OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to mellymel3's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to mellymel3's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TheTinMan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    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. 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    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?

    [/QUOTE]

    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?

    [/QUOTE]

    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. 

    [/QUOTE]

    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?

    [/QUOTE]

    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. 

    [/QUOTE]


    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.

    [/QUOTE]

    Go look up the push in Colorado to allow an 8th(I think) grader who feels he's a she to use the girls bathroom. And people want this. This is the point. It never stops. It won't ever stop unless it is checked. Your point about adults is a valid one. But that door goes both ways. If someone loses their job or business because they didn't feel comfortable with someone else's lifestyle the. That's wrong. That could be anything. 

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mellymel3's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to mellymel3's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TheTinMan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    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. 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    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?

    [/QUOTE]

    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?

    [/QUOTE]

    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. 

    [/QUOTE]

    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?

    [/QUOTE]

    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. 

    [/QUOTE]


    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.

    [/QUOTE]

    Go look up the push in Colorado to allow an 8th(I think) grader who feels he's a she to use the girls bathroom. And people want this. This is the point. It never stops. It won't ever stop unless it is checked. Your point about adults is a valid one. But that door goes both ways. If someone loses their job or business because they didn't feel comfortable with someone else's lifestyle the. That's wrong. That could be anything. 

    [/QUOTE]


    In the end all you can do is accpet what the majority wants...that is the essence of the Constitution accept when the rights laid out within it are kept from a class of individuals...there is a separation od church and state...the founders wanted this because they foresaw issues of this sort arising...not homosexuality, but changes in society...it's a living document, it allows for changes in society...the other critical thing in the constitution is the protection of minority rights....the aggreived shall be heard in the courts....there are two major ways change will be made law...or done away with.

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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. 

    [/QUOTE]

    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. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    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?

    [/QUOTE]

    If you think a shooting war between Americans is "better" (what you said), I'm afraid you don't understand the Constitution or your oath.  We have a democratic legislative and judicial process to work through these issues, sanctioned by the Constitution.  The democratic proess worked as it should in Arizona. Shooting each other is the antithesis of everything the Founders were attempting to create. 

    Unfortunately, I find these attitudes a little too prevalent among military men, which makes me feel the founders were right to be suspicious of professional soldiers and standing armies. I'm concerned that professional soldiers like you are a threat to democracy, not defenders of it.  Your belligerent talk really doesn't give me much confidence in the military or in those who are employed by it at the taxpayers' substantial expense. 

     

     
  4. 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:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    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?

    [/QUOTE]

    If you think a shooting war between Americans is "better" (what you said), I'm afraid you don't understand the Constitution or your oath.  We have a democratic legislative and judicial process to work through these issues, sanctioned by the Constitution.  The democratic proess worked as it should in Arizona. Shooting each other is the antithesis of everything the Founders were attempting to create. 

    Unfortunately, I find these attitudes a little too prevalent among military men, which makes me feel the founders were right to be suspicious of professional soldiers and standing armies. I'm concerned that professional soldiers like you are a threat to democracy, not defenders of it.  Your belligerent talk really doesn't give me much confidence in the military or in those who are employed by it at the taxpayers' substantial expense. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You are living and thinking as if the system works as it should. It doesn't. If it did, there would be no issue. The supreme court justices are all paid off and cater to anything BUT the Constitution. You have politicians backing Ql Queda rebels in Syria. Yet we are fighting them everywhere else.  I'm a political science major and was an Officer. I flew combat missions and got pissed off when my Majcom dictated that we could not longer wear the flag on our uniform. I understand the Constitution more than you probably do. How do you think the founding fathers got to the point to be able to create the Constitution? Hmmm? Read any Jefferson? Adams? The Federalist papers? Also, it didn't work as it should in AZ. I'm here. It was all about money. The Super Bowl being moved. MLB issued a statement.  She (Jan) even talked up the economic impact. That's it. It had nothing else to do with anything else.

    You comment about the military is reprehensible.  Maybe you can't fathom what the cost of freedom is as we can. I'm not holding that part against you, however. Many have given far more than I ever have. Personally, I don't trust the military as it stand today. I've been out for 3 years and what is left is not tne cream of the crop, at least on the leadership side. 

    As far as a threat to democracy? I'm it's biggest proponent. And staunchest defender. And a lot of those who are veterans and a number that are still in are as well. You apparently have no knowledge of history, this countries or others. It's this, your lack of historical precedents, that allow you to see things as you do. 

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    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

    I'm not sure there's any substantial difference between a wedding cake for a gay wedding and for a straight wedding.  The products are essentially the same.  The significant difference here is the customer, not the product. 

    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.

    Maybe if the baker sold the gay couple a cake and gave them the figurines to put on it themselves it would have been no big deal.  But refusing to sell a cake (or even discuss one) was a problem.  

