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

[Gadawg73]

UPDATE:
After 17 months on the go, the AZ Onward Christian Soldiers Tour is in El Mirage, AZ searching long and hard for the first business owner in the state that has had their "religious freedom" denied.
Fitting place to be as the entire movement is a mirage.

 

[Gadawg73]

So we see that Protectionist is the face of this "religious freedom" movement yet all we hear is "this has nothing to do with homosexuals" BS.
Keep it coming Protectionist as we read you loud and clear.

 

[Gadawg73]

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.

What school did you attend ? You don't even know how elections are done to elect the president of the United States. Majority votes in each state wins that state's electoral votes. Majority of electoral votes in the country wins the election. Back to school for you.

Elections are not the LAW.
We are a nation OF LAWS, not of men and their changing like the wind religious beliefs.
The Bill of Rights protects the minority from the majority.
The Founders believed in natural rights be it from God and nature that can not be taken away.
Therefore the majority HAS NO rights to vote away or abridge the rights of political, ethnic, religious OR ANY OTHER minority.
James Madison "the great danger in republics is the majority does not respect the rights of the minority".
We have rights as INDIVIDUALS in this country.
Majority mob rule is a pure democracy.
We are far from that as we are a democratic republic with a Constitution as our foundation.
Listen up in school next time.

 

[Seawytch]

You didn't actually need to demonstrate for us how badly you've lost. We already got it. No need to belabor the point.

Care to explain how I "lost" exactly? Can you not actually address the point I made?

Already did that. Sorry I went too fast for you, but I don't repeat myself if I can help it.

Except you didn't. You simply dismissed it out of hand.

The VA Supreme Court upheld their anti miscegenation law basing it on the "unnatural" nature of the union. The US Supreme Court said they couldn't do that and they cited the 14th Amendment. These are FACTS not in contention...except by you.

 

[protectionist]

So we see that Protectionist is the face of this "religious freedom" movement yet all we hear is "this has nothing to do with homosexuals" BS.
Keep it coming Protectionist as we read you loud and clear.

Sounds like you're not reading me at all. I've already said I'm not interested in religion, and this has everything to do with homosexuals. Are you practicing getting things backwards ?

 

[protectionist]

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

What school did you attend ? You don't even know how elections are done to elect the president of the United States. Majority votes in each state wins that state's electoral votes. Majority of electoral votes in the country wins the election. Back to school for you.

Elections are not the LAW.
We are a nation OF LAWS, not of men and their changing like the wind religious beliefs.
The Bill of Rights protects the minority from the majority.
The Founders believed in natural rights be it from God and nature that can not be taken away.
Therefore the majority HAS NO rights to vote away or abridge the rights of political, ethnic, religious OR ANY OTHER minority.
James Madison "the great danger in republics is the majority does not respect the rights of the minority".
We have rights as INDIVIDUALS in this country.
Majority mob rule is a pure democracy.
We are far from that as we are a democratic republic with a Constitution as our foundation.
Listen up in school next time.

My posts are YOUR SCHOOL, right here, right now, and it looks like you haven't been listening up. As I said before, the 14th amendment provides "equal protection of the law", but this is adjustable by the SCOTUS, who has ruled that states may classify discriminate if/whenever there is a "compelling interest" to the law, and that the classification is necessary to further that interest. There is no clear rule for deciding when a classification (ex. homosexuals) is unconstitutional. So discriminating against queers in business sales, marriage, public school teaching, sports coaching, etc, may be left to the states to decide. And decide they do > 30 states ban homo marriage. Hadn't you noticed ?

 

[protectionist]

Care to explain how I "lost" exactly? Can you not actually address the point I made?

Already did that. Sorry I went too fast for you, but I don't repeat myself if I can help it.

Except you didn't. You simply dismissed it out of hand.

The VA Supreme Court upheld their anti miscegenation law basing it on the "unnatural" mature of the union. The US Supreme Court said they couldn't do that and they cited the 14th Amendment. These are FACTS not in contention...except by you.

First of all Mr. Stretch, the Loving vs. Virginia case is about race, not sexual orientation, and whatever naturalness or unnaturalness is mentioned there, it pertains to races, not sexes. What is true for apples, is not necessarily true for oranges.

Secondly, this is your strike 3, wherin you had a prime chance to present the words of the SCOTUS mentioning "unnatural", which you again have failed to do. I said before, I wasn't saying yet that you had lost. We're not going to hopscotch this all day. You lost.

 

[Infidel]

I'll play!

"Where are my natural-born grandchildren, Only Son?"

You should really inform yourself more before looking like an ass. Gays have children through sperm donors for women, and surrogates for men.

Now get back in the closet!!!!!!

Another reason for legal action ("Compelling Interest") to protect children from sexually perverted LUNATICS. Kids being raised by queers. Pheeeeeww!! (high-pitched whistle, eyes rolling around in head)

Too bad that's never worked.

PS Ike was a cock smoker.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Already did that. Sorry I went too fast for you, but I don't repeat myself if I can help it.

Except you didn't. You simply dismissed it out of hand.

The VA Supreme Court upheld their anti miscegenation law basing it on the "unnatural" mature of the union. The US Supreme Court said they couldn't do that and they cited the 14th Amendment. These are FACTS not in contention...except by you.

First of all Mr. Stretch, the Loving vs. Virginia case is about race, not sexual orientation, and whatever naturalness or unnaturalness is mentioned there, it pertains to races, not sexes. What is true for apples, is not necessarily true for oranges.

Secondly, this is your strike 3, wherin you had a prime chance to present the words of the SCOTUS mentioning "unnatural", which you again have failed to do. I said before, I wasn't saying yet that you had lost. We're not going to hopscotch this all day. You lost.

Yepp, nothing like the fresh smell of asswipe declaring victory when there is none to declare.

 

[protectionist]

You should really inform yourself more before looking like an ass. Gays have children through sperm donors for women, and surrogates for men.

Now get back in the closet!!!!!!

Another reason for legal action ("Compelling Interest") to protect children from sexually perverted LUNATICS. Kids being raised by queers. Pheeeeeww!! (high-pitched whistle, eyes rolling around in head)

Too bad that's never worked.

You don't know much. Queer marriage is banned in 30 states.

 

[protectionist]

Except you didn't. You simply dismissed it out of hand.

The VA Supreme Court upheld their anti miscegenation law basing it on the "unnatural" mature of the union. The US Supreme Court said they couldn't do that and they cited the 14th Amendment. These are FACTS not in contention...except by you.

First of all Mr. Stretch, the Loving vs. Virginia case is about race, not sexual orientation, and whatever naturalness or unnaturalness is mentioned there, it pertains to races, not sexes. What is true for apples, is not necessarily true for oranges.

Secondly, this is your strike 3, wherin you had a prime chance to present the words of the SCOTUS mentioning "unnatural", which you again have failed to do. I said before, I wasn't saying yet that you had lost. We're not going to hopscotch this all day. You lost.

Yepp, nothing like the fresh smell of asswipe declaring victory when there is none to declare.

Nothing like denying defeat WHEN THERE IS ONE TO DECLARE > YOURS. Your Post # 2690 sealed it.

 

[protectionist]

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 is American "culture"?

Heterosexual sex, and opposite sex marriage.

 

[Seawytch]

Already did that. Sorry I went too fast for you, but I don't repeat myself if I can help it.

Except you didn't. You simply dismissed it out of hand.

The VA Supreme Court upheld their anti miscegenation law basing it on the "unnatural" mature of the union. The US Supreme Court said they couldn't do that and they cited the 14th Amendment. These are FACTS not in contention...except by you.

First of all Mr. Stretch, the Loving vs. Virginia case is about race, not sexual orientation, and whatever naturalness or unnaturalness is mentioned there, it pertains to races, not sexes. What is true for apples, is not necessarily true for oranges.

Secondly, this is your strike 3, wherin you had a prime chance to present the words of the SCOTUS mentioning "unnatural", which you again have failed to do. I said before, I wasn't saying yet that you had lost. We're not going to hopscotch this all day. You lost.

Actually, Loving was about equal treatment under the law. The VA SCOTUS said interracial marriage was unnatural, the US SCOTUS said that didn't matter and you had to treat people equally under the law.

I never claimed the US SCOTUS said anything about naturalness or un.

 

[Seawytch]

Another reason for legal action ("Compelling Interest") to protect children from sexually perverted LUNATICS. Kids being raised by queers. Pheeeeeww!! (high-pitched whistle, eyes rolling around in head)

Too bad that's never worked.

You don't know much. Queer marriage is banned in 30 states.

Not for long...

 

[protectionist]

Except you didn't. You simply dismissed it out of hand.

The VA Supreme Court upheld their anti miscegenation law basing it on the "unnatural" mature of the union. The US Supreme Court said they couldn't do that and they cited the 14th Amendment. These are FACTS not in contention...except by you.

First of all Mr. Stretch, the Loving vs. Virginia case is about race, not sexual orientation, and whatever naturalness or unnaturalness is mentioned there, it pertains to races, not sexes. What is true for apples, is not necessarily true for oranges.

Secondly, this is your strike 3, wherin you had a prime chance to present the words of the SCOTUS mentioning "unnatural", which you again have failed to do. I said before, I wasn't saying yet that you had lost. We're not going to hopscotch this all day. You lost.

Actually, Loving was about equal treatment under the law. The VA SCOTUS said interracial marriage was unnatural, the US SCOTUS said that didn't matter and you had to treat people equally under the law.

I never claimed the US SCOTUS said anything about naturalness or un.

You said >> "The SCOTUS decided that it really didn't fucking matter who thought something was "unnatural" when it came to ruling on LAW."

So on the one hand you first say they "decided" it. Now you say you didn't claim they said it ("unnatural"). But you claimed they decided it. How can one decide, without saying ? Did they use sign language maybe ? Did they hand each other written notes ? Sounds like you DID claim they said something about something being "unnatural", and now you're trying to wiggle out of it.

Lesson to be learned - if you can't back up what you say, don't say it.

In the final analysis, the SCOTUS didn't say a word about homosexuals or the naturalness or unnaturalness of their condition. The only thing I see them having said
that pertains to queers is what is stipulated earlier about compelling interest >>>

So once again, for those who seem to want to avoid the truth >>>

The question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right. The Supreme Court has dictated the application of different tests depending on the type of classification and its effect on fundamental rights. Traditionally, the Court finds a state classification constitutional if it has "a rational basis" to a "legitimate state purpose." The Supreme Court, however, has applied more stringent analysis in certain cases. It will "strictly scrutinize" a distinction when it embodies a "suspect classification." In order for a classification to be subject to strict scrutiny, it must be shown that the state law or its administration is meant to discriminate. Usually, if a purpose to discriminate is found the classification will be strictly scrutinized if it is based on race, national origin, or, in some situations, non U.S. citizenship (the suspect classes). In order for a classification to be found permissible under this test it must be proven, by the state, that there is a compelling interest to the law and that the classification is necessary to further that interest.

Interesting phrase that "compelling interest" is. Does a state have a compelling interest, for instance, to keep queers out of classrooms ? Of course it does. It has a interest to prevent queers from spreading their sick perversions to kids with young impressionable minds. Few better and stronger examples of compelling interest have ever existed in American society.

 

[dblack]

First of all Mr. Stretch, the Loving vs. Virginia case is about race, not sexual orientation, and whatever naturalness or unnaturalness is mentioned there, it pertains to races, not sexes. What is true for apples, is not necessarily true for oranges.

Secondly, this is your strike 3, wherin you had a prime chance to present the words of the SCOTUS mentioning "unnatural", which you again have failed to do. I said before, I wasn't saying yet that you had lost. We're not going to hopscotch this all day. You lost.

Actually, Loving was about equal treatment under the law. The VA SCOTUS said interracial marriage was unnatural, the US SCOTUS said that didn't matter and you had to treat people equally under the law.

I never claimed the US SCOTUS said anything about naturalness or un.

You said >> "The SCOTUS decided that it really didn't fucking matter who thought something was "unnatural" when it came to ruling on LAW."

So on the one hand you first say they "decided" it. Now you say you didn't claim they said it ("unnatural"). But you claimed they decided it. How can one decide, without saying ? Did they use sign language maybe ? Did they hand each other written notes ? Sounds like you DID claim they said something about something being "unnatural", and now you're trying to wiggle out of it.

Lesson to be learned - if you can't back up what you say, don't say it.

In the final analysis, the SCOTUS didn't say a word about homosexuals or the naturalness or unnaturalness of their condition. The only thing I see them having said
that pertains to queers is what is stipulated earlier about compelling interest >>>

So once again, for those who seem to want to avoid the truth >>>

The question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right. The Supreme Court has dictated the application of different tests depending on the type of classification and its effect on fundamental rights. Traditionally, the Court finds a state classification constitutional if it has "a rational basis" to a "legitimate state purpose." The Supreme Court, however, has applied more stringent analysis in certain cases. It will "strictly scrutinize" a distinction when it embodies a "suspect classification." In order for a classification to be subject to strict scrutiny, it must be shown that the state law or its administration is meant to discriminate. Usually, if a purpose to discriminate is found the classification will be strictly scrutinized if it is based on race, national origin, or, in some situations, non U.S. citizenship (the suspect classes). In order for a classification to be found permissible under this test it must be proven, by the state, that there is a compelling interest to the law and that the classification is necessary to further that interest.

Interesting phrase that "compelling interest" is. Does a state have a compelling interest, for instance, to keep queers out of classrooms ? Of course it does. It has a interest to prevent queers from spreading their sick perversions to kids with young impressionable minds. Few better and stronger examples of compelling interest have ever existed in American society.

You're using the very same philosophy of government that statist liberals do.

 

[protectionist]

Too bad that's never worked.

You don't know much. Queer marriage is banned in 30 states.

Not for long...

Here in Florida same sex marriage has about as much chance of being legalized as Stand Your Ground has in being repealed. NONE. I suspect similar situations exist in the other SSM banned states. Actually the last time I looked, SSM was banned in 30 states . In this updated (Feb. 26, 2014) map from CNN, it shows bans in 34 states, indicating if there is any trend it is in the direction of more states BANNING it, not less.

Same-sex marriage in the United States

 

[protectionist]

Actually, Loving was about equal treatment under the law. The VA SCOTUS said interracial marriage was unnatural, the US SCOTUS said that didn't matter and you had to treat people equally under the law.

I never claimed the US SCOTUS said anything about naturalness or un.

You said >> "The SCOTUS decided that it really didn't fucking matter who thought something was "unnatural" when it came to ruling on LAW."

So on the one hand you first say they "decided" it. Now you say you didn't claim they said it ("unnatural"). But you claimed they decided it. How can one decide, without saying ? Did they use sign language maybe ? Did they hand each other written notes ? Sounds like you DID claim they said something about something being "unnatural", and now you're trying to wiggle out of it.

Lesson to be learned - if you can't back up what you say, don't say it.

In the final analysis, the SCOTUS didn't say a word about homosexuals or the naturalness or unnaturalness of their condition. The only thing I see them having said
that pertains to queers is what is stipulated earlier about compelling interest >>>

So once again, for those who seem to want to avoid the truth >>>

The question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right. The Supreme Court has dictated the application of different tests depending on the type of classification and its effect on fundamental rights. Traditionally, the Court finds a state classification constitutional if it has "a rational basis" to a "legitimate state purpose." The Supreme Court, however, has applied more stringent analysis in certain cases. It will "strictly scrutinize" a distinction when it embodies a "suspect classification." In order for a classification to be subject to strict scrutiny, it must be shown that the state law or its administration is meant to discriminate. Usually, if a purpose to discriminate is found the classification will be strictly scrutinized if it is based on race, national origin, or, in some situations, non U.S. citizenship (the suspect classes). In order for a classification to be found permissible under this test it must be proven, by the state, that there is a compelling interest to the law and that the classification is necessary to further that interest.

Interesting phrase that "compelling interest" is. Does a state have a compelling interest, for instance, to keep queers out of classrooms ? Of course it does. It has a interest to prevent queers from spreading their sick perversions to kids with young impressionable minds. Few better and stronger examples of compelling interest have ever existed in American society.

You're using the very same philosophy of government that statist liberals do.

And you'd prefer anarchy ? And nutjob queers running amok all over the country ? I'll stick with the statist philosophy, which isn't a "liberal" philosophy, it is an American philosophy. Government of the people, by the people for the people.

 

[dblack]

You said >> "The SCOTUS decided that it really didn't fucking matter who thought something was "unnatural" when it came to ruling on LAW."

So on the one hand you first say they "decided" it. Now you say you didn't claim they said it ("unnatural"). But you claimed they decided it. How can one decide, without saying ? Did they use sign language maybe ? Did they hand each other written notes ? Sounds like you DID claim they said something about something being "unnatural", and now you're trying to wiggle out of it.

Lesson to be learned - if you can't back up what you say, don't say it.

In the final analysis, the SCOTUS didn't say a word about homosexuals or the naturalness or unnaturalness of their condition. The only thing I see them having said
that pertains to queers is what is stipulated earlier about compelling interest >>>

So once again, for those who seem to want to avoid the truth >>>

The question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right. The Supreme Court has dictated the application of different tests depending on the type of classification and its effect on fundamental rights. Traditionally, the Court finds a state classification constitutional if it has "a rational basis" to a "legitimate state purpose." The Supreme Court, however, has applied more stringent analysis in certain cases. It will "strictly scrutinize" a distinction when it embodies a "suspect classification." In order for a classification to be subject to strict scrutiny, it must be shown that the state law or its administration is meant to discriminate. Usually, if a purpose to discriminate is found the classification will be strictly scrutinized if it is based on race, national origin, or, in some situations, non U.S. citizenship (the suspect classes). In order for a classification to be found permissible under this test it must be proven, by the state, that there is a compelling interest to the law and that the classification is necessary to further that interest.

Interesting phrase that "compelling interest" is. Does a state have a compelling interest, for instance, to keep queers out of classrooms ? Of course it does. It has a interest to prevent queers from spreading their sick perversions to kids with young impressionable minds. Few better and stronger examples of compelling interest have ever existed in American society.

You're using the very same philosophy of government that statist liberals do.

And you'd prefer anarchy ? And nutjob queers running amok all over the country ? I'll stick with the statist philosophy, which isn't a "liberal" philosophy, it is an American philosophy. Government of the people, by the people for the people.

Nope. The American tradition is a firm rebuke of unlimited democracy. You don't get that, and as a result end up endorsing the kind of government that imposes these overbearing anti-discrimination laws in the first place. You reap what you sow.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

First of all Mr. Stretch, the Loving vs. Virginia case is about race, not sexual orientation, and whatever naturalness or unnaturalness is mentioned there, it pertains to races, not sexes. What is true for apples, is not necessarily true for oranges.

Secondly, this is your strike 3, wherin you had a prime chance to present the words of the SCOTUS mentioning "unnatural", which you again have failed to do. I said before, I wasn't saying yet that you had lost. We're not going to hopscotch this all day. You lost.

Actually, Loving was about equal treatment under the law. The VA SCOTUS said interracial marriage was unnatural, the US SCOTUS said that didn't matter and you had to treat people equally under the law.

I never claimed the US SCOTUS said anything about naturalness or un.

You said >> "The SCOTUS decided that it really didn't fucking matter who thought something was "unnatural" when it came to ruling on LAW."

So on the one hand you first say they "decided" it. Now you say you didn't claim they said it ("unnatural"). But you claimed they decided it. How can one decide, without saying ? Did they use sign language maybe ? Did they hand each other written notes ? Sounds like you DID claim they said something about something being "unnatural", and now you're trying to wiggle out of it.

Lesson to be learned - if you can't back up what you say, don't say it.

In the final analysis, the SCOTUS didn't say a word about homosexuals or the naturalness or unnaturalness of their condition. The only thing I see them having said
that pertains to queers is what is stipulated earlier about compelling interest >>>

So once again, for those who seem to want to avoid the truth >>>

The question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right. The Supreme Court has dictated the application of different tests depending on the type of classification and its effect on fundamental rights. Traditionally, the Court finds a state classification constitutional if it has "a rational basis" to a "legitimate state purpose." The Supreme Court, however, has applied more stringent analysis in certain cases. It will "strictly scrutinize" a distinction when it embodies a "suspect classification." In order for a classification to be subject to strict scrutiny, it must be shown that the state law or its administration is meant to discriminate. Usually, if a purpose to discriminate is found the classification will be strictly scrutinized if it is based on race, national origin, or, in some situations, non U.S. citizenship (the suspect classes). In order for a classification to be found permissible under this test it must be proven, by the state, that there is a compelling interest to the law and that the classification is necessary to further that interest.

Interesting phrase that "compelling interest" is. Does a state have a compelling interest, for instance, to keep queers out of classrooms ? Of course it does. It has a interest to prevent queers from spreading their sick perversions to kids with young impressionable minds. Few better and stronger examples of compelling interest have ever existed in American society.

Nonsense.

Measures that seek to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law completely lack a proper legislative end, there is no compelling governmental interest in denying same-sex couples their equal protection rights. Such laws seek only to make gay Americans unequal to everyone else, which the states are not allowed to do (Romer v. Evans (1996)).

And your notion of ‘keeping gays out of the classroom’ is an example of the sole motive behind denying gay Americans their civil liberties: hatred of homosexuals.