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 3

post #81 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Welcome to the 21st century, AZ and TX!

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.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #82 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac View Post
 

At least two scientific studies have demonstrated that men who have extremely intolerant views of homosexuality (hint: a few are here) tend to have larger erections (as measured by penile plethysmography) than other heterosexual men when viewing films of gay sex acts who are not overtly homophobic. This explains a lot. It makes sense that men who are not exactly sure or comfortable with being a heterosexual would lash out at gay people due to their own insecurity. When shown gay porn, 80% of homophobes had an erection compared to 34% of non-homophobic males professing to be heterosexual. 

Is Homophobia Associated With Homosexual Arousal?
Henry E. Adams, Lester W. Wright, Jr., and Bethany A. Lohr University of Georgia.
http://my.psychologytoday.com/files/u47/Henry_et_al.pdf

Apparently homophobia also takes around 2 to 5 years off your life in another study.
http://newsok.com/study-homophobia-takes-years-off-of-your-life/article/3935208

 

The slippery slope arguments that mention bestiality, incest, polygamy etc.. are the same tired old arguments used in Loving V. Virginia against miscegenation. Amazing how bigots just adapt with the times and their victims may change but their hate remains in tact. No one is pushing an agenda or asking for special rights. This is about equality and dignity that has been denied to certain Americans and until gay marriage is legal in all 50 states it will remain an important topic. Two consenting adults that wish to marry should have that right in 2014. 

 

Ha ha ha!  I guess it helps to have carefully conducted scientific experiments to confirm what we all know:  That the people who are most virulently opposed to homosexuality are homosexuals themselves, albeit the self-denying variety.  (I hate gays!  They make me feel 'funny'.)  We see that all the time with these anti-gay evangelical preachers and guardians of morality and senators.  As the old saying in the old country says, the chicken that clucks the loudest is the one that laid the egg.

post #83 of 322
Good. 

Edited by Bergermeister - 2/26/14 at 7:08pm

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #84 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!!

Welcome to the  forum.

 

Just an FYI: Double, triple, quadruple exclamation points, all caps and poor grammar when making emphatic assertions are strongly discouraged here.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #85 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality View Post
 


Just be careful about the creme-filled pastries.... ;)

I was beginning to wonder how long frugality would go with his supposed Christian teachings before jumping to a crude anti-gay joke. 

post #86 of 322

This bill has a far reaching concern for me.  So this bill would have someone from a business refuse you service because of religious belief.  Hypothetical this Business could refuse you service if you are dark skin or tall or mix marriage or for whatever reason they can refuse service because of their religious belief.   Sorry but this goes backwards to Jim Crow days of the South.   Why do they need this bill. The business can just put up a sign and said we can refuse you service due to our religious belief.

post #87 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.

 

That tea party has sailed. 

post #88 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.
This.... Specific people. That is... Targeting specific groups or classes of people. But I seem to recall... In my youth... establishments having signs that said 'We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone'. That's no longer true? Just a version of don't ask don't tell?
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
post #89 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality View Post
 

There are no gay people.  Only heterosexual people with identity issues.

To claim that homosexuality is an identity issue is truly the definition of ignorance. Can you please define transgender for me?

post #90 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality View Post

Everyone should have the right to discriminate between right and wrong.

We're all wrong doers, so we should all be discrimated against. It's ok to discriminate what we think is wronger. /s
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #91 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I suppose one could be born with the tendency to be a thief.

Show me one baby that doesn't take what they want, when they want. lol.gif
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #92 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!![/]


In other words anarchy. Cool! /s
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
post #93 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by boeyc15 View Post



This.... Specific people. That is... Targeting specific groups or classes of people. But I seem to recall... In my youth... establishments having signs that said 'We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone'. That's no longer true? Just a version of don't ask don't tell? 

Ever since 1964, signs like that haven't actually been true. You can't, by law, refuse right to service to someone because of race, color, religion or national origin. The 14th Amendment (Equal Protection Clause) says that the right must be applied equally. One citizen should not have more rights than another. That's why courts are striking down gay marriage bans, that's why this law would have been overturned, and that's why this will all be history at some point. America doesn't do everything right, but in the 1960s, society did set into motion the promise that the Declaration of Independence started with when Jefferson wrote that "All men are created equal." 

 

If gay people are icky to you or against your religious laws, don't marry a gay person. It won't hurt your relationship one bit. This is America, and we're proud of the fact that we aren't a theocracy. For those of you who seem to want it to be one,  I assume will you be OK if suddenly a religious group you really don't like gains majority of Congress or the courts? 

post #94 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac View Post
 

Two consenting adults that wish to marry should have that right in 2014. 

 

And a photographer who doesn't want to take pictures at a gay wedding should have that right in 2014.  I wonder if the NRA could sue a Web design firm that refuses to take their business for political reasons.

post #95 of 322
Wow, apple insider has gone from reporting news to slanting it.
post #96 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by malax View Post
 

 

And a photographer who doesn't want to take pictures at a gay wedding should have that right in 2014.  I wonder if the NRA could sue a Web design firm that refuses to take their business for political reasons.

1960, Jackson Mississippi, Woolworths counter, isn't that you on the left with the drink in your hand?

 

d5ea3b66c1e21111330f6a7067007def.jpg?ve=1&tl=1

post #97 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hopeless View Post
 

Ever since 1964, signs like that haven't actually been true. You can't, by law, refuse right to service to someone because of race, color, religion or national origin. The 14th Amendment (Equal Protection Clause) says that the right must be applied equally. One citizen should not have more rights than another. That's why courts are striking down gay marriage bans, that's why this law would have been overturned, and that's why this will all be history at some point.

Is that considered a logical argument?  "Due to a change in the law in 1964 you can't do A, B, of C, therefore courts are saying that you can't do D."  I wonder what other restrictions the Court will discover/invent.

post #98 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by malax View Post
 
And a photographer who doesn't want to take pictures at a gay wedding should have that right in 2014.  I wonder if the NRA could sue a Web design firm that refuses to take their business for political reasons.

 

That is a good question but I think it has already been addressed. When you sign up for an ad feed from say, Google, you can tailor the type of ads that you want to display and block any organizations, for example competitors, form being in the queue.  I think the same thing probably applies to philosophical competition as well. For example I have two non-profit organizations that do not want to have their ads to appear on the same page and that is a bit of challenge programatically. They both do the same kind of work but really don't like sharing the limelight.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #99 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesMac View Post
 

1960, Jackson Mississippi, Woolworths counter, isn't that you on the left with the drink in your hand?

 

d5ea3b66c1e21111330f6a7067007def.jpg?ve=1&tl=1

I'm pretty sure that meets the definition of assault.  I don't think anyone here is suggesting that violence against gays or anyone else is acceptable.  And if Woolworth (do they still exist) tried that today, there would (rightfully) be a massive uprising and they would decide that policy immediately.

post #100 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleZilla View Post

That tea party has sailed. 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Welcome to the 21st century, AZ and TX!

That's actually "classical liberalism" aka Libertarianism.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #101 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdkennedy1 View Post

Gay people have a ton of disposable income. Arizona would have missed out on a lot of it.

I've heard the same about Jews until I met one. lol.gif
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #102 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post
 

 

That is a good question but I think it has already been addressed. When you sign up for an ad feed from say, Google, you can tailor the type of ads that you want to display and block any organizations, for example competitors, form being in the queue.  I think the same thing probably applies to philosophical competition as well. For example I have two non-profit organizations that do not want to have their ads appear on the same page and that is a bit of challenge programatically. They both do the same kind of work but really don't like sharing the limelight.

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).

post #103 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.

