• 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

Henrin said:
There is no such thing as a business open to the public.
Click to expand...
Are you for real? Where have you been for decades, under some rock?

It's a legal concept forced on business, but not one that exists in real life.
Click to expand...
BS

All the rights these laws violate however are real, and many of them are protected by the Constitution by amendment.
Click to expand...
You have no clue about the Constitution.
 
Henrin said:
Exactly. If I don't have any rights if I'm a business owner than **** the entire thing. If the government wants to run my business instead of ME, the owner, than let society do without my business, and lets see how well they do when everyone says **** this ****.
Click to expand...
You are deluding yourself. There are plenty of decent people who are not bigoted and are more than happy to serve the public. You will not be missed.

Liberals talk of treating people equally, but what about the business owner? Did they forgot they are human beings too?
Click to expand...
Nobody forgets anything, but being a business owner is not a license for discrimination.
 
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...

The only room for compromise I can envision is exemptions for sole proprietors with no employees or only one or two employees, and/or companies without a fixed place of business. I would never accept a business that is generally open to the public practicing racial, religious etc. discrimination legally.

Interestingly, sole proprietors and companies without a fixed place of business can easily get away with discrimination if they simply claim that they are already booked or otherwise unavailable to provide a service. Businesses can also transform themselves into private membership clubs if they want to exclude people.
 
mak2 said:
Providing someone the service of my company does not have any effect on my religion. and if what you say is true, why just the gays, there are lots of sinners out there getting married. Soon as I hear of ChickFilA refusing to serve gluttons let me know.
Click to expand...

I never even suggested that only gays have no right to the service, property, association, or labor of other human being. What I said, is that NO ONE has the right to the service, property, association, or labor of another human being.
 
Hard Truth said:
The only room for compromise I can envision is exemptions for sole proprietors with no employees or only one or two employees, and/or companies without a fixed place of business. I would never accept a business that is generally open to the public practicing racial, religious etc. discrimination legally.

Interestingly, sole proprietors and companies without a fixed place of business can easily get away with discrimination if they simply claim that they are already booked or otherwise unavailable to provide a service. Businesses can also transform themselves into private membership clubs if they want to exclude people.
Click to expand...

Your compromise is rejected and many of your points are false.
 
mak2 said:
Providing someone the service of my company does not have any effect on my religion. and if what you say is true, why just the gays, there are lots of sinners out there getting married. Soon as I hear of ChickFilA refusing to serve gluttons let me know.
Click to expand...

Your religion is not the only religion nor do you strike me as a strict adherent. That last is a silly strawman.
 
Henrin said:
I will stand by human rights forever. I suppose however you can oppose them forever if you want.
Click to expand...
 :shrug:
Click to expand...




One thing that I like a lot about this veto is that Rush Limbaugh doesn't like it.

That tells me that it's a really good thing.

More about Rushbo here: Rush Limbaugh, right radio split over veto - Mackenzie Weinger - POLITICO.com




"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll
 
prometeus said:
Are you for real? Where have you been for decades, under some rock?
Click to expand...

It's called reality. All business is open to only those the owner wants in. Law can not change the underlining realities of a situation.

BS
Click to expand...

Want to prove it's BS?

You have no clue about the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Really? So the 1st amendment and the 13th amendment don't exist? Interesting.
 
I get it, you are just antigovernment. But I believe many conservative areas in the county (like AZ) would revert to the US of the 50's if not for the civil rights atcs. I don't think I would much like that America.
Henrin said:
I never even suggested that only gays have no right to the service, property, association, or labor of other human being. What I said, is that NO ONE has the right to the service, property, association, or labor of another human being.
Click to expand...
 
mak2 said:
I get it, you are just antigovernment. But I believe many conservative areas in the county (like AZ) would revert to the US of the 50's if not for the civil rights atcs. I don't think I would much like that America.
Click to expand...

I've heard that before, but it was regional in the 50s. There were parts of the country where life was pretty damn good for folks of all colors. I lived in one such.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
So you support racist laws?
Click to expand...

Racist laws? No, I support there being no laws on the matter of who the business wants to serve, allow on their property, to associate with, to provide their labor, or of who they will hire and who they will fire.
 
How so? The photographer did not want to take pictures of a gay wedding and argued freedom of religion. Even the governor pointed out no Arizona citizen's religious rights had ever been violated when she vetoed the bill. If the "Christians" don't want to provide services for gay wedding because it is a sin, then selling gluttons excessive amounts of food is a sin just the same...
clownboy said:
Your religion is not the only religion nor do you strike me as a strict adherent. That last is a silly strawman.
Click to expand...
 
mak2 said:
I get it, you are just antigovernment. But I believe many conservative areas in the county (like AZ) would revert to the US of the 50's if not for the civil rights atcs. I don't think I would much like that America.
Click to expand...

