OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

  1. 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]

     


    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]


    Meh, courts are political beasts. There are few in the judiciary that don't have an agenda. That is usually revealed when you look at who appointed them.

     
  2. 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]

    In response to PatsLifer's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    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?

     

    [/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]

    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? 

    [/QUOTE]


    Nah, it has to be a legit religious claim. You can't just make things up.

     
  3. 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 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.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    How bigoted of you to say.


    Face it pro, you don't care about rights at all, unless they align with your liberal ho agenda.

     

     
  4. 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 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.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    No, liberal hos, like you.

     
  5. 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 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!

    [/QUOTE]


    They clearly are allowing you to be one.

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    The question has been resolved more than 40 years ago by the US Supreme Court as far as race goes. It takes little imagination to see it applying to gender and sexual orientation as well as the argumentation would be the same.

    The case of The Heart of Atlanta Motel vs. United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel_v._United_States) resulted in the Supreme Court holding the Bill of Rights of 1964 within the Commerce Clause. The court ruled in favor of of the United States and issued a permanent injunction requiring the motel to refrain from racial discrimination.

    The case showed that the Bill of Rights could be applied not only in citizen vs. government, but also in cases of citizen vs. citizen.

    The proposed law in AZ is shamefull, unconstitutional, and a wright wing nut-job.

    No, you cannot freely discriminate your customers. Deal with it. This is not a socialist plot, a liberal agenda, or a power-hungry government. It is the law of the land.

     

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to DanishPastry's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The question has been resolved more than 40 years ago by the US Supreme Court as far as race goes. It takes little imagination to see it applying to gender and sexual orientation as well as the argumentation would be the same.

    The case of The Heart of Atlanta Motel vs. United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel_v._United_States) resulted in the Supreme Court holding the Bill of Rights of 1964 within the Commerce Clause. The court ruled in favor of of the United States and issued a permanent injunction requiring the motel to refrain from racial discrimination.

    The case showed that the Bill of Rights could be applied not only in citizen vs. government, but also in cases of citizen vs. citizen.

    The proposed law in AZ is shamefull, unconstitutional, and a wright wing nut-job.

    No, you cannot freely discriminate your customers. Deal with it. This is not a socialist plot, a liberal agenda, or a power-hungry government. It is the law of the land.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Ahhhh, apples and oranges. The question 40 years ago didn't have anything to do with prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    Yes, as it revolved around the application of the Bill of Rights (you know, you cannot discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin) to cases involving a business and the customers it is very relevant.

    In the case it was race. But as the Bill of Rights is applicable to religion, then yes it is relevant. The photographer or the baker or whatever discriminates other people because they (the customers) do not live in accordance with the religious rules of the photographer or baker.

    So no, you are not free to practice any religious believes, if those beliefs discriminate against some of your customers.

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    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. 

     

     

     

     


    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?

     

     



    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.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    How bigoted of you to say.


    Face it pro, you don't care about rights at all, unless they align with your liberal ho agenda.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Yep, don't care one whit about some alleged "right" to discriminate against people. 

     

     

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    No, liberal hos, like you.

    [/QUOTE]

    And, fortunately, in power, unlike an old fahrt like you. 

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to dreighver's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to PatsLifer's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    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?

     

    [/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]

    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? 

    [/QUOTE]


    Nah, it has to be a legit religious claim. You can't just make things up.

    [/QUOTE]

    But religion is the very definition of just making things up!

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to DanishPastry's comment:

    The question has been resolved more than 40 years ago by the US Supreme Court as far as race goes. It takes little imagination to see it applying to gender and sexual orientation as well as the argumentation would be the same.

    The case of The Heart of Atlanta Motel vs. United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel_v._United_States) resulted in the Supreme Court holding the Bill of Rights of 1964 within the Commerce Clause. The court ruled in favor of of the United States and issued a permanent injunction requiring the motel to refrain from racial discrimination.

    The case showed that the Bill of Rights could be applied not only in citizen vs. government, but also in cases of citizen vs. citizen.

    The proposed law in AZ is shamefull, unconstitutional, and a wright wing nut-job.

    No, you cannot freely discriminate your customers. Deal with it. This is not a socialist plot, a liberal agenda, or a power-hungry government. It is the law of the land.

     



    From a pure legal perspective, the issue probably isn't 100% settled.  The decision in Heart of Atlanta Motel relied heavily on the interstate commerce clause.  A conservative court could rule differently in the case of the Arizona law.  We'll have to see.  If America wants to turn itself into the Christian equivalent of the Taliban, the door is still wide open, and there are plenty of old white fahrts willing to lead the way.

     

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to JimfromFlorida's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Dead ahead all you do is rant and call names.

    answer thsee questions:

    Should a baker whose religion he believes in states that a marriage is between a man and woman only........be sued for millions just because he will not bake a bridal cake for a gay couple?

    Yes. 

    Should a Jewish baker who deals only in kosher foods be made to make a bridal cake with non kosher items because the customer asks for them?

    No, he has every right to sell only kosher products, just like he has every right to sell only baked goods and not hamburgers.  But that doesn't mean he should be able to refuse to sell his kosher cakes to people just because he doesn't like their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation,  or whatever.  

    aren't both a business decision by the owner(s)based upon their religious beliefs?

    why would either be considered discriminatory?

    as stated any business can decide who not and whom not to serve Can't they??

    One hopes that in America people can't be refused service or refused a job simply because of their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc.  There are plenty of fundamentalist Muslims who may not want to serve or hire women, for instance, for very sincere religious reasons.  Do you support their "right" to discriminate against women?  The Arizona law certainly would sanction their discriminatory actions. I assume you are all for that too, right?  Or is this law only for Christians?

     

    [/QUOTE]


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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    Maybe you are right.  

    Most in this thread agree that the proposal in and of itself is a disgrace, but some argue it's legality trying to wave the Constitution in front of them. As Heart of Atlanta Motel vs. US shows, in some cases (interstate commerce) that argument is invalid, while it may be disputed in other cases. Would the consequence be that the baker/photographer could say no to customers from the same state, but not those from out of state? That would seem weird.

    However, the Constitution argument in favor of the proposal is doubtfull, and the Bill of Rights (or at least my perception of it) goes in favor of those of us who say it is awfull. Those supporting the proposal are on thin ice legally, and have gone through the ice morally.

    Should it pass into law, I'm personally happy that I'm not a female, Muslim, homosexual African-American living in AZ. Groceries will be hard to come by.

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to CHAMPSXLVIII's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    comparing the republican party to the nazis is ridiculous

    [/QUOTE]

    I agree, thats giving the NAZI's a bad name

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to jjbag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to CHAMPSXLVIII's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    comparing the republican party to the nazis is ridiculous

    [/QUOTE]

    I agree, thats giving the NAZI's a bad name

    [/QUOTE]

    The modern day republican party is almost the same as the democrat party so what's your point??    They are both ( with a few exceptions) enjoying trying to control what you eat, what jobs will be available , how much  money your allowed to keep after you earn it and what you have to buy of face fines.  We are on our way to being Russia (hopefully without the violence). But in some states they are already there..

    The state should make their own laws, those that don't like it have 2 options.  Vote the people out or move to California, New York , conn. R. I .. Or Mass where everybody can play together.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bungalow-Bill. Show Bungalow-Bill's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    What's worse than rusty talking about football? Rusty talking about any other topic.

    A know-it-all on literally every subject you could possibly think of. Could you imagine being friends and actually hanging out with this db?

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to DanishPastry's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Yes, as it revolved around the application of the Bill of Rights (you know, you cannot discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin) to cases involving a business and the customers it is very relevant.

    In the case it was race. But as the Bill of Rights is applicable to religion, then yes it is relevant. The photographer or the baker or whatever discriminates other people because they (the customers) do not live in accordance with the religious rules of the photographer or baker.

    So no, you are not free to practice any religious believes, if those beliefs discriminate against some of your customers.

    [/QUOTE]


    Yes, you are.

     
  19. 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 BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    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. 

     

     

     

     


    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.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    How bigoted of you to say.


    Face it pro, you don't care about rights at all, unless they align with your liberal ho agenda.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Yep, don't care one whit about some alleged "right" to discriminate against people. 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    And clearly, you don't care about the right to the free exercise thereof regarding religion. Nice how you hos cherry pick your rights. I'll take the constitutional guarantee over the simple law every time.

     

     
  20. 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 BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    No, liberal hos, like you.

    [/QUOTE]

    And, fortunately, in power, unlike an old fahrt like you. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Says the champion of non-discrimination, as he spits bigotry.

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonSportsFan111. Show BostonSportsFan111's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    From what I read in the suit, they very politely declined an offer to do a photo shoot (which I believe is their right). Nothing more, nothing less.

    What I am reading here is they should have been forced by (someone, not sure who??) to take pictures at an event they did not feel comfortable attending (for whatever reason)?? By this logic, if the American Nazi party approached them and said, "Hey, we hear you do good work. We'd like you to do a photo shoot of our next rally." and they chose not to (for whatever reason), the American Nazi party should be able to sue them as well?

     

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    Nah, it has to be a legit religious claim. You can't just make things up.



    So where exactly in the scripture does it prohibit someone from selling goods to gay people?

     
  23. 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 BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to dreighver's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to PatsLifer's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    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?

     

    [/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]

    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? 

    [/QUOTE]


    Nah, it has to be a legit religious claim. You can't just make things up.

    [/QUOTE]

    But religion is the very definition of just making things up!

    [/QUOTE]


    Amazing how those who created one of the most revered documents regarding the freedom of mankind in all human history contains a provision specifically safeguarding the right to believe in a higher power; yet a political ho like yourself mocks their effort.

     

     

     
  24. 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 DanishPastry's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    The question has been resolved more than 40 years ago by the US Supreme Court as far as race goes. It takes little imagination to see it applying to gender and sexual orientation as well as the argumentation would be the same.

    The case of The Heart of Atlanta Motel vs. United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel_v._United_States) resulted in the Supreme Court holding the Bill of Rights of 1964 within the Commerce Clause. The court ruled in favor of of the United States and issued a permanent injunction requiring the motel to refrain from racial discrimination.

    The case showed that the Bill of Rights could be applied not only in citizen vs. government, but also in cases of citizen vs. citizen.

    The proposed law in AZ is shamefull, unconstitutional, and a wright wing nut-job.

    No, you cannot freely discriminate your customers. Deal with it. This is not a socialist plot, a liberal agenda, or a power-hungry government. It is the law of the land.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    From a pure legal perspective, the issue probably isn't 100% settled.  The decision in Heart of Atlanta Motel relied heavily on the interstate commerce clause.  A conservative court could rule differently in the case of the Arizona law.  We'll have to see.  If America wants to turn itself into the Christian equivalent of the Taliban, the door is still wide open, and there are plenty of old white fahrts willing to lead the way.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I find your hate speech regarding persons of age offensive, especially considering you claim to be some sort of goody two shoes champion of non-discrimination. I guess you're just a liar and a phony like Rusty.

     

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to Bungalow-Bill's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    What's worse than rusty talking about football? Rusty talking about any other topic.

    A know-it-all on literally every subject you could possibly think of. Could you imagine being friends and actually hanging out with this db?

    [/QUOTE]


    Friendship with Rusty probably lasts about 10 minutes.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share