- Joined
- Jun 11, 2009
- Messages
- 19,657
- Reaction score
- 8,454
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Yeah! I bet! :roll:
And you accuse me of vilifying you?
Yeah! I bet! :roll:
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.
Discrimination is not a right, welcome to the 18 ****ing 60s
I bet a few slave owners said the same thing back in the day.
We kiss our rights good bye more and more, everyday.
And you accuse me of vilifying you?
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.
...
The day that happens I will be on your side fighting it.
Gays are slaves?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
You must have found the sane ones. A clear majority of Republicans, even in the year 2014, oppose gay marriage rights.
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
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.
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.
you are correct and unfortunately those people are also ignorant enough to think those few speak for the group which is totally illogicalSometimes, 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.
eace
Thom Paine
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