5 ms·

That's terrible! I can't seem to find a source of the vice president being connected to legislation allowing police to ignore LGBT people being beaten. Can you

by akkat 9y ago

That's terrible! I can't seem to find a source of the vice president being connected to legislation allowing police to ignore LGBT people being beaten. Can you give me the link to one? Also, what do you mean by camps? Forced orientation changing?

chillwaves 9y ago
> While running for Congress, Indiana governor Mike Pence called for state funding for "institutions" working to enable people to "change their sexual behavior." https://www.snopes.com/mike-pence-supported-gay-conversion-therapy/ https://www.snopes.com/mike-pence-supported-gay-conversion-t...
- hi-im-mi-ih 9y ago
  From the link: Mike Pence once supported the use of federal funding to treat people "seeking to change their sexual behavior." That seems like a great thing to fund. Looks like our current vice president seems interested in helping those who seek help.
  - azemetre 9y ago
    Just in case anyone is reading this comment and they think that "conversion therapy" isn't equivalent to torturing individuals I suggest the following op-ed from the NYT about a man who suffered through the process: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/24/opinion/gay-conversion-therapy-torture.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/24/opinion/gay-conversion-th...
  - darkerside 9y ago
    Yeah, I see where you're coming from, but it seems this therapy is forced upon children (another commenter linked an article who experienced this at age 14). That seems wrong to me, and at the very, very least not something we should be funding at the federal level. In fact, there could be some parallels here to federal funding for abortions. Many conservatives feel this procedure is morally wrong as strongly as others might feel about gay conversion therapy. I can see why they would be similarly upset about federal funding for clinics that perform them, although I don't necessarily agree with their final position.
    - chillwaves 9y ago
      Sounds like a false equivalence re: abortion. There is science behind viability of a fetus for example that is used to determine guidelines and there is science behind behavioral therapy that disagrees with sexual conversion therapy. On one side, you have people at least attempting science and rational thought, on the other side you literal magic thinking (religion) as the rationale, the two are not equal.
      - darkerside 9y ago
        They're certainly not like for like, and the principles behind what make them acceptable or not are totally different. I don't expect to convince anyone of anything except that, whatever side of the aisle you fall upon, please try to have a little more empathy for those on the other.
  - KirinDave 9y ago
    Except the reality is that the clients of those straightening camps are often the parents of gay kids, not adults. There is plenty of data on this.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- danieltillett 9y ago
  Not that I think "gay conversion" is effective (maybe at the margins), but as society we do seem to beleive that others sexual orientations can be changed via incarceration.
  - raydev 9y ago
    I think it's less "changing their sexual orientation" and more "keeping them away from those who can't defend themselves."
  - chillwaves 9y ago
    Pretty sure the orientation is not the problem, it is the victimization of minors, which is an action -- not a thought or a feeling.
  - KirinDave 9y ago
    Why can't both things be bad?
  - danieltillett 9y ago
    I am replying to myself since I am fascinated by the other three responses. None of them are responding to what I actually wrote and all of them are responding to what they think I wrote. All of them are wrong in guessing what I think I wrote.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
KirinDave 9y ago
Sure, it's the tortured story of Indiana's so-called RFRA act that Pence presided over. It includes several problematic sections. Section 9 opened the door for this interpretation of the build by pointing out that private contractors often work for the city and state, and specifically protecting the right to object to interacting with LGBT people if "[their] exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened". This leads to an awkward situation where a private contractor doing police, fire, or (most likely) emergency services work for a company with a religious charter is likely protected in doing so. What's most interesting about the RFRA (and the bills Pence helped pen but never made it to a vote in House and Senate) is the "overriding" clause, allowing for a explicit defense in state court against people who discriminated, and making it harder for those suing to press for (perhaps in 2015, more strict). This made the law stronger than prior related RFRA acts of other states and at pre-existing federal law. The text of the law is available publicly and about a billion perspectives on the law are available online. Give that you almost certainly didn't search for it on google, please let me refer you to "mike pence RFRA Indiana". You can find lots of pro and con to suit your taste.
- Digory 9y ago
  RFRAs don't allow first responders to refuse to do their jobs -- the life of another is a compelling state interest, and there's no narrower way to accommodate that interest than to require first responders to respond. Merely claiming a religious burden is only one element of the test. I've never heard of any religious emergency service personnel even suggesting they have a religious objection to 'interacting' with LGBT people in emergency situations -- but even if you could, the Indiana RFRA law wouldn't have allowed that.
  - KirinDave 9y ago
    I mean, RFRAs have enabled other prior absurd outcomes, especially in health care. I've read a lot of interpretations of this law that suggest that this would have to be tested in court. There is this curious not of the "obligation" of a first responder, but as we are seeing in Florida it's not clear any such obligation exists or can be realistically enforced.

