• 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 anti-gay bill vetoed by governor

Arizona anti-gay bill vetoed by governor - chicagotribune.com




back up links:

Arizona governor vetoes anti-gay bill
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer Vetoes Anti-Gay Bill - NBC News
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoes so-called anti-gay bill - latimes.com
Arizona governor vetoes controversial bill allowing denial of service to gays
Arizona Governor Vetoes Bill Seen Discriminating Against Gays - Businessweek
Jan Brewer Announces Veto Of Arizona Anti-Gay Bill SB 1062
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoes anti-gay bill | MSNBC
Arizona governor vetoes anti-gay bill - Chicago Sun-Times


vetoed just like i thought and said it would be


equality wins again


again it shows the panic and fear of the bigots and those that support discrimination and are against equal rights. They see the writing on the wall, they know equal rights is winning and is going to win the war so they are getting desperate.

The best part is, even if they win some of these little battles its things like this that are actually HELPING equal rights. The majority of the public eye judges it as wrong and see how nuts it is. But it establishes something that can be challenged in courts just like the state bannings. The vast majority of the lawsuits exist BECAUSE of state bannings lol. The bannings HELPED, its sweet poetic justice.

THeres some other state trying these i hope they get some momentum behind them to draw more of the public eye on this insanity.

I really like your triumphalism. It's just sooo much what turns the guys on.
 
That is of course impossible considering I'm talking about the nature of property.
The nature of property does not change under the rock, but being there precludes you from seeing and understanding what is happening in the real world. You fail to understand that reality IS, you do not have to agree with any of it and you may seek to change it, but denying it is just silly and does not help you.

No, all property works on the same principle, be that your body, your land, your house, your toothbrush
None of which are "open to the public"

your business.
Not if it is open to the public. Make it a private club and you are just fine.

All property is under the control of the owner and the owner gets to decide who uses it.
And some of that control is conceded when the business is opened to the public.

That doesn't defend your argument.
But it does.

Sorry, but the first amendment protects the right to association and the right to practice ones religion.
Look I am not coming to your house and I don't want you to come to mine and you can pray all you want, but when you open the door and say that you have cake for sale your selectivity ends. That is just the way it is. You do not lie it seek to change it, but clearly it is not working out well for your side.

and the thirteenth forbids all involuntary servitude.
Nobody is pressing your into any servitude, you offered the cake for sale.

I understand them just fine, thank you.
Obviously you do not.
 
Of course they can, just ask an inmate if (s)he voted in the last election.

Even prisoners that are denied to practice their rights do in fact have all their rights. What happens do you think when the force is removed? Any idea?

No you live in an imagined world totally out of touch with reality, but that is your right to do so.

Nope.
 
My rights can never be removed, so I live in the present, and will forever live in the present as long I stand by my rights.




Your rights will never stop other people from having and using their rights.

Welcome to reality.




"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll
 
Your rights will never stop other people from having and using their rights.

Welcome to reality.

What rights are those again? When I discriminate against someone which right of theirs am I violating?
 
Even prisoners that are denied to practice their rights do in fact have all their rights.
Riiiight, keep telling yourself that while denying reality again. By the way that is why minors kan not vote either eh? They have the right too, but the magic of the calendar is holding them back.

What happens do you think when the force is removed?
So you only want the force to be with you when it suits you, like protecting you from suits for bigotry?
 
No. The individual that denied you service didn't cause you a greater harm, but simply refused to assist you in your problem.


Arguments based on feelings have no effect on logic.

Oh wow, mental gymnastics. So by that logic, if you called 911 and nobody came because they decided to eat lunch instead, there wouldn't be a lawsuit? No negligence settlement? No criminal charges? :lamo
 
Riiiight, keep telling yourself that while denying reality again. By the way that is why minors kan not vote either eh? They have the right too, but the magic of the calendar is holding them back.

The Constitution never explicitly protects the right to vote, but simply says that it can not be denied to certain groups. Thanks for not reading the Constitution. Oh and btw, you just showed no understand of the difference between children and adults. The reason a child's rights are restricted BY NATURE, is that they lack the ability to reason in such a way to protect themselves.

So you only want the force to be with you when it suits you, like protecting you from suits for bigotry?

What force? We all have the right to protect and control the use of our person and property. That is not acting aggressively towards others.
 
You don't get to discriminate against classes of people.

Learn to accept that and move on.

Nonsense, not even the issue at heart here. Let's go with a concrete example - the Colorado baker. He didn't discrimnate against any class of people, I'm sure he's freely baked any number of items for folks who are homosexual. It was the event that he refused to participate in, provide for.
 
Oh wow, mental gymnastics. So by that logic, if you called 911 and nobody came because they decided to eat lunch instead, there wouldn't be a lawsuit? No negligence settlement? No criminal charges? :lamo

Do you understand the difference between paying for a service and not getting it, and simply being refused service in the first place?
 
Do you understand the difference between paying for a service and not getting it, and simply being refused service in the first place? Lets make something clear, if you agree to serve someone and you don't that is entirely different than saying I'm not serving you.

Hmmm so people paying for 911 service through taxes you think is a contract for them to not discriminate and they must render you service in the event of an emergency? I suppose the local hospital, or businesses of all kind for that matter, are partially setup through similar taxes... so I guess all businesses in town should have to provide services because they are all partially owned through tax money?

Oh boy the logic gets thick when you start looking for loopholes and excuses eh Henrin? Maybe you could just admit your ideology is a massive headache. Would you want to live in this town of yours? Where the hospital can let you die on the doorstep at their whim? I sure wouldn't.
 
Hmmm so people paying for 911 service through taxes you think is a contract for them to not discriminate and they must render you service in the event of an emergency? I suppose the local hospital, or businesses of all kind for that matter, are partially setup through similar taxes... so I guess all businesses in town should have to provide services because they are all partially owned through tax money?

Oh boy the logic gets thick when you start looking for loopholes and excuses eh Henrin? Maybe you could just admit your ideology is a massive headache. Would you want to live in this town of yours? Where the hospital can let you die on the doorstep at their whim? I sure wouldn't.

How many straqmen do you intend to create here? Hospitals and 911 are governed by a set of laws that are unique to vital services. The local bakery, not so much. No one is going to die if you refuse to sell them scones.
 
It depends on you and what you do or try to do.

You might feel it big-time.

It's a feeling thing, eh? Hmm..rights are based on reason, not feeling.
 
How many straqmen do you intend to create here? Hospitals and 911 are governed by a set of laws that are unique to vital services. The local bakery, not so much. No one is going to die if you refuse to sell them scones.

We're talking ideology here clown, I'm not trying to "prove" the baker story through this. Henrin says that denying service of any kind does not harm.
 
Hmmm so people paying for 911 service through taxes you think is a contract for them to not discriminate and they must render you service in the event of an emergency? I suppose the local hospital, or businesses of all kind for that matter, are partially setup through similar taxes... so I guess all businesses in town should have to provide services because they are all partially owned through tax money?

Sigh. The government is not private enterprise. The government is set up to serve the people, while private enterprise is set up to serve the interest of the individual. To even suggest the two are the same shows a fundamental failure of understanding what government is and what private individuals are.
 
We're talking ideology here clown, I'm not trying to "prove" the baker story through this. Henrin says that denying service of any kind does not harm.

See #418.
 
Sigh. The government is not private enterprise. The government is set up to serve the people, while private enterprise is set up to serve the interest of the individual. To even suggest the two are the same shows a fundamental failure of understanding what government is and what private individuals are.

LoL, wut? So... are you suggesting hospital's are not privately owned? 911 systems are government operations so they should provide service but... hospitals don't have to?... unless you called 911?

You're flopping around going in different directions trying to abstract your way out of this disaster.
 
Do you understand the difference between paying for a service and not getting it, and simply being refused service in the first place?

yeah , lilke noses us Jews have in the way, - I feel salty but lovely.
 
LoL, wut? So... are you suggesting hospital's are not privately owned? 911 systems are government operations so they should provide service but... hospitals don't have to?... unless you called 911?

You're flopping around going in different directions trying to abstract your way out of this disaster.

Actually, hospitals don't have to, However again, they are uniquely governed by law (generally) because for the most part, yes even some of the private ones, they take both state and federal funds. There are private and exclusive hospitals that take neither so they can keep their services private.
 
Actually, hospitals don't have to, However again, they are uniquely governed by law (generally) because for the most part, yes even some of the private ones, they take both state and federal funds. There are private and exclusive hospitals that take neither so they can keep their services private.

If you were following the earlier threads you would understand that Henrin stated that denying a person service at a hospital in a crisis situation, would not create harm. He then pulled out the red herring of 911 service being a government entity as counter to my "called 911" tale. Now you are breaking down different types of hospitals, funding, and what is right and wrong... this has spiraled into the most convoluted tangent of nonsense imaginable.

This all started as me making examples of how legalizing discrimination for any reason creates a whole web of ridiculous problems and harm. Can we get back to the original argument here of how businesses denying services to whoever they like, for whatever reason, is bad policy?
 
Racist laws? No, I support there being no laws on the matter of who the business wants to serve, allow on their property, to associate with, to provide their labor, or of who they will hire and who they will fire.

So you support institutionalized racism because "they have the right to do so"?
Also dont these kind of laws inherently go against the 14th amendment?
 
Back
Top Bottom