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

[PaintMyHouse]

Another example of a post being refuted by the post it quoted.

Did you forget that the future is not ours my old friend? It belongs to the young, who care not for your opinion, or mine. That much you should have learned by now.

Some people have to have things repeated.

Pew Poll (2044) - 61% of Republicans age 50 - 60 oppose legalizing queer marriage.

In the "future", the young will not be the young. Get it ?

It doesn't work that way my friend. Sorry. For them, it will be "normal", all they've really ever known, like blacks in the showers and as basketball stars. You and I are Betamax tapes in a iPhone world. They couldn't care less nor do they see an issue.

 

[protectionist]

It was 100% not long ago. I am unconcerned but I'm betting you don't feel the same?

I feel just FINE >> http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/342492-other-states-copy-arizona-sb-1062-a.html

Ah, it didn't get signed into the law, and the others dropped theirs. Just the death rattle of the soon to be departed, like us both General.

No dreamer boy. The others didn't "drop" anything. They are picking up Arizona's law. In fact, the great majority of states in America allow discrimination against queers, in quite a number of ways, didn't you know ? It's only a relatively small minority of the states that don't. Didn't you know ? Well if you don't know, a few looks at these maps will cure that.

https://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/marriage_prohibitions_3-2014.pdf

https://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/school_non-discrimination_laws_062013.pdf

https://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/public-accomodations_3-2014.pdf

https://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/housing_laws_062013.pdf

https://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/hospital_visitation_laws_12-2013.pdf

https://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/parenting_joint-adoption_082013.pdf

https://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/parenting_second-parent-adoption_2-2014.pdf

https://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/employment_laws_1-2014.pdf

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I feel just FINE >> http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/342492-other-states-copy-arizona-sb-1062-a.html

Ah, it didn't get signed into the law, and the others dropped theirs. Just the death rattle of the soon to be departed, like us both General.

No dreamer boy. The others didn't "drop" anything. They are picking up Arizona's law. In fact, the great majority of states in America allow discrimination against queers, in quite a number of ways, didn't you know ? It's only a relatively small minority of the states that don't. Didn't you know ? Well if you don't know, a few looks at these maps will cure that.

https://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/marriage_prohibitions_3-2014.pdf

https://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/school_non-discrimination_laws_062013.pdf

https://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/public-accomodations_3-2014.pdf

https://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/housing_laws_062013.pdf

https://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/hospital_visitation_laws_12-2013.pdf

https://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/parenting_joint-adoption_082013.pdf

https://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/parenting_second-parent-adoption_2-2014.pdf

https://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/employment_laws_1-2014.pdf

As a percentage it's roughly 50-50. No one cares what Mississippi does General. I'm sorry, but you've lost and the queers have won. And so it goes eh?

 

[protectionist]

The AMA, APA, and the majority of the American people disagree with you. Now what? Will you die upon your soapbox General? So be it...

EARTH TO PMH: Anyone who would be so ridiculous to refer to such laughingstocks as the AMA and the APA, could only be considered to be...well...a laughingstock.
As for who disagrees with me ? Apparently not 68% of the states in America which currently ban same sex marriage as well as these states >> http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/342492-other-states-copy-arizona-sb-1062-a.html

Ah, the General believes the earth to be flat because all the neighbors say so? So be it.

I was just responding to Your subject theme. You brought up the "majority of the American people". Your words, not mine.

 

[protectionist]

Ah, it didn't get signed into the law, and the others dropped theirs. Just the death rattle of the soon to be departed, like us both General.

No dreamer boy. The others didn't "drop" anything. They are picking up Arizona's law. In fact, the great majority of states in America allow discrimination against queers, in quite a number of ways, didn't you know ? It's only a relatively small minority of the states that don't. Didn't you know ? Well if you don't know, a few looks at these maps will cure that.

https://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/marriage_prohibitions_3-2014.pdf

https://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/school_non-discrimination_laws_062013.pdf

https://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/public-accomodations_3-2014.pdf

https://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/housing_laws_062013.pdf

https://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/hospital_visitation_laws_12-2013.pdf

https://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/parenting_joint-adoption_082013.pdf

https://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/parenting_second-parent-adoption_2-2014.pdf

https://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/employment_laws_1-2014.pdf

As a percentage it's roughly 50-50. No one cares what Mississippi does General. I'm sorry, but you've lost and the queers have won. And so it goes eh?

Correction: No one OF YOU FRUITCAKES care what Mississippi does. In the normal nation, no one one cares what California, New York, Colorado, Illinois, and other fruitcake states do. I moved from California to Florida 25 years ago. Best move I ever made.

PS - Population % ??? >> the % only goes up in the fruitcake states, because of the influx of immigrants and illegal aliens that they allow. Legions of them in California. How pathetic.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

EARTH TO PMH: Anyone who would be so ridiculous to refer to such laughingstocks as the AMA and the APA, could only be considered to be...well...a laughingstock.
As for who disagrees with me ? Apparently not 68% of the states in America which currently ban same sex marriage as well as these states >> http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/342492-other-states-copy-arizona-sb-1062-a.html

Ah, the General believes the earth to be flat because all the neighbors say so? So be it.

I was just responding to Your subject theme. You brought up the "majority of the American people". Your words, not mine.

That was to show that the trend was against you, not a statement of right or wrong.

 

[protectionist]

Did you forget that the future is not ours my old friend? It belongs to the young, who care not for your opinion, or mine. That much you should have learned by now.

Some people have to have things repeated.

Pew Poll (2044) - 61% of Republicans age 50 - 60 oppose legalizing queer marriage.

In the "future", the young will not be the young. Get it ?

It doesn't work that way my friend. Sorry. For them, it will be "normal", all they've really ever known, like blacks in the showers and as basketball stars. You and I are Betamax tapes in a iPhone world. They couldn't care less nor do they see an issue.

Your deficiency here is you look from foresight. I look from hindsight. When I was young, I was very ultra-liberal, as were all my friends. Now, we're only liberal in economics. We don't believe in turning the country over to illegal aliens, sex pervert lunatics, Muslim jihad lunatics, criminals, or affirmative action incompetents.

 

[protectionist]

Ah, the General believes the earth to be flat because all the neighbors say so? So be it.

I was just responding to Your subject theme. You brought up the "majority of the American people". Your words, not mine.

That was to show that the trend was against you, not a statement of right or wrong.

Time will tell. Let's see how many states pick up on Arizona's SB 1062. So far there's about 10 I think. And the map still shows a big majority discriminating against queers, as they've been doing for many years. I see no "trend" there.

Got better debates in other threads, to go to now. See you later!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Some people have to have things repeated.

Pew Poll (2044) - 61% of Republicans age 50 - 60 oppose legalizing queer marriage.

In the "future", the young will not be the young. Get it ?

It doesn't work that way my friend. Sorry. For them, it will be "normal", all they've really ever known, like blacks in the showers and as basketball stars. You and I are Betamax tapes in a iPhone world. They couldn't care less nor do they see an issue.

Your deficiency here is you look from foresight. I look from hindsight. When I was young, I was very ultra-liberal, as were all my friends. Now, we're only liberal in economics. We don't believe in turning the country over to illegal aliens, sex pervert lunatics, Muslim jihad lunatics, criminals, or affirmative action incompetents.

Your mistake is this isn't your country anymore, you just live here. America always belongs to the young, who wait, not so patiently, to rule over it, and they think you are on the wrong side of history just like so many who came before.

To them, that's you, and just as much consigned to the history books.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I was just responding to Your subject theme. You brought up the "majority of the American people". Your words, not mine.

That was to show that the trend was against you, not a statement of right or wrong.

Time will tell. Let's see how many states pick up on Arizona's SB 1062. So far there's about 10 I think. And the map still shows a big majority discriminating against queers, as they've been doing for many years. I see no "trend" there.

Got better debates in other threads, to go to now. See you later!

Sleep well, your nights are growing few.

 

[protectionist]

It doesn't work that way my friend. Sorry. For them, it will be "normal", all they've really ever known, like blacks in the showers and as basketball stars. You and I are Betamax tapes in a iPhone world. They couldn't care less nor do they see an issue.

Your deficiency here is you look from foresight. I look from hindsight. When I was young, I was very ultra-liberal, as were all my friends. Now, we're only liberal in economics. We don't believe in turning the country over to illegal aliens, sex pervert lunatics, Muslim jihad lunatics, criminals, or affirmative action incompetents.

Your mistake is this isn't your country anymore, you just live here. America always belongs to the young, who wait, not so patiently, to rule over it, and they think you are on the wrong side of history just like so many who came before.

Your mistake is this isn't your country as you wish it to be. Want to see how it really is ? Click the links in post # 2822, and look at the maps.

 

[protectionist]

"And 34 US states have declared that to be so with bans on queer marriage."

SCOTUS will rule that the states', while having the power to regulate marriage, cannot deny civil rights per the 14th.

Yeah ? And after 50 years of NOT RULING THAT, what gives you the notion that suddenly they will ?

Actually that is the gist of the Loving decision in 1967. That states can regulate Civil Marriage until such time as they violate rights.

EARTH TO JS: The SCOTUS has already ruled that they CAN discriminate. Are you reading the thread ? Try to keep up.

Which case was that?

United States vs. Carolene Products Co., and Korematsu v. United States

Strict scrutiny is the most stringent standard of judicial review used by United States courts. It is part of the hierarchy of standards that courts use to weigh the government's interest against a constitutional right or principle. The lesser standards are rational basis review and exacting or intermediate scrutiny. These standards are used to test statutes and government action at all levels of government within the United States.

The notion of "levels of judicial scrutiny", including strict scrutiny, was introduced in Footnote 4 of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Carolene Products Co. (1938), one of a series of decisions testing the constitutionality of New Deal legislation. The first and most notable case in which the Supreme Court applied the strict scrutiny standard and found the government's actions valid was Korematsu v. United States (1944), in which the Court upheld the exclusion of Japanese Americans from designated areas during World War II.

U.S. courts apply the strict scrutiny standard in two contexts, when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed,[1] particularly those found in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause or "liberty clause" of the 14th Amendment.

To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must be justified by acompelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred.

The United States vs. Carolene Products Co., and Korematsu v. United States were just the earliest of the cases of strict scrutiny requiring compelling interest. Over the years, there have been hundreds of cases involving this principle such as the Supreme Court under Earl Warren adopted an expansive view of the Free Exercise Clause. The Court required that states have a "compelling interest" in refusing to accommodate religiously motivated conduct as it decided Sherbert v. Verner (1963).

The "compelling interest" doctrine became much narrower in 1990, when the Supreme Court held in Employment Division v. Smith that, as long as a law does not target a particular religious practice, it does not violate the Free Exercise Clause.

in 1993, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which sought to restore the "compelling interest" standard. In City of Boerne v. Flores (1997) the Court struck down the provisions of the Act that forced state and local governments to provide protections exceeding those required by the First Amendment, which the courts enjoy sole power to interpret. According to the court's ruling in Gonzales v. UDV (2006), RFRA remains applicable to federal statutes, which must therefore still meet the "compelling interest" standard in free exercise cases.

Here's a few more examples (quoted right off the Supreme Court bench) >>>

“It [the university] must show that its regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn to achieve that end.” (Widmar v. Vincent, 454 US 263, 270, 1981)

“For the state to enforce a content-based exclusion it must show that its regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn to achieve that end.” (Perry Ed. Assn. v. Perry Local Ed. Assn., 460 US 37, 45, 1983)

“The Court of Appeals found the injunction to be content based and neither necessary to serve a compelling interest nor narrowly drawn to achieve that end.” (Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, 512 US __, __, 1994)

“Requiring a State to demonstrate a compelling interest and show that it has adopted the least restrictive means of achieving that interest is the most demanding test known to constitutional law.” (City of Boerne v. Flores, 1997 US Lexis 4035, 46)

 

[Seawytch]

Having grown up in the late 50s and 60s I often heard that vague term "they".
Who the hell are the "theys"?
YOUR team is the one defining not only discrimination but homosexuality.
You all claim to be conservative Reagan Republicans but fall back on the old reliable BULL SHIT "homosexuality is a choice" when FORTY DAMN YEARS AGO Reagan stated THEY ARE BORN THAT WAY.
I was voting Republican when you were in diapers.

I am neither a Republican or a Reaganist. Reagan was an opportunist, con artist, and traitor to America, and far removed from being a Conservative. His opposition to the Briggs Initiative was proof of that, as well as other non-conservative attributes about him, which I already mentioned previously.

Reagan Neocon? Why do so many people use that term without knowing what it meant. Reagan was a fiscal conservative, he wasn't a big government spender.

What was even his military use that justifies the label? Grenada? OK, he toppled the government, but clearly nation building was not his primary objective in selecting an Island in the Caribbean to topple a Communist government. He didn't topple Lebanon even though he was involved in it. He didn't topple Libya, he just retaliated against them for terrorism like the German disco attack. He wrecked the USSR financially.

You realize "Neocon" has an actual definition. How does it make sense more than tangentially to Reagan?

Did you type "Reagan wasn't a big government spender" with a straight face?

 

[Seawytch]

And to add to your comment, if a man does not have the common sense and intelligence not to put his stick in the mud, does that homosexual man have the common sense and intelligence not to tell Children he is a homosexual.

The answer was given to me when my daughter was 10, in school, when her Homosexual teacher told the whole class that he was breaking up with his "life partner".

What right do Homosexuals have to tell 10 year old children that are not theirs about Homosexuality?

Well, this is the beginning of a terrible story that I will end here.

anyone who does not have the intelligence to control their sexual proclivities has not the intelligence to be around children.

So if a straight teacher told their class they were getting married, having a baby, getting a divorce, etc...no biggie

but if one of "the gheys" does it...the world just ends for you?

How old are you?

 

[Seawytch]

Bingo.
People need need new ******* to look down on as beneath them and someone to point their finger at and say "there you go, they are different and the Bible says we must not allow them as equals".
And the dumb masses eat it up.
1001 other more important issues and the gay boogeyman always brings them out.
And mainly AND ONLY most of the time at election time.

What a load of shit - and really Dawg, if you are agreeing with Saul Goodman (Clayton,) you KNOW you're dead wrong on the issue, regardless of what that issue is.

I'm walking down a crowded street - quick, who are the queers? You can't tell, because homosexuality is a BEHAVIOR, not a race. Unless a dude drops in the middle of the street and starts sucking some guys cock, there is nothing to identify homosexuals - it's a behavior.

The ONLY way someone can discriminate against homosexuals is based on what they do, not color of skin.

Saul wants to make behavior equivalent to race, but then the closest Saul gets to logic, is logical fallacy.

It's how they define discrimination. Gays have the negative right now to be left alone. That isn't good enough. The left demands they get positive rights, the right to be belligerent about being gay and infringe on other's rights.

Translated: Gays are fine as long as they are quiet and in the closet...as soon as they demand rights equal to Kaz's...oooh, bad, bad gheys.

 

[GibsonSG]

What a load of shit - and really Dawg, if you are agreeing with Saul Goodman (Clayton,) you KNOW you're dead wrong on the issue, regardless of what that issue is.

I'm walking down a crowded street - quick, who are the queers? You can't tell, because homosexuality is a BEHAVIOR, not a race. Unless a dude drops in the middle of the street and starts sucking some guys cock, there is nothing to identify homosexuals - it's a behavior.

The ONLY way someone can discriminate against homosexuals is based on what they do, not color of skin.

Saul wants to make behavior equivalent to race, but then the closest Saul gets to logic, is logical fallacy.

It's how they define discrimination. Gays have the negative right now to be left alone. That isn't good enough. The left demands they get positive rights, the right to be belligerent about being gay and infringe on other's rights.

Translated: Gays are fine as long as they are quiet and in the closet...as soon as they demand rights equal to Kaz's...oooh, bad, bad gheys.

"the right to be belligerent about being gay"

Well, don't equal rights demand that gays should have the same right as heteros who seem to give themselves the right to be belligerent about gay people?

 

[Gadawg73]

OK, Folks claim homosexuality is a sin.
How many sins are there.
Aren't people supposed to forgive others for their sins?
Forgiveness in the Bible is a prominent theme. Forgiveness is obedience to God and his COMMAND to forgive.
So how can a Christian legitimately claim "religious freedom" when he does not go by God's command to forgive?
But of course this has nothing to do with Christianity or "religious freedom".
All about folks believing homosexuals are scum and beneath them.

 

[Seawytch]

It's how they define discrimination. Gays have the negative right now to be left alone. That isn't good enough. The left demands they get positive rights, the right to be belligerent about being gay and infringe on other's rights.

Translated: Gays are fine as long as they are quiet and in the closet...as soon as they demand rights equal to Kaz's...oooh, bad, bad gheys.

"the right to be belligerent about being gay"

Well, don't equal rights demand that gays should have the same right as heteros who seem to give themselves the right to be belligerent about gay people?

Yes, standing up for your rights is called "belligerent" by those that don't want them to have those rights. Uppity has been popular too.

 

[Gadawg73]

One of my clients is a young Republican and he is gay.
And he is a member of the Log Cabin Republicans in Atlanta.
And sports fans, people are taking notice in the Georgia GOP.
Times are changing and fast in the GOP in Georgia, not fast enough but they are.
Slowly but surely we are running off the KOOKS in the party.
Good riddance. We do not want you.

 

[paperview]

Yeah ? And after 50 years of NOT RULING THAT, what gives you the notion that suddenly they will ?

Actually that is the gist of the Loving decision in 1967. That states can regulate Civil Marriage until such time as they violate rights.

EARTH TO JS: The SCOTUS has already ruled that they CAN discriminate. Are you reading the thread ? Try to keep up.

Which case was that?

United States vs. Carolene Products Co., and Korematsu v. United States

Strict scrutiny is the most stringent standard of judicial review used by United States courts. It is part of the hierarchy of standards that courts use to weigh the government's interest against a constitutional right or principle. The lesser standards are rational basis review and exacting or intermediate scrutiny. These standards are used to test statutes and government action at all levels of government within the United States.

The notion of "levels of judicial scrutiny", including strict scrutiny, was introduced in Footnote 4 of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Carolene Products Co. (1938), one of a series of decisions testing the constitutionality of New Deal legislation. The first and most notable case in which the Supreme Court applied the strict scrutiny standard and found the government's actions valid was Korematsu v. United States (1944), in which the Court upheld the exclusion of Japanese Americans from designated areas during World War II.

U.S. courts apply the strict scrutiny standard in two contexts, when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed,[1] particularly those found in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause or "liberty clause" of the 14th Amendment.

To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must be justified by acompelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred.

The United States vs. Carolene Products Co., and Korematsu v. United States were just the earliest of the cases of strict scrutiny requiring compelling interest. Over the years, there have been hundreds of cases involving this principle such as the Supreme Court under Earl Warren adopted an expansive view of the Free Exercise Clause. The Court required that states have a "compelling interest" in refusing to accommodate religiously motivated conduct as it decided Sherbert v. Verner (1963).

The "compelling interest" doctrine became much narrower in 1990, when the Supreme Court held in Employment Division v. Smith that, as long as a law does not target a particular religious practice, it does not violate the Free Exercise Clause.

in 1993, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which sought to restore the "compelling interest" standard. In City of Boerne v. Flores (1997) the Court struck down the provisions of the Act that forced state and local governments to provide protections exceeding those required by the First Amendment, which the courts enjoy sole power to interpret. According to the court's ruling in Gonzales v. UDV (2006), RFRA remains applicable to federal statutes, which must therefore still meet the "compelling interest" standard in free exercise cases.

Here's a few more examples (quoted right off the Supreme Court bench) >>>

“It [the university] must show that its regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn to achieve that end.” (Widmar v. Vincent, 454 US 263, 270, 1981)

“For the state to enforce a content-based exclusion it must show that its regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn to achieve that end.” (Perry Ed. Assn. v. Perry Local Ed. Assn., 460 US 37, 45, 1983)

“The Court of Appeals found the injunction to be content based and neither necessary to serve a compelling interest nor narrowly drawn to achieve that end.” (Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, 512 US __, __, 1994)

“Requiring a State to demonstrate a compelling interest and show that it has adopted the least restrictive means of achieving that interest is the most demanding test known to constitutional law.” (City of Boerne v. Flores, 1997 US Lexis 4035, 46)

You seem to be confused.

Do you really understand strict scrutiny, rational basis scrutiny and heightened scrutiny?

Word: As Windsor's effects are felt (and we are seeing them near weekly now) we are now seeing Federal Courts even going beyond the rational basis "with teeth" -- as some have called Windsor, to a Strict Scrutiny in the Virginia ruling. How these survive, we shall see - but the momentum is certainly building.

And it's not in favor of the anti-gays.