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

[Quantum Windbag]

It's not a 'Godwin' card it's a perfectly analgous historical reference. Tell me the material difference between a business refusing to serve Jews and a business refusing to serve homosexuals.

No it is not, asshole. That sign was required by German law, just like segregated lunch counters were required by law. That means the state, your favorite thing, was enforcing discrimination.

That, my idiotic opponent, is evil.

So you object to mandated racism, but champion voluntary racism?

lol, classic

No.

I oppose idiots, especially the ones with power.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

You would be outraged if a law was passed enabling gays to discriminate against Christians and you would be squealing about "special rights for gays". This law is exactly the reverse of that where Christians are being allowed "special rights" to discriminate against gays. What is good for the goose...

Oh, would I? How do you know that? Because YOU are a hypocrite who only supports rights for yourself and those you agree with, so you assume everyone else holds your same loathsome attitudes?

Feel free to prove what I would and would not be outraged by, and don't EVER assume that just because you would do something, you are in any way, shape, or form comparable to me.

I consider myself extremely fortunate that I am in no "way, shape, or form comparable to" someone like you!

 

[Derideo_Te]

You would be outraged if a law was passed enabling gays to discriminate against Christians and you would be squealing about "special rights for gays". This law is exactly the reverse of that where Christians are being allowed "special rights" to discriminate against gays. What is good for the goose...

Would you, Cecelie? Let's get a roll call. How many of those opposed to "public accommodations" laws would complain if the tables were turned?

Honey, I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian family that believed movies, television, and popular music were of the devil, attended church four times a week, AND believed we should memorize as much of the Scriptures as possible against the day the atheists took over America and burned all the Bibles. Furthermore, I was raised by these people during the seventies and eighties, when wave of "rapture fever" was sweeping over churches like ours, and everyone believed we were five seconds away from the Tribulation, and if you missed the rapture you were only going to Heaven if you were martyred.

I'm afraid that getting butthurt because someone doesn't like me is just outside my scope of reference.

For someone who was allegedly raised in a "fundamentalist Christian family" you seem to have no problem with condemning your own immortal soul to perdition by behaving in a decidedly unchristian manner towards others in these threads.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You are merely the band playing on the deck of a sinking ship.

The courts will rule in favor of marriage equality, and when the appeal from the state comes to SCOTUS, they will not hear it.

The Highest Court has already Ruled AGAINST "marriage equality" [gay marriage] in Utah [and California and all the other states where it is still illegal in their constitutions] in DOMA/Windsor when they Upheld that each state gets to decide for itself on the question of gay marriage as its "unquestioned authority" to do so. They even brought up the 14th that gays are so hopeful to manipulate in their favor via Loving v Virginia, and then the Court STILL went on to say that as of the close of the Decision, "gay marriage" was "only allowed in some states".

Sorry. They said a state's sovereign rights to decide on gay marriage was pivotal to the Windsor decision, retroactive to the founding of the country, in "the way the Framers of the Constitution Intended". That's a constitutional Upholding Jake. They aren't likely to reverse it in less than a year's time when Harvey Milk v Utah makes it to the Big Docket.

This is like saying if you're just in the audience at the wedding, instead of being one of the bridesmaids, you didn't actually participate, and so it doesn't qualify as an endorsement of the marriage.

Except that people have been declining wedding invitations because they don't approve of the relationship since forever. No idea why this is suddenly news.

Soon if you refuse to go to a gay wedding if you are invited, you will be sued. The arrests for such 'defiance of the cult' will come later. Probably in about 30 years when the next generation has been properly inducted and indoctrinized.

7 states have had their own unconstitutional gay marriage ban laws overturned by lower courts based on the Windsor decision. 5 of them even cited Scalia for providing them with the rationale. Only 23 more to go.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Would you, Cecelie? Let's get a roll call. How many of those opposed to "public accommodations" laws would complain if the tables were turned?

Honey, I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian family that believed movies, television, and popular music were of the devil, attended church four times a week, AND believed we should memorize as much of the Scriptures as possible against the day the atheists took over America and burned all the Bibles. Furthermore, I was raised by these people during the seventies and eighties, when wave of "rapture fever" was sweeping over churches like ours, and everyone believed we were five seconds away from the Tribulation, and if you missed the rapture you were only going to Heaven if you were martyred.

