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

[NYcarbineer]

"...Jesus never admonished businesses to refuse service to 'sinners'. That is a wholly fabricated, aftermarket if you will, belief that some so-called Christians have latched onto out their own biases..."

Quite true.

It is interpretation of sacred texts and historical teachings, and applying them to a modern-day problem; something that is done all the time, in any number of focal areas. This is no exception.

"...Religion is not a magic bullet that can shoot holes in the Constitution."

Quite true. But Freedom of Religion is an inviolable right that the Constitution has protected for far, far longer than it has been operative in shielding homosexuals.

The beauty and genius of such 'Religious Objection' laws is that sooner or later one of them is bound to hit a high-end judicial nerve in connection with Freedom of Religion.

I suspect that The Opposition will continue to probe along those lines until it hits upon the right formula, and wins-back the playing field.

The 3% cannot dictate to the 97% indefinitely - it's simply unsustainable.

You keep throwing that 97 to 3 number around but there is not 97% opposition to gay rights in this country.

And furthermore, only 1% of the US is Muslim. Does that mean their religious rights are doomed?

 

[Kondor3]

"...And those who saw 'evil' in the Jews, and I'm not talking about the Nazis here, let's talk about persecution of the Jews in the name of Christianity... ...what was that all about? Resisting Evil, as you call it?"

I'm not going to play your game and feed your Godwin-esque fantasy analogy.

Nowhere in either the primary sacred texts recognized by Christianity nor within the realm of enduring Church teachings and doctrine do we find support for the Jews being Evil.

The same is not true of homosexuality.

 

[Kondor3]

"...You keep throwing that 97 to 3 number around but there is not 97% opposition to gay rights in this country..."

Quite true. If one believes the polls of recent times, there is more support for Gay Rights than there is opposition. But 97% of the population is straight, and whatever support Gays can glean from the vast majority on the other side of the fence is a very transient, fragile thing, and subject to a thousand-and-one interlocking assumptions and dependencies, and the sustaining of goodwill while pushing their abhorrent practices and lifestyle into the daylight and into the faces of the 97% and their children.

"...And furthermore, only 1% of the US is Muslim. Does that mean their religious rights are doomed?"

Not at all. They aren't engaging in traditionally shunned and condemned behaviors.

 

[Derideo_Te]

"...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.

So you are banking upon people becoming bigots as they grow older?

What Churchill was referring to as conservatives does not equate to what the extreme right has redefined conservatives as being.

So yes, while neither of us has a crystal ball we can use trends as an indicator of probable outcomes. The demographic shift is real, both the census and the election results prove that it is happening. Texas could be a purple state by 2020.

I don't expect to change your mind or anyone else's for that matter. I am here because individual rights are something that I will strongly uphold irrespective of whose they may be and, yes, I will uphold your right to your opinion on this matter. You are entitled to not only your opinion, but the right to express it and the beliefs that led to forming this opinion. All of those are your individual rights and they are sacrosanct as far as I am concerned.

But your rights and those who share your position cannot impose your beliefs by using the law to infringe upon the legal rights of others to be free from discrimination. That is a clear bright line in my mind that cannot be crossed and yes, I will defend their individual rights in this regard just as staunchly.

 

[rightwinger]

"...You keep throwing that 97 to 3 number around but there is not 97% opposition to gay rights in this country..."

Quite true. If one believes the polls of recent times, there is more support for Gay Rights than there is opposition. But 97% of the population is straight, and whatever support Gays can glean from the vast majority on the other side of the fence is a very transient, fragile thing, and subject to a thousand-and-one interlocking assumptions and dependencies, and the sustaining of goodwill while pushing their abhorrent practices and lifestyle into the daylight and into the faces of the 97% and their children.

"...And furthermore, only 1% of the US is Muslim. Does that mean their religious rights are doomed?"

Not at all. They aren't engaging in traditionally shunned and condemned behaviors.

Gays do not need your support to have their rights protected

 

[WorldWatcher]

Nowhere in either the primary sacred texts recognized by Christianity nor within the realm of enduring Church teachings and doctrine do we find support for the Jews being Evil.

The same is not true of homosexuality.

You should read the law in question, it specifically states that personal religiouis beliefs need not be based on the doctrine of major religions. The text of the bill means it is their personal religious beliefs that are the deciding factor, not that they are required to show such beliefs are sanctioned by a major religion.

Just say'n, that's what the law says.

>>>>

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

Christians who hold homosexuality at arms' length are oftentimes of the mindset: of obsessively using that mind to graphically peer into other people's personal lives and bedrooms.

Christians who hold homosexuality at arms' length are oftentimes of the mindset: of really holding THEIR latent homosexual tendencies at arms' length.

Hey God, PLEASE explain how this law will be carried out? How will these 'EVIL sinners' be identified?? Will patrons have to show their papers before being served by these righteous business owners???

In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty.
Thomas Jefferson

For those few it actually was a "choice" to become "heterosexual" and deny their attraction for the same sex as themselves. But that "choice" doesn't alter the way they are wired inside. It is more just a denial of the way they were born because it clashes with the religious dogma they were taught.

 

[Kondor3]

So you are banking upon people becoming bigots as they grow older?

I am speculating that large numbers of today's metrosexual crowd will grow more intolerant of and repulsed by such behaviors and lifestyle as they mature; adopting a more traditional and historic stance upon such matters.

"...What Churchill was referring to as conservatives does not equate to what the extreme right has redefined conservatives as being..."

Opposition to homosexuality does not come from ONLY the 'extreme right', and believing that it does, rather than coming from the mainstream, is where the pro-Gay side of the aisle is underestimating the opposition that lies ahead of it. The Opposition is rubbing its hands with glee at the idea that the 'pro' side is making such a mistake on a broad scale.

"...So yes, while neither of us has a crystal ball we can use trends as an indicator of probable outcomes. The demographic shift is real, both the census and the election results prove that it is happening. Texas could be a purple state by 2020..."

Anything is possible. Some of the data does, indeed, appear to favor your own speculation and conclusions, but where we appear to differ most is that you (appear to) believe that the matter is all-but-settled now, while The Opposition believes that it's just getting warmed up, and that the real fun lies ahead of us.

"...I don't expect to change your mind or anyone else's for that matter. I am here because individual rights are something that I will strongly uphold irrespective of whose they may be and, yes, I will uphold your right to your opinion on this matter. You are entitled to not only your opinion, but the right to express it and the beliefs that led to forming this opinion. All of those are your individual rights and they are sacrosanct as far as I am concerned..."

In this, we have unequivocal common ground, and both appear strongly committed to such.

"...But your rights and those who share your position cannot impose your beliefs by using the law to infringe upon the legal rights of others to be free from discrimination. That is a clear bright line in my mind that cannot be crossed and yes, I will defend their individual rights in this regard just as staunchly."

Very well put.

Five out of five on that one.

I'm jealous.

By the same token, I will defend the rights of our countrymen to practice their Religion and to follow the dictates of their conscience, in accordance with time-honored perceptions, both religious and secular, of the degenerate nature of such behaviors and lifestyle practitioners.

 

[Kondor3]

Nowhere in either the primary sacred texts recognized by Christianity nor within the realm of enduring Church teachings and doctrine do we find support for the Jews being Evil.

The same is not true of homosexuality.

You should read the law in question, it specifically states that personal religiouis beliefs need not be based on the doctrine of major religions. The text of the bill means it is their personal religious beliefs that are the deciding factor, not that they are required to show such beliefs are sanctioned by a major religion.

Just say'n, that's what the law says.

>>>>

Good catch.

Perhaps that's merely the way most folks construe the law.

 

[RandallFlagg]

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.

You’re welcome to take a bible into Federal court and use it as ‘evidence’ in support of denying gay Americans their civil liberties.

And that there are currently married same-sex couples proves the bolded to be wrong.

And therein lies the problem with you paralegal types. Secularism versus religion. That's what it ALWAYS boils down to - doesn't it. You equate perversion and their being denied "civil rights". Tell me their Chief Justice....What Civil Rights SPECIFICALLY are they being denied? Tell me one.

 

[Katzndogz]

"...You keep throwing that 97 to 3 number around but there is not 97% opposition to gay rights in this country..."

Quite true. If one believes the polls of recent times, there is more support for Gay Rights than there is opposition. But 97% of the population is straight, and whatever support Gays can glean from the vast majority on the other side of the fence is a very transient, fragile thing, and subject to a thousand-and-one interlocking assumptions and dependencies, and the sustaining of goodwill while pushing their abhorrent practices and lifestyle into the daylight and into the faces of the 97% and their children.

"...And furthermore, only 1% of the US is Muslim. Does that mean their religious rights are doomed?"

Not at all. They aren't engaging in traditionally shunned and condemned behaviors.

There was certainly more support for integration and civil rights in 1964 than there was opposition. But, when integration finally came, whites STILL ran away and let Detroit and Chicago become what they are. People give a lot of lip service to "rights" but refuse to practice what they vocally support.

 

[Kondor3]

"...Gays do not need your support to have their rights protected"

Gays require the support of Straights, to have their rights protected.

Straights make the laws.

And Straights can change the laws, anytime they wish, and you can't stop them.

 

[Chaussette]

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.

You’re welcome to take a bible into Federal court and use it as ‘evidence’ in support of denying gay Americans their civil liberties.

And that there are currently married same-sex couples proves the bolded to be wrong.

And therein lies the problem with you paralegal types. Secularism versus religion. That's what it ALWAYS boils down to - doesn't it. You equate perversion and their being denied "civil rights". Tell me their Chief Justice....What Civil Rights SPECIFICALLY are they being denied? Tell me one.

Their right to drive you nuts because gays are MARRIED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Get over it already.

 

[Iceweasel]

So you are banking upon people becoming bigots as they grow older?

What Churchill was referring to as conservatives does not equate to what the extreme right has redefined conservatives as being.

Since you are apparently an expert on "the extreme right" how do they define themselves? Bigotry isn't defined as disagreeing with you, I would say that's how the extreme left defines itself since we see it regularly.

But your rights and those who share your position cannot impose your beliefs by using the law to infringe upon the legal rights of others to be free from discrimination. That is a clear bright line in my mind that cannot be crossed and yes, I will defend their individual rights in this regard just as staunchly.

Forcing someone to accept your alternative lifestyle is NOT protecting individual rights. Your logic is skewed. There is no black lifestyle. There is no asian lifestyle. There is no female lifestyle. A homosexual relationship isn't the same as race or gender no matter how badly you want it or demonize those that refuse to bow to your characterizations.

 

[Kondor3]

"...There was certainly more support for integration and civil rights in 1964 than there was opposition. But, when integration finally came, whites STILL ran away and let Detroit and Chicago become what they are. People give a lot of lip service to 'rights' but refuse to practice what they vocally support."

True. Neither Doctor King nor the Selma Marchers went prancing down Main Street in fairy-costume nor symbolically offered their backsides to sidewalk crowds containing large numbers of innocent little children - just for starters, as a visceral warm-up.

 

[Bfgrn]

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.

What a self-serving, horseshit equivalency...

Give a whiny, petulant Liberal enough time, and they'll pull out the Godwin card...

That's OK... it was overdue from your side of the aisle, anyway...

Godwin, really? WHY? How is what you are saying any different than Hitler and the Nazis?

"The national government... will maintain and defend the foundations on which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality."

"Today Christians... stand at the head of our country. I pledge that I will never tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity... We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit.... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past... few years."

Adolf Hitler
The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872.

 

[Kondor3]

"...The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872."

Ho-hum...

Hitler was a nominal Christian but not a practicing one, he was in favor of superseding Christianity with a more pagan-like Tuetonic belief-system that was supportive of his own agenda, and only paid lip service to Christianity so as to 'bring along' his own population, which was still largely Christian by confession.

Meanwhile, as to Christianity's own prohibitions and condemnations of homosexuality... take it up with the authors of the Old Testament, and the teachings of various branches of the Christian Church over the past 2000 years.

Any similarities you note here are mere coincidence and are not similarly motivated.

Next slide, please.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"...The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872."

Ho-hum...

Hitler was a nominal Christian but not a practicing one, he was in favor of superseding Christianity with a more pagan-like Tuetonic belief-system that was supportive of his own agenda, and only paid lip service to Christianity so as to 'bring along' his own population, which was still largely Christian by confession.

Meanwhile, as to Christianity's own prohibitions and condemnations of homosexuality... take it up with the authors of the Old Testament, and the teachings of various branches of the Christian Church over the past 2000 years.

Any similarities you note here are mere coincidence and are not similarly motivated.

Next slide, please.

So Hitler wanted Nazism to be, in effect, a religion? You would thus want Nazism in this country to be considered constitutionally protected, as a religion, and therefore,

the businesses run by Nazi believers would in fact have your blessing to refuse service to Jews.

 

[Kondor3]

"...The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872."

Ho-hum...

Hitler was a nominal Christian but not a practicing one, he was in favor of superseding Christianity with a more pagan-like Tuetonic belief-system that was supportive of his own agenda, and only paid lip service to Christianity so as to 'bring along' his own population, which was still largely Christian by confession.

Meanwhile, as to Christianity's own prohibitions and condemnations of homosexuality... take it up with the authors of the Old Testament, and the teachings of various branches of the Christian Church over the past 2000 years.

Any similarities you note here are mere coincidence and are not similarly motivated.

Next slide, please.

So Hitler wanted Nazism to be, in effect, a religion? You would thus want Nazism in this country to be considered constitutionally protected, as a religion, and therefore,

the businesses run by Nazi believers would in fact have your blessing to refuse service to Jews.

Ohhhhhh, Lordeeee, but we're takin' our imagination and weak segues out for a long walk today, aren't we?

Not even close... nice try... not.

 

[Katzndogz]

Democrats want obamaism to be a religion too. So what's the difference?