NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    The NFL is a money making machine centered around a game.

    They should keep their noses out of politics.

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

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    Another thing to consider.... read this quote earlier today. It's relevant, as you can see WHY the bill was created, and it's very apparent that it wasn't to promote freedom.

    "The group that has propounded this bill, Alliance Defending Freedom, has nothing to do with freedom whatsoever, other than to tromp on the freedom of everyone who does not have the same religious beliefs as they do."


    The fact that the ADF created this bill tells you all you need to know about it. 

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

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    Whatever the NFL's contractual arrangements are with the entities awarded the SB is what must prevail. If whomever made the contract did not stipulate damages/reimbursement provisions in the event they were to have the carpet pulled out from under them, it is their own misfortune.

    The NFL might be wise to just s t f u though. Too much grandstanding might arouse the forces who see them as a culprit involved in years of previously legalized maiming.

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

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to fishers5's comment:


    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 




    That's the point. This proposed law is specifically intended to target the gay and lesbian population.  If that isn't discrimination on the basis of class I don't know what is.


    If the business establishment is refusing service because they don't offer a product that's one thing.  But if they're refusing service because theyh don't offer that product to a certain class of people that's quite another.

    I've lived in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, California, Connecticut, Florida and Virginia. (Also lived in Sardinia for a couple of years but not really germane to this discussion).  I've witnessed blatant discrimination on the basis of race in Maine, Florida and Virginia.  I fail to understand the difference between that and discrimination on the basis of gender orientation.

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

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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?

    [/QUOTE]


    Not at all, and these are strawman arguments you make

    No one says anything like this

    There are things that are monopolistic or common carrier organizations that must have open and equal rules for all to participate. They are the infrastructure

    Then you have items ibased upon contract law. Which for the most part is pretty benighn with these issues. Labor laws are part of Contract Law and thus covered by the Constitution

    And then there is a gray area in between the two

    I have a business, but my business is in the Design / Construction world, I can foresee any religious reason why i should not be able to serve someone in any group. But there are several customers who choose not to use me for all of the reasons you think should be protected by the Constituiton.

     (in fact i am open to all). But if I had a business that forces me to particpate in something I find objectionable I shouldn't have to or if i dont trust the person. I shouldnt be open to being sued for not.

    A simple retail store would not have any reason not to either.

    And quite frankly why would any gay person want someone at their wedding who doesnt want to be there. This was a trumped up suit

    But but what if a Doctor Catholic Priest be forced to perform an abortion?  if you say yes - what if there is another Dr next door? , Or any Catholic? Would you make the Pope do it?

    The problem is that these groups that want to change society never have real solutions , they just throw bombs

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from 347pg. Show 347pg's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    What is the difference between a person discriminating against a gay person because they disagree with them

    and

    The NFL discriminating against Arizona because they disagree with it?

    It's all discrimination.  The pot is calling the kettle black.

    You have every right to be offended.  You have no right to not be offended.

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

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to seawolfxs's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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?

    [/QUOTE]


    Not at all, and these are strawman arguments you make

    No one says anything like this

    There are things that are monopolistic or common carrier organizations that must have open and equal rules for all to participate. They are the infrastructure

    Then you have items ibased upon contract law. Which for the most part is pretty benighn with these issues. Labor laws are part of Contract Law and thus covered by the Constitution

    And then there is a gray area in between the two

    I have a business, but my business is in the Design / Construction world, I can foresee any religious reason why i should not be able to serve someone in any group. But there are several customers who choose not to use me for all of the reasons you think should be protected by the Constituiton.

     (in fact i am open to all). But if I had a business that forces me to particpate in something I find objectionable I shouldn't have to or if i dont trust the person. I shouldnt be open to being sued for not.

    A simple retail store would not have any reason not to either.

    And quite frankly why would any gay person want someone at their wedding who doesnt want to be there. This was a trumped up suit

    But but what if a Doctor Catholic Priest be forced to perform an abortion?  if you say yes - what if there is another Dr next door? , Or any Catholic? Would you make the Pope do it?

    The problem is that these groups that want to change society never have real solutions , they just throw bombs

    [/QUOTE]

    That's a bit overboard here.  the "Doctor Catholic Priest" would never be performing abortions under any circumstances.  What's being discussed is not forcing a business or person to provide a service they do not ordinarily provide, but for the services they do provide, to provide them equally to those who seek their services.

    There are already groups that could be classified as ones that businesses have the right not to provide services to--poor people that cannot afford the services, mentally or emotionally unbalanced people that you reasonably feel could not appropriately enter into a contract for the services.  But those decisions are generally made on a case-by-case basis rather than a "class" or "group" basis.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from 347pg. Show 347pg's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to dreighver's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Another thing to consider.... read this quote earlier today. It's relevant, as you can see WHY the bill was created, and it's very apparent that it wasn't to promote freedom.

    "The group that has propounded this bill, Alliance Defending Freedom, has nothing to do with freedom whatsoever, other than to tromp on the freedom of everyone who does not have the same religious beliefs as they do."


    The fact that the ADF created this bill tells you all you need to know about it. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Why don't you get a quote from the ADF explaining why they created the bill?  Why are you taking an opinion from a 3rd party who obviously hates the ADF?  You're folowing the main stream media's hype instead of doing your own research.  Completely disingenuous and taken way out of context.

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

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to dreighver's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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

    No its no. Elton John is a business. If you think Elton John was personally on the contrect you are naive. And you do not know the way the Bill is written do you? this bill talks about small busness owners - and E john is a small Business owner. And I belive he would have the right not to make a contract with RL

    Better yet,Ewhat 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.

    We agree

    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.

    No I am not, Have you ever been sued? Do realize there are vindictive people of all stripes who will use anything possible to screw people? this whole law was to stop llittle people from being sued

    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?

    No and I cannot help that you are obtuse.  what I am saying is tht if the Gov selectively enforces what laws they want then it is only a matter of time before the Go rewrites a aw or ignores it as they see fit

    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...?

    Thats what you say, but you arent for other peoples rights which are in the first amendment. This is an area where each side has Cobnstuituional rights and you want to ignore one whole side - I dont

    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.

    Well you poor oppressed little boy . Who said everything was Utopia in this world?  I dont have the time nor inclination to educate you. But I will give you one person to Google . Richard A Epstein, He is a Libertarian / Classic Liberal. but you may not havve an open mind  or be smart enough to understand him

    Your Post was full of unsubstantiated inuendo and cheap shots - You are a liberal who thinks he is smart and knows everything. There are other people who blog here who disabredd with me , or have different ideas. We do not throw cheap shots at each other but have rational conversations about tuff issues.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    [/QUOTE]

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

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to dreighver's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Another thing to consider.... read this quote earlier today. It's relevant, as you can see WHY the bill was created, and it's very apparent that it wasn't to promote freedom.

    "The group that has propounded this bill, Alliance Defending Freedom, has nothing to do with freedom whatsoever, other than to tromp on the freedom of everyone who does not have the same religious beliefs as they do."


    The fact that the ADF created this bill tells you all you need to know about it. 

    [/QUOTE]

    And the GlLgroups do ? really/

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

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to TheTinMan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to seawolfxs's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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?

    [/QUOTE]


    Not at all, and these are strawman arguments you make

    No one says anything like this

    There are things that are monopolistic or common carrier organizations that must have open and equal rules for all to participate. They are the infrastructure

    Then you have items ibased upon contract law. Which for the most part is pretty benighn with these issues. Labor laws are part of Contract Law and thus covered by the Constitution

    And then there is a gray area in between the two

    I have a business, but my business is in the Design / Construction world, I can foresee any religious reason why i should not be able to serve someone in any group. But there are several customers who choose not to use me for all of the reasons you think should be protected by the Constituiton.

     (in fact i am open to all). But if I had a business that forces me to particpate in something I find objectionable I shouldn't have to or if i dont trust the person. I shouldnt be open to being sued for not.

    A simple retail store would not have any reason not to either.

    And quite frankly why would any gay person want someone at their wedding who doesnt want to be there. This was a trumped up suit

    But but what if a Doctor Catholic Priest be forced to perform an abortion?  if you say yes - what if there is another Dr next door? , Or any Catholic? Would you make the Pope do it?

    The problem is that these groups that want to change society never have real solutions , they just throw bombs

    [/QUOTE]

    That's a bit overboard here.  the "Doctor Catholic Priest" would never be performing abortions under any circumstances.  What's being discussed is not forcing a business or person to provide a service they do not ordinarily provide, but for the services they do provide, to provide them equally to those who seek their services.

    Maybe over board - but you made my point/ This proiest wouldnt and why should any catholic

    There are already groups that could be classified as ones that businesses have the right not to provide services to--poor people that cannot afford the services, mentally or emotionally unbalanced people that you reasonably feel could not appropriately enter into a contract for the services.  But those decisions are generally made on a case-by-case basis rather than a "class" or "group" basis.

    Good point! But the peron who sued the phototgapher didnt really want his services but wanted to set him up to be sued. maybe the photograpjher didnt trust him?

    And to tell you the truth, you never know what a client is like until you are into the deal an then it is too late. i have had a few wacko clients , you just dont know.

    I can assure you that there are tons of bakers and photographers and others who would provide this service to them. Why cannot they have the decency to just say okay and move on. Why do thye have to force acceptance, its not personal. I guarntee you I have been discriminated against and i know my wife has, we say screw them and move onto people we want to do business with.

    [/QUOTE]


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

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to 347pg's comment:

    In response to dreighver's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Another thing to consider.... read this quote earlier today. It's relevant, as you can see WHY the bill was created, and it's very apparent that it wasn't to promote freedom.

    "The group that has propounded this bill, Alliance Defending Freedom, has nothing to do with freedom whatsoever, other than to tromp on the freedom of everyone who does not have the same religious beliefs as they do."


    The fact that the ADF created this bill tells you all you need to know about it. 




    Why don't you get a quote from the ADF explaining why they created the bill?  Why are you taking an opinion from a 3rd party who obviously hates the ADF?  You're folowing the main stream media's hype instead of doing your own research.  Completely disingenuous and taken way out of context.

    [/QUOTE]

    Actually done some research and can't find much from ADF.  Here's one quote I found:

    Kellie Fiedorek, an attorney for the Alliance Defending Freedom, which also helped craft the bill, called SB1062 a "balancing test" that would protect all religions and sexual orientations while prohibiting Arizonans from "coercing someone to violate their sincerely held beliefs."

    "This bill has nothing to do with discrimination. It's protecting basic freedoms that belong to everyone," she said, explaining that it would protect a gay photographer's decision not to work for Westboro Baptist Church, or Muslims who don't want to sell "pork sandwiches on a Saturday."

    Interesting in that an application of the provisions of the bill:

     

     

    . . . . .allowing business owners to deny service to gay and lesbian customers so long as proprietors were acting solely on their religious beliefs.

    We have some well educated an intelligent posters in this forum.  I'm wondering if someone can help me understand how anyone can demonstrate that or be clearly construed as having acted solely on their religious beliefs.


    For a statement of purpose re:  Alliance Defending Freedom look here:

     

    http://www.alliancedefendingfreedom.org/issues/religious-liberty

     

    They're pretty clear about where they're coming from and they are an organization that is very much to the right, some would say the extreme right.  That of course is their 'right', no pun intended, but if you look at their website, read their statement of purpose and see who and what they are very much opposed to you can pretty much conclude what their motivation was in helping to craft this bill. 

    I'm not suggesting that they did anything wrong by doing so.  They're an advocacy group and they're advocating.  That doesn't mean that for which they are advocating has anything to do with equality however.

    And my aforementioned question was sincere.  How do you determine motivation?

     

     
  13. 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]

    In response to 347pg's comment:

     

    In response to dreighver's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Another thing to consider.... read this quote earlier today. It's relevant, as you can see WHY the bill was created, and it's very apparent that it wasn't to promote freedom.

    "The group that has propounded this bill, Alliance Defending Freedom, has nothing to do with freedom whatsoever, other than to tromp on the freedom of everyone who does not have the same religious beliefs as they do."


    The fact that the ADF created this bill tells you all you need to know about it. 

     




     

    Why don't you get a quote from the ADF explaining why they created the bill?  Why are you taking an opinion from a 3rd party who obviously hates the ADF?  You're folowing the main stream media's hype instead of doing your own research.  Completely disingenuous and taken way out of context.

    [/QUOTE]

    Actually done some research and can't find much from ADF.  Here's one quote I found:

    Kellie Fiedorek, an attorney for the Alliance Defending Freedom, which also helped craft the bill, called SB1062 a "balancing test" that would protect all religions and sexual orientations while prohibiting Arizonans from "coercing someone to violate their sincerely held beliefs."

    "This bill has nothing to do with discrimination. It's protecting basic freedoms that belong to everyone," she said, explaining that it would protect a gay photographer's decision not to work for Westboro Baptist Church, or Muslims who don't want to sell "pork sandwiches on a Saturday."

    Interesting in that an application of the provisions of the bill:

     

     

    . . . . .allowing business owners to deny service to gay and lesbian customers so long as proprietors were acting solely on their religious beliefs.

    We have some well educated an intelligent posters in this forum.  I'm wondering if someone can help me understand how anyone can demonstrate that or be clearly construed as having acted solely on their religious beliefs.


    For a statement of purpose re:  Alliance Defending Freedom look here:

     

    http://www.alliancedefendingfreedom.org/issues/religious-liberty

     

    They're pretty clear about where they're coming from and they are an organization that is very much to the right, some would say the extreme right.  That of course is their 'right', no pun intended, but if you look at their website, read their statement of purpose and see who and what they are very much opposed to you can pretty much conclude what their motivation was in helping to craft this bill. 

    I'm not suggesting that they did anything wrong by doing so.  They're an advocacy group and they're advocating.  That doesn't mean that for which they are advocating has anything to do with equality however.

    And my aforementioned question was sincere.  How do you determine motivation?

     

    [/QUOTE]


    As I said I dont trust advocacy groups much, I dont go to any advocacy site on either side and dont plan to.

    and I dont know what is really in this Bill

    it may be okay or not. But there is no way that we can have all people feel 100% the same on all issues. Not all people will be accepted by others. We can only keep the friction to a minimum. What I havent heard is that the propoentsnt sof the bill are trying to tell the other group they cannot exist or do there thing. they jsut want to be left alone.

    It is simple but complex

     
  14. 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]

    In response to 347pg's comment:

     

    In response to dreighver's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Another thing to consider.... read this quote earlier today. It's relevant, as you can see WHY the bill was created, and it's very apparent that it wasn't to promote freedom.

    "The group that has propounded this bill, Alliance Defending Freedom, has nothing to do with freedom whatsoever, other than to tromp on the freedom of everyone who does not have the same religious beliefs as they do."


    The fact that the ADF created this bill tells you all you need to know about it. 

     




     

    Why don't you get a quote from the ADF explaining why they created the bill?  Why are you taking an opinion from a 3rd party who obviously hates the ADF?  You're folowing the main stream media's hype instead of doing your own research.  Completely disingenuous and taken way out of context.

    [/QUOTE]

    Actually done some research and can't find much from ADF.  Here's one quote I found:

    Kellie Fiedorek, an attorney for the Alliance Defending Freedom, which also helped craft the bill, called SB1062 a "balancing test" that would protect all religions and sexual orientations while prohibiting Arizonans from "coercing someone to violate their sincerely held beliefs."

    "This bill has nothing to do with discrimination. It's protecting basic freedoms that belong to everyone," she said, explaining that it would protect a gay photographer's decision not to work for Westboro Baptist Church, or Muslims who don't want to sell "pork sandwiches on a Saturday."

    Interesting in that an application of the provisions of the bill:

     

     

    . . . . .allowing business owners to deny service to gay and lesbian customers so long as proprietors were acting solely on their religious beliefs.

    We have some well educated an intelligent posters in this forum.  I'm wondering if someone can help me understand how anyone can demonstrate that or be clearly construed as having acted solely on their religious beliefs.


    For a statement of purpose re:  Alliance Defending Freedom look here:

     

    http://www.alliancedefendingfreedom.org/issues/religious-liberty

     

    They're pretty clear about where they're coming from and they are an organization that is very much to the right, some would say the extreme right.  That of course is their 'right', no pun intended, but if you look at their website, read their statement of purpose and see who and what they are very much opposed to you can pretty much conclude what their motivation was in helping to craft this bill. 

    I'm not suggesting that they did anything wrong by doing so.  They're an advocacy group and they're advocating.  That doesn't mean that for which they are advocating has anything to do with equality however.

    And my aforementioned question was sincere.  How do you determine motivation?

     

    [/QUOTE]


    As I said I dont trust advocacy groups much, I dont go to any advocacy site on either side and dont plan to.

    and I dont know what is really in this Bill

    it may be okay or not. But there is no way that we can have all people feel 100% the same on all issues. Not all people will be accepted by others. We can only keep the friction to a minimum. What I havent heard is that the propoentsnt sof the bill are trying to tell the other group they cannot exist or do there thing. they jsut want to be left alone.

    It is simple but complex

    [/QUOTE]


    Point taken.  By the way, I read and responded to your post in the other thread.  Ain't none of it easy, is it?

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

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to seawolfxs's comment:
    [QUOTE]
    That's a bit overboard here.  the "Doctor Catholic Priest" would never be performing abortions under any circumstances.  What's being discussed is not forcing a business or person to provide a service they do not ordinarily provide, but for the services they do provide, to provide them equally to those who seek their services.

    Maybe over board - but you made my point/ This proiest wouldnt and why should any catholic

    There are already groups that could be classified as ones that businesses have the right not to provide services to--poor people that cannot afford the services, mentally or emotionally unbalanced people that you reasonably feel could not appropriately enter into a contract for the services.  But those decisions are generally made on a case-by-case basis rather than a "class" or "group" basis.

    Good point! But the peron who sued the phototgapher didnt really want his services but wanted to set him up to be sued. maybe the photograpjher didnt trust him?

    And to tell you the truth, you never know what a client is like until you are into the deal an then it is too late. i have had a few wacko clients , you just dont know.

    I can assure you that there are tons of bakers and photographers and others who would provide this service to them. Why cannot they have the decency to just say okay and move on. Why do thye have to force acceptance, its not personal. I guarntee you I have been discriminated against and i know my wife has, we say screw them and move onto people we want to do business with.

    [/QUOTE]
    Actually, I don't think I made your point--I was saying there is a difference between forcing someone to perform a service they do not generally provide and requiring someone to provide the normal services they do provide without discrimination on the basis of some "protected" class.

    I completely agree that I have no stomach for any of these "set-up" type actions.  You see it all the time, for example, when either an all-male or all-female health club opens.  Someone of the opposite sex, who doesn't really want to be a member, will try to "join".  Let someone that has a legitimate reason do it.

    And I have seen enough bad customers in the businesses I've been in as well.  Plenty that we ended up parting ways with due to their overall behavior.  Some are indeed wacko.

    I just don't personally believe that a business can exclude providing services to certain groups based on the business owner's religious beliefs unless the business services themselves are based upon or somehow related to that religion.  That probably isn't stated very well, but I think you get my meaning.

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

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to seawolfxs's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to 347pg's comment:

     

    In response to dreighver's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Another thing to consider.... read this quote earlier today. It's relevant, as you can see WHY the bill was created, and it's very apparent that it wasn't to promote freedom.

    "The group that has propounded this bill, Alliance Defending Freedom, has nothing to do with freedom whatsoever, other than to tromp on the freedom of everyone who does not have the same religious beliefs as they do."


    The fact that the ADF created this bill tells you all you need to know about it. 

     




     

    Why don't you get a quote from the ADF explaining why they created the bill?  Why are you taking an opinion from a 3rd party who obviously hates the ADF?  You're folowing the main stream media's hype instead of doing your own research.  Completely disingenuous and taken way out of context.

    [/QUOTE]

    Actually done some research and can't find much from ADF.  Here's one quote I found:

    Kellie Fiedorek, an attorney for the Alliance Defending Freedom, which also helped craft the bill, called SB1062 a "balancing test" that would protect all religions and sexual orientations while prohibiting Arizonans from "coercing someone to violate their sincerely held beliefs."

    "This bill has nothing to do with discrimination. It's protecting basic freedoms that belong to everyone," she said, explaining that it would protect a gay photographer's decision not to work for Westboro Baptist Church, or Muslims who don't want to sell "pork sandwiches on a Saturday."

    Interesting in that an application of the provisions of the bill:

     

     

    . . . . .allowing business owners to deny service to gay and lesbian customers so long as proprietors were acting solely on their religious beliefs.

    We have some well educated an intelligent posters in this forum.  I'm wondering if someone can help me understand how anyone can demonstrate that or be clearly construed as having acted solely on their religious beliefs.


    For a statement of purpose re:  Alliance Defending Freedom look here:

     

    http://www.alliancedefendingfreedom.org/issues/religious-liberty

     

    They're pretty clear about where they're coming from and they are an organization that is very much to the right, some would say the extreme right.  That of course is their 'right', no pun intended, but if you look at their website, read their statement of purpose and see who and what they are very much opposed to you can pretty much conclude what their motivation was in helping to craft this bill. 

    I'm not suggesting that they did anything wrong by doing so.  They're an advocacy group and they're advocating.  That doesn't mean that for which they are advocating has anything to do with equality however.

    And my aforementioned question was sincere.  How do you determine motivation?

     

    [/QUOTE]


    As I said I dont trust advocacy groups much, I dont go to any advocacy site on either side and dont plan to.

    and I dont know what is really in this Bill

    it may be okay or not. But there is no way that we can have all people feel 100% the same on all issues. Not all people will be accepted by others. We can only keep the friction to a minimum. What I havent heard is that the propoentsnt sof the bill are trying to tell the other group they cannot exist or do there thing. they jsut want to be left alone.

    It is simple but complex

    [/QUOTE]

    Completely agree.  While the various groups are talking about "acceptance", I think all the law is working towards is tolerance.  There is a difference.

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

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to TheTinMan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to seawolfxs's comment:
    [QUOTE]
    That's a bit overboard here.  the "Doctor Catholic Priest" would never be performing abortions under any circumstances.  What's being discussed is not forcing a business or person to provide a service they do not ordinarily provide, but for the services they do provide, to provide them equally to those who seek their services.

    Maybe over board - but you made my point/ This proiest wouldnt and why should any catholic

    There are already groups that could be classified as ones that businesses have the right not to provide services to--poor people that cannot afford the services, mentally or emotionally unbalanced people that you reasonably feel could not appropriately enter into a contract for the services.  But those decisions are generally made on a case-by-case basis rather than a "class" or "group" basis.

    Good point! But the peron who sued the phototgapher didnt really want his services but wanted to set him up to be sued. maybe the photograpjher didnt trust him?

    And to tell you the truth, you never know what a client is like until you are into the deal an then it is too late. i have had a few wacko clients , you just dont know.

    I can assure you that there are tons of bakers and photographers and others who would provide this service to them. Why cannot they have the decency to just say okay and move on. Why do thye have to force acceptance, its not personal. I guarntee you I have been discriminated against and i know my wife has, we say screw them and move onto people we want to do business with.

    [/QUOTE]
    Actually, I don't think I made your point--I was saying there is a difference between forcing someone to perform a service they do not generally provide and requiring someone to provide the normal services they do provide without discrimination on the basis of some "protected" class.

    I completely agree that I have no stomach for any of these "set-up" type actions.  You see it all the time, for example, when either an all-male or all-female health club opens.  Someone of the opposite sex, who doesn't really want to be a member, will try to "join".  Let someone that has a legitimate reason do it.

    And I have seen enough bad customers in the businesses I've been in as well.  Plenty that we ended up parting ways with due to their overall behavior.  Some are indeed wacko.

    I just don't personally believe that a business can exclude providing services to certain groups based on the business owner's religious beliefs unless the business services themselves are based upon or somehow related to that religion.  That probably isn't stated very well, but I think you get my meaning.

    [/QUOTE]

    I dont know how te tell you this , but we really dont disagree that much.I do get your meaning. And some where in there is a solution. I just think there is a way of tolerance for both sides, I appreciate very much the tone of your post. i will look forwrd to listening to you on future threads

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

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to seawolfxs's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TheTinMan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to seawolfxs's comment:
    [QUOTE]
    That's a bit overboard here.  the "Doctor Catholic Priest" would never be performing abortions under any circumstances.  What's being discussed is not forcing a business or person to provide a service they do not ordinarily provide, but for the services they do provide, to provide them equally to those who seek their services.

    Maybe over board - but you made my point/ This proiest wouldnt and why should any catholic

    There are already groups that could be classified as ones that businesses have the right not to provide services to--poor people that cannot afford the services, mentally or emotionally unbalanced people that you reasonably feel could not appropriately enter into a contract for the services.  But those decisions are generally made on a case-by-case basis rather than a "class" or "group" basis.

    Good point! But the peron who sued the phototgapher didnt really want his services but wanted to set him up to be sued. maybe the photograpjher didnt trust him?

    And to tell you the truth, you never know what a client is like until you are into the deal an then it is too late. i have had a few wacko clients , you just dont know.

    I can assure you that there are tons of bakers and photographers and others who would provide this service to them. Why cannot they have the decency to just say okay and move on. Why do thye have to force acceptance, its not personal. I guarntee you I have been discriminated against and i know my wife has, we say screw them and move onto people we want to do business with.

    [/QUOTE]
    Actually, I don't think I made your point--I was saying there is a difference between forcing someone to perform a service they do not generally provide and requiring someone to provide the normal services they do provide without discrimination on the basis of some "protected" class.

    I completely agree that I have no stomach for any of these "set-up" type actions.  You see it all the time, for example, when either an all-male or all-female health club opens.  Someone of the opposite sex, who doesn't really want to be a member, will try to "join".  Let someone that has a legitimate reason do it.

    And I have seen enough bad customers in the businesses I've been in as well.  Plenty that we ended up parting ways with due to their overall behavior.  Some are indeed wacko.

    I just don't personally believe that a business can exclude providing services to certain groups based on the business owner's religious beliefs unless the business services themselves are based upon or somehow related to that religion.  That probably isn't stated very well, but I think you get my meaning.

    [/QUOTE]

    I dont know how te tell you this , but we really dont disagree that much.I do get your meaning. And some where in there is a solution. I just think there is a way of tolerance for both sides, I appreciate very much the tone of your post. i will look forwrd to listening to you on future threads

    [/QUOTE]

    Actually, I also appreciate your tone here.  And I didn't mean to imply that we were polar opposites or anything here. I certainly don't see it that way.

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

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    Rational, polite, issue-based discussion - what a concept!!

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from mellymel3. Show mellymel3's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The NFL is a money making machine centered around a game.

    They should keep their noses out of politics.

    [/QUOTE]


    So should the church.....the Constitution provides for the separation of church and state....

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from mellymel3. Show mellymel3's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to fishers5's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     


    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 

     

    [/QUOTE]


    That's the point. This proposed law is specifically intended to target the gay and lesbian population.  If that isn't discrimination on the basis of class I don't know what is.

     


    If the business establishment is refusing service because they don't offer a product that's one thing.  But if they're refusing service because theyh don't offer that product to a certain class of people that's quite another.

    I've lived in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, California, Connecticut, Florida and Virginia. (Also lived in Sardinia for a couple of years but not really germane to this discussion).  I've witnessed blatant discrimination on the basis of race in Maine, Florida and Virginia.  I fail to understand the difference between that and discrimination on the basis of gender orientation.

    [/QUOTE]


    There is none...it's simple...if you don't like a place that gives service for all, just go somewhere else...it's a free country for that as well....that way everybody gets what they want...is that so difficult...business owners get to make money, bigots get to be bigots...peace in the valley...it's a beautiful (if sick) thing!

     
  22. 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]

    Rational, polite, issue-based discussion - what a concept!!

    [/QUOTE]

    and to Tinman

    Its what I hope to get here, any posters like you make it worth it

    Some how with even the x,y and z axis posters here (and you can guess who I mean lol) I have been fortunate in having respectable conversations. And I like them all, they are well read articulate, and logical. I find many here also to be pretty damn good in there own right. I learn alot

    The only thing I have to hold my tongue with is condescension. Some of the topics are difficultap to have an oral conversation, let alone here in written form. We all need to be tolerant , it's easy to take some one the wrong way, You two have seen enough of my posts to know I very seldom an attacker

    i reallydo want to hear an airing of positions, I am now a bit isolated and it's good to hear  other opinions and respectful arguments are fun

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from mellymel3. Show mellymel3's posts

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else


    Several of the original proponents of the bill have claimed they had "no idea" it would be used to discriminate against anyone and have since urged the Gov. veto the bill...Many Major corporations involved with the tourist industry in AZ. have urged the Gov. to veto the bill...the state's two Senators have urged the Gov. to veto the bill. The vast majority of citizens of the state, polls have shown, want the Gov. to veto the bill...the reason the Gov. has not yet vetoed the bill, most experts feel, is that the Gov. wants the outcry both within and without the state to be so overwhelming that not only can she easily veto the bill, that it will prevent this bill, or anything like it, from being reintroduced in the legislature ever again...

    It's just about over now.

    It will, in some very generic form, be submitted in some southern state soon...it will be a production of ALEC or realted sub-groups:

    ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council., a conservative think tank that produces generic sample legislation on an entire host of conservative causes....

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

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    Seawolf, I don't necessarily take back all of what I said, nor have my opinions changed, however I will acknowledge that I came on far too strong and could've presented my thoughts on the subject in a more civil and less confrontational way. My apologies, for whatever that's worth. 

    Hope you have a fantastic evening. Ditto for the rest of you all. 

    I will attempt to gather my thoughts on the subject at a later time and present them in a, shall we say, kinder (and hopefully more coherent) way. 

    Laughing

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

    Re: NFL - Tells AZ- No or Else

    In response to dreighver's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Seawolf, I don't necessarily take back all of what I said, nor have my opinions changed, however I will acknowledge that I came on far too strong and could've presented my thoughts on the subject in a more civil and less confrontational way. My apologies, for whatever that's worth. 

    Hope you have a fantastic evening. Ditto for the rest of you all. 

    I will attempt to gather my thoughts on the subject at a later time and present them in a, shall we say, kinder (and hopefully more coherent) way. 

    Laughing

    [/QUOTE]

    Thank you so much, I will more than welcome your thoughts . We really don't disagree that much. I look at this forum as guys sitting around a bar room table discussing stuff, if I came back to strong I apologize

    have a good one

     

    btw

    the gov just vetoed it as being too broad, unfortuneately that doesn't settle anything or move us down a better path. I don't like how this started and I don't like all the PC around it. I am mostly worried about frivolous law suits And I see them coming. Hope. I am wrong

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share