Indiana's Religious Freedom Law -- Not About Religion?

Actually it can not apply to any law. Your examples of stealing and murder should be compared with other sensible examples. Believe it or not, there are venues where the government should not be interfering especially when it is one of the biggest proponents of discrimination out there.

Not baking someone a cake or serving them a sandwich can not and should not be addressed in terms of emotion (like you are doing) but rather, sense. Those two examples sure as hell might offend someone though. Hurt? Lets be realistic. You might offend them but you are not taking anything away from them as would happen with your examples. Ruffled feelings are part of life and in many cases supported by the Constitution. This issue should not be any different.

Using Jim Crow laws in this discussion is just another emotional response. The law in Indiana will not put gays at a socioeconomic disadvantage (or any for that matter) any way you try and paint it. Jim Crow did just that and put blacks in an inferior position and did it in public venues where it should be stopped from happening. By public I mean transportation, education, etc..,

all of my points have been relavent

1. Slavery is said to be allowed in the same section of the bible that denounces homosexuality. I pointed out the hypocrisy. I pointed out the hipocrisy of the bakery serving other groups that violated their religious beliefs but they only focused on homosexuality. Relevant

2. I pointed out the relations of the current push for gay rights to the civil rights movement which has many similar parallels. Relevant

3. I never said anything suggesting an agenda, I only stated facts.

4. I pointed out similarities between Jim Crow laws and these religious liberties laws.

5. You say hurt feelings, but I guess that just means you don't know what it's like to be treated second class, something that has motivated huge movements i.e. civil rights movement, suffrage, for people to get equal rights.

Finally, and most importantly, you're a mod, act like one, don't run away from a debate just because I made some good points. You should set an example on here, what you did was embarrassing.

@MakeMeaSammitch: You can say anything you want, but it doesn't make those things true, and I won't respect them as if they are true. So much is out of context that it's difficult to distinguish any reasonable points in many of your posts. I'm not so much running away from your posts as I am choosing not to respect your very broad-stroke, generalized posts. It's my freedom to do so, regardless of what actions you may assume I should take because I have mod tags.

Intent is an important facet in this discussion and in the greater issue about which this thread was created. Think about it, please, before choosing to reply.

It seems your argument is based entirely around the fact that most people won't exploit this law. The same applies to the Jim Crow laws, if they were put back in place now I highly doubt that many people will start baring and firing black people. Those laws alone didn't create socio-economic problems for blacks, but it allowed it to happen by giving the businesses the power to decide to hire based on race. This law does the same thing. Sure people aren't as homophobic or racist as they used to be so the outcome won't be as bad, but the law is still the same and that is what we are talking about.

If people were to become more homophobic then with this law in place it will allow a situation not to different to the Jim Crow era to happen again. Without this law then society will not have that power to make people into second class citizens.

My position has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not any exploitation of this law will occur. My position is that of stopping the government from micromanaging our lives by telling private citizens/business owners how to run their shop. I do not believe it is my place or your place to tell someone whom they should and should not serve in their business.

No matter how wrong, you will never convince me the government should be essentially making the decisions for these business or people for that matter. Believe me, I can't support the act of any kind of discrimination but I can support someone having such a right (if it came to fruition) and they should.

1. They can, they simply aren't allowed to discriminate.

2. Technically, yes, but depending on the business it may not hurt them enough to discourage this behavior or for them to even care. The already mentioned example of Chick-Fil-A is a good example. That company is privately held and does billions in sales annually. The CEO has come out as being a religeous conservative and strongly against gay marriage, to the point of giving company profits to organizations that are fighting against equal rights. While I'm sure that this has hurt Chick-Fil-A's business some, it hasn't hurt them enough to cause them to change in any way. There are a lot of major companies out there like this.

"We don't live in the 1950's anymore, we live in a country where it's socially unacceptable to the majority to deny service to people based on race or sexuality."

But even not speaking at the macro-level, this is more likely to be an issue at the micro-level. Businesses in small towns and rural areas are less likely to recieve negative backlash from the community for refusing service to homosexuals, so your assertation that this is "self correcting" isn't necessarily the case. Sure, if a bakery in San Fran decides to refuse service to a gay couple then the response will be significant but in small town Indiana this may not be the case.

3. Typically they don't. In most of the cases like this that I've read, none of the rejected customers filed complaints to force that particular business to serve them. Usually after being turned away because of who they are, the last thing they want to do is to give that business money (a reasonable response). Instead, the complaints are shine a light on discriminatory practices to keep other people from being treated the same way.

4. Nobody's being forced to do anything. It's the business owner's choice to start and run a business, but the law dictates that they have to treat people equally if they do.

5. I don't care "why" people want to discriminate, only that they not be allowed to do it in a place of business.

You keep saying that this is tantamount to "hurt feelings" but it's not, it's so much more. It's being treated as less than everyone else because of who you are. If you aren't a member of a group that has ever been a target of this kind of discrimiation, then it would be hard for you to understand. It's easy to say "be an adult" and "grow a thicker skin, it's not a nice world out there". Okay, sure, but this can affect families, too. How do you explain to a three year old that we can't buy their birthday cake from their favorite bakery because the people who run that bakery think that their parents are something "dirty" or "less than human" in the eyes of God? Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado was recently ruled against for denying service to a gay couple. One of the points they brought up in the trial was that the cake shop was willing to make a wedding cake for family pets (jokingly "marrying" two dogs) but not for a gay couple.

But beyond that, even taking the insult aspect of it away completely (even though that's significant) this law can quantifiably hurt people. Banks are privately owned business and not all of them are nationwide. Getting denied a bank loan because the local bank that has the best rates refuses to serve you is something measurable. A real estate agent or company not being willing to work with you because of who you are can limit options for housing your family. Not to mention the examples that were already listed in this thread like not being able to use your local market. If you have to drive two towns over to do your grocery shopping because you can't go to the grocery store down the street for your house, that doesn't harm you?

-Byshop

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/04/01/indiana-rfra-deal-sets-limited-protections-for-lgbt/70766920/

The clarification would say that the new "religious freedom" law does not authorize a provider – including businesses or individuals – to refuse to offer or provide its services, facilities, goods, or public accommodation to any member of the public based on sexual orientation or gender identity, in addition to race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, or military service.

more at the link.

Then how is this different to Jim Crow laws? Sure the public stuff like water fountains and transport are unaffected, but I'd say that employment and housing is more important than that stuff.

Isn't that exactly what the abolishment of the Jim Crow laws was, the government telling people how to run their business?

Government isn't telling anyone anything - the business owner implicitly agreed to the laws when they decided to open a business and accepted all the privileges and benefits from the government and its services that that entails. A business can't expect to get incentives and then not uphold its end of the bargain. You keep dodging this point for some reason.

@Byshop: I actually didn't say the issue is tantamount to hurt feelings. That was an extreme response to an extreme comparison drawn between murder and cake denied. I've stated many times now that this thread is about the personal freedoms of individuals, both businesses and patrons.

So far, the arguments that contradict the questions I've lobbed out there revolve around long-past examples from a different era (imagining the inevitable return of such a social climate), conjecture about what could happen (but that hasn't happened in the other states where similar laws have been present for years), and generalizations about how much more racist/bigoted small-town America is certain to be.

"What if" means very little to me in the greater context of a reasonable discussion because "What if" can be anything, while specific examples can be only that one talking point and is measurable. If you have overwhelming examples of individuals forced to drive two towns over to support themselves or their family, I'd be very interested in hearing about it. I'm attempting to limit reactions by the number of examples we have available to us, not by the number of news stories posted about the same few examples.

Additionally, do you believe it is the purpose of government to set forth a set of moral or ethical standards by which the people are forced under penalty of law to abide by?

1) Thats a lie. You first talked about hurt feelings in this post. Why do you keep ignoring that this has very little to do with peoples feelings?

2) Stop pretending that history doesn't matter. Of course it won't matter if we live in la-la land where everyone is full of love and kindness. Unfortunately we don't live in that world and we need to base our views on reality.

3) Who is giving you a what if? The law serves one purpose and that is to allow discrimination. I don't think a single person has said this law will bring back the 50's, but you are incredibly naive if you don't think that's the lawmakers intentions.

4) That's what laws are for.

1. The opinions I am expressing are not based solely on how someone's feelings might be hurt. Read the context. If we go by hurt feelings, than we can make the argument that if store owners are forced to serve people who's very being they disagree with, their feelings would be hurt, too. Hurt feelings came up again when someone compared it to murder.

2. I never pretended that history didn't matter. I did, however, choose to look at history through a contextual lens. That's only logical.

3. If you can't identify all the "What if" statements that have been liberally peppered throughout this entire thread, I don't know how to help you begin to find them.

4. This is very revealing, actually. This tells me that you believe our government is responsible for regulating your moral and ethical code. If one were to be truly blunt, that would make you a bit of a lemming, wouldn't it? If not the human equivalent of a destruction-destined rodent, at least a sheep?

This has suddenly become very relevant in SW, lol...

I think its interesting that they even need to make laws that point out that certain things are not the same as being discriminated based on gender or race and that these things are not something that can use the laws to protect their life choices.

So its of course within the private business owners prerogative to deny service to customers.

Shit happens.

I'm thinking the same thing myself. And here's a response from the Indiana bishops to the anti-gay law that needs changing so that "no one in Indiana will face discrimination whether it is for their sexual orientation or for living their religious beliefs".

http://duboiscountyherald.com/b/indiana-bishops-issue-joint-statement-on-religious-law

1) Who here said that the problem is that it may hurt peoples feelings? You are the only person to mention feelings.

2) How can you apply it to a context where the laws don't matter?

3) Sorry but you have to point them out.

4) You hit a new low with that one. No it does not say that about me, idiotic statements like that is why I brought up the murder comparison in the first place. I wouldn't kill someone if murder was legal and neither would most people. However like I said we don't live in la la land, we life in the real world where there are people who will do what they want which includes discriminating and in rare cases killing people. So we need those laws to prevent the people who lack morals from acting however they please. I'm sorry we don't live in your fantasy world where laws are unneeded as nobody would do anything horrible willingly.

Jim Crow wasn't only private business segregating people. The governments were doing it as well in the public sector. A government shouldn't be blinded by any criteria.

@Aljosa23

Nothing is being dodged. You just aren't making my radar in terms of this discussion.

You assume a lot when saying business is getting incentives from the government. That might be true in some cases but not in all.

This is where your logic falls apart. A business is not a person and as such a business is not subject to personal freedoms. You as a person can do whatever you want, but your business cannot.

You're correct that this is not the 1950s and that the country has come a long way, but one of the reasons it has is because of laws that were enacted outlawing discriminatory behavior. I'm half black, and my parents were young adults in the 50s. During that time, a white and black couple would be harassed just for being together and depending on where you are in the country it might literally be dangerous. They moved from their rural home to New York and I was born in Queens. Thankfully, the country has come a long way since then. Here's an article about a white woman who was dating a black younger man. They were harassed about it and eventually the young man was lynched:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2878148/White-girlfriend-31-lynched-17-year-old-says-believes-relationship-led-murder-reveals-warned-not-date-black-man-Crackertown.html

My parents escaped any such fate and stuff like that doesn't happen anymore.

Oh wait, my bad. That article is actually from last year. And there are many, many more examples of horrible hate crimes that have taken place -since- the Jim Crow era.

No, it's not the 1950s and in the grand, nationwide consciousness racism and sexism are considered bad things, but there are many, many parts in this country where things are still like the 1950s if not more ass backwards. There are parts of the US where (no bullshit here) High Schools are still segregated. Here's an article about a High School that had its first integrated prom last year:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/wilcox-county-high-school-segregated-prom/

You can keep trying to tell me how we're not the same country but how much exposure have you personally had to racism? Were you called racial slurs growing up? Because I was, and no I didn't grow up in the 50s.

So you want specific examples of people who are hurt by this new law rather than relying on common sense and logic? Fine, but again that's easy for you to say when you are not the target of the new law.

As for whether or not I believe it's the government's job to set forth moral or ethical standards using laws? Of course. Regardless of religeous freedom and specific beliefs, there have to be a common set of rules that we can all agree on and generally those have been about not hurting people and treating everyone equally and fairly. Nobody's telling anyone what to believe. Anyone can be as racist or biggoted as they want, but if those beliefs extend to harming others (and not just physically) then there are consequences.

-Byshop

I addressed that in the post you quoted...

@Byshop:

Agreed 100%

I think that's technically inaccurate. Businesses are legally people (and have been since at least the 19th century), and since the Hobby Lobby case businesses can have religious views (or adopt those of their founders). Since the business can possess a religious belief and the Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot compel a business to violate that religious belief, it stands to reason that businesses also possess personal freedoms.

