• 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 lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451:959]

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Mach said:
No one is forcing them to run a business, so it's not strictly a matter of forcing commerce on another person.
Click to expand...

i did not say that....i have a right to commerce.......meaning buying OR selling, no person/government has a right to use force on another citizen, to force them to sell to them or buy from them.

Mach said:
This is too lightweight IMO. A crime is a legal term and nearly anything under the sun can (and maybe has) been labeled a crime at one time/place or another. No, being a crime doesn't legitimate or delegitimize a particular government action. As you know well, it's something outside of government and law that is the primary driver for what is right,and what is not. And discrimination is not OK in that context.
Click to expand...

the constitution states that a government cannot force a citizen to serve another citizen [13th], unless a crime has been committed........when a citizen infringes on another citizens rights.......thats a crime, not a constitutional violation.

if a citizens commits no crime, or does nothing which could cause a rights infringement, ....IE. health and safety of the people.......then government has no authority to act.........because the "people" are not endangered in any way.

Mach said:
You can run a discriminatory club or organization, or private "group", etc. But a general business that serves the public, no, discrimination is not OK.
Click to expand...

you statement is based on emotional content, and not the rights of the people.

government is not here to protect your .......feelings
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Wiggen said:
Apparently you haven't read the 1965 Civil Rights Act. Wait until your loon Rand Paul gets elected and repeals the law before you make silly statements like that.
Click to expand...

I read the 1964 civil rights act. What of it?
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Henrin said:
1.)You already know the grounds of the lawsuit.
2.)We both know that people can sue if they are denied service
3.) and because of this threat who will provide service against their will?
4.) Think.

To suggest the government has no rule in this or that somehow the government was given a new power that didn't involve force is idiotic.
Click to expand...

1.) no i dont, youll have to explain it, there is no grounds for denying service, if there is please tell me what it is
2.) they can try but they will fail unless you know some law i dont
3.) what threat you havent listed one or even shown who will be forced to provide service against thier will lol
4.) i did and everything you just said is factually wrong until you can tell me what grounds a person can sue for for simply not being served, ive never heard of something so retarded and nonsensical, whats it called?
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

AGENT J said:
1.) no i dont, youll have to explain it, there is no grounds for denying service, if there is please tell me what it is
2.) they can try but they will fail unless you know some law i dont
3.) what threat you havent listed one or even shown who will be forced to provide service against thier will lol
4.) i did and everything you just said is factually wrong until you can tell me what grounds a person can sue for for simply not being served, ive never heard of something so retarded and nonsensical, whats it called?
Click to expand...

For being DENIED service. What is the protect classes? ****, I thought I could provide you an overview without going into every last detail.

So again, when people are DENIED service can they sue? The answer is yes. The threat of a lawsuit and the act of a lawsuit acts as government FORCE. Is there some sort of reason people can't grasp this?
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Henrin said:
1.)For being DENIED service.
2.) What is the protect classes? ****
3.) I thought I could provide you an overview without going into every last detail.
Click to expand...

1.) theres no law against being denied service, you an keep repeating it all you want but you're gonna have to tell us what you are talking about
2.) protected classes? you, me we are all protected that has nothing to do with being denied service
3.) well you thought wrong, you'll have to educate us on how one possible sues for being denied service, i've never heard of anything so inane, so what will the person be suing for, what law will be broken? right to service?
 
Last edited:
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Henrin said:
Dude, I haven't watched football since I was ten. I really couldn't give a damn about the Super Bowl.
Click to expand...

I didn't know you were an Arizona state legislator or are you the Governor? My apologies. I fully understand that some people are so consumed by hatred that nothing changes their minds. I suspect the might $ may have some influence on state government in Arizona, however. After all, the NFL and the Super Bowl is the reason they celebrate Martin Luther King day in that blighted state.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

ernst barkmann said:
you statement is based on emotional content (denial of service should be illegal*), and not the rights of the people.

government is not here to protect your .......feelings
Click to expand...
Phil_Osophy said:
Do you seriously believe he should be entitled to that mans property and services? That mans labor and business? What place does he have to force that man to allow him on the property and do business with him?
If you just happen to run a business, that means you become everyone's slave? I don't think so. Just because you happen to be in business, that doesn't mean everyone else is entitled to your business.
Click to expand...

* italics added for clarity

Another illustration of why libertarian ideaology has never worked in real world. At the end of the day, we dont live on islands and we do have a social contract with each other. Of course, that contract can be pretty limited (in example, allowing the denial of contracts, but not services). A social contract, however, in contrast to libertarianism denial of it, does exist.
 
Last edited:
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Henrin said:
I read the 1964 civil rights act. What of it?
Click to expand...

Well, if you read it then your question is dumb. You don't get to discriminate just because you own a business. Didn't you read that part? What is with you Libertarians? Has Ayn Rand so corrupted your minds that you are unable to understand the law of the land?
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

AGENT J said:
1.) theres no law against being denied service, you an keep repeating it all you want but you're gonna have to tell us what you are talking about
2.) protected classes? you, me we are all protected that has nothing to do with being denied service
3.) well you thought wrong, you'll have to educate us on how one possible sures for being denied service, i've never heard of anything so inane, so what will the person be suing for, what law will be broken? right to service?
Click to expand...

Judge Orders Colorado Bakery to Cater for Same-Sex Weddings - ABC News

Sorry, reality proves you wrong.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Wiggen said:
Well, if you read it then your question is dumb. You don't get to discriminate just because you own a business. Didn't you read that part? What is with you Libertarians? Has Ayn Rand so corrupted your minds that you are unable to understand the law of the land?
Click to expand...

It's funny how I told everyone who my influences were earlier in the thread and I still get told I was influenced by Ayn Rand.

Yes, I read the law, and realize what it says. Your point is what?
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Cryptic said:
Another illustration of why libertarian ideaology has never worked in real world. At the end of the day, we dont live on islands and we do have a social contract with each other. Of course, that contract can be pretty limited, but in contrast to libertarianism, it does exist.
Click to expand...


so your saying....."because i don't LIKE [EMOTION BASED]how a citizen exercises his rights, ...i want the government to use its power of force on people AND MAKE THEM DO WHAT I THINK is the right thing to do, .......and i don't care if it violates their rights.

so your feelings, are above the rights of other people?
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Wiggen said:
I didn't know you were an Arizona state legislator or are you the Governor? My apologies. I fully understand that some people are so consumed by hatred that nothing changes their minds. I suspect the might $ may have some influence on state government in Arizona, however. After all, the NFL and the Super Bowl is the reason they celebrate Martin Luther King day in that blighted state.
Click to expand...

Who the **** cares about Martin Luther King day? If black people want to look up to the guy they are more than welcome to, but frankly, he was a socialist that empowered the state and I have no interest in him.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Cryptic said:
At the end of the day, we dont live on islands and we do have a social contract with each other. Of course, that contract can be pretty limited, but in contrast to libertarianism, it does exist.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see a copy of that contract. Can you produce one?
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Cryptic said:
* italics added for clarity

Another illustration of why libertarian ideaology has never worked in real world. At the end of the day, we dont live on islands and we do have a social contract with each other. Of course, that contract can be pretty limited (in example, allowing the denial of contracts, but not services). A social contract, however, in contrast to libertarianism denial of it, does exist.
Click to expand...

You're arguing a strawman. No one believes they live on an island.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

tech30528 said:
I'd like to see a copy of that contract. Can you produce one?
Click to expand...

Also, if he can produce evidence that any one of us signed it that would be great.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

AGENT J said:
1.) theres no law against being denied service, you an keep repeating it all you want but you're gonna have to tell us what you are talking about
2.) protected classes? you, me we are all protected that has nothing to do with being denied service
3.) well you thought wrong, you'll have to educate us on how one possible sures for being denied service, i've never heard of anything so inane, so what will the person be suing for, what law will be broken? right to service?
Click to expand...

Sues, not sures, whatever the hell that is. People can sue a business if they are denied service.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Cryptic said:
we do have a social contract with each other. Of course, that contract can be pretty limited (in example, allowing the denial of contracts, but not services). A social contract, however, in contrast to libertarianism denial of it, does exist.
Click to expand...

wrong, their is no social contract.

we have constitutions, which are written for .............governments only.

constitutions are limiting documents, and place no limits on the people at all.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Henrin said:
Sues, not sures, whatever the hell that is. People can sue a business if they are denied service.
Click to expand...

they can try but they will fail unless they have a reason to sue and denying service is NOT a reason to sue


so i ask you AGAIN, what is these reason you claim exists to sue over simply denying service? Seems you are maknignatuff up again.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

AGENT J said:
they can try but they will fail unless they have a reason to sue and denying service is NOT a reason to sue

so i ask you AGAIN, what is these reason you claim exists to sue over simply denying service? Seems you are maknignatuff up again.
Click to expand...

I already provided you the reasons. Why is it that you can never admit you're wrong?
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

ernst barkmann said:
as i had stated this was an administrative law case, not a criminal one.
Click to expand...

Distinction without a difference here. The ruling came as a result of a lawsuit filed against the bakery. A lawsuit that Agent J seems to think isn't possible.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

AGENT J said:
actually you just proved me 100% right LMAO

point out the part where the issue was just denying service

hint: you will fail

I cant wait for this back pedal and explantion
Click to expand...

Lol, how could a gay couple sue for being denied service? What entity handles lawsuits? Who passed a law that made it so people could sue for that reason? Wall meet face.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

clownboy said:
Distinction without a difference here. The ruling came as a result of a lawsuit filed against the bakery. A lawsuit that Agent J seems to think isn't possible.
Click to expand...

i am pointing out......its not a criminal case.

a rights infringement is criminal........therefore, no rights of the person who was denied were violated.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

AGENT J said:
actually you just proved me 100% right LMAO

point out the part where the issue was just denying service

hint: you will fail

I cant wait for this back pedal and explantion
Click to expand...

You're playing semantics rather than admit you got it wring, why am I not surprised?

According to the complaint, Phillips told the couple that the store policy was to deny service to customers who wished to order baked goods for a same-sex wedding, based on his religious beliefs.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom