Page 47 of 122 FirstFirst ... 3745464748495797 ... LastLast
Results 461 to 470 of 1212

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

  1. #461
    Sage


    eohrnberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,895
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Phil_Osophy View Post
    Public taxpayer funded schools are cometely different than private owned businesses.

    And the first scenario would never happen. Homosexuals would open their own businesses.
    Agreed. The market abhors a vacuum, and there'd be businesses that would be more than glad to serve an under served segment of the market. Isn't the question more of degrading the rights of the business owner to chose who he is willing to serves? Forcing him to serve those he does not want to?

  2. #462
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    01-17-16 @ 05:09 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,122

    Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    while i agree and its factual that those that support bigotry and who do not support equal rights are losing BUT its no fair or accurate to blanket "the right" with this. Millions of those on the right support equal rights...
    You're correct. This forum gives the impression that all conservatives are far right and/or libertarians, which is not true for all conservatives. I forgot that for a moment.

  3. #463
    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

    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.
    I said nothing about finding another oral surgeon. No matter what horror stories you present the fact will remain that not providing someone a service doesn't cause them a harm. It doesn't matter how many people refuse them service, it doesn't matter why they refuse them service, what matters is that they came in needing a service and when they were refused service all that happened is that someone else refused to fill their need. On the other hand, when the government forces people to provide others service they are causing a harm by forcing that person into servitude for another human being.

    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.
    I remember the story well and it's a shame what happened to your great grandfather, but he never had a right to any services from other human beings.

  4. #464
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:26 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,807

    Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard Truth View Post
    You're correct. This forum gives the impression that all conservatives are far right and/or libertarians, which is not true for all conservatives. I forgot that for a moment.
    no biggie i was just pointing that out, sometimes its easy to accidentally make blanket statments, whats important is what one does after they realize it and correcting it shows integrity

    also there are many good conservatives here
    as for libertarians IMO they arent even close to representative of REAL WORLD libertarians. Now this is just MY experience but the ones i know in real life would laugh at many of the ones here. But again there are good ones here.
    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

  5. #465
    Guru
    Mustachio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,582

    Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Phil_Osophy View Post
    Public taxpayer funded schools are cometely different than private owned businesses.

    And the first scenario would never happen. Homosexuals would open their own businesses.
    I agree with the first point, but it doesn't matter because the purpose of my post wasn't to equate schools with privately owned businesses, but rather to illustrate the consequences of allowing widespread discrimination.

    And actually, in the world I'm talking about, the homosexual business would be picketed constantly and anybody who went there would be intimidated into not going there, or would simply be beaten when they left, and the business would quickly close. I guess you'd chalk up such a chain of events as "freedom at work." Beautiful, isn't it?
    A working class hero is something to be

  6. #466
    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
    I agree with the first point, but it doesn't matter because the purpose of my post wasn't to equate schools with privately owned businesses, but rather to illustrate the consequences of allowing widespread discrimination.

    And actually, in the world I'm talking about, the homosexual business would be picketed constantly and anybody who went there would be intimidated into not going there, or would simply be beaten when they left, and the business would quickly close. I guess you'd chalk up such a chain of events as "freedom at work." Beautiful, isn't it?
    Now you're just being irrational. There would still be enforcement for violent crimes such as assault.

  7. #467
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    01-17-16 @ 05:09 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,122

    Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    How does the rest of your post lead to your last sentence? If I buy a piece of property I have control over the use and access of that property. By doing so I didn't steal the property in question, but bought it from a willing seller for an agreed upon price.
    The last sentence is referring to the fact that those with the power to oppress or discriminate against unpopular minorities, did not earn that power, they took it or inherited it thanks to their priveleged status from being part of the majority. That is why, if we are honest, we are really debating the claimed "right" of straight, white Christians to discriminate against unpopular minorities. In the USA those were the people with the ability to oppress and discriminate and now that they have lost some of that power they are calling it a "right" and claiming to be oppressed.

  8. #468
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    01-17-16 @ 05:09 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,122

    Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

    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?.
    You can't really construct a right to "not be offended."


    Quote Originally Posted by RiverDad View Post
    I freaking don't want to associate with you, get it?
    If you don't want to associate with the public, then don't open a business open to the public. If you open a business open to the public then you are going to have to comply with a wide assortment of laws and regulations such as where you can locate, when you can be open, the type of signs you display, disability access requirements, fire safety, type of products etc. In today's world, it is not your decisions alone that determine what you can do with a public establishment. You want to take away someone's right to be treated the same as the other customers at your lunch counter with the excuse that they can just go somewhere else. Yet that right has been passed into law, both federally and by every state, has passed Supreme Court scrutiny and is strongly supported by the overwhelming majority of Americans. If you don't like it, don't open a business serving the public or go to some other country that doesn't prohibit discrimination. You have the right to leave and go somewhere else, no one is taking away your free choice or rights.
    Last edited by Hard Truth; 02-23-14 at 03:04 AM.

  9. #469
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard Truth View Post
    If you don't to associate with the public, then don't open a business open to the public. If you open a business open to the public then you are going to have to comply with a wide assortment of laws and regulations such as where you can locate, when you can be open, the type of signs you display, disability access requirements, fire safety, type of products etc. In today's world, it is not your decisions alone that determine what you can do. If you don't like it, don't open a business to the public or go to some other country that doesn't prohibit discrimination. You have the right to leave, no one is taking away your free choice.
    If you desire to argue the merits of the other laws you listed here than you should start another thread about them, and when you do, you can be rest assured I will join the discussion offering my opinion, but until that point, there is nothing to be said towards those issues.

    Regardless, opening a business no matter how you go about doing it doesn't make you a servant of others against your will, and any law that decrees that is the case is a violation of human rights.
    Last edited by Henrin; 02-23-14 at 03:05 AM.

  10. #470
    Sage


    eohrnberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,895
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    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.
    When legislation is passed into law, it doesn't have to be followed or can't be enforced until the court establishes precedent for it first? Does sound right to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    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.[/QUOTE]

    By calling an LGBT union a marriage, the traditional definition of marriage is being changed. It is being change from the traditional man / woman procreation definition to same sex non-procreation capable definition. Is this not the loss of the traditional definition of marriage?

    It's a false equivalency. The two things are not the same thing. Yes, they are similar in that two people commit to each other for a lifetime, well in theory and ideal anyway, but they are not the same thing, given the difference in the ability to procreate.

    While I agree that before the law they should be treated exactly the same, the fact of the matter is that they are not the same thing. Civil unions would appear to be one way to allow both to coexist provided that both are treated the same before the law.

    The 'separate but equal' argument doesn't apply, should both be treated exactly the same.

Page 47 of 122 FirstFirst ... 3745464748495797 ... 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
  •