• 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

They are not required under the law to personally provide services which they find objectionable, but the business is.

I really, really want to see that tested in court. A homosexual couple want a baker to bake a wedding cake for them, the bakers at the bakery decline but the business itself has to comply and bake the cake. I really wonder how a judge expects a bunch of stapled papers forming an incorporation document to actually come to life, grow arms and legs and then bake a cake.

Like Soylent Green, Businesses are people.
 
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

Whether it's real or nonsensical is not the point,putting people's minds at ease is the key.
 
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.

If that is so, then the law needs to change and it will take an act of Congress. NO MAN should have to compromise his religious beliefs in providing a service to another. NO ONE.
 
If that is so, then the law needs to change and it will take an act of Congress. NO MAN should have to compromise his religious beliefs in providing a service to another. NO ONE.

A business is not a man so why does the law need to change?
 
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.
THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU!

WOW! lol

this was already discussed earlier today but whats awesome about your post is you just proved to everybody reading how severely uneducated you are on this specific topic

now lets start with how HUGE of a failure your post is since you obviously have ZERO clue about rights and the law and illegal discrimination etc. We knew this already but this post confirms it.

1.) this is what ILLEGAL discrimaintion is, its discrimination based on age, disability, origin, race/color, gender, religion or in some cases sexual orientation
this applies to us ALL

2.) the KKK is NONE of those things, unless in that particular state the KKK is recognized as a religion there is no illegal discrimination going on in the scenario you just described.

3.) the caters's race doesnt matter

4.) if the cater denys service for any reason not on the list in number one its LEGAL

KKK is not an age disability, origin, race/color, gender, religion or sexual orientation

sorry your example complete fails and there is no SPECIAL rights in your scenario, facts win again, try again
 
A business is not a man so why does the law need to change?
Because the owner of the business is not protected. It is as if the right hand has certain constitutional rights but his left hand is denied that right of conscience.
 
Whether it's real or nonsensical is not the point,putting people's minds at ease is the key.

i agree this is why i support it no matter how intellectually inept, mentally retarded and nonsensical that fear is

if it helps them keep thier irrational fears under control and helps equal rights im all for it :shrug:
 
If that is so, then the law needs to change and it will take an act of Congress. NO MAN should have to compromise his religious beliefs in providing a service to another. NO ONE.

that law and right already exists :shrug:
 
Because the owner of the business is not protected. It is as if the right hand has certain constitutional rights but his left hand is denied that right of conscience.

he is 100% protected he doesn't get special rights this has already been proven
 
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.

I have wondered that same scenario myself.

Thom Paine
 
Because the owner of the business is not protected. It is as if the right hand has certain constitutional rights but his left hand is denied that right of conscience.

The owner of a business is already protected so what you are really asking for is to declare businesses persons and grant them the enumerated rights in the Constitution.
 
Last edited:
I have wondered that same scenario myself.

Thom Paine

the scenario is legal and lawful

theres no illegal discrimination in the scenario

the laws are the same for us all
 
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.

I really can't speak to New Mexico or to Oregon and while I agree with what you say about religion I don't think that this particular bill was the best way to go about things.

In America the freedom of religion is pretty much the whole reason we have this nation and it's the first facet of liberty addressed in the first Amendment. If it were up to me and I were writing a bill such as this for Arizona that's where I'd start. The bill would be short and to the point. Something along the lines of "The right to freely exercise ones religious beliefs is a fundamental right of the citizens of this nation and of this State. No individual or entity conducting lawful business in the state shall be compelled to provide services, accept an engagement or otherwise accommodate a customer who has not paid for said service if doing so violates the owners conscience or religious belief."
 
THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU!

WOW! lol

this was already discussed earlier today but whats awesome about your post is you just proved to everybody reading how severely uneducated you are on this specific topic

now lets start with how HUGE of a failure your post is since you obviously have ZERO clue about rights and the law and illegal discrimination etc. We knew this already but this post confirms it.

1.) this is what ILLEGAL discrimaintion is, its discrimination based on age, disability, origin, race/color, gender, religion or in some cases sexual orientation
this applies to us ALL

2.) the KKK is NONE of those things, unless in that particular state the KKK is recognized as a religion there is no illegal discrimination going on in the scenario you just described.

3.) the caters's race doesnt matter

4.) if the cater denys service for any reason not on the list in number one its LEGAL

KKK is not an age disability, origin, race/color, gender, religion or sexual orientation

sorry your example complete fails and there is no SPECIAL rights in your scenario, facts win again, try again

kick his ass AJ
 
The owner of a business is already protected so what you are really asking for it is to declare businesses persons and grant them the enumerated rights in the Constitution.

bingo

he wants SPECIAL rights not equal
 
THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU!

WOW! lol

this was already discussed earlier today but whats awesome about your post is you just proved to everybody reading how severely uneducated you are on this specific topic

now lets start with how HUGE of a failure your post is since you obviously have ZERO clue about rights and the law and illegal discrimination etc. We knew this already but this post confirms it.

1.) this is what ILLEGAL discrimaintion is, its discrimination based on age, disability, origin, race/color, gender, religion or in some cases sexual orientation
this applies to us ALL

2.) the KKK is NONE of those things, unless in that particular state the KKK is recognized as a religion there is no illegal discrimination going on in the scenario you just described.

3.) the caters's race doesnt matter

4.) if the cater denys service for any reason not on the list in number one its LEGAL

KKK is not an age disability, origin, race/color, gender, religion or sexual orientation

sorry your example complete fails and there is no SPECIAL rights in your scenario, facts win again, try again

What is your position on what that one AZ Senator said?

(I do not remember the exact verbiage but it went something like this.)

"It's a doubled-edged sword. What if a gay/lesbian print shop got an order from Westboro Baptist to print up "God Hates Fags," placards? Should the law mandate that they have to do it?"
 
What is your position on what that one AZ Senator said?

(I do not remember the exact verbiage but it went something like this.)

"It's a doubled-edged sword. What if a gay/lesbian print shop got an order from Westboro Baptist to print up "God Hates Fags," placards? Should the law mandate that they have to do it?"

Are you implying that a homosexual in a print shop wouldn't do what he could to aid a fellow Democratic organization like the Westboro Baptist Church?
 
Before we know it, churches will be forced, by law to perform gay marriages.

NO they will not. We know this because churches are not forced to perform interracial marriage. Or marriages of people outside their faith. This is a dumb argument.

You can bet your butt that religious freedom is a right.

Yes a right that stops when it invades the rights of others.

Discromination is very much a right, especially on private property.

Public businesses are not the same as you home.
 
I really can't speak to New Mexico or to Oregon and while I agree with what you say about religion I don't think that this particular bill was the best way to go about things.

In America the freedom of religion is pretty much the whole reason we have this nation and it's the first facet of liberty addressed in the first Amendment. If it were up to me and I were writing a bill such as this for Arizona that's where I'd start. The bill would be short and to the point. Something along the lines of "The right to freely exercise ones religious beliefs is a fundamental right of the citizens of this nation and of this State. No individual or entity conducting lawful business in the state shall be compelled to provide services, accept an engagement or otherwise accommodate a customer who has not paid for said service if doing so violates the owners conscience or religious belief."

Maybe it was worded to broadly, who knows, I don't. But I commend the efforts of the AZ legislature for their efforts.
 
As a life long Arizonan, I am very happy it is vetoed. However, I am not happy at the nutjobs we have in our legislature that swallow all the BS bills that ALEC and the talibornagains that the Center for Arizona Policy try get them to pass. Hopefully the spotlight is on these theocratic ninnies now, and we can move forward and "de-kookify" our legislature.
 
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

I'm wondering if this latest dust up over Az. is actually based in maybe a somewhat reasonable concern about laws forcing religions to perform against their tenets ala the ACA requiring Catholic orgs. to furnish insurance in opposition to their beliefs.

Just wondering out loud :thinking

Thom Paine
 
Are you implying that a homosexual in a print shop wouldn't do what he could to aid a fellow Democratic organization like the Westboro Baptist Church?

LOL!

Silly boy. You so funny.

Keep 'em coming.
 
the scenario is legal and lawful

theres no illegal discrimination in the scenario

the laws are the same for us all

Yeah, I know; but is it fitting and proper to legally require someone subject himself in that situation.

Recently read an Op-Ed suggesting PC has replaced common sense... possibly so ??

Thom Paine
 
I really can't speak to New Mexico or to Oregon and while I agree with what you say about religion I don't think that this particular bill was the best way to go about things.

In America the freedom of religion is pretty much the whole reason we have this nation and it's the first facet of liberty addressed in the first Amendment. If it were up to me and I were writing a bill such as this for Arizona that's where I'd start. The bill would be short and to the point. Something along the lines of "The right to freely exercise ones religious beliefs is a fundamental right of the citizens of this nation and of this State. No individual or entity conducting lawful business in the state shall be compelled to provide services, accept an engagement or otherwise accommodate a customer who has not paid for said service if doing so violates the owners conscience or religious belief."

Good luck not violating the commerce clause, the Civil Rights Act as well as a myriad of court cases.
 
What is your position on what that one AZ Senator said?

(I do not remember the exact verbiage but it went something like this.)

"It's a doubled-edged sword. What if a gay/lesbian print shop got an order from Westboro Baptist to print up "God Hates Fags," placards? Should the law mandate that they have to do it?"

this is where the magic of reality happens that people don't get

they can refuse service, as this is not a crime, as long as its not discrimination based on age, disability, origin, race/color, gender, religion or in some cases sexual orientation

if west baptist is a recognized religion in thier state, county or municipality then they CAN NOT deny service based on religion because that would be ILLEGAL discrimination

now you mentioned my OPINION
my opinion is, that sucks and i dont like it but it is the law and thats how rights work they protect us all

same reasons they can protest outside of funerals for dead soldiers who were killed in action but who were gay and they have signs saying your son is buring in hell

its ugly and i want to punch them in the face but they have the same rights as all of us.

but lets talk about the real world for a second

illegal discrimination happens everyday, people just HIDE it lol

that baker and photographer got in trouble because they were stupid enough to say YES i don't want to do it because its GAY

the smart thing to do, ignorant but smart, would have been to simply call back later and say damn i overbooked that date or my partner didn't have the schedule updated we don't have the man power to shoot your wedding etc etc

these people are getting in trouble because they are basically doing the PC version of "get out of here faggots god hates you"


also i dont know about the photographer but the baker did non religious weddings and JEWISH events so thier bigotry and hypocrisy was proven.
now this is just an example but its its very stupid to have jewish events and non religious events like bachelorette parties with penis on a cake in your records and then say nooooooooo because of our christian beliefs i cant do the gay wedding.

nobody buys that bull**** lol and in those two cases it was illegal


but back to your question because i dont want you to think i dodged it, the same applies, the print shop CAN NOT illegally discriminate, they can lie but if they say, we hate that RELIGION we will not do that, then they are BREAKING the law.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom