http://money.cnn.com/...my/arizona-anti-gay-bill/

the idea of any of this being written into law, going either way, is simply ludicrous.

after millions of taxpayer dollars are spent in the courts it'll be overturned.

wish it could come exclusively out of the pockets of those who voted for the bill

Further proof that politicians are stupid.

It was vetoed by the Governor.

We didn't need proof of that!

And Americans wonder why other countries think they have become a joke.

think what you want, im not saying the bill was right. I am saying I'm all for state rights. If this bill had went into effect the market place would have set itself. What kinda owner would turn away money?

As an Arizonan... pretty disgusted this went as far as it did.

I think everyone knew this fluff was getting Veto'd though. Surprised it took as long as it did.

The really funny thing is how all these Americans cried and got righteous about Russia being mean to gays and talked about boycotting Sochi and all this stuff, meanwhile that law gets passed in their own country, where gay people are also the victims of hate crimes and where gay marriage just started getting legalized in certain states within the last few years.

you know how i know that you don't know what you're talking about?

probably not, but i'll tell you. the aforementioned law wasn't passed, but rather vetoed. (edit: wow, actually the bill was passed a week ago. it was just veto'ed recently. seems like i don't know what i'm talking about! anywhos, it was veto'ed less than 10 days after it was passed. how long has it been since pootypoot land passed their homophobic laws? also, their laws were passed for the whole nation, while we only have several states that are acting retarded.)

herp derp, also, gay marrage was first legalized in massachusetts 10 years ago (well, ~9 years 10 months). does a decade equal 'the last few years' where you live?

Oh a righteous american here to defend america's track record on civil rights for homosexuals?

first off, it *was* passed by the arizona legislature, i know the governor didnt sign it, but you're being pedantic when you pretend not to know what i mean

secondly, it was as recent as 2004, wasnt it, when states across the country put referendums banning gay marriage on the ballot in order to increase turnout and help bush beat kerry? and it worked? in 2010 we still had 41 states banning same sex marriage. we still only have 17 states out of 50 where it's legal. so yes i think my comment that only in the last few years has it started getting legalized is accurate. btw same sex marriage wasnt allowed in massachusetts either, and people had to sue to get the court to allow it. no state allowed gay marriage by vote or legislature until 2009, prior to that the right was only given by judicial review.

it's actually kind of fascinating to me how quickly the US's reversal has been on this issue, now there's an immediate media uproar whenever any anti-gay stuff starts getting passed, that duck dynasty dude had a scandal and had to apologize, etc etc, in a country where like 10 years ago most people felt that way. really is amazing the way the media can shape and change people's opinions

i see you failed to read my edit, i'm happy to admit when i'm mistaken!

also, i'm not defending the US' track record on civil rights for homosexuals. the fact that we have to have state supreme courts decide that people deserve equal rights is sickening. I'm saying that compared to russia, we're leaps and bounds ahead of those potato eating vodka drinking rednecks over there :), imho.

now, get back to QQing about team, that is far funner to discuss!!

There were 167 countries in the Team server.
There were 154 countries in the Team server.
There were 146 countries in the Team server.
There were 140 countries in the Team server.
There were 134 countries in the Team server.
There are currently 127 countries in the Team server.

I had coffee this morning.

I am currently eating a chickpea feta salad.

I am currently watching ST:TNG.

I am currently drinking a Cherry Coke.

Today is 2/27/2014

I have stood by my state through many of the laws and regulations our fearless Governor Brewer has pushed for.

But I think this SB# was a stupid move, especially for citing religion as a reason for it. Using religion as a means to justify anything is a no-go, and shows a biased government who make decisions based on their own personal beliefs, not for the good of the citizens. Definitely not the land of the free, being gay is a personal preference.

The bill would also allow any establishment to deny service to people of different religions. It was more than just about homosexuality.

An amusing sidebar, check out the way various news organizations opted to identify the issue in the headlines - very little consistency on whether it was a religious issue or a gay rights issue.


This issue is not over. There are still a lot of Americans who do not believe homosexuality is acceptable. All this shows is that the conservatives opposed to homosexual equality are not tone deaf to the point where they would try to re-segregate the nation. For a country that still feels bad for how the civil rights movement went, this should surprise nobody.

Doesn't matter what you see,
Or into it what you read.
You can do it your own way,
If its done just how I say!

I can't believe that not a single person here (besides maybe Red X?) can see past the hype, to the more important issue behind all of this. Or are the people who understand liberty here just too afraid to speak about it? Too worried about being unfairly branded as a homophobe or a bigot. The fact that the AZ legislature even felt it necessary to pass such a law shows just how far down the road to totalitarianism the US has travelled.

Government enforced morality is all well and good as long as you agree with the government. As long as the government is moral. Which it almost never is.

As Viceroy points out, this bill was not just about gay rights. It was about the right of individuals (if they happen to be business owners) to practice their own religion. It would have protected their right to freely choose with whom they would like to associate.

The pet issue of the day is gay rights, so for now the government's insistence on sticking it's nose into everybody's business does no harm to most people. But do any of you people look down the road and consider just how much power this means the government has claimed over you?

"WE will tell you what is right. NOT your pastor, priest, rabbi or imam"
"You will do what WE say, not what your conscience says"
"Your idea of morality is not approved by the FDA for consumption"

THAT is what anti-discrimination laws are really saying. Does that really not scare any of you?

This bill went so beyond market place righting itself or anti gay nonsense, it made it so as an employee you could discriminate anyone you wanted, and not be fired f or it. Hence it doesn't matter that the owner may want peoples money, if he hires some jerk, that jerk can essentially refuse to sell to everyone if he can come up with religious reasons why he is refusing service, and the owner/boss can't stop him. It would have created utter anarchy, and any major company would have closed down shop in Arizona.

Companies can already refuse service to whoever they want, you nitwits actually need to read the bill, and stop trying to pretend your smart. Cough Supertodd cough.

RaTS FYA, if what you're saying is correct, then I've fallen victim to our dishonest and misleading media. I had not heard of this bill, saw the conversation here, and decided to look it up. I found a few articles from major news outlets, and all referred to this as a bill which allowed companies to refuse service on religious grounds (translation: Business owners can exercise their religious beliefs too). I still can't find an article bringing up additional protections for employees who refuse service against the wishes of their employers.

I don't have the time to read the text of the bill right now.. I have to get to the business of running my own business. Now I'm curious enough though to actually read it when I do have time.

there are appeals at the state level in the process in at least washington and colorado where businesses refused to serve people for religious reasons. I'm watching those a lot more than this AZ bill because even if signed it would have been going through this process, just would have taken someone to get the ball rolling.

Supertodd loves it when a business has the "right" to discriminate against people. He opposes the Civil Rights Act and thinks people should have the right to refuse service to blacks.

The argument that a business owner should be able to refuse service to anybody for any reason is not necessarily wrong. I mean... what does ownership mean? You buy land. You buy a building. You own a business. You own the products you sell. Should you not be able to decide what you want to sell and to whom? Business owners can indirectly discriminate against certain religions by selecting hours of operation only during certain times of the week when those individuals are practicing their faith.

The reasons this bill cites are all wrong. You shouldn't be able to refuse service to somebody because of your own religious beliefs. But I might accept and argument that you should be able to refuse service to somebody because you're the business owner. Don't business owners already have this freedom?

That's the thing I don't get. People make things about religion or about sex and then their argument loses any merit. "Get out of my store because you're gay!" doesn't work. "Get out of my store because it's my right as the owner of this private property to kick you out!" should work.

Todd, let me explain:

The individual rights & business owners PRESENTLY can refuse service to anyone in the state of Arizona, without being penalized for it, as long as it's not based on race, color, religion or natural origin. This bill would do nothing for them that they couldn't already do. That makes us wonder, what was the real premise behind this bill?

The Federal Civil Rights Act calls bullshiate on this statement. As does the Americans with Disabilities Act. Quit talking out of your arse, jabroni.

*mind blown*

You reached that conclusion from that? Wow!

Question, as a black business owner, can I be cited for violating the Civil Rights Act and per blid's statement (support the right of people to refuse serviice to blacks) for refusing to do business with white supremacist skinheads? They also happen to be sporting Swastikas. Just asking.

Nah, I didn't get it just from that post, although that post was related to it. In the past he's actually posted those things. He's said he dislikes the Civil Rights Act and thinks business owners should be allowed to turn away black people, because of freedom.

are no shirt no shoes no service rules done away with?

shirtless, shoeless rednecks are not currently a federally protected class

that sounded very hateful and classist, elitist and a trifle rude

not everybody can afford shoes and shirts, yet they are indeed people, too.

denying them service? may as well holocaust, apartheid or hate gays them, i mean. intolerance is unacceptable.

also, excuse me while i light up?

i dont understand, why should a business be forced to sell to people they dont want to sell to?

If you have a business, you should be able to pick and choose your customers. Just like customers choose who they are going to shop from.

The fact remains that most people who choose not to sell to certain types of people will most likely go under, if they are stupid enough to not take other peoples money then fluff em.

The minority groups need to stop being so precious and realise they shouldn't want to be giving money to these people anyway. I am so god damn sick of this pc fluffing world telling people what they can and cant do!

I agree with supertodd in principle, a business should have freedom of choice. If someone wants to refuse a blackman then let em. If someone wants to refuse a white man then let em.

Why someone would want to give money to someone who is a racist bigot is beyond me, if i seen a store saying 'no kiwis' i wouldnt want to give them my money.

What they need to do is make it obvious who they refuse. Because then good decent honest folk can boycott the bigots and put them out of business.

the no shirt no shoes no service thing might also be the result of health code issues

no smoking allowed is again either health code, or alot of localities/states have barred them by local/state statues.

still, smokers, yankees fans, folks that spell color as 'colour', terrible dancers are not currently federally protected classes and you can turn down business to those folks on that basis. now doing so are normally considered terrible business practices and they normally things correct themselves (terrible business decisions tend to lead to businesses going out of business).

you may be hinting at 'what differences/things deserve to be federally protected classes', and that's something i'm not that knowledgable about.

it is colour you yankee fluff!!!!

learn proper english or make up your own bloody language :P

knowing the level of intelligence of americans you could make it base on grunting noises lol

i am just as healthy with a shirt on than i am with a shirt off, to suggest otherwise offends the whole of people whom enjoy a shirtless life. just because they're different than you, that doesn't give you the federally protected right to hate them, or deny them service which they then deem as you hating them.

i can't wait for the single jewish mother of one to walk into a mooslim owned establishment and be denied human rights, let alone service, and then sue that person for every allah damned thing they own?

what if i want to eat pork at said mooslim establishment, when they deny me it on the menu, we all agree that they are in the wrong, they aren't allowed to force their religion onto me?

now, if i'm a baker, i bake wedding cakes, or i'm a photographer and i take wedding pictures.. you ask me to bake a cake or pictures to take, at your same sex marriage.. i by hate crime laws am obligated to accept your offer of employment? why am i not allowed to say, no thank you, i do not wish to enter into your employ?

1) single jewish mother - yes, they'd be targeted for a lawsuit if they denied her service based upon her religion

2) thats silly

3) same sex couple protections mainly come down on a state by state level. some progressive states have laws that made LGBT a protected class, while in other states it's legal to say 'no, i will not take pictures of your homosexual wedding'

granted, i don't have my juris doctor, but i did stay at a holiday inn last night and i have watched a fair amount of peoples court, so im pretty sure that makes me an authority in legal stuffs.

its offensive when catholics don't want to pay for abortions, though, old rich white men telling poor young black women what they can't do, i believe is the rhetoric used by those wishing to force their beliefs on others.. so bacon, bacon, on my plate, lest you offend.. you are obligated to make me feel as an equal, otherwise you hate me and my lifestyle... ? silly, yes, absolutely, but it should be silly across the board, not only for what some might consider a "minority" or a self identifying "civil class"? (not sure if that is THE term or even A term :P)

and just go get your juris doctor, it's like two weekends in TJ, plus the partying, you'd be a fool not to!

Its the true color of the american liberal :-)

COLOUR ALLAH DAMN IT, COLOUR!

COLOUR!!!!!!!!!!

Death to all the colors!

So RaTS FYA, I did go ahead and read the text of Arizona SB 1062. After having read it, I find myself wondering if you read it yourself. I don't see any language in it which does what you claimed. 1062 would have revised the language of existing Arizona statutes to include businesses in the group of "people" who may not have their right to exercise of religion substantially burdened by the state. That's all I can see that it does. Admittedly though, I'm no lawyer.

The problem which you stated this law would cause would, if I'm not mistaken, already be present with or without SB 1062.

If you haven't read SB 1062, you can find it here:
http://www.azleg.gov/...1leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.pdf
Its short. Only two pages. Pretty boring, but its only 5 minutes of boredom.

So what everybody was so up in arms about, I guess, is that a business owner might be able to make the same distinctions that any other Arizonan is legally allowed to make? Man, I can't wait until small business owners get our turn as a protected class :)

you'll be too busy paying for illegal mexicans health care to worry about being a protected class..

what, too soon? :P

I got your back supertodd!!! down with minorities being so fluffing pc!!!

NOW THAT I CAN GET BEHIND!

because this http://abcnews.go.com/...eddings/story?id=21136505

and this http://abcnews.go.com/...wedding/story?id=18922065

Oh yeah, and...



:) Crest, blid decided I was a racist because I think the "reverend" Al Sharpton and people like him are assholes who do nothing but exacerbate racial tension in this country. Because of that, he was the first (and so far, only) person to ever be added to my ignore list.

I wasn't very nice when I informed blid of his place on my ignore list. So, he has decided to follow me around and attempt to mislead people about me, by ridiculously oversimplifying my belief that all men should be free to associate (or not associate) with whomever they choose, for whatever reason.

He's right that I oppose *parts* of the Civil Rights Act, but as usual, he's being intentionally misleading. Stopping government entities from engaging in racism was absolutely necessary. However, I believe that telling private citizens who they must associate with was a very bad side effect. If some racist jackass wants to only associate with other people of his same race, no matter what color he is, he should be free to do that.

Your Swastika example is something I've actually dealt with in the past. When I was just an employee of my company, I once had to do a job for a middle eastern man who had a giant Swastika painted on the wall in his back office. I told my boss at the time that I'd never work for that guy again. As an employee, I was free to do that. But with the ridiculous laws we have now, as a business owner, can I do the same? Or would I be required to provide this vile person service, because of his religious views?

That's basically what I said you said, so yeah.

Also, the swastika in Eastern cultures has a different meaning.

How is this example of different meanings for the Swastika any different from the country named Niggardly that you objected to on the Express server?