- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 10,453
- Reaction score
- 3,844
- Location
- Louisville, KY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
She is not supportive of Gay rights....she had the foresight to see this was going to be bad for her state.
like i said earlier there are milling of GOPers that support equal rights
youll never hear or read me saying otherwise
in fact i correct people when the make blanket statements like that
stereotypically GOPers are against it, maybe even the majority are but most certainly not all of them
Arizona anti-gay bill vetoed by governor - chicagotribune.com
back up links:
Arizona governor vetoes anti-gay bill
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer Vetoes Anti-Gay Bill - NBC News
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoes so-called anti-gay bill - latimes.com
Arizona governor vetoes controversial bill allowing denial of service to gays
Arizona Governor Vetoes Bill Seen Discriminating Against Gays - Businessweek
Jan Brewer Announces Veto Of Arizona Anti-Gay Bill SB 1062
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoes anti-gay bill | MSNBC
Arizona governor vetoes anti-gay bill - Chicago Sun-Times
vetoed just like i thought and said it would be
equality wins again
again it shows the panic and fear of the bigots and those that support discrimination and are against equal rights. They see the writing on the wall, they know equal rights is winning and is going to win the war so they are getting desperate.
The best part is, even if they win some of these little battles its things like this that are actually HELPING equal rights. The majority of the public eye judges it as wrong and see how nuts it is. But it establishes something that can be challenged in courts just like the state bannings. The vast majority of the lawsuits exist BECAUSE of state bannings lol. The bannings HELPED, its sweet poetic justice.
THeres some other state trying these i hope they get some momentum behind them to draw more of the public eye on this insanity.
Good rule of thumb here is to never trust a liberal.
Ted Kennedy, one of the main sponsors of the 1965 Immigration Reform spoke the following:
"First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same.... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset.... Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia.... In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think.... The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs."
Senator Hubert Humphrey speaking in favor of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
". . . declared that if anyone could find in the law 'any language which provides that an employer will have to hire on the basis of percentage or quota . . ., I will start eating the pages one after another, because it is not in there.'"
Back in 1989 the backers of a Mass. anti-discrimination law specifically noted that it "does not legalize 'gay marriage' or confer any right on homosexual, lesbian or unmarried heterosexual couples to 'domestic benefits.' Nor does passage of the bill put Massachusetts on a 'slippery slope' toward such rights." However, it was the very existence of these reforms which the New Jersey Supreme Court relied on to justify their ruling in favor of homosexual "marriage"
In addressing plaintiffs' claimed interest in equality of treatment, we begin with a retrospective look at the evolving expansion of rights to gays and lesbians in this State. Today, in New Jersey, it is just as unlawful to discriminate against individuals on the basis of sexual orientation as it is to discriminate against them on the basis of race, national origin, age, or sex. Over the last three decades, through judicial decisions and comprehensive legislative enactments, this State, step by step, has protected gay and lesbian individuals from discrimination on account of their sexual orientation.
And now, knowing the love that liberals have for pushing the legal notion of foreign precedent to be applicable to US jurisprudence, we see the following:
Britain’s most famous surrogate gay dads have hired lawyers to sue the Church of England for the right to a full-blown religious wedding.
Barrie and Tony Drewitt-Barlow told Gay Star News it was important for them as Christians to marry in church and for their kids to see they were equal.
So when you see a liberal promising you something, run the other way, because like the Terminator, they will never stop, promises are just stalling tactics to get you to drop your guard so that they can further strip you of your human rights.
And yet homosexuality went from a mental disease and a criminal act to something that is Holy in less than 30 years. It's amazing what persistent effort can do in getting a message out. OK, so you've outed yourself as a HATER but I'll be tolerant of you because that's just how I roll.
We'll just have to let this experiment play out for 30 years and see how many more people come on board as Totalitarian Liberalism keeps advancing in its goal of oppressing more and more people.
And yet homosexuality went from a mental disease and a criminal act to something that is Holy in less than 30 years. It's amazing what persistent effort can do in getting a message out. OK, so you've outed yourself as a HATER but I'll be tolerant of you because that's just how I roll.
We'll just have to let this experiment play out for 30 years and see how many more people come on board as Totalitarian Liberalism keeps advancing in its goal of oppressing more and more people.
The right to be a bigot only exists in the individual mind. It does not extend beyond that. Sorry....it just doesn't....
It is even more amazing how long hate and ignorance can hold out.And yet homosexuality went from a mental disease and a criminal act to something that is Holy in less than 30 years. It's amazing what persistent effort can do in getting a message out.
You support policing thought?
I'm sorry as I do understand that you are a christian, but I blame religion for the split in this country, or should I say hatred and bigotry in the name of religion....
She is not supportive of Gay rights....she had the foresight to see this was going to be bad for her state.
NO they will not. We know this because churches are not forced to perform interracial marriage. Or marriages of people outside their faith. This is a dumb argument.
Yes a right that stops when it invades the rights of others.
Public businesses are not the same as you home.
I have not said much about this topic becaue I just cant get my head around why anyone thinks taking picutures of gay people getting married, or making them a cake, or serving them a cheesburger on the way home afterwords somehow infringes on thier religious rights. I have read this thread and quite a bit about the bill, but what kind of state is Arizona? I cant beleive a bill that is simply antigay, got that far. It is amazing. If they were really so worried about they would not photograph weddings which were not first marriages, there are just so many sins and sinners out there, why just pick on gay people?
You support policing thought?
So, a straight couple should be able to go to a gay owned bakery and order a straight pride themed cake? It should be illegal to refuse them service?
How about a white couple that orders a white pride themed cake from a black owned bakery?
Or, a black photographer that is hired to work a KKK wedding? The law should force him to do it?
It ceases to be thought once shared.
we've been over this before your understanding of law and rights were destroyed then too
tell us the part about how equal rights and laws does not protect all genders and races again? lol
Is your answer to those question, "yes, they should be forced by law to serve those customers"?
Oh wow! So, once poltical thought is shared, it can be regulated by the government?
Well for one thing, you're reading posts at Debate politics, so jabbing your ear drums with a steak knife would do nothing to resolve the problem you appear to be suffering from. It would in fact, only create you another problem while still leaving you with the problem you were attempting to escape. That would be, as you called it, "the stupidest waste of time in the world". Second, it is amazing to me how people think that denying someone service is harming them. They came requesting service, and like anyone else that comes to you or me requesting our service, if we fail to provide it then we have not created a greater harm than the one they came to us with. All that we have done, and all that is possible to be done by that action, is that we have failed to assist them in their problem.
And yet homosexuality went from a mental disease and a criminal act to something that is Holy in less than 30 years. It's amazing what persistent effort can do in getting a message out. OK, so you've outed yourself as a HATER but I'll be tolerant of you because that's just how I roll.
We'll just have to let this experiment play out for 30 years and see how many more people come on board as Totalitarian Liberalism keeps advancing in its goal of oppressing more and more people.
You're making excuses and trying to rationalize it out as not being harmful. How would you feel if you lived in a town where nobody would offer you services? How would you feel if you were driving your car on a road trip and the only gas station for miles refused service to you? How would you like not being allowed to eat at the local restaurant because they don't like Henrin's? How would you like the local hospital to refuse service to you or your family in a crisis?
This will inevitably bring up your second excuse, "the free market with fix it". No it won't, if it would, it would have in the 50's and 60's. Instead we had to have government intervene and say racial discrimination is not allowed.
You can tout your fantasy world all you want where your ideology is perfect and righteous, but it is so blatantly obviously not.
This is what I have such a hard time understanding. It sounds to me like Arizona is trying to construct a US of the 1960's and before with gay people instead of blacks. That is exactly what this law would have caused. Can you imagine a gay person getting on the bus and being told if they wanted the service, they could sit on the back of the bus, or not being served in a resturant...Damn just damn, I cant beleive it went so far the govener had to veto it to stop it. Again, I am a Christian and dont understand how not treating others like crap interfers with my religion.
So, a straight couple should be able to go to a gay owned bakery and order a straight pride themed cake? It should be illegal to refuse them service?
How about a white couple that orders a white pride themed cake from a black owned bakery?
Or, a black photographer that is hired to work a KKK wedding? The law should force him to do it?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?