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.
1) Sure, there are hateful 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 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.
3) As for not making one hateful if they don't like gay marriage is 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," would you not consider that hateful speech? 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'm a conservative libertarian... I'd like to see the government not get involved in forcing any private citizen from engaging in commerce with any other private citizen.
I'm all for gay marriage... I'm not for government defining words, so I don't support government sanctioned gay marriage.
That being said... your reasoned response is probably something I'd disagree with some points on, but I'd much rather debate this with someone as direct and measured as you... than those that call me hateful because I don't support government sanctioned gay marriage (because someone like you would reasonably assume someone like me doesn't support government sanctioning of *ANY* marriage).
The government should enforce contracts... and enforce the 14th amendment. The government shouldn't be in the business of writing dictionaries.
More people need to respond like you when they disagree with someone's point. Because it's hard to disagree with your argument... even if I disagree with your general point.
Should a black photographer have to photograph a Klan rally?
The language of the bill seemed overly broad based on news reports, but this is the essential problem.
Forcing a baker to make a cake for a gay wedding is different than saying refusing service to someone because they are gay, I.e. A birthday cake or something not celebrating their gayness.
See this is a demonstration of a complete misunderstanding of the issues. There is no law in Arizonia prohibiting a person from discriminating against a person because he or she is gay. If a baker doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay person, he or she does not have to do so. That is the current state of affairs. The law, however, actively promoted that people can discriminate against somebody because he or she was gay provided there was a religious reason. There was absolutely no reason for the law other than to appease some so called religious folks, at the expense of gay people, who wanted a specific law stating they can do what no law prevents them from doing.
Your last comment is contradictory. A free society would mean freedom for both parties. Freedom to turn people away and freedom not to buy.
The 'right' to turn people away for equal service is basically segregation. We've passed that. No, you cannot turn people away. That is not democracy.
The right to choose whose services you want to use, that is democracy. If I know a certain business does not treat its employees well, or contributes to KKK, it is my choice not to go to that business. But if I were African-American and showed up to a clothing store owned by a member of KKK, the store owner cannot turn me away. I hope you are smart enough to understand the difference. But don't take my word on it. Ask any friends of yours who are lawyers and they will explain to you perhaps better than I can.
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.
Like the rights of the business owners that feel they have no choice but to offer services in situations which they feel goes against their belief system or be sued? The only other option that they have is to not be in business. I just don't really think that's fair either, and that has nothing to do with "If you don't like gays then don't marry one."
Just because people don't agree with their belief system doesn't make it any less protected under our constitution. It's scary when public pressure alone has the power to negate something that is constitutionally protected. Not just for religious people...everybody should be scared of that.
The 'right' to turn people away for equal service is basically segregation. We've passed that. No, you cannot turn people away. That is not democracy.
The right to choose whose services you want to use, that is democracy. If I know a certain business does not treat its employees well, or contributes to KKK, it is my choice not to go to that business. But if I were African-American and showed up to a clothing store owned by a member of KKK, the store owner cannot turn me away. I hope you are smart enough to understand the difference. But don't take my word on it. Ask any friends of yours who are lawyers and they will explain to you perhaps better than I can.
Please go look up the word democracy. I don't think it means what you think it does.
I'm a conservative libertarian... I'd like to see the government not get involved in forcing any private citizen from engaging in commerce with any other private citizen.
I'm all for gay marriage... I'm not for government defining words, so I don't support government sanctioned gay marriage.
That being said... your reasoned response is probably something I'd disagree with some points on, but I'd much rather debate this with someone as direct and measured as you... than those that call me hateful because I don't support government sanctioned gay marriage (because someone like you would reasonably assume someone like me doesn't support government sanctioning of *ANY* marriage).
The government should enforce contracts... and enforce the 14th amendment. The government shouldn't be in the business of writing dictionaries.
More people need to respond like you when they disagree with someone's point. Because it's hard to disagree with your argument... even if I disagree with your general point.
I am against libertarianism because extreme forms of anything generally don't work. Your view on what a conservative means also seems a stretch. Those who are conservative tend to move slowly and not want to upset the apple cart. A conservative libertarian seems a bit of an oxymoron.
More importantly, however, to the extent I understand your view, it doesn't seem to be libertarian. Libertarians generally want governments to get involved in people's affairs as little as possible. So, to the extent governments define marriage, it would have to do so in the least restrictive way possible. Defining marriage as between a man and woman is an unneeded restriction. Maybe, however, that is your point.
