Arizona Senate Passes Bill Allowing Business Owners To Refuse Service To Gays

[dblack]

Homophobes lost again. Everyone move along, nothing left to see here.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

 

[Gadawg73]

Democrats often know the Bible. Some of them even live parts of it.

The Sodom and Gomorrah parts!

You lose all credibility with ignorant statements like that.
My father was a WWII Marine officer and then was called back for service for Korea as he was in Ithaca NY getting his PHD at Cornell.
So off he goes and leads troops at the landing at Inchon.
4 kids later he retires after a career in education where part of it was working for the College Entrance Examination Board. His job there when he started?
He as part of a 3 man team the College Board were sent to high schools in the south in the 60s that refused to allow blacks to take the SAT. I
So Dad and his College Board associates would say of blacks could not take it no student there could. Believe that to be a dangerous job?
Dad voted for many Republicans, Nixon twice as he did not like Johnson or Kennedy and also many Democrats. He died voting mostly for Democrats.
As many in my family that traces their roots to when we came here in 1670.
Love thy neighbor is in the Bible. He practiced it.
And all the Democrats I know also do.
Please take down your childish and offensive post.

 

[Gadawg73]

Why do you not apply the SAME standards and critique to those that claim their "religious freedom" was denied?

That is the subject. That was the law that was passed in AZ.
Respectfully, nothing at all to do with what you are talking about.

Because, as several of us here have observed, the AZ law wasn't attempting to address any specific harm, religious or otherwise - it was a political challenge against the precedents set by standing civil rights legislation. I agree that the law submitted to make that challenge was flawed, because it too narrowly focused on religious freedom instead of the broader issue (probably because the backers believed that gave them a better chance of success, I dunno). But I wholeheartedly agree with the spirit of the challenge. Public accommodations laws and protected classes are a perversion of the concept of 'rights' and need to be addressed as such.

It was not.

It was actually an attempt to bring Arizona law into line with federal law.

It was not.
That could have easily been done.

 

[GibsonSG]

Democrats often know the Bible. Some of them even live parts of it.

The Sodom and Gomorrah parts!

You lose all credibility with ignorant statements like that.
My father was a WWII Marine officer and then was called back for service for Korea as he was in Ithaca NY getting his PHD at Cornell.
So off he goes and leads troops at the landing at Inchon.
4 kids later he retires after a career in education where part of it was working for the College Entrance Examination Board. His job there when he started?
He as part of a 3 man team the College Board were sent to high schools in the south in the 60s that refused to allow blacks to take the SAT. I
So Dad and his College Board associates would say of blacks could not take it no student there could. Believe that to be a dangerous job?
Dad voted for many Republicans, Nixon twice as he did not like Johnson or Kennedy and also many Democrats. He died voting mostly for Democrats.
As many in my family that traces their roots to when we came here in 1670.
Love thy neighbor is in the Bible. He practiced it.
And all the Democrats I know also do.
Please take down your childish and offensive post.

I bet he practised "an eye for an eye" also.

 

[Gadawg73]

The Sodom and Gomorrah parts!

You lose all credibility with ignorant statements like that.
My father was a WWII Marine officer and then was called back for service for Korea as he was in Ithaca NY getting his PHD at Cornell.
So off he goes and leads troops at the landing at Inchon.
4 kids later he retires after a career in education where part of it was working for the College Entrance Examination Board. His job there when he started?
He as part of a 3 man team the College Board were sent to high schools in the south in the 60s that refused to allow blacks to take the SAT. I
So Dad and his College Board associates would say of blacks could not take it no student there could. Believe that to be a dangerous job?
Dad voted for many Republicans, Nixon twice as he did not like Johnson or Kennedy and also many Democrats. He died voting mostly for Democrats.
As many in my family that traces their roots to when we came here in 1670.
Love thy neighbor is in the Bible. He practiced it.
And all the Democrats I know also do.
Please take down your childish and offensive post.

I bet he practised "an eye for an eye" also.

With the Japanese and North Koreans he did.
A few weeks before he died he finally told someone, me, of what they had to do on Saipan to flush the Japanese out of the caves and he also told of how the North Korean communists bayoneted young children and then hung them up for show in the towns they took.
Real world.

 

[protectionist]

I don't really understand what harm is done by a person being openly gay.. American Gays are citizens who pay taxes, vote, fight in our wars, serve as first responders...and fulfill all other responsibilities of citizenship...there is no reason that they should not be entitled to the same protections and rights under our constitution.
Harm in this instance only happens if those who claim harm make it so.

This is unquestionably one of the dumbest posts I've seen in a long time (unless the poster is lying). Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're being truthful, how can you possibly not see the harm from openly queer behavior. I've stated it 100 times in this thread. Are you reading it ? Good grief. How foolish can anyone be ?

Your bigotry is far more harmful than two grown gay guys loving each other.

Stop pretending that your critics are "bigots".. You'll get nowhere with the bigot card. So I ask you again >> how can you possibly not see the harm from openly queer behavior ? If you really need to have someone lay it all out here for you I'll do that. I suspect that you know damn well what I'm talking about though.

 

[protectionist]

You lose all credibility with ignorant statements like that.
My father was a WWII Marine officer and then was called back for service for Korea as he was in Ithaca NY getting his PHD at Cornell.
So off he goes and leads troops at the landing at Inchon.
4 kids later he retires after a career in education where part of it was working for the College Entrance Examination Board. His job there when he started?
He as part of a 3 man team the College Board were sent to high schools in the south in the 60s that refused to allow blacks to take the SAT. I
So Dad and his College Board associates would say of blacks could not take it no student there could. Believe that to be a dangerous job?
Dad voted for many Republicans, Nixon twice as he did not like Johnson or Kennedy and also many Democrats. He died voting mostly for Democrats.
As many in my family that traces their roots to when we came here in 1670.
Love thy neighbor is in the Bible. He practiced it.
And all the Democrats I know also do.
Please take down your childish and offensive post.

I bet he practised "an eye for an eye" also.

With the Japanese and North Koreans he did.
A few weeks before he died he finally told someone, me, of what they had to do on Saipan to flush the Japanese out of the caves and he also told of how the North Korean communists bayoneted young children and then hung them up for show in the towns they took.
Real world.

Thanks so much for sharing that with us. You get some kind of sick kick ?

 

[Bombur]

This is unquestionably one of the dumbest posts I've seen in a long time (unless the poster is lying). Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're being truthful, how can you possibly not see the harm from openly queer behavior. I've stated it 100 times in this thread. Are you reading it ? Good grief. How foolish can anyone be ?

Your bigotry is far more harmful than two grown gay guys loving each other.

Stop pretending that your critics are "bigots".. You'll get nowhere with the bigot card. So I ask you again >> how can you possibly not see the harm from openly queer behavior ? If you really need to have someone lay it all out here for you I'll do that. I suspect that you know damn well what I'm talking about though.

Do you need me to lay out how your bigotry is harmful?

Bigots like you are hopeless cases. You have also already lost.

 

[protectionist]

The case of Romer v. Evans was a Supreme Court of the United States case and not a state court decision. The SCOTUS is the one who defined that under the United States Constitution that laws targeting homosexuals are unconstitutional and as it referred to amendment 2 had no rational basis - let alone needing to rise to strict scrutiny.

Romer v. Evans | LII / Legal Information Institute

Your opinion that throwing around the words "strict scrutiny" is going to be some kind of magic spell that can be invoked to deny equal treatment under the law for homosexuals is misplaced. A careful reading of the Romer decision and Windsor v. United States (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf) would - and should - make someone in your position very nervous. The arguments you propose have and are being shot down. Not just in the courts mind you, but in the legislatures, and as we saw in the 2012 General Election, with Same-sex Civil Marriage winning at the ballot box as well.

This is not only flat-out wrong, it is nothing more than propagandist NONSENSE.

You said the ruling was a lower court ruling, stayed on appeal and will be overturned.


Psst - the case (and link provided) was to the United States Supreme Court, please explain how a SCOTUS ruling is stayed and appealed and what court in the Judaical Branch will overturn their ruling.

Then explain what else I was wrong about please. Have the legislatures not passed Same-sex Civil Marriage? Did SSCM not win at the ballot box in the 2012 General Election in 4 States (Washington, Maine, and Maryland voting directly to allow SSCM and in Minnesota a ban being defeated - which led to the legislature passing it a few months later).

As I look at the Statewide Marriage Prohibitions map, these 4 states were not part of the states with prohibitions in the first place (all are shown in white), so nothing much changed there. Even with those states elections, almost the entire map of the US is in red with constitutional amendments restricting marriage to one man and one woman, or in gray with laws restricting marriage to one man and one woman. So goody gumdrops for those 4 states. Yeah, I guess they have SSM in Denmark and Sweden too. Ho hum. Yawn ****

"The ruling" ??? In Post # 2894, I mentioned 2 cases (in Virginia & Oklahoma) where they were stayed on appeal.

 

[WorldWatcher]

As I look at the Statewide Marriage Prohibitions map, these 4 states were not part of the states with prohibitions in the first place (all are shown in white), so nothing much changed there.

Wrong again, prior to the General Election of 2012 each of those states did have prohibitions against Same-sex Civil Marriage, that is what the ballot changed. If SSCM was already allowed in those states then why have a ballot to not change the law? That makes no sense.

That Maine for example, in 2009 they passed a ballot initiative to BAN SSCM, the 2012 vote repealed that ban and provided FOR SSCM. So ya things did change.

"The ruling" ??? In Post # 2894, I mentioned 2 cases (in Virginia & Oklahoma) where they were stayed on appeal.

OK, I may have misunderstood. Of course the government can discriminate if their is a compelling government interest. But of course there is no compelling government interest in discriminating against gays as a function of government. Hell, not only does it not have a compelling government interest, it doesn't even rise to the rational basis test standard.

Take for example Colorado's Amendment 2 which attempted to strip equality from homosexuals and leave them with no legal recourse to challenge discrimination, not only at the State level is voided even local laws that attempted to provide legal recourse. In Romer v. Evans the court stated:

"The Fourteenth Amendment's promise that no person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws must co-exist with the practical necessity that most legislation classifies for one purpose or another, with resulting disadvantage to various groups or persons. Personnel Administrator of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 271- 272 (1979); F. S. Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia, 253 U.S. 412, 415 (1920). We have attempted to reconcile the principle with the reality by stating that, if a law neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class, we will uphold the legislative classification so long as it bears a rational relation to some legitimate end. See, e.g., Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. ___, ___ (1993) (slip op., at 6).

Amendment 2 fails, indeed defies, even this conventional inquiry. First, the amendment has the peculiar property of imposing a broad and undifferentiated disability on a single named group, an exceptional and, as we shall explain, invalid form of legislation. Second, its sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests."​

Just to reiterate, the court said the the desire to discriminate against homosexuals lacked a rational basis.

Who cares what the state court said. This is a lower court ruling (stayed on appeal), which will be overturned...

Nice try, but no. You were responding in Post #2896 to my post #2843 where I even cited the Case State (Colorado) and the case Name (Romer v. Evans). Your post in #2894 was not to anything I said, now you are just trying to cover your ass.



>>>>

 

[Uncensored2008]

You lose all credibility with ignorant statements like that.

Of course, because um, well, yeah...

My father was a WWII Marine officer and then was called back for service for Korea as he was in Ithaca NY getting his PHD at Cornell.

How very lovely...

So off he goes and leads troops at the landing at Inchon.
4 kids later he retires after a career in education where part of it was working for the College Entrance Examination Board. His job there when he started?
He as part of a 3 man team the College Board were sent to high schools in the south in the 60s that refused to allow blacks to take the SAT. I
So Dad and his College Board associates would say of blacks could not take it no student there could. Believe that to be a dangerous job?
Dad voted for many Republicans, Nixon twice as he did not like Johnson or Kennedy and also many Democrats. He died voting mostly for Democrats.
As many in my family that traces their roots to when we came here in 1670.
Love thy neighbor is in the Bible. He practiced it.
And all the Democrats I know also do.
Please take down your childish and offensive post.

The democratic party of today is a shameful and honorless institution.

And you know it.

 

[protectionist]

As I look at the Statewide Marriage Prohibitions map, these 4 states were not part of the states with prohibitions in the first place (all are shown in white), so nothing much changed there.

Wrong again, prior to the General Election of 2012 each of those states did have prohibitions against Same-sex Civil Marriage, that is what the ballot changed. If SSCM was already allowed in those states then why have a ballot to not change the law? That makes no sense.

That Maine for example, in 2009 they passed a ballot initiative to BAN SSCM, the 2012 vote repealed that ban and provided FOR SSCM. So ya things did change.

"The ruling" ??? In Post # 2894, I mentioned 2 cases (in Virginia & Oklahoma) where they were stayed on appeal.

OK, I may have misunderstood. Of course the government can discriminate if their is a compelling government interest. But of course there is no compelling government interest in discriminating against gays as a function of government. Hell, not only does it not have a compelling government interest, it doesn't even rise to the rational basis test standard.

Take for example Colorado's Amendment 2 which attempted to strip equality from homosexuals and leave them with no legal recourse to challenge discrimination, not only at the State level is voided even local laws that attempted to provide legal recourse. In Romer v. Evans the court stated:

"The Fourteenth Amendment's promise that no person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws must co-exist with the practical necessity that most legislation classifies for one purpose or another, with resulting disadvantage to various groups or persons. Personnel Administrator of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 271- 272 (1979); F. S. Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia, 253 U.S. 412, 415 (1920). We have attempted to reconcile the principle with the reality by stating that, if a law neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class, we will uphold the legislative classification so long as it bears a rational relation to some legitimate end. See, e.g., Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. ___, ___ (1993) (slip op., at 6).

Amendment 2 fails, indeed defies, even this conventional inquiry. First, the amendment has the peculiar property of imposing a broad and undifferentiated disability on a single named group, an exceptional and, as we shall explain, invalid form of legislation. Second, its sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests."​

Just to reiterate, the court said the the desire to discriminate against homosexuals lacked a rational basis.

Who cares what the state court said. This is a lower court ruling (stayed on appeal), which will be overturned...

Nice try, but no. You were responding in Post #2896 to my post #2843 where I even cited the Case State (Colorado) and the case Name (Romer v. Evans). Your post in #2894 was not to anything I said, now you are just trying to cover your ass.

Nice try yourself. If the Virginia & Oklahoma cases (Feb. 2014) can be stayed on appeal, then apparently the SCOTUS ruling you mentioned isn't quite what you said it is, now is it ? And the statewide marriage prohibitions map (shown in the link below) is also up to date (Feb. 19, 2014)

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2011/03/...-hold-onto-laws-defining-gay-conduct-illegal/

https://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/marriage_prohibitions_3-2014.pdf

And I was not wrong, because when I said "in the first place" I was referring to my first posting of the statewide marriage prohibitions map in this thread. From that, nothing's changed, and even with these 4 elections, we still have 33 states with prohibitions. A lot more red and gray on that map than white.

 

[WorldWatcher]

As I look at the Statewide Marriage Prohibitions map, these 4 states were not part of the states with prohibitions in the first place (all are shown in white), so nothing much changed there.

Wrong again, prior to the General Election of 2012 each of those states did have prohibitions against Same-sex Civil Marriage, that is what the ballot changed. If SSCM was already allowed in those states then why have a ballot to not change the law? That makes no sense.

That Maine for example, in 2009 they passed a ballot initiative to BAN SSCM, the 2012 vote repealed that ban and provided FOR SSCM. So ya things did change.

Who cares what the state court said. This is a lower court ruling (stayed on appeal), which will be overturned...

Nice try, but no. You were responding in Post #2896 to my post #2843 where I even cited the Case State (Colorado) and the case Name (Romer v. Evans). Your post in #2894 was not to anything I said, now you are just trying to cover your ass.

Nice try yourself. If the Virginia & Oklahoma cases (Feb. 2014) can be stayed on appeal, then apparently the SCOTUS ruling you mentioned isn't quite what you said it is, now is it ? And the statewide marriage prohibitions map (shown in the link below) is also up to date (Feb. 19, 2014)

Texas, Kansas, Montana, Oklahoma: states hold onto laws defining gay ?conduct? illegal ? LGBTQ Nation

https://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/marriage_prohibitions_3-2014.pdf

And I was not wrong, because when I said "in the first place" I was referring to my first posting of the statewide marriage prohibitions map in this thread. From that, nothing's changed, and even with these 4 elections, we still have 33 states with prohibitions. A lot more red and gray on that map than white.

The case is exactly what I said it was. Romer v. Evans is a case where Colorado tried to target homosexuals, the case went to SCOTUS, the SCOTUS ruled the law unconstitutional based on the application of the 14th Amendment.


>>>>>

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The General doesn't read the Bible or have a faith apparently but he's still highly homophobic? I wonder if he just can't get past the sex issue to see the rights issue?

 

[GibsonSG]

This is unquestionably one of the dumbest posts I've seen in a long time (unless the poster is lying). Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're being truthful, how can you possibly not see the harm from openly queer behavior. I've stated it 100 times in this thread. Are you reading it ? Good grief. How foolish can anyone be ?

Your bigotry is far more harmful than two grown gay guys loving each other.

Stop pretending that your critics are "bigots".. You'll get nowhere with the bigot card. So I ask you again >> how can you possibly not see the harm from openly queer behavior ? If you really need to have someone lay it all out here for you I'll do that. I suspect that you know damn well what I'm talking about though.

Ok, lay it out for me why openly gay behaviour is harmful.

 

[Gadawg73]

Your bigotry is far more harmful than two grown gay guys loving each other.

Stop pretending that your critics are "bigots".. You'll get nowhere with the bigot card. So I ask you again >> how can you possibly not see the harm from openly queer behavior ? If you really need to have someone lay it all out here for you I'll do that. I suspect that you know damn well what I'm talking about though.

Ok, lay it out for me why openly gay behaviour is harmful.

He can't get tickets to the Lady Gaga concert because the gays sold it out.

 

[protectionist]

Wrong again, prior to the General Election of 2012 each of those states did have prohibitions against Same-sex Civil Marriage, that is what the ballot changed. If SSCM was already allowed in those states then why have a ballot to not change the law? That makes no sense.

That Maine for example, in 2009 they passed a ballot initiative to BAN SSCM, the 2012 vote repealed that ban and provided FOR SSCM. So ya things did change.

​

Nice try, but no. You were responding in Post #2896 to my post #2843 where I even cited the Case State (Colorado) and the case Name (Romer v. Evans). Your post in #2894 was not to anything I said, now you are just trying to cover your ass.

Nice try yourself. If the Virginia & Oklahoma cases (Feb. 2014) can be stayed on appeal, then apparently the SCOTUS ruling you mentioned isn't quite what you said it is, now is it ? And the statewide marriage prohibitions map (shown in the link below) is also up to date (Feb. 19, 2014)

Texas, Kansas, Montana, Oklahoma: states hold onto laws defining gay ?conduct? illegal ? LGBTQ Nation

https://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/marriage_prohibitions_3-2014.pdf

And I was not wrong, because when I said "in the first place" I was referring to my first posting of the statewide marriage prohibitions map in this thread. From that, nothing's changed, and even with these 4 elections, we still have 33 states with prohibitions. A lot more red and gray on that map than white.

The case is exactly what I said it was. Romer v. Evans is a case where Colorado tried to target homosexuals, the case went to SCOTUS, the SCOTUS ruled the law unconstitutional based on the application of the 14th Amendment.

That was in 1996. Since then >> States with constitutional amendments restricting marriage to one man and one woman
(29 states):
Alabama (2006), Alaska (1998), Arizona (2008), Arkansas (2004), Colorado (2006), Florida (2008), Georgia (2004), Idaho (2006), Kansas (2005), Kentucky (2004), Louisiana (2004), Michigan (2004), Mississippi (2004), Missouri (2004), Montana (2004), Nebraska (2000), Nevada (2002), North Carolina (2012), North Dakota (2004), Ohio (2004), Oklahoma (2004), Oregon (2004), South Carolina (2006), South Dakota (2006), Tennessee (2006), Texas (2005), Utah (2004), Virginia (2006) and Wisconsin (2006).

