3 Indiana Judges Suspended After White Castle Brawl That Left 2 Of Them Wounded 

This could have been avoided if the strip clubs were open later

PRopaganda will fix this...
Indiana Hires PR Firm To Rebuild Image After 'Religious Freedom' Fiasco

The state of Indiana has hired a public relations firms to strengthen its image as “a welcoming place to live, visit and do business.” The ‘damage control’ is occurring just weeks after a national outcry over its discriminatory religious freedom bill.

National criticism descended upon Indiana after its Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) – before it was revised – was understood to have allowed businesses to discriminate against gay, lesbian and transgender customers on religious grounds. The bill incurred national condemnation, with state governors in Connecticut and New York, as well as the mayor of Washington, DC, banning state-funded travel barring revisions to the law.

The New York firm Porter Novelli was retained by the Indiana Economic Development Corporation (IEDC) to support ongoing public relations initiatives to continue strengthening Indiana’s global brand reputation. (...)

 kurtster wrote: 
The picture was taken in 1960 in Greensboro, North Carolina.

This might help our resident sinistrophobic denier(s) gain some understanding*...

Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT).^<1><2><3> It can be expressed as antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred, may be based on irrational fear, and is sometimes related to religious beliefs.^<4>

Homophobia is observable in critical and hostile behavior such as discrimination and violence on the basis of sexual orientations that are non-heterosexual.^<1><2> According to the 2010 Hate Crimes Statistics released by the FBI National Press Office, 19.3 percent of hate crimes across the United States "were motivated by a sexual orientation bias."^<5> Moreover, in a Southern Poverty Law Center 2010 Intelligence Report extrapolating data from fourteen years (1995–2008), which had complete data available at the time, of the FBI's national hate crime statistics found that LGBT people were "far more likely than any other minority group in the United States to be victimized by violent hate crime."^<6> (...)

*Not holding my breath.

 kurtster wrote: 
A picture is worth a thousand words, they say. I say the situations are remarkably similar in many ways. You state that no one really needs pizza or cake, so the customers aren't really being denied anything worth protesting about. I post a photo of the lunch counter. You can't make a connection, that's your own blinders. I'm not pretending: you are blind if you can't see it. The people in the lunch counter photo aren't there to get their electricity turned on or to pay their water bills. They're there to have a burger and a Coke. Nothing any of them really needed, yet it was a valid protest in your eyes. You say you have gone to great lengths to discuss "the real merits and differences." I say you're gyrating like a dervish to try to gin up some difference between the two.

 islander wrote: 
This is it.  I'll be done after this.  The lunch counter picture without a caption is a cop out, not an answer.  Pretend I was blind and couldn't see the picture, and then we can pretend that the answer is typed in Braille so I can "read" the actual words articulating what is.  No one is willing or able to articulate why the two situations are identical.  I have gone to great lengths to discuss the real merits and differences.  All I get back is well you know its wrong or should know its wrong.  Instead of it causes actual harm because ______.   No one has filled in the blank.

I've offered the actual harm amounts to inconvenience.  I'll go even farther and say that it could also hurt feelings and hurt the self esteem of the rejected individual.  But do these pass the test of real harm sufficient for a legal remedy ?  

And on the bolded.  You're full of sh*t to even go there.  I said

kurtster wrote:
 The picture illustrates a situation in a specific time and place.  I said that I ate at a Woolworth's lunch counter at the same time in a different place.  Far from the South where one must assume this picture was taken.  I am old enough to have traveled through the South and actually see the "colored only" signs on restrooms at gas stations, water fountains and other places.  How you get that I approve of discrimination in the way you state is beyond me.  I never saw a colored only sign in California back in the 50's or 60's.  The local laws affected local policies is my point.  Because it happens one place does not make it universal.  Sorry you aren't able to figure that one out without help.

Have a nice day or I'll sue your sorry ass ... 

 RichardPrins wrote:

RichardPrins wrote:

So you are (still) saying these ("religious freedom") laws are needed to specifically protect Christian bigots?

 kurtster wrote:

Yes, because Islamic bigots get a free pass.

I guess I missed that exchange; I haven't been looking in here that regularly. Anyhow, carry on - don't make a mess and turn off the lights and the coffee-maker when you're leaving.

 Proclivities wrote:

RichardPrins wrote:

So you are (still) saying these ("religious freedom") laws are needed to specifically protect Christian bigots?

 kurtster wrote:

Yes, because Islamic bigots get a free pass.

 islander wrote: 
I don't think Kurt was arguing those points - you may be wandering into a scarecrow field there.  I think he was trying to point out the differences between those policies and practices of refusing services fifty years ago and the ones of today.  I'm not saying I agree with his assessments, but I doubt he is condoning discriminatory laws or policies.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
So the picture was taken on Feb. 1, 1960.

Wikipedia says:

De jure segregation, sanctioned or enforced by force of law, was stopped in the United States by federal enforcement of a series of Supreme Court decisions after Brown v. Board of Education in 1954.

Of course de facto bigots unfortunately continue to exist.

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
Socialist is in the F***ing name!. 

 kurtster wrote:  
So your argument is that we should have laws that allow discrimination?  Or that policies that are discriminatory are okay if they are are encouraged by a law?  Or that it's okay to have discriminatory policies in some places as long as you operate one non-discriminatory outlet somewhere?

I really haven't been able to follow anything you've spouted in a couple of pages now.  But please keep it up, nothing like having you tear down your own silly arguments. 

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
But the bus thing was not a policy.  It was the law.

The lunch counter situation was encouraged by the law. 

And i ate at a few Woolworth's lunch counters in California in the same time.  No black only areas there.

 kurtster wrote: 
The lunch counter segregation was just Woolworth's store policy.

 RichardPrins wrote: 

exactly. thank goodness for you and Scott. All i need to do is react to Hitler vids.

 kurtster wrote: 
You mean like the laws that have been enacted to prohibit same-sex marriage and now "religious freedom restoration" laws that allow bigots to sue if they feel someone has impinged on their religious conscience?

It's rather amusing to see a Teabagger defend more government laws for the religious.

 meower wrote: 

Shut down the thread!

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: