Stay classy, Arizona. Stay classy.

[Chef Jim]

At this point I think for the Governor's own sake she should sign it otherwise it looks like deeply held beliefs can be bought off for a little money which means they were never deeply held.

 

Which came first? The deeply held belief or the money?

[Oxrock]

It appears the market IS speaking...Apple, NFL....the governor should sign it and we can really see the market speak....

At this point she should sign the bills. Threats should be taken seriously and confronted. She should adopt a go ahead and make my day stance.

 

OT: just saw a pitch down here on TV for business to relocate to NY. Pay no state taxes for 10 years? Is that right?

 

[TH3]

I don't get it....the freedom and liberty crowd wants the "market to speak" and things will sort themselves out....well the market is speaking...or is it you only want some particular parts of the market to speak?

[TakeYouToTasker]

I don't get it....the freedom and liberty crowd wants the "market to speak" and things will sort themselves out....well the market is speaking...or is it you only want some particular parts of the market to speak?

I'm not sure what you think "the market speaking" means, but whatever it is, you're wrong.

[TH3]

I'm not sure what you think "the market speaking" means, but whatever it is, you're wrong.

 

Typical comeback from this inch deep crowd...."Your wrong" ...you forgot to attach "idiot" to your deep thinking and logically structured argument.

 

The "market" is our country, businesses, individuals, courts, etc....maybe this "market" is saying we don't want a country with these kinds of laws on the books. One can argue the minutia and thinly slice whose freedoms and liberty are getting clipped...but at the end of the day the "market" of our country is speaking.

 

And..yes...living with one another involves compromise....

[TakeYouToTasker]

Typical comeback from this inch deep crowd...."Your wrong" ...you forgot to attach "idiot" to your deep thinking and logically structured argument.

 

The "market" is our country, businesses, individuals, courts, etc....maybe this "market" is saying we don't want a country with these kinds of laws on the books. One can argue the minutia and thinly slice whose freedoms and liberty are getting clipped...but at the end of the day the "market" of our country is speaking.

 

And..yes...living with one another involves compromise....

You might wish to consider understanding the subject matter at hand before opinining on it. It would help you to seem less absurd.

 

Words have meaning. The English language is not mutable.

 

The Market has nothing to do with country, or courts. The Market is nothing more than the aggregate of all voluntary transactions between sellers and consumers. It is not impeeded by law, as it has nothing to do with legislation, nor court decisions.

 

When one says "the market should speak", what they mean is that individual transactions will determine whether or not a business, and it's practices should succeed. If enough individuals value a business' products and practices, or not, then that business with thrive, survive, or fold. It does not take into consideration any desires other than the willingness to exchange, or not; and compromise has nothing to do with it.

 

Again, you're wrong. Learn the subject matter.

Edited February 26, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker

[TH3]

You might wish to consider understanding the subject matter at hand before opinining on it. It would help you to seem less absurd.

 

Words have meaning. The English language is not mutable.

 

The Market has nothing to do with country, or courts. The Market is nothing more than the aggregate of all voluntary transactions between sellers and consumers. It is not impeeded by law, as it has nothing to do with legislation, nor court decisions.

 

When one says "the market should speak", what they mean is that individual transactions will determine whether or not a business, and it's practices should succeed. If enough individuals value a business' products and practices, or not, then that business with thrive, survive, or fold. It does not take into consideration any desires other than the willingness to exchange, or not; and compromise has nothing to do with it.

 

Again, you're wrong. Learn the subject matter.

 

Your view is from an imaginary world - thing is we actually live in a different one. First off - your "transactional" market is speaking, big businesses, other states etc are saying we don't want part of AZ if this law is passed - for cripesake the biggest religion in our country - the NFL - is saying don't do it.

 

Or are you saying the NFL should just not buy cakes from this guy because they got Michael Sam's back?

 

Your "transactional market" is speaking to the market of AZ - "We don't want to be part of participating in a market with such rules"

 

Secondly - The market speaks through legislation. Yup - this is how our country does business or speaks - on both ends of the transaction. Big business controls huge elements of the tax code, legislation etc - that is your market speaking. On the other hand consumers and society speak through legislation about health and safety, environmental controls etc.

 

One could make the libertarian argument that such laws should be left to the business and let the market decide it wants to buy from non polluting companies - companies that won't sell to blacks, gays, islamics, etc...and that is an argument one can have in a vacuum - in a world where business and transactional decisions are made without reference to society....but that is not the actual world we live in.

[Gary M]

. Yet, what makes a gay person sue?

 

 

Yeah, the giants speaking for the small business owners... Great...

 

their agenda , that takeyou doesn't think exists.

Edited February 26, 2014 by Gary M

[TakeYouToTasker]

Your view is from an imaginary world - thing is we actually live in a different one. First off - your "transactional" market is speaking, big businesses, other states etc are saying we don't want part of AZ if this law is passed - for cripesake the biggest religion in our country - the NFL - is saying don't do it.

The NFL can say whatever they want. They aren't the Market. You're making an argument for big business dictating to small business how they must opperate, and that's the antithiesis of freed markets.

 

Or are you saying the NFL should just not buy cakes from this guy because they got Michael Sam's back?

The NFL should not buy cakes from them. Additionally, the NFL should stop doing business with any other business partner it has that they disagree with in this regard. It should also launch an add campaign condeming what they consider to be discriminatory business practices if they want. What it doesn't get to do is dictate to others, who don't do business with them, how they will do business.

 

Your "transactional market" is speaking to the market of AZ - "We don't want to be part of participating in a market with such rules"

Then they should take their dollars elsewhere. They have the right to do that. What they don't have the right to do is dictate to others what moral standards they are allowed to hold.

 

Secondly - The market speaks through legislation. Yup - this is how our country does business or speaks - on both ends of the transaction. Big business controls huge elements of the tax code, legislation etc - that is your market speaking. On the other hand consumers and society speak through legislation about health and safety, environmental controls etc.

Stop conflating terms. The Market doesn't mean whatever you want it to mean when it might help your argument. Again, words have meanings. The English language is not mutable.

 

What you're talking about is anti-Market. It is controls and regulation. That's the oppoosite of the Martket. Your conflation of Market and anti-Market is just about as dishonest of an Orwellian argument as one could make. Knock it off.

 

One could make the libertarian argument that such laws should be left to the business and let the market decide it wants to buy from non polluting companies - companies that won't sell to blacks, gays, islamics, etc...and that is an argument one can have in a vacuum - in a world where business and transactional decisions are made without reference to society....but that is not the actual world we live in.

Oh, really? Then why is that what we're discussing?

 

You can't dismissively hand wave away an entire massive segment of the population and our Market based philosophies by fiat simply because they get in the way of your leftist, pro-statist, economy by democracy world view.

 

Like I said, learn the subject matter.

Edited February 26, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker

[Tiberius]

was it the Republicans that passed this hate law?

[TakeYouToTasker]

was it the Republicans that passed this hate law?

Again, since you've been away for awhile, the law does not endorse hate. It endorses freedom.

 

Some people will choose to use their freedom to observe their religious freedom (or to discriminate, however you choose to perceive it is fine). Other individuals will use their freedom to condem discriminatory business practices, and deny their dollars to the businesses they consider to be offending.

 

Freedom isn't always pretty, but it's the best thing we have. Freedom is the very thing that allows homosexuals to peacfully exist.

Edited February 26, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker

[TH3]

 

The NFL can say whatever they want. They aren't the Market. You're making an argument for big business dictating to small business how they must opperate, and that's the antithiesis of freed markets.

 

 

The NFL should not buy cakes from them. Additionally, the NFL should stop doing business with any other business partner it has that they disagree with in this regard. It should also launch an add campaign condeming what they consider to be discriminatory business practices if they want. What it doesn't get to do is dictate to others, who don't do business with them, how they will do business.

 

 

Then they should take their dollars elsewhere. They have the right to do that. What they don't have the right to do is dictate to others what moral standards they are allowed to hold.

 

 

Stop conflating terms. The Market doesn't mean whatever you want it to mean when it might help your argument. Again, words have meanings. The English language is not mutable.

 

What you're talking about is anti-Market. It is controls and regulation. That's the oppoosite of the Martket. Your conflation of Market and anti-Market is just about as dishonest of an Orwellian argument as one could make. Knock it off.

 

 

Oh, really? Then why is that what we're discussing?

 

You can't dismissively hand wave away an entire massive segment of the population and our Market based philosophies by fiat simply because they get in the way of your leftist, pro-statist, economy by democracy world view.

 

Like I said, learn the subject matter.

 

Actually I am quite a bit more conservative that you know....and I haven't really made a statement as to who is right or wrong....I am merely observing. What I am saying is the US is far from "market based" as you may believe or want. So you can either argue In the esoteric or discuss in the reality of how our country actually works.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

 

Actually I am quite a bit more conservative that you know....and I haven't really made a statement as to who is right or wrong....I am merely observing. What I am saying is the US is far from "market based" as you may believe or want. So you can either argue In the esoteric or discuss in the reality of how our country actually works.

Your statements about "how the country actually works" aside, you're not going to have the luxury of creating new definitions for words with me.

 

Additionally, the country seems to not be working that way, as support for this bit of legislation demonstrates. It also levels your argument that the concepts I am discussing are esoteric, as it's actually playing itself out in the public square as you protest so loudly.

[IDBillzFan]

Freedom isn't always pretty, but it's the best thing we have. Freedom is the very thing that allows homosexuals to peacfully exist.

 

Yes, but it sells better when you package opposition as hate.

 

Unless you're talking about the president. Then it's not hate. It's racism.

 

Whatever fits the statist narrative at the moment.

[ExiledInIllinois]

 

 

their agenda , that takeyou doesn't think exists.

 

I understand that the agenda exists. I find it counterproductive. One is never going change the mind of a photographer that has to shot pictures of a gay union... Or a cake maker that has to make a gay wedding cake. I do see where the law is problematic. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with a waiter or waitress serving food. Sexual orientation does have a part w/certain businesses.

[Alaska Darin]

I don't understand why it's even a story. Who really cares?

[ExiledInIllinois]

People like the New Mexico wedding photographer care. Not that I care, but they are the ones that didn't want to shoot the pictures and got sued in the first place. Couldn't they just say that they were all booked up for that weekend? Or maybe that is when their vacation is scheduled?

 

Like I said, this really only applies to certain industries that would be hit hard with a conflict.

 

This is NOTHING like buses down south or the lunch counters of the 1950's and early 1960's... As much as they want it to be, it just is not the same.

[DC Tom]

I don't understand why it's even a story.

 

You don't understand that the media's a group of pandering fools?

 

Who really cares?

 

You do. You'll care about what the mass media TELLS you to care about, goddammit! Now go watch American Idol.

[Deranged Rhino]

My man, you're a passionate soul and that clearly comes through. I'm sure you're a pretty good guy, too--gay straight or otherwise. On the other hand, if you swap out some of the concepts and replace them with some others, you would have been on horseback during the Crusades.

 

here's my problem with the whole discussion. some folks are gay. some folks are not. some folks are religious. some are not. some gay folks are religious, and some not-gay folks are not...and so on. i'd make the argument that the baker in the story doesn't see his religion as a 'choice' any more than any gay person thinks he or she had a choice.

 

This isn't a fair comparison. Regardless of your religion or your background (barring living in a cult your entire life -- or in Tom's basement), religion by definition is a choice. I'm not an expert on every religion in the world, but the vast majority that I know of -- if not all -- require their faithful to make a ritualistic pledge of some kind that demonstrates they are making a conscious choice to join the ranks. Religion is certainly cultural and passed down from family to family, but even then a choice is made somewhere along the line.

 

Now, that is not to say that I think every person has consciously made a choice about their religion. I am sure there are plenty of lesser-minds who think religion is some way genetic. But just because they believe that, doesn't mean I have to respect their opinion on that issue or gay rights.

 

Sexuality is a scale -- hetero on one end, gay on the other, and everything else inbetween. We are all born onto a spot somewhere in that range. Our environment can cause us to deny our own self, or move within our own scale to a more socially acceptable spot, but it can't change our genetic programming. Science has proven this to be true, not just of humans but of most animal species on our planet. Unlike religion, which requires you to decide to become a person of faith, sexuality is as natural as a person's skin color.

 

The above isn't a matter of opinion, it's a scientifically verified fact. Religion is tricky because it's so personal and because faith, by its very definition, is unproveable in the scientific sense. The problem I (personally speaking, not legislatively speaking) have is when a person's faith diminishes their capacity for reason. I'm a believer in science, in fact. I'm also a man of faith. The two can co-exist -- even thrive -- but not when reason is muted.

 

i think people expose their biases in their inability to see the fine distinction between what appear to be two totally contrasting points of view. here's an example where you wrote "so long as those views don't cause any harm.".

 

here's my question to you: "Harm" to who(m)?".

 

Put another way...should the baker be compelled to violate his personal and deeply held religious beliefs (and thus be harmed) so someone else is not?

 

I am not in favor of legislating the issue with the bakery at all. I've been pretty consistent and clear on that part of this. As for your first question, "harm to whom", I think that's a "I know it when I see it" kind of thing -- subjective of course, but we are talking about my own personal outlook so that's to be expected.

 

From a personal stand point, not speaking of passing laws or government/politics, I do have a problem with a person who uses their religion to justify hatred. I already rambled about that aspect enough in the previous post, but I also recognize the inherent irony in me judging someone else's faith -- which is why I believe government and religion shouldn't even be neighbors. They should be distant pen-pals at best.

[DC Tom]

This isn't a fair comparison. Regardless of your religion or your background (barring living in a cult your entire life -- or in Tom's basement),

 

You say that as though there's a difference.

 

C'mon...chant with me...