Far Cry 4 - Walkthrough Part 43: Culture Wars
Far Cry 4 - No Commentary Walkthrough Part 43: Culture Wars - PS4 Version.
By: WestWizzy
More here:
Far Cry 4 - Walkthrough Part 43: Culture Wars - Video
Stephen Prothero 7:20 p.m. EDT March 29, 2015
Supporters and opponents of Indiana's Religious Freedom bill at the state Capitol in Indianapolis.(Photo: Robert Scheer, AP)
After Indiana Gov. Mike Pence signed a state religious liberty bill last Thursday, liberals lined up to ravage this "anti-gay" legislation as a "license to discriminate." Indianapolis-based Angie's List said it was shelving a headquarters expansion plan that would have brought the state a thousand jobs. Hillary Clinton and Apple's Tim Cook objected. Even singer Miley Cyrus weighed in, writing that "the only place that has more idiots than Instagram is in politics."
I support gay marriage. I support anti-discrimination laws protecting lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) citizens. But I also support religious liberty. These commitments sometimes conflict. But it is a sad day when there is so little support for the liberties of U.S. citizens, especially among liberals who should be their staunchest defenders.
Religious liberty took a big hit in a 1990 Supreme Court decision that went against American Indians fired after they ingested a hallucinogen in a Native American Church ritual. A law can prohibit any form of worship, Justice Antonin Scalia argued for the majority, as long as it is "neutral (and) generally applicable."
USA TODAY
Reynolds: You are probably breaking the law right now
Outraged over this reasoning, which would have outlawed using wine at the Catholic Mass during Prohibition, Congress responded (nearly unanimously) in 1993 with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Signed by President Clinton, this act instructed the judiciary to return to its prior approach, in which burdens on individual religious liberty would be unlawful unless the government could show that the burden was necessary to achieve a "compelling government interest" and that the law doing so employed the "least restrictive means."
After the Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that the RFRA applied only to the federal government, states responded with mini-RFRAs requiring this "compelling government interest" test in their religious liberty cases. Of these, Indiana's RFRA is the 20th.
There is no excuse for refusing to serve a lesbian couple at a restaurant and to my knowledge no state RFRA has ever been used to justify such discrimination. But if we favor liberty for all Americans (and not just for those who agree with us), we should be wary of using the coercive powers of government to compel our fellow citizens to participate in rites that violate their religious beliefs. We would not force a Jewish baker to make sacramental bread for a Catholic Mass. Why would we force a fundamentalist baker to make a cake for a gay wedding?
Story highlights LZ: Barney Frank may say LGBT rights 'winning,' but Indiana law pushing them back, and other states' anti-LGBT moves, a bad sign Cruz, Huckabee, Jindal, Carson, Walker and some state judges rulings, feel like 2016 reviving culture wars, he says
Frank, you'll recall, was the first member of Congress to marry someone of the same-sex while in office, and among other things, he had some choice words for closeted politicians who vote against LGBT rights.
And when someone in the audience asked his thoughts about a current ballot proposal in California that would legalize killing gay people, he said he wasn't aware of the measure but told the young man not to "worry yourself about the crazy people."
"We're winning," he said before joking that the name of the California proposal -- "The Sodomite Suppression Act" -- sounded like a porno.
"We're winning" is a phrase I've heard a lot recently as it pertains to LGBT rights. And I guess if you look at where the country was 10 years ago, we definitely are. That's assuming you are part of the "we" that believes LGBT people should have the same rights as their heterosexual/cisgender counterparts.
Or at least not "be put to death by bullets to the head or by any other convenient method" as the California proposal suggests. (It's unclear whether Matt McLaughlin, the Huntington Beach lawyer who submitted the proposal, is being sincere or just an ass, but the fact remains that if he collects enough signatures there appears to be no legal way of stopping it from going on the ballot.)
Frank's "we're winning" declaration was oddly timed, too. Less than 24 hours after his talk, the governor in the next state over signed an anti-LGBT "religious freedom" bill into the law -- one that allows businesses to challenge in court local laws that forbid discriminating against customers based on sexual orientation.
"Many people of faith feel their religious liberty is under attack by government action," Indiana Gov. Mike Pence said. Not to be outdone, Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson said he would sign a similar bill that is expected to reach his desk shortly.
So we have: A fledgling proposal to kill the gays out West, laws to deny us goods and services in the heartland, and if the rhetoric of 2016 hopeful Ted Cruz is a barometer, a federal ban on same-sex marriage still on the GOP table.
Like others, I had foolishly hoped the upcoming general election would be one defined by bold ideas.
Story highlights LZ: Barney Frank may say LGBT rights 'winning,' but Indiana law pushing them back, and other states' anti-LGBT moves, a bad sign Cruz, Huckabee, Jindal, Carson, Walker and some state judges rulings, feel like 2016 reviving culture wars, he says
Frank, you'll recall, was the first member of Congress to marry someone of the same-sex while in office, and among other things, he had some choice words for closeted politicians who vote against LGBT rights.
And when someone in the audience asked his thoughts about a current ballot proposal in California that would legalize killing gay people, he said he wasn't aware of the measure but told the young man not to "worry yourself about the crazy people."
"We're winning," he said before joking that the name of the California proposal -- "The Sodomite Suppression Act" -- sounded like a porno.
"We're winning" is a phrase I've heard a lot recently as it pertains to LGBT rights. And I guess if you look at where the country was 10 years ago, we definitely are. That's assuming you are part of the "we" that believes LGBT people should have the same rights as their heterosexual/cisgender counterparts.
Or at least not "be put to death by bullets to the head or by any other convenient method" as the California proposal suggests. (It's unclear whether Matt McLaughlin, the Huntington Beach lawyer who submitted the proposal, is being sincere or just an ass, but the fact remains that if he collects enough signatures there appears to be no legal way of stopping it from going on the ballot.)
Frank's "we're winning" declaration was oddly timed, too. Less than 24 hours after his talk, the governor in the next state over signed an anti-LGBT "religious freedom" bill into the law -- one that allows businesses to challenge in court local laws that forbid discriminating against customers based on sexual orientation.
"Many people of faith feel their religious liberty is under attack by government action," Indiana Gov. Mike Pence said. Not to be outdone, Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson said he would sign a similar bill that is expected to reach his desk shortly.
So we have: A fledgling proposal to kill the gays out West, laws to deny us goods and services in the heartland, and if the rhetoric of 2016 hopeful Ted Cruz is a barometer, a federal ban on same-sex marriage still on the GOP table.
Like others, I had foolishly hoped the upcoming general election would be one defined by bold ideas.
Read the original post:
LZ: Republicans' new 'culture wars' on gay rights?
Farcry 4 Gameplay/Walkthrough Part 22 - Culture Wars
Farcry 4!!
By: NoCommentaryWalkthroughs
See the original post:
Farcry 4 Gameplay/Walkthrough Part 22 - Culture Wars - Video