• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

1Kind of difficult to treat dead people no?

2Not in civilized society, where reason rules instead of anarchy.

3For exercising his religious rights? That is discrimination.

I will never feel entitled to another persons property or service. I dont care who refuses me service. Government? Yes. Private individuals? Never.
[/QUOTE]
1 i suppose so. Why would you live in a place where you couldnt get medical care?

2 i dont see what you mean. It is extremely unreasonable to force someone to work for you and force him to share his property with you.

3 public workers dont get thay freedom. They are servants to the public. They are paid in taxpayer dollars. If he didnt want to work for everyone, he shouldnt work for the government.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Slashing someones tires is not ok. That is a crime and a violation of property rights. However, someone refusing to sell her a hamburger would not be violating her rights. Maybe thats an asshole thing to do, but certainly not a violation of her rights. I guarantee someone else will want her money and sell her a hamburger

You are taking it out of context. This was in response to someone who said they felt like there was not a legitimate case to be made to including gays and lesbians as a protected class
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

You are taking it out of context. This was in response to someone who said they felt like there was not a legitimate case to be made to including gays and lesbians as a protected class

Human should be the only protected class.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

................

Of course not, and a bit offensive.
I was challenging your thought process. I didn't mean to imply that about you. Sorry if I offended you.

This was in response to your post:
I don't believe having a sexual orientation should qualify as a protected class. Nor do I think being smelly should.
I was providing one small example of the kind of treatment that causes me to arrive at a different conclusion.

And you assume [falsely] that I've never experienced discrimination.
I was saying that being a heterosexual man you have never experienced this kind of discrimination so if you take the pos
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Human should be the only protected class.

Only if we are all equal to start with.
 
Last edited:
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Why would you live in a place where you couldnt get medical care?
We do not always work where we live and we definitely do not keep tabs on who is on duty in the er

i dont see what you mean.
We are fallible humans, petty and vindictive. Can you envision where policies that allow discrimination would lead?

It is extremely unreasonable to force someone to work for you and force him to share his property with you.
It is not about forcing anyone to do anything. Lets take the baker. He makes the cake and wants to sell it and as a retail business he sells it to the public. Key word here is public. There are a myriad ways to not be a retail baker and only sell to whomever one wants, but once you open a retail, read public business you have an obligation to serve the public. That is the real crux of the issue. The baker has the right to sell to only the people he wants, but he has to set up the business that way.

public workers dont get thay freedom.
Aren't they entitled to the same rights as other religious people?

They are servants to the public.
So is every establishment that is not a "private club" but it is open to people walking in from the street, you know the public.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Not allowing a homophobic business to deny food service to a gay person is a human rights violation?

Gotta love the buying of one's own bull**** here.

Yes it is.

It is the right to free association.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Not allowing a homophobic business to deny food service to a gay person is a human rights violation?

Gotta love the buying of one's own bull**** here.

yep its amazing what people can convince themselves of no matter how inane

protecting the rights of the gay person is some how magically a humans right violation LMAO

weird all the major human rights orgs are fighting for equal rights for gays
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

So you would just accept it and die?

I already answered that question. Just because someone might need the service of someone else doesn't mean they have a right to their service.
 
Last edited:
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

It is not about forcing anyone to do anything. Lets take the baker. He makes the cake and wants to sell it and as a retail business he sells it to the public. Key word here is public. There are a myriad ways to not be a retail baker and only sell to whomever one wants, but once you open a retail, read public business you have an obligation to serve the public. That is the real crux of the issue. The baker has the right to sell to only the people he wants, but he has to set up the business that way.

No, it really doesn't matter what kind of business someone decides to open. If they decide they don't desire to serve someone no one has the right to force them to do so. All business is open to who the business owner wants in, just as all other kinds of private property are open to only those the owner wants in. To suggest otherwise is to suggest involuntary servitude and control of property that is not your own.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

yep its amazing what people can convince themselves of no matter how inane

protecting the rights of the gay person is some how magically a humans right violation LMAO

weird all the major human rights orgs are fighting for equal rights for gays

The right has lost the battle for public acceptance of their ideas as people have become more aware of the experiences of those that the right tries to oppress. Now they strategically use the language of the oppressed and their libreal/left defenders to try to claim that they are victims when they lose their "right" to dominate and oppress. When they can no longer force children in the schools to pray, they claim that they are being religiously persecuted and when they can't discriminate against people they claim that their freedom of association and property rights are being taken away. They have convinced themselves that losing the privileges and power that they never legitimately earned (but took through past violence and theft) is a form of oppression.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

The right has lost the battle for public acceptance of their ideas as people have become more aware of the experiences of those that the right tries to oppress. Now they strategically use the language of the oppressed and their libreal/left defenders to try to claim that they are victims when they lose their "right" to dominate and oppress. When they can no longer force children in the schools to pray, they claim that they are being religiously persecuted and when they can't discriminate against people they claim that their freedom of association and property rights are being taken away. They have convinced themselves that losing the privileges and power that they never legitimately earned (but took through past violence and theft) is a form of oppression.

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.

As for the right to association, I earned that right by birth, much as you have done, and there is no dispute that has any merit that suggests that you have the right to force me to associate with you or that I have the right to force you to associate with me.
 
Last edited:
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

They have convinced themselves that losing the privileges and power that they never legitimately earned (but took through past violence and theft) is a form of oppression.

People have to earn their human rights? How much work, and what kind of work, is required to earn the right to free speech? Is this condition in some secret codicil of the Constitution that only you know about?

I swear, you anti-Chioce zealots come up with some pretty interesting arguments to defend your oppression.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

1.)The right has lost the battle for public acceptance of their ideas as people have become more aware of the experiences of those that the right tries to oppress. Now they strategically use the language of the oppressed and their libreal/left defenders to try to claim that they are victims when they lose their "right" to dominate and oppress. When they can no longer force children in the schools to pray, they claim that they are being religiously persecuted and when they can't discriminate against people they claim that their freedom of association and property rights are being taken away. They have convinced themselves that losing the privileges and power that they never legitimately earned (but took through past violence and theft) is a form of oppression.

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.

Its only the nutballs and extremist that dont.

But i do agree with the basics though, its a complete joke to claim that the government protecting equal rights is infringing on rights

equal rights+ human rights = gay rights

some are severely confused about this
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Sure, could have let sleeping dogs lie and let the LGBTQ community continue on being legally relegated to second-class citizen status, just to avoid making the nutbars in Arizona mad.

Given the assumption of fully legally equal status via the legal mechanism of civil union, would that status then still be considered discriminatory?
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Given the assumption of fully legally equal status via the legal mechanism of civil union, would that status then still be considered discriminatory?

Separate but equal?
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Given the assumption of fully legally equal status via the legal mechanism of civil union, would that status then still be considered discriminatory?

there is no such thing, its impossible to do so and history and facts prove equal but separate is still not equal
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

We do not always work where we live and we definitely do not keep tabs on who is on duty in the er
but we always choose where we work and always choose where we live.


We are fallible humans, petty and vindictive. Can you envision where policies that allow discrimination would lead?
Yes. It would lead to some businesses doing better than others because they chose to serve everyone.
It is not about forcing anyone to do anything. Lets take the baker. He makes the cake and wants to sell it and as a retail business he sells it to the public. Key word here is public. There are a myriad ways to not be a retail baker and only sell to whomever one wants, but once you open a retail, read public business you have an obligation to serve the public. That is the real crux of the issue. The baker has the right to sell to only the people he wants, but he has to set up the business that way.
you dont have an obligation to serve anyone.

Aren't they entitled to the same rights as other religious people?
They are entitled to the same rights. Other peoples property and labor is not one of those rights

So is every establishment that is not a "private club" but it is open to people walking in from the street, you know the public.
Completely different.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

From the legislator quoted in the article:

"In my life and in my businesses, if I don't want to do business or if I don't want to deal with a particular company or person or whatever, I'm not interested. That's America. That's freedom."

Actually, that's freedom for you and it makes an entire segment of the population less free. How about an oral surgeon who owns a small business? They're Christian and a homosexual comes to them needing an infected tooth extracted? The oral surgeon can deny them service because they believe it's wrong to touch a person's mouth when that mouth has mingled with other mouths of the same sex? Then the person could get a jaw infection and in an extreme scenario, possibly die... and THAT'S "FREEDOM?!"

In the south, if you are a business owner who expresses anti-gay sentiments, you are applauded (see Chick-Fil-A). Discrimination ran rampant in this country until consumer rights and civil rights laws were enacted. Going back to that would be a pretty huge step toward the dark ages. I'm sure that the homophobes, anti-Semites, klan members and libertarians love the idea, but giving one person a right that, in turn, infringes on the rights of thousands (or hundreds, or hundreds of thousands, or millions) is nobody's definition of "freedom." It is, however, a perfectly astute definition of "evil."
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Actually, that's freedom for you and it makes an entire segment of the population less free.

No, it doesn't. They never had the freedom to force others to do their will in the first place.

How about an oral surgeon who owns a small business? They're Christian and a homosexual comes to them needing an infected tooth extracted? The oral surgeon can deny them service because they believe it's wrong to touch a person's mouth when that mouth has mingled with other mouths of the same sex? Then the person could get a jaw infection and in an extreme scenario, possibly die... and THAT'S "FREEDOM?!"

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.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

From the legislator quoted in the article:



Actually, that's freedom for you and it makes an entire segment of the population less free. How about an oral surgeon who owns a small business? They're Christian and a homosexual comes to them needing an infected tooth extracted? The oral surgeon can deny them service because they believe it's wrong to touch a person's mouth when that mouth has mingled with other mouths of the same sex? Then the person could get a jaw infection and in an extreme scenario, possibly die... and THAT'S "FREEDOM?!"

In the south, if you are a business owner who expresses anti-gay sentiments, you are applauded (see Chick-Fil-A). Discrimination ran rampant in this country until consumer rights and civil rights laws were enacted. Going back to that would be a pretty huge step toward the dark ages. I'm sure that the homophobes, anti-Semites, klan members and libertarians love the idea, but giving one person a right that, in turn, infringes on the rights of thousands (or hundreds, or hundreds of thousands, or millions) is nobody's definition of "freedom." It is, however, a perfectly astute definition of "evil."

The answer is simple. Go to a different business.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Actually, that's freedom for you and it makes an entire segment of the population less free.

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?

Going back to that would be a pretty huge step toward the dark ages.

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

. .but giving one person a right that

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

infringes on the rights of thousands

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.

It is, however, a perfectly astute definition of "evil."

I swear, you liberals and your fabricated definitions. Evil is now defined as defending human rights, defending freedom and defending choice. Terrific.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

It is growing, ASU has a downtown campus now. Central Ave. runs for miles with skyscrapers and such.

Sure it is growing....but there isn't much of a city right now. Don't get me wrong....Phoenix is fine....been there a number of times...but it is more of a big suburb than a city.
 
Back
Top Bottom