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

[dblack]

Tell you what: when you can show me anything in the Constitution that says I have to justify my beliefs to you before I can exercise them, then I'll get right on that. Until then, you should stick to minding your own business, and I'll call this for what it is: You being nosy and judgemental.

Exactly. Thought police shit is what all this amounts to. It shouldn't matter what our reasons are. Being irrational and stupid is a fundamental human right. And yes, I'm totally serious.

 

[hangover]

Tell you what: when you can show me anything in the Constitution that says I have to justify my beliefs to you before I can exercise them, then I'll get right on that. Until then, you should stick to minding your own business, and I'll call this for what it is: You being nosy and judgemental.

Exactly. Thought police shit is what all this amounts to. It shouldn't matter what our reasons are. Being irrational and stupid is a fundamental human right. And yes, I'm totally serious.

And that's why the voters give us the government we have. What a ******* great country.

 

[dblack]

Tell you what: when you can show me anything in the Constitution that says I have to justify my beliefs to you before I can exercise them, then I'll get right on that. Until then, you should stick to minding your own business, and I'll call this for what it is: You being nosy and judgemental.

Exactly. Thought police shit is what all this amounts to. It shouldn't matter what our reasons are. Being irrational and stupid is a fundamental human right. And yes, I'm totally serious.

And that's why the voters give us the government we have. What a ******* great country.

The government that you want to dictate which views should be considered worthy, and which should not? Do you get dizzy spinning in circles like that?

 

[Silhouette]

Exactly. Thought police shit is what all this amounts to. It shouldn't matter what our reasons are. Being irrational and stupid is a fundamental human right. And yes, I'm totally serious.

If you're talking about the 1st Amendment here, let me defend what you have called "irrational and stupid"...

Christians believe they are put here on this planet to be tested in the flesh as to sin vs virtue. They believe that as a result of that testing, they will or will not be allowed into the Kingdom of God in the Hereafter. There is a Hereafter as I myself can testify from a near death experience and from reading hundreds of near death accounts. But you can choose to believe as you wish. The critical question is not how you believe, but how christians believe and how the 1st Amendment protects those beliefs.

Back to the testing grounds. In order to be tested, if you were testing anyone yourself, you would want a solid backdrop, a predictable order in order to introduce dissonants to see how your lab rats would perform. Scientists call this "the control" factor. The Bible describes this control factor, this "natural arrangement" in human sexuality and parent bonding as male-female. It makes biological sense, and for some reason it makes spiritual sense. Far be it for me to fully interpret why that is here, only that christian's contract with God in the Bible in Jude 1 and Romans 1 spells it out clearly that it is the Law...the controlled factor.

When you go about meddling with the key foundation of this aspect of The Plan in christianity, you blend the control into the experiment to where neither can be used to measure the other anymore. If a person doesn't know what sin is, ever, how can he know it is wrong? This is why societies have taboos. Homosexuality is one of those taboos. Will there always be homosexuals? Of course! Will there always be sinners? Of course! The Plan wouldn't work right without these transgressions as examples to others as how NOT to be. When you make what is not to be what "is" to be, you've removed the classroom from the students. You have turned them all loose in a big field and said "school is over forever, do as thou whilst shall be the whole of the law!". If that sounds familiar, it is because it is the mantra of satanists. The cult of one of the biggest fallen angels around whose constant ambition is to unravel the matrix of God's Plan in any way possible, using any and all tools at his disposal. Paramount of which is the smooth tongue or violent temper of the infected host, depending on its position in society and from what angle it is pitching to accumulate the maximum influence.

Problem is, you can no longer hold any of the testlings accountable once the matrix is dissolved. You can no longer tell which ones can be tested and who will remain faithful to the lessons. You can no longer define which will stand by you in your Kingdom and who will betray you surely. Christians define that God wants them in heaven as his trusted posse. If you cannot test the posse against the endless debauchery and lures of the flesh, more potent lures of power and malice in the hereafter could wreak havoc of untold dimensions. Remember, the christians belive that angels once walked the earth as tested souls. And, remember what Lucifer did with his newly found power in that other dimesion.

We don't fully understand the hereafter as testlings. In fact part of the Plan is that we cannot be wise to the lessons or else they again would fail to have meaning. I'm taking a risk myself even writing this down. But the likelihood of anyone understanding it, much less incorporating is so slim as to make this crime mitigated. My hope is that one or two key individuals will "get it" and then all the rest of you will just as quickly forget it. Just as I know you will.

So all we have is the Bible. And it says clearly in Jude 1 and Romans 1 that the matrix, the control of the experiment in any society is male-female as bonded ones for parenting. To defile that plan, that matrix, to sully that control by allowing "gay marriage" via passive assent, enabling or outright advocacy is a sin of the gravest order that has ripples in this world and beyond that you cannot even begin to imagine. If there ever was a time to suspend being non-judgmental, now is that time. You can say your hail marys and go back to being blindly tolerant of everything under the sun when you are done. But now is the time to earnestly contend for the common salvation.

 

[Bumberclyde]

And we're forced to accept your homophobic lifestyle?

Not making a gay wedding cake is a lifestyle? If that's your definition then yes, you should be subjected to it and take your business elsewhere. That's all the bill was supposed to be for. Not refusing to serve you if you were gay, although it still isn't clear how a business can read minds. Some of you act like the law would legalize gay lynchings. Which side is propagandizing the issue? The side that says business folks should be allowed to choose what they offer?

Why should normal people be subjected to homophobes' lifestyle denigrating gays all the time. But I wouldn't even want to buy a cake from the GayKK.

That aside, you can't invoke religious reasons if you're a Christian, because Jesus didn't discriminate against anyone, and would be appalled that anyone would slam gays in his name.

 

[dblack]

Exactly. Thought police shit is what all this amounts to. It shouldn't matter what our reasons are. Being irrational and stupid is a fundamental human right. And yes, I'm totally serious.

If you're talking about the 1st Amendment here, let me defend what you have called "irrational and stupid"...

Christians believe they are put here on this planet to be tested in the flesh as to sin vs virtue. ....

Sorry, but this is utterly irrelevant. I'll defend your right to choose who you like, who you don't like and who you want to do business with regardless of your reasons. That's the point I'm making. My comment wasn't meant as a slam on religion, it was meant as a slam on those who think that want to control what other people think.

 

[Silhouette]

That aside, you can't invoke religious reasons if you're a Christian, because Jesus didn't discriminate against anyone, and would be appalled that anyone would slam gays in his name.

Part of your problem is that you're seeing this from an individual-individual interaction viewpoint. That's not what it is. Jesus would advocate not slamming any one person. However Jesus at that same moment WOULD advocate slamming a thing [the cult of homosexuality] that stood to unravel His Father's Plan.

That's why I've always said "compassion, but not promotion" when it comes to homosexuals and homosexuality in that order. Read my last post.

 

[Derideo_Te]

How is refusing to associate with someone forcing anything on them? This kind of muddled thinking is really at the core of the problem. Enforcing laws is force. Choosing who we want to work for isn't.

You don't "associate" with someone when you bake them a cake or take their pictures.

You don't??

associate - definition of associate by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

as·so·ci·ate (ə-sō′shē-āt′, -sē-)
v. as·so·ci·at·ed, as·so·ci·at·ing, as·so·ci·ates
v.tr.
1. To join as a partner, ally, or friend.
2. To connect or join together; combine.
3. To connect in the mind or imagination: "I always somehow associate Chatterton with autumn" (John Keats).
v.intr.
1. To join in or form a league, union, or association. See Synonyms at join.
2. To spend time socially; keep company: associates with her coworkers on weekends.
n. (-ĭt, -āt&#8242
1. A person united with another or others in an act, enterprise, or business; a partner or colleague.
2. A companion; a comrade.
3. One that habitually accompanies or is associated with another; an attendant circumstance.
4. A member of an institution or society who is granted only partial status or privileges.
5. often Associate An associate's degree.
adj. (-ĭt, -āt&#8242
1. Joined with another or others and having equal or nearly equal status: an associate editor.
2. Having partial status or privileges: an associate member of the club.
3. Following or accompanying; concomitant.

If anyone has "muddled thinking" it is those who are misusing terms like "forcing" and "associate".

My point exactly.

No one is "forcing" you to "associate" with your customers on any other level other than on a purely financial basis.

So? Financial association "doesn't count"??

Not in the sense that you are using it. Refer to the actual definition above.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Tell you what: when you can show me anything in the Constitution that says I have to justify my beliefs to you before I can exercise them, then I'll get right on that. Until then, you should stick to minding your own business, and I'll call this for what it is: You being nosy and judgemental.

Exactly. Thought police shit is what all this amounts to. It shouldn't matter what our reasons are. Being irrational and stupid is a fundamental human right. And yes, I'm totally serious.

If Cecilie wants to legislate her irrational beliefs then yes, she does have to justify them.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Christians believe they are put here on this planet to be tested in the flesh as to sin vs virtue. They believe that as a result of that testing, they will or will not be allowed into the Kingdom of God in the Hereafter. There is a Hereafter as I myself can testify from a near death experience and from reading hundreds of near death accounts. But you can choose to believe as you wish. The critical question is not how you believe, but how christians believe and how the 1st Amendment protects those beliefs.

You know nothing of Christians, and base your claims on your own bigotry, rather than on any doctrinal evidence.

Further, this has zero relevance to the thread.

