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

[Katzndogz]

How do you know that Jesus and/or the disciples were not gay themselves? Jesus never uttered a single word against homosexuality. Being gay is not a sin, it is simply taking the concept of loving your fellow man literally. OTOH hating gays is most definitely a sin since it flies in the face of Jesus telling you to love one another.

Easy, as a Christian I believe the whole Bible as Gods word. Leviticus says that homosexuality is a sin punishable by death. Jesus spoke against all sin including sexual immorality which homosexuality is. Saying Jesus never spoke against homosexuality is a lame excuse to defend the sick sin of gay. Gay is SICK>

So you follow Leviticus completely, eh?

Christians follow Christ. That's why they are Christians. I don't know any Leviticans, do you?

 

[Plasmaball]

Think of it this way:

Your rights end where someone else's begins. In essence, your right to be treated equally as a homosexual ends when it infringes on the religious rights of someone else. Or when you force them to treat you preferentially, despite their religiously held beliefs.

Very rudimentary concept.

So your right to own a gun ends when it infringes upon the rights of others to be safe from mentally ill people obtaining guns?

I don't believe anyone's ever objected to preventing the mentally ill from obtaining guns. In fact, if anything, it would be the LEFT that prevents that, with all their distracting blather about magazine sizes and "assault weapons" and their persistent ACLU actions on behalf of "the right not to be treated".

ah i see you went for the retard argument that its the lefts fault. No the left going after those things listed does not take away from keeping the mentally ill from getting weapons.

You see as an adult people can list more than two things at once they would like or like to do. Your argument fails on the point of you being a motherfucking retard.

you literally have no argument in this thread.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Wrong. Your government gives everyone the same protected rights on the one hand, but on the other hand, subjects everyone with the same limitations on those rights.

Where's the injustice?

The injustice is the requirement of the faithful to completely abandon core mandates of their faith. The frivolous ones are one thing, but toying with the matrix itself is a grave, grave mortal sin. You cannot force the faithful to violate their own souls at such a level that is unrecoverable. I gave the example to AmericanFirst:

Religion is not some sort of rights trump card in these matters. It is the choice of the religious person what business they go into based on what their religion or their religious beliefs expects of them,

compared to what the law of the land expects of them.

The claim that it is some dire violation of Christian teachings to do business with a homosexual because homosexuality is supposedly a sin is the most ridiculous claim one could invent.

Aren't we ALL sinners, after all? Why would the same Christian do business with all the other sinners,

except homosexuals? That is a very conveniently selective interpretation of the faith.

 

[N8dizzle]

Why do some people on here think it's necessary to call other peoole dumb?
Are you that insecure about your argument that you have to resort to insulting those who disagree with you?
And it's always calling someone dumb, stupid, or an idiot like a third grader. Grow up and think of something intelligent to say if your going to claim someone else is "dumb".
I'm sure if you put your mind to it you could come up with an argument that's actually worth reading.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This law will effect members of the United States military, in or out of uniform. The idea that a member serving in the military would be refused service because of the whim or so called "belief" of one of the random citizens of a particular state is simply unacceptable and repugnant. If a state, Arizona, in this case wants to have such a law, the United States and it's military should take immediate steps to protect it's personel from any kind of discrimination, abuse, unfairness or inconvenience this will create. Military personel should be removed from the state to a state that honors the policies of the the military and US Government in regards to fair treatment of it's personel.
Start to empty and shut down the bases. Watch how quickly the bigots get thrown under the bus by the rest of the population.

Oh My God, they Patriotism and Loyalty Card, to be played when you know you are going to lose.

I give up, you win.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You are welcome to let everyone know you are a homophobic knob, yes.

What's more intolerant, allowing the business owner to serve gays of their own volition, or forcing them to serve gays against their will and against their beliefs? You tell me, milady. Methinks it is extremely intolerant and hypocritical to demand tolerance of your own lifestyle from someone else, whilst not showing willingness to tolerate theirs.

All boils down to a matter of respect, not entitlement.

Sometimes rights are a zero sum game.

You grant gays the right to be treated like everyone else, aka equality, but in order to do so, you have to deny certain people their claim to a right to discriminate.

