• 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

Samhain said:
Its not anti-gay. It was an attempt to expanded to individuals an existing law that's been on the books since 1999, which was put into place by numerous states following the overturning of the Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1997, which was signed into law in 1993 following a near unanimous vote in both chambers of Congress.
Click to expand...
Except the people who scripted and sponsored it specifically said the bill was written in response to the NM same-sex commitment ceremony / photographer case.

Oh, and the people that helped the legislature to craft it (Center for Arizona Policy and the Scottsdale-based Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)) are virulently anti-gay.

To say it was not anti-gay is a fig leaf. The authors own words belie that chestnut.
 
vesper said:
So good then I can right you down for one that would never tolerate bigotry toward those who believe in marriage to be between a man and a woman and you would never support such bigotry as a gay couple going to a Christian baker and demanding "you bake us a cake or else"!

Like I stated earlier, this will take an act of Congress to insure all American's rights are being upheld and not trumped for another.
Congress has an opportunity to protect religious liberty and the rights of conscience at the federal level. Policy should prohibit the government from discriminating against any individual or group, whether nonprofit or for-profit, based on their beliefs that marriage is the union of a man and woman. The Marriage and Religious Freedom Act, sponsored by Representative Raul Labrador (R., Idaho) in the House (H.R. 3133) with 100 co-sponsors of both parties and sponsored by Senator Mike Lee (R., Utah) in the Senate (S. 1808) with 17 co-sponsors, would give such protection. May the Republicans gain the Senate and maintain the House this 2014 election and the White House in 2016.
Click to expand...

LOL....ridiculous argument. Can your reasoning be any more circular? Sorry....by tolerance does not require one to be tolerant of the intolerant. There is nothing "bigoted" about requiring businesses to act in a non-bigoted manner. Try again.
 
To follow up on my last: the group behind the crafting of this bill was the right-wing Center for Arizona Policy and the Scottsdale-based Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF).

They have an extreme anti-gay history.

For example:

"In its earlier incarnation as the Alliance Defense Fund, ADF filed a brief supporting anti-sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 case in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down laws criminalizing gay sex. The organization has defended state bans on marriage equality and represented business owners who refused to serve gay couples. ADF has also opposed anti-bullying efforts in public schools and declared that a gay-inclusive Boy Scouts of America would be an assault on religious liberty."

Also:

"But in an interview with ADF attorney Kellie Fiedorek on the February 24 edition of New Day, Cuomo refused to let ADF escape scrutiny. Like other supporters of the measure, Fiedorek dodged uncomfortable questions about whether the bill would allow businesses to discriminate against gay customers.


But when Fiedorek compared requiring businesses to serve gay customers to asking a Muslim to participate in a burning of the Koran or an African-American to photograph a KKK rally, Cuomo pushed back, noting the ADF's record of defending anti-gay discrimination:"

See the video at the link.


Watch CNN's Cuomo Call Out The Extremist Group Behind Arizona's Anti-Gay Bill

Have a look at some of the **** this group has been behind:

Meet Alliance Defending Freedom, Fox's Favorite Anti-LGBT Legal Organization | Equality Matters
 
apdst said:
You support policing thought?
Click to expand...

Not at all. Policing actions is not the same as policing thought. People have every right in the world to be as bigoted as they want to be. However, if you choose to practice a business in the United States, you are not allowed to impose that bigotry on others.
 
What would make Arizona happy? Hetro only water foutains?
 
mak2 said:
What would make Arizona happy? Hetro only water foutains?
Click to expand...

What is this... 1980? People don't use water fountains when bottled flavored water is available.
 
AZ sounds pretty retro, just sayin...
 
The burden of proof that the denial of services would rest entirely on the offended. If you can not prove that you were denied service because you are gay you will have to eat the court costs and the cost of defense.

"He refused me service because he is Christian and I'm gay!"

"He clearly stated he prayed for your soul. He had your best interests in mind. Case dismissed."


