• 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[W:451]

lets just predict the future now

this bill will be vetoed, if it does happen to gain traction anywhere it will be temporary and even if passed it will eventually be removed when pushed to the higher courts

its panic and fear from some bigots and or people who support discrimination nothing more

So should hate speech be banned?
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

Let me get this straight .. you dont have a right to someone elses private business, yet refusing to do private business with someone somehow violates their rights? Which rights?

The right to not be discriminated against due to your race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. Your question is too broad in that you seem to be intentionally avoiding any mention of protected class, as though you are unaware that this issue isn't about "refusing to do private business with someone," it's about refusing to do private business with a person solely due to their race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. Clearly, the Civil Rights Act is a precedent here, and I would suggest that what you are fundamentally opposed to is that act, or at least parts of it. If we hadn't passed the Civil Rights Act, what do you think America would look like today? What would have happened during the lifetime of MLKJ? Now please consider what it is that you are endorsing.

Since the businesses who have made the news in relation to the issue of discriminating against homosexuals have cited religious freedom, let me offer a suggestion. How about a bakery is allowed to refuse business to homosexuals as long as it also refuses businesses to all sinners. Anybody who has had a divorce and anybody who has had sex before marriage. Otherwise, a bakery who serves the latter groups of people but cites religious freedom to justify denying service to the former is apparently trying to find a legal justification for their bigotry.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

There is no such thing as "GLBT rights" and as has already been shown the cabbie example is a bust. As for the last, total bull****, there have been no boycotts of the Grand Canyon and anything Arizona loses from a few butthurt homosexuals they gain and more from the majority of folks who go there anyway.

That is not what business leaders and the tourist industry are saying and have said even while the bill was being discussed.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

So should hate speech be banned?


is hate speech LEGALLY defined?
and if so please share

also if it is defined what laws and rights does hate speech break/infringe?
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

The right to not be discriminated against due to your race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. Your question is too broad in that you seem to be intentionally avoiding any mention of protected class, as though you are unaware that this issue isn't about "refusing to do private business with someone," it's about refusing to do private business with a person solely due to their race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. Clearly, the Civil Rights Act is a precedent here, and I would suggest that what you are fundamentally opposed to is that act, or at least parts of it. If we hadn't passed the Civil Rights Act, what do you think America would look like today? What would have happened during the lifetime of MLKJ? Now please consider what it is that you are endorsing.

Since the businesses who have made the news in relation to the issue of discriminating against homosexuals have cited religious freedom, let me offer a suggestion. How about a bakery is allowed to refuse business to homosexuals as long as it also refuses businesses to all sinners. Anybody who has had a divorce and anybody who has had sex before marriage. Otherwise, a bakery who serves the latter groups of people but cites religious freedom to justify denying service to the former is apparently trying to find a legal justification for their bigotry.

Why does the reason someone doesnt want to do business with another person matter? Its still their property, still their busness and still their labor. If they dont want to include someone in that, why should they be forced to?
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

Business can already reject customers for ANY or NO reason. Meaningless law.

This SHOULD be the case.

It is not.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

That is not what business leaders and the tourist industry are saying and have said even while the bill was being discussed.

They have that right. Large corporations can refuse to set up shop in Arizona, should this bill pass. I support that right.

Many big players are coming out against this. If anything, that will be what kills this bill.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

is hate speech LEGALLY defined?
and if so please share

also if it is defined what laws and rights does hate speech break/infringe?

Lets not talk laws. Thats robot talk. Some laws are good, some are unjust. Lets skip that.
Rights however, are pretty clear cut. Which rights does not serving gays violate? There is no right to be free from discrimination by private individuals. Only to be free from discrimination by government.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

And yet she dawdles. Each day not only causes more unneeded attention to the state but costs perhaps millions in revenue, current and future. It is ultimately the citizens who are paying and will pay for this latest bit Tea Bag insanity in Arizona.
Please allow me to debate this point, since the rest was great.
For this week, the damage looks to be done for AZ, no matter how fast Gov. Brewer moves.
Her meeting with the three GOP legislators today who have recanted is wise.
I can just see her chewing them a new ass for putting AZ in this position.

However, GOP National leaders are 'coming out' of the woodwork against this bill.
Brewer is savvy enough to see this and use this as a positive unintended/intended consequence .
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

1.)Lets not talk laws. Thats robot talk. Some laws are good, some are unjust. Lets skip that.
2.)Rights however, are pretty clear cut.
3.) Which rights does not serving gays violate?
4.)There is no right to be free from discrimination by private individuals.
5.)Only to be free from discrimination by government.

1.) so lets ignore facts, got it
2.) not always and not in all states, counties and municipalities
3.) theres no rights violated by simply not serving gays
4.) this statement is factually wrong in some cases sorry you are confused
5.) in addition to other things
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

Why does the reason someone doesnt want to do business with another person matter? Its still their property, still their busness and still their labor. If they dont want to include someone in that, why should they be forced to?

You're confused. They are allowed to refuse service to anybody they want, unless it is solely due to a person's race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. The reason that matters is because the lack of such laws was an integral part of the systematic discrimination of black Americans (among other now-protected classes of Americans). It happened to my Jewish ancestors, so I understand what happens when you don't have such laws. One of my ancestors died because he was Jewish, or if you want to be technical, his life would have been saved by the doctor had he not been Jewish.

That's kind of a big deal, actually. You don't really have any idea what you're actually endorsing.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

Lets try a simpler angle. If i have a house party and my gay neighbor asks to come and i tell him no, but let everyone else in, should i be prosecuted?
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

The right to not be discriminated against due to your race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.

Too broad, and furthermore, those can not be rights since they call for the violation towards the rights of property, labor, service, association, contract, and practice of ones religion. That is unless you can prove you have a right to use property that is not your own, the labor and service of others against their will, to associate with someone against their will, to have an agreement with someone against their will, and that the practicing of their religion violates your rights. Good luck doing that. :lol:
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

Hate speech is now banned in the NFL.

The consequences of losing another Super Bowl has billions of dollars of negative ramifications on a state,
so I would not like to see Arizona citizens hurt this way.

The half-life for these legislators is decreasing each new day .
So should hate speech be banned?
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

You may want to read this before spreading any more of your 'butthurt homosexual' horse maneur.
GOP on Arizona gay law: Make it go away - James Hohmann and Burgess Everett - POLITICO.com
When a Senator as conservative as John Thune from SD weighs in against you, it's all over till the governor sings .

Oh c'mon, you can read. I've aready agreed several times that Brewer will veto it. The rest is just plain stupid. Who cares what Thune thinks about, well, anything.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

1.) so lets ignore facts, got it
2.) not always and not in all states, counties and municipalities
3.) theres no rights violated by simply not serving gays
4.) this statement is factually wrong in some cases sorry you are confused
5.) in addition to other things
Again, it used to be illegal for black people to read. What are you claiming that there are no bad laws today?
You're confused. They are allowed to refuse service to anybody they want, unless it is solely due to a person's race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. The reason that matters is because the lack of such laws was an integral part of the systematic discrimination of black Americans (among other now-protected classes of Americans). It happened to my Jewish ancestors, so I understand what happens when you don't have such laws. One of my ancestors died because he was Jewish, or if you want to be technical, his life would have been saved by the doctor had he not been Jewish.

That's kind of a big deal, actually. You don't really have any idea what you're actually endorsing.
yeah? Private businesses did refuse to serve blacks. And blacks opened their own businesses amd created their own stock market.
I have no problem with that.

I do however have a problem with government discriminating against blacks. The government is a public servant. Private individuals are not... at least not until they go work for the government.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

Lets try a simpler angle. If i have a house party and my gay neighbor asks to come and i tell him no, but let everyone else in, should i be prosecuted?

Obviously not since no one has a right to go to your house party or to use your property. Anyway, get ready for the business is public argument. There is few things that are dumber than saying private property is public. lol. If they don't do that they will just alert you of the fact that your house is not a public business, which of course leads to the former argument. :lol:
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

I think homophobia is for ignoramuses of the first magnitude.


But, I believe that private business owners should be able to not serve anyone they want, for any reason they want.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

I think homophobia is for ignoramuses of the first magnitude.

No one can prove the existence of homophobia.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

Did this already get posted? Hilarious.



You know you're an idiot when Anderson Cooper owns you.

This is pathetic on so many levels. And yet even more so when you consider that people actually voted for this guy. AZ is teeming with these type of right wing nut jobs.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

No one can prove the existence of homophobia.

You need to move to AZ. You'd fit right in.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

Again, it used to be illegal for black people to read. What are you claiming that there are no bad laws today?

nope never even hinted of anything like that in the least, you like to assume and or guess a lot of inane things
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

I think homophobia is for ignoramuses of the first magnitude.


But, I believe that private business owners should be able to not serve anyone they want, for any reason they want.

Nobody has a phobia of homos.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

Please allow me to debate this point, since the rest was great.
For this week, the damage looks to be done for AZ, no matter how fast Gov. Brewer moves.
Her meeting with the three GOP legislators today who have recanted is wise.
I can just see her chewing them a new ass for putting AZ in this position.

However, GOP National leaders are 'coming out' of the woodwork against this bill.
Brewer is savvy enough to see this and use this as a positive unintended/intended consequence .

There is some good or some bad in all things. I agree that what is happening in Arizona because of this bill is good in that it focuses a bright light (again) on the very narrow-minded politicos who sponsored and support the bill. It continues to illuminate the raging battle the GOP is having with right wing religious extremists within the party, within the state and nationally. I just wish it was happening somewhere else.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

You're confused. They are allowed to refuse service to anybody they want, unless it is solely due to a person's race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. The reason that matters is because the lack of such laws was an integral part of the systematic discrimination of black Americans (among other now-protected classes of Americans). It happened to my Jewish ancestors, so I understand what happens when you don't have such laws. One of my ancestors died because he was Jewish, or if you want to be technical, his life would have been saved by the doctor had he not been Jewish.

The doctor didn't want to provide him his service. That was his right. :shrug: The doctor was an asshole though.
 
Back
Top Bottom