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

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Every time you post trillions of brain cells die throughout the universe.

Please stop.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

What a surprise, the resident idiots sent in another idiot that doesn't know the difference between government enforced segregation, AKA Jim Crow laws, and people making the choice not to serve vegetarian food because they think PETA freaks are idiots.

Come back when you get a clue.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

If only you knew what it was.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Guess what else shares discrimination, oh she of the stupid equivalencies, discrimination based on not liking someone. Should we make that illegal to just t make sure all the fuckwads never get their feelings hurt?

Tell me something, and try being honest. If you knew there was a business in town where the owner actually hated you, for whatever reason, would you want that person to show up at your wedding and serve the food or bake the cake? Would that be the place you went to find someone to take pictures of the single most important event in your pathetic excuse for a life?

Why the **** would any sane person do that? Either you think every single person that sleeps with a person of the same sex is congenitally insane, or you are a stupid beyond measure.

Personally, I vote for the latter.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"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.

Funny, I could have sworn they were human beings.

By the way, if you actually read the Bible you would know that baking a cake is serving God.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

There is nothing settled about the idea that people lose their rights simply because they own a business.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Sounds a lot like a bakery to me.

 

[Dr Grump]

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.

Exhibiting bigotted behaviour towards somebody due to their sexuality is so 17th century. I see it a violation of their civil rights for sure. Judging people on their sexuality, gender, ethnicity or colour of their skin has no place in a civilised society. Now, if you want to live in a country like Uganda which just passed anti-gay laws - well that kinda tells you what company you keep. How does it feel?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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."

This is going to be fun.

You have one case, I have dozens.

• 7-2 in favor of actions based on religion trumping state law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherbert_v._Verner
• 8-1 in favor of actions based on religion trumping state law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_v._Review_Board_of_the_Indiana_Employment_Security_Division

Do you want me to keep going?


By the way, you know that the law that was used to send Reynold's to prison was partially overturned recently because it discriminates against Mormons, don't you?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

What do you not comprehend, you are so far wrong you aren't even on the same planet as anyone else.

By the way, good person to quote, Goldwater was opposed to the 1964 Civil Rights act for the very reason that I am arguing against it right now.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Exhibiting bigotted behaviour towards somebody due to their sexuality is so 17th century. I see it a violation of their civil rights for sure. Judging people on their sexuality, gender, ethnicity or colour of their skin has no place in a civilised society. Now, if you want to live in a country like Uganda which just passed anti-gay laws - well that kinda tells you what company you keep. How does it feel?

Tell me something, oh he of the ever present innuendos, what, exactly, changed in the last 5 years that suddenly took sexual preference out of the realm of eccentric, but acceptable, behavior, to an actionable offense if you have a preference not to hang out with people who prefer to announce who they sleep with when no sane person cares?

 

[DriftingSand]

Let's say that a straight person goes to a gay-owned bakery and requests that the baker write the following statement in icing on top of a cake:

"Homosexuality is a Mental Illness"

Should the gay baker be required to succumb to the straight person's request or does he have a right to refuse service to the straight person based on his personal beliefs? Would it be right to force the gay baker to write a message that he's totally opposed to?

 

[Barb]

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.

Exhibiting bigotted behaviour towards somebody due to their sexuality is so 17th century. I see it a violation of their civil rights for sure. Judging people on their sexuality, gender, ethnicity or colour of their skin has no place in a civilised society. Now, if you want to live in a country like Uganda which just passed anti-gay laws - well that kinda tells you what company you keep. How does it feel?

Or Russia - there's the reason for the right-wing brocrush on Putin

 

[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.

What a surprise, the resident idiots sent in another idiot that doesn't know the difference between government enforced segregation, AKA Jim Crow laws, and people making the choice not to serve vegetarian food because they think PETA freaks are idiots.

Come back when you get a clue.

Lame, and so much fail.

There is a huge difference between serving everyone what you already sell and declining to cook a specialized cuisine that isn't on the menu

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Exhibiting bigotted behaviour towards somebody due to their sexuality is so 17th century. I see it a violation of their civil rights for sure. Judging people on their sexuality, gender, ethnicity or colour of their skin has no place in a civilised society. Now, if you want to live in a country like Uganda which just passed anti-gay laws - well that kinda tells you what company you keep. How does it feel?

Or Russia - there's the reason for the right-wing brocrush on Putin

Delusions from the people with BDS that can't blame Bush?

 

[Barb]

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.

There is nothing settled about the idea that people lose their rights simply because they own a business.

except it is.

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.

And yes, Quantum sonicetoseeyou'rebacktodickheadedyou Windbag, they DID used to do so to others under the excuse that it was "God's will."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

What a surprise, the resident idiots sent in another idiot that doesn't know the difference between government enforced segregation, AKA Jim Crow laws, and people making the choice not to serve vegetarian food because they think PETA freaks are idiots.

Come back when you get a clue.

Lame, and so much fail.

There is a huge difference between serving everyone what you already sell and declining to cook a specialized cuisine that isn't on the menu

Then you should be able to articulate it. Keep in mind that every restaurant you have ever ate in has vegetables.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

There is nothing settled about the idea that people lose their rights simply because they own a business.

except it is.

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.

And yes, Quantum sonicetoseeyou'rebacktodickheadedyou Windbag, they DID used to do so to others under the excuse that it was "God's will."

That is not why they came about.

They came about because they seemed like the easiest way to force the states that mandated discrimination to stop. There was the additional rationalization that, at the time, most public accommodations were government sanctioned monopolies, and hotels were actually few, and far between. Those conditions no longer exist, so only an idiot would insist that we still need the same laws.

 

[TemplarKormac]

That got me thinking how ridiculous this is. Should vegetarians be able to sue restaurants who serve meat because its offensive and discriminatory to vegetarians? I mean yeah, that's about as bad as gay couples suing a religious business owner for refusing them service based on his religious beliefs.

 

[Barb]

That got me thinking how ridiculous this is. Should vegetarians be able to sue restaurants who serve meat because its offensive and discriminatory to vegetarians? I mean yeah, that's about as bad as gay couples suing a religious business owner for refusing them service based on his religious beliefs.

you two have devolved into the patently absurd, with more than a hint of word salad thrown in.

If I don't like liver, I can't sue to have it removed from the menu; if Thai food makes me sick I can't force the Thai restaurant to serve Italian - as well OR instead; but if either refuse someone service because, for example I'm a woman, or your sexual orientation, or Quantum's race (or religion!), THEN they violate public accommodations law.