OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    And of course, they don't want children to be taught evolution . . .

    Overview

    One of the more controversial issues in public schools continues to be over which theories should be taught about the earth’s origin. The theory of evolution has been taught almost exclusively in schools since the Supreme Court first protected it in 1968.

    However, many school board policies have become friendlier toward teaching the challenges to and weaknesses of evolutionary theory. There is still strong opposition against actually teaching alternative theories in public school classrooms, such as intelligent design, but many policies do not prohibit discussing them.

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    Don't be fooled by the "religious liberty" rhetoric.  This is all about making fundamentalist Christian beliefs the law of the land. 

     

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    I only have one thing to say to this post.

    Who is actually being intolerant here?  Those that refuse service because of their own beliefs or those that use legal force demanding that their free beliefs are more important.

    By forcing someone to abandon their own personal beliefs tramples all over their rights as Americans.  This country was formed on capitalism and a basic right to religious freedom.  I personally believe that anybody should marry who they want.  The LGBT community needs to understand that while they should have every right to live their lives how they want to, all other Americans who may not share their beliefs also have those same rights.  If someone doesn't want to provide them a service for any reason it should be their right to do so.  Bring that business somewhere else and someone will gladly step right in. 

    I was raised to believe that no one person or groups rights are more important than another's. Instead of buying a cake somewhere else or getting another photographer, people decided that their beliefs were more important.  

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to UWhuskiesAJM's comment:

     

    I only have one thing to say to this post.

    Who is actually being intolerant here?  Those that refuse service because of their own beliefs or those that use legal force demanding that their free beliefs are more important.

    By forcing someone to abandon their own personal beliefs tramples all over their rights as Americans.  This country was formed on capitalism and a basic right to religious freedom.  I personally believe that anybody should marry who they want.   IfThe LGBT community needs to understand that while they should have every right to live their lives how they want to, all other Americans who may not share their beliefs also have those same rights.  someone doesn't want to provide them a service for any reason it should be their right to do so.  Bring that business somewhere else and someone will gladly step right in. 

    I was raised to believe that no one person or groups rights are more important than another's. Instead of buying a cake somewhere else or getting another photographer, people decided that their beliefs were more important.  

     


    So...I assume you think the same thing about African Americans or Hispanics...or maybe Catholics or Musilims, even if they are FBI agents? Tell me, what "beliefs" you find so objectionable? Do you realize that the same arguments about "separate, but equal" are the same ones the Supreme Court found UNCONSTITUTIONAL in the 1950's?

    Do you honestly think every gay person wants to seduce or turn you or your kids into homosexuals? Just asking?

     

    Should gays be jailed or executed...I mean, what would you do with Gays....Were you raised to think some classes of people were better than others?  Just curious...

    Do you own fire arms...are you as member of the NRA?

    JUst out of curiosity, how old are you?

    May I ask...are you a tea partier? or a republican? conservative democrat? Conservtive Christian...College educated?...Just curious?

    I don't have a problem with anyone expressing an opinion....I just think when you express an opinion, you have to be ready to hear the opinions of others about your opinions...just because people disagree with your opinions, or those you agree with, should not make you feel threatened or claim others are being closed minded because they disagree with you...

    Some people here never agree with one another...but some of those same people have strong moral feelings of their own that sometimes coalesce ...this is one of those times...

    I have two children in their 20's and they and their friends of that generation have entirely different views of this issue and I say thank God for that...why inflict my generation's prejuduces on a new generation...I want them to be free of as many strangleholds on their minds as possible because I love them...I want them to be fully free to think their own thoughts and live their own lives...I have often struggled with my own acceptance with gays and the gay lifestyle....but I realize now that all gays deserve to be allowed to live a full and soverign life with every right of every other human being in this country....I have no right to judge what they do...restricting service is exactly the same as denying anyone full rights for any number of specious and stupid reasons...it's says far more about those doing the denying than those being denied...most importantly, it's protected by the Constitution of this country...

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    LMAO @ prolate having a meltdown.

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    LMAO @ prolate having a meltdown.

    [/QUOTE]


     

    Don't be fooled by the "religious liberty" rhetoric.  This is all about making fundamentalist Christian beliefs the law of the land.

    He's not having a meltdown...he's correct!

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to mellymel3's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UWhuskiesAJM's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    I only have one thing to say to this post.

    Who is actually being intolerant here?  Those that refuse service because of their own beliefs or those that use legal force demanding that their free beliefs are more important.

    By forcing someone to abandon their own personal beliefs tramples all over their rights as Americans.  This country was formed on capitalism and a basic right to religious freedom.  I personally believe that anybody should marry who they want.   IfThe LGBT community needs to understand that while they should have every right to live their lives how they want to, all other Americans who may not share their beliefs also have those same rights.  someone doesn't want to provide them a service for any reason it should be their right to do so.  Bring that business somewhere else and someone will gladly step right in. 

    I was raised to believe that no one person or groups rights are more important than another's. Instead of buying a cake somewhere else or getting another photographer, people decided that their beliefs were more important.  

     

    [/QUOTE]
    So...I assume you think the same thing about African Americans or Hispanics...or maybe Catholics or Musilims, even if they are FBI agents? Tell me, what "beliefs" you find so objectionable? Do you realize that the same arguments about "separate, but equal" are the same ones the Supreme Court found UNCONSTITUTIONAL in the 1950's?

    Do you honestly think every gay person wants to seduce or turn you or your kids into homosexuals? Just asking?

     

    Should gays be jailed or executed...I mean, what would you do with Gays....Were you raised to think some classes of people were better than others?  Just curious...

    Do you own fire arms...are you as member of the NRA?

    JUst out of curiosity, how old are you?

    May I ask...are you a tea partier? or a republican? conservative democrat? Conservtive Christian...College educated?...Just curious?

    [/QUOTE]

    Wow, race baiting much? I stand on my position that a business should be able to do business with whoever they choose.  What part of free economy do you not understand.  If a business doesn't want to maximize their profits it is completely up to them.  That goes both ways, if a gay couple doesn't want to service a Christian couple with a wedding cake it should be within their right to do so.  The same goes for color of skin and every other form of discrimination.  Do I agree with the decision, absolutely not.  It doesn't change the fact that businesses should be allowed to sell to whoever they want.  Free markets.

    Do you realize how you just came off?  Did you even read my post?  I specifically said that I believe that gays should have the right to marriage and live their lives how they want to.

     As for the personal stuff...

    Yes, I am college educated

    31 year old that doesn't own guns and doesn't play politics.  I think for myself whether my beliefs fall liberal or conservative on different topics they are my own.  I am also tired of media created controversies where talking heads tell the American people how to think.

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to UWhuskiesAJM's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mellymel3's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UWhuskiesAJM's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    I only have one thing to say to this post.

    Who is actually being intolerant here?  Those that refuse service because of their own beliefs or those that use legal force demanding that their free beliefs are more important.

    By forcing someone to abandon their own personal beliefs tramples all over their rights as Americans.  This country was formed on capitalism and a basic right to religious freedom.  I personally believe that anybody should marry who they want.   IfThe LGBT community needs to understand that while they should have every right to live their lives how they want to, all other Americans who may not share their beliefs also have those same rights.  someone doesn't want to provide them a service for any reason it should be their right to do so.  Bring that business somewhere else and someone will gladly step right in. 

    I was raised to believe that no one person or groups rights are more important than another's. Instead of buying a cake somewhere else or getting another photographer, people decided that their beliefs were more important.  

     

    [/QUOTE]
    So...I assume you think the same thing about African Americans or Hispanics...or maybe Catholics or Musilims, even if they are FBI agents? Tell me, what "beliefs" you find so objectionable? Do you realize that the same arguments about "separate, but equal" are the same ones the Supreme Court found UNCONSTITUTIONAL in the 1950's?

    Do you honestly think every gay person wants to seduce or turn you or your kids into homosexuals? Just asking?

     

    Should gays be jailed or executed...I mean, what would you do with Gays....Were you raised to think some classes of people were better than others?  Just curious...

    Do you own fire arms...are you as member of the NRA?

    JUst out of curiosity, how old are you?

    May I ask...are you a tea partier? or a republican? conservative democrat? Conservtive Christian...College educated?...Just curious?

    [/QUOTE]

    Wow, race baiting much? I stand on my position that a business should be able to do business with whoever they choose.  What part of free economy do you not understand.  If a business doesn't want to maximize their profits it is completely up to them.  That goes both ways, if a gay couple doesn't want to service a Christian couple with a wedding cake it should be within their right to do so.  The same goes for color of skin and every other form of discrimination.  Do I agree with the decision, absolutely not.  It doesn't change the fact that businesses should be allowed to sell to whoever they want.  Free markets.

    Do you realize how you just came off?  Did you even read my post?  I specifically said that I believe that gays should have the right to marriage and live their lives how they want to.

     As for the personal stuff...

    Yes, I am college educated

    31 year old that doesn't own guns and doesn't play politics.  I think for myself whether my beliefs fall liberal or conservative on different topics they are my own.  I am also tired of media created controversies where talking heads tell the American people how to think.

    [/QUOTE]

    Wow. You are amazingly awake for a 31 year old. good on you. There is hope for this country.

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to mellymel3's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UWhuskiesAJM's comment:

     

    I only have one thing to say to this post.

    Who is actually being intolerant here?  Those that refuse service because of their own beliefs or those that use legal force demanding that their free beliefs are more important.

    By forcing someone to abandon their own personal beliefs tramples all over their rights as Americans.  This country was formed on capitalism and a basic right to religious freedom.  I personally believe that anybody should marry who they want.   IfThe LGBT community needs to understand that while they should have every right to live their lives how they want to, all other Americans who may not share their beliefs also have those same rights.  someone doesn't want to provide them a service for any reason it should be their right to do so.  Bring that business somewhere else and someone will gladly step right in. 

    I was raised to believe that no one person or groups rights are more important than another's. Instead of buying a cake somewhere else or getting another photographer, people decided that their beliefs were more important.  

     


    So...I assume you think the same thing about African Americans or Hispanics...or maybe Catholics or Musilims, even if they are FBI agents? Tell me, what "beliefs" you find so objectionable? Do you realize that the same arguments about "separate, but equal" are the same ones the Supreme Court found UNCONSTITUTIONAL in the 1950's?

    Do you honestly think every gay person wants to seduce or turn you or your kids into homosexuals? Just asking?

     

    Should gays be jailed or executed...I mean, what would you do with Gays....Were you raised to think some classes of people were better than others?  Just curious...

    Do you own fire arms...are you as member of the NRA?

    JUst out of curiosity, how old are you?

    May I ask...are you a tea partier? or a republican? conservative democrat? Conservtive Christian...College educated?...Just curious?

    I don't have a problem with anyone expressing an opinion....I just think when you express an opinion, you have to be ready to hear the opinions of others about your opinions...just because people disagree with your opinions, or those you agree with, should not make you feel threatened or claim others are being closed minded because they disagree with you...

    Some people here never agree with one another...but some of those same people have strong moral feelings of their own that sometimes coalesce ...this is one of those times...

    I have two children in their 20's and they and their friends of that generation have entirely different views of this issue and I say thank God for that...why inflict my generation's prejuduces on a new generation...I want them to be free of as many strangleholds on their minds as possible because I love them...I want them to be fully free to think their own thoughts and live their own lives...I have often struggled with my own acceptance with gays and the gay lifestyle....but I realize now that all gays deserve to be allowed to live a full and soverign life with every right of every other human being in this country....I have no right to judge what they do...restricting service is exactly the same as denying anyone full rights for any number of specious and stupid reasons...it's says far more about those doing the denying than those being denied...most importantly, it's protected by the Constitution of this country...

    [/QUOTE]

    You said it!

    The responses against tolerance are quite superficial. There is either no understanding of how predudice can - AND HAS - severly impacted lives. Instead there is only a blind obedience to the "right" to discriminate.

    One day some of these folks will awake to the reality of how immoral and evil bigotry is and how it can destroy lives. Some will simply change gradually and deny their past positions. But some will not - they will go on either living it or accepting bigotry and prejudice in others as OK. Those folks will only see it if it is themselves who are profoundly hurt. I do not wish it on them but for them it will be perhaps the only way they will realize.

    It is ironic that some of them dress it up with religion, some with "freedom". Just as it was done to justify slavery, just as it was done to justify Jim Crow (which is what is being proposed), just as it was done to Jews and not only in Germany. Just as it was done to the Armenians by the Turks. Just as it has been done to others by people cut from the same rather "tribal" cloth. In their world it is ever "us" against "them". There is no room for All Men under God or simply equality in the street or at the counter or anywhere else.

     

    It is simple logic which an adolescent could understand but some have a blind spot... they just dont see it or just dont want to see it. It is of course not at all the same thing to say that a baker can choose the ingredients in their baking while the same baker cannot decide to refuse to sell their goods to a human being they are predisposed to not like... or to hate. Separate but "equal" is not equal at all. We have seen that as a fact. We have seen entire lives hurt, demeaned and even destroyed by that sort of twisted, self serving logic. "All men are created equal" is not something they truly believe and so the very principles of America are twisted just as they twist Christianity and the teachings of Jesus to justify themselves. The same happens in the more fundamentalist groups around the world. Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindi...

    It is worth the discussion nonetheless. But dont expect objectivity. It will happen with some... but you cannot expect it from everyone. The maturing of morality remains a geologically slow process that takes a generation to make headway and generations to complete. But there will be some who finally, in the end, get it. I have seen some individuals who eventually see it.

     

     

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

     


    You said it!

    The responses against tolerance are quite superficial. There is either no understanding of how predudice can - AND HAS - severly impacted lives. Instead there is only a blind obedience to the "right" to discriminate.

    One day some of these folks will awake to the reality of how immoral and evil bigotry is and how it can destroy lives. Some will simply change gradually and deny their past positions. But some will not - they will go on either living it or accepting bigotry and prejudice in others as OK. Those folks will only see it if it is themselves who are profoundly hurt. I do not wish it on them but for them it will be perhaps the only way they will realize.

    It is ironic that some of them dress it up with religion, some with "freedom". Just as it was done to justify slavery, just as it was done to justify Jim Crow (which is what is being proposed), just as it was done to Jews and not only in Germany. Just as it was done to the Armenians by the Turks. Just as it has been done to others by people cut from the same rather "tribal" cloth. In their world it is ever "us" against "them". There is no room for All Men under God or simply equality in the street or at the counter or anywhere else.

     

    It is simple logic which an adolescent could understand but some have a blind spot... they just dont see it or just dont want to see it. It is of course not at all the same thing to say that a baker can choose the ingredients in their baking while the same baker cannot decide to refuse to sell their goods to a human being they are predisposed to not like... or to hate. Separate but "equal" is not equal at all. We have seen that as a fact. We have seen entire lives hurt, demeaned and even destroyed by that sort of twisted, self serving logic. "All men are created equal" is not something they truly believe and so the very principles of America are twisted just as they twist Christianity and the teachings of Jesus to justify themselves. The same happens in the more fundamentalist groups around the world. Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindi...

    It is worth the discussion nonetheless. But dont expect objectivity. It will happen with some... but you cannot expect it from everyone. The maturing of morality remains a geologically slow process that takes a generation to make headway and generations to complete. But there will be some who finally, in the end, get it. I have seen some individuals who eventually see it.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    So, in short to sum up your high horse rant about morality.  Prejudice/discrimination is bad which I think most rational people feel.  What you fail to address is the basic argument here.  Do business owners have the right to sell their services to whomever they choose?

    Our economy is built upon the freedom of the marketplace and basic capitalism principles.  Our country was also built upon the freedom of religion.  To openly force a business owner to support something that is fundamentally against their beliefs is far more intolerant then anything else.

     

    What many of the MSNBC sheeple here going on and on about equality of men need to step back and realize what that means.  Equality does not only mean that our populace should be blind to color, race, sex, religion.  It also means we have the right to practice our beliefs, religion, freely.  By placing one groups beliefs above another based on your own self inflated opinions is wrong.  Businesses should have the right to sell their services to whomever they choose.  

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I think some here erroneously think gay marriage is universally accepted and the US is dragging their feet. It isn't.

    Yeah, Canada is the world's leading gay marriage haven. (All 33 million of them [the city of Tokyo has a larger population than Canada.]).

    Let's all follow their brilliant way. Because they matter so much.

    (Gay marriage allowed in dark blue areas.)

     

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/44/World_marriage-equality_laws.svg/800px-World_marriage-equality_laws.svg.png

     

    [/QUOTE]

    What's interesting is what's completely grey in that chart: 3rd world nations;  Islamic republics and countries governed by Islamic law, totalitarian nations like China, Russia, and N. Korea; and for some odd reason, Japan.  

    I bet you dollars to donuts, Japan will start turning a shade of blue sooner than later.  

    Hurry up and get you rear end over to Uganda.  All is good there.  Gays are executed as capital criminals.  You can even start your own photography biz and never have to worry about same-sex couples as customers; they'll either be killed, in jail, or in hiding.

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pcmIV's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Previously divorced couples are not necessarily a wrong thing according to Christian Scripture.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    1st Corinthians, Chapter 7, Verses 10-11

     

    To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

    [/QUOTE]


    Matt 19:9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

    The direct words from Christ Himself. Game. Set. Match.

    [/QUOTE]

    "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." (1 Timothy 2:12)

    You'll never win this one.  Ever.  

     

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to UWhuskiesAJM's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    [/QUOTE]



    So, in short to sum up your high horse rant about morality.  Prejudice/discrimination is bad which I think most rational people feel.  What you fail to address is the basic argument here.  Do business owners have the right to sell their services to whomever they choose?

    The question is whether business owners should be allowed to turn people away (as customers or employees) simply because they disapprove of the person's sexual orientation, gender, race, etc.  This was a regular business practice for years in this country, where white businessmen refused to serve or hire blacks.  The practice was highly damaging to a large group of people.  The "right" to not serve or hire blacks, gays, women, etc. has no social benefit, while the right of all people to have full access to services and jobs has immense social benefit.  The trade off between a trivial and useless "right" and an immensely beneficial one is not a difficult trade off to make. 

    Our economy is built upon the freedom of the marketplace and basic capitalism principles.  

    If people don't have access to markets because of their gender, race, sexual orientation, etc., we don't have truly free markets.  

    Capitalism, by the way, was never once mentioned by the founding fathers.  It's a bit of a stretch to say that "capitalism" is a basic priniciple underlying the Constitution.  It isn't. 

    Our country was also built upon the freedom of religion.  To openly force a business owner to support something that is fundamentally against their beliefs is far more intolerant then anything else.

    To allow discrimination is far more damaging to a healthy society.   

    What many of the MSNBC sheeple here going on and on about equality of men need to step back and realize what that means.  Equality does not only mean that our populace should be blind to color, race, sex, religion.  It also means we have the right to practice our beliefs, religion, freely.  By placing one groups beliefs above another based on your own self inflated opinions is wrong.  Businesses should have the right to sell their services to whomever they choose.  

    They shouldn't have the right to deny people services or jobs based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Such practices have, in the past, proven to be very damaging to large groups within society.  There's absolutely no reason to bring such damaging practices back. 

    The fact is, this law is being pushed by a fundamentalist Christian lobbying group (Center for Arizona Policy) that is anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-divorce, anti-evolution, anti-birth control, anti-invitro fertilization, anti-gambling, anti-stem cell research, etc.  Don't be naive.  This isn't about "freedom"--it's about making fundamentalist Christian dogma the law of the land. 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


     
  14. 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]

    LMAO @ prolate having a meltdown.

    [/QUOTE]

    Hah . . . just pointing out some of the other wingnut policies your friends at the Center for Arizona Policy support . . .

    Outlawing no-fault divorce?  Yeah, that's a popular one . . .  

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

        NFL, Cardinals, Super Bowl committee sound off on SB 1062 Posted: Feb 25, 2014 7:18 AM EST Updated: Feb 25, 2014 7:21 AM EST Posted by Steve Stout - email  

    Arizona is scheduled to host the 2015 Super Bowl at University of Phoenix Stadium in Glendale. (Source: CBS 5 News)

    Arizona is scheduled to host the 2015 Super Bowl at University of Phoenix Stadium in Glendale. (Source: CBS 5 News) PHOENIX (CBS5) -

    As the anticipation grows over what Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer will do with Senate Bill 1062, the so-called Religious Freedom Bill, the National Football League, the Arizona Cardinals and Arizona's Super Bowl committee are chiming in.

    The 2015 Super Bowl is scheduled to be played at University of Phoenix Stadium in Glendale.

    MORE    

    The NFL said it was monitoring the progress of the bill, the Cardinals said they are concerned about the negative image the bill could bring the state, and the Arizona Super Bowl Host Committee said it flatly opposes the legislation.

    All three released their statements Monday.

    The bill would allow Arizona businesses the right to refuse service to anyone based on the business owner's religious beliefs without fear of lawsuits.

    Brewer has until Saturday to sign the bill into law, veto the bill or do nothing and allow it to become law.

    The NFL's Greg Aiello issued the following statement Monday afternoon:

    "Our policies emphasize tolerance and inclusiveness, and prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other improper standard. We are following the issue in Arizona and will continue to do so should the bill be signed into law, but will decline further comment at this time."

    The Arizona Cardinals statement issued Monday:

    "What so many love about football is its ability to bring people together. We do not support anything that has the potential to divide, exclude and discriminate. As a prominent and highly-visible member of this community, we strive to bring positive attention to the state. We are concerned with anything that creates a negative perception of Arizona and those of us who are fortunate to call it home."

    The Arizona Super Bowl Host Committee's statement reads:

    "We share the NFL's core values which embrace tolerance, diversity, inclusiveness and prohibit discrimination. In addition, a key part of the mission for the Arizona Super Bowl Host Committee is to promote the economic vitality of Arizona. On that matter we have heard loud and clear from our various stakeholders that adoption of this legislation would not only run contrary to that goal but deal a significant blow to the state's economic growth potential. We do not support this legislation. Instead, we look forward to continuing to promote the NFL's values while focusing on the economic momentum apparent in Arizona and capturing the positive worldwide attention associated with hosting Super Bowl XLIX."

    It's not the first time and Arizona issue and the NFL have collided.

    In 1993, Arizona was in line to host the Super Bowl in Tempe, but Arizona voters in November 1992 voted against a referendum recognizing Martin Luther King Jr. Day as a state holiday, prompting the NFL to give the Super Bowl to Pasadena, CA.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from NEGAME2. Show NEGAME2's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NEGAME2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NOISE's comment:
    [QUOTE]

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

    [/QUOTE]


    omg didn't realize that--bet Goodall is on the phone right now threatening to have location moved unless the governor veto's.

    [/QUOTE]

    Are you serious?

    [/QUOTE]


    yes see above post!

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to NEGAME2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NEGAME2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NOISE's comment:
    [QUOTE]

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

    [/QUOTE]


    omg didn't realize that--bet Goodall is on the phone right now threatening to have location moved unless the governor veto's.

    [/QUOTE]

    Are you serious?

    [/QUOTE]


    yes see above post!

    [/QUOTE]

    I doubt they'd actually move the Super Bowl at this late date, but I'm sure they are putting pressure on the governor to veto the bill because they don't want the controversy.  Business groups in general are against the bill, si its veto is increasingly likely.

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ


    Take it out of the reactionary prism for a second and who may or may not be for this bill, which I havent read. What questions are being raised here?

    As i understand it

    This started from a gay couple who wanted a private company to photogragh their wedding. There were / are multiple photographer companies who would do this event. The gay couple picked(?) this one company who they knew wouldnt do it.

    So the questions come like this

    When does a person's religous freedoms go away?

    When do you not have freedom of association?

    Since there are multiple firms willing to provide this service, what freedom has the gay couple lost? Why would thye want some one there that clearly doesnt want to be there and would be uncomforable?

    If they had decided to use only a gay photographer would that be wrong?

    Is picking this company to make an issue . Is that a good or nice thing?

    To jump to nuerembeurg, ie nazi. is a great jump. The photographer was not saying that the coople couldn't be gay - but it was something they couldnt in their conscienc perform.

    ****

    This then gets us to the SC case against the "Sisters of the Poor" Having the government force "acceptance" of one group by another group is dicey. And on this matter I do not consider ethnicity the same as sexual orientation - one is skin deep, one is not

    Just a note

    I have a small business. I welcome "all " honest clients. this includes all minorities and the L/G community. I have been fortunate/blessed to have them as customers.

    There are also people who come in that I know I do not want to do business with. and I have a right to make a contract with only those i trust , no matter who it is with. I could be railroaded in some incidences, I think that unfair.

     

    Feel what you will about it

     
  19. 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]    NFL, Cardinals, Super Bowl committee sound off on SB 1062 Posted: Feb 25, 2014 7:18 AM EST Updated: Feb 25, 2014 7:21 AM EST Posted by Steve Stout - email  

    Arizona is scheduled to host the 2015 Super Bowl at University of Phoenix Stadium in Glendale. (Source: CBS 5 News)

    Arizona is scheduled to host the 2015 Super Bowl at University of Phoenix Stadium in Glendale. (Source: CBS 5 News) PHOENIX (CBS5) -

    As the anticipation grows over what Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer will do with Senate Bill 1062, the so-called Religious Freedom Bill, the National Football League, the Arizona Cardinals and Arizona's Super Bowl committee are chiming in.

    The 2015 Super Bowl is scheduled to be played at University of Phoenix Stadium in Glendale.

    MORE 

     

    The NFL said it was monitoring the progress of the bill, the Cardinals said they are concerned about the negative image the bill could bring the state, and the Arizona Super Bowl Host Committee said it flatly opposes the legislation.

    All three released their statements Monday.

    The bill would allow Arizona businesses the right to refuse service to anyone based on the business owner's religious beliefs without fear of lawsuits.

    Brewer has until Saturday to sign the bill into law, veto the bill or do nothing and allow it to become law.

    The NFL's Greg Aiello issued the following statement Monday afternoon:

    "Our policies emphasize tolerance and inclusiveness, and prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other improper standard. We are following the issue in Arizona and will continue to do so should the bill be signed into law, but will decline further comment at this time."

    The Arizona Cardinals statement issued Monday:

    "What so many love about football is its ability to bring people together. We do not support anything that has the potential to divide, exclude and discriminate. As a prominent and highly-visible member of this community, we strive to bring positive attention to the state. We are concerned with anything that creates a negative perception of Arizona and those of us who are fortunate to call it home."

    The Arizona Super Bowl Host Committee's statement reads:

    "We share the NFL's core values which embrace tolerance, diversity, inclusiveness and prohibit discrimination. In addition, a key part of the mission for the Arizona Super Bowl Host Committee is to promote the economic vitality of Arizona. On that matter we have heard loud and clear from our various stakeholders that adoption of this legislation would not only run contrary to that goal but deal a significant blow to the state's economic growth potential. We do not support this legislation. Instead, we look forward to continuing to promote the NFL's values while focusing on the economic momentum apparent in Arizona and capturing the positive worldwide attention associated with hosting Super Bowl XLIX."

    It's not the first time and Arizona issue and the NFL have collided.

    In 1993, Arizona was in line to host the Super Bowl in Tempe, but Arizona voters in November 1992 voted against a referendum recognizing Martin Luther King Jr. Day as a state holiday, prompting the NFL to give the Super Bowl to Pasadena, CA.

    [/QUOTE]

    The nfls policy is hogwash First off. They openly discriminate based on a host of reasons. 

    Let me draw an nfl parallel to the issue at hand and you decide what is right.

    this past SB, the nfl denied Daniel firearms to run a SB commercial. In that commercial was no mention nor showing of ant firearm. It was simply about a man wanting to protect his family. You can see it on youtube and decide for yourself. Given this, the nfl chose not to run it because it conflicted with their values. They would rather endorse grown men beating the crap out of each other rather than a man protecting his family protected by the 2nd amendment in a commercial that was not at all offensive. 

    Should the nfl be forced to air this commercial? They are discriminating based on their values. It doesn't matter if those values are based in religion or economics. The nfl has their set of values, and made a decision to not run this ad. The ad didn't conflict with any nfl policy other than it didn't support nfl values. A subjective decision. What's the difference? 

    Should those promoting family and self protection be discriminated against? I can't think of one reason why. The commercial as a whole was probably the most wholesome of American values to ever have a chance to run during the SB. Yet, the nfl chose not to run it and instead would rather promote values that are anything but wholesome. Hippocrites they are. Goodell the biggest one. 

    Another example is that piece of sxxx  governor cuomo of NY. Saying that gun owners and people who believe are against abortion have no place in NY. Yet, those values are protected by the 1st and 2nd amendments. he is openly discriminating. Yet, how is this tolerated?

    you see, discrimination only works one way. It's ok to apply personal values to discriminate as long as it supports the political agenda. 

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to PatsLifer's comment:

    this past SB, the nfl denied Daniel firearms to run a SB commercial. In that commercial was no mention nor showing of ant firearm. It was simply about a man wanting to protect his family. You can see it on youtube and decide for yourself. Given this, the nfl chose not to run it because it conflicted with their values. They would rather endorse grown men beating the crap out of each other rather than a man protecting his family protected by the 2nd amendment in a commercial that was not at all offensive. 

    Should the nfl be forced to air this commercial? They are discriminating based on their values. It doesn't matter if those values are based in religion or economics. The nfl has their set of values, and made a decision to not run this ad. The ad didn't conflict with any nfl policy other than it didn't support nfl values. A subjective decision. What's the difference? 


    I see this type of argument a lot.  It is silly.  Gun ownership is a choice.  Race, gender, sexuality, age etc. are not.  You lose.

     

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to pcmIV's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to PatsLifer's comment:

     

    this past SB, the nfl denied Daniel firearms to run a SB commercial. In that commercial was no mention nor showing of ant firearm. It was simply about a man wanting to protect his family. You can see it on youtube and decide for yourself. Given this, the nfl chose not to run it because it conflicted with their values. They would rather endorse grown men beating the crap out of each other rather than a man protecting his family protected by the 2nd amendment in a commercial that was not at all offensive. 

    Should the nfl be forced to air this commercial? They are discriminating based on their values. It doesn't matter if those values are based in religion or economics. The nfl has their set of values, and made a decision to not run this ad. The ad didn't conflict with any nfl policy other than it didn't support nfl values. A subjective decision. What's the difference? 

     

     


    I see this type of argument a lot.  It is stupid.  Gun ownership is a choice.  Race, gender, sexuality, age etc. are not.  You lose.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Good point

    but protecting your family isn't really a choice either and that is also protected by the Constitution

    The more businesses keep out of the PC world the better, The NFL also has a gun problem as does the NBA. They should be able to choose what they feel is good for business. If the NFl decides not to go to AZ for aSB , i think they are stupid, but they can do what they want. It is only in the last year taht this issue has gained any traction. In the history of Man there are only a miniscule fraction of people who believe in gay marriage and now a few "enlightened" ones want to change that. It has only been a year since Obama has (been honest) and backed gay marriage. Qutie frankly I dont care - but the moral superiority of a few is tiring and I am tired of it shoved in everyones face

     

     

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:

    Good point

    but protecting your family isn't really a choice either and that is also protected by the Constitution

    The more businesses keep out of the PC world the better, The NFL also has a gun problem as does the NBA. They should be able to choose what they feel is good for business. If the NFl decides not to go to AZ for aSB , i think they are stupid, but they can do what they want. It is only in the last year taht this issue has gained any traction. In the history of Man there are only a miniscule fraction of people who believe in gay marriage and now a few "enlightened" ones want to change that. It has only been a year since Obama has (been honest) and backed gay marriage. Qutie frankly I dont care - but the moral superiority of a few is tiring and I am tired of it shoved in everyones face



    I don't equate gun ownership with protecting your family.  I think more family members have died from guns than been protected by them, but to each his own.

    As for gay marriage there seems to be some confusion about what it means.  No one is talking about forcing a church to marry a gay couple if it doesn't want to (and if they are they are wrong since that would be violating the free practice of religion clause in the Constitution).  Allowing gays to be married in the legal sense with all of the benefits that it entails seems pretty non controversial to me. 

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to pcmIV's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     



    I don't equate gun ownership with protecting your family.  I think more family members have died from guns than been protected by them, but to each his own.

    I have never seen a study that has said that and if there were we would hav heard it

    As for gay marriage there seems to be some confusion about what it means.  No one is talking about forcing a church to marry a gay couple if it doesn't want to (and if they are they are wrong since that would be violating the free practice of religion clause in the Constitution). 

    That is why i mentioned the "Little Sisters of the Poor Obmacare suit" Its exactly that.

    Allowing gays to be married in the legal sense with all of the benefits that it entails seems pretty non controversial to me. 

    People dont chenge in a heart beat. And quite frankly most people probably dont spend a lot of time thinking about it. And it is a big cultural change.

    And I dont like the fact that as a small business person I can be sued for one more thing.

    I dont like judges or such making unilateral decisons - thats how we got the Abortion  mess

    Thanks for the good "tone". it is mucho  appreciated . will look forward to your posts

    [/QUOTE]


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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to pcmIV's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to PatsLifer's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

    this past SB, the nfl denied Daniel firearms to run a SB commercial. In that commercial was no mention nor showing of ant firearm. It was simply about a man wanting to protect his family. You can see it on youtube and decide for yourself. Given this, the nfl chose not to run it because it conflicted with their values. They would rather endorse grown men beating the crap out of each other rather than a man protecting his family protected by the 2nd amendment in a commercial that was not at all offensive. 

    Should the nfl be forced to air this commercial? They are discriminating based on their values. It doesn't matter if those values are based in religion or economics. The nfl has their set of values, and made a decision to not run this ad. The ad didn't conflict with any nfl policy other than it didn't support nfl values. A subjective decision. What's the difference? 

     

    [/QUOTE]

     


    I see this type of argument a lot.  It is silly.  Gun ownership is a choice.  Race, gender, sexuality, age etc. are not.  You lose.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    There is no proof sexuality is not a choice. You lose.

     

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to Sobchack's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I think some here erroneously think gay marriage is universally accepted and the US is dragging their feet. It isn't.

    Yeah, Canada is the world's leading gay marriage haven. (All 33 million of them [the city of Tokyo has a larger population than Canada.]).

    Let's all follow their brilliant way. Because they matter so much.

    (Gay marriage allowed in dark blue areas.)

     

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/44/World_marriage-equality_laws.svg/800px-World_marriage-equality_laws.svg.png

     

    [/QUOTE]

    What's interesting is what's completely grey in that chart: 3rd world nations;  Islamic republics and countries governed by Islamic law, totalitarian nations like China, Russia, and N. Korea; and for some odd reason, Japan.  

    I bet you dollars to donuts, Japan will start turning a shade of blue sooner than later.  

    Hurry up and get you rear end over to Uganda.  All is good there.  Gays are executed as capital criminals.  You can even start your own photography biz and never have to worry about same-sex couples as customers; they'll either be killed, in jail, or in hiding.

    [/QUOTE]


    Hate to break it to you, but only the dark blue allow gay marriage. It is a small minority.

     

     

Share