• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Double standard on gay tolerance / intolerance

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Welp, you caught us.

Us lefties are only boycotting Indiana because we hate this country and everything it stands for.
-snip-

Please articulate why the approx 20 other states that have a similar law and the federal govt aren't being boycotted.

TIA

Fern
 
This is just the news item of the week. Next week nobody will care anymore because not a single business in Indiana will have oppressed the gays from their workplace. Just have to wait the outrage out. It will pass just like 90+% of other recent outrages.

Only if you haven't been paying attention.
 
On the other hand, we love Saudi Arabia and everything it stands for, because, uh, something.

Because of oil?

Leftist like to think rights do not exist outside the United States.

When it comes down to it money talks and everything else is BS. Leftist are not going to boycott exxon, apple, microsoft,,, or anyone else that makes money.

While conservatives hold our values true to our hearts, leftist sell their morals and values to the highest bidder.
 
Yeah, we're the unreasonable ones. 🙄

We oppose, for example:

1. The President exceeding his Constitutional authority in enacting/changing legislation. It's not like Obama himself said many times publicly that he lacked the Constitutional authority to do so with the immigration issue.

2. The inexplicable shift in policy against our allies, whether it be Mubarak or Israel.

3. The (attempted) creation of a new paradigm to circumvent the Constitution and cut the Legislative branch out of the treaty process by using the UN. Calling it something other than a "treaty" doesn't even supply the 'fig leaf' hoped for. As the courts have long upheld, a thing it what it is based upon its substance, not something as superficial as the name its given.

Yeah, we're the nutty ones.

Fern

If you truly believe that crap, well then pretty much you are nuts.

Really, really nuts.
 
Because of oil?

Leftist like to think rights do not exist outside the United States.

When it comes down to it money talks and everything else is BS. Leftist are not going to boycott exxon, apple, microsoft,,, or anyone else that makes money.

While conservatives hold our values true to our hearts, leftist sell their morals and values to the highest bidder.

Leftists aren't true Murricans like you and your tribe.

Because leftists love oil and big business.

Keep on keepin' on!
 
Please articulate why the approx 20 other states that have a similar law and the federal govt aren't being boycotted.

TIA

Fern

It's very simple. All of the other states and the federal law is limited to individuals only. The Indiana law explicitly extended protections to for profit businesses, corporations etc...

a partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint stock company, or an unincorporated association.

Then, unlike other states, they stated that the RFRA could be used in civil defenses where the government was not a party.

This is why the Indiana law is fundamentally different, contrary to the repeated claims by the right that it's the same. You think its a coincidence that the Indiana legislature added in the ability to use it in civil defenses immediately after the photographer in New Mexico lost his case for refusing services to gays? The trial judge ruled that the RFRA was not a vałid defense since the government was not a party to the suit.
 
Last edited:
Please articulate why the approx 20 other states that have a similar law and the federal govt aren't being boycotted.

TIA

Fern


1) This law includes businesses and corporations.

2) It appears to be an offensive move to counter the SCOTUS's likely ruling of making state laws banning same sex marriage unconstitutional.

3) Its intent. The laws intent is clear to all but the most bigoted of hacks, that this laws intention was to allow businesses to descriminate against LGBT people (all one needs to do is look at Pence's past comments and positions as well as simply look at who was present at the signing of the law).
 
Because of oil?

Leftist like to think rights do not exist outside the United States.

When it comes down to it money talks and everything else is BS. Leftist are not going to boycott exxon, apple, microsoft,,, or anyone else that makes money.

While conservatives hold our values true to our hearts, leftist sell their morals and values to the highest bidder.

why is it that a lot of rightists reject this law as well? Including a lot of Indiana republicans?

Why was the mayor of Indianapolis on the news this morning, rather distraught at this passing and what it would do to his economy, let alone the reputation of his city?

Why don't you go back to your tugboat and only worry about your little bubble in CentralWhoGivesaFuckTexas?
 
Look, the CHRISTIAN right has it's panties in a wad because of the march of progress that's provided new protections to the LBGT community and they are pissed that they are losing there right to discriminate. With each state that legalizes gay marriage the right forms another religious circle jerk and conjures up new attempts to forestall the inevitable.

I was really beginning to think the White House might fall to the republicans again but the actions of right wing wacko's have once again put the potential republican contenders in the position of supporting bigotry in order to win the nomination. Looks like the right is taking themselves out of the game.

Now if only we could find someone the wasn't Hillary -- she's no Democrat...


Brian
 
Lets boycott Indiana but lets keep doing business with Saudi Arabia.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ile-doing-business-with-gay-hating-countries/



Why the double standard? Is the left afraid to demand equal rights from Saudi Arabia and other nations that are unfriendly to gays?

When are we going to see boycotts of Exxon?

http://www.exxonmobil.com.sa/ksa-English/PA/default.aspx



When is the left going to boycott products made in Malaysia?

When is the left going to end the double standard and demand equal rights from nations just as they demand equal rights from states?

1. Pick your battles. We need Saudi just as much as they need us. Protesting that would be like pissing in the wind.

2. They don't live in those countries and therefore have little to no ability to effect real change there.

3. Selfishness/Human nature, we all want to better our own families lives before someone else.
 
Because of oil?

Leftist like to think rights do not exist outside the United States.

When it comes down to it money talks and everything else is BS. Leftist are not going to boycott exxon, apple, microsoft,,, or anyone else that makes money.

While conservatives hold our values true to our hearts, leftist sell their morals and values to the highest bidder.

You mean conservatives like this guy?

bush_abdullah_chaching.jpg
 
Did you post this to the right thread?

What does Obama/UN treaties/ immigration have to do with Indiana and Mike Pense?

It's odd, up until a few years ago Fern was thoughtful, interesting, and reasonable. At some point he started going more and more to the right. It first seemed to show up when he latched on to the birther stuff.

Now he's gone into Fox News/right wing talk radio territory. Not only is that unrelated ranting, but it's not even remotely accurate unrelated ranting.
 
Please articulate why the approx 20 other states that have a similar law and the federal govt aren't being boycotted.

TIA

Fern

It would be entirely fair to point out that this red herring has been substantially addressed in every thread on the board about RFRA. But you got several very direct and straightforward responses:

It's very simple. All of the other states and the federal law is limited to individuals only. The Indiana law explicitly extended protections to for profit businesses, corporations etc...



Then, unlike other states, they stated that the RFRA could be used in civil defenses where the government was not a party.

This is why the Indiana law is fundamentally different, contrary to the repeated claims by the right that it's the same. You think its a coincidence that the Indiana legislature added in the ability to use it in civil defenses immediately after the photographer in New Mexico lost his case for refusing services to gays? The trial judge ruled that the RFRA was not a vałid defense since the government was not a party to the suit.

1) This law includes businesses and corporations.

2) It appears to be an offensive move to counter the SCOTUS's likely ruling of making state laws banning same sex marriage unconstitutional.

3) Its intent. The laws intent is clear to all but the most bigoted of hacks, that this laws intention was to allow businesses to descriminate against LGBT people (all one needs to do is look at Pence's past comments and positions as well as simply look at who was present at the signing of the law).


Now the question is, will you continue to pretend that these points have not been addressed, or will you either argue the points raised here, or concede that the Indiana bill is unique?

YWIA.
 
I could make analogous statements about you too, sir. In fact, I did make this point about you several months ago.

It's odd, up until a few years ago Fern was thoughtful, interesting, and reasonable. At some point he started going more and more to the right. It first seemed to show up when he latched on to the birther stuff.

Now he's gone into Fox News/right wing talk radio territory. Not only is that unrelated ranting, but it's not even remotely accurate unrelated ranting.
 
Then, unlike other states, they stated that the RFRA could be used in civil defenses where the government was not a party.

In addition, the Indiana law lowers the bar from "a person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened" to "is likely to be substantially burdened". So, a suit can be brought forth for some harm or damage that hasn't even happened, but where the plaintiff believes that it might.
 
Look, the CHRISTIAN right has it's panties in a wad because of the march of progress that's provided new protections to the LBGT community and they are pissed that they are losing there right to discriminate. With each state that legalizes gay marriage the right forms another religious circle jerk and conjures up new attempts to forestall the inevitable.

I was really beginning to think the White House might fall to the republicans again but the actions of right wing wacko's have once again put the potential republican contenders in the position of supporting bigotry in order to win the nomination. Looks like the right is taking themselves out of the game.

Now if only we could find someone the wasn't Hillary -- she's no Democrat...


Brian

:thumbsup: i concur.
 
Of all the countries in the world, Saudi Arabia is one of the ones I think we should be boycotting the most. They have horrible human rights abuses.

We should only trade with countries that have good human rights and worker rights records. Anybody else should be banished to the corner, left to stew and simmer until they are ready to join the world stage.
 
Back
Top