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

[Gadawg73]

Okay. Now if the test comes back XY, is that a male then?

In a normal scenario, yes. More importantly, it is a male who hasn't adapted well to his maleness. ie, the extremes these males [and females] go to be in denial is frank and stark mental illness.

I sense you will go on a tangent, a wild goose chase of "exceptions to the rule". But what we are talking about is an ideology. It's the guy born fully male, all normal parts in the normal places and then pays a "psychiatrists" and "doctors" to legitimize and perform the amputation of his healthy organs to leave him an incontinent, sexually numbed and multilated victim of his own self-denial. The others who participated belong in prison.

I'm talking about this:

How does that affect you in any way?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Okay. Now if the test comes back XY, is that a male then?

In a normal scenario, yes. More importantly, it is a male who hasn't adapted well to his maleness. ie, the extremes these males [and females] go to be in denial is frank and stark mental illness.

I sense you will go on a tangent, a wild goose chase of "exceptions to the rule". But what we are talking about is an ideology. It's the guy born fully male, all normal parts in the normal places and then pays a "psychiatrists" and "doctors" to legitimize and perform the amputation of his healthy organs to leave him an incontinent, sexually numbed and multilated victim of his own self-denial. The others who participated belong in prison.

Need to answer here. You said use DNA and I said okay and then asked is XY a male? And remember, we are discussing Nature not Man.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

What religion do I have? Yours is obviously The Church of Perpetual Idiocy.

What are Morals? What does Secular mean?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Apparently you have missed what this is really about which is rights associated with property ownership and has nothing to do with Jesus.

JWK

If that was the case, there wouldn't be only an exception based on religion.

If this bill had been about property ownership, then the ability to refuse service would have been extended to everyone - not only those who claimed a religious belief.


>>>>

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Apparently you have missed what this is really about which is rights associated with property ownership and has nothing to do with Jesus.

JWK

If that was the case, there wouldn't be only an exception based on religion.

If this bill had been about property ownership, then the ability to refuse service would have been extended to everyone - not only those who claimed a religious belief.


>>>>

That explains why Brewer got a letter form a bunch of scholars urging her to veto the bill.

Gay activists pressured Brewer to veto the bill, which she did Wednesday evening. It would have amended the state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) that protects people of faith from laws and state actions that burden the free exercise of religion. But activists and mainstream news outlets are propagandizing it as a “Jim Crow law” and a “denial of services bill.”
“As these legal scholars rightly point out, the misrepresentations about the bill have been egregious,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Douglas Napier. “It has nothing to do with refusing someone a sandwich. It has everything to do with making Arizona a safe place for people to freely live out their faith. The falsehoods need to be exposed for what they are.”
In the letter, sent Tuesday, the legal scholars asked her to make her decision based on accurate information:
Some of us are Republicans; some of us are Democrats. Some of us are religious; some of us are not. Some of us oppose same-sex marriage; some of us support it. Nine of the eleven signers of this letter believe that you should sign the bill; two are unsure. But all of us believe that many criticisms of the Arizona bill are deeply misleading.
The letter also points out that the federal government and 18 states have RFRAs. Arizona, in fact, has had one for nearly 15 years. SB 1062 would slightly amend it in light of recent court decisions regarding religious freedom. One involves a New Mexico Supreme Court decision saying a Christian couple must photograph same-sex ceremonies. The other involves the violation of religious freedom via a Health and Human Services mandate. It requires most businesses and nonprofits to offer potential abortion-inducing drugs in employee health plans.

Legal Scholars to Arizona Governor: Religious Freedom Bill ?Egregiously Misrepresented? | CitizenLink

Sorry, wrong link, this is another one that proves you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Mertex]

You conveniently didn't respond to my post. Why aren't you upset by people that make a mockery out of marriage, like Rush Limbaugh

It wasn't worth responding to. It has nothing to do with the subject and I'm not Rush Limbaugh.

It had everything to do with your comment. You were claiming that marriage was being redefined.....well if a person marries and divorces 3 or 4 times, doesn't that redefine marriage? Is marriage just a license to have sex until you get tired of the person and find another one?

I didn't say you were Limbaugh, but you are trying to put marriage on a pedestal and claiming that homosexuals are trying to bring it down when plenty of heterosexuals have already done that and you didn't utter a peep.

 

[kaz]

So, you can't back up what you said but I'm the one that's wrong?

You look at what Democrats do to people like Sarah Palin and Clarance Thomas and don't know what I'm talking about? Yeah, you're the one that's wrong.

What do they do exactly? They say mean things? They beat them up? They keep them from getting good jobs? They put them in prison? What are all these bad things they do to them, to "destroy" them?

Can you back up your words or not? Why should I just take your word for it?

Yes, they say mean things and beat them up. You're just demonstrating my point that you're not intellectually engaged in this.

Democrats aren't for gays, you are for liberal gays. Just like you're for liberal women, liberal blacks, ...

 

[Mertex]

Do you have any documentation to substantiate your claim? "Many preachers, pastors, and Christians" or some? You will have to cite "many" specific circumstances if you have any hope of proving your point. There were thousands upon thousands of white Christians using biblical standards to help free the slaves. Again ... you should start a new thread if you wish to continue this conversation. This post really revolves around religious freedom vs. religious persecution ... not slavery.

Churches were deeply involved in fighting slavery and assisting runaway slaves. And most Christians today are not anti-gay and don't believe anyone is going to hell for being gay.

If one Christian believes something liberals don't like, they can paint all Christians with their wide brush. But if all Democrats say the same thing, you can't generalize that someone who is a Democrat believes that.

Liberalism, it is a double standard, wrapped in a hypocrisy, inside cluelessness...

I certainly don't hate "gays" but I do believe that they may be in jeopardy of hell if they don't repent of their sins. The same is true of anyone who rejects the Gospel of Christ in favor of embracing his or her particular sinful behavior. However, I'm not the final Judge. There is One much greater than myself Who has reserved that job for Himself. Each and every one of us will have to stand before Him and answer for our actions. A day of judgment IS coming (if we believe what the Bible says).

The bottom line for me is that I believe a business owner has the right to model his or her business in a manner that fits his or her particular belief system. If any one of us doesn't like a business person's business model then we have the right to do business elsewhere. None of us has the right to force a business owner to cave into our personal whims. If that were the case then I could force "gay" business owners to conform to my personal whims and beliefs.

Business owners have to obey the law, just like anybody else. If they feel they can't, then they shouldn't be in business. And, right now some states have laws prohibiting discriminating against gays....if you live in such a state and you have a business, you have to obey the law. If you claim that you have the right to discriminate them, and they sue you, you may lose. That's the way it rolls. You can claim you want this or that, but if it goes agains the law you're just pissing in the wind.

 

[Mertex]

How do I really tell if someone is male or female?

You ask the easiest questions, I swear: DNA swab, usually around the inside of the cheek or a hair sample. [A hair sample would be the most discreet way to test if your "female" friend was actually male if "doctors" had already assisted him with amputation and plastic surgery]

Wow! Do you really go around swabbing people to determine if they are male or female?
How many have let you do that? Intresting....

 

[kaz]

Churches were deeply involved in fighting slavery and assisting runaway slaves. And most Christians today are not anti-gay and don't believe anyone is going to hell for being gay.

If one Christian believes something liberals don't like, they can paint all Christians with their wide brush. But if all Democrats say the same thing, you can't generalize that someone who is a Democrat believes that.

Liberalism, it is a double standard, wrapped in a hypocrisy, inside cluelessness...

I certainly don't hate "gays" but I do believe that they may be in jeopardy of hell if they don't repent of their sins. The same is true of anyone who rejects the Gospel of Christ in favor of embracing his or her particular sinful behavior. However, I'm not the final Judge. There is One much greater than myself Who has reserved that job for Himself. Each and every one of us will have to stand before Him and answer for our actions. A day of judgment IS coming (if we believe what the Bible says).

The bottom line for me is that I believe a business owner has the right to model his or her business in a manner that fits his or her particular belief system. If any one of us doesn't like a business person's business model then we have the right to do business elsewhere. None of us has the right to force a business owner to cave into our personal whims. If that were the case then I could force "gay" business owners to conform to my personal whims and beliefs.

Business owners have to obey the law, just like anybody else. If they feel they can't, then they shouldn't be in business. And, right now some states have laws prohibiting discriminating against gays....if you live in such a state and you have a business, you have to obey the law. If you claim that you have the right to discriminate them, and they sue you, you may lose. That's the way it rolls. You can claim you want this or that, but if it goes agains the law you're just pissing in the wind.

When we're discussing what the law should be, you come up with the insight that businesses have to follow the law. Brilliant, absolutely brilliant. Thank you for that contribution to the discussion, I don't think any of us realized that.

 

[Statistikhengst]

How do I really tell if someone is male or female?

You ask the easiest questions, I swear: DNA swab, usually around the inside of the cheek or a hair sample. [A hair sample would be the most discreet way to test if your "female" friend was actually male if "doctors" had already assisted him with amputation and plastic surgery]

The more important question to ask is "How do I really tell if someone is mentally ill?". Well the answer oddly is the same. If you are hetero and someone you're with you suspect might have a pelvis or fingers or adam's apple that is more proper to your same gender [males' pelvic bones reach higher up on the torso, their adam's apple protrudes more and their ring fingers are often longer than their index finger] a DNA swab or hair sample would tell you whether or not you are dealing with someone who is mentally ill.

...omg....

Do you like walk around with swabs in your pocket?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You look at what Democrats do to people like Sarah Palin and Clarance Thomas and don't know what I'm talking about? Yeah, you're the one that's wrong.

What do they do exactly? They say mean things? They beat them up? They keep them from getting good jobs? They put them in prison? What are all these bad things they do to them, to "destroy" them?

Can you back up your words or not? Why should I just take your word for it?

Yes, they say mean things and beat them up. You're just demonstrating my point that you're not intellectually engaged in this.

Democrats aren't for gays, you are for liberal gays. Just like you're for liberal women, liberal blacks, ...

So all of those people have been beaten up by Liberals? They shouldn't have mean things said about them?

Should we have some kind of law that says you can't say mean things about people?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Churches were deeply involved in fighting slavery and assisting runaway slaves. And most Christians today are not anti-gay and don't believe anyone is going to hell for being gay.

If one Christian believes something liberals don't like, they can paint all Christians with their wide brush. But if all Democrats say the same thing, you can't generalize that someone who is a Democrat believes that.

Liberalism, it is a double standard, wrapped in a hypocrisy, inside cluelessness...

I certainly don't hate "gays" but I do believe that they may be in jeopardy of hell if they don't repent of their sins. The same is true of anyone who rejects the Gospel of Christ in favor of embracing his or her particular sinful behavior. However, I'm not the final Judge. There is One much greater than myself Who has reserved that job for Himself. Each and every one of us will have to stand before Him and answer for our actions. A day of judgment IS coming (if we believe what the Bible says).

The bottom line for me is that I believe a business owner has the right to model his or her business in a manner that fits his or her particular belief system. If any one of us doesn't like a business person's business model then we have the right to do business elsewhere. None of us has the right to force a business owner to cave into our personal whims. If that were the case then I could force "gay" business owners to conform to my personal whims and beliefs.

Business owners have to obey the law, just like anybody else. If they feel they can't, then they shouldn't be in business. And, right now some states have laws prohibiting discriminating against gays....if you live in such a state and you have a business, you have to obey the law. If you claim that you have the right to discriminate them, and they sue you, you may lose. That's the way it rolls. You can claim you want this or that, but if it goes agains the law you're just pissing in the wind.

If the law has to be obeyed why do people get away with not obeying it?

 

[Bfgrn]

Liberalism, it is a double standard, wrapped in a hypocrisy, inside cluelessness...

I have often said that liberalism and hypocrisy are two sides of the same coin. I've never met a liberal that wasn't a hypocrite.

Their problem is that they think of themselves as liberals, who are open minded and tolerant, but in reality they are authoritarian leftists who are closed minded and rigidly intolerant. That contradiction in their views and their self perception leads to unending hypocrisy in what they say and the positions they advocate.

Liberal is an antonym of authoritarian. The reality is if liberals don't tolerate racism, bigotry and don't worship the opulent, we are not pen minded and tolerant.

The history of mankind has been a struggle between those who want to increase freedom, opportunity and rights to all people and those who want to restrict them. The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals. The people who have fought to restrict them are conservatives.

Liberals believe people are basically good, conservatives believe people are basically evil.
Liberals believe in raising people up, conservatives believe in pushing people down.
Liberals believe in encouragement, conservatives believe in scorn.
Liberals always stand up for the little guy, conservatives always stand up for the big guy.

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

 

[Iceweasel]

The Founders were radicals of their time. The conservatives of the day were the Torries who believed in the safe colonial system where the King relied solely on the doctrine of divine right given to the monarchy by God.

Those were loyalists anyway but conservativism doesn't mean status quo no matter what. That's the liberal's inaccurate definition. Conservatives are free market small government types and from day one we had disagreements. The Federalists were more liberal, Paine was liberal. The conservatives fought the loyalists, where did you get your history from?

America's first conservatives - Los Angeles Times
Largely forgotten today, the nation's first conservatives were collectively as important as its famous revolutionaries and firebrands like Franklin, Jefferson, Adams and even, to some degree, Washington. These men were not Loyalists. They were among the most ardent defenders of American rights, and many fought with distinction against British Redcoats. But they respected hierarchies and custom, revered the military and championed free-market capitalism. They were the polar opposite of, say, a Thomas Paine, the Revolution's pamphleteer, who proselytized for a guaranteed income and agrarian rights along with fighting the British.

 

[kaz]

I have often said that liberalism and hypocrisy are two sides of the same coin. I've never met a liberal that wasn't a hypocrite.

Their problem is that they think of themselves as liberals, who are open minded and tolerant, but in reality they are authoritarian leftists who are closed minded and rigidly intolerant. That contradiction in their views and their self perception leads to unending hypocrisy in what they say and the positions they advocate.

Liberal is an antonym of authoritarian. The reality is if liberals don't tolerate racism, bigotry and don't worship the opulent, we are not pen minded and tolerant.

The history of mankind has been a struggle between those who want to increase freedom, opportunity and rights to all people and those who want to restrict them. The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals. The people who have fought to restrict them are conservatives.

Liberals believe people are basically good, conservatives believe people are basically evil.
Liberals believe in raising people up, conservatives believe in pushing people down.
Liberals believe in encouragement, conservatives believe in scorn.
Liberals always stand up for the little guy, conservatives always stand up for the big guy.

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

Conservatives are actually lizard people from another galaxy who come here to cause societal havoc by advocating the rich and driving badly in snow. Don't you just wish ET would go home now?

 

[Iceweasel]

Liberal is an antonym of authoritarian.

In the dictionary term, yes. But that's not what modern day liberals are. They are very much big government micro-manage everyone's life type of people.

The reality is if liberals don't tolerate racism, bigotry and don't worship the opulent, we are not pen minded and tolerant.

The reality is that if a liberal doesn't like something, they want to outlaw it for everyone else.

The history of mankind has been a struggle between those who want to increase freedom, opportunity and rights to all people and those who want to restrict them. The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals. The people who have fought to restrict them are conservatives.

Liberals believe people are basically good, conservatives believe people are basically evil.

LOL. I couldn't read past that. Jesus, you think like a toddler.

 

[Iceweasel]

Conservatives are actually lizard people from another galaxy who come here to cause societal havoc by advocating the rich and driving badly in snow. Don't you just wish ET would go home now?

Damn you! You told!! I'm reporting you to the Mothership.

 

[Gadawg73]

The Founders were radicals of their time. The conservatives of the day were the Torries who believed in the safe colonial system where the King relied solely on the doctrine of divine right given to the monarchy by God.

Those were loyalists anyway but conservativism doesn't mean status quo no matter what. That's the liberal's inaccurate definition. Conservatives are free market small government types and from day one we had disagreements. The Federalists were more liberal, Paine was liberal. The conservatives fought the loyalists, where did you get your history from?

America's first conservatives - Los Angeles Times
Largely forgotten today, the nation's first conservatives were collectively as important as its famous revolutionaries and firebrands like Franklin, Jefferson, Adams and even, to some degree, Washington. These men were not Loyalists. They were among the most ardent defenders of American rights, and many fought with distinction against British Redcoats. But they respected hierarchies and custom, revered the military and championed free-market capitalism. They were the polar opposite of, say, a Thomas Paine, the Revolution's pamphleteer, who proselytized for a guaranteed income and agrarian rights along with fighting the British.

The loyalists were the conservatives as they wanted to conserve what already existed, the status quo.
The land and country was defined as The Americas or the Colonies.
Everyone here defined themselves AS BRITISH.
Term American did not come into well after the war.
The United States Constitution was the most liberal document in the world when written.
Claiming that the monarchies who drew their power on the mandate of divine right from God and their loyalist supporters were liberals is absurd.
So detaining men without trial is a liberal practice.
And making the government provide probable cause, eroded by conservative Supreme court rulings, is a conservative value.
Jefferson did not know it at the time but when he wrote the Declaration of Independence it was the founding and the basis for universal human rights, a liberal stance away from the power OF THE STATE which is what the monarchy is.
The legislative branch of government created by the Founders took power away from the monarchy and gave it to the people.
I get my history from the writings of Captain and then Judge Jacob Terhune, militia Bergen County starting in 1776 through his time as a Judge into the 19th century. My family still has all his writings held on the family farm in Clintondale NY.
Look it up.
You?

 

[Statistikhengst]

Conservatives are actually lizard people from another galaxy who come here to cause societal havoc by advocating the rich and driving badly in snow. Don't you just wish ET would go home now?

Damn you! You told!! I'm reporting you to the Mothership.

I need a copy of that report for a statistical analysis, stat!!!