Arizona Passes Bill Allowing Business Owners to Refuse Service to Gays Based on Relig

With the Texas ban on gay marriage now ruled unconstitutional, progress appears unstoppable.

Will this lead to a confederation of recalcitrant states seceding over the issue of recognizing equal rights?

That would be a novelty, wouldn't it?

 

Don't worry. I found one that is geared more toward PCFExploited's speed: http://pbssprout.proboards.com/board/7

 

So you agree that all human beings are bisexual?

 

That's it! The stupid new law has been vetoed by the Arizona governor!

 

Awesome! Bad day to be a bigot, I suppose.

 

Yep. . .they haven't many "good days" lately!

 

They can still refuse service and participation in same-sex marriages in Arizona though. Where is the law that stops them from refusing service to gays?

 

So businesses need to find other ways to deny service to gays? OK then. It is pretty silly to try and force a business to serve someone they do not want to serve. It is like insulting a waitress or waiter before you get your food.....not a good idea.

- - - Updated - - -

Refusing service or providing lousy service.....the silly left has once again shot itself in the foot.....way to go.

 

Yeah, that worked out really well for them, didn't it? The gays, I mean: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...claiming-couple-didnt-tip-shes-gay-fired.html

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, bake and decorate a sharty cake for them, and then watch the sodomites try to legally prove that it was done out of spite.

 

Just call up the local news reporter, serve him a slice, and tell him who sold it to you.

 

Oh dear God please tell me you didn't just say abortion was the same as miscarriage???

 

Do you know what the real name for "abortions" is?

INDUCED miscarriages.

Spare us your false outrage! There are many more spontaneous miscarriages than induced miscarriages. And, it is a fact that within the induced miscarriages, some at least would have ended up in spontaneous miscarriages if they had not been induced.

By the way. . .do you know that, in the Catholic Church, there is a special place where the "unborn" goes, because they do not have the "soul" of a person yet, so they can't go to either heaven or hell.

And just in case you wonder. . .I DO NOT BELIEVE in either heaven or hell!

 

LOL! Its all the same to some.

 

Not quite, although the physiological results are the same!

But, in case of a induced miscarriage, the development of a fetus that is NOT WANTED is terminated, by a woman for reasons that she alone knows with certainty, and that it is a choice that she alone can make. It is rarely (almost never) a decision made lightly, but it usually brings little emotional pain and very rarely lasting grief.

In the case of a spontaneous miscarriage, it is OFTEN the termination of a fetus that is MUCH wanted, and it happens against a woman's will, and brings her and her family immense pain and a grief that sometimes never goes away. That decision is made by "God."

Now. . .why would a loving impose such a pain on women who WANT a child, but punish the women who are not ready to have a child for it?

 

"Not ready to have a child"....thanks for pointing out why a pregnancy is terminated.......

 

NO matter what the reason is. . .it is NONE of your business.

Even the Supreme court agrees!

 

We do fully have equal protection under the law. But what people don't realize, is that is only our legal, statutory protections, and our rights. Outside of that, there is no law that states who has to like who else better, and why.

Nobody actually has a right to be liked, or even tolerated.

Nobody has actually got a right to be served. Every commercial transaction is a mutual agreement. I don't have the right to buy a cheeseburger from the drive-thru. I ask for it, and they sell me it, because they want my money. Not because they have to.

Just like you have the right to say to me "the car's not for sale" when I go knocking on your door. I can't just insist you serve me what I want. And if you decide, that you want to sell it to the other neighbour instead, because you like his hat better, then who am I to (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)? Should we start legislating about baseball caps now? You're a Cubs fan, so I sold it to a White Sox fan, even though the offer was even less.. What are you gonna say NOW?

 

You mean the Big Beef Burrito Supreme Court has been reading my posts? Hahaha! I don't doubt it. Maybe they will learn something.

 

Yes, you shouldn't expose yourself to valid criticism. Red Kool-Aid Addicts are known to react predictably when they fear they might run across them.

 

Boy, that's complicated....and a lie.

It's called murder.

An abortion KILLS a baby.

So much for that baby's future freedom to sue a Chistian fundamentalist who won't sell him flowers for his wedding, huh? Talk about not being able to excercise non-existent rights! You should try that, after your parents murder you before you're born....

- - - Updated - - -

So long as the baby winds up dead, they're happy.

You ever consider the death count the socialists have racked up?

180,000,000 killed by their government for the crime of being inconvenient.
50,000,000 in the US alone killed by their mothers for the crime of being an inconvenience before they're even born.
50,000,000 in Africa alone due to the fascists' ban on DDT, with the natural spread of malaria.
100,000,000 killed by AIDS, when the spread of HIV could have been slowed by denying the virus civil rights.

And THIS century is just beginning.

How many Americans is Obama going to kill with ObamaCare?

How many Americans are going to die because Obama gutted the military?

 

Koolaid is a meme now, not even to be taken seriously. Either speak like a real man with a real brain, or shut up. I've heard all the pollies of the world.

 

Specious argument. You can only cite Courts that contain liberals, just as I'd cite Courts which are conservative. Words mean things. Freedom of Association isn't a confusing phrase. It means that I should be free to association with whomever I wish. That means not being forced to associate, nor stopped from associating. Pretty simple.

If you want to attempt to hack away at that definition, give it a shot.

Which is why I mentioned it. I'm favor of States Rights for anything not specifically enumerated as a violation of Human Rights as protected in the Constitution, and which represents the Common Bond which unites the States. One of these - specifically enumerated - is Freedom of Association.

Without courts - and the activists on them - you wouldn't even have an audience at this debate table, so clearly is it a violation to require terms of business patronage which violate an individual business owner's right to choose their clients.

Liberals do this all the time. The Courts aren't to 'interpret' what the Constitution says. The Courts are supposed to instead 'interpret' whether specific instances or circumstances violate or adhere to what the Constitution says. These specific instances or circumstances are described in cases brought before the Court.

Where liberals have destroyed the Constitution is in mistakenly (intentionally) granting the Court the ability to simply change the meaning of the words in the Constitution to fit their liberal paradigm.

It is wholly inappropriate to do so; it is the very definition of 'activist Court' to do so, and it illegally gave Courts the power to legislate.

Liberal judges pop up all the time and arbitrarily declare whatever Law they don't like 'unConstitutional', making them de facto Legislators, and that was NEVER what the Court was created to do.

Ha. The view of the vast majority of Americans? Just when the FOCK did that EVER stop a liberal from infecting our country via legislation from the bench?

All you've done here is shifted the debate from what is right and intellectually defensible to what Courts have said. Courts overturn each other all the time. This debate is about what is RIGHT and DEFENSIBLE.

You should not be having such trouble understanding an extremely simple argument. NO ONE has a right to be served. NO ONE.

Of course it does. You've created a hypothetical. Anyone can do that, with anything. It is not a legitimate form of debate.

I don't need to prove that point. I simply pointe out that sexuality is a characteristic in a person, and isn't constantly in evidence, but color of skin is. They are different.

I'm very comfortable allowing the reader to decide who is winning this debat

Keep digging. Doubtless by the time I have responded to your post, others will have had their laugh at your expense and plainly stated why your response to tex was stupid and fundamentally ignorant of what he said. It isn't you which suggested that there was a gay gene. It was tex, and there was an entire thread on the subject.

It is partly your inability to understand the silliness of what you said and your inability to understand what tex wrote which grants me the comfort of a jury of our peers in declaring a winner in this confrontation.

 

So you're allergic to the words "Red Kool-Aid", but not to the stuff itself.

Understood.

Now, let's get back to the Constitution, if you can see it through the pink haze all that Red Kool-Aid puts you people in.

Do tell, where in the Constitution was the 13th Amendment repealed?

 

Are you for real? Your rants are such a joke!

Talk about dramatic delusions!

 

I choose to answer, and I don't need a law to oblige.....

The beautiful Ashley Benson.
25 yrs old. She's been in some movies and TV.