|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Mar 28, 2015 8:16:39 GMT -5
If it was a little closer I'd drive down/over there today and not buy anything. I'm too lazy for an active boycott though. I'm just going to stay home and continue my years old Indiana boycott.
|
|
|
|
Post by dickt on Mar 28, 2015 8:51:08 GMT -5
My boycott involves not stopping at any rest stops on the Indiana Toll Road--the worst service plazas I have ever been in. We hold out for Ohio with Panera and Popeyes. Actually it will be a long time before I am in Indiana again. Peter moves back from Chicago this weekend. Although I might have to slice off a little corner of Southern Indiana if I drive to iJam through Louisville
|
|
|
|
Post by mnhermit on Mar 28, 2015 8:55:25 GMT -5
Why are we boycotting Indiana?
|
|
|
|
Post by drlj on Mar 28, 2015 9:03:35 GMT -5
The Indiana Toll Road, which was sold to an outside agency, is basically bankrupt. The rest areas are a mess and I would strongly recommend staying away from them.
As far as the new IN law is concerned, I think it is a bad law and a totally unnecessary one. I do not buy the whole religious freedom claim and think it allows for discrimination under that guise.
As far as boycotting IN is concerned, there is an effort underway that businesses are using to show that they don't agree with the law and that they welcome everyone. I would certainly not boycott those places which I really believe will include most. Why punish those places because of a bad law none of them had anything to do with?
I have no problem with any boycott of businesses that support the law. People have that right and can make their feelings known but don't punish everyone for the actions of a few. I know that some businesses that deal directly with the state are re-thinking their options.
|
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Mar 28, 2015 9:03:50 GMT -5
Why are we boycotting Indiana? 'cause they passed a law that Democrats can't impose their religion on you. |
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Mar 28, 2015 9:30:16 GMT -5
The Indiana Toll Road, which was sold to an outside agency, is basically bankrupt. The rest areas are a mess and I would strongly recommend staying away from them. As far as the new IN law is concerned, I think it is a bad law and a totally unnecessary one. I do not buy the whole religious freedom claim and think it allows for discrimination under that guise. As far as boycotting IN is concerned, there is a effort underway that businesses are using to show that they don't agree with the law and that they welcome everyone. I would certainly not boycott those places which I really believe will include most. Why punish those places because of a bad law none of them had anything to do with? I have no problem with any boycott of businesses that support the law. People have that right and can make their feelings known but don't punish everyone for the actions of a few. I know that some businesses that deal directly with the state are re-thinking their options. I like that idea too. I agree that businesses that don't agree with or even actively oppose the new law should not be punished, and your idea might be the perfect approach for people who live and buy things in Indiana. But for the rest of us, "Boycott Indiana" works a lot better on a bumper sticker. You could even fit it on a motorcycle or bicycle helmet. Seriously, "Boycott Indiana" has the best chance of effecting change. Mike Pence and the rest of them should know that its not just gays that are threatened by the new law. If it hurts the economy of the state, it hurts all, and that in turn hurts those responsible for passing the law. If they want to survive in politics, they need to reverse what they just passed. |
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Mar 28, 2015 9:38:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Cosmic Wonder on Mar 28, 2015 9:55:10 GMT -5
I've always boycotted Indiana.
Mike
|
|
Dub
Administrator
I'm gettin' so the past is the only thing I can remember.
Posts: 19,819 
|
Post by Dub on Mar 28, 2015 10:06:22 GMT -5
Why are we boycotting Indiana? They passed a law that says if you worship a god who hates gays, you can hate them too and you don't have to do business with them if you'd rather not. |
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Mar 28, 2015 10:14:41 GMT -5
We know they mean gays, but the law itself doesn't say anything about gays.
Part of me would like to see the law stand and watch it apply in unintended ways, like gays refusing to serve straights, minority groups refusing to serve whites, atheists refusing to serve religious people, Muslims refusing to serve Christians, cat lovers refusing to serve dog lovers, bicycle riders refusing to serve SUV drivers, etc.
Religion can be anything you want it to be. Religion IS what people wanted it to be. If fear, hatred and discrimination are part of your religion, Indiana's new law is your kind of law.
|
|
|
|
Post by millring on Mar 28, 2015 10:21:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by millring on Mar 28, 2015 10:29:37 GMT -5
a totally unnecessary one. Exactly. Because it changes absolutely nothing. It is redundant and is a repeat of the same redundancy expressed in exactly the same way in multiple other States. But it does allow for a boycott to express righteous indignation and moral superiority for those to whom religion is ridiculous at best and dangerous at worst. And it allows those morally superior citizens to define the religious' motives FOR them as "hate" thereby flattening the complexity of the situation beyond meaning. But the moral superiority sure feels fine, don't it? |
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Mar 28, 2015 10:38:00 GMT -5
We know they mean gays, but the law itself doesn't say anything about gays. Part of me would like to see the law stand and watch it apply in unintended ways, like gays refusing to serve straights, minority groups refusing to serve whites, atheists refusing to serve religious people, Muslims refusing to serve Christians, cat lovers refusing to serve dog lovers, bicycle riders refusing to serve SUV drivers, etc. Religion can be anything you want it to be. Religion IS what people wanted it to be. If fear, hatred and discrimination are part of your religion, Indiana's new law is your kind of law. I'm holding out my opinion on this until I hear what John Stewart has to say. |
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Mar 28, 2015 10:49:43 GMT -5
In other news, The Presbyterian Church's General Assembly said it's OK to perform gay marriages in the church if the Pastor agrees and the Ruling elders agree. If either of them don't agree (elders would be a majority vote of the 10-20 people acting as ruling elders), then the service would not be performed in the church. So it can and it can't. it's up to the individual church governance. It has been a devicive issue for the church for quite some time. I'm proud (if that's the right term) of my denomination for dealing with this difficult issue in a sensitive way.
And similarly; a member of our church band is down in Florida now. A little vacation. He's attending the wedding of a nephew to another man. . . . , It gave him great consternation. He believes closely to the biblical interpretation. But then he decided, "I'm a sinner and God forgives me. So who am I to pass judgement on someone else's sin?"
That's pretty much where I've landed on the subject for quire some time.
"All ye have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God."
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
|
|
|
|
Post by drlj on Mar 28, 2015 10:52:31 GMT -5
a totally unnecessary one. Exactly. Because it changes absolutely nothing. It is redundant and is a repeat of the same redundancy expressed in exactly the same way in multiple other States. But it does allow for a boycott to express righteous indignation and moral superiority for those to whom religion is ridiculous at best and dangerous at worst. And it allows those morally superior citizens to define the religious' motives FOR them as "hate" thereby flattening the complexity of the situation beyond meaning. But the moral superiority sure feels fine, don't it? There is no moral superiority on my side, John. I think it is a bad law that fosters discrimination. It has nothing to do with feeling religion is ridiculous, either. It has to do with using religion as an excuse to discriminate. I think there is some "moral superiority" being shown, but it is not by me. |
|
|
|
Post by millring on Mar 28, 2015 11:04:55 GMT -5
But "discrimination" is flattened in the equation. It's not that you won't or couldn't find people who would "discriminate" because they feel as though they are morally superior. You won't get an argument from me about that. What I will argue is that "discrimination" (read: bigotry) is necessarily the motive in making decisions that religious people might make as regards the motive behind this toothless law. It's just not that simple. Love isn't always or necessarily expressed in acceptance.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Mar 28, 2015 11:06:27 GMT -5
Indian is pretty flat already.
|
|
|
|
Post by millring on Mar 28, 2015 11:07:06 GMT -5
In other news, The Presbyterian Church's General Assembly said it's OK to perform gay marriages in the church if the Pastor agrees and the Ruling elders agree. If either of them don't agree (elders would be a majority vote of the 10-20 people acting as ruling elders), then the service would not be performed in the church. So it can and it can't. it's up to the individual church governance. It has been a devicive issue for the church for quite some time. I'm proud (if that's the right term) of my denomination for dealing with this difficult issue in a sensitive way. And similarly; a member of our church band is down in Florida now. A little vacation. He's attending the wedding of a nephew to another man. . . . , It gave him great consternation. He believes closely to the biblical interpretation. But then he decided, "I'm a sinner and God forgives me. So who am I to pass judgement on someone else's sin?" That's pretty much where I've landed on the subject for quire some time. "All ye have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God." "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." It's not about casting stones. Or, it shouldn't be. Even if it ends up in choosing to not bake a cake or take wedding photos of a gay wedding, it's intention is not about casting stones. Or, it shouldn't be. And it certainly needn't be. And I know any number of religious people capable of making that distinction. |
|
|
|
Post by millring on Mar 28, 2015 11:13:17 GMT -5
In other news, The Presbyterian Church's General Assembly said it's OK to perform gay marriages in the church if the Pastor agrees and the Ruling elders agree. If either of them don't agree (elders would be a majority vote of the 10-20 people acting as ruling elders), then the service would not be performed in the church. So it can and it can't. it's up to the individual church governance. I'm guessing this will be a thing of past in less than a decade. I'm guessing the church will no longer be allowed to make any such decision or distinction. Ditto any religious organization. If a church discriminates against any behavior against which there is no law, I'm guessing that within a decade the church will be open for law suits and soon thereafter, legal prosecution. |
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Mar 28, 2015 11:22:13 GMT -5
In other news, The Presbyterian Church's General Assembly said it's OK to perform gay marriages in the church if the Pastor agrees and the Ruling elders agree. If either of them don't agree (elders would be a majority vote of the 10-20 people acting as ruling elders), then the service would not be performed in the church. So it can and it can't. it's up to the individual church governance. It has been a devicive issue for the church for quite some time. I'm proud (if that's the right term) of my denomination for dealing with this difficult issue in a sensitive way. And similarly; a member of our church band is down in Florida now. A little vacation. He's attending the wedding of a nephew to another man. . . . , It gave him great consternation. He believes closely to the biblical interpretation. But then he decided, "I'm a sinner and God forgives me. So who am I to pass judgement on someone else's sin?" That's pretty much where I've landed on the subject for quire some time. "All ye have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God." "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." That's certainly more open minded than some religions have been. Still, I don't think it should be considered a sin. Doesn't a sin have to be a willful act? I know some will disagree, but I don't think anybody wakes up and decides to be gay. People are born that way, just as the rest of us are born with an attraction to the opposite sex. For the religious, doesn't that mean that God decided that certain people were going to be born gay? (I suppose that's why some religious people insist that homosexuality is a choice.) Why would a religion then declare that certain people should be denied the chance at a full, happy life? Shouldn't their gripe be with God for not making everybody just like them? Within reason, I think religions should be free to write their own doctrines. They get to decide what is and what is not moral. But defining an inborn trait as immoral is going too far. Homosexuality is not a moral issue. It is not a sin. The public opposition to discrimination against gays is an appropriate response. In time the various religions will come to realize that their doctrines concerning gays have everything to do with tribal mentalities and nothing to do with The Word of God. |
|
