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

[JakeStarkey]

Your freedom of religion, Kondor, in the public market place cannot trump the 14th protections against discrimination. You can do it in private association but not in public commerce.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Sexual behavior that most people believe is unnatural or not normal.

Then you must not consider homosexual acts as perverse since opinions have shifted quite a bit in the last few years...

"Their acceptance of gay and lesbian relations has increased the most, up 19 percentage points in the past 12 years -- to a record high of 59% today."

In U.S., Record-High Say Gay, Lesbian Relations Morally OK​

Last I checked, "59%" constituted "most people" or more accurately put - a majority of people.



>>>>

Feel free to continue serving-up Opinion Polls...

Those polls basically indicate a substantial increase in willingness to tolerate...

Those polls do not change the attributes of 'perversity' and 'deviance' which attach to homosexuality...

Polls are fickle things...

And leaning on them too hard can result in embarrassment...

As the Gay Lobby found out...

In the massive popular outpouring of support for Chick-Fil-A in 2012...

Or the massive popular outpouring of support for the Duck Dynasty cast in 2013...

Both of which turned out to be Public Relations Disasters for the arrogant folk advancing the Gay Lobby agenda...

Makes objective folk wonder, just how reliable those polls really are, when you get out-and-about amongst mainstream Americans...

Ahhh - so you think perversity is defined by the majority, well until such time as polls show the majority changed.

Instead of opinion polls you can also look to the 2012 General Elections to demonstrate how opinions have been changing. Same-sex Civil Marriage was on the ballot in 4 states (IIRC - Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington). The Marriage Equality side one in all 4 states. Quite a shift from the early 2000's when Constitutional bans won with 23-76% margins of victory.


>>>>

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The 'evil' is a business engaged in public commerce discriminating against folks for what they are.

That's wrong, un-American, and won't stand.

What is evil is a tyrannical gov't. telling a business how to run that business.

We the People through our constitutional liberties have set certain standards of humanity by which we live in this country.

We the people did no such thing.

 

[Kondor3]

"...Ahhh - so you think perversity is defined by the majority, well until such time as polls show the majority changed..."

You mistake an increased willingness to tolerate perversity, so long as it is kept out of the public eye, with the definition of perversity itself. It's an important distinction that seems to escape you. Your deficiency of understanding, not mine.

========================================

perversion: 1. sexual behavior that people think is not normal or natural

Perversion - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

========================================

Do not confuse increased tolerance for the definition itself.

If it was not viewed as perverse by the majority, then 97% would be Gay and 3% would be Straight, rather than the other way around.

Q.E.D.

 

[Kondor3]

"...Instead of opinion polls you can also look to the 2012 General Elections to demonstrate how opinions have been changing..."

Sheeple and lemmings tend to stray all over the political map, depending upon which Ram is bleating the loudest at the moment... it's quite possible that such back-and-forth wanderings will not prove significant in the long haul, but only time will give us that answer.

 

[Chaussette]

Christians don't lie.
YOU do, shall I show you again liar?

 

[Derideo_Te]

The difference being that Blacks were wrongly discriminated against because of their skin color.

While it is being proposed that Homosexuals be rightly discriminated against because they are perverts.

Since when is love a perversion?

Homosexuality = perversion

So when Jesus said "love one another" that is also a perversion under your definition?

FYI homosexuality is just 2 consenting adults who love one another. If you intend to discriminate against people who love each other then you are going to have a really hard time finding a legal loophole.

 

[Chaussette]

I'm way more appalled at ugly and/or stupid people having children, then whether 2 chicks are having sex (that's SO hot!!!!).

 

[Kondor3]

Since when is love a perversion?

Homosexuality = perversion

So when Jesus said "love one another" that is also a perversion under your definition?...

Sheer sophistry, and insubstantial. Webster's gives us an adequate definition.

"...FYI homosexuality is just 2 consenting adults who love one another..."

