Stay classy, Arizona. Stay classy.

[Deranged Rhino]

This has nothing to do with civil rights. Gays are not glow in the dark. No one will know their gay till they advertise it as they seem to like to do[seen many straight parades recently?] Yes I can see a business owner, say a restaurant serving breakfast at 9 AM, not wanting 2 guys lip locking at the counter.

It has everything to do with Civil Rights, and your argument against it is exactly why it needs to be couched in those terms.

 

"No one will know their (sic) gay till (sic) they advertise as they seem to like to do..." That's a ridiculously backwards thing to say. Being gay isn't a choice. Yes, you can "hide" your sexuality more easily than you can your skin color, but in order to do so they must hide who they are. In your mind simply by holding hands with their signifcant other would be "advertising", yet you wouldn't blink if it was a man and a woman. Why? Because that's YOUR perception of what "normal" is. You're asking someone else to live a lie in public in order to make you feel better. That's so selfish and screams ignorance when you hide it behind a religious freedom argument. It may gross you out to see two men kiss at a diner, but you wouldn't bat an eye if a man gave his wife a peck in public. If a man and wife were making out in a diner, they'd get asked to leave just like a gay couple would. See how silly what you're saying is? You're saying it's okay for a straight man to display his affections for his signifcant other, but some how it's "advertising" when two men do the same thing and, thus, it's okay to discriminate against them. It's no different than saying it's okay to descriminate against someone for their skin color. You'll disagree though because you think being gay is a choice.

 

I'm going out on a limb there, but it's true, isn't it? Even if you yourself don't believe that, many people who are on your side of the fence who believe it. And that's the real issue at play beneath all the bullshiiiit religious objections or social objections. People excuse their bigotry by believing being gay is a choice despite the fact that's a notion that's been disproven scientifically for well over a decade now.

 

But then again, science isn't fact. I forget.

 

While this proposed law is not a social issue per se, he will treat it as one.

 

Regardless of what side of the issue you're on, this absolutely is a social issue. How can it not be? It's not strictly a social issue, but you can't divorce that element from it entirely.

 

This pretty much sums it all up. I understand the progressive and statist need to define those they disagree with as people who hate, but they simply look foolish to the average American who knows that a gay couple being refused by a Christian baker does not mean the gay couple will be refused by all bakers. Forcing the one baker who refused them to go against their faith or go out of business should rattle everyone to the bone.

 

But no. The baker hates so they must be made to care. or close their business.

 

There is no other way to define anti-gay sentiments other than hate.

 

It's amazing to me that we can be in synch on many issues and be oceans apart on ones that I consider fundamental. Well, we both would consider them fundamental I guess. Either way, it's amusing.

[IDBillzFan]

There is no other way to define anti-gay sentiments other than hate.

 

Since you are aware of the story, you are aware It wasn't anti-gay sentiments, but rather (more specifically) anti-gay marriage sentiments. And what you call hate, they call faith.

 

I don't profess to be a particularly well-versed Christian, but regardless of what you or anyone else thinks, many Christians believe homosexuality is a sin, and that marriage is strictly between a man and a woman. I've never met a Christian who hated gays. Many are just the opposite.

 

They are driven by their faith...whether you choose to follow or respect their faith or not.

 

But how can you (not you, personally, but YOU) demand...in fact legally FORCE them, by law, to follow what is essentially YOUR faith while simultaneously discarding THEIRS?

 

Who's the hater here again?

[3rdnlng]

It has everything to do with Civil Rights, and your argument against it is exactly why it needs to be couched in those terms.

 

"No one will know their (sic) gay till (sic) they advertise as they seem to like to do..." That's a ridiculously backwards thing to say. Being gay isn't a choice. Yes, you can "hide" your sexuality more easily than you can your skin color, but in order to do so they must hide who they are. In your mind simply by holding hands with their signifcant other would be "advertising", yet you wouldn't blink if it was a man and a woman. Why? Because that's YOUR perception of what "normal" is. You're asking someone else to live a lie in public in order to make you feel better. That's so selfish and screams ignorance when you hide it behind a religious freedom argument. It may gross you out to see two men kiss at a diner, but you wouldn't bat an eye if a man gave his wife a peck in public. If a man and wife were making out in a diner, they'd get asked to leave just like a gay couple would. See how silly what you're saying is? You're saying it's okay for a straight man to display his affections for his signifcant other, but some how it's "advertising" when two men do the same thing and, thus, it's okay to discriminate against them. It's no different than saying it's okay to descriminate against someone for their skin color. You'll disagree though because you think being gay is a choice.

 

I'm going out on a limb there, but it's true, isn't it? Even if you yourself don't believe that, many people who are on your side of the fence who believe it. And that's the real issue at play beneath all the bullshiiiit religious objections or social objections. People excuse their bigotry by believing being gay is a choice despite the fact that's a notion that's been disproven scientifically for well over a decade now.

 

But then again, science isn't fact. I forget.

 

 

 

Regardless of what side of the issue you're on, this absolutely is a social issue. How can it not be? It's not strictly a social issue, but you can't divorce that element from it entirely.

 

 

 

There is no other way to define anti-gay sentiments other than hate.

 

It's amazing to me that we can be in synch on many issues and be oceans apart on ones that I consider fundamental. Well, we both would consider them fundamental I guess. Either way, it's amusing.

 

You're better than that. A kiss vs. a peck?

Edited February 24, 2014 by 3rdnlng

[Deranged Rhino]

Since you are aware of the story, you are aware It wasn't anti-gay sentiments, but rather (more specifically) anti-gay marriage sentiments. And what you call hate, they call faith.

 

I don't profess to be a particularly well-versed Christian, but regardless of what you or anyone else thinks, many Christians believe homosexuality is a sin, and that marriage is strictly between a man and a woman. I've never met a Christian who hated gays. Many are just the opposite.

 

They are driven by their faith...whether you choose to follow or respect their faith or not.

 

But how can you (not you, personally, but YOU) demand...in fact legally FORCE them, by law, to follow what is essentially YOUR faith while simultaneously discarding THEIRS?

 

Who's the hater here again?

I'm with you on the last sentement. Even though it may seem differently. I'm not in favor of legislating this from either side.

 

In this case though, gay-marriage has nothing to do with the bill in question. At least not to me. It's a straight up anti-gay law regardless of how it's spun. And let me clarify a bit on the hate part because you are right. There are plenty of good hearted peopel who honestly believe it's a sin and don't hate but rather pity those they feel are afflicted with sin. Whether they realize it or not, unless it's just borne from ignorance, to me, their beliefs are STILL based on hate. I don't mean that as a slap against religion/Christainity as a whole. Just certain elements of it. Organized religion is ALWAYS behind the times on social issues and are always dragged kicking and screaming into "modern" social norms. Religions have evolved over time without destroying the faith because the core message remains constant -- unless that sect/denomination's message is based on something other than genuine faith.

 

Whatever your denomination, if you consider yourself a Christain then you believe in the word of Christ above all else. Every writen word, every physical and administrative structure built by the churches and denominations that proceeded him were created by man and thus are not above corruption. And the word of Christ above all else is one of love. Love is INCLUSIVE, not divisive. Singling out any one segment of the population and labeling them blindly as sinners is not Christ like. That notion isn't about about love, it's about fear. Fear that's driven by hate. It's driven by the very oposite of which Christ stood and died for.

 

And, just like there were those who pointed to the bible to condone slavery or segregation, there will always be those who will use the bible to promote hate and mask it in "faith". Charlatans are everywhere, and so are the sheep. As a Christain you're supposed to think for yourself and sort the true Word from the false prophets, the wheat from the chaffe. So I have very little respect for anyone who claims their relgion gives them the right to judge another human being for a genetic pre-disposition, especially those who have the balls to do so while using Christ as their shield . They may not know they're hating, but it's there all the same.

 

That said, I understand the hypocrasy inherent in me passing judgment on someone else's faith. Which is why I don't think for a minute they should be forced to change their views to placate me or anyone so long as those views aren't causing harm. But I also don't want those sorts of individuals, ones who are driven more by faith than by reason, involved in politics or government in any capacity. To me, those are the most dangerous types of people throughout history.

Edited February 24, 2014 by GreggyT

[Gary M]

The LGBT community, if you can even call it that, is not some monolith.

 

But that does not preclude them from having an agenda.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

 

But that does not preclude them from having an agenda.

Yes, actually. It does. Would you also say that there is a white agenda? A female agenda? A Hispanic agenda?

[\GoBillsInDallas/]

It's interesting that Gov. Cuomo makes a public statement that people who have certain political views are "not welcome" in NYS, and no one complains.

 

And here we have people complaining that Arizona businesses need to be forced to deal with other people who have views that are different than theirs.

 

[Gary M]

It's interesting that Gov. Cuomo makes a public statement that people who have certain political views are "not welcome" in NYS, and no one complains.

 

And here we have people complaining that Arizona businesses need to be forced to deal with other people who have views that are different than theirs.

 

 

 

Liberal/progressive hypocrisy has no bounds.

[IDBillzFan]

That said, I understand the hypocrasy inherent in me passing judgment on someone else's faith. Which is why I don't think for a minute they should be forced to change their views to placate me or anyone so long as those views aren't causing harm. But I also don't want those sorts of individuals, ones who are driven more by faith than by reason, involved in politics or government in any capacity. To me, those are the most dangerous types of people throughout history.

 

 

Yep. I think we agree much more on the topic than it started to appear. See below.

 

Would you also say that there is a white agenda? A female agenda? A Hispanic agenda?

 

Yes, yes, and yes...all in the form of masks -- some larger, scarier and more powerful than others -- of those with a political agenda that equates to a power/financial agenda.

[Jim in Anchorage]

It has everything to do with Civil Rights, and your argument against it is exactly why it needs to be couched in those terms.

 

"No one will know their (sic) gay till (sic) they advertise as they seem to like to do..." That's a ridiculously backwards thing to say. Being gay isn't a choice. Yes, you can "hide" your sexuality more easily than you can your skin color, but in order to do so they must hide who they are. In your mind simply by holding hands with their signifcant other would be "advertising", yet you wouldn't blink if it was a man and a woman. Why? Because that's YOUR perception of what "normal" is. You're asking someone else to live a lie in public in order to make you feel better. That's so selfish and screams ignorance when you hide it behind a religious freedom argument. It may gross you out to see two men kiss at a diner, but you wouldn't bat an eye if a man gave his wife a peck in public. If a man and wife were making out in a diner, they'd get asked to leave just like a gay couple would. See how silly what you're saying is? You're saying it's okay for a straight man to display his affections for his signifcant other, but some how it's "advertising" when two men do the same thing and, thus, it's okay to discriminate against them. It's no different than saying it's okay to descriminate against someone for their skin color. You'll disagree though because you think being gay is a choice.

 

I'm going out on a limb there, but it's true, isn't it? Even if you yourself don't believe that, many people who are on your side of the fence who believe it. And that's the real issue at play beneath all the bullshiiiit religious objections or social objections. People excuse their bigotry by believing being gay is a choice despite the fact that's a notion that's been disproven scientifically for well over a decade now.

 

But then again, science isn't fact. I forget.

 

First of all you will not find where I said being gay is a choice and I don't need science to tell me that.I know I could no more be gay then decide to grow a tail, so let's put that part to rest. You like to say hate over and over. Do I hate gays? No. Do I think homosexuality is natural and normal? Absolutely not. What could be more of a evolutionary dead end then a same sex union? I don't need to turn to God to see that, nature makes it clear.

 

This is not a law telling any one they must or mustn't serve gays. It just gets government out of the social engineering department and I like it.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Yes, yes, and yes...all in the form of masks -- some larger, scarier and more powerful than others -- of those with a political agenda that equates to a power/financial agenda.

Oh, good grief...

 

The Klu Klux Clan does not speak for white people. NOW does not speak for women. NCLR does not speak for Hispanics.

 

Individuals have agendas. Subsegments of society are not monolithic; and speaking of them as though they are is central to political othering. It's silly and counter-productive.

Edited February 26, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker

[IDBillzFan]

Oh, good grief...

 

The Klu Klux Clan does not speak for white people. NOW does not speak for women. NCLR does not speak for Hispanics.

 

Individuals have agenda's. Subsegments of society are not monolithic; and speaking of them as though they are is central to political othering. It's silly and counter-productive.

 

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. Politicians push these agendas not because they have a gay agenda or female agenda, but because they have a gather cash/power agenda and take the money, gifts, donations etc. from lobbyists who stand to gain from the laws they get the politicians to pass.

[TakeYouToTasker]

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. Politicians push these agendas not because they have a gay agenda or female agenda, but because they have a gather cash/power agenda and take the money, gifts, donations etc. from lobbyists who stand to gain from the laws they get the politicians to pass.

Well, of course, but that differs greatly from Gary M's sentiments.

 

Edit: which is why it's counter-productive to lable political agendas of the connected and powerful with monolithic headlines like "gay agenda". It doesn't speak to the problem, and courts all sorts of argument, as well it should.

Edited February 24, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker

[Deranged Rhino]

It's interesting that Gov. Cuomo makes a public statement that people who have certain political views are "not welcome" in NYS, and no one complains.

 

I haven't been around much the past 6 months or so, but I heard plenty of complaints about Cuomo's statements. The difference, while being a very fine point I'll admit, is that descrimination against someone's politics has become socially acceptable with the birth of cable/conflict news (both sides make millions and win or lose elections doing just that) whereas discriminating against someone's sexuality/religion/race is still offensive to the public at large.

 

But you raise an interesting point. How long before that's deemed socially acceptable too?

 

First of all you will not find where I said being gay is a choice and I don't need science to tell me that.I know I could no more be gay then decide to grow a tail, so let's put that part to rest.

Fair. And, I did say I was going out on a limb with that assertation.

 

 

You like to say hate over and over. Do I hate gays? No.

 

While I find your softening on this issue over the years to be a step in the right direction, you have a long and lengthy and, in my opinion, shameful posting history on this site when it comes to gay issues. You, more than almost any other poster that I regularly have interacted with, hurl more bigotted and homophobic slurs than everyone else on here combined. More than just the words, you took GLEE in such statements. In fact, if your descendents were to read your older posts on this issue, twenty years, thirty years from now, they would undoubtedly be ashamed of your small mindedness and lack of empathy.

 

So forgive me if I find your claims to not hate gays as dubious. I'm only going on your track record.

 

Do I think homosexuality is natural and normal? Absolutely not. What could be more of a evolutionary dead end then a same sex union? I don't need to turn to God to see that, nature makes it clear.

 

There ya go. Following up a rational and sane sentence above with one dripping with distain and ignorance. Nature, if anything, makes it clear that homosexuality is not a human condition. It's a natural one. It's found in dozens of species outside of humans, so if you're going by nature it would seem that a scale of sexuality is "normal" -- not strict heterosexuality.

 

So again, you're misinformed about this issue.

 

This is not a law telling any one they must or mustn't serve gays. It just gets government out of the social engineering department and I like it.

 

Please, elaborate on how a law like this, one that gets the government involved in issues of sexuality, "gets government out of the social engineering department"? Just because you like the law and the issue it's attempting to address does not mean it's any less dangerous than the other side attempting to remedy the issue through legislation. Right?

[Jim in Anchorage]

 

 

I haven't been around much the past 6 months or so, but I heard plenty of complaints about Cuomo's statements. The difference, while being a very fine point I'll admit, is that descrimination against someone's politics has become socially acceptable with the birth of cable/conflict news (both sides make millions and win or lose elections doing just that) whereas discriminating against someone's sexuality/religion/race is still offensive to the public at large.

 

But you raise an interesting point. How long before that's deemed socially acceptable too?

 

 

Fair. And, I did say I was going out on a limb with that assertation.

 

 

 

 

While I find your softening on this issue over the years to be a step in the right direction, you have a long and lengthy and, in my opinion, shameful posting history on this site when it comes to gay issues. You, more than almost any other poster that I regularly have interacted with, hurl more bigotted and homophobic slurs than everyone else on here combined. More than just the words, you took GLEE in such statements. In fact, if your descendents were to read your older posts on this issue, twenty years, thirty years from now, they would undoubtedly be ashamed of your small mindedness and lack of empathy.

 

So forgive me if I find your claims to not hate gays as dubious. I'm only going on your track record.

 

 

 

There ya go. Following up a rational and sane sentence above with one dripping with distain and ignorance. Nature, if anything, makes it clear that homosexuality is not a human condition. It's a natural one. It's found in dozens of species outside of humans, so if you're going by nature it would seem that a scale of sexuality is "normal" -- not strict heterosexuality.

 

So again, you're misinformed about this issue.

 

 

 

Please, elaborate on how a law like this, one that gets the government involved in issues of sexuality, "gets government out of the social engineering department"? Just because you like the law and the issue it's attempting to address does not mean it's any less dangerous than the other side attempting to remedy the issue through legislation. Right?

Interesting rebuttal and I will sure address it when I get some time.

[TH3]

If you are a store owner and hear or feel a guidance telling you not to bake a cake for two people getting married....I am guessing that voice is coming from below your feet....not from the clouds above.....

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

I'm with you on the last sentement. Even though it may seem differently. I'm not in favor of legislating this from either side.

 

In this case though, gay-marriage has nothing to do with the bill in question. At least not to me. It's a straight up anti-gay law regardless of how it's spun. And let me clarify a bit on the hate part because you are right. There are plenty of good hearted peopel who honestly believe it's a sin and don't hate but rather pity those they feel are afflicted with sin. Whether they realize it or not, unless it's just borne from ignorance, to me, their beliefs are STILL based on hate. I don't mean that as a slap against religion/Christainity as a whole. Just certain elements of it. Organized religion is ALWAYS behind the times on social issues and are always dragged kicking and screaming into "modern" social norms. Religions have evolved over time without destroying the faith because the core message remains constant -- unless that sect/denomination's message is based on something other than genuine faith.

 

Whatever your denomination, if you consider yourself a Christain then you believe in the word of Christ above all else. Every writen word, every physical and administrative structure built by the churches and denominations that proceeded him were created by man and thus are not above corruption. And the word of Christ above all else is one of love. Love is INCLUSIVE, not divisive. Singling out any one segment of the population and labeling them blindly as sinners is not Christ like. That notion isn't about about love, it's about fear. Fear that's driven by hate. It's driven by the very oposite of which Christ stood and died for.

 

And, just like there were those who pointed to the bible to condone slavery or segregation, there will always be those who will use the bible to promote hate and mask it in "faith". Charlatans are everywhere, and so are the sheep. As a Christain you're supposed to think for yourself and sort the true Word from the false prophets, the wheat from the chaffe. So I have very little respect for anyone who claims their relgion gives them the right to judge another human being for a genetic pre-disposition, especially those who have the balls to do so while using Christ as their shield . They may not know they're hating, but it's there all the same.

 

That said, I understand the hypocrasy inherent in me passing judgment on someone else's faith. Which is why I don't think for a minute they should be forced to change their views to placate me or anyone so long as those views aren't causing harm. But I also don't want those sorts of individuals, ones who are driven more by faith than by reason, involved in politics or government in any capacity. To me, those are the most dangerous types of people throughout history.

 

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. 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?

 

In our quest for a perfect world order that celebrates diversity, we sure like to see everyone painting with the same color crayons on certain social issues.

 

Oh--and not that it matters, but as a baker, I'd think that all green is good and it would be nice if the guy was able to reconcile his personal beliefs with the joy he might well bring these two individuals just trying to make their way through the world like anyone else. but..if he could not...so be it. the market tends to fix those things one way or the other.

[TH3]

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

Edited February 26, 2014 by baskin

[ExiledInIllinois]

If you are a store owner and hear or feel a guidance telling you not to bake a cake for two people getting married....I am guessing that voice is coming from below your feet....not from the clouds above.....

 

What is so wrong with saying: "Sorry, we don't do that, but we can refer you to a company that does." I really don't think this can be legislated. Yet, what makes a gay person sue? Can't they just move on to somebody that will serve them. Say if the photographer doesn't want to take pictures @ a gay wedding, why force them? Maybe just take the damn pictures and do the crappiest job possible. This argument is ridiculous on both sides.

 

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

 

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

[....lybob]

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

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.