Good work, Arizona (1 Viewer)

[LinusMarr]

VETOED!

So now all the Republican get to go back to their drooling mouthbreather constituents and say they tried to fight the gays, but the dern Governor lost her guts. Even though none of them wanted the bill to pass or the obvious loss of business that would follow.One of the biggest problems with democracy is that people who are too stupid to see through crap like this are still allowed to vote.

Your grossly over-generalized blowhard rant is no better than theirs.

Sorry when I see crap like this I don't believe it deserves a serious response. People who advance things as stupid as this bill and Kansas's bill do not deserve careful consideration or debate; they deserve ridicule.

Uh, no. That doesn't fly anymore. Rolling eyes and ridicule no longer count as political positions to be respected.

That ended with Ana Marie Cox, I think, though it still tries to live on in the hearts and minds of the already convinced.

Really don't give a crap. Life is too short to treat backwards hateful morons as real people.

Thats mighty "tolerant" of you. I see that hillbilly love hasnt completely left ya yet...

 

[timschochet]

I've noticed something new among opponents of gay rights. While some of them continue to stick to the traditional old arguments, many are taking the approach of "It's only a big deal to liberals; most of us dont care. Just stop talking about it already." This attitude has been prevalent int the Michael Sam thread.

Also on Twitter regarding Michael Sam, literally hundreds of tweets since the combine which all say the same thing, something along the lines of "I don't care he is gay, just quit talking about it" which is amuisng in that they can't stop talking about it.

They should be talking about he doesn't have the size, speed, or athleticism to be a starter in the NFL. There are offensive linemen that are bigger and stronger who displayed more speed and athleticism. Right now scouts are pegging him as a special teamer.

Yes, you've pointed out his mediocrity several times now. If Sam were one of the best players in the draft, would you have been so quick to point that out as well? Somehow I doubt it.

Sure I would. And he would have been drafted like it. Now he stock is plummeting and ignorant people will be claiming it is because he is gay. No, it is because he can't run or jump or is not big enough to start in the NFL. Maybe if he has incredible heart he can make it and work his way into someone's lineup, but it is unlikely.

This is an interesting response from you, because when Sam came out as gay you practically guaranteed that his stock would rise dramatically, regardless of his talents. Apparently you have now abandoned that position.

Well, nobody recognizes a flip-flop faster than you timmay. Thanks for pointing it out...

Tim completely mischaracterized what I said. I said if he is projected by scouts to go in the 4th, he will go in the 3rd. I never said his stock will rise regardless.

Sorry if I mischaracterized you. I was going on memory; you seemed VERY insistent that his gayness would help him in the draft, and not just a little, but a lot. I'll have to go back and look when I have time...

 

[LinusMarr]

I've noticed something new among opponents of gay rights. While some of them continue to stick to the traditional old arguments, many are taking the approach of "It's only a big deal to liberals; most of us dont care. Just stop talking about it already." This attitude has been prevalent int the Michael Sam thread.

Also on Twitter regarding Michael Sam, literally hundreds of tweets since the combine which all say the same thing, something along the lines of "I don't care he is gay, just quit talking about it" which is amuisng in that they can't stop talking about it.

They should be talking about he doesn't have the size, speed, or athleticism to be a starter in the NFL. There are offensive linemen that are bigger and stronger who displayed more speed and athleticism. Right now scouts are pegging him as a special teamer.

Yes, you've pointed out his mediocrity several times now. If Sam were one of the best players in the draft, would you have been so quick to point that out as well? Somehow I doubt it.

Sure I would. And he would have been drafted like it. Now he stock is plummeting and ignorant people will be claiming it is because he is gay. No, it is because he can't run or jump or is not big enough to start in the NFL. Maybe if he has incredible heart he can make it and work his way into someone's lineup, but it is unlikely.

This is an interesting response from you, because when Sam came out as gay you practically guaranteed that his stock would rise dramatically, regardless of his talents. Apparently you have now abandoned that position.

Well, nobody recognizes a flip-flop faster than you timmay. Thanks for pointing it out...

Tim completely mischaracterized what I said. I said if he is projected by scouts to go in the 4th, he will go in the 3rd. I never said his stock will rise regardless.

Sorry if I mischaracterized you. I was going on memory; you seemed VERY insistent that his gayness would help him in the draft, and not just a little, but a lot. I'll have to go back and look when I have time...

Tim is so good he can even flip-flop on his flip-flopping accusation...lol

 

[rockaction]

VETOED!

So now all the Republican get to go back to their drooling mouthbreather constituents and say they tried to fight the gays, but the dern Governor lost her guts. Even though none of them wanted the bill to pass or the obvious loss of business that would follow.One of the biggest problems with democracy is that people who are too stupid to see through crap like this are still allowed to vote.

Your grossly over-generalized blowhard rant is no better than theirs.

Sorry when I see crap like this I don't believe it deserves a serious response. People who advance things as stupid as this bill and Kansas's bill do not deserve careful consideration or debate; they deserve ridicule.

Uh, no. That doesn't fly anymore. Rolling eyes and ridicule no longer count as political positions to be respected.

That ended with Ana Marie Cox, I think, though it still tries to live on in the hearts and minds of the already convinced.

Really don't give a crap. Life is too short to treat backwards hateful morons as real people.

Real people?

Like the real Justices in CT that said religious groups who run foster care programs didn't need to serve gays if they didn't get state aid?

You mean, unreal people. Like the Supreme Court of Connecticut.

eta* you're editing your posts for tone and collegiality, so I'll edit mine.

 

[squistion]

Tim completely mischaracterized what I said. I said if he is projected by scouts to go in the 4th, he will go in the 3rd. I never said his stock will rise regardless.

Sorry if I mischaracterized you. I was going on memory; you seemed VERY insistent that his gayness would help him in the draft, and not just a little, but a lot. I'll have to go back and look when I have time...

Straight from the horse's mouth:

No way it hurts him. If his draft projection says 3-4th round, he will go late 2nd, The NFL is too PC now. There will be teams tripping over themselves to try to draft him. The NFL is not ready for him? Bull####.

 

[NCCommish]

VETOED!

So now all the Republican get to go back to their drooling mouthbreather constituents and say they tried to fight the gays, but the dern Governor lost her guts. Even though none of them wanted the bill to pass or the obvious loss of business that would follow.One of the biggest problems with democracy is that people who are too stupid to see through crap like this are still allowed to vote.

Your grossly over-generalized blowhard rant is no better than theirs.

Sorry when I see crap like this I don't believe it deserves a serious response. People who advance things as stupid as this bill and Kansas's bill do not deserve careful consideration or debate; they deserve ridicule.

Uh, no. That doesn't fly anymore. Rolling eyes and ridicule no longer count as political positions to be respected.

That ended with Ana Marie Cox, I think, though it still tries to live on in the hearts and minds of the already convinced.

Really don't give a crap. Life is too short to treat backwards hateful morons as real people.

Real people. That's enjoyable.

Like the real Justices in CT that said religious groups who run foster care programs didn't need to serve gays if they didn't get state aid?

You mean, unreal people. Like the Supreme Court of ####### Connecticut.

Who moron what?

It's always been the case that private religious organizations that do not accept state or federal money can not serve or not hire anyone they want based on their religion. Not big on legal precedent I guess.

 

[NCCommish]

Tim completely mischaracterized what I said. I said if he is projected by scouts to go in the 4th, he will go in the 3rd. I never said his stock will rise regardless.

Sorry if I mischaracterized you. I was going on memory; you seemed VERY insistent that his gayness would help him in the draft, and not just a little, but a lot. I'll have to go back and look when I have time...

Straight from the horse's mouth:

No way it hurts him. If his draft projection says 3-4th round, he will go late 2nd, The NFL is too PC now. There will be teams tripping over themselves to try to draft him. The NFL is not ready for him? Bull####.

Gee sure sounds like Tim was right to me.

 

[rockaction]

VETOED!

So now all the Republican get to go back to their drooling mouthbreather constituents and say they tried to fight the gays, but the dern Governor lost her guts. Even though none of them wanted the bill to pass or the obvious loss of business that would follow.One of the biggest problems with democracy is that people who are too stupid to see through crap like this are still allowed to vote.

Your grossly over-generalized blowhard rant is no better than theirs.

Sorry when I see crap like this I don't believe it deserves a serious response. People who advance things as stupid as this bill and Kansas's bill do not deserve careful consideration or debate; they deserve ridicule.

Uh, no. That doesn't fly anymore. Rolling eyes and ridicule no longer count as political positions to be respected.

That ended with Ana Marie Cox, I think, though it still tries to live on in the hearts and minds of the already convinced.

Really don't give a crap. Life is too short to treat backwards hateful morons as real people.

Real people. That's enjoyable.

Like the real Justices in CT that said religious groups who run foster care programs didn't need to serve gays if they didn't get state aid?

You mean, unreal people. Like the Supreme Court of ####### Connecticut.

Who moron what?

It's always been the case that private religious organizations that do not accept state or federal money can not serve or not hire anyone they want based on their religion. Not big on legal precedent I guess.

No, I know. But they anticipated the legal challenges to it and explicitly stated it. it was also mentioned upthread that Kansas was moronic for doing the same thing.

I think it's difficult to come in all the way into a thread and just start making assumptions about people's knowledge and why they're saying what they say.

IOW, read the thread if you're gonna act superior, man.

 

[jon_mx]

Tim completely mischaracterized what I said. I said if he is projected by scouts to go in the 4th, he will go in the 3rd. I never said his stock will rise regardless.

Sorry if I mischaracterized you. I was going on memory; you seemed VERY insistent that his gayness would help him in the draft, and not just a little, but a lot. I'll have to go back and look when I have time...

Straight from the horse's mouth:

No way it hurts him. If his draft projection says 3-4th round, he will go late 2nd, The NFL is too PC now. There will be teams tripping over themselves to try to draft him. The NFL is not ready for him? Bull####.

Which is what I said basically, that he would get bumped up a round. Someone early on said in the thread he was being projected 3rd, which ended up being bs and what I made that original statement based on. Some NFL team will jump up and take him earlier than projected.

 

[fatness]

If a company performs wedding services for the general public, then they shouldn't be able to discriminate against gay people or anyone else.

Sorry, I meant should religious institutions be forced to provide wedding services for gay people against their will?

When has anyone advocated that?

I don't know. When did anyone ever advocate suing cake makers who had religious objections to making cakes for gay ceremonies?

So if your only concern is churches, why bring up cake makers and paint them as victims?

 

[LinusMarr]

VETOED!

So now all the Republican get to go back to their drooling mouthbreather constituents and say they tried to fight the gays, but the dern Governor lost her guts. Even though none of them wanted the bill to pass or the obvious loss of business that would follow.One of the biggest problems with democracy is that people who are too stupid to see through crap like this are still allowed to vote.

Your grossly over-generalized blowhard rant is no better than theirs.

Sorry when I see crap like this I don't believe it deserves a serious response. People who advance things as stupid as this bill and Kansas's bill do not deserve careful consideration or debate; they deserve ridicule.

Uh, no. That doesn't fly anymore. Rolling eyes and ridicule no longer count as political positions to be respected.

That ended with Ana Marie Cox, I think, though it still tries to live on in the hearts and minds of the already convinced.

Really don't give a crap. Life is too short to treat backwards hateful morons as real people.

Real people. That's enjoyable.

Like the real Justices in CT that said religious groups who run foster care programs didn't need to serve gays if they didn't get state aid?

You mean, unreal people. Like the Supreme Court of ####### Connecticut.

Who moron what?

It's always been the case that private religious organizations that do not accept state or federal money can not serve or not hire anyone they want based on their religion. Not big on legal precedent I guess.

No, I know. But they anticipated the legal challenges to it and explicitly stated it. it was also mentioned upthread that Kansas was moronic for doing the same thing.

I think it's difficult to come in all the way into a thread and just start making assumptions about people's knowledge and why they're saying what they say.

IOW, read the thread if you're gonna act superior, man.

Well, he is an elistist liberal. He cant really help but come off "superior"...lol

 

[NCCommish]

VETOED!

So now all the Republican get to go back to their drooling mouthbreather constituents and say they tried to fight the gays, but the dern Governor lost her guts. Even though none of them wanted the bill to pass or the obvious loss of business that would follow.One of the biggest problems with democracy is that people who are too stupid to see through crap like this are still allowed to vote.

Your grossly over-generalized blowhard rant is no better than theirs.

Sorry when I see crap like this I don't believe it deserves a serious response. People who advance things as stupid as this bill and Kansas's bill do not deserve careful consideration or debate; they deserve ridicule.

Uh, no. That doesn't fly anymore. Rolling eyes and ridicule no longer count as political positions to be respected.

That ended with Ana Marie Cox, I think, though it still tries to live on in the hearts and minds of the already convinced.

Really don't give a crap. Life is too short to treat backwards hateful morons as real people.

Real people. That's enjoyable.

Like the real Justices in CT that said religious groups who run foster care programs didn't need to serve gays if they didn't get state aid?

You mean, unreal people. Like the Supreme Court of ####### Connecticut.

Who moron what?

It's always been the case that private religious organizations that do not accept state or federal money can not serve or not hire anyone they want based on their religion. Not big on legal precedent I guess.

No, I know. But they anticipated the legal challenges to it and explicitly stated it. it was also mentioned upthread that Kansas was moronic for doing the same thing.

I think it's difficult to come in all the way into a thread and just start making assumptions about people's knowledge and why they're saying what they say.

IOW, read the thread if you're gonna act superior, man.

I have read the thread. I responded to your specific post with a specific answer that kind of undermined your whole silly point.

 

[squistion]

Tim completely mischaracterized what I said. I said if he is projected by scouts to go in the 4th, he will go in the 3rd. I never said his stock will rise regardless.

Sorry if I mischaracterized you. I was going on memory; you seemed VERY insistent that his gayness would help him in the draft, and not just a little, but a lot. I'll have to go back and look when I have time...

Straight from the horse's mouth:

No way it hurts him. If his draft projection says 3-4th round, he will go late 2nd, The NFL is too PC now. There will be teams tripping over themselves to try to draft him. The NFL is not ready for him? Bull####.

Which is what I said basically, that he would get bumped up a round. Someone early on said in the thread he was being projected 3rd, which ended up being bs and what I made that original statement based on. Some NFL team will jump up and take him earlier than projected.

Just because he is gay?

 

[Parrothead]

Tim completely mischaracterized what I said. I said if he is projected by scouts to go in the 4th, he will go in the 3rd. I never said his stock will rise regardless.

Sorry if I mischaracterized you. I was going on memory; you seemed VERY insistent that his gayness would help him in the draft, and not just a little, but a lot. I'll have to go back and look when I have time...

Straight from the horse's mouth:

No way it hurts him. If his draft projection says 3-4th round, he will go late 2nd, The NFL is too PC now. There will be teams tripping over themselves to try to draft him. The NFL is not ready for him? Bull####.

Which is what I said basically, that he would get bumped up a round. Someone early on said in the thread he was being projected 3rd, which ended up being bs and what I made that original statement based on. Some NFL team will jump up and take him earlier than projected.

Just because he is gay?

well, somebody needs to decorate the locker room

 

[NCCommish]

Tim completely mischaracterized what I said. I said if he is projected by scouts to go in the 4th, he will go in the 3rd. I never said his stock will rise regardless.

Sorry if I mischaracterized you. I was going on memory; you seemed VERY insistent that his gayness would help him in the draft, and not just a little, but a lot. I'll have to go back and look when I have time...

Straight from the horse's mouth:

No way it hurts him. If his draft projection says 3-4th round, he will go late 2nd, The NFL is too PC now. There will be teams tripping over themselves to try to draft him. The NFL is not ready for him? Bull####.

Which is what I said basically, that he would get bumped up a round. Someone early on said in the thread he was being projected 3rd, which ended up being bs and what I made that original statement based on. Some NFL team will jump up and take him earlier than projected.

Just because he is gay?

These guys are killing me with this. The reality is Sam picked a bad time to enter the draft. It is chock full of talent. Being so deep is going to hurt his chances of going earlier than 4th or 5th. That may even be too early. No GM is going to put their job on the line so they can say the drafted the first gay player in the second or third round when so much talent is available. To think that they would in such a what have you done for me lately league just shows how little thought they put into taking such a position.

 

[rockaction]

VETOED!

So now all the Republican get to go back to their drooling mouthbreather constituents and say they tried to fight the gays, but the dern Governor lost her guts. Even though none of them wanted the bill to pass or the obvious loss of business that would follow.One of the biggest problems with democracy is that people who are too stupid to see through crap like this are still allowed to vote.

Your grossly over-generalized blowhard rant is no better than theirs.

Sorry when I see crap like this I don't believe it deserves a serious response. People who advance things as stupid as this bill and Kansas's bill do not deserve careful consideration or debate; they deserve ridicule.

Uh, no. That doesn't fly anymore. Rolling eyes and ridicule no longer count as political positions to be respected.

That ended with Ana Marie Cox, I think, though it still tries to live on in the hearts and minds of the already convinced.

Really don't give a crap. Life is too short to treat backwards hateful morons as real people.

Real people. That's enjoyable.

Like the real Justices in CT that said religious groups who run foster care programs didn't need to serve gays if they didn't get state aid?

You mean, unreal people. Like the Supreme Court of ####### Connecticut.

Who moron what?

It's always been the case that private religious organizations that do not accept state or federal money can not serve or not hire anyone they want based on their religion. Not big on legal precedent I guess.

No, I know. But they anticipated the legal challenges to it and explicitly stated it. it was also mentioned upthread that Kansas was moronic for doing the same thing.

I think it's difficult to come in all the way into a thread and just start making assumptions about people's knowledge and why they're saying what they say.

IOW, read the thread if you're gonna act superior, man.

I have read the thread. I responded to your specific post with a specific answer that kind of undermined your whole silly point.

It didn't really undermine anything. I'm not sure what you're reading. I might not be tops at legal precedent, but you don't seem like you follow arguments very well.

At best, it's inept. At worst, disingenuous.

 

[fatness]

If you're looking for a closet homophobe, there ain't any here. This interests me for three or four reasons:

1) The importance of private conscience, especially with regard to religion, is tough to overstate, even to an agnostic like myself.

2) I hate how modern political activism works. It's always a wedge issue, it's always more more more. And it is constantly ends-based, without a thought to the means by which "progress" is made. Even if happiness for others is undermined by the means, it must be done. We must be recognized. You're going to bake that cake, mother####er, because I have justice, right, and the law on my side!

1. You're only expressing concern for private conscience on one side of the issue, the side wishing to restrict rights of gays. You do not mention those opposed to such restrictions in terms of their conscience, describing them instead in terms of personal nastiness and selfishness.

2. The wedge laws are introduced by people who are one side of the issue, wanting to restrict rights of gays. You express no problem with this, yet you call negative reaction to those laws a wedge issue.

 

[rockaction]

If you're looking for a closet homophobe, there ain't any here. This interests me for three or four reasons:

1) The importance of private conscience, especially with regard to religion, is tough to overstate, even to an agnostic like myself.

2) I hate how modern political activism works. It's always a wedge issue, it's always more more more. And it is constantly ends-based, without a thought to the means by which "progress" is made. Even if happiness for others is undermined by the means, it must be done. We must be recognized. You're going to bake that cake, mother####er, because I have justice, right, and the law on my side!

1. You're only expressing concern for private conscience on one side of the issue, the side wishing to restrict rights of gays. You do not mention those opposed to such restrictions in terms of their conscience, describing them instead in terms of personal nastiness and selfishness.

2. The wedge laws are introduced by people who are one side of the issue, wanting to restrict rights of gays. You express no problem with this, yet you call negative reaction to those laws a wedge issue.

1. When I speak of private conscience, I'm speaking of the cake makers, not the legislators. I think you're not understanding me. As for the private conscience of gays, I'm of the opinion that our private consciences can't -- and shouldn't -- compel others to do things they have religious objections to doing.

2. The wedge laws are a reaction to these wedge suits brought about by the activists. The legislation is ill-done, but this is where it's coming from. It's an ill-thought out attempt to stop the judicial logic that seems to be permeating these decisions.

 

[Clifford]

VETOED!

So now all the Republican get to go back to their drooling mouthbreather constituents and say they tried to fight the gays, but the dern Governor lost her guts. Even though none of them wanted the bill to pass or the obvious loss of business that would follow.One of the biggest problems with democracy is that people who are too stupid to see through crap like this are still allowed to vote.

Your grossly over-generalized blowhard rant is no better than theirs.

Sorry when I see crap like this I don't believe it deserves a serious response. People who advance things as stupid as this bill and Kansas's bill do not deserve careful consideration or debate; they deserve ridicule.

Uh, no. That doesn't fly anymore. Rolling eyes and ridicule no longer count as political positions to be respected.

That ended with Ana Marie Cox, I think, though it still tries to live on in the hearts and minds of the already convinced.

Really don't give a crap. Life is too short to treat backwards hateful morons as real people.

Real people?

Like the real Justices in CT that said religious groups who run foster care programs didn't need to serve gays if they didn't get state aid?

You mean, unreal people. Like the Supreme Court of Connecticut.

eta* you're editing your posts for tone and collegiality, so I'll edit mine.

Sorry, I have grown up with this crap, and my tolerance for people using Christianity to discriminate against others ran out long ago. What is going on now is not one bit different from the way the bible was used to codify discrimination against blacks. It's not about religious liberty, it's using the Bible as a shield for hate. Just calling it what it is. And it's sad and stupid.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Pretty sure Arizonans can refuse to provide commercial services to people on religious grounds (as long as it's not racially motivated).

Right?

 

[jon_mx]

Tim completely mischaracterized what I said. I said if he is projected by scouts to go in the 4th, he will go in the 3rd. I never said his stock will rise regardless.

Sorry if I mischaracterized you. I was going on memory; you seemed VERY insistent that his gayness would help him in the draft, and not just a little, but a lot. I'll have to go back and look when I have time...

Straight from the horse's mouth:

No way it hurts him. If his draft projection says 3-4th round, he will go late 2nd, The NFL is too PC now. There will be teams tripping over themselves to try to draft him. The NFL is not ready for him? Bull####.

Which is what I said basically, that he would get bumped up a round. Someone early on said in the thread he was being projected 3rd, which ended up being bs and what I made that original statement based on. Some NFL team will jump up and take him earlier than projected.

Just because he is gay?

These guys are killing me with this. The reality is Sam picked a bad time to enter the draft. It is chock full of talent. Being so deep is going to hurt his chances of going earlier than 4th or 5th. That may even be too early. No GM is going to put their job on the line so they can say the drafted the first gay player in the second or third round when so much talent is available. To think that they would in such a what have you done for me lately league just shows how little thought they put into taking such a position.

If he is a 5th round pick, there will be GM's jumping to take him in the 4th. Nobody is going to waste a pick and go ridiculously early, but this does give him a bump.

 

[rockaction]

If a company performs wedding services for the general public, then they shouldn't be able to discriminate against gay people or anyone else.

Sorry, I meant should religious institutions be forced to provide wedding services for gay people against their will?

When has anyone advocated that?

I don't know. When did anyone ever advocate suing cake makers who had religious objections to making cakes for gay ceremonies?

So if your only concern is churches, why bring up cake makers and paint them as victims?

My only concern isn't churches. My concern is also for the bakers, photographers, and flower providers with sincerely held beliefs.

Which sounds ridiculous, but not as ridiculous as a gay couple going to court to force somebody to bake them a cake.

 

[Clifford]

Pretty sure Arizonans can refuse to provide commercial services to people on religious grounds (as long as it's not racially motivated).

Right?

According to Anderson Cooper, his legal expert, and a State Senator planning a gubernatorial run, gays are not a protected class according to Arizona law without the new bill. So while someone could be sued for refusing to serve gays, they would be generally protected against that suit since there are no explicit laws designating gays as a protected class.

I'm not a lawyer but neither the Senator nor the legal expert said that was not true.

underscoring the point that this was nothing but red meat to the hardcore base and a political stunt more than anything aimed at actually changing anything.

 

[Clifford]

If a company performs wedding services for the general public, then they shouldn't be able to discriminate against gay people or anyone else.

Sorry, I meant should religious institutions be forced to provide wedding services for gay people against their will?

When has anyone advocated that?

I don't know. When did anyone ever advocate suing cake makers who had religious objections to making cakes for gay ceremonies?

So if your only concern is churches, why bring up cake makers and paint them as victims?

My only concern isn't churches. My concern is also for the bakers, photographers, and flower providers with sincerely held beliefs.

Which sounds ridiculous, but not as ridiculous as a gay couple going to court to force somebody to bake them a cake.

FWIW I think the suit is over the top as well. But codifying discrimination because you think someone's lawsuit is silly is a pretty stupid response.

 

[rockaction]

If a company performs wedding services for the general public, then they shouldn't be able to discriminate against gay people or anyone else.

Sorry, I meant should religious institutions be forced to provide wedding services for gay people against their will?

When has anyone advocated that?

I don't know. When did anyone ever advocate suing cake makers who had religious objections to making cakes for gay ceremonies?

So if your only concern is churches, why bring up cake makers and paint them as victims?

My only concern isn't churches. My concern is also for the bakers, photographers, and flower providers with sincerely held beliefs.

Which sounds ridiculous, but not as ridiculous as a gay couple going to court to force somebody to bake them a cake.

FWIW I think the suit is over the top as well. But codifying discrimination because you think someone's lawsuit is silly is a pretty stupid response.

Not when the lawsuit wins, man. And they're winning them pretty consistently.

 

[squistion]

If a company performs wedding services for the general public, then they shouldn't be able to discriminate against gay people or anyone else.

Sorry, I meant should religious institutions be forced to provide wedding services for gay people against their will?

When has anyone advocated that?

I don't know. When did anyone ever advocate suing cake makers who had religious objections to making cakes for gay ceremonies?

So if your only concern is churches, why bring up cake makers and paint them as victims?

My only concern isn't churches. My concern is also for the bakers, photographers, and flower providers with sincerely held beliefs.

Which sounds ridiculous, but not as ridiculous as a gay couple going to court to force somebody to bake them a cake.

There were people who thought Rosa Parks was ridiculous too for going to court over something as trivial as a seat on a bus ride.

 

[Gr00vus]

If a company performs wedding services for the general public, then they shouldn't be able to discriminate against gay people or anyone else.

Sorry, I meant should religious institutions be forced to provide wedding services for gay people against their will?

When has anyone advocated that?

I don't know. When did anyone ever advocate suing cake makers who had religious objections to making cakes for gay ceremonies?

So if your only concern is churches, why bring up cake makers and paint them as victims?

My only concern isn't churches. My concern is also for the bakers, photographers, and flower providers with sincerely held beliefs.

Which sounds ridiculous, but not as ridiculous as a gay couple going to court to force somebody to bake them a cake.

FWIW I think the suit is over the top as well. But codifying discrimination because you think someone's lawsuit is silly is a pretty stupid response.

Not when the lawsuit wins, man. And they're winning them pretty consistently.

Nobody's forcing them to be in the cake sales business. But if they are going to be a public, for-profit business in the U.S. the law says they can't discriminate based on class/grouping. They can move to some other country that would let them run a business and discriminate who they serve if they want.

 

[rockaction]

If a company performs wedding services for the general public, then they shouldn't be able to discriminate against gay people or anyone else.

Sorry, I meant should religious institutions be forced to provide wedding services for gay people against their will?

When has anyone advocated that?

I don't know. When did anyone ever advocate suing cake makers who had religious objections to making cakes for gay ceremonies?

So if your only concern is churches, why bring up cake makers and paint them as victims?

My only concern isn't churches. My concern is also for the bakers, photographers, and flower providers with sincerely held beliefs.

Which sounds ridiculous, but not as ridiculous as a gay couple going to court to force somebody to bake them a cake.

There were people who thought Rosa Parks was ridiculous too for going to court over something as trivial as a seat on a bus ride.

You keep bringing up the civil rights analogy, and I keep disagreeing with it. It's getting kind of funny.

 

[fatness]

If you're looking for a closet homophobe, there ain't any here. This interests me for three or four reasons:

1) The importance of private conscience, especially with regard to religion, is tough to overstate, even to an agnostic like myself.

2) I hate how modern political activism works. It's always a wedge issue, it's always more more more. And it is constantly ends-based, without a thought to the means by which "progress" is made. Even if happiness for others is undermined by the means, it must be done. We must be recognized. You're going to bake that cake, mother####er, because I have justice, right, and the law on my side!

1. You're only expressing concern for private conscience on one side of the issue, the side wishing to restrict rights of gays. You do not mention those opposed to such restrictions in terms of their conscience, describing them instead in terms of personal nastiness and selfishness.

2. The wedge laws are introduced by people who are one side of the issue, wanting to restrict rights of gays. You express no problem with this, yet you call negative reaction to those laws a wedge issue.

1. When I speak of private conscience, I'm speaking of the cake makers, not the legislators. I think you're not understanding me. As for the private conscience of gays, I'm of the opinion that our private consciences can't -- and shouldn't -- compel others to do things they have religious objections to doing.

2. The wedge laws are a reaction to these wedge suits brought about by the activists. The legislation is ill-done, but this is where it's coming from. It's an ill-thought out attempt to stop the judicial logic that seems to be permeating these decisions.

Pretty much confirms what I said. You're for private conscience of one side only, and object to wedge issues/tactics from one side only.

 

[Apple Jack]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-26-2014/gay-ban

 

[squistion]

If a company performs wedding services for the general public, then they shouldn't be able to discriminate against gay people or anyone else.

Sorry, I meant should religious institutions be forced to provide wedding services for gay people against their will?

When has anyone advocated that?

I don't know. When did anyone ever advocate suing cake makers who had religious objections to making cakes for gay ceremonies?

So if your only concern is churches, why bring up cake makers and paint them as victims?

My only concern isn't churches. My concern is also for the bakers, photographers, and flower providers with sincerely held beliefs.

Which sounds ridiculous, but not as ridiculous as a gay couple going to court to force somebody to bake them a cake.

There were people who thought Rosa Parks was ridiculous too for going to court over something as trivial as a seat on a bus ride.

You keep bringing up the civil rights analogy, and I keep disagreeing with it. It's getting kind of funny.

Some of us view this as a civil rights issue.

 

[rockaction]

If a company performs wedding services for the general public, then they shouldn't be able to discriminate against gay people or anyone else.

Sorry, I meant should religious institutions be forced to provide wedding services for gay people against their will?

When has anyone advocated that?

I don't know. When did anyone ever advocate suing cake makers who had religious objections to making cakes for gay ceremonies?

So if your only concern is churches, why bring up cake makers and paint them as victims?

My only concern isn't churches. My concern is also for the bakers, photographers, and flower providers with sincerely held beliefs.

Which sounds ridiculous, but not as ridiculous as a gay couple going to court to force somebody to bake them a cake.

FWIW I think the suit is over the top as well. But codifying discrimination because you think someone's lawsuit is silly is a pretty stupid response.

Not when the lawsuit wins, man. And they're winning them pretty consistently.

Nobody's forcing them to be in the cake sales business. But if they are going to be a public, for-profit business in the U.S. the law says they can't discriminate based on class/grouping. They can move to some other country that would let them run a business and discriminate who they serve if they want.

Not really. It's state law, not federal. Also, gays are not a protected class, which is where I suppose this is all going when one of these cases winds up in the S. Ct.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Pretty sure Arizonans can refuse to provide commercial services to people on religious grounds (as long as it's not racially motivated).

Right?

According to Anderson Cooper, his legal expert, and a State Senator planning a gubernatorial run, gays are not a protected class according to Arizona law without the new bill. So while someone could be sued for refusing to serve gays, they would be generally protected against that suit since there are no explicit laws designating gays as a protected class.

I'm not a lawyer but neither the Senator nor the legal expert said that was not true.

underscoring the point that this was nothing but red meat to the hardcore base and a political stunt more than anything aimed at actually changing anything.

Well said, I agree.

 

[rockaction]

If a company performs wedding services for the general public, then they shouldn't be able to discriminate against gay people or anyone else.

Sorry, I meant should religious institutions be forced to provide wedding services for gay people against their will?

When has anyone advocated that?

I don't know. When did anyone ever advocate suing cake makers who had religious objections to making cakes for gay ceremonies?

So if your only concern is churches, why bring up cake makers and paint them as victims?

My only concern isn't churches. My concern is also for the bakers, photographers, and flower providers with sincerely held beliefs.

Which sounds ridiculous, but not as ridiculous as a gay couple going to court to force somebody to bake them a cake.

There were people who thought Rosa Parks was ridiculous too for going to court over something as trivial as a seat on a bus ride.

You keep bringing up the civil rights analogy, and I keep disagreeing with it. It's getting kind of funny.

Some of us view this as a civil rights issue.

I view it as a civil rights issue, too. For all sides. For me, it's a balancing test. The private, religious conscience of a business owner vs. the private conscience of a gay couple. I respect greatly the conscience of gay couples. The need to compel a specific performance-esque doctrine, not so much.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

If a company performs wedding services for the general public, then they shouldn't be able to discriminate against gay people or anyone else.

Sorry, I meant should religious institutions be forced to provide wedding services for gay people against their will?

When has anyone advocated that?

I don't know. When did anyone ever advocate suing cake makers who had religious objections to making cakes for gay ceremonies?

So if your only concern is churches, why bring up cake makers and paint them as victims?

My only concern isn't churches. My concern is also for the bakers, photographers, and flower providers with sincerely held beliefs.

Which sounds ridiculous, but not as ridiculous as a gay couple going to court to force somebody to bake them a cake.

FWIW I think the suit is over the top as well. But codifying discrimination because you think someone's lawsuit is silly is a pretty stupid response.

Not when the lawsuit wins, man. And they're winning them pretty consistently.

Nobody's forcing them to be in the cake sales business. But if they are going to be a public, for-profit business in the U.S. the law says they can't discriminate based on class/grouping. They can move to some other country that would let them run a business and discriminate who they serve if they want.

Couple hypotheticals:

• Could a Muslim photographer legally refuse to take pictures at a wedding reception for a bride and groom because he felt that the bride and the bridesmaids' dresses were too short and thus inappropriate?
• Would a Catholic or an Orthodox Jewish flower shop owner be able to legally refuse to provide flowers to a divorced man who was marrying a woman on the grounds that the owner believed it was against the will of God, or that it was just plain wrong??

 

[timschochet]

Tim completely mischaracterized what I said. I said if he is projected by scouts to go in the 4th, he will go in the 3rd. I never said his stock will rise regardless.

Sorry if I mischaracterized you. I was going on memory; you seemed VERY insistent that his gayness would help him in the draft, and not just a little, but a lot. I'll have to go back and look when I have time...

Straight from the horse's mouth:

No way it hurts him. If his draft projection says 3-4th round, he will go late 2nd, The NFL is too PC now. There will be teams tripping over themselves to try to draft him. The NFL is not ready for him? Bull####.

Which is what I said basically, that he would get bumped up a round. Someone early on said in the thread he was being projected 3rd, which ended up being bs and what I made that original statement based on. Some NFL team will jump up and take him earlier than projected.

Just stop. You wrote:

There will be teams tripping over themselves to try to draft him.

There is no way to spin that. Everyone reading it knows EXACTLY what you meant.

 

[Gr00vus]

If a company performs wedding services for the general public, then they shouldn't be able to discriminate against gay people or anyone else.

Sorry, I meant should religious institutions be forced to provide wedding services for gay people against their will?

When has anyone advocated that?

I don't know. When did anyone ever advocate suing cake makers who had religious objections to making cakes for gay ceremonies?

So if your only concern is churches, why bring up cake makers and paint them as victims?

My only concern isn't churches. My concern is also for the bakers, photographers, and flower providers with sincerely held beliefs.

Which sounds ridiculous, but not as ridiculous as a gay couple going to court to force somebody to bake them a cake.

FWIW I think the suit is over the top as well. But codifying discrimination because you think someone's lawsuit is silly is a pretty stupid response.

Not when the lawsuit wins, man. And they're winning them pretty consistently.

Nobody's forcing them to be in the cake sales business. But if they are going to be a public, for-profit business in the U.S. the law says they can't discriminate based on class/grouping. They can move to some other country that would let them run a business and discriminate who they serve if they want.

Not really. It's state law, not federal. Also, gays are not a protected class, which is where I suppose this is all going when one of these cases winds up in the S. Ct.

I'm ignorant - are there any states in the U.S. that allow refusal of service by for profit businesses based on class/group?

 

[Zow]

Pretty sure Arizonans can refuse to provide commercial services to people on religious grounds (as long as it's not racially motivated).

Right?

According to Anderson Cooper, his legal expert, and a State Senator planning a gubernatorial run, gays are not a protected class according to Arizona law without the new bill. So while someone could be sued for refusing to serve gays, they would be generally protected against that suit since there are no explicit laws designating gays as a protected class.

Aside from maybe a suit pursuant to a city ordinance, this is my legal opinion as well. Which is the main reason I thought the bill was ####### stupid, because it serves little to no practical purpose.

 

[Zow]

If a company performs wedding services for the general public, then they shouldn't be able to discriminate against gay people or anyone else.

Sorry, I meant should religious institutions be forced to provide wedding services for gay people against their will?

When has anyone advocated that?

I don't know. When did anyone ever advocate suing cake makers who had religious objections to making cakes for gay ceremonies?

So if your only concern is churches, why bring up cake makers and paint them as victims?

My only concern isn't churches. My concern is also for the bakers, photographers, and flower providers with sincerely held beliefs.

Which sounds ridiculous, but not as ridiculous as a gay couple going to court to force somebody to bake them a cake.

FWIW I think the suit is over the top as well. But codifying discrimination because you think someone's lawsuit is silly is a pretty stupid response.

Not when the lawsuit wins, man. And they're winning them pretty consistently.

Nobody's forcing them to be in the cake sales business. But if they are going to be a public, for-profit business in the U.S. the law says they can't discriminate based on class/grouping. They can move to some other country that would let them run a business and discriminate who they serve if they want.

This isn't accurate. Likely, they cannot discriminate based on race, but that's likely it.

 

[rockaction]

Not when the lawsuit wins, man. And they're winning them pretty consistently.

Nobody's forcing them to be in the cake sales business. But if they are going to be a public, for-profit business in the U.S. the law says they can't discriminate based on class/grouping. They can move to some other country that would let them run a business and discriminate who they serve if they want.

Not really. It's state law, not federal. Also, gays are not a protected class, which is where I suppose this is all going when one of these cases winds up in the S. Ct.

"I'm ignorant - are there any states in the U.S. that allow refusal of service by for profit businesses based on class/group?"

Gays aren't a class/group in a lot of states. I think you'd need an equal protection recognition or human rights statute and then recognition as a protected class to be a group and not just a couple of people.

A Con Law guy should check me on this.

 

[timschochet]

Couple hypotheticals:

• Could a Muslim photographer legally refuse to take pictures at a wedding reception for a bride and groom because he felt that the bride and the bridesmaids' dresses were too short and thus inappropriate?
• Would a Catholic or an Orthodox Jewish flower shop owner be able to legally refuse to provide flowers to a divorced man who was marrying a woman on the grounds that the owner believed it was against the will of God, or that it was just plain wrong??

1. If he signed a contract to take photos, and then refuses to do so, he can be sued for violating his contract. On the other hand, if he makes a stipulation on the contract that he would not take photos under such conditions, that perfectly legal. But this is very different from a retail service offered to the general public.

2. No. A flower shop owner sells his merchandise to the general public, and cannot pick and choose.

 

[Gr00vus]

If a company performs wedding services for the general public, then they shouldn't be able to discriminate against gay people or anyone else.

Sorry, I meant should religious institutions be forced to provide wedding services for gay people against their will?

When has anyone advocated that?

I don't know. When did anyone ever advocate suing cake makers who had religious objections to making cakes for gay ceremonies?

So if your only concern is churches, why bring up cake makers and paint them as victims?

My only concern isn't churches. My concern is also for the bakers, photographers, and flower providers with sincerely held beliefs.

Which sounds ridiculous, but not as ridiculous as a gay couple going to court to force somebody to bake them a cake.

FWIW I think the suit is over the top as well. But codifying discrimination because you think someone's lawsuit is silly is a pretty stupid response.

Not when the lawsuit wins, man. And they're winning them pretty consistently.

Nobody's forcing them to be in the cake sales business. But if they are going to be a public, for-profit business in the U.S. the law says they can't discriminate based on class/grouping. They can move to some other country that would let them run a business and discriminate who they serve if they want.

This isn't accurate. Likely, they cannot discriminate based on race, but that's likely it.

I thought religion and gender were in the mix too?

 

[jon_mx]

Tim completely mischaracterized what I said. I said if he is projected by scouts to go in the 4th, he will go in the 3rd. I never said his stock will rise regardless.

Sorry if I mischaracterized you. I was going on memory; you seemed VERY insistent that his gayness would help him in the draft, and not just a little, but a lot. I'll have to go back and look when I have time...

Straight from the horse's mouth:

No way it hurts him. If his draft projection says 3-4th round, he will go late 2nd, The NFL is too PC now. There will be teams tripping over themselves to try to draft him. The NFL is not ready for him? Bull####.

Which is what I said basically, that he would get bumped up a round. Someone early on said in the thread he was being projected 3rd, which ended up being bs and what I made that original statement based on. Some NFL team will jump up and take him earlier than projected.

Just stop. You wrote:

There will be teams tripping over themselves to try to draft him.

There is no way to spin that. Everyone reading it knows EXACTLY what you meant.

Who is spinning it....they absolutely will draft him earlier than the scouts say he should be. There is zero doubt in my mind. Of course the way he is falling that could be in the 5th now. Unless he starts kicking butt in the combines, his projections might go to 6th or below.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Couple hypotheticals:

• Could a Muslim photographer legally refuse to take pictures at a wedding reception for a bride and groom because he felt that the bride and the bridesmaids' dresses were too short and thus inappropriate?
• Would a Catholic or an Orthodox Jewish flower shop owner be able to legally refuse to provide flowers to a divorced man who was marrying a woman on the grounds that the owner believed it was against the will of God, or that it was just plain wrong??

1. If he signed a contract to take photos, and then refuses to do so, he can be sued for violating his contract. On the other hand, if he makes a stipulation on the contract that he would not take photos under such conditions, that perfectly legal. But this is very different from a retail service offered to the general public.

2. No. A flower shop owner sells his merchandise to the general public, and cannot pick and choose.

Ok on the contract issue I agree, but that's it, the couple couldn't/wouldn't/shouldn't be able to sue for discrimination.

On No. 2 I completely disagree with you - the idea that an Orthodox Jew could be offended by the fact that someone was divorced is absolutely not something that can be sued upon anywhere. Not only that, it would be immoral and just plain wrong to punish someone for their religious beliefs in that way.

 

[Zow]

I thought religion and gender were in the mix too?

That generally applies to the state/government making laws which discriminate against those groups. We're talking private sphere here.*

*Although I'd defer to a con law guy here. I haven't tackled non-4th,5th,6th,8th con law issues in several years.

 

[Gr00vus]

I thought religion and gender were in the mix too?

That generally applies to the state/government making laws which discriminate against those groups. We're talking private sphere here.*

*Although I'd defer to a con law guy here. I haven't tackled non-4th,5th,6th,8th con law issues in several years.

Are there no such non-discriminatory regulations/laws at the Federal level concerning inter-state trade? What would happen if a national airline started denying service to Chinese people because they were Chinese?

 

[LinusMarr]

I thought religion and gender were in the mix too?

That generally applies to the state/government making laws which discriminate against those groups. We're talking private sphere here.**Although I'd defer to a con law guy here. I haven't tackled non-4th,5th,6th,8th con law issues in several years.

Are there no such non-discriminatory regulations/laws at the Federal level concerning inter-state trade? What would happen if a national airline started denying service to Chinese people because they were Chinese?

They would probably get a chockstick in the eye, whoa!

 

[Zow]

I thought religion and gender were in the mix too?

That generally applies to the state/government making laws which discriminate against those groups. We're talking private sphere here.*

*Although I'd defer to a con law guy here. I haven't tackled non-4th,5th,6th,8th con law issues in several years.

Are there no such non-discriminatory regulations/laws at the Federal level concerning inter-state trade? What would happen if a national airline started denying service to Chinese people because they were Chinese?

That's race. There's likely a federal statute prohibiting such discrimination.

 

[Clifford]

If a company performs wedding services for the general public, then they shouldn't be able to discriminate against gay people or anyone else.

Sorry, I meant should religious institutions be forced to provide wedding services for gay people against their will?

When has anyone advocated that?

I don't know. When did anyone ever advocate suing cake makers who had religious objections to making cakes for gay ceremonies?

So if your only concern is churches, why bring up cake makers and paint them as victims?

My only concern isn't churches. My concern is also for the bakers, photographers, and flower providers with sincerely held beliefs.

Which sounds ridiculous, but not as ridiculous as a gay couple going to court to force somebody to bake them a cake.

There were people who thought Rosa Parks was ridiculous too for going to court over something as trivial as a seat on a bus ride.

You keep bringing up the civil rights analogy, and I keep disagreeing with it. It's getting kind of funny.

You can disagree all you want, it's still spot on and history will judge the proponents of this form of discrimination the same as the last proponents of the last kind of discrimination

 

[bigbottom]

Tim completely mischaracterized what I said. I said if he is projected by scouts to go in the 4th, he will go in the 3rd. I never said his stock will rise regardless.

Sorry if I mischaracterized you. I was going on memory; you seemed VERY insistent that his gayness would help him in the draft, and not just a little, but a lot. I'll have to go back and look when I have time...

Straight from the horse's mouth:

No way it hurts him. If his draft projection says 3-4th round, he will go late 2nd, The NFL is too PC now. There will be teams tripping over themselves to try to draft him. The NFL is not ready for him? Bull####.

Gee sure sounds like Tim was right to me.

Not really. Tim mischaracterized jon's hypothesis.