• 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

Somerville said:
I so luv that phrase "liberal totalitarianism".
Click to expand...

Have you been following the revolution in the Ukraine? Part of their manifesto speaks to their fight against Totalitarian Liberalism. They're fighting against the tyranny they see you raining down on Human Rights defenders in the west. You guys have a real image problem if revolutions are breaking out to prevent the spread of Totalitarian Liberalism. Have you noticed that the defenders of the emotion-based liberal position in this thread haven't been able to rebut the logic of those who are standing up in defense of Human Rights. Well, it seems that people around the world are noticing the tyranny underlying your emotion-based philosophy. They understand that the "Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions." Too bad that you're blind to that wisdom.

Here is a screen capture to the reference:

LiberalTotalitarianism_zpsb921a30d.jpg


Here is the video of their manifesto

 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Wiggen said:
Everybody who isn't a right wing dingbat understood that even a bulb as dim as Jan Brewer couldn't let this piece of crap become law.
Click to expand...

Yup, there's no bias there that's for sure. :mrgreen:

How about, Congrats to Governor Brewer for making the right call on this one.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

RiverDad said:
Have you been following the revolution in the Ukraine? Part of their manifesto speaks to their fight against Totalitarian Liberalism. They're fighting against the tyranny they see you raining down on Human Rights defenders in the west. You guys have a real image problem if revolutions are breaking out to prevent the spread of Totalitarian Liberalism. Have you noticed that the defenders of the emotion-based liberal position in this thread haven't been able to rebut the logic of those who are standing up in defense of Human Rights. Well, it seems that people around the world are noticing the tyranny underlying your emotion-based philosophy. They understand that the "Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions." Too bad that you're blind to that wisdom.

Here is a screen capture to the reference:

LiberalTotalitarianism_zpsb921a30d.jpg


Here is the video of their manifesto

Click to expand...



Actually in the Ukraine, there are people fighting liberalism yes, but those people are called fascists and Neo-Nazis. (In Ukraine, fascists, oligarchs and western expansion are at the heart of the crisis | Seumas Milne | Comment is free | The Guardian) (Is the U.S. Backing Neo-Nazis in Ukraine? | Alternet) (Popular Uprising, Foreign Manipulation and Rising Fascism in Ukraine) (Ukraine Nazis: Is America Backing EuroMaidan Extremists?)
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

NIMBY said:
Because I'm understanding better the excesses of partisan posting, though I enjoy it for election threads,
I'm holding a couple of posts for this thread right now.
The Log Cabin GOP on Chris Hayes called him out for piling on so to speak and not being thrilled.
Hayes returned that a GOP gov vetoed a GOP bill, then Hayes tried to tie in DOMA, since log cabins disagree with current GOP orthodoxy .
Click to expand...

My point to Wiggens is that he has a habit of yapping like a little dog under the porch while the big dogs play in the yard. Everything is bad everywhere apparently except where he lives, wherever that may be. He is unwilling or unable to be objective.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Mr. Invisible said:
Actually in the Ukraine, there are people fighting liberalism yes,
Click to expand...

This fight against liberalism it taking root in many parts of Europe. I'm not sure what your point is - liberals are going to fight back by calling their opponents names. What you don't see from liberals, because they're mostly emotionally driven people, is a rebuttal to the charge of liberals stomping their jackboots on the throat of liberty and gutting the Right of Free Association. They don't rebut the charge because they can't, and so instead they resort to name-calling.

You pointing to instances of name calling is supposed to accomplish what?
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

I sense that feeling myself more lately.
If someone is going to slam our terrible CC law in Illinois, I'd prefer it be one of us from Illinois.
All states have their problems, which is what you are saying.
Kicking a dog when it's down is a good reference.
This is why I'm holding my posts and will need to reshape them.
We call that learning where I retired .
Risky Thicket said:
My point to Wiggens is that he has a habit of yapping like a little dog under the porch while the big dogs play in the yard. Everything is bad everywhere apparently except where he lives, wherever that may be. He is unwilling or unable to be objective.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

clownboy said:
Yup, there's no bias there that's for sure. :mrgreen:

How about, Congrats to Governor Brewer for making the right call on this one.
Click to expand...

I agree with you clownboy.
It's time to let the AZ citizens heel and get back to as happy a life as possible.
DEMs can't complain at the GOP to change, and then complain that they changed.
There'll be plenty of time I'm sure for the politics during election season .
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

RiverDad said:
This fight against liberalism it taking root in many parts of Europe. I'm not sure what your point is - liberals are going to fight back by calling their opponents names. What you don't see from liberals, because they're mostly emotionally driven people, is a rebuttal to the charge of liberals stomping their jackboots on the throat of liberty and gutting the Right of Free Association. They don't rebut the charge because they can't, and so instead they resort to name-calling.
\
You pointing to instances of name calling is supposed to accomplish what?
Click to expand...

What I did was not point to name-calling but rather the extremely serious threat that fascists are having and the role they are playing in current domestic Ukrainian politics.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

Henrin said:
What if the car drives itself and all the person has to do is collect the fees? Then what? :D
Click to expand...

then i apply to be a cab driver
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

AGENT J said:
yep many things like this are DRENCHED in hypocrisy and bigotry

there was a case where a church owned a pavilion on a separate piece of public access property at a boardwalk and rented it out all the time. They tried to deny a gay wedding there and tried to claim because of religious reasons which is complete crap lol

a pavillion is not a church
and they rent it out as a business

and the best part is when it was checked into they rented it out to other nonreligious weddings, non religious events and jewish events too LMAO what big dummies they were lying and trying to claim religion as a reason, you shouldnt lie to a judge

well the judge granted usage of the pavillion and then took thier tax exempt status away from them just for that piece of property :)

justice served
Click to expand...


Your thinking of the Ocean Grove Pavilion, but you got a couple of things wrong.

1. The pavilion was owned not by the Methodist Church, but the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association. The OGCMA is not a church it is a civic nonprofit organization incorporated not under the Church provisions of the tax code, but under the non-religious, non-profit portion.

2. Since the Church didn't own the pavilion, the Church didn't loose it's tax exemption. Hell the OGCMA didn't loose it's tax exemption.​


The OGCMA had applied for and received a special program in NJ called the Green Acres program. Under this program individuals and organizations which would have normally paid property tax (and since the pavilion was owned by the OGCMA and not the Church the property was subject to property tax) would be exempt from the property tax under the agreed upon conditions of the exemptions. One of which was that the property would be open and accessible to the public. The OGCMA even had to periodically renew the agreement to stay eligible.

The result of the case was that the OGCMA was found in violation of their agreement and the property tax exemption status of the pavilion only was revoked (but not the accompanying boardwalk area).


****************************

You should be very careful when discussing this case. Some use it to try to show that a Church was sued for not holding a gay wedding and lost their tax exempt status. That IS NOT the case.


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

WorldWatcher said:
Your thinking of the Ocean Grove Pavilion, but you got a couple of things wrong.

1. The pavilion was owned not by the Methodist Church, but the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association. The OGCMA is not a church it is a civic nonprofit organization incorporated not under the Church provisions of the tax code, but under the non-religious, non-profit portion.

2. Since the Church didn't own the pavilion, the Church didn't loose it's tax exemption. Hell the OGCMA didn't loose it's tax exemption.​


The OGCMA had applied for and received a special program in NJ called the Green Acres program. Under this program individuals and organizations which would have normally paid property tax (and since the pavilion was owned by the OGCMA and not the Church the property was subject to property tax) would be exempt from the property tax under the agreed upon conditions of the exemptions. One of which was that the property would be open and accessible to the public. The OGCMA even had to periodically renew the agreement to stay eligible.

The result of the case was that the OGCMA was found in violation of their agreement and the property tax exemption status of the pavilion only was revoked (but not the accompanying boardwalk area).


****************************

You should be very careful when discussing this case. Some use it to try to show that a Church was sued for not holding a gay wedding and lost their tax exempt status. That IS NOT the case.


>>>>
Click to expand...

hmm interesting and awesome



that seems just like the story i was referring to and of course it almost has to be because what are the oods of the stories that i was reading and that were being discussed here different.

but i swore there was an articles talking about a pavilion and the church lost its tax status but just on the property. Ill have to see if i can find it now to make sure its the same.
do you have any articles on it?
also i thought this was years ago, equal rights for gays was only just recent in NJ or was the wedding a non legally sanction wedding or did NJ have laws about sexual orientation before it had gay rights?

anyway THANK YOU for providing that!
like i said it has to be the case just not sure

and yes any idiot using that as an example of a "church" being sued is severely wrong
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

AGENT J said:
hmm interesting and awesome



that seems just like the story i was referring to and of course it almost has to be because what are the oods of the stories that i was reading and that were being discussed here different.

but i swore there was an articles talking about a pavilion and the church lost its tax status but just on the property. Ill have to see if i can find it now to make sure its the same.
do you have any articles on it?
also i thought this was years ago, equal rights for gays was only just recent in NJ or was the wedding a non legally sanction wedding or did NJ have laws about sexual orientation before it had gay rights?

anyway THANK YOU for providing that!
like i said it has to be the case just not sure

and yes any idiot using that as an example of a "church" being sued is severely wrong
Click to expand...


NJ didn't have Same-sex Civil Marriage at the time, the couple was performing a non-civil wedding - also referred to as a commitment ceremony.


http://www.adfmedia.org/files/OGCMA-BernsteinRuling.pdf?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1



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

I dont think any business should be forced to do business with anyone they dont want to. That said, I am fine with these types of bills.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

RiverDad said:
This fight against liberalism it taking root in many parts of Europe. I'm not sure what your point is - liberals are going to fight back by calling their opponents names. What you don't see from liberals, because they're mostly emotionally driven people, is a rebuttal to the charge of liberals stomping their jackboots on the throat of liberty and gutting the Right of Free Association. They don't rebut the charge because they can't, and so instead they resort to name-calling.

You pointing to instances of name calling is supposed to accomplish what?
Click to expand...

You might wish to rethink your support for the fascist group in the Ukraine, the red and black flag seen at the beginning of your embedded video belongs to a party that sided with the Nazis during WWII. In Israel, they are worried about this group and its outspoken anti-Semitism to the point warnings have been sent to the Jewish community in the Ukraine.

Op Ed: Tea with Neo-Nazis

The most worrisome and largely overseen factor of the ongoing Ukrainian tragedy, to me, is the mighty Neo-Nazi presence among the opposition hard-core militants from ultra-right nationalistic parties and movements. The threat posed by those forces should be not under-estimated, especially in the context of rapidly rising ultra-national forces all over Europe, the current. new ugly ‘fashion’.
Click to expand...

The Return of the Ukrainian Far Right
pg. 237
By recruiting Tiahnybok, who had run as an independent candidate, into the Nasha Ukraina faction of the VerkhovnaRada, Yushchenko provided Svoboda a certain legitimacy. A few month slater, Tiahnybok gave an inflammatory speech in which he celebrated the OUN-UPA for having “fought against the Muscovite [moskali], Germans, Jews [zhydy] and other scum, who wanted to take away our Ukrainian state!” and asserted that Ukraine was ruled by a “Muscovite-Jewish [moskal’s’ko-zhydivs’ka] mafia.”
Click to expand...

Telling the Truth About Ukraine’s Rising Anti-Semitic ‘Svoboda’ Party: An Eye-Opening Experience – With Portents for Ukraine’s Future

Maria Zubareva, president of a group called All-Ukrainian Association “Journalists Solidarity.” She attributes the high level of anti-Semitic attacks in Ukraine to the virulent campaign that landed Svoboda with almost 10% of the votes at last year’s parliamentary election. Svoboda legitimized racial and national intolerance, which led to increasing violence on the ground, she argued and concluded, “Svoboda [is] a real threat to the Jewish community of Ukraine.”
<snip>
Matthew Lina of the conservative-leaning Center for the Study of the Former Soviet Socialist Republics aptly called Svoboda “fascists (‘racist xenophobic national socialists’…)”
Click to expand...

Yeah, those "totalitarian liberals" must surely be the source of the problem in the Ukraine, we all know :roll: that it was the Jews who originated that liberal **** anyway - amirite?
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

Kreton said:
I dont think any business should be forced to do business with anyone they dont want to. That said, I am fine with these types of bills.
Click to expand...

Most haters under the guise of Christianity agree with you. And yet what would Christ do?
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

Lursa said:
Jerry said:
I knew a couple people who worked at walmart and refused to sell alcohol or tobacco when cheering. They just put the same sign on their register that employees under 18/21 used. It was never an issue that I'm aware of.
Click to expand...
When 'cheering?'

Anyway, I'm pretty sure that they were not informing their managers of their actions and that they'd have been fired if they made it known and persisted.
Click to expand...
On a related note: Obama’s EEOC Sues Trucking Company After Muslim Who Refused to Transport Alcohol Fired; Not First Time

So if you're Muslim then Obama will guard your religious views (even after those Muslim truckers signed an agreement knowing they would be transporting alcohol), but if you're Christian he won't. Gotta love those Kenyan roots. Let's see that birth certificate one more time.

Anyway, the bill was vetoed because the NFL threatened to take the next Superbowl away from Arizona (the NFL is under enough heat from the administration over concussions and has to play the political game), and Apple threatened not to build a planned new iPhone plant there (Apple would like to keep it's NSA contracts), not because of some ascended view on discrimination et-al.
 
Last edited:
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

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

Refusing to transport booze is the same as refusing to serve food to a gay person? Really?
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

Top Cat said:
Refusing to transport booze is the same as refusing to serve food to a gay person? Really?
Click to expand...

The actions are different, the reason for refusal to take the actions are indentical.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

clownboy said:
The actions are different, the reason for refusal to take the actions are indentical.
Click to expand...

Let's see if I get this. Discriminating against people is the same as not transporting booze.

It is amazing how easily religious folks but their own BS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom