• 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

Henrin said:
I HAVE the right to discriminate against anyone I please.
Click to expand...
No in the civilized society we built here, but yo are more than welcome to seek such places, I am sure they exist somwhere, where medieval thinking is still the norm.
 
prometeus said:
No in the civilized society we built here, but yo are more than welcome to seek such places, I am sure they exist somwhere, where medieval thinking is still the norm.
Click to expand...

You define civilized in a very odd way, don't you?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Except they are passing laws that are allowing legal discrimination....
Click to expand...

the whole problem we are facing is, ...people who are entering business, SOME HOW BELIEVE THEY HAVE RIGHTS WHEN THEY ENTER..........this is incorrect.

a business owner allows you a privilege on his property, and he has the right to revoke your privilege he has given you at any time.

since he is giving you a privilege, .....the person entering has no exercisable rights......no right to be served.

the only rights which exist are the business owners, and they are being violated by government forcing him to preform and action, against his will......which is a rights violation
 
Last edited:
prometeus said:
What a moronic line of reasoning. What the **** do you think food is? If grocery stores refuse to serve people they can just grow their own by this idiocy you are spreading.
Click to expand...

Do you live in bum**** Idaho where there's only one grocery store within a 100 miles? Tell you what, go to that one grocery store and tell the owner off and just see if you aren't banned from the premises. Get a grip.
 
another problem is people have the insane idea, we are a collective society, and therefore my rights ,your rights .......henge on what the group says they are.......this is also incorrect.

my rights to not come from you and other people, ...no citizen or citizens have the right to control other citizens........that is mob rule
 
prometeus said:
BS alert.
First and foremost the law would have allowed even bigoted state employees to discriminate. Second, a private hospital is as much private as a bakery and more importantly, a doctor too can have religious convictions and it is HIS service that can save your life.
Click to expand...

Bull**** and you haven't a clue what you're talking about. First, by Arizona constitution, so-called "bigoted" state employees couldn't discriminate any more than they do now. The state constitution trumps state law. Second, there are private hospitals/clinics that serve only a limited customer base, they don't take federal or state funds and are not obliged under vital services law. Third, that's been a hotbed question for some time now. However, the AMA and licensing boards have already rung in - if you want to keep your license you'll treat whomever is stuck in front of you.
 
clownboy said:
So, CostCo could discriminate in your view? Sam's club?
Click to expand...
Not as they are set up now, but if they reopened under a new declared membership rules then yes.

How about bars that have a cover charge?
Click to expand...
No, they are open to the public and are ensuring a minimal consumption and they do it up front.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
So what many states also had laws on the books that allowed legal segregation by individuals but then those got overturned...
Click to expand...

Example where an individual segregates and is now disallowed by law to do so? Are you saying I can't have men and women's dressing rooms in my business?
 
prometeus said:
And to protect citizens from being abused by bigots.
Click to expand...


abused........explain what that is........if it is not physical, you have no case.......language, calling you names,ignoring you..... is not a rights violation.

and again... remember you have no exercisable rights, when your on another person's property.
 
prometeus said:
Not as they are set up now, but if they reopened under a new declared membership rules then yes.

No, they are open to the public and are ensuring a minimal consumption and they do it up front.
Click to expand...

You've failed to show any distinction between these and private golf courses.
 
Henrin said:
Putting conditions on when and when someone can not control the use of their property is a violation of property rights.
Click to expand...
You are still missing the point. It has nothing to do with property rights. It has everything to do with the property owner putting up his goods or service for sale to the public without any prior restrictive clauses. If the owner wants offer his goods or services on alimited basis based on any criteria (s)he can do that easily by setting up the proper limited access to the goods or services.

There is no reason to accept that only private clubs can discriminate. None.
Click to expand...
You may not think so but there is good reason, and if you followed the conversation and understood it, by now you would also know that.
 
clownboy said:
Example where an individual segregates and is now disallowed by law to do so? Are you saying I can't have men and women's dressing rooms in my business?
Click to expand...
See Lawerence v Texas
 
joG said:
I really like your triumphalism. It's just sooo much what turns the guys on.
Click to expand...

what?lol
triumphalism
a : the attitude that one religious creed is superior to all others
b : smug or boastful pride in the success or dominance of one's nation or ideology over others

well you just proved you have no clue what this topic is about
 
Soupnazi630 said:
Equality did not win even if you did by predicting this.

The proposed law was not insane and did not affect the equal rights of anyone.
Click to expand...

it was insane and yes it didn't effect anybody rights since it got vetoed thats what makes it awesome!
 
ernst barkmann said:
anti-discrimination laws are not constitutional law........constitutional law is supreme.


it is unconstitutional , by the 13th amendment.... for government to force a citizen to serve another citizen....that is involuntary servitude.

involuntary servitude can only take place if a citizen has been convicted of a crime.

discriminate is not criminal.

13th--Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

Trying to compare anti-discrimination laws to slavery is insulting to people who were actually slaves.
 
clownboy said:
No difference between CostCo charging a membership (btw, you don't just buy the membership but also apply to join) and a golf course doing the same. The private golf course is also a business.
Click to expand...
The conditions of membership are clearly defined. It just happens that Costco does not put restrictions on it, but any business could if they wanted to.
 
prometeus said:
You are still missing the point. It has nothing to do with property rights. It has everything to do with the property owner putting up his goods or service for sale to the public without any prior restrictive clauses. If the owner wants offer his goods or services on alimited basis based on any criteria (s)he can do that easily by setting up the proper limited access to the goods or services.
Click to expand...

Sorry, that argument is still in violation of property rights for the same exact reason as your last one. Putting conditions on when and how someone can control the use of their property is a violation of property rights. He doesn't need to follow your rules of prior notice and his property rights make that clear.

You may not think so but there is good reason, and if you followed the conversation and understood it, by now you would also know that.
Click to expand...

No, I wouldn't. None of you have offered any reasons except feelings arguments or the law is the law arguments. :shrug:
 
Deuce said:
Trying to compare anti-discrimination laws to slavery is insulting to people who were actually slaves.
Click to expand...

Chattel slavery is not the only type of slavery, so no, it's not insulting to chattel slaves, since no one is making that comparison.
 
prometeus said:
Nobody is forcing anybody. The bakery is offering its goods to the public. Nobody demanded that a bakery be opened.
Click to expand...

Really? So there is no law that makes it so the gay couple could sue? Interesting.

Oh, and once again, they are NOT offering anything to the public. They are offering service to those they consent to offer service to. Nothing more and nothing less.
 
Deuce said:
Trying to compare anti-discrimination laws to slavery is insulting to people who were actually slaves.
Click to expand...

insulting, you read it right there in the 13th amendment........ involuntary servitude


Involuntary servitude is a United States legal and constitutional term for a person laboring against that person's will to benefit another, under some form of coercion other than the worker's financial needs. While laboring to benefit another occurs also in the condition of slavery, involuntary servitude does not necessarily connote the complete lack of freedom experienced in chattel slavery; involuntary servitude may also refer to other forms of unfree labor. Involuntary servitude is not dependent upon compensation or its amount.

The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution makes involuntary servitude illegal under any U.S. jurisdiction whether at the hands of the U.S. government or in the private sphere, except as punishment for a crime: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
 
clownboy said:
Once again, busted strawman. The ER example is a bust.
Click to expand...
It is not a bust. The proposed law would have allowed government employees to discriminate based on their religious bigoted beliefs. You just can't admit that because you still want to live if you face an emergency and do not wish to acknowledge your hypocrisy.
 
prometeus said:
Nobody is forcing anybody. The bakery is offering its goods to the public. Nobody demanded that a bakery be opened.
Click to expand...

a citizen has recognized rights per the constitution.

right to association

right to property

right to commerce.

tell me what rights a patron to a business has?
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
Nope. It's just an established fact of science.
Click to expand...
You have no clue how stupid that is. Let me highlight it for you:
You are claiming that: "The reason a child's rights are restricted BY NATURE" and that that is: "an established fact of science"

I didn't introduce a force into the discussion.
Click to expand...
Yes you did, see the post I replied to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom