My conclusion on the Arizona law now up for signing/veto

[Kevin_Kennedy]

My take is, you all who don't like the law, keep your nose's out of it and DON'T MOVE THERE

How damn smug of people to think they have a right to Interfere in what a States LAWS are?

We've seen many of them on this board...

they feel they have a right and (threaten and blackmail you, like the NFL is doing)...this whole thing with homosexuals has gone beyond sick and is being used to TEAR US APART as a country

wake up

Who in this thread has advocated that somebody force Arizona not to adopt this as law? Surely we can simply express our opposition to it without having any ulterior motives ascribed to us.

 

[Stephanie]

My take is, you all who don't like the law, keep your nose's out of it and DON'T MOVE THERE

How damn smug of people to think they have a right to Interfere in what a States LAWS are?

We've seen many of them on this board...

they feel they have a right and (threaten and blackmail you, like the NFL is doing)...this whole thing with homosexuals has gone beyond sick and is being used to TEAR US APART as a country

wake up

How exactly am I being smug or interfering? I simply offerd my opinion. This is the UNITED STATES is it not? Or is my freedom of expression excluded?

Not you dear, sorry you took it that way
I'm talking about ALL the other ugly threads that has been posted on this bill by people who probably don't even live there...like this wonderful title of a THREAD
Jan Brewer expected to veto AZ gay hate bill
http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...ted-to-veto-az-gay-hate-bill.html#post8683588
and we could go on and on

 

[iamwhatiseem]

My take is, you all who don't like the law, keep your nose's out of it and DON'T MOVE THERE

How damn smug of people to think they have a right to Interfere in what a States LAWS are?

We've seen many of them on this board...

they feel they have a right and (threaten and blackmail you, like the NFL is doing)...this whole thing with homosexuals has gone beyond sick and is being used to TEAR US APART as a country

wake up

How exactly am I being smug or interfering? I simply offerd my opinion. This is the UNITED STATES is it not? Or is my freedom of expression excluded?

Apparently there are "thought police" on BOTH sides of the aisle.

With yourself you mean?
Gramps is right here.
Years ago plenty of businesses would not serve blacks because they honestly believed they were inherently bad people. Do you support going back to that?
What is different?
One person here said that they could understand a bakery not baking a cake for a gay wedding, but would not support a mechanic who refused to work on a gay persons car???
How nuts is that?? And who would decide what business can discriminate and what business can't??
This is all nuts.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

After listening to and reading about this bill I have come to what will likely be an unpopular opinion among the right.

This bill seems to me that rather than protecting the rights of Americans it targets others for public persecution. Lifting christians while pushing others down. We don't need laws in this country that pit one class of citizen against another.
I've always said gays don't need or deserve special rights or attention and neither do christians. A law protecting the targeting of "certain" citizens should scare all of us.

I do think businesses should be able to conduct themselves as they see fit, within the law, and let the public decide if they deserve to be patronized.

I would essentially agree. Using religion as the basis of the law undermines it completely. Based on property rights, anybody should have the right to associate, or not, with whomever they like on their own property. Religion has nothing to do with it.

I agree. The right to refuse service should apply equally to everyone.

 

[dblack]

Years ago plenty of businesses would not serve blacks because they honestly believed they were inherently bad people. Do you support going back to that?

Perhaps we should consider moving forward to policies that don't violate fundamental freedoms. Isn't it possible that solutions that worked in the past were 'sledge hammers' that ought to be reconsidered?

 

[dblack]

After listening to and reading about this bill I have come to what will likely be an unpopular opinion among the right.

This bill seems to me that rather than protecting the rights of Americans it targets others for public persecution. Lifting christians while pushing others down. We don't need laws in this country that pit one class of citizen against another.
I've always said gays don't need or deserve special rights or attention and neither do christians. A law protecting the targeting of "certain" citizens should scare all of us.

I do think businesses should be able to conduct themselves as they see fit, within the law, and let the public decide if they deserve to be patronized.

I would essentially agree. Using religion as the basis of the law undermines it completely. Based on property rights, anybody should have the right to associate, or not, with whomever they like on their own property. Religion has nothing to do with it.

I agree. The right to refuse service should apply equally to everyone.

Exactly.

 

[nodoginnafight]

How exactly am I being smug or interfering? I simply offerd my opinion. This is the UNITED STATES is it not? Or is my freedom of expression excluded?

Apparently there are "thought police" on BOTH sides of the aisle.

With yourself you mean?
Gramps is right here.
Years ago plenty of businesses would not serve blacks because they honestly believed they were inherently bad people. Do you support going back to that?
What is different?
One person here said that they could understand a bakery not baking a cake for a gay wedding, but would not support a mechanic who refused to work on a gay persons car???
How nuts is that?? And who would decide what business can discriminate and what business can't??
This is all nuts.

DUDE, I already agreed with grampa

You obviously didn't "get" what I was posting

 

[The Rabbi]

After listening to and reading about this bill I have come to what will likely be an unpopular opinion among the right.

This bill seems to me that rather than protecting the rights of Americans it targets others for public persecution. Lifting christians while pushing others down. We don't need laws in this country that pit one class of citizen against another.
I've always said gays don't need or deserve special rights or attention and neither do christians. A law protecting the targeting of "certain" citizens should scare all of us.

I do think businesses should be able to conduct themselves as they see fit, within the law, and let the public decide if they deserve to be patronized.

You understand the law was passed in response to court cases where bakeries etc were forced to do business with people in circumstances that violated their own beliefs, right? Not passing the law creates privileged classes, in this case homos, in addition to the other classes of race, age, religion, and sex.

The law was passed so that discrimination against gays would be legal. Nothing more, nothing less. No one is fooled about its true aim.

Actually it was passed to protect business owners from being sued because of some perceived injustice.
Maybe you need help with the concept. Like "redacted."

 

[The Rabbi]

After listening to and reading about this bill I have come to what will likely be an unpopular opinion among the right.

This bill seems to me that rather than protecting the rights of Americans it targets others for public persecution. Lifting christians while pushing others down. We don't need laws in this country that pit one class of citizen against another.
I've always said gays don't need or deserve special rights or attention and neither do christians. A law protecting the targeting of "certain" citizens should scare all of us.

I do think businesses should be able to conduct themselves as they see fit, within the law, and let the public decide if they deserve to be patronized.

You understand the law was passed in response to court cases where bakeries etc were forced to do business with people in circumstances that violated their own beliefs, right? Not passing the law creates privileged classes, in this case homos, in addition to the other classes of race, age, religion, and sex.

Yes. But it's a bad response to a bad law. Two wrongs don't make a right.

What do you find bad about it?

 

[dblack]

You understand the law was passed in response to court cases where bakeries etc were forced to do business with people in circumstances that violated their own beliefs, right? Not passing the law creates privileged classes, in this case homos, in addition to the other classes of race, age, religion, and sex.

Yes. But it's a bad response to a bad law. Two wrongs don't make a right.

What do you find bad about it?

Well, it indulges in the same bad reasoning that the 'protected classes' laws use. It presumes that it matters why you choose to associate, or not, with someone. It says, well, if it's based on religion it's ok, otherwise not. That's just as dumb as saying you can't refuse service because you're a straight up homophobe. It shouldn't matter why you make your decision in either case.

 

[kucing]

business is business to be purely a business trip though crowded and there is no political muddle

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes. But it's a bad response to a bad law. Two wrongs don't make a right.

What do you find bad about it?

Well, it indulges in the same bad reasoning that the 'protected classes' laws use. It presumes that it matters why you choose to associate, or not, with someone. It says, well, if it's based on religion it's ok, otherwise not. That's just as dumb as saying you can't refuse service because you're a straight up homophobe. It shouldn't matter why you make your decision in either case.

It's that way because freedom of religion is enshrined in the Constitution. The law has always made wide deference to religious values. Until this administration, of course.

 

[nodoginnafight]

What do you find bad about it?

Well, it indulges in the same bad reasoning that the 'protected classes' laws use. It presumes that it matters why you choose to associate, or not, with someone. It says, well, if it's based on religion it's ok, otherwise not. That's just as dumb as saying you can't refuse service because you're a straight up homophobe. It shouldn't matter why you make your decision in either case.

It's that way because freedom of religion is enshrined in the Constitution. The law has always made wide deference to religious values. Until this administration, of course.

That is true.

Previous administrations sat on the sidelines while guys in white robes thumped their Bibles and burned crosses.

Ahhh .... the good ol' days, huh?

 

[The Rabbi]

Well, it indulges in the same bad reasoning that the 'protected classes' laws use. It presumes that it matters why you choose to associate, or not, with someone. It says, well, if it's based on religion it's ok, otherwise not. That's just as dumb as saying you can't refuse service because you're a straight up homophobe. It shouldn't matter why you make your decision in either case.

It's that way because freedom of religion is enshrined in the Constitution. The law has always made wide deference to religious values. Until this administration, of course.

That is true.

Previous administrations sat on the sidelines while guys in white robes thumped their Bibles and burned crosses.

Ahhh .... the good ol' days, huh?

And just how stupid are you again?

 

[nodoginnafight]

It's that way because freedom of religion is enshrined in the Constitution. The law has always made wide deference to religious values. Until this administration, of course.

That is true.

Previous administrations sat on the sidelines while guys in white robes thumped their Bibles and burned crosses.

Ahhh .... the good ol' days, huh?

And just how stupid are you again?

Not quite stupid enough to buy into your crap - sucks for you, huh?

 

[J.E.D]

My take is, you all who don't like the law, keep your nose's out of it and DON'T MOVE THERE

How damn smug of people to think they have a right to Interfere in what a States LAWS are?

We've seen many of them on this board...

they feel they have a right and (threaten and blackmail you, like the NFL is doing)...this whole thing with homosexuals has gone beyond sick and is being used to TEAR US APART as a country

wake up

So you'd be OK with a state having a law that allows businesses to discriminate against straight people.

 

[nodoginnafight]

My take is, you all who don't like the law, keep your nose's out of it and DON'T MOVE THERE

How damn smug of people to think they have a right to Interfere in what a States LAWS are?

We've seen many of them on this board...

they feel they have a right and (threaten and blackmail you, like the NFL is doing)...this whole thing with homosexuals has gone beyond sick and is being used to TEAR US APART as a country

wake up

So you'd be OK with a state having a law that allows businesses to discriminate against straight people.

I'm still wondering how the NFL selecting their Superbowl site based on whatever criteria they choose translates into "blackmail."

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Yes, but I think this was an over reaction. If Jan Brewer signs this law I project a HUGE backlash against conservatives both in her state and nationally.

WHy is protecting private property an over-reaction? What would an appropriate reaction be?

The problem is that it only protects one group's property rights, not everybody's.

It doesn't work any other way anymore. We do not pass laws, or over rule them with others for the population at large. It's always about the special interest group. In this case, there is already constitutional molestation known as case law, that prevents an individual property owner from being able to establish their natural right to assiociation. So the only thing left is to cite a special interest.

 

[dblack]

WHy is protecting private property an over-reaction? What would an appropriate reaction be?

The problem is that it only protects one group's property rights, not everybody's.

It doesn't work any other way anymore. We do not pass laws, or over rule them with others for the population at large. It's always about the special interest group. In this case, there is already constitutional molestation known as case law, that prevents an individual property owner from being able to establish their natural right to assiociation. So the only thing left is to cite a special interest.

Yeah... sadly, that really sums up our descent into corporatist government in a nutshell.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

WHy is protecting private property an over-reaction? What would an appropriate reaction be?

The problem is that it only protects one group's property rights, not everybody's.

It doesn't work any other way anymore. We do not pass laws, or over rule them with others for the population at large. It's always about the special interest group. In this case, there is already constitutional molestation known as case law, that prevents an individual property owner from being able to establish their natural right to assiociation. So the only thing left is to cite a special interest.

Fair point.