OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to expertmike's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     


    Wrong. Both sides are protected under the constitution. It's a stalemate. You are asking someone to give up their rights as protected by the 1st amendment to serve someone that he believes lifestyle is against his religious beliefs. It's not as cut and dry as you make out. One side doesn't trump the other. Both are equally protected under the law.

    why should one side give up their protected rights To appease the other? 

    [/QUOTE]


    Sorry, PatsLifer, unhappily you're wrong.  Both sides are not equally protected under the constitution.  Some are more equal than others...

    The New Mexico court ruled....

    “The reality is that because [Elane Photography] is a public accommodation, its provision of services can be regulated, even though those services include artistic and creative work,” the court stated."

    Religious liberty provisions also provided no defense for the photography company, according to the New Mexico Supreme Court.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    A sad state of affairs.

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to expertmike's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    W T F. The Constitution is ALL about protecting the rights of the individual from the majority. 

    [/QUOTE]

    No.  It's not.  The Constitution itself is about the organization of the government.  The first ten amendments - the Bill of Rights - are about protecting the individual from the State.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

    An awe inspiring read, in my opinion.

      

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, a beautiful read it is. Too bad it's being slowly eroded.

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to PatsLifer's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to JimfromFlorida's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to JimfromFlorida's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    So many comments and so much misinformation.

    the state of Arizona is a great place to live as I did for 5 years if not for a transfer I'd probably be there.

    the law is not about discrimination. It is about businesses being able to work with whom they want to work with. It was brought about not only by AZ but 11other states as well. It came about when a couple of business would not work with people based upon the businesses religious beliefs. One bakery where the owners did not believe in marriage of gays. They were asked to make a wedding cake for a gay couple and refused based upon their religion. They then got sued for millions under the current anti discrimination laws. 

    The law is NOT about not serving just anyone and definitly not based upon the customers  race Religion, etc...it is about the business owners religion

    why should any one have to go against their religious beliefs.

    would you expect a kosher baker to use non kosher ingrediates just because you wanted him to bake your bread? would you sue him if he refused?



    It is about discrimination.  Justify it all you want, it's no less discrimination than "whtes only" laws were. 

     

    [/QUOTE]
    Not even close. Tell me why a person who believes in his religion and a marrige as between a man and woman only must make a bridal cake for a gay couple?

    [/QUOTE]

    Because that's the price of living in a decent society.  If you don't like it go live under the Taliban.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Wrong. Both sides are protected under the constitution. It's a stalemate. You are asking someone to give up their rights as protected by the 1st amendment to serve someone that he believes lifestyle is against his religious beliefs. It's not as cut and dry as you make out. One side doesn't trump the other. Both are equally protected under the law.

    why should one side give up their protected rights To appease the other? 

    [/QUOTE]

    Well, personally, I don't like black people. Do I have to provide my services to them? Because, well, there's this 6000 year-old book, and somewhere it says that black people are bad. I take it to be the absolute truth, and therefore will not serve African American individuals. It IS my right, after all, correct? 

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to PatsLifer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to PatsLifer's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to JimfromFlorida's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to JimfromFlorida's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    So many comments and so much misinformation.

    the state of Arizona is a great place to live as I did for 5 years if not for a transfer I'd probably be there.

    the law is not about discrimination. It is about businesses being able to work with whom they want to work with. It was brought about not only by AZ but 11other states as well. It came about when a couple of business would not work with people based upon the businesses religious beliefs. One bakery where the owners did not believe in marriage of gays. They were asked to make a wedding cake for a gay couple and refused based upon their religion. They then got sued for millions under the current anti discrimination laws. 

    The law is NOT about not serving just anyone and definitly not based upon the customers  race Religion, etc...it is about the business owners religion

    why should any one have to go against their religious beliefs.

    would you expect a kosher baker to use non kosher ingrediates just because you wanted him to bake your bread? would you sue him if he refused?

     



    It is about discrimination.  Justify it all you want, it's no less discrimination than "whtes only" laws were. 

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]
    Not even close. Tell me why a person who believes in his religion and a marrige as between a man and woman only must make a bridal cake for a gay couple?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Because that's the price of living in a decent society.  If you don't like it go live under the Taliban.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Wrong. Both sides are protected under the constitution. It's a stalemate. You are asking someone to give up their rights as protected by the 1st amendment to serve someone that he believes lifestyle is against his religious beliefs. It's not as cut and dry as you make out. One side doesn't trump the other. Both are equally protected under the law.

    why should one side give up their protected rights To appease the other? 

    [/QUOTE]

    I guess I don't give a frig about some religious fundamentalist's "rights" to discriminate based on their regressive belief system. It really doesn't bother me if their "rights" are trampled on.  I think the right of all Americans to have equal access to basic services far supersedes some "right" to be religiously backward.

    [/QUOTE]

    Beautiful. You just dismissed 2000+ years of history plus the belief system of billions across the world. You should be proud of your yourself. So trendy and so progressive.

    trampling someone's rights you don't personally believe in I guess is okay in your mind As long as those who you do support get theirs. Brilliant. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Yep, dismissed completely, without the slightest qualm. Could care less about the "rights" of religious bigots.

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to PatsLifer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to expertmike's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     


    Wrong. Both sides are protected under the constitution. It's a stalemate. You are asking someone to give up their rights as protected by the 1st amendment to serve someone that he believes lifestyle is against his religious beliefs. It's not as cut and dry as you make out. One side doesn't trump the other. Both are equally protected under the law.

    why should one side give up their protected rights To appease the other? 

    [/QUOTE]


    Sorry, PatsLifer, unhappily you're wrong.  Both sides are not equally protected under the constitution.  Some are more equal than others...

    The New Mexico court ruled....

    “The reality is that because [Elane Photography] is a public accommodation, its provision of services can be regulated, even though those services include artistic and creative work,” the court stated."

    Religious liberty provisions also provided no defense for the photography company, according to the New Mexico Supreme Court.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    A sad state of affairs.

    [/QUOTE]

    I'd say quite a happy one.  Wise judges.

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to PatsLifer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to expertmike's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    W T F. The Constitution is ALL about protecting the rights of the individual from the majority. 

    [/QUOTE]

    No.  It's not.  The Constitution itself is about the organization of the government.  The first ten amendments - the Bill of Rights - are about protecting the individual from the State.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

    An awe inspiring read, in my opinion.

      

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, a beautiful read it is. Too bad it's being slowly eroded.

    [/QUOTE]

    Why because the Christian Taliban can't refuse service to women not wearing burkhas? 

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

     


    Well, personally, I don't like black people. Do I have to provide my services to them? Because, well, there's this 6000 year-old book, and somewhere it says that black people are bad. I take it to be the absolute truth, and therefore will not serve African American individuals. It IS my right, after all, correct? 

    [/QUOTE]

    It should be your right to not provide services to whoever you choose.  Unless your company is taxpayer funded, or was given a charter or license that is based on public safety or health.

    It should be your right, but it's not.

    Owners of private property should be free to be as stupid as they wish. Denying service to blacks is a good example of such stupidty.  It's stupid - but the cure is much more harmful than the crime.   Removing an individual's right for a collective's right is like cutting off your arm to save your finger.   Sometimes one has to accept the imperfections in the world that people will be stupid, cruel, mean, whatever - but trying to fix that by removing individual rights is the road to hell.   Individual > State.

     

     

     

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to expertmike's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     


    Well, personally, I don't like black people. Do I have to provide my services to them? Because, well, there's this 6000 year-old book, and somewhere it says that black people are bad. I take it to be the absolute truth, and therefore will not serve African American individuals. It IS my right, after all, correct? 

    [/QUOTE]

    It should be your right to not provide services to whoever you choose.  Unless your company is taxpayer funded, or was given a charter or license that is based on public safety or health.

    It should be your right, but it's not.

    Owners of private property should be free to be as stupid as they wish. Denying service to blacks is a good example of such stupidty.  It's stupid - but the cure is much more harmful than the crime.   Removing an individual's right for a collective's right is like cutting off your arm to save your finger.   Sometimes one has to accept the imperfections in the world that people will be stupid, cruel, mean, whatever - but trying to fix that by removing individual rights is the road to hell.   Individual > State.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Well said. And that is the crux of the issue. Individual trumps state. Period. 

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to expertmike's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     


    Well, personally, I don't like black people. Do I have to provide my services to them? Because, well, there's this 6000 year-old book, and somewhere it says that black people are bad. I take it to be the absolute truth, and therefore will not serve African American individuals. It IS my right, after all, correct? 

    [/QUOTE]

    It should be your right to not provide services to whoever you choose.  Unless your company is taxpayer funded, or was given a charter or license that is based on public safety or health.

    It should be your right, but it's not.

    Owners of private property should be free to be as stupid as they wish. Denying service to blacks is a good example of such stupidty.  It's stupid - but the cure is much more harmful than the crime.   Removing an individual's right for a collective's right is like cutting off your arm to save your finger.   Sometimes one has to accept the imperfections in the world that people will be stupid, cruel, mean, whatever - but trying to fix that by removing individual rights is the road to hell.   Individual > State.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm not too worried.  I didn't find the end of Jim Crow too disasterous for individual liberties, either. 

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to PatsLifer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to expertmike's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    W T F. The Constitution is ALL about protecting the rights of the individual from the majority. 

    [/QUOTE]

    No.  It's not.  The Constitution itself is about the organization of the government.  The first ten amendments - the Bill of Rights - are about protecting the individual from the State.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

    An awe inspiring read, in my opinion.

      

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, a beautiful read it is. Too bad it's being slowly eroded.

    [/QUOTE]

    Why because the Christian Taliban can't refuse service to women not wearing burkhas? 

    [/QUOTE]

    Almost comical. No because the state is attacking all rights protected under the constitution in case you care to notice. I won't go through all of it because you will simply revert to name calling and such, and your over the top theatrics. 

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to PatsLifer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to PatsLifer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to expertmike's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    W T F. The Constitution is ALL about protecting the rights of the individual from the majority. 

    [/QUOTE]

    No.  It's not.  The Constitution itself is about the organization of the government.  The first ten amendments - the Bill of Rights - are about protecting the individual from the State.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

    An awe inspiring read, in my opinion.

      

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, a beautiful read it is. Too bad it's being slowly eroded.

    [/QUOTE]

    Why because the Christian Taliban can't refuse service to women not wearing burkhas? 

    [/QUOTE]

    Almost comical. No because the state is attacking all rights protected under the constitution in case you care to notice. I won't go through all of it because you will simply revert to name calling and such, and your over the top theatrics. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    God forbid the state should take away the sacred right to be a bigot!

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

     [/QUOTE]


    God forbid the state should take away the sacred right to be a bigot!

    [/QUOTE]


    Pick your poison...

    A) An ignorant small business owner refuses to make a cake for a lesbian couple. 

    B) The State here-by requires that you do [fill in the blank].  Refusal will be met with a fine of [...].

     

    Real hell comes when States get this power.  Big picture.

     

     

     

     

     

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to JimfromFlorida's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    So many comments and so much misinformation.

    the state of Arizona is a great place to live as I did for 5 years if not for a transfer I'd probably be there.

    the law is not about discrimination. It is about businesses being able to work with whom they want to work with. It was brought about not only by AZ but 11other states as well. It came about when a couple of business would not work with people based upon the businesses religious beliefs. One bakery where the owners did not believe in marriage of gays. They were asked to make a wedding cake for a gay couple and refused based upon their religion. They then got sued for millions under the current anti discrimination laws. 

    The law is NOT about not serving just anyone and definitly not based upon the customers  race Religion, etc...it is about the business owners religion

    why should any one have to go against their religious beliefs.

    would you expect a kosher baker to use non kosher ingrediates just because you wanted him to bake your bread? would you sue him if he refused?

    [/QUOTE]

    "The law is not about discrimination"... Right! It is ONLY about discrimination. Amazing how you contort to make yourself sound reasonable.

    And your equating a baker deciding on ingredients to being able to close every restroom, hotel, gas station etc to any group of people because they are not liked. Are you really that incapable of thought even the tiniest bit deeper than a very young child?

    Your view of the world was sent packing by the civilized world. Granted there are still folks like you hanging on. But every year your bigoted views lose a little more of what little you have left.

    If you feel out of place I suggest a few countries in the Middle East. Or perhaps Russia. You would feel right at home and fit right in.

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to soxrockursox's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to soxrockursox's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to soxrockursox's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to JimfromFlorida's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Never start a thread where you have no concept about which you are writing. 

    You and many others have no concept of why the law and what it says.

    all you know is the headlines of some web site.

    [/QUOTE]


    +10000

    [/QUOTE]

    Oh my god, folks.^^  Take a look at this.

    We have an older white male with Jim Florida (another CRAPPY nutjob state) babbling about me not knowing what a law means with a kid who didn't go to college agreeing, after promoting discrimination in his little Millennial head of his.

    My god.

    Remove all right wing nut jobs and dumb Millennials from all voting booths. lmao

    [/QUOTE]


    Wow insults thats all you got?

    I for one like to think for myself and not be told to What to belive.

    Iam not promoting nothing said I dont condone it but it up to the owners of a bussiness to decide what direction they want to go in that I can respect.If it hurts thier bussiness and they close so be it.

    [/QUOTE]

    Christ. You can't spell or form basic sentences.   Why do you bother trying to add anything to these kinds of dicussions? You have no college degree and come off completely uneducated. the subje

    If you don't condone it, why do you continue to speak out of both sides of your mouth onct?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    To your last question .

    I see things in the eyes of both sides.Do I agree if thats what an owner wants to do no I dont.

    Then I see the right as the owner to do so if he choices to .

    Please come up with something new besides you didnt go to college,did you see the last word you wrote?Come on man.

    [/QUOTE]

    Choosing to purchase what you like (assuming it is a legal thing), or to buy from whom you like is perfectly fine and good. It is not AT ALL the same as anyone and everyone being able to refuse business to a specific group of people. For example, you might actually have heard something about how there was a time when some people could not get a room or sit at a counter or drink at a fountain or use a bathroom just because the color of their skin. But those rules were seen to be inhuman, unjust, demeaning... discriminatory. SO it is no longer legitimate to do so.

    Now you may pine for the "good old days" but your pining for them does not make it any more moral. And if you are not pining for them then you have been mistaken about the nature of this piece of immoral legislation proposed by bigots of the worst stripe.

     

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to JimfromFlorida's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to JimfromFlorida's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    So many comments and so much misinformation.

    the state of Arizona is a great place to live as I did for 5 years if not for a transfer I'd probably be there.

    the law is not about discrimination. It is about businesses being able to work with whom they want to work with. It was brought about not only by AZ but 11other states as well. It came about when a couple of business would not work with people based upon the businesses religious beliefs. One bakery where the owners did not believe in marriage of gays. They were asked to make a wedding cake for a gay couple and refused based upon their religion. They then got sued for millions under the current anti discrimination laws. 

    The law is NOT about not serving just anyone and definitly not based upon the customers  race Religion, etc...it is about the business owners religion

    why should any one have to go against their religious beliefs.

    would you expect a kosher baker to use non kosher ingrediates just because you wanted him to bake your bread? would you sue him if he refused?

    [/QUOTE]

    It is about discrimination.  Justify it all you want, it's no less discrimination than "whtes only" laws were. 

     

    [/QUOTE]
    Not even close. Tell me why a person who believes in his religion and a marrige as between a man and woman only must make a bridal cake for a gay couple?

    [/QUOTE]


    If you want to defend the right of free speech you cannot cherry pick only the speech you like. Now clearly there are limits to free speech JUST AS THERE ARE LIMITS TO ALL FREEDOMS. But those limits are not based on a predisposition to what is liked or not liked nor are those limits based on the race or religion or sex, etc of the speeker.

    In the case of a business descriminating one key problem is that an entire community can then discriminate and make it impossible for those treated through bigotry to live justly. This is not some phantasm or make believe fear. That is in fact the way life in much of the south was structured for quite some time. A black person could not eat, drink, sleep, or do almost anything where they might choose. Instead they were treated not just shabily but immorally because folks held the very arguement you propose.

    If we are to have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and honor the symbol of a flag that so many have fought and died for we have no choice but to demand that people be treated equally. If you want to look down on someone that is your choice. But you have no moral right to construct a community in any area ruled by The Constitution and the Bill of Rights that would make second class citizens of a group of people based on race, religion, sex, etc.

    If you really do not like that there are many parts of the world who have yet to learn that THESE TRUTHS ARE SELF EVIDENT. You are free to check them out and move there if you like.

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from raptor64d. Show raptor64d's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:

    In response to NOISE's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    SB is in Glendale next year, this would be only reason for me to go!  Lol



    First of all, Arizona sucks. Badly. You get off the plane there and you immediately start getting itchy because of how dry it is. It's insane. There is no real redeeming value to the overall climate or landscape.  You go through like 3 sticks of chapstick within 72 hours.  

    It's basically a place you would only fly over or drive through, going somewhere else. Phoenix is also VERY boring downtown.   Glendale is a sprawl based nightmare, too.  Reminds me of the outskirts of Dallas.  Awful.

    The idea should be to attract people to live there to grow the economy.  What morons.  Discriminatory, backwards MORONS.

    [/QUOTE]


    I live in Oro Valley, Az and love the dry climate. Can't stand  humidity. The most miserable I have been in years was when I went back to Mass a few years ago to visit family and we went to six Flags (old riverside) and it was in the 90's and 90% humidity. You can keep it, got wet on one of the rides and never dried off. Also when I get out of my pool and it is 105 and 10% humidity I actually feel cool when I get out not like there where there is no difference from being in the water or out.  Sorry about your chap stick problem, but I bet you go through a lot of it anyway, if you know what I mean. Tucson, Az is the only Lib strong hold in this state and it is has a high debt problem and the city is run terribly. Typical Lib run establishment. Anybody who wants to run a bussiness or wants their kids to get a decent education lives in oro Valley or Marana, a few towns just ouside the lib stink hole of Tucson. Now this stupid law  will not be signed by the Governor so you can keep you panty's out of a bunch. But in the end If I own a business and I do not want to do business with somebody I am free not too as long as I made that decision not on race or gender. And please feel free to never come here ever again, you really will not be missed. We get enough lib brain damages idiot's from California, we do not need any from the east. Now full disclosure, i am in no way religious. and have gay's in my family and I love them. I really hate the militant gays and I really don't like somebody telling me what the do in the bedroom. Oh did you watch any of the Golf on CBS this week and weekend, that is ten minutes from my house with a beautiful view of Mount Lemon an 11,000 foot mountain. I am not missing the dump cities with all the grafitti everywhere. I do love Boston though.......to visit.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to expertmike's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     [/QUOTE]


    God forbid the state should take away the sacred right to be a bigot!

    [/QUOTE]


    Pick your poison...

    A) An ignorant small business owner refuses to make a cake for a lesbian couple. 

    B) The State here-by requires that you do [fill in the blank].  Refusal will be met with a fine of [...].

     

    Real hell comes when States get this power.  Big picture.

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You would not know real hell till it burned you. Blacks forced into slavery because some felt that they had a right to own slaves. Jews persecuted in almost every country at one time or another - and persecution usually included violence - killing etc. ANd all because some demanded they had a right to treat THOSE people any way they wanted.

    If you were hungry and in the middle of a state where people suddenly decided they would not sell you or your children any food should you have to starve to death to satisfy that painfully twisted definition of liberty? THat would be hell. Not your fear that there might be a world where you a community or state or country could force some group or groups to be second class citizens or worse.

    Again, if you do not like the COnsititution and the Bill of Rights feel free to relocate to one of those countries that support your world view.. there are a few in the Middle East. You might also love Russia. But the United States is foudned a shining set of principles, not the least of which is ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. Dont like it... there is the door.

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ


    THis place is full of gun totting, hyper religious ignorant bigots who have no clue about the Constitution...this issue was settled by the U.S. Supreme Court over 60 years ago...Ariz. law will be overturned by the Supreme Court if the old wrinkled face sea hag Jan Brewer doesn't veto the reactionary bill........Of course, Az., like most western, southern and mid western states, are net users of tax revenues...that is, they are paid more by the feds out of yearly tax revenues than they pay into the treasurey via income taxes...nice....they should follow the law and just shut up...

    These are facts...real facts...not the mindless ravings of bigots who cling to their "religion and guns"...try education, then you wouldn't be so embarressed continually in public..."states rights" has always been the specious argument used by bigot ridden states to continue their bigotry...this is absolutely no different...

    Next time you go to church, open both you mind and your hearts....God doesn't love bigots ... he told me so last night, and guess what...he never mentioned you bigots names...

     

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to JimfromFlorida's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Never start a thread where you have no concept about which you are writing. 

    You and many others have no concept of why the law and what it says.

    all you know is the headlines of some web site.

    [/QUOTE]


    Ahhh, Jim, Rusty is an imbecile, a liar and insane. He starts threads every day where he has no concept about which he is writing.

     

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to JimfromFlorida's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    So many comments and so much misinformation.

    the state of Arizona is a great place to live as I did for 5 years if not for a transfer I'd probably be there.

    the law is not about discrimination. It is about businesses being able to work with whom they want to work with. It was brought about not only by AZ but 11other states as well. It came about when a couple of business would not work with people based upon the businesses religious beliefs. One bakery where the owners did not believe in marriage of gays. They were asked to make a wedding cake for a gay couple and refused based upon their religion. They then got sued for millions under the current anti discrimination laws. 

    The law is NOT about not serving just anyone and definitly not based upon the customers  race Religion, etc...it is about the business owners religion

    why should any one have to go against their religious beliefs.

    would you expect a kosher baker to use non kosher ingrediates just because you wanted him to bake your bread? would you sue him if he refused?

    [/QUOTE]

    It is about discrimination.  Justify it all you want, it's no less discrimination than "whtes only" laws were. 

     

    [/QUOTE]


    ^ Mind police fan club.

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to expertmike's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    DeadAhead - are you outraged at the photographer for refusing to take the gay couple's photo-shoot?  Or are you outraged at the Arizona Court for finding the photographer in the wrong?

     

    What freedom do we have if we don't have the freedom to choose with whom we interact or not interact?

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    You have the freedom to do exactly what left wing commie wackos like Rusty say you can do.

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to dreighver's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Wonderful! Now, when a radical, religious bigot walks into my private business, I can (and will!) deny them service in a heartbeat. 

    Two-way street, folks.

    [/QUOTE]


    If they knew what you were like they wouldn't come in anyway.

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to PatsLifer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to soxrockursox's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    I dont condone this but its america where you should have the right to do what you want with your own bussniness.We have the right to not shop at a store where we dont like so why not the same for a bussiness.Its about freedom and it goes both ways with this law if a black owner doesnt want to do bussiness with a white customer so be it they lose you as a customer.

    [/QUOTE]

    Are you insane? So, you're in favor of how it was years ago refusing to serve say, black people?

    Don't you see anyone can use any excuse that they want to conjure up some reason to support what you just said, and do it against any perceived group that the people with the money (in this case it's creepy NAZIS with bibles) do not like?

    I mean, christ, we fought in WWII largely in part to rid the world of that kind of thing, while not really having our own ducks in order on our turf here.

    Now, we want to revert back to that? What on earth? What planet am I on here?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I guess you dont understand why we really fought in WW2 or any other war for that matter. It has nothing to do about ridding the world of communism or spreading so called democracy, and everything to do with fueling the profit driven war machine. Ike warned of it and so did JFK. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Rusty is a moron who knows nothing about anything.


    We fought WW2 because the Japs attacked Pearl Harbor and Germany declared war on us just days later. Over 75% of the American people wanted neutrality. He's such a buffoon.

     

     

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share