Not that I'm a fan of the law. I think it's more indicative of the level of ridiculousness that corporate personhood has evolved to than anything else, frankly.

Well they care about the opinions of powerful voting blocks in their own districts (which is how this started out). Kind of funny that they were tossed to the side when businesses threatened, though. It would be nice if the evangelical community took the hint about where they stand in party priorities, but that's surely just wishful thinking.

If you want to see Jim Crow, Mississippi Burning was just on Encore Black. That was complete utter hatred. Objecting to something based on your religious beliefs does not compare. The sky isn't falling with this law but that is what happens when homosexuality is the topic of discussion coupled with religious beliefs.

I think I'll buy the local electric company and then cut off service to every church in the area. Just for kicks.

So how is saying no blacks allowed any different to saying no gays allowed?

Very simple: The Jim crow laws were founded and perpetuated by blind hatred. I don't consider these religious laws anywhere near the same but I'll change my mind if gays start getting their asses kicked for walking into a bakery or the like but from what I've read that's not how this law works. Furthermore, do you think every patron will be polled on their sexuality?

My advice to you is not to follow what the media is pushing. Rather, read about this law from objective sources while listening to what business owners have to say pertaining to how this law works. If I listen to the media I too would believe this is 1960 Selma all over again but that doesn't seem to be the case.

No I don't think everyone will start treating gays like second class citizens, however I'd say the same if the Jim Crow laws were put back in place. Just because people are allowed to treat blacks poorly doesn't mean they will, but obviously there are still some people who will and there are still people who will do the same to gays.

The problem isn't strictly about what the out come of this law will be, but the existence of the law altogether. It was made for no reason other than blind hatred of gays.

That "difference" is both dubious and immaterial. Even assuming it's truth, it is a difference in motive, not a difference in the actual substance of the law.

Yeah, the reasons behind a discriminatory law still don't justify discrimination. They are rationalizations, but at the end of the day this is yet another attempt to deny gays the same rights as everyone else.

-Byshop

@Solaryellow: you'd be hard pressed to find a business that didn't benefit from things the government plays a role in

The unethical happenings of the government doesn't negate anything with any of the points

I can see both sides, but I dont like the idea that one could openly discriminate. Granted, I wouldnt want to serve someone in my establishment if they professed a profound appreciation for Hitler or something like that, but I could also see how this could be abused. What if someone refused to serve african americans because it was against their "religous beliefs". Too many pitfalls.

I appreciate the effort, however I have major concerns in general about much of the ideas expressed here.

You seem to elude to the idea that racial tension in the United States is just as bad as it was in the 50's. You also seem comfortable relying on conventional wisdom that you are comfortable with, which I think is both dangerous socially, and harmful to any sort of objective breakdown the issues at hand here. I want specific examples of people harmed by this new law because I refuse to rely on assumptions. Critical thinking does not rely on assumptions, and we should all be champions for critical, objective examination.

It also seems appropriate to you to assume that I haven't been privy to any sort of discrimination in the form of physical or mental abuse. And you seem very comfortable reprimanding me for expressing unpopular opinions because I couldn't possibly understand them, because I'm not "a target". Do you understand the greater implications of such actions? Do you know why I chose not to cite any specific instances (plural)?

We should also note that the high school in Georgia hadn't officially held a prom for decades before the prom you cited. Those proms were organized by parents at those high schools. The first official prom in decades was held by the school this past year and everyone was invited. This is not an example of institutional segregation.

"If we're all together and we love each other the way we say we do, then there are no issues," Wilcox County graduate Mareshia Rucker said last year after helping to organize the student-led integrated prom. "This is something that should have happened a long time ago." -- Direct quote from the article. Is this individual not a true champion for equality and a great example for others across the country. She and her friends took action and solved the problem, they didn't rely on governing bodies to create laws to require the prom. Would you disagree?

Isn't anyone listening to us at all?

@angeldeb82: It's not that we don't know, it's that some of us are talking about the broader picture and bigger thoughts and issues.

Which was actually the purpose of the thread.

I understand, musicalmac.

@musicalmac: You're clearly dodging,

Things I've stated like the bible saying slavery is ok or that there are parallels between Jim crow laws and Laws like this are true.

Shameful

@musicalmac: No offense, but I don't think you paid much attention to what I said.

"You seem to elude to the idea that racial tension in the United States is just as bad as it was in the 50's."

No, I didn't "allude" (elude means to escape) to racial tensions in the US being the same now as in the 50s. I specifically said that the country has come a long ways and that's partially due to anti-discrimination laws. I also said that there are areas in the US where things are easily as bad as they were then. I was very clear on both of these points. You seem to like concrete examples, so I gave you two. With a little bit of googling, I can easily find -hundreds- more of examples of horrific racial violence and tension. Hell, even current headline news includes the race riots in Ferguson. Go tell the parents of Michael Brown that racial tensions in the US are way better than the 1950, but I'm going to go ahead and guess that such a conversation would not go well.

"You also seem comfortable relying on conventional wisdom that you are comfortable with, which I think is both dangerous socially, and harmful to any sort of objective breakdown the issues at hand here. I want specific examples of people harmed by this new law because I refuse to rely on assumptions. Critical thinking does not rely on assumptions, and we should all be champions for critical, objective examination."

Yeah. Here's the thing. Critical thinking and scientific method rely on another thing you seem to have left out. Research. You demand specific examples of how this law has hurt people already? Slight problem with that. The bill was just signed a little over a week ago, meaning that the law isn't actually in effect yet. You started this thread to discuss the law two months before it goes into effect. Had you realized this, I'm guessing you wouldn't be demanding information that you know can't exist yet. If you had realized that, then you deliberately set this thread up as a Catch 22. The only kind of discussion that can possibly take place about something that happens in the future is a hypothetical one. Otherwise, there is literally no point to your thread.

What's more, since concrete examples can't possibly exist of what you've asked people have given you concrete examples of how similar laws -have- hurt people, but your only response to that is "well, it's not the 50s anymore". See my earlier points on that.

"It also seems appropriate to you to assume that I haven't been privy to any sort of discrimination in the form of physical or mental abuse. And you seem very comfortable reprimanding me for expressing unpopular opinions because I couldn't possibly understand them, because I'm not "a target". Do you understand the greater implications of such actions? Do you know why I chose not to cite any specific instances (plural)?"

This would have been your chance to speak up. My point was that typically, the people who say that racism is no longer a problem are generally not the people who are targets of it.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/gop-racism-is-over-most-americans-nope-20131201

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/29/racism-isnt-dead_n_5232080.html

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/26/us/ferguson-racism-or-racial-bias/

If you are not the target of a specific type of racism, then who are you to tell me whether or not that racism still exists?

Also, nobody has "reprimanded" you for anything. You seem intent on making yoruself out to be the victim in this conversation because people disagree with you.

"We should also note that the high school in Georgia hadn't officially held a prom for decades before the prom you cited. Those proms were organized by parents at those high schools. The first officialprom in decades was held by the school this past year and everyone was invited. This is not an example of institutional segregation."

So you're just going to gloss over the lynching, then? Okay, lol.

It wasn't an example of institutional racism, it was an example of racial tension in the US that exists today and it's not the only one by far. There's a whole documentary on segregated proms in the US (Morgan Freeman narrated it, naturally).

""If we're all together and we love each other the way we say we do, then there are no issues," Wilcox County graduate Mareshia Rucker said last year after helping to organize the student-led integrated prom. "This is something that should have happened a long time ago." -- Direct quote from the article. Is this individual not a true champion for equality and a great example for others across the country. She and her friends took action and solved the problem, they didn't rely on governing bodies to create laws to require the prom. Would you disagree?"

That's a ridiculous statement. She and her friends worked together and had an integrated prom, but the prom is a symptom. The problem is the underlying racial tension in these rural states that make people nervous about the idea of having an integrated prom. It's a step, not a solution.

-Byshop

Damn. musicalmac just got fucking dragged by Byshop.

Agreed. There were no survivors.

TC, you're questions are well thought. If a business doesn't wish to provide a product or service based on religious grounds, or any grounds for that matter, there should be no legal repercussions. You're right that turning down a customer is an immediate loss of income, so to turn down any business for any reason other than because it will not be a profitable venture is bad for business.