Moreover, do you really believe that the government should enforce all contracts? So, if a ten year old boy agrees to work for free for ten years, that would be OK? Speak of the dark ages.
See this is a demonstration of a complete misunderstanding of the issues. There is no law in Arizonia prohibiting a person from discriminating against a person because he or she is gay. If a baker doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay person, he or she does not have to do so. That is the current state of affairs. The law, however, actively promoted that people can discriminate against somebody because he or she was gay provided there was a religious reason. There was absolutely no reason for the law other than to appease some so called religious folks, at the expense of gay people, who wanted a specific law stating they can do what no law prevents them from doing.
Which state had the wedding photographer case? I assumed it was AZ, but apparently not?
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.
That would require maturity, which is asking too much from the people who try to write laws like this one.
I'm reading all these idealistic extremist posts but the fact of the matter is that there is a lot of gray area in this these scenarios.
I keep trying to make the distinction between a public walk in business and an exclusive clientele business. You can't just say ALL businesses.
Let's just take weddings out of the equation for a moment.
If you have an open door in a public place of business you cannot refuse service or discriminate against any well dressed civil customer .
If on the other hand if you offer professional service by appointment only, you can select your clients by whatever criteria you decide without so much of an explanation. If you do not want to do business with certain types of people then you need to be in a private service type of business and not a public walk in business.
I am against libertarianism because extreme forms of anything generally don't work. Your view on what a conservative means also seems a stretch. Those who are conservative tend to move slowly and not want to upset the apple cart. A conservative libertarian seems a bit of an oxymoron.
More importantly, however, to the extent I understand your view, it doesn't seem to be libertarian. Libertarians generally want governments to get involved in people's affairs as little as possible. So, to the extent governments define marriage, it would have to do so in the least restrictive way possible. Defining marriage as between a man and woman is an unneeded restriction. Maybe, however, that is your point.
Moreover, do you really believe that the government should enforce all contracts? So, if a ten year old boy agrees to work for free for ten years, that would be OK? Speak of the dark ages.
The most basic libertarian position would get the government out of the marriage business altogether. And not require businesses to recognize marriages. A marriage is just a contract between 2 people to commingle assets for some duration and give each other certain mutual rights. Don't really need the government to define that contract.
The wedding cake and photographer examples don't even apply to Arizona. Arizona doesn't have gay marriage and won't anytime soon, making the examples moot. Supporters of the bill haven't thought independently enough for themselves and thus have no other examples to use, so they just use non-applicable ones they've been spoon-fed that sound good to them.
Clearly, religious people feigning victimhood over oppression haven't yet figured out that religion is already a protected class while homosexuals have absolutely no civil protections of any kind in AZ whatsoever.
Gays could be denied services before this veto, they will continue to be denied services after this veto.
Religious zealots also have no clue what oppression actually is if they think gays are the bullies after religion has had centuries of carte-blache entitlement to belittle, demean, dehumanize, arrest, abuse, murder, blame them for hurricanes, 9/11, earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes, and the Newtown shootings.
The fact that gays and a growing majority of society no longer puts up with bullshit religious entitlement to oppress them has the zealots in a frenzy of fake offense as they lose their previously unchallenged control.
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.
That seems to fall inline with my anecdotal observations of homophobic individuals who are very quick to point out (or at least believe) that someone is gay. In my youth I always just assumed that I had horrible "gaydar" but it was later I came to the realization that I simply never take into consideration the sexual orientation of my sex. Sure, if I see someone who is acting in an exaggerated, stereotypical fashion it would cross my mind but that's the same for all stereotypes which is probably a result of too much TV growing up.
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?
I'm a straight God-fearing man and I believe two consenting adults Who are not harming anybody should be out to live their life in peace and if they want to marry that is their choice . I have been bullied by people Who fought I was different just because I couldn't read I was born dyslexic Not my choice just like a gay person not their choice
They also have no clue what oppression actually is if they think gays are the bullies after religion has had centuries of carte-blache entitlement to...
When I can get my emergency life saving heart surgery done at a LGBT hospital I'll put them on equal standing with my Catholic hospital. Christians and Jews may be living in the religious middles ages but they have wonderful health care facilities.
I'm a straight God-fearing man and I believe two consenting adults Who are not harming anybody should be out to live their life in peace and if they want to marry that is their choice . I have been bullied by people Who fought I was different just because I couldn't read I was born dyslexic Not my choice just like a gay person not their choice
No one is born literate. You make that choice and I for one am getting sick of the education agenda in this country¡
I'm English and severely dyslexic i i'm a fully qualified electrician and qualified Trainer . I've always been employed and I'm working for the prison service I hope and support many people .... Is how you brain is wired up
Comments
Your last comment is contradictory. A free society would mean freedom for both parties. Freedom to turn people away and freedom not to buy.
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.
Rogifan,
You are an idiot. Comparing gay rights to smoking cigarettes is a little short sighted don't you think?
1) Sure, there are hateful 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 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.
3) As for not making one hateful if they don't like gay marriage is 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," would you not consider that hateful speech? 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'm a conservative libertarian... I'd like to see the government not get involved in forcing any private citizen from engaging in commerce with any other private citizen.
I'm all for gay marriage... I'm not for government defining words, so I don't support government sanctioned gay marriage.
That being said... your reasoned response is probably something I'd disagree with some points on, but I'd much rather debate this with someone as direct and measured as you... than those that call me hateful because I don't support government sanctioned gay marriage (because someone like you would reasonably assume someone like me doesn't support government sanctioning of *ANY* marriage).
The government should enforce contracts... and enforce the 14th amendment. The government shouldn't be in the business of writing dictionaries.
More people need to respond like you when they disagree with someone's point. Because it's hard to disagree with your argument... even if I disagree with your general point.
Should a black photographer have to photograph a Klan rally?
The language of the bill seemed overly broad based on news reports, but this is the essential problem.
Forcing a baker to make a cake for a gay wedding is different than saying refusing service to someone because they are gay, I.e. A birthday cake or something not celebrating their gayness.
See this is a demonstration of a complete misunderstanding of the issues. There is no law in Arizonia prohibiting a person from discriminating against a person because he or she is gay. If a baker doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay person, he or she does not have to do so. That is the current state of affairs. The law, however, actively promoted that people can discriminate against somebody because he or she was gay provided there was a religious reason. There was absolutely no reason for the law other than to appease some so called religious folks, at the expense of gay people, who wanted a specific law stating they can do what no law prevents them from doing.
Your last comment is contradictory. A free society would mean freedom for both parties. Freedom to turn people away and freedom not to buy.
The 'right' to turn people away for equal service is basically segregation. We've passed that. No, you cannot turn people away. That is not democracy.
The right to choose whose services you want to use, that is democracy. If I know a certain business does not treat its employees well, or contributes to KKK, it is my choice not to go to that business. But if I were African-American and showed up to a clothing store owned by a member of KKK, the store owner cannot turn me away. I hope you are smart enough to understand the difference. But don't take my word on it. Ask any friends of yours who are lawyers and they will explain to you perhaps better than I can.
Your last comment is contradictory. A free society would mean freedom for both parties. Freedom to turn people away and freedom not to buy.
Exactly. That statement was politically correct gibberish.
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.
Like the rights of the business owners that feel they have no choice but to offer services in situations which they feel goes against their belief system or be sued? The only other option that they have is to not be in business. I just don't really think that's fair either, and that has nothing to do with "If you don't like gays then don't marry one."
Just because people don't agree with their belief system doesn't make it any less protected under our constitution. It's scary when public pressure alone has the power to negate something that is constitutionally protected. Not just for religious people...everybody should be scared of that.
The 'right' to turn people away for equal service is basically segregation. We've passed that. No, you cannot turn people away. That is not democracy.
The right to choose whose services you want to use, that is democracy. If I know a certain business does not treat its employees well, or contributes to KKK, it is my choice not to go to that business. But if I were African-American and showed up to a clothing store owned by a member of KKK, the store owner cannot turn me away. I hope you are smart enough to understand the difference. But don't take my word on it. Ask any friends of yours who are lawyers and they will explain to you perhaps better than I can.
Please go look up the word democracy. I don't think it means what you think it does.
I'm a conservative libertarian... I'd like to see the government not get involved in forcing any private citizen from engaging in commerce with any other private citizen.
I'm all for gay marriage... I'm not for government defining words, so I don't support government sanctioned gay marriage.
That being said... your reasoned response is probably something I'd disagree with some points on, but I'd much rather debate this with someone as direct and measured as you... than those that call me hateful because I don't support government sanctioned gay marriage (because someone like you would reasonably assume someone like me doesn't support government sanctioning of *ANY* marriage).
The government should enforce contracts... and enforce the 14th amendment. The government shouldn't be in the business of writing dictionaries.
More people need to respond like you when they disagree with someone's point. Because it's hard to disagree with your argument... even if I disagree with your general point.
I am against libertarianism because extreme forms of anything generally don't work. Your view on what a conservative means also seems a stretch. Those who are conservative tend to move slowly and not want to upset the apple cart. A conservative libertarian seems a bit of an oxymoron.
More importantly, however, to the extent I understand your view, it doesn't seem to be libertarian. Libertarians generally want governments to get involved in people's affairs as little as possible. So, to the extent governments define marriage, it would have to do so in the least restrictive way possible. Defining marriage as between a man and woman is an unneeded restriction. Maybe, however, that is your point.
Moreover, do you really believe that the government should enforce all contracts? So, if a ten year old boy agrees to work for free for ten years, that would be OK? Speak of the dark ages.
See this is a demonstration of a complete misunderstanding of the issues. There is no law in Arizonia prohibiting a person from discriminating against a person because he or she is gay. If a baker doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay person, he or she does not have to do so. That is the current state of affairs. The law, however, actively promoted that people can discriminate against somebody because he or she was gay provided there was a religious reason. There was absolutely no reason for the law other than to appease some so called religious folks, at the expense of gay people, who wanted a specific law stating they can do what no law prevents them from doing.
Which state had the wedding photographer case? I assumed it was AZ, but apparently not?
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.
That would require maturity, which is asking too much from the people who try to write laws like this one.
I'm reading all these idealistic extremist posts but the fact of the matter is that there is a lot of gray area in this these scenarios.
I keep trying to make the distinction between a public walk in business and an exclusive clientele business. You can't just say ALL businesses.
Let's just take weddings out of the equation for a moment.
If you have an open door in a public place of business you cannot refuse service or discriminate against any well dressed civil customer .
If on the other hand if you offer professional service by appointment only, you can select your clients by whatever criteria you decide without so much of an explanation. If you do not want to do business with certain types of people then you need to be in a private service type of business and not a public walk in business.
I am against libertarianism because extreme forms of anything generally don't work. Your view on what a conservative means also seems a stretch. Those who are conservative tend to move slowly and not want to upset the apple cart. A conservative libertarian seems a bit of an oxymoron.
More importantly, however, to the extent I understand your view, it doesn't seem to be libertarian. Libertarians generally want governments to get involved in people's affairs as little as possible. So, to the extent governments define marriage, it would have to do so in the least restrictive way possible. Defining marriage as between a man and woman is an unneeded restriction. Maybe, however, that is your point.
Moreover, do you really believe that the government should enforce all contracts? So, if a ten year old boy agrees to work for free for ten years, that would be OK? Speak of the dark ages.
The most basic libertarian position would get the government out of the marriage business altogether. And not require businesses to recognize marriages. A marriage is just a contract between 2 people to commingle assets for some duration and give each other certain mutual rights. Don't really need the government to define that contract.
Dream on ...
The wedding cake and photographer examples don't even apply to Arizona. Arizona doesn't have gay marriage and won't anytime soon, making the examples moot. Supporters of the bill haven't thought independently enough for themselves and thus have no other examples to use, so they just use non-applicable ones they've been spoon-fed that sound good to them.
Clearly, religious people feigning victimhood over oppression haven't yet figured out that religion is already a protected class while homosexuals have absolutely no civil protections of any kind in AZ whatsoever.
Gays could be denied services before this veto, they will continue to be denied services after this veto.
Religious zealots also have no clue what oppression actually is if they think gays are the bullies after religion has had centuries of carte-blache entitlement to belittle, demean, dehumanize, arrest, abuse, murder, blame them for hurricanes, 9/11, earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes, and the Newtown shootings.
The fact that gays and a growing majority of society no longer puts up with bullshit religious entitlement to oppress them has the zealots in a frenzy of fake offense as they lose their previously unchallenged control.
That seems to fall inline with my anecdotal observations of homophobic individuals who are very quick to point out (or at least believe) that someone is gay. In my youth I always just assumed that I had horrible "gaydar" but it was later I came to the realization that I simply never take into consideration the sexual orientation of my sex. Sure, if I see someone who is acting in an exaggerated, stereotypical fashion it would cross my mind but that's the same for all stereotypes which is probably a result of too much TV growing up.
They also have no clue what oppression actually is if they think gays are the bullies after religion has had centuries of carte-blache entitlement to...
When I can get my emergency life saving heart surgery done at a LGBT hospital I'll put them on equal standing with my Catholic hospital. Christians and Jews may be living in the religious middles ages but they have wonderful health care facilities.
No one is born literate. You make that choice and I for one am getting sick of the education agenda in this country¡