Indy Star to start Campaign to push for LGBT protections

[nakinate]

It's ridiculous that a newspaper tries to make the news as opposed to reporting the news. It's even more ridiculous that you can be fired in Indiana for no more reason than being gay.

Sure. Anyhow, Indiana is an at will employment state. Your employer doesn't need a reason to fire you.

 

[churchmouse]

With the falling readership how much can this failing paper actually effect....??

 

[nakinate]

With the falling readership how much can this failing paper actually effect....??

I think this is a desperate attempt to increase readership. They have find a way to sell papers...

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

With the falling readership how much can this failing paper actually effect....??

That might be true if they had to persuade a bunch of people to come to this cause. But as hot as this fad has been the last few years, all they're really doing is ginning up a constituency that is already on board with the cause. That and plus, even though their readership is a fraction of what it used to be, media sources of this stature still carry a fair bit of sway. Remember, there's an election coming up. Maybe they realize that the democrat choices between a socialist, a socialist that ought to be in jail, and a shotgun wielding, gaff machine socialist may not be enough to get them out to vote, so throw some blood in the water to get them frenzied up.

 

[Leadeye]

Reality tv, reality newspaper, they're just following a trend. Remember the old movie Network.

 

[Hoosierkav]

Building bridges and allies to push the agenda. They don't need readers, they need Facebook headlines to stir people to action. Well placed editorials and spun stories with comments about the need to "protect" citizens from "rampant discrimination". Before long, it will be the anniversary of the media field day with RFRA, which will provide ammunition for the cause as the litany of harmed and offended folks are paraded through the stories (GenCon, Angie's list, etc.). Toss in some special interest stories to warm the hearts and viola, a campaign is made. Wag the Dog style in the 21st Century.

Edit: Here's the start.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I would disagree that it is a "secret campaign." It seems pretty obvious if you have been reading it for the past few months.

The thing that keeps me scratching my head is that the recent RTRF debacle was a pretty convincing illustration of just how powerful the LGBT lobby is with business leaders, the media, and the moneyed-interests all on their side. Why exactly do they need special protection? I find myself having a hard time imagining how new protections will make a difference one way or the other; it doesn't seem like a business would survive discriminating against them anyway, nor does it appear that anybody is currently doing so or else it would make headlines. It's all just a show to look good to the media bosses and pat ourselves on the back.

I agree with you aside from calling RFRA a debacle. It wasn't. It was a brilliantly orchestrated plan by which the state GOP leadership gave their owners what they wanted (RFRA 2.0 which made homosexuals a protected class at least to some extent for the first time in Indiana) while creating enough bad theater to convince the voters who vote for them (i.e., people who don't want to live under the threat of losing everything they have worked for because of not wanting to be forced to violate their beliefs) that they had done everything they could and just didn't have any alternative. Two corporations in particular want pro-homosexual legislation and they got it, even if Pence and the GOP legislators had to make themselves look like asses rather than traitors to their base in order to remain at least somewhat electable.

 

[17 squirrel]

I can be fired for having a mustache.
Why don't I have special protections then?

Hell, I'm shocked you got hired with a mustache..

 

[PaulF]

I agree with you aside from calling RFRA a debacle. It wasn't. It was a brilliantly orchestrated plan by which the state GOP leadership gave their owners what they wanted (RFRA 2.0 which made homosexuals a protected class at least to some extent for the first time in Indiana) while creating enough bad theater to convince the voters who vote for them (i.e., people who don't want to live under the threat of losing everything they have worked for because of not wanting to be forced to violate their beliefs) that they had done everything they could and just didn't have any alternative. Two corporations in particular want pro-homosexual legislation and they got it, even if Pence and the GOP legislators had to make themselves look like asses rather than traitors to their base in order to remain at least somewhat electable.

Indiana's RFRA is a debacle...

Looking back, it seems clear that Pence (et al) thought that the law would sail through the assembly largely unopposed by "the left" (or whatever passes for "the left" in Indiana), because, hey...who can't get behind religious freedom, amiright!?!?

Some of our lawmakers saw fit to link the RFRA with denying service to other Hoosiers based on sexual identity...even though the law really can't be used for that purpose, and in Indiana we were free to discriminate on that basis anyway, and...a backlash brewed.

The Hoosier GOP underestimated the potential reach of the LBGT publicity machine, which turned out to be a major misstep for them (the GOP).

Some (Mostly Christian) Hoosiers reacted to this by ramping up the "Religious Persecution" narrative...which is absolute hogwash.

While it may be true that traditional Christianity is losing some degree of privilege more than 70% of Hoosiers still identify as Christian. Over 90% of our legislators and over 99% of our judges are Christian. Christians are not being persecuted in Indiana. Not one bit.

But now we have this law...this RFRA.

If your Muslim neighbor wants to perform Halal butchery in his back yard at dusk in preparation for his upcoming wedding to his 9-year old cousin, he now has (potential) legal standing to do so...and you all fervently asked for it.

Think about that for a minute, especially those of you who are terrified of the thought of Sha'ria law being brought to our shores...you have basically platted the land for it.

Unnecessary law is bad law...even if it seems to benefit your group in the short term.

Debacle. The only word to descibe it.

 

[Hoosierkav]

Agreed PaulF--Indiana's RFRA was orchestrated to be revised, the religious "nuts" to be seen as nutty and hateful, and to be fallow ground for later Sharia seeds to be planted.

Just like now, we don't adequately define "discrimination" or "mental illness" or the like. We use generic, bland, ill-stated terms to placate the sheep and create the largest dragnet possible.

 

[actaeon277]

Hell, I'm shocked you got hired with a mustache..

Change "mustache" to "attitude" and I'd agree.

 

[Hookeye]

Erik D Smih and Matilda Tully.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Some of our lawmakers saw fit to link the RFRA with denying service to other Hoosiers based on sexual identity...even though the law really can't be used for that purpose, and in Indiana we were free to discriminate on that basis anyway, and...a backlash brewed.

Some (Mostly Christian) Hoosiers reacted to this by ramping up the "Religious Persecution" narrative...which is absolute hogwash.

While it may be true that traditional Christianity is losing some degree of privilege more than 70% of Hoosiers still identify as Christian. Over 90% of our legislators and over 99% of our judges are Christian. Christians are not being persecuted in Indiana. Not one bit.

If your Muslim neighbor wants to perform Halal butchery in his back yard at dusk in preparation for his upcoming wedding to his 9-year old cousin, he now has (potential) legal standing to do so...and you all fervently asked for it.

Think about that for a minute, especially those of you who are terrified of the thought of Sha'ria law being brought to our shores...you have basically platted the land for it.

Which lawmakers, at least those who were in favor of the bill linked it to denying services? From my understanding the bill was referred to unofficially as the "hobby lobby" bill.

It's absolute hogwash? Death threats, threats of arson, etc against a pizza place owner who said she wouldn't be able to cater a gay wedding is what? A baker who due to their religious beliefs couldn't make rainbow decorated cookies for a gay pride rally who was threatened by the city is what?

My neighbor wants to butcher in his backyard let him, I don't care if he is Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, Sikh, atheist, or you name it. As long as they dispose of the waste properly. How many people butcher deer in their backyard every fall and winter in IN? What do I care if it's a deer or a goat that they have prayed over?

How does this plat the land for Sharia law?

 

[miguel]

Why not just... take down the newspaper box?

Lol.. Exactly.... But then he couldnt tell us he just laid out $1200 for a fancy brick mailbox built in front of his house.

Damn, I want to see a photo of that mailbox! +1 for brick, especially red brick.

 

[oldpink]

The ghost of Eugene Pulliam just sits down and does a

 

[oldpink]

Erik D Smih and Matilda Tully.

Erika left months ago, but the disease that is Tully remains.

 

[oldpink]

Indiana's RFRA is a debacle...

Looking back, it seems clear that Pence (et al) thought that the law would sail through the assembly largely unopposed by "the left" (or whatever passes for "the left" in Indiana), because, hey...who can't get behind religious freedom, amiright!?!?

Some of our lawmakers saw fit to link the RFRA with denying service to other Hoosiers based on sexual identity...even though the law really can't be used for that purpose, and in Indiana we were free to discriminate on that basis anyway, and...a backlash brewed.

The Hoosier GOP underestimated the potential reach of the LBGT publicity machine, which turned out to be a major misstep for them (the GOP).

Some (Mostly Christian) Hoosiers reacted to this by ramping up the "Religious Persecution" narrative...which is absolute hogwash.

While it may be true that traditional Christianity is losing some degree of privilege more than 70% of Hoosiers still identify as Christian. Over 90% of our legislators and over 99% of our judges are Christian. Christians are not being persecuted in Indiana. Not one bit.

But now we have this law...this RFRA.

If your Muslim neighbor wants to perform Halal butchery in his back yard at dusk in preparation for his upcoming wedding to his 9-year old cousin, he now has (potential) legal standing to do so...and you all fervently asked for it.

Think about that for a minute, especially those of you who are terrified of the thought of Sha'ria law being brought to our shores...you have basically platted the land for it.

Unnecessary law is bad law...even if it seems to benefit your group in the short term.

Debacle. The only word to descibe it.

 

[Fred78]

I'm still waiting on some joker to show up with his pet sheep for a marriage lic.

 

[Arthur Dent]

I'm still waiting on some joker to show up with his pet sheep for a marriage lic.

Iowa representative stated recently that "now you can marry my lawn mower." An Iowa journalist, Pat Rynard, tried to do just that and was turned down. The reasons? Not only couldn't the lawn mower give consent it also couldn't sign the license. Think the sheep will fare any better?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Iowa representative stated recently that "now you can marry my lawn mower." An Iowa journalist, Pat Rynard, tried to do just that and was turned down. The reasons? Not only couldn't the lawn mower give consent it also couldn't sign the license. Think the sheep will fare any better?

I don't know about marriage, but since bestiality has been brought up, I cannot see an argument regarding inability to consent in the event of a woman, well, having relations with a male animal given that all she has to do is hold still, and if Rover does anything, it is of his own free will. Given that moral standards are out the window, I don't see any way to counter that argument without applying the type of judicial reasoning for which Roy Bean was famous.