or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Arizona governor vetoes gay discrimination bill Apple rallied against
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Arizona governor vetoes gay discrimination bill Apple rallied against - Page 6

post #201 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Welcome to the 21st century, AZ and TX!

 

That's a ridiculous and needless comment.  I didn't support the bill for several reasons.  However, it was not an "anti-gay" bill, nor does this veto suddenly prevent discrimination.  It is already legal under AZ law to discriminate against gays.  That is simply a fact.  The intent of this bill was to give businesses added protection from being compelled to violate their religious beliefs (as has happened in CA and NM).  Having said that, it was redundant and created extremely bad PR.  My understanding is that it was worded in a broad way that could lead to more discrimination.  Those are all reasons that Brewer did the right thing be rejecting it.  

 

Of course, this doesn't solve the issue of businesses in other states being compelled to, say, bake a cake for a gay wedding.  As a Christian, I don't consider homosexuality a sin.  But millions of others do.  Being compelled under threat of force, loss of income (etc) to essentially endorse something that violates a person's religious beliefs is an appalling thing.   We're not talking about refusing to serve a customer at a restaurant or retail store because he appears to be gay.  We're talking about compelling participation.  One has to wonder...if we can do that...why can we not force churches (who get non-profit tax benefits) to perform same sex weddings?  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #202 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post


Actually, in UK, the issue of who can live together is vexed. If two homosexual men can get married and live together, they have better housing rights than two brothers living together, for example. That strikes me as unfair. I don't mean two brothers marrying, just sharing a house.

 

Does a married heterosexual couple have better housing rights than two brothers living together?

Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #203 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post
This wasn't about discriminating against a person but against behavior and that is done all the time. People should be free to voluntarily enter into contracts with whomever they want.

We are not talking about people.  We are talking about businesses which are licensed by various government bodies and which are mere creatures of statute.

 

And often the protection of bigoted individuals is written into these types of laws.  For example, a hotel may not discriminate based upon race.  But an individual who rents out rooms in their home is free to do so.  I don't know about the Arizona statute specifically.

post #204 of 322

It's funny to see how many people think that this was an anti-gay bill.  It was meant to protect businesses from lawsuits from militant morons who demand service. 

 

Ever seen the signs that read "no shoes, no shirt, no service"?  Those are there for a reason.

Follow me on Twitter.
Reply
Follow me on Twitter.
Reply
post #205 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality View Post
 
He let slavery happen (which was more like the maid in a household.....they were well treated and were part of the family, not like the slavery in the American colonies.)
 

 

But no where is the male/female line blurred -- past, present, or future.  Homosexuality is and has always been against God's design.

According to your mythology, the Jews were slaves in Egypt.  According to your mythology, this is what happened:

 

"They made their lives bitter with harsh labor in brick and mortar and with all kinds of work in the fields; in all their harsh labor the Egyptians worked them ruthlessly."

 

So your statement that "they were well treated" is blasphemy.

 

 

And I suppose you believe that because slavery was once congruent with "God's design", it is less bad than homosexuality?  Do I have that right?

post #206 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post
 
For me personally, if I don't agree with a business practice I take my business elsewhere. 

Do you agree with Apple's business practice of supporting gay rights?

post #207 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

That's a ridiculous and needless comment.  I didn't support the bill for several reasons.  However, it was not an "anti-gay" bill, nor does this veto suddenly prevent discrimination.  It is already legal under AZ law to discriminate against gays.  That is simply a fact.  The intent of this bill was to give businesses added protection from being compelled to violate their religious beliefs (as has happened in CA and NM).  Having said that, it was redundant and created extremely bad PR.  My understanding is that it was worded in a broad way that could lead to more discrimination.  Those are all reasons that Brewer did the right thing be rejecting it.  

Of course, this doesn't solve the issue of businesses in other states being compelled to, say, bake a cake for a gay wedding.  As a Christian, I don't consider homosexuality a sin.  But millions of others do.  Being compelled under threat of force, loss of income (etc) to essentially endorse something that violates a person's religious beliefs is an appalling thing.   We're not talking about refusing to serve a customer at a restaurant or retail store because he appears to be gay.  We're talking about compelling participation.  One has to wonder...if we can do that...why can we not force churches (who get non-profit tax benefits) to perform same sex weddings?  

Quote:
Originally Posted by His Dudeness View Post

It's funny to see how many people think that this was an anti-gay bill.  It was meant to protect businesses from lawsuits from militant morons who demand service. 

Ever seen the signs that read "no shoes, no shirt, no service"?  Those are there for a reason.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-26-2014/gay-ban (3m:30s)

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #208 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post
 

The Republicans and especially the Tea Party are really on the fringe. I can understand them at all. Why are they so hateful?

 

Like, I don't know, like, Totes McGoats...right???

post #209 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pooch View Post


being an apple enthusiast, "fanboy", and advocate for as long as they've been around, and a lifelong gay american, the quoted statement is fucked up and so wrong.

 

What's wrong with that statement? And what does it have to do with you being a "lifelong gay american"?

post #210 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by His Dudeness View Post
 

It's funny to see how many people think that this was an anti-gay bill.  It was meant to protect businesses from lawsuits from militant morons who demand service. 

 

Ever seen the signs that read "no shoes, no shirt, no service"?  Those are there for a reason.

It's funny how morons twist this into "it was not an anti-gay bill". Of course it was, and you even acknowledge it yourself: those damn gays who demand service! Here's the thing: if you're in BUSINESS, you can't deny service to a PROTECTED CLASS. You can deny service to whites, men, tall people, but not blacks, hispanics, women... or gays. If you want to be able to discriminate legally, turn your business into a private club or a church.

 

The absolutely disgraceful thing about this bill was that it was worded avoiding the use of "gay" (probably to avoid being blatantly unconstitutional)  but instead used such incredibly vague "feel" terms that it would have protected any sort of discrimination, so a shop owner would have been within his legal rights to display a "no gays allowed" sign in his window, but also a "no blacks allowed."

An emergency services provider would have also been within his rights to deny service on that basis. Now, put the shoe on the other foot: you need emergency care and the muslim doctor sees a cross around your neck and denies you service based on his religious views. This bill would have allowed that.

 

Good thing Brewer vetoed it, but she's still a bigoted sad wrinkled bag of shit.

post #211 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by His Dudeness View Post

It's funny to see how many people think that this was an anti-gay bill.  It was meant to protect businesses from lawsuits from militant morons who demand service. 



 



Ever seen the signs that read "no shoes, no shirt, no service"?  Those are there for a reason.

 



There also used to be signs that also said "No Negro's". To me, if you want to pass a bill to allow the refusal of service, make the bigots wear their beliefs on their sleaves(or storefronts). Like the No shoes, no shirt, no service, let people in the community know just who you won't serve. At least be honest, don't let someone walk into the store with expectation of service and then say, "no, we don't serve your kind here". Let the world know of your bigoted practices and deal with any potential fallount. To let someone come in, with valid currency and resonable expectation of service, and then tell them they are not welcome is cruel and unfair.

Just so people don't get me wrong, I think the whole thing is stupid. Any business that turns away paying customers who have done nothing wrong and are deserving of services is stupid and will eventually fail. I just think it would be interesting to see how these businesses would do if they had to be honest about who they would serve. With over half the population now in favor of gay marriage, I am guessing they wouldn't stay in business for too terribly long.
post #212 of 322
This is typical for Arizona - a lovely state filled with Christians who preach hatred and intolerance. They pass "papers please" laws to discriminate against Hispanice people, then come up with more and more stupid discriminatory laws.

I won't be visiting Arizona again; it's lovely state with the Grand Canyon and other places, but the hatred of the Christians is intolerable.
post #213 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by SudoNym View Post
 

He is.  He is saying "People choose to be homosexuals, so it is OK to discriminate against them".

 

But he cites a red herring - it doesn't really matter whether or not it is genetic or a choice.

People choose their religion. They can change religious affiliation, and do so everyday. Therefore, according to Rogifan's own reasoning, there is no rational reason to protect religion. Hey, here's something we can agree on!

post #214 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


1) Sure, there are haters on the left, center and right, and in every party but that's irrelevant.

2) This is a civil rights issue. Nothing more, nothing less. I would much prefer if marriage were to simply go away altogether but if one group of consenting adults is allowed to get married I think all consenting adults should be allowed to get married.

3) As for not making one "hateful" if they don't like gay marriage is it not "hateful" if one were to say, "I don't hate black people but I don't think they should be able to share the same water fountains and bathrooms as whites"? I don't put the same weight behind each of these civil rights movements but I do believe they are all discrimination based on hate.
 
You're really painting the word "discrimination" with a broad brush here. Not "all" discrimination is based on hate. Are you talking about discrimination in public entities?
 
Take for instance, private all-girls schools. They discriminate against boys, who may be just as smart and talented, but they don't differentiate because they hate boys. Take for instance the NFL. They don't discriminate against female football players because they hate them. 
post #215 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by old-wiz View Post

This is typical for Arizona - a lovely state filled with Christians who preach hatred and intolerance. They pass "papers please" laws to discriminate against Hispanice people, then come up with more and more stupid discriminatory laws.

I won't be visiting Arizona again; it's lovely state with the Grand Canyon and other places, but the hatred of the Christians is intolerable.

And your hatred of Christians is also intolerable.
post #216 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by old-wiz View Post

This is typical for Arizona - a lovely state filled with Christians who preach hatred and intolerance. They pass "papers please" laws to discriminate against Hispanice people, then come up with more and more stupid discriminatory laws.

I won't be visiting Arizona again; it's lovely state with the Grand Canyon and other places, but the hatred of the Christians is intolerable.

 

Good. Let the hate flow through you, old-wiz. Preach it.

post #217 of 322

It seems that the measure of faith for some people is to whom one sells goods and services.

 

And for some, their "god" who they claim has created an entire universe is not strong enough to protect them from the moral disaster that will befall them if they sell something to someone who is not heterosexual. Not much of a "god" if that is the case.

 

I also think some people are terribly frightened because they think they have no choice in what they believe. Belief is a matter of choice. Sexual orientation is not.

post #218 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


Republicans continue to foolishly push Christians-only laws and they will continue to marginalize their party. They need to get back to a platform of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism.

 

I thought America already had a political party like that — the Libertarian party(?). The two party American political system isn't working.

post #219 of 322
Vetoing the bill means the Givernor supports a climate that is free from religious oppression.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RalphMouth View Post

Vetoing the bill means the Governor supports discrimination against the right of religious people to be free to practice their faith.
post #220 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headrush69 View Post
 

Apples and oranges.

 

The discriminating part is not what you sell, but not selling what you sell to specific people.

 

So should a Jewish print shop owner be forced to print Neo-Nazi banners, signs, and other materials?  Or should a Muslim caterer be forced to cater a party where the client demands pulled pork sandwiches?  Look beyond the whole, "OMG!  They're hating on the gays!" sensationalism of this and look at the rights of the individual merchants to do business. 

 

Remember, you are "that group" to someone.

post #221 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlmondRoca View Post

You're really painting the word "discrimination" with a broad brush here. Not "all" discrimination is based on hate. Are you talking about discrimination in public entities?

Take for instance, private all-girls schools. They discriminate against boys, who may be just as smart and talented, but they don't differentiate because they hate boys. Take for instance the NFL. They don't discriminate against female football players because they hate them.

I agree with you. Note my comment specifically refers to all the ones mentioned in my post

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #222 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by kfeltenberger View Post
 

 

So should a Jewish print shop owner be forced to print Neo-Nazi banners, signs, and other materials?  Or should a Muslim caterer be forced to cater a party where the client demands pulled pork sandwiches?  Look beyond the whole, "OMG!  They're hating on the gays!" sensationalism of this and look at the rights of the individual merchants to do business. 

 

Remember, you are "that group" to someone.

 

Really? Those are your examples. I'm not going to say anything beyond that because I know it's hopeless.

 

(or, I have again misinterpreted what someone is saying)

Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #223 of 322

This just clears the way for more discrimination lawsuits, as Peter Schiff talked about on his radio show, and others have pointed out...  i.e. someone comes to your business and they are disruptive so you ask them to leave, but they just happen to be gay, so now you have to prove that you that you refused to serve them not because they were gay, but because they were creating a disturbance?  

 

People should have the right to discriminate, it will be financially disadvantageous so most will not want to do so, and it is bad for business.  But people should still be able to choose, and the issue is much broader than this tiny gay issue.  Employers discriminate against pot smokers through drug testing -- is that discrimination in states that have legalized it?  The examples can go on and on..  

 

http://www.newsmax.com/Newswidget/Allen-West-gay-rights-Arizona-civil-rights/2014/02/26/id/554962?promo_code=FA07-1&utm_source=Schiff%20Radio&utm_medium=nmwidget&utm_campaign=widgetphase1

post #224 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post


It's also a sad state of things when a thread like this is the busiest in a while here. That just goes to show how little is happening around Apple at the moment.

Maybe the thread is busy because it's important to a lot of people on both sides of the issue. We are not that far from a time when being "suspected" of being gay was a basis for denying insurance coverage (before AIDS) as well as housing. One didn't have to be gay - just the suspicion was good enough.
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #225 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post
 

 

Really? Those are your examples. I'm not going to say anything beyond that because I know it's hopeless.

 

(or, I have again misinterpreted what someone is saying)

 

That's nice...get in that snide slap in the face implication that those who disagree are hopeless. 

 

You also didn't answer my questions; should either business owner have to do something they find offensive or against their religion?  I mean, it seems like it's open season on Christians, but we can't touch the Jews and can't even mention possibly potentially maybe offending Muslims in this country for fear of being ostracized. 

post #226 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by libertyforall View Post
 

This just clears the way for more discrimination lawsuits, as Peter Schiff talked about on his radio show, and others have pointed out...  i.e. someone comes to your business and they are disruptive so you ask them to leave, but they just happen to be gay, so now you have to prove that you that you refused to serve them not because they were gay, but because they were creating a disturbance?  

 

As I understand it, the US already has such laws outlawing discrimination against people based on race, religion and nationality. Has it led to an avalanche of frivolous discrimination lawsuits? Does the impact of these lawsuits outweigh the benefits of living in a society free from racial and religious discrimination?

post #227 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlmondRoca View Post

I thought America already had a political party like that — the Libertarian party(?). The two party American political system isn't working.

I suppose you're right. We need a third party so old angry Christian white men will have a place to go where they can pretend that this whole country is made up of people like them and it's still the "good ol' days."
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #228 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by kfeltenberger View Post
 

 

That's nice...get in that snide slap in the face implication that those who disagree are hopeless. 

 

You also didn't answer my questions; should either business owner have to do something they find offensive or against their religion?  I mean, it seems like it's open season on Christians, but we can't touch the Jews and can't even mention possibly potentially maybe offending Muslims in this country for fear of being ostracized. 

 

Now you're changing your argument. Why don't you discuss your examples from the earlier post and explain to everyone how they are the same as/similar to not serving gay people.

Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #229 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post


Ok well then I think vegetarian restaurants should be forced to serve meat because not doing so discriminates against consumers who prefer meat. And eating mets is perfectly legal in the United States. And I think CVS should have to reverse its policy of not selling cigarettes in its stores because that is discriminating against smokers, many of whom I'm sure shopped at CVS for other items as well. Last time I checked, smoking cigarettes is perfectly legal in the United States.

Ding Ding Ding, we have a winner! This has to be the worst analogy of all time. 

post #230 of 322

It's very scary to see so many people thinking that it would be okay for the USA to become a theocracy.

Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #231 of 322

Quote:

Originally Posted by island hermit View Post
 

 

Now you're changing your argument. Why don't you discuss your examples from the earlier post and explain to everyone how they are the same as/similar to not serving gay people.

 


No, I'm not changing the argument and my examples stand.  Should a business owner be forced to do something against their beliefs regardless of who is doing the demanding?  By your apparent position, this should be something reserved exclusively for gays.  But it isn't; if you step back and divorce yourself of the emotion and look at this dispassionately, you'll see the other scenarios where this could come into play.

 

In my two examples, the Jewish print shop owner would have no grounds to refuse the Neo-Nazi if they wanted to contract for business forms for a local garage and the Muslim caterer would have no grounds to refuse the patron if they asked for a vegetable platter.

post #232 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by kfeltenberger View Post
 

Quote:

 


No, I'm not changing the argument and my examples stand.  Should a business owner be forced to do something against their beliefs regardless of who is doing the demanding?  By your apparent position, this should be something reserved exclusively for gays.  But it isn't; if you step back and divorce yourself of the emotion and look at this dispassionately, you'll see the other scenarios where this could come into play.

 

In my two examples, the Jewish print shop owner would have no grounds to refuse the Neo-Nazi if they wanted to contract for business forms for a local garage and the Muslim caterer would have no grounds to refuse the patron if they asked for a vegetable platter.

 

Bad analogies and you don't even understand why.

 

I'll give you a hint... if the gay couple asked the baker to make a cake depicting two men f*cking... then that is similar to your examples.

Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #233 of 322
post #234 of 322
A bit like South Africa eh? If I don't want these blacks to drink in my (whites only) bar, swim in the public baths or use these drinking fountains then I should have that right? I mean, the blacks can always get those things somewhere else.

1oyvey.gif1oyvey.gif

It's hard for some people to realise that human rights are all our rights. Some people think it's fine until they find themselves at the sharp end of someone else's discrimination. If there's enough people it can be a short step to legal discrimination.
post #235 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post
 

 

Bad analogies and you don't even understand why.

 

I'll give you a hint... if the gay couple asked the baker to make a cake depicting two men f*cking... then that is similar to your examples.


Wrong...the gay couple asked the baker to make a wedding cake for them...which celebrated something that the baker's faith found morally and spiritually wrong, and thus baking the cake would be acting to support such an act.  It doesn't matter what the cake topper was, it was the context for the cake.  Just like the context for the printer and caterer in my examples.

post #236 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by kfeltenberger View Post
 


Wrong...the gay couple asked the baker to make a wedding cake for them...which celebrated something that the baker's faith found morally and spiritually wrong, and thus baking the cake would be acting to support such an act.  It doesn't matter what the cake topper was, it was the context for the cake.  Just like the context for the printer and caterer in my examples.

 

That's where I believe you are wrong.

 

If the Jewish printers printed Nazi propaganda for other people then it would be wrong to deny a neonazi group the same business. (even though I think it's ludicrous to include neonazis as an example).

 

If Muslims made pulled pork sandwiches for atheists but wouldn't make them for Christians... then that is wrong.

 

Do you understand, yet...

 

The bakers make wedding cakes for other people and by not including gay people then they are excluding a group of people based on sexual preference. It would be similar to not making a wedding cake for black people or for Jewish people if the bakers were Muslim.

 

The USA is not a theocracy... yet.

Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #237 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post
 

 

That's where I believe you are wrong.

 

If the Jewish printers printed Nazi propaganda for other people then it would be wrong to deny a neonazi group the same business. (even though I think it's ludicrous to include neonazis as an example).

 

If Muslims made pulled pork sandwiches for atheists but wouldn't make them for Christians... then that is wrong.

 

Do you understand, yet...

 

The bakers make wedding cakes for other people and by not including gay people then they are excluding a group of people based on sexual preference. It would be similar to not making a wedding cake for black people or for Jewish people if the bakers were Muslim.

 

The USA is not a theocracy... yet.

 

It isn't a theocracy, but it is becoming a tyranny of the minority.

post #238 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by kfeltenberger View Post
 

 

It isn't a theocracy, but it is becoming a tyranny by the minority.

 

Fixed that for you.

 

(and I'm not talking about gay people)


Edited by island hermit - 2/27/14 at 10:56am
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #239 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac View Post
 

In Japan it is very common to see "Japanese Only Signs" With "No Gaijin Allowed" (Gaijin are foreigners) I also saw similar signs in Korea and China. This law reminded me of that.  Exclusionary practices based on physical characteristics or sexuality seems so 20th century now. But at the same time the fact that this law even made it to the governor's desk is scary. 

 

Really?  Did you read the bill?  If so, please point out to me where it references or mentions "homosexuality".

 

A lot of folks here are commenting on something they have never seen nor read.

 

Here's a link to the bill, it's only two pages and a quick read: http://www.azcentral.com/ic/pdf/SB-1062-bill.pdf

post #240 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by kfeltenberger View Post
 

 

So should a Jewish print shop owner be forced to print Neo-Nazi banners, signs, and other materials?  Or should a Muslim caterer be forced to cater a party where the client demands pulled pork sandwiches?  Look beyond the whole, "OMG!  They're hating on the gays!" sensationalism of this and look at the rights of the individual merchants to do business. 

 

Remember, you are "that group" to someone.


The Muslim caterer wouldn't have been selected by your fictional client. Generally when you're looking for caterers you'll have access to their menus and you wouldn't select one that doesn't have an item that you must have on their menu

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Arizona governor vetoes gay discrimination bill Apple rallied against