Takei Calls For Boycott
2 min read
Star Trek‘s George Takei is calling for a boycott of Indiana.
The reason for Takei’s anger is because of a bill, SB101, recently passed in the state.
According to the bill, “state and local government cannot substantially burden a person’s religion, including if that burden stems from a rule, unless the government has a ‘compelling interest’ and it is the ‘least restrictive’ means of doing so.”
This could mean that service could be denied on the basis of religious grounds. Say that a baker did not agree with gay marriage because of his religious beliefs; according to the interpretation of this bill, he could not be forced to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple who came into his business.
Those supporting SB101 believe that it “protects fundamental religious rights,” but opponents believe that it will “legalize discrimination,” especially against same-sex couples.
“I am outraged that Governor Pence would sign such a divisive measure into law,” said Takei. “He has made it clear that LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) couples, like Brad and me, are now unwelcome in his state. The notion that this bill was not driven by animus (hostility) against our community is belied by the record and frankly insulting.
“I will join many in demanding that socially responsible companies withdraw their business, conferences and support from his state and that LGBTs and our friends and supporters refuse to visit or do business with Indiana. It is a sad day for the Hoosier state, and indeed for the many good people of Indiana, for whom this law now stands as a terrible blight upon that state’s reputation.”
“The legislation, SB 101, is about respecting and reassuring Hoosiers that their religious freedoms are intact,” said Pence. “I strongly support the legislation and applaud the members of the General Assembly for their work on this important issue.”
About The Author
I’m willing to bet that it’s assholes like you that are dwindling, and not GLBT people. Cut out the ‘Christians are being persecuted in the USA’ shit, and see reality.
Pretty germane, since it deals with the same fight for human rights that existed back then. Lean history, and stop being a brainwashed Christofacist dupe; you’re on the wrong side of things, and there is no ‘gay Mafia’.
You realize this law allows a business owner to refuse service to anyone it feels conflicts with their religious beliefs right? As in you can turn away a Jew or a Muslim. Hell find the right passages in the bible and yes absolutely you can deny someone services based on race. You don’t think business owners in the 1940’s didn’t claim they loved Jesus but hated blacks at the same time?
Do you still not see how this is a slippery slope?
A corporation is a person or group of people for the sole purpose of establishing a BUSINESS. The individual owner or members of the corporation are most assuredly allowed their religious beliefs and views because they are PEOPLE. A BUSINESS is not a PERSON and therefore can not have a religious belief. That should not be a difficult concept to grasp. Further, gay marriage has NOTHING to do with this issue at all. The question is discrimination against a group of people based upon a religious view. Gay marriage only comes into play because the Republican party in Indiana lost when they challenged the ruling that it was legal and pushed this bill through to appease their donors. You’ll further note that Indiana does not have language that the other states do in protecting LGBT rights. You are certainly allowed your views on the subject and I respect your right to believe as you do. I’m not forcing my opinion upon anyone and am allowed to voice my opinion in dissent. For you to question my belief in the humanity of an issue of discrimination in any form likely calls into question your beliefs more than mine. However, that is simply my opinion.
No, you cannot based on race alone
Then he won’t care that I think he’s a narcissistic malcontent asshole. And you won’t care that I have similar sentiments about you and the rest of the angry posters here whose heads are blowing up over the failure of those of us who don’t share your opinions to just shut up and go away. And we’ll all be content and go about our lives not bothering anybody.
Or at least, some of us will. 😉
Riiiiiight and the first time a black gay male is refused service somewhere that’s going to go over real well.
Christian businesses? How many of them have declared themselves Christian businesses? Will there be a sign on the window that indicates that? Or will a gay couple order coffee and the cashier excuse herself to get the owner and then tell them “Sorry, we don’t serve your kind here”. SURPRISE!
Wrong! Refusing to sell a shirt to a gay person is not the same thing as refusing make a shirt that says, “God hates fags” on it.
Well Jason not being a bigot myself i hadnt really thought through the ins and outs of running a business based on dubious moral convictions!!! I agree that the scenario you paint would be ridiculous. I think my point is only that the shop/store/restaurant shouldnt be legally forced to do one thing or another by law, and that their behaviour will expose them for what they are. The point is forcing people to think a certain way just isn’t right regardless of how disagreeable those thoughts are. How about a less clear cut example? For me id prefer the business to discriminate against me so i can choose to stop using their service and take my business elsewhere.
We have been discussing this as if things are black and white, but as you have noticed, when it comes to people it is more often than not a shade of grey. I put to you that it is not a case that more people are “choosing” to be gay, straight, or bisexual, but rather that the sociological climate has changed in such a way that people are able to more easily express publicly who they are. As a starting point I suggest you look at something called the Kinsey Scale. Albeit a somewhat outmoded tool, it was one of the first real attempts at understanding that we are complex beings, especially when it comes to sex.
Wow, I guess to some supposed Star Trek fans, IDIC means “Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations… unless you’re queer!”
Sigh. I’m hoping someone already made this point but I’m not wading through this mire to see.
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that you are a shop owner, and your religion teaches that Jews are responsible for the death of Christ. Or that black people are subhuman. Or that Christians are hell-bent on your eradication. Should you therefore be allowed to refuse (insert target group here) service? This law would allow you to do so, based solely on your religious convictions.
Is this right? Well it might depend on your perspective, but I’d swear there were court decisions and and laws enacted throughout the 50s, 60s and 70s meant to eliminate this sort of discrimination.
I am opposed to these sorts of laws myself, but for my own reasons, not Mr. Takei’s. This law may be intended to be just against gays, but the ramifications are far greater. Mr. Takei sees only the gay side of the issue, and does not seem to appreciate the greater problem; therefore I will not support his boycott.
Perhaps what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Atheists and homosexual-rights activists in Ireland are threatening protest marches. A local government in the overwhelmingly Catholic country has fined a homosexual baker in the village of Inch (County Clare) for refusing to produce a wedding cake featuring, on its icing, the inscription, “A man shall . . . hold fast to his wife — Gen. 2:24.” The baker, Robert O’Riordan, says that he considers the inscription to be an implicit rebuke of his own domestic living arrangement and an imposition on his right as an atheist to refuse assent to “any material endorsement of religious ceremonies.” Mr. O’Riordan regularly bakes other wedding cakes; the difference here, he says, is that the inscription requires him to acknowledge the specifically religious nature of the nuptials, thus infringing on his freedom of conscience.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/416155/baking-liberty-conscience-cake-quin-hillyer
readmylips said: “nature has no use for gay people or animals. So stop whining about being discriminated or whatever.” He is saying that it’s okay to discriminate against gay people, because they can’t reproduce. And “nature has no use for” is code for “these are freaks who have no right to exist”, as anyone who’s been to church will understand.
While I make this argument, I do admit that Takei’s boycott seems silly and futile. But it’s a long journey from that to “gays are subhumans who don’t deserve rights.” What, he didn’t say those exact words? Then will he admit that gay people have equal moral value to straight people and deserve equal rights? Thought not.
Seeing how poorly some Trek fans see the LGBT community is disconcerting. Infinite diversity in infinite combinations.
Why? Because it doesn’t fit your sanctimonious narrative?
What gay-fascist beliefs? That gay people deserve equality? I see nothing fascist about the desire of having the same rights and to be free of discrimination.
I thought my example was pretty clear, but I’m sorry if it was too hard for you to understand. If someone is in the business of routinely selling products with hate speech on it, then yeah, you would have a right to expect them to sell you your homophobic product. Your logic is flawed because most businesses don’t sell products with hate speech, so you’d be asking for special treatment; you might as well go into a bakery and insist that they can’t refuse to sell you a piano. Gays aren’t seeking special treatment; they want the same treatment and services that straight people are entitled to.
“Pro-gay bigotry”? Ridiculous. There are religious sects that are still against miscegenation (mixing of the “races”), and this law “protects” those businesses from the horror of making a cake, preparing floral arrangements, etc. when a heterosexual black and white couple plan to get married.
No one is forcing a business owner to attend or “approve” of the wedding, just bake the cake or do the flowers, take the money, and be done with it, per business as usual.
Again this whole issue is mind-boggling and incredible we still have to debate this in 2015… and on a Star Trek discussion board to boot.
Sarge, i’m not interested in your misquoting of government statistics to justify homophobic (and anti-humanistic) bigotry, so can the shit.
Sad and amazing how fans of a TV show that was about humanity overcoming all manner of defects to travel in space exploring ‘strange new worlds and new civilizations’ can justify bigotry against somebody based on their sexual preference. All that you’re doing is justifying what people think of Trekfans and Star Trek-and why only the new movies are getting fans.
Superficiality and unreality used to promote bigotry is a privilege, sir, not a right-don’t abuse it.
Most of these businesses should shut down and be gone, anyway-if bigotry is all that they can offer, then they are useless and serve no purpose.
But the whole thing about your commentary,sir, is that you are not gay, and you have no idea what a gay person should be, or how they would react to what Takei’s doing on the Stern show. Your comment is just more anti-gay bigotry, to be frank, and it means nothing in the grand scheme of things.
GLBT’s are (s I’ve heard) about 110 of the population of the USA, while you and your fellow bigoted Christofacist fundies are the ones getting older and dwindling. So, I wouldn’t be so smug.
No, it isn’tthe same thing.
Oh really.
So now I have to be gay to know the difference between what’s dignified behavior and what isn’t?
Or perhaps you’re saying gays are completely off limits from any and all criticism from straight people?
The same way I’m supposedly not allowed to disagree with Obama’s policies because I’m white?
What you wrote makes no sense.
When Takei says he wants dignity for gay people then he better start walking the walk.
There are gay people who have denounced this type of immaturity and say it holds their movement back….and I agree.
That would be a yes, given the childish tone of your “response” that was over-the-top contempt like most Liberals. No Special Treatment he says, but then he goes into a business and if they won’t agree to his terms unconditionally he’ll have his Lawyers on Speed Dial and his Media frenzy destroy then business.That’s fair. So I guess I need to find a “gay business” and do the same to them with lawyers and “hate speech” media harassment and– then we’ll be equal and you’ll be happy, right? 🙂
You would see your hypocrisy, that was the point. But you’re more than willing to use such inflammatory terms against people, you should be EQUALLY happy to get them back in return. 🙂
Free of Discrimination: When? When all the Christians and anyone disagrees with the Righteous YOU and have been crushed under your totalitarian heel??
So you discriminate against them. How “equal” of you.
Really? Why is that? It’s still a business deal and you want them to treat everyone “equally”. 🙂
I’m sure they won’t have any problem dealing with a loss in business. Disgusting bigot goons are a dying breed. Noisy, but dying.
Seeing how much some Trek fans fawn over the gay community’s radical agenda to suppress the rights of those they disagree with is disconcerting. Infinite diversity in infinite combinations.
And if a KKK member wants to demand that a black baker’s business make a cake for them that celebrates their belief in white power, without laws like this, the business owner would have to go out of business/go to jail if they didn’t comply. You cool with that too?
“Wow, I guess to some supposed Star Trek fans, IDIC means “Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations… unless you’re Christian!'”
Fixed.
Actually, it is.
How do you boycott a U.S. state? Indiana’s legislation will face constitutional challenge in court and will probably never be enforced. It seems to be an example of the “message bill” that has become popular lately. I sympathize with gays’ desire for marriage equality but see their movement as having lost its former moral courage. Today the LGBT advocacy is simply another myopic, single-issue pressure group.
Go read a description of the law and try again.
Milo, Indiana’s anti-discrimination statutes don’t cover sexual orientation. Indiana businesses could already refuse service to LGBT people. This new law is not needed for that purpose, but does give Muslim businesses an excuse to boot infidels. This is all a grandstanding stunt meant to give Christian voters a warm fuzzy, with some potentially very bad ramifications.
You are a fucking idiot.
