agency which collected the information. We can argue that the stastics might not be fully accurate, but that still puts them in the same order of magntitude 2/10,000 (for U.S) and 4/10,000 (for Canada.) Even if the United States missed out on one case for every one case with respect to Canada's stasticis agency, that would just put it at the same proportions as Canada. 

But we don't know how large the discrepancy is, so we shouldn't just assume the US miss out one one case for every one case in Canada. There are a lot of variables that need to be put into account such as cross state variation in hate crime laws, cross state variation in hate crime definitions, uneven collection, under reporting, difference in hate crime definitions between federal and state levels, proportion of the amount of hate crime prevention to the amount of hate crimes, etc.

It is easy to divide a number by another number and call it a day. However, you need to look into how and why did we get these numbers.

My point is, even if the discrepancy is 100%, which is very unlikely a case, they are in the same order of magnitude. The hate crime statistic was based on Federal law, not state law. I already said that. 



Around the Network
RJ_Sizzle on 27 March 2015
Aeolus451 said:
gatito said:
This is the 21ts century, why can't we all get along? We're all human.


It's human nature to more or less not get along. :D


It's human nature to do all kinds of shit. Doesn't mean it's okay to give into it.



The_Yoda on 27 March 2015
theprof00 said:
daredevil.shark said:

Western world learned the word "karma" a few decades ago, when we are using this word for thousands of years. Lol. As for the "impact" of the word, I dont care. Because its not applicable for me. I havent done anything bad for anyone.

What are you so mad about?

Anyway, feel free to hold whatever beliefs you will. I think the flames you're receiving here are because people are tired of having other people's beliefs forced onto them.

But you are ok with the LGBT community forcing their beliefs on other people? This is the attidue that makes me shake my head.  People rallying so hard against something and not realizing they are doing the same thing to others that they are rallying against.



zumnupy10 on 27 March 2015
Augen said:
zumnupy10 said:
Business owners have the right to allow or not whoever they want in the establishments.

I'm not saying it is a right choice, only that government shouldn't intervene in this.


Do you have any fears that such a society would adversely affect you?  For example, do you think you would be denied business or service if people were allowed to do so?


Yes I think.

I'm a typical latin american man, mixed of portuguese and indians and I know I wouldn't be welcome in some places even in my country.  



theprof00 on 27 March 2015
The_Yoda said:
theprof00 said:
daredevil.shark said:

Western world learned the word "karma" a few decades ago, when we are using this word for thousands of years. Lol. As for the "impact" of the word, I dont care. Because its not applicable for me. I havent done anything bad for anyone.

What are you so mad about?

Anyway, feel free to hold whatever beliefs you will. I think the flames you're receiving here are because people are tired of having other people's beliefs forced onto them.

But you are ok with the LGBT community forcing their beliefs on other people? This is the attidue that makes me shake my head.  People rallying so hard against something and not realizing they are doing the same thing to others that they are rallying against.

What beliefs are they forcing on others? The belief in being able to buy something at a store?



Around the Network
RJ_Sizzle on 27 March 2015
The_Yoda said:
theprof00 said:
daredevil.shark said:

Western world learned the word "karma" a few decades ago, when we are using this word for thousands of years. Lol. As for the "impact" of the word, I dont care. Because its not applicable for me. I havent done anything bad for anyone.

What are you so mad about?

Anyway, feel free to hold whatever beliefs you will. I think the flames you're receiving here are because people are tired of having other people's beliefs forced onto them.

But you are ok with the LGBT community forcing their beliefs on other people? This is the attidue that makes me shake my head.  People rallying so hard against something and not realizing they are doing the same thing to others that they are rallying against.

What beliefs are they forcing? You're not born with religion, gay is biological.



Aeolus451 on 27 March 2015
Wonktonodi said:
Aeolus451 said:

Ah, I like to enjoy my surroundings and be around like minded people. I prefer a positive environment in which to live in. So I'm completely fine with moving to such a place. If there's a few people within a comunity that don't like me then I'll just ignore 'em but if the majority don't want me there, I'll move. I'm not gonna waste my time on trying to change people's minds or try to force them to. It takes time for people's way of thinking to change.

Would you live in the parts of Mexico that are controlled by cartels or live in North Korea as a foreigner? I wouldn't. There's plenty of places in the states that i would not live there because I'm not wanted there or the place has too much baggage/danger to me.

What does race have to do with this?

