Petition - Get NCAA HQ out of Indiana

juggler wrote:

I fully support businesses serving whomever they want and the government staying out. I am tired of all of the bullying/thought police. Let the people boycott if they want but they should at least be informed instead of believing all of these media lies and the pushing of their obvious liberal agenda. Businesses will adapt or fold. Let the process happen.

Yes - why did people have to bring an end to segregated businesses?!?!

It is amazing how ignorant anonymous posts can be (I am talking about the comments, not the original post).

So Indiana goes off the rails (back to the 1950s) and passes into law a bill that gives corporations and organizations the right to deny service on religious grounds. Giving corporations and organizations religious identity is not what other states have done, folks. This is new territory. The notion of "religious freedom" is not new. The KKK used it decades ago.

But then Indiana's idiot governor went on national television on Sunday and was asked six times if the new law meant that the LGBT community could be denied service without repercussion. Six times he refused to answer.

He did say that the Indiana would not change the law.

Now, if you don't give a damn about the human rights and protections of law-abiding people in the country, you are an idiot. Whether you elect to hide like an anonymous coward or not.

If you are a respectful person, willing to give your voice to an important issue, I urge you to sign the petition.

Is it so hard to understand that people in different parts of the U.S. have different values and opinions and that just maybe if the majority of Indianans (as well as citizens of the other 19 states sharing similar laws) agreed with you that this law never would have seen the light of day? If you don't agree with them, then just live somewhere else, as you undoubtedly do, and mind your own business. And if you think Gov. Pence is an idiot, feel free to list your CV and list of accomplishments next to his and impress us.

Obviously, you chose to be an anonymous moron. First, there are several sources that you could easily Google to understand that there are not 19 other states with the same law. It is a very different law.

The "live somewhere else" argument is for the stupid. There are kids who have no choice in where they live. And their governor refuses to protect them. If that is okay with you, you are a punk.

And anyone's resume stacked up against Pence would look good. Most of us haven't made a state a laughingstock and cost it billions.

I live in Indianapolis. Indiana is really two places: Indianapolis, and the rest of the state. Well, maybe Indianapolis and Bloomington. At any rate, the majority of people who live in the city appreciate diversity: we have gay pride parades, the mayor is for diversity (and has come out strongly against this law), we have openly gay city councilpeople, etc. The problem is that the vast majority of state legislators are from bumf*ck who knows where, where the populace is lower class, white, and not real diverse. Those sorts of people probably support the law, and had no problem voting for Mike Pence. I don't know a single person who supports it, or voted for Pence. But, us city folk are a minority.

At any rate, a lot of the wailing and gnashing of teeth is simply going to hurt the fine people of Indianapolis, who by and large don't support this law. Sure, go after the NCAA, but it won't matter to the rednecks out in the sticks who support the legislators who support this law. Those folks won't see an economic hiccup like we will in the city. The boycotts will simply hurt the lower-income service people who live/work in Indy. Won't mean a thing to the KKK people up in Kokomo or Anderson.

But, I support what you're doing. I'll sign your petition.

moveon.org? Really?

This law was created by Clinton to permit Native Americans to smoke peyote in their religious ceremonies. Jumping on the bandwagon of something you obviously know nothing about is just plain lame. You remind me of the people that wore the Che Guevara t-shirts because it was cool.

I signed your petition. There is not much that can be done by regular people to change things like this. I was encouraged by mention on the news this morning that Apple was taking action and Angie's list stopped an expansion that could have led to 100's of jobs and over 40 million in revenue. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/03/30/the-complicated-politics-behind-angies-lists-response-to-indianas-religious-freedom-billAs a libertarian, I think the federal government should generally stay out of such issues, but I would be surprised if this were not challenged in court and eventually overturned. The biggest problem I have with it is that it is rooted in hate and intolerance. If you are going to have the balls to say that you have the right to refuse service to gays, blacks, or anyone else, because of your religious belief, and you claim that these beliefs are "Christian", then you are really missing something. I personally believe some Christians are bat $hitt crazy. They hide their hatred in the name of religion, without regard for how Jesus would have acted. Jesus, Mohammed and other religious icons preached love, but the extremists have changed these teaching to fit their own agendas. People who support this law because it allows them to practice their hatred are no better in principle than the extremists responsible for 9/11.

Brett Hoover wrote:

Obviously, you chose to be an anonymous moron. First, there are several sources that you could easily Google to understand that there are not 19 other states with the same law. It is a very different law.

The "live somewhere else" argument is for the stupid. There are kids who have no choice in where they live. And their governor refuses to protect them. If that is okay with you, you are a punk.

And anyone's resume stacked up against Pence would look good. Most of us haven't made a state a laughingstock and cost it billions.

No, this isn't about sexual "orientation", which in a purely clinical sense only pertains to whether one is male or female. No, this is about sexual behavior, which is absolutely a choice. There is nothing innate about such behaviors. One must choose to engage in such acts, it does not happen in the subconscience. The whole "born that way" myth has been astroturfed from the bowells of pseudo-science, wherein correlation DOES equal causation.

The proof is in the fact that many people have successfully changed their addiction to abnormal sexual behaviors. No one can change their race or ethnicity, and despite pop culture ignorance to the contrary, no one can change their gender (which is embedded upon conception) - they can only mutilate themselves to make them appear to be the opposite sex.

