• 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 anti-gay bill vetoed by governor

Georgia is considering a similar law. Hopefully it gets shot down here too. There is a vegan caterer I want to hire to cater our next distance shooting clinic. It is a 3 day event held on a working dairy farm. They would basicly be providing the sides since we bring our own grills and smokers for the wild game. I think the caterer is gay too.
 
The owner of a business is already protected so what you are really asking for it is to declare businesses persons and grant them the enumerated rights in the Constitution.
When a person creates something...a service, that is an extention of themselves. What’s at stake in this context is when individuals who provide material and artistic craft for weddings are then forced to take their talents and their creative abilities and use them for purposes that go against their consciences To force them to create something that is against their being is denying them their right of conscience which cuts at the heart of our religious freedom.
 
Is this another thread where the pro private sector anti-discrimination law supporters can't muster up a defense? I haven't read the thread yet, but if there is a defense can someone tell me the post number. Thanks. It's just that it gets a bit boring reading through a thread where one side can't do jack**** and yet declares victory the entire time.
 
Good luck not violating the commerce clause, the Civil Rights Act as well as a myriad of court cases.

You're doing it backwards again. Why do you think government power comes before the rights of the people? Is there some sort of reason you do this in every anti-discrimination thread you post in?
 
When a person creates something...a service, that is an extention of themselves. What’s at stake in this context is when individuals who provide material and artistic craft for weddings are then forced to take their talents and their creative abilities and use them for purposes that go against their consciences To force them to create something that is against their being is denying them their right of conscience which cuts at the heart of our religious freedom.

I've already established that the above isn't happening. They are not required under the law to personally provide a service to anyone, but the business is. If they do not want to personally provide the service then, as the owners of an unincorporated business, they must hire someone who will.
 
I think Jan Brewer did the right thing. Laws making it legal to discriminate on judgements which are not necessarily affecting businesses quite easily blow up in the faces of legislators that pass them.

A law like this or any law resembling it would cause more trouble than it would fix.
 
Last edited:
Georgia is considering a similar law. Hopefully it gets shot down here too. There is a vegan caterer I want to hire to cater our next distance shooting clinic. It is a 3 day event held on a working dairy farm. They would basicly be providing the sides since we bring our own grills and smokers for the wild game. I think the caterer is gay too.

:shock: Geeez That is NOT the stereotypical conservative image..... Probably those who should notice will not notice. :mrgreen:

Thom Paine
 
I've already established that the above isn't happening. They are not required under the law to personally provide a service to anyone, but the business is.

What entity owns a business? People. So therefore people are forced to ________. See, it's easy if you understand logic.

You just have to stop bull****ting for a second and realize that people are people no matter what they are doing and what they own. It is however cute that people think they can declare someones right to property void. lol.
 
You're doing it backwards again. Why do you think government power comes before the rights of the people? Is there some sort of reason you do this in every anti-discrimination thread you post in?

Oh lawd, didn't you learn your lesson the last beating I gave you? Here's the thing: Government power is established by the people to live and abide by. If you don't like the laws the people have come up with in order to live a better society, may I suggest you piss off back into your basement? KThanks.
 
this is where the magic of reality happens that people don't get

they can refuse service, as this is not a crime, as long as its not discrimination based on age, disability, origin, race/color, gender, religion or in some cases sexual orientation

if west baptist is a recognized religion in thier state, county or municipality then they CAN NOT deny service based on religion because that would be ILLEGAL discrimination

now you mentioned my OPINION
my opinion is, that sucks and i dont like it but it is the law and thats how rights work they protect us all

same reasons they can protest outside of funerals for dead soldiers who were killed in action but who were gay and they have signs saying your son is buring in hell

its ugly and i want to punch them in the face but they have the same rights as all of us.

but lets talk about the real world for a second

illegal discrimination happens everyday, people just HIDE it lol

that baker and photographer got in trouble because they were stupid enough to say YES i don't want to do it because its GAY

the smart thing to do, ignorant but smart, would have to simply call back later and say damn i overbooked that date or my partner didn't have the schedule updated we don't have the man power to shoot your wedding etc etc

these people are getting in trouble because they are basically doing the PC version of "get out of here faggots god hates you"


also i dont know about the photographer but the baker did non religious weddings and JEWISH events so thier bigotry and hypocrisy was proven.
now this is just an example but its its very stupid to have jewish events and non religious events like bachelorette parties with penis on a cake in your records and then say nooooooooo because of our christian beliefs i cant do the gay wedding.

nobody buys that bull**** lol and in those two cases it was illegal


but back to your question because i dont want you to think i dodged it, the same applies, the print shop CAN NOT illegally discriminate, they can lie but if they say, we hate that RELIGION we will not do that, then they are BREAKING the law.

They could refuse to do it because "They don't want their business to be associated with that kind of unsavory language."
 
NO they will not. We know this because churches are not forced to perform interracial marriage. Or marriages of people outside their faith. This is a dumb argument.

Good rule of thumb here is to never trust a liberal.

Ted Kennedy, one of the main sponsors of the 1965 Immigration Reform spoke the following:

"First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same.... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset.... Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia.... In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think.... The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs."​

Senator Hubert Humphrey speaking in favor of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

". . . declared that if anyone could find in the law 'any language which provides that an employer will have to hire on the basis of percentage or quota . . ., I will start eating the pages one after another, because it is not in there.'"​

Back in 1989 the backers of a Mass. anti-discrimination law specifically noted that it "does not legalize 'gay marriage' or confer any right on homosexual, lesbian or unmarried heterosexual couples to 'domestic benefits.' Nor does passage of the bill put Massachusetts on a 'slippery slope' toward such rights." However, it was the very existence of these reforms which the New Jersey Supreme Court relied on to justify their ruling in favor of homosexual "marriage"

In addressing plaintiffs' claimed interest in equality of treatment, we begin with a retrospective look at the evolving expansion of rights to gays and lesbians in this State. Today, in New Jersey, it is just as unlawful to discriminate against individuals on the basis of sexual orientation as it is to discriminate against them on the basis of race, national origin, age, or sex. Over the last three decades, through judicial decisions and comprehensive legislative enactments, this State, step by step, has protected gay and lesbian individuals from discrimination on account of their sexual orientation.​

And now, knowing the love that liberals have for pushing the legal notion of foreign precedent to be applicable to US jurisprudence, we see the following:

Britain’s most famous surrogate gay dads have hired lawyers to sue the Church of England for the right to a full-blown religious wedding.

Barrie and Tony Drewitt-Barlow told Gay Star News it was important for them as Christians to marry in church and for their kids to see they were equal.​

So when you see a liberal promising you something, run the other way, because like the Terminator, they will never stop, promises are just stalling tactics to get you to drop your guard so that they can further strip you of your human rights.
 
Oh lawd, didn't you learn your lesson the last beating I gave you? Here's the thing: Government power is established by the people to live and abide by. If you don't like the laws the people have come up with in order to live a better society, may I suggest you piss off back into your basement? KThanks.

Aww..what's wrong? You don't want to face up to the fact you argue law backwards? Too bad, you do. Get used to it or stop doing it. People come first, not government. Don't like it? Don't care.
 
What entity owns a business? People. So therefore people are forced to ________. See, it's easy if you understand logic. You just have to stop bull****ting for a second and realize that people are people no matter what they are doing and what they own.

Actually, you have to cut the bs and acknowledge that, under the law, a business is not entitled to a freedom of religion and the owner's rights under the law extend only to their own person and not to the business. There are different kinds of businesses for this reason. If you want a business which can legally discriminate then either start a non-profit or a private membership.
 
Georgia is considering a similar law. Hopefully it gets shot down here too. There is a vegan caterer I want to hire to cater our next distance shooting clinic. It is a 3 day event held on a working dairy farm. They would basicly be providing the sides since we bring our own grills and smokers for the wild game. I think the caterer is gay too.

A gay Vegan? The hell you say! :lamo
 
I'm wondering if this latest dust up over Az. is actually based in maybe a somewhat reasonable concern about laws forcing religions to perform against their tenets ala the ACA requiring Catholic orgs. to furnish insurance in opposition to their beliefs.

Just wondering out loud :thinking

Thom Paine

its not the last for sure, equal rights is winning and that scares people. They are getting desperate and now things they were getting away with that they never had the right to do are ending they are trying to make them law but when given the test of constitutionality and equal rights not special rights its fails.

all these same claims were made against minorities, womens rights and interracial marriage. They all failed. People thinking some how they are new and logical now are severely mistaken.


we all work by the same laws and ruls in the public realm, the laws and rules apply to us ALL, religion doesnt change that.

now in the religious realm, church, thats the top dog, if a CHURCH doesnt want me then thats that. But the church can come outside of that realm and claim religious rights because those rights end at my rights.


this is why if you were gay st marys hospital cant deny you treatment in the ER because they think you are evil and fixing you would be condoning gay
if you were married and Jewish st marys hospital cant deny you should visitation rights because that would be supporting your marriage by another religion
etc etc etc

the rules in the public realm apply to use all and public access business are that realm even though thier ownership is private.

These people want special rights and its failing overall.

as a christian myself i cant even imagine what makes them think they get to force thier religion or views on others

now im sure at at some time in the future someone might try to abuse this, or probably have already tried, we simply rely on the law if this happens.

everybody has the same rights you cant be discriminated against based on age, gender, religion, race etc

im happy for those rights and i dont take them for granted.

what these people should do is what i so, thank thier god they live in such a great country that allows the to have the god of thier choosing.
if those rights didnt exist, the ones they want to take away that could change real fast.

some Christians are over confident since its the majority religion luckily most are no and more educated than that
 
Actually, you have to cut the bs and acknowledge that, under the law, a business is not entitled to a freedom of religion and the owner's rights under the law extend only to their own person and not to the business. There are different kinds of businesses for this reason. If you want a business which can legally discriminate then either start a non-profit or a private membership.

The business is their property, so therefore, their rights DO extend to their business. The very fact you are sitting here arguing the law as if it has merit is sad and stupid. People have the RIGHT to own property and they have the right to control that property. There is no merit to any law that says otherwise, none.
 
THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU!

WOW! lol

this was already discussed earlier today but whats awesome about your post is you just proved to everybody reading how severely uneducated you are on this specific topic

now lets start with how HUGE of a failure your post is since you obviously have ZERO clue about rights and the law and illegal discrimination etc. We knew this already but this post confirms it.

1.) this is what ILLEGAL discrimaintion is, its discrimination based on age, disability, origin, race/color, gender, religion or in some cases sexual orientation
this applies to us ALL

2.) the KKK is NONE of those things, unless in that particular state the KKK is recognized as a religion there is no illegal discrimination going on in the scenario you just described.

3.) the caters's race doesnt matter

4.) if the cater denys service for any reason not on the list in number one its LEGAL

KKK is not an age disability, origin, race/color, gender, religion or sexual orientation

sorry your example complete fails and there is no SPECIAL rights in your scenario, facts win again, try again

Why the KKK is most certainly a race based organization. They be all White. Wouldn't they be the flip side of the Black Panthers? So under your rules if the KKK requested a black caterer to service their event he has no right to discriminate against a white supremacy group or ask for special treatment. Brahahahahahahahaha
 
I have heard that there are plenty of LGBT groups that would love to be a part of drafting new versions of these bills so that religious liberties can be protected and incidents like the Cake Shop Owner and Wedding Photographer will not happen in other states. Instead of being adversarial, why not include gay rights folks so that we can have legislation that genuinely seeks to secure religious liberty rather than just trying to strip gay rights under the guise of religion? Freedom of association should be a public discussion, not a partisan issue.

The problem with that is i don't have any sympathy for bigot cake shop owners or wedding photographers either, regardless what book of fables they try to hide their hate behind. They can burn those places to the ground for all i care.

So inasmuch as there's clearly many bigoted politicians, religious figures, and business owners solely wanting to piss on LGBT rights, rest assured there are many who have no problem returning the favor and rejoice when the photographer is forbidden from discriminating.
 
Aww..what's wrong? You don't want to face up to the fact you argue law backwards? Too bad, you do. Get used to it or stop doing it. People come first, not government. Don't like it? Don't care.

Lol, people create the laws the government operates by - they don't get to turn around and then violate and abuse those laws. What concept of legality do you have a problem with? Actually, what part of "You don't live in a vacuum" do you have trouble with? Here is the best part:

1. The constitution (supreme law of the land) agrees that the federal/state governments have an interest in regulating commerce.
2. Court case after court case have agreed that the federal/state governments have an interest in regulating commerce.
3. Legal scholars have agreed that the federal/state governments have an interest in regulating commerce.

Why is it that you disagree with the concept of law as conceived by the people? Never mind, weren't you the guy who didn't see how using child porn hurt people?
 
Last edited:
Good luck not violating the commerce clause, the Civil Rights Act as well as a myriad of court cases.

Why should your civil rights trump my right to freely practice my religion? Why should the government be allowed to deny me my right to freely practice my religion?

That's really what this bill was all about. Certain activists are trying to limit religious freedom by demanding that all decisions be made on a purely secular basis. That's totally unacceptable in a free nation and those seeking such restrictions should be really cautious because once they get what they want there has been a precedent set to dispatch with other liberties.

Just because you agree with the totalitarians in charge doesn't mean that they aren't totalitarians.
 
Well, the issue really shouldn't be about religious rights, but property rights as a whole. I would strongly support a law allowing private property owners to discriminate for any reason. And no, it would not be the end of the world and slavery wouldn't appear out of thin air.
 
Keep 'em coming.


I'm here all night, be sure to hit the tip jar on your way out. Thanks.

Fred Phelps
:

Phelps supported Al Gore in the 1988 Democratic Party presidential primary election . . . members of the Westboro Baptist Church helped run Gore's 1988 campaign in Kansas.

Phelps has run in various Kansas Democratic Party primaries five times, but has never won. These included races for governor in 1990, 1994, and 1998, receiving about 15 percent of the vote in 1998.[38] In the 1992 Democratic Party primary for U.S. Senate, Phelps received 31 percent of the vote.[39] Phelps ran for mayor of Topeka in 1993[40][41] and 1997​
 
Lol, people create the laws the government operates by - they don't get to turn around and then violate and abuse those laws. What concept of legality do you have a problem with? Actually, what part of "You don't live in a vacuum" do you have trouble with?

No, you think that because the state has powers that peoples rights are somehow trumped by those powers. Nope, that is not how it works. My rights come first and then their powers come into play. Not the other way around. Once you get that down you might be able to defend your case for the law. Until then, good luck to you.
 
The business is their property, so therefore, their rights DO extend to their business.

No they don't. A business is a separate legal entity in all things but liability.

The very fact you are sitting here arguing the law as if it has merit is sad and stupid. Learn human rights or GTFO.

LOL. Have I stepped through the looking glass into a world where law has no merit in a legal argument? :screwy
 
Oh lawd, didn't you learn your lesson the last beating I gave you? Here's the thing: Government power is established by the people to live and abide by. If you don't like the laws the people have come up with in order to live a better society, may I suggest you piss off back into your basement? KThanks.

That's a totalitarian point of view. Your take is that if the majority approve of something then everyone who disapproves just has to suck it up.
 
Back
Top Bottom