Ask yourself, which of the above most closely reflects the letter and spirit of our Constitution?

The right to equality, or the right to discriminate?

I have never in my life had to do that because doing so would mean that I cannot discriminate myself, and I am very discriminating, I refuse to eat, sleep, or even be polite to assholes who want to take away my rights.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Constitutionality of Public Accommodation laws has already been determined by the SCOTUS in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States

But don't worry, the SCOTUS could change their minds and a case is on the way.

And, believe it or not, under Arizona's public accommodation laws you are still able to eat at a restaurant, you just can't force them to host your wedding reception.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Sometimes rights are a zero sum game.

You grant gays the right to be treated like everyone else, aka equality, but in order to do so, you have to deny certain people their claim to a right to discriminate.

Ask yourself, which of the above most closely reflects the letter and spirit of our Constitution?

The right to equality, or the right to discriminate?

A red herring all of it.

There is no such time where rights are a "zero sum game." To apply an economic theory to the attainment of rights is a misnomer. And pretty stupid.

We will grant gays the right to be treated like everyone else, when they also grant that same respect to those who don't approve of their lifestyle. See what I mean? What good is it to use the constitution to deny one person their rights to give someone else theirs?

So, what is more in line with the spirit and letter of the Constitution? The freedom to serve who you want, when you want and according to your beliefs? Or the tyranny of being forced to serve everyone, against your beliefs?

Since when should man have to sacrifice his own held beliefs for a collective minority whose lifestyles fly in the face of his faith? You haven't the slightest clue, carbine. No amount of bloviating from you will change that.

If a black man wants to eat in a certain restaurant, and the restaurant owner doesn't want to serve blacks,

how do you resolve that issue if you don't deny of those parties their claim to a particular right?

Answer that, or admit that I was absolutely correct that rights issues are sometimes a zero sum game.

I could be wrong, but I don't think eating in a restaurant is actually a right. If it was, they wouldn't be able to charge you for the service.

Want to try again?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why didn't you say, your religious rights end when they infringe on the civil rights of a homosexual?

Equal rights is a concept that applies to government, not general society. We've become confused about this issue.

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

That is the entire problem.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Think of it this way:

Your rights end where someone else's begins. In essence, your right to be treated equally as a homosexual ends when it infringes on the religious rights of someone else. Or when you force them to treat you preferentially, despite their religiously held beliefs.

Very rudimentary concept.

So your right to own a gun ends when it infringes upon the rights of others to be safe from mentally ill people obtaining guns?

If you actually had a right to be safe you wouldn't need to worry about mentally ill people having guns because there wouldn't be any cops.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

I know. That's the problem.

The irony of it all is, as we continue with the delusional attempt to force everyone to treat each other equally, government becomes more and more discriminatory. This isn't a coincidence. If you task the government with trying to enforce equal rights in a social context, you must create a policy that treats people decidedly unequally. You can't have both equal rights under the law and the sort of social justice that liberals yearn for.

This is an instance where the state government is deliberately enacting discrimination. What is even worse is that it is violating the constitution by endorsing religion. That is specifically proscribed by the 1st amendment.

No, it is another instance of your massive stupidity.

 

[N8dizzle]

What God would want their followers to be hateful to anyone?
I find it hard to believe that if there is a god that they would want any of their children to to be intolerant towards each other.
I went to church as a kid and I don't remember them telling me to only be kind to those who shared the same ideas as me.
Isn't the golden rule to treat others the way you want to be treated?
How did things get so twisted that we're passing laws that encourage intolerance?
People that wake up every day thinking of ways to ruin someone else's day should go back to bed.


Sent from my SPH-D710 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I know. That's the problem.

The irony of it all is, as we continue with the delusional attempt to force everyone to treat each other equally, government becomes more and more discriminatory. This isn't a coincidence. If you task the government with trying to enforce equal rights in a social context, you must create a policy that treats people decidedly unequally. You can't have both equal rights under the law and the sort of social justice that liberals yearn for.

This is an instance where the state government is deliberately enacting discrimination. What is even worse is that it is violating the constitution by endorsing religion. That is specifically proscribed by the 1st amendment.

This isn't a freedom of religion issue. It's a freedom of association issue, which is much broader and actually encompasses freedom of religion. But I'd oppose this law, if I lived in Arizona, because I agree with your assessment that it's a mis-application of the first amendment.

First off, you still think that because you don't know what you believe, that you don't have freedom of religion. You are still wrong about that, but we can skip over that for now.

Second, if you go read the actual bill you will see that almost everyone is misrepresenting it. All it does is prevent the government from piling a burden on top of anyone's freedom of religion. It doesn't actually allow a business to discriminate against anyone because it doesn't apply to businesses. It does allow an individual, with the permission of an employer, to not participate in activities they find offensive without worrying about getting sued by an offended customer. That doesn't really negatively impact anyone but the employer, and he doesn't have to actually agree to keep the person on staff if he doesn't want to, so it isn't your problem.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Weren't quite a few conservatives raising hell about Muslims refusing to transport people in their cabs if they were carrying alcohol?

Pretty sure that was mostly the City of New York, are they conservative?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Judge orders Colorado baker to serve gay couples - NBC News
The order from administrative law judge Robert N. Spencer said Masterpiece Cakeshop in suburban Denver discriminated against a couple "because of their sexual orientation by refusing to sell them a wedding cake for their same-sex marriage."

The order says the cake-maker must "cease and desist from discriminating" against gay couples. Although the judge did not impose fines in this case, the business will face penalties if it continues to turn away gay couples who want to buy cakes.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a complaint against shop owner Jack Phillips with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission last year on behalf of Charlie Craig, 33, and David Mullins, 29. The couple was married in Massachusetts and wanted a wedding cake to celebrate in Colorado.

Nicolle Martin, an attorney for Masterpiece Cakeshop, said the judge's order puts Phillips in an impossible position of going against his Christian faith. "He can't violate his conscience in order to collect a paycheck," she said. "If Jack can't make wedding cakes, he can't continue to support his family. And in order to make wedding cakes, Jack must violate his belief system. That is a reprehensible choice. It is antithetical to everything America stands for."

The Civil Rights Commission is expected to certify the judge's order next week. Phillips can appeal the judge's order, and Martin said they're considering their next steps.

It can't be true that Jack can't support his family unless he makes wedding cakes. Bake something else. If all he made was wedding cakes, he wasn't making a living anyway. There is no doubt that Masterpiece Bakery had other baked goods to sell.

Because you are the expert on all things, right?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

I know. That's the problem.

The irony of it all is, as we continue with the delusional attempt to force everyone to treat each other equally, government becomes more and more discriminatory. This isn't a coincidence. If you task the government with trying to enforce equal rights in a social context, you must create a policy that treats people decidedly unequally. You can't have both equal rights under the law and the sort of social justice that liberals yearn for.

Wrong. Your government gives everyone the same protected rights on the one hand, but on the other hand, subjects everyone with the same limitations on those rights.

Where's the injustice?

If only that were true.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As already correctly noted, this law would have the unintended consequence of allowing discrimination with regard to all religious beliefs, including those who belong to certain social organizations perceived as ‘offensive’ to any number of religious doctrines.

This law was poorly considered and written, and should be vetoed for that reason alone.

So what?

 

[N8dizzle]

The photographer who refused to take the wedding pictures was happy to take studio photographs. What she refused to do was attend the wedding itself. So it was more than just taking a few pictures.

Oh I'm sorry I must have misunderstood. I thought that they just wanted the photographer to take pictures of the wedding. I didn't realize that they were actually expecting the photographer to celebrate with them.
Yeah, if they actually wanted the photographer to take part in the ceremony then I agree, that wouldn't be right.
Sorry, I misunderstood.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This makes no sense.

Just want to point out that this is probably the first thing Clayton got right in a while, his post does make no sense.

No one is attempting “to force everyone to treat each other equally,” and government discrimination results as a consequence of the people acting in a manner offensive to the Constitution and its case law, motivated by fear, ignorance, or hatred.

Let me get this straight, when the government makes a public accommodation law that claims that you have to treat the Gay Nazi exactly the same way you treat the Baptist minister they aren't actually forcing you to do it because...

Well, just because.

For the record, the only action that is offensive to the Constitution is action originated by the government. Individuals cannot offend the Constitution, even if they stand on the steps of the Supreme Court, tear it up, burn it, and piss on it.

But, please, keep pretending you are intelligent.

In fact, government lacks the authority to “force everyone to treat each other equally.”

Yet public accommodation laws exist, and are enforced, and you support it.

Moreover, ‘liberals’ don’t ‘yearn’ for ‘social justice,’ whatever that means.

True, that is progressives who call themselves liberals.

And you know what it is because you support it with most of your posts.

Your position is obviously predicated on the incorrect perception that advocates of comprehensive civil rights are some sort of naïve do-gooders who want to create ‘Kumbaya Nation.’

How is that perception wrong? Isn't that there goal? Isn't that naive? Is their real goal something else? Can you tell us what it is?

Nothing could be further from the truth.

In a world where [MENTION=29614]C_Clayton_Jones[/MENTION] posts everything is closer to the truth than anything he says.

Here is how our Constitutional Republic works with regard to the government’s relationship to citizens’ civil liberties:

This is going to be wrong, I guarantee it.

All persons in the United States possess inalienable rights, they manifest as a consequence of our humanity, and are acknowledged and codified by the Constitution and its case law.

Newsflash, genius, that has nothing to do with the Constitution, that is the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution actually does not codify our rights, it codifies the powers of, and the restrictions on, the government.


Although inalienable our rights are not absolute, and are subject to reasonable restrictions by government pursuant to a rational motive, objective, documented evidence, and a proper legislative end.

When government seeks to curtail our civil liberties, therefore, the state must meet a very heavy burden to justify that curtailment, and failing to do so, such efforts by the state are invalidated by the courts as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review.

That was funny.

Tell me something, how is it possible to define any burden the courts place on the government as heavy? Didn't the Supreme Court just hand down a ruling that said that any dog a cop says is trained is the functional equivalent of a search warrant? Haven't the also credited cops with the uncanny ability to smell raw marijuana through a hermetically sealed door and down a 25 foot long walkway? Does that really sound like a heavy burden to you?

Equality, then, is the consistent, rational, and legitimate application of the state’s authority to all persons as it seeks to govern, prohibiting government from unwarranted violations of civil liberties predicated on subjective animus toward a particular class of persons, such as gay Americans in this case.

Consistent, that is funny.

If the state is consistent why does San Francisco, which has a 2% black population, have a jail population that is over 60% black? Are they just really good at arresting black people who are travel ling through the city? Do they raid Oakland?

This has nothing to do with wishing to ‘make everyone equal,’ as the notion is nonsense and has nothing to do with the civil liberties of gay Americans and the state’s unwarranted efforts to violate those civil liberties.

If it is nonsense then I am sure you join with me in the call for the repeal of all public accommodation laws, the Civil Rights Act, affirmative action, and Title IX rules.

If, on the other hand, you are just bloviating, feel free to pretend you don't see this post.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This is an instance where the state government is deliberately enacting discrimination. What is even worse is that it is violating the constitution by endorsing religion. That is specifically proscribed by the 1st amendment.

How do you figure that? Does the law say people HAVE to discriminate against anyone? I don't think so. Nor is it "endorsing religion", insofar as it is protecting the rights of ALL religions to choose associations, not just one.

It's endorsing religions specifically by selecting which religious beliefs will be exempt from the law - because certainly not any view that someone claims is religious will qualify. It endorses religious views in general by giving them special status above and beyond secular convictions. Why should a religious person be allowed to discriminate against gays because they believe God told them to, but a secular person can't do likewise if they happen to think homosexuality is an affront to evolution?

It. Does. Not. Do. That.

It allows anyone, of any religion, even the one that only exists inside their head, to claim an exemption. A good example of this would be that during WWII the government actually told a Jehovah's Witness that he had to work on tank turrets, and argued that the fact that other people with the same religion were willing to do it was proof that his beliefs were not sincere. If the world worked the ay you thing, he would have lost.

He didn't.