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

[Mertex]

Feel free to explain why I should believe that you can get an organization that has a team named the Redskins to care enough about public opinion to throw away billions of dollars simply to assuage public opinion.

Because having a team named Redskins hasn't kept them from making money......hosting the NFL in a town that discriminates and most likely will experience boycuts, cuts down on their money-making.....it's a big deal and some in Arizona are finally seeing the light....I think Brewer is, if not, she may be dumber than she appears.

I'm not convinced the money-making is threatened to any significant degree. I hear a lot of people saying it. Not many presenting evidence.

If you're getting all your information from right-wing sources, WND, Faux News, Limbaugh, you probably won't. But, that's not reality.

 

[KevinWestern]

You can use normal font.

Also, are you saying that the bill won't protect an owner who doesn't want to serve a sandwich to a gay because that action isn't "substantially burdening" the business owner's exercise of religion? Maybe that's the case. But you certainly can't prove that's the case..

No he can't......people who shout the same thing over and over are not getting it.....and they think if they shout it, you will see it in the erroneous, quirky, and twisted way they do.....same thing with over-sized fonts.....

Sometimes you have to shout to be heard over the whinging bitches who can't tell the difference between freedom and tyranny.

"Whining Bitches"? Who the **** are you man? I'm clearly here talking with you, absorbing information, learning things with an open mind, and agreeing with many of your points.

I'm sorry everyone can't be an expert on the intricacies of every bill discussed in every thread (despite the fact that you clearly are (or think you are)); that's why we come here - to learn. If you think my viewpoint was mistaken - fine - I'll read what you have to say and if I believe it to be valid I might change my own opinion on the subject.

But one thing I know is when you're an asshole you rarely win anyone over - even if your evidence is solid and irrefutable. You need to learn some more effective communication skills.

.

 

[Mertex]

You can use normal font.

Also, are you saying that the bill won't protect an owner who doesn't want to serve a sandwich to a gay because that action isn't "substantially burdening" the business owner's exercise of religion? Maybe that's the case. But you certainly can't prove that's the case..

No he can't......people who shout the same thing over and over are not getting it.....and they think if they shout it, you will see it in the erroneous, quirky, and twisted way they do.....same thing with over-sized fonts.....

Sometimes you have to shout to be heard over the whinging bitches who can't tell the difference between freedom and tyranny.

No, you're a dama queen who thinks by posting in big letters everyone will agree with you when you keep posting the same inane crap.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I get the cake one - I said that. It's actively participating in something that is against someone's religion.

But refusal to serve a gay a sandwich is arbitrary discrimination. There's no religious violation, and the discrimination is simply because the business owner doesn't like a certain type of person or lifestyle. Refusal to serve a courteous black guy who has money to pay for food a sandwich is arbitrary discrimination.

Again, this is my opinion that these two laws should be passed in unison so we don't end up with a situation where entire towns won't serve the one kid who's rumored to be gay, and be legally protected to do so.

Guess what, you can already do that in Arizona. In fact, you can already do that in most states. Maybe you should try something rarely do, go read the actual bill and compare it to various RFRAs. The federal one is actually imposes fewer restrictions on an individual for claiming a religious exemption to a law, yet no one has ever successfully used it to refuse service to a gay person, even though it is perfectly legal under federal law to refuse servce to a gay person.

Then again, that might make you into something you have shown no sign of being yet, someone who actually studies an issue, gets the facts, and forms a reasoned opinion using the critical thinking skills that are no longer taught in schools. You prefer to come in, take a position, get trashed for your ignorance, and only then will you learn.

Wow, getting very heated here Quantam. Cool it, lol. No need to be a dick we're just people talking here (ie "purveyor of ignorance" is an aggressive dialog..).

Awww, did I hurt your widdle feewings?

If you don't like me calling you a purveyor of ignorance, stop ******* spreading ignorance.

Let me get to what my main stance is. I would like sexual preference to be included in the Federal law that protects discrimination based on color, sex, age, or race.

That's it.

My opinion.

.

Yet, even though it isn't, no one has ever successfully made a case for not serving people based on their sexual preference.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You can use normal font.

Also, are you saying that the bill won't protect an owner who doesn't want to serve a sandwich to a gay because that action isn't "substantially burdening" the business owner's exercise of religion? Maybe that's the case. But you certainly can't prove that's the case..

I am far from the only one that has been saying that. Every single person that has actually read the bill and compared it to existing laws has said the exact same thing. That crowd actually includes some people who do not want the bill passed, and that think the government should be able to force bakers to bake wedding cakes for same sex marriages.

Try reading it in the context of the Religious Freedom Restoration Ac, you might discover that the bill will actually make it harder for an individual to claim that his religion prohibits him from participating in a marraige ceremony than current Arizona law. The latter is part of the reason some Christians, and Muslims, I am aware of are against it.

You really should learn that news stories are not about facts, they are about ratings and/or page views.

Then why didn't you just come straight out and say your point after replying originally to my post? Why did you have to type about a total of 1,000 words to get here?

Just speak clearly and concisely - make your point, without red fonts and gimmicks, without the insults - and maybe we could have arrived at some sort of agreement more quickly.

man...

Because I have made the point at least 20 times already.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yep, the NFL is fully capable of doing that in a heartbeat.

Feel free to explain why I should believe that you can get an organization that has a team named the Redskins to care enough about public opinion to throw away billions of dollars simply to assuage public opinion.

Because having a team named Redskins hasn't kept them from making money......hosting the NFL in a town that discriminates and most likely will experience boycuts, cuts down on their money-making.....it's a big deal and some in Arizona are finally seeing the light....I think Brewer is, if not, she may be dumber than she appears.

They won't boycott the Super Bowl.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No he can't......people who shout the same thing over and over are not getting it.....and they think if they shout it, you will see it in the erroneous, quirky, and twisted way they do.....same thing with over-sized fonts.....

Sometimes you have to shout to be heard over the whinging bitches who can't tell the difference between freedom and tyranny.

"Whining Bitches"? Who the **** are you man? I'm clearly here talking with you, absorbing information, learning things with an open mind, and agreeing with many of your points.

I'm sorry everyone can't be an expert on the intricacies of every bill discussed in every thread (despite the fact that you clearly are (or think you are)); that's why we come here - to learn. If you think my viewpoint was mistaken - fine - I'll read what you have to say and if I believe it to be valid I might change my own opinion on the subject.

But one thing I know is when you're an asshole you rarely win anyone over - even if your evidence is solid and irrefutable. You need to learn some more effective communication skills.

.

Don't be confused by Windbag's claim to have expertise on anything. That's part of his act. Bluster. Big claims wholly unsupported by evidence.

 

[Derideo_Te]

What's so interesting ? In Arizona or anywhere else, business owners generally have one primary objective > optimizing PROFITS, and everything gets funneled into that. Including , unfortunately, right and wrong.

Optimizing profits means avoiding controversy. The NFL has no interest in being perceived as anti gay therefore they will relocate the Superbowl elsewhere.

The NFL no interest in being perceived as anti gay ? Why not ? Sounds like a perfectly reasonable thing to me.

There is nothing reasonable about bigotry like yours.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Brewer vetoed the gay discrimination bill!

 

[Cecilie1200]

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 voters? Yeah, because these decisions were made at a ballot box.

FYI, Sparkles, why is it you're so in favor of the legislative process putting these laws in place, but shitting your frillies at the thought of that same legislative process reversing them? Either you think the "will of the people" as expressed by their representatives is supreme, or you don't.

Make up your mind.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Brewer vetoed the gay discrimination bill!

I guess Arizona really wanted that superbowl?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Excuse me, but when did Jesus hire you as His official spokesperson, and may I peruse that employment contract, please?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Even bigger mind-blower for the leftists: the only belief of mine that's being discussed here is the belief that everyone has the right to act according to the dictates of their own conscience, whether other people agree with them or not.

I know it's beyond them to comprehend this, but I don't actually give a rat's ass about gay people one way or another as long as they're not annoying me (I'm not famously patient with ANYONE who annoys me). As many long-timers on this board know, I used to operate a freelance event planning business, which produced the 2011 Southwest Fetish Ball. I have also acted as a personal consultant on a number of . . . personal bonding ceremonies, let us say. I have business and personal ties throughout every facet of the alternative community in Tucson.

I just don't happen to believe it's my place, or anyone else's, to tell others how to conduct their businesses or practice their beliefs. I don't agree with the segment of the gay/alternative community that thinks it needs to advance its agenda by confrontation, shock, and outrage. If you want people to agree with you, you persuade them. You don't beat them into submission. Showing up at Denny's during the dinner rush in a tutu, leather vest, and combat boots when you're a 7-foot-tall hairy male and proceeding to snuggle and kiss with your boyfriend is going to create enemies where you didn't have any before. That's just a fact.

 

[KevinWestern]

I am far from the only one that has been saying that. Every single person that has actually read the bill and compared it to existing laws has said the exact same thing. That crowd actually includes some people who do not want the bill passed, and that think the government should be able to force bakers to bake wedding cakes for same sex marriages.

Try reading it in the context of the Religious Freedom Restoration Ac, you might discover that the bill will actually make it harder for an individual to claim that his religion prohibits him from participating in a marraige ceremony than current Arizona law. The latter is part of the reason some Christians, and Muslims, I am aware of are against it.

You really should learn that news stories are not about facts, they are about ratings and/or page views.

Then why didn't you just come straight out and say your point after replying originally to my post? Why did you have to type about a total of 1,000 words to get here?

Just speak clearly and concisely - make your point, without red fonts and gimmicks, without the insults - and maybe we could have arrived at some sort of agreement more quickly.

man...

Because I have made the point at least 20 times already.

Sorry Quantum, I don't have time to post 40 comments/a day and couldn't review the entire thread before joining in.

.

 

[Cecilie1200]

There is no chance that the NFL will punish ANYONE whether they pass the legislation or not. The NFL learned YEARS and YEARS ago that they are in the entertainment business - NOT the sports business - just like the WWE.

The only God the NFL bows to is money. Their view of gays or straight or man or woman means NOTHING to their views of the face on the dollar bill. Make no mistake about it - they couldn't care less - as long as the money keeps rolling in.

You mean like when the NFL punished Arizona over the MLK holiday in the 90's? The NFL will pull the Super Bowl in a heartbeat if this somehow passes.

Do you honestly think the NFL will spend billions of dollars to move next years Super Bowl just because you are a nutbag? You do realize that it would take a vote of all the owners, and quite a few of them hate you as it is, don't you?

Can't imagine why they'd bother. I mean, really. It's the Super Bowl. If some dimwit decides to boycott it by not buying a ticket, does anyone REALLY believe there won't be someone else - or ten someone elses - who will say, "Screw gay people, I'm going to the Super Bowl" and buy that ticket instead?

 

[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?

I don't mean to spam or anything but I find it interesting that the "gay" activists ignored my question. I'm simply asking a straight question (no pun intended).

 

[1776]

Liberal extortion bullied a woman...

Oh, this opens the door for people to sue businesses over many things. You must rent out your restaurant or hotel to a porn convention, gay porn convention, NAMBLA convention, gun shows, etc.....even if your religious or personal beliefs oppose those events/activities.

It is illegal to discriminate against a gay person, but it is not discrimination to oppose being forced to participate in an event or activity that is for that gay person. You can't force some hotel owner to rent out their rooms to a gay convention, gay porn shoot, gay wedding, etc if it violates their RELIGIOUS RIGHTS/BELIEFS.

 

[protectionist]

Why not? Only someone devoid of "free market strategy" would ask such an inane question.

It's not an inane question. So if you think you have a good answer, let's hear it ? (perferably with substantial links to base it on)

Don't you read the newspapers or listen to the news? It's inane because companies can see their businesses will be impacted.....do you think that they are doing it because they care about the LGBT community? No, they care about the $$$$.

For someone to be a conservative and go against the free market is rather inane.....you can't be for free market and keep supporting stupid things that tear it down.

Apple, Delta, Petsmart Join Fight Against Arizona's Anti-Gay Bill


Arizona tech firms fight anti-gay bill and a future in a pariah state - Network World

The previous post (# 1779) just answered you before you even wrote this. Also, see >>> http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...tates-copy-arizona-sb-1062-a.html#post8691255

Also, you must be young (under 40). That's the group who grew up after Reaganism hijacked TRUE Conservatism, which has NOTHING to do with free markets, or any marlkets. It has to so with CONSERVING America's values, principles, and cultures, against those who threaten them (like queers for instance).

 

[Cecilie1200]

What’s interesting and telling about this issue is that there are Arizona business owners who oppose the measure, as well as at least two Arizona state republican lawmakers and the 2008 GOP presidential nominee.

Oh, noes! You mean laws get passed without 100% agreement from all constituents?! When did THAT start happening?!

 

[1776]

The gays here are too stupid to follow along.

Imagine if some backwoods Bible thumpers that declare gays are all going to burn in hell want to hold a convention in some downtown San Fran hotel.....I wonder if the gays would be gung-ho supporting them.

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?

I don't mean to spam or anything but I find it interesting that the "gay" activists ignored my question. I'm simply asking a straight question (no pun intended).