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

[DriftingSand]

Ron and Rand Paul support gay rights 100% as they are Libertarians.

Then they certainly couldn't be considered Conservatives (whose concerns are CONSERVING America's values, principles, and culture).

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

Oh? What right of yours is "destroyed" by my being legally married? This should be good.

 

[hunarcy]

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]

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.

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]

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.

Oh? What right of yours is "destroyed" by my being legally married? This should be good.

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]

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.

Oh? What right of yours is "destroyed" by my being legally married? This should be good.

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.

You have a constitutional right to deny equal rights to gay couples?

 

[kaz]

Oh? What right of yours is "destroyed" by my being legally married? This should be good.

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.

You have a constitutional right to deny equal rights to gay couples?

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]

Then they certainly couldn't be considered Conservatives (whose concerns are CONSERVING America's values, principles, and culture).

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.

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?

So...laws should be in place to only allow legal marriage for those who use their "plumbing" in the Christian sanctified way......?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Oh? What right of yours is "destroyed" by my being legally married? This should be good.

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.

You have a constitutional right to deny equal rights to gay couples?

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]

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.

You have a constitutional right to deny equal rights to gay couples?

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.

Gay couples aren't allowed to marry in some states where straight couples can.

 

[kaz]

You have a constitutional right to deny equal rights to gay couples?

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.

Gay couples aren't allowed to marry in some states where straight couples can.

Straights can't marry anyone that gays can't, and gays can marry anyone that straights can.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

Gay couples aren't allowed to marry in some states where straight couples can.

Straights can't marry anyone that gays can't, and gays can marry anyone that straights can.

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]

Gay couples aren't allowed to marry in some states where straight couples can.

Straights can't marry anyone that gays can't, and gays can marry anyone that straights can.

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.


>>>>

The only people that need permission from other people to get married are slaves.

 

[kaz]

Gay couples aren't allowed to marry in some states where straight couples can.

Straights can't marry anyone that gays can't, and gays can marry anyone that straights can.

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.


>>>>

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]

Straights can't marry anyone that gays can't, and gays can marry anyone that straights can.

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.


>>>>

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.

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]

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.


>>>>

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.

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.



>>>>

Show where in the Constitution it says that people are unisex under the law.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

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.

>>>>

Show where in the Constitution it says that people are unisex under the law.

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]

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.

>>>>

Show where in the Constitution it says that people are unisex under the law.

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.

Yeah, you did say that.

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.