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

[Chaussette]

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.

Then people should be upfront about it and post a sign in the shop window saying: WE DON'T SERVE GAYS.

 

[Kondor3]

"...When you force business owners to serve people against their religious beliefs, that's forcing that way or lifestyle on them..."

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Then people should be upfront about it and post a sign in the shop window saying: WE DON'T SERVE GAYS.

Yep. But then again, why does such a suggestion come from someone who opposes such a thing? Aren't you contradicting yourself?

 

[Chaussette]

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.

Then people should be upfront about it and post a sign in the shop window saying: WE DON'T SERVE GAYS.

Yep. But then again, why does such a suggestion come from someone who opposes such a thing? Aren't you contradicting yourself?

I just think people should be honest. Sure, I think that it's totally homophobic, but if this law passes, people should at least be honest and upfront about their hating and post a sign: I HATE GAYS. Or something similar.

 

[Chaussette]

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?

So basically, you only serve Christian straight people, no Jews, muslims, Hindus, Atheists... Because after all, you don't agree with their religious beliefs. Man, your business must be booming.

You are a ******* noob, because your god put those homosexual animals on earth, it's not their ******* DIET!!!!!!!

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

Actually it will because there is ample hard documented evidence to support it.

As far as the bible being the final arbiter of what is considered to be normal is a slippery slope. It can be used to justify abortion just as easily. If you base your position on the bible then so can everyone else. Pandora's box will be nothing compared to the unintended consequences that will arise if you try to take that path.

 

[Iceweasel]

In other words, you would force a Jew to bake a Nazi cake. Your side is tyranical and people are fighting back. Sounds like some of you aren't accustomed to that.

Got it backwards. The Nazi is a political philosophy and as such a person has a right to reject it. However, Jewishness is a protected category, so a Nazi would have to bake a Jewish wedding cake. Cool, huh?

Was that supposed to make sense? Most Jews aren't observant and Naziism is far more than a political philosophy. You can't spin your way out of it. If you support the imposition of homosexual relationships by the legal force of the law, like making a baker provide same sex wedding cakes against his will, then a Nazi can force a Jew to make a Nazi cake, complete with swaztika, regardless of his feelings. That is tryranny, the enemy of a free people.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

Raises the specter of how exactly you intend to distinguish "such folk" in everyday life? If you make them wear pink armbands I can promise you that I will wear one too and so will everyone else that I know.

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.

So you don't actually have anything substantive? Just a whole heap of wishful dreaming. Best of luck but the courts expect hard evidence and when it comes to morality that doesn't come easily.

 

[GreenBean]

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.

Gay Sex ...
Let's Start with the Health Issues

Gay Bowel Syndrome The Journal of the American Medical Association - Many of the bacterial and protozoa pathogens that cause gbs are found in feces and transmitted to the digestive system. This disease is rarely found in normal people ,extremely rarely , but it is epidemic in the Gay community it's caused by ingesting SHIT. Yes - it's a fact Gays are Shit-eaters

HIV/AIDS Among Homosexuals. The human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is responsible for causing AIDS, for which there exists no cure. Some like to cite that this also occurs among normal people but Although Fags represent about 7% of the male population in the United States, in 2010 Gay Sodomy accounted for 78% of the new HIV infections among males.



Anal Cancer: Homosexuals are at increased risk for this rare type of cancer, which is potentially fatal if the anal-rectal tumors metastasize to other bodily organs.

Reduced Life Span. Now the devil on my left shoulder is saying that getting rid of these queers earllier in life is a good thing , but the angel on my tight shoulder say show some compassion even if they are just perverts. A study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology on the mortality rates of homosexuals concluded that they have a significantly reduced life expectancy:

In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age twentyfor gay and bisexual men is eight to twenty years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged twenty years will not reach their sixty-fifth birthday.

Chlamydia - Caused primarily by anal sex and rates are extremely high in the Fruit cake community

Anal Papilloma - rates are extremely high in the Fruit cake community

Human Papillomavirus (HPV) -rates are extremely high in the Fruit cake community

Hepatitis: A potentially fatal liver disease that increases the risk of liver cancer.rates are extremely high in the Fruit cake community

Gonorrhea: An inflammatory disease of the genital tract. rates are extremely high in the Fruit cake community

Syphilis -rates are extremely high in the Fruit cake community

Explain that rates are extremely high in the Fruit cake community to SCOTUS

 

[sfcalifornia]

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.

I do believe that businesses should be allowed to conduct business with anyone they want to but I also believe that a business which refuses service to anyone simply because they are gay are incredibly stupid and they should re-examine the reason why they are in business to begin with. Money is money and if a business is going to turn down a dollar simply because it is pink then it deserves all the boycott, ridicule and derision the gay community and it's supporters can muster, a practice also guaranteed by law.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

First off, Kondor just openly admitted to "legislating his own morality based on his religious beliefs". Secondly removing discrimination is not "legislating morality" unless you believe that it is somehow "moral" to discriminate against your fellow citizens. You need to justify the "fairness" to discriminating against them simply because they are in love with someone of the same sex.

Don't muddy the waters with the "reproduction" issue either. This has nothing to do with that aspect at all. This is about trying to dictate who someone is allowed to love and who they can't. There is no justification for that kind of moralizing and attempting to legislate it.

 

[Kondor3]

"...So basically, you only serve Christian straight people, no Jews, muslims, Hindus, Atheists... Because after all, you don't agree with their religious beliefs...."

Not at all...

Merely looking for the freedom to refuse service to those whose sexual practices are condemned in the sacred texts and/or historical and present teachings of at least three of the world's largest mainstream religions, and which are believed to be perverse, unnatural, unclean and an aberration in the eyes of God and Man - the freedom to shun wrongdoing and wrongdoers in accordance with mainstream religious teachings on the subject.

A different 'filter' than the holistic one that you are trying (and failing) to apply here.

 

[Disir]

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

I decided to opt out of reading through 50 pages. I'm just going to cut to the chase. Remember Super Bowl XXVII. Boycott Arizona.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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?

So basically, you only serve Christian straight people, no Jews, muslims, Hindus, Atheists... Because after all, you don't agree with their religious beliefs. Man, your business must be booming.

You are a ******* noob, because your god put those homosexual animals on earth, it's not their ******* DIET!!!!!!!

And you will be negged. You have not only mischaracterized my views, you have insulted me in in the process. I will serve anyone I want. It shall be my prerogative alone. I will conduct my business as I see fit, if given the opportunity to do so by appropriate legislation.

So basically, all your left with here is "you're a noob."

 

[Kondor3]

"...First off, Kondor just openly admitted to 'legislating his own morality based on his religious beliefs'..."

Quite true. But it can be pitched somewhat different when it comes to going public. All's fair in love and war. And, I assure you, this is war, from the Opposition's perspective.

"...Secondly removing discrimination is not 'legislating morality' unless you believe that it is somehow 'moral' to discriminate against your fellow citizens..."

It is only 'moral' to discriminate against your fellow citizens when they openly admit to immoral and perverse acts and practices.

Rather like shunning a pedophile or some other flavor of pervert.

"...You need to justify the 'fairness' to discriminating against them simply because they are in love with someone of the same sex..."

3000 years of the combined condemnations by Judaism, Christianity and Islam have taken care of all those pesky moral complications.

I really do not believe that you appreciate the sheer and overwhelming power and persistence and stamina of the forces now aligning against you.

"...This has nothing to do with that aspect at all. This is about trying to dictate who someone is allowed to love and who they can't..."

It's not even about that.

It's about forcing somebody to provide services to someone who engages in perverse and unnatural sexual behaviors and related lifestyles and moral relativism.

It's about those forced to do so, finding ways to fight back, in order to preserve their right to refuse such services, based upon their religious beliefs and teachings.

 

[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.

First off, Kondor just openly admitted to "legislating his own morality based on his religious beliefs". Secondly removing discrimination is not "legislating morality" unless you believe that it is somehow "moral" to discriminate against your fellow citizens. You need to justify the "fairness" to discriminating against them simply because they are in love with someone of the same sex.

Don't muddy the waters with the "reproduction" issue either. This has nothing to do with that aspect at all. This is about trying to dictate who someone is allowed to love and who they can't. There is no justification for that kind of moralizing and attempting to legislate it.

Whoa whoa whoa... hold the phone:



So a business owner refusing service to a gay couple is somehow telling them they can't love each other? Am I getting this straight? So, in response we must force this person to act against his faith? Reference my previous posts for how I feel about that.

I frankly don't care what Kondor said. I find it hypocritical for someone to say "you can't legislate morality" then sit there while our state governments pass legislation which foist the morals and lifestyles of homosexuals on Christians via legislation. When you remove a man's right to act as his faith teaches, that within itself is discrimination.. You don't force tolerance. You don't force a man to believe what he doesn't want to believe, nor should force him to accommodate those beliefs.

