• 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]

sawyerloggingon said:
Point of fact it was not an anti gay bill it was a religion freedom bill. Whether or not that manifest itself mostly with gays is completely irrelevant and labeling it an anti gay bill was pure left wing spin.
Click to expand...

The sponsors of the bill cited in news reports and on the floor (I'm sure you can google them yourself) that the reason this legislation was placed before the legislature were the cases in other state. The cases THEY cited were Elaine Photography (New Mexico), Sweetcakes by Melissa (Oregon), and Masterpiece Cakes (Colorado) - all cases involving homosexuals.

Ya, it was an anti-homosexual bill because the intent was to allow businesses to claim a religious exemption to providing equal services to homosexuals. The fact that people walked way, and in some cases ran away - once the legislation came to light and it was realized that this same legislation could allow others to claim a religious exemption to discriminate against blacks, interracial couples, Jews, Muslims, divorcee's, etc...



If you want true freedom, joint me in calling what this bill what it really was. Support as I do the repeal of Public Accommodation laws for ALL businesses (not just those owned by religious people [or claim to be religious]) so that Business owners rights of free association and rights to their own property and labor are recognized. IMHO, Public Accommodation law should only apply to government entities and their dealings.

This bill was about providing "special privileges" to a subset of business owners.

>>>>
 
sawyerloggingon said:
It was a pro religious freedom bill
Click to expand...

No, it had nothing to do with what gets taught in churches or a person's freedom to choose whatever religion they wish.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
No mention of "white freedom" in the constitution but freedom of religion looms large. See the difference? Nice try though.:lol:
Click to expand...

Freedom of religion does not mean freedom to discriminate.

Do not forget, Christianity and the Bible was once used to support racial discrimination.
 
WorldWatcher said:
The sponsors of the bill cited in news reports and on the floor (I'm sure you can google them yourself) that the reason this legislation was placed before the legislature were the cases in other state. The cases THEY cited were Elaine Photography (New Mexico), Sweetcakes by Melissa (Oregon), and Masterpiece Cakes (Colorado) - all cases involving homosexuals.

Ya, it was an anti-homosexual bill because the intent was to allow businesses to claim a religious exemption to providing equal services to homosexuals. The fact that people walked way, and in some cases ran away - once the legislation came to light and it was realized that this same legislation could allow others to claim a religious exemption to discriminate against blacks, interracial couples, Jews, Muslims, divorcee's, etc...



If you want true freedom, joint me in calling what this bill what it really was. Support as I do the repeal of Public Accommodation laws for ALL businesses (not just those owned by religious people [or claim to be religious]) so that Business owners rights of free association and rights to their own property and labor are recognized. IMHO, Public Accommodation law should only apply to government entities and their dealings.

This bill was about providing "special privileges" to a subset of business owners.

>>>>
Click to expand...

IMO it is anything but Christian to deny service to gays but if that is the way you feel then you should be able to do so. What's next, required abortions?
 
Gardener said:
No, it had nothing to do with what gets taught in churches or a person's freedom to choose whatever religion they wish.
Click to expand...

How about practice the religion they choose. Really though freedom of religion died when Mormons were denied the right to have multiple wives.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
How about practice the religion they choose.
Click to expand...

They are free to practice heterosexuality all they want according to the dictates of their religion. Nothing has been taken away from them.
 
Jetboogieman said:
This is a very ignorant statement.

Plenty of Religious Figures throughout American history have supported the idea that god intended races to be seperate... just as Quakers used religion to oppose it.
Click to expand...

I just can't recall whites only toilets ever being defended with religion, apparently you can't either.
 
Gardener said:
They are free to practice heterosexuality all they want according to the dictates of their religion. Nothing has been taken away from them.
Click to expand...

If their interpretation of their religion is that gays are evil and should be shunned then they should be allowed to do so. I have to wonder why a gay would even want to do business with a place like that anyway.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
If their interpretation of their religion is that gays are evil and should be shunned then they should be allowed to do so. I have to wonder why a gay would even want to do business with a place like that anyway.
Click to expand...

You need to understand the difference between public and private. Implicit in the notion of running a business (and I run one, myself) is that by operating in the public sphere, one is subject to the secterian laws associated with such. People are not being prevented in any way from conducting their private life any way they choose.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
If their interpretation of their religion is that gays are evil and should be shunned then they should be allowed to do so. I have to wonder why a gay would even want to do business with a place like that anyway.
Click to expand...

Still bull****, you shouldn't be able to.

Regardless of your religious convictions business owners should not be allowed to discriminate against gays just as your racial convictions don't allow you to discriminate against blacks.

What if you live in a small town in Arizona and there's only one drycleaners like there is in my small town and you have a job interview but you're gay and they won't do your suit for you.

That's not right and it never will be.

I'm sorry but you can shove your Christianity up your ass if you think it's okay to discriminate against someone based on an innate trait they cannot control.

It's no longer good enough to say "Because the bible tells me so".
 
Gardener said:
You need to understand the difference between public and private. Implicit in the notion of running a business (and I run one, myself) is that by operating in the public sphere, one is subject to the secterian laws associated with such. People are not being prevented in any way from conducting their private life any way they choose.
Click to expand...

Is there a law that says you have to serve gays like there is for blacks? There is not so there is no sectarian law to obey here.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Still bull****, you shouldn't be able to.

Regardless of your religious convictions business owners should not be allowed to discriminate against gays just as your racial convictions don't allow you to discriminate against blacks.

What if you live in a small town in Arizona and there's only one drycleaners like there is in my small town and you have a job interview but you're gay and they won't do your suit for you.

That's not right and it never will be.

I'm sorry but you can shove your Christianity up your ass if you think it's okay to discriminate against someone based on an innate trait they cannot control.

It's no longer good enough to say "Because the bible tells me so".
Click to expand...

You are really grasping at straws here.:lol:
 
sawyerloggingon said:
It was a pro religious freedom bill not anti gay and as you point out could be used to deny service for many other reasons than being gay which proves it was not an anti gay bill.
Click to expand...
You are right it was not an anti-gay bill, even though it was referencing only "gay incidents" as a justification. The bill in reality was an attempt by douchebag evangelicals who wanted to legitimize their bigotry instead of practicing Christianity.
 
prometeus said:
You are right it was not an anti-gay bill, even though it was referencing only "gay incidents" as a justification. The bill in reality was an attempt by douchebag evangelicals who wanted to legitimize their bigotry instead of practicing Christianity.
Click to expand...


I tend to agree.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
If their interpretation of their religion is that gays are evil and should be shunned then they should be allowed to do so.
Click to expand...
Bull crap, they are not asked to hold hands, rub eachother's backs, take long showers together. They are supposed to serve people without asking who they like to ****.

I have to wonder why a gay would even want to do business with a place like that anyway.
Click to expand...
They wouldn't if the bigoted bastards would have the integrity to put a sign on their doors that said: "WE ARE GIGOTS AND WE HATE FAGS" I assure you that no gay person would solicit their business.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
If their interpretation of their religion is that gays are evil and should be shunned then they should be allowed to do so. I have to wonder why a gay would even want to do business with a place like that anyway.
Click to expand...

I've said for some time now that a lot of the emotional impetus behind the gay movement is a kind of attempt to Make Daddy Love Me. It explains why they focus so much on the word marraige vice the simple legal advantages, and it explains this. You shouldn't be allowed to disagree with them. They will eventually start targeting the non-explicitly religiously-oriented activities of Churches, too, it's just inherent in the movement.

As for me :shrug: I think I'd rather go to jail than violate my religious precepts. Once upon a time even liberal Democrats (Ted Kennedy comes to mind) cared about individual religious liberty. Now, apparently, not so much.
 
Last edited:
prometeus said:
Bull crap, they are not asked to hold hands, rub eachother's backs, take long showers together. They are supposed to serve people without asking who they like to ****.
Click to expand...

This is obviously in reaction to the case in Colorado where a court ordered a bakery to support a gay wedding against the owners religious beliefs.
 
cpwill said:
This is obviously in reaction to the case in Colorado where a court ordered a bakery to support a gay wedding against the owners religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

And they shouldn't have the right to do make the claim that their religious convictions prevent them from baking a cake and selling it to a gay couple. That is just as ridiculous as making a claim that a person's religious convictions prevent them from baking a cake and selling it to a Jewish couple or a mixed race couple or an older couple. If that is a conflict for their convictions, then they need to find either a new job or a new way of doing business (perhaps referrals only). Businesses open to the public are subject to anti-discrimination laws. And in this case they are treating people differently based on their relative genders.

I do wonder though why people get so pissy about such things. It would have been interesting to see someone turn down my grandparents for a cake because they wanted it to say something like "50 years Chuck and Bill" on it and it was either ordered over the phone or by only my grandfather or perhaps one of us younger ones.
 
roguenuke said:
And they shouldn't have the right to do make the claim that their religious convictions prevent them from baking a cake and selling it to a gay couple.
Click to expand...

Actually they should. We even have a whole Amendment to the Constitution thingy where stuff like that is talked about :) Forcing people to support ceremonies that are antithetical to their religious beliefs is a violation of their religious liberty.

I do wonder though why people get so pissy about such things.
Click to expand...

Because you are attempting to force us to violate our faith. I don't agree that one has a "right" to a marriage certificate from the state, but I at least understand why those who do believe that their rights are being violated through marriage law are ticked off about it.
 
cpwill said:
This is obviously in reaction to the case in Colorado where a court ordered a bakery to support a gay wedding against the owners religious beliefs.
Click to expand...
No its a reaction to everything the douchebag evangelicals are attempting to do in order to control others.
 
cpwill said:
Actually they should. We even have a whole Amendment to the Constitution thingy where stuff like that is talked about :) Forcing people to support ceremonies that are antithetical to their religious beliefs is a violation of their religious liberty.

Because you are attempting to force us to violate our faith. I don't agree that one has a "right" to a marriage certificate from the state, but I at least understand why those who do believe that their rights are being violated through marriage law are ticked off about it.
Click to expand...

There is no valid argument that anyone's faith requires them to not sell them a cake when that is what they do. If it is the case, then you should not be running a business open to the public.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom