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

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Why are you afraid of homosexuals?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Not entirely.

It should apply only to public venues and government sanctioned monopolies. (I know I am repeating myself with government sanctioned monopolies, but a lot of people confuse monopoly with big companies.)

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Tell us, why do you suggest such things when that won't happen? The laws have been on the books for decades. Why do think there's even a chance that would change?

If you were a conservative hack interested only in protecting the status quo you would have no problem with the concept of laws being changed. Jim Crow laws were on the books for over a century, that changed.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The state attempts to push back have so far all failed, when they got high enough in the courts. Just like the repeals of gay marriage bans, the voters have changed their minds. I know you wish it weren't so but it is.

I wonder if you'd have made the same kinds of inane arguments to the abolitionists? "It's been decided" "It's been this way for decades" "You will surely fail!"

Heh... rather comical really, but I'm beginning to suspect that's your schtick.

Nothing inane at all. In abortion the trend is always towards earlier, safer, and fewer but still legal. Pretty much exactly what you are seeing, even if the right attempts to make it unavailable the public doesn't agree.

He said "abolitionists," nor "abortionists." He actually made a pretty good point, one that you are way to stupid to get.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I wonder if you'd have made the same kinds of inane arguments to the abolitionists? "It's been decided" "It's been this way for decades" "You will surely fail!"

Heh... rather comical really, but I'm beginning to suspect that's your schtick.

Nothing inane at all. In abortion the trend is always towards earlier, safer, and fewer but still legal. Pretty much exactly what you are seeing, even if the right attempts to make it unavailable the public doesn't agree.

What??? Are you trying to make an argument, or just assuming that because I'm arguing against public accommodations that abortion will get under my skin? Just like you probably assume I'm anti-gay or somesuch. You're wrong on both counts (and many others).

That's what I mean by 'schtick'. It seems you're just here to play the assclown, not to have substantive discussions.

My point, which you either deliberately ignored or were too stupid to understand, is that appeals to "trends" and the "status quo" are empty, and say nothing about whether a given position is well-founded, or not. They also say nothing about the long-term sustainability of bad policy.

Did you consider the possibility that he can't read?

 

[kaz]

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

We have fundamentally different views of what freedom means.

To me, freedom related to this thread is the right for a consumer to decide where he wants to shop and what he's willing to pay and and a merchant to decide who he wants to sell to and what he's willing to sell his merchandise and services for. When they agree, a transaction occurs.

To you, freedom is the right of a consumer to run to government and have them use the force of guns to compel the merchant to sell to them whether they want to or not.

In no possible way is the use of force to compel citizens to transact "freedom."

RE: Bolded

Except that is not what this bill was about, it in no way provided a merchant the right to decide who he want's to sell to. This bill provided special rights for a merchant to exclude customers only if they uttered the magic phrase "sincerely held religious beliefs". The ability to reject a customer was still limited for other reasons.

So the idea that this bill provided merchants (in general) any additional freedom is false, it was about creating a special exemption to only one class of merchants (those smart enough to shield their actions through the guise of religion.)



>>>>

And the religion exclusion was so broad as to pretty much allow anyone to not sell to anyone for any reason, they just have to pay some sort of lip service in the process to that religion was somehow involved in their decision.

It should have just been stated without religion, but never should anyone be forced to transact business with government guns, so that somehow this is worse than not having it is nonsense.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

We have fundamentally different views of what freedom means.

To me, freedom related to this thread is the right for a consumer to decide where he wants to shop and what he's willing to pay and and a merchant to decide who he wants to sell to and what he's willing to sell his merchandise and services for. When they agree, a transaction occurs.

To you, freedom is the right of a consumer to run to government and have them use the force of guns to compel the merchant to sell to them whether they want to or not.

In no possible way is the use of force to compel citizens to transact "freedom."

RE: Bolded

Except that is not what this bill was about, it in no way provided a merchant the right to decide who he want's to sell to. This bill provided special rights for a merchant to exclude customers only if they uttered the magic phrase "sincerely held religious beliefs". The ability to reject a customer was still limited for other reasons.

So the idea that this bill provided merchants (in general) any additional freedom is false, it was about creating a special exemption to only one class of merchants (those smart enough to shield their actions through the guise of religion.)



>>>>

Once again, it did no such thing. Do yourself a favor and read what actual lawyers said about the bill, and compare it to the current religious freedom law in Arizona, then come back and apologize for lying.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Nothing inane at all. In abortion the trend is always towards earlier, safer, and fewer but still legal. Pretty much exactly what you are seeing, even if the right attempts to make it unavailable the public doesn't agree.

What??? Are you trying to make an argument, or just assuming that because I'm arguing against public accommodations that abortion will get under my skin? Just like you probably assume I'm anti-gay or somesuch. You're wrong on both counts (and many others).

That's what I mean by 'schtick'. It seems you're just here to play the assclown, not to have substantive discussions.

My point, which you either deliberately ignored or were too stupid to understand, is that appeals to "trends" and the "status quo" are empty, and say nothing about whether a given position is well-founded, or not. They also say nothing about the long-term sustainability of bad policy.

Did you consider the possibility that he can't read?

Or I just misread it, as in this case. To his point, if the trend was going against slavery, then that is the trend. If the trend is more rights for gays, then that is the trend, If the trend is expanding the classes that are considered protected, then that is the trend. In the real world things usually go forward, not back.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Here is a stupid definition of "freedom": freedom related to this thread is the right for a consumer to decide where he wants to shop and what he's willing to pay and and a merchant to decide who he wants to sell to and what he's willing to sell his merchandise and services for

The trend is to expanding protection to classes.

The trend is marriage equality for gays.

Tis what tis.

kaz, look up definitions of freedom and liberty: you are confused.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

We have fundamentally different views of what freedom means.

To me, freedom related to this thread is the right for a consumer to decide where he wants to shop and what he's willing to pay and and a merchant to decide who he wants to sell to and what he's willing to sell his merchandise and services for. When they agree, a transaction occurs.

To you, freedom is the right of a consumer to run to government and have them use the force of guns to compel the merchant to sell to them whether they want to or not.

In no possible way is the use of force to compel citizens to transact "freedom."

Nonsense.

There is no ‘freedom’ when consumers are denied access to a market solely as a consequence of who they are; and merchants do not have the right to jeopardize both the local and interrelated markets with disruptive and capricious business practices.

This is an ignorant, naïve, and reactionary perception of the fundamentals of commerce in 21st Century America. Indeed, it’s ignorance of the nature of American commerce for the last 100 years.

 

[kaz]

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

We have fundamentally different views of what freedom means.

To me, freedom related to this thread is the right for a consumer to decide where he wants to shop and what he's willing to pay and and a merchant to decide who he wants to sell to and what he's willing to sell his merchandise and services for. When they agree, a transaction occurs.

To you, freedom is the right of a consumer to run to government and have them use the force of guns to compel the merchant to sell to them whether they want to or not.

In no possible way is the use of force to compel citizens to transact "freedom."

Nonsense.

There is no ‘freedom’ when consumers are denied access to a market solely as a consequence of who they are; and merchants do not have the right to jeopardize both the local and interrelated markets with disruptive and capricious business practices.

This is an ignorant, naïve, and reactionary perception of the fundamentals of commerce in 21st Century America. Indeed, it’s ignorance of the nature of American commerce for the last 100 years.

LOL, liberty is government using guns on it's own citizens to dictate their behavior for the interest of government. You're a joke.

Actually, to be liberty, sometimes you have to let bad things happen. The problem with your solution of authoritarian government controlling it's citizens so they don't do anything bad is that your authoritarian government commits many, many more bad things than the random idiot merchant who doesn't want to sell to a gay.

BTW, I have a quote in my sig that describes you, check the second one...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What??? Are you trying to make an argument, or just assuming that because I'm arguing against public accommodations that abortion will get under my skin? Just like you probably assume I'm anti-gay or somesuch. You're wrong on both counts (and many others).

That's what I mean by 'schtick'. It seems you're just here to play the assclown, not to have substantive discussions.

My point, which you either deliberately ignored or were too stupid to understand, is that appeals to "trends" and the "status quo" are empty, and say nothing about whether a given position is well-founded, or not. They also say nothing about the long-term sustainability of bad policy.

Did you consider the possibility that he can't read?

Or I just misread it, as in this case. To his point, if the trend was going against slavery, then that is the trend. If the trend is more rights for gays, then that is the trend, If the trend is expanding the classes that are considered protected, then that is the trend. In the real world things usually go forward, not back.

The "trend" was in favor of less rights, just like it is now. If you don't believe me, look at the debate surrounding the the admission of California into the union, which means that your argument in favor of trends would have you arguing in support of slavery.

Come to think of it, that is exactly what you are doing now, which is pretty consistent with your conservative authoritarian leanings.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Here is a stupid definition of "freedom": freedom related to this thread is the right for a consumer to decide where he wants to shop and what he's willing to pay and and a merchant to decide who he wants to sell to and what he's willing to sell his merchandise and services for

The trend is to expanding protection to classes.

The trend is marriage equality for gays.

Tis what tis.

kaz, look up definitions of freedom and liberty: you are confused.

Jake thinks that individual freedom is a stupid metric to use for defining freedom, is anyone surprised?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Did you consider the possibility that he can't read?

Or I just misread it, as in this case. To his point, if the trend was going against slavery, then that is the trend. If the trend is more rights for gays, then that is the trend, If the trend is expanding the classes that are considered protected, then that is the trend. In the real world things usually go forward, not back.

The "trend" was in favor of less rights, just like it is now. If you don't believe me, look at the debate surrounding the the admission of California into the union, which means that your argument in favor of trends would have you arguing in support of slavery.

Come to think of it, that is exactly what you are doing now, which is pretty consistent with your conservative authoritarian leanings.

There's no trend in favor of less rights you little nutter.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

We have fundamentally different views of what freedom means.

To me, freedom related to this thread is the right for a consumer to decide where he wants to shop and what he's willing to pay and and a merchant to decide who he wants to sell to and what he's willing to sell his merchandise and services for. When they agree, a transaction occurs.

To you, freedom is the right of a consumer to run to government and have them use the force of guns to compel the merchant to sell to them whether they want to or not.

In no possible way is the use of force to compel citizens to transact "freedom."

Nonsense.

There is no ‘freedom’ when consumers are denied access to a market solely as a consequence of who they are; and merchants do not have the right to jeopardize both the local and interrelated markets with disruptive and capricious business practices.

This is an ignorant, naïve, and reactionary perception of the fundamentals of commerce in 21st Century America. Indeed, it’s ignorance of the nature of American commerce for the last 100 years.

I hate to point out the obvious here, but you cannot deny access to a market unless you have total control of the market. Just to prove my point, Elaine Photography once refused to photograph a wedding with a nudist theme. Despite this, the couple still got married, and they even found a photographer to take their pictures. This is because Elaine Photography was not the market, they are just a business.

I guess that makes the foundation of 21st century America flawed.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Or I just misread it, as in this case. To his point, if the trend was going against slavery, then that is the trend. If the trend is more rights for gays, then that is the trend, If the trend is expanding the classes that are considered protected, then that is the trend. In the real world things usually go forward, not back.

The "trend" was in favor of less rights, just like it is now. If you don't believe me, look at the debate surrounding the the admission of California into the union, which means that your argument in favor of trends would have you arguing in support of slavery.

Come to think of it, that is exactly what you are doing now, which is pretty consistent with your conservative authoritarian leanings.

There's no trend in favor of less rights you little nutter.

The trend is in favor of 'positive' rights. The only possible way a 'positive' right can exist is if you deny other people their rights. That means the trend is in favor of less rights.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The "trend" was in favor of less rights, just like it is now. If you don't believe me, look at the debate surrounding the the admission of California into the union, which means that your argument in favor of trends would have you arguing in support of slavery.

Come to think of it, that is exactly what you are doing now, which is pretty consistent with your conservative authoritarian leanings.

There's no trend in favor of less rights you little nutter.

The trend is in favor of 'positive' rights. The only possible way a 'positive' right can exist is if you deny other people their rights. That means the trend is in favor of less rights.

I'm sorry that losing your right to beat your children with a knotted rope and to tell the darkies to leave your gas station feels like such a loss for you. We consider it the correction of what you never should have had the right to do in the first place.

 

[dblack]

What??? Are you trying to make an argument, or just assuming that because I'm arguing against public accommodations that abortion will get under my skin? Just like you probably assume I'm anti-gay or somesuch. You're wrong on both counts (and many others).

That's what I mean by 'schtick'. It seems you're just here to play the assclown, not to have substantive discussions.

My point, which you either deliberately ignored or were too stupid to understand, is that appeals to "trends" and the "status quo" are empty, and say nothing about whether a given position is well-founded, or not. They also say nothing about the long-term sustainability of bad policy.

Did you consider the possibility that he can't read?

Or I just misread it, as in this case. To his point, if the trend was going against slavery, then that is the trend. If the trend is more rights for gays, then that is the trend, If the trend is expanding the classes that are considered protected, then that is the trend. In the real world things usually go forward, not back.

Here is a stupid definition of "freedom": freedom related to this thread is the right for a consumer to decide where he wants to shop and what he's willing to pay and and a merchant to decide who he wants to sell to and what he's willing to sell his merchandise and services for

The trend is to expanding protection to classes.

The trend is marriage equality for gays.

Tis what tis.

kaz, look up definitions of freedom and liberty: you are confused.

Ok guys, now I see what you're saying. "No one should argue for change that goes against the trend or bucks the status quo." - pretty standard reactionary nonsense.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Here is a stupid definition of "freedom": freedom related to this thread is the right for a consumer to decide where he wants to shop and what he's willing to pay and and a merchant to decide who he wants to sell to and what he's willing to sell his merchandise and services for

The trend is to expanding protection to classes.

The trend is marriage equality for gays.

Tis what tis.

kaz, look up definitions of freedom and liberty: you are confused.

Jake thinks that individual freedom is a stupid metric to use for defining freedom, is anyone surprised?

No one is surprised you deflected because you can't define liberty and freedom.

Try again.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Did you consider the possibility that he can't read?

Or I just misread it, as in this case. To his point, if the trend was going against slavery, then that is the trend. If the trend is more rights for gays, then that is the trend, If the trend is expanding the classes that are considered protected, then that is the trend. In the real world things usually go forward, not back.

Here is a stupid definition of "freedom": freedom related to this thread is the right for a consumer to decide where he wants to shop and what he's willing to pay and and a merchant to decide who he wants to sell to and what he's willing to sell his merchandise and services for

The trend is to expanding protection to classes.

The trend is marriage equality for gays.

Tis what tis.

kaz, look up definitions of freedom and liberty: you are confused.

Ok guys, now I see what you're saying. "No one should argue for change that goes against the trend or bucks the status quo." - pretty standard reactionary nonsense.

The reactionary nonsense is on your side. Argue for the good old days all you like, just don't expect to win, because you won't.