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

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Fortunately we have a Constitution that prohibits you and other hateful, ignorant individuals from deciding what is ‘unnatural’ or ‘abnormal.’

 

[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.

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.

Well I am sorry that you feel it's a loss of your freedom when you have to tolerate and accept others, and can no longer beat you kids and wives with knotted ropes. Change can be disheartening.

 

[protectionist]

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.

Now that you've gotten that massive IRRELEVANCY off your chest, how about responding to QW's post which didn't mention a word of what you said, and if it referred to anything, it was probably more likely referring to the TOPIC of the thread >> Business Owners To Refuse Service To Gays

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

Now that you've gotten that massive IRRELEVANCY off your chest, how about responding to QW's post which didn't mention a word of what you said, and if it referred to anything, it was probably more likely referring to the TOPIC of the thread >> Business Owners To Refuse Service To Gays

I remember when I was told that I could no longer burn witches at the stake. I was very depressed so I went and beat a slave, That helped but it was never the same. The magic, pun intended, was gone forever, my right to be free from witches.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Nope. The consumer can go to whomever is providing goods or services in the public market place. However, the merchant cannot discriminate against a buyer because of protected category.

 

[protectionist]

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.

When the SCOTUS rules on a case in upcoming months, it is quite possible that this will result in "the way things were before". This is an affirmative action case. >> Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration & Immigrant Rights, and Fight for Equality by Any Means Necessary (12-682). A written ruling could come as late as June 2014.

If the ruling goes against the coalition, it is like likely to set off a landslide of legislation, nationwide banning affirmative action at the state level (currently banned in 8 states)

I wouldn't say that people would be "morons" to say that the Conservative majority on the SCOTUS will vote to dump AA.

 

[protectionist]

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

Kids: this is why you should not do drugs.

 

[protectionist]

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.

Fortunately we have a Constitution that prohibits you and other hateful, ignorant individuals from deciding what is ‘unnatural’ or ‘abnormal.’

I challenged you on your favorite talking point words (hateful, ignorant) in previous posts, and you punked out, with no response. That eliminates your capability of using them any more (unless you have the intellectual integrity of a wart hog).

As for your dumb statement > NO the Constitution DOES NOT prohibit the American people from deciding what is ‘unnatural’ or ‘abnormal, nor have you shown one shred of evidence that it does. You haven't even presented the part of the Constitution here, that you think does that. I guess that's because you know if you did, it would be soundly refuted. You're right about that.

 

[protectionist]

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.

Well I am sorry that you feel it's a loss of your freedom when you have to tolerate and accept others, and can no longer beat you kids and wives with knotted ropes. Change can be disheartening.

This idiotic post (# 2622) was stomped out in the very next post (# 2623). Notice that ?

 

[protectionist]

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.

Now that you've gotten that massive IRRELEVANCY off your chest, how about responding to QW's post which didn't mention a word of what you said, and if it referred to anything, it was probably more likely referring to the TOPIC of the thread >> Business Owners To Refuse Service To Gays

I remember when I was told that I could no longer burn witches at the stake. I was very depressed so I went and beat a slave, That helped but it was never the same. The magic, pun intended, was gone forever, my right to be free from witches.

Witches and queers. No correlation.
Like the buzzers in the quiz shows (when you get the wrong answer) >> AAAHHHHHHHH!!!!

 

[protectionist]

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.

Nope. The consumer can go to whomever is providing goods or services in the public market place. However, the merchant cannot discriminate against a buyer because of protected category.

YUP!! The consumer CANNOT always go to whomever is providing goods or services in the public market place. Lots of sales are regulated which vet out particular consumers from making purchases. (ex. consumers with criminal records cannot buy guns). Merchants do discriminate against buyers, and they do it every day.

As for protected categories, even after 50 years of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill, queers are still not a "protected category", and under most states' laws, they are a restricted category, such as the 30 states in which same sex marriage is still ILLEGAL.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/342492-other-states-copy-arizona-sb-1062-a.html

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Fortunately we have a Constitution that prohibits you and other hateful, ignorant individuals from deciding what is ‘unnatural’ or ‘abnormal.’

It does? Where?

 

[dblack]

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.

No, you're both wrong. The state serves society, not the other way around. This is why government controlled education is so dangerous. Authoritarians just can't help themselves, and will use it to dictate.

 

[dblack]

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.

Nope. The consumer can go to whomever is providing goods or services in the public market place. However, the merchant cannot discriminate against a buyer because of protected category.

And what justifies such a one-sided policy? By the same twisted moral accounting, consumers should likewise be prevented from discriminating against vendors because of a protected category.

 

[protectionist]

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.

Nope. The consumer can go to whomever is providing goods or services in the public market place. However, the merchant cannot discriminate against a buyer because of protected category.

And what justifies such a one-sided policy? By the same twisted moral accounting, consumers should likewise be prevented from discriminating against vendors because of a protected category.

No offense, but I liked my answer (post # 2631) better.

 

[protectionist]

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.

No, you're both wrong. The state serves society, not the other way around. This is why government controlled education is so dangerous. Authoritarians just can't help themselves, and will use it to dictate.

I went through public education form 1st grade through 4 years of college. I don't think authoritarians used it to dictate anything improper, with one exception. The college open admissions program, where they lowered standards for admission, and watered down academic standards weakening the level of education, all to make it possible for blacks to get college degrees, whether they learned anything or not.

 

[dblack]

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.

No, you're both wrong. The state serves society, not the other way around. This is why government controlled education is so dangerous. Authoritarians just can't help themselves, and will use it to dictate.

I went through public education form 1st grade through 4 years of college. I don't think authoritarians used it to dictate anything improper...

But, according to your post, that's exactly what you're worried about - that the wrong authoritarians will take control and teach things you disagree with. The only way to protect ourselves from this is to keep government out of the business of 'shaping' society in the first place.

 

[Seawytch]

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

Fortunately we have a Constitution that prohibits you and other hateful, ignorant individuals from deciding what is ‘unnatural’ or ‘abnormal.’

It does? Where?

According to the SCOTUS, the 14th Amendment.

The purity of public morals, the moral and physical development of both races….require that they should be kept distinct and separate… that connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law, and be subject to no evasion.

 

[Gadawg73]

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.


>>>>

Ditto here as I OPPOSE all Public Accommodation Laws also.
And have offered NUMEROUS ways to get around them.
I believe the Christian Victim Onward Christian Soldiers Movement loves these laws.
Gives them something to shield themselves behind to fight their make believe wars.

 

[dblack]

I OPPOSE all Public Accommodation Laws also.
And have offered NUMEROUS ways to get around them.
I believe the Christian Victim Onward Christian Soldiers Movement loves these laws.
Gives them something to shield themselves behind to fight their make believe wars.

Haven't been seeing that myself. You've been consistently defending them in fact, routinely citing the private ambulance service as your example for why they need to remain in place. If you're actually opposed to the PA laws, you certainly can't blame folks here for assuming otherwise.