• 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

Except if I open a business. Then for some reason my property rights go out the window.



I repeat myself here. If you have a business that is OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, then you have the right to serve THE PUBLIC..
 
I repeat myself here. If you have a business that is OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, then you have the right to serve THE PUBLIC..

No, you are twisting that very badly. To argue that government force that imposes on me to serve all somehow provides me a human right is absurd. Obviously, the only way the government can protect my rights in who I desire to serve is if they didn't impose on me at all.
 
If this is your answer then you truly do not understand basic 1st Amendment Rights. Protecting all persons religious liberty and the rights of conscience does not infringe on anyone’s sexual freedoms.
So if my "religious beliefs say i shouldnt serve any women" or "any minorities" or anyone named "James" or "anyone that has non-aryan blood" i have every right to do that? I have every right to shove my beliefs down someones throats and not be able to serve or provide any x, y, or z service?
Hell maybe if im a doctor and a patient comes before me: "sorry im this 'x' religion my 'religion' tells me i cant help you"

All Americans should remain free in the public square to act in accordance with their beliefs about marriage without fear of government penalty. They should not have to compromise their beliefs just because they are part of the marketplace. But that is what you are advocating.

"All Americans should remain free in the public square "
-Unless your gay or go "against someones religious beliefs" in this case.....
 
As I said, the original principle of civil rights came from natural justice and then it was applied to law. You can not declare you have a civil right to someones service or labor, association, or property. It runs counter to the very idea, and in fact, violates it.

There is also no such thing as a private business that is open to the public.



No? Then you need to establish a private, members only business....
 
So if my "religious beliefs say i shouldnt serve any women" or "any minorities" or anyone named "James" or "anyone that has non-aryan blood" i have every right to do that? I have every right to shove my beliefs down someones throats and not be able to serve or provide any x, y, or z service?

Yes. Otherwise, we are dealing in a matter of involuntary servitude.


"All Americans should remain free in the public square "

Who is the source of that quote?

-Unless your gay or go "against someones religious beliefs" in this case.....

The argument you are presented with does not challenge the quote. In fact, it enforces it.
 
No? Then you need to establish a private, members only business....

I do not desire to run such a business. I desire to run my property in the way I please, and since I am not in violation of anyones rights by doing so, I'm fine.
 
All of which violate property rights. You can list all sorts of laws if you please, but it will get you no where.

I do however care to challenge the first one. To require someone to have license to practice their right to start a business is in clear violation of property rights as it controls what innocent parties decide to do with their property.



You are not making any sense...You are saying that there should be no state or local laws or regulations on business..
 
So if my "religious beliefs say i shouldnt serve any women" or "any minorities" or anyone named "James" or "anyone that has non-aryan blood" i have every right to do that? I have every right to shove my beliefs down someones throats and not be able to serve or provide any x, y, or z service?
Hell maybe if im a doctor and a patient comes before me: "sorry im this 'x' religion my 'religion' tells me i cant help you"



"All Americans should remain free in the public square "
-Unless your gay or go "against someones religious beliefs" in this case.....

yep if some people got thier way equal/civil/human and legal rights would be thrown right out the window lol

only THEIR rights would matter
 
Yes. Otherwise, we are dealing in a matter of involuntary servitude.

Good to know what side of the civil rights struggle you would of been on.





Who is the source of that quote?
The person i quoted.




The argument you are presented with does not challenge the quote. In fact, it enforces it.
:lamo
I'm really proud that the majority of the country agrees with me when im proud to say that our country is moving away from a pathetic argument that argues in favor of signs like these at businesses
2zyygm0.jpg
 
You are not making any sense...You are saying that there should be no state or local laws or regulations on business..

Regulations are a matter of control and solution implementing imposed on business. It is not a matter of punishment of human right violations in which I desire.
 
No, you are twisting that very badly. To argue that government force that imposes on me to serve all somehow provides me a human right is absurd. Obviously, the only way the government can protect my rights in who I desire to serve is if they didn't impose on me at all.



Sounds a lot like anarchy to me... No government imposition......
 
These bills always amaze me as an outsider America was founded on basic freedom and law, John Adams was very much anti British law but yet he defended the British soldiers involved in the "Boston massacre" and eventually had them acquitted. This went against his principles and put him at odds with other members most notably his own family Samuel Adams but yet he defended them and won because it was the right thing to do, this was the America I learned about in school and always looked up to. It's a shame now that basic rights can't be agreed on by either side in America that such basic rights become a battle ground again even after all the years of civil rights etc.

America is still a country I look at to do the right thing but these bull**** debates over silly religious bills puts you back decades and hurts your global image.
 
Good to know what side of the civil rights struggle you would of been on.

There was more than two sides, so please tell me which one you are referring to.


The person i quoted.

There isn't a name given to the quote on my computer screen. :/ Is there supposed to be?



:lamo
I'm really proud that the majority of the country agrees with me when im proud to say that our country is moving away from a pathetic argument that argues in favor of signs like these at businesses
2zyygm0.jpg

Yes, they have the right to control access and use of their property. The sign serves the public well as it shows us where not to shop. I like when people tell the world they're stupid and hateful. That way I know, and can easily avoid them.
 
Sometimes I'll seem completely bi-polar on the issue NIMBY. I don't oppose SSM but I also support religious liberty. I think you have to recognize that sometimes two people's Constitutional rights will collide and one will have to be given more weight and deference. It seems to me right now that religious freedom is the one that will always lose out and I cannot help but to find that concerning.

I respectfully disagree. They have the right to their religion, but do not have the right to force those beliefs down the throats of others. That's where the establishment clause comes in. Nobody has the right to pass laws that force religious doctrine upon others, and for a restaurant owner to refuse to serve a patron, based only upon his religious beliefs, and can have someone who he does not like arrested in the name of his religious beliefs, is unconstitutional. And is that religious belief he has really in the name of Jesus? Of course not. When Jesus came to this earth, he did not mingle with the holier-than-thou crowd. He went to prisons, hung out with prostitutes and thieves, and even converted Paul, who had persecuted and even killed Christians in Palestine. When we meet our maker at the end of days, there will be plenty of shame heaped upon those who use religion to justify their hatred of others.
 
Sounds a lot like anarchy to me... No government imposition......

It doesn't sound like anarchy at all. Government regulations on business do not protect human rights, but violate them, by imposing on innocent parties, and not allowing those offenders to resolve their own problems, but instead simply impose a solution to the problem that many times was not a problem at all.

Furthermore, why are you scared of anarchy? Where has it been tried that you know of?
 
Last edited:
I do not desire to run such a business. I desire to run my property in the way I please, and since I am not in violation of anyones rights by doing so, I'm fine.


You are fine as long as you do not violate MY rights, or the rights of those that desire to utilize your business....
 
There was more than two sides, so please tell me which one you are referring to.
One that allows continued private business discrimination and one that didnt..

There isn't a name given to the quote on my computer screen. :/ Is there supposed to be?

"All Americans should remain free in the public"
--Username: 'Vesper'



Yes, they have the right to control access and use of their property. The sign serves the public well as it shows us where not to shop. I like when people tell the world they're stupid and hateful. That way I know, and can easily avoid them.
Completely disregards all federal law, and all government regulation in this country.
 
You are fine as long as you do not violate MY rights, or the rights of those that desire to utilize your business....

By denying you service or employment? That is impossible.
 
Regulations are a matter of control and solution implementing imposed on business. It is not a matter of punishment of human right violations in which I desire.



Geez, put the wine away and focus on the issue!!!
 
These bills always amaze me as an outsider America was founded on basic freedom and law, John Adams was very much anti British law but yet he defended the British soldiers involved in the "Boston massacre" and eventually had them acquitted. This went against his principles and put him at odds with other members most notably his own family Samuel Adams but yet he defended them and won because it was the right thing to do, this was the America I learned about in school and always looked up to. It's a shame now that basic rights can't be agreed on by either side in America that such basic rights become a battle ground again even after all the years of civil rights etc.

America is still a country I look at to do the right thing but these bull**** debates over silly religious bills puts you back decades and hurts your global image.

yep i agree in many ways, he id it because rights apply to us ALL, not special treatment or excluding those you don't like

instead of moving towards the goal of equality

many people are jockeying for poser and position on top

they only care about THEIR rights and **** everybody else lol

as you see in this thread many people are simply about me me me me
who cares about thier neighbors rights or fellow citizens, its pathetic and hypocritical


its disgraceful that we still discriminate against gays
its disgraceful that we are one of the only major countries that doesnt have federal protected maternity/paternity leave
etc etc
 
One that allows continued private business discrimination and one that didnt..

The two major groups that opposed the law had very different reason for doing so. One group was racist and wanted to continue to discriminate, and the other, was arguing that the law in question was a violation of property rights. I would be part of the later group.

"All Americans should remain free in the public"
--Username: 'Vesper'

Ah..alright. My bad.

Completely disregards all federal law, and all government regulation in this country.

Ok? I'm not following how what I said there does that.
 
Yep, they believe in freedom for themselves, but not anyone else....

There couldn't be a more ludicrous statement made about libertarians than the one you just made.
 
Back
Top Bottom