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

[protectionist]

The pure physical fact is that they are not the same thing. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt assume you get that. And that what you're really trying to say is that the will of the majority is the same thing as the will of the people, but that's false as well. The will of the majority, by definition, ignores the will of the minority. It's not the will of all the people, and for those who don't share the majority view, it is very much a separate entity forcing them to comply.

As when the minority fail to get the president of the US that they voted for. Oh well. That's the American system. Been that way for over 200 years. If anybody doesn't like it, there are countries that don't abide by majority rule elections. Plenty to choose from. Dictatorships abound. All you majority haters can pick Iran, Saudi Arabia, Cuba.
Here's my personal favorite > SYRIA. Bon Voyage!

Wow. Nope. That's pretty much the opposite of the American system.

What school did you attend ? You don't even know how elections are done to elect the president of the United States. Majority votes in each state wins that state's electoral votes. Majority of electoral votes in the country wins the election. Back to school for you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

How many interracial weddings have you been forced to go to?

There is no 'race'. We're all humans. The differences in DNA that account for appearance differences, are a insignificant to others. I can have more similarity in DNA with a Chinese guy from China, than the white guy across the street, and look completely different from the Chinese guy compared to the white guy next door.

There is no race. There is only the human race. Science has finally caught up with what the Bible has said for thousands of years. We are all one race. We started from Adam and Eve. The idea that there are different races, is more of an evolutionary idea.

Dear Androw:
You care to take up this issue with the Bone Marrow Registry?
in order to save lives of minorities: Latino, African American, Asian and Native American,
they created 4 nonprofits to educate and solicit registered donors from these four groups.

Their reason is the HLA compatibility is only 1/10 chances of finding a match for minorities (versus 9/10 for caucasians who tend to be compatible with each other at a higher rate).

With minorities, the HLA is more likely to be compatible with the same race, and even greater probability by matching people of the same region, such as Nigerians with Nigerians or Vietnamese with Vietnamese. the HLA is THAT specific.

With interracial patients, the match is almost impossible to find, but greater chance if the donor is the same two mixed races. For example, for one child who was half Indian and half Irish, there was a worldwide search to find a donor, where a compatible donation came from a newborn baby who was also half Indian and half Irish. the chances were 1/200,000 of finding a match and saving that kid's life.

Do you really want to take this up with the doctors who make the assessments and decisions on compatibility, and whether the patient has high enough chance of not rejecting the bone marrow to go through the expense of the surgical procedures?

finding a match is not only based on race, but specifically depends on national ethnicity as well, where people closer genetically are more likely to be compatible. it makes a difference between life and death.

Ohmigod, you just realized that people are individuals and not interchangeable cogs. Are you okay? Do you want to lie down for a bit?

What the **** does this have to do with the point that we're all human beings, members of the same species, and everything else is details? Important details, sometimes, but details nonetheless.

 

[dblack]

As when the minority fail to get the president of the US that they voted for. Oh well. That's the American system. Been that way for over 200 years. If anybody doesn't like it, there are countries that don't abide by majority rule elections. Plenty to choose from. Dictatorships abound. All you majority haters can pick Iran, Saudi Arabia, Cuba.
Here's my personal favorite > SYRIA. Bon Voyage!

Wow. Nope. That's pretty much the opposite of the American system.

What school did you attend ? You don't even know how elections are done to elect the president of the United States. Majority votes in each state wins that state's electoral votes. Majority of electoral votes in the country wins the election. Back to school for you.

Yeah. Mine had it all wrong, apparently. They taught me all kinds of crap about the "Constitution" (whatever that is!?) and "limited government". Crazy stuff, eh?

Majority rules is all we need to know nowadays. Go team!

 

[protectionist]

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.

Let me tell you what I just heard: "I know I screwed up, but I'm too much of a self-absorbed punk to admit it, so instead I will just try to rationalize why it's okay for me to **** up and waste everyone's time, and why YOU are at fault for expecting me to be a worthwhile human being."

I need no "correction". I was right the first time: no one cares that you hate homosexuals. This thread continues to not be about the squishy, icky fantasies you can't stop yourself from having about gay sex. You will continue to post about them, and gradually everyone will realize what I saw about you in your first post: you're a meaningless non-entity who will very shortly only be acknowledged by the leftists who are as lame, bigoted, and narrow-minded in their own way as you are in yours, and who gleefully see the rare existence of a latently homosexual bigot like you as proof that everyone on the right is that way.

I suggest you either get some therapy to get you over your taboo fascination with gay sex, or get some therapy to help you be comfortable with being gay. One or the other. This, however, is not the appropriate place to work out your issues.

Buh bye.

First of all, your use of the word "gay" is erroneous. There is nothing gay about being afflicted with a mental aberration. While I'm on that subject, I'll also say there's nothing happy about being afflicted with whatever is causing you to engage in the imbecile tantrums that you are. Maybe it's some twisted masochistic desire to display your foolishness on these pages, so that someone like me can then come along and hand you your ass, like I'm doing right now.

One of the dumbest things any poster can ever do is to come back with the same point that has just been thrashed in the previous exchange. NO, you were NOT RIGHT the first time, that no one cares that I hate homosexuals (or the various other points I've made), as I showed by the numerous responses to my posts. So now you've had that refuted twice. Oh well, better too much correction than too little. It's like spark plug wire. Better too long than too short.

So you call me a "bigot" for what I've said about homosexuality. Well, since all I've said about it is that it's abnormal, it spreads, and it is a danger to society, especially kids (pretty much the common view), it looks like you are a supporter of homosexuality, and its so-called "gay rights" campaign. Looks like YOU are the leftist loon, who leftists will appreciate as being one of them.

Lastly, having posted hundreds of OPs and hundreds of thousands of posts in various forums, I've noticed one thing about the shallow imposters who attack other posters as being a "meaningless non-entity". That is that they all have a common, very, deep-seated fear, rooted from their inability to simply express themselves >> that of a being exposed as a "meaningless non-entity".

So don't worry about it. Even if we thought you were that, we won't talk about it, because frankly, nobody gives a rat's ass.

 

[protectionist]

Wow. Nope. That's pretty much the opposite of the American system.

What school did you attend ? You don't even know how elections are done to elect the president of the United States. Majority votes in each state wins that state's electoral votes. Majority of electoral votes in the country wins the election. Back to school for you.

Yeah. Mine had it all wrong, apparently. They taught me all kinds of crap about the "Constitution" (whatever that is!?) and "limited government". Crazy stuff, eh?

Majority rules is all we to know nowadays. Go team!

Well, you said that the majority principle was the "opposite of the American system" (we WERE talking about a presidential election). So if you school did teach that then, YEAH, they would have "had it all wrong, apparently."

You see, one thing we all can't do in these forums is >> rewrite reality.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

You didn't actually need to demonstrate for us how badly you've lost. We already got it. No need to belabor the point.

Care to explain how I "lost" exactly? Can you not actually address the point I made?

 

[Seawytch]

They decided that in WHAT CASE ? WHEN ?

Loving v Virginia 1967.

EARTH TO SEAWYTCH:
Your quote is from the state court. I'm asking you to present here what the SCOTUS said.

They dismissed the "unnatural" argument and ruled on the constitution, the 14th Amendment to be exact.

 

[freedombecki]

Please explain how you are being oppressed if gay people can be legally married.

I'll play!

"Where are my natural-born grandchildren, Only Son?"

 

[protectionist]

He's pretty dense, what? Let me guess, [MENTION=45665]protectionist[/MENTION]: Tea Party??

He's a good leftist just like you, Statist. In fact, when he starts yapping about $22 an hour minimum wage, it's impossible to tell you and he apart.

If you had an ounce of knowledge about Conservatism, you'd know that a $22/hour minimum wage is GOOD for business (would you rather have everyone making $5/hour and no one able to buy your goods ?) You'd also know that none of this $$ stuff has a thing to do with Conservatism (CONSERVING America's values, principles, culture, and providing a strong national defense and infrastructure) And if your Psuedo-conservatism was put next to mine, you'd come out looking like Nancy Pelosi.

 

[protectionist]

The Bill is dead. Stop beating a dead horse.

Just think, a Jewish Business denying service to Christian in Tucson, the hows that would have happened.

THE bill may be dead.....but many others like it are very much alive.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/342492-other-states-copy-arizona-sb-1062-a-5.html

 

[protectionist]

our law makers need to revisit that bill and refine it, a tad bit, it was a little crude , so a little tweaking and Gvnr. Jan will approve and sign it into law.

Maybe after enough Arizonans rake her over the coals for selling out to big business interests, instead of protecting Arizona's small business vendors, children, et al vulnerable to the queer machine.

