NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from PhatVirginian. Show PhatVirginian's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Look , I was just listening on the tube, and no one is sure what the law really says

    Does it stop taking medical care of someone who is gay? Obviously completeky untenable and a sin

    or is it something common sense? I don't know, but I naturally distrust advocacy groups, politicians and media. I certainly don't trust the NFL or Goodell. I definitely don't trust Brewer or McCain who are less than almost smart

    In the end I think the PC advocates will rule and I am tired of them. And the NFL office sux

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I've tried reading some bills drafted by legislators - the jargon is in "legalese" - and is very difficult to actually understand....lol.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    I understand the term PC refers to politically correct.  I guess I'm confused by the application of this term in this case.  If I understand certain provisions of the bill correctly it permits retail service providers to discriminate based on their own belief system.  Objecting to such a slippery slope has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with equality under the law. 

    If my religious beliefs characterize people with blond hair and blue eyes as evil then I'm sorry Swedes I won't sell you product X simply because your hair is the wrong color and so are your eyes. 

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     


    So you want the NFL to get out of the state (which they are saying they will do by taking the superbowl away) but you don't want them to "blackmail" the state which changed the playing ground AFTER the contract was signed? This is like having your cake and eating it too.

    Don't forget, the Supreme Court made the Arizona Cardinals and the NFL people. And as people they have every right to tell their state politicians how they should vote and they have every right to do it with their wallet.

    Check out the firearm industry. An awful lot of the firearm industry is doing the exact same thing and moving out of states that pass anti-gun legislation. They said they would before the laws were voted on and since they passed, they moved. 

    Tell me this, would you have a problem with the NFL pulling the superbowl from Arizona if they passed a law that made it illegal for people with brown eyes to live? 

    [/QUOTE]

    I never said I agreed with the law, nor would I be upset if the NFL pulled the SB in the least. But, if they are going to do it do it all the way. I don't like companies making threats to dictate policy and then making money off that state regardless of the outcome. It's simple the NFL states it's opinion which is "The NFL supports gay rights and the rights of everyone and does not want to be affliated with states that don't support those rights". That's the statement of opinion not a threat. Now, if Ari decides to continue with their path that's fine but the NFL has to pull out completely without making a big deal of it (the media will do that for them). They can't just pull the SB they have to pull the team and they have to pull the teams for every state that doesn't support gay rights. That's the only way to do it otherwise you are just dictating policy while still making money off the state. That's having your cake and eating it too.

    But, glad to see you took it from discrimination to genocide to make your argument. I know they are relatively close and I don't believe in either but come on man that's a far leap. The difference is simple if I live in Ari and find out store 'x' won't sell to gay's then I won't shop there. That's my right. And if enough people don't shop there they will go out of business, which imo will happen to a number of stores out there. Do I think it's right they discriminate, of course not but I also feel that for the most part people don't take discrimination to kindly and those businesses will eventually lose out and crumble while those who support gay rights with thrive from the extra business.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from seawolfxs. Show seawolfxs's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    I agree if i read the 'bill" i probably couldnt underestand it -lol

    I have heard that the bill isnt 'intended" to stop any normal transaction and is not "supposed" to be targeted to any physical characteristics but rather behavioral issues such as a wedding. These same bakers and photographers reportedly have no problems with birthday cakes, family portraits  etc. just dont nvolve them in religious ceremonies or make them do things they think are wrong

    If the law is written poorly it shouldnt be passed..

    But i dont trust the advocates with agendas to tell me anything. Especially in the photographers case which was initiated? by a couple who knew they were not interested in the service but the chance to make a political statement and sue.

    We went thru this whole thing about civil unions and somehow the civll union laws didnt have the same rights as "marriage" - How did that happen? It happened because the LG community was really after "marriage" and forced acceptance.  The laws could have been written to avoid all of these issues if they wanted to.             They chose not to. They had and have an agenda. I dont like being manipulated or bullied

    This is the exact same issue in front of the SC now with Obamacare and 'the Little Sisters of the Poor" and all the birth control and abortion requirements. Many of the left progressive groups do say that business or corps do not have Constitutional rights- such as in this case

    That is nuts and scary 

    People in businesss do not lose their Constituitonal rights because they are in business. The people driving the GL agenda are saying that in the work (business) place that people can dress and act anyway they want as it is  their Constitutional right to be protected. Then how come (busness) owners dont have any Constitutional rights? really? really?

    The NFL is having problems with two things -concussions, and the name Red Skins. Now with this and the use of the "n" word in games, I think it a pure marketing move and to make themselves fell good. I agree with the above, if the NFl  really wanted to show how much they cared , they should threaten to pull their AZ team out of the State too. I mean if they are really really mean what they say. No its the same bs as "safety"

    These issues, per se, don't really effect me. I just dont like to see people's lives get trampled unfairly. I do understand that there are people who dont want anything to do with religion and hate it even mentioned in public. But then that gets back to the slippery slope of " You have free speech as long as you agree with me"

    Interesting times we live in, but also frightening

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from fishers5. Show fishers5's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else


    When the n word is taken out of the actual game and a penalty is called I hope it's called regardless of who says it.   But what about using the slang words related to non heto sexuals?

    just take rap out of all locker rooms and people will not be so offended.  

    I am sure the players will love it.

     

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from rtuinila. Show rtuinila's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Check out the firearm industry. An awful lot of the firearm industry is doing the exact same thing and moving out of states that pass anti-gun legislation. They said they would before the laws were voted on and since they passed, they moved. 

    [/QUOTE]

    The principle is entirely the same.   The firearms industry is doing precisely the same thing in Colorado, New York, Connecticut and other states that have enacted more restrictive firearms legislation.  

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Yeah I know, I used to work in the firearm industry!

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from seawolfxs. Show seawolfxs's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Check out the firearm industry. An awful lot of the firearm industry is doing the exact same thing and moving out of states that pass anti-gun legislation. They said they would before the laws were voted on and since they passed, they moved. 

    [/QUOTE]

    The principle is entirely the same.   The firearms industry is doing precisely the same thing in Colorado, New York, Connecticut and other states that have enacted more restrictive firearms legislation.  

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Yeah I know, I used to work in the firearm industry!

    [/QUOTE]

    And there are a lot of States that are drafting similar lswas.

    I just want the NFL to be consistent, They are used to bullying people. They will get their's someday. They have now stepped into it. Being PC is fine but just ask the Catholic Church after advocating socialism at times as to how they in turn can have the State hand it to them.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from rtuinila. Show rtuinila's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     


    So you want the NFL to get out of the state (which they are saying they will do by taking the superbowl away) but you don't want them to "blackmail" the state which changed the playing ground AFTER the contract was signed? This is like having your cake and eating it too.

    Don't forget, the Supreme Court made the Arizona Cardinals and the NFL people. And as people they have every right to tell their state politicians how they should vote and they have every right to do it with their wallet.

    Check out the firearm industry. An awful lot of the firearm industry is doing the exact same thing and moving out of states that pass anti-gun legislation. They said they would before the laws were voted on and since they passed, they moved. 

    Tell me this, would you have a problem with the NFL pulling the superbowl from Arizona if they passed a law that made it illegal for people with brown eyes to live? 

    [/QUOTE]

    I never said I agreed with the law, nor would I be upset if the NFL pulled the SB in the least. But, if they are going to do it do it all the way. I don't like companies making threats to dictate policy and then making money off that state regardless of the outcome. It's simple the NFL states it's opinion which is "The NFL supports gay rights and the rights of everyone and does not want to be affliated with states that don't support those rights". That's the statement of opinion not a threat. Now, if Ari decides to continue with their path that's fine but the NFL has to pull out completely without making a big deal of it (the media will do that for them). They can't just pull the SB they have to pull the team and they have to pull the teams for every state that doesn't support gay rights. That's the only way to do it otherwise you are just dictating policy while still making money off the state. That's having your cake and eating it too.

    But, glad to see you took it from discrimination to genocide to make your argument. I know they are relatively close and I don't believe in either but come on man that's a far leap. The difference is simple if I live in Ari and find out store 'x' won't sell to gay's then I won't shop there. That's my right. And if enough people don't shop there they will go out of business, which imo will happen to a number of stores out there. Do I think it's right they discriminate, of course not but I also feel that for the most part people don't take discrimination to kindly and those businesses will eventually lose out and crumble while those who support gay rights with thrive from the extra business.

    [/QUOTE]

    But you see, discrimination is the start of the slippery slope to genocide. History is rife with instances where once benign goverments start enacting discriminatory laws in an effort to maintain control of the rest of the population as their society receeds from a former pinnacle. Sort of like the US is doing now! 

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from rtuinila. Show rtuinila's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Check out the firearm industry. An awful lot of the firearm industry is doing the exact same thing and moving out of states that pass anti-gun legislation. They said they would before the laws were voted on and since they passed, they moved. 

    [/QUOTE]

    The principle is entirely the same.   The firearms industry is doing precisely the same thing in Colorado, New York, Connecticut and other states that have enacted more restrictive firearms legislation.  

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Yeah I know, I used to work in the firearm industry!

    [/QUOTE]

    And there are a lot of States that are drafting similar lswas.

    I just want the NFL to be consistent, They are used to bullying people. They will get their's someday. They have now stepped into it. Being PC is fine but just ask the Catholic Church after advocating socialism at times as to how they in turn can have the State hand it to them.

    [/QUOTE]

    And there are a couple of states that are considering repealing those laws as the jobs, and there were a lot of them, leave their states. 

    The NFL is being consistent. When they signed the contract, it was assumed there would be no discriminatory laws voted on by the state legislature. They expected all of their fans to be welcome there. Since Arizona is about to enact a law that will make a good number of their fans "unwelcome" they have every right and as a US citizen they have an obligation to do everything in their power to stop that law from being enacted or to move out of the state altogether.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheTinMan. Show TheTinMan's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In a way it is rather entertaining that the NFL may decide not to do business with a group of people (call them "bigots" or "homophobes" or whatever) because those people may pass a law that allows businesses not to do business with a group of people.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from seawolfxs. Show seawolfxs's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Check out the firearm industry. An awful lot of the firearm industry is doing the exact same thing and moving out of states that pass anti-gun legislation. They said they would before the laws were voted on and since they passed, they moved. 

    [/QUOTE]

    The principle is entirely the same.   The firearms industry is doing precisely the same thing in Colorado, New York, Connecticut and other states that have enacted more restrictive firearms legislation.  

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Yeah I know, I used to work in the firearm industry!

    [/QUOTE]

    And there are a lot of States that are drafting similar lswas.

    I just want the NFL to be consistent, They are used to bullying people. They will get their's someday. They have now stepped into it. Being PC is fine but just ask the Catholic Church after advocating socialism at times as to how they in turn can have the State hand it to them.

    [/QUOTE]

    And there are a couple of states that are considering repealing those laws as the jobs, and there were a lot of them, leave their states. 

    The NFL is being consistent. When they signed the contract, it was assumed there would be no discriminatory laws voted on by the state legislature. They expected all of their fans to be welcome there. Since Arizona is about to enact a law that will make a good number of their fans "unwelcome" they have every right and as a US citizen they have an obligation to do everything in their power to stop that law from being enacted or to move out of the state altogether.

    [/QUOTE]

    The Contract the NFL signed for the SB has absolutely no linkage to this issue. I doubt very seriouslly that they have an escape clause for this, They will be subject to many lawsuits if they do leave and they will lose. But these bozos' are too stupid to understand. I just want them to be consitent with the AZ team - but they wont because they are frauds.

    They do have rights, and they can sasy wahat they want, but then they must accept the consequences of what they say. The NFl should probably stay out of direct politics. They now deserve what they get. But right now there are more states that will write these laws than not.

    You or I do not know what the law really states. You are taking your cue from the GL advocacy groups. I have learned to not trust most of these groups and how they paraphrase legal bills - like the Affordable Care Act, in which you dont get to keep your Doctor, You dont get to keep your Insurance, the insurance will cost $2500 less

    You are saying as a fact that this law will make visiting fans not safe. No doctor is not going to take car of a person because he or she is gay. They probably wont even know. They will be able to walk into any store and buy what anybody else buys. they will be able to rent rooms, sell food and rent cars. Your assertion is merritless

    If the law were to do what you say, then it should be vetoed. But I know of no Christian that would harm anybody based upon this. this is the Quintessential "Strawman's Argument"

    Btw i appreciate the good tone you are using in discussing this topic. Its a tuff one and there are good ansers to these issues for all

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to rtuinila's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    But you see, discrimination is the start of the slippery slope to genocide. History is rife with instances where once benign goverments start enacting discriminatory laws in an effort to maintain control of the rest of the population as their society receeds from a former pinnacle. Sort of like the US is doing now! 

    [/QUOTE]

    The government isn't enacting a discriminatory law. They are saying you have the right not to give business to someone you don't believe with. In otherwords if you feel gay marriage is a sin and you will go to hell for participating in it you shouldn't have to and not have to be worried about being sued. They aren't making separate bathrooms or saying no gays allowed here, that's up to the private business owner and private citizens to decide if they want to spend money there are not. You are making a huge leap. However, we have prime examples of recent industries that have flexed their money and have hurt numerous people because of it. The health industry with the new health care bill (they are making tons), comcast monopoly in NE, banks with economic terms. I'm much more scared of opening the door to corporations dictating policy than I am of private citizens not being able to make a choice.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    Eng, it is nowhere near as simple as you characterize it.  The civil rights laws, enacted for very good reason and clearly still needed, address exactly the kind of practices that you seem to be perfectly fine with.  Since when does a personal belief system trump someone's right to equal treatment (and yes it is a right) in establishments open to the public?  People lost their lives in the '60s protesting the very practices that you seem to think are acceptable.  It is a very slippery slope and if Jane Brewer has a gram of common sense she'll veto that bill and move one without batting an eye.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from seawolfxs. Show seawolfxs's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Eng, it is nowhere near as simple as you characterize it.  The civil rights laws, enacted for very good reason and clearly still needed, address exactly the kind of practices that you seem to be perfectly fine with.  Since when does a personal belief system trump someone's right to equal treatment (and yes it is a right) in establishments open to the public?  People lost their lives in the '60s protesting the very practices that you seem to think are acceptable.  It is a very slippery slope and if Jane Brewer has a gram of common sense she'll veto that bill and move one without batting an eye.

    [/QUOTE]

    Well, that is interesting

    What would you say to Elton John if he decided not to recieve $1M for playing at Rusjh Libauigh's wedding becasue Rush was straight?

    Better yet, what are you saying about the West Hollywood restraunter taht said that anybody not for LBGT rights is not allowed in his restrauant?

    What do you say if I, as a business owner, do want want to do business and write a cointeact with a person i do not trust. then I get sued because he/she is gay? Is that fair?

    Right now we have a President and AG say and cjole other State AG's to selectively ignore laws they dont like. But it is not okay for a photographer to say no to a gay wedding - that was a set up by the plaintiff

    It is always

     "You have rights as long as you agree with me"

    To all the people who have this new religion, which is fine, want to change society built on thousand or years. ok fine- It is up to you to make the case on how it should work fairly and not use bullying, name calling  or strawman arguments. Which are always at the fore front of progressive bull dozing.

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from jjbag. Show jjbag's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    I agree with the NFL to say buhbye if the AZ discrimination law comes to be. Think of it like this if an NFL player on superbowl team, comes out of the closet then as he goes out to dinner with the Team for a team meal, the owner of said establishment then walks over to the coach and says, sorry sir but we will take the orders of all your players except the gay player over there, ya see its against my religion to serve homosexuals.

    Yes i can see that playing well all over the nation, the NFL is just trying to protect their brand.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from glenr. Show glenr's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    or else the SB will be taken away

    I would tell them to take it and shove it. I dont like being bullied - forget the issue

    The NFL is a bully, they have problems galore, are hypocrites when it comes to player saftey. They really only care about making money, no matter what BS they try and peddle. They will ruin the NFL just like the NCAA ruined college basketball, And  the NHL ruined the hockey and the NBA ruined the regular seasons.

    But i can see that the Gov will veto it

     

    By the way there is already a rulke ginst using the N word or anything like it

    [/QUOTE]


    So you're saying that legalizing religious bigotry is OK? What's next? My religion says I don't have to pay any attention to labor laws?

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from glenr. Show glenr's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to NoMorePensionLooting's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I believe that it's over the serving gays bill and following dust up.

    The NFL is well within it's rights to play where ever they want.

    I would however caution them not to get too political as they are coming under scrunity for their non-profit status.

    [/QUOTE]


    Some right wing religious fruitcake is trying to get a law started that would prohibit the NFL not to hire gay players so the NFL is being dragged into religious bigot politics already.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from glenr. Show glenr's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    This is the exact same issue in front of the SC now with Obamacare and 'the Little Sisters of the Poor" and all the birth control and abortion requirements. Many of the left progressive groups do say that business or corps do not have Constitutional rights- such as in this case

     

    This is typical right wing BS. The law affects them as employers NOT as religious organizations. Funny how easily the supposed 'moral' religious right just can't help lying.

    What's next? My religion says I can ignore child labor laws?

    The simple FACT is that anyone can reinterpet the Bible to back anything they want to do. This is just a small step on the way to replacing democracy with Christian theocracy. If you want theocracy move to Iran

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from dreighver. Show dreighver's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Eng, it is nowhere near as simple as you characterize it.  The civil rights laws, enacted for very good reason and clearly still needed, address exactly the kind of practices that you seem to be perfectly fine with.  Since when does a personal belief system trump someone's right to equal treatment (and yes it is a right) in establishments open to the public?  People lost their lives in the '60s protesting the very practices that you seem to think are acceptable.  It is a very slippery slope and if Jane Brewer has a gram of common sense she'll veto that bill and move one without batting an eye.

    [/QUOTE]

    That's the problem -- Brewer is nuts and a loose cannon. As you mentioned, any sensible person would veto this discriminatory bill in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, I'm not convinced that Brewer satisfies the condition listed above, that being sensibility. 

    I'm entirely shocked and appalled to see so many individuals here defending this bill. Many get worked up when so-called "liberals" reference discrimination these days, claiming that their bringing up the topic is the only reason it continues to exists culture, and that it actually isn't an issue. I think instances like this prove that discrimination is still very much alive and well today, especially when so many are defending this horrible bill. 

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Eng, it is nowhere near as simple as you characterize it.  The civil rights laws, enacted for very good reason and clearly still needed, address exactly the kind of practices that you seem to be perfectly fine with.  Since when does a personal belief system trump someone's right to equal treatment (and yes it is a right) in establishments open to the public?  People lost their lives in the '60s protesting the very practices that you seem to think are acceptable.  It is a very slippery slope and if Jane Brewer has a gram of common sense she'll veto that bill and move one without batting an eye.

    [/QUOTE]

    Well, that is interesting

    What would you say to Elton John if he decided not to recieve $1M for playing at Rusjh Libauigh's wedding becasue Rush was straight?

    Better yet, what are you saying about the West Hollywood restraunter taht said that anybody not for LBGT rights is not allowed in his restrauant?

    What do you say if I, as a business owner, do want want to do business and write a cointeact with a person i do not trust. then I get sued because he/she is gay? Is that fair?

    Right now we have a President and AG say and cjole other State AG's to selectively ignore laws they dont like. But it is not okay for a photographer to say no to a gay wedding - that was a set up by the plaintiff

    It is always

     "You have rights as long as you agree with me"

    To all the people who have this new religion, which is fine, want to change society built on thousand or years. ok fine- It is up to you to make the case on how it should work fairly and not use bullying, name calling  or strawman arguments. Which are always at the fore front of progressive bull dozing.

    [/QUOTE]

    There are two distinct distinct differences.  The first is that Arizona wishes to make it a matter of law that it's ok to discriminate therefore providing an across the board license to do so. 

    The second is that the Arizona bill would allow anyone to discriminate against a class of individuals, specifically gays and lesbians.  Elton John and the restaurateur would be individuals making a decision on  a case basis, not a class basis.

    The law is pretty clear.  A business establishment open to the public cannot refuse service to a black man because he's black.  But there's nothing that prevents a black man from refusing to patronize a business establishment because the owner is a member of the KKK.  The same laws applicable to discrimination on the basis of race are now (or soon will be) applicable with respect to discrimination on the basis of gender orientation.

     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to dreighver's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Eng, it is nowhere near as simple as you characterize it.  The civil rights laws, enacted for very good reason and clearly still needed, address exactly the kind of practices that you seem to be perfectly fine with.  Since when does a personal belief system trump someone's right to equal treatment (and yes it is a right) in establishments open to the public?  People lost their lives in the '60s protesting the very practices that you seem to think are acceptable.  It is a very slippery slope and if Jane Brewer has a gram of common sense she'll veto that bill and move one without batting an eye.

    [/QUOTE]

    That's the problem -- Brewer is nuts and a loose cannon. As you mentioned, any sensible person would veto this discriminatory bill in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, I'm not convinced that Brewer satisfies the condition listed above, that being sensibility. 

    I'm entirely shocked and appalled to see so many individuals here defending this bill. Many get worked up when so-called "liberals" reference discrimination these days, claiming that their bringing up the topic is the only reason it continues to exists culture, and that it actually isn't an issue. I think instances like this prove that discrimination is still very much alive and well today, especially when so many are defending this horrible bill. 

    [/QUOTE]

    You may be right on the Brewer score but I've always thought that she was very much a pro-business governor who wants to see no governmental interference with commerce.  The AZ bill would be major interference were it to become law.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from dreighver. Show dreighver's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Eng, it is nowhere near as simple as you characterize it.  The civil rights laws, enacted for very good reason and clearly still needed, address exactly the kind of practices that you seem to be perfectly fine with.  Since when does a personal belief system trump someone's right to equal treatment (and yes it is a right) in establishments open to the public?  People lost their lives in the '60s protesting the very practices that you seem to think are acceptable.  It is a very slippery slope and if Jane Brewer has a gram of common sense she'll veto that bill and move one without batting an eye.



    Well, that is interesting

    What would you say to Elton John if he decided not to recieve $1M for playing at Rusjh Libauigh's wedding becasue Rush was straight?

    I don't see the issue here. A private wedding that outsources their music is entirely different than the business atmosphere to which this bill applies. Apples to oranges.

    Better yet, what are you saying about the West Hollywood restraunter taht said that anybody not for LBGT rights is not allowed in his restrauant?

    I appreciate the passion of the restaurant owner, but this seems a touch asinine and discriminatory. While I agree with the owner's personal beliefs, this is entirely unfair, much like a business refusing service to gay individuals.

    What do you say if I, as a business owner, do want want to do business and write a cointeact with a person i do not trust. then I get sued because he/she is gay? Is that fair?

    Again, dude, apples to oranges. You're really reaching here.

    Right now we have a President and AG say and cjole other State AG's to selectively ignore laws they dont like. But it is not okay for a photographer to say no to a gay wedding - that was a set up by the plaintiff.

    I won't comment on our president's job performance, as it's entirely unrelated to this topic. I see you mentioned multiple logical fallacies below, and this appears to be a classic example of a diversion to another topic. Consistency isn't your strong suit, eh?

    It is always

     "You have rights as long as you agree with me"

    No, this applies to people who think this way. I have my personal beliefs and value system, but I believe in liberty for all. Maybe you're thinking of yourself here...?

    To all the people who have this new religion, which is fine, want to change society built on thousand or years. ok fine- It is up to you to make the case on how it should work fairly and not use bullying, name calling  or strawman arguments. Which are always at the fore front of progressive bull dozing.

    My, oh my... That society that we built over the past thousand years is largely flawed and has committed horrible injustices. If you're okay with slavery, sexism, repression of the young, women, and minorties, then I see why you'd like our thousand year-old society. If you're a fan of equality and equal rights, which you clearly are not, then I would expect you to take no issue with the direction our society is headed.

     

    [/QUOTE]


     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from dreighver. Show dreighver's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to dreighver's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Eng, it is nowhere near as simple as you characterize it.  The civil rights laws, enacted for very good reason and clearly still needed, address exactly the kind of practices that you seem to be perfectly fine with.  Since when does a personal belief system trump someone's right to equal treatment (and yes it is a right) in establishments open to the public?  People lost their lives in the '60s protesting the very practices that you seem to think are acceptable.  It is a very slippery slope and if Jane Brewer has a gram of common sense she'll veto that bill and move one without batting an eye.

    [/QUOTE]

    That's the problem -- Brewer is nuts and a loose cannon. As you mentioned, any sensible person would veto this discriminatory bill in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, I'm not convinced that Brewer satisfies the condition listed above, that being sensibility. 

    I'm entirely shocked and appalled to see so many individuals here defending this bill. Many get worked up when so-called "liberals" reference discrimination these days, claiming that their bringing up the topic is the only reason it continues to exists culture, and that it actually isn't an issue. I think instances like this prove that discrimination is still very much alive and well today, especially when so many are defending this horrible bill. 

    [/QUOTE]

    You may be right on the Brewer score but I've always thought that she was very much a pro-business governor who wants to see no governmental interference with commerce.  The AZ bill would be major interference were it to become law.

    [/QUOTE]

    This is true, and while I expect it to be a difficult decision for her, as I have no doubt that she'd love for homosexuals to face repression, I expect she'll veto the bill due to, as you referenced, her pro-business mentality and outside pressure from multiple (influential) sources. 

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from fishers5. Show fishers5's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else


    Are most of you saying that a private business doesn't have to right not to provide a service to anyone they don't want to under any circumstance??  Or be required to make a special occasion product that they don't usually make??  

    Sometimes freedom can be tough to understand, but man or woman up and go to the next maker and buy from him or her.. Even get a bunch of like minded people and boycott but damn do we need more laws that no one understands or sometimes like in order to be able to sue over???

    ill bet most of us don't even live in N.M or Arizona 

     

Share