Gen Con Unhappy with Indiana Governor over SB 101 - Update

[Bad Jim]

You think this is bad? California wants to pass a bill that allows same sex couples or people who identify as gay/lesbian to be murdered without a second thought legally in broad daylight.

http://www.myfoxla.com/story/28596274/california-anti-gay-execution-proposal

That's not so bad really. Anyone can start a statewide ballot initiative, so far a few nutcases have paid $200 to start a bad one. It will be worrying if it gets 5% of the voting population to sign, and even worse if it goes through, but it will probably go nowhere. A substantial number of people may oppose LGBTs but I doubt many would actually have them rounded up and shot like the nazis did.

SB-101 is something that has been signed into law by an elected official. That is very bad.

dammit.. ninja'd twice

 

[godgravity]

OT: Doesn't this bill violate the Constitution? Separation of church and state and all that. And good on Gen Con for speaking up I say.

A misconception. Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention a separation of church and state. That line was from a letter that Jefferson wrote to a Baptiste church. What the Constitution does say is that it will not make a law establishing a national religion, nor prohibit the free exercise of religion.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Doesn't this mean exactly what you say it doesn't? It's respecting Christianity, no? This is in the establishment clause, which, IS in the Constitution. I think this has repeatedly been referenced in regards to laws built around respecting religions, considering that's exactly what this is doing.

 

[Pyrian]

It fascinates me that bigots seem to truly believe that the notion of tolerance must include tolerance for intolerance, or else it's not tolerance, and/or hypocritical somehow.

It is hypocritical.

No, it isn't.

You don't get to be on the high road over a bigot if you are still telling someone what they can and cannot believe.

Total non-sequitor, there. Disallowing discrimination on the basis of specific protected attributes does not constitute telling people what to believe.

No one is saying we should accept bigots...

Pardon me, but the whole cause of this discussion is that not only is someone saying that, they bloody well passed a law to that specific effect.

...but if you're not tolerating them, then you're no better than them. Allowing tolerance to teach intolerance for intolerance is intolerant.

Hopelessly simplistic. Look... When people promote tolerance, they're not promoting tolerance of everything and everyone everywhere, and it wouldn't mean anything if it did - that's a nonsensical concept, as the very "tolerance of intolerance" concept normally makes obvious. They're promoting tolerance of harmless differences in the way people simply are. Bigotry is the very opposite of harmless. When we say "tolerance" in a political context without a subject, we don't mean the mere didactic meaning of the term; we mean something much more specific.

And frankly, I'm disappointed that I even have to specify this. You know it perfectly well. It's just convenient to misuse the term to try and make a pithy argument - but your argument falls apart at even the slightest examination.

As I said above, if you start drawing lines at people's beliefs, then you will turn the people that hold those beliefs into second class citizens.
...
No, if you're going to draw the lines somewhere, it should be a person's actions.

As others have pointed out, we're not drawing lines at people's beliefs at all, we're restricting their actions.

We should tolerate neo-nazis existing, we should not tolerate them forming a lynch mob that actively hurts someone else.

You seem to be very confused. Your example makes exactly the opposite point as your post. I could've made the exact same argument, entirely consistent with everything I've written, and notably inconsistent with what you've written. Do you think that we are promoting laws that prevent bigots from existing? We're promoting laws that prevent them from taking out their bigotry on others. Meanwhile, this new Indiana law, in your example, would be on the side of allowing "lynch mobs".

 

[Otakun]

I have a problem with bills like this and not for the reason the vocal majority do. I completely believe that a business should have the right to refuse business to ANYONE without the media/government/public backlash for their choice because it is their business and if they don't support something then that is their right to not to but ... when this is clearly an anti-gay bill it ruins that possibility for a business to make it's own decisions on who to serve.

I would too, IF i trusted companies to be fair, but i don't. I could definately see companies having a " white heterosexual male only" banner. Refusing to hire visible minorities, women and disable people.

Well, this isn't about hiring practices. This is about how a company wants to push their product/services. If a company wants to not take someone's money then that should be their decision. Which after watching The Amazing Atheist's newest video on this topic shows people are overreacting to this bill. Most of the 50 states have no laws regarding the issue that Indiana is pretty much doing. Only like 6 or 8 states do. Indiana is just doing what most states are already doing because they don't want local businesses to be shut down over hurting someones feelings.

 

[Mariahsyn]

The sheer amount of ignorance (and the lack of anyone actually reading the law or having the ability to understand the string of words that may be scary to some) I have read in the above comments is astonishing.

