Arizona governor vetoes gay discrimination bill Apple rallied against

11112141617

Comments

  • Reply 261 of 323
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post



    We need laws that simply state that no state law or regulation could be construed as requiring any one party to enter into a contract with any other party.

    No we do not. We already have laws that cover this, you just do not like those laws. If sell to the public you cannot discriminate, period. Open a private club if you want to discriminate.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 262 of 323
    richlrichl Posts: 2,213member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TBell View Post

     

    White guys are discriminated against all the time. All the world's problems are blamed on white guys. Affirmative action discriminates. More women are going to college then men, yet there are all kinds of assistance programs for women but not white men at colleges. 


     

    You're right. With all this discrimination against men, it's a surprise that there's so many rich white dudes out there. Maybe one day, we might even get a white male president.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 263 of 323
    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.

    No, if they don't like it let them get out "selling cakes to public" business. 

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 264 of 323
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by kfeltenberger View Post

     

    So why then, when these gays found out the beliefs of the merchant would they persist in demanding that they do what they want like a spoiled petulant child with an overblown sense of entitlement?

     

     


     

    That's just the way those people are.  I mean, I have nothing against them,  But when they keep throwing it all up in your face all the time, then I don't see why we should have to be forced to be anywhere near them.  Let them stay where they are welcomed - although I can't imagine what sort of a godforsaken Hell-hole that would be.  Maybe their own kind will take them in - but none of them are welcome in THIS part of town.  

     

    We make sure that they stay away.  Yep.

     

    -A sentiment that the OP might agree with, but one that horrifies me.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 265 of 323
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SudoNym View Post

     

     

    That's just the way those people are.  I mean, I have nothing against them,  But when they keep throwing it all up in your face all the time, then I don't see why we should have to be forced to be anywhere near them.  Let them stay where they are welcomed - although I can't imagine what sort of a godforsaken Hell-hole that would be.  Maybe their own kind will take them in - but none of them are welcome in THIS part of town.  

     

    We make sure that they stay away.  Yep.

     

    -A sentiment that the OP might agree with, but one that horrifies me.


     

    How clever!

     

    :-|

     

    Where do you extrapolate advocating a business owner's right to choose who he or she does business with (and these are often small, mom and pop business with a handful of employees) and that raging bigoted diatribe that you burdened us with?  Projecting much?

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 266 of 323
    ipenipen Posts: 410member
    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.

    Exactly!  Why the smokers have to go outside in the cold to smoke.  That's  discrimination.  You say because tobacco is bad for health.  Prove it.  There is no direct prove so far.  If there is, cigarette would have already been banned by the FDA.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 267 of 323

    As I said... it's hopeless.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 268 of 323
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ipen View Post

     

    Exactly!  Why the smokers have to go outside in the cold to smoke.  That's  discrimination.  You say because tobacco is bad for health.  Prove it.  There is no direct prove so far.  If there is, cigarette would have already been banned by the FDA.


    If you're that guy..you know that last guy on earth who can't read or even bother to look up scientific data then please exit stage left. Nothing to see here.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 269 of 323
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by kfeltenberger View Post

     
     

    How clever!

     

    :-|

     

    Where do you extrapolate advocating a business owner's right to choose who he or she does business with (and these are often small, mom and pop business with a handful of employees) and that raging bigoted diatribe that you burdened us with?  Projecting much?


     

    I was attempting to repurpose arguments made long ago during the Civil Rights Movement, and to use them in the current context.  I was attempting to shed light on current attitudes by lampooning attitudes of a bygone era.

     

    I thought that much was clear. 

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 270 of 323
    It's very scary to see so many people thinking that it would be okay for the USA to become a theocracy.

    You gotta remember about half the country are Republicans, and about half that number are "frothing-at-the-mouth, God-was-a-white-man, tea-bag-waving, it's-my-way-or-the-highway, make-the-mother-have-the-rapist's-kid-but-deny-the-kid-food-stamps, homophobic old angry white men.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 271 of 323
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    ipen wrote: »
    Exactly!  Why the smokers have to go outside in the cold to smoke.  That's  discrimination.  You say because tobacco is bad for health.  Prove it.  There is no direct prove so far.  If there is, cigarette would have already been banned by the FDA.

    Where do you people come from?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 272 of 323
    ipen wrote: »
    Exactly!  Why the smokers have to go outside in the cold to smoke.  That's  discrimination.  You say because tobacco is bad for health.  Prove it.  There is no direct prove so far.  If there is, cigarette would have already been banned by the FDA.

    You believe that smoking may not be bad for your health... how quaint. By the way, how's that flat earth thing working out for you??
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 273 of 323
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    Where do you people come from?

     

    I'm a bit surprised to know that person can write.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 274 of 323
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by VanessaD View Post

     

    If you're that guy..you know that last guy on earth who can't read or even bother to look up scientific data then please exit stage left. Nothing to see here.




    I'm pretty sure that one was extremely sarcastic in nature

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 275 of 323

    My children who don't live in the USA have done projects on Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King.  Both are held up as courageous examples of what people in the USA can achieve, and also how far the USA has come.

     

    Some 60 years later it seems a number of you wouldn't allow Rosa Parks to sit on that bus if she were a lesbian.  Indeed some would even say  she is "like a spoiled petulant child with an overblown sense of entitlement" for demanding the seat.

     

    It's staggering that a country like the USA can be so closed minded versus its peers, and the comparisons to Uganda, Saudi Arabia and Iran should be a bit of a wake up call.  Most would expect you to be more like Denmark, Canada or Norway. 

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 276 of 323
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    vanessad wrote: »
    If you're that guy..you know that last guy on earth who can't read or even bother to look up scientific data then please exit stage left. Nothing to see here.

    You may have to explain what direction is left.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 277 of 323
    malaxmalax Posts: 1,598member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JamesMac View Post

     

    My children who don't live in the USA have done projects on Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King.  Both are held up as courageous examples of what people in the USA can achieve, and also how far the USA has come.

     

    Some 60 years later it seems a number of you wouldn't allow Rosa Parks to sit on that bus if she were a lesbian.  Indeed some would even say  she is "like a spoiled petulant child with an overblown sense of entitlement" for demanding the seat.

     

    It's staggering that a country like the USA can be so closed minded versus its peers, and the comparisons to Uganda, Saudi Arabia and Iran should be a bit of a wake up call.  Most would expect you to be more like Denmark, Canada or Norway.


     

    I sincerely doubt there is anyone here (participating in this conversation) who would take the position you are asserting in your second paragraph.  Remember, in the 60s and before there was government sactioned, government enforced discrimination against blacks and other minorities.  There were "whites only" drinking fountains in public (i.e., government) buildings.  That's disgraceful and RP and MLK are rightfully lauded for their brave efforts to address those injustices.

     

    Where it get murky, and this is where many people cannot understand or refuse to accept a critical distinction, is when the discrimination is done by private actors and not the government.  This was happening (and still happens), but is a whole different kettle of fish.  Do I think you should refuse to serve someone because you don't like their "lifestyle" or religion or color or gender or whatever?  In most cases, of course not.  Do I think you should have legal recourse against that person who make this ill-advised/offensive decision?  In most cases, no.  If you have a monopoly or are performing some critical service, then maybe, but not for normal day to day stuff.  If some idiot wants to start a gays-only car sharing service or a whites-only laudromat, then so be it.  I am free to boycott or consume those services as I see fit.  Maybe I even pass myself off as gay so I can use the former.  We don't need the government stepping in in any case.  And we certainly don't need a judge deciding whether the person was justified in discriminating because of a "valid" religious conviction or an "invalid" other reason.

     

    So, you see, this isn't a question of "hate filled Christian gay bashers" on one sides and freedom loving liberals on the other.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 278 of 323
    malaxmalax Posts: 1,598member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post





    You gotta remember about half the country are Republicans, and about half that number are "frothing-at-the-mouth, God-was-a-white-man, tea-bag-waving, it's-my-way-or-the-highway, make-the-mother-have-the-rapist's-kid-but-deny-the-kid-food-stamps, homophobic old angry white men.

    Huh.  No wonder we have a Social Security/Medicare funding crisis since 25% of us are "old men."  Actually it's more than that since there have to be some old men who aren't frothing or waving.

     

    But do have fun demonizing anyone who disagrees with you if that's what you need to do to justify your own self worth.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 279 of 323
    solipsismx wrote: »
    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.

    I don't think that it is that cut and dried. If you don't agree with a certain life style then that is your opinion. If you get to the point where you would try to harm someone because you don't agree with that lifestyle, then you have crossed the line. Everyone discriminates at least in thought, every day of their lives. It is human nature. Even gay people do. Whether you don't like religious people, smokers, meat eaters, people who drive big SUVs or people who use Android phones for that matter, if you say or think something unkind toward them then you are being prejudiced against a segment of the population. That being said, it was a stupid bill that should never have been written in the first place.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 280 of 323
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kfeltenberger View Post

     

     

    No, I shouldn't have to sell a good or service two whoever has money.  I should not be compelled to support something that is against my beliefs.  Let the market speak; if everyone turns against a business for not baking cakes, making t-shirts, or whatever for gays, then the business will fail.  But if people either don't care or support the business owner's right of choice, then the market will have also spoken.

     

    BTW, if the atheist doesn't have any religious beliefs, then how can they use the argument, "We don't offer that because it's against our religious beliefs"?  They can't.  Yet it is a very valid argument for the Muslim.

     

    What I don't understand is why these gays wanted businesses who don't want to work for them to provide goods and services for their event.  IMO, the real motivation for the suits wasn't one of equality, it was one of using the courts for revenge.


     

    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.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.