In addition:
States with law restricting marriage to one man and one woman
(4 states): Indiana, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Wyoming.

 

[protectionist]

Your bigotry is far more harmful than two grown gay guys loving each other.

Stop pretending that your critics are "bigots".. You'll get nowhere with the bigot card. So I ask you again >> how can you possibly not see the harm from openly queer behavior ? If you really need to have someone lay it all out here for you I'll do that. I suspect that you know damn well what I'm talking about though.

Ok, lay it out for me why openly gay behaviour is harmful.

1. Queers actively try to recruit children to adopt their sick, perverted lifestyle > HARM.

2. No heterosexual wants to share a shower with a queer. > HARM.

3. No heterosexual football player wants to be grabbed and tackled by any queer > HARM.

4. Few heterosexuals are not disgusted by the sight to 2 guys kissing each on the lips (or worse) > HARM.

5. Queers have spread AIDS. Only 2% of US population is queer, yet they account for 61% of AIDS > HARM. ("Men who have sex with men remain the group most heavily affected by new HIV infections." Center for Disease Control)

6. "A new study in the United Kingdom has revealed that homosexuals are about 50% more likely to suffer from depression and engage in substance abuse than the rest of the population, reports Health24.com....the risk of suicide jumped over 200% if an individual had engaged in a homosexual lifestyle...the lifespan of a homosexual is on average 24 years shorter than that of a heterosexual.

7. Relatives of homosexuals are hurt emotionally by the loved ones being queer. > HARM

8. Breast cancer is higher among lesbians and bisexual women than heterosexual women. > HARM

9. The incidence of domestic violence is almost twice as high among queer "men" as it is among heterosexual men. > HARM

This is a significant but still only partial list.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Stop pretending that your critics are "bigots".. You'll get nowhere with the bigot card. So I ask you again >> how can you possibly not see the harm from openly queer behavior ? If you really need to have someone lay it all out here for you I'll do that. I suspect that you know damn well what I'm talking about though.

Ok, lay it out for me why openly gay behaviour is harmful.

1. Queers actively try to recruit children to adopt their sick, perverted lifestyle > HARM.

2. No heterosexual wants to share a shower with a queer. > HARM.

3. No heterosexual football player wants to be grabbed and tackled by any queer > HARM.

4. Few heterosexuals are not disgusted by the sight to 2 guys kissing each on the lips (or worse) > HARM.

5. Queers have spread AIDS. Only 2% of US population is queer, yet they account for 61% of AIDS > HARM. ("Men who have sex with men remain the group most heavily affected by new HIV infections." Center for Disease Control)

6. "A new study in the United Kingdom has revealed that homosexuals are about 50% more likely to suffer from depression and engage in substance abuse than the rest of the population, reports Health24.com....the risk of suicide jumped over 200% if an individual had engaged in a homosexual lifestyle...the lifespan of a homosexual is on average 24 years shorter than that of a heterosexual.

7. Relatives of homosexuals are hurt emotionally by the loved ones being queer. > HARM

8. Breast cancer is higher among lesbians and bisexual women than heterosexual women. > HARM

9. The incidence of domestic violence is almost twice as high among queer "men" as it is among heterosexual men. > HARM

This is a significant but still only partial list.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I trust you on all of that. How would you deal with the "queer" problem?

 

[protectionist]

The General doesn't read the Bible or have a faith apparently but he's still highly homophobic? I wonder if he just can't get past the sex issue to see the rights issue?

Rights issue >> The right of sex pervert loons (2% of America) to engage in activities that can spread their sexual perversion, versus the 98% of America who wish to protect themselves from this cancerous insanity. Yeah, I see it.

PS - there's no such thing as "homophobic", and the use of that FALSE word is an offense against those of us who have real phobias.