 

I don't think the comment is that messed up. What would have been messed up would have been for Apple to sit by and do nothing if the bill had been approved. Regardless of the rumors about Tim Cook, Apple has been a GLBT friendly company for years. If that bill had passed and legalized such hate and discrimination and Apple didn't remove their business from the state, that would have been messed up. It would have basically been saying 'yeah hate is bad but not when it's source gives us tax cuts so we can make more money'
post #104 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by malax View Post
 

Is that considered a logical argument?  "Due to a change in the law in 1964 you can't do A, B, of C, therefore courts are saying that you can't do D."  I wonder what other restrictions the Court will discover/invent.

Yes, that's how the court system in the U.S. works. Congress passes a law (in this case, the Civil Rights Act of 1964) and then the courts figure out how they apply through various cases that come in front of them. The justices didn't wake up one morning and say, "We're going to unleash the gays on malax's house." Instead, cases are coming before them, and they are looking at whether the 14th Amendment and various acts passed by Congress apply.

 

Constitutional amendments don't cover all possibilities - they are actually quite vague and meant for interpretation by the courts. The courts just happen to be leaning toward giving people rights instead of taking them away. Not sure why people are against that, personally.

 

 

post #105 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by malax View Post
 

I'm pretty sure that meets the definition of assault.  I don't think anyone here is suggesting that violence against gays or anyone else is acceptable.  And if Woolworth (do they still exist) tried that today, there would (rightfully) be a massive uprising and they would decide that policy immediately.

All Woolworths did was refuse to serve these customers because they didn't like who they were and it was against their beliefs to serve blacks.  

post #106 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post

But are there any gay people in AZ?

This is obviously good news but it seems wrong to celebrate the prevention of a reactionary dimwit bigot bill as 'progress'.

They moved to NYC to design clothes or to San Francisco to do, ummm.... .nothing.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #107 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by edo123 View Post
 

This bill has a far reaching concern for me.  So this bill would have someone from a business refuse you service because of religious belief.  

 

What's interesting about this bill are the bigger implications behind it. Yes folks grabbed onto the gay rights thing. But 'religious reasons' can go a lot further. How much further. Well lets see. 

 

My hypothetical religion thinks that women shouldn't be allowed out of the house so my store bans all females from coming in. Unless they are properly supervised by a male who is the actual one doing the business. The women are to say nothing, touch nothing. 

 

Blacks, Indians, Hispanics are all devils children and should be refused, per my religion. 

 

My religion also says that anyone with a physical or mental disability is shameful in the eyes of God and should be destroyed. So keep that retard out of my store. 

 

and so on. All based on my 'religious beliefs'. Should I have the right to any of that? I would hope most folks would say no

post #108 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hopeless View Post
 

Yes, that's how the court system in the U.S. works. Congress passes a law (in this case, the Civil Rights Act of 1964) and then the courts figure out how they apply through various cases that come in front of them. The justices didn't wake up one morning and say, "We're going to unleash the gays on malax's house." Instead, cases are coming before them, and they are looking at whether the 14th Amendment and various acts passed by Congress apply.

 

Constitutional amendments don't cover all possibilities - they are actually quite vague and meant for interpretation by the courts. The courts just happen to be leaning toward giving people rights instead of taking them away. Not sure why people are against that, personally.

 

 

 

That's right, there is lot of ambiguity in "race, color, religion or national origin."  If you squint really hard, can you see where it says "gender or sexual orientation?"

 

This AZ law was about clarifying that people have rights to freely associate/do business with (or not) people based on their personal beliefs.  Saying that people don't have that choice is taking away rights not giving them.

 

And courts should, in general, refrain from just making stuff up because times have changed.  I expect that at some point capital punishment will be deemed "cruel and unusual" and prohibited.  If laws need to be rewritten, let's rewrite them through legislation and amendments, not judicial fiat.

post #109 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hopeless View Post
 

Ever since 1964, signs like that haven't actually been true. You can't, by law, refuse right to service to someone because of race, color, religion or national origin. 

 

He didn't say anything about signs saying 'no blackies allowed' etc. He said simply "right to refuse service"

post #110 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post
 

 

What's interesting about this bill are the bigger implications behind it. Yes folks grabbed onto the gay rights thing. But 'religious reasons' can go a lot further. How much further. Well lets see. 

 

My hypothetical religion thinks that women shouldn't be allowed out of the house so my store bans all females from coming in. Unless they are properly supervised by a male who is the actual one doing the business. The women are to say nothing, touch nothing. 

 

Blacks, Indians, Hispanics are all devils children and should be refused, per my religion. 

 

My religion also says that anyone with a physical or mental disability is shameful in the eyes of God and should be destroyed. So keep that retard out of my store. 

 

and so on. All based on my 'religious beliefs'. Should I have the right to any of that? I would hope most folks would say no

 

You absolutely should have the right.  And others would have the right to protest and boycott your store.  Freedom is messy.  Oh well.

post #111 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post
 

Curious as to why would GLB want to go to an establishment that doesn't want them there?

 

Curious as to why would a negro want to go to an establishment that doesn't want them there?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

But if i own a business and would prefer not to sell a cake to a gay couple that should be my right. If they don't like it they can get a cake from someone else who will happily make one for them.

 

But if I own a business and would prefer not to sell a cake to a colored (or God forbid a colored and a white) couple that should by my right.  If they don't like it they can get a cake from someone else who will happily make one for them.

 

Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.

Edmund Burke

As someone who was alive (and "colored") when fucktards said the same thing back in the 60s there's a reason that laws like this are fought and only idiots who can't do the very simple word replacement don't "get it".  Or they do "get it" and are just playing dumb.  In which case, **** you.

Why not just repeal the Fair Housing Act too?  It's my fucking property, I shouldn't have to sell to negros, japs or gays if I don't want to.  

Goddamn if these aren't the dumbest posts I've seen ever written on AI. 

post #112 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).

Of course not.  The wedding photographer is either up front about the conflict and the gay couple moves on, or if they insist, he tells the couple: Look, this is a really special event and I don't want to risk screwing it up due to my emotional conflict. You really should find another photographer for your special moment. Lets not put our opposing views into the mix. You really need a different photographer, sorry.  Simple as that. The only time a problem would arise is if someone, or their lawyer, wants to make a political sensation out of it.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #113 of 322

The CEO of Apple being gay seems to be a rather tenuous link for this story to appear on an Apple rumours site. I've always automatically associated Apple with beautifully made well designed products but now it seems that Tim Cook has unfurled a rainbow flag atop Apple House.

post #114 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Show me one baby that doesn't take what they want, when they want. lol.gif

I can't say I've outgrown liking boobs even if the reasons have changed.

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #115 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.

On a recent Real Time with Bill Maher one of the guests, who was from the UK, noted that in the US church and state is separate but it's political suicide to not talk about god all the time, but in the UK, where they are still considered one, it's political suicide to attribute everything to god. I'm paraphrasing but I found it interesting.

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #116 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post
 
Why not just repeal the Fair Housing Act too?  It's my fucking property, I shouldn't have to sell to negros, japs or gays if I don't want to.  

While I agree with you on the discrimination issues, the Fair Housing Act is about rent and lending. A seller can refuse an offer with no reason given.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #117 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality View Post

There are no gay people.  Only heterosexual people with identity issues.

So there aren't retards (apologies if I offend anyone, I'm using the word for effect) only intelligent people with identity issues. We're not born perfect, people are born blind, missing a arm or leg, etc, etc... there are geniuses and idiot savants. Is it really that hard for you to even consider that a gay person is just wired differently from a straight person?
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #118 of 322
I find it funny that the examples used for anti-gay businesses are wedding cake bakers and wedding photographers.

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #119 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I can't say I've outgrown liking boobs even if the reasons have changed.

Maybe you only think the reason changed, we still want to do the same thing to them as we did when we were babies. lol.gif
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #120 of 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vertti Koskinen View Post

Shit? You have way too many lawyers in the USA. Rest of the world... we have only THE common sense and need for that.

Welcome to Europe and Finland or Spain or well Europe!!

Russia?
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
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