Should in my opinion, religous people be able to deny homosexuals services from their business because of their religion? Yes. Why? Both sides have equal rights so neither side should be able to force the other to do something against their will for the most part. A business is privately owned. It's not a public building or a government building. 

not everyone has such ease of mibility to just pick up and move should they be made uncomefortable, felt unwelcome or be flat out descriminated against. Laws like this make it so that comunities can make individuals feel unwelcome. When businesses serve everyone people don't feel unwelcome. When the homo verboten signs start to show up it will change it quite a bit.

Your example of places should show you that not all people are able to leave when its dangerous. you are also starting to compare gereral danger to being discriminated agaist for being who you are.

Race, is where much of the history of these laws can be seen. What people are cababple of when groupthink sets in and it beomes ok for a majority to desciminate/ harass and persecute a minoirty. Also many myself included would consider homosexuality closer to race than to religion since its how people are.

Why should they deny homesexuals? where in their religion does it say to do such a thing? If they are taking a part that is mostly abandoned that mentions homosexuality to be a sin, yet not denying buisness to other sinners how is that being religeous? and actually no, they don't have equal rights, religion is protected under the constitution and in the state of Indiana, beign gay not so much. The law allows people of a religion to desciminate. It doesn't sunnedly make it legal to descriminate against them actually.

Businesnness have to follow the law because they became legal entinies under the law there are so many laws that they have to follow it's not even funny. 

I can see how someone might tie in race into this but it's not about that or related to it. Those are very different from eachother. Before I say anymore, I'm completely neutral in this. I'm trying to see it as logically as possible. To me this is not a matter of right and wrong or what's politically correct.

Christianity and other religions think of homosexuality as a choice or a way of life. To them, it's a sinful lifestyle. Christians when confronted by sin or surrounded by it, will try to isolate themselves and their family from it. Hence why they want to isolate themselves from homosexuals or any other sinful people as much as possible. They simply see that lifestyle as sinful and that they should denouce it to get on the "right" path with god. 

As long as homosexuality is viewed as sin by christianity, there's no wiggle room or common ground with 'em. It's better to let them isolate themselves until they change their mind. You can't forcibly change their mind with laws or social pressure. It has to be done gradually. That's why I mentioned just relocating to a friendlier place or really just avoiding them. It's logical for most people to move from a dangerous place or community. In my opinion, it's just as logical to move from a community that doesn't want you there especially if it's the majority of 'em. I want to live in a positive environment. 

In this particular case, homosexuals should avoid the businesses that don't want them inside their businesses. That doesn't mean they should move just because of that. 



Aeolus451 on 27 March 2015
RJ_Sizzle said:
Aeolus451 said:


It's human nature to more or less not get along. :D


It's human nature to do all kinds of shit. Doesn't mean it's okay to give into it.

People do it anyways. 



sc94597 on 27 March 2015
RJ_Sizzle said:

 You're not born with religion, gay is biological.

Being gay is much more innate than being religious, but that isn't to say there isn't a biological influence on religious beliefs as well. 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10637988

Although the transmission of religiousness has been assumed to be purely cultural, behavior genetic studies have demonstrated that genetic factors play a role in the individual differences in some religious traits. This article reviews the extant behavior genetic literature and presents new analyses from the "Virginia 30,000" on the causes of variation in religious affiliation, attitudes, and practices, and relates these to personality as construed by Eysenck. Results indicate that religious affiliation is primarily a culturally transmitted phenomenon, whereas religious attitudes and practices are moderately influenced by genetic factors. Further, Eysenck's personality traits do not mediate genetic influences on religiousness, but significant negative genetic correlations are found between church attendance and liberal sexual attitudes. Implications and possibilities for future studies are discussed.

Although all human traits are biological to an extent, anyway. We are biological beings. 



Aura7541 on 27 March 2015
sc94597 said:
Aura7541 said:

But we don't know how large the discrepancy is, so we shouldn't just assume the US miss out one one case for every one case in Canada. There are a lot of variables that need to be put into account such as cross state variation in hate crime laws, cross state variation in hate crime definitions, uneven collection, under reporting, difference in hate crime definitions between federal and state levels, proportion of the amount of hate crime prevention to the amount of hate crimes, etc.

It is easy to divide a number by another number and call it a day. However, you need to look into how and why did we get these numbers.

My point is, even if the discrepancy is 100%, which is very unlikely a case, they are in the same order of magnitude. The hate crime statistic was based on Federal law, not state law. I already said that. 

Based on Federal law or based on the collection of data from a federal agency? There's a big distinction between the two. And another variable to consider is the magnitude of discrimmination in different regions of the US and Canada. How are these hate crimes distributed because surely, they aren't distributed in an artistic mosaic.