Arizona governor pressured to veto "anti-gay" bill 13 replies

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

217,758 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,029 Posts

9 Threads

#11 5 years ago
Emperor Benedictine;5729321Disagree, since it has nothing to do with religious liberty because a) No religion has any such commandment as "thou shalt not serve gay clientele in thy establishment"

To be fair, the old testament suggests that homosexuality is a capital offence. So from the point of view of a Christian fundamentalist not selling homosexuals anything is probably counts as moderate.

Otherwise I agree with what you posted. The way I see it religious freedoms developed out of a need caused by prosecution carried out by other religious people. The only people in the US who really need that kind of protection nowadays are minorities like Muslims or those that look like Muslims (e.g. Sikh). What Christian fundamentalists are doing in the US is abusing such rights to impose their beliefs on others, which is probably not what the founding fathers had in mind.




Octovon

Spaceman

54,945 XP

5th August 2003

0 Uploads

5,317 Posts

0 Threads

#12 5 years ago
MrFancypants;5729853Otherwise I agree with what you posted. The way I see it religious freedoms developed out of a need caused by prosecution carried out by other religious people. The only people in the US who really need that kind of protection nowadays are minorities like Muslims or those that look like Muslims (e.g. Sikh). What Christian fundamentalists are doing in the US is abusing such rights to impose their beliefs on others, which is probably not what the founding fathers had in mind.

The "Founding Fathers argument" is, of course, one of the more common arguments you'll ever hear when it comes to the people defending or opposing any kind of new law in the US. :p

"The Founding Fathers wanted us to have concealed carry laws with firearms to protect ourselves from muggers and minorities..."

"Socialized healthcare is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind for this country..."

This whole bill was stupid to begin with, how would it even been put it into use? How is it a shop owner is going to tell who is gay or not and thus refuse to serve them? Just silly. Then again, this is a state where cops can use their powers of racial profiling to stop anyone "who looks like an immigrant" and check their papers to make sure they're not illegals.




Commissar MercZ

Notable Loser

300,005 XP

29th January 2005

0 Uploads

27,113 Posts

0 Threads

#13 5 years ago

Adrian Ţepeş;5729678My philosophy professor actually cancelled a recent class to go protest the bill here.[/QUOTE]

What state are you in currently?

[QUOTE=Octovon;5729855] This whole bill was stupid to begin with, how would it even been put it into use? How is it a shop owner is going to tell who is gay or not and thus refuse to serve them? Just silly. Then again, this is a state where cops can use their powers of racial profiling to stop anyone "who looks like an immigrant" and check their papers to make sure they're not illegals.

It's a pretty consistent theme in many of these states. The primaries here have wrapped up voting but I got bombarded with apparently the popular demands of their base was- among other things, there seems to be a conception among the more paranoid base that their religious freedoms are under attack and they have to retaliate any way possible.

Of course if we're to take this literally we'd have to also have the same states invalidate the "anti-sharia" laws they passed to combat the pervasive threat of muslim brotherhood infiltration of local politics right up to the state department apparently.

I'd also not put it past them though that this bill in Arizona as well as similar ones in other states were likely written by the same interest group(s) for legislators to propose in their respective states, like what ALEC did with stand-your-ground laws




Admiral Donutz VIP Member

Wanna go Double Dutch?

735,271 XP

9th December 2003

0 Uploads

71,460 Posts

0 Threads

#14 5 years ago

- Religions or believes, views etc. should never have any special protection. It's rather silly that claiming to believe in a certain religion would give you special benefits, rights or protection: the followers of the Spaghetti monster (pastavarians) claim they have to wear a strainer on their head and thus should also be allowed to wear one for official passport photo's etc. Silly ofcourse, but the same goes for any other religion claiming they are unable or forced to do something differently then the standard guidelines dictate based on religion. Indeed the "my god forbids me to pay taxes" is an other well known example why no religion or view, no person should be above the law or be granted special rights. The law should apply equally to us all.

- If for some reason you don't like a customer, is there a law that forces you to serve them?? I never heard of one. Though refusing to help a customer might not be something that would boost people's respect of you and your shop, and it might cause you to be acussed of discrimination. Such cases must be a headache for a court though: if nobody mentioned any explicit reason it's going to be though to say if a person was indeed discriminated against (based on gender, age, race, religion, whatever) or simply because the salesman dind't like the attitude or behaviour of the would be customer/client.

- If this law was passed, wouldn't that give all people the right to discriminate anybody for any religios reason? "I won't serve you in my store because you are gay/hetero/bi, because you are a christian/jew/muslim/buddhist/agnostic/athiest/.. because you are caucasian/asian/arab/latin/black" etc. Thus shops could ban religios nutjobs based on the very same law these nutjobs supported...

- How can you tell somebody is gay/hetero/bi/christan/jew/atheist or whatever unless there the person confirms they are or unless their presence make it very likely that they might be (though assumptions may be false, somebody may look or "act" like he or she belongs to a "group" but you might be wrong).




  • 1
  • 2