Arizona governor vetoes gay discrimination bill Apple rallied against

18911131417

Comments

  • Reply 201 of 323
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,035member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post



    Welcome to the 21st century, AZ and TX!

     

    That's a ridiculous and needless comment.  I didn't support the bill for several reasons.  However, it was not an "anti-gay" bill, nor does this veto suddenly prevent discrimination.  It is already legal under AZ law to discriminate against gays.  That is simply a fact.  The intent of this bill was to give businesses added protection from being compelled to violate their religious beliefs (as has happened in CA and NM).  Having said that, it was redundant and created extremely bad PR.  My understanding is that it was worded in a broad way that could lead to more discrimination.  Those are all reasons that Brewer did the right thing be rejecting it.  

     

    Of course, this doesn't solve the issue of businesses in other states being compelled to, say, bake a cake for a gay wedding.  As a Christian, I don't consider homosexuality a sin.  But millions of others do.  Being compelled under threat of force, loss of income (etc) to essentially endorse something that violates a person's religious beliefs is an appalling thing.   We're not talking about refusing to serve a customer at a restaurant or retail store because he appears to be gay.  We're talking about compelling participation.  One has to wonder...if we can do that...why can we not force churches (who get non-profit tax benefits) to perform same sex weddings?  

  • Reply 202 of 323
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post





    Actually, in UK, the issue of who can live together is vexed. If two homosexual men can get married and live together, they have better housing rights than two brothers living together, for example. That strikes me as unfair. I don't mean two brothers marrying, just sharing a house.

     

    Does a married heterosexual couple have better housing rights than two brothers living together?

  • Reply 203 of 323
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

    This wasn't about discriminating against a person but against behavior and that is done all the time. People should be free to voluntarily enter into contracts with whomever they want.

    We are not talking about people.  We are talking about businesses which are licensed by various government bodies and which are mere creatures of statute.

     

    And often the protection of bigoted individuals is written into these types of laws.  For example, a hotel may not discriminate based upon race.  But an individual who rents out rooms in their home is free to do so.  I don't know about the Arizona statute specifically.

  • Reply 204 of 323

    It's funny to see how many people think that this was an anti-gay bill.  It was meant to protect businesses from lawsuits from militant morons who demand service. 

     

    Ever seen the signs that read "no shoes, no shirt, no service"?  Those are there for a reason.

  • Reply 205 of 323
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by frugality View Post

     
    He let slavery happen (which was more like the maid in a household.....they were well treated and were part of the family, not like the slavery in the American colonies.)


     

     

    But no where is the male/female line blurred -- past, present, or future.  Homosexuality is and has always been against God's design.


    According to your mythology, the Jews were slaves in Egypt.  According to your mythology, this is what happened:

     

    "They made their lives bitter with harsh labor in brick and mortar and with all kinds of work in the fields; in all their harsh labor the Egyptians worked them ruthlessly."

     

    So your statement that "they were well treated" is blasphemy.

     

     

    And I suppose you believe that because slavery was once congruent with "God's design", it is less bad than homosexuality?  Do I have that right?

  • Reply 206 of 323
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

     
    For me personally, if I don't agree with a business practice I take my business elsewhere. 


    Do you agree with Apple's business practice of supporting gay rights?

  • Reply 207 of 323
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    sdw2001 wrote: »
    That's a ridiculous and needless comment.  I didn't support the bill for several reasons.  However, it was not an "anti-gay" bill, nor does this veto suddenly prevent discrimination.  It is already legal under AZ law to discriminate against gays.  That is simply a fact.  The intent of this bill was to give businesses added protection from being compelled to violate their religious beliefs (as has happened in CA and NM).  Having said that, it was redundant and created extremely bad PR.  My understanding is that it was worded in a broad way that could lead to more discrimination.  Those are all reasons that Brewer did the right thing be rejecting it.  

    Of course, this doesn't solve the issue of businesses in other states being compelled to, say, bake a cake for a gay wedding.  As a Christian, I don't consider homosexuality a sin.  But millions of others do.  Being compelled under threat of force, loss of income (etc) to essentially endorse something that violates a person's religious beliefs is an appalling thing.   We're not talking about refusing to serve a customer at a restaurant or retail store because he appears to be gay.  We're talking about compelling participation.  One has to wonder...if we can do that...why can we not force churches (who get non-profit tax benefits) to perform same sex weddings?  

    It's funny to see how many people think that this was an anti-gay bill.  It was meant to protect businesses from lawsuits from militant morons who demand service. 

    Ever seen the signs that read "no shoes, no shirt, no service"?  Those are there for a reason.


    [VIDEO]http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-26-2014/gay-ban (3m:30s)[/VIDEO]
  • Reply 208 of 323
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mstone View Post

     

    The Republicans and especially the Tea Party are really on the fringe. I can understand them at all. Why are they so hateful?


     

    Like, I don't know, like, Totes McGoats...right???

  • Reply 209 of 323
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Pooch View Post





    being an apple enthusiast, "fanboy", and advocate for as long as they've been around, and a lifelong gay american, the quoted statement is fucked up and so wrong.

     

    What's wrong with that statement? And what does it have to do with you being a "lifelong gay american"?

  • Reply 210 of 323
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by His Dudeness View Post

     

    It's funny to see how many people think that this was an anti-gay bill.  It was meant to protect businesses from lawsuits from militant morons who demand service. 

     

    Ever seen the signs that read "no shoes, no shirt, no service"?  Those are there for a reason.


    It's funny how morons twist this into "it was not an anti-gay bill". Of course it was, and you even acknowledge it yourself: those damn gays who demand service! Here's the thing: if you're in BUSINESS, you can't deny service to a PROTECTED CLASS. You can deny service to whites, men, tall people, but not blacks, hispanics, women... or gays. If you want to be able to discriminate legally, turn your business into a private club or a church.

     

    The absolutely disgraceful thing about this bill was that it was worded avoiding the use of "gay" (probably to avoid being blatantly unconstitutional)  but instead used such incredibly vague "feel" terms that it would have protected any sort of discrimination, so a shop owner would have been within his legal rights to display a "no gays allowed" sign in his window, but also a "no blacks allowed."

    An emergency services provider would have also been within his rights to deny service on that basis. Now, put the shoe on the other foot: you need emergency care and the muslim doctor sees a cross around your neck and denies you service based on his religious views. This bill would have allowed that.

     

    Good thing Brewer vetoed it, but she's still a bigoted sad wrinkled bag of shit.

  • Reply 211 of 323
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by His Dudeness View Post

    It's funny to see how many people think that this was an anti-gay bill.  It was meant to protect businesses from lawsuits from militant morons who demand service. 

     

    Ever seen the signs that read "no shoes, no shirt, no service"?  Those are there for a reason.

     

    There also used to be signs that also said "No Negro's". To me, if you want to pass a bill to allow the refusal of service, make the bigots wear their beliefs on their sleaves(or storefronts). Like the No shoes, no shirt, no service, let people in the community know just who you won't serve. At least be honest, don't let someone walk into the store with expectation of service and then say, "no, we don't serve your kind here". Let the world know of your bigoted practices and deal with any potential fallount. To let someone come in, with valid currency and resonable expectation of service, and then tell them they are not welcome is cruel and unfair.

    Just so people don't get me wrong, I think the whole thing is stupid. Any business that turns away paying customers who have done nothing wrong and are deserving of services is stupid and will eventually fail. I just think it would be interesting to see how these businesses would do if they had to be honest about who they would serve. With over half the population now in favor of gay marriage, I am guessing they wouldn't stay in business for too terribly long.
  • Reply 212 of 323
    This is typical for Arizona - a lovely state filled with Christians who preach hatred and intolerance. They pass "papers please" laws to discriminate against Hispanice people, then come up with more and more stupid discriminatory laws.

    I won't be visiting Arizona again; it's lovely state with the Grand Canyon and other places, but the hatred of the Christians is intolerable.
  • Reply 213 of 323
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SudoNym View Post

     

    He is.  He is saying "People choose to be homosexuals, so it is OK to discriminate against them".

     

    But he cites a red herring - it doesn't really matter whether or not it is genetic or a choice.


    People choose their religion. They can change religious affiliation, and do so everyday. Therefore, according to Rogifan's own reasoning, there is no rational reason to protect religion. Hey, here's something we can agree on!

  • Reply 214 of 323
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    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.



     


    You're really painting the word "discrimination" with a broad brush here. Not "all" discrimination is based on hate. Are you talking about discrimination in public entities?


     


    Take for instance, private all-girls schools. They discriminate against boys, who may be just as smart and talented, but they don't differentiate because they hate boys. Take for instance the NFL. They don't discriminate against female football players because they hate them. 
  • Reply 215 of 323
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,687member
    old-wiz wrote: »
    This is typical for Arizona - a lovely state filled with Christians who preach hatred and intolerance. They pass "papers please" laws to discriminate against Hispanice people, then come up with more and more stupid discriminatory laws.

    I won't be visiting Arizona again; it's lovely state with the Grand Canyon and other places, but the hatred of the Christians is intolerable.

    And your hatred of Christians is also intolerable.
  • Reply 216 of 323
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by old-wiz View Post



    This is typical for Arizona - a lovely state filled with Christians who preach hatred and intolerance. They pass "papers please" laws to discriminate against Hispanice people, then come up with more and more stupid discriminatory laws.



    I won't be visiting Arizona again; it's lovely state with the Grand Canyon and other places, but the hatred of the Christians is intolerable.

     

    Good. Let the hate flow through you, old-wiz. Preach it.

  • Reply 217 of 323

    It seems that the measure of faith for some people is to whom one sells goods and services.

     

    And for some, their "god" who they claim has created an entire universe is not strong enough to protect them from the moral disaster that will befall them if they sell something to someone who is not heterosexual. Not much of a "god" if that is the case.

     

    I also think some people are terribly frightened because they think they have no choice in what they believe. Belief is a matter of choice. Sexual orientation is not.

  • Reply 218 of 323
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post





    Republicans continue to foolishly push Christians-only laws and they will continue to marginalize their party. They need to get back to a platform of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism.

     

    I thought America already had a political party like that — the Libertarian party(?). The two party American political system isn't working.

  • Reply 219 of 323
    Vetoing the bill means the Givernor supports a climate that is free from religious oppression.
    ralphmouth wrote: »
    Vetoing the bill means the Governor supports discrimination against the right of religious people to be free to practice their faith.
  • Reply 220 of 323
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Headrush69 View Post

     

    Apples and oranges.

     

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


     

    So should a Jewish print shop owner be forced to print Neo-Nazi banners, signs, and other materials?  Or should a Muslim caterer be forced to cater a party where the client demands pulled pork sandwiches?  Look beyond the whole, "OMG!  They're hating on the gays!" sensationalism of this and look at the rights of the individual merchants to do business. 

     

    Remember, you are "that group" to someone.

Sign In or Register to comment.