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

[PaintMyHouse]

Bang!

Please tell me that you don't believe a church is Public? Some are open to the public but they are entirely private.

I do. How else do we get members? Through a secret underground order? We conduct outreach. Do you have any idea how Churches operate?

Yes I do know, which is why I know that they are Private but open to the Public, in most cases. If they were Public they would belong to us, and they don't. It's not possible in thie country where we separate Church and State, Public and Private. A church is like a country club, that has an Open House on most Sundays.

 

[Barb]

That was the ******* government, idiot.

Yep. The same government that keeps discovering that gays have rights.

Believe it or not, everyone else does to. And, believe it or not, not doing business with someone is not evil.

Public accommodations laws, desegregation, and regulations against red-lining came about because it was found that segregation and stratification of people based on race, gender, and a little later sexual orientation, effectively segregated and stratified economic opportunity.

So...it kind of is.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Yep. The same government that keeps discovering that gays have rights.

Believe it or not, everyone else does to. And, believe it or not, not doing business with someone is not evil.

Public accommodations laws, desegregation, and regulations against red-lining came about because it was found that segregation and stratification of people based on race, gender, and a little later sexual orientation, effectively segregated and stratified economic opportunity.

So...it kind of is.

In case you missed it, Barb, race and homosexuality have nothing to do with one another. Your argument of cum hoc ergo propter hoc is rejected. Perhaps you didn't read about the Crusades, but people learned the hard way that it was wrong to subvert the beliefs of others and substitute them with you own. Forcing pious businessowners to serve people who live an undesirable lifestyle is in essence trying to subvert their beliefs for the sake of YOUR wanting to be supposedly treated equal.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Believe it or not, everyone else does to. And, believe it or not, not doing business with someone is not evil.

Public accommodations laws, desegregation, and regulations against red-lining came about because it was found that segregation and stratification of people based on race, gender, and a little later sexual orientation, effectively segregated and stratified economic opportunity.

So...it kind of is.

In case you missed it, Barb, race and homosexuality have nothing to do with one another. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc argument denied.

Minorities, and now both becoming equally protected classes. Don't ya just love equality? I know I sure do.

 

[Barb]

Believe it or not, everyone else does to. And, believe it or not, not doing business with someone is not evil.

Public accommodations laws, desegregation, and regulations against red-lining came about because it was found that segregation and stratification of people based on race, gender, and a little later sexual orientation, effectively segregated and stratified economic opportunity.

So...it kind of is.

In case you missed it, Barb, race and homosexuality have nothing to do with one another. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc argument denied.

You don't get to deny shit, Sparky. Lets take race and another demographic indicator:

Race and poorer economic classes, on the surface, "have nothing to do with one another," either, except in an economy that is structured to discriminate against both, they are on par with each other via that discrimination.

Racial discrimination and discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation still share, (dum ta dum!) discrimination!

Are you starting to follow the connections here, or do I need to type more slowly?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Public accommodations laws, desegregation, and regulations against red-lining came about because it was found that segregation and stratification of people based on race, gender, and a little later sexual orientation, effectively segregated and stratified economic opportunity.

So...it kind of is.

In case you missed it, Barb, race and homosexuality have nothing to do with one another. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc argument denied.

Minorities, and now both becoming equally protected classes. Don't ya just love equality? I know I sure do.

Listen to yourself. You speak of equality but won't let a business owner exercise his right to appease his faith by refusing service to a homosexual. Since when is forcing your beliefs of "equality" down other Christians throats equal? Hmm? There is a double standard which you need to address.

"Equally protected classes" yeah... you don't see them as people, you see them as "classes."

 

[TemplarKormac]

Public accommodations laws, desegregation, and regulations against red-lining came about because it was found that segregation and stratification of people based on race, gender, and a little later sexual orientation, effectively segregated and stratified economic opportunity.

So...it kind of is.

In case you missed it, Barb, race and homosexuality have nothing to do with one another. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc argument denied.

You don't get to deny shit, Sparky. Lets take race and another demographic indicator:

Race and poorer economic classes, on the surface, "have nothing to do with one another," either, except in an economy that is structured to discriminate against both, they are on par with each other via that discrimination.

Racial discrimination and discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation still share, (dum ta dum!) discrimination!

Are you starting to follow the connections here, or do I need to type more slowly?

Conspiracy theories do not an argument make. You can say "discrimination" all you want, but you need an argument to prove it. So using your logic, how is a man adhering to his faith discriminating, but forcing him to serve gays against his faith isn't?

Do I need to type more slowly, Sparky?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

"Equally protected classes" yeah... you don't see them as people, you see them as "classes."

I see them as what they are, minorities. As for your other argument, a business is not a church. Lots of people have to compromise their faith to make a buck. Why do you think Jesus told you time and again that you can't serve two masters? Business is business, faith is faith. Don't mix them up, bad things happen when you do and we, men, set the rules that businesses follow. That's not optional in this case. Serve one, serve all, or you'd better have a damn good reason why you won't and "it goes against my religion" isn't one of them, not in the communal capitalist marketplace.

Try to remember just this, baking a cake isn't serving God.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You have literally no clue. A church isn't a business, but it's public. We literally don't confine our faith to a building. The idea of such is preposterous. Being a Christian translates to other parts of life, not just sitting in pews listening to sermons every Sunday.

 

[Barb]

In case you missed it, Barb, race and homosexuality have nothing to do with one another. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc argument denied.

You don't get to deny shit, Sparky. Lets take race and another demographic indicator:

Race and poorer economic classes, on the surface, "have nothing to do with one another," either, except in an economy that is structured to discriminate against both, they are on par with each other via that discrimination.

Racial discrimination and discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation still share, (dum ta dum!) discrimination!

Are you starting to follow the connections here, or do I need to type more slowly?

Conspiracy theories do not an argument make. You can say "discrimination" all you want, but you need an argument to prove it. So using your logic, how is a man adhering to his faith discriminating, but forcing him to serve gays against his faith isn't?

Do I need to type more slowly, Sparky?

Settled law isn't conspiracy theory, and braying "religious liberty" today the way others brayed "states rights" in the past will get you about as far.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You have literally no clue. A church isn't a business, but it's public. We literally don't confine our faith to a building. The idea of such is preposterous. Being a Christian translates to other parts of life, not just sitting in pews listening to sermons every Sunday.

Ask your church secretary to show you the Church Incorporation papers. She can explain how the church operates much like a business, and is entirely Private from a legal standpoint, but is open to the Public however is not a Public Accommodation, because it is a Privately Owned Legal Entity.

If a Mormon Temple was Public for instance, you could walk right in, and you can't, not even many Mormons can because it's Private, and so are their Ward Houses, what you would call a church. If they don't want you in there you have zero right to be there. It's Private not Public.

 

[Barb]

George Takei Threatens Arizona With A Boycott | The New Civil Rights Movement

You say this bill protects “religious freedom,” but no one is fooled. When I was younger, people used “God’s Will” as a reason to keep the races separate, too. Make no mistake, this is the new segregation, yours is a Jim Crow law, and you are about to make yourself ground zero.

Good for you, George Takei!

 

[Bfgrn]

In case you missed it, Barb, race and homosexuality have nothing to do with one another. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc argument denied.

You don't get to deny shit, Sparky. Lets take race and another demographic indicator:

Race and poorer economic classes, on the surface, "have nothing to do with one another," either, except in an economy that is structured to discriminate against both, they are on par with each other via that discrimination.

Racial discrimination and discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation still share, (dum ta dum!) discrimination!

Are you starting to follow the connections here, or do I need to type more slowly?

Conspiracy theories do not an argument make. You can say "discrimination" all you want, but you need an argument to prove it. So using your logic, how is a man adhering to his faith discriminating, but forcing him to serve gays against his faith isn't?

Do I need to type more slowly, Sparky?

No, we're defending THE RIGHT to discriminate.

The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects your beliefs, but not your ACTIONS.

In 1878, the Supreme Court was first called to interpret the extent of the Free Exercise Clause in Reynolds v. United States, as related to the prosecution of polygamy under federal law. The Supreme Court upheld Reynolds' conviction for bigamy, deciding that to do otherwise would provide constitutional protection for a gamut of religious beliefs, including those as extreme as human sacrifice. The Court said (at page 162): "Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territory which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation." Of federal territorial laws, the Court said: "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices."

 

[TemplarKormac]

You don't get to deny shit, Sparky. Lets take race and another demographic indicator:

Race and poorer economic classes, on the surface, "have nothing to do with one another," either, except in an economy that is structured to discriminate against both, they are on par with each other via that discrimination.

Racial discrimination and discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation still share, (dum ta dum!) discrimination!

Are you starting to follow the connections here, or do I need to type more slowly?