 

[Infidel]

our law makers need to revisit that bill and refine it, a tad bit, it was a little crude , so a little tweaking and Gvnr. Jan will approve and sign it into law.

Maybe after enough Arizonans rake her over the coals for selling out to big business interests, instead of protecting Arizona's small business vendors, children, et al vulnerable to the queer machine.

Hey look, another closet queen is back with more stories about hard cocks and gysm spurting in their faces!

 

[protectionist]

They decided that in WHAT CASE ? WHEN ?

Loving v Virginia 1967.

He's pretty dense, what? Let me guess, [MENTION=45665]protectionist[/MENTION]: Tea Party??

Yepp, got it!

Here, some bathroom reading for you, since all this is probably giving you hemmarhoids:

Loving v. Virginia | Casebriefs

Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Loving v. Virginia

Only thing I get from it is a curiosity of how you think any of this drivel relates to my original question posed to Seawytch regarding his statement > "The SCOTUS decided that it really didn't ******* matter who thought something was "unnatural" when it came to ruling on LAW."

I asked him >> "They decided that in WHAT CASE ? WHEN ?

Since then I've gotten links from him and you, all of which have only alluded to the Loving v. Virginia case (about Black/White marriage, not homosexuality), and state court cases blabbing about it, as well as lower federal courts (like the 9th Circuit Laughingstock), And NOT one iota about anything from the SCOTUS. or a single mention of the word "unnatural".

EARTH TO BOTH OF YOU: When I said "THEY", I was asking about the SCOTUS, and what THEY said, not what everybody else who you could dredge up said. Get it ?

 

[Infidel]

Please explain how you are being oppressed if gay people can be legally married.

I'll play!

"Where are my natural-born grandchildren, Only Son?"

You should really inform yourself more before looking like an ass. Gays have children through sperm donors for women, and surrogates for men.

Now get back in the closet!!!!!!

 

[GISMYS]

THINK! YOU NEED NOT LIVE YOUR LIFE IN THE ABOMINATION OF SICK MINDED SEXUAL PERVERSION,CONFESS AND REPENT AND GOD WILL FORGIVE AND WASH YOU CLEAN.==Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. 1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-11

 

[protectionist]

our law makers need to revisit that bill and refine it, a tad bit, it was a little crude , so a little tweaking and Gvnr. Jan will approve and sign it into law.

Maybe after enough Arizonans rake her over the coals for selling out to big business interests, instead of protecting Arizona's small business vendors, children, et al vulnerable to the queer machine.

Hey look, another closet queen is back with more stories about hard cocks and gysm spurting in their faces!

Hey look, another JACKASS who is uncapable of discussing a serious subject, and pollutes the thread with meaningless idiocy. Gosh, lucky us.

 

[protectionist]

Please explain how you are being oppressed if gay people can be legally married.

I'll play!

"Where are my natural-born grandchildren, Only Son?"

You should really inform yourself more before looking like an ass. Gays have children through sperm donors for women, and surrogates for men.

Now get back in the closet!!!!!!

Another reason for legal action ("Compelling Interest") to protect children from sexually perverted LUNATICS. Kids being raised by queers. Pheeeeeww!! (high-pitched whistle, eyes rolling around in head)

 

[protectionist]

Loving v Virginia 1967.

EARTH TO SEAWYTCH:
Your quote is from the state court. I'm asking you to present here what the SCOTUS said.

They dismissed the "unnatural" argument and ruled on the constitution, the 14th Amendment to be exact.

That wasn't the question. I asked for a quote from the SCOTUS (with the word "unnatural" in it). I'll take the SCOTUS' word for it, if I see it (not yours) So far, you still haven't presented that. Your only quote was from a state court.

 

[protectionist]

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.

You didn't actually need to demonstrate for us how badly you've lost. We already got it. No need to belabor the point.

Care to explain how I "lost" exactly? Can you not actually address the point I made?

You haven't made any point, because every time I've asked you for the statement of the SCOTUS you claimed they made about something being "unnatural", you've come up with everything other than that. I'll not conclude that you've lost just yet. I'm giving you one more shot at it (you've got 2 strikes on you right now). You said >>"The SCOTUS decided..", and you said "unnatural". If you have their words that includes the word "unnatural", let's hear it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

You didn't actually need to demonstrate for us how badly you've lost. We already got it. No need to belabor the point.

Care to explain how I "lost" exactly? Can you not actually address the point I made?

Already did that. Sorry I went too fast for you, but I don't repeat myself if I can help it.