• 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

AGENT J said:
there is factually no rights violation for being denied service LMAO
i think you may be in the wrong thread
Click to expand...


that is what i am asking, are rights of the patron being violated.......the answer is ......no!

so i give you praise for answering the question for me.

since no rights violation is taking places............. government has no authority to act.

"Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.
 
ernst barkmann said:
1.)that is what i am asking, are rights of the patron being violated.......the answer is ......no!
2.)so i give you praise for answering the question for me.
3.) since no rights violation is taking places............. government has no authority to act.
4.)"Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.
Click to expand...

1.) correct there is no rights of the patron being violated for simply being denied service i dont think anybody in this whole thread suggested something so silly
2.) thanks but theres no need to praise me for pointing out facts, denying service is legal
3.) for the denying of service? no they do not in most cases
4.) ok :shrug:

im just curious if you have anythign on topic to discuss, you seem to think this thread is about denying service that would be stupid
 
tech30528 said:
You are a bigot.
Click to expand...
Actually I am not, I do not discriminate nor do I endorse discrimination for any reason. The same can not be said about you, which leacve us with the inescapable conclusion who the bigot is.

You've got some kind of hard on for Christians
Click to expand...
I have no such thing, I love Christians, I dislike bigots who pretend to be Christians and attempt to justufy they bigotry through that. It is really shameful, disgraceful even and an embarrassment to those who actually follow Christ.

and consider yourself better than them.
Click to expand...
Then bigots, yes I am.

Newsflash, you're not.
Click to expand...
Coming from you that is really meaningful.

They are entitled the their opinion every bit as much as you are.
Click to expand...
Of course they are everyone is.

It's a shame your life has no meaning
Click to expand...
Not to bigots, then again that hardly matters to me. There are enough people who feel the opposite.

but that is your problem, not theirs.
Click to expand...
Ni, I do not have a problem but clearly bigots do, even if no more than the frustration that their attempts to have legal sanctions for their bigotry is not working out.

Trying to belittle them
Click to expand...
I do not belittle them, they are little by their own doing.

to make yourself feel better isn't going to change that.
Click to expand...
It does not make me feel better to know that such primitive and ignorant people still exist.

Assuming that all Christians are the same is narrow minded and short sighted.
Click to expand...
Yes that it is, but to discriminate is not being Christ like. He associated with sinners and did not send them away because they were offensive to His Godliness.

We have a guy here who stands on the town square with a bullhorn and a sign screaming about gays being sinners. He is a deluded ass.
Click to expand...
He has every right and he is, but that hardly makes him a Christian.

You are the other side of the same coin.
Click to expand...
I do not share the feeling.
 
AGENT J said:
1.) correct there is no rights of the patron being violated for simply being denied service i dont think anybody in this whole thread suggested something so silly
2.) thanks but theres no need to praise me for pointing out facts, denying service is legal
3.) for the denying of service? no they do not in most cases
4.) ok :shrug:

im just curious if you have anythign on topic to discuss
Click to expand...

1.then you did not read all of the threads, when i asked this question before, i was told, "to not be discriminated against, and i stated...that is not a right.
2. i am clear, if no rights violation of the patron is taking place, then government has no authority to act,....because government duty is to secure rights, the only rights in these cases we are being discussed on the forums are rights of the property owner who are being violated by government force.
3. the father of the constitution, and the man who also wrote the bill of rights, states government is here for the protect of property ,meaning yourself, your body, and material goods, it is not here to make us like each other.
 
ernst barkmann said:
1.then you did not read all of the threads, when i asked this question before, i was told, "to not be discriminated against, and i stated...that is not a right.
2. i am clear, if no rights violation of the patron is taking place, then government has no authority to act,....
3.) because government duty is to secure rights
4.), the only rights in these cases we are being discussed on the forums are rights of the property owner who are being violated by government force.
5.). the father of the constitution, and the man who also wrote the bill of rights, states government is here for the protect of property ,meaning yourself, your body, and material goods, it is not here to make us like each other.
Click to expand...

1.) yes i read it and this thread is not about being denied surface nor is it about "discrimination" because you are right neither are a right
2.) you are correct when discussing "denying service" there are no rights being violated and in most cases the government has no reason to act
3.) 100% correct
4.) what on gods green earth are you talking about? there are no rights of the property owner being violated by this bill being vetoed lol
5.) another thing that is meaningless here


tell me what you think this thread is about

its NOT about solely denying service
its NOT about solely discrimaintion

do you know what its about?
 
AGENT J said:
it was insane and yes it didn't effect anybody rights since it got vetoed thats what makes it awesome!
Click to expand...

It was not insane and even if it had not been vetoed it would have effected no ones rights.

I could care less that it got vetoed but the above facts are true.
 
Soupnazi630 said:
It was not insane
2.)and even if it had not been vetoed it would have effected no ones rights.
3.)I could care less that it got vetoed but the above facts are true.
Click to expand...

1.) yes it was not only insane it was bat**** insane and i say that as a religious person, this bill was mentally inane and retarded lol
2.) im sure you believe that
3.) yes you have that opinion
 
prometeus said:
Actually I am not, I do not discriminate nor do I endorse discrimination for any reason. The same can not be said about you, which leacve us with the inescapable conclusion who the bigot is.
Click to expand...

You don't discriminate nor do you endorse discrimination? Interesting. So when you go out to the restaurant you buy one of everything? Gosh, I sure hope you don't eat all of that.
 
AGENT J said:
1.) yes i read it and this thread is not about being denied surface nor is it about "discrimination" because you are right neither are a right
2.) you are correct when discussing "denying service" there are no rights being violated and in most cases the government has no reason to act
3.) 100% correct
4.) what on gods green earth are you talking about? there are no rights of the property owner being violated by this bill being vetoed lol
5.) another thing that is meaningless here


tell me what you think this thread is about

its NOT about solely denying service
its NOT about solely discrimaintion

do you know what its about?
Click to expand...

4. was not discussing the bill. your off base, many people have strayed from the topic.
5. sorry you cannot understand Madison....all liberty is derived out of property, therefore property of every sort is to be protected by government, if government uses force on a person to make them preform a service for another citizen, bake a cake, take a picture, that is rights violation.
 
AGENT J said:
exactly you just proved it is equal, your post failed again and facts win again lol
you might want to study up on this subject first before talking about it

these rights apply to us all
Click to expand...

A black photog CAN be forced, by law, to shoot a KKK themed wedding?
 
ernst barkmann said:
1.) was not discussing the bill. your off base, many people have strayed from the topic.
2.) sorry you cannot understand Madison....all liberty is derived out of property, therefore property of every sort is to be protected by government
3.) if government uses force on a person to make them preform a service for another citizen, bake a cake, take a picture, that is rights violation.
Click to expand...

4.) so there are people her that said this was just about the denial of service and basic discrimination? i bet there wasnt and thats your mistake
5.) who said i didn't understand hi,m? oh thats right nobody lol i said that didn't matter to anything actually being discussed here but thank you for proving you dont understand that fact
3.) good thing that factually isnt happening

i will ask you again

tell me what you think this thread is about

its NOT about solely denying service
its NOT about solely discrimaintion

do you know what its about?
 
AGENT J said:
Arizona anti-gay bill vetoed by governor - chicagotribune.com




back up links:

Arizona governor vetoes anti-gay bill
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer Vetoes Anti-Gay Bill - NBC News
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoes so-called anti-gay bill - latimes.com
Arizona governor vetoes controversial bill allowing denial of service to gays
Arizona Governor Vetoes Bill Seen Discriminating Against Gays - Businessweek
Jan Brewer Announces Veto Of Arizona Anti-Gay Bill SB 1062
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoes anti-gay bill | MSNBC
Arizona governor vetoes anti-gay bill - Chicago Sun-Times


vetoed just like i thought and said it would be


equality wins again


again it shows the panic and fear of the bigots and those that support discrimination and are against equal rights. They see the writing on the wall, they know equal rights is winning and is going to win the war so they are getting desperate.

The best part is, even if they win some of these little battles its things like this that are actually HELPING equal rights. The majority of the public eye judges it as wrong and see how nuts it is. But it establishes something that can be challenged in courts just like the state bannings. The vast majority of the lawsuits exist BECAUSE of state bannings lol. The bannings HELPED, its sweet poetic justice.

THeres some other state trying these i hope they get some momentum behind them to draw more of the public eye on this insanity.
Click to expand...
I don't know how anyone can still think this is about equality, pro or con.

This was about business. Businesses started the bill, and other businesses stopped it. The side with the most money to offer is always the side which wins these contests.

No part of this entire thing has to do with equality except for the propaganda fed to the useful idiots to derive votes and money.
 
apdst said:
A black photog CAN be forced, by law, to shoot a KKK themed wedding?
Click to expand...
force?
awesome ANOTHER post that proves you have no clue about law rights and facts lol

sorry once again rights apply to us ALL

since you keep proving you dont know heres the law and facts

illegal discrimaintion is discrimination based on age, disability, genetic info, race/color/ national origin, religion, gender sometimes sexual orientation

let me know if you are still confused
 
AGENT J said:
force?
awesome ANOTHER post that proves you have no clue about law rights and facts lol

sorry once again rights apply to us ALL

since you keep proving you dont know heres the law and facts

illegal discrimaintion is discrimination based on age, disability, genetic info, race/color/ national origin, religion, gender sometimes sexual orientation

let me know if you are still confused
Click to expand...


I can't be the only one that finds Agent-J's posts a pain to read.
 
Jerry said:
I don't know how anyone can still think this is about equality, pro or con.

This was about business. Businesses started the bill, and other businesses stopped it. The side with the most money to offer is always the side which wins these contests.

No part of this entire thing has to do with equality except for the propaganda fed to the useful idiots to derive votes and money.
Click to expand...

who said the bill was about equality?
you must of quoted the wrong person

the devil could of vetoed the bill its still good for equal rights :shrug: nothing changes that
 
AGENT J said:
force?
awesome ANOTHER post that proves you have no clue about law rights and facts lol

sorry once again rights apply to us ALL

since you keep proving you dont know heres the law and facts

illegal discrimaintion is discrimination based on age, disability, genetic info, race/color/ national origin, religion, gender sometimes sexual orientation

let me know if you are still confused
Click to expand...

force or coercion the same thing.

discrimination ...... who cares what it is based on...... immaterial.

to use force/ coercion on a business owner to make him serve another person, is unconstitutional per the 13th amendment.
 
ernst barkmann said:
1.)force or coercion the same thing.
2.)discrimination ...... who cares what it is based on...... immaterial.
3.)to use force/ coercion on a business owner to make him serve another person, is unconstitutional per the 13th amendment.
Click to expand...

1.) again none here
2.) 100% false if its based on the wrong thing it violates rights and the law
3.) could thing that factually isnt happening

tell me what you think this thread is about

its NOT about solely denying service
its NOT about solely discrimaintion

do you know what its about?
 
AGENT J said:
sorry dude im not buying it' i'm a christian and nothing in his post bothered me because it was clearly directed at the christians that want to treat people as lessers and want the law to make them lessers/keep them lessers


well thats not me so it didnt offend me one bit
this guy is NO WHERE NEAR the retard in the square you talked about

are you a christian that wants others to not have the same rights as you, or wants to treat others as lessers and wan the law to do so also? if not then that post should of had no effect on you

if so then it explains your misplaced post
Click to expand...

Your assertion is factually incorrect.
 
tech30528 said:
Your assertion is factually incorrect.
Click to expand...

actually its 100% factual as his follow up post proved
facts win again

seems you views might be exactly the ones he was talking about since this some how offends you
 
AGENT J said:
nope never said the BILL was about equality
Click to expand...
Then we agree that equality had nothing to do with anything other than propaganda and you retract and apologize for your "equality wins again" hyperbole in your OP.

I accept your apology and appreciate that you will ask the mods to edit your OP to remove that miss-statement as a demonstration of your personal integrity and character.
Thank you :2wave:
 
Jerry said:
Then we agree that equality never had nothing to do with anything other than propaganda and you retract and apologize for your "equality wins again" hyperbole in your OP.

I accept your apology and appreciate that you will ask the mods to edit your OP to remove that miss-statement as a demonstration of your personal integrity and character.
Thank you :2wave:
Click to expand...

no we just agree that your statement was wrong and it factually was :D

equality did win facts wont change

this has nothing to do with the bill or why it was written or why it failed

facts win again :)
 
AGENT J said:
1.) again none here
2.) 100% false if its based on the wrong thing it violates rights and the law
3.) could thing that factually isnt happening

tell me what you think this thread is about

its NOT about solely denying service
its NOT about solely discrimaintion

do you know what its about?
Click to expand...

1 i stated government cannot use force / coercion on citizens if no rights violation has taken place.
2. as stated above government has no authority to act on you if you have not violated rights or violation health and saftey of the people.
3 discrimination of a patron violates no right's
4 if government uses coercion, telling you ,they will put you out of business because you refuse service to people, and to stay in business to must do things against your will, like serving people you do not wish to serve...that is involuntary servitude.
 
ernst barkmann said:
1 i stated government cannot use force / coercion on citizens if no rights violation has taken place.
2. as stated above government has no authority to act on you if you have not violated rights or violation health and saftey of the people.
3 discrimination of a patron violates no right's
4 if government uses coercion, telling you ,they will put you out of business because you refuse service to people, and to stay in business to must do things against your will, like serving people you do not wish to serve...that is involuntary servitude.
Click to expand...

1.) i agree 100%
2.) I agree 100%
3.) I agree 100%
4.) good thing thats factually not happening

:shrug:

tell me what you think this thread is about

its NOT about solely denying service
its NOT about solely discrimaintion

do you know what its about?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom