Arizona governor vetoes gay discrimination bill Apple rallied against

2456717

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 323
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 4,934member
    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.


     

    Must be I'm missing out on something then....

  • Reply 22 of 323

    Not sure this is really an Apple story.  But from a business perspective supporting a veto made a lot of sense.  

    Apple is rightly viewed as a progressive company and wouldn't want to be perceived as bigoted.  

  • Reply 23 of 323
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

     
    Just because someone doesn't prefer gay marriage doesn't make them hateful. 


    If you do not like gays then I would suggest not marrying one. What other people do is none of your business unless they are harming your safety, financial well being or your civil rights.

  • Reply 24 of 323
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

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

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

  • Reply 25 of 323
    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.

    Apples and oranges.

     

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

  • Reply 26 of 323
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,608member
    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'.
  • Reply 27 of 323
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paxman View Post



    But are there any gay people in AZ?

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

  • Reply 28 of 323

    "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."

     

    And boink'in a sex doll is also legal, so by your logic, CVS should be selling those at the check out also.

  • Reply 29 of 323
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mstone View Post

     

    If you do not like gays then I would suggest not marrying one. What other people do is none of your business unless they are harming your safety, financial well being or your civil rights.


     

     

    Same applies for people who marry 4 wives

    or who have sex with animals

    or who smoke drugs

    yet all 4 are illegal

    how come no one is fighting for those issues?

  • Reply 30 of 323
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    frugality wrote: »
    But what if our creator actually made us male and female for a reason?  And marriage, too.

    Creator or not, the species is male and female for a reason. That reason is clearly for procreation of the species, but let's consider that not all acts of coitus are done for procreation. If you want to go strictly by this biological reason then should it also be illegal to engage in any coital act that isn't specifically for the procreation of the species. Catholicism seems to think so and they have a good track record of out populating other forms of Christianity.

    However, if one person in a "marriage" can no longer produce children should they be forced to get a divorce and never engage in such acts again… with anyone? What if one knows they are incapable of producing offspring before they get married; should they not be allowed to get married since their "reason" is now on par with the gays?

    But that's just talking about the sexes, of which our species has only two… and variations of those two. Gender, however, is a completely different topic.
  • Reply 31 of 323
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kmarei View Post

     

    Same applies for people who marry 4 wives

    or who have sex with animals

    or who smoke drugs

    yet all 4 are illegal

    how come no one is fighting for those issues?


    Being gay is not against the law. Those four things are none of Rogifan's business unless they are doing it his house without his permission. If you are concerned about those issues, call 911.

  • Reply 32 of 323
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    frugality wrote: »
    There are no gay people.  Only heterosexual people with identity issues.

    Are you being serious right now? :???:
  • Reply 33 of 323
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    Creator or not, the species is male and female for a reason. That reason is clearly for procreation of the species, but let's consider that not all acts of coitus are done for procreation. If you want to go strictly by this biological reason then should it also be illegal to engage in any coital act that isn't specifically for the procreation of the species. Catholicism seems to think so and they have a good track record of out populating other forms of Christianity. However, if one person in a "marriage" can no longer produce children should be forced to get a divorce and engage in such acts again? What if this is found before they get married; should they not be allowed to get married since there "reason" is now on par with the gays?



    But that's just talking about the sexes, of which our species has only two… and variations of those two. Gender, however, is a completely different topic.



    I wasn't talking about biology or Catholocism.  I said, "What if our creator made us male and female for a reason?"

     

    Sex and gender are exactly the same.

  • Reply 34 of 323
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    Are you being serious right now? image



    Absolutely.

  • Reply 35 of 323
    gustavgustav Posts: 824member
    kmarei wrote: »

    Same applies for people who marry 4 wives
    or who have sex with animals
    or who smoke drugs
    yet all 4 are illegal
    how come no one is fighting for those issues?

    Irrelevant. And actually, with the possible exception of animals, people are fighting for those issues. But for f**k's sake, an animal is not a consenting adult! A gay person is. Your examples have nothing to do with this discussion.
    frugality wrote: »
    But what if our creator actually made us male and female for a reason?  And marriage, too.

    And what if Jesus said to love everyone? Doesn't matter though, as the USA and AZ are not theocracies.
  • Reply 36 of 323
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gustav View Post



    And what if Jesus said to love everyone? Doesn't matter though, as the USA and AZ are not theocracies.

    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.

  • Reply 37 of 323

    Hey Rogifan, you may or not be gay, but when laws like this directly effect you and/or your family, you might care more. I'm gay, so when people vote on MY EQUAL RIGHTS, I pay attention. Just because something doesn't personally effect you, doesn't mean it's not important. 

  • Reply 38 of 323
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by frugality View Post

     



    Absolutely.


    Do you remember those kids from elementary school that acted a bit 'gay'...? They are most likely gay now. They didn't have to go through a traumatic experience, they didn't eat a bad batch of ice cream that made them gay, they dont do it because its the new cool thing. People are born gay, people are born straight. 

     

    I don't like fish... Now maybe God put fish here for a reason, so I could eat it, but I just don't like it, so if someone has a preference towards the opposite sex, why does it have to be an identity issue?

  • Reply 39 of 323
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    kmarei wrote: »

    Same applies for people who marry 4 wives
    or who have sex with animals
    or who smoke drugs
    yet all 4 are illegal
    how come no one is fighting for those issues?

    1) It's weird that those that are afraid of homosexuals seem to always jump right to sex with animals. What the hell is up with that? Can an animal consent? I don't think so, hence the use of consenting adults.

    2) I'm not against polygyny or polyandry as a general rule. These have come about in society for very good reasons. Historically polygyny has been done because there were too many women and not enough men, and polyandry is done for the opposite reason. Polygyny results in an increased population growth within a culture whilst polyandry helps limits population growth which is what you want to do with resources are scarce.

    3) Smoke em if you got em but please keep your secondhand smoke away from children and me.

    4) I only see 3 things in your list and yet you mention four.
  • Reply 40 of 323
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member

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

     

    And here's a good one.

    http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/02/25/weho-bar-to-ban-lawmakers-who-support-anti-gay-legislation/

    "David Cooley, the founder of The Abbey Food & Bar located at 692 North Robertson Blvd., has announced the popular gay bar will add any legislator in any state who votes for “bills to allow for discrimination against LGBT people” to a “Deny Entry List.”"

     

    Why is it okay for him to ban people from his establishment but others cannot?

    ?!?!

     

    and what does this story have to do with Apple, apart from they urged Governor Jan Brewer to not sign it?

Sign In or Register to comment.