My conclusion on the Arizona law now up for signing/veto

[JoeB131]

After listening to and reading about this bill I have come to what will likely be an unpopular opinion among the right.

This bill seems to me that rather than protecting the rights of Americans it targets others for public persecution. Lifting christians while pushing others down. We don't need laws in this country that pit one class of citizen against another.
I've always said gays don't need or deserve special rights or attention and neither do christians. A law protecting the targeting of "certain" citizens should scare all of us.

I do think businesses should be able to conduct themselves as they see fit, within the law, and let the public decide if they deserve to be patronized.

There's only one conclusion you should draw from this veto.

The GOP is divided into two groups.

The very small group that has most of the money and benefits from the status quo.

The much larger group that votes against their own economic interests because they believe in Magic Sky Pixies and Bronze Age Fairy Tales.

And this law pitted the interests of the former group against the bigotry of the latter group.

Guess which group won?

Guess which group called Jan Brewer-Fuhrer and said, "Shit, we don't want a repeat of when your dumb-ass signed that anti-immigration law and the state was boycotted. You'd better damned well veto that right now!!!"

And Jan didn't want to find a horse's head in her bed, and vetoed it.

Not that the Christian Right will ever figure this out. They will just wail to their Sky Pixies and keep voting for these people.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Here is a better idea, why don't you and your ilk move to a place that supports your hatred of gays and liberals?

I bet you'd be surprised how many of our "ilk" have no such hatred, how many of us have gay friends and relatives and wish nothing but the best for them. But we're committed to defending freedom, even the freedom of people with unpopular ideas and preferences. Liberals used to remember that. I suppose some still do. How about you?

There is a basic freedom in public: all people are equal and cannot be discriminated against. Public accommodation protects everyone from discrimination. This is the meaning of the Constitution.

No one is harming the idea of private association with this veto.

 

[paperview]

Here is a short 10 question quiz to help one determine if their religious freedom is being trampled on...


1. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to go to a religious service of my own choosing.
B) Others are allowed to go to religious services of their own choosing.

2. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to marry the person I love legally, even though my religious community blesses my marriage.
B) Some states refuse to enforce my own particular religious beliefs on marriage on those two guys in line down at the courthouse.

3. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am being forced to use birth control.
B) I am unable to force others to not use birth control.

4. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to pray privately.
B) I am not allowed to force others to pray the prayers of my faith publicly.

5. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) Being a member of my faith means that I can be bullied without legal recourse.
B) I am no longer allowed to use my faith to bully gay kids with impunity.

6. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to purchase, read or possess religious books or material.
B) Others are allowed to have access books, movies and websites that I do not like.

7. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) My religious group is not allowed equal protection under the establishment clause.
B) My religious group is not allowed to use public funds, buildings and resources as we would like, for whatever purposes we might like.

8. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) Another religious group has been declared the official faith of my country.
B) My own religious group is not given status as the official faith of my country.

9. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) My religious community is not allowed to build a house of worship in my community.
B) A religious community I do not like wants to build a house of worship in my community.

10. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to teach my children the creation stories of our faith at home.
B) Public school science classes are teaching science.

Scoring key:

If you answered "A" to any question, then perhaps your religious liberty is indeed at stake. You and your faith group have every right to now advocate for equal protection under the law. But just remember this one little, constitutional, concept: this means you can fight for your equality -- not your superiority.

If you answered "B" to any question, then not only is your religious liberty not at stake, but there is a strong chance that you are oppressing the religious liberties of others. This is the point where I would invite you to refer back to the tenets of your faith, especially the ones about your neighbors.

<snip>
How to Determine If Your Religious Liberty Is Being Threatened in Just 10 Quick Questions | Rev. Emily C. Heath

 

[The Rabbi]

Here is a better idea, why don't you and your ilk move to a place that supports your hatred of gays and liberals?

I bet you'd be surprised how many of our "ilk" have no such hatred, how many of us have gay friends and relatives and wish nothing but the best for them. But we're committed to defending freedom, even the freedom of people with unpopular ideas and preferences. Liberals used to remember that. I suppose some still do. How about you?

Oh, another way of saying the very SAME thing...

No, we're defending THE RIGHT to discriminate.

Maybe we should go back to defending Jim Crow laws too?

Argumentum ad absurdum fallacy. No one is defending Jim Crow laws, which were forced by the state, btw.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This is an issue that is over as a winning issue for Republicans.

Let's move on to important matters.

 

[Wildman]

has been vetoed, and i am glad it was, you go Jan

 

[Stephanie]

Ah yes, the left/Democrat/Progressives new talking point meme has been released and Jim Crow is being thrown out again

they just never have anything else to beat you over the head with

 

[dblack]

Here is a better idea, why don't you and your ilk move to a place that supports your hatred of gays and liberals?

I bet you'd be surprised how many of our "ilk" have no such hatred, how many of us have gay friends and relatives and wish nothing but the best for them. But we're committed to defending freedom, even the freedom of people with unpopular ideas and preferences. Liberals used to remember that. I suppose some still do. How about you?

There is a basic freedom in public: all people are equal and cannot be discriminated against. Public accommodation protects everyone from discrimination. This is the meaning of the Constitution.

No one is harming the idea of private association with this veto.

Oh, I agree with the veto. But not for the reasons you've presented here. The Constitution doesn't protect any 'right' to be treated equally by our fellow citizens. It's absurd to make such a claim.

 

[paperview]

I bet you'd be surprised how many of our "ilk" have no such hatred, how many of us have gay friends and relatives and wish nothing but the best for them. But we're committed to defending freedom, even the freedom of people with unpopular ideas and preferences. Liberals used to remember that. I suppose some still do. How about you?

There is a basic freedom in public: all people are equal and cannot be discriminated against. Public accommodation protects everyone from discrimination. This is the meaning of the Constitution.

No one is harming the idea of private association with this veto.

Oh, I agree with the veto. But not for the reasons you've presented here. The Constitution doesn't protect any 'right' to be treated equally by our fellow citizens. It's absurd to make such a claim.

In businesses open to the public it is illegal in every state to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

In quite a number of states, it goes beyond that to include sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#cite_note-5

 

[Bfgrn]

I bet you'd be surprised how many of our "ilk" have no such hatred, how many of us have gay friends and relatives and wish nothing but the best for them. But we're committed to defending freedom, even the freedom of people with unpopular ideas and preferences. Liberals used to remember that. I suppose some still do. How about you?

Oh, another way of saying the very SAME thing...

No, we're defending THE RIGHT to discriminate.

Maybe we should go back to defending Jim Crow laws too?

What???

I will try to simplify it for you, by example.

But we're committed to defending freedom, even the freedom of people with unpopular ideas and preferences.

These people have rights too...

 

[dblack]

Oh, another way of saying the very SAME thing...



Maybe we should go back to defending Jim Crow laws too?

What???

I will try to simplify it for you, by example.

But we're committed to defending freedom, even the freedom of people with unpopular ideas and preferences.

These people have rights too...

Yep. They sure do. We all do. Have liberals really forgotten this concept? Or just you?

 

[JakeStarkey]

You far right reactionaries who are whining are simply looking absurd to the rest of America. You are out of step, not the rest of America.

 

[dblack]

There is a basic freedom in public: all people are equal and cannot be discriminated against. Public accommodation protects everyone from discrimination. This is the meaning of the Constitution.

No one is harming the idea of private association with this veto.

Oh, I agree with the veto. But not for the reasons you've presented here. The Constitution doesn't protect any 'right' to be treated equally by our fellow citizens. It's absurd to make such a claim.

In businesses open to the public it is illegal in every state to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

In quite a number of states, it goes beyond that to include sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#cite_note-5

Yep. Lotsa crazy laws out there. But what I said still stands.

 

[paperview]

Oh, I agree with the veto. But not for the reasons you've presented here. The Constitution doesn't protect any 'right' to be treated equally by our fellow citizens. It's absurd to make such a claim.

In businesses open to the public it is illegal in every state to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

In quite a number of states, it goes beyond that to include sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#cite_note-5

Yep. Lotsa crazy laws out there. But what I said still stands.

On other threads, pubs brag: yanno, if it wasn't for republicans, the 1964 CRA would have never passed. Harumph!

I wish you guys would pick a lane and stick with it.

 

[FA_Q2]

If there is a rabid gay photographer who is disgusted by straight weddings.. so be it.. his or her choice...
If you have a Jew that does not want to cater a KKK event.. so be it
If you have a Mennonite that does not want to have a porno filmed in his barn that is up for rent... so be it
If you have an abuse victim that does not want to cover an abuse trial.. so be it
If you have a person who is scared of open water refuse to provide their services on a cruise.. so be it

Choice is choice.. freedom matters... and your freedom to want something does not trump someone else's freedom not to be part of it

So you'd be OK with a state having a law that allows businesses to discriminate against straight people.

Why wouldnt he?
Of course what business in their right mind would want to do that? They wouldnt be around very long if they did.

Gay bars would do just fine, for one.

Plenty of businesses in San Fran would be just fine as well.

And I would say more power to them. If that is what they want then go for it. Of course that is not what this issue is about and we both know it. It is about forcing other to do something that you want them to.

Unfortunately, force seems to be very much in style.

 

[johnwk]

Of course Gov. Brewer vetoed the bill and refused to protect the people’s fundamental right to be free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.

Let us not forget this is the same Governor that signed onto Obamacare and agreed to expand Medicaid and put an additional 300,000 residents on government’s free cheese wagon which hard working taxpayers are having their paycheck confiscated to fund.

What she ignored today was upholding the Constitution and a fundamental right of people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.


JWK

A legislative act which "impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured by the Constitution is presumptively unconstitutional." See: Harris v. McRae United States Supreme Court (1980) Also see City of Mobile v. Bolden, 466 U.S. 55, 76, 100 S.Ct. 1490, 64 L.Ed.2d 47 (1980)

 

[dblack]

In businesses open to the public it is illegal in every state to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

In quite a number of states, it goes beyond that to include sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#cite_note-5

Yep. Lotsa crazy laws out there. But what I said still stands.

On other threads, pubs brag: yanno, if it wasn't for republicans, the 1964 CRA would have never passed. Harumph!

I wish you guys would pick a lane and stick with it.

I'm not a Republican.

 

[DiamondDave]

So you'd be OK with a state having a law that allows businesses to discriminate against straight people.

If there is a rabid gay photographer who is disgusted by straight weddings.. so be it.. his or her choice...
If you have a Jew that does not want to cater a KKK event.. so be it
If you have a Mennonite that does not want to have a porno filmed in his barn that is up for rent... so be it
If you have an abuse victim that does not want to cover an abuse trial.. so be it
If you have a person who is scared of open water refuse to provide their services on a cruise.. so be it

Choice is choice.. freedom matters... and your freedom to want something does not trump someone else's freedom not to be part of it

So you'd be OK with a state having a law that allows businesses to discriminate against straight people.

If you have a rabid gay photographer that is disgusted by straight weddings.. fine.. THEIR FUCKING CHOICE... We should not get to force them to be a part of something they don't believe in or want to be a part of or to witness


Whether, in business, I think it is stupid to have such a business practice or not.. like I said before.. If I were a professional photographer or caterer or whatever, I would open a shop in ARI that specializes in gay events and make a goddamn fortune

 

[DiamondDave]

Under this bill, a Muslim store owner could refuse service to a Christian family because the wife is not veiled.

And who gives a fuck if they do?? It is their freedom to do so

 

[DiamondDave]

Under this bill, a Muslim store owner could refuse service to a Christian family because the wife is not veiled.

Exactly. Do you see any reason he should be forced to cater to them?

Yep. We call it the Bottom Line. An interesting concept. You should read up on it sometime?

And if the business decides they want to stupidly do something that is not the best for their 'bottom line', they have the goddamn motherfucking shit stinking freedom to do so... you fucking authoritarian piece of shit