Arizona's "Right to discriminate" bill

[travelingman]

http://www.policymic.com/mobile/articles/83003/arizona-just-passed-a-right-to-discriminate-bill-and-it-s-as-scary-as-it-sounds

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/21/us/arizona-anti-gay-bill/index.html?c=homepage-t

[MightyWhitey]

I'm surprised Al Sharpton hasn't flown to Arizona to stage a protest in the name of equality:lol

[mr.big35]

Arizona has the stupidest politician ever. Why not introduce jim crow law

[Go Getter]

I'm surprised Al Sharpton hasn't flown to Arizona to stage a protest in the name of equality:lol


Not surprised at the Bill or at the state of the US justice system but surprised by the absence of Al Sharpton who hasn't been in the media eye for awhile, smh.

Your trolling has fallen off...you may need a new controversy to spark you creativity because you haven't been bringing anything to the table lately with your weak attempts.

"Bush Cares About Black People?"

Your shit is weak son.:facepalm

[longtime lurker]

I'm surprised Al Sharpton hasn't flown to Arizona to stage a protest in the name of equality:lol

But if he did people like you wouldn't be able to complain that he only protests for black people :confusedshrug:

[Dresta]

I don't see what the problem is with this. What is the need to impose on other people's beliefs exactly? Many religious people clearly view homosexuality as a barbarity, and ergo it is their right not to be compelled to serve them.

The question is: why on earth would a homosexual want to bring his business to a proprietor who hates him for what he is? I would be happy that those who hated me weren't hidden so that i could take my business to someone a bit more understanding. If - as one of the articles said - people started to implement rules where they only served Christians or whatever, then i would be happy to know who and where these people are so that i could avoid them. And if enough people did the same as me these businesses would go bust anyway.

[MightyWhitey]

Not surprised at the Bill or at the state of the US justice system but surprised by the absence of Al Sharpton who hasn't been in the media eye for awhile, smh.

Your trolling has fallen off...you may need a new controversy to spark you creativity because you haven't been bringing anything to the table lately with your weak attempts.

"Bush Cares About Black People?"

Your shit is weak son.:facepalm
I like that your following my posts :applause: I must be bringing something on to have you stalk me on ish.

[Go Getter]

I like that your following my posts :applause: I must be bringing something on to have you stalk me on ish.


Or there is another possibility: that we both post in threads that deal with social commentary, no?

You're making this too easy man...you're not even a worthy adversary anymore. Step your troll game up son.

[Go Getter]

I don't see what the problem is with this. What is the need to impose on other people's beliefs exactly? Many religious people clearly view homosexuality as a barbarity, and ergo it is their right not to be compelled to serve them.

The question is: why on earth would a homosexual want to bring his business to a proprietor who hates him for what he is? I would be happy that those who hated me weren't hidden so that i could take my business to someone a bit more understanding. If - as one of the articles said - people started to implement rules where they only served Christians or whatever, then i would be happy to know who and where these people are so that i could avoid them. And if enough people did the same as me these businesses would go bust anyway.

So when Utah passes this Bill with a large Mormon population I guess that means I should move my black ass out of the state immediately because they believe skin pigmentation is a curse from God?

I have to starve or wait for food because people don't want to serve blacks?

This leaves a lot of problems because I have paid and continue to pay taxes that benefit small and large businesses. I risked my ass in a war and was stationed in Utah I didn't ask to come here.

This bill is some bullshit plain and simple.

[MightyWhitey]

Or there is another possibility: that we both post in threads that deal with social commentary, no?

You're making this too easy man...you're not even a worthy adversary anymore. Step your troll game up son.
:lol I'm happy you're a fan. Stay tuned for more news and updates.

[Rasheed1]

:lol I bet this law gets repealed if they see an influx of muslims into the state..

Maybe it's time to establish an "atheist" religion, that way christians, and other religious people can be denied services..

[Go Getter]

But if he did people like you wouldn't be able to complain that he only protests for black people :confusedshrug:
:cheers:

[Go Getter]

:lol I'm happy you're a fan. Stay tuned for more moronic jokes and comically bad trolling.

If I run across it I point it out. Don't flatter yourself.:rolleyes:

[kentatm]

I don't see what the problem is with this. What is the need to impose on other people's beliefs exactly? Many religious people clearly view homosexuality as a barbarity, and ergo it is their right not to be compelled to serve them.



many religious people believed the bible justified slavery

many religious people saw blacks as subhuman

many religious people saw interracial couples as blasphemous and evil

many religious people saw women as lesser beings to be controlled

many religious people believed harassing, beating, and even killing followers of different religions wasn't a big deal

[TheMarkMadsen]

sometimes i wonder how far we've really come..

Kansas just passed this same law..

we've spent what, ~100 years trying to get equal rights for african americans and women..

yet somehow people don't realize this is the exact same thing :facepalm

what i don't get about these religious nuts is if you believe that god created every man, then he also created the gay man.

[HarryCallahan]

So when Utah passes this Bill with a large Mormon population I guess that means I should move my black ass out of the state immediately because they believe skin pigmentation is a curse from God?

I have to starve or wait for food because people don't want to serve blacks?

This leaves a lot of problems because I have paid and continue to pay taxes that benefit small and large businesses. I risked my ass in a war and was stationed in Utah I didn't ask to come here.

This bill is some bullshit plain and simple.

I think you are overreacting dramatically. Not all businesses in Utah are owned by Mormons, not all (if any, really) Mormon owned businesses would refuse to serve black people.

It begs the question though, if these people really hate you as much as you claim, why on earth would you want to be there anyway?



many religious people believed the bible justified slavery

many religious people saw blacks as subhuman

many religious people saw interracial couples as blasphemous and evil

many religious people saw women as lesser beings to be controlled

many religious people believed harassing, beating, and even killing followers of different religions wasn't a big deal

I don't see what any of this has to do with the proposed bill. Discriminating against isn't the same as killing, controlling or enslaving.


I think this bill is a good thing. It would certainly make racists/homophobes easier to identify, and discriminate against.

[The-Legend-24]

:oldlol:

[qrich]

So when Utah passes this Bill with a large Mormon population I guess that means I should move my black ass out of the state immediately because they believe skin pigmentation is a curse from God?

I have to starve or wait for food because people don't want to serve blacks?

This leaves a lot of problems because I have paid and continue to pay taxes that benefit small and large businesses. I risked my ass in a war and was stationed in Utah I didn't ask to come here.

This bill is some bullshit plain and simple.

So black people who consider themselves Mormon think they are cursed?

Interesting.

[MightyWhitey]

So when Utah passes this Bill with a large Mormon population I guess that means I should move my black ass out of the state immediately because they believe skin pigmentation is a curse from God?

I have to starve or wait for food because people don't want to serve blacks?

This leaves a lot of problems because I have paid and continue to pay taxes that benefit small and large businesses. I risked my ass in a war and was stationed in Utah I didn't ask to come here.

This bill is some bullshit plain and simple.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lUdAEDYHbhw

She's not complaining about being black, a woman, a Republican, and a Mormon. Are you sure you have your facts straight?

[ace23]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lUdAEDYHbhw
:biggums:

[Go Getter]

I think you are overreacting dramatically. Not all businesses in Utah are owned by Mormons, not all (if any, really) Mormon owned businesses would refuse to serve black people.

It begs the question though, if these people really hate you as much as you claim, why on earth would you want to be there anyway?




I don't see what any of this has to do with the proposed bill. Discriminating against isn't the same as killing, controlling or enslaving.


I think this bill is a good thing. It would certainly make racists/homophobes easier to identify, and discriminate against.

The gov't sent me to Utah against my will. Many of my buddies went to Luke AFB. It'd be a crying shame for some prick to deny a vet his rights because of the entitlements of a stupid bill.

I never used absolutes. Discriminating against people is not the solution to human rights and a peaceful existence. I'm not going to debate this with you morons.

[Go Getter]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lUdAEDYHbhw

She's not complaining about being black, a woman, a Republican, and a Mormon. Are you sure you have your facts straight?

I'm sure you are a POS that's for sure.

[HarryCallahan]

The gov't sent me to Utah against my will. Many of my buddies went to Luke AFB. It'd be a crying shame for some prick to deny a vet his rights because of the entitlements of a stupid bill.

I never used absolutes. Discriminating against people is not the solution to human rights and a peaceful existence. I'm not going to debate this with you morons.

You got sent to Utah because you chose to sign up for the army, knowing that they can send you wherever they please. Being a "vet" doesn't make you special, people ought to have the right to serve whomever they damn well please.

[MightyWhitey]

:biggums:
I know right one sentence Ace :oldlol:

[MightyWhitey]

I'm sure you are a POS that's for sure.
Hey don't get mad you tripped on your own feet there tough guy. Are you still going to stalk me?

[ROCSteady]

First Arizona wants to pass legislation sayin it's all good to stop Hispanics in the street and ask them to prove their citizenship like we in Apartheid Johannesburg and now this??

Fck is wrong with the politicans and lawmakers in that state?

[MightyWhitey]

First Arizona wants to pass legislation sayin it's all good to stop Hispanics in the street and ask them to prove their citizenship like we in Apartheid Johannesburg and now this??

Fck is wrong with the politicans and lawmakers in that state?
I think passing a legislation to prove citizenship is a good thing. Illegal immigration is a serious concern for Arizona as it should be for the entire country.

[ROCSteady]

Yea until you're the guy gettin stopped and demeaningly asked if you're 'A real Amurrican'

But of course that wouldn't happen to you becuz you're mighty an white. For others, it would piss them off to be asked to verify their origin in their own country when they are just shopping or on a date or whatever.

[MightyWhitey]

Yea until you're the guy gettin stopped and demeaningly asked if you're 'A real Amurrican'

But of course that wouldn't happen to you becuz you're mighty an white. For others, it would piss them off to be asked to verify their origin in their own country when they are just shopping or on a date or whatever.
Hey if it was blue eyed blonde hair people illegally here in the USA by the millions then they should be stopped and asked. But it's not Scandinavians who are jumping borders. I don't get why this is hard to understand. We have a neighboring country north of us who respects our borders. South of us we have a neighbor taking advantage of our friendship.

[MMM]

Hey if it was blue eyed blonde hair people illegally here in the USA by the millions then they should be stopped and asked. But it's not Scandinavians who are jumping borders. I don't get why this is hard to understand. We have a neighboring country north of us who respects our borders. South of us we have a neighbor taking advantage of our friendship.

If you lived in a shithole that was Mexico you would be crossing the border too. Those people live in a desperate situation of course they are going to attempt desperate things just to live adequate lives. Lets also not pretend that some of what influence the entire situation is happening in America its self.

[ROCSteady]

It's not hard to understand. But we are not South Africa in Aparteid times. You shouldn't have to be stopped by police and questioned just for being Hispanic. That applies to any ethnicity. At the airport, I understand becuz it is a matter of safety and possible international transit. Proving you are who u are in that setting is appropriate, not crossing the damn streets keeping to yourself and happen to be around a jackass officer who wanna fck with you. This is America, Gestapo like inquiry isn't gunna be endorsed by everybody just based on a single ethnic identification, esp if one happens to fit that description.

Most people don't react well to racial profiling, I don't get why that is hard to understand.

[ROCSteady]

If you lived in a shithole that was Mexico you would be crossing the border too. Those people live in a desperate situation of course they are going to attempt desperate things just to live adequate lives. Lets also not pretend that some of what influence the entire situation is happening in America its self.

Some people don't like to admit that we could implement a lot more effort and policing to cut the ease of illegal immigration down.

Fact is, illegal immigration work benefits not only the immigrant and their family but many owners and business owners as well whose bottomline is healthier due to hiring insanely cheap and efficient workers.

[MightyWhitey]

If you lived in a shithole that was Mexico you would be crossing the border too. Those people live in a desperate situation of course they are going to attempt desperate things just to live adequate lives. Lets also not pretend that some of what influence the entire situation is happening in America its self.
I would certainly want to leave Mexico if I was in a desperate situation. But in a legal way. Not in a way where I break laws to jump a border and become a dishwasher and cry foul because the government won't give me more and more. There's always going to be alot of struggle stories. But when does it become a story about protecting borders, jobs, and a way of life?

[MightyWhitey]

Some people don't like to admit that we could implement a lot more effort and policing to cut the ease of illegal immigration down.

Fact is, illegal immigration work benefits not only the immigrant and their family but many owners and business owners as well whose bottomline is healthier due to hiring insanely cheap and efficient workers.
You are right. We could.do a hell of alot better than what we're doing now. I say tanks, choppers, and an elaborate ground force with ample technology to halt illegal border activities.

And illegal immigration is not good. Illegal immigrants put a heavy strain on the system like education, welfare, and security. I can't blame Arizona for wanting to control the influx of illegal immigrants. No one else is going to do it so why shouldn't they?

[MMM]

I would certainly want to leave Mexico if I was in a desperate situation. But in a legal way. Not in a way where I break laws to jump a border and become a dishwasher and cry foul because the government won't give me more and more. There's always going to be alot of struggle stories. But when does it become a story about protecting borders, jobs, and a way of life?

It is unrealistic to expect people to act out of their nature. People are going to break laws if it is a matter of survival. A lot of the issues in Mexico starts with their corruption but America could be doing a lot more to improve the lives of Mexicans so they don't cross the border in the first place.

[MMM]

btw how can a Mexican immigrate to America legally??? other than a handful most probably wouldn't be eligible.

[MightyWhitey]

btw how can a Mexican immigrate to America legally??? other than a handful most probably wouldn't be eligible.
Trust me there are Europeans who have the same issue. That can be lobbied by immigration advocates. Why should we leave our borders unprotected and porous?

[MightyWhitey]

It is unrealistic to expect people to act out of their nature. People are going to break laws if it is a matter of survival. A lot of the issues in Mexico starts with their corruption but America could be doing a lot more to improve the lives of Mexicans so they don't cross the border in the first place.
America doesn't have to do anything for Mexico. Mexico should do something for Mexico. As far as free trade what else does America have to do for a neighbor? Arrest their politicians or pay their debts? Let's be realistic about national security and staying out of our neighbors governing.

[MMM]

Trust me there are Europeans who have the same issue. That can be lobbied by immigration advocates. Why should we leave our borders unprotected and porous?

You shouldn't but if the quality of life in Mexico wasn't a problem than the border issue wouldn't be a problem.

[brantonli]

You are right. We could.do a hell of alot better than what we're doing now. I say tanks, choppers, and an elaborate ground force with ample technology to halt illegal border activities.

And illegal immigration is not good. Illegal immigrants put a heavy strain on the system like education, welfare, and security. I can't blame Arizona for wanting to control the influx of illegal immigrants. No one else is going to do it so why shouldn't they?


http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2014/02/daily-chart-5?zid=309&ah=80dcf288b8561b012f603b9fd9577f0e

Don't worry, under Obama, your government is expelling more people than ever. Shouldn't that make you feel proud? You conveniently forget that illegal immigrants also help fill job niches and cheapen labour costs, helping American owned business make more profits. Or is that a terrible thing for America too?

[MMM]

America doesn't have to do anything for Mexico. Mexico should do something for Mexico. As far as free trade what else does America have to do for a neighbor? Arrest their politicians or pay their debts? Let's be realistic about national security and staying out of our neighbors governing.

Americans do a lot for Mexico already it is just that it is ineffective or outright negative for both nations. American's have been killing and arresting threats to their nation throughout their history not sure why they don't do it more actively in their backyard. They could definitely go after the cartels that are also a risk to American lives.

[ROCSteady]

You are right. We could.do a hell of alot better than what we're doing now. I say tanks, choppers, and an elaborate ground force with ample technology to halt illegal border activities.

And illegal immigration is not good. Illegal immigrants put a heavy strain on the system like education, welfare, and security. I can't blame Arizona for wanting to control the influx of illegal immigrants. No one else is going to do it so why shouldn't they?

I agree except I still see Arizona's methods as intrusive to the people who already live here.

The immigrants do strain much of the allocated government resources but we live in a society where individual capitalistic gain is priority over any collective good. It's how we operate now. A man's business and his family will trump why is better for the country every time in a recession.

