Go Back   Christian Guitar Forum > Deeper Issues > Current Events
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Arcade Mark Forums Read

Reply
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Unread 03-24-2016, 07:43 PM   #1
Basically... run.
 
Giga Hertz's Avatar
 

Joined: Oct 2007
Location: 127.0.0.1
Posts: 4,780
paid
Disney/Marvel Boycott Georgia's "Anti-Gay" Bill

Information here:
Disney, Marvel threaten Georgia filming boycott over 'antigay' bill - CNET
http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/20152016/157324.pdf

Having read through this, the bill doesn't sound unreasonable. Am I missing something, or is this one of those things that's being made more of a big deal than it should?

__________________
~ Josh

Bass - Yamaha TRBX 505, Yamaha RBX 375
Acoustic Guitars - Ovation Celebrity Deluxe CC48, J. Watson & Co. WD150TB, J&D Luthier
Electric Guitars - Fender Classic '72 Telecaster Thinline (2007), Maton Mastersound, Epiphone Les Paul Studio Chameleon, SX VTG Series Tele copy, Ibanez SA
Guitar Amp - Fender Mustang IV V2
Bass Amp - Behringer Ultrabass BXL1800A
Gear - POD HD500X, Zoom G9.2tt, Zoom B9.1ut, Boss DD-20

Warning: This journal may contain diary

But He was pierced for our transgressions
He was crushed for our iniquities;
The punishment that brought us peace was upon Him,
And by His wounds we are healed.
Giga Hertz is online now   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Unread 03-24-2016, 08:53 PM   #2
Obnoxodox
 
IsaactheSyrian's Avatar
 

Joined: Apr 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 8,859
paid
Your resident commie pinko left-wing Christian doesn't think there's anything wrong with it so....
__________________
I believe, O Lord, and I confess, that You are truly the Christ, the Son of the Living God, who came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the chief...
~ Ryan Isaac



IsaactheSyrian is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-24-2016, 09:01 PM   #3
ITALICS
Administrator
 
mtlmouth's Avatar
 

Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 11,401
paid
I believe Article 35 is the primary concern. Who qualifies as "an integrated auxiliary of a church"? What sorts of property will people be effectively barred from here? How broad is "objectionable"? Churches should have the ability to limit who uses their property and what they are (perceived to be) endorsing. But the fact that this trade-related provision is bundled with the marriage statute amendment (and a few decades of legislative tug-of-war between LGBT rights and same sex marriage vs. state Religious Freedom acts) indicate that this is largely a backlash to the Supreme Court decision on same sex marriage last summer. It's a very challenging balance.

I believe one of your friends pointed this out on Facebook as well, but it bears repeating. This is happening in Georgia. The south has some ugly history related to racism and discrimination, and it is also not a pleasant place to be openly LGBT. The new code section in the title on marriage (19-3-11) seems pretty broadly worded. "No minister [...] shall be required to solemnize any marriage, perform any rite, or administer any sacrament in violation of his or her right to free exercise of religion under the Constitution of this state or of the United States." While obviously intended to be a provision against a requirement of performing same sex marriages, can some super-racist old dude with Klan ties claim that it violates his religion to marry an interracial couple?
mtlmouth is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-24-2016, 09:08 PM   #4
Basically... run.
 
Giga Hertz's Avatar
 

Joined: Oct 2007
Location: 127.0.0.1
Posts: 4,780
paid
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtlmouth View Post
I believe Article 35 is the primary concern. Who qualifies as "an integrated auxiliary of a church"? What sorts of property will people be effectively barred from here? How broad is "objectionable"? Churches should have the ability to limit who uses their property and what they are (perceived to be) endorsing. But the fact that this trade-related provision is bundled with the marriage statute amendment (and a few decades of legislative tug-of-war between LGBT rights and same sex marriage vs. state Religious Freedom acts) indicate that this is largely a backlash to the Supreme Court decision on same sex marriage last summer. It's a very challenging balance.

I believe one of your friends pointed this out on Facebook as well, but it bears repeating. This is happening in Georgia. The south has some ugly history related to racism and discrimination, and it is also not a pleasant place to be openly LGBT. The new code section in the title on marriage (19-3-11) seems pretty broadly worded. "No minister [...] shall be required to solemnize any marriage, perform any rite, or administer any sacrament in violation of his or her right to free exercise of religion under the Constitution of this state or of the United States." While obviously intended to be a provision against a requirement of performing same sex marriages, can some super-racist old dude with Klan ties claim that it violates his religion to marry an interracial couple?
This is why I posted it here, because I figured you'd have some legal insight. For the record "that friend" is my aunt, and her head is so grounded in SJW issues (mostly same sex marriage) that her arguments turn into circular logic that try to justify that one point.

But thanks for your input. I had not considered that until she posted it. But even then, I understand Georgia can be a bit "backwards" but would it really happen that often that'd it be an issue?

And also the main issue the media seems to be _____ing about is the "anti-LGBT" of it all. Why is that the focus and not the racism?
__________________
~ Josh

Bass - Yamaha TRBX 505, Yamaha RBX 375
Acoustic Guitars - Ovation Celebrity Deluxe CC48, J. Watson & Co. WD150TB, J&D Luthier
Electric Guitars - Fender Classic '72 Telecaster Thinline (2007), Maton Mastersound, Epiphone Les Paul Studio Chameleon, SX VTG Series Tele copy, Ibanez SA
Guitar Amp - Fender Mustang IV V2
Bass Amp - Behringer Ultrabass BXL1800A
Gear - POD HD500X, Zoom G9.2tt, Zoom B9.1ut, Boss DD-20

Warning: This journal may contain diary

But He was pierced for our transgressions
He was crushed for our iniquities;
The punishment that brought us peace was upon Him,
And by His wounds we are healed.
Giga Hertz is online now   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-24-2016, 09:25 PM   #5
ITALICS
Administrator
 
mtlmouth's Avatar
 

Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 11,401
paid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giga Hertz View Post
This is why I posted it here, because I figured you'd have some legal insight. For the record "that friend" is my aunt, and her head is so grounded in SJW issues (mostly same sex marriage) that her arguments turn into circular logic that try to justify that one point.

But thanks for your input. I had not considered that until she posted it. But even then, I understand Georgia can be a bit "backwards" but would it really happen that often that'd it be an issue?

And also the main issue the media seems to be _____ing about is the "anti-LGBT" of it all. Why is that the focus and not the racism?
I mean, for what it's worth... I'm pretty sympathetic to Social Justice Warrior issues, and largely don't consider it contrary to Christian principles. But that's beside the point.

It's hard to say if it would become more of an issue or not. It seems like it's opening a window that doesn't necessarily need to be there. I don't know the current extent of Georgia's Religious Freedom bill (most/all states have them, they're all a bit different, and I've spent about two hours in Georgia total), but I suspect it already provides decent protections against religious leaders being compelled to perform rites/services contrary to their beliefs. The bill is almost certainly motivated by animus toward the LGBT community and the need to show strong conservative values in an election year. I'm unsure whether the stronger protections for religious freedom are actually needed.

The media focus is primarily on the anti-LGBT angle because that's how it's pretty clearly framed. State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts have been a major point of friction in LGBT rights. Any time you see the words "religious freedom" and "marriage" together in a bill, that's almost certainly the motivation. However, in a time of heightened racial rhetoric like this one, I'm squeamish about how broad that language is, and how it could be twisted.
mtlmouth is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-24-2016, 09:33 PM   #6
Basically... run.
 
Giga Hertz's Avatar
 

Joined: Oct 2007
Location: 127.0.0.1
Posts: 4,780
paid
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtlmouth View Post
I mean, for what it's worth... I'm pretty sympathetic to Social Justice Warrior issues, and largely don't consider it contrary to Christian principles. But that's beside the point.
I'm all for helping the starving, the homeless, etc. but posting on Facebook about how horrible it is and never doing anything about it is just stupid.

Quote:
It's hard to say if it would become more of an issue or not. It seems like it's opening a window that doesn't necessarily need to be there. I don't know the current extent of Georgia's Religious Freedom bill (most/all states have them, they're all a bit different, and I've spent about two hours in Georgia total), but I suspect it already provides decent protections against religious leaders being compelled to perform rites/services contrary to their beliefs. The bill is almost certainly motivated by animus toward the LGBT community and the need to show strong conservative values in an election year. I'm unsure whether the stronger protections for religious freedom are actually needed.

The media focus is primarily on the anti-LGBT angle because that's how it's pretty clearly framed. State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts have been a major point of friction in LGBT rights. Any time you see the words "religious freedom" and "marriage" together in a bill, that's almost certainly the motivation. However, in a time of heightened racial rhetoric like this one, I'm squeamish about how broad that language is, and how it could be twisted.
Those are all pretty good points. But the scary thing is, people are still only focusing on the gay angle rather than the racist one which, as you mentioned, is probably more likely to create issues. I'm prepared to admit it should be reworded to protect against racism, but is it really that big of a deal to find someone else who WILL marry you?

I mean, if someone refuses to sell me a car because I look fat and don't know anything about cars, should I call the media and sue them, or should I just get over it and find someone else who will sell me a car and wait for the others to go out of business because they're selective jerks?
__________________
~ Josh

Bass - Yamaha TRBX 505, Yamaha RBX 375
Acoustic Guitars - Ovation Celebrity Deluxe CC48, J. Watson & Co. WD150TB, J&D Luthier
Electric Guitars - Fender Classic '72 Telecaster Thinline (2007), Maton Mastersound, Epiphone Les Paul Studio Chameleon, SX VTG Series Tele copy, Ibanez SA
Guitar Amp - Fender Mustang IV V2
Bass Amp - Behringer Ultrabass BXL1800A
Gear - POD HD500X, Zoom G9.2tt, Zoom B9.1ut, Boss DD-20

Warning: This journal may contain diary

But He was pierced for our transgressions
He was crushed for our iniquities;
The punishment that brought us peace was upon Him,
And by His wounds we are healed.
Giga Hertz is online now   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-24-2016, 09:56 PM   #7
ITALICS
Administrator
 
mtlmouth's Avatar
 

Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 11,401
paid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giga Hertz View Post
I'm all for helping the starving, the homeless, etc. but posting on Facebook about how horrible it is and never doing anything about it is just stupid.



Those are all pretty good points. But the scary thing is, people are still only focusing on the gay angle rather than the racist one which, as you mentioned, is probably more likely to create issues. I'm prepared to admit it should be reworded to protect against racism, but is it really that big of a deal to find someone else who WILL marry you?

I mean, if someone refuses to sell me a car because I look fat and don't know anything about cars, should I call the media and sue them, or should I just get over it and find someone else who will sell me a car and wait for the others to go out of business because they're selective jerks?
I don't think the racism angle is more likely to create issues. It's a tense issue, but racial discrimination sets off a lot more alarm bells than LGBT discrimination (not to mention the fact that I think there's more of a legitimate case for saying "my Christian beliefs prohibit this same-sex marriage" than "... interracial marriage"). The focus is on the LGBT angle because that's why the bill exists. The racial angle is a hypothetical side effect of its sloppy writing.

I suppose the answer to your last question is what happens when most car dealerships refuse to sell you a car. Or every car dealership in your county. Or the car dealership in your hometown that your family has always bought their cars from. Of course it's not pleasant to do business with someone who would turn you away if it weren't illegal to do so. But what about when you, as a customer, have few other options?
mtlmouth is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-24-2016, 10:01 PM   #8
Basically... run.
 
Giga Hertz's Avatar
 

Joined: Oct 2007
Location: 127.0.0.1
Posts: 4,780
paid
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtlmouth View Post
I don't think the racism angle is more likely to create issues. It's a tense issue, but racial discrimination sets off a lot more alarm bells than LGBT discrimination (not to mention the fact that I think there's more of a legitimate case for saying "my Christian beliefs prohibit this same-sex marriage" than "... interracial marriage"). The focus is on the LGBT angle because that's why the bill exists. The racial angle is a hypothetical side effect of its sloppy writing.
Ah, I see your point now. But now this issue turns to is it still right to deny the rights and beliefs of one group so that another can get their own perceived rights? What does this mean for Muslims or Jews?

Quote:
I suppose the answer to your last question is what happens when most car dealerships refuse to sell you a car. Or every car dealership in your county. Or the car dealership in your hometown that your family has always bought their cars from. Of course it's not pleasant to do business with someone who would turn you away if it weren't illegal to do so. But what about when you, as a customer, have few other options?
That is true, and it's an extremely flawed analogy. But don't all states have government offices and officials who are now required to approve such unions?
__________________
~ Josh

Bass - Yamaha TRBX 505, Yamaha RBX 375
Acoustic Guitars - Ovation Celebrity Deluxe CC48, J. Watson & Co. WD150TB, J&D Luthier
Electric Guitars - Fender Classic '72 Telecaster Thinline (2007), Maton Mastersound, Epiphone Les Paul Studio Chameleon, SX VTG Series Tele copy, Ibanez SA
Guitar Amp - Fender Mustang IV V2
Bass Amp - Behringer Ultrabass BXL1800A
Gear - POD HD500X, Zoom G9.2tt, Zoom B9.1ut, Boss DD-20

Warning: This journal may contain diary

But He was pierced for our transgressions
He was crushed for our iniquities;
The punishment that brought us peace was upon Him,
And by His wounds we are healed.
Giga Hertz is online now   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-24-2016, 10:12 PM   #9
ITALICS
Administrator
 
mtlmouth's Avatar
 

Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 11,401
paid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giga Hertz View Post
Ah, I see your point now. But now this issue turns to is it still right to deny the rights and beliefs of one group so that another can get their own perceived rights? What does this mean for Muslims or Jews?



That is true, and it's an extremely flawed analogy. But don't all states have government offices and officials who are now required to approve such unions?
You've just highlighted two of the biggest questions we're trying to resolve in the US right now. Both of these are very unsettled areas of law. The second question is one we'll probably reach an answer to before long. The first one is an ongoing struggle.

"What does this mean for Muslims or Jews" is a very good point, and one that I think is overlooked in the discussion on a regular basis. We act like the question is just Christianity vs. secular values, but it's not. Protections for Christianity extend to other religions, and areas where Christianity can be seen to discriminate against the non-Christian public are also areas where other religions may have the opportunity to do the same.
mtlmouth is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-24-2016, 10:16 PM   #10
Basically... run.
 
Giga Hertz's Avatar
 

Joined: Oct 2007
Location: 127.0.0.1
Posts: 4,780
paid
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtlmouth View Post
You've just highlighted two of the biggest questions we're trying to resolve in the US right now. Both of these are very unsettled areas of law. The second question is one we'll probably reach an answer to before long. The first one is an ongoing struggle.

"What does this mean for Muslims or Jews" is a very good point, and one that I think is overlooked in the discussion on a regular basis. We act like the question is just Christianity vs. secular values, but it's not. Protections for Christianity extend to other religions, and areas where Christianity can be seen to discriminate against the non-Christian public are also areas where other religions may have the opportunity to do the same.
I assume it's somewhat of an issue in the US as it is here. There are constant debates about whether burqas can be worn through security checkpoints (in particular, places like Parliament House), whether all food establishments should make sure there is Muslim certified foods...

Which also turns the question again of how far should the laws be adjusted to accommodate these?
__________________
~ Josh

Bass - Yamaha TRBX 505, Yamaha RBX 375
Acoustic Guitars - Ovation Celebrity Deluxe CC48, J. Watson & Co. WD150TB, J&D Luthier
Electric Guitars - Fender Classic '72 Telecaster Thinline (2007), Maton Mastersound, Epiphone Les Paul Studio Chameleon, SX VTG Series Tele copy, Ibanez SA
Guitar Amp - Fender Mustang IV V2
Bass Amp - Behringer Ultrabass BXL1800A
Gear - POD HD500X, Zoom G9.2tt, Zoom B9.1ut, Boss DD-20

Warning: This journal may contain diary

But He was pierced for our transgressions
He was crushed for our iniquities;
The punishment that brought us peace was upon Him,
And by His wounds we are healed.
Giga Hertz is online now   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-24-2016, 10:22 PM   #11
ITALICS
Administrator
 
mtlmouth's Avatar
 

Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 11,401
paid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giga Hertz View Post
I assume it's somewhat of an issue in the US as it is here. There are constant debates about whether burqas can be worn through security checkpoints (in particular, places like Parliament House), whether all food establishments should make sure there is Muslim certified foods...

Which also turns the question again of how far should the laws be adjusted to accommodate these?
Interesting. I don't think we've had major debates about either of those questions in the US, but I could easily see them happening. I honestly can't remember the last time I saw a woman wearing a burqa, though - I see hijabs pretty frequently, but that's it. I suppose it comes down to how much of a burden it is on the business to accommodate people, and how much of a burden it is on the religious adherents to seek out alternatives.
mtlmouth is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-28-2016, 08:18 AM   #12
Registered User
 

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,505
I thought that the bill only dealt with what the church and it's property. If that is the case, then what is the problem with a preacher refusing to perform an interracial marriage. Sure, you may think that he is a hateful idiot but you still shouldn't force him to go against his beliefs in his church. That seems like nothing more than the government control and regulation of religion. The truth is that if you don't believe in the tenants of a specific religion, then you shouldn't expect them to accept everything that you do and you certainly shouldn't expect them to comply under threat of law, even if it is a super racist old dude with klan ties.
tlj009 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-28-2016, 08:25 AM   #13
\_(ツ)_/
 
Giuseppe's Avatar
 

Joined: Oct 2011
Location: Now look at this net!
Posts: 1,581
First time I read the title I thought Disney was boycotting a guy called Bill that was "anti-gay". Thanks brain!
__________________
Giuseppe is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-28-2016, 07:51 PM   #14
Basically... run.
 
Giga Hertz's Avatar
 

Joined: Oct 2007
Location: 127.0.0.1
Posts: 4,780
paid
Georgia Governor Said He Will Veto 'Anti-LGBT' Bill - ABC News

Looks like it doesn't matter anymore. I like to think this won't really matter, but there is part of me that wonders what may happen a few years down the track...

Also, in regard to the comment section of that story, I don't see any comments against this decision. Curiously there are an awful lot marked as deleted...
__________________
~ Josh

Bass - Yamaha TRBX 505, Yamaha RBX 375
Acoustic Guitars - Ovation Celebrity Deluxe CC48, J. Watson & Co. WD150TB, J&D Luthier
Electric Guitars - Fender Classic '72 Telecaster Thinline (2007), Maton Mastersound, Epiphone Les Paul Studio Chameleon, SX VTG Series Tele copy, Ibanez SA
Guitar Amp - Fender Mustang IV V2
Bass Amp - Behringer Ultrabass BXL1800A
Gear - POD HD500X, Zoom G9.2tt, Zoom B9.1ut, Boss DD-20

Warning: This journal may contain diary

But He was pierced for our transgressions
He was crushed for our iniquities;
The punishment that brought us peace was upon Him,
And by His wounds we are healed.
Giga Hertz is online now   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-29-2016, 06:13 AM   #15
Laborer/Philosopher
 
Chrysostom's Avatar
 

Joined: Sep 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 18,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giga Hertz View Post
Information here:
Disney, Marvel threaten Georgia filming boycott over 'antigay' bill - CNET
http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/20152016/157324.pdf

Having read through this, the bill doesn't sound unreasonable. Am I missing something, or is this one of those things that's being made more of a big deal than it should?
I'm hoping somebody can shed some light on it, because I've read the text of the bill several times and can't imagine how someone could see opposition to the bill as inclusive or tolerant, at least in the normal meanings of the words. It says that faith-based organizations don't have to violate their convictions regarding marriage, and presumably birth control and abortion. Is it not exclusive and intolerant to say otherwise? Has there been some alteration to the bill that expands its impact?

I'm also wondering where that righteous indignation about corporations getting involved in politics has gone. When it was a faceless right-wing scapegoat corporations in politics were the most corrupting force out there, but if Mozilla fires its CEO for following the majority of California voters or Disney takes up the sore winner mantle for same-sex marriage then suddenly corporations are courageous heroes?

We live in a time when public discourse -- left or right, new or old media, journalists or citizens -- trades in the currency of outrage. That's not constructive, it cannot build community, and it cannot produce progress. Virtue needs to displace ideology.
__________________
Peace,
John

CGR Blog
Chrysostom is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:19 PM.


Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2