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

[Seawytch]

How about this, tell the teachers, straight or gay or whatever, to keep their private lives out of the classroom completely.

Sure. Show the SAME amount of outrage over MRS Smith teaching class...and using the "MRS" part...flaunting her sexuality like that in public. Where's the outrage?

Only puppets get outraged.

In other words, you have no response to my point. The "outrage" in only if a gay teacher is not closeted.

 

[kaz]

One can only assume the source of this delusional nonsense is your unwarranted hatred of gay Americans

If one is a brainless, socialist mouthpiece of the Democratic party who is incapable of comprehending arguments or processing information one one's own, then yes, I suppose one can.

 

[dr.d]

I don't really understand what harm is done by a person being openly gay.. American Gays are citizens who pay taxes, vote, fight in our wars, serve as first responders...and fulfill all other responsibilities of citizenship...there is no reason that they should not be entitled to the same protections and rights under our constitution.
Harm in this instance only happens if those who claim harm make it so.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[dblack]

I don't really understand what harm is done by a person being openly gay.. American Gays are citizens who pay taxes, vote, fight in our wars, serve as first responders...and fulfill all other responsibilities of citizenship...there is no reason that they should not be entitled to the same protections and rights under our constitution.
Harm in this instance only happens if those who claim harm make it so.

I totally agree. The question is: Does not baking someone a cake constitute "harm"? I think once everyone sobers up, the answer is clearly "no".

 

[Seawytch]

I don't really understand what harm is done by a person being openly gay.. American Gays are citizens who pay taxes, vote, fight in our wars, serve as first responders...and fulfill all other responsibilities of citizenship...there is no reason that they should not be entitled to the same protections and rights under our constitution.

Harm in this instance only happens if those who claim harm make it so.

I totally agree. The question is: Does not baking someone a cake constitute "harm"? I think once everyone sobers up, the answer is clearly "no".

But not baking the cake DOES violate some public accommodation laws.

 

[dblack]

I don't really understand what harm is done by a person being openly gay.. American Gays are citizens who pay taxes, vote, fight in our wars, serve as first responders...and fulfill all other responsibilities of citizenship...there is no reason that they should not be entitled to the same protections and rights under our constitution.

Harm in this instance only happens if those who claim harm make it so.

I totally agree. The question is: Does not baking someone a cake constitute "harm"? I think once everyone sobers up, the answer is clearly "no".

But not baking the cake DOES violate some public accommodation laws.

Right. That's why some of us are calling bullshit on those laws.

 

[Seawytch]

I totally agree. The question is: Does not baking someone a cake constitute "harm"? I think once everyone sobers up, the answer is clearly "no".

But not baking the cake DOES violate some public accommodation laws.

Right. That's why some of us are calling bullshit on those laws.

Bullshit is right. Nobody gave a shit about public accommodation laws until they started applying to " the gheys".

 

[dblack]

But not baking the cake DOES violate some public accommodation laws.

Right. That's why some of us are calling bullshit on those laws.

Bullshit is right. Nobody gave a shit about public accommodation laws until they started applying to " the gheys".

That's not true. Lots of us have. Granted, more are questioning them now as their application is expanded. I suspect every time they add another 'protected class', more people will realize they're a bad idea.

 

[Gadawg73]

I don't really understand what harm is done by a person being openly gay.. American Gays are citizens who pay taxes, vote, fight in our wars, serve as first responders...and fulfill all other responsibilities of citizenship...there is no reason that they should not be entitled to the same protections and rights under our constitution.
Harm in this instance only happens if those who claim harm make it so.

I totally agree. The question is: Does not baking someone a cake constitute "harm"? I think once everyone sobers up, the answer is clearly "no".

What harm is there in baking the cake?
We all know the "religious freedom" argument is a bogus one.
There is NO harm in requiring someone to bake a cake and no harm in not baking one.
To me and you because we ARE NOT gay.
But maybe the individual that wanted the cake and saw everyone else get a cake EXCEPT THEM because they are gay felt harmed.
How would you feel if folks treated you like a 2nd class citizen for having red hair?

 

[Gadawg73]

Right. That's why some of us are calling bullshit on those laws.

Bullshit is right. Nobody gave a shit about public accommodation laws until they started applying to " the gheys".

That's not true. Lots of us have. Granted, more are questioning them now as their application is expanded. I suspect every time they add another 'protected class', more people will realize they're a bad idea.

Protected class is a made up term with no legal standing that was baked by the religious right.
Was it a "bad idea" to make blacks a "protected class" when they wanted to go to the same schools as whites?
Rights are rights no matter how hard folks want to spin it.
No one has a right to a cake but everyone has a right to be treated the same.
And other than the ONE CAKE CASE what do we have as violations of "religious freedom"?
Bottom line Chambers of Commerce are pro business and oppose all these stupid "religious freedom" BS laws.
Because they are all frauds.

 

[dblack]

I don't really understand what harm is done by a person being openly gay.. American Gays are citizens who pay taxes, vote, fight in our wars, serve as first responders...and fulfill all other responsibilities of citizenship...there is no reason that they should not be entitled to the same protections and rights under our constitution.
Harm in this instance only happens if those who claim harm make it so.

I totally agree. The question is: Does not baking someone a cake constitute "harm"? I think once everyone sobers up, the answer is clearly "no".

What harm is there in baking the cake?
We all know the "religious freedom" argument is a bogus one.

Right. It's a "general freedom" (or, more specifically, a "freedom of association") issue. The concept of freedom entails we can do what we like as long as it doesn't harm anyone else.

There is NO harm in requiring someone to bake a cake and no harm in not baking one.

And here you turn the concept on it's head - implying that government can require us to do anything as long as it's not 'harming' us. You realize how that is switching things around, right? Sorta like the guilty-until-proven-innocent switch that's going in our courtrooms.

To me and you because we ARE NOT gay.
But maybe the individual that wanted the cake and saw everyone else get a cake EXCEPT THEM because they are gay felt harmed.
How would you feel if folks treated you like a 2nd class citizen for having red hair?

Lot's of us feel harmed when others don't do what we want them to do. But is that really legitimate? Last week, the cute barista at the coffee shop rudely rejected my invitation to lunch. I felt 'harmed'. Should I bring charges?

 

[dblack]

Bullshit is right. Nobody gave a shit about public accommodation laws until they started applying to " the gheys".

That's not true. Lots of us have. Granted, more are questioning them now as their application is expanded. I suspect every time they add another 'protected class', more people will realize they're a bad idea.

Protected class is a made up term with no legal standing that was baked by the religious right.
Was it a "bad idea" to make blacks a "protected class" when they wanted to go to the same schools as whites?

You're just flat wrong here. 'Protected class' is a staple of civil rights legislation and a concept of the Court, not the religious right (google it for chrissake). And it's not what you think. 'Blacks' are not a protected class. A protected class is a trait that can't, legally, be used as a justification for discrimination (race, for example).

Rights are rights no matter how hard folks want to spin it.
No one has a right to a cake but everyone has a right to be treated the same.

Good grief. Really?? You think everyone has a right to be treated the same? Hmm.. well, I saw that barista say 'yes' to the next guy who asked her out. Guess I should sue, eh?

 

[Gadawg73]

I totally agree. The question is: Does not baking someone a cake constitute "harm"? I think once everyone sobers up, the answer is clearly "no".

What harm is there in baking the cake?
We all know the "religious freedom" argument is a bogus one.

Right. It's a "general freedom" (or, more specifically, a "freedom of association") issue. The concept of freedom entails we can do what we like as long as it doesn't harm anyone else.

There is NO harm in requiring someone to bake a cake and no harm in not baking one.

And here you turn the concept on it's head - implying that government can require us to do anything as long as it's not 'harming' us. You realize how that is switching things around, right? Sorta like the guilty-until-proven-innocent switch that's going in our courtrooms.

To me and you because we ARE NOT gay.
But maybe the individual that wanted the cake and saw everyone else get a cake EXCEPT THEM because they are gay felt harmed.
How would you feel if folks treated you like a 2nd class citizen for having red hair?

Lot's of us feel harmed when others don't do what we want them to do. But is that really legitimate? Last week, the cute barista at the coffee shop rudely rejected my invitation to lunch. I felt 'harmed'. Should I bring charges?

Why do you not apply the SAME standards and critique to those that claim their "religious freedom" was denied?

That is the subject. That was the law that was passed in AZ.
Respectfully, nothing at all to do with what you are talking about.

 

[dblack]

What harm is there in baking the cake?
We all know the "religious freedom" argument is a bogus one.

Right. It's a "general freedom" (or, more specifically, a "freedom of association") issue. The concept of freedom entails we can do what we like as long as it doesn't harm anyone else.



And here you turn the concept on it's head - implying that government can require us to do anything as long as it's not 'harming' us. You realize how that is switching things around, right? Sorta like the guilty-until-proven-innocent switch that's going in our courtrooms.

To me and you because we ARE NOT gay.
But maybe the individual that wanted the cake and saw everyone else get a cake EXCEPT THEM because they are gay felt harmed.
How would you feel if folks treated you like a 2nd class citizen for having red hair?

Lot's of us feel harmed when others don't do what we want them to do. But is that really legitimate? Last week, the cute barista at the coffee shop rudely rejected my invitation to lunch. I felt 'harmed'. Should I bring charges?

Why do you not apply the SAME standards and critique to those that claim their "religious freedom" was denied?

That is the subject. That was the law that was passed in AZ.
Respectfully, nothing at all to do with what you are talking about.

Because, as several of us here have observed, the AZ law wasn't attempting to address any specific harm, religious or otherwise - it was a political challenge against the precedents set by standing civil rights legislation. I agree that the law submitted to make that challenge was flawed, because it too narrowly focused on religious freedom instead of the broader issue (probably because the backers believed that gave them a better chance of success, I dunno). But I wholeheartedly agree with the spirit of the challenge. Public accommodations laws and protected classes are a perversion of the concept of 'rights' and need to be addressed as such.

 

[Gadawg73]

That's not true. Lots of us have. Granted, more are questioning them now as their application is expanded. I suspect every time they add another 'protected class', more people will realize they're a bad idea.

Protected class is a made up term with no legal standing that was baked by the religious right.
Was it a "bad idea" to make blacks a "protected class" when they wanted to go to the same schools as whites?

You're just flat wrong here. 'Protected class' is a staple of civil rights legislation and a concept of the Court, not the religious right (google it for chrissake). And it's not what you think. 'Blacks' are not a protected class. A protected class is a trait that can't, legally, be used as a justification for discrimination (race, for example).

Rights are rights no matter how hard folks want to spin it.
No one has a right to a cake but everyone has a right to be treated the same.

Good grief. Really?? You think everyone has a right to be treated the same? Hmm.. well, I saw that barista say 'yes' to the next guy who asked her out. Guess I should sue, eh?

Civil Rights Legislation IS LAW.
The religious right harps on "protected class" while ignoring THE LAW.
We are a nation of LAWS, not men and their varying and changing like the wind religious beliefs.
The Arizona law and ALL proposed laws on "religious freedom" are based on RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

 

[Uncensored2008]

OK, Folks claim homosexuality is a sin.

Really?

I've not seen that as an argument here.

How many sins are there.
Aren't people supposed to forgive others for their sins?
Forgiveness in the Bible is a prominent theme. Forgiveness is obedience to God and his COMMAND to forgive.
So how can a Christian legitimately claim "religious freedom" when he does not go by God's command to forgive?
But of course this has nothing to do with Christianity or "religious freedom".
All about folks believing homosexuals are scum and beneath them.

So again we get to the root of your opposition, and SURPRISE, it's anti-Christian bigotry.

 

[Gadawg73]

Right. It's a "general freedom" (or, more specifically, a "freedom of association") issue. The concept of freedom entails we can do what we like as long as it doesn't harm anyone else.



And here you turn the concept on it's head - implying that government can require us to do anything as long as it's not 'harming' us. You realize how that is switching things around, right? Sorta like the guilty-until-proven-innocent switch that's going in our courtrooms.



Lot's of us feel harmed when others don't do what we want them to do. But is that really legitimate? Last week, the cute barista at the coffee shop rudely rejected my invitation to lunch. I felt 'harmed'. Should I bring charges?

Why do you not apply the SAME standards and critique to those that claim their "religious freedom" was denied?

That is the subject. That was the law that was passed in AZ.
Respectfully, nothing at all to do with what you are talking about.

Because, as several of us here have observed, the AZ law wasn't attempting to address any specific harm, religious or otherwise - it was a political challenge against the precedents set by standing civil rights legislation. I agree that the law submitted to make that challenge was flawed, because it too narrowly focused on religious freedom instead of the broader issue (probably because the backers believed that gave them a better chance of success, I dunno). But I wholeheartedly agree with the spirit of the challenge. Public accommodations laws and protected classes are a perversion of the concept of 'rights' and need to be addressed as such.

Someone like you that is objective and level headed can be negotiated with.
Problem is that is not what we have in either partisan political party now.

 

[Gadawg73]

OK, Folks claim homosexuality is a sin.

Really?

I've not seen that as an argument here.

How many sins are there.
Aren't people supposed to forgive others for their sins?
Forgiveness in the Bible is a prominent theme. Forgiveness is obedience to God and his COMMAND to forgive.
So how can a Christian legitimately claim "religious freedom" when he does not go by God's command to forgive?
But of course this has nothing to do with Christianity or "religious freedom".
All about folks believing homosexuals are scum and beneath them.

So again we get to the root of your opposition, and SURPRISE, it's anti-Christian bigotry.

You claim that I an anti Christian?

 

[Uncensored2008]

You claim that I an anti Christian?

Extremely.

Oh, and I did NOT say you were stupid - and have said the opposite on many occasions.

I said your ARGUMENT was stupid.

 

[Gadawg73]

You claim that I an anti Christian?

Extremely.

Oh, and I did NOT say you were stupid - and have said the opposite on many occasions.

I said your ARGUMENT was stupid.

Not anti Christian.
Anti those that wear a Big C on their hat and have to go around every second of the day telling everyone else how they are not Christian enough, anti Christian and ONLY THEY are real Christians.
If you are truly a Christian you never have to tell anyone or judge anyone else's beliefs.
They will know it by your ACTIONS.