Page 46 of 122 FirstFirst ... 3644454647485696 ... LastLast
Results 451 to 460 of 1212

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

  1. #451
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Gina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    31,939

    Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

    Moderator's Warning:
    Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451:959] There are personal comments and baiting going on. Please stick to the topic and only the topic.
    I don't attack my constituents. Bob is my constituent now.
    This is the important stuff. We canít get lost in discrimination. We canít get lost in B.S. We canít get lost tearing each other down. I want to make a point here that no matter what you look like, where you come from, how you worship, who you love, how you identify, and yeah, how you run, that if you have good public policy ideas, if you are well qualified for office, bring those ideas to the table, because this is your America, too. This is our commonwealth of Virginia, too.
    Danica Roem - The nation's first openly transgender person elected to serve in a U.S. state legislature.

  2. #452
    Sage


    eohrnberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,947
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Kobie View Post
    Separate but equal?
    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    there is no such thing, its impossible to do so and history and facts prove equal but separate is still not equal
    In the eyes of the law, where it counts the most, exact equivalency.

    Where ever the law says 'married' amend to say 'married or civil union'. What's separate but equal? The scope of the people applicable would be an amended to larger scope, including LGBT in every shape, fashion, and regard before the law and before the courts, as what appears to be desired. Yes?

  3. #453
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,145

    Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Phil_Osophy View Post
    So what?
    That's my point exactly.....they want the freedom to discriminate....but they don't want to be held accountable for their bigotry.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  4. #454
    Professor
    Phil_Osophy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Earth
    Last Seen
    11-11-14 @ 02:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,450

    Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    That's my point exactly.....they want the freedom to discriminate....but they don't want to be held accountable for their bigotry.
    Thats another matter. The government shouldnt control peoples property

  5. #455
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,822

    Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

    Quote Originally Posted by eohrnberger View Post
    1.)In the eyes of the law, where it counts the most, exact equivalency.

    2.)Where ever the law says 'married' amend to say 'married or civil union'.
    3.) What's separate but equal?
    4.)The scope of the people applicable would be an amended to larger scope, including LGBT in every shape, fashion, and regard before the law and before the courts, as what appears to be desired. Yes?
    1.) in the eyes of the law its factually impossible
    2.) this would be stupid and how do you gain the many many court cases establishing precedence?
    its been tried to make it equal it cant be done because its been found to not be as binding, and legally concrete since its missing the precedence

    3.) pick up a history or law book. At one time blacks could drink out of water fountians just not WHITE water fountains, was that equal? no it was not.
    4.) no it would not

    how about this, what if when obama won or win a woman finally wins they told them, listen. Since your black or a woman we cant call you president of the united states. Theres to much "history" there and "traditions" blah blah blah


    we are going to call you CEO of america, you will have the same powers but we just cant call you POTUS. . . . .oh and by the way. . . the next person to win will be called POTUS if they arent a minority or a woman.

    lol please

    sorry the only solution is to grant equal rights and this is what is happening
    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. #456
    Guru
    Mustachio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,585

    Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    So? The individual that denied them service just refused to assist them in their problem. They didn't create any sort of harm for the individual. If you need food and I fail to provide you food I didn't cause you to starve, I just didn't help to avoid you from doing so.
    Sure, sure. Just go to the other oral surgeon. Except,
    A. what if you live in a town without another oral surgeon?
    B. what if these moronic laws have been going on forever and have gotten to the point where no oral surgeon (or, hypothetically, no business at all) serves homosexuals?

    Then you haven't killed that person, you've just taken part in a society which favors one person over the other, and allows one person to die while saves the other person's life entirely because of their sexual orientation. That's why we have discrimination laws. It isn't because a gay person gets offended when he can't buy a wedding cake, it's because we endured an era where black people, and women, and homosexuals were systematically denied services freely available to white people, men, and straight people.

    Don't make me tell the hospital story again. I have to tell it every time the topic of discrimination comes up because people like you cannot grasp why discrimination is wrong for some reason.

    Quote Originally Posted by Phil_Osophy View Post
    The answer is simple. Go to a different business.
    See above. Pre-Brown V The Board of Education: "Go to a different school." Oh, you can't? Because you live in a world where black people aren't allowed to co-exist with white people? Seems fine to me, that's cool with you, right?

    Come on (a tiny minority of) people, you really don't get it?

    Quote Originally Posted by RiverDad View Post
    You mean how like one person exercising their right to burn the US Flag pisses off millions of people? So how do you weigh the benefit that this one person receives against the angst and anger felt by millions, or tens of millions, who might witness that event?

    To fight for freedom and choice is never taking a step backwards. The fight for human rights is always a step towards the light.

    You're not giving people a right, they're demanding that you stop oppressing their inalienable right to free association. Huge difference.

    This is a false equation. You can't really construct a right to "not be offended" or a right which imposes an obligation on an unwilling stranger. For you to benefit from a right of non-discrimination you impose an obligation upon me to associate with you. I freaking don't want to associate with you, get it? So, you have to violate my very real right in order to benefit from your imaginary "right." That formulation of rights poses severe problems that we don't see in the other inalienable rights - you can speak freely, and I don't have to listen; you can worship freely, and I'm don't have to participate; you can travel about freely, and I don't have to approve or ride along. When you want to be my friend and I don't want to be your friend, then my right to free association trumps your fabricated right of non-discrimination.

    I swear, you liberals and your fabricated definitions. Evil is now defined as defending human rights, defending freedom and defending choice. Terrific.
    WHAT?! Absolutely the weakest logic of the bunch. The others completely miss the big picture, but you seem to miss everything. "Getting pissed off" is subjective and free speech is extremely well protected by the constitution, so I don't think we're even remotely close to seeing an America in which it is considered reasonable to make anything that pisses people off illegal. Nevertheless, the major difference is that, with discrimination, we're talking about discriminating. You know, choosing who to serve and who not to serve based on race, gender, or sexual orientation? If your analogy had been about burning a rainbow flag, at least it would make some sense as to what you're getting at. How does burning a flag have anything to do with a person's freedom?

    I had an ancestor die after he needed an emergency operation and the hospital refused to treat him because he was Jewish. I won't tell the whole story, but that's what we're talking about here. We aren't talking about people getting angry, we're talking about people's lives. You're talking about people getting offended. I'm talking about people losing their lives due to "protecting freedom." I'm sorry, but you have absolutely no concept of what discrimination does to people. You seem to think it merely offends them when it actually promotes a whole world in which people are born inferior to others simply because of skin color, religion, etc.
    A working class hero is something to be

  7. #457
    Sage


    eohrnberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,947
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1.) in the eyes of the law its factually impossible
    I don't see how this is so. If every obligation and every privileged of marriage is extended to civil unions by law, how is it factually impossible?

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    2.) this would be stupid and how do you gain the many many court cases establishing precedence?
    its been tried to make it equal it cant be done because its been found to not be as binding, and legally concrete since its missing the precedence
    If the law is to hold civil unions in the same status as marriages, why do court precedences need to come into it?

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    3.) pick up a history or law book. At one time blacks could drink out of water fountians just not WHITE water fountains, was that equal? no it was not.
    4.) no it would not

    how about this, what if when obama won or win a woman finally wins they told them, listen. Since your black or a woman we cant call you president of the united states. Theres to much "history" there and "traditions" blah blah blah


    we are going to call you CEO of america, you will have the same powers but we just cant call you POTUS. . . . .oh and by the way. . . the next person to win will be called POTUS if they arent a minority or a woman.
    Isn't this exactly what the current LBGT marriage push are trying to do except in reverse?

    'It doesn't matter what you believe or what you've held as a sacrament. All that is going to be thrown out. The definition of marriage is going to be changed and shoved down your throat, like it or not.'

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    lol please

    sorry the only solution is to grant equal rights and this is what is happening
    I see. Better to destroy the concept of traditional marriage. Taking it away from those who believe in it. As a society eject it along with any special meaning it had. Society don't need it anymore. Nor do we need the stabilizing influence traditional marriage gives to society. Nor do we need any sort of traditional religion either, as traditional religion will also surely fall victim to this destruction of the traditional concept of marriage. Society will be forced to forsake the foundations on which it was built.

    And we'll be better off?

  8. #458
    Professor
    Phil_Osophy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Earth
    Last Seen
    11-11-14 @ 02:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,450

    Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Mustachio View Post
    Sure, sure. Just go to the other oral surgeon. Except,
    A. what if you live in a town without another oral surgeon?
    B. what if these moronic laws have been going on forever and have gotten to the point where no oral surgeon (or, hypothetically, no business at all) serves homosexuals?

    Then you haven't killed that person, you've just taken part in a society which favors one person over the other, and allows one person to die while saves the other person's life entirely because of their sexual orientation. That's why we have discrimination laws. It isn't because a gay person gets offended when he can't buy a wedding cake, it's because we endured an era where black people, and women, and homosexuals were systematically denied services freely available to white people, men, and straight people.

    Don't make me tell the hospital story again. I have to tell it every time the topic of discrimination comes up because people like you cannot grasp why discrimination is wrong for some reason.



    See above. Pre-Brown V The Board of Education: "Go to a different school." Oh, you can't? Because you live in a world where black people aren't allowed to co-exist with white people? Seems fine to me, that's cool with you, right?

    Come on (a tiny minority of) people, you really don't get it?



    WHAT?! Absolutely the weakest logic of the bunch. The others completely miss the big picture, but you seem to miss everything. "Getting pissed off" is subjective and free speech is extremely well protected by the constitution, so I don't think we're even remotely close to seeing an America in which it is considered reasonable to make anything that pisses people off illegal. Nevertheless, the major difference is that, with discrimination, we're talking about discriminating. You know, choosing who to serve and who not to serve based on race, gender, or sexual orientation? If your analogy had been about burning a rainbow flag, at least it would make some sense as to what you're getting at. How does burning a flag have anything to do with a person's freedom?

    I had an ancestor die after he needed an emergency operation and the hospital refused to treat him because he was Jewish. I won't tell the whole story, but that's what we're talking about here. We aren't talking about people getting angry, we're talking about people's lives. You're talking about people getting offended. I'm talking about people losing their lives due to "protecting freedom." I'm sorry, but you have absolutely no concept of what discrimination does to people. You seem to think it merely offends them when it actually promotes a whole world in which people are born inferior to others simply because of skin color, religion, etc.
    Public taxpayer funded schools are cometely different than private owned businesses.

    And the first scenario would never happen. Homosexuals would open their own businesses.

  9. #459
    Professor
    Phil_Osophy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Earth
    Last Seen
    11-11-14 @ 02:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,450

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

    Just because you need an oral surgeon, doesnt mean you are entitled to his labor and service. He can serve who he wants. He isnt your slabe just because you need his help.

  10. #460
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,822

    Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

    Quote Originally Posted by eohrnberger View Post
    1.)I don't see how this is so. If every obligation and every privileged of marriage is extended to civil unions by law, how is it factually impossible?
    2.)If the law is to hold civil unions in the same status as marriages, why do court precedences need to come into it?
    3.)Isn't this exactly what the current LBGT marriage push are trying to do except in reverse?

    'It doesn't matter what you believe or what you've held as a sacrament. All that is going to be thrown out. The definition of marriage is going to be changed and shoved down your throat, like it or not.'

    4.)I see. Better to destroy the concept of traditional marriage.
    5.) Taking it away from those who believe in it. As a society eject it along with any special meaning it had. Society don't need it anymore.
    6.) Nor do we need the stabilizing influence traditional marriage gives to society.
    7.) Nor do we need any sort of traditional religion either, as traditional religion will also surely fall victim to this destruction of the traditional concept of marriage.
    8.) Society will be forced to forsake the foundations on which it was built.
    9.)And we'll be better off?
    1.) easy precedence doesnt exist and separate but equal is impossible. this isnt a hard concept at all
    2.) wow because along with rights and other laws court precedence is what establishes things in law.

    for example court precedence has said 14 times marriage is a right and those cases can be referred to during a court case and used.
    if theres no court precedence on civil unions it cant be used

    again another very simple concept

    also when they tried to make them equal it has already failed in court in certain cases where marriages would have won, why because they are not the same and theres no precedence making them the same.

    3.) what?????
    good grief how on gods green earth do you possible come to that conclusion? there no logic to even support something so absurd lol

    no its not the opposite, equal rights are being established, NOTHING is being forced down ones throat and NOTHING that is a sacrament is changing, these strawman fallacies always fail.

    if you disagree by all means PLEASE show me how its FACTUALLY being forced down you throat and what you hold as a sacrament is FACTUALLY being changed?

    4.) there is factually nothing being destroyed lol again if you disagree please show how the traditions are factually being destroyed id LOVE to read it

    5.) nothing is factually being taken away another failed
    6.) allowing equal rights strengthens society
    7.) uhm religion has NOTHING to do with legal marriage, you seem severely confused on this topic
    nor will religion be destroyed in anyway lol

    8.) another thing that wont happen by granting equal rights, there is no force
    9.) yes of course we are better of with equal rights in this country. I care about my fellow americans and its a basic principle they have the same rights as me, sorry that bothers you and you dont care about equal rights but they are winning and this is the reality.
    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

Page 46 of 122 FirstFirst ... 3644454647485696 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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