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

[WorldWatcher]

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.

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]

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.

Feel free to post a link where I said the Constitution says we are unisex under the law.

Let see it.



Psst - being equal under the law does not mean we are unisex.

>>>>>

I already put it in red for you.

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]

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.

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]

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.

"Encouraging"? Hardly. It is the natural progression of violating the Constitution.

 

[kaz]

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.

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.


>>>>

What a crock of shit, I expected better from you

 

[Gadawg73]

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.

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]

Why would anyone care if 2 gay folks get married?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yeah, you did say that.



Strawman, you said that not me.

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.


>>>>

What a crock of shit, I expected better from you

How original.


>>>>

 

[kaz]

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.


>>>>

What a crock of shit, I expected better from you

How original.


>>>>

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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?

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]

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.

Explain public accomodation laws under that theory.

 

[WorldWatcher]

What a crock of shit, I expected better from you

How original.


>>>>

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.

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]

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.

I do not think I am smart. I am convinced of it.

Yet you say stupid things all the time.

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]

I do not think I am smart. I am convinced of it.

Yet you say stupid things all the time.

He's smart enough, just blinded by his bigotry against Christians.

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]

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?

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]

I do not think I am smart. I am convinced of it.

Yet you say stupid things all the time.

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.

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]

Yet you say stupid things all the time.

He's smart enough, just blinded by his bigotry against Christians.

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.

You just proved yourself to be a liar.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

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.

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.