"So-called" Freedom Bill (Bisbee: high school, moving, gay friendly)

[LBTRS]

Originally Posted by Desertspiritsteve

Don't you love these wedge issues? As long as were fighting with each other over what types of sexual attractions other people should have, we won't notice that our politicians are probably stealing from us. Did Koch brother's money stir this up?

Haha, good point.

[Champ le monstre du lac]

Originally Posted by Desertspiritsteve

Don't you love these wedge issues? As long as we're fighting with each other over what types of sexual attractions other people should have, we won't notice that our politicians are probably stealing from us. Did Koch brother's money stir this up?

You're definitely onto something there.

[Desertspiritsteve]

Issues like this can get people to the polls that might not otherwise have voted. Were the sponsors of this bill east valley republicans of any particular religion? It's like the southern strategy that stirred up hatred against the black welfare mothers who drove Cadillacs. It usually worked and still does. This is the gays against god. It will be fun to see the campaigns to come when legalization of marijuana (Like Colorado and Washington state) gets on the ballot.

[3243]

Originally Posted by westcoastbabe

What a selfish attitude some of you have...The law doesnt affect me personally, as I am a heterosexual female. But for the a LBGT community, its a slap in the face..... I have plenty of friends in the LBGT community that are outraged at this bill, and as well they should be. It's about equal rights for all people, not just some. What really surprises me some days is that some people(NOT ALL) people still have a sense of entitlement. Im sorry I thought we we all all the same with the same equal rights.

Well said, westcoastbabe.

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

[saffordpastor]

Originally Posted by westcoastbabe

Dude - I get you...I myself am also a Christian (United Methodist Faith). And you're right..Biblically speaking this lifestyle is not condoned in the bible....But, I also have friends that choose to live that lifestyle, as a dear friend I respect their choice. They are not forcing me to live their type of lifestyle. You have to learn to respect other people's choices, whether you agree or disagree. I do criticize them or seek to disparage them because of a lifestyle choice.

If you are a business owner that specializes in wedding events and such like, the present societal pressures ARE forcing you to accommodate actions that go against your religious convictions.

There are lots and lots of wedding planners, photographers and bakeries, but mark my words, the Gay movement will target those that follow Bible principles and try to drive them out of business.

If a church rents its hall for secular events, they will be targeted next.

In 2005 a British Columbia KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS council was ordered to pay $2,000 to two lesbians, plus their legal costs, for refusing to allow its facility to be used for their “wedding.”

The Gay agenda is not about tolerance, but about forcing everyone to bow at the altar of their desires and if you do not they will destroy you or drive you out of business....already happening around the country.

And sooner or later they will try to make it "Hate" speech to even call homosexuality sin...dont believe it...check out many of the other so called "free" countries around the world where if you stand in a pulpit or speak out and proclaim that homosexuality is wrong you could be prosecuted under the Hate crime laws.

In January 2006, Catholic city councilman JOHN DECICCO of Kamloops, British Columbia, was fined $1,000 and required to apologize for saying that homosexuality is “not normal or natural” . In his remarks, which were made in a city council meeting, DeCicco was expressing the official doctrine of his church. The fine goes to two homosexual activists who brought the complaint. DeCicco was also forced to issue a public statement that his comments were “inappropriate and hurtful to some.” He said “I’m not against lesbian and gay people, but I don’t agree that I should have to endorse it.”

I do believe that laws such as the AZ law are unworkable, because they open a can of worms, but these laws would not be needed if the Gays would respect folks right to believe and live their religious convictions and not try to destroy them for it.

A little live and let live here would go a long way....if you are gay....so be it, do what you want live that way if you choose, I am not going to try and stop you, but by the same token, if a person, (business owner or otherwise)has a firm conviction and feels he or she cannot in good conscience do business that celebrates a lifestyle they strongly feel is sinful....then respect that...move on, find another business that will accommodate you.

Unfortunately that is very unlikely to happen.

[observer53]

Originally Posted by MDrenter223

A business should be able to do business with who they want, and refuse to serve who they do not want to do business with.

It is in any businesses best business interest to seperate their personal beliefs and business practices, as the public can certainly not do business with those they see as bigots, so it would be foolish to turn away customers, but it should still be their right.

I've been discrimated against as restaurants for the color of my skin, and that's cool as those businesses can do what they want. Now if they are getting govt contracts that's a whole other story, but if it's a private business, it's a private business.

Originally Posted by Reedus

Hmmmm, kinda torn on this one. On one hand I would think it is totally asinine if a business owner was to reject service to a person based solely on their sexual preference. If I knew of a business that did that, I would not patronize them. On the other hand, I firmly believe that the business owner can reject service to anyone for any reason. It is their business and they should be free to run it as they please. I cant see the business logic in rejecting service to someone based on their sexual lifestyle, race, religion, or a big mole on their cheek as it seems to me would lead quickly to the demise of a business. But regardless, it is still their right to do so.

As stated elsewhere in this now merged thread, a business such as a restaurant is a place of "public accommodation" and is covered by the civil rights laws, so cannot discriminate on the basis of race or any other protected class. So, that's not "cool as those businesses can do what they want".

[2nd trick op]

For a moment, let's consider someone who's repulsive to almost all of us: The "Reverend" Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church -- the people who disrupt military funerals to shout "God Hates ****" or "Thank God for AIDS".

I don't think too many of us here, regardless of our feelings on same-sex relationships, would see much sense in disrupting a solemn and private ceremony. Apparently, a group of extremely self-righteous individuals just delight in picking a fight.

But will someone in opposition to the bill in question please explain to us all how the "gay blue jeans days", which said, in effect, that anyone not wearing jeans was, by default, a bigot, were any different?

The gay-militant advocacy has deliberately decided to pick a fight. Most of us who subscribe first and foremost to a libertarian value system have no problem with alternative lifestyles of any persuasion. Our values are framed around the idea that even if you don't agree with something, a person has every right to pursue it as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's right to life, liberty and property.

But regrettably, the argument for respect for everyone's rights -- including business owners who (usually at the cost of reduced revenue) attempt to run their enterprises according to religious belief -- has been hijacked by another collection of whiners and malcontents who seek to impose their personal sexual ethics on everybody, as always by joining that coalition of all the groups that seek to harness the absolute (and growing, and dangerous) power of the state in order to have their way at the expense of those they demonize -- in other words to so called "progressives" who are only open-minded toward their personal, illogical absolutes.

Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely, and the winds of politics change constantly. Don't expect the people you demonize to offer too much sympathy if that power is ever turned against you.

[DetroitN8V]

Having to bake a cake or to take pictures wouldn't force anyone to "sin" (which is irrelevant anyway because sin doesn't exist in actual law). The Christians look like absolute crybabies on this whole thing.

[Pizzaman01]

Doesn't matter if the state is conservative or liberal. Discrimination is discrimination.
If it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, it's a duck.
What's next in the books? Whites only signs around town? Jewish people needing to wear patches on their clothing?
I am a straight female. I am embarrassed and ashamed of this "bill" and to those saying that this should have been expected before moving here, should be ashamed too!
As long as people are not doing anything to hurt a child or an animal, then people need to mind their own damn business and worry about their own lives!

[saffordpastor]

Originally Posted by 2nd trick op

For a moment, let's consider someone who's repulsive to almost all of us: The "Reverend" Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church -- the people who disrupt military funerals to shout "God Hates ****" or "Thank God for AIDS".

I don't think too many of us here, regardless of our feelings on same-sex relationships, would see much sense in disrupting a solemn and private ceremony. Apparently, a group of extremely self-righteous individuals just delight in picking a fight.

But will someone in opposition to the bill in question please explain to us all how the "gay blue jeans days", which said, in effect, that anyone not wearing jeans was, by default, a bigot, were any different?

The gay-militant advocacy has deliberately decided to pick a fight. Most of us who subscribe first and foremost to a libertarian value system have no problem with alternative lifestyles of any persuasion. Our values are framed around the idea that even if you don't agree with something, a person has every right to pursue it as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's right to life, liberty and property.

But regrettably, the argument for respect for everyone's rights -- including business owners who (usually at the cost of reduced revenue) attempt to run their enterprises according to religious belief -- has been hijacked by another collection of whiners and malcontents who seek to impose their personal sexual ethics on everybody, as always by joining that coalition of all the groups that seek to harness the absolute (and growing, and dangerous) power of the state in order to have their way at the expense of those they demonize -- in other words to so called "progressives" who are only open-minded toward their personal, illogical absolutes.

Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely, and the winds of politics change constantly. Don't expect the people you demonize to offer too much sympathy if that power is ever turned against you.

Excellent post....tolerance should go both ways...unfortunately it is usually one sided.