Page 121 of 122 FirstFirst ... 2171111119120121122 LastLast
Results 1,201 to 1,210 of 1212

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

  1. #1201
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,136

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

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    On the contrary - NAACP v Alabama. Freedom of Association is inherent in freedom of speech.
    We have been there and done that cpwill. Catch up.

    If you use the power of the State to seek to force people to participate in activities that violate their religious precepts (for example, forcing a Muslim grocer to make you a pork sandwich, or forcing a Catholic church to allow you to hold a gay wedding in its chapel, or forcing a Southern Baptist to attend and photograph a gay wedding), then you are asking them to violate the tenets of their faith.
    What do your examples have to do with my argument?

    I find it interesting that someone who claims to be a libertarian is so quick to reach for the sword of the state to wield against those who disagree with him on sexuality. "Keep government out of our bedrooms and our bakeries", perhaps, might be more consistent.
    Did I say I inherently support anti discrimination laws? I don't think they work and they are counteractive, but that does not inherently mean they violate constitutional rights or that people have the right to ignore them if they choose to do business in a state that has one.

  2. #1202
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,054

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    A business is the property of individuals. Just sayin'..
    Subject to laws agreed upon when applying for a business license. Our society has agreed that businesses cannot operate without rules.
    "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. #1203
    Bat Chain Puller
    beefheart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    The burning sands of the desert southwest.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    19,371

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

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Well you don't often get open celebration of the power of monied interests over that of the people and their representatives, but there you go.
    Every poll I've seen in AZ showed that the people were against the bill, in the 70-30 up to the 80-20 range.

    There you go.
    "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana

  4. #1204
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

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

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Subject to laws agreed upon when applying for a business license. Our society has agreed that businesses cannot operate without rules.
    The laws in question violate their rights, and thus, are unlawful. Now do you desire to keep arguing submission arguments? That is all supreme courts arguments are really.

  5. #1205
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,835

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

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    1.)Here's the difference, I'm using freedom of association specifically because it was written into the constitution by the judicial branch.
    2.)So if you buy the other write/right-ins by the judicial branch, as you do, you have to swallow that one too.
    1.) weird whos said i was talking about you?
    2.) i have no problems with the fact that it freedom of association is a right lol you seem HUGELY confused

    I was pointing out the fact that there are dishonest posters out there that make the retarded claims 1.) that if its not specifically in the constitution its not a right and 2.) marriage isnt a right.

    dont know where you confusion is but you're welcome
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  6. #1206
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    We have been there and done that cpwill. Catch up.
    i'm not going to read everything every poster on this forum says in case a similar or the same topic comes up again. Freedom of Association has indeed been found to be part and parcel of our Constitution.

    What do your examples have to do with my argument?
    All of them are the same thing - an UnConstitutional violation of individual religious liberty.

    Did I say I inherently support anti discrimination laws? I don't think they work and they are counteractive, but that does not inherently mean they violate constitutional rights or that people have the right to ignore them if they choose to do business in a state that has one.
    Fair enough then - and I think you are correct on the RW effects of anti-discrimination laws. They only make the groups they attempt to help riskier.

    However, in this case, they do indeed violate individual freedom of conscience our our right to freedom in our faith. The State does not have the right to violate the 1st any more than the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

  7. #1207
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,835

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

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    On the contrary - NAACP v Alabama.
    If you use the power of the State to seek to force people to participate in activities that violate their religious precepts (for example, forcing a Muslim grocer to make you a pork sandwich, or forcing a Catholic church to allow you to hold a gay wedding in its chapel, or forcing a Southern Baptist to attend and photograph a gay wedding), then you are asking them to violate the tenets of their faith.

    .
    that didnt answer the question at all in anyway and none of those things are happening so theres no worry
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  8. #1208
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,835

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

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Subject to laws agreed upon when applying for a business license. Our society has agreed that businesses cannot operate without rules.
    100% correct
    the problem is some people dont care about laws or the rights of us all they only want to do what ever they want if it breaks the law or violates the rights of others they simply dont care
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  9. #1209
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,136

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

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    i'm not going to read everything every poster on this forum says in case a similar or the same topic comes up again. Freedom of Association has indeed been found to be part and parcel of our Constitution.
    Because of the 14th amendment. Irony. She is sweet.

    All of them are the same thing - an UnConstitutional violation of individual religious liberty.
    And none of them are relevant to this case.

    However, in this case, they do indeed violate individual freedom of conscience our our right to freedom in our faith. The State does not have the right to violate the 1st any more than the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
    You are going to have an uphill battle on that one. Freedom of association is recognized by the NAACP v. Alabama decision as a free speech right, not a freedom of religion right. Given that the baker was not an organization "dedicated to the advancement of beliefs and ideas" like the NAACP was characterized in the majority opinion of NAACP v. Alabama, it is going to be hard to make that court decision applicable. It would be different had the baker been a part of an organization dedicated to the preservation and advancement of traditional marriage, but it was just a sole proprietorship trying to make money. There was no speech being exercised. The court would actually have to extend its previous decision to include religious views in order for it to be applicable. I don't see that being likely, even with a conservative court, because it would give anyone license to deny services to anyone and all they would have to do is pretend their religious beliefs were violated by providing services to those groups.

  10. #1210
    Pragmatic Idealist
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,145

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

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    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.


    >>>>
    That is a first! I don't believe anyone ever began a post with "I'm not trying to be offensive...." and then proceeded to not be offensive.... thank you.

    While I do agree that Christians often try to justify their hates by taking verses of the Bible out of context and delivering them as some type of Biblical justification, in all of the things you cite, that is exactly what happened. None of those things is Biblical. On the other end, the Bible is quite explicit about homosexuality (and it also is very explicit about 2nd marriages). It makes the nature of this a bit different.

    That said, while I absolutely respect the Christian objections to sanctioning what they believe (and have real reason to believe) immoral events, I also understand that writing effective legislation around such is problematic for the reasons you cite....

Posting Permissions

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