• 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]

Refusing to transport booze is the same as refusing to serve food to a gay person? Really?
Yup, really.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

Let's see if I get this. Discriminating against people is the same as not transporting booze.
Be specific: Refusing to make a cake for a gay couple is the same as refusing to transport alcohol. The gay couple could go to another cake shop and the employer could have had someone else drive that truck.

In the first case, the cake maker was sued out of business, so why is Obama backing the Muslim in the second case? Doesn't integrity require the Muslim's claim to be denied?
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

On a related note: Obama’s EEOC Sues Trucking Company After Muslim Who Refused to Transport Alcohol Fired; Not First Time

So if you're Muslim then Obama will guard your religious views (even after those Muslim truckers signed an agreement knowing they would be transporting alcohol), but if you're Christian he won't. Gotta love those Kenyan roots. Let's see that birth certificate one more time.

Anyway, the bill was vetoed because the NFL threatened to take the next Superbowl away from Arizona (the NFL is under enough heat from the administration over concussions and has to play the political game), and Apple threatened not to build a planned new iPhone plant there (Apple would like to keep it's NSA contracts), not because of some ascended view on discrimination et-al.


Not really related at all.

One is an Employment law, the other is Public Accommodation law regarding businesses and customers.

Under employment law the employer is required to make an accommodation to requests made based on religious beliefs - unless doing so would seriously burden the business. We're talking an multi/state trucking company here with many drivers. As such the Logistics Manager could easily have scheduled a different driver for the delivery. On the other hand, in the cases that have made national attention (Elaine Photography, Sweetcakes by Melissa, and Masterpiece Cakes) it was the business OWNER that refused the service to the customer, since the owner refused and did not attempt to have another employee fill the order - that is a different kettle of fish.



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

Let's see if I get this. Discriminating against people is the same as not transporting booze.

It is amazing how easily religious folks but their own BS.

You've gone off the deep end. Again, different actions, same reason behind the actions. A reason btw that is protected by Constitution.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

You've gone off the deep end. Again, different actions, same reason behind the actions. A reason btw that is protected by Constitution.

Fortunately you righties are losing again and again. Must suck.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

An interesting thought, except that atheism is a belief system. It is not a religion.

I understand that, it doesn't stop the religious from claiming that it's a religion and if that's what they think, who am I not to take advantage of it?
 
It never fails. Whenever I criticize the MSM some lib jumps up and shouts, "OH YEAH, WHAT ABOUT FOX". :lol:

You are right and I was wrong. I don't know what I was thinking trying to compare Fox to a real news organization. I appreciate your outrage. Real news organizations certainly should be called out on steering their audiences with misleading headlines. The fact that faux news organizations do this as a matter of course should be expected as, after all, they are not real news organizations.
 
Last edited:
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

On a related note: Obama’s EEOC Sues Trucking Company After Muslim Who Refused to Transport Alcohol Fired; Not First Time

So if you're Muslim then Obama will guard your religious views [SIZE=1[B]](even after those Muslim truckers signed an agreement knowing they would be transporting alcohol[/B])[/SIZE], but if you're Christian he won't. Gotta love those Kenyan roots. Let's see that birth certificate one more time.

Where was it ever shown that the trucker's signed an agreement to transport alcohol? They did not take a job with Budwieser. Trucking companies hual all sorts of junk.

The correct analogy would have been a baker that baked all occasions cakes. The baker got an order to bake a gay cake for the Adam and Steve wedding. The cake decorator refused on religious grounds to decorate a wedding cake for Adam and Steve. If the baker were to fire the decorator without allowing her to work on the another cake instead of...then the cake decorator could have filed an EEOC claim of non accomodation.

Now if the owner informs his employees prior to hire that he make all sorts of cakes...gay cakes, boob cakes, Cinco de mayo cakes..and if the employee accepts the job, then that is a different story.

See how that works now? Has nothing to do with Sharia law or the love of muslims.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

I understand that, it doesn't stop the religious from claiming that it's a religion and if that's what they think, who am I not to take advantage of it?

They can 'claim it' all they want, but since atheism would fail to meet the basic legal definition of a religion, an atheist would not prevail in a court of law if he tried to use religious belief as a defense for his/her actions.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

On a related note: Obama’s EEOC Sues Trucking Company After Muslim Who Refused to Transport Alcohol Fired; Not First Time

So if you're Muslim then Obama will guard your religious views (even after those Muslim truckers signed an agreement knowing they would be transporting alcohol), but if you're Christian he won't. Gotta love those Kenyan roots. Let's see that birth certificate one more time.

Anyway, the bill was vetoed because the NFL threatened to take the next Superbowl away from Arizona (the NFL is under enough heat from the administration over concussions and has to play the political game), and Apple threatened not to build a planned new iPhone plant there (Apple would like to keep it's NSA contracts), not because of some ascended view on discrimination et-al.

Debbie Schlussel is lying when she posts
...the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC) a/k/a the Minorities Litigation Commission (EEOC never helps White males or Christians or Jews who are discriminated against)
The woman consistently posts lies about Muslims, as with so many others she likes to pick and choose events that support her beliefs, nothing that contradicts those beliefs can ever be real.

Just three cases where the EEOC sued supporting Christian workers, there are others
Magnetics International to Pay $30,000* To Settle EEOC Religious Discrimination Suit Magnetics International to Pay $30,000 To Settle EEOC Religious Discrimination Suit
Grand Prairie Burger King Franchisee Sued by EEOC for Religious Discrimination Grand Prairie Burger King Franchisee Sued by EEOC for Religious Discrimination
EEOC Sues Consol Energy and Consolidation Coal Company for Religious Discrimination Mining Companies Forced Evangelical Christian to Retire Over Hand Scanning, Federal Agency Charges

The NFL pulled the 1993 Super Bowl from Arizona after the state legislature refuse to approve a holiday honouring Dr Martin Luther King.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

They can 'claim it' all they want, but since atheism would fail to meet the basic legal definition of a religion, an atheist would not prevail in a court of law if he tried to use religious belief as a defense for his/her actions.

Oh, I'm not arguing with you, but if these religious idiots are going to proclaim atheism as a religion, as they have, then we might as well make use of it. The courts have already decided that, in at least some fashion, atheism operates as a religion. I agree it's not, but if they're going to proclaim it to be true, so be it.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

You've gone off the deep end. Again, different actions, same reason behind the actions. A reason btw that is protected by Constitution.

It's become a nation of very, very petty people, with each group complaining that their rights come before someone else's. All of these groups, many of which began with a good cause, eventually become too tiresome to take seriously.
 
You are right and I was wrong. I don't know what I was thinking trying to compare Fox to a real news organization. I appreciate your outrage. Real news organizations certainly should be called out on steering their audiences with misleading headlines. The fact that faux news organizations do this as a matter of course should be expected as, after all, they are not real news organizations.

CNN called it an anti gay bill even though there is no mention of gays in the bill. You got one thing right in your post though. I was right and you were wrong.
 
CNN called it an anti gay bill even though there is no mention of gays in the bill. You got one thing right in your post though. I was right and you were wrong.

We are talking in circles... I never disputed the CNN overstated the issue. I was only pointing out your disingenuous outrage given this is something Fox does all the time (The CBO report, in the example I cited never said Obamacare would result in the lost of 2.3 million jobs, yet that was the Fox headline).

I do agree misstating the byline with the intent to inflame or tilt/make the news is an outrageous practice for a real news organization: I expect better of CNN, yet Fox is Fox. However, it is hypocritical to call one party out on it and accept it from another, which is what you have done here.
 
We are talking in circles... I never disputed the CNN overstated the issue. I was only pointing out your disingenuous outrage given this is something Fox does all the time (The CBO report, in the example I cited never said Obamacare would result in the lost of 2.3 million jobs, yet that was the Fox headline).

I do agree misstating the byline with the intent to inflame or tilt/make the news is an outrageous practice for a real news organization: I expect better of CNN, yet Fox is Fox. However, it is hypocritical to call one party out on it and accept it from another, which is what you have done here.

On the subject of the OP I pointed out how CNN misrepresented the law and then pointed out how you excused that with the typical "Oh yeah, what about FOX" line. That is what I have done here.
 
CNN called it an anti gay bill even though there is no mention of gays in the bill. You got one thing right in your post though. I was right and you were wrong.

True there are no mention of gays in the bill. However I watched portions of the legislative in chamber debate (you can find news reports and videos if you look), the justification for the bill was cases like Elaine Photography (New Mexico), Sweetcakes by Melissa (Oregon), and Masterpiece Cakes (Colorado) and the fact that these people were found in violation of those states Public Accommodation laws. All cases involving homosexuals. (Laws which by the way did list sexual orientation as protected while Arizona didn't).

The fact is that the "intent" of the bill was to clearly target gays, the "consequences" of the bill are that businesses owners would have been allowed to discriminate against blacks, Jews, Muslims, women, Hispanics, and the disabled and could hide behind "sincerely held religous beliefs" to do it. (Disabled? you might ask. Yes, Muslims find dogs an unclean animal and won't associate with them. Just as Muslim cab drivers in Minnesota were found in violation for refusing to take blind and disabled customers with service dogs. Under this law they could claim a religous exemption to serviceing disabled people.)



>>>>
 
CNN called it an anti gay bill even though there is no mention of gays in the bill. You got one thing right in your post though. I was right and you were wrong.

CNN?

and these 9 others with a quick news search, could probably find 10 more lol

it was accurately described especially when one reads the bill, the motivation for it (cases about gay rights) and watches the legislative iprocedings which the news did.

Arizona anti-gay bill vetoed by governor - chicagotribune.com
Arizona governor vetoes anti-gay bill
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer Vetoes Anti-Gay Bill - NBC News
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoes so-called anti-gay bill - latimes.com
Arizona governor vetoes controversial bill allowing denial of service to gays
Arizona Governor Vetoes Bill Seen Discriminating Against Gays - Businessweek
Jan Brewer Announces Veto Of Arizona Anti-Gay Bill SB 1062
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoes anti-gay bill | MSNBC
Arizona governor vetoes anti-gay bill - Chicago Sun-Times

the reality is it was an ant-igay bill lol
 
True there are no mention of gays in the bill. However I watched portions of the legislative in chamber debate (you can find news reports and videos if you look), the justification for the bill was cases like Elaine Photography (New Mexico), Sweetcakes by Melissa (Oregon), and Masterpiece Cakes (Colorado) and the fact that these people were found in violation of those states Public Accommodation laws. All cases involving homosexuals. (Laws which by the way did list sexual orientation as protected while Arizona didn't).

The fact is that the "intent" of the bill was to clearly target gays, the "consequences" of the bill are that businesses owners would have been allowed to discriminate against blacks, Jews, Muslims, women, Hispanics, and the disabled and could hide behind "sincerely held religous beliefs" to do it. (Disabled? you might ask. Yes, Muslims find dogs an unclean animal and won't associate with them. Just as Muslim cab drivers in Minnesota were found in violation for refusing to take blind and disabled customers with service dogs. Under this law they could claim a religous exemption to serviceing disabled people.)



>>>>

The first time I ever visited California was on a trip with my mother, grandmother, and a great-aunt. We came here by train to visit a couple of my uncles. We rented a car and had to stop at a gas station in between destinations to use the restroom. The guy behind the counter told us that we couldn't use the restroom and when asked why, he simply said "you're women, no man". My mother was pissed but there really wasn't much she could do. We didn't live here and were on a tight schedule. People could deny so many things based solely on religious beliefs with a law like this. Extremists may be a small minority, but they can still be anywhere.
 
True there are no mention of gays in the bill. However I watched portions of the legislative in chamber debate (you can find news reports and videos if you look), the justification for the bill was cases like Elaine Photography (New Mexico), Sweetcakes by Melissa (Oregon), and Masterpiece Cakes (Colorado) and the fact that these people were found in violation of those states Public Accommodation laws. All cases involving homosexuals. (Laws which by the way did list sexual orientation as protected while Arizona didn't).

The fact is that the "intent" of the bill was to clearly target gays, the "consequences" of the bill are that businesses owners would have been allowed to discriminate against blacks, Jews, Muslims, women, Hispanics, and the disabled and could hide behind "sincerely held religous beliefs" to do it. (Disabled? you might ask. Yes, Muslims find dogs an unclean animal and won't associate with them. Just as Muslim cab drivers in Minnesota were found in violation for refusing to take blind and disabled customers with service dogs. Under this law they could claim a religous exemption to serviceing disabled people.)




>>>>

It was a pro religious freedom bill not anti gay and as you point out could be used to deny service for many other reasons than being gay which proves it was not an anti gay bill.
 
It was a pro religious freedom bill not anti gay and as you point out could be used to deny service for many other reasons than being gay which proves it was not an anti gay bill.

As I said, the intent of the bill, as espoused by the supporters was to prevent such cases as had happened in New Mexico, Oregon, and Colorado - which of course involved homosexuals. If the cases had involved businesses that had discriminated because of race (i.e. the owners claimed a religious right to discriminate against interracial couples, or Muslims) there wouldn't have been a stir. Arizona legislatures wouldn't have even considered coming up with such a bill. But because it was "the gheys" a new bill was needed, even though gays ALREADY had no legal protections based on sexual orientation under either Arizona Public Accommodation laws or Employment Law.

Please don't insult our intelligence by suggesting the driving force behind this bill wasn't to provide protections so that "religious" people so they could discriminate against the gays. The fact that it was poorly written with unintended consequences and came to national attention and people actually found out about it is beside the point.


>>>>
 
As I said, the intent of the bill, as espoused by the supporters was to prevent such cases as had happened in New Mexico, Oregon, and Colorado - which of course involved homosexuals. If the cases had involved businesses that had discriminated because of race (i.e. the owners claimed a religious right to discriminate against interracial couples, or Muslims) there wouldn't have been a stir. Arizona legislatures wouldn't have even considered coming up with such a bill. But because it was "the gheys" a new bill was needed, even though gays ALREADY had no legal protections based on sexual orientation under either Arizona Public Accommodation laws or Employment Law.

Please don't insult our intelligence by suggesting the driving force behind this bill wasn't to provide protections so that "religious" people so they could discriminate against the gays. The fact that it was poorly written with unintended consequences and came to national attention and people actually found out about it is beside the point.


>>>>

Point of fact it was not an anti gay bill it was a religion freedom bill. Whether or not that manifest itself mostly with gays is completely irrelevant and labeling it an anti gay bill was pure left wing spin.
 
Back
Top Bottom