[QUOTE=chappy;395753]We haven't really discussed all the societal costs of granting everyone the same rights...[/QUOTE]

Maybe his blowing up that planet was just his realization of a failed science fair
experiment in grade school. Unrelated to his parentals...

[URL="http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/macomb/2015/02/18/discrimination-birth/23640315/"]Pediatrician wouldn't care for baby with 2 moms[/URL]

[QUOTE=only_human;395867][URL="http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/macomb/2015/02/18/discrimination-birth/23640315/"]Pediatrician wouldn't care for baby with 2 moms[/URL][/QUOTE]

Religion and prejudice. We could write a book.

Letter from Freud to the mother of a gay son
 

[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/18/sigmund-freud-gay-cure-letter_n_6706006.html[/url]

[QUOTE]"I gather from your letter that your son is a homosexual. I am most impressed by the fact that you do not mention this term for yourself in your information about him. May I question you why you avoid it?" he wrote. "Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation; it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function, produced by a certain arrest of sexual development. Many highly respectable individuals of ancient and modern times have been homosexuals, several of the greatest men among them." [/QUOTE]

Things have come a long way since Freud's time. There is still a long way to go.

While I consider this letter encouraging, I still take umbrage at the "arrest of sexual development" line.

The state governor of Indiana has just signed a bill into law to make it legal for businesses to discriminate and refuse service to customers on the grounds of "religious freedom". The obvious target is customers who are LGBT.

At least this depressing state of affairs has attracted some satirical humour:

[URL]http://nationalreport.net/marcus-bachmann-refused-service-indiana-store-owner-assumed-gay/[/URL]

[QUOTE]INDIANAPOLIS – Marcus Bachmann, husband of former Minnesota Congresswoman [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Bachmann"]Michele Bachmann[/URL], unwittingly became the first public face of Indiana’s [URL="http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/25/gov-mike-pence-sign-religious-freedom-bill-thursday/70448858/"]newly-enacted[/URL] Religious Freedom Restoration Act, after being refused service at a dress boutique because the store owner assumed he was gay.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Brian-E;398922]The state governor of Indiana has just signed a bill into law to make it legal for businesses to discriminate and refuse service to customers on the grounds of "religious freedom". The obvious target is customers who are LGBT.

At least this depressing state of affairs has attracted some satirical humour:

[URL]http://nationalreport.net/marcus-bachmann-refused-service-indiana-store-owner-assumed-gay/[/URL][/QUOTE]
In my opinion, the law also is over-inclusive about what constitutes a "person" and an "exercise of religion.":
[url]https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/101#document-92bab197[/url]
[QUOTE]Sec. 5. [B]As used in this chapter, "exercise of religion" includes
any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to,
a system of religious belief.[/B]

Sec. 6. As used in this chapter, "governmental entity" includes
the whole or any part of a branch, department, agency,
instrumentality, official, or other individual or entity acting under
color of law of any of the following:
(1) State government.
(2) A political subdivision (as defined in IC 36-1-2-13).
(3) An instrumentality of a governmental entity described in
subdivision (1) or (2), including a state educational institution,
a body politic, a body corporate and politic, or any other
similar entity established by law.

Sec. 7. [B]As used in this chapter, "person" includes the following:
(1) An individual.

(2) An organization, a religious society, a church, a body of
communicants, or a group organized and operated primarily
for religious purposes.

(3) A partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation,
a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an
unincorporated association, or another entity that:
(A) may sue and be sued; and
(B) exercises practices that are compelled or limited by a
system of religious belief held by:
(i) an individual; or
(ii) the individuals;
who have control and substantial ownership of the entity,
regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for
profit or nonprofit purposes.[/B][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=only_human;398948]In my opinion, the law also is over-inclusive about what constitutes a "person" and an "exercise of religion.":
[URL]https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/101#document-92bab197[/URL][/QUOTE]
Good point, those are indeed ridiculously wide-ranging definitions. But are you suggesting that you think some more specific definition of religious freedom can be used to justify discrimination in certain circumstances?

By the way, here's another light-hearted satire of the new law in Indiana.
[YOUTUBE]5LH2FVxrj4k[/YOUTUBE]

[QUOTE=Brian-E;398985]Good point, those are indeed ridiculously wide-ranging definitions. But are you suggesting that you think some more specific definition of religious freedom can be used to justify discrimination in certain circumstances?[/QUOTE]
No, of course not - it is completely unacceptable.

I don't think even a pastafarian refusing to serve anyone without a strainer on their head would clue these guys in to how stupid they are.

Also look at this ridiculous logic:
[QUOTE]As used in this chapter, "exercise of religion" includes
any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to,
a system of religious belief.[/QUOTE]
As used in this chapter, "x" includes any "x" whether or not x has some relationship to y.

So anyone can call anything an exercise of religion; you can't even test against anything, including the religion itself, to ever disqualify something from being an exercise of religion.

And for anyone, I mean any individual, any religious undertaking or organization of any kind, or any nonathiestic entity, composite or otherwise.

As for athiests they don't get to godblock lawsuits. And if any entity ever becomes primarily controlled by athiests, that company or whatever it is loses its godblock lawsuit protection, so you better be careful to not let too many athiests onto the board of directors because of legal risk exposure - a clear competitive disadvantage.

[QUOTE=only_human;398990][...]So anyone can call anything an exercise of religion; you can't even test against anything, including the religion itself, to ever disqualify something from being an exercise of religion.

And for anyone, I mean any individual, any religious undertaking or organization of any kind, or any nonathiestic entity, composite or otherwise.[...][/QUOTE]
Phew, yes! It does seem to be a general licence to discriminate.

Now attempting to be optimistic, I hope a suitable test case in court quickly exposes the legislation as incompatible with existing anti-discrimination laws. Then we'll see the homophobes forced to define what they mean by religious freedom and tying themselves in knots.

I think it is even worse than all the LGBT discrimination that it shields.

Although civil lawsuits are sometimes the only recourse when criminal law or dilatory criminal prosecution system fails...

This law seems to me capable of protecting an organization that hides a pedophile priest in its ranks.

And who's to say that cyanide kool-aid isn't an exercise of religion?

Finally, separation of church and state, not a thing, not even tor lip service?

P.P.S. When a Catholic school shames a student egregiously or destroys an academic future because a student can't or won't say the Pledge of Allegiance in "appropriate" English, is that cool too?

[QUOTE=Brian-E;398998]Phew, yes! It does seem to be a general licence to discriminate.

Now attempting to be optimistic, I hope a suitable test case in court quickly exposes the legislation as incompatible with existing anti-discrimination laws. Then we'll see the homophobes forced to define what they mean by religious freedom and tying themselves in knots.[/QUOTE]
2 things:

(1) Homophobe is a stupid and separatist word, do you actually believe we are afraid of you? Do you picture me running away from someone in terror because of their sexuality?

(2) We may be getting a similar law in Arkansas, and I agree that it's way too vague. In my mind, if the behavior isn't openly homosexual, then you shouldn't be able to discriminate against the person. For example, it's difficult to eat a meal in a homosexual fashion, or any sexual fashion for that matter, unless you're crazy or are trying to get laughs. Otoh, refusing to perform the ceremony for two homosexuals to get married should be okay, because the act is openly homosexual. Government marriages would be an exception, because it's a nationally regulated thing.