• 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]

CriticalThought said:
Hmmm. Let me get this straight. New Mexico, which has an anti discrimination law which names sexual orientation as a protected class, had an incident where a same sex couple was discriminated against and they brought that issue to court. And somehow that creates a loophole in Arizona which has no anti discrimination law for sexual orientation?
Click to expand...

I guess so. It's not my interpretation. When I see something that the liberal media, along with the usual suspects, is blasting all across the airwaves with the usual objective in mind, I look into it.

I've used the synopsis of the Los Angeles times as the basis of my observation.

Arizona businesses already can refuse to serve gays: SB1062 explained - latimes.com

I think the example of refusing to do business with the Westboro Baptist Church, as described in the LA Times piece, is an interesting and compelling point.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

CriticalThought said:
Hmmm. Let me get this straight. New Mexico, which has an anti discrimination law which names sexual orientation as a protected class, had an incident where a same sex couple was discriminated against and they brought that issue to court. And somehow that creates a loophole in Arizona which has no anti discrimination law for sexual orientation?
Click to expand...

It's a preemptive strike.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

ocean515 said:
I guess so. It's not my interpretation. When I see something that the liberal media, along with the usual suspects, is blasting all across the airwaves with the usual objective in mind, I look into it.

I've used the synopsis of the Los Angeles times as the basis of my observation.

Arizona businesses already can refuse to serve gays: SB1062 explained - latimes.com

I think the example of refusing to do business with the Westboro Baptist Church, as described in the LA Times piece, is an interesting and compelling point.
Click to expand...


I could care less what the LA Times has to say. Arizona was in no way affected legally by the New Mexico decision. That was just an excuse because they knew people would be too lazy to look up the facts.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Henrin said:
Then being pro-choice is an indication of your endorsement of abortion.
Click to expand...
No, being pro-choice is being pro-choice since I have zero bias toward the choice made.
On the other hand being pro a bigoted law is being pro-bigotry. It is quite simple actually if you try to make the decision in an honest fashion.

See how stupid you're being yet?
Click to expand...
No, but I see how you are.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

APACHERAT said:
A liberal on June 6th, 1944 would be either a neoconservative or a Reagan Democrat today.
Click to expand...

Typical right wing radio nonsense.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

CriticalThought said:
I could care less what the LA Times has to say. Arizona was in no way affected legally by the New Mexico decision. That was just an excuse because they knew people would be too lazy to look up the facts.
Click to expand...

Umm. Forgive me, but it appears you are one of those people.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

Gipper said:
It's a preemptive strike.
Click to expand...


It goes beyond that. A preemptive strike would be to battle any further anti discrimination laws. This is opening a whole new front which has implications far outside of gay rights.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

ocean515 said:
Umm. Forgive me, but it appears you are one of those people.
Click to expand...

Bull. At least I know that a state with an anti discrimination law is different than one without.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

Top Cat said:
Typical right wing radio nonsense.
Click to expand...

Ahh, you mean absolutely accurate then. In this case APACHERAT's post was dead on the money. Liberals and dems of 1944 would by and large be appalled at what passes for liberal these days.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

clownboy said:
Ahh, you mean absolutely accurate then. In this case APACHERAT's post was dead on the money. Liberals and dems of 1944 would by and large be appalled at what passes for liberal these days.
Click to expand...

Total nonsense. It's the republican party that has shifted further right. Attila the Hun has company.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

CriticalThought said:
Bull. At least I know that a state with an anti discrimination law is different than one without.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm not sure that qualifies for an award for the profound thought of the day. It seems rather clear you've decided to limit your understanding of the issue to what you want to believe and are willing to leave the facts behind.

That's cool with me. :peace
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

ocean515 said:
Well, I'm not sure that qualifies for an award for the profound thought of the day. It seems rather clear you've decided to limit your understanding of the issue to what you want to believe and are willing to leave the facts behind.

That's cool with me. :peace
Click to expand...

Enlighten me. I would honestly like to know how enforcing an anti discrimination law in New Mexico affects Arizona which does not have one.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

CriticalThought said:
Enlighten me. I would honestly like to know how enforcing an anti discrimination law in New Mexico affects Arizona which does not have one.
Click to expand...

Why don't you read the LA Times article I was kind enough to provide a link to? Oh that's right, you don't give a damn about it. Well, that's your problem.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

CriticalThought said:
It goes beyond that. A preemptive strike would be to battle any further anti discrimination laws. This is opening a whole new front which has implications far outside of gay rights.
Click to expand...

Well, let Christians get legally discriminated against, and this bill will go bye-bye if passed.

Caveat emptor.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

CriticalThought said:
Enlighten me. I would honestly like to know how enforcing an anti discrimination law in New Mexico affects Arizona which does not have one.
Click to expand...

His name is US Atty Gen Eric Holder. He's all for crossing state lines with such things. Gipper had it correct. Preemptive strike. Like a condom.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

Gipper said:
Well, let Christians get legally discriminated against, and this bill will go bye-bye if passed.

Caveat emptor.
Click to expand...

Precisely. Poorly written and those who wrote it also agree it didn't end up matching their intent, That's why they've asked Brewer to veto.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

clownboy said:
Precisely. Poorly written and those who wrote it also agree it didn't end up matching their intent, That's why they've asked Brewer to veto.
Click to expand...

See? Everything works out. It always does.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

prometeus said:
No, being pro-choice is being pro-choice since I have zero bias toward the choice made.
On the other hand being pro a bigoted law is being pro-bigotry. It is quite simple actually if you try to make the decision in an honest fashion.
Click to expand...

No, being against anti-discrimination laws doesn't automatically mean someone supports discrimination. My argument is based on the rights of the people that operate the business, not the endorsement of discriminatory practices. Supporting something being legal, be that abortion or discrimination by private individuals, does not mean that you support the act itself, but that you are against making it illegal.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

clownboy said:
His name is US Atty Gen Eric Holder. He's all for crossing state lines with such things. Gipper had it correct. Preemptive strike. Like a condom.
Click to expand...

ROFL. Seriously? What does same sex marriage even have to do with this bill? Even if there was SSM nationwide, there is no discrimination protections for gays in Arizona. You do not seem very informed on the legal matters on this issue. Just reactionary and partisan.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

Top Cat said:
Typical right wing radio nonsense.
Click to expand...

Before 1970 the vast majority of liberals were nationalist. In fact the vast majority of all Americans be they Democrat or Republican were nationalists.

Since 1970 the majority of liberals have switched sides and have become internationalist. Before 1970 the only Americans who weren't nationalist were the Marxist and internationalist socialist.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

Gipper said:
See? Everything works out. It always does.
Click to expand...

Relevance? For somebody who is typically ardently logical and to the point with their politics, you are coming off emotional on this one.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

CriticalThought said:
Relevance? For somebody who is typically ardently logical and to the point with their politics, you are coming off emotional on this one.
Click to expand...

It's not emotional. I don't give a damn about discrimination. I'm saying that this all goes away when the tables get turned and some Muslim establishment says "Christian get out".

That's as logical as it gets.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

CriticalThought said:
ROFL. Seriously? What does same sex marriage even have to do with this bill? Even if there was SSM nationwide, there is no discrimination protections for gays in Arizona. You do not seem very informed on the legal matters on this issue. Just reactionary and partisan.
Click to expand...

Who was talking homosexual marriage? Holder has no problem with trampling state's rights as it is. And if you don't see why states would see the need for preemptive legislation then it is you who is woefully uninformed.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

CriticalThought said:
Enlighten me. I would honestly like to know how enforcing an anti discrimination law in New Mexico affects Arizona which does not have one.
Click to expand...

It was the impetus for the Arizona SB1062. It's all there if you bother to do a bit of research and reading. A photographer or wedding cake baker in New Mexico was asked by a same sex couple to provide photography or a cake, I forget which, for a wedding and was shocked and offended. The photographer or wedding cake baker refused because the bible apparently says that gay marriage is a sin. The bible also says gluttony is a sin but somehow there's no record of photographers or wedding cake bakers being offended and shocked by fat people.

While there is no record of this being a problem at all in Arizona the Arizona legislature (no doubt with wads of walking around money and campaign contributions provided by lobbyists) decided they'd better jump on this like ugly on an ape and solve the problem that doesn't exist based on the one incident in New Mexico. The bill wasn't written by normal everyday good and worthy Christians, it was written by a nutcase Christian lobbying group with undisclosed financial sources.

Don't ask for sources. Do your own research.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

Aren't there whole separate forums for rewriting the history of liberals, marxists, nationalist and internationalists.
Stop and think about what your argument does to win people over to supporting the anti-gay bill.
I'll repost so you can read a sensible Sen. Hatch discussing both sides of an emotional issue if you like.
State's rights vs. Discrimination .
APACHERAT said:
Before 1970 the vast majority of liberals were nationalist. In fact the vast majority of all Americans be they Democrat or Republican were nationalists.

Since 1970 the majority of liberals have switched sides and have become internationalist. Before 1970 the only Americans who weren't nationalist were the Marxist and internationalist socialist.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom