Page 98 of 122 FirstFirst ... 488896979899100108 ... LastLast
Results 971 to 980 of 1212

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

  1. #971
    He's the most tip top
    Top Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,258

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Gipper View Post
    It figures that MSNBC would characterize them as "anti-gay" bills to pander toward the uneducated section of the left.
    Yes of course that would explain why these left wing rags are calling it the same thing.

    Thousands try to sway Arizona gov on anti-gay bill
    Thousands try to sway Arizona gov on anti-gay bill

    Hispanic National Bar Association Nixes Arizona Convention Because Of Anti-Gay Law
    Hispanic National Bar Association Nixes Arizona Convention Because Of Anti-Gay Law | Fox News Latino

    Oh wait, they aren't left wing.

  2. #972
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
    Last Seen
    09-14-14 @ 02:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,700

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill - CNN.com

    Gotta love the backass republicans who voted for this.

    Why anyone would live there is beyond me.
    "anti gay bill" leave it to CNN to make this something different than what it is.

  3. #973
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Over the edge...
    Last Seen
    12-09-17 @ 07:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    14,139

    Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

    Let me ask you this: Do you care one way or another if discrimination takes place?

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    No, the purpose of the law is to allow people to practice their rights...well...somewhat.
    And they have every right to sell their whatever, nobody it stopping them.
    However, when you open a business to the public you no longer can pick and choose. It is the public or nothing. You want to sell only to a select group, open a membership only private business that is not geared to serve the public.

    Not having laws against private discrimination doesn't endorse or condone the behavior, just doesn't act on it.
    True, but having laws that specifically allow it does act on it.

    There is no rights in play here for those being discriminated against.
    What you are saying is that to discriminate is a right or that discrimination can not exist.
    Do you or would you like to be the victim of discrimination?

    They don't have the right to use someones property, labor or service against someone elses will
    Nor do they have the right to discriminate in a place that by intent, their intent, is public.

    nor do they have the right to force anyone to associate with them or make an agreement with them.
    No one is asking them to.

    What I support is government having no say on these matters.
    Laws are designed to keep order in society and most of the time prohibit certain actions. In the cases where they are prohibitive in nature they exist because the action they prohibit negatively impacts society. if the action did not exist there would be no need for such laws. We both know that discrimination does exist and that is why laws against it exist. Such laws NEVER compel anyone to do anything in a public setting but prohibit certain actions. If one is averse to such actions one can always avoid facing situations where one can be exposed to them.

  4. #974
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Over the edge...
    Last Seen
    12-09-17 @ 07:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    14,139

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Gipper View Post
    Which goes back to the initial premise - YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO ANOTHER'S PROPERTY.
    Nobody said otherwise, but we have anti discrimination laws for a reason. YOu want to retain all right to your property do not offer it for sale to the public. The public is just that, you do not get to choose.

    Refusal to enter into commerce/trade violates NOBODY'S right. Period. End of story.
    True, but not in a business that by design is to serve the public.

  5. #975
    Sage
    RiverDad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    04-20-14 @ 02:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,039

    Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

    Noted law professors send a letter to Gov. Brewer urging her to pass the bill:

    SB1062, which amends Arizona’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, is on your desk for signature. The bill has been egregiously misrepresented by many of its critics. We write because we believe that you should make your decision on the basis of accurate information.

    Some of us are Republicans; some of us are Democrats. Some of us are religious; some of us are not. Some of us oppose same-sex marriage; some of us support it. Nine of the eleven signers of this letter believe that you should sign the bill; two are unsure. But all of us believe that many criticisms of the Arizona bill are deeply misleading.

    The federal government and eighteen states have Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRAs). Another twelve or thirteen states interpret their state constitutions to provide similar protections. These laws enact a uniform standard to be interpreted and applied to individual cases by courts. They say that before the government can burden a person’s religious exercise, the government has to show a compelling justification.

    That standard makes sense. We should not punish people for practicing their religions unless we have a very good reason. Arizona has had a RFRA for nearly fifteen years now; the federal government has had one since 1993; and RFRA’s standard was the constitutional standard for the entire country from 1963 to 1990.

    There have been relatively few cases; if you knew little about the Arizona RFRA until the current controversy, that is because it has had no disruptive effect in Arizona. Few people had heard of the federal RFRA before the current litigation over contraception and the Affordable Care Act.

    SB1062 would amend the Arizona RFRA to address two ambiguities that have been the subject of litigation under other RFRAs. It would provide that people are covered when state or local government requires them to violate their religion in the conduct of their business, and it would provide that people are covered when sued by a private citizen invoking state or local law to demand that they violate their religion.

    But nothing in the amendment would say who wins in either of these cases. The person invoking RFRA would still have to prove that he had a sincere religious belief and that state or local government was imposing a substantial burden on his exercise of that religious belief. And the government, or the person on the other side of the lawsuit, could still show that compliance with the law was necessary to serve a compelling government interest.

    As a business gets bigger and more impersonal, courts will become more skeptical about claims of substantial burden on the owner’s exercise of religion. And as a business gets bigger, the government’s claim of compelling interest will become stronger.

    Arizona’s RFRA, like all RFRAs, leaves resolution of these issues to the courts for two related reasons. First, it is impossible for legislatures to foresee all the potential conflicts between the diverse religious practices of the many faiths practiced in Arizona and the diverse array of regulations enacted by the state and all its agencies, counties, municipalities, and special purpose districts.

    And second, when passions are aroused on all sides, as they have been in this case, it becomes extraordinarily difficult for legislatures to make principled decisions about whether to make exceptions for unpopular religious practices. Courts can generally devote more time to the question, hear the evidence from both sides, and be more insulated from interest-group pressure.

    So, to be clear: SB1062 does not say that businesses can discriminate for religious reasons. It says that business people can assert a claim or defense under RFRA, in any kind of case (discrimination cases are not even mentioned, although they would be included), that they have the burden of proving a substantial burden on a sincere religious practice, that the government or the person suing them has the burden of proof on compelling government interest, and that the state courts in Arizona make the final decision. . . .

    There have been very few [RFRA] claims by businesses over the years, but there have been a few. It is true that some of these claims are based on objections to same-sex marriage, although that is not an issue in Arizona.

    The cases pending in the Supreme Court involve business owners who believe they are being asked to pay for abortions. Business regulations do not often require a business owner to violate a deeply held religious belief, but sometimes they do, and when that happens, the Arizona RFRA should be available. Keep in mind that it will not guarantee either side a win; it will test the government’s claims and the religious believer’s claims under RFRA’s general standard.

    Whatever judgment you pass on SB1062, you should not be misled by uninformed critics. The Arizona bill. . .resolves ambiguities that have been the subject of litigation elsewhere. It deserves your accurately informed consideration.

  6. #976
    Jedi Master
    Captain America's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,647

    Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

    BAM!! Vetoed!

    It's GREAT to be me. --- "45% liberal/55% conservative"
    Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy" until you can find a gun.

  7. #977
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,177

    Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

    Governor Brewer has just announced she has vetoed this bill - good for her, and good for Arizona.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  8. #978
    Sage
    RiverDad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    04-20-14 @ 02:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,039

    Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

    This issue isn't going away. As liberal totalitarianism gets worse and more Human Rights are eroded, some state will fire the first shot to launch the new Civil Rights battle of our era. It's always difficult being the first out of the gate. Look at the long struggle that blacks had to endure before the ball got rolling in that battle.

  9. #979
    Student
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Last Seen
    05-13-15 @ 09:47 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    166

    Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

    She said the bill had broad wording that could lead to problems up the road.

  10. #980
    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 prometeus View Post
    Let me ask you this: Do you care one way or another if discrimination takes place?
    Yes.

    And they have every right to sell their whatever, nobody it stopping them.
    However, when you open a business to the public you no longer can pick and choose. It is the public or nothing. You want to sell only to a select group, open a membership only private business that is not geared to serve the public.
    You're just supporting the law with the law. That doesn't work towards arguing your point.

    True, but having laws that specifically allow it does act on it.
    Well, you either take baby steps or do nothing most of the time. That is just the nature of the beast of politics.

    What you are saying is that to discriminate is a right or that discrimination can not exist.
    Do you or would you like to be the victim of discrimination?
    Emotional appeal.

    Nor do they have the right to discriminate in a place that by intent, their intent, is public.
    Nope, private property is private.

    No one is asking them to.
    Can people sue if they don't? Yes.

    Laws are designed to keep order in society and most of the time prohibit certain actions. In the cases where they are prohibitive in nature they exist because the action they prohibit negatively impacts society. if the action did not exist there would be no need for such laws. We both know that discrimination does exist and that is why laws against it exist. Such laws NEVER compel anyone to do anything in a public setting but prohibit certain actions. If one is averse to such actions one can always avoid facing situations where one can be exposed to them.
    No, that is statist drivel that leads to tyranny. Crimes are those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another. A just law can only ever be one that protects the rights of people.
    Last edited by Henrin; 02-26-14 at 09:01 PM.

Posting Permissions

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