Arizona Passes New Law Feb 2014

[RasenUchihaChaos]

itz Arizona idk why many are suprised that once agian they piss alot of people off with their crazy ideas

 

[Sterling Malory Archer]

Correct me if i'm wrong, but I think everything came from the issue with a bakery:

Apparently, a gay couple wanted the baker to make their cake. He made it, however refused to add the 2 men on top of the cake, and offered alternatives. He even gave them a competitor's address and number and asked them to go there. The gay couple filed a lawsuit and won.

So I think the law was created to protect businesses from that. As the baker wasn't in the wrong, as it was against his beliefs.

For people who don't understand the baker's perspective:

If you're an atheist, imagine being sued because you didn't pray. (hypothetically)

 

[RasenUchihaChaos]

Correct me if i'm wrong, but I think everything came from the issue with a bakery:

Apparently, a gay couple wanted the baker to make their cake. He made it, however refused to add the 2 men on top of the cake, and offered alternatives. He even gave them a competitor's address and number and asked them to go there. The gay couple filed a lawsuit and won.

So I think the law was created to protect businesses from that. As the baker wasn't in the wrong, as it was against his beliefs.

For people who don't understand the baker's perspective:

If you're an atheist, imagine being sued because you didn't pray. (hypothetically)

if thatt the case those 2 overreacted he gave them an address where they could go and the other place probably would have put the little figures that would eventually be thrown away on top sheesh!

 

[Aim64C]

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.

People don't see the issue with this.

They see something morally objectionable and wish to make a law to prevent morally objectionable behavior.

What people fail to understand is the implication of law.

Every law comes down to this: You will comply with the law (when it is enforced), or you will die. End of story.

"Aim..."

No - You listen: Let's say you run a red light and get the fine in the mail. Then you refuse to pay the fine. The city/district then informs the county - which will strip you of your license (eventually). If you are caught driving on the roads, you will be fined, again. Eventually this cycle continues until you pay or until you are under arrest.

"Then you go to jail..."

Where you are used for conscript labor making military uniforms and license plates. It is called a 'rehabilitation program' intended to teach prisoners trades that can be used when they leave prison. It's not a horrible idea - but it is being used to disastrous effect, particularly when you consider the rate at which inmates become 'institutionalized' and simply fail to function outside of the prison system (they will commit crimes simply to be thrown back into jail).

So, let's say you don't want to be a part of that, and you refuse to recognize the fine. You'll be forcibly detained. Resist enough - you'll be shot. Continue to resist - the injuries to elicit compliance will amount to a fatal consequence.

Unless a law is worth killing people over - very careful thought should be given to its necessity.

"Aim..."

I was trained for security in the military, and work alongside a number of police officers in the Reserves. There is an officer and a gun that comes with every law you empower your legislators to write. Both of which can and will eventually be used against you. The more impractical the law is to enforce, the more it will be used to selectively target portions of the population - the more corrupt the system becomes.

When you support the notion that it is the right of the consumer to walk in and demand service from a business owner, you are effectively giving consumers the right to hold businesses at gunpoint.

That is the consequence of empowering government to crusade for your moral whims. If you want to kill business - you empower the consumer to hold the business owner hostage. Money will go where it is treated best on both ends of the bargain.

That is the issue I take with your side of the argument. You back up a fascist doctrine that has already destroyed the Constitution in this country.

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.”

*rolls eyes*

You should practice what you preach (or at least the idle preaching you cheer for).

If you actually cared to search for 'greater respect and understanding' - you would realize that I do see the issue with turning away perfectly good business out of moral objections.

But you simply can't get it through your head that I can see something as being wrong (or at the very least unwise) and also not believe a law should be written against it (or find laws outlining the right of individuals to be wrong outlined for the court to be a bad thing).

There are a lot of things you do every day that I find completely reprehensible - to the point where I must suppress an instinctively violent reaction. You should have the freedom to do those things. I should not have the freedom to harm you or place you under duress personally or by proxy through law. Just as you do not have the freedom to harm or place others under duress (personally or by proxy).

The law does not exist for our social and moral whims. The rights of a business owner extend from the rights of a home owner - as business started in the home and expanded outward (in most countries, you live in/above your place of business, and most of the population is self-employed relying on direct bartering). Your business is your home, it is your way of life, it is your means of survival.

The only rights that should be protected more closely are those rights of the First and Second amendment - because those rights directly protect your way of life and means of survival.

If I walk up to you and tell you to leave my party because you're gay - you're offended and upset.

If I walk up and tell you that you're going to serve Ted Cruz and Sean Hannity or I will kill you (and I have a law enforcement badge on and the law/judge says you have to) - ....

Which one is the greater evil?

Which one is the most oppressive?

You're inviting an anaconda to sleep with you before considering what is going to be for breakfast.

 

[China IL]

Why can't people see that this is nothing but segregation and oppression? Gays are quickly having our natural born rights stolen from under us. In Russia its's illegal to be gay or associated with gays. Just for being gay, you could serve up to a 10 year term in jail.

This isn't freedon of Religion, it's oppression. Gay men and women pay thier taxes just like any other citizen of the United States of the America. To be slowly put surely seperated by society is just disgusting and pitiful.

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.

The bolded is the only thing that was even substantial enough to make it look like this law was passed with actual logic appllied to it. The reason seperation of powers exists in the government is to make sure the Government doesn't have too much power. Now Government can strip tax paying citizens of their rights and use God as a reason for it.

If people are to continue to use God's name is vain like this, religion is sure to soon rule over the US in not time. The people who strip away their dignity and individuality just to make other humans suffer are disgusting.

Religion can sometime be a cause for war. it's really easy to see where an action like this will go.

 

[Jazzy Stardust]

Well it's not being passed,so nothing to worry about.

 

[China IL]

@Fiddstx

This still isn't over. I'm sure more than just Arizona wanted this kind of law passed. This is seen as an opening to those quieted. More states will try it, and some may even succeed in the long run. This is just the begining imho.

Although, I could jut be overthinking it >.>

 

[Aim64C]

Why can't people see that this is nothing but segregation and oppression? Gays are quickly having their natural born rights stolen from under us. In Russia its's not legal to be gay or associated with gays. Just for being gay, you could seve up to a 10 year term in jail.

Which is why we don't use the law for our social and moral whims.

No one is suggesting homosexuality come with any legal consequence.

This isn't freedon of Religion, it's oppression. Gay men and women pay thier taxes just kike any other citizen of the United States of the America. To be slowly put surely seperated by society is just disgusting and pitiful.

Stop.

Is oppression to be told to take your business some place else?

Suppose you run a single's club so that single people can meet, greet, and have relations. You then find out that one of the men in the group is married and has kids while using your service to cheat on his wife. You now tell him that he needs to leave.

He tells you that he and his wife have an open relationship and that it is perfectly normal as a 'swinger.'

You still do not want that as the image of your business - so you decline him access to your club and services.

Is that oppression?

When he serves you a lawsuit claiming discrimination and a judge demands you allow him access to your single's club - is that oppression?

If you tell him to take his business elsewhere - he's on your property, in your business, and it is your source of income. He can go some place else to another person's business, on another person's property, and become their source of income.

If a judge tells you to give him the service he demands, you do... what?

You do it. Or your business gets shut down (or you get thrown in jail).

So where is the oppression, again?

The bolded is the only thing that was even substantial enough to make it look like this law was passed with actual logic apllied to it. The reason seperation of powers exist in the government is to make sure the Government didn't have too much power. Now Government can strip tax paying citizens of their rights and use God as a reason for it.

So... you have the right to walk into my business (which may very well be in my home) and tell me how and what I am going to do for you?

Gee... how about you just go ahead and demand the price while at it?

If people are to continue to use God's name is vain like this, religion is sure to soon rule over the US in not time. The people who strip away their dignity and individuality just to make other humans suffer are disgusting.

Yes, yes. Preach about the undesirables and how we need to do something about them.

Let government be our salvation. All glory and power to the enlightened government that shall save us from the abominations of religion and self-interest. For we were blind before we elected such bright individuals to their offices.

Religion can sometime be a cause for war. it's really easy to see where an action like this will go.

People are the cause of war.

Religion is just one of the many tools people use to instigate it.

Wars happen because one group of people is convinced by a war-lord that they are isolated, desperate, and oppressed. Then those people commit to killing targeted groups of people in an attempt to restore what they feel is a just system.

In most cases, the oppression, division, isolation, etc was all manufactured by politicians (who become warlords). Just look at how race is defined and has been defined across generations.

I am not "white." There is no such thing as "White."

My lineage is primarily Germanic (but not Austrian...) - though I have a dash of Native American in me from my grandmother (it's expressed rather strongly in me, particularly in how my skin reddens in the sunlight and my resilience to sunburn).

Go to Africa - they don't see "Black" - they see tribal affiliations and localized racial divides that can only be vaguely understood by the rest of us who couldn't tell the difference without years of cultural immersion.

Race is a political tool for division. Find a group that you can give a sense of feeling isolated, oppressed, and exploited... and you've got political power and the ability to command warriors. It's been the formula in the Balkans for two centuries or longer.

If I were running a bakery, would I refuse service to a homosexual who asked for two men to be put on a wedding cake?

No.

Would I go into some other person's bakery and tell them that they had to?

Hell no. If I ran a bakery and found out the guy down the street was turning away customers - I'd hang a sign outside that said those customers are perfectly welcome at my store. Why the hell would I tell him to stop giving me business?

But to walk into my business and have the power to demand I do something under a court order? You'd better come armed with something better than the local police department. Or just save yourself the trouble and contract a 155mm artillery barrage on my place of business. Because I will either stay in business in the absence of those willing to enforce the dictator's rule, or you will not be rid of me until I am completely destroyed.

Under neither case will you get what you demanded from me under duress of a circus court.

 

[Aim64C]

Well it's not being passed,so nothing to worry about.

The same bill has been introduced in my state.

That, and many legislatures can easily over-ride a governor's veto. Though, honestly, our governor should be arrested and hung for fraud. Once again, he's illegally holding education funding hostage if Missouri doesn't pass the expansion of medicaid (which a state would have to be suicidal to accept).

That, and his administration 'misplaced' most of the federal emergency funding for Joplin.

But he has a new jet. Had a fleet of 5 that hardly ever flew as it was... but he got a new $5.6M airplane.

 

[Sennin of Logic]

Why can't people see that this is nothing but segregation and oppression? Gays are quickly having our natural born rights stolen from under us. In Russia its's illegal to be gay or associated with gays. Just for being gay, you could serve up to a 10 year term in jail.

This isn't freedon of Religion, it's oppression. Gay men and women pay thier taxes just like any other citizen of the United States of the America. To be slowly put surely seperated by society is just disgusting and pitiful.



The bolded is the only thing that was even substantial enough to make it look like this law was passed with actual logic appllied to it. The reason seperation of powers exists in the government is to make sure the Government doesn't have too much power. Now Government can strip tax paying citizens of their rights and use God as a reason for it.

If people are to continue to use God's name is vain like this, religion is sure to soon rule over the US in not time. The people who strip away their dignity and individuality just to make other humans suffer are disgusting.

Religion can sometime be a cause for war. it's really easy to see where an action like this will go.

Rights are being quickly stolen from you? You call a tons of states legalizing gay marriage right being quickly stolen? Just some parts of the world have this. Don't overplay being the victim. Technically there's no gay rights which is what all these debates are about what right to give and what not.

If this law means all services can be restricted, then yeah it's too far, but there are some areas where something like this is needed. For instance, wedding processions held by churches should not be forced to marry a gay couple or be sued because they didn't do it. If Gay marriage is being added to society, then measures must be taken to protect beliefs of religions that think it's wrong and not to be forced to condone the practice through a service. Of course this shouldn't be applied to all services.

 

[China IL]

Rights are being quickly stolen from you? You call a tons of states legalizing gay marriage right being quickly stolen? Just some parts of the world have this. Don't overplay being the victim. Technically there's no gay rights which is what all these debates are about what right to give and what not.

If this law means all services can be restricted, then yeah it's too far, but there are some areas where something like this is needed. For instance, wedding processions held by churches should not be forced to marry a gay couple or be sued because they didn't do it. If Gay marriage is being added to society, then measures must be taken to protect beliefs of religions that think it's wrong and not to be forced to condone the practice through a service. Of course this shouldn't be applied to all services.

@bolded That's no more than giving us a right that should not have to be fought for, as it is a natural right. There shouldn't have to be "gay rights:, but just rights in general. To prefer the rights that gays seek as "gay rights", are suggesting that those very rights don't belong to us naturally imho. Seeing people with rights (that should belong to everyone) that you don't have can do something to a person. You see the stunt Arizona tried to pull right? Their oppressing the gay community and theres nothing we can do about it but protest! So yes, our rights are being stolen, and we continuously have to fight for them back.

It's already a bit too far giving businesses the right to decline gay customers. I could understand the church thing, but then the gay couple just needs to understand and leave it alone. Not all gay people are trying to force people/businesses to do whatever. To make a law on something so pity though? Having being completely centered around one group is unconstitutional and is discrimination. If this law was to be passed with the includion of other groups, it would still be BS no doubt, but alteast it would've made their religious exscuse less crappier (not by much tbh). Because, think about it, maybe a jewish couple (straight btw) went to a church and asked to have their wedding their, but the church refused. Should there be a law centered on making sure that the jews can and will be declined state wide if the business decides to?
'
Like I said, it's oppression to the gay community. Any instance you were to think up could be appllied to any group and would make this law look like the BS it is.

 

[Aim64C]

@bolded That's no more than giving us a right that should not have to be fought for, as it is a natural right. There shouldn't have to be "gay rights:, but just rights in general. To prefer the rights that gays seek as "gay rights", are suggesting that those very rights don't belong to us naturally imho. Seeing people with rights (that should belong to everyone) that you don't have can do something to a person. You see the stunt Arizona tried to pull right? Their oppressing the gay community and theres nothing we can do about it but protest! So yes, our rights are being stolen, and we continuously have to fight for them back.

Please, explain to me how Airzona was oppressing you.

Go into detail, please, about the force Arizona law is applying that denies you of the natural right you have to another person's service.

It's already a bit too far giving businesses the right to decline gay customers. I could understand the church thing, but then the gay couple just needs to understand and leave it alone. Not all gay people are trying to force people/businesses to do whatever. To make a law on something so pity though? Having being completely centered around one group is unconstitutional and is discrimination. If this law was to be passed with the includion of other groups, it would still be BS no doubt, but alteast it would've made their religious exscuse less crappier (not by much tbh). Because, think about it, maybe a jewish couple (straight btw) went to a church and asked to have their wedding their, but the church refused. Should there be a law centered on making sure that the jews can and will be declined state wide if the business decides to?

The law should not have have to be written, because it is already a right of every business owner.

Enter your work into a women's art gallery. See what happens.

Arizona's law was in specific reference to a case where a judge ordered a bakery to produce a cake for a homosexual couple. It would deny a judge the ability to make that same ruling in Arizona.

Though, generally, I believe that the law should state that any business has the right to decline any customer (or terminate any employee) for any reason.

Like I said, it's oppression to the gay community. Any instance you were to think up could be appllied to any group and would make this law look like the BS it is.

*shrug*

I will not move my business or try to find people to disagree with - but if they walk through my doors and start making demands of me that I am not keen on fulfilling - then they will be told to find some place else to make demands of.

If you see that as oppression, then you're impossibly deluded.

I will conduct my business at my discretion, not yours. Failure to recognize this will eventually lead to a situation where I must drop the Sword of Damocles upon the government you so cherish.

 

[SpiderRider89]

This just proves that religious freedom doesn't give you the right to do what you like, under the guise of your "religion".

In that case, I would create a new religion called Kittytron, and Kittenites must obey the sacred litter box. Also, any kittenites who converse with conservatives must scream in their face till the unholy conservative leaves, or they pass out from exhaustion. My religious freedom allows me to do as I like.

 

[Aim64C]

This just proves that religious freedom doesn't give you the right to do what you like, under the guise of your "religion".

You have the right to do what you like, period. Religion doesn't need to be affiliated.

There is only one caveat: you cannot force or defraud others into relinquishing their belongings or service. That's it.

In that case, I would create a new religion called Kittytron, and Kittenites must obey the sacred litter box. Also, any kittenites who converse with conservatives must scream in their face till the unholy conservative leaves, or they pass out from exhaustion. My religious freedom allows me to do as I like.

You can scream in my face all you want to. I will let you go hoarse.

I would not recommend coming into my restaurant or asking me to do any kind of maintenance work on your house, though. The refusal to have anything to do with you would just piss you off even more.

I really only care about your affairs when you start trying to tell me or my children what to do. Then things are, as they say, 'real.'

And you will not tell me what to do in my business. You will not tell my children what they will do in theirs.

I will not tell you what to do in your business, or your children what to do in theirs. I want you and your children to have every motivation and realistic opportunity to start independent businesses no matter how small or large - and that you succeed.

I want that for everyone. The more successful everyone is - the more opportunities await me and my children. But a complacent and oppressive society will find that I do not value the lives of narrow-minded drones that do little but punch a clock and meddle in the affairs of others.

 

[SpiderRider89]

You have the right to do what you like, period. Religion doesn't need to be affiliated.

Exactly, but why allow people to discriminate because of another's sexuality. If the individual is causing a scene then yes, refuse service. There is a difference between being a bigot and religious.

There is only one caveat: you cannot force or defraud others into relinquishing their belongings or service. That's it.

I agree, and I think that is wrong. What matters is the premise behind refusing service. Also, any business that is state funded/ in town limits or receives any type of government support at all, shouldn't be allowed to refuse any service offered to any (law abiding) American, based on personal opinion.

You can scream in my face all you want to. I will let you go hoarse.

Ughh... I hate loud sounds, that was just an example of how based on the defense put forth by religious groups, anyone could do anything under the guise of religion. The line is drawn when it's discrimination.

I would not recommend coming into my restaurant or asking me to do any kind of maintenance work on your house, though. The refusal to have anything to do with you would just piss you off even more.

I personally don't care about private businesses, they can do as they please. The issue is any business that has some type of state/government affiliation. If I'm paying taxes to help your business, you will not refuse me service based on your opinion of my sexuality.

I really only care about your affairs when you start trying to tell me or my children what to do. Then things are, as they say, 'real.'

And you will not tell me what to do in my business. You will not tell my children what they will do in theirs.

I will not tell you what to do in your business, or your children what to do in theirs. I want you and your children to have every motivation and realistic opportunity to start independent businesses no matter how small or large - and that you succeed.

Why bring children into this? If you don't wish to expose your children to modern beliefs then home school them and never let them go out in public. Homosexuality isn't a crime, and will not be treated as such. Discrimination is a crime, and if that's how you choose to raise your children, then that's on you.

I want that for everyone. The more successful everyone is - the more opportunities await me and my children. But a complacent and oppressive society will find that I do not value the lives of narrow-minded drones that do little but punch a clock and meddle in the affairs of others.

Most of these issues with gay people are unorthodox, and obsolete. I will promise you that in 100 years, it will be a forgotten issue and the descendants of most who needlessly discriminate against gay people, will know very little that is was ever an issue.

I support everyone's right to be themselves. Until those individuals break the laws that stand above any religion or opinion. If you discriminate at all, it's illegal. All that gay people are fighting for is the right to exist, without being bullied because of someones obsolete thought process, that will not be relevant in the future.

I'm clearly anti-religion (main stream anyways), but I don't turn others away until they start to make anti-gay remarks. I don't care how a person is raised, an insult is an insult.

[video=youtube;sT29nWAzTYY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sT29nWAzTYY[/video]

 

[Sennin of Logic]

@bolded That's no more than giving us a right that should not have to be fought for, as it is a natural right. There shouldn't have to be "gay rights:, but just rights in general. To prefer the rights that gays seek as "gay rights", are suggesting that those very rights don't belong to us naturally imho. Seeing people with rights (that should belong to everyone) that you don't have can do something to a person. You see the stunt Arizona tried to pull right? Their oppressing the gay community and theres nothing we can do about it but protest! So yes, our rights are being stolen, and we continuously have to fight for them back.

It's already a bit too far giving businesses the right to decline gay customers. I could understand the church thing, but then the gay couple just needs to understand and leave it alone. Not all gay people are trying to force people/businesses to do whatever. To make a law on something so pity though? Having being completely centered around one group is unconstitutional and is discrimination. If this law was to be passed with the includion of other groups, it would still be BS no doubt, but alteast it would've made their religious exscuse less crappier (not by much tbh). Because, think about it, maybe a jewish couple (straight btw) went to a church and asked to have their wedding their, but the church refused. Should there be a law centered on making sure that the jews can and will be declined state wide if the business decides to?
'
Like I said, it's oppression to the gay community. Any instance you were to think up could be appllied to any group and would make this law look like the BS it is.

Marriage is not between 2 men, but a man and a woman, so no, gay marriage is not a naturally given right. Personally I think Gay marriage should have another name since it kinda destroys the meaning of marriage. I mean, just a simple term change. You can have special rights for all I care, but I don't like the fact that homosexuality is being considered "marriage" when it's meant to be between a man and a woman.


The church thing is really the only thing I'd push for to be honest, but I think the right to refuse services may very well be in the constitution.

 

[China IL]

Marriage is not between 2 men, but a man and a woman, so no, gay marriage is not a naturally given right. Personally I think Gay marriage should have another name since it kinda destroys the meaning of marriage. I mean, just a simple term change. You can have special rights for all I care, but I don't like the fact that homosexuality is being considered "marriage" when it's meant to be between a man and a woman.


The church thing is really the only thing I'd push for to be honest, but I think the right to refuse services may very well be in the constitution.

I believe marriage is to be between two people who love each other. Saying were not meant to marry is like saying were not meant to love. Who are you to tell anyone who they can and cannot love. That'a literally their personal business. Something you have no right to intrude on tbh.

Again, that same instance can be played with any party or group.

 

[Sennin of Logic]

I believe marriage is to be between two people who love each other. Saying were not meant to marry is like saying were not meant to love. Who are you to tell anyone who they can and cannot love. That'a literally their personal business. Something you have no right to intrude on tbh.

Again, that same instance can be played with any party or group.

Well from the Christian perspective, no, you're not supposed to love another guy since homosexuality is a sin. I don't think there's been a culture that has considered marriage to be between 2 people that love each other regardless of gender. It always has been with a man and a woman. From the Christian perspective, it's a symbolism of God and humanity on earth, so homosexual marriage shouldn't be called the same thing as what has already been set in stone as marriage across history.

 

[China IL]

Well from the Christian perspective, no, you're not supposed to love another guy since homosexuality is a sin. I don't think there's been a culture that has considered marriage to be between 2 people that love each other regardless of gender. It always has been with a man and a woman. From the Christian perspective, it's a symbolism of God and humanity on earth, so homosexual marriage shouldn't be called the same thing as what has already been set in stone as marriage across history.

In the end, I just see that as you using religion as a reason to say Homosexuality is so wrong. Theres literally no other note worthy reason as to why being gay is so wrong.

From human perspective, it's a symbolism of love between 2 human beings. Again, no one can tell anyone who to love. that's their business. for you to attack a single group with "religious intentions" is just wrong and has caused war before. A christian should treat others how they would want to be treated, or atleast that's how I was raised. for you to try to oppresse gay because the bible said it was an abomination, is not christian like at all honestly (if you wanna bring the bible in this).

Whats the point in hating gays anyway tbh? Are you really just that bored with your life that you need to hate one group of human beings for no good reason? C'mon now, your life can't be that boring.

 

[HiddenSound]

Thank God this bill was vetoed...