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

[Bfgrn]

Fear, suspicion and hate of the "other" has been human nature since the dawn of time. Are those that hate black people hiding their latent blackness? Are misogynists secretly women pretending to be normal men? Washingtonians who hate the Lummi tribe closeted Native Americans? I just don't see it.

There are probably many homosexuals who struggle with coming to terms with their orientation and do go through a period of vocal anti-gay speech, but that is a homosexual struggling to survive IMO and more akin to sympathisers and collaborators and self-hatred than actual bigotry.

Suspicion, fear and hatred of the "other" is (or was) about survival. Keeping women and children property ensures that your line survives over anothers. Persecuting the odd culture (even wiping them out, which we have been inclined to do) keeps your culture dominant and in power. The strongest survives, the rest perish, from the beginning to today, not just in America but across the globe.

Colonials/Native Americans, Hutu/Tutsi, Canadians/Quebecois, Christians/everyone else, Muslims/everyone else, heterosexual/homosexual. It is the human condition and takes a long time (if it is even possible) to reconcile two groups of "other". It seems to me that assimilation or absorbsion is the only way, but that kills some very interesting cultures. As long as they are "other," it seems they are wrong and that's a shame.

I think we are further along than we were, obviously, but not there. If we ever get there, I bet another "other" appears for us to fear and be suspicious of, therefore hate ... maybe aliens. If so, it will take generations to breed out that fear ... or they can just squash us lol.

You rarely can change a grown person's worldview. His children are less afraid and hate less, and their children begin to see commonalities rather than "other" due to exposure with little to no noticable ill effects. IMO, that is the point that the "other" is no longer a threat or danger. There is a reason that, historically, stranger = enemy. It is one of the reasons we are still here.

The link between homophobic actions and repressed latent homosexual tendencies has been scientifically proven. And in all of the studies, participants who reported supportive and accepting parents were more in touch with their implicit sexual orientation, meaning it tended to jibe with their outward sexual orientation. Students who indicated they came from authoritarian homes showed the biggest discrepancy between the two measures of sexual orientation.

"In a predominately heterosexual society, 'know thyself' can be a challenge for many gay individuals," lead author Netta Weinstein, a lecturer at the University of Essex in the United Kingdom,said in a statement. "But in controlling and homophobic homes, embracing a minority sexual orientation can be terrifying."

And fear is the very core of conservatism.

The history of mankind has been a struggle between those who want to increase freedom, opportunity and rights to all people and those who want to restrict them. The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals. The people who have fought to restrict them are conservatives.

Another fake study? Or are you just totally misrepresenting it?

Personally, after reading g the first few paragraphs of your link, I have concluded that you are a lying sack of shit.

One thing you should pay close attention to.

"This study shows that if you are feeling that kind of visceral reaction to an out-group, ask yourself, 'Why?'" co-author Richard Ryan, a professor of psychology at the University of Rochester, said in a statement. "Those intense emotions should serve as a call to self-reflection."

In other words, you should be asking yourself why you hate everyone. Is it because you were taught that from birth? Do you think you have no choice? Are you just a sick fucker who likes to pretend he is tough even though he hasn't left his bedroom since he got beat up in fifth grade?

Where do you come up with this shit pea brain? It can only be projection.

Reading the first few paragraphs is not reading the whole article, now is it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The link between homophobic actions and repressed latent homosexual tendencies has been scientifically proven. And in all of the studies, participants who reported supportive and accepting parents were more in touch with their implicit sexual orientation, meaning it tended to jibe with their outward sexual orientation. Students who indicated they came from authoritarian homes showed the biggest discrepancy between the two measures of sexual orientation.

"In a predominately heterosexual society, 'know thyself' can be a challenge for many gay individuals," lead author Netta Weinstein, a lecturer at the University of Essex in the United Kingdom,said in a statement. "But in controlling and homophobic homes, embracing a minority sexual orientation can be terrifying."

And fear is the very core of conservatism.

The history of mankind has been a struggle between those who want to increase freedom, opportunity and rights to all people and those who want to restrict them. The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals. The people who have fought to restrict them are conservatives.

Another fake study? Or are you just totally misrepresenting it?

Personally, after reading g the first few paragraphs of your link, I have concluded that you are a lying sack of shit.

One thing you should pay close attention to.

"This study shows that if you are feeling that kind of visceral reaction to an out-group, ask yourself, 'Why?'" co-author Richard Ryan, a professor of psychology at the University of Rochester, said in a statement. "Those intense emotions should serve as a call to self-reflection."

In other words, you should be asking yourself why you hate everyone. Is it because you were taught that from birth? Do you think you have no choice? Are you just a sick fucker who likes to pretend he is tough even though he hasn't left his bedroom since he got beat up in fifth grade?

Where do you come up with this shit pea brain? It can only be projection.

Reading the first few paragraphs is not reading the whole article, now is it?

You posted the study

 

[Immanuel]

Link?

How quickly you forget your own words.

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

Jesus and the apostle Paul never met. A brief guide to the Apostle Paul, and why he is so important - Beliefnet.com So your point is moot. You stated that nowhere in the BIBLE does it say with whom you should not associate. And it does. The apostle Paul followed the teachings of Jesus. No one can say that Jesus didn't say this or that because what he said was not always written down. The Bible itself even states that:

John 21:25

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they *were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself *would not contain the books that *would be written.

And there are many ancient texts that were not included in the Bible by the king who wanted the Bible to consist of a rule book that would make good subjects to the

You are not a Christian. You have not studied the Bible. People like you are such easy pickins' for those of us who have.

Never met?

Well, first the word Apostle actually means that he was with Jesus, I will get the definition and edit it here shortly:

But, per Acts 9, they most assuredly did meet.

Saul’s Conversion

9 Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples. He went to the high priest 2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem. 3 As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”

5 “Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked.

“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. 6 “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.

”

They did not meet before the Resurrection, but they surely met along the road to Damascus.

edit: I have to revise my statement about the definition of Apostle meaning he had met Jesus because I cannot back it up with a source at the moment and don't feel like hunting. What I did find is that Apostle means, one who was sent and the definitions include the 12, the 70 who were sent, and that Paul is considered an apostle based upon his later commission.

http://www.ask.com/wiki/Apostle_(Christian)

 

[NYcarbineer]

So long as they do not substantively conflict with United States Law, no problemo.

Cross that line and all bets are off.

It's the answer and open-door that you've been waiting for all morning.

Run with it.

And thus an Arizona religious law, granting its citizens the right to do or not do something based on their religious beliefs,

cannot in the process conflict with other rights and protections granted in the Constitution.

Pretty much case closed there, eh?

Are you admitting you lost the debate?

Are you admitting that you're an illiterate fuck with the comprehension capabilities of a 2 year old?

Prove I lost the debate.

 

[Iceweasel]

Are you admitting that you're an illiterate fuck with the comprehension capabilities of a 2 year old?

Prove I lost the debate.

I think you just did.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Good point.

Trouble is, (a) Francis does not lead the entire Christian community, (b) much of the large chunk of the community that he does lead does not agree with his latter-day modernistic interpretation, and (c) his perspective is not well-rooted in Church doctrine or teachings.

Beats me. I wasn't talking about Jesus shunning. I was talking about Jesus being one who was likely to resist evil.

1. So essentially, someone can make up any belief they want about gays and call it 'Christian?

2. You said Christians who hold homosexuality 'at arm's length' were acting just like Jesus acted.

I asked you what 'sinners' Jesus shunned, which is synonymous with holding something at arm's length, figuratively speaking.

1. Are you God? If not, what fucking right do you have to tell anyone that their beliefs are wrong?
2. Pretty sure he didn't say that.

What are you jabbering about?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Are you admitting that you're an illiterate fuck with the comprehension capabilities of a 2 year old?

Prove I lost the debate.

I think you just did.

Prove I lost the debate.

 

[Tresha91203]

Awesome. I have. Those are the only ones I have ever had a problem with. Assless chaps over a leather studded crotchpiece in public is in my face IMO. Blocking streets with signs about here, queer and get over it is invasive and disruptive to my ability to walk down the street just as much as the preachers are. I find those equally unacceptible (maybe if posted so I can take an alternate route). Having "breeder" hissed at me on a public street because I am holding my husband's hand is rude and agressive. These are the things that are unacceptible (to me) in society.

On the lesser end of the spectrum, I found the hostility towards the Chick fil a dude to be overboard, but because he expressed his beliefs in the positive (for traditional marriage) and made a point to state they are married to their first/original wives. He has no hatred of homosexuals, hires them, treats them exactly the same as everyone else. Divorcees, living in sinners, poly families, etc did not get outraged. I would say that was irksome, but no more so than PETA protests or other type boycotts/protests. I liken that more to when the fundies tried to boycott Disney.

I am glad your daughter does not associate with assholes. I agree that groping drunks are unacceptable, even in bars. There are a ton of rude condescending heterosexuals as well, and we have our share being so close to the Bible belt. Actually, I think we are just a pocket or bubble of "hedonism" in the middle of the belt. Maybe that's why we get more angry homosexuals and angry drunks ...er, I mean Catholics, around here. Not sure where you are, but I'm by New Orleans. Lots of fabulous people here of both orientations and an amazing culture, but lots of complete asses of both orientations IMO. Those are equally offensive to me and has to do with their manners, not their orientation.

I've got enough dealing with my own flaws to be concerned with any perceived (real or imagined) flaws in another. If I ever get myself fixed up right, maybe I'll have time to stick my nose in others' but would start with the husband, not the homosexuals.

The growing ascceptance boils down to something much more simple. Almost everyone has a family member, friend, co-worker or acquaintance who is gay. Suddenly they are not monsters...an epiphany....

For the one group, I very much agree. Usually, except for the extreme, family is not "other" so not threatening or to be feared. They know and love that family member, and that love and belonging does not die when the homosexual and family become aware of that orientation. That is the norm, IMO. When that same family member becomes invasive, intrusive, loud proud in your face and angry; however, there is conflict. It can destroy the family, just as it can divide the community on a larger scale. At that point, it is not homosexuality that is the issue, it is plain ole "I don't want to be around assholes so F off." It is the same as when a family member finds Jesus and you can no longer have any conversation except ones involving sharing the message or saving your soul. We have to tell them that if they cannot respect the rest of the family's dinner, we would rather them not come over for dinner.

I am happy you found Jesus. Please don't badger me with him. It is rude, intrusive, condescending and generally unpleasant. That pushes people away, the very people who love you. If you cannot have a conversation without telling me how your Jesus is the real one and mine is the devil pretending to be Jesus to deceive me, I don't want to have a conversation with you.

Your sexuality is personal, just as mine is. Your faith is personal, just as mine is. There is no need to be hostile and rude to the very people who love or support you. That is the group where I am seeing backlash. For instance, the snide way I have been called "breeder," despite having no children, is no different than those calling homosexuals "butt pirates." Can you not understand the pushback?

I have no objection to homosexuals. I have an objection to invasive rudeness, as it hinders our ability to live together happily. It applies to all genders, sexual orientations, creeds and cultures equally. It especially applies to loudness to me, personally, as that feels agressive or hostile to me, but that may be a me thing.

Edit: sorry to fail at quoting. I was quoting/responding to Bfgrn

I have never come across a gay person who was "invasive, intrusive, loud proud in your face and angry or rude, condescending and generally unpleasant". That would be heterosexual males with a few drinks in them. My daughter and her girlfriends would often go to gay bars to get away from being constantly hit on by obnoxious "invasive, intrusive, loud proud in your face and angry or rude, condescending and generally unpleasant" straight males. She says gay men treat women with respect and are much more kind.

I have never seen a group of gay people invading my neighborhood, ringing my doorbell, trying to 'convert' me and my wife to their beliefs and not taking no for an answer.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You would be outraged if a law was passed enabling gays to discriminate against Christians and you would be squealing about "special rights for gays". This law is exactly the reverse of that where Christians are being allowed "special rights" to discriminate against gays. What is good for the goose...

I have no problem with gays, or anyone else, telling anyone, including Christians, to keep out of their business.

Which would be consistent with your ignorance of Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

Always keep in mind when you're trying to talk to QW, you're trying to talk to someone who believes there should be no government.

Or perhaps more precisely, he professes to believe in no government, when he's not telling us how government should work.

lol

 

[NYcarbineer]

And it’s this sort of conflict that would prove disruptive to the markets, and why government is authorized to regulate commerce, including the implementation of public accommodations laws.

Wouldn't it be beautiful irony if the Christian love of capitalism and perfect markets came back to bite them in the ass as people voted with their wallets and refused to do business with these purveyors of discrimination?

Wouldn't it be beautiful if you hypocrites actually believed in the markets and your profession that "everyone" agrees with you, and let the chips fall where they may, instead of trying to legislate your morality because you secretly don't think your ideas can work without force of government?

I don't believe adults should have sex with children and I certainly don't believe my idea can work without the force of government.

Do you?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So long as they do not substantively conflict with United States Law, no problemo.

Cross that line and all bets are off.

It's the answer and open-door that you've been waiting for all morning.

Run with it.

And thus an Arizona religious law, granting its citizens the right to do or not do something based on their religious beliefs,

cannot in the process conflict with other rights and protections granted in the Constitution.

Pretty much case closed there, eh?

Are you admitting you lost the debate?

This doesn’t make any sense.

You and others who support discriminatory measures against gay Americans lost the debate pages ago, when you were cited current Constitutional case law indicating public accommodations laws are Constitutional and where once cannot violate the law claiming religious belief as ‘justification.’

You’ve provided only subjective, irrelevant opinion.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I have no problem with gays, or anyone else, telling anyone, including Christians, to keep out of their business.

Which would be consistent with your ignorance of Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

Always keep in mind when you're trying to talk to QW, you're trying to talk to someone who believes there should be no government.

Or perhaps more precisely, he professes to believe in no government, when he's not telling us how government should work.

lol

True.

But of course he and others of his ilk are entitled to his beliefs and other such errant fantasies.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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...

It's not a 'Godwin' card it's a perfectly analgous historical reference. Tell me the material difference between a business refusing to serve Jews and a business refusing to serve homosexuals.

No it is not, asshole. That sign was required by German law, just like segregated lunch counters were required by law. That means the state, your favorite thing, was enforcing discrimination.

That, my idiotic opponent, is evil.

So you object to mandated racism, but champion voluntary racism?

lol, classic

 

[NYcarbineer]

Which would be consistent with your ignorance of Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

Always keep in mind when you're trying to talk to QW, you're trying to talk to someone who believes there should be no government.

Or perhaps more precisely, he professes to believe in no government, when he's not telling us how government should work.

lol

True.

But of course he and others of his ilk are entitled to his beliefs and other such errant fantasies.

The rightwingers who pose as fake libertarians are the worst of the lot.

 

[kiwiman127]

I've noticed many folks using their Christian faith on this thread are the same folks who bash the poor at every opportunity they can.
I never voted for Jimmy Carter but he was the most religious and God fearing president in my lifetime and I agree with him here.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And thus an Arizona religious law, granting its citizens the right to do or not do something based on their religious beliefs,

cannot in the process conflict with other rights and protections granted in the Constitution.

Pretty much case closed there, eh?

Are you admitting you lost the debate?

Are you admitting that you're an illiterate fuck with the comprehension capabilities of a 2 year old?

Prove I lost the debate.

I don't have to, it is self evident to everyone who is not you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

1. So essentially, someone can make up any belief they want about gays and call it 'Christian?

2. You said Christians who hold homosexuality 'at arm's length' were acting just like Jesus acted.

I asked you what 'sinners' Jesus shunned, which is synonymous with holding something at arm's length, figuratively speaking.

1. Are you God? If not, what fucking right do you have to tell anyone that their beliefs are wrong?
2. Pretty sure he didn't say that.

What are you jabbering about?

Something far beyond your cognitive skill set, logic.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I have no problem with gays, or anyone else, telling anyone, including Christians, to keep out of their business.

Which would be consistent with your ignorance of Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

Always keep in mind when you're trying to talk to QW, you're trying to talk to someone who believes there should be no government.

Or perhaps more precisely, he professes to believe in no government, when he's not telling us how government should work.

lol

You never really get it, do you? I don't have a problem with you having a government to tell you what to say, do, and think, I just don't need it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Wouldn't it be beautiful irony if the Christian love of capitalism and perfect markets came back to bite them in the ass as people voted with their wallets and refused to do business with these purveyors of discrimination?

Wouldn't it be beautiful if you hypocrites actually believed in the markets and your profession that "everyone" agrees with you, and let the chips fall where they may, instead of trying to legislate your morality because you secretly don't think your ideas can work without force of government?

I don't believe adults should have sex with children and I certainly don't believe my idea can work without the force of government.

Do you?

Government is here to keep adults from fucking children?

It failed, can we get rid of it now?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And thus an Arizona religious law, granting its citizens the right to do or not do something based on their religious beliefs,

cannot in the process conflict with other rights and protections granted in the Constitution.

Pretty much case closed there, eh?

Are you admitting you lost the debate?

This doesn’t make any sense.

You and others who support discriminatory measures against gay Americans lost the debate pages ago, when you were cited current Constitutional case law indicating public accommodations laws are Constitutional and where once cannot violate the law claiming religious belief as ‘justification.’

You’ve provided only subjective, irrelevant opinion.

I categorically oppose all government discrimination.

You, on the other hand, think that government discrimination can change people's minds by force. Even if you are right, you are wrong.