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.

 

Legal to "discriminate" based on religion in AZ. White authoritarians beat at their own game?

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Link to source

what is authoritarianism?

Quite a bold move by right wingers in AZ to legalize religious discrimination. Take a look at the GOP in AZ. Old WASPS that truly have no concept of how this nation was formed. They simply want the right to punish others according to the rules of the meme they are programmed with. Totally understandable. That's how memes must work.

So here we go into a new social experiment --but will it backfire?

How long before we see Sharia Law beating authoritarians at their own game? I imagine they believe they can subordinate non-Christians from exercising their "rights of discrimination". Let me be clear. White (and I know this term "white" has no meaning) Christians can, with the help of public institutions, tax law, courts, and juries can all exert extra-legal force on groups they wish to oppress. The racism and bigotry in this forum are on display regularly.

So what are the WASP authoritarians' chances at keeping Sharia law suppressed in this situation? In terms of memetics, Islam is stronger than Christianity. People kill their own offspring and other very inhuman things to enforce orthodoxy. Who, more than a fundamentalist Muslim can argue their Religion is important to them?

Scary experiment we have here.
edit on 22-2-2014 by InverseLookingGlass because: punctuation

edit on 22-2-2014 by InverseLookingGlass because: syntax




posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by InverseLookingGlass
 


So if I set up a store down there and reserve the right to deny service to any members of any religious establishment there, I would be allowed to, right?
edit on 22-2-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Well, this is a trend that will continue in one way only as the demographics change in favour of culturally diverse groups as many studies show.

I think the reaction that you see in these forums is really an expression of panic in response to these changing demographics and their implications; equity in place of privilege, what has seemed normative previously is changing to something else, often non white and non Christian which is taking roots and is not going away.

Will there be responses? Of course. There will be many instances of overreach as is demonstrated by your OP. Privilege doesn't give up without a struggle, but it will be defeated and permanently. 'White right-wing' won't suddenly change, nor can it increase, given 'minority' ethnic groups vote democratic and lean left, and these groups are becoming the permanent majority. Its no use pretending they are not there, or they have no voice nor influence, because increasingly, they will and they do.

The prospect of having to live on a level playing field to everyone else, to some people is frightening, 'unfair' even. Its the underlying principle which motivates almost everything they do. Of course it will backfire, making them even more desperate, feeling even more marginalised probably leading them to engage in even more extremist measures in order to preserve what they value most; the preservation of their status in society.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 12:21 PM
link   

InverseLookingGlass


Quite a bold move by right wingers in AZ to legalize religious discrimination


Nobody legalized anything. From your own source:


Ms. Brewer, who has taken no public position on the legislation that will reach her desk next week .......... vetoed a similar religious freedom bill last year, arguing that it was a distraction from priorities lawmakers had yet to address, including the state budget. And there are similar circumstances this year, as legislators have yet to act on a package of proposed changes to the state’s child welfare system, which has been plagued by a slow response to complaints of abuse and neglect.


And she's right, there are more important issues in Arizona than regulating how businesses choose to conduct their business. If a business doesn't like gay people because of the owners' religious preference, then maybe gay people shouldn't patronize it instead of sueing it, which is effectively forcing the business to serve customers they don't want to, by bringing in the state lawmakers to make that choice for them.

If that business is in the wrong, they will soon see that by way of people not coming in and eventually forcing them to close their doors because no one is spending their money there. This is a choice people need to make for themselves and I think the governor recognizes that as well because there are many issues with children in this state, who can't make choices for themselves, that need to be addressed first.




posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Taupin Desciple
If a business doesn't like gay people because of the owners' religious preference, then maybe gay people shouldn't patronize it instead of sueing it, which is effectively forcing the business to serve customers they don't want to, by bringing in the state lawmakers to make that choice for them.

Imagine if people with your mindset were the loud ones during the civil rights movement. What a sad country this would still be. No doubt some would love the segregation still, but for redeeming qualities of our species, a big step back.
I am just glad ultimately such mindsets are eliminated through education and other means.



If that business is in the wrong, they will soon see that by way of people not coming in and eventually forcing them to close their doors because no one is spending their money there. This is a choice people need to make for themselves and I think the governor recognizes that as well because there are many issues with children in this state, who can't make choices for themselves, that need to be addressed first.


Popular opinion should not dictate law one way or another.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 12:38 PM
link   
I am prone to misunderstanding when it comes to text- you aren't seriously suggesting that the danger of the majority legislating the power to discriminate for itself is that radical islam will take over the area, are you?

I would LOVE to see it backfire on them of course- but it's just not going to come from Islam. For one thing, Islam is obviously not at war with us. If Islam was at war with us, they'd be killing more Americans than police, alcoholics, and bullied teenagers, but every one of those groups is ACCIDENTALLY fighting a better war against America than Islam supposedly is doing on purpose.

Here's how I see this law really unfolding:
1. A few businesses will thrive as discrimination botiques, but most major chains will quietly start firing problem employees under other pretenses, making this a non-issue at places like Walmart.

2. Major businesses which do practice this discrimination will be infiltrated by people whose whole intent is to exercise this right against WASPS so that they will be fired and get to sue the discriminators under their own law.

3. Several discrimination based churches will be formed, including an attempt to gain recognition for explicitly homosexual or explicitly atheistic religions which forbid commerce with anyone who speaks of religion or against sexual freedom.

4. Before any of this goes too far, a SCOTUS case will undermine this law without completely striking it down or upholding it, and it will effectively boil down to a don't ask don't tell policy for society at large, where who is right in a denial of service situation depends on who unnecessarily volunteered or solicited the information that caused the denial. The law will become almost entirely unenforceable in either direction, but the courts will have room to decide controversial cases however they want.

5. Within 2 years the only real battleground for this issue will be bars. This will result in a major news story possibly involving violence, either after a white man is removed from a mostly Mexican bar under some Catholic pretext or after a straight woman or man is removed from a Lesbian bar under some more creative application of the law.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by The Vagabond
 


Hmm. One more question: what's my fortune?



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 01:01 PM
link   

SaturnFX

Popular opinion should not dictate law one way or another.


Then what should? Unpopular opinion? The law is here to suit the majority of the populace, which is why murder is against the law. The majority of the population see murder as wrong, therefore, it is illegal.

And your analogy to the civil rights movement is apples to oranges IMO. The civil rights movement put people on a more level playing field, thereby, giving people more choices. As it should be. People though have taken that to the extreme and now say that if you don't agree with my choice, I'll take it up with lawmakers and MAKE you agree with my choice. That's not Democratic, that's pushing an agenda down the throat of people who don't want it, and I have a big problem with that.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


I can't do individuals. I can predict politics and news because it's always the same. As Henry David Thoreau said (this quote is way off but the meaning is there), most events, from storms to wars to the occasional revolution in France can be assumed by the calendar without use of a newspaper.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Please post in the ongoing thread.

Thank you.


Closed.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join