• 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

Paperview said:
It's like we're in some weird 1950's time warp.

You guys are unbelievable.
Click to expand...

Rights don't just disappear because you pass a law and 50 years pass after its passing. Get used to it.
 
Verax said:
LoL, wut? So... are you suggesting hospital's are not privately owned? 911 systems are government operations so they should provide service but... hospitals don't have to?... unless you called 911?

You're flopping around going in different directions trying to abstract your way out of this disaster.
Click to expand...

I'm not doing anything of the sort. I'm telling you the difference between government and private enterprise. You're trying your hardest to break my argument, but you are running into the logic that is the fundamental difference between government and private enterprise.
 
apdst said:
So, a straight couple should be able to go to a gay owned bakery and order a straight pride themed cake? It should be illegal to refuse them service?

How about a white couple that orders a white pride themed cake from a black owned bakery?

Or, a black photographer that is hired to work a KKK wedding? The law should force him to do it?
Click to expand...

If that law protects them yes. I am sorry why you don't understand that if there are laws against certain forms of discrimination and that is why a gay couple could sue the company that discriminated against them. But certainly the straight couple could sue.

When you say illegal what do you mean?
 
Henrin said:
Rights don't just disappear because you pass a law and 50 years pass after its passing. Get used to it.
Click to expand...

We know sunshine. You want the right to discriminate against people based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, and sexual orientation.

This is the America of yesteryear.

You're really going to hate the 21st Century.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
So you support institutionalized racism because "they have the right to do so"?
Click to expand...

No, I'm defending the rights of people from government aggression. I am not however saying that people should discriminate and refuse people service.

Also dont these kind of laws inherently go against the 14th amendment?
Click to expand...

No, it deals with private enterprise.
 
Henrin said:
I'm not doing anything of the sort. I'm telling you the difference between government and private enterprise. You're trying your hardest to break my argument, but you are running into the logic that is the fundamental difference between government and private enterprise.
Click to expand...

Personally, I think you're just trolling.
 
Paperview said:
This is the America of yesteryear.

You're really going to hate the 21st Century.
Click to expand...

you are correct in that aspect,.....however Henrin will be correct, on rights being lost, the destruction of the constitution, tyranny, then finally anarchy.
 
Verax said:
If you were following the earlier threads you would understand that Henrin stated that denying a person service at a hospital in a crisis situation, would not create harm. He then pulled out the red herring of 911 service being a government entity as counter to my "called 911" tale. Now you are breaking down different types of hospitals, funding, and what is right and wrong... this has spiraled into the most convoluted tangent of nonsense imaginable.
Click to expand...

You're right I missed where he said anyhting like that. He'd be wrong to say it, both because it would have a harmful effect and in that as I said hospitals are regulated differently than other businesses for service. You were wrong as well, private hospitals that do not take federal or state funds exist and they do only serve a limited clientele.

Verax said:
This all started as me making examples of how legalizing discrimination for any reason creates a whole web of ridiculous problems and harm. Can we get back to the original argument here of how businesses denying services to whoever they like, for whatever reason, is bad policy?
Click to expand...

I still disagree with you, I don't think it's bad policy at all. Vital services have nothing to do with the equation. I'll repeat, my refusal to sell you scones because I don't like your smell isn't going to do any harm to you or society in general. Especially when in modern reality there are two other places within a 1000 yeards that will sell you those scones no matter how much they think you reek.
 
Paperview said:
We know sunshine. You want the right to discriminate against people based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, and sexual orientation.

This is the America of yesteryear.

You're really going to hate the 21st Century.
Click to expand...

I HAVE the right to discriminate against anyone I please. All I'm saying is that the government needs to step off and stop violating the rights of people. Oh and btw, yeah, I don't like the 21st century, but that is mostly because liberals don't know the first thing about rights or economies.
 
Henrin said:
I'm not doing anything of the sort. I'm telling you the difference between government and private enterprise. You're trying your hardest to break my argument, but you are running into the logic that is the fundamental difference between government and private enterprise.
Click to expand...

Red herring, the argument isn't about the specifics of government and private enterprise, its about businesses denying service to patrons for any reason (discrimination). So are you amending your argument to say that only private businesses that have absolutely nothing to do with government in any way should be allowed to discriminate but others shouldn't?
 
Henrin said:
I HAVE the right to discriminate against anyone I please. All I'm saying is that the government needs to step off and stop violating the rights of people. Oh and btw, yeah, I don't like the 21st century, but that is mostly because liberals don't know the first thing about rights or economies.
Click to expand...

Shout it loud and proud, brother.

Nothing makes me happier than when social cons announce their intentions, and most in normal America repulses at their suggestions.
 
Paperview said:
We know sunshine. You want the right to discriminate against people based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, and sexual orientation.

This is the America of yesteryear.

You're really going to hate the 21st Century.
Click to expand...

With the exception of that last, which is not a protected class, it's GOVERNMENT (and in some cases vital services) that is precluded from discriminating against those classes.
 
clownboy said:
With the exception of that last, which is not a protected class, it's GOVERNMENT (and in some cases vital services) that is precluded from discriminating against those classes.
Click to expand...

In a number of states, yes, it most certainly is.

Deal.
 
Verax said:
Red herring, the argument isn't about the specifics of government and private enterprise, its about businesses denying service to patrons for any reason (discrimination). So are you amending your argument to say that only private businesses that have absolutely nothing to do with government in any way should be allowed to discriminate but others shouldn't?
Click to expand...

Once again, you're ignoring the difference between government services, what are called vital services and private business.
 
Paperview said:
In a number of states, yes, it most certainly is.

Deal.
Click to expand...

Indeed, and in the majority it isn't. Nor is it in the federal. Deal with it. And once again, this is government that this restriction applies to.
 
clownboy said:
You're right I missed where he said anyhting like that. He'd be wrong to say it, both because it would have a harmful effect and in that as I said hospitals are regulated differently than other businesses for service. You were wrong as well, private hospitals that do not take federal or state funds exist and they do only serve a limited clientele.

I still disagree with you, I don't think it's bad policy at all. Vital services have nothing to do with the equation. I'll repeat, my refusal to sell you scones because I don't like your smell isn't going to do any harm to you or society in general. Especially when in modern reality there are two other places within a 1000 yeards that will sell you those scones no matter how much they think you reek.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the honesty.

So with my other examples some of them were gas stations, food, etc., are we supposed to create a designation between what are vital services and not and discrimination is allowed at one but not the other? I do understand the point of a baker not wanting to make a cake for a gay wedding if they disagree with it. I'm not sure whether I think it should be ok or not, I do think discrimination of any kind does however cause too many problems so I'd rather just outlaw it completely.
 
Verax said:
Red herring, the argument isn't about the specifics of government and private enterprise, its about businesses denying service to patrons for any reason (discrimination). So are you amending your argument to say that only private businesses that have absolutely nothing to do with government in any way should be allowed to discriminate but others shouldn't?
Click to expand...


governments cannot discriminate per the constitution.

citizens can be discriminated by other citizens because the constitution does not apply to citizens or business.

government works in the interest of the people, a citizen works in his own interest.

its amazing that so many people wish to violate rights of citizens, ....just because they dont like how a another citizen behaves.
 
Heads up.

Mississippi House subcommittee tosses discrimination elements from religious freedom bill

"The Mississippi House of Representatives Civil Subcommittee late Wednesday voted to strike provisions of a so-called “religious freedom” bill that the ACLU and other legal experts said invites widespread discrimination, especially against gay, lesbian and trans-gender people.
The action came on Senate Bill 2681, a measure approved 48-0 on Jan. 31 and sent on to the House. The bill was more popularly known for an amendment that requires inserting “In God We Trust” into the state seal, but a closer examination of it led legal experts to conclude that it would allow private businesses and government entities to discriminate based on religious grounds."

Mississippi!
 
Henrin said:
No, it deals with private enterprise.
Click to expand...

" nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
1.)They are therefore have the power to discriminate and if you are discriminating against such people you're not equally protected under the law.
 
Verax said:
I appreciate the honesty.

So with my other examples some of them were gas stations, food, etc., are we supposed to create a designation between what are vital services and not and discrimination is allowed at one but not the other? I do understand the point of a baker not wanting to make a cake for a gay wedding if they disagree with it. I'm not sure whether I think it should be ok or not, I do think discrimination of any kind does however cause too many problems so I'd rather just outlaw it completely.
Click to expand...

No need to create anything, the distinctions have been in place forever. The problem with your solution is that we don't have that sort of nanny system yet. The Constitutions, state and federal, regulate what the GOVERNMENT can do. Government discrimination is already addressed by law.
 
clownboy said:
Indeed, and in the majority it isn't. Nor is it in the federal. Deal with it. And once again, this is government that this restriction applies to.
Click to expand...

No. The CRA and the many states versions of their CRA's apply to businesses open to the general public.
 
Verax said:
Red herring, the argument isn't about the specifics of government and private enterprise, its about businesses denying service to patrons for any reason (discrimination). So are you amending your argument to say that only private businesses that have absolutely nothing to do with government in any way should be allowed to discriminate but others shouldn't?
Click to expand...

No...
 
TheDemSocialist said:
" nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
1.)They are therefore have the power to discriminate and if you are discriminating against such people you're not equally protected under the law.
Click to expand...

Nope, that restrains the government (the State mentioned above), not individuals.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
" nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

1.)They are therefore have the power to discriminate and if you are discriminating against such people you're not equally protected under the law.
Click to expand...


constitutions are written for government only?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom