The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Indiana Legalizes Discrimination Against Gays

T-Rexx

T-Rexx

JUB Addict
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Posts
6,026
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Indiana has passed yet another of those state bills permitting discimination against gays. SB101 passed the Indiana House yesterday 63-31. It passed the Senate 40-10 last month. Gov. Pence says he "looks forward to signing" the bill into law.

The bill will allow anyone in Indiana (whose religion instructs them to hate gay people) to refuse services to a gay person. Presumably, this could include housing and employment as well. SB101 is seen as a reaction by Republicans against the imposition of gay marriage on Indiana by an appellate court last year.

SB101 passed by wide margins in both the House and Senate. It has widespread popular support among Indianans. Very few of the state's large employers objected to the bill, and virtually no celebrities or national politicians have voiced opposition.


http://news.yahoo.com/indiana-house-passes-controversial-religious-freedom-bill-210228540.html
 
Does it just apply to those who want to discriminate against homosexuals, or does it otherwise apply?

If I have strongly held religious beliefs on the sanctity and indissolubility of marriage, I could refuse service to the serial adulterer Newt Gingrich and the bleach-blonde person with whom he's currently fornicating, because they aren't really married ... right?

If I take a certain literal reading of Unam sanctum, I can refuse service to those who remain without the pale ... including Mormons, and those whom Gore Vidal used to quaintly refer to as the twice-born, like Pat Robertson and all his ilk, because they, of course, are not Christians ... right?

Or is discriminating against someone simply because they do not practice my religion unconstitutional?
 
LittleDove said:
Does it just apply to those who want to discriminate against homosexuals, or does it otherwise apply?

If I have strongly held religious beliefs on the sanctity and indissolubility of marriage, I could refuse service to the serial adulterer Newt Gingrich and the bleach-blonde person with whom he's currently fornicating, because they aren't really married ... right?

If I take a certain literal reading of Unam sanctum, I can refuse service to those who remain without the pale ... including Mormons, and those whom Gore Vidal used to quaintly refer to as the twice-born, like Pat Robertson and all his ilk, because they, of course, are not Christians ... right?

Or is discriminating against someone simply because they do not practice my religion unconstitutional?
Click to expand...

The Constitution only prohibits discrimination buy the states or Federal government, although that had been amended by the Supreme Court. Federal law, however prohibits discrimination someone in services and employment based on his or her religion etc.. Nothing would prohibit discrimination against Gingrich based on adultery, but against Robertson based on his religion would be prohibited.
 
Benvolio said:
The Constitution only prohibits discrimination buy the states or Federal government, although that had been amended by the Supreme Court. Federal law, however prohibits discrimination someone in services and employment based on his or her religion etc.. Nothing would prohibit discrimination against Gingrich based on adultery, but against Robertson based on his religion would be prohibited.
Click to expand...

The prohibition is against the static holding of one particular belief or religion, but what about the dynamic point of view of having abandoned another, that is, not about belonging to this or that confession, but about having betrayed another?

The target would not be being Screwish or Cathodic now, but having ceased to be a Southern Faptist, for example.

But, anyway, who would be refusing services to, say Robertson, in what context? He would be discriminated by their own church for belonging to that church, or by another for belonging to a different one, in relation to what "service"?

If they can pass a law of that sort, it is because the community is so small they are simply asking you to realize it's just too tight for your breeches..: they try to do something similar with Catholicism all the time and they get it way harder to pass anything like that even inside their own church, let alone any other sort of institution.
 
Ben is as usual, completely mistaken. This kind of legislation absolutely allows religious based discrimination - that is the whole point, and why it will go down in court.

The right as usual wants it's bigotries enshrined in law.
 
LittleDove said:
Does it just apply to those who want to discriminate against homosexuals, or does it otherwise apply?
Click to expand...

As written, the bill permits discrimination against anyone your "religion" instructs you to abuse. The bill permits discrimination against Jews, Muslims, Mormons, blacks, women who wear the hijab, nuns, teenagers who wear hoodies, whatever and whomever.

In practice, there are federal protections for some of these groups, at least with regard to housing and employment. There are no such federal protections for gays. So, the bill is clearly inviting discrimination against gays, specifically - although it could open up discrimination against just about anyone, in theory, on just about any excuse. A similar anti-gay bill was vetoed in Arizona by Gov. Jan Brewer because it was feared it would be used to discriminate against Jews (which, apparently, is far worse than discriminating against gays).

Also, historically, the only group in the US which has felt compelled to treat people despicably has been fundamentalist Christians. So, clearly, the bill is designed to give legal cover to Christians when they act out their hatred of mankind.
 
T-Rexx said:
As written, the bill permits discrimination against anyone your "religion" instructs you to abuse. The bill permits discrimination against Jews, Muslims, Mormons, blacks, women who wear the hijab, nuns, teenagers who wear hoodies, whatever and whomever.

In practice, there are federal protections for some of these groups, at least with regard to housing and employment. There are no such federal protections for gays. So, the bill is clearly inviting discrimination against gays, specifically - although it could open up discrimination against just about anyone, in theory, on just about any excuse. A similar anti-gay bill was vetoed in Arizona by Gov. Jan Brewer because it was feared it would be used to discriminate against Jews (which, apparently, is far worse than discriminating against gays).

Also, historically, the only group in the US which has felt compelled to treat people despicably has been fundamentalist Christians. So, clearly, the bill is designed to give legal cover to Christians when they act out their hatred of mankind.
Click to expand...

Is this actually passed into law? Or is it still in process? There is no way the Fed is going to allow this to prosper, it's not only terribly written law, it's obviously at odds with Federal precedent.
 
Shades of country in Europe in 1930's 40's.

When travel through the state will only stop gay business one being a bath house in Indianapolis called the WORKS they get my business.*|*
 
TX-Beau said:
Is this actually passed into law? Or is it still in process?
Click to expand...

It has been passed by the Indiana house and senate and is awaiting the governor's signature. Gov. Pence said he looks forward to signing it.


TX-Beau said:
There is no way the Fed is going to allow this to prosper, it's not only terribly written law, it's obviously at odds with Federal precedent.
Click to expand...

It will have to be challenged in court, which is likely to take years. Meanwhile, open season on gays in Indiana.
 
.
I get it. When I enter Indiana, if the guard at the border says, "papers please", I'll have to show him my National Fag Association I.D. card. :rolleyes:

We must remember this: the KKK was established in Evansville, Indiana.
 
T-Rexx said:
It will have to be challenged in court, which is likely to take years. Meanwhile, open season on gays in Indiana.
Click to expand...

For the people who would discriminate, it's always open season on gays in Indiana and everywhere else. This won't change anyone's mind, it just makes us all pay the costs of a bunch of lawsuits the right is going to lose.
 
I went to school in Indiana, but I always felt like an outsider. My frat house (yes, my frat house) took in a gentleman of African decent, and soon after, the KKK marched in the nearby town of Spencer. The IU chapter threatened to torch my chapter house.

Did anyone see the movie Bridegroom? The survivor's family was from Indiana - family is a classic symbol of hatred and bigotry.

Too bad. I'm certain that there are many nice people in Indiana. Unfortunately, current elected officials represent them, too. The only time I will be near Indiana in the future will be to fly over it. I have no business in Indiana - nothing to do with boycotting. Currently, the only purpose of Indiana is to separate Illinois from Ohio, for me at least.
 
Well, so much for your Bill of Rights, eh? United states my ass.
 
Re: So no one is posting about Indiana? Homosexual discrimination legalized

This is terrible, I'm seeing these homophobic (or, "religious freedom") laws popping up all over the place. Just when you think progress is being made, there's a giant step backwards. Why? fucking fundies. Religion is severely hindering progress; everything from human rights, to scientific and medical advancements. Imagine where the world would be if people didn't believe in a magical sky dictator.

Personally, I welcome all gay Americans into Canada with open arms.
 
Re: So no one is posting about Indiana? Homosexual discrimination legalized

Shocking stuff.
 
I don't see how this can possibly be constitutional at all. It clearly violates the 9th Amendment. The right to religious liberty cannot constitutionally deny or disparage any other right including the right of equal protection. All rights stand equal and no one right has more force than any other right.

Religious liberty allows them to refuse communion to gays in their churches based on their beliefs. It does not allow a waiter in a restaurant to refuse gays a seat at the table because of their beliefs.

If you start allowing "my right is better than your right", then there are no rights.
 
cityboy-stl said:
I don't see how this can be possibly be constitutional at all. It clearly violates the 9th Amendment. The right to religious liberty cannot constitutionally deny or disparage any other right including the right of equal protection. All rights stand equal and no one right has more force than any other right. If you start allowing "my right is better than your right", then there are no rights.
Click to expand...

It's not, it will go down in court, and in the mean time we all get to pay the court costs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top