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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
Comments
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.
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.
It's a good time to post this clip from last night's The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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...
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.
creator? which one?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deities
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.