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

[Derideo_Te]

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.

Finally, you and I agree on something.

Look outside, the Apocalypse has started!

 

[Bumberclyde]

I guess Arizona really wanted that superbowl?

The bill was poorly written and could not pass Title VII provisions.

Money talks, homophobes walk.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Polygamists, minors, siblings and adult/adult children don't get to marry who they fall in love with either. They can do something else, but society tells them they cannot sully the word "marriage" with their peculiar behaviors. Society defines marriage, not the strange combinations that society doesn't approve of.

Anti-polygamy laws are not based on gender. Incest is illegal. So those examples are not the same as same-sex marriage.

Same-sex marriage is based on gender.

Anti-polygamy laws are based on what then? "Ickyness"? Please do explain. Incest between two consenting adults is not illegal. And if it is illegal, why is that? "Ickyness"? Please do explain.

CAL. PEN. CODE § 284 : California Code - Section 284
Persons being within the degrees of consanguinity within which marriages are declared by law to be incestuous and void, who intermarry with each other, or who being 14 years of age or older, commit fornication or adultery with each other, are punishable by imprisonment in the state prison.​

I believe in other threads you mentioned you are from California, here is your state law on incest.

If you are over 14 and have sex with a family member to which Civil Marriage is denied your can be sent to prison.

Sounds like a crime to me. The fact this law exists under the penal code of California is also a pretty good indicator.


CAL. PEN. CODE § 284 : California Code - Section 284
>>>>

 

[Cecilie1200]

You really, seriously are an idiot. There is no logical connection between black and gay over this, and you can't stop sucking the balls of leftists that this is an argument over "gay" to grasp that.

Blacks literally could not marry the same people as whites. Gays literally can marry the same people as straights. Pull your head out of Obama's crotch and focus on my argument and stop arguing from what you want me to be saying.

That means it's a job for the legislature. "It's not the same" is a job for the courts, it is the same. "It's not fair" is a job for the legislature. I don't really care about gay marriage. If you weren't such a leftist apologist you would stop arguing from your bigotry and assumption of what other people think and grasp that.

By being willing to grant the courts the power to enforce "fair," in the end there is no difference between you and the liberals you claim to not be one of because in the end what we get is the same.

So stop arguing homophobia, moron and address what I said rather than the voices in your head.

Gays can marry the same people as straight people? Straight people get to marry the person they fall in love with. I don't see where gay people get to do that?

Whenever I see that idiotic statement, or some form of -- gays men can marry a woman, just like straight people can -- I think of this sign:

It's more a matter of "Gays can form any relationships they want. What they can't do is demand that everyone respect their relationships." If you don't consider your relationship to be valid and existing without recognition from other people, that sounds remarkably like a personal issue you need to take up with your therapist.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Gays can marry the same people as straight people? Straight people get to marry the person they fall in love with. I don't see where gay people get to do that?

Polygamists, minors, siblings and adult/adult children don't get to marry who they fall in love with either. They can do something else, but society tells them they cannot sully the word "marriage" with their peculiar behaviors. Society defines marriage, not the strange combinations that society doesn't approve of.

Anti-polygamy laws are not based on gender. Incest is illegal. So those examples are not the same as same-sex marriage.

Same-sex marriage is based on gender.

You say that as though that somehow creates an exemption. "Yes, but based on gender is SPECIAL!" Why?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Gays can marry the same people as straight people? Straight people get to marry the person they fall in love with. I don't see where gay people get to do that?

Whenever I see that idiotic statement, or some form of -- gays men can marry a woman, just like straight people can -- I think of this sign:

It's more a matter of "Gays can form any relationships they want. What they can't do is demand that everyone respect their relationships." If you don't consider your relationship to be valid and existing without recognition from other people, that sounds remarkably like a personal issue you need to take up with your therapist.

Religious homophobes like Cecillie don't get to dictate that the bond formed between two consenting adults of the same sex is less worthy of respect than their bond with the opposite sex.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Polygamists, minors, siblings and adult/adult children don't get to marry who they fall in love with either. They can do something else, but society tells them they cannot sully the word "marriage" with their peculiar behaviors. Society defines marriage, not the strange combinations that society doesn't approve of.

Anti-polygamy laws are not based on gender. Incest is illegal. So those examples are not the same as same-sex marriage.

Same-sex marriage is based on gender.

You say that as though that somehow creates an exemption. "Yes, but based on gender is SPECIAL!" Why?

The law states that it is illegal to discriminate based on gender so there is nothing "special" about it.

 

[Mertex]

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?

HA HA HA. Thank you. Common sense makes for a healthy thread.

Haha, is right.....I guess Brewer didn't want to chance it.....losing the Super Bowl would have for certain cemented the fact that Arizona is the looniest state in the country...

 

[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.

They won't boycott the Super Bowl.

You can't be sure of that, and the NFL wouldn't want to take that chance....

 

[Mertex]

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?

Maybe you don't know history.....it is the Super Bowl, and they've done it before. And, if you think it is just about dimwits not buying tickets, you know little about business, as you claim.

In 1990 as now, the location of the NFL’s title game played a big role in a political decision. The NFL decided then to move the 1993 Super Bowl because of Arizona’s refusal to make Martin Luther King Day an official state holiday. Instead, Super Bowl XXVII was played in Los Angeles, the runner-up when the game’s site was chosen.
When a voter referendum on the holiday was rejected in November 1990, then-commissioner Paul Tagliabue said: “I do not believe playing Super Bowl XXVII in Arizona is in the best interest of the National Football League. Arizona can continue its political debate without the Super Bowl as a factor.”
Why the NFL moved the Super Bowl from Arizona in 1990

 

[Mertex]

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).

Arizona does not have any laws banning anti-gay....so right now, the gay owner of a bakery could probably refuse to put the statement, and a straight baker could probably refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple.....so your question is inane, probably why nobody bothered to answer you.

The reason the law is "inane" too, is that it opens the door for further discrimination, like for race, looks, ethnicity, etc....

 

[Mertex]

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.

.

I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure your name isn't Mertex.

Maybe you should stop taking things personally.

Anyone has freedom to post and answer to anyone else's posts. Aren't you with the group that claims to push "freedom" - ironic that you are taking exception here.

And, the reason they are responding is because your posts are inane, and they need to point it out, but you get your panties all in a wad when anyone tries to tell you anything different than what you believe, and start showing it by posting in huge letters....just shows how immature and infantile you really are.

 

[kaz]

It's more a matter of "Gays can form any relationships they want. What they can't do is demand that everyone respect their relationships." If you don't consider your relationship to be valid and existing without recognition from other people, that sounds remarkably like a personal issue you need to take up with your therapist.

Yes, and I say the exact same thing about my heterosexual marriage. My wife and I had our 25th year anniversary in November. We have two beautiful daughters. We were married by the minister in my wife's church with both our families present. Whether government validates our relationship with a piece of paper means absolutely zero to me. I don't stay because I have one and I would not leave if I didn't.

 

[bendog]

It's more a matter of "Gays can form any relationships they want. What they can't do is demand that everyone respect their relationships." If you don't consider your relationship to be valid and existing without recognition from other people, that sounds remarkably like a personal issue you need to take up with your therapist.

Yes, and I say the exact same thing about my heterosexual marriage. My wife and I had our 25th year anniversary in November. We have two beautiful daughters. We were married by the minister in my wife's church with both our families present. Whether government validates our relationship with a piece of paper means absolutely zero to me. I don't stay because I have one and I would not leave if I didn't.

Well, I think that's the point. So long as the secular govt treats their "marriages" exactly the same as theirs, and they are free to obtain any religious blessing any church wishes to offer ... they're as happy as anyone else.

 

[kaz]

It's more a matter of "Gays can form any relationships they want. What they can't do is demand that everyone respect their relationships." If you don't consider your relationship to be valid and existing without recognition from other people, that sounds remarkably like a personal issue you need to take up with your therapist.

Yes, and I say the exact same thing about my heterosexual marriage. My wife and I had our 25th year anniversary in November. We have two beautiful daughters. We were married by the minister in my wife's church with both our families present. Whether government validates our relationship with a piece of paper means absolutely zero to me. I don't stay because I have one and I would not leave if I didn't.

Well, I think that's the point. So long as the secular govt treats their "marriages" exactly the same as theirs, and they are free to obtain any religious blessing any church wishes to offer ... they're as happy as anyone else.

And my point is that if you want that, go to the legislature where it belongs. Your argument is what's fundamentally wrong with the left. You address only what you want. Then you think of any way to get it. How you do it can also be right or wrong. But to you, you stated what you want, now you don't care how you get it.

 

[bendog]

Yes, and I say the exact same thing about my heterosexual marriage. My wife and I had our 25th year anniversary in November. We have two beautiful daughters. We were married by the minister in my wife's church with both our families present. Whether government validates our relationship with a piece of paper means absolutely zero to me. I don't stay because I have one and I would not leave if I didn't.

Well, I think that's the point. So long as the secular govt treats their "marriages" exactly the same as theirs, and they are free to obtain any religious blessing any church wishes to offer ... they're as happy as anyone else.

And my point is that if you want that, go to the legislature where it belongs. Your argument is what's fundamentally wrong with the left. You address only what you want. Then you think of any way to get it. How you do it can also be right or wrong. But to you, you stated what you want, now you don't care how you get it.

Well, personally I think ridiculing bigots and winning in the arena of public speech is the best course of action, because in Western European religions we do slowly, but gradually, work towards inclusion. There are little things like the holocaust and Jim Crowe along the way, but the tide of history is clear. But, I'm not gay, so I'm not criticizing someone who is, and who is being denied equal protection because a law grants benefits to straights and denies benefits to GLBT.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You almost gotta laugh at the hypocrisy on the left. The left is adamant that no offensive religious orientated medallions or clothing or politically offensive T's that depict the NRA or can be worn in schools because they might offend agnostics and athiests but they encourage boys to use the girls locker room and bathroom if they feel "insecure" about their sexuality. The left wants normal people and even deeply religious people to be tolerant of hairy men in dresses and overt sodomites who disrupt service in small business establishments.

That’s not “hypocrisy on the left” but your ignorance of the law. A valid law that might inadvertently burden the religious practice of a given faith is not un-Constitutional if its primary focus does not concern religious restriction (Employment Division v. Smith (1990)). This is why public accommodations laws are valid, and in no way ‘violate’ religious liberty.

Hey, asshole, read the ******* RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT sometime. While you are at it, explain to me, if your interpretation is right, who the Obama administration has lost ever single case where they argued that the law did not burden the religious beliefs based on the Smith test.

Supreme Court rejects Obama administration arguments in 'most important' religious freedom case | Deseret News

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Wrong.
Laws against interracial marriage were propped up with your phony baloney "the laws for blacks being legal to marrying only blacks is the same as the law for whites marrying only whites" same people nonsense.
Last time I heard that bogus argument I fell off my dinosaur.

You really, seriously are an idiot. There is no logical connection between black and gay over this, and you can't stop sucking the balls of leftists that this is an argument over "gay" to grasp that.

Blacks literally could not marry the same people as whites. Gays literally can marry the same people as straights. Pull your head out of Obama's crotch and focus on my argument and stop arguing from what you want me to be saying.

That means it's a job for the legislature. "It's not the same" is a job for the courts, it is the same. "It's not fair" is a job for the legislature. I don't really care about gay marriage. If you weren't such a leftist apologist you would stop arguing from your bigotry and assumption of what other people think and grasp that.

By being willing to grant the courts the power to enforce "fair," in the end there is no difference between you and the liberals you claim to not be one of because in the end what we get is the same.

So stop arguing homophobia, moron and address what I said rather than the voices in your head.

In order to read your comments a person is forced to read obsene and foul terms and exspressions of sexual nature. That is easily understandable to be a violation of some peoples religion, yet you insist they partake in this activity while supporting the thesis that people should not be forced into participating in activities that do not adhere to their religious beliefs. It's not as confusing as it may sound. It's called hypocracy.

Is she demanding that the government **** you in the ass and force you to read her posts?

Didn't think so, that makes you wrong. I suspect that is going to be a pretty normal state for you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Wrong.
Laws against interracial marriage were propped up with your phony baloney "the laws for blacks being legal to marrying only blacks is the same as the law for whites marrying only whites" same people nonsense.
Last time I heard that bogus argument I fell off my dinosaur.

You really, seriously are an idiot. There is no logical connection between black and gay over this, and you can't stop sucking the balls of leftists that this is an argument over "gay" to grasp that.

Blacks literally could not marry the same people as whites. Gays literally can marry the same people as straights. Pull your head out of Obama's crotch and focus on my argument and stop arguing from what you want me to be saying.

That means it's a job for the legislature. "It's not the same" is a job for the courts, it is the same. "It's not fair" is a job for the legislature. I don't really care about gay marriage. If you weren't such a leftist apologist you would stop arguing from your bigotry and assumption of what other people think and grasp that.

By being willing to grant the courts the power to enforce "fair," in the end there is no difference between you and the liberals you claim to not be one of because in the end what we get is the same.

So stop arguing homophobia, moron and address what I said rather than the voices in your head.

Gays can marry the same people as straight people? Straight people get to marry the person they fall in love with. I don't see where gay people get to do that?

I am pretty sure Robert Hoskins never got to marry Madonna, even though he loves her.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Gays can marry the same people as straight people? Straight people get to marry the person they fall in love with. I don't see where gay people get to do that?

Polygamists, minors, siblings and adult/adult children don't get to marry who they fall in love with either. They can do something else, but society tells them they cannot sully the word "marriage" with their peculiar behaviors. Society defines marriage, not the strange combinations that society doesn't approve of.

Anti-polygamy laws are not based on gender. Incest is illegal. So those examples are not the same as same-sex marriage.

Same-sex marriage is based on gender.

Homosexuality was illegal 50 years ago.