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

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

AGENT J said:

1.) if you are talking about denying service strictly based on race, facts, laws, rights, and court cases all prove you wrong :shrug: this is currently a fact that can not be proven wrong.

Click to expand...

What a jumbled mess of a statement that is. Facts don't prove him wrong. Facts by themselves are used in support of arguments. You need an argument and you didn't present one.

Laws. It's odd, don't you think, that before Lawrence vs. Texas made sodomy legal in the US, people like you weren't berating homosexuals for breaking the law by engaging in sodomy. Somehow you managed to understand that the existence of a law doesn't imply that the law is constitutional, ethical, in accord with human rights, and that it simply implies that the government is going to enforce the meaning of the law. You pointing to freedom-gutting, human rights destroying, anti-discrimination laws doesn't tell us anything other than government will continue to wage its war on human rights.

Rights. This is bizarro-world stuff. Forcing associations onto people who don't want those associations in order to spare the feelings of the rejected person is an inversion of human rights. It privileges feelings over actual human rights. It conjures up the cockamamie notion that "not being rejected" is a human right that we're all entitled to. It erases away the violation of human rights which occurs from forced association.

Court Cases. Need I go through all of the court cases which have been reversed. Dred Scott v. Sandford was a court case to. How did that work out?

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Top Cat said:

Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill - CNN.com

Gotta love the backass republicans who voted for this.

Why anyone would live there is beyond me.

Click to expand...

Backass (your word) my foot. Something needs to be done to protect the religious freedoms of others because there seems to be many that are more than willing to crap all over them. Hats off to Arizona. There are other states considering the same. No doubt these laws will be challenged as soon as the left can lawyer up and do a little judge shopping to find the right judge to overturn it not on Constitutional principles but some emotional gobbledygook argument. There has already been a bill with huge support proposed in the House to pass a law much like Arizona's that will protect religious freedoms and make it more difficult for activist judges to find some backdoor that would allow them to violate them.

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Henrin said:

Rights are not born from force being imposed by the government on individual parties for the benefit of others. Something you will never understand. That does however describe exactly the mindset of a tyrant.

Click to expand...

can you post where i said they were?
oh thats right you cant because its another failed strawman you made up and that fails lol
facts win again

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

vesper said:

Backass (your word) my foot. Something needs to be done to protect the religious freedoms of others because there seems to be many that are more than willing to crap all over them. Hats off to Arizona. There are other states considering the same. No doubt these laws will be challenged as soon as the left can lawyer up and do a little judge shopping to find the right judge to overturn it not on Constitutional principles but some emotional gobbledygook argument. There has already been a bill with huge support proposed in the House to pass a law much like Arizona's that will protect religious freedoms and make it more difficult for activist judges to find some backdoor that would allow them to violate them.

Click to expand...

if one person's religious freedom violate the rights of other people, is the system just?

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

AGENT J said:

1.) if you are talking about denying service strictly based on race, facts, laws, rights, and court cases all prove you wrong :shrug: this is currently a fact that can not be proven wrong
2.) this has nothing to do with what being discussed its a failed strawman and your opinion and nothing more

Click to expand...

The courts flip flop aroumd on decisions all the time. The courts once ruled that black people were property. Bringing up the courts discredits your point.

Forcing someone to serve you is slavery.

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

AGENT J said:

can you post where i said they were?
oh thats right you cant because its another failed strawman you made up and that fails lol
facts win again

Click to expand...

Are you saying you still don't understand this topic even after posting about in at least ten threads? Dude, do something about the pace in which you learn things.

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Henrin said:

1.)I'm been asking for you to defend the court for how many threads on this subject and how many times have you done so?
2.)TEN? NONE
3.)You're entirely and utterly useless Agent.

Click to expand...

1.) yes you have asked me to give my opinion on facts, im not interested in giving my opinion on facts because just like yours its meaningless
its funny though that facts make such anger come out in your posts though

2.) do it 100 more times it just a desperate deflection by you because facts destroy your posts as usual

3.) right on time, when you cant use any facts of your own or you have no intellectual, honest, accurate or logical path to take to defend your failed opinions resort to personal attacks. lol

again i have facts, rights, laws and court precedents on my side, when you are ready tell me whats on your sides besides OPINION. ive been waiting for YEARS and asked you 100s of times. You can never do it.
But ill be here when you are ready.

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

clownboy said:

But we aren't, so your poutrage is directed at a strawman.

Click to expand...

Whether you're telling someone they can't enter your store because of the would-be customer's race, gender, sexuality, all one and the same heinousness. You could even easily find justification for all the above somewhere within that book of fables. The *only* reason they're targeting gays and not women or blacks in this instance is because the former are seen as more vulnerable at this time and place. That's it! This hypocrisy is so glaring i can see what's going on 1000 miles away. These neanderthals would be the driving force behind "white only" restaurants and you would be defending them just the same. Instead they're taking one of the few avenues of unprovoked hate left to them.

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

RiverDad said:

What a jumbled mess of a statement that is. Facts don't prove him wrong. Facts by themselves are used in support of arguments. You need an argument and you didn't present one.

Laws. It's odd, don't you think, that before Lawrence vs. Texas made sodomy legal in the US, people like you weren't berating homosexuals for breaking the law by engaging in sodomy. Somehow you managed to understand that the existence of a law doesn't imply that the law is constitutional, ethical, in accord with human rights, and that it simply implies that the government is going to enforce the meaning of the law. You pointing to freedom-gutting, human rights destroying, anti-discrimination laws doesn't tell us anything other than government will continue to wage its war on human rights.

Rights. This is bizarro-world stuff. Forcing associations onto people who don't want those associations in order to spare the feelings of the rejected person is an inversion of human rights. It privileges feelings over actual human rights. It conjures up the cockamamie notion that "not being rejected" is a human right that we're all entitled to. It erases away the violation of human rights which occurs from forced association.

Court Cases. Need I go through all of the court cases which have been reversed. Dred Scott v. Sandford was a court case to. How did that work out?

Click to expand...

oh the irony talj about a jumbled mess

ill stick with facts, rights, laws and court cases that prove otherwise :shrug:

if you disagree with them that is fine but that doesnt change anythign

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

chromium said:

Whether you're telling someone they can't enter your store because of the would-be customer's race, gender, sexuality, all one and the same heinousness. You could even easily find justification for all the above somewhere within that book of fables. The *only* reason they're targeting gays and not women or blacks in this instance is because the former are seen as more vulnerable at this time and place. That's it! This hypocrisy is so glaring i can see what's going on 1000 miles away. These neanderthals would be the driving force behind "white only" restaurants and you would be defending them just the same. Instead they're taking one of the few avenues of unprovoked hate left to them.

Click to expand...

Once again, a highly inaccurate and misplaced rant regarding a strawman. We get it, you think all religions are fairy tales. Take it to the religion forums.

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Phil_Osophy said:

1.)The courts flip flop aroumd on decisions all the time.
2.)The courts once ruled that black people were property.
3.)Bringing up the courts discredits your point.
4.)Forcing someone to serve you is slavery.

Click to expand...

1.) not usually flip flop they rule more fair with time typically.
2.) correct they did and then they righted that wrong just like they are doing with equal rights for gays and any state laws like this crap will be rights also eventually
3.) actually it strengthens it because it points to exactly what im talking about and solidifies the topic
4.) good thing thats not the topic

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Henrin said:

Are you saying you still don't understand this topic even after posting about in at least ten threads? Dude, do something about the pace in which you learn things.

Click to expand...

another failed personal insult and ZERO facts to support you failed claims.
Let me know when this changes please lol

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

AGENT J said:

1.) not usually flip flop they rule more fair with time typically.
2.) correct they did and then they righted that wrong just like they are doing with equal rights for gays and any state laws like this crap will be rights also eventually
3.) actually it strengthens it because it points to exactly what im talking about and solidifies the topic
4.) good thing thats not the topic

Click to expand...

You dont have a right to someones property.

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

AGENT J said:

1.) yes you have asked me to give my opinion on facts, im not interested in giving my opinion on facts because just like yours its meaningless
its funny though that facts make such anger come out in your posts though

Click to expand...

Asking you to support the opinion of nine people with facts is not asking for your opinion. We have went over this in other threads and it would appear you still don't understand it. Sad.

2.) do it 100 more times it just a desperate deflection by you because facts destroy your posts as usual

Click to expand...

What deflection? You don't understand rights and you won't defend the court rulings. I have tried to explain to you rights countless times, and I can't do anything on the later until you actually defend the opinion of nine people you're leaning on for your argument.

3.) right on time, when you cant use any facts of your own or you have no intellectual, honest, accurate or logical path to take to defend your failed opinions resort to personal attacks. lol

Click to expand...

You are useless Agent. You do this annoying **** where you split my posts into numbers and then refuse to support your arguments.

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Phil_Osophy said:

You dont have a right to someones property.

Click to expand...

Weird can you quote me saying i did?
no you cant, its just another failed strawman

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

AGENT J said:

Weird can you quote me saying i did?
no you cant, its just another failed strawman

Click to expand...

It's weird how you still don't understand the topic well enough to understand that is exactly what your argument means.

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

chromium said:

The *only* reason they're targeting gays and not women or blacks in this instance is because the former are seen as more vulnerable at this time and place. That's it!

Click to expand...

The fight for freedom has to start somewhere. We Pro-Choice advocates have a long battle ahead of us for you totalitarians have been quite successful in your war against human rights and your spread of oppression needs to be rolled back.

These neanderthals would be the driving force behind "white only" restaurants and you would be defending them just the same.

Click to expand...

Do you agree with people who burn the US Flag? Do you agree that the US Flag should be burned? Or do you agree that people should have the right to burn the Flag as part of their right to free speech even though you disagree with that speech and that action?

I don't believe that anyone in this thread has asked you to patronize a restaurant which only wishes to associate with white people, but any person who defends human rights has to recognize that such a restaurant must have the freedom to exercise the right to free association, just like we recognize that we don't have to agree with the burning of the Flag in order to defend the right of people to make such statements.

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

AGENT J said:

Weird can you quote me saying i did?
no you cant, its just another failed strawman

Click to expand...

You said this was about equal rights for gays didnt you in some form or another?

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Gipper said:

Not even close. If I was a business owner I wouldn't discriminate.

I'm just not liberal enough to have the arrogance that demands everyone be exactly like me. The funny thing is that you guys claim to be the tolerant ones.

Click to expand...

Yeah, you're not liberal enough to believe that people should be treated the same, regardless of whether or not they are right wing racists. I get it.

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Wiggen said:

Yeah, you're not liberal enough to believe that people should be treated the same, regardless of whether or not they are right wing racists. I get it.

Click to expand...

Nobody is arguing that. The argument is that people should have a right to decide what they do with their own property.

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Phil_Osophy said:

You said this was about equal rights for gays didnt you in some form or another?

Click to expand...

I mess with Agent because I'm bored, but if you are trying to get him to understand basic logic you might as well be trying to teach a trick to a dead dog.

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Lutherf said:

I'm just blown away by some of the arguments made in this thread.

If I'm a vegetarian restaurant should I be required to provide meat products?
If I'm a Jewish deli should I be required to serve ham and cheese sandwiches?
If I'm a christian book store should I be required to sell the Koran?
If I'm a cigar store should I be required to provide a non-smoking section?
If I'm Abercrombie and Fitch should I be required to have a big and tall section?

At some point your desire for my services just might conflict with my religious beliefs and to use the law to compel me to provide those services is a direct violation of the 1st amendment. I'm sick and freaking tired of people trying to use the coercive force of government to chip away at my rights.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, and as a Repubican and someone that opposes Public Accommodation laws - the above rhetoric has always been one of the stupidist things (and I've seen it before) that people that are attempting to have an intelligent conversation about law have to endure. Current Arizona Public Accommodation laws require businesses not to discriminate based on Race, Color, National Origin/Ancestry, Sex, Religion/Creed or Physical/Mental disability.

If I'm a vegetarian restaurant should I be required to provide meat products?


If I'm a Jewish deli should I be required to serve ham and cheese sandwiches?


If I'm a christian book store should I be required to sell the Koran?


If I'm a cigar store should I be required to provide a non-smoking section?


If I'm Abercrombie and Fitch should I be required to have a big and tall section?



********************************


I truly hope this helps you understand how Public Accommodation laws function. They in no way require businesses to provide ADDITIONAL goods or services merely at the request of a customer. What they do do is limit the business from discriminatory practices for goods and services they ALREADY offer.

Whether those laws should, or should not exist, is a different discussion. One that should occur based on how they actually function - not just meaningless (and incorrect) fear mongering.



>>>>

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Wiggen said:

Yeah, you're not liberal enough to believe that people should be treated the same, regardless of whether or not they are right wing racists. I get it.

Click to expand...

Government has to treat all citizens the same, individuals are not required to treat everyone the same.

Your spouse might make you dinner everyone night but your spouse is not under any obligation to treat me the same, to make me dinner every night.

You're working under a ludicrous formulation of equality here.

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Phil_Osophy said:

Nobody is arguing that. The argument is that people should have a right to decide what they do with their own property.

Click to expand...

No, they shouldn't - if it means discrimination against a class of people just because of who they are.

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Henrin said:

1.)Asking you to support the opinion of nine people with facts is not asking for your opinion.
2.)We have went over this in other threads and it would appear you still don't understand it. Sad.
3.)What deflection?
4.)You don't understand rights
5.)you won't defend the court rulings.
6.) I have tried to explain to you rights countless times
7.) and I can't do anything on the later until you actually defend the opinion of nine people you're leaning on for your argument.
8.)You are useless Agent.
9.) You do this annoying **** where you split my posts into numbers
10.) and then refuse to support your arguments.

Click to expand...

1.) yes it is because my support doesnt matter
2.) yes you have tried to post this lie before with the same result, go over it 100 more times your post will be wrong each time lol
3.) the factual deflection that you have nothing to support you besides opinion
4.) facts prove you wrong
5.) no because our opinions are meaningless and im not interested in discussion them
6.) yes you have tried to sell me on your OPINIONS and PHILOSOPHIES of how you FEEL and what YOU THINK. Its meaningless to me when dealing with facts. The philosophy forum is lower you may have better luck there.
7.) and this is where your posts always fail, you cant do anything because theres no facts to support you and there never have been, also i havent presented any :argument" another mistake you always make. Im simply posting facts. :shrug: saying 2+2 = 4 is not an argument lol its a fact. THen you coming along and saying i think 2+2=5 is meaningless. then Asking me to defend 2+2=4 after it has been proven is also meaningless when your rebuttal will be opinion that 2+2=5 lol
8.) another failed personal insult because you cant post anything else, let me know when you can remain civil and do so. All i need is one fact that supports you.
9.) I number posts out of courtesy and and to avoid confusion. I do it so i don't miss anything that needs replied to and you know exactly what im replying to. It helps any misunderstanding and confusion there may be by making it very clear. SOrry this courtesy bothers you but you could simply not reply :shrug:
10.) support has been posted numerous times you just simply ignore it but you are free to do so.

let me know when you have something please, ill be here, thanks