OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to dreighver's comment:

    You are free to practice your religion however you wish. It's protected, trust me. If you'd like to worship, then worship. If you'd like to pray, then pray. But don't discriminate against others based on the beliefs you hold. To say this bill is about religious freedom is disingenous, in my opinion.

    I ask you all, would you have an issue with a business refusing service to a divorced woman, or to a black individual? 

    In our sacred Constitution, we have provisions for the separation of religion and state. Now, look, I get it -- a private business is not a part of the state. However, in a decent society, people should be treated equally and fairly, regardless of personally held beliefs. I value the rights of society as a whole over the rights of a particular bigot. And yes, I say 'bigot', and I mean 'bigot'. Regardless of what the Bible says, or any other religious (or non-religious) text for that matter, discrimination against a certain group of people is bigotry. It doesn't matter where the belief originates from. But I digress.

    Let's suppose that my religion states that I can only drive an automobile at 100 MPH. Now this is a rather absurd condition, I understand, but I don't see it as any more outrageous than stating that homosexuality is morally wrong. Anyhow, so let's suppose that my religion states that I can only drive 100 MPH. This belief is held dearly close to my heart, and after all, it is MY religious RIGHT to practice said religion how I wish, correct? Should I therefore be allowed to drive 100 MPH at all times? Of course not! That'd be absurd, as it'd endanger countless numbers of people. 

    See where I'm going here...? All rights have some limitations on them, even speech and expression. You cannot yell "fire" in a movie theater, as this purports that there's a clear and present danger. But, but but...! What if my religion requires that I yell "fire" in a crowded theater?! Sorry, you can't do it, and that makes perfect sense to most sane individuals.

    Point is, all rights are limited in some sense. When your right begins to infringe on the rights of others', then a breaking point is met. Very sensibly, to this point, our political system has erred on the side of the majority, as opposed to the individual.

    RE: seawolf -- overall, that sums up my feelings on the topic. At some point, we'll have to let this topic go. I don't think I can (or will) elaborate any further on my thoughts, as there's little more to be said. It comes down to a fundamental disagreement on the liberty of the individual vs. the liberty of the majority. We all have our own personal feelings and beliefs, and that's perfectly fine -- wonderful, in fact! At some point, though, we'll have to agree to disagree.

    Cheers, fellas. 

     



    +1. Very well put.

    But it shouldn't have to be neccesary to make an obvious example like that. The photographer and the gay couple is quite enough IMO. First off, I don't understand how taking photos at a gay marriage corrupts your own religious practices - I understand that it feels uncomfortable for the photographer, but he is not "aiding" in the marriage, he does not sanction it, he is not a guest, he doesn't participate, it has absolutely no implications on how he worships. None. He takes pictures for a living, has probably taken pictures at a lot of weddings, go take some pictures.

    Denying his services to the couple has however civil rights and free market implications for the gay couple. In a free market, buyers choose which goods and services they want to purchase, balancing price and perception of quality. Could be that this particular photographer is either the cheapest or the best or some combination hereof that is appealing to the couple. They would be excluded from that service based on a completely individual, random and subjective opinion of the photographer. And on top of that they have been clearly discriminated against based on their sexual orientation.

    Those in favor of the law argue that the couple could go elsewhere. Well, maybe they could, maybe not. At the very least it could potentially drive up prices for gay couples, or ultimately cut them off from having their picture taken, if all photographers in the area were bigots.

    And though I in general don't like jumping from laws that have a specific goal to extrapolate the worst case scenario from it, it just seems reasonable to ask those of you in favor of the law, where the line should be drawn - if at all? How far should religious practices go before you say it becomes too imposing on others?

     

     

     

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to DanishPastry's comment:

    In response to dreighver's comment:

    You are free to practice your religion however you wish. It's protected, trust me. If you'd like to worship, then worship. If you'd like to pray, then pray. But don't discriminate against others based on the beliefs you hold. To say this bill is about religious freedom is disingenous, in my opinion.

    I ask you all, would you have an issue with a business refusing service to a divorced woman, or to a black individual? 

    In our sacred Constitution, we have provisions for the separation of religion and state. Now, look, I get it -- a private business is not a part of the state. However, in a decent society, people should be treated equally and fairly, regardless of personally held beliefs. I value the rights of society as a whole over the rights of a particular bigot. And yes, I say 'bigot', and I mean 'bigot'. Regardless of what the Bible says, or any other religious (or non-religious) text for that matter, discrimination against a certain group of people is bigotry. It doesn't matter where the belief originates from. But I digress.

    Let's suppose that my religion states that I can only drive an automobile at 100 MPH. Now this is a rather absurd condition, I understand, but I don't see it as any more outrageous than stating that homosexuality is morally wrong. Anyhow, so let's suppose that my religion states that I can only drive 100 MPH. This belief is held dearly close to my heart, and after all, it is MY religious RIGHT to practice said religion how I wish, correct? Should I therefore be allowed to drive 100 MPH at all times? Of course not! That'd be absurd, as it'd endanger countless numbers of people. 

    See where I'm going here...? All rights have some limitations on them, even speech and expression. You cannot yell "fire" in a movie theater, as this purports that there's a clear and present danger. But, but but...! What if my religion requires that I yell "fire" in a crowded theater?! Sorry, you can't do it, and that makes perfect sense to most sane individuals.

    Point is, all rights are limited in some sense. When your right begins to infringe on the rights of others', then a breaking point is met. Very sensibly, to this point, our political system has erred on the side of the majority, as opposed to the individual.

    RE: seawolf -- overall, that sums up my feelings on the topic. At some point, we'll have to let this topic go. I don't think I can (or will) elaborate any further on my thoughts, as there's little more to be said. It comes down to a fundamental disagreement on the liberty of the individual vs. the liberty of the majority. We all have our own personal feelings and beliefs, and that's perfectly fine -- wonderful, in fact! At some point, though, we'll have to agree to disagree.

    Cheers, fellas. 

     



    +1. Very well put.

    But it shouldn't have to be neccesary to make an obvious example like that. The photographer and the gay couple is quite enough IMO. First off, I don't understand how taking photos at a gay marriage corrupts your own religious practices - I understand that it feels uncomfortable for the photographer, but he is not "aiding" in the marriage, he does not sanction it, he is not a guest, he doesn't participate, it has absolutely no implications on how he worships. None. He takes pictures for a living, has probably taken pictures at a lot of weddings, go take some pictures.

    Denying his services to the couple has however civil rights and free market implications for the gay couple. In a free market, buyers choose which goods and services they want to purchase, balancing price and perception of quality. Could be that this particular photographer is either the cheapest or the best or some combination hereof that is appealing to the couple. They would be excluded from that service based on a completely individual, random and subjective opinion of the photographer. And on top of that they have been clearly discriminated against based on their sexual orientation.

    Those in favor of the law argue that the couple could go elsewhere. Well, maybe they could, maybe not. At the very least it could potentially drive up prices for gay couples, or ultimately cut them off from having their picture taken, if all photographers in the area were bigots.

    And though I in general don't like jumping from laws that have a specific goal to extrapolate the worst case scenario from it, it just seems reasonable to ask those of you in favor of the law, where the line should be drawn - if at all? How far should religious practices go before you say it becomes too imposing on others?

     

     

     



    Good points

    i think that when someone is forced to perticipate in other's  activities and there are other places for the buyer to go, and it isn't institutional, that there should be some individual protections from having to participate. When somebody is sued , the defendant is guilty until proven innocent and it can cost them a fortune just to stay in business, if they can

    And in this case, people who disagree are called names by the more tolerant. Sort of ironic. The word bigot gets tossed around way too easily. I think some should think about that.

    if anyone has noticed , I haven't ever said negative things about, nor quoted scripture on this subject, I Have focused on the political process, legal differences and everyone's individual rights. 

    And as per usual, the discussion was focused on the perception of the bill. Not on what it really said. This is no way to run a rail road And especially a government

    It is a discussion on the 1st vs the 14th amendment,,,it is not as cut and dried as some have stated. Some people hate religion, that's ok , but if we are all not real careful un intended consequences of the state over individuals and thought police are around the corner.

    Since the political machines get revved up , this gets decided by the courts, and I don't trust them either. 

    Interesting times

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:

    In response to mellymel3's comment:

     

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    Veto is just another slap in the face to the US Constitution by the haters of freedom.

     



    Here it is made simple for anyone who cares:

     

    THE FREEDOM TO DESCRIMINATE IS NO FREEDOM.

    THE FREEDOM FROM DESCRIMINATION IS. AND IT IS A LARGE PART OF WHAT THIS COUNTRY IS AL ABOUT.

    If you want to live in a place where descrimination is a PART OF THE LAW then you know where the door is and I'm sure you can find a suitable venue to practice your bigotry.

     




    You leave. You're the bigot.

    The Constitution guarantees a person can practice their religion freely. Forcing them to participate in a gay wedding is violating their rights.



    Unfortunately the left doesnt believe we should have religious rights. I have no faith in judges to do anything to balance rights in a thoughtful way. After all we have had a chief justice who mandated we buy something by calling it a tax  when all the others said it wasnt

    and now, after the fact we are hearing what this law really Said, so forcing people to partipate in a gay wedding is not a stretch At all. the first time we will will have an inkling of what the SC will do be with the Sisters of the Poor against Obamacare. But once again the media has done a p poor job on purpose. The law did say that a bus person had to show real distress and proof to not serve someone based on religious objection. A far far cry from what people here have posted, a far far cry. But now the full weight of the state can come down on an invidual. It sux




    Everyone has religious rights...it's the very basis of the Constiutution...however it's a violation of the 14th amendment to infringe on the rights of an entire CLASS of individuals simply because they are a member of that group...you are free to practice your religion...you are not free to deny service to a group of people for any reason...sorry, you can't twist the Constitution to fit your bigotry...but you can have ALEC appeal to the fed dsitrict court, and then, US Supreme Court...you WILL lose, but it's your right to try...

    Have a nice day!



    Well when there are two conflicting  points of view within the Constitution the 1st vs the 14th, it isn't  exactly correct what you have said. Then it is up to the SC to vet out the differences and provide guidelines in splitting the baby. This same issue will be partially decided in the little sisters of the poor vs obamacare. when this case makes it there,, I will be very interested to see if the SC will take the position that someone will have to participate in someone else's religious ceremony. After all that is what could happen in AZ. I cannot stand the idea that this will be decided in the courts. We will end up with another Abortion war that was completely unnecessary. 

    Just a few points

    1  if a kosher baker only offers kosher food, why cant a Christian baker only offer a Christian cake?

    I don't know what a "Christian cake" is, but there's no reason why a Christian baker can't offer only Christian cakes.  However, he can't refuse to sell his Christian cakes to non-Christians.  The issue isn't about what a business makes, it's about whether a business can refuse to sell its wares to people based on their sexual orientation or other characteristics. 

    btw, the Baker said that he would make them a birthday cake, but not provide a wedding cake. so the supposed discrimination wasn't based upon them being gay, but he didn't want to. Associate with  their behavior

    He said that in court.  Maybe, maybe not.  But it was irrelevant because what was at issue was whether he could deny sale of any product he sold to a customer just because of the customer's sexual orientation.   

     

    He also reccomended another baker who would make the wedding cake. The bottom line is that he would be punished by the government for not participating in the gays religious ceremony

    He didn't have to attend the ceremony.  Just sell a cake.  In Colorado, at least, the two gay men never even got to discuss what their cake would be like.  The baker simply refused to deal with them because they were two men asking for a wedding cake.  

    A basic fear of Christian leaders is that the church will be forced to provide gay weddings or lose their tax status. (And if you don't believe that I have a bridge to sell you)

    That is not a realistic fear.  If you think it is realistic, you're the one buying bridges . . . 

    2. This is not institutional discrimination as people have the right to go to other stores , in fact major companies and many pols are supporting gays. As well as Obama

    Just because there were black-only bathrooms didn't make segregated bathrooms non-discriminatory.  Your argument here isn't very sound. 

    3 the nfl, etc can do what they want but then Christians can say the hell with them too

    Yes.  Christians have every right to boycott the NFL.  

    4 there was an eleven lawyer panel that told Brewer that the law as branded by the opponents was. Egregiously mis labeled, That the law did not make it okay to indiscriminately say that retailers could restrict who they sold to

    Well, the text of the law was widely available online.  Basically it did two things: First, it extended religious protection from religious assemblies and institutions to any individual, business, or legal entity.  Second, it extended the religious defense from one that could be used against the government to one that could be used against any party.  Basically, it gave businesses the right to defend themselves as if they were churches, and in any complaint whether brought by the government or a private party.

     

     

    5 Sexual orientation is not a protected class in AZ

    Unfortunately.  Nevertheless, the law had broader application than just sexual orientation.  It could also be used to discriminate against women, for instance.  As an example, it would have made it very easy for a Muslim business owner to act in accordance with Sharia law when dealing with women.  The law was written in a way that basically gave any individual or legal entity a right to do or not do just about anything and claim they were doing or not doing it because of religious reasons.  It was extremely broadly written, and could have opened up the state and private parties in the state to a whole series of lawsuits where people claimed their religion prevented them from doing things that they would otherwise legally be required to do or required them to do things that otherwise would be illegal.  It was sort of a religious trump card over any law.  

    Of course, many of the supporters of the law insisted that such broader application of the law wasn't their intent (though as written, the law's application would be broad regardless of the writer's intent).  These supporters were basically admitting that their intent was simply to give individuals and businesses the ability to discriminate against gays if they didn't approve of the gay lifestyle for religious reasons.  The reality is that such discrimination is no longer socially acceptable among a majority of Americans.  Sure, there's a minority who do want to discriminate and think it's their right.  They are entitled to their opinions, but their opinions are not in the mainstream anymore, even in conservative states like Arizona. 

    6 the same day some associated this with the racial discrimination in the 1960s, The  Black Minister Org asked for a million signature petition to remove Eric Holder, the first black AG, to be impeached for his views and actions on Gay Marriage

    That's a political right. Misguided, but still a right. 

    7 the  first amendment doesn't say you lose your relgious rights because you are a business

    And you don't.  However, you still have to follow the laws that regulate business and your religious beliefs don't exempt you from laws you don't like.  

    Do what you will with this , but this is not a simple issue as many here ascribed to hear




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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:

    I have heard it said many times that this country is as divided as it was near the time of the Civil War.  I for one relish it. I want what I hope is coming to come. Then those who feel that the government needs to protect them will be put to the ultimate test. Those who believe in personal freedoms and the rights that the constitution gave us, versus those who try to destroy  it at every step in the name of "progress". I spent 10 years, which I now am sad to think about, defending the Constitution and the people of this country. It makes me sick to see the rejoicing here in AZ about the veto. It said nothing about gays, straight, white, black, purple or otherwise. All it said is based on religious principles a business owner OF ANY BACKGROUND can refuse service. What, pray tell is wrong with that? It's not a goverment office or establishment.  Private business. The misinformation is astounding.  If it devolves into a shooting war, all the better. Only then, when the smoke clears will the truth finally show itself. I put my money on those who actually care about freedoms, veruss those who believe transferring them to th government is the right course of action. War for states rights? Sounds about right. 



    Here's an ex soldier who wants to re-fight the civil war.  An embarassment to military men and women everywhere if you ask me. 

     

     
  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:

    their opinions are not in the mainstream anymore,



    That 10% in the middle swings like a flag in the wind. Don't be so sure what you think is mainstream will stay that way. It's only in the last 8 years that the balance has shifted.

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

     

    Reply to Pro

    So how have you been? still trveling alot?

    I dont know how I got into this topic as I have dog in this fight

    Except i I do care about how it imoacts small biz and want a more toleran society for everyone

    1  if a kosher baker only offers kosher food, why cant a Christian baker only offer a Christian cake?

    I don't know what a "Christian cake" is, but there's no reason why a Christian baker can't offer only Christian cakes.  However, he can't refuse to sell his Christian cakes to non-Christians.  The issue isn't about what a business makes, it's about whether a business can refuse to sell its wares to people based on their sexual orientation or other characteristics. 

    Thas right, but he doesnt offer gay wedding cakes he doesn have to sell them

    Just like a Kosher baker doesnt havve to sell non Kosher food casue he doesnt sell non kosher food

    btw, the Baker said that he would make them a birthday cake, but not provide a wedding cake. so the supposed discrimination wasn't based upon them being gay, but he didn't want to. Associate with  their behavior

    He said that in court.  Maybe, maybe not.  But it was irrelevant because what was at issue was whether he could deny sale of any product he sold to a customer just because of the customer's sexual orientation.   

     Thats not fair, What i f he only soled a Bride and a Groom cake. why doesnt the gay couple just nuy a cake and decorate themsleves. What I object to is somebody hammering me to accept them . No one is accepted everywhere.

    He also reccomended another baker who would make the wedding cake. The bottom line is that he would be punished by the government for not participating in the gays religious ceremony

    He didn't have to attend the ceremony.  Just sell a cake.  In Colorado, at least, the two gay men never even got to discuss what their cake would be like.  The baker simply refused to deal with them because they were two men asking for a wedding cake.  

    At this  you may have a point, But then you are saying the photographer shouldnt have to do the wedding?  right?

    A basic fear of Christian leaders is that the church will be forced to provide gay weddings or lose their tax status. (And if you don't believe that I have a bridge to sell you)

    That is not a realistic fear.  If you think it is realistic, you're the one buying bridges . . . 

    Oh yes it is.You are naive here. From the openning salvo of just wanting civil unions , the whole political movement is to force "acceptance" by others. There are left wing wackos who have said that the head of a church can be a moslem/ My point is that there are extreme people in every one of these movements that scare the *ell out of me. The LEFT always starts out small and inches iit wasy to stupidity

    For Example

    According to Nancy Pelosi. " Life begins at the time you bring the child home from the hospital" 

    And Obama  approves 4th trimest abortions = letting a live baby die while in a closet because we shouldnt interfere with the decisoion already amde with the mother and the Doctor

    So I am looking for a bridge to sell you - lol

    (BTW - I reluctantly support what R v Wade left us with)

    2. This is not institutional discrimination as people have the right to go to other stores , in fact major companies and many pols are supporting gays. As well as Obama

    Just because there were black-only bathrooms didn't make segregated bathrooms non-discriminatory.  Your argument here isn't very sound. 

    The point is this is not "institutional". I have never seen these two issues as the same. You do , I don't, Oh well.

    3 the nfl, etc can do what they want but then Christians can say the hell with them too

    Yes.  Christians have every right to boycott the NFL.  

    4 there was an eleven lawyer panel that told Brewer that the law as branded by the opponents was. Egregiously mis labeled, That the law did not make it okay to indiscriminately say that retailers could restrict who they sold to

    Well, the text of the law was widely available online.  Basically it did two things: First, it extended religious protection from religious assemblies and institutions to any individual, business, or legal entity.  Second, it extended the religious defense from one that could be used against the government to one that could be used against any party.  Basically, it gave businesses the right to defend themselves as if they were churches, and in any complaint whether brought by the government or a private party.

     But you have also left out the part that any biz person could not arbitrarily not provide any service. They had to show that it effected them - You know maybe the baker does not meet the standard, but maybe the photographer does?

    What you are saying is that a person only has religious rights when he is inside the church -I don't think thats what the Constituion says about religious rights - No where in the 1st amendmentdoes  does it say- only people - not businesses and only inside the church

    5 Sexual orientation is not a protected class in AZ

    Unfortunately.  Nevertheless, the law had broader application than just sexual orientation.  It could also be used to discriminate against women, for instance.  As an example, it would have made it very easy for a Muslim business owner to act in accordance with Sharia law when dealing with women.  The law was written in a way that basically gave any individual or legal entity a right to do or not do just about anything and claim they were doing or not doing it because of religious reasons.  It was extremely broadly written, and could have opened up the state and private parties in the state to a whole series of lawsuits where people claimed their religion prevented them from doing things that they would otherwise legally be required to do or required them to do things that otherwise would be illegal.  It was sort of a religious trump card over any law.  

    Of course, many of the supporters of the law insisted that such broader application of the law wasn't their intent (though as written, the law's application would be broad regardless of the writer's intent).  These supporters were basically admitting that their intent was simply to give individuals and businesses the ability to discriminate against gays if they didn't approve of the gay lifestyle for religious reasons.  The reality is that such discrimination is no longer socially acceptable among a majority of Americans.  Sure, there's a minority who do want to discriminate and think it's their right.  They are entitled to their opinions, but their opinions are not in the mainstream anymore, even in conservative states like Arizona. 

    If it was written this poorly, than I would support the veto. My problem is that both sides should be tolerant of the fact that neither accepts the other. And find ways to give space

    But then again, it is the Left here who who says it depends on what the                 word "is "    is.

    No this revision in the law was to prevent some *ss*oles from making frivlous lawsuits to make them participate in behavior they dont accept. And taht is where the real discussion should focus

    Gays discrimnate just like every other group. Dont put them on some pedestal.

     

    6 the same day some associated this with the racial discrimination in the 1960s, The  Black Minister Org asked for a million signature petition to remove Eric Holder, the first black AG, to be impeached for his views and actions on Gay Marriage

    That's a political right. Misguided, but still a right. 

    Just making the point that not all blacks see this as the same as their Civil Rights

    7 the  first amendment doesn't say you lose your relgious rights because you are a business

    And you don't.  However, you still have to follow the laws that regulate business and your religious beliefs don't exempt you from laws you don't like.  

    Well thats they are trying to do - regulate business. Who said anyone is exempt? they are trying to enhance a law on the books to protect business from crappy suits. Which i might add are written all the time against small business.

    So if this law went thru then you would arguefrom the other side its unfair. And this would be the regulation and the gays qould have to take it whether they liked it or not - No this goes back the the 1st vs 14th amnndments. And the SC is ruling on the Litltle sisters vs Obama care

    Look I dont think that baker or photographer caused the gay couples any loss. In fact it was probably a set up suit. And that Ps me off

    Do what you  what they are trying to will with this , but this is not a simple issue as many here ascribed to hear

    [/QUOTE]

    This still comes down to the 1st vs the 14th  Amendments. The question is 'What activity can you force some one to do.

    have agood one Pro, i am all worn out on this one -lol

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    I realize there is a larger question underlying this discussion, which I think is something like "when there is a conflict between one man's right to be free from discrimination and another man's right to religious freedom, where does one end and the other begin?"
    In this specific instance, however, I think the religious argument is a smokescreen. I have never heard of a photographer or baker refusing to provide a service to someone that was divorced and getting remarried, but the marriage was not anulled by the Church (assuming they are Catholic).  Nor have I heard of refusing services to couples that are living together before getting married (I know, doesn't mean it never happened).  Both of these are against basic Catholic beliefs, and providing services in such cases would be "enabling" the behavior.  Does the same baker or photographer refuse to supply services to people married outside of the baker's or photographer's faith?  If these things, which also conflict with basic religious beliefs, at least in some faiths, do not cause the service provider any issues, then why is a gay customer any different? Given that two different situations may both be in conflict with a person's faith, does someone get to pick and choose when some condition is religiously offensive and when it isn't? If a person can choose between those situations, then isn't the basis for their decision actually something other than their religious belief?

    A reading of the bill would show that it is not an entirely new law.  Rather it seeks to amend existing statutes pertaining to the protection of an individual's right to freely exercise their religion against government (state, local, etc.) interference.  The existing law already provides for a person to claim as a defense that their action or omission was based on the exercise of their religion.  The amendments were seeking to change the existing statute to extend this to include claims brought by "nongovernmental persons".  http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062s.pdf
    At least that is what I am seeing from what appears to be the amended language.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from AFNAV130. Show AFNAV130's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:

    I have heard it said many times that this country is as divided as it was near the time of the Civil War.  I for one relish it. I want what I hope is coming to come. Then those who feel that the government needs to protect them will be put to the ultimate test. Those who believe in personal freedoms and the rights that the constitution gave us, versus those who try to destroy  it at every step in the name of "progress". I spent 10 years, which I now am sad to think about, defending the Constitution and the people of this country. It makes me sick to see the rejoicing here in AZ about the veto. It said nothing about gays, straight, white, black, purple or otherwise. All it said is based on religious principles a business owner OF ANY BACKGROUND can refuse service. What, pray tell is wrong with that? It's not a goverment office or establishment.  Private business. The misinformation is astounding.  If it devolves into a shooting war, all the better. Only then, when the smoke clears will the truth finally show itself. I put my money on those who actually care about freedoms, veruss those who believe transferring them to th government is the right course of action. War for states rights? Sounds about right. 



    Here's an ex soldier who wants to re-fight the civil war.  An embarassment to military men and women everywhere if you ask me. 

     



    Again, here is a person who doesn't understand the oath a military person swore. To support and defend the constitution. Embarrassment? I know I'm not worried about you if something kicks off. You'll capitulate quite expeditiously. Funny thing. It's the last thing I want. But if it comes to that, I know the men from Boston will be on the opposite side of where they were 150 and 230 years ago respectively. That to me, is as sad of a thought as could be. And quite an indicator of where we are as a society. I used to loathe Robert E Lee for years growing up. Was he an embarrssment? I find now, no. At least I served, what about you?

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:

    I have heard it said many times that this country is as divided as it was near the time of the Civil War.  I for one relish it. I want what I hope is coming to come. Then those who feel that the government needs to protect them will be put to the ultimate test. Those who believe in personal freedoms and the rights that the constitution gave us, versus those who try to destroy  it at every step in the name of "progress". I spent 10 years, which I now am sad to think about, defending the Constitution and the people of this country. It makes me sick to see the rejoicing here in AZ about the veto. It said nothing about gays, straight, white, black, purple or otherwise. All it said is based on religious principles a business owner OF ANY BACKGROUND can refuse service. What, pray tell is wrong with that? It's not a goverment office or establishment.  Private business. The misinformation is astounding.  If it devolves into a shooting war, all the better. Only then, when the smoke clears will the truth finally show itself. I put my money on those who actually care about freedoms, veruss those who believe transferring them to th government is the right course of action. War for states rights? Sounds about right. 



    Here's an ex soldier who wants to re-fight the civil war.  An embarassment to military men and women everywhere if you ask me. 

     



    Again, here is a person who doesn't understand the oath a military person swore. To support and defend the constitution. Embarrassment? I know I'm not worried about you if something kicks off. You'll capitulate quite expeditiously. Funny thing. It's the last thing I want. But if it comes to that, I know the men from Boston will be on the opposite side of where they were 150 and 230 years ago respectively. That to me, is as sad of a thought as could be. And quite an indicator of where we are as a society. I used to loathe Robert E Lee for years growing up. Was he an embarrssment? I find now, no. At least I served, what about you?



    First, thank you for your service. 

    As to this law in question, it was an amendment to an existing law that already provided protection to individuals from government interference in the exercise of their religious rights, which I believe is what is enshrined in the Constitution.

    A question to ponder:  if we have constitutional rights to freedoom of religion and we have constitutional rights that protect us from discrimination, how does the government uphold the Constitution when the exercise a person's religious beliefs results in discrimination against another person or group?

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to TheTinMan's comment:

    I have never heard of a photographer or baker refusing to provide a service to someone that was divorced and getting remarried, but the marriage was not anulled by the Church (assuming they are Catholic).  Nor have I heard of refusing services to couples that are living together before getting married (I know, doesn't mean it never happened).  Both of these are against basic Catholic beliefs, and providing services in such cases would be "enabling" the behavior.



    Well, you couldn't tell by just looking at the couple if either had been divorced anyway. There are a plethora of circumstances in which a marriage can be annulled in the RCC. It could simply be that the marriage was not in a Catholic church.

    There are a host of criteria regarding remarriage among the Christian denominations. In the end, it is what the individual believes that needs be respected.

    But to assure religious freedom and not force persons to directly participate in the event, services could be withheld in these circumstances as well.

     

     

     

     

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    As to this law in question, it was an amendment to an existing law that already provided protection to individuals from government interference in the exercise of their religious rights, which I believe is what is enshrined in the Constitution.

    A question to ponder:  if we have constitutional rights to freedoom of religion and we have constitutional rights that protect us from discrimination, how does the government uphold the Constitution when the exercise a person's religious beliefs results in discrimination against another person or group?

    [/QUOTE]

    thisis the $64 Million question

    Supreme Court Decides and issues guidelines between the
    Constitution/ Amendments and Enacted Laws

    This would be the 1st amendment vs the 14th amendment and Civil rights laws

    There have been dozens of 1st amendment case and few 14th, and there is a question about what is really means. There have been many civik rightrs cases. But there haven been many 1st amendment relgious case i believe.

    Problem is i dont trust them. They screw it up all the time. Like in the latest Eminent Domain Case where they told homeowners that the town could Buy /Take their homes so the town could then sell them to another private busines. because the town might make more in RE Taxes.

    As Typcial, the Town/Govermen.screwed it up. they bought the property , ran the people off there homes and the land is now sitting open.All 5 SC Judges should have been impeached and given their law degrees back.

    (But then I think there were grounds for our latest 3 Presidents to have been impeached too - lol)

    This does not breed confidence in a case that should be handled deftly to preserve as many individual rights as possible between Gays and Religous Business owners or others impacted by this type AZ law

    There is a SC case being decided this Spring ' the little sistees of the poor vs Obamacare" About Religion vs Contraception. WE will see wht they do with it

     

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    Well, you couldn't tell by just looking at the couple if either had been divorced anyway. There are a plethora of circumstances in which a marriage can be annulled in the RCC. It could simply be that the marriage was not in a Catholic church.

    There are a host of criteria regarding remarriage among the Christian denominations. In the end, it is what the individual believes that needs be respected.

    But to assure religious freedom and not force persons to directly participate in the event, services could be withheld in these circumstances as well.



    I understand, and I wasn't trying to pick on the RCC, just the easiest examples that came to mind.
    But if religious beliefs were so important to running the business, why isn't the business asking about those things?  They only make business decisions in keeping with their religious beliefs when it is openly obvious a potential customer lives a lifestyle that is against what they believe?

    I realize this is grey area when you are talking about where do you draw the line when protection of individual rights (whichever ones they are) seems to infringe those rights.

    Like I asked above:   if we have constitutional rights to freedoom of religion and we have constitutional rights that protect us from discrimination, how does the government uphold the Constitution when the exercise a person's religious beliefs results in discrimination against another person or group?

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to seawolfxs's comment:

    As to this law in question, it was an amendment to an existing law that already provided protection to individuals from government interference in the exercise of their religious rights, which I believe is what is enshrined in the Constitution.

    A question to ponder:  if we have constitutional rights to freedoom of religion and we have constitutional rights that protect us from discrimination, how does the government uphold the Constitution when the exercise a person's religious beliefs results in discrimination against another person or group?

    thisis the $64 Million question

    Supreme Court Decides and issues guidelines between the
    Constitution/ Amendments and Enacted Laws

    This would be the 1st amendment vs the 14th amendment and Civil rights laws

    There have been dozens of 1st amendment case and few 14th, and there is a question about what is really means. There have been many civik rightrs cases. But there haven been many 1st amendment relgious case i believe.

    Problem is i dont trust them. They screw it up all the time. Like in the latest Eminent Domain Case where they told homeowners that the town could Buy /Take their homes so the town could then sell them to another private busines. because the town might make more in RE Taxes.

    As Typcial, the Town/Govermen.screwed it up. they bought the property , ran the people off there homes and the land is now sitting open.All 5 SC Judges should have been impeached and given their law degrees back.

    (But then I think there were grounds for our latest 3 Presidents to have been impeached too - lol)

    This does not breed confidence in a case that should be handled deftly to preserve as many individual rights as possible between Gays and Religous Business owners or others impacted by this type AZ law

    There is a SC case being decided this Spring ' the little sistees of the poor vs Obamacare" About Religion vs Contraception. WE will see wht they do with it

     



    The language of the AZ amendment does not actually absolve any entity of any responsibility by claiming they were "exercising their religious freedom".  It simply provides that as a possible defense in any action brought for the entity acting or failing to act in some manner, and changes the law to refer to claims brought not just by "government" but by "nongovernmental persons".  I could imagine if the law was passed and a business made this claim that it would open them up to complete examination of past business dealings to determine what steps the business generally took to ascertain that providing services to any given customer did not clash with the business' religious beliefs.
    As for the SC, I would think that any case brought before it on this law would be decided in favor of the customer, not the business.  Since the laws against discrimination, including the protections of the Constitution, are general laws, the impact on religious freedom may be seen as "incidental".  Aside from that, it could be said that the government has a compelling interest in protecting US Citizens from discrimination.  If the "religious belief" defense is not allowed, it does not preclude anyone from practicing their faith.  If it is allowed, it does result in discrimination.  What's the lesser impact?

    I think this would be a different discussion if it applied to businesses where the business itself were in furtherance of a religious belief.

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    Is anybody stupid enough to think smellymel3 isn't Rusty?



    ANYONE STUPID ENOUGH TO THINK BABE ISN'T ANYTHING BUT A RACE BAITING HYPER-RELIGIOUS HOMOPHOBIC BIGOT?!

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    Veto is just another slap in the face to the US Constitution by the haters of freedom.



    Here it is made simple for anyone who cares:

    THE FREEDOM TO DESCRIMINATE IS NO FREEDOM.

    THE FREEDOM FROM DESCRIMINATION IS. AND IT IS A LARGE PART OF WHAT THIS COUNTRY IS AL ABOUT.

    If you want to live in a place where descrimination is a PART OF THE LAW then you know where the door is and I'm sure you can find a suitable venue to practice your bigotry.

     




    You leave. You're the bigot.

    The Constitution guarantees a person can practice their religion freely. Forcing them to participate in a gay wedding is violating their rights.



    Unfortunately the left doesnt believe we should have religious rights.



    The left hates religion. They love gays. This is obvious.



    And in reality, you actually hate both....

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ


    LISTEN TO THE RIGHT CRY.....

    IT'S THE SOUND OF RIGHTEOUS VICTORY!!!

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from AFNAV130. Show AFNAV130's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to TheTinMan's comment:

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:

    I have heard it said many times that this country is as divided as it was near the time of the Civil War.  I for one relish it. I want what I hope is coming to come. Then those who feel that the government needs to protect them will be put to the ultimate test. Those who believe in personal freedoms and the rights that the constitution gave us, versus those who try to destroy  it at every step in the name of "progress". I spent 10 years, which I now am sad to think about, defending the Constitution and the people of this country. It makes me sick to see the rejoicing here in AZ about the veto. It said nothing about gays, straight, white, black, purple or otherwise. All it said is based on religious principles a business owner OF ANY BACKGROUND can refuse service. What, pray tell is wrong with that? It's not a goverment office or establishment.  Private business. The misinformation is astounding.  If it devolves into a shooting war, all the better. Only then, when the smoke clears will the truth finally show itself. I put my money on those who actually care about freedoms, veruss those who believe transferring them to th government is the right course of action. War for states rights? Sounds about right. 



    Here's an ex soldier who wants to re-fight the civil war.  An embarassment to military men and women everywhere if you ask me. 

     



    Again, here is a person who doesn't understand the oath a military person swore. To support and defend the constitution. Embarrassment? I know I'm not worried about you if something kicks off. You'll capitulate quite expeditiously. Funny thing. It's the last thing I want. But if it comes to that, I know the men from Boston will be on the opposite side of where they were 150 and 230 years ago respectively. That to me, is as sad of a thought as could be. And quite an indicator of where we are as a society. I used to loathe Robert E Lee for years growing up. Was he an embarrssment? I find now, no. At least I served, what about you?



    First, thank you for your service. 

    As to this law in question, it was an amendment to an existing law that already provided protection to individuals from government interference in the exercise of their religious rights, which I believe is what is enshrined in the Constitution.

    A question to ponder:  if we have constitutional rights to freedoom of religion and we have constitutional rights that protect us from discrimination, how does the government uphold the Constitution when the exercise a person's religious beliefs results in discrimination against another person or group?



    I look at it this way. In my opinion, a business owner can and should be able to make whatever rules he or she may want in regards to how he wants to operate. Now I know for some this is a difficult thing to understand. Race and gender are protected fully and totally. Period. That cannot be discussed. And no, LGBT is NOT a race or a gender. Sorry. Your birth certificate says boy or girl and race. That's it. It doesn't say gay or lesbian. Transgendered or not. 

    The end point? Let the market correct itself. I have nothing personally against gay people or anyone else for that matter. I look at it for what it is. A lifestyle. And I'm okay with that. Do what you want. But don't expect any sympathy when someone doesn't agree. That's a hard thing to com to grips with. Think about it. They want non gender specific bathrooms. They want to fundamentally change how we live. And no one says well I'm protected against that. They are doing what they are doing, not for acceptance, which in my opinion they already have, but to take it all. As I said in my original post, if there was no medicinal advances, and if everyone was gay, or a majority was, mankind would cease to exist. Think about that for a little bit. 

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    Let's just cut through the crapola about this issue.

    The agenda from the gay crowd has little to do with rights and much to do with forcing persons of faith to admit being gay is moral. Anybody saying otherwise is a liar. Most of that ilk would gladly have persons thrown in jail for a hate crime unless they admit being gay is moral. It is repugnant beyond description.

    I don't believe in discriminating against gays. It's wrong. But I also believe no person should be forced to participate in an event that is a direct affront to their religious convictions.

     

     

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:

    In response to TheTinMan's comment:

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:

    I have heard it said many times that this country is as divided as it was near the time of the Civil War.  I for one relish it. I want what I hope is coming to come. Then those who feel that the government needs to protect them will be put to the ultimate test. Those who believe in personal freedoms and the rights that the constitution gave us, versus those who try to destroy  it at every step in the name of "progress". I spent 10 years, which I now am sad to think about, defending the Constitution and the people of this country. It makes me sick to see the rejoicing here in AZ about the veto. It said nothing about gays, straight, white, black, purple or otherwise. All it said is based on religious principles a business owner OF ANY BACKGROUND can refuse service. What, pray tell is wrong with that? It's not a goverment office or establishment.  Private business. The misinformation is astounding.  If it devolves into a shooting war, all the better. Only then, when the smoke clears will the truth finally show itself. I put my money on those who actually care about freedoms, veruss those who believe transferring them to th government is the right course of action. War for states rights? Sounds about right. 



    Here's an ex soldier who wants to re-fight the civil war.  An embarassment to military men and women everywhere if you ask me. 

     



    Again, here is a person who doesn't understand the oath a military person swore. To support and defend the constitution. Embarrassment? I know I'm not worried about you if something kicks off. You'll capitulate quite expeditiously. Funny thing. It's the last thing I want. But if it comes to that, I know the men from Boston will be on the opposite side of where they were 150 and 230 years ago respectively. That to me, is as sad of a thought as could be. And quite an indicator of where we are as a society. I used to loathe Robert E Lee for years growing up. Was he an embarrssment? I find now, no. At least I served, what about you?



    First, thank you for your service. 

    As to this law in question, it was an amendment to an existing law that already provided protection to individuals from government interference in the exercise of their religious rights, which I believe is what is enshrined in the Constitution.

    A question to ponder:  if we have constitutional rights to freedoom of religion and we have constitutional rights that protect us from discrimination, how does the government uphold the Constitution when the exercise a person's religious beliefs results in discrimination against another person or group?



    I look at it this way. In my opinion, a business owner can and should be able to make whatever rules he or she may want in regards to how he wants to operate. Now I know for some this is a difficult thing to understand. Race and gender are protected fully and totally. Period. That cannot be discussed. And no, LGBT is NOT a race or a gender. Sorry. Your birth certificate says boy or girl and race. That's it. It doesn't say gay or lesbian. Transgendered or not. 

    The end point? Let the market correct itself. I have nothing personally against gay people or anyone else for that matter. I look at it for what it is. A lifestyle. And I'm okay with that. Do what you want. But don't expect any sympathy when someone doesn't agree. That's a hard thing to com to grips with. Think about it. They want non gender specific bathrooms. They want to fundamentally change how we live. And no one says well I'm protected against that. They are doing what they are doing, not for acceptance, which in my opinion they already have, but to take it all. As I said in my original post, if there was no medicinal advances, and if everyone was gay, or a majority was, mankind would cease to exist. Think about that for a little bit. 



    The discussion is done....you lost...but keep swacking your head against the wall if you want to....you must understand that the rest of the world, and most of this country, has moved on...Uganda will soon cease to exist without western $$ after their own version of the anti-gay like Nuremberg laws, and Russia is simply an insane dictatorship whose country wouldn't exist without Russian Mafia corruption and a desperate clinging to a cold war bourne of a pitious inferiority complex...why copy them?

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to TheTinMan's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    Well, you couldn't tell by just looking at the couple if either had been divorced anyway. There are a plethora of circumstances in which a marriage can be annulled in the RCC. It could simply be that the marriage was not in a Catholic church.

    There are a host of criteria regarding remarriage among the Christian denominations. In the end, it is what the individual believes that needs be respected.

    But to assure religious freedom and not force persons to directly participate in the event, services could be withheld in these circumstances as well.



    I understand, and I wasn't trying to pick on the RCC, just the easiest examples that came to mind.
    But if religious beliefs were so important to running the business, why isn't the business asking about those things?  They only make business decisions in keeping with their religious beliefs when it is openly obvious a potential customer lives a lifestyle that is against what they believe?

    I realize this is grey area when you are talking about where do you draw the line when protection of individual rights (whichever ones they are) seems to infringe those rights.

    Like I asked above:   if we have constitutional rights to freedoom of religion and we have constitutional rights that protect us from discrimination, how does the government uphold the Constitution when the exercise a person's religious beliefs results in discrimination against another person or group?




    I think when the religious freedom right clashes with the discrimination right, common sense has to prevail.

    In the case of a photographer being forced to attend a ceremony against his beliefs the pragmatic solution is for the gay couple to choose another photographer. They would at least have a choice, the photographer would have none.

     

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    Veto is just another slap in the face to the US Constitution by the haters of freedom.



    Here it is made simple for anyone who cares:

    THE FREEDOM TO DESCRIMINATE IS NO FREEDOM.

    THE FREEDOM FROM DESCRIMINATION IS. AND IT IS A LARGE PART OF WHAT THIS COUNTRY IS AL ABOUT.

    If you want to live in a place where descrimination is a PART OF THE LAW then you know where the door is and I'm sure you can find a suitable venue to practice your bigotry.

     




    You leave. You're the bigot.

    The Constitution guarantees a person can practice their religion freely. Forcing them to participate in a gay wedding is violating their rights.



    Unfortunately the left doesnt believe we should have religious rights.



    The left hates religion. They love gays. This is obvious.



    Agreed. Of course the whole left/right thing is a blur, at least at the highest state and federal levels. Like I said in my post, I'm just waiting for the time that is approaching. It sickens me how little respect I have for them, and how little they would garner from those who founded this country. 10-1, they would spit on the graves of the likes of Adams, Hancock et al. As matter of fact, those who think that the AZ bill was terrible I have a suggestion for you. Go down to the Granary Burying Ground down on Tremont. When you get there, go spit on the graves of S. Adams, Hancock, Revere, Otis, Attucks and others. Maybe even unzip and let it fly. Because this is exactly what you are doing.  You'll say no, and all that. Whatever. When the  dust settles, if you are still alive, I wonder if they will have regret, or nothing at all. Regardless, like one of my favorite quotes says, "the stupid...it burrrrrrnnns.". 




    This will likely all be straightened out shortly.

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    Veto is just another slap in the face to the US Constitution by the haters of freedom.



    Here it is made simple for anyone who cares:

    THE FREEDOM TO DESCRIMINATE IS NO FREEDOM.

    THE FREEDOM FROM DESCRIMINATION IS. AND IT IS A LARGE PART OF WHAT THIS COUNTRY IS AL ABOUT.

    If you want to live in a place where descrimination is a PART OF THE LAW then you know where the door is and I'm sure you can find a suitable venue to practice your bigotry.

     




    You leave. You're the bigot.

    The Constitution guarantees a person can practice their religion freely. Forcing them to participate in a gay wedding is violating their rights.



    Unfortunately the left doesnt believe we should have religious rights.



    The left hates religion. They love gays. This is obvious.



    Agreed. Of course the whole left/right thing is a blur, at least at the highest state and federal levels. Like I said in my post, I'm just waiting for the time that is approaching. It sickens me how little respect I have for them, and how little they would garner from those who founded this country. 10-1, they would spit on the graves of the likes of Adams, Hancock et al. As matter of fact, those who think that the AZ bill was terrible I have a suggestion for you. Go down to the Granary Burying Ground down on Tremont. When you get there, go spit on the graves of S. Adams, Hancock, Revere, Otis, Attucks and others. Maybe even unzip and let it fly. Because this is exactly what you are doing.  You'll say no, and all that. Whatever. When the  dust settles, if you are still alive, I wonder if they will have regret, or nothing at all. Regardless, like one of my favorite quotes says, "the stupid...it burrrrrrnnns.". 




    This will likely all be straightened out shortly.




    Oh yes...during the End Times, right...

    BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from AFNAV130. Show AFNAV130's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to mellymel3's comment:

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:

    In response to TheTinMan's comment:

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:

    I have heard it said many times that this country is as divided as it was near the time of the Civil War.  I for one relish it. I want what I hope is coming to come. Then those who feel that the government needs to protect them will be put to the ultimate test. Those who believe in personal freedoms and the rights that the constitution gave us, versus those who try to destroy  it at every step in the name of "progress". I spent 10 years, which I now am sad to think about, defending the Constitution and the people of this country. It makes me sick to see the rejoicing here in AZ about the veto. It said nothing about gays, straight, white, black, purple or otherwise. All it said is based on religious principles a business owner OF ANY BACKGROUND can refuse service. What, pray tell is wrong with that? It's not a goverment office or establishment.  Private business. The misinformation is astounding.  If it devolves into a shooting war, all the better. Only then, when the smoke clears will the truth finally show itself. I put my money on those who actually care about freedoms, veruss those who believe transferring them to th government is the right course of action. War for states rights? Sounds about right. 



    Here's an ex soldier who wants to re-fight the civil war.  An embarassment to military men and women everywhere if you ask me. 

     



    Again, here is a person who doesn't understand the oath a military person swore. To support and defend the constitution. Embarrassment? I know I'm not worried about you if something kicks off. You'll capitulate quite expeditiously. Funny thing. It's the last thing I want. But if it comes to that, I know the men from Boston will be on the opposite side of where they were 150 and 230 years ago respectively. That to me, is as sad of a thought as could be. And quite an indicator of where we are as a society. I used to loathe Robert E Lee for years growing up. Was he an embarrssment? I find now, no. At least I served, what about you?



    First, thank you for your service. 

    As to this law in question, it was an amendment to an existing law that already provided protection to individuals from government interference in the exercise of their religious rights, which I believe is what is enshrined in the Constitution.

    A question to ponder:  if we have constitutional rights to freedoom of religion and we have constitutional rights that protect us from discrimination, how does the government uphold the Constitution when the exercise a person's religious beliefs results in discrimination against another person or group?



    I look at it this way. In my opinion, a business owner can and should be able to make whatever rules he or she may want in regards to how he wants to operate. Now I know for some this is a difficult thing to understand. Race and gender are protected fully and totally. Period. That cannot be discussed. And no, LGBT is NOT a race or a gender. Sorry. Your birth certificate says boy or girl and race. That's it. It doesn't say gay or lesbian. Transgendered or not. 

    The end point? Let the market correct itself. I have nothing personally against gay people or anyone else for that matter. I look at it for what it is. A lifestyle. And I'm okay with that. Do what you want. But don't expect any sympathy when someone doesn't agree. That's a hard thing to com to grips with. Think about it. They want non gender specific bathrooms. They want to fundamentally change how we live. And no one says well I'm protected against that. They are doing what they are doing, not for acceptance, which in my opinion they already have, but to take it all. As I said in my original post, if there was no medicinal advances, and if everyone was gay, or a majority was, mankind would cease to exist. Think about that for a little bit. 



    The discussion is done....you lost...but keep swacking your head against the wall if you want to....you must understand that the rest of the world, and most of this country, has moved on...Uganda will soon cease to exist without western $$ after their own version of the anti-gay like Nuremberg laws, and Russia is simply an insane dictatorship whose country wouldn't exist without Russian Mafia corruption and a desperate clinging to a cold war bourne of a pitious inferiority complex...why copy them?



    Lol lost huh? Where you are wrong is most this country HASN'T moved anywhere. The media tells people what they want, and most of it isn't truth. Trust me, if things keep getting pushed there will be war. Answer me this. If you had a girl and found out her school had non gender specific bathrooms and she was using it with boys how would you feel? If you say it wouldn't bother you then you are a flat out liar. I have lost nothing. Look at a map of the world where "Gays" have gotten the attention they have here? Yeah it's not that much. Don't worry, people like you have no idea about personal freedoms or probably have no idea the price that has been paid to give us what we have. There are much bigger issues as well, while this is more taking aim at the fabric of society. The others are actually more troubling. Lost. It hasn't even started. You don't have the resolve to continue it when push comes to shove. Of this I am certain. 

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from AFNAV130. Show AFNAV130's posts

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to mellymel3's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to portfolio1's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    Veto is just another slap in the face to the US Constitution by the haters of freedom.



    Here it is made simple for anyone who cares:

    THE FREEDOM TO DESCRIMINATE IS NO FREEDOM.

    THE FREEDOM FROM DESCRIMINATION IS. AND IT IS A LARGE PART OF WHAT THIS COUNTRY IS AL ABOUT.

    If you want to live in a place where descrimination is a PART OF THE LAW then you know where the door is and I'm sure you can find a suitable venue to practice your bigotry.

     




    You leave. You're the bigot.

    The Constitution guarantees a person can practice their religion freely. Forcing them to participate in a gay wedding is violating their rights.



    Unfortunately the left doesnt believe we should have religious rights.



    The left hates religion. They love gays. This is obvious.



    Agreed. Of course the whole left/right thing is a blur, at least at the highest state and federal levels. Like I said in my post, I'm just waiting for the time that is approaching. It sickens me how little respect I have for them, and how little they would garner from those who founded this country. 10-1, they would spit on the graves of the likes of Adams, Hancock et al. As matter of fact, those who think that the AZ bill was terrible I have a suggestion for you. Go down to the Granary Burying Ground down on Tremont. When you get there, go spit on the graves of S. Adams, Hancock, Revere, Otis, Attucks and others. Maybe even unzip and let it fly. Because this is exactly what you are doing.  You'll say no, and all that. Whatever. When the  dust settles, if you are still alive, I wonder if they will have regret, or nothing at all. Regardless, like one of my favorite quotes says, "the stupid...it burrrrrrnnns.". 




    This will likely all be straightened out shortly.




    Oh yes...during the End Times, right...

    BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

     

    It's known that the government pays people to troll message forums. Found one. That end of times stuff is crap, unless nukes get tossed around. There are no end of times.  Whatever is coming won't be the end. I laugh at people who seriously believe that. I'm far too serious to get to that level.

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:

    In response to mellymel3's comment:

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:

    In response to TheTinMan's comment:

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:

    I have heard it said many times that this country is as divided as it was near the time of the Civil War.  I for one relish it. I want what I hope is coming to come. Then those who feel that the government needs to protect them will be put to the ultimate test. Those who believe in personal freedoms and the rights that the constitution gave us, versus those who try to destroy  it at every step in the name of "progress". I spent 10 years, which I now am sad to think about, defending the Constitution and the people of this country. It makes me sick to see the rejoicing here in AZ about the veto. It said nothing about gays, straight, white, black, purple or otherwise. All it said is based on religious principles a business owner OF ANY BACKGROUND can refuse service. What, pray tell is wrong with that? It's not a goverment office or establishment.  Private business. The misinformation is astounding.  If it devolves into a shooting war, all the better. Only then, when the smoke clears will the truth finally show itself. I put my money on those who actually care about freedoms, veruss those who believe transferring them to th government is the right course of action. War for states rights? Sounds about right. 



    Here's an ex soldier who wants to re-fight the civil war.  An embarassment to military men and women everywhere if you ask me. 

     



    Again, here is a person who doesn't understand the oath a military person swore. To support and defend the constitution. Embarrassment? I know I'm not worried about you if something kicks off. You'll capitulate quite expeditiously. Funny thing. It's the last thing I want. But if it comes to that, I know the men from Boston will be on the opposite side of where they were 150 and 230 years ago respectively. That to me, is as sad of a thought as could be. And quite an indicator of where we are as a society. I used to loathe Robert E Lee for years growing up. Was he an embarrssment? I find now, no. At least I served, what about you?



    First, thank you for your service. 

    As to this law in question, it was an amendment to an existing law that already provided protection to individuals from government interference in the exercise of their religious rights, which I believe is what is enshrined in the Constitution.

    A question to ponder:  if we have constitutional rights to freedoom of religion and we have constitutional rights that protect us from discrimination, how does the government uphold the Constitution when the exercise a person's religious beliefs results in discrimination against another person or group?



    I look at it this way. In my opinion, a business owner can and should be able to make whatever rules he or she may want in regards to how he wants to operate. Now I know for some this is a difficult thing to understand. Race and gender are protected fully and totally. Period. That cannot be discussed. And no, LGBT is NOT a race or a gender. Sorry. Your birth certificate says boy or girl and race. That's it. It doesn't say gay or lesbian. Transgendered or not. 

    The end point? Let the market correct itself. I have nothing personally against gay people or anyone else for that matter. I look at it for what it is. A lifestyle. And I'm okay with that. Do what you want. But don't expect any sympathy when someone doesn't agree. That's a hard thing to com to grips with. Think about it. They want non gender specific bathrooms. They want to fundamentally change how we live. And no one says well I'm protected against that. They are doing what they are doing, not for acceptance, which in my opinion they already have, but to take it all. As I said in my original post, if there was no medicinal advances, and if everyone was gay, or a majority was, mankind would cease to exist. Think about that for a little bit. 



    The discussion is done....you lost...but keep swacking your head against the wall if you want to....you must understand that the rest of the world, and most of this country, has moved on...Uganda will soon cease to exist without western $$ after their own version of the anti-gay like Nuremberg laws, and Russia is simply an insane dictatorship whose country wouldn't exist without Russian Mafia corruption and a desperate clinging to a cold war bourne of a pitious inferiority complex...why copy them?



    Lol lost huh? Where you are wrong is most this country HASN'T moved anywhere. The media tells people what they want, and most of it isn't truth. Trust me, if things keep getting pushed there will be war. Answer me this. If you had a girl and found out her school had non gender specific bathrooms and she was using it with boys how would you feel? If you say it wouldn't bother you then you are a flat out liar. I have lost nothing. Look at a map of the world where "Gays" have gotten the attention they have here? Yeah it's not that much. Don't worry, people like you have no idea about personal freedoms or probably have no idea the price that has been paid to give us what we have. There are much bigger issues as well, while this is more taking aim at the fabric of society. The others are actually more troubling. Lost. It hasn't even started. You don't have the resolve to continue it when push comes to shove. Of this I am certain. 




    Look...are you genuinely afraid that you or your kids will "catch" being gay? Really? Are you afraid that all kids in college using co-ed bathrooms engage in coitus all the time?...trust me, they don't, much to my own chagrin at school..lol...

    No, I wouldfnot like my Jr. High or grade school children using co-ed facilities..or even HS...there is an appropriate time and place for everything...once of leagl age, who is to say what is right or wrong between two people...it ain't my thing, but what two consenting adults want to do with their who has is their business...and frankly, being a dad to 2 kids in their 20's, I REALLY DON"T WANT TO KNOW!!!!! I might not like the answers I get...But I'm not asking, because I love them and would never reject them for any reason....I can't answer you in any other way...the state has no right to tell people how to pray....or what to believe, and certainly not what to do in their bedroom....in this way, I consider myself to be a true conservative.

     
  • Sections
    Shortcuts

    Share