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



## Steve_McGarrett (Feb 20, 2014)

I think another state passed something similar to this last week so this must be a trend that is catching on. I agree with this bill that if you are a business owner and believe in and live by your faith that you should be able to refuse service to whoever you want. 


Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays
Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays


----------



## R.D. (Feb 20, 2014)

Freedom of association win


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 20, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> I think another state passed something similar to this last week so this must be a trend that is catching on. I agree with this bill that if you are a business owner and believe in and live by your faith that you should be able to refuse service to whoever you want.
> 
> 
> Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays
> Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays




You thread title and the article title are incorrect, the bill allows for a business to refuse service to anyone, which means:

Service can be refused to races

Service can be refused to other religions

Service can be refused to interracial couples

Service can be refused to women (or men)

Service can be refused to divorcees

Service can be refused basically to anyone, not just the gays​


All the person has to do is claim "a sincerely held religious belief", and as the law is written it doesn't even need to be dogma within a major religion - it is the individuals belief.  From the law ""Exercise of religion" means the practice or observance of religion, including the ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief."



Arizona SB1062

>>>>


----------



## TheOldSchool (Feb 20, 2014)

I can't wait until it goes to court


----------



## Steve_McGarrett (Feb 20, 2014)

TheOldSchool said:


> I can't wait until it goes to court



Why would it go to court?


----------



## Nyvin (Feb 20, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> > I can't wait until it goes to court
> ...



it violates the 1964 civil rights act?


----------



## Harry Dresden (Feb 20, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> > I can't wait until it goes to court
> ...


you have to ask why?.....


----------



## bodecea (Feb 20, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > I think another state passed something similar to this last week so this must be a trend that is catching on. I agree with this bill that if you are a business owner and believe in and live by your faith that you should be able to refuse service to whoever you want.
> ...



This warms the cockles of my heart, it does.   And from Arizona.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Feb 20, 2014)

The fact that we even have a law, or debate the legailty of freedom of association is pathetic in a supposedly free country. A business owner, in any state, for any reason, should be allowed to determine who they will provide services to.

But, LOLberals just love the idea of forcing people to do what they believe is right.


----------



## Steve_McGarrett (Feb 20, 2014)

Nyvin said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > TheOldSchool said:
> ...



No it doesn't. How many restaurants or businesses have you ever been in that had a sign that read "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone!"? I've been in tons of them all over. It should be up to me who I want to serve and who I do not, the making of a profit is on me and only me. America is about freedom, let people choose who they choose to associate with, not forced.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 20, 2014)

If a liberal doesn't like something it should be illegal for everyone. If they like something, it should be legal for everyone.

As far a the civil rights spin, relationships aren't people. Refusing service to a person is one thing, (which should be your right anyway) but refusing service to a relationship is another. Can a racist make a black bakery owner produce a Rebel Flag cake?


----------



## Defiant1 (Feb 20, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> The fact that we even have a law, or debate the legailty of freedom of association is pathetic in a supposedly free country. A business owner, in any state, for any reason, should be allowed to determine who they will provide services to.
> 
> But, LOLberals just love the idea of forcing people to do what they believe is right.




You didn't read the Constitution where it says if you are a business liberals have a right to your goods and services?

i think it is in between the right to kill unborn children and the right to have someone else pay for your medical bills.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 20, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> > Steve_McGarrett said:
> ...



You can pretend your business has the right to refuse service to a person of color, but you don't.

It is against the law and that law has been upheld as constitutional.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Feb 20, 2014)

Republicans, fighting on the side of discrimination


----------



## Jarhead (Feb 20, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> The fact that we even have a law, or debate the legailty of freedom of association is pathetic in a supposedly free country. A business owner, in any state, for any reason, should be allowed to determine who they will provide services to.
> 
> But, LOLberals just love the idea of forcing people to do what they believe is right.



it is not as cut and dry as you make it sound.

You will have towns in America where blacks will either have to move, travel long distances for goods and services, or die of starvation.

Yes, we are a free people. But "people" must include all of us. If it doesn't, then we will have groups of people that are not free.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Feb 20, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > Nyvin said:
> ...



Arizona is like our really dumb older brother who keeps getting pinched for the same thing. 

State law cannot supersede federal law. 

This issue has been decided and put to bed already.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Feb 20, 2014)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Steve_McGarrett said:
> ...



The same thing could be said fro dozens of laws that people do not agree with or that are entirely draconian. I guess we should shut up abotu it now because it's already been decided.

Corporations are people
The war on drugs is constitutional
congress can defer war authority to a president
targeting americans for assassination is legal


The list is endless. But, don't let that heaping spoonful of hypocrisy keep you from saying such things! It's the default position afterall.


----------



## bodecea (Feb 20, 2014)

I think it is a wonderful idea for the GOP to get on board with laws that allow businesses to discriminate against people of all sorts and refuse them service.


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 20, 2014)

You might also have towns in America where whites can't get services either.  Gay bars will finally be able to eject straights.  It seems to be nothing more than an expansion of freedom.


----------



## R.D. (Feb 20, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> You might also have towns in America where whites can't get services either.  Gay bars will finally be able to eject straights.  It seems to be nothing more than an expansion of freedom.



The op decided to leave out the religion aspect in the headline.  Other businesses will service them, it's not about freedom for all to the left.  Its about control


----------



## DiamondDave (Feb 20, 2014)

Nyvin said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > TheOldSchool said:
> ...



Civil rights act does not cover discrimination because of BEHAVIOR... gay is not a race or a sex..

Do I agree with treating people bad?? No.. Do I think it is smart business sense to not cater to gays? Nope.. but I am for freedom, and you have the freedom to be a jerk just as you have the freedom to be tolerant...

You should not be able to force a religious person or a person who does not agree with things such as homosexual BEHAVIOR to bake a penis cake, or film gays kissing, or whatever else.. the freedom of the service provider is not lesser than the freedom of the homosexual.. it is the same freedom


----------



## bodecea (Feb 20, 2014)

DiamondDave said:


> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> > Steve_McGarrett said:
> ...



Religion isn't a race or sex either.     I look forward to these Arizona businesses not serving people of different religions, races, handicaps, etc.   Well done, Zonies!


----------



## R.D. (Feb 20, 2014)

bodecea said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Nyvin said:
> ...



No you don't because you know that's just fluff talk to try to get people on the defensive

You also are scared that this would not effect a business negatively.  You're not even concerned with the fact other businesses can thrive due to this.   You simply want everyone to tell you how great you are or suffer   Never gonna happen


----------



## DiamondDave (Feb 20, 2014)

bodecea said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Nyvin said:
> ...



Stated this before.. I don't care if you refuse to cater a jewish wedding or a christian funeral or whatever else... 

Your point is?


----------



## jknowgood (Feb 20, 2014)

ClosedCaption said:


> Republicans, fighting on the side of discrimination



You never answered the question, can a black baker be forced to make a confederate flag cake? A gay baker make a anti gay cake for a straight person? So now if a white girl wants to enter miss black america, she can now?


----------



## Camp (Feb 20, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> The fact that we even have a law, or debate the legailty of freedom of association is pathetic in a supposedly free country. A business owner, in any state, for any reason, should be allowed to determine who they will provide services to.
> 
> But, LOLberals just love the idea of forcing people to do what they believe is right.



You have it backwards. The voting public determines who is allowed to operate commercial business and the rules and regulations they are required to follow to operate such endeavor. This is done to protect the consumer, the customer and promote the general welfare. The voters get to decide what protections are needed. It's called democracy. The thing you are promoting is called anarchy. Anarchy is not the same as democracy.


----------



## DiamondDave (Feb 20, 2014)

Camp said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that we even have a law, or debate the legailty of freedom of association is pathetic in a supposedly free country. A business owner, in any state, for any reason, should be allowed to determine who they will provide services to.
> ...



No they do not.. and we don't have a democracy... democracy breeds the mob rule you so crave (well, when it suits your agenda).... We have a republic.. where rule of law matters above popular whim.. and a republic based on preserving freedom is not anarchy


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Feb 20, 2014)

Camp said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that we even have a law, or debate the legailty of freedom of association is pathetic in a supposedly free country. A business owner, in any state, for any reason, should be allowed to determine who they will provide services to.
> ...



No, you have it backwards. There is nothing free in a society dictated by majority rule over your private property and person. The thing you are promoting is tyranny by "majority". OK, not actually a majority, just a majority of little dictators. What you are promoting here is called tyranny. Tyranny is not the same as freedom.


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 20, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> I think another state passed something similar to this last week so this must be a trend that is catching on. I agree with this bill that if you are a business owner and believe in and live by your faith that you should be able to refuse service to whoever you want.
> 
> Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays
> Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays



I don't agree with wording the language to target gays, blacks, Jews etc.
I agree with the "freedom of association" idea to keep it NONSPECIFIC; or maybe advise business owners in how to advertise their focus to form an agreement with the community where these limits are understood and respected. 
====================
I once made the mistake of bringing a "male feminist" to an all women's group, and he had to be escorted out. The founder explained because there were rape victims in the group, some could only handle being in the company of women, so the group was restricted for their protection to come in anytime and know they would feel safe. So there was a process where he was pulled aside so this could be explained diplomatically. Why can't all groups be that way? Why can't we train people to respect that people have preferences and limits.
==================================

Another case where I thought the wording should be NONSPECIFIC:

The policy change executed directly by Mayor Parker in Houston was to extend city employee benefits to recognize same sex marriage partners the same as heterosexual marriage partners.

In order not to impose either pro-gay or anti-gay agenda in public policy,
the wording should be VOTED on where it is NEUTRAL, such as allowing city employees
to designate ONE beneficiary adult and maybe TWO children/minors/dependents.

So that way it isn't targeting any group bias or label or excluding any.

Just ONE adult/independent beneficiary and up to TWO dependents such as children, elderly, etc. who can be added to one's insurance policy, without specifying.

NOTE: if this does not work, maybe this shows why insurance should remain PRIVATE and not through employers or govt if it causes imposition of either progay or antigay.

The market is open for insurance companies who want to recognize partners
or leave the beneficiary open to whomever the buyer WANTS to add to their policy.

If you can make this work, go for it. But quit forcing it under govt to begin with,
and then trying to legislate from there. Keep it private and we don't have this problem.


----------



## Steve_McGarrett (Feb 20, 2014)

Camp said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that we even have a law, or debate the legailty of freedom of association is pathetic in a supposedly free country. A business owner, in any state, for any reason, should be allowed to determine who they will provide services to.
> ...



I don't think so. Wether you like it or not, we do have Religiously Rights in this country. It is outlined in the Constitution. Unfortunately, those Religious Rights are being discriminated against by gay activst groups, the ones who are being the true anarchists. Gay activsts did try to shut down Chic Fil A simply because the owner expressed a different opinion, and Chic Fil A won.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 20, 2014)

DiamondDave said:


> Civil rights act does not cover discrimination because of BEHAVIOR... gay is not a race or a sex..



Speaking from a legal aspect, sure it does.  Religion is a BEHAVIOR... religion is not a race or a sex...


>>>>


----------



## DiamondDave (Feb 20, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Civil rights act does not cover discrimination because of BEHAVIOR... gay is not a race or a sex..
> ...



And I agree with that... IMHO, it is not in need of protecting except for your freedom to practice it.. not forcing others to help you practice part of it, I.E. weddings etc


----------



## Contumacious (Feb 20, 2014)

Nyvin said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > TheOldSchool said:
> ...



Doesn't the "1964 civil rights act" violates the US Constitution (1787)?

.


----------



## Againsheila (Feb 20, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> I think another state passed something similar to this last week so this must be a trend that is catching on. I agree with this bill that if you are a business owner and believe in and live by your faith that you should be able to refuse service to whoever you want.
> 
> 
> Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays
> Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays



This is ridiculous, how do you know someone is gay?  My friend and I have taken trips together and if we get a suite with a king bed for the same price as a regular room with 2 beds, we take the suite every time.  What if they think we're lesbians?  This is just stupid.


----------



## Contumacious (Feb 20, 2014)

Againsheila said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > I think another state passed something similar to this last week so this must be a trend that is catching on. I agree with this bill that if you are a business owner and believe in and live by your faith that you should be able to refuse service to whoever you want.
> ...



The Law gives the business owner discretion.

I do not believe that the typical business owner is going to refuse service to anyone unless he believes that the majority of patrons dislike whatever is it that you are doing.

Economics will prevent merchants from arbitrarily enforcing this right.

.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 20, 2014)

Againsheila said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > I think another state passed something similar to this last week so this must be a trend that is catching on. I agree with this bill that if you are a business owner and believe in and live by your faith that you should be able to refuse service to whoever you want.
> ...




The bill allows a business owner to refuse service to anyone, not just gays, and they just have to site their own personal religiously held beliefs.  The proposed laws specifically says those beliefs to not have to coincide with major established religious doctrine.


>>>>


----------



## Againsheila (Feb 20, 2014)

Contumacious said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Steve_McGarrett said:
> ...



So give 'em the right to refuse service for french kissing in public.  You can't make a law against something that you don't know unless they tell or show you.


----------



## Contumacious (Feb 20, 2014)

Againsheila said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



Do they own the Establishment?

Can they set their own rules?

If whatever you are doing clashes with the ambiance they want to create then you should leave.

Just like a business called the "Blue Boy" Lounge or Lesbians R Us have the right to cater to those who subscribe to those tendencies.

.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Feb 20, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> > Steve_McGarrett said:
> ...



Steve i believe that sign comes with certain rules and stipulations.......
 they have the right to refuse service to anyone so they are able to get rid of guests who cause problems. This allows them to ask guests who are disturbing others to leave. They can ask anyone to leave if they see a reason for it.
* but they can't discriminate based on race, sex, nationality, religion, etc. of the patron.*


----------



## Contumacious (Feb 20, 2014)

Harry Dresden said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > Nyvin said:
> ...



Why is that?

Why can't  the KKK Bar nor the Black Panther Saloon decide who is going to patronize their respective joints ?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!!?

.


----------



## R.D. (Feb 20, 2014)

Againsheila said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



The customers volunteered their relationship and wished for the shop to make their celebration cake.    It was a religious decision on the shop owners part based on marriage.   This has nothing to do with simply being gay. 

The op title is a bit misleading : 
Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays.

(I can't get the link to open, I could be mistaken on the case)


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 20, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > I think another state passed something similar to this last week so this must be a trend that is catching on. I agree with this bill that if you are a business owner and believe in and live by your faith that you should be able to refuse service to whoever you want.
> ...



Do you have a compulsive need to misrepresent everything? The language of this bill is all but identical to the federal RFRA, and only a few whackadoodles have argued that that somehow allows people to discriminate against anyone they want.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 20, 2014)

TheOldSchool said:


> I can't wait until it goes to court



It might teach you progressive idiots that there are actual limits on what the government can do.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 20, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Steve_McGarrett said:
> ...




The link to the bill is in the post, please show us where the exemption to discriminate (which applies only to the individuals religious beliefs) is limited to the application of those religious beliefs against gays.

Thank you.


>>>>


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 20, 2014)

Nyvin said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > TheOldSchool said:
> ...



Explain that, in detail, citing actual case law to make your point, or admit that all you have is a belief in the magic powers of the government to fix anything and everything.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Feb 20, 2014)

Contumacious said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Steve_McGarrett said:
> ...



hey i didnt make the law....just showing you what i read....


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 20, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > Nyvin said:
> ...



You can pretend that a restaurant has to let a guy that hasn't taken a shower in a month in just because he is black, but you would be wrong.


----------



## Zander (Feb 20, 2014)

Here's your wedding cake!!


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 20, 2014)

Jarhead said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that we even have a law, or debate the legailty of freedom of association is pathetic in a supposedly free country. A business owner, in any state, for any reason, should be allowed to determine who they will provide services to.
> ...



Name one.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 20, 2014)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Steve_McGarrett said:
> ...



Funny how the courts said that isn't true when California passed emission laws that were stricter than federal law and got sued over it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 20, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > I think another state passed something similar to this last week so this must be a trend that is catching on. I agree with this bill that if you are a business owner and believe in and live by your faith that you should be able to refuse service to whoever you want.
> ...



I must have missed all those words that you don't like in the bill, want to show me where they are?



> (TEXT OF BILL BEGINS ON NEXT PAGE)
> 
> *[FONT=&quot]
> [/FONT]*    Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
> ...



Format Document


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 20, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Civil rights act does not cover discrimination because of BEHAVIOR... gay is not a race or a sex..
> ...



Unless i am wearing some kind of sign about what religion I am how can anyone discriminate against me based on my religion?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 20, 2014)

Contumacious said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Steve_McGarrett said:
> ...



Wrong.

The law protects the business owner from laws that force people who have a religious objection to decorating a wedding cake for a gay couple from being punished by the state.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Feb 20, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> > I can't wait until it goes to court
> ...



The law will be overturned.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 20, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Steve_McGarrett said:
> ...



It does not, stop lying.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 20, 2014)

Harry Dresden said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > Nyvin said:
> ...



Funny, last time I looked it was perfectly legal for Curves to refuse to allow men to exercise, when did that change?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 20, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



Many people wear their religions around their neck (I see cross chains all the time).  A priest walking in in clerical clothing (jacket and religious collar) is usually a pretty good giveaway.  Many middle eastern religions require certain head coverings for men and facial or body coverings for women.  A Jewish man might be wearing a yamaka.

Then of course there are the those items that are discussed in the course of business "my bride and I are getting married at Sikh Gurdwara of Los Angeles" and we wish to contract your floral services.


>>>>


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 20, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



No problem.



> D.  A person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding, and obtain appropriate relief against a government regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceeding.
> E.  A person that asserts a violation of this section must establish all of the following:
> 1.  That the person's action or refusal to act is motivated by a religious belief.
> 2.  That the person's religious belief is sincerely held.
> ...



You are the one that claims he is all about the law as it is applied, show me one example of any case that allows people to discriminate against people based on their race and claim that it is religiously motivated.

Alternatively, you could argue that, as a hack, you just make things up as you go along.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 20, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



Arizona SB1062


There is a link to the bill, please identify where the ability to discriminate is limited only to homosexuals.

Thank you in advance.


>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 20, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...




No where in that section does it say anything about limiting it to the gays.  I have not need to show you examples, do your own research.  We are talking about what THIS proposed law would allow.

If a person's individual religious beliefs are that interracial marriages are wrong, they can make that claim. 


>>>>


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 20, 2014)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > TheOldSchool said:
> ...



It agrees with federal law. Until you can explain why a law that has been n the books since Clinton signed it is suddenly wrong, even though it has been used in multiple court decisions, is suddenly bullshit just because you don't like it you don't have a case for getting this law overturned.

42 U.S. Code Chapter 21B - RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION | LII / Legal Information Institute


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 20, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



I know atheist that wear crosses, all it proves is that they wear jewelry.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 20, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...




That's pretty lame.

You asked for an example, I gave you multiple.

It doesn't matter if the individual is an atheist or not and wearing a cross around his/her neck.  It's the perception of the business as to what they believe the customer is.

>>>>


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 20, 2014)

Over/ under for repeal?

I give it six weeks


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 20, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



That is because, despite your attempt to say this is a radical approach, it is simply applying the same standard to the government of the State of Arizona that is applied to the federal government because of the RFRA. In other words, you of the incredible ability not to understand English, it limits the power of the state to pass laws that limit religious freedom. Since civil rights laws have already been ruled not to burden, and this law doesn't change that, it cannot apply to race, religion, or anything else that you are trying to argue that it does. It doesn't even apply to gays, despite the claims of every bigot who is attacking the law. It only applies to the state, and to individuals that have a sincere religious belief that prevents them from doing things that an otherwise neutral law would force them to do.

Perhaps you should read the federal law that this law is based on.

42 U.S. Code Chapter 21B - RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION | LII / Legal Information Institute


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 20, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



I asked for an example of people being able to discriminate against me if i wasn't wearing a sign. You gave me examples of people announcing their religion. In other words, you are the one that is being lame.


----------



## WinterBorn (Feb 20, 2014)

If I go to one of these businesses with my girlfriend, but act effeminate, how much proof will I be required to show to get service? 

Will kissing her work?  Or will intercourse be required for proof I am not gay?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 20, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Civil rights act does not cover discrimination because of BEHAVIOR... gay is not a race or a sex..
> ...



So is free speech, freedom of the press, and the right to bear arms.  All are behaviours.


----------



## WinterBorn (Feb 20, 2014)

I am hoping lots of gay men frequent these places and act straight until the check comes, then tip well and let them know they served gays.


----------



## Jarhead (Feb 20, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



actually, no.

Speech, writing and carrying a gun are behaviors.

Free speech, freedom of press and right to bear arms are rights, not behaviors.


----------



## Againsheila (Feb 20, 2014)

R.D. said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...



Great, now I'm conflicted.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 20, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> You might also have towns in America where whites can't get services either.  Gay bars will finally be able to eject straights.  It seems to be nothing more than an expansion of freedom.



Freedom is about having the freedom to deny your fellow Americans their constitutionally protected civil rights.

Believe it or not, the Constitution trumps your discrimination fantasies.


----------



## Contumacious (Feb 20, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Steve_McGarrett said:
> ...



hummmmmm

I wonder if they can discriminate against whackadoodles ?

.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 20, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> I am hoping lots of gay men frequent these places and act straight until the check comes, then tip well and let them know they served gays.



I am wishing people would learn to fucking read.

What do you think the chances are that you will read before you say something stupid?


----------



## WinterBorn (Feb 20, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > I am hoping lots of gay men frequent these places and act straight until the check comes, then tip well and let them know they served gays.
> ...



What do you think the chances are that my post was even remotely serious?


----------



## CaféAuLait (Feb 20, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> I am hoping lots of gay men frequent these places and act straight until the check comes, then tip well and let them know they served gays.



Ya know this 'discrimination' does not only exist by straight men and women. Gay men and women also refuse to allow straights into bars and establishments. In fact one is asked before they are permitted entry.  Trans women who do not identify as gay will be turned away as well. 

And then of course there were the gay women just married who claims discrimination against a gay bar since they would not allow them in the bar in their wedding garb. However, if they had been men in suits getting married they would have been allowed in. They feel the gay bar discriminated against lesbians. There are those in the gay community who argue that straight should not be allowed and gay bars should be allowed to turn away straights. 

Why gay-only venues should have the right to exist | Liberal Conspiracy ( this is a left wing magazine) 

Brides Denied: Gay Club CC Slaughters Refused Entry to Lesbian Newlyweds

Straights in Gay Clubs ? The Argument For Equality

Straights in Gay Clubs ? The Argument For Keeping It Gay

Why This Gay Bar Can No Longer Ask Whether You?re Straight ? And Refuse You Entry / Queerty

Heterophobia: the only straight in the village? - The Yorker

There can't be one set of rules, gays who claim they want their own venues to feel 'safe' while those claiming a religious reasons wanting to feel 'safe' in front of their G-d in not committing a 'sin'.


----------



## Contumacious (Feb 20, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Over/ under for repeal?
> 
> I give it six weeks



You know if your people send in the Delta Force and/or SEAL Team 7 , it will be over in seconds.

i can't believe that stupid Arizona thinks the 10th Amendment is still active.

.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Feb 20, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Steve_McGarrett said:
> ...


hey like i said above....just telling you what i read on a Civil Law link about that sign..... the curves in the Anaheim hills has a few guys in there working out with the ladies....


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 20, 2014)

Harry Dresden said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



That is because California thinks those guys are women.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Feb 20, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



or those guys were looking at some of the nice looking ladies in there.....


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 20, 2014)

Harry Dresden said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



Which is why Curves doesn't let men in.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Feb 20, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


but yet these guys were in there.....


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 20, 2014)

Harry Dresden said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



California also insists that restaurants have to serve people wearing Nazi biker colors.


----------



## dblack (Feb 20, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > I think another state passed something similar to this last week so this must be a trend that is catching on. I agree with this bill that if you are a business owner and believe in and live by your faith that you should be able to refuse service to whoever you want.
> ...



Why does it have to be a religious belief? This isn't a freedom of religion issue. It's freedom of association issue.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 20, 2014)

dblack said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Steve_McGarrett said:
> ...




You'd have to ask the Senators from the great State of Arizona why it's only personally held religious beliefs that qualify.


>>>>


----------



## hazlnut (Feb 20, 2014)

Some much for "love the sinner and only hate the sin".

These people are all about hate, hate, hate across the board.


Why do they continue to call themselves Christians?


Christ never said a goddamn word about Gays.

The only "man lies with man" line in the OT is taken way out of historical / cultural context.

These are the same people who used the bible to justify slavery.

These are the same people who used the bible to justify segregation.

And now they're again using to the bible to justify their own fears and insecurities.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Feb 20, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



but if they get rowdy they reserve the right to give them the boot.....


----------



## oreo (Feb 20, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> I think another state passed something similar to this last week so this must be a trend that is catching on. I agree with this bill that if you are a business owner and believe in and live by your faith that you should be able to refuse service to whoever you want.
> 
> 
> Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays
> Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays



Well, all I can say is I hope the good citizens of Arizona--(all of them) refuse to do business with any company that would do this.

It reminds me of white only and black only bathrooms.  That didn't survive in the 50's in the south--and as the decades have long now passed we are a much better country for being inclusive of "everyone"--regardless of race.

Gays do not "choose" to be gay.  There is no man or woman that wakes up one morning and decides to have sex with the same sex.


----------



## Avorysuds (Feb 20, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > Nyvin said:
> ...



Wait, where does the constitution tell a business who they can serve again, be specific....


----------



## Rambunctious (Feb 20, 2014)

the fact that a business would need a law to return a freedom that should have never been taken away is why we need a new rollback in this nation


----------



## dblack (Feb 20, 2014)

Avorysuds said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Steve_McGarrett said:
> ...



uh... general welfare!!


----------



## Pete7469 (Feb 20, 2014)

Jarhead said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that we even have a law, or debate the legailty of freedom of association is pathetic in a supposedly free country. A business owner, in any state, for any reason, should be allowed to determine who they will provide services to.
> ...



Bullshit.

You might have businesses that may force blacks to pull up their fucking pants and act like the sort of conservative blacks they're programmed to hate because such people are "uncle toms", but they'll still be able to find people willing to conduct business with those who cling to the "thug life". Just from behind bullet resistant glass.

If anyone is forced to conduct commerce with someone who reduces the quality of the environment in their establishment, that is far more egregious than a business owner refusing to serve someone even if they're a racist asshole.

The rest of us can choose not to do business with the racist asshole, but at least you don't have to look at some thug's fucking boxer shorts as they walk by your booth.


----------



## Pete7469 (Feb 21, 2014)

dblack said:


> Avorysuds said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



The preamble isn't law you fucking retard.


----------



## JohnA (Feb 21, 2014)

Jarhead said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that we even have a law, or debate the legailty of freedom of association is pathetic in a supposedly free country. A business owner, in any state, for any reason, should be allowed to determine who they will provide services to.
> ...


----------



## N8dizzle (Feb 21, 2014)

Why are people so determined to force their beliefs on others. Why does it matter if someone has a different religion, sexual orientation, race, or shoe size?

What religion says that you can't allow certain people in your store? It's not like a gay person is going to go into someone's store and try to force the owner to do some gay sacrilegious act.

Who is this law protecting?

From what?


----------



## KNB (Feb 21, 2014)

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion....."


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 21, 2014)

oreo said:


> It reminds me of white only and black only bathrooms.  That didn't survive in the 50's in the south--and as the decades have long now passed we are a much better country for being inclusive of "everyone"--regardless of race.


I lived in Mississippi in 1969 and the restrooms were segregated. So was school from the 12th to the 4th grade.


> Gays do not "choose" to be gay.  There is no man or woman that wakes up one morning and decides to have sex with the same sex.


Human sexuality is as complicated as humans are but it's completely different than race. Segregation laws were illegal because not all people were treated the same under the law. Unless a man is having sex with his male partner at the restaurant table the issue wouldn't come up. Homosexuality isn't a rece or gender no matter how hard the propagandists try to make it so.


----------



## dblack (Feb 21, 2014)

N8dizzle said:


> Why are people so determined to force their beliefs on others. Why does it matter if someone has a different religion, sexual orientation, race, or shoe size?
> 
> What religion says that you can't allow certain people in your store? It's not like a gay person is going to go into someone's store and try to force the owner to do some gay sacrilegious act.
> 
> ...



Agreed. And it's not like the store owner is forcing anything on the gay people by not doing business with them. Why not let people live how they want?


----------



## bendog (Feb 21, 2014)

Interesting, imo.  Trent Lott's comments on "old Strom" that led to Lott's political demise were perhaps misinterpreted.  What he tried to say was that had congress not forced private biz's to serve African americans, then eventually markets would have done the same thing.  Wal-Mart loves everyone's money, and can under sell any other biz.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Feb 21, 2014)

> Why not let people live how they want?


That would make things far too easy. What would government get people all riled up over and push for laws to force people to do this or that, or ban them from x, y and z if people minded their own business?

That idea was lost over 200 years ago now here, and it barely ever saw the light of day in the first place. It's  ahuman condition thing. There are a handful of us still wondering WTF the rest of these people took that make them believe they have the moral, ethical or physical authority to tell others what to do. It's the cause of about 99% of all human problems.

Peoplpe need to NAP big time.


----------



## hangover (Feb 21, 2014)

> Reload this Page Arizona Senate Passes Bill Allowing Business Owners To Refuse Service To Gays



No different than refusing to serve blacks. I love it when cons expose their bigotry and hate for everyone to see. It makes it so easy for liberals to win elections.


----------



## bendog (Feb 21, 2014)

hangover said:


> > Reload this Page Arizona Senate Passes Bill Allowing Business Owners To Refuse Service To Gays
> 
> 
> 
> No different than refusing to serve blacks. I love it when cons expose their bigotry and hate for everyone to see. It makes it so easy for liberals to win elections.



Exactly.  But is their a constitutional provision banning bigotry?  A biz owner who'd turn away biz from any group damages himself.  If we believe that the maj of people will act in their own self-interest, and that people are mostly inherently good and respect one another, the GLBT cause will win out in the end, regardless.

Why not just laugh at and ridicule bigots and fools?


----------



## pvsi (Feb 21, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> I think another state passed something similar to this last week so this must be a trend that is catching on. I agree with this bill that if you are a business owner and believe in and live by your faith that you should be able to refuse service to whoever you want.
> 
> 
> Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays
> Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays


I agree, only when I posted a sign on my business in 2009 stating that "those who support US government and military are not welcome here" - my place was vandalized. So republicans are not always what they preach... just saying, and there were other reasons for it too, such as me speaking out against the system before that.


----------



## hangover (Feb 21, 2014)

pvsi said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > I think another state passed something similar to this last week so this must be a trend that is catching on. I agree with this bill that if you are a business owner and believe in and live by your faith that you should be able to refuse service to whoever you want.
> ...



Don't you just love how the war machine defends America?


----------



## N8dizzle (Feb 21, 2014)

The store owner that refuses service is doing something that negatively effects someone else. 

They are making someone's life harder just to be hateful. 

Who is the gay person hurting by buying something?

We all have to live in this world together.  Why make things more difficult for anyone?  Who benefits? 

Sent from my SPH-D710 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 21, 2014)

It depends on what service it is.  If a gay couple walk into a bakery and want to buy two dozen chocolate chip cookies it is wrong to refuse to serve them.   If they want a personal service like a wedding cake, the baker should be allowed to refuse the service.  That's a personal service.   Since we don't allow slavery, anyone should be allowed to refuse to perform personal services at any time.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 21, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> It depends on what service it is.  If a gay couple walk into a bakery and want to buy two dozen chocolate chip cookies it is wrong to refuse to serve them.   If they want a personal service like a wedding cake, the baker should be allowed to refuse the service.  That's a personal service.   Since we don't allow slavery, anyone should be allowed to refuse to perform personal services at any time.



It's not up to the People to accommodate the discriminatory whims of a business.  It's up to the business to accommodate the non-discriminatory laws of the land,

or get out of that business.


----------



## hangover (Feb 21, 2014)

N8dizzle said:


> The store owner that refuses service is doing something that negatively effects someone else.
> 
> They are making someone's life harder just to be hateful.
> 
> ...



After all this time the cons have not learned the lesson of Hitler's hate of the Jews. "Those that don't learn from history are bound to repeat it."


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 21, 2014)

Avorysuds said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Steve_McGarrett said:
> ...



Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## g5000 (Feb 21, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



It does, actually.  If you get in a cab with a case of beer, the Muslim driver can refuse you service because alcohol is against his religion.

"We refuse service to infidels".  That is basically the objection behind not making a cake for gays, right?

Well, that niggle can have many, many applications.


----------



## hangover (Feb 21, 2014)

g5000 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



In a Muslim country, yes. In the U.S. he will lose his license, unless one of the beers is open.


----------



## Againsheila (Feb 21, 2014)

pvsi said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > I think another state passed something similar to this last week so this must be a trend that is catching on. I agree with this bill that if you are a business owner and believe in and live by your faith that you should be able to refuse service to whoever you want.
> ...




Why would you do such a thing?  And why would you assume it was vandalized by republicans?  

Not only would I have not patronized your business, had I seen that sign, but I would have led a protest outside your store, along with my friends, both liberal and conservative alike.

I would, of course, have simply ignored your business if you aren't in the US.


----------



## Againsheila (Feb 21, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> It depends on what service it is.  If a gay couple walk into a bakery and want to buy two dozen chocolate chip cookies it is wrong to refuse to serve them.   If they want a personal service like a wedding cake, the baker should be allowed to refuse the service.  That's a personal service.   Since we don't allow slavery, anyone should be allowed to refuse to perform personal services at any time.



Excellent point.


----------



## Againsheila (Feb 21, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > It depends on what service it is.  If a gay couple walk into a bakery and want to buy two dozen chocolate chip cookies it is wrong to refuse to serve them.   If they want a personal service like a wedding cake, the baker should be allowed to refuse the service.  That's a personal service.   Since we don't allow slavery, anyone should be allowed to refuse to perform personal services at any time.
> ...



It's a special order, everyone should have the right to refuse a special order, for whatever reason.  What if they are too busy and don't have enough decorators or bakers?


----------



## g5000 (Feb 21, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> > Steve_McGarrett said:
> ...



Yes, it does.  The Civil Rights Act banned this very type of discrimination.



> ) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.





> b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
> 
> (1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;
> 
> ...


----------



## GreenBean (Feb 21, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> I think another state passed something similar to this last week so this must be a trend that is catching on. I agree with this bill that if you are a business owner and believe in and live by your faith that you should be able to refuse service to whoever you want.
> 
> 
> Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays
> Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays



The other state was Kansas , and the bill died.  This bill will also die, it's discriminatory not only against fruitcakes but real people as well.


----------



## GreenBean (Feb 21, 2014)

g5000 said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > Nyvin said:
> ...



On the basis of Race, Religion, Creed not Sexual Perversion.


----------



## g5000 (Feb 21, 2014)

What is going to result from these attempts to continue the oppression of gays is that the haters will force the issue to the point that gays will be made into a protected class on the federal level.  The haters will end up with the exact opposite achievment than they intend.


----------



## g5000 (Feb 21, 2014)

GreenBean said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > Steve_McGarrett said:
> ...



"Sexual Perversion".

Gosh, I wonder how people keep getting the impression the GOP hates gays, blacks, Muslims, and Mexicans.

It's a real mystery!


----------



## GreenBean (Feb 21, 2014)

g5000 said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...



What's that  got to do with Blacks, Muslims or Mexicans and what makes you think that I - the GreenBean , don't fall into one of those groups ?   *YOU'RE A RACIST !!!!*


----------



## bendog (Feb 21, 2014)

We love blacks muslims and Mexicans ... so long as they aren't queer.  (-:


----------



## JohnA (Feb 21, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> > It reminds me of white only and black only bathrooms.  That didn't survive in the 50's in the south--and as the decades have long now passed we are a much better country for being inclusive of "everyone"--regardless of race.
> ...


 funny you say gays dont *    CHOOSE *  pedifiles say the same thing so do those who indulge in incest


----------



## bendog (Feb 21, 2014)

Equating gays with rapists again.  (sigh)

As to the topic, personally I'd be more inclined to buy something at a bakery that had a sign "we gladly serve all people, so long as they have shirts and shoes on"  (pants or dresses go without saying)  (-:


----------



## bendog (Feb 21, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> > It reminds me of white only and black only bathrooms.  That didn't survive in the 50's in the south--and as the decades have long now passed we are a much better country for being inclusive of "everyone"--regardless of race.
> ...



So, Anti-miscegenation laws were ok?


----------



## JohnA (Feb 21, 2014)

bendog said:


> Equating gays with rapists again.  (sigh)
> 
> As to the topic, personally I'd be more inclined to buy something at a bakery that had a sign "we gladly serve all people, so long as they have shirts and shoes on"  (pants or dresses go without saying)  (-:


 so you would  shop at a place where a  guy was  wearing a dress ?? women wear pants anyway


----------



## JohnA (Feb 21, 2014)

bendog said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > oreo said:
> ...


 being gay is NOT  a  right under   the constitution either


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 21, 2014)

hangover said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...




Not under this law.  A muslim can cite religious reasons for refusing a customer and be fully within the law.   He would contact his dispatcher and tell them to send another cab and company would have to do that.  But they couldn't fire him nor would the cab licensing board be able to suspend his professional license.


(Not the "open container" comment as that is against the law, speaking to the original premise that the customer was just carrying a case of beer.)

>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 21, 2014)

Againsheila said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...




If you refuse an order because they don't have enough decorators or bakers that is a perfectly valid reason and not based on race, religion, ethnicity, gender, etc.



>>>>>


----------



## dblack (Feb 21, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Should customers be allowed to avoid shopping at a store based on the race, religion, ethnicity, gender, etc. of the store owner?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 21, 2014)

dblack said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...




Is the intent of your question to ask me about what the law "should be" or the way the law "actually is"?

In my world private businesses would not be subject to Public Accommodation laws and would be able to refuse service based on their own criteria whether that be race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, gender, etc...  If an employee discriminated, then an employer would have grounds for termination for failure to perform required duties.  "Public Accommodation" laws would only apply to government entities, government employees would be restricted on discriminating against tax payers and government entities would be restricted from entering into contracts with private businesses that practiced discrimination.

The reality is though that Federal Public Accommodation laws have been found Constitutional and under the 10th Amendment States can regulate commerce within that State.


>>>>


----------



## bendog (Feb 21, 2014)

JohnA said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



the freedom to marry outside one's race is not explicitly in the consititution.  In fact, that was Scalia's question in DOMA.  When does this right to marry come into existence?  

It's a constitutional right to not have a state treat a gay marriage differently than a straigjht.  You lost, get over it.

As to whether a private biz must trade with a gay person .... I don't see a legal reason why they should.  Rather, I think biz's who refuse should be outed, ridiculed, boycotted, and people who continue to trade with them should be likewise treated.


----------



## bendog (Feb 21, 2014)

JohnA said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



the freedom to marry outside one's race is not explicitly in the consititution.  In fact, that was Scalia's question in DOMA.  When does this right to marry come into existence?  The Answer:  when the Court says so.

It's a constitutional right to not have a state treat a gay marriage differently than a straigjht.  You lost, get over it.

As to whether a private biz must trade with a gay person .... I don't see a legal reason why they should.  Rather, I think biz's who refuse should be outed, ridiculed, boycotted, and people who continue to trade with them should be likewise treated.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 21, 2014)

They'll never get it past Title 9.

Besides, how the hell would anyone know who is, or isn't gay?


----------



## Immanuel (Feb 21, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> If a liberal doesn't like something it should be illegal for everyone. If they like something, it should be legal for everyone.
> 
> As far a the civil rights spin, relationships aren't people. Refusing service to a person is one thing, (which should be your right anyway) but refusing service to a relationship is another. Can a racist make a black bakery owner produce a Rebel Flag cake?



Only one change should be made to your post. 

"If a liberal doesn't like something it should be illegal for everyone. If they like something, it should be forced upon everyone."


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 21, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> They'll never get it past Title 9.
> 
> Besides, how the hell would anyone know who is, or isn't gay?



When you go to a printer and ask for wedding invitations and the announcement says "Joan Smith and Jane Davis wish to invite you to their wedding" - that would be a hint.

When you go to a baker and ask for wedding cake want the figures on top to both be male - that would be a hint.

When you go to the County Clerk's office for a wedding license and spouses are both named Edward - that would be a hint.



>>>>


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 21, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> They'll never get it past Title 9.
> 
> Besides, how the hell would anyone know who is, or isn't gay?



Um...two men wanting a wedding cake for themselves?  Two women applying to adopt kids?  Two men wanting a photographer to photograph their "wedding"?  Two women wanting their "wedding" catered?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 21, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > They'll never get it past Title 9.
> ...




Fair point.


----------



## g5000 (Feb 21, 2014)

JohnA said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > oreo said:
> ...



But we can show that pedophilia and incest, in the aggregate, are socially harmful activities.

You cannot demonstrate the same for two adult guys smoking each other's poles.


----------



## g5000 (Feb 21, 2014)

JohnA said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> > Equating gays with rapists again.  (sigh)
> ...



One of my favorite comedians is Eddie Izzard.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 21, 2014)

g5000 said:


> But we can show that pedophilia and incest, in the aggregate, are *socially harmful activities*.
> 
> *You cannot demonstrate the same for two adult guys smoking each other's poles*.


  Unless you're talking about Harvey Milk, gay icon and "embodiement of the LGBT movement across the nation and the word" [as legally defined in California].

He liked to sodomize orphaned teen homeless boys who were addicted to drugs and mentally unstable.  One at least was a documented minor for years while this was going on.  Milk officiated as that boy's father/guardian as well.  That crosses the line, and yet they still defend him.  60+ LGBT groups in full knowledge of Milk's "sexual preference" from the US, Mexico and Canada petitioned tirelessly to have the Harvey Milk postage stamp issued this year.  Here's his creepy lurker mug with the rainbow "USA" at the top:


----------



## Jarhead (Feb 21, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > They'll never get it past Title 9.
> ...



then I think there should be a law saying two men named Edward are NOT allowed to marry. That should resolve your third point.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 21, 2014)

uncensored2008 said:


> fair point.




:d


>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 21, 2014)

Jarhead said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...




You know if you do that two guys named Edward wouldn't be able to get married but John and James could - right?


>>>>


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 21, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > It depends on what service it is.  If a gay couple walk into a bakery and want to buy two dozen chocolate chip cookies it is wrong to refuse to serve them.   If they want a personal service like a wedding cake, the baker should be allowed to refuse the service.  That's a personal service.   Since we don't allow slavery, anyone should be allowed to refuse to perform personal services at any time.
> ...



Just stop offering wedding cakes to the general public.   There will be two kinds of bakers.  Ones that do business with the public no matter who they are, and others where you have to know them, or know someone who does know them.  Gays will have no complaint.  They will be forced to patronize ONLY those bakers willing to do business with them.  Which is the way it should be anyway.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 21, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> Just stop offering wedding cakes to the general public.   There will be two kinds of bakers.  Ones that do business with the public no matter who they are, and others where you have to know them, or know someone who does know them.  Gays will have no complaint.  They will be forced to patronize ONLY those bakers willing to do business with them.  Which is the way it should be anyway.


That's a bit naive. What happens is that if they find out you don't offer gay versions they make it a point to target you for jail or bankruptcy. Gays are so sweet.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 21, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Just stop offering wedding cakes to the general public.   There will be two kinds of bakers.  Ones that do business with the public no matter who they are, and others where you have to know them, or know someone who does know them.  Gays will have no complaint.  They will be forced to patronize ONLY those bakers willing to do business with them.  Which is the way it should be anyway.
> ...



He didn't say you don't offer "gay versions" to the general public, he said you don't offer "any" versions to the general public.


>>>>


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 21, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Just stop offering wedding cakes to the general public.   There will be two kinds of bakers.  Ones that do business with the public no matter who they are, and others where you have to know them, or know someone who does know them.  Gays will have no complaint.  They will be forced to patronize ONLY those bakers willing to do business with them.  Which is the way it should be anyway.
> ...



That's not the way it works.  It's not that they don't offer gay versions.  They don't offer versions at all.  Unless you know them personally, or know someone who can vouch for you.

I went through this myself when I refused to pay the portrait of a lesbian couple.  They took me to court and I won.


----------



## dblack (Feb 21, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



A cake 'buyers club'.


----------



## bendog (Feb 21, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Couldn't you have saved the effort and simply painted them as horned devils splashing gleefully in the blood of our sacred savior?


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 21, 2014)

Not a club, just not offered to the public.  These kinds of private arrangements are made all the time.  It will just expand.  Some gay couple wanting a wedding cake will call up a bakery out of the phone book, or take the recommendation of a gay couple who had a wedding cake.  Walk into the photographer's store down the street and find out they don't do wedding photos.   But they KNOW that other couples got their wedding photographed by this particular photographer.  It doesn't matter.   Did the photographer advertise as a wedding photographer?  If you go into the studio are there shots of other weddings displayed.   If a service is not advertised to the general public, the service does not come under public accommodation laws.   This was the holding in the New Mexico case against the photographer.   It goes for ANY service at all, or any accommodation.


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 21, 2014)

bendog said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



I have no objections to homosexuality based on religion whatsoever.   It is simply none of my business.   I would not participate in a same sex wedding.  And, I didn't have to as it turns out.  And, in a way, I really enjoyed sticking it to them legally.  I hope they ran up a ton of legal bills owed to their gay lawyer.  Yes, I rather enjoyed watching them make a fool out of themselves.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 21, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> That's not the way it works.  It's not that they don't offer gay versions.  They don't offer versions at all.  Unless you know them personally, or know someone who can vouch for you.
> 
> I went through this myself when I refused to pay the portrait of a lesbian couple.  They took me to court and I won.


What the hell are you talking about? You think a baker can stay in business by doing cakes for family and friends or references? Even then you can have problems in some areas once they get wind of you.


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 21, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > That's not the way it works.  It's not that they don't offer gay versions.  They don't offer versions at all.  Unless you know them personally, or know someone who can vouch for you.
> ...



Of course they can.   Bakeries sell much more than wedding cakes.  Some really don't offer the service at all and never did.  Bakeries sell pies, cakes, cookies, cupcakes pastries, they sell all kinds of baked goods and no one ever complained that gays were prohibited from buying their petit fours.   A bakery could not remain in business ONLY offering wedding cakes though.    There would be no problems.   There isn't an injunction against bakers telling them they either accommodate gay wedding cakes or they can't make any wedding cakes at all.    Only if they offer services to the general public, they cannot refuse a same sex wedding cake or same sex wedding photography or the like.


----------



## Againsheila (Feb 21, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



And by that thinking, all they have to do is say they don't have the ability to fulfill the order.  They are still discriminating, they're just lying about why.


----------



## Againsheila (Feb 21, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> They'll never get it past Title 9.
> 
> Besides, how the hell would anyone know who is, or isn't gay?



That was my point, but apparently this has come about because some Christians refused to do a wedding cake for a gay couple.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 21, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> Of course they can.   Bakeries sell much more than wedding cakes.  Some really don't offer the service at all and never did.  Bakeries sell pies, cakes, cookies, cupcakes pastries, they sell all kinds of baked goods and no one ever complained that gays were prohibited from buying their petit fours.


Probably because there was no gay litmus test to qualify for the purchase. That isn't the point. Making a gay wedding cake on demand isn't the same thing as screening people for sexual orientation, I don't know anyone proposing that.


> A bakery could not remain in business ONLY offering wedding cakes though.    There would be no problems.   There isn't an injunction against bakers telling them they either accommodate gay wedding cakes or they can't make any wedding cakes at all.    Only if they offer services to the general public, they cannot refuse a same sex wedding cake or same sex wedding photography or the like.


Yes, that's the problem. I fail to see how you can sell to the public without selling to the public.


----------



## Againsheila (Feb 21, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > They'll never get it past Title 9.
> ...



Apparently, you haven't watched Firefly....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWGP5Od2ID0]Hero Of Canton - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Mustang (Feb 21, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> I think another state passed something similar to this last week so this must be a trend that is catching on. I agree with this bill that if you are a business owner and believe in and live by your faith that you should be able to refuse service to whoever you want.
> 
> 
> Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays
> Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays



You would be wrong then. In your private life, you can choose to associate with whomever you please. Businesses however, are public accommodations which are licensed to operate by the state. You don't get to choose who you will and won't serve in your business. As long as people behave in a lawful manner (for example, they're not creating a disturbance, or they're not intoxicated), you must serve them or sell to them if they want to buy something. It doesn't mean that you have to invite them into your home. It doesn't even mean you have to like them. As a matter of fact, if business owners only sold to the people they liked, they would soon be out of business.


----------



## OnePercenter (Feb 21, 2014)

If Jones doesn't veto this, Arizona, the number 2 working class state in the US will become a blue state. Another Republican duct tape fail.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 21, 2014)

Mustang said:


> You would be wrong then. In your private life, you can choose to associate with whomever you please. Businesses however, are public accommodations which are licensed to operate by the state. You don't get to choose who you will and won't serve in your business.


Wrong. Businesses are not public accomodations. And not all businesses need a license. You can refuse service but you can't make the reason race or gender. EXCEPT now the gays are claiming their relationships are equally protected under the law. That only exists where locales allow it to occur, it isn't Constitutionally protected.


----------



## bendog (Feb 21, 2014)

Mustang said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > I think another state passed something similar to this last week so this must be a trend that is catching on. I agree with this bill that if you are a business owner and believe in and live by your faith that you should be able to refuse service to whoever you want.
> ...



No disrespect but that's not exactly true.  IF a state has a specific State law banning private discrimination, there would be an opposite result.  But in what was my absolutely fav Supreme Court case evidencing self-inflicted ironical unintentional parody until  Sandy Baby aborted equal protection in Bush v. Gore ... there was MOOSE LODGE

Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis - 407 U.S. 163 (1972) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

In 20 years, people like katzanddogs will be just as amusingly foolish


----------



## OnePercenter (Feb 21, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > You would be wrong then. In your private life, you can choose to associate with whomever you please. Businesses however, are public accommodations which are licensed to operate by the state. You don't get to choose who you will and won't serve in your business.
> ...



Which business doesn't need a license?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 21, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > You would be wrong then. In your private life, you can choose to associate with whomever you please. Businesses however, are public accommodations which are licensed to operate by the state. You don't get to choose who you will and won't serve in your business.
> ...




Actually businesses are places of pubic accommodation.  For example here is the Arizona definition:

" In this article, unless the context otherwise requires:

1. "Person" means an individual, corporation, partnership, unincorporated association, or other organization, and includes the owner, lessee, operator, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent, or employee of any place of public accommodation.

2. "Places of public accommodation" means all public places of entertainment, amusement or recreation, all public places where food or beverages are sold for consumption on the premises, all public places which are conducted for the lodging of transients or for the benefit, use or accommodation of those seeking health or recreation and all establishments which cater or offer their services, facilities or goods to or solicit patronage from the members of the general public. Any dwelling as defined in section 41-1491, or any private club, or any place which is in its nature distinctly private is not a place of public accommodation. "

******************************

A. No individual may be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases, leases to others or operates a place of public accommodation.

******************************

A. Discrimination in places of public accommodation against any person because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin or ancestry is contrary to the policy of this state and shall be deemed unlawful.​
41-1441 - Definitions
41-1492.02 - Prohibition of discrimination by public accommodations and commercial facilities
http://www.azleg.gov/ars/41/01442.htm


It's interesting that you left out the non-biological choice of religion which is also protected.


>>>>


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 21, 2014)

Jarhead said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that we even have a law, or debate the legailty of freedom of association is pathetic in a supposedly free country. A business owner, in any state, for any reason, should be allowed to determine who they will provide services to.
> ...



You will?  Really?  Where?  Please cite us evidence of these bastions of universal racial hatred . . . and then explain to me why anyone would WANT to live in a town where everyone hates them, anyway.


----------



## bendog (Feb 21, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...



Interesting.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 21, 2014)

R.D. said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



I'm simply amazed that you leftists really believe there are huge swathes of businesses out there just DYING to turn away paying customers.  What's it like inside your heads, where the world is a seething hotbed of enemies, and why have you never considered the reality that most people just don't give a fuck about you one way or another?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 21, 2014)

Camp said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that we even have a law, or debate the legailty of freedom of association is pathetic in a supposedly free country. A business owner, in any state, for any reason, should be allowed to determine who they will provide services to.
> ...



Since when does "the public" get to vote on who operates a business?  Where was I when this went into effect?  And no, Chuckles, deciding that the regulations YOU think people should be forced to adhere to are wrong is not "anarchy".  It's just a different set of regulations.  PLEASE try to understand that it's not acceptable to make it illegal to believe differently from you.


----------



## bendog (Feb 21, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



There's that.  And in my view, the vast majority would view denying services to a person because of orientation to be very bad manners, at the least, and choose to shop elsewhere.  Out them and deride them as irrational bigots.


----------



## bendog (Feb 21, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



well, the majority can pass laws making refusal to grant accomodations a crime.  In my view that's foolish, but if the maj wants it ..... that's there decision, and they can live with it.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 21, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Steve_McGarrett said:
> ...



So?


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 21, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Of course they can.   Bakeries sell much more than wedding cakes.  Some really don't offer the service at all and never did.  Bakeries sell pies, cakes, cookies, cupcakes pastries, they sell all kinds of baked goods and no one ever complained that gays were prohibited from buying their petit fours.
> ...



No one has proposed screening people for sexual orientation before they sell them anything.  It's personal service that they object to.


----------



## bendog (Feb 21, 2014)

My dad made the exact same argument about blacks in his Elks Club.  Today, there are blacks and no one speaks of the past.


----------



## Againsheila (Feb 21, 2014)

bendog said:


> My dad made the exact same argument about blacks in his Elks Club.  Today, there are blacks and no one speaks of the past.



Same with Mormons.  They used to think black was the sign of Cain.  Blacks were not allowed in their church.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 21, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Have you admitted you were wrong about what this law will do yet? If not, you have no business in lecturing anybody about anything even touching on this topic.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 21, 2014)

Mustang said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > I think another state passed something similar to this last week so this must be a trend that is catching on. I agree with this bill that if you are a business owner and believe in and live by your faith that you should be able to refuse service to whoever you want.
> ...



Because the Constitution clearly says that anyone that owns a business is a slave that has no rights.

Wait, it doesn't say that, so that makes you wrong.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 21, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> If Jones doesn't veto this, Arizona, the number 2 working class state in the US will become a blue state. Another Republican duct tape fail.



It will?

Funny, under current law in Arizona it is perfectly legal for a business to discriminate against gays, yet you think people will suddenly be outraged because a bunch of ignorant bigots are lying about a new law that simply protects people from ignorant bigots.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 21, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...



Most of them actually.


----------



## OnePercenter (Feb 21, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



So what. It's called hate. This and all the other Republican duct tape fails will cement Republican failure in 2014 and 2016.


----------



## bendog (Feb 21, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



I think they take the senate in 14, but there are a lot more goper sen seats up in 16 than dems, and the dems run a sane candidate against another crazy goper senate .... There will be blood.


----------



## Clementine (Feb 21, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> I think another state passed something similar to this last week so this must be a trend that is catching on. I agree with this bill that if you are a business owner and believe in and live by your faith that you should be able to refuse service to whoever you want.
> 
> 
> Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays
> Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays




My big question is why would any gay person want to give anyone their business if they don't want it?     Would you want your wedding catered by people who disapprove of your life?    I wouldn't.    I am sure there are many fine caterers and other businesses who gladly accept gay customers and I would say take your business where it's appreciated and forget the rest.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 21, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> Which business doesn't need a license?


It depends on the type of business and location. You can look it up if you're interested.


WorldWatcher said:


> Actually businesses are places of pubic accommodation.  For example here is the Arizona definition:
> 
> 2. "Places of public accommodation" means all public places of entertainment, amusement or recreation, all public places where food or beverages are sold for consumption on the premises, all public places which are conducted for the lodging of transients or for the benefit, use or accommodation of those seeking health or recreation and all establishments which cater or offer their services, facilities or goods to or solicit patronage from the members of the general public. Any dwelling as defined in section 41-1491, or any private club, or any place which is in its nature distinctly private is not a place of public accommodation. "


That describes a very small percentage of businesses.


> It's interesting that you left out the non-biological choice of religion which is also protected.


It's interesting that you think it's interesting.


----------



## OnePercenter (Feb 21, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Which business doesn't need a license?
> ...



Which business doesn't need a license? Prove it, or shut it....


----------



## OnePercenter (Feb 21, 2014)

bendog said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



If the middle class wants to survive they need a clear majority of Congress in 2014.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 21, 2014)

Clementine said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > I think another state passed something similar to this last week so this must be a trend that is catching on. I agree with this bill that if you are a business owner and believe in and live by your faith that you should be able to refuse service to whoever you want.
> ...




The irony of all of this is that there is nothing gayer than a big wedding with all the trimmings,

no matter who's getting married.


----------



## AmericanFirst (Feb 21, 2014)

Nyvin said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > TheOldSchool said:
> ...


Mistake to equate sexual preference with race, in fact, it is down right stupid.


----------



## ozro (Feb 21, 2014)

I own and operate a store in Arizona. 
I open when and if I determine I want to, not when I am 'told' to.
I own the store, which is private property...I own it. 
I open the store at MY will, not at the will of the 'public'.(that is because I own it)
You may visit my store, remember it is private property, and I can serve you or not. It is my choice, because I own the store.
I can refuse to serve you for any reason, including because you are dispruptive, scare my other customers, or simply because you look like your a gay activist. I can call the darn cops and have you removed if you won't go.
Do I routinely refuse to serve folks or toss them out? No, not as a routine, but I have thrown people out. I have had people arrested because they expressed this 'public business' BS.
that clear enough?


----------



## deltex1 (Feb 21, 2014)

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


Can't blame them...a hot dog in the hands of a gay man can be dangerous...especially the foot long.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 21, 2014)

ozro said:


> I own and operate a store in Arizona.
> I open when and if I determine I want to, not when I am 'told' to.
> I own the store, which is private property...I own it.
> I open the store at MY will, not at the will of the 'public'.(that is because I own it)
> ...




Gay's aren't protected by Arizona's Public Accommodation laws.

However tell a black person, in front of neutral witnesses, that you don't serve blacks, or a Jewish person that you don't serve Jews.  But race and religion are protected under Arizona's Public Accommodation laws and and repeat the same line to the Judge whose can issue a fine or revoke your business license.


Just say'n...

.................Easy to talk big on a anonymous message board.




Should you be able to do that? Absolutely, but that isn't the law in Arizona.


>>>>


----------



## ozro (Feb 21, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> > I own and operate a store in Arizona.
> ...



I have never, ever refused service based on anything more than in-my-store-behavior. I have no idea if it is legal to refuse to serve based on race, it wouldn't be the smartest thing to do.

However, I have tossed several people out through the years, white, black, hispanic....the cops always take them if i call them. The smart ones go before that happens.

Again, I own it. I can and do operate as i see fit. My business license will not be revoked as long as I pay my sales tax. Maybe in the "peoples republics" (the eastern states) a business can be told how to operate, but here it is on me to decide.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 21, 2014)

ozro said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > ozro said:
> ...



Didn't say you did.



ozro said:


> I have no idea if it is legal to refuse to serve based on race, it wouldn't be the smartest thing to do.



It is (illegal that is), I linked to the law earlier in the thread.  As a responsible business owner you might want to go and read it.



ozro said:


> However, I have tossed several people out through the years, white, black, hispanic....the cops always take them if i call them. The smart ones go before that happens.



Nothing wrong with having to toss people when the need arrises.

However if you toss them out BECAUSE they are white, black, or hispanic - then you have violated the law.



ozro said:


> Again, I own it. I can and do operate as i see fit. My business license will not be revoked as long as I pay my sales tax. Maybe in the "peoples republics" (the eastern states) a business can be told how to operate, but here it is on me to decide.



:SHRUG:

Believe as you wish.  Elaine Photography probably thought the same thing in New Mexico - they lost.

Not only did they lose in lower courts organizations defended them.  It went all the way to the New Mexico Supreme court who upheld costs against the photography company of over $6,000.

BTW - Do you think that New Mexico is one of those "peoples republics" (the eastern states)?  I mean, I know New Mexico is to the east of Arizona, but it's not that far east.



>>>>


----------



## ozro (Feb 21, 2014)

new mexico is more like a 'peoples republic' than az. I can believe it in NM.

Look you fascists, if you wanna determine how MY store is operated, it is very simple. 
Give ME $395,000.00 and the store becomes yours to do with as you wish.
Otherwise, respect my private property as I respect yours.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 21, 2014)

ozro said:


> new mexico is more like a 'peoples republic' than az. I can believe it in NM.
> 
> Look you fascists, if you wanna determine how MY store is operated, it is very simple.
> Give ME $395,000.00 and the store becomes yours to do with as you wish.
> Otherwise, respect my private property as I respect yours.




I think Public Accommodation laws should be repealed as they (IMHO) violate the property rights and free association rights of the property owner and the ability to conduct business of their personal property and their labor in a manner they choose.

However, my opinion of the what the law should be and the reality of what the law is are two different things.  If you really are a business owner learning the difference might be something for you to explore.


BTW - I've been called many things in my military career and since, but "fascist" has never been one.

>>>>


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 21, 2014)

The ruling in Elaine Photography was the correct one.  If Elaine had not advertised wedding photography she could have tossed them out on their asses.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 21, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



Well, to be fair, there are religions that require certain modes of dress.  It is also very possible for people dressed in the costumes of their native countries to be assumed to belong to the dominant religion of that country, whether they are or not.


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 21, 2014)

If you go into a Sizzle and demand halal steak you will be discriminated against.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 21, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> I am hoping lots of gay men frequent these places and act straight until the check comes, then tip well and let them know they served gays.



I am hoping you figure out how many people don't actually give a shit, because this exaggerated sense of persecution is getting old.

Also, would you like to explain to me why it's perfectly okay to you for one group to get up in another's and be offensive, but it's not okay for the second group to return the favor?  Why has it been okay for the gay activists to be "here, queer, and IN YOUR FACE!" in service of "raising public awareness" or whatever the fuck they think they're doing, but when it brings the inevitable backlash of people objecting, THAT is unacceptably offensive, and requires . . . even more in-your-face offensiveness in response.

What's wrong with just living and letting live?  Why do you HAVE to make people do business with you and tolerate you and approve of you if they don't want to?  You certainly seem outraged by the idea that YOU should be tolerant of THEM.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 21, 2014)

hazlnut said:


> Some much for "love the sinner and only hate the sin".
> 
> These people are all about hate, hate, hate across the board.
> 
> ...



And you are qualified in what way to tell Christians how to practice their faith, Billy Graham?  Who are you again, that you erroneously believe the world is waiting with baited breath for you to share your "wisdom" on religion?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 21, 2014)

N8dizzle said:


> Why are people so determined to force their beliefs on others. Why does it matter if someone has a different religion, sexual orientation, race, or shoe size?
> 
> What religion says that you can't allow certain people in your store? It's not like a gay person is going to go into someone's store and try to force the owner to do some gay sacrilegious act.
> 
> ...



Really?  You're really unaware of gay activists targeting businesses with lawsuits for refusing to participate in their wedding ceremonies?  What rock have you been hiding under, son?  And why are you wasting space in a thread about a topic you haven't bothered to be informed on?  Get out, get educated, and then come back.


----------



## Missouri_Mike (Feb 21, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> The ruling in Elaine Photography was the correct one.  If Elaine had not advertised wedding photography she could have tossed them out on their asses.



Remember back in the day... all the homo's wanted was equal treatment under the law. Weren't going to infringe on any religions or force people to do anything. They just wanted legal standing as a couple like anyone else. You know, things like taxes and visitation in hospitals, just those kind of things. 

Fast forward about two years and now the same arguments we made then are coming true. They don't want equality they want special treatment your religion or feelings be damned. Equality isn't good enough, you WILL accomodate us as special people or else! F*ck your religion! F*ck your conscience! Bake me a cake or I will sue you!

Is making a business owner make you something very far from forcing the Catholic church to perform your scam of a marriage ceremony? Really? If your religious freedom is trumped by the homo agenda in business what's to keep them from going after your ceremonies? It's not far fetched at all to think there will be a lawsuit against a church very soon for not holding a gay wedding reception in their building. Not that the gays care but they can put that stick in your eye as a church member and they will do it for a sense of self rightious revenge and just to be assholes.

Just like I knew they would do.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 21, 2014)

hangover said:


> > Reload this Page Arizona Senate Passes Bill Allowing Business Owners To Refuse Service To Gays
> 
> 
> 
> No different than refusing to serve blacks. I love it when cons expose their bigotry and hate for everyone to see. It makes it so easy for liberals to win elections.



Is it really beyond you to comprehend defending something because it's the right thing to do, not because you personally agree with or benefit from it?  Are you really that self-absorbed?

Never mind.  You're a leftist, so of course you are.  Forget I asked.

Q:  Why do leftists have trouble comprehending standing up for a principle?

A:  Because leftists have no principles.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 21, 2014)

pvsi said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > I think another state passed something similar to this last week so this must be a trend that is catching on. I agree with this bill that if you are a business owner and believe in and live by your faith that you should be able to refuse service to whoever you want.
> ...



How do you know they were Republicans?  Did you see them doing it, wearing GOP lapel buttons?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 21, 2014)

N8dizzle said:


> The store owner that refuses service is doing something that negatively effects someone else.
> 
> They are making someone's life harder just to be hateful.
> 
> ...



Sorry, but that's not how it works.  You do not have any legal right to have your entire life be pleasant and positive.  Nor do you have a right to force people to associate with you, simply because you want them to.

We are also not really talking about gay people "buying something".  Do you really imagine the scenario this law addresses is the Safeway making its customers fill out a lifestyle questionnaire before letting them grocery shop?

And finally, shockingly, my choice about how I exercise my rights is not dependent on YOU approving of it or thinking it "benefits" someone.  Please, PLEASE try to understand how monstrous it truly is to try to legislate utopia with that gormless expression on your face while you say, "What?  This is how things SHOULD be, so why not make it illegal to be different?"


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 21, 2014)

dblack said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



Good question.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 21, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> They'll never get it past Title 9.
> 
> Besides, how the hell would anyone know who is, or isn't gay?



Well, how did they know in the cases which actually sparked this law, the photographer who was sued in New Mexico and the baker who was put out of business in Oregon?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 21, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



Where did you get your prostitution license?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 21, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



In other words, they wear a sign, or people are idiots. 

I have never been denied service because of my religion, nor have I ever heard of anyone being denied because of their religion unless the government stepped in and required people to do it.


----------



## Missouri_Mike (Feb 21, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



The only time religion comes into a business deal is when one party inserts it. And make no bones about it homosexuality is a cult that will impose it's will on you no matter what. They want the religion of gay to trump your religion in all circumstances.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 21, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Katz, maybe people just don't feel like they should have to go to those lengths to exercise their First Amendment rights.  And they're correct; they shouldn't have to.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 21, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> If Jones doesn't veto this, Arizona, the number 2 working class state in the US will become a blue state. Another Republican duct tape fail.



Who the Hell is Jones?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 21, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...



I don't believe businesses are generally licensed by the state, as a matter of fact.  They're usually licensed by the municipality.  I know mine have always come from the City of Tucson, not the State of Arizona.


----------



## N8dizzle (Feb 21, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> N8dizzle said:
> 
> 
> > Why are people so determined to force their beliefs on others. Why does it matter if someone has a different religion, sexual orientation, race, or shoe size?
> ...



Lol. I wrote nothing that would imply that I haven't heard of these suits. 
Maybe you should actually read a post before responding to it.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 21, 2014)

bendog said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > R.D. said:
> ...



Or just leave them the fuck alone and let them nasty away on their own.  Why do you think you need to change people?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 21, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



Prostitution isn't a business.  It's an illegal enterprise.

An escort service, on the other hand, is licensed through the municipality, like any other business.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 21, 2014)

N8dizzle said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > N8dizzle said:
> ...



"LOL"  Everything you wrote implied it.  Maybe you should actually read a post before you post it.

Please go be a dumbfuck somewhere else.  We're already at capacity.


----------



## Missouri_Mike (Feb 21, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



That's the thing right there. The gays are telling us we can't survive without being a gay friendly business. Yet they need to force people to provide services when the real reaction should be to open a business of your own catering to gays.

If they are correct then the gay business will flourish and the other will fail. Just like in any free market. I suspect they know that not serving gays a wedding cake isn't going to hurt a bakery at all and one that caters to gays won't have the revenue to stay open. That's why they need to force people to bake for them or they will have nothing.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 21, 2014)

AzMike said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > bendog said:
> ...



Actually, I'm pretty sure their agenda has nothing to do with business whatsoever.


----------



## N8dizzle (Feb 21, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> N8dizzle said:
> 
> 
> > The store owner that refuses service is doing something that negatively effects someone else.
> ...



I'm not saying that anyone has the legal right for their whole life to be pleasant or positive.  But we as human beings should strive to make this world as fair and just as possible for everyone. 
We don't all have to agree about religion or sexual orientation to live in this world together. What we should all agree on though, is that everyone deserves a fair shot at being happy. 
Why are some people so determined to make other people miserable? 
I know that you don't need my approval in how you live your life, but I am entitled to an opinion just like you. 
And common sense should tell you that ALL laws are made in an attempt to benefit society. 



Sent from my SPH-D710 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 21, 2014)

N8dizzle said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > N8dizzle said:
> ...



Does anyone include the people who don't want to show up at a gay wedding? Or does it only include idiots who announce they use have Verizon as their carrier on every post?


----------



## Plasmaball (Feb 21, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



walmart, they have everything


----------



## Plasmaball (Feb 21, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



no you didnt.


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 21, 2014)

No one has a problem with gays coming into a business and getting served.  It's when guys say you must come to my house whether you want to or not that causes the problem.


----------



## rdean (Feb 21, 2014)

Hilarious that they same time this thread is making the rounds, there's another one called:

Death To Gays.


----------



## blackhawk (Feb 21, 2014)

If one has sincerely held religious beliefs should they be forced to do something that goes against them?


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 21, 2014)

Plasmaball said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



I surely did.  Got it knocked out on a summary judgment.   They could not prove that I was in the business of painting portraits.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 21, 2014)

N8dizzle said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > N8dizzle said:
> ...



Do you know that when leftist halfwits start throwing around words like "should" and "fair", it gives me a cold chill down my spine?  It always means "Brave New World" is right around the corner.

"Fair" is a kindergarten word, with no objective meaning and thrown around by the immature and simpleminded and naive to basically mean "the world the way I want it to be".  You don't think it's "fair" that gay people can't be viewed the way they want to be by everyone.  Can you understand why other people might think it's not "fair" to have YOU trying to force them to view gay people the way they want to be viewed?
As for "just", how is it just for you to swish in and say, "Your beliefs are wrong, and therefore you have no right to believe them?  You must switch over to my beliefs, because they are much better and more moral"?



N8dizzle said:


> We don't all have to agree about religion or sexual orientation to live in this world together. What we should all agree on though, is that everyone deserves a fair shot at being happy.



There goes that cold chill again.

There's a big difference between the pursuit of happiness and the bludgeoning of others into complying with your happiness.



N8dizzle said:


> Why are some people so determined to make other people miserable?



I don't know.  Why are you?




N8dizzle said:


> I know that you don't need my approval in how you live your life, but I am entitled to an opinion just like you.



Sure you are.  What you are NOT entitled to is the right to make me care about your opinion, or share your opinion, or keep my mouth shut and pretend I agree with your opinion.



N8dizzle said:


> And common sense should tell you that ALL laws are made in an attempt to benefit society.



Quite true.  Now if you could just wrap your brain around the fact that "benefit society" is not defined as "What N8dizzle thinks is best, because he's so damned much smarter and morally superior to everyone else".  This isn't an argument about benefitting society (aka conforming to your personal wisdom) and damaging society (aka disagreeing with your personal wisdom).  It's an argument between your PERSONAL OPINION about what benefits society and OTHER PEOPLE'S PERSONAL OPINIONS about what benefits society.

Just because you don't think the freedom to exercise beliefs and choose associations is as important as "being nice" doesn't mean that's the one universal truth here.


----------



## Plasmaball (Feb 21, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



no you didnt


----------



## rdean (Feb 21, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Are you saying you lied under oath?


----------



## Political Junky (Feb 21, 2014)

Arizona appears more Southern than the Deep South.


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 21, 2014)

rdean said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Plasmaball said:
> ...




I didn't need to.  They brought the case.  A summary judgment means that everything the plaintiff said is true.  And there is still no cause of action.  In my case they could not prove that I was in the business of painting portraits or anything else either.  They sued my business too.   They proved my business was dog grooming but they didn't own a dog so that got tossed right away.  I had a tremendous amount of fun with them and their gay lawyer too.


----------



## Missouri_Mike (Feb 21, 2014)

Political Junky said:


> Arizona appears more Southern than the Deep South.



Please point out where Arizona is making a law that requires segregation. The law simply states people have rights to provide services. Says nothing about how they must not provide.

Be as gay as you want, the law simply insures you can't infringe on someone who doesn't want to participate in it.


----------



## N8dizzle (Feb 21, 2014)

Thier job was to take pictures. Their point of view on gay marriage was irrelevant. I'm sure they weren't trying to get them to do anything "gay."
It would be like refusing to take pictures of an overweight kid because you don't agree with overeating. 
It was just a good opportunity for someone to try to ruin someone elses day. Kind of like you calling people idiots.

Lol. And I have Sprint. 

Sent from my SPH-D710 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 22, 2014)

The photographer who refused to take the wedding pictures was happy to take studio photographs.  What she refused to do was attend the wedding itself.  So it was more than just taking a few pictures.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 22, 2014)

N8dizzle said:


> Thier job was to take pictures. Their point of view on gay marriage was irrelevant. I'm sure they weren't trying to get them to do anything "gay."
> It would be like refusing to take pictures of an overweight kid because you don't agree with overeating.
> It was just a good opportunity for someone to try to ruin someone elses day. Kind of like you calling people idiots.
> 
> ...



Damn, you are one stupid fuck, aren't you?


----------



## Billy000 (Feb 22, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> I think another state passed something similar to this last week so this must be a trend that is catching on. I agree with this bill that if you are a business owner and believe in and live by your faith that you should be able to refuse service to whoever you want.
> 
> 
> Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays
> Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays



You know you are one of those bigots that hide behind the Christian faith as an excuse. This isn't about religion for you. You just hate gay people. You are too immature to not give a shit what people different from you do behind closed doors.


----------



## auditor0007 (Feb 22, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> I think another state passed something similar to this last week so this must be a trend that is catching on. I agree with this bill that if you are a business owner and believe in and live by your faith that you should be able to refuse service to whoever you want.
> 
> 
> Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays
> Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays


----------



## Noomi (Feb 22, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> I think another state passed something similar to this last week so this must be a trend that is catching on. I agree with this bill that if you are a business owner and believe in and live by your faith that you should be able to refuse service to whoever you want.
> 
> 
> Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays
> Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays



You are welcome to let everyone know you are a homophobic knob, yes.


----------



## Camp (Feb 22, 2014)

This law will effect members of the United States military, in or out of uniform. The idea that a member serving in the military would be refused service because of the whim or so called "belief" of one of the random citizens of a particular state is simply unacceptable and repugnant. If a state, Arizona, in this case wants to have such a law, the United States and it's military should take immediate steps to protect it's personel from any kind of discrimination, abuse, unfairness or inconvenience this will create. Military personel should be removed from the state to a state that honors the policies of the the military and US Government in regards to fair treatment of it's personel.
Start to empty and shut down the bases. Watch how quickly the bigots get thrown under the bus by the rest of the population.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Feb 22, 2014)

Noomi said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > I think another state passed something similar to this last week so this must be a trend that is catching on. I agree with this bill that if you are a business owner and believe in and live by your faith that you should be able to refuse service to whoever you want.
> ...



What's more intolerant, allowing the business owner to serve gays of their own volition, or forcing them to serve gays against their will and against their beliefs? You tell me, milady. Methinks it is extremely intolerant and hypocritical to demand tolerance of your own lifestyle from someone else, whilst not showing willingness to tolerate theirs.

All boils down to a matter of respect, not entitlement.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 22, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Steve_McGarrett said:
> ...



Sometimes rights are a zero sum game.

You grant gays the right to be treated like everyone else, aka equality, but in order to do so, you have to deny certain people their claim to a right to discriminate.

Ask yourself, which of the above most closely reflects the letter and spirit of our Constitution?

The right to equality, or the right to discriminate?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 22, 2014)

Clementine said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > I think another state passed something similar to this last week so this must be a trend that is catching on. I agree with this bill that if you are a business owner and believe in and live by your faith that you should be able to refuse service to whoever you want.
> ...



That's irrelevant.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Feb 22, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



A red herring all of it.

There is no such time where rights are a "zero sum game." To apply an economic theory to the attainment of rights is a misnomer. And pretty stupid.

We will grant gays the right to be treated like everyone else, when they also grant that same respect to those who don't approve of their lifestyle. See what I mean? What good is it to use the constitution to deny one person their rights to give someone else theirs?

So, what is more in line with the spirit and letter of the Constitution? The freedom to serve who you want, when  you want and according to your beliefs? Or the tyranny of being forced to serve everyone, against your beliefs?

Since when should man have to sacrifice his own held beliefs for a collective minority whose lifestyles fly in the face of his faith? You haven't the slightest clue, carbine. No amount of bloviating from you will change that.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Feb 22, 2014)

Think of it this way:

Your rights end where someone else's begins. In essence, your right to be treated equally as a homosexual ends when it infringes on the religious rights of someone else. Or when you force them to treat you preferentially, despite their religiously held beliefs.

Very rudimentary concept.


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 22, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> > Steve_McGarrett said:
> ...



That is correct. In the realm of public accommodation laws, it is irrelevant.


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 22, 2014)

The Constitutionality of Public Accommodation laws has already been determined by the SCOTUS in  _Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States_

But don't worry, the SCOTUS could change their minds and a case is on the way.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 22, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



If a black man wants to eat in a certain restaurant, and the restaurant owner doesn't want to serve blacks,

how do you resolve that issue if you don't deny of those parties their claim to a particular right?

Answer that, or admit that I was absolutely correct that rights issues are sometimes a zero sum game.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 22, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> Think of it this way:
> 
> Your rights end where someone else's begins. In essence, your right to be treated equally as a homosexual ends when it infringes on the religious rights of someone else. Or when you force them to treat you preferentially, despite their religiously held beliefs.
> 
> Very rudimentary concept.



Why didn't you say, your religious rights end when they infringe on the civil rights of a homosexual?


----------



## dblack (Feb 22, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Think of it this way:
> ...



Equal rights is a concept that applies to government, not general society. We've become confused about this issue.


----------



## R.D. (Feb 22, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> They'll never get it past Title 9.
> 
> Besides, how the hell would anyone know who is, or isn't gay?



Again, in the case where the customer wishes for a service revolving around the relationship

If some guy walked into a florist and asked the owner to send flowers to his young mistresses, knowing he is married the owner might refuse.   We would never know because the guy just goes to another florist and not make a nation scene.

(That's happened btw )


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 22, 2014)

OnePercenter said:


> Which business doesn't need a license? Prove it, or shut it....


If you could read you'd know. It depends on the location and type. I am not being paid to tutor you nor do you have any authority over me. Feel free to be ignorant, it's not my problem.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 22, 2014)

dblack said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



I have no idea what you're trying to say.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 22, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> Think of it this way:
> 
> Your rights end where someone else's begins. In essence, your right to be treated equally as a homosexual ends when it infringes on the religious rights of someone else. Or when you force them to treat you preferentially, despite their religiously held beliefs.
> 
> Very rudimentary concept.



So your right to own a gun ends when it infringes upon the rights of others to be safe from mentally ill people obtaining guns?


----------



## dblack (Feb 22, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



I know. That's the problem.

The irony of it all is, as we continue with the delusional attempt to force everyone to treat each other equally, government becomes more and more discriminatory. This isn't a coincidence. If you task the government with trying to enforce equal rights in a social context, you must create a policy that treats people decidedly unequally. You can't have both equal rights under the law and the sort of social justice that liberals yearn for.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 22, 2014)

dblack said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...





This is an instance where the state government is deliberately enacting discrimination. What is even worse is that it is violating the constitution by endorsing religion. That is specifically proscribed by the 1st amendment.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 22, 2014)

dblack said:


> I know. That's the problem.
> 
> The irony of it all is, as we continue with the delusional attempt to force everyone to treat each other equally, government becomes more and more discriminatory. This isn't a coincidence. If you task the government with trying to enforce equal rights in a social context, you must create a policy that treats people decidedly unequally. You can have equal rights under the law and the sort of social justice that liberals yearn for.


Yep. What it boils down to is what the activists want is their point of view enforced. You are not entitled to a differing perspective, that's considered hate and intolerance. 

We are headed in the direction Canada took years ago. Here's a few examples:

CULTURE NEWS: Canada: Pastor Found Guilty of Hate Crime
Canada: Pastor Found Guilty of Hate Crime
Five years ago in Alberta, Canada, a former pastor and head of a Christian organization, Stephen Boissoin, sent a letter to a local paper on the issue of sexual orientation. Two weeks later a gay teen was beaten up, and the pastor, and the pastor was charged with violating human rights law because the letter likely exposed gays to hatred and contempt - despite the fact that he had never advocated violence of any sort in his letter or otherwise.

UPDATE 3/18/13: Supremes Rule Bible as 'Hate Speech' in Canada

UPDATE 1/11/14: Preacher Arrested for Talking of Sexual Sin

UPDATE 12/10/09: Famous Canadian Hate Speech Ruling Reversed

UPDATE 6/11/08: Government Bans Pastor from Speaking Against Homosexuality


----------



## dblack (Feb 22, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



This isn't a freedom of religion issue. It's a freedom of association issue, which is much broader and actually encompasses freedom of religion. But I'd oppose this law, if I lived in Arizona, because I agree with your assessment that it's a mis-application of the first amendment.


----------



## dblack (Feb 22, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > I know. That's the problem.
> ...



I just they would recognize what's happening. Equal protection under the law is much more important than being treated equally by fellow citizens, and we're trading in the former for the latter.


----------



## hangover (Feb 22, 2014)

If it passes it will be overturned by the SCOTUS, because it opens the Civil War can of worms.

"It's against my religion to serve blacks, women, the military, liberals, cons, or anyone that doesn't believe the way I do."

It's just more of the GOP attempt to divide the U.S.. They really do hate their own country.


----------



## WinterBorn (Feb 22, 2014)

Weren't quite a few conservatives raising hell about Muslims refusing to transport people in their cabs if they were carrying alcohol?


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 22, 2014)

dblack said:


> I just they would recognize what's happening. Equal protection under the law is much more important than being treated equally by fellow citizens, and we're trading in the former for the latter.


Apparently, some people are more equal than others.


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 22, 2014)

If a persons religion opposes war, is it OK to refuse service to soldiers in Arizona?


----------



## dblack (Feb 22, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> Weren't quite a few conservatives raising hell about Muslims refusing to transport people in their cabs if they were carrying alcohol?



Yep. Hypocrisy abounds.


----------



## Wildman (Feb 22, 2014)

aaaah !! the Great State of Arizona !! i love it !! 

IF i owned a non franchised restaurant business here that serves the public and a black chinese-mexican muslime liberal homo come in and started exposing his/her ideals, i would kick the qweer bastard/bitch out on their ass   .... 

OTH.., if that same person came in sat down and made their order and kept their personal and political views and ideals to their self, i would have no problem with that customer at all 

*THANK YOU ARIZONA !!*


----------



## Wildman (Feb 22, 2014)

*



			Muslims refusing to transport people in their cabs if they were carrying alcohol?
		
Click to expand...

*
or their dog.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 22, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> Weren't quite a few conservatives raising hell about Muslims refusing to transport people in their cabs if they were carrying alcohol?




Yep.

Muslim cab drivers lose round in court | Minnesota Public Radio News


>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 22, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> If a persons religion opposes war, is it OK to refuse service to soldiers in Arizona?




Yes.

Although it might be difficult to tell if they are not in uniform.

>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 22, 2014)

Wildman said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> ...




That also, they even refused service dogs for the blind and disabled.



>>>>


----------



## AceRothstein (Feb 22, 2014)

If Jesus were alive today, he'd side with the gays because of how the so-called Christians treat them.


----------



## Nova78 (Feb 22, 2014)

Judge orders Colorado baker to serve gay couples - NBC News
The order from administrative law judge Robert N. Spencer said Masterpiece Cakeshop in suburban Denver discriminated against a couple "because of their sexual orientation by refusing to sell them a wedding cake for their same-sex marriage." 

The order says the cake-maker must "cease and desist from discriminating" against gay couples. Although the judge did not impose fines in this case, the business will face penalties if it continues to turn away gay couples who want to buy cakes. 

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a complaint against shop owner Jack Phillips with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission last year on behalf of Charlie Craig, 33, and David Mullins, 29. The couple was married in Massachusetts and wanted a wedding cake to celebrate in Colorado. 

*Nicolle Martin, an attorney for Masterpiece Cakeshop, said the judge's order puts Phillips in an impossible position of going against his Christian faith. *"He can't violate his conscience in order to collect a paycheck," she said. "If Jack can't make wedding cakes, he can't continue to support his family. And in order to make wedding cakes, Jack must violate his belief system. That is a reprehensible choice. It is antithetical to everything America stands for." 

The Civil Rights Commission is expected to certify the judge's order next week. Phillips can appeal the judge's order, and Martin said they're considering their next steps.


----------



## Immanuel (Feb 22, 2014)

AceRothstein said:


> If Jesus were alive today, he'd side with the gays because of how the so-called Christians treat them.



Actually, I don't think that would be the reason, but I agree with you as to whose side he would take.  As he stated, paraphrased, the healthy do not need a doctor, the sick do.  He came to save the sinner not the "righteous". 

He also took the side of the prostitute, when the crowd, many of whom may have used her services, wanted to stone her.

And just for the record, I do not consider the gay community to be more sinful than myself or any of those who condemn them.


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 22, 2014)

Immanuel said:


> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> > If Jesus were alive today, he'd side with the gays because of how the so-called Christians treat them.
> ...



Jesus did side with the prostitute, but he told her to go and sin no more.   She stopped being a prostitute.  Jesus would most certainly side with the gays, but they would have to stop engaging in homosexual behavior to be saved.  Jesus never told the crowd that they had to accept prostitution as a legitimate method of making money nor urge the crowd to teach their children that prostitution was okay and their children should be prostitutes.


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 22, 2014)

Nova78 said:


> Judge orders Colorado baker to serve gay couples - NBC News
> The order from administrative law judge Robert N. Spencer said Masterpiece Cakeshop in suburban Denver discriminated against a couple "because of their sexual orientation by refusing to sell them a wedding cake for their same-sex marriage."
> 
> The order says the cake-maker must "cease and desist from discriminating" against gay couples. Although the judge did not impose fines in this case, the business will face penalties if it continues to turn away gay couples who want to buy cakes.
> ...



It can't be true that Jack can't support his family unless he makes wedding cakes.   Bake something else.   If all he made was wedding cakes, he wasn't making a living anyway.   There is no doubt that Masterpiece Bakery had other baked goods to sell.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 22, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> It can't be true that Jack can't support his family unless he makes wedding cakes.   Bake something else.   If all he made was wedding cakes, he wasn't making a living anyway.   There is no doubt that Masterpiece Bakery had other baked goods to sell.


Ever bought a wedding cake?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 22, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > AceRothstein said:
> ...



How do you know that Jesus and/or the disciples were not gay themselves? Jesus never uttered a single word against homosexuality. Being gay is not a sin, it is simply taking the concept of loving your fellow man literally.  OTOH hating gays is most definitely a sin since it flies in the face of Jesus telling you to love one another.


----------



## KNB (Feb 22, 2014)

Unless his store specifically advertises as a wedding cake bakery.

Arizona has always sucked.  How can there be white racists in a state named ARIZONA?  Do they even know the history of their own state?  Why don't all of the white sexist racist Christian assholes who seem to dominate Arizona vote to change the name to something white?  Like "Reagan" or "Jesus Land".

There's an idea for sexist, racist, homophobic jackass Republican Teabaggers.  All of the stupid white Conservative Christians in red states need to vote in solidarity to change their states' names from anything French or Spanish or Indian, because after all, English is God's Language.


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 22, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > It can't be true that Jack can't support his family unless he makes wedding cakes.   Bake something else.   If all he made was wedding cakes, he wasn't making a living anyway.   There is no doubt that Masterpiece Bakery had other baked goods to sell.
> ...



Nope.  But I know several bakeries that don't sell wedding cakes at all.    Paris Bakery in Westwood used to make wedding cakes.  Then it was bought out by muslims who refused to make wedding cakes for Christian weddings.  They just stopped making wedding cakes.  They make everything else.   Friends of mine got a cake from there for their wedding.  It was a beautiful cake, covered in delicate flowers, but it wasn't a "wedding" cake.  It was just a highly decorated cake you could off the shelf.    Paris Bakery does a huge business without wedding cakes.


----------



## Immanuel (Feb 22, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > AceRothstein said:
> ...



I would agree with most of this.  Where I *hope* you are wrong is in the requirement that they, they being all sinners including me, sin no more to be saved.  Because as much as I would like to, I cannot figure out how to stop sinning.  If I were able to I would.  But if I am unable to and it is a requirement that I do, then I am condemned to eternity in Hell from the very beginning.  I cannot stop sinning.  And my continued attitude towards Progressives on this board is proof of that.

My only plea is upon the Grace of God granted through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

That being the case, I pray that due to the mercy of the almighty, that same Grace is extended to members of the Gay Community.

PS when or if you have figured out how to cease sinning, I welcome you as my tutor.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 22, 2014)

dblack said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Wrong.  Your government gives everyone the same protected rights on the one hand, but on the other hand, subjects everyone with the same limitations on those rights.

Where's the injustice?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 22, 2014)

As already correctly noted, this law would have the unintended consequence of allowing discrimination with regard to all religious beliefs, including those who belong to certain social organizations perceived as offensive to any number of religious doctrines. 

This law was poorly considered and written, and should be vetoed for that reason alone.


----------



## rdean (Feb 22, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



You didn't NEED to?  So you were going to?  You were going to lie under oath after swearing to God?

You misled someone, clearly.  Did those gays?  Seems they were the honest ones.  I would trust them more than you.  The question becomes, "What kind of person are you?"


----------



## dblack (Feb 22, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



I'm afraid I'm as confounded with your logic as you (apparently) are with mine. I can make no sense of this.


----------



## AmericanFirst (Feb 22, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...


Easy, as a Christian I believe the whole Bible as Gods word. Leviticus says that homosexuality is a sin punishable by death. Jesus spoke against all sin including sexual immorality which homosexuality is. Saying Jesus never spoke against homosexuality is a lame excuse to defend the sick sin of gay. Gay is SICK>


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 22, 2014)

Political Junky said:


> Arizona appears more Southern than the Deep South.



You appear more ignorant than you were yesterday.  Seems my perceptions are more accurate than yours.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 22, 2014)

dblack said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



This makes no sense. 

No one is attempting to force everyone to treat each other equally, and government discrimination results as a consequence of the people acting in a manner offensive to the Constitution and its case law, motivated by fear, ignorance, or hatred. 

In fact, government lacks the authority to force everyone to treat each other equally.

Moreover, liberals dont yearn for social justice, whatever that means. 

Your position is obviously predicated on the incorrect perception that advocates of comprehensive civil rights are some sort of naïve do-gooders who want to create Kumbaya Nation. 

Nothing could be further from the truth. 

Here is how our Constitutional Republic works with regard to the governments relationship to citizens civil liberties: 

All persons in the United States possess inalienable rights, they manifest as a consequence of our humanity, and are acknowledged and codified by the Constitution and its case law. 

Although inalienable our rights are not absolute, and are subject to reasonable restrictions by government pursuant to a rational motive, objective, documented evidence, and a proper legislative end. 

When government seeks to curtail our civil liberties, therefore, the state must meet a very heavy burden to justify that curtailment, and failing to do so, such efforts by the state are invalidated by the courts as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review. 

Equality, then, is the consistent, rational, and legitimate application of the states authority to all persons as it seeks to govern, prohibiting government from unwarranted violations of civil liberties predicated on subjective animus toward a particular class of persons, such as gay Americans in this case. 

This has nothing to do with wishing to make everyone equal, as the notion is nonsense and has nothing to do with the civil liberties of gay Americans and the states unwarranted efforts to violate those civil liberties.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 22, 2014)

auditor0007 said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > I think another state passed something similar to this last week so this must be a trend that is catching on. I agree with this bill that if you are a business owner and believe in and live by your faith that you should be able to refuse service to whoever you want.
> ...



This is why I hope this latest PC brouhaha keeps dimwit leftists from visiting the state.  As you can see, we already have enough of our own.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 22, 2014)

AmericanFirst said:


> Easy, as a Christian I believe the whole Bible as Gods word. Leviticus says that homosexuality is a sin punishable by death. Jesus spoke against all sin including sexual immorality which homosexuality is. Saying Jesus never spoke against homosexuality is a lame excuse to defend the sick sin of gay. Gay is SICK>



I think it's foolish and counterproductive to say you believe every word of the Bible literally.  Because your opponents will manipulate that statement to mean all of the Bible can be rendered into not eating pork products...'silly'.  

A distinction is needed between old outdated laws and customs, venial sins of that sort and the clear and distinct mortal sins that come with the direst of warnings.  Jude 1 contains such a mandate against a culture of homosexuality taking over...most particularly a warning to those 'faithful' who stand by and do nothing as it happens.  The Pit of Fire awaits those who do nothing to "earnestly contend" for the "common salvation"..

I didn't write the book, but I think I know the reasoning behind why it is so adamant about that one point on homosexuality.

If you accept that the world is here to test souls, to temper them and to bring those souls heavenward or hellbound, depending on their performance, blending the matrix these souls are tested in would be among the top ten deadliest sins.  And that sin would be tampering with the matrix.

If you talk to liberals about if they support diversity, they instantly say 'yes'.  Ask them about cultural diversity across the world and should it be preserved at all costs.  They will say "yes, it helps people learn about differences and stimulates growth and change in the observer of a different culture.

Then you ask them if they believe this same theory should be applied to the sexes.  ie: should there be different standards for males vs females.  Then the answer is "no".  Yet males and females are different, it is genetic and their differences cause each other's genderless spirit to grow from a standpoint of observation and interaction with each other.

Gays make the mistake of thinking that because a spirit they like is born in the same gender, they then should have sex with it.  This is wrong.  For how will spirits of affinity ever learn to just love each other solely as friends?  This and many other lessons born from the distinct male/distinct female matrix are dissolved when homosexuality demands to be not just accepted, but eventually as in Sodom, the norm.  If you don't believe me that this is the end game, just study Ancient Greece or for a more contemporary admission:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/341681-white-cis-male-gay-privilege.html

Random sin is bad, like murder, rape etc  But to incorporate a mortal sin as a cultural value stands to harm the most people over time than any individual sin ever could dream to do.  So this is why I understand Jude 1 and why christians MUST abide.  To not do so is to commit the unthinkable crime: tampering with God's plan in the most significant way possible.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 22, 2014)

Camp said:


> This law will effect members of the United States military, in or out of uniform. The idea that a member serving in the military would be refused service because of the whim or so called "belief" of one of the random citizens of a particular state is simply unacceptable and repugnant. If a state, Arizona, in this case wants to have such a law, the United States and it's military should take immediate steps to protect it's personel from any kind of discrimination, abuse, unfairness or inconvenience this will create. Military personel should be removed from the state to a state that honors the policies of the the military and US Government in regards to fair treatment of it's personel.
> Start to empty and shut down the bases. Watch how quickly the bigots get thrown under the bus by the rest of the population.



Oh, good Lord.  Yet another "tug on the heartstrings so we can bypass the brains" _faux _reason why people should be forced into associations against their will.

I keep praying that the left will grow enough brain cells to differentiate between "this is a bad way to behave" and "thus, I must make it illegal for you to do it".  So far, it hasn't happened, and they still feel the compelling need to try legislate - or bully - their own personal "morality" onto everyone else.

When will you fools ever understand that your dictatorial, control-freak behavior is more repugnant than any personal expression of disagreeable opinions could ever be?


----------



## Sunshine (Feb 22, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> I think another state passed something similar to this last week so this must be a trend that is catching on. I agree with this bill that if you are a business owner and believe in and live by your faith that you should be able to refuse service to whoever you want.
> 
> 
> Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays
> Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays





> This article is about the conscience clause in medicine. For the conscience clause in the 19th century English educational system, see Conscience clause (education).
> 
> Conscience clauses are legal clauses attached to laws in some parts of the United States which permit pharmacists, physicians, and other providers of health care not to provide certain medical services for reasons of religion or conscience. In many cases, the clauses also permit health care providers to refuse to refer patients to unopposed providers. Those who choose not to refer or provide services may not be disciplined or discriminated against. The provision is most frequently enacted in connection with issues relating to reproduction, such as abortion, sterilization, contraception, and stem cell based treatments, but may include any phase of patient care.[1]



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscience_clause_(medical)

What's good for the doctor..........just sayin'.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 22, 2014)

dblack said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



You're claiming that government policies designed to improve equality actually contribute to inequality.

I don't agree.


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 22, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > This law will effect members of the United States military, in or out of uniform. The idea that a member serving in the military would be refused service because of the whim or so called "belief" of one of the random citizens of a particular state is simply unacceptable and repugnant. If a state, Arizona, in this case wants to have such a law, the United States and it's military should take immediate steps to protect it's personel from any kind of discrimination, abuse, unfairness or inconvenience this will create. Military personel should be removed from the state to a state that honors the policies of the the military and US Government in regards to fair treatment of it's personel.
> ...



Can you explain how this law could not be used to support refusing service to the military?
Would you support it?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 22, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Clementine said:
> ...



Ahh, the ever-popular "This should be legal because it's legal!" argument.  I always love it when leftists argue about what the law should be based on what it is at the moment.  It's so refreshing to be reminded just how fucking stupid they truly are.


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 22, 2014)

rdean said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



That's what YOU think because lying is something you would do to gain an advantage.  I didn't need to resort to lying.   It wasn't necessary.  They had no case to begin with.  I never misled anyone because I never led them at all.  They made an assumption that I was in the business of providing commissioned artwork.  They were wrong.   Not everyone who makes an erroneous assumption is misled.   They just dreamed it up on their own.   They assumed that because I exhibited my work at invitation that I was in the business of commissioned artwork.  I'm not.  Because I am not and never was, they could not prove that I "held myself out as a person engaged in the business of commissioned artist".   I don't need to lie about it.  It's just a fact.  However, this couple felt that because they were lesbians I would be FORCED to paint their portrait.   Their status as homosexuals entitles them to nothing.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 22, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Think of it this way:
> ...



I don't believe anyone's ever objected to preventing the mentally ill from obtaining guns.  In fact, if anything, it would be the LEFT that prevents that, with all their distracting blather about magazine sizes and "assault weapons" and their persistent ACLU actions on behalf of "the right not to be treated".


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 22, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



How do you figure that?  Does the law say people HAVE to discriminate against anyone?  I don't think so.  Nor is it "endorsing religion", insofar as it is protecting the rights of ALL religions to choose associations, not just one.


----------



## bodecea (Feb 22, 2014)

AmericanFirst said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



So you follow Leviticus completely, eh?


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 22, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Wrong.  Your government gives everyone the same protected rights on the one hand, but on the other hand, subjects everyone with the same limitations on those rights.
> 
> Where's the injustice?


The injustice is the requirement of the faithful to completely abandon core mandates of their faith.  The frivolous ones are one thing, but toying with the matrix itself is a grave, grave mortal sin.  You cannot force the faithful to violate their own souls at such a level that is unrecoverable.  I gave the example to AmericanFirst:



> AmericanFirst said:
> 
> 
> > Easy, as a Christian I believe the whole Bible as Gods word. Leviticus says that homosexuality is a sin punishable by death. Jesus spoke against all sin including sexual immorality which homosexuality is. Saying Jesus never spoke against homosexuality is a lame excuse to defend the sick sin of gay. Gay is SICK>
> ...


----------



## dblack (Feb 22, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



It's endorsing religions specifically by selecting which religious beliefs will be exempt from the law - because certainly not any view that someone claims is religious will qualify. It endorses religious views in general by giving them special status above and beyond secular convictions. Why should a religious person be allowed to discriminate against gays because they believe God told them to, but a secular person can't do likewise if they happen to think homosexuality is an affront to evolution?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 22, 2014)

dblack said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



How so?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 22, 2014)

hangover said:


> If it passes it will be overturned by the SCOTUS, because it opens the Civil War can of worms.
> 
> "It's against my religion to serve blacks, women, the military, liberals, cons, or anyone that doesn't believe the way I do."
> 
> It's just more of the GOP attempt to divide the U.S.. They really do hate their own country.



Only a leftist is dumb enough to think unity is something you force on people.


----------



## dblack (Feb 22, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Well, first, let me acknowledge that my take on this isn't mainstream. For the left, or the right. Probably not even for most libertarians. But in my view, the notion that the first amendment justifies ad hoc exemption from a law whenever it conflicts with a person's religious belief actually perverts the intent, causing it to inflict the very thing it was intended to prevent.

The point of the religion clause of the first amendment was to prevent government from dictating our religious beliefs, by preventing the state from both targeting religions for persecution, or endorsing particular faiths as 'state' authorized religion. I believe it was intended to ensure that religious people weren't denied freedom because of their religion. I don't believe it was intended to give them special perks - freedoms others don't enjoy - because of their religious beliefs. And that's the net result when we exempt compliance with a law on 'religious grounds'. It not only violates the basic concept of equal protection, it amounts to the state endorsing certain religious beliefs and spurning others. The exact opposite of the intent of the First.


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 22, 2014)

This is what I hate about Liberals. They can't make anything easy

You try to pass a simple law that says if you hate fags you don't have to serve them. Just put up a stinkn sign that say "We don't serve faggots" and you done

But NOoooooooo.......liberals have to screw everything up. You can't pass an antifaggot law so you have to make it open ended. So you pass a law that says if you have religious beliefs you can't be forced to do business with anyone who your religion opposes.

So what happens?  Now the law applies to soldiers, Jesus killing Jews, Muslims, atheists and whoever.  Liberals....why do you have to stick your nose in our business?


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 22, 2014)

bodecea said:


> AmericanFirst said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Christians follow Christ.  That's why they are Christians.  I don't know any Leviticans, do you?


----------



## Plasmaball (Feb 22, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



ah i see you went for the retard argument that its the lefts fault. No the left going after those things listed does not take away from keeping the mentally ill from getting weapons. 

You see as an adult people can list more than two things at once they would like or like to do. Your argument fails on the point of you being a motherfucking retard. 

you literally have no argument in this thread.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 22, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong.  Your government gives everyone the same protected rights on the one hand, but on the other hand, subjects everyone with the same limitations on those rights.
> ...



Religion is not some sort of rights trump card in these matters.  It is the choice of the religious person what business they go into based on what their religion or their religious beliefs expects of them,

compared to what the law of the land expects of them.  

The claim that it is some dire violation of Christian teachings to do business with a homosexual because homosexuality is supposedly a sin is the most ridiculous claim one could invent.

Aren't we ALL sinners, after all?  Why would the same Christian do business with all the other sinners,

except homosexuals?  That is a very conveniently selective interpretation of the faith.


----------



## N8dizzle (Feb 22, 2014)

Why do some people on here think it's necessary to call other peoole dumb? 
Are you that insecure about your argument that you have to resort to insulting those who disagree with you?
And it's always calling someone dumb, stupid, or an idiot like a third grader. Grow up and think of something intelligent to say if your going to claim someone else is "dumb".
I'm sure if you put your mind to it you could come up with an argument that's actually worth reading. 

Sent from my SPH-D710 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 22, 2014)

Camp said:


> This law will effect members of the United States military, in or out of uniform. The idea that a member serving in the military would be refused service because of the whim or so called "belief" of one of the random citizens of a particular state is simply unacceptable and repugnant. If a state, Arizona, in this case wants to have such a law, the United States and it's military should take immediate steps to protect it's personel from any kind of discrimination, abuse, unfairness or inconvenience this will create. Military personel should be removed from the state to a state that honors the policies of the the military and US Government in regards to fair treatment of it's personel.
> Start to empty and shut down the bases. Watch how quickly the bigots get thrown under the bus by the rest of the population.



Oh My God, they Patriotism and Loyalty Card, to be played when you know you are going to lose.

I give up, you win.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 22, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



I have never in my life had to do that because doing so would mean that I cannot discriminate myself, and I am very discriminating, I refuse to eat, sleep, or even be polite to assholes who want to take away my rights.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 22, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> The Constitutionality of Public Accommodation laws has already been determined by the SCOTUS in  _Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States_
> 
> But don't worry, the SCOTUS could change their minds and a case is on the way.



And, believe it or not, under Arizona's public accommodation laws you are still able to eat at a restaurant, you just can't force them to host your wedding reception.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 22, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



I could be wrong, but I don't think eating in a restaurant is actually a right. If it was, they wouldn't be able to charge you for the service.

Want to try again?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 22, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



That is the entire problem.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 22, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Think of it this way:
> ...



If you actually had a right to be safe you wouldn't need to worry about mentally ill people having guns because there wouldn't be any cops.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 22, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



No, it is another instance of your massive stupidity.


----------



## N8dizzle (Feb 22, 2014)

What God would want their followers to be hateful to anyone? 
I find it hard to believe that if there is a god that they would want any of their children to to be intolerant towards each other.
I went to church as a kid and I don't remember them telling me to only be kind to those who shared the same ideas as me.
Isn't the golden rule to treat others the way you want to be treated?
How did things get so twisted that we're passing laws that encourage intolerance? 
People that wake up every day thinking of ways to ruin someone else's day should go back to bed.


Sent from my SPH-D710 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 22, 2014)

dblack said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



First off, you still think that because you don't know what you believe, that you don't have freedom of religion. You are still wrong about that, but we can skip over that for now.

Second, if you go read the actual bill you will see that almost everyone is misrepresenting it. All it does is prevent the government from piling a burden on top of anyone's freedom of religion. It doesn't actually allow a business to discriminate against anyone because it doesn't apply to businesses. It does allow an individual, with the permission of an employer, to not participate in activities they find offensive without worrying about getting sued by an offended customer. That doesn't really negatively impact anyone but the employer, and he doesn't have to actually agree to keep the person on staff if he doesn't want to, so it isn't your problem.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 22, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> Weren't quite a few conservatives raising hell about Muslims refusing to transport people in their cabs if they were carrying alcohol?



Pretty sure that was mostly the City of New York, are they conservative?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 22, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> Nova78 said:
> 
> 
> > Judge orders Colorado baker to serve gay couples - NBC News
> ...



Because you are the expert on all things, right?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 22, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



If only that were true.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 22, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> As already correctly noted, this law would have the unintended consequence of allowing discrimination with regard to all religious beliefs, including those who belong to certain social organizations perceived as offensive to any number of religious doctrines.
> 
> This law was poorly considered and written, and should be vetoed for that reason alone.


So what?


----------



## N8dizzle (Feb 22, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> The photographer who refused to take the wedding pictures was happy to take studio photographs.  What she refused to do was attend the wedding itself.  So it was more than just taking a few pictures.



Oh I'm sorry I must have misunderstood.  I thought that they just wanted the photographer to take pictures of the wedding.  I didn't realize that they were actually expecting the photographer to celebrate with them. 
Yeah, if they actually wanted the photographer to take part in the ceremony then I agree, that wouldn't be right.
Sorry, I misunderstood. 

Sent from my SPH-D710 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 22, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This makes no sense.



Just want to point out that this is probably the first thing Clayton got right in a while, his post does make no sense.



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> No one is attempting to force everyone to treat each other equally, and government discrimination results as a consequence of the people acting in a manner offensive to the Constitution and its case law, motivated by fear, ignorance, or hatred.



Let me get this straight, when the government makes a public accommodation law that claims that you have to treat the Gay Nazi exactly the same way you treat the Baptist minister they aren't actually forcing you to do it because...

Well, just because.

For the record, the only action that is offensive to the Constitution is action originated by the government. Individuals cannot offend the Constitution, even if they stand on the steps of the Supreme Court, tear it up, burn it, and piss on it.

But, please, keep pretending you are intelligent.



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> In fact, government lacks the authority to force everyone to treat each other equally.



Yet  public accommodation laws exist, and are enforced, and you support it.



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Moreover, liberals dont yearn for social justice, whatever that means.



True, that is progressives who call  themselves liberals.

And you know what it is because you support it with most of your posts.



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Your position is obviously predicated on the incorrect perception that advocates of comprehensive civil rights are some sort of naïve do-gooders who want to create Kumbaya Nation.



How is that perception wrong? Isn't that there goal? Isn't that naive? Is their real goal something else? Can you tell us what it is?



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Nothing could be further from the truth.



In a world where [MENTION=29614]C_Clayton_Jones[/MENTION] posts everything is closer to the truth than anything he says.



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Here is how our Constitutional Republic works with regard to the governments relationship to citizens civil liberties:



This is going to be wrong, I guarantee it.



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> All persons in the United States possess inalienable rights, they manifest as a consequence of our humanity, and are acknowledged and codified by the Constitution and its case law.



Newsflash, genius, that has nothing to do with the Constitution, that is the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution actually does not codify our rights, it codifies the powers of, and the restrictions on, the government.


Although inalienable our rights are not absolute, and are subject to reasonable restrictions by government pursuant to a rational motive, objective, documented evidence, and a proper legislative end. 



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> When government seeks to curtail our civil liberties, therefore, the state must meet a very heavy burden to justify that curtailment, and failing to do so, such efforts by the state are invalidated by the courts as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review.



That was funny.

Tell me something, how is it possible to define any burden the courts place on the government as heavy? Didn't the Supreme Court just hand down a ruling that said that any dog a cop says is trained is the functional equivalent of a search warrant? Haven't the also credited cops with the uncanny ability to smell raw marijuana through a hermetically sealed door and down a 25 foot long walkway? Does that really sound like a heavy burden to you?



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Equality, then, is the consistent, rational, and legitimate application of the states authority to all persons as it seeks to govern, prohibiting government from unwarranted violations of civil liberties predicated on subjective animus toward a particular class of persons, such as gay Americans in this case.



Consistent, that is funny.

If the state is consistent why does San Francisco, which has a 2% black population, have a jail population that is over 60% black? Are they just really good at arresting black people who are travel ling through the city? Do they raid Oakland?



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This has nothing to do with wishing to make everyone equal, as the notion is nonsense and has nothing to do with the civil liberties of gay Americans and the states unwarranted efforts to violate those civil liberties.



If it is nonsense then I am sure you join with me in the call for the repeal of all public accommodation laws, the Civil Rights Act, affirmative action, and Title IX rules.

If, on the other hand, you are just bloviating, feel free to pretend you don't see this post.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 22, 2014)

dblack said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



It. Does. Not. Do. That.

It allows anyone, of any religion, even the one that only exists inside their head, to claim an exemption. A good example of this would be that during WWII the government actually told a Jehovah's Witness that he had to work on tank turrets, and argued that the fact that other people with the same religion were willing to do it was proof that his beliefs were not sincere. If the world worked the ay you thing, he would have lost.

He didn't.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 22, 2014)

N8dizzle said:


> Why do some people on here think it's necessary to call other peoole dumb?
> Are you that insecure about your argument that you have to resort to insulting those who disagree with you?
> And it's always calling someone dumb, stupid, or an idiot like a third grader. Grow up and think of something intelligent to say if your going to claim someone else is "dumb".
> I'm sure if you put your mind to it you could come up with an argument that's actually worth reading.
> ...



Because some people are dumb, idiot.


----------



## N8dizzle (Feb 22, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> N8dizzle said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Why are you stuck on this idea that I'm trying to force my opinion on you?
Isn't the whole idea of this to discuss something that we all don't agree on?
I don't expect you to change your views for me, or to agree with me. I'm just saying what I believe. How is that any different than you talking about  your beliefs? 
So... when you say whatever you want about the subject thats ok, but when I say something I'm trying to force my beliefs on you.
You seem to think that I'm the only one who disagrees with you. You haven't noticed that this is a highly debated issue? I never claimed that anyone personally owes me an explanation or that my view is more important than other people's. 
This law doesn't even effect me personally. I don't own a business,  and I'm not gay. I think that when a law is passed that is hateful and does nothing but hurt our society, people who realize it should speak up.
And it doesn't surprise me that the word "fair" gives you chills. If I were as closed minded as you I wouldn't like the words "fair" or "just" either. 
I shutter to think of how you feel when you see the word "equality." 

You'd probably fall over dead if you read the constitution. 






Sent from my SPH-D710 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 22, 2014)

AmericanFirst said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



According to Exodus you must murder children with Tourettes that swear at their parents if you "believe the whole Bible as Gods word". How does murdering children equate with the "Thou shalt not kill"? If you really "believe the whole Bible as Gods word" then you don't get to cherry pick but I am willing to bet you will do exactly that in response.


----------



## dblack (Feb 22, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



I think it does, for the reasons I've stated. But I appreciate the fact that you see it differently and I see no reason to rehash the debate.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 22, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



lol, so I guess owning a gun isn't a right because gun stores are able to charge you to purchase one.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 22, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



The extreme right has been adamantly opposed to all background checks to determine if anyone has a history of mental illness. But hardly surprising that you want to blame the left for the obstruction of the extreme right.


----------



## dblack (Feb 22, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



You're getting warmer! Now you just need to recognize the difference between owning something, and making someone else give it to you. The former is a right, the latter is theft.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 22, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



You would be outraged if a law was passed enabling gays to discriminate against Christians and you would be squealing about "special rights for gays". This law is exactly the reverse of that where Christians are being allowed "special rights" to discriminate against gays. What is good for the goose...


----------



## dblack (Feb 22, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Would you, Cecelie? Let's get a roll call. How many of those opposed to "public accommodations" laws would complain if the tables were turned?


----------



## dblack (Feb 22, 2014)

dblack said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Speaking for myself, if repeal of anti-discrimination laws resulted in a business discriminating against me, I would complain, perhaps quite loudly, depending on my mood. But I wouldn't call the police to force them to cater to me. It's their right to refuse.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 22, 2014)

dblack said:


> Would you, Cecelie? Let's get a roll call. How many of those opposed to "public accommodations" laws would complain if the tables were turned?



Conditions:
I'm opposed to Public Accommodation laws as applied to private businesses.  Public Accommodation laws should only apply to government entities.  Government entities should not be allowed to discriminate in the functions and services provided to law abiding, tax paying, US Citizens.  In addition, Public Accommodation laws should restrict the contracting and purchases of services using taxpayer dollars with businesses who have a history of discriminatory conduct.  Fundamentally, Public Accommodation laws infringe on the rights of property and free association for non-government entities - JMHO of course.

Result:
There would be no "tables to turn" since there wouldn't be a table to begin with.



Now, just because I have an opinion about what the law should be, does not mean I confuse what the functioning of the law is in reality. 

>>>>


----------



## RandallFlagg (Feb 22, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> I think another state passed something similar to this last week so this must be a trend that is catching on. I agree with this bill that if you are a business owner and believe in and live by your faith that you should be able to refuse service to whoever you want.
> 
> 
> Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays
> Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays





Good for them!


----------



## Mustang (Feb 22, 2014)

Just wait until the first Christian is discriminated against because of this law.


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 22, 2014)

N8dizzle said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > The photographer who refused to take the wedding pictures was happy to take studio photographs.  What she refused to do was attend the wedding itself.  So it was more than just taking a few pictures.
> ...



Don't you know that wedding photographers actually have to GO TO THE WEDDING?   I thought everyone that had ever been to a wedding knew that.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Feb 22, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > This makes no sense.
> ...




It's perfectly acceptable to this paralegal for those with religious convictions that don't accept the "gay" proposition - like most every religion in the world - to be forced to give up THEIR rights so limp-wrists can have THEIR way.

The notion that a man and a man or a woman and a woman is somehow "the same" as the natural order of a man and a woman and that they should be afforded the same "rights" to me is abhorrent; however "accepted" it is. And to then take it a step farther and assume that gay "rights" are somehow equated on the same plain as civil "rights" again, is abhorrent.

There should ALWAYS be that certain "distance" in allowing civil unions - as opposed to actual "marriage" between a man and a woman. But to be FORCED to accept perverted behavior because a few in this country engage in it is immoral and, in my opinion, unlawful to those religious entities that believe that way - as I do.

It's more or less like the current state of that mess called "Obarrycare" in trying to force religious institutions (or those with strong religious convictions) to provide birth control for employees. It is wrong. You're upset that the "Sisters of Mercy" don't provide contraception? Look for another job.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 22, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> The fact that we even have a law, or debate the legailty of freedom of association is pathetic in a supposedly free country. A business owner, in any state, for any reason, should be allowed to determine who they will provide services to.
> 
> But, LOLberals just love the idea of forcing people to do what they believe is right.



Educate yourselves you right wing fascists.

Do you know ANYTHING about the 1964 Civil Rights Act?


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 22, 2014)

RandallFlagg said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > I think another state passed something similar to this last week so this must be a trend that is catching on. I agree with this bill that if you are a business owner and believe in and live by your faith that you should be able to refuse service to whoever you want.
> ...



You just earned the other half.


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 22, 2014)

Defiant1 said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that we even have a law, or debate the legailty of freedom of association is pathetic in a supposedly free country. A business owner, in any state, for any reason, should be allowed to determine who they will provide services to.
> ...


Ouch.


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 22, 2014)

Mustang said:


> Just wait until the first Christian is discriminated against because of this law.


Given that most of the Provider base is ALSO Christian, I think think the Christians can afford to take a hit here-and-there, so long as those who so-hold that this is wrong, based on their faith, do not have to provide services to or contribute to or cater to person(s) and event(s) which their 2000-year-old faith and 3000-year-old sacred texts tells them is perverse and abhorrent and sinful and filthy and degenerate and anathema in the eyes of both God and Man.

Translation: It would probably be worth it to them, to let it stand thus. Take a hit 1% of the time, win the ability to refuse service to homsexuals the other 99% of the time. Win-win-win-win-win-win-win-lose-win-win-win-win... a non-issue.


----------



## Sunshine (Feb 22, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



It's legal to go barefoot, for men to go without a shirt, and teenagers to wear their pants off their butts.  "No shoes, no shirt" signs have been up for decades.  I'm also seeing "pull up your pants or don't come in" signs.  No one is stroking out about those and they are clearly discriminatory.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Feb 22, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that we even have a law, or debate the legailty of freedom of association is pathetic in a supposedly free country. A business owner, in any state, for any reason, should be allowed to determine who they will provide services to.
> ...




Yeah, as a black man in 1964 I learned (firsthand) about the civil rights act. Your point? That it somehow gives two perverts the right to behave in an unnatural manner?

I would suggest that YOU learn a little more about the civil rights act of 1964. But that wouldn't fit your agenda, now would it?


----------



## RandallFlagg (Feb 22, 2014)

Sunshine said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...




Why Sunshine!!! Don't you understand that these people are violating the civil rights of the barefooted or the shirtless!?!?!  How DARE YOU!!!


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 22, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> Think of it this way:
> 
> Your rights end where someone else's begins. In essence, your right to be treated equally as a homosexual ends when it infringes on the religious rights of someone else. Or when you force them to treat you preferentially, despite their religiously held beliefs.
> 
> Very rudimentary concept.



Incorrect. 

The issue has nothing to do with where rights begin or end, thats a naïve and ignorant perception. 

The issue of rights pertains to the relationship only between the citizen and the state, and compelling the state to justify its efforts to curtail civil liberties. 

Again, our rights are inalienable but not absolute, which is why one does not have the First Amendment right to shout fire in a crowded theater, and the state is justified to subject one who does to punitive measures. 

Moreover, one does not have rights as a homosexual, he as rights as a consequence of being a person, where his sexual orientation is irrelevant. And when the state seeks to disadvantage a gay American predicated solely on his sexual orientation, such laws are appropriately invalidated by the courts because they lack a rational basis and seek only to make gay Americans different from everyone else. 

In the private realm, absent government laws and measures, citizens are at liberty to hate gay Americans to their hearts content, and to exclude them from private organizations such as the BSA or Christian churches whose dogma is hostile to homosexuals. 

But with regard to public accommodations, laws prohibiting business owners from discriminating against classes of persons based solely on who they are, are justified pursuant to Commerce Clause jurisprudence authorizing governments to regulate markets as well as to combat discrimination (_Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US_ (1964)), where markets are subject to regulation regardless how small and as a consequence of all markets being interrelated (_Wickard v. Filburn _(1942)). 

A private citizen who is homosexual is not infringing upon the rights of a Christian solely due to his being gay; and that one is a Christian does not warrant his ignoring or violating just and proper laws such as public accommodations laws because the Christian perceives homosexuality as offensive to his faith (_Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith_ (1990)). 

Most importantly, public accommodations laws do not 'force' anyone to treat [one] preferentially, nor do public accommodations laws compel one to violate his religiously held beliefs.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 22, 2014)

Sunshine said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



No, that is not discriminatory. That is a dress code and if the individual complies they will be served like everyone else. Those signs are usually in establishments that serve food and the dress code is about hygiene and it applies to patrons as well as staff. You would be upset if you found what looked like a pubic hair in your soup. But it could just as easily have come from a man who was not wearing a shirt as the waiter passed him by to bring you your soup. So dress code laws are not discriminatory.


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 22, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> "...nor do public accommodations laws compel one to violate his religiously held beliefs.


And if it is my religiously held belief that it is unholy or otherwise wrong in the eyes of the God of My Understanding, to have dealings with homosexuals, and if I operate a public business, must I violate my religiously-held belief, and serve such persons?


----------



## RandallFlagg (Feb 22, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > "...nor do public accommodations laws compel one to violate his religiously held beliefs.
> ...



Apparently, according to the marxists members of this forum, your "rights" have no bearing on the matter. YOUR rights MUST be given up in order for YOU to conduct business. Whether or not you agree with the infringement, it makes no difference - as long as the perverts are free to practice their perversion. They will tell you, that if the behavior offends you (and ESPECIALLY if you are religious) you must close your business down, rather than offend those offending you.

THEIR rights supecede yours.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 22, 2014)

Sunshine said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Also incorrect.  

Such requirements are not discriminatory because theyre applied to everyone equally; an individual not wearing shoes does not constitute a class of persons. 

If a business owner, however, where to apply a shirt and shoes policy only to Asian-Americans, that would be a potential act of discrimination, as a single class of persons is singled-out to be disadvantaged.


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 22, 2014)

RandallFlagg said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...


That's their Party Line, alright...

And why Normal Folk are trying to find a way around it...

Best wishes for success, for that legal exploration...

With any luck, eventually the 97% will hit on a formula to prevent the 3% from forcing them to do things they don't want to do...


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 22, 2014)

RandallFlagg said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...


 
Your response above says volumes about why you consider yourself to be a "proud Tea Party member".


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 22, 2014)

All the business owner has to do is remove the good or service from being offered to the public.  Then they don't have to worry about it any more.


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 22, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



Finding a way around it is not as hard as you might think.


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 22, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...


I am very sorry that we are on opposites sides of this issue but that's the way of it sometimes.

I happen to agree with Flagg's response in large part, because it speaks truth.

It is forcing 97% of the population to do things that they do not want to, and which (for many of them) their faith informs them is an unclean association with perverse individuals, merely to accommodate the 3%...

I understand the legal arguments on both sides, to some modest extent, and even the ethical ones, to some extent, but this is as much about doing what one believes to be right, or, at a minimum, having the freedom not to do something which your upbringing or faith or interpretation of sacred texts tells you is wrong...

Clearly, something is going to have to be done about this, to re-empower the 97%...

And, I suspect, a way will be found, more quickly than we can presently envision...


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 22, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



Even the 3% have rights

And the majority if the 97% recognize it


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 22, 2014)

RandallFlagg said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



SO, you had no problem being refused to be served at a lunch counter because you are black?

We all have the right to our religious beliefs. But we do not have the right to discriminate because of our religious beliefs.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 22, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > RandallFlagg said:
> ...



Isn't it amazing how these right wing turds jump on board with majority rule when it fits their fascism?


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 22, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > RandallFlagg said:
> ...


Indeed...

Most of the surviving mainstream religions in the world view homosexuality as an aberration and anathema...

That puts Homosexuals into a category unlike any other...

People have spin-doctored Sacred Texts to squeeze out marginal rationalizations for discriminating against other folks based upon religion or skin-color or the like...

But no such stretch of the imagination is required, to discern the absolute condemnation we find for homosexuality, either in various Sacred Texts or in mainstream interpretations and teachings...

Billions of good people, worldwide, have been taught that homosexuality is wrong, on any number of levels, and in any number of ways...

And huge, extremely large subsets of those billions believe that association with homosexuals or having dealings with homosexuals is also very wrong and akin to aiding and abetting the sinful and morally unclean...

Rights or no, you cannot legislate against such overwhelming power and expect to sustain that over time...

I also would not lean too heavily upon those popular polls related to support for Gay Marriage...

As more and more of the 97% come to understand that this is tantamount to legitimizing homosexuality, ways will be found to work around those so-called 'rights', in the narrow context of service provision...

The 3% have had a good run in recent years and won some considerable victories...

They will come to understand that the arrogance with which they continue to pursue theri agenda beyond a few basic rights is going to blow up in their faces...

But it is the fate of Men that they do not listen, while they are temporarily on top...

In this case, that King (or Queen) of the Hill status is not going to last very long...

There's too much power aligned (and aligning, and soon to align) against it, for it to last very long...

Or so it seems, to this observer...


----------



## dblack (Feb 22, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Think of it this way:
> ...



The presumption here is that the commerce clause justifies violating the business owner's freedom of association. This is exactly why the broad interpretation of the commerce clause is so insidious - it essentially nullifies all other rights.


----------



## Tresha91203 (Feb 22, 2014)

oreo said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > I think another state passed something similar to this last week so this must be a trend that is catching on. I agree with this bill that if you are a business owner and believe in and live by your faith that you should be able to refuse service to whoever you want.
> ...



Maybe men ... but plenty of women experiment with other women. Ann Haiche (sp? Lazy) had a long term relationship with Ellen and she's not gay. While I doubt it is as common among men, I bet its not "no one."

Edited to add a "t"


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 22, 2014)

N8dizzle said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > N8dizzle said:
> ...



It might just be that little detail that you want the government to impose your viewpoint on people just because you are right.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 22, 2014)

dblack said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



How do you reconcile your belief with the actual facts in the example that you deleted from my post?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 22, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



I bet you think that is clever, don't you. 

Quick question, does the gun store charge me for the gun I own, or the one they own that I would like to own?


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 22, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



Years ago people had been taught that blacks were sub human creatures that should not be given the rights of the majority. DISCRIMINATION is wrong, on any number of levels, and in any number of ways...


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 22, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Which explains why the NRA supports them and the ACLU raises privacy issues about them, because the NRA is left wing, and the ACLU is extreme right.

The NRA wants an ?active? mental illness database. Thirty-eight states have that now.

https://www.aclu.org/criminal-law-reform/aclu-statement-senate-gun-control-package


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 22, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



I have no problem with gays, or anyone else, telling anyone, including Christians, to keep out of their business.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 22, 2014)

Mustang said:


> Just wait until the first Christian is discriminated against because of this law.



Just wait until a Kosher Deli won't sell me a cheeseburger? That already happened, I went down the street to a place that would.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 22, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



If a business is open to the public, then 'public' needs to be defined. Should a restaurant be allowed not to serve blacks?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 22, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that we even have a law, or debate the legailty of freedom of association is pathetic in a supposedly free country. A business owner, in any state, for any reason, should be allowed to determine who they will provide services to.
> ...



I bet I know more than you.

Not that that is a high bar. Fuck, rdean probably knows more about it than you, and all he can say is 6%.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 22, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Think of it this way:
> ...



If I were to accept this view as definitive I would have to conclude that the 1964 Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 22, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > RandallFlagg said:
> ...



Rights are for* INDIVIDUALS*. It doesn't matter if 99.99999% are on one side and only 0.00001% are on the other the rights of the individual supercede those of the majority. 

Your math is also wrong. There are not 97% opposed to gays being treated equally and without discrimination. The actual number of those who are trying to use their religion as a club against gays is probably under 20% of the population.

Individual rights are not subject to the tyranny of the majority because if they were they would be meaningless.


----------



## Tresha91203 (Feb 22, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> hangover said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...



Dogs as well, as they are deemed unclean. Not sure if they refuse people with cats or other pets, but you can't force him to take a dog.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 22, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



It is discriminatory to practiuoners of Jainism, but don't let reality intrude on your attempt to justify your imposition of morality on others.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 22, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



The mere fact that a law applies equally is not proof it is not discriminatory. It does, however, prove you don't know jack about law.


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 22, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Yes, we've all seen that device trotted-out in counterpoint; perhaps once too often.

You have to stretch the imagination and credibility to the breaking point, to find Religious Support and erzatz rationalizations for discrimination against blacks.

You don't have to stretch the imagination at all, to find Religious Condemnation of homosexuality.

One should *not* discriminate against Skin Color.

One *should* discriminate against wrongdoing.

And, in the eyes of so many millions, homosexuality *=* wrongdoing.

Go figure.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 22, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Almost right.

Discrimination is wrong, but government sanctioned discrimination, ie Jim Crow *law*, is downright evil. What you want is another Jim Crow era where the government gets to tell people what they can, and cannot, believe. 

In other words, even if they are wrong for not going to a gay weeding to take pictures, which is debatable, you are evil for trying to force them to do it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 22, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Why do you feel a need to define public, and to force your definition on everyone else? If you ran a business that was open to the public could a church group come in and preach? Why not?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 22, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



If you really believed that you wouldn't have a problem with a business owner saying that he wouldn't cater a gay wedding. Since you do, it is obvious you don't believe that, you actually believe that the  50.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the population trumps everyone else.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 22, 2014)

There is no known teaching in all of Christianity, traceable to the Bible, that commands that a good Christian must refuse to do business with a homosexual.

Therefore the idea that such is a Christian belief is merely an invention.  If one can invent 'religious' beliefs on a whim,

and then use the law to act on those 'religious' beliefs, and circumvent the rest of the  Constitution in the process,

what's the point of having constitutional rights?


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 22, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



Discrimination is the 'wrongdoing'. Do you stand up for religious condemnation when the religion is Islam?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 22, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



Religious teachings would dictate that women are subservient to men. Why was that overturned as being false? How has it been sustained over time that women are not subservient even though all of these religious texts have never been "corrected" in this regard?

The same applies to blacks and other minorities. The religious texts that endorse slavery have not prevailed. The individual right to be treated equally has been demonstrated to supercede religious beliefs not matter how many billions have been indoctrinated by archaic and outdated mythology.

The same now applies to gays. The religious texts cannot be held to be the supreme law of the land over the rights of individuals to not be discriminated against. To allow that to happen means trashing the 1st amendment. Once that goes so does your right to the religion of your choice. 

And to reiterate, it is not 97% who are opposed to the equality of the 3%. It is a fanatical subset who at most comprise 20% who are trying to deprive the 3% of their equal rights.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 22, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



They are not forced to do it.  They can quit the wedding photography business.

It might be evil to have to drive 55 mph on the highway, but the government doesn't force you to do it,

you can simply choose not to drive.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 22, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> There is no known teaching in all of Christianity, traceable to the Bible, that commands that a good Christian must refuse to do business with a homosexual.
> 
> Therefore the idea that such is a Christian belief is merely an invention.  If one can invent 'religious' beliefs on a whim,
> 
> ...



That probably explains why no Christian is arguing that they don't have  to do business with them, and that the bill we are actually talking  about here doesn't permit it to happen.

Then again, you never let inconvenient truths stop you from scaring people before, why start now?


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 22, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Discrimination is the 'wrongdoing'...


So, discrimination against wrongdoing, is wrongdoing?

So, discrimination against thievery or murder or rape or perjury (other, more severe examples of wrongdoing) is wrongdoing?

Sorry... no sale.



> "..._Do you stand up for religious condemnation when the religion is Islam?_"


I'm not a Muslim, but, it depends upon the nature and object of the condemnation.

If Muslims are rationalizing a suppression of the rights of women, I do not agree.

If Muslims are condemning homosexuality as aberration, then I do agree.

Your mileage may vary.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 22, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Idiots would lie about religious teachings to outlaw the practice of religion.

Wait, that is what you are doing already, isn't it?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 22, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Let me guess, you think you made a point.

Guess what, you did, just not the one you think. In fact, you just proved everyone who has a problem with your position is 100% right.

Thank you.


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 22, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> There is no known teaching in all of Christianity, traceable to the Bible, that commands that a good Christian must refuse to do business with a homosexual...


Correct.

But there are mainstream teachings within most of the branches and offshoots of Christianity that DO teach that homosexuality is sinful or otherwise an aberration or unnatural or anathema.

And, folks logically and naturally take that one step further, and figure that if the practitioners of such perversity and aberration are sinful and unclean, that association with them (including doing business with them) is sinful and unclean or otherwise lending aid and comfort to the enemies of God, and goodness.

Go figure...


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 22, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...



REALLY? You can't even comprehend what 'rights' really are. To you, 'rights' are mob rule, and the HEAVY hand of government to inflict your rule. Good to know going forward...

Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism. 
Barry Goldwater

"The rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened."
President John F. Kennedy

It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own. 
Thomas Jefferson


----------



## dblack (Feb 22, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



The actual facts of the case are that it grants special protections to religious people making decisions based on religious reasons (implicitly state-approved religions at that, because someone must judge whether such a claim represents a "legitimate" religious faith or not). It provides no such protection for non-religious people making exactly the same decisions for secular reasons. As I've said, I don't believe the intent of the first amendment is to grant special privileges to religions.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 22, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > There is no known teaching in all of Christianity, traceable to the Bible, that commands that a good Christian must refuse to do business with a homosexual.
> ...



If you read the bill then you know that it revised the definition of a person:

*5.  "Person" includes  any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution, estate, trust, foundation or other legal entity.*


----------



## Political Junky (Feb 22, 2014)

Arizona pizzeria?s amazing response to state?s anti-gay bill* - NY Daily News





Rocco's Little Chicago Pizzeria wanted to let Arizona politicians know what the restaurant thinks about Senate Bill 1062.

An Arizona pizzeria is serving legislators a slice of humble pie.

Rocco&#8217;s Little Chicago Pizzeria in Tucson had a message for the politicians who supported a bill that allows business owners to refuse to serve gays and lesbians.

&#8220;We reserve the right to refuse service to Arizona legislators,&#8221; the sign read.

&#8220;Funny how just being decent is starting to seem radical these days,&#8221; the restaurant commented on Facebook.



Read more: Arizona pizzeria?s amazing response to state?s anti-gay bill* - NY Daily News


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 22, 2014)

dblack said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



How do you separate a religious person from the average fag hater?

We now have state approved religions?  The founding fathers would be appaled


----------



## dblack (Feb 22, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Wait, I've heard this one.... with a crowbar?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 22, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > There is no known teaching in all of Christianity, traceable to the Bible, that commands that a good Christian must refuse to do business with a homosexual...
> ...



The Bible was used to justify slavery.  Does that argument fly, now, legally?


----------



## AceRothstein (Feb 22, 2014)

If Jesus were to walk the earth tomorrow, he'd tell social conservatives to go fuck themselves. They are truly the nastiest people in this country.


----------



## Political Junky (Feb 22, 2014)

"If Jesus came back and saw what's being done in his name, he'd never stop throwing up."
  - from Hannah and Her Sisters


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 22, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> "...And to reiterate, it is not 97% who are opposed to the equality of the 3%..."


Indeed.

The US Census Bureau estimates that 97% of the population of the US identifies as heterosexual, while 3% of the population identifies as something other than Straight.

Popular opinion in support of Gay Marriage has only reached a favorable tipping point very recently, if one looks as the poll results spanning a decade or two, and fickle opinion can range up and down by a dozen points at the drop of a hat.

And, given that many of those Straights temporarily or recently speaking-out as favoring Gay Marriage do not realize that this opens the door for a more holistic legitimization of homosexuality in society, which, had they contemplated that in advance, would have quite probably caused a great many to come down in the 'Opposed' column after all.

In the end, the 97% are in this together, and are differentiated from the 3%.

Time will sort this out, one way or another.



> "..._It is a fanatical subset who at most comprise 20% who are trying to deprive the 3% of their equal rights._"


I have no idea where you pulled your 20% figure from but am content not to dispute it for now - it really doesn't matter much.

What does matter is that this is being perceived as the Legitimizing of Wrongdoing in many quarters, and, as such, it may very well prove unsustainable in the long run.

Again... time will sort that out.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 22, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Discrimination is the 'wrongdoing'...
> ...



Stealing, murder, rape and perjury are against the law. Being gay is NOT. 

All you are doing is justifying your wrongdoing...discrimination

Discrimination

1. the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex.


----------



## Mustang (Feb 22, 2014)

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think this law singles out gays. In and of itself, that would likely render it as unconstitutional. 

So, the law supposedly would allow people to deny service to people from a particular group due to sincerely held religious beliefs.

How about Christians denying service to Mormons because they see them as a cult?

How about Christians denying service to Jehovah's witnesses for similar reasons?

How about Christians denying service to Jews because they say they killed Jesus?

How about Muslims denying service to Christians?

Or Jews denying service to Muslims?

Or Muslims denying service to Jews?

If Christians want this law, will they be willing to accept the consequences if and when they THEMSELVES are discriminated against by people who claim they are simply exercising their sincerely held religious beliefs?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 22, 2014)

Maybe God has changed his mind about homosexuality.

Jesus changed his mind about polygamy, according to the Mormons.


----------



## Mustang (Feb 22, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Maybe God has changed his mind about homosexuality.
> 
> Jesus changed his mind about polygamy, according to the Mormons.



Apparently, Jesus didn't even much care for girls. Makes ya wonder about why he hung around with all those male apostles, doesn't it?


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 22, 2014)

Mustang said:


> Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think this law singles out gays. In and of itself, that would likely render it as unconstitutional.
> 
> So, the law supposedly would allow people to deny service to people from a particular group due to sincerely held religious beliefs.
> 
> ...



Many "state approved" religions disapprove of war. They are within their religious rights to refuse service to the military


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 22, 2014)

Mustang said:


> Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think this law singles out gays. In and of itself, that would likely render it as unconstitutional.
> 
> So, the law supposedly would allow people to deny service to people from a particular group due to sincerely held religious beliefs.
> 
> ...



There is no way of the right denying who and what they really are.







When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

Then they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemöller


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 22, 2014)

dblack said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Hint: They are one in the same


----------



## Bombur (Feb 22, 2014)

I am religious and I am rather offended that anyone would hide behind Jesus when they discriminate against gays. Christianity is not that complicated. Love your neighbor as yourself. What is happening here has absolutely nothing to do with that message and nothing to do with following Jesus.


----------



## Sunshine (Feb 22, 2014)

RandallFlagg said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Don't you love the way they cherry pick the stuff they are oh so indignant about! LOL.  They wouldn't know the Civil Rights Act from the Commerce Clause.  Given that it was the Commerce Clause that brought about the earliest civil rights for blacks!  The Civil Rights Act was late to the party!


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 22, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> "..._Stealing, murder, rape and perjury are against the law. Being gay is NOT..." _


The wide variety of anti-Sodomy laws in this country - past and present - tell us a different story, even if many or all are no longer operative or being enforced.



> "..._All you are doing is justifying your wrongdoing...discrimination_..."


Incorrect.

All I am doing is representing the Opposing Viewpoint, which happens to disagree with your own, and which believes that its own stance is righteous and moral, in the face of an unfortunate and immoral outcome of secularism.

It is no surprise that the 'immoral' and 'unclean' and 'sinful' would holler rationalizing counterpoints, when their immorality and uncleanness and sinfulness are publicly decried, of course.

Predictable, and merely inconvenient brickbats which must be endured and dodged, along the path to correcting a grotesque imposed upon the Righteous. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	






> "..._Discrimination 1. the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex._"


A modern-day definition.

Sexual orientation would not have appeared in such a definition, only a couple of decades ago.

The Opposition will continue to work to reverse the present state of affairs, as we see at work now, in various State-level (home-rule) efforts; one or more of which is bound to be hit upon as a Winning Formula, and then rapidly copied elsewhere.


----------



## Sunshine (Feb 22, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...




Wrong.   They just haven't been challenged yet.  That's the only reason they are still around.


----------



## dblack (Feb 22, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Agreed. But my point is that this law treats them differently. As egregious as I find the "thought crime" presumptions of public accommodations laws, special exemptions for religious reasons isn't the answer.


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 22, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> _Maybe God has changed his mind about homosexuality_...


As soon as Religious Folk get the memo from God, they'll be in your corner, too, but, until the Big Guy cuts that memo, well...


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 22, 2014)

Our laws don't allow honor killings in this country, even if the motive behind them is religious belief.

Why is that?


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 22, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Our laws don't allow honor killings in this country, even if the motive behind them is religious belief. Why is that?


Because (a)  it is a far more severe action involving the taking of a life and (b) it is not in the best interests of society-at-large to allow it.

This second bit... (b)... is usually the litmus test for whether something is allowed or not, over the long haul, despite an occasional flip-flop on legal standing here and there...


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 22, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > _Maybe God has changed his mind about homosexuality_...
> ...



We don't allow homosexuals to be killed in the name of any religion in this country.  Did God change his mind on that,

or is our secular government acting in defiance  of God's teachings?  Or at least ignoring them?


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 22, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


Or have Believers spun their own rationalization for allowing them to live, while holding them at arms' length?

I dunno.


----------



## Sunshine (Feb 22, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> There is no known teaching in all of Christianity, traceable to the Bible, that commands that a good Christian must refuse to do business with a homosexual.
> 
> Therefore the idea that such is a Christian belief is merely an invention.  If one can invent 'religious' beliefs on a whim,
> 
> ...



Psstt.......try I Corinthians 5



> 9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
> 
> 10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
> 
> ...


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 22, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Our laws don't allow honor killings in this country, even if the motive behind them is religious belief. Why is that?
> ...



So depriving an American of, in this case, her life is verboten, religious rights and freedoms notwithstanding...

...what degree of harm can we rightfully allow?  At what point is the amount of the harm a person would suffer from someone acting against them in the name of religion be small enough to make it permissible?

Tell us where that line of demarcation is.


----------



## Mustang (Feb 22, 2014)

Sunshine said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > There is no known teaching in all of Christianity, traceable to the Bible, that commands that a good Christian must refuse to do business with a homosexual.
> ...



So, with this law Christians could deny service to unmarried couples of the opposite sex too?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 22, 2014)

Sunshine said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > There is no known teaching in all of Christianity, traceable to the Bible, that commands that a good Christian must refuse to do business with a homosexual.
> ...



Those were Paul's words, and contradict those of Jesus.


----------



## Sunshine (Feb 22, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Link?  

How quickly you forget  your own words.


----------



## Political Junky (Feb 22, 2014)

Mustang said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


Yep -


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 22, 2014)

Mustang said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



A gay married couple would not fornicators would they?


----------



## Sunshine (Feb 22, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...





> 13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that *wicked* person.



That pretty much covers it.

Read the whole thing before you start preaching.  You simply don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 22, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


Hell if I know.

Shooting from the hip, I would say...

We draw the line at Traditional Interpretations of Morals and Community Standards...

According to Western Law, homosexuality has been illegal for much of its recorded history, post-Antiquity, in most lands and jurisdictions and at most times...

And, of course, we brought those Traditional Interpretations of Morals and Community Standards along with us, from the Old World, and have been evolving our own 'flavor' of them ever since...

A sort of Differentiation of Species, in a metaphorical legal context, now that we have Western Law on ONE side of The Pond and another flavor of Western Law on ANOTHER side of The Pond...

Over the past few decades since the end of WWII, which largely enervated and emasculated Europe as a world power point-of-origin, the European variant of Western Law has grown increasingly dissipated and degenerate and emasculating to match...

Over the past few decades, America has resisted this downward slide towards degeneracy, but imperfectly, and homosexuals have done an excellent job of creating rationalizations and legal arguments and propaganda not only to advance their cause but to convince an increasingly large percentage of the Straight population to at least let up on them enough to allow them to make some legal progress...

Many folks have reached the conclusion that this process has gone too far, and that we are allowing our own 'flavor' of Western Law to more closely mirror the dissipated and degenerate and emasculated state of such Law in Europe...

So, they start talking about DE-legitimizing homosexuality as detrimental to society, to counter putting the rights of the 3% above the rights of the 97%... a state of affairs which simply cannot be sustained for very long.


----------



## Mustang (Feb 22, 2014)

Political Junky said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...


 
But everyone knows that won't happen. What WILL happen is that people who call themselves Christian will be extremely selective in who they will and won't do business with, regardless of what's in the Bible.

Perhaps this is the time for people who are commonly referred to as customers to decide that they won't spend their money at businesses owned and operated by people who identify as Christian conservatives. Then we will watch this law die a quick death as Christians rediscover their love of Mammon.


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 22, 2014)

Exactly.  It will work just the way it worked with Chuck Fil A.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 22, 2014)

Sunshine said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



1.  Jesus saved the adulterous woman from being stoned to death;  had he been an adherent to what Paul said above, he would have never gone near her.

 2.  Similarly in Luke 7 36-50


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 22, 2014)

Mustang said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...



And its this sort of conflict that would prove disruptive to the markets, and why government is authorized to regulate commerce, including the implementation of public accommodations laws.


----------



## Mustang (Feb 22, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...




Wouldn't it be beautiful irony if the Christian love of capitalism and perfect markets came back to bite them in the ass as people voted with their wallets and refused to do business with these purveyors of discrimination?


----------



## dblack (Feb 22, 2014)

Mustang said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...



Ah, come on. Where's the fun in letting people decide for themselves? We need a law!


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 22, 2014)

dblack said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Decide...I hate fags?


----------



## N8dizzle (Feb 22, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> N8dizzle said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Not because it's my viewpoint.  Because it's right.

God forbid me to expect the government to do what's right.



Sent from my SPH-D710 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app


----------



## Gem (Feb 22, 2014)

Mustang Wrote:


> Wouldn't it be beautiful irony if the Christian love of capitalism and perfect markets came back to bite them in the ass as people voted with their wallets and refused to do business with these purveyors of discrimination?



Well...YES...and that is exactly what SHOULD be allowed to happen.  A private business owner should be allowed to refuse service to whoever they want.  I, as a private individual, then should have the right to refuse to patronize bigots, racists, homophobes, and other people I deem obnoxious, stupid, and not worthy of my hard-earned dollars.  Hopefully, more people will agree with me than them and they will be forced to change their policies or lose their business.

Why does is seem like we are always so damned eager and excited to allow government to regulate and control more and more and more...when we could sort this out quite easily for ourselves?


----------



## AmericanFirst (Feb 22, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


Funny how people who don't know the Bible use it to defend their stupidity. Paul did not contradict anything. Jesus spoke against sexual immorality which homosexuality is.


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 22, 2014)

Gem said:


> Mustang Wrote:
> 
> 
> > Wouldn't it be beautiful irony if the Christian love of capitalism and perfect markets came back to bite them in the ass as people voted with their wallets and refused to do business with these purveyors of discrimination?
> ...



Sorry....I don't serve *******


----------



## bodecea (Feb 22, 2014)

AmericanFirst said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



When did this Jesus speak of homosexuality?


----------



## AmericanFirst (Feb 22, 2014)

bodecea said:


> AmericanFirst said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


Read the Bible and learn. Jesus spoke of sexual immorality which covers homosexuality. Man I hate repeating myself to people who refuse to learn for themselves.


----------



## N8dizzle (Feb 22, 2014)

And they just happen to be the ones who disagree with you?
I'm sure there are stupid people on both sides of the argument, but if all you have to say is "your dumb" then your only weakening your side.
That's ok though, in a way your proving my point. Hateful people supporting a hateful law.


Sent from my SPH-D710 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app


----------



## N8dizzle (Feb 22, 2014)

Does anyone else notice that most of the hateful comments on here are made by the people supporting this hateful law. 
Its crazy. Every time someone makes a great point about how wrong this law is, someone on the other side will jump in in say "that's wrong stupid."
It's really sad if there isn't a good argument in support of the law that doesn't start or end with an insult.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app


----------



## bodecea (Feb 22, 2014)

AmericanFirst said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > AmericanFirst said:
> ...



I have a bible right here...KJV...Book, chapter and verse please.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 22, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> This is what I hate about Liberals. They can't make anything easy
> 
> You try to pass a simple law that says if you hate fags you don't have to serve them. Just put up a stinkn sign that say "We don't serve faggots" and you done
> 
> ...



rightwinger is the type of posters LGBT strategists dream about to drum up sympathy for..

...hey....wait a minute...?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 22, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > "...And to reiterate, it is not 97% who are opposed to the equality of the 3%..."
> ...



You are drawing a line between heterosexuals and homosexuals and erroneously assuming that all 97% of heterosexuals embrace outmoded religious mores. That has been proven to be wrong by actual election results where ballot initiatives are nowhere even close to your 97%. 

In reality almost every single family has at least one gay member. It might be a cousin or an aunt or uncle but they are there. Furthermore there is almost zero discrimination of gays amongst people under 30. The bulk of the discrimination stems from a very small minority of fanatical Christians. The 20% figure represents the hard core extreme right who also embrace this bizarre notion that gays are "sinners". The other 67% of heterosexuals are either ambivalent or have positive feelings about gays. 

Time always trends towards liberalism. By the time the generation under 30 reaches 60 there won't be any question whatsoever that it is illegal to discriminate against gays. The fanatical anti-gay religious extreme right will have receded to the fringes as an anachronism. 

But in the meantime AZ will suffer yet another black eye for being the most regressive state in the union. They were hammered in the early 1990's for refusing to embrace MLK day and it cost them an estimated $300 million in lost revenue as the NFL teams all boycotted the state until they finally caved in. Then in 2010 they had another similar scandal with the racial profiling stop & frisk law based on appearances only. Now they are setting themselves up to be hammered for illegally discriminating against gays.

Once is a mistake, twice is stupidity, the third time is a pattern of behavior that will ruin the state's reputation for many decades to come.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 22, 2014)

Sunshine said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



There have been many legal challenges to dress codes.


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 22, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> "...You are drawing a line between heterosexuals and homosexuals..."


One exists. Always has. Always will.



> "..._and erroneously assuming that all 97% of heterosexuals embrace outmoded religious mores_..."


Nope.

I am assuming that that the 97% of the population which is heterosexual has more in common between them than with the 3%, and will, for that reason, band together more often than not, when Opposition to aspects of the increasingly encroaching and obnoxious and arrogant Gay Agenda is indicated.


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 22, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > "...You are drawing a line between heterosexuals and homosexuals..."
> ...



You assume wrong

The majority of the 97% side with the rights of the 3%


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 22, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...









Public opinion polls are fickle things, and support for Gay Marriage has only recently overtaken its Opposite...

It won't take much to reverse the effect, either...

You put far too much faith in public opinion polls, I think.

But, as I and others have said, time will sort this out, one way or another.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 22, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > "...You are drawing a line between heterosexuals and homosexuals..."
> ...



Please provide a link to this alleged "*increasingly encroaching and obnoxious and arrogant Gay Agenda*"


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 22, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



Yes, it will take much to reverse the effect. 

The tide has turned and it is not going back.  Gay marriage is here and most have figured out it is no big deal


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 22, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...


I have no link.

I'm serving up personal opinion, with respect to how the Gay Rights Agenda is being perceived in mainstream America, beyond the reach of some of polls that have been cited here...

I saw an overwhelming show of support for Chick-Fil-A in 2012 and a public relations disaster for the Gay Lobby, as an outcome of that incident...

I saw an overwhelming show of support for Duck Dynasty cast in 2013 and a public relations disaster for the Gay Lobby, as an outcome of that incident...

These massive outpourings of public support for the OPPONENTS of the Gay Lobby should tell us something about the unreliability of the polls being cited...

Consider them the _Canary in the Coal Mine_, for our purposes here...

Ignore that Canary to your very great peril...

Still, outpourings of public support for the OPPONENTS of the Gay Lobby don't amount to diddly squat, until it materializes into Law...

And efforts at such Law, on the State level, continue apace...

Which is what we're all doing, haunting this particular thread...


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 22, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> "..._Yes, it will take much to reverse the effect. The tide has turned and it is not going back. Gay marriage is here and most have figured out it is no big deal._"


Gay marriage, by itself, is no big deal, but it opens floodgates that risk great damage to society at large, to wit: the legitimizing and mainstreaming of homosexuality.

It is not so much Marriage, but the rest of it which follows, which will trigger a reaction that will cause you to lose much of what you have gained to date.

But that's all future speculation and as yet unproven.


----------



## rdean (Feb 22, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



First, you are saying it again " I didn't need to resort to lying.   It wasn't necessary."  That gives the impression that you would lie under oath.  How can you not see that?

Second, you seem to be saying that you had some amateur artwork on display somewhere, two lesbians saw it and suddenly you were hit with a lawsuit because you wouldn't do a picture of them?  

Do you know how ridiculous that sounds????  You admit to being a liar.  I believe you are making up this story.  It's simply too ridiculous to believe.

You just want to make up something anti gay so you are making up this lie.

Well, I've got news for you. It backfired.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 22, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > "..._Stealing, murder, rape and perjury are against the law. Being gay is NOT..." _
> ...



God, is that YOU?


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 22, 2014)

N8dizzle said:


> _Does anyone else notice that most of the hateful comments on here are made by the people supporting this hateful law. Its crazy. Every time someone makes a great point about how wrong this law is, someone on the other side will jump in in say "that's wrong stupid." It's really sad if there isn't a good argument in support of the law that doesn't start or end with an insult_...


Puh-leeze... the pro-Gay side of the discussion is oftentimes the very first to 'get nasty'... and usually over nothing more than the voicing of strong opposition to homosexuality.


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 22, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



As you like...






You'll run out of Christian funny-pictures lllllllooonnnnnnngggg before I run out of freak pictures from your side of the fence...

Done yet?...


----------



## Political Junky (Feb 23, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...


----------



## Kosh (Feb 23, 2014)

Another far left thread fail.

Gay, Abortion, free BC pills is about all the far left has in their arsenal. One can thank the far left president Obama who has managed to take away all the other far left talking points when he followed in Bush's foot steps.


----------



## auditor0007 (Feb 23, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > Steve_McGarrett said:
> ...



Leftists, Moderates, Centrists, Independents, and anyone who might actually think for themselves.  You can keep your right wing lunacy down there.  I won't be visiting anytime soon.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 23, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



The volume of the noise does not correlate to the actual numbers of people involved. A single car with a booming stereo system passing by can drown out an entire orchestra playing in the park. 

So let's put this in perspective. Those "backlashes" are the vocal minority who are opposed to gays. You are correct that it doesn't "amount to diddly squat, until it materializes into Law..." and that is where the rubber meets the road.

So let's recap the opposition to Gay marriage from a legislative perspective. It was a hot button issue in the 1990's and that resulted in DOMA being passed by the anti-gay lobby. Another 30 states chose to enact similar anti-gay marriage laws onto their books.

That was the status quo until the legal challenges to DOMA reached the Supreme Court in the _Windsor_ case. The sheer unconstitutional discriminatory basis for DOMA was overturned by the majority of the court. However that only invalidated DOMA at the federal level. The court did not invalidate the state laws. 

But Scalia was so incensed by the overturning of DOMA that he wrote a 26 page dissenting opinion. In one paragraph he provided the explicit wording that could be used in the _Windsor_ decision to overturn the anti-gay marriage laws at the state level. Subsequently 5 of the 7 states that have had their anti-gay marriage laws overturned in lower courts have actually cited Scalia's dissent. The latest state didn't even try to fight it and just conceded that it was unconstitutional. There is every reason to believe that the other 23 states will end up having their laws overturned in next couple of years too.

So this brings us to the current attempt to enact anti-gay legislation. In order to be successful it must avoid the appearance of discrimination. With the _Windsor_ decision now on the books that makes it illegal to discriminate against gays as a class. 

This AZ law is a "Hail Mary" pass at attempting to make religious belief into a "protected class" all by itself. But the Constitution specifically forbids state endorsement of any religion whatsoever. So even if it becomes law it will be overturned as soon as it reaches the courts, let alone the Supreme Court. 

The fanatical extreme right anti-gay movement is fighting a losing "rear guard" legal battle that flies in the face of the Constitution and individual rights. There is no legitimate basis for encoding discrimination against gays.  

Your "Canary in the Coal Mine" metaphor is being misinterpreted. The problem the anti-gay movement faces is that is about to become an endangered species. The demographic shift will continue to work against them as more and more people adopt a realistic approach to treating gays as equal members of society.


----------



## natstew (Feb 23, 2014)

The Federal Government has no Constitutional right to tell anyone who they must do business with. I believe in the old sign I used to see at most businesses, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone".

The U.S. Supreme Court is supposed to be arbitrator of the Constitution, but it is not. What it is is another political tool. The Republican appointees make rulings according to the Constitution, the Democrat appointees make rulings in accordance with their ideology.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 23, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



The question was, or is, how much harm can 'religious' Americans be allowed to inflict on their fellow Americans.

A business that is open to the public must be open to the public.  All else being equal, a business discriminating against a person who is homosexual is violating one of the most basic principles of our Constitution.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Feb 23, 2014)

Political Junky said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Oh so you want to play THAT game?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 23, 2014)

natstew said:


> The Federal Government has no Constitutional right to tell anyone who they must do business with. I believe in the old sign I used to see at most businesses, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone".
> 
> The U.S. Supreme Court is supposed to be arbitrator of the Constitution, but it is not. What it is is another political tool. The Republican appointees make rulings according to the Constitution, the Democrat appointees make rulings in accordance with their ideology.



Then why is it illegal to refuse service to people of color, because of their color?  Why is that constitutional?


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 23, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone Because of Appearance, Odor or Attitude?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 23, 2014)

One response...this sign is real, in a Tucson pizzeria:







According to the mentally retarded in this thread, the above will hurt this guy's business.

Want to bet?


----------



## Wry Catcher (Feb 23, 2014)

Kosh said:


> Another far left thread fail.
> 
> Gay, Abortion, free BC pills is about all the far left has in their arsenal. One can thank the far left president Obama who has managed to take away all the other far left talking points when he followed in Bush's foot steps.



Are you serious?  If so you need a reality check - likely meds.


----------



## Chaussette (Feb 23, 2014)

Arizona is a homophobic state. Using religion to discriminate is just what Jesus had in mind, don't you think?


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 23, 2014)

Chaussette said:


> Arizona is a homophobic state. Using religion to discriminate is just what Jesus had in mind, don't you think?



No, it isn't what Jesus would do. Jesus didn't refuse anyone service. These people are not acting within the tenants of their faith by not doing business with icky gays, they are acting within their bigotry and nothing more.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Feb 23, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> One response...this sign is real, in a Tucson pizzeria:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



We were in Flagstaff a few years ago and went to a Pub which had a sign on it's front door stating "No GUNS".  A second piece of evidence that not everyone in Arizona is nuts.

Most enigmatic is the how ultra conservatives in Arizona hate Gays and Communism - would V. Putin win if he ran for governor in Arizona?  Don't those fools who claim to support liberty and freedom understand they are authoritarians?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 23, 2014)

Chaussette said:


> Arizona is a homophobic state. Using religion to discriminate is just what Jesus had in mind, don't you think?



Fundamentalist Christians abuse Jesus more than they abuse homosexuals.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 23, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> The extreme right has been adamantly opposed to all background checks to determine if anyone has a history of mental illness. But hardly surprising that you want to blame the left for the obstruction of the extreme right.


Source?


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 23, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> > Arizona is a homophobic state. Using religion to discriminate is just what Jesus had in mind, don't you think?
> ...


Hardly.

Christians who hold homosexuality at arms' length are oftentimes of the mindset: Hate the sin, love the sinner.

Christians who hold homosexuality at arms' length are oftentimes of the mindset: Refusing to aid and abet the sin or the sinner is demonstrating the resolve of Goodness in the face of Perversity, Aberration, Filth, Sin, Uncleanness and Wrongdoing.

Christians who hold homosexuality at arms' length are oftentimes of the mindset: We are doing the Lord's work, leading by example, in resistance to Evil; just as Jesus would have done.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 23, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> The volume of the noise does not correlate to the actual numbers of people involved. A single car with a booming stereo system passing by can drown out an entire orchestra playing in the park.
> 
> So let's put this in perspective. Those "backlashes" are the vocal minority who are opposed to gays. You are correct that it doesn't "amount to diddly squat, until it materializes into Law..." and that is where the rubber meets the road.


Wrong. The backlash is due to legislation being passed by the vocal minority. That vocal minority wants everyone to treat their alternative relationships the same as traditional relationships regardless of the individual's moral compass. If something isn't done to curb thetyranny it will spread nationally. What you percieve as a vocal minority is the tip of the iceburg. Most people want the freedom to entertain their values instead of having their values dictated to them by the vocal minority. 


> So let's recap the opposition to Gay marriage from a legislative perspective. It was a hot button issue in the 1990's and that resulted in DOMA being passed by the anti-gay lobby. Another 30 states chose to enact similar anti-gay marriage laws onto their books.


The cap fell off of your recap right away. There was no anti-gay lobby, that's your biased mindset speaking. The call was to protect traditional marriage in the states that wanted it but were over ruled by judicial decree. Your propaganda is typical of the homosexual activists, transparent and unethical


> But Scalia was so incensed by the overturning of DOMA that he wrote a 26 page dissenting opinion. In one paragraph he provided the explicit wording that could be used in the _Windsor_ decision to overturn the anti-gay marriage laws at the state level. Subsequently 5 of the 7 states that have had their anti-gay marriage laws overturned in lower courts have actually cited Scalia's dissent. The latest state didn't even try to fight it and just conceded that it was unconstitutional. There is every reason to believe that the other 23 states will end up having their laws overturned in next couple of years too.


yawn.


> So this brings us to the current attempt to enact anti-gay legislation. In order to be successful it must avoid the appearance of discrimination. With the _Windsor_ decision now on the books that makes it illegal to discriminate against gays as a class.


If it's bad law it probably will be over turned. Gays as individuals are one thing, however you have to prove that they have the Constitutional right to force people to adopt their alternative lifesyle, which is the issue. The right to live your life the way you want is one thing, but normalizing it for others is another.


> This AZ law is a "Hail Mary" pass at attempting to make religious belief into a "protected class" all by itself. But the Constitution specifically forbids state endorsement of any religion whatsoever. So even if it becomes law it will be overturned as soon as it reaches the courts, let alone the Supreme Court.


Only religious people take issue with it? Are you sure? Of course not, you're puffing yourself up talking smack.


> The fanatical extreme right anti-gay movement is fighting a losing "rear guard" legal battle that flies in the face of the Constitution and individual rights. There is no legitimate basis for encoding discrimination against gays.


That isn't the issue.  


> Your "Canary in the Coal Mine" metaphor is being misinterpreted. The problem the anti-gay movement faces is that is about to become an endangered species. The demographic shift will continue to work against them as more and more people adopt a realistic approach to treating gays as equal members of society.


yawn. Do you ever tire of chest pounding? Christ, you anti-freedom types are a bunch of babbling baboons.


----------



## zeke (Feb 23, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Chaussette said:
> ...




Hey, I think the Inquisition used the exact same words. The Inquisition was pretty damn Godly don't ya think? Bring back the rack for those damn homos. That'll teach em the way of the Lord. Right dude?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 23, 2014)

natstew said:


> The Federal Government has no Constitutional right to tell anyone who they must do business with. I believe in the old sign I used to see at most businesses, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone".
> 
> The U.S. Supreme Court is supposed to be arbitrator of the Constitution, but it is not. What it is is another political tool. The Republican appointees make rulings according to the Constitution, the Democrat appointees make rulings in accordance with their ideology.




#1 - States have their own version of Public Accommodation laws.  Elaine Photography (New Mexico) and Sweetcakes by Melissa (Oregon) were cases of national attention - however those cases were under State Law, not Federal Law, and an excercise of STATE regulation of commerce.  An interesting note, which highlights that Public Accommodation laws are a separate issue from Same Sex Civil Marriage is that there is no Civil Marriage in either of those states.

#2 - You are incorrect about who approved it based on political affiliation.  The landmark Federal case was Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States and the court voted unanimously (9-0) or (8-1), I don't remember which, that Federal Public Accommodation laws are constitution under the powers to regulate commerce.   It's also interesting to note that Justice Scalia was the author of Employment Division v. Smith, a landmark case which established that it is Constitutional for government to require general applicability of a law even if it does not comport with an individuals personal religious beliefs.





>>>>


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 23, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> "..._Your 'Canary in the Coal Mine' metaphor is being misinterpreted_..."


The longer the pro-Gay side of the aisle continues to delude itself about the Canary, the more time the other side of the aisle has, to set serious countermeasures into motion without being taken seriously, and without serious opposition. I'm sure that's fine by them.



> "..._The problem the anti-gay movement faces is that is about to become an endangered species. The demographic shift will continue to work against them as more and more people adopt a realistic approach to treating gays as equal members of society._"


I believe that the pro-Gay side of the aisle puts far too much trust in poll-based trend perceptions - a state of affairs which - like the Canary - is probably just fine with most folks workin' the other side of the aisle - makes the job of deploying countermeasures easier.

It's one thing for the latest generation of seemingly androgynous metrosexual chaff to tell a pollster or an online poll that they support Gay Rights...

It's quite another when the males and females of that nature begin to raise children of their own and start thinking: God, I don't want that shit around my kids - or, simply, when they find God, as they begin to put on a few more years, and the thought hits them, that such perversity might go against both God and Nature, after all.

There's nothing new under the sun, and you cannot legitimize the sexual behaviors and related lifestyle of 3% of the population, and sustain that legitimacy, when so many oppose it.

You believe you have time on your side.

I believe that the more time passes, the more of the present 'loose' and 'tolerant' folk amongst younger generations will adopt more Conservative views.

There's an old maxim, apocryphally attributed to Winston Churchill, which goes:

"_He who is not a Liberal in his youth has no heart. He who is not a Conservative in his maturity has no brains._" = or some-such thing... you get the idea.

People's attitudes do, indeed, change, with the passage of time; generally becoming more Conservative in nature; with respect to social mores, most frequently, in addition to changes in political perspective.

But, neither of us has a crystal ball; merely personal speculation based upon some common-sense conclusions that each of us believes to be operating from as a point of departure.

We are irreconcilable in this matter, but that's not the end of the world, nor this conflict, which is likely to rage for many years after this thread (and board) has seen its last post.


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 23, 2014)

zeke said:


> "...Christians who hold homosexuality at arms' length are oftentimes of the mindset: We are doing the Lord's work, leading by example, in resistance to Evil; just as Jesus would have done."





> _Hey, I think the Inquisition used the exact same words. The Inquisition was pretty damn Godly don't ya think? Bring back the rack for those damn homos. That'll teach em the way of the Lord. Right dude?_


Suit yourself...
I don't recall the Inquisition sitting in-session in this country during all the decades and centuries right up to the present day - with homosexuality being held at arms-length throughout that entire period - but, if you say so...

Meanwhile, enjoy the show...


----------



## RandallFlagg (Feb 23, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...




Your damned straight, sonny. And damned proud of it.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Feb 23, 2014)

RandallFlagg said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > RandallFlagg said:
> ...



Do you know you're mentally ill?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 23, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Chaussette said:
> ...



Or, as Pope Francis recently said about homosexuals..."Who am I to judge?"

btw, what 'sinners' did Jesus shun?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 23, 2014)

RandallFlagg said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > RandallFlagg said:
> ...



Youre proud to be an ignorant, hateful bigot? 

Thats a strange thing to be proud of. 

Of course, you have the right to be an ignorant, hateful bigot, but you dont have the right to seek to codify your ignorance and hate.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Feb 23, 2014)

bodecea said:


> AmericanFirst said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...




Gee..it's a shame that you've never read the Bible...


As it turns out, yes, He did. As a matter of fact, He spoke very clearly and directly about it.

Matthew 19:4. Here Jesus is answering a question from the Pharisees regarding divorce. However, his answer is very telling concerning the entire issue of sexuality, the purpose of sexuality, marriage and the proper form of marriage. Here are the words of Jesus:

And He answered and said to them, Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh? (Matthew 19:4)



Now, I understand that the limp-wrists refer to each other as "Husband and Wife" however, this perversion doesn't qualify - as much as they would have us believe that it does. Marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN. Period.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 23, 2014)

The 'freedom' of businesses to refuse service to whom they choose looks like this:






The actual sign that German businesses put in their shop windows.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Feb 23, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...




Paralegal - do me a favor and save your BS for someone who cares.


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 23, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


Good point.

Trouble is, (a) Francis does not lead the entire Christian community, (b) much of the large chunk of the community that he does lead does not agree with his latter-day modernistic interpretation, and (c) his perspective is not well-rooted in Church doctrine or teachings.



> "..._btw, what 'sinners' did Jesus shun?_"


Beats me. I wasn't talking about Jesus shunning. I was talking about Jesus being one who was likely to resist evil.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 23, 2014)

RandallFlagg said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > AmericanFirst said:
> ...



Youre welcome to take a bible into Federal court and use it as evidence in support of denying gay Americans their civil liberties. 

And that there are currently married same-sex couples proves the bolded to be wrong.


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 23, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> The 'freedom' of businesses to refuse service to whom they choose looks like this:
> 
> ...
> 
> The actual sign that German businesses put in their shop windows.



What a self-serving, horseshit equivalency...







Give a whiny, petulant Liberal enough time, and they'll pull out the Godwin card...

That's OK... it was overdue from your side of the aisle, anyway...


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 23, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



1.  So essentially, someone can make up any belief they want about gays and call it 'Christian?

2.  You said Christians who hold homosexuality 'at arm's length' were acting just like Jesus acted.

I asked you what 'sinners' Jesus shunned, which is synonymous with holding something at arm's length, figuratively speaking.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 23, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > The extreme right has been adamantly opposed to all background checks to determine if anyone has a history of mental illness. But hardly surprising that you want to blame the left for the obstruction of the extreme right.
> ...



Right-Wing Media Push For GOP Obstruction Of Gun Violence Prevention Efforts | Research | Media Matters for America



> Mark Levin: Anyone Who Does Not Filibuster Gun Legislation Is "Voting Against The Constitution." During an April 9 interview with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), The Mark Levin Show host Mark Levin lavished praise on Cruz for his threat to filibuster gun violence prevention legislation, concluding that anyone in the Senate who does not support a filibuster by Cruz and some of his colleagues are "voting against the Constitution." [Cumulus Media Networks, The Mark Levin Show, 4/9/13]
> 
> Erick Erickson: "The Only Way To Stop It Is To Filibuster." In an April 9 RedState blog post, Fox News contributor Erick Erickson chastised certain Republican senators for wanting to allow an up or down vote on gun violence prevention legislation, claiming that the legislation can only be stopped by a filibuster:
> 
> ...


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 23, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Best post on this thread Derideo_Te. By FAR... well done!


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 23, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > The 'freedom' of businesses to refuse service to whom they choose looks like this:
> ...



It's not a 'Godwin' card it's a perfectly analgous historical reference.  Tell me the material difference between a business refusing to serve Jews and a business refusing to serve homosexuals.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 23, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Christ, *you anti-freedom types *are a bunch of babbling baboons.



Ironic!


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 23, 2014)

Wry Catcher said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Doubtful given that the observation sailed clear over his head.


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 23, 2014)

There's a major difference between a sign in a German restaurant that Jews are not allowed and a sign that says "We do not cater bar mitzvahs".   No one is suggesting that restaurants be allowed to shut their doors to gays.  Only that they may be allowed to refuse to participate in homosexual activities.


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 23, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


Why not, so long as it has some basis in Christian sacred texts and Church teachings over the past 2000 years or so?

Are not the schisms and separations between various branches of Christianity the result of Group A or B holding and interpreting both sacred texts and teachings in a manner that suits them?

Or should all Protestants throw out the King James Bible because they made up (and/or reinterpreted) any belief they wanted to about the universe and spiritulity and the godhead at-large, never mind a narrow-range issue like homosexuality, and set down those new or revised beliefs in a revised and unauthorized version of the Bible?



> "...2.  _You said Christians who hold homosexuality 'at arm's length' were acting just like Jesus acted_...."


No, I think I said that Christians who hold homosexuality at arms' length were resisting Evil, just as Jesus would have done.

Jesus called prostitution 'sin'. He forgave and loved the sinner after telling her to sin no more.

Other than interacting with a prostitute in order to convince her to refrain from sinning, it seems logical to posit that Jesus would not associate with prostitutes who were 'active' in such a lifestyle; otherwise, he would be endorsing or legitimizing such sinful behaviors.

It's easy enough to replace the word 'prostitution' with 'homosexuality' and bring the concept forward 2000 years, without stretching either the imagination nor credibility.



> "..._I asked you what 'sinners' Jesus shunned, which is synonymous with holding something at arm's length, figuratively speaking._"


Adequately address, above, hopefully.


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 23, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> "..._It's not a 'Godwin' card it's a perfectly analgous historical reference. Tell me the material difference between a business refusing to serve Jews and a business refusing to serve homosexuals._"


In the case of the former, we are talking about interfering with Freedom of Religion, which is wrong.

In the case of the latter, we are talking about interfering with Freedom of Religion, which is wrong.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 23, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 23, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



Jesus never admonished businesses to refuse service to 'sinners'.  That is a wholly fabricated, aftermarket if you will, belief that some so-called Christians have latched onto out their own biases.

Religion is not a magic bullet that can shoot holes in the Constitution.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 23, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Christ, *you anti-freedom types *are a bunch of babbling baboons.
> ...


You mispelled "spot on".


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 23, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > The 'freedom' of businesses to refuse service to whom they choose looks like this:
> ...



Ask the laughing man in your pic if this will satisfy him as to the validity of my point:


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 23, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Chaussette said:
> ...



Christians who hold homosexuality at arms' length are oftentimes of the mindset: of obsessively using that mind to graphically peer into other people's personal lives and bedrooms.

Christians who hold homosexuality at arms' length are oftentimes of the mindset: of really holding THEIR latent homosexual tendencies at arms' length.

Hey God, PLEASE explain how this law will be carried out? How will these 'EVIL sinners' be identified?? Will patrons have to show their papers before being served by these righteous business owners???






In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty. 
Thomas Jefferson


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 23, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> "..._Jesus never admonished businesses to refuse service to 'sinners'. That is a wholly fabricated, aftermarket if you will, belief that some so-called Christians have latched onto out their own biases_..."


Quite true.

It is interpretation of sacred texts and historical teachings, and applying them to a modern-day problem; something that is done all the time, in any number of focal areas. This is no exception.



> "..._Religion is not a magic bullet that can shoot holes in the Constitution._"


Quite true. But Freedom of Religion is an inviolable right that the Constitution has protected for far, far longer than it has been operative in shielding homosexuals.

The beauty and genius of such 'Religious Objection' laws is that sooner or later one of them is bound to hit a high-end judicial nerve in connection with Freedom of Religion. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




I suspect that The Opposition will continue to probe along those lines until it hits upon the right formula, and wins-back the playing field.

The 3% cannot dictate to the 97% indefinitely - it's simply unsustainable.


----------



## N8dizzle (Feb 23, 2014)

I know that it happens on both sides but it seems like it happens more often from people in support of this law.
And I'm not pro-gay, I'm pro-tolerance . I personally think that homosexuality is unnatural and I have a hard time understanding how they can live their lives that way.
But... I believe that everyone has the right to live their lives the way they want. As long as they aren't hurting me, why would I care who they want to love?
Sometimes I think that the people who are so against gay people are gay themselves. I think they're so worried that someone's going to figure them out that they feel they have to disguise their true feelings with hate.
Or else why would they spend so much time and effort worrying about homosexuality? 


Sent from my SPH-D710 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 23, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



And those who saw 'evil' in the Jews, and I'm not talking about the Nazis here, let's talk about persecution of the Jews in the name of Christianity...

...what was that all about?  Resisting Evil, as you call it?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 23, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > "..._Jesus never admonished businesses to refuse service to 'sinners'. That is a wholly fabricated, aftermarket if you will, belief that some so-called Christians have latched onto out their own biases_..."
> ...



You keep throwing that 97 to 3 number around but there is not  97% opposition to gay rights in this country.

And furthermore, only 1% of the US is Muslim.  Does that mean their religious rights are doomed?


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 23, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> "..._And those who saw 'evil' in the Jews, and I'm not talking about the Nazis here, let's talk about persecution of the Jews in the name of Christianity... ...what was that all about? Resisting Evil, as you call it?_"


I'm not going to play your game and feed your Godwin-esque fantasy analogy.

Nowhere in either the primary sacred texts recognized by Christianity nor within the realm of enduring Church teachings and doctrine do we find support for the Jews being Evil.

The same is not true of homosexuality.


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 23, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> "..._You keep throwing that 97 to 3 number around but there is not 97% opposition to gay rights in this country_..."


Quite true. If one believes the polls of recent times, there is more support for Gay Rights than there is opposition. But 97% of the population is straight, and whatever support Gays can glean from the vast majority on the other side of the fence is a very transient, fragile thing, and subject to a thousand-and-one interlocking assumptions and dependencies, and the sustaining of goodwill while pushing their abhorrent practices and lifestyle into the daylight and into the faces of the 97% and their children.



> "..._And furthermore, only 1% of the US is Muslim.  Does that mean their religious rights are doomed?_"


Not at all. They aren't engaging in traditionally shunned and condemned behaviors.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 23, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > "..._Your 'Canary in the Coal Mine' metaphor is being misinterpreted_..."
> ...



So you are banking upon people becoming bigots as they grow older? 

What Churchill was referring to as conservatives does not equate to what the extreme right has redefined conservatives as being. 

So yes, while neither of us has a crystal ball we can use trends as an indicator of probable outcomes. The demographic shift is real, both the census and the election results prove that it is happening. Texas could be a purple state by 2020. 

I don't expect to change your mind or anyone else's for that matter. I am here because individual rights are something that I will strongly uphold irrespective of whose they may be and, yes, I will uphold your right to your opinion on this matter. You are entitled to not only your opinion, but the right to express it and the beliefs that led to forming this opinion. All of those are your individual rights and they are sacrosanct as far as I am concerned.

But your rights and those who share your position cannot impose your beliefs by using the law to infringe upon the legal rights of others to be free from discrimination. That is a clear bright line in my mind that cannot be crossed and yes, I will defend their individual rights in this regard just as staunchly.


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 23, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > "..._You keep throwing that 97 to 3 number around but there is not 97% opposition to gay rights in this country_..."
> ...



Gays do not need your support to have their rights protected


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 23, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> Nowhere in either the primary sacred texts recognized by Christianity nor within the realm of enduring Church teachings and doctrine do we find support for the Jews being Evil.
> 
> The same is not true of homosexuality.




You should read the law in question, it specifically states that personal religiouis beliefs need not be based on the doctrine of major religions.  The text of the bill means it is their personal religious beliefs that are the deciding factor, not that they are required to show such beliefs are sanctioned by a major religion.

Just say'n, that's what the law says.

>>>>


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 23, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



For those few it actually was a "choice" to become "heterosexual" and deny their attraction for the same sex as themselves. But that "choice" doesn't alter the way they are wired inside. It is more just a denial of the way they were born because it clashes with the religious dogma they were taught.


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 23, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> So you are banking upon people becoming bigots as they grow older?


I am speculating that large numbers of today's metrosexual crowd will grow more intolerant of and repulsed by such behaviors and lifestyle as they mature; adopting a more traditional and historic stance upon such matters.



> "...What Churchill was referring to as conservatives does not equate to what the extreme right has redefined conservatives as being..."


Opposition to homosexuality does not come from ONLY the 'extreme right', and believing that it does, rather than coming from the mainstream, is where the pro-Gay side of the aisle is underestimating the opposition that lies ahead of it. The Opposition is rubbing its hands with glee at the idea that the 'pro' side is making such a mistake on a broad scale.



> "..._So yes, while neither of us has a crystal ball we can use trends as an indicator of probable outcomes. The demographic shift is real, both the census and the election results prove that it is happening. Texas could be a purple state by 2020_..."


Anything is possible. Some of the data does, indeed, appear to favor your own speculation and conclusions, but where we appear to differ most is that you (appear to) believe that the matter is all-but-settled now, while The Opposition believes that it's just getting warmed up, and that the real fun lies ahead of us.



> "..._I don't expect to change your mind or anyone else's for that matter. I am here because individual rights are something that I will strongly uphold irrespective of whose they may be and, yes, I will uphold your right to your opinion on this matter. You are entitled to not only your opinion, but the right to express it and the beliefs that led to forming this opinion. All of those are your individual rights and they are sacrosanct as far as I am concerned_..."


In this, we have unequivocal common ground, and both appear strongly committed to such.



> "..._But your rights and those who share your position cannot impose your beliefs by using the law to infringe upon the legal rights of others to be free from discrimination. That is a clear bright line in my mind that cannot be crossed and yes, I will defend their individual rights in this regard just as staunchly._"


Very well put.

Five out of five on that one.

I'm jealous.

By the same token, I will defend the rights of our countrymen to practice their Religion and to follow the dictates of their conscience, in accordance with time-honored perceptions, both religious and secular, of the degenerate nature of such behaviors and lifestyle practitioners.


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 23, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Nowhere in either the primary sacred texts recognized by Christianity nor within the realm of enduring Church teachings and doctrine do we find support for the Jews being Evil.
> ...


Good catch.

Perhaps that's merely the way most folks construe the law.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Feb 23, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...




And therein lies the problem with you paralegal types. Secularism versus religion. That's what it ALWAYS boils down to - doesn't it. You equate perversion and their being denied "civil rights". Tell me their Chief Justice....What Civil Rights SPECIFICALLY are they being denied? Tell me one.


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 23, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > "..._You keep throwing that 97 to 3 number around but there is not 97% opposition to gay rights in this country_..."
> ...



There was certainly more support for integration and civil rights in 1964 than there was opposition.   But, when integration finally came, whites STILL ran away and let Detroit and Chicago become what they are.   People give a lot of lip service to "rights" but refuse to practice what they vocally support.


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 23, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> "..._Gays do not need your support to have their rights protected_"


Gays require the support of Straights, to have their rights protected.

Straights make the laws.

And Straights can change the laws, anytime they wish, and you can't stop them.


----------



## Chaussette (Feb 23, 2014)

RandallFlagg said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > RandallFlagg said:
> ...


Their right to drive you nuts because gays are MARRIED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Get over it already.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 23, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> So you are banking upon people becoming bigots as they grow older?
> 
> What Churchill was referring to as conservatives does not equate to what the extreme right has redefined conservatives as being.


Since you are apparently an expert on "the extreme right" how do they define themselves? Bigotry isn't defined as disagreeing with you, I would say that's how the extreme left defines itself since we see it regularly. 


> But your rights and those who share your position cannot impose your beliefs by using the law to infringe upon the legal rights of others to be free from discrimination. That is a clear bright line in my mind that cannot be crossed and yes, I will defend their individual rights in this regard just as staunchly.


Forcing someone to accept your alternative lifestyle is NOT protecting individual rights. Your logic is skewed. There is no black lifestyle. There is no asian lifestyle. There is no female lifestyle. A homosexual relationship isn't the same as race or gender no matter how badly you want it or demonize those that refuse to bow to your characterizations.


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 23, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> "..._There was certainly more support for integration and civil rights in 1964 than there was opposition. But, when integration finally came, whites STILL ran away and let Detroit and Chicago become what they are. People give a lot of lip service to 'rights' but refuse to practice what they vocally support._"


True. Neither Doctor King nor the Selma Marchers went prancing down Main Street in fairy-costume nor symbolically offered their backsides to sidewalk crowds containing large numbers of innocent little children - just for starters, as a visceral warm-up.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 23, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > The 'freedom' of businesses to refuse service to whom they choose looks like this:
> ...



Godwin, really? WHY? How is what you are saying any different than Hitler and the Nazis?







"The national government... will maintain and defend the foundations on which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality."

"Today Christians... stand at the head of our country. I pledge that I will never tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity... We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit.... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past... few years."

Adolf Hitler
The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872.


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 23, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> "..._The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872._"


Ho-hum...

Hitler was a nominal Christian but not a practicing one, he was in favor of superseding Christianity with a more pagan-like Tuetonic belief-system that was supportive of his own agenda, and only paid lip service to Christianity so as to 'bring along' his own population, which was still largely Christian by confession.

Meanwhile, as to Christianity's own prohibitions and condemnations of homosexuality... take it up with the authors of the Old Testament, and the teachings of various branches of the Christian Church over the past 2000 years.

Any similarities you note here are mere coincidence and are not similarly motivated.

Next slide, please.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 23, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > "..._The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872._"
> ...



So Hitler wanted Nazism to be, in effect, a religion?  You would thus want Nazism in this country to be considered constitutionally protected, as a religion, and therefore,

the businesses run by Nazi believers would in fact have your blessing to refuse service to Jews.


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 23, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


Ohhhhhh, Lordeeee, but we're takin' our imagination and weak segues out for a long walk today, aren't we?

Not even close... nice try... not.


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 23, 2014)

Democrats want obamaism to be a religion too.  So what's the difference?


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 23, 2014)

The ant-Christian propagandists love to quote Hilter. It's probably true to say he was a Christian but that was in his youth and there's no evidence that he was a devout Catholic in any way. Probably more cultural than spiritual. That was not the Hitler of later days.

You can read General Donovan's research at the Nuremburg trials online from Rutger's University. 

Papers reveal Nazi aim: End Christianity A Rutgers journal will put rare Nuremberg documents online. A plan to rout the church and install a Reich faith is shown. - Philly.com

Papers reveal Nazi aim: End Christianity A Rutgers journal will put rare Nuremberg documents online. A plan to rout the church and install a Reich faith is shown.

The fragile, typewritten documents from the 1940s lay out the Nazi plan in grim detail:

Take over the churches from within, using party sympathizers. Discredit, jail or kill Christian leaders. And re-indoctrinate the congregants. Give them a new faith - in Germany's Third Reich.

More than a half-century ago, confidential U.S. government reports on the Nazi plans were prepared for the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg and will be available online for free starting tomorrow - some of them for the first time.

These rare documents - in their original form, some with handwritten scrawls across them - are part of an online legal journal published by students of the Rutgers University School of Law at Camden.

"When people think about the Holocaust, they think about the crimes against Jews, but here's a different perspective," said Julie Seltzer Mandel, a third-year law student who is editor of the Nuremberg Project for the Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion.

"A lot of people will say, 'I didn't realize that they were trying to convert Christians to a Nazi philosophy.' . . . They wanted to eliminate the Jews altogether, but they were also looking to eliminate Christianity."


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 23, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > "..._Jesus never admonished businesses to refuse service to 'sinners'. That is a wholly fabricated, aftermarket if you will, belief that some so-called Christians have latched onto out their own biases_..."
> ...



Freedom of Religion is an inviolable Right in this country?

Then why can we convict people of murder for committing honor killings, even if that person does it in the name  of his religion?


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 23, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


Are you saying that Freedom of Religion is *NOT* an inviolable right in this country?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 23, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



So you want to retract what you said above?  That Hitler wanted to replace Christianity with a Teutonic pagan belief system?

A pagan belief system is considered a religion.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 23, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



I'm saying, as an example, that an honor killing is not a right in this country even if it is done as a religious practice.

Do you disagree?


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 23, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Wrong. The backlash is due to legislation being passed by the vocal minority. That vocal minority wants everyone to treat their alternative relationships the same as traditional relationships regardless of the individual's moral compass. If something isn't done to curb thetyranny it will spread nationally. What you percieve as a vocal minority is the tip of the iceburg. Most people want the freedom to entertain their values instead of having their values dictated to them by the vocal minority.



Observe the insidious right wing mind...the FEAR driven 'slippery slope' has again reared it's ugly head...


Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 23, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > So you are banking upon people becoming bigots as they grow older?
> ...


You keep saying that the "Opposition" is going to prevail and find a way to discriminate against gays. You also contend that because they are the majority they do as they please and the tiny 3% of gays can't do anything about it. But your math is at fault because it is based upon false assumptions. The "Opposition" is not a majority, it is actually a small fanatical minority and is unlikely to ever become a majority in real terms. Secondly the actual majority comprises of people who understand that unless they support the individual rights of others they will lose their own individual rights. So they will side against the minority "Opposition" when it comes to depriving gays of their rights and enacting discriminatory laws against them. 


> > "..._I don't expect to change your mind or anyone else's for that matter. I am here because individual rights are something that I will strongly uphold irrespective of whose they may be and, yes, I will uphold your right to your opinion on this matter. You are entitled to not only your opinion, but the right to express it and the beliefs that led to forming this opinion. All of those are your individual rights and they are sacrosanct as far as I am concerned_..."
> 
> 
> In this, we have unequivocal common ground, and both appear strongly committed to such.
> ...


Thanks for the compliment. I appreciate that we can both debate this topic in a civil and level headed manner. 





> I'm jealous.
> 
> By the same token, I will defend the rights of our countrymen to practice their Religion and to follow the dictates of their conscience, in accordance with time-honored perceptions, both religious and secular, of the degenerate nature of such behaviors and lifestyle practitioners.



What you call "degenerate nature" is based upon a religious perception that goes back thousands of years. But that tells us something about both religion and homosexuality. 

Firstly it means that heterosexuals give birth to gays. So the "degenerate nature" must exist within the heterosexuals themselves. And yes, even the most devout religious couple can still have gay children. 

Furthermore it has been happening for thousands of years as documented by these religious texts. So if it was actually of a "degenerate nature" it would have resulted in humanity "degenerating". But that hasn't happened either. If anything the very opposite is true. Back when those religious texts were written mankind embraced slavery, child labor and the subservience of women. Religions and states were intertwined. Individual rights did not exist as we know them. 

Today we are a more enlightened egalitarian society where individual rights are paramount and there is a wall of separation between church and state. We have abolished slavery, implemented universal suffrage, introduced labor laws and are on the cusp of ensuring that gays have the same rights as all other citizens.

You are "rubbing your hands with glee" that this enlightenment will lull people into "dropping their guard" and give your "Opposition" minority an opportunity to reverse this enlightenment and effectively "degenerate" this nation back to the dire situation that existed thousands of years ago. 

That won't happen as long as there are good people who refuse to give up the individual rights that it took so many thousands of years to achieve. And yes, in this nation they are the majority.


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 23, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



He is saying it is not an absolute. Especially when it conflicts with the laws of the country


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 23, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > "..._The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872._"
> ...



The Old Testament, huh? The same Old Testament that sanctions abortion?


Numbers 5:11-22 NIV

    11 Then the Lord said to Moses, 12 Speak to the Israelites and say to them: If a mans wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impureor if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah[a] of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing.

    16 The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this cursemay the Lord cause you to become a curse* among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.

    Then the woman is to say, Amen. So be it.*


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 23, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > "..._You keep throwing that 97 to 3 number around but there is not 97% opposition to gay rights in this country_..."
> ...



So you're not aware of movements in this country, including legislation, to ban Sharia Law?


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 23, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > "..._The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872._"
> ...



Hitler, the man whose first desire was to be a priest?

In the February 29, 1929 edition of the Völkischer Beobachter (official newspaper of the Nazi Party), Adolf Hitler published an article on the new Lateran Treaty between Mussolini's fascist government and the Vatican. According to Hitler, this treaty should demonstrate to the world that not only are fascism and Christianity not polar opposites, but that they are in fact close kin which should be working together:

The fact that the Curia is now making its peace with Fascism shows that the Vatican trusts the new political realities far more than did the former liberal democracy with which it could not come to terms.

...The fact that the Catholic Church has come to an agreement with Fascist Italy ...proves beyond doubt that the Fascist world of ideas is closer to Christianity than those of Jewish liberalism or even atheistic Marxism, to which the so-called Catholic Center Party sees itself so closely bound, to the detriment of Christianity today and our German people.


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 23, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> > Not at all. They aren't engaging in traditionally shunned and condemned behaviors.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're not aware of movements in this country, including legislation, to ban Sharia Law?


Shariah Law is foreign to The West and largely incompatible, encroaching and dangerous to the good working order of Western Society as we know it.

It is not a tradionally shunned and condemned behavior.

It is a politico-sociological-cultural threat-axis.

And is being treated accordingly by those who believe thus.


----------



## LeftofLeft (Feb 23, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> I think another state passed something similar to this last week so this must be a trend that is catching on. I agree with this bill that if you are a business owner and believe in and live by your faith that you should be able to refuse service to whoever you want.
> 
> 
> Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays
> Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays



On it's face, it looks like an extreme measure. Personally, if a same sex couple came in for a nice dinner or to purchase a mortgage or any other business service I was providing, I would treat them the same as any other couple. But, as a business owner, I should have the right to refuse service to anyone. If I have a sign that says, "No Black" or "Only whites", that is a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. If, however, a group comes in and makes the rest of my customers uncomfortable with their behavior (too loud, to confrontational with other customers or staff) and they all happen to be black, I should have the right to refuse them service. My basis would be the same if it were a bunch of whites or Latinos. If you are not adhering to rules or expectations of the establishment (my discretion), I should be able to refuse service.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 23, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > > Not at all. They aren't engaging in traditionally shunned and condemned behaviors.
> ...



It is religion, and you say religion is an inviolable right.


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 23, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


The anti-Christian Propoganda Thread is down the hall, second door to the Left.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 23, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> In the February 29, 1929 edition of the Völkischer Beobachter (official newspaper of the Nazi Party), Adolf Hitler published an article on the new Lateran Treaty between Mussolini's fascist government and the Vatican. According to Hitler, this treaty should demonstrate to the world that not only are fascism and Christianity not polar opposites, but that they are in fact close kin which should be working together:
> 
> The fact that the Curia is now making its peace with Fascism shows that the Vatican trusts the new political realities far more than did the former liberal democracy with which it could not come to terms.
> 
> ...The fact that the Catholic Church has come to an agreement with Fascist Italy ...proves beyond doubt that the Fascist world of ideas is closer to Christianity than those of Jewish liberalism or even atheistic Marxism, to which the so-called Catholic Center Party sees itself so closely bound, to the detriment of Christianity today and our German people.


And we all know how unbiased Adolf Hitler was.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 23, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > > Not at all. They aren't engaging in traditionally shunned and condemned behaviors.
> ...



You could say that about laws that discriminate against minorities.


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 23, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


It is a codified legal manifestation of a religious mindset which is foreign to, incompatible with, and dangerous to, the good working order of Western society and culture and traditions.

Good provision and accommodation may be made for it within the private sphere in which practitioners of that belief-system may voluntarily submit themselves to clerical judgment but which they are not obliged at-law to honor as binding.

Thus, preserving their 'right', while not imposing their miniscule Minority View upon the vastly larger Majority.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 23, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



You are literally getting hammered here bird brain. You are reducing yourself to amateur partisan 'sayings'...

Better debunk yourself...


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 23, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > In the February 29, 1929 edition of the Völkischer Beobachter (official newspaper of the Nazi Party), Adolf Hitler published an article on the new Lateran Treaty between Mussolini's fascist government and the Vatican. According to Hitler, this treaty should demonstrate to the world that not only are fascism and Christianity not polar opposites, but that they are in fact close kin which should be working together:
> ...



The only ones talking like Hitler are you right wing fascists...


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 23, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



The actual text is:

*"Exercise of religion" means the PRACTICE OR OBSERVANCE OF
RELIGION, INCLUDING THE ability to act or refusal to act in a manner 
substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the exercise is 
compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief. *

So none of your rants about what's in or not in Christianity are relevant.


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 23, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


Granting foreign law precedence over native law is dangerous.

Legitimizing sexual behaviors that weaken and emasculate a population and lead that population to a degenerate state is dangerous.

Dangerous minorities and dangerous minority viewpoints are treated differently than benign ones; accommodated insofar as may be practicable, but kept on a short leash, for the good of the broader community or nation.

And, where barriers exist at-law to such short-leashing, the laws eventually end-up being changed, in favor of safety.


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 23, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



You know the difference between acting and not acting right?   Honor killing is an act, refusing to participate in a same sex wedding is refusing to act.    

The question is whether people should be forced to act against their will.  If a Christian answers an ad for a cameraman for a premier movie studio and finds out that the studio is VIVID, then refuses the job on religious grounds, should there be some method of compelling that Christian to take the job?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 23, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



The above also means that winning a discrimination suit against someone in a relevant case would be almost impossible,

since the defendant is virtually unlimited as to what he or she can claim to be a religious belief, based on the above.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 23, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



A wedding business refusing service to a homosexual is no different than a restaurant refusing service to a black person.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 23, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



HERE is how it works...if you don't subscribe to homosexual relationships don't PRACTICE them. After that, you really need to tend to your OWN business and keep your nose out of other people's business.

We have laws against behavior like stealing, killing and causing harm to others. If gays don't violate any of those laws, they should enjoy the VERY SAME liberties, rights and protections under law as even turds like you receive.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 23, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



So you admit that religion is not an inviolable right in this country.

So let's smoothly transition to this:

What is dangerous about a gay couple getting married?


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 23, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> "...You are literally getting hammered here..."


Hardly. I am merely holding-off several pro-Gay colleagues, simultaneously, without a lot of help. That's not hammering. That's taking a stand, and making a good show of it.



> "...bird brain..."


I would not have insulted you thus, simply because you hold and maintained an opposing viewpoint, but your willingness to do just that speaks volumes about your nature. Just remember, in future, you started the rock-throwing, not me.

Consequently, and with your kind permission - and even without your kind permission - you may now proceed to kiss my ass, at your earliest convenience and discretion. Thank you.



> "..._You are reducing yourself to amateur partisan 'sayings'_..."


Oh, an occasional Partisan Maxim, tossed in here and there, does no harm, so long as one does not rely overly much upon such, as the substance of their contribution, eh?

But feel free to continue believing that the Opposition has nothing up its sleeve other than 'partisan sayings'... it makes the counterpointing all the easier. Many thanks.



> "..._Better debunk yourself_..."


Long-since accomplished, in the main, mine good colleague, and always on the lookout to fine-tune and reinforce that state of affairs on a personal basis. Look to your own state, and leave me to mine.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 23, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



A local community with sufficient Muslims to make it politically possible legislates Sharia Law into effect as the local set of statues,

much the same as any local community with comparable governing power at the local level does in this country.

You claim they should be deprived of that set of laws.

On what grounds, exactly?


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 23, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


I admit no such thing.

I even provided an illustration of how such rights can be accommodated while not infringing upon the Majority.



> "..._What is dangerous about a gay couple getting married?_"


Nothing.

Gay Marriage is merely the mechanism by which the floodgates are opened.

The legitimizing of homosexuality in all its aspects is where the potential danger lies.

The creation of a licentious, libertine, dissipated, effeminate, emasculated and degenerate state is the risk.

The strength of The Nation is far too important to risk upon such accommodation.


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 23, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


On the grounds that the laws of the United States are supreme within its boundaries.

Dispute that and you've got 330,000,000 fellow citizens telling you you're wrong.


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 23, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



A restaurant refusing service to someone who is gay is no different than refusing service to a black person.    Refusing wedding business to a homosexual couple is refusing to participate in a homosexual wedding.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 23, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



The question has nothing to do with whether people should be forced to act against their will; business owners are subject to all manner of regulatory policy, such as obtaining a business license, health and safety inspections, wage and work hour requirements, and consumer protection. Public accommodations laws are merely another example of appropriate and Constitutional regulatory policy, as government is authorized to regulate markets and ensure their integrity, where to deny service to a customer predicated solely on his race, religion, or sexual orientation poses a threat to that local market and all interrelated markets.


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 23, 2014)

It's been fun, kids, and I thank you for the time, but, it's time for me to back off for a while and let others play the foil for a while...


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 23, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Correct. 

And to allow both or either poses a threat to the local and interrelated markets, and are regulated accordingly.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 23, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Wrong.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 23, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



You've been reduced to bigoted ranting.


----------



## Tresha91203 (Feb 23, 2014)

Fear, suspicion and hate of the "other" has been human nature since the dawn of time. Are those that hate black people hiding their latent blackness? Are misogynists secretly women pretending to be normal men? Washingtonians who hate the Lummi tribe closeted Native Americans? I just don't see it.

 There are probably many homosexuals who struggle with coming to terms with their orientation and do go through a period of vocal anti-gay speech, but that is a homosexual struggling to survive IMO and more akin to sympathisers and collaborators and self-hatred than actual bigotry. 

Suspicion, fear and hatred of the "other" is (or was) about survival. Keeping women and children property ensures that your line survives over anothers. Persecuting the odd culture (even wiping them out, which we have been inclined to do) keeps your culture dominant and in power. The strongest survives, the rest perish, from the beginning to today, not just in America but across the globe.

Colonials/Native Americans, Hutu/Tutsi, Canadians/Quebecois, Christians/everyone else, Muslims/everyone else, heterosexual/homosexual. It is the human condition and takes a long time (if it is even possible) to reconcile two groups of "other". It seems to me that assimilation or absorbsion is the only way, but that kills some very interesting cultures. As long as they are "other," it seems they are wrong and that's a shame.

I think we are further along than we were, obviously, but not there. If we ever get there, I bet another "other" appears for us to fear and be suspicious of, therefore hate ... maybe aliens. If so, it will take generations to breed out that fear ... or they can just squash us lol.

You rarely can change a grown person's worldview. His children are less afraid and hate less, and their children begin to see commonalities rather than "other" due to exposure with little to no noticable ill effects. IMO, that is the point that the "other" is no longer a threat or danger. There is a reason that, historically, stranger = enemy. It is one of the reasons we are still here. 




Derideo_Te said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 23, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Feel free to continue believing that. Doesn't affect me or my arguments in the slightest.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 23, 2014)

dblack said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Dimwit, THE US CONSTITUTION gives religious beliefs special status.  Do you now want to tell us that your extra-special, personal revelation that any thought anyone happens to pass through their minds at any given moment should be given the exact same weight should take precedent over the most basic, fundamental legal framework we have?  Because the answer is going to be, "Shut the fuck up" if that's the case.

I realize that you would like to believe that the First Amendment mandates governmental indifference and even hostility toward religion, and you have gone to great lengths to facilitate that belief by never, EVER reading the First Amendment and having precious little understanding of the English language, but in fact, the First Amendment (among other things) specifically PROTECTS religion, and it prohibits government from promoting one specific religion over any other.  It does NOT prohibit government from protecting ALL religion.

Now personally, I'm a believer in freedom of thought and association as a general rule.  But it is a fact that it is RELIGIOUS BELIEF that is specifically protected in our founding laws.  Sorry if that doesn't jibe with the hate-filled religiophobic world you'd like to live in, but . . . actually, I'm not sorry.  I'm kinda glad it chafes your hide.


----------



## dblack (Feb 23, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Well, if that's all you got...

As I said, I don't think intent of the first was to give religious views special status, but to prevent them from being specific targets. Many early Americans came here to escape religious persecution and they wanted to make sure it didn't happen again.




> Sorry if that doesn't jibe with the hate-filled religiophobic world you'd like to live in, but . . . actually, I'm not sorry.  I'm kinda glad it chafes your hide.



"Hate-filled, religiophobic" ?? Heh... seriously, you don't know me at all.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 23, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> Gay Marriage is merely the mechanism by which the floodgates are opened.
> 
> *The legitimizing of homosexuality in all its aspects is where the potential danger lies*.
> 
> ...



Here's the Biblical/1st Amendment passages of Jude 1 & Romans 1 to clarify exactly what type of sin homosexuality is and more particularly the sin of allowing it to spread unchecked without earnestly contending for the common welfare:



> JUDE 1
> 
> 3. Beloved, when *I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation*, it was needful for me to write unto you, *and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith* which was once delivered unto the saints.
> 
> ...





> ROMANS 1
> 
> 22.  *Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools*,
> 
> ...



So getting more specific about the crime of homosexuality and how much it pisses God off...  Jude 1 says that God will condemn those who enable homosexuality to the same pit of fire if they do not "earnestly contend" for the "common salvation".

Romans 1 says at the very end there that not only will the gays go down to the pit, but also those who "have pleasure in them that do".  ie: if you smile upon this new LGBT fad and support it with your vote, your on-board assistance, your arguments and smooth speech, you're going to the Pit with those already damned.

That's not an ambiguous decree to christians.  Nor is it a diet sin, a venial matter.  It's the hard core stuff that is one and the same as completely abandoning your faith.  That's where it takes a giant leap into 1st Amendment territory..


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 23, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> Look to your own state, and leave me to mine.



Thank you for embracing, reinforcing and restating my position on gay rights, and exposing the fatal flaw of everything you have posted...

game, set, match...


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 23, 2014)

dblack said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I don't know if I consider this a "special perk".  It's not like anyone is saying, "Woo hoo!  I get to take on a battle with raging lesbians and drag queens and have my business vilified!  Let's get to it!"

The First Amendment does a lot more than merely protect religious organizations and people from persecution, or prevent the government from setting up a state religion.  What we are addressing right now is the OTHER part of that clause:  "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".  There's simply no way you can say that it's opposite the intent of the First Amendment to protect the right of Christians - or any religion - to exercise their religious beliefs by associating or not associating with other people.  The fact that we have somehow concocted the screwy notion that people have a "right" to associate with people who don't want to participate, or have a "right" to not be made to feel bad because they've encountered someone who doesn't approve of them, does not change the wording or the intent of the First Amendment.  I simply don't think you can rationally argue that our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution with the intention of forcing businesses to attend and service gay weddings against their will.

Don't let yourself get sucked in by the latest leftist strawman of an innocent gay couple, all nicely dressed for dinner, being turned away by the maitre'd at a fancy restaurant because, "We don't serve your kind."  That's not what this is about, nor is that what's going to happen.  Always remember that whatever or whoever the left is passionately arguing to protect is virtually NEVER the actual point of the issue.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 23, 2014)

Plasmaball said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



It never ceases to amaze me that you continue to address me as though you think you matter.  Please observe that I wasn't talking to you, would not dignify your joke of an existence by debating with you, and laugh my ass off at your belief that YOU have any judgement to offer about whether or not I have an argument.

Now that you've served your purpose in life of comic relief, begone.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 23, 2014)

N8dizzle said:


> Why do some people on here think it's necessary to call other peoole dumb?



It's called "observation".



N8dizzle said:


> Are you that insecure about your argument that you have to resort to insulting those who disagree with you?



No, we're just noticing and pointing out that you're dumb.



N8dizzle said:


> And it's always calling someone dumb, stupid, or an idiot like a third grader. Grow up and think of something intelligent to say if your going to claim someone else is "dumb".



If you're going to argue like a third-grader, what else can you expect?

Please don't think this whole "Oh, you said a mean word, I get to ignore your ENTIRE three-paragraph post and focus on just that ONE WORD, and pretend you said nothing else" act has ever worked for anyone else - and your people have all tried it at one time or another; originality is not a leftist hallmark - or will work for you.  Butch up and move on, or run crying to the Justin Bieber threads.



N8dizzle said:


> I'm sure if you put your mind to it you could come up with an argument that's actually worth reading.



Would that I were as sure about you, but given this post, I wouldn't bet money on it.

Now post something useful and stop sniveling at us about your sandy vagina.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 23, 2014)

Tresha91203 said:


> Fear, suspicion and hate of the "other" has been human nature since the dawn of time. Are those that hate black people hiding their latent blackness? Are misogynists secretly women pretending to be normal men? Washingtonians who hate the Lummi tribe closeted Native Americans? I just don't see it.
> 
> There are probably many homosexuals who struggle with coming to terms with their orientation and do go through a period of vocal anti-gay speech, but that is a homosexual struggling to survive IMO and more akin to sympathisers and collaborators and self-hatred than actual bigotry.
> 
> ...



The link between homophobic actions and repressed latent homosexual tendencies has been scientifically proven. And in all of the studies, participants who reported supportive and accepting parents were more in touch with their implicit sexual orientation, meaning it tended to jibe with their outward sexual orientation. Students who indicated they came from authoritarian homes showed the biggest discrepancy between the two measures of sexual orientation.

"In a predominately heterosexual society, 'know thyself' can be a challenge for many gay individuals," lead author Netta Weinstein, a lecturer at the University of Essex in the United Kingdom,said in a statement. "But in controlling and homophobic homes, embracing a minority sexual orientation can be terrifying."

And fear is the very core of conservatism. 

The history of mankind has been a struggle between those who want to increase freedom, opportunity and rights to all people and those who want to restrict them. The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals. The people who have fought to restrict them are conservatives.


----------



## dblack (Feb 23, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> The First Amendment does a lot more than merely protect religious organizations and people from persecution, or prevent the government from setting up a state religion.  What we are addressing right now is the OTHER part of that clause:  "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".  There's simply no way you can say that it's opposite the intent of the First Amendment to protect the right of Christians - or any religion - to exercise their religious beliefs by associating or not associating with other people.



Right, I'm not saying that "it's opposite the intent of the First Amendment to protect the right of Christians - or any religion - to exercise their *religious* beliefs by associating or not associating with other people." 

But this isn't simply a freedom of religion issue, it's a freedom of association issue. And while the freedom of religion established in the first amendment might not protect "any thought anyone happens to pass through their minds at any given moment", the freedom of association does. We should be free to associate with whomever we want (or refuse association with whomever we don't want) for whatever reasons we want - religious, secular, rational, irrational.



> The fact that we have somehow concocted the screwy notion that people have a "right" to associate with people who don't want to participate, or have a "right" to not be made to feel bad because they've encountered someone who doesn't approve of them, does not change the wording or the intent of the First Amendment.  I simply don't think you can rationally argue that our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution with the intention of forcing businesses to attend and service gay weddings against their will.



And I don't. Public accommodations laws are even more heinous than the misinterpretation of the first amendment. But I think addressing them with a religious exemption is bad medicine. It only weakens our case against this kind of government intrusion in matters of conscience. 

My point is that freedom of religion isn't, or at least shouldn't be thought of as, a "get out of jail free card". It's not intended to allow religious people to selectively disobey the law for 'religious reasons'.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 23, 2014)

N8dizzle said:


> What God would want their followers to be hateful to anyone?
> I find it hard to believe that if there is a god that they would want any of their children to to be intolerant towards each other.



You have REALLY got to get over this need to superimpose your peurile, Crayola-drawing perceptions onto reality, y'know?

First of all, Chuckles, no one's talking about being "hateful" or "intolerant".  You just want to see it that way.  We are talking about not agreeing with someone else's lifestyle choices and not wanting to be forced to participate in them.  If anything, the hatefulness and intolerance here is demonstrated by the gays who've identified someone as not kissing their ass and applauding them and decided to use the law to bludgeon them into silence and destroy their livelihoods.  That's what this law is intended to protect against.

Second of all, I get almighty tired of you simplistic flower children wannabes deciding that "tolerance" and "being nice" are somehow the entire point of Christianity.  Do you even  attend church, Billy Graham?  Exactly what are your qualifications for defining what God wants for people?

I have a favorite quote addressing this very issue.  It's long, and I know leftist attention spans are no great shakes, but try to soldier through:

_According to liberals, the message of Jesus . . . is something along the lines of "be nice to people" (which to them means "raise taxes on the productive"). 

You don't need a religion like Christianity, which is a rather large and complex endeavor, in order to flag that message. All you need is a moron driving around in a Volvo with a bumper sticker that says "be nice to people." Being nice to people is, in fact, one of the incidental tenets of Christianity (as opposed to other religions whose tenets are more along the lines of "kill everyone who doesn't smell bad and doesn't answer to the name Mohammed"). But to call it the "message" of Jesus requires ... well, the brain of Maureen Dowd.

In fact, Jesus' distinctive message was: People are sinful and need to be redeemed, and this is your lucky day because I'm here to redeem you even though you don't deserve it, and I have to get the crap kicked out of me to do it. That is the reason He is called "Christ the Redeemer" rather than "Christ the Moron Driving Around in a Volvo With a 'Be Nice to People' Bumper Sticker on It." _ - _Ann Coulter_



N8dizzle said:


> I went to church as a kid and I don't remember them telling me to only be kind to those who shared the same ideas as me.



Funny, I attend church as an adult, on top of being raised in a family with a long tradition of ministers, and I don't remember anyone telling me "kindness" required endorsing behavior I considered wrong and sinful.



N8dizzle said:


> Isn't the golden rule to treat others the way you want to be treated?



If you can show me an example of Christians setting out to destroy someone's life via the legal system for disagreeing with them, this might have some relevance.  As it happens, most Christians do, in fact, live their entire lives cheek-by-jowl with the idea that people are going to treat them badly for their faith.  Goes with the territory.



N8dizzle said:


> How did things get so twisted that we're passing laws that encourage intolerance?



The only thing "twisted" here is your half-assed understanding of what freedom is about and what this nation was founded on.  Trust me when I tell you it had nothing to do with forcing people to approve of others against their own beliefs.



N8dizzle said:


> People that wake up every day thinking of ways to ruin someone else's day should go back to bed.



I'll be sure to tell the militant gays you said so.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 23, 2014)

N8dizzle said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > The photographer who refused to take the wedding pictures was happy to take studio photographs.  What she refused to do was attend the wedding itself.  So it was more than just taking a few pictures.
> ...



That IS participating in the ceremony, you chucklehead.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 23, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



It always amazes me how leftists think the dictates of an individual's conscience are decided by committee vote.

Maybe it's because leftists have no conscience, so they have no frame of reference.


----------



## Chaussette (Feb 23, 2014)

I'm glad to hear that the gay bashers are willing to openly show their homophobia and hate. Just like Jesus would have wanted them to do. Bravo!


----------



## dblack (Feb 23, 2014)

Chaussette said:


> I'm glad to hear that the gay bashers are willing to openly show their homophobia and hate. Just like Jesus would have wanted them to do. Bravo!



There's far more subtle stuff going on here, if you pay attention.


----------



## Tresha91203 (Feb 23, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> Opposition to homosexuality does not come from ONLY the 'extreme right', and believing that it does, rather than coming from the mainstream, is where the pro-Gay side of the aisle is underestimating the opposition that lies ahead of it. The Opposition is rubbing its hands with glee at the idea that the 'pro' side is making such a mistake on a broad scale.



I'm not sure. There are those that oppose because they are different, therefore threatening. There are plenty of those and it looks (at least in my area) like that is the largest block of opposition. I am seeing a smaller but growing group that is reacting to perceived rudeness or hostility or in-your-face innapropriateness in public and on airwaves. People who don't fear or hate resent being lumped in with those that do. One can disagree with another and not hate them or hold them down ... Chick fil a and Roberts of Duck Dynasty. One can support gay rights and find aggressive pushing of that agenda to be rude and innapropriate ... public displays of as nude as possible or as sexual as possible. That is the kind I am seeing from the left and moderate right. I don't lump that in the same category and don't consider that to be opposition to homosexuality. That is a pushback to rudeness and a demand for common courtesy. They are just as opposed to overt sexual behavior of heterosexuals in public as of homosexuals. We respect your rights and will generally fight in varying degrees for them ... until your right smacks against my right to not have obnoxious people in my face and angry at me for all of history, or when they feel they can't take their children out in public without someone's hairy ass in a thong ... much like the rudeness and inappropriateness of pants around ones thigh so far I can see asshairs. 

Those are different IMO and I hope "the movement" realizes this soon. One is the problem of the hater (opposed to homosexuality). The other is the problem of the other hater (homosexuals who aggressively lash out at the many who do not fear or hate in order to really goad the ones who do). Personally, I've never feared or hated homosexuals. That does not mean I appreciate public groping between homosexuals. Public space is shared by all and requires us to recognize that others have the right to enjoy that space as well. A little courtesy, please.  Just like I speak up to innapropriate sexuality in public among young heterosexuals, I reserve the right to speak up to the same from homosexuals. I also speak up when people's children scream/tantrum in public and their parent ignores it without removing them. It is intrusive and rude. That does not make me a bigot or an asshole, just more conservtive than others.

I guess everyone has their lines, but there needs to be an understanding that not everyone is comfortable with everything. Pushing the line of public decency is not going to help the cause IMO. It gets a lot of exposure, and desensitizes to a degree, but people will push back to keep public spaces a place they can enjoy as well. Most of us have no more problem with gay pride parades than mardi gras parades in New Orleans. Both are fun places to enjoy pushing (and even crossing, if you can get away with it) those lines. People who don't want to see nudity or in-your-face sexuality can and do avoid them. People who do want to see and enjoy it go and some bring their children. I've no problem with that. I've no problem with holding hands, mild kissing, arms wrapped around shoulders or waists or anything like that. Other cultures find ALL public displays of affection innapropriate and I can't think of any culture that finds full sexual contact in public appropriate (although I don't know all cultures). There is a line. On one side, the majority of both can live happily. On the other side, you are just pissing off and/or embarassing the majority of both.


----------



## Chaussette (Feb 23, 2014)

dblack said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> > I'm glad to hear that the gay bashers are willing to openly show their homophobia and hate. Just like Jesus would have wanted them to do. Bravo!
> ...



They should just cut to the chase and post a sign in their windows saying something like: "I'm a fucking homophobe and won't serve gays because I spend way too much time worry about not being gay myself". Would that about cover it?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 23, 2014)

N8dizzle said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > N8dizzle said:
> ...



God, why is it that leftists have to make everything personal?  The rest of the world grows up and realizes that it's not all about them, so what's keeping you from doing it?

We're discussing an issue, and sides to the issue, and activist groups on all sides of the issue.  This involves many people, not just you.

As it happens, though, YOU are the one currently advocating the forcing of opinions and positions from one group onto another group.



N8dizzle said:


> Isn't the whole idea of this to discuss something that we all don't agree on?



Yes, and we are.  Are you having some sort of problem with that?



N8dizzle said:


> I don't expect you to change your views for me, or to agree with me. I'm just saying what I believe. How is that any different than you talking about  your beliefs?



The fact that what you believe is that people you agree with have, and should have, the right to force their beliefs onto others.



N8dizzle said:


> So... when you say whatever you want about the subject thats ok, but when I say something I'm trying to force my beliefs on you.



No, Mensa Boy, when you say you believe that people should be forced to act in accordance with your beliefs, you're trying to force your beliefs onto me, and everyone else.

If we're going to be subjected to a long trail of posts where you whine about people reading, understanding, and restating what you believe and you not liking how you sound in the process, just tell me now, and I'll go talk to someone who isn't going to whimper at me like a vaporish girl.  If you're going to talk to me, you'd better strap on a pair and be prepared to defend your beliefs, not snivel about how I'm not applauding them.



N8dizzle said:


> You seem to think that I'm the only one who disagrees with you. You haven't noticed that this is a highly debated issue? I never claimed that anyone personally owes me an explanation or that my view is more important than other people's.



Really?  How do I "seem" that way?  Because I'm talking to you?  You HAVE noticed that I'm addressing a lot of other repression-fanatic leftists as well, right?

Lose the tunnel vision, sweet cheeks.  Not only does the universe not revolve around you, almost none of it even gives a shit about you.  Adjust to that fact.



N8dizzle said:


> This law doesn't even effect me personally. I don't own a business,  and I'm not gay. I think that when a law is passed that is hateful and does nothing but hurt our society, people who realize it should speak up.



What a coincidence.  And yet you can't wrap your mind around the fact that I'm not defending this law or these business owners because I personally give shit one about homosexuals and what they do or don't do; I simply believe in the principles of freedom of conscience and freedom of association.



N8dizzle said:


> And it doesn't surprise me that the word "fair" gives you chills. If I were as closed minded as you I wouldn't like the words "fair" or "just" either.
> I shutter to think of how you feel when you see the word "equality."



They way you use it?  Have someone read you the story "Harrison Bergeron", and you'll have a good idea what I think of your version of "equality".

There's a difference between being open-minded and being empty-headed.  The more you talk, the more I think the light in your eyes is actually the sunshine coming through the hole in the back of your skull.



N8dizzle said:


> You'd probably fall over dead if you read the constitution.



Oh, the Constitution, is it?  You think the Constitution supports your position, do you?  Well, then, little one, dry your tears and cite me the passage of the Constitution you think requires people to participate in activities they consider a violation of their religious beliefs.

And just for the record, Junior, let me share with you my motto in life:  Patience is a virtue . . . and I'm not very virtuous.

This long, blubbering train of "Stop being mean to me!  I'm smart and my opinions are important!  Waahhh!" has just hit the limit on all the patience I have for simpering this week.  From here on, your posts will be about substance and hard fact, rather than your hurt feelings of being misunderstood and unappreciated, or they will be summarily ignored.  I'm not your Mommy or your therapist, and I'm under no obligation to pamper your self-esteem.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 23, 2014)

Tresha91203 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Opposition to homosexuality does not come from ONLY the 'extreme right', and believing that it does, rather than coming from the mainstream, is where the pro-Gay side of the aisle is underestimating the opposition that lies ahead of it. The Opposition is rubbing its hands with glee at the idea that the 'pro' side is making such a mistake on a broad scale.
> ...



The growing acceptance boils down to something much more simple. Almost everyone has a family member, friend, co-worker or acquaintance who is gay. Suddenly they are not monsters...an epiphany....


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 23, 2014)

Kiddies, your religious suppositions have no standing before the courts.


----------



## dblack (Feb 23, 2014)

Chaussette said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Chaussette said:
> ...



Then again, if you don't ...


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 23, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Gay Marriage is merely the mechanism by which the floodgates are opened.
> ...



Then why do we have so many gay-tolerant Christians in the world?


----------



## Chaussette (Feb 23, 2014)

Jesus was gay: he only hung around with guys, looks pretty buff and effeminite in all the paintings of him, wore a dress, only fucked a woman once (meaning he didn't like it), and rode a donkey, which only women rode.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 23, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Prove it.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 23, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Oh, would I?  How do you know that?  Because YOU are a hypocrite who only supports rights for yourself and those you agree with, so you assume everyone else holds your same loathsome attitudes?

Feel free to prove what I would and would not be outraged by, and don't EVER assume that just because you would do something, you are in any way, shape, or form comparable to me.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 23, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



You stopped arguing about 2 hours ago.


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 23, 2014)

Tresha91203 said:


> "...I'm not sure..."


This was *VERY* well said... I don't agree with all of it, but it was well-considered, rang true in several respects, and was an open, honest expression of mix opinions on the subject, without hatred or fear or fear-mongering. Thank you.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 23, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Conscience driven unconstitutional actions are still unconstitutional actions.


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 23, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


So you keep trying to assert, anyway...


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 23, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> The link between homophobic actions and repressed latent homosexual tendencies has been scientifically proven. And in all of the studies, participants who reported supportive and accepting parents were more in touch with their implicit sexual orientation, meaning it tended to jibe with their outward sexual orientation. Students who indicated they came from authoritarian homes showed the biggest discrepancy between the two measures of sexual orientation.
> 
> "In a predominately heterosexual society, 'know thyself' can be a challenge for many gay individuals," lead author Netta Weinstein, a lecturer at the University of Essex in the United Kingdom,said in a statement. "But in controlling and homophobic homes, embracing a minority sexual orientation can be terrifying."
> 
> ...



And witness the last-ditch attempt to ditch the conversation lest it gets too uncomfortable..lol..

The old "if you disagree with us, you must be a closet homo".  That usually does the trick, right Bfgrn?

Take my own case for example.  I became a vocal opponent of the gay agenda [LGBT-defined "closet homo"] when my good family friend died of AIDS and his brother told our family that it was because he was molested as a boy by a man, grew up without treatment for that crime and as a result became compulsively promiscuous sexually with men, while at the same time only able to fall in love with women.  This torture led him to seek subconscious revenge when, predictably, his lifestyle led him to contract HIV.  He went out and had as much rampant unprotected sex as he could in a murderous/suicidal rampage.  He finally died of a horrible lingering death in his early 30s.  AIDS claimed another victim.

And that's why I "subconsciously long to be a homo" like LGBT would have you believe.

They usually pull that one from deep inside their bag of tricks when their backs are getting really close to the wall.  I'd say this little predicament between their steamroller advancing on common cultural values and the 1st Amendment prescribed in Jude 1 and Romans 1 is a clear indication of the level of fear they have about christians being able to stick to their faith and deny enabling of the homosexual cult/wildfire currently overtaking every nook and cranny.

They would have you believe that each and every single individual who opposes their unwanted advances in any arena is a "closet homo"/ "bigot"/ "hater" etc.  Meanwhile their unexamined psyches have two of the same gender parading around as "man" and "woman" [butch/femme] in nearly every coupling they have.  And somehow we are to believe there are no _closet heteros _in their ranks?..lol..

Why is it that a woman would be attracted to another woman who dresses, acts, looks, walks and talks like a man?

There's your closet activity folks.  Discuss...


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 23, 2014)

dblack said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Honey, I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian family that believed movies, television, and popular music were of the devil, attended church four times a week, AND believed we should memorize as much of the Scriptures as possible against the day the atheists took over America and burned all the Bibles.  Furthermore, I was raised by these people during the seventies and eighties, when  wave of "rapture fever" was sweeping over churches like ours, and everyone believed we were five seconds away from the Tribulation, and if you missed the rapture you were only going to Heaven if you were martyred.

I'm afraid that getting butthurt because someone doesn't like me is just outside my scope of reference.


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 23, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Kiddies, your religious suppositions have no standing before the courts.


That's what these State-level laws are going to decide...

The jury is still out, and likely to be, for quite some time...

If Angle A doesn't work, they'll try Angle B, and C...

Think the Gay Rights Movement was tenacious?

You ain't seen nuthin' yet, I expect, and from a much larger active contingent.

Think the interpretation-of-law de jour insulates you from future shock?

Ask the Abortion Rights folks how that's playing-out nowadays on the State level, 40+ years after Roe v Wade...


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 23, 2014)

dblack said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Oh, I'd definitely let anyone and everyone of my acquaintance know about such a business so they could avoid it.  Bringing a lawsuit or organizing a protest?  Please.  I have a life here, and better things to do with my time.  In the final wash, if someone doesn't want to be around me, I don't want to be around them.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 23, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



I'm referring to local American laws passed by Muslim-Americans in a community - laws that happen to reflect Sharia law.

On what grounds are you going to deprive them of that set of laws?


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 23, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


So long as they do not substantively conflict with United States Law, no problemo.

Cross that line and all bets are off.

It's the answer and open-door that you've been waiting for all morning.

Run with it.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 23, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Kiddies, your religious suppositions have no standing before the courts.
> ...



 You are merely the band playing on the deck of a sinking ship.

The courts will rule in favor of marriage equality, and when the appeal from the state comes to SCOTUS, they will not hear it.


----------



## AmericanFirst (Feb 23, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


Sharia law has no place in the USA. Sharia law is satans law followed by satan worshipers.


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 23, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> _You are merely the band playing on the deck of a sinking ship. The courts will rule in favor of marriage equality, and when the appeal from the state comes to SCOTUS, they will not hear it._


Doesn't cost anything, for you to believe that to be the case, but I'm not sure how Gay Marriage directly impacts the ability of business folk in Arizona to refuse service to homosexuals, utilizing their Religious Beliefs as the basis for that refusal.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 23, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> N8dizzle said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



This is like saying if you're just in the audience at the wedding, instead of being one of the bridesmaids, you didn't actually participate, and so it doesn't qualify as an endorsement of the marriage.

Except that people have been declining wedding invitations because they don't approve of the relationship since forever.  No idea why this is suddenly news.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 23, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> You are merely the band playing on the deck of a sinking ship.
> 
> The courts will rule in favor of marriage equality, and when the appeal from the state comes to SCOTUS, they will not hear it.



The Highest Court has already Ruled AGAINST "marriage equality" [gay marriage] in Utah [and California and all the other states where it is still illegal in their constitutions] in DOMA/Windsor when they Upheld that each state gets to decide for itself on the question of gay marriage as its "unquestioned authority" to do so.  They even brought up the 14th that gays are so hopeful to manipulate in their favor via Loving v Virginia, and then the Court STILL went on to say that as of the close of the Decision, "gay marriage" was "only allowed in some states".

Sorry.  They said a state's sovereign rights to decide on gay marriage was pivotal to the Windsor decision, retroactive to the founding of the country, in "the way the Framers of the Constitution Intended".  That's a constitutional Upholding Jake.  They aren't likely to reverse it in less than a year's time when Harvey Milk v Utah makes it to the Big Docket.



Cecilie1200 said:


> This is like saying if you're just in the audience at the wedding, instead of being one of the bridesmaids, you didn't actually participate, and so it doesn't qualify as an endorsement of the marriage.
> 
> Except that people have been declining wedding invitations because they don't approve of the relationship since forever.  No idea why this is suddenly news.



Soon if you refuse to go to a gay wedding if you are invited, you will be sued.  The arrests for such 'defiance of the cult' will come later.  Probably in about 30 years when the next generation has been properly inducted and indoctrinized.


----------



## Sunshine (Feb 23, 2014)

AmericanFirst said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



The same way snake handlers are deprived of that belief.  

Star-News - Google News Archive Search


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 23, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > The link between homophobic actions and repressed latent homosexual tendencies has been scientifically proven. And in all of the studies, participants who reported supportive and accepting parents were more in touch with their implicit sexual orientation, meaning it tended to jibe with their outward sexual orientation. Students who indicated they came from authoritarian homes showed the biggest discrepancy between the two measures of sexual orientation.
> ...



And witness the last-ditch attempt to ditch the conversation lest it gets too uncomfortable..lol..

The old "if you disagree with us, it's because you fail to see and direly FEAR the oncoming Armageddon and that always present 'slippery slope' that will consume all humanity...

THAT is how you identify the very CORE of conservatism...


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 23, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


Except that I'm a registered democrat, voted [unfortunately] for Obama and all the other democratic hopefuls since the 1980s, and every public healthcare issue and green energy issue since forever.

There are quite a clot of us in the middle blue party.  You may have heard of the Chic-fil-a and Duck Dynasty dems?  That's us.  Tens of millions of "us" right smack in the middle and very much on the fence about all this sudden and extremely perverse and seemingly-unstoppable gay cult advancements.  It's too much, too soon.  Even the younger crowd is sitting up and acting a little shocked about it all..  

Fringe behaviors and outright insanity have a way of SHOCKING people back to their moorings.  When this became legal medical practice, that's when the line was crossed and even nutty people begin to sober up:


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 23, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Soon if you refuse to go to a gay wedding if you are invited, you will be sued.  The arrests for such 'defiance of the cult' will come later.  Probably in about 30 years when the next generation has been properly inducted and indoctrinized.



And lest we forget the ULTIMATE right wing argument...the polarized all or none, black or white Armageddon FEAR induced dogmatic rant...

THAT is how you expose the CORE of conservatism...FEAR.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 23, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> Are you saying that Freedom of Religion is *NOT* an inviolable right in this country?




Actually that would have been Justice Scalia (not known for his liberal positions) in Employment Division v. Smith, a decision he authored.



>>>>


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 23, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



And you are a liar, also a core tenet of conservatism.

&#8220;If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands.&#8221;
Douglas Adams


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 23, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> Are you saying that Freedom of Religion is *NOT* an inviolable right in this country?





Kondor3 said:


> Shariah Law is foreign to The West and largely incompatible, encroaching and dangerous to the good working order of Western Society as we know it.
> 
> It is not a tradionally shunned and condemned behavior.
> 
> ...




So you agree, freedom of religion is not an inviolable right in this country correct?


For example the Muslim cab drivers a few years ago that were found in violation of licensing/permit requirements for refusing to provide services to anyone carrying alchohol or blind/disabled people with service dogs.

>>>>


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 23, 2014)

AmericanFirst said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



On what grounds are you going to deny American Muslims the freedom to practice their religion?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 23, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Hate to break it to these people, but - religion aside - I tend to find gays to be very unpleasant people to deal with, and generally avoid businesses where the owner is noticeably "out" for that reason.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 23, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



And thus an Arizona  religious law, granting its citizens the right to do or not do something based on their religious beliefs,

cannot in the process conflict with other rights and protections granted in the Constitution.

Pretty much case closed there, eh?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 23, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Do you actually think you're likely to find a lot of those?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 23, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Depends on whether or not they're accompanying their condemnation with wholesale slaughter.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 23, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > > Not at all. They aren't engaging in traditionally shunned and condemned behaviors.
> ...



Ironic!


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 23, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > There is no known teaching in all of Christianity, traceable to the Bible, that commands that a good Christian must refuse to do business with a homosexual...
> ...



I actually doubt any of the Christians involved in the legal cases which sparked this bill considered homosexuals "unclean", but they DID consider their relationships to be sinful, and therefore did not wish to participate in them by contributing to their "weddings".

Anything more than this is just inflammatory hyperbole.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 23, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



The onus is on you to prove that this "special status" exists for religion and that there is anything that religion needs to be "protected" from.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 23, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> *The onus is on you to prove *that this "special status" exists for religion and* that there is anything that religion needs to be "protected" from*.



See the pictures at the top of this page.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 23, 2014)

Political Junky said:


> Arizona pizzeria?s amazing response to state?s anti-gay bill* - NY Daily News
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Puhleeze.  I've been to Rocco's.  The asshole's just looking to cadge free publicity off the situation.  Do you know how rarely state legislators even COME to Tucson - including the ones who are nominally from the area - let alone eat at University area dives?


----------



## Immanuel (Feb 23, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



I disagree.  Well maybe you are using "extreme" so you can limit your statement later to a few gun nuts, but the right has opposed the added burdens this administration has been attempting to place on citizens who have a legal right to own guns.  They have opposed these added restrictions with the argument that we already have laws preventing the mentally ill and criminals from acquiring guns AND that the proposals do nothing to prevent those who should not have guns from acquiring them, but do inhibit law abiding citizens from obtaining legal weapons.

There are extremists that oppose any and all restrictions on the second amendment, even several on this site.  But for the most part, I think most of us on the right see this for what it is, another attempt to force left wing philosophy on everyone else.  The powers that be in Washington do not want us to be able to defend ourselves.  They want us to rely upon them.  Therefore, guns in the hands of citizens is something that must be prevented at all costs.

The idea that we as a people could rise up and over throw the "tyrants" is ludicrous.  It is not what they are afraid of.  What they want is for us to be dependent on them for all things even our own protection.

Common sense gun control is one thing, but what the current administration is pushing is by no means common sense and serves only to further inhibit the acquisition of guns by citizens with the legal right to own them.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 23, 2014)

Bombur said:


> I am religious and I am rather offended that anyone would hide behind Jesus when they discriminate against gays. Christianity is not that complicated. Love your neighbor as yourself. What is happening here has absolutely nothing to do with that message and nothing to do with following Jesus.



The fact that you describe yourself as "religious" and not as a Christian, and then mistakenly think Christianity is not complicated, speaks volumes about whether or not anyone should give a shit about your opinion of how Christians should and shouldn't behave.

More to the point, when did you think you acquired a vote on what other people believe and whether or not the freedom to exercise those beliefs should be protected?  Are you aware of the fact that I think your beliefs are a giant pile of steaming shit?  Does that mean your right to exercise those beliefs is invalidated by my personal determination that they're incorrect?

Why do leftists not understand that their approval is not asked, not required, and irrelevant to other people's rights?


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 23, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



That's not an answer to the question. Should a restaurant be able to not serve blacks, yes or no? 

A Unique Religious Exemption From Antidiscrimination Laws in the Case of Gays? Putting the Call for Exemptions for Those Who Discriminate Against Married or Marrying Gays in Context


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 23, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



All of our rights are inalienable, but they are not absolute, and subject to reasonable restrictions by the state  including religious rights enshrined in the First Amendment. This is why human sacrifice, child molestation, and the use of illegal drugs as part of some religious dogma are lawfully prohibited, and where those prohibitions are not in violation of the Free Exercise Clause. 

As already correctly noted, a unanimous Supreme Court held that religious belief is not justification to ignore or violate a just and proper law. In _Employment Division_, a Native American was convicted of using an illegal drug, peyote, and lost his job with the state of Oregon consequently. The Native American claimed that the use of the drug was warranted by his religion, and that he should not be subject to punitive measures for its religious use.  

The Supreme Court wisely and appropriately rejected this argument, maintaining that criminal suspects would attempt to contrive a defense predicated on their religious belief, which would result in judicial chaos as courts would be forced to determine what constitutes a legitimate religion and what does not.   

This, then, is why public accommodations laws are appropriate, warranted, and Constitutional. In addition to the states regulatory authority with regard to commerce, that one is of the opinion that homosexuality is offensive to his faith is not justification to refuse to serve gay Americans who seek to patronize his business, in violation of the law. And to compel a business owner to indeed accommodate gay customers in no way violates the business owners religion or right to practice that religion.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 23, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Nonsense. 

It no more constitutes participation than baking a birthday cake means the baker is participating in the birthday party or baking a cake for a graduation means the baker is 'participating in the graduation ceremony.   

Your hatred of gay Americans is subjective and irrational, which is why you and others on the social right are incapable of making an objective, rational argument in support of denying gay Americans their civil liberties. 

A business owners refusal to accommodate a gay customer has nothing to do with his religious beliefs, and everything to do with his fear and hatred of gay Americans.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 23, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Which would be consistent with your ignorance of Commerce Clause jurisprudence.


----------



## Immanuel (Feb 23, 2014)

RandallFlagg said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



I realize this is a long way back in the discussion and maybe it was discussed later but as someone who feels that in an ideal world public accommodation laws would neither exist nor be needed, I feel that anyone who opens a business must obey the laws of the jurisdiction in which the business is undertaken.  If I were going to open a restaurant as a Christian and I held beliefs that say I should not serve gays, then I had better find a different business or change my business plan to a private club.  

The law is the law.  If I don't like it, I can work to change it, but until that has been accomplished, I either follow it or face the consequences as determined by the court.

I could have said to either follow the law or close my business but I need not do that.  I break the law every time I get behind the wheel of a car as I tend to have a lead foot.  I do, however, have to face the consequences when I get caught.  

Since we have public accommodation laws, we are not living in a totally free society, but would any of us truly want a totally free society?  I know for a fact, I would not.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 23, 2014)

Mustang said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



And you have a problem with that, too?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 23, 2014)

Mustang said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...



Wouldn't it be beautiful if you hypocrites actually believed in the markets and your profession that "everyone" agrees with you, and let the chips fall where they may, instead of trying to legislate your morality because you secretly don't think your ideas can work without force of government?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 23, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Feel free to specify which principle you are talking about, keeping in mind that you are restricted to what the Constitution actually says. Since everything it says is about government, and it doesn't say one word about businesses, I doubt you can actually do so, but I would love to see you try.


----------



## Sunshine (Feb 23, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



Gays are the only ones who seem to be shouting from the roof tops who they screw.  Just because a couple gay or straight is sitting together, unless they tell you or fuck on the table top, then you don't know if they are screwing someone.  They can be put out of the church and often were in times past.  If you studied the Bible, you would know that.  Chu8rches I've been to won't ever put anyone out because they believe to do so would deprive the person of the chance they need to get right with God.  I don't like the apostle Paul, and rarely if ever quote him.  The reason I did this time is because NYC stated there was nothing in the Bible which stated you should not associate with anyone.  And there is.  That isn't the only place.  Since you are so interested, let me suggest you look for them yourself.  I proved my point.  The Bible DOES tell you who you should not associate with. Jesus alluded to gays and that has been posted too.   I won't look it up for you. I'm not your search engine.  Find it for yourself.  But don't sit there in the glory of your ignorance like NYC did and proclaim it is not in the Bible.  Because it is.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 23, 2014)

N8dizzle said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > N8dizzle said:
> ...



You need to learn the difference between "this is the right way to behave" and "therefore, the government must mandate it".  Whether or not it's the right thing to do for people to choose not to associate with other people, the right thing for government to do is stay the hell out of it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 23, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> One response...this sign is real, in a Tucson pizzeria:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The only people I have seen that said that discrimination would hurt a business are the idiotds that keep lying about what the Senate bill that sparked this thread will do in the first place.

In other words, assholes like you.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 23, 2014)

AmericanFirst said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



What?!  You mean Jesus didn't save that woman because He was a big fan of fucking around like a rabid weasel?!  Say it ain't so!


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 23, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



This thread is itself an example of the Gay Agenda.

Take something that is deeply personal to a significant number of people, lie about it, misrepresent everything they believe in, and call them bigots, all just to pretend that you aren't an asshole.

Congratulations on properly employing Goebbels' propaganda tactics.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 23, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



The REAL irony is the proposed law you defend uses the brute force of government to protect discrimination.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 23, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



More like, "We're not perfect, but unlike you, we're at least trying."

I don't actually care about an opinion of my flaws that comes from a group of people that publicly embraces and celebrates their own flaws.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 23, 2014)

auditor0007 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > auditor0007 said:
> ...



Well, thank God SOMETHING good has come out of this!


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 23, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> > Arizona is a homophobic state. Using religion to discriminate is just what Jesus had in mind, don't you think?
> ...



Unless you became God while I wasn't looking you have no right to tell anyone what they can, and cannot, believe. Insisting that you can, and demanding that the government enforce your view of religion on others, makes you the moral equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition. Is that really the side of history you want to be on?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 23, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > The extreme right has been adamantly opposed to all background checks to determine if anyone has a history of mental illness. But hardly surprising that you want to blame the left for the obstruction of the extreme right.
> ...



He doesn't have one.

If he did he would have used it to refute my blowing his claim out of the water. The guy is a fucking hack that can barely spell.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 23, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



TRYING to do what? 
Understand...no. 
Accept...no. 
Show tolerance...no.
Dictate discrimination using the brute force of government...yes.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 23, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> > Arizona is a homophobic state. Using religion to discriminate is just what Jesus had in mind, don't you think?
> ...



I'll ask this again, and maybe THIS time one of you sanctimonious chickenshit leftists will develop the sack to answer:  what are your qualifications to define the tenets of someone else's faith?


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 23, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Chaussette said:
> ...



And what side are you on? Demanding that the government enforce your view of religion on others and sanction discrimination.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 23, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Chaussette said:
> ...



If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands.
Douglas Adams


----------



## Sunshine (Feb 23, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Jesus and the apostle Paul never met.  A brief guide to the Apostle Paul, and why he is so important - Beliefnet.com  So your point is moot.  You stated that nowhere in the BIBLE does it say with whom you should not associate.  And it does.  The apostle Paul followed the teachings of Jesus.  No one can say that Jesus didn't say this or that because what he said was not always written down.  The Bible itself even states that:



> John 21:25
> 
> New American Standard Bible (NASB)
> 
> 25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they *were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself *would not contain the books that *would be written.




And there are many ancient texts that were not included in the Bible by the king who wanted the Bible to consist of a rule book that would make good subjects to the 

You are not a Christian. You have not studied the Bible.  People like you are such easy pickins' for those of us who have.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 23, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> natstew said:
> 
> 
> > The Federal Government has no Constitutional right to tell anyone who they must do business with. I believe in the old sign I used to see at most businesses, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone".
> ...



It is even more interesting to not that Smith resulted in a backlash against the Supreme Court that was strong enough, and bipartisan enough, that Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993, which passed the House on a voice vote, and got 97 Yays in the Senate.

But, please, keep pretending you come from where the law is even while lying about what the Arizona version of the RFRA will do.


----------



## Tresha91203 (Feb 23, 2014)

The growing acceptance boils down to something much more simple. Almost everyone has a family member, friend, co-worker or acquaintance who is gay. Suddenly they are not monsters...an epiphany....[/QUOTE]

For the one group, I very much agree. Usually, except for the extreme, family is not "other" so not threatening or to be feared. They know and love that family member, and that love and belonging does not die when the homosexual and family become aware of that orientation. That is the norm, IMO. When that same family member becomes invasive, intrusive, loud proud in your face and angry; however, there is conflict. It can destroy the family, just as it can divide the community on a larger scale. At that point, it is not homosexuality that is the issue, it is plain ole "I don't want to be around assholes so F off."  It is the same as when a family member finds Jesus and you can no longer have any conversation except ones involving sharing the message or saving your soul. We have to tell them that if they cannot respect the rest of the family's dinner, we would rather them not come over for dinner. 

I am happy you found Jesus. Please don't badger me with him. It is rude, intrusive, condescending and generally unpleasant. That pushes people away, the very people who love you. If you cannot have a conversation without telling me how your Jesus is the real one and mine is the devil pretending to be Jesus to deceive me, I don't want to have a conversation with you.

Your sexuality is personal, just as mine is. Your faith is personal, just as mine is. There is no need to be hostile and rude to the very people who love or support you. That is the group where I am seeing backlash. For instance, the snide way I have been called "breeder," despite having no children, is no different than those calling homosexuals "butt pirates."  Can you not understand the pushback?

I have no objection to homosexuals. I have an objection to invasive rudeness, as it hinders our ability to live together happily. It applies to all genders, sexual orientations, creeds and cultures equally. It especially applies to loudness to me, personally, as that feels agressive or hostile to me, but that may be a me thing.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 23, 2014)

zeke said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Other people are drama queens.  YOU are a drama goddess.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 23, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



I can prove that far left Democrats are more likely to be ignorant than members of the Tea Party, want to give it a go?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 23, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> The 'freedom' of businesses to refuse service to whom they choose looks like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That sign was required by law, which is exactly why I oppose giving the government the power to tell businesses who they can, and cannot, serve.

But, please, keep making my point for me.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 23, 2014)

RandallFlagg said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > AmericanFirst said:
> ...



Actually, I've never known a male-male couple that referred to either side as "wife".  It's generally "husband-husband".


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 23, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



I bet I can disprove over half of it without even trying, care to make a wager?


----------



## Tresha91203 (Feb 23, 2014)

The growing acceptance boils down to something much more simple. Almost everyone has a family member, friend, co-worker or acquaintance who is gay. Suddenly they are not monsters...an epiphany....[/QUOTE]

For the one group, I very much agree. Usually, except for the extreme, family is not "other" so not threatening or to be feared. They know and love that family member, and that love and belonging does not die when the homosexual and family become aware of that orientation. That is the norm, IMO. When that same family member becomes invasive, intrusive, loud proud in your face and angry; however, there is conflict. It can destroy the family, just as it can divide the community on a larger scale. At that point, it is not homosexuality that is the issue, it is plain ole "I don't want to be around assholes so F off."  It is the same as when a family member finds Jesus and you can no longer have any conversation except ones involving sharing the message or saving your soul. We have to tell them that if they cannot respect the rest of the family's dinner, we would rather them not come over for dinner. 

I am happy you found Jesus. Please don't badger me with him. It is rude, intrusive, condescending and generally unpleasant. That pushes people away, the very people who love you. If you cannot have a conversation without telling me how your Jesus is the real one and mine is the devil pretending to be Jesus to deceive me, I don't want to have a conversation with you.

Your sexuality is personal, just as mine is. Your faith is personal, just as mine is. There is no need to be hostile and rude to the very people who love or support you. That is the group where I am seeing backlash. For instance, the snide way I have been called "breeder," despite having no children, is no different than those calling homosexuals "butt pirates."  Can you not understand the pushback?

I have no objection to homosexuals. I have an objection to invasive rudeness, as it hinders our ability to live together happily. It applies to all genders, sexual orientations, creeds and cultures equally. It especially applies to loudness to me, personally, as that feels agressive or hostile to me, but that may be a me thing.

Edit: sorry to fail at quoting. I was quoting/responding to Bfgrn


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 23, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



No it is not, asshole. That sign was required by German law, just like segregated lunch counters were required by law. That means the state, your favorite thing, was enforcing discrimination. 

That, my idiotic opponent, is evil.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 23, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...





Are you God? If not, what fucking right do you have to tell anyone that their beliefs are wrong?
Pretty sure he didn't say that.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 23, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or  prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of  speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to  assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 23, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Again, required by law.

Thus making you wrong, and everyone else right.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 23, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Oh, WELL, Media Matters for America says it, so how could we POSSIBLY have thought otherwise?

You sure you don't want to quote _Mother Jones_ at us as well, before I go off to laugh my ass off at you?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 23, 2014)

N8dizzle said:


> I know that it happens on both sides but it seems like it happens more often from people in support of this law.
> And I'm not pro-gay, I'm pro-tolerance . I personally think that homosexuality is unnatural and I have a hard time understanding how they can live their lives that way.
> But... I believe that everyone has the right to live their lives the way they want. As long as they aren't hurting me, why would I care who they want to love?
> Sometimes I think that the people who are so against gay people are gay themselves. I think they're so worried that someone's going to figure them out that they feel they have to disguise their true feelings with hate.
> ...



Congratulations on completely missing the issue.

I was wrong, you aren't dumb, you are flat out a moron.


----------



## Sunshine (Feb 23, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



He thinks he is God.  He also thinks he has knowledge of the Bible.  When someone says the Bible does NOT say something, I know they are full of shit.  And they also have not read other ancient writings which were not chosen for the Bible.  The Bible AND Jesus DO say a lot about these topics we discuss.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 23, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Nowhere in either the primary sacred texts recognized by Christianity nor within the realm of enduring Church teachings and doctrine do we find support for the Jews being Evil.
> ...



Which actually brings the bill into alignment with multiple Supreme Court precedents on freedom of religion.

Just saying.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 23, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



"Get away from me, because I want to know all about your life!"  There's the brilliant "logic" I've come to expect from you.



Bfgrn said:


> Christians who hold homosexuality at arms' length are oftentimes of the mindset: of really holding THEIR latent homosexual tendencies at arms' length.



Ahh, yes, the "Takes one to know one!" argument from the PeeWee Herman School of Debate.



Bfgrn said:


> Hey God, PLEASE explain how this law will be carried out? How will these 'EVIL sinners' be identified?? Will patrons have to show their papers before being served by these righteous business owners???



And there's the leftist strawman I predicted ages ago.

You people really are like a cartoon.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 23, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



I am quite willing to bet you here and now that I can cut anyone you wish to point out open and that you won't be able to find a single wire inside them.


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 23, 2014)

At less than 3% of a population of over 300 million almost everyone does not know someone who is gay or has a family member that is gay.  Most people don't know anyone who is gay.  They know OF gay people from what the media is promoting in television and the movies.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 23, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



I bet you wouldn't be able to find any Jews that would insist on doing business with a Nazi. On the other hand, I can find examples of people pushing the queer agenda that insist on doing business with people that they claim hate them. 

Be honest now, does that make sense?


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 23, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



You don't understand the law.  

Anyone will be served.    If Bill says to the photographer "Steve and I are getting married and we want you to take our wedding pictures" the photographer will be able to refuse.  

This should never get to the point of rights when it is clearly an issue of involuntary servitude.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 23, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



One reason is that  they aren't doing it in the name of their religion, they are doing it in the name of their culture.

Another is that your personal right to believe whatever you want does not trump my right to breathe.

And, finally, we have the indisputable fact that you are an idiot that can't put together a coherent argument.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 23, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong. The backlash is due to legislation being passed by the vocal minority. That vocal minority wants everyone to treat their alternative relationships the same as traditional relationships regardless of the individual's moral compass. If something isn't done to curb thetyranny it will spread nationally. What you percieve as a vocal minority is the tip of the iceburg. Most people want the freedom to entertain their values instead of having their values dictated to them by the vocal minority.
> ...



That was hilarious.

The only fear I have seen is from the idiots that think letting people make their own choices will lead to laws that make it illegal to be Jewish.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 23, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



And you would be wrong about that.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 23, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



That's hilarious.  We're talking about a law allowing people to choose to stay out of people's lives, and you're saying the answer is for them to mind their own business?!  Asshole, they're TRYING to mind their own business, and you're wanting to prance in and say that homosexuals have a right to FORCE people to participate in their lives.

Next time, try some linear logic, fucktard.



Bfgrn said:


> We have laws against behavior like stealing, killing and causing harm to others. If gays don't violate any of those laws, they should enjoy the VERY SAME liberties, rights and protections under law as even turds like you receive.



Unfortunately for you, making someone associate with you is only a "right" inside of your diseased mind.  As is whatever the fuck "abuse" you've dreamed up to believe you're arguing against.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 23, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Wow, nothing in there about allowing a business to discriminate against a homosexual.

I guess that makes you wrong.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 23, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



How is it not different?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 23, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Yet, for some reason, you want to be able to force people that don't want to show up at their weddings to attend, while simultaneously arguing that they have every right not to attend a wedding they don't want to go to.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 23, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



On the same grounds that you would deny a Christian community from doing the same thing, separation of church and state.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 23, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



None of which require people to attend weddings.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 23, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> That's hilarious.  We're talking about a law allowing people to choose to stay out of people's lives, and you're saying the answer is for them to mind their own business?!  Asshole, they're TRYING to mind their own business, and you're wanting to prance in and say that homosexuals have a right to FORCE people to participate in their lives.
> 
> Next time, try some linear logic, fucktard.


That made me laugh. They are a stubborn bunch if anything.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 23, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Define the threat, or shut the fuck up.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 23, 2014)

Chaussette said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Chaussette said:
> ...



Gosh, I'm SOO glad that we have another simplistic juvenile here to mural the walls with its crayons.  We were starting to run low.


----------



## Immanuel (Feb 23, 2014)

Wry Catcher said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > One response...this sign is real, in a Tucson pizzeria:
> ...



Do you and your side?

I seem to recall being told that leftist are all about freedom and equality, but all I see is assholes telling me I can't have a "Big Gulp", can't smoke in my own home even if I wanted to, must drive with a seat belt, can't worship God on public property, can't drive faster than 55 because it wastes gas (thank God that was repealed) can't legally pray in front of an abortion mill etc. etc. etc.

So, while those fools, are promoting discrimination and disavowing "liberty and freedom", perhaps you fools should pull the plank out of your eye before seeking to pull the splinter out of theirs?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 23, 2014)

Chaussette said:


> Jesus was gay: he only hung around with guys, looks pretty buff and effeminite in all the paintings of him, wore a dress, only fucked a woman once (meaning he didn't like it), and rode a donkey, which only women rode.



Has it been pointed out to you recently that you're the biggest driveling idiot in a five-mile radius?

Seriously, sterilize yourself for the benefit of humanity.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 23, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> How is it not different?


That's the crux of the argument. We are all supposed to view homosexuality like a race, gender or religion without that ever being determined.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 23, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Well, why don't you go check out the First Amendment, and then YOU tell ME.

Whether or not there's anything that religion needs to be protected from is answered by this thread and others like it.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 23, 2014)

Tresha91203 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have never come across a gay person who was "invasive, intrusive, loud proud in your face and angry or rude, condescending and generally unpleasant". That would be heterosexual males with a few drinks in them. My daughter and her girlfriends would often go to gay bars to get away from being constantly hit on by obnoxious "invasive, intrusive, loud proud in your face and angry or rude, condescending and generally unpleasant" straight males. She says gay men treat women with respect and are much more kind. 

I have never seen a group of gay people invading my neighborhood, ringing my doorbell, trying to 'convert' me and my wife to their beliefs and not taking no for an answer.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 23, 2014)

dblack said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Why do you insist on maintaining a belief that is not based in reality? I can provide you with references that indicate that the people who wrote the Constitution, and the First Amendment, did believe that religious beliefs have a special status. The reason for that is quite simple, religious beliefs are extremely personal, and they did not want the government to be able to regulate what anyone believes, even if they insisted, like you want to, that they don't have a religious belief. 

In other words, your beliefs, whatever you want to call them, have the exact same status under the Constitution as mine. You are just as free to believe whatever you want, and practice those beliefs, as anyone else. This is not a special right other people have, it is a right everyone has. 


The problem here is that you don't see a need for it in your life, so you want to deny it to others. 

