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

[kaz]

In other words, you don't know what's going on in the world, and you don't give a shit, because you'd rather live in the comforting little fantasy land between your ears, where you're a moral giant who controls the world.

Got it. FLUSH!

Cecille - If you think that was a lame post, you should see some of the crap he's posted on other threads, personally I think it's just some kid playing on the computer.

Why are you people so freaked out over gay marriage? Jesus was never homophobic. Why are you?

What did Jesus ever say about any government marriage?

 

[kaz]

I think another state passed something similar to this last week so this must be a trend that is catching on. I agree with this bill that if you are a business owner and believe in and live by your faith that you should be able to refuse service to whoever you want.


Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays
Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays

Absolutely business owners should have the right to do or not do business with anyone they chose. One thing I would support though would be that they be required to disclose their policy so their other customers, employees and vendors can decide if they want to do business with them.

Here we are again with this mindset of "It's desperately important that we butt our noses into how people practice their religious beliefs an conduct their private transactions."

It's really none of your business or anyone else's to either tell people who they have to do business with, or to make them do the equivalent of posting a giant Star of David on their businesses in order to "earn" the right from you to exercise their religious beliefs. (The sad thing is how many people STILL won't get that historical reference.)

You wanna know what someone's business policies are so you can get offended and boycott them? Then do the extra work of asking them. If it's not important enough for you to put out that little effort, then you obviously don't really need to know.

LOL, that was the policy I said I supported if you read the discussion. You can remove the stick now...

 

[Chaussette]

Cecille - If you think that was a lame post, you should see some of the crap he's posted on other threads, personally I think it's just some kid playing on the computer.

Why are you people so freaked out over gay marriage? Jesus was never homophobic. Why are you?

What did Jesus ever say about any government marriage?

I never heard Jesus say anything should be denied to gays. Especially not marriage.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Absolutely business owners should have the right to do or not do business with anyone they chose. One thing I would support though would be that they be required to disclose their policy so their other customers, employees and vendors can decide if they want to do business with them.

They can decide when the shopkeeper says "no". It makes more sense to recognize that not everyone on Earth is onboard with the homosexual alternative lifestyle and may object. Most Muslims are very much against it, same with any number of religions or individuals. These kinds of problems crop up when one assumes too much.

It makes much more sense to call the store and ask. Old fashioned? Maybe. But apparently so is respecting someone else's opinion.

That's exactly it. NO respect for other people at all.

No decent person who respected others would force someone to do business with them just because the current law allows it.

Who even wants to spend money with someone who openly does not want their business?

Oh, they don't. What they want is the chance to use the legal system to bludgeon their opposition into silence.

 

[R.D.]

Why are you people so freaked out over gay marriage? Jesus was never homophobic. Why are you?

What did Jesus ever say about any government marriage?

I never heard Jesus say anything should be denied to gays. Especially not marriage.

You hear voices? That explains a lot!

 

[kaz]

Why are you people so freaked out over gay marriage? Jesus was never homophobic. Why are you?

What did Jesus ever say about any government marriage?

I never heard Jesus say anything should be denied to gays. Especially not marriage.

He also didn't say government should grant government marriage to gays. It's the nature of not having said anything about government marriage, you can pick any statement on government marriage and correctly observe he didn't say that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Gay Sex ...
Let's Start with the Health Issues

Gay Bowel Syndrome The Journal of the American Medical Association - Many of the bacterial and protozoa pathogens that cause gbs are found in feces and transmitted to the digestive system. This disease is rarely found in normal people ,extremely rarely , but it is epidemic in the Gay community it's caused by ingesting SHIT. Yes - it's a fact Gays are Shit-eaters

HIV/AIDS Among Homosexuals. The human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is responsible for causing AIDS, for which there exists no cure. Some like to cite that this also occurs among normal people but Although Fags represent about 7% of the male population in the United States, in 2010 Gay Sodomy accounted for 78% of the new HIV infections among males.



Anal Cancer: Homosexuals are at increased risk for this rare type of cancer, which is potentially fatal if the anal-rectal tumors metastasize to other bodily organs.

Reduced Life Span. Now the devil on my left shoulder is saying that getting rid of these queers earllier in life is a good thing , but the angel on my tight shoulder say show some compassion even if they are just perverts. A study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology on the mortality rates of homosexuals concluded that they have a significantly reduced life expectancy:



Chlamydia - Caused primarily by anal sex and rates are extremely high in the Fruit cake community

Anal Papilloma - rates are extremely high in the Fruit cake community

Human Papillomavirus (HPV) -rates are extremely high in the Fruit cake community

Hepatitis: A potentially fatal liver disease that increases the risk of liver cancer.rates are extremely high in the Fruit cake community

Gonorrhea: An inflammatory disease of the genital tract. rates are extremely high in the Fruit cake community

Syphilis -rates are extremely high in the Fruit cake community

Explain that rates are extremely high in the Fruit cake community to SCOTUS

May I be the first to ask what in the holy FUCK this has to do with the topic?

May I be the first to ask why in the holy FUCK people who can't follow a thread insist on posting ?

In Reply to:

"You are going to have a hard time explaining why blow jobs and anal sex between a man and a woman are not equally perverted and evil to the Supreme Court."

To demonstrate that Gay Sex {Sad Sodomy} is considered immoral to some, although morals really don't count in legaleez - And unhealthy and detrimental to society

Concluded with :

Explain that rates are extremely high in the Fruit cake community to SCOTUS

You want to talk about "following the thread"? How about you explain to me what diseases have to do with a thread about Arizona's Senate passing a bill allowing business owners to refuse service based on religious beliefs?

Pretty sure this isn't a thread about "why gays are gross and unnatural", any more than it's a thread about "why religious people are stupid and wrong", no matter how much people on both sides want to wander down tangents to their favorite soapboxes.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Ok, it does have an effect, it drives homophobes like you CRAZY!

In other words, you don't know what's going on in the world, and you don't give a shit, because you'd rather live in the comforting little fantasy land between your ears, where you're a moral giant who controls the world.

Got it. FLUSH!

Cecille - If you think that was a lame post, you should see some of the crap he's posted on other threads, personally I think it's just some kid playing on the computer.

I think 3/4 of the people who post on this board are lame and juvenile, whatever age they actually are. Some of them have entertainment value (similar to watching a video of a guy getting hit in the nuts with a rake), but there's a definite limit on how many of those I actually need around.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Conservatives in this thread have finally found some Democrats they can agree with - the racist Southern Democrats of the segregated South.

You're a retard . There really is ho other explanation for not being able to understand that saying someone has the right to do something is NOT the same thing as agreeing with what they are doing.

Its a damned shame that so many Americans , like yourself, are incapable of understanding that simple concept.

Look at this particular issue. Why would anyone object to gays marrying? Let them, they have a right to do so, but they do NOT have a right to force people to do business with them. BOTH sides have the right to be as stupid as they wish.

Notice that no one in this thread has been able to provide one single bit of evidence that anyone is harmed by a business discriminating, instead the entire focus has been on "you Christians are stupid" because you KNOW how weak your case is. Just as those who oppose gay marriage know their case is weak.

Well, I won't argue the point that they're retards, because they so manifestly are, but I really think - as I've said before - that the problem is that leftists don't have principles, and so they can't understand the concept of defending something on principle.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That's exactly it. NO respect for other people at all.

No decent person who respected others would force someone to do business with them just because the current law allows it.

Who even wants to spend money with someone who openly does not want their business?

lol, so now we're to where the victims of discrimination are the villains.

words have meanings. Someone who is told "I'd rather not bake a cake for your gay wedding" is NOT a victim. If they try to force those people to bake them a cake, they are however a piece of shit.

When we're defining "victim" as "I got my feelings hurt", we can be sure the word "victim" has no meaning any more.

 

[Mustang]

Conservatives in this thread have finally found some Democrats they can agree with - the racist Southern Democrats of the segregated South.

You're a retard . There really is ho other explanation for not being able to understand that saying someone has the right to do something is NOT the same thing as agreeing with what they are doing.

Its a damned shame that so many Americans , like yourself, are incapable of understanding that simple concept.

Look at this particular issue. Why would anyone object to gays marrying? Let them, they have a right to do so, but they do NOT have a right to force people to do business with them. BOTH sides have the right to be as stupid as they wish.

Notice that no one in this thread has been able to provide one single bit of evidence that anyone is harmed by a business discriminating, instead the entire focus has been on "you Christians are stupid" because you KNOW how weak your case is. Just as those who oppose gay marriage know their case is weak.

Well, I won't argue the point that they're retards, because they so manifestly are, but I really think - as I've said before - that the problem is that leftists don't have principles, and so they can't understand the concept of defending something on principle.

Defending prejudice and bigotry on principle? What's the principle?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Damn, you're stupid. You can really look at what's going on on the political landscape today, the homosexual couples using the whole "It's legal for us to get married, therefore I'm going to sue you out of existence for hurting my feelings" thing that has SPARKED this law, and REALLY tell us that homosexual "marriage" has no effect on anyone outside of the two people pretending to be a married couple?

Are you brain-damaged?

Just to point out, the two cases that really got national attention were Elaine Photography (New Mexico) and Sweetcake by Melissa (Oregon).

Neither one of those cases is predicated on Civil Marriage being legal in those States for same-sex couples - because neither State has legal Civil Marriage for Same-sex couples.



>>>>

Yeah, and if you think the ongoing battles in the political landscape on this subject are unrelated simply because those states haven't yet overridden the will of the people via judicial fiat, you're even more naive and obtuse than I previously thought.

Neither of those cases was via judicial fiat, Public Accommodation laws are in the statutes and those statutes covered sexual orientation along with race, ethnicity, national origin, sex, etc.

For example here is the law passed by the Legislature:

"F. any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to any person because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap, provided that the physical or mental handicap is unrelated to a person's ability to acquire or rent and maintain particular real property or housing accommodation ;"

http://public.nmcompcomm.us/nmpublic/gateway.dll/?f=templates&fn=default.htm


>>>>

 

[Chaussette]

What did Jesus ever say about any government marriage?

I never heard Jesus say anything should be denied to gays. Especially not marriage.

He also didn't say government should grant government marriage to gays. It's the nature of not having said anything about government marriage, you can pick any statement on government marriage and correctly observe he didn't say that.

So you agree that Jesus never said that government shouldn't extend marriage to gays?

 

[kaz]

You're a retard . There really is ho other explanation for not being able to understand that saying someone has the right to do something is NOT the same thing as agreeing with what they are doing.

Its a damned shame that so many Americans , like yourself, are incapable of understanding that simple concept.

Look at this particular issue. Why would anyone object to gays marrying? Let them, they have a right to do so, but they do NOT have a right to force people to do business with them. BOTH sides have the right to be as stupid as they wish.

Notice that no one in this thread has been able to provide one single bit of evidence that anyone is harmed by a business discriminating, instead the entire focus has been on "you Christians are stupid" because you KNOW how weak your case is. Just as those who oppose gay marriage know their case is weak.

Well, I won't argue the point that they're retards, because they so manifestly are, but I really think - as I've said before - that the problem is that leftists don't have principles, and so they can't understand the concept of defending something on principle.

Defending prejudice and bigotry on principle? What's the principle?

What principle is served by forcing a photographer to take pictures at a gay wedding who doesn't want to be there?

 

[kaz]

I never heard Jesus say anything should be denied to gays. Especially not marriage.

He also didn't say government should grant government marriage to gays. It's the nature of not having said anything about government marriage, you can pick any statement on government marriage and correctly observe he didn't say that.

So you agree that Jesus never said that government shouldn't extend marriage to gays?

Yes, no shit dick tracy. Do you have any more obvious points to make?

Jesus also didn't say we should not require people to present IDs to vote

 

[Cecilie1200]

Absolutely business owners should have the right to do or not do business with anyone they chose. One thing I would support though would be that they be required to disclose their policy so their other customers, employees and vendors can decide if they want to do business with them.

Here we are again with this mindset of "It's desperately important that we butt our noses into how people practice their religious beliefs an conduct their private transactions."

It's really none of your business or anyone else's to either tell people who they have to do business with, or to make them do the equivalent of posting a giant Star of David on their businesses in order to "earn" the right from you to exercise their religious beliefs. (The sad thing is how many people STILL won't get that historical reference.)

You wanna know what someone's business policies are so you can get offended and boycott them? Then do the extra work of asking them. If it's not important enough for you to put out that little effort, then you obviously don't really need to know.

LOL, that was the policy I said I supported if you read the discussion. You can remove the stick now...

No, you said you supported REQUIRING them to disclose it. Since we're already talking about them being allowed to SAY, "No, I won't do that", it's ludicrous to try to pretend that you were talking about making them do what they're fighting for the right to do, anyway.

You wanna backpedal? Fine. But don't lie about it.

 

[kaz]

Here we are again with this mindset of "It's desperately important that we butt our noses into how people practice their religious beliefs an conduct their private transactions."

It's really none of your business or anyone else's to either tell people who they have to do business with, or to make them do the equivalent of posting a giant Star of David on their businesses in order to "earn" the right from you to exercise their religious beliefs. (The sad thing is how many people STILL won't get that historical reference.)

You wanna know what someone's business policies are so you can get offended and boycott them? Then do the extra work of asking them. If it's not important enough for you to put out that little effort, then you obviously don't really need to know.

LOL, that was the policy I said I supported if you read the discussion. You can remove the stick now...

No, you said you supported REQUIRING them to disclose it. Since we're already talking about them being allowed to SAY, "No, I won't do that", it's ludicrous to try to pretend that you were talking about making them do what they're fighting for the right to do, anyway.

You wanna backpedal? Fine. But don't lie about it.

Wow, you follow the Israeli if I'm 1% against you I'm 100% against you. I keep saying I'm against forcing businesses to deal with anyone, including gays, but that isn't good enough.

As for my being a liar, I'm backpedaling on nothing. This is what I said to IceWeasel here you go. You can pull the stick out now and stop being such a bitch to people who aren't even against you.

My view is that it should be like privacy laws. Government simply requires companies to have a policy, and to follow their own policy. I think it should be the same for discrimination. Companies should be required to have a policy and follow their own policy. I don't particularly care if they plaster it everywhere, I would be fine with your solution they only need to provide it if asked.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You're a retard . There really is ho other explanation for not being able to understand that saying someone has the right to do something is NOT the same thing as agreeing with what they are doing.

Its a damned shame that so many Americans , like yourself, are incapable of understanding that simple concept.

Look at this particular issue. Why would anyone object to gays marrying? Let them, they have a right to do so, but they do NOT have a right to force people to do business with them. BOTH sides have the right to be as stupid as they wish.

Notice that no one in this thread has been able to provide one single bit of evidence that anyone is harmed by a business discriminating, instead the entire focus has been on "you Christians are stupid" because you KNOW how weak your case is. Just as those who oppose gay marriage know their case is weak.

Well, I won't argue the point that they're retards, because they so manifestly are, but I really think - as I've said before - that the problem is that leftists don't have principles, and so they can't understand the concept of defending something on principle.

Defending prejudice and bigotry on principle? What's the principle?

The principle that everyone is entitled to freedom of religion, expression, and association whether you approve of them or not.

Figures you wouldn't be able to recognize principle without help.

 

[Chaussette]

Well, I won't argue the point that they're retards, because they so manifestly are, but I really think - as I've said before - that the problem is that leftists don't have principles, and so they can't understand the concept of defending something on principle.

Defending prejudice and bigotry on principle? What's the principle?

The principle that everyone is entitled to freedom of religion, expression, and association whether you approve of them or not.

Figures you wouldn't be able to recognize principle without help.

No rights are absolute. With respect to religion, muslims aren't allowed their sharia law in the US, just to show that everything has a limit. Now you know.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Just to point out, the two cases that really got national attention were Elaine Photography (New Mexico) and Sweetcake by Melissa (Oregon).

Neither one of those cases is predicated on Civil Marriage being legal in those States for same-sex couples - because neither State has legal Civil Marriage for Same-sex couples.



>>>>

Yeah, and if you think the ongoing battles in the political landscape on this subject are unrelated simply because those states haven't yet overridden the will of the people via judicial fiat, you're even more naive and obtuse than I previously thought.

Neither of those cases was via judicial fiat, Public Accommodation laws are in the statutes and those statutes covered sexual orientation along with race, ethnicity, national origin, sex, etc.

For example here is the law passed by the Legislature:

"F. any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to any person because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap, provided that the physical or mental handicap is unrelated to a person's ability to acquire or rent and maintain particular real property or housing accommodation ;"

New Mexico One Source of Law®


>>>>

Yes, that old leftist trick of pretending that a reference is to something other than it was, so that you can derail the conversation by making someone explain to your blank ass over and over what they're talking about works SOOO well.

Fail.