I'm afraid that getting butthurt because someone doesn't like me is just outside my scope of reference.

For someone who was allegedly raised in a "fundamentalist Christian family" you seem to have no problem with condemning your own immortal soul to perdition by behaving in a decidedly unchristian manner towards others in these threads.

Jesus used physical force and beat the crap out of people that offended him, would you prefer that approach?

 

[Katzndogz]

Awesome. I have. Those are the only ones I have ever had a problem with. Assless chaps over a leather studded crotchpiece in public is in my face IMO. Blocking streets with signs about here, queer and get over it is invasive and disruptive to my ability to walk down the street just as much as the preachers are. I find those equally unacceptible (maybe if posted so I can take an alternate route). Having "breeder" hissed at me on a public street because I am holding my husband's hand is rude and agressive. These are the things that are unacceptible (to me) in society.

On the lesser end of the spectrum, I found the hostility towards the Chick fil a dude to be overboard, but because he expressed his beliefs in the positive (for traditional marriage) and made a point to state they are married to their first/original wives. He has no hatred of homosexuals, hires them, treats them exactly the same as everyone else. Divorcees, living in sinners, poly families, etc did not get outraged. I would say that was irksome, but no more so than PETA protests or other type boycotts/protests. I liken that more to when the fundies tried to boycott Disney.

I am glad your daughter does not associate with assholes. I agree that groping drunks are unacceptable, even in bars. There are a ton of rude condescending heterosexuals as well, and we have our share being so close to the Bible belt. Actually, I think we are just a pocket or bubble of "hedonism" in the middle of the belt. Maybe that's why we get more angry homosexuals and angry drunks ...er, I mean Catholics, around here. Not sure where you are, but I'm by New Orleans. Lots of fabulous people here of both orientations and an amazing culture, but lots of complete asses of both orientations IMO. Those are equally offensive to me and has to do with their manners, not their orientation.

I've got enough dealing with my own flaws to be concerned with any perceived (real or imagined) flaws in another. If I ever get myself fixed up right, maybe I'll have time to stick my nose in others' but would start with the husband, not the homosexuals.

For the one group, I very much agree. Usually, except for the extreme, family is not "other" so not threatening or to be feared. They know and love that family member, and that love and belonging does not die when the homosexual and family become aware of that orientation. That is the norm, IMO. When that same family member becomes invasive, intrusive, loud proud in your face and angry; however, there is conflict. It can destroy the family, just as it can divide the community on a larger scale. At that point, it is not homosexuality that is the issue, it is plain ole "I don't want to be around assholes so F off." It is the same as when a family member finds Jesus and you can no longer have any conversation except ones involving sharing the message or saving your soul. We have to tell them that if they cannot respect the rest of the family's dinner, we would rather them not come over for dinner.

I am happy you found Jesus. Please don't badger me with him. It is rude, intrusive, condescending and generally unpleasant. That pushes people away, the very people who love you. If you cannot have a conversation without telling me how your Jesus is the real one and mine is the devil pretending to be Jesus to deceive me, I don't want to have a conversation with you.

Your sexuality is personal, just as mine is. Your faith is personal, just as mine is. There is no need to be hostile and rude to the very people who love or support you. That is the group where I am seeing backlash. For instance, the snide way I have been called "breeder," despite having no children, is no different than those calling homosexuals "butt pirates." Can you not understand the pushback?

I have no objection to homosexuals. I have an objection to invasive rudeness, as it hinders our ability to live together happily. It applies to all genders, sexual orientations, creeds and cultures equally. It especially applies to loudness to me, personally, as that feels agressive or hostile to me, but that may be a me thing.

Edit: sorry to fail at quoting. I was quoting/responding to Bfgrn

I have never come across a gay person who was "invasive, intrusive, loud proud in your face and angry or rude, condescending and generally unpleasant". That would be heterosexual males with a few drinks in them. My daughter and her girlfriends would often go to gay bars to get away from being constantly hit on by obnoxious "invasive, intrusive, loud proud in your face and angry or rude, condescending and generally unpleasant" straight males. She says gay men treat women with respect and are much more kind.

