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

[Howey]

And marrying outside your race

Except that race and the cult of LGBT's behaviors have nothing whatsoever to do with one another. One is a state born into. The other is an incomplete compulsive deviant sexual behavioral grouping that crosses all races and both genders, as compulsive behaviors always do.

Needless to say you have no sound credible scientific basis for your homophobic rantings!

Just the fact that Silhouette is harping one someone else's obsessions and compulsions is comedy gold in itself.

 

[Uncensored2008]

This ahere is what we call retarded.

We're all one race. you go with that freakbait.

Actually leftard, we ARE all of a single race. What we learned from the human genome project is that the very concept of race in humans is false, a fabricated construct.

RACE - The Power of an Illusion . Background Readings | PBS

 

[paperview]

This ahere is what we call retarded.

We're all one race. you go with that freakbait.

Actually leftard, we ARE all of a single race. What we learned from the human genome project is that the very concept of race in humans is false, a fabricated construct.

RACE - The Power of an Illusion . Background Readings | PBS

Well howdy how.

Does that mean you and your ilk and the Rushbabies will stop calling Obama a Halfrican?

Let's work on the US Census next, K?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Really? That guy at the bottom of your post is married to a White Woman.

Bait hook, cast - GOT ONE.

The guy at the bottom of my post is from a race known as "human."

From what I know, his wife is also from the race known as human.

Now should he try to marry a sheep - much to the chagrin of those posting from New Zealand - he would be prohibited.

The race of humans may to marry the race of sheep.

Human isn't a race, it's a Species. Learn Science.

And let me really blow your mind now. Based upon how we test it, he's not as smart as the average white man of the same time and education. Yikes eh? Yep.

 

[Mertex]

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.

That was very sane of you, responding to so much batshit crazy insanity. Brava, Contessa, brava!

Yes, I have realized that. They post links that disprove their argument but continue to push their argument......even Brewer, as inane as she has appeared, was able to see the writing on the wall.....geeeez......

 

[Mertex]

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.

Hence my advise to him not to take things personally, especially if the comment is not directed at him, oh idiot of idiots.

You calling yourself names now....that's good, you finally got it.

 

[Gadawg73]

Other than the baker where is there anyone that claims their religious freedom has been denied?

 

[Gadawg73]

Interestingly my addressing that point was embedded in your quote.

The 14th amendment says the law cannot be applied differently to different people. It isn't a formula, and it doesn't say if it tugs on your heartstrings or your sense of fairness the Supreme Court can go ahead and legislate.

Gays can marry exactly the same people straights can. No more, no less. Therefore, it passes constitutional muster. Fairness and heart strings need to be taken to the legislature. If straights could marry people of the same sex or gays could not enter man/woman government marriages then you'd have an argument. However, neither is the case, gays can marry exactly the same people straights can. And no one can provide an example of the 14th being applied to a formula. Well that isn't who they WANT to marry. Fair view, take it to the legislature where it belongs.

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.

Sorry you are on the wrong end again.
You lose.

 

[Gadawg73]

Oh the whiny bitches we now hear.
All of a sudden the bitches have totally abandoned any and all "religious freedom" arguments.
Imagine that.
It was never about religious freedom to them from the start.

 

[Barb]

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.

The Habsburg Jaw and Other Royal Inbreeding Deformities

The biggest problem with inbreeding is that it increases the chances of both parents carrying recessive traits for all kinds of ailments and deformities like hemophilia and cystic fibrosis, as well as genetic deformities, like the Habsburg jaw. They also run the risk of greater possibilities of certain cancers as well as mental issues.

 

[Faun]

Homosexuality was illegal 50 years ago.

And marrying outside your race

Except that race and the cult of LGBT's behaviors have nothing whatsoever to do with one another. One is a state born into. The other is an incomplete compulsive deviant sexual behavioral grouping that crosses all races and both genders, as compulsive behaviors always do.

I missed the part in the Constitution where it states the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to people with incomplete compulsive deviant sexual behavioral grouping?

 

[Faun]

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.

So was same-sex marriage. Now it's becoming legal, one state at a time.

 

[Faun]

I am sure you think you have a point there.

Newsflash, you don't.

if I don't, neither do you.

If you have an actual problem with someone, it should be the guy that argued that people cannot marry their brothers because it is illegal, not me.

I was responding to a claim that, because incest is illegal, that no one can marry their brother. Unless everyone has been lying about things, people are now marrying other people of the same sex even though homosexuality was illegal just a few years ago.

What does it matter what the law was 50 years ago? We are talking about what is occurring now, not half a century ago. Though I understand why you need to travel through time to make a point. At any rate, the difference between allowing gays to marry and allowing siblings to marry is that incest is illegal, meaning the state can't sanction an illegal activity. On the other hand, homosexuality is not illegal, meaning the state can sanction that activity. And the reason it should sanction same-sex marriages is because denying them violates the Constitution.

 

[Faun]

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?

Because the Constitution doesn't allow for gender based discrimination.

 

[Silhouette]

Because the Constitution doesn't allow for gender based discrimination.

No, see, you can't change the words around to suit the LGBT cult's agenda. The Constitution doesn't allow discrimination based on gender, NOT "gender based discrimination".

Behaviors vs race, gender or religion. The act of wanting to marry someone of the same gender is a behavior, not a race, gender or religion.

You've read Windsor of June 2013 where the US Supreme Court brought up Loving v Virgina and Found anyway that gays were "only allowed" to marry "in some states" as of the close of that Decision?

There's your sign on how they view the behaviors petitioning them for equality as "race, gender or religion". Religion is the one that comes the closest though. Talk about evangelizing. They've made worship of their messiah/pedophlie an indoctrinated law in California. The kids there have to worship him in school no less each May.

 

[Faun]

Because the Constitution doesn't allow for gender based discrimination.

No, see, you can't change the words around to suit the LGBT cult's agenda. The Constitution doesn't allow discrimination based on gender, NOT "gender based discrimination".

Behaviors vs race, gender or religion. The act of wanting to marry someone of the same gender is a behavior, not a race, gender or religion.

You've read Windsor of June 2013 where the US Supreme Court brought up Loving v Virgina and Found anyway that gays were "only allowed" to marry "in some states" as of the close of that Decision?

There's your sign on how they view the behaviors petitioning them for equality as "race, gender or religion". Religion is the one that comes the closest though. Talk about evangelizing. They've made worship of their messiah/pedophlie an indoctrinated law in California. The kids there have to worship him in school no less each May.

Whether you call it "discrimination based on gender" or "gender based discrimination," it still amounts to a person being denied equal protection "based on the gender" of the person they choose to marry. It also deprives them of the liberty they are guaranteed by the Constitution.

 

[Barb]

When 'Religious Liberty' Was Used To Justify Racism Instead Of Homophobia | ThinkProgress

God Of The Segregationists
Theodore Bilbo was one of Mississippi’s great demagogues. After two non-consecutive terms as governor, Bilbo won a U.S. Senate seat campaigning against “farmer murderers, corrupters of Southern womanhood, [skunks] who steal Gideon Bibles from hotel rooms” and a host of other, equally colorful foes. In a year where just 47 Mississippi voters cast a ballot for a communist candidate, Bilbo railed against a looming communist takeover of the state — and offered himself up as the solution to this red onslaught.
Bilbo was also a virulent racist. “I call on every red-blooded white man to use any means to keep the n[*]ggers away from the polls,” Bilbo proclaimed during his successful reelection campaign in 1946. He was a proud member of the Ku Klux Klan, telling Meet the Press that same year that “[n]o man can leave the Klan. He takes an oath not to do that. Once a Ku Klux, always a Ku Klux.” During a filibuster of an anti-lynching bill, Bilbo claimed that the bill will open the floodgates of hell in the South. Raping, mobbing, lynching, race riots, and crime will be increased a thousandfold; and upon your garments and the garments of those who are responsible for the passage of the measure will be the blood of the raped and outraged daughters of Dixie, as well as the blood of the perpetrators of these crimes that the red-blooded Anglo-Saxon White Southern men will not tolerate.

For Senator Bilbo, however, racism was more that just an ideology, it was a sincerely held religious belief. In a book entitled Take Your Choice: Separation or Mongrelization, Bilbo wrote that “[p]urity of race is a gift of God . . . . And God, in his infinite wisdom, has so ordained it that when man destroys his racial purity, it can never be redeemed.” Allowing “the blood of the races [to] mix,” according to Bilbo, was a direct attack on the “Divine plan of God.” There “is every reason to believe that miscengenation and amalgamation are sins of man in direct defiance to the will of God."

Sound familiar?

 

[Barb]

more

Bilbo was one of the South’s most colorful racists, but he was hardly alone in his beliefs. As early as 1867, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld segregated railway cars on the grounds that “[t]he natural law which forbids [racial intermarriage] and that social amalgamation which leads to a corruption of races, is as clearly divine as that which imparted to [the races] different natures.” This same rationale was later adopted by state supreme courts in Alabama, Indiana and Virginia to justify bans on interracial marriage, and by justices in Kentucky to support residential segregation and segregated colleges.
In 1901, Georgia Gov. Allen Candler defended unequal public schooling for African Americans on the grounds that “God made them negroes and we cannot by education make them white folks.” After the Supreme Court ordered public schools integrated in Brown v. Board of Education, many segregationists cited their own faith as justification for official racism. Ross Barnett won Mississippi’s governorship in a landslide in 1960 after claiming that “the good Lord was the original segregationist.” Senator Harry Byrd of Virginia relied on passages from Genesis, Leviticus and Matthew when he spoke out against the civil rights law banning employment discrimination and whites-only lunch counters on the Senate floor.

 

[Barb]

In re: Bob Jones University - not that long ago:

When Bob Jones’ case reached the Supreme Court, the school argued that IRS’ regulations denying tax exemptions to racist institutions “cannot constitutionally be applied to schools that engage in racial discrimination on the basis of sincerely held religious beliefs.” But the justices did not bite. In an 8-1 decision by conservative Chief Justice Warren Burger, the Court explained that “[o]n occasion this Court has found certain governmental interests so compelling as to allow even regulations prohibiting religiously based conduct.” Prohibiting race discrimination is one of these interests.

 

[Barb]

and:

Lee, in other words, stands for the proposition that people of faith do not exist in a vacuum. Their businesses compete with other companies who are entitled to engage in this competition upon a level playing field. Their personnel decisions impact their employees, and their decision to refuse to do business with someone — especially for reasons such as race or sexual orientation — can fundamentally demean that individual and deny them their own right to participate equally in society.
This is why people like Theodore Bilbo should not be allowed to refuse to do business with African Americans, and it is why anti-gay business owners should not be given a special right to discriminate against LGBT consumers. And this is also something that the United States has understood for a very long time. Bob Jones and Lee are not new cases. A whole generation of Americans spent their entire professional careers enjoying the protections of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Religious liberty is an important value and it rightfully belongs in our Constitution, but it we do not allow it to be used to destroy the rights of others.
The argument Gov. Brewer resolved Wednesday night with her veto stamp is no different than the argument Lyndon Johnson resolved when he signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Invidious discrimination is wrong. And it doesn’t matter why someone wants to discriminate.