Arizona Passes New Law Feb 2014

[Sennin of Logic]

I'm divided on this. While this seems like a move jerks would do, understand this about the Christian religion. The bible talks of being Homosexual as a sin. Now, while I don't personally think goods and medical treatment should be restricted, there's a bad way this could go in the opposite direction.

For instance, we think being homosexual(the act of just to be specific) is a sin. So what if a Gay couple waltzes in and decides they want to be married at a church? This is a religion that thinks that the act is wrong, and that marriage is for those of the opposite ***. So either A.The Church needs to have a reinforced right to deny its services to keep its belief system intact or B. The Church will be forced to take in the homosexual couple and to forcibly warp the religion. This would be a government attack on Christianity.

Same thing with abortions. A Christian doctor should never be forced to perform an abortion procedure. We consider that to be like murder, so it goes against our beliefs. To force a doctor to do this is like forcing somebody to punch an innocent child in the face. It's just wrong for certain services of a religion to be forced to do something against its beliefs. I mean, if you're a homosexual couple, get married at a court. If you're pregnant, don't ask a Christian doctor to give you an abortion.

Laws like this are necessary to defend a culture. It's not like all businesses are Christian anyway. I'd venture to say that most aren't. So you really have to ask yourself what are these guys getting mad at? Maybe it's a step to far, but something like this needs to be in place. Plus, the right to not give services might be in the constitution.

 

[Unbiased King]

@Aim64C: We'll just have to agree to disagree then, you go ahead and promote your jim crow ideals. Just keep them out of my town, my state, and business. Call CNN if you want to talk to someone like minded.

Actually what he's sharing with you are American ideals. Have you read the early puritan papers? The second treatise of government? The Federalist papers? These works of writings are the cornerstone of our constitution and hence our government.

The difference with this in comparing it to racial intolerance is that Jim Crow laws promised "separate but equal" yet failed to do so in actuality, leading to the end of said laws.

Therefore, until everyone as a US citizen, or Arizona citizen, is guaranteed equal service as a sort of right all in themselves, there really is no constitutional basis to say that business owners shouldn't refuse service; businesses are property/personalty, both of which are protected under our government. Not the right to service.

 

[Jako98146]

Dammit Arizona...

 

[Aim64C]

@Aim64C: We'll just have to agree to disagree then, you go ahead and promote your jim crow ideals. Just keep them out of my town, my state, and business. Call CNN if you want to talk to someone like minded.

Your ignorance knows no bounds.

Jim Crow laws applied to institutions of the State - schools in particular - that actively segregated schools. The ruling stated that so long as schools were given equal treatment under the law, segregation was acceptable.

If you were to follow through with my belief system - there would be no state funded schools to have the debate about. State schools are a waste of money - as are most things the government does.

Regardless - ruling that a state school cannot actively segregate simply states that no government institution may attempt to discern between blacks and whites (thus the develop hiring quotas for "equal opportunity" qualifications - it'd be funny if these people weren't serious). That has no bearing on private business.

Consider, you decide to work at a male escort service.

Your 'dispatch office' receives a call, and it's a male. None of the male escorts are okay performing homosexual acts. Does the business have the right to decline the escort service?

Let's even go so far as to scrub all of the "real world" out of it to make it 'legal' in all states. A guy just wants a nice looking gentleman to step out of the limo with for some nice camera shots to impress his friends at his highschool reunion (or whatever). What goes on behind closed doors is between consenting adults and outside the contract of service.

Does the business have a right to decline the service request?

Let's extend 'discrimination' a bit further. Suppose you are opening up a bank - a real one - no Federal Reserve to print dollars into oblivion on your behalf. Someone comes in, asking for a loan, and when you begin discussing their financial situation, it becomes apparent that a loan is just not realistic for them.

Do you, or do you not have the right to decide to do business with that person?

You are liable for their loans. But by law, you can't be allowed to discriminate... so do you have the right?

This is not about segregation or some kind of moral conflict.

It's very simple - just how much control do you want the government to have?

Do I want people to refuse service to each other over petty issues? No. But the market eventually self-corrects while the expansion of government authority does not.

Government is a force that must be actively fought against. It will always seek to gain more power and more influence. It must be driven back at each attempt and only yielded to in cases of absolute necessity - and that necessity must be routinely challenged thereafter.

You've been lied to in school. Subtly - but it's an important sleight of hand.

All of the 'rights' movements in history?

Started by the population. Not once did government 'enlighten' the ignorant masses. It was the masses that enlightened our government. By the time you get around to drafting the legislation and putting it on the floor - the issue has usually been addressed by society and the free market.

Now... we come at another impasse. I will discuss what I like with whom I like, where I like (private property exempted). Now, I don't seek to control your state. If you paid attention - you'd realize that wasn't my message.

My message is very, very simple: "You don't need government. You don't need me. You are individually capable and individually responsible."

Detroit kept those ideals out of its government and out of its society.

So good luck with that.

 

[Jazzy Stardust]

@Aim64C:

I'm ignorant?? Hahahahaha you don't even what you're talking about. Jim Crow was more then school segregation wtf are you talking about? There were signs that said "no blacks allowed" on storefront windows and even water fountains were separated. It was more then just schools which is the same road we'll be heading down if this becomes a common law against homosexuals. It's almost the same thing, if you allow laws that allow someone to segregate against something silly like race, segregating against sexuality is even stupider and meaningless.

You're whole agenda is you're afraid of being "trapped" or "Forced" by the government in every post I've seen from you in any thread. You even take something simple things I say and exaggerate it way out if bounds. You're trying to hard. Of course no one wants to be oppressed or controlled and I get that. In fact that's the whole point I'm trying to get across but you're missing that allowing laws like this is the first step leading towards oppression.

I'm not saying that people are forced to do business with everyone and I never said that. That's all your assumption. My whole point is that passing a law like this is leading us down a slippery path that we just got out of a couple decades ago. Not only that but it doesn't even need to exist because anyone can refuse service to anyone if they choose, anyone can kick anyone off of their property, this law is just a contradicting and hostile gesture that is the first step leading to more and more oppressive laws.

So like I said before, you clearly missed my whole point. You know why I know? Because you keep responding with stupid shit. So yes you do have Jim Crow ideals if you're really trying to defend this law, and we'll just have to agree to disagree like I said before since you clearly can't look outside of yourself or at the bigger picture.

 

[Aim64C]

@Aim64C:

I'm ignorant??

Yes.

Hahahahaha you don't even what you're talking about. Jim Crow was more then school segregation wtf are you talking about? There were signs that said "no blacks allowed" on storefront windows and even water fountains were separated. It was more then just schools which is the same road we'll be heading down if this becomes a common law against homosexuals. It's almost the same thing, if you allow laws that allow someone to segregate against something silly like race, segregating against sexuality is even stupider and meaningless.

Jim Crow only applied to public infrastructure. Private infrastructure was not affected.

If I want to set up a "whites only" club - I can. Just as there are clubs and businesses for Native Americans, just as there is a Congressional Black Caucass.

Why aren't there?

Because, like you said, it's a stupid business model. People found out long ago that it was unpopular among whites and eliminated blacks as customers.

You're whole agenda is you're afraid of being "trapped" or "Forced" by the government in every post I've seen from you in any thread. You even take something simple things I say and exaggerate it way out if bounds. You're trying to hard. Of course no one wants to be oppressed or controlled and I get that. In fact that's the whole point I'm trying to get across but you're missing that allowing laws like this is the first step leading towards oppression.

So, it's oppression if I tell you to get out of my store, and you just have to go some place else. It's freedom if you can call the police on me for refusing to do business with you?

Laws like this, really, don't need to be written. A business has the inherent right to accept and refuse business. Period. That is called freedom. You can tell someone you will not set foot into their biohazard of a home to set up their TV. You can tell someone you just don't need their business for the day, and want to go home.

You've already been indoctrinated into this idea that business is something other than you. In a free world - you can be an independent tradesman. You can take your welding skills and apply them as your own business from the garage and compound it with a scrapping business. You can turn your household oven into a small pastry business that you expand into a shed or perhaps even a full store-front.

This idea that business is something completely separate from the individual leads to people justifying state ownership and/or control of all market activity.

I'm not saying that people are forced to do business with everyone and I never said that. That's all your assumption. My whole point is that passing a law like this is leading us down a slippery path that we just got out of a couple decades ago. Not only that but it doesn't even need to exist because anyone can refuse service to anyone if they choose, anyone can kick anyone off of their property, this law is just a contradicting and hostile gesture that is the first step leading to more and more oppressive laws.

Do you know why the law exists?

This particular law?

You must be registered for see links

Because a court in Oregon ruled that a bakery had to provide a cake to a homosexual couple for their wedding.

Oregon wrote the law to specifically forbid judges from making that same ruling - because we gave the courts the power to legislate from the bench long ago with the concept of judicial precedent.

So like I said before, you clearly missed my whole point. You know why I know? Because you keep responding with stupid shit. So yes you do have Jim Crow ideals if you're really trying to defend this law, and we'll just have to agree to disagree like I said before since you clearly can't look outside of yourself or at the bigger picture.

I was curious if you would ever reference the case that prompted this law.

I understand why it would be the first you've heard of it - it's part of the big picture. I can also understand why you may have been aware of it, but just failed to consider it. I have a reputation of thinking along multiple perspectives at one time.

We do not agree to disagree. We are at a literal impasse. Should we ever consider the same thing to be our territory, the only solution will be for one ideology to eliminate the other. Whether or not the individual holding those ideals must be eliminated as well is a subject of circumstance.

The country cannot remain half-fascist, half-socialist, semi-marxist forever. Things will have to change, and it would be foolish to believe it will happen any time other than soon.

 

[Jack Spicer]

Stupid law. Bad for business. Triple H wouldn't endorse this.

 

[Avani]

So how does it work? Are customers required to give evidence of their sexuality to get the clearance or what?

Or do homosexual people wear yellow ribbons on their arms or something to be spotted? What happens if someone lies?

Will it be OK if they were into incest? What about other crimes under religious beliefs? Or religion is to be practiced against a single category only?

Just curious..

@Aim64C: We'll just have to agree to disagree then, you go ahead and promote your jim crow ideals. Just keep them out of my town, my state, and business. Call CNN if you want to talk to someone like minded.

@Aim64C:You missed the entire point I made. -_______-

If you really think "freedom" is the right to discriminate against someone so far as to deny them civil rights and freedoms, then you're are the one with the hitler ideals, thats completely contradicting to the idea of being free. Being free to conflict others freedoms is stupidity, I can't believe I have to spell this out for you.

Not to mention the whole idea of a business in a community is to coexist for the economy of the community to flourish. This is completely contradicting to that whole aspect of community, and to use religion as an excuse does matter. Its extremely contradicting to what any script of any religion says as I stated. They aren't suppose promote hate, its contradicting to the whole aspect of religious belief. And to use that as an excuse is another sign of stupidity.

There's so many contradictions in this stupid law and to your post, I really wish I didn't just waste my time reading that wall of text. It's called summarizing geez, I'm not reading another wall of something that serves no purpose other than for the sake of arguing.

You should just convert to my religion where trolling is forbidden and refuse to serve such obvious troller instead of entertaining them with your responses.. U_U

 

[Sennin of Logic]

So how does it work? Are customers required to give evidence of their sexuality to get the clearance or what?

Or do homosexual people wear yellow ribbons on their arms or something to be spotted? What happens if someone lies?

Will it be OK if they were into incest? What about other crimes under religious beliefs? Or religion is to be practiced against a single category only?

Just curious..






You should just convert to my religion where trolling is forbidden and refuse to serve such obvious troller instead of entertaining them with your responses.. U_U

I'm assuming that since that wasn't mentioned, there's no necessary identifications. This is taking it a bit to far, but there needs to be something like this to protect churches in case a homosexual couple tries to use the court to force a church to get them married. The strange thing is, this might be part of the constitution, I'll have to check on that.

 

[BlacLord™]

Should be.



It should be condemned? Please, justify that.



I'd love to see where you came up with that.

Segregation has not once caused conflict or war. What causes conflict and war is when one group feels forced by another group.

So, you should be able to walk into any place of business and demand service under threat of lawsuit?

What gives you the right?

I'm sorry, have you been living under a rock or don't you know what segregation means?

Forced? Did Hitler feel forced when he believed that Germans were superior and decided to wage war on the world? Or how about the Mongolian, Japanese or British Empires? The root cause of war is geographical/religious segregation, the progenitors feel like they own the turf they walk on and decide they want more control, more turf, more power.

All this law is doing is causing more divide and ill-feeling from all parties. No person or party owns any area intrinsically.

 

[Punk Hazard]

Good, these guys should be able to practice their religion without having to violate it. I don't like religion, but America is a place of religious freedom and no one should have to do something that is against their religious beliefs.

Their religion also says none of us have the right to judge each other, that's reserved for the big guy in the sky. We also have to treat others as we would ourselves. To justify this with religion is highly hypocritical.

 

[Aim64C]

I'm sorry, have you been living under a rock or don't you know what segregation means?

Yes, I do.

I suppose you are going to tell me that men and women hate and fight with each other because we can't use the same restroom.

Forced? Did Hitler feel forced when he believed that Germans were superior and decided to wage war on the world? Or how about the Mongolian, Japanese or British Empires? The root cause of war is geographical/religious segregation, the progenitors feel like they own the turf they walk on and decide they want more control, more turf, more power.

You're not very bright, are you kiddo?

The principles you enforce were utilized by Hitler to gain power. The government was granted the power of unrestricted arbitration.

If I were to start talking about "The rich getting richer" and "The 1%" etc, etc - you'd jump right on board. "Yeah, they are the problem! They need to pay their fair share!"

That's exactly how Hitler gained power 'back in the day.' The Jews were an easy target during an economic recession, as many of them owned banks (that were forced by the government to engage in bad banking practices - but none of the population cares to look at centralized banking structures close enough to figure that out).

Hitler made sure everyone had a radio so that everyone would be able to receive news from the government administration.

And now you want to give the government the ability to tell me: "We are going to send someone to arrest you and shut down your business if you decide to refuse service to some 'protected' group."

That's fascism.

Do I have the right to enter into a female bathroom?

Can I have my art displayed in a women's art gallery?

Can I walk into a clothing store and demand that they fit me for a dress?

Or can I demand that a photographer take pictures of me in the nude?

Segregation does not cause conflict. We segregate along natural social boundaries. While there is some subjectivity across cultures as to what boundaries exist and where - we do naturally segregate, and there is nothing inherently wrong with it.

What is wrong is when you begin to apply force.

"I am going to FORCE you to do business with me."

All this law is doing is causing more divide and ill-feeling from all parties. No person or party owns any area intrinsically.

Yes, I do own my area and property. Do come armed if you plan on enforcing that ideology. It makes it easier to sleep at night when the dead were armed.

Their religion also says none of us have the right to judge each other, that's reserved for the big guy in the sky. We also have to treat others as we would ourselves. To justify this with religion is highly hypocritical.

You don't have the right to determine what someone's religious beliefs are.

There are many different versions of the Bible with entire segments of scripture considered not-divine that other denominations accept as the literal Word of God.

Regardless - I can kill you without judging your soul. I was given a mind capable of and responsible for making functional decisions. I have no problem finding the people I kill in Heaven; they simply were dysfunctional individuals that were a necessity to remove if everything I held dear was to survive.

So a simple decision to do or not to do business with someone should be well within the scope of non-judgmental behavior.

I can choose to not do business with someone without any feelings of animosity. "Hey, man, I want you to program an app that lets me send texts that look like they came from other people."

"Yeah, you don't really look like an investigative reporter, and you don't give me warm, fuzzy vibes about your intentions with this program."

"I'll sue you!"

"Good, the wood stove has gone cold since I was issued the last court summons. Tell them to send the SWAT team, this time - I'm running out of room to bury the local police department in the back yard."

 

[Punk Hazard]

You don't have the right to determine what someone's religious beliefs are.

There are many different versions of the Bible with entire segments of scripture considered not-divine that other denominations accept as the literal Word of God.

Regardless - I can kill you without judging your soul. I was given a mind capable of and responsible for making functional decisions. I have no problem finding the people I kill in Heaven; they simply were dysfunctional individuals that were a necessity to remove if everything I held dear was to survive.

So a simple decision to do or not to do business with someone should be well within the scope of non-judgmental behavior.

I can choose to not do business with someone without any feelings of animosity. "Hey, man, I want you to program an app that lets me send texts that look like they came from other people."

"Yeah, you don't really look like an investigative reporter, and you don't give me warm, fuzzy vibes about your intentions with this program."

"I'll sue you!"

"Good, the wood stove has gone cold since I was issued the last court summons. Tell them to send the SWAT team, this time - I'm running out of room to bury the local police department in the back yard."

LOL what? This isn't me telling anyone what their religious beliefs are, this is me telling them what the foundation of their beliefs say.

You must be registered for see links

You mean to tell me all 50 of those are un-divine, and are omitted from the Bible? Don't make me laugh.

Those examples you cited are horrible comparisons for not serving someone out of homophobia, since those examples are towards people with malicious intents. Last I checked, being gay isn't malicious intent. It's not even intent.

 

[Aim64C]

LOL what? This isn't me telling anyone what their religious beliefs are, this is me telling them what the foundation of their beliefs say.

No, you're dictating what someone else believes. You are saying: "If you are x - you must believe in this."

"You are an atheist? So you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and that there is no such thing as evil."

"Uh... No"

"But these are your values, here, in this publication."

You must be registered for see links

You mean to tell me all 50 of those are un-divine, and are omitted from the Bible? Don't make me laugh.

Depends upon which Bible.

You have the Eastern Orthodox, you have the Gnostic scriptures, there's Roman Catholic - then there's Catholic. The Baptists have different texts from the Presbyterians.

I mean, you could always insist that they believe in stoning women accused of adultery. Mosaic Law was referenced quite a bit.

Those examples you cited are horrible comparisons for not serving someone out of homophobia, since those examples are towards people with malicious intents. Last I checked, being gay isn't malicious intent. It's not even intent.

So now I must be homophobic to refuse the business of a homosexual?

Does a plastic surgeon have the right to refuse giving a man breast implants?

I mean - obviously, the man must be a homophobe. Time to break him of that - revoke his medical license if he doesn't perform this guy's surgery. We can't let undesirables have the same rights as others.

Also, that particular example was chosen for the purpose of illustrating the consequence of the precedent you are establishing. Already, I am not allowed to profile people as part of law enforcement. The old woman with a walker? I'm taking that ***** apart and demanding to see papers regarding her hip replacement. The Arab guy who can't look anyone in the eye with a one-way ticket? Rubber-stamp his ass through.

Can't look like we're being unfair.

You're so disconnected from reality that you don't even realize when you are dictating to people who they are. You spout off about how hypocritical it is for someone to "judge" when you, yourself, are not entirely prejudiced against others. You don't even evaluate their standpoint - you simply assign them a standpoint.

At the end of the day, kiddo - it is my business. I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

Will I decline service to homosexuals? Not in any business I can ever see myself in, because I don't really care.

But it is my business. I will do business on my terms, and you are free to go elsewhere if those terms are not to your liking.

 

[Punk Hazard]

No, you're dictating what someone else believes. You are saying: "If you are x - you must believe in this."

"You are an atheist? So you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and that there is no such thing as evil."

"Uh... No"

"But these are your values, here, in this publication."



Depends upon which Bible.

You have the Eastern Orthodox, you have the Gnostic scriptures, there's Roman Catholic - then there's Catholic. The Baptists have different texts from the Presbyterians.

I mean, you could always insist that they believe in stoning women accused of adultery. Mosaic Law was referenced quite a bit.



So now I must be homophobic to refuse the business of a homosexual?

Does a plastic surgeon have the right to refuse giving a man breast implants?

I mean - obviously, the man must be a homophobe. Time to break him of that - revoke his medical license if he doesn't perform this guy's surgery. We can't let undesirables have the same rights as others.

Also, that particular example was chosen for the purpose of illustrating the consequence of the precedent you are establishing. Already, I am not allowed to profile people as part of law enforcement. The old woman with a walker? I'm taking that ***** apart and demanding to see papers regarding her hip replacement. The Arab guy who can't look anyone in the eye with a one-way ticket? Rubber-stamp his ass through.

Can't look like we're being unfair.

You're so disconnected from reality that you don't even realize when you are dictating to people who they are. You spout off about how hypocritical it is for someone to "judge" when you, yourself, are not entirely prejudiced against others. You don't even evaluate their standpoint - you simply assign them a standpoint.

At the end of the day, kiddo - it is my business. I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

Will I decline service to homosexuals? Not in any business I can ever see myself in, because I don't really care.

But it is my business. I will do business on my terms, and you are free to go elsewhere if those terms are not to your liking.

Homophobia is treating someone with prejudice because of the fact that they're gay. By treating a homosexual person in an inferior manner to that of which you would treat a heterosexual person, then it is an act of homophobia. You can do your business how you choose to do it, but the fact that it is your choice does not mean it can't be called what it is called. All it means is, you chose to do your business in a homophobic mind-state.

You talk as though all those Bibles are still in use today. Regardless of which Bible type you have, there will be scriptures saying this. And no, it is not the same as saying an atheist believes in the S****hetti Monster crap. The fact is, that if you are Christian, then the basis of your belief says this, these are rules. If you identify as a Christian, then you are expected to follow these rules. Otherwise, you are a hypocrite. While the Mosaic law has been omitted, there are still scriptures in the Bible that say "Do unto others as yourself." After all, the Mosaic law was abandoned after Jesus died, but he still taught his disciples to treat others as you would want yourself to be treated, and if that law was to abandoned, why would he teach it?

 

[Aim64C]

Homophobia is treating someone with prejudice because of the fact that they're gay. By treating a homosexual person in an inferior manner to that of which you would treat a heterosexual person, then it is an act of homophobia. You can do your business how you choose to do it, but the fact that it is your choice does not mean it can't be called what it is called. All it means is, you chose to do your business in a homophobic mind-state.

Perhaps you should look up the definition of a "phobia."

If I am a photographer and you come and ask me to photograph someone (or yourself) in the nude, am I somehow afraid of or prejudiced against nudists or naked forms?

I simply do not want my business to involve taking pictures of nude people.

If I walk into some restaurants or clubs in casual attire, I will be asked to leave. Is that because they are afraid of people in causal attire or somehow think less of people in casual attire?

It is simply because they want their business to be one of formal attire.

Or here's one for you, you'll love this:

If an art gallery decides to not display my work because I am a man... does it mean that they have a phobia of men? Or, they most certainly have some kind of prejudice against men. Maybe a case of penis envy?

Or how about these guys:

You must be registered for see links

?

They must have some kind of prejudice against white people, right? I could hardly expect to be treated the same way by their business as a black person would.

How does your foot taste?

You talk as though all those Bibles are still in use today. Regardless of which Bible type you have, there will be scriptures saying this. And no, it is not the same as saying an atheist believes in the S****hetti Monster crap. The fact is, that if you are Christian, then the basis of your belief says this, these are rules. If you identify as a Christian, then you are expected to follow these rules. Otherwise, you are a hypocrite.

Churches debate all the time about the interpretation of scripture and what, exactly, is "what they believe."

Some churches allow homosexuals to become pastors. Other churches see homosexuality as an active state of sin - and how can one be ordained a pastor who knowingly embraces sin?

The Eastern Orthodox church is still very much alive and well. A friend of mine is Eastern Orthodox - and it kind of threw me a bit when her entire country celebrates Christmas practically a month away from ours.

The Gnostic texts and churches still exist, thought they are less prominent.

And, yes - it is identical to saying: "So you are an atheist and you believe in a Flying Spaghetti Monster."

The only reason you don't accept that argument is because of your ignorance regarding the lack of homogenous religious values. Like I said - I'm Christian. I'd kill a hundred people without batting an eye, and not consider it being a judgment. There are entire denominations that would agree with me. I hold no ill will toward those people, just see them as being hopelessly twisted and lost - and will dedicate myself to sorting the issue out when I get to 'the other side' - where, presumably, there will be fewer misunderstandings between souls.

There are others who insist any form of decision regarding another human being is a judgment and a sin.

While the Mosaic law has been omitted, there are still scriptures in the Bible that say "Do unto others as yourself." After all, the Mosaic law was abandoned after Jesus died, but he still taught his disciples to treat others as you would want yourself to be treated, and if that law was to abandoned, why would he teach it?

And here is where you don't realize your own hypocrisy.

You assume that you and I are the same - that I will be told to find some place else to do my business and feel the same as you - "That jerk, he should let me have what I want!"

But that is not how I feel, and that is not how I behave. I may not see that person's viewpoint as a very wise or reasonable one - but it is his viewpoint and his business. I would have him treat me no other way than by the virtues of his character - just as I would treat no one any other way than by the virtues of my own character.

You fail to see the hypocrisy in your belief that I can treat someone in a way you see as unjust and still be treating that person as how I would want to be treated. Obviously, like you, I must want to have my cake and to eat it, too.

The ultimate litmus test?

Everyone must subscribe to your views of 'how I want to be treated' in order for your interpretation of the 'golden rule' to work.

That is the mindset of a dictator.

It's one thing for an individual to claim a home and to defend his/her freedom within that home.

It's another for someone to inherently consider the lives and actions of others theirs to judge and command. You're deep into the mentality of tyranny, and you don't even know it.

When I was younger and more cavalier with my ideologies - you had to believe certain things or you needed to be changed.

As I got older, I learned the dangers of my perspective. It doesn't change what is and what will be. Fascist ideals will lead to fascism. Communists will lead to communism. Dictatorial mentalities will lead to dictators. Complacency will breed corruption. The list goes on.

But people don't need to be changed. People will reap the fruits of their labors, and I only need to actively deal with what spills over into my home.

But people can be warned - should be warned - of what they are doing and what consequences will come of it. Then the time to act will come, and I will do what needs done and people will choose as they must.

 

[Jazzy Stardust]

Besides one guy in this thread it seems like the majority of people have sense enough to see the issue with this. The governor vetoed it, this law isn't happening.

You must be registered for see links

To quote the governor, “Going forward let’s turn the ugliness over Senate bill 1062 into a greater search for greater respect and understanding among all Arizonans and Americans.”

 

[HadouKage]

Dang at Aim64C owning tho....

 

[ClydeFrog]

It's stupid because it's based on hate, not religious beliefs, plain and simple. Now if you told me the entire gay/lesbian community were trying to perform transactions without shoes, or shirts, then you would have a case.

 

[Unbiased King]

It's stupid because it's based on hate, not religious beliefs, plain and simple. Now if you told me the entire gay/lesbian community were trying to perform transactions without shoes, or shirts, then you would have a case.

How was it based on hate?

There was a bakery owner who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-*** marriage. He offered to make the couple brownies, cupcakes, donuts, birthday cakes, any other cake except one that was for a same-*** marriage. I'd believe a hateful person would tell them to get the f*ck out of his/her establishment, not try to offer alternatives.