• 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[W:451]

Businesses still have the right to refuse to print certain messages on cakes. What they are not free to do is discriminate who gets to buy the cake. The law would still protect a business that didn't want to write "**** all Jews" on a cake.

Ok. So? If the law already exists, why all the threats and outrage?
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

Because of our long and storied history of kicking homosexuals out of businesses. Hell, it's in the papers and on the TV every day. As soon as Arizonans found out they could kick gays out of their stores there have been starving homosexuals all over the state because nobody will allow them to buy food.
/s

That's really the kicker here. This bill is pretty much a solution to a non-existent problem and the likely outcome is crusaders from both sides using it as a soap box.....like is happening now.

Based on what I have read, you are exactly right. Once again, the powers that be have directed the lemmings to get crazy, even though they are completely clueless about the issue.

I believe this PC crap is heading for a real day of reckoning.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

Keep in mind, this was wallmart. A customer saw the sign and just went to another register as if she were under 18 and unable to sell those things anyway. they still spent their money.

Likewise a gay person can just find another cake shop instead of suing them out of business.

Nobody has been sued out of business to my knowledge. One cake shop in a state that grants protected status to gays had a shop owner sued for denial of service to a same sex couple and the business owner lost so much business out of the deal that they had to close up shop. That ONE case and a similar one with a wedding photographer in a state that grants protected status to gays is the basis for this HUGE politically motivated push in a half dozen states which provide no anti discrimination measures for gays to allow sweeping discrimination on the basis of religious views. The law of unintended consequences has gone out the window on this one and the reaction to a couple out of state cases in states with anti discrimination measures would be funny if it were not so pathetic.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

Based on what I have read, you are exactly right. Once again, the powers that be have directed the lemmings to get crazy, even though they are completely clueless about the issue.

I believe this PC crap is heading for a real day of reckoning.

But think of the thousands of cake shop owners and wedding photographers in Arizona who have been forced against their sincerely held religious convictions to provide services to the sodomites or they were sued into oblivion. This is a big problem in that state.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

Ok. So? If the law already exists, why all the threats and outrage?

The law doesn't already exist. You were making a claim that businesses would be required to, for example, write "**** all Christians" on a cake. I simply pointed out that no.....the law would NOT require a business owner to print or write such a statement....it would only disallow the business from selling the cake.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

But think of the thousands of cake shop owners and wedding photographers in Arizona who have been forced against their sincerely held religious convictions to provide services to the sodomites or they were sued into oblivion. This is a big problem in that state.

You forgot the bigots who don't like icky black people and are forced to photograph their weddings. Is that a big problem in the state as well?
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

You forgot the bigots who don't like icky black people and are forced to photograph their weddings. Is that a big problem in the state as well?

For some bigots, the "icky people" would be brown-skinned, either Latino or Native American. Almost always depends upon the numbers of the minority population in a region.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

Business can already reject customers for ANY or NO reason. Meaningless law.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

How can you tell if somebody is gay without watching them have sex?
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

Is gay marriage legal in Arizona?
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Most (all) of the cases I have seen so far involved providing services to celebrate a wedding. To many people, a wedding is sacred. Given there are plenty of other providers, there is plenty of room to accommodate religious beliefs. Otherwise it is just being petty and vindictive.

For me providing providing catering, DJ, venue etc for a wedding is not a service. Rather, such arrangements are contracts. Businesses should have more leeway to decline contracts. For example: Yes, I have a construction company, but I dont want to be a contracter to build the abortion center, the gay conversion therapy center, the strip joint etc. Or, to be multi cultural: If say, Krishna Patel, is a Hindu electrician, he does not need to take a contract to wire the slaughter house...
A few years ago there were cases of Muslim cab drivers in another state who refused to carry passengers carrying alcohol (not drinking, carrying closed containers) and to carry service dogs for disabled people. They were found to be in violation of the law.

I dont think they were found to be in violation of a law. The city was Minneapolis and muslim cab drivers were refusing to transport alcohol, gays (and probably straights) who were showing physical affection in public, and people in general who wanted to go to strip joints etc.

Anyways, I believe that it was determined that if the cab drivers were refusing at the airport, they could be banned from the airport (ability to pick up people at the airport is a privelage). The muslims, however, could under MN law make refusals outside of the airport .

You forgot the bigots who don't like icky black people and are forced to photograph their weddings. Is that a big problem in the state as well?
If the photographer is travelling to the venue, then that is a contract. Any business owner should be able to decline any contract, for any reason - or for no stated reason.
 
Last edited:
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

Probably because you're to young and your parents failed to mention the personal freedoms they once had and you never experienced. /

As a grunt infantryman, my liberal father landed at Normandy and fought in the Battle of the Bulge to protect your freedom to exercise your extremist views and spew your nonsense.

Speaking of experience, it appears you skipped 6th grade English. There really is a difference between to, too and two. Not to worry, there is even a website that was created for you.

To, Too, Two - The Easiest Way To Learn How To Use These Words
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

If they aren't violating anyones rights then the state has no justification to act on them. Sorry, but you have no case if there is no human right violation. :lol:

In the instance of this proposed law isn't that the point? There is no need for this law. It serves no purpose. Are you arguing that SB1062 is necessary?
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

But think of the thousands of cake shop owners and wedding photographers in Arizona who have been forced against their sincerely held religious convictions to provide services to the sodomites or they were sued into oblivion. This is a big problem in that state.

So other than close some loopholes in the existing law, what exactly has changed in Arizona that warrants all the hand wringing?
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

The law doesn't already exist. You were making a claim that businesses would be required to, for example, write "**** all Christians" on a cake. I simply pointed out that no.....the law would NOT require a business owner to print or write such a statement....it would only disallow the business from selling the cake.

Sorry, you are wrong. Perhaps you should read the law, and the proposed law. Even better, read the LA Times article on the subject. I'm sure you can find it.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

Keep in mind, this was wallmart. A customer saw the sign and just went to another register as if she were under 18 and unable to sell those things anyway. they still spent their money.

Likewise a gay person can just find another cake shop instead of suing them out of business.

The problem doesn't exist. Arizona doesn't need a solution.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

Hey Nimby :2wave:

I think there is more behind this legislation than just a minority being outraged that they can't force the majority or any individual to accept buggery.

I guess it calls for a new thread. Don't know exactly where in what forum I will put it. But it's just an opinion column and it has more than just one message. When the elders are telling their children or grand children about the personal freedoms they once had and no longer have, it may be too late.

It has been clearly pointed out that this law specifically does away with GLBT rights
in the three cities where they currently exist, Phoenix--Flagstaff--Tucson.
These rights do not exist anywhere else in AZ.

As well, the law is written broadly as to circumvent Romer v. Evans.
It would allow a Muslim cabbie to not pick YOU up if you've been drinking, as an example.

Gov. Brewer is aware of the damage to her state's economy ALREADY, with cancellations and decreased visitation at the Grand Canyon.
The Super Bowl is riding on her decision, as it did in 1993 when AZ lost the Super Bowl due to not having a MLK Jr. day .
 
Last edited:
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Absolutely correct, I do disagree with the law. I don't think that special privileges should be afforded to people spouting the magic words "sincerely held religious beliefs" so they can choose to discriminate against people based on race, or religion, or sex, or sexual orientation, or etc... If an individual wants to discriminate, they shouldn't hide behind the Bible to do it.

Public Accommodation laws should be repealed in general. Repeal being the only option since the regulation of commerce is a function of government as specified in the Constitution (interstate) at the federal level and inherent in the power of the State (10th Amendment).



>>>>

You might want to refamiliarize yourself with the 10th. Not to mention SCOTUS consistently uses the commerce clause to broader effect than is sane. In any event, sexual orientation does not make up a protected class. Nor should it. The first trumps every amendment that comes after, again generally held by SCOTUS unless it convenient for them to forget about it.

There is no hiding, people have religion, a lot of people do. People also own property and businesses. I disagree with you strongly. Folks should not be compelled, in this day and age, to serve anyone they don't wish to.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

It has been clearly pointed out that this law specifically does away with GLBT rights
in the three cities where they currently exist, Phoenix--Flagstaff--Tucson.
These rights do not exist anywhere else in AZ.

As well, the law is written broadly as to circumvent Romer v. Evans.
It would allow a Muslim cabbie to not pick YOU up if you've been drinking, as an example.

Gov. Brewer is aware of the damage to her state's economy ALREADY, with cancellations and decreased visitation at the Grand Canyon.
The Super Bowl is riding on her decision, as it did in 1993 when AZ lost the Super Bowl due to not having a MLK Jr. day .

There is no such thing as "GLBT rights" and as has already been shown the cabbie example is a bust. As for the last, total bull****, there have been no boycotts of the Grand Canyon and anything Arizona loses from a few butthurt homosexuals they gain and more from the majority of folks who go there anyway.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

Did this already get posted? Hilarious.

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

lets just predict the future now

this bill will be vetoed, if it does happen to gain traction anywhere it will be temporary and even if passed it will eventually be removed when pushed to the higher courts

its panic and fear from some bigots and or people who support discrimination nothing more
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

Let me get this straight .. you dont have a right to someone elses private business, yet refusing to do private business with someone somehow violates their rights? Which rights?
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

You may want to read this before spreading any more of your 'butthurt homosexual' horse maneur.
GOP on Arizona gay law: Make it go away - James Hohmann and Burgess Everett - POLITICO.com
When a Senator as conservative as John Thune from SD weighs in against you, it's all over till the governor sings .
There is no such thing as "GLBT rights" and as has already been shown the cabbie example is a bust. As for the last, total bull****, there have been no boycotts of the Grand Canyon and anything Arizona loses from a few butthurt homosexuals they gain and more from the majority of folks who go there anyway.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

It has been clearly pointed out that this law specifically does away with GLBT rights
in the three cities where they currently exist, Phoenix--Flagstaff--Tucson.
These rights do not exist anywhere else in AZ.

As well, the law is written broadly as to circumvent Romer v. Evans.
It would allow a Muslim cabbie to not pick YOU up if you've been drinking, as an example.

Gov. Brewer is aware of the damage to her state's economy ALREADY, with cancellations and decreased visitation at the Grand Canyon.
The Super Bowl is riding on her decision, as it did in 1993 when AZ lost the Super Bowl due to not having a MLK Jr. day .

And yet she dawdles. Each day not only causes more unneeded attention to the state but costs perhaps millions in revenue, current and future. It is ultimately the citizens who are paying and will pay for this latest bit Tea Bag insanity in Arizona.

As I said earlier, you'd have to think twice before moving or expanding a business to Arizona. Just because this law will be vetoed, and it will, doesn't mean the clowns in the Arizona state legislature won't attempt to pass more ridiculous laws. There is no guarantee that the insanity will cease. If you are about to spend millions and millions to move or expand business to Arizona you want a stable business environment. Given the state's recent history that isn't a safe bet.

Imagine the decision to move your corporation from another state to Arizona. You are going to spend millions doing it and you are going to need to bring a hell of a lot of your current employees with you. Arizona is shaky ground for families with school age children because Arizona doesn't spend money on public education. If some of your workers are Hispanic there is the recent memory of Arizona's anti-immigration laws; Joe Arpaio's racial profiling; and other laws that discriminate against ethnic groups. Now you have the recent bill that "protects" religious groups from non-existing threats and potentially gives businesses the right to refuse service on the basis of religion, race, disability and sexual preference. Now try and sell that environment to all the families you want to move to your new HQ in Arizona. Tell them that all those days are over and they don't have to worry. Tell them that Arizona businesses won't be boycotted nationally because of dumbassery in the state legislature and therefore you can promise that there won't be any unforeseen business downturns which may result in a reduction of work force.

That and situations like it are part of the impact that the proposed bill is having. Brewer's dawdling underlines reasons for concern.
 
Back
Top Bottom