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.

 

The hypocrisy of those against the proposed AZ law (regarding gays)

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 06:38 PM
link   

doubletap

mOjOm




WTF are you talking about. Are you so unreasonable as to think that serving a gay couple for example means that it means they are allowed to have gay sex on the tables or something??? Are you afraid some gay guy is going to come into a coffee shop, not to order coffee but to float around the room redecorating the place and waving their Gay in everyone's face????

Are you really that messed up and delusional???? Because your stance is like something a 4 y/o would try and argue based off their wildly over active imagination.

Realistically, I don't even understand how the hell these business owners are going to know someone is gay anyway unless the person comes out and says it. Maybe everyone wearing a pink shirt gets assed out or something...I don't know...
edit on 26-2-2014 by mOjOm because: (no reason given)


As a business owner, why should I not have the right to refuse service to blacks or gays simply for that reason? Its my business, my property, my money, my lost income, and my freedom to associate with whoever I choose.

No one, (gay, straight, black, white) has the right to compel someone to do business with them. I have been denied service because I was white. I didnt cry about it, I didnt sue, I simply went to their competition and gave them my money.


The legal point is that taxpayer money pays for the utilities which serve the business, for the street repairs leading up to the business, for the police and fire protections which would be needed if something happened inside the business, and for lots of other everyday things. So if the business isn't a private club, and is open to the public, that means all of the public and not an owners-choice selection.




posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ohioriver
 


Who's doing that???? I mean is there a problem with dudes clawing at each other like soft porn videos where you live??? Maybe you should move away from South Beach Florida then!! (That's a funny joke for anyone who's familiar with South Beach Florida BTW.)

I think you're being a bit paranoid at this point and unreasonable.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Darth_Prime


how are they going to say who is and who isn't gay? are they going to ask everyone? are they going to test everyone? that is the "Freedom" you want?


While certainly not every gay is identifiable by appearance only, a very large number of them are by sound and appearance.


Another indicator would be ordering a cake that is decorated to say something like " Happy Wedding to Chuck and Steve".

If this law passes, a great opportunity would spring up offering cakes for gay weddings only. You could refuse to do any cakes that have jesus decorations or crosses or anything remotely close to indicating a customer is a jesus freak.....And you would be perfectly within your rights to do so.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Aleister
 


Where can I get in on this action of the taxpayers paying my utility bills for my business?

Business owners contribute to the local economy in countless different ways as well, so their rights and freedoms cease to exist?



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 06:42 PM
link   

beezzer

mOjOm
reply to post by beezzer
 


Hell no. I don't support taking away guns from people. Not at all. Own all the guns you want. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that if you are a gun owner and you have one on you, that you should leave it in the car while you come in my business to drink whiskey and watch the ball game though.

Nobody is removing your rights to a gun, but in some buildings or whatever you don't need to be packing heat. It is a deadly weapon after all. I don't think it's required to arm yourself while purchasing a mattress or some dining room chairs.


You're right.

The business has an individual right to determine who they want into their business.

Ooops.


It's not the owner of the gun they are asking to leave. It's the GUN!!!! This isn't difficult to understand why are you trying so hard to twist what I'm saying. The gun owner is more than welcome to come in, but the deadly weapon which is just an object that the owner is carrying around has to stay out.

Some places don't let you bring in your Bike or park your car inside either, is that Driver Discrimination too??? No, the driver can come in, but he must park and leave his car outside.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Aleister
 





The legal point is that taxpayer money pays for the utilities which serve the business, for the street repairs leading up to the business, for the police and fire protections which would be needed if something happened inside the business, and for lots of other everyday things.


The taxpayer pays for a business owners light bill ?

Since when?

The business owner does, and the business owners also pays property taxes too.

Lot more than individuals do by the way.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 06:45 PM
link   

doubletap

Darth_Prime


how are they going to say who is and who isn't gay? are they going to ask everyone? are they going to test everyone? that is the "Freedom" you want?


While certainly not every gay is identifiable by appearance only, a very large number of them are by sound and appearance.


True, so true. You can also catch them by their musical preferences, and I caught one once when she wouldn't curtsey. Lots of ways.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 06:47 PM
link   
Having read the op’s bit, and the postings the following can be stated:

Laws have to be careful when written. If it is too specific and it can ultimately viewed as discrimination, to vague, and it opens the legal door up to both the good and the abuses that goes along with it. The AZ law ultimately is the latter.

The idea of the law in the USA is that the majority rules and minority have rights. That means that no matter what side of the voting block or public a person is, they do have to follow the law, and that those who would be considered a minority, would be protected against unfair or unjust laws that would seek to penalize or set them as separate and apart, to encourage that the whole of the population is brought into society. But sometimes those laws are often worked badly, and the AZ law is such a law.

Even one of the architects admits to this as it would open up the door to discriminate or even refuse all services to those who did not believe as the business owner did. That means a person who is a devout catholic, could refuse services to a divorcee or a single mother, and be protected from all legal justice. A person who is Islamic of faith could turn around and refuse service to all others who were not Islamic, or charge non Islamic followers more for their services and be protected under this law. And the list goes on, far beyond what the original intent of this law was present.

The legal problem is that they are taking court cases from other states, single points of reference, and failing to see that in most of those states, where these court cases come up into the spot light, all have laws that are on the books that either recognize or give protection to the one group that this law is targeting. AZ has no laws on the books that recognize same sex marriage, have no laws that recognize same sex civil unions, no protections, nothing. So then why are they doing this law if not out of hate that can, if passed, be used to exploit and discriminate against others?

There is one other point and people will bring it up, and that is the Freedom of religion, and they would be correct in pointing that out. However, the courts have in the past have heard court cases when it comes to religious groups, ruling in favor of or against said groups, depending on the nature of the case. And what is not known, is the ministerial exception that is a part of federal law. The ministerial exception is a bit that states, the government cannot compel or force a minister, a rabbi, an imman, a priest, a monk, a person who is in a position of religious authority, working in that capacity, from going against their faith. They can direct and dictate how businesses may operate, but the churches are considered to be off limits.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 06:48 PM
link   

mOjOm

beezzer

mOjOm
reply to post by beezzer
 


Hell no. I don't support taking away guns from people. Not at all. Own all the guns you want. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that if you are a gun owner and you have one on you, that you should leave it in the car while you come in my business to drink whiskey and watch the ball game though.

Nobody is removing your rights to a gun, but in some buildings or whatever you don't need to be packing heat. It is a deadly weapon after all. I don't think it's required to arm yourself while purchasing a mattress or some dining room chairs.


You're right.

The business has an individual right to determine who they want into their business.

Ooops.


It's not the owner of the gun they are asking to leave. It's the GUN!!!! This isn't difficult to understand why are you trying so hard to twist what I'm saying. The gun owner is more than welcome to come in, but the deadly weapon which is just an object that the owner is carrying around has to stay out.

Some places don't let you bring in your Bike or park your car inside either, is that Driver Discrimination too??? No, the driver can come in, but he must park and leave his car outside.


Show me in the Constitution where it is a Right to drive into a place of business.

The Constitution guarantees a right to bear arms.

But it's okay to bias against THAT right.

Just not anyone else's.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 06:49 PM
link   
AZ governor is talking about this now.

Sounds like she is going to kill it.


ETA:

She did kill it.

It was VETO'd.
edit on 26-2-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Just heard on the news: Gov. Brewer, has decided to veto the bill, and it now goes back to the AZ legislature. Even the Gov. Brewer believes and states that this law will cause more problems than it would fix.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 06:53 PM
link   

neo96
reply to post by Aleister
 





The legal point is that taxpayer money pays for the utilities which serve the business, for the street repairs leading up to the business, for the police and fire protections which would be needed if something happened inside the business, and for lots of other everyday things.


The taxpayer pays for a business owners light bill ?

Since when?

The business owner does, and the business owners also pays property taxes too.

Lot more than individuals do by the way.


I wasn't clear enough, my fault. The utility itself is what I mean, the utility had to be built, and the wires carrying the electricity have to go over (or under) public land and be maintained by the public utility (if it's public where someone lives - although a better example is water, as most water companies are public). As for property taxes, yes, most businesses pay much more than private homes, because of their location, which actually isn't fair (as property taxes should be based on size and structural worth).

As for the gun argument, I'm with the constitutionalists on that one. The second amendment gives people the right to bear arms, and why that is curtailed at the entrance to someone's local McDonald's is something I really don't understand. In fact the food there is much more dangerous than someone who handles their firearm responsibly.
edit on 26-2-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Darth_Prime
 



What angers me is Discrimination and wanting protection for it hiding behind "Religion"


How is hiding behind "Political Correctness" different than hiding behind religion??????

Do not both parties believe in their freedoms?

The problem I see with this whole issue are people whom believe in their freedoms, but do not have one damn problem with trying to take away other peoples freedom!

Karma is a bitch! Freedom isn't a one way street! So be damn careful before you jump on a band wagon to take away something someone else enjoys doing, because the odds are we will end up on ATS arguing like we are in this thread!!!

To each his own! If they are not hurting you or anyone else? LEAVE EM THE HELL ALONE!!!

Adults my ass! Reminds me of children whom get caught doing something wrong and saying, "Well so and so did it!"!

Welcome to the world of MANIPULATION!!!! SPONSERED BY THE GOOD OLE GOVERNMENT OF THE USA!

No wonder are damn country is so F'd up!



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 06:55 PM
link   
So will this law allow atheists to refuse service to Christians?


Why does ones religious right always seem to discriminate against other people?

Brewer just vetoed this bill.

edit on 26-2-2014 by LDragonFire because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-2-2014 by LDragonFire because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 06:57 PM
link   

LDragonFire
So will this law allow atheists to refuse service to Christians?


Why does ones religious right always seem to discriminate against other people?


Brewer veto'd the bill.

Party like it's 19. . . 99!



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Those businesses that want this law to pass really are just shooting themselves in the foot. It's the worst business practice a business owner would want to implement. Nothing like turning away customers and sales on behalf of your religious beliefs. It's plain stupidity, and it's economic suicide for the state of Arizona. Not only could they be losing business from the gay community, but also from many in the community who support them, and from interstate commerce.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 07:01 PM
link   

LDragonFire
So will this law allow atheists to refuse service to Christians?


Why does ones religious right always seem to discriminate against other people?

Brewer just vetoed this bill.

edit on 26-2-2014 by LDragonFire because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-2-2014 by LDragonFire because: (no reason given)


Why does the 'relgious' left discriminate against, rich people,bankers,corporations,christians,gun owners, and smokers ?

Yep Brewer did veto it.

Guess certain kinds of bigotry is totally acceptable.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Hmmm you and breez on the wrong side of public opinion again? Not for smaller government in this case? Not for saving tax payer dollars enforcing this?



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 07:06 PM
link   

mOjOm
The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

So no, actually you can't refuse service to someone just because you don't like them. Not if your business is one that serves the public. If you don't want to treat the populace which makes up the public then don't start up a business that serves the public. Start one that only serves private or select members only.

You can spin this new Discrimination Law anyway you want, it doesn't matter, it's discrimination of certain people of the public based upon one's personal bias and bigotry toward people you don't like, that's all it is. What's worse is that it's not going to end with Gay people either. Religious business owners will no doubt use Religion to justify all kinds of people to Discriminate against based on their interpretation of whatever religion they belong to. Do you realize how many various groups or individuals all the various religions have issues with??? Think about it. Muslims, Mormons, Catholics, Scientologists, Christians, etc. They all discriminate on basically everyone other then themselves but even discriminate against each other too for nothing more than differences in ideology.



I think the key would is public. In public owed businesses everyone's meant to be equal.
Private businesses you got a owner and everyone else are not owners. Owner gets to make rules for non owners to come into his privately owed business.

Anyway I don't get why anyone would try and make somebody that hates them take their money.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 07:09 PM
link   

LDragonFire
reply to post by neo96
 


Hmmm you and breez on the wrong side of public opinion again? Not for smaller government in this case? Not for saving tax payer dollars enforcing this?



'Wrong side of public opinion' ? ? ?

Why yes legislation should be made by mob rule.

I guess just ignore the public opinion of that other 'stuff'.

That is the direct result of the government's largest expansion in Us history.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join