     

     

    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?

    No.  Particularly in a state like New Mexico which has a law specifically requiring businesses not to discriminate based on sexual orientation.  The problem with the photographer in New Mexico was that the law clearly requires no discrimination based on sexual orientation.  I think that's a good law and you probably don't. But the New Mexico law is what it is, and what the photographer did was clearly in violation of New Mexico's law.   

    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

    Nah . . . I don't think that churches will ever be forced to conduct any kind of marriage.  That's clearly at odds with the Constitutional tradition and there's no sign that churches will ever be forced by the government to do that.  Their parishioners may eventually force them to change, but not the government.    

     

    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)

    You misquote Nancy Pelosi.  I'm not sure what to make of things that just aren't true. I'm not quite sure what you're claiming Obama says, but I don't believe it's any more accurate that what you said Nancy Pelosi said.  (And if you are confusing Pelosi with Boxer, that's not what Boxer said either.)

     

    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.

    It could easily become "institutional" if sanctioned by law.  That's why defeating the law was important.    

     

    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. [It was written this poorly. That's one reason even Republicans started to back away from it as they understood exactly what they were enacting into law.] 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.

     Gays who own businesses and won't deal with straight people deserve the same condemnation.  

    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

     

    It's a non sequitur now anyway, since the bill was vetoed.  In my opinion, the good side one.  You are free to disagree of course.  That's the beauty of America.  We decide these things through the Constitutionally ordained legislative, judicial, and executive processes.  We don't "devolve" into shooting each other as our good soldier above hopes we do.    

     

    [/QUOTE]


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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    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. 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    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?

    [/QUOTE]

    If you think a shooting war between Americans is "better" (what you said), I'm afraid you don't understand the Constitution or your oath.  We have a democratic legislative and judicial process to work through these issues, sanctioned by the Constitution.  The democratic proess worked as it should in Arizona. Shooting each other is the antithesis of everything the Founders were attempting to create. 

    Unfortunately, I find these attitudes a little too prevalent among military men, which makes me feel the founders were right to be suspicious of professional soldiers and standing armies. I'm concerned that professional soldiers like you are a threat to democracy, not defenders of it.  Your belligerent talk really doesn't give me much confidence in the military or in those who are employed by it at the taxpayers' substantial expense. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You are living and thinking as if the system works as it should. It doesn't. If it did, there would be no issue. The supreme court justices are all paid off and cater to anything BUT the Constitution. You have politicians backing Ql Queda rebels in Syria. Yet we are fighting them everywhere else.  I'm a political science major and was an Officer. I flew combat missions and got pissed off when my Majcom dictated that we could not longer wear the flag on our uniform. I understand the Constitution more than you probably do. How do you think the founding fathers got to the point to be able to create the Constitution? Hmmm? Read any Jefferson? Adams? The Federalist papers? Also, it didn't work as it should in AZ. I'm here. It was all about money. The Super Bowl being moved. MLB issued a statement.  She (Jan) even talked up the economic impact. That's it. It had nothing else to do with anything else.

    You comment about the military is reprehensible.  Maybe you can't fathom what the cost of freedom is as we can. I'm not holding that part against you, however. Many have given far more than I ever have. Personally, I don't trust the military as it stand today. I've been out for 3 years and what is left is not tne cream of the crop, at least on the leadership side. 

    As far as a threat to democracy? I'm it's biggest proponent. And staunchest defender. And a lot of those who are veterans and a number that are still in are as well. You apparently have no knowledge of history, this countries or others. It's this, your lack of historical precedents, that allow you to see things as you do. 

    [/QUOTE]

    With all due respect, I greatly doubt that. 

     
  7. 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 seawolfxs' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    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

    I'm not sure there's any substantial difference between a wedding cake for a gay wedding and for a straight wedding.  The products are essentially the same.  The significant difference here is the customer, not the product. 

    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.

    Maybe if the baker sold the gay couple a cake and gave them the figurines to put on it themselves it would have been no big deal.  But refusing to sell a cake (or even discuss one) was a problem.  

     

     

    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?

    No.  Particularly in a state like New Mexico which has a law specifically requiring businesses not to discriminate based on sexual orientation.  The problem with the photographer in New Mexico was that the law clearly requires no discrimination based on sexual orientation.  I think that's a good law and you probably don't. But the New Mexico law is what it is, and what the photographer did was clearly in violation of New Mexico's law.   

    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

    Nah . . . I don't think that churches will ever be forced to conduct any kind of marriage.  That's clearly at odds with the Constitutional tradition and there's no sign that churches will ever be forced by the government to do that.  Their parishioners may eventually force them to change, but not the government.    

     

    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)

    You misquote Nancy Pelosi.  I'm not sure what to make of things that just aren't true. I'm not quite sure what you're claiming Obama says, but I don't believe it's any more accurate that what you said Nancy Pelosi said.  (And if you are confusing Pelosi with Boxer, that's not what Boxer said either.)

     

    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.

    It could easily become "institutional" if sanctioned by law.  That's why defeating the law was important.    

     

    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. [It was written this poorly. That's one reason even Republicans started to back away from it as they understood exactly what they were enacting into law.] 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.

     Gays who own businesses and won't deal with straight people deserve the same condemnation.  

    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



    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

     

    It's a non sequitur now anyway, since the bill was vetoed.  In my opinion, the good side one.  You are free to disagree of course.  That's the beauty of America.  We decide these things through the Constitutionally ordained legislative, judicial, and executive processes.  We don't "devolve" into shooting each other as our good soldier above hopes we do.    

     

    [/QUOTE]


    [/QUOTE]

    This isssue isn't even at the forefront of why what I believe is coming is coming. Still believing the system works as it should eh? If you proposed a law that said clouds existed, the Supreme court would most likely rule for you, but there would be at least one, or two dissenting opinions. Why is that? The Constitution is pretty clear without interpretation. How about we just get back to what it says on it's merits. That would solve everything. 

     
  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:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    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. 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    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?

    [/QUOTE]

    If you think a shooting war between Americans is "better" (what you said), I'm afraid you don't understand the Constitution or your oath.  We have a democratic legislative and judicial process to work through these issues, sanctioned by the Constitution.  The democratic proess worked as it should in Arizona. Shooting each other is the antithesis of everything the Founders were attempting to create. 

    Unfortunately, I find these attitudes a little too prevalent among military men, which makes me feel the founders were right to be suspicious of professional soldiers and standing armies. I'm concerned that professional soldiers like you are a threat to democracy, not defenders of it.  Your belligerent talk really doesn't give me much confidence in the military or in those who are employed by it at the taxpayers' substantial expense. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You are living and thinking as if the system works as it should. It doesn't. If it did, there would be no issue. The supreme court justices are all paid off and cater to anything BUT the Constitution. You have politicians backing Ql Queda rebels in Syria. Yet we are fighting them everywhere else.  I'm a political science major and was an Officer. I flew combat missions and got pissed off when my Majcom dictated that we could not longer wear the flag on our uniform. I understand the Constitution more than you probably do. How do you think the founding fathers got to the point to be able to create the Constitution? Hmmm? Read any Jefferson? Adams? The Federalist papers? Also, it didn't work as it should in AZ. I'm here. It was all about money. The Super Bowl being moved. MLB issued a statement.  She (Jan) even talked up the economic impact. That's it. It had nothing else to do with anything else.

    You comment about the military is reprehensible.  Maybe you can't fathom what the cost of freedom is as we can. I'm not holding that part against you, however. Many have given far more than I ever have. Personally, I don't trust the military as it stand today. I've been out for 3 years and what is left is not tne cream of the crop, at least on the leadership side. 

    As far as a threat to democracy? I'm it's biggest proponent. And staunchest defender. And a lot of those who are veterans and a number that are still in are as well. You apparently have no knowledge of history, this countries or others. It's this, your lack of historical precedents, that allow you to see things as you do. 

    [/QUOTE]

    With all due respect, I greatly doubt that. 

    [/QUOTE]

    You and your everything is fine ideals, proves this statement false. I bet you post on the DU site, probably multiple times per day I bet. 

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    Mel, Pro

    mel I disagree with the living constitution concept. We are supposed to be a nation on laws not men, the L C makes it very easy to have an oligarchy not a republic. I don't think having the basis of our laws to be interpreted like " it depends what "is" is. It may go your way or my way, but our individual rights shouldn't be subject to some current whim Of a few people. 

    pro,

    Its funny , you are basically a statist. You have no problem giving away powers to the state, which in turn controls individuals. A centrally run government does not work and isn't now. The gov powers are even more powerful than guns. As to a standing military, It would be a wonderful world if we didn't need the military. But then you have to tell me what to do with Putin,China, Iran and the ayatollahs for just a few. And you do know Iran has sips off our coast, and Russia just sent a battle ship to Cuba. Not to say I am in love with the Pentagon EitherI love the grunts t

     

    In the end,I hate giving unlimited power to Men. Right now we have a President who changes laws when he sees fit because he slammed thru an unworkable plan that was based on falsehoods, keep your Doc, your insurance and it will be $2500 cheaper. Add to it a foreign policy that is in total collapse, and an economy that is failing and a tin ear to how majority of people fell about sensitive social issues, and we are going to see anger and frustration. I am less worried about what the people will do and am scared to death of what our own government will do to us.

    have a nice day

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Mel, Pro

    mel I disagree with the living constitution concept. We are supposed to be a nation on laws not men, the L C makes it very easy to have an oligarchy not a republic. I don't think having the basis of our laws to be interpreted like " it depends what "is" is. It may go your way or my way, but our individual rights shouldn't be subject to some current whim Of a few people. 

    pro,

    Its funny , you are basically a statist. You have no problem giving away powers to the state, which in turn controls individuals. A centrally run government does not work and isn't now. The gov powers are even more powerful than guns. As to a standing military, It would be a wonderful world if we didn't need the military. But then you have to tell me what to do with Putin,China, Iran and the ayatollahs for just a few. And you do know Iran has sips off our coast, and Russia just sent a battle ship to Cuba. Not to say I am in love with the Pentagon EitherI love the grunts t

     

    In the end,I hate giving unlimited power to Men. Right now we have a President who changes laws when he sees fit because he slammed thru an unworkable plan that was based on falsehoods, keep your Doc, your insurance and it will be $2500 cheaper. Add to it a foreign policy that is in total collapse, and an economy that is failing and a tin ear to how majority of people fell about sensitive social issues, and we are going to see anger and frustration. I am less worried about what the people will do and am scared to death of what our own government will do to us.

    have a nice day

    [/QUOTE]

    Pretty much. Funny part is, take these guys, put them in a time machine back to 1773 and they would be saying, what's wrong the stamp act, the tea tax, the quartering et etc etc. The system works! They wouldn't have the country they do have now. It's pretty amazing people can't see the big picture. Huge reason this country, has gotten to the point that you can't even recognize it as America. Socially, politically and economically. Everything. And pro is a combination of statist and socialist. Which gets you totalitarianism. 

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Mel, Pro

    mel I disagree with the living constitution concept. We are supposed to be a nation on laws not men, the L C makes it very easy to have an oligarchy not a republic. I don't think having the basis of our laws to be interpreted like " it depends what "is" is. It may go your way or my way, but our individual rights shouldn't be subject to some current whim Of a few people. 

    pro,

    Its funny , you are basically a statist. You have no problem giving away powers to the state, which in turn controls individuals. A centrally run government does not work and isn't now. The gov powers are even more powerful than guns. As to a standing military, It would be a wonderful world if we didn't need the military. But then you have to tell me what to do with Putin,China, Iran and the ayatollahs for just a few. And you do know Iran has sips off our coast, and Russia just sent a battle ship to Cuba. Not to say I am in love with the Pentagon EitherI love the grunts t

     

    In the end,I hate giving unlimited power to Men. Right now we have a President who changes laws when he sees fit because he slammed thru an unworkable plan that was based on falsehoods, keep your Doc, your insurance and it will be $2500 cheaper. Add to it a foreign policy that is in total collapse, and an economy that is failing and a tin ear to how majority of people fell about sensitive social issues, and we are going to see anger and frustration. I am less worried about what the people will do and am scared to death of what our own government will do to us.

    have a nice day

    [/QUOTE]

    Pretty much. Funny part is, take these guys, put them in a time machine back to 1773 and they would be saying, what's wrong the stamp act, the tea tax, the quartering et etc etc. The system works! They wouldn't have the country they do have now. It's pretty amazing people can't see the big picture. Huge reason this country, has gotten to the point that you can't even recognize it as America. Socially, politically and economically. Everything. And pro is a combination of statist and socialist. Which gets you totalitarianism. 

    [/QUOTE]

    The guys who wrote the Constitution were Federalists.  Funny, you guys say you understand that Constitution, but then don't really understand what Federalism is.  

    Oh well. 

    And yes, I believe that democratic government is a good thing. We wouldn't have the successful country we have without a strong, Federal government.  The authors of the Constitution were smart men to realize that the decentralized and weak federal government of the Articles of Confederation would never allow us to build a great nation. 

     

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Here is a Tea Partier in the 1890s in Germany:

     

    The Tivoli Congress took place in 1892 and was named after the Tivoli Brewery on the Kreuzberg in Berlin in whose festival venue the German Conservative Party first adopted anti-semitism as part of its political programme

    At the Tivoli Congress only Werner von Blumenthal opposed the adoption of anti-semitism. From the congress the Tivoli Programme was developed. This was a party manifesto whose first clause included the words "We fight against the often obtrusive and corrosive Jewish influence on our national life. We demand Christian authorities for the Christian people and Christian teachers for Christian students."

    [/QUOTE]

    The tea party is stupid. This is a good example of what can't happen. However, once you start being militant, ie suing, making business close, you are bound to get blowback. Why not just leave well enough alone? Go watch Piers "Sleazeball" Morgan get attacked for referring to a transgendered "woman" as a boy when she was younger. How dare he!? I will clear this up once and for all what their agenda is. To have gender neutral bathrooms. Everywhere. To have the male/female gender identification scuttled. And then decree that Christianity is evil due to its stance on their "lifestyle". I'm probably missing a couple of things. I can see that, umm, disturbing. A quite many people. If you don't want that, then it's time to start saying, keep it to yourself, you aren't special compared to anyone else. Stop bragging about it, keep out of the news and stop trying to change what for thousands of years has been simply, man and woman.  

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Mel, Pro

    mel I disagree with the living constitution concept. We are supposed to be a nation on laws not men, the L C makes it very easy to have an oligarchy not a republic. I don't think having the basis of our laws to be interpreted like " it depends what "is" is. It may go your way or my way, but our individual rights shouldn't be subject to some current whim Of a few people. 

    pro,

    Its funny , you are basically a statist. You have no problem giving away powers to the state, which in turn controls individuals. A centrally run government does not work and isn't now. The gov powers are even more powerful than guns. As to a standing military, It would be a wonderful world if we didn't need the military. But then you have to tell me what to do with Putin,China, Iran and the ayatollahs for just a few. And you do know Iran has sips off our coast, and Russia just sent a battle ship to Cuba. Not to say I am in love with the Pentagon EitherI love the grunts t

     

    In the end,I hate giving unlimited power to Men. Right now we have a President who changes laws when he sees fit because he slammed thru an unworkable plan that was based on falsehoods, keep your Doc, your insurance and it will be $2500 cheaper. Add to it a foreign policy that is in total collapse, and an economy that is failing and a tin ear to how majority of people fell about sensitive social issues, and we are going to see anger and frustration. I am less worried about what the people will do and am scared to death of what our own government will do to us.

    have a nice day

    [/QUOTE]

    Pretty much. Funny part is, take these guys, put them in a time machine back to 1773 and they would be saying, what's wrong the stamp act, the tea tax, the quartering et etc etc. The system works! They wouldn't have the country they do have now. It's pretty amazing people can't see the big picture. Huge reason this country, has gotten to the point that you can't even recognize it as America. Socially, politically and economically. Everything. And pro is a combination of statist and socialist. Which gets you totalitarianism. 

    [/QUOTE]

    The guys who wrote the Constitution were Federalists.  Funny, you guys say you understand that Constitution, but then don't really understand what Federalism is.  

    Oh well. 

    And yes, I believe that democratic government is a good thing. We wouldn't have the successful country we have without a strong, Federal government.  The authors of the Constitution were smart men to realize that the decentralized and weak federal government of the Articles of Confederation would never allow us to build a great nation. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The definition of federalists then isn't the same as now. Just as a conservative now, is not even in the district of a conservative then. Hamilton wanted a central bank. Thankfully, Washington and most notably Jefferson said hell no. The framers were smarter than anyone here, or currently sitting on a bench in DC. The federal government was fairly weak initially. The way it was supposed to be. But, like any other systems, greed and corruption took over. Hell, look at the couple that just found the gold pieces on their property. Been there for a hundred plus years. The IRS wants 47 percent of the estimated 10 million?  GTFO. The system has failed, and it's because the Constitution has been mangled, and "interpreted" so many times it's actually quite irrelevant now. 

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Mel, Pro

    mel I disagree with the living constitution concept. We are supposed to be a nation on laws not men, the L C makes it very easy to have an oligarchy not a republic. I don't think having the basis of our laws to be interpreted like " it depends what "is" is. It may go your way or my way, but our individual rights shouldn't be subject to some current whim Of a few people. 

    pro,

    Its funny , you are basically a statist. You have no problem giving away powers to the state, which in turn controls individuals. A centrally run government does not work and isn't now. The gov powers are even more powerful than guns. As to a standing military, It would be a wonderful world if we didn't need the military. But then you have to tell me what to do with Putin,China, Iran and the ayatollahs for just a few. And you do know Iran has sips off our coast, and Russia just sent a battle ship to Cuba. Not to say I am in love with the Pentagon EitherI love the grunts t

     

    In the end,I hate giving unlimited power to Men. Right now we have a President who changes laws when he sees fit because he slammed thru an unworkable plan that was based on falsehoods, keep your Doc, your insurance and it will be $2500 cheaper. Add to it a foreign policy that is in total collapse, and an economy that is failing and a tin ear to how majority of people fell about sensitive social issues, and we are going to see anger and frustration. I am less worried about what the people will do and am scared to death of what our own government will do to us.

    have a nice day

    [/QUOTE]

    Pretty much. Funny part is, take these guys, put them in a time machine back to 1773 and they would be saying, what's wrong the stamp act, the tea tax, the quartering et etc etc. The system works! They wouldn't have the country they do have now. It's pretty amazing people can't see the big picture. Huge reason this country, has gotten to the point that you can't even recognize it as America. Socially, politically and economically. Everything. And pro is a combination of statist and socialist. Which gets you totalitarianism. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Totalitarianism has nothing to do with being a Socialist leader or politician.  Don't force me to bludgeon you with history and the facts.

    It means someone is a dictator where everything is channeled through that person leading whatever gov't ideology in place.. That one person using gov't to enforce policy.   It's also known as Fascism.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Man, I, remember the comparisons of Soviet communism compared to China's version. China just did it better, little less of the iron fist. You can say what you want, in the end, it's usually one, maybe a couple of bigshots with all the power and the "worker" class with few.  You can mince the types of rules, but they usually are the same, just with some differences in processes. I see a statist as a person under a totalitarian regime. I also see them as under a socialist regime. Because in the end, they have no say I neither. That's where it ends.

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    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

    I'm not sure there's any substantial difference between a wedding cake for a gay wedding and for a straight wedding.  The products are essentially the same.  The significant difference here is the customer, not the product. 

    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.

    Maybe if the baker sold the gay couple a cake and gave them the figurines to put on it themselves it would have been no big deal.  But refusing to sell a cake (or even discuss one) was a problem.  

     

     

    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?

    No.  Particularly in a state like New Mexico which has a law specifically requiring businesses not to discriminate based on sexual orientation.  The problem with the photographer in New Mexico was that the law clearly requires no discrimination based on sexual orientation.  I think that's a good law and you probably don't. But the New Mexico law is what it is, and what the photographer did was clearly in violation of New Mexico's law.   

    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

    Nah . . . I don't think that churches will ever be forced to conduct any kind of marriage.  That's clearly at odds with the Constitutional tradition and there's no sign that churches will ever be forced by the government to do that.  Their parishioners may eventually force them to change, but not the government.    

     

    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)

    You misquote Nancy Pelosi.  I'm not sure what to make of things that just aren't true. I'm not quite sure what you're claiming Obama says, but I don't believe it's any more accurate that what you said Nancy Pelosi said.  (And if you are confusing Pelosi with Boxer, that's not what Boxer said either.)

     

    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.

    It could easily become "institutional" if sanctioned by law.  That's why defeating the law was important.    

     

    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. [It was written this poorly. That's one reason even Republicans started to back away from it as they understood exactly what they were enacting into law.] 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.

     Gays who own businesses and won't deal with straight people deserve the same condemnation.  

    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

     



    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

     

    It's a non sequitur now anyway, since the bill was vetoed.  In my opinion, the good side one.  You are free to disagree of course.  That's the beauty of America.  We decide these things through the Constitutionally ordained legislative, judicial, and executive processes.  We don't "devolve" into shooting each other as our good soldier above hopes we do.    

     

    [/QUOTE]


    [/QUOTE]

    This isssue isn't even at the forefront of why what I believe is coming is coming. Still believing the system works as it should eh? If you proposed a law that said clouds existed, the Supreme court would most likely rule for you, but there would be at least one, or two dissenting opinions. Why is that? The Constitution is pretty clear without interpretation. How about we just get back to what it says on it's merits. That would solve everything. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Nancy pelosi is a pea brain, and people are better off not being job locked s, so ther people pay for them

    Harry Reid says everything said bad about obamacare is a lie

    and you didn't refute obamas stance on 4th trimester abortins

    these people hate religion, and there many posters here who do also. , and I do mean hate, there is nothing more than they would like than to destroy it all. 

    You own all these nut cases lock stock and barrel and they are the extremists, and they are the 1 per centers you love to hate

    and they are all untrustworthy, Benghazi,IRS,fast and furious and of course obamacare, they screwed these up , they are the incompetents, not anyone on the right. and it's time that people stopped defending emperors without clothes

     

     Added as a later note

    i coukd not find the pelosi quote, I stand corrected by Pro

     

     

     

     

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:

     

    Mel, Pro

    mel I disagree with the living constitution concept. We are supposed to be a nation on laws not men, the L C makes it very easy to have an oligarchy not a republic. I don't think having the basis of our laws to be interpreted like " it depends what "is" is. It may go your way or my way, but our individual rights shouldn't be subject to some current whim Of a few people. 

    pro,

    Its funny , you are basically a statist. You have no problem giving away powers to the state, which in turn controls individuals. A centrally run government does not work and isn't now. The gov powers are even more powerful than guns. As to a standing military, It would be a wonderful world if we didn't need the military. But then you have to tell me what to do with Putin,China, Iran and the ayatollahs for just a few. And you do know Iran has sips off our coast, and Russia just sent a battle ship to Cuba. Not to say I am in love with the Pentagon EitherI love the grunts t

     

    In the end,I hate giving unlimited power to Men. Right now we have a President who changes laws when he sees fit because he slammed thru an unworkable plan that was based on falsehoods, keep your Doc, your insurance and it will be $2500 cheaper. Add to it a foreign policy that is in total collapse, and an economy that is failing and a tin ear to how majority of people fell about sensitive social issues, and we are going to see anger and frustration. I am less worried about what the people will do and am scared to death of what our own government will do to us.

    have a nice day

     




    When I say the Constitution is a living document, I meant that while the framework has to remain, and it does, it has to be able to allow for natural and inevitable changes in the world and society...the framers knew things would change...the revolution was the ultimate example of change....the framework is a way to preserve individual freedom while allowing the basis of government operations...as the country grew, the scope of governemnt had to grow with it...that also was inevitable .....finally, as technology changes, as mores (MORE-RAYS) change, as they have since the 1770's, the Constituion allows for laws and methods to recognize the change in society and maintain the protection of minorities...no class of people can be isolated and robbed of their rights....the Constitution was designed PURPOSELY to recognize changes in society and make appropriate adjustments...there are such things as amendments to the Constitution......we may not like something, but there are ways to try to change what you don't like...that's also in the Constitution...

     

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Mel, Pro

    mel I disagree with the living constitution concept. We are supposed to be a nation on laws not men, the L C makes it very easy to have an oligarchy not a republic. I don't think having the basis of our laws to be interpreted like " it depends what "is" is. It may go your way or my way, but our individual rights shouldn't be subject to some current whim Of a few people. 

    pro,

    Its funny , you are basically a statist. You have no problem giving away powers to the state, which in turn controls individuals. A centrally run government does not work and isn't now. The gov powers are even more powerful than guns. As to a standing military, It would be a wonderful world if we didn't need the military. But then you have to tell me what to do with Putin,China, Iran and the ayatollahs for just a few. And you do know Iran has sips off our coast, and Russia just sent a battle ship to Cuba. Not to say I am in love with the Pentagon EitherI love the grunts t

     

    In the end,I hate giving unlimited power to Men. Right now we have a President who changes laws when he sees fit because he slammed thru an unworkable plan that was based on falsehoods, keep your Doc, your insurance and it will be $2500 cheaper. Add to it a foreign policy that is in total collapse, and an economy that is failing and a tin ear to how majority of people fell about sensitive social issues, and we are going to see anger and frustration. I am less worried about what the people will do and am scared to death of what our own government will do to us.

    have a nice day

    [/QUOTE]

    Pretty much. Funny part is, take these guys, put them in a time machine back to 1773 and they would be saying, what's wrong the stamp act, the tea tax, the quartering et etc etc. The system works! They wouldn't have the country they do have now. It's pretty amazing people can't see the big picture. Huge reason this country, has gotten to the point that you can't even recognize it as America. Socially, politically and economically. Everything. And pro is a combination of statist and socialist. Which gets you totalitarianism. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Totalitarianism has nothing to do with being a Socialist leader or politician.  Don't force me to bludgeon you with history and the facts.

    It means someone is a dictator where everything is channeled through that person leading whatever gov't ideology in place.. That one person using gov't to enforce policy.   It's also known as Fascism.

     

    [/QUOTE]
    I still love your mention of "The Laws for the Protection of German Blood and Honor"...what a collection of racist hooey!

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    Rusty

    as far as the tea partners,

    there is not one but many many tea parties

    i am for getting our finances under control without an ever expanding gov. The number of fed employees who make more than 100k has doubled, along with unbelievable benefits. The ave fed worker has double the compensation as a non gov worker and the DC area is never in recession and is one of the richest zip codes in the USA,. I don't think that right and it Ps me off

    Any of the tea party idiots who spout anti science type stuff makes me ill

    These are basically the T  party people I know , not what you refer to

    just fyi

     

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    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

    I'm not sure there's any substantial difference between a wedding cake for a gay wedding and for a straight wedding.  The products are essentially the same.  The significant difference here is the customer, not the product. 

    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.

    Maybe if the baker sold the gay couple a cake and gave them the figurines to put on it themselves it would have been no big deal.  But refusing to sell a cake (or even discuss one) was a problem.  

     

     

    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?

    No.  Particularly in a state like New Mexico which has a law specifically requiring businesses not to discriminate based on sexual orientation.  The problem with the photographer in New Mexico was that the law clearly requires no discrimination based on sexual orientation.  I think that's a good law and you probably don't. But the New Mexico law is what it is, and what the photographer did was clearly in violation of New Mexico's law.   

    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

    Nah . . . I don't think that churches will ever be forced to conduct any kind of marriage.  That's clearly at odds with the Constitutional tradition and there's no sign that churches will ever be forced by the government to do that.  Their parishioners may eventually force them to change, but not the government.    

     

    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)

    You misquote Nancy Pelosi.  I'm not sure what to make of things that just aren't true. I'm not quite sure what you're claiming Obama says, but I don't believe it's any more accurate that what you said Nancy Pelosi said.  (And if you are confusing Pelosi with Boxer, that's not what Boxer said either.)

     

    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.

    It could easily become "institutional" if sanctioned by law.  That's why defeating the law was important.    

     

    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. [It was written this poorly. That's one reason even Republicans started to back away from it as they understood exactly what they were enacting into law.] 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.

     Gays who own businesses and won't deal with straight people deserve the same condemnation.  

    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

     

    It's a non sequitur now anyway, since the bill was vetoed.  In my opinion, the good side one.  You are free to disagree of course.  That's the beauty of America.  We decide these things through the Constitutionally ordained legislative, judicial, and executive processes.  We don't "devolve" into shooting each other as our good soldier above hopes we do.    

     

    [/QUOTE]


    [/QUOTE]

    This isssue isn't even at the forefront of why what I believe is coming is coming. Still believing the system works as it should eh? If you proposed a law that said clouds existed, the Supreme court would most likely rule for you, but there would be at least one, or two dissenting opinions. Why is that? The Constitution is pretty clear without interpretation. How about we just get back to what it says on it's merits. That would solve everything. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Nancy pelosi is a pea brain, and people are better off not being job locked s, so ther people pay for them

    Harry Reid says everything said bad about obamacare is a lie

    and you didn't refute obamas stance on 4th trimester abortins

    these people hate religion, and there many posters here who do also. , and I do mean hate, there is nothing more than they would like than to destroy it all. 

    You own all these nut cases lock stock and barrel and they are the extremists, and they are the 1 per centers you love to hate

    and they are all untrustworthy, Benghazi,IRS,fast and furious and of course obamacare, they screwed these up , they are the incompetents, not anyone on the right. and it's time that people stopped defending emperors without clothes

     

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    How can I refute what doesn't exist?  Maybe provide some (reliable) source for whatever it is you're claiming Obama stands for.  This is the problem with you right wingers.  You repeat stuff that's not true as if it's fact because you accept as gospel any old nonsense as long as it conforms to your preconceptions.  

     
  24. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mellymel3's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to AFNAV130's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Mel, Pro

    mel I disagree with the living constitution concept. We are supposed to be a nation on laws not men, the L C makes it very easy to have an oligarchy not a republic. I don't think having the basis of our laws to be interpreted like " it depends what "is" is. It may go your way or my way, but our individual rights shouldn't be subject to some current whim Of a few people. 

    pro,

    Its funny , you are basically a statist. You have no problem giving away powers to the state, which in turn controls individuals. A centrally run government does not work and isn't now. The gov powers are even more powerful than guns. As to a standing military, It would be a wonderful world if we didn't need the military. But then you have to tell me what to do with Putin,China, Iran and the ayatollahs for just a few. And you do know Iran has sips off our coast, and Russia just sent a battle ship to Cuba. Not to say I am in love with the Pentagon EitherI love the grunts t

     

    In the end,I hate giving unlimited power to Men. Right now we have a President who changes laws when he sees fit because he slammed thru an unworkable plan that was based on falsehoods, keep your Doc, your insurance and it will be $2500 cheaper. Add to it a foreign policy that is in total collapse, and an economy that is failing and a tin ear to how majority of people fell about sensitive social issues, and we are going to see anger and frustration. I am less worried about what the people will do and am scared to death of what our own government will do to us.

    have a nice day

    [/QUOTE]

    Pretty much. Funny part is, take these guys, put them in a time machine back to 1773 and they would be saying, what's wrong the stamp act, the tea tax, the quartering et etc etc. The system works! They wouldn't have the country they do have now. It's pretty amazing people can't see the big picture. Huge reason this country, has gotten to the point that you can't even recognize it as America. Socially, politically and economically. Everything. And pro is a combination of statist and socialist. Which gets you totalitarianism. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Totalitarianism has nothing to do with being a Socialist leader or politician.  Don't force me to bludgeon you with history and the facts.

    It means someone is a dictator where everything is channeled through that person leading whatever gov't ideology in place.. That one person using gov't to enforce policy.   It's also known as Fascism.



     

    [/QUOTE]

    What?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I still love your mention of "The Laws for the Protection of German Blood and Honor"...what a collection of racist hooey!

    http://history1900s.about.com/od/1930s/a/Nuremberg-Laws.htm

    The Nuremburg laws...that was the name given to the "Law for the protection of German Blood and Honor"..
    On September 15, 1935, the Nazi government passed two new racial laws at their annual NSDAP Reich Party Congress in Nuremberg, Germany. These two laws (the Reich Citizenship Law and the Law to Protect German Blood and Honor) became collectively known as the Nuremberg Laws. These laws took German citizenship away from Jews and outlawed both marriage and sex between Jews and non-Jews. Unlike historical antisemitism, the Nuremberg Laws defined Jewishness by heredity (race) rather than by practice (religion).

     

Share