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

[dblack]

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.

Just keep adding "protected classes" and see how that works out.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

Just keep adding "protected classes" and see how that works out.

So far so good.

 

[dblack]

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.

Just keep adding "protected classes" and see how that works out.

So far so good.

Then what are you worried about? Why does it bother you that people are pushing back?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Just keep adding "protected classes" and see how that works out.

So far so good.

Then what are you worried about? Why does it bother you that people are pushing back?

It doesn't, it just shows they are morons when they believe in their heart of hearts that things will go back to the way there were before.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

So what is the source of this proof?


The Writ of Certiorari to the SCOTUS says it was nude maternity pictures, I don't see where they have claimed to turn down a nude wedding. (Although under the NM law is legal as "nudist" isn't one of the protected classes.)

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/ElanePhotoCertPetition.pdf

>>>>

 

[kaz]

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.

You consider that to be a contradiction to what he said? Seriously? Wow.

 

[kaz]

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.

So what is the source of this proof?


The Writ of Certiorari to the SCOTUS says it was nude maternity pictures, I don't see where they have claimed to turn down a nude wedding. (Although under the NM law is legal as "nudist" isn't one of the protected classes.)

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/ElanePhotoCertPetition.pdf

>>>>

The inability of liberals to process a point is staggering. The point is the red. Dickering over what isn't the point is ... pointless ...

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

So what is the source of this proof?


The Writ of Certiorari to the SCOTUS says it was nude maternity pictures, I don't see where they have claimed to turn down a nude wedding. (Although under the NM law is legal as "nudist" isn't one of the protected classes.)

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/ElanePhotoCertPetition.pdf

>>>>

The inability of liberals to process a point is staggering. The point is the red. Dickering over what isn't the point is ... pointless ...

When someone is going to get on a high-horse and call other posters idiots and liars, they ought to try to be correct.


With that said, I'm not a liberal, been a registered Republican for and in my opinion Public Accommodation laws should be repealed for ALL private businesses, not just special rights for some businesses to hide behind a shield of religion.


>>>>

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I actually make a cogent argument explaining why you try for the Guinness World Record for fallacies in one sentence. Is that because I got it right, or is simply an admission that you can't defend your position?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

So what is the source of this proof?


The Writ of Certiorari to the SCOTUS says it was nude maternity pictures, I don't see where they have claimed to turn down a nude wedding. (Although under the NM law is legal as "nudist" isn't one of the protected classes.)

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/ElanePhotoCertPetition.pdf

>>>>

Jones made the absurd statement that not performing a service on demand is the same as denying the person requesting the service access to the entire market. Unless you are trying to defend that idiotic position, and the claim that it is fundamental to 21st century America, shut the **** up.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So what is the source of this proof?


The Writ of Certiorari to the SCOTUS says it was nude maternity pictures, I don't see where they have claimed to turn down a nude wedding. (Although under the NM law is legal as "nudist" isn't one of the protected classes.)

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/ElanePhotoCertPetition.pdf

>>>>

The inability of liberals to process a point is staggering. The point is the red. Dickering over what isn't the point is ... pointless ...

When someone is going to get on a high-horse and call other posters idiots and liars, they ought to try to be correct.


With that said, I'm not a liberal, been a registered Republican for and in my opinion Public Accommodation laws should be repealed for ALL private businesses, not just special rights for some businesses to hide behind a shield of religion.


>>>>

You are trying to nit pick over whether Elaine Photography ever was asked to shoot a nudist wedding, and claim that, unless I can prove they actually did get asked, I cannot prove that they are not the only photographer in the entire ******* world?

Are you ******* insane? I can get up on my high horse because, unlike the idiots who never admit that they are wrong, I have actually admitted it. I will admit the story I read might have gotten the details wrong, but that doesn't change the ******* simple truth that Elaine Photography is not the ******* market, it is one business.

By the way, since you just pointed out that you should be correct if someone is going to get on a high horse, do you plan on correcting your absurd insistence that SB 1062 would allow business to discriminate on the basis of race? Keep in mind that I still have access to everything you already ignored on the subject, including an analysis my legal scholars that support same sex marriage, that actually urged Brewer to do the right thing and sign the bill.

Until you do that, I suggest you never try to correct me on anything, because, even when I am wrong, I am going to rub your face in your unwillingness to admit you are wrong.

 

[protectionist]

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?

God or no God, abnormal, unnatural behavior is just that, whether by humans, dogs, or turtles.

 

[protectionist]

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?

Sure I can call it freedom. Why not ?

 

[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.

Nope. Not as long as it's between consenting adults. It's none of your business, nor the state's.

Let's get a grounding of what the IT is that we're talking about.

1. Regarding what sick, disgusting practices people engage in, in the privacy of their bedrooms, while affecting no one else directly, I don't care.

2. What they teach to kids in school, how they affect the overall culture (as with same-sex unions), engage in close contact sports, share showers in the military, etc >> These I DO CARE about and YES, it is every bit the state's (representitive of the people) business to micromanage.

3. One thing that often is overlooked too is the fact that what 2 consenting adults do in the privacy of their home CAN effect others. It can have a profound, hurtful effect on the families (parents, kids, siblings, etc) of those who go "gay".

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Just keep adding "protected classes" and see how that works out.

Been working fine since the 1960s and will continue to do so: minorities, women, teens, and now sexual orientation, immigration, and legitimate abortion policies

 

[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.

Oh, you're just a troll. Got it.

What we "got", is when you can't come up with an intelligent response, you just yell TROLL!! TROLL!! There he is >> Sic'm.

Chill out, knave. The forehead thing was just a joke, and you asked for it, with your comment about tattoos and stars.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Let's get a grounding of what the OP is that we're talking about.

1. what adults do sexually with other adults who consent is not of Protectionist's business

2. Protectionist has a right to say and be wrong about what he says about public education. The millenials and the Xers and Ys disagree with those like him. It's over.

3. Yes, adults, hetero and homo, who fulfill perverted desires in attacking children are criminals who need to be put away.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Oh, you're just a troll. Got it.

What we "got", is when you can't come up with an intelligent response, you just yell TROLL!! TROLL!! There he is >> Sic'm.

Chill out, knave. The forehead thing was just a joke, and you asked for it, with your comment about tattoos and stars.

Protection is Boxxy the Troll

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13QmpqF9G8E]Boxxy is a troll - YouTube[/ame]

 

[protectionist]

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.

The post of Kaz stating that "freedom related to this thread is the right for...a merchant to decide who he wants to sell to..." is just as legitimate a claim as your claim of freedom for consumers. If I were selling guns and I knew some animal abusers went around shooting birds, squirrels, and homeless cats, I would not want to sell my guns to them. I should have that right to choose, and not have govt force me to do what I know would be improper.

 

[protectionist]

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.

Sure there is. It is goes back to what one considers to be a "right". And what "rights" on is concerned with. When you increase rights for one party, you often decrease them for another party. When Florida increased rights for families with kids to move into previously ADULT ONLY apartment complexes, they decreased the rights of those who wish to live in a child-free environment.

When California defeated the Briggs Initiative, and allowed queers to teach in public schools, it established less rights for the general public, who otherwise would have had the freedom of having their kids be free from the possible influences of homosexual teachers.