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: 7
13
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 09:44 AM
link   

ketsuko
reply to post by VictorVonDoom
 


Heck, in the first year after our marriage, my husband and I were quite young and we were turned away from a hotel because they didn't want to rent us a room for the night. They didn't want a party, you see. They were quite open about that being their reason, too, as they turned us away. We had everything in order, too, to prove our respectability as a married couple.

If only we had known, we should have sued them for being ageist or something.


And the judge would have laughed you out of court. Many hotels have rules that don't allow loud parties. Why didn't you have the party at home like most couples do.




posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 10:17 AM
link   
This bill was clearly unconstitutional, so my question is what took Jan Brewer so long to veto it? And why are Republican lawmakers trying to introduce similar bills nationwide?

It's really sad to see a political party so hellbent on turning back the clock back to 1890 when it comes to social issues. I guess they don't call themselves conservatives for nothing.

Yikes!
edit on 2/27/2014 by muse7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 10:18 AM
link   

buster2010

ketsuko
reply to post by VictorVonDoom
 


Heck, in the first year after our marriage, my husband and I were quite young and we were turned away from a hotel because they didn't want to rent us a room for the night. They didn't want a party, you see. They were quite open about that being their reason, too, as they turned us away. We had everything in order, too, to prove our respectability as a married couple.

If only we had known, we should have sued them for being ageist or something.


And the judge would have laughed you out of court. Many hotels have rules that don't allow loud parties. Why didn't you have the party at home like most couples do.


She didn't say she was there to party. Presumably she was there to spend the evening with her husband. The clerk looking at their age assumed that they were booking the room to have a party in the room.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Maybe it's just me, but no way in hell am I going into a bakery demanding they make me a cake, when I suspect they don't want to for whatever reason. There is no tellin' what's gonna be in that cake! I'd go find a place that wants my business, and make sure everybody knows how the other business treated me. A whole lot cheaper and easier than lawsuits and passing new bills that we all know won't stand up in court. People please!



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by doubletap
 


I am in the same boat as you, a moderate - Bloomberg did an article the other day about why the anti-gay law in Arizona is a bad idea.

The Republican Government of Arizona has recently vetoed the anti-gay law. Check out the video here. She is even a Tea Party member.

She says that the senate bill is the first bill to cross her desk, and she is pretty upset about the senate wasting their time, when there are real things to be done.

Not only that, but former Republican senators who had voted for the bill, and even Republicans like John McCain, tweeted about how they were urging a veto.


Broome’s comments were quickly followed by a tweet Friday from Arizona Senator Jeff Flake urging Brewer to veto SB 1062. Senator John McCain chimed in Monday with an identical tweet. The major contenders in Arizona’s upcoming gubernatorial election said they opposed the bill, and by noon Monday in Arizona, three of the lawmakers who supported the legislation said they regretted their votes.


Republicans go from anti-gay to no way
edit on 27amThu, 27 Feb 2014 11:15:10 -0600kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 11:27 AM
link   

muse7
This bill was clearly unconstitutional, so my question is what took Jan Brewer so long to veto it? And why are Republican lawmakers trying to introduce similar bills nationwide?

It's really sad to see a political party so hellbent on turning back the clock back to 1890 when it comes to social issues. I guess they don't call themselves conservatives for nothing.

Yikes!
edit on 2/27/2014 by muse7 because: (no reason given)


Defending the rights of business owners is "turning back the clock"?



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 11:29 AM
link   

retiredTxn
Maybe it's just me, but no way in hell am I going into a bakery demanding they make me a cake, when I suspect they don't want to for whatever reason. There is no tellin' what's gonna be in that cake! I'd go find a place that wants my business, and make sure everybody knows how the other business treated me. A whole lot cheaper and easier than lawsuits and passing new bills that we all know won't stand up in court. People please!


Any supposed "Christian" who would put something nasty in a cake is no Christian. Is that something Jesus would do? And if they are not a true Christian, then they can't use the "religious belief" defense. And if they are caught putting something nasty in a cake, their business would be shut down, lickety split. So, it really wouldn't be in a baker's best interest to do something that disgusting.

The lawsuits do serve an important purpose. What they do is bring lots of national attention to the whole gay inequality issue in our country. People, especially the younger generation, have been hearing about gays facing bullying, taunting, unequal treatment for a while now in the national news. The more they hear, the more they realize that gays should get equal treatment. The next generation of bakers will not have a problem baking wedding cakes for gays. We're going through a rough patch now, but 50 years from now, gay wedding cakes won't be an issue. Then you won't really need the lawsuits, or bill/laws, etc.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Flatfish

Brewer did the right thing in vetoing this bill and anyone with an ounce of morality knows it! Furthermore, even members of her own party, who voted in favor of the bill, were now begging her to use her veto power to save them from themselves. Go figure!

Wow, what an absolute bunch of loons the "right" has become!




Giving you the benefit of the doubt in terms of having an ounce of intelligence, how can you state what is moral and what isnt? Morals, like opinions, are subjective. Your morals arent shared by everyone else, and if you are mentally incapable of understanding that....well then you have bigger issues than this AZ bill.

There is nothing archaic about defending the rights of business owners. No one has a right to patronize any business. None whatsoever.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 11:31 AM
link   

kaylaluv


The lawsuits do serve an important purpose. What they do is bring lots of national attention to the whole gay inequality issue in our country. People, especially the younger generation, have been hearing about gays facing bullying, taunting, unequal treatment for a while now in the national news. The more they hear, the more they realize that gays should get equal treatment. The next generation of bakers will not have a problem baking wedding cakes for gays. We're going through a rough patch now, but 50 years from now, gay wedding cakes won't be an issue. Then you won't really need the lawsuits, or bill/laws, etc.


Ah, so you'd prefer the rights of the business owner be trampled on?

The rights of gay people do not supercede those of others.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 11:31 AM
link   

kaylaluv


The lawsuits do serve an important purpose. What they do is bring lots of national attention to the whole gay inequality issue in our country. People, especially the younger generation, have been hearing about gays facing bullying, taunting, unequal treatment for a while now in the national news. The more they hear, the more they realize that gays should get equal treatment. The next generation of bakers will not have a problem baking wedding cakes for gays. We're going through a rough patch now, but 50 years from now, gay wedding cakes won't be an issue. Then you won't really need the lawsuits, or bill/laws, etc.


Ah, so you'd prefer the rights of the business owner be trampled on?

The rights of gay people do not supercede those of others.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Spiramirabilis
 





You can't have it both ways neo - discrimination is discrimination


Not the one trying to have it both ways:

Gay rights,Gay rights,Gay rights ! ! ! ! ! ! !

The crows goes WILD!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gun rights,gun rights,gun rights ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!

The crowd goes 'crickets'.

Smoker rights,smoker rights,smoker rights ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !

the crowd goes 'crickets' again.




You should be a little embarrassed about how many times you've brought up the plight of smokers in this thread


Why because you 'think' I should be ?

Pointing the severe lack of consistency when it comes to groups being discriminated against in this country is nothing to be embarrassed about.

And that shows just who exactly isn't trying to have it both ways.
edit on 27-2-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 11:41 AM
link   

doubletap

kaylaluv


The lawsuits do serve an important purpose. What they do is bring lots of national attention to the whole gay inequality issue in our country. People, especially the younger generation, have been hearing about gays facing bullying, taunting, unequal treatment for a while now in the national news. The more they hear, the more they realize that gays should get equal treatment. The next generation of bakers will not have a problem baking wedding cakes for gays. We're going through a rough patch now, but 50 years from now, gay wedding cakes won't be an issue. Then you won't really need the lawsuits, or bill/laws, etc.


Ah, so you'd prefer the rights of the business owner be trampled on?

The rights of gay people do not supercede those of others.


And the rights of business owners don't supersede the rights of ALL people to be treated equally.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 11:44 AM
link   

kaylaluv


And the rights of business owners don't supersede the rights of ALL people to be treated equally.


No one has a right to shop at a certain store. Using the bakery as an example, if one bakery owner doesnt want to bake cakes for gay weddings, there are others out there that will.

Gays, or any customer for that matter, are free to shop elsewhere. Forcing a business owner to serve a certain customer is inherently offensive to the fundamentals of freedom.

I own a business, and as such, I choose who I do business with. I have denied service to certain customers, and there isnt anything they can do about it. Its my capital, my property, and my risk. If I choose to turn away business for personal reasons, the government has no authority to force me to serve anyone.
edit on 27-2-2014 by doubletap because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 11:47 AM
link   

doubletap

Ah, so you'd prefer the rights of the business owner be trampled on?

The rights of gay people do not supercede those of others.


Exactly what "rights of gay people" are you talking about??? What rights are they asking for in this case that nobody else has??? You mean being treated just like everyone else??? Being equal under the law??? Because that's what this is. You think Gay people should be treated different than everyone else plain and simple. It's not Gays asking for special treatment it's you who and those who want this law that are asking for special rights. You want the special right to treat a certain group of people different than you treat everyone else.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 11:51 AM
link   

PlanetXisHERE

I thought discrimination on the basis of race, religion, gender, sexuality was illegal?



I'm guessing you are not familiar with Affirmative Action programs or the entrance criteria of some colleges and universities.
edit on 27-2-2014 by VictorVonDoom because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 11:52 AM
link   
The bigger question is, why do we need laws like this to begin with? We don't really, they open the floodgates. Sure there is some hypocrisy on the left regarding this law, but you can see it on the right in those supporting this law.

I'm glad it was vetoed. I just think it was a poorly written law and that the only possible outcome of passing it would have been to further dividing us as a nation. Just the debate about it divided us. Same with all the other laws. If we really want to do something productive, how about hitting the existing laws on the books, there was already some stuff on the books in Arizona regarding this.

When you right a bill like this, you need to really look at the outcome. What are you really accomplishing? Maybe you do really want to protect religious freedom, but what is really going to happen and are you really protecting all religions or just Christianity.

Take another look at how George Washington Governed as our first president. He rarely said anything putting down anyone's religious beliefs or the different denominations of Christianity. Those were the real battles. By all accounts on those close to him, he was a devout Christian, but he made it a point to not talk about this publicly. Just something to think about.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by doubletap
 


Well, why stop there? The next time you are hiring, put out a sign: NOW HIRING. WHITE HETEROS ONLY!

Based on your views of business that would be perfectly fine. Based on reality, it's disgusting.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 11:55 AM
link   

doubletap

kaylaluv


And the rights of business owners don't supersede the rights of ALL people to be treated equally.


No one has a right to shop at a certain store. Using the bakery as an example, if one bakery owner doesnt want to bake cakes for gay weddings, there are others out there that will.

Gays, or any customer for that matter, are free to shop elsewhere. Forcing a business owner to serve a certain customer is inherently offensive to the fundamentals of freedom.

I own a business, and as such, I choose who I do business with. I have denied service to certain customers, and there isnt anything they can do about it. Its my capital, my property, and my risk. If I choose to turn away business for personal reasons, the government has no authority to force me to serve anyone.
edit on 27-2-2014 by doubletap because: (no reason given)


Well they are only requiring you to treat humans equally as customers. If you think the law is on your side then you should proudly hang a sign outside your business that declares which groups you will not serve. If it is like you said "there isnt anything they can do about it. Its my capital, my property, and my risk" then all is good right. However if you have no idea what you speak of then I am sure you would be informed shortly after of your mistake.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 12:07 PM
link   

mOjOm


Exactly what "rights of gay people" are you talking about??? What rights are they asking for in this case that nobody else has??? You mean being treated just like everyone else??? Being equal under the law??? Because that's what this is. You think Gay people should be treated different than everyone else plain and simple. It's not Gays asking for special treatment it's you who and those who want this law that are asking for special rights. You want the special right to treat a certain group of people different than you treat everyone else.


No, actually I want business owners to be able to discriminate against anyone they choose, for whatever reason they choose.

A white owner can refuse service to a black customer, just the same as a black owner can refuse service to a gay white customer. It is their property, and they shouldnt have to be threatened with lawsuits simply for running their business in whatever way they deem fit.

A gay couple doesnt have a right to force (under threat of lawsuit) a bakery to make them a wedding cake, especially when there are countless other bakeries that will happily provide a cake for them.


I dont think gay people should be treated any differently at all. I support their right to get married, what I support is the right of a business owner to discriminate against anyone they choose, for whatever reason they want.

Government has no power to tell a bakery owner they MUST bake cakes for gay weddings.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 12:09 PM
link   

usernameconspiracy

Well, why stop there? The next time you are hiring, put out a sign: NOW HIRING. WHITE HETEROS ONLY!

Based on your views of business that would be perfectly fine. Based on reality, it's disgusting.


Specifically, what is disgusting about a business owner hiring whoever the hell they want ? They are paying the employees, why shouldnt they have the ultimate say in who works for them?

There are a few demographics of people I would never hire. Whats your solution? I should be forced to hire them?




top topics



 
13
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join