BruceVC

? Why would I want christians in gimp suits??? Or force romance into video games??? Why wouldn't you? lol I like the political objective of implementing mandatory Romance in EVERY single game and gaming genre...no exceptions. Even RTS Namutree for President !!!!

Well sometimes punitive legal steps are necessary to get people to do the right thing, so yes you are right. This bill would have prevented businesses and people from being sued if they had refused to serve members of the LGBT community. And I'm not even talking about marriage or churches which we understand are different, I am talking about commercial entities. So of course this would cause frustration and offense. So yes this bill needs to be amended so people can't use the law to discriminate ..that's the whole point

The problem (IMO and I could be wrong - I don't propose this as a "magic bullet" cure all) can be outlined somewhat thusly: The First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." So everyone has religious freedom and the freedom to exercise their religion. Yay, 'Murica! But within the tax and legal codes (federal and state), they government supports marriage (giving benefits to married couples, inheritance rights, etc.). This is where things get murky; there are two types of marriage in the US - Union in the Eyes of G/god(s)/G/goddess(es) dependent on your religious affiliation and Union in the Eyes of the State. They're both called "marriage" and generally they're inexorably paired and linked. Treating them as the same concept because the language is ambiguous leads to a conceptual identifying of marriage as being a universal concept regardless of state or religious origin. In short because the state issues a marriage license for a couple who were also married in the Hindu faith and the state issues a marriage license for a couple who were also married in the Catholic faith, the state says these marriages are equal. Things that are equal are interchangeable, so the challenge with this conceptual correlation is ensuring that the religious marriage remains unequal (based on faith - the state doesn't say the Catholic church has to recognize a Hindu wedding) while the civil marriage remains equal. Part of the big push for legalization of gay marriage is due to the state sponsored benefits. A lot of the push back from religious groups is because of an increasing feeling that they'll be mandated to provide gay marriages (because, again, the state marriage makes all marriage equal in the eyes of the state, or so they fear). But if, for example, all state unions (gay, straight) were called "Civil Unions" then it'd be harder to argue against, say, selling flowers for them. And this is the crux of it, if a Southern Baptist florist had a gay couple ask for flowers for their marriage in a Unitarian church, it'd be easier to argue (and demonstrate) that requiring that purchase from an open-to-the-public business isn't having their personal faith violated because the Unitarian Marriage isn't "in" their faith and the "Civil Union" isn't in their faith, They're not supporting marriage in the Eyes of their God by providing an open service for the couple (who ultimately, remain heretics in relation to their own personal faith). What this does is remove the concept that marriage equation through the state makes it about Southern Baptist Marriage (which is the ultimate argument of these religious freedom movements) and the dialogue is clearer because marriage doesn't mean multiple things (and the hinge point being, the state no longer becomes an equivocal point between the Southern Baptist Marriage and the Unitarian Marriage in the example by having them both endorsed by the State and seen as equal to one another - which they just can't ever be as the religions themselves aren't equal). If that makes sense. Thats an interesting post, very interesting. I need time to ruminate on your words

Oh no...another member of the GG army...plzzzzzzzzzz...no more

There was a spate of cases over the last few years where a farm that allowed weddings on its site was forced to provide gay wedding despite the owner claiming to be a Christian and therefore unable to support gay marriage and a florist who referred a regular to another florist stating she couldn't make him flowers for his gay wedding due to her religious beliefs being fined for discrimination. A number of people felt that this went against religious freedoms and that, in fact, the government was discriminating against people's right to practice their religion. There's a number of problems with this argument (not the least of which is the government has always limited the freedom of religion when it infringed on others liberties, which is why polygamy, pedophilia and human sacrifice aren't allowed even on religious grounds in the US). The root of the problem, ultimately, is that the state recognizes (and indeed promotes through benefits) a religious concept (marriage) which, unfortunately, won't actually be challenged in any of this. This has been an interesting post, nice one But I'm not understanding what you say is the "root problem ", are you saying that because marriage is seen as a religious right people who follow a certain religious view will always oppose same-sex marriage ?

That's actually an excellent and relevant point Why can't this lead to that kind of dramatic interpretation of the bill? It would seem logical to me because many Muslims, mostly in the ME, don't even speak to women and expect women to wear the Burka..so what not demand to only serve women who dress this way? Under that bill why can't they say that ...damn KP that's one excellent way to get the Indiana lawmakers to quickly make the changes in the new legislation that are expected by many of us

True there would be a degree of punitive economic steps against the overall Indiana economy if this bill wasn't clarified, I'm not sure the overall real impact that would have ? But what concerns me more is where if the bill is left as it is I can guarantee you there will be examples of gay couples who want nothing more than to celebrate the fact they are in love and want to get married, this is an example, being denied services in certain businesses. Denied services and humiliated...humiliated quite possibly in front of there cherished partners. So I would rather the bill was unequivocal in its message that it cannot lead to the discrimination of the LGBT community..I wouldn't accept anything less if I was an American

Well for those like me opposed to this bill there has been a continuous and energized backlash from various groups across the USA and that includes many people within Indiana, like the Major of Indianapolis, Greg Ballard. This is very reassuring http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/03/31/396555062/indianapolis-mayor-religious-laws-backers-missing-the-bigger-trend?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=storiesfromnpr The reality is the USA is making so much progress at moving the country to the point where it really doesn't discriminate against people because of there sexual orientation and legislation like this seems completely anachronistic and unreasonable .....and really out of touch with what the majority of Americans want

He does. But to my understanding the topic has already been discussed to great lengths here and elsewhere, as far as I can tell, and Moderators closed 2 of these threads yesterday (One of them 30 pages long, and I'm pretty sure that TB's soundcloud was probably shared in that thread). Yeah I agree, can we move ? What these types of topics inadvertently do is keep reminding people of this very minor incident and the criticism that was leveled towards Obsidian. Surly there are more important things that need to be discussed about the game than how " a small number of SJW felt the tombstone was inappropriate " ?

Good to see we are on the same side around this debate Volo, even if it is for different reasons Oh and just to be clear, this bill is now official. But what it really means is now being debated as there is huge pressure on the Indiana governor, Mike Pence, to now clarify exactly what it means and how it can and will be implemented

That's my concern, a person could use this bill to discriminate against any group of people that they have some personal issue with and then claim they not discriminating but rather its there "religious right " to do this and they would be protected from being sued due to this bill

I was aware of this development but I have been avoiding commenting because I haven't played PoE yet and I don't want to ruin the narrative or find out too much about the game

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/27/politics/indiana-religous-freedom-explainer/index.html http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/25/politics/mike-pence-religious-freedom-bill-gay-rights/ Indiana governor, Mike Pence, signed into law a "Religious Freedom " bill that has been vociferously criticized by many as people are concerned that this will allow businesses in Indiana to refuse to serve members of the LGBT community and will effectively legitimize discrimination in Indiana against gay people It must be noted that this is not just a case of conservative Republicans trying to enforce there myopic views on society as many Republicans, including Pence, now want to " clarify " this bill There has also been immediate reaction from certain businesses and states who have clearly stated that they wont invest in Indiana in certain ways if this bill is actually enforced in its current form So what do you guys think? What is the reason or justification for this bill outside of the way it can be used to discriminate against the LGBT community? Is there a valid reason for the passing of this bill? Obviously I am opposed to any kind of discrimination so I think its a strange decision for Republican lawmakers in Indiana to want to pass this bill but maybe there is another angle to this I am missing?

This game looks amazing ...I can't wait

That was a very interesting and at the same time a very humorous video I have no sympathy for the older guy, he went to the interview and was lying about his product...it was embarrassing to see him squirm when he realized he had been setup but he deserved it Imagine going for an interview and knowing you will be lying about a product your company sells but you aren't just lying about a minor thing like what goods get sourced from which countries that arent necessarily on the political correct list like NK and Syria. Anyway he is lying about the fact that the drink is safe....its much worse IMO

I am not sure which one Wals is referring to, to be honest. We seem to have an abundance at this time. Always gets his shorts in a knot over oby, so that must be it. Yeah it must be Oby, Wals always use to take him far too seriously and get annoyed.

So your contribution towards this thread is that people should ignore me , thats ironic because thats a comment that isnt relevant to the thread? But I suppose you wanted to say something so that must make it relevant Did it ever occur to you that this thread isnt exactly active anymore and maybe people enjoy discussing the SJ issue I raise, even if it is to disagree with me I assume you are not suggesting that people on this thread can't think for themselves and they need you to tell them the solution is " just to ignore people who try to derail the conversation" Yes I think people on this thread understand what the ignore function means and how to use it but thanks for explaining it....again

Hi Wals "waves "

Oh stop ....its not like you ever cared about what I said when it came to gender issues. In fact I can't remember a time where you ever supported my posts on SJ developments?

You see now I'm disappointed but not surprised, I was hoping you had real some interest apart from a lame attempt to try to prove I'm a hypocrite...which is exactly what Nonek keeps suggesting So there is no need for me to explain because you don't really care and its waste of my time I blame Nonek for your parroting of his views as he makes sense on loads of topics. I just don't agree with his GG stance...well duh !! I know you guys get on well and are forum friends. I respect that but he is wrong about this and now you are as well

Amen brother. Although the warm cloak of familiarity (D&D) makes me very excited. I don't even understand the terminology in PoE. For example, this is an except from the strategy guide on a dagger: What the hell does that Accuracy even mean? Plus 5 out of what, 100? Do those two stack for a total of +13 Accuracy? What would this be analogous to in D&D terms? Wheres my pants? I normally wouldn't have stated this because I also have NO idea how the ruleset works in PoE but I'll apply myself once I start playing the game plus I know there are many people on these forums I could ask who really really understand the PoE ruleset like Sensuki, Stun or Tigranes

I have been only really discussing strippers and strip clubs, not prostitutes. So I would encourage you to try to at least read my posts before you dispute them. And of course an element of prostitution exists in strip clubs but that's not there focus What you guys don't seem to understand, and I tried to explain this, is that what Nonek is pretending to show concern for is the illegal trafficking of women in the sex industry. I am also concerned with that but the places I go to aren't associated with that type of illegal and iniquitous practice You've previously admitted to using the services of prostitutes Bruce. Nonek is calling your frequent attendance of strip clubs hypocritical but stating that it's your choice so he's fine with it, however he finds your use of prostitutes disgusting and hypocritical. Why do you use the services of prostitutes Bruce? I have been only really discussing strippers and strip clubs, not prostitutes. So I would encourage you to try to at least read my posts before you dispute them. And of course an element of prostitution exists in strip clubs but that's not there focus What you guys don't seem to understand, and I tried to explain this, is that what Nonek is pretending to show concern for is the illegal trafficking of women in the sex industry. I am also concerned with that but the places I go to aren't associated with that type of illegal and iniquitous practice You've previously admitted to using the services of prostitutes Bruce. Nonek is calling your frequent attendance of strip clubs hypocritical but stating that it's your choice so he's fine with it, however he finds your use of prostitutes disgusting and hypocritical. Why do you use the services of prostitutes Bruce? Oh so we are making a big deal about something I said in the past and not focusing on my actual current posts ...okay typically this would be where you guys say a person is now debating in bad faith but I don't mind because I sometimes rehash older points people have made I am not prepared to explain how I know and interact with escorts unless you are really interested? I'll happily explain if is this isn't some stratagem to try to catch me out..so do you really want to know?

I can completely understand Tigranes criticism but he is looking at this type of game from a RPGCodex perspective so they generally would be more pedantic and critical around how developers promote there games if they are perceived to be disingenuous I am just looking to be entertained but obviously the game must be good But its important that we get Tigranes view on why he is disappointed with this game because then I have more information about the overall game

Also they do talk about D&D terms like a DM so its not completely dissimilar to D&D ?