PDA

View Full Version : Arizona's "Religious Freedom" Bill in the Hands of Governor Brewer



Pages : [1] 2

nic34
02-24-2014, 02:19 PM
The Arizona House of Representatives passed the anti-LGBT "religious freedom" bill, which now heads to Governor Jan Brewer for her approval.

Despite House Democrats putting up a strong fight against the bill, just three of their colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted against the bill, which the rest of the Republican majority was able to pass with a 33-27 vote.

Gallego and fellow Democratic Representative Mark Cardenas combined to offer 17 amendments to the bill -- much like their Senate colleagues had done the day before -- to make it clear that people can't discriminate against others in certain situations. All of the amendments failed.

Still, most on the Republican side maintained that the legislation -- pushed by the Christian Right group Center for Arizona Policy -- is about protecting a person's religious rights.

"We are trying to protect people's religious freedoms," Republican Representative Steve Montenegro said. "We want to prevent the government from forcing a person who is trying to start a business to sell out their religion for money."

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2014/02/arizonas_religious_freedom_bil.php


You know what? Brewer will veto.

Alyosha
02-24-2014, 02:27 PM
I personally don't see the problem. I'm a 'special interest' and if someone doesn't want to hire me for being a female I'd rather know than give them my hard labor and passion for years.

I'd rather give my time and money to good people.

Mister D
02-24-2014, 02:28 PM
Sounds like something Goldwater would have supported, nic.

Captain Obvious
02-24-2014, 02:37 PM
Fuck "religious freedom".

"Religious freedom" is nothing more than an excuse in this country to foster hatred and bigotry.

Nothing more, period.

Cigar
02-24-2014, 02:38 PM
I consider people who Discriminate and Kill based on their Religious Reading to be all the same.

If your God teaches you to be an Ass-Hole, then Fuck Your God.

Green Arrow
02-24-2014, 03:39 PM
I support this bill.

Mister D
02-24-2014, 03:43 PM
I support this bill.

Consistent

Ravi
02-24-2014, 03:45 PM
I personally don't see the problem. I'm a 'special interest' and if someone doesn't want to hire me for being a female I'd rather know than give them my hard labor and passion for years.

I'd rather give my time and money to good people.
How would you give your hard labor and passion to someone that won't hire you to begin with?

Green Arrow
02-24-2014, 03:47 PM
How would you give your hard labor and passion to someone that won't hire you to begin with?

Why would you want to support the business of someone who hates you?

Ravi
02-24-2014, 03:48 PM
Why would you want to support the business of someone who hates you?Why are you answering a question with a non-related question?

The Wash
02-24-2014, 04:06 PM
I consider people who Discriminate and Kill based on their Religious Reading to be all the same.

If your God teaches you to be an Ass-Hole, then Fuck Your God.

What makes you an asshole to not want to take photographs of two men kissing? What makes it being an asshole to not want to perform an abortion? Who decides what is assholery? I think someone using a law to force me to work for them is an asshole. What about the Klan member that forces you not to discriminate against him and work for him whether you want to or not?

There are enough businesses out there to choose from, why not choose to do business with people who like you? There are more businesses now than there were 40 or 50 years ago. Why force the one business in your town who doesn't want to hire you or do business with you to do it when you can use your money and time smartly by giving it to non racists and bigots?

This is just feel good. It makes akula feel good to say negro and it makes some minorities feel good to punish assholes. Neither accomplishes anything.

Chris
02-24-2014, 04:09 PM
Why does government have any business telling a private business who it must serve? Let the people decide that by voting with their pennies.

Green Arrow
02-24-2014, 04:13 PM
Why are you answering a question with a non-related question?

I'm not attempting to answer your question. I'm asking you a question about the topic.

The Sage of Main Street
02-24-2014, 05:47 PM
Christians are doing a disservice by monopolizing the anti-heterophobe movement. There is a very real secular reason why this perversion must be stopped. These are sick and destructive people with the inevitable goal, once they are tolerated, of pedophilia. The real reason the Hebrew patriarchs frightened their people into crushing this is that a raped generation loses the will to live. The natural disgust that normal people feel for someone who is stuck in this infantile fixation is motivated by instinctive preservation of the tribe. This self-preservation needs no religious text to provoke it. "Homosexuality," which is not a sexuality, indicates a contagious Death Wish.

Cigar
02-24-2014, 05:51 PM
What makes you an asshole to not want to take photographs of two men kissing? What makes it being an asshole to not want to perform an abortion? Who decides what is assholery? I think someone using a law to force me to work for them is an asshole. What about the Klan member that forces you not to discriminate against him and work for him whether you want to or not?

There are enough businesses out there to choose from, why not choose to do business with people who like you? There are more businesses now than there were 40 or 50 years ago. Why force the one business in your town who doesn't want to hire you or do business with you to do it when you can use your money and time smartly by giving it to non racists and bigots?

This is just feel good. It makes akula feel good to say negro and it makes some minorities feel good to punish assholes. Neither accomplishes anything.

Real simple answer to your question ... this is America and The MAJORITY of Americans don't think that way.

How do I know this ... I check the totals after Election Day

Cigar
02-24-2014, 05:52 PM
Why does government have any business telling a private business who it must serve? Let the people decide that by voting with their pennies.

So you would be OK with Political Forums not wanting to allow Black people on it :laugh:

nic34
02-24-2014, 05:56 PM
Sounds like something Goldwater would have supported, nic.

He would have been the thorn in the side of the republicans as he always was....

Three Republican senators who voted for Senate Bill 1062 say they made a bad decision in a rushed process and are now asking Gov. Jan Brewer to veto the right to refuse service bill.

“We feel it was a solution in search of a problem,” Sen. Bob Worsley, R-Mesa, said in an impromptu news conference outside the state Senate. He was joined by Sen. Steve Pierce, R-Prescott.

The two, along with Senate Majority Whip Adam Driggs, R-Phoenix, sent Brewer a letter this morning asking for a veto.

“While our sincere intent in voting for this bill was to create a shield for all citizens’ religious liberties, the bill has instead been mischaracterized by its opponents as a sword for religious intolerance,” the three wrote. “These allegations are causing our state immeasurable harm.”

http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/articles/20140224arizona-gop-senators-sb-1062-ask-brewer-veto.html

Chris
02-24-2014, 05:59 PM
Real simple answer to your question ... this is America and The MAJORITY of Americans don't think that way.

How do I know this ... I check the totals after Election Day



Another we the people are the government progressive who believes in majoritarian democracy despite the guarantees of the Constitution.

Chris
02-24-2014, 06:01 PM
Why does government have any business telling a private business who it must serve? Let the people decide that by voting with their pennies.


So you would be OK with Political Forums not wanting to allow Black people on it :laugh:


No, if that happened, then I'd stop coming here, as would, I suspect, many others.

It would help if you bothered to try and understand what I posted rather than twist up some strawman.

Cigar
02-24-2014, 06:02 PM
Another we the people are the government progressive who believes in majoritarian democracy despite the guarantees of the Constitution.

Looks like all the Gerrymandering still ain't enough to make you happy :grin:

Green Arrow
02-24-2014, 06:48 PM
Looks like all the Gerrymandering still ain't enough to make you happy :grin:

Both parties use gerrymandering.

Mister D
02-24-2014, 07:09 PM
He would have been the thorn in the side of the republicans as he always was....

Three Republican senators who voted for Senate Bill 1062 say they made a bad decision in a rushed process and are now asking Gov. Jan Brewer to veto the right to refuse service bill.

“We feel it was a solution in search of a problem,” Sen. Bob Worsley, R-Mesa, said in an impromptu news conference outside the state Senate. He was joined by Sen. Steve Pierce, R-Prescott.

The two, along with Senate Majority Whip Adam Driggs, R-Phoenix, sent Brewer a letter this morning asking for a veto.

“While our sincere intent in voting for this bill was to create a shield for all citizens’ religious liberties, the bill has instead been mischaracterized by its opponents as a sword for religious intolerance,” the three wrote. “These allegations are causing our state immeasurable harm.”

http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/articles/20140224arizona-gop-senators-sb-1062-ask-brewer-veto.html


Uh nic...you know Goldwater voted against Title II of the CRA, right? Again, this sounds like something Goldwater would have supported. Don't you?

Chris
02-24-2014, 07:40 PM
Looks like all the Gerrymandering still ain't enough to make you happy :grin:


It would be fun to watch you and exotix in a debate. The rules would be simple. First one to actually address what the other posted, loses.

Mister D
02-24-2014, 07:42 PM
It would be fun to watch you and exotix in a debate. The rules would be simple. First one to actually address what the other posted, loses.

:smiley_ROFLMAO:

darroll
02-24-2014, 07:46 PM
How would you give your hard labor and passion to someone that won't hire you to begin with? Why?

nic34
02-24-2014, 09:18 PM
Uh nic...you know Goldwater voted against Title II of the CRA, right? Again, this sounds like something Goldwater would have supported. Don't you?

Both McCain and Flake are against also. Goldwater would have realized this is a solution looking for a problem, and that it is only detrimental to our economy.

Mister D
02-24-2014, 09:22 PM
Both McCain and Flake are against also. Goldwater would have realized this is a solution looking for a problem, and that it is only detrimental to our economy.

McCain is a Flake. I don't care what he's against. Sorry, but Goldwater would have taken a stand on principle here like he did with the CRA and its affront to liberty. You are no Goldwater fan. :rollseyes:

nic34
02-24-2014, 09:30 PM
You know nothing about Barry.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/13/barry-goldwaters-war-against-the-religious-right/

Mister D
02-24-2014, 09:32 PM
You know nothing about Barry.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/13/barry-goldwaters-war-against-the-religious-right/

I know he voted against Title II, nic. :wink: And fuck Barry. I'm not a libertarian. neither are you so stop pretending you share his positions. You don't.

Green Arrow
02-25-2014, 12:47 AM
You know nothing about Barry.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/13/barry-goldwaters-war-against-the-religious-right/

You're confusing a policy position with a personal position. D's right on this, the guy who opposed Title II of the Civil Rights Act would also support this bill. This bill is effectively a repeal of Title II of the CRA. If he opposed Title II, and this weakens Title II, it logically follows that, feelings on the religious right aside, he would have supported this bill.

Ravi
02-25-2014, 05:37 AM
So Goldwater would have wanted to give people special rights based on their religion. I am not surprised. Let's see if Brewer is a conservative or a statist.

Jets
02-25-2014, 06:06 AM
Not for anything, if this becomes law,SCOTUS is going to rule it unconstitutional. JMO

Gerrard Winstanley
02-25-2014, 06:27 AM
Fuck "religious freedom".

"Religious freedom" is nothing more than an excuse in this country to foster hatred and bigotry.

Nothing more, period.
Yes, it's stupid to refuse to do business with somebody because your invisible sky-mentor may or may not approve. I can imagine half the guys pushing this bill making a U-turn if, say, an atheist storeowner rejected an Evangelical Christian. But it's even more stupid to force people with such convictions to sell to those they dislike.

Codename Section
02-25-2014, 07:55 AM
So Goldwater would have wanted to give people special rights based on their religion. I am not surprised. Let's see if Brewer is a conservative or a statist.

Why are these special rights? That's silly. It's an unalienable right that no one gives you. We should have the right to our bodies. Isn't that what Pro Choice people argue about? If I don't have the right to choose when and how I labor, what I do with my limbs, what my religious affiliations are and how they manifest then the state owns me totally.

Mister D
02-25-2014, 08:36 AM
You're confusing a policy position with a personal position. D's right on this, the guy who opposed Title II of the Civil Rights Act would also support this bill. This bill is effectively a repeal of Title II of the CRA. If he opposed Title II, and this weakens Title II, it logically follows that, feelings on the religious right aside, he would have supported this bill.

Exactly.

Mister D
02-25-2014, 08:37 AM
So Goldwater would have wanted to give people special rights based on their religion. I am not surprised. Let's see if Brewer is a conservative or a statist.

:huh: lol

Captain Obvious
02-25-2014, 08:37 AM
Yes, it's stupid to refuse to do business with somebody because your invisible sky-mentor may or may not approve. I can imagine half the guys pushing this bill making a U-turn if, say, an atheist storeowner rejected an Evangelical Christian. But it's even more stupid to force people with such convictions to sell to those they dislike.

Yes... you're atheist... thanks for wearing it on your sleeve.

What we believe or don't believe is not the issue, the issue is that: a) Your religious freedom ends where my personal freedom begins, b) If we allow bigoted "Christians" to practice bigotry in the name of "religious freedom", then we have to allow any spaghetti monster cult to practice their own "religious freedoms" in whatever form they choose basically.

And yeah, the RW bucket brigade will stomp their feet and whine but at the end of the day if this was about disallowing service to conservatives for example, they would be stomping their feet for a different reason.

Mister D
02-25-2014, 08:42 AM
Yes... you're atheist... thanks for wearing it on your sleeve.

What we believe or don't believe is not the issue, the issue is that: a) Your religious freedom ends where my personal freedom begins, b) If we allow bigoted "Christians" to practice bigotry in the name of "religious freedom", then we have to allow any spaghetti monster cult to practice their own "religious freedoms" in whatever form they choose basically.

And yeah, the RW bucket brigade will stomp their feet and whine but at the end of the day if this was about disallowing service to conservatives for example, they would be stomping their feet for a different reason.

Or you just rescind Title II. That's all this is about.

Chris
02-25-2014, 08:52 AM
You're confusing a policy position with a personal position. D's right on this, the guy who opposed Title II of the Civil Rights Act would also support this bill. This bill is effectively a repeal of Title II of the CRA. If he opposed Title II, and this weakens Title II, it logically follows that, feelings on the religious right aside, he would have supported this bill.


Agree 100%.

What that shows to me is while some partisans, left and right, paint the bill religiously, it is at heart an intrusion of government into private decisions that Goldwater would have opposed.

Rand Paul would oppose it for the same reasons.

Mainecoons
02-25-2014, 08:56 AM
I read up on this and it mentioned the wedding photographer in NM who got shafted because he wouldn't photograph a "gay" wedding. Another case was mentioned about a bakery that wouldn't make a cake for a gay wedding.

How do you stop this kind of abuse? Why should someone be forced to provide a service to a wedding ceremony that absolutely violates their beliefs?

I understand the logic of requiring places like restaurants, hotels, gas stations to serve the public but why should services that are not essential be included?

I don't like this law either but once again it seems we're trying to stop a runaway legal system from being nuts.

Mister D
02-25-2014, 08:59 AM
Agree 100%.

What that shows to me is while some partisans, left and right, paint the bill religiously, it is at heart an intrusion of government into private decisions that Goldwater would have opposed.

Rand Paul would oppose it for the same reasons.

I wonder if nic is as principled as his hero or if Goldwater is really just another RWNJ according to the prevailing standards.

Chris
02-25-2014, 09:13 AM
So Goldwater would have wanted to give people special rights based on their religion. I am not surprised. Let's see if Brewer is a conservative or a statist.



Dollar to a donut you cannot explain the fallacies you used to jump to that odd conclusion.

Chris
02-25-2014, 09:14 AM
Yes, it's stupid to refuse to do business with somebody because your invisible sky-mentor may or may not approve. I can imagine half the guys pushing this bill making a U-turn if, say, an atheist storeowner rejected an Evangelical Christian. But it's even more stupid to force people with such convictions to sell to those they dislike.



But is it government's business to meddle in any private decision howsoever it is "stupid" to you personally?

Chris
02-25-2014, 09:15 AM
I wonder if nic is as principled as his hero or if Goldwater is really just another RWNJ according to the prevailing standards.



WHo is nic's hero?

Mister D
02-25-2014, 09:17 AM
WHo is nic's hero?

Nic professes to have voted for Goldwater and to admire the man. Methinks this has more to do with Goldwater's views on the "Religious Right" (if there is such a thing) than anything else.

nic34
02-25-2014, 09:18 AM
It's nice that we have folks here that not only can't read goldwater's own words on the subject, but are also so naive to think his beliefs would not have evolved in 50 years.

Seems Goldwater becoming a raging social lib toward the end of his life just ruins these RWNJs stagnant worldview. :laugh:

Mister D
02-25-2014, 09:32 AM
It's nice that we have folks here that not only can't read goldwater's own words on the subject, but are also so naive to think his beliefs would not have evolved in 50 years.

Seems Goldwater becoming a raging social lib toward the end of his life just ruins these RWNJs stagnant worldview. :laugh:

I don't admire Goldwater and you professed to have voted for him when he had RWNJ views. Tell us, nic, have you evolved? :laugh:

Chris
02-25-2014, 09:32 AM
It's nice that we have folks here that not only can't read goldwater's own words on the subject, but are also so naive to think his beliefs would not have evolved in 50 years.

Seems Goldwater becoming a raging social lib toward the end of his life just ruins these RWNJs stagnant worldview. :laugh:



That is true. But he never abandoned his principles of limited government. So while that "ruins these RWNJs stagnant worldview" lol, it does nothing to our shared libertarian views, in fact reinforces them against your progressive worldview lol.

Mainecoons
02-25-2014, 09:39 AM
I don't admire Goldwater and you professed to have voted for him when he had RWNJ views. Tell us, nic, have you evolved? :laugh:

Maybe devolved. :grin:

nic34
02-25-2014, 09:42 AM
Now the ad homs .

Thanks for playing.

Ravi
02-25-2014, 09:42 AM
Why are these special rights? That's silly. It's an unalienable right that no one gives you. We should have the right to our bodies. Isn't that what Pro Choice people argue about? If I don't have the right to choose when and how I labor, what I do with my limbs, what my religious affiliations are and how they manifest then the state owns me totally.

IMO, if they don't want to serve legal citizens they should look for other employment. They shouldn't have the state making laws that discriminate against people engaging in legal activities. It's un-american.

Codename Section
02-25-2014, 09:45 AM
IMO, if they don't want to serve legal citizens they should look for other employment.

Why? You feel I should be able to tell you how to run your business?

Mister D
02-25-2014, 09:46 AM
IMO, if they don't want to serve legal citizens they should look for other employment. They shouldn't have the state making laws that discriminate against people engaging in legal activities. It's un-american.

The state would not be making laws that discriminate. You're confused. They would be allowing business owners the right to choose. :wink:

Ravi
02-25-2014, 09:46 AM
Why? You feel I should be able to tell you how to run your business?My business doesn't serve the public. If you elect to go into a business that serves the public then you should serve the public.

Mister D
02-25-2014, 09:46 AM
Why? You feel I should be able to tell you how to run your business?
Ravi aren't you pro-choice?

Mister D
02-25-2014, 09:47 AM
Now the ad homs .

Thanks for playing.

What ad homs? Yes, you're being mocked but that's neither here nor there. You are no Goldwater fan. Stop pretending otherwise.

nathanbforrest45
02-25-2014, 09:49 AM
The law does not say they must not serve, it merely states they can elect not to serve if they wish. If they want to potentially lose business isn't that their right?

Codename Section
02-25-2014, 10:06 AM
My business doesn't serve the public. If you elect to go into a business that serves the public then you should serve the public.

Why? If you can refuse service for no shirt why not because you just don't feel like going to a gay wedding and taking pictures?

What right does anyone have over your time? If people can tell you that you MUST perform labor you're a slave.

Chris
02-25-2014, 10:13 AM
My business doesn't serve the public. If you elect to go into a business that serves the public then you should serve the public.

How can you have a business that does not serve the public? A business involves in some way exchanging goods and services with others be they individuals or other business. It's all public.

Chris
02-25-2014, 10:16 AM
The Constitution and the rights therein restrict government's public actions in protection of individual private actions. The coerce individuals in their choice of whom they choose to serve would be a violation of the Constitution. Progressives have this backasswards.

Chris
02-25-2014, 10:18 AM
Ravi aren't you pro-choice?



Are you expecting some principled consistency here?

Ravi
02-25-2014, 10:20 AM
Why? If you can refuse service for no shirt why not because you just don't feel like going to a gay wedding and taking pictures?

What right does anyone have over your time? If people can tell you that you MUST perform labor you're a slave.

No one is forcing anyone to be a baker or a photographer. You don't need a law to refuse someone service. Just say sorry, I'm booked that day.

What we have here is a state that wants to allow people to discriminate based on some religious voodoo nonsense. If I were gay I think I'd sue the state of Arizona and make them prove that the bible forbids homosexuality. Because it doesn't. Not that it really matters, the constitution disallows favoring religion.

Mister D
02-25-2014, 10:23 AM
Are you expecting some principled consistency here?

Not really. What offends Ravi is ipso facto not a matter of personal liberty. Just don't tell her she doesn't have a choice!

Codename Section
02-25-2014, 10:24 AM
No one is forcing anyone to be a baker or a photographer.


Nor forcing you to get married or requiring a photographer by that argument.




You don't need a law to refuse someone service. Just say sorry, I'm booked that day.


When they said they didn't want to they were taken to court and fined. That to me is wrong.



What we have here is a state that wants to allow people to discriminate based on some religious voodoo nonsense. If I were gay I think I'd sue the state of Arizona and make them prove that the bible forbids homosexuality. Because it doesn't. Not that it really matters, the constitution disallows favoring religion.

Why not?

Explain why you have a right to work somewhere or a right to photography services but you don't have the right to refuse to work.

Ravi
02-25-2014, 10:33 AM
Not really. What offends Ravi is ipso facto not a matter of personal liberty. Just don't tell her she doesn't have a choice!
I thought it was a rhetorical question. Yes, I am pro-choice. And my choice is that your religion doesn't dictate my actions.

Ravi
02-25-2014, 10:34 AM
Nor forcing you to get married or requiring a photographer by that argument.



When they said they didn't want to they were taken to court and fined. That to me is wrong.



Why not?

Explain why you have a right to work somewhere or a right to photography services but you don't have the right to refuse to work.
When you are licensed by the state to serve the public then you must serve the public. Period.

nic34
02-25-2014, 10:34 AM
What ad homs? Yes, you're being mocked but that's neither here nor there. You are no Goldwater fan. Stop pretending otherwise.

You brought him up sport. You assumed he would support discrimination. I showed you his own words near the end of his life how he wouldn't.

Case closed dip shit.

Mister D
02-25-2014, 10:36 AM
You brought him up sport. You assumed he would support discrimination. I showed you his own words near the end of his life how he wouldn't.

Case closed dip shit.

No, you haven't. You also voted for that RWNJ or at least you claim you did. Why do you admire RWNJs, nic? :grin:

Mister D
02-25-2014, 10:37 AM
I thought it was a rhetorical question. Yes, I am pro-choice. And my choice is that your religion doesn't dictate my actions.

It shouldn't. It dictates those of the religious person, genius. Like in choosing whether or not to do business with you. Yeah, Ravi is pro-choice...NOT

Codename Section
02-25-2014, 10:49 AM
When you are licensed by the state to serve the public then you must serve the public. Period.

Why?

I'm licensed to carry a gun. Must I always carry it? I'm licensed to drive. Must I always be in a car?

Explain why I must do anything with my body. Women have uteruses and sex. Must they always have the baby because they engaged in consensual sex with someone?

Codename Section
02-25-2014, 11:07 AM
For the record people who refuse service to gays are probably pricks but that's really beside the point of freedom. It's also stupid as shit to allow emotions to override reason to the point where you will force someone who fucking hates you to bake your wedding cake in a back room behind closed doors.

Progressives want to punish arrogant and bigoted assholes. Libertarians want to ignore them and do our own funky thing.

The Wash
02-25-2014, 11:23 AM
As a black man I don't want to do business with a racist, knowingly or not. Laws that force white assholes to hire me or serve me do me no real favors. For all I know they could be spitting in my food.

I'd rather know straight up. In fact, I would love it if they put a sign up in their window that says "I hate blacks". Then I would know who to fucking avoid.

Chris
02-25-2014, 11:29 AM
Exactly, Codename Section and The Wash, the fact I don't want government intruding into the decisions of private businesses says nothing about whether I favor those business people. I was asked earlier about this by cigar. I would not do business with one that refused service to blacks or gays or, say, libertarians, even liberals. I just want the right to make that decision myself, not have it made for me by an overbearing government.

The Wash
02-25-2014, 11:37 AM
Exactly, @Codename Section (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=866) and @The Wash (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=906), the fact I don't want government intruding into the decisions of private businesses says nothing about whether I favor those business people. I was asked earlier about this by cigar. I would not do business with one that refused service to blacks or gays or, say, libertarians, even liberals. I just want the right to make that decision myself, not have it made for me by an overbearing government.

Personally I believe this law was meant to agitate gays and lesbians, but at the same time I don't see anything wrong with affirming your right to use your business and time as you should.

When I was in high school I had a lot of friends who worked over in Grosse Pointe to make more money. When the white people would give them shit they'd spit in their food or drinks and then stir it up. I think I'd rather know who hates me then guess and become biologically related to a bunch of strangers.

Ravi
02-25-2014, 11:44 AM
As a black man I don't want to do business with a racist, knowingly or not. Laws that force white assholes to hire me or serve me do me no real favors. For all I know they could be spitting in my food.

I'd rather know straight up. In fact, I would love it if they put a sign up in their window that says "I hate blacks". Then I would know who to fucking avoid.
No one can refuse to serve black people by claiming a religious "right."

The Wash
02-25-2014, 11:48 AM
No one can refuse to serve black people by claiming a religious "right."

Whoosh. That's the sound of the point going right over your head. Laws don't change people, they just hide people's intentions. I'm sure the gays and lesbians probably don't want to know if piss was used in their cake batter instead of water.

Codename Section
02-25-2014, 11:52 AM
No one can refuse to serve black people by claiming a religious "right."

People should be allowed to refuse to serve anyone and anyone should be allowed to tell everyone and then boycott people. :)

Chris
02-25-2014, 12:03 PM
Personally I believe this law was meant to agitate gays and lesbians, but at the same time I don't see anything wrong with affirming your right to use your business and time as you should.

When I was in high school I had a lot of friends who worked over in Grosse Pointe to make more money. When the white people would give them shit they'd spit in their food or drinks and then stir it up. I think I'd rather know who hates me then guess and become biologically related to a bunch of strangers.


The law seems slanted that way but I agree I'd rather know than have it masked by some PC law.

Chris
02-25-2014, 12:07 PM
If you want to change things, change society through persuasion, not the laws through coercion. If an idea is good, people will follow it without being forced. Force only creates resistance.

Ravi
02-25-2014, 12:15 PM
Whoosh. That's the sound of the point going right over your head. Laws don't change people, they just hide people's intentions. I'm sure the gays and lesbians probably don't want to know if piss was used in their cake batter instead of water.
And, whoosh, it went over yours, too. To be fair a law should be written to not discriminate. If a law is needed to keep people from dealing with teh gay, then it should allow people to claim a religious exemption for any reason whatsoever. Our white nationalists should be able to form their own little nutty sect and declare black people are against their religion.

Ravi
02-25-2014, 12:16 PM
People should be allowed to refuse to serve anyone and anyone should be allowed to tell everyone and then boycott people. :)
That isn't how this law is being written, though.

Codename Section
02-25-2014, 12:21 PM
That isn't how this law is being written, though.

There shouldn't be laws about it. If it were up to me there would be one generic law which is the nonaggression principle:


The non-aggression principle (NAP)—also called the non-aggression axiom, the zero aggression principle (ZAP), the anti-coercion principle, or the non-initiation of force—is a moral (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality) stance which asserts that aggression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggression) is inherently illegitimate. NAP and property rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property)are closely linked, since what aggression is depends on what a person's rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights) are.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle#cite_note-1) Aggression, for the purposes of NAP, is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately owned property of another. Specifically, any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual’s property or person, no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner, are considered violent or aggressive when they are against the owner's free will (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will) and interfere with his right to self-determination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination_(philosophy)) and the principle of self-ownership (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ownership).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

nic34
02-25-2014, 01:54 PM
And, whoosh, it went over yours, too. To be fair a law should be written to not discriminate. If a law is needed to keep people from dealing with teh gay, then it should allow people to claim a religious exemption for any reason whatsoever. Our white nationalists should be able to form their own little nutty sect and declare black people are against their religion.

You nailed it.

The law was supposed to allow businesses to discriminate against gays for religious reasons. So now they need a law to give them special rights?

At first the cons were all over this until they realized it would be really bad for, you guessed it.... business.

Codename Section
02-25-2014, 01:57 PM
You nailed it.

The law was supposed to allow businesses to discriminate against gays for religious reasons. So now they need a law to give them special rights?

At first the cons were all over this until they realized it would be really bad for, you guessed it.... business.

People should be able to discriminate just because they are assholes. If they paid the rent on the space, financed the business, put sweat equity into it then everyone who doesn't like their model should fuck off and go elsewhere.

Put them out of business if you don't like it.

This whole forcing people to be nice is not nice. It's not even justice. It's just joining the assholes in assholery.

nic34
02-25-2014, 01:59 PM
The only "forcing" going on is coming from the RWNJs that passed this bill.

Ravi
02-25-2014, 02:00 PM
You nailed it.

The law was supposed to allow businesses to discriminate against gays for religious reasons. So now they need a law to give them special rights?

At first the cons were all over this until they realized it would be really bad for, you guessed it.... business.
Yep, I hear the Republicans in Arizona are having serious second thoughts and praying that Brewer vetoes. What a bunch of buffoons.

nic34
02-25-2014, 02:04 PM
Super Bowl XLIX is scheduled to be played at the University of Phoenix Stadium in Glendale, Ariz., on Feb. 1, 2015.

If Brewer signs the anti-gay bill, businesses are certain to boycott the game—and if the outrage reaches a sustained pitch, the NFL might follow suit and switch venues.

Chris
02-25-2014, 02:09 PM
The only "forcing" going on is coming from the RWNJs that passed this bill.



Ah, so you're against forcing businesses to serve gays. Good, Barry would approve--Goldwater, that is.

The Sage of Main Street
02-25-2014, 02:14 PM
Notice how these fairyphile threads attract a posting frenzy?

Green Arrow
02-25-2014, 02:19 PM
It's nice that we have folks here that not only can't read goldwater's own words on the subject, but are also so naive to think his beliefs would not have evolved in 50 years.

Seems Goldwater becoming a raging social lib toward the end of his life just ruins these RWNJs stagnant worldview. :laugh:

Who said he wouldn't evolve? And what makes you think he wouldn't evolve past the position you hold him to, anyway?

Codename Section
02-25-2014, 02:19 PM
The only "forcing" going on is coming from the RWNJs that passed this bill.

What are they forcing?

Green Arrow
02-25-2014, 02:25 PM
nic34, Ravi -

Why would you want to support the business of someone that hates you?

nic34
02-25-2014, 02:39 PM
@nic34 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=572), @Ravi (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=698) -

Why would you want to support the business of someone that hates you?

I wouldn't, but how would anyone know?

Will there always be signs that say gays not served here?

Why do they need a special law and where does it stop?

That amounts to forcing religion on the public and needing a government to enforce it.

Captain Obvious
02-25-2014, 02:40 PM
@nic34 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=572), @Ravi (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=698) -

Why would you want to support the business of someone that hates you?

I don't think people walk into a shop thinking or wondering if they're being hated.

Especially if all they want is to buy a fucking donut.

Do you think that way?

Ravi
02-25-2014, 02:41 PM
@nic34 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=572), @Ravi (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=698) -

Why would you want to support the business of someone that hates you?
Why do you make things up? I doubt nic would and I certainly have posted nothing to that effect.

Why would you want the government to give special rights to someone because of what they believed?

AmazonTania
02-25-2014, 07:58 PM
I find it interesting how proponents of this law seem to be okay with allowing these businesses to keep their bigotry a secret, while raping their customers, instead of just letting customers hit bigots where it hurts: their wallets.

AmazonTania
02-25-2014, 07:59 PM
I don't think people walk into a shop thinking or wondering if they're being hated.

Especially if all they want is to buy a fucking donut.

Do you think that way?

I dunno, but I would want a bakery that said "we hate Jews" in their window. Then i would know not to accidentally eat there.

Cigar
02-25-2014, 08:08 PM
I dunno, but I would want a bakery that said "we hate Jews" in their window. Then i would know not to accidentally eat there.

Watching your Girlish Figure :grin:

Max Rockatansky
02-25-2014, 08:19 PM
"It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country. This Court has the power to prevent an experiment." -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, New State Ice Co. v. Liebmannhttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=285&page=262

While I abhor "Big Brother" snooping in our bedrooms and private affairs, I am curious to see how this bill works out. Camel nose in the tent and that sort of thing.

Remember this one?: http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2827800

Commissioners at one of the country's biggest airports are considering punishing Muslim cab drivers who refuse service to passengers possessing alcohol or guide dogs.

The cabbies claim transporting those items violates Islamic law.


"It is against our faith and the airport is discriminating against Muslim drivers," says a cab driver who would only give his first name, Hashim.


Three-quarters of the 900 cabbies licensed to operate at the airport are Muslim, most from Somalia. It is unclear how many are adhering to this letter of Islamic law which considers the purchase, drinking and transport of alcoholic beverages a sin.


Islam also regards the saliva from dogs to be unclean.


Nearly 40 million people travel through Minneapolis-St Paul airport annually.


Over the past 5 years, airport officials say 5,400 passengers have been turned away.


Some had guide dogs or pets, others were carrying cases of wine from California, or liquor from duty-free shops.

Seriy
02-25-2014, 10:11 PM
People must have rights to exercise their religious beliefs, when it comes with gay behavior. We have are First Amendment rights that protects our rights to refuse service unto people whose behavior is abnormal in God'w views.

Mainecoons
02-25-2014, 10:16 PM
This deal really is problematic for me. I don't think that people should be refused essential services because of their sexual orientation. OTOH, I don't think a wedding photographer or cake baker should be forced to serve a gay wedding if it compromises their core beliefs. It is one thing when people need a hotel room, a restaurant, gasoline, stuff like that. It is quite something else to force people to provide products and services to a wedding they strenuously oppose.

No easy answers on this one. Hate to say it but I think this law should be vetoed and I expect that it will.

Max Rockatansky
02-25-2014, 11:07 PM
People must have rights to exercise their religious beliefs, when it comes with gay behavior. We have are First Amendment rights that protects our rights to refuse service unto people whose behavior is abnormal in God'w views.

Like people with dogs and liquor? Unmarried women in the company of a non-relative man?

patrickt
02-26-2014, 06:22 AM
Liberals love forcing people to do things. It actually excites them. Forcing Catholics to provide abortions makes them giggle. Forcing a baker to make a cake for a gay couple makes them feel so righteous. Forcing a German family back to prison in Germany was a righteous liberal act for those on the left.

Stopping people from doing something isn't nearly as exciting to liberals as forcing people to do things.

I find it amusing that liberals will demand that a baker who is a fundamentalist Christian be forced to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. And, they'd accept it. I would never accept a cake a liberal was forced to bake because I wouldn't dare eat it.

Gerrard Winstanley
02-26-2014, 06:40 AM
But is it government's business to meddle in any private decision howsoever it is "stupid" to you personally?
Refusing to do business with a perfectly complementary individual based on some abstract doctrinal prejudice doesn't sound stupid to you?

Max Rockatansky
02-26-2014, 06:45 AM
Refusing to do business with a perfectly complementary individual based on some abstract doctrinal prejudice doesn't sound stupid to you?

It is stupid. The only thing more stupid are people who think they can legislate stupidity.

Gerrard Winstanley
02-26-2014, 06:46 AM
Yes... you're atheist... thanks for wearing it on your sleeve.

What we believe or don't believe is not the issue, the issue is that: a) Your religious freedom ends where my personal freedom begins, b) If we allow bigoted "Christians" to practice bigotry in the name of "religious freedom", then we have to allow any spaghetti monster cult to practice their own "religious freedoms" in whatever form they choose basically.

And yeah, the RW bucket brigade will stomp their feet and whine but at the end of the day if this was about disallowing service to conservatives for example, they would be stomping their feet for a different reason.
I honestly have no problem with people allowing their personal prejudices to spill over into the business sphere, but it's going to make them look retarded in the long run and isn't particularly economical. The myriad of court cases merited by government and court intervention fosters even more of a quagmire.

Gerrard Winstanley
02-26-2014, 06:46 AM
It is stupid. The only thing more stupid are people who think they can legislate stupidity.
See my last post.

Max Rockatansky
02-26-2014, 07:12 AM
It's on Gov. Brewer's desk. She said "I can assure you, as always, I will do the right thing for the state of Arizona". Speculation is that she will veto the bill.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/25/politics/brewer-arizona-religious-freedom/

All signs indicate Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer will likely veto politically-charged legislation that supporters say promotes religious freedom and opponents contend discriminates against gays and lesbians.Brewer did not signal her intention either way in an exclusive interview with CNN on Monday at the National Governors Association meeting in Washington.

"I can assure you, as always, I will do the right thing for the state of Arizona," she said.

But some Arizona Republicans who know her well say they are confident those comments mean Brewer will almost surely reject the bill that is generating nationwide controversy.

The Republican-led measure would allow Arizona business owners to deny service to gay and lesbian customers as long as they assert their religious beliefs.

Brewer is scheduled to return to Arizona on Tuesday, and a source tells CNN those familiar with her thinking say she will likely spend at least one full business day in the state before acting.

"I'm going to go home, and when I receive the bill, I'm going to read it and I'm going to be briefed on it. We have been following it. And I will make my decision in the near future," Brewer told CNN.

She has until Saturday to sign or veto the bill. If she does nothing, it automatically becomes law.

Arizona GOP sources say Brewer considers herself a pro-business governor -- someone who above all else wants to protect and promote Arizona's economic interests.

They say she knows full well there will be economic consequences for the state if it has a law on the books perceived to effectively codify discrimination.

"I have a history of deliberating and having an open dialogue on bills that are controversial, to listen to both sides of those issues, and I welcome the input, and information that they can provide to me. And certainly I am pro-business, and that is what's turning our economy around, so I appreciate their input, as I appreciate the other side," Brewer said.

Business leaders in Arizona and around the country, including the chief executive of American Airlines, have urged Brewer publicly and privately to veto the bill.

Approval also is likely to trigger lawsuits.

The bill was pushed by the Center for Arizona Policy, a conservative group opposed to abortion and same-sex marriage.

The group argues the proposal protects people against increasingly activist federal courts.

Brewer vetoed a similar bill last year, arguing that the state legislature should focus on more pressing issues, such as a Medicaid expansion plan she was promoting.

Sources say she is concerned about this bill taking away from other issues she is now pressing, such as overhauling Arizona's child protective services system.

Chris
02-26-2014, 08:03 AM
But is it government's business to meddle in any private decision howsoever it is "stupid" to you personally?


Refusing to do business with a perfectly complementary individual based on some abstract doctrinal prejudice doesn't sound stupid to you?



Seems to me I included howsoever.

Question remains, for which you failed to respond, what business is it of government's if a business want to be "stupid"?

Chris
02-26-2014, 08:05 AM
I honestly have no problem with people allowing their personal prejudices to spill over into the business sphere, but it's going to make them look retarded in the long run and isn't particularly economical. The myriad of court cases merited by government and court intervention fosters even more of a quagmire.

Good, you seem to say now it's not government's business.

Cigar
02-26-2014, 08:07 AM
I'm sure the next Bill will be separate Water Fountains ...

http://www.madisonavenuejournal.com/images/mlk1.jpg

Codename Section
02-26-2014, 08:08 AM
I wouldn't, but how would anyone know?

Will there always be signs that say gays not served here?

Why do they need a special law and where does it stop?

That amounts to forcing religion on the public and needing a government to enforce it.

I think people who would put signs in their windows will find their shops vandalized and they will lose business. The world has changed and haters exist in smaller numbers.

More damage is done by telling people that they cannot refuse service than by telling them they must serve. When will it end?

Wanting to force bigots to do what they don't want to do is a fun past time for progressives because bigots are nasty people and everyone wants to see them "get theirs", but that's vengeance not justice. It's two wrongs not a right and wrong.

In the end all that happens is that our bodies and labor ceases to belong to us and bigots find other ways of getting out their frustrations on the part of people they feel are infringing on them.

The best thing in this world that could happen to gays and lesbians is if businesses put up signs that say they won't serve them. They can watch with glee as the community puts those fucks out of business.

Cigar
02-26-2014, 08:11 AM
http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/70576/large/refuse3_copy.jpg?1393255109

Codename Section
02-26-2014, 08:12 AM
http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/70576/large/refuse3_copy.jpg?1393255109


^^This is how it should be handled. Individual people handling bigots, not the government.

Also, to your picture publicly paid for facilities should always be a different story.

Chris
02-26-2014, 08:16 AM
I'm sure the next Bill will be separate Water Fountains ...

http://www.madisonavenuejournal.com/images/mlk1.jpg



And that was the government you so love to promote as the solution to everything.

Chris
02-26-2014, 08:18 AM
^^This is how it should be handled. Individual people handling bigots, not the government.

Also, to your picture publicly paid for facilities should always be a different story.



Rights laws should restrict government action and guarantee equality before the law.

Cigar
02-26-2014, 08:18 AM
And that was the government you so love to promote as the solution to everything.

Yep and they are still in the South ... :laugh: so what's your point?

Some people evolve ... others become extinct :grin:

Codename Section
02-26-2014, 08:21 AM
Yep and they are still in the South ... :laugh: so what's your point?

Some people evolve ... others become extinct :grin:

There are white and colored toilets still in the south?

I call bullshit. Let's see some links to this.

Chris
02-26-2014, 08:29 AM
Yea, cigar, link or lie.

Mainecoons
02-26-2014, 08:31 AM
Yep and they are still in the South ... :laugh: so what's your point?

Some people evolve ... others become extinct :grin:

http://img.washingtonpost.com/rw/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/fact-checker/StandingArt/pinocchio_4.jpg

Max Rockatansky
02-26-2014, 08:35 AM
There are white and colored toilets still in the south?

I call bullshit. Let's see some links to this.

Yes there are! I've seen them!!! Of course, all were in museums. :)

Greensboro, NC
http://www.sitinmovement.org/index.asp

Memphis, TN
http://www.civilrightsmuseum.org/

Birmingham, AL
https://www.bcri.org/index.html

Mainecoons
02-26-2014, 08:38 AM
In museums is not quite what our resident black race baiter was suggesting, now is it?

Cigar
02-26-2014, 08:42 AM
There are white and colored toilets still in the south?

I call bullshit. Let's see some links to this.

Did anyone say there's are white and colored toilets still in the south?


Fact: The Religious Right is losing ground ... yet again.

Cigar
02-26-2014, 08:44 AM
I'm sure the next Bill will be separate Water Fountains ...

http://www.madisonavenuejournal.com/images/mlk1.jpg

Bumping ... the those intelligent enough to comprehend English

Codename Section
02-26-2014, 08:45 AM
Did anyone say there's are white and colored toilets still in the south?


Fact: The Religious Right is losing ground ... yet again.

You implied it. Also what does "the south" have to do with the west? Arizona and California aren't considered "the south".

Cigar
02-26-2014, 08:47 AM
You implied it. Also what does "the south" have to do with the west? Arizona and California aren't considered "the south".

That isn't the same as saying they still exist ... but I'll accept your apology anyway :laugh:

Ravi
02-26-2014, 08:47 AM
Yep and they are still in the South ... :laugh: so what's your point?

Some people evolve ... others become extinct :grin:
Yes, there are governments in the south that would still love to discriminate against certain groups. Mexicans come to mind, and gays of course.

If this law is signed it will just encourage them.

Gerrard Winstanley
02-26-2014, 08:50 AM
Good, you seem to say now it's not government's business.
As I've been saying all this time?

Alyosha
02-26-2014, 08:51 AM
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. on Chicago:

I have never seen such hate. Not in Mississippi or Alabama.


On Chicago's ghettos:

a system of internal colonialism not unlike the exploitation of the Congo by Belgium.

http://prospect.org/article/dr-king-forgotten-radicalNortherners hide their racism under a veneer of patronization. If I were black I'd rather be feared and hated than be someone's kept adult child.

Max Rockatansky
02-26-2014, 08:55 AM
That isn't the same as saying they still exist ... but I'll accept your apology anyway :laugh:
It appears that is exactly what you were saying. Please quit race-baiting, Cigar. It just puts you on the same level as other racists.


Yep and they are still in the South ... :laugh: so what's your point?

Some people evolve ... others become extinct :grin:
Bumping ... the those intelligent enough to comprehend English

Ravi
02-26-2014, 09:00 AM
It appears that is exactly what you were saying. Please quit race-baiting, Cigar. It just puts you on the same level as other racists.

You forgot to include the post Cigar was replying to. Otherwise it would be clear he was referring to governments, not toilets.

Alyosha
02-26-2014, 09:04 AM
This entire "religious freedom bill" and the hysteria on both sides over it would be funny if it weren't 100% indicative of the level of shallow thinking that has permeated this country and led us to the brink of economic and political disenfranchisement.

The bill says only that you may legally discriminate for religious reasons. Rightly so. You might also be allowed to legally discriminate for stupid reasons if your funds, time, labor, and efforts created that business and be punished by the invisible and strong hand of the marketplace.

Even if the progressives got their way all that would happen is that people lie about why they are discriminating, not that they would stop, thus leaving gays and lesbians with the only recourse to feel better about themselves (because by the time the lawsuit was completed they would have already shopped somewhere else) is to spend thousands of dollars in legal fees to maybe receive a settlement commensurate to the price of a cake or photography.

Wow. Excellent plan there.

This isn't about being pragmatic or practical but forcing an ideology, either right or left, onto someone out of revenge.

Alyosha
02-26-2014, 09:05 AM
You forgot to include the post Cigar was replying to. Otherwise it would be clear he was referring to governments, not toilets.

Yo Ravindine, wassup with the signature line? Kinda bitchy isn't it?

Codename Section
02-26-2014, 09:11 AM
I hadn't noticed that. :(

Chris
02-26-2014, 09:11 AM
You implied it. Also what does "the south" have to do with the west? Arizona and California aren't considered "the south".



Oh, give the race baiter a break, he immediately backed off and ate crow.

Chris
02-26-2014, 09:14 AM
This entire "religious freedom bill" and the hysteria on both sides over it would be funny if it weren't 100% indicative of the level of shallow thinking that has permeated this country and led us to the brink of economic and political disenfranchisement.

The bill says only that you may legally discriminate for religious reasons. Rightly so. You might also be allowed to legally discriminate for stupid reasons if your funds, time, labor, and efforts created that business and be punished by the invisible and strong hand of the marketplace.

Even if the progressives got their way all that would happen is that people lie about why they are discriminating, not that they would stop, thus leaving gays and lesbians with the only recourse to feel better about themselves (because by the time the lawsuit was completed they would have already shopped somewhere else) is to spend thousands of dollars in legal fees to maybe receive a settlement commensurate to the price of a cake or photography.

Wow. Excellent plan there.

This isn't about being pragmatic or practical but forcing an ideology, either right or left, onto someone out of revenge.



Exactly, this is just another shallow partisan, left and right, fight that will either way lead to more government intrusion into private lives.

Chris
02-26-2014, 09:20 AM
I hadn't noticed that. :(



Hide postbits. Ignore it. :-P

Alyosha
02-26-2014, 09:26 AM
Hide postbits. Ignore it. :-P

He's too nice. I would have had issue with it. You can't be friends with everyone and you shouldn't even try.

Polecat
02-26-2014, 09:28 AM
Has anyone else noticed how stupid laws make it necessary to enact more stupid laws? It is like throwing shit on a pile of shit trying to hide the stink. What we need is a totally different approach. Instead of writing more dumb ass laws we need an era of legislation that removes dumb ass laws from the books.

Max Rockatansky
02-26-2014, 09:29 AM
You forgot to include the post Cigar was replying to. Otherwise it would be clear he was referring to governments, not toilets.

Bumping the picture of the water fountains was a clue that he was referring to those.

nic34
02-26-2014, 09:40 AM
Keep in mind in most of Arizona, businesses don’t need a license to discriminate against gays: It’s already legal.


But legal experts say the bill would without a doubt allow more discrimination against gay people – at least in Phoenix, Flagstaff and Tucson, which have enacted their own, more stringent anti-discrimination ordinances that cover sexual orientation. In the rest of the state, gays do not have such legal protections and the bill would not make a difference, legal authorities say.

http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2014/02/25/reality-vs-rhetoric-in-the-az-sb1062-debate-religious-freedom-lgbt/#ixzz2uRGzTxK0


SB 1062 is intended to amend Section 41-1493 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, which prevents "any law, including state and local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and policies" from "substantially burden[ing]" a person's exercise of religion, unless the burden is the least restrictive means of furthering a "compelling government interest".

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.pdf

SB 1062 takes direct aim at Phoenix's anti-discrimination ordinance, passed in March 2013, which made it unlawful to deny a person employment, housing or public accommodation on the basis of sexual orientation, said Seth Scott, policy director for the mayor's office.

http://www.kpho.com/story/24819923/phoenix-city-council-votes-to-urge-governor-to-veto-sb-1062

The state at the very least should respect local ordinances.

Chris
02-26-2014, 09:55 AM
Keep in mind in most of Arizona, businesses don’t need a license to discriminate against gays: It’s already legal.


But legal experts say the bill would without a doubt allow more discrimination against gay people – at least in Phoenix, Flagstaff and Tucson, which have enacted their own, more stringent anti-discrimination ordinances that cover sexual orientation. In the rest of the state, gays do not have such legal protections and the bill would not make a difference, legal authorities say.

http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2014/02/25/reality-vs-rhetoric-in-the-az-sb1062-debate-religious-freedom-lgbt/#ixzz2uRGzTxK0


SB 1062 is intended to amend Section 41-1493 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, which prevents "any law, including state and local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and policies" from "substantially burden[ing]" a person's exercise of religion, unless the burden is the least restrictive means of furthering a "compelling government interest".

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.pdf

SB 1062 takes direct aim at Phoenix's anti-discrimination ordinance, passed in March 2013, which made it unlawful to deny a person employment, housing or public accommodation on the basis of sexual orientation, said Seth Scott, policy director for the mayor's office.

http://www.kpho.com/story/24819923/phoenix-city-council-votes-to-urge-governor-to-veto-sb-1062

The state at the very least should respect local ordinances.




Keep in mind in most of Arizona, businesses don’t need a license to discriminate against gays: It’s already legal.

Why the blatant distortion of reality, nic. A license to discriminate, what are you talking about? This is as bad as blad's last night insisting Amazon is exploiting it's workers.

Alyosha
02-26-2014, 11:26 AM
Keep in mind in most of Arizona, businesses don’t need a license to discriminate against gays: It’s already legal.


But legal experts say the bill would without a doubt allow more discrimination against gay people – at least in Phoenix, Flagstaff and Tucson, which have enacted their own, more stringent anti-discrimination ordinances that cover sexual orientation. In the rest of the state, gays do not have such legal protections and the bill would not make a difference, legal authorities say.

http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2014/02/25/reality-vs-rhetoric-in-the-az-sb1062-debate-religious-freedom-lgbt/#ixzz2uRGzTxK0


SB 1062 is intended to amend Section 41-1493 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, which prevents "any law, including state and local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and policies" from "substantially burden[ing]" a person's exercise of religion, unless the burden is the least restrictive means of furthering a "compelling government interest".

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.pdf

SB 1062 takes direct aim at Phoenix's anti-discrimination ordinance, passed in March 2013, which made it unlawful to deny a person employment, housing or public accommodation on the basis of sexual orientation, said Seth Scott, policy director for the mayor's office.

http://www.kpho.com/story/24819923/phoenix-city-council-votes-to-urge-governor-to-veto-sb-1062

The state at the very least should respect local ordinances.


I repeat, both the bill and the outrage against it are both misplaced.

I should be able to use my own resources how I see fit, and will. If I am a bigot I may lie and no one would know the difference, and in that lie I may also be hostile. For someone to have legal power over me they would have to pay thousands to attorneys (attorneys who wrote these bills and wrote bills in the converse direction) to gain nothing but pleasure for the courts do not pay out huge settlements for cases where the only harm shown is in refusal of service.

This isn't like a cop beating a black kid. Not selling you a pizza will not result in monetary reward.

Discrimination occurs every day but our laws prevent us from overtly knowing it or being able to face these bigots down and give them a piece of our mind.

The fight for 'religious freedom' is feel good and meaningless in this instance and the fight for gays and lesbians in this instance is feel good and meaningless. Attorneys will be the only ones to benefit.

midcan5
02-26-2014, 11:36 AM
Dear God,

This is a letter from James, but you already knew that. I know I am being presumptuous but I wanted to share some thoughts.


What is it about all these people who fear gay people? Let them marry too. Jeez - oh sorry, that may be blasphemous, I'll stop using it. But heck, you've seen Jerry Springer and Maury Povich and Dr Phil, I mean I can't figure out why heterosexual marriage is considered a good thing! Can you? Sure causes a lot more pain for people than gay people do. All those crazy people raising and often amusing children.

My brother is gay, I know you knew that, but you must also know he was always that way, you made him right? Anyway I knew it quite young, no one decides these things. I can't remember when girls, women, woke up that longing in me. I know that was no balancing act, no choice, they still drive me wild, just a bit less so as age unfolds. That Scarlett Johansson sure is something! You made a good one there. Oh, I know I shouldn't say that.


Given poverty, cancer, terrorism, hatred, and other bad stuff, seems people often worry about things that just are the way they are. Enough thoughts for now, hope the weather is nice where you are and the family is well.


Take care, you know who




Constitutional Correction

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men (this includes women) are not equal, that some should not be served especially if they were endowed by their Creator with gayness or brownness or some other differentness in our eyes, that among these qualities are lots of potential reasons to deny them service that will be determined in a pursuit of our Happiness, our ideological framework of justice, and our religious framework of piety. Amen

.

Alyosha
02-26-2014, 11:42 AM
Dear God,

This is a letter from James, but you already knew that. I know I am being presumptuous but I wanted to share some thoughts.


What is it about all these people who fear gay people? Let them marry too. Jeez - oh sorry, that may be blasphemous, I'll stop using it. But heck, you've seen Jerry Springer and Maury Povich and Dr Phil, I mean I can't figure out why heterosexual marriage is considered a good thing! Can you? Sure causes a lot more pain for people than gay people do. All those crazy people raising and often amusing children.

My brother is gay, I know you knew that, but you must also know he was always that way, you made him right? Anyway I knew it quite young, no one decides these things. I can't remember when girls, women, woke up that longing in me. I know that was no balancing act, no choice, they still drive me wild, just a bit less so as age unfolds. That Scarlett Johansson sure is something! You made a good one there. Oh, I know I shouldn't say that.


Given poverty, cancer, terrorism, hatred, and other bad stuff, seems people often worry about things that just are the way they are. Enough thoughts for now, hope the weather is nice where you are and the family is well.


Take care, you know who




Constitutional Correction

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men (this includes women) are not equal, that some should not be served especially if they were endowed by their Creator with gayness or brownness or some other differentness in our eyes, that among these qualities are lots of potential reasons to deny them service that will be determined in a pursuit of our Happiness, our ideological framework of justice, and our religious framework of piety. Amen

.



This is just incredibly boring and tiresome. Liberals haven't gotten any new material in 100 years or something. They might as well wear stickers that read:

I'm old. Get off my lawn.

Young people today reject this insult-driven, emotion soaking blather for philosophical consistency and freedom. You are a pawn, a cog in the machine of attorneys and blithely skip down the path because you feel you've gained something.

I've gained. I can make close to $400K a year without even trying simply by preying on the laws progressives write.

nic34
02-26-2014, 11:51 AM
I've gained. I can make close to $400K a year without even trying simply by preying on the laws progressives write.

So you can be a part of the 1% and feel good about it..... glad to help....

Alyosha
02-26-2014, 11:53 AM
So you can be a part of the 1% and feel good about it..... glad to help....

I'd rather not be, is my point. I am explaining the truth beyond laws and who they benefit for it is certainly not you, not gays, and not business owners but people like me.

Chris
02-26-2014, 11:55 AM
Dear God,

This is a letter from James, but you already knew that. I know I am being presumptuous but I wanted to share some thoughts.


What is it about all these people who fear gay people? Let them marry too. Jeez - oh sorry, that may be blasphemous, I'll stop using it. But heck, you've seen Jerry Springer and Maury Povich and Dr Phil, I mean I can't figure out why heterosexual marriage is considered a good thing! Can you? Sure causes a lot more pain for people than gay people do. All those crazy people raising and often amusing children.

My brother is gay, I know you knew that, but you must also know he was always that way, you made him right? Anyway I knew it quite young, no one decides these things. I can't remember when girls, women, woke up that longing in me. I know that was no balancing act, no choice, they still drive me wild, just a bit less so as age unfolds. That Scarlett Johansson sure is something! You made a good one there. Oh, I know I shouldn't say that.


Given poverty, cancer, terrorism, hatred, and other bad stuff, seems people often worry about things that just are the way they are. Enough thoughts for now, hope the weather is nice where you are and the family is well.


