• 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

Lutherf said:
Why should your civil rights trump my right to freely practice my religion? Why should the government be allowed to deny me my right to freely practice my religion?
Click to expand...

Please do not call them civil rights. The term civil rights refers to natural justice, not some idiotic concept that people have the right to use property that is not their own, get provided service and labor against peoples wills, and force people into association with them. It's unfounded nonsense and has nothing to do with civil rights.
 
Thom Paine said:
1.)Yeah, I know; but is it fitting and proper to legally require someone subject himself in that situation.

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

Thom Paine
Click to expand...

1.) im not sure what you are asking?
is it fitting and proper for the caterer to not service the KKK?
sorry you lost me

2.) sometimes it most certainly has and does
especial in the political world or TV world as far as interviews public speaking

for examples a politician or a police chief or a doctor or producible may be addressing a crowd and say African Americans or waitron

but in real life, me an you, friends at a football game or walking down the street. If you said African american and not black id laugh at you, if you said waitron instead of waiter or waitress id probably ask you "what did you just say? " lol

so yes i agree in some cases its out of control

but in the case of rights its not, it cant be
because the alternative is no rights

rights must apply to us all in general or they are too fragile

even more fragile than the already are and more pron to people violating them, if they are made unequal then what happens when you or me are on the unequal side?
 
RiverDad said:
I'm here all night, be sure to hit the tip jar on your way out. Thanks.

Fred Phelps:
Phelps supported Al Gore in the 1988 Democratic Party presidential primary election . . . members of the Westboro Baptist Church helped run Gore's 1988 campaign in Kansas.

Phelps has run in various Kansas Democratic Party primaries five times, but has never won. These included races for governor in 1990, 1994, and 1998, receiving about 15 percent of the vote in 1998.[38] In the 1992 Democratic Party primary for U.S. Senate, Phelps received 31 percent of the vote.[39] Phelps ran for mayor of Topeka in 1993[40][41] and 1997​
Click to expand...

Speaking of Fred Phelps, I am sure many people would like to see businesses discriminate against Phelps and his clan. There would not be outcry, but cheering.

And this illustrates the problem with leaving property rights up to public perception: they then become arbitrary and effectively void.
 
Napoleon said:
No they don't. A business is a separate legal entity in all things but liability.
Click to expand...

Stop giving me legal drivel that violates property rights. A business is the property of the owner and like any other property owner they have a right to their property.


LOL. Have I stepped through the looking glass into a world where law has no merit in a legal argument? :screwy
Click to expand...

This is not what you think it is. I'm arguing human rights, you're arguing unjust laws designed to give government power over private property. You're argument must assume violation of property rights is just and for that very reason you lose.
 
DashingAmerican said:
I have to admit, I'm torn on this one. On one hand, I think businesses should have the right to refuse on any basis, on the other hand, if we allow people to refuse service because of religion, where does it stop?
Click to expand...

It doesn't stop. Pretty soon we're right back to jim crow - "white only" retaurants, you name it. Of course, nothing stopping a business from banning christians, but seeing as that's probably over 90% of arizona's population, you just know it's the jews, muslims, gays, blacks etc who will be banned from all businesses.

It's stupid as hell anyway. So they're not allowed to discriminate and that's somehow going to hurt their business?

14th amendment and civil rights act took care of all this already. Even if she signed it, the courts would pulverize it.
 
Henrin said:
Aww..what's wrong? You don't want to face up to the fact you argue law backwards? Too bad, you do. Get used to it or stop doing it. People come first, not government. Don't like it? Don't care.
Click to expand...

You don't think that sometimes things get hijacked and the end result is that the law puts everything other than people first?
 
What I don't understand is why make such a deal about getting service for a place that clearly despises you. I mean, do you really expect a photographer that is being forced to take your pictures to take good pictures for you?
 
vesper said:
When a person creates something...a service, that is an extention of themselves. What’s at stake in this context is when individuals who provide material and artistic craft for weddings are then forced to take their talents and their creative abilities and use them for purposes that go against their consciences To force them to create something that is against their being is denying them their right of conscience which cuts at the heart of our religious freedom.
Click to expand...

yah this failed strawman was tried in court, did you read the ruling, now print is hard to read but by the ruling it seemed the judge almost pissed himself with laughter over that failed strawman

theres NOTHING you described (even with the factual inaccuracies and fantasies) that gives one the right to violate the rights of others
 
opendebate said:
You don't think that sometimes things get hijacked and the end result is that the law puts everything other than people first?
Click to expand...

No doubt. Many of our laws are based on that principle. Just look at Napoleons argument that basically puts government in control over business and not the owner of the property. He doesn't seem to realize he can't support with logic the idea that government should have such power over private property.
 
Lutherf said:
Why should the government be allowed to deny me my right to freely practice my religion?
Click to expand...

For the same reason it denies the right to freely practice any dogma which creates dysfunction within a society. :shrug:
 
Henrin said:
Please do not call them civil rights. The term civil rights refers to natural justice, not some idiotic concept that people have the right to use property that is not their own, get provided service and labor against peoples wills, and force people into association with them. It's unfounded nonsense and has nothing to do with civil rights.
Click to expand...

From a classical standpoint civil rights would be those rights bestowed upon a people by a government or central authority. That's different than natural rights which exist in the "natural state" or outside the bounds of government.

For example, the right to defend ones self from attack, to benefit from their labor or to believe as they choose is a natural right while the right to ride where you like on a public conveyance or drink from a public water fountain is a civil right granted by whoever is providing those public services.
 
Lutherf said:
That's a totalitarian point of view. Your take is that if the majority approve of something then everyone who disapproves just has to suck it up.
Click to expand...

Well, no disrespect to Hatuey, but I would never tell someone, whom might find themselves standing outside the fire of mainstream opinion, to just piss off and go to the basement. No sir. Not me.

I'd be more like, "Yo' beotch. Go fix me a sammich."

LOL!
 
Hatuey said:
For the same reason it denies the right to freely practice any dogma which creates dysfunction within a society. :shrug:
Click to expand...

"Dysfunction" is not a very descriptive word. Do you care to define it?
 
Hatuey said:
For the same reason it denies the right to freely practice any dogma which creates dysfunction within a society. :shrug:
Click to expand...

What dysfunction is my religious belief creating?
 
DashingAmerican said:
What I don't understand is why make such a deal about getting service for a place that clearly despises you. I mean, do you really expect a photographer that is being forced to take your pictures to take good pictures for you?
Click to expand...

It's not about that. It's about putting the higher goal of combating prejudice or hate above the personal or situational need or good customer service
 
Bigfoot 88 said:
Speaking of Fred Phelps, I am sure many people would like to see businesses discriminate against Phelps and his clan. There would not be outcry, but cheering.

And this illustrates the problem with leaving property rights up to public perception: they then become arbitrary and effectively void.
Click to expand...

Exactly. That's the thing about Freedom of Association - it is a form of speech. A message is being conveyed when people can shape their associations. Boycotting a business is a form of discrimination. Odd how liberals don't seem to have a problem with that form of discrimination.
 
DashingAmerican said:
They could refuse to do it because "They don't want their business to be associated with that kind of unsavory language."
Click to expand...

yes they could
but if theres a risk to sue they better be smart about it

they could say they don't do profanity and then say based on this we wont take anymore requests from your org

BUT they better have thier ducks in a row, if they try to sue and they subpoena thier records there better not be any other jobs with profanity in it or it better have an ironclad excuse why there is or again relationship back to religion could be made

this is one of the things that happen with some of the christian own business they rejected the gays based on religious rights but did Jewish events and nonreligious wedding and event also. thier bigotry and illegal discrimaintion was thoroughly exposed.
 
opendebate said:
It's not about that. It's about putting the higher goal of combating prejudice or hate above the personal or situational need or good customer service
Click to expand...

As we learned with the Abortion debate, your higher goal doesn't come at the expense of an individual's liberty.
 
Henrin said:
No, you think that because the state has powers that peoples rights are somehow trumped by those powers.
Click to expand...

If your right is made up nonsense? Sure. It's simple, first you argue that the powers of the government come from the people, then you argue that if you don't like what the people say - the law is wrong and you shouldn't have to follow it. I'm sorry you live in such a self centered childish world where if things aren't put your way, you simply refuse to do them. However, that's how laws work in reality. Don't like it? Leave.

We have this argument over and over again and I've seen you have it with other people. You simply can't accept that you do not get to set the laws and then hide behind "the people" when "the people" are the ones that create the laws and rights in the first place.

:shrug:
 
chromium said:
It doesn't stop. Pretty soon we're right back to jim crow - "white only" retaurants, you name it. Of course, nothing stopping a business from banning christians, but seeing as that's probably over 90% of arizona's population, you just know it's the jews, muslims, gays, blacks etc who will be banned from all businesses.

It's stupid as hell anyway. So they're not allowed to discriminate and that's somehow going to hurt their business?

14th amendment and civil rights act took care of all this already. Even if she signed it, the courts would pulverize it.
Click to expand...

The fourteenth amendment deals with states, not the private sector. Do you need me to quote it for you?
 
CriticalThought said:
I have heard that there are plenty of LGBT groups that would love to be a part of drafting new versions of these bills so that religious liberties can be protected and incidents like the Cake Shop Owner and Wedding Photographer will not happen in other states. Instead of being adversarial, why not include gay rights folks so that we can have legislation that genuinely seeks to secure religious liberty rather than just trying to strip gay rights under the guise of religion? Freedom of association should be a public discussion, not a partisan issue.
Click to expand...

Best post of the thread (granted, I only read the first page). I admit, I've tended to think in terms of religious liberty and gay rights as being at cross purposes (making me completely schizophrenic on the issue since I understand both sides/arguments) but they shouldn't have to be should they? There are many gay people who are also religious. You've given me something to think about.
 
Hatuey said:
If your right is made up nonsense? Sure. It's simple, first you argue that the powers of the government come from the people, then you argue that if you don't like what the people say - the law is wrong and you shouldn't have to follow it. I'm sorry you live in such a self centered childish world where if things aren't put your way, you simply refuse to do them. However, that's how laws work in reality. Don't like it? Leave.
Click to expand...

I never said I didn't have to follow it. Do you enjoy the strawman you have there? Oh, and the right to property is not made up nonsense.

We have this argument over and over again and I've seen you have it with other people. You simply can't accept that you do not get to set the laws and then hide behind "the people" when "the people" are the ones that create the laws and rights in the first place.
Click to expand...

The government creates laws. At least know the basics before posting. Otherwise, we will never get anywhere.
 
vesper said:
1,)Why the KKK is most certainly a race based organization.
2.)They be all White.
3.) Wouldn't they be the flip side of the Black Panthers?
4.) So under your rules if the KKK requested a black caterer to service their event he has no right to discriminate against a white supremacy group or ask for special treatment.
5.)Brahahahahahahahaha
Click to expand...

1.) nope its a hate based org and the discrimaintion inst happening to "white people" the cater already serves many whites right?
2.) see #1
3.) once again you are not educated on these topics are you???

first off there have been many black panther orgs in history and NONE of them are like the KKK or as sever.
Many black panther orgs let whites join and most certainly didnt just kill people based on race lmao

if you were white with a black guy and the KKK showed up and you said no wait he is cool, they killed you both

if you were black with a white guy and you said hey this guys cool then he was cool or maybe just suspect lol

good grief, your welcome again for the education on this dude

4.) again you fail its not MY rules its the law and its out rights and under the law and rights he has every right to LEGALLY discriminate as long as its no because of age, disability, origin, race/color, gender, religion or in some cases sexual orientation .

your post is destroyed and facts win again

5.) im glad you find it funny because we do to its hilarious watching your post burn in flames and facts destroy them
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom