Good stuff, but my comment was not an example of improperly pointing your comment out as an Ad Hominem attack. You attempted to undermine a person's argument by referring to him as a white heterosexual male thereby attacking the characteristics of the person to deflect from his argument. I rarely point out an Ad Hominem attack, but your remark was a pretty textbook example.
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
So why then, when these gays found out the beliefs of the merchant would they persist in demanding that they do what they want like a spoiled petulant child with an overblown sense of entitlement?
That's just the first rebuttal to your statement. Further ones could include, "But they're the best in the area and the customer is always right and gets what they want!" and so on.
Ask yourself this though, why was the bill needed at all? There is no state law preventing people from denying to do business with another person for any reason at all anyway. This law actually gives religious people more freedom of choice then non-religious people.
So why then, when these gays found out the beliefs of the merchant would they persist in demanding that they do what they want like a spoiled petulant child with an overblown sense of entitlement?
That's just the first rebuttal to your statement. Further ones could include, "But they're the best in the area and the customer is always right and gets what they want!" and so on.
Because it's a false analogy on your end. Say an atheist caterer does not serve pulled pork sandwiches. They can't be forced to serve something that they don't make just because somebody is willing to pay for them. However if they do make pulled pork sandwiches they shouldn't be able to not serve somebody based on gender, sexual orientation, race , religious affiliation, and so on
If you sell a good or service you should serve it to anybody willing to pay equally
What a terrible shame for you. It's tiring being a white male who is never discrimated against
White guys are discriminated against all the time. All the world's problems are blamed on white guys. Affirmative action discriminates. More women are going to college then men, yet there are all kinds of assistance programs for women but not white men at colleges.
White guys are discriminated against all the time. All the world's problems are blamed on white guys. Affirmative action discriminates. More women are going to college then men, yet there are all kinds of assistance programs for women but not white men at colleges.
I'm a white straight male in America and this is such a poor argument. We have it better than anybody else. We as a group have never been oppressed nor have we not been in a position of power. We don't know what true discrimination is no matter your claims of it
White guys are discriminated against all the time. All the world's problems are blamed on white guys. Affirmative action discriminates. More women are going to college then men, yet there are all kinds of assistance programs for women but not white men at colleges.
It seems the comments in this thread by people against gay rights or gay marriage can be boiled down to 1) Please be tolerant of my intolerance. 2) Gay rights have come a long way so be grateful for the progress and stop asking for more.
There is no war on religion, not now and not 200 years ago. Fox news would love you to believe there is but that is simply not true. If anything there is a knee jerk reaction where certain groups were given preferential treatment for a very long time and now that others demand equality there is a backlash. Repeat after me. "There is no war on religion!" Go to any church you want and believe or worship any God(s) you like but do not try and impose your beliefs on others. If anything there has been a war by the religious on everyone else that didn't share their belief system and now that other groups want to assert their rights as well, the poor Christians who have done a lot of the persecuting are now suddenly the persecuted in their minds at least.
Follow the golden rule and we won't have any problems.
Because it's a false analogy on your end. Say an atheist caterer does not serve pulled pork sandwiches. They can't be forced to serve something that they don't make just because somebody is willing to pay for them. However if they do make pulled pork sandwiches they shouldn't be able to not serve somebody based on gender, sexual orientation, race , religious affiliation, and so on
If you sell a good or service you should serve it to anybody willing to pay equally
No, I shouldn't have to sell a good or service two whoever has money. I should not be compelled to support something that is against my beliefs. Let the market speak; if everyone turns against a business for not baking cakes, making t-shirts, or whatever for gays, then the business will fail. But if people either don't care or support the business owner's right of choice, then the market will have also spoken.
BTW, if the atheist doesn't have any religious beliefs, then how can they use the argument, "We don't offer that because it's against our religious beliefs"? They can't. Yet it is a very valid argument for the Muslim.
What I don't understand is why these gays wanted businesses who don't want to work for them to provide goods and services for their event. IMO, the real motivation for the suits wasn't one of equality, it was one of using the courts for revenge.
No, I shouldn't have to sell a good or service two whoever has money. I should not be compelled to support something that is against my beliefs. Let the market speak; if everyone turns against a business for not baking cakes, making t-shirts, or whatever for gays, then the business will fail. But if people either don't care or support the business owner's right of choice, then the market will have also spoken.
BTW, if the atheist doesn't have any religious beliefs, then how can they use the argument, "We don't offer that because it's against our religious beliefs"? They can't. Yet it is a very valid argument for the Muslim.
What I don't understand is why these gays wanted businesses who don't want to work for them to provide goods and services for their event. IMO, the real motivation for the suits wasn't one of equality, it was one of using the courts for revenge.
Because you don't have to give a reason why you don't offer something. You just say "I'm sorry that's not on our menu" and the conversation ends. This is like trying to force a restaurant to serve you something off menu or a store to carry something that they don't carry. And yes businesses that are open to the public should be forced to take anybody's money for a service or good that they provide. Otherwise we might as well go back to segregation
So why then, when these gays found out the beliefs of the merchant would they persist in demanding that they do what they want like a spoiled petulant child with an overblown sense of entitlement?
That's just the first rebuttal to your statement. Further ones could include, "But they're the best in the area and the customer is always right and gets what they want!" and so on.
Only in a bigot's brain with a superiority complex does treating gay people equally count as "entitlement".
Only in a bigot's brain with a superiority complex does treating gay people equally count as "entitlement".
We are not entitled to everything everyone offers. It doesn't matter what demographic boxes you have checked, we as a culture have a sense of entitlement that nobody can every deny us anything for any reason and if they do, we run to the courts.
Care to drop the insults? Otherwise, there really isn't much sense continuing this.
This bill seemed rather small by comparison. Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yemen Mauritania and Iran have the death penalty for someone that is gay. There are 66 countries have imprisonment laws for gays. Makes TX and AZ look like supporters of GLAAD.
No, I shouldn't have to sell a good or service two whoever has money. I should not be compelled to support something that is against my beliefs. Let the market speak; if everyone turns against a business for not baking cakes, making t-shirts, or whatever for gays, then the business will fail. But if people either don't care or support the business owner's right of choice, then the market will have also spoken.
BTW, if the atheist doesn't have any religious beliefs, then how can they use the argument, "We don't offer that because it's against our religious beliefs"? They can't. Yet it is a very valid argument for the Muslim.
What I don't understand is why these gays wanted businesses who don't want to work for them to provide goods and services for their event. IMO, the real motivation for the suits wasn't one of equality, it was one of using the courts for revenge.
Exactly how will these businesses determine who is gay or not? I have yet to hear a clear answer to that. If you do not want to serve someone because of their race, their choice of clothing, or many other things you can assess that with your eyes but beyond wedding cake bakers or wedding photographers exactly how would the bigots know who to refuse their goods or services to if a customer is gay? Surely you realize that there are plenty of very effeminate heterosexual males especially with all the so called metrosexuals around. There are also plenty of effeminate lesbians who might accidentally get served in a restaurant before they are discovered and asked to leave.
We are not entitled to everything everyone offers. It doesn't matter what demographic boxes you have checked, we as a culture have a sense of entitlement that nobody can every deny us anything for any reason and if they do, we run to the courts.
Care to drop the insults? Otherwise, there really isn't much sense continuing this.
That's knowable false because as has been said multiple times in this thread, religion is a protected class. They were already and still are legally able to discriminate against gays in AZ. You should be happy about that, not feigning victimhood over losing nothing.
Exactly how will these businesses determine who is gay or not? I have yet to hear a clear answer to that. If you do not want to serve someone because of their race, their choice of clothing, or many other things you can assess that with your eyes but beyond wedding cake bakers or wedding photographers exactly how would the bigots know who to refuse their goods or services to if a customer is gay? Surely you realize that there are plenty of very effeminate heterosexual males especially with all the so called metrosexuals around. There are also plenty of effeminate lesbians who might accidentally get served in a restaurant before they are discovered and asked to leave.
Well...if two guys come into the bakery and say, "We're getting married and would like to order a cake", I think that's a good tip-off that they're not hetero...
This bill seemed rather small by comparison. Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yemen Mauritania and Iran have the death penalty for someone that is gay. There are 66 countries have imprisonment laws for gays. Makes TX and AZ look like supporters of GLAAD.
It wasn't long ago that gay people were arrested just for being gay in Texas.
If anyone wants to understand why it is now time to allow gay marriage in all 50 states and you have Netflix, watch this film called Bridegroom which may give you a very different perspective on gay marriage and gay rights and why so much more remains to be done.
[quote name="gwmac" url="/t/162201/arizona-governor-vetoes-gay-discrimination-bill-apple-rallied-against/240#post_2478892"... but do not try and impose your beliefs on others. [/quote]
Well...if two guys come into the bakery and say, "We're getting married and would like to order a cake", I think that's a good tip-off that they're not hetero...
Then it is a good thing our economy is more diversified beyond wedding bakers and wedding photographers isn't it. Why is that the only example that people can come up with. Please explain how a hardware, pet, clothing, supermarket, and the thousands of other types of businesses would make that determination to not serve someone because they are gay.
Comments
An Ad Hominem fallacy fallacy.
Good stuff, but my comment was not an example of improperly pointing your comment out as an Ad Hominem attack. You attempted to undermine a person's argument by referring to him as a white heterosexual male thereby attacking the characteristics of the person to deflect from his argument. I rarely point out an Ad Hominem attack, but your remark was a pretty textbook example.
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
So why then, when these gays found out the beliefs of the merchant would they persist in demanding that they do what they want like a spoiled petulant child with an overblown sense of entitlement?
That's just the first rebuttal to your statement. Further ones could include, "But they're the best in the area and the customer is always right and gets what they want!" and so on.
Really? Did you read the bill? If so, please point out to me where it references or mentions "homosexuality".
A lot of folks here are commenting on something they have never seen nor read.
Here's a link to the bill, it's only two pages and a quick read: http://www.azcentral.com/ic/pdf/SB-1062-bill.pdf
Ask yourself this though, why was the bill needed at all? There is no state law preventing people from denying to do business with another person for any reason at all anyway. This law actually gives religious people more freedom of choice then non-religious people.
So why then, when these gays found out the beliefs of the merchant would they persist in demanding that they do what they want like a spoiled petulant child with an overblown sense of entitlement?
That's just the first rebuttal to your statement. Further ones could include, "But they're the best in the area and the customer is always right and gets what they want!" and so on.
Because it's a false analogy on your end. Say an atheist caterer does not serve pulled pork sandwiches. They can't be forced to serve something that they don't make just because somebody is willing to pay for them. However if they do make pulled pork sandwiches they shouldn't be able to not serve somebody based on gender, sexual orientation, race , religious affiliation, and so on
If you sell a good or service you should serve it to anybody willing to pay equally
What a terrible shame for you. It's tiring being a white male who is never discrimated against
White guys are discriminated against all the time. All the world's problems are blamed on white guys. Affirmative action discriminates. More women are going to college then men, yet there are all kinds of assistance programs for women but not white men at colleges.
White guys are discriminated against all the time. All the world's problems are blamed on white guys. Affirmative action discriminates. More women are going to college then men, yet there are all kinds of assistance programs for women but not white men at colleges.
I'm a white straight male in America and this is such a poor argument. We have it better than anybody else. We as a group have never been oppressed nor have we not been in a position of power. We don't know what true discrimination is no matter your claims of it
White guys are discriminated against all the time. All the world's problems are blamed on white guys. Affirmative action discriminates. More women are going to college then men, yet there are all kinds of assistance programs for women but not white men at colleges.
LOL. Most often there is a good reason for that.
It seems the comments in this thread by people against gay rights or gay marriage can be boiled down to 1) Please be tolerant of my intolerance. 2) Gay rights have come a long way so be grateful for the progress and stop asking for more.
There is no war on religion, not now and not 200 years ago. Fox news would love you to believe there is but that is simply not true. If anything there is a knee jerk reaction where certain groups were given preferential treatment for a very long time and now that others demand equality there is a backlash. Repeat after me. "There is no war on religion!" Go to any church you want and believe or worship any God(s) you like but do not try and impose your beliefs on others. If anything there has been a war by the religious on everyone else that didn't share their belief system and now that other groups want to assert their rights as well, the poor Christians who have done a lot of the persecuting are now suddenly the persecuted in their minds at least.
Follow the golden rule and we won't have any problems.
Because it's a false analogy on your end. Say an atheist caterer does not serve pulled pork sandwiches. They can't be forced to serve something that they don't make just because somebody is willing to pay for them. However if they do make pulled pork sandwiches they shouldn't be able to not serve somebody based on gender, sexual orientation, race , religious affiliation, and so on
If you sell a good or service you should serve it to anybody willing to pay equally
No, I shouldn't have to sell a good or service two whoever has money. I should not be compelled to support something that is against my beliefs. Let the market speak; if everyone turns against a business for not baking cakes, making t-shirts, or whatever for gays, then the business will fail. But if people either don't care or support the business owner's right of choice, then the market will have also spoken.
BTW, if the atheist doesn't have any religious beliefs, then how can they use the argument, "We don't offer that because it's against our religious beliefs"? They can't. Yet it is a very valid argument for the Muslim.
What I don't understand is why these gays wanted businesses who don't want to work for them to provide goods and services for their event. IMO, the real motivation for the suits wasn't one of equality, it was one of using the courts for revenge.
No, I shouldn't have to sell a good or service two whoever has money. I should not be compelled to support something that is against my beliefs. Let the market speak; if everyone turns against a business for not baking cakes, making t-shirts, or whatever for gays, then the business will fail. But if people either don't care or support the business owner's right of choice, then the market will have also spoken.
BTW, if the atheist doesn't have any religious beliefs, then how can they use the argument, "We don't offer that because it's against our religious beliefs"? They can't. Yet it is a very valid argument for the Muslim.
What I don't understand is why these gays wanted businesses who don't want to work for them to provide goods and services for their event. IMO, the real motivation for the suits wasn't one of equality, it was one of using the courts for revenge.
Because you don't have to give a reason why you don't offer something. You just say "I'm sorry that's not on our menu" and the conversation ends. This is like trying to force a restaurant to serve you something off menu or a store to carry something that they don't carry. And yes businesses that are open to the public should be forced to take anybody's money for a service or good that they provide. Otherwise we might as well go back to segregation
So why then, when these gays found out the beliefs of the merchant would they persist in demanding that they do what they want like a spoiled petulant child with an overblown sense of entitlement?
That's just the first rebuttal to your statement. Further ones could include, "But they're the best in the area and the customer is always right and gets what they want!" and so on.
Only in a bigot's brain with a superiority complex does treating gay people equally count as "entitlement".
Only in a bigot's brain with a superiority complex does treating gay people equally count as "entitlement".
We are not entitled to everything everyone offers. It doesn't matter what demographic boxes you have checked, we as a culture have a sense of entitlement that nobody can every deny us anything for any reason and if they do, we run to the courts.
Care to drop the insults? Otherwise, there really isn't much sense continuing this.
Welcome to the 21st century, AZ and TX!
This bill seemed rather small by comparison. Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yemen Mauritania and Iran have the death penalty for someone that is gay. There are 66 countries have imprisonment laws for gays. Makes TX and AZ look like supporters of GLAAD.
No, I shouldn't have to sell a good or service two whoever has money. I should not be compelled to support something that is against my beliefs. Let the market speak; if everyone turns against a business for not baking cakes, making t-shirts, or whatever for gays, then the business will fail. But if people either don't care or support the business owner's right of choice, then the market will have also spoken.
BTW, if the atheist doesn't have any religious beliefs, then how can they use the argument, "We don't offer that because it's against our religious beliefs"? They can't. Yet it is a very valid argument for the Muslim.
What I don't understand is why these gays wanted businesses who don't want to work for them to provide goods and services for their event. IMO, the real motivation for the suits wasn't one of equality, it was one of using the courts for revenge.
Exactly how will these businesses determine who is gay or not? I have yet to hear a clear answer to that. If you do not want to serve someone because of their race, their choice of clothing, or many other things you can assess that with your eyes but beyond wedding cake bakers or wedding photographers exactly how would the bigots know who to refuse their goods or services to if a customer is gay? Surely you realize that there are plenty of very effeminate heterosexual males especially with all the so called metrosexuals around. There are also plenty of effeminate lesbians who might accidentally get served in a restaurant before they are discovered and asked to leave.
We are not entitled to everything everyone offers. It doesn't matter what demographic boxes you have checked, we as a culture have a sense of entitlement that nobody can every deny us anything for any reason and if they do, we run to the courts.
Care to drop the insults? Otherwise, there really isn't much sense continuing this.
That's knowable false because as has been said multiple times in this thread, religion is a protected class. They were already and still are legally able to discriminate against gays in AZ. You should be happy about that, not feigning victimhood over losing nothing.
Exactly how will these businesses determine who is gay or not? I have yet to hear a clear answer to that. If you do not want to serve someone because of their race, their choice of clothing, or many other things you can assess that with your eyes but beyond wedding cake bakers or wedding photographers exactly how would the bigots know who to refuse their goods or services to if a customer is gay? Surely you realize that there are plenty of very effeminate heterosexual males especially with all the so called metrosexuals around. There are also plenty of effeminate lesbians who might accidentally get served in a restaurant before they are discovered and asked to leave.
Well...if two guys come into the bakery and say, "We're getting married and would like to order a cake", I think that's a good tip-off that they're not hetero...
This bill seemed rather small by comparison. Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yemen Mauritania and Iran have the death penalty for someone that is gay. There are 66 countries have imprisonment laws for gays. Makes TX and AZ look like supporters of GLAAD.
It wasn't long ago that gay people were arrested just for being gay in Texas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas
If anyone wants to understand why it is now time to allow gay marriage in all 50 states and you have Netflix, watch this film called Bridegroom which may give you a very different perspective on gay marriage and gay rights and why so much more remains to be done.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2357788/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
[/quote]
This works both ways.
Well...if two guys come into the bakery and say, "We're getting married and would like to order a cake", I think that's a good tip-off that they're not hetero...
Then it is a good thing our economy is more diversified beyond wedding bakers and wedding photographers isn't it. Why is that the only example that people can come up with. Please explain how a hardware, pet, clothing, supermarket, and the thousands of other types of businesses would make that determination to not serve someone because they are gay.