"So-called" Freedom Bill (bills, transportation, design)

[pbenjamin]

Originally Posted by observer53

I can't find the actual listing of who voted which way, which is important only for the House vote. which was evidently not a straight party line vote. The Senate vote was on a straight party line, so everyone should know how their senator voted.

Three Republicans — Ethan Orr, Kate Brophy-McGee and Heather Carter — voted against it.

[pbenjamin]

Originally Posted by Potential_Landlord

There is at least a culture of apathy towards right-wing extremism in Arizona that was not there 10 years ago. It is a significant shift that is not yet fully recognized, particularly by outsiders.

Having lived through the Evan Mecham era, I'm not sure that I agree with you.

[Java Jolt]

Originally Posted by Bideshi

Your attempts to equate the civil rights struggles over race with legitimizing sexual perversion are absurd.

Knuckle-draggers with your attitude about the GLBT community have the same mentality as the bigots who wanted to keep African Americans segregated 50 years ago.

Different times, different category of people, but it amounts to the same thing and that is civil rights and discriminaton.

People who fall under the category of GLBT are no more sexually perverted than anyone else. Where do you get the notion that they are?

[Java Jolt]

Originally Posted by pbenjamin

Three Republicans — Ethan Orr, Kate Brophy-McGee and Heather Carter — voted against it.

At least there are three republicans with common sense, most of the others follow a straight party line whether a piece of legislation is good or bad for the state.

I know, the same can be said for democrats too but most democrats in the legislature are much more moderate than the militant ultraconservative republicans, probably because they are outnumbered.

[Bideshi]

Originally Posted by Java Jolt

Knuckle-draggers with your attitude about the GLBT community have the same mentality as the bigots who wanted to keep African Americans segregated 50 years ago.

I was part of the civil rights movement in the '60s because it was a righteous cause and worth fighting for. Gay "rights" is not righteous.

[observer53]

Originally Posted by Bideshi

I was part of the civil rights movement in the '60s because it was a righteous cause and worth fighting for. Gay "rights" is not righteous.

So you, and others, say. A growing number of others say otherwise.

[autism360]

Originally Posted by Java Jolt

Knuckle-draggers with your attitude about the GLBT community have the same mentality as the bigots who wanted to keep African Americans segregated 50 years ago.

Different times, different category of people, but it amounts to the same thing and that is civil rights and discriminaton.

People who fall under the category of GLBT are no more sexually perverted than anyone else. Where do you get the notion that they are?

This is the militant LGBT attitude that religious folks need to be protected from because God made each species to reproduce after their kind and 2 male or female cannot reproduce so they are acting in a manner that is a perversion of Gods designed order.

Your speech is hateful toward those who simply believe that God made man and women to replenish the earth, and anything that goes against that is a perversion of Gods perfect design and order.

[Potential_Landlord]

Originally Posted by Java Jolt

At least there are three republicans with common sense, most of the others follow a straight party line whether a piece of legislation is good or bad for the state.

I know, the same can be said for democrats too but most democrats in the legislature are much more moderate than the militant ultraconservative republicans, probably because they are outnumbered.

All this nonsense started when the Republicans took over the executive in addition to the legislature. The radicalization was palpable from one month to the next. Given this history, the only way to keep radicalization in check is if the Democrats win at least one piece back. There is a reason why this (and probably any) country makes best progress with a split government. If this doesn't happen soon we will "live in interesting times" in Arizona for sure. I want so bad to go back to hiking and exploring this great state and its beautiful scenery in piece with my family again - this nonsense has to stop asap.

[Java Jolt]

Originally Posted by Bideshi

I was part of the civil rights movement in the '60s because it was a righteous cause and worth fighting for. Gay "rights" is not righteous.

Good for you on contributing to a worthy cause back in the day.

But why do you believe gays and lesbians shouldn't also be granted the same civil rights?

That seems pretty phony to claim equality among the races is legitimate but the GLBT community isn't deserving of the same treatment. Are gays and lesbians non-human in your mind?

[Bideshi]

Originally Posted by observer53

So you, and others, say. A growing number of others say otherwise.

Actually, laws like this one are possibly an indication that a long overdue push back is beginning. Many states are writing marriage definitions into their constitutions. Eventualy it will culminate in a SCOTUS test of the 10th Amendment. I can't even speculate which way they will decide, but the real test will come if they rule against the states and the states refuse to comply. Then we will see what price people are prepared to pay for what they believe. 650,000 Americans died for what they believed about state's rights in the Civil War. How important are gay "rights" to Americans? Time will tell.