Indiana's New Law

1. Sure, it can always change theoretically. But it hasn't changed for this particular topic. If you want it to change, make it happen in the correct way. If you want to remove a crucial amendment, have at it, you just need the support of the people and the legislative branch. And this statement is so out of context it is hard to explain it. By this quote, Jefferson in no way meant that total regime changes were good or that the U.S. would collapse to a new government in a healthy way. And the founding fathers, by the way, only supported their own regime change, not more in the future. You can't generalize on such a broad scale here. Now, when Jefferson said this, he was in France, writing a letter to a friend about Shays rebellion, which had recently happened in the new US. He did not mean it literally, for blood to be shed, but instead was referring to in general, how patriots and tyrants (opposites) must debate and battle for power. He in no way meant it to justify a regime change[1]. 2. No, I did not misunderstand your point, you just ignored what I said. First lets understand that these state constitutions are seperate from the federal government, but must follow the federal laws and rules for it to count. So these state laws that declare you must be theistic to be in office are NOT breaking any laws or violating the constitution. The first amendment, again, says "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."[2]. It says that the government cannot recognize the establishment of a religion, prohibit the exercise of a religion, or abridge freedom of speech and press and so on. Nowhere to be found is a defense of secularism. No "right to not be religious" specifically is found, that is just something that is covered by other rights. No one has a right to not be discriminated against based on lack of religion. So now that we should understand that this is not a protected right, we can see that it is not a violation of anything for a state to declare this. Again, if you would like to change it, then go for it, but as of now, it can stand. And Jainism, like buddhism, is more of a philosophy than a religion. A religion is, according to dictionary.com, "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."[3]. Here we can also see that Jainism does not fit under this definition of a religion, and therefore does not mean discrimination is happening. This is why many people are, for example, Buddhist and catholic, or other combinations of philosophical beliefs. 3. Of course they were upset, because they're almost 100% filled with liberal socialists, who have an extremely strong bias to the left. But the weren't in an absolute uproar, they were simply upset becausethey believe don't the law allowed discrimination. It is a fact that you cannot be discriminated against for your color, as I stated in the last round, so they aren't mad for themselves. The first part of this point is undebatable. But also, the law was not tailored to attack gays. Many states already have similar laws, and the reaction of the politicians who passed it was utter astonishment when the protests began. They didn't expect such an uproar, because to them it was just restoring the right of a person to not be controlled by the government. 4. Here I was talking about a public hospital earlier, but also if you ran a private hospital, you are running it on your own time as a benefit to the public, so it only makes sense that you could have options. But you seem to be missing one of the points that being gay is not a physical feature of trait, it's something that is developed through your mind, and can exist only to you in some cases. So a gay man can not be rejected from a private hospital simply because he is gay, assuming they don't know. It would have to be for other reasons. And we both know if a private hospital ever rejected a gay man for his condition, there would be an insane public uproar, and legislation may even be passed. Anyway though, public hospitals can still not turn them away under any circumstance. The reason I cited life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is because I meant that is something the government must allow. It is not on me to allow you to have those 3 things, so it doesn't have to be on a private hospital either. 5. That is a fair answer, but it doesn't prove anything because the line between what the baker CAN do and what he SHOULD do are very blurry. All it was meant to do was show that you do not have to serve anyone. The customer is always right is a great strategy, but it is not a law. I work in food service also, and I'll tell you that while we are generally respectful to customers, if someone is causing a situation and disrupting the flow, we do not have to serve him, which in most cases here would be fixing an order after it was consumed. 6. It definitely is in a cultural way. Yes, the percentage of religious is lower, but some laws do limit expression of religion in a smaller way, but in our culture it is becoming difficult to be very religious. If you pray, cite God, or genuinely follow religious teachings (sports are the exemption here- all athletes talk about God for one reason or another) you are picked on as either dumb or outdated. I know no cop will arrest you for religion, but it is becoming harder to express religious ideas in our world. And here, a theocracy is technically rule by God, and that is just ridiculous. Also, I should have used slightly different terminology. Secularism, by itself, is not great for society. But obviously they can mix slightly. HereI'm talking about a society that doesn't value a religion or moral values, and demeans religious ideals. Secularism doesn't just mean "earthy", it implies areligion and not basic anything on religious grounds. Yes, basing a decision on earthly logic is good, but societal secularism is the takeover of non religious and immoral ideas, and that is simply what I expressed distaste over. CONCLUSION To sum things up, I will take a quick step back to see the overview. Indiana's law, which has now been changed, originally still did not encourage or empower discriminatory attitudes. It was to restore religious freedom, and the ability for the average American to live his or her life based on a religious philosophy without being stomped on by our Orwellian government. It fits into our laws and constitution, being that we still cannot bar people of other colors or religions or nationality from using the facility. The problem was simply that LGBT activists assumed the law was aimed at them and took aim, soon misinterpreting the law for millions to see. This bullying policy that isolates and embarrasses so called "bigots" is an undemocratic and unconstitutional way of manipulating our country, and that is why I don't relate to it. I see a law that gives religious people their freedom back, and that does not contradict any previous law or doctrine in the US. [1]http://www.answers.com... [2]-constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1.html#sthash.dGLHEfjj.dpuf [3]- http://dictionary.reference.com...