Our free market secular idea of prosperity actually is a hinderance to me when the country isn't thriving and in a cycle of depression.

[longtime lurker]

All this bill is is legalized discrimination. I believe it will backfire in a big way. Can't wait till white, christian, heterosexuals start getting discriminated against because its against someone's "beliefs" to do business with them. I wonder how quickly these same legislators would pass a law that was based on Muslim beliefs.

[sundizz]

Discrimination is always harmful. Unless people willingly fight again it....the younger generation will not know better. People don't seem to understand that we're fighting not for today, but for a better tomorrow.

I'm in South Korea. I was at dinner with my girl. It's a big sit down restaurant and so people are all sitting quite close to each other. There are two drunk old Korean men sitting next to us. One of them leans over and asks me "Where are you from?" I say California...he doesn't understand. I say again, "California...America". He then understands what I've said and says Okay and goes back to his conversation with the other old man speaking in Korean.

The twist...he doesn't know my gf is Korean (she looks mixed). This guy is on some soap box preaching to his friend about how I'm BS that I'm not white/blue eyes so I'm not a real American. That I'm from somewhere else but don't want to say that. That this is the problem with society nowadays...people not wanting to be who they are. Says maybe I'm Persian and how can never trust those people (I'm not Persian btw lol).

To me, it was a bit lol. I know he's an old man and his views will never change. My gf was so mad. She just like couldn't eat etc. For her it's annoying because she is a Korean citizen by birth..has Korean parents etc but is 1/4th Japanese. As such, she looks different (and much hotter). Other Koreans are always surprised she is Korean etc...annoys her like crazy.

[Dresta]

So when Utah passes this Bill with a large Mormon population I guess that means I should move my black ass out of the state immediately because they believe skin pigmentation is a curse from God?

I have to starve or wait for food because people don't want to serve blacks?

This leaves a lot of problems because I have paid and continue to pay taxes that benefit small and large businesses. I risked my ass in a war and was stationed in Utah I didn't ask to come here.

This bill is some bullshit plain and simple.
Unless the Mormons were happy to see their religion dissolve i don't think they'll being preventing the serving of blacks. But yeh, don't live in a place you think hates you for the colour of your skin, that's bad for the psyche.
many religious people believed the bible justified slavery

many religious people saw blacks as subhuman

many religious people saw interracial couples as blasphemous and evil

many religious people saw women as lesser beings to be controlled

many religious people believed harassing, beating, and even killing followers of different religions wasn't a big deal
And what is your point?

They are entitled to believe all that if they so desire, but there is a difference between refusing service and beating, killing and controlling people (how is forcing people to serve people they don't want to serve not controlling exactly). So now it's just 'those with opinions that differ from the mainstream must be controlled.'

[32jazz]

Unless the Mormons were happy to see their religion dissolve i don't think they'll being preventing the serving of blacks. But yeh, don't live in a place you think hates you for the colour of your skin, that's bad for the psyche.
And what is your point?

They are entitled to believe all that if they so desire, but there is a difference between refusing service and beating, killing and controlling people (how is forcing people to serve people they don't want to serve not controlling exactly). So now it's just 'those with opinions that differ from the mainstream must be controlled.'

:facepalm

Sounds like something that ideological fool Ron Paul would drone on about.

Would think this country & the civilized world has learned their lesson about the "nein Juden"/"No Black" signs & businesses.


Sorry Dresta, no matter what the Ideologues like you carry on about no one really wants to return to that time.

Jews,Blacks,Gays,etc.....also pay taxes for that infrastructure that allows many of those businesses to flourish. If they don't want to serve an obvious diverse public of Jews,Blacks ,Gays , Muslims,etc....don't go into the service industry.

[Dresta]

:facepalm

Sounds like something that ideological fool Ron Paul would drone on about.

Would think this country & the civilized world has learned their lesson about the "nein Juden"/"No Black" signs & businesses.

Sorry Dresta, no matter what the Ideologues like you carry on about no one really wants to return to that time.

Jews,Blacks,Gays,etc.....also pay taxes for that infrastructure that allows many of those businesses to flourish. If they don't want to serve an obvious diverse public of Jews,Blacks ,Gays , Muslims,etc....don't go into the service industry.
Paying taxes doesn't hand me the right to be served by whatever business i choose. Proprietors utilise discriminatory practices on a daily basis (club entry, credit requests, car rental etc.) and they contribute tax too; they take on the risk of an enterprise, will often lose everything if it fails, and shouldn't be paying the state vast amounts of money just for it to demand they follow imposed moral standards, when morality is completely personal.

What business is it of yours to demand that a business owner serve any person on any grounds? Why would a homosexual want to give money to a person that would not serve them provided they weren't prevented from doing so?

It is rather common for those who suffer from such incredible delusions as thinking they have figured out morality, and are capable of directing human morality from above, to accuse all those who think their efforts are futile as being 'ideologues.' How terribly petty: you have no argument other than bringing up completely different circumstances and pretending they have some sort of relevance to today. Not to mention that the Jew hate was a result of moralistic propaganda trumpeted by the church and state. And that black hate was institutionalised from them being written in to the constitution as slaves, as a lower form of human being. All were the result of the particular moral standards of the time, but do you know what made it into slavery, made it into extermination? When the state (and church) imposed its own moral standards from on high, preventing human morality from adapting and progressing, and preventing people from learning from personal experience.

Get back to me when you can come up with something better than dismissing someone as an ideologue without even realising the delightful hypocrisy of such a statement.

[Jailblazers7]

I think were the line gets drawn (or should be imo) with discriminatory behavior by businesses is if there is an economic justification for it. For example, Dresta just mentioned car rental. People under the age of 25 typically get hit with an additional surcharge and aren't capable of renting more expensive luxury cars. That's because young people are statistically worse drivers. Totally justified discrimination. But refusing to serve someone based on race or a similar trait is not justifiable.

Not sure about the social climate in Arizona but this law strikes me as an empty threat. I can't imagine many businesses refusing to serve homosexuals and still stay in business. The first places that will actually take advantage of the law will get murdered with bad press.

[Go Getter]

You got sent to Utah because you chose to sign up for the army, knowing that they can send you wherever they please. Being a "vet" doesn't make you special, people ought to have the right to serve whomever they damn well please.
Being a vet definitely makes me special. Different departments at school come to the vets office and offer us free food, clothes, and tickets to sporting events.

We are having a best-selling author come to campus Friday and I got free tickets to the dinner in his honor because I'm a vet.

My point is that I fought for America [operation enduring freedom] and to have some POS take advantage of my service then tell me I'm not good enough to eat at his/her establishment is beyond ****ed up.

[Go Getter]

Unless the Mormons were happy to see their religion dissolve i don't think they'll being preventing the serving of blacks. But yeh, don't live in a place you think hates you for the colour of your skin, that's bad for the psyche.


They are entitled to believe all that if they so desire, but there is a difference between refusing service and beating, killing and controlling people (how is forcing people to serve people they don't want to serve not controlling exactly). So now it's just 'those with opinions that differ from the mainstream must be controlled.'


No, opinions/bills that are harmful must be destroyed.

As a white man being discriminated against might be something YOU can overlook but I'm not ready for the country to go back to the 60's.

This bill would give credence to a lot of bigots and make things harder on minorities.

But I understand that you are entitled and narrow-minded so I won't belabor my points.

[Jailblazers7]

I think it is only a matter of time before this bill gets shot down by the federal court system. There is no way it holds up.

[Go Getter]

I think it is only a matter of time before this bill gets shot down by the federal court system. There is no way it holds up.
There is a way if idiots like Dresta and the OP are around to vote on it.

[Jailblazers7]

There is a way if idiots like Dresta and the OP are around to vote on it.

Honestly, their opinion on this will always be in the minority. Any federal level politician (except maybe an idiot congressman or two) will vocally renounce a bill like this if it ever appeared on their desk. Both Arizona Senators tweeted that they hope the Governor will veto it.

[Go Getter]

^I hope you're right but states like FL, AZ, MS, and TX really don't back up your claims.

[oarabbus]

No, opinions/bills that are harmful must be destroyed.

As a white man being discriminated against might be something YOU can overlook but I'm not ready for the country to go back to the 60's.

This bill would give credence to a lot of bigots and make things harder on minorities.

But I understand that you are entitled and narrow-minded so I won't belabor my points.


:applause:

Can't believe people are really defending this bill... what a ****ing huge step backwards if it makes it through.

[kentatm]

Unless the Mormons were happy to see their religion dissolve i don't think they'll being preventing the serving of blacks. But yeh, don't live in a place you think hates you for the colour of your skin, that's bad for the psyche.
And what is your point?

They are entitled to believe all that if they so desire, but there is a difference between refusing service and beating, killing and controlling people (how is forcing people to serve people they don't want to serve not controlling exactly). So now it's just 'those with opinions that differ from the mainstream must be controlled.'


denial of service due to something a person is born as is where shit like that starts bruh

outright discrimination based on religious values is bullshit.

Saying "I know that man is gay so he can't step foot in this restaurant" is no different than when stores, hotels, etc banned black people from from entering.

You shouldn't be able to boot somebody unless they are actually causing a problem. Two married dudes shopping at the IGA isnt hurting anyone.

a law like this also sets a dangerous precedent.

this is not that different than a predominantly Muslim community wanting to establish Sharia law within the US.

[kentatm]

^I hope you're right but states like FL, AZ, MS, and TX really don't back up your claims.

Texas is not some mass of red state hate.

[Dresta]

I think were the line gets drawn (or should be imo) with discriminatory behavior by businesses is if there is an economic justification for it. For example, Dresta just mentioned car rental. People under the age of 25 typically get hit with an additional surcharge and aren't capable of renting more expensive luxury cars. That's because young people are statistically worse drivers. Totally justified discrimination. But refusing to serve someone based on race or a similar trait is not justifiable.

Not sure about the social climate in Arizona but this law strikes me as an empty threat. I can't imagine many businesses refusing to serve homosexuals and still stay in business. The first places that will actually take advantage of the law will get murdered with bad press.What do you mean by 'economic justification?' - the economic justification will be proven by how well the business does, and if there is none, then it will suffer the more painful consequences of going bust. Besides, economic value is measured in terms of utility, not wealth, so all that would be needed is to declare that their customers would be more satisfied with the experience or even that this increased satisfaction would encourage them to spend more. In reality, your line doesn't exist, and has no tangible value when it comes to policy.

Discriminating against an individual 23 year old because on average 23 year olds are worst drivers is (in principle) no different to discriminating against all black people because they are associated with higher levels of crime. By your logic, if a certain 'race' were shown statistically to be lower tippers, then restaurants would be within their right to turn away anyone of that race. Essentially, your point is logically inconsistent, and doesn't make much sense at all.



No, opinions/bills that are harmful must be destroyed.

As a white man being discriminated against might be something YOU can overlook but I'm not ready for the country to go back to the 60's.

This bill would give credence to a lot of bigots and make things harder on minorities.

But I understand that you are entitled and narrow-minded so I won't belabor my points.Says every quasi-dystopian state in human history. You think it is harmful, i think it is productive, but i don't feel the right to stamp out your opinion because i happen to disagree with it. In most places i can't see how it wouldn't be bad for a business to declare an unwillingness to serve homosexuals, and i would rather know WHO these people are rather than have them hidden by coercive state power, so that i can avoid their establishments, and refrain from giving them MY money. Morality cannot be enforced from the top down without granting the state arbitrary power, and even then, it acts as a hindrance on moral progression. That should not be hard for you to understand. There will be no reversion to the 60s, that is a delusion which has somehow taken over your mind despite there being zero evidence in its favour.

And there you go again, not arguing, but engaging in the mindless and unjustifiable ad hominem accusation of my being 'entitled' - once again displaying the typical mentality of the life-long self-pitying loser.
denial of service due to something a person is born as is where shit like that starts bruh

outright discrimination based on religious values is bullshit.

Saying "I know that man is gay so he can't step foot in this restaurant" is no different than when stores, hotels, etc banned black people from from entering.

You shouldn't be able to boot somebody unless they are actually causing a problem. Two married dudes shopping at the IGA isnt hurting anyone.

a law like this also sets a dangerous precedent.

this is not that different than a predominantly Muslim community wanting to establish Sharia law within the US.It isn't a law: it is the repealing of a coercive law. To declare that such and such cannot do such and such is to make a law, to allow people to make their own decisions is the opposite of this: generally termed freedom, or liberty.

That outright discrimination based on religious values is 'bullshit' is your opinion. Plenty of people will disagree, and they may be wrong (try proving it though), but that is completely irrelevant to whether or not they should be allowed to express that opinion. Freedom of Religion means the state does not take sides or intervene in religious disputes, it doesn't mean each religion has to respect the other, or to even admit the other onto its premises.

Someone who owns an establishment has the right to boot whoever he pleases off of it, and he should not even be required to provide a reason for doing so if he wishes not to.

To pretend this could result into some regression to the 1960s defies belief. There is not a more powerful force in politics these days than the dogma of tolerance, which consumes the overwhelming majority of people, but also convinces them that you can promote tolerance by being thoroughly intolerant. Racial sensitivity has become a neurosis in this country; a politician can't say something with even a chance of it being construed as racist without the risk of losing his job (one was fired for using the word 'niggardly'). So stop with the alarmist nonsense. People on here call me a pessimist and hater of people, yet i seem far more trusting of people and the choices they make than many on here that have ideological fanaticism spilling out of their noses.

[MightyWhitey]

Paying taxes doesn't hand me the right to be served by whatever business i choose. Proprietors utilise discriminatory practices on a daily basis (club entry, credit requests, car rental etc.) and they contribute tax too; they take on the risk of an enterprise, will often lose everything if it fails, and shouldn't be paying the state vast amounts of money just for it to demand they follow imposed moral standards, when morality is completely personal.

What business is it of yours to demand that a business owner serve any person on any grounds? Why would a homosexual want to give money to a person that would not serve them provided they weren't prevented from doing so?

It is rather common for those who suffer from such incredible delusions as thinking they have figured out morality, and are capable of directing human morality from above, to accuse all those who think their efforts are futile as being 'ideologues.' How terribly petty: you have no argument other than bringing up completely different circumstances and pretending they have some sort of relevance to today. Not to mention that the Jew hate was a result of moralistic propaganda trumpeted by the church and state. And that black hate was institutionalised from them being written in to the constitution as slaves, as a lower form of human being. All were the result of the particular moral standards of the time, but do you know what made it into slavery, made it into extermination? When the state (and church) imposed its own moral standards from on high, preventing human morality from adapting and progressing, and preventing people from learning from personal experience.

Get back to me when you can come up with something better than dismissing someone as an ideologue without even realising the delightful hypocrisy of such a statement.
This! :cheers:

[Go Getter]

What do you mean by 'economic justification?' - the economic justification will be proven by how well the business does, and if there is none, then it will suffer the more painful consequences of going bust. Besides, economic value is measured in terms of utility, not wealth, so all that would be needed is to declare that their customers would be more satisfied with the experience or even that this increased satisfaction would encourage them to spend more. In reality, your line doesn't exist, and has no tangible value when it comes to policy.

Discriminating against an individual 23 year old because on average 23 year olds are worst drivers is (in principle) no different to discriminating against all black people because they are associated with higher levels of crime. By your logic, if a certain 'race' were shown statistically to be lower tippers, then restaurants would be within their right to turn away anyone of that race. Essentially, your point is logically inconsistent, and doesn't make much sense at all.


Says every quasi-dystopian state in human history. You think it is harmful, i think it is productive, but i don't feel the right to stamp out your opinion because i happen to disagree with it. In most places i can't see how it wouldn't be bad for a business to declare an unwillingness to serve homosexuals, and i would rather know WHO these people are rather than have them hidden by coercive state power, so that i can avoid their establishments, and refrain from giving them MY money. Morality cannot be enforced from the top down without granting the state arbitrary power, and even then, it acts as a hindrance on moral progression. That should not be hard for you to understand. There will be no reversion to the 60s, that is a delusion which has somehow taken over your mind despite there being zero evidence in its favour.

And there you go again, not arguing, but engaging in the mindless and unjustifiable ad hominem accusation of my being 'entitled' - once again displaying the typical mentality of the life-long self-pitying loser.It isn't a law: it is the repealing of a coercive law. To declare that such and such cannot do such and such is to make a law, to allow people to make their own decisions is the opposite of this: generally termed freedom, or liberty.

That outright discrimination based on religious values is 'bullshit' is your opinion. Plenty of people will disagree, and they may be wrong (try proving it though), but that is completely irrelevant to whether or not they should be allowed to express that opinion. Freedom of Religion means the state does not take sides or intervene in religious disputes, it doesn't mean each religion has to respect the other, or to even admit the other onto its premises.

Someone who owns an establishment has the right to boot whoever he pleases off of it, and he should not even be required to provide a reason for doing so if he wishes not to.

To pretend this could result into some regression to the 1960s defies belief. There is not a more powerful force in politics these days than the dogma of tolerance, which consumes the overwhelming majority of people, but also convinces them that you can promote tolerance by being thoroughly intolerant. Racial sensitivity has become a neurosis in this country; a politician can't say something with even a chance of it being construed as racist without the risk of losing his job (one was fired for using the word 'niggardly'). So stop with the alarmist nonsense. People on here call me a pessimist and hater of people, yet i seem far more trusting of people and the choices they make than many on here that have ideological fanaticism spilling out of their noses.


I don't have to flesh out really in depth explanations for you because I do not respect you. Defending this bill makes you a POS.

I am:
-an AF vet
-the ONLY black man in my grad school program
-a single father
-a tax payer
-a happy person that gets along with people from all walks of life


I do not pity myself or play the victim in life....I do pity you and your narrow minded idiocy though.

These bills are dangerous and if a lot of people adopt them they can be harmful for minorities, mentally and physically....I wouldn't expect someone who drinks from the goblet of white privilege to understand homie....no love lost.

[MightyWhitey]

Being a vet definitely makes me special. Different departments at school come to the vets office and offer us free food, clothes, and tickets to sporting events.

We are having a best-selling author come to campus Friday and I got free tickets to the dinner in his honor because I'm a vet.

My point is that I fought for America [operation enduring freedom] and to have some POS take advantage of my service then tell me I'm not good enough to eat at his/her establishment is beyond ****ed up.
:rolleyes: I guess we should relinquish all of our daughters and coffers for you since your so special.
Thank you for your service to our country. I am being sincere too. But don't think that you're owed anything more than the average American for that service. You did a job you chose and got paid to do it, however tough it may have been. If you are gay and some business doesn't want to serve you, even if you served in the military, that is their right and you should respect that.

[bagelred]

http://i58.tinypic.com/1079hqp.jpg

[HarryCallahan]

Not sure about the social climate in Arizona but this law strikes me as an empty threat. I can't imagine many businesses refusing to serve homosexuals and still stay in business. The first places that will actually take advantage of the law will get murdered with bad press.

Exactly. It's not about having some sort of Jim Crowe society, it's about not preventing racist dickheads from identifying themselves. Any business that does institute race-based service would fold soon after. No one wants to be seen walking into "the racist restaurant."


Being a vet definitely makes me special. Different departments at school come to the vets office and offer us free food, clothes, and tickets to sporting events.

We are having a best-selling author come to campus Friday and I got free tickets to the dinner in his honor because I'm a vet.

My point is that I fought for America [operation enduring freedom] and to have some POS take advantage of my service then tell me I'm not good enough to eat at his/her establishment is beyond ****ed up.

Apparently being a vet makes you specially stupid, you'd have to be to sign up for the military in the first place. Just because people give you things doesn't make you special. You never "fought for America" you fought against Afghan's, in what history will remember as one of America's worst atrocities.

They wouldn't be "taking advantage of your service," because killing a bunch of goat herder's in the fvcking desert half the world away was in no way serving any American, besides maybe weapons manufacturers and military personnel.


If I had a restaurant in Arizona I'd have a sign reading "No army jerks or camo turkey's" because I don't wanna serve morons like you, who are proud of atrocities.

[MightyWhitey]

I don't have to flesh out really in depth explanations for you because I do not respect you. Defending this bill makes you a POS.

I am:
-an AF vet
-the ONLY black man in my grad school program
-a single father
-a tax payer
-a happy person that gets along with people from all walks of life


I do not pity myself or play the victim in life....I do pity you and your narrow minded idiocy though.

These bills are dangerous and if a lot of people adopt them they can be harmful for minorities, mentally and physically....I wouldn't expect someone who drinks from the goblet of white privilege to understand homie....no love lost.
What is the goblet of white privilege :biggums: ? Sounds like something you would find in the Hobbit movies. I guess being a single father is like drinking from the typical black chalice :confusedshrug:????

[Go Getter]

:rolleyes: I guess we should relinquish all of our daughters and coffers for you since your so special.
Thank you for your service to our country. I am being sincere too. But don't think that you're owed anything more than the average American for that service. You did a job you chose and got paid to do it, however tough it may have been. If you are gay and some business doesn't want to serve you, even if you served in the military, that is their right and you should respect that.


Not businesses that enjoy tax breaks or get funds from my taxes. Small business owners receive tax breaks from ALL citizens should be required to serve ALL citizens.

[HarryCallahan]

Not businesses that enjoy tax breaks or get funds from my taxes. Small business owners receive tax breaks from ALL citizens should be required to serve ALL citizens.

A tax break is the absence of payment, not a gift. Not paying taxes isn't the same as receiving tax money dum-dum.

[DonDadda59]

And this is exactly why humanity needs to evolve to a higher level collectively and rid ourselves of the cancer that is religion.

Not that this is even about people's dark age desert nonsense. They just use it as a veil to hide their prejudices. Where's the bill that requires adulterous women (and virgins who don't scream loud enough while being raped) to be stoned to death? Same religious text that predicated this legalized prejudice decrees it.

But people just pick and choose which parts of their 'beliefs' system they adhere to depending on whatever they are prejudiced against. Plenty of antebellum plantation owners used scripture to justify the systematic and legal enslavement of people. Go figure.

[Big_Dogg]

And this is exactly why humanity needs to evolve to a higher level collectively and rid ourselves of the cancer that is religion.

Not that this is even about people's dark age desert nonsense. They just use it as a veil to hide their prejudices. Where's the bill that requires adulterous women (and virgins who don't scream loud enough while being raped) to be stoned to death? Same religious text that predicated this legalized prejudice decrees it.

But people just pick and choose which parts of their 'beliefs' system they adhere to depending on whatever they are prejudiced against. Plenty of antebellum plantation owners used scripture to justify the systematic and legal enslavement of people. Go figure.

Damn right :cheers:

[Go Getter]

A tax break is the absence of payment, not a gift. Not paying taxes isn't the same as receiving tax money dum-dum.


A tax break is something someone gets to help their business. A business should not receive tax breaks or anything of that nature if they do not allow patrons that pay taxes.

That is my point.

If that is too complicated for you I could try to break it down to a simpler understanding kind sir.

[MightyWhitey]

And this is exactly why humanity needs to evolve to a higher level collectively and rid ourselves of the cancer that is religion.

Not that this is even about people's dark age desert nonsense. They just use it as a veil to hide their prejudices. Where's the bill that requires adulterous women (and virgins who don't scream loud enough while being raped) to be stoned to death? Same religious text that predicated this legalized prejudice decrees it.

But people just pick and choose which parts of their 'beliefs' system they adhere to depending on whatever they are prejudiced against. Plenty of antebellum plantation owners used scripture to justify the systematic and legal enslavement of people. Go figure.
Oh boy,,, I guess reading Richard Dawkins made you, like, so enlightened. Congratulations :applause: You're officially in that camp where it's cool to attack religion in a militaristic atheist Dawkins way. That's a funny dogma you follow.

[MightyWhitey]

A tax break is something someone gets to help their business. A business should not receive tax breaks or anything of that nature if they do not allow patrons that pay taxes.

That is my point.

If that is too complicated for you I could try to break it down to a simpler understanding for you kind sir.
But the United States of America is not a communist country :facepalm

[DonDadda59]

Oh boy,,, I guess reading Richard Dawkins made you, like, so enlightened. Congratulations :applause: You're officially in that camp where it's cool to attack religion in a militaristic atheist Dawkins way. That's a funny dogma you follow.

Eat a d*ck. I've never read anything by Dawkins. Just expressing my thoughts. Do you have any sort of actual rebuttal to what I said or are you just planning on doing your usual inane rambling?

[MightyWhitey]

Eat a d*ck. I've never read anything by Dawkins. Just expressing my thoughts. Do you have any sort of actual rebuttal to what I said or are you just planning on doing your usual inane rambling?
Rebuttal? To what? Your idiotic rant about religion or your bigotry against people who practice their religion?

[DonDadda59]

Rebuttal? To what? Your idiotic rant about religion or your bigotry against people who practice their religion?

Either one, your choice. Actually say something for once instead of typing just to type.

[Go Getter]

What is the goblet of white privilege :biggums: ? Sounds like something you would find in the Hobbit movies. I guess being a single father is like drinking from the typical black chalice :confusedshrug:????
Single father homes comprise less than 2% of A.A. households you idiot.:facepalm

[Go Getter]

Exactly. It's not about having some sort of Jim Crowe society, it's about not preventing racist dickheads from identifying themselves. Any business that does institute race-based service would fold soon after. No one wants to be seen walking into "the racist restaurant."



Apparently being a vet makes you specially stupid, you'd have to be to sign up for the military in the first place. Just because people give you things doesn't make you special. You never "fought for America" you fought against Afghan's, in what history will remember as one of America's worst atrocities.

They wouldn't be "taking advantage of your service," because killing a bunch of goat herder's in the fvcking desert half the world away was in no way serving any American, besides maybe weapons manufacturers and military personnel.


If I had a restaurant in Arizona I'd have a sign reading "No army jerks or camo turkey's" because I don't wanna serve morons like you, who are proud of atrocities.


1. The Air Force PREVENTS other countries from flying over our air space and dropping bombs on our people on a daily basis. WITHOUT the AF our life would be ****ed up. I was an ammo troop in the 649th Muns squadron. I can say without a shadow of a doubt that I know more about this subject than you but continue on talking out the side of your neck...

2. I know that our politicians and businesses cause other countries to hate us and they start wars for profit....REGARDLESS, see #1, because even if we were an "angel nation" people would still try to take advantage of us and we would still need an AF.

3. I get discounts at almost every restaurant, people on the street that hear me talking to other vets stop and thank me for my service, and the University developed a brand new office with free coffee and printing for my fellow vets and I...why? Because we are special, that's why.

[HarryCallahan]

1. The Air Force PREVENTS other countries from flying over our air space and dropping bombs on our people on a daily basis. WITHOUT the AF our life would be ****ed up. I was an ammo troop in the 649th Muns squadron. I can say without a shadow of a doubt that I know more about this subject than you.

2. I know that our politicians and businesses cause other countries to hate us and they start wars for profit....REGARDLESS, see #1, because even if we were an "angel nation" people would still try to take advantage of us and we would still need a military.

3. I get discounts at almost every restaurant, I get two days a year when I eat free, people on the street that hear me talking to other vets stop and thank me for my service and the University developed a brand new office with free coffee and printing for my fellow vets and I...why? Because we are special, that's why.

No one is trying to attack America you jackass. You aren't special at all, aside from having an inflated sense of self-importance. People give you food, that makes you special? I gave a bum a sandwich the other day, I guess that makes him pretty special too.

[HarryCallahan]

A tax break is something someone gets to help their business. A business should not receive tax breaks or anything of that nature if they do not allow patrons that pay taxes.

That is my point.

If that is too complicated for you I could try to break it down to a simpler understanding kind sir.

:rolleyes:

A tax break is the government taking less of your money. Stop acting like it's a gift.

[Go Getter]

No one is trying to attack America you jackass. You aren't special at all, aside from having an inflated sense of self-importance. People give you food, that makes you special? I gave a bum a sandwich the other day, I guess that makes him pretty special too.

No one is trying to attack America because we have "the biggest stick" you idiot. Namely, the US Air Force. Our guided missles, Mk 84's, and satellite tracking munitions can destroy just about any countries communications systems, roads, and energy grid in less than a half hour.

If we did not have this the Mexican Cartel, N. Korea, Aphgan, etc, etc would be over here ****ing shit up like we do in other countries.

What makes me special is I am a part of a group of men that did and continue to do extraordinary things being a bum and getting a sandwich outta your grubby ass man-pleasers is not special. Having a chain of restaurants that everyone PAYS to go to make you a special menu and have the manager come over and shake your hand is special. If you think differently that's fine with me but you know in you heart of hearts what it is.

[MightyWhitey]

And this is exactly why humanity needs to evolve to a higher level collectively and rid ourselves of the cancer that is religion.
Nonsense. Religion offers morals and support to many people. It also comforts those when they are in need and it inspires many to be better people. Love thy neighbor is a powerful message. I am sure business owners in Arizona will remember this before denying anyone of anything. However if they choose to not service homosexuals then that is their right whether you or I or anyone believes that is right, wrong, moral, immoral, prejudice, or dogmatic.

Not that this is even about people's dark age desert nonsense. They just use it as a veil to hide their prejudices. Where's the bill that requires adulterous women (and virgins who don't scream loud enough while being raped) to be stoned to death? Same religious text that predicated this legalized prejudice decrees it.
You lost me on this rant. Can you be more specific about this religious text you're rambling on about. And that "dark age desert nonsense" has helped keep people in line for centuries by the way.

But people just pick and choose which parts of their 'beliefs' system they adhere to depending on whatever they are prejudiced against. Plenty of antebellum plantation owners used scripture to justify the systematic and legal enslavement of people. Go figure.
That generalization can fall like rain on any rooftop. You have people today who swear that Roswell happened and that there is a giant government cover-up of aliens and ufo's, contrary to the fact that the government showed a crashed weather balloon. But they choose to believe in the newspaper article the day before rather than the day after.

I've noticed your uneducated rumblings on religion. Maybe you watch too much of Bill Maher and take his documentary 'Religulous' seriously or you watched Zeitgeist and creamed your panty's. Whatever. You should thank God or Hitchens that you live in America where we have such glorious freedoms to practice a religion, say whatever your heart desires, or provide a service to whomever you prefer. God Bless America!

[Go Getter]

:rolleyes:

A tax break is the government taking less of your money. Stop acting like it's a gift.

It's a privilege given to tax payers that SOME don't get. Anyone that refuses to serve ALL the tax payers should not get any benefits in the system we ALL pay into.

You just don't get it.

[MightyWhitey]

It's a privilege given to tax payers that SOME don't get. Anyone that refuses to serve ALL the tax payers should not get any benefits in the system we ALL pay into.

You just don't get it.
But you don't get that this is NOT a COMMUNIST country :facepalm

[MightyWhitey]

Single father homes comprise less than 2% of A.A. households you idiot.:facepalm
Really and what's the % of white privilege nonsense you're spouting off before? Maybe you eat Agent Orange in your fruit loops :rolleyes:

[HarryCallahan]

It's a privilege given to tax payers that SOME don't get. Anyone that refuses to serve ALL the tax payers should not get any benefits in the system we ALL pay into.

You just don't get it.

It's not a benefit you fvcking lackwit, it's a slightly smaller detraction. "I could kick you in the dick, but instead i'll just punch your face" "Well, gee thanks mister."

[HarryCallahan]

No one is trying to attack America because we have "the biggest stick" you idiot. Namely, the US Air Force. Our guided missles, Mk 84's, and satellite tracking munitions can destroy just about any countries communications systems, roads, and energy grid in less than a half hour.

If we did not have this the Mexican Cartel, N. Korea, Aphgan, etc, etc would be over here ****ing shit up like we do in other countries.

What makes me special is I am a part of a group of men that did and continue to do extraordinary things being a bum and getting a sandwich outta your grubby ass man-pleasers is not special. Having a chain of restaurants that everyone PAYS to go to make you a special menu and have the manager come over and shake your hand is special. If you think differently that's fine with me but you know in you heart of hearts what it is.


No one is trying to attack America because of nukes, not some fvcking pvssy sitting in Utah whining about the hypothetical ramifications of a proposed bill in Arizona and talking about how special he is because some thoughtless dickheads give him some food.

Being in the military isn't extraordinary. About 7% of the population was in the military at some stage, it's pretty damn ordinary. You should not be proud of being part of an organisation that killed half a billion people in the last decade you piece of fvcking garbage.

Afghanistan and N. Korea would not "be over here ****ing shit up," because unlike the US, they don't have a history of invading a new country every damn decade. When was the last time N. Korea started a war? How bout Afghanistan?


Dumbass fvcking camo turkey.

[DonDadda59]

Nonsense. Religion offers morals and support to many people. It also comforts those when they are in need and it inspires many to be better people. Love thy neighbor is a powerful message. I am sure business owners in Arizona will remember this before denying anyone of anything. However if they choose to not service homosexuals then that is their right whether you or I or anyone believes that is right, wrong, moral, immoral, prejudice, or dogmatic.

Just proving my point :oldlol:

How can you in one breath say that religion (specifically Christianity) teaches one to 'love thy neighbor' but in the next say business owners should have the right to openly discriminate against the same neighbors simply because of their sexual affinity? Doesn't make a lick of sense, 2 completely contradictory ideas. What makes it even worse is that the guy who supposedly taught people to 'love thy neighbor' never made any mention about homosexuals whatsoever.

So again... any follower of Christ who prejudices and discriminates against homosexuals and tries to hide behind his supposed words is sorely misguided.


You lost me on this rant. Can you be more specific about this religious text you're rambling on about.

They call it 'The Holy Bible', don't know if you've ever heard of it:

(Since Leviticus seems to be the go-to for the anti gay agenda)

And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. -Leviticus 20:10

^So by the logic of the law, anyone who believes in the supposed word of God should have the right to murder any man or woman who cheats on their spouse, right?

[B]

[Rasheed1]

Don Dadda is smacking em down :cheers:

More knowledge in his pinky finger than the trolls have combined

[Go Getter]

It's not a benefit you fvcking lackwit, it's a slightly smaller detraction. "I could kick you in the dick, but instead i'll just punch your face" "Well, gee thanks mister."

If the Gooch takes a little less money out of your pocket than he does mine every week because of what you do for a living then that's a benefit to you.


It's not like kicking or hurting, it's leaving you extra money you brain dead moron...you know, greens, bills, div-a-dends.

[Go Getter]

No one is trying to attack America because of nukes, not some fvcking pvssy sitting in Utah whining about the hypothetical ramifications of a proposed bill in Arizona and talking about how special he is because some thoughtless dickheads give him some food.

Being in the military isn't extraordinary. About 7% of the population was in the military at some stage, it's pretty damn ordinary. You should not be proud of being part of an organisation that killed half a billion people in the last decade you piece of fvcking garbage.

Afghanistan and N. Korea would not "be over here ****ing shit up," because unlike the US, they don't have a history of invading a new country every damn decade. When was the last time N. Korea started a war? How bout Afghanistan?


Dumbass fvcking camo turkey.


What organization runs the nation's nuclear program sir?:roll:

How did the nukes get to Japan?

[MightyWhitey]

How can you in one breath say that religion (specifically Christianity) teaches one to 'love thy neighbor' but in the next say business owners should have the right to openly discriminate against the same neighbors simply because of their sexual affinity? Doesn't make a lick of sense, 2 completely contradictory ideas. What makes it even worse is that the guy who supposedly taught people to 'love thy neighbor' never made any mention about homosexuals whatsoever.

So again... any follower of Christ who prejudices and discriminates against homosexuals and tries to hide behind his supposed words is sorely misguided.
Separation of church and state is a great function of the US of A. However there is a freedom of religion that you need to remember. Some people find homosexuality against their religion. That is their right. This bill gives them that right to deny them services as already specified in this topic. IF the business owner is a Christian and does follow a specific churches principles then that owner may or may not use this bill to "discriminate". I don't get why you specifically pick out "any follower of Christ" when that same follower may very well NOT discriminate against a homosexual because the bible teaches forgiveness and that God is the ultimate judge.

[QUOTE]They call it 'The Holy Bible', don't know if you've ever heard of it:

(Since Leviticus seems to be the go-to for the anti gay agenda)

And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. -Leviticus 20:10

^So by the logic of the law, anyone who believes in the supposed word of God should have the right to murder any man or woman who cheats on their spouse, right?

[MightyWhitey]

Don Dadda is smacking em down :cheers:

More knowledge in his pinky finger than the trolls have combined
Ok now, wake up, clean up your nocturnal emissions, and go do something productive for society for once.

[Go Getter]

fvked a marine's girl once

she just kept bitching about how much she hated marines:oldlol:
:oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol:

[Go Getter]

Ok now, wake up, clean up your nocturnal emissions, and go do something productive for society for once.

More poor trolling from the industry leader in petty insults: 'Whitey

[MightyWhitey]

More poor trolling from the industry leader in petty insults: 'Whitey

:lol You're still here? Tell me why a business owner cannot run his/her business the way they see fit? What authority is it of yours or anybody's to tell that business what they can or cannot do? Remember we live in America, not China.

[DonDadda59]

Separation of church and state is a great function of the US of A. However there is a freedom of religion that you need to remember. Some people find homosexuality against their religion. That is their right. This bill gives them that right to deny them services as already specified in this topic. IF the business owner is a Christian and does follow a specific churches principles then that owner may or may not use this bill to "discriminate". I don't get why you specifically pick out "any follower of Christ" when that same follower may very well NOT discriminate against a homosexual because the bible teaches forgiveness and that God is the ultimate judge.

OK, so is it only homosexuals who are the only target of this bill? As far as I know, the bill/sponsor states:


"This bill is about preventing discrimination against people who are clearly living out their faith,” said state GOP Sen. Steve Yarbrough, the bill sponsor

According to the new bill, "A person whose religious exercise is burdened … may assert that violation as a claim or a defense in a judicial proceeding.”

The bill allows any business, church or person to cite the law as a defense in any action brought by the government or an individual. It also allows the business or person to seek an injunction once they show their actions are based on a sincere religious belief and the claim places a burden on the exercise of their religion.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/24/ariz-bill-allowing-owners-to-deny-services-based-on-religion-spark-strong/


Looks like ANYONE who feels their freedom of religion is being infringed upon can invoke it.... as long as their belief is 'sincere' :oldlol:

So basically if a Muslim store owner refuses to allow women inside his establishment unless they wear burkas, he should be fully protected by the law. Same as a Christian who refuses to serve anyone with a tattoo or stones to death a proven adulterer. As long as their belief is sincere, it's not solely relegated to Homosexuals or even just Christian beliefs.


If we go by your logic then we can look at the Right To Bear Arms and debate whether that applies to many people today or not. A great debate that rages all over every news outlet every time a child is shot.
But that Leviticus passage depicts a time of different strokes for different folks. Those passages were written at a time to keep people faithful in a world you certainly would not understand using your atheist logic. Modern interpretations of the text vindicate it whether you agree with what is written or not.

You mean like these crazy times where States have legalized gay marriage and NBA and NFL players are coming out of the closet? :oldlol:

And where does it say in the bible that the word of GOD has an expiration date? If he said 2,000 years ago to some illiterate goat herders that they should murder adulterers by stoning them to death then GOD DAMNIT, the same rules apply to you today. This isn't a Gary Coleman sitcom :coleman:

You can't hide your prejudices behind one line of scripture that was written by who knows thousands of years ago but then shrug your shoulders and invoke 'different strokes' for another. It's either you're a follower of every single word of God or you're a blasphemer who is going to hell. I know- inconvenient as shit, but it is what it is.


Too bad for you that there are billions of people who believe in a God biblically or spiritually. Maybe when the aliens land on the white house lawn we'll see your "hope" come to fruition. But until then enjoy America's majority of Christians and the solace, guidance, and joy that they receive from their religious beliefs.

Again... aliens? What the f*ck are you talking about? Remember- gather your thoughts, organize, and then type.



When Muslims form the majority of the USA and create such laws then that is the law. But that isn't and will not be the case. FYI Muslims and Jews are against homosexuality so it is their right to "discriminate" in Arizona as well. I don't get why you think a businessman HAS to sell anything to anyone? I'm not saying that it's good business acumen to deny based on sexual orientation. But again, who are you to tell that business owner what he can or cannot do with his business?

Isn't that convenient? :lol

So only the majority gets to practice their sweet religious freedom? Show me where in the bill it states that. As I showed above, according to the law- anyone who feels their freedom of religion is being infringed upon can invoke it. That means Muslims who refuse service to women unless they wear burkas. That includes a Scientologist theater owner who refuses to let anyone in unless they pray to Xenu.

You're operating (so hilariously predictably) under the assumption that this is the 'save American Christian coffee shops from the evil Gays' bill. When in reality it's the discriminate against whoever you want based on your personal prejudices, as long as you can back it up with some millennias old desert scribblings or even new age science fiction passed off as religion bill. This is what the idiot(s) who drafted this bill probably did not have the foresight to anticipate.

You thought these knuckle draggers were afraid of Sharia Law coming stateside before? Wait until they're forced to defend in court the bearded gentlemen who refuse to sell them groceries because their wives violated their religious freedoms by not being covered head to toe as per their sincere religious faith :lol

F*cking idiots all around, present company included.

[DonDadda59]

http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/fiction/hiphop/bizzle/skull03.jpg

Heathen

My dude Baphomet. :pimp:

Bout to take a trip to Sunny Arizona and practice some of that sweet, sincere religious freedom. Nobody gets to buy liquor at my establishment without first sacrificing their first born sons. My lord and savior has decreed it, so legally, his will be done.

[ace23]

3. I get discounts at almost every restaurant, people on the street that hear me talking to other vets stop and thank me for my service, and the University developed a brand new office with free coffee and printing for my fellow vets and I...why? Because we are special, that's why.
I don't really care about this argument, just checking in to make sure that you're aware of how pathetic you sound calling yourself special.

[HarryCallahan]

I don't really care about this argument, just checking in to make sure that you're aware of how pathetic you sound calling yourself special.

Fvckin' A. Thinking you're special because you're part of an organisation that kills innocent people the world over and the proof is that some cvntknuckle gives you a free chinchilla?

[MightyWhitey]

Looks like ANYONE who feels their freedom of religion is being infringed upon can invoke it.... as long as their belief is 'sincere'
Sure. If their case holds water in a court of law - http://www.christianpost.com/news/issue-analysis-arizona-bill-does-not-give-businesses-license-to-discriminate-against-gays-115093/
4. A RFRA law, either state or federal, does not give anyone the license to do anything they want based upon their religious beliefs. Rather, it says what needs to happen for the government to take away someone's religious freedom. RFRA provides citizens with religious freedom protections, but that does not mean that everyone who claims their religious freedom is violated will win a court case using RFRA as their defense.


So basically if a Muslim store owner refuses to allow women inside his establishment unless they wear burkas, he should be fully protected by the law. Same as a Christian who refuses to serve anyone with a tattoo or stones to death a proven adulterer. As long as their belief is sincere, it's not solely relegated to Homosexuals or even just Christian beliefs.You are dumber than a doorknob. You should change your user name to DumbDumbass.


And where does it say in the bible that the word of GOD has an expiration date? If he said 2,000 years ago to some illiterate goat herders that they should murder adulterers by stoning them to death then GOD DAMNIT, the same rules apply to you todayI see you like to make your own interpretations about how the bible should be followed. Much like the many Christian sects out there. It seems your dogmatic atheism makes you assume much.


You can't hide your prejudices behind one line of scripture that was written by who knows thousands of years ago but then shrug your shoulders and invoke 'different strokes' for another. It's either you're a follower of every single word of God or you're a blasphemer who is going to hell. Now I know you never read the Bible before, more likely you never read the New Testament. You ASSUME much but know little. Especially when you say stupid things like "either you're a follower of every single word of God or you're a blasphemer who is going to hell blah blah blah". The gospels show what Christ taught and what he wanted out of his followers - http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205&version=NIV

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206&version=NIV

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207&version=NIV


Again... aliens? What the f*ck are you talking about? Remember- gather your thoughts, organize, and then type.
Really??? Need I post your utopian communist rubbish you were spewing before? Here is your science fiction again:


Which was the only purpose. I hope one day we can reach a level of mental acclivity as a species where we don't murder, rape, rob, etc because we realize it is immoral and negative for society and not because we're living in fear of boogeymen like some dark age goat herders who think thunder and lightning are caused by God's displeasure.
:applause: Great hopes you have there. And one day Aliens will land on the white house lawn,,, but then again Aliens won't land on the white house lawn and your utopian wet dream will never come true.


So only the majority gets to practice their sweet religious freedom? Show me where in the bill it states that. As I showed above, according to the law- anyone who feels their freedom of religion is being infringed upon can invoke it. That means Muslims who refuse service to women unless they wear burkas. That includes a Scientologist theater owner who refuses to let anyone in unless they pray to Xenu.

I hope whomever tries to use this bill knows the following - http://www.christianpost.com/news/issue-analysis-arizona-bill-does-not-give-businesses-license-to-discriminate-against-gays-115093/
4. A RFRA law, either state or federal, does not give anyone the license to do anything they want based upon their religious beliefs. Rather, it says what needs to happen for the government to take away someone's religious freedom. RFRA provides citizens with religious freedom protections, but that does not mean that everyone who claims their religious freedom is violated will win a court case using RFRA as their defense.


You're operating (so hilariously predictably) under the assumption that this is the 'save American Christian coffee shops from the evil Gays' bill. When in reality it's the discriminate against whoever you want based on your personal prejudices, as long as you can back it up with some millennias old desert scribblings or even new age science fiction passed off as religion bill. This is what the idiot(s) who drafted this bill probably did not have the foresight to anticipate.

Oh Boy, DumDumbass makin it up as he goes along. issue-analysis-arizona-bill-does-not-give-businesses-license-to-discriminate-against-gays-115093

While the first two changes are designed to make sure that religious freedom is protected in the broadest way possible, the third change is to make sure that people are not concocting their own religion or religious belief in order to sue. If the bill is passed, those asserting a religious freedom violation would have to prove to the court that it is based upon an actual religious belief, and that they hold strongly to that religion.

While the bill clarifies the broad coverage of RFRA, it also makes it more difficult to sue under RFRA. Let us assume, though, the Arizona bill is signed and becomes law, and someone is able to pass those stricter tests and is allowed to sue under RFRA. Being allowed to sue does not mean they automatically win in court.

Under RFRA, government action may still violate one's religious beliefs. To do so, though, it must show there is a "compelling government interest" and the "least restrictive means" were used to further that government interest. Claiming the law is generally applicable (applies to all faiths or no faith), though, is not sufficient reason, under RFRA, to take away someone's religious freedom.

This means RFRA is telling the court to balance the needs of government to accomplish its purposes against the religious freedom of its citizens. Religious freedom must be protected, unless there is an important government purpose that outweighs religious freedom and there is no other way to accomplish that purpose without violating someone's religious belief.


You thought these knuckle draggers were afraid of Sharia Law coming stateside before? Wait until they're forced to defend in court the bearded gentlemen who refuse to sell them groceries because their wives violated their religious freedoms by not being covered head to toe as per their sincere religious faith Do you even know what Sharia Law is??? I doubt that you know what Arizona already did about Sharia Law - http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/04/states-ban-foreign-law/2602511/

A growing number of states are targeting what they see as a threat to their court systems: the influence of international laws.

North Carolina last month became the seventh state to pass legislation barring judges from considering foreign law in their decisions, including sharia. The bill awaits the signature of Republican Gov. Pat McCrory.

Six other states

[Dresta]

I don't have to flesh out really in depth explanations for you because I do not respect you. Defending this bill makes you a POS.

I am:
-an AF vet
-the ONLY black man in my grad school program
-a single father
-a tax payer
-a happy person that gets along with people from all walks of life


I do not pity myself or play the victim in life....I do pity you and your narrow minded idiocy though.

These bills are dangerous and if a lot of people adopt them they can be harmful for minorities, mentally and physically....I wouldn't expect someone who drinks from the goblet of white privilege to understand homie....no love lost.

:roll:

Sounds self-pitying to me. Looks like you're playing the victim while being conceited over how brilliantly you've managed to do despite all the obstacles life has planted in your way. Vanity and egotism at its worst.

You still haven't provided a single point to counter what i was saying. FYI the 'i don't have to provide an explanation or argument because i don't respect you, i just know you're wrong! (because your opinion is the consensus one btw)' isn't going to cut it. And it only goes to illustrate the narrow-minded childishness of your thinking.

Nobody cares that you are a vet either: what an earth has that got to do with anything? No one forced you into the military, you took a job like anyone else, and that does not make you special. Don't get me wrong: i have a certain respect for people willing to put their lives at risk during this period in time where 90% of people have to live lives of constant peace, security and tranquility, but the military is not a special kind of honourable occupation in itself. My cousin was in the military and he was an idiot when he went in, and an even bigger idiot when he came out (oh btw, while we're talking about 'the goblet of white privilege', i should point out that this cousin of mine went to a school in S. Florida that was predominantly black, and at the end of every term they'd have a day called 'cracker day' when a load of the black kids would go around and beat up all the white kids at the school).

But keep thinking life is all gravy for all white people and a misery of constant hurdles and discrimination for all black people, because that isn't the very definition of racism, because that isn't imposing dividing lines where none should exist, because that isn't exactly the kind of mentality that leads to things like 'cracker day.'



So basically if a Muslim store owner refuses to allow women inside his establishment unless they wear burkas, he should be fully protected by the law. Same as a Christian who refuses to serve anyone with a tattoo or stones to death a proven adulterer. As long as their belief is sincere, it's not solely relegated to Homosexuals or even just Christian beliefs.

So only the majority gets to practice their sweet religious freedom? Show me where in the bill it states that. As I showed above, according to the law- anyone who feels their freedom of religion is being infringed upon can invoke it. That means Muslims who refuse service to women unless they wear burkas. That includes a Scientologist theater owner who refuses to let anyone in unless they pray to Xenu.

You thought these knuckle draggers were afraid of Sharia Law coming stateside before? Wait until they're forced to defend in court the bearded gentlemen who refuse to sell them groceries because their wives violated their religious freedoms by not being covered head to toe as per their sincere religious faith :lol

F*cking idiots all around, present company included.
Yes, just like a woman wouldn't be allowed into a Mosque wearing a bikini. If you can't see that refusing service to somebody because you do not approve of them is different to stoning adulterers to death or invoking Sharia courts that contravene our own laws, then i think you should give up on ever trying to argue anything ever again. Such flawed logic is enigmatic to me.

And i'd be happy to see Muslims implement those rules of service, because it would be far easier to know who to avoid; it is far preferable to know who it is that holds these kind of opinions, or who will only serve their own kind, rather then having them live among you without ever knowing what contemptible bigots they are. It's like people like you think if you banish racism/sexism/whatever from sight, that racist/sexist sentiment will just magically disappear all of a sudden. Or that a racist person out of sight is better than a racist opponent in your line of sight - essentially, what you are is a coward, a coward who needs the state to defend his own values because he can't stand up for them on his own, even with consensus opinion on his side.

[Go Getter]

I don't really care about this argument, just checking in to make sure that you're aware of how pathetic you sound calling yourself special.

Everyone is special in some aspect. I said I was part of a small group of people that get special treatment.

I get special treatment being a vet.

Not a real big deal. The way you take it to heart seems like you seem a little jealous.

[Go Getter]

:roll:

Sounds self-pitying to me. Looks like you're playing the victim while being conceited over how brilliantly you've managed to do despite all the obstacles life has planted in your way. Vanity and egotism at its worst.

You still haven't provided a single point to counter what i was saying. FYI the 'i don't have to provide an explanation or argument because i don't respect you, i just know you're wrong! (because your opinion is the consensus one btw)' isn't going to cut it. And it only goes to illustrate the narrow-minded childishness of your thinking.

Nobody cares that you are a vet either: what an earth has that got to do with anything? No one forced you into the military, you took a job like anyone else, and that does not make you special. Don't get me wrong: i have a certain respect for people willing to put their lives at risk during this period in time where 90% of people have to live lives of constant peace, security and tranquility, but the military is not a special kind of honourable occupation in itself. My cousin was in the military and he was an idiot when he went in, and an even bigger idiot when he came out (oh btw, while we're talking about 'the goblet of white privilege', i should point out that this cousin of mine went to a school in S. Florida that was predominantly black, and at the end of every term they'd have a day called 'cracker day' when a load of the black kids would go around and beat up all the white kids at the school).

But keep thinking life is all gravy for all white people and a misery of constant hurdles and discrimination for all black people, because that isn't the very definition of racism, because that isn't imposing dividing lines where none should exist, because that isn't exactly the kind of mentality that leads to things like 'cracker day.'


Yes, just like a woman wouldn't be allowed into a Mosque wearing a bikini. If you can't see that refusing service to somebody because you do not approve of them is different to stoning adulterers to death or invoking Sharia courts that contravene our own laws, then i think you should give up on ever trying to argue anything ever again. Such flawed logic is enigmatic to me.

And i'd be happy to see Muslims implement those rules of service, because it would be far easier to know who to avoid; it is far preferable to know who it is that holds these kind of opinions, or who will only serve their own kind, rather then having them live among you without ever knowing what contemptible bigots they are. It's like people like you think if you banish racism/sexism/whatever from sight, that racist/sexist sentiment will just magically disappear all of a sudden. Or that a racist person out of sight is better than a racist opponent in your line of sight - essentially, what you are is a coward, a coward who needs the state to defend his own values because he can't stand up for them on his own, even with consensus opinion on his side.
You mistake pride for pity. It is my honor to have served my country and it is my honor to be the patriarch of my family. As a man who pays taxes, contributed to this country through service I deserve to eat where I damn well please. There is no vanity in it...I could be going into engineering and I turned down a job with Goldman Sacs to go to grad school to study something that probably won't net me much cash in comparison.

I left the AF because helping kill people was not my thing and I feel guilty for it but at least I tried to make a difference in the way the world sees Americans and black men by trying to represent us an respectably as possible abroad. What have you done to help the social climate of the US and the world? What gives you the right to look down on me for trying my best and doing something other than type BS on ISH?

How many non-profits have you started? How many kids have you helped? How many volunteer hours have you logged?


No one said white people have it all gravy I said white people in America have privileges that they can take for granted.

White men as a whole aren't leery of this bill because they do not know how it feels to be discriminated against like this in America.

I have no clue about what a "cracker day" is and cracker is not a racist word it is a word that refers to an oppressor, the one cracking the whip...it has nothing to do with the color of one's skin or their race actually.

You call me out for self-pitying somehow but your self pity comes out with your cracker day story. 400 years of oppression an playing on an uneven playing field and "cracker day" is what you come back with.


Might weak of you, lmao...

[Go Getter]

I'll reiterate my point for you idiots.

This bill is just plain stupid.

It will cause more problems than anything.

In a town where religion is concentrated there could be whole areas where minorities cannot shop, eat, and live.

Welcome to the 60's you backwards ass troglodytes.

[ace23]

Everyone is special in some aspect. I said I was part of a small group of people that get special treatment.

I get special treatment being a vet.

Not a real big deal. The way you take it to heart seems like you seem a little jealous.
Lol.

[Rasheed1]

I'll reiterate my point for you idiots.

This bill is just plain stupid.

It will cause more problems than anything.

In a town where religion is concentrated there could be whole areas where minorities cannot shop, eat, and live.

Welcome to the 60's you backwards ass troglodytes.

^I think the governor agrees with you.. She is set to veto the bill.. Thank goodness somebody in that state has decided to do the right thing.

[Go Getter]

Lol.

I mean you got "you mad you a bum" in you avi and I say that I'm special I mean you're alluding to the same thing you're just afraid to say it:roll:

I don't think I'm BETTER than a living soul in the world sans like child abusers and rapists and people like that. I just feel like I'm a special person as should you.

[rezznor]

many religious people believed the bible justified slavery

many religious people saw blacks as subhuman

many religious people saw interracial couples as blasphemous and evil

many religious people saw women as lesser beings to be controlled

many religious people believed harassing, beating, and even killing followers of different religions wasn't a big deal
beat me to it:cheers:

[Dresta]

You mistake pride for pity. It is my honor to have served my country and it is my honor to be the patriarch of my family. As a man who pays taxes, contributed to this country through service I deserve to eat where I damn well please. There is no vanity in it...I could be going into engineering and I turned down a job with Goldman Sacs to go to grad school to study something that probably won't net me much cash in comparison.

I left the AF because helping kill people was not my thing and I feel guilty for it but at least I tried to make a difference in the way the world sees Americans and black men by trying to represent us an respectably as possible abroad. What have you done to help the social climate of the US and the world? What gives you the right to look down on me for trying my best and doing something other than type BS on ISH?

How many non-profits have you started? How many kids have you helped? How many volunteer hours have you logged?


No one said white people have it all gravy I said white people in America have privileges that they can take for granted.

White men as a whole aren't leery of this bill because they do not know how it feels to be discriminated against like this in America.

I have no clue about what a "cracker day" is and cracker is not a racist word it is a word that refers to an oppressor, the one cracking the whip...it has nothing to do with the color of one's skin or their race actually.

You call me out for self-pitying somehow but your self pity comes out with your cracker day story. 400 years of oppression an playing on an uneven playing field and "cracker day" is what you come back with.

Might weak of you, lmao...All this piffle about how much you've done to help and how great a person you are is all very well, but it is not an argument, it has nothing to do with what was being discussed, and really doesn't take away from my point about your vanity that you felt the need to big yourself up so much over the internet.

The rest is all further irrelevant and incessant self-pity tinged with a resentful bigotry that is constantly generalising:

'white people have privileges they take for granted'

Everyone has privileges to different degrees and extents and in many different ways, but as is no surprise, YOU feel the need to racialise it, YOU feel the need to generalise, YOU feel the need to amplify the divide.

'400 years of oppression'

Been oppressed for 400 years have you? I think not. Many peoples have been oppressed for thousands of years, so many terrible things have been done throughout human history, so you shouldn't take it so personally :lol.

I wasn't trying to compete when i brought up cracker day, i just brought it up to show what kind of thing is caused by the collectivistic and bigoted thinking you have been displaying - that is where it leads, and that is now, not several generations back. These things happen in both directions, and people like you fuel both sides of it by constantly emphasising racial divides. And in no way am i comparing or attempting to equalise one with the other, so don't bring up that nonsense again.

[MJ23forever]

If you're a privately-held company and you want to refuse customers, it's your right, it's just not a very good business model. If you don't let gays in, they'll whine to all their gay friends and non-gay friends, and they'll all whine to each other, and what do ya know, you just lost a lot of business.
If business owners want to be idiotic and make poor business decisions , let them, they're just driving potential customers away to competing businesses.

There's a flip side to this also though. If a person who does not support homosexuality can be forced to serve homosexuals, should gay business owners be forced to serve the Westboro Baptist Church? Should a Jewish man who owns a barbershop be forced to serve a neo-nazi skin head who comes into his shop? Should a black man who owns a restaurant be forced to serve a group of KKK members? I say no. Private property is private property.

[nightprowler10]

There's a flip side to this also though. If a person who does not support homosexuality can be forced to serve homosexuals, should gay business owners be forced to serve the Westboro Baptist Church? Should a Jewish man who owns a barbershop be forced to serve a neo-nazi skin head who comes into his shop? Should a black man who owns a restaurant be forced top serve a group of KKK members? I say no. Private property is private property.
As long as no one is causing any trouble and they're paying for the services, who cares? Refusing service will surely make things worse.

[MJ23forever]

As long as no one is causing any trouble and they're paying for the services, who cares? Refusing service will surely make things worse.


It's their right. Besides, why would you want to force a business to take your money if they despise you?

[Dresta]

If you're a privately-held company and you want to refuse customers, it's your right, it's just not a very good business model. If you don't let gays in, they'll whine to all their gay friends and non-gay friends, and they'll all whine to each other, and what do ya know, you just lost a lot of business.
If business owners want to be idiotic and make poor business decisions , let them, they're just driving potential customers away to competing businesses.

There's a flip side to this also though. If a person who does not support homosexuality can be forced to serve homosexuals, should gay business owners be forced to serve the Westboro Baptist Church? Should a Jewish man who owns a barbershop be forced to serve a neo-nazi skin head who comes into his shop? Should a black man who owns a restaurant be forced top serve a group of KKK members? I say no. Private property is private property.:applause:


As long as no one is causing any trouble and they're paying for the services, who cares? Refusing service will surely make things worse.
So if some p.tiddy type asshole ran over your child while drunk racing like an asshole, you don't think you should have the right to refuse him service? Or to even refuse him entry onto your property?

I think you'll find plenty of people would care.

[oarabbus]

Everyone has privileges to different degrees and extents and in many different ways, but as is no surprise, YOU feel the need to racialise it, YOU feel the need to generalise, YOU feel the need to amplify the divide.




:facepalm

Easy to say that when enjoying the most privilege is the status quo for you. I'm not black either but what a ****ing cop out.

[MightyWhitey]

:facepalm

Easy to say that when enjoying the most privilege is the status quo for you. I'm not black either but what a ****ing cop out.
Stop acting like a liberal self-hating white man and start acting like an American.

[travelingman]

Stop acting like a liberal self-hating white man and start acting like an American.

I love this quote. You're like an only slightly more conservative version of Ron Swanson.

[oarabbus]

Stop acting like a liberal self-hating white man and start acting like an American.


:lol

[MightyWhitey]

I love this quote. You're like an only slightly more conservative version of Ron Swanson.
Who is that in your Avatar?

[Dresta]

:facepalm

Easy to say that when enjoying the most privilege is the status quo for you. I'm not black either but what a ****ing cop out.
What the **** are you talking about? How am i enjoying the 'most privilege'? If you think that you obviously could not comprehend what i wrote in the slightest. I was talking about individual privilege, not some kind of magic collective power that comes with being 'white' or 'black' and the idiotic need to place people in groups in such a way and to consider their privilege as being 'collective.' There will be many white people who have been dealt a very hard hand in life, either mentally, physically, or economically, and you do them an idiotic disservice to declare them as all 'enjoying the status quo of most privilege' (really, what an idiotic statement). There are so many aspects of privilege that make it very difficult to even compare and contrast the privileges of two individuals, and yet you pit 2 races (heavily intermixed, to boot) against each other as if any kind of comparison can even be comprehended, let alone made.

I'd say (in contemporary society) in terms of ease and comfort of life, the most privileged person you can be is an incredibly beautiful woman, and i'm certainly not one of those. Besides, what the **** do you know about me or by what right do you declare me or my family as being 'privileged' because of their skin colour. My family came from Warsaw and lived through 2 wars and Soviet occupation there, which included some of the worst conditions human civilisation has yet seen, so don't lecture me on privilege asshole.

[Lakers Legend#32]

Looks like Governor Pruneface is gonna cave and veto the bill.
In the end, Republicans always worship the god of big business over the god of Baby Jesus.

[MightyWhitey]

Looks like Governor Pruneface is gonna cave and veto the bill.
In the end, Republicans always worship the god of big business over the god of Baby Jesus.
You're dumber than a doorknob :lol

[oarabbus]

What the **** are you talking about? How am i enjoying the 'most privilege'? If you think that you obviously could not comprehend what i wrote in the slightest. I was talking about individual privilege, not some kind of magic collective power that comes with being 'white' or 'black' and the idiotic need to place people in groups in such a way and to consider their privilege as being 'collective.' There will be many white people who have been dealt a very hard hand in life, either mentally, physically, or economically, and you do them an idiotic disservice to declare them as all 'enjoying the status quo of most privilege' (really, what an idiotic statement). There are so many aspects of privilege that make it very difficult to even compare and contrast the privileges of two individuals, and yet you pit 2 races (heavily intermixed, to boot) against each other as if any kind of comparison can even be comprehended, let alone made.

I'd say (in contemporary society) in terms of ease and comfort of life, the most privileged person you can be is an incredibly beautiful woman, and i'm certainly not one of those. Besides, what the **** do you know about me or by what right do you declare me or my family as being 'privileged' because of their skin colour. My family came from Warsaw and lived through 2 wars and Soviet occupation there, which included some of the worst conditions human civilisation has yet seen, so don't lecture me on privilege asshole.




My my, you are incredibly pretentious. Did I say sh1t about your family and lecture you about privilege? Show me where I mentioned your family. What the hell are you on about man? Calm the fvck down. Your family may have endured very much, but have you, personally, in the US? Actually I don't wan't to know and I'd rather not involve your family in this discussion, we are discussing the AZ bill. You simultaneously decry other people comparing races and their privileges, and attack people for using anecdotes, while doing those same things yourself. You're very good at arguing and have an impressive ability to cram your posts full of purple prose, I'll give you that, but they tend to lack actual relevant content. I know you think you're incredibly brilliant and a precious gift to this earth, but try to sound less like a douchebag and don't put words in my mouth; maybe follow your own advice.



All this piffle about how much you've done to help and how great a person you are is all very well, but it is not an argument, it has nothing to do with what was being discussed, and really doesn't take away from my point about your vanity that you felt the need to big yourself up so much over the internet.

...

Been oppressed for 400 years have you? I think not. Many peoples have been oppressed for thousands of years, so many terrible things have been done throughout human history, so you shouldn't take it so personally :lol:



After Go Getter made his point about African Americans having it tough in this country your response was that he should **** off about privilege, and come back with silly lines that clearly don't need stating (many white people were dealt a bad hand... no, really?:rolleyes: ) This bill is a massive step backwards, and the problem is specifically the precedent it sets and legal protection it allows: see the Stand Your Ground law and the multiple high-profile killings recently.

[johndeeregreen]

Any private business should have the right to refuse service to anyone they want, on any grounds.

[Dresta]

My my, you are incredibly pretentious. Did I say sh1t about your family? No. Did I lecture you about privilege? No. What the hell are you on about man? Calm the fvck down. Your family may have endured very much, but have you, personally, in the US? Actually I don't wan't to know and I'd rather not involve your family in this discussion, aren't we discussing the AZ bill? I know you think you're incredibly brilliant and a gift to this earth, but try to sound less like a douchebag and don't put words in my mouth. Maybe you should follow your own advice.


Clearly you have major problems understanding context. You were telling Go Getter's point about African Americans having it tough in this country is that he should **** off about privilege, and come back with idiotic line that clearly don't need stating (many white people were dealt a bad hand... no, really?:rolleyes: ) Next you'll be saying that we shouldn't help disabled You simultaneously decry other people comparing races and privilege and for using anecdotes, while you use those same things yourself. You're very good at arguing and have an impressive ability to cram your posts full of purple prose, but they tend to lack actual relevant content.
You said enjoying 'the most privilege' was the status quo for me and that this was somehow a '****ing copout.'

My only point was that privilege is an individual thing, not a collective thing, and it is the combination many different aspects and many different circumstances, hence why it is idiotic to speak of 'white privilege' and 'black disadvantage' - they are extremely inaccurate generalisations that have no relevance to the real world, and serve only to polarise and widen the divide rather than mending it. Go Getter was talking about '400 years of oppression' or some shit, i was only pointing out that i need only go back a single generation to see a suffering not encountered very often in the United States, white or black. Doesn't get me to start whining about 'American privilege' and get me lumping all Americans together and declaring them to be drinking from the goblet of privilege.

FYI i don't live in the US, i live in the UK, where slights against being Polish are fairly common, but no, i wouldn't come close to saying i have endured 'much' because comparatively speaking i've endured **** all, and i seriously doubt any of the posters on here have either (though, of course, there could always be a couple of exceptions).

[Akrazotile]

Any private business should have the right to refuse service to anyone they want, on any grounds.


Tho I personally have no problem eating at the same restaurant with people who differ from me in race, religion, buttsecks, etc. I have to agree with this on PRINCIPLE. That's the issue here, not how everyone feels PERSONALLY. What is the PRINCIPLE?

That nonsense about "my tax dollars help that business, they should have to serve me!" So if the tax revenue of McDonalds makes its way to you in the form of social security, food stamps, tax credits, blah blah... should you be forced to eat at McDonalds?

The talking points used by liberals in this argument are basically their typical code-speak.

"We want equality = we want special treatment for whomever we decide should get it.

"We believe in civil rights" = We believe people should be forced to conform to our view of fairness.

"I'm smart and progressive" = I lost my testicles when i fell off the tea cup ride at disney when I was six.




damn it feels good to be unbanned :pimp:

[Lakers Legend#32]

Watch all the bible barfers whine when Brewer vetoes this bill.

[Akrazotile]

Watch all the bible barfers whine when Brewer vetoes this bill.


Will it be similar to the way you whined when it was passed?

[oarabbus]

You said enjoying 'the most privilege' was the status quo for me and that this was somehow a '****ing copout.'

My only point was that privilege is an individual thing, not a collective thing, and it is the combination many different aspects and many different circumstances, hence why it is idiotic to speak of 'white privilege' and 'black disadvantage' - they are extremely inaccurate generalisations that have no relevance to the real world, and serve only to polarise and widen the divide rather than mending it. Go Getter was talking about '400 years of oppression' or some shit, i was only pointing out that i need only go back a single generation to see a suffering not encountered very often in the United States, white or black. Doesn't get me to start whining about 'American privilege' and get me lumping all Americans together and declaring them to be drinking from the goblet of privilege.

FYI i don't live in the US, i live in the UK, where slights against being Polish are fairly common, but no, i wouldn't come close to saying i have endured 'much' because comparatively speaking i've endured **** all, and i seriously doubt any of the posters on here have either (though, of course, there could always be a couple of exceptions).


But why, though? When black athletes are having banana peels thrown at them on soccer/football fields, monkey noises made at them, what individual sin are they guilty of to have that disadvantage? When police harass and profile black individuals (which happens in every country that black people live in), how is that an individual thing? Yes there are white people who are very disadvantaged. And yes, I do acknowledge that Americans on the whole are "privileged" but I don't think that racism against people of African origin is a fabrication. People in other countries like to make fun of the USA about having such a big race problem but it is a fact that black people are treated like absolute sh1t in most of Europe and Asia.

This specific bill allows businesses to refuse service based on deeply held religious beliefs... so what happens when the business owner states his religious beliefs prevent him from accomodating gays, Jews, children born out of wedlock, individuals with diseases ("they got the disease because they are a sinner"), and Catholics? "Must have proof you are not a bastard child upon entry". Or maybe the only gas station for 10 miles around doesn't serve these groups, so a Catholic man can't buy a bottle of water in the burning Arizona summer, much less fill up his car with gas.

The guy above me said "Any private business should have the right to refuse service to anyone they want, on any grounds." so what happens when private hospitals begin to refuse critically ill patients because they are gay or what have you?

[Akrazotile]

many religious people believed the bible justified slavery

many religious people saw blacks as subhuman

many religious people saw interracial couples as blasphemous and evil

many religious people saw women as lesser beings to be controlled

many religious people believed harassing, beating, and even killing followers of different religions wasn't a big deal


Viewing and believing are not crimes. The infringement of someone else's rights is a violation of the constitution and therefore things like slavery and interracial bans were struck down accordingly by the courts.

Right to refuse service does not infringe on anyone's right. If I open a restaurant, you do not have a constitutional right to eat there. You have a constitutional right to bear arms and go hunt your own food if nobody will give you a meal. Store owners, legally, have "the right to refuse service to any person for any reason."

That's the law, babe. I know there are some real meanies out there who aren't gonna let everyone at eat their restaurant. :( That doesn't mean we should reverse our entire legal foundation. Well, at least not to anyone with a brain.

[Go Getter]

Tho I personally have no problem eating at the same restaurant with people who differ from me in race, religion, buttsecks, etc. I have to agree with this on PRINCIPLE. That's the issue here, not how everyone feels PERSONALLY. What is the PRINCIPLE?

That nonsense about "my tax dollars help that business, they should have to serve me!" So if the tax revenue of McDonalds makes its way to you in the form of social security, food stamps, tax credits, blah blah... should you be forced to eat at McDonalds?

The talking points used by liberals in this argument are basically their typical code-speak.

"We want equality = we want special treatment for whomever we decide should get it.

"We believe in civil rights" = We believe people should be forced to conform to our view of fairness.

"I'm smart and progressive" = I lost my testicles when i fell off the tea cup ride at disney when I was six.




damn it feels good to be unbanned :pimp:


:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

[oarabbus]

Viewing and believing are not crimes. The infringement of someone else's rights is a violation of the constitution and therefore things like slavery and interracial bans were struck down accordingly by the courts.

Right to refuse service does not infringe on anyone's right. If I open a restaurant, you do not have a constitutional right to eat there. You have a constitutional right to bear arms and go hunt your own food if nobody will give you a meal. Store owners, legally, have "the right to refuse service to any person for any reason."

That's the law, babe. I know there are some real meanies out there who aren't gonna let everyone at eat their restaurant. :( That doesn't mean we should reverse our entire legal foundation. Well, at least not to anyone with a brain.


You have the right to refuse service to people without a shirt or shoes this very day.


“The Arizona Senate bill is blatantly unconstitutional,” Minter said. “It violates the requirement of equal protection of the laws by openly singling out a particular group of people and saying it’s OK to discriminate against them.”
Tovar said such a law could elicit boycotts.
“With the express consent of Republicans in this Legislature, many Arizonans will find themselves members of a separate and unequal class under this law because of their sexual orientation,” Tovar said. “This bill may also open the door to discriminate based on race, familial status, religion, sex, national origin, age or disability.”

New Mexico’s Supreme Court allowed a gay couple to sue a photographer who refused to photograph their commitment ceremony. And a Colorado judge ruled against a baker who refused to sell a gay couple a cake for their wedding reception.


This is what the issue with the law is. And you can look up the NM and CO cases if you want to see how the judges came to those decisions without violating the business owners' rights.

[Akrazotile]

But why, though? When black athletes are having banana peels thrown at them on soccer/football fields, monkey noises made at them, what individual sin are they guilty of to have that disadvantage? When police harass and profile black individuals (which happens in every country that black people live in), how is that an individual thing? Yes there are white people who are very disadvantaged. And yes, I do acknowledge that Americans on the whole are "privileged" but I don't think that racism against people of African origin is a fabrication. People in other countries like to make fun of the USA about having such a big race problem but it is a fact that black people are treated like absolute sh1t in most of Europe and Asia.


The average black person is the subject of more prejudice than the average white person in predominantly white countries. That doesn't mean that black people are inherently more susceptible to generalization. How easy do you think it is for a white CB or RB in the nfl to get looked at by scouts? That's a prejudice. White guys who tried to do soul music or hip hop music also got immediately laughed off the scene unless they had a strong black advocate (dr. dre). That's prejudice. When a white guy goes through a black community and is called 'white devil' or 'cracker' or 'white boy' etc. that's prejudice.

As far as practical application, some areas are more tolerant than others. Some people and some cultures just don't take kindly to the presence of people outside their group. Others do. Why is it your job to go around policing every community about how they should behave? This is exactly what liberals chastise America for doing in foreign affairs. "Come on man, we're not supposed to be the world police. Stupid george bush." So why are they attempting to be the national police? Funny how they're against it "as a principle" when it doesn't suit their agenda, but when it does suddenly "it's the common sense thing to do."

[Akrazotile]

New Mexico’s Supreme Court allowed a gay couple to sue a photographer who refused to photograph their commitment ceremony. And a Colorado judge ruled against a baker who refused to sell a gay couple a cake for their wedding reception.

Holy shit we have hit a new low.


Break out the cookie cutters and the government microchips. We must all think, feel, act, and achieve equally.

It is time.

Commence human conversion to robots.



http://static6.depositphotos.com/1003153/570/v/450/depositphotos_5705182-Start-shiny-red-button.jpg


Libs finally gettin what they want. Coerced equality, so that no more feelings can be hurt ever.

The liberals worst fear, the 'hurt feeling armageddon' has arrived, and it is time to convert to lab-synthesized, genetically identical machines. That way nobody can ever be discriminationeded again, yayyy!!!!!!

[Go Getter]

Holy shit we have hit a new low.


Break out the cookie cutters and the government microchips. We must all think, feel, act, and achieve equally.

It is time.

Commence human conversion to robots.



http://static6.depositphotos.com/1003153/570/v/450/depositphotos_5705182-Start-shiny-red-button.jpg


Libs finally gettin what they want. Coerced equality, so that no more feelings can be hurt ever.

The liberals worst fear, the 'hurt feeling armageddon' has arrived, and it is time to convert to lab-synthesized, genetically identical machines. That way nobody can ever be discriminationeded again, yayyy!!!!!!


Lol, so what about the conservatives that are so butt hurt by gays and minorities that they have to put more red tape into our buerocracy just because they don't want to feed someone that doesn't look like them?

That's not overly sensitive?

Using Christianity to exclude people is just all kinds of wrong and hypocritical.

[Rasheed1]

You have the right to refuse service to people without a shirt or shoes this very day.



This is what the issue with the law is. And you can look up the NM and CO cases if you want to see how the judges came to those decisions without violating the business owners' rights.


yeah, i was thinking it would get struck down by the courts anyway if Brewer signs the bill..

[qrich]

Lol, so what about the conservatives that are so butt hurt by gays and minorities that they have to put more red tape into our buerocracy just because they don't want to feed someone that doesn't look like them?

That's not overly sensitive?

Using Christianity to exclude people is just all kinds of wrong and hypocritical.

I'm not a Christian, but if I own a private business (not a franchise), what is wrong with me not wanting to serve someone for WHATEVER reason? As long as I don't have signs saying "No Fruits, Dune Coons, Mormons, Autistics, Blondes, Midgets, Over 6 Feet Allowed", what the hell is wrong with it?

Are you losing money out of it, or am I?

Restaurants exist not letting you in unless you are formally dressed up, or casino's have poker tournaments for women only. As a guy, should I be able to sue the casino for the tournament being women only?

[Rasheed1]

I'm not a Christian, but if I own a private business (not a franchise), what is wrong with me not wanting to serve someone for WHATEVER reason? As long as I don't have signs saying "No Fruits, Dune Coons, Mormons, Autistics, Blondes, Midgets, Over 6 Feet Allowed", what the hell is wrong with it?

Are you losing money out of it, or am I?

Restaurants exist not letting you in unless you are formally dressed up, or casino's have poker tournaments for women only. As a guy, should I be able to sue the casino for the tournament being women only?


according to the 1968 civil rights act, discrimination is forbidden based on race, color, religion, or national origin.. Many states have added Sexual orientation to the list also. I don't know that Arizona is one of those, which makes this bill redundant if it is aimed at gay folks.

[qrich]

according to the 1968 civil rights act, discrimination is forbidden based on race, color, religion, or national origin.. Many states have added Sexual orientation to the list also. I don't know that Arizona is one of those, which makes this bill redundant if it is aimed at gay folks.

Forbidden, but exists on a daily basis.

Despite any of those you mentioned, lets say someone is applying for an apartment. They have an eviction due to breaking a lease for, say, health issues. They have over $75,000 saved up and can afford to pay the entire 12-month lease up front or pay double the deposit. The company will still reject them and say they its considered discrimination, with nothing to discriminate to?

And should a fully private business not get to choose its clientele? Like I said, why can casino's host tournaments for men only? women only? seniors only? newbies only? Are they not discriminating? Or why is there recreation adult leagues out here that only allow Hispanics to participate? Or when Chivas USA's former owners said they were going to build a Mexican only team, was that not discrimination?

Maybe I should just sue said casino's & recreation league's and try to get some cash since they are choosing to run their private business the way they want to run their private business.

[longtime lurker]

And this is exactly why humanity needs to evolve to a higher level collectively and rid ourselves of the cancer that is religion.

Not that this is even about people's dark age desert nonsense. They just use it as a veil to hide their prejudices. Where's the bill that requires adulterous women (and virgins who don't scream loud enough while being raped) to be stoned to death? Same religious text that predicated this legalized prejudice decrees it.

But people just pick and choose which parts of their 'beliefs' system they adhere to depending on whatever they are prejudiced against. Plenty of antebellum plantation owners used scripture to justify the systematic and legal enslavement of people. Go figure.

Religion isn't the problem. It's people using religion to hide behind their cowardice and bigotry. I'm sure there are posters in this thread arguing in favor of this idiotic bill because they'd rather hold onto their bigoted ways than expand their thinking and accept that the world is changing. Doing business with homosexuals isn't going to send you to hell, even the Pope has said showed a different view on homosexuals. People practice religion like an ala carte menu and pick and choose what they hold as a sin when it suits them.

[Rasheed1]

Forbidden, but exists on a daily basis.

Despite any of those you mentioned, lets say someone is applying for an apartment. They have an eviction due to breaking a lease for, say, health issues. They have over $75,000 saved up and can afford to pay the entire 12-month lease up front or pay double the deposit. The company will still reject them and say they its considered discrimination, with nothing to discriminate to?


the reason would be the previous eviction not race, color, religion, or national origin.. It may go to court and let a judge decide :confusedshrug:




And should a fully private business not get to choose its clientele? Like I said, why can casino's host tournaments for men only? women only? seniors only? newbies only? Are they not discriminating? Or why is there recreation adult leagues out here that only allow Hispanics to participate? Or when Chivas USA's former owners said they were going to build a Mexican only team, was that not discrimination?

Maybe I should just sue said casino's & recreation league's and try to get some cash since they are choosing to run their private business the way they want to run their private business.

some men have tried to sue over "ladies night" and different promotional things of that nature.. If you are serious about contesting the laws of your state (like I said, some don't have gender or sexual orientation included) then it would probably be a matter for the courts to decide (like the gay couple in NM)..

businesses are usually subject to these laws..

Now if you run a club? then, I think you have more leeway to discriminate against people you don't like..

clubs allow people by invitation and so you used to see a lot of "all white" swim clubs (they didn't say they were all white, but everyone knew that they were because no blacks or any minorities were ever allowed to become members)

country clubs are usually allowed that freedom too

[MightyWhitey]

That nonsense about "my tax dollars help that business, they should have to serve me!" So if the tax revenue of McDonalds makes its way to you in the form of social security, food stamps, tax credits, blah blah... should you be forced to eat at McDonalds? :lol :lol :lol :oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Thank you for making that point!

[qrich]

the reason would be the previous eviction not race, color, religion, or national origin.. It may go to court and let a judge decide :confusedshrug:





some men have tried to sue over "ladies night" and different promotional things of that nature.. If you are serious about contesting the laws of your state (like I said, some don't have gender or sexual orientation included) then it would probably be a matter for the courts to decide (like the gay couple in NM)..

businesses are usually subject to these laws..

Now if you run a club? then, I think you have more leeway to discriminate against people you don't like..

clubs allow people by invitation and so you used to see a lot of "all white" swim clubs (they didn't say they were all white, but everyone knew that they were because no blacks or any minorities were ever allowed to become members)

country clubs are usually allowed that freedom too


Still ends up as discrimination. And how many of those guys have one said lawsuits? Fully private businesses should be able to exclude whoever they wish, as long as they don't overly do it.

Public recreation centers have Adult Leagues only for Hispanics is fine, why not private bakeries not wanting to serve whoemever? :confusedshrug:

[MightyWhitey]

Any private business should have the right to refuse service to anyone they want, on any grounds.
Thank you. This is America. Why is this so hard to understand?

[Rasheed1]

Still ends up as discrimination. And how many of those guys have one said lawsuits? Fully private businesses should be able to exclude whoever they wish, as long as they don't overly do it.

Public recreation centers have Adult Leagues only for Hispanics is fine, why not private bakeries not wanting to serve whoemever? :confusedshrug:

:confusedshrug: its still illegal

If you want to challenge these laws, you have to do like that gay couple did and take your case to a court and let the judge rule on it.. discrimination still goes on daily, but it also gets smacked down daily too

[qrich]

:confusedshrug: its still illegal

If you want to challenge these laws, you have to do like that gay couple did and take your case to a court and let the judge rule on it.. discrimination still goes on daily, but it also gets smacked down daily too

Its illegal, yet, many men have lost battles about discrimination on ladies night tournaments? I haven't heard of any winnings and I recall hearing that Hollywood Park in Inglewood got some shit, but nothing came out of it.

All it comes down too, is I see nothing wrong with a private business owner refusing service to anyone, whether they are straight, Mormon, gay, a midget, black, Autistic, have one arm, are blind, half deaf, etc.

[Rasheed1]

Its illegal, yet, many men have lost battles about discrimination on ladies night tournaments? I haven't heard of any winnings and I recall hearing that Hollywood Park in Inglewood got some shit, but nothing came out of it.

you would have to look at the state's laws, and review the cases in particular to see why the men lost those cases.. Im sure the judge gave his opinion and reason for the decision




All it comes down too, is I see nothing wrong with a private business owner refusing service to anyone, whether they are straight, Mormon, gay, a midget, black, Autistic, have one arm, are blind, half deaf, etc.


it doesn't matter that you "see nothing wrong with it"

[longtime lurker]

Thank you. This is America. Why is this so hard to understand?

Yeah the idea of segregation is sooo American. I thought all men were created equal?

[qrich]

you would have to look at the state's laws, and review the cases in particular to see why the men lost those cases.. Im sure the judge gave his opinion and reason for the decision


it doesn't matter that you "see nothing wrong with it" …. the point is that there are laws against it..

civil rights generally trump property rights in America..


Yet, we still have PUBLIC PARKS running Hispanics only leagues. But a private business can not refuse a midget?

[Rasheed1]

Yet, we still have PUBLIC PARKS running Hispanics only leagues in the SFV. But a private business can not refuse a midget?


If these leagues do indeed exist, and they use public facilities to host exclusionary events (meaning anyone who isn't hispanic would be disallowed from participating), you should put forth a legal challenge to it :confusedshrug:

[MightyWhitey]

But why, though? When black athletes are having banana peels thrown at them on soccer/football fields, monkey noises made at them, what individual sin are they guilty of to have that disadvantage? When police harass and profile black individuals (which happens in every country that black people live in), how is that an individual thing? Yes there are white people who are very disadvantaged. And yes, I do acknowledge that Americans on the whole are "privileged" but I don't think that racism against people of African origin is a fabrication. People in other countries like to make fun of the USA about having such a big race problem but it is a fact that black people are treated like absolute sh1t in most of Europe and Asia.

Man you are truly deluded. So only white people are racists?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk5nZJhHA00

http://whitegirlbleedalot.com/

You are a biased tool. Get educated and stop spreading your guilt and hate you troll.

[longtime lurker]

Yet, we still have PUBLIC PARKS running Hispanics only leagues. But a private business can not refuse a midget?

Question do the public parks refuse to let any other race play?

[longtime lurker]

Man you are truly deluded. So only white people are racists?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk5nZJhHA00

http://whitegirlbleedalot.com/

You are a biased tool. Get educated and stop spreading your guilt and hate you troll.

You provide Sean Hannity as evidence that black people are racist? :lol Remind me to never take you seriously again. Obama was elected by black racists and guilty whites? You're pretty fvcking stupid if you believe anything Fox news puts out

[qrich]

Question do the public parks refuse to let any other race play?

At one location, me and a bunch of friends tried to get our own team in there (if you have ever done any sort of Adult League, you know how it works), and they refused and said they were at capacity. Though, another friend of mine got a team in the very next day without any of the previous sides leaving. So yes, they do.


If these leagues do indeed exist, and they use public facilities to host exclusionary events (meaning anyone who isn't hispanic would be disallowed from participating), you should put forth a legal challenge to it :confusedshrug:

I don't see why I should. They are losing out on money and it isn't hurting me in a bit. If I lived in Tombstone and had no other alternatives, maybe I would.

[Go Getter]

Man you are truly deluded. So only white people are racists?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk5nZJhHA00

http://whitegirlbleedalot.com/

You are a biased tool. Get educated and stop spreading your guilt and hate you troll.


"Racism is actions, practices or beliefs, or social or political systems that consider different races to be ranked as inherently superior or inferior to each other, based on presumed shared inheritable traits, abilities, or qualities."

Nobody gives a shit about isolated incidents of stupidity such as everything you've posted on ISH basically. READ: social or political systems. Racism is systemic.

When white people discriminate against blacks it can impact our ability to get loans (or receive a fair rate on loans), get a job, get into school, or stay out of legal troubles.

How do black people impact whites in those ways?:biggums:

Smarten up fool.

Of course black people can be bigots....but racism is systemic and black people do not have the power to be racists in America.

[Akrazotile]

Religion isn't the problem. It's people using religion to hide behind their cowardice and bigotry. I'm sure there are posters in this thread arguing in favor of this idiotic bill because they'd rather hold onto their bigoted ways than expand their thinking and accept that the world is changing. Doing business with homosexuals isn't going to send you to hell, even the Pope has said showed a different view on homosexuals. People practice religion like an ala carte menu and pick and choose what they hold as a sin when it suits them.

The problem is that you are also using religion for your own agenda. You are using it as a strawman in this debate. Trying to make the character or motives of religious people central to the debate about business ownership rights, when it isn't.

This is a debate about what is constitutionally appropriate with regards to rights. If you start a rec league team for just you and your buddies, would you like if you had to accept me if I wanted to be on your team? What if 800 people wanted to be on your team and you said "sorry, I really just wanna play with my buddies." TOO BAD.

The constitution gives people and communities autonomy. Many who support those concepts will end up siding with Arizona on their right to this legislation, despite having no ill will toward homosexuals. Those who insist on government mediation in every single corner of our lives have no idea what kind of ridiculous path they are leading us down. Nobody who lives outside of Arizona should give a F if they pass this or not. This is Arizona's business, and there is a reason we have states rights. People can manage their own communities without Big Brother government with repesentatives from 3,000 miles away telling them how to live. These people can vote on their representatives and their legislation. If the majority in the state favor this bill, so be it. If they don't, so be that. I don't personally care which way they vote about the homosex thing, but I support their right to make their own decisions because I would expect them to do the same toward my state.

[MightyWhitey]

You provide Sean Hannity as evidence that black people are racist? :lol Remind me to never take you seriously again. Obama was elected by black racists and guilty whites? You're pretty fvcking stupid if you believe anything Fox news puts out
The source of the video is Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, a black man. You dumb fvckin blockhead. Why not mention the other source http://whitegirlbleedalot.com/

[Go Getter]

At one location, me and a bunch of friends tried to get our own team in there (if you have ever done any sort of Adult League, you know how it works), and they refused and said they were at capacity. Though, another friend of mine got a team in the very next day without any of the previous sides leaving. So yes, they do.



I don't see why I should. They are losing out on money and it isn't hurting me in a bit. If I lived in Tombstone and had no other alternatives, maybe I would.
^And I'm sure if you wanted to play with them they would allow you to.

They probably started their league because they all speak the same language.:facepalm

It's like college man people always think you have to be an Asian to be in ASA, a black person to be in the BSU, or a Mexican to be a part of MECHA and it ain't event like that.

ASA is awesome they do all sorts of community service projects and stuff with HS kids...

MECHA has lots of fine Latinas and they have probably the biggest following of any student org, group or frat. I love that shit.

Both groups would accept me with open arms and have asked me to join in their meetings, events and functions.

Ya'll are some small minded fools:facepalm

[qrich]

Of course black people can be bigots....but racism is systemic and black people do not have the power to be racists in America.

So, according to your definition of racism, in the United States, only whites can be racist :rolleyes:


^And I'm sure if you wanted to play with them they would allow you to.

They probably started their league because they all speak the same language.:facepalm


You are fully right, I attempted to sign up to play, but didn't want to.

Idiot.

[Go Getter]

So, according to your definition of racism, in the United States, only whites can be racist :rolleyes:


I don't know what color our political system is; do you?

[qrich]

I don't know what color our political system is do you?

As a Middle Eastern, I can go around yelling out *****, dune coon, ****, *****, jap, jewbag, etc. and no one can call me racist because I'm not white!!!

Sweettttttttttttttttttttttt!

[MightyWhitey]

"Racism is actions, practices or beliefs, or social or political systems that consider different races to be ranked as inherently superior or inferior to each other, based on presumed shared inheritable traits, abilities, or qualities."

Nobody gives a shit about isolated incidents of stupidity such as everything you've posted on ISH basically. READ: social or political systems. Racism is systemic.

When white people discriminate against blacks it can impact our ability to get loans (or receive a fair rate on loans), get a job, get into school, or stay out of legal troubles.

How do black people impact whites in those ways?:biggums:

Smarten up fool.

Of course black people can be bigots....but racism is systemic and black people do not have the power to be racists in America.
Where did you get that particular definition of racism?

[Rasheed1]

^And I'm sure if you wanted to play with them they would allow you to.

They probably started their league because they all speak the same language.:facepalm

It's like college man people always think you have to be an Asian to be in ASA, a black person to be in the BSU, or a Mexican to be a part of MECHA and it ain't event like that.

ASA is awesome they do all sorts of community service projects and stuff with HS kids...

MECHA has lots of fine Latinas and they have probably the biggest following of any student org, group or frat. I love that shit.

Both groups would accept me with open arms and have asked me to join in their meetings, events and functions.

Ya'll are some small minded fools:facepalm


I thought about that too... African American student union doesn't disallow whites or Asians from joining, but a lot of people who complain about groups like that assume they do..

If qrich says he tried to join the league, then I gotta take him at his word, but if that is the case, then you have a legal issue..

if a person decides they don't care? then it doesn't matter.. If the gay couple didn't care, they wouldn't have brought a lawsuit.. But they did care and thus they won the case and sued that company for discrimination

:confusedshrug:

[longtime lurker]

The problem is that you are also using religion for your own agenda. You are using it as a strawman in this debate. Trying to make the character or motives of religious people central to the debate about business ownership rights, when it isn't.

The character and motives of the business people is central to the debate or else EVERY religious person would follow the same stance when it comes to religion. People use religion to justify violence against women, rape, murder, slavery but these people would still commit these acts regardless of their religion.


This is a debate about what is constitutionally appropriate with regards to rights. If you start a rec league team for just you and your buddies, would you like if you had to accept me if I wanted to be on your team? What if 800 people wanted to be on your team and you said "sorry, I really just wanna play with my buddies." TOO BAD.

The constitution gives people and communities autonomy. Many who support those concepts will end up siding with Arizona on their right to this legislation, despite having no ill will toward homosexuals. Those who insist on government mediation in every single corner of our lives have no idea what kind of ridiculous path they are leading us down. Nobody who lives outside of Arizona should give a F if they pass this or not. This is Arizona's business, and there is a reason we have states rights. People can manage their own communities without Big Brother government with repesentatives from 3,000 miles away telling them how to live. These people can vote on their representatives and their legislation. If the majority in the state favor this bill, so be it. If they don't, so be that. I don't personally care which way they vote about the homosex thing, but I support their right to make their own decisions because I would expect them to do the same toward my state.[/QUOTE]

And your example is a stupid one because a rec league isn't a privately owned business. The point of my business is to provide a service to the public and as a business there are laws that prevent me from discriminating based on race, gender, sexual orientation etc. There is an understanding that anybody can come in. We're not talking about a social club etc which is what a rec league would fall under. If you don't agree just look at the cases where this was taken to the supreme court and who they ruled in favor of. You're fooling yourself if you don't think is to deny rights to homosexuals. People that support this and legislators are full of shit otherwise they wouldn't do business with adulterers, cheats, people that have sex out of marriage and the list goes on

[Go Getter]

As a Middle Eastern, I can go around yelling out *****, dune coon, ****, *****, jap, jewbag, etc. and no one can call me racist because I'm not white!!!

Sweettttttttttttttttttttttt!

You'd be a bigot but not a racist....and is this just using these slurs one time or do you just like to offend people? Do you feel a certain group of people are better than others and put those beliefs into practice?

If not...

Then you'd just be a bigoted asshole and not a racist...maybe a misanthropist lol.

[qrich]

You'd be a bigot but not a racist....and is this just using these slurs one time or do you just like to offend people?

Then you'd just be an asshole not a racist...maybe a misanthropist lol.

I'd be saying them just because I wouldn't be a racist :bowdown:

[Go Getter]

I'd be saying them just because I wouldn't be a racist :bowdown:

Then yeah man you'd just be an (bigoted?) asshole with a sick sense of humor. I know a lot of those.

But I'm just one man...to some people on the board yelling out slurs at people is your right and people should pass bills to allow bigotry into American society in 2014.:facepalm

[qrich]

Then yeah man you'd just be an (bigoted?) asshole with a sick sense of humor. I know a lot of those.

But I'm just one man...to some people on the board yelling out slurs at people is your right and people should pass bills to allow bigotry into American society in 2014.:facepalm

I'd just be a bored asshole :bowdown:

[longtime lurker]

The source of the video is Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, a black man. You dumb fvckin blockhead. Why not mention the other source http://whitegirlbleedalot.com/

Yeah I watched the video for 30 seconds before I stopped and laughed at your stupidity. Fox news is a propaganda outlet, I thought you were a race baiting troll before now I'm convinced you're just a delusional idiot. I never said that black people can't be racist, but using that to support your point just made you look like an even bigger idiot.

[MightyWhitey]

Yeah I watched the video for 30 seconds before I stopped and laughed at your stupidity. Fox news is a propaganda outlet, I thought you were a race baiting troll before now I'm convinced you're just a delusional idiot. I never said that black people can't be racist, but using that to support your point just made you look like an even bigger idiot.
So if it's on FOX it's propaganda????? According to whom????? You :lol :oldlol: :roll:

[MightyWhitey]

Of course black people can be bigots....but racism is systemic and black people do not have the power to be racists in America.
Wrong. Here's a black man that defies your twisted logic - http://theblacksphere.net/2013/07/zimmerman-case-exposes-black-racism/




The Zimmerman Case Exposes Black Racism
The idea that black people will riot over the Zimmerman case should be an embarrassment to blacks.

Unfortunately, far too many black Liberals are waiting to riot, hoping for the opportunity

[MightyWhitey]

Then yeah man you'd just be an (bigoted?) asshole with a sick sense of humor. I know a lot of those.

But I'm just one man...to some people on the board yelling out slurs at people is your right and people should pass bills to allow bigotry into American society in 2014.:facepalm
Have you ever taken an IQ test? I am curious how desperate our armed forces are to recruit someone who apparently suffers from mental incapacities. Maybe you should change your user name to Slow Wetter.

[Akrazotile]

And your example is a stupid one because a rec league isn't a privately owned business. The point of my business is to provide a service to the public and as a business there are laws that prevent me from discriminating based on race, gender, sexual orientation etc. There is an understanding that anybody can come in. We're not talking about a social club etc which is what a rec league would fall under. If you don't agree just look at the cases where this was taken to the supreme court and who they ruled in favor of. You're fooling yourself if you don't think is to deny rights to homosexuals. People that support this and legislators are full of shit otherwise they wouldn't do business with adulterers, cheats, people that have sex out of marriage and the list goes on


Let me ask you a general philosophical question. Why would you rather the federal government step in and decide this for the people of Arizona rather than the people of Arizona themselves? (I realize AZ itself may kill the bill but let's say theoretically they don't).

What is the point of state government if we're going to allow the federal government to lord over everybody?


We are allowing the federal government to usurp dangerous amounts of power in the name of 'equality' and 'protection.' Know you no history? This is a steep and slippery slope. For the sake of free choice, sometimes you have to let people just have their natural differences and live their lives separately if they choose to.

The problem is you see this as an "I accept gays or I hate gays" issue and that perceived dichotomy is a misguided simplification. You are trying to legislate everyone elses lives because it makes you feel like the moral robin hood. The fact is you really don't have the right to tell everyone else what to do.

[Rasheed1]

Let me ask you a general philosophical question. Why would you rather the federal government step in and decide this for the people of Arizona rather than the people of Arizona themselves? (I realize AZ itself may kill the bill but let's say theoretically they don't).

What is the point of state government if we're going to allow the federal government to lord over everybody?


We are allowing the federal government to usurp dangerous amounts of power in the name of 'equality' and 'protection.' Know you no history? This is a steep and slippery slope. For the sake of free choice, sometimes you have to let people just have their natural differences and live their lives separately if they choose to.

The problem is you see this as an "I accept gays or I hate gays" issue and that perceived dichotomy is a misguided simplification. You are trying to legislate everyone elses lives because it makes you feel like the moral robin hood. The fact is you really don't have the right to tell everyone else what to do.


There has always been a balance between federal power and state power.. the pendulum swings different directions during different periods of the country's history..

"state's rights" has historically been a cry for people who want the freedom to discriminate against their people locally..

Please excuse black folks and other minorities if they don't trust the people who throw out the "state's rights" argument.. that was the logic used by the south before and during the civil war in regard to the feral government's treatment of its black citizens..

federal power has its draw backs also as we have seen with NSA and NDAA (among other things)..

but there has never been a set principle on which one should trump the other.. the founding fathers used federal power when it suited their needs and shunned it when it didn't

the point is that their has always been a balance that the government has maintained and it is BS to think that the founding principles where based completely on states rights over federal power

federal power has historically been needed for situations just like these when states try to discriminate against the civil rights of its citizens.. that's when federal power steps in and asserts the rights of EVERY AMERICAN against bigotry whatever the reason

[fpliii]

Did you guys see this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKwBRXEzE1g

:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

[Rasheed1]

Did you guys see this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKwBRXEzE1g

:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm


I saw that earlier ... that is definitely a :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

[Akrazotile]

There has always been a balance between federal power and state power.. the pendulum swings different directions during different periods of the country's history..

"state's rights" has historically been a cry for people who want the freedom to discriminate against their people locally..

Please excuse black folks and other minorities if they don't trust the people who throw out the "state's rights" argument.. that was the logic used by the south before and during the civil war in regard to the feral government's treatment of its black citizens..

federal power has its draw backs also as we have seen with NSA and NDAA (among other things)..

but there has never been a set principle on which one should trump the other.. the founding fathers used federal power when it suited their needs and shunned it when it didn't

the point is that their has always been a balance that the government has maintained and it is BS to think that the founding principles where based completely on states rights over federal power

federal power has historically been needed for situations just like these when states try to discriminate against the civil rights of its citizens.. that's when federal power steps in and asserts the rights of EVERY AMERICAN against bigotry whatever the reason


This is obviously where we have a philosophical conflict. I can absolutely see why a minority person would view this issue from a personal perspective. You are worried that it sets a bad precedent to be excluded from other things. But technically the constitution guarantees everyone the right to vote, to bear arms, protection against double jeopardy and a bunch of other stuff. It doesn't say everyone has to get along. That's just a fact.

The constitution protects against proactive harm from other citizens. A person cannot attack another, steal from another, blackmail another and so forth. There is no mandate that one person has to PROVIDE something for someone else. This is the issue with universal healthcare as well. How can healthcare be a right if it's dependent on the free will of others to become doctors in the first place? Nobody is guaranteed to be offered or provided anything by other private citizens. Now the government? Yes, they are required to treat all citizens equally, provide equal programs and protections. Private citizens do not have to all like each other, get along with each other, service each other, help each other, whatever.

Again, I am not a minority so my concern is about the principle of the constitution. I can understand why others may view it through a more personal lens which is their right, and it is my right to disagree. We also have a right to religious freedom in this country. How is a religious idea and different than a political ideology that a person should have to open his business to everyone? Is that written in some holy tablet? Because it's not in the Constitution, and as far as I know it's not in any historical documents, and it's not in any biblical documents. There is nothing that states that is a definitively "positive" moral. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But it's no more "official" than fundies shouting "NO buttsecks."

I do not want the government dictating how a private business is run because that's just the beginning. Once we bend on that (and I realize we've already bent with hiring discrimination laws which I think is sufficient, and then affirmative action is bending too far) then we get complacent and start looking to the federal government every time we don't like what someone says. How much longer before the federal government censors all usage of the word "f@ggot" on the internet? "Oh come on, it's equal protection. That's discrimination. Straight people don't suffer that discrimination on the internet, why should gay people."

You think it seems silly now, but the federalism we have in place now would make the founders roll over in their grave. We just move ever slowly toward a fascist system in the name of "equality and protection" and eventually before you realize it we've given the government way too much power and they're no longer bothering with the charade that its for our own good. They're just abusing the power outright. This happens over and over in human history. It is the cycle of revolution.

[travelingman]

Who is that in your Avatar?

Jerry Cantrell

[Akrazotile]

Federal govt spying on citizens "for protect from terrorist boogieman"

Federal govt telling businesses how to practice "liek for equality"

[Rasheed1]

This is obviously where we have a philosophical conflict. I can absolutely see why a minority person would view this issue from a personal perspective. You are worried that it sets a bad precedent to be excluded from other things. But technically the constitution guarantees everyone the right to vote, to bear arms, protection against double jeopardy and a bunch of other stuff. It doesn't say everyone has to get along. That's just a fact.

The constitution protects against proactive harm from other citizens. A person cannot attack another, steal from another, blackmail another and so forth. There is no mandate that one person has to PROVIDE something for someone else. This is the issue with universal healthcare as well. How can healthcare be a right if it's dependent on the free will of others to become doctors in the first place? Nobody is guaranteed to be offered or provided anything by other private citizens. Now the government? Yes, they are required to treat all citizens equally, provide equal programs and protections. Private citizens do not have to all like each other, get along with each other, service each other, help each other, whatever.

Again, I am not a minority so my concern is about the principle of the constitution. I can understand why others may view it through a more personal lens which is their right, and it is my right to disagree. We also have a right to religious freedom in this country. How is a religious idea and different than a political ideology that a person should have to open his business to everyone? Is that written in some holy tablet? Because it's not in the Constitution, and as far as I know it's not in any historical documents, and it's not in any biblical documents. There is nothing that states that is a definitively "positive" moral. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But it's no more "official" than fundies shouting "NO buttsecks."

I do not want the government dictating how a private business is run because that's just the beginning. Once we bend on that (and I realize we've already bent with hiring discrimination laws which I think is sufficient, and then affirmative action is bending too far) then we get complacent and start looking to the federal government every time we don't like what someone says. How much longer before the federal government censors all usage of the word "f@ggot" on the internet? "Oh come on, it's equal protection. That's discrimination. Straight people don't suffer that discrimination on the internet, why should gay people."

You think it seems silly now, but the federalism we have in place now would make the founders roll over in their grave. We just move ever slowly toward a fascist system in the name of "equality and protection" and eventually before you realize it we've given the government way too much power and they're no longer bothering with the charade that its for our own good. They're just abusing the power outright. This happens over and over in human history. It is the cycle of revolution.

You have your right to advocate for state's rights if you choose.. But the United States is a Constitutional Republic.. That means the rights of the minority will be protected over the a simple democracy... you cant vote away the inherent rights (in this case civil rights) of the minority..

The battle for balance between state's rights and federal power will continue, but gays have been included into the group that deserves protection under the 1968 civil right's act (in most states) and that makes it hard for states to pass laws like these...

I personally applaud the governor (assuming she vetoes the bill) for understanding this and we will see the fight continue

[qrich]

Did you guys see this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKwBRXEzE1g

:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm


My hero :rockon: :cheers:

[Lakers Legend#32]

Arizona's two Republican senators oppose this.
Mitt Romney opposes this.
It's not 2004. Campaigning on taking away gay rights does not unite Republicans any more.

[Akrazotile]

Arizona's two Republican senators oppose this.
Mitt Romney opposes this.
It's not 2004. Campaigning on taking away gay rights does not unite Republicans any more.

I realize AZ is framing this bill in the context of religion vs homosex and for that reason I suspect this is nothing more than an attention grab. Keep people focused on these trivial battles while the federal deficit continues to jeopardize our economy and middle east occupation continues.

Weren't those the two biggest issues everyone had a problem with when Bush was in office?

Now you don't care about those things but you have to fight the meanie republicans on whether gays can eat in some arizona restaurants?


It's unbelievable how easily manipulated the public is. What happened to the outrage over the deficit? What happened to the outrage over war?


All gone, now that the letter on the office door switched from R to D. Amazing.



I personally think a restaurant or any business should be allowed to operate as it pleases and be at the mercy of the market and public perception.


But really.... this is what Democrats are complaining about now? Not the deficit and the war anymore?


Incredible. Media has these sheep by the bawls.

[Lakers Legend#32]

Brewer is gonna throw the evangelicals under the bus and side with big business. This is what Republicans do.
When will these rubes realize the GOP just uses them for their votes?
Remember when Bush ran in '04 on a platform of adding a Constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality? He never mentioned it again after he got Billy Bobs vote.

[Akrazotile]

Brewer is gonna throw the evangelicals under the bus and side with big business. This is what Republicans do.
When will these rubes realize the GOP just uses them for their votes?
Remember when Bush ran in '04 on a platform of adding a Constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality? He never mentioned it again after he got Billy Bobs vote.


Remember when Democrats cared about the war and the deficit because they were all riled up to attack the Republican in office?

Those issues havent changed but now theyre ok with war and spiraling deficits. As long as they protect homosex!!!!!!!!

So easily divided. Jolie was right.

Democrat special interests prob behind this too. Keep the sheep in a tizzy over this garbage instead of questioning what Democrat politicians are doing.

[Lakers Legend#32]

Poor Whitey, sorry that whole discriminate gay people in Arizona thing did not work out for you.

[MJ23forever]

You have your right to advocate for state's rights if you choose.. But the United States is a Constitutional Republic.. That means the rights of the minority will be protected over the a simple democracy... you cant vote away the inherent rights (in this case civil rights) of the minority..

The battle for balance between state's rights and federal power will continue, but gays have been included into the group that deserves protection under the 1968 civil right's act (in most states) and that makes it hard for states to pass laws like these...

I personally applaud the governor (assuming she vetoes the bill) for understanding this and we will see the fight continue

If it's a private business, they should have the right to deny service for whatever reason without having to legitimate it. To argue otherwise would be to violate the business owner's property.

And if you're denying their property, you may as well just steal from them.

[Dresta]

You have your right to advocate for state's rights if you choose.. But the United States is a Constitutional Republic.. That means the rights of the minority will be protected over the a simple democracy... you cant vote away the inherent rights (in this case civil rights) of the minority..

The battle for balance between state's rights and federal power will continue, but gays have been included into the group that deserves protection under the 1968 civil right's act (in most states) and that makes it hard for states to pass laws like these...

I personally applaud the governor (assuming she vetoes the bill) for understanding this and we will see the fight continue
:roll:

Man you know nothing about the Constitution or Federalism as it was initially intended if you think there is any kind of 'battle' going on between states rights and the Federal gvmt, and that the Federal government hasn't already usurped all important powers from the states.

You keep talking about protecting 'minorities' - but the fact is that you aren't protecting minorities, you are trying to use the state to persecute the expression of a minority and unfashionable opinion. The reason the governor is vetoing the bill isn't to protect a minority, it is to bow to majority opinion because like all politicians she is a demagogue at heart.

[Dresta]

Did you guys see this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKwBRXEzE1g

:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm
lol @ this new political buzzword 'discrimination' - the whole discussion is essentially meaningless: to fire anybody for any reason is by definition discrimination; if an individual is fired, then they are being discriminated against. I mean, if you fire someone for being lazy, is that not 'discrimination'? Can said person help the fact that they are a congenitally lazy individual? No, they can't help who they are any more than anybody else can.

Therefore any rule that does not confer on business owners the ability to hire and fire, serve or not serve, based on their belief of what will make their business most prosperous and provide them with the greatest utility, must be arbitrary by definition, and fitted only to the prejudices and opinions of the present time and circumstance. The whole way the word 'discrimination' is used simply doesn't make any logical sense. And when feminists talk about things like 'positive discrimination', just :facepalm.