Allow me to clue you in if you think you know what the law is all about.


http://np.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/30x06q/can_someone_eli5_the_controversial_indiana/cpwmbmi


The link above actually goes into detail.

If you want the short short version: You can choose to not participate in a specific act (Like I don't have to be your bridesmaid at your Jedi Religion Wedding) , you cannot choose to discriminate against a person. (I'm not serving you breakfast because you are a Sith)

So quit freaking out.


PS - No I'm not Catholic, its just the link that was forwarded to me. (Please address me as Agnostic ***** if you really want to pour on the hate and venom, thanks.)

 

[Therumancer]

You think this is bad? California wants to pass a bill that allows same sex couples or people who identify as gay/lesbian to be murdered without a second thought legally in broad daylight.

http://www.myfoxla.com/story/28596274/california-anti-gay-execution-proposal


Of course a christian started the vote for the bill to be passed.
Too many christians now days are forgetting to love thy neighbor and not to judge lest ye be judged, then again they are always zealous with anything different then they were. Don't get me wrong, there's good people who are christians and i have a good friend who is one, it's just that a lot of them are like this.

Oh religion, stop causing fights will you? :c

#dangerousopinions

Incorrect actually, I'm familiar with the bill in question I believe and almost as soon as it became known there was a massive outcry and people demanding the Lawyer who put it in be disbarred, etc... My analysis of the situation is that what's actually going on is that it's an attempt to bait exactly that kind of an overreaction. Nobody thinks such a bill can be passed, or is even a good idea since even the general anti-gay population isn't in favor of mass execution. The bill is a front to get people to break the rules as opposed to putting the bill through fairly and jumping through the hoops before rejecting it. If an overreaction happens it will present a platform from which to launch an assault on the existing pro-gay laws, and quite probably to force the Supreme Court Of The United States to take up a case that will require them to ultimately re-evaluate some of the decisions it made allowing the federal government to force social policy on states. See, a lot of the current problems with the federally fueled "social justice" movement go back to a 2003 ruling that gave the federal courts authority over state law when it comes to things like homosexuality. The case was however not properly fought or represented, and there is an enduring question as to whether The Supreme Court Of The United States even had a right to rule in such a case given the clear guidelines (through records and examples) left behind by the founding fathers who were extremely racist and pro-gay. Basically given their own attitudes if The Federal Government was intended to be allowed to legislate morality and social issues there would have been a law making homosexuality illegal in the USA because that was something pretty much all of our founding fathers agreed with. Rather they themselves passed their anti-sodomy laws and such through the states, making it clear that it is a state issue not a federal one, and what's more according to the very people who created The Constitution not something that is intended to be considered a part of other noble sentiments about equality and so on, as the founding fathers made readily apparent through their own behavior. In short this country was not founded by progressive liberals, and while the states were created to be flexible enough for the people in each state to set social policies that the people there wanted, the founding fathers in no way intended for their words to be interpreted as a support of social and sexual deviants. Anyone empowered to make a constitutional ruling thus needs to keep the intent of the constitution in mind, and understand The Federal Government was supposed to be very weak, by definition The Supreme Court should be able to do very little, if anything, as far as these kinds of issues go.

In short, it's a political stunt, baiting a challenge. It seems a lot of liberals are getting smart about it since I haven't seen the bait taken since it was first introduced. Right now the left wing realizes it's agenda isn't served by allowing more challenges to be brought up on the subject, since if the Supreme Court is ever challenged to defend the constitutionality of their rulings on the subject so far according to the intent of the founding fathers and how they clearled ruled on issues a lot like this, they are not going to be able to do so, and properly presented that represents a huge limit on the power of The Supreme Court which has rarely if ever been brought into play, although it desperately needs to be as time goes on since it's assumpsion of power has lead to the gradually increasing power of The Federal Government in general, and it doesn't matter how you try and argue it, The Federal Government was not intended to have anything close to the power it currently wields, existing almost entirely to deal with international affairs, with most legal and social laws being handled entirely by state and local governments. While I am not a liberal, a lot of people project social positions onto me at times that I don't possess simply because I'm a big believer in the rights of the states, and simply believe that certain issues should not be handled through sweeping legislation. To me, my overall opinions aside, I really don't care if some states want to have all kinds of pro gay laws and acceptance of gay marriage, as long as they don't try and force that on everyone else. If one state wants to be socially progressive, and another prefers to remain socially conservative and hold to old school, traditional values, or even wind up somewhere in between, I feel that's up to the people that live there. You do what you want in your back yard, let someone else do what they want in theirs. It winds up being one of best ways to co-exist, and working properly it means there is little reason to fight over most social issues. The whole idea of the US was largely to prevent sweeping social legislation that would lead to tons of people all having to comply with things they are opposed to because of orders coming down from on high. If the people in say California want to have extremely pro-gay laws, that doesn't mean they should force them on the people of the deep south for example. What people in the Bible Belt do doesn't mean crap to people in say San Fancisco or Provincetown, and half the time it seems like social liberals care less about the issues than they do in baiting and pissing off people who disagree with them by forcing things they don't like onto them.

 

[Therumancer]

OT: Doesn't this bill violate the Constitution? Separation of church and state and all that. And good on Gen Con for speaking up I say.

A misconception. Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention a separation of church and state. That line was from a letter that Jefferson wrote to a Baptiste church. What the Constitution does say is that it will not make a law establishing a national religion, nor prohibit the free exercise of religion.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Doesn't this mean exactly what you say it doesn't? It's respecting Christianity, no? This is in the establishment clause, which, IS in the Constitution. I think this has repeatedly been referenced in regards to laws built around respecting religions, considering that's exactly what this is doing.

Strictly speaking the law was written specifically to get around ongoing conflicts between Catholics and Protestants, and loosely enough so free masonry wouldn't be a crime if it was outed a lot more. It should be written more or less to say that the country allows the free practice of Christianity in all of it's forms, and that the state will not adopt any particular version of it as a state religion. This so you would not say have Protestant Brits fighting Irish Catholics or whatever due to one particular church becoming the state church. There are plenty of examples left behind showing exactly how this was intended to be interpreted, and of course you'll notice that non-Christian faiths were still illegal, after all Witchcraft was a crime, and strictly speaking according to Christianity especially at the time there are only two forces out there God, and The Devil, and if your not following God, by definition anything else you embrace religiously is The Devil in disguise, since all he has to do to "win" is turn you from god, and as the deceiver he can do this by presenting himself in a benevolent guise. As a result since "Religion" is meant to be interpreted almost exclusively as Christianity and it's offshoots which includes Masonry (as it traces it's roots back to the court of King Soloman), anything else was pretty much supposed to get you killed. If you say walked down the street screaming "I'm a Wiccan, woo hoo" you'd probably be on your way to a painful death.

We've gotten a long way away from the actual intent of record here, but the way the current law is being written it's pretty much setting up a nightmare situation in a country where you can literally declare almost anything a religion.

The way I see it is that this law needs to go because no matter how people argue it's supposed to be interpreted it's a few steps away from allowing anyone to discriminate against anyone else for any reason. We're only in this position because of states looking desperately for ways to avoid The Federal Government wielding a level of social authority it was never supposed to have. In this case the work around is actually a heck of a lot worse than the problem it was designed to prevent.

At the end of the day, the whole idea of freedom of religion has gotten so off kilter from it's original intent of keeping Catholics and Protestants off each other's case as much as possible, that I'm not even sure if a constitutional ruling is possible anymore anyway. Truthfully I think Indiana was pretty dumb for even trying this. In my mind it was going to get crap for doing whatever it was going to do anyway, it probably should have done the same thing Arizona did and simply say that it's criminalizing the enforcement of federal law in it's state. In this case saying that it's fine to discriminate against gays if businesses want to, and that anyone trying to enforce federal laws to the contrary, or assist with their enforcement, is going to be arrested and treated as a criminal. Arizona did this, but in response to gun control laws, where according to one of the papers I was reading it's illegal for people to enforce Federal gun control laws, or assist with their implementation. As a result in Arizona all these laws about ammo, magazine sizes, specific kinds of weapons being banned as "assault weapons", and so on do not apply, and if someone from the FBI or ATF actually tries to arrest a citizen of Arizona for say running around with a gun Uncle Sam says he shouldn't have but Arizona says is okay, the Arizona State Police are supposed to arrest that agent and anyone who supports them. So far it doesn't seem Federal Authorities have had the balls to actually test it. That kind of law making is a big part of what I'm talking about when I write my posts about how close we're coming to a civil war, we already have some of the states with guts pretty much telling The Federal Government to go pound sand. Indiana seems to not be too bright because it's gone about this is a stupid way, and is getting all the crap, without making a particularly effective challenge. But then again I'm not sure if I can actually see Indiana state troopers pulling guns on and marching away FBI agents if The Federal Government sent agents down to try and end discrimination. On the other hand in Arizona I actually can sort of see that, not to mention what the guy with the "illegal" gun is likely to have to say about it, and any other concerned second amendment loving citizens that happen to be in the area and also quite likely packing. Indiana doesn't seem to really have the whole antagonistic independence thing down the way Texas, Arizona, and to a lesser extent Utah and New Mexico have gotten going with in the past.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

I find it kind of odd that people allow religion to govern how they conduct commerce. I always assumed it ran on the notion of "If you're buying, I'm selling". I understand governing one's self with their faith but basing your income on it just seems screwy to me.

 

[Jake Martinez]

Wow this entire thing is incredibly stupid.

First off - this "bill" as it was, doesn't even need to exist. Sexual orientation or living arrangements are not constitutionally protected classes - that is to say, it's already perfectly legal to discriminate against gay people for being gay or for being in a same sex marriage. Or for being science fiction fans, larpers, having long hair, or anything else that isn't a protected class (read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class)

Secondly, this pandering bill (and it was obviously done by a politician to politically pander to a core religious voting base) can be repealed, torn up, put in the rubbish bin, lit on fire and otherwise demolished and it won't change the fact that if someone throws you out of their business for being gay in front of them in the United States, it's still perfectly legal.

The thing that really irks me about stuff like this is the amount of faux outrage and outright kabuki theatre that goes on around these subjects. People will start flame wars, or twitter hashtags, or whatever it they want to do without lifting their cheeto stained fingers too far from their keyboard, or otherwise going out of their comfort zone, but regardless it doesn't matter one tiny iota since congress will need to amend the constitution to actually solve the problem. If you want to stop people from writing bills that could just as easily be titled "You can't be sued for doing something that isn't currently illegal" then all the more power to them I suppose, but let's not pretend that it matters or that anything is in danger of being accomplished by anyone in this debacle.

 

[Signa]

big snip

I can't disagree with much of anything you said, because we are both on the same side. I'm just willing to allow greater extremes of "tolerance" than you are.

There was a new development though in regards to this one part:

You seem to be very confused. Your example makes exactly the opposite point as your post. I could've made the exact same argument, entirely consistent with everything I've written, and notably inconsistent with what you've written. Do you think that we are promoting laws that prevent bigots from existing? We're promoting laws that prevent them from taking out their bigotry on others. Meanwhile, this new Indiana law, in your example, would be on the side of allowing "lynch mobs".

http://www.buzzfeed.com/maryanngeorgantopoulos/indiana-pizzeria-owners-say-theyd-deny-lgbt-people-service-a#.tqPYlD2zm

You see what happens when you take a stupid action like starting a lynch mob? You lose your fucking business. They ruined their own lives because of their bigotry, and this law that I'm saying I'm OK with allowed them to do it. Maybe they will recover, I don't know, but I'm quite happy letting scum like this have more freedom if this is how they are going to use it.

 

[Bat Vader]

big snip

I can't disagree with much of anything you said, because we are both on the same side. I'm just willing to allow greater extremes of "tolerance" than you are.

There was a new development though in regards to this one part:

You seem to be very confused. Your example makes exactly the opposite point as your post. I could've made the exact same argument, entirely consistent with everything I've written, and notably inconsistent with what you've written. Do you think that we are promoting laws that prevent bigots from existing? We're promoting laws that prevent them from taking out their bigotry on others. Meanwhile, this new Indiana law, in your example, would be on the side of allowing "lynch mobs".

http://www.buzzfeed.com/maryanngeorgantopoulos/indiana-pizzeria-owners-say-theyd-deny-lgbt-people-service-a#.tqPYlD2zm

You see what happens when you take a stupid action like starting a lynch mob? You lose your fucking business. They ruined their own lives because of their bigotry, and this law that I'm saying I'm OK with allowed them to do it. Maybe they will recover, I don't know, but I'm quite happy letting scum like this have more freedom if this is how they are going to use it.

Exactly. They could have lied and said they don't do caterings or just said that they were booked for that day. I don't understand how catering a wedding wedding means they condone the marriage. They could not agree with the marriage and still cater the wedding for the business. Instead they bring religion and sexuality into the equation. I consider myself a Christian and I am completely fine with LGBT rights and gay marriage. Side note to everyone that reads this: Please don't attack me or think lesser of me because I am a Christian. Just because I believe in God doesn't mean I disregard science or evolution. If you are going to attack me for it do it in PMs.