That makes you wrong.

The fact that you refuse to admit you are wrong, or even strive to understand how you are denying everyone a right simply because you don't use yours, makes you no different than the people that want to take away your rights simply because they don't see your rights as significant.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 23, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



As a matter of fact, I don't support government telling business owners how to run their businesses, so long as they're not ripping people off.

And before you run off down this, "Let's talk about the BLACKS because I can't defend myself on the actual topic" tangent, don't bother.  Not equivalent, and very much a sign that you've lost and know it.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 23, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> I have never come across a gay person who was "invasive, intrusive, loud proud in your face and angry or rude, condescending and generally unpleasant". That would be heterosexual males with a few drinks in them. My daughter and her girlfriends would often go to gay bars to get away from being constantly hit on by obnoxious "invasive, intrusive, loud proud in your face and angry or rude, condescending and generally unpleasant" straight males. She says gay men treat women with respect and are much more kind.
> 
> I have never seen a group of gay people invading my neighborhood, ringing my doorbell, trying to 'convert' me and my wife to their beliefs and not taking no for an answer.


Yep, women at a bar are likely going to be hit on. But your point is moot because if your son goes to a gay bar guess what happens? The rest of your point was more of the same. Start a bakery and refuse to make a gay wedding cake and get back to us.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 23, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



What confuses me is your assumption that they AREN'T participating, and that everyone automatically knows that assumption to be true.



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Your hatred of gay Americans is subjective and irrational, which is why you and others on the social right are incapable of making an objective, rational argument in support of denying gay Americans their civil liberties.



Your assumption that disagreeing with you automatically means hatred is subjective and irrational, but then, everything you say is subjective and irrational, so at least you're consistent.

And I'm not incapable of making an objective, rational argument.  You're just incapable of recognizing one.

No one has a "civil liberty" to force association onto others.  



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> A business owners refusal to accommodate a gay customer has nothing to do with his religious beliefs, and everything to do with his fear and hatred of gay Americans.



Well, I'm so glad you're here to tell us all what people REALLY think, contrary to what they think they think, Miss Cleo.  While you're at it, can you give me the winning lottery numbers?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 23, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...



Really?  Explain where the "brute force of government" is employed in a business owner saying, "Sorry, I don't want to service your wedding", particularly as opposed to a lesbian couple saying, "You don't want to service our wedding?  I'm going to sue you broke!"

I know which one looks like "brute force of government".  Do you?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 23, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> > Fear, suspicion and hate of the "other" has been human nature since the dawn of time. Are those that hate black people hiding their latent blackness? Are misogynists secretly women pretending to be normal men? Washingtonians who hate the Lummi tribe closeted Native Americans? I just don't see it.
> ...



Another fake study? Or are you just totally misrepresenting it?

Personally, after reading g the first few paragraphs of your link, I have concluded that you are a lying sack of shit.

One thing you should pay close attention to.



> "This study shows that if you are feeling that kind of visceral reaction  to an out-group, ask yourself, 'Why?'" co-author Richard Ryan, a  professor of psychology at the University of Rochester, said in a  statement. "Those intense emotions should serve as a call to  self-reflection."



In other words, you should be asking yourself why you hate everyone. Is it because you were taught that from birth? Do you think you have no choice? Are you just a sick fucker who likes to pretend he  is tough even though he hasn't left his bedroom since he got beat up in fifth grade?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 23, 2014)

dblack said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > The First Amendment does a lot more than merely protect religious organizations and people from persecution, or prevent the government from setting up a state religion.  What we are addressing right now is the OTHER part of that clause:  "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".  There's simply no way you can say that it's opposite the intent of the First Amendment to protect the right of Christians - or any religion - to exercise their religious beliefs by associating or not associating with other people.
> ...



Then work to repeal the public accommodation laws, don't pretend that, because that is already down the drain, no one else has any rights either.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 23, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Riiight.  If someone is opposing the left, it MUST be because they just don't understand them.  It could never be because they understand . . . and find it repugnant.

Accept?  Only leftists think they're constantly being called on to "accept" things.  The rest of us aren't that arrogant.

Tolerance?  Just because you think tolerance is the one and only moral absolute in the world - and then, only as practiced by you, which is what anyone else would call "approbation - doesn't mean it actually is.

We've already addressed your new little buzzword of "brute force of government".  Unless you can show me government brutes in action anywhere in this, please consider yourself cordially invited to shut the fuck up with that bullshit.  It's impressing no one.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 23, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...




Even more people have family members who are religious, yet you hate them anyway. You really need to stop hiding away from the world just cause you got beat up by a gay kid once.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 23, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



That would require thinking.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 23, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



The only possible agent of an unconstitutional action is the government. Until you understand that basic concept you really have no business posting anywhere, much less on a political message board.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 23, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



You obviously aren't looking very hard, then.  Maybe if you actually got out and met some people who aren't clones of yourself . . . but no, leftists don't really hold with that sort of thing, do they?

As for gay men being "more respectful", that's laughable.  Sure, they don't hit on women, that's quite true.  Treating them like hostile adversaries, exactly the same way other women do?  That's a different story.

Which is not to say that I don't have one or two gay friends, but mostly, hanging with gay men is exactly like hanging with women, which I almost never do.

Maybe your daughter ought to look into learning not to hate and fear men.  I'm just sayin' . . .


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 23, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Are you admitting you lost the debate?


----------



## Chaussette (Feb 23, 2014)

Arizona's full of fucking beaners anyways, so who fucking cares anyways that they hate gays?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 23, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



I know.  That was kinda where I was going with it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 23, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Actually, given current law and the COTUS, the burden is on you to prove exactly the opposite.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 23, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Tell me something, O purveyor of all things legal, what happened after the Smith decision? Does the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ring a bell?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 23, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



No, it would be my personal opinion, which is not based on what the Supreme Court says is, or is not, legal. Learn the difference, asshole.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 23, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...



Feel free to point out how that would happen.

Keep in mind that the bill is actually patterned on the RFRA, which was signed by Clinton after all but 2 Democrats in Congress voted for it.

While you are at it, you might want to point out how a law that keeps the government from infringing on religion enables discrimination, but a law that deliberately targets a religion doesn't.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 23, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Yes, because insisting that the government doesn't have the power to tell people what to do is proof I want the government to tell people what to do.

I suggest you just go hide in a corner until someone who is your intellectual equal comes along, no one else is going to fall into your stupid traps. If you like, I could invite Tank to the thread.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 23, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



You haven't met very many gay people, have you?

I forgot, you have been hiding in your bedroom for years.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 23, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




Really... you have never met one? You must only have interactions with classy gay people. 

And.....obviously you have never been to san francisco......


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 23, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Tresha91203 said:
> ...



Where do you come up with this shit pea brain? It can only be projection.

Reading the first few paragraphs is not reading the whole article, now is it?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 23, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



You posted the study


----------



## Immanuel (Feb 23, 2014)

Sunshine said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



Never met?

Well, first the word Apostle actually means that he was with Jesus, I will get the definition and edit it here shortly:

But, per Acts 9, they most assuredly did meet.



> Saul&#8217;s Conversion
> 
> 9 Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord&#8217;s disciples. He went to the high priest 2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem. 3 As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, &#8220;Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?&#8221;
> 
> ...


&#8221;

They did not meet before the Resurrection, but they surely met along the road to Damascus.

edit: I have to revise my statement about the definition of Apostle meaning he had met Jesus because I cannot back it up with a source at the moment and don't feel like hunting.  What I did find is that Apostle means, one who was sent and the definitions include the 12, the 70 who were sent, and that Paul is considered an apostle based upon his later commission.

http://www.ask.com/wiki/Apostle_(Christian)


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 23, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



Are you admitting that you're an illiterate fuck with the comprehension capabilities of a 2 year old?

Prove I lost the debate.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 23, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Are you admitting that you're an illiterate fuck with the comprehension capabilities of a 2 year old?
> 
> Prove I lost the debate.


I think you just did.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 23, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



What are you jabbering about?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 23, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Are you admitting that you're an illiterate fuck with the comprehension capabilities of a 2 year old?
> ...



Prove I lost the debate.


----------



## Tresha91203 (Feb 23, 2014)

Awesome. I have. Those are the only ones I have ever had a problem with. Assless chaps over a leather studded crotchpiece in public is in my face IMO. Blocking streets with signs about here, queer and get over it is invasive and disruptive to my ability to walk down the street just as much as the preachers are. I find those equally unacceptible (maybe if posted so I can take an alternate route). Having "breeder" hissed at me on a public street because I am holding my husband's hand is rude and agressive. These are the things that are unacceptible (to me) in society. 

On the lesser end of the spectrum, I found the hostility towards the Chick fil a dude to be overboard, but because he expressed his beliefs in the positive (for traditional marriage) and made a point to state they are married to their first/original wives. He has no hatred of homosexuals, hires them, treats them exactly the same as everyone else. Divorcees, living in sinners, poly families, etc did not get outraged. I would say that was irksome, but no more so than PETA protests or other type boycotts/protests. I liken that more to when the fundies tried to boycott Disney.

I am glad your daughter does not associate with assholes. I agree that groping drunks are unacceptable, even in bars. There are a ton of rude condescending heterosexuals as well, and we have our share being so close to the Bible belt. Actually, I think we are just a pocket or bubble of "hedonism" in the middle of the belt. Maybe that's why we get more angry homosexuals and angry drunks ...er, I mean Catholics, around here. Not sure where you are, but I'm by New Orleans. Lots of fabulous people here of both orientations and an amazing culture, but lots of complete asses of both orientations IMO. Those are equally offensive to me and has to do with their manners, not their orientation.

 I've got enough dealing with my own flaws to be concerned with any perceived (real or imagined) flaws in another.  If I ever get myself fixed up right, maybe I'll have time to stick my nose in others' but would start with the husband, not the homosexuals.



Bfgrn said:


> Tresha91203 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 23, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Always keep in mind when you're trying to talk to QW, you're trying to talk to someone who believes there should be no government.

Or perhaps more precisely, he professes to believe in no government, when he's not telling us how government should work.

lol


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 23, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



I don't believe adults should have sex with children and I certainly don't believe my idea can work without the force of government.

Do you?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 23, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



This doesnt make any sense. 

You and others who support discriminatory measures against gay Americans lost the debate pages ago, when you were cited current Constitutional case law indicating public accommodations laws are Constitutional and where once cannot violate the law claiming religious belief as justification. 

Youve provided only subjective, irrelevant opinion.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 23, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



True. 

But of course he and others of his ilk are entitled to his beliefs and other such errant fantasies.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 23, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



So you object to mandated racism, but champion voluntary racism?

lol, classic


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 23, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



The rightwingers who pose as fake libertarians are the worst of the lot.


----------



## kiwiman127 (Feb 23, 2014)

I've noticed many folks using their Christian faith on this thread are the same folks who bash the poor at every opportunity they can.
I never voted for Jimmy Carter but he was the most religious and God fearing president in my lifetime and I agree with him here.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 23, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



I don't have to, it is self evident to everyone who is not you.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 23, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Something far beyond your cognitive skill set, logic.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 23, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



You never really get it, do you? I don't have a problem with you having a government to tell you what to say, do, and think, I just don't need it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 23, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...



Government is here to keep adults from fucking children?

It failed, can we get rid of it now?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 23, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



I categorically oppose all government discrimination.

You, on the other hand, think that government discrimination can change people's minds by force. Even if you are right, you are wrong.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 23, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



No.

I oppose idiots, especially the ones with power.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 23, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



I consider myself extremely fortunate that I am in no "way, shape, or form comparable to" someone like you!


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 23, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



For someone who was allegedly raised in a "fundamentalist Christian family" you seem to have no problem with condemning your own immortal soul to perdition by behaving in a decidedly unchristian manner towards others in these threads.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 23, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > You are merely the band playing on the deck of a sinking ship.
> ...



7 states have had their own unconstitutional gay marriage ban laws overturned by lower courts based on the Windsor decision. 5 of them even cited Scalia for providing them with the rationale. Only 23 more to go.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 23, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Jesus used physical force and beat the crap out of people that offended him, would you prefer that approach?


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 23, 2014)

Tresha91203 said:


> Awesome. I have. Those are the only ones I have ever had a problem with. Assless chaps over a leather studded crotchpiece in public is in my face IMO. Blocking streets with signs about here, queer and get over it is invasive and disruptive to my ability to walk down the street just as much as the preachers are. I find those equally unacceptible (maybe if posted so I can take an alternate route). Having "breeder" hissed at me on a public street because I am holding my husband's hand is rude and agressive. These are the things that are unacceptible (to me) in society.
> 
> On the lesser end of the spectrum, I found the hostility towards the Chick fil a dude to be overboard, but because he expressed his beliefs in the positive (for traditional marriage) and made a point to state they are married to their first/original wives. He has no hatred of homosexuals, hires them, treats them exactly the same as everyone else. Divorcees, living in sinners, poly families, etc did not get outraged. I would say that was irksome, but no more so than PETA protests or other type boycotts/protests. I liken that more to when the fundies tried to boycott Disney.
> 
> ...



The difference is I have had groups of gay people invading my neighborhood, ringing my doorbell, trying to force me into signing their petitions for marriage equality and not taking no for an answer.  At least the Christians who rang my doorbell were polite about it.  Gays were just abusive, worse if they catch you on the street by a signature gatherer and think public castigation will persuade you to give up and sign.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Feb 23, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > RandallFlagg said:
> ...




I don't give this clown's attacks any more credence than I do any other uneducated moron. I have challenged this clown (on more than one occasion) to "prove it" and he simply ignores the challenge. Just as in another post where I asked him (being apparently the legal mind of the SCOTUS) to tell me EXACTLY what "Civil Right" gays are being denied and he merely runs away.

Because I'm black - the charges of "denial of Civil Rights" are important to me. I lived through seeing people of color being attacked by Police dogs. beaten with batons and water hoses, denied the ability to attend public school, unable to vote, and all the other nightmarish behavior that our GOVERNMENT followed back then.

I have yet to see a gay being denied even ONE of those civil rights. Yet gays get their panties in a giant wad because they view people who don't embrace their "lifestyle" (or as I call it - their perversion) with open arms. To them, you will either accept their BS way of living or they will close you down. So much for "freedom".

Again - this paralegal and those like him have one mantra - Do as I say, not as I do.

Pretty much like the Nazis that they are.


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 23, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



If each and every state passes gay marriage they STILL won't get what they want which is acceptance.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 23, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Unlikely that they are hurting without someone as unpleasant as you on their premises.


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 23, 2014)

RandallFlagg said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Hells bells man, you are one for the record books.  Blacks got the right to vote in 1869.  If you remember that, it makes you more than 145 years old!


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 23, 2014)

Immanuel said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Thank you for corroborating my point!


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 23, 2014)

quantum windbag said:


> derideo_te said:
> 
> 
> > cecilie1200 said:
> ...



what?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 23, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Thank you for taking the time to share an opinion about which nary a fuck is given.  The next time you feel the need to try to make me feel bad that you don't like me, please feel free to just assume I don't consider you worth pissing on, and save yourself the effort.

Meanwhile, I note that you were so busy trying to make yourself relevant via insults that you skipped right over proving your assertion which must mean you know you said something incredibly stupid and wrong, and are hoping I won't notice.

Your hope is in vain.  Thank you for your surrender.  Now get lost.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 23, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



You want sex with children to be legal?  I think you're in a very small minority on that one.


----------



## Immanuel (Feb 23, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



I did no such thing, but if it gives you  a tingle down your leg thinking that I did, well more power to you. But, maybe you should have your mommy get you some clean undies and new pants, because you probably just pissed your pants again.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 23, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



Silly strawman! Equality under the law is the topic.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Feb 23, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...




Another clown - I distinctly said "UNABLE TO VOTE". Please learn to read (and comprehend) the english language. And when you re-watch "Lincoln" remember that having the "right" to vote didn't necessarily mean that you were ALLOWED to vote. Then go a find a Black man or woman  (you know those folks that look different than you)- older than 55 and have a LONG talk with them.

You need to be educated.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 23, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...





You have proven yourself to be unworthy of anything but mockery and derision.

Deal with it!


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 23, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Had you any real knowledge of Christianity, you would know that judging who is and is not going to Hell is a sin.

Had you any perspective on reality, you would have taken a hint from the 6 billion times I've told you numbfucks this that I only find your attempts to preach a faith you don't share to be wildly laughable, and that my choices are between me and God, and you are neither one of us.

But by all means, continue to hubristically offer judgements and preachings you are in no way qualified to give or be taken seriously for, because I'm not even close to being done mocking and deriding you.

Oh, noes!!!  The two-brain-celled arrogant religiophobe does not think I am Christian enough to meet his standards!!!  Whatever shall I DOOO?!  I so wanted Derideo to approve of me, because he's SO FUCKING IMPORTANT TO MY LIFE!!!  

I'm not even sure they have meds for this level of narcissistic insanity.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 23, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Ooh, yet another attempt to make me care that you don't approve of me . . . FAILED.

Exactly how long is it going to take you to realize that in order for you to insult me, I would have to first care what you think, or even believe that you DO think?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 23, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



 at your temper tantrums!


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 23, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Like I said, you made an assertion you couldn't prove, you got called on it, and now you're hiding behind meaningless insults.

Stick a fork in your ass; you're done.  Buh bye.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 23, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



Sorry to have to inform you...

that sign is from a theatre in Tennessee.  Jim Crow laws in Tennessee never forced segregation on theatres, they allowed it:

*1875: Public accommodations [Statute]
Hotel keepers, carriers of passengers and keepers of places of amusement have the right to control access and exclude persons as "that of any private person over his private house." *

*1885: Public accommodations [Statute]
All well-behaved persons to be admitted to theaters, parks, shows, or other public amusements, but also declared that proprietors had the right to create separate accommodations for whites and Negroes. *

exactly as the Arizona law does.

If you have better research to the contrary that proves me, and not you, to be in error, by all means post it, 

and I'll stand corrected.

Jim Crow Laws: Tennessee, 1866-1955 | The Black Past: Remembered and Reclaimed


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 23, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 23, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


The difference being that Blacks were wrongly discriminated against because of their skin color.

While it is being proposed that Homosexuals be rightly discriminated against because they are perverts.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 23, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Since when is love a perversion?


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 23, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



I think Cecilie1200 succinctly and accurately stated the right's case.



			
				Cecilie1200 said:
			
		

> No, we're defending THE RIGHT to discriminate.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 23, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Is accusing other people of bad things your only debate tactic?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 23, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Except that it really isn't.


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 23, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


 Homosexuality = perversion


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 23, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



When someone says that we should get rid of laws against adults having sex with children, I assume they mean it.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 23, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Kondor is in a meltdown that began when he realized he'd lost this argument in grand fashion.


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 23, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> "..._Kondor is in a meltdown that began when he realized he'd lost this argument in grand fashion._"


You keep saying that, but it just ain't so. Still, feel free to amuse yourself believing thus. Doesn't faze me one way or another.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 23, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



What if someone claimed a religious belief that the races weren't meant to mingle, and/or that blacks were inferior to whites?

Wouldn't they, under the proposed Arizona law, then be able to _*rightfull*_y discriminate against blacks?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 23, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > "..._Kondor is in a meltdown that began when he realized he'd lost this argument in grand fashion._"
> ...



What's your argument that homosexuality is a 'perversion'?

Specify the definition of perversion you're using first, please.


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 23, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> "...What if someone claimed a religious belief that the races weren't meant to mingle, and/or that blacks were inferior to whites?
> 
> Wouldn't they, under the proposed Arizona law, then be able to _*rightfull*_y discriminate against blacks?"


As soon as you find globally-accepted sacred texts and globally-common scripture-based  centuries-old mainstream religious teachings which say to shun Blacks, or Whites, or Reds, or Yellows, or Browns, et al, come back and ask me again...

As opposed to already being in possession of globally-accepted sacred texts and globally-common scripture-based centuries-old mainstream religious teachings which say that homosexuality is wrong and sinful and which condemn it...

Not quite an apples-to-apples comparison, is it?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 23, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Everything proves you wrong.

Why would I assume that that sign is from Tennessee? Wouldn't that require me to ignore the fact that there is a Knoxville in Arkansas, Alabama, and Georgia? Oh, wait, you didn't know that, did you?

On top of that, your fucking sign is dated from 4 decades after the law you are trying to use to make the point that it wasn't illegal for blacks and whites to be in the same theater, did you look at the laws for that time period to see  what they were like?



> All street cars required to designate a portion of each car for white  passengers and also for colored passengers. *Required signs to be posted.*  Special cars could be run for one race exclusively. Penalty: Streetcar  companies could be fined $25 for each offense. Passengers who refused to  take the proper seat could be fined $25.




Feel free to try and defend the fact that the government, which you know I hate, forced people to be racist. I will continue to blame the government, and you will continue to look stupid.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 23, 2014)

RandallFlagg said:


> I have yet to see a gay being denied even ONE of those civil rights. Yet gays get their panties in a giant wad because they view people who don't embrace their "lifestyle" (or as I call it - their perversion) with open arms. To them, you will either accept their BS way of living or they will close you down. So much for "freedom".
> 
> Again - this paralegal and those like him have one mantra - Do as I say, not as I do.
> 
> Pretty much like the Nazis that they are.


I lived in the segregated south and the gays that try to link themselves with the treatment of blacks is an insult to one's intellect.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 23, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



When someone says that, you might have a point. When I mock you for saying that government keeps people from having sex with children, you can be sure I already think you are an  idiot. You don't have to make my point by throwing shit at the wall.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 23, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



No.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 23, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> What if someone claimed a religious belief that the races weren't meant to mingle, and/or that blacks were inferior to whites?
> 
> Wouldn't they, under the proposed Arizona law, then be able to _*rightfull*_y discriminate against blacks?




Yes, but only if they claim a religious belief.

No, if they just claimed they didn't want to serve blacks.



>>>>>


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 23, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


The act of homosexual fornication constitutes deviant behavior - it is perverse and unnatural and argues against itself.



> "..._Specify the definition of perversion you're using first, please._"


Sexual behavior that most people believe is unnatural or not normal.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 23, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > What if someone claimed a religious belief that the races weren't meant to mingle, and/or that blacks were inferior to whites?
> ...



You and I have been through this already, it won't allow that. I posted the entire bill to prove that all it  does is restrict the government from burdening religion. Arizona already has public accommodation laws that prevent everything the assholes, including you, claim will happen.

Feel free to actually prove me wrong, or shut the fuck up.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 23, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > _You are merely the band playing on the deck of a sinking ship. The courts will rule in favor of marriage equality, and when the appeal from the state comes to SCOTUS, they will not hear it._
> ...



One cannot discriminate in public commerce and interaction.

It's the law.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 23, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > You are merely the band playing on the deck of a sinking ship.
> ...



You are merely twisting the ruling to say something that it doesn't.  No one has been sued for not going to interracial marriages.  No has been sued for not performing marriages.  No one cares about your hetero-fascism about Harvey Milk and LGBT.

You are screaming and filibabbling, but nobody has given you any credit for it, and SCOTUS certainly will not.

No one has affected your right to private association.  You can associate in your hateful little cults and no one will bother you at all.  But don't ever think you can make it the law.

Tuff.


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 23, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Unless doing so violates one's mainstream religious beliefs, thereby impinging upon the provider's Freedom of Religion?

Which, of course, is what the Arizona flap is all about.

And, if they haven't got it fine-tuned quite right to get away with it, they, or somebody else, will probably hit on the right formula, soon enough.

And, when they do, and when that one stands-up under judicial review, then, that, too, will be the law.

And they're trying... ohhhhhhh sooooo hard... and they're willing to keep at it... for ohhhhhh sooooo long.

That's the level to which Popular Resistance is presently committed.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 23, 2014)

The 'evil' is a business engaged in public commerce discriminating against folks for what they are.

That's wrong, un-American, and won't stand.


----------



## AmericanFirst (Feb 23, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> The 'evil' is a business engaged in public commerce discriminating against folks for what they are.
> 
> That's wrong, un-American, and won't stand.


What is evil is a tyrannical gov't. telling a business how to run that business.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 23, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> > "..._Specify the definition of perversion you're using first, please._"
> 
> 
> Sexual behavior that most people believe is unnatural or not normal.




Then you must not consider homosexual acts as perverse since opinions have shifted quite a bit in the last few years...

*"Their acceptance of gay and lesbian relations has increased the most, up 19 percentage points in the past 12 years -- to a record high of 59% today."*

In U.S., Record-High Say Gay, Lesbian Relations Morally OK​

Last I checked, "59%" constituted "most people" or more accurately put - a majority of people.



>>>>


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 23, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> The 'evil' is a business engaged in public commerce discriminating against folks for what they are.
> 
> That's wrong, un-American, and won't stand.


In other words, you would force a Jew to bake a Nazi cake. Your side is tyranical and people are fighting back. Sounds like some of you aren't accustomed to that.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 23, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > "...What if someone claimed a religious belief that the races weren't meant to mingle, and/or that blacks were inferior to whites?
> ...



You keep on trying to bolster your argument to defend the practice of discrimination by referring to a 'sacred' text. The Bible and all religious text were written by men. There has never been a book that was written by God.


----------



## deltex1 (Feb 23, 2014)

Let the homos eat wherever, whatever, whoever they want.  If they have a dick, let them call themselves wives.  If they have vaginas, let them call themselves husbands.  No matter what the court says they will always live in their own reality...but it will remain their reality alone.


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 23, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > > "..._Specify the definition of perversion you're using first, please._"
> ...


Feel free to continue serving-up Opinion Polls...

Those polls basically indicate a substantial increase in willingness to tolerate...

Those polls do not change the attributes of 'perversity' and 'deviance' which attach to homosexuality...

Polls are fickle things...

And leaning on them too hard can result in embarrassment...

As the Gay Lobby found out...

In the massive popular outpouring of support for Chick-Fil-A in 2012...

Or the massive popular outpouring of support for the Duck Dynasty cast in 2013...

Both of which turned out to be Public Relations Disasters for the arrogant folk advancing the Gay Lobby agenda...

Makes objective folk wonder, just how reliable those polls really are, when you get out-and-about amongst mainstream Americans...


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 23, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


You're talking to a Christian-Agnostic, metaphorically speaking...

A Christian -leaning Doubting Thomas, for lack of a better descriptor...

I'm fully aware that various so-called sacred texts were written by men...

But people of faith oftentimes believe that such texts were composed via Divine Inspiration...

Rendering them the next best thing to being written by God...

Isn't that convenient?


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 23, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> The 'evil' is a business engaged in public commerce discriminating against folks for what they *are*.
> 
> That's wrong, un-American, and won't stand.



Ah, Jake's false premise rears its head yet again.  It's the behavior Jake, not the person: the behavior.  Making behaviors recipients of the blessings of the 14th will set a new precedent for the US Supreme Court so, they should be very careful to rule out LGBT as behaviors before they kick the barn door open for any compulsives to gain access to ??? over the years as the brand new precedent would allow..


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 23, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



The very same sacred text you refer to sanctions abortions.

Isn't that convenient?


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 23, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


Doesn't bother *ME* in the slightest...

Even if it *IS* true...

Your arrow missed its mark...


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 23, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> I think another state passed something similar to this last week so this must be a trend that is catching on. I agree with this bill that if you are a business owner and believe in and live by your faith that you should be able to refuse service to whoever you want.
> 
> 
> Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays
> Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays



Only a dumb ass business man refuses to serve customers based on their Christian faith.
They can not serve people that have affairs on their spouses
They can not serve people that do not honor their mother and father
They can not serve people that eat pork.
They can not serve people that eat catfish.
They can not serve people that eat shrimp.
They can not serve people that eat oysters.
They can not serve people that eat scallops.
They can not serve people that eat snails.
They can not serve people that eat any fat.
They can not serve people that eat blood.
They can not serve people that eat certain birds per Leviticus
They can not serve people that wear certain types of clothes per Leviticus
They can not serve people that "mingle linen and wool".
They can not serve people 'that round the corners of their head" per Leviticus
They can not serve people that "mar the corners of their beard".
They can not serve people that have tatoos per Leviticus
They can not serve people that "sow their field with mingled seed".
They can not serve people that "let their cattle gender with a diverse kind". 
They can not serve any people that "avenge or bear any grudge against the children of thy people"

who the hell does that leave?
But of course a TRUE Christian ignores all of the above as a TRUE Christian ONLY refuses to serve gay folks.
To hell with Love thy Neighbor which is the most written phrase in the Bible.
A real Christian does not refuse to serve gay folks.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 23, 2014)

deltex1 said:


> Let the homos eat wherever, whatever, whoever they want.  If they have a dick, let them call themselves wives.  If they have vaginas, let them call themselves husbands.  No matter what the court says they will always live in their own reality...but it will remain their reality alone.



Remember that their reality is just as legitimate and just as entitled to Constitutional protections as your own reality.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 23, 2014)

AmericanFirst said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The 'evil' is a business engaged in public commerce discriminating against folks for what they are.
> ...



We the People through our constitutional liberties have set certain standards of humanity by which we live in this country.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 23, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The 'evil' is a business engaged in public commerce discriminating against folks for what they are.
> ...



Got it backwards.  The Nazi is a political philosophy and as such a person has a right to reject it.  However, Jewishness is a protected category, so a Nazi would have to bake a Jewish wedding cake.  Cool, huh?


----------



## Antares (Feb 23, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> AmericanFirst said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



You voted for Obama nothing you say matters assbite.


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 23, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Didn't Hitler say, I wish I knew you were coming, I would have baked you a ****!


----------



## The Professor (Feb 23, 2014)

Contumacious said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Steve_McGarrett said:
> ...



You are correct, of course.  The effect of this law will be minimal for the reasons you have stated.

Plus, technically, the right to refuse to serve gay customers/clients does not extend to those business owners who merely profess  a religious belief against homosexuality.   The lawful refusal is conditional and extremely restrictive in that it only allows businesses to refuse to serve gays based on the owners' "sincerely held religious beliefs.   This is a lawyer's dream come true since the owner's bare assertion of a sincerely held religious belief can be challenged in court. 

There are some interesting legal questions that will most likely find there way to the courthouse.  For example, how does one prove a sincerely held religious belief against homosexuality?   Is membership in a church or religious association necessary?  What about the doctrine of the religious organization?    Will the owner's mental state ultimately be judged by the same criteria that was first used years ago to determine conscientious objector status?

After a lawsuit or two, there will be damn few business owners in Arizona willing to put themselves at risk just to avoid dealing with the requests of a few gays.  The only ones that will continue to refuse providing certain services for gays will be those with a legitimate sincere and deeply rooted religious belief against homosexuality.     

The law, at least as I read the link provided by the OP,  does not permit  business owners   regardless of their religious beliefs  to refuse to serve a person solely because that person is gay.   For example, a restaurant cannot refuse to serve a man openly know to be gay.  Business owners can, however,  refuse to perform a service associated with gayness, such as making a wedding cake with two men or two women on the top tier.  

In the final analysis, I suppose the question is this:  Which is the greater violation of individual rights:  requiring a person to perform a service which is against his/her religious beliefs regarding homosexuality, or denying someone who is gay the right to be served by this person, especially considering the fact the same service can easily be provided by others.   I believe the greater harm is to the person with religious convictions.    

Having said all this, what the SCOTUS would do with this issue, should it ever get that far, is completely unpredictable.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 23, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The 'evil' is a business engaged in public commerce discriminating against folks for what they *are*.
> ...



Silohuette's weak headness is revealed yet again.  Orientation is a protected category by the 14th Amendment.  You wish to impose an compulsion of your understanding of a particular moral imperative on the rest of us.  But . . . it has no standing before the court.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 23, 2014)

Gadawag73 delivers the mortal blow to the hypocrisy of few small minded reactionaries of the far Christian right.  Step off.


----------



## Antares (Feb 23, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



You gay Bammy boi?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 23, 2014)

Antares said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > AmericanFirst said:
> ...



I voted Romney, as you admitted elsewhere, and nothing you can do now can save your industry, because of your greed.  You are getting the reward of your behavior.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 23, 2014)

Antares said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



Nope, married to two women in my life, the second after the first died.  They are the only women with whom I have had sexual relations.  I have several children and 15 grand children.  I am, I believe, one the truly practicing Christians on this Board, and I call the hypocrites of the far reactionary Christian right for what they are: they are as if whited sepulchers, that gleam alabaster bright on the outside yet stinketh of corruption inside.


----------



## Antares (Feb 23, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



You voted for McCain AND Obama liar, YOUR words


----------



## bodecea (Feb 23, 2014)

Antares said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > AmericanFirst said:
> ...



Poor baby...and having to see PRESIDENT Obama for 8 years.


----------



## Antares (Feb 23, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Christians don't lie.
YOU do, shall I show you again liar?


----------



## bodecea (Feb 23, 2014)

Antares said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



I do not believe Jake is...but we love him anyways.  Are you gay?  It seems to take up a bit of your front and center focus.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 23, 2014)

Antares said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



  You have already said I voted for McCain and Romney.

Yep, you are receiving your just reward.


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 23, 2014)

Antares said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



You go-sock boi!


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 23, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Correct, which is why the argument fails  subjective religious doctrine and dogma are legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, thankfully and appropriately so.


----------



## bodecea (Feb 23, 2014)

Antares said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 23, 2014)

Antares said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



You have just lied above, my friend.  You are no cred.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 23, 2014)

bodecea said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 23, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> "..._Correct, which is why the argument fails  subjective religious doctrine and dogma are legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, thankfully and appropriately so._"


True - right up to the point where the law infringes upon one's Freedom of Religion... that's the litmus test... and that's the vector that the Arizona folks are trying... interesting possibilities, either in connection with that particular articulation of the concept, or, simply, the concept itself, spun another way, if the Arizona attempt does not work out...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 23, 2014)

Your freedom of religion, Kondor, in the public market place cannot trump the 14th protections against discrimination.  You can do it in private association but not in public commerce.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 23, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...




Ahhh - so you think perversity is defined by the majority, well until such time as polls show the majority changed.

Instead of opinion polls you can also look to the 2012 General Elections to demonstrate how opinions have been changing.  Same-sex Civil Marriage was on the ballot in 4 states (IIRC - Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington).  The Marriage Equality side one in all 4 states. Quite a shift from the early 2000's when Constitutional bans won with 23-76% margins of victory.


>>>>


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 23, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> AmericanFirst said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



We the people did no such thing.


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 24, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> "..._Ahhh - so you think perversity is defined by the majority, well until such time as polls show the majority changed_..."


You mistake an increased willingness to _tolerate_ perversity, so long as it is kept out of the public eye, with the definition of perversity itself. It's an important distinction that seems to escape you. Your deficiency of understanding, not mine.

========================================

perversion: 1. sexual behavior that people think is not normal or natural

Perversion - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

========================================

Do not confuse increased tolerance for the definition itself.

If it was _not_ viewed as perverse by the majority, then 97% would be Gay and 3% would be Straight, rather than the other way around.

Q.E.D.


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 24, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> "...Instead of opinion polls you can also look to the 2012 General Elections to demonstrate how opinions have been changing..."


Sheeple and lemmings tend to stray all over the political map, depending upon which Ram is bleating the loudest at the moment... it's quite possible that such back-and-forth wanderings will not prove significant in the long haul, but only time will give us that answer.


----------



## Chaussette (Feb 24, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 24, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



So when Jesus said "love one another" that is also a perversion under your definition?

FYI homosexuality is just 2 consenting adults who love one another. If you intend to discriminate against people who love each other then you are going to have a really hard time finding a legal loophole.


----------



## Chaussette (Feb 24, 2014)

I'm way more appalled at ugly and/or stupid people having children, then whether 2 chicks are having sex (that's SO hot!!!!).


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 24, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...


Sheer sophistry, and insubstantial. Webster's gives us an adequate definition.



> "..._FYI homosexuality is just 2 consenting adults who love one another_..."


That is your assessment. _Vast_ numbers of other people hold differently.



> "..._If you intend to discriminate against people who love each other then you are going to have a really hard time finding a legal loophole_..."


Rather, opponents are prepared to discriminate against people who engage in perverse, sinful, unclean and deviant sexual practices with members of the same sex, utilizing their centuries-old, well-documented, widely-held religious beliefs that associating with such evil constitutes moral wrongdoing, as the basis for that discrimination.

It is an interesting approach-vector that may yield some good results, in the Arizona case or some other that 'tweaks' the Arizona model.

In any event, the search for the right formula, to keep Gays and their perversion out of our faces, and those of our children, continues.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 24, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > "...What if someone claimed a religious belief that the races weren't meant to mingle, and/or that blacks were inferior to whites?
> ...



The bible justifies slavery and Christians enslaved blacks using that biblical justification. One of the slave ships used to bring black slaves to America was even named Jesus.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 24, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



Thank you for openly admitting that you are attempting to legislate your own morality based upon religious beliefs. 

You are going to have a hard time explaining why blow jobs and anal sex between a man and a woman are not equally perverted and evil to the Supreme Court.


----------



## DriftingSand (Feb 24, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> I think another state passed something similar to this last week so this must be a trend that is catching on. I agree with this bill that if you are a business owner and believe in and live by your faith that you should be able to refuse service to whoever you want.
> 
> 
> Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays
> Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays



Good news!


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 24, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > "..._Ahhh - so you think perversity is defined by the majority, well until such time as polls show the majority changed_..."
> ...



When a gay couple walks into your shop and you refuse to serve them what exactly are you objecting to that must be "kept out of the public eye"? That they have matching wedding bands? Exactly what aspect are you attempting to ban here?


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 24, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


The comparison will not hold up under a close scrutiny - comparing the use of the Bible to resurrect slavery in The West, versus using the Bible to distinguish Normal sexual practices from Perverse ones - although I understand why your side of the aisle so frequently and persistently tries to get away with that.


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 24, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Thank you for openly admitting that you are attempting to legislate your own morality based upon religious beliefs...


Oh, absolutely, my pleasure. Is it not patently obvious? I thought that was a gimme. But only with respect to being forced to associate with or provide services to such folk.

Attacking the problem from the '_violation of religious beliefs_' vector is frigging brilliant - it may ultimately prove to be the Escape Hatch the rest of us want to have on hand, to use at our discretion.



> "..._You are going to have a hard time explaining why blow jobs and anal sex between a man and a woman are not equally perverted and evil to the Supreme Court._"


Are they?

On the other hand, there is a much clearer case against same-sex acts and relationships in the sacred texts and mainstream teachings of Christianity, Judaism and even Islam.

Could be the Escape Hatch the rest of us have been looking for.


----------



## Wildman (Feb 24, 2014)

Chaussette said:


> I'm way more appalled at ugly and/or stupid people having children, then whether *2 chicks are having sex *(that's SO hot!!!!).



define "chicks"

define "sex"

then define "ugly and/or stupid people"

(that's SO hot!!!!) you wouldn't think so if you saw my SIL and her GF "lover", two of the ugliest people on the planet.

my wife beat the shit out of her sister about 30 years ago when she found out she was a lesbo.., today they both refuse to have anything to do with each other.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Feb 24, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Hold on there friend.

It's hypocritical to stand there and accuse him of "legislating his own morality based on his religious beliefs" while the Liberals try to legislate the lifestyles of the homosexual on the religious. If you want examples of this, look no further than to the states which have legalized gay marriage... through legislation based on their own sets of morals and in some ways the morals of their constituents. 

Can you explain to me how that's fair? How is it right for one but not the other? 

Oh, human biology was built for heterosexual intercourse. You can't have children by sticking your whatchamacallit up another man's backside, nor can you do it when two women lock legs or play strap-ons. It contradicts the reproductive aspect of the species. Homosexuality is a flaw, it always will be. Science (when applied genuinely) will also say the same thing.


----------



## Chaussette (Feb 24, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



Nobody's forcing their lifestyle on anyone. Just because gays get married doesn't force heteros to marry gays. Fuck are you a noob. If you're against gay marriage, don't marry a gay person, otherwise, it's really none of your business what other people get up to. Pretty simple.

And there are plenty of examples in nature of homosexual behavior, some species are even bi on purpose to reproduce.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Feb 24, 2014)

Chaussette said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



You missed my entire point. When you force business owners to serve people against their religious beliefs, that's forcing that way or lifestyle on them. Look, I suggest you read more carefully before critiquing any of my posts. 

I'll put it succinctly:

It will stop being our business when you stop making it our business. Understand?

When I say Human Biology, I'm referring to THE HUMAN SPECIES and only that. I am not referring to other animal or creature. And did you just call me a "noob"? Really? Do you think this is a fucking game?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Feb 24, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



No we shouldn't hide people who are homosexuals. But you shouldn't force a citizen to act against his or her own consciences and faith. If anything, this intolerance of personal and spiritual limits should be banned.


----------



## Chaussette (Feb 24, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



Then people should be upfront about it and post a sign in the shop window saying: WE DON'T SERVE GAYS.


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 24, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> "..._When you force business owners to serve people against their religious beliefs, that's forcing that way or lifestyle on them_..."


----------



## TemplarKormac (Feb 24, 2014)

Chaussette said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Yep. But then again, why does such a suggestion come from someone who opposes such a thing? Aren't you contradicting yourself?


----------



## Chaussette (Feb 24, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



I just think people should be honest. Sure, I think that it's totally homophobic, but if this law passes, people should at least be honest and upfront about their hating and post a sign: I HATE GAYS. Or something similar.


----------



## Chaussette (Feb 24, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



So basically, you only serve Christian straight people, no Jews, muslims, Hindus, Atheists... Because after all, you don't agree with their religious beliefs. Man, your business must be booming.

You are a fucking noob, because your god put those homosexual animals on earth, it's not their FUCKING DIET!!!!!!!


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 24, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



Actually it will because there is ample hard documented evidence to support it. 

As far as the bible being the final arbiter of what is considered to be normal is a slippery slope. It can be used to justify abortion just as easily. If you base your position on the bible then so can everyone else. Pandora's box will be nothing compared to the unintended consequences that will arise if you try to take that path.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 24, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > In other words, you would force a Jew to bake a Nazi cake. Your side is tyranical and people are fighting back. Sounds like some of you aren't accustomed to that.
> ...


Was that supposed to make sense? Most Jews aren't observant and Naziism is far more than a political philosophy. You can't spin your way out of it. If you support the imposition of homosexual relationships by the legal force of the law, like making a baker provide same sex wedding cakes against his will, then a Nazi can force a Jew to make a Nazi cake, complete with swaztika, regardless of his feelings. That is tryranny, the enemy of a free people.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 24, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you for openly admitting that you are attempting to legislate your own morality based upon religious beliefs...
> ...


Raises the specter of how exactly you intend to distinguish "such folk" in everyday life? If you make them wear pink armbands I can promise you that I will wear one too and so will everyone else that I know.





> Attacking the problem from the '_violation of religious beliefs_' vector is frigging brilliant - it may ultimately prove to be the Escape Hatch the rest of us want to have on hand, to use at our discretion.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So you don't actually have anything substantive? Just a whole heap of wishful dreaming. Best of luck but the courts expect hard evidence and when it comes to morality that doesn't come easily.


----------



## GreenBean (Feb 24, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Gay Sex ...
Let's Start with the Health Issues

*Gay Bowel Syndrome * The Journal of the American Medical Association - Many of the bacterial and protozoa pathogens that cause gbs are found in feces and transmitted to the digestive system.  This disease is rarely found in normal people ,extremely rarely , but it is epidemic in the Gay community it's caused by ingesting SHIT.  *Yes - it's a fact Gays are Shit-eaters*

*HIV/AIDS* Among Homosexuals. The human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is responsible for causing AIDS, for which there exists no cure.  Some like to cite that this also occurs among normal people but  Although Fags represent about 7% of the male population in the United States, in 2010 *Gay Sodomy accounted for 78% of the new HIV infections among males.
*


*Anal Cancer:* Homosexuals are at increased risk for this rare type of cancer, which is potentially fatal if the anal-rectal tumors metastasize to other bodily organs.

Reduced Life Span. Now the devil on my left shoulder is saying that getting rid of these queers earllier in life is a good thing , but the angel on my tight shoulder say show some compassion even if they are just perverts.  A study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology on the mortality rates of homosexuals concluded that they have a significantly reduced life expectancy:



> In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age twentyfor gay and bisexual men is eight to twenty years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged twenty years will not reach their sixty-fifth birthday.



Chlamydia - Caused primarily by anal sex and *rates are extremely high in the Fruit cake community*

Anal Papilloma - *rates are extremely high in the Fruit cake community*

Human Papillomavirus (HPV) -*rates are extremely high in the Fruit cake community*

Hepatitis: A potentially fatal liver disease that increases the risk of liver cancer.*rates are extremely high in the Fruit cake community*

Gonorrhea: An inflammatory disease of the genital tract. *rates are extremely high in the Fruit cake community*

Syphilis -*rates are extremely high in the Fruit cake community*

Explain that *rates are extremely high in the Fruit cake community* to SCOTUS


----------



## sfcalifornia (Feb 24, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...


I do believe that businesses should be allowed to conduct business with anyone they want to but I also believe that a business which refuses service to anyone simply because they are gay are incredibly stupid and they should re-examine the reason why they are in business to begin with.  Money is money and if a business is going to turn down a dollar simply because it is pink then it deserves all the boycott, ridicule and derision the gay community and it's supporters can muster, a practice also guaranteed by law.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 24, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



First off, Kondor just openly admitted to "legislating his own morality based on his religious beliefs". Secondly removing discrimination is not "legislating morality" unless you believe that it is somehow "moral" to discriminate against your fellow citizens. You need to justify the "fairness" to discriminating against them simply because they are in love with someone of the same sex.

Don't muddy the waters with the "reproduction" issue either. This has nothing to do with that aspect at all. This is about trying to dictate who someone is allowed to love and who they can't. There is no justification for that kind of moralizing and attempting to legislate it.


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 24, 2014)

Chaussette said:


> "..._So basically, you only serve Christian straight people, no Jews, muslims, Hindus, Atheists... Because after all, you don't agree with their religious beliefs_...."


Not at all...

Merely looking for the freedom to refuse service to those whose sexual practices are condemned in the sacred texts and/or historical and present teachings of at least three of the world's largest mainstream religions, and which are believed to be perverse, unnatural, unclean and an aberration in the eyes of God and Man - the freedom to shun wrongdoing and wrongdoers in accordance with mainstream religious teachings on the subject.

A different 'filter' than the holistic one that you are trying (and failing) to apply here.


----------



## Disir (Feb 24, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> I think another state passed something similar to this last week so this must be a trend that is catching on. I agree with this bill that if you are a business owner and believe in and live by your faith that you should be able to refuse service to whoever you want.
> 
> 
> Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays
> Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays



I decided to opt out of reading through 50 pages. I'm just going to cut to the chase.  Remember Super Bowl XXVII.  Boycott Arizona.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Feb 24, 2014)

Chaussette said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Chaussette said:
> ...



And you will be negged. You have not only mischaracterized my views, you have insulted me in in the process.  I will serve anyone I want. It shall be my prerogative alone. I will conduct my business as I see fit, if given the opportunity to do so by appropriate legislation.

So basically, all your left with here is "you're a noob."


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 24, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> "...First off, Kondor just openly admitted to 'legislating his own morality based on his religious beliefs'..."


Quite true. But it can be pitched somewhat different when it comes to going public. All's fair in love and war. And, I assure you, this is war, from the Opposition's perspective. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	






> "..._Secondly removing discrimination is not 'legislating morality' unless you believe that it is somehow 'moral' to discriminate against your fellow citizens_..."


It is only 'moral' to discriminate against your fellow citizens when they openly admit to immoral and perverse acts and practices. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Rather like shunning a pedophile or some other flavor of pervert.



> "..._You need to justify the 'fairness' to discriminating against them simply because they are in love with someone of the same sex_..."


3000 years of the combined condemnations by Judaism, Christianity and Islam have taken care of all those pesky moral complications.

I really do not believe that you appreciate the sheer and overwhelming power and persistence and stamina of the forces now aligning against you.



> "..._This has nothing to do with that aspect at all. This is about trying to dictate who someone is allowed to love and who they can't_..."


It's not even about that.

It's about forcing somebody to provide services to someone who engages in perverse and unnatural sexual behaviors and related lifestyles and moral relativism.

It's about those forced to do so, finding ways to fight back, in order to preserve their right to refuse such services, based upon their religious beliefs and teachings.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Feb 24, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Whoa whoa whoa... hold the phone:



So a business owner refusing service to a gay couple is somehow telling them they can't love each other? Am I getting this straight? So, in response we must force this person to act against his faith? Reference my previous posts for how I feel about that. 

I frankly don't care what Kondor said. I find it hypocritical for someone to say "you can't legislate morality" then sit there while our state governments pass legislation which foist the morals and lifestyles of homosexuals on Christians via legislation. When you remove a man's right to act as his faith teaches, that within itself is discrimination.. You don't force tolerance. You don't force a man to believe what he doesn't want to believe, nor should force him to accommodate those beliefs.

Being a Libertarian, I believe homosexuals should be treated equally. But in addition, I believe that a businessman or owner should be able to run his business how he sees fit, even if that means refusing service to peoples whose lifestyles run against the grain of his religion. I believe, Derideo, that it is unfair to force a man to act against his religious beliefs by forcing another set of contradictory beliefs upon him. Let him believe how he chooses, and run his business accordingly. Same for gays.  This is a core tenet of libertarianism: to let the citizen dictate his own fate and the fate of his endeavors, to let the citizen believe how he chooses without being forced to conform to societal norms. It's that simple.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Feb 24, 2014)

Chaussette said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Chaussette said:
> ...



Now you're being outrightly facetious. How childish.


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 24, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



You are free to hate anyone you wish. But as a public business you are not allowed deny service based on your hatred


----------



## Chaussette (Feb 24, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> > "..._So basically, you only serve Christian straight people, no Jews, muslims, Hindus, Atheists... Because after all, you don't agree with their religious beliefs_...."
> ...



Sacred texts are nothing but fairy tales. Nothing of importance can be proved in any religion. And do you really think that Jesus preached to hate gays? Since you know he didn't, then it's man who wrote in the hating gays stuff in your sacred noob books. Jesus was not a gay basher. Or was he?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Feb 24, 2014)

Chaussette said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Chaussette said:
> ...



You may as well put a sig line down:

"I HATE CHRISTIANS"

or something to that effect.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 24, 2014)

sfcalifornia said:


> I do believe that businesses should be allowed to conduct business with anyone they want to but I also believe that a business which refuses service to anyone simply because they are gay are incredibly stupid and they should re-examine the reason why they are in business to begin with.  Money is money and if a business is going to turn down a dollar simply because it is pink then it deserves all the boycott, ridicule and derision the gay community and it's supporters can muster, a practice also guaranteed by law.


That's the most contradictory post I've seen here so far. A business owner may not want to promote homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle and turn down the work based on his or her values. I've turned down work for Planned Parenthood for principles, something your thinking clearly lacks.

Not everyone, business people included, considers money the most important thing on Earth. If the gay crusaders want to boycott with their friends that's a good thing, it spares everyone grief. They can ridicule and deride in private all they want but if it's taken into the public arena they open themselves up to slander and defamation lawsuits. Also a right. The sword cuts both ways, most of us learn this by the time we are 13 years old.


----------



## Chaussette (Feb 24, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



When a noob can't attack the post, he attacks the poster.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Feb 24, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Such a witty riposte! I will have to give you a gold star for such a devastating rebuttal. No, not really. When you stop basing your arguments and beliefs off of hatred, then you can lecture me about it, got it?


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 24, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> ..._Raises the specter of how exactly you intend to distinguish 'such folk' in everyday life?_...


Quite true. Implicit in that 'freedom to refuse service' is the foreknowledge that a prospective customer is homosexual. How one attains that foreknowledge is a related but subsequent matter which will admittedly not be easy to resolve. But that does not detract from the desire or need on the part of many to have the freedom to refuse service to those which their religious beliefs inform them are evildoers and perverts.



> "..._If you make them wear pink armbands I can promise you that I will wear one too and so will everyone else that I know._"


A little too Godwin-esque and Think-Pink and Drama-Queen-ish for this early in the morning, isn't it?



> "..._So you don't actually have anything substantive?_..."


Oh, I think that the centuries-old prohibitions against and condemnations of homosexuality - to be found in the sacred texts and teachings of mainstream Christianity, Judaism and Islam - provide sufficient 'substance' to assert in a court of law that such forced 'association' or 'service provisioning' is perceived by Believers as forcing them to interact with those whom they perceive to be evil-doers and perverts.

What more is needed?

Now, whether folks will be allowed to shun such perverts or be allowed to refuse service to such persons on Religious Grounds is an entirely different matter, of course, but the establishment of those grounds and the assertion of their broad acceptance as morally operative is not an overly demanding task in itself.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 24, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



Don't you see the irony in what you just posted?


----------



## Immanuel (Feb 24, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> > "..._So basically, you only serve Christian straight people, no Jews, muslims, Hindus, Atheists... Because after all, you don't agree with their religious beliefs_...."
> ...



I have pretty much disagreed with just about everything you have posted in this thread because to me, you sounded as if you endorsed discrimination against gay people.  

Although I, myself, believe a business owner should have such right, it sickens me to think Christians are advocating such hatred.  

Thank you for at least attempting to put it into a different tone.

"Should have the right" does not equal "will ever exercise said right".  Although we would be lying to ourselves if we said no one would exercise that right.

An example, to bring this to the progressive way of thinking would be this.  How many of you are pro-choice and have claimed that you support the right of a woman to attain an abortion, but you would never choose one yourself?  Pro-choice people here say that all the time.  Just because you support a right does not mean you would exercise that right.

I have lots of rights that I choose not to exercise.  I think there are several Christians in this thread who are thinking the same thing yet the message is not coming through.  

I believe the right to be a racist/"homophobic" bigot should exist.  That does not mean I choose to be one.  I think the majority of us Christians would welcome gay couples into our businesses.  It does not mean we support their lifestyles, but we recognize them as human beings and the utter ugliness of hate and discrimination.

To me, if I were a baker, I would have no problem baking a cake for such a couple.  On the other hand, I am not sure that I would want to actually attend the wedding as a photographer.  I believe I would be uncomfortable in that situation.  Normal wedding/reception fine; gay orgy during the reception and I am out of there!


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 24, 2014)

Chaussette said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Chaussette said:
> ...


As *you* have been seen to do repeatedly on this thread?

Good point.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Feb 24, 2014)

Chaussette said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Chaussette said:
> ...



When Chaussette has no argument, s/he argues just to argue. Brilliant! You're woefully unintelligent, or purposefully misleading, I can't tell yet. You've already tried to mischaracterize my argument, so from here on out I can't take you seriously anymore.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 24, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> > "..._So basically, you only serve Christian straight people, no Jews, muslims, Hindus, Atheists... Because after all, you don't agree with their religious beliefs_...."
> ...



Your religious freedom at the expense of the rights of others to be treated equally? Sounds like you are pushing for a theocratic state.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Feb 24, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Nope. You want discrimination banned, I want this forcing people to act against their faith to serve homosexuals banned. Are those two things not the same? Come to think of it, both of these things are acts of discrimination, are they not? If there is any irony to be had here, it's that you're condoning one form of discrimination while admonishing the other.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Feb 24, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Chaussette said:
> ...



Your right to be treated equally at the expense of others' religious freedom? Sounds like you are pushing for a secular state. Just saying, bud.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 24, 2014)

"alternative lifestyle"
Is a guy that fucks his wife in the ass, left ear and right nostril living in an "alternative lifestyle".
Folks that do not know gay folk use that term and it is absurd. 
They are living THEIR normal life. Not normal to me but it is to them.
No one chooses to be gay, come on folks. 
Explain to me how you chose to be straight.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 24, 2014)

I do not like laws that tell me who I can work for.
But I also would never turn down working for gay folk.
Most all of them I know professionally are hard working and good people.
My opinion is someone has to be crazy to use religious reasons to turn down working for them.
Jesus would not do that. He would accept them as he did everyone.


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 24, 2014)

Immanuel said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Chaussette said:
> ...


This was very well said.

Much depends on which one of the Heinz 57 flavors of Christianity we're talking about, I'm sure.

There are schools of thought that are more tolerant of homosexuality than others.

There are schools of thought that are more condemnatory of homosexuality than others.

Each of us according to our own lights, or whatever light that Nature or God granted to us.

Respect for each others' opinions is oh-so-important.

Respect for each others' right to engage, or to refuse to engage, in matters of moral conscience, are also oh-so-important.

Personally, I have enough trouble walking through life keeping my own socks pulled up, never mind fussing overly much about who is sleeping with who.

I believe homosexuality to be a degenerate and perverse state, and abhor the concept, the practices, and many of its practitioners.

But, personally, I would not refuse to provide service to some Gay person or another.

I merely want the freedom to do so, and despise any law that takes that freedom of choice away from me.

I want that freedom for myself, in case I ever change my mind, and for those who already wish to refuse such service.

If a business person's religious beliefs inform them that homosexuality is a perversion and evil and if those same beliefs inform them that associating with such persons or providing services to such persons is a wrong or immoral thing to do, then, I'm all in favor of them continuing to retain the freedom to make that choice.

I maintain an ultra hard-line stance during debating exchanges on the subject because such hard-line thinking is required in order to force the issue and to re-empower folks to make those choices for themselves rather than having Big Brother do it.

We do not see these things the same way, but I'm not quite as far to the Right of Attila the Hun as I might appear during these exchanges.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Feb 24, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> "alternative lifestyle"
> Is a guy that fucks his wife in the ass, left ear and right nostril living in an "alternative lifestyle".
> Folks that do not know gay folk use that term and it is absurd.
> They are living THEIR normal life. Not normal to me but it is to them.
> ...



What I see here, sir, is an attempt by the left to have others see the guy who fucks his wife in the ass , left ear and right nostril as someone who is living an "alternate lifestyle."


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 24, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > "...First off, Kondor just openly admitted to 'legislating his own morality based on his religious beliefs'..."
> ...


Thank you for admitting that the "Opposition" is suffering from delusions.





> > "..._Secondly removing discrimination is not 'legislating morality' unless you believe that it is somehow 'moral' to discriminate against your fellow citizens_..."
> 
> 
> It is only 'moral' to discriminate against your fellow citizens when they openly admit to immoral and perverse acts and practices.
> ...


Now you are erroneously conflating homosexuality with pedophilia which means that your position is even weaker than you know.





> > "..._You need to justify the 'fairness' to discriminating against them simply because they are in love with someone of the same sex_..."
> 
> 
> 3000 years of the combined condemnations by Judaism, Christianity and Islam have taken care of all those pesky moral complications.
> ...


I suspect that you have no idea of how unlikely it is that people will give up their rights for your theocratic utopia.





> > "..._This has nothing to do with that aspect at all. This is about trying to dictate who someone is allowed to love and who they can't_..."
> 
> 
> It's not even about that.
> ...


No one is forcing you to ask anyone if they are gay before you sell them a burger and fries.





> It's about those forced to do so, finding ways to fight back, in order to preserve their right to refuse such services, based upon their religious beliefs and teachings.



You are inventing an excuse to force your unconstitutional religious beliefs onto others.


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 24, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Chaussette said:
> ...


My freedom to judge what is Morally Right and what is Morally Wrong and not to be forced to associate with those whom I judge to be Morally Wrong - as reinforced by a couple of thousand years of Christian-Judaic-Islamic narratives and teachings, on a global scale. Separation of Church and State has worked out very well for us here. Just keep the damned State out of my Church, metaphorically speaking - just stop forcing me to interact with those whom my faith condemns as perverts and unnatural and abominations in the eyes of God and Man.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 24, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> The fact that we even have a law, or debate the legailty of freedom of association is pathetic in a supposedly free country. A business owner, in any state, for any reason, should be allowed to determine who they will provide services to.
> 
> But, LOLberals just love the idea of forcing people to do what they believe is right.



So a business owner that owns an ambulance service can refuse service to who he wants to?

Amazing there are as many people that thanked your post without thinking for half a second of the consequences of your insane post. 
Republicans killed their law last week because of exactly what I posted above.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Feb 24, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:
			
		

> I suspect that you have no idea of how unlikely it is that people will give up their rights for your theocratic utopia.



I suspect that you have no clue how unlikely it is that people will give up their rights for a secular one, either. There is no such thing as a one sided coin, my friend.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Feb 24, 2014)

But then again, I have better things to do than waste time on this thread. Seriously I do. I did pull an allnighter working on a project, and I haven't slept in 16 hours, so later.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 24, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



We force people to do what they don't want to do all the time.  Religion is not some sort of super-government that rules over our government, especially on constitutional matters.

And a business is not a religion, no matter how religious the person is who runs the business.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 24, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



What you believe is between you and your deity. How you interact in a diverse secular society is another matter entirely.

No one gets to dictate their "morality" and that means you cannot use your business interests to discriminate against people of different races, religion, gender and now sexual orientation. 

The principle of equality means that everyone must be treated equally when it comes to public accommodations such as a business. You cannot refuse to rent out a room in your motel to someone who is a Muslim because that is discrimination. Equally so you cannot refuse to rent it out to someone who is gay either.

In a secular state the 1st amendment means that you cannot pass a law that favors your religious beliefs while it discriminates against others.

If you want to change that then start by repealing the 1st amendment.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 24, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> "alternative lifestyle"
> Is a guy that fucks his wife in the ass, left ear and right nostril living in an "alternative lifestyle".
> Folks that do not know gay folk use that term and it is absurd.
> They are living THEIR normal life. Not normal to me but it is to them.
> ...


Explain how a heterosexual twin can have a homosexual identical twin. Clearly the human element plays a big role in sexuality, it doesn't all boil down to genes. Yes, it's an alternative lifestyle, where have you been? We've had some 7,000 years of recorded history to fall back on for a perspective on what's normal. Who knows how much farther back it goes but chances are cavemen weren't sexual progressives. 


Gadawg73 said:


> I do not like laws that tell me who I can work for.
> But I also would never turn down working for gay folk.


The issue isn't about you.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 24, 2014)

No law stops people from discriminating not even most of the time.
But to NOT have the law that fights discrimination that is 100% based on religious intolerance is worse.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 24, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > ..._Raises the specter of how exactly you intend to distinguish 'such folk' in everyday life?_...
> ...


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 24, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...


You look about you, and see the large and increasing volume of Opposition Activism, and do not believe that there is a philosophical and moral and legal war underway?

OK.



> "..._Now you are erroneously conflating homosexuality with pedophilia which means that your position is even weaker than you know_..."


I merely mentioned another example of sexual perversion. You are welcome to pretend that I intended a closer linkage if you like. Doesn't faze me in the slightest.



> "..._I suspect that you have no idea of how unlikely it is that people will give up their rights for your theocratic utopia_..."


Another standard-issue Gay Lobby canard.

I'm a *HUGE* fan of Separation of Church and State.

But that separation works *BOTH* ways.

Just as the Church needs to stay out of the business of the State...

So, too, does the State need to stay out of the business of the Church...

And, when you force members of the Church to associate with and provide services to those whom the Church has condemned historically and presently as evil-doers, you are violating the Separation of Church and State in the OPPOSITE direction, by virtue of the State interfering in the beliefs of the Church...

Nobody's taking the Drama Queen position that we should have a theocracy...

Merely that the Separation of Church and State must be *BI*directional, *NOT* *UNI*directional...



> "..._You are inventing an excuse to force your unconstitutional religious beliefs onto others._"


That is your interpretation.

You see it as 'excuse making' and 'unconstitutional'.

Others see it as 'substantive objection' and highly 'constitutional' - ensuring a *BI*directional Separation of Church and State.

And it is both the emotional constitutional natures of the arguments being advanced by both sides, and the visceral reactions which they invoke, which will create a metaphorical State of War between the two sides on this issue.

By the look of all the related activity we see springing-up around the country, it looks as though the War is already underway, and that it might, alternatively, be delusional to try and deny that state of affairs.

Of course, the longer your side of the aisle denies that War is upon us, the more progress the Opposition will be able to make, before it meets any substantive resistance.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 24, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > "..._Ahhh - so you think perversity is defined by the majority, well until such time as polls show the majority changed_..."
> ...



Based on your logic, hunting and fishing are perversions because most Americans don't do them.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 24, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Ok, you don't see the irony. Let's move on.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 24, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > "alternative lifestyle"
> ...



You can spin it all you want but it is normal to them and not a "lifestyle". 
All issues about THE LAW are about the INDIVIDUAL.
The Constitution specifically protects the rights of THE INDIVIDUAL and not the mob rule majority.
Something about the Constitution, an interesting document I suggest you read.
We are a nation OF LAWS, not of men and their changing like the wind religious beliefs.

Tell us how long you contemplated all of your available choices before YOU chose to be straight. How did that work.
Never happened that to me or anyone else I know but tell us how that went about with you.
I was BORN straight.


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 24, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> "..._So you are not willing to address the consequences of your own stated intentions of legislating your religious morality? Why is that? Because that means that you will have no option but to resort to Godwin-esque tactics?_"


Lighten up. This isn't a freshman-year debating club sortie.

I have already addressed my true intentions in discussing the *BI*directional Separation of Church and State concept, a post or two ago.

If that means that the Opposition has to play the Religion Card to restore its freedom of choice, well, what the hell.

Don't try to make this into something more complicated or sinister than that, 'cause I'm not gonna bite on that hook.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 24, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



So now you are advocating the religious equivalent of Apartheid. 

Oh boy! You really aren't doing yourself any favors here.


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 24, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...


Golly-gosh gee-willickers, Emmy Lou, do you mean that _everybody_ doesn't hunt and fish?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 24, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Our current secular state is what provides you with those rights. You are advocating a theocratic state that would deprive people of their rights.


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 24, 2014)

Allowing individuals to choose their associations is not a theocratic state.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 24, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > "...What if someone claimed a religious belief that the races weren't meant to mingle, and/or that blacks were inferior to whites?
> ...



You obviously haven't even read the Arizona law, amazingly, at this point in this thread.

The Arizona law allows a belief to be classified as religious pretty much if a person simply claims it's religious;  they do not have to source it to any formal doctrine of any established religion.

I recommend you go read the law before you dig yourself in any deeper.


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 24, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...


Nope.

Although it comes as no surprise that your side would try to spin it that way.

In truth, you are doing yourself a disservice by constantly and routinely putting words in other people's mouths for your own purposes and being seen to be doing so.

In truth, you are doing yourself a disservice by constantly and routinely conjuring labels which generate visceral and loathsome reactions, and disingenuously and inappropriately applying them to Opposition Viewpoints which you hope to destroy or discredit by pitching them as something that they are not.

Thank you for the time on this so far, but...

This last bit took the heart and fun right out of me, to continue participating in this exchange.

I've given a good account of both my stance and its supporting rationale and am content to let such arguments stand or fall on their own merits for the moment.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 24, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> Allowing individuals to choose their associations is not a theocratic state.



Allowing individuals to discriminate is not constitutional.  There are legal differences between who you can choose to hang out with and who you can choose to do business with.

It's not that complicated.


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 24, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> "..._The Arizona law allows a belief to be classified as religious pretty much if a person simply claims it's religious; they do not have to source it to any formal doctrine of any established religion_..."


Close enough for government work...


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 24, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



Why not?  The law allows anyone to decide for themselves what their religious beliefs are.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 24, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> Allowing individuals to choose their associations is not a theocratic state.



This bill doesn't allow individuals to choose their associations.  Unlawful associations remain unlawful, just that religious claims are given a special exemption.

If you don't like an association but aren't smart enough to mouth the magic works "sincerely held religious belief" (whether it is or not), you don't get the exemption.


>>>>


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 24, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> No law stops people from discriminating not even most of the time.
> But to NOT have the law that fights discrimination that is 100% based on religious intolerance is worse.


What are you talking about? There are laws that stop discrimination and the issue is philosophical in nature, not religious. Some religious people are in the same boat as the homosexual crusaders and some non-religious people oppose them and want to decide for themselves.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 24, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > What if someone claimed a religious belief that the races weren't meant to mingle, and/or that blacks were inferior to whites?
> ...



The law is clearly unconstitutional.  You cannot refuse service to people of color, no matter what your religious argument is.


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 24, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Allowing individuals to choose their associations is not a theocratic state.
> ...



If you cannot choose who you do business with, then you are on the path to a tyrannical state under the guise of secularism.  There is no difference between theocratic tyranny and secular tyranny.   That's why we have freedom of association.   

If a homosexuals walks into a restaurant they should be served like anyone else.  If the homosexual wants that restaurant to cater an event, the primary purpose of which is to advance homosexuality, the restaurant owner should have the freedom to refuse, not because of the status of the person, but because of the nature of the event.


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 24, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



That is where freedom becomes a twist on both sides of the story.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah (Feb 24, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> I do not like laws that tell me who I can work for.
> But I also would never turn down working for gay folk.
> Most all of them I know professionally are hard working and good people.
> My opinion is someone has to be crazy to use religious reasons to turn down working for them.
> Jesus would not do that. He would accept them as he did everyone.



That is how I feel, Gadawg.   I wouldn't want the govt  forcing any business or employee to do something that was against their conscience.  Christian or non Christian.  This is America.   There should be free choice all around.  There are plenty of businesses out there to choose from. On the other hand, I never turned down work from my gay clients.  I enjoyed working for them and never felt any conflict over my being a christian.  Evidently they didn't either or they wouldn't have hired me!


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 24, 2014)

The answer to abuses of freedom is more freedom not less.  To imagine that religious people will voluntarily give up religious rights to serve the interests of secularism is mythic.  They won't.  What they will do is FURTHER separate themselves until we do have a completely divided public.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 24, 2014)

Antares said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



A REAL Christian would never have made the statement Jake just did, because he would know it for the mortal sin it is.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 24, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



Yes, the Constitution that specifically protects religion views it as irrelevant because the received wisdom from Internet fucktards is that it isn't real, and therefore unimportant, never mind that millions of people worldwide consider it the most central fact to their existence.  

If I were going to try to invent a display of the most insane hubristic arrogance, I could not come close to what you losers actually think.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 24, 2014)

Antares said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



"Christians don't lie"


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 24, 2014)

Chaussette said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Damn, you're stupid.  You can really look at what's going on on the political landscape today, the homosexual couples using the whole "It's legal for us to get married, therefore I'm going to sue you out of existence for hurting my feelings" thing that has SPARKED this law, and REALLY tell us that homosexual "marriage" has no effect on anyone outside of the two people pretending to be a married couple?

Are you brain-damaged?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 24, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> The answer to abuses of freedom is more freedom not less.  To imagine that religious people will voluntarily give up religious rights to serve the interests of secularism is mythic.  They won't.  What they will do is FURTHER separate themselves until we do have a completely divided public.



No one is asked to give up any religious "rights".


----------



## bodecea (Feb 24, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



What is the mortal sin statement that Jake made?   That he only have two women in his life?


----------



## bodecea (Feb 24, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > The answer to abuses of freedom is more freedom not less.  To imagine that religious people will voluntarily give up religious rights to serve the interests of secularism is mythic.  They won't.  What they will do is FURTHER separate themselves until we do have a completely divided public.
> ...



The religious "right" to discriminate against other citizens, apparently.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 24, 2014)

As soon as we boot the religious right back to where all of the rest of us are and quit allowing them to dictate what they believe is moral or immoral and take their moral police badges and decoder rings back we can MAYBE start to win elections again and defeat Democrats.
But they are not interested in winning elections as then how could they claim and continue their Christian Victim Crusade?
I want to win. Gay boogeyman issue is a stupid one.


----------



## Chaussette (Feb 24, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Ok, it does have an effect, it drives homophobes like you CRAZY!


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 24, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > The answer to abuses of freedom is more freedom not less.  To imagine that religious people will voluntarily give up religious rights to serve the interests of secularism is mythic.  They won't.  What they will do is FURTHER separate themselves until we do have a completely divided public.
> ...



Do people of religious conscience have to participate in same sex weddings?   Yes.  That was the point of this law in the first place.  It was to afford protections to businesses like Sweet Cakes and Elaine's Photography.  It was to protect business people who say "No I will not attend your wedding".


----------



## Chaussette (Feb 24, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...


Sorry, but religious reasons have to be excluded, Jesus would never discriminate against gays. Got anything else?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 24, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Damn, you're stupid.  You can really look at what's going on on the political landscape today, the homosexual couples using the whole "It's legal for us to get married, therefore I'm going to sue you out of existence for hurting my feelings" thing that has SPARKED this law, and REALLY tell us that homosexual "marriage" has no effect on anyone outside of the two people pretending to be a married couple?
> 
> Are you brain-damaged?




Just to point out, the two cases that really got national attention were Elaine Photography (New Mexico) and Sweetcake by Melissa (Oregon).

Neither one of those cases is predicated on Civil Marriage being legal in those States for same-sex couples - because neither State has legal Civil Marriage for Same-sex couples.



>>>>


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 24, 2014)

Examples of the religious argument for segregation:

*Segregation

Segregationists made similar biblical arguments to oppose integration efforts in the 20th century.[xxix] They used Genesis 9:18-29 to make the case that God approves of segregation.  These verses tell the story of the separation of people after the flood through division of the sons of Noah.[xxx] Additionally, the curse of Ham in Genesis, discussed above, was offered to justify segregation.[xxxi] Segregation supporters also used the Genesis story about the confusion of tongues at Babel (Genesis 11:1-9) to argue that God believes the races should be kept separate.[xxxii] Another frequently used Bible passage was Leviticus 19:19 which forbids a mixing of certain animals, plants, or fabrics.

Segregationists used "calls for a pure Israel," as found in Deuteronomy 21, to advocate for a racially separated society.[xxxiii] One segregationist, S.E. Rogers, argued that support for segregation was rooted in Christian love.[xxxiv] Other opponents of racial equality argued that the Gospels justified segregation.  Just as Jesus Christ refused to associate with certain people, they too could refuse to associate with black people and not be considered un-Christian.[xxxv] Supporters of segregation used many other Biblical arguments to justify their arguments.[xxxvi]*

The Arizona law would effectively make such religious based arguments a legally legitimate justification for segregationist policies,

including the refusal of businesses to serve certain people.

https://libertyeducationforum.org/issues/12-religion/47-the-bible-tells-me-so.html


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 24, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



The restaurant owner has the freedom not to enter into a business that is going to require him,

under the laws of the land, to do something he considers unpleasant.

To define the entire realm of anti-discrimination law in this country as 'tyranny' is pretty much a blanket rejection of one of the most fundamental principles of the government that our Constitution created.


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 24, 2014)

What you will see are business owners limiting the range of services they provide.   They will offer public accommodation, and accommodations by private arrangement.   Many businesses do that now.  You just don't hear about it.  Only when it becomes widespread enough to pinch will you hear about it.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 24, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> What you will see are business owners limiting the range of services they provide.   They will offer public accommodation, and accommodations by private arrangement.   Many businesses do that now.  You just don't hear about it.  Only when it becomes widespread enough to pinch will you hear about it.



So you support businesses that deny to serve adulterers and those that eat pork.
Got it.
You support a law that a Muslim business owner of an ambulance service can deny service to an auto accident victim because they eat pork.

Who are you trying to shit here?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 24, 2014)

Chaussette said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



You just CANNOT let go of the notion that it's your place to dictate to people what they "should" and "shouldn't" do, can you?  Here's a "should" for you:  you should mind your own frigging business about running businesses YOU don't own.  How's that for a big can-do?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 24, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



  You don't speak for Christ, the Bible, or the Christian community.  End of story.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 24, 2014)

Chaussette said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Chaussette said:
> ...



If you're such a big fan of honesty, how about YOU be honest about your desire to micromanage the entire world, whether it's any of your damned business or not?

See if you can wrap whatever remaining brain cells you have around this one:  we let people act in accordance with their own religious beliefs and consciences, and we let THEM decide the best way to handle doing so, and YOU stop trying to vote in elections no one's handed you a ballot for.  

If anyone's just DYING for your advice on how to live their lives, I'm sure they can find you and ask.  And I for one think you should definitely hold your breath while waiting for them to do so.


----------



## kaz (Feb 24, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> I think another state passed something similar to this last week so this must be a trend that is catching on. I agree with this bill that if you are a business owner and believe in and live by your faith that you should be able to refuse service to whoever you want.
> 
> 
> Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays
> Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays



Absolutely business owners should have the right to do or not do business with anyone they chose.  One thing I would support though would be that they be required to disclose their policy so their other customers, employees and vendors can decide if they want to do business with them.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 24, 2014)

bodecea said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



The far right reactonary Christian community cannot comprehend that Christ encompasses all of us where are at right now.  The reactionaries are judgmental, meaning they don't follow scriptural guidance.  

They are mad that they cannot demonstrate how marriage equality invades their religious or civil liberties.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 24, 2014)

Chaussette said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Chaussette said:
> ...



Still trying to figure out what possible business it is of yours whether or not someone else's decisions make their business boom or fail.  Unless you're their silent partner, no one asked you.

What are you, a fucking noob at LIFE?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 24, 2014)

GreenBean said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



May I be the first to ask what in the holy FUCK this has to do with the topic?


----------



## kaz (Feb 24, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > What you will see are business owners limiting the range of services they provide.   They will offer public accommodation, and accommodations by private arrangement.   Many businesses do that now.  You just don't hear about it.  Only when it becomes widespread enough to pinch will you hear about it.
> ...



As a business owner, I can tell you the reality is that we are overwhelmingly trying to figure out how to get new customers, not exclude the ones we have.  That you live in such fear that a few business owners may shoot themselves in the foot and you are therefore willing to empower politicians and bureaucrats to force businesses to deal with customers they don't want is a serious failure to grasp the world around you and the incredible abuses they are committing with the power you support giving them.  The cure is far worse than the disease.

I do regular work for Democratic politicians.  I don't put any political or even sports affiliations on any clothing I wear, on my car or in my office because I'm here to do business, not make statements.  The statements can be made when I go home.


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 24, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > What you will see are business owners limiting the range of services they provide.   They will offer public accommodation, and accommodations by private arrangement.   Many businesses do that now.  You just don't hear about it.  Only when it becomes widespread enough to pinch will you hear about it.
> ...



I know a lot of businesses that don't serve pork at all!   I'll bet that I could name half a dozen restaurants right near here that only serve halal.  Should a halal restaurant be forced to include pork ribs on the menu?

I support a business that has open doors for the public and the right to refuse to cater "Celebrate the divorce" party.  

I support the local bakery recently bought out by muslims who now refuse to make wedding cakes for Christians.  They took wedding cakes off the menu.  For their community though, they still make them.   They have scrumptious croissants anyone can go into that bakery and get some.  

That's what you will see.  Businesses just limiting what advertised services they are willing to perform.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 24, 2014)

Disir said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > I think another state passed something similar to this last week so this must be a trend that is catching on. I agree with this bill that if you are a business owner and believe in and live by your faith that you should be able to refuse service to whoever you want.
> ...



Feel free, and please don't think for a second that your company was wanted, or your absence wouldn't be celebrated, if anyone cared enough to notice you exist, anyway.  Buh bye.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 24, 2014)

No need for boycotting AZ.

The legislation is dead on signing.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 24, 2014)

kaz said:


> Absolutely business owners should have the right to do or not do business with anyone they chose.  One thing I would support though would be that they be required to disclose their policy so their other customers, employees and vendors can decide if they want to do business with them.


They can decide when the shopkeeper says "no". It makes more sense to recognize that not everyone on Earth is onboard with the homosexual alternative lifestyle and may object. Most Muslims are very much against it, same with any number of religions or individuals. These kinds of problems crop up when one assumes too much. 

It makes much more sense to call the store and ask. Old fashioned? Maybe. But apparently so is respecting someone else's opinion.


----------



## kaz (Feb 24, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



The irony that you're telling people they aren't following the scripture because they don't read it like you do.  I learn a lot from the views of others.  But the ones like you who lecture me that you know the truth and I'm wrong unless I follow what you say I tune out and avoid.

I also am not clear where in the bible you get that the church has responsibility for who does and doesn't get a government marriage.  I do remember Jesus saying "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's."  I don't see that as either supporting or refuting gay marriage so much as saying let the government take care of itself and let the church take care of itself. 

Can you show me the passages you're finding that I am not where the Bible talks about what government's role should be in church doctrine?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 24, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



I think I mentioned in some thread before that the problem is that leftists don't have the courage of their convictions.  They are literally incapable of saying, "This is me, this my decision, it works for me, fuck you if you don't like it."  They are incredibly fragile and vulnerable to peer pressure, and so at the first sign of anything less than complete approbation, they crumple like a wet Kleenex.

If they could just learn to have some sack and be confident in themselves, it would solve so many problems.


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 24, 2014)

It won't matter whether it is signed or not.  Businesspeople of conscience will find ways of avoiding the consequence of being forced to perform personal services for causes they object to.  The end result will be exactly the same.   Gays will be forced into doing business only with those who advertise as being open to such business arrangements.  They just won't have a choice.


----------



## kaz (Feb 24, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Absolutely business owners should have the right to do or not do business with anyone they chose.  One thing I would support though would be that they be required to disclose their policy so their other customers, employees and vendors can decide if they want to do business with them.
> ...



So as clarification, I thought your central point was that businesses should be able to decide who they deal with, which I agree with you on.

Are you saying it's just gays they should be able to refuse to do business with?  I would not agree with that.  Either we are free to chose our own customers or we are not.  I don't get the logic of singling out gays but forcing us to do business with everyone else.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 24, 2014)

Chaussette said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Chaussette said:
> ...



And here we have yet another example of your complete inability to understand that NO ONE ASKED YOU.  What possible relevance do you think your personal opinion of other people's beliefs has on their right to exercise them?  Do we get to vote on whether or not YOUR beliefs are a pile of steaming shit, and should therefore be violated, trampled, and ignored?


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 24, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> It won't matter whether it is signed or not.  Businesspeople of conscience will find ways of avoiding the consequence of being forced to perform personal services for causes they object to.  The end result will be exactly the same.   Gays will be forced into doing business only with those who advertise as being open to such business arrangements.  They just won't have a choice.


I agree with much of that, a business can always claim they are busy, bump up the price or any number of things. I don't they need to advertise anything special, the whole problem is based on either assumptions or agendas. Most gays are not doing "gay" things, a business wouldn't know or care. It's only when something like wedding invitations or ceremonies take place. All it takes is a phone call. Surely there are people that would be happy for the business.

I do occasionally work for gay folks, although not gay specific things. I really don't care and don't know why they feel the need to announce it.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 24, 2014)

kaz said:


> Are you saying it's just gays they should be able to refuse to do business with?  I would not agree with that.  Either we are free to chose our own customers or we are not.  I don't get the logic of singling out gays but forcing us to do business with everyone else.


No. My response was to this or maybe I quoted the wrong person?

"One thing I would support though would be that they be required to disclose their policy so their other customers, employees and vendors can decide if they want to do business with them."

I don't think that's necessary and sort of makes them guilty unless a disclaimer is publicized.


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 24, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > It won't matter whether it is signed or not.  Businesspeople of conscience will find ways of avoiding the consequence of being forced to perform personal services for causes they object to.  The end result will be exactly the same.   Gays will be forced into doing business only with those who advertise as being open to such business arrangements.  They just won't have a choice.
> ...



It is actually ALL based on advertising.  Read the decision in the Elaine Photography case.  That's the correct interpretation of the law and should be the law of the land.  IF Elaine had not advertised as a wedding photographer, she would not have to perform wedding photography because she did not hold herself out as willing to perform that service.  

If you are looking for a bakery to make your wedding cake and you see an ad for a bakery that does not advertise wedding cakes at all.   They don't have to make one unless they want to.  It's not a service that they hold out as being available to the general public.


----------



## Antares (Feb 24, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Your freedom of religion, Kondor, in the public market place cannot trump the 14th protections against discrimination.  You can do it in private association but not in public commerce.



REAL Christians do not lie Jake, you do....

Here is a refresher for you Jake.....

*I voted for McCain and Obama.

Your industry is getting what it earned, Antares.

Tuff dat. *

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...care-affects-their-premiums-deductible-6.html


----------



## Antares (Feb 24, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



The real point is this JakeyFakey, neither do you.
There is NOTHING Christ like about you, not one thing.


----------



## kaz (Feb 24, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Are you saying it's just gays they should be able to refuse to do business with?  I would not agree with that.  Either we are free to chose our own customers or we are not.  I don't get the logic of singling out gays but forcing us to do business with everyone else.
> ...



Maybe I just didn't understand your point, you seemed to be still talking specifically about gays.  As for "disclose," you suggested a phone call.  I didn't really propose how they disclose it.  If you're saying they need to respond accurately if asked, then that doesn't necessarily  contradict what I said.

My view is that it should be like privacy laws.  Government simply requires companies to have a policy, and to follow their own policy.  I think it should be the same for discrimination.  Companies should be required to have a policy and follow their own policy.  I don't particularly care if they plaster it everywhere, I would be fine with your solution they only need to provide it if asked.

As I said to another poster, businesses are overwhelmingly trying to get customers, not exclude them.  All this government interference in this is a case of the cure (government power) being far, far worse then the disease.

Personally, that someone is gay is irrelevant to me.  But I do think it's stupid for anyone to believe government should be able to force anyone to do business with anyone.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 24, 2014)

Chaussette said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Chaussette said:
> ...



In other words, you don't know what's going on in the world, and you don't give a shit, because you'd rather live in the comforting little fantasy land between your ears, where you're a moral giant who controls the world.

Got it.  FLUSH!


----------



## BillyZane (Feb 24, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Absolutely business owners should have the right to do or not do business with anyone they chose.  One thing I would support though would be that they be required to disclose their policy so their other customers, employees and vendors can decide if they want to do business with them.
> ...



That's exactly it. NO respect for other people at all.

No decent person who respected others would force someone to do business with them just because the current law allows it.

Who even wants to spend money with someone who openly does not want their business?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 24, 2014)

Conservatives in this thread have finally found some Democrats they can agree with - the racist Southern Democrats of the segregated South.


----------



## GreenBean (Feb 24, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



May I be the first to ask why in the holy FUCK people who can't follow a thread insist on posting ?

In Reply to:  





> "You are going to have a hard time explaining why blow jobs and anal sex between a man and a woman are not *equally perverted and evil to the Supreme Court*."



To demonstrate that Gay Sex {Sad Sodomy} is considered immoral to some, although morals really don't count in legaleez - And unhealthy and detrimental to society 

Concluded  with : 





> Explain that *rates are extremely high in the Fruit cake community* to SCOTUS


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 24, 2014)

BillyZane said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



lol, so now we're to where the victims of discrimination are the villains.


----------



## GreenBean (Feb 24, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Cecille - If you think that was a lame post, you should see some of the crap he's posted on  other threads, personally I think it's just some kid playing on the computer.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 24, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> It is actually ALL based on advertising.  Read the decision in the Elaine Photography case.  That's the correct interpretation of the law and should be the law of the land.  IF Elaine had not advertised as a wedding photographer, she would not have to perform wedding photography because she did not hold herself out as willing to perform that service.
> 
> If you are looking for a bakery to make your wedding cake and you see an ad for a bakery that does not advertise wedding cakes at all.   They don't have to make one unless they want to.  It's not a service that they hold out as being available to the general public.


Your later point isn't the issue, your first one is. No, it should not be the law of the land for reasons I mentioned earlier. I gave the example of me not working for Planned Parenthood on moral grounds. Your kind of thinking would put the burden on the business of provide page after page of legalese when all one has to do is ask. Your viewpoint is about forcing everyone to abide by YOUR morals, that's wrong. It's UnAmerican and against common decency. So no, that shouldn't be the law of the land and hopefully people will rise up and fight back.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 24, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Damn, you're stupid.  You can really look at what's going on on the political landscape today, the homosexual couples using the whole "It's legal for us to get married, therefore I'm going to sue you out of existence for hurting my feelings" thing that has SPARKED this law, and REALLY tell us that homosexual "marriage" has no effect on anyone outside of the two people pretending to be a married couple?
> ...



Yeah, and if you think the ongoing battles in the political landscape on this subject are unrelated simply because those states haven't yet overridden the will of the people _via _judicial _fiat_, you're even more naive and obtuse than I previously thought.


----------



## BillyZane (Feb 24, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Conservatives in this thread have finally found some Democrats they can agree with - the racist Southern Democrats of the segregated South.



You're a retard . There really is ho other explanation for not being able to understand that saying someone has the right to do something is NOT the same thing as agreeing with what they are doing.

Its a damned shame that so many Americans , like yourself, are incapable of understanding that simple concept.

Look at this particular issue. Why would anyone object to gays marrying? Let them, they have a right to do so, but they do NOT have a right to force people to do business with them. BOTH sides have the right to be as stupid as they wish.

Notice that no one in this thread has been able to provide one single bit of evidence that anyone is harmed by a business discriminating, instead the entire focus has been on "you Christians are stupid" because you KNOW how weak your case is. Just as those who oppose gay marriage know their case is weak.


----------



## BillyZane (Feb 24, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



words have meanings. Someone who is told "I'd rather not bake a cake for your gay wedding" is NOT a victim. If they try to force those people to bake them a cake, they are however a piece of shit.


----------



## Chaussette (Feb 24, 2014)

GreenBean said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Chaussette said:
> ...



Why are you people so freaked out over gay marriage? Jesus was never homophobic. Why are you?


----------



## GreenBean (Feb 24, 2014)

Chaussette said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



1.} Actually  - Jesus Never was  *PERIOD*

2.} Define  Homophobic


----------



## Chaussette (Feb 24, 2014)

GreenBean said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> > GreenBean said:
> ...



1) Wow, a non-christian homophobe. That's pretty rare.

2) Go look in a mirror.


----------



## kaz (Feb 24, 2014)

BillyZane said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > BillyZane said:
> ...



I own a business in the triangle of North Carolina.  The ones who militantly won't do business with people are Democrats who are angry at businesses owned by open conservatives.  I'm a libertarian, but I don't talk about it at work so I don't have a problem.  But if you talk about conservative politics, your business will be shunned by the local leftist community.  That they are claiming tolerance now is as shallow and laughable as the rest of their lies.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 24, 2014)

kaz said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > I think another state passed something similar to this last week so this must be a trend that is catching on. I agree with this bill that if you are a business owner and believe in and live by your faith that you should be able to refuse service to whoever you want.
> ...



Here we are again with this mindset of "It's desperately important that we butt our noses into how people practice their religious beliefs an conduct their private transactions."

It's really none of your business or anyone else's to either tell people who they have to do business with, or to make them do the equivalent of posting a giant Star of David on their businesses in order to "earn" the right from you to exercise their religious beliefs.  (The sad thing is how many people STILL won't get that historical reference.)

You wanna know what someone's business policies are so you can get offended and boycott them?  Then do the extra work of asking them.  If it's not important enough for you to put out that little effort, then you obviously don't really need to know.


----------



## kaz (Feb 24, 2014)

Chaussette said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



What did Jesus ever say about any government marriage?


----------



## kaz (Feb 24, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Steve_McGarrett said:
> ...



LOL, that was the policy I said I supported if you read the discussion.  You can remove the stick now...


----------



## Chaussette (Feb 24, 2014)

kaz said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> > GreenBean said:
> ...



I never heard Jesus say anything should be denied to gays. Especially not marriage.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 24, 2014)

BillyZane said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Oh, they don't.  What they want is the chance to use the legal system to bludgeon their opposition into silence.


----------



## R.D. (Feb 24, 2014)

Chaussette said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Chaussette said:
> ...



You hear voices?  That explains a lot!


----------



## kaz (Feb 24, 2014)

Chaussette said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Chaussette said:
> ...



He also didn't say government should grant government marriage to gays.  It's the nature of not having said anything about government marriage, you can pick any statement on government marriage and correctly observe he didn't say that.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 24, 2014)

GreenBean said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > GreenBean said:
> ...



You want to talk about "following the thread"?  How about you explain to me what diseases have to do with a thread about Arizona's Senate passing a bill allowing business owners to refuse service based on religious beliefs?

Pretty sure this isn't a thread about "why gays are gross and unnatural", any more than it's a thread about "why religious people are stupid and wrong", no matter how much people on both sides want to wander down tangents to their favorite soapboxes.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 24, 2014)

GreenBean said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Chaussette said:
> ...



I think 3/4 of the people who post on this board are lame and juvenile, whatever age they actually are.  Some of them have entertainment value (similar to watching a video of a guy getting hit in the nuts with a rake), but there's a definite limit on how many of those I actually need around.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 24, 2014)

BillyZane said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Conservatives in this thread have finally found some Democrats they can agree with - the racist Southern Democrats of the segregated South.
> ...



Well, I won't argue the point that they're retards, because they so manifestly are, but I really think - as I've said before - that the problem is that leftists don't have principles, and so they can't understand the concept of defending something on principle.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 24, 2014)

BillyZane said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > BillyZane said:
> ...



When we're defining "victim" as "I got my feelings hurt", we can be sure the word "victim" has no meaning any more.


----------



## Mustang (Feb 24, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Defending prejudice and bigotry on principle?  What's the principle?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 24, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...




Neither of those cases was _via _judicial _fiat_, Public Accommodation laws are in the statutes and those statutes covered sexual orientation along with race, ethnicity, national origin, sex, etc.

For example here is the law passed by the Legislature:

"F.   any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to any person because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, *sexual orientation*, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap, provided that the physical or mental handicap is unrelated to a person's ability to acquire or rent and maintain particular real property or housing accommodation ;"

http://public.nmcompcomm.us/nmpublic/gateway.dll/?f=templates&fn=default.htm


>>>>


----------



## Chaussette (Feb 24, 2014)

kaz said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



So you agree that Jesus never said that government shouldn't extend marriage to gays?


----------



## kaz (Feb 24, 2014)

Mustang said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > BillyZane said:
> ...



What principle is served by forcing a photographer to take pictures at a gay wedding who doesn't want to be there?


----------



## kaz (Feb 24, 2014)

Chaussette said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Chaussette said:
> ...



Yes, no shit dick tracy.  Do you have any more obvious points to make?

Jesus also didn't say we should not require people to present IDs to vote


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 24, 2014)

kaz said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



No, you said you supported REQUIRING them to disclose it.  Since we're already talking about them being allowed to SAY, "No, I won't do that", it's ludicrous to try to pretend that you were talking about making them do what they're fighting for the right to do, anyway.

You wanna backpedal?  Fine.  But don't lie about it.


----------



## kaz (Feb 24, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Wow, you follow the Israeli if I'm 1% against you I'm 100% against you.  I keep saying I'm against forcing businesses to deal with anyone, including gays, but that isn't good enough.

As for my being a liar, I'm backpedaling on nothing.  This is what I said to IceWeasel here you go.  You can pull the stick out now and stop being such a bitch to people who aren't even against you.



			
				kaz said:
			
		

> My view is that it should be like privacy laws.  Government simply requires companies to have a policy, and to follow their own policy.  I think it should be the same for discrimination.  Companies should be required to have a policy and follow their own policy.  I don't particularly care if they plaster it everywhere, I would be fine with your solution they only need to provide it if asked.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 24, 2014)

Mustang said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > BillyZane said:
> ...



The principle that everyone is entitled to freedom of religion, expression, and association whether you approve of them or not.

Figures you wouldn't be able to recognize principle without help.


----------



## Chaussette (Feb 24, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



No rights are absolute. With respect to religion, muslims aren't allowed their sharia law in the US, just to show that everything has a limit. Now you know.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 24, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Yes, that old leftist trick of pretending that a reference is to something other than it was, so that you can derail the conversation by making someone explain to your blank ass over and over what they're talking about works SOOO well.

Fail.


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 24, 2014)

kaz said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


----------



## kaz (Feb 24, 2014)

Chaussette said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...



The distinction in a free country is when you are making religious decisions for yourself and when you are making them for others.  People can follow sharia law in this country other than for safety issues like not displaying their face for a drivers license and not following laws for things like getting on an airplane.  But no one has the right to force anyone else to follow sharia law, including their spouse.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 24, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...




So let's make sure that we have this straight, I pointed out that neither New Mexico's or Oregon's cases regarding Elaine Photography or Sweetcakes was based on marriage law.

You response was it was judicial fiat.

I posted the law showing it was passed by the legislature.

And I get accused of pulling a trick because you were speaking out of your ass?






>>>>


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 24, 2014)

kaz said:


> Maybe I just didn't understand your point, you seemed to be still talking specifically about gays.  As for "disclose," you suggested a phone call.  I didn't really propose how they disclose it.  If you're saying they need to respond accurately if asked, then that doesn't necessarily  contradict what I said.
> 
> My view is that it should be like privacy laws.  Government simply requires companies to have a policy, and to follow their own policy.  I think it should be the same for discrimination.  Companies should be required to have a policy and follow their own policy.  I don't particularly care if they plaster it everywhere, I would be fine with your solution they only need to provide it if asked.
> 
> ...


Yes, I agree with that. I'm against government getting involved in private decisions, period. I only used gay because that's the topic. A racist may not want to serve a black, or a white. It's their loss. I'd feel the same way if a Black Panther wanted a racist theme or visa versa for the KKK. 

Forcing disclaimers on what all you won't accomodate is an uneccessary burden and who knows what kinds of suits that could bring? We do have anti-discrimination laws though so saying you don't serve blacks will get you in hot water. The problem with this gay issue is that homosexuality hasn't been legally classified in the equal protection clause (which would widden the scope considerably) and yet in some cases are being treated as such.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 24, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> The problem with this gay issue is that homosexuality hasn't been legally classified in the equal protection clause (which would widden the scope considerably) and yet in some cases are being treated as such.



In Arizona, no sexual orientation is not included in the protected classes of their Public Accommodation laws.

"Yet some cases are being treated as such", in those states (for example the New Mexico photographer and Oregon baker) that have garnered a lot of national attention, ya - sexual orientation IS a protected class under those States Public Accommodation laws.



>>>>


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 24, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> In Arizona, no sexual orientation is not included in the protected classes of their Public Accommodation laws.
> 
> "Yet some cases are being treated as such", in those states (for example the New Mexico photographer and Oregon baker) that have garnered a lot of national attention, ya - sexual orientation IS a protected class under those States Public Accommodation laws.


I said all along that it's regional. In some cases, Seattle passed the law maybe 10 years ago when only Canada had gay marriage. Oregon, like many states, are largely controlled by the big cities. 

It will be a much bigger challenge to amend the equal protection clause of the Constitution though since then we have to start examining human sexuality. Where do we start and where do we stop? How about Bisexuals? Transgendered? Transexual?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 24, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > In Arizona, no sexual orientation is not included in the protected classes of their Public Accommodation laws.
> ...




Since the Equal Protection clause already includes all citizens, I don't see the need to amend it to include others.

Bisexuals, Transgendered, Tran-sexual - Yes, the government should treat them equally under the law barring a compelling government interest in not doing so.


>>>>


----------



## GreenBean (Feb 24, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Finally - a point I can't argue - yes it was  OT


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 24, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Since the Equal Protection clause already includes all citizens, I don't see the need to amend it to include others.
> 
> Bisexuals, Transgendered, Tran-sexual - Yes, the government should treat them equally under the law barring a compelling government interest in not doing so.


But it doesn't mention sexuality so Constitutionally speaking one cannot claim discrimination based on sexuality. But they do.


----------



## Bombur (Feb 24, 2014)

Now the only real problem Arizona faces is finding an efficient way to label them so that people know who they are supposed to hate. Maybe a rainbow patch!


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 24, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> But it doesn't mention sexuality so Constitutionally speaking one cannot claim discrimination based on sexuality. But they do.



A don't see were equal treatment is excluded to citizens because of their sexuality.


Colorado tried passing a State constitutional amendment to exclude equal treatment under the law based on sexuality - it was struck down by the SCOTUS.

>>>>


----------



## BillyZane (Feb 24, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



You're right, the GOVERNMENT should treat everyone equally. They should NOT however be allowed to FORCE me to do so. That's the central point you and others are missing here.

The government is NOT empowered to force us not to discriminate, they simply are not. What's next, the government starts mandating who you must date if you sign up for a dating web site? Why couldn't they? I mean , you've already let them in the door to control discrimination.

What is the fundamental difference between being in business and looking for a date?

I don't understand why so many Americans are so comfortable giving more and more authority to a government which has clearly shown that they don't deserve the authority they DO have.

The government can barely do what it is in fact constitutionally required to do, much less "make things right" elsewhere.

That's my simple question, which too my knowledge no one has answered is where in the COTUS is the federal government empowered to pass laws requiring us to not discriminate? Because if it isn't there, it doesn't exist.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 24, 2014)

BillyZane said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > BillyZane said:
> ...



Since you are obviously racist and anti-gay, of course you don't think that refusing to do business with someone of color or someone who is homosexual is not victimizing them.

Our constitution says otherwise.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 24, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > But it doesn't mention sexuality so Constitutionally speaking one cannot claim discrimination based on sexuality. But they do.
> ...


So your definition of equal treatment means that a baker is required by law to bake a gay wedding cake if he bakes wedding cakes. That's exactly the point and why there is a backlash. Welcome to the discussion. Sheesh.

I'm not familiar with the Colorado law but if liberal Colorado has a problem that should speak to you.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 24, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Since you are obviously racist and anti-gay, of course you don't think that refusing to do business with someone of color or someone who is homosexual is not victimizing them.
> 
> Our constitution says otherwise.


Where does it mention homosexuals? Or is homosexual a race?


----------



## bodecea (Feb 24, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



Why would he not?    It's business.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 24, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Since you are obviously racist and anti-gay, of course you don't think that refusing to do business with someone of color or someone who is homosexual is not victimizing them.
> ...



Are homosexuals not people?  Are they not capable of US citizenship?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 24, 2014)

Just a reminder several hundred posts in - 

The Arizona law is not limited to cake bakers and gays.


----------



## Mustang (Feb 24, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



There's no such thing as a gay wedding cake just like there's no such thing as a straight wedding cake. It's just a cake regardless of the sexual orientation of who it's made for. So, regardless of whether the wedding cake is made for a straight or a gay couple, it's still just a damn cake. Consequently, if the baker is ever asked if he makes gay wedding cakes, he can say no. He just makes wedding cakes. What happens to the cake after it leaves his bakery, should be none of his concern.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 24, 2014)

BillyZane said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...




Psst - I support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws as applied to private business.

I don't see a difference between a person having a secular reason for wanting to discriminate against black and a persons "sincerely held religious belief" that blacks are inferior.

Both are equally valid (to that person as a sincerely held belief, personally I think they are disgusting - just an example) and the government should allow (in general) the market to influence outcomes.  IMHO.  (1)  Private businesses should be exempt from Public Accommodation laws with the only exception being life saving medical treatment.  (2) Public Accommodation laws should only apply to government entities.  (3) Government entities, since the spend tax payer dollars, should be restricted from conducting business and issuing contracts to businesses that function in a discriminatory manner.



Care to comment about "the central point" that I'm missing?



>>>>


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 24, 2014)

Mustang said:


> [There's no such thing as a gay wedding cake.... .



Except in the sense that all wedding cakes are very very very very gay.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 24, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...




I support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws.

If a baker doesn't want to bake a wedding cake for Jews - for secular or non-secular reasons, they shouldn't have to.

If a baker doesn't want to bake a wedding cake for an black couple - for secular or non-secular reasons, they shouldn't have to.

If a baker doesn't want to bake a wedding cake for a 90 year old couple - for secular or non-secular reasons, they shouldn't have to.

If a baker doesn't want to bake a wedding cake for two women - for secular or non-secular reasons, they shouldn't have to.




The difference between myself and many here is that mandatory compliance with Public Accommodation laws is just fine with them for race, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation (for non-secular reasons), etc., etc. That's just fine.  But when it comes to "The Gheys", Oh no in that case special exemptions have to be given to "sincerely held religious beliefs" - but only if those beliefs are about "The Gheys".

Kind of hypocritical, IMHO, if the position is supposed to be about freedom of association and rights of property.



>>>>


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 24, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Are homosexuals not people?  Are they not capable of US citizenship?


Huh? We are discussing the relationship. Relationships aren't people. There is no Constitutional requirement for anyone to honor gay relationships, that's why the laws are created in various liberal locales.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 24, 2014)

Mustang said:


> There's no such thing as a gay wedding cake just like there's no such thing as a straight wedding cake. It's just a cake regardless of the sexual orientation of who it's made for. So, regardless of whether the wedding cake is made for a straight or a gay couple, it's still just a damn cake. Consequently, if the baker is ever asked if he makes gay wedding cakes, he can say no. He just makes wedding cakes. What happens to the cake after it leaves his bakery, should be none of his concern.


A groom and a groom would be gay, sorry. I'd be OK with what you say if they get their figurines elsewhere and kept their private affairs private.


----------



## bendog (Feb 24, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Are homosexuals not people?  Are they not capable of US citizenship?
> ...



The supremes torpedoed DOMA

Like it or not, the feds may not deny equal benefits to GLBT, and the cases are percolating up as to whether states may do so.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 24, 2014)

bendog said:


> The supremes torpedoed DOMA
> 
> Like it or not, the feds may not deny equal benefits to GLBT, and the cases are percolating up as to whether states may do so.


DOMA has zip to do with this and if it was a federal issue, it wouldn't be a state issue.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 24, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> > The supremes torpedoed DOMA
> ...




What you said was there was no Constitutional right to the recognition of gay relationships, the striking of DOMA shows that yes there is a Constitutional issue when gay relationships are not recognized equally.

Sorry you don't like it, but the fact remains, the non-recognition of legally established gay relationships was struck down.


>>>>


----------



## kaz (Feb 24, 2014)

bodecea said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > So your definition of equal treatment means *that a baker is required by law to bake a gay wedding cake if he bakes wedding cakes.*
> ...



Nice little word game there.  Why would he not?   It's business is a fair question to ask ... the baker.  I agree with the sentiment, as a business owner, I have no group that I exclude.  I do business with Republican and Democratic candidates, lots of religious institutions, planned parenthood.  I don't care.  The only people I don't do business with are people who jerk me around about paying me even if they pay me eventually and people who are abusive to my staff.   I have a list of about 5 customers in 5 years we will not accept their orders.  None of them because of any group they belong to, all of them because of their personal behavior.

However, that government would require someone to do business with someone has nothing to do with business, it has to do with out of control government abusing it's power over it's people.


----------



## BillyZane (Feb 24, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



You've cleared your position up nicely, and you and I agree. The whole "it's religious" thing is a bogey.

It's MY business, I have a right to associate with whomever I please, and the government does NOT have a right to tell me I can't just because I happen to own my own business.


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 24, 2014)

bodecea said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Not quite.  He is required by law to bake a gay wedding cake if he advertises that he bakes wedding cakes and holds himself out as a person who bakes wedding cakes.  If the baker takes wedding cakes off the publicly offered services, gays can buy an offered apple pie instead.


----------



## kaz (Feb 24, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > bendog said:
> ...



DOMA was a direct implementation of the full faith and credit clause.  The striking down of DOMA only proved we have a criminal, corrupt Supreme Court that doesn't base it's rulings on what the Constitution says but what they want it to say.  They are dictators in robes.  Well, the ones who voted to violate the Constitution and usurp the powers of the Legislative branch are.


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 24, 2014)

bendog said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



No the supremes didn't.  obama did when he refused to defend the law in the courts.  It never got to the supremes to make a ruling one way or other.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 24, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> What you said was there was no Constitutional right to the recognition of gay relationships, the striking of DOMA shows that yes there is a Constitutional issue when gay relationships are not recognized equally.


How is that logical to you? DOMA was the protection of tradtiionally defined marriage if it was foisted on them by minority decree, especially judicial. Yes, gay is in both concepts but different topics.


> Sorry you don't like it, but the fact remains, the non-recognition of legally established gay relationships was struck down.


I haven't spoken about DOMA but you think that forces bakery owners to make gay themed wedding cakes? That's creative, I'll give you that.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 24, 2014)

kaz said:


> DOMA was a direct implementation of the full faith and credit clause.  The striking down of DOMA only proved we have a criminal, corrupt Supreme Court that doesn't base it's rulings on what the Constitution says but what they want it to say.  They are dictators in robes.  Well, the ones who voted to violate the Constitution and usurp the powers of the Legislative branch are.




DOMA had two Sections.  Section 2 was an exercise of Congresses full faith and credit clause, that section was not addressed by the courts.

Section 3 having to do with Federal recognition (not state to state recognition, which was Section 2) was a violation of equal protection.  Section 3 had nothing to do with full faith and credit between the states.


>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 24, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...




What the hell????

SCOTUS struck Section 3 of the Federal DOMA in the case of United States v. Windsor.



http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf


>>>>


----------



## bendog (Feb 24, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



NO.  The surpremes held congress may not pass a law allowing gay marriages to be offered lesser federal benefit via federal laws than straight marriages.

You would be correct if you said the issue was left for another day as to whether a state could prohibit gay marriage, or if such a prohibition violated equal protection.  Those cases are percolating upward.  I suspect that the supremes will do nothing because as more states recognize same sex marriages, it will become a non-issue.

Iceweasle posted "There is no Constitutional requirement for anyone to honor gay relationships, that's why the laws are created in various liberal locales."

That is not correct.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 24, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > What you said was there was no Constitutional right to the recognition of gay relationships, the striking of DOMA shows that yes there is a Constitutional issue when gay relationships are not recognized equally.
> ...




DOMA (Section 3) was struck based on case from New York State which passed the law legislatively.

What the hell are you talking about????

YOU  said there was no Constitutional requirement to recognize gay relationships.  It was pointed out to you that was incorrect.  New York recognized gay relationships, the Federal government refused to recognize them with DOMA (section 3).  The SCOTUS ruled (and I paraphrase) "No, you [the Federal government] MUST recognize them equally".  You made a mistake with the comment, you should man up.




Secondly, I'd appreciate it if you would stop trying to tell me what I think.  Please review -->> http://www.usmessageboard.com/8677814-post982.html

I'm more than happy to tell you what I think if you have a real question.

>>>>


----------



## kaz (Feb 24, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > DOMA was a direct implementation of the full faith and credit clause.  The striking down of DOMA only proved we have a criminal, corrupt Supreme Court that doesn't base it's rulings on what the Constitution says but what they want it to say.  They are dictators in robes.  Well, the ones who voted to violate the Constitution and usurp the powers of the Legislative branch are.
> ...



OK, I see what you're saying on the section that was struck down, and I agree that's not full faith and credit.

Section 3 has nothing to do with equal protection though  Two straight men or two straight women also can not get family insurance.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Feb 24, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The 'evil' is a business engaged in public commerce discriminating against folks for what they are.
> ...




And that is the crux of the matter. The left believes that "their" ideology is good. everyone els's is bad. So yes, they WOULD have a Jew bake a Nazi a birthday cake AND fix his shower head.

You're dealing with pure evil here.


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 24, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > bendog said:
> ...



Did you miss this part:

While the suit was pending, the Attorney General notified the Speaker of the House of Representatives that the Department of Justice would no longer defend §3s constitutionality


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 24, 2014)

RandallFlagg said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



The left would not only force a Jew to bake a Nazi celebration cake but attend the Nazi celebration too.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 24, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...


Nah, baking a cake is all we ask.  That's his job right, how he makes his living?


----------



## Bombur (Feb 24, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



Clearly you have no choice but to fight back against this tyranny! Did you mom clean your brown shirt yet?


----------



## g5000 (Feb 24, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie


----------



## g5000 (Feb 24, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



Let's reword this a bit so you can see what an idiot you really sound like: The left would not only force a Negro to bake a KKK celebration cake but attend the KKK celebration too.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Feb 24, 2014)

g5000 said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > RandallFlagg said:
> ...




That's a pretty good analogy if you consider that the KKK had as many democrats as republicans as members. Like I said - the left is full 'o crap.

Again - the left is pure unadulterated evil.


----------



## g5000 (Feb 24, 2014)

RandallFlagg said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Katzndogz statement had at least one logical fallacy in it.  Can you spot it?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Feb 24, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



    [MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION]

I never said a word about supporting a "theocratic state." I, like you, believe in separation of church and state. I also believe that concept works both ways. Just because I was posting in conjunction with Kondor should not imply that I advocate a "theocratic state." Moreover, our current "secular state" is what's forcing pious businesspeople to act against their faith. So what rights do they have, perchance? Must you sacrifice your religious freedom to run a business?


----------



## The T (Feb 24, 2014)

TheOldSchool said:


> I can't wait until it goes to court


Why? So a Court can tell a private business HOW it must conduct itself? A private business can REFUSE SERVICE to anyone. Get it?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 24, 2014)

kaz said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 24, 2014)

The T said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> > I can't wait until it goes to court
> ...


Actually you're the one who doesn't get it.  That's not what the law says, and it hasn't for decades.  We tell private businesses what to do here just like we tell private citizens what to do here.  It's not a Freedom Free-For-All here, nor was it ever meant to be, nor is a business a church.  And just because you call religion doesn't mean you can start burning witches and dropping virgins into volcanoes.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 24, 2014)

The T said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> > I can't wait until it goes to court
> ...



A little clarification here, yes any business can refuse service to any person.  If they don't offer the product, they have a scheduling conflict, if the customer is rude and disruptive, etc...

However in Arizona it's the legislature - not the court - under it's 10th Amendment powers to regulate business within the State that says a business of Public Accommodation CANNOT refuse business based on Race, Color, National Origin/Ancestry, Sex, Religion/Creed, or Physical/Mental disability.

If a black man walks into a kosher deli and orders a ham sandwich - the black man can be refused because the deli does not serve ham.

On the other hand if the deli does service ham (they are non-kosher) and refuses to serve the black person because they are black - that violates the State law.

Get it?


(BTW - Public Accommodation laws have been upheld by the court, multple states and at the Federal level going back to Heartland of Atlanta Motel v. United States.


>>>>


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 24, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Yes you must, if your religious 'freedom' includes actions that violate laws or the Constitution.

Remember, we're a secular nation that tolerates religion up to a point, not a theocracy that tolerates secularism up to a point.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Feb 24, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > TheOldSchool said:
> ...



Putting all of the legality aside for a moment, let me ask you an honest question:

Should a man give up his religious beliefs to a) run a business and b) adhere to public accommodation laws?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 24, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



Horse shit.  

Let's get you dribblers cleaned up. 

Nazis have no protection simply because they are political, other than they can speak their mind.

Jews do have protections because of what they are.

So, no, a Jew would not have to bake a birthday cake for a Nazi.

Yes, a Nazi would have to bake a birthday cake for a Jew.

Look up derivative false analogy.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 24, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Are homosexuals not people?  Are they not capable of US citizenship?
> ...



A wedding cake is food, for a wedding reception.  If you can discriminate against gays having a wedding reception, you can discriminate against gays coming into your restaurant for supper, or coming to your bar for drinks,

or renting your apartment, or shopping at your store, or, for that matter, you can refuse to hire a person you know is gay, just because he or she is gay.

That is not the way the law and the Constitution are going to work in this country.

You lose.  Move if you can't tolerate it.


----------



## The T (Feb 24, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > TheOldSchool said:
> ...


Don't CARE. Since when did GAY=Black?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 24, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



Public accommodation should not be infringed on by anyone's religious belief.  The former is public, the latter is private.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 24, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...


Easy answer.  How you live your faith is mostly a private matter.  How you run your business is mostly a public one, when you serve the public that is.  You don't have to give up anything more than you have to to work for someone else.  If the boss says stop preaching, it's stop and compromise or hit the road.  We can only allow for so much faith when the goal is business.

If you work in my Agnostic Bookstore and I tell you to take the cross off, you can do it or you can vote with your feet.  I'm not a church, I'm a business.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Feb 24, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Uhh so, I might have missed the Constitutional Convention to strike the 1st Amendment from Constitution. A man dreams should not come at the cost of his beliefs. It's that simple.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 24, 2014)

The T said:


> Don't CARE. Since when did GAY=Black?


Since we decided they also had rights.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 24, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



It's up to him.  Segregation of the races was defended on religious grounds in the past.  Should religion have won that argument?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Feb 24, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



How I run my business should be no business of anyone else's. I won't let a group of people tell me how to run it. I'll run a business which employs anyone with any belief, but I as the owner should be able to determine who I serve and when I serve them. That's a business decision. 

Moreover, Jesus never intended Christianity to be totally "private." While he did say that a Christian should pray in secret, he behooved us to spread the message of the Gospel through our deeds and words in the eyes of the public.



> Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me; Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."
> 
> Matthew 28:18-20




The rest is ignoratio elenchi.


----------



## buckeye45_73 (Feb 24, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Don't CARE. Since when did GAY=Black?
> ...



Not exactally the same thing, but hey gays equal black to you, go for it. How long til some conservative gay opposes the gaystopo agenda, eill the be called uncle toms and oreos or even question their gayness?
 I cant wait for that, hes a republican, he cant be gay, hes not gay enough



Lolololololol


----------



## bodecea (Feb 24, 2014)

buckeye45_73 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



That kind of stuff already happens.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Feb 24, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Carbine, I want people to be able to practice their faith in public, not just in private. Whomever made the religious argument to commit racism also bastardized the faith to carry out their inner xenophobia. The KKK and the Knights Templar did things like this to proselytize others. This on the other hand is completely different. White and Black are equal (sort of) but when it comes to the religious and the secular, the battle lines are being drawn.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 24, 2014)

bendog said:


> Iceweasle posted "There is no Constitutional requirement for anyone to honor gay relationships, that's why the laws are created in various liberal locales."
> 
> That is not correct.


How can it be not correct if locales feel the need to pass further legislation?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 24, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



You dont need to. 

The actions and positions you and others on the social right advocate are unquestionably predicated on subjective, errant religious dogma  in violation of the Constitution. 

There is no rational basis for your opposition to equal protection rights for gay Americans, for example; you seek to deny them their civil liberties based solely on the belief that being who they are violates your religious tenets, absent any objective, documented evidence in support, and pursuant to no proper legislative end. 

In fact, public accommodations policy is in no way forcing pious businesspeople to act against their faith, the notion is ignorant nonsense, particularly with regard to Christianity, where there is no consensus that homosexuality is a sin, where the vast majority of gay Americans are Christian, and where scores of Christian denominations and churches welcome gay adherents.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 24, 2014)

g5000 said:


> National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie



No similarity, Comrade.

The right to petition government is guaranteed by the Constitution.

Do you think those same Nazis should be able to force a Jewish Synagogue to rent them a room to celebrate Hitler's birthday?

Why, or why not?

Should a Jewish Deli be forced to serve ham sandwiches at the affair? 

Why, or why not?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 24, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> A wedding cake is food, for a wedding reception.  If you can discriminate against gays having a wedding reception, you can discriminate against gays coming into your restaurant for supper, or coming to your bar for drinks,
> 
> or renting your apartment, or shopping at your store, or, for that matter, you can refuse to hire a person you know is gay, just because he or she is gay.
> 
> ...



Then you agree that a Jewish deli should be force by law to serve ham to celebrate Hitler's birthday at a Nazi rally, right?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 24, 2014)

The T said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



Of course you dont care  like most on the right you ignore or have contempt for the Constitution and its case law, reject objective facts and evidence that conflict with rightist dogma, and retreat to your conservative redoubt of fear, anger, bigotry, and ignorance.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 24, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



If you ever get a brain you will put a bullet in it if you come back and read this post.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 24, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



The Bible does not justify slavery. It dealt with slavery as a fact of life imposed by the secular government, Jews were specifically prohibited from making people into slaves in the way you think of slavery.

But, pl;ease, keep exposing your ignorance. it amuses the assholes.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 24, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



I doubt you can find any evidence that the Bible justifies slavery. Feel free to present it you think you can just so I can show you that what it actually is is a bunch of people, like you, who didn't actually read the Bible arguing that their morals trump everything else.

By the way, I can show you reams of scientific evidence used to justify slavery.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 24, 2014)

sfcalifornia said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Tell me something, Oh Great and Mighty Font of Ignorance, do you think it is stupid for a vegan restaurant not to serve steaks? How about a steak house not catering to vegans by refusing to serve tofu steaks? Why the fuck not, isn't that discrimination?

Stop pretending to be smart and you will never look like an idiot.


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 24, 2014)

If the law passes and stays, I will need to open a business to provide for the discriminated.


----------



## The T (Feb 24, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Don't CARE. Since when did GAY=Black?
> ...


And what rights have they NOT that everyone else has? Hmm? Can't answer that one, can you?


----------



## The T (Feb 24, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > A wedding cake is food, for a wedding reception. If you can discriminate against gays having a wedding reception, you can discriminate against gays coming into your restaurant for supper, or coming to your bar for drinks,
> ...


These idiots have no idea the virtual Pandora's box they are trying to open.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 24, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



WHAT
THE
FUCK
??????????
​
Can you explain something to me, asshole, How is telling me that it is wrong to discriminate, and then writing fucking laws that actually make it illegal, not legislating morality?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 24, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Wanna bet? 

Didn't think so.


----------



## sfcalifornia (Feb 24, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> > I do believe that businesses should be allowed to conduct business with anyone they want to but I also believe that a business which refuses service to anyone simply because they are gay are incredibly stupid and they should re-examine the reason why they are in business to begin with.  Money is money and if a business is going to turn down a dollar simply because it is pink then it deserves all the boycott, ridicule and derision the gay community and it's supporters can muster, a practice also guaranteed by law.
> ...


And it is your thinking which is clearly on the wrong side of history.  

Two flaws in your post here:  A) Planned Parenthood and homosexuality are two separate issues  B) it isn't slander or defamation if the statements made in public are true.  

We are talking about homosexuals here.  A business which won't sell a hamburger or a pack of gum to a man because he's gay is a very stupid business indeed.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 24, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > A wedding cake is food, for a wedding reception.  If you can discriminate against gays having a wedding reception, you can discriminate against gays coming into your restaurant for supper, or coming to your bar for drinks,
> ...



As general principle, yes, they would have to.  Assuming ham in on the menu.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 24, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > RandallFlagg said:
> ...



What would stop the Nazi from baking the terrible awful?


This is why smart people will go to a different baker if they find one that "hates" them. Only idiots would force a baker that hates them to bake them a wedding cake. Either you think gays are congenitally stupid, or there is a fucking agenda involved here.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 24, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



In other words, if we don't stop this people will starve.

Want to tell me again how I am the one pushing fear and hatred?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 24, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Churches are public.


----------



## The T (Feb 24, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...


Agenda, and it is _forced acceptance._


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 24, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Part of religious freedom, one would assume, is the freedom from having others tell you whether or not you have 'bastardized' some particular faith.

I have to bring it up again, then.  I hear from alot of people around here that we need to prevent Muslim-Americans from in any way bringing Sharia law into this country.  Well, that is their RELIGION.  

On what grounds would you prevent a Muslim community from establishing Sharia as the local law of that community,  without denying them the religious freedom, private and public, that you keep on about?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 24, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Do you expect me to believe you are that stupid?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 24, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Hey, asshole, RATIONAL BASIS is a fucking test for the government, and assumes, by default, that the government can do anything that lies within its power. If we could apply that fucking test to people then I could argue the fucking government has no business telling anyone anything. Even I get that.

Then again, I am not a janitor pretending to be a paralegal that is pretending to be a lawyer.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 24, 2014)

sfcalifornia said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > sfcalifornia said:
> ...



You know how I can tell I am talking to a religious fuckwad?

They start talking about history taking sides in events.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 24, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...




Honest answer, Public Accommodation laws should be repealed in general because they usurp the rights of free association and property of the business owner.  Whether the views of the business owner are based on secular reasons or religious reasons is irrelevant under equal treatment.  Public Accommodation laws should apply only to government entities and on the vary narrow area of emergency/life threatening medical treatment where failure to act will result in death.

A.  If the business owner is making the decision and chooses for his business to discriminate, that's the end of it.

B.  If an employee of the business owner fails to conduct business and complete their assigned duties in the prescribed manner - then it is an issue between the owner and the employee.

C.  Government entities, and employees acting as a representative of the government, would be subject to Public Accommodation laws, as such they can make employee accommodation only so long as the tax paying, US Citizen isn't burdened.

D.  As part of Public Accommodation laws applicable to government entities, those spending taxpayer dollars, would be restrictions on the ability to make purchases or enter into contracts with private companies that exhibit discriminatory behavior.​

There would be no need for special exemptions for religious views.

Does that help?



>>>>


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 24, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



I have 5 words for you:

Separation of Church and State.

You cant have it both ways, idiot. Either it is unconstitutional for Muslims to make their religion law, or you are wrong for saying that Christians can't.​


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 24, 2014)

The T said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



Never said gay = black.  One is a race one is a sexual orientation.

Just as Jewish does not equal black, one is a religion one is a race.


Each state has passed it's own Public Accommodation law and different characteristics are included depending on where you live, they can include race, ethnicity, national origin, sex, age, marital status, family status, veterans status, etc.  Those laws are passed by the Legislatures of the respective states.

>>>>


----------



## TemplarKormac (Feb 24, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Fair enough. I liked that response.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 24, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasle posted "There is no Constitutional requirement for anyone to honor gay relationships, that's why the laws are created in various liberal locales."
> ...




Funny thing is I've read that this legislation usurps local legislation.  If a city or county has passed (or attempts to pass in the future) anti-discriminaiton laws, this law makes them void.



>>>>


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 24, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



Accommodating gay Americans  whether compelled to do so by law or not  does not constitute one to give up his religious belief, its a manifestation of ignorance and hate, not religious doctrine or dogma.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 24, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Public accommodations laws are predicated on Commerce Clause jurisprudence, not First Amendment free association or Fifth Amendment Takings Clause doctrine, consequently no rights are usurped or violated. 

Business owners are subject to all manner of appropriate and Constitutional regulatory policies, including public accommodations laws, where to allow businesses to discriminate based solely on race, gender, or sexual orientation would clearly be disruptive to both the local market and markets nationwide, and where Congress is clearly authorized to protect markets from such disruptions: 



> Congress power to regulate purely local activities that are part of an economic class of activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce is firmly established. See, e.g., _Perez v. United States_, 402 U.S. 146, 151. If Congress decides that the  total incidence  of a practice poses a threat to a national market, it may regulate the entire class.
> 
> GONZALES V. RAICH



Consequently to advocate for the repeal of public accommodations laws is both unwarranted and unwise.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 24, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



That is not an opinion you are qualified to hold.

I can actually cite Supreme Court cases to prove my position, since I know you think they are  the only arbiter of opinion on the planet.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Feb 24, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



What a bunch of garbage. If his faith tells him that homosexuality is wrong, and you force him to serve homosexuals against his will; guess what you just did? Forced him to rescind his beliefs to accommodate a group of people who's lifestyle he sees as sinful. The ignorance here is you thinking this works only one way.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 24, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...




Just because a government has the power to do something, doesn't mean that the exercising of that power is the correct course of action.




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Consequently to advocate for the repeal of public accommodations laws is both unwarranted and unwise.



Well that of course is your opinion and you are welcome to have it.

On the other hand I think, see this is my opinion, is that society has changed.

As I said in another thread, we used to have:

1.  Areas of the country where black people couldn't rent a room for the night when traveling.

2.  Areas of the country where black people traveling couldn't buy gas from white station owners.

3.  Areas of the country where blacks couldn't eat unless they could find a black's only food establishment.

4.  And we had systematic discrimination against minorities in terms of how government functioned, such as segregated mass transit (buses, trains, etc.), schools, law enforcement, etc.​


In those days such things were commonplace, but society has changed in the last 50 years and changed a lot.  There has been a "corporatisation" where you can't spit without finding a company gas station, movie theater, restaurateur, motel/hotel, etc.  Just because we repeal Public Accommodation laws, doesn't mean that things are going to go back to the way they were 2 generations ago.  And there are a number of factors that impact this:

1.  We are much more mobile society.  People routinely travel in a manner unprecedented then both temporary and "permanent" relocation's out of the area they grew up in.

2.  We are more informed society and information is much more available today about how a business conducts it self in term so taking care of customers we have Criag's list, Angie's list, Yelp, and a plethora of hotel, restaurant, and review sites for any type of business and it's not just the discriminated against who would choose not to associate with such a business.  It includes many in the majority that would shy away from such businesses.

3.  The "corporatisation" of businesses in America watches the bottom line and having your "brand name" associated with and appearing to condone discrimination has a negative impact on the bottom line.  With corporate owned "shops" and franchises who still fall under policies of the home office means that these businesses will not allow or condone what was going on prior to the 60's.​

**************************************************


So the question becomes the balance of the rights of the private business owner to manage their private property according to their desires as compared to the desires of others to have access to that private business.  With the widespread discrimination 2-generations ago there may have been justification to say the rights of the property owner needed to be usurped - on a temporary basis - but those times are pretty much gone.  The balance was greatly tilted toward discrimination.

But in general the widespread issues from 50 years ago have been resolved by fundamental shifts in society.  Sure there will be isolated instances, that the price of liberty and dealing with your own issues.  A burger joint says - I won't serve a black?  OK, walk across the street to Applebee's.  A photographer doesn't want to shoot a same-sex wedding?  OK, Google or Angie's List other photographers in the area.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all *FOR* keeping Public Accommodation laws in force in terms of the functioning of government but that is because citizens have an inherent right to equal treatment by the government.  There is no such right to equal treatment by other individuals.



>>>>


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 24, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



So an EMT can refuse to treat a gay person at an accident scene because of their religious beliefs.
We are a nation of LAWS, not of men and their various and changing like the wind religious beliefs.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 24, 2014)

Religious beliefs supported slavery, Jim Crow and segregation.


----------



## Antares (Feb 24, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Religious beliefs supported slavery, Jim Crow and segregation.



*The road to freedom is one of the great themes of American history. The story of the Underground Railroad exemplifies the profound power of that journey. Following the lead of its famed anti-slavery preacher Henry Ward Beecher, Plymouth Church played a fundamental part in New York City's underground activity.*

Plymouth Church :: About Our Church -> Our History - Underground Railroad

You'll need to improve, so far you aren't up to this.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 24, 2014)

Antares said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Religious beliefs supported slavery, Jim Crow and segregation.
> ...



My family, the Walkers and Terhunes of Clintondale NY were Quakers and they led hundreds of southern slaves to Canada through the Underground RR. Google Clintondale NY Friends Meeting and see their names. I am a direct descendant of them as my mother was a Walker and her mother was a Terhune.
You need to catch up as life is like a dog sled team.
If you ain't the lead dog, the scenery never changes.


----------



## Antares (Feb 24, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



You have spectacularly underachieved.....if any of what you say were true you would have never posted what you did prior....and if you did your relatives would have drummed you out of your family.

So far I AM the lead dog...but I am also just some schmuck from Omaha.....but I am better than you


----------



## Immanuel (Feb 24, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > TheOldSchool said:
> ...



Who in their right mind would want to drop virgins into volcanoes?  

Now burning witches... well, maybe. j/k!!!!!


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 24, 2014)

The T said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...


Sure I can.  The right to marry the competent adult they love.  We call it, Equality.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 24, 2014)

Immanuel said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...


They had plenty of spare virgins in those days.  TV hadn't been invented yet.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 24, 2014)

Antares said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



I admire your psychic guesses even though you are far off.
But I will give you another shot before you put up your crystal ball.
I will be at Calder track in a few weeks. How do you like Go Bananas' chances?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 24, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...


No, they are Private, and protected, for the most part.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 24, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...


There's nothing stupid about it.  That's how it works.


----------



## Immanuel (Feb 24, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



If his religious beliefs are contrary to the law of the land that *he chooses* to live in and open his business in, then he should consider another line of work.  If he cannot or will not obey the law of the land then he had better expect to suffer the consequences.

This is a relatively "free country".  No one is forcing him to live here.  If he can't obey the laws then he is free to leave.  It is his choice.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 24, 2014)

The T said:


> Agenda, and it is _forced acceptance._


Cry me a river.  That's what they said about letting the drakies into the white schools.  You'll survive.


----------



## Antares (Feb 24, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Well see there it is....

You gamble, I don't....you make shit up as you go and so far you pretty much suck at it.

You don't get to both denigrate AND take credit for Religions role in things.

But hey....feel free to keep pretending your nose isn't in my ass.


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 24, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Virgins are having sex with TV's?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 24, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



I would love for churches to  be public non-exempt entities if they are going to engage in politics.  But they are not and they won't.


----------



## Antares (Feb 24, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



So uh Jake...what makes you a "good Christian man"?

Now somewhere earlier you said you had only loved and only had sex with two men in your life...I applaud you for that...at least you aren't some crazed man whore.


----------



## Missouri_Mike (Feb 24, 2014)

Moonglow said:


> If the law passes and stays, I will need to open a business to provide for the discriminated.



Isn't that the point of freedom? You open a business based on your beliefs and you should beat out the other if the general public agrees. Capitalism. Provide away buddy. Look out on the other end though if you make too much your buddies will call you a capitalist raping people for nothing but profit so make sure you don't make anything in your venture.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 24, 2014)

Moonglow said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...


Not yet, but I could sell tickets to that.  The Real Virgins of Kansas City.  Like it.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 24, 2014)

Antares said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



Have not made anything up. 
Been beat up, shot at and left for dead. Crossed the lines many a times and played 4 quarters against the best. 
I get to do whatever I want, take credit for what I want to.
And there is nothing you can do about it but whine like a milk weak pup.

But nothing compares to being able to pick on defenseless people like you.


----------



## Antares (Feb 24, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



So far you are not a worthy opponent kid, jus sayin.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 24, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Do you think EMTs haven't refused to serve gay people at accident scenes because of the danger of HIV/AIDS?

What we are supposed to be is a nation of freedom, not tyranny.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 24, 2014)

Antares said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Religious beliefs supported slavery, Jim Crow and segregation.
> ...



That there were Christians who opposed slavery doesnt mitigate the fact that religious beliefs indeed supported slavery, Jim Crow, and segregation.

Then as today we see Christians who oppose civil rights for gay Americans predicated on subjective religious dogma, and Christians who believe that to discriminate against gay Americans is wrong.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 24, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Religious beliefs supported slavery, Jim Crow and segregation.



Government supported all of those things, yet you love the government.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 24, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



I might be taking after you and talking out my ass, but weren't Quakers Christians? Didn't they  justify the entire Underground Railroad on their religious beliefs?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 24, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Tell that to Ocean Grove, I am sure they will feel so much better about losing the lawsuit knowing that you are an idiot.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 24, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Still trying to get me to believe that you are so stupid you can't post even though you actually posted?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 24, 2014)

Immanuel said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Would you support a law that required a steakhouse restaurants to carry tofu steaks and burgers in case a Hindu was so idiotic that he insisted on eating there? What about forcing a Jewish caterer to cater a Nazi themed wedding?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 24, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Agenda, and it is _forced acceptance._
> ...



That was the fucking government, idiot.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 24, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


I can't fix your inability to understand American law.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 24, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...


Yep.  The same government that keeps discovering that gays have rights.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 24, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > No, they are Private, and protected, for the most part.
> ...




There you go talking out your ass again. The IRS carefully monitors churches, and denies them the right to free speech, just to be sure jerkwads, like you, get their swish about keeping churches out of politics.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 24, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



You were beat up and shot for working the underground railroad? 

Why don't I believe that?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 24, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Yet, for some obscure reason, you think that the fact that the government not only supported all of those things, but actually forced people to participate, it completely irrelevant.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 24, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



I understand the law a lot better than you, which is why I know you are full of shit.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 24, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Believe it or not, everyone else does to. And, believe it or not, not doing business with someone is not evil.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 24, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


I'm sure you wish that were true, but it isn't.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Feb 24, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Bang!


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Please tell me that you don't believe a church is Public?  Some are open to the public but they are entirely private.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I do. How else do we get members? Through a secret underground order? We conduct outreach. We witness to people, spread the gospel. Do you have any idea how Churches operate? Do you realize how dumb you sounded just now? Being the Christian that I am, I think I know more about how a Church works than you.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...


Yes I do know, which is why I know that they are Private but open to the Public, in most cases.  If they were Public they would belong to us, and they don't.  It's not possible in thie country where we separate Church and State, Public and Private.  A church is like a country club, that has an Open House on most Sundays.


----------



## Barb (Feb 25, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Public accommodations laws, desegregation, and regulations against red-lining came about because it was found that segregation and stratification of people based on race, gender, and a little later sexual orientation, effectively segregated and stratified economic opportunity.

So...it kind of *is*.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Feb 25, 2014)

Barb said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



In case you missed it, Barb, race and homosexuality have nothing to do with one another. Your argument of cum hoc ergo propter hoc is rejected. Perhaps you didn't read about the Crusades, but people learned the hard way that it was wrong to subvert the beliefs of others and substitute them with you own.  Forcing pious businessowners to serve people who live an  undesirable lifestyle is in essence trying to subvert their beliefs for the sake of YOUR wanting to be supposedly treated equal.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


Minorities, and now both becoming equally protected classes.  Don't ya just love equality?  I know I sure do.


----------



## Barb (Feb 25, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



You don't get to deny shit, Sparky. Lets take race and another _demographic indicator_:

Race and poorer economic classes, on the surface, "have nothing to do with one another," either, except in an economy that is structured to _discriminate_ against both, they are on par with each other via that _discrimination_. 

Racial _discrimination_ and _discrimination_ based on gender or sexual orientation still share, (dum ta dum!) _discrimination_! 

Are you starting to follow the connections here, or do I need to type more slowly?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...



Listen to yourself. You speak of equality but won't let a business owner exercise his right to appease his faith by refusing service to a homosexual. Since when is forcing your beliefs of "equality" down other Christians throats equal? Hmm? There is a double standard which you need to address.

"Equally protected classes" yeah... you don't see them as people, you see them as "classes."


----------



## TemplarKormac (Feb 25, 2014)

Barb said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...



Conspiracy theories do not an argument make. You can say "discrimination" all you want, but you need an argument to prove it. So using your logic, how is a man adhering to his faith discriminating, but forcing him to serve gays against his faith isn't? 

Do I need to type more slowly, Sparky?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> "Equally protected classes" yeah... you don't see them as people, you see them as "classes."


I see them as what they are, minorities.  As for your other argument, a business is not a church.  Lots of people have to compromise their faith to make a buck.  Why do you think Jesus told you time and again that you can't serve two masters?  Business is business, faith is faith.  Don't mix them up, bad things happen when you do and we, men, set the rules that businesses follow.  That's not optional in this case.  Serve one, serve all, or you'd better have a damn good reason why you won't and "it goes against my religion" isn't one of them, not in the communal capitalist marketplace.

Try to remember just this, baking a cake isn't serving God.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Feb 25, 2014)

You have literally no clue. A church isn't a business, but it's public. We literally don't confine our faith to a building. The idea of such is preposterous. Being a Christian translates to other parts of life, not just sitting in pews listening to sermons every Sunday.


----------



## Barb (Feb 25, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Settled law isn't conspiracy theory, and braying "religious liberty" today the way others brayed "states rights" in the past will get you about as far.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> You have literally no clue. A church isn't a business, but it's public. We literally don't confine our faith to a building. The idea of such is preposterous. Being a Christian translates to other parts of life, not just sitting in pews listening to sermons every Sunday.


Ask your church secretary to show you the Church Incorporation papers.  She can explain how the church operates much like a business, and is entirely Private from a legal standpoint, but is open to the Public however is not a Public Accommodation, because it is a Privately Owned Legal Entity.

If a Mormon Temple was Public for instance, you could walk right in, and you can't, not even many Mormons can because it's Private, and so are their Ward Houses, what you would call a church.  If they don't want you in there you have zero right to be there.  It's Private not Public.


----------



## Barb (Feb 25, 2014)

George Takei Threatens Arizona With A Boycott | The New Civil Rights Movement 



> You say this bill protects religious freedom, but no one is fooled. When I was younger, people used Gods Will as a reason to keep the races separate, too. Make no mistake, this is the new segregation, yours is a Jim Crow law, and you are about to make yourself ground zero.



Good for you, George Takei!


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 25, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...





			
				Cecilie1200 said:
			
		

> No, we're defending THE RIGHT to discriminate.



The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects your beliefs, but not your ACTIONS.

In 1878, the Supreme Court was first called to interpret the extent of the Free Exercise Clause in Reynolds v. United States, as related to the prosecution of polygamy under federal law. The Supreme Court upheld Reynolds' conviction for bigamy, deciding that to do otherwise would provide constitutional protection for a gamut of religious beliefs, including those as extreme as human sacrifice. The Court said (at page 162): "Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territory which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation." Of federal territorial laws, the Court said: *"Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices."*


----------



## TemplarKormac (Feb 25, 2014)

Barb said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...



So, the law says that you have the right to practice your faith, but you must set that faith aside in order to serve folks who lead lifestyles your faith finds reprehensible? 

By the way, the 10th Amendment exists for a reason. You act as if states rights are a conspiracy in and of themselves. You act as if the States must ultimately adhere to the will of the Government, even when such adherence would violate the law and the freedoms of others.


----------



## BDBoop (Feb 25, 2014)




----------



## BDBoop (Feb 25, 2014)

Why Myke Cole is awesome (from a thread discussing Arizona's "Free to be a Bigot" law):

"I have gay service members serving under my command. If you think for a minute that I will sit back and allow them to be denied service by Americans they have agreed to die to defend, then you are out of your fucking mind."


----------



## TemplarKormac (Feb 25, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...



So, what I get here is that Public Accommodation laws are unconstitutional, since in order for a man of faith to adhere to these laws, he must rescind his religious beliefs and opinions to avoid breaking the law. Thus you are asking him to stop practicing his faith in public in order to appease the public. Is that right? So what we have here is your ignorance of these laws, which do indeed "interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions" of these proprietors.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Feb 25, 2014)

BDBoop said:


>



Yet another idiot equating Fags to Blacks. Good lord.....Will someone actually attempt to tell me exactly WHAT Civil Right is being violated? The Paralegal ran from the argument, so, anyone?? That's what I thought.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 25, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



WHAT don't you comprehend? 

The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects your beliefs, but *not your ACTIONS*.

Believe whatever you wish, and practice whatever you wish in PRIVATE. But in the public arena that include retail stores, rental establishments and service establishments, as well as educational institutions, recreation facilities and service centers.Public accommodation law states those entities must not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. 

And soon to be added, sexual orientation.


Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism. 
Barry Goldwater


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Are you telling me that a business that is open to the public isn't private? Why do police need warrants to search them if they are already public?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Every time you post trillions of brain cells die throughout the universe.

Please stop.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

Barb said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



What a surprise, the resident idiots sent in another idiot that doesn't know the difference between government enforced segregation, AKA Jim Crow *laws*, and people making the choice not to serve vegetarian food because they think PETA freaks are idiots.

Come back when you get a clue.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...



If only you knew what it was.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

Barb said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...



Guess what else shares discrimination, oh she of the stupid equivalencies, discrimination based on not liking someone. Should we make that illegal to just t make sure all the fuckwads never get their feelings hurt?

Tell me something, and try being honest. If you knew there was a business in town where the owner actually hated you, for whatever reason, would you want that person to show up at your wedding and serve the food or bake the cake? Would that be the place you went to find someone to take pictures of the single most important event in your pathetic excuse for a life?

Why the fuck would any sane person do that? Either you think every single person that sleeps with a person of the same sex is congenitally insane, or you are a stupid beyond measure. 

Personally, I vote for the latter.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > "Equally protected classes" yeah... you don't see them as people, you see them as "classes."
> ...



Funny, I could have sworn they were human beings.

By the way, if you actually read the Bible you would know that baking a cake is serving God.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

Barb said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...



There is nothing settled about the idea that people lose their rights simply because they own a business.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > You have literally no clue. A church isn't a business, but it's public. We literally don't confine our faith to a building. The idea of such is preposterous. Being a Christian translates to other parts of life, not just sitting in pews listening to sermons every Sunday.
> ...



Sounds a lot like a bakery to me.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 25, 2014)

RandallFlagg said:


> Yet another idiot equating Fags to Blacks. Good lord.....Will someone actually attempt to tell me exactly WHAT Civil Right is being violated? The Paralegal ran from the argument, so, anyone?? That's what I thought.



Exhibiting bigotted behaviour towards somebody due to their sexuality is so 17th century. I see it a violation of their civil rights for sure. Judging people on their sexuality, gender, ethnicity or colour of their skin has no place in a civilised society. Now, if you want to live in a country like Uganda which just passed anti-gay laws - well that kinda tells you what company you keep. How does it feel?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...



This is going to be fun.

You have one case, I have dozens.



7-2 in favor of actions based on religion trumping state law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherbert_v._Verner
8-1 in favor of actions based on religion trumping state law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_v._Review_Board_of_the_Indiana_Employment_Security_Division


Do you want me to keep going?


By the way, you know that the law that was used to send Reynold's to prison was partially overturned recently because it discriminates against Mormons, don't you?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



What do you not comprehend, you are so far wrong you aren't even on the same planet as anyone else.

By the way, good person to quote, Goldwater was opposed to the 1964 Civil Rights act for the very reason that I am arguing against it right now.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

Dr Grump said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> > Yet another idiot equating Fags to Blacks. Good lord.....Will someone actually attempt to tell me exactly WHAT Civil Right is being violated? The Paralegal ran from the argument, so, anyone?? That's what I thought.
> ...



Tell me something, oh he of the ever present innuendos, what, exactly, changed in the last 5 years that suddenly took sexual preference out of the realm of eccentric, but acceptable, behavior, to an actionable offense if you have a preference not to hang out with people who prefer to announce who they sleep with when no sane person cares?


----------



## DriftingSand (Feb 25, 2014)

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?


----------



## Barb (Feb 25, 2014)

Dr Grump said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> > Yet another idiot equating Fags to Blacks. Good lord.....Will someone actually attempt to tell me exactly WHAT Civil Right is being violated? The Paralegal ran from the argument, so, anyone?? That's what I thought.
> ...



Or Russia - there's the reason for the right-wing brocrush on Putin


----------



## Barb (Feb 25, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Lame, and so much fail.  

There is a huge difference between serving everyone what you already sell and declining to cook a specialized cuisine that isn't on the menu


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

Barb said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > RandallFlagg said:
> ...



Delusions from the people with BDS that can't blame Bush?


----------



## Barb (Feb 25, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



except it is. 

Public accommodations laws, desegregation, and regulations against red-lining came about because it was found that segregation and stratification of people based on race, gender, and a little later sexual orientation, effectively segregated and stratified economic opportunity.

And yes, Quantum sonicetoseeyou'rebacktodickheadedyou Windbag, they DID used to do so to others under the excuse that it was "God's will."


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

Barb said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...



Then you should be able to articulate it. Keep in mind that every restaurant you have ever ate in has vegetables.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

Barb said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...



That is not why they came about.

They came about because they seemed like the easiest way to force the states that mandated discrimination to stop. There was the additional rationalization that, at the time, most public accommodations were government sanctioned monopolies, and hotels were actually few, and far between. Those conditions no longer exist, so only an idiot would insist that we still need the same laws.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Feb 25, 2014)

That got me thinking how ridiculous this is. Should vegetarians be able to sue restaurants who serve meat because its offensive and discriminatory to vegetarians? I mean yeah, that's about as bad as gay couples suing a religious business owner for refusing them service based on his religious beliefs.


----------



## Barb (Feb 25, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> That got me thinking how ridiculous this is. Should vegetarians be able to sue restaurants who serve meat because its offensive and discriminatory to vegetarians? I mean yeah, that's about as bad as gay couples suing a religious business owner for refusing them service based on his religious beliefs.



you two have devolved into the patently absurd, with more than a hint of word salad thrown in. 

If I don't like liver, I can't sue to have it removed from the menu; if Thai food makes me sick I can't force the Thai restaurant to serve Italian - as well OR instead; but if either refuse someone service because, for example I'm a woman, or your sexual orientation, or Quantum's race (or religion!), THEN they violate public accommodations law.


----------



## Barb (Feb 25, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



did you bump your head?  or your face?


----------



## JimH52 (Feb 25, 2014)

If Brewer signs this law, she will be asking for boycotts and the loss of business in Arizona.  It is her choice...


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 25, 2014)

sfcalifornia said:


> And it is your thinking which is clearly on the wrong side of history.
> 
> Two flaws in your post here:  A) Planned Parenthood and homosexuality are two separate issues  B) it isn't slander or defamation if the statements made in public are true.
> 
> We are talking about homosexuals here.  A business which won't sell a hamburger or a pack of gum to a man because he's gay is a very stupid business indeed.


I gave an example of me refusing to do work on principle. That was beyond your scope to comprehend? I also made it clear that people can say what they want but if they get into slander it's defamation. Either read slower or have someone explain it to you.

If a business wants to turn down someone's money that should be their right regardless of how someone else feels about it.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 25, 2014)

Barb said:


> There is a huge difference between serving everyone what you already sell and declining to cook a specialized cuisine that isn't on the menu


That's what we've been discussing for about a week now. If you don't sell gay products you shouldn't have to. Welcome to the thread.


----------



## racewright (Feb 25, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> > And it is your thinking which is clearly on the wrong side of history.
> ...



Uh you mean Gays have a sign on that's says we are Gay and going to eat in you restaurant weather you like it or not.   
Uh if it is that obvious like Making out or flaunting it then through them out.  Other than that
there should be no obvious thing that separate's them from the rest of the crowd and if there is then they need to be disciplined.
Blacks, well in my life time I have never seen a restaurant refuse to serve someone just on the color of there skin, I have seen unruly trouble makers asked to leave and even been physically removed, mostly women.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 25, 2014)

JimH52 said:


> If Brewer signs this law, she will be asking for boycotts and the loss of business in Arizona.  It is her choice...


Sounds like a threat. I can't see any normal people cancelling a trip to Arizona because business folks get some rights back. The wackos can stick to their liberal meccas so it's a win win.


----------



## BDBoop (Feb 25, 2014)

JimH52 said:


> If Brewer signs this law, she will be asking for boycotts and the loss of business in Arizona.  It is her choice...



And she's just stupid enough to do so.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 25, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...




Is Justice Scalia, not known for his liberal positions on the court, also ignorant of the law?  From Employment Division v. Smith (where he wrote the opinion):

"Our decisions reveal that the latter reading is the correct one. We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition. As described succinctly by Justice Frankfurter in Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 594-595 (1940):

Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities."​

Just because a government can do something though, does not mean the government should do something.


>>>>


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 25, 2014)

Antares said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



"kid" is what one of my first coaches called me in 1960.
Thanks for bringing back the memories. 
To date you have failed to answer how an ambulance driver can use their religious beliefs to deny treating a gay or pork sandwich eating accident victim. 
But keep up the slants, distortions and side stepping.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 25, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



It was proven to you the other day that not all segregation in the South was mandated, and that much of it was simply permitted - the businesses could choose to segregate or not -

but you quickly ran away from that point.

Now stop lying about it.


----------



## nitroz (Feb 25, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> The fact that we even have a law, or debate the legailty of freedom of association is pathetic in a supposedly free country. A business owner, in any state, for any reason, should be allowed to determine who they will provide services to.



Businesses should have the right to refuse service at their descretion.

Working in liquor store, I have to put up with alot of people. But the customers are much more behaved than those in store.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 25, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> ... how an ambulance driver can use their religious beliefs to deny treating a gay or pork sandwich eating accident victim.


Which religious belief calls for denying help to someone, especially if its' your job. Never heard that one before.


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 25, 2014)

The bill is falling apart. Arizona cannot get away from it fast enough. 

What were we thinking?

3 Ariz. senators backtrack on service refusal bill


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 25, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> That got me thinking how ridiculous this is. Should vegetarians be able to sue restaurants who serve meat because its offensive and discriminatory to vegetarians? I mean yeah, that's about as bad as gay couples suing a religious business owner for refusing them service based on his religious beliefs.


 
They aren't being sued because they offended anyone, they are sued because they broke the public accommodation law of the state. What it is "as bad as" is interracial couples and black people suing because they were denied service.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 25, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > ... how an ambulance driver can use their religious beliefs to deny treating a gay or pork sandwich eating accident victim.
> ...



Wow, hard to believe you have to have this explained to you so here goes:
The law proposed allows business owners to deny service to people based on their religuous beliefs.
Ambulance companies are business owners.
An owner or an employee of a private ambulance service could legally deny service to a gay person based on their religious beliefs.
On "principle" as you guys like to say.
For better understanding see the recent Kansas case where the Republicans said the exact same thing I just did when the law passed their House and the Republican caucus killed it because of the exact same reason I am bringing up.
Senate President Republican Susan Wagle "I believe when you hire police officers or fireman they have no choice in who they serve. They should serve anyone who is vulnerable, any age, any race and any sexual orientation."
The bill would have given any business group, individual, entity, or government official the right to deny services to gay people for "sincerely held religious beliefs".
Understand now. Kansas Republicans know the law opens the door for public safety responders TO DENY SERVICE based on religious beliefs.
Same as this case. 
Kansas Chamber of Commerce a heavily conservative group opposed the Kansas law.
Very bad legislation and amazing anyone that is pro business supports it.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 25, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> The bill is falling apart. Arizona cannot get away from it fast enough.
> 
> What were we thinking?
> 
> 3 Ariz. senators backtrack on service refusal bill



They read the Kansas Senate responses to it and how that caucus of Republicans with a 5-1 advantage of Democrats ran from the bill like monkeys on fire.
And why did Kansas Republicans in the Senate run from it?
Because it would allow emergency responders to deny treatment to injured folks.
Same as this bill would.
Oh my, amazing what "sincerely held religious beliefs" does to cloud the common sense and judgment of those that otherwise one would believe had just a little bit of.


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 25, 2014)

Dr Grump said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> > Yet another idiot equating Fags to Blacks. Good lord.....Will someone actually attempt to tell me exactly WHAT Civil Right is being violated? The Paralegal ran from the argument, so, anyone?? That's what I thought.
> ...



The company they keep? Hell, Americans are responsible for the Uganda law. It was American Christian Evangelicals that helped get Uganda's law passed. They would like to see it here.


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 25, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The bill is falling apart. Arizona cannot get away from it fast enough.
> ...



Shit, one of these states went so far as to apply the law to local government employees.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 25, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Wow, hard to believe you have to have this explained to you so here goes:
> The law proposed allows business owners to deny service to people based on their religuous beliefs.
> Ambulance companies are business owners.
> An owner or an employee of a private ambulance service could legally deny service to a gay person based on their religious beliefs.
> On "principle" as you guys like to say.


I asked which religious belief you are talking about. That's a smokescreen, not an articulate answer. Here's some reality, which is devoid in your "answer". Any ambulance service that was stupid enough to do that (assuming there actually was a religious belief you alude to) would be immediately terminated by every hospital, police and emergency service in their area. 


> For better understanding see the recent Kansas case where the Republicans said the exact same thing I just did when the law passed their House and the Republican caucus killed it because of the exact same reason I am bringing up.
> Senate President Republican Susan Wagle "I believe when you hire police officers or fireman they have no choice in who they serve. They should serve anyone who is vulnerable, any age, any race and any sexual orientation."
> The bill would have given any business group, individual, entity, or government official the right to deny services to gay people for "sincerely held religious beliefs".
> Understand now. Kansas Republicans know the law opens the door for public safety responders TO DENY SERVICE based on religious beliefs.
> ...


I haven't seen the law but my guess is that there's more to it, like political blackmail. I'm surprised any business person doesn't support the right to do private business with whom they choose, religious or not. 

No one gets into the ambulance/emergency business to serve heterosexuals only. I call bullshit.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Feb 25, 2014)

JimH52 said:


> If Brewer signs this law, she will be asking for boycotts and the loss of business in Arizona.  It is her choice...



I hope she does. And defies everything you stand for in the process. Given how people reacted with Chick-fil-A, she'll probably get more business than she would ever dream otherwise.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Feb 25, 2014)

And World Watcher:

Judge Scalia is wrong to sit there and confine our faith to "Conscientious scruples." The tenets and doctrine are what drive our lives. But hey, the law of man trumps the laws of faith all thee time, doesn't it?


----------



## Howey (Feb 25, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > If Brewer signs this law, she will be asking for boycotts and the loss of business in Arizona.  It is her choice...
> ...



Super Bowl 1993. Devastating to the Arizona economy. And they're scheduled to host next year.


----------



## GibsonSG (Feb 25, 2014)

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

Does this mean that all the homophobes will move to Arizona where all the beaners are?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 25, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> I haven't seen the law but my guess is that there's more to it, like political blackmail. I'm surprised any business person doesn't support the right to do private business with whom they choose, religious or not.




From the law (Capitalization in the orginal, not added)...

"5. "Person" includes ANY INDIVIDUAL, ASSOCIATION, PARTNERSHIP, CORPORATION, CHURCH, RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY OR INSTITUTION, ESTATE, TRUST, FOUNDATION OR OTHER LEGAL ENTITY"

<<SNIP>>

"F. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, "STATE ACTION" MEANS ANY ACTION
BY THE GOVERNMENT OR THE IMPLEMENTATION OR APPLICATION OF ANY LAW, INCLUDING STATE AND LOCAL LAWS, ORDINANCES, RULES, REGULATIONS AND POLICIES, WHETHER STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE, AND WHETHER THE
IMPLEMENTATION OR APPLICATION IS MADE OR ATTEMPTED TO BE MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT OR NONGOVERNMENTAL PERSONS."

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.pdf​

Since a Hospital falls under the definition of person as a corporation (or legal entity), then even as a non-government "person" they would be prohibited by law from taking action against another "person" (in this case an ambulance company or it's employee) that refused service based on religious beliefs.  In addition, the ambulance company (and it's employee) are protected from ciivil suits so if the injured/sick person sues - they would be required to pay the attorney's fees for the ambulance company defending their negligence.

Do I believe that will happen?  Personally, no.  But technically under the law it could.


>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 25, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> And World Watcher:
> 
> Judge Scalia is wrong to sit there and confine our faith to "Conscientious scruples." The tenets and doctrine are what drive our lives. But hey, the law of man trumps the laws of faith all thee time, doesn't it?




Sorry dude, you were the one that threw out the phrase "ignorance of these laws" when in fact you don't understand them yourself.

When you disagree pretty much with every state legislature, state court, federal court, and even one of the most conservative Justices in the history of the United States - maybe it's time you re-examine the idea that your opinion might not be correct.

Religious beliefs are not a blanche exemption to secular law.

>>>>


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 25, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > I haven't seen the law but my guess is that there's more to it, like political blackmail. I'm surprised any business person doesn't support the right to do private business with whom they choose, religious or not.
> ...


That's the portion of the bill that would be relevant, your posted section doesn't say that. IF that's the case then it was poorly written, emergency services are not elective services like cake baking or greeting cards. You don't have time to shop around with your spleen laying in your lap. They will probably consider that or amend the bill, I doubt that was the intent.


----------



## Wildman (Feb 25, 2014)

BDBoop said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > If Brewer signs this law, she will be asking for boycotts and the loss of business in Arizona.  It is her choice...
> ...



stupid is what you liberfools are about this subject, 

personally.., i do NOT believe she will sign the bill into law.., NOT because of how you libernuts have demonized her, but simply because businesspersons have always had this sign in effect for longer than you mush for brains have been wasting good O2.  ...   ...


----------



## GibsonSG (Feb 25, 2014)

Geez, what about refusing service to all the illegal alien beaners for a start?


----------



## Antares (Feb 25, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Sorry, deflection from the topic at hand only works on the less experienced posters but your attempt at it has been duly noted.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 25, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The bill is falling apart. Arizona cannot get away from it fast enough.
> ...



Whether the governor vetoes it; the senate re-vote; or the courts strike it down - it's not going to stand imho. For my part, I'm glad. I'm sick of people trying to twist the Christian faith into a political tool.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 25, 2014)

Pretty sleezy to alter a person't quote. Pretty dishonest to put your words under someone else's name.

I think I've learned all I really need to learn about you and your positions.

Too bad their is no "religious intolerance" for crap like that.


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 25, 2014)

As always, the law does not say what liberals claim.   

Issue Analysis: Arizona Bill Does Not Give Businesses License to Discriminate Against Gays

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act has been the law since 1999.  This is merely a modification of existing law.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 25, 2014)

nodoginnafight said:


> Pretty sleezy to alter a person't quote. Pretty dishonest to put your words under someone else's name.
> 
> I think I've learned all I really need to learn about you and your positions.
> 
> Too bad their is no "religious intolerance" for crap like that.


Somebody call the waaaambulance. I'm not religious so no, I have no religious intolerance for humor.


----------



## Jarhead (Feb 25, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



Ya got balls. Gotta give that to ya.

In the meantime, do as you please. In my eyes, no reason to post on here if you have lost all credibility....

But please, do as you wish.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 25, 2014)

Jarhead said:


> In the meantime, do as you please. In my eyes, no reason to post on here if you have lost all credibility....
> 
> But please, do as you wish.


Your credibility meant so much to me too.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 25, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The bill is falling apart. Arizona cannot get away from it fast enough.
> ...



I have a hard time believing any law would allow a first responder to sit and watch someone die without lifting a finger because "they don't like gays". I don't think anyone in their right mind would vote for a law like that. 

I don't like this law and I don't think it can survive judicial review. I think it opens up a nasty can of worms and reflects poorly on people who call themselves Christians, but man .... let someone die, legally ???? I don't think so. I just can't believe that.


----------



## bendog (Feb 25, 2014)

nodoginnafight said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



It's too bad iceweasel did that, but ....

It may be ironic that this is in Arizona, because Goldwater is imo a great man, and although he deplored racism and denying services to anyone because of race, and had no issue with homosexuality, he did vote against civil rights laws outlawing private discrimination because of his views on individual freedom ... essentially the freedom to be uncivil and boorish.  

However, I don't think Ariz's law does, or will, allow discrimination by state employed police/medical personnel.  See the top of page two and Sec. 2 (C)

As to first responders


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Churches are not public.

However, let them give up tax-exempt status.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 25, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Are you drink posting?  Yes, they are private.  Go tell Templar Kormac.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 25, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



_NEWARK  A state administrative law judge has ruled (50k PDF) that the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association violated the states Law Against Discrimination when it denied Ocean Grove residents Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster the use of its boardwalk pavilion for their 2007 civil union ceremony. *The association had allowed members of the public to rent the pavilion and had never before declined a permit other than for scheduling conflicts until it received Paster and Bernsteins reservation request*. The association rejected the couples application to use the space, stating that civil unions violated its Methodist doctrine.  Judge Rules in Favor of Same-Sex Couple in Discrimination Case_

Judge was right.  Can't deny public accommodation.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 25, 2014)

bendog said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



I think you are right. I linked to the story and particularly appreciated the clergy who came out to oppose this law. Twisting religion to one's own purposes is certainly nothing new. "God is on our side," has always been a popular political rallying cry. I just cringe every time I see it.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 25, 2014)

> I would love for churches to be public non-exempt entities if they are going to engage in politics. But they are not and they won't.



I've always argued that Separation of Church and State protects the Church as much or more than it protects the State.

I've left a few churches because they were too political.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Feb 25, 2014)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9tn2Y8TcbU]Fischer Says Gay Activists Are 'Jack-Booted Homofascist Thugs' - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## bendog (Feb 25, 2014)

nodoginnafight said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> > nodoginnafight said:
> ...



I'm sorry.  I failed to input the link.  The top of page two.  Sec 2 (C)

http://www.azcentral.com/ic/pdf/SB-1062-bill.pdf


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 25, 2014)

Yes, sadly, it appears as though support for the Arizona bill allowing a refusal of service to homosexuals, on the grounds of religious objection, is evaporating faster than a pan of water on a stove-burner turned on high...

And, admittedly, for good reason...

It's one thing to protect the right of a small business owner to refuse service to those whom he believes are engaged in evil or perverse or unnatural or sinful or unclean sexual practices and related lifestyle manifestations, and to refuse such services because he believes that providing them would be aiding and abetting sinful practices, as informed by his religious convictions and beliefs...

It's quite another to deny basic life-sustaining or life-saving products or services to anyone, for any reason...

There were a thousand-and-one ways to craft the wording on such a bill, to stipulate a range of products and services and business that would be excluded... those provided by the public sector, grocery stores, utility companies, medical and healthcare facilities and the like, which anybody should be entitled to, regardless of their deviant sexual practices...

And, like all dull-witted, unimaginative, blinkered lawyer-type fat-cat legislators who couldn't anticipate such glaringly obvious weaknesses and write such a bill 'defensively' to save their souls - or their own asses - or their own bill...

The Arizona Senate bill is now going down in flames (bad bun intended), because the dolts who wrote it didn't have the ability to anticipate the fatal effect of such weaknesses and compensate for same during the course of its drafting...

Any group of 1st- or 2nd-year law students could probably have done better...

Assholes...

Idiots...

Better luck next time, with a drafting committee that can anticipate its way out of a wet paper bag... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





C'est la vie...

For the most part though, this thread has had its share of hard-hitting and effective debate on the subject, and turned out to be more enjoyable than most of its genre...


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 25, 2014)

bendog said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > bendog said:
> ...



I found it - and the section you mentioned does seem to cover these compelling interests.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 25, 2014)

nodoginnafight said:


> I think you are right. I linked to the story and particularly appreciated the clergy who came out to oppose this law. Twisting religion to one's own purposes is certainly nothing new. "God is on our side," has always been a popular political rallying cry. I just cringe every time I see it.



It's not a question of "twisting religion".  The mandates in Jude 1 and Romans 1 are very clear and concise:



> JUDE 1
> 
> 3. Beloved, when *I gave all diligence *to write unto you *of the common salvation*, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that *ye should earnestly contend for the faith* which was once delivered unto the saints.
> 
> ...





> ROMANS 1
> 
> 22. *Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools*,
> 
> ...



"...not only do the same [homosexuality] , but have pleasure in them that do them"

ie: the enablers also are in big trouble.

Which begs the question if the Governor via her veto, will show the world she's not quite ready to "earnestly contend" for the faith and the "common salvation"?  This no longer is a question for her in the secular arena, to get votes etc.  It's a question of if she believes the Bible and the saints dire warnings are real to enablers of the cult of LGBT or if the Governor of Arizona thinks the warnings about her eternal damnation are just "hogwash"?

*She may also be considering the boon to her state*.  Undoubtedly she remembers the Chic Fil A crowds and the Duck Dynasty supporters.  *Imagine if Arizona *suffered for want of the company of homosexuals and their enablers but *instead was swamped with those who are for free speech and the earnest contention for the common salvation*?

It seems to me like the numbers have always been grossly over inflated as to the "supporters" of the gay cult.  But then again, their organizers have always known the psychology of herd-think.  If one leader or a group of them are seen as "doing such and such", then the herd follows.  As such, the Arizona Governor is in a very unique position to either do the will of God and perserve the normal learning-matrix of man/woman relationships or if she will with the stroke of her pen, start a chain reaction of the final unravelling of that matrix; and, according to the Bible's strongest warnings, commit an unforgiveable sin of a magnitude that few will be able to comprehend.  But she will.

The French Pro Normal-Marriage Rally early this year 2014:











And of course across the nation that fateful Wednesday:


----------



## bendog (Feb 25, 2014)

I fear Phoenix will arise anew as a pillar of salt.


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 25, 2014)

bendog said:


> I fear Phoenix will arise anew as a pillar of salt.


Better to end one's days as Lot's wife than as Lot's butt-buddy...


----------



## Bumberclyde (Feb 25, 2014)

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

So now you have to declare your sexuality to buy shit in Arizona?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 25, 2014)

Bumberclyde said:


> *Arizona Senate Passes Bill Allowing Business Owners To Refuse Service To Gays*
> 
> So now you have to declare your sexuality to buy shit in Arizona?




No why do you ask?


This bill allows people to refuse to sell to anyone blacks, interracial couples, interfaith couples, old people, Muslims, etc. - the business owners just has to claim a "sincerely held religious belief and they get a pass.


Let's see a couple walks in and orders a wedding cake - they ask for a white man and black woman topper - have they announced their race?

Let's see a couple walks in and orders a wedding cake - they ask for a white woman and black woman topper - have they announced their sexuality?



If the owner has a sincerely held religious belief against interracial marriage - they can be refused.  If the owner has a sincerely held religious belief against same-sex marriage - they can be refused.



>>>>


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> > I fear Phoenix will arise anew as a pillar of salt.
> ...


Lot's buddies were his daughter, who got him drunk and fucked his brains out.


----------



## Bumberclyde (Feb 25, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > *Arizona Senate Passes Bill Allowing Business Owners To Refuse Service To Gays*
> ...


I don't mind darkies marrying white women, they usually take the fat ugly ones anyways.

But what if a single white woman walks in and orders a cake with rainbow icing? Then what happens?


----------



## whitehall (Feb 25, 2014)

The sissies won't let it go. There are about three posts on the same thing.


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 25, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > *Arizona Senate Passes Bill Allowing Business Owners To Refuse Service To Gays* So now you have to declare your sexuality to buy shit in Arizona?
> ...


Yeah, it's a can-o-worms alright, far too many loopholes for abuse beyond the realm of its original intent, poorly envisioned, poorly drafted, poorly presented - it's a dead duck, and deserves to be, not because of what it attempted to safeguard, but for the thousand-and-one things that it would _stop_ safeguarding, and that just won't cut it in the Real World. This is what happens when you turn over a worthwhile idea to Idiot Legislators without a jot of imagination or common sense.


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > bendog said:
> ...


Yeppers... one way or another, ol' Lot (or his bunch, anyway) were friggin' pervs... nolo contendere... amazing that the Angel(s) of the Lord let 'em leave the city before they nuked it.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 25, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > I think you are right. I linked to the story and particularly appreciated the clergy who came out to oppose this law. Twisting religion to one's own purposes is certainly nothing new. "God is on our side," has always been a popular political rallying cry. I just cringe every time I see it.
> ...



One more "Christian" who can recite words without a clue about the meaning.

Here are some more words for you:

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 25, 2014)

Bumberclyde said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Bumberclyde said:
> ...




1. "Darkies", wow you must be a hoot at parties.

2. Ahhh - she pays for it, takes her cake and walks out?


>>>>


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 25, 2014)

BillyZane said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



Excellent points all.  You are a breath of fresh air in this fetid squalor of fascism and thought control.  (I'd have repped you, but it's too soon to do it again.)


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 25, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Are homosexuals not people?  Are they not capable of US citizenship?
> ...



Shoot, I don't respect my daughter's "boyfriend _du jour_" relationships, and they're heterosexual.  I see no reason why I should be required by law to respect anyone else's relationship if it doesn't engender that respect on its own.


----------



## N8dizzle (Feb 25, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > N8dizzle said:
> ...



Photographing a wedding doesn't mean that you are participating in it. Actually, the whole idea is that they are a "fly on the wall" just capturing the images of the people that are participating.  I'm sure that most of the time the wedding photographer doesn't know anything about the people getting married.  The photographer's opinion about the marriage is irreverent.


----------



## bendog (Feb 25, 2014)

Well, whether you agree with the civil rights act of 64 or not, ultimately the congress had the authority under interstate commerce and equal protection under the 14th amendment to outlaw private discrimination on race by biz entities providing public accomodations.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 25, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Bumberclyde said:
> ...




Better to just repeal Public Accommodation laws in general.


>>>>


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 25, 2014)

_The government is NOT empowered to force us not to discriminate, they simply are not._ 

We the People empowered the government to do so, Billy.  Step off.

Cecilie1200, you don't have to respect it, but you can't discriminate against in public accommodation.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > RandallFlagg said:
> ...



Amazingly enough, it's HIS choice who he does his job for, because he's not a slave.  Just because I make my living talking to customers on the telephone doesn't give you the right to force me to answer YOUR phones and talk to YOUR customers.


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 25, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



You don't have to respect gay relationships either. What you can't do is force the government to not acknowledge a gay relationship while they do acknowledge one of your daughters relationships


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 25, 2014)

N8dizzle said:


> Photographing a wedding doesn't mean that you are participating in it. Actually, the whole idea is that they are a "fly on the wall" just capturing the images of the people that are participating.  I'm sure that most of the time the wedding photographer doesn't know anything about the people getting married.  The photographer's opinion about the marriage is irreverent.



The mandates in Jude 1 and Romans 1 are very clear and concise.  Photographing a "gay wedding" is enabling.  It is the passive assent to that which is strictly forbidden.  It is assisting the dissolving of the matrix itself within which sin vs salvation is tested.  Individual sins are nothing in comparison with giving a leg up to the Big Plan where the unique male/female interaction was set in stone as the primary sexual bond relationship.  Sodom was given as an example of that huge tampered-with matrix being scrubbed off the map and those responsible, all of them, sent to the Pit of Fire:



> JUDE 1
> 
> 3. Beloved, when *I gave all diligence *to write unto you *of the common salvation*, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that *ye should earnestly contend for the faith* which was once delivered unto the saints.
> 
> ...





> ROMANS 1
> 
> 22. *Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools*,
> 
> ...



"...not only do the same [homosexuality] , but have pleasure in them that do them"

ie: the enablers also are in big trouble.

Here are some folks who are taking the passages of Jude 1 and Romans 1 seriously.  They are "earnestly contending" for the "common salvation".  Good on them.  See how easy it is?  It can be as easy as buying a chicken sandwich..


The French Pro Normal-Marriage Rally early this year 2014:












And of course across the nation that fateful Wednesday:


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...


If you work for me it does.  And when I walk in with cash, you do work for me if my request is reasonable, it's what you do, and you have or can get what I need.  We call that Business, it's different from Faith.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...


Too late, way too late.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Interesting how you seem to equate "running a business" with "being a civil servant".  Somewhere along the way, we've gone from making money selling goods and services to people to being obligated to provide goods and services to everyone.

By the way, I thought the whole point of owning your own business was freedom from working for someone else and having to do things their way.  Seems like you would have business ownership be a bigger shackle than being an employee is.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 25, 2014)

Obvious few if any of you are old enough to remember how things were.
As hard as you folks try to make gay folk the new ******* there are those of us that just ain't going to allow you.
Get used to it. We ain't going away.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 25, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



The courts and law have decided otherwise.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 25, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



The law applies equally.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 25, 2014)

> he mandates in Jude 1 and Romans 1 are very clear and concise.


Unfortunately, you are not.

Try THIS one on for size:

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

or maybe:

"Judge not lest ye be judged."


----------



## Barb (Feb 25, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > There is a huge difference between serving everyone what you already sell and declining to cook a specialized cuisine that isn't on the menu
> ...



Give an example of "gay" products.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 25, 2014)

Chambers of Commerce are FOR PRIVATE BUSINESS ONLY.
And all of them everywhere oppose these laws.


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...


Yes, it does, indeed, appear to be far too late for that.

That should not prevent people of goodwill from fine-tuning such laws or overhauling them, to provide some latitude in refusing service for a variety of good and true reasons, but first you have to have Legislators and Bill-Drafters with sufficient grey matter and imagination and foresight to craft proposed legislation that doesn't open up a dozen other cans of worms in the process...


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...


What you think is incorrect.  Try running a business and you'll find out there is work, in the good times, but not freedom.  I do work for people I wouldn't piss on if they were on fire in other circumstances.  It's just business.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...


In America?  Good luck with that.


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...


Yeah, I know...


----------



## Bumberclyde (Feb 25, 2014)

So a business owner in Arizona could put up a sign " WHITES ONLY" ? And claim it's a religious thing?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 25, 2014)

Bumberclyde said:


> So a business owner in Arizona could put up a sign " WHITES ONLY" ? And claim it's a religious thing?



Yes.


Kind of silly but yes they can put up that sign and claim it's a religious thing.


>>>>


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 25, 2014)

sfcalifornia said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > sfcalifornia said:
> ...



Could be, but I don't think it's the government's job to protect him and his business from his stupidity if so.

I also don't think we're talking about someone being refused purchase of a hamburger or gum, do you?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 25, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



And here we have you yet again arrogating to yourself the task of deciding what someone else's beliefs "really" are, and whether or not they're good enough to be valid.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 25, 2014)

Antares said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Religious beliefs supported slavery, Jim Crow and segregation.
> ...



Hell, the Quakers were the major spearheads of the abolition movement long before it became the least bit popular.  They were famous for purchasing slaves and allowing them to live as _de facto_ freedmen in states where manumission was illegal.  Talk about putting your money where your mouth is.


----------



## Barb (Feb 25, 2014)

> She may also be considering the boon to her state. Undoubtedly she remembers the Chic Fil A crowds and the Duck Dynasty supporters. Imagine if Arizona suffered for want of the company of homosexuals and their enablers but instead was swamped with those who are for free speech and the earnest contention for the common salvation?



Probably not, Sil.

George Takei Threatens Arizona With A Boycott | The New Civil Rights Movement 



> And maybe you just never learn. In 1989, you voted down recognition of the Martin Luther King holiday, and as a result, conventions and tourists boycotted the state, and the NFL moved the Superbowl to Pasadena. That was a $500 million mistake.



See, you might think you're actually a majority because those who still associate with you think just like you, but there is a broader consensus who actually find you and your views repugnant. They have expendable income, and the chamber of commerce in any given state should (and now most do)  think twice before telling them they don't want their green. 

There is a difference between your crowd changing the channel on the last unpaid month of whatever cable service they currently have, or flocking to the local "fine dining" establishment, and traveling to another state to pay huge prices to watch the super bowl live, take a family vacation, book a group in the most expensive resorts for business trips...

savvy?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...


In the marketplace, your values are our values.  At home, and in church, knock yourself out but even there we, the people, have an interest so don't get stupid and start beating the kids or drinking the blood of infants.


----------



## Bumberclyde (Feb 25, 2014)

^^^^^^^^^^^^ I'm for gay rights and even I think George Takei is a little creepy.


----------



## Bumberclyde (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Religion has been discriminating against all kinds of people for centuries. No news here, move along.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Sweetie, no one's stopping them from "marrying the person they love".  They can have any damned relationship they want and, contrary to their opinion, no one gives a shit.  What they want is the right to force OTHER people to recognize their relationship as a marriage and equivalent to a heterosexual marriage, and you have no rights at all when it comes to what other people think of you.


----------



## paperview (Feb 25, 2014)

Conservatives...always, always on the wrong side of history.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...


I'm not gay kiddo, and I got my marriage license from the State, just like they will.  As for the business angle. that's just business and we set the rules on how that works eh?

You either dance to our music or you get your own band.


----------



## hunarcy (Feb 25, 2014)

paperview said:


> Conservatives...always, always on the wrong side of history.




Liberals...always, always trying to impose their beliefs on the rest of the world.


----------



## paperview (Feb 25, 2014)

Irony. On a stick.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



"Private but open to the public".  WTF are you babbling about?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...



"Protected classes is equality."  Your posts are getting exponentially more idiotic.  I'm just waiting to see if they can get dumb enough to actually violate the laws of physics.


----------



## paperview (Feb 25, 2014)

It's simple. Do churches have to abide by public accommodation laws.

No.

There, see?  So easy even a  caveman can get it.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 25, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> "Private but open to the public".  WTF are you babbling about?


It's the old "we built your business" ploy so they share in ownership. Until it comes time to pay the bills. And do the work. And buy supplies, etc.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > "Equally protected classes" yeah... you don't see them as people, you see them as "classes."
> ...



Try to remember just this:  you don't define what serving God is for anyone else.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 25, 2014)

Yup, and you don't define the law, Cecilie, for anyone else.  That is what our leges of We the People and the courts are for to protect everyone who has the constitutional right to do be protected before the law.  That's the fact.  That you don't like it does not mean anything in law.


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 25, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Yup, and you don't define the law, Cecilie, for anyone else.  That is what our leges of We the People and the courts are for to protect everyone who has the constitutional right to do be protected before the law.  That's the fact.  That you don't like it does not mean anything in law.


Which leaves those with an objection to a Law or Effect or Outcome of a Law little recourse but to try to either Repeal or Amend or Circumvent that law, using the legal system, which, of course, is what the Arizona sortie is all about.

It is the misfortune of those who favor allowing business folk to refuse service to sexual perverts (_as their sacred texts and religious teachings and interpretations and understandings inform them to be so_), that their so-called 'champions' in the Arizona state legislature didn't have the brains God gave an ant, to anticipate at least the most glaringly-obvious loopholes and ways in which their poorly-crafted proposed law could be used for other than its intended purpose - causing even most _supporters_ to begin distancing themselves from it - and thereby throwing-away an opportunity to advance their own cause...

Win some... lose some... and live to see some foolishly thrown away, for oh-so-predictable and preventable reasons. Dolts. Dullards. Idjits. Men of small vision and even smaller imagination.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 25, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Yup, and you don't define the law, Cecilie, for anyone else.  That is what our leges of We the People and the courts are for to protect everyone who has the constitutional right to do be protected before the law.  That's the fact.  That you don't like it does not mean anything in law.
> ...



The law specifically says those who which to discriminate must base that discrimination on "their sacred texts and religious teachings and interpretations and understandings inform them to be so", the law is base purely on the indivdiuals religious beliefs.

As such refusing service to an interracial or interfaith couple and mouth religious reasons is fine.



>>>>


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...


Something that you don't understand either it seems.  What is a Church?  Public or Private, and I mean LEGALLY.


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 25, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Nolo contendere... no contest... no argument.

But it is that sort of secondary effect (_beyond the realm of the bill's intended homosexual focus_) which renders it toxic, and which is making even its early supporters walk way from it, now that all the potential secondary effects are coming to light, which the bill's crafters (supposedly) did not anticipate.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...


The hell we don't.  We call it the Law.  If serving God to means beating children to you, we have a nice kind of warm prison cell waiting for you.  It's our right, as a society, to define the boundaries, and we do so stay within them.


----------



## dblack (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



Nonsense. History is full of examples of policies that seemed like a good idea at the time (maybe even for a long time), but were eventually understood to be counter-productive, or just plain wrong. If anything, I'd argue it may be too _soon_. We've yet to see the full ramifications of dismissing freedom of association. When we do, I suspect we'll call foul on this kind of intrusive government and find better ways to deal with bigotry.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> If you work for me it does.  And when I walk in with cash, you do work for me if my request is reasonable, it's what you do, and you have or can get what I need.  We call that Business, it's different from Faith.



Obviously you are leftist, thus you view everyone as property of the state.

A business owner is not your slave, though you demand that they be. 

This is from a document that you and your filthy party has never been exposed to;

{Article XIII.

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. }

Any attempt to FORCE a person to bake a cake, take a photograph, or otherwise labor against their will, is involuntary servitude, and a violation of the United States Constitution.

Don't like it? Move to fucking Cuba.


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> "..._It's our right, as a society, to define the boundaries_..."


Indeed. Which is exactly what this Arizona sortie was all about; trying to define the boundaries. It is their (and their supporters) misfortune that they bungled the job so badly. They (or someone else) will have better luck in the coming weeks and months, I expect, but that's all in the future, and purely speculative in nature.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

Barb said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > That got me thinking how ridiculous this is. Should vegetarians be able to sue restaurants who serve meat because its offensive and discriminatory to vegetarians? I mean yeah, that's about as bad as gay couples suing a religious business owner for refusing them service based on his religious beliefs.
> ...



You are the one with the problem. Have you ever considered what the logical end result of a quest for equality will be? I know reading a Sparks Note version of a novel is beyond your skill set, but perhaps a video will give you a taste of what you are arguing for.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

Barb said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...



They didn't teach that in public school? Why am I not surprised?


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 25, 2014)

dblack said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...


Practically speaking, it probably *IS* too late to repeal such Public Accommodation Laws, in light of the perception that they do far more good than harm. For those topical areas (_like dealing with people who are perceived as wrongdoers according to various mainstream religious teachings_) that represent relative new and uncharted territory in matters of Law-versus-Religion, it seems more likely that we will see some considerable _tweaking_ to Public Accommodation Laws, in the form of supplemental legislation such as Arizona tried (and, apparently, failed) to create in this latest sortie. One badly-executed effort does not mean it's over; hardly; most likely, they're only getting warmed up, and will find a way, in the long run.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



He probably isn't, but you are.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...



Was that the same link that I used to prove you are making things up?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > That got me thinking how ridiculous this is. Should vegetarians be able to sue restaurants who serve meat because its offensive and discriminatory to vegetarians? I mean yeah, that's about as bad as gay couples suing a religious business owner for refusing them service based on his religious beliefs.
> ...



Let me get this straight, the people that claimed that they were offended, and sued those businesses, were lying?

The public accommodation laws were just the excuse.


----------



## dblack (Feb 25, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



That's exactly why I'm opposed to the 'tweaking'. It only delays the nation's realization that the general principle behind these kinds of laws is fundamentally flawed, and runs counter to the American traditions of liberty and equal protection. But I'm not as pessimistic. We're moving steadily into areas where the harm done is increasing and the perceived benefit more questionable. I think people will wake up. Eventually.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > If you work for me it does.  And when I walk in with cash, you do work for me if my request is reasonable, it's what you do, and you have or can get what I need.  We call that Business, it's different from Faith.
> ...


Take your own advise and vote with your feet.  My side is winning here just fine so there's no reason for me to leave.  You, on the other hand, should start saving boxes.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > "..._It's our right, as a society, to define the boundaries_..."
> ...


They screwed up alright but bills like this will never last, not for long, even if carefully written.  The direction our society is taking is clear and this "gay wedding" issue is just a bump in the road.  Besides, those who feel this way will solve the problem for us soon enough, by dying.


----------



## Political Junky (Feb 25, 2014)

Every indication is that the governor will not sign the bill.


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 25, 2014)

dblack said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


I feel your pain, and ostensibly agree with you, in principle; it's just that our Optimism or Pessimism thresholds, and Sense of the Practical, and Vision of Likely Outcomes aren't on the same page.

In situations like this, when there is such a forcing by the State, for business folk to accommodate those whom they believe to be wrong-doers or evil-doers, I'm mindful of the old maxim...

"*The Perfect is the Enemy of the Good*"

...meaning, of course, better to bolt-together Afterthought -caliber supplemental legislation and to provide relief, rather than letting the situation rot and fester and become entrenched and gain credibility as 'custom and usage', as well as 'precedent', and risk losing it all.

Better to act quickly, while there is still time, before the passage of time renders the situation un-salvageable.

At least the 'tweaking' buys time... doing nothing may lose it all.

Or so it seems to this observer...


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

dblack said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


Thinking, not you're strong suit.  The law is settled.  It's just getting it done now.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 25, 2014)

Tell you what. When someone can produce an historical, religious text that says, "Thou shalt not bake cakes for the gays" then I'll join in support of this law. Until then, I'll stick with "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and call this for what it is: Haters trying to use religion to justify their hate.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > I haven't seen the law but my guess is that there's more to it, like political blackmail. I'm surprised any business person doesn't support the right to do private business with whom they choose, religious or not.
> ...



Technically, you are full of shit.

There are multiple laws covering the area you are blathering about, and both Federal and Arizona law already prohibit anyone who is a first responder or delivers medical treatment from denying services to anyone, which is why nurses cannot refuse to assist in an emergency abortion if they work in the ER even if they go on record in advance as not approving of it. 

Funny thing, the same laws that protect against the scare tactics you are worried about also permit that same nurse to refuse to assist in an abortion if it isn't an emergency.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 25, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > If you work for me it does.  And when I walk in with cash, you do work for me if my request is reasonable, it's what you do, and you have or can get what I need.  We call that Business, it's different from Faith.
> ...




Actually that claim was made in Heartland Motel of Atlanta v. United States which was the landmark case where the SCOTUS reviewed the Constitutionality of Public Accommodation laws.

They dismissed it.

"We find no merit in the remainder of appellant's contentions, including that of "involuntary servitude." As we have seen, 32 States prohibit racial discrimination in public accommodations. These laws but codify the common law innkeeper rule, which long predated the Thirteenth Amendment. It is difficult to believe that the Amendment was intended to abrogate this principle. Indeed, the opinion of the Court in the Civil Rights Cases is to the contrary as we have seen, it having noted with approval the laws of "all the States" prohibiting discrimination. We could not say that the requirements of the Act in this regard are in any way "akin to African slavery." Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328, 332 (1916)."

Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States | LII / Legal Information Institute​


>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 25, 2014)

nodoginnafight said:


> Tell you what. When someone can produce an historical, religious text that says, "Thou shalt not bake cakes for the gays" then I'll join in support of this law. Until then, I'll stick with "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and call this for what it is: Haters trying to use religion to justify their hate.




The law in question specifically says the owners religious beliefs need not be, as you put it "historical" or part of "religious text".



>>>>


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 25, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> *Practically speaking, it probably IS too late to repeal such Public Accommodation Laws, in light of the perception that they do far more good than harm. For those topical areas (like dealing with people who are perceived as wrongdoers according to various mainstream religious teachings) that represent relative new and uncharted territory in matters of Law-versus-Religion*, it seems more likely that we will see some considerable _tweaking_ to Public Accommodation Laws, in the form of supplemental legislation such as Arizona tried (and, apparently, failed) to create in this latest sortie. One badly-executed effort does not mean it's over; hardly; most likely, they're only getting warmed up, and will find a way, in the long run.



"various mainstream religious teachings".  You mean Jude 1 and Romans 1?  The crux there is if you ask people to enable the church of LGBT's advances on eradicating the foundation of the christian matrix, you are asking them to dissolve God's plan and creation at its foundation.  These passages explain:



> JUDE 1
> 
> 3. Beloved, when *I gave all diligence *to write unto you *of the common salvation*, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that *ye should earnestly contend for the faith* which was once delivered unto the saints.
> 
> ...





> ROMANS 1
> 
> 22. *Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools*,
> 
> ...



"...not only do the same [homosexuality] , but have pleasure in them that do them"

ie: the enablers also are in big trouble.  Any form of enabling is "illegal" to christians.  You can't enact laws that force them to condemn themselves to the pit of hell forever.  Will you ask them to redact their Bible to accomodate the teachings of the church of LGBT instead, as a "compromise"?  That's like asking someone to compromise on the speed limit by never taking their car out of the garage.  ie,that's shutting down the christian faith.  It will be the final death of it.  And that's where the debate steps directly into 1st Amendment territory... It is the insidious, silent forcing of christians to abandon their faith and not be able to practice their religion, especially as to such a mortal sin as enabling the changing of God's matrix in a society.


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...


As someone who believes in the original intent of the bill, namely: to allow business folk to refuse service to those whom their mainstream religious beliefs and teachings and interpretations inform them are wrong-doers...

I think you overestimate the extent of popular support for the Gay Agenda *as a sustained phenomenon over time*.

This isn't so much about Generation A or B or C as it is timeless religious and moral teachings and historical perceptions, and changing perceptions as people age and find a need to protect their own young from the worst degeneracies that society has to offer...

But, like you, I don't have a crystal ball, and that's all in the future, and unproven...


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



What does that have to do with what I said?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



In other words, churches are only private when it is convenient.


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 25, 2014)

nodoginnafight said:


> _Tell you what. When someone can produce an historical, religious text that says, 'Thou shalt not bake cakes for the gays' then I'll join in support of this law_...


A lot of folks don't need that, to trigger faith-based objections. All they require is 'hate the sin, love the sinner' to conjure-up the legitimate position that by associating with or servicing such folk, they are aiding and abetting sin, and therefore contributing to the moral or spiritual downfall or continued wrongdoing of those which fate has obliged them to love from a distance, until they mend their ways... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			







> "..._Until then, I'll stick with 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone'_..."


Nobody here is casting stones or hanging Gays - literally or figuratively - merely standing their ground for their right not to associate with nor service Sinners, and thereby aid and abet their Sinful Ways.



> "..._and call this for what it is: Haters trying to use religion to justify their hate._"


Which does grave disservice to the huge numbers of people who do not wish to provide services to Gays, but who do so from the perspective of not wanting to be associated with or to aid and abet Sinfulness or Pervsity, rather than from any hateful feelings or motivation.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Because  if you don't respect their relationship you must hate gays.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

N8dizzle said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Ever photograph a wedding?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

bendog said:


> Well, whether you agree with the civil rights act of 64 or not, ultimately the congress had the authority under interstate commerce and equal protection under the 14th amendment to outlaw private discrimination on race by biz entities providing public accomodations.



That doesn't make it right to do so, does it?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> _The government is NOT empowered to force us not to discriminate, they simply are not._
> 
> We the People empowered the government to do so, Billy.  Step off.
> 
> Cecilie1200, you don't have to respect it, but you can't discriminate against in public accommodation.



Why didn't we the people empower them to make everyone like everyone else?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



This thread is about the government forcing people to respect relationships, or did you miss that part?


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 25, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > Tell you what. When someone can produce an historical, religious text that says, "Thou shalt not bake cakes for the gays" then I'll join in support of this law. Until then, I'll stick with "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and call this for what it is: Haters trying to use religion to justify their hate.
> ...



so what?

That's my position. Show me the religious tradition to support your hate or you got no "religious" grounds to stand on.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



That is where you are wrong, asshole. Free people work for themselves, all the time, you cannot even rent them,


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Obvious few if any of you are old enough to remember how things were.
> As hard as you folks try to make gay folk the new ******* there are those of us that just ain't going to allow you.
> Get used to it. We ain't going away.



Negged for being an asshole racist


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


You are incorrect.  Run a business and you'll find out what it means to be a whore, a real one not a college girl who walks home in the morning.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Actually, they haven't. What they have decided is that idiots can pretend that the government can do that, but free people still make their own choices.


----------



## Bombur (Feb 25, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > *Practically speaking, it probably IS too late to repeal such Public Accommodation Laws, in light of the perception that they do far more good than harm. For those topical areas (like dealing with people who are perceived as wrongdoers according to various mainstream religious teachings) that represent relative new and uncharted territory in matters of Law-versus-Religion*, it seems more likely that we will see some considerable _tweaking_ to Public Accommodation Laws, in the form of supplemental legislation such as Arizona tried (and, apparently, failed) to create in this latest sortie. One badly-executed effort does not mean it's over; hardly; most likely, they're only getting warmed up, and will find a way, in the long run.
> ...



Please do not lump all Christians into your lot.

If you don't want to associate with certain people are able to do so.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



I can prove it doesn't. If you weren't a bigot you wouldn't need me to show you.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Chambers of Commerce are FOR PRIVATE BUSINESS ONLY.
> And all of them everywhere oppose these laws.



Chambers of commerce are groups that use rent seeking to control businesses.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



In other words, you suck at running a business. No wonder you are a progressive, you think the government should protect you from your own stupidity, and that successful people are making it harder for you to get rich because they cheat by being good at what they do.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > So a business owner in Arizona could put up a sign " WHITES ONLY" ? And claim it's a religious thing?
> ...



If they did they would run afoul of the public accommodation laws in Arizona that prohibit that type of discrimination.

Then again, I never thought you were an honest poster.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


Business is fine.  My customers are dumb, like you, which is why they need me.  About one in ten of them I would consider for a friend.  The rest pay their bills so I take care of them.  It's business, that's all.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 25, 2014)

Kondor3 said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > _Tell you what. When someone can produce an historical, religious text that says, 'Thou shalt not bake cakes for the gays' then I'll join in support of this law_...
> ...






> All they require is 'hate the sin, love the sinner' to conjure-up the legitimate position that by associating with or servicing such folk, they are aiding and abetting sin,



All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

So this is one lonely group, huh?



> merely standing their ground for their right not to associate with nor service Sinners,



See above



> Which does grave disservice to the huge numbers of people who do not wish to provide services to Gays



Good. They deserve the "disservice" for bastardizing my faith into something that will make them feel better about their hate.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Business is fine.  My customers are dumb, like you, which is why they need me.  About one in ten of them I would consider for a friend.  The rest pay their bills so I take care of them.  It's business, that's all.



So, you're a gay hooker then?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Business is fine.  My customers are dumb, like you, which is why they need me.  About one in ten of them I would consider for a friend.  The rest pay their bills so I take care of them.  It's business, that's all.
> ...


The Hooker part you got right, in any rational basis.  The phone rings and I go.  That's what pays the bills.  Call me a Call Girl for people too stupid or lazy to deal with what they buy.  They'd rather pay me and that works out just fine,


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 25, 2014)

Fortunately the proposed law does not disturb public accommodation laws.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 25, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Chambers of Commerce are FOR PRIVATE BUSINESS ONLY.
> ...



Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry want the AZ law vetoed.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> The Hooker part you got right, in any rational basis.  The phone rings and I go.



Yeah, bullshit.

Like most of the leftists here, you're a fraud - which your posts reveal.

If you were a real painting contractor, you would get a call, and check your schedule. IF resources were availible, you'd dispatch an estimator or go yourself to estimate the job. IF you saw a job that you didn't like, you'd walk away. I had a painting contractor walk away from my house because he didn't like my dog - kept calling her a Coyote (She's a Dingo, dammit.)

But you don't know any of this, because you're just a manual laborer. You think you can bullshit people here and no one will catch on.

You think wrong.



> That's what pays the bills.  Call me a Call Girl for people too stupid or lazy to deal with what they buy.  They'd rather pay me and that works out just fine,



I'll call you a blowhard. You don't own anything - and we ALL know it.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > The Hooker part you got right, in any rational basis.  The phone rings and I go.
> ...


Just keep lying to yourself, that''s why you lose.  I might be Liberal but I'm also a Capitalist.  That's the name of the game in this nation, and everyone plays.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 25, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> Fortunately the proposed law does not disturb public accommodation laws.




Sure it does.

Public Accommodation laws prohibit refusing service based on race.  A florist who doesn't want to service an interracial marriage can do so and claim an exemption to the States Pubic Accommodation law under this law for their religious beliefs.  Because of the exemption to Public Accommodations laws this statute would provide (if not vetoed) no action could be taken.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.pdf

>>>>


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Tell you what, hire me to paint your house on those terms, I dare you.


This is why intelligent people don't try to force people to do business with them in the name of equality.


----------



## OriginalShroom (Feb 25, 2014)

If a business can refuse to service me because I am armed because it is a "Private business", why shouldn't they be able to refuse to service someone because they are gay? 

It's the same "Private Business" with the right to refuse to service.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

paperview said:


> Conservatives...always, always on the wrong side of history.



If history had sides the Nazis would have won WWII.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

paperview said:


> It's simple. Do churches have to abide by public accommodation laws.
> 
> No.
> 
> There, see?  So easy even a  caveman can get it.



Neither do I.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

OriginalShroom said:


> If a business can refuse to service me because I am armed because it is a "Private business", why shouldn't they be able to refuse to service someone because they are gay?
> 
> It's the same "Private Business" with the right to refuse to service.


You can leave your gun in the car.  They can also require you to wear a shirt and shoes.  What they can't require is that you leave your gay in the car.


----------



## jillian (Feb 25, 2014)

my sympathies to the homophobic wingers.... 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...brewer-expected-to-veto-az-gay-hate-bill.html


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 25, 2014)

"Private" business is somehow exempt from public accommodation?

Really??


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



The *bill* does not allow anyone to discriminate based on race, or even sexual preference, it simply restricts the state's power to regulate religion, just like the Religious Freedom Restoration act does for the federal government. If it actually worked the way you keep claiming then we wouldn't be having this discussion because federal law would allow anyone to discriminate against race, religion, or anything else, based solely on a claim of religious beliefs.


----------



## sfcalifornia (Feb 25, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



You know how we can can spot a dumbfuck in general?  When they post ignorant shit which has no relevance in today's society.

Yeah dumbfuck, we're talking about you, Quantum Fartbag.

Why don't you pull your head out of you ass, look around you and take note of the fact that homosexuals are NOT GOING AWAY, in fact, they are an integral and accepted part of society whether ignorant dipshits like you (who lives in San Feancisco btw... And why is that???) decides to live in the "wrong side of history".

Go ahead:  prove to us all how the majority of Americans now disapprove of homosexuals.

In the meantime, BOTH Arizona senators have urged Brewer not to sign the bill as well as countless businesses (including the Super Bowl Host Committee).  

LOL  what an idiot you are.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


If you don't understand how business is actually done then you aren't hired.  And believe me, the first business to play games with the food for the gays will find out, in short order, that it is no longer a business and that the new owners now fly a rainbow flag outside.  If you knew what really happens in a restaurant kitchen, you wouldn't eat there.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 25, 2014)

jillian said:


> my sympathies to the homophobic wingers....
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...brewer-expected-to-veto-az-gay-hate-bill.html



I hope she does. Enough of the senators have repudiated their votes that the law would not pass today, so that gives her some standing to veto it. 

But I think the courts would have "vetoed" it eventually.

Maybe she will just be saving the taxpayers the expense of trying to defend this warthog of a law.


----------



## jillian (Feb 25, 2014)

nodoginnafight said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > my sympathies to the homophobic wingers....
> ...



probably so.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Legally, they are businesses that operate on a non profit basis.


----------



## Mustang (Feb 25, 2014)

jillian said:


> my sympathies to the homophobic wingers....
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...brewer-expected-to-veto-az-gay-hate-bill.html



Cue the crowds with misspelled placards which mention the US Constitution even while the quotes are from the Declaration of Independence.  Throw in the word Impeachment (repeatedly), and you've got yourselves a Tea Party rally.


----------



## jillian (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Try to remember just this:  you don't define what serving God is for anyone else.


The hell we don't.  We call it the Law.  If serving God to means beating children to you, we have a nice kind of warm prison cell waiting for you.  It's our right, as a society, to define the boundaries, and we do so stay within them.[/QUOTE]

your view of "serving" G-d isn't mine or that of anyone I know.

so i'll thank you to remember that no... you don't get to define it for anyone but yourself... and no one in our society should be denied services because you think G-d wants you to hate a group of his children.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 25, 2014)

When a church engages in activities that are in the public domain, then, yes, a church is subject to anti-discrimination laws.


----------



## sfcalifornia (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



LOL

Don't piss off the people who serve you food!!

Will they ever learn?


----------



## jillian (Feb 25, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



I know that's what the wackos are saying... 

but really... it's using G-d as a justification for violating the equal rights of others.

shameful


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



The. Hell. You. Do.

By the way, I can cite Supreme Court decisions that specifically say that the government does not have the power to regulate religion, one of them where two Obama appointed Supreme Court Justices voted against the government in a unanimous decision upholding the right of religions to not justify their actions to the government on the basis of generally applicable law.

HOSANNA-TABOR EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH AND SCHOOL v. EEOC | LII / Legal Information Institute

Don't worry though, you know a hell of a lot more about the alw than I do, so you can pretend this doesn't count.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



The side of tyranny always wins, at the beginning. Eventually, everyone realizes how stupid it is, and freedom claims the final victory, just like it did when your side passed the Jim Crow laws.


----------



## The2ndAmendment (Feb 25, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> If a liberal doesn't like something it should be illegal for everyone. If they like something, it should be legal for everyone.
> 
> As far a the civil rights spin, relationships aren't people. Refusing service to a person is one thing, (which should be your right anyway) but refusing service to a relationship is another. *Can a racist make a black bakery owner produce a Rebel Flag cake?*



This is perhaps the statement of the subject.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



Jim Crow was settled law.

So was slavery.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Real whores work for themselves because they are free, but keep insulting them by comparing yourself to them.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



That said everything I need to know about you.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Business is fine.  My customers are dumb, like you, which is why they need me.  About one in ten of them I would consider for a friend.  The rest pay their bills so I take care of them.  It's business, that's all.
> ...



More like a crack whore.


----------



## jillian (Feb 25, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> In other words, you suck at running a business. No wonder you are a progressive, you think the government should protect you from your own stupidity, and that successful people are making it harder for you to get rich because they cheat by being good at what they do.



I think he actually runs a business and gets it... 

unlike you


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Of course they do, it might inspire people to compete with their members.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Fortunately the proposed law does not disturb public accommodation laws.
> ...


 
Hate to prove you wrong again (NOT) but florists are not public accommodations under Arizona law.

https://www.azag.gov/discrimination/public-accommodation-discrimination


----------



## sfcalifornia (Feb 25, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


Oh please, you idiot, what do you think, one day ALL laws providing gays equal protection against bigots like you will all of a sudden be rescinded?  Have you not noticed gays are being granted equal protections in all states, one by one... states like Utah and Virginia and Oklahoma?  How naive and utterly blind to what's happening in this country can you be?

And if you think the country will one day swing back to the draconian, medieval era which you seemingly so greatly desire, then you have your head up your ass further than we all originally thought.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> "Private" business is somehow exempt from public accommodation?
> 
> Really??



You just hit the nail on the head, which is why some business are only open by appointment.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Just keep lying to yourself, that''s why you lose.  I might be Liberal but I'm also a Capitalist.  That's the name of the game in this nation, and everyone plays.



You're a bullshitter.

You think you lend credibility to your leftist ideas by pretending to be a business owner.

You simply don't grasp that the idiocy you posts quickly reveals you to be a fraud.


----------



## paperview (Feb 25, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...


Wrong:  You <----


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

sfcalifornia said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > sfcalifornia said:
> ...



I might be a dumbfuck, but I have never been offended by a post in the internet. That makes me smarter than you.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



I understand exactly how business works. I also understand human beings, which is why I will never force anyone who I think hates me to work for me.


----------



## sfcalifornia (Feb 25, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Just keep lying to yourself, that''s why you lose.  I might be Liberal but I'm also a Capitalist.  That's the name of the game in this nation, and everyone plays.
> ...



You fail to accept the concept that money is money.  

I'd invest in PaintMyHouse's business long before I'd consider yours.  

You seem to think morality pays the rent.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

jillian said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



You do not have an equal right to my services.

End of discussion.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

jillian said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > In other words, you suck at running a business. No wonder you are a progressive, you think the government should protect you from your own stupidity, and that successful people are making it harder for you to get rich because they cheat by being good at what they do.
> ...



I think he is a lying sack of shit.

I have run a business, and know plenty of people that have run one. None of them ever called themselves a whore.


----------



## sfcalifornia (Feb 25, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Look everyone...  He admits it.  

You read it here first!


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 25, 2014)

paperview said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Yep, he's wrong - again.

He links to the Arizona AG's office short list for the web.  Let's take a look at the actual definition in the Arizona Revised Statutes:

"2. "Places of public accommodation" means all public places of entertainment, amusement or recreation, all public places where food or beverages are sold for consumption on the premises, all public places which are conducted for the lodging of transients or for the benefit, use or accommodation of those seeking health or recreation and* all establishments which cater or offer their services, facilities or goods to or solicit patronage from the members of the general public.* Any dwelling as defined in section 41-1491, or any private club, or any place which is in its nature distinctly private is not a place of public accommodation. "

Format Document​

I guess he's trying to say that a Florist is a business that doesn't offer any goods, facilities or services to members of the general public.



>>>>


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

sfcalifornia said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



I am not a bigot, idiot, I am on the side of freedom. 

I am also honest enough to know that no sane person would ever go to a person they believes hates them and force them to work for them. The only people that would make this an issue are bigots with an agenda.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

sfcalifornia said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



I am sure he would be glad to take your money because he thinks you are an idiot.

On the other hand, all my customers are real people who I chose to work with.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Even if you are right, the bill does not permit a florist to discriminate on the basis of race, period.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 25, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > "Private" business is somehow exempt from public accommodation?
> ...



A private interaction is one thing.

That is not so with the business in the law.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 25, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



If you offer those services to the public, yes, I do.

End of discussion.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 25, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



"Even if" I'm right about what a Public Accommodation is?  Dude, I posted the freaking law which shows you were wrong.



Sure it does, as long as you project that it is a sincerely held religious belief.

No where in SB1062 does it limit the application of "sincerely held religious beliefs" to just those applicable to homosexuals.  If you think this law limits it to "the gheys", point out where in the law that occurs.

Don't want to do an interracial marriage - just claim sincerely held religious belief against it.

Don't want to do an interfaith marriage - just claim a sincerely held religious belief against it.


>>>>


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 25, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



You are limited ONLY to those services offered to the public.  As providers become more and more sophisticated in avoidance techniques, the public offers will become more and more limited.


----------



## sfcalifornia (Feb 25, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



Really?  In the city of San Francisco?  One of the gayest cities on earth?

How is it you don't implode on a daily basis?


----------



## Wry Catcher (Feb 25, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> I think another state passed something similar to this last week so this must be a trend that is catching on. I agree with this bill that if you are a business owner and believe in and live by your faith that you should be able to refuse service to whoever you want.
> 
> 
> Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays
> Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays



While there are no laws which prohibit individual bigotry, and the law in Arizona is likely legal, the fact that remains that it violates the Spirit of America.  Or, as in the words of Jefferson, 

_"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness"_

The gay and lesbian community has been denied their unalienable right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and they choose not to abolish our government - as some in the far right hope to do - but to alter it with non violent protests and petitions to enjoy the same rights the rest of us enjoy by law, and by the real ethos of what it means to be an American.  Those people who voted on a law in Arizona to deny equal access to happiness and freedom to this select group of citizens are not real Americans nor are they patriots.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 25, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> If you offer those services to the public, yes, I do.
> 
> End of discussion.



Not if your demand violates a core edict of the christian faith.  You cannot command a christian to violate the mandates and warnings of Jude 1 and Romans 1 in the Bible.  You're going to run into a bump on this one Jake.  A big bump called "The 1st Amendment"...


----------



## Bombur (Feb 25, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > If you offer those services to the public, yes, I do.
> ...



Your understanding of the Christian faith is weak.

You are not being forced to do anything. The law only pertains to people who have decided to take part in a certain type of interaction.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Feb 25, 2014)

> Not if your demand violates a core edict of the christian faith.


If you think this is " a core edict of the Christian faith", you know very little about the Christian faith. I'm sorry that your instruction in the faith has fallen to those who have tried to bastardize the faith for their own political purposes.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 25, 2014)

sfcalifornia said:


> You fail to accept the concept that money is money.



I appreciate that you seek to save a fellow leftist from humiliation, but that won't salvage him.

A real painting contractor assesses every job before entering a contract to perform the task. Many factors MUST be considered, including the attitude of the homeowner. All contractors turn down jobs. It could be because of scheduling, could be because of materials, or a host of other reasons. No business operates like your blowhard little buddy claims.



> I'd invest in PaintMyHouse's business long before I'd consider yours.
> 
> You seem to think morality pays the rent.



You're just a partisan hack on a message board. If real money were involved, your whole attitude would change instantly.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


I generally wouldn't either but I'll still buy gas from them and have them as clients.  The local Christian bookstore doesn't keep me out, it would be stupid if they did, but if they knew the real me they'd start collecting sticks for the fire.  Remember, it's just business, that's all.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Business is fine.  My customers are dumb, like you, which is why they need me.  About one in ten of them I would consider for a friend.  The rest pay their bills so I take care of them.  It's business, that's all.


In my 27 years of business I've never even heard of a guy with your attitude.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 25, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



You are trying to impose a theocratic state by supporting this wrongheaded discrimination.

Furthermore you cannot believe in the "separation of church and state" if you support this legislation because it is imposing religious beliefs on the state.

Your religious freedom ends where the rights of others begin. If you offer a service to the public you cannot discriminate. If you wish to keep yourself "pure" from the public then you are in the wrong line of work. 

Let's put this as simply as we can. Prior to gay marriage how many cakes were made for weddings where one of the participants was a closeted gay? How many photographers took pictures of the married couple without knowing that one of them was gay? How many rooms were rented to gays?

To suddenly make this is an issue of "religious freedom" when it was never an issue before when gays were being served by businesses all the time is just idiotic. There is no legal basis for this invented special right of bogus "religious freedom". It never stopped anyone from taking money from gays before now.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 25, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I think that is an excellent accomodation to remove your influence in public life.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

sfcalifornia said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...


Here's one who gets it, unlike most.  Business is business.  It's why I have churches and an anti-abortion pregnancy center as clients.  They do the two necessary things, they call, and when I send them a bill they pay.  That's American Business as it is supposed to be done and I enjoy cashing their checks.

I also consult for a nudist colony.  That gets interesting at times but their cash is good as any.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...




I don't think people understand how this works really.  I can't say in every case but we can use Elaine Photography, the famous one from New Mexico and Sweetcakes by Melissa (Oregon) the other well known case.

The couples involved don't sue the baker, florist, photographer.  In these situations the leave and go find another outlet.  What they do is file a complaint with the State agency designated to handle discrimination cases under the States Pubic Accommodation laws.  That agency then investigates the event and issues a preliminary ruling.  If the business contests the ruling then there is a hearing before an Administrative Judge who makes their recommendation, then it goes back to the agency for a final decision.  A ruling against the business can then still be appealed in State court.  As we saw with Elaine Photography those appeals can work their way all the way up to the State Supreme Court.

By the time this has happened people, the couple's wedding has already occurred.  What happens to the business is they are fined or receive an slap on the wrist to "go forth and sin no more" (pun intended).

The couples aren't going to be eating a cake by the discriminatory baker.



>>>>


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 25, 2014)

I can see the day when a same sex couple contacts the town bakery and finds out they no longer offer wedding cakes at all.  Neither does the bakery in the next Arizona town over, or the one after that.   They can go all the way to Phoenix to find an accommodating bakery and they won't deliver 200 miles away.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


You are correct.  And good old Melissa and hubby have to sit down with the lesbians soon and cut a deal.  Boy would I love to be a fly on the wall for that meeting.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> I can see the day when a same sex couple contacts the town bakery and finds out they no longer offer wedding cakes at all.  Neither does the bakery in the next Arizona town over, or the one after that.   They can go all the way to Phoenix to find an accommodating bakery and they won't deliver 200 miles away.


Then that would make them all equal now wouldn't it?  And it would also make me open a wedding cake shop, no sexuality questions asked.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 25, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> I can see the day when a same sex couple contacts the town bakery and finds out they no longer offer wedding cakes at all.  Neither does the bakery in the next Arizona town over, or the one after that.   They can go all the way to Phoenix to find an accommodating bakery and they won't deliver 200 miles away.




I don't.

Society has become much more accepting of homosexuality in general and they are not ostracized like "the good old" days.  The reality is that you will find fewer and fewer bakers (florists, photographers, etc.) where this would even be an issue.

Bakers will continue to advertise and they will continue to advertize for wedding cakes.



>>>>


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Business is fine.  My customers are dumb, like you, which is why they need me.  About one in ten of them I would consider for a friend.  The rest pay their bills so I take care of them.  It's business, that's all.
> ...


Ah, do you think I print that on my business cards?  That would bad for business.   Humans are morons.  Those morons with cash I call clients.  Got it now?


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...


Oh yes, I got it. Your side of the argument is full of conceit and self importance. How liberal of you.


----------



## buckeye45_73 (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...


 

 well you sound like a founding father, that wanted the electoral college.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...


I suspect you don't know what Liberal means?  It's not "nice", we throw revolutions remember, like the American one.


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > I can see the day when a same sex couple contacts the town bakery and finds out they no longer offer wedding cakes at all.  Neither does the bakery in the next Arizona town over, or the one after that.   They can go all the way to Phoenix to find an accommodating bakery and they won't deliver 200 miles away.
> ...



That would make them all equal, except that you know the baker will still be making wedding cakes.  They just won't advertise the fact.  That was the essential ruling in Elaine's Photography.   If she did not advertise herself as a wedding photographer she would not have to perform same sex wedding photography services.   There was no prohibition in her performing such services at all, just that if she advertised the fact, she had to perform.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 25, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> I can see the day when a same sex couple contacts the town bakery and finds out they no longer offer wedding cakes at all.  Neither does the bakery in the next Arizona town over, or the one after that.   They can go all the way to Phoenix to find an accommodating bakery and they won't deliver 200 miles away.



Sounds like a market opening to me. Being the only bakery willing to bake wedding cakes for all comers will mean big profits. Same thing for the photographers who are willing to do the weddings. 

BTW I have yet to meet a wedding photographer so wealthy that he would turn down a lucrative wedding shoot just because the couple was gay. And if there was one that did refuse there would be a queue around the block of others willing to take the job.

Money talks...


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> I suspect you don't know what Liberal means?  It's not "nice", we throw revolutions remember, like the American one.


The founders were liberals? You've been smelling too many paint fumes. Liberals have safe rebellions, sitting in their stink in public parks, marching in liberal cities, making a big show but no real danger. 

It reminds me of the leftist that wanted a reblellion during the Bush years (crying as they do) and when I asked him which side he thought was better equipped, he shut up about it and didn't bring it up again.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...


Great.  Now they get to add false advertising and fraud charges to the suit.  Works for me.


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 25, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > I can see the day when a same sex couple contacts the town bakery and finds out they no longer offer wedding cakes at all.  Neither does the bakery in the next Arizona town over, or the one after that.   They can go all the way to Phoenix to find an accommodating bakery and they won't deliver 200 miles away.
> ...



You never heard of a wedding photographer that turned down business!  And here we've been discussing Elaine's photography all this time.   The whole point of being able to reject contracts that are morally reprehensible is that there are many others willing to take the job.  

After my legal success in fighting off a lawsuit by a couple of lesbians wanting a portrait, the photographer that belongs to my art guild stopped advertising wedding photographer services.  He had no shortage of wedding photography customers.  He just stopped advertising that fact.


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



False advertising is when you advertise something that isn't true.  There is no form of non-advertising that is false advertising.  There is no form of failure to make a promise that means there was a promise that was groundless.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > I suspect you don't know what Liberal means?  It's not "nice", we throw revolutions remember, like the American one.
> ...


Yes the Founders were Liberals little friend.  Learn American history.  The Conservatives wanted to keep the King (to Conserve), we called them Tories then, and they fled to Canada in large numbers.  Nearly all Revolutions are Leftist.  When the Reactionaries throw one, like in Iran, it's usually religious in nature, like in Iran.


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



No they don't.  Melissa and hubby closed Sweetcakes and now has all their customers by private sales only.   The lesbians really got what they wanted.  They'll never be able to get ANYTHING by Melissa, not so much as a cookie.


----------



## Desperado (Feb 25, 2014)

You have to ask why would someone want to spend their money in place they are not wanted?
Why would you order a meal from a place that did not want to serve you?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 25, 2014)

So I was listening to NPR today and Jan Brewer will be up the creek without a paddle if she doesn't veto this bill by Friday. There is a lot of money at stake and if there is one thing that Republicans will always put above their religious beliefs it is money. 

She has 3 options. 

1. Veto and keep the AZ economy on track while ticking off the TP'ers.

2. Sign the bill and deal with the fiscal fallout and economic mayhem that follows.

3. Do nothing and allow the bill to automatically become law and then deal with the fiscal fallout and economic mayhem that follows.

Historically option #1 is the choice that she will take. I suspect that she is going to go with option #3 instead and claim that it is all the TP'ers fault when the economy tanks and boycotts are the norm. Besides which the GOP needs a bad economy in order to win in November.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...


They closed the shop, not the business, and you should really learn to read the news.  Sweet Cakes lost.  Now it's time to pay up.

Sweet Cakes by Melissa violated same-sex couple's civil rights when it refused to make wedding cake, state finds | OregonLive.com


----------



## Bombur (Feb 25, 2014)

Desperado said:


> You have to ask why would someone want to spend their money in place they are not wanted?
> Why would you order a meal from a place that did not want to serve you?



Have you ever tried to eat some place and have the owner refuse service based on who you love? 

These people are harming others with their discrimination and I find that a much bigger violation of the Christian faith than gay people.


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 25, 2014)

Desperado said:


> You have to ask why would someone want to spend their money in place they are not wanted?
> Why would you order a meal from a place that did not want to serve you?



So you could cause them trouble.  

Why did two lesbians want me to paint their portrait after I refused?  Did they think if they forced me I'd do a better job?   It's academic because they lost and I hope it cost them a bundle.


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 25, 2014)

Gov Boneyfinger will veto the bill and Republicans will let out a sigh of relief


----------



## Bumberclyde (Feb 25, 2014)

I thought the homophobic state was Utah?


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 25, 2014)

Bombur said:


> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> > You have to ask why would someone want to spend their money in place they are not wanted?
> ...



No, but I have had people ask me to go to their wedding and I refused for various reasons.


----------



## Bombur (Feb 25, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> > Desperado said:
> ...



.... wat?


----------



## The T (Feb 25, 2014)

Desperado said:


> You have to ask why would someone want to spend their money in place they are not wanted?
> Why would you order a meal from a place that did not want to serve you?


It is the right and even a business decision of an owner of a business to serve clientele they wish to cater to or not. If their decision runs them out of business...then so be it. NO government has the right to make that decision for any business owner.


----------



## Bumberclyde (Feb 25, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> > You have to ask why would someone want to spend their money in place they are not wanted?
> ...



But 2 chicks together is FUCKING HOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

Desperado said:


> You have to ask why would someone want to spend their money in place they are not wanted?
> Why would you order a meal from a place that did not want to serve you?


Because you're hungry and like the food.  I don't care what faith the guy has when I need gas and he has it.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

Bumberclyde said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Desperado said:
> ...


If they're young and cute.


----------



## OriginalShroom (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> OriginalShroom said:
> 
> 
> > If a business can refuse to service me because I am armed because it is a "Private business", why shouldn't they be able to refuse to service someone because they are gay?
> ...



Using your "logic" then they can post signs saying that two people of same gender are not allowed to hold hands, kiss, or show other signs of affection or they will be refused service.

Do you think that would fly?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

OriginalShroom said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > OriginalShroom said:
> ...


You can try but I wouldn't.  You just kicked out every set of little girls who enter the place, and that won't fly if you don't.


----------



## protectionist (Feb 25, 2014)

Nyvin said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > TheOldSchool said:
> ...



Post a copy of the act, and SHOW where it bans discrimination against homosexuals.

You can't because it doesn't do that.  It prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. 

http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/about/history/CivilRightsAct.cfm


----------



## TemplarKormac (Feb 25, 2014)

BillyZane said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...





> They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
> 
> Benjamin Franklin


.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> > Steve_McGarrett said:
> ...


It doesn't and this is not based on that.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 25, 2014)

Quacked Wingnut neg reps me and calls me a racist.
Better than 2 QB sacks in a series!


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 25, 2014)

Bumberclyde said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Desperado said:
> ...



Does nothing for me and is none of my business what 2 gay or lesbian adults do.
If folks dig it fine but I am straight married for 39 years and leave what other folks do to them.
But I fight for the rights of everyone as it could be YOU OR I that they are NEXT trying to take rights away from.
All in the name of RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Yes the Founders were Liberals little friend.  Learn American history.



Yes, they were - but you're not. You are a leftist. 



> The Conservatives wanted to keep the King (to Conserve), we called them Tories then, and they fled to Canada in large numbers.



It amazes me the abject ignorance of you leftist drones. Prior to 1970, no one would have even attempted to label the Torries as "conservative." 

What the Torries sought was feudal structure, that all things rightfully belong to the state (crown) to be dispensed according to the wise rule of ministers and bureaucrats.

Sound like any fucking commies we know?

Hmmmmm?



> Nearly all Revolutions are Leftist.  When the Reactionaries throw one, like in Iran, it's usually religious in nature, like in Iran.



Doubling down on stupid, huh? 

Thomas Paine LEFTIST?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 25, 2014)

Am sure Jesus is real proud of folks denying service to others based on their sexuality.
No Christian does that if they truly believe in LOVE THY NEIGHBOR and DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD THEM DO UNTO YOU. Golden Rule and Luke 6:31 which I memorized at age 5: "And as you wish that others would do to you, do SO TO THEM".
Bunch of sad sack Christians here.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Yes the Founders were Liberals little friend.  Learn American history.
> ...



Boy are you a dumb bunny - Thomas Paine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Biographer Eric Foner identifies a utopian thread in Paine's thought, writing that "Through this new language he communicated a new vision&#8212;a utopian image of an egalitarian, republican society."[60] Paine's utopianism combined civic republicanism, belief in the inevitably of scientific and social progress and commitment to free markets and liberty generally. The multiple sources of Paine's political theory all pointed to a society based on the common good and individualism. Paine expressed a redemptive futurism or political messianism.[61] Paine, writing that his generation "would appear to the future as the Adam of a new world", exemplified British utopianism.[62]

Thomas Paine's natural justice beliefs may have been influenced by his Quaker father.[63]

Later, his encounters with the Indigenous peoples of the Americas made a deep impression. The ability of the Iroquois to live in harmony with nature while achieving a democratic decision making process, helped him refine his thinking on how to organize society.[64]"


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Which they virtually never are - outside of internet porn.


----------



## dblack (Feb 25, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > I can see the day when a same sex couple contacts the town bakery and finds out they no longer offer wedding cakes at all.  Neither does the bakery in the next Arizona town over, or the one after that.   They can go all the way to Phoenix to find an accommodating bakery and they won't deliver 200 miles away.
> ...



Exactly why these laws are unnecessary in the first place.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



What?

These are legal businesses, and they even advertise. Want to try and explain this public/private thing in a way that makes sense to a person outside the delusional mess you live in?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Boy are you a dumb bunny - Thomas Paine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> "Biographer Eric Foner identifies a utopian thread in Paine's thought, writing that "Through this new language he communicated a new vision&#8212;a utopian image of an egalitarian, republican society."[60] Paine's utopianism combined civic republicanism, belief in the inevitably of scientific and social progress and commitment to free markets and liberty generally. The multiple sources of Paine's political theory all pointed to a society based on the common good and individualism. Paine expressed a redemptive futurism or political messianism.[61] Paine, writing that his generation "would appear to the future as the Adam of a new world", exemplified British utopianism.[62]
> 
> ...



You know stupid fuck, may I call you stupid  fuck? Anyway, I'd love to have you post the top ten quotes from Paine advocating the redistribution of wealth, concentration of property and means of production in the central government, and establishment of a central authoritarian structure to force a notion of "fairness" on others?

Shall I hold my breath whilst you gather these quotes?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



No you do not.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 25, 2014)

dblack said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Liberty is not a concept the left can grasp.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Boy are you a dumb bunny - Thomas Paine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...


That's not Leftist you dummy, that's Communist.  Use your words correctly.  A Liberal is also Leftist, and that's what he was, Liberal, very as a matter of fact.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...


Sure thing, only we invented it you moron.


----------



## The T (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


WHO is we?


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 25, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> _Am sure Jesus is real proud of folks denying service to others based on their sexuality_...


Ya know, there are times I wonder... all that _Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin_ kind of thing... spin-doctored - with sincerity and conviction on the part of many folks - to read: Love the Sinner as a fellow Child of God, but from a distance, so as not to contaminate yourself nor those around you, and, consequently, do nothing to aid and abet him, in pursuit of his Sin or the Lifestyle to which that Sin leads him.

Truth be told, that's not a very big leap, is it?

And it's not very difficult for the pro-Gay side of the aisle, in turn, to spin-doctor that manifestation of sincere beliefs, to appear hateful or bigoted in nature, when, in fact, and in large part, it's really not.

It all depends upon one's perspective, apparently.



> "..._No Christian does that if they truly believe in LOVE THY NEIGHBOR and DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD THEM DO UNTO YOU. Golden Rule and Luke 6:31 which I memorized at age 5: 'And as you wish that others would do to you, do SO TO THEM'_..."


If such aloofness or shunning or hold-at-arms'-length behaviors were directed at folks whose sexual practices were *not* condemned as Sinful and Unnatural by 3000 years of sacred texts and supplemental writings and scholarly and popular interpretations and teachings, you might have a stronger case for pitching it that way.



> "..._Bunch of sad sack Christians here_."


No doubt, there are, indeed, some of those, and some right here, for all I know, but adopting and maintaining such a position is *NOT* prima facie evidence of Sad Sack status; rather, a great many head down that road because of genuine and sincerely-held religious beliefs - and to pretend otherwise is to deny the reality of the situation.


----------



## AmericanFirst (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


Liberal dimwits today are controlled by the communist party, not the same as the liberal patriots of days gone by.


----------



## AmericanFirst (Feb 25, 2014)

The T said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


Surely not the liberals  commies of today.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



You keep arguing that the law will allow people to discriminate based on race, and claim it is religion. You are flat out wrong, so it really doesn't matter if you argue that a florist can do it under the bill.

Does it?

By the way, unless you can point to a case where a court held that a florists are public accommodations in Arizona the Attorney General website trumps your opinion.


----------



## Antares (Feb 25, 2014)

Freedom to a Progressive is whatever he/she has decided is ok for you to do.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 25, 2014)

Desperado said:


> You have to ask why would someone want to spend their money in place they are not wanted?
> Why would you order a meal from a place that did not want to serve you?



Really.  Why would you go to the only movie theatre in town if the owner was a racist?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

The T said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


Liberals.  You know, Liberal, Liberty, Liberace.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> That's not Leftist you dummy, that's Communist.  Use your words correctly.



Says the mindless fuckwad who claimed Paine was a leftist.. 

I know that you spend a lot of time on DailyKOS, and ThinkProgress. But what you've never done is read "The Age of Reason." (And you sure the fuck don't own a business.)



> A Liberal is also Leftist, and that's what he was, Liberal, very as a matter of fact.



Goddamn but you're stupid.

Liberal:  of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially :  of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives 

 left-wing politics are political positions or activities that accept or support social equality, often in opposition to social hierarchy and social inequality.[1][2][3][4] It typically involves a concern for those in society who are perceived as disadvantaged relative to others and an assumption that there are unjustified inequalities that need to be reduced or abolished.[3]


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 25, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Ironic!


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 25, 2014)

AZ bill is almost DOA as Republicans are getting blasted from every business group in the state to kill it.
Why does every business group oppose the bill?
CEOs from major corporations oppose it?
Why? 
Republican lawmakers all over AZ now oppose it and nationally.
Why?
3 Republican lawmakers that voted for it now say they are now opposed and seek a veto. (refer to my correct analysis of Kansas statute where emergency responders could invoke the law. Same in AZ)
Apple announced recently it would open a plant that will employ 1000 high tech IT workers there and they are strongly opposed to it as most all business has lined up against it.
Why?
American Airlines which has a major hub in Phoenix opposes the bill.
Why?
Because all business in AZ is liberal?
Brewer will veto the bill.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> > You have to ask why would someone want to spend their money in place they are not wanted?
> ...


Maybe I wish to see the film without driving all over hell and gone?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 25, 2014)

The T said:


> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> > You have to ask why would someone want to spend their money in place they are not wanted?
> ...



What country do you live in?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > That's not Leftist you dummy, that's Communist.  Use your words correctly.
> ...


Paine was a Leftist you idiot, although Liberal is still a more accurate term, but what you described was Communist.  Some of that he would have been okay with as well.  Try reading real American history for once you dope.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Desperado said:
> ...



I was doing the sarcasm.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Desperado said:
> ...


Sounds like AynRandLand.  You know, the one where Peter Pan vacations.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


I see.  Hard to spot on the web when you post as fast as I do.  Good to know.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

sfcalifornia said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > sfcalifornia said:
> ...



My business doesn't take me to weddings, and I am not a bigot. I am simply defending the right of anyone, even gays, to not be forced to attend a wedding they don't want to attend.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 25, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Desperado said:
> ...



He is a citizen of LaLaLiberteriania, of course!


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

Wry Catcher said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > I think another state passed something similar to this last week so this must be a trend that is catching on. I agree with this bill that if you are a business owner and believe in and live by your faith that you should be able to refuse service to whoever you want.
> ...



I have 200 years of Supreme Court decisions that prove you wrong. what do you have other than a deliberate attempt to twist the words of someone who has been dead for so long he never even considered the possibility of being forced to attend a wedding he objected to?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

Bombur said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



It isn't our understanding of religion that suffers.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Sure thing, only we invented it you moron.



George Soros invented liberty, did he?

ROFL

You're a joke.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Yes the Founders were Liberals little friend.  Learn American history.  The Conservatives wanted to keep the King (to Conserve), we called them Tories then, and they fled to Canada in large numbers.  Nearly all Revolutions are Leftist.  When the Reactionaries throw one, like in Iran, it's usually religious in nature, like in Iran.


I don't share your religious beliefs. The conservatives wanted freedom and independance, liberals LOVE a ruler. And they have someone else fight their fights. And it has zip to do with Iran or Islam, you don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 25, 2014)

The T said:


> WHO is we?



His fellow KOS kiddies....


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Believe it or not, the owners of the local Christian bookstore don't hate you. If they did, they could keep you out without breaking a sweat. My guess is that the gas station owner doesn't hate you either.

In other words, your hatred does not force people to hate you in return.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Sure thing, only we invented it you moron.
> ...


I wonder, can you be smarter than a reactionary partisan hack?  Somehow I doubt it.

Let's find out.  Yes or no question.  Did Reagan sell arms to Iran to fund an illegal war in Central America?  Yes, or no?  An honest man can answer.  Let's see what you actually are.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Business is fine.  My customers are dumb, like you, which is why they need me.  About one in ten of them I would consider for a friend.  The rest pay their bills so I take care of them.  It's business, that's all.
> ...



I met one guy like him once, he was broke and lived in a trailer.


----------



## The T (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...


However they weren't STATISTS which is the modern incarnation of Liberalism...YOU hide behind a mask of tyranny. YOU lie.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


I beg to differ.  They simply don't know me.  Most people here will hate me in no time at all.


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 25, 2014)

In all those enumerated rights, where is the right to someone else's labor?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



If I assume you are telling the truth...

Sorry, I tried, but I would be forced to believe that left is gold, and I can't quite wrap my head around that, even for the basis of blowing your idiocy out of the water.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 25, 2014)

AmericanFirst said:


> Liberal dimwits today are controlled by the communist party, not the same as the liberal patriots of days gone by.



Correct. They are not liberals, they are not advocates of liberty. They are leftists, advocates of authoritarian collectivism. They are too stupid to grasp that the centralization of resources and the means of production in the state is precisely how the Monarchies of old Europe operated. Morons like PainMyHouse demand a return to the feudal structures that liberals fought to overturn.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I understand perfectly how it works, they want to drive anyone who disagrees with them out of business.


----------



## The T (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...


Too late shitstain.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

The T said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...


No, I don't, but your incorrect assumption has been noted.  You assume what modern-day Liberals want because you are told so by people who aren't Liberals, and you don't bother to ask.  That much is very obvious.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

The T said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


Proved my point for me.  TY.  Exactly as I said.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Liberals.  You know, Liberal, Liberty, Liberace.



You're not a liberal, you're a collectivist authoritarian - i.e. a leftist.

I am a liberal, and you have nothing in common with me.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...


Actually they wanted to get a cake, and were willing to pay for it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> > You have to ask why would someone want to spend their money in place they are not wanted?
> ...



The only movie theater in town? Where the fuck do you live, Somalia?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Liberals.  You know, Liberal, Liberty, Liberace.
> ...


I can read your bio.  And you're no Liberal, you are probably much closer to an Anarchist, and a stupid one at that.


----------



## The T (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...


And they were given OTHER OPTIONS...they declined...they LOSE.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Paine was a Leftist you idiot, although Liberal is still a more accurate term, but what you described was Communist.  Some of that he would have been okay with as well.  Try reading real American history for once you dope.



Work on that GED sploogy.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 25, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



He's not very bright.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



You would have to be worth a hall of a lot more of my life for me to hate you.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Desperado said:
> ...


That's probably true for roughly 40% of the country, and nearly all of the land called the fly-over zone.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> You would have to be worth a hall of a lot more of my life for me to hate you.


Considering that I want nothing to do with it, you're in luck.


----------



## Antares (Feb 25, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



The Left is very fond authoritarian measures....and they justify it by telling you that it for your own good because they know what is best for you.....the assumption being you are too stupid to know it for yourself.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Thank you for admitting you are not a liberal.


----------



## The T (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...


And? Your point is WHAT?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> I wonder, can you be smarter than a reactionary partisan hack?  Somehow I doubt it.
> 
> Let's find out.  Yes or no question.  Did Reagan sell arms to Iran to fund an illegal war in Central America?  Yes, or no?  An honest man can answer.  Let's see what you actually are.



And the retard retreats to a straw man... 

You're done.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



They got one.


----------



## R.D. (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...


To disregard is not the same as hate


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > sfcalifornia said:
> ...


You are free to ignore reality, most Americans do.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

R.D. said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


That is correct.  To hate requires effort, and patience, and knowledge if you're good at it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



I bet you can't prove that.

For the record, I have lived in some pretty small towns, and never saw one that had a single movie theater. One of them had less than 5000 people in it, and still had two theaters.


----------



## The T (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...


As do you and the rest of the leftist scumbags on these boards.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


Yes, but not from where they wanted it, which is rather the point in this case.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> I beg to differ.  They simply don't know me.  Most people here will hate me in no time at all.



Hate you?

Nah, most people will put you on ignore because you're a mindless hack with nothing to offer.

No integrity, no education, no knowledge of history, no logic - yep, you're a KOS kiddie.


----------



## R.D. (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



They wanted the service of others  to proved a special cake.    Completely different


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

The T said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


Reality is my stock and trade, which is why I can say that many blacks voted for Obama, wait for it - - - - - - - - - - - - - - because he's also black.  That's reality.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

R.D. said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


They wanted a wedding cake.  That's it.  If they had wanted what she didn't make the state of Oregon wouldn't have ruled against good old Melissa and hubby, but they did.


----------



## R.D. (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



No, don't kid yourself.  You're not that special.


----------



## The T (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...


Symbolism over substance. Typical. Just shows how shallow you are, and you applaud it.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > I beg to differ.  They simply don't know me.  Most people here will hate me in no time at all.
> ...


And another who ignores reality.  That's what you find on boards like this, a bunch of stupid cocky kids with attitude.


----------



## The T (Feb 25, 2014)

R.D. said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > R.D. said:
> ...


Far from it.


----------



## The T (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...


Project much do you? How old are you? 12?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

The T said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...


All humans are racist.  Substantial enough for you?  It's also true BTW.


----------



## The T (Feb 25, 2014)

R.D. said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


And they were given other options...the couple wouldn't hear of it...


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

The T said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


There's no projection since I have plenty of attitude but I earned it, over the last few decades.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 25, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Tell me something, oh he of the ever present innuendos, what, exactly, changed in the last 5 years that suddenly took sexual preference out of the realm of eccentric, but acceptable, behavior, to an actionable offense if you have a preference not to hang out with people who prefer to announce who they sleep with when no sane person cares?



Gay marriage. Or more precisely the unacceptability of it in some quarters. And I agree, no sane people should care. But they do. And they have a voice.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

The T said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...


Other options were not necessary.  Got it now?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> I can read your bio.  And you're no Liberal, you are probably much closer to an Anarchist, and a stupid one at that.



What amazes me about you fools is that you actually think you're clever.

You come over from KOS or one of the other hate sites, and make up some shit about owning a business and how filthy rich you are, but you see the path to property as centralization and authoritarianism..

There are about 30 of you fuckwads on this board right now. Obviously there is a script up on ThinkProgress and the other hate sites of "how to infiltrate a political message board."

What you don't get, because you're fucking stupid, is how transparent you are. Another "business owner" who just happens to not know the first fucking thing about business. You know, it's kind of a tip off...

You're not tricking anyone.


----------



## Antares (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > R.D. said:
> ...



Another self proclaimed legend in his own mind, what is that 12 of them this week?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

R.D. said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > R.D. said:
> ...


Of course not, I'm human and they are a total waste of time, a species long overdue for massive or total biological correction.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 25, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Quit lying.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 25, 2014)

So we pass laws to protect the "religious beliefs" of business people on Monday through Saturday and then we go to church on Sunday asking forgiveness for our sins of not treating gays and lesbians as we would have them treat us.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

Antares said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...


Do try and learn some America law, and not from Sarah Palin.


----------



## initforme (Feb 25, 2014)

So are the business owners going to provide each customer with a questionnaire about their sexual orientation?   How do they determine this?  What if a homosexual appears heterosexual and gets served in the business.  Will the business owner sue?  It's Arizona so inevitably there will be a couple of those business owners that try to sue knowing they accidentally served a homosexual.   This is hilarious.  Keep it going Arizona so you give us some news to laugh at.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> So we pass laws to protect the "religious beliefs" of business people on Monday through Saturday and then we go to church on Sunday asking forgiveness for our sins of not treating gays and lesbians as we would have them treat us.


Nicely said.


----------



## Antares (Feb 25, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Jakey I just read your signature  Why are you lying, Christ will judge you for that.

I have you in your own words admitting you voted for him.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 25, 2014)

No Catholic priest has ever been forced to marry 2 Jews or 2 Muslims.
And never will.
EVER. 
Or 2 gays or 2 midgets or 2 whatever.
The law is they can not do anything TO STOP folks from being married.
NOT forced to CONDUCT THE CEREMONY.
Same with every preacher and pastor in the country.
That argument is a bogus fraud lie to the core.
AMAZING the damn lies the religious right spreads.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > I can read your bio.  And you're no Liberal, you are probably much closer to an Anarchist, and a stupid one at that.
> ...


Your broad-brush missed again.  Aren't you tired of being wrong?  It's sure making you look stupid.


----------



## The T (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...


Margret Sanger...Is that YOU?


----------



## R.D. (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > R.D. said:
> ...



Because the owners have no rights in your view.  Got it 

Would you feel the same if they refused a KKK cake?   Don't bother, I know you'll lie ....


----------



## Antares (Feb 25, 2014)

*@ Jake Starkey*

*I voted for McCain and Obama.

Your industry is getting what it earned, Antares.

Tuff dat. *
http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...care-affects-their-premiums-deductible-6.html


YOUR words brah....


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> > No, don't kid yourself.  You're not that special.
> ...


Holy cow dude. You really know how to paint yourself in a corner.


----------



## Antares (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



You new kids just ain't all that....


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 25, 2014)

Dad WWII Marine rifle platoon leader Saipan, Guam, Tinian to name a few. More fruit salad on his chest than a shirt could hold up.
"A real defender of liberty and freedom seeks to protect and fight for the rights of everyone including the folks they may detest the most"
Am sure someone probably said that before him and he repeated it.
But that is spot on.
Incredible Americans take their freedom for granted and do not defend the rights of everyone.
Gay folks should not be singled out to deny service based on "religious beliefs".


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 25, 2014)

initforme said:


> So are the business owners going to provide each customer with a questionnaire about their sexual orientation?   How do they determine this?  What if a homosexual appears heterosexual and gets served in the business.  Will the business owner sue?  It's Arizona so inevitably there will be a couple of those business owners that try to sue knowing they accidentally served a homosexual.   This is hilarious.  Keep it going Arizona so you give us some news to laugh at.


That's the way to follow the thread. all that has been discussed upteen times. Your bong misses you, don't let us get in the way.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

The T said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > R.D. said:
> ...


Sanger would have hated me,  She wanted healthy families while I want a healthy planet for other creatures.  Guess what I have to get rid of to make that happen?


----------



## R.D. (Feb 25, 2014)

initforme said:


> So are the business owners going to provide each customer with a questionnaire about their sexual orientation?   How do they determine this?  What if a homosexual appears heterosexual and gets served in the business.  Will the business owner sue?  It's Arizona so inevitably there will be a couple of those business owners that try to sue knowing they accidentally served a homosexual.   This is hilarious.  Keep it going Arizona so you give us some news to laugh at.



Hey dummy, the customers offered their relationship status to get the special occasion decorations etc.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 25, 2014)

I own 3 corporations which are small businesses. I am as strong a fiscal conservative as there is here. I can not stand the current Obama administration and their Mickey Mouse way they go about the economic issues this country faces.
But we are getting KILLED every election, EVERY TIME on this gay boogeyman issue.
And the young Republicans are sick of it.
DO WE WANT TO WIN ELECTIONS or play this silly ass anti gay bull shit game?
Grow up and some STONES you milk weak sissies. LINE IT UP and let's go kick some Democratic ASS. 
I was born a winner and hate to lose. Get over this silly ass BULL SHIT of gay this and that.
These bills are nothing more than a waste of time.


----------



## R.D. (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Well, do _your_ part.  What's  stopping you?


----------



## Antares (Feb 25, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> I own 3 corporations which are small businesses. I am as strong a fiscal conservative as there is here. I can not stand the current Obama administration and their Mickey Mouse way they go about the economic issues this country faces.
> But we are getting KILLED every election, EVERY TIME on this gay boogeyman issue.
> And the young Republicans are sick of it.
> DO WE WANT TO WIN ELECTIONS or play this silly ass anti gay bull shit game?
> ...



Uh...no we aren't.

2010 was the largest landslide since the 30's.....
It is heading that way again this year....this is only an issue to the 2-6% that are gay in this country.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 25, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Dad WWII Marine rifle platoon leader Saipan, Guam, Tinian to name a few. More fruit salad on his chest than a shirt could hold up.
> "A real defender of liberty and freedom seeks to protect and fight for the rights of everyone including the folks they may detest the most"
> Am sure someone probably said that before him and he repeated it.
> But that is spot on.
> ...



Hey Dawg, aren't you glad you have PaintMyHouse on your side!


----------



## Antares (Feb 25, 2014)

Antares said:


> *@ Jake Starkey*
> 
> *I voted for McCain and Obama.
> 
> ...



Jake?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 25, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> I own 3 corporations which are small businesses. I am as strong a fiscal conservative as there is here. I can not stand the current Obama administration and their Mickey Mouse way they go about the economic issues this country faces.
> But we are getting KILLED every election, EVERY TIME on this gay boogeyman issue.
> And the young Republicans are sick of it.
> *DO WE WANT TO WIN ELECTIONS or play this silly ass anti gay bull shit game?*
> ...



It would seem the latter.


----------



## initforme (Feb 25, 2014)

Arizona Arizona.   Keep us laughing.   Intelligence missing?


----------



## Antares (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Just out of curiosity, what makes you think you are worth hating?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 25, 2014)

Antares said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > I own 3 corporations which are small businesses. I am as strong a fiscal conservative as there is here. I can not stand the current Obama administration and their Mickey Mouse way they go about the economic issues this country faces.
> ...



Am not gay and freedom is always an issue with me and everyone that values their freedom.
FISCAL ISSUES is what gained the House and State Legislatures in 2010 and I agree with you. And ALL voting seats in House were up last election. Also I believe close to 40 Governors also with a lot in 2nd term. We have Deal, he is a dumb ass. 
Obama won a landslide and I believe it was 35 seats in Senate. 
The gay issue was not brought into it as TEA PARTY TAX ISSUES dominated the day along with immigration.
Gay issues by the right are brought into it as it appeals to the dumb asses that do not have a clue about anything else other than religious beliefs and Christian victim PR.
Bottom line: independent voters were the main reason for all those gains and they sway in the wind. They tire of the gay boogeyman issue.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

R.D. said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > R.D. said:
> ...


The inability to take you all with me...


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

Antares said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...


I'm not.  Most people aren't.  That doesn't change the fact that people do, even people here.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad WWII Marine rifle platoon leader Saipan, Guam, Tinian to name a few. More fruit salad on his chest than a shirt could hold up.
> ...


I don't have a side, and If I were you I wouldn't talk.  Your kind is the reason why Obama won, twice.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 25, 2014)

Antares said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > I own 3 corporations which are small businesses. I am as strong a fiscal conservative as there is here. I can not stand the current Obama administration and their Mickey Mouse way they go about the economic issues this country faces.
> ...



Nonsense. 

You and others on the right need to get over this 2010 myth youve contrived; 2010 was a net loss for the GOP, where the Party failed to win the Senate and lost governors races in California and New York  all as a consequence of the ignorance and stupidity of the TPM. 

And the TPM cost republicans the Senate again in 2012. 

The American people overwhelmingly reject the hateful agenda pursued by the TPM and social conservatives, particularly with regard to conservative efforts to deny gay Americans their civil liberties.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 25, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Dad WWII Marine rifle platoon leader Saipan, Guam, Tinian to name a few. More fruit salad on his chest than a shirt could hold up.
> ...



When you are right and do the right thing you never have to have anyone on your side.
My strength has always been in my faith.
And for a few years my upfield rush!


----------



## TheOldSchool (Feb 25, 2014)

Businesses lash out over Arizona's anti-gay bill - Feb. 25, 2014



> National corporations including American Airlines (AAL), AT&T (ATT ), Delta Airlines (DAL, Fortune 500), Intel (INTC, Fortune 500), Marriott (MAR, Fortune 500), PetSmart (PETM, Fortune 500) and Yelp (YELP) are among those urging Brewer to veto the bill, saying the law would be bad for the state's reputation and bad for business -- repelling tourists, potential employees and current workers who live in the state.


----------



## dblack (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



Good answer, good answer!


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez (Feb 25, 2014)

Harry Dresden said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > TheOldSchool said:
> ...



*Yes, he does.  He's a fucking idiot with a third grade education. *


----------



## Antares (Feb 25, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



LOL, peddle your revision bullshit elsewhere.

We gained 60 in the House, and 6 in the Senate and 5 Governorships.

Clayton you are an idiot, run along little boy/girl.

Governor
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2010&off=5&f=0

House
United States Senate elections, 2010 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Senate
United States Senate elections, 2010 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## bodecea (Feb 25, 2014)

TheOldSchool said:


> Businesses lash out over Arizona's anti-gay bill - Feb. 25, 2014
> 
> 
> 
> > National corporations including American Airlines (AAL), AT&T (ATT ), Delta Airlines (DAL, Fortune 500), Intel (INTC, Fortune 500), Marriott (MAR, Fortune 500), PetSmart (PETM, Fortune 500) and Yelp (YELP) are among those urging Brewer to veto the bill, saying the law would be bad for the state's reputation and bad for business -- repelling tourists, potential employees and current workers who live in the state.



Someone I know presented this what if....What if Michael Sam is drafted by the Arizona  Cardinals?


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 25, 2014)

Gays better go down to Michaels and take some good cake decorating classes whether or not this becomes law.  Surely you can't imagine that Christians will really start violating their religious beliefs just because.  Good thing cell phone cameras take such good pictures.


----------



## TheOldSchool (Feb 25, 2014)

bodecea said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> > Businesses lash out over Arizona's anti-gay bill - Feb. 25, 2014
> ...



That'd definitely be amusing.  Maybe he could use that law to get on another team.  I'd hope so because the Cardinals are a cursed organization


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 25, 2014)

Sam was asked what if the Miami Dolphins drafted him.
"Would love to play for the Dolphins and would be honored if they drafted me"
Would say the same thing if AZ drafted him. 
Smart kid.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 25, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> Gays better go down to Michaels and take some good cake decorating classes whether or not this becomes law.  Surely you can't imagine that Christians will really start violating their religious beliefs just because.  Good thing cell phone cameras take such good pictures.



Wonder if any of those Christian lunch counter owners are still around. 
Can not have gay folks eating with the straight folk at the lunch counters.
You ain't a Christian if you eat lunch with gay folks.


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 25, 2014)

The law has nothing to do with lunch counters


----------



## TheOldSchool (Feb 25, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> The law has nothing to do with lunch counters



How badly do you wish it did?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



That was a few years ago, before Hollywood made it all but impossible for small theaters to survive, but I am willing to bet you can't find any town that has only one theater.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> So we pass laws to protect the "religious beliefs" of business people on Monday through Saturday and then we go to church on Sunday asking forgiveness for our sins of not treating gays and lesbians as we would have them treat us.



You are confusing your delusions for how real people do things.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> No Catholic priest has ever been forced to marry 2 Jews or 2 Muslims.
> And never will.
> EVER.
> Or 2 gays or 2 midgets or 2 whatever.
> ...



It is amazing how you think that is reassuring. does that come from being a closed minded bigot?


----------



## TheOldSchool (Feb 25, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > No Catholic priest has ever been forced to marry 2 Jews or 2 Muslims.
> ...



What?  Care to expand on that?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



People that paint houses for a  living?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> I own 3 corporations which are small businesses. I am as strong a fiscal conservative as there is here. I can not stand the current Obama administration and their Mickey Mouse way they go about the economic issues this country faces.
> But we are getting KILLED every election, EVERY TIME on this gay boogeyman issue.
> And the young Republicans are sick of it.
> DO WE WANT TO WIN ELECTIONS or play this silly ass anti gay bull shit game?
> ...




Feel free to pull your head out of your ass, the gay bogeyman is entirely a creation of bigots and assholes.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

TheOldSchool said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > The law has nothing to do with lunch counters
> ...



Not nearly as bad as you do.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

TheOldSchool said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Would it help?


----------



## TheOldSchool (Feb 25, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Yes.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 25, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Center, Tx 1 theatre
Jasper, Tx 1 theatre
Tyler, Tx 10-screen metroplex (75,000)
Corrigan, TX 0

Most ET towns have only one or none.  I am quite sure that small town South has one or zero theatres.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 25, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > I own 3 corporations which are small businesses. I am as strong a fiscal conservative as there is here. I can not stand the current Obama administration and their Mickey Mouse way they go about the economic issues this country faces.
> ...



That is what he just said.  The "gay bogeyman is entirely a creation of bigots and assholes" of the social con far reactionary right.


----------



## Antares (Feb 25, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



*I voted for McCain and Obama.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/health...uctible-6.html

Jake Starkey 
*

I'm sorry Jake, you just can't run from your own words.


----------



## TheOldSchool (Feb 25, 2014)

Antares said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Jake you've become a larger than life entity on these forums apparently!  Posters have your old posts memorized and can find them at a moment's notice!

Impressive


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 25, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



Only the ones that use rollers...


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 25, 2014)

TheOldSchool said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



They've made him their poster boy...


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 25, 2014)

Why don't we just let the christians stone the gays like they used to???


----------



## Antares (Feb 25, 2014)

Moonglow said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



He's a liar, I have a personal animus towards liars.


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 25, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



What these silly biotches don't understand is that TV reduced the amount of theaters,
VCR's, cable and then the high costs of producing the films significantly reduced the number of theaters, the last is the main reason why we pay 7 bucks for popcorn.


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 25, 2014)

Antares said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > TheOldSchool said:
> ...



well animated..


----------



## Toro (Feb 25, 2014)

Now, Arizona may lose the Super Bowl.

NFL won?t rule out a move of Super Bowl XLIX | ProFootballTalk

Good for the NFL.


----------



## Mertex (Feb 25, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> > I can't wait until it goes to court
> ...




It goes against Civil Rights.  Leave it to the loonies on the far right to think this is acceptable in the United States.


----------



## Mertex (Feb 25, 2014)

Toro said:


> Now, Arizona may lose the Super Bowl.
> 
> NFL won?t rule out a move of Super Bowl XLIX | ProFootballTalk
> 
> Good for the NFL.




I agree....why make money for the loons.


----------



## TheOldSchool (Feb 25, 2014)

Toro said:


> Now, Arizona may lose the Super Bowl.
> 
> NFL won?t rule out a move of Super Bowl XLIX | ProFootballTalk
> 
> Good for the NFL.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 25, 2014)

Moonglow said:


> What these silly biotches don't understand is that TV reduced the amount of theaters,
> VCR's, cable and then the high costs of producing the films significantly reduced the number of theaters, the last is the main reason why we pay 7 bucks for popcorn.




Actually, I read about this a number of years ago.  The reason we pay 7 bucks for popcorn and 3.50 for a soda is because the theaters make very little money during the initial run of major movies.  Most of the ticket price goes to the studio and distributor so the food concession is where the theater make money on large crowds.



>>>>


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Funny that you mention Tyler, since I actually used to live there.

Hollywood Theater
Times Square Theater
Carmike 14

https://www.google.com/maps/search/...3m1!4b1!4m3!2m2!3m1!1smovie+theaters+in+tyler

Does that make you a liar?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



No, that would be the far left.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

Antares said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Your link doesn't work, use this.

Jake is a lying sack of shit.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > What these silly biotches don't understand is that TV reduced the amount of theaters,
> ...


That is correct.  The longer the film stays around, or the older the film, the more the theater makes.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Feb 25, 2014)

TheOldSchool said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Now, Arizona may lose the Super Bowl.
> ...




Yeah, nothing like extortion to get your way, is there. You limp-wrists slay me.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

RandallFlagg said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...


Actions have consequences.  You do believe in such a thing correct?


----------



## TheOldSchool (Feb 25, 2014)

RandallFlagg said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



The free market knows what's bad for business.  Maybe you can get your government to intervene.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Feb 25, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> > TheOldSchool said:
> ...



BS and you know it is. Nothing more than idle threats by the NFL. They worship money, not ass.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Feb 25, 2014)

Mertex said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > TheOldSchool said:
> ...





One more time. WHAT CIVIL RIGHTS ARE THEY DENYING???? State the damned law and prove it to me.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 25, 2014)

Toro said:


> Now, Arizona may lose the Super Bowl.
> 
> NFL won?t rule out a move of Super Bowl XLIX | ProFootballTalk
> 
> Good for the NFL.



Well then hmmm...  I wonder if any of the Chick Fil A or Boycott A&E people watch the Superbowl and would adjust their patronage accordingly of the Superbowl?


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 25, 2014)

The highest number of people missing work is during the Super Bowel.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 25, 2014)

Governor Brewer needs to make a decision I guess.  Jude 1 and Romans 1 vs placating the church of LGBT on yet another landmark suppression of people's free speech to disagree with the cult.

She is in a very unfortunate position IMHO.  If she vetos this Bill, she is in a position of power such that she will be committing an assault on christians' mandate in Jude 1 & Romans 1 to "earnestly contend" to defend the "common salvation" from her unique position.  On the other hand, if she upholds christians' rights to not go to hell forever for enabling a homosexual takeover of marriage and culture itself by extension thereof of that acme icon, then the church of LGBT has promised to aggressively retaliate.

Sometimes earnestly defending the faith and not enabling the destruction of the matrix of society itself is not an easy thing to do.  But the price for failing to do it is far, far worse...

Tough position to be in..  And yet, from the Chic Fil A and Boycott A&E numbers, one wonders how much teeth this threatened church of LGBT retaliation will have?  It could be that Arizona will become a Mecca for those who disagree with gay marriage...  Wonder what those numbers would be?  If she signs the Bill, I personally will be taking a trip to the Grand Canyon this Summer and staying at one of the fine towns in Arizona as well as telling everyone I talk to, to do the same.  Maybe we might even put up a Facebook page "Like Arizona" and see how many hits it gets?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

RandallFlagg said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > RandallFlagg said:
> ...


Money is what they are very much worried about.  I never said it was Morals, it's Business, like baking a cake eh?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Now, Arizona may lose the Super Bowl.
> ...


A few, but not enough to matter.


----------



## GHook93 (Feb 25, 2014)

This is a stupid law and arrogant law and I pray to god Brewer vetos this as they say she is strongly considering vetoing it!


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 25, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Governor Brewer needs to make a decision I guess.  Jude 1 and Romans 1 vs placating the church of LGBT on yet another landmark suppression of people's free speech to disagree with the cult.
> 
> She is in a very unfortunate position IMHO.  If she vetos this Bill, she is in a position of power such that she will be committing an assault on christians' mandate in Jude 1 & Romans 1 to "earnestly contend" to defend the "common salvation" from her unique position.  On the other hand, if she upholds christians' rights to not go to hell forever for enabling a homosexual takeover of marriage and culture itself by extension thereof of that acme icon, then the church of LGBT has promised to aggressively retaliate.
> 
> ...



Wonder where Chic Fil A stands on this bill.
They serve gay folks at their restaurant.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 25, 2014)

AZ has not lost any damn Super Bowl.
It has not become law yet.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 25, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > So we pass laws to protect the "religious beliefs" of business people on Monday through Saturday and then we go to church on Sunday asking forgiveness for our sins of not treating gays and lesbians as we would have them treat us.
> ...



So you follow Scripture and Love Thy Neighbor and do unto gay folks as you would have them do unto you.
Right, fat chance of that. You hate gay folks and treat them like scum.
Admit it and maybe you will have some credibility here.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 25, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > No Catholic priest has ever been forced to marry 2 Jews or 2 Muslims.
> ...



I am open to new ideas and things as that is what allows me to not judge gay folks and treat them as equals.
You support laws that allow people to deny equal service to gay folks because you are a closed minded bigot.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 25, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > I own 3 corporations which are small businesses. I am as strong a fiscal conservative as there is here. I can not stand the current Obama administration and their Mickey Mouse way they go about the economic issues this country faces.
> ...



I admit I am an asshole.
You are a whole ass.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 25, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> The law has nothing to do with lunch counters



Wow, are you this dense?
The law allows a restaurant to refuse service to gay folks at their lunch counter.
Wake the hell up. Are you really this naive and gullible that you follow like sheep to anything that they claim is "religious freedom"?


----------



## Wildman (Feb 25, 2014)

Toro said:


> Now, Arizona may lose the Super Bowl.
> 
> NFL won?t rule out a move of Super Bowl XLIX | ProFootballTalk
> 
> Good for the NFL.



*FUCK the NFL !!*


----------



## Wildman (Feb 25, 2014)

Moonglow said:


> The highest number of people missing work is during the Super* Bowel.*



hummmm !! was that a (sic) or poor spelling ?


----------



## R.D. (Feb 25, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > The law has nothing to do with lunch counters
> ...



No it doesn't.  Stop being a sheep trying to be in the cool crowd and being proud to be an asshole.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 25, 2014)

R.D. said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



You think supporting gay folks is "trying to be in the cool crowd"?


----------



## R.D. (Feb 25, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Governor Brewer needs to make a decision I guess.  Jude 1 and Romans 1 vs placating the church of LGBT on yet another landmark suppression of people's free speech to disagree with the cult.
> ...



Yes, they do.  You wonder because you are clueless on the details.  But don't let  that stop you


----------



## R.D. (Feb 25, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



No.  Supporting gays at the expense of others puts you in the "I'm cool" crowd. Thinking isn't a necessity with that group.


----------



## Wildman (Feb 25, 2014)

why do the qweers (i am NOT a politically correct sort of person, in my time we called them QWEERS, also, FUCKING QWEERS ) need special protection and laws in their favor ?

note to all qweers on this forum:

why don't you all just do your thing, don't flaunt your shit in front of me and we will get along fine, even tho i know you all are democRAT liberals, soooo, *SHUT THE FUCK UP !*


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

Wildman said:


> why do the qweers (i am NOT a politically correct sort of person, in my time we called them QWEERS, also, FUCKING QWEERS ) need special protection and laws in their favor ?
> 
> note to all qweers on this forum:
> 
> why don't you all just do your thing, don't flaunt your shit in front of me and we will get along fine, even tho i know you all are democRAT liberals, soooo, *SHUT THE FUCK UP !*


Equal isn't special, and we went out of our way to pass these Equality laws because people like you went out of your way to give them shit.  It's your fault actually. and as you can see, I'm not PC either.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



I would never force anyone to come to my wedding, which is why I expect them to return the favor.

Maybe you should think about your position before you try to use Scripture against someone who actually studies it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Let me get this straight, you suddenly think that an organization that is vilified worldwide for multiple crusades, including one that involved sending children to war, inquisitions, and burning people at the stake, never once in 2000 years ordered a marriage that was on shaky grounds theologically and legally? 

See the problem yet?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > The law has nothing to do with lunch counters
> ...



The only people saying that are those gay bogeymen you were ranting about earlier. In reality, it is closly modeled on the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. 

I am pretty sure you aren't going to try and argue that federal law allows people to discriminate at lunch counters, but will be happy to mock you if you chose to try.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Feb 25, 2014)

Wildman said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Now, Arizona may lose the Super Bowl.
> ...




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.


----------



## Barb (Feb 25, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



That is not the "logical end result" of treating people equitably, it is your illogical extreme.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 25, 2014)

Barb said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...



Mandating equality can only end up in one place.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 25, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Mandating equality can only end up in one place.


Lunch.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 26, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > If Brewer signs this law, she will be asking for boycotts and the loss of business in Arizona.  It is her choice...
> ...



Try to get a life outside a message board. 

And yes, threats HAVE been issued...by businesses.

Businesses lash out over Arizona's anti-gay bill

NEW YORK (CNNMoney)

*Businesses are lashing out over an Arizona bill that would allow retailers to refuse service to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender customers based on the owners' religious convictions.*

The Arizona Legislature passed the bill last Thursday, and it is now awaiting Gov. Jan Brewer's signature. While proponents say the legislation was introduced as a way to afford religious freedom to business owners, critics say it opens the door to discrimination.

"When the legislature passes bills like this, it creates a reputation that Arizona is judgmental and unwelcoming," states a letter that more than 80 businesses sent to Gov. Brewer on Monday. "This will haunt our business community for decades to come." 

National corporations including American Airlines, AT&T, Delta Airlines (Fortune 500), Intel (Fortune 500), Marriott (Fortune 500), PetSmart (Fortune 500) and Yelp are among those urging Brewer to veto the bill, saying the law would be bad for the state's reputation and bad for business -- repelling tourists, potential employees and current workers who live in the state.

"I can assure you that this proposed legislation is causing tremendous concerns for our employees, particularly those who live and work in Arizona," American Airlines CEO Doug Parker wrote in a letter to Brewer.

Meanwhile, Intel, which has nearly 12,000 employees in Arizona, said the bill directly conflicts with its own non-discrimination policy, which "values and welcomes diversity in the workplace." 

 Meanwhile, business development groups fear that new companies will no longer want to relocate to the state -- dealing a huge blow to an economy that is only just beginning to recover from the recession.

*Barry Broome, president & CEO of the Greater Phoenix Economic Council, said in a letter to Gov. Brewer that four companies that were considering expanding to Arizona have already threatened to cancel their plans unless the bill is vetoed.*

Even Apple (Fortune 500), which recently announced plans to build a new glass plant in Mesa, Ariz., and bring 2,000 new jobs to the state, reportedly called on Brewer to veto the bill.

There are also questions about whether next year's Super Bowl would still take place in Arizona if the bill is passed, with the event expected to be a big boon to the economy.

"This legislation has the potential of subjecting the Super Bowl, and major events surrounding it, to the threats of boycotts," Broome's letter states.



Arizona Anti-Gay Law Would Be 'Devastating,' John McCain, Jeff Flake Warn

WASHINGTON -- With signs emerging that Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) may veto the anti-gay bill passed by the state legislature last week, Arizona's two U.S. senators repeated their pleas for her to do so, saying the law would be "devastating."

Sen. Jeff Flake (R) said he had a chance to express his concerns to the governor in person Monday night.

"I encouraged her again to veto it," Flake told several reporters on Capitol Hill Tuesday.

"I don't think it's needed, and ... *it would be devastating economically to the state*," he said of the bill, SB 1062, which makes it legal for businesses to discriminate against gay people on the grounds of promoting religious freedom.

Flake said the bill's message is "not one that we want to send."

*Business leaders have spoken out vehemently against the bill.* The Super Bowl Host Committee that's preparing for the 2015 championship, slated to be held in Glendale, Ariz., has also weighed in, advising Brewer to use her veto pen.

"The entire business community is galvanized in a way that I've never seen against this legislation," said McCain. He added that the Super Bowl was only part of the problem.

"That's one of [business leaders'] concerns, but the major concern is frankly tourism and location of businesses in Arizona," he said.


----------



## protectionist (Feb 26, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Am sure Jesus is real proud of folks denying service to others based on their sexuality.
> No Christian does that if they truly believe in LOVE THY NEIGHBOR and DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD THEM DO UNTO YOU. Golden Rule and Luke 6:31 which I memorized at age 5: "And as you wish that others would do to you, do SO TO THEM".
> Bunch of sad sack Christians here.



Hypocrisy unlimited.  Queers impose their perversions on the normal society, but refuse to accept the normal society's standards.  They break the golden rule into a thousand pieces.


----------



## The T (Feb 26, 2014)

Mertex said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > TheOldSchool said:
> ...


What civil rights? And when did GAY become a race? What we are talking about here is forced acceptance of a lifestyle upon society.


----------



## AceRothstein (Feb 26, 2014)

RandallFlagg said:


> Wildman said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Bumberclyde (Feb 26, 2014)

The T said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Steve_McGarrett said:
> ...



And we're forced to accept your homophobic lifestyle?


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 26, 2014)

Bumberclyde said:


> 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?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 26, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > And we're forced to accept your homophobic lifestyle?
> ...




You incorrectly state the functioning of the bill for a couple of different reasons:

1.  This Public Accommodation law (which in Arizona doesn't include sexual orientation) does not restrict what a business can "offer" in terms of goods and services, Public Accommodation laws mean that when a good or service IS OFFERED by the owner, that the owner cannot discriminate based on race, region, gender, ses, national origin, etc...  For example the law does not require a Deli to serve ham - therefore no one can order a ham sandwich and be in violation of the law.  On the other hand if a bakery offers wedding cakes, they can't refuse to sell one to an interracial couple because of their race.  What this law does is allow a special exemption to Public Accommodations law to allow the baker to discriminate against the interracial couple - they just now need to claim a "sincerely held religious belief". 

2.  The second way you are in error is this law does not allow the business owner to choose who to sell to.  Their actions are still restricted.  Under Arizona Public Accommodation law the owner can't refuse to sell to colored, Mexican's, Jews, the handicapped, etc. - unless they mouth the words "sincerely held religious beliefs".  If the basis of the discrimination isn't based on religion - the government IS STILL RESTRICTING the reasons that a business can refuse a sale.​


BTW - In a previous post you said you hadn't read the bill yet.  Have you now?  Do you realize that no where in the bill does it limit the exemption to only business transactions concerning "the gheys"?



>>>>


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 26, 2014)

The T said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Steve_McGarrett said:
> ...



Why should you have the special right to force acceptance of your "chosen heterosexual lifestyle" upon society?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Feb 26, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



Why should gays have the special right to force acceptance of their homosexual lifestyle upon society?


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 26, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> You incorrectly state the functioning of the bill for a couple of different reasons:
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand if a bakery offers wedding cakes, they can't refuse to sell one to an interracial couple because of their race.  What this law does is allow a special exemption to Public Accommodations law to allow the baker to discriminate against the interracial couple - they just now need to claim a "sincerely held religious belief".


The issue that brought this forward is homosexuality, not race. I said it sounds like it was poorly drafted. I also said I support a business owner's right to serve who they want for whatever they want so I'd be in favor of that.


> 2.  The second way you are in error is this law does not allow the business owner to choose who to sell to.  Their actions are still restricted.  Under Arizona Public Accommodation law the owner can't refuse to sell to colored, Mexican's, Jews, the handicapped, etc. - unless they mouth the words "sincerely held religious beliefs".  If the basis of the discrimination isn't based on religion - the government IS STILL RESTRICTING the reasons that a business can refuse a sale.
> 
> BTW - In a previous post you said you hadn't read the bill yet.  Have you now?  Do you realize that no where in the bill does it limit the exemption to only business transactions concerning "the gheys"?


Who said anything about gheys? Is the topic too emotional for you? It sounds like it is. 

It's a bill, not a law and probably won't be for the reasons mentioned. And I didn't misrepresent the bill, I said what it's intent was. Do you have evidence that Christian business owners wanted to deny service to blacks or interracial couples or are you just running your yap?


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 26, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Why should you have the special right to force acceptance of your "chosen heterosexual lifestyle" upon society?


Another Mensa candidate.

Turning down work isn't forcing anything on you apart from showing you the door.


----------



## Wildman (Feb 26, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Wildman said:
> 
> 
> > why do the qweers (i am NOT a politically correct sort of person, in my time we called them QWEERS, also, FUCKING QWEERS ) need special protection and laws in their favor ?
> ...



i personally had nothing to do with it, i had/have more important things to do in my life than protest your lifestyle, sleep/fuck any one you wish, just don't push what you do on me.., *O* fucking *K* ??

no, i can not "SEE" your perversion and i thank GOD !!!


----------



## TemplarKormac (Feb 26, 2014)

Bumberclyde said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



Touche, so we're forced to accept your homophilic lifestyle?


----------



## Wildman (Feb 26, 2014)

The T said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Steve_McGarrett said:
> ...



AMEN BROTHER !

but these homo liberal lovers here will do all they can to support this "forced acceptance"........, i wonder how many liarberals here will out themselves rather than hide behind their rhetoric ?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 26, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



You need to direct that question at The T since he is the one alleging that this is happening.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 26, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Why should you have the special right to force acceptance of your "chosen heterosexual lifestyle" upon society?
> ...



Tell that to the T since it was his allegation in the first place.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 26, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Am sure Jesus is real proud of folks denying service to others based on their sexuality.
> ...



What Golden Rule do they break into a thousand pieces?
Tell us how queers impose their perversions on you.
Why would you want to participate in seeing "queer perversions" when you clearly state here you hate queers?


----------



## dblack (Feb 26, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



I think you're misreading. T was claiming that force occurs when service providers are legally required to associate with people they want to avoid. Are you claiming refusing to associate with someone is 'forcing' something on them?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 26, 2014)

R.D. said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > R.D. said:
> ...



Was not cool in the early 60s when I also supported black folks.
Not about being cool.
And I do not support individual groups. I support and defend the rights of everyone.
Including folks like you that believe being cool is more important than what this nation was founded on.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 26, 2014)

dblack said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



So a private ambulance company can deny service to an accident victim if they are not legally required to "associate" with people they want to avoid.
That is not force. They can deny service but must suffer the consequences of doing so. 
A civilized society does not function that way. 
And thought this was about "religious freedom".
That is what they hide behind falsely.
It is about folks not liking gay folks and don't want to serve them anything.
Ride the back of the bus. 
No matter how hard folks try to sell this as "religious freedom" you can never polish that turd.


----------



## Wildman (Feb 26, 2014)

AceRothstein said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> > Wildman said:
> ...



punished...?? that was blackmail ! and Arizona should have never capitulated to this extortion.


----------



## dblack (Feb 26, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> A civilized society does not function that way.



Sure. But does a civilized society force the matter with the threat of violence?



> And thought this was about "religious freedom".
> That is what they hide behind falsely.



Agreed. It's a much deeper issue.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 26, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> So a private ambulance company can deny service to an accident victim if they are not legally required to "associate" with people they want to avoid.
> That is not force. They can deny service but must suffer the consequences of doing so.
> A civilized society does not function that way.
> And thought this was about "religious freedom".
> ...


It was and should be once again, freedom, period. Not religious freedom. And if you have to go to the extreme of comparing wedding cakes to ambulance services it shows how weak the argument is. I'll bet you can't find a single example of a gay being denied a ride due to his sexuality. 

No one is forcing gays into the back of the bus, into their own restrooms, water fountains or denied a vote.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 26, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > So a private ambulance company can deny service to an accident victim if they are not legally required to "associate" with people they want to avoid.
> ...



Chamber of Commerce opposes the bill.
Comprehend?
Many businesses large and small are posting "Open for Business for Everyone" in their windows.
See the trend?
Both Republican Senators oppose the bill.
Catching on what is motivating the opposition?
ALL industry associations in the state oppose the bill.
Why?
This is a BUSINESS issue ONLY.
Brewer is pro business and will veto the bill. She is pro business.
Anti business support the bill.
Pro business opposes the bill.
Which side are you on?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 26, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > So a private ambulance company can deny service to an accident victim if they are not legally required to "associate" with people they want to avoid.
> ...



Show us in the bill where they ONLY allow cake bakers to deny service based on religious freedom.
Where is it.
Respectfully, if you have no clue or understanding this allows ANY BUSINESS to deny service to gays and lesbians then you need to stay out of the discussion.
ANY denial would be legal based on the vague claim of "religious freedom".
Doesn't matter. Brewer is pro business and will veto it.
Capitalism wins out once again.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 26, 2014)

dblack said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



No, I am holding up a mirror. Service providers don't get to discriminate and "force" their "chosen heterosexual lifestyle" onto others. If they are in business then everyone must be treated equally as far as the service is concerned. If they want to discriminate then they must accept that they are violating federal laws and will be punished accordingly. There are no "special rights" for "religion" when it comes to commercial transactions.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 26, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


Freedom. The fact that people don't support a badly written bill doesn't demonstrate what you think it does. Catching on?


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 26, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Show us in the bill where they ONLY allow cake bakers to deny service based on religious freedom.
> Where is it.
> Respectfully, if you have no clue or understanding this allows ANY BUSINESS to deny service to gays and lesbians then you need to stay out of the discussion.
> ANY denial would be legal based on the vague claim of "religious freedom".
> ...


Wow. You can't read.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Feb 26, 2014)




----------



## dblack (Feb 26, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



How is refusing to associate with someone forcing anything on them? This kind of muddled thinking is really at the core of the problem. En_forcing_ laws is force. Choosing who we want to work for isn't.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 26, 2014)

Antares said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



All can go to them and see that you and Yurt continue lying about my voting record because you can't argue the OP.

Your deflection is noted, and I have included your url in my signature list also.


----------



## kaz (Feb 26, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Of course you are welcome to your opinion, but the United States Supreme Court disagreed just like they disagreed with the Commonwealth of Virginia when they said in the Loving case in 1967 that there no violation of equal protection because coloreds and whites were treated differently



Being gay does not change who you can marry under the law.  Being black did change who you could marry under the law.  They got that one right.

Regardless of getting Loving right, the SCOTUS isn't deserving of any respect.  They have also found in the Constitution:

1)  Government can confiscate property from one citizen and give it to another for the benefit of the government and not public use (New London).

2)  They can base their rulings on the laws of other countries.

3)  Government can regulate political speech heading into elections (so called campaign finance reform).

4)  Discrimination in favor of blacks is acceptable for 25 years (O'Conner)

5)  Government can regulate intrastate trade

6)  Obamacare and all it's regulations and mandates is just a tax.

7)  The 9th and 10th amendments were completely eliminated under FDR.

Then there's the oldie and goodie that blacks are property that are to be returned to their owners.

Then there are things they made up completely, including separation of church and State, the right to an abortion and Miranda.  And there are gyrations like "privacy."  Privacy is iron clad protected by the 9th and 10th amendments.  But they eliminated that, so they had to make up a new right to privacy, which then gives them a bunch of more powers.

And while technically I concede you're right they overturned the Federal portion, clearly now all of DOMA has to be overturned because if you accept their argument on Federal employees based on the 14th Amendment for the Federal government, in what possible way are the States not violating the 14th Amendment since the court said not recognizing gay marriage is a violation of the 14th, and the Constitution also says that the States are subject to the Consitution?  They aren't of course, but now the Court has to either overturn their bad DOMA ruling or apply it to all of DOMA.  Of course they will do the latter, just a matter of time.


----------



## protectionist (Feb 26, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Bumberclyde said:
> ...



They ought to be able to choose who to do business with, whether it is based on religion or not.


----------



## protectionist (Feb 26, 2014)

ClosedCaption said:


>



Discrimination IS OK, it is practiced widely all the time, and in the case of homosexuals, it ought to be mandatory in many cases (ex. jobs working with kids, close contact jobs, etc)


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 26, 2014)

protectionist said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



"Because of the press of other engagements I am booked solid and can not handle your engagement or requirements by your deadline"
works every time.
Even with the law most everyone falls under a scenario where this could be used.
Been using it for 35 years.
Wearing the badge of "I am a Christian victim being persecuted" works on the dumb masses as that is why the bill was passed in the first place. All politics.
Could have been very easily avoided.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 26, 2014)

kaz said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Of course you are welcome to your opinion, but the United States Supreme Court disagreed just like they disagreed with the Commonwealth of Virginia when they said in the Loving case in 1967 that there no violation of equal protection because coloreds and whites were treated differently
> ...



The law says you can not marry someone you fall in love with of the same sex so your first sentence is false. Of course it does not change it under the law. That is the PROBLEM with the law.
Same as this proposed law.


----------



## protectionist (Feb 26, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



1.  Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

2.  They demand to have jobs teaching kids (telling them homosexuality is normal), serve in the military (showering with heterosexuals), play football with heterosexuals (grabbing them, tackling them), engaging in queer sex (guys kissing each other ) in public, etc.  They also change the English language (having ruined a wonderful English word > "gay" which I refuse to use to describe queers)

3.  Who said I want to see their perversions ?  I certainly don't.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 26, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



Totally agree the bill is badly written.
Happens every time when they try to appeal to the "Christian victim" bogus claims.
Nothing about "freedom" as if it was the bill would not have been "badly written".


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 26, 2014)

No one has denied service to any gay person.   Those who object don't want to participate in gay events.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 26, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



The curriculum sets what is taught to all the kids.
"play football, tackling, grabbing them". 
LOL, dude I played 14 seasons of football and there were gay guys then and now.


----------



## protectionist (Feb 26, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Nonsense!  Dozens of types of discrimination go on all the time, everywhere in America, and they are just and proper.  Do you want to hire a convicted child molester to baby sit for you ?  Do you enlist the help of a pyromaniac to do home improvement work ?  Get real.


----------



## protectionist (Feb 26, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



No need for the "booked solid" ploy.  I owned a video dating service for 12 years, with 3 branch offices in 3 counties.  I had an openly proclaimed policy of Heterosexual Only.  No homo person ever even walked in my door.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 26, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Yeah, but I DON'T work for you, and that's the point.  I get to CHOOSE whether or not to work for you, and that baker gets to choose whether or not he wants to work for you.  And if working for you contradicts my faith, then no, they aren't different.  If your beliefs have no effect on your daily life decisions, then they aren't really your beliefs.


----------



## protectionist (Feb 26, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



"Curriculum" my ass.  I had queer teachers in college and they lauded the homosexual lifestyle every day.

You asked me how queers impose their perversions.  There's a queer dude, right now, who wants to be an NFL defensive tackle.  His job would be grabbing and tackling guys.  Normal people don't want to be touched by queers.  Got it ?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 26, 2014)

nodoginnafight said:


> > he mandates in Jude 1 and Romans 1 are very clear and concise.
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, you are not.
> ...



And if anyone were saying, "You're going to hell.  Your soul is lost", these quotes would be appropriate.  Since they aren't saying that, your quotes are inappropriate, misquoted cherrypicking, and you've just revealed yourself as someone who knows exactly two things about Christianity - jack and shit - and has no business presuming to preach to anyone.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Feb 26, 2014)

protectionist said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



You should run on that.  Sounds like a winning Message.

Discrimination IS OK!


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 26, 2014)

ClosedCaption said:


> You should run on that.  Sounds like a winning Message.
> 
> Discrimination IS OK!



Church of LGBT hyperbole aside, discrimination IS OK when it comes to behaviors.  We do it all the time in civil and penal codes across the country.  Unless of course you're talking about elevating a cult above the law?


----------



## paperview (Feb 26, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...


I'm betting your nights are saturated with homo-erotic dreams.

Poor fella.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 26, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Ahhh, yes.  The old "If you don't agree with my perspective, you OBVIOUSLY just have no experience and know nothing about it" argument.

Consider this.  Maybe not everyone runs a business the way you do, and maybe your attempt to pretend that by "freedom" I meant "not having to work your ass off" is as lame as you are.

You want to work for anyone and everyone?  Fine.  Do you have the right to force everyone else to run a business the way you personally think is good?  No.


----------



## Jarhead (Feb 26, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



Normal people don't care who touches them as long as the touching is not sexual in nature...and in football, it is by no means sexual in nature. For example, the ball player you mentioned informed his teammates that he was gay yet none of them refused to practice or shower with him.

Homophobes, however, fear being touched by gays.

Thus why they are called homophobes.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 26, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> "Because of the press of other engagements I am booked solid and can not handle your engagement or requirements by your deadline"
> works every time.


Being forced to lie works for you?


----------



## dblack (Feb 26, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > "Because of the press of other engagements I am booked solid and can not handle your engagement or requirements by your deadline"
> ...



Under a regime the presumes to second-guess your personal preferences as a matter of law, lying is about the only recourse to freedom.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 26, 2014)

Bumberclyde said:


> So a business owner in Arizona could put up a sign " WHITES ONLY" ? And claim it's a religious thing?



God, do you know how predictable and boring it is that every time you leftists get in trouble, you run to the blacks to hide behind them?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 26, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


Pretty much everybody does run a business the way I do.  It's bad business not to.  And it's just business.  If I only served Liberal Agnostics where I live my customer base would be one in a 100.  Ain't happin' no matter what I believe about the nonsense they believe.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 26, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



Show me where it caused any problems he was playing for 4 years in college.
Ever heard of The Southeastern conference? They are the very BEST college football conference in the world. No question. 
Michael Sam was the defensive Most Valuable Player last year in that conference. Toughest football conference in the world.
Try and get over your fear of gay folk. Those of us that actually crossed between the lines and played against the very best know better.
Stick to your dating service and good luck as you know nothing about football.
But again, show me where Sam caused ANY problems during his 4 years playing college football at the highest level.
You know you can't so admit it.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 26, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > So a business owner in Arizona could put up a sign " WHITES ONLY" ? And claim it's a religious thing?
> ...


His point is valid so why don't you just answer his question?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 26, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > "Because of the press of other engagements I am booked solid and can not handle your engagement or requirements by your deadline"
> ...


See Jesus, I didn't bake the cake, and I'll I had to do was break a Commandment.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 26, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > "Because of the press of other engagements I am booked solid and can not handle your engagement or requirements by your deadline"
> ...



No one forces me to do anything. 
That is the honest answer.
The lie is they are doing it for religious reasons. 
Christianity does not teach hate.
I WAS the force coming off the edge.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 26, 2014)

"You eat hog sammiches and fuck your wife's grandmother on the side so I will not sell you the $125,000.00 Bentley"
Yeah right, we need a law to allow them to do that as if that is an everyday thing.
The law is TARGETED at gay folk and business knows it.
Why are people anti business?


----------



## kaz (Feb 26, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



And where you take what you feel is fairness is the legislature.  The Constitution doesn't give the Supreme Court the power to make life fair, and it doesn't let you off the hook to take your view of fairness to elected officials instead of self appointed dictators.

I oppose all government marriage.  Gay marriage in the meantime specifically doesn't really matter to me.  I don't see why anyone needs a piece of paper from a bureaucrat to validate their relationship.  The Supreme Court legislating does matter to me.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 26, 2014)

The bill is dead. If Brewer was to sign it she would have already announced it.
She will veto it. 
Republicans are pro business.


----------



## Jarhead (Feb 26, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



actually, you are dead wrong with that premise.

Now, before I go on, I am against the bill in Arizona for it will open the door to some very ugly situations.

However.....

When a business has a target audience....be it "blacks" (there are retailers who carry African art; certain ethinic styles of clothes, etc.)....or "Christians", (there are stores that sell religious items strictly for the Christian faith)....or "Jews", (there are stores that sell only kosher items)....they tend to do very well for they do not buy and display "non sellable items" and they tend to get the entire community of those in that group;.

Targeting one group has been a proven business model for centuries.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 26, 2014)

kaz said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



I could care less what is fair or not. Fair has nothing to do with but I do agree it is a state's issue but the Supreme Court has ruled how many times against states denying equal access under the law striking down anti gay marriage statutes?


----------



## hangover (Feb 26, 2014)

The NFL is going to move the Super Bowl out of Arizona if the governor signs the discrimination bill. I triple dog dare her to sign it. Even the republicans that made the bill now realize that if it becomes law, the GOP will lose their asses this year in the elections, so they want her to veto it. Wow! Signs of grey matter activity in the GOP! You can knock me over with a feather with that one.


----------



## Jarhead (Feb 26, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Bumberclyde said:
> ...



I will.

There is no religion that forbids commerce between blacks and whites.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 26, 2014)

Jarhead said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


A store that doesn't sell everything is smart, but you have to have the customer base.  I'm not a store and to only serve clients like myself means I wouldn't have any.  That's bad business.  Even in your example, if you walk in with cash the correct phrase is How can we help you today not Get out fagboy.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 26, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



No, Sparkles, my values are always MY values.  You don't have to agree with them or like them, but you don't get to demand that they be silenced so that you don't have to be aware of them, and you don't get to redefine them to suit yourself.  And if you can show me anywhere that the Constitution says, "The free exercise thereof . . . but only in private", then we'll talk.

Oh, wait, never mind.  That juvenile drama princess line of "drink the blood of infants" just invalidated YOUR opinion from ever appearing on my screen again.  Why don't you call us when puberty is over, the hormones have cleared, and you can talk without getting hysterical?

FLUSH!


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 26, 2014)

Jarhead said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


The Christians of America past would disagree, and they also found plenty of support for using blacks _as _commerce.  The Bible supports just about any kind of evil you can think of if you if search for it long enough.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 26, 2014)

Bumberclyde said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



EVERYONE discriminates every day of their lives, bubba.  It's called "making choices".  Don't act like it's some squalid quirk of other people, and your own cloak hem is unspattered.


----------



## Jarhead (Feb 26, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



I agree. That is why the bill is foolish and will not be signed into law.

But your premise is incorrect. It may be correct for certain services....but overall, it is incorrect.

I knew a Hassidic attorney who would ONLY represent Hassidic clients. He would turn down all other clients for if he represented one that was not Hassidic, he would alienate his Hassidic clients....who tend to not care for anyone not Hassidic.

Sick? Yes. But it worked for him. He was quite successful. He had a corner on the market of Hassidic clients.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 26, 2014)

dblack said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



You don't "associate" with someone when you bake them a cake or take their pictures. If anyone has "muddled thinking" it is those who are misusing terms like "forcing" and "associate". 

As a business you work for your customers in exchange for the money they pay you. That is what a commercial transaction is all about. 

No one is "forcing" you to "associate" with your customers on any other level other than on a purely financial basis.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 26, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


Why don't you grow up?  It was an example of the fact that even your religious freedom has limitations, and if you knew Christian history you'd know why I used that example.?

 Just because you call it Religion doesn't mean you can get away with whatever you like.  And little one, in the Marketplace we set the rules.  Your values have to bend to our laws.


----------



## Jarhead (Feb 26, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



I repeat...

There is no religion that forbids commerce between blacks and whites. Your interpretation of a religion that you do not follow or believe in is irrelevant.

There is no religion that forbids commerce between blacks and whites.

That is a valid answer to a very immature post by Bumberclyde.


----------



## Jarhead (Feb 26, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



This is true.

The bill is flawed and will not be signed into law.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 26, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



That you need to use such extremes exposes the weakness of your position. 

Babysitters are vetted and require trusted references. Customers don't!

Employers do background checks and require references before hiring workers. Customers don't!


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 26, 2014)

dblack said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Like . . . oh, I don't know, educating people?  Conducting meaningful public dialogues where everyone gets to freely express their opinions instead of being shouted down?

Naaahh, that'll never work.  Better to bludgeon your opponents with the legal system so they go underground and you create even more of them and have civil unrest and division.  Right, leftists?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 26, 2014)

Jarhead said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...


He had a better client base than I have.  When I have that kind of base I could tell the Christians to go to Hell, but I won't and it would be unfair if I did.  Until then it's So happy to hear from, what's up?


----------



## paperview (Feb 26, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...


I heard the sound of that slap from here.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 26, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> I don't have a side, and If I were you I wouldn't talk.  Your kind is the reason why Obama won, twice.



LOL

You're a troll from the hate sites. You THINK that you have an ally with Dawg - but you'll find that his views track closer to mine than to yours. The ONLY reason you two have common ground here is that Dawg has a hatred of Christians that makes him spin out of orbit.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 26, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


Your brain needs some fresh air.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 26, 2014)

My Pakistani friend that manages the Exxon by my office is Muslim and believes homosexuality is a sin, same as many Christians.
And I have no problem with that even though I disagree with it.
But on the gay marriage issue he says this "I oppose it but do not want government to mandate a law forbidding it. That is why I left with all of my family to come to America as where we lived in Pakistan the government stretches MY OWN religions' religious beliefs to pass laws that deny certain groups certain things. You allow that it grows and one day they come after you."
BINGO.


----------



## Jarhead (Feb 26, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



I understand. And I, too, am the same way. It is what being "human" is all about...and what being an American is all about.

But for those that don't give a crap about ethics and humanity, they, too, can achieve success....and that is why I responded to your post.

It is a business model that is wrong, yes. But it is a business model that will work.

For example...

If I advertised that I am a racist and I hate blacks and I refuse to assist them with my service....Over time, I will have a corner on the market of all black hating racists in my marketplace.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 26, 2014)

One can legally deny anyone almost anything NOW using their own business priorities without having to invoke religion.
Amazing the right wing does not see this as a Christian religion thing.
Very bad law that will hurt most all business anywhere.
And that is why most Republicans are now running from it like a monkey on fire.
Us business folks hate laws that are bad business.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 26, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > If you work for me it does.  And when I walk in with cash, you do work for me if my request is reasonable, it's what you do, and you have or can get what I need.  We call that Business, it's different from Faith.
> ...



A couple of things about this debate really amuse me.

1)  I have several friends who are professional escorts (and you leftists had better think long and hard before making ANY moral condemnations at this point).  Now, most people would think if there was any profession in the world where one HAS to do business with anyone, regardless of any personal antipathy toward them, being a prostitute would be it, right?  Except that my friends very much reserve the right to choose their own customers, and refuse to do business with anyone they don't want to, simply because they don't want to.  The only girls in the game who don't have that freedom, and have to service anyone with the cash to pay, are the ones on the lowest rung of the ladder who have abusive pimps who control them, slap them around, and take most of their money afterward.

Anyone else seeing a disturbing analogy to leftists and their use of government _vis a vis_ private businesses emerging here?  

2)  This capitalism argument we keep hearing - "Business is about making money, and nothing else!" - sounds really jarring coming from the mouths of people who are normally outraged by the suggestion that the purpose of business is to make a profit, as opposed to providing jobs and a "living wage", helping the environment, making social statements, etc.  Since when did you leftists out there become such fans of the bottom line?


----------



## ClosedCaption (Feb 26, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > You should run on that.  Sounds like a winning Message.
> ...



Civil Penal Codes?  Just because I'm allowed to kick someone in the face in the ring doesnt mean I'm going to support a measure to kick people in the face in general.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 26, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



So your business model analogy is one that is illegal.
Arizona Chamber of Commerce is opposing this because they are "the mouths of people who are normally outraged by the suggestion that the purpose of business is to make a profit".

You have no clue.

Go back to partying with your friends that earn their living by spreading their legs because you know nothing of the real business world where "how much extra do I have to pay if you swallow" is not on the price list.


----------



## kucing (Feb 26, 2014)

I can not listen to any comments


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 26, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...


My brain needs an America that thinks clearly, so I'm screwed.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 26, 2014)

nodoginnafight said:


> Tell you what. When someone can produce an historical, religious text that says, "Thou shalt not bake cakes for the gays" then I'll join in support of this law. Until then, I'll stick with "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and call this for what it is: Haters trying to use religion to justify their hate.



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.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 26, 2014)

Jarhead said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...


That may work but there are very old and valid reasons why we don't allow that anymore.  No Irish is just as unworkable for us now as No Gays.  You'll just have to follow society and move past it.  That dog won't hunt.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 26, 2014)

Jarhead said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



Interesting concept and on a very small scale in a like minded segment of society it will probably work. 

But as soon as you try franchising your operation on a state or a national level you will discover the same thing that AZ is encountering. The appetite for tolerating discrimination is very limited. Chick-Fil-A learned that lesson the hard way.

Furthermore legislating discrimination raises red flags. So now AZ is facing boycotts and very real fiscal penalties for attempting to implement a discriminatory law. 

PS I was using you in the generic sense rather than indicating that I meant you personally.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 26, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



They shouldn't flatter themselves.  Hating them would require that I first muster enough interest to even care about them.  As long as they're doing me the courtesy of not making out in public or some equally vulgar display - which I object to every bit as much from heterosexuals, just for the record - I'm quite likely to forget they even exist for days and weeks at a time.


----------



## Jarhead (Feb 26, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Just an FYI...I am with you on this one. Just gave you an example of why the business model would work if, in fact, it were deemed legal.

By the way.....no disrespect when I say this...

But a quick glance at your screen name and I see the word pantyhose.

Likely my problem. I can be a bit perverted at times......but none- the less, I see the word pantyhose.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 26, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> > Tell you what. When someone can produce an historical, religious text that says, "Thou shalt not bake cakes for the gays" then I'll join in support of this law. Until then, I'll stick with "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and call this for what it is: Haters trying to use religion to justify their hate.
> ...


You can believe that Blue Teapots dance on the Moon but if They Told Me So is your excuse for doing 100 in a school zone you'd be one hell of a lawyer, or bring a dancing blue teapot from the moon with you to court.  Just because you call it religion doesn't mean you can get away with whatever you damn well please.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 26, 2014)

Jarhead said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...


It's already been used, several times.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 26, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> My brain needs an America that thinks clearly, so I'm screwed.



You can move to North Korea and enjoy the nation you seek to turn this one into.

Better yet, you can crawl back to ThinkProgress and stop trolling this board...


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 26, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



"Professional Escorts" are illegal under the current laws. That is wrong and should be made legal just as marijuana should be legalized.

But your example falls apart because no one is going to sue a "professional escort" for discrimination because that is tantamount to admitting to breaking the law.


----------



## Jarhead (Feb 26, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Yes, I realize you were. I am most certainly disheartened that this bill made it to the governors desk.

The reason why I even mentioned it was because another poster said it is a poor business practice to discriminate and will result in a failed business....and I learned as an Economics major (years ago) that such a business model was actually  quite successful for centuries.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 26, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > My brain needs an America that thinks clearly, so I'm screwed.
> ...


Sweden is what I want, you want the Vatican it seems, or Chaos more likely, and take your "Informal board enforcer" attitude and shove it.  If you can't stand the heat and debate honestly, take your advice and beat it.  Most right-wing Propaganda sites would be happy to have you.  They are full of nitwits like you think they own the moral high ground but can't debate honestly or their ideology fails in seconds.


----------



## whitehall (Feb 26, 2014)

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.


----------



## dblack (Feb 26, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



You don't??



> If anyone has "muddled thinking" it is those who are misusing terms like "forcing" and "associate".



My point exactly.



> No one is "forcing" you to "associate" with your customers on any other level other than on a purely financial basis.



So? Financial association "doesn't count"??


----------



## kaz (Feb 26, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 26, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Sweden is what I want,



Go for it.

Oh wait, they have closed borders. They aren't stupid enough to allow hoards of foreigners with competing cultures to corrupt their system.



> you want the Vatican it seems,



Or at least that's what the hating points that ThinkProgress gave you as a script tells you to say,,,



> or Chaos more likely, and take your "Informal board enforcer" attitude and shove it.  If you can't stand the heat and debate honestly, take your advice and beat it.  Townhall.com would be happy to have you.  It's full of nitwits like you think they own the moral high ground but can't debate honestly or their ideology fails in seconds.



You're a troll. You are a leftist fuckwad from the hate sites, seeking to disrupt this board. 

I'm sure you'll claim to be an "Eisenhower Republican" at any moment....


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 26, 2014)

whitehall said:


> 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 laugh is that's what you think reality is.  We've got school girls more rational than that.


----------



## kaz (Feb 26, 2014)

Jarhead said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



Your mind is in the gutter!  In other words, sounds like you're a perfectly normal guy...

BTW, now I see "pantyhose" too.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 26, 2014)

whitehall said:


> 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.



Because it's not about a rational and just society. The culture war is a very real war with an aim to destroy the constitutional Republic and establish a totalitarian socialist state.


----------



## dblack (Feb 26, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> 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.


----------



## hangover (Feb 26, 2014)

dblack said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



And that's why the voters give us the government we have. What a fucking great country.


----------



## dblack (Feb 26, 2014)

hangover said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



The government that you want to dictate which views should be considered worthy, and which should not? Do you get dizzy spinning in circles like that?


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 26, 2014)

dblack said:


> 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 you're talking about the 1st Amendment here, let me defend what you have called "irrational and stupid"...

Christians believe they are put here on this planet to be tested in the flesh as to sin vs virtue.  They believe that as a result of that testing, they will or will not be allowed into the Kingdom of God in the Hereafter.  There is a Hereafter as I myself can testify from a near death experience and from reading hundreds of near death accounts.  But you can choose to believe as you wish.  The critical question is not how you believe, but how christians believe and how the 1st Amendment protects those beliefs.

Back to the testing grounds.  In order to be tested, if you were testing anyone yourself, you would want a solid backdrop, a predictable order in order to introduce dissonants to see how your lab rats would perform.  Scientists call this "the control" factor.  The Bible describes this control factor, this "natural arrangement" in human sexuality and parent bonding as male-female.  It makes biological sense, and for some reason it makes spiritual sense.  Far be it for me to fully interpret why that is here, only that christian's contract with God in the Bible in Jude 1 and Romans 1 spells it out clearly that it is the Law...the controlled factor.

When you go about meddling with the key foundation of this aspect of The Plan in christianity, you blend the control into the experiment to where neither can be used to measure the other anymore.  If a person doesn't know what sin is, ever, how can he know it is wrong?  This is why societies have taboos.  Homosexuality is one of those taboos.  Will there always be homosexuals?  Of course!  Will there always be sinners?  Of course!  The Plan wouldn't work right without these transgressions as examples to others as how NOT to be.  When you make what is not to be what "is" to be, you've removed the classroom from the students.  You have turned them all loose in a big field and said "school is over forever, do as thou whilst shall be the whole of the law!".  If that sounds familiar, it is because it is the mantra of satanists.  The cult of one of the biggest fallen angels around whose constant ambition is to unravel the matrix of God's Plan in any way possible, using any and all tools at his disposal.  Paramount of which is the smooth tongue or violent temper of the infected host, depending on its position in society and from what angle it is pitching to accumulate the maximum influence.

Problem is, you can no longer hold any of the testlings accountable once the matrix is dissolved.  You can no longer tell which ones can be tested and who will remain faithful to the lessons.  You can no longer define which will stand by you in your Kingdom and who will betray you surely.  Christians define that God wants them in heaven as his trusted posse.  If you cannot test the posse against the endless debauchery and lures of the flesh, more potent lures of power and malice in the hereafter could wreak havoc of untold dimensions.  Remember, the christians belive that angels once walked the earth as tested souls.  And, remember what Lucifer did with his newly found power in that other dimesion.

We don't fully understand the hereafter as testlings.  In fact part of the Plan is that we cannot be wise to the lessons or else they again would fail to have meaning.  I'm taking a risk myself even writing this down.  But the likelihood of anyone understanding it, much less incorporating is so slim as to make this crime mitigated.  My hope is that one or two key individuals will "get it" and then all the rest of you will just as quickly forget it.  Just as I know you will.

So all we have is the Bible.  And it says clearly in Jude 1 and Romans 1 that the matrix, the control of the experiment in any society is male-female as bonded ones for parenting.  To defile that plan, that matrix, to sully that control by allowing "gay marriage" via passive assent, enabling or outright advocacy is a sin of the gravest order that has ripples in this world and beyond that you cannot even begin to imagine.  If there ever was a time to suspend being non-judgmental, now is that time.  You can say your hail marys and go back to being blindly tolerant of everything under the sun when you are done.  But now is the time to earnestly contend for the common salvation.


----------



## Bumberclyde (Feb 26, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > And we're forced to accept your homophobic lifestyle?
> ...



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.


----------



## dblack (Feb 26, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



Sorry, but this is utterly irrelevant. I'll defend your right to choose who you like, who you don't like and who you want to do business with regardless of your reasons. That's the point I'm making. My comment wasn't meant as a slam on religion, it was meant as a slam on those who think that want to control what other people think.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 26, 2014)

Bumberclyde said:


> 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.



Part of your problem is that you're seeing this from an individual-individual interaction viewpoint.  That's not what it is.  Jesus would advocate not slamming any one person.  However Jesus at that same moment WOULD advocate slamming a _thing_ [the cult of homosexuality] that stood to unravel His Father's Plan.

That's why I've always said "compassion, but not promotion" when it comes to homosexuals and homosexuality in that order.  Read my last post.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 26, 2014)

dblack said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


associate - definition of associate by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.



> as·so·ci·ate  (&#601;-s&#333;&#8242;sh&#275;-&#257;t&#8242;, -s&#275;-)
> v. as·so·ci·at·ed, as·so·ci·at·ing, as·so·ci·ates
> v.tr.
> 1. *To join as a partner, ally, or friend.*
> ...





> > If anyone has "muddled thinking" it is those who are misusing terms like "forcing" and "associate".
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not in the sense that you are using it. Refer to the actual definition above.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 26, 2014)

dblack said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



If Cecilie wants to legislate her irrational beliefs then yes, she does have to justify them.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 26, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Christians believe they are put here on this planet to be tested in the flesh as to sin vs virtue.  They believe that as a result of that testing, they will or will not be allowed into the Kingdom of God in the Hereafter.  There is a Hereafter as I myself can testify from a near death experience and from reading hundreds of near death accounts.  But you can choose to believe as you wish.  The critical question is not how you believe, but how christians believe and how the 1st Amendment protects those beliefs.



You know nothing of Christians, and base your claims on your own bigotry, rather than on any doctrinal evidence. 

Further, this has zero relevance to the thread.


----------



## dblack (Feb 26, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



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?


----------



## dblack (Feb 26, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



In what 'sense' do you think I'm using it? Why do you believe it doesn't count? Do we lose all protected rights when engaging in financial association? Or just some? Which ones? Who decides? Let me guess... 'We the People'?


----------



## Jarhead (Feb 26, 2014)

dblack said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



why don't you ask the same question of my fellow conservatives as it pertains to gays?

What harm does it do to me if two men love each other and want to marry each other?

Yes...the conservative belief is personal responsibility...and I live by it. That's why I have no issue with gays wanting to marry. It has absolutely no affect on my life whatsoever.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 26, 2014)

dblack said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



When "her business" discriminates against someone it is the same thing as discriminating against me. If we don't defend our rights no one else will. When she decides to discriminate she is harming your rights, my rights and everyone else's rights for that matter.  

By pushing this legislation she is not "minding her own business", she is making it my business. So no, I will not stand aside and allow her to stomp all over the rights of others just as I wouldn't allow her to stomp all over yours.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 26, 2014)

Jarhead said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



2. "Exercise of religion" means the PRACTICE OR OBSERVANCE OF RELIGION, INCLUDING THE ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially 
motivated by a religious belief, *whether or not the exercise is compulsory or 
central to a larger system of religious belief.*​
NOTE: Capitalization in the original bolding mine.

From the law, it is the individuals personal personal religious beliefs, the law does not require and specifically excludes the requirement that it be part of a higher order religious doctrine.



>>>>


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 26, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> You know nothing of Christians, and base your claims on your own bigotry, rather than on any doctrinal evidence.
> 
> Further, this has zero relevance to the thread.



Pay attention to the part in bold below.  I have doctrinal evidence.  Read the below and tell me how any of it is not the teachings of the christian faith?  I'll expect potent citations and not "just don't be judgmental, Jesus said" as a milktoast response.  I'm talking about the fundamentals of the Big Story of how christianity came about, what it means, the key players, the Plan etc.  Washing all those lessons and teachings away with one "don't be judgmental" is a perversion of the Word of God to suit your agenda.



> If you're *talking about the 1st Amendment here*, let me defend what you have called "irrational and stupid"...
> 
> Christians believe they are put here on this planet to be tested in the flesh as to sin vs virtue. They believe that as a result of that testing, they will or will not be allowed into the Kingdom of God in the Hereafter. There is a Hereafter as I myself can testify from a near death experience and from reading hundreds of near death accounts. But you can choose to believe as you wish. The critical question is not how you believe, but how christians believe and how the 1st Amendment protects those beliefs.
> 
> ...


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 26, 2014)

dblack said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



So now you are admitting that you are ignorant of the public accommodation laws that fall under the commerce clause of the Constitution?

I suggest that you read the posts by Clayton earlier in this thread where he quite aptly explained how they apply.

That you don't understand them explains a lot.


----------



## dblack (Feb 26, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Let's talk about that. Which rights are we talking about? The idea that we have a 'right to not be discriminated against' seems really bizarre to me. Does that mean everyone who doesn't like me and doesn't treat me the same as all their friends is violating my rights???


----------



## dblack (Feb 26, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Not at all. I'm saying they're based on a bad idea. They violate the fundamental concepts of equal protection, freedom of association and freedom of conscience.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 26, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Pay attention to the part in bold below.  I have doctrinal evidence.  Read the below and tell me how any of it is not the teachings of the christian faith?  I'll expect potent citations and not "just don't be judgmental, Jesus said" as a milktoast response.  I'm talking about the fundamentals of the Big Story of how christianity came about, what it means, the key players, the Plan etc.  Washing all those lessons and teachings away with one "don't be judgmental" is a perversion of the Word of God to suit your agenda.



What you have done is hijack the thread in order to attack Christians. If you have a desire to learn what Christianity is about, there are many resources. Try the religion forum on this board. There are a lot of Christians there who will help you.

Now, if you want to talk about the Arizona law, this is the thread to do that in.


----------



## Jarhead (Feb 26, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Thanks.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 26, 2014)

dblack said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



The 14th Amendment, Section 1 reads as follows;



> Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. *No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.*



The concept of "equal protection of the laws" means that your rights are exactly the same as mine under the law. If you run a motel you cannot discriminate against who you will rent a room out to because the law forbids discrimination. The recent _Windsor_ decision has effectively extended that protection against discrimination to gays too. The AZ law is an attempt to violate the 14th amendment by allowing people to discriminate.

Just as a clarification, this applies to everything that falls under the jurisdiction of the various government agencies. It does not apply to your next door neighbor or your brother in law. They can snub you publicly and there is nothing you can do about it. But if they own a business and you walk in the door as a customer they are violating the law if they refuse to serve you because that business is regulated and the public accommodations act prohibits them from discriminating.

Does that clear this up?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 26, 2014)

dblack said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Then the onus is on you to prove that they do exactly that and so far no one has successfully made that case.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 26, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> What you have done is hijack the thread in order to attack Christians. If you have a desire to learn what Christianity is about, there are many resources. Try the religion forum on this board. There are a lot of Christians there who will help you.
> 
> Now, if you want to talk about the Arizona law, this is the thread to do that in.



Nice pretzel talk!  Defending the Bible and its teachings is now, according to "Uncensored"'s smooth and flexible tongue "attacking christians".

Well played!  "A" for effort on the material plane.  "F" for failure and an expedited trip to the Pit of Fire on the spiritual plane.  But you have to admire the smooth one and his hosts and their _flexibility_ with speech!

Bravo, bravo!  

Yes, I'm sure you want to surgicallly separate the topic of freedom of religion from this thread.  Considering the law in Arizona cites religious freedom, it's fair game.  Sorry if you don't want to hear what the Bible tells the faithful to do with regard to enabling a cultural takeover by the church of LGBT.  But you have to hear it.  It's part of the topic.


----------



## bendog (Feb 26, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



I am not aware of Windsor being used to strike down private discrimination.  I didn't see anything via google either.   But,  I don't mind being shown I'm wrong.


----------



## bendog (Feb 26, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Goldwater.  It's impossible to prove federal restraint on private discrimination has not been overall harmful, nor is it possible to "prove" it's been beneficial.  It's clear the Goldwater idealism lost out on race and creed in the court of history.


----------



## dblack (Feb 26, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Heh.. well, I'm not judging 'success' on my ability to persuade you. Public accommodations laws established bad legal precedent, even if there were solving an urgent problem. I think it's worth reconsidering the means used. Dictating how and why people can choose who they do business with is an unnecessary, and potentially very dangerous, intrusion on personal liberty. We can deal with bigotry in society without creating thought crime.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 26, 2014)

bendog said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Huh?

That isn't what I intended. Current law forbids discrimination based upon sex, race and creed. The _Windsor_ decision has effectively extended that protection to gays at the federal level.


----------



## natstew (Feb 26, 2014)

A man walks into a black owned bakery and orders a cake with KKK on top of it?
 A White Supremist walks into a black bakery and orders a cake with a Swastika on top of it?

You Lefties sing a different song then!

I'm not a klan supporter or a White Supremist, but I'm not a black muslim or muslim either, and I wouldn't knowingly serve any of them. I wouldn't make a cake for a Queer wedding either.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 26, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> ...Current law forbids discrimination based upon sex, race and creed. The _Windsor_ decision has effectively extended that protection to gays at the federal level.



Absolutely, completely and utterly FALSE.

Windsor not only Avered that the question and decision of gay marriage was the "unquestioned authority" of the several states, but it also brought up the 14th by citing Loving as a possible exception and then it went on to Conclude as of its Rendering, that "gay marriage is only allowed in some states" "as of the writing of this Opinion".

That is a de facto vote of "NO" as to applicability to extending the 14ths protection to the cult of LGBT.

Way wrong friend.  You couldn't have misinterpreted Windsor worse in my opinion.  Or are you part of the "lie/fake it till you make it" cabal?


----------



## dblack (Feb 26, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Yep. You should read that a couple more times. 



> If you run a motel you cannot discriminate against who you will rent a room out to because the law forbids discrimination.



Right. The law forbidding discrimination is the problem. It creates thought crimes, making certain decisions crimes based on the reasoning behind them and nothing else.



> The AZ law is an attempt to violate the 14th amendment by allowing people to discriminate.



Agreed. It does the same thing the laws forbidding discrimination do. In both cases, the laws presume to prohibit - not specific actions - but the thoughts and opinions leading to those actions. 



> ... if they own a business and you walk in the door as a customer they are violating the law if they refuse to serve you because that business is regulated and the public accommodations act prohibits them from discriminating.
> 
> Does that clear this up?



That's the standard statist interpretation of the 'commerce clause', which I reject.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 26, 2014)

dblack said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



The law doesn't dictate "how and why people can choose who they do business with". It merely stipulates that everyone must be treated equally. If your business only deals with CPA's or plumbers then it is perfectly legitimate to exclude those who don't fall into the specified category. However within that category you cannot discriminate against gay CPA's or gay plumbers merely because they are gay. That is not an intrusion on your "liberty" as a business owner. It is upholding the right of everyone to be treated equally.

As far as "thought crime" is concerned the idiots who are trying to legalize discriminating against gays are guilty of "lack of thought" crime.


----------



## dblack (Feb 26, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



It absolutely does not. It merely prohibits certain reasons for treating people unequally.



> As far as "thought crime" is concerned the idiots who are trying to legalize discriminating against gays are guilty of "lack of thought" crime.



Exactly. The law presumes to second guess their reasoning. As I said, it tells them how and why they can choose who they do business with.


----------



## bendog (Feb 26, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Windsor found denying the same econ federal benefits of marriage to same sex marriages as were given same sex marriages violated equal protection.  If the tax code doesn't treat them equally now, it will in the near future.

I think the equal protection analysis of Windsor is being extended in other court cases to state law econ benefits.  

Also, its hard for me to see how the rational in Windsor will not eventually be applied in same sex marriage challenges, i.e. what's the logical reason to see a difference?  And just saying that's how it is in the bible won't cut it.  Nor will saying it protects marriages or kids, because there's no verified evidence of that.


----------



## bendog (Feb 26, 2014)

dblack said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Well, here's where I must differ.  I don't see any "thought police."  Some will say CPA's should be able to only do straights' taxes, and others will say the CPA's must be forced to do anyone's taxes.  

the bakers aren't refusing cakes to anyone but gays.  It's not the gays goring oxes (-: here.  If the bakers didn't want to bake cakes for Nazis or Jews, the issue would not be any different.  

Still, I'd agree when you say people have the right to be boors and bigots, so long as they don't impact my economic rights or safety.

And watch out for Rabbi.  He thinks he can spill oil upstream from your drinking water.  LOL


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 26, 2014)

Jarhead said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



Pleasure to help.


>>>>


----------



## dblack (Feb 26, 2014)

bendog said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



The [bolded] CPA bit was a fumbled quote on my part. Not part of my intended comment.



> the bakers aren't refusing cakes to anyone but gays.  It's not the gays goring oxes (-: here.  If the bakers didn't want to bake cakes for Nazis or Jews, the issue would not be any different.



I'll bet they refuse to bake cakes for people who can't pay. Probably also some cases of them refusing to do business with people who are verbally abusive, or make ridiculous demands, or because the baker's just in a bad mood. Let's not be coy. Not everyone will get equal treatment. That's a fact. It's the reasons for the unequal treatment that are at issue, and these kinds of laws make certain reasons criminal, and give others a pass. Even if the treatment is the same.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 26, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Nice pretzel talk!  Defending the Bible and its teachings is now, according to "Uncensored"'s smooth and flexible tongue "attacking christians".



Distorting the most fundamental doctrine of Christianity, that of salvation, substituting instead some bizarre system of Karma, then judging the religion on the distortion you created, is indeed attacking.



> Well played!  "A" for effort on the material plane.  "F" for failure and an expedited trip to the Pit of Fire on the spiritual plane.  But you have to admire the smooth one and his hosts and their _flexibility_ with speech!
> 
> Bravo, bravo!
> 
> Yes, I'm sure you want to surgicallly separate the topic of freedom of religion from this thread.  Considering the law in Arizona cites religious freedom, it's fair game.  Sorry if you don't want to hear what the Bible tells the faithful to do with regard to enabling a cultural takeover by the church of LGBT.  But you have to hear it.  It's part of the topic.



Religious freedom is a matter of constitutionality. The idea that a business has the freedom to follow their own faith is the question at hand, irrespective of doctrine. Are Muslims compelled to serve ham sandwiches? Must a Jewish caterer provide treats for the local Nazi celebration of Hitler's birthday? 

With freedom, there is no such question, as any business serves those the business chooses to serve. But in our brave new world, the state decides who a business serves, and thus the questions of whose dick the state will step on arises. 

Liberty is not only more just, it's also a lot simpler. Commerce between willing buy, and willing seller. What a concept!


----------



## Bombur (Feb 26, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Nice pretzel talk!  Defending the Bible and its teachings is now, according to "Uncensored"'s smooth and flexible tongue "attacking christians".
> ...



In a perfect economy I think your idea could work. The problem is that in reality such an approach has lead to discrimination and harm coming to those discriminated against. Markets have been slow and non-responsive in too many cases. 

Relying on market economics despite the evidence to the contrary is naïve.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 26, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...



Tell me something, He Who Forever and Ever will Hate Businesses, isan't this proof that the free market actually does what I keep saying it does?


----------



## Bombur (Feb 26, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



The corporations are not for leaving it to the market.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 26, 2014)

AceRothstein said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> > Wildman said:
> ...



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?


----------



## paperview (Feb 26, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> > RandallFlagg said:
> ...


I'm curious. Do you work extra at being this stupid or does it just come naturally?


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 26, 2014)

Bumberclyde said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Bumberclyde said:
> ...


I'm not religious. Refusing to bake a gay themed cake is not an imposition. You asshole try to twist everything around while slandering people and pretending have the moral high ground.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 26, 2014)

paperview said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > AceRothstein said:
> ...



Being a smart ass is a natural talent.

Tell me something, what do you think I got wrong in that post? It will cost billions for the NFL to move next years Super Bowl. There is a reason they pick the venue 5 years out, after all. The host city has to put together a proposal, come up with the tax incentives, have a convention center as well as a stadium big enough for the Super Bowl, be able to fork over a few hundred million for the extra security, have the infrastructure to support all the media that will show up, and have enough hotel space for the teams and all the super rich people that make the Super Bowl one of their yearly parties. On top of that, it actually will require 24 of the 32 team owners to approve the move. In other words, it will only take 9 people to nix it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 26, 2014)

Bombur said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Because, by keeping the government out of it, they are actually forcing the government into it? 

Did I get that right?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 26, 2014)

paperview said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > AceRothstein said:
> ...



 I have no doubt whatsoever that QW is on many other ignore lists besides mine.


----------



## Bombur (Feb 26, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



What did those lead paint chips taste like?


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 26, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Being a smart ass is a natural talent.
> 
> Tell me something, what do you think I got wrong in that post? It will cost billions for the NFL to move next years Super Bowl. There is a reason they pick the venue 5 years out, after all. The host city has to put together a proposal, come up with the tax incentives, have a convention center as well as a stadium big enough for the Super Bowl, be able to fork over a few hundred million for the extra security, have the infrastructure to support all the media that will show up, and have enough hotel space for the teams and all the super rich people that make the Super Bowl one of their yearly parties. On top of that, it actually will require 24 of the 32 team owners to approve the move. In other words, it will only take 9 people to nix it.



It would be for this reason that Arizona should sue the NFL if they pull out.  The grounds would be that the NFL is punishing christians for wanting legal protection from their legislature and governor to not have to enable a homosexual cult taking over their state's freedoms of religion.

Plus, if the NFL has the Superbowl in AZ, and gays and their sychophants want to protest that, let them stay home.  I doubt it would make much of a dent at all in the attendance.  In fact, if AZ threw the dice on this "gamble" [not really, see the pictures below], they'd probably wind up with MORE business than they could handle and the NFL, MORE viewers than they ever dreamed of.  

THINK of the demographics who like and watch the Superbowl...

Here...let me give you a hint... ["earnestly contend for the faith..."]


----------



## protectionist (Feb 26, 2014)

paperview said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



In other words, you surrender the point, because you have no response.


----------



## protectionist (Feb 26, 2014)

Jarhead said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



100% >   EARTH TO JARHEAD:  Normal people CARE.  And how do you know the grabbing and tackling won't be sexual, 100% of the time ?  And how do you know how this guy's teammates felt about showering or practicing with him ?  Got a link ?  And even if they said they didn't mind, how do you know they weren't compelled to say that ?  Your argument is on slippery rocks.  Also, it is the opposing team's offensive players who would be getting grabbed primarily, not his teammates.


----------



## protectionist (Feb 26, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



I just answered all that in Post # 1731.


----------



## protectionist (Feb 26, 2014)

Bumberclyde said:


> So a business owner in Arizona could put up a sign " WHITES ONLY" ? And claim it's a religious thing?



Queers ought to be discriminated against in many venues, whether it has anything to do with religion or not.  They should be discriminated against because they're queer, and they can harm people just by being with them, as well as being in physical contact with them, or around children, where they might influence the impressionable kids to follow their sick perversions.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 26, 2014)

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.


----------



## KevinWestern (Feb 26, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Being a smart ass is a natural talent.
> ...



I think the NFL has the right to pull out so long as it doesn't violate any contractual/legal agreements. They can do whatever they like. 

As a side note, the Super Bowl is America's #1 waste of time and I think that Americans blow way too much of their brainpower (as a whole) on sports. Not saying I don't like the occasional pickup game, or that children's sports aren't beneficial, just saying this WORSHIP of the NFL is sort of sickening (in my view).


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 26, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> > RandallFlagg said:
> ...



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


----------



## protectionist (Feb 26, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Chambers of Commerce are FOR PRIVATE BUSINESS ONLY.
> And all of them everywhere oppose these laws.



Here's a couple of examples of the lunacy of those opposing this bill.

1.  Anthony Wanger, president of IO, a Phoenix software company, issued a statement Monday urging a veto of SB 1062.
_IO values the contribution of all people and stands against discrimination in every form, he said. Technology and business growth thrive on diversity, and we support diversity in Arizona._

_ *"Every* form"_ ?  So this illustrious corporate hack wouldn't discriminate against registered sex offendors ?  Against Muslim jihadists ?  Against people with infectious diseases (Tuberculosis, Hepatits, etc)  Pheeeeeww! (high-pitched whistle, eyes rolling around in head. 

Doug Parker, American Airlines Group chief executive,said fallout from the bill would slow down Arizonas economic recovery, hinder relocation of businesses to Arizona and hurt the convention-and-tourism industry.

_Our economy thrives when our doors to commerce are open to all, said Parker, who presided over US Airways in Tempe before a 2013 merger with American. This bill sends the wrong message._

_"Open to* ALL*"_, Doug ?  "ALL would include serial killers, rapists, people who sing loudly (off-pitch), people who don't bathe, alchoholics/drunk drivers, pilots who fly drunk, etc.  No problem there, right Doug ?


----------



## protectionist (Feb 26, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> 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.



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.


----------



## protectionist (Feb 26, 2014)

ClosedCaption said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...



.  Sure, I'd run on it.  *See Post # 1737*


----------



## TemplarKormac (Feb 26, 2014)

From a Facebook Post on my newsfeed:



> Here is a simple fact: if you want to force someone to violate their religious beliefs by forcing them to provide a service to your gay wedding ceremony--that their religion considers a sin--you are not a civil rights activist, you are a mini-tyrant. Here is another fact: one can sincerely love people while disagreeing with some of their actions. We need to get over the idea that disagreement is hate and that your freedom to get married is your invitation to erase the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion.


----------



## KevinWestern (Feb 26, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> From a Facebook Post on my newsfeed:
> 
> 
> 
> > Here is a simple fact: if you want to force someone to violate their religious beliefs by forcing them to provide a service to your gay wedding ceremony--that their religion considers a sin--you are not a civil rights activist, you are a mini-tyrant. Here is another fact: one can sincerely love people while disagreeing with some of their actions. We need to get over the idea that disagreement is hate and that your freedom to get married is your invitation to erase the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion.



How about we agree on this. I think it&#8217;s reasonable that if a cake maker doesn&#8217;t want to participate in a gay wedding based on religious beliefs he should have the right to say no. That&#8217;s fine.

However, if that right is reinforced through new legislation (like in AZ), I think it also should be paired with an &#8220;arbitrary discrimination ban&#8221; that would prevent someone like a restaurant owner from refusing gays a sandwich simply because he &#8220;doesn&#8217;t like gays&#8221;. 

I think that&#8217;s fair &#8211; you?


----------



## Howey (Feb 26, 2014)

quantum windbag said:


> acerothstein said:
> 
> 
> > randallflagg said:
> ...




*absofuckinlutely!
*


----------



## protectionist (Feb 26, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Doesn't matter if we're talking about employment or selling to customers.  In many cases, sellers have good reasons for discriminating.  If a bar allows queers to hang out in its bar, it becomes known as a "Gay bar", and then normal people avoid going there.    The position is not weak at all.  As for extremes, the examples are no more extreme than the practice of homosexuality, which is very extreme.  Your post is where the "weakness" resides.

Also, HA HA, you just agreed with me.  In case you didn't know your word "VETTING" is synonomous with DISCRIMINATION.  It is choosing who to accept and who to not accept.  SO now why don't you go ahead and answer the questions ? ( Do you want to hire a convicted child molester to baby sit for you ?  Do you enlist the help of a pyromaniac to do home improvement work ?)


----------



## protectionist (Feb 26, 2014)

paperview said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



Now you can hear the LOUDER slap he just got in the previous post >  Post # 1743.


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 26, 2014)

KevinWestern said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > From a Facebook Post on my newsfeed:
> ...



That's the law!   It's the same thing.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 26, 2014)

protectionist said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 26, 2014)

The NFL is moving quite quickly to being pro pansy.  Not merely "gay".


----------



## Mertex (Feb 26, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> *Being a smart ass *is a natural talent.


That's probably all there is....



> Tell me something, what do you think I got wrong in that post? It will cost billions for the NFL to move next years Super Bowl. There is a reason they pick the venue 5 years out, after all. The host city has to put together a proposal, come up with the tax incentives, have a convention center as well as a stadium big enough for the Super Bowl, be able to fork over a few hundred million for the extra security, have the infrastructure to support all the media that will show up, and have enough hotel space for the teams and all the super rich people that make the Super Bowl one of their yearly parties. On top of that, it actually will require 24 of the 32 team owners to approve the move. In other words, it will only take 9 people to nix it.



It doesn't matter....the NFL is prepared to go elsewhere, and any city would jump at the opportunity to host it, don't know where you are getting all that "hoopla" - they wouldn't do that if they are just relocating it.

I think Brewer has already seen the sign on the wall......the dollar $$$$ sign that is, and she will definitely veto it.....otherwise Ariz is going to turn itself into a giant ghost town.



Even as momentum continues to build against Arizona's controversial bill that would allow businesses to deny service to gay couples on religious grounds, the NFL on Wednesday morning began investigating the necessary steps to move next season's Super Bowl from the Phoenix area, if the proposal becomes law, a source close to the situation confirmed.
The Tampa Bay area finished as the runner-up and was the only other finalist in the bidding for Super Bowl XLIX, which was awarded to Arizona in October 2011, and would in all likelihood be the NFL's first option for relocating the game at this relatively late date.

Super Bowl XLIX relocation: NFL begins exploring options - NFL - Don Banks - SI.com


----------



## protectionist (Feb 26, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



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


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 26, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



Plenty of thriving gay bars are doing just fine. Bartenders don't care as long as they get paid. Gays aren't known to be lushes who run up tabs and don't pay them. Gay bars are usually respectable up market places. 

That flushing sound you hear is your position heading for the sewer.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 26, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> 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.



It gives the temporary delusion that Republicans are championing the free market, then I get over it.


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 26, 2014)

It is true that once gays start congregating in a bar it becomes known as a gay bar and normals quit going.  But, no one much cares.  The bar still thrives, it makes money from gay clientele just as it did from normal clientele.   The normals go off to some other bar and make one that might have failed, successful.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 26, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > AceRothstein said:
> ...



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.


----------



## KevinWestern (Feb 26, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> That's the law!   It's the same thing.



No, I don't think so. This law is meant to protect people from being forced to participate in things they don't agree with - like a gay wedding - however I want to make sure it's not used to arbitrarily discriminate gays in situations when they're serving drinks, or selling clothes, etc. 

If the business can't legally justify in court that selling a sandwich to a gay person is violating their right to freely practice their religion (which selling a sandwich shouldn't be), then the customer - if he/she wants - should have the right to sue.

That's my opinion. Look up "arbitrary discrimination". In states like California businesses can't refuse to sell to people who "have a dark birthmark" - for example - because there's no rational basis for the refusal.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 26, 2014)

KevinWestern said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > From a Facebook Post on my newsfeed:
> ...



How about this: Discuss the issues here based on reality, the bill does not do what everyone, including you, says it does.
Once you do that, we can actually discuss whatever you think the fucking problem here is.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 26, 2014)

KevinWestern said:


> How about we agree on this. I think its reasonable that if a cake maker doesnt want to participate in a gay wedding based on religious beliefs he should have the right to say no. Thats fine.
> 
> However, if that right is reinforced through new legislation (like in AZ), I think it also should be paired with an arbitrary discrimination ban that would prevent someone like a restaurant owner from refusing gays a sandwich simply because he doesnt like gays.
> 
> I think thats fair  you?



That is already covered under "critical services provisions." You cannot deny service to anyone that endangers their life or physical welfare, for any reason, including ability to pay.

However, a lesbian couple will not die if a Christian refuses to bake a cake celebrating their relationship.


----------



## KevinWestern (Feb 26, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



The polls consistently show that the majority of Americans approve of gay marriage. And that's gay marriage; a much greater percentage are at least tolerant of the gay lifestyle, in general, and do not welcome discrimination. 

It's most certainly in the NFL's best interest _not _to be perceived as anti-gay. Any person with at least one braincell can see where the trend is going (and will be in 10-15 years).


----------



## KevinWestern (Feb 26, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > How about we agree on this. I think it&#8217;s reasonable that if a cake maker doesn&#8217;t want to participate in a gay wedding based on religious beliefs he should have the right to say no. That&#8217;s fine.
> ...



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.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 26, 2014)

KevinWestern said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > That's the law!   It's the same thing.
> ...



Then tell me something, oh purveyor of ignorance, why hasn't there been a single successful defense of the right to discriminate based on religious beliefs under the federal RFRA, which actually grants you more freedom to claim religious exemptions than the Arizona bill? If this bill is the ultimate way to discriminate, why does it restrict your basis for refusing service to actual texts?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 26, 2014)

KevinWestern said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Is that what the polls show, or is that what the reporters tell you the polls show?


----------



## Howey (Feb 26, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Doesn't matter if we're talking about employment or selling to customers.  In many cases, sellers have good reasons for discriminating.  If a bar allows queers to hang out in its bar, it becomes known as a "Gay bar", and then normal people avoid going there.




lol...I suspect that if you went into some gay bars with shows on a Friday or Saturday night you'd see a hell of a lot more breeders there than you'd suspect.

Any other day of the week you'd see your best friend or an acquaintance hovering discreetly in the corner checking out the dudes. Go say hi. You might get what you want.


----------



## KevinWestern (Feb 26, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> How about this: Discuss the issues here based on reality, the bill does not do what everyone, including you, says it does.
> Once you do that, we can actually discuss whatever you think the fucking problem here is.



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..


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 26, 2014)

KevinWestern said:


> 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.



I am a Libertarian.

I believe in liberty.

The ONLY legitimate transaction is the voluntary sale of goods or services to a voluntary buyer at a price that both agree upon.

ANY other transaction is immoral.

You seek to use the implied violence of the state to force people to work for people they object to. That is slavery, no matter how you frost it.

I oppose slavery.


----------



## Mertex (Feb 26, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



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


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 26, 2014)

KevinWestern said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > KevinWestern said:
> ...



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.


----------



## KevinWestern (Feb 26, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...




The young generation is much more tolerant of gay people than my generation. My generation is much more tolerant of gay people than my parent's. My parent's generation is much more tolerant of gays than their parent's generation, so on and so forth.

Do you believe this to be untrue?

Would a gay be more likely to be accepted in a random area of the country in 1950 or 2014?

I said the trend is heading in the direction of tolerance of the gay lifestyle, and you'd be a lying moron to deny that.


----------



## KevinWestern (Feb 26, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


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



Dude you can save the lecture. I've stated numerous times that I think a cake owner should have the right to say no.

But I'm OK with things like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which says a business can't turn down a black customer because he/she is black) and I'm OK with adding "sexual preference" to that list (ie age, sex, race, religion). That is all.


----------



## protectionist (Feb 26, 2014)

Mertex said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > *Being a smart ass *is a natural talent.
> ...



I live in Tampa and have been here for 25 years.  If you think Arizona is anti-gay, you haven't seen anything yet, until you see the fierce anti-queer opposition in this former Confederate area, which still flies the largest Confederate flag in America, over it's most major US interstate junction (I-75 & I-4)

http://www.mybaycity.com/images/2012/admin-0002445.jpg

MyBayCity.com FLORIDA: Confederate Flag Still Flies Here, Folks; What Does That Mean?

Huge Confederate flag in Tampa replaced | wtsp.com


----------



## Mertex (Feb 26, 2014)

KevinWestern said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > How about this: Discuss the issues here based on reality, the bill does not do what everyone, including you, says it does.
> ...


*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.....


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 26, 2014)

KevinWestern said:


> Dude you can save the lecture. I've stated numerous times that I think a cake owner should have the right to say no.
> 
> But I'm OK with things like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which says a business can't turn down a black customer because he/she is black) and I'm OK with adding "sexual preference" to that list (ie age, sex, race, religion). That is all.



I understand.

You support slavery - I do not.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 26, 2014)

KevinWestern said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > How about this: Discuss the issues here based on reality, the bill does not do what everyone, including you, says it does.
> ...



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.


----------



## KevinWestern (Feb 26, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



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..). 

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_.

.


----------



## KevinWestern (Feb 26, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



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...


----------



## protectionist (Feb 26, 2014)

Mertex said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



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)


----------



## Mertex (Feb 26, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...




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.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 26, 2014)

KevinWestern said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > KevinWestern said:
> ...



That didn't answer my question.

The last time I looked at the polls I saw that they showed strong support for an avenue for same sex couples to get the legal benefits of marraige. That, believe it or not, is not the same thing as a strong support of marriage, and even younger respondents were unwilling to demand that the state define all unions as marriage.

Funny thing happened though, polls stopped asking about splitting hairs between marraige and the benefits, and simply worded the questions toward the legal benefits of marriage. That is when I stopped paying attention to them as I saw they were pushing an agenda. It would be nice to see what the actual numbers are, but I doubt there has been a paradigm shift in less than a year.


----------



## protectionist (Feb 26, 2014)

KevinWestern said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > KevinWestern said:
> ...



I would like *exactly the opposite*.  Homosexuality should be outlawed in various venues, starting with teaching, and anything dealing with children.  Contact sports (ex, football) too, as well as public displays of homosexuality (2 guys kissing, etc)


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 26, 2014)

Mertex said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



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


----------



## protectionist (Feb 26, 2014)

Mertex said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Mertex (Feb 26, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...




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


----------



## Mertex (Feb 26, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...




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 (Feb 26, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > KevinWestern said:
> ...



"Whining Bitches"? Who the fuck 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 (Feb 26, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > KevinWestern said:
> ...




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 (Feb 26, 2014)

KevinWestern said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > KevinWestern said:
> ...



Awww, did I hurt your widdle feewings?

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



KevinWestern said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Feb 26, 2014)

KevinWestern said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > KevinWestern said:
> ...



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


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 26, 2014)

Mertex said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



They won't boycott the Super Bowl.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 26, 2014)

KevinWestern said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



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 (Feb 26, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



There is nothing reasonable about bigotry like yours.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 26, 2014)

Brewer vetoed the gay discrimination bill!


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 26, 2014)

hangover said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



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 (Feb 26, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Brewer vetoed the gay discrimination bill!



I guess Arizona really wanted that superbowl?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 26, 2014)

Bumberclyde said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Bumberclyde said:
> ...



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


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 26, 2014)

dblack said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



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 (Feb 26, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



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

.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 26, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> > RandallFlagg said:
> ...



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 (Feb 26, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> 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 (Feb 26, 2014)

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 (Feb 26, 2014)

Mertex said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



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 (Feb 26, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> 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 (Feb 26, 2014)

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. 



DriftingSand said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > 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:
> ...


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 26, 2014)

KevinWestern said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > From a Facebook Post on my newsfeed:
> ...



Why?


----------



## protectionist (Feb 26, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > AceRothstein said:
> ...



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


----------



## 1776 (Feb 26, 2014)

Ok....some GOP politician in small town USA wins the city mayor election over some Democrap business owner....so the GOP winner wants to rent out the restaurant or hotel or whatever the business owner owns to celebrate the victory in his face.....so would a judge force the losing politician to "cater" to his enemy???

You are violating the rights of that person to rent out your hotel and party his victory over you....see how this works?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 26, 2014)

1776 said:


> Ok....some GOP politician in small town USA wins the city mayor election over some Democrap business owner....so the GOP winner wants to rent out the restaurant or hotel or whatever the business owner owns to celebrate the victory in his face.....so would a judge force the losing politician to "cater" to his enemy???
> 
> You are violating the rights of that person to rent out your hotel and party his victory over you....see how this works?



Would depend on the State.  Can you list ANY state that has "Political Affiliation" as one of the groups of people listed in their Public Accommodation law?

If you can find such a state (of which I'm pretty sure there is not a single one) - then ya.

If the state does not have "Political Affiliation" as part of it's law - then no.




So is the next question "Can I force a kosher Jewish deli to make me a ham sam'ich?"?


>>>>


----------



## 1776 (Feb 26, 2014)

That is one hypothetical....

We can also throw in a hotel owner being forced to host a gun show, gay porn convention, radical Islamic nuts preaching death to the USA, etc.....

See how stupid this is??? 

If the state can violate the US CONSTITUTION abridging the religious rights of a US citizen forcing them to partake in an event/activity counter to their religious beliefs, then anything goes. 

You don't like gun owners...well fuck you....you are going to throw them a party in your hotel. 



WorldWatcher said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> > Ok....some GOP politician in small town USA wins the city mayor election over some Democrap business owner....so the GOP winner wants to rent out the restaurant or hotel or whatever the business owner owns to celebrate the victory in his face.....so would a judge force the losing politician to "cater" to his enemy???
> ...


----------



## 1776 (Feb 26, 2014)

Your rights only go as far to violate my rights. 

You don't have the right to force me to participate in an event/activity for you that I oppose. 

Are you going to force business owners to have a float in the local gay parade? Are you going to force people to attend gay pride events and cheer you fags on in your underwear? 

A business can't deny someone service for being gay, but you can't force a business to take part in an event/activity that supports the gay lifestyle....so once you force the business owner to accept the actions of a gay person, then you violate the rights of the business owner.


----------



## 1776 (Feb 26, 2014)

Amendment I (1): *Freedom of religion*, speech, and the press; rights of assembly and petition
*Congress shall make no law **respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,* or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 26, 2014)

whitehall said:


> 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.



I ain't the left.
Life long conservative.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 26, 2014)

As a life long business owner no way I would want this law on the books.
This law is as anti business as they come.
Amazing the ignorance of the religious right when it comes to basic business principles.
This law is terrible. Why else would the Chamber oppose it?
The bill passed the Legislature shows the lack of influence gays have in AZ.
Chamber opposes it because business opposes it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 26, 2014)

KevinWestern said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



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

Maybe you should stop taking things personally.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Feb 26, 2014)

KevinWestern said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > From a Facebook Post on my newsfeed:
> ...



Perhaps. But I am compelled as Cecilie is to ask: Why? 



> "It has nothing to do with refusing someone a sandwich. It has everything to do with making Arizona a safe place for people to freely live out their faith..."
> 
> Douglas Napier, Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 26, 2014)

KevinWestern said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > KevinWestern said:
> ...



Which brings me back to my point, doesn't it? You don't have time to get all the facts, and expect other people to treat you like your version of an adult anyway.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 26, 2014)

Cancelling those plans to visit Arizona.  Too bad.  Maybe I'll go to Utah instead... depends of course.

This boycott thing and pressure can work both ways.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 26, 2014)

Bill was just vetoed.
Told you so.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 26, 2014)

For all the heads in the sand fools here that are too stubborn to admit they were wrong:

Governor Brewer stated that "the bill could have unintended and negative consequences".
Uh, yeah, been saying that from the start SAME AS governor of Kansas said as the bills would ALLOW ambulance and other medical personnel to DENY service to gay folks.
*WELL DUH*
"Senate Bill 1062 has the potential to cause more problems than it purports to solve".
Of course it would. Anyone objective to what the bill SAYS knows that.
Good to see someone is not a stubborn fool with their head in the sand.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 26, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> For all the heads in the sand fools here that are too stubborn to admit they were wrong:
> 
> Governor Brewer stated that "the bill could have unintended and negative consequences".
> Uh, yeah, been saying that from the start SAME AS governor of Kansas said as the bills would ALLOW ambulance and other medical personnel to DENY service to gay folks.
> ...



A politician lied? Tell me it ain't so.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 26, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > For all the heads in the sand fools here that are too stubborn to admit they were wrong:
> ...



Yes, the politicians that passed Senate Bill 1062 are a bunch of liars.
Good point.
4 of them publicly changed their minds after the bill passed and stated they were manipulated with false information from "religious" organizations and other members that lobbied for the bill.
They were all Republicans.
As a conservative that concerns me.
For partisan hack ideologues like you it does not matter.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 26, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> It is true that once gays start congregating in a bar it becomes known as a gay bar and normals quit going.  But, no one much cares.  The bar still thrives, it makes money from gay clientele just as it did from normal clientele.   The normals go off to some other bar and make one that might have failed, successful.



How do you know so much about gays and gay bars?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 26, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Because they disagreed with the Great and Infallible Gadawg, right?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 26, 2014)

kaz said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 26, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



They were?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 26, 2014)

1776 said:


> Your rights only go as far to violate my rights.



Incorrect. 

Rights have nothing to do with a relationship between two private parties, nor are private entities subject to Constitutional restrictions, and they are not entitled to Constitutional protections regarding another private entity. 

Civil rights pertain only to the relationship between the citizen and the state, and what is or is not warranted with regard to the states desire to limit or deny citizens their civil rights. 

Property owners have rights with regard to how to manage their property; but as with other rights, property rights are not absolute, and subject to reasonable restrictions. Public accommodations laws are reasonable, Constitutional, and in no way manifest a violation of religious rights, as their primary purpose is to regulate markets, not disadvantage persons of faith.


----------



## Faun (Feb 26, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> > I can't wait until it goes to court
> ...



Looks like it's not going to court.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Feb 26, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> > Your rights only go as far to violate my rights.
> ...





Why don't you finish law school, take the bar exam and become one more of the hundreds of thousands of worthless crooked piece of shit lawyers out there you fool? God, I wish we had listen to Shakespeare.....


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 26, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I do not live in AZ.
The Conservative Republican Governor Brewer disagreed with them.
And you.
And she tongue lashed you and all your friends that were conned and pan caked once again.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 26, 2014)

So once again a Legislature grand stands and wastes the time and money of the taxpayers on a BS piece of Legislation that their own Governor from their own party vetoed the day she got it.
What the Republican party has become is a sad sack of losers more interested in a lame vaudeville act disguised as stumping for Jesus.
Only in America do the naive and gullible buy this stuff.
But I remain conservative and am voting Republican again as Brewer is what we need.


----------



## protectionist (Feb 26, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> So once again a Legislature grand stands and wastes the time and money of the taxpayers on a BS piece of Legislation that their own Governor from their own party vetoed the day she got it.
> What the Republican party has become is a sad sack of losers more interested in a lame vaudeville act disguised as stumping for Jesus.
> Only in America do the naive and gullible buy this stuff.
> But I remain conservative and am voting Republican again as Brewer is what we need.



You are the farthest thing from being a Conservative there ever could be.  I suspect you are young, from the Reagan era, and oblivious to the true meaning of Conservatism in America.  And your support for Brewer and her veto of this bill clearly shows that.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 27, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> > Your rights only go as far to violate my rights.
> ...




Does that mean that a business cannot deny anyone a civil right, or does it mean you talked yourself into a corner again?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 27, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Brewer is a conservative Republican? Does she know that?

She is a politician, she lied.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Feb 27, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



LOL. Sure buddy.


----------



## Barb (Feb 27, 2014)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVmp_JlDI2g#t=1]Jon Stewart Trashes Morally Repugnant Arizona Bill, Rips Fox News Apocalyptic Paranoia - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 27, 2014)

The single most interesting thing about this thread is how all the people who claim they are tolerant are willing to lie about something just to prove how tolerant they are.


----------



## 007 (Feb 27, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> The single most interesting thing about this thread is how all the people who claim they are tolerant are willing to lie about something just to prove how tolerant they are.



True... and the other less interesting fact is, because we already know it, is that it's OK to trash the shit otta Christians and their rights, but we must never, NEVER trash the imaginary rights of homos. They might take a fucking football game away from you or something.

It's time the silent MAJORITY get with the push back... BOYCOTT THE NFL.


----------



## jillian (Feb 27, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



only in the alternate reality that is rightwingworld


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 27, 2014)

whitehall said:


> 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.


----------



## Bumberclyde (Feb 27, 2014)

Bill vetoed by governor. Better luck next time.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 27, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> The single most interesting thing about this thread is how all the people who claim they are tolerant are willing to lie about something just to prove how tolerant they are.



You are confused, not interested.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 27, 2014)

007 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > The single most interesting thing about this thread is how all the people who claim they are tolerant are willing to lie about something just to prove how tolerant they are.
> ...



Good to see someone admit the bill was about Christians ONLY and to hell with the rights of everyone else.
That is unAmerican and the conservative Republican Governor of AZ knows it.
We are a nation OF LAWS, not of religion.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 27, 2014)

What is it now on these afraid of the big bad gay boogeyman issues?
Is it 10 out 11 or 11 out of 11 on these cases that I TOLD YOU SO?

Wham it zero on set, EP team on the ready, KO team on the squares and 4th string D to group.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 27, 2014)

Brewer last night: 
"I have not heard one example in Arizona where a business owner's religious liberty has been violated".
Because none have been.
How stupid one must feel now that supported this legislation.
A waste of the taxpayers dollars and they claim they are conservatives.


----------



## kaz (Feb 27, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Camp (Feb 27, 2014)

kaz said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 27, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> For all the heads in the sand fools here that are too stubborn to admit they were wrong:
> 
> Governor Brewer stated that "the bill could have unintended and negative consequences".
> Uh, yeah, been saying that from the start SAME AS governor of Kansas said as the bills would ALLOW ambulance and other medical personnel to DENY service to gay folks.
> ...



I watched her speech two or three times last night.  As the second and third time rolled by I noticed that she seemed to be saying instead "this Bill I would've signed if they had more properly delineated an instance where a christian was aked to participate in enabling or promoting a gay wedding".  If it was narrowed down to just that, I believe she would've signed it.  

Actually, her words were wise and so was her veto because if she had signed it into law, the blind outrage and blind support for the cult of LGBT getting "married" might have tipped the scales on the SCOTUS case pending of Harvey Milk vs Utah.

As they say, "now is not the time".  I got that as the bottom line in her decision to veto...along with her assurances to christians between the lines 'don't worry folks, this ain't over yet...'


----------



## Howey (Feb 27, 2014)

007 said:


> It's time the silent MAJORITY get with the push back... BOYCOTT THE NFL.



BECAUSE OF ONE GAY FOOTBALL PLAYER, P*****? REALLY?????

MAN, THE HOMO'S MUST REALLY BE GETTING TO YOU GUYS!


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 27, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> The single most interesting thing about this thread is how all the people who claim they are tolerant are willing to lie about something just to prove how tolerant they are.



Liar!!


----------



## Faun (Feb 27, 2014)

kaz said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



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?


----------



## Howey (Feb 27, 2014)

I'm sure the NFL is going to miss the cost of P*****007's $4 bag of peanuts every Sunday.


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 27, 2014)

NTG said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> > It's time the silent MAJORITY get with the push back... BOYCOTT THE NFL.
> ...



They just can't get those thought's out of their mind they have repressed from their experimental stage during life's sexual awareness.


----------



## paperview (Feb 27, 2014)

Faun said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


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:


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 27, 2014)

Faun said:


> 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.


----------



## Faun (Feb 27, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > 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?
> ...



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.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 27, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Finally, you and I agree on something.


----------



## paperview (Feb 27, 2014)

Faun said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Not to mention the idiot Sil doesn't seem to understand the concept of consenting adults.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 27, 2014)

TheOldSchool said:


> I guess Arizona really wanted that superbowl?



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


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 27, 2014)

Faun said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Faun (Feb 27, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



They're based on marriage being between more than 2 people. Gender has nothing to do with it. Whereas anti same-sex marriage discriminates based on gender.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 27, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Cancelling those plans to visit Arizona.  Too bad.  Maybe I'll go to Utah instead... depends of course.
> 
> This boycott thing and pressure can work both ways.



Yes, I know I'M feeling distressed and panicked because you're not coming here.

Oh, wait, I'm not.  Feel free to consider yourself unwanted.


----------



## kaz (Feb 27, 2014)

Camp said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Right, when people keep telling me that if I want the courts to follow the law that I am a homophobe, that's hunky dory with you.  If I insult them back, you consider that hypocrisy.  You are silent on the former, and only speak up on the latter.  The hypocrisy is yours.  No one should force anyone to do business with anyone.  When government does it, it's immoral.

And no one is forcing you to do anything.  I addressed the post and it was on topic for the thread.  If you don't know the rules, read them.  If you don't like the rules, go somewhere else.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 27, 2014)

Camp said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Oh, someone's holding a gun to your head, "forcing" you to read this, are they?  You don't have the free choice to skip those posts, put him on ignore, or go find some message board where everyone talks nice so as not to offend your kindergarten sensibilities?

You wouldn't know "hypocracy [sic]" if it crawled up your pants leg and bit you on the left ass cheek.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 27, 2014)

Faun said:


> They're based on marriage being between more than 2 people. Gender has nothing to do with it. Whereas anti same-sex marriage discriminates based on gender.



Who are you to tell other people who they can love?

....................

Actually, Islam supports polygamy - ergo the democratic party supports polygamy.

And SURPRISE...

{A federal judge's decision to strike down a key part of Utah's ban on polygamy over the weekend came as welcome news to Joe Darger.}

Judge Softens Utah's Anti-Polygamy Law To Mixed Reactions : NPR


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 27, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



Look outside, the Apocalypse has started!


----------



## Bumberclyde (Feb 27, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> > I guess Arizona really wanted that superbowl?
> ...



Money talks, homophobes walk.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 27, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...





*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 (Feb 27, 2014)

paperview said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



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 (Feb 27, 2014)

Faun said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



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


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 27, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



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 (Feb 27, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



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


----------



## Mertex (Feb 27, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...




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 (Feb 27, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...




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


----------



## Mertex (Feb 27, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > AceRothstein said:
> ...



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 (Feb 27, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > 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:
> ...




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 (Feb 27, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



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 (Feb 27, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> 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 (Feb 27, 2014)

kaz said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Feb 27, 2014)

bendog said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



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 (Feb 27, 2014)

kaz said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



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 (Feb 27, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



Hey, asshole, read the fucking 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 (Feb 27, 2014)

Camp said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Is she demanding that the government fuck 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 (Feb 27, 2014)

Faun said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



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


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 27, 2014)

Faun said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Homosexuality was illegal 50 years ago.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 27, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



The fact that the Penal Code code of California specifies that it is legal to hunt whales from your car is all the proof I need to now how indicative any law in California is.

By the way, not being married is a defense against incest in California.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 27, 2014)

Mertex said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



Because you are the expert on all things NFL.


----------



## bendog (Feb 27, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



And marrying outside your race


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 27, 2014)

Mertex said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



In 1993 the Super Bowl was just a game, now it is an extravaganza which allows the NFL to extort cash from taxpayers. That takes years to build up to, but it can be destroyed in a lot easier. If they move it now, and prove they don't need all the extra money they get from the state, and city, they will lose their ability to coerce cites into throwing cash at them in the future. They might even teach sities that they don't need to fork over cash for football stadiums, which would destroy their business model.

Ain't going to happen.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Feb 27, 2014)

Mertex said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > KevinWestern said:
> ...




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


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 27, 2014)

Mertex said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > KevinWestern said:
> ...



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


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 27, 2014)

bendog said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I am sure you think you have a point there.

Newsflash, you don't.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 27, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



That particular BSC has entire arguments with the voices in his head, which he always manages to lose somehow! This explains why is always so angry and bad tempered. 

Best to leave those who argue with stop signs alone in my opinion!


----------



## bendog (Feb 27, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



if I don't, neither do you.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 27, 2014)

bendog said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > bendog said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 27, 2014)

bendog said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Homosexuality was illegal 50 years ago.
> ...



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.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 27, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



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


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 27, 2014)

bendog said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > bendog said:
> ...



It's illegal to marry outside of your race.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 27, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > bendog said:
> ...



You, on the other hand, have none for yours.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 27, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


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


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 27, 2014)

It's a wonder that all the resorts in Palm Springs who advertise themselves as accepting only gay men as customers are allowed to stay in business.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 27, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Incorrect. 

Whether one is gay as a consequence of birth or choice is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant. The Fifth Amendments Liberty Clause guarantees all persons the right to self-determination, free from interference by the state (_Lawrence v. Texas_ (2003)). 

Gay Americans constitute a class of persons entitled to 14th Amendment protections, including the right to due process and equal protection of the law (_Romer v. Evans_ (1996)).


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 27, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> It's a wonder that all the resorts in Palm Springs who advertise themselves as accepting only gay men as customers are allowed to stay in business.


It's unlikely they say that, it would be illegal, unless you are a private club.  Then you can wear a tiny pink polka dot bikini and a white pointy hood while swimming if you wish to.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 27, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> 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.


----------



## paperview (Feb 27, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


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


This ahere is what we call retarded.

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


----------



## Howey (Feb 27, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > bendog said:
> ...



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


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 27, 2014)

paperview said:


> 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 (Feb 27, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > This ahere is what we call retarded.
> ...


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 (Feb 27, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


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


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 (Feb 27, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



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 (Feb 27, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



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


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 27, 2014)

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


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 27, 2014)

kaz said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



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


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 27, 2014)

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 (Feb 27, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



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 (Feb 27, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



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 (Feb 27, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...


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


----------



## Faun (Feb 27, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



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 (Feb 27, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...


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


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 28, 2014)

Faun said:


> 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 (Feb 28, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Because the Constitution doesn't allow for gender based discrimination.
> ...



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 (Feb 28, 2014)

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 (Feb 28, 2014)

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 (Feb 28, 2014)

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 (Feb 28, 2014)

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.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 28, 2014)

Mertex said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



That was almost clever.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 28, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> 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 (Feb 28, 2014)

Barb said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



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 (Feb 28, 2014)

Faun said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



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


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 28, 2014)

Faun said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > bendog said:
> ...



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


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 28, 2014)

Faun said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



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


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 28, 2014)

Barb said:


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



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


----------



## Faun (Feb 28, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



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 (Feb 28, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



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


----------



## Barb (Feb 28, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > When 'Religious Liberty' Was Used To Justify Racism Instead Of Homophobia | ThinkProgress
> ...



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

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 28, 2014)

Faun said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



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 (Feb 28, 2014)

Faun said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




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


----------



## BGriffin (Feb 28, 2014)

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 (Feb 28, 2014)

BGriffin said:


> 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 (Feb 28, 2014)

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 (Feb 28, 2014)

Sigh.

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

Sheesh.  Learn the law.


----------



## dblack (Feb 28, 2014)

eflatminor said:


> 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
> ...



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 (Feb 28, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



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 (Feb 28, 2014)

paperview said:


> 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 (Feb 28, 2014)

eflatminor said:


> 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
> ...


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


----------



## paperview (Feb 28, 2014)

eflatminor said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Sigh.
> ...


It doesn't matter what they are "about."

The KKK is not a protected class. If someone operating a business open to the public and discriminates against an individual KKK member stating it is because he is white, then yes, then he would be in violation of the law.


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 28, 2014)

Make it easy...put up a sign that says: "the law requires that I serve everyone, but I really don't like (fill in the blank). You're welcome to come in and be served, but we won't like doing it". 

The "fill in the blank" likely won't visit your establishment.


----------



## bravoactual (Feb 28, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> > I can't wait until it goes to court
> ...



Because monkey man, discrimination is against the law.

But fuck it any way.  Brewer vetoed the piece-o-bill anyway.

If I as a "Small Business Owner" in Arizona, and had this hateful bill become law saw a person with a cross around the neck, I would have the right to refuse service to them based on their attire.

If I owned a resturant in Arizona and saw people praying before a meal, I could (and would) throw them out because I would have the right to refuse them because they are engaging in a practice I DO NOT BElEIVE IN.


----------



## paperview (Feb 28, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Make it easy...put up a sign that says: "the law requires that I serve everyone, but I really don't like (fill in the blank). You're welcome to come in and be served, but we won't like doing it".
> 
> The "fill in the blank" likely won't visit your establishment.


The Supreme Court of New Mexico (ruling unanimously)  addressed this issue as well...


"If a commercial photography business believes that the  NMHRA stifles    its creativity, it can remain in business, but it can  cease to offer    its services to the public at large.* Elane  Photography&#8217;s choice to offer its services to the public is a business  decision, not a decision about its freedom of speech*. [...]


 Elane Photography and its owners likewise retain their First  Amendment rights to express their religious and  political beliefs. *They     may, for example, post a disclaimer on their website or in their    studio  advertising that they oppose same-sex marriage but that they    comply  with applicable antidiscrimination laws*."

Elane Photography v. Vanessa Willock  <-- Good reading.


----------



## paperview (Feb 28, 2014)

That same Supreme Court also addressed a similar KKK hypothetical here:

 {55}
  Elane Photography also suggests that enforcing the NMHRA against it  would mean that an African-American photographer could not legally  refuse to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally. 

*This hypothetical suffers from the reality that political views and  political group membership, including membership in the Klan, are not  protected categories under the NMHRA.*

  See § 28-1-7(F) (prohibiting public accommodation discrimination based  on&#8220;race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual  orientation, gender identity,spousal affiliation or physical or mental  handicap&#8221. 

Therefore, an African-American could decline to photograph a Ku Klux  Klan rally. However, the point is well-taken when the roles in the  hypothetical are reversed&#8212;a Ku Klux Klan member who operates a  photography business as a public accommodation would be compelled to  photograph an African-American under the NMHRA. 

This result is required by the NMHRA, which seeks to promote equal  rights and access to public accommodations by prohibiting discrimination  based on certain specified protected classifications.

Elane Photography v. Vanessa Willock


----------



## dblack (Feb 28, 2014)

bravoactual said:


> If I as a "Small Business Owner" in Arizona, and had this hateful bill become law saw a person with a cross around the neck, I would have the right to refuse service to them based on their attire.
> 
> If I owned a resturant in Arizona and saw people praying before a meal, I could (and would) throw them out because I would have the right to refuse them because they are engaging in a practice I DO NOT BElEIVE IN.



You guys keep citing scenarios like this as though it's some kind of trump card, like it's going to cause everyone arguing for freedom of conscience to stop and think, "Gee, I guess we were wrong." You clearly aren't getting what is being debated here.

I guess you just assume that everyone arguing for this law, or against public accommodations laws, is a bigot who wants to oppress people they don't like. That's really missing the boat. 

Personally, I'm very reluctant to side with homophobes, bigots, racists, etc..., or to associate with them in any way. But our freedoms are always attacked this way, nipped away at the edges, targeting unpopular minorities and beliefs. And if we fail to stand up for freedom when it produces distasteful results, it won't be there when we need it.


----------



## kaz (Feb 28, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Look man, seriously you're just being a dick.  I am arguing that the debate over gay marriage belongs in the legislature.  I am generally against government marriage, but other than that, I don't really care about gay marriage either way.  I am just telling you if you want it it should be done the right way and not by judicial fiat.  You can't address the point, you just run around screaming homophobe, homophobe.  If you want to continue to be a dick, go ahead.  But don't delude yourself as to what you are.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 28, 2014)

Faun said:


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


Maybe. But that proves it isn't a Constitutional isse.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 28, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


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



No it doesn't.

The California Supreme Court struck down it's anti-miscegenation law (IIRC) in 1948, others were struck down one at a time until it finally reached the SCOTUS in Loving v. Viriginia in 1967.  Such laws were struck down as being unconstitutional.

Technically, you could say that prior to 1967 anti-miscegenation laws were Constitutional.  Technically you can say that anti-same-sex-civil marriage laws are currently Constitutional.  That doesn't mean that once the SCOTUS accepts review that they will remain Constitutional.

20 years, or so, form California to Loving, it's only been 10 years since the Massachusetts Supreme Court struck down their anti-Marriage Equality provisions.  Marriage Equality is doing quite well in the grand scheme of things.  It's even started winning at the ballot during General Election Initiatives/Referendums.



>>>>


----------



## eflatminor (Feb 28, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > 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:
> ...



Wow.  I'm stunned.  You collectivist types really have zero respect for the concept of private property.  Just wow.


----------



## Seawytch (Feb 28, 2014)

eflatminor said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...




Oh we do. We also understand the concept of public accommodation. Those laws have been found Constitutional. If you want to exclude people from your business, you have to make it truly private...as in membership like the BSA or country clubs.


----------



## eflatminor (Feb 28, 2014)

paperview said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Okay then, by your reasoning, a Black owned florist cannot refuse to service a meeting of the KKK if he tells the truth and states "because they're a hateful white supremacist group".  If he udders such a thing, he must either provide his service to the KKK or close his business.

That's some logic there.

Same with the gay owned company and Westboro Baptist Church.  The homosexual can't refuse service on the grounds of their fucked up religion.

What a web of PC nonsense you weave!


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 28, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


I guess you don't get it. When interracial marriage prohibition was overturned, it was the law of the land. There was no need for referendums. And the fact that people can be bullied, intimidated or brainwashed doesn't mean much. It's a given. 

The fact is that homosexual marriage drastically changes what marriage is/was. The special union of the male/female, each with their characteristics making a better whole. Same sex marriage is the homosexual demand for validation by the state to participate in the lie that it's no different than heterosexual unions. 

That said, to go back to your earlier point, people are too confused now to connect the dots and anyone can make the same gay argument. Why not three men? Or a bi-sexual with a male and female partner. It's time government gets out of the marriage business and people can make their own legal arrangements.


----------



## eflatminor (Feb 28, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Found Constitutional by Progressive assholes with no respect for the concept of private property.  Yea, I get that.

We're just going to have to disagree on this one.  I see absolutely no reason that the owner of a private business shouldn't be free to refuse service.  What next?  "No shirt, no shoes, no service" going to be outlawed?  Does a fancy restaurant have to seat a guy in his underwear?

And further, if you're going to go down this path, we'll have to get rid of every "No guns allowed" signs.  After all, the right to bear arms is codified in the Constitution as an individual right.  A business owner therefore as no ability to restrict that right in his establishment.  You're cool with this also then...or you're a hypocrite.

Again, wow.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 28, 2014)

eflatminor said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...


Private property would mean the black guy would have to cut the flowers from his own garden at his house and drive them over.  He doesn't have to do that, that's not his business.  Delivering flowers from the shop however is why he bought the cute little white van in the first place.  I don't give a damn who ordered the flowers, if he takes their money, and he has no reason not to, then he delivers the damn flowers.  The fact that it might be a KKK meeting or a KKK funeral is none of his concern.


----------



## paperview (Feb 28, 2014)

eflatminor said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...


Are you calling the people that wrote and passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964  progressive assholes too?


----------



## Bumberclyde (Feb 28, 2014)

I still wouldn't serve muslims. If nobody in North America ever served muslims, do you think that they'd get the hint and leave?


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Feb 28, 2014)

Did anyone else notice this?

Okay, we know the reason the bill wasn't signed was big business didn't want to lose money BUT among the Big Businesses against the signing was Marriott. 

Marriott is owned by a mormon.  Mormons sometimes say they're "Christian". 

So, the question is, did Marriott object to the bill because of Christian morals? The Constitution? Or, was he motivated by the P&L of his his company?


----------



## Bumberclyde (Feb 28, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Did anyone else notice this?
> 
> Okay, we know the reason the bill wasn't signed was big business didn't want to lose money BUT among the Big Businesses against the signing was Marriott.
> 
> ...



They're confused, that's why.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 28, 2014)

Bumberclyde said:


> I still wouldn't serve muslims. If nobody in North America ever served muslims, do you think that they'd get the hint and leave?


Would you, because I'd be okay making that happen.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 28, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Did anyone else notice this?
> 
> Okay, we know the reason the bill wasn't signed was big business didn't want to lose money BUT among the Big Businesses against the signing was Marriott.
> 
> ...


Follow the money is still very good advice.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 28, 2014)

Credit the writers of the Bill for sending a message to the business and gay community for a pow wow on getting a bill that does not offend anyone and really does protect all religions without discriminating against anyone. 
I believe many are sincere about that.
But few here as making sure gays are continued to be treated as 2nd class citizens for their sins and perversions is #1.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 28, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...


Special union huh?  I gather your dad isn't a divorce attorney?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 28, 2014)

eflatminor said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > The KKK is not a protected class. If someone operating a business open to the public and discriminates against an individual KKK member stating it is because he is white, then yes, then he would be in violation of the law.
> ...




You just said exactly the OPPOSITE of what she said.  Because the KKK is a political organization (you realize the KKK is not a race, religion, ethnicity, gender, etc. - right?) it is not protected under Public Accommodation laws that restrict owners from discriminating based on race, religion, ethnicity, gender, etc.

As such a black business owner is free to turn down a catering job because they are a political organization, he is not free to turn them down because they are white.

Now if the KKK were to file a complaint with the appropriate agency, that agency will do an investigation.  They will look at the group and they will look at the business - if the business.  The business will say "No I didn't turn them down because they were white, here is a list of all my catering jobs over the last 2 years.  As you will notice I routinly cater to white customers so that claim is false."  Based on that evidence alone (that the owner supplies THE SAME catering service to white customers) the investigation would be closed and the case dismissed.


Sorry, the KKK thing is just stupid.  You don't think businesses have records?


>>>>


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 28, 2014)

Bumberclyde said:


> I still wouldn't serve muslims. If nobody in North America ever served muslims, do you think that they'd get the hint and leave?



Go see the movie Lone Survivor which is based on a true story on Navy Seal Luttrell and his team.
Muslims in AFghanistan fought off the Taliban and saved his life.
Ask the Navy Seals what they think about most Muslims in Afghanistan.
The massive support for the wars against terrorism is all about FUNDING MUSLIMS.
That is what the military wants as part of their strategy.
Get informed.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 28, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Did anyone else notice this?
> 
> Okay, we know the reason the bill wasn't signed was big business didn't want to lose money BUT among the Big Businesses against the signing was Marriott.
> 
> ...



The bill was not signed Because Brewer said NOT ONE case of someone being denied their religious freedom has ever happened in Arizona.

Similar to passing a law against jay walking in an area where there are no roads.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Feb 28, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Did anyone else notice this?
> ...



And, to be fair, it wasn't just the morm who is more interested in making a buck than in civil rights, Christian morals/ethics or our Constitution. 

The so-called "christians" really showed their true colors with this non-issue.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Feb 28, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Did anyone else notice this?
> ...



The last thing Brewer/AZ cares about are teh civil rights of anyone. Read the history of her votes as well as the votes of the state legislature. 

She didn't sign because AZ would have lost enormous income if she had.


----------



## eflatminor (Feb 28, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Where he gets his flowers is beside the point.  But I get it, and I have to say, I must acknowledge your consistency.  I couldn't be more against it, but at least you're consistent.

I simply disagree that anyone should be forced to take someone's money "because it's their job".  A business is private property as far as I'm concerned, to be used as the owner sees fit.

But again, thanks for not being a hypocrite like so many others around here.  I have to give you that comrade.


----------



## eflatminor (Feb 28, 2014)

paperview said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



The part that stomped all over private property rights, yes.


----------



## eflatminor (Feb 28, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Wrong.  By her reasoning, if the Black forest turns down the KKK gig by stating it's because they're a WHITE supremacists group, that's illegal.  That's what she said.  Nothing about politics, but race...which is a protected class.

Point is there should be NO class protected over any other class, IMO.



> Now if the KKK were to file a complaint with the appropriate agency, that agency will do an investigation.  They will look at the group and they will look at the business - if the business.  The business will say "No I didn't turn them down because they were white, here is a list of all my catering jobs over the last 2 years.  As you will notice I routinly cater to white customers so that claim is false."  Based on that evidence alone (that the owner supplies THE SAME catering service to white customers) the investigation would be closed and the case dismissed.
> 
> 
> Sorry, the KKK thing is just stupid.  You think businesses have records?



Doesn't matter.  The proof is in the pudding.  That Christian baker that was forced to service the gay wedding had done MANY gay events.  Had PLENTY of gay customers...as their records showed.  But when the gay wedding emerged, which conflicted with their protected status of religion, the PC police ruled in favor of the gay community.

Oh what a slippery slope.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 28, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



Of course that was part of it but there is no evidence of what the law claimed to protect from ever happening.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 28, 2014)

eflatminor said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...



How is baking a cake for a wedding against someone's religion?


----------



## paperview (Feb 28, 2014)

eflatminor said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...


You should tell that to your fellow conservatives - they get all puffy and proud (well, pre-this month) as they like to so often announce how _if it wasn't for 'publicans, yanno, the Civil Rights Act never would have passed_!!

It's a real point of pride for them. Well, it used to be.

Sometimes they would even throw in a "Did you know MLK was a republican!  ."


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 28, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Special union huh?  I gather your dad isn't a divorce attorney?


A divorce attorney can change biology? WTF?





eflatminor said:


> I simply disagree that anyone should be forced to take someone's money "because it's their job".  A business is private property as far as I'm concerned, to be used as the owner sees fit.


That concept is lost on many. I wonder how many of them have businesses. It might be bad for business but the marketplace should decide on the winners and losers, not government or special interest groups.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 28, 2014)

I have been married for almost 38 years.
How does gay marriage affect my marriage?
Or ANY heterosexual marriage?


----------



## paperview (Feb 28, 2014)

eflatminor said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...


That's *not *what I said.


----------



## paperview (Feb 28, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Special union huh?  I gather your dad isn't a divorce attorney?
> ...


I own a business, and have for a long time.  I have no problem with   PA laws.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 28, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Special union huh?  I gather your dad isn't a divorce attorney?
> ...


He believes in "special unions" there little buddy.  They are so "special" that some people have five or six of them in a lifetime.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 28, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> He believes in "special unions" there little buddy.  They are so "special" that some people have five or six of them in a lifetime.


I was referring to biology, a concept that apparently eludes you. Which is why you are so effed up.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Feb 28, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



I agree but religious belief has never been the real reason for discrimination against gays or women or people of color or whomever they go after next. 

Most important though - it did get vetoed. Little by little, the nutters are being dragged into the 21st century and they're being forced to accept equality for all.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 28, 2014)

Just baffles the hell out of me.
Why would anyone oppose 2 folks of the same sex that are committed to and love each other wanting to have the joy of a wedding and get married?
Why does that offend someone when it has NOTHING whatsoever to do with them and AFFECTS THEM in NO way?


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 28, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> I have been married for almost 38 years.
> How does gay marriage affect my marriage?
> Or ANY heterosexual marriage?


How would it effect your marriage if three, four or a dozen people could marry? I don't know but it changes the definition of marriage and means they can't define their own culture if it's against the popular view.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 28, 2014)

My wife and I a years ago were at Iberostar resort near Playa del Carmen, Mexico. They perform a lot of weddings at this resort. I was drinking shots at the lobby bar and we met a lot of Brits at the bar. They said they were there for a wedding. OK. This was maybe 20 years ago. So we are at the beach one afternoon and saw NO groom. Hmmmm, and then we figured out it was 2 women. And then we thought maybe just a ceremony. And then I thought, what a weird damn thing to do, 2 gays getting married. First reaction was this is stupid, 2 gay folks getting married.
Then I studied on that for a while and could not come up WITH ONE reason why I would oppose it OTHER than I may not like it.
Then I studied on it some more and realized that it affected me and my marriage IN NO WAY. 
So there was no reason for me to oppose something that had nothing to do with me, my marriage or my life.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 28, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > I have been married for almost 38 years.
> ...



Changes the definition of marriage.
Can't define their own culture
Wow, what a horrible thing that will destroy my marriage.
Only a milk weak thin skinned sissy uses that lame excuse.
And I doubt you are that so it amazes me you offer it.
You will admit if that is all you have then you have nothing.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 28, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



Hog wash.  Anti-miscegenation laws were not "the law of the land" at the time of the Loving decision.  There were 34 states without them and 16 states with them.

There was a mix of laws at the time Loving was decided.




Iceweasel said:


> The fact is that homosexual marriage drastically changes what marriage is/was. The special union of the male/female, each with their characteristics making a better whole.



Kudo's to you.  Many claim that the gays are asking for "special rights".  At least you are honest enough to show that your support is for "special rights" only for heterosexuals instead of allowing equal rights for "the gheys".

But to continue, from a legal perspective when examining discrimination and equality issues the measurement is to define a compelling government interest in treating like situated individuals (or in this case couples) and articulating that reason as it applies to those equally situated groups.

So here is your shot, please articulate a secular compelling government interest in why treating tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, non-related, consent adults in a different-sex relationship are treated differently than tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, non-related, consent adults in a different-sex relationship in a same-sex relationship.

Go...


>>>>


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 28, 2014)

Sorry folks, what it boils down with most of you is that you do not like gay folks having the same rights as straight folks.
You believe homosexuality is wrong and those people are perverts.


----------



## paperview (Feb 28, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Sorry folks, what it boils down with most of you is that you do not like gay folks having the same rights as straight folks.
> You believe homosexuality is wrong and those people are perverts.


Pretty much.


----------



## DiamondDave (Feb 28, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Sorry folks, what it boils down with most of you is that you do not like gay folks having the same rights as straight folks.
> You believe homosexuality is wrong and those people are perverts.



What I believe or you believe or Joe Blow believes is irrelevant.. the freedom for each of us to believe it, act upon it, and not be forced into participating in or condoning being a part of it is the issue... and that freedom should not be squashed by authoritarian overreaching government


----------



## Bumberclyde (Feb 28, 2014)

DiamondDave said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry folks, what it boils down with most of you is that you do not like gay folks having the same rights as straight folks.
> ...



So if I don't want to serve blacks, I can post a sign in the window saying: "We don't serve Blacks"? Or "Blacks must sit in the back of the restaurant"?


----------



## DiamondDave (Feb 28, 2014)

Bumberclyde said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Ahhh.. the predictable redirect

Being black is not a choice, action, behavior, or event as a result of such things..

You having a 'gay wedding is a chosen action and particular to a behavior you wish to participate in

You do not get to force others to be a part of it in a free society


----------



## eflatminor (Feb 28, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Just baffles the hell out of me.
> Why would anyone oppose 2 folks of the same sex that are committed to and love each other wanting to have the joy of a wedding and get married?
> Why does that offend someone when it has NOTHING whatsoever to do with them and AFFECTS THEM in NO way?



Baffles me too.  I support the right of adults to engage in any consensual activity.  Any adult ought to be able to marry any other adult they like.  However, that doesn't mean I don't respect private property rights.  People should have the right to be prejudice and to disagree with your statement, however much I agree with it.


----------



## eflatminor (Feb 28, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Doesn't matter that you think it isn't.  The baker thought it was...and it was more than just baking a cake.  It was delivering it to a gay wedding, it was being forced to demonstrate support of that wedding, which is against that guy's religion.

I don't happen to agree with that point of view, but I respect that it's his right to feel that way.


----------



## eflatminor (Feb 28, 2014)

paperview said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



One, I'm not a conservative.

Two, every point save one of the CRA was indeed a good law.  PUBLIC property should definitely not be segregated.  I (and the Conservatives) agree with that.

What I don't agree with is the section that forces private property owners to relinquish their rights for certain groups of people (I want to say it was Title II of the CRA).  While I would NEVER agree to support such an establishment and would be the first to boycott, picket or otherwise shame them out of business, I maintain it's the right of a private property owner to be an asshole.  What changes that is market forces and hitting them in the pocket book, not PC bullshit laws that are the epitome of the a slippery slope...as we're seeing today.


----------



## eflatminor (Feb 28, 2014)

paperview said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Well, let's be specific.  You stated:



> If someone operating a business open to the public and discriminates against an individual KKK member stating it is because he is white, then yes, then he would be in violation of the law.



I then stated:



> ...if the Black florist turns down the KKK gig by stating it's because they're a WHITE supremacists group, that's illegal.



How's that not what you said?


----------



## eflatminor (Feb 28, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Sorry folks, what it boils down with most of you is that you do not like gay folks having the same rights as straight folks.
> You believe homosexuality is wrong and those people are perverts.



I can't speak for others, but your assessment most certainly  does not apply to me.

I don't believe anyone group should have more rights than any other.  I don't not pass any judgement about right or wrong on any consensual activity between adults.  I do not consider homosexuals to be perverts.

But again, that does not mean I don't respect the rights of private property and how important that is to a functioning Republic.

Now, if you want gay people to have the same rights to marry as straight people, I argue we should get the government the hell out of the marriage business and to stop granting any special privileges whatsoever to ANY particular group.  That way, anyone could marry anyone they like.  Problem solved.

Government has no business knowing, regulating or otherwise meddling with personal relationships with the possible exception of those in military service.


----------



## kaz (Feb 28, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> How is baking a cake for a wedding against someone's religion?



How is government using guns to force someone to bake a cake something that could be done in a free country?


----------



## kaz (Feb 28, 2014)

DiamondDave said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry folks, what it boils down with most of you is that you do not like gay folks having the same rights as straight folks.
> ...



Yes.  Most confectioners would be happy to bake a cake for a gay wedding.  When someone doesn't want to, instead of running to another cake maker who wants to do it, liberal gays run to politicians to force them to do it.  It's the liberal gays who are sick, and not because of who they have sex with.

No one should be forced to do business with anyone by government.  It has nothing to do with gay.


----------



## High_Gravity (Feb 28, 2014)

WinterBorn said:


> If I go to one of these businesses with my girlfriend, but act effeminate, how much proof will I be required to show to get service?
> 
> Will kissing her work?  Or will intercourse be required for proof I am not gay?


----------



## Bumberclyde (Feb 28, 2014)

DiamondDave said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



Ya, but what if I start a religion that hates blacks? Don't I have freedom of religion?

So being gay is a choice?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 28, 2014)

Mertex said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



Yeah, I can be sure of that.  Do you know how many people go to the Super Bowl, and how many are dying to but can't get a ticket?  If you think that somehow, the stadium is going to have empty seats on Super Bowl Sunday because some homosexuals got their feelings hurt, you're delusional beyond the hope of modern medicine.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 28, 2014)

kaz said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



Exactly!  I simply do not understand the mindset of "Government is refusing to endorse my relationship, therefore government is telling me I cannot HAVE the relationship."  The government doesn't endorse a lot of what I do and think and feel, and I can't say it's ever really crossed my mind that it should, or that I should care.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 28, 2014)

bendog said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



You're right, that IS the point.  Why do they need the approval of anyone else to be happy?

Oh, and who the fuck ever stopped them from collecting the blessings of whatever church chooses to offer them?  When was THAT ever prohibited?


----------



## TooTall (Feb 28, 2014)

eflatminor said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry folks, what it boils down with most of you is that you do not like gay folks having the same rights as straight folks.
> ...



You can't get a marriage license to marry your sister.  Are you sure you want the state to allow that?


----------



## eflatminor (Feb 28, 2014)

TooTall said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Are they both adults?  Then they're free to call themselves married.  Freedom of speech and all.  I really don't give a shit.

The point is, you shouldn't need a license.  Think about it.  Without government running the market for marriage, anyone could call themselves married and it wouldn't make a bit of difference.  

It's not like the institution of marriage needs government support or oversight.  Marriage has been around a lot longer than any government and it isn't going anywhere.  There's no need to meddle in it with the force of law.

Now if two people want to enter into a contract together, that's what the civil courts are for.  What they call that contractual relationship should be up to them, not lawmakers.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 28, 2014)

paperview said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



When he stops making his Presidency about his skin color, we'll stop mentioning it.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 28, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



It isn't.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 28, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> How is baking a cake for a wedding against someone's religion?



There is a barbeque place near me that is superb. I stumbled across is because there was a 55 gallon drum outside of this place that smelled heavenly. 

My wife and I went inside, and a black gentleman about our age greeted up. This guy could talk the way my wife talks, ie non-stop. He gave us samples of his food and was not only supremely knowledgeable about the process, but obviously and rightfully proud of what he made. We ended up chatting with the guy for 45 minutes, about kids, grand kids, dogs, cooking, you name it. What I mean is this is a truly good man.

If a person walked in with a full Klan clown costume on, should this man be forced to serve him?  Why or why not?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 28, 2014)

eflatminor said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...



Ignorant nonsense.

Public accommodations laws don't "violate" any one's religious liberty.


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 28, 2014)

I love these butthurt....I don't have to serve gays laws

It is an acknowledgement from the right that they have lost the gay marriage debate. All they have left is ......You may get married but I won't serve you if you do

It was tried in Jim Crow and it didn't work then either


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 28, 2014)

Faun said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Learn the difference between "discriminated against because I'm a woman" and "discriminated against because I like to fuck women".


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 28, 2014)

Barb said:


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



Yeah, we hear dipshit leftist sites quoted as though they're valuable and relevant all the time.  You're not a unique snowflake in the "dumbfuck waste of time" department around here.  Hope that doesn't disappoint you.


----------



## Mertex (Feb 28, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > I have been married for almost 38 years.
> ...




And the definition of marriage means what to you?

How about people that marry, divorce, remarry, divorce, remarry, divorce, remarry.....don't they affect your definition of marriage?  Why aren't you against remarriage?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 28, 2014)

dblack said:


> bravoactual said:
> 
> 
> > If I as a "Small Business Owner" in Arizona, and had this hateful bill become law saw a person with a cross around the neck, I would have the right to refuse service to them based on their attire.
> ...



That's pretty much it.  The only protection MY freedoms have from those who disagree with me is my willingness to defend freedoms for those I disagree with.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 28, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Learn the difference between "discriminated against because I'm a woman" and "discriminated against because I like to fuck women".



I applied to be a towel attendant at a local spa in the women's locker room. They turned me down because I am a man.

Should I be outraged?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 28, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Learn the difference between "discriminated against because I'm a woman" and "discriminated against because I like to fuck women".
> ...


A man and a woman meet in an elevator. "Where are you heading today?" the man asks. 
"I'm going to the second floor to give blood."
"How much do you get paid for that?"
"$20" she says.
"Wow," says the man, "I'm going to the fourth floor to donate sperm, and they pay $100."
The woman sighs and gets off on floor two.
The next day, the man and woman meet in the elevator again.
"Fancy meeting you again. Where you off to today?" he asks.
She holds up four fingers with her mouth full.

Sometimes you just have to be what they need and life can be unfair.


----------



## eflatminor (Feb 28, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Plenty of people, including that baker in New Mexico, would disagree.

I suppose you're fine with a gay owned caterer being forced by law to service a Westboro Baptist Church event.  After all, if public accommodation laws don't violate any protect class, be it religion, race or sexual orientation.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 28, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> I applied to be a towel attendant at a local spa in the women's locker room. They turned me down because I am a man.
> 
> Should I be outraged?



Yes, according to the clearest interpretation of the doctrine of the church of LGBT, you should be suing them by now.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Feb 28, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > I applied to be a towel attendant at a local spa in the women's locker room. They turned me down because I am a man.
> ...


You can always sue, but can you win?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 28, 2014)

Heterosexual marriages end over 50% of the time in divorce.
Great tradition that is.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 28, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Learn the difference between "discriminated against because I'm a woman" and "discriminated against because I like to fuck women".
> ...



If you want to be then be outraged.
Does not mean you have any legal standing.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 28, 2014)

DiamondDave said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry folks, what it boils down with most of you is that you do not like gay folks having the same rights as straight folks.
> ...



Tell us how you are "forced into participating in or condoning being part of it".
No one forces you to do a damn thing.
And the "well, they force me to accept it" is a lame ass excuse all as no one forces you to do a damn thing.
Gay marriage affects you IN NO WAY. 
And if it does bother you then get the hell over it. It is none of your business as no one forces you to do a damn thing.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 28, 2014)

DiamondDave said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



Baking a cake is not being forced to participate in a gay wedding. 
And as far as the AZ law guess what?
Brewer said "not one case of someone that has had their religious freedom denied in AZ has been found."
Time to put up some evidence as NO ONE has had their religious freedom denied and selling a cake to a gay couple does not constitute being denied their religious freedom.
The reality is are we going to allow such a lame excuse for "religious freedom" to stretch to someone does not want to sell a damn cake?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 28, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Learn the difference between "discriminated against because I'm a woman" and "discriminated against because I like to fuck women".
> ...



No, but I'll bet you were disappointed.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 28, 2014)

Wow. Just keep saying the same godamn thing and it becomes true, huh? There ARE examples where gays have piled on if you did not provide a service against your wishes. One I know of happened 10+ years ago in Seattle, long before gay marriage existed here. It could be that they were trying to head it off at the pass since these things have happened. Yes, you are participating in it if you are printing homosexual wedding invitations, cakes, posters, whatever. 

It's time we take the country back from the tyranical left.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 28, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Wow. Just keep saying the same godamn thing and it becomes true, huh? There ARE examples where gays have piled on if you did not provide a service against your wishes. One I know of happened 10+ years ago in Seattle, long before gay marriage existed here. It could be that they were trying to head it off at the pass since these things have happened. Yes, you are participating in it if you are printing homosexual wedding invitations, cakes, posters, whatever.
> 
> It's time we take the country back from the tyranical left.



So if a person denied service to someone because they drank beer you would stand by that?
Fact is the ONLY sin you good folks condemn and support not giving service to people IS BEING HOMOSEXUAL.
The dude would bake a cake for an ex con getting married but not a gay person.
Don't you feel just a little bit silly?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 28, 2014)

Where are all these people denied their religious freedom?
They do not exist. Tens of millions of folks in those states and we have ONE BAKER with a claim.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 28, 2014)

kaz said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > How is baking a cake for a wedding against someone's religion?
> ...



Speaking of guns someone that goes by the 10 Commandments where one is "Thou shall Not Kill" can claim it is against their "religious freedom" to serve people carrying guns.
Don't you feel just a little bit silly defending this vague and ridiculous law that assumes there are people out there having their "religious freedom" denied when in fact THEY AREN'T?

A kid was rude to his parents in the fast food restaurant so they deny service to the kid. Religious freedom.

Again, amazing educated folks buy into this nonsense.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 28, 2014)

No Republican ANYWHERE will sign any of these vague and absurd laws into law.
Because all they amount to are pandering to the kooky religious right that believe this crap and hate gay folks.
Sports fans, the laws are so poorly written and vague no one with an ounce of sense supports them.


----------



## Toro (Feb 28, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Wow. Just keep saying the same godamn thing and it becomes true, huh? There ARE examples where gays have piled on if you did not provide a service against your wishes. One I know of happened 10+ years ago in Seattle, long before gay marriage existed here. It could be that they were trying to head it off at the pass since these things have happened. Yes, you are participating in it if you are printing homosexual wedding invitations, cakes, posters, whatever.
> ...



Maybe we should be able to discriminate against those who take the Lord's name in vain, covet thy neighbor's ass, disrespect their parents, etc.


----------



## dblack (Feb 28, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



I actually agree it's not right to grant a religious exemption to this law - but do you at least see how the overreaching legal principles behind public accommodations laws are driving this?


----------



## kaz (Feb 28, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Um...where did you see religion in my post exactly?  No one should be forced by anyone to do business with anyone for any reason.  Obviously I'm strongly pro-second amendment, but no one has the right to take a gun on someone else's private property without permission.  I have no problem with a business refusing to serve someone because they have a gun.  Or because they are wearing a green shirt, or for whatever other reason they chose to not do business with them.

And as I've said before, most businesses turn away almost no one.  We need customers.  That someone does is just an opportunity to do business with someone else.


----------



## kaz (Feb 28, 2014)

dblack said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



What does a religious exemption mean?  No one should be forced by government guns to do business with anyone.


----------



## dblack (Feb 28, 2014)

kaz said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Agreed. This law let's people off the hook for a religious excuse, but nothing else. Thus, a religious exemption.


----------



## deltex1 (Feb 28, 2014)

Celebrate Gay Marriage?or Else | National Review Online


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 28, 2014)

paperview said:


> Sigh.
> 
> For the 10,000th time...none of those above are protected categories.
> 
> Sheesh.  Learn the law.



The argument form the assholes is that all businesses have to serve everyone, period. If it weren't we wouldn't be having this fucking conversation because, in most of he states, sexual preference is not a protected class either.

Feel free to keep admonishing other people to learn the law you clearly lack knowledge of.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 28, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



No, illegal as in you don't get screwed by the government because you are married.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 28, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Make it easy...put up a sign that says: "the law requires that I serve everyone, but I really don't like (fill in the blank). You're welcome to come in and be served, but we won't like doing it".
> 
> The "fill in the blank" likely won't visit your establishment.



I have a better idea, put up a sign saying "All proceeds form any same sex marraige ceremony will be donated to the local chapter of 'Pray Away the Gay.'" That will keep all the nutcases out a lot more effectively.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 28, 2014)

bravoactual said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > TheOldSchool said:
> ...



It already went to court. 17 different states and the federal government, have the same laws on the books already, and they have all been upheld in court. Additionally, a number of other states have the exact same provisions written into their constitutions. That means that the majority of states in this country have these laws, and the result has been that no one has had a problem with them. In fact, the only people that have had a problem with this are the states where these laws do not exist.

By the ay, did you know that California is one of the states that has one of these "anti-gay" laws in  place, and that it was signed by Jerry Brown just 2 years ago?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 28, 2014)

paperview said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Make it easy...put up a sign that says: "the law requires that I serve everyone, but I really don't like (fill in the blank). You're welcome to come in and be served, but we won't like doing it".
> ...



They were wrong, just like the Supreme Court of the United States was wrong when they legalized discrimination in 1883.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 28, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Which reminds me, the governing council on all things collective just declared that homeless people have a civil right to access your bedroom, bathroom, and kitchen. You, being an upright collectivist, are herewith ordered to post a sign on your front door announcing this to the world, and to never lock your house.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 28, 2014)

paperview said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



No, but the idiots that think we still need it are.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 28, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Did anyone else notice this?
> 
> Okay, we know the reason the bill wasn't signed was big business didn't want to lose money BUT among the Big Businesses against the signing was Marriott.
> 
> ...



Did anyone get that business responded to he invisible hand of the market, the same one you say cannot be trusted to get to the right place?

Pretty much everyone but you.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 28, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



You do realize that you  completely misrepresented the impact of SB 1062, don't you? Until you are willing to admit you were wrong, publicly, and explain why you were wrong, you really shouldn't lecture anyone else on the law. It makes you look like a hack.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 28, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



When did you become the single person that knows enough about religion to trump everyone else on the planet?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 28, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Sorry folks, what it boils down with most of you is that you do not like gay folks having the same rights as straight folks.
> You believe homosexuality is wrong and those people are perverts.



For the sake o argument, let's assume you are right. You still have a problem,  I can quote actual gay people who say the same thing that I do. Unless you aree willing to dismiss them as homophobic bigots, which would make you look like a complete idiot, you have to come up with an argument that deals with their objections that is based on something other than, "I am not a homophobe."


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 28, 2014)

Bumberclyde said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Feel free.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 28, 2014)

eflatminor said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...



I want to address the specific issue you have raised in the last paragraph.

At the time the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed we had had 80 years of government mandated racism because the Supreme Court said that the 14th Amendment did not give Congress the power to pass laws prohibiting state laws on segregation because that power was outside the enumerated powers of the Constitution. Frankly, that was probably the single stupidest thing the Supreme Court ruled, even if I wish they would apply that same standard to more things today.

That, coupled with the fact that public accommodations, which were narrowly defined at the time, were actually few and far between, raised the very real possibility that someone could freeze to death, or starve, because they were unable to get shelter or food. That doesn't actually make the law right, but I do want to point out that it is possible make a pretty good case for needing it. 

The real problem comes from the fact that, once the law existed, it got bigger. That slippery slope/camel's nose thing came into play, and the government intruded more and more into areas they have no business even thinking about, much less actually regulating.


----------



## Contumacious (Feb 28, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Yo Vern,

was the Fourteenth Amendment lawfully ratified?

.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 28, 2014)

eflatminor said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...



In some states they can be prosecuted for claiming to be married.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 28, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...



What case law do you have to back that up?

Try to avoid the one case that was actually rescinded by federal law when you come up with something.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 28, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



The Supreme Court disagrees, what they have said is that, although it can be a significant burden on religion, that burden is outweighed by other factors.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 28, 2014)

Contumacious said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...



Irrelevant to the discussion.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 28, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> By the ay, did you know that California is one of the states that has one of these "anti-gay" laws in  place, and that it was signed by Jerry Brown just 2 years ago?



The bill passed by the California Legislature and signed by Jerry Brown two years ago was the commonly known as the California *Workplace* Non-discrimination Act or formally known as "AB 1964, Yamada. Discrimination in employment: reasonable accommodations." or "An act to amend Sections 12926 and 12940 of the Government Code, relating to employment."  Signed into law by the Governor on September 8, 2012.

The laws were (Arizona and California) are fundamentally different.

The California law deals with employment practices and has nothing to do with Public Accommodation laws.  On the other hand the Arizona law was created specifically in response to court cases in other States (New Mexico, Oregon, and Colorado) where same-sex couples filed complaints under the Public Accommodation laws of those States after their Public Accommodations were changed to include sexual orientation.

However in Arizona homosexuals have no such protection because Arizona has not passed legislation which prohibits discrimination against homosexuals.  In other words it's already OK to discriminate against the gays.  I business is not required to provide equal goods and services to homosexuals.  (Hell, Arizona employment law doesn't cover homosexuals so it's OK to fire someone just for being gay.)


http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billSearchClient.xhtml
Search for 1964 for the 2011-2012 session.


>>>>


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 28, 2014)

dblack said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Theres nothing overreaching about the legal principles that are the foundation of public accommodations laws; Commerce Clause jurisprudence authorizes sound and warranted regulatory policies appropriate for a modern, 21st Century economy. Its naïve, reactionary nonsense to argue otherwise.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 28, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > By the ay, did you know that California is one of the states that has one of these "anti-gay" laws in  place, and that it was signed by Jerry Brown just 2 years ago?
> ...



Tell me something, how are they fundamentally different when both are designed solely to protect the freedom of religion? Is it because you have been wrong about the Arizona law, and refuse to admit it?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 28, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



What is naive is assuming that you know what you are talking about.


----------



## Mertex (Feb 28, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Wow. Just keep saying the same godamn thing and it becomes true, huh? There ARE examples where gays have piled on if you did not provide a service against your wishes. One I know of happened 10+ years ago in Seattle, long before gay marriage existed here. It could be that they were trying to head it off at the pass since these things have happened. Yes, you are participating in it if you are printing homosexual wedding invitations, cakes, posters, whatever.
> 
> It's time we take the country back from the tyranical left.




You conveniently didn't respond to my post.  Why aren't you upset by people that make a mockery out of marriage, like Rush Limbaugh?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/8699848-post2013.html


----------



## The T (Feb 28, 2014)

Mertex said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Wow. Just keep saying the same godamn thing and it becomes true, huh? There ARE examples where gays have piled on if you did not provide a service against your wishes. One I know of happened 10+ years ago in Seattle, long before gay marriage existed here. It could be that they were trying to head it off at the pass since these things have happened. Yes, you are participating in it if you are printing homosexual wedding invitations, cakes, posters, whatever.
> ...


The ONLY ones making a mockery of it are the LEFT. Rush is married you DOLT.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Feb 28, 2014)

The T said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...




Well that's true, Rush is very committed to marriage - I mean hell, he's done it four times.  The good news is he believes in marriage more than divorce, married four times but only divorced three.


Nope no mockery there.


>>>>


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 28, 2014)

eflatminor said:


> 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
> ...



Prime example of how a turd thinks.

NONE of those end users would even consider hiring your examples...


----------



## DriftingSand (Feb 28, 2014)

eflatminor said:


> 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
> ...



Great post!!!

Nope ... only straight, normal Christians must succumb to whims of their opposers. All others are protected by the Constitution.


----------



## DriftingSand (Feb 28, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Cancelling those plans to visit Arizona.  Too bad.  Maybe I'll go to Utah instead... depends of course.
> 
> This boycott thing and pressure can work both ways.



I'm sure Arizona is deeply disappointed ... or not.


----------



## hunarcy (Feb 28, 2014)

Mertex said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Wow. Just keep saying the same godamn thing and it becomes true, huh? There ARE examples where gays have piled on if you did not provide a service against your wishes. One I know of happened 10+ years ago in Seattle, long before gay marriage existed here. It could be that they were trying to head it off at the pass since these things have happened. Yes, you are participating in it if you are printing homosexual wedding invitations, cakes, posters, whatever.
> ...



What does Rush Limbaugh have to do with anything?  Do you see him as the perfect example of how life should be lived?  The fact is that no matter if people fall short of the ideal, the ideal exists and we should strive for it.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 28, 2014)

The T said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



True, 4 times.


----------



## Mertex (Feb 28, 2014)

The T said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...




You idiot, marrying 4 times does not honor marriage except to DOLTS like you.   You are so worried about marriage being defined negatively, well, ijit, marrying and divorcing that many times does not "honor" marriage except to ignorant people like you.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 28, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > 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:
> ...



Did not have to deliver it.


----------



## Mertex (Feb 28, 2014)

hunarcy said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...




Yeah, well, I don't see the rw making bills to prevent people from marrying and divorcing that many times.....how come you're not striving for the ideal there?


----------



## dblack (Feb 28, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Well, I think using the Commerce Clause for social engineering, to mitigate race relations and manipulate social mores, is _very_ overreaching, regardless of how much 'case law' supports the practice. Laws that dictate whom we _must_ associate with and why are inhumane and deeply violate basic freedom of conscience.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 28, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > 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:
> ...



Exactly, they have to make up fantasies to "support" their arguments.
Because they have NO real life examples as Governor Brewer said.
"I have not heard OF ONE example in Arizona where a business owner's religious liberty has been violated".


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 28, 2014)

dblack said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Name one law that forces you to associate with anyone. 
The subject is "religious freedom" and the guidelines as what that exactly means when we write laws granting exemptions for that vague term.
One can claim that their religion bars them from waiting on gay people because they believe gay folks are sinners yet they will wait on someone that was a convicted felon for fraud and they cheat on their wife.
"Religious freedom" is what is being argued here and NO ONE has ever seen a case in Arizona where a business owner's religious freedom has been violated.
Similar to passing a jaywalking ordinance where there are no roads.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 28, 2014)

Funny,the authors of the bill claim it was because of the ACA and Catholic Schools not wanting to have to purchase contraceptives with their health benefits and anti funding of state funds for abortion and such.
The authors of the bill deny that they wanted to see it used to deny anything to homosexuals.
Which is it folks? 
Bottom line is the very folks that wrote the damn bill are now side stepping, back tracking and running from their own bill like monkeys on fire.


----------



## hunarcy (Feb 28, 2014)

Mertex said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



There WERE laws that made divorce more restrictive, but people who thought like you think insisted that they be changed.  Now, you want to complain about the results of liberal thinking?  very disingenuous!


----------



## Mertex (Feb 28, 2014)

hunarcy said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > hunarcy said:
> ...



I'm not complaining, I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy.  If you are so striving for the ideal marriage, shouldn't you start trying to keep people from marrying that many times?
Frankly I don't care if Rush Limbaugh gets divorced again and remarries a 20 year old girl....his wives seem to keep getting younger as he gets older.....and I don't care if gays marry either....you're the one that is whining about one thing while ignoring the other.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 28, 2014)

hunarcy said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > hunarcy said:
> ...



Reality is it is harder to get divorced now if you have kids than before.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 28, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Funny,the authors of the bill claim it was because of the ACA and Catholic Schools not wanting to have to purchase contraceptives with their health benefits and anti funding of state funds for abortion and such.
> The authors of the bill deny that they wanted to see it used to deny anything to homosexuals.
> Which is it folks?
> Bottom line is the very folks that wrote the damn bill are now side stepping, back tracking and running from their own bill like monkeys on fire.



Funny how you keep arguing for a position that is patently false.


----------



## dblack (Feb 28, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Don't be coy. The fundamental concept of all "public accommodations" laws forces association. And that's the core of what we're talking about here. The impetus for the conversation is the vetoed Arizona law - and I happen to agree with you it's not a valid application of freedom of religion - but the broader context is the overreaching public accommodations laws that inspired it.


----------



## hunarcy (Feb 28, 2014)

Mertex said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



My hypocrisy, huh?  Why do you have to lie? Could it be because I busted you on wanting to deflect to Limbaugh as his failings excuse the abandonment of the ideal?  Of course it is.  You may continue to lie about me and obsess about Limbaugh as if he is relevant to anyone else's choices.  It obviously is your goal.


----------



## Mertex (Feb 28, 2014)

hunarcy said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > hunarcy said:
> ...




Yes, it is hypocrisy.  And, I'm not lying.  You and others like you are trying to claim that you want to keep "marriage" sacred, but when one of your heroes drags marriage through the mud, you look the other way.  

If you are so bent on keeping marriage "honorable" then anything that defiles it, would be reason for you and those that think like you to try and write bills to change it,  but the truth is that it isn't so much about keeping marriage sacred, but more about hating gays.  Haters gotta hate......


----------



## Seawytch (Mar 1, 2014)

paperview said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Meh..in 40 years the Republicans will be trying to take credit for gay civil rights.


----------



## DriftingSand (Mar 1, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Forcing a Christian baker to write *"Congratulations To Adam & Steve On Their Special Wedding Day"* IS a violation of the baker's religious freedom if the baker sees homosexuality as an absolute violation of the religious tenets he believes and accepts as true.  He's being forced to condone and participate in an event that the Bible considers to be of "the world."  The Bible specifically states that Christians are to avoid worldly pleasures and activities at all costs.  Therefore, forcing the baker to bake a cake for a "gay" wedding is a direct assault on his religious freedom and beliefs.

*1 Thessalonians 5:22*_*, "Abstain from all appearance of evil."

*_*1 John 2:15*_*, "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If  any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him."

*_*James 4:4*_*, "Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of  the world is enmity with God? Whosoever therefore will be a friend of  the world is the enemy of God."

*_*1 John 2:16*_*, "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust  of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the  world."

*_*Romans 12:2*_*, "And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the  renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and  acceptable, and perfect, will of God."*_

Following are some of the definitions of "world" as found in the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance (take special note of the definitions in red):



> Strong's world #G2889 - "World" (or Greek "kosmos"):
> 
> 
> an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government
> ...


The above definition was borrowed from the site found at this link: Greek Lexicon :: G2889 (KJV)


----------



## Bumberclyde (Mar 1, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...



MLK must have been a republican, he was an adulterer and a wife beater.


----------



## johnwk (Mar 1, 2014)

This is another attack upon rights associated with property ownership just like the smoking control freaks who also use government force to seize control over another persons private property for their personal use and enjoyment who forbid the owner of said property to allow his guests to smoke thereon.  But we were warned against submitting to such tyranny:


*Submit to despotism for an hour and you concede the principle. John Adams said, in 1775, Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud. It is the only thing a people determined to be free can do. Republics have often failed, and have been succeeded by the most revolting despotisms; and always it was the voice of timidity, cowardice, or false leaders counseling submission, that led to the final downfall of freedom. It was the cowardice and treachery of the Senate of Rome that allowed the usurper to gain power, inch by inch, to overthrow the Republic. The history of the downfall of Republics is the same in all ages. The first inch that is yielded to despotism - the first blow, dealt at the Constitution, that is not resisted - is the beginning of the end of the nations ruin. * See: THE OLD GUARD, A MONTHLY JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF 1776 AND 1787, *HOW TO TREAT UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTS OF CONGRESS*


When these control freaks are finished there will be nothing left standing but publically owned property and the iron fist of a communist government!


JWK

*[P]roperty [does not] lose its private character merely because the public is generally invited to use it for designated purposes.* _____ LLOYD CORP. v. TANNER, 407 U.S. 551 (1972)


----------



## DriftingSand (Mar 1, 2014)

Mertex said:


> Yes, it is hypocrisy.  And, I'm not lying.  You and others like you are trying to claim that you want to keep "marriage" sacred, but when one of your heroes drags marriage through the mud, you look the other way.
> 
> If you are so bent on keeping marriage "honorable" then anything that defiles it, would be reason for you and those that think like you to try and write bills to change it,  but the truth is that it isn't so much about keeping marriage sacred, but more about hating gays.  Haters gotta hate......



I'm opposed to anyone - "gay" or straight - who redefines marriage to suit his or her personal tastes. I'm opposed to straight, married men or women who cheat on their spouses. I'm opposed to straight, married men or women who marry for money. I'm opposed to folks marrying for convenience without understanding and accepting the deep commitment that true marriage requires. I'm all for the historical definition of marriage as held by most cultures and most religions - that is that marriage is a vow and intimate contract between a man and a woman.


----------



## Bumberclyde (Mar 1, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, it is hypocrisy.  And, I'm not lying.  You and others like you are trying to claim that you want to keep "marriage" sacred, but when one of your heroes drags marriage through the mud, you look the other way.
> ...



You're just homophobic. Now you know.


----------



## DriftingSand (Mar 1, 2014)

Bumberclyde said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Interestingly, there are documented cases of prominent Democrats being members of the KKK.  But that's another topic for another thread.


----------



## kaz (Mar 1, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Government forcing it's citizens with guns to do business with people they don't want to do business with isn't "overreaching?"  Seriously?  You're over-sick.  This is why I keep ... accurately ... calling you people authoritarian leftists.  Liberals love freedom, including from government.  You love government forcing it's citizens to do your bidding.  You have nothing in common with liberal, nothing in any way at all.


----------



## kaz (Mar 1, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Including the "Conscience of the Senate," Robert Byrd.  He not only was in the KKK, but he hated blacks so much he joined the KKK in an area there were virtually no blacks.


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 1, 2014)

kaz said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Kaz's 'liberalism'...


----------



## DriftingSand (Mar 1, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Kaz's 'liberalism'...



The question at hand has to do with religious freedom and a person's right to stand on his or her religious tenets.  There's nothing in the Bible that required a Christian not to cater to someone of a different race but the Bible explicitly states and homosexuality is a very sinful behavior.  Therefore, your post compares apples to oranges.

A person of any particular race can't choose to be a different race. However, a homosexual _can_ choose to give up his sin and embrace normalcy.


----------



## paperview (Mar 1, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Kaz's 'liberalism'...
> ...


The religious right has used the bible to discriminate against blacks for a long time, and was even used as late as the Loving v Virginia decision. 

There are direct parallels, and the most recent ruling from the Federal judge in Virginia itself overturning the ban on same sex marriage spoke to that.

You may disagree it was wrong for people to interpret the bible the way they did to discriminate, and you may hold the opinion homosexuality is a choice -- but the overwhelming amount of evidence shows to you be incorrect on both counts.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Mar 1, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Kaz's 'liberalism'...
> ...




The law specifically excluded ANY requirement that the religious belief be held by or be "compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief. 

It's the claim of a person for their individual beliefs, not something that has to be supported by any external central religious doctrine.

Well, that of course is your opinion, but others disagree...

From Bob Jones University v. United States (SCOTUS, 1982):

The sponsors of the University genuinely believe that the Bible forbids interracial dating and marriage. To effectuate these views, Negroes were completely excluded until 1971. From 1971 to May, 1975, the University accepted no applications from unmarried Negroes, [n5] but did accept applications from Negroes married within their race.​

>>>>


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 1, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> So if a person denied service to someone because they drank beer you would stand by that?
> Fact is the ONLY sin you good folks condemn and support not giving service to people IS BEING HOMOSEXUAL.
> The dude would bake a cake for an ex con getting married but not a gay person.
> Don't you feel just a little bit silly?


No but you should. I don't believe in sin and said repeatedly that I support anyone's right to do business with whoever they want.


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 1, 2014)

Mertex said:


> You conveniently didn't respond to my post.  Why aren't you upset by people that make a mockery out of marriage, like Rush Limbaugh


It wasn't worth responding to. It has nothing to do with the subject and I'm not Rush Limbaugh.


----------



## johnwk (Mar 1, 2014)

Bumberclyde said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



And you appear to ignore rights associated with property ownership!

As I previously noted:




> This is another attack upon rights associated with property ownership just like the smoking control freaks who also use government force to seize control over another persons private property for their personal use and enjoyment who forbid the owner of said property to allow his guests to smoke thereon.  But we were warned against submitting to such tyranny:
> 
> 
> *Submit to despotism for an hour and you concede the principle. John Adams said, in 1775, Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud. It is the only thing a people determined to be free can do. Republics have often failed, and have been succeeded by the most revolting despotisms; and always it was the voice of timidity, cowardice, or false leaders counseling submission, that led to the final downfall of freedom. It was the cowardice and treachery of the Senate of Rome that allowed the usurper to gain power, inch by inch, to overthrow the Republic. The history of the downfall of Republics is the same in all ages. The first inch that is yielded to despotism - the first blow, dealt at the Constitution, that is not resisted - is the beginning of the end of the nations ruin. * See: THE OLD GUARD, A MONTHLY JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF 1776 AND 1787, *HOW TO TREAT UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTS OF CONGRESS*
> ...


----------



## Bumberclyde (Mar 1, 2014)

johnwk said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...



Got anything else besides copy%paste gibberish that's not relevant to my point?


----------



## eflatminor (Mar 1, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > 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:
> ...



Riiiiiight, and a homosexual would never even consider hiring a fundamentalist Christian....

Your overwhelming hypocrisy is noted.


----------



## kaz (Mar 1, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



So in a thread about gays where I said no one should be forced to do business with anyone by government guns, I'm a segregationist racist.  Got it

OMG, you have no functioning male parts at all.  You are just a bitch of the Democratic party.


----------



## DriftingSand (Mar 1, 2014)

paperview said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



You seem to forget that Abraham Lincoln (and many union troops and officers) were Christians who helped free the slaves.  But, again, this is another topic for another thread.


----------



## paperview (Mar 1, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...


Yes, another topic for another thread -- but many preachers, pastors and _christians _throughout the south used the bible to defend slavery and subjugating blacks. Evidence of that is rife.


----------



## DriftingSand (Mar 1, 2014)

paperview said:


> Yes, another topic for another thread -- but many preachers, pastors and _christians _throughout the south used the bible to defend slavery and subjugating blacks. Evidence of that is rife.



Do you have any documentation to substantiate your claim? "_*Many*_ preachers, pastors, and Christians" or some? You will have to cite "many" specific circumstances if you have any hope of proving your point.  There were thousands upon thousands of white Christians using biblical standards to help free the slaves.  Again ... you should start a new thread if you wish to continue this conversation. This post really revolves around religious freedom vs. religious persecution ... not slavery.


----------



## kaz (Mar 1, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, another topic for another thread -- but many preachers, pastors and _christians _throughout the south used the bible to defend slavery and subjugating blacks. Evidence of that is rife.
> ...



Churches were deeply involved in fighting slavery and assisting runaway slaves.  And most Christians today are not anti-gay and don't believe anyone is going to hell for being gay.

If one Christian believes something liberals don't like, they can paint all Christians with their wide brush.  But if all Democrats say the same thing, you can't generalize that someone who is a Democrat believes that.

Liberalism, it is a double standard, wrapped in a hypocrisy, inside cluelessness...


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 1, 2014)

kaz said:


> Liberalism, it is a double standard, wrapped in a hypocrisy, inside cluelessness...


I have often said that liberalism and hypocrisy are two sides of the same coin. I've never met a liberal that wasn't a hypocrite.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 1, 2014)

paperview said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Your stupidity is no mandate that the rest of us have to be idiots on any other subject, so why should it be when it comes to your love of giving up your rights?  Right and wrong don't change just because you're ignorant enough to embrace being wrong.


----------



## johnwk (Mar 1, 2014)

Bumberclyde said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> > Bumberclyde said:
> ...




In case you have not figured it out, rights associated with property ownership is that which is being attacked.  And if these control freaks are not stopped there will be nothing left standing but publically owned property and the iron fist of a communist government!


JWK




*
Is America on the verge of submitting to communism without a shot being fired?
*


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 1, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...


Burning witches used to be "right".  How come it's "wrong" now?  Did something, ah, change?


----------



## Silhouette (Mar 1, 2014)

You guys are still caught up in comparing "sin for sin" eh?  

Its a mortal sin for an individual to murder, etc.  It's a sin of an entire society to facilitate the usurping of God's matrix of male-female sexuality and it's being the backbone wherein a non gender-blended interaction can serve to test the individuals.

The church of LGBT has been quite open about their bid to dissolve God's matrix, to blend everything together.  That is the sin.  And it cannot be allowed for reasons quite possibly, and naturally so, out of the reach of the grasp or understanding of most people reading this.  

So naturally the mistake or the purposeful misrepresentation of anyone rebutting this post from the new church of LGBT would be to say, "So if most people don't get it, then it doesn't have merit and christians should just drop it!"

And the answer to that is, NO.  For there wouldn't be any religion if people understood the reasons behind everything.  But we don't.  And if you accept that there is a higher being, a greater intelligence behind this big Plan we are all in, then you will have to accept that there will be concepts and warnings from this higher being that will defy the masses' natural inclinations to the endless indulgences and temptations of the flesh that are far, far wiser than we mere humans will ever understand.

Suffice to say that in Jude 1 and Romans 1, even if we do not understand the why of homosexual cultural promotion being one of the gravest mortal sins around, we surely will get the "here's what will happen if you don't abide" angle.

That is spelled out quite clearly for all to "get"...



> JUDE 1
> 
> 3. Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
> 
> ...





> ROMANS 1
> 
> 22. *Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools*,
> 
> ...



That isn't an ambigious gray area there folks.  That's a direct statement on promotion of or participation in a homosexual lifestyle.

Homosexuals do now and will always exist.  But in Jude 1 it tells the faithful to extend compassion to them even as they unwaveringly resist their smooth speech to allow their behaviors any badge of normalcy.  People of many mental imbalances must always deserve our compassion but never a promotion of their flawed behaviors as "normal".  That is the sin of tampering with the matrix.


----------



## Bumberclyde (Mar 1, 2014)

johnwk said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > johnwk said:
> ...



Refusing to serve gays is homophobic and not a religious objection, since jesus would have served gays. Unless the cake maker was muslim, in which case he and his family of camels should be deported asap.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 1, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Liberalism, it is a double standard, wrapped in a hypocrisy, inside cluelessness...
> ...


You've never met a human being who wasn't a hypocrite, about something. you just aren't smart enough to figure it out and don't know that an honest human being will admit it.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Mar 1, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...




Well, then, by God, he had better not sell a wedding cake to anyone who is obese or lazy or who smokes or who drinks or who has had an affair or who was once divorced or who has ever eaten shrimps or who has ever walked more than 15 paces in the rain on the sabbath, for those are all abominable sins in the bible, right up with Homosexuality. By God, he better not sell to any of THOSE people. Oh, and masturbators? No go. We all know that God literally fried a masturbator the moment his seed hit the ground.

Just let me know if you, as a Christian, will be able to find any customer who will not offend your delicate religious sensibilities. Good luck with that one!!!


----------



## kaz (Mar 1, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Liberalism, it is a double standard, wrapped in a hypocrisy, inside cluelessness...
> ...



Their problem is that they think of themselves as liberals, who are open minded and tolerant, but in reality they are authoritarian leftists who are closed minded and rigidly intolerant.  That contradiction in their views and their self perception leads to unending hypocrisy in what they say and the positions they advocate.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 1, 2014)

Bumberclyde said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> > Bumberclyde said:
> ...


Interesting contradictory statements there.  I wonder, do you see it?


----------



## DriftingSand (Mar 1, 2014)

kaz said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



I certainly don't hate "gays" but I do believe that they may be in jeopardy of hell if they don't repent of their sins.  The same is true of anyone who rejects the Gospel of Christ in favor of embracing his or her particular sinful behavior.  However, I'm not the final Judge. There is One much greater than myself Who has reserved that job for Himself.  Each and every one of us will have to stand before Him and answer for our actions. A day of judgment IS coming (if we believe what the Bible says).

The bottom line for me is that I believe a business owner has the right to model his or her business in a manner that fits his or her particular belief system.  If any one of us doesn't like a business person's business model then we have the right to do business elsewhere. None of us has the right to force a business owner to cave into our personal whims.  If that were the case then I could force "gay" business owners to conform to my personal whims and beliefs.


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 1, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Burning witches used to be "right".  How come it's "wrong" now?  Did something, ah, change?


Burning witches happened therefore any change is good? That's insane.


Silhouette said:


> You guys are still caught up in comparing "sin for sin" eh?


No, I'm not religious myself but the point you can't grasp is that it isn't up to you to define someone else's morality. No one can understand it for you.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 1, 2014)

Bumberclyde said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Bumberclyde said:
> ...



What if you do?  You keep shouting, "Blacks!  Blacks!  What if it was the BLACKS?!" as though you think that's some sort of trump card where everyone's going to go, "Oh, well, THAT makes it different!"  It doesn't.

As to gay being a choice, why don't you ask your progressive asshole buddy who told us all that the real problem was that we just hadn't tried gay sex and discovered how much fun it was, and we should go to a gay bar and pick someone up?  Clearly, being gay IS a choice.

It must make you so proud to know that you have someone like that on your side.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 1, 2014)

kaz said:


> Their problem is that they think of themselves as liberals, who are open minded and tolerant...


And you got that idea where exactly?  It's wrong by the way.  Liberals are more of those two than many others but there are very significant limits on both of those, for very good reasons.

What you just posted isn't true.


----------



## kaz (Mar 1, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...


The red makes me respect your opinion even though I don't have an issue with anyone being gay.  I don't understand why God would make someone that way, and then demand they not be that way even though they aren't harming anyone.  But as you say, it's in the end not up to us.  You don't sound like anyone who's going to go out and harm anyone.



DriftingSand said:


> The bottom line for me is that I believe a business owner has the right to model his or her business in a manner that fits his or her particular belief system.  If any one of us doesn't like a business person's business model then we have the right to do business elsewhere. None of us has the right to force a business owner to cave into our personal whims.  If that were the case then I could force "gay" business owners to conform to my personal whims and beliefs.



Bam!  Total agreement.  Business owners shouldn't be forced to do business with anyone for any reason, it's just a crime against the people when they do.


----------



## kaz (Mar 1, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Their problem is that they think of themselves as liberals, who are open minded and tolerant...
> ...



Interesting, a liberal who doesn't think the people who call themselves liberals are close minded and rigidly intolerant.  Wow, I didn't see that one coming...

Liberalism is a rigid ideology that abides no dissent on any issue from anyone.  Liberals aren't "more of those two" than anyone.


----------



## DriftingSand (Mar 1, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



It should be up to the business owner. That means that if someone wants a cake with icing in the shape of a pot-leaf he shouldn't have to bake it if he's opposed to pot use.  If someone wants a cake with nude statuettes on it he shouldn't be forced to bake it (or decorate it) if he's opposed to nudism.  See the point?  It's really that simple.  He should have the right to say NO to activities that he's personally opposed to -- including homosexuality.  

Now, if a homosexual wants someone to bake him a cake he need not tell the baker what his sexual orientation is. The cake could remain blank then the homosexual could decorate it to his liking when he got home.  Wouldn't that be a fair solution to this problem?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 1, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Burning witches used to be "right".  How come it's "wrong" now?  Did something, ah, change?
> ...


You are a strange little fellow, I must say that.  Burning witches used to be considered right, and now it isn't.  The Bible says do not allow a witch to live.  And we do define morality for others, all day long here, we call it the Law.  You have your morals and your society also has morals.  Both exist at the same time.  Sometimes yours win, sometimes society's win.  Okay?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 1, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...



I must have missed the announcement when God died and you became the universal official arbiter of what is and isn't against the religion of every single person on the planet.

Can you dipshit leftists BE any more arrogant and hubristic and hypocritical?  There's no way that you jackasses would EVER accept someone else setting up THEIR opinions as the objective moral standard by which YOU should be judged, but you have absolutely no problem airily waving your hands and saying, "You believe this, but you're wrong, and THIS is what you should really believe, so that's how it is" to other people.


----------



## DriftingSand (Mar 1, 2014)

kaz said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Liberals are ultra "loving and open-minded" as long as you totally agree with their ideology. However, don't dare think for yourself and have an original thought that departs from their ideology else you will become a target of their wrath.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 1, 2014)

kaz said:


> Liberalism is a rigid ideology that abides no dissent on any issue from anyone.  Liberals aren't "more of those two" than anyone.


Also very untrue.  Where do you get this nonsense from?  What do the words Liberal and Liberty have in common?  What "concept" do they both stem from?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 1, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Liberals are ultra "loving and open-minded"...


From where exactly do you guys get this crapola?  You are being lied to, and therefore lying to yourselves.


----------



## johnwk (Mar 1, 2014)

Bumberclyde said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> > Bumberclyde said:
> ...



Apparently you have missed what this is really about which is rights associated with property ownership and has nothing to do with Jesus.

JWK



*" I believe that there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." *___ Madison *Elliot`s Debates, vol. III, page 87*


----------



## kaz (Mar 1, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Liberalism is a rigid ideology that abides no dissent on any issue from anyone.  Liberals aren't "more of those two" than anyone.
> ...


Read the discussions on this board with a critical mind, and you will get it.



PaintMyHouse said:


> What do the words Liberal and Liberty have in common?  What "concept" do they both stem from?



First of all, that a group is defined by their name rather than their actions is ridiculous.

Second of all, true liberals are libertarians.  The people who call themselves liberals are authoritarian leftists.  It is liberty, libertarian and (true) liberal that are one and the same.  Government should be minimized to maximize liberty.


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 1, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> You are a strange little fellow, I must say that.  Burning witches used to be considered right, and now it isn't.  The Bible says do not allow a witch to live.  And we do define morality for others, all day long here, we call it the Law.  You have your morals and your society also has morals.  Both exist at the same time.  Sometimes yours win, sometimes society's win.  Okay?


Like I said, you're insane. You have no clue what NT principles are or what the relevance even is. Witches and slavery has nothing to do with asshole gays forcing their shit onto everyone else. Plus, laws don't define morality. I don't know where you conjured that up from except maybe your paint can.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 1, 2014)

kaz said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


So you would lie to yourself instead of learning the truth then?  Did you know the Founders of this nation were Liberals?  Liberalism is not what you believe, not in the slightest so far.  You have an open mind right?  Prove it.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Mar 1, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



An open minded person is one who can understand that being gay in America cannot be shown to have any material effect on whether or not a gay person should have equal rights.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 1, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > You are a strange little fellow, I must say that.  Burning witches used to be considered right, and now it isn't.  The Bible says do not allow a witch to live.  And we do define morality for others, all day long here, we call it the Law.  You have your morals and your society also has morals.  Both exist at the same time.  Sometimes yours win, sometimes society's win.  Okay?
> ...


Ah, okay, you're pretty nuts.  Tell us though, what do US Laws, OT laws, and NT laws all say about Murder?  What do all three say about Lying?


----------



## kaz (Mar 1, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Did you know the Founders of this nation were Liberals?  - Ding, ding, ding.  This is my point, they were classic liberals, their views were libertarian, not authoritarian leftists like today's "liberals."

Liberalism is not what you believe, not in the slightest so far.  You have an open mind right?  Prove it. - You're just repeating how liberals view themselves.  Let's talk about liberal "openmindedness."  Liberals destroy women, blacks, gays or any other group they "support" unless they are liberal.  Liberals drove Libermann from the party for disagreeing on one issue.  Every liberal argues the same position and the same reasoning.  You like using vague words, you're short on examples contradicting me.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Mar 1, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, another topic for another thread -- but many preachers, pastors and _christians _throughout the south used the bible to defend slavery and subjugating blacks. Evidence of that is rife.
> ...



The evidence was already posted in this thread.

Are you arguing that religious beliefs cannot serve as a legitimate reason to discriminate against people of color?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Mar 1, 2014)

The Mormons argued that the religious basis for polygamy gave it constitutional protection.

Why didn't that work out for them?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 1, 2014)

kaz said:


> Let's talk about liberal "openmindedness."  Liberals destroy women, blacks, gays or any other group they "support" unless they are liberal.  Liberals drove Libermann from the party for disagreeing on one issue.  Every liberal argues the same position and the same reasoning.  You like using vague words, you're short on examples contradicting me.


Honestly, that's all just reactionary dogma.  Destroy women, blacks, and gays, who the Democratic party is made up of?  

And Liberals are Classic Liberals, only they live two hundred years later, so times have change things a bt.  Show us, just for fun, some examples of this "destruction"?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 1, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> The Mormons argued that the religious basis for polygamy gave it constitutional protection.
> 
> Why didn't that work out for them?


Because we, society, disapproved so we made another law that goes against the First Amendment.


----------



## kaz (Mar 1, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Let's talk about liberal "openmindedness."  Liberals destroy women, blacks, gays or any other group they "support" unless they are liberal.  Liberals drove Libermann from the party for disagreeing on one issue.  Every liberal argues the same position and the same reasoning.  You like using vague words, you're short on examples contradicting me.
> ...



Seriously, if you don't recognize what Democrats do to Clarance Thomas, Condie Rice, Colin Powell, Herman Cain, Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, Michelle Backman, Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingram... Then you're just a fool who isn't worth wasting time on.

Democrats are vicious to Republicans, but you add color, gender, orientation or another attribute Democrats believe belong to them, then they make sure others are afraid to speak out.  And again, the ideology is absolutely rigid and tolerates no dissent, which even you recognize since you don't want to go to trying to demonstrate me wrong with actual examples.


----------



## dblack (Mar 1, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > The Mormons argued that the religious basis for polygamy gave it constitutional protection.
> ...



This highlights exactly where you're so off-base. The entire point of Constitutional protections are to prevent society from bullying minorities simply because they 'disapprove'.


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 1, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> So you would lie to yourself instead of learning the truth then?  Did you know the Founders of this nation were Liberals?  Liberalism is not what you believe, not in the slightest so far.  You have an open mind right?  Prove it.


Open mind = agreeing with you. Prove they were liberals. And without equating liberal with goodness and conservative as evil.



PaintMyHouse said:


> Ah, okay, you're pretty nuts.  Tell us though, what do US Laws, OT laws, and NT laws all say about Murder?  What do all three say about Lying?


There's no law against lying, except in specific circumstances so you just shot your theory down.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 1, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > So you would lie to yourself instead of learning the truth then?  Did you know the Founders of this nation were Liberals?  Liberalism is not what you believe, not in the slightest so far.  You have an open mind right?  Prove it.
> ...


Good, you know a couple of things, so answer the question: what do US Laws, OT laws, and NT laws all say about Murder?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 1, 2014)

dblack said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


I'm only off-base if I agree, what if I don't?


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 1, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Good, you know a couple of things, so answer the question: what do US Laws, OT laws, and NT laws all say about Murder?


Explain the relevence. Laws aren't theology.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 1, 2014)

kaz said:


> Seriously, if you don't recognize what Democrats do to Clarance Thomas, Condie Rice, Colin Powell, Herman Cain, Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, Michelle Backman, Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingram... Then you're just a fool who isn't worth wasting time on.


What have they done to those people?  They've all been quite successful.  Are any of them in prison?  Did any of them commit suicide? They all Public Figures, which means people can say just about anything they like about them, but those people know that.  Those people have been "destroyed"?  How so??


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 1, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Good, you know a couple of things, so answer the question: what do US Laws, OT laws, and NT laws all say about Murder?
> ...


No, they're Moral.  The laws against murder are Moral laws.  We, society, proscribes morality, for people of all faiths in this case.


----------



## kaz (Mar 1, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Seriously, if you don't recognize what Democrats do to Clarance Thomas, Condie Rice, Colin Powell, Herman Cain, Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, Michelle Backman, Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingram... Then you're just a fool who isn't worth wasting time on.
> ...





You're a hoot.  You're a blind partisan hack.  You can't see because you don't want to.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 1, 2014)

kaz said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


You say you're an honest person?  Answer the questions?  What bad things have happened to these people?  Many of them are on TV.  One on the Supreme Court.  One runs Stanford.  One is retired.  Several are successful authors?  What terrible things were done to them?  Be honest now, that's who you are right?


----------



## Silhouette (Mar 1, 2014)

Spamming the pages to bury the meat of the topic...hmmm...


----------



## bodecea (Mar 1, 2014)

kaz said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


His question is totally valid.  How have those people you listed been destroyed?


----------



## Silhouette (Mar 1, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Honestly, that's all just reactionary dogma.  Destroy women, blacks, and gays, who the Democratic party is made up of?
> 
> And Liberals are Classic Liberals, only they live two hundred years later, so times have change things a bt.  Show us, just for fun, some examples of this "destruction"?



No, it's not as simple as all that.  "women and blacks" are states of being since birth.  "gays" are part of a behavioral group, a cult movement of some, but not all, deviant sexual behaviors.



> You guys are still caught up in comparing "sin for sin" eh?
> 
> Its a mortal sin for an individual to murder, etc.  It's a sin of an entire society to facilitate the usurping of God's matrix of male-female sexuality and it's being the backbone wherein a non gender-blended interaction can serve to test the individuals.
> 
> ...


----------



## dblack (Mar 1, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Then it raises the possibility I've misinterpreted your position. Or you're simply inconsistent. It's hard to say because your posts tend to be quips rather than arguments. Care to clarify?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 1, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> No, it's not as simple as all that.  "women and blacks" are states of being since birth.  "gays" are part of a behavioral group, a cult movement of some, but not all, deviant sexual behaviors.


Tell me, how could I check to see whether someone was actually a "woman"?  Genetics maybe?  Is XX female, and XY male?  What if I had on my hands a male but they looked like a woman?  What are they really, male or female?


----------



## kaz (Mar 1, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



That they are famous and haven't committed suicide doesn't contradict my point that liberals are close minded and rigidly intolerant.  So I don't see the point of your "questions."  I also challenged you to what would be an easy task if you weren't wrong, to give examples of things that liberals are open to views about and disagree on, you can't.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 1, 2014)

dblack said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


Well, let's see what we have here.  We have an Amendment to a Constitution that says Congress shall make no law, and yet they do.  We also have the issue that even if Congress hadn't, the States were allowed to, until that is the Supreme Court said that same Constitutional protection applied to the States as well, only they also have laws that limit Free Speech, and the Supreme Court has upheld limitations from both of them.  So the Constitution says one thing but in reality that's not the Law of the Land.

We good so far?


----------



## kaz (Mar 1, 2014)

bodecea said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



What has been done to them is clear, I'm not interested in a debate with two closed minds any more than one.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 1, 2014)

kaz said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


The examples you gave me are people who has supposedly been hurt bu the vicious Liberals, and yet they all seem to be perfectly fine?  If they've been hurt why can't you show that to us?  What bad things were done to them?

And what do Liberals not agree on?  War, abortion, debt, religion, foreign policy, global warming, politics, art, science, spanking children, prostitution, drugs, education, and bad TV.  Pick a couple and we'll play with them.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 1, 2014)

kaz said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


She's stuck, because it's dogma and untrue.  We're closed-minded because we are asking her to prove what she believes but can't.  Interesting.


----------



## dblack (Mar 1, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



"Good"?... sure. You've added no clarity as to your position, but perhaps that wasn't your intent.


----------



## kaz (Mar 1, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



And name two Democrats who actually publicly disagree on those.  Would that be you and your uncle?


----------



## kaz (Mar 1, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



What's not interesting is chasing liberals down rat holes.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 1, 2014)

Actually every one of the people above named became successful, or rich, or famous by attacking liberal philosophies. They should at least thank us....


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 1, 2014)

dblack said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


That is correct.  Now, if all of the above is true, if that's how we live now, does it really make a difference what my opinion is?  Would me saying well, you can't pass another law because it goes against the Constitution when we already have many laws that do the very same thing?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 1, 2014)

Vandalshandle said:


> Actually every one of the people above named became successful, or rich, or famous by attacking liberal philosophies. They should at least thank us....


Well, Mr. Powell is an exception but for the most part those people became Public Figures by not being Liberal and fighting Liberalism.  It's why she knows their names.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 1, 2014)

kaz said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


Kiddo, you think way too much of yourself.  You make statements and then can't back them up or admit that you are wrong about what you said.  When pushed for answers, you say Liberals Suck and run away.  I know it's hard to be honest but you should try.  You won't learn much until you do.


----------



## Silhouette (Mar 1, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > No, it's not as simple as all that.  "women and blacks" are states of being since birth.  "gays" are part of a behavioral group, a cult movement of some, but not all, deviant sexual behaviors.
> ...



If you had your hands on a man that you were convinced was a woman, what they really would be is "mentally ill", and male of course.  If that level of denial of reality of what a person was born with between their legs can lead to such a state of complete delusion and confusion that they would seek the assistance of medical "professionals" to amputate healthy organs and body parts then that soul in that body is so tweaked, so twisted, so disturbed that you should run a thousand miles per hour to the most distant point of the globe of that person.

That's why you see the parody in film on the classic "man discovers the woman he was with was actually a man" leading to the next inevitable scene: projectile vomiting.  It's because we are hardwired to recognize perverse and severe mental illness when it slaps us upside the head with a brick like that.  

My personal thesis on why we are hardwired in such a way is rabies.  Bear with me.  The main symptom of this completely 100% fatal zoonotic disease [crosses all warm blooded species] that has been with the animal kingdom for millions of years is an animal clearly acting mentally disturbed.  A visceral revulsion for highly disturbing behavior quite likely evolved as hardwired as a survival tool.  So actually, properly in this argument, if my thesis is correct, wise "homophobia" is actually the only thing "born that way", while gay behaviors are the result of faulty imprinting at highly suggestable age just on the verge of puberty.  Animals acting patently bizarrely are always ostracized from the herd with good reason.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 1, 2014)

kaz said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


Like this you mean:

*Democrats abandon Obama on Afghan war *

"The House's vote yesterday on emergency funding for the Afghanistan war shows a significant eroding of support for President Obama's war policy -- from members of his own Democratic Party.

There were 102 Democrats voting against the $33 billion in war funding. That's more than three times the number of Democrats (32) who voted against a similar funding bill in June 2009. (This year's war funding bill passed, 308-114.)"
Democrats abandon Obama on Afghan war

It what you said is true, shouldn't they have all supported the highest Democrat in the land, the President?  Did they not vote against him?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 1, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...


How do I really tell if someone is male or female?


----------



## Silhouette (Mar 1, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> How do I really tell if someone is male or female?



You ask the easiest questions, I swear:  DNA swab, usually around the inside of the cheek or a hair sample.  [A hair sample would be the most discreet way to test if your "female" friend was actually male if "doctors" had already assisted him with amputation and plastic surgery]

The more important question to ask is "How do I really tell if someone is mentally ill?".  Well the answer oddly is the same.  If you are hetero and someone you're with you suspect might have a pelvis or fingers or adam's apple that is more proper to your same gender [males' pelvic bones reach higher up on the torso, their adam's apple protrudes more and their ring fingers are often longer than their index finger] a DNA swab or hair sample would tell you whether or not you are dealing with someone who is mentally ill.


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 1, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Explain the relevence. Laws aren't theology.
> ...


Wrong. They are secular laws that don't give a shit what your beliefs are. Same with communist countries. Killing someone deprives them of their right to live. If it's unjustified, it's murder. There are moral laws in regions if they don't conflict with Constitutional rights.


----------



## kaz (Mar 1, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



That you don't know what I'm talking about with the list of people I gave you shows that you're the one not intellectually engaged in the discussion.  You're like debating a holocaust denier, there is no point.


----------



## kaz (Mar 1, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



See, your first, go to example isn't a different policy, it's a disagreement over the timeline.  Already broken on your first serve...


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 1, 2014)

kaz said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


So, you can't back up what you said but I'm the one that's wrong?  If I say blue teapots dance on the moon, shouldn't I have to prove that?  Or do you want me to say what you do, it's obvious that blue teapots dance on the moon and you are just stupid because you won't accept what I say?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 1, 2014)

kaz said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


Saying you won't fund a war is pretty strong disagreement in this country when our soldiers are dying.  How about an example of where I know, not even believe, I know for a fact, that the President was dead wrong, even Unconstitutional?  Do you remember the American Radical Muslim he killed without trial?

This guy: Anwar al-Awlaki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is absolutely, without question, illegal.  It was wrong, immoral even, and I completely disagree with him and said so by email.  Does that help any?


----------



## kaz (Mar 1, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



You look at what Democrats do to people like Sarah Palin and Clarance Thomas and don't know what I'm talking about?  Yeah, you're the one that's wrong.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 1, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...


Secular and Moral are not the same thing.  A law against Murder is a Moral law, a law that proscribes Morality.  A law that says women must cover their hair is a Religious Law, not a moral one.  You are mixing things up.

We are a Secular country but we pass Moral laws.  Secular people have Morals, just not Religious ones.  I believe in the Morality of not committing murder just as much as the average Christian but they might say their Morality comes from the Bible and I might use your reasoning and say it comes from that one has a right to live.  Both of us are expressing Morality even though only one of us is religious.  

Laws are very often about defining Morality, in this case, for all of society.  Even if your religion says that Murder is allowed, in our society it isn't.  We have a communal morality and we pass laws to make it so.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 1, 2014)

kaz said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


What do they do exactly?  They say mean things?  They beat them up?  They keep them from getting good jobs?  They put them in prison?  What are all these bad things they do to them, to "destroy" them?

Can you back up your words or not?  Why should I just take your word for it?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 1, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > How do I really tell if someone is male or female?
> ...


Okay.  Now if the test comes back XY, is that a male then?


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 1, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Secular and Moral are not the same thing.


That's what I just said.





> A law against Murder is a Moral law, a law that proscribes Morality.  A law that says women must cover their hair is a Religious Law, not a moral one.  You are mixing things up.


How can I mix it up since I'm not the one that brought up women covering hair? People's morality differ. Some people see so problem with killing a child molester. The law against murder is secular and impartial to individuals' opinions, faiths, morals or beliefs.


> We are a Secular country but we pass Moral laws.  Secular people have Morals, just not Religious ones.  I believe in the Morality of not committing murder just as much as the average Christian but they might say their Morality comes from the Bible and *I might use your reasoning and say it comes from that one has a right to live*.  Both of us are expressing Morality even though only one of us is religious.


You're religious? I just made the boldened point. WTF is wrong with you?  


> Laws are very often about defining Morality, in this case, for all of society.  Even if your religion says that Murder is allowed, in our society it isn't.  We have a communal morality and we pass laws to make it so.


What religion do I have? Yours is obviously The Church of Perpetual Idiocy.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 1, 2014)

As of today the Arizona Crusader Morality Lonely Hearts Club Tour is in Surprise, Arizona.
Still not one example of a business owner found in the entire state that has claimed their religious freedom has been violated.
No surprise. 
Where is that business owner hiding? Gay folks have kidnapped all of them?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 1, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...



Considering that Republicans are the ones that won the DADT 
case, the Prop 8 case, and a few other state level cases, they just might have a point.

On the other hand, Democrats are the ones that actually stood in the schoolhouse door to prevent segregation.


----------



## Silhouette (Mar 1, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Okay.  Now if the test comes back XY, is that a male then?



In a normal scenario, yes.  More importantly, it is a male who hasn't adapted well to his maleness.  ie, the extremes these males [and females] go to be in denial is frank and stark mental illness.

I sense you will go on a tangent, a wild goose chase of "exceptions to the rule".  But what we are talking about is an ideology.  It's the guy born fully male, all normal parts in the normal places and then pays a "psychiatrists" and "doctors" to legitimize and perform the amputation of his healthy organs to leave him an incontinent, sexually numbed and multilated victim of his own self-denial.  The others who participated belong in prison.

I'm talking about this:


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 1, 2014)

The Founders were radicals of their time. The conservatives of the day were the Torries who believed in the safe colonial system where the King relied solely on the doctrine of divine right given to the monarchy by God.
Down here, in the south, support for a war with the British was insane and funds were extremely hard to raise in the south for the war effort in spite of the fact of the vast wealth of many southern plantation owners.
The Anglican church, the church of ENGLAND, was the predominant religion and church in the colonies. Many of the them supported the crown during the war and many did not as many churches were burned to the ground because of their defiance to the crown.
At that time EVERY European state was run by religion, same as the British as the Church of England influenced the monarchy that ruled the land with their divine right mandated by God.
The Founders ran from that shit like a monkey on fire, kicked the ass of the British, 100,000 American colonists that were strongly in support of the British left the country and the United States Constitution does not mention God in it anywhere.
For a reason. THE LAW.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 1, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Okay.  Now if the test comes back XY, is that a male then?
> ...




How does that affect you in any way?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 1, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Okay.  Now if the test comes back XY, is that a male then?
> ...


Need to answer here.  You said use DNA and I said okay and then asked is XY a male?  And remember, we are discussing Nature not Man.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 1, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> What religion do I have? Yours is obviously The Church of Perpetual Idiocy.


What are Morals?  What does Secular mean?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Mar 1, 2014)

johnwk said:


> Apparently you have missed what this is really about which is rights associated with property ownership and has nothing to do with Jesus.
> 
> JWK




If that was the case, there wouldn't be only an exception based on religion.

If this bill had been about property ownership, then the ability to refuse service would have been extended to everyone - not only those who claimed a religious belief.


>>>>


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 1, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> > Apparently you have missed what this is really about which is rights associated with property ownership and has nothing to do with Jesus.
> ...



That explains why Brewer got a letter form a bunch of scholars urging her to veto the bill.



> Gay activists pressured Brewer to veto the bill, which she did  Wednesday evening. It would have amended the states Religious Freedom  Restoration Act (RFRA) that protects people of faith from laws and state  actions that burden the free exercise of religion. But activists and  mainstream news outlets are propagandizing it as a Jim Crow law and a  denial of services bill.
> As these legal scholars rightly point out, the misrepresentations  about the bill have been egregious, said Alliance Defending Freedom  Senior Counsel Douglas Napier. It has nothing to do with refusing  someone a sandwich. It has everything to do with making Arizona a safe  place for people to freely live out their faith. The falsehoods need to  be exposed for what they are.
> In the letter, sent Tuesday, the legal scholars asked her to make her decision based on accurate information:
> Some of us are Republicans; some of us  are Democrats. Some of us are religious; some of us are not. Some of us  oppose same-sex marriage; some of us support it. Nine of the eleven  signers of this letter believe that you should sign the bill; two are  unsure. But all of us believe that many criticisms of the Arizona bill  are deeply misleading.
> The letter also points out that the federal government and 18 states  have RFRAs. Arizona, in fact, has had one for nearly 15 years. SB 1062  would slightly amend it in light of recent court decisions regarding  religious freedom. One involves a New Mexico Supreme Court decision  saying a Christian couple must photograph same-sex ceremonies. The other  involves the violation of religious freedom via a Health and Human  Services mandate. It requires most businesses and nonprofits to offer  potential abortion-inducing drugs in employee health plans.



Legal Scholars to Arizona Governor: Religious Freedom Bill ?Egregiously Misrepresented? | CitizenLink

Sorry, wrong link, this is another one that proves you don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## Mertex (Mar 1, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > You conveniently didn't respond to my post.  Why aren't you upset by people that make a mockery out of marriage, like Rush Limbaugh
> ...



It had everything to do with your comment.  You were claiming that marriage was being redefined.....well if a person marries and divorces 3 or 4 times, doesn't that redefine marriage?  Is marriage just a license to have sex until you get tired of the person and find another one?  

I didn't say you were Limbaugh, but you are trying to put marriage on a pedestal and claiming that homosexuals are trying to bring it down when plenty of heterosexuals have already done that and you didn't utter a peep.


----------



## kaz (Mar 1, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Yes, they say mean things and beat them up.  You're just demonstrating my point that you're not intellectually engaged in this.

Democrats aren't for gays, you are for liberal gays.  Just like you're for liberal women, liberal blacks, ...


----------



## Mertex (Mar 1, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...




Business owners have to obey the law, just like anybody else.  If they feel they can't, then they shouldn't be in business.  And, right now some states have laws prohibiting discriminating against gays....if you live in such a state and you have a business, you have to obey the law.  If you claim that you have the right to discriminate them, and they sue you, you may lose.  That's the way it rolls.  You can claim you want this or that, but if it goes agains the law you're just pissing in the wind.


----------



## Mertex (Mar 1, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > How do I really tell if someone is male or female?
> ...




Wow!  Do you really go around swabbing people to determine if they are male or female?
How many have let you do that?  Intresting....


----------



## kaz (Mar 1, 2014)

Mertex said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...





When we're discussing what the law should be, you come up with the insight that businesses have to follow the law.  Brilliant, absolutely brilliant.  Thank you for that contribution to the discussion, I don't think any of us realized that.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Mar 1, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > How do I really tell if someone is male or female?
> ...



...omg....

Do you like walk around with swabs in your pocket?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 1, 2014)

kaz said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


So all of those people have been beaten up by Liberals?  They shouldn't have mean things said about them?

Should we have some kind of law that says you can't say mean things about people?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 1, 2014)

Mertex said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



If the law has to be obeyed why do people get away with not obeying it?


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 1, 2014)

kaz said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Liberal is an antonym of authoritarian. The reality is if liberals don't tolerate racism, bigotry and don't worship the opulent, we are not pen minded and tolerant.

The history of mankind has been a struggle between those who want to increase freedom, opportunity and rights to all people and those who want to restrict them. The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals. The people who have fought to restrict them are conservatives.

Liberals believe people are basically good, conservatives believe people are basically evil. 
Liberals believe in raising people up, conservatives believe in pushing people down.
Liberals believe in encouragement, conservatives believe in scorn.
Liberals always stand up for the little guy, conservatives always stand up for the big guy.

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 1, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> The Founders were radicals of their time. The conservatives of the day were the Torries who believed in the safe colonial system where the King relied solely on the doctrine of divine right given to the monarchy by God.


Those were loyalists anyway but conservativism doesn't mean status quo no matter what. That's the liberal's inaccurate definition. Conservatives are free market small government types and from day one we had disagreements. The Federalists were more liberal, Paine was liberal. The conservatives fought the loyalists, where did you get your history from?

America's first conservatives - Los Angeles Times
Largely forgotten today, the nation's first conservatives were collectively as important as its famous revolutionaries and firebrands like Franklin, Jefferson, Adams and even, to some degree, Washington. These men were not Loyalists. They were among the most ardent defenders of American rights, and many fought with distinction against British Redcoats. But they respected hierarchies and custom, revered the military and championed free-market capitalism. They were the polar opposite of, say, a Thomas Paine, the Revolution's pamphleteer, who proselytized for a guaranteed income and agrarian rights along with fighting the British.


----------



## kaz (Mar 1, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



Conservatives are actually lizard people from another galaxy who come here to cause societal havoc by advocating the rich and driving badly in snow.  Don't you just wish ET would go home now?


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 1, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Liberal is an antonym of authoritarian.


In the dictionary term, yes. But that's not what modern day liberals are. They are very much big government micro-manage everyone's life type of people. 


> The reality is if liberals don't tolerate racism, bigotry and don't worship the opulent, we are not pen minded and tolerant.


The reality is that if a liberal doesn't like something, they want to outlaw it for everyone else. 


> The history of mankind has been a struggle between those who want to increase freedom, opportunity and rights to all people and those who want to restrict them. The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals. The people who have fought to restrict them are conservatives.
> 
> Liberals believe people are basically good, conservatives believe people are basically evil.


LOL. I couldn't read past that. Jesus, you think like a toddler.


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 1, 2014)

kaz said:


> Conservatives are actually lizard people from another galaxy who come here to cause societal havoc by advocating the rich and driving badly in snow.  Don't you just wish ET would go home now?


Damn you! You told!! I'm reporting you to the Mothership.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 1, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > The Founders were radicals of their time. The conservatives of the day were the Torries who believed in the safe colonial system where the King relied solely on the doctrine of divine right given to the monarchy by God.
> ...



The loyalists were the conservatives as they wanted to conserve what already existed, the status quo.
The land and country was defined as The Americas or the Colonies.
Everyone here defined themselves AS BRITISH. 
Term American did not come into well after the war. 
The United States Constitution was the most liberal document in the world when written. 
Claiming that the monarchies who drew their power on the mandate of divine right from God and their loyalist supporters were liberals is absurd. 
So detaining men without trial is a liberal practice.
And making the government provide probable cause, eroded by conservative Supreme court rulings, is a conservative value.
Jefferson did not know it at the time but when he wrote the Declaration of Independence it was the founding and the basis for universal human rights, a liberal stance away from the power OF THE STATE which is what the monarchy is.
The legislative branch of government created by the Founders took power away from the monarchy and gave it to the people. 
I get my history from the writings of Captain and then Judge Jacob Terhune, militia Bergen County starting in 1776 through his time as a Judge into the 19th century. My family still has all his writings held on the family farm in Clintondale NY.
Look it up.
You?


----------



## Statistikhengst (Mar 1, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Conservatives are actually lizard people from another galaxy who come here to cause societal havoc by advocating the rich and driving badly in snow.  Don't you just wish ET would go home now?
> ...





I need a copy of that report for a statistical analysis, stat!!!


----------



## kaz (Mar 1, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



No need, memories are being erased as we speak.  And winter tires are being replaced with bald ones...


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 1, 2014)

kaz said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



The ladies did say I had a large tongue among other things.
Could not resist jumping on the lizard people band wagon!


----------



## Statistikhengst (Mar 1, 2014)

I sense that the butthurt on this thread "Waaaaahhhhh!  I now have to sell a cake to a, a, a Homosexual!!!  Waaah!" is going to continue for a long, long, long time.

It is just really deep in the deepest of RWNJ DNA. 

lolz....


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 1, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> The loyalists were the conservatives as they wanted to conserve what already existed, the status quo.


That isn't what political conservativism means. Repeating it doesn't make it any truer.


> The land and country was defined as The Americas or the Colonies.
> Everyone here defined themselves AS BRITISH.
> Term American did not come into well after the war.
> The United States Constitution was the most liberal document in the world when written.


Horseshit. You are using dictionary terms in their strictest sense. If it was so godamn liberal why do today's liberals consider it just a guide or a living breathing document?


> I get my history from the writings of Captain and then Judge Jacob Terhune, militia Bergen County starting in 1776 through his time as a Judge into the 19th century. My family still has all his writings held on the family farm in Clintondale NY.
> Look it up.
> You?


That's cool but history is bigger than the captain/judge and it's always important to put things in context. If he said the founders were liberals, post it up. I posted a quote with link, you couldn't see it?


----------



## Statistikhengst (Mar 1, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > The loyalists were the conservatives as they wanted to conserve what already existed, the status quo.
> ...




What, did you elect yourself to speak for Liberals, or what?


lolz....


----------



## Londoner (Mar 1, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Horseshit. You are using dictionary terms in their strictest sense. If it was so godamn liberal why do today's liberals consider it just a guide or a living breathing document?



Good effort. I agree partially, but here is where I think there is room for improvement.

People say - perhaps rightly, perhaps wrongly - that there is small portion of "Talk Radio Republicans" who get the bulk of their information from a very small class of partisan pundits (across various pop media sources). These pundits don't teach intellectual history, they just circulate a very fixed and dogmatic set of talking points. Don't prove them right. 

The Framers were deeply inspired by Enlightenment Liberals like John Locke. You should really study this stuff. The USA was born in part as a reaction to old Conservative Europe, with its hereditary privilege and Divine Rights of Kings. Indeed, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, due process, etc., were all inspired by the Liberalism that took over Europe in the 1700s and came to fruition in the French Revolution (opposed by great Conservatives like Edmund Burke, who saw the topdown social/political changes as contradicting the natural/traditional fabric of society). The fight between Religion and Science (between Galileo and the Church) was also a fight between liberals (who were championing science) and conservatives (who were protecting Biblical Cosmology (geocentrism) from Gallilaen Heliocentrism). You should know this stuff so you can properly evaluate your own political beliefs. 

New Deal Liberalism is a variant of Liberalism, as is Libertarianism (which builds around the classical liberalism of John Locke and Adam Smith, but shares much of the social liberalism of the American Liberals). You should realize where all these varieties of Liberalism overlap and where they differ so you can contribute more fully.

An interesting intellectual exercise for you. Some intellectual historians think that FDR modified Liberalism (with the New Deal) as much as Reagan modified conservatism (by embracing Libertarianism). If you're going to enter these discussions, you should know this stuff. You should know the difference between say Keynes (who believed in markets and private property) and Marx (who did not). Rather than letting your thought be controlled by men like Rush Limbaugh, who don't teach the nuances of intellectual history, I very respectfully and humbly suggest that you do more historical research.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 1, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Liberal is an antonym of authoritarian.



You admit it then, a liberal would never use force to get his way.

What, exactly, does that make you?



Bfgrn said:


> The reality is if liberals don't tolerate racism, bigotry and don't worship the opulent, we are not pen minded and tolerant.



Liberals have consistently fought for the right of people to be racists and bigots, which is why the ACLU was always willing to go to court to defend the rights of the KKK to hold protests, and why they still speak up in defense of Westboro Baptist Church.



Bfgrn said:


> The history of mankind has been a struggle between those who want to increase freedom, opportunity and rights to all people and those who want to restrict them. The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals. The people who have fought to restrict them are conservatives.
> 
> Liberals believe people are basically good, conservatives believe people are basically evil.
> Liberals believe in raising people up, conservatives believe in pushing people down.
> ...


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 1, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Liberal is an antonym of authoritarian.
> ...



ACLU defends street preachers against local and municipal ordinances that forbid them from preaching in the street.
The bigots and racists you claim those street preachers are.


----------



## Londoner (Mar 1, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Liberals have consistently fought for the right of people to be racists and bigots, which is why the ACLU was always willing to go to court to defend the rights of the KKK to hold protests, and why they still speak up in defense of Westboro Baptist Church.



They're defending free speech. Without Constitutional Protections, African Americans and minorities would be far worse off. 

I have a deeply Libertarian friend who happens to be a criminal attorney. He believes that Government should not be able to incarcerate citizens without due process. He believes in the Rights that all citizens are accorded by our legal system, and he thinks that maintaining those Rights is crucial to a free society. He doesn't want the US to become like the Soviet Union where people are jailed for their political beliefs. He believes in the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution as much as the ACLU believes in the First Amendment. Does this mean - per your ACLU logic - that my friend wants criminals to go free? Answer: no, because the biggest crime of all is a world where Government doesn't give citizens legal rights. (Psst: you can't only defend the Constitution when it produces outcomes you agree with. This is what Conservatives tend to do)

(I remember when Reagan ignored the Constitution by selling weapons to Iran. Then Bush ignored the Constitution with his illegal wiretapping program, subsequently brought within FISA. It made me realize that Republicans are typically willing to destroy the Constitution when the cause, in their opinion, is just. The ACLU, on the other hand, believes that defending our Constitutional protections is the most just cause of all. Anyway, you are proving my point.)


----------



## DriftingSand (Mar 1, 2014)

Londoner said:


> *The Framers were deeply inspired by Enlightenment Liberals like John Locke*. You should really study this stuff. The USA was born in part as a reaction to old Conservative Europe, with its hereditary privilege and Divine Rights of Kings.



Really?  May I introduce you to some hidden truth?  The kind of truth that today's secularists DON'T want you to see!!  The two videos are a MUST for anyone who really wants to know the facts concerning most of our founders:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA2v4m3fY3g"]David Barton's Capitol Tour - YouTube[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwvkcXBNm3Q"]Mike Huckabee David Barton Founders of the Constitution 080109.flv - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 1, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> > *The Framers were deeply inspired by Enlightenment Liberals like John Locke*. You should really study this stuff. The USA was born in part as a reaction to old Conservative Europe, with its hereditary privilege and Divine Rights of Kings.
> ...


Barton?  The guy who never studied history and who is not a historian?  Go for it.


----------



## DriftingSand (Mar 1, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > Londoner said:
> ...



You can't address the facts so you attack the man?  Really?  That's called "stooping." 

Anyone with half a brain can tell that he knows history better than the libs in media and/or today's Congress (and folks like yourself).


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 1, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...


Barton has been debunked time and again.  Google him.

If you wish to post some of his "claims", do so and we'll tear them apart.  It's quiet so now would be a good time.  And ask yourself, shouldn't you get your history from someone actually trained in such a thing?


----------



## DriftingSand (Mar 1, 2014)

Londoner said:


> (I remember when Reagan ignored the Constitution by selling weapons to Iran. Then Bush ignored the Constitution with his illegal wiretapping program, subsequently brought within FISA. It made me realize that Republicans are typically willing to destroy the Constitution when the cause, in their opinion, is just. The ACLU, on the other hand, believes that defending our Constitutional protections is the most just cause of all. Anyway, you are proving my point.)



Since Bush ... can you think of any Presidents who have maintained America's spy program; drone program; the Dept. of Homeland "Insecurity"; and the Patriot Act?  Anyone come to mind?  Anyone at all?


----------



## DriftingSand (Mar 1, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Did he state facts in the two videos above or did he not?  Were many of the founders preachers of the Gospel or were they not?  Did Jefferson hold Church services in the halls of Congress or did he not?  Quit attacking Barton while sidestepping the actual facts presented by him.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 1, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...


I'm attacking the source only because he is well known for not being on the level and he has no formal training as a Historian.  What he wants is a Christian Nation, and that's what he presents.  Facts to him are what make his case, not what is actually true.

As for Jefferson, he did an edit on the Bible with a knife and cut out what he thought was all the nonsense about Jesus.  Are you sure you want to go with him?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 1, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



I claim they are racists? When did I do that?


----------



## Silhouette (Mar 2, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> I'm attacking the source only because he is well known for not being on the level and he has no formal training as a Historian.  *What he wants is a Christian Nation, and that's what he presents.  Facts to him are what make his case, not what is actually true*.
> 
> As for Jefferson, he did an edit on the Bible with a knife and cut out what he thought was all the nonsense about Jesus.  Are you sure you want to go with him?



Thought you were talking about the cult of LGBT there for sure with the "facts to him are what make his case, not what is actually true" part...


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 2, 2014)

Londoner said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Horseshit. You are using dictionary terms in their strictest sense. If it was so godamn liberal why do today's liberals consider it just a guide or a living breathing document?
> ...


You started out with bullshit and built your foundation from there. That is called "propaganda" not an "improvement. I know leftist think like you do because you are the ones that are ill-informed and brainwashed. 

You are also incredibly arrogant. Another hallmark of the left. You smear your enemies with distortions and lies, another hallmark. I'm not Limbaugh, didn't bring him up and for you to ASSUME that's where I get my conservative ideals is stupid. I suggest you get your head out of your ass. 

An intellectual exercise for me? You condescending arrogant asshole! You don't even know what conservativism is and you want to lecture people from up high?

But thanks for proving the conservatives being right about liberals. You probably thought you were saying something smart, instead you came off like a jackass. People don't need Rush for that. But they do listen in and say "yeah, I know the type". You and your type made Rush Limbaugh easy money filthy rich.


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 2, 2014)

Londoner said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Liberals have consistently fought for the right of people to be racists and bigots, which is why the ACLU was always willing to go to court to defend the rights of the KKK to hold protests, and why they still speak up in defense of Westboro Baptist Church.
> ...


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 2, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



WOW, better put some 'ice' on your butt-hurt 'weasel'. Londoner is right one the mark. Maybe you will listen to a F.A. Hayek, Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, Presidential Medal of Freedom

Why I am Not a Conservative by F. A. Hayek

In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them. 

When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike. 

To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.

It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits. 

In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.

Closely connected with this is the usual attitude of the conservative to democracy. I have made it clear earlier that I do not regard majority rule as an end but merely as a means, or perhaps even as the least evil of those forms of government from which we have to choose. But I believe that the conservatives deceive themselves when they blame the evils of our time on democracy. The chief evil is unlimited government, and nobody is qualified to wield unlimited power. The powers which modern democracy possesses would be even more intolerable in the hands of some small elite.


Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone (1809  1898)


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 2, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> WOW, better put some 'ice' on your butt-hurt 'weasel'.


Masterbating doesn't make you look smart.


> Londoner is right one the mark.


One the mark? No, he's full of shit. And my butt fine, thanks for considering it.


> Maybe you will listen to a F.A. Hayek, Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, Presidential Medal of Freedom


Nobel? Is that the same organization that gave Obama a medal for being black?


> In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power...


LOL. The asshole says that and we are supposed to take him as a scholar? No. He's an arrogant prick. I can't wait to read on...


> so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.


Oh golly. Mr. Nobel prize whiner thinks his political enemies are opportunist that lack principle. What the asshole isn't aware of is how unprincipled his comments are. He needs to get his head out of his rectum and breathe some fresh air for a change. Onto the comedy skit... 


> When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike.


How stupid and unaware. The left defines hate and intolerance as disagreement with them. I you oppose anything you are blocking progress! This idiot is projecting big time. But so far it's all rhetoric. Which brings up another point, for the left, the accusation is good enough. If it sounds good to their ears, it's a fact. 


> Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
> James M. Buchanan


Wrong. The bozo doesn't know that what conservatives believe in is that outcome is not the same. Some people are achievers. Some aren't. Liberals try to even out outcome and step on liberty in order to do so. You really thought that asshole said something profound?


----------



## DriftingSand (Mar 2, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> I'm attacking the source only because he is well known for not being on the level and he has no formal training as a Historian.  What he wants is a Christian Nation, and that's what he presents.  Facts to him are what make his case, not what is actually true.
> 
> As for Jefferson, he did an edit on the Bible with a knife and cut out what he thought was all the nonsense about Jesus.  Are you sure you want to go with him?



One need not have "formal training" to study history.  Barton has thousands upon thousands of documents dating back to the founding of this nation.  If he's able to read those documents then he's able to study history without some liberal professor tainting his mind with anti-American sentiments and half-truths. 

Did you watch the video? Barton clearly stated that Jefferson was one of the "least religious" members of the original signers.  I realize that Jefferson was a deist (a believer in a all-powerful Creator) but that doesn't change the fact that he held church services in the halls of Congress and that doesn't change the fact that he helped start many churches within the fledgling nation.

Can you cite a single instance where Barton is "not on the level?"  That's simply another way of saying that he's a liar.  Please provide some evidence to substantiate your claim.  Otherwise I will have no choice but to believe that YOU are not on the level.

P.S.  You're wrong concerning Barton wanting us to be a "Christian Nation." It's not his goal to force everyone to be Christians nor is that my goal.  Not everyone can be or will be a Christian (if we believe what the Bible says).  What Barton is saying (based on historical documentation) is that the majority of America's founders were Christians and theologians. I'm certain that he believes that Christian business owners should have the right to run their businesses using the tenets, teachings, morals, and ethics of the New Testament.


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 2, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > WOW, better put some 'ice' on your butt-hurt 'weasel'.
> ...



Thank you for supporting everything Hayek, Londoner and I said...unwittingly of course...


When you understand what conservatism is, every argument they make leads to the same end.

Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

When you understand this and view their words, ask the question; will this lead to some form of an aristocracy?

The answer is always YES...


Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone


----------



## DriftingSand (Mar 2, 2014)

> =Bfgrn;8708003]
> 
> When you understand what conservatism is, every argument they make leads to the same end.
> 
> ...



Does that mean that Liberalism is "domination of society" by a special interest group -- perhaps the one you belong to?  Liberalism at it's extreme is Communism.  What happened when the Bolsheviks ousted the "aristocracy" of its day?  If you said "domination of society" by a more oppressive force then you are correct.



> When you understand this and view their words, ask the question; will this lead to some form of an aristocracy?
> 
> The answer is always YES...



Somebody will always "dominate."  That fact will never change.  I'd rather be dominated by a Conservative government run by Queen Elizabeth than a Liberal government run by Mao Tse Tung.




> Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
> William E. Gladstone



Yeah ... we can all "trust" Stalin, Putin, or Pol Pot.


----------



## Bumberclyde (Mar 2, 2014)

Bill was vetoed, homophobes out of luck.


----------



## DriftingSand (Mar 2, 2014)

Bumberclyde said:


> Bill was vetoed, homophobes out of luck.



Well the Normalphobes got the edge this time around but perhaps a Governor with a better judgement and a touch of inner fortitude will do a better job in the future.  If I were a Christian baker living in Arizona I would still follow my conscience and beliefs and say NO to anyone requesting me to bake a cake with any sort of perverted message on it.


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 2, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Thank you for supporting everything Hayek, Londoner and I said...unwittingly of course...


So you mimic my comments and think it's clever?


> When you understand what conservatism is, every argument they make leads to the same end.
> 
> Q: What is conservatism?
> A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.
> ...


All that is opinion based on an assertion supoorted by rhetoric. Bullshit in other words. Conservatives are the polar opposite of what those geniuses think. We are small government free market people, libery minded and enemies of the left. For evidence we can look at who supports what. Most people don't need some self professed experts to spoon feed them. Especially when they can't support anything.


----------



## Bfgrn (Mar 2, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> > =Bfgrn;8708003]
> >
> > When you understand what conservatism is, every argument they make leads to the same end.
> >
> ...



While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

What Mao Zedong said about liberalism






&#38761;&#21629;&#30340;&#38598;&#20307;&#32452;&#32455;&#20013;&#30340;&#33258;&#30001;&#20027;&#20041;&#26159;&#21313;&#20998;&#26377;&#23475;&#30340;&#12290;&#23427;&#26159;&#19968;&#31181;&#33104;&#34432;&#21058;&#65292;&#20351;&#22242;&#32467;&#28067;&#25955;&#65292;&#20851;&#31995;&#26494;&#25032;&#65292;&#24037;&#20316;&#28040;&#26497;&#65292;&#24847;&#35265;&#20998;&#27495;&#12290;&#23427;&#20351;&#38761;&#21629;&#38431;&#20237;&#22833;&#25481;&#20005;&#23494;&#30340;&#32452;&#32455;&#21644;&#32426;&#24459;&#65292;&#25919;&#31574;&#19981;&#33021;&#36143;&#24443;&#21040;&#24213;&#65292;&#20826;&#30340;&#32452;&#32455;&#21644;&#20826;&#25152;&#39046;&#23548;&#30340;&#32676;&#20247;&#21457;&#29983;&#38548;&#31163;&#12290;&#36825;&#26159;&#19968;&#31181;&#20005;&#37325;&#30340;&#24694;&#21155;&#20542;&#21521;&#12290;

"Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension.

It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads.
Combat Liberalism-Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung


----------



## DriftingSand (Mar 2, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > > =Bfgrn;8708003]
> ...



And yet Mao's liberal ideals elevated him into a position of extreme power. Thus ... Mao contradicted himself (while massacring millions). Ironic ... huh?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 2, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > I'm attacking the source only because he is well known for not being on the level and he has no formal training as a Historian.  What he wants is a Christian Nation, and that's what he presents.  Facts to him are what make his case, not what is actually true.
> ...


Barton has been debunked time and again.  I never watch him, can't stand him actually, but if you post his claims or a transcript we'll check it out.  That's how we get to the truth.

The problem with Barton is that he can find facts but he has no training to draw accurate conclusions.  He loses the context because he's not trained to find it.  And I'm not worried about what the religious beliefs of the Founders were, we don't run the place based upon them but there's no kidding around, if they wanted a Christian Nation they did a lousy job of making one.  Barton, wants a Christian Nation.  That's his whole gig.

First Google hit for Barton Debunked: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-rodda/debunking-david-bartons-j_b_3936810.html


----------



## WorldWatcher (Mar 2, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > Bill was vetoed, homophobes out of luck.
> ...




And as a baker in Arizona you are not required, nor been required, to supply cakes with perverted messages.  

In Arizona though you can't refuse service to customers based on race, religion, national origin, sex, age, or disability.

You realize that many in the past considered interracial marriages "perverted" and interfaith wedding, meaning discrimination based on religion.


>>>>


----------



## Silhouette (Mar 2, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> And as a baker in Arizona you are not required, nor been required, to supply cakes with perverted messages.
> 
> *In Arizona though you can't refuse service to customers based on race, religion, national origin, sex, age, or disability*.
> 
> ...



Gays aren't race, religion [well not officially yet], national origin or GENDER [not sexual activity].  They are a behavioral cult.  As such and according to Jude 1 and Romans 1, the cult of LGBT must not be enabled.  That goes for making  "gay wedding" cakes.  Given the gravity of warnings to the faithful in Jude 1 and Romans 1, requiring christians as a matter of law to cater to "gay weddings" is one and the same as requiring them to put the image of Lucifer on a cake for a satanist wedding.  

Blacks are getting plenty sick of the comparison of the church of LGBT and their own legitimate civil rights movement based on how they were born, and not later became instead.  You don't become or discover you are black one day.  Or switch from black to white and then back again.  That's behavior.


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 2, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> And as a baker in Arizona you are not required, nor been required, to supply cakes with perverted messages.
> 
> In Arizona though you can't refuse service to customers based on *race, religion, national origin, sex, age, or disability*.
> 
> You realize that many in the past considered interracial marriages "perverted" and interfaith wedding, meaning discrimination based on religion.


If you were right there would be no issue. Which one are the gays? Disability? Interracial and interfaith are covered and you don't get to define perversion for others until you are elected Master Overlord.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Mar 2, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > And as a baker in Arizona you are not required, nor been required, to supply cakes with perverted messages.
> ...




Arizona's Public Accommodation laws does not list "sexual orientation" as one of the types of people that can't be refused service.  A baker can't refuse an interracial couple or an interfaith couple the same goods and services offered to others, they can though refuse service to homosexuals.

The cases that were the precursors to this law, even cited by the sponsors, were the Elane Photography (New Mexico), Sweetcakes by Melissa (Oregon), and Masterpiece Cakes (Colorado) were sexual orientation is listed in their laws.

Funny thing is none of those States have Same-sex Civil Marriage.


>>>>


----------



## Silhouette (Mar 2, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > And as a baker in Arizona you are not required, nor been required, to supply cakes with perverted messages.
> ...



The church of LGBT has ordained that "sex" in the constitution means a verb and not a noun.  Therein is the crucial misinterpretation.  Except that outside religion, human activities don't have any guarantees in the 14th as to priveleges and protection.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Mar 2, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > And as a baker in Arizona you are not required, nor been required, to supply cakes with perverted messages.
> ...




Some do some don't.

"The NAACP is an historic organization which 103 years ago set on a path to ensure the political, educational, social and economic equality of all people.  As Board members, we take the responsibility to guide this organization seriously.  One of the crucial roles we play is to ensure that our mission which helped define America in the last century continues to be implemented in this our Associations second century.

*When people ask why the NAACP stands firmly for marriage equality, we say that we have always stood against laws which demean, dehumanize, or discriminate against any person in this great country.  That is our legacy.*  For over 103 years we have stood against such laws, and while the nature of the struggle may change, our bedrock commitment to equality of all people under the law never will."​

NAACP Chairman Roslyn Brock Statement on Marriage Equality | NAACP


>>>>


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 2, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Arizona's Public Accommodation laws does not list "sexual orientation" as one of the types of people that can't be refused service.  A baker can't refuse an interracial couple or an interfaith couple the same goods and services offered to others, they can though refuse service to homosexuals.
> 
> The cases that were the precursors to this law, even cited by the sponsors, were the Elane Photography (New Mexico), Sweetcakes by Melissa (Oregon), and Masterpiece Cakes (Colorado) were sexual orientation is listed in their laws.
> 
> Funny thing is none of those States have Same-sex Civil Marriage.


They were clearly worried about it after seeing those. It's happened here long before gay marriage. A city can adopt a sexual orientation protection clause, like Seattle, at any time.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Mar 2, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Arizona's Public Accommodation laws does not list "sexual orientation" as one of the types of people that can't be refused service.  A baker can't refuse an interracial couple or an interfaith couple the same goods and services offered to others, they can though refuse service to homosexuals.
> ...



Well two things:

#1 - In Arizona, the bill would have usurped Public Accommodation measures adopted by some cities.  Aren't we supposed to be about local governments being able to make their own laws?  Why is it OK for conservatives to pass laws that usurp local governments, but not OK for liberals?  Sound like a double standard.

#2 - Seattle wouldn't need to pass such a law as it is already illegal in Washington State to discriminate based on sexual orientation.  (http://www.hum.wa.gov/documents/Brochures/PA091407B.pdf)



>>>>


----------



## DriftingSand (Mar 2, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > Bumberclyde said:
> ...



The issue has nothing to do with refusing service to "gays." It has to do with forcing bakers to write messages on a cake that flies in the face of their beliefs.  

The problem is solved if his or her (the baker's) patrons don't discuss their sexual orientation; sexual lusts; or political leanings.  Simply ask the baker to bake a cake and leave it at that.  If they ask the baker to write some sort of perverted message like "Congratulations to Adam & Steve On Their Wedding Day" then the baker should be able to refuse that portion of their service based on his or her religious beliefs.  You do believe in protecting the rights of religious folks -- don't you?


----------



## Silhouette (Mar 2, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> #2 - Seattle wouldn't need to pass such a law as it is already illegal in Washington State to discriminate based on sexual orientation.



Specifically which sexual orientation?  Polyandry?  Necrophilia?  Pederasty?


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 2, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Well two things:
> 
> #1 - In Arizona, the bill would have usurped Public Accommodation measures adopted by some cities.  Aren't we supposed to be about local governments being able to make their own laws?  Why is it OK for conservatives to pass laws that usurp local governments, but not OK for liberals?  Sound like a double standard.


Well, because the two operate differently, for one. When the left doesn't like something they want to outlaw it for everyone. A conservative moves on. Ganging up on a Christian greeting card company, fine after fine, until they go out of business is NOT how conservatives go about business!


> #2 - Seattle wouldn't need to pass such a law as it is already illegal in Washington State to discriminate based on sexual orientation.  (http://www.hum.wa.gov/documents/Brochures/PA091407B.pdf)


Well, duh. Welcome to the conversation. It happened when only Canada had gay marriages. And why does sexual orientation trump religious orientation? Especially when religion is protected by way of the Constitution and sexuality isn't.


----------



## Bumberclyde (Mar 2, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...


A belief based solely on hate is the perversion. Jesus loved everyone. Religious motive denied. Unless, of course, you're a carpet kissing sharia dog, then you should be deported ASAP.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Mar 2, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> The issue has nothing to do with refusing service to "gays." It has to do with forcing bakers to write messages on a cake that flies in the face of their beliefs.



Ya, sure.

If Elane Photography (New Mexico), Sweetcakes by Melissa (Oregon), and Masterpiece Cakes (Colorado) had refused to provide wedding cakes to an interfaith or interracial couple and claimed it was their conflicted with their "beliefs" and it wasn't the people involved but the event - we wouldn't be having this discussion.

(And no it matters not one wit if you were to agree or disagree with the validity of their "beliefs" it that had been the case as the Arizona law (the subject of this tread) specifically EXCLUDED the idea that those beliefs had to be supported by other religious tenets or by any outside religious organization).



DriftingSand said:


> The problem is solved if his or her (the baker's) patrons don't discuss their sexual orientation; sexual lusts; or political leanings.  Simply ask the baker to bake a cake and leave it at that.  If they ask the baker to write some sort of perverted message like "Congratulations to Adam & Steve On Their Wedding Day" then the baker should be able to refuse that portion of their service based on his or her religious beliefs.  You do believe in protecting the rights of religious folks -- don't you?



A woman walks into into a bakery and ask for a wedding cake, she and the baker agree on a type, frosting, servings, etc.  At the end she tells the baker to write "Congratulations John and Jane" and to have a male and female topper (you know the figurines on top).

A woman walks into into a bakery and ask for a wedding cake, she and the baker agree on a type, frosting, servings, etc.  At the end she tells the baker to write "Congratulations Joan and Jane" and to have two brides toppers (you know the figurines on top).


Did one "discuss their sexual orientation; sexual lusts; or political leanings" any different then the other?



>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Mar 2, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Well, duh. Welcome to the conversation. It happened when only Canada had gay marriages. And why does sexual orientation trump religious orientation? Especially when religion is protected by way of the Constitution and sexuality isn't.



Why only sexual orientation?

Under this law if a business owner had sincerely held religious beliefs and didn't want to service blacks, interracial couples, Muslims, or interfaith couples that they wouldn't be exempt under the law?

Should a person be able to claim a religious exemption to any law?


>>>>


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 2, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Well, duh. Welcome to the conversation. It happened when only Canada had gay marriages. And why does sexual orientation trump religious orientation? Especially when religion is protected by way of the Constitution and sexuality isn't.
> ...


Exactly why we passed these PA laws.  Too many people use their holy books to hate too many other people.  We don't have time for that.


----------



## dblack (Mar 2, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Well, duh. Welcome to the conversation. It happened when only Canada had gay marriages. And why does sexual orientation trump religious orientation? Especially when religion is protected by way of the Constitution and sexuality isn't.
> ...



Of course not. The problem with the public accommodations laws isn't a religious freedom issue, it's a freedom of association issue. I suspect we'll figure that out eventually.


----------



## Howey (Mar 2, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > #2 - Seattle wouldn't need to pass such a law as it is already illegal in Washington State to discriminate based on sexual orientation.
> ...




I hope you realize the entire world is laughing at you.

Did you ever answer my question, Silly Silhouettte?

How old were you when Father O'Diddle diddled you?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 2, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



Any time a leftist "genius" tries to tell me there's some confusion about what something is or isn't based on what it "looks like" to them, I'm reminded of how they've utterly eviscerated our education system such that basic questions of biology are now bewildering conundrums to them.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 2, 2014)

Mertex said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



I do so love being told what the law should be based on what it is at the moment, because it saves me SOO much time I might otherwise have spent mistakenly believing the person talking is a rational human being with more than two functioning brain cells and a moral compass, and jumps right to identifying them as a useless waste of protoplasm who can safely be ignored without fear of ever missing anything that needed to be said.

And yes, Mertex, I AM talking about you.  Just wanted to clear that up, since you obviously aren't smart enough to figure it out without clear directions.


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 2, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Well, duh. Welcome to the conversation. It happened when only Canada had gay marriages. And why does sexual orientation trump religious orientation? Especially when religion is protected by way of the Constitution and sexuality isn't.
> ...


As has been pointed out countless times, those are Constitutionally protected. Whether a Muslim will bake a Christian a themed cake would depend on what they wanted on it. Protection doesn't mean endorsement. If you don't get it don't blame others.


----------



## Barb (Mar 2, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...



A reprehensible and repugnant snatch such as yourself advising Mertex, or anyone, on matters of moral compass or intelligence is, well,


----------



## The T (Mar 2, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Well, duh. Welcome to the conversation. It happened when only Canada had gay marriages. And why does sexual orientation trump religious orientation? Especially when religion is protected by way of the Constitution and sexuality isn't.
> ...





 Picture via Doc Thompson/Facebook
​


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 2, 2014)

The T said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...


Bake the damn cake.  What a bunch of pantywaists.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 2, 2014)

Londoner said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Liberals have consistently fought for the right of people to be racists and bigots, which is why the ACLU was always willing to go to court to defend the rights of the KKK to hold protests, and why they still speak up in defense of Westboro Baptist Church.
> ...



Who the fuck are you arguing with?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 2, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Tell me again, how did the membership of the NAACP react to that statement?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 2, 2014)

Barb said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



Is that because only people who agree with your morals are actually moral?

Where have I heard that before?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 2, 2014)

Have there been any updates on The Onward Christian Soldiers' search for that business owner in Arizona that has had their "religious freedom" denied?
Everyone wants to be first.
Where is that person and why are they hiding?


----------



## jillian (Mar 2, 2014)

Barb said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



ain't that the truth!


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 2, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Ohmigod!  Are you imagining that people are called upon on a daily basis to render a judgement on whether or not someone else is male?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 2, 2014)

Londoner said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Liberals have consistently fought for the right of people to be racists and bigots, which is why the ACLU was always willing to go to court to defend the rights of the KKK to hold protests, and why they still speak up in defense of Westboro Baptist Church.
> ...



Ahh, yes, but when conservatives do the same thing, THEY are hate-filled, intolerant bigots who OBVIOUSLY share the views of the people whose rights they're defending, which only goes to prove that leftists are either 1) morons, 2), hypocrites, or 3) both.



Londoner said:


> I have a deeply Libertarian friend who happens to be a criminal attorney. He believes that Government should not be able to incarcerate citizens without due process. He believes in the Rights that all citizens are accorded by our legal system, and he thinks that maintaining those Rights is crucial to a free society. He doesn't want the US to become like the Soviet Union where people are jailed for their political beliefs. He believes in the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution as much as the ACLU believes in the First Amendment. Does this mean - per your ACLU logic - that my friend wants criminals to go free? Answer: no, because the biggest crime of all is a world where Government doesn't give citizens legal rights. (Psst: you can't only defend the Constitution when it produces outcomes you agree with. This is what Conservatives tend to do)
> 
> (I remember when Reagan ignored the Constitution by selling weapons to Iran. Then Bush ignored the Constitution with his illegal wiretapping program, subsequently brought within FISA. It made me realize that Republicans are typically willing to destroy the Constitution when the cause, in their opinion, is just. The ACLU, on the other hand, believes that defending our Constitutional protections is the most just cause of all. Anyway, you are proving my point.)



Really?  You remember when Reagan did something he didn't actually do?  Tell me, do you also remember when Hitler won WWII?  When the Confederacy was allowed to peacefully exercise its right to secession from the Union? When John Lennon survived his gunshot wound?  Exactly how many things that never happened do you remember?

Such a fucking idiot.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Mar 2, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



Where does the Constitution guarantee protection from discrimination conducted by NON-GOVERNMENT entities?  The Constitution is a limiting document on government, not on private individuals.



Iceweasel said:


> Whether a Muslim will bake a Christian a themed cake would depend on what they wanted on it. Protection doesn't mean endorsement.



Very good, just as baking a wedding cake for a couple of lesbians doesn't mean endorsement.

But see that is the claim of those evangelical folks, that baking the cake for a lesbian wedding was somehow "endorsing" their marriage.

So why is it not "endorsement" for the Muslim baker, but it is "endorsement" for the Christian baker?



Iceweasel said:


> If you don't get it don't blame others.



Oh, I get it.

Religious beliefs against interracial marriage = Bad, should be illegal.

Religious beliefs against interfaith marriage = Bad, should be illegal.

Religious beliefs against same-sex marriage = Good, should be legal.

It's a pretty hypocritical to say, religious freedom should prevail, but only if I agree with those religious beliefs.



>>>>


----------



## DriftingSand (Mar 2, 2014)

Bumberclyde said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Christ loved everyone enough to die for them and shed every bit of His blood but not everyone will see the Kingdom of God (according to the Bible and the Words of Christ, Himself). 

*John 3:18*_*, "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is  condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only  begotten Son of God."

*_*Acts 19:4*_*, "Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance,  saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should  come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus."*_

Look up the word "repentance."  It's key to ones belief in Christ and ones hope of salvation.


----------



## Steinlight (Mar 2, 2014)

The only problem is you shouldn't need a justification(like religious belief) to discriminate, you should just be allowed to discriminate period, since it is in fact your property. If you do not have the right to determine who is allowed on your property or whom you wish to serve and thereby associate with, you don't own yourself or your property, the state does, since they make said regulations. Those who advocate "anti-discrimination laws" are really advocating state ownership of individuals and their property.


----------



## Silhouette (Mar 2, 2014)

Well should a muslim baker have to bake a gay wedding cake too?


----------



## Silhouette (Mar 2, 2014)

I noticed someone else answered for you with a derogatory tangent but...Hey worldwatcher, you might have missed this question on the last page.  What's your answer?



> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > #2 - Seattle wouldn't need to pass such a law as it is already illegal in Washington State to discriminate based on sexual orientation.
> ...




ie, which sexual orientations is it illegal to discriminate against in Seattle?  All of them?  Only some?  Which ones and why?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 2, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...



And let us not forget that the Constitutional Convention is well-documented in the notes of the attendees, and tell us that the Bible was referenced more often than all other sources combined during those deliberations.


----------



## Steinlight (Mar 2, 2014)

"Anti-Discrimination" movements are built on self-entitlement and narcissism, believing they are entitled access to the property and services of others. A very egotistical and immature bunch they are.


----------



## Dr Grump (Mar 2, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Such a fucking idiot.



You calling anybody an idiot is akin to Stalin accusing Hitler of mass murder. Ronnie Raygun did lie about Iran Contra..

But you do moron so well.....


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 2, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Where does the Constitution guarantee protection from discrimination conducted by NON-GOVERNMENT entities?  The Constitution is a limiting document on government, not on private individuals.


14th Amendment | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
14th Amendment
Amendment XIV
Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Iceweasel said:


> Whether a Muslim will bake a Christian a themed cake would depend on what they wanted on it. Protection doesn't mean endorsement.





> Very good, just as baking a wedding cake for a couple of lesbians doesn't mean endorsement.


Wrong. Two women on a cake makes a statement.


> But see that is the claim of those evangelical folks, that baking the cake for a lesbian wedding was somehow "endorsing" their marriage.
> 
> So why is it not "endorsement" for the Muslim baker, but it is "endorsement" for the Christian baker?


I made that clear already.


Iceweasel said:


> If you don't get it don't blame others.





> Oh, I get it.
> 
> Religious beliefs against interracial marriage = Bad, should be illegal.
> 
> ...


No, that isn't what I said. So no, you don't get it because your brain cannot receive information it disagrees with.


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 2, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> I noticed someone else answered for you with a derogatory tangent but...Hey worldwatcher, you might have missed this question on the last page.  What's your answer?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer.


----------



## dblack (Mar 2, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Where does the Constitution guarantee protection from discrimination conducted by NON-GOVERNMENT entities?  The Constitution is a limiting document on government, not on private individuals.
> ...



What do you think that means? Maybe you should read it again. It's referring to the actions of state governments, not businesses or individuals.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 2, 2014)

Bumberclyde said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



::yawn::  You keep declaring your opinion that anything short of approbation for a person's every act is hatred of the person, and  you keep getting spit on and ignored.  Exactly how thick is your skull that you can't see that your wish isn't going to become reality, and you're never going to be right about this?

Likewise, Billy Graham, you keep telling us all about what Jesus was and wasn't, and how Christians are practicing THEIR beliefs - theirs, not yours - incorrectly based on YOUR interpretation - yours, not theirs - of the Bible.  I'd go to the trouble of asking you to explain to us how your two bullshit theories coincide by demonstrating how Jesus "loved everyone" by applauding every damned action they ever took and never, ever condemning anything anyone did, except that to do so would inappropriately validate you and make you think that you're not an arrogant, hubristic dumbass.  And I do so want you to understand that about yourself.

So let's leave it at this:  I believe what I believe.  I practice it according to what I think it requires.  You are not me, and you are not God.  Therefore, you have exactly two things to say about what my beliefs are and should be, and how they should be practiced:  fuck and all.  Any statement otherwise has all the value of a fart in a wind tunnel . . . as do you.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 2, 2014)

NTG said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...




In other words, you know Silhouette is correct, you have no serious answer, and you're too much of a chickenshit douchebag to just admit it.


----------



## Londoner (Mar 2, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Well should a muslim baker have to bake a gay wedding cake too?



You might reconsider the relationship between these two units along the capitalist chain. 

Our economic transaction are fraught with people and values we may disagree with. Our oil comes from terrorists. Over 20% of our products are manufactured in Communist China. Our iPhones are assembled beneath brutal dictators in places like Taiwan. 

Research Milton Friedman's beautiful example of how global capitalism produces a simple pencil... specifically, how the raw material comes from all these different places - places with very different values. The brilliance of capitalism is that it allows all these different people and values to coalesce efficiently inside the market place. The sexuality, nationality, and values of all these diverse units along the supply chain disappears behind the singular goal of efficiency. 

Can you imagine if we put Conservative Moral Nazis at every juncture of the supply chain? The economy would shut down because the Conservative would constantly reject involvement with "bad" people. 

Whether or not you sell a wedding cake to a gay person or fill your tank with gas, you are often going to be involved with people who don't share your values. Capitalism works most _efficiently_ when you don't clog every market transaction with externalities. 

The brilliant conservative professor, Daniel Bell, addresses the conflict between Conservatism and the Free Market in his seminal book "The Cultural Contradiction of Capitalism". You should read it. You may disagree with it, ultimately, but it will help you understand the problem with imposing too many values on market transactions. Hint: capitalism works most efficiently when the nationality of your baker and the sexuality of his client are not obstacles to the transaction - when they become impersonal economic units. Once you open the door and allow values to clog every transaction, you put all sorts of chains on productivity. If you, personally, want to hate on muslims and gays, than do it on your own time - but don't fuck with capitalism's ability to rationally and surgically focus _only_ on maximizing efficiency and profit.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 2, 2014)

Barb said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



And you're whom, exactly, that you're flattering yourself that your opinion matters?


----------



## Contumacious (Mar 2, 2014)

Londoner said:


> . Capitalism works most _efficiently_ when you don't clog every market transaction with externalities. .



Externalities such as Londoner who doesn't know what Capitalism is , hence he - somehow - confuses it the unbridled  fascism which has been in effect in the US since 1913.

.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Mar 2, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Well should a muslim baker have to bake a gay wedding cake too?



1.  There is not difference in ingredients and preparation of a "gay wedding cake" and a "straight wedding cake".  There is just a cake, the customers though are gay or straight.

2.  A Muslim baker would have the same requirements to comply with State Public Accommodation laws just as a secular or Christian baker would.  Just like Muslim cab drivers in Minnesota couldn't claim a religious exemption to discriminate against blind people with service dogs.


>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Mar 2, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> I noticed someone else answered for you with a derogatory tangent but...Hey worldwatcher, you might have missed this question on the last page.  What's your answer?
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Polyandry is a woman married to more than one man, in such a case there is only one sexual orientation - heterosexual.

Necrophilia and Pederasty is criminal activity, no baker is required to provide services to criminal activities.  Homosexual commitment ceremonies (in states that don't recognize Same-sex Civil Marriage), Civil Unions (in states with those), and Civil Marriages (in states that have those) are not criminal activities.  




>>>>


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 2, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > I noticed someone else answered for you with a derogatory tangent but...Hey worldwatcher, you might have missed this question on the last page.  What's your answer?
> ...




A lot of people would tell you that polyamory is a different orientation than monogamous heterosexuality, and who are you to tell them otherwise?  Leftists want so badly to let people they approve of and agree with define themselves and their inclinations in whatever way they feel good about, so it would be sort of hypocritical now to come up and insist that you get to pigeonhole someone according to your personal worldview, hmmm?


----------



## Silhouette (Mar 2, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > I noticed someone else answered for you with a derogatory tangent but...Hey worldwatcher, you might have missed this question on the last page.  What's your answer?
> ...




OK, polyamory then?  And Harvey Milk was a pederast.  He is the messiah of the church of LGBT.  So obviously that's a sexual orientation LGBTs are seeking special protection for.  We can assume this is true until the day they denounce him as their sexual icon.

Instead, 60+ groups in Mexico, Canada and the US petitioned to have a rainbow "USA" postage stamp commissioned of Milk as representative of their movement/cult.  Any other sexual orientations that you left out that get special protection in Seattle?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 2, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



That is exactly right, proponents of having Bible quotes and Scripture in the law of this land were numerous at that Convention.
And they got their asses handed to them as the United States Constitution has NO mention of God in it anywhere.
In fact the majority of the members at the Convention were so troubled by that they put in PLAIN LANGUAGE in the Constitution: Article IV, paragraph 3.
*"BUT NO RELIGIOUS TEST SHALL EVER BE REQUIRED AS A QUALIFICATION TO ANY OFFICE OR PUBLIC TRUST UNDER THE UNITED STATES"*

Amazing the kooks that claim this nation was founded on Christianity WHEN THE DAMN DOCUMENT THAT IS *THE LAW* of this nation SPECIFICALLY says that NO religious test, Christian or otherwise is required of the nation's leaders. IOW, religion is to play NO PART in the affairs of this nation and their leaders.

Why is this so hard for you people to accept?


----------



## Dr Grump (Mar 2, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Because yours matters soooo much...


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 2, 2014)

When are you people going to understand what is going on?
First we have 1978 with the religious whacks rallying for a ballot proposition banning homosexuals from teaching in California schools. Ronald Reagan was already the darling of conservatives as had helped Goldwater in 1964 and he had just been elected Governor. Without hesitation Reagan opposed the bill to the horror of the religious right. Reagan wrote an editorial a week before the vote which centered on this theme "Homosexuality is not a contagious disease like the measles. Prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual's sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a child's teachers do not influence this". *WELL DUH* Of course the religious right were outraged by this as how dare anyone and especially someone that claimed to be a conservative like Reagan claim that homosexuality was anything other than a choice? 
Then we have the religious right entering into once again the teaching of evolution in public schools and want to offer creationism as an "alternative theory". And the courts ruled that creationism is not science, which it isn't and never will be.
Then we have the religious right in the early 80s fighting for the continued ban on homosexuals serving in the military with the "unit cohesion will fall apart", "mass defections of troops", "combat readiness will disintegrate" and all other conclusions based on nothing other than their hate towards homosexuals and their ignorance.
Then we again have the religious right with their repackaged Bull Shit "intelligent design" which was proven a massive fraud by a conservative Republican Bush appointed Federal Judge in the Dover case. In that case in the judges' ruling he pointed out the numerous lies and perjury committed by the Intelligent Design defenders in the school system and witnesses presented by the ID community in the case. 
Then we go to the demand again for open service and the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Once again we heard all of the bizarre claims of the religious right about how allowing open service for homosexuals will prompt an immediate attack by Jamaica against us when homosexuals are allowed to serve and jerk chicken will be the national food instead of cheese burgers within 3 weeks of that change.
And having their asses kicked time and time and time again now we have the religious right, and all of their defenders here, once again making bizarre and fraudulent claims about what will happen if we allow gay folk to marry and add them to the long list of folks that should not be denied service in public businesses under the vague term of "religious freedom".
And to date from 1978 when they wanted to ban gay teachers because they claimed they would indoctrinate the kids and turn them gay, when they claimed the earth is 6000 years old and man walked with dinosaurs, when they claimed the military would disintegrate into mass chaos if homosexuals could openly serve and homosexual marriage will ruin all of society and every heterosexual marriage they have been wrong 100% of the time.
So when they come with demands for a bogus "religious freedom" bill where NO ONE in the state they are bringing it in CAN BE FOUND ANYWHERE that claims their religious freedom has been denied in their business once again the religious right has manufactured a turd.
As hard as they try you can never polish a turd.


----------



## bodecea (Mar 2, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...





Hey!   IF we've got a church now....we get the benefit of religous freedom and tax exemption.  We have to get right on that!


----------



## hunarcy (Mar 2, 2014)

Mertex said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



You ARE lying when you claim Limbaugh is one of my "heroes" and you are lying when you try to assign a point of view to me.  In fact, other than my mocking you for trying to deflect to Limbaugh, you have no idea what I believe about keeping marriage "sacred" or how I feel about gays or what I hate.  

Kind of makes you a horse's anus.


----------



## Mertex (Mar 2, 2014)

hunarcy said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > hunarcy said:
> ...


If you are a rightwing extremist, which your defense of discrimination against same sex marriage, then obviously you are one of many that worship Limbaugh and drool over every word he says.   The fact that you and many of the others on the right are not calling him  out as making a mockery of marriage, when you want to claim that gays are,  is obvious that you are looking the other way.

I don't really care how you feel about gays, the very fact that you've made ignorant assumptions as to why it is okay to discriminate them is enough for anyone to get a good reading on what you are about.



> Kind of makes you a horse's anus.


The fact that you are in denial about what you really believe makes you the horses ass.


----------



## DriftingSand (Mar 2, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> That is exactly right, proponents of having Bible quotes and Scripture in the law of this land were numerous at that Convention.
> And they got their asses handed to them as the United States Constitution has NO mention of God in it anywhere.
> In fact the majority of the members at the Convention were so troubled by that they put in PLAIN LANGUAGE in the Constitution: Article IV, paragraph 3.
> *"BUT NO RELIGIOUS TEST SHALL EVER BE REQUIRED AS A QUALIFICATION TO ANY OFFICE OR PUBLIC TRUST UNDER THE UNITED STATES"*
> ...



Nevertheless, Christians and the Bible had a great deal of influence over the writers and the writing of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  The vast number of Christian signers (the majority of signers) would not have signed either document had there been anything that they had found objectionable from a biblical point of view.  Just saying.

Take a look at the following state preambles and tell me that a belief in God isn't a common thread that unites most of these documents:

From this site: The Fifty States Reference God in their Constitutions-Truth!



> Subject: God in your state Constitution !!!!
> 
> 
> THIS IS VERY INTERESTING! After you check your state(s),         look at the last
> ...



I just love it when the facts speak for themselves.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 2, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> I just love it when the facts speak for themselves.


So you have issues understanding that the nation was founded by Christians but it was not founded as a Christian Nation?  Do you think it should be a Christian Nation, or do you just want to be able to put up Nativity Scenes and say Jesus a lot, the tokens of a Christian Nation?


----------



## Silhouette (Mar 3, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > I just love it when the facts speak for themselves.
> ...



Well, there's a law in California that forces school children each May 22nd to worship the LGBT church's messiah, the pedophile Harvey Milk.  Yet I can't think of a law that forces kids in schools to worship Jesus on any given day.  Odd that a pedophile messiah should beat out Jesus in public schools. 

The church of LGBT is one of the most aggressively evangelical and hotly intolerate cults this nation has ever seen.  They now are asking, nay forcing christians to abandon their faith and forcing them to make gay wedding cakes under threat of eternal damnation.  It isn't good enough for the cult of LGBT to just go to another cake maker [what, there are no gay cake makers??].  No they won't rest until people are being forced under threat of lawsuit to abandon their faith to replace it with the cult values of LGBT.


----------



## The T (Mar 3, 2014)

Picture via Doc Thompson/Facebook


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 3, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...


Noted.  Is there any sane person who would also like to answer?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 3, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > That is exactly right, proponents of having Bible quotes and Scripture in the law of this land were numerous at that Convention.
> ...



Hate to tell you this and no offense as obviously no one taught you this in 7th grade history:
THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION is THE LAW and those state preambles mean NOTHING. 
Christianity played a great part in the founding of this country and today.
I clearly stated that many at the convention used Bible quotes and Scripture.
Same as today, many were going to run for public office and many did want religion to run the country same as it was in ALL European countries of the day.
EVERY SINGLE ONE of the offerings of everything and anything to do with the Christian religion or ANY religion were VOTED DOWN at the Continental Convention.
Those facts are the ones that speak the loudest, over the BS rhetoric of the religious right who are more interested in finding ways to condemn gay folks than do what Jesus clearly tells us to do.
For those that are Christians. 
That is the main reason I support the rights of gay folks.
Jesus left a clear path for me to follow.
Something about "love thy neighbor". 
My great grandmother taught me to beware those that wear the Big C on their forehead and go around looking for someone to persecute all in the name of them being a Christian.
If you really are a Christian you never have to tell anyone or spout your religious beliefs to anyone.
They will know it by YOUR ACTIONS and how you treat your fellow man.
BTW, William Penn is a direct descendant of mine. My ancestors are Quaker as my mother was a Walker raised in Clintondale NY as a Quaker. Google Friends meeting Clintondale NY 1939 and you will see the lists. Quakers were persecuted by other Christian denominations for how long in this country? Quakers led the charge for slavery to be abolished and for gay rights from the 40s on.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 3, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...



LOL, the ignorance of the religious right.
Harvey Milk met with Governor Reagan when the polls were 65% of Californians supporting the Briggs Initiative which was a proposition to be voted on by the public to ban homosexual teachers from teaching in public schools. Reagan was going to run for President and the timing of Reagan's opposition was significant as many conservatives supported the Briggs initiative. 
Reagan was well aware of other conservatives that wanted to duck the issue and wrote an editorial opposing it a week before the election and vote.
Reagan chose to vote his convictions in opposing the bill and thanked Milk for pointing the bill out to him so he could oppose it.
Reagan won over many conservatives and even gay ones as that is what started The Log Cabin Republicans, an organization that in this day openly and vigorously opposes the Obama administration. 
The bill was defeated in a landslide.
Try again.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 3, 2014)

Moving on to other threads specifically fiscal conservatism which the religious right has tossed to the grave yard fighting their wars on gays and funding the moral police.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Mar 3, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...



Oh, dear, you need to get back on your meds, right away!

There is no church of LGBT, there is not LGBT messiah and no one is being forced to "worship" him.

Do you screech and squawk like this all the time? Poor you.


----------



## Bumberclyde (Mar 3, 2014)

Bill Vetoed, homos win AGAIN!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Silhouette (Mar 3, 2014)

^^ The American Legal system giving a leg up to the equivalent of Heaven's Gate...in sexualized form...  


Statistikhengst said:


> Oh, dear, you need to get back on your meds, right away!
> 
> There is no *church of LGBT*, there is not LGBT messiah and *no one is being forced to "worship*" him.
> 
> Do you screech and squawk like this all the time? Poor you.



Read post #97 right here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...-depict-the-prophet-muhammed-on-a-cake-7.html

It's where a gay advocate is "dropping the hint" that if muslims don't bake "gay wedding" cakes, they will be sued into poverty for that blasphemy.  How is that not forcing someone to abandon their faith and worship gay dogma?

Why is polygamy not included in "LGBT"?  It's arbitrary.  Polygamy is a sexual orientation too.  It's because they're just not accepted into the fold.  "LGBT" is a religion.  It evangelizes aggressively in the media.  It evangelizes aggressively in schools [law forcing kids in California to celebrate the pedophile Harvey Milk each May 22nd].  It punished heretics like Anne Heche. [in gay vernacular her name is synonymous with "traitor"].  It seeks to usurp other faiths that do not fall into line with its highly strange and objectionable values...

It is behavioral.  It isn't a race, religion [not formally anyway], gender or nationality.  It is a cult pure and simple.  It fits all the definitions of a cult like a finely tailored glove.  Like I said, it even has a pedophile/messiah...  Anyone who doesn't resist this cult should be on medication.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 3, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> No, but I'll bet you were disappointed.



At first. but then I noticed that most of the women were over 40....


----------



## Dr Grump (Mar 3, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > No, but I'll bet you were disappointed.
> ...



Looks like the women dodged a bullet..


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 3, 2014)

Dr Grump said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



This whole humor thingy is a concept you just don't quite grasp, gump....


----------



## protectionist (Mar 3, 2014)

* I can discriminate all I want against queers, and there's not a damn thing they can do about it.  *And if they think there is, let's hear it.  Bring it on.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 3, 2014)

protectionist said:


> * I can discriminate all I want against queers, and there's not a damn thing they can do about it.  *And if they think there is, let's hear it.  Bring it on.


You like your lawyer that much huh?  He must be a heck of a guy.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 3, 2014)

protectionist said:


> * I can discriminate all I want against queers, and there's not a damn thing they can do about it.  *And if they think there is, let's hear it.  Bring it on.



No one ever said you couldnt. 

Youre at liberty to hate gay Americans to your hearts content. 

You are not at liberty, however, to seek to codify your hate and ignorance.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 3, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> When are you people going to understand what is going on?
> First we have 1978 with the religious whacks rallying for a ballot proposition banning homosexuals from teaching in California schools. Ronald Reagan was already the darling of conservatives as had helped Goldwater in 1964 and he had just been elected Governor. Without hesitation Reagan opposed the bill to the horror of the religious right. Reagan wrote an editorial a week before the vote which centered on this theme "Homosexuality is not a contagious disease like the measles. Prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual's sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a child's teachers do not influence this". *WELL DUH* Of course the religious right were outraged by this as how dare anyone and especially someone that claimed to be a conservative like Reagan claim that homosexuality was anything other than a choice?



*FALSE!*  Reagan never was a Conservative, and he still remains the God of Pseudo-Conservatism, as his malicious opposition to the Briggs Initiative well attested.  Other examples were his back down from Muslim jihadists after the attack on the US Marines barracks in Lebanon, his amnesty to illegal aliens, and in his post-presidency, Reagan cast his support to a pair of critical gun control measures in the 1990s: 1993s Brady Bill and 1994s Assault Weapons Ban.  Add to that his very low tax on the rich (28%) depriving the govt of $$ for FBI, ICE, CBP, DEA, CIA, etc. and you have one hell of a non-Conservative.

   Yeah,  I know a lot of Conservatives consider him a poster child of modern conservatism.  There's only one problem with that.  THEY are Psuedo-Conservatives for that very reason.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 3, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> .
> Then we have the religious right in the early 80s fighting for the continued ban on homosexuals serving in the military with the "unit cohesion will fall apart", "mass defections of troops", "combat readiness will disintegrate" and all other conclusions based on nothing other than their hate towards homosexuals and their ignorance.



There's the queer lovers favorite 2 words again >> _"hate" _and _"ignorance"_.  Well, it's kind of understandable for people to hate having people trying to impose a mentally abberated sexual perversion upon them. I guess "hate" would be appropriate.  Yeah, and most of us hate spinach too.  And the thought of imbecile people eating bugs. And traffic jams.   Hate does have its place.  As for "ignorance" the QLs rarely ever state what protectionists are supposed to be ignorant of.  How the queers conduct their sick sex lives ?   Please keep us ignorant, thank you.



Gadawg73 said:


> And to date from 1978 when they wanted to ban gay teachers because they claimed they would indoctrinate the kids and turn them gay,



Which is exactly what they've BEEN doing since then, and long before that.  Was this considered a secret ?


----------



## protectionist (Mar 3, 2014)

Mertex said:


> I don't really care how you feel about gays, the very fact that you've made ignorant assumptions as to why it is okay to discriminate them is enough for anyone to get a good reading on what you are about.



How can you justify NOT discriminating against them ? (as teachers, day school aides, coaches, football players, military, etc)


----------



## Silhouette (Mar 3, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...



Well that certainly explains why in recent years there's been a sudden spike in boys ages 13-24 coming down with HIV.  I think it's a 21% increase over the steady rate just before the gay cult really doubled down on the evangelizing.

You're aware, protectionist, that they have a law in California requiring school kids each May 22nd to celebrate the LGBT cult's messiah/pedophile Harvey Milk right?  Where they celebrate gayness and the entire dogma of the LGBT cult?

It's the same state that once a child is molested and has unwanted homosexual compulsions from it, s/he cannot by law now get help from a therapist to throw off his/her unwanted compulsion until s/he turns 18...at an age by when the behavior will essentially be impossible to reverse without lifelong consequences.

That is machiavellian and classic cult indoctrinization.  Imagine forbidding free speech between a therapist and his patient?  Hitler would be proud.  It's the same as teaching a woman victim of rape to embrace her assailant's crime.  Just unbelievable.  If this law wasn't actually on the books and accessible to read online, I wouldn't believe it was true.


----------



## DriftingSand (Mar 3, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > I just love it when the facts speak for themselves.
> ...



At least you finally acknowledge that the nation was founded by Christians and for their posterity, which, it would be logical to assume, would be raised to be future Christians.

I don't believe it would be wise or biblical to force everyone in America to be Christian but I DO believe that it's wise and biblical to allow Christians to be Christians without forcing them to accept as normal those sorts of lifestyles that would be considered non-Christian or anti-Christian.  In other words, if a homosexual desires to live a homosexual lifestyle then so be it but he and his activist buddies should give Christians the same respect that they desire for themselves.  It's called the "Golden Rule" which is a tenet of biblical morality and ethics.

Therefore, I have no problem with America presenting itself as a good and moral nation with foundational laws that reflect the underlying tenets of the Bible but I don't believe that it must necessarily be a "Christian nation." I do believe in freedom of religion and I would never attempt to force others to accept my lifestyle.  That means that I should be able to refuse service to anyone who wishes to force me to do anything that goes against my beliefs.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 3, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...



Interesting how despite the odds against it of 365 to 1, May 22nd (1991) is also the date of the Muslim Brotherhood's infamous declaration of sedition against America (and all of western civilization).  Maybe bad guys all over America, are going to use this as their national holiday.


----------



## DriftingSand (Mar 3, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > When are you people going to understand what is going on?
> ...



I happen to agree with you. There are scant few true Conservatives left in this land.  Ron and Rand Paul are about as close as we're likely to get.  Reagan was an insider with a lot of charm.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 3, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Ron and Rand Paul support gay rights 100% as they are Libertarians.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 3, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



Then they certainly couldn't be considered Conservatives (whose concerns are CONSERVING America's values, principles, and culture).


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 3, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...



Our principles are to not allow religious influence in government.
ALL your views on homosexuality are based on religious beliefs.
That is not what a conservative is. The tradition of this country has always been to follow THE LAW, not religious beliefs.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 3, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



Ron Paul has repeatedly expressed his view that same sex marriage is a matter for the states. If that is your idea of 100% support of gay rights I can see why you think you are smart.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 3, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...




I do not think I am smart. I am convinced of it.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 4, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



*FALSE! * * NONE* of my views are based on religious beliefs.  They are based on simply that homosexuality is abnormal, unhealthy, dangerous to children, and should be severely restricted in certain circumstances.

  This is completely consistent with American Conservative beliefs, which totally reject homosexuality as a valid lifestyle, and consider it to be a mental abberation, harmful to society, and practiced by nutjobs.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 4, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



I'm not.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 4, 2014)

LOL, good come back!


----------



## Bumberclyde (Mar 4, 2014)

Are you homophobes tired of getting beaten by gays? Or are you up for more gay punishment?


----------



## paperview (Mar 4, 2014)

We pause this thread for a moment to bring you some sweetcakes.


----------



## Silhouette (Mar 4, 2014)

The girl who is dressed like a boy and being dominant like a boy in the photo above isn't a boy.  She's a girl.  And one wonders though with all the external trappings of a boy, why the other "lesbian" is attracted to her in the first place?  Maybe she likes boys...



Bumberclyde said:


> Are you homophobes tired of getting beaten by gays? Or are you up for more gay punishment?



Speaking of that, have you read the Windsor/DOMA Decision from June 2013?  After reading that, how do you think gays vs Utah is going to fare when it is heard this year by SCOTUS?  Which will prevail do you think?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Mar 4, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> The girl who is dressed like a boy and being dominant like a boy in the photo above isn't a boy.  She's a girl.  And one wonders though with all the external trappings of a boy, why the other "lesbian" is attracted to her in the first place?  Maybe she likes boys...



The one in the hat is wearing the uniform of a member of the United States Navy.  She had just debarked form the ship after deployment.  She wasn't "dressed like a boy" she was wearing the uniform as prescribed by the Military Service she joined.

Trying to claim that a female that has volunteered to serve her country and is wearing the uniform in the correct manner at a prescribed time is choosing to "dress like a boy" is about one of the most ignorant things I've seen.



>>>>


----------



## hunarcy (Mar 4, 2014)

Mertex said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



 [MENTION=43625]Mertex[/MENTION]

Ah, so pointing out that you deflect to Limbaugh is what makes me a "rightwing extremist"?  How does that work?

