• 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

vesper said:
1.)And I know Democrats who are against same sex marriage and a business owner's religious freedoms being violated. So what's your point?

2.)Everyone knew Brewer was going to veto this bill
3.)and before you do a victory lap it wasn't over gay rights but over threats from corporations like Apple and Microsoft that threatened to pull out of deals if she signed it. It was the pressure from the NFL who threatened to pull the Super Bowl from Arizona next year if she signed the bill.
4.) It was two moderate Republicans Romney and McCain that didn't want Brewer to make any waves during an election year.
5.) So business owners with religious convictions found favor in the state legislature of AZ but a governor who didn't see protecting their freedoms as important than making deals and appeasing the GOP establishment.
Click to expand...

1.) my point was there are so many of these types out there they many people are fooled to think the super vast majority of GOPers are the same way, they are not.

i thought this was VERY obvious if you followed the conversation

and yes im sure there are DEMs that are bigots and against equal rights, ive never met one in real life on THIS issue, but i have on others but they are the minority and they arent drowning out the others

id say a comparable subject for liberals would be gun rights, there are millions on the left that support gun rights but there are many big retarded squeaky wheels that get the ari time

im not sure what you dont understand..

seem you made something up in your head that wasnt being said
oh yeah also there were no religious freedoms being violated lol that strawman fails

2.) not everyone but i said and so did many many others

3.) you are free to think what ever you like nobody cares lol and even if that could be proved i still wouldnt care because its still a victory for equality and equality won :)
tell me why did Apple and Microsoft and the NFL threatened to pull out of deals if she signed it. . . . . wait for it . . . .wait for it . . . they support equal rights. 6 of one, half dozen of the other :shrug:

4.) it was more than them lol

5.) thier freedoms are still 100% intact another failed strawman

jeez dude you are like the dark side we can all feel your anger lol
 
Wiseone said:
Discrimination is not a right, welcome to the 18 ****ing 60s
Click to expand...

:lamo i seriously laughed out loud on that, made my daughter look at me
 
My church speaks harshly about divorce and unwed mothers. The church tells me that it's easier for a rich man to get through the eye of a needle than to enter the Kingdom of God so rich people must be evil too!

Therefore, I REFUSE to serve divorced people, unwed mother's and rich folks. [/end sarcasm]
 
apdst said:
Before we know it, churches will be forced, by law to perform gay marriages. You can bet your butt that religious freedom is a right.
Click to expand...

good lord stop with this mentally retarded and insane hyperbolic dishonesty

this is not going to happen in the US


the constitution doesn't allow it and if it was a risk the churches would already be at risk without equal rights for gays

churches already discriminate everyday against minorities and straight couples etc etc

asinine strawmen like that will do nothing but get laughed at for how intellectually dishonest they are and the pure humor they represent lol

thanks for the laugh
 
apdst said:
Gays are slaves?
Click to expand...

Diversion much?

It matters not that you didn't understand the meaning of my post, or pretend not to, anyways.

The rest of us get it.
 
Lutherf said:
I think Brewer did the right thing in this case.

The idea that this bill was intended to serve is a worthwhile one but the bill itself was bound to create more problems than it fixed.

Arizona public accommodations law doesn't protect homosexuals now and we haven't had any problems because of that. We also haven't had any cases where the problem that this bill sought to solve has come up. In essence, it was a solution in search of a problem.

Furthermore, a law such as this simply BEGS the 'crusaders' on both sides of the fence to come out and we really don't need that either. In fact this bill would have created a situation where any exercise of the option to refuse service would result in a conflict with our state constitution.

Article 2, Section 12 of the Arizona Constitution states:



To my admittedly lay reading of the bill and the Constitution I don't see how any court could make a determination in any case that came before them without addressing the religious beliefs of at least one of the parties when protections under SB 1062 were claimed.
Click to expand...

The Oregon Constitution addresses religious beliefs not be denied also but that didn't stop the judge from finding the bakery owners in violation. The New Mexico Constitution did the same but the photographer was found guilty by another federal judge. This legislation was a way of putting into place a law that could not be easily overturned by another federal activist judge. A person's religion starts at home, it is more than a religion per say, it is a way of life. It plays a major role on how this person runs his business. But even if she had signed it, before the ink was dry, the gay rights activist groups had their posse of lawyers in waiting and an activist judge already picked out to hear the case. We are going to need action from Congress on this one to protect religious freedoms for all persons.
 
Last edited:
specklebang said:
Perhaps, as a Republican, Ms. Brewer didn't want to spend millions of taxpayer dollars fighting a hopeless battle.

I posted this in another thread. It my seem like humor, but it isn't exactly so.



Am I not correct?
Click to expand...

hahaha nice

and i agree in ways this is way religion is NOT a blanket protection, it never has been and never will be,

and its protection will always end where others rights begin.
 
Paschendale said:
Until you can find a reason to allow that cake shop owner and wedding photographer refusing to serve someone on the basis of race, then you cannot permit someone to do so on the basis of religious ideas.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, you'd have to find a reason why the cake shop owner COULDN'T refuse to serve someone on the basis of race. It's not your cake shop. Hence that word owner.
 
vesper said:
The Oregon Constitution addresses religious beliefs not be denied also but that didn't stop the judge from finding the bakery owners in violation. The New Mexico Constitution did the same but the photographer was found guilty by another federal judge. This legislation was a way of putting into place a law that could not be easily overturned by another federal activist judge. A person's religion starts a home, it is more than a religion per say, it is a way of life. It plays a major role on how this person runs his business. But even if she had signed it, before the ink was dry, the gay rights activist groups had their posse of lawyers in waiting and an activist judge already picked out to hear the case. We are going to need action from Congress on this one to protect religious freedoms for all persons.
Click to expand...

no religious beliefs for "denied" they are still free to have them

thanks for proving us right lol

funny how history repeats its self

its immoral for slaves to be considered people
its immoral for women to be equals, it goes God, than man then woman
its immoral for blacks and whites to marry

all those insane and mentally inept arguments failed then and they fail today, you dont get to infringe on the rights of others, sorry you want to so bad but you dont

equal rights is winning
 
JayDubya said:
On the contrary, you'd have to find a reason why the cake shop owner COULDN'T refuse to serve someone on the basis of race. It's not your cake shop. Hence that word owner.
Click to expand...

on the basis of race its illegal and it infringe on rights
facts win again

hence you post is factually wrong
 
AGENT J said:
no religious beliefs for "denied" they are still free to have them

thanks for proving us right lol

funny how history repeats its self

its immoral for slaves to be considered people
its immoral for women to be equals, it goes God, than man then woman
its immoral for blacks and whites to marry

all those insane and mentally inept arguments failed then and they fail today, you dont get to infringe on the rights of others, sorry you want to so bad but you dont

equal rights is winning
Click to expand...

If you can't practice them you have lost them. You call allowing them to be who they are in their homes and place of worship as sufficient. Just not in the public square. Bull crap.
 
I wonder why did this idea that business owners should be able to discriminate against anyone for any reason, religion, race, sex, etc only come to such prominence among conservatives only recently? Was it because suddenly these anti-discrimination laws were beginning to apply to homosexuals too? And to avoid the obvious hypocrisy of having anti-discrimination laws against religion, race, sex, etc but not against sexuality they determined all such discrimination laws had to go?

Hmmmm?

HMMMMMMMMMMM?
 
vesper said:
1.)If you can't practice them you have lost them.
2.) You call allowing them to be who they are in their homes and place of worship is sufficient. Just not in the public square. Bull crap.
Click to expand...

1.) they are free to practice them this is why they arent lost, thank you again for proving us right
2.) nope I never said that one time LMAO why do you post lies and make stuff up. They are allowed in public to they just cant infringe on others rights. its a VERY simple concept.

you want SPECIAL treatment sorry you dont get special treatment you get the same rights we all have

you got any answers to the questions yet? no i didn't think so
 
Phys251 said:
You must have found the sane ones. A clear majority of Republicans, even in the year 2014, oppose gay marriage rights.
Click to expand...

I think most Republicans would support gay marriage as long as there was a freedom of religion clause that says religions won't be punished for not allowing it in their churches/synagogues/mosques....Take away the fear that religious freedom is being taken away and I don't think there would be a problem.

I am not religious myself and have absolutely no problem supporting gay marriage....What two consenting adults do is none of my business.
 
AGENT J said:
like i said earlier there are milling of GOPers that support equal rights

youll never hear or read me saying otherwise

in fact i correct people when the make blanket statements like that

stereotypically GOPers are against it, maybe even the majority are but most certainly not all of them :)
Click to expand...

Sometimes, it seems some folks don't socially mix with enough conservatives; I suppose though if one only knows a few and those few are perceived as rather extreme it could bias one's opinion.

:) :peace

Thom Paine
 
Here is a 10 question quiz to help one figure out if their religious freedom is being trampled on...


1. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to go to a religious service of my own choosing.
B) Others are allowed to go to religious services of their own choosing.

2. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to marry the person I love legally, even though my religious community blesses my marriage.
B) Some states refuse to enforce my own particular religious beliefs on marriage on those two guys in line down at the courthouse.

3. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am being forced to use birth control.
B) I am unable to force others to not use birth control.

4. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to pray privately.
B) I am not allowed to force others to pray the prayers of my faith publicly.

5. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) Being a member of my faith means that I can be bullied without legal recourse.
B) I am no longer allowed to use my faith to bully gay kids with impunity.

6. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to purchase, read or possess religious books or material.
B) Others are allowed to have access books, movies and websites that I do not like.

7. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) My religious group is not allowed equal protection under the establishment clause.
B) My religious group is not allowed to use public funds, buildings and resources as we would like, for whatever purposes we might like.

8. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) Another religious group has been declared the official faith of my country.
B) My own religious group is not given status as the official faith of my country.

9. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) My religious community is not allowed to build a house of worship in my community.
B) A religious community I do not like wants to build a house of worship in my community.

10. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to teach my children the creation stories of our faith at home.
B) Public school science classes are teaching science.

Scoring key:

If you answered "A" to any question, then perhaps your religious liberty is indeed at stake. You and your faith group have every right to now advocate for equal protection under the law. But just remember this one little, constitutional, concept: this means you can fight for your equality -- not your superiority.

If you answered "B" to any question, then not only is your religious liberty not at stake, but there is a strong chance that you are oppressing the religious liberties of others. This is the point where I would invite you to refer back to the tenets of your faith, especially the ones about your neighbors.

<snip>
How to Determine If Your Religious Liberty Is Being Threatened in Just 10 Quick Questions | Rev. Emily C. Heath
 
Strucky said:
1.)I think most Republicans would support gay marriage as long as there was a freedom of religion clause that says religions won't be punished for not allowing it in their churches/synagogues/mosques....
2.)Take away the fear that religious freedom is being taken away and I don't think there would be a problem.
3.)I am not religious myself and have absolutely no problem supporting gay marriage....What two consenting adults do is none of my business.
Click to expand...

1.) this already exists its in the constitution but if the conspiracy theorist need that id gladly put it in there i have ZERO problem with it because if it was ever tries id fight against it just as hard as i fight for equal rights..

the "church" has ever single right to discriminate because religious marriage has nothing to do with legal marriage.

2.)the fear is nonsensical and should exist but id gladly do it

3.) thats good, im christian and totally support equal rights because it has nothing to do with anything religious that matters in regard to rights, freedom , country and liberty
 
vesper said:
The Oregon Constitution addresses religious beliefs not be denied also but that didn't stop the judge from finding the bakery owners in violation. The New Mexico Constitution did the same but the photographer was found guilty by another federal judge. This legislation was a way of putting into place a law that could not be easily overturned by another federal activist judge. A person's religion starts at home, it is more than a religion per say, it is a way of life. It plays a major role on how this person runs his business. But even if she had signed it, before the ink was dry, the gay rights activist groups had their posse of lawyers in waiting and an activist judge already picked out to hear the case. We are going to need action from Congress on this one to protect religious freedoms for all persons.
Click to expand...

Right wing commentators and even the owners themselves apparently have a very poor understanding of business law. This has never been an issue of religious freedom. There is no law stating that a person cannot discriminate against x, y, or z. Public accommodation laws apply to businesses not to people. The people involved in these lawsuits, a baker and photographer, were named because they are the owners of an unincorporated business. Under the law, the owners of an unincorporated business and the business itself are the same legal entity. This means that the owners are legally liable for everything that goes on with/in their business including violations of public accommodation law and especially if they are the ones breaking the law in their official capacity as the owner of the business. They are not required under the law to personally provide services which they find objectionable, but the business is.
 
Thom Paine said:
Sometimes, it seems some folks don't socially mix with enough conservatives; I suppose though if one only knows a few and those few are perceived as rather extreme it could bias one's opinion.

:) :peace

Thom Paine
Click to expand...
you are correct and unfortunately those people are also ignorant enough to think those few speak for the group which is totally illogical
 
AGENT J said:
1.) they are free to practice them this is why they arent lost, thank you again for proving us right
2.) nope I never said that one time LMAO why do you post lies and make stuff up. They are allowed in public to they just cant infringe on others rights. its a VERY simple concept.

you want SPECIAL treatment sorry you dont get special treatment you get the same rights we all have

you got any answers to the questions yet? no i didn't think so
Click to expand...


Fine then when the KKK wants a black caterer to service one of their events, no doubt you will be there to tell the black man he must do it because he has no right to ask for special treatment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom