- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: USC's Pat Haden, citing gay son, won't attend meeting in Indiana
Posted on 4/1/15 at 11:38 am to Keltic Tiger
Posted on 4/1/15 at 11:38 am to Keltic Tiger
quote:If you read through this thread, the general idea is that Rosa Parks should have taken a different bus, one that was willing to allow her to sit wherever she wanted.
As a baby boomer who was a Republican back in the early 70's, I am certainly no far left wing radical. But even I understand that this issue goes way beyond someone having the ability to buy a gay cupcake. Much like blacks demonstrating against having to sit in the back of a bus
And if you didn't have to to through the same thing as Rosa Parks directly, you shouldn't have taken a stand on her behalf.
Did I get that right?
But yea, you're right, too much is being made of specific instances while ignoring the big picture of the topic in general, not necessarily this specfic issue in Indiana.
1
Posted on 4/1/15 at 11:39 am to shel311
quote:
So he or anyone out there shouldn't care about something or take a stand for something they believe in because it doesn't directly affect their family?
I didn't say that but thanks for refuting your previous statement that this was all about Family.
Posted on 4/1/15 at 11:41 am to tankyank13
quote:
That becomes clear when you read and compare those tedious state statutes. If you do that, you will find that the Indiana statute has two features the federal RFRA—and most state RFRAs—do not. First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to “the free exercise of religion.” The federal RFRA doesn’t contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolina’s; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs.
The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: “A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language.
So it's "almost" like the Federal statute, but it's a bit different.
Posted on 4/1/15 at 11:44 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:I mean, you did. You questioned his stance, then supported your take by saying this potential law has no effect on his son. I asked in general, do you always take that approach, but in this specific instance, that's exactly what you did, to the tee, not sure how you can deny it.
didn't say that but
quote:How so? He himself has said he's doing this because he has a gay soon, seems like it's about family, no?
but thanks for refuting your previous statement that this was all about Family
Posted on 4/1/15 at 11:46 am to shel311
quote:
didn't say that but
I mean, you did.
Ah, in your circular interpretation, that's what I said.
Problems with issues like this, they can't be discussed logically because some people are too emotionally invested.
Posted on 4/1/15 at 11:48 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:So, you said it's relevant as to whether his son is going to Indiana. If you're not saying whether or not it directly affects his son should determine whether or not Haden takes a stand, then why is that relevant?
Ah, in your circular interpretation, that's what I said
This post was edited on 4/1/15 at 11:49 am
Posted on 4/1/15 at 11:50 am to IT_Dawg
quote:
If you were a Catholic Church and an die-hard atheist knocked on your door and wanted to attend your service, you don't think they should be able to turn him away?
New Level Of Stupid: Unlocked
Posted on 4/1/15 at 11:51 am to 2geaux
quote:
Since most of our oil comes from muslim countries that adhere to Sharia law, I assume he is protesting that too.
This isn't true anymore. Most oil isn't imported
Posted on 4/1/15 at 11:51 am to shel311
quote:
So, you said it's relevant as to whether his son is going to Indiana.
referring to your claim it was all personal.
Posted on 4/1/15 at 11:53 am to shel311
quote:
If you read through this thread, the general idea is that Rosa Parks should have taken a different bus, one that was willing to allow her to sit wherever she wanted.
Yes, because the use of public transportation funded by taxpayers, is exactly like some nitwit cookie baker.
Look, we can argue, but you really lack clarity of thought. Or at least, the ability to get it out in statements people understand.
Posted on 4/1/15 at 11:54 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:It is, Haden said so himself, didn't he?
referring to your claim it was all personal
You're saying if his son isn't directly affected it can't be personal? That's an honest question as I'm not following the logic considering Haden gave reason for his stance, and that reason was he has a gay son.
Posted on 4/1/15 at 11:55 am to shel311
quote:
So he or anyone out there shouldn't care about something or take a stand for something they believe in because it doesn't directly affect their family?
Your quote.
Posted on 4/1/15 at 11:56 am to VetteGuy
quote:I'll take that with a grain of salt considering you said you see more demands for special treatment on this board than you do overt and obvious jokes, so your judgment is obviously a bit falty.
Look, we can argue, but you really lack clarity of thought. Or at least, the ability to get it out in statements people understand.
Posted on 4/1/15 at 12:00 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:Yea, still don't follow.
Your quote
I was asking you that question based on your logic that whether his son was going to Indiana was relevant to whether he should take a stance. I was arguing that your logic dictated you should only care if your family is directly affected. If your logic didn't dictate that, you can clarify, but it was basically exactly how you framed that series of posts.
The fact that his son isn't directly affected and he's still taking a stance, how does that prove that it's not all personal? You think he's taking the stance if his son isn't gay?
Posted on 4/1/15 at 12:02 pm to shel311
quote:
I'll take that with a grain of salt considering you said you see more demands for special treatment on this board than you do overt and obvious jokes
I said that there are more people, judging by their comments, that are tired of the demands by certain groups for special treatment than there are overt anti-gay comments.
Notwithstanding the few that are really out there...
quote:
falty.
Hey, I'm weight/height appropriate. Almost.
Posted on 4/1/15 at 12:07 pm to VetteGuy
quote:I don't even know what falty means.
Hey, I'm weight/height appropriate. Almost.
Posted on 4/1/15 at 12:12 pm to VetteGuy
quote:
I said that there are more people, judging by their comments, that are tired of the demands by certain groups for special treatment than there are overt anti-gay comments.
It deserves ridicule.
To me, very real issues dealing with race, gender, sex get lost in all of the fabricated drama. Getting called "anti gay" because you support liberty of the individual shop owner needs to be called out for the stupidity it really is.
Posted on 4/1/15 at 12:29 pm to dawgfan24348
quote:
quote: The Blowback from this law has been stunning It's a fricking discrimination law, what did you think would happen?
It's not a discrimination law. It's a law that allows a citizen or business to assert their first amendment rights if they are accused of being discriminatory towards gays. The homosexual population deserves protection from discrimination, but not at the expense of the rights of others. The law is similar to the federal religious freedom act signed by Clinton in 1996 and the Illinois version signed by Obama before he was elected president.
Posted on 4/1/15 at 12:34 pm to shel311
I read it as "fatty" I now it was just a typo.
My real concern is that Pat Haden is a very bright guy.
Rhodes Scholar, attorney, etc.
I would really hope that that he actually read the law that he felt violated his son's rights before he decided not to travel there on business.
My real concern is that Pat Haden is a very bright guy.
Rhodes Scholar, attorney, etc.
I would really hope that that he actually read the law that he felt violated his son's rights before he decided not to travel there on business.
Posted on 4/1/15 at 12:54 pm to VetteGuy
homosexuality is gross and shouldn't be allowed anywhere... It is a sickness of the mind, body, spirit, and on society... everyone on this board (whether involved in it or not) knows that it is an un-natural act... and that's kinda funny considering how may "naturalists" and tree-hugging hippies support homosexuality...
Page 8 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News