by akkat 9y ago

chillwaves 9y ago

> While running for Congress, Indiana governor Mike Pence called for state funding for "institutions" working to enable people to "change their sexual behavior." https://www.snopes.com/mike-pence-supported-gay-conversion-therapy/ https://www.snopes.com/mike-pence-supported-gay-conversion-t...

hi-im-mi-ih 9y ago
From the link: Mike Pence once supported the use of federal funding to treat people "seeking to change their sexual behavior." That seems like a great thing to fund. Looks like our current vice president seems interested in helping those who seek help.
- azemetre 9y ago
  Just in case anyone is reading this comment and they think that "conversion therapy" isn't equivalent to torturing individuals I suggest the following op-ed from the NYT about a man who suffered through the process: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/24/opinion/gay-conversion-therapy-torture.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/24/opinion/gay-conversion-th...
- darkerside 9y ago
  Yeah, I see where you're coming from, but it seems this therapy is forced upon children (another commenter linked an article who experienced this at age 14). That seems wrong to me, and at the very, very least not something we should be funding at the federal level. In fact, there could be some parallels here to federal funding for abortions. Many conservatives feel this procedure is morally wrong as strongly as others might feel about gay conversion therapy. I can see why they would be similarly upset about federal funding for clinics that perform them, although I don't necessarily agree with their final position.
  - chillwaves 9y ago
    Sounds like a false equivalence re: abortion. There is science behind viability of a fetus for example that is used to determine guidelines and there is science behind behavioral therapy that disagrees with sexual conversion therapy. On one side, you have people at least attempting science and rational thought, on the other side you literal magic thinking (religion) as the rationale, the two are not equal.
    - darkerside 9y ago
      They're certainly not like for like, and the principles behind what make them acceptable or not are totally different. I don't expect to convince anyone of anything except that, whatever side of the aisle you fall upon, please try to have a little more empathy for those on the other.
- KirinDave 9y ago
  Except the reality is that the clients of those straightening camps are often the parents of gay kids, not adults. There is plenty of data on this.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
danieltillett 9y ago
Not that I think "gay conversion" is effective (maybe at the margins), but as society we do seem to beleive that others sexual orientations can be changed via incarceration.
- raydev 9y ago
  I think it's less "changing their sexual orientation" and more "keeping them away from those who can't defend themselves."
- chillwaves 9y ago
  Pretty sure the orientation is not the problem, it is the victimization of minors, which is an action -- not a thought or a feeling.
- KirinDave 9y ago
  Why can't both things be bad?
- danieltillett 9y ago
  I am replying to myself since I am fascinated by the other three responses. None of them are responding to what I actually wrote and all of them are responding to what they think I wrote. All of them are wrong in guessing what I think I wrote.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

KirinDave 9y ago

Sure, it's the tortured story of Indiana's so-called RFRA act that Pence presided over. It includes several problematic sections. Section 9 opened the door for this interpretation of the build by pointing out that private contractors often work for the city and state, and specifically protecting the right to object to interacting with LGBT people if "[their] exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened". This leads to an awkward situation where a private contractor doing police, fire, or (most likely) emergency services work for a company with a religious charter is likely protected in doing so. What's most interesting about the RFRA (and the bills Pence helped pen but never made it to a vote in House and Senate) is the "overriding" clause, allowing for a explicit defense in state court against people who discriminated, and making it harder for those suing to press for (perhaps in 2015, more strict). This made the law stronger than prior related RFRA acts of other states and at pre-existing federal law. The text of the law is available publicly and about a billion perspectives on the law are available online. Give that you almost certainly didn't search for it on google, please let me refer you to "mike pence RFRA Indiana". You can find lots of pro and con to suit your taste.

Digory 9y ago
RFRAs don't allow first responders to refuse to do their jobs -- the life of another is a compelling state interest, and there's no narrower way to accommodate that interest than to require first responders to respond. Merely claiming a religious burden is only one element of the test. I've never heard of any religious emergency service personnel even suggesting they have a religious objection to 'interacting' with LGBT people in emergency situations -- but even if you could, the Indiana RFRA law wouldn't have allowed that.
- KirinDave 9y ago
  I mean, RFRAs have enabled other prior absurd outcomes, especially in health care. I've read a lot of interpretations of this law that suggest that this would have to be tested in court. There is this curious not of the "obligation" of a first responder, but as we are seeing in Florida it's not clear any such obligation exists or can be realistically enforced.