Arizona Governor vetoes discrimination bill

[Bunnykid68]

 

[Trooper]

Jesus befriended and washed the feet of a prostitute. This act of respect could easily be seen by many as condoning her lifestyle but in reality he was trying to help her foster her relationship with God. This same man wouldn't make a wedding arbor for a gay marriage? Absolutely he would! He would use that opportunity to engage the person and help them see that God is all forgiving and loving? In many cases Jesus performed acts that might have seen as him condoning the sin of the sinner. In every case he used that opportunity to show God's forgiveness.

Now, let me clarify. It's my belief that if you want to be a Christian you should serve as Jesus did. To the best of your ability. But it's not the government's job to force us to.

You forget the culture back then. A homosexual male would be forced by his father to marry a woman (actually a girl between 12 and 14). He could not refuse. And a lesbian would just have been raped.

The only homosexual marriages of that era was one or two emperors of Rome. Same sex marriage had no legal standing under Roman law thus the marriage had no meaning. I think that one of the emperors even married his horse.

 

[Trooper]

At some point gay activists (extremists) will push too far. The leftwing freaks always do.

At what point do you stop being a victim and become an oppressor?

 

[stryguy]

One emperor appointed his horse to the senate and would have orgies with men and women. He would also pay children to swim around inside his pool and pretend to be minnows, nipping at his genitals.

Homosexuality was completely acceptable by the roman empire. He was never forced by his father to marry a woman. Upper class women often engaged in lesbian relationships and even fine art was made of homosexual relationships. I don't know where you get your history from but if you want to clear up a lot of your misunderstandings I would suggest simply googling homosexuality in ancient rome.

Never mind this has no bearing on how a Christian should treat fellow humans and that attempting to pass legislation under the guise of religion is wrong.

Again, Government has no right telling you or I or the Hindu owned gas station down the street who they must serve. It's a law that should be passed... Using Christianity to pass it just lessens Christianity's value.

 

[jamil]

This topic is really getting "religiousy". So anyway.

I'm more interested in seeing the big 'L' Libertarians defend their position as 88GT so accurately paraphrased, "Since the government has imposed a small level of tyranny, in order to create that elusive equality the whiners are complaining for, let's just impose a greater level of tyranny."

This topic really shouldn't have anything to do with religion at all. A private business either has a right to chose its customers or it doesn't. And if you really must regulate equality at all, then you should either have no protected classes, or make EVERYONE a protected class.

For those claiming this is an indictment of the religious right, well, it's no less an indictment of the atheist left. I strongly suspect you'd not have your knickers so tightly twisted if a gay business refused to serve the hated-religious-group-of-the-day person. And you'd hide behind the "protected class" argument to justify it. Being an agnostic is so much easier than being an atheist. I don't have to hate religious people and make everything I don't like be about religion.

 

[Trooper]

One emperor appointed his horse to the senate and would have orgies with men and women. He would also pay children to swim around inside his pool and pretend to be minnows, nipping at his genitals.

Homosexuality was completely acceptable by the roman empire. He was never forced by his father to marry a woman. Upper class women often engaged in lesbian relationships and even fine art was made of homosexual relationships. I don't know where you get your history from but if you want to clear up a lot of your misunderstandings I would suggest simply googling homosexuality in ancient rome.

Never mind this has no bearing on how a Christian should treat fellow humans and that attempting to pass legislation under the guise of religion is wrong.

Again, Government has no right telling you or I or the Hindu owned gas station down the street who they must serve. It's a law that should be passed... Using Christianity to pass it just lessens Christianity's value.

That was Rome. yes in Roman culture a lot of things were allowed. But marriage was still an arrangement between families for economic reasons. And if a father said that you were to be married, as this was a patron-client society, you did as you were told. And every so often there was a push for morality within Roman society.

Now the culture of Judea was different. Homosexuality and lesbianism were heavily discouraged. Roman ways were looked down on. Much like Arabs reject Western culture today.

 

[stryguy]

This topic is really getting "religiousy" because that's how the law was passed, "Religious Freedom". I didn't bring religion into this debate, the bill itself does. If this was SBXXXX - Business should have the right to chose to deny service, then we wouldn't be discussing religion at all.

Ladies and Gentleman.. This is my point exactly. Pass the law because it's the right thing to do, let people be free. Don't try to get support for your bill by pretending it's for religion.

 

[gstanley102]

After reading this thread, I am amazed at those that do not know why or how this country came to be.

Now the gov can force you serve who ever the gov prefers, and purchase what ever the gov prefers.
Of course this will be enforced selectively.
If you do not belong to a preferred group, enforcement will be quick and harsh.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Requiring businesses advertize and make known their legal policies is hardly "tyranny". Unless you mean the tyranny of the conscience. If advertizing your various and sundry bigotries would embarass and shame you, maybe it would be best not to attempt to enforce those bigotries on members of the public with whom you would, if their prejudicial status were unknown to you, engage in commerce quite profittably.

 

[Trooper]

We had several Muslims fired in Chicago because they refused to handle alcohol. The feds came in and said that they had religious freedom. The same ruling was used for Muslim cab drivers who refuse to have passengers who are homosexual couples (how they would know, ?). Similarly Muslim cab drivers have refused to carry passengers with dogs or who smelled of alcohol.

The big problem is that the laws are not being uniformly enforced. Some people seem to have a greater standing in front of the law than others.

 

[Trooper]

Requiring businesses advertize and make known their legal policies is hardly "tyranny". Unless you mean the tyranny of the conscience. If advertizing your various and sundry bigotries would embarass and shame you, maybe it would be best not to attempt to enforce those bigotries on members of the public with whom you would, if their prejudicial status were unknown to you, engage in commerce quite profittably.

"No soup for you!" Soup Nazi in Seinfeld.

 

[jamil]

This topic is really getting "religiousy" because that's how the law was passed, "Religious Freedom". I didn't bring religion into this debate, the bill itself does. If this was SBXXXX - Business should have the right to chose to deny service, then we wouldn't be discussing religion at all.

Ladies and Gentleman.. This is my point exactly. Pass the law because it's the right thing to do, let people be free. Don't try to get support for your bill by pretending it's for religion.

By "religiousy" I meant "proselytizing". WWJD has nothing to do with this. Religious belief is in the mind of the believer. Furthermore, no real rights are denied if a baker doesn't agree to make a gay cake for religious, philosophical, or any reason. No one has a right to make other people do for them unless there's an agreed contract to do so. Well, unless you're a protected class.

Speaking of which, any bets on what the next extraspecial protected class will be? Illegals maybe? Fat people? Short people? Leftists? Oh, wait, they're already a defacto protected class.

 

[steveh_131]

I'm more interested in seeing the big 'L' Libertarians defend their position as 88GT so accurately paraphrased, "Since the government has imposed a small level of tyranny, in order to create that elusive equality the whiners are complaining for, let's just impose a greater level of tyranny."

This topic really shouldn't have anything to do with religion at all. A private business either has a right to chose its customers or it doesn't. And if you really must regulate equality at all, then you should either have no protected classes, or make EVERYONE a protected class.

A business owner should have the right to serve or not serve anyone he chooses. I'm in agreement with you.

Requiring businesses advertize and make known their legal policies is hardly "tyranny". Unless you mean the tyranny of the conscience. If advertizing your various and sundry bigotries would embarass and shame you, maybe it would be best not to attempt to enforce those bigotries on members of the public with whom you would, if their prejudicial status were unknown to you, engage in commerce quite profittably.

No. More government bad. Let the free market work it out.

 

[jamil]

Requiring businesses advertize and make known their legal policies is hardly "tyranny". Unless you mean the tyranny of the conscience. If advertizing your various and sundry bigotries would embarass and shame you, maybe it would be best not to attempt to enforce those bigotries on members of the public with whom you would, if their prejudicial status were unknown to you, engage in commerce quite profittably.

Why does the government need to enforce trendy behavior through embarrassment and shaming? And why don't you think that doing so is a form of tyranny?

If you want businesses to list their policies, only do business with those who post them. Organize a group to promote your agenda. Get a bullhorn and stand outside all the businesses that don't post them. Or just get uncle sammy to shame them for you.

 

[Trooper]

Why does the government need to enforce trendy behavior through embarrassment and shaming? And why don't you think that doing so isn't a form of tyranny?

If you want businesses to list their policies, only do business with those who post them. Organize a group to promote your agenda. Get a bullhorn and stand outside all the businesses that don't post them. Or just get uncle sammy to shame them for you.

The left (mainly the progressives) want to purge the old morality (Christian and Jewish) then replace it with their morality (political correctness).

 

[MisterChester]

If we let the free market run it's course, these businesses that discriminate will not survive in the 21st century. Money talks.

 

[Trooper]

If we let the free market run it's course, these businesses that discriminate will not survive in the 21st century. Money talks.

Well gays may make up about 3%. Evangelicals are 70 million people, somewhere between a quarter and a third of the population. Want the evangelicals to flex their economic muscle?

 

[jamil]

Well gays may make up about 3%. Evangelicals are 70 million people, somewhere between a quarter and a third of the population. Want the evangelicals to flex their economic muscle?

Yeah, their economic muscle is so powerful, they were able to get a bill to stop the nonsense. Oh...wait.

 

[Trigger Time]

Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for the Grand Dragon of the KKK with KKK and swasticas on it

So, gay owned businesses should also be forced to work with say, the Westboro Baptist Church..

They would probably think chocolate cake was inferior

 

[Trooper]

Yeah, their economic muscle is so powerful, they were able to get a bill to stop the nonsense. Oh...wait.

What they do not control is the culture. Who runs the news media? Or the NFL? Or Hollywood?

Yeah the evangelicals have a lot of people. But they are not journalists, actors, celebrities (to include sports stars) and others who "influence" public opinion. That is why the libertarians get creamed, they have even less presence in the culture.