If the gay community is going to continue to troll Christians, expect to get trolled. And there are more Christians than homosexuals. The law itself said nothing about homosexuals. It's only two pages, read it. As a Christian I am more than willing to be tolerant of a lifestyle I don't agree with, but if you are going to be militantly against my beliefs you can expect to get push back. And before anyone starts slinging scripture about turning the other cheek, keep in mind that Jesus turned over tables and chased the money changers out of the temple with a whip. Keep in mind that Islam preaches against homosexuality as well. It is not at all surprising that liberals who talk about being fair, being civil and treating everyone the same are the loudest and angriest finger pointers in the argument. MOST Christians are not outwardly hostile to gays. But if you keep screaming that they are, expect them to come after you. Not because you are gay but because you are an intolerant asshole.
 
Deuce said:
Political or social affiliation is not a protected classification.
Click to expand...

Thats whats wrong with Liberalisn. You people want to protect some rights, but not all rights. Its always the rights of those you agree with. Liberalism is the opposite side of the Jim Crow coin.
 
disneydude said:
Not at all. Policing actions is not the same as policing thought. People have every right in the world to be as bigoted as they want to be. However, if you choose to practice a business in the United States, you are not allowed to impose that bigotry on others.
Click to expand...

It's private property. Their 1st Amendment rights still stand.
 
apdst said:
Thats whats wrong with Liberalisn. You people want to protect some rights, but not all rights. Its always the rights of those you agree with. Liberalism is the opposite side of the Jim Crow coin.
Click to expand...

Bull****. Being a member of the Progressive Gays for Abortion isn't a protected status either. I can refuse to host a party for that group. But I can't refuse service to someone for being white or Christian.
 
mak2 said:
I have not said much about this topic becaue I just cant get my head around why anyone thinks taking picutures of gay people getting married, or making them a cake, or serving them a cheesburger on the way home afterwords somehow infringes on thier religious rights. I have read this thread and quite a bit about the bill, but what kind of state is Arizona? I cant beleive a bill that is simply antigay, got that far. It is amazing. If they were really so worried about they would not photograph weddings which were not first marriages, there are just so many sins and sinners out there, why just pick on gay people?
Click to expand...

It's not about an "anti-gay" law but the ramifications of sexual orientation laws that are too broad and too subjective. I mentioned the case in New Mexico about the photographers who declined to shoot a ceremony for a lesbian couple earlier and is now been petitioned to be heard at the U.S. Supreme Court. Cato Institute breaks this case down showing how these laws violate the 1st Amendment Rights of others. Religious rights, rights of conscience is just one aspect. Add to that free speech, and property.

a freelance writer who thinks Scientology is a fraud would be violating New Mexico law (which bans religious discrimination as well as sexual orientation discrimination) if he refused to write a press release announcing a Scientologist event. And an actor would be violating the law if he refused to perform in a commercial for a religious organization of which he disapproves.
Since the same rule would apply to state statutes that ban discrimination based on “political affiliation,” e.g., D.C. CODE § 2-1411.02 (2001); V.I. CODE tit. 10, § 64(3) (2006); SEATTLE,WASH.MUN. CODE §§ 14.06.020(L), .030(B), a Democratic freelance writer in a jurisdiction that had such a statute would have to accept commissions to write press releases for Republican candidates (so long as he writes press releases for Democrats). And under similar laws banning discrimination based on “marital status,” e.g., VT. STATS. ANN. tit. 9, § 4502(a) (2006), a Catholic singer who disapproves of weddings of people who have been divorced would have to take a job singing at such a wedding, including singing songs that implicitly or explicitly praise the occasion or the couple.
Yet all such requirements would unacceptably force the speakers to “becom[e] the courier for . . . message” with which they disagree,” Wooley, 430 U.S. at 717. All would interfere with creators’ “right to decline to foster . . . concepts” that they disapprove] And all would interfere with the “individual freedom of mind,” id. at 714, by forcing writers, actors, painters, singers ,and photographers to express sentiments that they see as wrong.
Click to expand...


http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/Elane-Photog-filed-brief.pdf
 
apdst said:
It's private property. Their 1st Amendment rights still stand.
Click to expand...

While you might disagree, this country has decided that a business holding out to the public is subject to stricter oversight and regulation. No amount of religious fervor gets your restaurant out of food safety laws. Adding to that, discrimination on the basis of certain characteristics has been made illegal because of the harm it causes to society.
 
vesper said:
It's not about an "anti-gay" law but the ramifications of sexual orientation laws that are too broad and too subjective. I mentioned the case in New Mexico about the photographers who declined to shoot a ceremony for a lesbian couple earlier and is now been petitioned to be heard at the U.S. Supreme Court. Cato Institute breaks this case down showing how these laws violate the 1st Amendment Rights of others. Religious rights, rights of conscience is just one aspect. Add to that free speech, and property.



http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/Elane-Photog-filed-brief.pdf
Click to expand...

Cato is full of it.
 
tech30528 said:
The burden of proof that the denial of services would rest entirely on the offended. If you can not prove that you were denied service because you are gay you will have to eat the court costs and the cost of defense.

"He refused me service because he is Christian and I'm gay!"

"He clearly stated he prayed for your soul. He had your best interests in mind. Case dismissed."
Click to expand...
If life was that simple even self proclaimed bigoted Christians could figure it out.

If the gay community is going to continue to troll Christians
Click to expand...
So expecting to be treated fairly and with dignity is trolling now?

And there are more Christians than homosexuals.
Click to expand...
But there are more rational decent people than bigoted self proclaimed Christians.

It's only two pages, read it. As a Christian I am more than willing to be tolerant of a lifestyle I don't agree with, but if you are going to be militantly against my beliefs you can expect to get push back.
Click to expand...
There is nothing militant about wanting to buy a cake offered for sale in a business open to the public.

And before anyone starts slinging scripture about turning the other cheek, keep in mind that Jesus turned over tables and chased the money changers out of the temple with a whip.
Click to expand...
You too can chase them out of your church with a whip.

Keep in mind that Islam preaches against homosexuality as well.
Click to expand...
Good excuse.

It is not at all surprising that liberals who talk about being fair, being civil and treating everyone the same are the loudest and angriest finger pointers in the argument.
Click to expand...
YOu expected other bigots to be louder?

MOST Christians are not outwardly hostile to gays. But if you keep screaming that they are, expect them to come after you.
Click to expand...
Yes, I can feel the love and the presence of Jesus.

Not because you are gay
Click to expand...
Because it is the Christian thing to do.

but because you are an intolerant asshole.
Click to expand...
Proving that self righteous Christians are also.
 
For many years I ran a mowing/landscaping buisness. I am sure I cut some gay people lawns. How did that make me less of a Christian? There are a lot of sinners outthere, should we boycott them all?
vesper said:
It's not about an "anti-gay" law but the ramifications of sexual orientation laws that are too broad and too subjective. I mentioned the case in New Mexico about the photographers who declined to shoot a ceremony for a lesbian couple earlier and is now been petitioned to be heard at the U.S. Supreme Court. Cato Institute breaks this case down showing how these laws violate the 1st Amendment Rights of others. Religious rights, rights of conscience is just one aspect. Add to that free speech, and property.


http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/Elane-Photog-filed-brief.pdf
Click to expand...
 
mak2 said:
For many years I ran a mowing/landscaping buisness. I am sure I cut some gay people lawns. How did that make me less of a Christian? There are a lot of sinners outthere, should we boycott them all?
Click to expand...

This isn't about boycotting anyone. None of the recent cases concerning the bakers, photographers, florists, etc. denied their services to gay people. They photographed portraits, baked all occasion cakes and created flower arrangements for all without their sexual orientation ever being questioned. What they all have in common is when it relates to marriage a religious belief to be between a man and a woman and the service they were asked to perform, to create violated their right of conscience, expression of free speech, and property.
 
Last edited:
Anthony Scalia, on if you are allowed to break a law because: First Amendment!

We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate.
On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.

And, also (quoting Justice Frankfurter):


Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs.

Also, too:

Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a "valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes)."

And, finally:


It may fairly be said that leaving accommodation to the political process will place at a relative disadvantage those religious practices that are not widely engaged in;

but that unavoidable consequence of democratic government must be preferred to a system in which each conscience is a law unto itself or in which judges weigh the social importance of all laws against the centrality of all religious beliefs.
LINK
 
apdst said:
It's private property. Their 1st Amendment rights still stand.
Click to expand...

Nope. Not when you open it up to the public. You have a right to be a bigot in your own home. You even have a right to be a bigot in your business. But you are not allowed to practice your bigotry by violating anti-discrimination laws. That's part of doing business in the US. Don't like it? Don't open a business.
 
disneydude said:
Nope. Not when you open it up to the public. You have a right to be a bigot in your own home. You even have a right to be a bigot in your business. But you are not allowed to practice your bigotry by violating anti-discrimination laws. That's part of doing business in the US. Don't like it? Don't open a business.
Click to expand...

Well then I suppose thank god for the internet. There's a way out of it with brick and mortor too - limited membership buyers clubs.

If the government wants to run my business from soup to nuts, what's the point? Let them do the work.
 
prometeus said:
If life was that simple even self proclaimed bigoted Christians could figure it out.

So expecting to be treated fairly and with dignity is trolling now?

But there are more rational decent people than bigoted self proclaimed Christians.

There is nothing militant about wanting to buy a cake offered for sale in a business open to the public.

You too can chase them out of your church with a whip.

Good excuse.

YOu expected other bigots to be louder?

Yes, I can feel the love and the presence of Jesus.

Because it is the Christian thing to do.

Proving that self righteous Christians are also.
Click to expand...

See? There is one of those trolls now.

First, I don't know anybody who claims to be a bigoted Christian. You know where I see bigotry? Where non Christians paint all Christians as bigots. You saying they are doesn't make it so. In fact, it makes you look like the bigot. We're not talking about people wanted to be treated fairly and with dignity, we're talking about a small percentage of the population wanted to be treated as a protected special class while CLAIMING they want equality. If you wanted equality you would be happy to be treated like everybody else. But at the same time, you are bigoted and narrow minded. Equality in this case would be being treated the same way you treat others. If you were treated by others as you treat them you would be upset. The bill was not about a cake, it was about people not being forced to act against their religious beliefs. Once again, a bill that was supposed to protect religious beliefs was turned in to something that was against the gay community. The two are not mutually exclusive. The problem is that you are so self centered that everything is about you. It's not. Go ahead, keep pointing the finger at others and insisting they are out to get you, and see how long it takes for them to get tired of ignoring your punk ass and turn around and stomp it. Just like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and the NAACP, you are escalating a small problem into something bigger than it needs to be to suit your own selfish agenda. Grow up. The world does not revolve around you no matter how special you think you are.
 
Last edited:
Verax said:
You're making excuses and trying to rationalize it out as not being harmful. How would you feel if you lived in a town where nobody would offer you services? How would you feel if you were driving your car on a road trip and the only gas station for miles refused service to you? How would you like not being allowed to eat at the local restaurant because they don't like Henrin's? How would you like the local hospital to refuse service to you or your family in a crisis?
Click to expand...

Feelings? Really, feelings? Dude, people hurt other peoples feelings all the time. Are you honestly suggesting the government should act because peoples feelings are hurt? What the hell man? Are you going to get the government to make me share with you too because I hurt your feelings? ****ing feelings. What kind of argument is that?

This will inevitably bring up your second excuse, "the free market with fix it". No it won't, if it would, it would have in the 50's and 60's. Instead we had to have government intervene and say racial discrimination is not allowed.
Click to expand...

No, I'm suggesting that if there is no harm there can be no right violation, and if there is no right violation there is no justification for the government to act. Oh, and no, feeling is not a harm. Jesus..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom