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

[WorldWatcher]

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.

There are aspects of the law which come form two different perspectives: (A) what the law should be, and (B) the reality of how a law functions. Discussing B does not support for A.


>>>>

 

[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.

There are aspects of the law which come form two different perspectives: (A) what the law should be, and (B) the reality of how a law functions. Discussing B does not support for A.


>>>>

We know how the law functions. That's simply a matter of fact. The question for debate is if, and how, the law should be changed.

 

[Gadawg73]

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.

There are aspects of the law which come form two different perspectives: (A) what the law should be, and (B) the reality of how a law functions. Discussing B does not support for A.


>>>>

We know how the law functions. That's simply a matter of fact. The question for debate is if, and how, the law should be changed.

So you support an ambulance company owner refusing service to gay folks?
No you don't.
So how can you claim I support they need to remain in place?
NO law should be passed that ALLOWS folks to refuse service BASED ON RELIGION.
That is the argument here, NOTHING else.
The vague and often abused special interest of term of "religion" is the subject.
How can anyone prove someone's religious freedom or beliefs are "denied"?
By what someone claims?
Terrible precedent to start if we go by what people claim they believe in.
Keep religion the hell out of the law. Bad road to go down.

 

[dblack]

There are aspects of the law which come form two different perspectives: (A) what the law should be, and (B) the reality of how a law functions. Discussing B does not support for A.


>>>>

We know how the law functions. That's simply a matter of fact. The question for debate is if, and how, the law should be changed.

So you support an ambulance company owner refusing service to gay folks?
No you don't.

No, I don't. But I do support their right to. There should be no law prohibiting it. Unless they are contracted as a municiple or state service, it's up to them to choose who they serve and who the don't.

So how can you claim I support they need to remain in place?

Well, you seem to be - even here in this post - suggesting that PA laws must stay on the books to prevent ambulance companies from discriminating. Am I reading you wrong?

NO law should be passed that ALLOWS folks to refuse service BASED ON RELIGION.

Unless it's part of a broader change that allows service providers to refuse for any reason, I agree. But they should be allowed to refuse based on religion, if that's their desire.

That is the argument here, NOTHING else.
The vague and often abused special interest of term of "religion" is the subject.

Like many threads here, it shines a light on a larger problem, and provides an excellent case study of why our approach to dealing with bigoted discrimination was a bad idea. It's definitely appropriate to discuss here.

Keep religion the hell out of the law. Bad road to go down.

I agree. I was opposed to the AZ law for that reason. But the problem it was trying to solve is real, and it's worth discussing other solutions.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Well, THAT was certainly pointless and irrelevant. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"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".

Are you aware that not a single ******* thing you've said has had anything to do with the topic of the thread, NOR is it of any interest to anyone else? I don't believe anyone said, "Hey, could you please tell us how gross you think homosexuality is? And could you please discuss 'teaching it in schools', even though schools have absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand?"

We all get that you don't like homosexuality. Please try to reciprocate by getting that WE DON'T CARE. It's irrelevant, and you're wasting everyone's time. This is not a thread about whether or not homosexuality sucks. It's a thread about whether or not people like you should be legally prevented from saying that it sucks. Just because I am willing to defend your right to say it doesn't mean I'm inviting you to do so

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Ahh, yes. The familiar leftist song: "The Constitution says it because we got a bunch of judges to say it does. Who needs to cite the actual words of the Constitution, when we can just cite someone's opinion of what the Constitution should be?"

Here's a hint: Any time someone asks you what the Constitution says, and your answer includes the words "The Supreme Court", you've just lost.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Ahh, yes. The familiar leftist song: "The Constitution says it because we got a bunch of judges to say it does. Who needs to cite the actual words of the Constitution, when we can just cite someone's opinion of what the Constitution should be?"

Here's a hint: Any time someone asks you what the Constitution says, and your answer includes the words "The Supreme Court", you've just lost.

The 14th Amendment was cited when Loving v Virginia was ruled on by the Supreme Court. The following quote regarding "naturalness" was used by the Virginia Supreme Court:

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.

The SCOTUS decided that it really didn't ******* matter who thought something was "unnatural" when it came to ruling on LAW.

 

[protectionist]

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.

No, the proper thing is to scrutinize the schools, their teachers, and course contents, and keep them clean to what we deem proper (ex. No Muslim jihadist propaganda, no homo propaganda, etc) You seem to miss the point that govt is us. And it is we who should shape our society.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

No, the proper thing is to scrutinize the schools, their teachers, and course contents, and keep them clean to what we deem proper (ex. No Muslim jihadist propaganda, no homo propaganda, etc) You seem to miss the point that govt is us. And it is we who should shape our society.

Homophobe at large again. Xenophobe as well.

 

[protectionist]

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.

Ahh, yes. The familiar leftist song: "The Constitution says it because we got a bunch of judges to say it does. Who needs to cite the actual words of the Constitution, when we can just cite someone's opinion of what the Constitution should be?"

Here's a hint: Any time someone asks you what the Constitution says, and your answer includes the words "The Supreme Court", you've just lost.

The 14th Amendment was cited when Loving v Virginia was ruled on by the Supreme Court. The following quote regarding "naturalness" was used by the Virginia Supreme Court:

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.

The SCOTUS decided that it really didn't ******* matter who thought something was "unnatural" when it came to ruling on LAW.

They decided that in WHAT CASE ? WHEN ?

 

[dblack]

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.

No, the proper thing is to scrutinize the schools, their teachers, and course contents, and keep them clean to what we deem proper (ex. No Muslim jihadist propaganda, no homo propaganda, etc) You seem to miss the point that govt is us. And it is we who should shape our society.

No, it's not. It's an institution that, at best, represents the interests of the majority , at worst, organized special interests that want to control us. In neither case is government the equivalent of all the people, and it's certainly not the same thing as society.

The founders had it right on this. Government should be the servant of society, not its master.

 

[protectionist]

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.

No, the proper thing is to scrutinize the schools, their teachers, and course contents, and keep them clean to what we deem proper (ex. No Muslim jihadist propaganda, no homo propaganda, etc) You seem to miss the point that govt is us. And it is we who should shape our society.

Homophobe at large again. Xenophobe as well.

Alert! Alert! >>>> Sexual orientation card user at large again. Race card user at large again. Poster without substance at large again. Ho hum.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

No, the proper thing is to scrutinize the schools, their teachers, and course contents, and keep them clean to what we deem proper (ex. No Muslim jihadist propaganda, no homo propaganda, etc) You seem to miss the point that govt is us. And it is we who should shape our society.

Homophobe at large again. Xenophobe as well.

Alert! Alert! >>>> Sexual orientation card user at large again. Race card user at large again. Poster without substance at large again. Ho hum.

Quick, somewhere two gay men are happy tonight. Run and go find them and break that up. Good boy...

 

[protectionist]

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.

No, the proper thing is to scrutinize the schools, their teachers, and course contents, and keep them clean to what we deem proper (ex. No Muslim jihadist propaganda, no homo propaganda, etc) You seem to miss the point that govt is us. And it is we who should shape our society.

No, it's not. It's an institution that, at best, represents the interests of the majority , at worst, organized special interests that want to control us. In neither case is government the equivalent of all the people, and it's certainly not the same thing as society.

The founders had it right on this. Government should be the servant of society, not its master.

All you are doing is describing what happens to govt when we the people neglect to manage it properly. Well sure. Nothing is good if/whenever it's mismanaged. The correct thing is to strive to rise to the TOP of the ideal of govt, not succumb to the BOTTOM of its symptoms of corruption and neglect.

 

[protectionist]

Homophobe at large again. Xenophobe as well.

Alert! Alert! >>>> Sexual orientation card user at large again. Race card user at large again. Poster without substance at large again. Ho hum.

Quick, somewhere two gay men are happy tonight. Run and go find them and break that up. Good boy...

Your words. Not mine.

Depending on the situation, it might be proper to break that up, and even arrest the violators, if they are engaging in homosexual sex, in public, or teaching it to minors.

 

[dblack]

No, the proper thing is to scrutinize the schools, their teachers, and course contents, and keep them clean to what we deem proper (ex. No Muslim jihadist propaganda, no homo propaganda, etc) You seem to miss the point that govt is us. And it is we who should shape our society.

No, it's not. It's an institution that, at best, represents the interests of the majority , at worst, organized special interests that want to control us. In neither case is government the equivalent of all the people, and it's certainly not the same thing as society.

The founders had it right on this. Government should be the servant of society, not its master.

All you are doing is describing what happens to govt when we the people neglect to manage it properly. Well sure. Nothing is good if/whenever it's mismanaged. The correct thing is to strive to rise to the TOP of the ideal of govt, not succumb to the BOTTOM of its symptoms of corruption and neglect.

The correct thing to do is what the founders intended; limit government constitutionally so that neither the majority nor special interests can use it to force their will on society capriciously.

 

[protectionist]

No, it's not. It's an institution that, at best, represents the interests of the majority , at worst, organized special interests that want to control us. In neither case is government the equivalent of all the people, and it's certainly not the same thing as society.

The founders had it right on this. Government should be the servant of society, not its master.

All you are doing is describing what happens to govt when we the people neglect to manage it properly. Well sure. Nothing is good if/whenever it's mismanaged. The correct thing is to strive to rise to the TOP of the ideal of govt, not succumb to the BOTTOM of its symptoms of corruption and neglect.

The correct thing to do is what the founders intended; limit government constitutionally so that neither the majority nor special interests can use it to force their will on society capriciously.

Fine. But that doesn't mean to not have a legislature, and not make new laws according to the will of the majority of the people. In fact the founders in their Constitution did just that. Providing for 3 branches of govt, one of which is the legislature, and 2 of which are created by "the majority".

 

[protectionist]

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".

Are you aware that not a single ******* thing you've said has had anything to do with the topic of the thread, NOR is it of any interest to anyone else? I don't believe anyone said, "Hey, could you please tell us how gross you think homosexuality is? And could you please discuss 'teaching it in schools', even though schools have absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand?"

We all get that you don't like homosexuality. Please try to reciprocate by getting that WE DON'T CARE. It's irrelevant, and you're wasting everyone's time. This is not a thread about whether or not homosexuality sucks. It's a thread about whether or not people like you should be legally prevented from saying that it sucks. Just because I am willing to defend your right to say it doesn't mean I'm inviting you to do so

Looks like you've been around this forum long enough to know that not every post is dead on to the topic. Many posts simply deal with responses to other posts, whether directly on topic, not on topic at all, or on topic indirectly.

Having been posting in forums for 10 years, I don't need coaching. It so happens that my post WAS CONNECTED to a prior post which I was responding to. If you can't handle that without having a tantrum meltdown, perhaps this isn't the venue for you. Have you tried needlework ?

As for your 3 capital lettered words "WE DON"T CARE" >> Correction: YOU don't care. The others here, DO CARE, as proven by the fact that they not only have read my posts that you say they don't care about, but they've also been responding to them, and one doesn't respond to what one doesn't care about. You respond, you care. If there's really anything around here that they don't care about, it might be what YOU care, or don't care about.

PS - I shall now go back to posting MY way, whether you like it or not.

 

[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.

Well, THAT was certainly pointless and irrelevant. Thanks for sharing.

No it wasn't. Looks like you have difficulty understanding things.