 

[Mikeybb]

Apparently the bill got last minute LGBT Protections [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/02/indiana-lgbt-protections_n_6992184.html?1427984235]:

Indiana lawmakers (have approved) new language for the state's "religious freedom" law Thursday, to clarify that the law does not allow businesses to deny goods or services to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals.

Glad to hear that.

It really did strike me as a very strange bit of legislation in the first place.
I can appreciate why people would want to have religious practice and belief protected and it's fairly plain why politicians would be eager to be shown to be the ones defending those rights, but I couldn't quite see how it could be applied to business practices in a way that wouldn't (out of practical necessity and plain old fashioned 'doing the right thing') just turn into a mess of amendments, exemptions and sub clauses.

 

[TallanKhan]

I have a HUGE problem with making anti-dick legislation like this, because someone will find a way to exploit it for something that it wasn't intended for.

Interestingly, I find it to be a net good, even outside the obvious ramifications. Large businesses are very careful to document why they fire people just to shield themselves from such claims. And that's a good thing.

I would have to disagree with you on that one. Organisations that are scared they are vulnerable to claims of discrimination will more often establish an unpleasant default position for all staff, such as "At Will" clauses in employment contracts, so as to insulate themselves against claims.

Furthermore the burden this places on employers is huge - and very often underestimated - huge numbers of Human Resources staff need to be employed to oversee employee relations issues, managers are restricted and less productive because swathes of their time are consumed filling out tick-box paperwork to cover their asses every time they take a member of their team to task, and many large companies will settle disputes by paying off people who make these claims, even if they are meritless, because the negative press associated with these cases outweighs the cost. All off this comes with a price tag, and is paid for by factoring the cost either into the end price for the business' consumers or into their Wage Percentage (most corporations designate a set percentage of their budget or turnover - depending on the business and how it generates revenue - to pay for staff wages, benefits and associated costs) which means more work or lower pay per person than would otherwise be necessary.

And the truth of the matter is, if someone is inclined to discriminate against someone else, they will find a way of doing it. I worked in HR and will always remember a Head Chef who worked in the same organisation, he was racist as hell and we all knew it, but we could never nail him for it, despite every policy and process because he would always jump through every hoop. The staff in his kitchen were whiter than the attendees of a KKK rally and time and again, if an ethnic minority worker was placed in his team they would never make it past their probation period. There would always be a reason, he would have gone through all the paperwork, made all the motions in terms of performance improvement and appraisal and it would be a watertight dismissal

Now do not misunderstand me. I am not advocating discrimination, or even that in an ideal world we wouldn't have a way of preventing discrimination, but in many areas, particularly in the workplace, this legislation is ineffective, costly, and in my experience often lowers protection for all workers, rather than extending a protection to a few.

 

[Pyrian]

I have a HUGE problem with making anti-dick legislation like this, because someone will find a way to exploit it for something that it wasn't intended for.

Interestingly, I find it to be a net good, even outside the obvious ramifications. Large businesses are very careful to document why they fire people just to shield themselves from such claims. And that's a good thing.

Organisations that are scared they are vulnerable to claims of discrimination will more often establish an unpleasant default position for all staff, such as "At Will" clauses in employment contracts, so as to insulate themselves against claims.

"At will" normally refers to employment laws, not contracts. Contract law does not override discrimination protections. At best they can use it to confuse the issue, but this, too, has costs.

Furthermore the burden this places on employers is huge - and very often underestimated...

Nonsense. This sort of documentation is what they SHOULD be doing anyway, with considerable overall HR benefits (in terms of being able to figure out what's going on with your people in your company) easily outweighing the (frankly minimal) costs. It doesn't take long to write people up and make them sign that they've seen the writeup, and it's incredibly wasteful to all parties to lack that information when you need it. And yes, I've been right there with the sausage being made - and seen the other side when the sausage that should've been made wasn't.

And the truth of the matter is, if someone is inclined to discriminate against someone else, they will find a way of doing it.

Ah, the classic "People still manage to rob banks sometimes so let's make it legal" argument. No, the fact that a very careful and determined person can get around the law does not in any way dissuade me from wanting to prevent less determined individuals from accomplishing the same thing and effectively outright normalizing the behavior to the point where it was, at one point, nearly universal.

Now do not misunderstand me. I am not advocating discrimination...

