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

[Iceweasel]

The ant-Christian propagandists love to quote Hilter. It's probably true to say he was a Christian but that was in his youth and there's no evidence that he was a devout Catholic in any way. Probably more cultural than spiritual. That was not the Hitler of later days.

You can read General Donovan's research at the Nuremburg trials online from Rutger's University.

Papers reveal Nazi aim: End Christianity A Rutgers journal will put rare Nuremberg documents online. A plan to rout the church and install a Reich faith is shown. - Philly.com

Papers reveal Nazi aim: End Christianity A Rutgers journal will put rare Nuremberg documents online. A plan to rout the church and install a Reich faith is shown.

The fragile, typewritten documents from the 1940s lay out the Nazi plan in grim detail:

Take over the churches from within, using party sympathizers. Discredit, jail or kill Christian leaders. And re-indoctrinate the congregants. Give them a new faith - in Germany's Third Reich.

More than a half-century ago, confidential U.S. government reports on the Nazi plans were prepared for the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg and will be available online for free starting tomorrow - some of them for the first time.

These rare documents - in their original form, some with handwritten scrawls across them - are part of an online legal journal published by students of the Rutgers University School of Law at Camden.

"When people think about the Holocaust, they think about the crimes against Jews, but here's a different perspective," said Julie Seltzer Mandel, a third-year law student who is editor of the Nuremberg Project for the Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion.

"A lot of people will say, 'I didn't realize that they were trying to convert Christians to a Nazi philosophy.' . . . They wanted to eliminate the Jews altogether, but they were also looking to eliminate Christianity."

 

[NYcarbineer]

"...Jesus never admonished businesses to refuse service to 'sinners'. That is a wholly fabricated, aftermarket if you will, belief that some so-called Christians have latched onto out their own biases..."

Quite true.

It is interpretation of sacred texts and historical teachings, and applying them to a modern-day problem; something that is done all the time, in any number of focal areas. This is no exception.

"...Religion is not a magic bullet that can shoot holes in the Constitution."

Quite true. But Freedom of Religion is an inviolable right that the Constitution has protected for far, far longer than it has been operative in shielding homosexuals.

The beauty and genius of such 'Religious Objection' laws is that sooner or later one of them is bound to hit a high-end judicial nerve in connection with Freedom of Religion.

I suspect that The Opposition will continue to probe along those lines until it hits upon the right formula, and wins-back the playing field.

The 3% cannot dictate to the 97% indefinitely - it's simply unsustainable.

Freedom of Religion is an inviolable Right in this country?

Then why can we convict people of murder for committing honor killings, even if that person does it in the name of his religion?

 

[Kondor3]

"...Jesus never admonished businesses to refuse service to 'sinners'. That is a wholly fabricated, aftermarket if you will, belief that some so-called Christians have latched onto out their own biases..."

Quite true.

It is interpretation of sacred texts and historical teachings, and applying them to a modern-day problem; something that is done all the time, in any number of focal areas. This is no exception.

"...Religion is not a magic bullet that can shoot holes in the Constitution."

Quite true. But Freedom of Religion is an inviolable right that the Constitution has protected for far, far longer than it has been operative in shielding homosexuals.

The beauty and genius of such 'Religious Objection' laws is that sooner or later one of them is bound to hit a high-end judicial nerve in connection with Freedom of Religion.

I suspect that The Opposition will continue to probe along those lines until it hits upon the right formula, and wins-back the playing field.

The 3% cannot dictate to the 97% indefinitely - it's simply unsustainable.

Freedom of Religion is an inviolable Right in this country?

Then why can we convict people of murder for committing honor killings, even if that person does it in the name of his religion?

Are you saying that Freedom of Religion is NOT an inviolable right in this country?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ho-hum...

Hitler was a nominal Christian but not a practicing one, he was in favor of superseding Christianity with a more pagan-like Tuetonic belief-system that was supportive of his own agenda, and only paid lip service to Christianity so as to 'bring along' his own population, which was still largely Christian by confession.

Meanwhile, as to Christianity's own prohibitions and condemnations of homosexuality... take it up with the authors of the Old Testament, and the teachings of various branches of the Christian Church over the past 2000 years.

Any similarities you note here are mere coincidence and are not similarly motivated.

Next slide, please.

So Hitler wanted Nazism to be, in effect, a religion? You would thus want Nazism in this country to be considered constitutionally protected, as a religion, and therefore,

the businesses run by Nazi believers would in fact have your blessing to refuse service to Jews.

Ohhhhhh, Lordeeee, but we're takin' our imagination and weak segues out for a long walk today, aren't we?

Not even close... nice try... not.

So you want to retract what you said above? That Hitler wanted to replace Christianity with a Teutonic pagan belief system?

A pagan belief system is considered a religion.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Quite true.

It is interpretation of sacred texts and historical teachings, and applying them to a modern-day problem; something that is done all the time, in any number of focal areas. This is no exception.


Quite true. But Freedom of Religion is an inviolable right that the Constitution has protected for far, far longer than it has been operative in shielding homosexuals.

The beauty and genius of such 'Religious Objection' laws is that sooner or later one of them is bound to hit a high-end judicial nerve in connection with Freedom of Religion.

I suspect that The Opposition will continue to probe along those lines until it hits upon the right formula, and wins-back the playing field.

The 3% cannot dictate to the 97% indefinitely - it's simply unsustainable.

Freedom of Religion is an inviolable Right in this country?

Then why can we convict people of murder for committing honor killings, even if that person does it in the name of his religion?

Are you saying that Freedom of Religion is NOT an inviolable right in this country?

I'm saying, as an example, that an honor killing is not a right in this country even if it is done as a religious practice.

Do you disagree?

 

[Bfgrn]

Wrong. The backlash is due to legislation being passed by the vocal minority. That vocal minority wants everyone to treat their alternative relationships the same as traditional relationships regardless of the individual's moral compass. If something isn't done to curb thetyranny it will spread nationally. What you percieve as a vocal minority is the tip of the iceburg. Most people want the freedom to entertain their values instead of having their values dictated to them by the vocal minority.

Observe the insidious right wing mind...the FEAR driven 'slippery slope' has again reared it's ugly head...


Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

 

[Derideo_Te]

So you are banking upon people becoming bigots as they grow older?

I am speculating that large numbers of today's metrosexual crowd will grow more intolerant of and repulsed by such behaviors and lifestyle as they mature; adopting a more traditional and historic stance upon such matters.

"...What Churchill was referring to as conservatives does not equate to what the extreme right has redefined conservatives as being..."

Opposition to homosexuality does not come from ONLY the 'extreme right', and believing that it does, rather than coming from the mainstream, is where the pro-Gay side of the aisle is underestimating the opposition that lies ahead of it. The Opposition is rubbing its hands with glee at the idea that the 'pro' side is making such a mistake on a broad scale.


Anything is possible. Some of the data does, indeed, appear to favor your own speculation and conclusions, but where we appear to differ most is that you (appear to) believe that the matter is all-but-settled now, while The Opposition believes that it's just getting warmed up, and that the real fun lies ahead of us.

You keep saying that the "Opposition" is going to prevail and find a way to discriminate against gays. You also contend that because they are the majority they do as they please and the tiny 3% of gays can't do anything about it. But your math is at fault because it is based upon false assumptions. The "Opposition" is not a majority, it is actually a small fanatical minority and is unlikely to ever become a majority in real terms. Secondly the actual majority comprises of people who understand that unless they support the individual rights of others they will lose their own individual rights. So they will side against the minority "Opposition" when it comes to depriving gays of their rights and enacting discriminatory laws against them.

"...I don't expect to change your mind or anyone else's for that matter. I am here because individual rights are something that I will strongly uphold irrespective of whose they may be and, yes, I will uphold your right to your opinion on this matter. You are entitled to not only your opinion, but the right to express it and the beliefs that led to forming this opinion. All of those are your individual rights and they are sacrosanct as far as I am concerned..."

In this, we have unequivocal common ground, and both appear strongly committed to such.

"...But your rights and those who share your position cannot impose your beliefs by using the law to infringe upon the legal rights of others to be free from discrimination. That is a clear bright line in my mind that cannot be crossed and yes, I will defend their individual rights in this regard just as staunchly."

Very well put.

Five out of five on that one.

Thanks for the compliment. I appreciate that we can both debate this topic in a civil and level headed manner.

I'm jealous.

By the same token, I will defend the rights of our countrymen to practice their Religion and to follow the dictates of their conscience, in accordance with time-honored perceptions, both religious and secular, of the degenerate nature of such behaviors and lifestyle practitioners.

What you call "degenerate nature" is based upon a religious perception that goes back thousands of years. But that tells us something about both religion and homosexuality.

Firstly it means that heterosexuals give birth to gays. So the "degenerate nature" must exist within the heterosexuals themselves. And yes, even the most devout religious couple can still have gay children.

Furthermore it has been happening for thousands of years as documented by these religious texts. So if it was actually of a "degenerate nature" it would have resulted in humanity "degenerating". But that hasn't happened either. If anything the very opposite is true. Back when those religious texts were written mankind embraced slavery, child labor and the subservience of women. Religions and states were intertwined. Individual rights did not exist as we know them.

Today we are a more enlightened egalitarian society where individual rights are paramount and there is a wall of separation between church and state. We have abolished slavery, implemented universal suffrage, introduced labor laws and are on the cusp of ensuring that gays have the same rights as all other citizens.

You are "rubbing your hands with glee" that this enlightenment will lull people into "dropping their guard" and give your "Opposition" minority an opportunity to reverse this enlightenment and effectively "degenerate" this nation back to the dire situation that existed thousands of years ago.

That won't happen as long as there are good people who refuse to give up the individual rights that it took so many thousands of years to achieve. And yes, in this nation they are the majority.

 

[rightwinger]

Quite true.

It is interpretation of sacred texts and historical teachings, and applying them to a modern-day problem; something that is done all the time, in any number of focal areas. This is no exception.


Quite true. But Freedom of Religion is an inviolable right that the Constitution has protected for far, far longer than it has been operative in shielding homosexuals.

The beauty and genius of such 'Religious Objection' laws is that sooner or later one of them is bound to hit a high-end judicial nerve in connection with Freedom of Religion.

I suspect that The Opposition will continue to probe along those lines until it hits upon the right formula, and wins-back the playing field.

The 3% cannot dictate to the 97% indefinitely - it's simply unsustainable.

Freedom of Religion is an inviolable Right in this country?

Then why can we convict people of murder for committing honor killings, even if that person does it in the name of his religion?

Are you saying that Freedom of Religion is NOT an inviolable right in this country?

He is saying it is not an absolute. Especially when it conflicts with the laws of the country

 

[Bfgrn]

"...The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872."

Ho-hum...

Hitler was a nominal Christian but not a practicing one, he was in favor of superseding Christianity with a more pagan-like Tuetonic belief-system that was supportive of his own agenda, and only paid lip service to Christianity so as to 'bring along' his own population, which was still largely Christian by confession.

Meanwhile, as to Christianity's own prohibitions and condemnations of homosexuality... take it up with the authors of the Old Testament, and the teachings of various branches of the Christian Church over the past 2000 years.

Any similarities you note here are mere coincidence and are not similarly motivated.

Next slide, please.

The Old Testament, huh? The same Old Testament that sanctions abortion?


Numbers 5:11-22 NIV

11 Then the Lord said to Moses, 12 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah[a] of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing.

16 “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”

“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”

 

[NYcarbineer]

"...You keep throwing that 97 to 3 number around but there is not 97% opposition to gay rights in this country..."

Quite true. If one believes the polls of recent times, there is more support for Gay Rights than there is opposition. But 97% of the population is straight, and whatever support Gays can glean from the vast majority on the other side of the fence is a very transient, fragile thing, and subject to a thousand-and-one interlocking assumptions and dependencies, and the sustaining of goodwill while pushing their abhorrent practices and lifestyle into the daylight and into the faces of the 97% and their children.

"...And furthermore, only 1% of the US is Muslim. Does that mean their religious rights are doomed?"

Not at all. They aren't engaging in traditionally shunned and condemned behaviors.

So you're not aware of movements in this country, including legislation, to ban Sharia Law?

 

[Bfgrn]

"...The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872."

Ho-hum...

Hitler was a nominal Christian but not a practicing one, he was in favor of superseding Christianity with a more pagan-like Tuetonic belief-system that was supportive of his own agenda, and only paid lip service to Christianity so as to 'bring along' his own population, which was still largely Christian by confession.

Meanwhile, as to Christianity's own prohibitions and condemnations of homosexuality... take it up with the authors of the Old Testament, and the teachings of various branches of the Christian Church over the past 2000 years.

Any similarities you note here are mere coincidence and are not similarly motivated.

Next slide, please.

Hitler, the man whose first desire was to be a priest?

In the February 29, 1929 edition of the Völkischer Beobachter (official newspaper of the Nazi Party), Adolf Hitler published an article on the new Lateran Treaty between Mussolini's fascist government and the Vatican. According to Hitler, this treaty should demonstrate to the world that not only are fascism and Christianity not polar opposites, but that they are in fact close kin which should be working together:

The fact that the Curia is now making its peace with Fascism shows that the Vatican trusts the new political realities far more than did the former liberal democracy with which it could not come to terms.

...The fact that the Catholic Church has come to an agreement with Fascist Italy ...proves beyond doubt that the Fascist world of ideas is closer to Christianity than those of Jewish liberalism or even atheistic Marxism, to which the so-called Catholic Center Party sees itself so closely bound, to the detriment of Christianity today and our German people.

 

[Kondor3]

Not at all. They aren't engaging in traditionally shunned and condemned behaviors.

So you're not aware of movements in this country, including legislation, to ban Sharia Law?

Shariah Law is foreign to The West and largely incompatible, encroaching and dangerous to the good working order of Western Society as we know it.

It is not a tradionally shunned and condemned behavior.

It is a politico-sociological-cultural threat-axis.

And is being treated accordingly by those who believe thus.

 

[LeftofLeft]

I think another state passed something similar to this last week so this must be a trend that is catching on. I agree with this bill that if you are a business owner and believe in and live by your faith that you should be able to refuse service to whoever you want.


Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays
Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays

On it's face, it looks like an extreme measure. Personally, if a same sex couple came in for a nice dinner or to purchase a mortgage or any other business service I was providing, I would treat them the same as any other couple. But, as a business owner, I should have the right to refuse service to anyone. If I have a sign that says, "No Black" or "Only whites", that is a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. If, however, a group comes in and makes the rest of my customers uncomfortable with their behavior (too loud, to confrontational with other customers or staff) and they all happen to be black, I should have the right to refuse them service. My basis would be the same if it were a bunch of whites or Latinos. If you are not adhering to rules or expectations of the establishment (my discretion), I should be able to refuse service.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Not at all. They aren't engaging in traditionally shunned and condemned behaviors.

So you're not aware of movements in this country, including legislation, to ban Sharia Law?

Shariah Law is foreign to The West and largely incompatible, encroaching and dangerous to the good working order of Western Society as we know it.

It is not a tradionally shunned and condemned behavior.

It is a politico-sociological-cultural threat-axis.

And is being treated accordingly by those who believe thus.

It is religion, and you say religion is an inviolable right.

 

[Kondor3]

"...The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872."

Ho-hum...

Hitler was a nominal Christian but not a practicing one, he was in favor of superseding Christianity with a more pagan-like Tuetonic belief-system that was supportive of his own agenda, and only paid lip service to Christianity so as to 'bring along' his own population, which was still largely Christian by confession.

Meanwhile, as to Christianity's own prohibitions and condemnations of homosexuality... take it up with the authors of the Old Testament, and the teachings of various branches of the Christian Church over the past 2000 years.

Any similarities you note here are mere coincidence and are not similarly motivated.

Next slide, please.

Hitler, the man whose first desire was to be a priest?

In the February 29, 1929 edition of the Völkischer Beobachter (official newspaper of the Nazi Party), Adolf Hitler published an article on the new Lateran Treaty between Mussolini's fascist government and the Vatican. According to Hitler, this treaty should demonstrate to the world that not only are fascism and Christianity not polar opposites, but that they are in fact close kin which should be working together:

The fact that the Curia is now making its peace with Fascism shows that the Vatican trusts the new political realities far more than did the former liberal democracy with which it could not come to terms.

...The fact that the Catholic Church has come to an agreement with Fascist Italy ...proves beyond doubt that the Fascist world of ideas is closer to Christianity than those of Jewish liberalism or even atheistic Marxism, to which the so-called Catholic Center Party sees itself so closely bound, to the detriment of Christianity today and our German people.

The anti-Christian Propoganda Thread is down the hall, second door to the Left.

 

[Iceweasel]

In the February 29, 1929 edition of the Völkischer Beobachter (official newspaper of the Nazi Party), Adolf Hitler published an article on the new Lateran Treaty between Mussolini's fascist government and the Vatican. According to Hitler, this treaty should demonstrate to the world that not only are fascism and Christianity not polar opposites, but that they are in fact close kin which should be working together:

The fact that the Curia is now making its peace with Fascism shows that the Vatican trusts the new political realities far more than did the former liberal democracy with which it could not come to terms.

...The fact that the Catholic Church has come to an agreement with Fascist Italy ...proves beyond doubt that the Fascist world of ideas is closer to Christianity than those of Jewish liberalism or even atheistic Marxism, to which the so-called Catholic Center Party sees itself so closely bound, to the detriment of Christianity today and our German people.

And we all know how unbiased Adolf Hitler was.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Not at all. They aren't engaging in traditionally shunned and condemned behaviors.

So you're not aware of movements in this country, including legislation, to ban Sharia Law?

Shariah Law is foreign to The West and largely incompatible, encroaching and dangerous to the good working order of Western Society as we know it.

.

You could say that about laws that discriminate against minorities.

 

[Kondor3]

So you're not aware of movements in this country, including legislation, to ban Sharia Law?

Shariah Law is foreign to The West and largely incompatible, encroaching and dangerous to the good working order of Western Society as we know it.

It is not a tradionally shunned and condemned behavior.

It is a politico-sociological-cultural threat-axis.

And is being treated accordingly by those who believe thus.

It is religion, and you say religion is an inviolable right.

It is a codified legal manifestation of a religious mindset which is foreign to, incompatible with, and dangerous to, the good working order of Western society and culture and traditions.

Good provision and accommodation may be made for it within the private sphere in which practitioners of that belief-system may voluntarily submit themselves to clerical judgment but which they are not obliged at-law to honor as binding.

Thus, preserving their 'right', while not imposing their miniscule Minority View upon the vastly larger Majority.

 

[Bfgrn]

Ho-hum...

Hitler was a nominal Christian but not a practicing one, he was in favor of superseding Christianity with a more pagan-like Tuetonic belief-system that was supportive of his own agenda, and only paid lip service to Christianity so as to 'bring along' his own population, which was still largely Christian by confession.

Meanwhile, as to Christianity's own prohibitions and condemnations of homosexuality... take it up with the authors of the Old Testament, and the teachings of various branches of the Christian Church over the past 2000 years.

Any similarities you note here are mere coincidence and are not similarly motivated.

Next slide, please.

Hitler, the man whose first desire was to be a priest?

In the February 29, 1929 edition of the Völkischer Beobachter (official newspaper of the Nazi Party), Adolf Hitler published an article on the new Lateran Treaty between Mussolini's fascist government and the Vatican. According to Hitler, this treaty should demonstrate to the world that not only are fascism and Christianity not polar opposites, but that they are in fact close kin which should be working together:

The fact that the Curia is now making its peace with Fascism shows that the Vatican trusts the new political realities far more than did the former liberal democracy with which it could not come to terms.

...The fact that the Catholic Church has come to an agreement with Fascist Italy ...proves beyond doubt that the Fascist world of ideas is closer to Christianity than those of Jewish liberalism or even atheistic Marxism, to which the so-called Catholic Center Party sees itself so closely bound, to the detriment of Christianity today and our German people.

The anti-Christian Propoganda Thread is down the hall, second door to the Left.

You are literally getting hammered here bird brain. You are reducing yourself to amateur partisan 'sayings'...

Better debunk yourself...

 

[Bfgrn]

In the February 29, 1929 edition of the Völkischer Beobachter (official newspaper of the Nazi Party), Adolf Hitler published an article on the new Lateran Treaty between Mussolini's fascist government and the Vatican. According to Hitler, this treaty should demonstrate to the world that not only are fascism and Christianity not polar opposites, but that they are in fact close kin which should be working together:

The fact that the Curia is now making its peace with Fascism shows that the Vatican trusts the new political realities far more than did the former liberal democracy with which it could not come to terms.

...The fact that the Catholic Church has come to an agreement with Fascist Italy ...proves beyond doubt that the Fascist world of ideas is closer to Christianity than those of Jewish liberalism or even atheistic Marxism, to which the so-called Catholic Center Party sees itself so closely bound, to the detriment of Christianity today and our German people.

And we all know how unbiased Adolf Hitler was.

The only ones talking like Hitler are you right wing fascists...