Good job Arizona

[greentrip]

Maybe the law is payback for all the bigotry we have seen from gays in recent years.

 

[Glaucoma]

I want to know how they're going to check people to see if they're gay when they enter the store.

Does anyone have any details on how the identification process works?
Does it involve pat downs and squeezin the Charmin roll, know what I mean?

All the more reason this will likely not happen. Arizona is good at trying to pass laws that are redundant and make itself look bad. You can already deny service based on whatever the hell you want. No shirt, No shoes, etc.. It is, after all, a Red state.

 

[UncleBuck]

Maybe the law is payback for all the bigotry we have seen from gays in recent years.

in just two posts you have identified yourself as a true retard.

 

[NoDrama]

they surely do a lot more then simply having an opinion on gay marriages, they donate some pretty big chunks of change to those opinions..
Chick-Fil-A's Charitable Arm Gave Nearly $2 Million To Anti-Gay Groups In 2010

WinShape Is Chick-Fil-A's Charitable Arm. The WinShape Foundation is Chick-fil-A's charitable arm, created by Chick-fil-A founder and chairman S. Truett Cathy in 1984. WinShape has received a substantial amount of funding from Chick-fil-A: in 2010 alone, WinShape received $8,067,161 from Chick-fil-A Inc. [WinShape 2010, Publicly Available IRS 990 Form via Foundation Center, accessed 6/27/12]

WinShape Gave Over $1.9 Million To Anti-Gay Groups. In 2010, WinShape donated $1,974,380 to a number of anti-gay groups:

Marriage & Family Foundation: $1,188,380
Fellowship Of Christian Athletes: $480,000
National Christian Foundation: $247,500
New Mexico Christian Foundation: $54,000
Exodus International: $1,000
Family Research Council: $1,000
Georgia Family Council: $2,500

http://equalitymatters.org/factcheck/201207020001

but you're correct, a gay surely could walk into a chic fil'a and buy a chicken sammy no problem, although i don't know why one would, and i will no longer go to one after seeing what they're all about..

So you object on religious grounds?

Plenty of jesus lovers are anti-gay, it sorta says that men shall not lay with men somewhere in the big book of sky daddy and son. Its not like a 10th commandment or anything, but you know, some of those fuckers really take that book literally.

You really shouldn't give any money to any charity. they all have people in them, and people are known to do terrible things. Better to keep that money out of the hands of evil by flushing it down the toilet. Besides I am sure that all the Chik-Fil-A money is to only be used to get gangs of skinheads to beat up gays and go gay bashing and gay hunting whenever open season is.

I wouldn't eat at McDonald's either, one of the executives there beats his wife, if you eat at McDonalds you support wife beating. I wouldn't go to Wendy's either, the wendys in Down town Des Moines has a assistant manager that sells coke to little kids. If you eat at wendy's you support selling hard drugs to kids.

Bananas. Ever eaten a banana? One of the Major Banana Producers owners killed his daughter. If you eat bananas you support killing children.

Having fun yet?

 

[NoDrama]

in just two posts you have identified yourself as a true retard.

Still not a record, Cheezy owns that one for life.

 

[Harrekin]

yes you did.

the question in front of us is whether businesses should be allowed to deny service to homosexuals, and you are trying to liken it to being allowed to turn away pedophiles and rapists.

that's pretty disgusting shit, and sad statement about your thoughts here.

You're fucking pathetic, get over yourself Buck.

Maybe someday you'll stop hating yourself.

 

[heckler73]

All the more reason this will likely not happen. Arizona is good at trying to pass laws that are redundant and make itself look bad. You can already deny service based on whatever the hell you want. No shirt, No shoes, etc.. It is, after all, a Red state.

But 'no shoes, no shirt' is easy to identify, how do they sniff out da ghey?
Apparently, another forum member can do it using secret jedi mind powers, but he won't teach us this ancient technique.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

But 'no shoes, no shirt' is easy to identify, how do they sniff out da ghey?
Apparently, another forum member can do it using secret jedi mind powers, but he won't teach us this ancient technique.

If you spot two dudes sticking their tongues down eachother's throats, doesn't take much Jedi mind powers, now does it?

 

[Harrekin]

If you spot two dudes sticking their tongues down eachother's throats, doesn't take much Jedi mind powers, now does it?

The gay man is probably working on the burger machine, all that mincing, all day.

Super-glorious!

 

[Canna Sylvan]

The gay man is probably working on the burger machine, all that mincing, all day.

Super-glorious!

I'm thinking businesses will have policies against color coordination. Who needs Jedi? All it takes is a few stoners.

 

[Harrekin]

I'm thinking businesses will have policies against color coordination. Who needs Jedi? All it takes is a few stoners.

And calling people "guuuuuurl".

 

[racerboy71]

So you object on religious grounds?

Plenty of jesus lovers are anti-gay, it sorta says that men shall not lay with men somewhere in the big book of sky daddy and son. Its not like a 10th commandment or anything, but you know, some of those fuckers really take that book literally.

You really shouldn't give any money to any charity. they all have people in them, and people are known to do terrible things. Better to keep that money out of the hands of evil by flushing it down the toilet. Besides I am sure that all the Chik-Fil-A money is to only be used to get gangs of skinheads to beat up gays and go gay bashing and gay hunting whenever open season is.

I wouldn't eat at McDonald's either, one of the executives there beats his wife, if you eat at McDonalds you support wife beating. I wouldn't go to Wendy's either, the wendys in Down town Des Moines has a assistant manager that sells coke to little kids. If you eat at wendy's you support selling hard drugs to kids.

Bananas. Ever eaten a banana? One of the Major Banana Producers owners killed his daughter. If you eat bananas you support killing children.

Having fun yet?

i'm an atheist, so i don't have many religious grounds, other then to try and be a better racerboy then i was yesterday, which is always tough as i rock out with my cock out and all.. but no, i object on moral grounds, i think it's kind of shitty to be shitty towards other people who are different then you, for w/e reason, be it skin color, sexual preference or if they happen to like shiny silver things on their shoes..

nice try with the mcdonald's employee who beats his wife and the wendy's employee who sells coke to kids though, but there's a huge difference between the actions of an individual and the actions of a business such as chick-fil-a, but you already know this..

i've seen people get pissed at starbuck's coffee for the fact that they don't support the war, and as a result refuse to send free coffee to the soilders over there.. i on the other hand, agree with starbucks, and now won't go to dunkin doughnuts for my coffee or really, chai tea, and shop at starbucks more often now.. see, that's how these things work..

 

[Padawanbater2]

It's weird, at first, reading this thread, I kind of agreed business owners should be able to open their business and serve who they want, and likewise, not serve who they choose not to. But going through some of the replies, I realized this view only serves to perpetuate the racism that fuels the division..

It should not be your right to ensure future prejudice. As public schools have shown, preventing the inevitable only serves to prolong the racism.

 

[schuylaar]

(CNN) -- Arizona's Legislature has passed a controversial bill that would allow business owners, as long as they assert their religious beliefs, to deny service to gay and lesbian customers.
The bill, which the state House of Representatives passed by a 33-27 vote Thursday, now goes to Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican and onetime small business owner who vetoed similar legislation last year but has expressed the right of business owners to deny service.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/21/us/arizona-anti-gay-bill/index.html?hpt=hp_bn1


Why is Arizona the epicenter of Hate?

5 star thread and may jan brewers face* fall even further should she vote this bill into law.

*Pro Tip Hint: liberal use of spf60 would have left you wrinkle free with porcelain skin like schuylaar

 

[schuylaar]

And calling people "guuuuuurl".

hey! hey! hey!

 

[Canna Sylvan]

It's weird, at first, reading this thread, I kind of agreed business owners should be able to open their business and serve who they want, and likewise, not serve who they choose not to. But going through some of the replies, I realized this view only serves to perpetuate the racism that fuels the division..

It should not be your right to ensure future prejudice. As public schools have shown, preventing the inevitable only serves to prolong the racism.

Your opinion is easily swayed at the drop of a hat. Diagnosis, liberal.

 

[Rob Roy]

Serving the public means serving the public at large, refusing a black person gas in the middle of a desert cos the owner "doesn't like the look of them" creates a demonstrable harm.

The rights of the business owner only extend to the point where they breach the rights of someone else.

If you don't like it, don't claim to be open to the public.

The rights of another cannot be breached when you are determining what you will do with YOUR property. They can however be breached when a person or persons determine what you will do with YOUR property. The "public", government, or any other group of people has no higher claim on your body or your property than YOU do. If that were so, then there is not really "private property" as a thing cannot be two contradictory things at once can it?

Your desert example is compelling, but it doesn't address who owns the property.

 

[Rob Roy]

It's weird, at first, reading this thread, I kind of agreed business owners should be able to open their business and serve who they want, and likewise, not serve who they choose not to. But going through some of the replies, I realized this view only serves to perpetuate the racism that fuels the division..

It should not be your right to ensure future prejudice. As public schools have shown, preventing the inevitable only serves to prolong the racism.

Of course racism is stupid. However a harm is not created by a person refusing to associate with somebody. That is simply maintaining a neutral position, "you leave me alone, and I leave you alone etc. " . A harm is created when people force others to associate or force others to use their body or their property in ways that the owner would prefer not to.

Public schools? John Taylor Gatto called, he said you should google "prussian schools" . Peace.

 

[Bombur]

As disgusting as it is to me that someone would refuse a mutually beneficial transaction due to unrelated personal choices like sexual orientation.. I can not support the government forcing the hand of business owners. It is simply wrong.

To the people who believe businesses should be forced to do business with everyone: what if a customer walks in with a KKK uniform on? Or a nazi uniform? Should you not be allowed to refuse them service? Can't have it both ways.

 

[Rob Roy]

As disgusting as it is to me that someone would refuse a mutually beneficial transaction due to unrelated personal choices like sexual orientation.. I can not support the government forcing the hand of business owners. It is simply wrong.

To the people who believe businesses should be forced to do business with everyone: what if a customer walks in with a KKK uniform on? Or a nazi uniform? Should you not be allowed to refuse them service? Can't have it both ways.

The reasons why a person refuses to associate with somebody are not the business of others. All of the compelling examples skirt completely around the question of who else but the owner of so called private property should control it? The idea that others can control our property is a slippery slope and is one of the cornerstones of the prohibitionist mindset.