Look dude, people will be assholes and fools, but that doesn't mean they are violating your rights. You can't just impose on people and say it is a human right. The core principle of human rights is that people have the right to be free of the aggression of others, not that they are subject to their aggression. You can not use the government to impose on people and sit there and say "it's my right". No, it's not your right, and it will never be your right. You're wrong.

Oh, and when I say aggression it means invasion, not being mean or hurting your feelings and refusing to be your slave.
 
Last edited:
mak2 said:
How so? The photographer did not want to take pictures of a gay wedding and argued freedom of religion. Even the governor pointed out no Arizona citizen's religious rights had ever been violated when she vetoed the bill. If the "Christians" don't want to provide services for gay wedding because it is a sin, then selling gluttons excessive amounts of food is a sin just the same...
Click to expand...

I responded to what YOU posted:

Providing someone the service of my company does not have any effect on my religion. and if what you say is true, why just the gays, there are lots of sinners out there getting married. Soon as I hear of ChickFilA refusing to serve gluttons let me know.
Click to expand...

Once again, there are many more religions than just yours and many more flavors of christianity than yours. In some of those, providing for a gay marriage, the event, is indeed against their religious principles.

As to the strawman you wish to defend - ChikFilA serves gay folks all the time. They have no policy against serving homosexuals food.
 
You don't get to discriminate against classes of people.

Learn to accept that and move on.
 
Paperview said:
You don't get to discriminate against classes of people.

Learn to accept that and move on.
Click to expand...

No! People have the right to discriminate, and as I said earlier, it is a key element of human rights.
 
Henrin said:
Racist laws?
No, I support there being no laws on the matter of who the business wants to serve, allow on their property, to associate with, to provide their labor, or of who they will hire and who they will fire.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




Your mind is living in the part of the USA that doesn't exist now and will exist even less in the future.

You should visit reality sometime, just to see what it looks like.
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
I tend to oppose abortion on principle. The politics are just hard to work out.
Click to expand...


It wasn't meant for you, CT, it was directed at Agentj...

To Agentj -
Yet you're pro choice and pro human rights.. oh and pro equal rights.. Isn't an unborn baby a human, what makes it less worthy of equal protection that you so vehemently crusade for?
Click to expand...


Tim-
 
Henrin said:
It's called reality.
Click to expand...
You seem to be sorely out of touch with it.

All business is open to only those the owner wants in.
Click to expand...
If it is a membership only club.

Law can not change the underlining realities of a situation.
Click to expand...
But it does and for good reason.

Want to prove it's BS?
Click to expand...
Yea come out from under that very heavy rock

Really? So the 1st amendment and the 13th amendment don't exist?
Click to expand...
Of course they exist and that is a good thing, but their existence does not mean that you understand them.
 
shrubnose said:
You live in the part of the USA that doesn't exist now and will exist even less in the future.
Click to expand...

My rights can never be removed, so I live in the present, and will forever live in the present as long I stand by my rights.
 
Henrin said:
My rights can never be removed
Click to expand...
Of course they can, just ask an inmate if (s)he voted in the last election.

so I live in the present, and will forever live in the present as long I stand by my rights.
Click to expand...
No you live in an imagined world totally out of touch with reality, but that is your right to do so.
 
Henrin said:
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?



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..
Click to expand...

So out of all those examples none of it is harm? Really? If you brought your child to the hospital in a crisis situation and they denied service because they don't like you for whatever reason, no harm would come of it?

I really tried to help you understand what it would be like to be on the receiving end of your ideology but apparently you can't empathize. The point of "feelings" was supposed to teach you the fact that it is unfair, it is unjust. You're in denial and avoiding the reality that your position is harmful, bad policy.
 
prometeus said:
You seem to be sorely out of touch with it.
Click to expand...

That is of course impossible considering I'm talking about the nature of property.

If it is a membership only club.
Click to expand...

No, all property works on the same principle, be that your body, your land, your house, your toothbrush, your business. All property is under the control of the owner and the owner gets to decide who uses it.

But it does and for good reason.
Click to expand...

Sorry, laws can change behavior by force, but the nature of things will forever be unaffected by it.

Yea come out from under that very heavy rock
Click to expand...

That doesn't defend your argument.

Of course they exist and that is a good thing, but their existence does not mean that you understand them.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but the first amendment protects the right to association and the right to practice ones religion. and the thirteenth forbids all involuntary servitude. I understand them just fine, thank you.
 
Verax said:
So out of all those examples none of it is harm? Really? If you brought your child to the hospital in a crisis situation and they denied service because they don't like you for whatever reason, no harm would come of it?
Click to expand...

No. The individual that denied you service didn't cause you a greater harm, but simply refused to assist you in your problem.

I really tried to help you understand what it would be like to be on the receiving end of your ideology but apparently you can't empathize. The point of "feelings" was supposed to teach you the fact that it is unfair, it is unjust. You're in denial and avoiding the reality that your position is harmful, bad policy.
Click to expand...

Arguments based on feelings have no effect on logic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom