Arizona Governor vetoes discrimination bill

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Religious people are hardly a minority. You can't go 2 blocks without running across one of the fable factories.

And you can hardly flip a channel or peruse an internet site without the onslaught of religious bigots on their anti-religion war, spewing their pejoratives.

 

[drillsgt]

Religious people are hardly a minority. You can't go 2 blocks without running across one of the fable factories.

Who's the intolerant one now?

 

[bmbutch]

Religious people are hardly a minority. You can't go 2 blocks without running across one of the fable factories.

Yet another person screaming for tolerance, while being intolerant themselves.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I am a white catholic man, I am the minority these days. Screw everyone, I don't want anyones protection

 

[jamil]

Religious people are hardly a minority. You can't go 2 blocks without running across one of the fable factories.

Heh. You sound like a bitter clinger.

 

[jamil]

So, just who were these religious people going to discriminate against, that they needed protection? Blacks? Tattooed people? Jews? Divorcee's? Who? We all know who the bill was crafted to discriminate against.

Why do you use words that make it sound the most heinous? You're not invoking the plain old dictionary version of discriminate, but you purloin all the mental images of the civil rights era "discriminate" as if this is exactly the same thing. The Colorado case wasn't an example where a gay couple came into the bakery and the owner treated them like Rosa Parks. He did not refuse to serve them. He offered to make whatever else they wanted, but didn't want to do a wedding cake because of his religious belief. The gay couple wasn't the focus of his refusal. It was the definition of marriage that was the focus. By all accounts, he was polite and courteous. But the real story doesn't make the christian dude sound evil enough for you, so you trot out the Rosa Parks version.

By the way, the answer to my opening question is, ideological thuggery. Damn I'm glad my brand of non-religious doesn't require me to hate those who are religious.

No kidding. Apparently we are seeing the Lost Causer argument being stretched to this bill. After you get defeated, the cause totally wasn't about what we said it was about. Anyone taking this track need be laughed out the conversation.

I'm sorry sir, we can't serve you dinner due to your cotton/poly blend polo shirt.

The likely scenario is that these rapid fire gay discrimination bills we are seeing across the nation are the result of think tank. The memo was sent out after the defeat of gay marriage in SCOTUS and the subsequent 13 ruling against marriage discrimination issued by lower courts. Thrashing while going down in defeat.

Folks should check out the lobbyists who crafted the Arizona legislation.

Well, ****. Here's another example of ideological thuggery. It worked in high school with your social adversaries, so why not see if it works with political ideology. Hey, whaddayaknow. Pop culture works in the adult world just like in high school! If intellectual honesty were fuel, the two quoted posts above couldn't power a **** ant on a moped half way around a BB. Because someone's religious belief about marriage is EXACTLY like not serving someone because of what kind of shirt they wear. People get to believe what they want. If you can't find someone to do what you want because of what they believe, go somewhere else.

And I'd be more interested to check out the "think tank" who crafted the subterfuge masquerading as a **** storm against it.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Why do you use words that make it sound the most heinous? You're not invoking the plain old dictionary version of discriminate, but you purloin all the mental images of the civil rights era "discriminate" as if this is exactly the same thing. The Colorado case wasn't an example where a gay couple came into the bakery and the owner treated them like Rosa Parks. He did not refuse to serve them. He offered to make whatever else they wanted, but didn't want to do a wedding cake because of his religious belief. The gay couple wasn't the focus of his refusal. It was the definition of marriage that was the focus. By all accounts, he was polite and courteous. But the real story doesn't make the christian dude sound evil enough for you, so you trot out the Rosa Parks version.

By the way, the answer to my opening question is, ideological thuggery. Damn I'm glad my brand of non-religious doesn't require me to hate those who are religious.



Well, ****. Here's another example of ideological thuggery. It worked in high school with your social adversaries, so why not see if it works with political ideology. Hey, whaddayaknow. Pop culture works in the adult world just like in high school! If intellectual honesty were fuel, the two quoted posts above couldn't power a **** ant on a moped half way around a BB. Because someone's religious belief about marriage is EXACTLY like not serving someone because of what kind of shirt they wear. People get to believe what they want. If you can't find someone to do what you want because of what they believe, go somewhere else.

And I'd be more interested to check out the "think tank" who crafted the subterfuge masquerading as a **** storm against it.

Maybe that's part of the 6% that separates you from ideological purity.

 

[mrjarrell]

Who's the intolerant one now?

What "intolerance"? I'm not out burning their gathering places or throwing eggs at them. I tolerate their presence quite well.

 

[mrjarrell]

Why do you use words that make it sound the most heinous? You're not invoking the plain old dictionary version of discriminate, but you purloin all the mental images of the civil rights era "discriminate" as if this is exactly the same thing. The Colorado case wasn't an example where a gay couple came into the bakery and the owner treated them like Rosa Parks. He did not refuse to serve them. He offered to make whatever else they wanted, but didn't want to do a wedding cake because of his religious belief. The gay couple wasn't the focus of his refusal. It was the definition of marriage that was the focus. By all accounts, he was polite and courteous. But the real story doesn't make the christian dude sound evil enough for you, so you trot out the Rosa Parks version.

By the way, the answer to my opening question is, ideological thuggery. Damn I'm glad my brand of non-religious doesn't require me to hate those who are religious.

So, no-one can answer the question. Just who was this bill aimed at? We all know who it was aimed at, but its supporters just refuse to acknowledge the painful truth. They were wanting protected class privilege for their discrimination. And we know who they wanted to discriminate against.

 

[traderdan]

You do not want to acknowledge the painful truth. Legislators in the state of Colorado used law to force a business owner to override his Christian belief, at the desire of individuals who desired to promote their agenda..Legislators in the state of Arizona tried to craft legislation that would make this more difficult in their state.

This bill was trying to protect private business from those with an aggressive agenda.

 

[jamil]

So, no-one can answer the question. Just who was this bill aimed at? We all know who it was aimed at, but its supporters just refuse to acknowledge the painful truth. They were wanting protected class privilege for their discrimination. And we know who they wanted to discriminate against.

It was prompted by the recent cases of so-called, "discrimination". And there you go invoking Rosa Parks again. I think your hatred has clouded your judgment. I suppose the law could be used to help religious people defend against the next **** storm of rabid [strike]atheists[/strike] "civil rights activists" regardless the subject. Why you hate dude?

 

[KLB]

You do not want to acknowledge the painful truth. Legislators in the state of Colorado used law to force a business owner to override his Christian belief, at the desire of individuals who desired to promote their agenda..Legislators in the state of Arizona tried to craft legislation that would make this more difficult in their state.

This bill was trying to protect private business from those with an aggressive agenda.

Seems like the best protection is to not pass a law that makes it illegal like they did in Colorado.

 

[traderdan]

Who here owns a business of any type? Would you enter into a contract to work for someone who was KNOWN to be the litigious sort? If someone has a history of suing businesses, of creating scandal...starting rumor??

We would all discriminate against this type of behavior.

 

[traderdan]

Seems like the best protection is to not pass a law that makes it illegal like they did in Colorado.

And I agree with that. The bill proposed actually became counter productive. Since it had been proposed...the Governor should have signed it. NOW they are in a pickle!...

 

[jamil]

What "intolerance"? I'm not out burning their gathering places or throwing eggs at them. I tolerate their presence quite well.

Oh, so if someone in one of those "fable factories" hurls out an equivalent insult to your "protected" class of the day, you'd not think that's intolerant? Careful now. Horn may have recalibrated his hypocrisy detector to properly resolve intellectual dishonesty.

 

[jamil]

Seems like the best protection is to not pass a law that makes it illegal like they did in Colorado.

I didn't think that's what it did. Seems like it just expanded a previously passed law to expand protections against litigation. Maybe someone from the INGO law department can explain it better. Preferably not the intellectually dishonest one.

 

[mrjarrell]

Oh, so if someone in one of those "fable factories" hurls out an equivalent insult to your "protected" class of the day, you'd not think that's intolerant? Careful now. Horn may have recalibrated his hypocrisy detector to properly resolve intellectual dishonesty.

Oh, please. You guys are always making with the snide commentary to anyone you dislike, but one instance of truth gets your panties all wadded up. I swear you folks are bigger cry babies than left and perpetual victims looking for a persecutor. You're worse than the left.

 

[mrjarrell]

Seems like the best protection is to not pass a law that makes it illegal like they did in Colorado.

And this is the crux of the issue. Both Oregon and Colorado have laws on the books which forbid discrimination and the business owners broke those laws. Get rid of that law and there's no issue. What the legislators in AZ wanted to do was pass a law that would allow discrimination and make the religious immune to any action, civil or criminal for their actions. AZ doesn't have an anti-discrimination law on the books and didn't need the anti-gay discrimination bill. It was just shielding the christians, (we can be pretty sure that a muslim discriminating against a jew or christian would not have been covered).

 

[Trooper]

And this is the crux of the issue. Both Oregon and Colorado have laws on the books which forbid discrimination and the business owners broke those laws. Get rid of that law and there's no issue. What the legislators in AZ wanted to do was pass a law that would allow discrimination and make the religious immune to any action, civil or criminal for their actions. AZ doesn't have an anti-discrimination law on the books and didn't need the anti-gay discrimination bill. It was just shielding the christians, (we can be pretty sure that a muslim discriminating against a jew or christian would not have been covered).

So who has the higher level of protection with respect to discrimination? Muslims or gays? Can gays then abuse blacks because blacks are religious? What are the limits?

 

[Trooper]

Oh, please. You guys are always making with the snide commentary to anyone you dislike, but one instance of truth gets your panties all wadded up. I swear you folks are bigger cry babies than left and perpetual victims looking for a persecutor. You're worse than the left.

And libertarians are even more self righteous than the left wing freaks. So what?

The left constantly pushes social issues so that 1) they can move their vision of a secular (or pagan in the case of progressives) society that is free of religion and 2) so that they can create a soap opera that keeps the focus of how bad the left wing freaks have screwed up society with all of their activism.