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

[Uncensored2008]

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

The Sodom and Gomorrah parts!

 

[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.

This is unquestionably one of the dumbest posts I've seen in a long time (unless the poster is lying). Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're being truthful, how can you possibly not see the harm from openly queer behavior. I've stated it 100 times in this thread. Are you reading it ? Good grief. How foolish can anyone be ?

 

[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".

I totally DISagree.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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

The Sodom and Gomorrah parts!

Lot and his daughters. Cain and Able. Water into Wine. Hagar on the side. Pick your poison.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

You said the ruling was a lower court ruling, stayed on appeal and will be overturned.


Psst - the case (and link provided) was to the United States Supreme Court, please explain how a SCOTUS ruling is stayed and appealed and what court in the Judaical Branch will overturn their ruling.

Then explain what else I was wrong about please. Have the legislatures not passed Same-sex Civil Marriage? Did SSCM not win at the ballot box in the 2012 General Election in 4 States (Washington, Maine, and Maryland voting directly to allow SSCM and in Minnesota a ban being defeated - which led to the legislature passing it a few months later).


>>>>

 

[Bombur]

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.

This is unquestionably one of the dumbest posts I've seen in a long time (unless the poster is lying). Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're being truthful, how can you possibly not see the harm from openly queer behavior. I've stated it 100 times in this thread. Are you reading it ? Good grief. How foolish can anyone be ?

Your bigotry is far more harmful than two grown gay guys loving each other.

 

[protectionist]

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".

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

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

You might be. I'm not.

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

 

[Gadawg73]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=493pL_Vbtnc]YouTube[/ame]

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Cool...as long as we're getting legally married, too...that's great!

Did I finally make my point about you not having a right to a wedding cake?

Goodness no...there is no point to make with bullshit "religious objections" to public accommodation laws. You got the business license, now do the fucking business. If you live in a state that includes gays in public accommodation laws, do business with them or move.

In all 50 states I must serve a Christian even if I "object" to their religiosity. Suck it up, Sunshine.

For the record, the point here is that laws fuck people over, sometimes in ways that are unintentional. All religious freedom statutes do is give people one way of doing something about it, it is hardly the only way of getting around absurd laws.

By the way, you are wrong in your assertion that all states require you to serve Christians if you object to their religion. The fact is that most states allow you, or anyone else, who has a sincere objection to a law to opt out of obeying that law on the grounds that it violates your personal beliefs. That triggers a process whereby the state, or someone who is personally upset by the fact that they can't control you. All this bill did was clarify exactly what grounds a person has to meet to successfully defend themselves from the state, the rest is up to a judge.

Which begs the question, are you really so afraid that your personal beliefs are so indefensible that the only way you are willing to risk anything is by forcing the government to impose them on everyone else?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Sure. Show the SAME amount of outrage over MRS Smith teaching class...and using the "MRS" part...flaunting her sexuality like that in public. Where's the outrage?

Only puppets get outraged.

In other words, you have no response to my point. The "outrage" in only if a gay teacher is not closeted.

I never claimed to be outraged by that, did I? I just proposed an alternative way of approaching the situation, keep all private teacher shit out of the classroom. Classrooms are there to educate the children, not to allow teachers to get free labor for their parties.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I really don't understand why you think this is insightful.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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".

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

Let me see if I understand your position; it is against the law, therefore everyone who disagrees is wrong.
Did that sum it up?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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".

Which explains your complete ignorance. I posted this particular example long before anyone used a public accommodation law to force people to attend weddings.

Some Strange Consequences of Public Accommodations Laws | The Volokh ConspiracyThe Volokh Conspiracy

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

The only thing we all know is that...

Actually, there is nothing we all know.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Protected class is a made up term with no legal standing that was baked by the religious right.
Was it a "bad idea" to make blacks a "protected class" when they wanted to go to the same schools as whites?
Rights are rights no matter how hard folks want to spin it.
No one has a right to a cake but everyone has a right to be treated the same.
And other than the ONE CAKE CASE what do we have as violations of "religious freedom"?
Bottom line Chambers of Commerce are pro business and oppose all these stupid "religious freedom" BS laws.
Because they are all frauds.

That explains why Clayton, the self declared expert on the law, keeps telling me that Nazis aren't a protected class.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What harm is there in baking the cake?
We all know the "religious freedom" argument is a bogus one.

Right. It's a "general freedom" (or, more specifically, a "freedom of association") issue. The concept of freedom entails we can do what we like as long as it doesn't harm anyone else.



And here you turn the concept on it's head - implying that government can require us to do anything as long as it's not 'harming' us. You realize how that is switching things around, right? Sorta like the guilty-until-proven-innocent switch that's going in our courtrooms.

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?

Lot's of us feel harmed when others don't do what we want them to do. But is that really legitimate? Last week, the cute barista at the coffee shop rudely rejected my invitation to lunch. I felt 'harmed'. Should I bring charges?

Why do you not apply the SAME standards and critique to those that claim their "religious freedom" was denied?

That is the subject. That was the law that was passed in AZ.
Respectfully, nothing at all to do with what you are talking about.

He does.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Right. It's a "general freedom" (or, more specifically, a "freedom of association") issue. The concept of freedom entails we can do what we like as long as it doesn't harm anyone else.



And here you turn the concept on it's head - implying that government can require us to do anything as long as it's not 'harming' us. You realize how that is switching things around, right? Sorta like the guilty-until-proven-innocent switch that's going in our courtrooms.



Lot's of us feel harmed when others don't do what we want them to do. But is that really legitimate? Last week, the cute barista at the coffee shop rudely rejected my invitation to lunch. I felt 'harmed'. Should I bring charges?

Why do you not apply the SAME standards and critique to those that claim their "religious freedom" was denied?

That is the subject. That was the law that was passed in AZ.
Respectfully, nothing at all to do with what you are talking about.

Because, as several of us here have observed, the AZ law wasn't attempting to address any specific harm, religious or otherwise - it was a political challenge against the precedents set by standing civil rights legislation. I agree that the law submitted to make that challenge was flawed, because it too narrowly focused on religious freedom instead of the broader issue (probably because the backers believed that gave them a better chance of success, I dunno). But I wholeheartedly agree with the spirit of the challenge. Public accommodations laws and protected classes are a perversion of the concept of 'rights' and need to be addressed as such.

It was not.

It was actually an attempt to bring Arizona law into line with federal law.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

So, you lied?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Sounds like fun.

 

[GibsonSG]

Homophobes lost again. Everyone move along, nothing left to see here.