Arizona passes controversial anti-gay...

Arizona passes controversial anti-gay bill

There are 236 comments on the KGWN story from Feb 21, 2014, titled Arizona passes controversial anti-gay bill. In it, KGWN reports that:

Arizona's Legislature has passed a controversial bill that would allow business owners, as long as they assert their religious beliefs, to deny service to gay and lesbian customers.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at KGWN.

First Prev
of 12
Next Last

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#240 Mar 7, 2014
Charlie Feather wrote:
Because it is right there in the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.
That really DIDN'T answer the question though, did it? Because is NOT an answer........but idiots like yourself can't understand that either!!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#241 Mar 7, 2014
Charlie Feather wrote:
Because it is right there in the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.
One is ALLOWED to practice their chosen religious beliefs....NOT use it to trample anti-discrimination policies!!!

Sorry you CAN'T understand the difference!!!

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#242 Mar 7, 2014
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
One is ALLOWED to practice their chosen religious beliefs....NOT use it to trample anti-discrimination policies!!!
Sorry you CAN'T understand the difference!!!
-
Anti-discrimination policies cannot be used to trample the free exercise of religion. Religious exercise has protected status right there in the 1st Amendment. It is one thing to make laws that interdict certain behaviors and actions; it is quite another to make laws that compel behavior and actions. There are very few laws that are compulsory; filing and paying income taxes compels an action. By contrast, interdicting theft and murder do not compel an action; these forbid an action.

Anti-discrimination laws compel people to engage in business with others and serve them. It is, therefore, a form of involuntary servitude and a burden upon liberty.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#243 Mar 7, 2014
Charlie Feather wrote:
Again, NO ONE'S religious freedom was being trampled on.....and I guess we will see if SCOTUS agrees with your assessment or not.....and probably by this June!!!

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#244 Mar 7, 2014
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, NO ONE'S religious freedom was being trampled on.....and I guess we will see if SCOTUS agrees with your assessment or not.....and probably by this June!!!
-
You are resisting reason. It is very evident what I spelled out to you, and yet, you prefer irrationality because you find the truth inconvenient.

Anti-discrimination laws compel people to engage in business with others and serve them. It is, therefore, a form of involuntary servitude and a burden upon liberty.

Do you have any rebuttal to that?
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#245 Mar 8, 2014
Charlie Feather wrote:
<quoted text>-
There is no right to be free from discrimination in a private market place. That only applies to public market places. You can't demand that a Muslim butcher sell you pork. You can't demand that a Chinese restaurant serve you a taco. All those are discriminatory policies, yet the principle of liberty permits such discrimination.
Look, dummy. The discrimination is against the customer, NOT the products for sale. Jesus! How stupid are you?

What, exactly, is a "private" market place?
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#246 Mar 8, 2014
Charlie Feather wrote:
<quoted text>-
Anti-discrimination policies cannot be used to trample the free exercise of religion. Religious exercise has protected status right there in the 1st Amendment. It is one thing to make laws that interdict certain behaviors and actions; it is quite another to make laws that compel behavior and actions. There are very few laws that are compulsory; filing and paying income taxes compels an action. By contrast, interdicting theft and murder do not compel an action; these forbid an action.
Anti-discrimination laws compel people to engage in business with others and serve them. It is, therefore, a form of involuntary servitude and a burden upon liberty.
Sorry, Charlie. It's already been litigated. Religious freedom does NOT trump the state's right to provide a discrimination free market place.

Do you understand? Been there, done that, your side LOST. It's over. Stop whining.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#247 Mar 8, 2014
Charlie Feather wrote:
<quoted text>-
You are resisting reason. It is very evident what I spelled out to you, and yet, you prefer irrationality because you find the truth inconvenient.
Anti-discrimination laws compel people to engage in business with others and serve them. It is, therefore, a form of involuntary servitude and a burden upon liberty.
Do you have any rebuttal to that?
Yes..... you are full of bad information.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#248 Mar 8, 2014
Charlie Feather wrote:
<quoted text>
-
Because it is right there in the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.
-
.
No, it isn't.

Get a refund for your law school tuition.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#249 Mar 8, 2014
Charlie Feather wrote:
<quoted text>-
The US is a big enough country where decent Christians can carve out a piece of it to have their own country. Why should collectivist, sex perverts get the whole country? Don't you believe in multiculturalism, diversity and sharing?
Sorry. If you don't like our constitution, you are free to leave. I KNOW you don't believe in sharing.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#250 Mar 8, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry. If you don't like our constitution, you are free to leave. I KNOW you don't believe in sharing.
-
I've concluded for a while now that you are an irrational bigot, so it would be a pointless waste of time to reply to you in any reasonable manner.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#251 Mar 8, 2014
Charlie Feather wrote:
<quoted text>-
I've concluded for a while now that you are an irrational bigot, so it would be a pointless waste of time to reply to you in any reasonable manner.
You are funny. Do you really think the USA is going to carve out a spot for you to set up a theocracy? You are less than stupid.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#252 Mar 8, 2014
Sen Rick Saintpornum wrote:
<quoted text> The bigoted, fundie trash.
I hope you don't miss the following exchange I had:
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps you didn't pay attention to the details of your story. No one was forced to cut the governor's hair.
LOL, Now I know why Frankie just loves to play with you guys [and gals]. This is really really good X-Breath, it is you who didn't pay attention to the details of the story.

No one was forced to cut the governor's hair, exactly right. The gay hair stylist and the bigot baker are in exactly the same identical situation. Someone has asked for their services and both of them, the bigot baker and the gay hair stylist, BOTH REFUSED.

Now the moral of the story, which you missed,[no surprise there!!!] is that the gay couple threw a hissy fit and went to the HRA and filed a complaint, while the governor did the right thing and had her staff find another hair stylist.

The gay couple had the bigot baker threatened with one year in prison while the governor just called another hair stylist. And you are so morally bankrupt X-Breath that you think the gay couple did the right thing and the governor did the wrong thing.

Clearly the message from all of this from the gay community is that bigots have no right to say no to gays and gays have every right to say no to bigots.

And amazingly, since you have the IQ of a dead flash light battery, you think this is just roses roses for the gay community. This is why gay people are accused of demanding special rights. You deny it left and right because you refuse to look at the facts and the hypocrisy.

What can a normal person do but laugh at you?

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#253 Mar 8, 2014
Sen Rick Saintpornum wrote:
<quoted text>
The bigoted, fundie trash.
No bigotry in your comments.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#254 Mar 9, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
I hope you don't miss the following exchange I had:
<quoted text>
LOL, Now I know why Frankie just loves to play with you guys [and gals]. This is really really good X-Breath, it is you who didn't pay attention to the details of the story.
No one was forced to cut the governor's hair, exactly right. The gay hair stylist and the bigot baker are in exactly the same identical situation. Someone has asked for their services and both of them, the bigot baker and the gay hair stylist, BOTH REFUSED.
Now the moral of the story, which you missed,[no surprise there!!!] is that the gay couple threw a hissy fit and went to the HRA and filed a complaint, while the governor did the right thing and had her staff find another hair stylist.
The gay couple had the bigot baker threatened with one year in prison while the governor just called another hair stylist. And you are so morally bankrupt X-Breath that you think the gay couple did the right thing and the governor did the wrong thing.
Clearly the message from all of this from the gay community is that bigots have no right to say no to gays and gays have every right to say no to bigots.
And amazingly, since you have the IQ of a dead flash light battery, you think this is just roses roses for the gay community. This is why gay people are accused of demanding special rights. You deny it left and right because you refuse to look at the facts and the hypocrisy.
What can a normal person do but laugh at you?
Laugh all you like. Anyone that can READ can see that I didn't write the things you accuse me of writing. You are nothing but a common LIAR.

Your editorializing about the gay couple throwing a "hissy fit" is nothing but pure speculation, meant only to cloud the real issue. Filing a complaint is called DUE PROCESS, not a "hissy fit." The baker did violate the law. There was a summary judgment against him, and in case you forget, that means he ADMITTED to the facts of the complaint.

And F.Y.I..... I didn't make a comment saying the governor was wrong. You made that up in a feeble-minded attempt to smear me. If you have to lie to make your point, you have already lost. You just do not have the capacity to admit that you are wrong. The law is wrong, the court is wrong, but YOU, in all your uneducated hubris, are never wrong. Besides, since when is a governor part of a protected class? You are completely clueless about discrimination law and hardly in any position to claim the moral high ground. You can claim the stupid high ground, though.

Since: Feb 10

Woodstock, Illinois

#255 Mar 10, 2014
Charlie Feather wrote:
<quoted text>-
All right! Take that small, religious and conservative town where most of the residents belong to the same church and a leftist, fascist, Satan worshipping, Nazi, sexually perverted, pedophiliac, atheistic, commie, anti-Christian, anti-American, suicidal terrorist organization wanted to rent a hall for an anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-human rally. Would you have a problem about refusing to rent to them?
The fact is that one's race or ethnicity is not a moral issue; it does not engage behavior, whereas homosexuality and other forms of anti-social behavior are moral issues that directly implicate behavior and ideas about behavior.
Like it or not Charlie, we do support free speech, even when we do not agree with that speech. Now a rally is quite different from a wedding, it would require permits and possibly police protection, but yes, a hall that is open to the public is open to be rented by people you may not agree with. That is in our Constitution.

All that you are supporting is discrimination when you legislate it into our laws.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 12
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Personal Finance Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Wells Fargo claws back part of CEO, other execu... 1 hr spocko 1
News Why it Matters: Social Security 1 hr Bert 10
News Long Beach pastor admits to running $3 million ... 6 hr lawyers gone wild 2
News If Donald Trump Was President, Here's What Woul... (Oct '15) 8 hr ima-Ilis Myka Ash... 11,264
News Pension mess can't go on; that's no reason to i... Mon donaldito 4ever 1
News Paul Ryan's plan to fix the economy Sep 25 Captain Yesterday 21
News Senate panel backs bill to protect miners' reti... Sep 25 Wish4549 19
More from around the web