Paperview
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2013
- Messages
- 10,341
- Reaction score
- 5,075
- Location
- The Road Less Travelled
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
The right to ones property, labor, service and association pays no mind to such things. Can you prove that you were harmed by someone denying service? Of course not, so therefore, you have nothing to defend the law. Oh well.
You're decision to cling to ignorance duly noted.
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.
You mean except the business owner had his rights ignored?
Well, I'm glad to see the social cons dropping the last vestiges of their hate for the Civil Rights Act.
I'm so old, I remember when pubs used to brag yanno, if it wasn't for republicans, the CRA would have never passed. Harrumph!!
Inb4 the crocodile tears begin to flow like crazy in this thread.
Go ahead, those of you who want to legally deny LGBT rights. See how far that gets you these days. Let me give you a little piece of advice: If the party which you vote for--which is significantly more likely to be Republican than Democratic--continues to run against LGBT rights, then you (plural) are going to be FINISHED as a national party.So go ahead and let your hate flow. The only place it's going to flow forever is on the pages of the history books.
Yeah, you see, you have the task to defend the courts logic. Good luck with that, since there is none. lol.
Correct.
I don't have to defend SCOTUS logic here. It's not under attack. It's settled law.
I'm sorry, it is under attack. You brought it up to win the debate, and now since it is in the debate, their logic is up to dispute. Can you defend their argument or not?
The CRA of 1964 is being challenged? And you think SCOTUS is going to undo it or something?
Oh, I cant remember if I mentioned this or not, but I bet the only reason the governor vetoed it was because the NFL threatened to pull the super bowl. It is just sad we are still discussing this in 2014.
I don't give a **** about SCOTUS. I'm talking to you. Here is an idea, don't bring up something if you don't want to discuss it.
I don't have to defend SCOTUS logic here. It's not under attack. It's settled law.
You make no sense. Heart of Atlanta v US was a SCOTUS decision, you want me to discuss and defend, but you don't care about SCOTUS?
You mean like Dred Scott v. Sandford was settled law?
Look, you brought up the court ruling, and unless you are willing defend it, there was no reason for it being brought up. Do you understand how debates work? You can't just bring up something and shut down. That is not how debates work.
No. The Civil War settled that one. Them southn'ers did not want to give up their right to own hoomans, and not even allow them citizenship, that's for sure.
Of course not, they lack the integrity to admit that, but that doe not dissolve their bigotry.First, I don't know anybody who claims to be a bigoted Christian.
I couldn't care less, you obviously are not looking in the right places.You know where I see bigotry?
You mean like the self righteous so called Christians who call those who do not share their belief sinners?Where non Christians paint all Christians as bigots.
It is not my "saying so" that betrays their bigotry it is their actions or intended actions in this case.You saying they are doesn't make it so.
I really do not care how I look to someone who defends bigotry, the important thing is that I am not one.In fact, it makes you look like the bigot.
BS. In thins case gays wish do not wish to be treated in any other way than everyone else.We're not talking about people wanted to be treated fairly and with dignity, we're talking about a small percentage of the population wanted to be treated as a protected special class while CLAIMING they want equality.
Yet self righteous so called Christians want to treat them differently. That is why they are bigots.If you wanted equality you would be happy to be treated like everybody else.
Because I do n want anyone treated differently? Maybe you do not know what bigotry and narrow mindedness is while displaying it yourself.But at the same time, you are bigoted and narrow minded.
Yet the law that was proposed would allow them to treat some differently.Equality in this case would be being treated the same way you treat others.
No, that is all I wish.If you were treated by others as you treat them you would be upset.
Then they should not put themselves into that situation which they did by opening a business to the public.The bill was not about a cake, it was about people not being forced to act against their religious beliefs.
Because it was against the gay community under the guise of religious freedom. Nobody assaulted or even brought into play their beliefs.Once again, a bill that was supposed to protect religious beliefs was turned in to something that was against the gay community.
But to some bigots it seem to be so.The two are not mutually exclusive.
It has nothing to do with me, it has everything to do with legitimizing discrimination or bigotry by zealots.The problem is that you are so self centered that everything is about you.
Nobody said they are out to get anybody, including the gays. They just wanted to legitimize their bigoted views.Go ahead, keep pointing the finger at others and insisting they are out to get you
They are welcome to try.and see how long it takes for them to get tired of ignoring your punk ass and turn around and stomp it.
I do not have an agenda and could care less about the reverends. But it is clear that religious zealots do have one even though it is clearly failing.Just like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and the NAACP, you are escalating a small problem into something bigger than it needs to be to suit your own selfish agenda.
I did, long time ago.Grow up.
I never said it did and fortunately it does not revolve around bigots and their lackey defenders no matter how much they think it should in order to placate their religious beliefs.The world does not revolve around you no matter how special you think you are.
well, if you want to go on defending Jim Crow, be my guest, Henrin.
Knock your socks off.
It's sad that people are talking about rights like property, labor, service, association, and the right to practice ones religion in 2014? What is sad is that people like you are still arguing that rights come from aggression towards the person or property of others.
I was unaware we were talking about Jim Crow. Do you understand the difference between private industry and the government? Apparently not.
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?