Being a Libertarian, I believe homosexuals should be treated equally. But in addition, I believe that a businessman or owner should be able to run his business how he sees fit, even if that means refusing service to peoples whose lifestyles run against the grain of his religion. I believe, Derideo, that it is unfair to force a man to act against his religious beliefs by forcing another set of contradictory beliefs upon him. Let him believe how he chooses, and run his business accordingly. Same for gays. This is a core tenet of libertarianism: to let the citizen dictate his own fate and the fate of his endeavors, to let the citizen believe how he chooses without being forced to conform to societal norms. It's that simple.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Then people should be upfront about it and post a sign in the shop window saying: WE DON'T SERVE GAYS.

Yep. But then again, why does such a suggestion come from someone who opposes such a thing? Aren't you contradicting yourself?

I just think people should be honest. Sure, I think that it's totally homophobic, but if this law passes, people should at least be honest and upfront about their hating and post a sign: I HATE GAYS. Or something similar.

Now you're being outrightly facetious. How childish.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

First off, Kondor just openly admitted to "legislating his own morality based on his religious beliefs". Secondly removing discrimination is not "legislating morality" unless you believe that it is somehow "moral" to discriminate against your fellow citizens. You need to justify the "fairness" to discriminating against them simply because they are in love with someone of the same sex.

Don't muddy the waters with the "reproduction" issue either. This has nothing to do with that aspect at all. This is about trying to dictate who someone is allowed to love and who they can't. There is no justification for that kind of moralizing and attempting to legislate it.

Whoa whoa whoa... hold the phone:



So a business owner refusing service to a gay couple is somehow telling them they can't love each other? Am I getting this straight? So, in response we must force this person to act against his faith? Reference my previous posts for how I feel about that.

I frankly don't care what Kondor said. I find it hypocritical for someone to say "you can't legislate morality" then sit there while our state governments pass legislation which foist the morals and lifestyles of homosexuals on Christians via legislation. When you remove a man's right to act as his faith teaches, that within itself is discrimination.. You don't force tolerance. You don't force a man to believe what he doesn't want to believe, nor should force him to accommodate those beliefs.

Being a Libertarian, I believe homosexuals should be treated equally. But in addition, I believe that a businessman or owner should be able to run his business how he sees fit, even if that means refusing service to peoples whose lifestyles run against the grain of his religion. I believe, Derideo, that it is unfair to force a man to act against his religious beliefs by forcing another set of contradictory beliefs upon him. Let him believe how he chooses, and run his business accordingly. Same for gays. This is a core tenet of libertarianism: to let the citizen dictate his own fate and the fate of his endeavors, to let the citizen believe how he chooses without being forced to conform to societal norms. It's that simple.

You are free to hate anyone you wish. But as a public business you are not allowed deny service based on your hatred

 

[Chaussette]

"...So basically, you only serve Christian straight people, no Jews, muslims, Hindus, Atheists... Because after all, you don't agree with their religious beliefs...."

Not at all...

Merely looking for the freedom to refuse service to those whose sexual practices are condemned in the sacred texts and/or historical and present teachings of at least three of the world's largest mainstream religions, and which are believed to be perverse, unnatural, unclean and an aberration in the eyes of God and Man - the freedom to shun wrongdoing and wrongdoers in accordance with mainstream religious teachings on the subject.

A different 'filter' than the holistic one that you are trying (and failing) to apply here.

Sacred texts are nothing but fairy tales. Nothing of importance can be proved in any religion. And do you really think that Jesus preached to hate gays? Since you know he didn't, then it's man who wrote in the hating gays stuff in your sacred noob books. Jesus was not a gay basher. Or was he?

 

[TemplarKormac]

"...So basically, you only serve Christian straight people, no Jews, muslims, Hindus, Atheists... Because after all, you don't agree with their religious beliefs...."

Not at all...

Merely looking for the freedom to refuse service to those whose sexual practices are condemned in the sacred texts and/or historical and present teachings of at least three of the world's largest mainstream religions, and which are believed to be perverse, unnatural, unclean and an aberration in the eyes of God and Man - the freedom to shun wrongdoing and wrongdoers in accordance with mainstream religious teachings on the subject.

A different 'filter' than the holistic one that you are trying (and failing) to apply here.

Sacred texts are nothing but fairy tales. Nothing of importance can be proved in any religion. And do you really think that Jesus preached to hate gays? Since you know he didn't, then it's man who wrote in the hating gays stuff in your sacred noob books. Jesus was not a gay basher. Or was he?

You may as well put a sig line down:

"I HATE CHRISTIANS"

or something to that effect.