Now, let's say that a business did turn away a customer for religious reasons and blatantly stated it to the customer. That customer can go somewhere else and when business is completed, give that business a positive review or something and continue to support that business. This is the power of the individual in a free market, but individual freedoms are slowly but surely being eliminated in favor of laws that restrict the power of the individual under the current government-media complex.

The message: If you don't believe what others believe, you're a bigot and should have no rights, nor any reason to exist.

Having lived in Indiana for over a decade, I guarantee you that not even at a McDonald's in the boonies of a cornfield would turn down a gay couple from ordering Big Mac's and a shake to share and even if that McDonald's did refuse to provide the food before this law was passed, it would be legal because there is no anti-discrimination law for LGBT people.

This whole deal with Indiana is smoke and mirror's that low information voters picked up on through low information news sources, who sensationalized the story at an opportune time by highlighting the NCAA Final Four Tournament as though popcorn vendors were going to deny fans at the basketball games from buying popcorn because of their sexual orientation.

In the front of the minds of the media (and the propagandists who feed them the script) who are spinning this story, is that they want some laws passed that don't allow businesses to turn people away for various and sundry religion or lifestyle choices and thus, give a bureaucrat in DC the power to force a business to conduct it's everyday business in a government approved manner. Again, smoke and mirrors.

Lastly, people in Indiana are very nice and I guarantee that if an overt homeless, transgendered person crawled into a Christian themed pizza restaurant and was clearly starving to death and asked for a meal in return for cleaning the bathrooms, the proprietors of the pizza restaurant would give him/her a whole pizza free of charge because above all Christianity teaches to forgive sinners of their sin and help them in their time of need.

Your last sentence is extremely alarming and quite frankly, it fills the status quo. Not supporting homosexuality (because of the teachings of a religion) not does not constitute hate.

From what I have read outside of mainstream media this law does not allow you to act in the same ways people did up until 1965 in regards to blacks and it seems a lot of people are confused to this little caveat.

As someone whose life does not revolve around religion, I'm still concerned over how they are being treated as well. In this country we have religious freedom(s) but you no longer have that when you are forced to essentially forsake your teachings. That's OK though, right?

@Solaryellow: yeah its okay for your religious freedoms to not extend 100% in a lawful society. Pretty well established

And not supporting homosexuality is no different than not supporting interracial relationships. Whatever reason you have for it doesn't make it any less shitty of a belief.

*you* not being anyone in particular

And there's also the fact that religion was a large motivator for banning interracial marriage. So if you can justify homophobia with religion, why not racism?

How about we get some laws passed allowing business to not give goods to Christians? At least hating Christians is a belief with some rationale to back it up....

Aye. The supporters of this law would be the first people protesting a shawarma shop that doesn't serve Christians or an atheist-only restaurant.

@Byshop: I'm going to try to respond to all your points as succinctly as possible.

Statements such as this one, "My parents escaped any such fate and stuff like that doesn't happen anymore. Oh wait, my bad. That article is actually from last year." seem to point to the idea that we haven't made any significant progress since the civil rights movement. In the 1950s, I doubt the issues in Ferguson would have even made the news, and I'm certain that America wouldn't have elected a black president in 1950. Do you disagree?

I didn't specifically address your link about the lynching because I'm well aware that racial violence is still present and every example is a terrible tragedy. I never said we'd stamped out racism.

I chose not to discuss any personal experiences because those experiences are just that -- personal. It makes it personal and the thread I've created here isn't about me, it's about unpopular opinions that go against the grain of "conventional wisdom." I posed questions for the purpose of sparking a conversation and am presenting those opinions for discussion.

I asked for examples because there are many other states with similar laws, as well as a federal RFRA law signed by Bill Clinton. The thread is not a catch 22, it's a thread that requires some bigger-picture thought.

I also see that you were quick to dismiss my comment regarding the school in Georgia, "That's a ridiculous statement." What makes the statement, "She and her friends took action and solved the problem" ridiculous? Isn't that exactly what happened? Why look at it as a symptom and not a great victory? Young people took initiative and changed their local society, isn't that something to be celebrated?

This last bit is particularly important because it brings back the purpose of the thread, which is about the freedom of choice, not about whether or not racism still exists in the United States (because it does in some areas) or whether LGBTQ folks will at times face discrimination (many will).

EDIT: I think the growing mob mentality is also a compelling turn of events. A person is smart, but people can be dumb.