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

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

That was almost clever.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Other than the scumbags who want their special day was ruined because people who hate them wouldn't come to their wedding, who has claimed that their civil rights have been violated? Why would any normal person want someone who hates them at their wedding anyway?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Given the current genetic diversity of the population the risk of genetic abnormalities being reinforced is extremely rare. In fact, statisitcally, it is more likely that two unrelated strangers who are Jewish will produce a child with Tay Sachs than that cousins would produce a child with a genetic abnormality.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

That was my point, of he of the enormous ego.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Because the idiot I responded to, was that you, brought it up.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Then why is there an Amendment that specifically deals with eliminating gender based discrimination in a very narrow application?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Hate to burst that bubble you call a brain, but that quote had nothing to do with religious liberty.

 

[Faun]

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.

Then why is there an Amendment that specifically deals with eliminating gender based discrimination in a very narrow application?

Nothing in the Constitution is "very narrow." Every clause can have far reaching implications. When the Constitution bans gender based discrimination, it applies to all laws.

 

[Faun]

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.

Because the idiot I responded to, was that you, brought it up.

I did not bring up a law from 50 years ago. My arguments are based on current laws.

 

[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?

Hate to burst that bubble you call a brain, but that quote had nothing to do with religious liberty.

If you have nothing to say, you should go with that.

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Then why is there an Amendment that specifically deals with eliminating gender based discrimination in a very narrow application?

Nothing in the Constitution is "very narrow." Every clause can have far reaching implications. When the Constitution bans gender based discrimination, it applies to all laws.

Nothing?

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Because the idiot I responded to, was that you, brought it up.

I did not bring up a law from 50 years ago. My arguments are based on current laws.

Currently, same sex marriage is illegal in most states. Want to try again?

 

[BGriffin]

Hey, a business owner can refuse selling service to anyone, i mean really anyone they like, they dislike, or stop doing business for a year. Gay is not the main topic

 

[dblack]

Hey, a business owner can refuse selling service to anyone, i mean really anyone they like, they dislike, or stop doing business for a year. Gay is not the main topic

Agreed. The main topic is that with that so-called 'public accommodations' laws second-guess their reasons. Sure, they could just make something up. And I'd imagine most of this can be steered around with a neutral excuse ("Because I felt like it") as the standard reason given for any refusal of service.

But do we really want to live in fear of being honest? Of worrying that our thoughts and decisions, merely by being irrational and bigoted, can be considered criminal?

I guess the assumption behind all this is the idea that not doing something for someone is equivalent to harming them. We keep coming back to that concept, in various guises, and it's really poison in my view. It lurks behind quite a few of these intrusive legal policies.

 

[eflatminor]

It seems to me that if we are to force a Christian to provide their services to a gay wedding, then we must also accept that:

• An African American owned florist must deliver flowers to a KKK meeting
  
• A gay-owed caterer must cater a Westboro Baptist Church party
  
• A Kosher bakery must deliver their goods to a meeting of the neo-Nazi party
  
• A Leftist event organizer can be forced to plan an NRA meeting

Everyone cool with that?

 

[paperview]

Sigh.

For the 10,000th time...none of those above are protected categories.

Sheesh. Learn the law.

 

[dblack]

It seems to me that if we are to force a Christian to provide their services to a gay wedding, then we must also accept that:

• An African American owned florist must deliver flowers to a KKK meeting
  
• A gay-owed caterer must cater a Westboro Baptist Church party
  
• A Kosher bakery must deliver their goods to a meeting of the neo-Nazi party
  
• A Leftist event organizer can be forced to plan an NRA meeting

Everyone cool with that?

The list of ridiculous circumstances the legal concept creates can go on and on. And it will. We'll keep adding the list of 'protected classes', keep defining more and more personal biases to be taboo, until people recognize how stupidly intrusive this kind of legislation really is.

 

[Seawytch]

Because the idiot I responded to, was that you, brought it up.

I did not bring up a law from 50 years ago. My arguments are based on current laws.

Currently, same sex marriage is illegal in most states. Want to try again?

Really? Illegal? Like, you'll get arrested if you're married? I know of a couple. Wisconsin is one. In Wisconsin you can get a fine of up to $10,000 and 9 months in jail and in Delaware it's $100 and 30 days if you're gay and get married in another state, but most states don't make it illegal to be married.

And "most" is a subjective term in that gays can marry in 17 states plus DC. That's almost half now.

 

[eflatminor]

Sigh.

For the 10,000th time...none of those above are protected categories.

Sheesh. Learn the law.

Wrong.

Race is a protected class. The KKK are ALL about race.
Religion is a protected class. Westboro Church is in fact a religious based organization.

Shall I go on?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

It seems to me that if we are to force a Christian to provide their services to a gay wedding, then we must also accept that:

• An African American owned florist must deliver flowers to a KKK meeting
  
• A gay-owed caterer must cater a Westboro Baptist Church party
  
• A Kosher bakery must deliver their goods to a meeting of the neo-Nazi party
  
• A Leftist event organizer can be forced to plan an NRA meeting

Everyone cool with that?

Yep
Yep
Yep
Not "forced", it's her job.
And no, but I am.