Arizona governor vetoes gay discrimination bill Apple rallied against

1246717

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 323
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    chris_ca wrote: »
    and really, why would they want to buy a cake from made by someone who doesn't like them because they are gay?
    Look at all the national attention it got. Wherever gays can cry discrimination! they will. For me personally, if I don't agree with a business practice I take my business elsewhere. I'm sure there are plenty of bakeries in Arizona that will happily bake a cake for a gay wedding.
  • Reply 62 of 323
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by snova View Post

     

    I feel sorry for the moderators that have to clean up this thread.  Is there a way to just stop allowing ALL posts a specific thread?

     

     This thread is gonna blow up and going to upset both sides of the argument.    Please all, stop posting.  We are just gonna upset each other.  This going to get too emotion too fast, IMHO.  Be civil. 


     

    You are right and on that note I'm out of here. No one is going to change anyones mind through AppleInsider forums.

  • Reply 63 of 323
    malaxmalax Posts: 1,598member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

     

    and really, why would they want to buy a cake from made by someone who doesn't like them because they are gay?


     

    Exactly.  There are plenty of other bakers would be delighted to have the business.

  • Reply 64 of 323
    I created an account to ask a question more than make a comment.

    How is this Apple or even tech news?

    I don't care about Apple's political positions any more than those of the Apple Insider staff. Regardless of whether I agree with the veto of this bill or do (which in this case I do).

    Apple Insider staff I did not follow your site for political commentary if I wanted that I'd go to my news source of choice. Please in the future stick with what you are good at and why I follow you... Apple and tech news. Getting in to religion or politics will serve only to offend you readers and you just got involved in both and a lose-lose debate regardless of which side "wins" by covering this you will offend someone.

    A loyal and concerned reader.
  • Reply 65 of 323
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by justp1ayin View Post

     

    I saw the 'logic' part it just had nothing to do with what I'm saying. You can't just group a bunch of 'they were born that way' scenarios and make them all the same. Pedophiles and Thieves are born that way just like Blind people and gays!

     

    My point was, out of the 'born that way' group. Which hurt you? If gay marriage is legalized, does that mean that now you HAVE to marry a man? Or that your kids will marry the same sex? I never understood why people felt the need to decide how other people live. Is it because 'America was founded in Christianity'? (Which btw tell that to George Washington who had his own bible). 




    The argument was that they were born that way.  You aren't tracking, I can see.

     

     

    When righteousness degrades, and our humanistic values walk away from our creator's values, we all suffer as a community.

  • Reply 66 of 323
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    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?


    Yeah, they probably made an issue about it for political reasons. The store owner probably could have been more tactful as well and perhaps explain that it is nothing personal but has strong reservations about being involved and wish them well or even refer them to another cake shop but probably the issue became a stand off and that is why it escalated.

     

    These types of situations need to be resolved between both parties in a rational and honest way. It is just common civility to be cordial and understanding and not adversarial. People are different. Get used to it.

  • Reply 67 of 323
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by malax View Post

     

     

    Exactly.  There are plenty of other bakers would be delighted to have the business.




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

  • Reply 68 of 323
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    malax wrote: »
    Agreed.  Would a photographer or wedding cake baker be forced to take on KKK members, anti-abortion protesters, or Tea Party activists if they didn't want to?  Freedom allows people to make unpopular (and even rude and stupid) decisions.

    Let's say this bill had been signed into law.  And some restaurant chain said "we refuse to serve gay people."  A) That would be about as effective as saying "we refuse to serve people carrying concealed guns" or "we refuse to serve jews."  B) There would be a major backlash against that chain and they would either lose a lot of potential customers or back down.  In other words, it would be no big deal in the long run.  And we wouldn't be sacrificing freedom for political correctness.
    Exactly. And in this case it isn't about a person but a behavior/activity. And if refusing to photograph gay weddings is a stupid decision that photographer will find out in short order as people take their business elsewhere.
  • Reply 69 of 323
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    mstone wrote: »
    Yeah, they probably made an issue about it for political reasons. The store owner probably could have been more tactful as well and perhaps explain that it is nothing personal but has strong reservations about being involved and wish them well or even refer them to another cake shop but probably the issue became a stand off and that is why it escalated.

    These types of situations need to be resolved between both parties in a rational and honest way. It is just common civility to be cordial and understanding and not adversarial. People are different. Get used to it.
    That's my issue with this. Let free people figure this out amongst themselves. If I was a photographer who did weddings my personal beliefs wouldn't allow me to photograph a gay wedding but I certainly wouldn't try and stop another photographer from doing so.
  • Reply 70 of 323
    gwmacgwmac Posts: 1,797member

    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. 

  • Reply 71 of 323
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post

     It is just common civility to be cordial and understanding and not adversarial. People are different. Get used to it.

    You mean sit down and discuss issues instead of calling someone out?

    Hah!

    It won't happen because some people have an agenda (which has nothing to do with sorting out the issue). (This is not necessarily a comment on this specific case)

  • Reply 72 of 323
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by frugality View Post

     



    The argument was that they were born that way.  You aren't tracking, I can see.

     

     

    When righteousness degrades, and our humanistic values walk away from our creator's values, we all suffer as a community.


     

    On a last note to just you, I am a Christian, I go to church and believe in the bible and in God. Maybe I'm wrong because of my thinking, but I am friends with homosexuals who have no reason to lie to me and tell me they wish they could be straight cause it would have been a lot easier for them. Believe what you want, that the sun rotates around the earth, because the bible says it, but I chose to believe that God makes no mistakes and people born the way they are is not something they should be punished for. Scientist were persecuted when they said the Earth revolves around the sun, so no one is expected to believe that scientist are right when they say you are born homosexual and not 'turned'. A hundred years from now this will seem silly, as segregation was, and there will be a new civil issue that people will be arguing about. 

  • Reply 73 of 323
    customtb wrote: »
    Even some of the republicans that voted for it were saying it was bad and asking her to veto it.

    Choose two:
    1. Having your cake
    2. Eating it
  • Reply 74 of 323
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    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.

    This is not even close to analogous. A business offers a service or product, and others based on that service or product decide to use the business or not. Your example involves forcing a business to offer certain products and has nothing to do with a business selecting customers.

     

    Further, it is already legal for a business in Arizona to elect not to serve a person who is gay for no reason at all. No religious grounds needed. The point of this needless legislation is merely to make a government backed proclamation that such discrimination is OK. It is akin to rubbing something in. Some places in the US actually have anti-gay discrimination laws. A state wide clarification in those states might make sense, but since it is already perfectly legal to discriminate, this was just a mean spirted attempt at making gay people feel bad. 

  • Reply 75 of 323
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 4,685member
    The fact that a bill like this even got that far is shameful.

    The person that wrote the bill should be barred from every business to get a taste of his own medicine.
  • Reply 76 of 323
    tundraboytundraboy Posts: 1,620member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by frugality View Post

     

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


    Why, did you talk to him/her/it?  You seem to have some inside information that none of us are privy to.  Lucky you then, 'cause I've looked everywhere, every nook and cranny and the only thing I could find that is anything that can be remotely described as my creator are my biological parents.    

  • Reply 77 of 323
    cgjcgj Posts: 276member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by frugality View Post

     

     

    Sex and gender are exactly the same.


     

    Sex is biological (male or female), gender is the way in which people identify their sex (masculine/feminine). In some cultures, particularly in Oceania, there are three genders. So no, they are not the same thing.

  • Reply 78 of 323
    tundraboytundraboy Posts: 1,620member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sflocal View Post



    The fact that a bill like this even got that far is shameful.



    The person that wrote the bill should be barred from every business to get a taste of his own medicine.

    Now that would be discriminating against someone because of their stupidity.  And we frown on that to.

  • Reply 79 of 323
    gwmacgwmac Posts: 1,797member

    In Japan it is very common to see "Japanese Only Signs" With "No Gaijin Allowed" (Gaijin are foreigners) I also saw similar signs in Korea and China. This law reminded me of that.  Exclusionary practices based on physical characteristics or sexuality seems so 20th century now. But at the same time the fact that this law even made it to the governor's desk is scary. 

  • Reply 80 of 323
    You are all missing the problem here..... The law / Government is telling us what to do and what not to do

    [B]THEY ARE TAKING AWAY OUR INDIVIDUAL CHOICE AWAY!!![/B]

    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

    [B]It's my choice not yours!![/B]
Sign In or Register to comment.