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

[NYcarbineer]

One response...this sign is real, in a Tucson pizzeria:

According to the mentally retarded in this thread, the above will hurt this guy's business.

Want to bet?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Another far left thread fail.

Gay, Abortion, free BC pills is about all the far left has in their arsenal. One can thank the far left president Obama who has managed to take away all the other far left talking points when he followed in Bush's foot steps.

Are you serious? If so you need a reality check - likely meds.

 

[Chaussette]

Arizona is a homophobic state. Using religion to discriminate is just what Jesus had in mind, don't you think?

 

[Seawytch]

Arizona is a homophobic state. Using religion to discriminate is just what Jesus had in mind, don't you think?

No, it isn't what Jesus would do. Jesus didn't refuse anyone service. These people are not acting within the tenants of their faith by not doing business with icky gays, they are acting within their bigotry and nothing more.

 

[Wry Catcher]

One response...this sign is real, in a Tucson pizzeria:

According to the mentally retarded in this thread, the above will hurt this guy's business.

Want to bet?

We were in Flagstaff a few years ago and went to a Pub which had a sign on it's front door stating "No GUNS". A second piece of evidence that not everyone in Arizona is nuts.

Most enigmatic is the how ultra conservatives in Arizona hate Gays and Communism - would V. Putin win if he ran for governor in Arizona? Don't those fools who claim to support liberty and freedom understand they are authoritarians?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Arizona is a homophobic state. Using religion to discriminate is just what Jesus had in mind, don't you think?

Fundamentalist Christians abuse Jesus more than they abuse homosexuals.

 

[Iceweasel]

The extreme right has been adamantly opposed to all background checks to determine if anyone has a history of mental illness. But hardly surprising that you want to blame the left for the obstruction of the extreme right.

Source?

 

[Kondor3]

Arizona is a homophobic state. Using religion to discriminate is just what Jesus had in mind, don't you think?

Fundamentalist Christians abuse Jesus more than they abuse homosexuals.

Hardly.

Christians who hold homosexuality at arms' length are oftentimes of the mindset: Hate the sin, love the sinner.

Christians who hold homosexuality at arms' length are oftentimes of the mindset: Refusing to aid and abet the sin or the sinner is demonstrating the resolve of Goodness in the face of Perversity, Aberration, Filth, Sin, Uncleanness and Wrongdoing.

Christians who hold homosexuality at arms' length are oftentimes of the mindset: We are doing the Lord's work, leading by example, in resistance to Evil; just as Jesus would have done.

 

[Iceweasel]

The volume of the noise does not correlate to the actual numbers of people involved. A single car with a booming stereo system passing by can drown out an entire orchestra playing in the park.

So let's put this in perspective. Those "backlashes" are the vocal minority who are opposed to gays. You are correct that it doesn't "amount to diddly squat, until it materializes into Law..." and that is where the rubber meets the road.

Wrong. The backlash is due to legislation being passed by the vocal minority. That vocal minority wants everyone to treat their alternative relationships the same as traditional relationships regardless of the individual's moral compass. If something isn't done to curb thetyranny it will spread nationally. What you percieve as a vocal minority is the tip of the iceburg. Most people want the freedom to entertain their values instead of having their values dictated to them by the vocal minority.

So let's recap the opposition to Gay marriage from a legislative perspective. It was a hot button issue in the 1990's and that resulted in DOMA being passed by the anti-gay lobby. Another 30 states chose to enact similar anti-gay marriage laws onto their books.

The cap fell off of your recap right away. There was no anti-gay lobby, that's your biased mindset speaking. The call was to protect traditional marriage in the states that wanted it but were over ruled by judicial decree. Your propaganda is typical of the homosexual activists, transparent and unethical

But Scalia was so incensed by the overturning of DOMA that he wrote a 26 page dissenting opinion. In one paragraph he provided the explicit wording that could be used in the Windsor decision to overturn the anti-gay marriage laws at the state level. Subsequently 5 of the 7 states that have had their anti-gay marriage laws overturned in lower courts have actually cited Scalia's dissent. The latest state didn't even try to fight it and just conceded that it was unconstitutional. There is every reason to believe that the other 23 states will end up having their laws overturned in next couple of years too.

yawn.

So this brings us to the current attempt to enact anti-gay legislation. In order to be successful it must avoid the appearance of discrimination. With the Windsor decision now on the books that makes it illegal to discriminate against gays as a class.

If it's bad law it probably will be over turned. Gays as individuals are one thing, however you have to prove that they have the Constitutional right to force people to adopt their alternative lifesyle, which is the issue. The right to live your life the way you want is one thing, but normalizing it for others is another.

This AZ law is a "Hail Mary" pass at attempting to make religious belief into a "protected class" all by itself. But the Constitution specifically forbids state endorsement of any religion whatsoever. So even if it becomes law it will be overturned as soon as it reaches the courts, let alone the Supreme Court.

Only religious people take issue with it? Are you sure? Of course not, you're puffing yourself up talking smack.

The fanatical extreme right anti-gay movement is fighting a losing "rear guard" legal battle that flies in the face of the Constitution and individual rights. There is no legitimate basis for encoding discrimination against gays.

That isn't the issue.

Your "Canary in the Coal Mine" metaphor is being misinterpreted. The problem the anti-gay movement faces is that is about to become an endangered species. The demographic shift will continue to work against them as more and more people adopt a realistic approach to treating gays as equal members of society.

yawn. Do you ever tire of chest pounding? Christ, you anti-freedom types are a bunch of babbling baboons.

 

[zeke]

Arizona is a homophobic state. Using religion to discriminate is just what Jesus had in mind, don't you think?

Fundamentalist Christians abuse Jesus more than they abuse homosexuals.

Hardly.

Christians who hold homosexuality at arms' length are oftentimes of the mindset: Hate the sin, love the sinner.

Christians who hold homosexuality at arms' length are oftentimes of the mindset: Refusing to aid and abet the sin or the sinner is demonstrating the resolve of Goodness in the face of Perversity, Aberration, Filth, Sin, Uncleanness and Wrongdoing.

Christians who hold homosexuality at arms' length are oftentimes of the mindset: We are doing the Lord's work, leading by example, in resistance to Evil; just as Jesus would have done.

Hey, I think the Inquisition used the exact same words. The Inquisition was pretty damn Godly don't ya think? Bring back the rack for those damn homos. That'll teach em the way of the Lord. Right dude?

 

[WorldWatcher]

The Federal Government has no Constitutional right to tell anyone who they must do business with. I believe in the old sign I used to see at most businesses, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone".

The U.S. Supreme Court is supposed to be arbitrator of the Constitution, but it is not. What it is is another political tool. The Republican appointees make rulings according to the Constitution, the Democrat appointees make rulings in accordance with their ideology.

#1 - States have their own version of Public Accommodation laws. Elaine Photography (New Mexico) and Sweetcakes by Melissa (Oregon) were cases of national attention - however those cases were under State Law, not Federal Law, and an excercise of STATE regulation of commerce. An interesting note, which highlights that Public Accommodation laws are a separate issue from Same Sex Civil Marriage is that there is no Civil Marriage in either of those states.

#2 - You are incorrect about who approved it based on political affiliation. The landmark Federal case was Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States and the court voted unanimously (9-0) or (8-1), I don't remember which, that Federal Public Accommodation laws are constitution under the powers to regulate commerce. It's also interesting to note that Justice Scalia was the author of Employment Division v. Smith, a landmark case which established that it is Constitutional for government to require general applicability of a law even if it does not comport with an individuals personal religious beliefs.





>>>>

 

[Kondor3]

"...Your 'Canary in the Coal Mine' metaphor is being misinterpreted..."

The longer the pro-Gay side of the aisle continues to delude itself about the Canary, the more time the other side of the aisle has, to set serious countermeasures into motion without being taken seriously, and without serious opposition. I'm sure that's fine by them.

"...The problem the anti-gay movement faces is that is about to become an endangered species. The demographic shift will continue to work against them as more and more people adopt a realistic approach to treating gays as equal members of society."

I believe that the pro-Gay side of the aisle puts far too much trust in poll-based trend perceptions - a state of affairs which - like the Canary - is probably just fine with most folks workin' the other side of the aisle - makes the job of deploying countermeasures easier.

It's one thing for the latest generation of seemingly androgynous metrosexual chaff to tell a pollster or an online poll that they support Gay Rights...

It's quite another when the males and females of that nature begin to raise children of their own and start thinking: God, I don't want that shit around my kids - or, simply, when they find God, as they begin to put on a few more years, and the thought hits them, that such perversity might go against both God and Nature, after all.

There's nothing new under the sun, and you cannot legitimize the sexual behaviors and related lifestyle of 3% of the population, and sustain that legitimacy, when so many oppose it.

You believe you have time on your side.

I believe that the more time passes, the more of the present 'loose' and 'tolerant' folk amongst younger generations will adopt more Conservative views.

There's an old maxim, apocryphally attributed to Winston Churchill, which goes:

"He who is not a Liberal in his youth has no heart. He who is not a Conservative in his maturity has no brains." = or some-such thing... you get the idea.

People's attitudes do, indeed, change, with the passage of time; generally becoming more Conservative in nature; with respect to social mores, most frequently, in addition to changes in political perspective.

But, neither of us has a crystal ball; merely personal speculation based upon some common-sense conclusions that each of us believes to be operating from as a point of departure.

We are irreconcilable in this matter, but that's not the end of the world, nor this conflict, which is likely to rage for many years after this thread (and board) has seen its last post.

 

[Kondor3]

"...Christians who hold homosexuality at arms' length are oftentimes of the mindset: We are doing the Lord's work, leading by example, in resistance to Evil; just as Jesus would have done."

Hey, I think the Inquisition used the exact same words. The Inquisition was pretty damn Godly don't ya think? Bring back the rack for those damn homos. That'll teach em the way of the Lord. Right dude?

Suit yourself...

I don't recall the Inquisition sitting in-session in this country during all the decades and centuries right up to the present day - with homosexuality being held at arms-length throughout that entire period - but, if you say so...

Meanwhile, enjoy the show...

 

[RandallFlagg]

And if it is my religiously held belief that it is unholy or otherwise wrong in the eyes of the God of My Understanding, to have dealings with homosexuals, and if I operate a public business, must I violate my religiously-held belief, and serve such persons?

Apparently, according to the marxists members of this forum, your "rights" have no bearing on the matter. YOUR rights MUST be given up in order for YOU to conduct business. Whether or not you agree with the infringement, it makes no difference - as long as the perverts are free to practice their perversion. They will tell you, that if the behavior offends you (and ESPECIALLY if you are religious) you must close your business down, rather than offend those offending you.

THEIR rights supecede yours.

Your response above says volumes about why you consider yourself to be a "proud Tea Party member".

Your damned straight, sonny. And damned proud of it.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Apparently, according to the marxists members of this forum, your "rights" have no bearing on the matter. YOUR rights MUST be given up in order for YOU to conduct business. Whether or not you agree with the infringement, it makes no difference - as long as the perverts are free to practice their perversion. They will tell you, that if the behavior offends you (and ESPECIALLY if you are religious) you must close your business down, rather than offend those offending you.

THEIR rights supecede yours.

Your response above says volumes about why you consider yourself to be a "proud Tea Party member".

Your damned straight, sonny. And damned proud of it.

Do you know you're mentally ill?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Arizona is a homophobic state. Using religion to discriminate is just what Jesus had in mind, don't you think?

Fundamentalist Christians abuse Jesus more than they abuse homosexuals.

Hardly.

Christians who hold homosexuality at arms' length are oftentimes of the mindset: Hate the sin, love the sinner.

Christians who hold homosexuality at arms' length are oftentimes of the mindset: Refusing to aid and abet the sin or the sinner is demonstrating the resolve of Goodness in the face of Perversity, Aberration, Filth, Sin, Uncleanness and Wrongdoing.

Christians who hold homosexuality at arms' length are oftentimes of the mindset: We are doing the Lord's work, leading by example, in resistance to Evil; just as Jesus would have done.

Or, as Pope Francis recently said about homosexuals..."Who am I to judge?"

btw, what 'sinners' did Jesus shun?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Apparently, according to the marxists members of this forum, your "rights" have no bearing on the matter. YOUR rights MUST be given up in order for YOU to conduct business. Whether or not you agree with the infringement, it makes no difference - as long as the perverts are free to practice their perversion. They will tell you, that if the behavior offends you (and ESPECIALLY if you are religious) you must close your business down, rather than offend those offending you.

THEIR rights supecede yours.

Your response above says volumes about why you consider yourself to be a "proud Tea Party member".

Your damned straight, sonny. And damned proud of it.

You’re proud to be an ignorant, hateful bigot?

That’s a strange thing to be ‘proud’ of.

Of course, you have the right to be an ignorant, hateful bigot, but you don’t have the right to seek to codify your ignorance and hate.

 

[RandallFlagg]

1. Jesus saved the adulterous woman from being stoned to death; had he been an adherent to what Paul said above, he would have never gone near her.

2. Similarly in Luke 7 36-50

Funny how people who don't know the Bible use it to defend their stupidity. Paul did not contradict anything. Jesus spoke against sexual immorality which homosexuality is.

When did this Jesus speak of homosexuality?

Gee..it's a shame that you've never read the Bible...


As it turns out, yes, He did. As a matter of fact, He spoke very clearly and directly about it.

Matthew 19:4. Here Jesus is answering a question from the Pharisees regarding divorce. However, his answer is very telling concerning the entire issue of sexuality, the purpose of sexuality, marriage and the proper form of marriage. Here are the words of Jesus:

“And He answered and said to them, ‘Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning “made them male and female,” and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”?’” (Matthew 19:4)



Now, I understand that the limp-wrists refer to each other as "Husband and Wife" however, this perversion doesn't qualify - as much as they would have us believe that it does. Marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN. Period.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The 'freedom' of businesses to refuse service to whom they choose looks like this:

The actual sign that German businesses put in their shop windows.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Your response above says volumes about why you consider yourself to be a "proud Tea Party member".

Your damned straight, sonny. And damned proud of it.

You’re proud to be an ignorant, hateful bigot?

That’s a strange thing to be ‘proud’ of.

Of course, you have the right to be an ignorant, hateful bigot, but you don’t have the right to seek to codify your ignorance and hate.

Paralegal - do me a favor and save your BS for someone who cares.