 

[dblack]

Tell you what: when you can show me anything in the Constitution that says I have to justify my beliefs to you before I can exercise them, then I'll get right on that. Until then, you should stick to minding your own business, and I'll call this for what it is: You being nosy and judgemental.

Exactly. Thought police shit is what all this amounts to. It shouldn't matter what our reasons are. Being irrational and stupid is a fundamental human right. And yes, I'm totally serious.

If Cecilie wants to legislate her irrational beliefs then yes, she does have to justify them.

What if she just wants the freedom to live by them? As long as she's not harming anyone else, why can't you just mind your own business, and stay out of hers?

 

[dblack]

You don't "associate" with someone when you bake them a cake or take their pictures.

You don't??

associate - definition of associate by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

​

My point exactly.

No one is "forcing" you to "associate" with your customers on any other level other than on a purely financial basis.

So? Financial association "doesn't count"??

Not in the sense that you are using it. Refer to the actual definition above.

In what 'sense' do you think I'm using it? Why do you believe it doesn't count? Do we lose all protected rights when engaging in financial association? Or just some? Which ones? Who decides? Let me guess... 'We the People'?

 

[Jarhead]

Exactly. Thought police shit is what all this amounts to. It shouldn't matter what our reasons are. Being irrational and stupid is a fundamental human right. And yes, I'm totally serious.

If Cecilie wants to legislate her irrational beliefs then yes, she does have to justify them.

What if she just wants the freedom to live by them? As long as she's not harming anyone else, why can't you just mind your own business, and stay out of hers?

why don't you ask the same question of my fellow conservatives as it pertains to gays?

What harm does it do to me if two men love each other and want to marry each other?

Yes...the conservative belief is personal responsibility...and I live by it. That's why I have no issue with gays wanting to marry. It has absolutely no affect on my life whatsoever.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Exactly. Thought police shit is what all this amounts to. It shouldn't matter what our reasons are. Being irrational and stupid is a fundamental human right. And yes, I'm totally serious.

If Cecilie wants to legislate her irrational beliefs then yes, she does have to justify them.

What if she just wants the freedom to live by them? As long as she's not harming anyone else, why can't you just mind your own business, and stay out of hers?

When "her business" discriminates against someone it is the same thing as discriminating against me. If we don't defend our rights no one else will. When she decides to discriminate she is harming your rights, my rights and everyone else's rights for that matter.

By pushing this legislation she is not "minding her own business", she is making it my business. So no, I will not stand aside and allow her to stomp all over the rights of others just as I wouldn't allow her to stomp all over yours.

 

[WorldWatcher]

God, do you know how predictable and boring it is that every time you leftists get in trouble, you run to the blacks to hide behind them?

His point is valid so why don't you just answer his question?

I will.

There is no religion that forbids commerce between blacks and whites.

2. "Exercise of religion" means the PRACTICE OR OBSERVANCE OF RELIGION, INCLUDING THE ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially
motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or
central to a larger system of religious belief.​

NOTE: Capitalization in the original bolding mine.

From the law, it is the individuals personal personal religious beliefs, the law does not require and specifically excludes the requirement that it be part of a higher order religious doctrine.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

You know nothing of Christians, and base your claims on your own bigotry, rather than on any doctrinal evidence.

Further, this has zero relevance to the thread.

Pay attention to the part in bold below. I have doctrinal evidence. Read the below and tell me how any of it is not the teachings of the christian faith? I'll expect potent citations and not "just don't be judgmental, Jesus said" as a milktoast response. I'm talking about the fundamentals of the Big Story of how christianity came about, what it means, the key players, the Plan etc. Washing all those lessons and teachings away with one "don't be judgmental" is a perversion of the Word of God to suit your agenda.

If you're talking about the 1st Amendment here, let me defend what you have called "irrational and stupid"...

Christians believe they are put here on this planet to be tested in the flesh as to sin vs virtue. They believe that as a result of that testing, they will or will not be allowed into the Kingdom of God in the Hereafter. There is a Hereafter as I myself can testify from a near death experience and from reading hundreds of near death accounts. But you can choose to believe as you wish. The critical question is not how you believe, but how christians believe and how the 1st Amendment protects those beliefs.

Back to the testing grounds. In order to be tested, if you were testing anyone yourself, you would want a solid backdrop, a predictable order in order to introduce dissonants to see how your lab rats would perform. Scientists call this "the control" factor. The Bible describes this control factor, this "natural arrangement" in human sexuality and parent bonding as male-female. It makes biological sense, and for some reason it makes spiritual sense. Far be it for me to fully interpret why that is here, only that christian's contract with God in the Bible in Jude 1 and Romans 1 spells it out clearly that it is the Law...the controlled factor.

When you go about meddling with the key foundation of this aspect of The Plan in christianity, you blend the control into the experiment to where neither can be used to measure the other anymore. If a person doesn't know what sin is, ever, how can he know it is wrong? This is why societies have taboos. Homosexuality is one of those taboos. Will there always be homosexuals? Of course! Will there always be sinners? Of course! The Plan wouldn't work right without these transgressions as examples to others as how NOT to be. When you make what is not to be what "is" to be, you've removed the classroom from the students. You have turned them all loose in a big field and said "school is over forever, do as thou whilst shall be the whole of the law!". If that sounds familiar, it is because it is the mantra of satanists. The cult of one of the biggest fallen angels around whose constant ambition is to unravel the matrix of God's Plan in any way possible, using any and all tools at his disposal. Paramount of which is the smooth tongue or violent temper of the infected host, depending on its position in society and from what angle it is pitching to accumulate the maximum influence.

Problem is, you can no longer hold any of the testlings accountable once the matrix is dissolved. You can no longer tell which ones can be tested and who will remain faithful to the lessons. You can no longer define which will stand by you in your Kingdom and who will betray you surely. Christians define that God wants them in heaven as his trusted posse. If you cannot test the posse against the endless debauchery and lures of the flesh, more potent lures of power and malice in the hereafter could wreak havoc of untold dimensions. Remember, the christians belive that angels once walked the earth as tested souls. And, remember what Lucifer did with his newly found power in that other dimesion.

We don't fully understand the hereafter as testlings. In fact part of the Plan is that we cannot be wise to the lessons or else they again would fail to have meaning. I'm taking a risk myself even writing this down. But the likelihood of anyone understanding it, much less incorporating is so slim as to make this crime mitigated. My hope is that one or two key individuals will "get it" and then all the rest of you will just as quickly forget it. Just as I know you will.

So all we have is the Bible. And it says clearly in Jude 1 and Romans 1 that the matrix, the control of the experiment in any society is male-female as bonded ones for parenting. To defile that plan, that matrix, to sully that control by allowing "gay marriage" via passive assent, enabling or outright advocacy is a sin of the gravest order that has ripples in this world and beyond that you cannot even begin to imagine. If there ever was a time to suspend being non-judgmental, now is that time. You can say your hail marys and go back to being blindly tolerant of everything under the sun when you are done. But now is the time to earnestly contend for the common salvation.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You don't??

associate - definition of associate by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

​

My point exactly.




So? Financial association "doesn't count"??

Not in the sense that you are using it. Refer to the actual definition above.

In what 'sense' do you think I'm using it? Why do you believe it doesn't count? Do we lose all protected rights when engaging in financial association? Or just some? Which ones? Who decides? Let me guess... 'We the People'?

So now you are admitting that you are ignorant of the public accommodation laws that fall under the commerce clause of the Constitution?

I suggest that you read the posts by Clayton earlier in this thread where he quite aptly explained how they apply.

That you don't understand them explains a lot.

 

[dblack]

If Cecilie wants to legislate her irrational beliefs then yes, she does have to justify them.

What if she just wants the freedom to live by them? As long as she's not harming anyone else, why can't you just mind your own business, and stay out of hers?

When "her business" discriminates against someone it is the same thing as discriminating against me. If we don't defend our rights no one else will. When she decides to discriminate she is harming your rights, my rights and everyone else's rights for that matter.

Let's talk about that. Which rights are we talking about? The idea that we have a 'right to not be discriminated against' seems really bizarre to me. Does that mean everyone who doesn't like me and doesn't treat me the same as all their friends is violating my rights???

 

[dblack]

associate - definition of associate by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

​

Not in the sense that you are using it. Refer to the actual definition above.

In what 'sense' do you think I'm using it? Why do you believe it doesn't count? Do we lose all protected rights when engaging in financial association? Or just some? Which ones? Who decides? Let me guess... 'We the People'?

So now you are admitting that you are ignorant of the public accommodation laws that fall under the commerce clause of the Constitution?

Not at all. I'm saying they're based on a bad idea. They violate the fundamental concepts of equal protection, freedom of association and freedom of conscience.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Pay attention to the part in bold below. I have doctrinal evidence. Read the below and tell me how any of it is not the teachings of the christian faith? I'll expect potent citations and not "just don't be judgmental, Jesus said" as a milktoast response. I'm talking about the fundamentals of the Big Story of how christianity came about, what it means, the key players, the Plan etc. Washing all those lessons and teachings away with one "don't be judgmental" is a perversion of the Word of God to suit your agenda.

What you have done is hijack the thread in order to attack Christians. If you have a desire to learn what Christianity is about, there are many resources. Try the religion forum on this board. There are a lot of Christians there who will help you.

Now, if you want to talk about the Arizona law, this is the thread to do that in.