That is your assessment. Vast numbers of other people hold differently.

"...If you intend to discriminate against people who love each other then you are going to have a really hard time finding a legal loophole..."

Rather, opponents are prepared to discriminate against people who engage in perverse, sinful, unclean and deviant sexual practices with members of the same sex, utilizing their centuries-old, well-documented, widely-held religious beliefs that associating with such evil constitutes moral wrongdoing, as the basis for that discrimination.

It is an interesting approach-vector that may yield some good results, in the Arizona case or some other that 'tweaks' the Arizona model.

In any event, the search for the right formula, to keep Gays and their perversion out of our faces, and those of our children, continues.

 

[Derideo_Te]

"...What if someone claimed a religious belief that the races weren't meant to mingle, and/or that blacks were inferior to whites?

Wouldn't they, under the proposed Arizona law, then be able to rightfully discriminate against blacks?"

As soon as you find globally-accepted sacred texts and globally-common scripture-based centuries-old mainstream religious teachings which say to shun Blacks, or Whites, or Reds, or Yellows, or Browns, et al, come back and ask me again...

As opposed to already being in possession of globally-accepted sacred texts and globally-common scripture-based centuries-old mainstream religious teachings which say that homosexuality is wrong and sinful and which condemn it...

Not quite an apples-to-apples comparison, is it?

The bible justifies slavery and Christians enslaved blacks using that biblical justification. One of the slave ships used to bring black slaves to America was even named Jesus.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Homosexuality = perversion[/SIZE]

So when Jesus said "love one another" that is also a perversion under your definition?...

Sheer sophistry, and insubstantial. Webster's gives us an adequate definition.

"...FYI homosexuality is just 2 consenting adults who love one another..."

That is your assessment. Vast numbers of other people hold differently.

"...If you intend to discriminate against people who love each other then you are going to have a really hard time finding a legal loophole..."

Rather, opponents are prepared to discriminate against people who engage in perverse, sinful, unclean and deviant sexual practices with members of the same sex, utilizing their centuries-old, well-documented, widely-held religious beliefs that associating with such evil constitutes moral wrongdoing, as the basis for that discrimination. It is an interesting approach-vector that may yield some good results, in the Arizona case or some other that 'tweaks' the Arizona model. In any event, the search continues.

Thank you for openly admitting that you are attempting to legislate your own morality based upon religious beliefs.

You are going to have a hard time explaining why blow jobs and anal sex between a man and a woman are not equally perverted and evil to the Supreme Court.

 

[DriftingSand]

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

Good news!

 

[Derideo_Te]

"...Ahhh - so you think perversity is defined by the majority, well until such time as polls show the majority changed..."

You mistake an increased willingness to tolerate perversity, so long as it is kept out of the public eye, with the definition of perversity itself. It's an important distinction that seems to escape you. Your deficiency of understanding, not mine.

========================================

perversion: 1. sexual behavior that people think is not normal or natural

Perversion - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

========================================

Do not confuse increased tolerance for the definition itself.

If it was not viewed as perverse by the majority, then 97% would be Gay and 3% would be Straight, rather than the other way around.

Q.E.D.

When a gay couple walks into your shop and you refuse to serve them what exactly are you objecting to that must be "kept out of the public eye"? That they have matching wedding bands? Exactly what aspect are you attempting to ban here?

 

[Kondor3]

"...What if someone claimed a religious belief that the races weren't meant to mingle, and/or that blacks were inferior to whites?

Wouldn't they, under the proposed Arizona law, then be able to rightfully discriminate against blacks?"

As soon as you find globally-accepted sacred texts and globally-common scripture-based centuries-old mainstream religious teachings which say to shun Blacks, or Whites, or Reds, or Yellows, or Browns, et al, come back and ask me again...

As opposed to already being in possession of globally-accepted sacred texts and globally-common scripture-based centuries-old mainstream religious teachings which say that homosexuality is wrong and sinful and which condemn it...

Not quite an apples-to-apples comparison, is it?

The bible justifies slavery and Christians enslaved blacks using that biblical justification. One of the slave ships used to bring black slaves to America was even named Jesus.

The comparison will not hold up under a close scrutiny - comparing the use of the Bible to resurrect slavery in The West, versus using the Bible to distinguish Normal sexual practices from Perverse ones - although I understand why your side of the aisle so frequently and persistently tries to get away with that.

 

[Kondor3]

Thank you for openly admitting that you are attempting to legislate your own morality based upon religious beliefs...

Oh, absolutely, my pleasure. Is it not patently obvious? I thought that was a gimme. But only with respect to being forced to associate with or provide services to such folk.

Attacking the problem from the 'violation of religious beliefs' vector is frigging brilliant - it may ultimately prove to be the Escape Hatch the rest of us want to have on hand, to use at our discretion.

"...You are going to have a hard time explaining why blow jobs and anal sex between a man and a woman are not equally perverted and evil to the Supreme Court."

Are they?

On the other hand, there is a much clearer case against same-sex acts and relationships in the sacred texts and mainstream teachings of Christianity, Judaism and even Islam.

Could be the Escape Hatch the rest of us have been looking for.

 

[Wildman]

I'm way more appalled at ugly and/or stupid people having children, then whether 2 chicks are having sex (that's SO hot!!!!).

define "chicks"

define "sex"

then define "ugly and/or stupid people"

(that's SO hot!!!!) you wouldn't think so if you saw my SIL and her GF "lover", two of the ugliest people on the planet.

my wife beat the shit out of her sister about 30 years ago when she found out she was a lesbo.., today they both refuse to have anything to do with each other.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So when Jesus said "love one another" that is also a perversion under your definition?...

Sheer sophistry, and insubstantial. Webster's gives us an adequate definition.


That is your assessment. Vast numbers of other people hold differently.

"...If you intend to discriminate against people who love each other then you are going to have a really hard time finding a legal loophole..."

Rather, opponents are prepared to discriminate against people who engage in perverse, sinful, unclean and deviant sexual practices with members of the same sex, utilizing their centuries-old, well-documented, widely-held religious beliefs that associating with such evil constitutes moral wrongdoing, as the basis for that discrimination. It is an interesting approach-vector that may yield some good results, in the Arizona case or some other that 'tweaks' the Arizona model. In any event, the search continues.

Thank you for openly admitting that you are attempting to legislate your own morality based upon religious beliefs.

You are going to have a hard time explaining why blow jobs and anal sex between a man and a woman are not equally perverted and evil to the Supreme Court.

Hold on there friend.

It's hypocritical to stand there and accuse him of "legislating his own morality based on his religious beliefs" while the Liberals try to legislate the lifestyles of the homosexual on the religious. If you want examples of this, look no further than to the states which have legalized gay marriage... through legislation based on their own sets of morals and in some ways the morals of their constituents.

Can you explain to me how that's fair? How is it right for one but not the other?

Oh, human biology was built for heterosexual intercourse. You can't have children by sticking your whatchamacallit up another man's backside, nor can you do it when two women lock legs or play strap-ons. It contradicts the reproductive aspect of the species. Homosexuality is a flaw, it always will be. Science (when applied genuinely) will also say the same thing.

 

[Chaussette]

Sheer sophistry, and insubstantial. Webster's gives us an adequate definition.


That is your assessment. Vast numbers of other people hold differently.


Rather, opponents are prepared to discriminate against people who engage in perverse, sinful, unclean and deviant sexual practices with members of the same sex, utilizing their centuries-old, well-documented, widely-held religious beliefs that associating with such evil constitutes moral wrongdoing, as the basis for that discrimination. It is an interesting approach-vector that may yield some good results, in the Arizona case or some other that 'tweaks' the Arizona model. In any event, the search continues.

Thank you for openly admitting that you are attempting to legislate your own morality based upon religious beliefs.

You are going to have a hard time explaining why blow jobs and anal sex between a man and a woman are not equally perverted and evil to the Supreme Court.

Hold on there friend.

It's hypocritical to stand there and accuse him of "legislating his own morality based on his religious beliefs" while the Liberals try to legislate the lifestyles of the homosexual on the religious. If you want examples of this, look no further than to the states which have legalized gay marriage... through legislation based on their own sets of morals and in some ways the morals of their constituents.

Can you explain to me how that's fair? How is it right for one but not the other?

Oh, human biology was built for heterosexual intercourse. You can't have children by sticking your whatchamacallit up another man's backside, nor can you do it when two women lock legs or play strap-ons. It contradicts the reproductive aspect of the species. Homosexuality is a flaw, it always will be. Science (when applied genuinely) will also say the same thing.

Nobody's forcing their lifestyle on anyone. Just because gays get married doesn't force heteros to marry gays. **** are you a noob. If you're against gay marriage, don't marry a gay person, otherwise, it's really none of your business what other people get up to. Pretty simple.

And there are plenty of examples in nature of homosexual behavior, some species are even bi on purpose to reproduce.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Thank you for openly admitting that you are attempting to legislate your own morality based upon religious beliefs.

You are going to have a hard time explaining why blow jobs and anal sex between a man and a woman are not equally perverted and evil to the Supreme Court.

Hold on there friend.

It's hypocritical to stand there and accuse him of "legislating his own morality based on his religious beliefs" while the Liberals try to legislate the lifestyles of the homosexual on the religious. If you want examples of this, look no further than to the states which have legalized gay marriage... through legislation based on their own sets of morals and in some ways the morals of their constituents.

Can you explain to me how that's fair? How is it right for one but not the other?

Oh, human biology was built for heterosexual intercourse. You can't have children by sticking your whatchamacallit up another man's backside, nor can you do it when two women lock legs or play strap-ons. It contradicts the reproductive aspect of the species. Homosexuality is a flaw, it always will be. Science (when applied genuinely) will also say the same thing.

Nobody's forcing their lifestyle on anyone. Just because gays get married doesn't force heteros to marry gays. **** are you a noob. If you're against gay marriage, don't marry a gay person, otherwise, it's really none of your business what other people get up to. Pretty simple.

And there are plenty of examples in nature of homosexual behavior, some species are even bi on purpose to reproduce.

You missed my entire point. When you force business owners to serve people against their religious beliefs, that's forcing that way or lifestyle on them. Look, I suggest you read more carefully before critiquing any of my posts.

I'll put it succinctly:

It will stop being our business when you stop making it our business. Understand?

When I say Human Biology, I'm referring to THE HUMAN SPECIES and only that. I am not referring to other animal or creature. And did you just call me a "noob"? Really? Do you think this is a ******* game?

 

[TemplarKormac]

"...Ahhh - so you think perversity is defined by the majority, well until such time as polls show the majority changed..."

You mistake an increased willingness to tolerate perversity, so long as it is kept out of the public eye, with the definition of perversity itself. It's an important distinction that seems to escape you. Your deficiency of understanding, not mine.

========================================

perversion: 1. sexual behavior that people think is not normal or natural

Perversion - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

========================================

Do not confuse increased tolerance for the definition itself.

If it was not viewed as perverse by the majority, then 97% would be Gay and 3% would be Straight, rather than the other way around.

Q.E.D.

When a gay couple walks into your shop and you refuse to serve them what exactly are you objecting to that must be "kept out of the public eye"? That they have matching wedding bands? Exactly what aspect are you attempting to ban here?

No we shouldn't hide people who are homosexuals. But you shouldn't force a citizen to act against his or her own consciences and faith. If anything, this intolerance of personal and spiritual limits should be banned.