And, where have I made an assumption about why it's ok to discriminate against gays?  In fact when did I say it's ok to discriminate against anyone?  Your need to label me these things just shows that I'm correct about you being the south end of a north bound horse.


----------



## Silhouette (Mar 4, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > The girl who is dressed like a boy and being dominant like a boy in the photo above isn't a boy.  She's a girl.  And one wonders though with all the external trappings of a boy, why the other "lesbian" is attracted to her in the first place?  Maybe she likes boys...
> ...



Oh, well maybe you should take a look at this lesbian couple then and ask yourself what the one one in the dress is really attracted to.  Closet heterosexuality is alive and well in the church of LGBT.  Heretics!

..lol..  What _is_ LGBT again anyway?  

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/343345-fox-news-promotes-gay-marriage.html


----------



## paperview (Mar 4, 2014)

No matter how much you want it bub, she ain't gonna be attracted to you.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 4, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Yet you say stupid things all the time.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 4, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



He's smart enough, just blinded by his bigotry against Christians.


----------



## Silhouette (Mar 4, 2014)

paperview said:


> No matter how much you want it bub, she ain't gonna be attracted to you.



I don't know, Anne Heche changed her mind just fine...


----------



## WorldWatcher (Mar 4, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...




No matter how much you try to deflect, your insulting remarks about a member of the United States Armed Forces serving her country and properly dressed in a female uniform doesn't change.



>>>>


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 4, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > No matter how much you want it bub, she ain't gonna be attracted to you.
> ...



Ellen has probably made a few straight guys go gay.


----------



## Mertex (Mar 4, 2014)

hunarcy said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > hunarcy said:
> ...


I wasn't even talking to you, but you decided to jump in and ask why Limbaugh was being included in the conversation.....why if Limbaugh is not one of your rw heroes, do you even care if he is being mentioned?  Because you are the deceptive one, trying to weasel out of what you said.  And as nasty as Rush Limbaugh is, calling women sluts and such, anyone that defends him is usually a rightwing extremist....conservatives with values don't look up to that drug addict, four times married, obese person when trying to make a statement in defense of honoring marriage.



> And, where have I made an assumption about why it's ok to discriminate against gays?  In fact when did I say it's ok to discriminate against anyone?  Your need to label me these things just shows that I'm correct about you being the south end of a north bound horse.


That is what this thread is about....if you're going to jump in and start an argument in defense of it, then you are definitely for discriminating against gays.  If you can't see the connection, then perhaps you should have someone explain it to you, in stead of insulting others, cause that makes you the horses ass.  

And, don't @Mention me again....I get notification when someone responds to my posts and I know when I want to respond, I don't need you calling my attention to your lames responses.


----------



## Mertex (Mar 4, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > No matter how much you want it bub, she ain't gonna be attracted to you.
> ...




Do you have any proof that Anne Heche was ever really homosexual, or just saw an opportunity to gain some notoriety, fame and money?  If you can't prove that she was ever homosexual, you should not be using her as an example....movie stars do many things just to get notoriety, which usually gets them noticed.


----------



## Silhouette (Mar 4, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Well straight guys don't go for men, so yeah, I see your point.  But it makes you wonder why "lesbian" women go for manly lesbians.  Something ain't right there.  There is definitely some closet hetero stuff crammed way back in the dark, inaccessible and forbidden etiology behind the dogma of the church of LGBT.  

Imagine for a minute if a hetero guy was attracted to women who dressed like men, acted like men etc. gays would INSTANTLY proclaim him as a closet homosexual.  There would be no debate about it.  It simply would be declared as fact.  Yet when I point out how many of their ranks, about half of them actually, are attracted to all the trappings of the opposite gender, yet proclaim themselves "gay", you have to apply the law of equals here and say, "no, actually, they are heterosexual and just have issues coming to terms with that".  

Equally mysterious is the law in California forbidding minors from discussing [free speech] with their therapist their own wishes and plans to throw off unwanted homophilia, even when that is gotten by having been molested.  Yet simultaneously, the church of LGBT holds evangelizing events enticing teens and even younger who are "bi-curious" [all kids are sexually curious and forming their identities at that age] to "come and join the fun!", with cookies, cake, punch, bands and activities all set up to complete the enticement.

Also, tons and tons and tons of funding, groups and outreach entities exist to help coerce teens and younger "out of the closet" to "discover they are gay".  All this with arguably truckloads of coercion and suggestion involved.  But if a kid himself wants to rid his compulsive homosexuality after being "tampered with" by being molested...un,uh...no way!  That's forbidden by law.

So properly, the cult of LGBT has already made indoctrinization of their dogma a matter of secular law.  You see, they don't want themselves declared a behavioral grouping...and therefore properly a "cult" [they call themselves a "subculture" or refer to "culture wars"], because if people recognize that they are, then what they're doing with laws becomes a matter of separation of church and state.  And of course the cannot simultaneously lobby to remove christian practices in schools at the same time they require by law that kids in California celebrate their messiah/gay pedophile Harvey Milk each May 22nd.

Dogma is dogma.  Learn to recognize it when it's mauling your kids at school and in the therapist's office... and "bi-curious" events with cake, cookies, bands and FUN! .....might also want to brush up on law enforcement profiles of pedophiles and what they refer to as "grooming behaviors" when pedophiles are targeting the kids they're after to eventually molest.  Often those grooming behaviors including enticements of cake, cookies, entertainment and "FUN"...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 4, 2014)

Sil has in her *filibabble *created a LGBT strawman that does not exist in reality and then beats it down, and rebuilds, and beats down, and then rebuilds and so forth and so on.

All the hetero-fascists now are doing is negotiating their terms of surrender to a society of marriage equality.


----------



## Silhouette (Mar 4, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Sil has in her *filibabble *created a LGBT strawman that does not exist in reality and then beats it down, and rebuilds, and beats down, and then rebuilds and so forth and so on.
> 
> All the hetero-fascists now are doing is negotiating their terms of surrender to a society of marriage equality.



The cult of LGBT.  The good, the bad _and_ the ugly.  We are going to explore all of it and not just the pretty rainbow parts as their dogma forces its way upon the sovereign states and the self-governed there..


----------



## Statistikhengst (Mar 4, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Sil has in her *filibabble *created a LGBT strawman that does not exist in reality and then beats it down, and rebuilds, and beats down, and then rebuilds and so forth and so on.
> ...




Indeed, I do think you make for an outstanding hetero-fascist. Perhaps you have found your calling in life!!  I think you can market that, get a piece of the niche, you know...


----------



## Silhouette (Mar 4, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



The proper term to call me isn't "hetero-fascist".  It's "heretic".  That's what you call people who shirk the fold and won't pay homage to the messiah Harvey Milk.  I'll wear that badge proudly.


----------



## hunarcy (Mar 4, 2014)

Mertex said:


> I wasn't even talking to you, but you decided to jump in and ask why Limbaugh was being included in the conversation.....why if Limbaugh is not one of your rw heroes, do you even care if he is being mentioned?  Because you are the deceptive one, trying to weasel out of what you said.  And as nasty as Rush Limbaugh is, calling women sluts and such, anyone that defends him is usually a rightwing extremist....conservatives with values don't look up to that drug addict, four times married, obese person when trying to make a statement in defense of honoring marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You're right, I jumped in and asked why you were trying to deflect to Limbaugh.  I didn't do it because he's a "hero" to me, I did it because it's a weak argument and I wanted to know why you were wasting time with it.  And, while now want to claim I'm weaseling out, it's you that is trying to back away from your comments...probably to hide your embarrassment.  And, before you try to deny it, you were obviously embarrassed because you immediately began trying to label me an "extremist" and implying I'm a bigot instead of making an argument.  Your intellectual dishonesty (which you tried to deny but is obvious) forced you into more and more insults because you actually have no argument and that's why you're the horse's ass in the conversation.

I accept your surrender on the challenge to show I've called for anyone to suffer discrimination and that I have never said anything derogatory about Gays.  I now challenge you to show I started an argument in defense of discrimination toward Gays.  All I did was ask why you were trying to deflect to Limbaugh as if his problems with marriage was an argument for or against marriage.

And I'll tag you if I wish, [MENTION=43625]Mertex[/MENTION].  I don't take orders from the back end of a horse.

So, to summarize, you were using a lame tactic instead of creating a thoughtful argument, you got called on it, you immediately began to lie about me and now you can't back up your lies.  You should apologize and move on, but you strike me as the type that can't do that and will continue to make yourself look less than intellectual.  Either way, unless you can meet the challenge or make a REAL argument, you've nothing else to say.


----------



## DriftingSand (Mar 5, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



They also support Christian rights and don't believe that Christians should be forced to accept the tenets of gay activism.


----------



## DriftingSand (Mar 5, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



If a "principle" is good then it SHOULD be allowed to influence the direction of governments.

My views on homosexuality are partially based in Scripture but also in basic common sense and observation.  The male/female "plumbing" doesn't change just because I'm a Christian. Christian or not ... it's clear to me that a man was/is meant to mate with a woman.

The "law" of this land was based on the tenets and beliefs of this land's Christian founders.  Certainly you don't believe that a bunch of Christians would form a government that would be anti-Christian -- do you?


----------



## DriftingSand (Mar 5, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> I do not think I am smart. I am convinced of it.



^^^The liberal mantra^^^

It's why the majority of liberals have closed their minds to simple truth.


----------



## DriftingSand (Mar 5, 2014)

Bumberclyde said:


> Are you homophobes tired of getting beaten by gays? Or are you up for more gay punishment?



You see ... this is what gay, normalphobe activism is all about.  It has nothing to do about "equal rights" but, rather, about destroying the rights of normal, moral Americans.


----------



## Seawytch (Mar 5, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > Are you homophobes tired of getting beaten by gays? Or are you up for more gay punishment?
> ...



Oh? What right of yours is "destroyed" by my being legally married? This should be good.


----------



## hunarcy (Mar 5, 2014)

Mertex, stop sending me messages and know that I won't read your posts in the future...you're on ignore for your ignorance, your stupidity and your general pathetic performance in our debate.  I won't waste anymore time on you.


----------



## kaz (Mar 5, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > Are you homophobes tired of getting beaten by gays? Or are you up for more gay punishment?
> ...



I agree it's not about equal rights.  but I don't think gays are thinking they want to destroy anyone's rights, they just want validation.  I am not a proponent of gay marriage because I don't think validation is a legitimate function of government.  However, I don't see how I'm straight because I'm moral.  I was just born this way. And I don't see how gays are immoral for being born that way.  It's all between consenting adults.


----------



## kaz (Mar 5, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > Bumberclyde said:
> ...



How you're going about of it, encouraging judges to legislate from the bench completely destroys our Constitutional rights.  The Constitution lays out Federal limits and the roles of the branches of government.


----------



## Bumberclyde (Mar 5, 2014)

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...



You have a constitutional right to deny equal rights to gay couples?


----------



## kaz (Mar 5, 2014)

Bumberclyde said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Gays have the same rights as straights now.  There is no law on the books that you can or cannot do anything differently based on whether you are straight or gay.


----------



## bodecea (Mar 5, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



So...laws should be in place to only allow legal marriage for those who use their "plumbing" in the Christian sanctified way......?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 5, 2014)

Bumberclyde said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Only the government can deny anyone their rights. The fact that you are the one invoking the government proves that you are the one that is trying to take away rights.


----------



## Bumberclyde (Mar 5, 2014)

kaz said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Gay couples aren't allowed to marry in some states where straight couples can.


----------



## kaz (Mar 5, 2014)

Bumberclyde said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Bumberclyde said:
> ...



Straights can't marry anyone that gays can't, and gays can marry anyone that straights can.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Mar 5, 2014)

kaz said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...




In the State of Virginia John can Civilly Marry Joan, however, Jane cannot Civilly Marry Joan.  Therefore John can marry someone that Jane cannot, that is Joan.

There is your example of where a straight person can marry someone a gay person can't.


>>>>


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 5, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Bumberclyde said:
> ...



The only people that need permission from other people to get married are slaves.


----------



## kaz (Mar 5, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Bumberclyde said:
> ...



Whether John, Joan or Jane are gay or straight has zero bearing on who can marry whom, so it isn't an example of where a straight person can marry someone a gay person can't.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Mar 5, 2014)

kaz said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...




Ahhhh - so what you are saying is that the discrimination isn't based on sexual orientation, the actual discrimination is based on gender because you have:

Heterosexual Man + Heterosexual Woman = Legal
Heterosexual Man + Homosexual Woman = Legal
Homosexual Man + Heterosexual Woman = Legal
Homosexual Man + Homosexual Woman = Legal
Heterosexual Man + Heterosexual Man = Illegal
Heterosexual Man + Homosexual Man = Illegal
Homosexual Man + Homosexual Man = Illegal
Heterosexual Woman + Heterosexual Woman = Illegal
Heterosexual Woman + Homosexual Woman = Illegal
Homosexual Woman + Homosexual Woman = Illegal​

Now, some argue it is OK to discriminate againt the gays because they claim it's not a biological condition like race or gender - that it's choice.  Your argument is that sexual orientation is irrelevant that the law is written as a function of gender.  That means that the discrimination is based on gender which IS a biologically determined.

You just changed the whole scope of the discussion - though I'm not sure some people will be happy they lose the who "it's a choice" discussion.



>>>>


----------



## kaz (Mar 5, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Show where in the Constitution it says that people are unisex under the law.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Mar 5, 2014)

kaz said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...




I'd get right on that if I ever claimed that the Constitutional says we are unisex under the law - but sadly I never made that claim.

On the other hand ALL citizens are have equal protections under the law and States may not infringe on that without a compelling interest, capricious and invidious discriminatory laws are not allowed.  THAT principal is embodied in the 14th Amendment.








But really dude, I think you are on to something with this whole (to paraphrase) "it's really gender based discrimination" and has nothing to do with sexual orientation.  That argument might really take off.



>>>>


----------



## kaz (Mar 5, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Yeah, you did say that.



WorldWatcher said:


> But really dude, I think you are on to something with this whole (to paraphrase) "it's really gender based discrimination" and has nothing to do with sexual orientation.  That argument might really take off.



Strawman, you said that not me.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Mar 5, 2014)

kaz said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...




Feel free to post a link where I said the Constitution says we are unisex under the law.

Let's see it.



Psst - being equal under the law does not mean we are unisex.

>>>>>


----------



## kaz (Mar 5, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



I already put it in red for you.



WorldWatcher said:


> the actual discrimination is based on gender



All men and women who meet the same requirements (age, ...), can enter into a man/woman government marriage.  Your claim makes no sense unless men and women are unisex.  Spin all you want, but if you remove the unisex, then you lost your discrimination claim, there isn't any discrimination unless men and women are unisex.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Mar 5, 2014)

kaz said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...




What a crock of shit, I expected better from you Kaz, you should be ashamed.

YOU made the claim that gays and straights were treated equally based on gender, not me. Post 2353: "Straights can't marry anyone that gays can't, and gays can marry anyone that straights can."

YOU are the one that made it about gender since a straight would obviously be marrying a straight woman, but since (technically) the law written based on gender it excludes a same-sex couple because they are the same gender.



*You attempt at deflection and ad hominem fails for two reasons:*

1.  YOU brought up gender, with your claim (an incorrect) one about gay and straight under the law, which are written in terms of gender.

2.  I never said, nor implied that the Constitution said we were unisex, that means you lied.




With that said, I'm saddened by the level you sunk to when your stupid statement was exposed to be incorrect.  I'm sorry you were embarrassed and tried to save face.  Sorry, I thought you were a better man than that.


>>>>


----------



## Seawytch (Mar 5, 2014)

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...




"Encouraging"? Hardly. It is the natural progression of violating the Constitution.


----------



## kaz (Mar 5, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



What a crock of shit, I expected better from you


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 5, 2014)

kaz said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Show where in the Constitution blacks and whites can marry.
How long was that taboo and the social mores of this culture, which you rely on as your foundation, banned it?
Why do you care if 2 folks that happen to love and are committed to each other that are of the same sex get married?
Why do you get great pleasure fighting to deny them and their families that joy?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 5, 2014)

Why would anyone care if 2 gay folks get married?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Mar 5, 2014)

kaz said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...




How original.


>>>>


----------



## kaz (Mar 5, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



You can't get your emotion out of your analysis.  But it's not fair! It is what it is.

Blacks literally could not marry the same people as whites.  Gays literally can marry the same people as straights.

Therefore, black government marriage restrictions are a violation of equal protection, not having gay marriage isn't.  The courts are out.  The good news for you is that you can still have gay government marriage, the bad news is you have to convince people to enact it through the legislature.  Or you can follow your chosen path of getting it through illegal judicial fiats where the courts legislate.  Yeah, you're getting it, but it's still wrong.

Word.


----------



## 1751_Texan (Mar 5, 2014)

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...



The Congress or President can legislate "rights". The SC has been legislating since Marbury v Madison. Which "our rights" do you feel are being "destroyed" by bench rulings?


----------



## hunarcy (Mar 5, 2014)

1751_Texan said:


> The Congress or President can legislate "rights". The SC has been legislating since Marbury v Madison. Which "our rights" do you feel are being "destroyed" by bench rulings?



I tend to disagree.  Congress and the President can place limits on when some rights are exercised to protect everyone else's right from infringement.  However, neither can "create" rights or do away with them completely.


----------



## kaz (Mar 5, 2014)

1751_Texan said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Just a few:

Made up rights that would be legislating include Roe. v. Wade, Miranda, gay government marriage and "reverse" discrimination, which according to O'Conner is Constitutional for 25 years.

They allowed congress to regulate political speech going into elections (so called Campaign Finance Reform), confiscate property from one citizen and give it to another for private and not public use (New London).  The IRS and War on Drugs both allow government to pry into our personal matters with no presumption of innocence, court oversight or warrants.   They found government can spend money on endless programs with no constitutional authority (which violates the 9th and 10th amendments) with Social Security, Medicare and other welfare programs.  Government can control and even ban int(ra) state commerce under the commerce clause which actually says they can regulate int(er) state commerce and it's supposed to be to enable it, not restrict it.  Government can set up healthcare exchanges and fine people for not having a medical insurance plan approved government because it's all just a "tax."  Inheritance taxes, which have no constitutional basis since they are not proportional and they are not income are acceptable.  They can use foreign laws to justify their own decisions, and people have American Constitutional rights outside the United States.

That work for a start?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 5, 2014)

hunarcy said:


> 1751_Texan said:
> 
> 
> > The Congress or President can legislate "rights". The SC has been legislating since Marbury v Madison. Which "our rights" do you feel are being "destroyed" by bench rulings?
> ...



Explain public accomodation laws under that theory.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Mar 5, 2014)

kaz said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...




And you don't seem to get it.  There are no laws, not one in the United States that defines Civil Marriage in terms of "Straights" v. "Gays".  They all define them in terms of gender.

Therefore John can Civilly Marry Jone, Jane cannot Civilly Marry Joan (if the two parties agree of course).

The same structural argument that you use failed in the Loving case, and it's failing now.  Same-sex Civil Marriage is winning in the courts, but more importantly it's winning in the hearts and minds of the people - polls continually show movement to end discrimination.  They are winning in the legislatures and they have started winning at the ballot box.  Illinois failed to ratify an amendment to ban SSCM this year, likely the last gasp of the movement.  Oregon is on track to place SSCM on the ballot this year where it will likely pass.  Just like the four votes in the 2012 General Elections were won by Marriage Equality (Maine, Washington, Maryland, and Minnesota.

That is the "Word".


>>>>


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 5, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



So do you. 
Difference is I have more support than you do.
THE LAW is on my side.
All you have is rhetoric and religious views.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 5, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



I am a Christian.
A Christian that would never question your or anyone else's religious beliefs.
Because I follow the teachings of Jesus.
Unlike many of the so called Christians here.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 5, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



Who decides what is "good" as a "principle"?
You, me, your preacher, my preacher, GOVERNMENT?
Refer to the Constitution for that answer.
NO one's religious beliefs or principles are to be dominant.
THE LAW is what rules, not changing like the wind various religious beliefs.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 6, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



If you define support as quantity of people, you are correct, If you define it the way I do, as  evidence to support your argument and the quality of the people who support you, you are wrong.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 6, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



You just proved yourself to be a liar.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 6, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



If you ask me, you get to decide what your principles are.

You, on the other hand, insist that you get to use the government to force me to follow your principles.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 6, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...


All about YOU eh?  Got it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 6, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Yeah, that's what I said.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 6, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


So I see.  The morality of a child...


----------



## Bumberclyde (Mar 6, 2014)

Bill vetoed, homophobes wrong again!


----------



## kaz (Mar 6, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Same-sex Civil Marriage is winning in the courts, but more importantly it's winning in the hearts and minds of the people - polls continually show movement to end discrimination.  They are winning in the legislatures and they have started winning at the ballot box.



I've made the point many times that the crimes being committed by the courts supported by your gender word games are unnecessary, gay government marriage is a foregone conclusion without your intellectually bull crap arguments.  Virtually all of the younger generation don't have a problem with it regardless of their political views.  As a gay or a true liberal, I would be far more satisfied having it done right by legislators elected by the people if not direct referendum than the premature ejaculation of a self appointed dictator decreeing it.  But liberals in this country are in no possible way liberal, they are authoritarian leftists.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 6, 2014)

The courts are committing no crimes on the issue of marriage equality.

If legislators would follow the Constitution, then the courts would not have to intervene.

We are not a Jacksonian majoritarian democracy.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 6, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Once again your ideology clouds your eyes and good judgment.
The LAW is ALL my support.
My family down here in the deep south from the 1940s was supporting integration and equal rights for blacks WITH NO SUPPORT.
Grew up hearing "****** lover" almost every day of my life for 15 years.
Unlike you I don't want or need any support for doing what is right then and now.
But you are paying some attention and get a star by your name for that.


----------



## kaz (Mar 6, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> The courts are committing no crimes on the issue of marriage equality.
> 
> If legislators would follow the Constitution, then the courts would not have to intervene.
> 
> We are not a Jacksonian majoritarian democracy.



Yes, because of course the founding fathers believed that the purpose of government is to make life fair for all it's citizens and gave the courts the absolute power to make it so.  It's implied...


----------



## Silhouette (Mar 6, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> The courts are committing no crimes on the issue of marriage equality.
> 
> If legislators would follow the Constitution, then the courts would not have to intervene.
> 
> We are not a Jacksonian majoritarian democracy.



What part of the US Constitution overrides Windsor/DOMA's decision last Summer that said the question of gay marriage is within the broadest "consensus" of the "unquestioned authority" of the several states?

If you say "the 14th Amendment", I'll say, which group: race, religion, gender or country of origin?  If you say "sex", I'll say "behavior or gender?"  When you say "behavior", I'll say "that isn't covered by "sex" in the 14th: it means "gender".  

If you say that Loving v Virginia provides a precedent for some deviant sexual cult, I'll say "They brought up Loving in Windsor and Found anyway that gay marriage as of its Decision is "only allowed" "in some states".

So, judicial or legislative fiat is sedition of the People's Will as of June 2013 [and retroactive to the founding of the country].  Before June 2013, judges and other rogue officials could possibly claim ignorance.  After June 2013, rogue officials can only claim "sedition".  The Supreme Court has spoken and many public officials and judges are in contempt of court and guilty of usurping democracy: which is treason.  They are domestic enemies.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 6, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The courts are committing no crimes on the issue of marriage equality.
> ...



If you oppose gay marriage why?
What harm does it do to you?
Did you also oppose open service in the military?


----------



## DriftingSand (Mar 6, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> If you oppose gay marriage why?
> What harm does it do to you?
> Did you also oppose open service in the military?



Would you oppose members of NAMBLA marrying 12 year old boys?  If so ... why?  What harm would it do to you?  Where do you draw the line between right and wrong?


----------



## Bumberclyde (Mar 6, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > If you oppose gay marriage why?
> ...



You OBVIOUSLY have NO CLUE where to draw the line.


----------



## kaz (Mar 6, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > If you oppose gay marriage why?
> ...



If you had to chose between allowing two gay, consenting adult men having sex and an adult man having sex with a child, obviously you'd pick the former.  And for the same reason as me, the child is a victim.  You obviously grasp the difference.  I realize liberals argue that way all the time, but I have no desire at all to act like them.  I want to be and am bigger than they are.  Join me.


----------



## kaz (Mar 6, 2014)

Bumberclyde said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Yet in the next argument on a different subject, you'll argue exactly the same way.  You know, like the Constitution protects guns, but it doesn't cover ammo.  Or that gays aren't treated like straights in marriage even though they can marry the same people.


----------



## Silhouette (Mar 6, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> If you oppose gay marriage why?
> What harm does it do to you?
> Did you also oppose open service in the military?



Here is the "what harm does it do to YOU?" angle.  The reader is supposed to feel singled out, not really having a personal reason perhaps and fearing being labelled something.  The idea is to shut the conversation down.

The issue isn't what harm it does to each separate individual, but what harm it does to a SOCIETY that each individual is a part of.  When you mainstream deviant sexual behaviors as a cult, clamp completely down on ANY free speech that opposes it, you have indoctrinated an entire culture without their consent.  This is made particularly pernicious when you consider that the etilogy of people belonging to the church of LGBT is really very little understood.

For instance, why are certain gay people attracted to all the trappings of the opposite gender in their "gay" spouse?  Closet heterosexuality remains unexamined.  Why does the church of LGBT have as its messiah one Harvey Milk, who was a serial sodomizer of orphaned teen boys on drugs?  Still don't get that one..  Why have "bi-curious" events pitched at children with snacks, prizes and enticing events when surely kids must all be "born that way" right?  What happened with Anne Heche's "born that way"?

And so on...

The harm of usurping main stream values for a vaguely understood cult that practices persecution for heretics [bigots, haters, homophobes] and zero tolerance for defection, without understanding what makes that cult tick, is a very very dangerous proposition for a society to blindly walk into. 

Leave the individual out of it.  It's the herd over time that is going to be affected by this the most and all the individuals in it by extension..

Myth #1: "Born that way".  If so, this wouldn't be happening.  The entire premise of LGBT is based on a lie.  Look what happens when you "tamper with" [consult gay vernacular] a whole society:



> CDC Reports Troubling Rise in HIV Infections Among Young People
> 
> Every month, 1,000 young Americans become infected with HIV.
> 
> ...


----------



## High_Gravity (Mar 6, 2014)

Hows a law supposed to ban gays? unless I come in there wearing assless chaps and singing Lady Gaga how do you decide who is a homosexual?


----------



## Bumberclyde (Mar 6, 2014)

kaz said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...



Exactly, I know where to draw the line. A lot of people don't.


----------



## Silhouette (Mar 6, 2014)

High_Gravity said:


> Hows a law supposed to ban gays? unless I come in there wearing assless chaps and singing Lady Gaga how do you decide who is a homosexual?


The law was too broadly written. 

But for the other ones coming up to pass in other states, they will be narrowed more to a situation where you are forcing someone else to practice gay cult values in violation of their faith.  How they would "know" you are gay is if you are standing there asking them to make a gay wedding cake with two guys on top or two women.  Or if you said "will you photograph me and my boyfriend getting married", or "will you cater my wedding to my husband"?

On those grounds christians are required to refuse to participate re: Jude 1 and Romans 1 and the warning of being sent to hell for eternity for enabling a Sodom like takeover of another culture.


----------



## dblack (Mar 6, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Hows a law supposed to ban gays? unless I come in there wearing assless chaps and singing Lady Gaga how do you decide who is a homosexual?
> ...



I'd actually argue the opposite. The law was too narrowly written. The problem here is with the idea that government can force us to cater to other people against our will. Outside of enforcing contractual obligations, the state simply has no business micro-managing our personal decisions like this.


----------



## kaz (Mar 6, 2014)

Bumberclyde said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Bumberclyde said:
> ...



Yes, the is to be drawn at authoritarian leftism.


----------



## kaz (Mar 6, 2014)

dblack said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Exactly, the law should have been written to say that no business can be forced to accept any customer, there was no reason to focus on gay.

This whole thing amuses me because my business is in the Triangle of North Carolina by  Duke and about 20 minutes from UNC.  There is a strong liberal, gay culture to boycott businesses owned by vocal conservatives.  They don't even have to be anti-gay, just vocally conservative.  My VP of sales, who is gay, tells me about that all the time.  She tells me who they boycott.  Ironically one business they boycott is one of my larger vendors.  I'm not hearing any objection to gays boycotting.  I don't object, they have that right.  I think it's silly, but they have the right to spend their money where they want.  As for me, I accept only one color.  Green.  And I do business with anyone who has it who doesn't abuse my staff and who pays their bills reasonably on time.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 6, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Show where in the Constitution blacks and whites can marry.



Show in the Constitution where whites and whites can marry?

Show where the Federal government has ANY legitimate authority over marriage?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 6, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Why would anyone care if 2 gay folks get married?



Why would anyone care if a man and 7 women get married?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 6, 2014)

1751_Texan said:


> The Congress or President can legislate "rights". The SC has been legislating since Marbury v Madison. Which "our rights" do you feel are being "destroyed" by bench rulings?



The right to private property.

See Kelo v. New London.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 6, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Why would anyone care if 2 gay folks get married?
> ...


Seven mothers-in-law?  Insanity at that level should be treated.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 6, 2014)

kaz said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The courts are committing no crimes on the issue of marriage equality.
> ...



Fakey can't grasp sarcasm..


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 6, 2014)

High_Gravity said:


> Hows a law supposed to ban gays? unless I come in there wearing assless chaps and singing Lady Gaga how do you decide who is a homosexual?



Jeez - do ya HAFTA paint that visual....


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 6, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Kaz's sarcasm misses the point: the FFs aren't alive today and We the People are in charge not the FFs.


----------



## kaz (Mar 6, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Where was that the point?

Actually, your "point" has nothing to do with it.  Americans today are still using what the founding fathers wrote as the ultimate say in the law of our land.  We are making that choice, not the founding fathers.  As long as we do that, the Constitution is the measuring stick.  If you want to follow "democracy" then just end the pretense and repeal the Constitution.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 6, 2014)

kaz said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



My comment gutted your silly opinion.

We the People through our leges and courts decide what the Constitution has to say.  The FFs have nothing to do with it.

I did not say what you are saying about "democracy." Red herring, sonny, and it stinks like dead fish.


----------



## kaz (Mar 6, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



So government (leges and courts) tells us what "We the people" say.  Wow.  That's just sick.


----------



## Silhouette (Mar 6, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Insane topic diversons and point deflections like PMH's should be treated.

How do you feel about polygamy PaintMyHouse?  Should it be as legitimately legalized as gay marriage?


----------



## Bumberclyde (Mar 6, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



Go kiss a fucking carpet you dumb arab.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 6, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> The courts are committing no crimes on the issue of marriage equality.
> 
> If legislators would follow the Constitution, then the courts would not have to intervene.
> 
> We are not a Jacksonian majoritarian democracy.



Regulation of marriage is not an enumerated power. That means that, by definition, the states are following the Constitution when they regulate it, even if they regulate it in a way you don't like.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 6, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Unless you are going to argue that the law is Gawd you cannot argue that your source of support is the law. If you were half as smart as you think I am that would be obvious because, using the law, I can argue that cops can shoot unarmed people simply because they don't have a Taser.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 6, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


Good question.  I see no rational arguments against it, as long as everyone is an adult.  You certainly can't use the Bible to argue against it in this case.  

It will cause problems however, since we haven't even made it fully to just two adults yet.  One step at a time eh?


----------



## Bumberclyde (Mar 6, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


^^^^^^^^


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 6, 2014)

Bumberclyde said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...


Tell us how you really feel...


----------



## Bumberclyde (Mar 6, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



Only mormons and camel jockeys are for polygamy... and he doesn't seem like a mormon.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 6, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The courts are committing no crimes on the issue of marriage equality.
> ...



QWB, immediately email SCOTUS of the errors.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 6, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Same sex marriage is not the issue here, asshole, the issue is freedom.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 6, 2014)

kaz said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



You have a reading disability.  The leges and courts make law and interpret it.  We elect the leges.  Law, like scripture, is not of private interpretation.


----------



## Bumberclyde (Mar 6, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



The same freedom for a gay couple to marry?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 6, 2014)

Bumberclyde said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Aren't you the one that is arguing that anyone should be able to marry anyone else? The only possible reason for the government to regulate marriage in the first place is in order to deny it to some people, which is why the only sane position is to tell the government to shut the fuck up.


----------



## Bumberclyde (Mar 6, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...



You're confused, let me help you. A gay couple should enjoy the same freedom to marry as a straight couple does.


----------



## kaz (Mar 6, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



My reading disability is a refusal to run what I read through a liberal filter.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 6, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Hows a law supposed to ban gays? unless I come in there wearing assless chaps and singing Lady Gaga how do you decide who is a homosexual?
> ...



The bill scared some people because it prevented them from using the government to force people to comply with their religion. They then lied about the consequences of the actually letting the bill become law. In reality, the only flaw it had was that it gave the government too much power to say that a person's religion wasn't real.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 6, 2014)

kaz said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



The bill did not mention the gay, which is why the assholes, like WorldWatcher, were arguing that it would let businesses discriminate against blacks.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 6, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Except we the people are not in charge, they just want you to think you are.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 6, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



You wouldn't know a rational argument if it slapped you in the face.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 6, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



SCOTUS has never ruled that the federal government can regulate marriage. I guess that means that you are wrong, again.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 6, 2014)

Bumberclyde said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Newsflash, asshole, this thread is not about same sex marriage, it is about the rights of people not to attend weddings they don't want to go to. I already expressed my views on marriage in other threads where that was the actual subject. If you really want to know what they are, go look.


----------



## kaz (Mar 6, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I didn't realize that, thanks for the 411.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 6, 2014)

Bumberclyde said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Bumberclyde said:
> ...



They do, unless they insist on getting the permission of the government. Frankly, I have no idea why they need the government's permission, they should just do what they want.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 6, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



We are not going to play "just once more" with your nonsense.

Step along.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 6, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Same to you, asshole.  No one is interfering with your right to private association, which, however, ends with public accommodation laws if you are in business.

Step off.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 6, 2014)

kaz said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



The bill tries, and fails, to get around public accommodation laws.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Mar 6, 2014)

kaz said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...




Yep, QW is correct the law did not limit that such religious exemptions would only be available based on the customer being gay.  Gay appeared no where in the legislation.

In addition, the law specifically said that the religious belief need not be part of the tenants of a larger religion.



>>>>


----------



## Bumberclyde (Mar 6, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Just so you know for the future, gays want government recognition because the tax laws give breaks to married people. So now that you know, you won't look so stupid when you hate some gays.


----------



## Bumberclyde (Mar 6, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



 Where do you live that forces people to go to marriages? North Korea?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 6, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



I bet you think that was almost as clever as calling me a statist.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 6, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Bumberclyde said:
> ...



Only if you assume that my bakery is the only one withing 1000 miles. As I recall you specifically proved me right about that when you tried to tell me that Tyler only has one theater.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 6, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Public accommodation laws in Arizona already let businesses do everything you are afraid of. I guess that means the bill doesn't try to do what you just said.

Then again, you aren't right about most things, so you should be used to it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 6, 2014)

Bumberclyde said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Bumberclyde said:
> ...



California, which is pretty much the same.


----------



## DriftingSand (Mar 6, 2014)

Bumberclyde said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



My line has been drawn since puberty. You and the rest of America's "gay" activists are the ones trying to re-draw it.  But you still didn't answer the question.  Are you or are you not opposed to members of NAMBLA "marrying" the objects of their affection -- young males?  

It's okay if you wish to sidestep the question again.  I'll understand.


----------



## Silhouette (Mar 6, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > Where do you live that forces people to go to marriages? North Korea?
> ...



Bullseye.


----------



## Mertex (Mar 6, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > If you oppose gay marriage why?
> ...




There is a thing called "consent" - a 12 year old is not able to give consent....neither can animals...why do you "haters" have to go into areas that are clearly out of limits even to the dim-witted to support your hatred when you know that anyone with a brain can see that you are grasping at straws.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Mar 6, 2014)

Mertex said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...




Funny thing is that in New Hampshire a 13-year old girl can bet married.


>>>>


----------



## Mertex (Mar 6, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > If you oppose gay marriage why?
> ...




The haters used to think that interracial marriages were going to upset the apple-cart too, and it hasn't.  It's about time that these prognosticators of "bad omens" realize that most of their predictions are just smoke-screens to hide their real hatred for people that don't think/act exactly like they think they should act, because many times it has been proven that those that scream the loudest about something, are usually the ones doing that something.

Like Senator Larry Craig, who was outspoken against homosexuality, ends up being arrested for propositioning an undercover police*man*.  And, Newt Gingrich, who was so happy to lead an impeachment against Clinton, was carrying on an adulterous relationship himself at the same time.


As for your Aids reason, if you think that no sex is going to take place because you refuse them "marriage" you are naive or disingenuous.  It might even work the opposite of what you think.


----------



## Mertex (Mar 6, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...



Funny thing, you don't provide a link, because your interpretation of it is all wet.  So, there wouldn't be any adult marrying a 13 year old.  Nice try...


*The New Hampshire legal Age of Consent for sexual contact is 16 years old. There are a total of A total of thirty one states have set their age of consent at 16, the lowest age of consent in any state.

A close in age exception exists to the New Hampshire age of consent so that a person may "engage in sexual penetration" with a person older than 13 but younger than 16, but only if their age difference is three years or less. In the event that one partner has a position of authority known as "in loco parentis", e.g. as a teacher or a guardian, the minimum age of consent is 18.*
What is the New Hampshire Legal Age of Consent for 2014?


----------



## DriftingSand (Mar 6, 2014)

Mertex said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



When I was 12 I had an 11-year-old girlfriend who "consented" to "messing around."  I didn't force myself on her.  Had she said "no" then I would have respected her wishes.  So ... in what way was she not able to consent?  By the time I was 15 and she was 14 we had both "consented" to more than messing around.

Kids are more than able to say yes or no to something.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Mar 6, 2014)

Mertex said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...




I'll see your "This is a Public Service website by Marathon Studios Enterprises" and raise you the laws of the State of New Hampshire.  BTW - "Age of consent" (meaning consent to have sex) does not mean "Age to Marry" in many states they are different.

*State of New Hampshire Revised Statutes*
TITLE XLIII
DOMESTIC RELATIONS
CHAPTER 457
MARRIAGES
Age
Section 457:4
457:4 Marriageable. &#8211; No male below the age of 14 years and no female below the age of 13 years shall be capable of contracting a valid marriage that is entered into by one male and one female, and all marriages contracted by such persons shall be null and void. No male below the age of 18 and no female below the age of 18 shall be capable of contracting a valid marriage between persons of the same gender, and all marriages contracted by such persons shall be null and void.​

CHAPTER 457 MARRIAGES




[NOTE: Even though 13 year old girls can get married in New Hampshire, it is not an easy process because, IIRC, they have to go before a Judge for approval.]

>>>>


----------



## DriftingSand (Mar 6, 2014)

Mertex said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



At one time ... it was illegal for folks of different races to marry until that ruling was overturned.  At one time ... homosexuality was illegal until the laws changed.  What will you say when NAMBLA/LGBT is able to change the laws concerning the age of consent?  Will you be willing to re-draw your moral line-in-the-sand or will your stronger sense of morality stand up for what's right?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 6, 2014)

Mertex said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



What if the state allows marriage with parental consent?


----------



## Bumberclyde (Mar 6, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...


Then I guess your fantasy could come true!


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 6, 2014)

Bumberclyde said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



I am not the one that wants to marry a little boy, am I?


----------



## Mertex (Mar 6, 2014)

Bumberclyde said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Bumberclyde said:
> ...




That comment should give you an idea of what you are dealing with..... earlier he told me that there was no difference between a hunter and a gay person....



Spoiler



"In QW's mind "all hunters are gay and all gays are hunters".. "


----------



## Mertex (Mar 6, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Your information doesn't give the whole picture.  Still there has to be parental consent, and a judicial waiver....it's not like an adult man can just marry a 12 or 13 year old.


New Hampshire

The law is complicated in New Hampshire. *Individuals under the age of 18 may not marry in New Hampshire without parental approval and a judicial waiver.* Brides must be at least 13 years of age and grooms must be at least 14 years of age before their parents can apply for a judicial waiver.

Teen Marriage License Laws, Minors Requirements, by State


----------



## WorldWatcher (Mar 6, 2014)

Mertex said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...




1.  As to my post doesn't give the full picture, I noted in my post that it wasn't an easy process.


2.  Question: Can a 13-year old girl in New Hampshire get married?  Answer: Yes.



>>>>


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 6, 2014)

Mertex said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Do I intimidate you so much that your only way of dealing with me is lying?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 6, 2014)

Mertex said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > I'll see your "This is a Public Service website by Marathon Studios Enterprises" and raise you the laws of the State of New Hampshire.  BTW - "Age of consent" (meaning consent to have sex) does not mean "Age to Marry" in many states they are different.
> ...



Gotta go with World on this one, he stated that they need to go to a judge to get it approved. Nonetheless, they can get married, which is the entire point he is making.


----------



## buckeye45_73 (Mar 6, 2014)

Bumberclyde said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...


 

 so when is your fantasy, bestiality going to get an advocacy group? All you unemployed, paid by union left wingers, should be starting that "crusade" soon. Hedonism rulezzzzzzzz


----------



## DriftingSand (Mar 6, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...



Then LGBT would be all for it (if they hope to maintain their facade of "open-mindedness.").


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 6, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...


On that, and most other things little friend, you are very very wrong.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 6, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



You just proved yourself not a Christian.


----------



## kaz (Mar 6, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Jesus never said anything contrary to that, it's the church that does.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 6, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Whatever you may be, you are not lucid.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 6, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Damn, I was wrong about you.
How many posts have you made and read here and other threads on gay marriage?
And you do not even know the basics of the law.
How many courts have now ruled against states that ban gay marriage under what QW?
UNCONSTITUTIONAL ring a bell there ole boy?
Do I have to also tell what part of the United States Constitution they are citing in their rulings striking down all these state bans?
The latest round of suits are headed by Republicans and the lead plaintiff is an Army Major.
Excuse me but I figured you were up to speed on the law.
But I love reading your comical claims about the myths you stutter about the law.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 6, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I said no such thing.  I told you Tyler had several theatres.

I corrected your error with several other examples, including Jasper, Center, and Kirbyville for starters.

Lying will not improve your lack of cred.

That is gone on the Board, forever.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 6, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



You attempt, once again, to warp reality.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 6, 2014)

kaz said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



You know, I agree with that.
Jesus never made any comments about homosexuality ever.
Those were all Jewish law.
Jesus talked about love thy neighbor.
So how did that get to folks that claim to be Christians calling gay folks faggots and worse?
Real world. 
Religious views have no place in denying gay folks equal protection under the law.
But hey, the game is over. Within a few years most all states it will be legal.
How long will the echoes of "Faggots should not serve in the military" still be heard?


----------



## kaz (Mar 6, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


I agree to this, though I know a lot of Christians and I've never heard them call gays those things.




Gadawg73 said:


> Religious views have no place in denying gay folks equal protection under the law.
> But hey, the game is over. Within a few years most all states it will be legal.
> How long will the echoes of "Faggots should not serve in the military" still be heard?


Jesus didn't talk about government doing the things you are obsessed with government doing either.  I have no idea why gays need either validation or party favors from government.  

None of you people saying that obviously are business owners.  If you knew how three levels of government (Federal, State, local) fuck us on a constant basis, the idea that government would just leave us alone is a wonderful thing.

Liberals are soft and weak and have no perspective of the real world.  People across the world are starving and live under oppressive governments and our own is strangling our economy and the people who drive it, and you're all worried about a piece of paper and having to jump through some legal hoops to make your choices instead of using default marriage ones.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 6, 2014)

Marriage equality, Kaz, does not require you to understand "why gays need either validation or party favors from government."  The law does require you to not discriminate.


----------



## Silhouette (Mar 6, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



In the New Testament in Jude 1 and Romans 1 the mandate is not to hate gays but to despise gay behaviors substituting for "normal" and overrunning a society that way.  Sodom was given as an example of what will happen to ALL if this is allowed to carry on.  Those passages in the Bible are consistent with compassion. 

Compassion, however, is not synonymous with _promotion or enabling_...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 6, 2014)

Jude 1 and Romans 1 are for Christians who believed that way.

Since the Christians had no power over government then, you must by your silly reasoning think they all want to hell.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 6, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Then Google what happens to women in societies that allow polygamy, then come back and admit that there are actually rational arguments against it.

By the way, you aren't my friend, so stop trying to associate me with your scumbag bogotry.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 6, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Really?

Here is what you said.



> A Christian that would never question your or anyone else's religious beliefs.



Sounds quite sensible. One problem, you also said this.



> Unlike many of the so called Christians here.


That directly contradicts your earlier words.

The best part is, they were in the same post.

If that makes me not a Christian, then so be it, I don't want to be what you think a Christian is.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 6, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Again, this thread is not about marriage, it is about freedom.

That said, more states say that it is illegal to marry someone of the same sex than say it isn't. If, as you claim, your support is the law, you are still wrong.

After you deal with that, feel free to point out where I said anything about any of the lawsuits.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 6, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



That was funny.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 6, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Do I?

Arizona businesses already can refuse to serve gays: SB1062 explained - latimes.com

Feel free to claim you corrected me on this later.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 6, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



That you lied about Tyler? 

And you cite a sports' writer from the Times.?

Oh, you are so easy to toy with.


----------



## 1751_Texan (Mar 6, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The courts are committing no crimes on the issue of marriage equality.
> ...




that is incorrect on many levels. Firstly, eventhough is in not an emumerated right does not negate it as a right.

1) Marriage pre-dates the US Constitution as a right. Marriage did not need to be enumerate just as the _right to self-defense_ was not needed to be listed.

2) Because it is not enumerated does not mean that he 9th amendment does not apply.

3) lastly, the US Supreme Court distinguised marriage as a right in thier opinion ruling in Loving v Virginia.




> Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.


 CJ Warren

Replace "race" with gender in this SC opinion and what is the difference?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 6, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Which isn't questioning anyone's religious beliefs...


----------



## DriftingSand (Mar 6, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Then you have no problem with a brother marrying his sister or a father marrying his "adult" (18 or older) daughter? (As long as they're both consenting adults -- of course).


----------



## DriftingSand (Mar 6, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



For me (a Christian) the Bible defines what is right and wrong. Laws change -- even our Constitutional laws but the Word of God remains steadfast and true (unless you buy one of the "New" versions which are full of distortions).


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 6, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...


There are two arguments that can be made against it, one is somewhat rational and one isn't.  The somewhat rational one is that reproduction between close relatives does carry a higher risk of genetic defects and congenital deformity.  It's not nearly as high as people tend to think but it's still a factor, however if they don't or can't have children that goes away completely.  The other argument is the irrational one, the Ick Factor as in That's Icky.  That doesn't hold water.

So, am I happy about it? No, I personally find it rather icky as well, but there really is no good reason to ban it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 6, 2014)

1751_Texan said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Damn, another idiot that cannot read.

Tell you what, go back and show me where I mentioned rights in my post, then you can tell me what I got wring in saying that the federal government has no authority to regulate marriage.


----------



## Bumberclyde (Mar 7, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> 1751_Texan said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


Is that why everyone has to fill out forms to get married? I even had to have a government official authorize my marriage to a foreigner. So in fact, the government has been regulating marriage forever.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 7, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I do support the law of each state.
And I support the legal challenges against those statutes that are then proven unconstitutional based ON THE LAW.
Legislatures can pass all the laws they want to but once again, if they are not CONSTITUTIONAL then that law is null and void.
Amazing you still do not understand that the United States Constitution is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.
Again, tell us what IN THE CONSTITUTION are the FEDERAL courts using to over turn state laws banning gay marriage.
Yes, it is about freedom, FREEDOM OF GAY FOLKS TO MARRY.


----------



## Andylusion (Mar 7, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > I think another state passed something similar to this last week so this must be a trend that is catching on. I agree with this bill that if you are a business owner and believe in and live by your faith that you should be able to refuse service to whoever you want.
> ...



Is freedom of religion a fundamental right of the people, or not?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 7, 2014)

Androw said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Steve_McGarrett said:
> ...



As long as that freedom does not step on the freedom of someone else.


----------



## Andylusion (Mar 7, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



There is no 'right to use my service'.   There is no constitutional right to force me to sell my services to you.

What freedom do you think you have that I am infringing by not selling to you?

Just reverse the conversation, and see how it falls apart.    If conducting trade (trading goods and services to each other), is a fundamental right.... can the seller also demand that buyers be forced to buy?

I'm a white male Christian Fundamentalist, and I sell lawn mowing services, to fund my Christian Evangelism.   I demand you buy my service.

You *MUST* buy my service, or you are violating my economic rights.

Of course that's crazy.  You are not required to fund anyone, and nor should I be required to service anyone.

I have just as much right to demand you buy or sell to me, as you have a right demand I buy and sell from you.   Which of course is zero.... there is no "right" to demand people engage in trade with you, or me.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 7, 2014)

Androw said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Androw said:
> ...



Hey man, agree with a lot of but the law says differently.
But one question: how come it is ONLY GAY folks that are denied the service and not ALL sinners?
And why did Governor Brewer say "to date we have not found ONE business owner in the state of Arizona that has had their religious freedom denied"?
Where is that person in AZ that had their religious freedom denied?
There aren't any found so why a law?
Seriously, come on, can't you see politicians grandstanding for nothing on this?
Look at the Kansas law also, Republicans KILLED it also.
These "religious freedom" laws are a JOKE. No one has been denied their religious freedom in AZ. 
And the baker with the cake? He serves ALL OTHER SINNERS. 
Why would we need a jaywalking ordinance in the middle of the desert 30 miles from the nearest road?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 7, 2014)

Every Chamber of Commerce in America are conservative Republican.
They ALL oppose these "religious freedom" laws.
They are very bad for business as they single out gay folks telling them "NO FAGGOTS SERVED HERE".
No one with any agenda other than a hatred of gay folks supports gay folks being singled out over all other sinners as not worthy of service.
Real world.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Mar 7, 2014)

Androw said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Steve_McGarrett said:
> ...




Do you support the repeal of Public Accommodations so that businesses can refuse service to anyone?  Or should special exemptions be given only for religoius views about "the gays"?



I support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws as they apply to private businesses, at that point whether it the refusal of service is based on religion or not is irrelevant.

>>>>


----------



## Andylusion (Mar 7, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Doesn't matter.   I support anything, that supports freedom of religion.  No matter what the issue is.

I know of a motel right now, that won't offer a room to a man and a woman that are not married.   You show up with different last names, and / or without a rings on the fingers, and they won't give you a single room.  You have to purchase two rooms.

Freedom of Religion.  That's how that works.


----------



## Andylusion (Mar 7, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Yes of course.  Private though.  Not public.   Public is public.  If you have a public building, that the tax payers paid for, then that's different.

But anything private.... is private.   My property, is mine.  Not yours, or anyone elses.    It's mine, and therefore I determine who is allowed on it, or in it, or uses it.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 7, 2014)

Androw said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Androw said:
> ...


Got a name and number?  It would be fun to sue them.  I've always wanted to own a motel.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Mar 7, 2014)

Androw said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Androw said:
> ...




So if a business can refuse service for any reasons (including race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, veterans status, etc.) without having to justify it based on religion - then the reason as in "because of religion" becomes irrelevant to the conversation as justification is not required.

So it's not really a religious issue.

Most who cite a desire for "religious belief" exemption to the generally applicable laws don't support that.  They want special rights to discriminate against the gays ONLY and ONLY for religious reasons.  In general they are fine with Public Accommodation laws being applied based on race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, veterans status, etc.


>>>>


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 7, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> There are two arguments that can be made against it, one is somewhat rational and one isn't.  The somewhat rational one is that reproduction between close relatives does carry a higher risk of genetic defects and congenital deformity.



Of course that would acknowledge that the societal impetus for marriage is driven by reproduction, thus undermining the position of the counter-culture and the general war on society.

So you probably don't want to go there. 



> It's not nearly as high as people tend to think but it's still a factor, however if they don't or can't have children that goes away completely.  The other argument is the irrational one, the Ick Factor as in That's Icky.  That doesn't hold water.
> 
> So, am I happy about it? No, I personally find it rather icky as well, but there really is no good reason to ban it.



So then, you support brother/sister marriage?

Two years ago I posted a thread on this board that Incest is the new gay - now here we are....


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 7, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > There are two arguments that can be made against it, one is somewhat rational and one isn't.  The somewhat rational one is that reproduction between close relatives does carry a higher risk of genetic defects and congenital deformity.
> ...


My position is clear.


----------



## emilynghiem (Mar 7, 2014)

Androw said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Androw said:
> ...



Crazy making isn't it?
I think it must be psychologically "overcompensating" by going after people who WILL comply with law and due process, because of the problems caused by people who don't.

Like looking for your lost wallet in the areas that have good lighting, but not in the place where you actually dropped because it's too dark to look there. Remember that old joke?

By due process, we have no right to go after "alleged suspects" even if we know and they admit they did the crime, without a legal process; and in cases where people can't afford to pay the debts and damages for their crime, there is no justice. And with govt accountability, it's even worse with immunity, and people leaving office while the leaving the damage behind for no one else to clean up since they didn't do it.

But crying out about discrimination by race or orientation allows immediate accusations to get attention the media, as a short cut to bypass due process.
by making scapegoats of people or cases in the media, by pushing bills that regulate LAWABIDING citizens, people are trying to overcompensate; and end up NOT giving due process to law abiding citizens (who have to sue to defend liberties taken away) as the criminals who get their defense paid for. The law abiding citizens get treated worse than criminals who are guaranteed due process.

So for the systemic lack of "redress of grievances" and inability to hold real crooks, criminals and govt corruptocrats accountable, it seems people project that need for justice and control onto any "easy target" they can find. And these issues of gay and racial discrimination etc. ends up being an easy target for venting and projecting.

The real issues are still unresolved; the conflicts underlying these cases are not being addressed, but there is only projection back and forth that represents the conflicts in the legal and legislative realm. While real issues remain on the personal level within people.

Very curious if people will resolve these issues INTERNALLY that come up externally.
It's almost like people are using Zimmerman and gay cakes as the focus of group therapy, going public with all their pent up issues, and finally working out these grievances that have nothing to do directly with Zimmerman or Christian bakers, as targets for shooting practice.


----------



## emilynghiem (Mar 7, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Dear Gadawg: to be fair, to be equally and Constitutionally inclusive,
both the political beliefs incorporating Christian beliefs
and the political beliefs based on secular laws
should be counted equally, and not assuming one as the default
and the other as the minority being oppressed and in need of liberation.

In fact, both sides feel the other is oppressing them.
So to be fair, both should be liberated from imposition by the other.

In order to protect and include both sides equally,
all such conflicts should be resolved by consensus, so neither feels imposed upon.
Especially NOT by abusing govt to take one side in a dispute and impose on the other.

Otherwise, both sides are equally wrong to impose on each other. 
And two wrongs don't make a right, but double the injustice.


----------



## Immanuel (Mar 7, 2014)

Androw said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Androw said:
> ...



Since I don't know you very well, let me ask this.  Do you feel this way with regard to race?  Should a white restaurant owner be permitted  to refuse service to non-whites?

  How about the reverse?

My personal opinion is that yes this should be allowed and the free market should drive such businesses out of business.  But it does not work that way.  Bigots seem to find enough like minded people to keep them in business.

Without PA laws we would be back to separate but equal relations in no time.  As much as I like the idea of complete freedom, I realize that it doesn't work.   

So until we either overcome bigotry or come up with a better solution, I support PA laws.


----------



## DriftingSand (Mar 7, 2014)

Androw said:


> There is no 'right to use my service'.   There is no constitutional right to force me to sell my services to you.
> 
> What freedom do you think you have that I am infringing by not selling to you?
> 
> ...



Stop using so much gosh-darn common sense.  Will you?  

You're apt to give the lock-stepping, lily-livered, libs brain aneurisms. 

Hmmmm ... okay ... keep using common sense.


----------



## kaz (Mar 7, 2014)

Should a white restaurant owner be permitted  to refuse service to non-whites? - Yes

How about the reverse? - Yes



			
				Immanuel said:
			
		

> My personal opinion is that yes this should be allowed and the free market should drive such businesses out of business.  But it does not work that way.  Bigots seem to find enough like minded people to keep them in business.



I disagree, Immie.  Sure, there will be some redneck bars that don't allow blacks here and there, and probably some inner city businesses that don't serve whites, but I think they would be the exception, and the reality is they are pretty unwelcoming now, so this brings them out in the open.

Another fact that is contrary is that while white racism gets more air time, particularly from the left, the reverse is a lot more prevalent and stronger and more open.  I would do nothing from a government standpoint about that either.


----------



## DriftingSand (Mar 7, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...



Good points.  Ours is supposed to be a government "by the people" until, that is, the people agree on an issue that steps on the toes of the special interest groups.  Then it becomes a government by a handful of federal judges and the special interest groups. 

The "gay marriage" issue has been voted upon and solved in several states but a coven of activist judges have trampled on the "rights" of the voters by overturning states' rights.  

So much for "democracy."


----------



## dblack (Mar 7, 2014)

Immanuel said:


> Since I don't know you very well, let me ask this.  Do you feel this way with regard to race?  Should a white restaurant owner be permitted  to refuse service to non-whites?
> 
> How about the reverse?



You mean should a non-white customer be permitted to refuse to shop at white owned business?


----------



## Andylusion (Mar 7, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Actually they were sued, and they won the lawsuit.  That's how I found out about it.  It was in an article that they won.   Hello..... Freedom of Religion is a fundamental right.   That's how that works.  You either have Freedom of Religion, or you don't.  You don't like that?   Too bad.  Sucks we can vote too, huh?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 7, 2014)

Bumberclyde said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > 1751_Texan said:
> ...



Do you have a fundamental problem understanding that the city clerk does not work for the federal government? The only reason immigration gets involved is to make sure the marriage isn't fake in order to start the process of citizenship for the spouse, they don't don't issue the license. Also, they can't stop the marriage if they decide they don't like you.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 7, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



I hate to point out the obvious, but the issue is not marriage, the issue is forcing people to be slaves.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 7, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



You do not have a right to a wedding cake.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 7, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Only assholes defend their position by saying "It's the law." If you actually think the law is wrong you should be urging people to break it.

"An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and  who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse  the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality  expressing the highest respect for the law   An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and  who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse  the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality  expressing the highest respect for the law."   Martin Luthor King

"An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is  more so. Now the law of nonviolence says that violence should be  resisted not by counter-violence but by nonviolence. This I do by  breaking the law and by peacefully submitting to arrest and  imprisonment." Mahatma Gandhi


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 7, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Every Chamber of Commerce in America are conservative Republican.
> They ALL oppose these "religious freedom" laws.
> They are very bad for business as they single out gay folks telling them "NO FAGGOTS SERVED HERE".
> No one with any agenda other than a hatred of gay folks supports gay folks being singled out over all other sinners as not worthy of service.
> Real world.



The African American, Asian American, and Hispanic American Chambers of Commerce are all conservative Republicans? I bet even rdean won't believe you on this one, which actually makes you dumber than rdean.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 7, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



I think everyone has a moral obligation to disobey any unjust law.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 7, 2014)

Immanuel said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



What actual, real world, evidence do you have that reducing the scope of public accommodation laws would result in state mandated segregation?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 7, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> The African American, Asian American, and Hispanic American Chambers of Commerce are all conservative Republicans? I bet even rdean won't believe you on this one, which actually makes you dumber than rdean.



I'm not sure that is physically possible.

Rdean is like the speed of light, he is the barrier to dumb.... If the level of dumb exceeds Rdean, then time reverses and we go back into the past.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 7, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > The African American, Asian American, and Hispanic American Chambers of Commerce are all conservative Republicans? I bet even rdean won't believe you on this one, which actually makes you dumber than rdean.
> ...



Have you read all the idiots that think we are in 1950?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 7, 2014)

We have returning combat veterans from Afghanistan now.
And sad sack American "citizens" here want to deny the gay veterans the same rights that the straight ones receive. 
And label it "religious freedom" for businesses where NOT ONE business owner in the entire state had been found that had their religious freedom denied.
And then they come one here and claim they support "freedom" for people that do not exist.


----------



## dblack (Mar 7, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> We have returning combat veterans from Afghanistan now.
> And sad sack American "citizens" here want to deny the gay veterans the same rights that the straight ones receive.
> And label it "religious freedom" for businesses where NOT ONE business owner in the entire state had been found that had their religious freedom denied.
> And then they come one here and claim they support "freedom" for people that do not exist.



It's not a question of equal rights. There's no such thing as a 'right' to make someone bake you a cake. What you're really after is to outlaw bigotry, and I guess you think this is one way to get at _some_ bigots. But what about the bigots who are shopping? Should engaged Christians be forced to buy wedding cakes from openly gay bakers? How is their bigotry any different?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 7, 2014)

Androw said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Androw said:
> ...



Incorrect. 

Refusing to accommodate unmarried couples has nothing to do with freedom of religion and everything to do with the fact that unmarried couples dont constitute a class of persons protected by public accommodations laws in that jurisdiction.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 8, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> We have returning combat veterans from Afghanistan now.
> And sad sack American "citizens" here want to deny the gay veterans the same rights that the straight ones receive.
> And label it "religious freedom" for businesses where NOT ONE business owner in the entire state had been found that had their religious freedom denied.
> And then they come one here and claim they support "freedom" for people that do not exist.



It is even sadder t think that I, as a veteran who fought for freedom, might be forced to attend a wedding simply because a gay person demands my services.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 8, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Prove it by showing that the case he is talking about was decided on public accommodation grounds and not freedom of religion grounds.


----------



## Seawytch (Mar 8, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Androw said:
> ...



"He" did not provide a link to the case did he? Saying "I know a guy" is not proof of anything. 

While there are a number of states, cities, etc. that specifically protect marital status in their public accommodation laws, without knowing exactly what state "he" lives in, we are playing the "what if" game.


----------



## dblack (Mar 8, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



"Incorrect" ?

Heh... listen, if you're going to go all pedantic, at least get it right. Anti-discrimination laws don't purport to protect classes of 'persons'. If they did, they'd be even more obviously in violation of equal protection. (Unless you care to explain how extending special protections to certain classes of people amounts to 'equal'). 

Instead, they seek to outlaw discrimination of people based on certain classes of traits, traits that everyone has (age, sex, race, etc...). That creates the even more bizarre and intrusive legal precedent of outlawing certain kinds of _reasoning_, rather than the acts that result from the reasoning. (eg It's perfectly legal to refuse service to people because they aren't dressed how you like, but it's illegal to refuse because they're espousing a religion you believe is immoral.)


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 8, 2014)

dblack said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > We have returning combat veterans from Afghanistan now.
> ...



Supreme Court has ruled how many times against your failed, vague and narrow legal opinion of the cake baking case which to date is THE ONLY person the Christian victim trumpeters have found.
How is the search going in Arizona for that ONE business owner that has their "religious freedom" denied.
And how has the baker had his "religious freedom" denied?
Baking a cake forces him to lose his religious freedom?
LOL, that is about the most absurd thing I have ever heard.
You do know the baker claimed HIS RELIGIOUS FREEDOM was denied, don't you?
His religious freedom has not been denied and this is what these KOOKS claim they are fighting for.
And you believe that?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 8, 2014)

dblack said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Androw said:
> ...



Health Department laws allow dress codes in restaurants. And vague laws allow stretches.
You want it both ways. 
Just get government out of the support of bans against PEOPLE FOR WHO THEY ARE. 
Nothing to do with how they dress. How they dress does not single out folk based on who they are-their love for someone of the same sex.
GAY FOLK is all their after in their "religious freedom" laws.
Even Ray Charles could have seen that.


----------



## dblack (Mar 8, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Nope. Never said that. I happen to agree that it's not a matter of religious freedom. It's a freedom of association issue. The problem with the Arizona law is that it's too narrow.


----------



## Bumberclyde (Mar 8, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > We have returning combat veterans from Afghanistan now.
> ...



Hey asshole, where do you live that forces people to attend wedding?


----------



## Bumberclyde (Mar 8, 2014)

dblack said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Hetero people buy wedding cakes from gay bakers all the time.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 8, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > We have returning combat veterans from Afghanistan now.
> ...



You are full of shit.
You are a veteran and are telling us you believe someone will force you to go to a wedding.

You said it and don't believe it yourself.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 8, 2014)

dblack said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I believe you. 
Except one important issue.
NO law written as "religious freedom" that allows denial of service in the private sector will ever be anything but vague.
And the broader you make these laws the wider the latitude it goes.
Private company ambulance companies denying service to folks that have been eating hog sandwiches would be allowed.
You see, if you make an exclusion for that in the law you blow up your entire legal argument for "freedom of association" and the entire law is ruled out.
These laws are turds and no matter how hard you try you can not polish a turd.
That is why every Chamber of Commerce opposes them as they are very bad for business also.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 8, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > We have returning combat veterans from Afghanistan now.
> ...



How many interracial weddings have you been forced to go to?


----------



## Andylusion (Mar 8, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Whatever.   The reason they refused to allow shacking up couple to do one night stands in their motel, was because of religious views, and that's a constitutional right.   Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Association. 

Whatever legalese you come up with, doesn't matter to me.   If that's what you want to go with, fine.  Knock yourself out.   As for me, the group that funded the defense of the motel, was a Christian Rights group.   They seem to know what they were fighting for.


----------



## Andylusion (Mar 8, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



There is no 'race'.   We're all humans.    The differences in DNA that account for appearance differences, are a insignificant to others.    I can have more similarity in DNA with a Chinese guy from China, than the white guy across the street, and look completely different from the Chinese guy compared to the white guy next door.

There is no race.  There is only the human race.   Science has finally caught up with what the Bible has said for thousands of years.   We are all one race.   We started from Adam and Eve.    The idea that there are different races, is more of an evolutionary idea.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 8, 2014)

Androw said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Androw said:
> ...



Christian Rights groups should be out feeding, housing and clothing the poor before they are involved in law suits.
How did the hotel owner know they were "shacking up"?


----------



## protectionist (Mar 8, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> On the other hand ALL citizens are have equal protections under the law and States may not infringe on that without a compelling interest, capricious and invidious discriminatory laws are not allowed.  THAT principal is embodied in the 14th Amendment.



But there IS a compelling interest.  That of PROTECTING the American people from the lunacy of homosexuality, and the spread of it, especially to children.

  Lots of exceptions to the equal protections under the law of the 14th Amendment exist, in addition to queers.  There are people locked up in mental institutions, criminals locked up in prisons, people who are denied rights to drive cars, buy guns, etc.  What else is new ?


----------



## protectionist (Mar 8, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



*FALSE!*  Legislating from the bench is not a natural progression of anything.  The role of judges is supposed to be limited to deciding what is or isn't legal, withing the context of existing law, not making new law, that heretofore didn't exist.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 8, 2014)

protectionist said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > On the other hand ALL citizens are have equal protections under the law and States may not infringe on that without a compelling interest, capricious and invidious discriminatory laws are not allowed.  THAT principal is embodied in the 14th Amendment.
> ...



Ronald Reagan said how many decades ago "homosexuality is not a disease like measles and a person's sexual identity is determined at an early age"?

Do you really believe you could have been swayed into sucking cock as a child?
Not me brother, not in a million years.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 8, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Why would anyone care if 2 gay folks get married?



Because it is a sick, perversion of what is normal and natural, is thereby harmful, and should not be accepted as legitimate behavior.  To have same-sex marriage also induces the less intelligent and much younger people to accept this aberrant behavior, as is happening right now in foolish states like New York, California, Illinois, etc.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 8, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Why would anyone care if 2 gay folks get married?
> ...


Homosexuality and homophobia are both natural.  Moving on.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 8, 2014)

High_Gravity said:


> Hows a law supposed to ban gays? unless I come in there wearing assless chaps and singing Lady Gaga how do you decide who is a homosexual?



So if homosexuals aren't apparent as are blacks and women, then they have nothing to fear from being discriminated against, right ?  As long as a queer guy doesn't show off queer attributes, he can walk into a job interview equal to any other guy, right ?
So no need for any "gay rights" legislation, right ?  Right ?


----------



## Bumberclyde (Mar 8, 2014)

protectionist said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Hows a law supposed to ban gays? unless I come in there wearing assless chaps and singing Lady Gaga how do you decide who is a homosexual?
> ...



So gays are ok if they stay closeted? Is that working for you?


----------



## protectionist (Mar 8, 2014)

dblack said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



"Personal decisions" of homosexuality are more than just personal decisions.  They are societal decisions, which affect everyone.  The state has plenty of business micromanaging it.


----------



## Bumberclyde (Mar 8, 2014)

protectionist said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



How does someone you don't even know exists fucking someone else in the ass affect you?


----------



## Andylusion (Mar 8, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



First, your opinion of what others should do, really doesn't matter to us or anyone else.

Second, we do all those things.

Third, there are specific groups, for specific purposes.  Those that feed, house, and clothe people, do that.   Those that protect constitutional rights, do that.

Fourth, he asked.  They answered.   That's how that works.  Generally married people have the same last name, and a ring on their finger.  Those that are brother and sister, have the same last name.   Those that are not shacking up, generally do not go to a motel and ask for a single room, with a single bed.    This isn't rocket science.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 8, 2014)

Bumberclyde said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Bumberclyde said:
> ...



NONSENSE!  This is like saying that the driver of a sailboat in a bay should have the same rights as the driver of a car on an interstate highway.  Imagine the sailboat moving along that interstate highway, powered by the wind hitting its sails.

EARTH TO BUMBERCLYDE:  Marriage is for people who are biologically suited to each other, and how nature made that be.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 8, 2014)

Bumberclyde said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Answered in Post # 2540.  Try reading the thread.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 8, 2014)

Bumberclyde said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



No queers are never OK.  Closeted or not.  I was talking about the alleged need for so-called "gay rights" discrimination law.  If a black person walks in to a job interview, it's apparent that he's black.  If a woman or disabled person walks in to a job interview, their gender or condition is apparent.  Not so with queers.  Get it ?


----------



## Bumberclyde (Mar 8, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Why would anyone care if 2 gay folks get married?
> ...



Oh, I thought this was just a closeted gay rant! 

Btw, nature has many examples of homosexual behaviour, making it a natural occurrence. Now you know.

So, how long has it been that you can't get the picture of 2 guys going at it out of your head?


----------



## Bumberclyde (Mar 8, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



So they should have a tattoo on their arm, or just a star on their jacket?


----------



## protectionist (Mar 8, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



I should care what one of America's worst screwballs of all time (Ronald Reagan) says ?   Pheeeww!!  (high-pitched whistle)  Do I really believe a kid could be swayed into sucking cock as a child?  So this is one of those questions that has an obvious answer designed to look like it is a serious question ?  I guess the answer would be that I believe the FACT that millions of kids are swayed into it all the time, and this has been going on for decades.  Did you just arrive here from Mars ?


----------



## protectionist (Mar 8, 2014)

Bumberclyde said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Bumberclyde said:
> ...



Tattoo on forehead might be better.  Arms can be covered by long-sleeve shirts.  Actually, if they don't show any signs of their affliction, they are relatively harmless.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 8, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...


This guy could have been Hitler's right-hand tattoo artist.  Another sad case of born too late I guess.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 8, 2014)

Bumberclyde said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



And where those examples of homosexual behavior exist, they are just as contrary to nature, just as UNnatural, as any other homosexual behavior, as I've always known.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 8, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Bumberclyde said:
> ...



So you equate restriction of homosexuality, with the fascism of Hitler, then.  I can see somebody's got YOU programmed.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 8, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...


Just other creatures "choosing" to be gay.  Maybe they have their only little version of the Devil who tempts them away from their own little version of God?  For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten monkey?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 8, 2014)

protectionist said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...


Well you can't all it Freedom now can you?


----------



## dblack (Mar 8, 2014)

Bumberclyde said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



What do you mean? What's your point?


----------



## dblack (Mar 8, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> You see, if you make an exclusion for that in the law you blow up your entire legal argument for "freedom of association" and the entire law is ruled out.



That's the point. The entire law (the public accommodations nonsense) should be ruled out.


----------



## dblack (Mar 8, 2014)

protectionist said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



Nope. Not as long as it's between consenting adults. It's none of your business, nor the state's.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 8, 2014)

dblack said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > You see, if you make an exclusion for that in the law you blow up your entire legal argument for "freedom of association" and the entire law is ruled out.
> ...


Tell us, why do you suggest such things when that won't happen?  The laws have been on the books for decades.  Why do think there's even a chance that would change?


----------



## dblack (Mar 8, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Uh.. the same reason you think getting rid of ACA would result in single payer? We've all got our deluded hopes I suppose.

And... eventually, I do think they'll be reversed. Historically, that happens. Bad laws outlive their perceived usefulness and are repealed.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 8, 2014)

This (Jude 1 and Romans 1 and the warning of being sent to hell for eternity for enabling a Sodom like takeover of another culture) means that all the early Christians "went to hell" because they could not prevent the excesses of Greco-Roman culture.

What an uninformed, partisan analysis of scripture by Sil.


----------



## Bumberclyde (Mar 8, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...


Oh, you're just a troll. Got it.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 8, 2014)

dblack said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


Why would you consider that a delusion?  The trend has been clear for decades.  Each decade we put more and more of our citizens on government-sponsored healthcare plans.  In your case each decade we expand the list of those who are a protected class.  Both trends are clear, and neither are reversing.  See how that works now?


----------



## dblack (Mar 8, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Trends do reverse. They burn themselves out. The more 'protected classes' we add, the more people will begin to question the practice. That's what's happening now. That's why states are pushing back. So keep expanding that list, until people get fed up and whole mess is seen for the hypocrisy it is.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 8, 2014)

dblack said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


The state attempts to push back have so far all failed, when they got high enough in the courts.  Just like the repeals of gay marriage bans, the voters have changed their minds.  I know you wish it weren't so but it is.


----------



## dblack (Mar 8, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



I wonder if you'd have made the same kinds of inane arguments to the abolitionists? "It's been decided" "It's been this way for decades" "You will surely fail!"  

Heh... rather comical really, but I'm beginning to suspect that's your schtick.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 8, 2014)

dblack said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


Nothing inane at all.  In abortion the trend is always towards earlier, safer, and fewer but still legal.  Pretty much exactly what you are seeing, even if the right attempts to make it unavailable the public doesn't agree.


----------



## dblack (Mar 8, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



What??? Are you trying to make an argument, or just assuming that because I'm arguing against public accommodations that abortion will get under my skin? Just like you probably assume I'm anti-gay or somesuch. You're wrong on both counts (and many others).

That's what I mean by 'schtick'. It seems you're just here to play the assclown, not to have substantive discussions. 

My point, which you either deliberately ignored or were too stupid to understand, is that appeals to "trends" and the "status quo" are empty, and say nothing about whether a given position is well-founded, or not. They also say nothing about the long-term sustainability of bad policy.


----------



## kaz (Mar 8, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



We have fundamentally different views of what freedom means.

To me, freedom related to this thread is the right for a consumer to decide where he wants to shop and what he's willing to pay and and a merchant to decide who he wants to sell to and what he's willing to sell his merchandise and services for.  When they agree, a transaction occurs.

To you, freedom is the right of a consumer to run to government and have them use the force of guns to compel the merchant to sell to them whether they want to or not.

In no possible way is the use of force to compel citizens to transact "freedom."


----------



## WorldWatcher (Mar 8, 2014)

kaz said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...




RE: Bolded

Except that is not what this bill was about, it in no way provided a merchant the right to decide who he want's to sell to.  This bill provided special rights for a merchant to exclude customers only if they uttered the magic phrase "sincerely held religious beliefs".  The ability to reject a customer was still limited for other reasons.

So the idea that this bill provided merchants (in general) any additional freedom is false, it was about creating a special exemption to only one class of merchants (those smart enough to shield their actions through the guise of religion.)



>>>>


----------



## dblack (Mar 8, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Exactly!


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 8, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



If you have a problem with the parameters of the original case, take it up with the guy that posted it. Clayton assumed he was telling the truth, and then claimed that the case was decided on public accommodation laws. I want him to prove his position, which is perfectly reasonable given the way the argument went.

In other words, you are upset because I trumped the only guy you think understands the law. If you actually knew anything about the law, you would know that he is the intellectual equivalent of a creationist in his understanding of the subject.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 8, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



The Supreme Court also said that separate but equal works.

In other words, they can be wrong, and pointing to them simply because you aren't smart enough to defend your opinion only proves how stupid you are.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 8, 2014)

Bumberclyde said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Asked and answered.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 8, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Which part of that is hard to understand when you yourself keep arguing that the law allows the government to force a photographer to take pictures of a gay wedding? Care to explain how I can take pictures of the wedding unless I actually show up?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 8, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



The Religious Freedom Restoration Act is vague? Why, please be specific. While you are at it give me a list of all the chambers that opposed it, and explain why only 3 out of 535 congresscritters voted against it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 8, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Are you a racist? Why do you keep talking about race when the subject is freedom?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 8, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Why are you afraid of homosexuals?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 8, 2014)

dblack said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > You see, if you make an exclusion for that in the law you blow up your entire legal argument for "freedom of association" and the entire law is ruled out.
> ...



Not entirely.

It should apply only to public venues and government sanctioned monopolies. (I know I am repeating myself with government sanctioned monopolies, but a lot of people confuse monopoly with big companies.)


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 8, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



If you were a conservative hack interested only in protecting the status  quo you would have no problem with the concept of laws being changed. Jim Crow laws were on the books for over a century, that changed.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 8, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



He said "abolitionists," nor "abortionists." He actually made a pretty good point, one that you are way to stupid to get.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 8, 2014)

dblack said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Did you consider the possibility that he can't read?


----------



## kaz (Mar 8, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



And the religion exclusion was so broad as to pretty much allow anyone to not sell to anyone for any reason, they just have to pay some sort of lip service in the process to that religion was somehow involved in their decision.

It should have just been stated without religion, but never should anyone be forced to transact business with government guns, so that somehow this is worse than not having it is nonsense.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 8, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Once again, it did no such thing. Do yourself a favor and read what actual lawyers said about the bill, and compare it to the current religious freedom law in Arizona, then come back and apologize for lying.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 8, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...


Or I just misread it, as in this case.  To his point, if the trend was going against slavery, then that is the trend.  If the trend is more rights for gays, then that is the trend,  If the trend is expanding the classes that are considered protected, then that is the trend.  In the real world things usually go forward, not back.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 8, 2014)

Here is a stupid definition of "freedom": _freedom related to this thread is the right for a consumer to decide where he wants to shop and what he's willing to pay and and a merchant to decide who he wants to sell to and what he's willing to sell his merchandise and services for_

The trend is to expanding protection to classes.  

The trend is marriage equality for gays.

Tis what tis.

kaz, look up definitions of freedom and liberty: you are confused.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 8, 2014)

kaz said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



Nonsense. 

There is no freedom when consumers are denied access to a market solely as a consequence of who they are; and merchants do not have the right to jeopardize both the local and interrelated markets with disruptive and capricious business practices. 

This is an ignorant, naïve, and reactionary perception of the fundamentals of commerce in 21st Century America. Indeed, its ignorance of the nature of American commerce for the last 100 years.


----------



## kaz (Mar 8, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



LOL, liberty is government using guns on it's own citizens to dictate their behavior for the interest of government.  You're a joke.

Actually, to be liberty, sometimes you have to let bad things happen.  The problem with your solution of authoritarian government controlling it's citizens so they don't do anything bad is that your authoritarian government commits many, many more bad things than the random idiot merchant who doesn't want to sell to a gay.

BTW, I have a quote in my sig that describes you, check the second one...


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 8, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



The "trend" was in favor of less rights, just like it is now. If you don't believe me, look at the debate surrounding the the admission of California into the union, which means that your argument in favor of trends would have you arguing in support of slavery.

Come to think of it, that is exactly what you are doing now, which is pretty consistent with your conservative authoritarian leanings.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 8, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Here is a stupid definition of "freedom": _freedom related to this thread is the right for a consumer to decide where he wants to shop and what he's willing to pay and and a merchant to decide who he wants to sell to and what he's willing to sell his merchandise and services for_
> 
> The trend is to expanding protection to classes.
> 
> ...



Jake thinks that individual freedom is a stupid metric to use for defining freedom, is anyone surprised?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 8, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


There's no trend in favor of less rights you little nutter.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 8, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



I hate to point out the obvious here, but you cannot deny access to a market unless you have total control of the market. Just to prove my point, Elaine Photography once refused to photograph a wedding with a nudist theme. Despite this, the couple still got married, and they even found a photographer to take their pictures. This is because Elaine Photography was not the market, they are just a business.

I guess that  makes the foundation of 21st century America flawed.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 8, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



The trend is in favor of 'positive' rights. The only possible way a 'positive' right can exist is if you deny other people their rights. That means the trend is in favor of less rights.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 8, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


I'm sorry that losing your right to beat your children with a knotted rope and to tell the darkies to leave your gas station feels like such a loss for you.  We consider it the correction of what you never should have had the right to do in the first place.


----------



## dblack (Mar 8, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...











JakeStarkey said:


> Here is a stupid definition of "freedom": _freedom related to this thread is the right for a consumer to decide where he wants to shop and what he's willing to pay and and a merchant to decide who he wants to sell to and what he's willing to sell his merchandise and services for_
> 
> The trend is to expanding protection to classes.
> 
> ...



Ok guys, now I see what you're saying. "No one should argue for change that goes against the trend or bucks the status quo."  - pretty standard reactionary nonsense.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 8, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a stupid definition of "freedom": _freedom related to this thread is the right for a consumer to decide where he wants to shop and what he's willing to pay and and a merchant to decide who he wants to sell to and what he's willing to sell his merchandise and services for_
> ...



No one is surprised you deflected because you can't define liberty and freedom.

Try again.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 8, 2014)

dblack said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


The reactionary nonsense is on your side.  Argue for the good old days all you like, just don't expect to win, because you won't.


----------



## dblack (Mar 8, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Just keep adding "protected classes" and see how that works out.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 8, 2014)

dblack said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


So far so good.


----------



## dblack (Mar 8, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Then what are you worried about? Why does it bother you that people are pushing back?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 8, 2014)

dblack said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


It doesn't, it just shows they are morons when they believe in their heart of hearts that things will go back to the way there were before.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Mar 8, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Just to prove my point, Elaine Photography once refused to photograph a wedding with a nudist theme. Despite this, the couple still got married, and they even found a photographer to take their pictures. This is because Elaine Photography was not the market, they are just a business.




So what is the source of this proof?


The _Writ of Certiorari_ to the SCOTUS says it was nude maternity pictures, I don't see where they have claimed to turn down a nude wedding.  (Although under the NM law is legal as "nudist" isn't one of the protected classes.)

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/ElanePhotoCertPetition.pdf

>>>>


----------



## kaz (Mar 8, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



You consider that to be a contradiction to what he said?  Seriously?  Wow.


----------



## kaz (Mar 8, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Just to prove my point, Elaine Photography once refused to photograph a wedding with a nudist theme. Despite this, the couple still got married, and they even found a photographer to take their pictures. This is because Elaine Photography was not the market, they are just a business.
> ...



The inability of liberals to process a point is staggering.  The point is the red.  Dickering over what isn't the point is ... pointless ...


----------



## WorldWatcher (Mar 8, 2014)

kaz said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...




When someone is going to get on a high-horse and call other posters idiots and liars, they ought to try to be correct.


With that said, I'm not a liberal, been a registered Republican for and in my opinion Public Accommodation laws should be repealed for ALL private businesses, not just special rights for some businesses to hide behind a shield of religion.


>>>>


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 8, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



I actually make a cogent argument explaining why you try for the Guinness World Record for fallacies in one sentence. Is that because I got it right, or is simply an admission that you can't defend your position?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 8, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Just to prove my point, Elaine Photography once refused to photograph a wedding with a nudist theme. Despite this, the couple still got married, and they even found a photographer to take their pictures. This is because Elaine Photography was not the market, they are just a business.
> ...



Jones made the absurd statement that not performing a service on demand is the same as denying the person requesting the service access to the entire market. Unless you are trying to defend that idiotic position, and the claim that it is fundamental to 21st century America, shut the fuck up.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 8, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



You are trying to nit pick over whether Elaine Photography ever was asked to shoot a nudist wedding, and claim that, unless I can prove they actually did get asked, I cannot prove that they are not the only photographer in the entire fucking world?

Are you fucking insane? I can get up on my high horse because, unlike the idiots who never admit that they are wrong, I have actually admitted it. I will admit the story I read might have gotten the details wrong, but that doesn't change the fucking simple truth that Elaine Photography is not the fucking market, it is one business. 

By the way, since you just pointed out that you should be correct if someone is going to get on a high horse, do you plan on correcting your absurd insistence that SB 1062 would allow business to discriminate on the basis of race? Keep in mind that I still have access to everything you already ignored on the subject, including an analysis my legal scholars that support same sex marriage, that actually urged Brewer to do the right thing and sign the bill.

Until you do that, I suggest you never try to correct me on anything, because, even when I am wrong, I am going to rub your face in your unwillingness to admit you are wrong.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 8, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Bumberclyde said:
> ...



God or no God, abnormal, unnatural behavior is just that, whether by humans, dogs, or turtles.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 8, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Sure I can call it freedom.  Why not ?


----------



## protectionist (Mar 8, 2014)

dblack said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Let's get a grounding of what the IT is that we're talking about.  

1.  Regarding what sick, disgusting practices people engage in, in the privacy of their bedrooms, while affecting no one else directly, I don't care. 

2.   What they teach to kids in school, how they affect the overall culture (as with same-sex unions), engage in close contact sports, share showers in the military, etc >>  These I DO CARE about and YES, it is every bit the state's (representitive of the people) business to micromanage.

3. One thing that often is overlooked too is the fact that what 2 consenting adults do in the privacy of their home CAN effect others.  It can have a profound, hurtful effect on the families (parents, kids, siblings, etc) of those who go "gay".


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 8, 2014)

dblack said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Been working fine since the 1960s and will continue to do so: minorities, women, teens, and now sexual orientation, immigration, and legitimate abortion policies


----------



## protectionist (Mar 8, 2014)

Bumberclyde said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Bumberclyde said:
> ...



What we "got", is when you can't come up with an intelligent response, you just yell TROLL!!  TROLL!!  There he is >>  Sic'm.  

Chill out, knave.  The forehead thing was just a joke, and you asked for it, with your comment about tattoos and stars.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 8, 2014)

Let's get a grounding of what the OP is that we're talking about. 

1. what adults do sexually with other adults who consent is not of Protectionist's business 

2. Protectionist has a right to say and be wrong about what he says about public education.  The millenials and the Xers and Ys disagree with those like him.  It's over.  

3. Yes, adults, hetero and homo, who fulfill perverted desires in attacking children are criminals who need to be put away.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 8, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



Protection is Boxxy the Troll

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13QmpqF9G8E]Boxxy is a troll - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## protectionist (Mar 8, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



The post of Kaz stating that _"freedom related to this thread is the right for...a merchant to decide who he wants to sell to..."_ is just as legitimate a claim as your claim of freedom for consumers.  If I were selling guns and I knew some animal abusers went around shooting birds, squirrels, and homeless cats, I would not want to sell my guns to them.  I should have that right to choose, and not have govt force me to do what I know would be improper.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 8, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Sure there is.  It is goes back to what one considers to be a "right".  And what "rights" on is concerned with.  When you increase rights for one party, you often decrease them for another party.  When Florida increased rights for families with kids to move into previously ADULT ONLY apartment complexes, they decreased the rights of those who wish to live in a child-free environment.

  When California defeated the Briggs Initiative, and allowed queers to teach in public schools, it established less rights for the general public, who otherwise would have had the freedom of having their kids be free from the possible influences of homosexual teachers.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 8, 2014)

protectionist said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



Fortunately we have a Constitution that prohibits you and other hateful, ignorant individuals from deciding what is unnatural or abnormal.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 8, 2014)

protectionist said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


Well I am sorry that you feel it's a loss of your freedom when you have to tolerate and accept others, and can no longer beat you kids and wives with knotted ropes.  Change can be disheartening.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 8, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Now that you've gotten that massive IRRELEVANCY off your chest, how about responding to QW's post which didn't mention a word of what you said, and if it referred to anything, it was probably more likely referring to the TOPIC of the thread >>  Business Owners To Refuse Service To Gays


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 8, 2014)

protectionist said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


I remember when I was told that I could no longer burn witches at the stake.  I was very depressed so I went and beat a slave,  That helped but it was never the same.  The magic, pun intended, was gone forever, my right to be free from witches.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 8, 2014)

> The post of Kaz stating that _"freedom related to this thread is the right for...a merchant to decide who he wants to sell to..."_ is just as legitimate a claim as your claim of freedom for consumers.



Nope.  The consumer can go to whomever is providing goods or services in the public market place.  However, the merchant cannot discriminate against a buyer because of protected category.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 8, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



When the SCOTUS rules on a case in upcoming months, it is quite possible that this will result in_ "the way things were before"._  This is an affirmative action case.  >>  Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration & Immigrant Rights, and Fight for Equality by Any Means Necessary (12-682). A written ruling could come as late as June 2014.

If the ruling goes against the coalition, it is like likely to set off a landslide of legislation, nationwide banning affirmative action at the state level (currently banned in 8 states)

I wouldn't say that people would be _"morons"_ to say that the Conservative majority on the SCOTUS will vote to dump AA.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 8, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Bumberclyde said:
> ...



*Kids:  this is why you should not do drugs.
*


----------



## protectionist (Mar 8, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



I challenged you on your favorite talking point words (hateful, ignorant) in previous posts, and you punked out, with no response.  That eliminates your capability of using them any more (unless you have the intellectual integrity of a wart hog).

As for your dumb statement >  NO the Constitution DOES NOT prohibit the American people from deciding what is &#8216;unnatural&#8217; or &#8216;abnormal, nor have you shown one shred of evidence that it does.  You haven't even presented the part of the Constitution here, that you think does that.  I guess that's because you know if you did, it would be soundly refuted.  You're right about that.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 8, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



This idiotic post (# 2622) was stomped out in the very next post (# 2623).  Notice that ?


----------



## protectionist (Mar 8, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Witches and queers.  No correlation.
Like the buzzers in the quiz shows (when you get the wrong answer) >> *AAAHHHHHHHH!!!!
*


----------



## protectionist (Mar 8, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> > The post of Kaz stating that _"freedom related to this thread is the right for...a merchant to decide who he wants to sell to..."_ is just as legitimate a claim as your claim of freedom for consumers.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  The consumer can go to whomever is providing goods or services in the public market place.  However, the merchant cannot discriminate against a buyer because of protected category.



YUP!!  The consumer CANNOT always go to whomever is providing goods or services in the public market place.  Lots of sales are regulated which vet out particular consumers from making purchases.  (ex. consumers with criminal records cannot buy guns).  Merchants do discriminate against buyers, and they do it every day.

As for protected categories, even after 50 years of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill, queers are still not a _"protected category"_, and under most states' laws, they are a restricted category, such as the 30 states in which same sex marriage is still ILLEGAL.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/342492-other-states-copy-arizona-sb-1062-a.html


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 9, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



It does? Where?


----------



## dblack (Mar 9, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Protectionist has a right to say and be wrong about what he says about public education.  The millenials and the Xers and Ys disagree with those like him.  It's over.



No, you're both wrong. The state serves society, not the other way around. This is why government controlled education is so dangerous. Authoritarians just can't help themselves, and will use it to dictate.


----------



## dblack (Mar 9, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> > The post of Kaz stating that _"freedom related to this thread is the right for...a merchant to decide who he wants to sell to..."_ is just as legitimate a claim as your claim of freedom for consumers.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  The consumer can go to whomever is providing goods or services in the public market place.  However, the merchant cannot discriminate against a buyer because of protected category.



And what justifies such a one-sided policy? By the same twisted moral accounting, consumers should likewise be prevented from discriminating against vendors because of a protected category.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 9, 2014)

dblack said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > > The post of Kaz stating that _"freedom related to this thread is the right for...a merchant to decide who he wants to sell to..."_ is just as legitimate a claim as your claim of freedom for consumers.
> ...



No offense, but I liked my answer (post # 2631) better.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 9, 2014)

dblack said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Protectionist has a right to say and be wrong about what he says about public education.  The millenials and the Xers and Ys disagree with those like him.  It's over.
> ...



I went through public education form 1st grade through 4 years of college.  I don't think authoritarians used it to dictate anything improper, with one exception.  The college open admissions program, where they lowered standards for admission, and watered down academic standards weakening the level of education, all to make it possible for blacks to get college degrees, whether they learned anything or not.


----------



## dblack (Mar 9, 2014)

protectionist said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



But, according to your post, that's exactly what you're worried about - that the _wrong_ authoritarians will take control and teach things you disagree with. The only way to protect ourselves from this is to keep government out of the business of 'shaping' society in the first place.


----------



## Seawytch (Mar 9, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



According to the SCOTUS, the 14th Amendment. 

_The purity of public morals, the moral and physical development of both races.require that they should be kept distinct and separate that connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law, and be subject to no evasion._


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 9, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Ditto here as I OPPOSE all Public Accommodation Laws also.
And have offered NUMEROUS ways to get around them.
I believe the Christian Victim Onward Christian Soldiers Movement loves these laws.
Gives them something to shield themselves behind to fight their make believe wars.


----------



## dblack (Mar 9, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> *I OPPOSE all Public Accommodation Laws* also.
> And have offered NUMEROUS ways to get around them.
> I believe the Christian Victim Onward Christian Soldiers Movement loves these laws.
> Gives them something to shield themselves behind to fight their make believe wars.



Haven't been seeing that myself. You've been consistently defending them in fact, routinely citing the private ambulance service as your example for why they need to remain in place. If you're actually opposed to the PA laws, you certainly can't blame folks here for assuming otherwise.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Mar 9, 2014)

dblack said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > *I OPPOSE all Public Accommodation Laws* also.
> ...




There are aspects of the law which come form two different perspectives: (A) what the law should be, and (B) the reality of how a law functions.  Discussing B does not support for A.


>>>>


----------



## dblack (Mar 9, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



We know how the law functions. That's simply a matter of fact. The question for debate is if, and how, the law should be changed.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 9, 2014)

dblack said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



So you support an ambulance company owner refusing service to gay folks?
No you don't.
So how can you claim I support they need to remain in place?
NO law should be passed that ALLOWS folks to refuse service BASED ON RELIGION.
That is the argument here, NOTHING else. 
The vague and often abused special interest of term of "religion" is the subject.
How can anyone prove someone's religious freedom or beliefs are "denied"?
By what someone claims?
Terrible precedent to start if we go by what people claim they believe in.
Keep religion the hell out of the law. Bad road to go down.


----------



## dblack (Mar 9, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



No, I don't. But I do support their _right_ to. There should be no law prohibiting it. Unless they are contracted as a municiple or state service, it's up to them to choose who they serve and who the don't. 



> So how can you claim I support they need to remain in place?



Well, you seem to be - even here in this post - suggesting that PA laws must stay on the books to prevent ambulance companies from discriminating. Am I reading you wrong?



> NO law should be passed that ALLOWS folks to refuse service BASED ON RELIGION.



Unless it's part of a broader change that allows service providers to refuse for _any_ reason, I agree. But they should be allowed to refuse based on religion, if that's their desire.



> That is the argument here, NOTHING else.
> The vague and often abused special interest of term of "religion" is the subject.



Like many threads here, it shines a light on a larger problem, and provides an excellent case study of why our approach to dealing with bigoted discrimination was a bad idea. It's definitely appropriate to discuss here.



> Keep religion the hell out of the law. Bad road to go down.



I agree. I was opposed to the AZ law for that reason. But the problem it was trying to solve is real, and it's worth discussing other solutions.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 9, 2014)

protectionist said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



Well, THAT was certainly pointless and irrelevant.  Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 9, 2014)

protectionist said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



Are you aware that not a single fucking thing you've said has had anything to do with the topic of the thread, NOR is it of any interest to anyone else?  I don't believe anyone said, "Hey, could you please tell us how gross you think homosexuality is?  And could you please discuss 'teaching it in schools', even though schools have absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand?"

We all get that you don't like homosexuality.  Please try to reciprocate by getting that WE DON'T CARE.  It's irrelevant, and you're wasting everyone's time.  This is not a thread about whether or not homosexuality sucks.  It's a thread about whether or not people like you should be legally prevented from saying that it sucks.  Just because I am willing to defend your right to say it doesn't mean I'm inviting you to do so


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 9, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Ahh, yes.  The familiar leftist song:  "The Constitution says it because we got a bunch of judges to say it does.  Who needs to cite the actual words of the Constitution, when we can just cite someone's opinion of what the Constitution should be?"

Here's a hint:  Any time someone asks you what the Constitution says, and your answer includes the words "The Supreme Court", you've just lost.


----------



## Seawytch (Mar 9, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



The 14th Amendment was cited when Loving v Virginia was ruled on by the Supreme Court. The following quote regarding "naturalness" was used by the Virginia Supreme Court: 

_The purity of public morals, the moral and physical development of both races.require that they should be kept distinct and separate that connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law, and be subject to no evasion._

The SCOTUS decided that it really didn't fucking matter who thought something was "unnatural" when it came to ruling on LAW.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 9, 2014)

dblack said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



  No, the proper thing is to scrutinize the schools, their teachers, and course contents, and keep them clean to what we deem proper (ex.  No Muslim jihadist propaganda, no homo propaganda, etc)  You seem to miss the point that govt is* us*.  And it is *we* who should shape *our* society.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 9, 2014)

protectionist said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...


Homophobe at large again.  Xenophobe as well.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 9, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



They decided that in WHAT CASE ?  WHEN ?


----------



## dblack (Mar 9, 2014)

protectionist said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



No, it's not. It's an institution that, at best, represents the interests of the majority , at worst, organized special interests that want to control us. In neither case is government the equivalent of all the people, and it's certainly not the same thing as society. 

The founders had it right on this. Government should be the servant of society, not its master.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 9, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Alert! Alert!  >>>>  Sexual orientation card user at large again.  Race card user at large again.  Poster without substance at large again.  Ho hum.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 9, 2014)

protectionist said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...


Quick, somewhere two gay men are happy tonight.  Run and go find them and break that up.  Good boy...


----------



## protectionist (Mar 9, 2014)

dblack said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



All you are doing is describing what happens to govt when we the people neglect to manage it properly.  Well sure. Nothing is good if/whenever it's mismanaged.  The correct thing is to strive to rise to the TOP of the ideal of govt, not succumb to the BOTTOM of its symptoms of corruption and neglect.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 9, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Your words. Not mine. 

Depending on the situation, it might be proper to break that up, and even arrest the violators, if they are engaging in homosexual sex, in public, or teaching it to minors.


----------



## dblack (Mar 9, 2014)

protectionist said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



The correct thing to do is what the founders intended; limit government constitutionally so that neither the majority nor special interests can use it to force their will on society capriciously.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 9, 2014)

dblack said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Fine.  But that doesn't mean to not have a legislature, and not make new laws according to the will of the majority of the people. In fact the founders in their Constitution did just that. Providing for 3 branches of govt, one of which is the legislature, and 2 of which are created by _"the majority"._


----------



## protectionist (Mar 9, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Looks like you've been around this forum long enough to know that not every post is dead on to the topic.  Many posts simply deal with responses to other posts, whether directly on topic, not on topic at all, or on topic indirectly.

Having been posting in forums for 10 years, I don't need coaching.  It so happens that my post WAS CONNECTED to a prior post which I was responding to.  If you can't handle that without having a tantrum meltdown, perhaps this isn't the venue for you.  Have you tried needlework ?

As for your 3 capital lettered words "WE DON"T CARE" >> Correction:   YOU don't care.  The others here, DO CARE, as proven by the fact that they not only have read my posts that you say they don't care about, but they've also been responding to them, and one doesn't respond to what one doesn't care about.  You respond, you care.  If there's really anything around here that they don't care about, it might be what YOU care, or don't care about.

PS -  I shall now go back to posting MY way, whether you like it or not.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 9, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



No it wasn't.  Looks like you have difficulty understanding things.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 9, 2014)

Who here believes that they have no religious freedom if they can not deny service to gay folks?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 9, 2014)

dblack said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Nonsense. 

The government and the people are one in the same. 

Its naïve and inane to perceive the government as some alien entity separate and apart from the people; government reflects the will of the people, it acts at the behest of the people, and the people are solely responsible for what government does. 

And its the judicial branch of the government whose job it is to safeguard the rights of the people  including safeguarding the rights of the people from the people when they err.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 9, 2014)

Who here knows someone that has had their religious freedom denied them because they had to serve gay folks?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 9, 2014)

protectionist said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



"make new laws according to the will of the majority of the people"
Scary shit there my man. 
The majority of the people are DUMB ASSES.

The Constitution forbids that. 
The will of the majority of the people is not what this country was founded on.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 9, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Um, actually, it is you who has lost if you discount SCOTUS.  Period.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 9, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



The majority may not tyrannize the minority, thus the amendments.

Tuff that, sam.


----------



## dblack (Mar 9, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



The pure physical fact is that they are not the same thing. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt assume you get that. And that what you're really trying to say is that the will of the majority is the same thing as the will of the people, but that's false as well. The will of the majority, by definition, ignores the will of the minority. It's not the will of all the people, and for those who don't share the majority view, it is very much a separate entity forcing them to comply.


----------



## emilynghiem (Mar 9, 2014)

Androw said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Dear Androw:
You care to take up this issue with the Bone Marrow Registry?
in order to save lives of minorities: Latino, African American, Asian and Native American,
they created 4 nonprofits to educate and solicit registered donors from these four groups.

Their reason is the HLA compatibility is only 1/10 chances of finding a match for minorities (versus 9/10 for caucasians who tend to be compatible with each other at a higher rate).

With minorities, the HLA is more likely to be compatible with the same race, and even greater probability by matching people of the same region, such as Nigerians with Nigerians or Vietnamese with Vietnamese. the HLA is THAT specific.

With interracial patients, the match is almost impossible to find, but greater chance if the donor is the same two mixed races. For example, for one child who was half Indian and half Irish, there was a worldwide search to find a donor, where a compatible donation came from a newborn baby who was also half Indian and half Irish. the chances were 1/200,000 of finding a match and saving that kid's life.

Do you really want to take this up with the doctors who make the assessments and decisions on compatibility, and whether the patient has high enough chance of not rejecting the bone marrow to go through the expense of the surgical procedures?

finding a match is not only based on race, but specifically depends on national ethnicity as well, where people closer genetically are more likely to be compatible. it makes a difference between life and death.


----------



## emilynghiem (Mar 9, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



yes and no.
because the people act like bigots toward opposing views/groups
yes, the political process and even judges can reflect the same conflicts and do.

but no, the govt is NOT supposed to impose the religious views of one group over another
unfortunately that happens where people are not perfect and are running the govt

yes, when a judge/ruling/law reflect OUR beliefs then we say
YES the govt is the people and that is justified

but 
no, what happens when a ruling or law goes against our beliefs?
we yell HEY WAIT, that's unconstitutional, the govt isn't supposed to impose religious bias

and yes, this happens back and forth, because
the govt is run by people, and people are not perfect
but we are biased and tend to project those biases
if we do not respect equal constitutional rights, checks and balances,
and protections of the opposing views that are equal under law

we make these mistakes all the time, of giving in justifying and projecting our biases.
and so our govt is prone to the same, as a reflection of the people

you are right, but it is still WRONG
and we still need to correct these biases that interfere with constitutional governance

thank you CCJones
I think you are a fair person, and no more or less biased
than other people on here who equally struggle to be fair
we are all in this together, and yes, I do believe as we
come to resolve our issues, so will our govt reflect that resolve


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 9, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Who here believes that they have no religious freedom if they can not deny service to gay folks?



That would be a subset of the people that believe that Jim Crow is happening tomorrow.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 9, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



Of all the dumb things you have said on this board, that is, by far, the dumbest.

Explain something, given that the purpose of the judiciary is to protect the rights of the people, why did I grow up in a Constitution Free Zone? Why does such an abomination exist in the first place? Could it be ebcause the courts exist in order to enable the government to screw people over?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 9, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Who here believes that they have no religious freedom if they can not deny service to gay folks?
> ...



After 35 years in my business having interviewed over 30,000 witnesses I always know when someone is bull shitting. 
You ask a Yes or No question and they punt.


----------



## emilynghiem (Mar 9, 2014)

dblack said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



yes dblack
the day the people and govt are one
there would be "consensus," the govt would perfectly represent all people in unison

right now, with people SUING the govt these are divided and not one in opinion 
CLEARLY the govt does NOT reflect ALL the people but only certain lobbies or interests
who can swing majority rule or political power to rule in their favor

(not just nationally but locally I've put up with this for years with the City of Houston violating constitutional principles unless sued, so that's not inalienable if you have to hire lawyers to sue and to win in order to defend rights)


what is sad about ACA is neither the singlepayer on the left feel represented nor the free market advocates on the right; so the majority of people do not consent to this, but we are stuck with it because people don't agree what to change it to. and it is held over our heads like being held hostage. this is not the proper use of govt process, but that is what our country has come to because people failed to resolve conflicts and resort to bullying.

as for laws about discrimination, the marriage laws should be written openly to neither endorse nor ban gay marriage and leave it open to interpretation and choice. If people want to perform or participate or don't want anything to do with gay marraige, that should be respected in private. resolve conflcits directly with people and keep it out of courts and legislatures.

we already have the first and fourteenth amendments. if we don't practice respect for freedom and for equal protections equally, no amount of added legislation is going to fix that problem. if people are bigoted, that needs to be addressed locally; it cannot be legislated out of people because the laws are already written anyway. if people aren't agreeing to practice them, that's theproblem of the people.

Some things I might recommend changing in writing
is clarifying that "political beliefs" should be included in religious beliefs/creed and not be discriminated against; 
and more emphasis should be placed in conflict resolution to make decisions by consensus and reduce laws and lawsuits.
these changes could be made by education and free choice, given the laws we already have, and what it takes to enforce them as is.
But given the inability of people to resolve conflicts,
it may take agreeing to them and/or changing them in writing to enforce these concepts.
Consensus is already necessary for all people to be represented equally by law,
but if that isn't happening, maybe we do need to emphasize this in writing.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 9, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Excuse me? What makes a question that begins with the word who a yes or no question? Are your hypothetical children named Yes and No?


----------



## protectionist (Mar 9, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



For once CCJ, we agree.


----------



## freedombecki (Mar 9, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > I think another state passed something similar to this last week so this must be a trend that is catching on. I agree with this bill that if you are a business owner and believe in and live by your faith that you should be able to refuse service to whoever you want.
> ...


Any business owner with half a brain and a yen for what real alive people want will give faithful service to most everyone in the community.

A bill that *allows for a business to refuse service to anyone* also allows the owner to refuse to give service to:



Anyone who has ever stolen property or goods from the business owner
Anyone who sexually harasses an employee of the business
Anyone who smears himself with excrement and enters the business or enters with the intention of dirtying the business or targeting customers of the business for revenge against someone who works at the business
Anyone who enters the business with a dripping ice cream cone that can create a slick and dangerous floor
Anyone who enters screaming that everyone is going to hell except himself and his small group of flunkies and orders everyone on their knees to save their sinful souls.
Anyone who enters the business and tries to force employees to join an organization against their will
Anyone who enters the business and tries to solicit customers to buy his or her competitive products in a retail establishment in which he pays no rent and has no loyalty to the business
A competitive business owner who enters the business, sees a former customer, and starts a sales pitch to the customer off his premises to leave right away and shop at his establishment instead and engages in a heated argument when the customer declines in order to gain sympathy of other customers or a confederate who gives him enough credibility to persuade others to leave and go to his place of business.
Anyone who was seen exiting the business without paying for his purchase at an earlier date and is responsible for shoplifting items from the store.
Anyone who enters the store and engages in contentious diatribe that obstructs the operations of the business
 Not every law targets all the things political foes can dream up as possible, they usually simply want to give the business a chance without having to contend with endless jabs from competitors and/or their employees / confederates to destroy the existing business the owner has worked so hard to make a go of.

It doesn't surprise me that states this administration has gone into one legal fracas after another over exercising its freedom to be a unique state would have its legislative measures ninny-hammered on national political boards and forums where political points could be scored on things that are possible but not likely in civil circles of business in which people just want to take home a little bacon to their families if they can just figure out how to deal with unfair competitor habits.

Killing free enterprise is a hallmark of developing communist organizations. The downside is that by targeting the megalithic energy industry, Obama organizers went overboard on the BP Petroleum incident by shutting the BP Co. off from looking into what went wrong with a Presidential dictate to keep the company away from finding the source of the explosion, which has since been scuttle-butted into the fuzzy universe of politics bent on killing big industries by obfuscating the facts so no one will really know what happened to the rig. It also unemployed 30,000 workers in an economy that had seen the unemployment skyrocket since a political unknown took a meteoric rise to salvage a party divided by unfortunate helm decisions to sate power-glutton Jesse Jackson.

 Oh, and what do Democrats cherry pick to define this bill that gives small business owners a tiny bit of power in life to keep the business on an even keel? They use abusing gays as their thesis--a scumbag lie if there ever was one, to spread the alleged political incorrectness of one single person opposed to something even some gays opposes, to dirty not just Arizona, but the nation of conservatives, and in particular, Republicans. 

 It's an example of politics that use bottom-feeding as the bottom line for such a tenuous platform by a party that has taken the national debt far above the 1.3-trillion deficit that started out on day 1 of the Obama administration.

 Obama claims the Bush deficit is One trillion, three hundred billion dollars after Bush (A 1.3 trillion deficit) and that he would cut it in half by 2009 (he didn't.)

 Obama's explanation of the alleged $1.3 trillion deficit:


----------



## protectionist (Mar 9, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



Nor may the minority tyrannize the majority.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 9, 2014)

protectionist said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


So, play nice kiddos and get on with your lives,


----------



## protectionist (Mar 9, 2014)

xxxxxx


----------



## protectionist (Mar 9, 2014)

dblack said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



  As when the minority fail to get the president of the US that they voted for. Oh well. That's the American system. Been that way for over 200 years. If anybody doesn't like it, there are countries that don't abide by majority rule elections. Plenty to choose from. Dictatorships abound. All you majority haters can pick Iran, Saudi Arabia, Cuba. 
Here's my personal favorite > SYRIA. Bon Voyage!


----------



## protectionist (Mar 9, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



I'm 67 years old (not a "kiddo"), and I'm already playing nice.


----------



## KNB (Mar 10, 2014)

Please explain how you are being oppressed if gay people can be legally married.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 10, 2014)

KNB said:


> Please explain how you are being oppressed if gay people can be legally married.



One isnt oppressed. 

Nor is ones religious liberty violated by public accommodations laws that afford protections to gay Americans.


----------



## Camp (Mar 10, 2014)

protectionist said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



Ah shit, I'm riding cross country at 60+ years old on a motorcylcle and I stop to get a fucking soda, beer, cake or fuking steak and some asshole telles me I can't get it cause I'm black or gay or white haired or cross eyed or socialist communist mother fuker, hey fuk you. You got this business in the middle of the fukin nowhere emptyness of cactus dry waterless hotass fukin desert and you think you can refuse me service cause you don't like the way I look? Fuk u ariizona asshole. u a fake and get ready to meet real. Gunfight is appropriate. Been there done that.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 10, 2014)

Camp said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Yeah, I think I can refuse you service, based on how you look, how you sound, and how you stink.  I can also put a .380 hollowpoint slug in your jaw to shut you up really fast, and that's only if I'm in a good mood and don't feel like popping some of my old army napalm all over your dumb-ass two-wheeled little boy toy.  Got it ?


----------



## protectionist (Mar 10, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> > Please explain how you are being oppressed if gay people can be legally married.
> ...



The idea is simply to not allow nutjobs to set the standards of American culture, thereby changing it from an American culture, to an American NUTJOB culture.


----------



## KNB (Mar 10, 2014)

protectionist said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > KNB said:
> ...


What "American culture"?  Bush legalized torture.  If you think waterboarding is the worst thing that the CIA did, type "Iraq torture photos" into your search engine and see if you can spot water or even a board.  There are dead bloody bodies wrapped in plastic with smiling GIs giving a thumbs-up, there are bloody boxing gloves, there are plenty of naked men with good Christian heterosexual American soldiers holding their leashes, but in none of the photos will you see water or a board.  Maybe I'm just a stupid liberal but I think that waterboarding involves water and a board.

Obama has ran drone strikes that have killed thousands of civilians in over half a dozen countries that the US has not declared war on.  What "culture" are you talking about?  There are 40k dead in Vietnam from leftover US landmines since the END of the war.  This is your "culture"?  Bank crimes, torture and drone strikes?  Elvis and cheeseburgers?  Slavery?

What is American "culture"?


----------



## Andylusion (Mar 10, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Quick, somewhere two gay men, and a dumb internet poster, are demanding their views be forced onto the rest of society!  Tell them to shut up.  The rest of us have a vote in how this country is run.


----------



## Seawytch (Mar 10, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Loving v Virginia 1967.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Mar 10, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...




He's pretty dense, what? Let me guess, [MENTION=45665]protectionist[/MENTION]: Tea Party??

Yepp, got it!

Here, some bathroom reading for you, since all this is probably giving you hemmarhoids:

Loving v. Virginia | Casebriefs

Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Loving v. Virginia


----------



## dblack (Mar 10, 2014)

protectionist said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Exactly! This is what I've been saying all along.


----------



## dblack (Mar 10, 2014)

protectionist said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Wow. Nope. That's pretty much the opposite of the American system.


----------



## Wildman (Mar 10, 2014)

our law makers need to revisit that bill and refine it, a tad bit, it was a little crude , so a little tweaking and Gvnr. Jan will approve and sign it into law.


----------



## Infidel (Mar 10, 2014)

Wildman said:


> our law makers need to revisit that bill and refine it, a tad bit, it was a little crude , so a little tweaking and Gvnr. Jan will approve and sign it into law.



Are you closet boys still taking about gays?


----------



## bravoactual (Mar 10, 2014)

The Bill is dead. Stop beating a dead horse.

Just think, a Jewish Business denying service to Christian in Tucson, the hows that would have happened.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 10, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



You didn't actually need to demonstrate for us how badly you've lost.  We already got it.  No need to belabor the point.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 10, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> He's pretty dense, what? Let me guess, [MENTION=45665]protectionist[/MENTION]: Tea Party??



He's a good leftist just like you, Statist. In fact, when he starts yapping about $22 an hour minimum wage, it's impossible to tell you and he apart.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Mar 10, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > He's pretty dense, what? Let me guess, [MENTION=45665]protectionist[/MENTION]: Tea Party??
> ...




Well, you might want to get new presciption glasses there, uncensored. You view is being heavily censored right now.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 10, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



EARTH TO SEAWYTCH:  
 Your quote is from the state court.  I'm asking you to present here *what the SCOTUS said.*


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 10, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



Let me tell you what I just heard:  "I know I screwed up, but I'm too much of a self-absorbed punk to admit it, so instead I will just try to rationalize why it's okay for me to fuck up and waste everyone's time, and why YOU are at fault for expecting me to be a worthwhile human being."

I need no "correction".  I was right the first time:  no one cares that you hate homosexuals.  This thread continues to not be about the squishy, icky fantasies you can't stop yourself from having about gay sex.  You will continue to post about them, and gradually everyone will realize what I saw about you in your first post:  you're a meaningless non-entity who will very shortly only be acknowledged by the leftists who are as lame, bigoted, and narrow-minded in their own way as you are in yours, and who gleefully see the rare existence of a latently homosexual bigot like you as proof that everyone on the right is that way.

I suggest you either get some therapy to get you over your taboo fascination with gay sex, or get some therapy to help you be comfortable with being gay.  One or the other.  This, however, is not the appropriate place to work out your issues.

Buh bye.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 10, 2014)

dblack said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



What school did you attend ?  You don't even know how elections are done to elect the president of the United States.*  Majority* votes in each state wins that state's electoral votes.  *Majority* of electoral votes in the country wins the election.  Back to school for you.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 10, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Ohmigod, you just realized that people are individuals and not interchangeable cogs.  Are you okay?  Do you want to lie down for a bit?

What the fuck does this have to do with the point that we're all human beings, members of the same species, and everything else is details?  Important details, sometimes, but details nonetheless.


----------



## dblack (Mar 10, 2014)

protectionist said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



Yeah. Mine had it all wrong, apparently. They taught me all kinds of crap about the "Constitution" (whatever that is!?) and "limited government". Crazy stuff, eh?

Majority rules is all we need to know nowadays. Go team!


----------



## protectionist (Mar 10, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



First of all, your use of the word_ "gay"_ is erroneous.  There is nothing gay about being afflicted with a mental aberration. While I'm on that subject, I'll also say there's nothing happy about being afflicted with whatever is causing you to engage in the imbecile tantrums that you are.  Maybe it's some twisted masochistic desire to display your foolishness on these pages, so that someone like me can then come along and hand you your ass, like I'm doing right now.

  One of the dumbest things any poster can ever do is to come back with the same point that has just been thrashed in the previous exchange.  NO, you were NOT RIGHT the first time, that no one cares that I hate homosexuals (or the various other points I've made), as I showed by the numerous responses to my posts.  So now you've had that refuted twice.  Oh well, better too much correction than too little.   It's like spark plug wire.  Better too long than too short.

  So you call me a _"bigot"_ for what I've said about homosexuality.  Well, since all I've said about it is that it's abnormal, it spreads, and it is a danger to society, especially kids (pretty much the common view), it looks like you are a supporter of homosexuality, and its so-called "gay rights" campaign.  Looks like YOU are the leftist loon, who leftists will appreciate as being one of them.

Lastly, having posted hundreds of OPs and hundreds of thousands of posts in various forums, I've noticed one thing about the shallow imposters who attack other posters as being a *"meaningless non-entity"*.  That is that they all have a common, very, deep-seated fear, rooted from their inability to simply express themselves >>  that of a being exposed as a "meaningless non-entity".

  So don't worry about it.  Even if we thought you were that, we won't talk about it, because frankly, nobody gives a rat's ass.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 10, 2014)

dblack said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Well, you said that the majority principle was the _"opposite of the American system"_ (we WERE talking about a presidential election).  So if you school did teach that then, YEAH, they would have _"had it all wrong, apparently."_

You see, one thing we all can't do in these forums is >> rewrite reality.


----------



## Seawytch (Mar 10, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...




Care to explain how I "lost" exactly? Can you not actually address the point I made?


----------



## Seawytch (Mar 10, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...




They dismissed the "unnatural" argument and ruled on the constitution, the 14th Amendment to be exact.


----------



## freedombecki (Mar 10, 2014)

KNB said:


> Please explain how you are being oppressed if gay people can be legally married.



I'll play!

 "Where are my natural-born grandchildren, Only Son?"


----------



## protectionist (Mar 10, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > He's pretty dense, what? Let me guess, [MENTION=45665]protectionist[/MENTION]: Tea Party??
> ...



If you had an ounce of knowledge about Conservatism, you'd know that a $22/hour minimum wage is GOOD for business (would you rather have everyone making $5/hour and no one able to buy your goods ?)  You'd also know that none of this $$ stuff has a thing to do with Conservatism (CONSERVING America's values, principles, culture, and providing a strong national defense and infrastructure)  And if your Psuedo-conservatism was put next to mine, you'd come out looking like Nancy Pelosi.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 10, 2014)

bravoactual said:


> The Bill is dead. Stop beating a dead horse.
> 
> Just think, a Jewish Business denying service to Christian in Tucson, the hows that would have happened.



THE bill may be dead.....but many others like it are very much alive.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/342492-other-states-copy-arizona-sb-1062-a-5.html


----------



## protectionist (Mar 10, 2014)

Wildman said:


> our law makers need to revisit that bill and refine it, a tad bit, it was a little crude , so a little tweaking and Gvnr. Jan will approve and sign it into law.



Maybe after enough Arizonans rake her over the coals for selling out to big business interests, instead of protecting Arizona's small business vendors, children, et al vulnerable to the queer machine.


----------



## Infidel (Mar 10, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Wildman said:
> 
> 
> > our law makers need to revisit that bill and refine it, a tad bit, it was a little crude , so a little tweaking and Gvnr. Jan will approve and sign it into law.
> ...



Hey look, another closet queen is back with more stories about hard cocks and gysm spurting in their faces!


----------



## protectionist (Mar 10, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



Only thing I get from it is a curiosity of how you think any of this drivel relates to my original question posed to Seawytch regarding his statement > _"The SCOTUS decided that it really didn't fucking matter who thought something was "unnatural" when it came to ruling on LAW."_

I asked him >>  "They decided that in WHAT CASE ? WHEN ? 

Since then I've gotten links from him and you, all of which have only alluded to the Loving v. Virginia case (about Black/White marriage, not homosexuality), and state court cases blabbing about it, as well as lower federal courts (like the 9th Circuit Laughingstock), And NOT one iota about anything from* the SCOTUS.* or a single mention of the word *"unnatural"*.

EARTH TO BOTH OF YOU:  When I said "THEY", I was asking about the SCOTUS, and what THEY said, not what everybody else  who you could dredge up said.  Get it ?


----------



## Infidel (Mar 10, 2014)

freedombecki said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> > Please explain how you are being oppressed if gay people can be legally married.
> ...



You should really inform yourself more before looking like an ass. Gays have children through sperm donors for women, and surrogates for men. 

Now get back in the closet!!!!!!


----------



## GISMYS (Mar 10, 2014)

THINK! YOU NEED NOT LIVE YOUR LIFE IN THE ABOMINATION OF SICK MINDED SEXUAL PERVERSION,CONFESS AND REPENT AND GOD WILL FORGIVE AND WASH YOU CLEAN.==Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. 1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-11


----------



## protectionist (Mar 10, 2014)

Infidel said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Wildman said:
> ...



Hey look, another JACKASS who is uncapable of discussing a serious subject, and pollutes the thread with meaningless idiocy.  Gosh, lucky us.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 10, 2014)

Infidel said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > KNB said:
> ...



Another reason for legal action ("Compelling Interest") to protect children from sexually perverted LUNATICS.  Kids being raised by queers.  Pheeeeeww!! (high-pitched whistle, eyes rolling around in head)


----------



## protectionist (Mar 10, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



That wasn't the question.  I asked for a quote from the SCOTUS (with the word "unnatural" in it).  I'll take the SCOTUS' word for it, if I see it (not yours)  So far, you still haven't presented *that.*  Your only quote was from a state court.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 10, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



You haven't made any point, because every time I've asked you for the statement of the SCOTUS you claimed they made about something being "unnatural", you've come up with everything other than that.  I'll not conclude that you've lost just yet.  I'm giving you one more shot at it (you've got 2 strikes on you right now).  You said >>"The SCOTUS decided..", and you said "unnatural".  If you have their words that includes the word "unnatural", let's hear it.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 10, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Already did that.  Sorry I went too fast for you, but I don't repeat myself if I can help it.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 10, 2014)

*UPDATE:*
After 17 months on  the go, the AZ Onward Christian Soldiers Tour is in El Mirage, AZ searching long and hard for the first business owner in the state that has had their "religious freedom" denied.
Fitting place to be as the entire movement is a mirage.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 10, 2014)

So we see that Protectionist is the face of this "religious freedom" movement yet all we hear is "this has nothing to do with homosexuals" BS.
Keep it coming Protectionist as we read you loud and clear.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 10, 2014)

protectionist said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



Elections are not the LAW.
We are a nation OF LAWS, not of men and their changing like the wind religious beliefs. 
The Bill of Rights protects the minority from the majority.
The Founders believed in natural rights be it from God and nature that can not be taken away. 
Therefore the majority HAS NO rights to vote away or abridge the rights of political, ethnic, religious OR ANY OTHER minority. 
James Madison "the great danger in republics is the majority does not respect the rights of the minority".
We have rights as INDIVIDUALS in this country. 
Majority mob rule is a pure democracy.
We are far from that as we are a democratic republic with a Constitution as our foundation.
Listen up in school next time.


----------



## Seawytch (Mar 10, 2014)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...




Except you didn't. You simply dismissed it out of hand.

The VA Supreme Court upheld their anti miscegenation law basing it on the "unnatural" nature of the union. The US Supreme Court said they couldn't do that and they cited the 14th Amendment. These are FACTS not in contention...except by you.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 10, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> So we see that Protectionist is the face of this "religious freedom" movement yet all we hear is "this has nothing to do with homosexuals" BS.
> Keep it coming Protectionist as we read you loud and clear.



Sounds like you're not reading me at all.  I've already said I'm not interested in religion, and this has everything to do with homosexuals.  Are you practicing getting things backwards ?


----------



## protectionist (Mar 10, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



My posts are YOUR SCHOOL, right here, right now, and it looks like you haven't been listening up.  As I said before, the 14th amendment provides "equal protection of the law", but this is adjustable by the SCOTUS, who has ruled that states may classify discriminate if/whenever there is a* "compelling interest"* to the law, and that the classification is necessary to further that interest.  There is no clear rule for deciding when a classification (ex. homosexuals) is unconstitutional. So discriminating against queers in business sales, marriage, public school teaching, sports coaching, etc, may be left to the states to decide.  And decide they do >  30 states ban homo marriage. Hadn't you noticed ?


----------



## protectionist (Mar 10, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



First of all Mr. Stretch, the Loving vs. Virginia case is about race, not sexual orientation, and whatever naturalness or unnaturalness is mentioned there, it pertains to races, not sexes.  What is true for apples, is not necessarily true for oranges.

Secondly, this is your strike 3, wherin you had a prime chance to present the words of the SCOTUS mentioning "unnatural", which you again have failed to do.  I said before, I wasn't saying yet that you had lost.  We're not going to hopscotch this all day.  You lost.


----------



## Infidel (Mar 10, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...


Too bad that's never worked. 

PS Ike was a cock smoker.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Mar 10, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Yepp, nothing like the fresh smell of asswipe declaring victory when there is none to declare.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 10, 2014)

Infidel said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Infidel said:
> ...



You don't know much.  Queer marriage is banned in 30 states.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 10, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Nothing like denying defeat WHEN THERE IS ONE TO DECLARE  >  YOURS.    Your Post # 2690 sealed it.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 10, 2014)

KNB said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Heterosexual sex, and opposite sex marriage.


----------



## Seawytch (Mar 10, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...




Actually, Loving was about equal treatment under the law. The VA SCOTUS said interracial marriage was unnatural, the US SCOTUS said that didn't matter and you had to treat people equally under the law. 

I never claimed the US SCOTUS said anything about naturalness or un.


----------



## Seawytch (Mar 10, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...




Not for long...


----------



## protectionist (Mar 11, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



You said >> _"The SCOTUS decided that it really didn't fucking matter who thought something was "unnatural" when it came to ruling on LAW."_ 

So on the one hand you first say they "decided" it.  Now you say you didn't claim they said it ("unnatural").  But you claimed they decided it.  How can one decide, without saying ?  Did they use sign language maybe ?  Did they hand each other written notes ?  Sounds like you DID claim they said something about something being _"unnatural"_, and now you're trying to wiggle out of it.

 Lesson to be learned - if you can't back up what you say, don't say it.

In the final analysis, the SCOTUS didn't say a word about homosexuals or the naturalness or unnaturalness of their condition.  The only thing I see them having said
that pertains to queers is what is stipulated earlier about compelling interest >>>

  So once again, for those who seem to want to avoid the truth >>>

    The question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right.  The Supreme Court has dictated the application of different tests depending on the type of classification and its effect on fundamental rights. Traditionally, the Court finds a state classification constitutional if it has "a rational basis" to a "legitimate state purpose." The Supreme Court, however, has applied more stringent analysis in certain cases. It will "strictly scrutinize" a distinction when it embodies a "suspect classification." In order for a classification to be subject to strict scrutiny, it must be shown that the state law or its administration is meant to discriminate. Usually, if a purpose to discriminate is found the classification will be strictly scrutinized if it is based on race, national origin, or, in some situations, non U.S. citizenship (the suspect classes). In order for a classification to be found permissible under this test it must be proven, by the state, that there is a *compelling interest* to the law and that the classification is necessary to further that interest.

Interesting phrase that "compelling interest" is. Does a state have a compelling interest, for instance, to keep queers out of classrooms ? Of course it does. It has a interest to prevent queers from spreading their sick perversions to kids with young impressionable minds. Few better and stronger examples of compelling interest have ever existed in American society.


----------



## dblack (Mar 11, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



You're using the very same philosophy of government that statist liberals do.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 11, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Infidel said:
> ...



Here in Florida same sex marriage has about as much chance of being legalized as Stand Your Ground has in being repealed.  NONE.  I suspect similar situations exist in the other SSM banned states.  Actually the last time I looked, SSM was banned in 30 states .  In this updated (Feb. 26, 2014) map from CNN, it shows *bans in 34 states*, indicating if there is any trend it is in the direction of more states BANNING it, not less.

Same-sex marriage in the United States


----------



## protectionist (Mar 11, 2014)

dblack said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



And you'd prefer anarchy ?  And nutjob queers running amok all over the country ?  I'll stick with the statist philosophy, which isn't a "liberal" philosophy, it is an American philosophy.  Government of the people, by the people for the people.


----------



## dblack (Mar 11, 2014)

protectionist said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



Nope. The American tradition is a firm rebuke of unlimited democracy. You don't get that, and as a result end up endorsing the kind of government that imposes these overbearing anti-discrimination laws in the first place. You reap what you sow.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 11, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



Nonsense. 

Measures that seek to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law completely lack a proper legislative end, there is no compelling governmental interest in denying same-sex couples their equal protection rights. Such laws seek only to make gay Americans unequal to everyone else, which the states are not allowed to do (_Romer v. Evans _(1996)). 

And your notion of keeping gays out of the classroom is an example of the sole motive behind denying gay Americans their civil liberties: hatred of homosexuals.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 11, 2014)

dblack said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Incorrect. 

Liberals advocate for a consistent, Constitutional application of 14th Amendment jurisprudence, where the state must meet the burden of proving that its desire to deny gay Americans their civil liberties is rationally based, supported by objective, documented evidence, and pursues a proper legislative end  and failing that, as is the case with states seeking to deny gay Americans their equal protection rights with regard to marriage law, any such measures would be invalidated by the Federal courts. 

This is one of many examples of liberal advocacy of limiting the power and authority of the state, and protecting and enhancing the liberty of the people. 

That is not the case with the conservative poster you quoted, however, who advocates for expanding the power and authority of the state at the expense of the liberty of the people, where the state may capriciously and un-Constitutionally deny gay Americans their civil liberties, in violation of the rule of law.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Mar 11, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...


----------



## Seawytch (Mar 11, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



I'm sorry you're having such a hard time following the thread. I'll help you out. 



> protectionist: God or no God, abnormal, unnatural behavior is just that, whether by humans, dogs, or turtles.
> 
> C Clayton Jones: Fortunately we have a Constitution that prohibits you and other hateful, ignorant individuals from deciding what is unnatural or abnormal.
> 
> Quantum Windbag: It does? Where?



So then I proceeded to point out where the Virginia Supreme Court ruled in favor of anti miscegenation laws and used the "unnaturalness" of the interracial marriage as justification. Following so far? 

The Supreme Court of the United States rejected that argument and struck down anti miscegenation laws basing their decision on the 14th Amendment. Are you clear now?

And, no, there is no "compelling state interest" in keeping "queers" out of anywhere.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Mar 11, 2014)

protectionist said:


> In this updated (Feb. 26, 2014) map from CNN, it shows *bans in 34 states*, indicating if there is any trend it is in the direction of more states BANNING it, not less.



A decade ago there was a hay day of bans instituted against Same-sex Civil Marriage.  A decade ago there were zero, zip, nada States that recognized SSCM.  Today there are now 17 states and DC which have Marriage Equality.  The vast majority of which were passed either legislatively or at the ballot box by direct referendum:

California &#8211; Judicially - 2013
Connecticut &#8211; Judicially - 2008
Delaware &#8211; Legislatively - 2013
District of Columbia &#8211; Legislatively - 2009
Hawaii &#8211; Legislatively - 2013
Illinois &#8211; Legislatively - 2013
Iowa &#8211; Judicially - 2009
Maine &#8211; Ballot &#8211; 2012
Maryland &#8211; Ballot - 2012
Massachusetts &#8211; Judicially - 2004
Minnesota &#8211; Ballot/Legislatively - 2012
New Hampshire &#8211; Legislatively - 2009
New Jersey &#8211; Judicially - 2013
New Mexico &#8211; Judicially &#8211; 2013
New York &#8211; Legislatively - 2011
Rhode Island &#8211; Legislatively - 2013
Vermont &#8211; Legislatively - 2009
Washington &#8211; Ballot - 2012

In addition there is pending litigation/appeals in Oklahoma/Texas/Utah/Virginia where their ban has been ruled unconstitutional, Kentucky where SSCM won in court for recognition of out of state licenses and Ohio which requires SSCM recognition on death certificates.




In what world is "0" States at the beginning of 2004 to 18 entities (17 states + DC) in 2014 "more BANNING it, not less."?  


>>>>


----------



## dblack (Mar 11, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



More with your pompous 'corrections'? From someone who clearly doesn't understand the difference between a liberty and a demand on someone else's services? Riiiiight.

The whole premise of 'protected classes' (even the accurate version that you don't understand) is a gross violation of equal protection. 

Yeah, it is the same philosophy, because each of you assumes the needs of the state are prime. Each of you is willing and eager to use the coercive power of government to tell people how to live, and each of you fails to comprehend that the will of the state is not the same as the will of the people.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 11, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



I favor most all Castle Doctrine Statutes and have a list of priorities that my state should address.
And gay marriage is 132nd and dropping on that list.
Education, energy, business interests which cover probably 24 and many other issues are more important than gay marriage.
Makes us wonder why you are so infatuated with the gay boogeyman.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 11, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Bingo.
People need need new ******* to look down on as beneath them and someone to point their finger at and say "there you go, they are different and the Bible says we must not allow them as equals".
And the dumb masses eat it up.
1001 other more important issues and the gay boogeyman always brings them out.
And mainly AND ONLY most of the time at election time.


----------



## Infidel (Mar 11, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



Doesn't matter, gays can still marry, have children... AAAWWWWW, too bad!.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 11, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Bingo.
> People need need new ******* to look down on as beneath them and someone to point their finger at and say "there you go, they are different and the Bible says we must not allow them as equals".
> And the dumb masses eat it up.
> 1001 other more important issues and the gay boogeyman always brings them out.
> And mainly AND ONLY most of the time at election time.



What a load of shit - and really Dawg, if you are agreeing with Saul Goodman (Clayton,) you KNOW you're dead wrong on the issue, regardless of what that issue is.

I'm walking down a crowded street - quick, who are the queers?  You can't tell, because homosexuality is a BEHAVIOR, not a race. Unless a dude drops in the middle of the street and starts sucking some guys cock, there is nothing to identify homosexuals - it's a behavior.

The ONLY way someone can discriminate against homosexuals is based on what they do, not color of skin.

Saul wants to make behavior equivalent to race, but then the closest Saul gets to logic, is logical fallacy.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 11, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Bingo.
> ...



Your claim that hating people for their sexual orientation being different than hating people for their race is absurd.
Hate is hate and discrimination is discrimination.
But I admire you for admitting you make that distinction on who you believe is okay to discriminate. 
There is nothing illegal about homosexual behavior.
Your claim there is and they should be punished for it is false.
So go find someone else that has behavior you do not like to discriminate against because you HAVE LOST YOUR WAR with homosexuals.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 11, 2014)

Homosexuals are the new *******.
I grew up in the deep south and saw it first hand.
Of course it is NO WHERE NEAR AS BAD as what African Americans endured. NOT EVEN CLOSE.
But the mentality is EXACTLY THE SAME.
Separate but equal. We must make sure that homosexual "behavior" is not tolerated and even if it is make damn sure we do not allow them in the military, that whopper of lies was proven false, and make sure we do not let them get married because if we do:
THEY WILL TEACH ALL THE KIDDIES TO BE QUEERS TOO.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 11, 2014)

Yup, Gadawag's got it.


----------



## kaz (Mar 11, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Bingo.
> ...



It's how they define discrimination.  Gays have the negative right now to be left alone.  That isn't good enough.  The left demands they get positive rights, the right to be belligerent about being gay and infringe on other's rights.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 11, 2014)

kaz said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Having grown up in the late 50s and 60s I often heard that vague term "they".
Who the hell are the "theys"?
YOUR team is the one defining not only discrimination but homosexuality.
You all claim to be conservative Reagan Republicans but fall back on the old reliable BULL SHIT "homosexuality is a choice" when FORTY DAMN YEARS AGO Reagan stated THEY ARE BORN THAT WAY. 
I was voting Republican when you were in diapers.


----------



## kaz (Mar 11, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Homosexuals are the new *******.
> I grew up in the deep south and saw it first hand.
> Of course it is NO WHERE NEAR AS BAD as what African Americans endured. NOT EVEN CLOSE.
> But the mentality is EXACTLY THE SAME.
> ...



As for socons, I don't get either why of all the terrible things people do to each other in the world, they are so transfixed on victimless relationships between consenting adults as being one of the greatest issues in humanity.

The problem that those of us have in the middle on this is we're stuck between socons and your side who aren't satisfied with gays being left to live alone and even though we have no problem with their choices, we don't get your militant gay agenda focused on government validation, party gifts and forced exposure to gay lifestyle.


----------



## kaz (Mar 11, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



Actually, I claim to be a libertarian.  With all the discussions we've been in, I'm thinking you're suffering from retarded mental capacity.

I've also never used the argument homosexuality is a choice, I think they are born that way.  And I've opposed all discrimination.

In fact what I have repeatedly argued to you is to go to the legislature, not the courts.  You're really not very bright.  If after all the discussion we've had on the subject, you can't remotely remember my positions, that explains why you go nowhere.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 11, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



It looks like we're all clear, and have been all along.  That you have NO statement of the US Supreme Court or decision from them, referring to natural or unnatural, or with any connection to homosexuality.  The only connection Ive seen between those 2 is the one I've posted here in this thread, must be a dozen times now, regarding classifications (ex. homosexuals) which can be discriminated against if states feel there is a *compelling interest* to do so.  And to protect the American people (especially children) from the cancer of homosexuality, and its eagerness to spread, there could be few greater compelling interests, possible, hence the prevelance of 34 states who don't permit the lunacy of same sex marriage.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 11, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



I am neither a Republican or a Reaganist.  Reagan was an opportunist, con artist, and traitor to America, and far removed from being a Conservative.  His opposition to the Briggs Initiative was proof of that, as well as other non-conservative attributes about him, which I already mentioned previously.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 11, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Yup, Gadawag's got it.



*Homosexualitis ?
*


----------



## kaz (Mar 11, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Reagan Neocon?  Why do so many people use that term without knowing what it meant.  Reagan was a fiscal conservative, he wasn't a big government spender.

What was even his military use that justifies the label?  Grenada?  OK, he toppled the government, but clearly nation building was not his primary objective in selecting an Island in the Caribbean to topple a Communist government.  He didn't topple Lebanon even though he was involved in it.  He didn't topple Libya, he just retaliated against them for terrorism like the German disco attack.  He wrecked the USSR financially.

You realize "Neocon" has an actual definition.  How does it make sense more than tangentially to Reagan?


----------



## protectionist (Mar 11, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Just because one is concerned about the spread of the cancer of homosexuality, doesn't mean that he/she isn't concerned about other issues, and just as vehemently.  Before you make foolish judgements, look at posters' OP lists, so you have some idea of what you're talking about.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/search.php?searchid=7654606


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 11, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



My sister died of cancer November 20, 2014 after fighting it for 12 years.
You comparing cancer to homosexuality is an example of your ignorance and stupidity.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 11, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



No need to lecture me about cancer.  I've been fighting it for 50 years, since I handled carcinogen chemicals in the Army in 1964.  I just got 14 stitches taken out of my arm from a skin cancer surgery last month, and will have another skin cancer surgery later this month.  I've had more than a dozen of these, in addition to dozens of liquid nitrogen squirts.  I also have my right hand and arm covered (now as I type) with flourouracil cream, to kill cancer cells.  I'll talk about cancer all I choose to, and comparing it to homosexuality is perfectly valid and based on knowledge, which you have received the benefit of.  You're welcome.

PS - November 20, 2014 hasn't arrived yet.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 11, 2014)

kaz said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Who are you talking to ???????????


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 11, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



Cancer = two men attracted by each other.  Hang on, I have to answer my banana and eat a cell phone.  Be right back to you.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 11, 2014)

Infidel said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Not in my state they can't (and 33 others)


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 11, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



So it you were in a fox hole and the enemy has you pinned down, you are out of ammo and they are headed to kill you and a tank was maneuvering to assist you. The tank commander is a homosexual.
You would radio back instructing you want no help from faggots.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 11, 2014)

Never amazes me the ignorance of those when chasing down the gay boogeyman.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 11, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



Your foolish hetero-fascism and homophobia are going to be a thing of the cultural past within ten years.  No one will listen to you.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 11, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



*NONSENSE!*  And 34 US states have declared that to be so, with bans on queer marriage.  Laws don't make queers unequal.  THEY make themselves unequal by engaging in a looney, creepy lifestyle, which they then try to spread to normal people, particularly children.  They are one of the greatest dangers in America, and there are few more compelling interests than stopping them, and eradicating the cancer of homosexuality throughout the land, which the states ARE allowed to do, as I stipulated in the post you quoted, and they (34 states) do just that.

As for keeping queers out of the classroom, of course they need to be, as well as off football fields (and any other contact sport), out of shower rooms with other men (as in the military), away from children in every endevour (adoptions, day care, etc)

  They also should be arrested for public displays of homosexuality (ex 2 men kissing each other on the lips), and frankly, they shouldn't really even be out in public parks, streets etc. They ought to be institutionalized in nuthouses.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 11, 2014)

"And 34 US states have declared that to be so with bans on queer marriage."

SCOTUS will rule that the states', while having the power to regulate marriage, cannot deny civil rights per the 14th.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 11, 2014)

dblack said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



What govt you get in a state, depends on what kind of people live there and who they elect to public office.  If you choose to live in loon states like New York and California, you reap what you sow.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 11, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



We pretty much decphired your lunacy already.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 11, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> "And 34 US states have declared that to be so with bans on queer marriage."
> 
> SCOTUS will rule that the states', while having the power to regulate marriage, cannot deny civil rights per the 14th.



Yeah ?  And after 50 years of NOT RULING THAT, what gives you the notion that suddenly they will ?    

EARTH TO JS:  The SCOTUS has already ruled that they CAN discriminate.  Are you reading the thread ?  Try to keep up.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 11, 2014)

protectionist said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...


Good news for you, projection isn't deadly.  That would make the cancer the least of your problems.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Mar 11, 2014)

protectionist said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > "And 34 US states have declared that to be so with bans on queer marriage."
> ...




Actually that is the gist of the Loving decision in 1967.  That states can regulate Civil Marriage until such time as they violate rights.




protectionist said:


> EARTH TO JS:  The SCOTUS has already ruled that they CAN discriminate.  Are you reading the thread ?  Try to keep up.



Which case was that?

BTW - It wasn't in Windsor v. United States, that decision was about federal law and not whether states could discriminate against homosexuals in terms of Same-sex Civil Marriage.  Would you believe the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court when he says the Windsor decision did settle whether States could discriminate?



>>>>


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 11, 2014)

protectionist said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > "And 34 US states have declared that to be so with bans on queer marriage."
> ...


The Courts are finding no Compelling State Interest, which means, you and your kind are screwed.  Damn shame, those fags getting rights eh?  I know, it was more fun when you used to be able to shove their heads in a toilet.  Ah, the Good Old Days.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Mar 11, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...




And the funny thing is that since July those rulings have been based on the Windsor decision and the recognition that denying equal recognition of Civil Marriages for same-sex couples was discriminatory and unconstitutional from a federal law perspective.


>>>>


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 11, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...


But our friend here will still be trying to drive his armor-plated golf cart, through the side of a battleship, and then wondering why his head hurts.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 11, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Your claim that hating people for their sexual orientation being different than hating people for their race is absurd.



Your claim that not granting people special privilege to celebrate their sexual behavior amounts to "hate" is absurd.



> Hate is hate and discrimination is discrimination.



And neither have a damn thing to do with the subject at hand.



> But I admire you for admitting you make that distinction on who you believe is okay to discriminate.
> *There is nothing illegal about homosexual behavior.
> Your claim there is and they should be punished for it is false.
> *So go find someone else that has behavior you do not like to discriminate against because you HAVE LOST YOUR WAR with homosexuals.



You've huffed enough spray paint for one day.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 11, 2014)

kaz said:


> It's how they define discrimination.  Gays have the negative right now to be left alone.  That isn't good enough.  The left demands they get positive rights, the right to be belligerent about being gay and infringe on other's rights.



And not only a right to be left alone, but a basic assurance. Homosexuality is not apparent. It isn't a trait or an attribute, it is not visible to the eye nor audible. It is a behavior. Unless someone engages in the behavior in front of you, you have no way of knowing that they engage in it.

Dawg is arguing from a position of stupidity - but this level of stupidity has successfully bullied people, so he figures he can get away with it.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 11, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> So it you were in a fox hole and the enemy has you pinned down, you are out of ammo and they are headed to kill you and a tank was maneuvering to assist you. The tank commander is a homosexual.
> You would radio back instructing you want no help from faggots.



And he knows the tank commander is a homosexual, because he pulls the tank over to suck someone's cock in the middle of the battle? 

You're really posting stuid shit today.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 11, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Your claim that not granting people special privilege to celebrate their sexual behavior amounts to "hate" is absurd.


A Marriage License is society celebrating me enjoying fucking my wife?  How odd, I thought it was a contract approved by society that made it easy for two people to live together, even raise children together, but that's optional?  What does society do when I get a blowjob?  I know I tend to celebrate it by taking her to dinner.


----------



## kaz (Mar 11, 2014)

protectionist said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



I was talking to you.  I wrote a great rebuttal ... to a point you didn't make.  I thought you called him a neo-conservative, you called him a non-conservative.  Yes, I do have reading glasses, no, I wasn't wearing them.  I'm not sure I agree with your view, but I do understand your confusion.  Damn, one letter is one letter off, and yet such a different meaning.  I need to be punished...

Bad kaz, read better, bad kaz!  Twenty lashes for you...


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 11, 2014)

dblack said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Statists all have the same philosophy, even if they have different justifications for it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 11, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



Look up the word statist, asshole.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 11, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



I agree with most of what you said, I do, however, vehemently object to your equating me with the scumbag asshole bigot that you are arguing with. I challenged Clayton because, frankly, he made a claim that is stupid. The evidence of that is that he, despite the fact that he has the ability to cite every single SCOTUS decision ever, cannot support his claim that the Constitution prevents people from doing something that is unnatural. That is because it doesn't prevent people from doing anything, it is supposed to prevent the government from doing things. It often fails because the courts prefer to rationalize the government's ability to ignore the Constitution rather than prohibit them from ignoring your rights. Would you like me to point out the single SCOTUS case that actually proves my point?

In case you do, and in case you don't, here it is.



> The Court, in a 8-1 decision by Justice Joseph P. Bradley, held that the language of the 14th Amendment,  which prohibited denial of equal protection by a state, did not give  Congress power to regulate these private acts, because it was the result  of conduct by private individuals, not state law or action, that blacks  were suffering.[1]  Section five empowers Congress only to enforce the prohibition on state  action. Legislation by Congress on subjects which are within the domain  of the state are not authorized by the 14th Amendment. Private acts of  racial discrimination were simply private wrongs that the national  government was powerless to correct.[3]  Bradley commented that individual invasion of individual rights is not  the subject-matter of the [14th] Amendment. It has a deeper and broader  scope. It nullifies and makes void all state legislation, and state  action of every kind, which impairs the privileges and immunities of  citizens of the United States, or which injures them in life, liberty or  property without due process of law, or which denies to any of them the  equal protection of the laws.[4]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Cases#Decision_of_the_Court

Did you get that? To show you why I am pointing to this, let us see what the 14th actually says.



> *Section 1.* All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the  jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the  State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which  shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United  States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or  property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its  jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
> 
> *Section 5.* The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.



Get that? It clearly says that nobody can be denied any rights by the states, and that Congress has the power to enforce that by writing laws, but the court said it doesn't actually say that.

That is why I love to poke at Jones, he is an idiot, and he needs to learn how little he knows. 

Come to think of it, everyone that thinks he knows what he is saying also has to learn how little he knows.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 11, 2014)

OK, it is apparent that the far right, as exemplified by Kaz and Uncensored, are making up their own facts and opinions.

Kaz clearly does not know what is neo-conservatism.

Uncensored does not understand the 14th.

Don't worry the events over the summer and the fall will clear that up for them.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 11, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Darn shame though as I have/had a large cache of fag jokes. 
Back in the day before I knew better.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 11, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > So it you were in a fox hole and the enemy has you pinned down, you are out of ammo and they are headed to kill you and a tank was maneuvering to assist you. The tank commander is a homosexual.
> ...



Hate to tell you but there is open service in the military now.
My scenario is based on HE KNEW.
And you support the position protectionist takes?
You hate fags and believe they are cancer on society.
Got it.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 11, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > It's how they define discrimination.  Gays have the negative right now to be left alone.  That isn't good enough.  The left demands they get positive rights, the right to be belligerent about being gay and infringe on other's rights.
> ...



Hey, call me stupid. I admit I am far educated beyond my intelligence.
I have been beat up, shot at and left for dead. Played a lot of ball against the best.
So I am stupid.  

No, but even if I was at least I have common sense to treat fellow humans with decency and respect.

You are a fake, a fraud on this issue. You hide behind your ignorance and bigotry attempting to portray yourself as something other than what you are.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 11, 2014)

We have people here that "want to be left alone" as if gays here and there have somehow infringed on their rights and "religious freedom".

Bogus claim as NOT ONE person was found in the entire state of AZ that was denied their religious freedom.
They are bull shitting us. They do not like homosexuals out of the closet, can not have that and must fight that yet put a HAPPY FACE on that argument and package it as what it isn't because there is NO evidence to support it.


----------



## dblack (Mar 11, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> We have people here that "want to be left alone" as if gays here and there have somehow infringed on their rights and "religious freedom".
> 
> Bogus claim as NOT ONE person was found in the entire state of AZ that was denied their religious freedom.
> They are bull shitting us. They do not like homosexuals out of the closet, can not have that and must fight that yet put a HAPPY FACE on that argument and package it as what it isn't because there is NO evidence to support it.



You don't seem to be arguing for any principles or values you believe in, but rather to simply needle people you don't like (homophobes).


----------



## protectionist (Mar 11, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Ah the Good Old 2014 >  68% of the states ban SAM.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 11, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> We have people here that "want to be left alone" as if gays here and there have somehow infringed on their rights and "religious freedom".
> 
> Bogus claim as NOT ONE person was found in the entire state of AZ that was denied their religious freedom.
> They are bull shitting us. They do not like homosexuals out of the closet, can not have that and must fight that yet put a HAPPY FACE on that argument and package it as what it isn't because there is NO evidence to support it.



I package my fight against homosexuality as just what you said.  I don't like homosexuals out of the closet.  No HAPPY FACE.   Just simple stop homosexuality, because it's a mental disorder, it is a major disturbance, a sexually, perverted subversion of normal American culture, and a great danger to children.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 11, 2014)

protectionist said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...


It was 100% not long ago.  I am unconcerned but I'm betting you don't feel the same?


----------



## protectionist (Mar 11, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



When you advocate homosexuality and lend dignity to it, you are treating fellow humans with INdecency and DISrespect.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 11, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > We have people here that "want to be left alone" as if gays here and there have somehow infringed on their rights and "religious freedom".
> ...


The AMA, APA, and the majority of the American people disagree with you.  Now what?  Will you die upon your soapbox General?  So be it...


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 11, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


I've met many, with more dignity than you General.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 11, 2014)

Oh General, Pew poll: 61% of Republicans under age 30 support legalizing gay marriage « Hot Air


----------



## protectionist (Mar 11, 2014)

kaz said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



No harm done. We all mistakes.  At least you're not makin them on every post, like all the design-of-nature refuters on this board.

As for Reagan's non-Conservatism, well, first one must have a distinct perception of what REAL Conservatism is.  This might vary from person to person, but the biggest distinction is a generational one.  In general, I've found that people under 40, who call themselves Conservatives, are what I call Psuedo-Conservatives (or Reaganists).  They are too young to remember the days before Reagan lowered the marginal individual tax (top bracket) down to 28%, and it's never risen above 39.6% since.  Before Reagan though, that tax varied from 70-94%.  Reagan singlehandedly changed the definition of Conservative from it's true definition (CONSERVING America's values, principles and culture, and providing a strong National Defense and infrastructure), to one of simply protecting the fortunes of the super rich from taxation, thereby supporting a small, weak govt, with low taxes and low spending.  Quite amazing how one greedy guy with one of the highest employee incomes in America, could change an entire national political philosophy, just to pad his own pocket.

   Maybe the best way to show the distinction between Reagan's non-Conservatism and REAL Conservatism is to compare him to a REAL conservative and observe the stark difference.  For the REAL Conservative, I'll choose the guy in my avatar >  Dwight D. Eisenhower. 

1.   For his whole 8 years of presidency, the top bracket tax was never less than 91%.  This supported the FBI, the CIA, INS, DEA, all the military, etc.  Reagan lowered this tax to 28%.

2.  Eisenhower created the US interstate highway system, while under Reagan's admin, infrastructure was largely ignored. 

3.  Eisenhower chased huge numbers of illegal aliens back to Mexico, with his Operation Wetback in 1954.  32 years later, Reagan gave them amnesty.

4.  Eisenhower did and said nothing to support homosexuals.  Reagan condemned the Briggs initiative in California, helping to prevent the law which would have kept queers out of schools.

5.  Lastly, while Ike, as Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe in World War II, was grinding his way across Germany, and on his way to victory in Berlin, in 1945, Reagan was in Hollywood making movies about it.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 11, 2014)

protectionist said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...


That's some serious I Like Ike.  He wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell today.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 11, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Oh General, Pew poll: 61% of Republicans under age 30 support legalizing gay marriage « Hot Air



Pew Poll (2044) - 61% of Republicans age 50 - 60 oppose legalizing queer marriage.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 11, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



In doing what ?


----------



## protectionist (Mar 11, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



By your perverted definition of _"dignity"_, which can only establish a compliment.  Thanks, man!


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 11, 2014)

protectionist said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Oh General, Pew poll: 61% of Republicans under age 30 support legalizing gay marriage « Hot Air
> ...


The future lies not in those soon to die General.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 11, 2014)

protectionist said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...


Anything...


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 11, 2014)

protectionist said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...


Perverted?  Not in the slightest.  I admire men, which leaves you on the sidelines watching.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 11, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



EARTH TO PMH:   Anyone who would be so ridiculous to refer to such laughingstocks as the AMA and the APA, could only be considered to be...well...a laughingstock. 
As for who disagrees with me ?  Apparently not 68% of the states in America which currently ban same sex marriage as well as these states >>   http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/342492-other-states-copy-arizona-sb-1062-a.html


----------



## elektra (Mar 11, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



And to add to your comment, if a man does not have the common sense and intelligence not to put his stick in the mud, does that homosexual man have the common sense and intelligence not to tell Children he is a homosexual. 

The answer was given to me when my daughter was 10, in school, when her Homosexual teacher told the whole class that he was breaking up with his "life partner". 

What right do Homosexuals have to tell 10 year old children that are not theirs about Homosexuality?

Well, this is the beginning of a terrible story that I will end here. 

anyone who does not have the intelligence to control their sexual proclivities has not the intelligence to be around children.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 11, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



I feel just FINE >>   http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/342492-other-states-copy-arizona-sb-1062-a.html


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 11, 2014)

protectionist said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...


Ah, the General believes the earth to be flat because all the neighbors say so?  So be it.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 11, 2014)

protectionist said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...


Ah, it didn't get signed into the law, and the others dropped theirs.  Just the death rattle of the soon to be departed, like us both General.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 11, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



   If Ike were in charge today, he'd rally the whole country behind him.  He'd have illegal immigration stopped cold, by lining up US warships off both Mexican coasts and doing Operation Wetback allover again, combined with enforcement of IRCA.  He'd put the top tax back to 92%, build the military back up, along with ICE, FBI, CIA, DEA, etc fix serious infrastructure catastrophes waiting to happen, like the Wolf Creek Dam in KY, the delta levees in California, and the whole nation electric power grid.  He'd clean the rat's nest of Muslim Brotherhood operatives out of the govt.  Hell, he might even have banned voicemail.  YAY!!


----------



## protectionist (Mar 11, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Another example of a post being refuted by the post it quoted.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 11, 2014)

protectionist said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...


Dreams of Glory, the daydreams of an old man, of a time long gone by.  So be it General, so be it.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 11, 2014)

protectionist said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...


Did you forget that the future is not ours my old friend?  It belongs to the young, who care not for your opinion, or mine.  That much you should have learned by now.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 12, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



You got through 3rd grade? I am impressed.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 12, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Are you saying that states can't discriminate based on sexual orientation ?


----------



## protectionist (Mar 12, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Some people have to have things repeated.

Pew Poll (2044) - 61% of Republicans age 50 - 60 oppose legalizing queer marriage.

In the _"future"_, the young will not be the young.  Get it ?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 12, 2014)

protectionist said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...


It doesn't work that way my friend.  Sorry.  For them, it will be "normal", all they've really ever known, like blacks in the showers and as basketball stars.  You and I are Betamax tapes in a iPhone world.  They couldn't care less nor do they see an issue.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 12, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



No dreamer boy.  The others didn't _"drop"_ anything.  They are picking up Arizona's law.  In fact, the great majority of states in America allow discrimination against queers, in quite a number of ways, didn't you know ?  It's only a relatively small minority of the states that don't.  Didn't you know ?  Well if you don't know, a few looks at these maps will cure that.

https://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/marriage_prohibitions_3-2014.pdf

https://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/school_non-discrimination_laws_062013.pdf

https://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/public-accomodations_3-2014.pdf

https://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/housing_laws_062013.pdf

https://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/hospital_visitation_laws_12-2013.pdf

https://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/parenting_joint-adoption_082013.pdf

https://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/parenting_second-parent-adoption_2-2014.pdf

https://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/employment_laws_1-2014.pdf


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 12, 2014)

protectionist said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...


As a percentage it's roughly 50-50.  No one cares what Mississippi does General.  I'm sorry, but you've lost and the queers have won.  And so it goes eh?


----------



## protectionist (Mar 12, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



I was just responding to Your subject theme.  You brought up the _"majority of the American people"_.  Your words, not mine.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 12, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Correction:  No one* OF YOU FRUITCAKES* care what Mississippi does.  In the normal  nation, no one one cares what California, New York, Colorado, Illinois, and other fruitcake states do. I moved from California to Florida 25 years ago.  Best move I ever made.   

PS - Population % ???  >>  the % only goes up in the fruitcake states, because of the influx of immigrants and illegal aliens that they allow.  Legions of them in  California.  How pathetic.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 12, 2014)

protectionist said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...


That was to show that the trend was against you, not a statement of right or wrong.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 12, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



 Your deficiency here is you look from foresight.  I look from hindsight.  When I was young, I was very ultra-liberal, as were all my friends.  Now, we're only liberal in economics.  We don't believe in turning the country over to illegal aliens, sex pervert lunatics, Muslim jihad lunatics, criminals, or affirmative action incompetents.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 12, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Time will tell.  Let's see how many states pick up on Arizona's SB 1062.  So far there's about 10 I think. And the map still shows a big majority discriminating against queers, as they've been doing for many years.  I see no "trend" there.

Got better debates in other threads, to go to now.  See you later!


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 12, 2014)

protectionist said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...


Your mistake is this isn't your country anymore, you just live here.  America always belongs to the young, who wait, not so patiently, to rule over it, and they think you are on the wrong side of history just like so many who came before.





To them, that's you, and just as much consigned to the history books.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 12, 2014)

protectionist said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...


Sleep well, your nights are growing few.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 12, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Your mistake is this isn't your country as you wish it to be.  Want to see how it really is ?  Click the links in post # 2822, and look at the maps.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 12, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



United States vs. Carolene Products Co., and Korematsu v. United States 

*Strict scrutiny* is the most stringent standard of judicial review used by United States courts. It is part of the hierarchy of standards that courts use to *weigh the government's interest against a constitutional right* or principle. The lesser standards are rational basis review and exacting or intermediate scrutiny. These standards are used to test statutes and government action at all levels of government within the United States.

The notion of "levels of judicial scrutiny", including *strict scrutiny*, was introduced in Footnote 4 of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Carolene Products Co. (1938), one of a series of decisions testing the constitutionality of New Deal legislation. The first and most notable case in which the Supreme Court applied the *strict scrutiny* standard and found the government's actions valid was Korematsu v. United States (1944), in which the Court upheld the exclusion of Japanese Americans from designated areas during World War II.

U.S. courts apply the *strict scrutiny* standard in two contexts, when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed,[1] particularly those found in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause or "liberty clause" of the 14th Amendment.

To pass *strict scrutiny*, the law or policy must be justified by a*compelling governmental interest.* While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. 

The United States vs. Carolene Products Co., and Korematsu v. United States were just the earliest of the cases of *strict scrutiny* requiring *compelling interest*.  Over the years, there have been hundreds of cases involving this principle such as the Supreme Court under Earl Warren adopted an expansive view of the Free Exercise Clause. The Court required that states have a *"compelling interest"* in refusing to accommodate religiously motivated conduct as it decided Sherbert v. Verner (1963). 

The *"compelling interest"* doctrine became much narrower in 1990, when the Supreme Court held in Employment Division v. Smith that, as long as a law does not target a particular religious practice, it does not violate the Free Exercise Clause.

in 1993, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which sought to restore the _"compelling interest"_ standard. In City of Boerne v. Flores (1997) the Court struck down the provisions of the Act that forced state and local governments to provide protections exceeding those required by the First Amendment, which the courts enjoy sole power to interpret. According to the court's ruling in Gonzales v. UDV (2006), RFRA remains applicable to federal statutes, which must therefore still meet the *"compelling interest"* standard in free exercise cases.

Here's a few more examples (quoted right off the Supreme Court bench) >>>

_&#8220;It [the university] must show that its regulation is necessary to serve a *compelling state interest *and that it is narrowly drawn to achieve that end.&#8221;_  (Widmar v. Vincent, 454 US 263, 270, 1981)

_&#8220;For the state to enforce a content-based exclusion it must show that its regulation is necessary to serve a *compelling state interest* and that it is narrowly drawn to achieve that end.&#8221;_   (Perry Ed. Assn. v. Perry Local Ed. Assn., 460 US 37, 45, 1983)

_&#8220;The Court of Appeals found the injunction to be content based and neither necessary to serve a *compelling interest* nor narrowly drawn to achieve that end.&#8221;_  (Madsen v. Women&#8217;s Health Center, 512 US __, __, 1994)
_
&#8220;Requiring a State to demonstrate a *compelling interest* and show that it has adopted the least restrictive means of achieving that interest is the most demanding test known to constitutional law.&#8221;_   (City of Boerne v. Flores, 1997 US Lexis 4035, 46)


----------



## Seawytch (Mar 12, 2014)

kaz said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Did you type "Reagan wasn't a big government spender" with a straight face?


----------



## Seawytch (Mar 12, 2014)

elektra said:


> And to add to your comment, if a man does not have the common sense and intelligence not to put his stick in the mud, does that homosexual man have the common sense and intelligence not to tell Children he is a homosexual.
> 
> The answer was given to me when my daughter was 10, in school, when her Homosexual teacher told the whole class that he was breaking up with his "life partner".
> 
> ...



So if a straight teacher told their class they were getting married, having a baby, getting a divorce, etc...no biggie

but if one of "the gheys" does it...the world just ends for you? 

How old are you?


----------



## Seawytch (Mar 12, 2014)

kaz said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Translated: Gays are fine as long as they are quiet and in the closet...as soon as they demand rights equal to Kaz's...oooh, bad, bad gheys.


----------



## GibsonSG (Mar 12, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



"*the right to be belligerent about being gay*"

Well, don't equal rights demand that gays should have the same right as heteros who seem to give themselves the right to be belligerent about gay people?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 12, 2014)

OK, Folks claim homosexuality is a sin.
How many sins are there.
Aren't people supposed to forgive others for their sins? 
Forgiveness in the Bible is a prominent theme. Forgiveness is obedience to God and his COMMAND to forgive.
So how can a Christian legitimately claim "religious freedom" when he does not go by God's command to forgive?
But of course this has nothing to do with Christianity or "religious freedom".
All about folks believing homosexuals are scum and beneath them.


----------



## Seawytch (Mar 12, 2014)

GibsonSG said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Yes, standing up for your rights is called "belligerent" by those that don't want them to have those rights. Uppity has been popular too.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 12, 2014)

One of my clients is a young Republican and he is gay.
And he is a member of the Log Cabin Republicans in Atlanta.
And sports fans, people are taking notice in the Georgia GOP.
Times are changing and fast in the GOP in Georgia, not fast enough but they are.
Slowly but surely we are running off the KOOKS in the party.
Good riddance. We do not want you.


----------



## paperview (Mar 12, 2014)

protectionist said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...


You seem to be confused.

Do you really understand strict scrutiny, _rational basis_ scrutiny and _heightened_ scrutiny?

Word: As Windsor's effects are felt (and we are seeing them near  weekly now) we are now seeing Federal Courts even going beyond the _rational basis "with teeth"_ -- as some have called Windsor, to a Strict Scrutiny in the Virginia ruling.  How these survive, we shall see - but the momentum is certainly building.

And it's not in favor of the anti-gays.


----------



## paperview (Mar 12, 2014)

It appears the protectionist has applied Strict Scrutiny in the opposite direction from what it actually is...

From last months ruling --



> Lately, it seems like every day brings another  falling domino in the fight for marriage freedom. Today's victory comes from Virginia, where a federal judge declared the state's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. The case, _Bostic v. Rainey_,  looks a lot like every other marriage case -- loving and committed  same-sex couples want nothing more than to have their love recognized by  the state.
> 
> Judge  Arenda Wright Allen, a former Judge Advocate General in the Navy and  public defender and an Obama appointee to the federal bench, *declared  Virginia's ban unconstitutional, but took a different path than some  other judges who have recently come to similar conclusions. The decision  concludes that marriage is a fundamental right and, as such,  any ban on fundamental rights has to be evaluated under strict scrutiny.
> 
> ...





> *States cannot restrict fundamental rights, which are rights so important  to what it means to be an American, unless they provide a "compelling  interest" and "narrowly tailor" their actions to result in the least  restriction possible. That is strict scrutiny, and Virginia's arguments  could not even come close.*


Virginia's Gay Marriage Ban Struck Down: Analysis of the Ruling| Gay News | Towleroad


----------



## kaz (Mar 12, 2014)

protectionist said:


> 1.   For his whole 8 years of presidency, the top bracket tax was never less than 91%.  This supported the FBI, the CIA, INS, DEA, all the military, etc.  Reagan lowered this tax to 28%.
> 
> 2.  Eisenhower created the US interstate highway system, while under Reagan's admin, infrastructure was largely ignored.
> 
> ...



I think Reagan's actual policies were more libertarian that conservative.  He paid lip service to socons, but he did nothing for them.  Obviously he did things that were not libertarian, like Lebanon.  But attacking Libya in response to their terrorist attacks targeting Americans, recognizing what a threat a communist government off our shores and dealing with those were good things.  And he wrecked the Soviet Union financially with military spending rather than through actual military engagement.  Tax simplification was as big or bigger impact than the cuts.

The problem is he took one step back from big government, and his predecessors and successors were all going forward, so it was a blip.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Mar 12, 2014)

protectionist said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...




OK, I may have misunderstood.  Of course the government can discriminate if their is a compelling government interest.  But of course there is no compelling government interest in discriminating against gays as a function of government.  Hell, not only does it not have a compelling government interest, it doesn't even rise to the rational basis test standard.

Take for example Colorado's Amendment 2 which attempted to strip equality from homosexuals and leave them with no legal recourse to challenge discrimination, not only at the State level is voided even local laws that attempted to provide legal recourse.  In Romer v. Evans the court stated:

"The Fourteenth Amendment's promise that no person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws must co-exist with the practical necessity that most legislation classifies for one purpose or another, with resulting disadvantage to various groups or persons. Personnel Administrator of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 271- 272 (1979); F. S. Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia, 253 U.S. 412, 415 (1920). We have attempted to reconcile the principle with the reality by stating that, if a law neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class, we will uphold the legislative classification so long as it bears a rational relation to some legitimate end. See, e.g., Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. ___, ___ (1993) (slip op., at 6).

Amendment 2 fails, indeed defies, even this conventional inquiry. First, the amendment has the peculiar property of imposing a broad and undifferentiated disability on a single named group, an exceptional and, as we shall explain, invalid form of legislation. Second, its sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects; *it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests.*"​

Just to reiterate, the court said the the desire to discriminate against homosexuals lacked a rational basis.



>>>>


----------



## kaz (Mar 12, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > You realize "Neocon" has an actual definition.  How does it make sense more than tangentially to Reagan?
> ...



Reagan wasn't a big government spender.  What are you, 12?  If you don't remember the Reagan administration, you should at least learn history, and if you don't, then don't just flaunt your ignorance.

Neocons WANT to spend money.  Reagan viewed the Soviet Union as the biggest threat to humanity and agreed with Tip to trade military for social spending.  Tip also agreed to cut spending three to one for tax increases and just flat out lied to him.

Again, neocon is a word with a definition,  It's not random ideas to word splice.  Libertarians and conservatives can reasonably criticize him for agreeing to domestic spending in exchange for his priority, but that doesn't make him a neocon.   Regarding military, countering the Soviet Union and attacking Libya aren't neocon acts.  What do you have, Granada and Lebanon?  Lebanon he didn't even topple, he just supported the UN in peace keeping.  Grenada was a pimple and clearly motivated by the threat of a communist government off our shores and not nation building.  You're fail, fail if you're arguing Reagan was a neocon.

Now who is a neocon is Obama.  And a classic one.  A big government liberal who fell in love with using military power to install governments he favors.  And no word twisting involved.


----------



## kaz (Mar 12, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



From the liberal dictionary:  Translate:  Making a snarky, politically motivated statement which demonstrates no grasp of the actual point made and just has some tertiary connection to a few of the words used in the statement.

Thanks for translating that for me.


----------



## kaz (Mar 12, 2014)

GibsonSG said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



I don't know what that means, but I advocate the same rules for both.

1)  I oppose all government marriage.

2)  I oppose the death tax for all.

3)  I don't think sex, sex acts, lewd art, ... of any kind should be forced on the public but should be a choice people chose in private.

4)  I think taxes should be flat, or better yet go to the Fair Tax.

5)  I think our laws on paternity and rights like life decisions need to be rethought to eliminate the need for marriage.

6)  I think insurance should be between employers and employees or medical carriers and insureds and not government and anyone.

7)  I think government should treat all it's citizens equally and who you sleep with shouldn't affect your relationship with government.


----------



## kaz (Mar 12, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



You like to make sweeping statements, which nullifies any point you think you're making.  I referred to positive and negative rights.  You're begging the question and not addressing my actual point of the difference.


----------



## elektra (Mar 12, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > And to add to your comment, if a man does not have the common sense and intelligence not to put his stick in the mud, does that homosexual man have the common sense and intelligence not to tell Children he is a homosexual.
> ...


I shared something that happened in my life, I am not sorry that it offends you. 

The teacher I speak of told the ten year old children in the San Juan Capistrano School District that he was a homosexual. 

Instead of addressing the point I make and joining me in a discussion, you ask a hypothetical question about Hetrosexuals as if that justifies the actions of Homosexual Teachers coming out as homosexuals in a class with ten year old children?

I disagree with you, Children should not be taught homosexuality.

I was not disparaging with you, seems a little illogical to respond as such, sort of like homosexuality is illogical as is the unprofessionalism of this Homosexual Teacher discussing the details of his Homosexual life with children.

And seeing how you seem to lack logic and reason I must tell you that last remark above this one is me insulting you, I am suggesting you may be a homosexual, one who lacks logic and reason.


----------



## kaz (Mar 12, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Of course the government can discriminate if their is a compelling government interest.  But of course there is no compelling government interest in discriminating against gays as a function of government.  Hell, not only does it not have a compelling government interest, it doesn't even rise to the rational basis test standard.



I always find that standard amazing.  I care about what's in the people's interest, not what's in government's interest.  Why should government subsidize gay relationships with tax breaks?


----------



## GibsonSG (Mar 12, 2014)

kaz said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Of course the government can discriminate if their is a compelling government interest.  But of course there is no compelling government interest in discriminating against gays as a function of government.  Hell, not only does it not have a compelling government interest, it doesn't even rise to the rational basis test standard.
> ...



So couples you don't like shouldn't be treated as other couples are? Is that the American Way?


----------



## kaz (Mar 12, 2014)

GibsonSG said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Actually, I oppose straight government marriage also, but thanks for playing and have a nice day.  Take some parting loser gifts...


----------



## bodecea (Mar 12, 2014)

kaz said:


> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



What have you actively done in that regard?


----------



## bodecea (Mar 12, 2014)

GibsonSG said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Their American Way.  We saw what that has been like in the "good ole' days" they talk about.


----------



## kaz (Mar 12, 2014)

bodecea said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > GibsonSG said:
> ...



What have you actively done to make gay marriage legal?


----------



## bodecea (Mar 12, 2014)

elektra said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



So...a teacher talking about their divorce to someone (straight marriage) is teaching heterosexuality.   That is what you are saying.


----------



## dblack (Mar 12, 2014)

GibsonSG said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



No couples, no people, have a right to be "treated" in any particular way by others.


----------



## Valiant (Mar 12, 2014)

Harry Dresden said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > TheOldSchool said:
> ...





Harry,  SHAZAM! Captain Marvel and Billy Batson have been my hero(s) all my life.

Just wanted to say that.


----------



## Seawytch (Mar 12, 2014)

bodecea said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > GibsonSG said:
> ...




Nobody that _claims_ they are against "gubmint marriage" has done diddly (except maybe get legally married themselves).


----------



## Seawytch (Mar 12, 2014)

elektra said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...




It is not anymore "inappropriate" for ten year olds to know their teacher is gay than it is to know their teacher is straight. 

I'm suggesting you may be a bigot, one who has never let actual logic get in the way of your emotional response to gay people.


----------



## kaz (Mar 12, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



That wasn't the question.  What have you actively done to further gay marriage?


----------



## Seawytch (Mar 12, 2014)

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...




No, that wasn't Bod's question, that was yours. 

I've donated to marriage equality groups, attended rallies and marches,  donated to candidates with an equality agenda and...oh yeah, got married.


----------



## kaz (Mar 12, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Bodeca's question was what have I done to eliminate marriage, so I asked her what she's done to further gay marriage.  No answer so far.

I don't even get the question, it's from the bull shit liberal bag of tricks.  I think advocating better laws is doing something.  Asking people why we need government marriage and making them think about that is one of the most effective things we can do.  I don't see throwing money at the problem as being more effective.  Liberals love asking that question, then seldom have answers as to what they do to further what they advocate even though they are the ones who are obsessed with asking people they disagree with what they are doing and telling them it's nothing.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 12, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > And to add to your comment, if a man does not have the common sense and intelligence not to put his stick in the mud, does that homosexual man have the common sense and intelligence not to tell Children he is a homosexual.
> ...



How about this, tell the teachers, straight or gay or whatever, to keep their private lives out of the classroom completely.


----------



## Mertex (Mar 12, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Bumberclyde said:
> ...




I don't lie, didn't you say the following?



Quantum Windbag said:


> There is no difference between being gay and being a hunter.



http://www.usmessageboard.com/8722175-post69.html


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 12, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



I prefer my position.

They can say, or do, whatever the fuck they want, as long as they don't force other people to participate in their lives. In return, I can say, or do, whatever the fuck I want, as long as I don't force the gays to participate in my life.

And, no, them dancing naked in the street is not forcing me to participate in their lives anymore than me preaching on the same street is forcing them to participate in mine. In fact, they can dance naked while I preach if they want. I still won't force them to go to church.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 12, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> OK, Folks claim homosexuality is a sin.
> How many sins are there.
> Aren't people supposed to forgive others for their sins?
> Forgiveness in the Bible is a prominent theme. Forgiveness is obedience to God and his COMMAND to forgive.
> ...




I cannot forgive you if you sin against Seawytch, only she can do that.

I do thank you for proving how stupid you are though, it makes it so much easier to mock you.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 12, 2014)

paperview said:


> It appears the protectionist has applied Strict Scrutiny in the opposite direction from what it actually is...
> 
> From last months ruling --
> 
> ...



I love the Virginia ruling, it actually proves how stupid the judge is. I say this despite the fact that she got one thing right, freedom is choice, and any law that takes away choice  takes away freedom.



> A spirited and controversial debate is underway regarding who may enjoy the right marry in the United States of America. America has pursued a journey to mike and keep our citizens free. This journey has never been easy, and at times been painful and poignant. The ultimate exercise of freedom is choice. Our Constitution declares that "all men" are created equal. Surely this means all of us. While ever-vigilant for the wisdom that can come from the voices of the voting public, our courts never long tolerated the perpetuation of laws rooted to unlawful prejudice. One of the judiciary's nobles endeavors is to scrutinize laws that emerge from such roots.



If anyone can show me the part of the Constitution that says that "all men are created equal" I will stop posting on this board.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 12, 2014)

GibsonSG said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Yes.

Fee free to prove otherwise by providing historical examples of everyone treating everyone else exactly the same.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 12, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



I have never in my life voted for anyone that supported government regulation of private relationships. Can you say that you have never voted for anyone who opposed gay marriage? I guess that proves I have done more to oppose straight marriage than you have done to support gay marraige.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 12, 2014)

Mertex said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



I see no reason to deny what I said.

I still get to point out that you lied.



> "In QW's mind "all hunters are gay and all gays are hunters".. "



Should I repeat the question for you? Do I intimidate you so much that your only way of dealing with me is lying?


----------



## Mertex (Mar 12, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



So, let the damn woman not bake an ammo cake.....it won't force you to participate in the lives of neither the woman who bakes the cake nor the couple who wants the cake baked....


----------



## Mertex (Mar 12, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Yeah, where is the lie....you think all gays are hunters and all hunters are gay...the most absurd thing I've ever heard, but then, nobody can point out to you how stupid your comments are.


----------



## Seawytch (Mar 12, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...




Sure. Show the SAME amount of outrage over MRS Smith teaching class...and using the "MRS" part...flaunting her sexuality like that in public. Where's the outrage?


----------



## Seawytch (Mar 12, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...




Cool...as long as we're getting legally married, too...that's great!


----------



## Seawytch (Mar 12, 2014)

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...




We ask the question because that would actually prove your contention. Talking about it only as it relates to gays having equal access to the same legal marriage laws you enjoy, seems like bigotry without any discernible effort to actually get the "government out of marriage"


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 12, 2014)

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



The irony is that Kaz does not understand that s/he is projecting.


----------



## kaz (Mar 12, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Only if she never voted for a Democrat until Obama ... when he ran for his second term ...


----------



## Mertex (Mar 12, 2014)

elektra said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



You seem to have a lot of repressed anger toward homosexuals.  Telling someone that they are homosexual is not teaching them homosexuality.....

And your labeling people that are defending the rights of homosexuals as homosexuals just shows how truly immature you are.


----------



## kaz (Mar 12, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



That's why you need to "translate" for me!!!  Keep digging that hole you're in...


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 12, 2014)

Mertex said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



I am not the one arguing that the government can force people to bake cakes, you are.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 12, 2014)

kaz said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Projection again, Kaz.  Here let me help you out.  Oh,  you want to stay there with your arms folded.  OK.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 12, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



If you own and operate a business in a jurisdiction whose public accommodations laws address sexual orientation, and you refuse to accommodate a gay patron, youll be subject to whatever penalties the law provides, including a lawsuit and being enjoined from discriminating against gay patrons, and appropriately so.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 12, 2014)

Mertex said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



I will take this as a yes.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 12, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Only puppets get outraged.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 12, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Did I finally make my point about you not having a right to a wedding cake?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 12, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



People like you used to make the same arguments about Jim Crow laws and slavery, people like me stood up to the laws because they were wrong.

Which side won again?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 12, 2014)

kaz said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



One can only assume the source of this delusional nonsense is your unwarranted hatred of gay Americans. 

The issue has nothing to do with being left alone, the left demanding anything, or anyone being belligerent. 

The issue only concerns the rights gay Americans have always possessed, the same rights all Americans possess: the right to due process and equal protection of the law. Gay Americans are not seeking new rights, or special rights, nothing could be further from the truth  they seek only recognition of that which theyve always possessed, since before the advent of the Republic: the right to due process and equal protection of the law.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 12, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



Exactly. 

And dont forget to be glad you live in America, and only being denied your civil rights, if you lived in some other country you might be put to death.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 13, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > And to add to your comment, if a man does not have the common sense and intelligence not to put his stick in the mud, does that homosexual man have the common sense and intelligence not to tell Children he is a homosexual.
> ...



You don't seem to get it.  The straight teacher could speak about his normal marriage without exposing the kids to harmful ideas.  No biggie, that's correct.  The minute the queer teacher does, he IS exposing the kids to harmful ideas, and that IS a biggee.
And age has nothing to do with it.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 13, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



And they will continue to be refused those rights due to the fact that they constitute HARM to the American people, especially children, military members, sports athletes, etc.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 13, 2014)

paperview said:


> It appears the protectionist has applied Strict Scrutiny in the opposite direction from what it actually is...
> 
> From last months ruling --
> 
> ...



Looks like you're not understanding what strict scrutinity is all about, or you only want to perceive it when it's used in the pro-queer way.  For your edification, strict scrutiny, and its attachment (compelling interest), are used by 34 states in the USA, in a wide variety of ways.  As a result, queers are denied equal protection of the law in those states, because there, they see a compelling interest to enact those denials, and this has held up for decades.  Click the links to see the results.

https://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/maps-of-state-laws-policies


----------



## KNB (Mar 13, 2014)

The law was vetoed and Jan Brewer won't seek reelection.


----------



## Mertex (Mar 13, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Yes what?  That you are the one that is lying.....or yes, your comments are stupid....either one will do.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 13, 2014)

paperview said:


> It appears the protectionist has applied Strict Scrutiny in the opposite direction from what it actually is...
> 
> From last months ruling --
> 
> ...



  It appears the protectionist has applied Strict Scrutiny in the opposite direction from what YOU THINK it actually is *IN VIRGINIA
*.

Which earns you a big fat SO WHAT ?  So what if Virginia on February 13, 2014, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that Virginia's ban on marriage equality is unconstitutional ? 

  This is ONE STATE out of 34, that deny queers equal protection of the law, based on strict scrutiny and a compelling interest to do so. (the compelling interest being to not allow the state's culture to be turned into a nutjob one to accomodate a bunch of nutjobs).  You could have gone further and cited the Oklahoma ruling, the same.  In both of these two cases the rulings are stayed pending appeal, meaning marriages will not occur immediately in Oklahoma or Virginia.  And it is only upon a pro-queer verdict on appeal that SSM will actually ever occur in these states.  Well, they could appeal it until they turn blue, and it won't do any good. Why not ?  You think this hasn't happened before ?  In numerous other states, this has already been done and the strict scrutiny principle of compelling interest has repeatedly been applied to rule that queers may be denied equal protection of the law, for one primary reason.  Because they are not equal.  Don't believe it ? Click the link, and its list of links, and look at the mass of states that deny queers equal protection in a whole host of ways.

https://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/maps-of-state-laws-policies


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 13, 2014)

Mertex said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



Aren't you the one that claimed that, since you don't live in Arizona, nothing that happens there makes a difference to you?


----------



## protectionist (Mar 13, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Who cares what the state court said ?  This is a lower court ruling (stayed on appeal), which will be overturned, based on the strict scrutiny (compelling interest) principle, as have many of these which have resulted in the USA map being massively a map of discrimination against queers.  Don't think so ?  Click the link, it's link list, and look at the maps for your self.

https://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/maps-of-state-laws-policies

This post is like trying to put the weight of a fly up against the weight of an elephant.  The fly is your feeble Amendment 2 example.  The elephant is the 34 states in the USA which allow discrimination every day against queers, in marriage, adoption, public accomodations, teaching, housing laws, hospital visitation, employment, etc, etc. + the numerous anti-queer laws that exist all over the country*****, firmly resting upon the platform of strict scrutiny's compelling interest to keep homosexuals from establishing their perversion as an acceptable entity in society, which would be harmful to Americans and America, turning it into one big giant nuthouse. 

***** A few examples >>>

 1.  In Alabama, state law dictates that homosexuality is not an acceptable lifestyle: (ALA CODE § 16-40A-2-c8)

2.  According to Arizona law, not only is there nothing positive about being gay, there is no safe way to have homo sex:
       C. No district shall include in its course of study instruction which:
            1. Promotes a homosexual life-style.
            2. Portrays homosexuality as a positive alternative life-style.
            3. Suggests that some methods of sex are safe methods of homosexual sex.  (AZ 15-716C)

3.  Louisiana has a law censoring homosexuality in sex education, but it only applies to &#8220;any sexually explicit materials depicting male or female homosexual activity.&#8221; Given the law&#8217;s emphasis on abstinence from sexual activity outside of marriage and the state&#8217;s ban on same-sex marriage, non-pictorial discussions of homosexuality could probably be considered violations as well.(RS-17-281)

4.  Mississippi law dismisses the possibility that there is any kind of queer sex that is safe, appropriate, or legal:
         (1) Abstinence education shall be the state standard for any sex-related education taught in the public schools. For purposes of this section, abstinence education includes any type of instruction or program which, at an appropriate age: [...]
                (e) Teaches the current state law related to sexual conduct, including forcible rape, statutory rape, paternity establishment, child support and homosexual activity; and
                (f) Teaches that a mutually faithful, monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the only appropriate setting for sexual intercourse.  (37-13-171)

5.   North Carolina law implies that queer sex is inherently unhealthy:   e. Teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous heterosexual relationship in the context of marriage is the best lifelong means of avoiding sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS.  (115C-81)

6.  Oklahoma&#8217;s law focuses specifically on preventing the transmission of the &#8220;AIDS virus&#8221; (HIV), claiming that &#8220;homosexual activity&#8221; is among the causes primarily responsible for contact with it:
        D. AIDS prevention education shall specifically teach students that:
                    1. engaging in homosexual activity, promiscuous sexual activity, intravenous drug use or contact with contaminated blood products is now known to be primarily responsible for contact with the AIDS virus;
                    2. avoiding the activities specified in paragraph 1 of this subsection is the only method of preventing the spread of the virus; (§70 11 103.3)

7.   In South Carolina:
    (5) The program of instruction provided for in this section may not include a discussion of alternate sexual lifestyles from heterosexual relationships including, but not limited to, homosexual relationships except in the context of instruction concerning sexually transmitted diseases.  (South Carolina Code 59-32-30. Local school boards to implement comprehensive health education program; guidelines and restrictions).

8.  Even though it was Texas&#8217;s sodomy law that the Supreme Court struck down over 10 years ago, that law is still part of the state&#8217;s sex education policy:
    (b) The materials in the education programs intended for persons younger than 18 years of age must:
        (1) emphasize sexual abstinence before marriage and fidelity in marriage as the expected standard in terms of public health and the most effective ways to prevent HIV infection, sexually transmitted diseases, and unwanted pregnancies; and
        (2) state that homosexual conduct is not an acceptable lifestyle and is a criminal offense under Section 21.06, Penal Code.

The law also asserts that &#8220;sexual activity before marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical consequences,&#8221; and given that same-sex marriage is banned in Texas, this implies that all gay sex is harmful in such fashion.

9.     Utah law prohibits &#8220;the advocacy of homosexuality.&#8221;  (53A-13-101-AII)

10.    In Florida, lawmakers this year rejected a statewide domestic partnership registry that would have granted health care visitation, among other rights, to same-sex couples. Homo members of the National Guard recently were prohibited from signing up for federal benefits at state buildings. And a Broward County Republican Party leader almost lost her job for voicing support for homosexual marriage. Florida's state constitution continues to define marriage as between a man and a woman, and prohibits gays from adopting children.  
        Florida is also one of nine states that refused to register same-sex spouses of National Guard personnel for health and death benefits, and refuses to issue them identification cards to access military bases.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 13, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Solution:  Move to a better jurisdiction.


----------



## KNB (Mar 13, 2014)

Solution:  Fuck off and take your Bible with you.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Mar 13, 2014)

protectionist said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > OK, I may have misunderstood.  Of course the government can discriminate if their is a compelling government interest.  But of course there is no compelling government interest in discriminating against gays as a function of government.  Hell, not only does it not have a compelling government interest, it doesn't even rise to the rational basis test standard.
> ...




Ummmm...

The case of Romer v. Evans was a *Supreme Court of the United States* case and not a state court decision.  The SCOTUS is the one who defined that under the United States Constitution that laws targeting homosexuals are unconstitutional and as it referred to amendment 2 had no rational basis - let alone needing to rise to strict scrutiny.

Romer v. Evans | LII / Legal Information Institute




*************************


Your opinion that throwing around the words "strict scrutiny" is going to be some kind of magic spell that can be invoked to deny equal treatment under the law for homosexuals is misplaced.  A careful reading of the Romer decision and Windsor v. United States (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf) would - and should - make someone in your position very nervous.  The arguments you propose have and are being shot down.  Not just in the courts mind you, but in the legislatures, and as we saw in the 2012 General Election, with Same-sex Civil Marriage winning at the ballot box as well.


>>>>


----------



## Seawytch (Mar 13, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Goodness no...there is no point to make with bullshit "religious objections" to public accommodation laws. You got the business license, now do the fucking business. If you live in a state that includes gays in public accommodation laws, do business with them or move.

In all 50 states I *must *serve a Christian even if I "object" to their religiosity. Suck it up, Sunshine.


----------



## Seawytch (Mar 13, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



In other words, you have no response to my point. The "outrage" in only if a gay teacher is not closeted.


----------



## kaz (Mar 13, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> One can only assume the source of this delusional nonsense is your unwarranted hatred of gay Americans



If one is a brainless, socialist mouthpiece of the Democratic party who is incapable of comprehending arguments or processing information one one's own, then yes, I suppose one can.


----------



## dr.d (Mar 13, 2014)

I don't really understand what harm is done by a person being openly gay.. American Gays are citizens who pay taxes, vote, fight in our wars, serve as first responders...and fulfill all other responsibilities of citizenship...there is no reason that they should not be entitled to the same protections and rights under our constitution.
Harm in this instance only happens if those who claim harm make it so.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## dblack (Mar 13, 2014)

dr.d said:


> I don't really understand what harm is done by a person being openly gay.. American Gays are citizens who pay taxes, vote, fight in our wars, serve as first responders...and fulfill all other responsibilities of citizenship...there is no reason that they should not be entitled to the same protections and rights under our constitution.
> Harm in this instance only happens if those who claim harm make it so.



I totally agree. The question is: Does not baking someone a cake constitute "harm"? I think once everyone sobers up, the answer is clearly "no".


----------



## Seawytch (Mar 13, 2014)

dblack said:


> dr.d said:
> 
> 
> > I don't really understand what harm is done by a person being openly gay.. American Gays are citizens who pay taxes, vote, fight in our wars, serve as first responders...and fulfill all other responsibilities of citizenship...there is no reason that they should not be entitled to the same protections and rights under our constitution.
> ...




But not baking the cake DOES violate some public accommodation laws.


----------



## dblack (Mar 13, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > dr.d said:
> ...



Right. That's why some of us are calling bullshit on those laws.


----------



## Seawytch (Mar 13, 2014)

dblack said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...




Bullshit is right. Nobody gave a shit about public accommodation laws until they started applying to " the gheys".


----------



## dblack (Mar 13, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



That's not true. Lots of us have. Granted, more are questioning them now as their application is expanded. I suspect every time they add another 'protected class', more people will realize they're a bad idea.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 13, 2014)

dblack said:


> dr.d said:
> 
> 
> > I don't really understand what harm is done by a person being openly gay.. American Gays are citizens who pay taxes, vote, fight in our wars, serve as first responders...and fulfill all other responsibilities of citizenship...there is no reason that they should not be entitled to the same protections and rights under our constitution.
> ...



What harm is there in baking the cake?
We all know the "religious freedom" argument is a bogus one.
There is NO harm in requiring someone to bake a cake and no harm in not baking one.
To me and you because we ARE NOT gay.
But maybe the individual that wanted the cake and saw everyone else get a cake EXCEPT THEM because they are gay felt harmed.
How would you feel if folks treated you like a 2nd class citizen for having red hair?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 13, 2014)

dblack said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Protected class is a made up term with no legal standing that was baked by the religious right.
Was it a "bad idea" to make blacks a "protected class" when they wanted to go to the same schools as whites?
Rights are rights no matter how hard folks want to spin it. 
No one has a right to a cake but everyone has a right to be treated the same.
And other than the ONE CAKE CASE what do we have as violations of "religious freedom"?
Bottom line Chambers of Commerce are pro business and oppose all these stupid "religious freedom" BS laws.
Because they are all frauds.


----------



## dblack (Mar 13, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > dr.d said:
> ...



Right. It's  a "general freedom" (or, more specifically, a "freedom of association") issue. The concept of freedom entails we can do what we like as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. 



> There is NO harm in requiring someone to bake a cake and no harm in not baking one.



And here you turn the concept on it's head - implying that government can require us to do anything as long as it's not 'harming' us. You realize how that is switching things around, right? Sorta like the guilty-until-proven-innocent switch that's going in our courtrooms.



> To me and you because we ARE NOT gay.
> But maybe the individual that wanted the cake and saw everyone else get a cake EXCEPT THEM because they are gay felt harmed.
> How would you feel if folks treated you like a 2nd class citizen for having red hair?



Lot's of us feel harmed when others don't do what we want them to do. But is that really legitimate? Last week, the cute barista at the coffee shop rudely rejected my invitation to lunch. I felt 'harmed'. Should I bring charges?


----------



## dblack (Mar 13, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



You're just flat wrong here. 'Protected class' is a staple of civil rights legislation and a concept of the Court, not the religious right (google it for chrissake). And it's not what you think. 'Blacks' are not a protected class. A protected class is a trait that can't, legally, be used as a justification for discrimination (race, for example). 



> Rights are rights no matter how hard folks want to spin it.
> No one has a right to a cake but everyone has a right to be treated the same.



Good grief. Really?? You think everyone has a right to be treated the same? Hmm.. well, I saw that barista say 'yes' to the next guy who asked her out. Guess I should sue, eh?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 13, 2014)

dblack said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Why do you not apply the SAME standards and critique to those that claim their "religious freedom" was denied?

That is the subject. That was the law that was passed in AZ.
Respectfully, nothing at all to do with what you are talking about.


----------



## dblack (Mar 13, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Because, as several of us here have observed, the AZ law wasn't attempting to address any specific harm, religious or otherwise - it was a political challenge against the precedents set by standing civil rights legislation. I agree that the law submitted to make that challenge was flawed, because it too narrowly focused on religious freedom instead of the broader issue (probably because the backers believed that gave them a better chance of success, I dunno). But I wholeheartedly agree with the spirit of the challenge. Public accommodations laws and protected classes are a perversion of the concept of 'rights' and need to be addressed as such.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 13, 2014)

dblack said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Civil Rights Legislation IS LAW.
The religious right harps on "protected class" while ignoring THE LAW.
We are a nation of LAWS, not men and their varying and changing like the wind religious beliefs.
The Arizona law and ALL proposed laws on "religious freedom" are based on RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 13, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> OK, Folks claim homosexuality is a sin.



Really?

I've not seen that as an argument here.



> How many sins are there.
> Aren't people supposed to forgive others for their sins?
> Forgiveness in the Bible is a prominent theme. Forgiveness is obedience to God and his COMMAND to forgive.
> So how can a Christian legitimately claim "religious freedom" when he does not go by God's command to forgive?
> ...



So again we get to the root of your opposition, and SURPRISE, it's anti-Christian bigotry.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 13, 2014)

dblack said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Someone like you that is objective and level headed can be negotiated with.
Problem is that is not what we have in either partisan political party now.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 13, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > OK, Folks claim homosexuality is a sin.
> ...



You claim that I an anti Christian?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 13, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> You claim that I an anti Christian?



Extremely.

Oh, and I did NOT say you were stupid - and have said the opposite on many occasions.

I said your ARGUMENT was stupid.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 13, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > You claim that I an anti Christian?
> ...



Not anti Christian.
Anti those that wear a Big C on their hat and have to go around every second of the day telling everyone else how they are not Christian enough, anti Christian and ONLY THEY are real Christians.
If you are truly a Christian you never have to tell anyone or judge anyone else's beliefs.
They will know it by your ACTIONS.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Mar 13, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...




"Although majorities in both parties voted for the bill, there were notable exceptions. Though he opposed forced segregation,[36] Republican Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona voted against the bill, remarking, "You can't legislate morality." Goldwater had supported previous attempts to pass civil rights legislation in 1957 and 1960 as well as the 24th Amendment outlawing the poll tax. He stated that the reason for his opposition to the 1964 bill was Title II, which in his opinion violated individual liberty and states' rights."  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964)

Title II were the Federal Public Accommodation law provisions.


So ya, some then did oppose those provisions.


>>>>


----------



## Mertex (Mar 13, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



That's right, I didn't travel to Arizona to protest it....however, that doesn't mean I can't comment on how stupid that law was and that I'm glad it was struck down.

Weren't you the one that claimed to love the Constitution?  Why are you okay with a law that would go against it?


----------



## hunarcy (Mar 13, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Careful...she'll lie about you, then call you names, then start sending you private messages until you put her on ignore and then she'll threaten to report you for harassing HER.  She'll NEVER make an honest argument...at least that was my experience before I put her on ignore


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 13, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Not anti Christian.
> Anti those that wear a Big C on their hat and have to go around every second of the day telling everyone else how they are not Christian enough, anti Christian and ONLY THEY are real Christians.
> If you are truly a Christian you never have to tell anyone or judge anyone else's beliefs.
> They will know it by your ACTIONS.



LOL

Me? I'm an agnostic. I have no idea if there is a god. I DO know that if there is one, it isn't some cosmic goat herder.


----------



## hunarcy (Mar 13, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Not anti Christian.
> ...



Maybe God likes goats.  

I'd just like someone to explain how the eye accidently evolved.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 13, 2014)

hunarcy said:


> Maybe God likes goats.
> 
> I'd just like someone to explain how the eye accidently evolved.



There is nothing "accidental" about evolution.


----------



## hunarcy (Mar 13, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> There is nothing "accidental" about evolution.



I don't see an explanation.  If you can't live up to the challenge, you don't have to post to prove it.


----------



## dblack (Mar 13, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe God likes goats.
> ...



There are some really cool theories for this. I'm sure Google can help you find some. But that's all we'll ever really have. However it happened, it happened.


----------



## hunarcy (Mar 13, 2014)

dblack said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > hunarcy said:
> ...




The theories do a great job at addressing why...not so much on how.


----------



## Seawytch (Mar 13, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...




Yeah...the guy that lost in an historic trouncing.


----------



## dblack (Mar 13, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Well, rather obviously, the people opposed to this stuff lost. But your claim that nobody cared until gays were included isn't exactly true.

Here's the thing (and liberals actually used to get this): defending liberty almost always means standing up for people you'd probably rather not associate with. Because it's always their liberty that gets targeted first. So people who care about freedom of speech find themselves defending pornographers. People defending freedom of religion, weird cults. And people defending freedom of association get stuck with the racists and bigots. 

But like all those areas, if we don't protect the freedoms of people we disagree with, those freedoms will vanish for all of us. And we'll miss them.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 13, 2014)

hunarcy said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > There is nothing "accidental" about evolution.
> ...



This isn't a thread on evolution. And I think you may be confusing the origin of life with evolution. 

But for the eye, consider that early adaptations included the ability to detect radiation the ability to detect photons, intensity, spectrum, etc. developing slowly, one ability leading to the next. It was no accident that rods and cones developed, they were an improvement on earlier models, which in turn were improvements on even earlier models. One improvement building on the next.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 13, 2014)

KNB said:


> Solution:  Fuck off and take your Bible with you.



I don't have a bible, and have never owned one in all of my 67 years.  Never actually read the book either.  Got any other brilliant suggestions ?


----------



## protectionist (Mar 13, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



This is not only flat-out wrong, it is nothing more than propagandist NONSENSE.  If it had an ounce of credibility, I wouldn't have been able to state all the facts that I did in Post # 2896.  But I did state them, didn't I ?  And they are the facts, aren't they ?  And they will remain the facts, won't they ?  That's a rhetorical question, I'll answer it. OF COURSE THEY WILL, because as in Florida, where queer rights bills don't stand a chance, all over the country, queers continue to be discriminated against by virtue of the various states' compelling interest to do so.  If you wish to pretend this isn't so, you can do that. No law against coming in here and making a fool out of yourself.

  The one thing you can't do is change reality *>> * https://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/maps-of-state-laws-policies

Actually, I needed to do nothing more than just post *this link*.


----------



## hunarcy (Mar 13, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



And I think some folks are spinning your wheels trying to attack the religious for their beliefs.  Instead of attacking them, you should be trying to understand them while working to convince them that there's no threat to their religious beliefs.  But, many would rather just belittle them for believing differently than the attackers believe.

And again, you did a great job of explaining why it happened, but not how.  (and how can you say the eye developed slowly, but was apparently developed during the second BILLION years of the Earth?)


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 13, 2014)

protectionist said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> > Solution:  Fuck off and take your Bible with you.
> ...


Never read the Bible?  In a Western nation that is a serious sin, pun intended.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 13, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



1.  Do convicted criminals have a right to be treated the same as law abiding people ?

2.  Do those in mental institutions have a right to be treated the same as sane people ?

3.  Do people with bad credit have a right to be treated the same as those with good credit ?

4.  Do children have a right to be treated the same as adults ?

5.  Do people with DUI convictions have same rights as those with clean driving records ?

6.  Do people with poor vision have the the same right to a driving license as those with good vision ?

States observe these with strict scrutiny, and have a compelling interest to discriminate, which is exactly what they do.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 13, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > KNB said:
> ...



Just a sign of abject ignorance - expected from democrats.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 13, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...


Democrats often know the Bible.  Some of them even live parts of it.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 13, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > dr.d said:
> ...



Having red hair does not constitute harm.  Sexual perversion does.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 13, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Democrats often know the Bible.  Some of them even live parts of it.



The Sodom and Gomorrah parts!


----------



## protectionist (Mar 13, 2014)

dr.d said:


> I don't really understand what harm is done by a person being openly gay.. American Gays are citizens who pay taxes, vote, fight in our wars, serve as first responders...and fulfill all other responsibilities of citizenship...there is no reason that they should not be entitled to the same protections and rights under our constitution.
> Harm in this instance only happens if those who claim harm make it so.



This is unquestionably one of the dumbest posts I've seen in a long time (unless the poster is lying).  Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're being truthful, how can you possibly not see the harm from openly queer behavior.  I've stated it 100 times in this thread.  Are you reading it ?  Good grief.  How foolish can anyone be ?


----------



## protectionist (Mar 13, 2014)

dblack said:


> dr.d said:
> 
> 
> > I don't really understand what harm is done by a person being openly gay.. American Gays are citizens who pay taxes, vote, fight in our wars, serve as first responders...and fulfill all other responsibilities of citizenship...there is no reason that they should not be entitled to the same protections and rights under our constitution.
> ...



I totally DISagree.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 13, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Democrats often know the Bible.  Some of them even live parts of it.
> ...


Lot and his daughters.  Cain and Able.  Water into Wine.  Hagar on the side.  Pick your poison.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Mar 13, 2014)

protectionist said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



You said the ruling was a lower court ruling, stayed on appeal and will be overturned.


Psst - the case (and link provided) was to the United States Supreme Court, please explain how a SCOTUS ruling is stayed and appealed and what court in the Judaical Branch will overturn their ruling.

Then explain what else I was wrong about please.  Have the legislatures not passed Same-sex Civil Marriage?  Did SSCM not win at the ballot box in the 2012 General Election in 4 States (Washington, Maine, and Maryland voting directly to allow SSCM and in Minnesota a ban being defeated - which led to the legislature passing it a few months later).


>>>>


----------



## Bombur (Mar 13, 2014)

protectionist said:


> dr.d said:
> 
> 
> > I don't really understand what harm is done by a person being openly gay.. American Gays are citizens who pay taxes, vote, fight in our wars, serve as first responders...and fulfill all other responsibilities of citizenship...there is no reason that they should not be entitled to the same protections and rights under our constitution.
> ...



Your bigotry is far more harmful than two grown gay guys loving each other.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 13, 2014)

dblack said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



You might be.  I'm not.

https://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/public-accomodations_3-2014.pdf


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 13, 2014)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=493pL_Vbtnc]YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 13, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



For the record, the point here is that laws fuck people over, sometimes in ways that are unintentional. All religious freedom statutes do is give people one way of doing something about it, it is hardly the only way of getting around absurd laws. 

By the way, you are wrong in your assertion that all states require you to serve Christians if you object to their religion. The fact is that most states allow you, or anyone else, who has a sincere objection to a law to opt out of obeying that law on the grounds that it violates your personal beliefs. That triggers a process whereby the state, or someone who is personally upset by the fact that they can't control you. All this bill did was clarify exactly what grounds a person has to meet to successfully defend themselves from the state, the rest is up to a judge.

Which begs the question, are you really so afraid that your personal beliefs are so indefensible that the only way you are willing to risk anything is by forcing the government to impose them on everyone else?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 13, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



I never claimed to be outraged by that, did I? I just proposed an alternative way of approaching the situation, keep all private teacher shit out of the classroom. Classrooms are there to educate the children, not to allow teachers to get free labor for their parties.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 13, 2014)

dr.d said:


> I don't really understand what harm is done by a person being openly gay.. American Gays are citizens who pay taxes, vote, fight in our wars, serve as first responders...and fulfill all other responsibilities of citizenship...there is no reason that they should not be entitled to the same protections and rights under our constitution.
> Harm in this instance only happens if those who claim harm make it so.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com



I really don't understand why you think this is insightful.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 13, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > dr.d said:
> ...



Let me see if I understand your position; it is against the law, therefore everyone who disagrees is wrong. 
Did that sum it up?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 13, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...




Which explains your complete ignorance. I posted this particular example long before anyone used a public accommodation law to force people to attend weddings.

Some Strange Consequences of Public Accommodations Laws | The Volokh ConspiracyThe Volokh Conspiracy


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 13, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > dr.d said:
> ...



The only thing we all know is that...

Actually, there is nothing we all know.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 13, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



That explains why Clayton, the self declared expert on the law, keeps telling me that Nazis aren't a protected class.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 13, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



He does.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 13, 2014)

dblack said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



It was not.

It was actually an attempt to bring Arizona law into line with federal law.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 13, 2014)

Mertex said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



So, you lied?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 13, 2014)

hunarcy said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



Sounds like fun.


----------



## GibsonSG (Mar 14, 2014)

Homophobes lost again. Everyone move along, nothing left to see here.


----------



## dblack (Mar 14, 2014)

GibsonSG said:


> Homophobes lost again. Everyone move along, nothing left to see here.



Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 14, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Democrats often know the Bible.  Some of them even live parts of it.
> ...



You lose all credibility with ignorant statements like that.
My father was a WWII Marine officer and then was called back for service for Korea as he was in Ithaca NY getting his PHD at Cornell.
So off he goes and leads troops at the landing at Inchon. 
4 kids later he retires after a career in education where part of it was working for the College Entrance Examination Board. His job there when he started?
He as part of a 3 man team the College Board were sent to high schools in the south in the 60s that refused to allow blacks to take the SAT. I
So Dad and his College Board associates would say of blacks could not take it no student there could. Believe that to be a dangerous job? 
Dad voted for many Republicans, Nixon twice as he did not like Johnson or Kennedy and also many  Democrats. He died voting mostly for Democrats.
As many in my family that traces their roots to when we came here in 1670.
Love thy neighbor is in the Bible. He practiced it.
And all the Democrats I know also do.
Please take down your childish and offensive post.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 14, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



It was not.
That could have easily been done.


----------



## GibsonSG (Mar 14, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...


I bet he practised "an eye for an eye" also.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 14, 2014)

GibsonSG said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


With the Japanese and North Koreans he did.
A few weeks before he died he finally told someone, me, of what they had to do on Saipan to flush the Japanese out of the caves and he also told of how the North Korean communists bayoneted young children and then hung them up for show in the towns they took. 
Real world.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 14, 2014)

Bombur said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > dr.d said:
> ...



Stop pretending that your critics are "bigots".. You'll get nowhere with the bigot card.  So I ask you again >> how can you possibly not see the harm from openly queer behavior ?  If you really need to have someone lay it all out here for you I'll do that.  I suspect that you know damn well what I'm talking about though.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 14, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Thanks so much for sharing that with us. You get some kind of sick kick ?


----------



## Bombur (Mar 14, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



Do you need me to lay out how your bigotry is harmful? 

Bigots like you are hopeless cases. You have also already lost.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 14, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



As I look at the Statewide Marriage Prohibitions map, these 4 states were not part of the states with prohibitions in the first place (all are shown in white), so nothing much changed there.  Even with those states elections, almost the entire map of the US is in red with constitutional amendments restricting marriage to one man and one woman, or in gray with laws restricting marriage to one man and one woman.  So goody gumdrops for those 4 states.  Yeah, I guess they have SSM in Denmark and Sweden too.  Ho hum.  Yawn ****

"The ruling" ???  In Post # 2894, I mentioned 2 cases (in Virginia & Oklahoma) where they were stayed on appeal.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Mar 14, 2014)

protectionist said:


> As I look at the Statewide Marriage Prohibitions map, these 4 states were not part of the states with prohibitions in the first place (all are shown in white), so nothing much changed there.



Wrong again, prior to the General Election of 2012 each of those states did have prohibitions against Same-sex Civil Marriage, that is what the ballot changed.  If SSCM was already allowed in those states then why have a ballot to not change the law?  That makes no sense.

That Maine for example, in 2009 they passed a ballot initiative to BAN SSCM, the 2012 vote repealed that ban and provided FOR SSCM.  So ya things did change.





protectionist said:


> "The ruling" ???  In Post # 2894, I mentioned 2 cases (in Virginia & Oklahoma) where they were stayed on appeal.





protectionist said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > OK, I may have misunderstood.  Of course the government can discriminate if their is a compelling government interest.  But of course there is no compelling government interest in discriminating against gays as a function of government.  Hell, not only does it not have a compelling government interest, it doesn't even rise to the rational basis test standard.
> ...




Nice try, but no.  You were responding in Post #2896 to my post #2843 where I even cited the Case State (Colorado) and the case Name (Romer v. Evans).  Your post in #2894 was not to anything I said, now you are just trying to cover your ass.



>>>>


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 14, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> You lose all credibility with ignorant statements like that.



Of course, because um, well, yeah...



> My father was a WWII Marine officer and then was called back for service for Korea as he was in Ithaca NY getting his PHD at Cornell.



How very lovely...



> So off he goes and leads troops at the landing at Inchon.
> 4 kids later he retires after a career in education where part of it was working for the College Entrance Examination Board. His job there when he started?
> He as part of a 3 man team the College Board were sent to high schools in the south in the 60s that refused to allow blacks to take the SAT. I
> So Dad and his College Board associates would say of blacks could not take it no student there could. Believe that to be a dangerous job?
> ...



The democratic party of today is a shameful and honorless institution. 

And you know it.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 14, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > As I look at the Statewide Marriage Prohibitions map, these 4 states were not part of the states with prohibitions in the first place (all are shown in white), so nothing much changed there.
> ...


Nice try yourself.  If the Virginia & Oklahoma cases (Feb. 2014) can be stayed on appeal, then apparently the SCOTUS ruling you mentioned isn't quite what you said it is, now is it  ?  And the statewide marriage prohibitions map (shown in the link below) is also up to date (Feb. 19, 2014)

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2011/03/...-hold-onto-laws-defining-gay-conduct-illegal/

https://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/marriage_prohibitions_3-2014.pdf

And I was not wrong, because when I said "in the first place" I was referring to my first posting of the statewide marriage prohibitions map in this thread.  From that, nothing's changed, and even with these 4 elections, we still have 33 states with prohibitions.  A lot more red and gray on that map than white.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Mar 14, 2014)

protectionist said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



The case is exactly what I said it was.  Romer v. Evans is a case where Colorado tried to target homosexuals, the case went to SCOTUS, the SCOTUS ruled the law unconstitutional based on the application of the 14th Amendment.


>>>>>


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 14, 2014)

The General doesn't read the Bible or have a faith apparently but he's still highly homophobic?  I wonder if he just can't get past the sex issue to see the rights issue?


----------



## GibsonSG (Mar 14, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...


Ok, lay it out for me why openly gay behaviour is harmful.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 14, 2014)

GibsonSG said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Bombur said:
> ...




He can't get tickets to the Lady Gaga concert because the gays sold it out.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 14, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



That was in 1996.  Since then >>  States with constitutional amendments restricting marriage to one man and one woman
(29 states):
Alabama (2006), Alaska (1998), Arizona (2008), Arkansas (2004), Colorado (2006), Florida (2008), Georgia (2004), Idaho (2006), Kansas (2005), Kentucky (2004), Louisiana (2004), Michigan (2004), Mississippi (2004), Missouri (2004), Montana (2004), Nebraska (2000), Nevada (2002), North Carolina (2012), North Dakota (2004), Ohio (2004), Oklahoma (2004), Oregon (2004), South Carolina (2006), South Dakota (2006), Tennessee (2006), Texas (2005), Utah (2004), Virginia (2006) and Wisconsin (2006).

In addition:
States with law restricting marriage to one man and one woman
(4 states): Indiana, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Wyoming.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 14, 2014)

GibsonSG said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Bombur said:
> ...



1. Queers actively try to recruit children to adopt their sick, perverted lifestyle > HARM.

2. No heterosexual wants to share a shower with a queer. > HARM.

3. No heterosexual football player wants to be grabbed and tackled by any queer > HARM.

4. Few heterosexuals are not disgusted by the sight to 2 guys kissing each on the lips (or worse) > HARM.

5. Queers have spread AIDS. Only 2% of US population is queer, yet they account for 61% of AIDS > HARM. ("Men who have sex with men remain the group most heavily affected by new HIV infections." Center for Disease Control)

6. "A new study in the United Kingdom has revealed that homosexuals are about 50% more likely to suffer from depression and engage in substance abuse than the rest of the population, reports Health24.com....the risk of suicide jumped over 200% if an individual had engaged in a homosexual lifestyle...the lifespan of a homosexual is on average 24 years shorter than that of a heterosexual.

7. Relatives of homosexuals are hurt emotionally by the loved ones being queer. > HARM

8. Breast cancer is higher among lesbians and bisexual women than heterosexual women. > HARM

9. The incidence of domestic violence is almost twice as high among queer "men" as it is among heterosexual men. > HARM

This is a significant but still only partial list.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 14, 2014)

protectionist said:


> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...


Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I trust you on all of that.  How would you deal with the "queer" problem?


----------



## protectionist (Mar 14, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> The General doesn't read the Bible or have a faith apparently but he's still highly homophobic?  I wonder if he just can't get past the sex issue to see the rights issue?



Rights issue >>  The right of sex pervert loons (2% of America) to engage in activities that can spread their sexual perversion, versus the 98% of America who wish to protect themselves from this cancerous insanity.  Yeah, I see it.  

PS - there's no such thing as "homophobic", and the use of that FALSE word is an offense against those of us who have real phobias.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 14, 2014)

protectionist said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > The General doesn't read the Bible or have a faith apparently but he's still highly homophobic?  I wonder if he just can't get past the sex issue to see the rights issue?
> ...


Oh you fear them alright General, irrationally.


----------



## GibsonSG (Mar 14, 2014)

protectionist said:


> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



1. No, they don't.
2. Absurd statement.
3. See 2.
4. Just stop thinking about it. 
5. Gays only spread aids to other gays, so no harm to heterosexuals.
6. Even if true, no harm to heteros.
7. No.
8. Not relevant to sexual behaviour.
9. Gays beat each other up more than straight guys get into fights? Um... No.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 14, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > GibsonSG said:
> ...



For starters, they be banned from all teaching positions, all coaching, all clergy, all public official jobs, and anything dealing with kids.

Secondly, SSM would be banned in all 50 states.  All employment, housing, public accomodations, adoption, and hate crimes laws protecting queers would be repealed.

Open displays of homosexuality would be banned.

Queers would be banned from the military, all contact sports (tennis might be OK).

All media communication supporting homosexuality would be banned as violations of US Code 2384 (Seditious Conspiracy)

Sodomy would be banned.

All homosexual activity private or public would be banned.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 14, 2014)

protectionist said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...


Sodomy banned?  But blowjobs are like flowers for men!  The wife knows that's an easy way to get me to take her out to dinner, anyway, that's going to be a lot of criminal activity to deal with eh?  How would you like these guys to make a living, or are you planning to put them all in prison or ship them to an remote island?  What if they pretend to be straight, can they have a job then, a house maybe, a dog?


----------



## GibsonSG (Mar 14, 2014)

protectionist said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



You'd be really happy living in Saudi Arabia.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 14, 2014)

GibsonSG said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...


Men hold hands there.  Never happen.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 14, 2014)

General-Approved Real Men sports.  Not that queer gross stuff.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 14, 2014)

GibsonSG said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > GibsonSG said:
> ...



Oh. you thought you could come right in here and refute me , huh  ?  

1.  OF COURSE THEY DO, and everyone knows it.  Stop talking stupid.
In 2011, internet journalist Daniel Villarreal advocated queer acceptance by writing: "I and a lot of other people want to indoctrinate, recruit, teach, and expose children to queer sexuality AND THERE&#8217;S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT." (^ Villarreal, Daniel (May 12, 2011). "Can We Please Just Start Admitting That We Do Actually Want To Indoctrinate Kids?". Queerty. Archived from the original on June 26, 2013. Retrieved June 26, 2013.)
http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=9797
   There was a pro-homosexual teacher/teen 'Teach Out' held at Tufts University in Boston in March 2004, that outraged concerned citizens.   During the Teach Out, state HIV instructors taught teenagers how to engage in queer, deviant, sex acts, and they also taught teachers how to indoctrinate children into accepting homosexuality as normal. ( "Let's End Taxpayer Supported Homosexual Recruitment Programs In Public Schools". Traditional Values Coalition. Archived from the original on 1 November 2005.)
   In her WorldNetDaily piece, "GLSEN and the Hitler Youth", Judith Reisman also expressed concern that groups such as GLSEN are cover for recruitment of children, saying "Under color of a 'Safe Schools Movement' battling alleged 'bullying' of so-called 'gay' children (K-12), some see GLSEN as a modern version of the Hitler Youth and as preparing the ground for a larger, sweeping, schoolroom Youth Brigade."

http://equalitymatters.org/blog/201310080005
http://pfox.org/recruited.html
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8dd_1353468758
http://culturecampaign.blogspot.com/2011/04/gay-recruitment-of-kids-obamas-czar.html
http://www.theonion.com/articles/98-homosexualrecruitment-drive-nearing-goal,536/


2.  Your statement calling it absurd is what is absurd.  When I was in the military, if the guys would have suspected anyone in the barracks was queer, that "guy" would have been on his way back home in 5 minutes.  Same thing today.

3.  For you to call this absurd is beyond absurd.  it's BIZARRE.  You are deranged.

4.  I'll think about anything I choose to think about.  Imposing queer sex upon the public's eyes is unacceptable, and should be illegal.  In many places it is.

5.  Harm is harm whether to queers or heteros.  And what harms the queer, harms his family members also.

6.  Same as 5.

7.  OF COURSE they are (you're making this too easy for me)

8.  It could only be related to homosexual behavior.  There could be no other explanation. (Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, glma.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=feature.showFeature&FeatureID=319&E:\ColdFusion9\verity\Data\dummy.txt)

9.  Um..yes. (Gwat Yong Lie and Sabrina Gentlewarrier, "Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications," Journal of Social Service Research 15 (1991): 41&#8211;59." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)


----------



## Bombur (Mar 14, 2014)

So to summarize the bigot argument...


----------



## GibsonSG (Mar 14, 2014)

protectionist said:


> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



Ok, you're a fucking gay-obsessed lunatic. Got it. Carry on.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 14, 2014)

GibsonSG said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > GibsonSG said:
> ...


Now don't get him upset.  He's the Mad Max of his retirement community, in his camouflage golf cart, twin American flags waving proudly as zips past you on Faggot Patrol, which just by chance also happens to be his favorite TV show.


----------



## GibsonSG (Mar 14, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Oh. you thought you could come right in here and refute me , huh  ?
> 
> 1.  OF COURSE THEY DO, and everyone knows it.  Stop talking stupid.
> 
> ...


1. No, they don't. Pedophiles do.
2. Absurd statement. The military allowed gays in, you showered with some. 
3. Speculation at best.
4. Just stop thinking about it. So you're against "land of the free"? Not free for gays?
5. Gays only spread aids to other gays, so no harm to heterosexuals. heteros get it as well.
6. That website also had an article titled: Eminent Psychiatrist Says Homosexuality is a Disorder that Can be Cured. 
7. No, only homophobes are affected.
8. Not relevant to sexual behaviour. Unless you're talking about the plastic in a plastic cock leeching into their bodies. 
9. Gays beat each other up more than straight guys get into fights? Um... No. Heteros beat their women up way more, that's why they have all the women's shelters and no/not many gay ones.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 14, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> General-Approved Real Men sports.  Not that queer gross stuff.



Approved as long as heterosexuals are doing it, non-sexually.  But when queers get into it.  Well......just don't let them do that.  Or you'll be sorry.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 14, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



Sounds like all good ideas, albiet a bit too mild.  I'd prefer going around in the back of a pick-up truck (Confederate flag license plate), and just sweeping them up with a large net shot out from an Army rocket launcher,  Then hauling them off to jail on obscenity charges (for starters) Bwa ha ha ha ha ha  (Burt Reynolds laugh) 

http://oi44.tinypic.com/29apboi.jpg


----------



## dblack (Mar 14, 2014)

protectionist said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > General-Approved Real Men sports.  Not that queer gross stuff.
> ...



Actually I won't care. Methinks thou doth protest too much.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 14, 2014)

GibsonSG said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Oh. you thought you could come right in here and refute me , huh  ?
> ...



1.  In 2011, internet journalist Daniel Villarreal advocated queer acceptance by writing: "I and a lot of other people want to indoctrinate, recruit, teach, and expose children to queer sexuality AND THERES NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT." (^ Villarreal, Daniel (May 12, 2011). "Can We Please Just Start Admitting That We Do Actually Want To Indoctrinate Kids?". Queerty. Archived from the original on June 26, 2013. Retrieved June 26, 2013.)
Gay activist admits gays really do want to recruit children :: Northern Colorado Gazette
There was a pro-homosexual teacher/teen 'Teach Out' held at Tufts University in Boston in March 2004, that outraged concerned citizens. During the Teach Out, state HIV instructors taught teenagers how to engage in queer, deviant, sex acts, and they also taught teachers how to indoctrinate children into accepting homosexuality as normal. ( "Let's End Taxpayer Supported Homosexual Recruitment Programs In Public Schools". Traditional Values Coalition. Archived from the original on 1 November 2005.)
In her WorldNetDaily piece, "GLSEN and the Hitler Youth", Judith Reisman also expressed concern that groups such as GLSEN are cover for recruitment of children, saying "Under color of a 'Safe Schools Movement' battling alleged 'bullying' of so-called 'gay' children (K-12), some see GLSEN as a modern version of the Hitler Youth and as preparing the ground for a larger, sweeping, schoolroom Youth Brigade."

Robert Oscar Lopez: Gay Activists Are Violent, &ldquo;Recruit Children Into Homosexuality&rdquo; | Equality Matters
PFOX - Recruited
LiveLeak.com - Homosexuals Admit they Recruit Children!
http://culturecampaign.blogspot.com/...amas-czar.html
http://www.theonion.com/articles/98-...ring-goal,536/

2.  I showered with one for 10 seconds.  We found out he was queer, and sent him back to Teaneck, NJ, tarred & feathered.  Yeah those pillowxases had a lot of good feathers.  Bwa ha ha h aha ha.

3. Not hardly.

4.     I'll think about anything I choose to think about.  Imposing queer sex upon the public's eyes is unacceptable, and should be illegal.  In many places it is.

5.   Harm is harm whether to queers or heteros.  And what harms the queer, harms his family members also.

6.  So what ?

7.  No such thing as "homophobe".  That's already been explained .  Try to keep up.

8.  (Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, glma.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=feature.showFeature&FeatureID=319&E:\ColdFusion9\verity\Data\dummy.txt)

9.  (Gwat Yong Lie and Sabrina Gentlewarrier, "Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications," Journal of Social Service Research 15 (1991): 4159." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)[/quote]


----------



## protectionist (Mar 14, 2014)

dblack said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



What you really think is I don't protest enough.  Bwa ha ha ha ha http://oi44.tinypic.com/29apboi.jpg


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 14, 2014)

protectionist said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...


Ah the changes we've seen eh General?  And now the gays are just like everyone else, but  better dressed.  Life is just full of surprises eh?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Mar 14, 2014)

protectionist said:


> '98 Homosexual-Recruitment Drive Nearing Goal | The Onion - America's Finest News Source










This guy doesn't even know what The Onion is.




>>>>>


----------



## Statistikhengst (Mar 14, 2014)

protectionist said:


> paintmyhouse said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



*sieg protectionist! 

Sieg protectionist!*


----------



## dblack (Mar 14, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > '98 Homosexual-Recruitment Drive Nearing Goal | The Onion - America's Finest News Source
> ...



i was going to post that earlier in the thread. A classic Onion bit.


----------



## GibsonSG (Mar 14, 2014)

protectionist said:


> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...


[/QUOTE]

1, 6, 8 & 9. Your sources are laughable. 
2. Did you at least do a reach-around? 
3. Link please.
4. Not in free countries is being gay illegal. Maybe you should move.
5. Affects family members sure, but doesn't harm them. Buy a dictionary.
7. Homophobe is a real word, look it up in your new dictionary.


----------



## Mertex (Mar 14, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



No, you lied.  You claim to love the Constitution but yet you continue to defend bills that tend to shred it.....or the politicians that try to shred it.....


----------



## Mertex (Mar 14, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



hunarcy is whining because he kept sending me @mentions....and when I told him to stop, he told me didn't have to....so I put him on ignore, and he can't send me any more mentions or I'll report his ass.....and he whines about it....  And, he is lying...I don't call people names, I just tell them when I think they are posting stupid stuff....like he was.
What a cry-baby he is.


----------



## Mertex (Mar 14, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...




You still don't get it, do you.....?  It was going against the Civil Rights Act.....maybe you better go read it again.


----------



## Mertex (Mar 14, 2014)

protectionist said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



Obviously you've never had a bj, no wonder you are so uptight.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 14, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



"Gays" just like everyone else ?  Who ? Hah ?  Wha ?  

*Kids, this is why you should not do drugs!
*


----------



## protectionist (Mar 14, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > '98 Homosexual-Recruitment Drive Nearing Goal | The Onion - America's Finest News Source
> ...



Doesn't matter what it is.  All that matters is the content of the link does what I want it to do.  I use links from all perspectives, as long as they make the point.  You couldn't figure that out ?  http://oi44.tinypic.com/29apboi.jpg


----------



## protectionist (Mar 14, 2014)

Mertex said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Any  rationale but the real one, huh ?  Par for the course.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 14, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > paintmyhouse said:
> ...



You're the one wanting to impose your will on society.  No need to remove your swastika tattoo.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Mar 14, 2014)

protectionist said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...




Just so ya know...

"The Onion" isn't "another perspective".  The Onion is a satire site poking fun by publishing bogus outlandish fictional stories.  When someone posts a link to The Onion and they think it's real "news" - well - they make themselves look like a goober.


>>>>


----------



## dblack (Mar 14, 2014)

WorldWatcher said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



In this case, they're making fun of YOU, protectionist - the article specifically mocks those who imagine that there's a 'gay agenda' to recruit young people to their ranks.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 14, 2014)

GibsonSG said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > GibsonSG said:
> ...



1, 6, 8 & 9. Your sources are laughable. 
2. Did you at least do a reach-around? 
3. Link please.
4. Not in free countries is being gay illegal. Maybe you should move.
5. Affects family members sure, but doesn't harm them. Buy a dictionary.
7. Homophobe is a real word, look it up in your new dictionary. [/QUOTE]

1.  Invalidation is hardwired into queer lovers.

2.  We threw the tar on from 2 feet away.  Why ?  You want a tar & Feathering ? 

3. No link needed.  Why do you think there's such a controversy about Michael Sam ?

4.  It is illegal in various ways, in a number of states in the USA.



1. In Alabama, state law dictates that homosexuality is not an acceptable lifestyle: (ALA CODE § 16-40A-2-c8)

2. According to Arizona law, not only is there nothing positive about being gay, there is no safe way to have homo sex:
C. No district shall include in its course of study instruction which:
1. Promotes a homosexual life-style.
2. Portrays homosexuality as a positive alternative life-style.
3. Suggests that some methods of sex are safe methods of homosexual sex. (AZ 15-716C)

3. Louisiana has a law censoring homosexuality in sex education, but it only applies to any sexually explicit materials depicting male or female homosexual activity. Given the laws emphasis on abstinence from sexual activity outside of marriage and the states ban on same-sex marriage, non-pictorial discussions of homosexuality could probably be considered violations as well.(RS-17-281)

4. Mississippi law dismisses the possibility that there is any kind of queer sex that is safe, appropriate, or legal:
(1) Abstinence education shall be the state standard for any sex-related education taught in the public schools. For purposes of this section, abstinence education includes any type of instruction or program which, at an appropriate age: [...]
(e) Teaches the current state law related to sexual conduct, including forcible rape, statutory rape, paternity establishment, child support and homosexual activity; and
(f) Teaches that a mutually faithful, monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the only appropriate setting for sexual intercourse. (37-13-171)

5. North Carolina law implies that queer sex is inherently unhealthy: e. Teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous heterosexual relationship in the context of marriage is the best lifelong means of avoiding sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS. (115C-81)

6. Oklahomas law focuses specifically on preventing the transmission of the AIDS virus (HIV), claiming that homosexual activity is among the causes primarily responsible for contact with it:
D. AIDS prevention education shall specifically teach students that:
1. engaging in homosexual activity, promiscuous sexual activity, intravenous drug use or contact with contaminated blood products is now known to be primarily responsible for contact with the AIDS virus;
2. avoiding the activities specified in paragraph 1 of this subsection is the only method of preventing the spread of the virus; (§70 11 103.3)

7. In South Carolina:
(5) The program of instruction provided for in this section may not include a discussion of alternate sexual lifestyles from heterosexual relationships including, but not limited to, homosexual relationships except in the context of instruction concerning sexually transmitted diseases. (South Carolina Code 59-32-30. Local school boards to implement comprehensive health education program; guidelines and restrictions).

8. Even though it was Texass sodomy law that the Supreme Court struck down over 10 years ago, that law is still part of the states sex education policy:
(b) The materials in the education programs intended for persons younger than 18 years of age must:
(1) emphasize sexual abstinence before marriage and fidelity in marriage as the expected standard in terms of public health and the most effective ways to prevent HIV infection, sexually transmitted diseases, and unwanted pregnancies; and
(2) state that homosexual conduct is not an acceptable lifestyle and is a criminal offense under Section 21.06, Penal Code.

The law also asserts that sexual activity before marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical consequences, and given that same-sex marriage is banned in Texas, this implies that all gay sex is harmful in such fashion.

9. Utah law prohibits the advocacy of homosexuality. (53A-13-101-AII)

10. In Florida, lawmakers this year rejected a statewide domestic partnership registry that would have granted health care visitation, among other rights, to same-sex couples. Homo members of the National Guard recently were prohibited from signing up for federal benefits at state buildings. And a Broward County Republican Party leader almost lost her job for voicing support for homosexual marriage. Florida's state constitution continues to define marriage as between a man and a woman, and prohibits gays from adopting children.
Florida is also one of nine states that refused to register same-sex spouses of National Guard personnel for health and death benefits, and refuses to issue them identification cards to access military bases.

5.  "Affects" family members.  How ? They get a rash ?  Don't talk stupid.

7.  Dictionary ?  HA HA..   My dictionary was written in 1958.  It has no word "homophobe" in it.  And I don't need a dictionary written by young people, with a lot screwball ideas.  Ah yes, the newest (and best) requirement for 2014 college freshmen >>  a 1958 dictionary!


----------



## protectionist (Mar 14, 2014)

dblack said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



I didn't read it all that carefully.  Doesn't matter.  I did see valid points about recruitment.  Doesn't really matter who it's from, or what their motives are.  All in all, *my post has lots of info and links about recruitment.*  That's what DOES matter.  I'm the one who's laughing at their failed attempt to say there's no recruitment, which I disproved.   

http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=9797
http://www.queerty.com/can-we-pleas...-actually-want-to-indoctrinate-kids-20110512/
http://equalitymatters.org/blog/201310080005
http://pfox.org/recruited.html
http://culturecampaign.blogspot.com/...amas-czar.html


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 14, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...




Feel free to explain, in detail, the differences between SB 1062 and the RFRA.

Can't find any?

I guess that makes me right.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 14, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I agree.
You are a legend in your own mind.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 14, 2014)

Mertex said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



You are the one that defending bills that give the government power to ignore people's rights. I would think that is what shreds the constitution, not the ones that defend them.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 14, 2014)

Mertex said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



The Religious Freedom Restoration Act which passed Congress on a voted of 533-3 and was signed by Clinton.



> (a)         * Findings *         The Congress finds that&#8212;
> (1)             the framers of the Constitution,  recognizing free exercise of religion as an unalienable right, secured  its protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution;
> (2)             laws &#8220;neutral&#8221; toward religion may burden religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise;
> (3)             governments should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification;
> ...


42 U.S. Code § 2000bb?1 - Free exercise of religion protected | LII / Legal Information Institute

Sounds terrible, doesn't it. Funny that the Civil Rights lawyers didn't think it violated the CRA.

By the way, next time that idiot Jones mentions Smith, tell him to read this post.


----------



## hunarcy (Mar 15, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Told you so!  LOL!


----------



## Mertex (Mar 15, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Just because you don't understand the Constitution, nor the bill doesn't mean that your interpretation is right....you need to have someone explain it to you....

The Civil Rights Act is protected by the 14th Amendment, and that is why the bill was not passed by Brewer....but obviously you don't even understand that - why don't you go after Brewer if you think she's the one that is ignoring people's rights?  Because you are wrong, maybe someday you'll understand and you won't be making such absurd comments.....maybe....but I seriously doubt it.


----------



## Mertex (Mar 15, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...




And how does it go against the CRA?  I'm sure in your twisted and bewildered mind it does.....

And I'm not your messenger...if you want to tell Jones something, do it yourself....


----------



## AntiParty (Mar 15, 2014)

Show me where the Bible tells us to use Religious unions use Government law to prevent a sin. The American based Christianity I know openly talks about FREE WILL, not FORCED RELIGION. Also, the Government we live under talks about Freedom of Religion, not forced religion perspectives. 

The end of times talk about lot's of gays in the bible. It's not a greater sin, but it's there more dominantly. 

So what we see today is a lot of people trying to control destiny by CONTROLLING GAYS to ensure the world will never end. 

So we have a group of people that were taught, "Do not judge or be judged" openly and using law to judge others because they are scared. 

I'll note that it never said that gays triggered the end of times. It only stated that more gays would be around. Gays weren't really an issue at all. *Hate and anger were the real reasons for the end of times. *


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 15, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



At least youre consistent in your ignorance. 

In _City of Boerne v. Flores_ (1997) the Supreme Court ruled that the RFRA was un-Constitutional, where Congress lacks the authority to determine what is nor is not a right: 



> (b) In imposing RFRA's requirements on the States, Congress relied on the Fourteenth Amendment, which, inter alia, guarantees that no State shall make or enforce any law depriving any person of "life, liberty, [*508] or property, without due process of law," or denying any person the "equal protection of the laws," § 1, and empowers Congress "to enforce" those guarantees by "appropriate legislation," § 5. Respondent Archbishop and the United States contend that RFRA is permissible enforcement legislation under § 5. Although Congress certainly can enact legislation enforcing the constitutional right to the free exercise of religion, see, e. g., Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 303,* its § 5 power "to enforce" is only preventive or "remedial," [***632] South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U. S. 301, 326. The Amendment's design and § 5's text are inconsistent with any suggestion that Congress has the power to decree the substance of the Amendment's restrictions on the States. Legislation which alters [**2159] the Free Exercise Clause's meaning cannot be said to be enforcing the Clause. Congress does not enforce a constitutional right by changing what the right is.*



Only the Supreme Court may determine what constitutes a right pursuant to the 14th Amendment, not Congress  and the RFRA was invalidated accordingly. 

Consequently, _Employment Division v. Smith_ remains relevant, on point case law with regard to the fact that public accommodations laws, or any law perceived to infringe upon religious liberty, are valid and Constitutional, where the primary focus of such laws do not seek to place an undue burden on religious expression. SB 1062 would be likewise un-Constitutional, seeking to invalidate measures such as in Tucson which prohibit discrimination in public accommodations predicated on sexual orientation, measures that are Constitutional per _Smith_.  

Indeed, _Smith_ was cited as recently as last December by a judge in Colorado upholding that states public accommodations law prohibiting discrimination against same-sex couples, among other classes of persons, in a case involving a business owners refusal so sell a wedding cake to gay patrons based on religious objections: 



> [T]he Supreme Court has held that activities of individuals, even when religiously based, are often subject to regulation by the States in the exercise of their undoubted power to promote the health, safety, and general welfare. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. at 220. _*To excuse all religiously-motivated conduct from state control would permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 879 (1990).*_ Thus, for example, the Court has upheld a law prohibiting religious-based polygamy, Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879); upheld a law restricting religious-based child labor, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944); upheld a Sunday closing law that adversely affected Jewish businesses, Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599 (1961); upheld the governments right to collect Social Security taxes from an Amish employer despite claims that it violated his religious principles, United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252 (1982); *and upheld denial of unemployment compensation to persons who were fired for the religious use of peyote, Employment Division v. Smith, supra.*
> 
> https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/initial_decision_case_no._cr_2013-0008.pdf


Again, these notions of religious liberty or religious objections with regard to accommodating gay patrons is merely a façade behind which those seeking to deny gay Americans their civil liberties hide, having nothing to do with a concerns involving religious expression, and everything to do with hatred of homosexuals.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Mar 15, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...


----------



## Seawytch (Mar 15, 2014)

protectionist said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...




Well...with 17 states and the District of Columbia properly recognizing the rights enumerated in the Constitution and allowing gays to legally marry...life must really suck for you. 

Good.


----------



## Geaux4it (Mar 15, 2014)

Queers raise queers or otherwise known as future liberal democrats. Look at the lezbo on American Idol who was.. yep.. you guessed it, adopted by 2 carpet munchers and looked how she turned out.

Gays have the rights up the gazoo (no pun intended) yet you don't have the right to privacy etc

-Geaux


----------



## GibsonSG (Mar 15, 2014)

Geaux4it said:


> Queers raise queers or otherwise known as future liberal democrats. Look at the lezbo on American Idol who was.. yep.. you guessed it, adopted by 2 carpet munchers and looked how she turned out.
> 
> Gays have the rights up the gazoo (no pun intended) yet you don't have the right to privacy etc
> 
> -Geaux



Heteros should stop giving birth to gay people.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Mar 15, 2014)

Geaux4it said:


> Queers raise queers or otherwise known as future liberal democrats. Look at the lezbo on American Idol who was.. yep.. you guessed it, adopted by 2 carpet munchers and looked how she turned out.
> 
> Gays have the rights up the gazoo (no pun intended) yet you don't have the right to privacy etc
> 
> -Geaux









Dick Cheney - Husband - Heterosexual

Lynne Cheney - Wife - Heterosexual

Elizabeth - Daughter - Heterosexual

Mary - Daughter - Lesbian






Terry Wahls - Mother - Lesbian

Jackie Reger - Mother - Lesbian

Zacharia Wahls - Son - Heterosexual



*********************************************


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q]Zach Wahls Speaks About Family - YouTube[/ame]


The above video is to Zack Whals addressing the Iowa Legislature about being raised by two Moms.


>>>>


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 16, 2014)

As a person of faith it is very disturbing to see those go down the path of so called "Preservation of Religious Freedom Act" proposals.
Even though I am an advocate of religious freedom it pains me to see the Christian faith being used as justification for discrimination. Seeing the words posted here by proponents of these laws are foreign to me and reflect little of the faith that I witness in my Christian faith community. We Christians in these parts are used to welcoming all people, not in spite of their age, race, nationality or sexual orientation, but BECAUSE OF IT, because a diverse community is what the Christian church is called to be. 
I do not recognize the faith of those who choose to discriminate against others. It is not Christian. Absent is the humilty I find when I go to a Christian church and gather around together and welcome each other. Absent are recurring themes in the Bible that speak of welcoming, generosity and hospitality. That is what a Christian does. What a strange kind of Christianity to hear that one can not tolerate the presence of another in their midst, that judges others to be inadequate to refuse to serve another. In fact, that is not being a Christian at all as certainly they could never invoke the name of Jesus knowing of his propensity to dine with all sorts of people.
How far removed these prejudiced attempts of discrimination are from the true origins and foundation of Christianity and JESUS. Jesus preferred the company of foreigners and outsiders, the non religious and the so called "sinners" at his table.
Of course I value the religious freedom granted to me by The United States Constitution and proudly. 
But I value MORE GREATLY the DIGNITY that God gave to all creation equally.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 16, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> As a person of faith it is very disturbing to see those go down the path of so called "Preservation of Religious Freedom Act" proposals.
> Even though I am an advocate of religious freedom it pains me to see the Christian faith being used as justification for discrimination. Seeing the words posted here by proponents of these laws are foreign to me and reflect little of the faith that I witness in my Christian faith community. We Christians in these parts are used to welcoming all people, not in spite of their age, race, nationality or sexual orientation, but BECAUSE OF IT, because a diverse community is what the Christian church is called to be.
> I do not recognize the faith of those who choose to discriminate against others. It is not Christian. Absent is the humilty I find when I go to a Christian church and gather around together and welcome each other. Absent are recurring themes in the Bible that speak of welcoming, generosity and hospitality. That is what a Christian does. What a strange kind of Christianity to hear that one can not tolerate the presence of another in their midst, that judges others to be inadequate to refuse to serve another. In fact, that is not being a Christian at all as certainly they could never invoke the name of Jesus knowing of his propensity to dine with all sorts of people.
> How far removed these prejudiced attempts of discrimination are from the true origins and foundation of Christianity and JESUS. Jesus preferred the company of foreigners and outsiders, the non religious and the so called "sinners" at his table.
> ...



As a person with a brain, I get a headache reading the drivel that comes out of your keyboard.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 16, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > As a person of faith it is very disturbing to see those go down the path of so called "Preservation of Religious Freedom Act" proposals.
> ...



Anyone with a brain does not force themselves to read what gives them headaches.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 16, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Which is why I stopped reading after 2 words.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 16, 2014)

quantum windbag said:


> gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > quantum windbag said:
> ...



lol,
you lie!!!


----------



## protectionist (Mar 16, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Not at all.  When 33 states properly recognize the rights enumerated in the Constitution, and DISallow queers from legally marrying (including my home state)...does that make life really suck for you ?


----------



## protectionist (Mar 16, 2014)

GibsonSG said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > Queers raise queers or otherwise known as future liberal democrats. Look at the lezbo on American Idol who was.. yep.. you guessed it, adopted by 2 carpet munchers and looked how she turned out.
> ...



Weakest (and silliest) coverup to homosexual recruitment I've ever seen.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 16, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> As a person of faith it is very disturbing to see those go down the path of so called "Preservation of Religious Freedom Act" proposals.
> Even though I am an advocate of religious freedom it pains me to see the Christian faith being used as justification for discrimination. Seeing the words posted here by proponents of these laws are foreign to me and reflect little of the faith that I witness in my Christian faith community. We Christians in these parts are used to welcoming all people, not in spite of their age, race, nationality or sexual orientation, but BECAUSE OF IT, because a diverse community is what the Christian church is called to be.
> I do not recognize the faith of those who choose to discriminate against others. It is not Christian. Absent is the humilty I find when I go to a Christian church and gather around together and welcome each other. Absent are recurring themes in the Bible that speak of welcoming, generosity and hospitality. That is what a Christian does. What a strange kind of Christianity to hear that one can not tolerate the presence of another in their midst, that judges others to be inadequate to refuse to serve another. In fact, that is not being a Christian at all as certainly they could never invoke the name of Jesus knowing of his propensity to dine with all sorts of people.
> How far removed these prejudiced attempts of discrimination are from the true origins and foundation of Christianity and JESUS. Jesus preferred the company of foreigners and outsiders, the non religious and the so called "sinners" at his table.
> ...



Classifications of foreigners, outsiders, and non-religious do not constitute contrary-to-nature, perverse behavior.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 16, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > As a person of faith it is very disturbing to see those go down the path of so called "Preservation of Religious Freedom Act" proposals.
> ...



The trick is to read only one of the last 3 sentences where the "point" is being made, the rest being only supportive talk of what is not much of a point anyway.


----------



## Seawytch (Mar 17, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...




Where does the Constitution "disallow" civil marriage? Oh, it doesn't...you just couldn't figure out how to be clever all on your own. 

A sad pathetic homophobe. 


I think they need "It gets worse" videos for old homophobes.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 17, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > As a person of faith it is very disturbing to see those go down the path of so called "Preservation of Religious Freedom Act" proposals.
> ...



You are non Christian if you believe Jesus did not love and dine with gay folks.
We already knew you are a bigot.


----------



## bravoactual (Mar 17, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> As a person of faith it is very disturbing to see those go down the path of so called "Preservation of Religious Freedom Act" proposals.
> Even though I am an advocate of religious freedom it pains me to see the Christian faith being used as justification for discrimination. Seeing the words posted here by proponents of these laws are foreign to me and reflect little of the faith that I witness in my Christian faith community. We Christians in these parts are used to welcoming all people, not in spite of their age, race, nationality or sexual orientation, but BECAUSE OF IT, because a diverse community is what the Christian church is called to be.
> I do not recognize the faith of those who choose to discriminate against others. It is not Christian. Absent is the humilty I find when I go to a Christian church and gather around together and welcome each other. Absent are recurring themes in the Bible that speak of welcoming, generosity and hospitality. That is what a Christian does. What a strange kind of Christianity to hear that one can not tolerate the presence of another in their midst, that judges others to be inadequate to refuse to serve another. In fact, that is not being a Christian at all as certainly they could never invoke the name of Jesus knowing of his propensity to dine with all sorts of people.
> How far removed these prejudiced attempts of discrimination are from the true origins and foundation of Christianity and JESUS. Jesus preferred the company of foreigners and outsiders, the non religious and the so called "sinners" at his table.
> ...



Then, it is up to you as a Christian to confront those people who corrupt your faith.  Standing one the side lines and bitching never works.  It is up to you to own your faith and to act out of your faith to defend it.

You are I suspect what my Grand Father (Graduated from the Methodist Seminary in Stuttgart Arkansas in 1922 and preached his last sermon in 1985) used to call a "*Christian in the Pew*".

It is up to YOU to defend your faith, if you allow by your inaction or by your silence to corrupt your faith you are just as equally equally guilty because you choose to nothing.


----------



## GibsonSG (Mar 17, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


No, Jesus preferred the company of men.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 17, 2014)

bravoactual said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > As a person of faith it is very disturbing to see those go down the path of so called "Preservation of Religious Freedom Act" proposals.
> ...



No one has corrupted my faith.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 17, 2014)

The principles of Christianity always remain.

No on is corrupting the "faith".  That remains immutable.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 17, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



1.  EARTH TO SEAWYTCH:  In case you haven't had this REALITY CHECK laid on you lately, 33 states current BAN HOMOSEXUALITY in a whole list of ways (of which SSM is only one of them).  Have you been reading the thread ?  Click the links and its list of links, and take a good hard *look at the maps*, and then you can avoid coming in here and talking foolish.

https://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/maps-of-state-laws-policies

2.  There is no such thing as a "homophobe".  A phobia is an irrational fear. But fear of homosexuality and its campaign to  spread to young people to increase its numbers, get more votes, and gain acceptance, is highly threatening to American culture, and thus is a quite rational fear.
    Also, falsely using the word PHOBE for agenda purposes, is an offense to those of us who have mentally afflictions of real phobias (I have agoraphobia), and is a despicable form of speech.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 17, 2014)

Gadawg73 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Loving and dining with queers is not equal to accepting their perverted lifestyle as normal.  As for you calling me a bigot, that simply makes you a laughingstock, since neither you or anyone else in this forum has ever produced as shred of evidence to substantiate that, or even come close to it.
   You might want to re-evaluate your use of the B card.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 17, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...


The General, a lost soul if ever there was one.  Godspeed General...


----------



## protectionist (Mar 18, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Note how the normal appear to be lost > to the lost.  BTW, thanks for the promotion.


----------



## Seawytch (Mar 18, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



Wow...homosexuality has been banned? Stop the presses 'cause you've got new information. Banned you say? 

So...I went through all the maps and I couldn't find a one where homosexuality has been outright "banned" here in the United States. Sure, it's been "banned" in other countries but not here. (Countries with higher incidents of HIV too. Odd that)

Do you wonder why I put quotes around "banned"? You can't "ban" something that simply is. It's like banning rain. Good luck. 

Your maps also didn't answer my question. Where in the US Constitution is marriage equality disallowed? Oh, that's right...it's not. In fact, the US Constitution keeps getting cited in case after case striking down anti gay marriage laws. In fact...since Windsor, it's like 6-0 dude.  That's not winning (duh), that's getting your ass handed to you. 



> 2.  There is no such thing as a "homophobe".  A phobia is an irrational fear. But fear of homosexuality and its campaign to  spread to young people to increase its numbers, get more votes, and gain acceptance, is highly threatening to American culture, and thus is a quite rational fear.
> Also, falsely using the word PHOBE for agenda purposes, is an offense to those of us who have mentally afflictions of real phobias (I have agoraphobia), and is a despicable form of speech.



Of course there is. Just because you can't use the dictionary does not change the meaning of the word and you are the dictionary definition of a homophobe.


----------



## Seawytch (Mar 18, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



You don't understand homophobe or bigot?...'Cause you're definitely both.


----------



## Redfish (Mar 18, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...





in that case you are a heterophobe and a bigot.  you are also a majorityphobe because you have an irrational feal of majority opinion.   you are also a civilunionphobe because your agenda has nothing to do with equal rights.


----------



## AntiParty (Mar 18, 2014)

Well this is clearly a big win for the Left...

Sometimes it takes extremely severe to happen to get the general public interested in discussing politics. Such as shutting down the government or passing a bigot law like this. 

I'm sure that the first time a black store owner turns down a white family for being white there will be outrage and the Right Will say the Left passed this law like they tried with the Government shutdown.. 

They can't even blame religion for this decision. The bible say's "don't cast stones" and "do not judge or be judged".

The first business that makes headlines for turning down someone for being gay or black will see a sudden surge of business from bigots, then it will die a slow, quiet and peaceful death.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 18, 2014)

protectionist said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...


You all no longer normal General.  Just Old and Irrational and Fearful.


----------



## Redfish (Mar 18, 2014)

AntiParty said:


> Well this is clearly a big win for the Left...
> 
> Sometimes it takes extremely severe to happen to get the general public interested in discussing politics. Such as shutting down the government or passing a bigot law like this.
> 
> ...



the conservative republican governor vetoed the bill.   this is a lot of bullshit about nothing.  

but, for the record, if a black business wants to refuse to serve me,  I don't care.  That is their right.   If a gay baker wants to refuse to bake me a cake, I don't care.
if a gay, black shoeshine boy wants to refuse to shine my shoes, I don't care.  
If a white car wash guy wants to refuse to wash my car because he doesn't like BMW's, I don't care.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 18, 2014)

Redfish said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> > Well this is clearly a big win for the Left...
> ...


How very anarchist of you.  Let us know when a black doctor refuses to save the life of your child and you don't care.


----------



## Seawytch (Mar 18, 2014)

Redfish said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...




Nope. I don't want to see heterosexuals denied any rights.

You don't hold the majority opinion. The majority opinion is that gays should be allowed to be married. 

_Fifty percent say the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection gives gays the right to marry, while 41 percent say it does not._

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...37e87e-a3e5-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 18, 2014)

AntiParty said:


> Well this is clearly a big win for the Left...



Actually not. 

Should the Supreme Court uphold one of the lower courts rulings invalidating state laws denying same-sex couples their equal protection rights, it will be a big win for the Constitution, the rule of law, and all Americans.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 18, 2014)

Seawytch said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



I'm quite well able to use a dictionary, and I'm well able to ascertain which dictionary to use.  Any dictionary that would contain the word "homophobe" and present it as a valid word, isn't worth 10 cents.  I still have a dictionary that I used as a kid in high school in 1962.  It doesn't have the word homophobe or Islamaphobe or "gay" or any other of these moronic words, created by and accepted by young people, not fully capable of assessing reality or society in real terms.  What I said in my previous post stands 100%.

As for all your phony ban and constitutional questions...... YOU KNOW.  It's all in the thread.  You've seen it.

So you think pretending there are no bans on homosexuality is going to make all those big, bad bans just go away huh, little cookie ?  Guess I didn't know I was talking to a 4 year old.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 18, 2014)

protectionist said:


> As for all your phony ban and constitutional questions...... YOU KNOW.  It's all in the thread.  You've seen it.


Times change General, but homophobes like you do not.  No need to worry however, the world goes right along, and forward, without you.


----------



## protectionist (Mar 18, 2014)

PaintMyHouse said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > As for all your phony ban and constitutional questions...... YOU KNOW.  It's all in the thread.  You've seen it.
> ...



In 33 states, the "world" is staying right where it has been all along.  If, like seawytch, you find solace in sticking your head in the sand to avoid seeing what's around you, you're entitled to do that.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Mar 18, 2014)

protectionist said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...


It used to be 50 General.  Do you find comfort in lying to yourself?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 18, 2014)

protectionist said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



Special pleading by Protectionist: One-sided argument; completely ignores contrary evidence.

1. 17 states and DC have changed in the last decade and the death knell for hetero-fascism is work through the courts now.

2. "Phobia" is appropriately used to describe the actions of hetero-fascists such as Protectionists, thus

3. Protectionist is using reverse phobia allegations to hide the perverse nature of the anti-marriage equality activities of his side


----------



## protectionist (Mar 27, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



There is no reverse phobia.  there is no phobia at all.. That is deceit talk that queer lovers create to vilify normal people who think and speak normally about abnormal, degenerate, pervert queers.

As for the courts, Obama's days are numbered as are liberals on the SCOTUS.   After the next presidential election and a solid Conservative SCOTUS, queer fascism will be a disgusting memory.

HA HA.  What a joke to call criticism of queerism "perverse".  Yeah right!  And Alaska is hot in January.  Feathers are heavy.  And water is dry.  No end to the loon talk from queer lovers.


----------

