OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In response to PatsLifer's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to PatsLifer's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In response to JimfromFlorida's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to JimfromFlorida's comment:

    So many comments and so much misinformation.

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

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

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

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

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

     



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

     

     

     

     


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

     

     

     



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

     

     



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

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



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



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

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



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

     



    How bigoted of you to say.


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

     



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

     

     




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

     



    Exactly.  I don't care a damn about someone's "right" to the free exercise of religious bigotry any more than I care about their right to practice human sacrifice or whatever other backward things religious people want to do. 

     

     

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to DanishPastry's comment:

    The photographer or the baker or whatever discriminates other people because they (the customers) do not live in accordance with the religious rules of the photographer or baker.



    This is actually wrong.

    The point is the photographer is being asked to help with the marriage arrangements, and their religious convictions prohibit them from doing that. It is about forcing the religious person to directly act against their long established beliefs, not about their simply disapproving of the parties that wish their services.

    Would you also insist a gay couple or Islamic couple be be able to demand to marry in a Catholic church if they so desire?

     

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to DanishPastry's comment:

     

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

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

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

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

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

     

     



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

     

     




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

     



    I'd still sell you a wedding cake old geezer if you ever got lucky enough to find a girl (or guy) to marry.

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    It is about forcing the religious person to directly act against their long established beliefs, not about their simply disapproving of the parties that wish their services.



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

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

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

     



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

     




    Scripture certainly connotes that helping homosexual persons to be married is wrong.

    Nobody is saying you should be allowed to not sell them a can of soda.

     

     

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    It is about forcing the religious person to directly act against their long established beliefs, not about their simply disapproving of the parties that wish their services.

     



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

     



    I think you can sell them a cake right after you stone them to death. 

     

    If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

     


     
  7. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    One hopes that in America people can't be refused service or refused a job simply because of their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc.  There are plenty of fundamentalist Muslims who may not want to serve or hire women, for instance, for very sincere religious reasons. 



    Your straw man is apples and oranges.

    Hiring a person is not nearly the same thing as being directly involved in the wedding ceremony itself.

     

    Do you also feel an Islamic photographer must work a Christian wedding if they feel it is wrong for them based on their religious beliefs?




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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    I think the same rule holds for adulterers too, though as far as I can tell the Republicans aren't so concerned about protecting the right of Christians to discriminate against adulterers.  

    And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adulterywith his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

     

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In response to PatsLifer's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to PatsLifer's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In response to JimfromFlorida's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to JimfromFlorida's comment:

    So many comments and so much misinformation.

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

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

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

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

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

     



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

     

     

     

     


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

     

     

     



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

     

     



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

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



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



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

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



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

     



    How bigoted of you to say.


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

     



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

     

     




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

     



    Exactly.  I don't care a damn about someone's "right" to the free exercise of religious bigotry any more than I care about their right to practice human sacrifice or whatever other backward things religious people want to do. 

     

     




    It is not bigotry to refuse to be a part of events that directly affront your beliefs. Even the military has provisions for conscientious objectors.

    Just because the religious rights rightly granted to persons don't agree with your ho agenda, that doesn't make them wrong. It makes your ho agenda wrong.

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    One hopes that in America people can't be refused service or refused a job simply because of their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc.  There are plenty of fundamentalist Muslims who may not want to serve or hire women, for instance, for very sincere religious reasons. 



    Your straw man is apples and oranges.

    Hiring a person is not nearly the same thing as being directly involved in the wedding ceremony itself.

     

    Do you also feel an Islamic photographer must work a Christian wedding if they feel it is wrong for them based on their religious beliefs?






    Yes, but the question is absurd because the whole law exists only to make it easier to discriminate against gays.  Only fools and liars can't see the true intent of the bill. 

     

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to DanishPastry's comment:

     

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

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

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

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

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

     

     



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

     

     




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

     



    I'd still sell you a wedding cake old geezer if you ever got lucky enough to find a girl (or guy) to marry.




    Your hate speech is unacceptable, bigot.

    I haven't said refusing to sell a wedding cake is okay. I've said direct involvement in the act of the marriage should be allowed to be denied based on religious convictions.

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    Did all of these wedding photographers refuse to serve previously divorced couples too?

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    I've said direct involvement in the act of the marriage should be allowed to be denied based on religious convictions.



    You consider taking photographs direct involvement in the act of marriage?

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    One hopes that in America people can't be refused service or refused a job simply because of their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc.  There are plenty of fundamentalist Muslims who may not want to serve or hire women, for instance, for very sincere religious reasons. 



    Your straw man is apples and oranges.

    Hiring a person is not nearly the same thing as being directly involved in the wedding ceremony itself.

     

    Do you also feel an Islamic photographer must work a Christian wedding if they feel it is wrong for them based on their religious beliefs?






    Yes, but the question is absurd because the whole law exists only to make it easier to discriminate against gays.  Only fools and liars can't see the true intent of the bill. 

     




    Wrong, you liar and fool.

    The law exists to allow persons to not be forced to directly act in an event that goes against their religious beliefs.

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

    Did all of these wedding photographers refuse to serve previously divorced couples too?




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

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    I've said direct involvement in the act of the marriage should be allowed to be denied based on religious convictions.

     



    You consider taking photographs direct involvement in the act of marriage?

     




    Absolutely. As would be catering or any other endeavor that forces you to actually be there or be involved in the planning.

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    One hopes that in America people can't be refused service or refused a job simply because of their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc.  There are plenty of fundamentalist Muslims who may not want to serve or hire women, for instance, for very sincere religious reasons. 



    Your straw man is apples and oranges.

    Hiring a person is not nearly the same thing as being directly involved in the wedding ceremony itself.

     

    Do you also feel an Islamic photographer must work a Christian wedding if they feel it is wrong for them based on their religious beliefs?






    Yes, but the question is absurd because the whole law exists only to make it easier to discriminate against gays.  Only fools and liars can't see the true intent of the bill. 

     




    Wrong, you liar and fool.

    The law exists to allow persons to not be forced to directly act in an event that goes against their religious beliefs.



    No, it exists only because a bunch of conservatives don't like gay rights and are looking for a way to attack gay rights under the guise of being pro religion. 

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    One hopes that in America people can't be refused service or refused a job simply because of their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc.  There are plenty of fundamentalist Muslims who may not want to serve or hire women, for instance, for very sincere religious reasons. 



    Your straw man is apples and oranges.

    Hiring a person is not nearly the same thing as being directly involved in the wedding ceremony itself.

     

    Do you also feel an Islamic photographer must work a Christian wedding if they feel it is wrong for them based on their religious beliefs?






    Yes, but the question is absurd because the whole law exists only to make it easier to discriminate against gays.  Only fools and liars can't see the true intent of the bill. 

     




    Wrong, you liar and fool.

    The law exists to allow persons to not be forced to directly act in an event that goes against their religious beliefs.



    No, it exists only because a bunch of conservatives don't like gay rights and are looking for a way to attack gay rights under the guise of being pro religion. 




    That's quite a claim. Prove it ho.

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    One hopes that in America people can't be refused service or refused a job simply because of their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc.  There are plenty of fundamentalist Muslims who may not want to serve or hire women, for instance, for very sincere religious reasons. 



    Your straw man is apples and oranges.

    Hiring a person is not nearly the same thing as being directly involved in the wedding ceremony itself.

     

    Do you also feel an Islamic photographer must work a Christian wedding if they feel it is wrong for them based on their religious beliefs?






    Yes, but the question is absurd because the whole law exists only to make it easier to discriminate against gays.  Only fools and liars can't see the true intent of the bill. 

     




    Wrong, you liar and fool.

    The law exists to allow persons to not be forced to directly act in an event that goes against their religious beliefs.



    No, it exists only because a bunch of conservatives don't like gay rights and are looking for a way to attack gay rights under the guise of being pro religion. 




    That's quite a claim. Prove it ho.



    It's pretty obvious to anyone whose head isn't up his arze.

    Never was an issue til some wingnut decided he didn't want to serve gays.

    Proof enough for anyone with a brain.

     

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

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



    1st Corinthians, Chapter 7, Verses 10-11

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

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

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

     



    1st Corinthians, Chapter 7, Verses 10-11

     

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



    They only care about parts of the scripture that support their biases.  It's all the proof you need that this is really about bias and not about "religion."

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

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

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

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

    (Gay marriage allowed in dark blue areas.)

     

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

     

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to DanishPastry's comment:

    The photographer or the baker or whatever discriminates other people because they (the customers) do not live in accordance with the religious rules of the photographer or baker.



    This is actually wrong.

    The point is the photographer is being asked to help with the marriage arrangements, and their religious convictions prohibit them from doing that. It is about forcing the religious person to directly act against their long established beliefs, not about their simply disapproving of the parties that wish their services.

    Would you also insist a gay couple or Islamic couple be be able to demand to marry in a Catholic church if they so desire?

     




    That tired old BS has nothing to do with BUSINESS pinhead

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

    Re: OT: Nuremberg Laws in AZ

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

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

     



    1st Corinthians, Chapter 7, Verses 10-11

     

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




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

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

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share