I have never seen a group of gay people invading my neighborhood, ringing my doorbell, trying to 'convert' me and my wife to their beliefs and not taking no for an answer.

The difference is I have had groups of gay people invading my neighborhood, ringing my doorbell, trying to force me into signing their petitions for marriage equality and not taking no for an answer. At least the Christians who rang my doorbell were polite about it. Gays were just abusive, worse if they catch you on the street by a signature gatherer and think public castigation will persuade you to give up and sign.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Your damned straight, sonny. And damned proud of it.

You’re proud to be an ignorant, hateful bigot?

That’s a strange thing to be ‘proud’ of.

Of course, you have the right to be an ignorant, hateful bigot, but you don’t have the right to seek to codify your ignorance and hate.

I can prove that far left Democrats are more likely to be ignorant than members of the Tea Party, want to give it a go?

I don't give this clown's attacks any more credence than I do any other uneducated moron. I have challenged this clown (on more than one occasion) to "prove it" and he simply ignores the challenge. Just as in another post where I asked him (being apparently the legal mind of the SCOTUS) to tell me EXACTLY what "Civil Right" gays are being denied and he merely runs away.

Because I'm black - the charges of "denial of Civil Rights" are important to me. I lived through seeing people of color being attacked by Police dogs. beaten with batons and water hoses, denied the ability to attend public school, unable to vote, and all the other nightmarish behavior that our GOVERNMENT followed back then.

I have yet to see a gay being denied even ONE of those civil rights. Yet gays get their panties in a giant wad because they view people who don't embrace their "lifestyle" (or as I call it - their perversion) with open arms. To them, you will either accept their BS way of living or they will close you down. So much for "freedom".

Again - this paralegal and those like him have one mantra - Do as I say, not as I do.

Pretty much like the Nazis that they are.

 

[Katzndogz]

You are merely the band playing on the deck of a sinking ship.

The courts will rule in favor of marriage equality, and when the appeal from the state comes to SCOTUS, they will not hear it.

The Highest Court has already Ruled AGAINST "marriage equality" [gay marriage] in Utah [and California and all the other states where it is still illegal in their constitutions] in DOMA/Windsor when they Upheld that each state gets to decide for itself on the question of gay marriage as its "unquestioned authority" to do so. They even brought up the 14th that gays are so hopeful to manipulate in their favor via Loving v Virginia, and then the Court STILL went on to say that as of the close of the Decision, "gay marriage" was "only allowed in some states".

Sorry. They said a state's sovereign rights to decide on gay marriage was pivotal to the Windsor decision, retroactive to the founding of the country, in "the way the Framers of the Constitution Intended". That's a constitutional Upholding Jake. They aren't likely to reverse it in less than a year's time when Harvey Milk v Utah makes it to the Big Docket.

This is like saying if you're just in the audience at the wedding, instead of being one of the bridesmaids, you didn't actually participate, and so it doesn't qualify as an endorsement of the marriage.

Except that people have been declining wedding invitations because they don't approve of the relationship since forever. No idea why this is suddenly news.

Soon if you refuse to go to a gay wedding if you are invited, you will be sued. The arrests for such 'defiance of the cult' will come later. Probably in about 30 years when the next generation has been properly inducted and indoctrinized.

7 states have had their own unconstitutional gay marriage ban laws overturned by lower courts based on the Windsor decision. 5 of them even cited Scalia for providing them with the rationale. Only 23 more to go.

If each and every state passes gay marriage they STILL won't get what they want which is acceptance.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You would be outraged if a law was passed enabling gays to discriminate against Christians and you would be squealing about "special rights for gays". This law is exactly the reverse of that where Christians are being allowed "special rights" to discriminate against gays. What is good for the goose...

I have no problem with gays, or anyone else, telling anyone, including Christians, to keep out of their business.

Hate to break it to these people, but - religion aside - I tend to find gays to be very unpleasant people to deal with, and generally avoid businesses where the owner is noticeably "out" for that reason.

Unlikely that they are hurting without someone as unpleasant as you on their premises.

 

[Katzndogz]

You’re proud to be an ignorant, hateful bigot?

That’s a strange thing to be ‘proud’ of.

Of course, you have the right to be an ignorant, hateful bigot, but you don’t have the right to seek to codify your ignorance and hate.

I can prove that far left Democrats are more likely to be ignorant than members of the Tea Party, want to give it a go?

I don't give this clown's attacks any more credence than I do any other uneducated moron. I have challenged this clown (on more than one occasion) to "prove it" and he simply ignores the challenge. Just as in another post where I asked him (being apparently the legal mind of the SCOTUS) to tell me EXACTLY what "Civil Right" gays are being denied and he merely runs away.

Because I'm black - the charges of "denial of Civil Rights" are important to me. I lived through seeing people of color being attacked by Police dogs. beaten with batons and water hoses, denied the ability to attend public school, unable to vote, and all the other nightmarish behavior that our GOVERNMENT followed back then.

I have yet to see a gay being denied even ONE of those civil rights. Yet gays get their panties in a giant wad because they view people who don't embrace their "lifestyle" (or as I call it - their perversion) with open arms. To them, you will either accept their BS way of living or they will close you down. So much for "freedom".

Again - this paralegal and those like him have one mantra - Do as I say, not as I do.

Pretty much like the Nazis that they are.

Hells bells man, you are one for the record books. Blacks got the right to vote in 1869. If you remember that, it makes you more than 145 years old!

 

[Derideo_Te]

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".

The extreme right has been adamantly opposed to all background checks to determine if anyone has a history of mental illness. But hardly surprising that you want to blame the left for the obstruction of the extreme right.

I disagree. Well maybe you are using "extreme" so you can limit your statement later to a few gun nuts, but the right has opposed the added burdens this administration has been attempting to place on citizens who have a legal right to own guns. They have opposed these added restrictions with the argument that we already have laws preventing the mentally ill and criminals from acquiring guns AND that the proposals do nothing to prevent those who should not have guns from acquiring them, but do inhibit law abiding citizens from obtaining legal weapons.

There are extremists that oppose any and all restrictions on the second amendment, even several on this site. But for the most part, I think most of us on the right see this for what it is, another attempt to force left wing philosophy on everyone else. The powers that be in Washington do not want us to be able to defend ourselves. They want us to rely upon them. Therefore, guns in the hands of citizens is something that must be prevented at all costs.

The idea that we as a people could rise up and over throw the "tyrants" is ludicrous. It is not what they are afraid of. What they want is for us to be dependent on them for all things even our own protection.

Common sense gun control is one thing, but what the current administration is pushing is by no means common sense and serves only to further inhibit the acquisition of guns by citizens with the legal right to own them.

Thank you for corroborating my point!

 

[Bfgrn]

honey, i was raised in a fundamentalist christian family that believed movies, television, and popular music were of the devil, attended church four times a week, and believed we should memorize as much of the scriptures as possible against the day the atheists took over america and burned all the bibles. Furthermore, i was raised by these people during the seventies and eighties, when wave of "rapture fever" was sweeping over churches like ours, and everyone believed we were five seconds away from the tribulation, and if you missed the rapture you were only going to heaven if you were martyred.

I'm afraid that getting butthurt because someone doesn't like me is just outside my scope of reference.

for someone who was allegedly raised in a "fundamentalist christian family" you seem to have no problem with condemning your own immortal soul to perdition by behaving in a decidedly unchristian manner towards others in these threads.

jesus used physical force and beat the crap out of people that offended him, would you prefer that approach?

what?

 

[Cecilie1200]

You would be outraged if a law was passed enabling gays to discriminate against Christians and you would be squealing about "special rights for gays". This law is exactly the reverse of that where Christians are being allowed "special rights" to discriminate against gays. What is good for the goose...

Oh, would I? How do you know that? Because YOU are a hypocrite who only supports rights for yourself and those you agree with, so you assume everyone else holds your same loathsome attitudes?

Feel free to prove what I would and would not be outraged by, and don't EVER assume that just because you would do something, you are in any way, shape, or form comparable to me.

I consider myself extremely fortunate that I am in no "way, shape, or form comparable to" someone like you!

Thank you for taking the time to share an opinion about which nary a **** is given. The next time you feel the need to try to make me feel bad that you don't like me, please feel free to just assume I don't consider you worth pissing on, and save yourself the effort.

Meanwhile, I note that you were so busy trying to make yourself relevant via insults that you skipped right over proving your assertion which must mean you know you said something incredibly stupid and wrong, and are hoping I won't notice.

Your hope is in vain. Thank you for your surrender. Now get lost.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Wouldn't it be beautiful if you hypocrites actually believed in the markets and your profession that "everyone" agrees with you, and let the chips fall where they may, instead of trying to legislate your morality because you secretly don't think your ideas can work without force of government?

I don't believe adults should have sex with children and I certainly don't believe my idea can work without the force of government.

Do you?

Government is here to keep adults from ******* children?

It failed, can we get rid of it now?

You want sex with children to be legal? I think you're in a very small minority on that one.

 

[Immanuel]

The extreme right has been adamantly opposed to all background checks to determine if anyone has a history of mental illness. But hardly surprising that you want to blame the left for the obstruction of the extreme right.

I disagree. Well maybe you are using "extreme" so you can limit your statement later to a few gun nuts, but the right has opposed the added burdens this administration has been attempting to place on citizens who have a legal right to own guns. They have opposed these added restrictions with the argument that we already have laws preventing the mentally ill and criminals from acquiring guns AND that the proposals do nothing to prevent those who should not have guns from acquiring them, but do inhibit law abiding citizens from obtaining legal weapons.

There are extremists that oppose any and all restrictions on the second amendment, even several on this site. But for the most part, I think most of us on the right see this for what it is, another attempt to force left wing philosophy on everyone else. The powers that be in Washington do not want us to be able to defend ourselves. They want us to rely upon them. Therefore, guns in the hands of citizens is something that must be prevented at all costs.

The idea that we as a people could rise up and over throw the "tyrants" is ludicrous. It is not what they are afraid of. What they want is for us to be dependent on them for all things even our own protection.

Common sense gun control is one thing, but what the current administration is pushing is by no means common sense and serves only to further inhibit the acquisition of guns by citizens with the legal right to own them.

Thank you for corroborating my point!

I did no such thing, but if it gives you a tingle down your leg thinking that I did, well more power to you. But, maybe you should have your mommy get you some clean undies and new pants, because you probably just pissed your pants again.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The Highest Court has already Ruled AGAINST "marriage equality" [gay marriage] in Utah [and California and all the other states where it is still illegal in their constitutions] in DOMA/Windsor when they Upheld that each state gets to decide for itself on the question of gay marriage as its "unquestioned authority" to do so. They even brought up the 14th that gays are so hopeful to manipulate in their favor via Loving v Virginia, and then the Court STILL went on to say that as of the close of the Decision, "gay marriage" was "only allowed in some states".

Sorry. They said a state's sovereign rights to decide on gay marriage was pivotal to the Windsor decision, retroactive to the founding of the country, in "the way the Framers of the Constitution Intended". That's a constitutional Upholding Jake. They aren't likely to reverse it in less than a year's time when Harvey Milk v Utah makes it to the Big Docket.



Soon if you refuse to go to a gay wedding if you are invited, you will be sued. The arrests for such 'defiance of the cult' will come later. Probably in about 30 years when the next generation has been properly inducted and indoctrinized.

7 states have had their own unconstitutional gay marriage ban laws overturned by lower courts based on the Windsor decision. 5 of them even cited Scalia for providing them with the rationale. Only 23 more to go.

If each and every state passes gay marriage they STILL won't get what they want which is acceptance.

Silly strawman! Equality under the law is the topic.

 

[RandallFlagg]

I can prove that far left Democrats are more likely to be ignorant than members of the Tea Party, want to give it a go?

I don't give this clown's attacks any more credence than I do any other uneducated moron. I have challenged this clown (on more than one occasion) to "prove it" and he simply ignores the challenge. Just as in another post where I asked him (being apparently the legal mind of the SCOTUS) to tell me EXACTLY what "Civil Right" gays are being denied and he merely runs away.

