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

[WorldWatcher]

But not baking the cake DOES violate some public accommodation laws.

Right. That's why some of us are calling bullshit on those laws.

Bullshit is right. Nobody gave a shit about public accommodation laws until they started applying to " the gheys".

"Although majorities in both parties voted for the bill, there were notable exceptions. Though he opposed forced segregation,[36] Republican Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona voted against the bill, remarking, "You can't legislate morality." Goldwater had supported previous attempts to pass civil rights legislation in 1957 and 1960 as well as the 24th Amendment outlawing the poll tax. He stated that the reason for his opposition to the 1964 bill was Title II, which in his opinion violated individual liberty and states' rights." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964)

Title II were the Federal Public Accommodation law provisions.


So ya, some then did oppose those provisions.


>>>>

 

[Mertex]

I will take this as a yes.

Yes what? That you are the one that is lying.....or yes, your comments are stupid....either one will do.

Aren't you the one that claimed that, since you don't live in Arizona, nothing that happens there makes a difference to you?

That's right, I didn't travel to Arizona to protest it....however, that doesn't mean I can't comment on how stupid that law was and that I'm glad it was struck down.

Weren't you the one that claimed to love the Constitution? Why are you okay with a law that would go against it?

 

[hunarcy]

I will take this as a yes.

Yes what? That you are the one that is lying.....or yes, your comments are stupid....either one will do.

Aren't you the one that claimed that, since you don't live in Arizona, nothing that happens there makes a difference to you?

Careful...she'll lie about you, then call you names, then start sending you private messages until you put her on ignore and then she'll threaten to report you for harassing HER. She'll NEVER make an honest argument...at least that was my experience before I put her on ignore

 

[Uncensored2008]

Not anti Christian.
Anti those that wear a Big C on their hat and have to go around every second of the day telling everyone else how they are not Christian enough, anti Christian and ONLY THEY are real Christians.
If you are truly a Christian you never have to tell anyone or judge anyone else's beliefs.
They will know it by your ACTIONS.

LOL

Me? I'm an agnostic. I have no idea if there is a god. I DO know that if there is one, it isn't some cosmic goat herder.

 

[hunarcy]

Not anti Christian.
Anti those that wear a Big C on their hat and have to go around every second of the day telling everyone else how they are not Christian enough, anti Christian and ONLY THEY are real Christians.
If you are truly a Christian you never have to tell anyone or judge anyone else's beliefs.
They will know it by your ACTIONS.

LOL

Me? I'm an agnostic. I have no idea if there is a god. I DO know that if there is one, it isn't some cosmic goat herder.

Maybe God likes goats.

I'd just like someone to explain how the eye accidently evolved.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Maybe God likes goats.

I'd just like someone to explain how the eye accidently evolved.

There is nothing "accidental" about evolution.

 

[hunarcy]

There is nothing "accidental" about evolution.

I don't see an explanation. If you can't live up to the challenge, you don't have to post to prove it.

 

[dblack]

Maybe God likes goats.

I'd just like someone to explain how the eye accidently evolved.

There is nothing "accidental" about evolution.

There are some really cool theories for this. I'm sure Google can help you find some. But that's all we'll ever really have. However it happened, it happened.

 

[hunarcy]

Maybe God likes goats.

I'd just like someone to explain how the eye accidently evolved.

There is nothing "accidental" about evolution.

There are some really cool theories for this. I'm sure Google can help you find some. But that's all we'll ever really have. However it happened, it happened.

The theories do a great job at addressing why...not so much on how.

 

[Seawytch]

Right. That's why some of us are calling bullshit on those laws.

Bullshit is right. Nobody gave a shit about public accommodation laws until they started applying to " the gheys".

"Although majorities in both parties voted for the bill, there were notable exceptions. Though he opposed forced segregation,[36] Republican Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona voted against the bill, remarking, "You can't legislate morality." Goldwater had supported previous attempts to pass civil rights legislation in 1957 and 1960 as well as the 24th Amendment outlawing the poll tax. He stated that the reason for his opposition to the 1964 bill was Title II, which in his opinion violated individual liberty and states' rights." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964)

Title II were the Federal Public Accommodation law provisions.


So ya, some then did oppose those provisions.


>>>>

Yeah...the guy that lost in an historic trouncing.

 

[dblack]

Bullshit is right. Nobody gave a shit about public accommodation laws until they started applying to " the gheys".

"Although majorities in both parties voted for the bill, there were notable exceptions. Though he opposed forced segregation,[36] Republican Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona voted against the bill, remarking, "You can't legislate morality." Goldwater had supported previous attempts to pass civil rights legislation in 1957 and 1960 as well as the 24th Amendment outlawing the poll tax. He stated that the reason for his opposition to the 1964 bill was Title II, which in his opinion violated individual liberty and states' rights." (Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Title II were the Federal Public Accommodation law provisions.


So ya, some then did oppose those provisions.


>>>>

Yeah...the guy that lost in an historic trouncing.

Well, rather obviously, the people opposed to this stuff lost. But your claim that nobody cared until gays were included isn't exactly true.

Here's the thing (and liberals actually used to get this): defending liberty almost always means standing up for people you'd probably rather not associate with. Because it's always their liberty that gets targeted first. So people who care about freedom of speech find themselves defending pornographers. People defending freedom of religion, weird cults. And people defending freedom of association get stuck with the racists and bigots.

But like all those areas, if we don't protect the freedoms of people we disagree with, those freedoms will vanish for all of us. And we'll miss them.

 

[Uncensored2008]

There is nothing "accidental" about evolution.

I don't see an explanation. If you can't live up to the challenge, you don't have to post to prove it.

This isn't a thread on evolution. And I think you may be confusing the origin of life with evolution.

But for the eye, consider that early adaptations included the ability to detect radiation the ability to detect photons, intensity, spectrum, etc. developing slowly, one ability leading to the next. It was no accident that rods and cones developed, they were an improvement on earlier models, which in turn were improvements on even earlier models. One improvement building on the next.

 

[protectionist]

Solution: Fuck off and take your Bible with you.

I don't have a bible, and have never owned one in all of my 67 years. Never actually read the book either. Got any other brilliant suggestions ?

 

[protectionist]

OK, I may have misunderstood. Of course the government can discriminate if their is a compelling government interest. But of course there is no compelling government interest in discriminating against gays as a function of government. Hell, not only does it not have a compelling government interest, it doesn't even rise to the rational basis test standard.

Take for example Colorado's Amendment 2 which attempted to strip equality from homosexuals and leave them with no legal recourse to challenge discrimination, not only at the State level is voided even local laws that attempted to provide legal recourse. In Romer v. Evans the court stated:

"The Fourteenth Amendment's promise that no person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws must co-exist with the practical necessity that most legislation classifies for one purpose or another, with resulting disadvantage to various groups or persons. Personnel Administrator of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 271- 272 (1979); F. S. Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia, 253 U.S. 412, 415 (1920). We have attempted to reconcile the principle with the reality by stating that, if a law neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class, we will uphold the legislative classification so long as it bears a rational relation to some legitimate end. See, e.g., Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. ___, ___ (1993) (slip op., at 6).

Amendment 2 fails, indeed defies, even this conventional inquiry. First, the amendment has the peculiar property of imposing a broad and undifferentiated disability on a single named group, an exceptional and, as we shall explain, invalid form of legislation. Second, its sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests."​

Just to reiterate, the court said the the desire to discriminate against homosexuals lacked a rational basis.

Who cares what the state court said. This is a lower court ruling (stayed on appeal), which will be overturned...

The case of Romer v. Evans was a Supreme Court of the United States case and not a state court decision. The SCOTUS is the one who defined that under the United States Constitution that laws targeting homosexuals are unconstitutional and as it referred to amendment 2 had no rational basis - let alone needing to rise to strict scrutiny.

Romer v. Evans | LII / Legal Information Institute

Your opinion that throwing around the words "strict scrutiny" is going to be some kind of magic spell that can be invoked to deny equal treatment under the law for homosexuals is misplaced. A careful reading of the Romer decision and Windsor v. United States (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf) would - and should - make someone in your position very nervous. The arguments you propose have and are being shot down. Not just in the courts mind you, but in the legislatures, and as we saw in the 2012 General Election, with Same-sex Civil Marriage winning at the ballot box as well.

This is not only flat-out wrong, it is nothing more than propagandist NONSENSE. If it had an ounce of credibility, I wouldn't have been able to state all the facts that I did in Post # 2896. But I did state them, didn't I ? And they are the facts, aren't they ? And they will remain the facts, won't they ? That's a rhetorical question, I'll answer it. OF COURSE THEY WILL, because as in Florida, where queer rights bills don't stand a chance, all over the country, queers continue to be discriminated against by virtue of the various states' compelling interest to do so. If you wish to pretend this isn't so, you can do that. No law against coming in here and making a fool out of yourself.

The one thing you can't do is change reality >> https://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/maps-of-state-laws-policies

Actually, I needed to do nothing more than just post this link.

 

[hunarcy]

There is nothing "accidental" about evolution.

I don't see an explanation. If you can't live up to the challenge, you don't have to post to prove it.

This isn't a thread on evolution. And I think you may be confusing the origin of life with evolution.

But for the eye, consider that early adaptations included the ability to detect radiation the ability to detect photons, intensity, spectrum, etc. developing slowly, one ability leading to the next. It was no accident that rods and cones developed, they were an improvement on earlier models, which in turn were improvements on even earlier models. One improvement building on the next.

And I think some folks are spinning your wheels trying to attack the religious for their beliefs. Instead of attacking them, you should be trying to understand them while working to convince them that there's no threat to their religious beliefs. But, many would rather just belittle them for believing differently than the attackers believe.

And again, you did a great job of explaining why it happened, but not how. (and how can you say the eye developed slowly, but was apparently developed during the second BILLION years of the Earth?)

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Solution: Fuck off and take your Bible with you.

I don't have a bible, and have never owned one in all of my 67 years. Never actually read the book either. Got any other brilliant suggestions ?

Never read the Bible? In a Western nation that is a serious sin, pun intended.

 

[protectionist]

Bullshit is right. Nobody gave a shit about public accommodation laws until they started applying to " the gheys".

That's not true. Lots of us have. Granted, more are questioning them now as their application is expanded. I suspect every time they add another 'protected class', more people will realize they're a bad idea.

No one has a right to a cake but everyone has a right to be treated the same.

1. Do convicted criminals have a right to be treated the same as law abiding people ?

2. Do those in mental institutions have a right to be treated the same as sane people ?

3. Do people with bad credit have a right to be treated the same as those with good credit ?

4. Do children have a right to be treated the same as adults ?

5. Do people with DUI convictions have same rights as those with clean driving records ?

6. Do people with poor vision have the the same right to a driving license as those with good vision ?

States observe these with strict scrutiny, and have a compelling interest to discriminate, which is exactly what they do.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Solution: Fuck off and take your Bible with you.

I don't have a bible, and have never owned one in all of my 67 years. Never actually read the book either. Got any other brilliant suggestions ?

Never read the Bible? In a Western nation that is a serious sin, pun intended.

Just a sign of abject ignorance - expected from democrats.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I don't have a bible, and have never owned one in all of my 67 years. Never actually read the book either. Got any other brilliant suggestions ?

Never read the Bible? In a Western nation that is a serious sin, pun intended.

Just a sign of abject ignorance - expected from democrats.

Democrats often know the Bible. Some of them even live parts of it.

 

[protectionist]

I don't really understand what harm is done by a person being openly gay.. American Gays are citizens who pay taxes, vote, fight in our wars, serve as first responders...and fulfill all other responsibilities of citizenship...there is no reason that they should not be entitled to the same protections and rights under our constitution.
Harm in this instance only happens if those who claim harm make it so.

I totally agree. The question is: Does not baking someone a cake constitute "harm"? I think once everyone sobers up, the answer is clearly "no".

What harm is there in baking the cake?
We all know the "religious freedom" argument is a bogus one.
There is NO harm in requiring someone to bake a cake and no harm in not baking one.
To me and you because we ARE NOT gay.
But maybe the individual that wanted the cake and saw everyone else get a cake EXCEPT THEM because they are gay felt harmed.
How would you feel if folks treated you like a 2nd class citizen for having red hair?

Having red hair does not constitute harm. Sexual perversion does.