Therefore, one's sexual behavioral choices are just like their other lifestyle choices, aka they choose to be a racist or a pedophile or a tranny. Any correlative physical characteristics that may contain statistical alignment with those feelings that can compel such behaviors DO NOT IN ANY WAY FORCE ONE TO ACT UPON THOSE FEELINGS, and therein lies the difference. Otherwise we wouldn't have laws against rape, incest, pedophilia, et al.

Remember also that sex is supposed to be a personal matter, not one for public consumption. You and the rest of your lunatic fringe have no standing to compel someone else to give consent to your sexual liftstyle choice. If they find your particular sexual fetish objectionable, well they have the right to refuse to do business with you.

Equating one's sexual behavior as being akin to a race or ethnicity is nothing short of insanity.

No one believes your post has any credibility when you say that many people have successfully changed their addiction to normal sexual behavior. This shows you know NOTHING. And you know what else shows how you know NOTHING? You say sex is a personal matter, not one for public consumption, yet you want to in some way influence it by not giving your consent.

juggler wrote:

I fully support businesses serving whomever they want and the government staying out. I am tired of all of the bullying/thought police. Let the people boycott if they want but they should at least be informed instead of believing all of these media lies and the pushing of their obvious liberal agenda. Businesses will adapt or fold. Let the process happen.

I agree with this. I'm gay, yet I don't have a problem with the law. It's idiotic to start a crusade against an entire state when nothing has even happened yet. If/when businesses actually start denying services (which, I suspect, will be exceedingly rare) then by all means get the word out and stay away from that individual business if that's what you want to do. As usual this whole thing has spun out of control, and now people are tripping over themselves to show others that they don't have a problem with gay people.

i don't like you wrote:

Randy Oldman wrote:

Using the same logic businesses should be able to discriminate against someone who chooses to marry someone of a different race.

Yes, using that Obamaisgreat's logic, you can since that is discrimination based on choice.

His words, his logic.

Yes. Using Obama's logic, you can discriminate against someone who chooses to marry multiple wives, or his dog. This type of discrimination has no place in the year 2015.

There is nothing wrong with people showing their support for gays and gay rights. The swift action will hopefully prevent other states fro enacting legislation like this that can have harmful consequences. I do agree that businesses like this will be far and few between, and that for the most part businesses will have no way of knowing who is gay and who isn't. But now these business will also be able to deny service to people wearing head coverings of sorts (amish, mennonite, jewish, muslim). These same people who are are pushing for legislation like this are the ones who accuse gays of pushing their agenda. So apparently it is alright for Christians to have an agenda, but not gays. Ironically, the gay agenda is equality. The Christian agenda is propagating hate against a group of people they single out to provide a diversion from their own sins. People want to know why gays have parades and push so hard for equal rights. It is merely fighting back against hatred and bigotry. If gays didn't fight back we would all be the pansies they envision us being.

Nice try, Carson

There's nothing inherently wrong with folks voicing their opinions, but it makes them look stupid since so many people act as though there's something overtly discriminatory in the law. I hope it doesn't prevent other states from considering this if that's what their citizens/politicians want -- I'd rather it be debated with cool heads without all the attention rather than in the court of misinformed and emotional public opinion.

I'm not quite sure these parades are doing anything to fight back against discrimination. They're more of an opportunity to put some really odd behavior on display, which probably does more to perpetuate the idea that all gay people engage in freakish behavior. What helps more is just learning that your cousin, your lawyer, your coworker, etc. are gay.

And by the way, your bigoted stereotyping towards Christians is rather hypocritical.

My guess is you are trolling about being guy to gain a weird angle on this issue. There is nothing hypocritical about how I see some Christians on this issue. It is a fact. Yes behavior at pride parades is odd. It is meant to be. Part is tradition. The other part is people act that way and dress that way so they can be the stereotypes others see them as. Kinda like a big eff you.

get used to it.. wrote:

I signed your petition.

As a libertarian, I think the federal government should generally stay out of such issues,

I'm not sure how I feel about this issue. I'm really on the fence. But I found your post interesting.

I don't see how a libertarian justifies signing the petition. Isn't the freedom to do what you want with your own business a core libertarian belief?

I remember Rand Paul went on record saying that he disagrees with the part of the Civil Rights Act that forces businesses to serve black people.

Libtard wrote:

i don't like you wrote:

Yes, using that Obamaisgreat's logic, you can since that is discrimination based on choice.

His words, his logic.

Yes. Using Obama's logic, you can discriminate against someone who chooses to marry multiple wives, or his dog. This type of discrimination has no place in the year 2015.

Why are conservatives obsessed with bestiality?

Seriously, any time the subject of homosexuality comes up, they start talking about marrying their pets.

Get used to it.. wrote:

My guess is you are trolling about being guy to gain a weird angle on this issue. There is nothing hypocritical about how I see some Christians on this issue. It is a fact. Yes behavior at pride parades is odd. It is meant to be. Part is tradition. The other part is people act that way and dress that way so they can be the stereotypes others see them as. Kinda like a big eff you.

I see, so now you've gone from "the Christian agenda" to "some christians". Care to keep paring that down? It's unfair to lump together an entire religion based on the actions of a small subset, all the while ignoring plenty of people who don't like gay people for non-religious reasons. Sort of like how we're not supposed to assume all Muslims are terrorists. And, though this may shock you, not all gay people, myself included, walk around with a sense of victimhood and get worked up over the slightest perceived "threat". Sorry if that's a weird angle to you.