Take care, you know who




Constitutional Correction

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men (this includes women) are not equal, that some should not be served especially if they were endowed by their Creator with gayness or brownness or some other differentness in our eyes, that among these qualities are lots of potential reasons to deny them service that will be determined in a pursuit of our Happiness, our ideological framework of justice, and our religious framework of piety. Amen

.



Interesting how a liberal/progressive such as yourself wants to rewrite the Constitution.

Statism is a religion of the worst sort.

nic34
02-26-2014, 11:55 AM
Since everyone keeps missing the point.... is the BILL that Guv. Brew-ha-ha will veto.... because business realized that this BILL is bad for business... despite it being unnecessary:

the bill would without a doubt allow more discrimination against gay people – at least in Phoenix, Flagstaff and Tucson, which have enacted their own, more stringent anti-discrimination ordinances that cover sexual orientation. In the rest of the state, gays do not have such legal protections and the bill would not make a difference,

Alyosha
02-26-2014, 11:59 AM
Since everyone keeps missing the point.... is the BILL that Guv. Brew-ha-ha will veto.... because business realized that this BILL is bad for business... despite it being unnecessary:

the bill would without a doubt allow more discrimination against gay people – at least in Phoenix, Flagstaff and Tucson, which have enacted their own, more stringent anti-discrimination ordinances that cover sexual orientation. In the rest of the state, gays do not have such legal protections and the bill would not make a difference,



I don't miss the point. The point is laws for lawyers. That's the point of all bills and I say this as one in the profession.

Chris
02-26-2014, 12:00 PM
I'd rather not be, is my point. I am explaining the truth beyond laws and who they benefit for it is certainly not you, not gays, and not business owners but people like me.

nic, like other progressives, favors Obama's gutting the middle and lower classes to enrich the rich.

Alyosha
02-26-2014, 12:02 PM
nic, like other progressives, favors Obama's gutting the middle and lower classes to enrich the rich.

I think Nic wants to help the poor and trusts all the wrong people to do it. Considering that all the worst crimes in history have been due to misplaced trust, he's in good company.

The abuser of trust is worse, imo.

Chris
02-26-2014, 12:03 PM
Since everyone keeps missing the point.... is the BILL that Guv. Brew-ha-ha will veto.... because business realized that this BILL is bad for business... despite it being unnecessary:

the bill would without a doubt allow more discrimination against gay people – at least in Phoenix, Flagstaff and Tucson, which have enacted their own, more stringent anti-discrimination ordinances that cover sexual orientation. In the rest of the state, gays do not have such legal protections and the bill would not make a difference,





Perhaps you're just failing to make your point flailing on about something none but progressives like you understands. One minute it gays then next poor, what exploited class are you going to bemoan next?

Chris
02-26-2014, 12:05 PM
I think Nic wants to help the poor and trusts all the wrong people to do it. Considering that all the worst crimes in history have been due to misplaced trust, he's in good company.

The abuser of trust is worse, imo.



I think he wants others to help the poor and gays and others he sees as exploited. By entrusting others he "trusts all the wrong people to do it." The others being politicians of course, politicians left and right.

junie
02-26-2014, 12:10 PM
6145

The Sage of Main Street
02-26-2014, 12:13 PM
I honestly have no problem with people allowing their personal prejudices to spill over into the business sphere, but it's going to make them look retarded in the long run and isn't particularly economical. The myriad of court cases merited by government and court intervention fosters even more of a quagmire.

Why does it have to be uneconomical? I don't go to businesses that let panhandlers bother people entering or leaving the store. I and many other people would also get creeped out if a lot of queers were in a place. Boycotting a place is the same thing as a storekeeper banning these offensive customers if they keep many more customers from doing business in his store.

(By the way, and this is on-topic, thinking that "they" in the last sentence refers to "storekeeper" is a result of feminism, which causes homosexuality. It is also brain-damaging, just like Women's Liberation and Gay Rights are.)

junie
02-26-2014, 12:15 PM
Is it a violation of your civil rights for a business to refuse to serve you because of the way you look, the way you smell, or the way you act?

The answer is...it depends.


The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."



In addition to the protections against discrimination provided under federal law, many states have passed their own Civil Rights Acts that provide broader protections than the Federal Civil Rights Act. For example, California's Unruh Civil Rights Act makes it illegal to discriminate against individuals based on unconventional dress or sexual preference.


In the 1960s, the Unruh Civil Rights Act was interpreted to provide broad protection from arbitrary discrimination by business owners. Cases decided during that era held that business owners could not discriminate, for example, against hippies, police officers, homosexuals, or Republicans, solely because of who they were.


In cases in which the patron is not a member of a federally protected class, the question generally turns on whether the business's refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific interest in refusing service.

For example, in a recent case, a California court decided that a motorcycle club had no discrimination claim against a sports bar that had denied members admission to the bar because they refused to remove their "colors," or patches, which signified club membership. The court held that the refusal of service was not based on the club members' unconventional dress, but was to protect a legitimate business interest in preventing fights between rival club members.

On the other hand, a California court decided that a restaurant owner could not refuse to seat a gay couple in a semi-private booth where the restaurant policy was to only seat two people of opposite sexes in such booths. There was no legitimate business reason for the refusal of service, and so the discrimination was arbitrary and unlawful.


http://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/equal-rights/right-refuse-service

The Sage of Main Street
02-26-2014, 12:22 PM
6145

All these comparisons to other discriminations can be applied to pedophiles and will be. "O God, you made him that way, so how can you condemn your own work!"

nic34
02-26-2014, 12:24 PM
In the 1960s, the Unruh Civil Rights Act was interpreted to provide broad protection from arbitrary discrimination by business owners. Cases decided during that era held that business owners could not discriminate, for example, against hippies, police officers, homosexuals, or Republicans, solely because of who they were.



I remember that, man!

Too bad good ol' Jessie lost to Ronnie in '70....

Mister D
02-26-2014, 12:27 PM
I remember that, man!

Too bad good ol' Jessie lost to Ronnie in '70....

Wait...you said you voted for and admired Barry Goldwater. That is, you said you voted for and admired a man who in fact believed a private business owner should be able to discriminate as said owner sees fit.

The Sage of Main Street
02-26-2014, 12:30 PM
We can avoid this conflict and happily wallow in our own degeneracy if we change the marriage situation to the husband being required to be totally dominated by the wife. Then the son, with his natural male desire to dominate, will want to become a woman or at least have a manwife. The daughter, with her natural female desire to be dominated, will seek a bulldyke girlhubby, since she'll never find a man of this New Age to dominate her and give her fulfillment.

Codename Section
02-26-2014, 12:32 PM
This is about trying to make everyone be nice instead of being smart. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Rights lost are never regained, and these laws will just grow until you no longer own anything by yourself.

I'd like just one progressive to tell me why a boycott can't work and a law can.

Mister D
02-26-2014, 12:34 PM
This is about trying to make everyone be nice instead of being smart. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Rights lost are never regained, and these laws will just grow until you no longer own anything by yourself.

I'd like just one progressive to tell me why a boycott can't work and a law can.

Why must something "work"? Can you not just leave people alone? If you want to make your self-righteous disgust known by all means do so. If, however, your cause is so just why do you need the power of the state?

AmazonTania
02-26-2014, 12:36 PM
Because we love wasting taxpayer money on litigation?

Ravi
02-26-2014, 12:39 PM
Young people today reject this insult-driven, emotion soaking blather for philosophical consistency and freedom.
You are a pawn, a cog in the machine of attorneys and blithely skip down the path because you feel you've gained something.

I've gained. I can make close to $400K a year without even trying simply by preying on the laws progressives write.

^LMAO. Talk about insult-driven, emotion soaking blather.

Codename Section
02-26-2014, 12:40 PM
^LMAO. Talk about insult-driven, emotion soaking blather.

It's insult driven but where is the emotion? By the way, I'm speaking as a person not a mod or poster. You can update your signature now.

Ravi
02-26-2014, 12:42 PM
It's insult driven but where is the emotion? By the way, I'm speaking as a person not a mod or poster. You can update your signature now.
What does that mean?

Chris
02-26-2014, 12:44 PM
http://thepoliticalforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=6145&d=1393434499

No Irish! Oh my! Guess that leaves half of me out. And I so much wanted that cart to put before my horse.

Chris
02-26-2014, 12:47 PM
^LMAO. Talk about insult-driven, emotion soaking blather.

^LMAO. Talk about insult-driven, emotion soaking blather.

Chloe
02-26-2014, 07:45 PM
To me it seems like a bill that would basically allow for discrimination in the name of religion. It does more to keep people divided than to bring people together I think.

Max Rockatansky
02-26-2014, 08:29 PM
To me it seems like a bill that would basically allow for discrimination in the name of religion. It does more to keep people divided than to bring people together I think.
Agreed on both points.

However, here is the alternative. Did you like it when your parents (if they ever did) told you not to associate with a certain person or that you had to do things a certain way as long as you lived under their roof? Now, as an adult, you have government doing the same thing.

Chloe
02-26-2014, 08:56 PM
Agreed on both points.

However, here is the alternative. Did you like it when your parents (if they ever did) told you not to associate with a certain person or that you had to do things a certain way as long as you lived under their roof? Now, as an adult, you have government doing the same thing.

Fair enough but my parents never told me not to associate with someone because of their sexual orientation, religion, race, wealth, and so on. If they did it was because of behaviors that would get me in trouble or something, although I never really associated with those kinds of people anyway.

Max Rockatansky
02-26-2014, 09:35 PM
Fair enough but my parents never told me not to associate with someone because of their sexual orientation, religion, race, wealth, and so on. If they did it was because of behaviors that would get me in trouble or something, although I never really associated with those kinds of people anyway.Key point, "If they did it was because of behaviors that would get" you in to trouble. Those on the Right call this "Nanny State" behavior when a government does this and I completely agree with them in that case.

Seriy
02-27-2014, 11:50 AM
I just read the news that Arizona governor vetoed this bill. Tragic story for the people of Faith. We indeed live in the USA that is The United Sodom of America. Back to the days of Lot and the late days of Roman empire, when it fell.

Captain Obvious
02-27-2014, 11:55 AM
Yeah, tragic.

Sucks to be a bigot nowadays.

Kabuki Joe
02-27-2014, 11:59 AM
What makes you an asshole to not want to take photographs of two men kissing? What makes it being an asshole to not want to perform an abortion? Who decides what is assholery? I think someone using a law to force me to work for them is an asshole. What about the Klan member that forces you not to discriminate against him and work for him whether you want to or not?

There are enough businesses out there to choose from, why not choose to do business with people who like you? There are more businesses now than there were 40 or 50 years ago. Why force the one business in your town who doesn't want to hire you or do business with you to do it when you can use your money and time smartly by giving it to non racists and bigots?

This is just feel good. It makes akula feel good to say negro and it makes some minorities feel good to punish assholes. Neither accomplishes anything.


...excellent post...

Seriy
02-27-2014, 12:03 PM
This veto will demonize many moral Americans. Sodomites play games with hell fire. They do nothing good, but provoking vigilantes who go and lynch them. I say Westboro Baptist Church ministers behave as angels, if to compare them with vigilantes.

Kabuki Joe
02-27-2014, 12:06 PM
How would you give your hard labor and passion to someone that won't hire you to begin with?


...you aren't giving anything unless you are a volunteer, otherwise you are getting paid for your services...

Ravi
02-27-2014, 12:08 PM
I just read the news that Arizona governor vetoed this bill. Tragic story for the people of Faith. We indeed live in the USA that is The United Sodom of America. Back to the days of Lot and the late days of Roman empire, when it fell.

Sodom was destroyed because they were inhospitable. So actually, the passage of this bill would have been against God's teachings.

Thanks for the reminder.

Mainecoons
02-27-2014, 12:12 PM
Sodom was destroyed because it was awash in sin.

We know you like to rewrite history, kindly don't attempt to rewrite the bible, you just look foolish. . . .again.

Seriy
02-27-2014, 12:13 PM
Sodom was destroyed because they were inhospitable. So actually, the passage of this bill would have been against God's teachings.

Thanks for the reminder.
Oh no. The prime factor of Sodom destruction was GLBT sin in Jude 1:7 as strange flesh. And in Genesis 19:1-29 truly told what sodomites wanted to do with the angels who came to rescue Lot from this curse of God against those evil towns. Inhospitality was as the rest of their sins as we got in America today.

Captain Obvious
02-27-2014, 12:18 PM
http://lh4.ggpht.com/-z4aAEXWAU_g/Tr_VkyPZYBI/AAAAAAAADEg/Di5g2HYIA58/end-religious-bigotry-and-ignorance.png?imgmax=800

Captain Obvious
02-27-2014, 12:20 PM
http://blueollie.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/cherrypick.jpg

Ravi
02-27-2014, 12:24 PM
Oh no. The prime factor of Sodom destruction was GLBT sin in Jude 1:7 as strange flesh. And in Genesis 19:1-29 truly told what sodomites wanted to do with the angels who came to rescue Lot from this curse of God against those evil towns. Inhospitality was as the rest of their sins as we got in America today.

Angels are certainly strange flesh. It is unclear if they wanted to "know" them sexually or "know" who they were.

killianr1
02-27-2014, 12:25 PM
I just read the news that Arizona governor vetoed this bill. Tragic story for the people of Faith. We indeed live in the USA that is The United Sodom of America. Back to the days of Lot and the late days of Roman empire, when it fell.

As a gay Christian, I can say that I forgive you for your small minded attitude.

Seriy
02-27-2014, 12:39 PM
As a gay Christian, I can say that I forgive you for your small minded attitude.
There are no such things as "gay Christians", "bank robbers Christians", etc. People who worship Jesus in vain and don't turn away from their perversions, these people will not enter Heaven. 1 Cor 6:9-10. Proverbs 14:12. You rebel against Romans 1:24-27,32, Leviticus 18:22, Jude 1:7.

Seriy
02-27-2014, 12:42 PM
Angels are certainly strange flesh. It is unclear if they wanted to "know" them sexually or "know" who they were.
Angels are saints and not strange flesh. Angels and demons are spiritual bodies and they all are asexual. Strange flesh stands for everything that is committed against God's nature as GLBT, sex with animals, necrophilia, pedophiles, and other perverted sex.

killianr1
02-27-2014, 12:45 PM
But on the other side of the coin there is this; "no shirts, no shoes, no entry"?

Is that a discriminatory act against people who choose to wear no shirts or shoes? Or it could be a discriminatory act against those who can not afford shirts or shoes.

At what point is the government overstepping it bounds by trying to control the marketplace?

Can the marketplace not sort it out on it's own. Most successful business people accept customers no matter their race, religion, color, or sexual orientation.

It seems a bit overstepping on the governments part.

Ravi
02-27-2014, 12:48 PM
Angels are saints and not strange flesh. Angels and demons are spiritual bodies and they all are asexual. Strange flesh stands for everything that is committed against God's nature as GLBT, sex with animals, necrophilia, pedophiles, and other perverted sex.Incorrect. The angels were identified as men, were they not? They were flesh at the time. Strange flesh.

killianr1
02-27-2014, 12:49 PM
There are no such things as "gay Christians", "bank robbers Christians", etc. People who worship Jesus in vain and don't turn away from their perversions, these people will not enter Heaven. 1 Cor 6:9-10. Proverbs 14:12. You rebel against Romans 1:24-27,32, Leviticus 18:22, Jude 1:7.


Being gay is not a perversions. God made me this way.

You must think that I "choose" to be gay.

So let me pose this question to you.

On what day month and year did you decide to be straight?

Chris
02-27-2014, 12:54 PM
But on the other side of the coin there is this; "no shirts, no shoes, no entry"?

Is that a discriminatory act against people who choose to wear no shirts or shoes? Or it could be a discriminatory act against those who can not afford shirts or shoes.

At what point is the government overstepping it bounds by trying to control the marketplace?

Can the marketplace not sort it out on it's own. Most successful business people accept customers no matter their race, religion, color, or sexual orientation.

It seems a bit overstepping on the governments part.



So far as I can see, way overstepping, at the federal level anyhow, is government is granted only the power "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes."

Not finding much in Arizona State Constitution.

killianr1
02-27-2014, 12:55 PM
There are no such things as "gay Christians", "bank robbers Christians", etc. People who worship Jesus in vain and don't turn away from their perversions, these people will not enter Heaven. 1 Cor 6:9-10. Proverbs 14:12. You rebel against Romans 1:24-27,32, Leviticus 18:22, Jude 1:7.

And there are those amongst us who carry the blood of Christ in their veins. Somehow I don't believe you are one.

For only through the blood of Christ shall you enter the Kingdom of heaven.

I'm safe.

Chris
02-27-2014, 12:55 PM
Being gay is not a perversions. God made me this way.

You must think that I "choose" to be gay.

So let me pose this question to you.

On what day month and year did you decide to be straight?


I'd like to know on what day month year God decided Seriy was His spokesman.

Captain Obvious
02-27-2014, 01:02 PM
http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/BGTQxgw_aVM/0.jpg

Captain Obvious
02-27-2014, 01:03 PM
The Religious Right is one of the biggest frauds in history.

http://images.dangerousminds.net/uploads/images/chickfilamemejkdjdjdjd.jpeg

Captain Obvious
02-27-2014, 01:05 PM
http://cdn.ebaumsworld.com/thumbs/gallery/77662/83163428.jpg

Captain Obvious
02-27-2014, 01:05 PM
http://api.ning.com/files/ZzgoSrxTNUkebENbiCj4jed6T8s-dE-M3ejFf5RShcusIFdOIP-QRlKHDDQjwXWLNgoA3xx9GrW27bvpKQxtfRyPUWiAC48M/religioncrack.jpg?width=500&height=500

Chris
02-27-2014, 01:06 PM
The Religious Right is one of the biggest frauds in history.

http://images.dangerousminds.net/uploads/images/chickfilamemejkdjdjdjd.jpeg



^^That was when I stopped going to Chick-fil-A.

Captain Obvious
02-27-2014, 01:07 PM
http://coffeeforclosers.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/westborobaptistchurch.png

Captain Obvious
02-27-2014, 01:08 PM
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-6iXtBdANoDI/Tz1ohFCjKgI/AAAAAAAAA7g/sEwPmArdfbM/s1600/Rick+Santorum+-+Religious+Freedom.jpg

Mister D
02-27-2014, 01:18 PM
http://api.ning.com/files/ZzgoSrxTNUkebENbiCj4jed6T8s-dE-M3ejFf5RShcusIFdOIP-QRlKHDDQjwXWLNgoA3xx9GrW27bvpKQxtfRyPUWiAC48M/religioncrack.jpg?width=500&height=500

I find that they often turn away and then come back. I feel very fortunate that I was raised in a sacred tradition.

Captain Obvious
02-27-2014, 01:20 PM
I find that they often turn away and then come back. I feel very fortunate that I was raised in a sacred tradition.

The Amish do that. Or the Mennonites, or both.

There is a period of time I think in an Amish's persons life - late teens, early 20's when they are allowed to go out and live outside of Amish ways for a period of time and they can either elect to return to the Amish community or stay out and I think an overwhelming majority of them return.

Mister D
02-27-2014, 01:26 PM
The Amish do that. Or the Mennonites, or both.

There is a period of time I think in an Amish's persons life - late teens, early 20's when they are allowed to go out and live outside of Amish ways for a period of time and they can either elect to return to the Amish community or stay out and I think an overwhelming majority of them return.

I know that and the only reason I know is because I saw an episode of Breaking Amish or something like that.

Captain Obvious
02-27-2014, 01:27 PM
I know that and the only reason I know is because I saw an episode of Breaking Amish or something like that.

Fucking reality shows - LOL!

Seriy
02-27-2014, 01:30 PM
2 Peter 2:12-13. And these as natural brute beasts will be taken by God and will be destroyed. The natural brute beasts are sodomites mostly named in KJV Bible. This terminology means filthy stupid animals.

Mister D
02-27-2014, 01:32 PM
Fucking reality shows - LOL!

Dude, there are what...3 Amish shows now? :laugh:

Captain Obvious
02-27-2014, 01:33 PM
http://gigafytes.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/GAYMARRIAGE_CONSTITUTION.jpg

Captain Obvious
02-27-2014, 01:35 PM
This one's a fucking GREAT one!

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Ed7zIQ5MSVc/UFbgtWDd89I/AAAAAAAAJtg/9i0l_EJzuOs/s1600/religious-right-wing-nuts-christian-muslim-idiots-motivational-poster.jpg

Captain Obvious
02-27-2014, 01:38 PM
Dude, there are what...3 Amish shows now? :laugh:

I have no clue.

nathanbforrest45
02-27-2014, 01:48 PM
Being gay is not a perversions. God made me this way.

You must think that I "choose" to be gay.

So let me pose this question to you.

On what day month and year did you decide to be straight?

December 6, 1944

Ravi
02-27-2014, 01:54 PM
2 Peter 2:12-13. And these as natural brute beasts will be taken by God and will be destroyed. The natural brute beasts are sodomites mostly named in KJV Bible. This terminology means filthy stupid animals.
That passage is about false teachers. It may even be referring to you.

Polecat
02-27-2014, 01:55 PM
I know an Amish guy. He left the community because of the ridiculous tenants that are pretty much dictated locally by the elders. In his community you could buy a tractor but had to remove factory tires and install metal wheels. Of coarse this was only done after the tractor was paid for in full. A wise guy figured out that he could talk the tractor dealer into carrying a balance on his tractor indefinitely so he could keep the factory tires. The elder figured out what was going on and paid the balance out of his own pocket just to force the compliance of smarty pants. On a happier note I find Amish girls to be HOT! Trouble is they don't seem to care whether or not you can part your eyebrows with your tongue. Anyone got some pointers?

Captain Obvious
02-27-2014, 01:56 PM
That passage is about false teachers. It may even be referring to you.

zing

Captain Obvious
02-27-2014, 01:57 PM
I know an Amish guy. He left the community because of the ridiculous tenants that are pretty much dictated locally by the elders. In his community you could buy a tractor but had to remove factory tires and install metal wheels. Of coarse this was only done after the tractor was paid for in full. A wise guy figured out that he could talk the tractor dealer into carrying a balance on his tractor indefinitely so he could keep the factory tires. The elder figured out what was going on and paid the balance out of his own pocket just to force the compliance of smarty pants. On a happier note I find Amish girls to be HOT! Trouble is they don't seem to care whether or not you can part your eyebrows with your tongue. Anyone got some pointers?

I'm not sure they use toilet paper and I'm pretty sure they don't shave, so be careful down there.

kilgram
02-27-2014, 02:02 PM
I just read the news that Arizona governor vetoed this bill. Tragic story for the people of Faith. We indeed live in the USA that is The United Sodom of America. Back to the days of Lot and the late days of Roman empire, when it fell.
Good news. So religious people must impose their reactionary will on the rest. No, thank you.

Yeah, freedom is nasty. Is better the "religious freedom" to do as God mandates and don't disobey him. Yeah.

And later you get mad on me when I say that religion is dangerous. Fuck, if everyday religious people prove my point.

kilgram
02-27-2014, 02:03 PM
2 Peter 2:12-13. And these as natural brute beasts will be taken by God and will be destroyed. The natural brute beasts are sodomites mostly named in KJV Bible. This terminology means filthy stupid animals.
Is USA a religious government? Because if it is not. Religion or religious passages have nothing to do on this.

By the way, why your fantasy must be the one to be followed by government and not fantasies like the FSM, Jedi religion or any other.

Chris
02-27-2014, 02:08 PM
Good news. So religious people must impose their reactionary will on the rest. No, thank you.

Yeah, freedom is nasty. Is better the "religious freedom" to do as God mandates and don't disobey him. Yeah.

And later you get mad on me when I say that religion is dangerous. Fuck, if everyday religious people prove my point.


Religious freedom frees us from such dictates.

Chris
02-27-2014, 02:09 PM
Is USA a religious government? Because if it is not. Religion or religious passages have nothing to do on this.



It's not. Therefore it's funny, and ironic, that some on the right, and many more on the left try to make it into a religious thing.

Captain Obvious
02-27-2014, 02:09 PM
Is USA a religious government? Because if it is not. Religion or religious passages have nothing to do on this.

By the way, why your fantasy must be the one to be followed by government and not fantasies like the FSM, Jedi religion or any other.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/t1/s403x403/1780845_10152012788601275_156850550_n.jpg

The Sage of Main Street
02-27-2014, 03:00 PM
I just read the news that Arizona governor vetoed this bill. Tragic story for the people of Faith. We indeed live in the USA that is The United Sodom of America. Back to the days of Lot and the late days of Roman empire, when it fell.

Rome fell after it became Christian. It is an escapist religion and neglects civic duty. Way back in the 18th Century, Edward Gibbon wrote about that in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Where have you been?

kilgram
02-27-2014, 03:02 PM
Religious freedom frees us from such dictates.
Exactly, secularism secures religion freedom.

Chris
02-27-2014, 03:19 PM
Exactly, secularism secures religion freedom.



Secularism in that sense is no different than religion. Religious freedom means you're free to choose.

The Sage of Main Street
02-27-2014, 03:25 PM
Oh no. The prime factor of Sodom destruction was GLBT sin in Jude 1:7 as strange flesh. And in Genesis 19:1-29 truly told what sodomites wanted to do with the angels who came to rescue Lot from this curse of God against those evil towns. Inhospitality was as the rest of their sins as we got in America today.

The real Sodom and Gomorrah were probably destroyed by an ancient outbreak of AIDS. Why should we believe that this is a new disease?

The Sage of Main Street
02-27-2014, 03:34 PM
Angels are saints and not strange flesh. Angels and demons are spiritual bodies and they all are asexual. Strange flesh stands for everything that is committed against God's nature as GLBT, sex with animals, necrophilia, pedophiles, and other perverted sex.

Notice that the fairyphile psychiatrists don't call pedophilia "pedosexuality" and necrophilia "necrosexuality." There is no such thing as "homosexuality" either. It begs the question, tricking us into believing, "I've got my sexuality, they've got theirs."

Gays don't have a sexuality, they have a fetish of "proctophilia" and a mental disorder caused by an infantile fixation and fear of growing up. In other words, if agenda-driven New Age psychiatrists can call them "homosexuals," I can call them "heterophobes."

The Sage of Main Street
02-27-2014, 03:39 PM
Being gay is not a perversions. God made me this way.

You must think that I "choose" to be gay.

So let me pose this question to you.

On what day month and year did you decide to be straight?

As always, pedophiles could make the same argument. Sorry, but I can't tell you the date I decided not to molest underage boys. All I can say is that God didn't make me that way.

Kabuki Joe
02-27-2014, 03:57 PM
Now the ad homs .

Thanks for playing.

...but you didn't answer the question...

Kabuki Joe
02-27-2014, 04:00 PM
IMO, if they don't want to serve legal citizens they should look for other employment. They shouldn't have the state making laws that discriminate against people engaging in legal activities. It's un-american.

...they don't want to support a "ceremony" that conflicts with their beliefs...that's a bit different...I mean would you be forcing them to make stuff for satanic rituals/ceremonies?...I can answer that "yes" because it rubs Christians wrong...

midcan5
02-27-2014, 04:01 PM
This is just incredibly boring and tiresome. Liberals haven't gotten any new material in 100 years or something. They might as well wear stickers that read:

I'm old. Get off my lawn.

Young people today reject this insult-driven, emotion soaking blather for philosophical consistency and freedom. You are a pawn, a cog in the machine of attorneys and blithely skip down the path because you feel you've gained something.

I've gained. I can make close to $400K a year without even trying simply by preying on the laws progressives write.
Alyosha

That made no sense? What does that have to do with creating laws that discriminate against people because of their being who they are. You wouldn't know philosophical consistency if you fell over it. Get off your emotional 'I know better' shtick and consider another for a change. You narcissistic children are so boring and so spoiled and oh so tiring.

Kabuki Joe
02-27-2014, 04:02 PM
My business doesn't serve the public. If you elect to go into a business that serves the public then you should serve the public.


...what exactly is "serving the public"?...that's a wacky statement even for you...

Kabuki Joe
02-27-2014, 04:03 PM
@Ravi (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=698) aren't you pro-choice?


...only when it comes to killing fetuses...

Kabuki Joe
02-27-2014, 04:04 PM
No one is forcing anyone to be a baker or a photographer. You don't need a law to refuse someone service. Just say sorry, I'm booked that day.

What we have here is a state that wants to allow people to discriminate based on some religious voodoo nonsense. If I were gay I think I'd sue the state of Arizona and make them prove that the bible forbids homosexuality. Because it doesn't. Not that it really matters, the constitution disallows favoring religion.


...promote lying?...

Kabuki Joe
02-27-2014, 04:05 PM
You brought him up sport. You assumed he would support discrimination. I showed you his own words near the end of his life how he wouldn't.

Case closed dip shit.


...you can't call people names, it violates forum rules...

Kabuki Joe
02-27-2014, 04:08 PM
For the record people who refuse service to gays are probably pricks but that's really beside the point of freedom. It's also stupid as shit to allow emotions to override reason to the point where you will force someone who fucking hates you to bake your wedding cake in a back room behind closed doors.

Progressives want to punish arrogant and bigoted assholes. Libertarians want to ignore them and do our own funky thing.


...refusing to service gays is one thing, partake in and/or support a gay ceremony is another...

Kabuki Joe
02-27-2014, 04:09 PM
As a black man I don't want to do business with a racist, knowingly or not. Laws that force white assholes to hire me or serve me do me no real favors. For all I know they could be spitting in my food.

I'd rather know straight up. In fact, I would love it if they put a sign up in their window that says "I hate blacks". Then I would know who to fucking avoid.


...I've noticed you have a problem with whites yet you aren't prejudice...hmmmm...

Kabuki Joe
02-27-2014, 04:12 PM
And, whoosh, it went over yours, too. To be fair a law should be written to not discriminate. If a law is needed to keep people from dealing with teh gay, then it should allow people to claim a religious exemption for any reason whatsoever. Our white nationalists should be able to form their own little nutty sect and declare black people are against their religion.


...whites?...always whites...I don't see whites beheading gays for being gay anywhere...

Kabuki Joe
02-27-2014, 04:13 PM
Super Bowl XLIX is scheduled to be played at the University of Phoenix Stadium in Glendale, Ariz., on Feb. 1, 2015.

If Brewer signs the anti-gay bill, businesses are certain to boycott the game—and if the outrage reaches a sustained pitch, the NFL might follow suit and switch venues.




...that sounds like bullying to me...

Kabuki Joe
02-27-2014, 04:16 PM
I find it interesting how proponents of this law seem to be okay with allowing these businesses to keep their bigotry a secret, while raping their customers, instead of just letting customers hit bigots where it hurts: their wallets.


...would I use a business that didn't server gays?...blacks?...Hispanics?...whites?...we, since I'm white I'd have no choice and go down the street to the next one...OH THE HORROR!!!!!!!!!!!...

Kabuki Joe
02-27-2014, 04:18 PM
Refusing to do business with a perfectly complementary individual based on some abstract doctrinal prejudice doesn't sound stupid to you?


...nope...

Kabuki Joe
02-27-2014, 04:19 PM
I think people who would put signs in their windows will find their shops vandalized and they will lose business. The world has changed and haters exist in smaller numbers.

More damage is done by telling people that they cannot refuse service than by telling them they must serve. When will it end?

Wanting to force bigots to do what they don't want to do is a fun past time for progressives because bigots are nasty people and everyone wants to see them "get theirs", but that's vengeance not justice. It's two wrongs not a right and wrong.

In the end all that happens is that our bodies and labor ceases to belong to us and bigots find other ways of getting out their frustrations on the part of people they feel are infringing on them.

The best thing in this world that could happen to gays and lesbians is if businesses put up signs that say they won't serve them. They can watch with glee as the community puts those fucks out of business.


...because of societal bullying...when someone doesn't think like you, MAKE THEM!!!!!...

Kabuki Joe
02-27-2014, 04:24 PM
Why must something "work"? Can you not just leave people alone? If you want to make your self-righteous disgust known by all means do so. If, however, your cause is so just why do you need the power of the state?


...he's a leftist and he wants to look good...

Kabuki Joe
02-27-2014, 04:26 PM
To me it seems like a bill that would basically allow for discrimination in the name of religion. It does more to keep people divided than to bring people together I think.


...as an atheist I have no right to refuse to be a part of a gay ceremony...I said it...

Kabuki Joe
02-27-2014, 04:29 PM
Sodom was destroyed because they were inhospitable. So actually, the passage of this bill would have been against God's teachings.

Thanks for the reminder.


...you are the last person on earth that I believe when it comes to god and the bible...

Kabuki Joe
02-27-2014, 04:30 PM
Angels are certainly strange flesh. It is unclear if they wanted to "know" them sexually or "know" who they were.


...you should be a lawyer or politician...or maybe join the mafia...

Kabuki Joe
02-27-2014, 04:31 PM
As a gay Christian, I can say that I forgive you for your small minded attitude.


...no such thing...

Kabuki Joe
02-27-2014, 04:33 PM
Being gay is not a perversions. God made me this way.

You must think that I "choose" to be gay.

So let me pose this question to you.

On what day month and year did you decide to be straight?


...there's more then one passage in the bible that does not support gays...it's written in the bible...you have read the bible, haven't you?...

Kabuki Joe
02-27-2014, 04:37 PM
Rome fell after it became Christian. It is an escapist religion and neglects civic duty. Way back in the 18th Century, Edward Gibbon wrote about that in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Where have you been?


...that was part of it not all of it...

Kabuki Joe
02-27-2014, 04:38 PM
The real Sodom and Gomorrah were probably destroyed by an ancient outbreak of AIDS. Why should we believe that this is a new disease?


...give a whole new meaning to "FIRE IN THE HOLE"...

kilgram
02-27-2014, 04:51 PM
Secularism in that sense is no different than religion. Religious freedom means you're free to choose.
You are confusing secularism with no religion.

Secularism grants freedom of religion.

nic34
02-27-2014, 04:52 PM
yawn....

<waiting for Kabuki to catch up>

Green Arrow
02-27-2014, 04:55 PM
yawn....

<waiting for Kabuki to catch up>

Give hom a minute, he's trying to increase his post count.