Who rules right now? The vast majority of lawmakers, including the President, are Christian. Are you saying they will all be spontaneously turning gay and oppressing little ol’ you? Because I’m pretty sure it does not work like that.
Hey, I’ve got good news for you; somebody already pulled the little stunt you’re proposing. They went into a bakery, asked for a cake with homophobic language on it, and now they’re suing the baker for refusing to make it, all for the sake of making the exact same stupid point you’re trying to make. Look it up. That must make you happy, right?
I already explained a couple times why ordering the exact same product everyone else gets is not “unconditional terms” and not the same as you going someplace and ordering a product that a business doesn’t provide, but I guess you’re too thick to get it.
Bigots gonna bigot. Hope you’re in heaven really soon!
So let me see if I’m understanding you.
You seem to be saying that the Christians being beheaded, burned, et al. overseas is equivalent to the long-established Christian religious hegemony in this country being marginally threatened by an irate drama queen.
Said shop owners also wouldn’t be protected by this bill, since “gay” is not a religion.
That’s Niger, not the USA or Canada. Please stop with the false equivalencies, and get real. There are more gays, lesbians, and transgendered people being murdered in the USA and Canada than there are Christians being persecuted.
Yes, because GLBT’s are only okay if they all stay in the closet and don’t upset the lives of good little Christofacist fools like you with their activism demanding that they be treated as human beings with rights.*
*/sarcasm
I really wish that there was faster-than-light space travel so that bigots like you could be encouraged to leave Earth and live on another planet, World X of System Y orbiting Star Z, with you all living the non-gay utterly ‘Christian’ life that you please away from the rest of us. Unfortunately, it doesn’t exist for a lot of reasons, so we’re stuck with you and your bigotry.
It’s going to be a much better world once all the bigots are raptured away.
That’s right, Christians in America have it soooo rough. Why can’t everyone just tolerate their intolerance?
I think that there are two important points at play in this discussion.
One, can one private person refuse to participate in the welfare of another private person?
Two, can the government force one private person to participate in the welfare of another private person?
I think the real problem is that NO ONE UNDERSTANDS HOW THE US CONSTITUTION IS SUPPOSE TO WORK. Let’s look at the First Amendment to the US Constitution, shall we?
“The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.”
-Wikipedia
Thus, just like it is wrong to prevent homosexuals from marrying, it is just as wrong to prevent a person of faith from exercising his or her religion OPENLY. But most importantly, the government should not be used to force anyone to either conform to the will of the majority or to the will of the minority. The US Constitution was set up to be a neutral as possible, granting only the most basic rights without taking sides.
So, in my opinion, gays should be allowed to marry, especially since they, as American citizens, pay taxes. At the same time, private citizens should have the right to refuse service for any reason without justification. Period. And if you don’t like it, you, as a PRIVATE citizen can boycott by not patronizing that other PRIVATE person’s services or business, just as long as the government stays out of it. In the free market, a person, whatever side you are on, will have to pay the consequences for his or her actions and beliefs, so long as the government is not used in the process. You look at the boycotts of the Civil Rights Movement, and not ONE of the boycotts was the result of government actions. Instead, the targeted business, in a purely business move, decided to make adjustments. So, in that sense, I agree with Mr. Takei. The problem is that Takei is looking at the situation from a singular prospective, and not taking into account the reason for the existence of the the Indiana law (such as the case involving a local baker from the state of Washington, who is refused to bake a wedding cake on religious grounds, but is being sanctioned by the state for that decision). I think a bit of critical thinking is in order before jumping to any conclusion in the matter.
Personally, my belief in Christianity and the Christian philosophy is not in danger because homosexuals want to get married. After all, as one scripture has stated, “Render unto to Caesar, Caesar’s; Render unto God, God’s”. In other words, I CAN be both secular and religious comfortably. What I am more concerned is about the potential debt crisis that future generations will have deal with, thanks to America’s present spending habits. That is a more pressing problem than some damn wedding cake not being made for a gay wedding…
So because you think Christians don’t have it “rough”, it’s ok for them to be discriminated against? You’re a piece of work.