Page 112 of 122 FirstFirst ... 1262102110111112113114 ... LastLast
Results 1,111 to 1,120 of 1212

Thread: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451:959]

  1. #1111
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

    Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451:959]

    Quote Originally Posted by upsideguy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    And they shouldn't have the right to do make the claim that their religious convictions prevent them from baking a cake and selling it to a gay couple. That is just as ridiculous as making a claim that a person's religious convictions prevent them from baking a cake and selling it to a Jewish couple or a mixed race couple or an older couple. If that is a conflict for their convictions, then they need to find either a new job or a new way of doing business (perhaps referrals only). Businesses open to the public are subject to anti-discrimination laws. And in this case they are treating people differently based on their relative genders.
    Just for the record, from a Christian perspective, objections to gay marriage (or second marriages) are not the equivalent to the other things you cite. The Bible is particularly clear on gay and 2nd marriages.... there is no biblical basis for any of the other things you cite, especially anything against the Jewish people.... actually quite the opposite.

    I'm not trying to be offensive here so please take this in the vain it is intended.

    Just for the record the Christian perspective was often used to justify discrimination based on race and interracial relationships.

    Loving v. Virginia, referring to the trial Judge's opinion uphold the discriminatory law which the SCOTUS overturned:

    "He stated in an opinion that:

    Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

    Bob Jones University v. United States (which included the merged case of Goldsboro Christian Schools, Inc. v. United States):

    "The sponsors of the University genuinely believe that the Bible forbids interracial dating and marriage. To effectuate these views, Negroes were completely excluded until 1971. From 1971 to May, 1975, the University accepted no applications from unmarried Negroes, [n5] but did accept applications from Negroes married within their race.

    <<SNIP>>

    "Since its incorporation in 1963, Goldsboro Christian Schools has maintained a racially discriminatory admissions policy based upon its interpretation of the Bible. [n6] Goldsboro has for the most part accepted only Caucasians. On occasion, however, the school has accepted children from racially mixed marriages in which one of the parents is Caucasian."




    We look back on it now 2-3 generations later and understand that their Biblical interpretations do not warrant discrimination, but the fact is many in the past did believe it was permissible to discriminate because they believed it was Biblical.


    >>>>

  2. #1112
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451:959]

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    given that the wedding for dogs was a joke, probably, yes. I wouldn't mind (for example) supporting a fun-time event like that, just as I wouldn't mind supporting a wedding that took place in a theatre production, but for me to support a gay wedding would be making an implicit statement of principles on the question of marriage that I do not agree with.

    It is wrong to force people to violate their religious ideals. The freedom of conscience is important enough that it is enshrined in our First Amendment - it is one of our founding ideals. You don't get to strip it away simply because you find other peoples' beliefs bizarre or offensive.



    Sure. And you don't really want equal rights for gays. You just want to punish Christians whom you dislike for the way in which they treated your mother. The "equal rights" thing is just an excuse.


    See how dumb it sounds when you don't even give people credit for believing what they say plainly and clearly that they believe?
    Then it would be wrong for someone to be forced to provide cake for a mixed race wedding or an interfaith wedding or even a certain faith wedding because those things could violate a person's religious beliefs. You do not get to dictate which beliefs are acceptable and which aren't when it comes to following laws. You do not get to treat one person's beliefs (who happen to agree with yours) as special and another's as illegal discrimination just because you think that one should be respected and the other shouldn't. That is why we do not allow for religious exemptions when it comes to these laws because it basically negates the laws, which cause harm to society.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  3. #1113
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451:959]

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    The ones who got 'pissy' about it were the Gays. Instead of calling the owners idiots and going to another bakery, which most people would do when insulted, they got a fit and made themselves look even more petty and ridiculous. I still support Gay rights but, damn, the Gay militants are getting tiresome.
    The guy is the one who got pissy about it. It shouldn't matter. He in no way had to attend the event. He only had to sell them a cake for a party. Is the party the actual marriage? Pretty sure it isn't. It is a false claim of religious beliefs.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  4. #1114
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,107

    Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451:959]

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Then it would be wrong for someone to be forced to provide cake for a mixed race wedding or an interfaith wedding or even a certain faith wedding because those things could violate a person's religious beliefs.
    If it did, then yes. It would be. For example, an orthodox jew may not want to support a marriage between a jew and a gentile. Or, a catholic may not want to support a marriage between a catholic and an athiest. Or a Episcopalian (or a gay person, or anyone, really) may not want to support the Westboro Baptist God Hates Fags convention.

  5. #1115
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,107

    Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451:959]

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    The guy is the one who got pissy about it.
    No, that baker simply didn't want to take the job. The people who got pissy were the ones who then decided to make their wedding about launching a website to punish someone else for having the effrontery to disagree with them. The people who got pissy were the ones who then decided to take advantage of the legal system to become bullies.

  6. #1116
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,785

    Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451:959]

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    It's not a civil rights violation if someone doesn't want to participate in your wedding, and the comparisons to Jim Crow are ridiculous. Jim Crow was state enforced on the businesses, who could be punished if they served blacks.
    No, Jim Crow laws ordered the white and not-white customers be separated.

    And don't act like businesses were just poor victims of big government intrusion. Those signs stayed up way longer than the law required them to, and let's not forget why those laws existed in the first place. Government is not some evil collection of sentient buildings ****ing up your life. People wanted those laws. You can pretend a "no coloreds" sign isn't a civil rights issue if you want, I suppose.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    No, that baker simply didn't want to take the job. The people who got pissy were the ones who then decided to make their wedding about launching a website to punish someone else for having the effrontery to disagree with them. The people who got pissy were the ones who then decided to take advantage of the legal system to become bullies.
    If they have the right to be a bully, the customer has the right to bully back. Deal with it.

    "Simply didn't want to take the job." No. He wanted to stick it to a gay couple because he despises them for being born different. There's nothing in his holy book that says he shouldn't bake a cake for homosexuals.
    Last edited by Deuce; 03-03-14 at 11:24 AM.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  7. #1117
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451:959]

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    If it did, then yes. It would be. For example, an orthodox jew may not want to support a marriage between a jew and a gentile. Or, a catholic may not want to support a marriage between a catholic and an athiest. Or a Episcopalian (or a gay person, or anyone, really) may not want to support the Westboro Baptist God Hates Fags convention.
    And yet we have stringent laws against such things. It is about applying the laws to everyone in similar situations. I believe that when a person decides to voluntarily own a business open to the public, they also agree to abide by standards of operating that the public has set down for them, including providing for the public unless they can show just cause, not simply a difference of belief, in not providing them service (i.e. the customer is a disruption, is rude, is a recognizable potential danger to others, etc.).
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  8. #1118
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451:959]

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    No, that baker simply didn't want to take the job. The people who got pissy were the ones who then decided to make their wedding about launching a website to punish someone else for having the effrontery to disagree with them. The people who got pissy were the ones who then decided to take advantage of the legal system to become bullies.
    Then he should have simply said he couldn't take the job instead of giving them a reason why not. He was the one to insist that a mere party celebrating two people being together/making a commitment to each other was a violation of his religious convictions, while having a business, open to the public, that specifically provides goods/services for such things.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  9. #1119
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,107

    Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451:959]

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Then he should have simply said he couldn't take the job instead of giving them a reason why not.
    My bet is that he tried to, and they insisted he provide them with a reason.

    And yet we have stringent laws against such things.
    No, we have laws against such things. They are no more or less stringent than any other. That being said, those laws, to the extent that they try to create a positive right to other peoples' labor or stuff in violation of their religious convictions, are wrong.

  10. #1120
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,107

    Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451:959]

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    No, Jim Crow laws ordered the white and not-white customers be separated.
    I live in Alabama and my family fought Jim Crow, publicly, when doing so got you pretty much shunned. My grandparents were part of the push to integrate the Methodist Church. I know what it was. For example, I know that it was a government effort to enforce segregation - that in fact originally business interests fought the imposition of Jim Crow, not out of any sense that it was evil, mind you, but because it cost them money. Jim Crow was imposed on business by the State. I will agree 100% that if the State starts to say that no one can sell (for example) wedding cakes to gay people, that that is a worthy comparison with Jim Crow laws. But leaving it up to the individual baker is not.

    People wanted those laws.
    that's right, they did. Just like people want higher minimum wage laws now, and all sorts of things that businesses don't.

    If they have the right to be a bully, the customer has the right to bully back. Deal with it.
    I am unaware that the bakery in question ever attempted to use force or coercion or the threat of either to control or punish the actions of the couple in question. Perhaps you can link to that.

    "Simply didn't want to take the job." No. He wanted to stick it to a gay couple because he despises them for being born different.
    You are imputing motivation that you literally have no chance of realistically knowing. All he did was not want to take the job. It is the couple in question who decided to bring the state down upon someone who upset them by disagreeing with them, to waste their time, efforts, and money in lawsuits sticking it to someone, not the baker.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •