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

[PaintMyHouse]

Why would anyone care if 2 gay folks get married?

Because it is a sick, perversion of what is normal and natural, is thereby harmful, and should not be accepted as legitimate behavior. To have same-sex marriage also induces the less intelligent and much younger people to accept this aberrant behavior, as is happening right now in foolish states like New York, California, Illinois, etc.

Homosexuality and homophobia are both natural. Moving on.

 

[protectionist]

Hows a law supposed to ban gays? unless I come in there wearing assless chaps and singing Lady Gaga how do you decide who is a homosexual?

So if homosexuals aren't apparent as are blacks and women, then they have nothing to fear from being discriminated against, right ? As long as a queer guy doesn't show off queer attributes, he can walk into a job interview equal to any other guy, right ?
So no need for any "gay rights" legislation, right ? Right ?

 

[Bumberclyde]

Hows a law supposed to ban gays? unless I come in there wearing assless chaps and singing Lady Gaga how do you decide who is a homosexual?

So if homosexuals aren't apparent as are blacks and women, then they have nothing to fear from being discriminated against, right ? As long as a queer guy doesn't show off queer attributes, he can walk into a job interview equal to any other guy, right ?
So no need for any "gay rights" legislation, right ? Right ?

So gays are ok if they stay closeted? Is that working for you?

 

[protectionist]

Hows a law supposed to ban gays? unless I come in there wearing assless chaps and singing Lady Gaga how do you decide who is a homosexual?

The law was too broadly written.

But for the other ones coming up to pass in other states, they will be narrowed more to a situation where you are forcing someone else to practice gay cult values in violation of their faith. How they would "know" you are gay is if you are standing there asking them to make a gay wedding cake with two guys on top or two women. Or if you said "will you photograph me and my boyfriend getting married", or "will you cater my wedding to my husband"?

On those grounds christians are required to refuse to participate re: Jude 1 and Romans 1 and the warning of being sent to hell for eternity for enabling a Sodom like takeover of another culture.

I'd actually argue the opposite. The law was too narrowly written. The problem here is with the idea that government can force us to cater to other people against our will. Outside of enforcing contractual obligations, the state simply has no business micro-managing our personal decisions like this.

"Personal decisions" of homosexuality are more than just personal decisions. They are societal decisions, which affect everyone. The state has plenty of business micromanaging it.

 

[Bumberclyde]

The law was too broadly written.

But for the other ones coming up to pass in other states, they will be narrowed more to a situation where you are forcing someone else to practice gay cult values in violation of their faith. How they would "know" you are gay is if you are standing there asking them to make a gay wedding cake with two guys on top or two women. Or if you said "will you photograph me and my boyfriend getting married", or "will you cater my wedding to my husband"?

On those grounds christians are required to refuse to participate re: Jude 1 and Romans 1 and the warning of being sent to hell for eternity for enabling a Sodom like takeover of another culture.

I'd actually argue the opposite. The law was too narrowly written. The problem here is with the idea that government can force us to cater to other people against our will. Outside of enforcing contractual obligations, the state simply has no business micro-managing our personal decisions like this.

"Personal decisions" of homosexuality are more than just personal decisions. They are societal decisions, which affect everyone. The state has plenty of business micromanaging it.

How does someone you don't even know exists ******* someone else in the ass affect you?

 

[Andylusion]

Incorrect.

Refusing to accommodate unmarried couples has nothing to do with ‘freedom of religion’ and everything to do with the fact that unmarried couples don’t constitute a class of persons protected by public accommodations laws in that jurisdiction.

Whatever. The reason they refused to allow shacking up couple to do one night stands in their motel, was because of religious views, and that's a constitutional right. Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Association.

Whatever legalese you come up with, doesn't matter to me. If that's what you want to go with, fine. Knock yourself out. As for me, the group that funded the defense of the motel, was a Christian Rights group. They seem to know what they were fighting for.

Christian Rights groups should be out feeding, housing and clothing the poor before they are involved in law suits.
How did the hotel owner know they were "shacking up"?

First, your opinion of what others should do, really doesn't matter to us or anyone else.

Second, we do all those things.

Third, there are specific groups, for specific purposes. Those that feed, house, and clothe people, do that. Those that protect constitutional rights, do that.

Fourth, he asked. They answered. That's how that works. Generally married people have the same last name, and a ring on their finger. Those that are brother and sister, have the same last name. Those that are not shacking up, generally do not go to a motel and ask for a single room, with a single bed. This isn't rocket science.

 

[protectionist]

You OBVIOUSLY have NO CLUE where to draw the line.

Aren't you the one that is arguing that anyone should be able to marry anyone else? The only possible reason for the government to regulate marriage in the first place is in order to deny it to some people, which is why the only sane position is to tell people who they can't marry.

You're confused, let me help you. A gay couple should enjoy the same freedom to marry as a straight couple does.

NONSENSE! This is like saying that the driver of a sailboat in a bay should have the same rights as the driver of a car on an interstate highway. Imagine the sailboat moving along that interstate highway, powered by the wind hitting its sails.

EARTH TO BUMBERCLYDE: Marriage is for people who are biologically suited to each other, and how nature made that be.

 

[protectionist]

I'd actually argue the opposite. The law was too narrowly written. The problem here is with the idea that government can force us to cater to other people against our will. Outside of enforcing contractual obligations, the state simply has no business micro-managing our personal decisions like this.

"Personal decisions" of homosexuality are more than just personal decisions. They are societal decisions, which affect everyone. The state has plenty of business micromanaging it.

How does someone you don't even know exists ******* someone else in the ass affect you?

Answered in Post # 2540. Try reading the thread.

 

[protectionist]

Hows a law supposed to ban gays? unless I come in there wearing assless chaps and singing Lady Gaga how do you decide who is a homosexual?

So if homosexuals aren't apparent as are blacks and women, then they have nothing to fear from being discriminated against, right ? As long as a queer guy doesn't show off queer attributes, he can walk into a job interview equal to any other guy, right ?
So no need for any "gay rights" legislation, right ? Right ?

So gays are ok if they stay closeted? Is that working for you?

No queers are never OK. Closeted or not. I was talking about the alleged need for so-called "gay rights" discrimination law. If a black person walks in to a job interview, it's apparent that he's black. If a woman or disabled person walks in to a job interview, their gender or condition is apparent. Not so with queers. Get it ?

 

[Bumberclyde]

Why would anyone care if 2 gay folks get married?

Because it is a sick, perversion of what is normal and natural, is thereby harmful, and should not be accepted as legitimate behavior. To have same-sex marriage also induces the less intelligent and much younger people to accept this aberrant behavior, as is happening right now in foolish states like New York, California, Illinois, etc.

Oh, I thought this was just a closeted gay rant!

Btw, nature has many examples of homosexual behaviour, making it a natural occurrence. Now you know.

So, how long has it been that you can't get the picture of 2 guys going at it out of your head?

 

[Bumberclyde]

So if homosexuals aren't apparent as are blacks and women, then they have nothing to fear from being discriminated against, right ? As long as a queer guy doesn't show off queer attributes, he can walk into a job interview equal to any other guy, right ?
So no need for any "gay rights" legislation, right ? Right ?

So gays are ok if they stay closeted? Is that working for you?

No queers are never OK. Closeted or not. I was talking about the alleged need for so-called "gay rights" discrimination law. If a black person walks in to a job interview, it's apparent that he's black. If a woman or disabled person walks in to a job interview, their gender or condition is apparent. Not so with queers. Get it ?

So they should have a tattoo on their arm, or just a star on their jacket?

 

[protectionist]

On the other hand ALL citizens are have equal protections under the law and States may not infringe on that without a compelling interest, capricious and invidious discriminatory laws are not allowed. THAT principal is embodied in the 14th Amendment.

But there IS a compelling interest. That of PROTECTING the American people from the lunacy of homosexuality, and the spread of it, especially to children.

Lots of exceptions to the equal protections under the law of the 14th Amendment exist, in addition to queers. There are people locked up in mental institutions, criminals locked up in prisons, people who are denied rights to drive cars, buy guns, etc. What else is new ?

Ronald Reagan said how many decades ago "homosexuality is not a disease like measles and a person's sexual identity is determined at an early age"?

Do you really believe you could have been swayed into sucking cock as a child?
Not me brother, not in a million years.

I should care what one of America's worst screwballs of all time (Ronald Reagan) says ? Pheeeww!! (high-pitched whistle) Do I really believe a kid could be swayed into sucking cock as a child? So this is one of those questions that has an obvious answer designed to look like it is a serious question ? I guess the answer would be that I believe the FACT that millions of kids are swayed into it all the time, and this has been going on for decades. Did you just arrive here from Mars ?

 

[protectionist]

So gays are ok if they stay closeted? Is that working for you?

No queers are never OK. Closeted or not. I was talking about the alleged need for so-called "gay rights" discrimination law. If a black person walks in to a job interview, it's apparent that he's black. If a woman or disabled person walks in to a job interview, their gender or condition is apparent. Not so with queers. Get it ?

So they should have a tattoo on their arm, or just a star on their jacket?

Tattoo on forehead might be better. Arms can be covered by long-sleeve shirts. Actually, if they don't show any signs of their affliction, they are relatively harmless.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

No queers are never OK. Closeted or not. I was talking about the alleged need for so-called "gay rights" discrimination law. If a black person walks in to a job interview, it's apparent that he's black. If a woman or disabled person walks in to a job interview, their gender or condition is apparent. Not so with queers. Get it ?

So they should have a tattoo on their arm, or just a star on their jacket?

Tattoo on forehead might be better. Arms can be covered by long-sleeve shirts. Actually, if they don't show any signs of their affliction, they are relatively harmless.

This guy could have been Hitler's right-hand tattoo artist. Another sad case of born too late I guess.

 

[protectionist]

Why would anyone care if 2 gay folks get married?

Because it is a sick, perversion of what is normal and natural, is thereby harmful, and should not be accepted as legitimate behavior. To have same-sex marriage also induces the less intelligent and much younger people to accept this aberrant behavior, as is happening right now in foolish states like New York, California, Illinois, etc.

Btw, nature has many examples of homosexual behaviour, making it a natural occurrence. Now you know.

And where those examples of homosexual behavior exist, they are just as contrary to nature, just as UNnatural, as any other homosexual behavior, as I've always known.

 

[protectionist]

So they should have a tattoo on their arm, or just a star on their jacket?

Tattoo on forehead might be better. Arms can be covered by long-sleeve shirts. Actually, if they don't show any signs of their affliction, they are relatively harmless.

This guy could have been Hitler's right-hand tattoo artist. Another sad case of born too late I guess.

So you equate restriction of homosexuality, with the fascism of Hitler, then. I can see somebody's got YOU programmed.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Because it is a sick, perversion of what is normal and natural, is thereby harmful, and should not be accepted as legitimate behavior. To have same-sex marriage also induces the less intelligent and much younger people to accept this aberrant behavior, as is happening right now in foolish states like New York, California, Illinois, etc.

Btw, nature has many examples of homosexual behaviour, making it a natural occurrence. Now you know.

And where those examples of homosexual behavior exist, they are just as contrary to nature, just as UNnatural, as any other homosexual behavior, as I've always known.

Just other creatures "choosing" to be gay. Maybe they have their only little version of the Devil who tempts them away from their own little version of God? For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten monkey?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Tattoo on forehead might be better. Arms can be covered by long-sleeve shirts. Actually, if they don't show any signs of their affliction, they are relatively harmless.

This guy could have been Hitler's right-hand tattoo artist. Another sad case of born too late I guess.

So you equate restriction of homosexuality, with the fascism of Hitler, then. I can see somebody's got YOU programmed.

Well you can't all it Freedom now can you?

 

[dblack]

Supreme Court has ruled how many times against your failed, vague and narrow legal opinion of the cake baking case which to date is THE ONLY person the Christian victim trumpeters have found.
How is the search going in Arizona for that ONE business owner that has their "religious freedom" denied.
And how has the baker had his "religious freedom" denied?
Baking a cake forces him to lose his religious freedom?
LOL, that is about the most absurd thing I have ever heard.
You do know the baker claimed HIS RELIGIOUS FREEDOM was denied, don't you?
His religious freedom has not been denied and this is what these KOOKS claim they are fighting for.
And you believe that?

Nope. Never said that. I happen to agree that it's not a matter of religious freedom. It's a freedom of association issue. The problem with the Arizona law is that it's too narrow.

Hetero people buy wedding cakes from gay bakers all the time.

What do you mean? What's your point?

 

[dblack]

You see, if you make an exclusion for that in the law you blow up your entire legal argument for "freedom of association" and the entire law is ruled out.

That's the point. The entire law (the public accommodations nonsense) should be ruled out.