• 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

RiverDad said:
It can mean many things.

For instance, male gynecologists are getting hammered in the marketplace by having women sexually discriminate against them and choosing female gynecologists instead. No one is forcing women to stop sexually discriminating. Can you imagine the uproar if laws were enforced which stopped women from sexually discriminating in this manner.
Click to expand...

Very little of that is discrimination, it's mostly women not wanting a man messing with their privates.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Soupnazi630 said:
I feel the same way about Colorado where courts have ruled that any business must cater to gays and lesbians even if they do not wish to do so.

This sort of law is a good and necessary reaction to such orwellian court decisions.
Click to expand...


Since you mention Colorado, so you are against the courts ruling in accordance with the law?

Colorado Revised Statutes
24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation

(2) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.

COCODE​


>>>>
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

WorldWatcher said:
Since you mention Colorado, so you are against the courts ruling in accordance with the law?

Colorado Revised Statutes
24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation

(2) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.

COCODE​


>>>>
Click to expand...

Yes when said law is a draconian violation of human rights ( as this one clearly is ) the courts need to overturn it.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Henrin said:
Yes people, property owners have the right to kick you off their property and it's about damn time the government starts protecting that right. Yes people, people have the right to refuse to associate with you and it's about damn time the government starts protecting that right. Yes people, people have the right to their own labor and service and it's about damn time the government starts protecting that right. My problem with this bill is that it treats it as if the property owner has to notify people that they refuse to provide them service, and to be frank, that is a violation of rights.
Click to expand...


This bill doesn't protect a property owners right to kick you off their property. This bill doesn't protect the peoples right to refuse to associate with anyone they want. This bill doesn't protect peoples right to their own labor.

ONLY if you hide behind a religious claim can a business discriminate. If you (royal you, not you as an individual) don't like blacks, you are not exempt. You don't like Mexican's, you are not exempt. You just don't want to serve Jew's, you are not exempt.



Personally I'd like to see Public Accommodation laws repealed as they apply to private businesses, not provide special treatment for people to hide behind religion.


>>>>
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

WCH said:
I would imagine, in the vernacular of expressing one's religious beliefs, they too could be refused service.
Click to expand...

No they couldn't because the same petty uproar wouldn't be made over it.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Lutherf said:
While I'm not opposed to the idea
Click to expand...

I am religiously opposed to right wing whack jobs eating in my establishment.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Soupnazi630 said:
I feel the same way about Colorado where courts have ruled that any business must cater to gays and lesbians even if they do not wish to do so..
Click to expand...

Good for Colorado.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Soupnazi630 said:
Yes when said law is a draconian violation of human rights
Click to expand...


Not allowing a homophobic business to deny food service to a gay person is a human rights violation?

Gotta love the buying of one's own bull**** here.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

eohrnberger said:
All the pro-LGBT cohersion doesn't come with out some backlash, and now you don't like it. Could have left sleeping dogs lie, but no.
Click to expand...

shouldn't let these dogs deny people equal rights at all they don't need to be left alone they need to be muzzled
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

opendebate said:
That makes not sense. Freedom for a chosen few or freedom for everyone?
Click to expand...

Freedom for everyone to run their business as they please.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

so can you deny people service because of there religion now? especially if you say doing so is religiously motivated?

how do you limit letting people discriminate based on their religion to just one thing?
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Top Cat said:
I am religiously opposed to right wing whack jobs eating in my establishment.
Click to expand...

Are you conducting interviews on the way in or something?
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Phil_Osophy said:
Freedom for everyone to run their business as they please.
Click to expand...

more like
the freedom for business owner to suffer the consequences of their bigotry

ultimately no. I don't think business owners should be unregulated. I think they need to be watched and conducted their business in a way that is in keeping with our core principles of equality and freedom. They have every right to voice openly how they feel about serving this customer but I don't think they should be allowed to discriminate.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

opendebate said:
more like
the freedom for business owner to suffer the consequences of their bigotry

ultimately no. I don't think business owners should be unregulated. I think they need to be watched and conducted their business in a way that is in keeping with our core principles of equality and freedom.They have every right to voice openly how they feel about serving this customer but I don't think they should be allowed to discriminate.
Click to expand...

You do realize that if you are enforcing equality and freedom you have to allow them to discriminate, right?
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Henrin said:
You do realize that if you are enforcing equality and freedom you have to allow them to discriminate, right?
Click to expand...

Freedom has to have some realistic limitations and there are many laws on the books already that do so. Those laws generally put limitations on actions to protect people.

Equality is limited in the same way. It does not present the same risks
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

blarg said:
so can you deny people service because of there religion now? especially if you say doing so is religiously motivated?

how do you limit letting people discriminate based on their religion to just one thing?
Click to expand...
i dont care how its motivated. Your property, your business, your call.

opendebate said:
more like
the freedom for business owner to suffer the consequences of their bigotry

ultimately no. I don't think business owners should be unregulated. I think they need to be watched and conducted their business in a way that is in keeping with our core principles of equality and freedom. They have every right to voice openly how they feel about serving this customer but I don't think they should be allowed to discriminate.
Click to expand...
of course not unregulated. Businesses shouldnt be allowed to steal or murder or commit other crimes. But if a business just doesnt want to serve white people, they shouldnt have to.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Phil_Osophy said:
i dont care how its motivated. Your property, your business, your call.

of course not unregulated. Businesses shouldnt be allowed to steal or murder or commit other crimes. But if a business just doesnt want to serve white people, they shouldnt have to.
Click to expand...

We disagree here. I think we have more of an obligation to serve the greater good. I would not endorse that same business owner being denied service if a restaurant was owned by an atheist either.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

opendebate said:
more like
the freedom for business owner to suffer the consequences of their bigotry

ultimately no. I don't think business owners should be unregulated. I think they need to be watched and conducted their business in a way that is in keeping with our core principles of equality and freedom. They have every right to voice openly how they feel about serving this customer but I don't think they should be allowed to discriminate.
Click to expand...

"Keep our core principles"? In other words "agree with us or else!"
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Phil_Osophy said:
i dont care how its motivated. Your property, your business, your call.

of course not unregulated. Businesses shouldnt be allowed to steal or murder or commit other crimes. But if a business just doesnt want to serve white people, they shouldnt have to.
Click to expand...

I don't know if a lot of business in a place decide to discriminate against people in one way that could really **** with peoples lives

on the other hand not letting a business discriminate against its customers doesn't hurt the business

so why should it be an owners call
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

opendebate said:
We disagree here. I think we have more of an obligation to serve the greater good. I would not endorse that same business owner being denied service if a restaurant was owned by an atheist either.
Click to expand...

What gives you the right to decide how he conducts his business? Whu should you have any control over his property?
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Phil_Osophy said:
"Keep our core principles"? In other words "agree with us or else!"
Click to expand...

ya that's what these business owners who want to discriminate against gay people are doing
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

blarg said:
I don't know if a lot of business in a place decide to discriminate against people in one way that could really **** with peoples lives

on the other hand not letting a business discriminate against its customers doesn't hurt the business

so why should it be an owners call
Click to expand...

How can a business **** with your life by not serving you?
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Phil_Osophy said:
"Keep our core principles"? In other words "agree with us or else!"
Click to expand...

What best serves the larger community? Tolerance or intolerance? People can maintain the freedom to say and think what they want but a business is not a person and it shouldn't be allowed to function in a way that is destructive to the community it is a part of.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

opendebate said:
What best serves the larger community? Tolerance or intolerance? People can maintain the freedom to say and think what they want but a business is not a person and it shouldn't be allowed to function in a way that is destructive to the community it is a part of.
Click to expand...

Explain how refusing to serve someone is destructive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom