Good job Arizona

[jahbrudda]

i just don't see how a bill would get this far if there wasn't public support for it is all..

there was just another bill, very similar to this one, in kansas, that got shut down this week, and mostly by the conservatives of the area from what i've read. you know it's pretty bad if even the local kansas conservatives are against it..

But what is the public supporting is the question, a bill that limits government intrusion into private business, or are there really that many people in AZ who are homophobic, I find it hard to believe the latter, I sure hope I'd be right.

 

[jahbrudda]

Would it be right for the government to force a privately gay owned bakery to bake a cake with the verse "lying with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination"?

I for one would say, no.

 

[UncleBuck]

look at mahsistah go on with his distractions from what this is really about: codifying the legal protection of religious bigotry.

back in the day, this bigot would have been bawling his eyes out about blacks sitting next to him at the lunch counter.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

look at mahsistah go on with his distractions from what this is really about: codifying the legal protection of religious bigotry.

back in the day, this bigot would have been bawling his eyes out about blacks sitting next to him at the lunch counter.

Ok you win. Let's ban all religions. But that includes Judaism too.

 

[UncleBuck]

Ok you win. Let's ban all religions. But that includes Judaism too.

look at the rabbit go on with his hyperbole.

religion is just fine, attempting to use it as a shield for your bigoted hatred and intolerance is not.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

look at the rabbit go on with his hyperbole.

religion is just fine, attempting to use it as a shield for your bigoted hatred and intolerance is not.

Apparently you haven't read the memo what those based on the Abrahamic religions are all about? It's bigoted hatred and intolerance. If you pick and choose what is good, it's no different than using the Harry Potter books as your inspiration. The bible condones selling your daughter as a sex slave, raping your slaves and killing the non-believer because he's a fool. The other religions aren't any better. The real fool is the person who tries to convert religion from its evil.

 

[Harrekin]

Should a private business be allowed the right to refuse a convicted paedophile?

Thought I'd throw a curveball for the lefties.

I don't know the answer.

 

[ChesusRice]

Should a private business be allowed the right to refuse a convicted paedophile?

Thought I'd throw a curveball for the lefties.

I don't know the answer.

Only if it is a daycare or a landlord renting a apartment too near a school. And that is actually a law

 

[UncleBuck]

Should a private business be allowed the right to refuse a convicted paedophile?

Thought I'd throw a curveball for the lefties.

I don't know the answer.

good job on trying to equate homosexuality with pedophilia, you sick fuck.

 

[UncleBuck]

Apparently you haven't read the memo what those based on the Abrahamic religions are all about? It's bigoted hatred and intolerance. If you pick and choose what is good, it's no different than using the Harry Potter books as your inspiration. The bible condones selling your daughter as a sex slave, raping your slaves and killing the non-believer because he's a fool. The other religions aren't any better. The real fool is the person who tries to convert religion from its evil.

i know many religious people, none are slave rapists, daughter slavers, or murderers of non-believers.

no religious person i know has expressed the need for a law that allows them to kick gays and those ham-cursed blacks out of their places of businesses, but apparently such a law is needed.

i'm glad those sad, pathetic fucks are on your side and not mine.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

i know many religious people, none are slave rapists, daughter slavers, or murderers of non-believers.

no religious person i know has expressed the need for a law that allows them to kick gays and those ham-cursed blacks out of their places of businesses, but apparently such a law is needed.

i'm glad those sad, pathetic fucks are on your side and not mine.

Who determines which are followed and the ones you consider "sad, pathetic fucks?" Why are those things even in the Big Book? To test us so we can determine which will make us "those sad, pathetic fucks?" I said nothing about them being on my side, but since you accuse, maybe we should worry about you? Why do you hate black people and gays?

 

[ChesusRice]

Who determines which are followed and the ones you consider "sad, pathetic fucks?" Why are those things even in the Big Book? To test us so we can determine which will make us "those sad, pathetic fucks?" I said nothing about them being on my side, but since you accuse, maybe we should worry about you? Why do you hate black people and gays?

Why are you such a sad and pathetic fuck?

 

[Harrekin]

good job on trying to equate homosexuality with pedophilia, you sick fuck.

I wasn't equating them, you dumb fuck.

I personally think a business should take money from anyone willing to offer it, regardless of what they look like or their bedroom activities, it doesn't make their money any less green.

I was actually asking if business owners should have a right to turn away rapists, paedophiles, etc and if so, where does society draw the line?

 

[Dr.J20]

says the guy who cites white supremacists.

hate to throw my hat in on this, but just because someone is a white supremacist, doesn't mean their args are necessarily invalid. Heidegger was a Nazi, Nietzsche a syphilitic madman, and they have both made lasting, valuable contributions to philosophy despite apparent personal shortcomings. it's essentially an ad hominem attack, all of which are fallacious.

Now, if you cite a white supremacist who is also making a horrible argument about the "scientific purity" of the "white race" or some such nonsense, that the argument you are citing is absurd may make you a white supremacist ignoramus, and a poor debater as well.

As for the AZ law, its obviously bad law. As for the political philosophy being poorly forwarded in a half-assed attempt to explain why the law amounts to an abridgment on government interference, it is idealistic but not wrongheaded.

As for the bizarre historical misplacements (arguments about the way things were in the deep south up until (and continuing, let's be honest) the 60s), these seem useless.

As for the simplistic notion that voter support always translates into legislation, well, i think we ALL know that's not how politics works. That AZ might have a particularly well-off, politically active, and racist elite (and therefore able to make the kind of lofty political contributions and backroom deals that get this kind of legislation to the voting floor) is certainly a possibility this scenario allows us to entertain.

enough from me,
be easy,

 

[Rob Roy]

I wasn't equating them, you dumb fuck.

I personally think a business should take money from anyone willing to offer it, regardless of what they look like or their bedroom activities, it doesn't make their money any less green.

I was actually asking if business owners should have a right to turn away rapists, paedophiles, etc and if so, where does society draw the line?

I'll submit that "society" shouldn't be drawing the line. The line should be drawn by the individual private property owner. In order to own something, control of that something is one of the vital ingredients. Removing control from the actual owner, removes an essential element of ownership.

This works reciprocably to protect people. If a douchebag prohibtionist type, owns property and doesn't want you smoking weed on HIS property, his wishes should be respected. If he tries to prevent you from smoking wed on YOUR property, he should be told to fuck off. Respecting property rights is linked to respect for the most important "property" we own, our own bodies.

If a person is dumb enough to limit who they will serve as their customers on a superficial basis like race, religion or or gender etc. then they are exercising a property right. If a person tries to exercise their opinion on YOUR property or YOUR body, then they are violating a property right and have created a demonstrable harm.

 

[Harrekin]

I'll submit that "society" shouldn't be drawing the line. The line should be drawn by the individual private property owner. In order to own something, control of that something is one of the vital ingredients. Removing control from the actual owner, removes an essential element of ownership.

This works reciprocably to protect people. If a douchebag prohibtionist type, owns property and doesn't want you smoking weed on HIS property, his wishes should be respected. If he tries to prevent you from smoking wed on YOUR property, he should be told to fuck off. Respecting property rights is linked to respect for the most important "property" we own, our own bodies.

If a person is dumb enough to limit who they will serve as their customers on a superficial basis like race, religion or or gender etc. then they are exercising a property right. If a person tries to exercise their opinion on YOUR property or YOUR body, then they are violating a property right and have created a demonstrable harm.

Serving the public means serving the public at large, refusing a black person gas in the middle of a desert cos the owner "doesn't like the look of them" creates a demonstrable harm.

The rights of the business owner only extend to the point where they breach the rights of someone else.

If you don't like it, don't claim to be open to the public.

 

[Dr.J20]

Serving the public means serving the public at large, refusing a black person gas in the middle of a desert cos the owner "doesn't like the look of them" creates a demonstrable harm.

The rights of the business owner only extend to the point where they breach the rights of someone else.

If you don't like it, don't claim to be open to the public.

well said.

 

[jahbrudda]

Serving the public means serving the public at large, refusing a black person gas in the middle of a desert cos the owner "doesn't like the look of them" creates a demonstrable harm.

The rights of the business owner only extend to the point where they breach the rights of someone else.

If you don't like it, don't claim to be open to the public.

that logic is contradictory imo.
You are wanting the government to do the very thing you are condemning the business owners for.
Even though i agree with your sentiment morally on a personal level and would serve anyone walking through my doors, i vehemently oppose government intervention when it comes to private property and business. as history has proven, it leaves the door open for more and more government intrusion.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

that logic is contradictory imo.
You are wanting the government to do the very thing you are condemning the business owners for.
Even though i agree with your sentiment morally on a personal level and would serve anyone walking through my doors, i vehemently oppose government intervention when it comes to private property and business. as history has proven, it leaves the door open for more and more government intrusion.

How do you prevent a Steinbeck, The Pearl, type society using your model? Lack of official government doesn't mean similar entities can't be just as intrusive.

 

[ChesusRice]

How do you prevent a Steinbeck, The Pearl, type society using your model? Lack of official government doesn't mean similar entities can't be just as intrusive.

You no longer amuse me. You are actually pretty dull and boring