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

[protectionist]

The majority may not tyrannize the minority, thus the amendments.

Nor may the minority tyrannize the majority.

So, play nice kiddos and get on with your lives,

I'm 67 years old (not a "kiddo"), and I'm already playing nice.

 

[KNB]

Please explain how you are being oppressed if gay people can be legally married.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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]

Nor may the minority tyrannize the majority.

So, play nice kiddos and get on with your lives,

I'm 67 years old (not a "kiddo"), and I'm already playing nice.

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]

So, play nice kiddos and get on with your lives,

I'm 67 years old (not a "kiddo"), and I'm already playing nice.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

Homophobe at large again. Xenophobe as well.

Alert! Alert! >>>> Sexual orientation card user at large again. Race card user at large again. Poster without substance at large again. Ho hum.

Quick, somewhere two gay men are happy tonight. Run and go find them and break that up. Good boy...

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]

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.

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.

They decided that in WHAT CASE ? WHEN ?

Loving v Virginia 1967.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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.

They decided that in WHAT CASE ? WHEN ?

Loving v Virginia 1967.

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]

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.

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.

For once CCJ, we agree.

Exactly! This is what I've been saying all along.

 

[dblack]

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.

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.

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!

Wow. Nope. That's pretty much the opposite of the American system.

 

[Wildman]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

Well, you might want to get new presciption glasses there, uncensored. You view is being heavily censored right now.

 

[protectionist]

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.

They decided that in WHAT CASE ? WHEN ?

Loving v Virginia 1967.

EARTH TO SEAWYTCH:
Your quote is from the state court. I'm asking you to present here what the SCOTUS said.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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".

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

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.

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.