Conspiracy theories do not an argument make. You can say "discrimination" all you want, but you need an argument to prove it. So using your logic, how is a man adhering to his faith discriminating, but forcing him to serve gays against his faith isn't?

Do I need to type more slowly, Sparky?

Settled law isn't conspiracy theory, and braying "religious liberty" today the way others brayed "states rights" in the past will get you about as far.

So, the law says that you have the right to practice your faith, but you must set that faith aside in order to serve folks who lead lifestyles your faith finds reprehensible?

By the way, the 10th Amendment exists for a reason. You act as if states rights are a conspiracy in and of themselves. You act as if the States must ultimately adhere to the will of the Government, even when such adherence would violate the law and the freedoms of others.

 

[BDBoop]

 

[BDBoop]

Why Myke Cole is awesome (from a thread discussing Arizona's "Free to be a Bigot" law):

"I have gay service members serving under my command. If you think for a minute that I will sit back and allow them to be denied service by Americans they have agreed to die to defend, then you are out of your ******* mind."

 

[TemplarKormac]

You don't get to deny shit, Sparky. Lets take race and another demographic indicator:

Race and poorer economic classes, on the surface, "have nothing to do with one another," either, except in an economy that is structured to discriminate against both, they are on par with each other via that discrimination.

Racial discrimination and discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation still share, (dum ta dum!) discrimination!

Are you starting to follow the connections here, or do I need to type more slowly?

Conspiracy theories do not an argument make. You can say "discrimination" all you want, but you need an argument to prove it. So using your logic, how is a man adhering to his faith discriminating, but forcing him to serve gays against his faith isn't?

Do I need to type more slowly, Sparky?

No, we're defending THE RIGHT to discriminate.

The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects your beliefs, but not your ACTIONS.

In 1878, the Supreme Court was first called to interpret the extent of the Free Exercise Clause in Reynolds v. United States, as related to the prosecution of polygamy under federal law. The Supreme Court upheld Reynolds' conviction for bigamy, deciding that to do otherwise would provide constitutional protection for a gamut of religious beliefs, including those as extreme as human sacrifice. The Court said (at page 162): "Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territory which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation." Of federal territorial laws, the Court said: "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices."

So, what I get here is that Public Accommodation laws are unconstitutional, since in order for a man of faith to adhere to these laws, he must rescind his religious beliefs and opinions to avoid breaking the law. Thus you are asking him to stop practicing his faith in public in order to appease the public. Is that right? So what we have here is your ignorance of these laws, which do indeed "interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions" of these proprietors.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Yet another idiot equating Fags to Blacks. Good lord.....Will someone actually attempt to tell me exactly WHAT Civil Right is being violated? The Paralegal ran from the argument, so, anyone?? That's what I thought.

 

[Bfgrn]

Conspiracy theories do not an argument make. You can say "discrimination" all you want, but you need an argument to prove it. So using your logic, how is a man adhering to his faith discriminating, but forcing him to serve gays against his faith isn't?

Do I need to type more slowly, Sparky?

No, we're defending THE RIGHT to discriminate.

The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects your beliefs, but not your ACTIONS.

In 1878, the Supreme Court was first called to interpret the extent of the Free Exercise Clause in Reynolds v. United States, as related to the prosecution of polygamy under federal law. The Supreme Court upheld Reynolds' conviction for bigamy, deciding that to do otherwise would provide constitutional protection for a gamut of religious beliefs, including those as extreme as human sacrifice. The Court said (at page 162): "Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territory which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation." Of federal territorial laws, the Court said: "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices."

So, what I get here is that Public Accommodation laws are unconstitutional, since in order for a man of faith to adhere to these laws, he must rescind his religious beliefs and opinions to avoid breaking the law. Is that right? So what we have here is your ignorance of these laws, which do indeed "interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions" of these proprietors.

WHAT don't you comprehend?

The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects your beliefs, but not your ACTIONS.

Believe whatever you wish, and practice whatever you wish in PRIVATE. But in the public arena that include retail stores, rental establishments and service establishments, as well as educational institutions, recreation facilities and service centers.Public accommodation law states those entities must not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin.

And soon to be added, sexual orientation.


Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.
Barry Goldwater

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Churches are public.

Bang!

Please tell me that you don't believe a church is Public? Some are open to the public but they are entirely private.

Are you telling me that a business that is open to the public isn't private? Why do police need warrants to search them if they are already public?