And so we conclude the bucket of clichés with "I'm not racist, but..."

 

[TallanKhan]

I have a HUGE problem with making anti-dick legislation like this, because someone will find a way to exploit it for something that it wasn't intended for.

Interestingly, I find it to be a net good, even outside the obvious ramifications. Large businesses are very careful to document why they fire people just to shield themselves from such claims. And that's a good thing.

Organisations that are scared they are vulnerable to claims of discrimination will more often establish an unpleasant default position for all staff, such as "At Will" clauses in employment contracts, so as to insulate themselves against claims.

"At will" normally refers to employment laws, not contracts. Contract law does not override discrimination protections. At best they can use it to confuse the issue, but this, too, has costs.

"At will" is in the majority of US states the default presumption unless otherwise stated. However, to avoid confusion and undermine claims of implied terms many companies will still state outright in the contract that employment can be terminated on this basis. Now there are good arguments in favour of extending protections over and above the legal minimum to employees, particularly for recruitment and retention with job security climbing ever higher on people's wish lists. To put it simply, if you are worried your reasons for dismissing someone will not hold up to scrutiny, you will put the bare minimum requirements in place around the dismissal process, that way there is less to be pawed over. While you are correct that this does not permit for individuals to be discriminated against, it makes it exceptionally difficult to prove someone has been.

Furthermore the burden this places on employers is huge - and very often underestimated...

Nonsense. This sort of documentation is what they SHOULD be doing anyway, with considerable overall HR benefits (in terms of being able to figure out what's going on with your people in your company) easily outweighing the (frankly minimal) costs. It doesn't take long to write people up and make them sign that they've seen the writeup, and it's incredibly wasteful to all parties to lack that information when you need it. And yes, I've been right there with the sausage being made - and seen the other side when the sausage that should've been made wasn't.

Absolute Rubbish. I wasn't just talking about the time cost of paperwork but as you have chosen to ignore the rest, let me respond just on that point. There are of course instances where paperwork is a necessary evil but this should be reserved for serious incidents, to do otherwise over formalises the process of basic performance management and is not conducive to finding a meaningful resolution. The aim of good performance management is to ensure the individual is invested in improving their own performance and that they are enabled to do so. People get defensive (and understandably so to a point) if you sit them down to discuss a problem with them, if they know it will be written up for their p-file, they therefore find it more difficult to accept fault or criticism which hinders the building of any improvement plan. In addition, if you are going to have a formal record of such conversations, it is best practice to bring a note taker or observer to the meeting in case of any dispute regarding what was said, adding additional formality and wasting another person's time.

These processes are hugely time consuming and I think you substantially underestimate the cost and time drain they represent, especially to large firms.

As far as the sausage thing goes, I would respond but I don't have a clue as to what you were driving at.

And the truth of the matter is, if someone is inclined to discriminate against someone else, they will find a way of doing it.

Ah, the classic "People still manage to rob banks sometimes so let's make it legal" argument. No, the fact that a very careful and determined person can get around the law does not in any way dissuade me from wanting to prevent less determined individuals from accomplishing the same thing and effectively outright normalizing the behavior to the point where it was, at one point, nearly universal.

Well we don't make robbing banks illegal. We make armed robbery illegal, we make theft illegal, crimes that have application far beyond just bank robbery. However, if laws on theft didn't prevent people from stealing anything then yes, they should be scrapped or changed. I can't support any legislation that at it's core doesn't work. I am fully in favour of repealing laws against marijuana, not because I have any strong feels about whether people should or shouldn't smoke it, but because they don't work.

While I understand your feelings about wanting to prevent behaviour, a prejudiced person will behave in a prejudiced way, sometimes aggressively, sometimes passively, but it will happen. You can't legislate to stop someone being prejudiced, but you can educate them. It isn't laws that have helped reduce and de-normalise discrimination, it's people, particularly children, being better educated.

Now do not misunderstand me. I am not advocating discrimination...

And so we conclude the bucket of clichés with "I'm not racist, but..."

No, no we don't. That was a transparent attempt at mud slinging, and a shameful one at that. The cliche you reference is one where a person says they cannot be identified as having a particular prejudice or as promoting something, and then makes a statement that contradicts that. My statement that current legislation is ineffective at combating the issue, does not contradict my initial statement that I am not advocating discrimination. From the rest of your post I cant believe your mind to be so lacking as as to genuinely have misunderstood that. If you can't keep the gloves up, you might want to consider whether you want to climb into the ring.