Arizona anti-gay bill vetoed by governor

AGENT J said:

of course i dindt take it as you were saying your country was perfect at all

and what really sad is what you see is NOT the majority of Americans, most american think **** like this is bat **** insane and mentally retarded also
we laugh at those idiots

but unfortunately the squeakiest wheels get the coverage and they inspire the game of politics instead of real people sane people but it comes in cycles and its getting better

Click to expand...

I'm sorry as I do understand that you are a christian, but I blame religion for the split in this country, or should I say hatred and bigotry in the name of religion....

Juanita said:

I must believe in the right to discriminate???????? Are you serious?? Perhaps this land of freedom is not the right land for you....

Click to expand...

All your rights are based on property and all of them very much provide you with all the control. The right to discriminate is a trend you will find in all the rights. Go through them if you please and you will discover I'm right.

Juanita said:

I must believe in the right to discriminate???????? Are you serious?? Perhaps this land of freedom is not the right land for you....

Click to expand...

so your saying , because you don't like discrimination, ...then you and others should be able to infringe on the rights of a person who does it, by infringing on his rights.

right to association

right to property

right to commerce

ernst barkmann said:

that is wrong libertarian's believe in liberty for everyone, however being discriminated against is not a rights infringement, by the business owner.

you have no exercisable rights on another person's property, only privileges the owner allows you.

liberty means , freedom to be foolish, stupid, and wrong in your personal decision making.

Click to expand...

Sure, as long as your freedom to be foolish, stupid or wrong does not in any way discriminate against ME.....

Henrin said:

I do not even attempt to be seen as admirable to people from Europe. Your views are not those that I endorse, and not those that can lead to a free country. With that in mind, it is undoubtable my actions will disappoint you. That however, is not my concern, and if you were wise you would admire freedom, not these laws.

Click to expand...

That's fair enough but unfortunately for you your government has been all about promoting the " American brand" of democracy worldwide for decades now and like it or not your actions are watched, admired and often judged by many people. American business profit worldwide, your media is everywhere as is your military so obviously anything you do will be subject to review whether you like it or not. Unlike many of my country men I still look to the US for guidance and with such pressing matters at hand like Syria and Ukraine and in my opinion the US is still the world leader.

Juanita said:

Sure, as long as your freedom to be foolish, stupid or wrong does not in any way discriminate against ME.....

Click to expand...

you were asked, what right of yours is being violated, when you are discriminated against.

you have failed to provide us with that information.

Henrin said:

Which right did I violate of yours by discriminating against you?

Click to expand...

My right as an American citizen to get services from a business that is open to the public...I am the public..

ernst barkmann said:

that is not a right.

Click to expand...

It IS a law....the law has been violated..

Henrin said:

All your rights are based on property and all of them very much provide you with all the control. The right to discriminate is a trend you will find in all the rights. Go through them if you please and you will discover I'm right.

Click to expand...

What do you mean when you state that all my rights are based on property? How?

ernst barkmann said:

so your saying , because you don't like discrimination, ...then you and others should be able to infringe on the rights of a person who does it, by infringing on his rights.

right to association

right to property

right to commerce

Click to expand...

Discrimination is against the law.. You do not have the right to break the law by infringing on my rights...

Higgins86 said:

That's fair enough but unfortunately for you your government has been all about promoting the " American brand" of democracy worldwide for decades now and like it or not your actions are watched, admired and often judged by many people. American business profit worldwide, your media is everywhere as is your military so obviously anything you do will be subject to review whether you like it or not. Unlike many of my country men I still look to the US for guidance and with such pressing matters at hand like Syria and Ukraine and in my opinion the US is still the world leader.

Click to expand...

Normally I do not talk of politics in real life, and in fact, I avoid it, but yesterday a friend of mine asked me what the UN has ever done for the US and I honestly couldn't think of a thing. I could think of many things we have used it for to push our influence, but nothing that really helped the US. I always have an answer to everything, but in that instance I had nothing, and since that was his goal of course he smiled when I came up with a blank. Damn, that one is hard, and I still can't think of anything to use to answer the question. It completely stumps me on what it has done for the US. :

I think it defies the spirit of this country to use our military as a world police. This country was never designed to be the world leader militarily. In fact, classical liberal philosophy doesn't even endorse a military, but a militia of free men. The reason for this was that classical liberalism was a philosophy of peace; a philosophy against war; a philosophy that endorsed the militia with the idea that it would cause men to only want to defend their homes and their communities. It was an attempt at non-interventionism; a country interested only in defending their lives and borders. An idea that while proven to fail, should have never left us entirely. We became as a country what classical liberals hated militarily and wanted no part of. We became a country that was interested in central power, and not the power of the people as they so endorsed. It is a shame that we have became the very thing they hated; the very thing they were fighting against; the very thing they died to get free of. I am ashamed of what the US has become, and my fight is to turn it back into what it was meant to be, and what will make the people free.

We were never meant to be like Europe, and we never went out to gain your approval, and we shouldn't be doing it now.

Juanita said:

My right as an American citizen to get services from a business that is open to the public...I am the public..

Click to expand...

right as an American citizen....what right is that?

incorrect, ..how can you exercise a right, on another person's property.

Henrin said:

Normally I do not talk of politics in real life, and in fact, I avoid it, but yesterday a friend of mine asked me what the UN has ever done for the US and I honestly couldn't think of a thing. I could think of many things we have used it for to push our influence, but nothing that really helped the US. I always have an answer to everything, but in that instance I had nothing, and since that was his goal of course he smiled when I came up with a blank. Damn, that one is hard, and I still can't think of anything to use to answer the question. It completely stumps me on what it has done for the US. :

I think it defies the spirit of this country to use our military as a world police. This country was never designed to be the world leader militarily. In fact, classical liberal philosophy doesn't even endorse a military, but a militia of free men. The reason for this was that classical liberalism was a philosophy of peace; a philosophy against war; a philosophy that endorsed the militia with the idea that it would cause men to only want to defend their homes and their communities. It was an attempt at non-interventionism; a country interested only in defending their lives and borders. An idea that while proven to fail, should have never left us entirely. We became as a country what classical liberals hated militarily and wanted no part of. We became a country that was interested in central power, and not the power of the people as they so endorsed. It is a shame that we have became the very thing they hated, the very thing they were fighting against, the very thing they died to get free of. I am ashamed of what the US, and my fight is to turn it back into what it was meant to be, and what will make the people free.

We were never meant to be like Europe and we never went out to gain your approval, and we shouldn't be doing it now.

Click to expand...

But like all World powers before you ( the UK included) you took advantage of a crippled world after WW2 and not only improved it but became the sole remaining superpower. I respect your political stance but not even you can deny that the US is a superpower and dictates what goes on in many countries. Double edged sword of course because it means you are also judged in your domestic policy, for example I served in Iraq with the British army but was more than happy to go because the country we were supporting was the US which was a country I agreed with not just in foreign policy but domestically as well ( as a whole). However if the US wants to continue being the worlds leader it must act accordingly domestically. None of this helps you but unfortunately your political ideology is outdated and has no real place in the 21st century, your kind of thinking died with Pearl Harbour.

Juanita said:

What do you mean when you state that all my rights are based on property? How?

Click to expand...

Every last right you will find is your property and they are all yours to do with as you please. All rights are based on body sovereignty and extend to everything in which the body acts upon. Therefore, all your rights, be that, the right to life, liberty, or estate, are born from property, or more to the point, the right to your own body and it's facilities. With this knowledge of your ownership of your person you will discover, as I have said, that if we were to go down the list of rights that all of them give you complete control and all of them are discriminatory in nature; in that, no one can act upon your person or property without your permission.

Juanita said:

It IS a law....the law has been violated..

Click to expand...

it is federal law, however constitutional law is higher, laws cannot be made which violate the rights of people.

by forcing a person to serve you.

you violate his rights .....right to association, property, and commerce, these are recognized rights per the constitution.

it violates the 13th amendment to the constitution ...that you cant force a citizen to serve another citizen, if no crime has been committed,...discrimination is not a crime.

Higgins86 said:

yes it did but your comparing France to the USA, 100 years ago maybe France would of had that kind of impact globally but now they do not. The US is still the country I look at to set examples for us to follow, the US is the most powerful country worldwide and keeps the peace. I watch her movies, east some of her food, drink her drinks, anything the US does is scrutinized worldwide and we all take notice.

Click to expand...

I was actually quite taken there were still so many traditionalists among the people of France willing to protest something they found wrong. With such passion still burning with so many there still may be hope for France.

Since you follow the U.S. with interest, look for a Supreme Court Case to show up in the near future. There was a couple in New Mexico who ran a small photography business. They are a young couple Mr. and Mrs. Huguenin.



Nice looking couple don't you think? One day Mrs. Huguenin received a call from a woman who wanted the Huguenin's to take pictures of her "Same Sex Commitment Ceremony". Mrs. Huguenin responded by saying "The message a same-sex commitment ceremony communicates is not one I believe." and she respectfully declined the shoot. That cost her and her husband about 6 years of court battles because the lesbian couple filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission and charged them with violating the state's "sexual orientation discrimination" law. Commission ordered the Huguenins to pay $7,000 in fees to the lesbian couple. A New Mexico trial court upheld that ruling then they appealed and it went to the State Supreme Court and when I read the opinions of the justices I was floored. Justice Richard C. Bosson, asserted that while the Huguenins are being forced by the court to compromise the commandments of God, everyone must make concessions in life over matters that violate their conscience. He outlined that the Huguenins may freely live out their faith privately, but when it comes to running a public business, they will have to “pay the price” and check their Christian convictions at the door. After their opinions, especially Justice Bosson's this case has been petitioned to be heard at the U.S. Supreme Court to affirm to the nation that businesses have the right to conduct commerce in accordance with their faith. Because truly this is a violation of this couples 1st Amendment rights and if I know the Scotus like I think I do, this case isn't going to even pass muster with Justice Kennedy who is often the deciding vote. You see these state/local sexual orientation laws are nothing like the civil rights laws of the 60's. They are very broad and very subjective to interpretation. And I think Justice Bosson's opinion even though he may not like it will be what ends up stopping the trumping of one's rights over another.

Juanita said:

My right as an American citizen to get services from a business that is open to the public...I am the public..

Click to expand...

That is not a right, in fact, it violates rights. You do not have the right to the service of your fellow human beings.

Henrin said:

That is not a right, in fact, it violates rights. You do not have the right to the service of your fellow human beings.

Click to expand...

nothing can be a right that places a burden or cost on another citizen.

ernst barkmann said:

nothing can be a right that places a burden or cost on another citizen.

Click to expand...

Indeed, and in fact, it is the aggression itself that makes so very clear it is not a right in which our opponents speak. To claim that initiation of the use or threat of violence against the person or property of anyone else is a right is absurd, and it runs counter to the very principle that rights are built. Aggression is very much synonymous with invasion, and it is no different in their argument than it is in any other argument that supports the violation of another person or their property. The very core principle of rights is that everyone has the absolute right to be “free” from aggression, and all they speak of is aggression, and all they support is aggression. There is nothing about their argument that even hints at a human right being spoken of. To even suggest you have the right to someone elses service is akin to saying you have a right to slaves, and there is nothing more invalid than the argument of slavery.

The governor just pre-empted the federal courts, who would have struck it down anyway on the grounds that it was an endorsement of religion.

The last thing AZ needs is an even more bushwhacking reputation.

Northern Light said:

The governor just pre-empted the federal courts, who would have struck it down anyway on the grounds that it was an endorsement of religion.

Click to expand...

How did it endorse religion??

Libertarian purism, this is why nobody listens to you guys. Every time I hear a Libertarian preach about their rights I want to jab my ear drums with a steak knife. You ever notice how every problem the world has with you involves you sticking to your ideology 100% even though it hurts other people? It's the stupidest waste of time in the world. Of all the things you could be advocating you spend all your energy whining about your "right" to hurt other people if you so desire because your precious ideology says you deserve it.

Verax said:

Libertarian purism, this is why nobody listens to you guys. Every time I hear a Libertarian preach about their rights I want to jab my ear drums with a steak knife. You ever notice how every problem the world has with you involves you sticking to your ideology 100% even though it hurts other people? It's the stupidest waste of time in the world. Of all the things you could be advocating you spend all your energy whining about your "right" to hurt other people if you so desire because your precious ideology says you deserve it.

Click to expand...

Well for one thing, you're reading posts at Debate politics, so jabbing your ear drums with a steak knife would do nothing to resolve the problem you appear to be suffering from. It would in fact, only create you another problem while still leaving you with the problem you were attempting to escape. That would be, as you called it, "the stupidest waste of time in the world". Second, it is amazing to me how people think that denying someone service is harming them. They came requesting service, and like anyone else that comes to you or me requesting our service, if we fail to provide it then we have not created a greater harm than the one they came to us with. All that we have done, and all that is possible to be done by that action, is that we have failed to assist them in their problem.

Verax said:

Libertarian purism, this is why nobody listens to you guys. Every time I hear a Libertarian preach about their rights I want to jab my ear drums with a steak knife. You ever notice how every problem the world has with you involves you sticking to your ideology 100% even though it hurts other people? It's the stupidest waste of time in the world. Of all the things you could be advocating you spend all your energy whining about your "right" to hurt other people if you so desire because your precious ideology says you deserve it.

Click to expand...

And yet homosexuality went from a mental disease and a criminal act to something that is Holy in less than 30 years. It's amazing what persistent effort can do in getting a message out. OK, so you've outed yourself as a HATER but I'll be tolerant of you because that's just how I roll.

We'll just have to let this experiment play out for 30 years and see how many more people come on board as Totalitarian Liberalism keeps advancing in its goal of oppressing more and more people.

Henrin said:

Well for one thing, you're reading posts at Debate politics, so jabbing your ear drums with a steak knife would do nothing to resolve the problem you appear to be suffering from. It would in fact, only create you another problem while still leaving you with the problem you were attempting to escape. That would be, as you called it, "the stupidest waste of time in the world". Second, it is amazing to me how people think that denying someone service is harming them. They came requesting service, and like anyone else that comes to you or me requesting our service, if we fail to provide it then we have not created a greater harm than the one they came to us with. All that we have done, and all that is possible to be done by that action, is that we have failed to assist them in their problem.

Click to expand...

That is only correct is one is to gauge "the sevice" as the net sum loss. "Service", and one's no gain-no loss status, is not the harm rendered by the refusal of service...the right of equal consideration to services is what has been denied and argued.

Choosing to serve some while not serving others is the question...not the harm caused by not being served. The couple suing in court are not suing for damages because their wedding was ruined because they could not serve cake at their wedding and there was not other option to fulfull their need; it was filed because of refusal of service due to the precived type of wedding and the customers whom were wishing to purchase the cake.