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

[NYcarbineer]

Hold on there friend.

It's hypocritical to stand there and accuse him of "legislating his own morality based on his religious beliefs" while the Liberals try to legislate the lifestyles of the homosexual on the religious. If you want examples of this, look no further than to the states which have legalized gay marriage... through legislation based on their own sets of morals and in some ways the morals of their constituents.

Can you explain to me how that's fair? How is it right for one but not the other?

Oh, human biology was built for heterosexual intercourse. You can't have children by sticking your whatchamacallit up another man's backside, nor can you do it when two women lock legs or play strap-ons. It contradicts the reproductive aspect of the species. Homosexuality is a flaw, it always will be. Science (when applied genuinely) will also say the same thing.

Nobody's forcing their lifestyle on anyone. Just because gays get married doesn't force heteros to marry gays. Fuck are you a noob. If you're against gay marriage, don't marry a gay person, otherwise, it's really none of your business what other people get up to. Pretty simple.

And there are plenty of examples in nature of homosexual behavior, some species are even bi on purpose to reproduce.

You missed my entire point. When you force business owners to serve people against their religious beliefs, that's forcing that way or lifestyle on them. Look, I suggest you read more carefully before critiquing any of my posts.
e?

We force people to do what they don't want to do all the time. Religion is not some sort of super-government that rules over our government, especially on constitutional matters.

And a business is not a religion, no matter how religious the person is who runs the business.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Hold on there friend.

It's hypocritical to stand there and accuse him of "legislating his own morality based on his religious beliefs" while the Liberals try to legislate the lifestyles of the homosexual on the religious. If you want examples of this, look no further than to the states which have legalized gay marriage... through legislation based on their own sets of morals and in some ways the morals of their constituents.

Can you explain to me how that's fair? How is it right for one but not the other?

Oh, human biology was built for heterosexual intercourse. You can't have children by sticking your whatchamacallit up another man's backside, nor can you do it when two women lock legs or play strap-ons. It contradicts the reproductive aspect of the species. Homosexuality is a flaw, it always will be. Science (when applied genuinely) will also say the same thing.

First off, Kondor just openly admitted to "legislating his own morality based on his religious beliefs". Secondly removing discrimination is not "legislating morality" unless you believe that it is somehow "moral" to discriminate against your fellow citizens. You need to justify the "fairness" to discriminating against them simply because they are in love with someone of the same sex.

Don't muddy the waters with the "reproduction" issue either. This has nothing to do with that aspect at all. This is about trying to dictate who someone is allowed to love and who they can't. There is no justification for that kind of moralizing and attempting to legislate it.

Whoa whoa whoa... hold the phone:



So a business owner refusing service to a gay couple is somehow telling them they can't love each other? Am I getting this straight? So, in response we must force this person to act against his faith? Reference my previous posts for how I feel about that.

I frankly don't care what Kondor said. I find it hypocritical for someone to say "you can't legislate morality" then sit there while our state governments pass legislation which foist the morals and lifestyles of homosexuals on Christians via legislation. When you remove a man's right to act as his faith teaches, that within itself is discrimination.. You don't force tolerance. You don't force a man to believe what he doesn't want to believe, nor should force him to accommodate those beliefs.

Being a Libertarian, I believe homosexuals should be treated equally. But in addition, I believe that a businessman or owner should be able to run his business how he sees fit, even if that means refusing service to peoples whose lifestyles run against the grain of his religion. I believe, Derideo, that it is unfair to force a man to act against his religious beliefs by forcing another set of contradictory beliefs upon him. Let him believe how he chooses, and run his business accordingly. Same for gays. This is a core tenet of libertarianism: to let the citizen dictate his own fate and the fate of his endeavors, to let the citizen believe how he chooses without being forced to conform to societal norms. It's that simple.

What you believe is between you and your deity. How you interact in a diverse secular society is another matter entirely.

No one gets to dictate their "morality" and that means you cannot use your business interests to discriminate against people of different races, religion, gender and now sexual orientation.

The principle of equality means that everyone must be treated equally when it comes to public accommodations such as a business. You cannot refuse to rent out a room in your motel to someone who is a Muslim because that is discrimination. Equally so you cannot refuse to rent it out to someone who is gay either.

In a secular state the 1st amendment means that you cannot pass a law that favors your religious beliefs while it discriminates against others.

If you want to change that then start by repealing the 1st amendment.

 

[Iceweasel]

"alternative lifestyle"
Is a guy that fucks his wife in the ass, left ear and right nostril living in an "alternative lifestyle".
Folks that do not know gay folk use that term and it is absurd.
They are living THEIR normal life. Not normal to me but it is to them.
No one chooses to be gay, come on folks.
Explain to me how you chose to be straight.

Explain how a heterosexual twin can have a homosexual identical twin. Clearly the human element plays a big role in sexuality, it doesn't all boil down to genes. Yes, it's an alternative lifestyle, where have you been? We've had some 7,000 years of recorded history to fall back on for a perspective on what's normal. Who knows how much farther back it goes but chances are cavemen weren't sexual progressives.

I do not like laws that tell me who I can work for.
But I also would never turn down working for gay folk.

The issue isn't about you.

 

[Gadawg73]

No law stops people from discriminating not even most of the time.
But to NOT have the law that fights discrimination that is 100% based on religious intolerance is worse.

 

[Derideo_Te]

...Raises the specter of how exactly you intend to distinguish 'such folk' in everyday life?...

Quite true. Implicit in that 'freedom to refuse service' is the foreknowledge that a prospective customer is homosexual. How one attains that foreknowledge is a related but subsequent matter which will admittedly not be easy to resolve. But that does not detract from the desire or need on the part of many to have the freedom to refuse service to those which their religious beliefs inform them are evildoers and perverts.

"...If you make them wear pink armbands I can promise you that I will wear one too and so will everyone else that I know."

A little too Godwin-esque and Think-Pink and Drama-Queen-ish for this early in the morning, isn't it?


Oh, I think that the centuries-old prohibitions against and condemnations of homosexuality - to be found in the sacred texts and teachings of mainstream Christianity, Judaism and Islam - provide sufficient 'substance' to assert in a court of law that such forced 'association' or 'service provisioning' is perceived by Believers as forcing them to interact with those whom they perceive to be evil-doers and perverts.

What more is needed?

Now, whether folks will be allowed to shun such perverts or be allowed to refuse service to such persons on Religious Grounds is an entirely different matter, of course, but the establishment of those grounds and the assertion of their broad acceptance as morally operative is not an overly demanding task in itself.

So you are not willing to address the consequences of your own stated intentions of legislating your religious morality?

Why is that?

Because that means that you will have no option but to resort to Godwin-esque tactics?

 

[Kondor3]

"...First off, Kondor just openly admitted to 'legislating his own morality based on his religious beliefs'..."

Quite true. But it can be pitched somewhat different when it comes to going public. All's fair in love and war. And, I assure you, this is war, from the Opposition's perspective.

Thank you for admitting that the "Opposition" is suffering from delusions...

You look about you, and see the large and increasing volume of Opposition Activism, and do not believe that there is a philosophical and moral and legal war underway?

OK.

"...Now you are erroneously conflating homosexuality with pedophilia which means that your position is even weaker than you know..."

I merely mentioned another example of sexual perversion. You are welcome to pretend that I intended a closer linkage if you like. Doesn't faze me in the slightest.

"...I suspect that you have no idea of how unlikely it is that people will give up their rights for your theocratic utopia..."

Another standard-issue Gay Lobby canard.

I'm a HUGE fan of Separation of Church and State.

But that separation works BOTH ways.

Just as the Church needs to stay out of the business of the State...

So, too, does the State need to stay out of the business of the Church...

And, when you force members of the Church to associate with and provide services to those whom the Church has condemned historically and presently as evil-doers, you are violating the Separation of Church and State in the OPPOSITE direction, by virtue of the State interfering in the beliefs of the Church...

Nobody's taking the Drama Queen position that we should have a theocracy...

Merely that the Separation of Church and State must be BIdirectional, NOT UNIdirectional...

"...You are inventing an excuse to force your unconstitutional religious beliefs onto others."

That is your interpretation.

You see it as 'excuse making' and 'unconstitutional'.

Others see it as 'substantive objection' and highly 'constitutional' - ensuring a BIdirectional Separation of Church and State.

And it is both the emotional constitutional natures of the arguments being advanced by both sides, and the visceral reactions which they invoke, which will create a metaphorical State of War between the two sides on this issue.

By the look of all the related activity we see springing-up around the country, it looks as though the War is already underway, and that it might, alternatively, be delusional to try and deny that state of affairs.

Of course, the longer your side of the aisle denies that War is upon us, the more progress the Opposition will be able to make, before it meets any substantive resistance.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"...Ahhh - so you think perversity is defined by the majority, well until such time as polls show the majority changed..."

You mistake an increased willingness to tolerate perversity, so long as it is kept out of the public eye, with the definition of perversity itself. It's an important distinction that seems to escape you. Your deficiency of understanding, not mine.

========================================

perversion: 1. sexual behavior that people think is not normal or natural

Perversion - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

========================================

Do not confuse increased tolerance for the definition itself.

If it was not viewed as perverse by the majority, then 97% would be Gay and 3% would be Straight, rather than the other way around.

Q.E.D.

Based on your logic, hunting and fishing are perversions because most Americans don't do them.

 

[Derideo_Te]

No we shouldn't hide people who are homosexuals. But you shouldn't force a citizen to act against his or her own consciences and faith. If anything, this intolerance of personal and spiritual limits should be banned.

Don't you see the irony in what you just posted?

Nope. You want discrimination banned, I want this forcing people to act against their faith to serve homosexuals banned. Are those two things not the same? Come to think of it, both of these things are acts of discrimination, are they not? If there is any irony to be had here, it's that you're condoning one form of discrimination while admonishing the other.

Ok, you don't see the irony. Let's move on.

 

[Gadawg73]

"alternative lifestyle"
Is a guy that fucks his wife in the ass, left ear and right nostril living in an "alternative lifestyle".
Folks that do not know gay folk use that term and it is absurd.
They are living THEIR normal life. Not normal to me but it is to them.
No one chooses to be gay, come on folks.
Explain to me how you chose to be straight.

Explain how a heterosexual twin can have a homosexual identical twin. Clearly the human element plays a big role in sexuality, it doesn't all boil down to genes. Yes, it's an alternative lifestyle, where have you been? We've had some 7,000 years of recorded history to fall back on for a perspective on what's normal. Who knows how much farther back it goes but chances are cavemen weren't sexual progressives.

I do not like laws that tell me who I can work for.
But I also would never turn down working for gay folk.

The issue isn't about you.

You can spin it all you want but it is normal to them and not a "lifestyle".
All issues about THE LAW are about the INDIVIDUAL.
The Constitution specifically protects the rights of THE INDIVIDUAL and not the mob rule majority.
Something about the Constitution, an interesting document I suggest you read.
We are a nation OF LAWS, not of men and their changing like the wind religious beliefs.

Tell us how long you contemplated all of your available choices before YOU chose to be straight. How did that work.
Never happened that to me or anyone else I know but tell us how that went about with you.
I was BORN straight.

 

[Kondor3]

"...So you are not willing to address the consequences of your own stated intentions of legislating your religious morality? Why is that? Because that means that you will have no option but to resort to Godwin-esque tactics?"

Lighten up. This isn't a freshman-year debating club sortie.

I have already addressed my true intentions in discussing the BIdirectional Separation of Church and State concept, a post or two ago.

If that means that the Opposition has to play the Religion Card to restore its freedom of choice, well, what the hell.

Don't try to make this into something more complicated or sinister than that, 'cause I'm not gonna bite on that hook.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Not at all...

Merely looking for the freedom to refuse service to those whose sexual practices are condemned in the sacred texts and/or historical and present teachings of at least three of the world's largest mainstream religions, and which are believed to be perverse, unnatural, unclean and an aberration in the eyes of God and Man - the freedom to shun wrongdoing and wrongdoers in accordance with mainstream religious teachings on the subject.

A different 'filter' than the holistic one that you are trying (and failing) to apply here.

Your religious freedom at the expense of the rights of others to be treated equally? Sounds like you are pushing for a theocratic state.

My freedom to judge what is Morally Right and what is Morally Wrong and not to be forced to associate with those whom I judge to be Morally Wrong - as reinforced by a couple of thousand years of Christian-Judaic-Islamic narratives and teachings, on a global scale. Separation of Church and State has worked out very well for us here. Just keep the damned State out of my Church, metaphorically speaking - just stop forcing me to interact with those whom my faith condemns as perverts and unnatural and abominations in the eyes of God and Man.

So now you are advocating the religious equivalent of Apartheid.

Oh boy! You really aren't doing yourself any favors here.

 

[Kondor3]

"...Ahhh - so you think perversity is defined by the majority, well until such time as polls show the majority changed..."

You mistake an increased willingness to tolerate perversity, so long as it is kept out of the public eye, with the definition of perversity itself. It's an important distinction that seems to escape you. Your deficiency of understanding, not mine.

========================================

perversion: 1. sexual behavior that people think is not normal or natural

Perversion - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

========================================

Do not confuse increased tolerance for the definition itself.

If it was not viewed as perverse by the majority, then 97% would be Gay and 3% would be Straight, rather than the other way around.

Q.E.D.

Based on your logic, hunting and fishing are perversions because most Americans don't do them.

Golly-gosh gee-willickers, Emmy Lou, do you mean that everybody doesn't hunt and fish?

 

[Derideo_Te]

I suspect that you have no idea of how unlikely it is that people will give up their rights for your theocratic utopia.

I suspect that you have no clue how unlikely it is that people will give up their rights for a secular one, either. There is no such thing as a one sided coin, my friend.

Our current secular state is what provides you with those rights. You are advocating a theocratic state that would deprive people of their rights.

 

[Katzndogz]

Allowing individuals to choose their associations is not a theocratic state.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"...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?

You obviously haven't even read the Arizona law, amazingly, at this point in this thread.

The Arizona law allows a belief to be classified as religious pretty much if a person simply claims it's religious; they do not have to source it to any formal doctrine of any established religion.

I recommend you go read the law before you dig yourself in any deeper.

 

[Kondor3]

Your religious freedom at the expense of the rights of others to be treated equally? Sounds like you are pushing for a theocratic state.

My freedom to judge what is Morally Right and what is Morally Wrong and not to be forced to associate with those whom I judge to be Morally Wrong - as reinforced by a couple of thousand years of Christian-Judaic-Islamic narratives and teachings, on a global scale. Separation of Church and State has worked out very well for us here. Just keep the damned State out of my Church, metaphorically speaking - just stop forcing me to interact with those whom my faith condemns as perverts and unnatural and abominations in the eyes of God and Man.

So now you are advocating the religious equivalent of Apartheid.

Oh boy! You really aren't doing yourself any favors here.

Nope.

Although it comes as no surprise that your side would try to spin it that way.

In truth, you are doing yourself a disservice by constantly and routinely putting words in other people's mouths for your own purposes and being seen to be doing so.

In truth, you are doing yourself a disservice by constantly and routinely conjuring labels which generate visceral and loathsome reactions, and disingenuously and inappropriately applying them to Opposition Viewpoints which you hope to destroy or discredit by pitching them as something that they are not.

Thank you for the time on this so far, but...

This last bit took the heart and fun right out of me, to continue participating in this exchange.

I've given a good account of both my stance and its supporting rationale and am content to let such arguments stand or fall on their own merits for the moment.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Allowing individuals to choose their associations is not a theocratic state.

Allowing individuals to discriminate is not constitutional. There are legal differences between who you can choose to hang out with and who you can choose to do business with.

It's not that complicated.

 

[Kondor3]

"...The Arizona law allows a belief to be classified as religious pretty much if a person simply claims it's religious; they do not have to source it to any formal doctrine of any established religion..."

Close enough for government work...

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Why not? The law allows anyone to decide for themselves what their religious beliefs are.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Allowing individuals to choose their associations is not a theocratic state.

This bill doesn't allow individuals to choose their associations. Unlawful associations remain unlawful, just that religious claims are given a special exemption.

If you don't like an association but aren't smart enough to mouth the magic works "sincerely held religious belief" (whether it is or not), you don't get the exemption.


>>>>