Because I'm black - the charges of "denial of Civil Rights" are important to me. I lived through seeing people of color being attacked by Police dogs. beaten with batons and water hoses, denied the ability to attend public school, unable to vote, and all the other nightmarish behavior that our GOVERNMENT followed back then.

I have yet to see a gay being denied even ONE of those civil rights. Yet gays get their panties in a giant wad because they view people who don't embrace their "lifestyle" (or as I call it - their perversion) with open arms. To them, you will either accept their BS way of living or they will close you down. So much for "freedom".

Again - this paralegal and those like him have one mantra - Do as I say, not as I do.

Pretty much like the Nazis that they are.

Hells bells man, you are one for the record books. Blacks got the right to vote in 1869. If you remember that, it makes you more than 145 years old!

Another clown - I distinctly said "UNABLE TO VOTE". Please learn to read (and comprehend) the english language. And when you re-watch "Lincoln" remember that having the "right" to vote didn't necessarily mean that you were ALLOWED to vote. Then go a find a Black man or woman (you know those folks that look different than you)- older than 55 and have a LONG talk with them.

You need to be educated.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Oh, would I? How do you know that? Because YOU are a hypocrite who only supports rights for yourself and those you agree with, so you assume everyone else holds your same loathsome attitudes?

Feel free to prove what I would and would not be outraged by, and don't EVER assume that just because you would do something, you are in any way, shape, or form comparable to me.

I consider myself extremely fortunate that I am in no "way, shape, or form comparable to" someone like you!

Thank you for taking the time to share an opinion about which nary a **** is given. The next time you feel the need to try to make me feel bad that you don't like me, please feel free to just assume I don't consider you worth pissing on, and save yourself the effort.

Meanwhile, I note that you were so busy trying to make yourself relevant via insults that you skipped right over proving your assertion which must mean you know you said something incredibly stupid and wrong, and are hoping I won't notice.

Your hope is in vain. Thank you for your surrender. Now get lost.

You have proven yourself to be unworthy of anything but mockery and derision.

Deal with it!

 

[Cecilie1200]

Would you, Cecelie? Let's get a roll call. How many of those opposed to "public accommodations" laws would complain if the tables were turned?

Honey, I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian family that believed movies, television, and popular music were of the devil, attended church four times a week, AND believed we should memorize as much of the Scriptures as possible against the day the atheists took over America and burned all the Bibles. Furthermore, I was raised by these people during the seventies and eighties, when wave of "rapture fever" was sweeping over churches like ours, and everyone believed we were five seconds away from the Tribulation, and if you missed the rapture you were only going to Heaven if you were martyred.

I'm afraid that getting butthurt because someone doesn't like me is just outside my scope of reference.

For someone who was allegedly raised in a "fundamentalist Christian family" you seem to have no problem with condemning your own immortal soul to perdition by behaving in a decidedly unchristian manner towards others in these threads.

Had you any real knowledge of Christianity, you would know that judging who is and is not going to Hell is a sin.

Had you any perspective on reality, you would have taken a hint from the 6 billion times I've told you numbfucks this that I only find your attempts to preach a faith you don't share to be wildly laughable, and that my choices are between me and God, and you are neither one of us.

But by all means, continue to hubristically offer judgements and preachings you are in no way qualified to give or be taken seriously for, because I'm not even close to being done mocking and deriding you.

Oh, noes!!! The two-brain-celled arrogant religiophobe does not think I am Christian enough to meet his standards!!! Whatever shall I DOOO?! I so wanted Derideo to approve of me, because he's SO ******* IMPORTANT TO MY LIFE!!!

I'm not even sure they have meds for this level of narcissistic insanity.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I have no problem with gays, or anyone else, telling anyone, including Christians, to keep out of their business.

Hate to break it to these people, but - religion aside - I tend to find gays to be very unpleasant people to deal with, and generally avoid businesses where the owner is noticeably "out" for that reason.

Unlikely that they are hurting without someone as unpleasant as you on their premises.

Ooh, yet another attempt to make me care that you don't approve of me . . . FAILED.

Exactly how long is it going to take you to realize that in order for you to insult me, I would have to first care what you think, or even believe that you DO think?