It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

BREAKING: AZ Senate Passes 'Right to Discriminate' Bill

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 04:31 PM
link   
Again, discrimination is a PERSONAL feeling, not a physical one.

I can personally not like/ accept gay marriage, for example. This does not mean in any way that I seek physical harm to those individuals, nor would I deny them any of ALL OF OUR rights. This is what is constantly wrong with the liberal left...they always some kind of 'protected class' status for groups....

As far as religious beliefs, even though I am not religious, I am conservative; in the respect, I uphold the text in our Constitution.

1st Amendment:

Congress shall make NO LAWrespecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


edit on 2202014 by QueenofSpades because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


You can't drop your religious beliefs the same as someone can't stop being homosexual.

Why is it that this crap has to be so damned confrontational when a simple compromise might be suggested.

But nooo-oooo!

Haters gotta effin' hate and divide, has to divide!

I'm a Christian.
I support gay rights.

But not at the loss of freedoms to ANYONE!

I'm so pissed right now, I gotta log off.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 04:37 PM
link   
one thing..

Businesses are not public, they are privately owned, unless they are owned by the town the state or the federal government so it is the owners of said business, even if they are catering to the public that would be the ones impacted.

So yes the First amendment and any law that Arizona is trying to pass would also apply to a C Corp as much as it would apply to an individual in this case, from a strictly legal point of view..

Not taking sides in this argument, just pointing out how Civil Rights would see this one, should it ever come up in the Civil Rights office...



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


I agree!

What liberals don't seem to understand is that there is a connection between the erosion of others' rights, at THEIR liberty.

They would have you not even be able to hate their lifestyle, even though no rights are violated. The only rights violated are the person who didn't agree with the lifestyle.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by vkey08
 


Yes, they are privately owned but they are not exempt from federal anti-discrimination laws, for example hiring, handicapped, etc. Surely they also have to adhere to certain business licensing standards, which likely must conform in some way as well? And what of the tax issue? I wonder can that be impacted by discriminatory practices?

Side note to the thread at large: We can all agree to disagree, in a civil manner.

edit on 2/20/2014 by kosmicjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 04:52 PM
link   

kosmicjack
reply to post by vkey08
 


Yes, they are privately owned but they are not exempt from federal anti-discrimination laws, for example hiring, handicapped, etc. Surely they also have to adhere to certain business licensing standards, which likely must conform in some way as well? And what of the tax issue? I wonder can that be impacted by discriminatory practices?

Side note: We can all agree to disagree, in a civil manner.


Yes that's true, BUT...

And this is where the but comes in. The State (I think it was Utah or Colorado, I can't remember right now as my mind is mush) had an incident where the owners of a Cake Shop wouldn't cater to a gay couple because it violated their religious freedom or something like that. The State of (whatever state it was) claimed they were being discriminatory however, it was stated by the Justice Dept that they broke no civil rights laws by simply refusing to sell to someone they did not agree with. It's a fine line to be sure......

Yes it's repugnant, and yes it's really 18th century, but there are no laws on the books that state a business has to sell to everyone, they can refuse service to whomever they want for whatever reason they want.. AND in the flip side of that, groups of people are free to not go to said business and spread the word that they will not do business with whomever, and drive the business out of said business.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by vkey08
 


Absolutely!!

Speaking of "Civil Rights"....

While taking Constitutional Law, I learned about cases such as Katzenbach v McClung, aka "Ollies Bar B Que", as well as Heat of Atlanta Motel v The U.S.

These cases presented an interesting concept concerning Civil Rights:

Question: Did Congress, in passing Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, exceed its Commerce Clause powers by depriving motels, such as the Heart of Atlanta, of the right to chose their own customers?

The Court held that the Commerce Clause allowed Congress to regulate local incidents of commerce, and that the Civil Right Act of 1964 passed constitutional muster. The Court noted that the applicability of Title II was "carefully limited to enterprises having a direct and substantial relation to the interstate flow of goods and people. . ."

The Court thus concluded that places of public accommodation had no "right" to select guests as they saw fit, free from governmental regulation.

In other words, they no longer had the 'right' to not like a particular race.

I'm black; yet I see this as an intrusion on their rights as private business owners.

( I think I may start a thread on this...)
edit on 2202014 by QueenofSpades because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by QueenofSpades
 


So are you as a black person ok with the law that could discriminate against you by using religious freedom as an excuse? Mormonism only recently admitted that Black people were human.

www.christiandefense.org...

As a liberal white guy.......I'm NOT!!
edit on 20-2-2014 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-2-2014 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by vkey08
 


Then how the hell were Jim Crow laws up ended? LOL! As Civil Rights have only been afforded to matters of sexual orientation by Executive Order, it seems there is a missing piece here with a lot of work to do.


It's so irritating how the U.S. only seems to chase these wedge issues instead of getting out in front of them like Europe.


(post by QueenofSpades removed for political trolling and baiting)

posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 05:10 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ATSmediaPRO
 


oh my brain.

What's next. They can discriminate against women if they weren't virgins before being married?




posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 


Sure they can.

They do NOT have to like women in that situation...the dislike has NOTHING to do with the women's Civil RIghts.

I think most on here take the Right to Discriminate to mean that someone is gong to deprive individuals of their freedoms and Rights. This is false.

I should be able to discriminate anything I want.

How does my 'dislike' of a person's lifestyle affect the individual?



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 05:18 PM
link   

QueenofSpades

What was NOT RIGHT was liberal/ Democratic laws that did not allow blacks an equal opportunity at life, slavery being at the top of that list.


Sounds like your ideology is getting in the way of your common sense. Those weren't Liberal democrats; they were the beginning of the GOP.

www.midnightdestiny.com...



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 05:21 PM
link   

QueenofSpades
Again, discrimination is a PERSONAL feeling, not a physical one.

I can personally not like/ accept gay marriage, for example. This does not mean in any way that I seek physical harm to those individuals, nor would I deny them any of ALL OF OUR rights. This is what is constantly wrong with the liberal left...they always some kind of 'protected class' status for groups....

As far as religious beliefs, even though I am not religious, I am conservative; in the respect, I uphold the text in our Constitution.

1st Amendment:

Congress shall make NO LAWrespecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


edit on 2202014 by QueenofSpades because: (no reason given)


This right is for people not property. You can plainly see it says the right of the people not right of the company.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 05:23 PM
link   

beezzer
reply to post by buster2010
 


You can't drop your religious beliefs the same as someone can't stop being homosexual.

Why is it that this crap has to be so damned confrontational when a simple compromise might be suggested.

But nooo-oooo!

Haters gotta effin' hate and divide, has to divide!

I'm a Christian.
I support gay rights.

But not at the loss of freedoms to ANYONE!

I'm so pissed right now, I gotta log off.


NO person is losing any religious freedom. A piece of property has no religious preference. Walk up to the wall at your local grocery store and ask it what is your faith.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 05:33 PM
link   

kosmicjack
reply to post by vkey08
 


Then how the hell were Jim Crow laws up ended? LOL! As Civil Rights have only been afforded to matters of sexual orientation by Executive Order, it seems there is a missing piece here with a lot of work to do.


It's so irritating how the U.S. only seems to chase these wedge issues instead of getting out in front of them like Europe.


I'm not going to disagree with you, there's a lot of work to do, and there are a lot of laws that need cleaning up and made more concise and easy to read, as well as blanketing, the litmus test in the office if a Civil RIghts violation is alleged is twofold:

1) Does it violate the law as currently written and ruled upon.. if no go to step two.
2) Does it violate the color of (in other words the intent or understanding of intent) of the law as written. if yes, investigate, if no go to step 3.
3) Please call your congressman or senator and demand that the Civil RIghts Laws be codified in a better and more concise manner please, as well as wording that applies them to everyone not just select few of certain groups as that in itself is discriminatory.

But that's 15 years of having certain laws changed so many times that youc an't keep up with them year after year..



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 05:36 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Don't avoid my question. Where in the bible does it say that Christians cannot do business with homosexuals?



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 06:30 PM
link   

nixie_nox
reply to post by beezzer
 


Don't avoid my question. Where in the bible does it say that Christians cannot do business with homosexuals?


One, I didn't see your question (it must have been hidden through all the hate) and two, I don't give a damn about your question.


Where does it say that homosexuals have to hate on Christians?

I am a Christian. I don't hate homosexuals. But apparently you don't care because your hatred of Christians supercedes any other type of hatred.

Ypour bigotry of cristianity is apparent. Don't hide behind homosexuality to hate Christians.

Apparently its acceptable now.

Hang a jew.
Put a chiristian on a cross!

It's not a hate crime anymore. You're free to express your hatred.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join