• 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

DashingAmerican said:
I have to admit, I'm torn on this one. On one hand, I think businesses should have the right to refuse on any basis, on the other hand, if we allow people to refuse service because of religion, where does it stop?
Click to expand...

With you not buying from businesses that discriminate. You cannot legitimately use government force when the rights of others are not infringed upon. And in the general sense, denial of services doesn't innately infringe upon the rights of others. Yes, I do know there are specific situations in which it can and in those instances we can use government force, but things like a cupcake or something? No, those involve no rights since you do not have right to another's property or labor.

Consumer force, however, may be used. You can't use the government but that doesn't mean you are out of options. Businesses must have profit to survive and you can engage in educated consumerism to influence that. Don't like businesses that discriminate? Don't buy from them. Boycott and protest if you want. But this presumption of ownership over other people's property and labor is unreasonable.
 
Paperview said:
It's like we're in some weird 1950's time warp.

You guys are unbelievable.
Click to expand...

The true nature of Libertarianism has been unmasked. They consider a violation of a theoretical "right" (free association AKA the right to discriminate) more significant than the actual harm and loss of rights that many people will experience from protecting that "right."
 
AGENT J said:
of course YOU dont LMAO this further helps prove the facts i already listed

lets just ignore the the facts, rights, the law and court cases/precedence and the 14th and civil rights that all come together and establish this stuff in favor of your opinion. LMAO
no thanks

facts win again
Click to expand...

Yeah, you typed a lot, but I see no rights that these laws protect. Good to know you still can't find a human right that gives people rights over other peoples property, labor, service, and association.
 
Ikari said:
With you not buying from businesses that discriminate. You cannot legitimately use government force when the rights of others are not infringed upon. And in the general sense, denial of services doesn't innately infringe upon the rights of others. Yes, I do know there are specific situations in which it can and in those instances we can use government force, but things like a cupcake or something? No, those involve no rights since you do not have right to another's property or labor.

Consumer force, however, may be used. You can't use the government but that doesn't mean you are out of options. Businesses must have profit to survive and you can engage in educated consumerism to influence that. Don't like businesses that discriminate? Don't buy from them. Boycott and protest if you want. But this presumption of ownership over other people's property and labor is unreasonable.
Click to expand...

I am comfortable with infringing on your supposed right to deny service to blacks, the Irish, Jews, or gays for simply being those things. When your business holds out to the public, it gets additional regulation and oversight. No amount of religious belief makes your restaurant exempt from food safety laws. Because failure to comply can cause someone else harm.

Well, discriminating against a whole population based on a characteristic they can't control causes them harm. And it causes harm to society. "No coloreds allowed" is a mindset that we need to get past. You are free to discriminate against individuals for doing individual things. But if you want society to respect your rights as an individual, it's only fair for you to treat others as individuals also.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
Well, discriminating against a whole population based on a characteristic they can't control causes them harm. And it causes harm to society. "No coloreds allowed" is a mindset that we need to get past. You are free to discriminate against individuals for doing individual things. But if you want society to respect your rights as an individual, it's only fair for you to treat others as individuals also.
Click to expand...

If I fail to serve someone what harm am I inflicting on those I refuse to serve? As for your argument that it harms society, it should be noted, as I noted earlier, that society is just a collection of individuals with their own individual human rights, and does not have its own rights onto itself that must be considered when dealing any topic.
 
Henrin said:
If I fail to serve someone what harm am I inflicting on those I refuse to serve? As for your argument that it harms society, it should be noted, as I noted earlier, that society is just a collection of individuals with their own individual human rights, and does not have its own rights onto itself that must be considered when dealing any topic.
Click to expand...

great post, unfortunately also a great waste of breath. They made up their minds. Celebrate homosexuality OR ELSE. funny world we live in, huh?

What if the Westboro baptists went into a bakery owned by a gay gentlemen and wanted a cake that said "God HATES Fags" on it? Would all of the people on here so, so upset over this law be in here SUPPORTING the westboro church and DEMANDING that the gay gentlemen bake them the cake? OF COURSE NOT! but since it wrecks their entire line of thinking they will simply ignore(or dance around) the GAPING HOLE in their argument. so cute, yet so sad.
 
Soupnazi630 said:
The 14th amendment does not supprot your argument and groups are meaningless once again the facts prove you wrong uninformed

I stated facts you give nebulous opinion
Click to expand...

so you are trying to argue one point and ignore the rest?
LMAO
sorry your post failed and got destroyed pages ago

its already been proven that its just you OPINION and that fact will never change
keep trying though its hilarious

facts win again
 
Henrin said:
1.)Yeah, you typed a lot
2.) but I see no rights that these laws protect.
3.) Good to know you still can't find a human right that gives people rights over other peoples property, labor, service, and association.
Click to expand...

1.)nope i ddint type a lot lol, wrong number 1
2.) you seeing them doesnt change the fact that they are there, wrong number 2. t
hey exist in law, in rights, in facts and court cases all proving you wrong and continuing my entertainment of your posts failing as they always do lol
3.) good to know nobody EVER claimed this, why do you post lies and make so much up. QOute me saying that there are rights that give me the power over your property, labor, service, and association. Ill wait

you will fail because you made it up its the same failed straw man that gets laughed at, proven wrong and that you can never support every time you make it up

i'll be waiting for that quote :)

Facts win again





dont forget that qoute please, or it will just prove you posted a lie thanks
 
AGENT J said:
geeeez i thought yout at least try, yes i refered to LAWS and rights heres actually what i said


and then i asked you to present ONE fact that disprove all that, ONE and you came back with a post that amounts to "nu-huh" and ZERO facts that go against what was already stated . . . thats hilarious!

let me know when you can do this ill check back lol

facts win again
Click to expand...

it is you who make the point that rights are being violated, ...yet you cannot provide 1 single right.

yet you mask your defense, in a haze of humor, fog, claiming facts, and repeated refusal to name a right, per the Constitution.

your attempts at these deflections, does not prove your case.
 
It would be a lot easier to simply veto the religion out of our society. We would be vastly better off without it. Religion supported slavery, supported the suppression of female rights and now supports the suppression of gay rights. It only evolves to accept society after it is protested against. If you get your morals form religion, you need to re-evaluate your beliefs. Religion has proven time and time again over the ages to be behind humanity in morality.
 
AGENT J said:
so you are trying to argue one point and ignore the rest?
LMAO
sorry your post failed and got destroyed pages ago

its already been proven that its just you OPINION and that fact will never change
keep trying though its hilarious

facts win again
Click to expand...

Your projecting it is yours which was destroyed by facts
 
JoeTrumps said:
great post, unfortunately also a great waste of breath. They made up their minds. Celebrate homosexuality OR ELSE. funny world we live in, huh?

What if the Westboro baptists went into a bakery owned by a gay gentlemen and wanted a cake that said "God HATES Fags" on it? Would all of the people on here so, so upset over this law be in here SUPPORTING the westboro church and DEMANDING that the gay gentlemen bake them the cake? OF COURSE NOT! but since it wrecks their entire line of thinking they will simply ignore(or dance around) the GAPING HOLE in their argument. so cute, yet so sad.
Click to expand...

that is a very interesting situation, ...and i am sure you are correct.
 
Henrin said:
If I fail to serve someone what harm am I inflicting on those I refuse to serve? As for your argument that it harms society, it should be noted, as I noted earlier, that society is just a collection of individuals with their own individual human rights, and does not have its own rights onto itself that must be considered when dealing any topic.
Click to expand...

You probably don't see it because you're straight and white.

JoeTrumps said:
great post, unfortunately also a great waste of breath. They made up their minds. Celebrate homosexuality OR ELSE. funny world we live in, huh?

What if the Westboro baptists went into a bakery owned by a gay gentlemen and wanted a cake that said "God HATES Fags" on it? Would all of the people on here so, so upset over this law be in here SUPPORTING the westboro church and DEMANDING that the gay gentlemen bake them the cake? OF COURSE NOT! but since it wrecks their entire line of thinking they will simply ignore(or dance around) the GAPING HOLE in their argument. so cute, yet so sad.
Click to expand...

I'm "celebrating" the behavior of every single person I do business with? That's a laugh.
 
JoeTrumps said:
What if the Westboro baptists went into a bakery owned by a gay gentlemen and wanted a cake that said "God HATES Fags" on it? Would all of the people on here so, so upset over this law be in here SUPPORTING the westboro church and DEMANDING that the gay gentlemen bake them the cake? OF COURSE NOT! but since it wrecks their entire line of thinking they will simply ignore(or dance around) the GAPING HOLE in their argument. so cute, yet so sad.
Click to expand...

And to follow the lines of your example...If a customer came into a bakery and wanted a "Jesus is a ***" cake, is there an expectation of freedom of speech in that? To deny a customer for the content of the cake's decoration is different than denying the customer for who they are.

If in fact the Westboro Church wanted a plain cake for their Church social lunch...and were denied service for who they are...Isn't that a closer analogy to the SS couple?

In the case of the SS couple, it was not that the cake's content that was offensive to the shop owner, it was the symbol of the cake. SSM.
 
Last edited:
JoeTrumps said:
great post, unfortunately also a great waste of breath. They made up their minds. Celebrate homosexuality OR ELSE. funny world we live in, huh?

What if the Westboro baptists went into a bakery owned by a gay gentlemen and wanted a cake that said "God HATES Fags" on it? Would all of the people on here so, so upset over this law be in here SUPPORTING the westboro church and DEMANDING that the gay gentlemen bake them the cake? OF COURSE NOT! but since it wrecks their entire line of thinking they will simply ignore(or dance around) the GAPING HOLE in their argument. so cute, yet so sad.
Click to expand...
Nice try to conflate two entirely different issues, but still a fail.
 
Henrin said:
What did the term regulate mean in 1787. Why is it that business is not listed in the commerce clause? Don't you think that is kind of odd? I mean why did they list commerce between all these entities and just leave off business? Interesting, isn't it? Then again, what did the word regulate mean? Hmm..
Click to expand...

Old English bisignis (see busy, -ness). The sense in Old English was ‘anxiety’; the sense ‘the state of being busy’ was used from Middle English down to the 18th cent., but is now differentiated as busyness . The sense ‘an appointed task’ dates from late Middle English, and from it all the other current senses have developed.
Click to expand...

So at the time the constitution was being written, 18th century - "business" was used to anxious and to a wider extent "being busy". It wasn't used to define commercial enterprises. The word "commerce" on the other hand:

Online Etymology Dictionary

commerce (n.) Look up commerce at Dictionary.com
1530s, from Middle French commerce (14c.), from Latin commercium "trade, trafficking," from com- "together" (see com-) + merx (genitive mercis) "merchandise" (see market (n.)).
Click to expand...

Defined what we today know was business. Your attempt to play knowledgeable at this is failing fast. Commerce was used in the way we today use "business".

busi·ness
ˈbiznis/
noun
noun: business

2.
the practice of making one's living by engaging in commerce.
Click to expand...

Hardly matters though. If they aren't in violation of anyones rights, and they aren't, than the state has no justification to act.

If you don't understand the intent of that question yet, you never will. I have explained that question many times over and if you ever feel like it you can click on the quote of that question in Sanghas(however you spell it) sig and find that at no point did I endorse or condone anything nor did I offer my opinion on the matter. It was a question, that's it. Drop it.
Click to expand...

Sorry, considering you don't understand the basic concepts of rights beyond ideological masturbating to romanticized versions of what they mean, I can't drop it. :shrug:
 
Thom Paine said:
is it fitting and proper to force the caterer and staff to be subjected to something so repugnant to them?
Click to expand...
Fitting no but then again o one says that freedom is free. There is always a price to be paid. The difference is that in this case public safety is no compromised.
 
There is no religious text in the world which states "Thou shalt not serve pancakes to gay people". Thus, this load of bull**** that refusing to serve LGBT people is a religious freedom issue is, simply put, mind-numbingly retarded.

These assholes who claim that their religion calls for them to discriminate against homosexuals should be ashamed of themselves for giving their alleged religions a bad name. If they don't have the balls to admit that they are simply bigots instead of trying to hide behind a fake religion they are making up as they go along, then they are worthless pieces of ****. That being said, even though I think that these human equivalents of pig feces are detrimental to a healthy and intelligent society, they shouldn't be discriminated against for being worthless drains on society.
 
JoeTrumps said:
great post, unfortunately also a great waste of breath. They made up their minds. Celebrate homosexuality OR ELSE. funny world we live in, huh?
Click to expand...
Yes, and 50 years ago, people like you were saying the same thing about the Civil Rights Act! No one says you have to "celebrate" homosexuality; you just have to tolerate homosexuals....just as 50 years ago, you had to take down your "whites only" signs and tolerate blacks sitting at your lunch counter and black kids being allowed to go to the same schools as whites!
What if the Westboro baptists went into a bakery owned by a gay gentlemen and wanted a cake that said "God HATES Fags" on it?
Click to expand...
It's been a while since I read the original story about the cake maker who claimed it was against his christian faith to do business with homosexuals, but I don't recall there being any issue about what they wanted on the cake itself. Did they want a cake shaped like a giant dick, or have Gay Pride written in rainbow colors on it? From my recollection, his objections were all about having homosexuals in his store, and doing business with them. And as has been noted many times already, if religion is trotted out as the excuse for discrimination against homosexuals, what's to stop someone claiming religious dogma for discrimination based on race, ethnicity, other religions etc.?
 
Commie said:
Yes, and 50 years ago, people like you were saying the same thing about the Civil Rights Act! No one says you have to "celebrate" homosexuality; you just have to tolerate homosexuals....just as 50 years ago, you had to take down your "whites only" signs and tolerate blacks sitting at your lunch counter and black kids being allowed to go to the same schools as whites!

It's been a while since I read the original story about the cake maker who claimed it was against his christian faith to do business with homosexuals, but I don't recall there being any issue about what they wanted on the cake itself. Did they want a cake shaped like a giant dick, or have Gay Pride written in rainbow colors on it? From my recollection, his objections were all about having homosexuals in his store, and doing business with them. And as has been noted many times already, if religion is trotted out as the excuse for discrimination against homosexuals, what's to stop someone claiming religious dogma for discrimination based on race, ethnicity, other religions etc.?
Click to expand...

So you are okay with Nazi's insisting that a Jewish photographer take the official photos of their day-long celebration of Hitler's birthday? Or a black caterer being required to provide the buffet for a Klan meeting? Or a Muslim being required to photograph a bikini contest? Somehow I doubt it. Liberals only call it bigotry when it involves Christian values.
 
JoeTrumps said:
So you are okay with Nazi's insisting that a Jewish photographer take the official photos of their day-long celebration of Hitler's birthday? Or a black caterer being required to provide the buffet for a Klan meeting? Or a Muslim being required to photograph a bikini contest? Somehow I doubt it. Liberals only call it bigotry when it involves Christian values.
Click to expand...

It's all bigotry. Some bigotry is acceptable, though, in an intelligent society. Idiots who pretend that bigotry/discrimination against gay people is a Christian value rather than their own ****ing issues being blamed on Christianity, for example, are worthy of bigotry against them because they are ignorant ****ing morons.
 
ernst barkmann said:
it is you who make the point that rights are being violated, ...yet you cannot provide 1 single right.

yet you mask your defense, in a haze of humor, fog, claiming facts, and repeated refusal to name a right, per the Constitution.

your attempts at these deflections, does not prove your case.
Click to expand...

translation: you still got nothing but desperate deflections and lies, thanks this was already established let us know when that changes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom