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 8

post #281 of 322

I live in Arizona. Brewer had a choice to make this veto about not tolerating discrimination, but instead she made it about business. If business had not banded together to oppose this legislation, Brewer would have gladly signed it into law. Nowhere in her news conference did she say anything about equal rights. Arizona would like nothing more than to ship all the gay people to California. This is a hateful and intolerant state.

post #282 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyb0731 View Post
 


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

 

Muslims and Jews here in Australia have no problem with owning restaurants which sell bacon and ham, Hindus own hamburger joints.

 

The dollar is mightier than fairytale books on what to eat.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #283 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZREOSpecialist View Post

I live in Arizona. Brewer had a choice to make this veto about not tolerating discrimination, but instead she made it about business. If business had not banded together to oppose this legislation, Brewer would have gladly signed it into law. Nowhere in her news conference did she say anything about equal rights. Arizona would like nothing more than to ship all the gay people to California. This is a hateful and intolerant state.

It's a good time to post this clip from last night's The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

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 #284 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post
 

 

What if that business owner made an arbitrary decision, called you gay because maybe he didn't like your clothes or your haircut and kicked you out of their store?

 

What would you do then?

 

Maybe he could hang a picture of a penis behind the counter and watch that your eyes don't linger too long as a test, before booting you out.

 

If it wasn't mentioned, and there were no outward signs, then there may be an issue.  But if two guys go in and hang all over each other and give every impression that they're gay, and then say something that gives the indication that they're gay, then I think it falls back to the "reasonable man" defense; given the evidence, would a reasonable man not otherwise prejudiced one way or the other, reasonably assume that the patrons were gay? 

 

Please remember that these people who filed the suits made it unequivocally clear that they were gay; two guys asking for a wedding cake for their wedding, etc. 

post #285 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

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

Yes-also unfair.

Edit-to clarify my point:

In England, if you're members of one family but not married, you have no housing rights. So if the house owner dies, there's a good chance the house has to be sold, whereas if one half of a married couple die, the house goes automatically to the other partner.

So there's now the somewhat bizarre situation, where it would be financially prudent for two brothers to marry each other in such a situation! That is illegal, but as a result of the recent legal changes, two homosexual men can now marry and gain those housing rights which will never be available to the brothers. Of course, this also applies to other combinations of family relations.

I don't find the government very humane when it comes to their management of personal relationships.
Edited by Benjamin Frost - 2/27/14 at 5:18pm
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #286 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by kfeltenberger View Post
 

 

If it wasn't mentioned, and there were no outward signs, then there may be an issue.  But if two guys go in and hang all over each other and give every impression that they're gay, and then say something that gives the indication that they're gay, then I think it falls back to the "reasonable man" defense; given the evidence, would a reasonable man not otherwise prejudiced one way or the other, reasonably assume that the patrons were gay? 

 

Please remember that these people who filed the suits made it unequivocally clear that they were gay; two guys asking for a wedding cake for their wedding, etc. 

 

NFL must be gay, all the guys hanging all over each other, patting each others butts...

 

...I guess that's why they threatened to move the 2015 Superbowl.

 

So what suits were filed in Arizona?

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #287 of 322
Well, at least this thread allowed me to put some people on my block list. Apple in General has little to do with this subject but it's important to me. People who don't understand the 'open' nature of Apple miss a big part of what the company is.
post #288 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

In this thread: Straight white men explain why discrimination is OK.

Some comments are extremely insulting against not only gay people, but also other minorities that have suffered and are still suffering and being discriminated just because of their difference.
People saying that white man are discriminated, the nonsense! I've never been discriminated because I'm white. I think I'll always have a hard time imagining what it feels to be discriminated just because you look one way. Some people look nice and all, they talk to me and I know that some of them would change their behavior if I were different.

Discrimination is a cancer that needs to be eradicated.

Edit: I talked about minorities but there is still one majority that is still extremely discriminated and must endure regular discriminating talk and that's women of course. Nowadays it's still ok to make sexist remarks. And even I sometimes say something stupid and sexist without realizing.
post #289 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post


Yes-also unfair.

Edit-to clarify my point:

In England, if you're members of one family but not married, you have no housing rights. So if the house owner dies, there's a good chance the house has to be sold, whereas if one half of a married couple die, the house goes automatically to the other partner.

So there's now the somewhat bizarre situation, where it would be financially prudent for two brothers to marry each other in such a situation! That is illegal, but as a result of the recent legal changes, two homosexual men can now marry and gain those housing rights which will never be available to the brothers. Of course, this also applies to other combinations of family relations.

I don't find the government very humane when it comes to their management of personal relationships.

 

Interesting point.  Why can't 2 brothers marry?  It's not like they are going to procreate and cause in-breeding birth defects...

post #290 of 322

I find one thing very sad about this whole affair: So many people arguing essentially about how people should go about walling themselves off from other people that they imagine they are either afraid of or feel they are too good to associate with.

 

I have found it is much more exciting and fulfilling to build bridges with other people, especially ones who are very dissimilar to me, as much as possible. It certainly enriches my life.

post #291 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality View Post

But what if our creator actually made us male and female for a reason?  And marriage, too.

creator? which one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deities

iPod nano 5th Gen 8GB Orange, iPad 3rd Gen WiFi 32GB White
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 2.66GHz 8GB RAM 120GB Intel 320M
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 8GB RAM, iPhone 5 32GB Black

Reply

iPod nano 5th Gen 8GB Orange, iPad 3rd Gen WiFi 32GB White
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 2.66GHz 8GB RAM 120GB Intel 320M
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 8GB RAM, iPhone 5 32GB Black

Reply
post #292 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.

Are you really equating things with people? Refusing to serve somebody and kicking them out of your store is a bit different than not offering a certain product, don't you think? By your "logic", every store would have to offer every product in the world, so that every person could find every item he could possibly want.

 

I'm offended by religious people - would you give me the right to refuse to serve them, and order them to leave my store?

 

Here's something to think about: how do you tell if someone is gay? I have friends who look and act like they could be gay, but they're definitely not (and of course others who are gay, but don't look like it). Maybe Arizona would require gays to wear purple stars, like the Nazis did.

 

Something else: would Jesus have refused service to gays? All those so-called Christians who are showing themselves to be hateful and intolerant may just get a big surprise when Judgment Day come.


Edited by elroth - 2/27/14 at 10:10pm
post #293 of 322

This bill was never a gay discrimination bill.  It is a bill to protect people from being FORCED to do something against their conscience.  This administration via the Justice Department declares that because someone opens a business they must pay for drugs that cause abortion and a photographer cannot deny photographing a wedding on religious grounds.

 

I used to hear how intolerant 'religious' people are because they are always cramming their beliefs down other people's throats.  Liberalism has now brought back a new form of the Salem witch trials against anyone who disagrees with them.  "If you don't agree with us we will proclaim you a backwards bigot, protest your business and do what ever we can to destroy your life", is what this 'tolerance' crowd now cries for.  

 

Lies, and liars telling lies.  THAT is the modern democratic agenda.  The tea party doesn't have much to do with this - their consistent core is almost purely limited government spending and restoring constitutional limits on the federal government.  Yeah...real extreme.  So extreme those beliefs allowed America to become the dream of people all around the planet.  A prosperous nation.  6000 years of human history proves a strong central government eventually enslaves its people, and our Founding Fathers specifically drafted the rules for federal governance to be slow and inefficient to protect the people's liberties.  

post #294 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by RememberHistory View Post

This bill was never a gay discrimination bill.  It is a bill to protect people from being FORCED to do something against their conscience.  This administration via the Justice Department declares that because someone opens a business they must pay for drugs that cause abortion and a photographer cannot deny photographing a wedding on religious grounds.

I used to hear how intolerant 'religious' people are because they are always cramming their beliefs down other people's throats.  Liberalism has now brought back a new form of the Salem witch trials against anyone who disagrees with them.  "If you don't agree with us we will proclaim you a backwards bigot, protest your business and do what ever we can to destroy your life", is what this 'tolerance' crowd now cries for.  

Lies, and liars telling lies.  THAT is the modern democratic agenda.  The tea party doesn't have much to do with this - their consistent core is almost purely limited government spending and restoring constitutional limits on the federal government.  Yeah...real extreme.  So extreme those beliefs allowed America to become the dream of people all around the planet.  A prosperous nation.  6000 years of human history proves a strong central government eventually enslaves its people, and our Founding Fathers specifically drafted the rules for federal governance to be slow and inefficient to protect the people's liberties.  

Does that mean I can shoot Mormon's who come to my door?
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #295 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post
 
 
Does that mean I can shoot Mormon's who come to my door?

Only if it was necessary to "stand your ground".  Why should you be forced to close your door?    

post #296 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by RememberHistory View Post
 

This bill was never a gay discrimination bill.  It is a bill to protect people from being FORCED to do something against their conscience.  This administration via the Justice Department declares that because someone opens a business they must pay for drugs that cause abortion and a photographer cannot deny photographing a wedding on religious grounds.

 

I used to hear how intolerant 'religious' people are because they are always cramming their beliefs down other people's throats.  Liberalism has now brought back a new form of the Salem witch trials against anyone who disagrees with them.  "If you don't agree with us we will proclaim you a backwards bigot, protest your business and do what ever we can to destroy your life", is what this 'tolerance' crowd now cries for.  

 

Lies, and liars telling lies.  THAT is the modern democratic agenda.  The tea party doesn't have much to do with this - their consistent core is almost purely limited government spending and restoring constitutional limits on the federal government.  Yeah...real extreme.  So extreme those beliefs allowed America to become the dream of people all around the planet.  A prosperous nation.  6000 years of human history proves a strong central government eventually enslaves its people, and our Founding Fathers specifically drafted the rules for federal governance to be slow and inefficient to protect the people's liberties.  

 

Your reference to the Salem Witch Trials is very apt, but not for the reason that you give.

Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #297 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by RememberHistory View Post
 

This bill was never a gay discrimination bill.  It is a bill to protect people from being FORCED to do something against their conscience.  This administration via the Justice Department declares that because someone opens a business they must pay for drugs that cause abortion and a photographer cannot deny photographing a wedding on religious grounds.

 

I used to hear how intolerant 'religious' people are because they are always cramming their beliefs down other people's throats.  Liberalism has now brought back a new form of the Salem witch trials against anyone who disagrees with them.  "If you don't agree with us we will proclaim you a backwards bigot, protest your business and do what ever we can to destroy your life", is what this 'tolerance' crowd now cries for.  

 

Lies, and liars telling lies.  THAT is the modern democratic agenda.  The tea party doesn't have much to do with this - their consistent core is almost purely limited government spending and restoring constitutional limits on the federal government.  Yeah...real extreme.  So extreme those beliefs allowed America to become the dream of people all around the planet.  A prosperous nation.  6000 years of human history proves a strong central government eventually enslaves its people, and our Founding Fathers specifically drafted the rules for federal governance to be slow and inefficient to protect the people's liberties.  

 

Seeing all the damage [insert god's approved term for sanctimonious discrimination] has done in the name of religion and otherwise, I'd call it full circle. You can only oppress and impose your will for so long until the many decades of pent up blowback explodes.

 

Your description of the tea party's principles is quaint in the abstract, but far from what's practiced in the real world as the world is far more complicated than populist generalities (not to mention the mile long list of quotes and proposed bills that are counter to or have nothing to do with those simplistic objectives). Equality is a spreading reality. Christians had their 8 years of Zealot in Chief, you can and will deal with this 8. And ultimately you'll be a better person knowing you're no better than anybody else despite the holier-than-thou bored into you from a young age.

 

Or if not, you can still buy Glenn Beck-approved Survival Seeds and End-Times Underground Bunkers to weather the storm for the next 50 years.


Edited by nowayout11 - 2/28/14 at 10:28am
post #298 of 322
Discriminate against people well where do you draw the line if the person of black brown a woman gay dyslexic Christian Protestant muslim where do you draw the line these people haven't broken any laws
post #299 of 322

I think, comely, you have pointed out the essence of this issue. It is about people wanting to crawl into their little holes and throw up barriers of fear and self-righteousness to shield them from people who are different from them.

 

Certainly, the state has a duty to allow people to exercise their fears and their moral indignation, but I am not sure that it has a further obligation specifically to sanction it or to facilitate their actions when the actions inhibit the rights of others.

 

Freedom of conscience (including freedom of belief) is very important. The real test of it is whether we are willing to let others have opinions that are abhorrent to us.

 

But another important principle, one that is "enshrined" in the US Constitution is that all persons are created equal. There are no shades of equality.

post #300 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post
 

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

 

The Christian pilgrims who fled England and emigrated to North America to live out their faith may agree with you as well.

post #301 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordJohnWhorfin View Post
 

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.

 

I too am glad that she vetoed it, as I think it was a horrible and unnecessary piece of legislation. This is not to diminish what you wrote but I feel I must point out that unfortunately, gays are NOT a protected class at the federal level, and are only protected from some types of discrimination in certain states. Otherwise, it is already totally legal to discriminate based on sexual orientation. You can be fired from your job, denied housing, etc.

 

From Slate.com: "Twenty-one states prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment; 21 prohibit discrimination in public accommodations; 21 prohibit it in housing; 26 in hospital visitation; and only 13 in education. (All stats courtesy of the Human Rights Campaign.) Most people don’t realize that American law permits discrimination. A 2011 poll found that 87 percent of people believe that federal law already prohibits discrimination against gays and lesbians in employment. Only 5 percent know that it is legal."

post #302 of 322

Interesting how this thread is about commerce and sexual orientation.

 

Jesus is reported to have had something to say about the former (Luke 20:24,25), and nothing about the latter. But he was known for associating with and being on the side of people who were considered outcasts and who were treated with disdain by those with power and advantage.

post #303 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by upHill View Post
 

I think, comely, you have pointed out the essence of this issue. It is about people wanting to crawl into their little holes and throw up barriers of fear and self-righteousness to shield them from people who are different from them.

 

 

Not people who ARE different to them but people they THINK ARE different to them.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #304 of 322
I had a near fatal accident few years ago several people help me I couldn't care less if they were black gay lesbian Christian catholic protestant muslim i'm just thankful they stopped and help me if they didn't I could've died .The person you turnaway today maybe the person who save you tomorrow
post #305 of 322

"people they THINK ARE different"

 

Good point, hill60, provided we don't pretend that there isn't any diversity. I think that everyone is on an equal standing with me and deserves just as much respect and access to every opportunity asI do. On the other hand, I really do treasure the variety in humanity. My own small experience is too confined to be really sufficient.

 

For example, one of my best friends is from Sri Lanka. His "brownness" is an essential part of who he is as an individual (not in any sense as a "racial" distinction), and I sincerely value that. I don't pretend he is the same colour as me; instead I celebrate the fact that he isn't like me in that respect and in many others.

post #306 of 322

I have had several significant health issues in the past few years, comely, including cancer. My doctor is from Egypt, the doctor who diagnosed the cancer is from India via the Caribbean, the surgeon who removed the tumor is East Asian, as is my oncologist. The doctor who performed the ablation procedure to cure my atrial fibrillation is South Asian . . . . I could go on. Half of the aforementioned are women. My best friend has Irish biological parents, but was adopted by a Jewish family.

 

I would have a pretty small life if any by now if I considered any of these people somehow not good enough for me!

post #307 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality View Post
 

To love someone doesn't mean you have to agree with them.  A mom and pop cake shop in AZ shouldn't have to make wedding cakes for 2 women who want to get 'married.'  But they can still love the women as people.

 

Maybe they shouldn't serve Christians.

post #308 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality View Post
 


That's absolutely true.  If you are a Jew in Palestine in B.C. years. 

When was the part in the Bible that you cling to written? You seem to pick & choose.

post #309 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graanco View Post

You are all missing the problem here..... The law / Government is telling us what to do and what not to do

THEY ARE TAKING AWAY OUR INDIVIDUAL CHOICE AWAY!!!

Our greatest gift to us!!!! I love the way the devil works....

I think if a owner want me to not be allowed in their business it is their right!!!!

Let me vote with my dollars by buying products at another establishment

It's my choice not yours!!

What the hell are you talking about? You can't do anything you want. That's why laws are written.  What if a doctor decides to not treat a patient because he/she doesn't want to treat Christians? It's his/her personal choice? You people make absolutely no sense. Try thinking beyond the obvious. This bill was cloaked in religious freedom. In fact the governor probably vetoed the bill because of the pressure FROM BUSINESSES (I guess they don't like freedom.) Specific Religious beliefs have no place in public policy. Maybe we should have laws that reflect beliefs in Scientology, Sharia law, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Harre Krishna, Rastafari, Judaism, Bahá'í Faith, Sikhism, etc. etc. etc. Religious freedom means you have the right to practice the religion of your choice, none at all or all of the above. It does not mean you have the right to impose those beliefs on citizens through law.


Edited by Splif - 2/28/14 at 9:12pm
post #310 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by malax View Post
 

So do you think a wedding photographer should be compelled to take pictures at a gay wedding if they believe it's a sin (or for any reason)?  This (vetoed) law said 'no.'  That seems like the right answer to me even though I'll vote in favor of gay marriage in my state (if I ever get the chance; the judges seem intent on deciding this on their own).

What about doctors?

post #311 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by upHill View Post

Interesting how this thread is about commerce and sexual orientation.

Jesus is reported to have had something to say about the former (Luke 20:24,25), and nothing about the latter. But he was known for associating with and being on the side of people who were considered outcasts and who were treated with disdain by those with power and advantage.

I guess he would have associated with Christians today, then.
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #312 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splif View Post

When was the part in the Bible that you cling to written? You seem to pick & choose.

The Old Testament was written particularly to the Jews.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #313 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

I guess he would have associated with Christians today, then.

Isn't that like a celebrity being a part of their own fan club?

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 #314 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Isn't that like a celebrity being a part of their own fan club?

If your definition of a celebrity is 'associating with and being on the side of people who were considered outcasts and who were treated with disdain by those with power and advantage,' then maybe.
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #315 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

If your definition of a celebrity is 'associating with and being on the side of people who were considered outcasts and who were treated with disdain by those with power and advantage,' then maybe.

Your post seems more serious than mine. I was attempting to illicit a funny image of Christ hanging out with Christians today. Maybe Christ going to church to hear a sermon about what he said 2,000 years ago.

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 #316 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Your post seems more serious than mine. I was attempting to illicit a funny image of Christ hanging out with Christians today. Maybe Christ going to church to hear a sermon about what he said 2,000 years ago.

Fair do's.
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #317 of 322

"I guess he would have associated with Christians today, then."

 

​As long as they were not disdainful and did not exert their power or advantage to diminish or denigrate anyone else in any way.

post #318 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


The Old Testament was written particularly to the Jews.

Not sure how this relates to my comment. I was making a point on frugality's posts & his/her selective interpretation of the Bible.

post #319 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


The Old Testament was written particularly to the Jews.

 

Muslims and Christians.

 

Torah, Koran and Old Testament are pretty much the same series of books with variations on interpretation.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #320 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality View Post
 

We need laws that allow business owners to have values.  Even if some don't like them.

 

Business owners (like anyone) have always had a right to hold their own personal values.

 

Declining serve to a customer because their personal values do not align with your own is not the practise of "having values."

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