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

[Derideo_Te]

Honey, I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian family that believed movies, television, and popular music were of the devil, attended church four times a week, AND believed we should memorize as much of the Scriptures as possible against the day the atheists took over America and burned all the Bibles. Furthermore, I was raised by these people during the seventies and eighties, when wave of "rapture fever" was sweeping over churches like ours, and everyone believed we were five seconds away from the Tribulation, and if you missed the rapture you were only going to Heaven if you were martyred.

I'm afraid that getting butthurt because someone doesn't like me is just outside my scope of reference.

For someone who was allegedly raised in a "fundamentalist Christian family" you seem to have no problem with condemning your own immortal soul to perdition by behaving in a decidedly unchristian manner towards others in these threads.

Had you any real knowledge of Christianity, you would know that judging who is and is not going to Hell is a sin.

Had you any perspective on reality, you would have taken a hint from the 6 billion times I've told you numbfucks this that I only find your attempts to preach a faith you don't share to be wildly laughable, and that my choices are between me and God, and you are neither one of us.

But by all means, continue to hubristically offer judgements and preachings you are in no way qualified to give or be taken seriously for, because I'm not even close to being done mocking and deriding you.

Oh, noes!!! The two-brain-celled arrogant religiophobe does not think I am Christian enough to meet his standards!!! Whatever shall I DOOO?! I so wanted Derideo to approve of me, because he's SO FUCKING IMPORTANT TO MY LIFE!!!

I'm not even sure they have meds for this level of narcissistic insanity.

at your temper tantrums!

 

[Cecilie1200]

I consider myself extremely fortunate that I am in no "way, shape, or form comparable to" someone like you!

Thank you for taking the time to share an opinion about which nary a fuck is given. The next time you feel the need to try to make me feel bad that you don't like me, please feel free to just assume I don't consider you worth pissing on, and save yourself the effort.

Meanwhile, I note that you were so busy trying to make yourself relevant via insults that you skipped right over proving your assertion which must mean you know you said something incredibly stupid and wrong, and are hoping I won't notice.

Your hope is in vain. Thank you for your surrender. Now get lost.

You have proven yourself to be unworthy of anything but mockery and derision.

Deal with it!

Like I said, you made an assertion you couldn't prove, you got called on it, and now you're hiding behind meaningless insults.

Stick a fork in your ass; you're done. Buh bye.

 

[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...

Ask the laughing man in your pic if this will satisfy him as to the validity of my point:

Again, required by law.

Thus making you wrong, and everyone else right.

Sorry to have to inform you...

that sign is from a theatre in Tennessee. Jim Crow laws in Tennessee never forced segregation on theatres, they allowed it:

1875: Public accommodations [Statute]
Hotel keepers, carriers of passengers and keepers of places of amusement have the right to control access and exclude persons as "that of any private person over his private house."

1885: Public accommodations [Statute]
All well-behaved persons to be admitted to theaters, parks, shows, or other public amusements, but also declared that proprietors had the right to create separate accommodations for whites and Negroes.

exactly as the Arizona law does.

If you have better research to the contrary that proves me, and not you, to be in error, by all means post it,

and I'll stand corrected.

Jim Crow Laws: Tennessee, 1866-1955 | The Black Past: Remembered and Reclaimed

 

[Derideo_Te]

Thank you for taking the time to share an opinion about which nary a fuck is given. The next time you feel the need to try to make me feel bad that you don't like me, please feel free to just assume I don't consider you worth pissing on, and save yourself the effort.

Meanwhile, I note that you were so busy trying to make yourself relevant via insults that you skipped right over proving your assertion which must mean you know you said something incredibly stupid and wrong, and are hoping I won't notice.

Your hope is in vain. Thank you for your surrender. Now get lost.

You have proven yourself to be unworthy of anything but mockery and derision.

Deal with it!

Like I said, you made an assertion you couldn't prove, you got called on it, and now you're hiding behind meaningless insults.

Stick a fork in your ass; you're done. Buh bye.

 

[Kondor3]

Ask the laughing man in your pic if this will satisfy him as to the validity of my point:

Again, required by law.

Thus making you wrong, and everyone else right.

Sorry to have to inform you...

that sign is from a theatre in Tennessee. Jim Crow laws in Tennessee never forced segregation on theatres, they allowed it:

1875: Public accommodations [Statute]
Hotel keepers, carriers of passengers and keepers of places of amusement have the right to control access and exclude persons as "that of any private person over his private house."

1885: Public accommodations [Statute]
All well-behaved persons to be admitted to theaters, parks, shows, or other public amusements, but also declared that proprietors had the right to create separate accommodations for whites and Negroes.

exactly as the Arizona law does.

If you have better research to the contrary that proves me, and not you, to be in error, by all means post it,

and I'll stand corrected.

Jim Crow Laws: Tennessee, 1866-1955 | The Black Past: Remembered and Reclaimed

The difference being that Blacks were wrongly discriminated against because of their skin color.

While it is being proposed that Homosexuals be rightly discriminated against because they are perverts.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Again, required by law.

Thus making you wrong, and everyone else right.

Sorry to have to inform you...

that sign is from a theatre in Tennessee. Jim Crow laws in Tennessee never forced segregation on theatres, they allowed it:

1875: Public accommodations [Statute]
Hotel keepers, carriers of passengers and keepers of places of amusement have the right to control access and exclude persons as "that of any private person over his private house."

1885: Public accommodations [Statute]
All well-behaved persons to be admitted to theaters, parks, shows, or other public amusements, but also declared that proprietors had the right to create separate accommodations for whites and Negroes.

exactly as the Arizona law does.

If you have better research to the contrary that proves me, and not you, to be in error, by all means post it,

and I'll stand corrected.

Jim Crow Laws: Tennessee, 1866-1955 | The Black Past: Remembered and Reclaimed

The difference being that Blacks were wrongly discriminated against because of their skin color.

While it is being proposed that Homosexuals be rightly discriminated against because they are perverts.

Since when is love a perversion?

 

[Bfgrn]

Sorry to have to inform you...

that sign is from a theatre in Tennessee. Jim Crow laws in Tennessee never forced segregation on theatres, they allowed it:

1875: Public accommodations [Statute]
Hotel keepers, carriers of passengers and keepers of places of amusement have the right to control access and exclude persons as "that of any private person over his private house."

1885: Public accommodations [Statute]
All well-behaved persons to be admitted to theaters, parks, shows, or other public amusements, but also declared that proprietors had the right to create separate accommodations for whites and Negroes.

exactly as the Arizona law does.

If you have better research to the contrary that proves me, and not you, to be in error, by all means post it,

and I'll stand corrected.

Jim Crow Laws: Tennessee, 1866-1955 | The Black Past: Remembered and Reclaimed

The difference being that Blacks were wrongly discriminated against because of their skin color.

While it is being proposed that Homosexuals be rightly discriminated against because they are perverts.

Since when is love a perversion?

I think Cecilie1200 succinctly and accurately stated the right's case.

No, we're defending THE RIGHT to discriminate.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

You want sex with children to be legal? I think you're in a very small minority on that one.

Is accusing other people of bad things your only debate tactic?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

7 states have had their own unconstitutional gay marriage ban laws overturned by lower courts based on the Windsor decision. 5 of them even cited Scalia for providing them with the rationale. Only 23 more to go.

If each and every state passes gay marriage they STILL won't get what they want which is acceptance.

Silly strawman! Equality under the law is the topic.

Except that it really isn't.

 

[Kondor3]

Sorry to have to inform you...

that sign is from a theatre in Tennessee. Jim Crow laws in Tennessee never forced segregation on theatres, they allowed it:

1875: Public accommodations [Statute]
Hotel keepers, carriers of passengers and keepers of places of amusement have the right to control access and exclude persons as "that of any private person over his private house."

1885: Public accommodations [Statute]
All well-behaved persons to be admitted to theaters, parks, shows, or other public amusements, but also declared that proprietors had the right to create separate accommodations for whites and Negroes.

exactly as the Arizona law does.

If you have better research to the contrary that proves me, and not you, to be in error, by all means post it,

and I'll stand corrected.

Jim Crow Laws: Tennessee, 1866-1955 | The Black Past: Remembered and Reclaimed

The difference being that Blacks were wrongly discriminated against because of their skin color.

While it is being proposed that Homosexuals be rightly discriminated against because they are perverts.

Since when is love a perversion?

Homosexuality = perversion

 

[NYcarbineer]

Government is here to keep adults from fucking children?

It failed, can we get rid of it now?

You want sex with children to be legal? I think you're in a very small minority on that one.

Is accusing other people of bad things your only debate tactic?

When someone says that we should get rid of laws against adults having sex with children, I assume they mean it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Sorry to have to inform you...

that sign is from a theatre in Tennessee. Jim Crow laws in Tennessee never forced segregation on theatres, they allowed it:

1875: Public accommodations [Statute]
Hotel keepers, carriers of passengers and keepers of places of amusement have the right to control access and exclude persons as "that of any private person over his private house."

1885: Public accommodations [Statute]
All well-behaved persons to be admitted to theaters, parks, shows, or other public amusements, but also declared that proprietors had the right to create separate accommodations for whites and Negroes.

exactly as the Arizona law does.

If you have better research to the contrary that proves me, and not you, to be in error, by all means post it,

and I'll stand corrected.

Jim Crow Laws: Tennessee, 1866-1955 | The Black Past: Remembered and Reclaimed

The difference being that Blacks were wrongly discriminated against because of their skin color.

While it is being proposed that Homosexuals be rightly discriminated against because they are perverts.

Since when is love a perversion?

Kondor is in a meltdown that began when he realized he'd lost this argument in grand fashion.

 

[Kondor3]

"...Kondor is in a meltdown that began when he realized he'd lost this argument in grand fashion."

You keep saying that, but it just ain't so. Still, feel free to amuse yourself believing thus. Doesn't faze me one way or another.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Again, required by law.

Thus making you wrong, and everyone else right.

Sorry to have to inform you...

that sign is from a theatre in Tennessee. Jim Crow laws in Tennessee never forced segregation on theatres, they allowed it:

1875: Public accommodations [Statute]
Hotel keepers, carriers of passengers and keepers of places of amusement have the right to control access and exclude persons as "that of any private person over his private house."

1885: Public accommodations [Statute]
All well-behaved persons to be admitted to theaters, parks, shows, or other public amusements, but also declared that proprietors had the right to create separate accommodations for whites and Negroes.

exactly as the Arizona law does.

If you have better research to the contrary that proves me, and not you, to be in error, by all means post it,

and I'll stand corrected.

Jim Crow Laws: Tennessee, 1866-1955 | The Black Past: Remembered and Reclaimed

The difference being that Blacks were wrongly discriminated against because of their skin color.

While it is being proposed that Homosexuals be rightly discriminated against because they are perverts.

What if someone claimed a religious belief that the races weren't meant to mingle, and/or that blacks were inferior to whites?

Wouldn't they, under the proposed Arizona law, then be able to rightfully discriminate against blacks?

 

[NYcarbineer]

"...Kondor is in a meltdown that began when he realized he'd lost this argument in grand fashion."

You keep saying that, but it just ain't so. Still, feel free to amuse yourself believing thus. Doesn't faze me one way or another.

What's your argument that homosexuality is a 'perversion'?

Specify the definition of perversion you're using first, please.

 

[Kondor3]

"...What if someone claimed a religious belief that the races weren't meant to mingle, and/or that blacks were inferior to whites?

Wouldn't they, under the proposed Arizona law, then be able to rightfully discriminate against blacks?"

As soon as you find globally-accepted sacred texts and globally-common scripture-based centuries-old mainstream religious teachings which say to shun Blacks, or Whites, or Reds, or Yellows, or Browns, et al, come back and ask me again...

As opposed to already being in possession of globally-accepted sacred texts and globally-common scripture-based centuries-old mainstream religious teachings which say that homosexuality is wrong and sinful and which condemn it...

Not quite an apples-to-apples comparison, is it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ask the laughing man in your pic if this will satisfy him as to the validity of my point:

Again, required by law.

Thus making you wrong, and everyone else right.

Sorry to have to inform you...

that sign is from a theatre in Tennessee. Jim Crow laws in Tennessee never forced segregation on theatres, they allowed it:

1875: Public accommodations [Statute]
Hotel keepers, carriers of passengers and keepers of places of amusement have the right to control access and exclude persons as "that of any private person over his private house."

1885: Public accommodations [Statute]
All well-behaved persons to be admitted to theaters, parks, shows, or other public amusements, but also declared that proprietors had the right to create separate accommodations for whites and Negroes.

exactly as the Arizona law does.

If you have better research to the contrary that proves me, and not you, to be in error, by all means post it,

and I'll stand corrected.

Jim Crow Laws: Tennessee, 1866-1955 | The Black Past: Remembered and Reclaimed

Everything proves you wrong.

Why would I assume that that sign is from Tennessee? Wouldn't that require me to ignore the fact that there is a Knoxville in Arkansas, Alabama, and Georgia? Oh, wait, you didn't know that, did you?

On top of that, your fucking sign is dated from 4 decades after the law you are trying to use to make the point that it wasn't illegal for blacks and whites to be in the same theater, did you look at the laws for that time period to see what they were like?

All street cars required to designate a portion of each car for white passengers and also for colored passengers. Required signs to be posted. Special cars could be run for one race exclusively. Penalty: Streetcar companies could be fined $25 for each offense. Passengers who refused to take the proper seat could be fined $25.

Feel free to try and defend the fact that the government, which you know I hate, forced people to be racist. I will continue to blame the government, and you will continue to look stupid.

 

[Iceweasel]

I have yet to see a gay being denied even ONE of those civil rights. Yet gays get their panties in a giant wad because they view people who don't embrace their "lifestyle" (or as I call it - their perversion) with open arms. To them, you will either accept their BS way of living or they will close you down. So much for "freedom".

Again - this paralegal and those like him have one mantra - Do as I say, not as I do.

Pretty much like the Nazis that they are.

I lived in the segregated south and the gays that try to link themselves with the treatment of blacks is an insult to one's intellect.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You want sex with children to be legal? I think you're in a very small minority on that one.

Is accusing other people of bad things your only debate tactic?

When someone says that we should get rid of laws against adults having sex with children, I assume they mean it.

When someone says that, you might have a point. When I mock you for saying that government keeps people from having sex with children, you can be sure I already think you are an idiot. You don't have to make my point by throwing shit at the wall.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Sorry to have to inform you...

that sign is from a theatre in Tennessee. Jim Crow laws in Tennessee never forced segregation on theatres, they allowed it:

1875: Public accommodations [Statute]
Hotel keepers, carriers of passengers and keepers of places of amusement have the right to control access and exclude persons as "that of any private person over his private house."

1885: Public accommodations [Statute]
All well-behaved persons to be admitted to theaters, parks, shows, or other public amusements, but also declared that proprietors had the right to create separate accommodations for whites and Negroes.

exactly as the Arizona law does.

If you have better research to the contrary that proves me, and not you, to be in error, by all means post it,

and I'll stand corrected.

Jim Crow Laws: Tennessee, 1866-1955 | The Black Past: Remembered and Reclaimed

The difference being that Blacks were wrongly discriminated against because of their skin color.

While it is being proposed that Homosexuals be rightly discriminated against because they are perverts.

What if someone claimed a religious belief that the races weren't meant to mingle, and/or that blacks were inferior to whites?

Wouldn't they, under the proposed Arizona law, then be able to rightfully discriminate against blacks?

No.