Yep Pat Haden........has a Gay son...........soooooo is he not paid to do his job????? Tell him to protest on his OWN time.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That is a lot to digest there. WhoaOriginally posted by 11NCs:
after he turned the home schedule to crap and raised ticket prices anyway. Season ticket holders think the Sark hire was and is a bad joke. His conference has forced teams to play a Thursday home game every year (i.e. no parking at all on campus because its a school day, no tailgating because everyone is still at work or fighting LA traffic an hour before the game, no staying out after the game because the next day is a work day, etc.). The Coliseum is a piece of crap even though season ticket holders are forced to cough up a Coliseum improvement fee with every ticket purchased. In short, he better hope Sark pulls off a miracle next season or he'll have lots of time to march in solidarity with groups who hate religion and oppose religious freedom. If he weren't such a hypocrite, he'd cancel the ND series due to ND's war on women (unless you pay women to protect themselves while shagging around, you must hate women) and hostility toward gays. Come on Hayden, be a man. Cancel the series!
It's not the exact same law.Originally posted by irish jack:
Pat Haden doesn't know word one about the Indiana Religious Freedom law. He never read it. He is responding to hysteria with the media as an accomplice. If he won't come to Indiana then he best do a little research and find out the other nineteen states that have the same exact law and stay away from those places also.
I would imagine that USC would support his decision.Originally posted by perseverare:
Is this a USC administration position and decision, or a matter of PH interjecting personal belief into his professional responsibility. It seems to me he should act, as AD, according to the institutions of his employer.
I thought that was your nicknameOriginally posted by cgvr:
I think his nickname should be Skippy.
Great for Pat and his family. Now Mr Haden has to boycott the other states that have the same law or some even more strict. Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and now Arkansas.Originally posted by Sorin90:
Good for Pat for supporting his family, regardless of what anyone else thinks!
It doesn't matter whether it mentions gay people specifically or not.Originally posted by irish jack:
The Indiana law, along with the other 19 states and another 13 or so waiting in the wings, has no arrow pointed at the gay faction as the media would have you believe. In fact, the burden of the law is on the business owner. The gay faction isn't even mentioned in the Indiana law. It's not good enough that people of faith have to tolerate the gay agenda, but now they have to totally accept it with a smile on their face. This is most likely what Pat Haden thinks. Tolerance is a two way street. You tolerate my Christian beliefs and I will tolerate your lifestyle. Pat Haden can stay at USC and I won't give a darn. NDEwing18: you show me one single word in the Indiana law that promotes bigotry or hate. Show me the sentence that says a business owner does not have to serve anyone based on their skin color or lifestyle.
Nice try. Repeating talking points won't win the argument. The Indiana law is pattered exactly after the federal law. The author of the federal law has given 100% approval of the way the Indiana law is stated. There is nowhere in the Indiana law that states you can refuse service to anyone. Why is it so important to single out gays? What about little people as a class? What about occult weddings? Using the race issue is a worn default argument. Christians and scripture would not approve of discriminating any person because of color. It does disapprove of gay marriage. Get it? Scripture....gay marriage....Christian beliefs. The Christian value system is the last fortress against legitimizing gay marriage. That's why it has to go. Just for the record. Indiana will soon pass a law allowing Christmas in public schools. Religious discussions of Christmas. Let the boycotting begin. Mike Pence has caved in. BTW: these hypocrites like Cuomo from NY, who has banned state travel to Indiana, has a trip planned to Cuba where gay marriage is illegal. Apple products have no problem making millions in Middle East countries where gays are executed and women are treated like dirt. Funny how that works.Originally posted by NDEwing18:
It doesn't matter whether it mentions gay people specifically or not.Originally posted by irish jack:
The Indiana law, along with the other 19 states and another 13 or so waiting in the wings, has no arrow pointed at the gay faction as the media would have you believe. In fact, the burden of the law is on the business owner. The gay faction isn't even mentioned in the Indiana law. It's not good enough that people of faith have to tolerate the gay agenda, but now they have to totally accept it with a smile on their face. This is most likely what Pat Haden thinks. Tolerance is a two way street. You tolerate my Christian beliefs and I will tolerate your lifestyle. Pat Haden can stay at USC and I won't give a darn. NDEwing18: you show me one single word in the Indiana law that promotes bigotry or hate. Show me the sentence that says a business owner does not have to serve anyone based on their skin color or lifestyle.
Unlike the law passed in Illinois, for example, defense under the RFRA can be used in a suit between private parties that does not involve the government. Furthermore, while Illinois classifies sexual orientation as a protected class in terms of discrimination, Indiana does not. Under the Indiana version of the RFRA, a private party could refuse to provide service to a homosexual couple, arguing that such service would be a substantial burden to their faith. Any argument by opponents of the law that it would affect skin color is silly. Clearly, you can't discriminate against race. However, as noted earlier, Indiana has no protection for sexual orientation.
Furthermore, the language of the law has to be weighed with the intent of the law. The federal RFRA was passed following a Supreme Court decision regarding the use of peyote by Native Americans. Three of the largest supporters of the RFRA - the three people who Mike Pence decided to surround himself with in photo ops when signing the bill into law - all have been vocal about the fact that the law would permit denying service to homosexuals.
At some point, society determines that there are certain things that are unworthy of falling under a religious exemption defense. For example, it is illegal, despite one's sincerely held religious beliefs, to discriminate against interracial couples. It has nothing to do with "tolerating" your religious beliefs or not. Religious exemptions have limits (and you should be thankful they do).
Repeating talking points won't win the argument? Good - I can say the same thing back at you. Repeating talking points of supporters won't win the argument either. See how easy that is?Originally posted by irish jack:
Nice try. Repeating talking points won't win the argument. The Indiana law is pattered exactly after the federal law. The author of the federal law has given 100% approval of the way the Indiana law is stated. There is nowhere in the Indiana law that states you can refuse service to anyone. Why is it so important to single out gays? What about little people as a class? What about occult weddings? Using the race issue is a worn default argument. Christians and scripture would not approve of discriminating any person because of color. It does disapprove of gay marriage. Get it? Scripture....gay marriage....Christian beliefs. The Christian value system is the last fortress against legitimizing gay marriage. That's why it has to go. Just for the record. Indiana will soon pass a law allowing Christmas in public schools. Religious discussions of Christmas. Let the boycotting begin. Mike Pence has caved in. BTW: these hypocrites like Cuomo from NY, who has banned state travel to Indiana, has a trip planned to Cuba where gay marriage is illegal. Apple products have no problem making millions in Middle East countries where gays are executed and women are treated like dirt. Funny how that works.Originally posted by NDEwing18:
It doesn't matter whether it mentions gay people specifically or not.Originally posted by irish jack:
The Indiana law, along with the other 19 states and another 13 or so waiting in the wings, has no arrow pointed at the gay faction as the media would have you believe. In fact, the burden of the law is on the business owner. The gay faction isn't even mentioned in the Indiana law. It's not good enough that people of faith have to tolerate the gay agenda, but now they have to totally accept it with a smile on their face. This is most likely what Pat Haden thinks. Tolerance is a two way street. You tolerate my Christian beliefs and I will tolerate your lifestyle. Pat Haden can stay at USC and I won't give a darn. NDEwing18: you show me one single word in the Indiana law that promotes bigotry or hate. Show me the sentence that says a business owner does not have to serve anyone based on their skin color or lifestyle.
Unlike the law passed in Illinois, for example, defense under the RFRA can be used in a suit between private parties that does not involve the government. Furthermore, while Illinois classifies sexual orientation as a protected class in terms of discrimination, Indiana does not. Under the Indiana version of the RFRA, a private party could refuse to provide service to a homosexual couple, arguing that such service would be a substantial burden to their faith. Any argument by opponents of the law that it would affect skin color is silly. Clearly, you can't discriminate against race. However, as noted earlier, Indiana has no protection for sexual orientation.
Furthermore, the language of the law has to be weighed with the intent of the law. The federal RFRA was passed following a Supreme Court decision regarding the use of peyote by Native Americans. Three of the largest supporters of the RFRA - the three people who Mike Pence decided to surround himself with in photo ops when signing the bill into law - all have been vocal about the fact that the law would permit denying service to homosexuals.
At some point, society determines that there are certain things that are unworthy of falling under a religious exemption defense. For example, it is illegal, despite one's sincerely held religious beliefs, to discriminate against interracial couples. It has nothing to do with "tolerating" your religious beliefs or not. Religious exemptions have limits (and you should be thankful they do).
someone who lives in his mothers basementOriginally posted by jacksondomer:
zona....i love ya brother! who is this jackass anyway?
Except the governor of Indiana is stating that that's not why the law was created (despite the fact that he surrounded himself with 3 people who publicly have stated that denying LGBT people certain services is a reason behind the law).Originally posted by mbd11:
That law was created to prevent what happened in those bakery cases out West a few years ago. If a baker objects to same sex marriage for religious reasons, he shouldn't be forced to bake a cake for one. Nor should a church be forced to rent their church out for one, against their wishes. The Bill of RIghts protects religious freedom. That's why this law was created, to ensure that.
The gay lobby with all its media influence is distorting the issue.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
There's a natural tension between civil rights and liberties, especially religious liberties. Admittedly, I don't know how to solve that tension (it's an unsolvable problem, in my opinion). The best we can do is to draw varying lines in the sand which won't please everyone.Originally posted by onlyonenow:
There is a reason that speech, religion and freedom of the press are in the First Amendment.
And blacks who were denied service at hotels were free to go to the next hotel and give their business to someone more willing to be tolerant. Yet, society has deemed this solution to be unacceptable.Originally posted by Syd4ND:
That law was created to prevent what happened in those bakery cases out West a few years ago. If a baker objects to same sex marriage for religious reasons, he shouldn't be forced to bake a cake for one. Nor should a church be forced to rent their church out for one, against their wishes. The Bill of RIghts protects religious freedom. That's why this law was created, to ensure that.
The gay lobby with all its media influence is distorting the issue.
^I see the point here.^
People are trying to equate this with segregating or denying gays their rights. Not true. The gay lobby reaction to this has been so predictable and overblown just like the way people reacted to chik-fil-a. Unlike blacks under Jim Crowe who were barred from access, gays can go to the next business and give their business to someone more willing to be tolerant.
This post was edited on 4/1 11:02 AM by Syd4ND