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

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

All about YOU eh? Got it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

All about YOU eh? Got it.

Yeah, that's what I said.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

All about YOU eh? Got it.

Yeah, that's what I said.

So I see. The morality of a child...

 

[Bumberclyde]

Bill vetoed, homophobes wrong again!

 

[kaz]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

If you oppose gay marriage why?
What harm does it do to you?
Did you also oppose open service in the military?

 

[DriftingSand]

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]

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?

You OBVIOUSLY have NO CLUE where to draw the line.

 

[kaz]

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?

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]

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?

You OBVIOUSLY have NO CLUE where to draw the line.

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]

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.

Young people aged 13 to 24 made up about 26 percent of all new diagnoses in 2010, even as other demographics have remained relatively stable, according to new information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention...

...Given everything we know about HIV and how to prevent it, after more than 30 years of fighting the disease, it’s just unacceptable that young people are getting infected at such high rates,” ...

...Most young people diagnosed with HIV today contract the disease through sex. For most young men, it’s through sex with other men.... CDC Reports Troubling Rise in HIV Infections Among Young People | ENDGAME: AIDS in Black America | FRONTLINE | PBS

 

[High_Gravity]

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]

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?

You OBVIOUSLY have NO CLUE where to draw the line.

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.

Exactly, I know where to draw the line. A lot of people don't.

 

[Silhouette]

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]

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.

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]

You OBVIOUSLY have NO CLUE where to draw the line.

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.

Exactly, I know where to draw the line. A lot of people don't.

Yes, the is to be drawn at authoritarian leftism.