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

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Same sex marriage is not the issue here, asshole, the issue is freedom.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

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.

So government (leges and courts) tells us what "We the people" say. Wow. That's just sick.

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]

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?

Same sex marriage is not the issue here, asshole, the issue is freedom.

The same freedom for a gay couple to marry?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

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]

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.

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 people who they can't marry.

You're confused, let me help you. A gay couple should enjoy the same freedom to marry as a straight couple does.

 

[kaz]

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.

So government (leges and courts) tells us what "We the people" say. Wow. That's just sick.

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.

My reading disability is a refusal to run what I read through a liberal filter.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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...

Fakey can't grasp sarcasm..

Kaz's sarcasm misses the point: the FFs aren't alive today and We the People are in charge not the FFs.

Except we the people are not in charge, they just want you to think you are.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Seven mothers-in-law? Insanity at that level should be treated.

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?

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?

You wouldn't know a rational argument if it slapped you in the face.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

QWB, immediately email SCOTUS of the errors.

SCOTUS has never ruled that the federal government can regulate marriage. I guess that means that you are wrong, again.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Same sex marriage is not the issue here, asshole, the issue is freedom.

The same freedom for a gay couple to marry?

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]

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.

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.

The bill did not mention the gay, which is why the assholes, like WorldWatcher, were arguing that it would let businesses discriminate against blacks.

I didn't realize that, thanks for the 411.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You OBVIOUSLY have NO CLUE where to draw the line.

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 people who they can't marry.

You're confused, let me help you. A gay couple should enjoy the same freedom to marry as a straight couple does.

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]

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.

QWB, immediately email SCOTUS of the errors.

SCOTUS has never ruled that the federal government can regulate marriage. I guess that means that you are wrong, again.

We are not going to play "just once more" with your nonsense.

Step along.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Same sex marriage is not the issue here, asshole, the issue is freedom.

The same freedom for a gay couple to marry?

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.

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]

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.

The bill did not mention the gay, which is why the assholes, like WorldWatcher, were arguing that it would let businesses discriminate against blacks.

I didn't realize that, thanks for the 411.

The bill tries, and fails, to get around public accommodation laws.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

The bill did not mention the gay, which is why the assholes, like WorldWatcher, were arguing that it would let businesses discriminate against blacks.

I didn't realize that, thanks for the 411.

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]

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 people who they can't marry.

You're confused, let me help you. A gay couple should enjoy the same freedom to marry as a straight couple does.

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.

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]

Same sex marriage is not the issue here, asshole, the issue is freedom.

The same freedom for a gay couple to marry?

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.

Where do you live that forces people to go to marriages? North Korea?