Gay Patriot Header Image

Maybe There Should Be a Law Against Disliking Gay People

Everybody, it seems, is dumping on the Arizona Legislature for passing a bill that codified what used to be a basic principle of commerce; that a business owner could refuse service to a customer if he didn’t want the customer’s business.  However, that pinciple has been abrogated, and business owners can be forced into involuntary servitude; all because a few hypersensitive, neurotic gheys got their feelers hurt when photographers, florists, or bakers didn’t want to be a part of their “weddings.”

So, why don’t we just cut to the chase and pass laws making it illegal not to like gay people; with fines and criminal penalties for anyone who uses any word, gesture, expression or behavior that any gay person judges to be insufficiently supportive of his or her lifestyle?The penalties could include mandatory sensitivity training at the offender’s expense; thus providing employment to otherwise utterly useless Gender Studies graduates.

Let’s just pass a law and get all Harrison Bergeron up in this b–ch. I mean, that’s the whole point of this exercise, isn’t it? (Something tells me the gay left will *still* be whiny and miserable anyway.)

Share

47 Comments

  1. In a statement, Burkman wrote that “We are losing our decency as a nation. Imagine your son being forced to shower with a gay man. That’s a horrifying prospect for every mom in the country. What in the world has this nation come to?”

    According to the statement, the idea for a Congressional ban on gay athletes in the NFL came to him after he watched coverage of Michael Sam’s decision to come out of the closet prior to the NFL draft. In recent weeks, Sam has been praised by many Democratic lawmakers, as well as First Lady Michelle Obama, who called him “an inspiration.”

    Last week, a group of Missouri students even formed a human wall to prevent the Westboro Baptist Church from protesting a Sam appearance.

    Burkman, however believes that “[i]f the NFL has no morals and no values, then Congress must find values for it.”

    Comment by rusty — February 24, 2014 @ 8:14 pm - February 24, 2014

  2. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/24/powerful-gop-lobbyist-drafts-bill-to-ban-gay-athletes-from-playing-in-the-nfl/

    Comment by rusty — February 24, 2014 @ 8:14 pm - February 24, 2014

  3. “can be forced into involuntary servitude”
    I know! Saying, “I will do something for money” and then not being able to discriminate against which customers I do the thing (I chose to do) for on the basis of their race or religion or which gender they date is just like slavery. And I as the business owner don’t even get paid! The price I charge for my services gets stolen by the gay mafia. Then I am forced by law to celebrate the wedding, and the celebration is confirmed by a lie detector test.

    Comment by hmm_contrib — February 24, 2014 @ 8:16 pm - February 24, 2014

  4. Rusty, I kept assuming your link was satire. OMG

    Comment by hmm_contrib — February 24, 2014 @ 8:20 pm - February 24, 2014

  5. IOW, rusty and hmm support making it a thoughtcrime to dislike gay people.

    Comment by V the K — February 24, 2014 @ 8:41 pm - February 24, 2014

  6. …rusty and hmm support making it a thoughtcrime to dislike gay people.

    Good luck to both of these sh*theels if they think that they can enforce such laws.
    Like I’ve said before, these two are typical of the self-absorbed twerps who can’t figure out when it’s time to get up and leave the poker table, or when it finally dawns on them, it’s way too late.
    Keep pushing your crap at us, ladies.

    Creeps.

    Comment by Jman1961 — February 24, 2014 @ 9:12 pm - February 24, 2014

  7. Burkman was not available to speak with The Hill but urged Congress to act in his statement.

    “If the NFL has no morals and no values, then Congress must find values for it,” Burkman said.

    Burkman serves as founder and president of his own lobbying firm, Burkman Associates. He has also worked as of counsel at law firm Holland & Knight. In the 1990s, he served as counsel to then-Rep. Rick Lazio (R-N.Y.).

    Burkman’s firm, JM Burkman & Associates, signed 70 new clients last year, the most of any K Street firm, a recent review by The Hill found.

    The four-lobbyist firm specializes in helping companies secure contracts with the federal government.

    Read more: http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/199057-lobbyist-drafting-bill-to-ban-gays-from-nfl#ixzz2uITSiRms

    Comment by rusty — February 24, 2014 @ 9:28 pm - February 24, 2014

  8. On Twitter, Arizona’s United States senators, John McCain and Jeff Flake, also Republicans, had nearly identical posts, with both of them saying they hoped Ms. Brewer would veto the bill. An executive from Apple Inc., which plans to build a big manufacturing plant in Mesa, called Ms. Brewer to urge her to reject it, and W. Douglas Parker, chairman and chief executive of American Airlines, sent her a letter citing the state’s “economic comeback” and saying, “There is genuine concern throughout the business community that this bill, if signed into law, would jeopardize all that has been accomplished so far.”

    Their calls were echoed by three Republican state senators — Adam Driggs, Steve Pierce and Bob Worsley, all members of the party’s conservative camp — who had helped pass the legislation in the first place. “While our sincere intent in voting for this bill was to create a shield for all citizens’ religious liberties, the bill has instead been mischaracterized by its opponents as a sword of religious intolerance,” the senators said in a letter to Ms. Brewer, adding that the matter was “causing our state immeasurable harm.”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/25/us/governor-of-arizona-is-pressed-to-veto-bill.html?_r=0

    Comment by rusty — February 24, 2014 @ 9:37 pm - February 24, 2014

  9. The letter, a portion of which was posted on Twitter by Buzzfeed’s Chris Geidner, was co-authored by Marriott’s Arizona area vice president Steve Hart and director of government affairs Thomas Maloney. In it, they urged Brewer to exercise her veto power in connection with SB 1062 on the grounds that it “would have profound negative impacts on the hospitality industry in Arizona and on the state’s overall economic climate for years to come.” Marriott provided Business Insider with a copy of the full letter, which cited concerns about “public perceptions” that could discourage travelers from visiting Arizona if the bill is not vetoed.

    “While we have still not returned to pre-2008 occupancy and revenue levels, our Arizona properties have seen a slow and steady recovery in both leisure and business stays since the end of the recession,” the letter said. “We have serious concerns that passage of SB 1062 would undermine — or worse, counteract — that progress. This legislation has the potential to subject our state to travel boycotts.”

    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/marriott-arizona-anti-gay-bill-veto-2014-2#ixzz2uIbB3N9v

    Comment by rusty — February 24, 2014 @ 9:59 pm - February 24, 2014

  10. 1) What they should be banning is group showers. I’ve hated those since I was in middle school and refused to use them, even if I had to spend the rest of the day sweaty and smelly. I don’t care. And I understand it’s even worse for women.

    2) Forcing someone to do something that is against their moral code is a violation of religious freedom. Remember, the Amish are exempt from Social Security Tax, Selective Service, etc., purely on their religious beliefs.

    3) Continuing to go this direction WILL result in actual Civil Disobedience. Not the fake civil disobedience done by the left, where they block traffic and have die-ins and stuff. That’s just normal protests. Civil Diobedience, as defined by Thoreau, involved deliberately breaking the law, and suffering the consequences of breaking it to show the injustice of the law.

    4) The difference between the Civil Rights struggle of the early 60′s and the struggle for gay rights today is drastically different, and conservative gays will tell you the same. Jim Crow REQUIRED businesses to provide separate facilities. This law merely allows a business to refuse service for any reason.

    Comment by Craig Smith — February 24, 2014 @ 10:05 pm - February 24, 2014

  11. It’s not that Mothers are bothered by their sons showering with other gay men…it’s that their sons might like it.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — February 24, 2014 @ 10:26 pm - February 24, 2014

  12. Childish insults aside, nothing about this bill makes anything a “thoughtcrime”. This is similar to the hysteria from social cons who claim they’re being forced to “celebrate” gayness all the time.
    The crime here would be to not serve a paying customer for discriminatory reasons. To deny service. To refuse to do business with. To turn down commerce. How Jman and V twist that into “The Demomarxocsocialists are trying to outlaw my freedom thoughts” is beyond me.

    Comment by hmm_contrib — February 24, 2014 @ 10:42 pm - February 24, 2014

  13. This law merely allows a business to refuse service for any reason.

    Which should be the right of any business owner. You should not forfeit your human rights just because you own a business.

    Comment by V the K — February 24, 2014 @ 10:43 pm - February 24, 2014

  14. V, you realize you’re calling for the repeal of the CRA’s, right?

    Perspective (taken from motherjones.com): “The New Republic noted that under the Arizona bill, ‘a restaurateur could deny service to an out-of-wedlock mother, a cop could refuse to intervene in a domestic dispute if his religion allows for husbands beating their wives, and a hotel chain could refuse to rent rooms to Jews, Hindus, or Muslims.’”

    Comment by hmm_contrib — February 24, 2014 @ 10:45 pm - February 24, 2014

  15. How Jman and V twist that into “The Demomarxocsocialists are trying to outlaw my freedom thoughts” is beyond me.

    That’s because you’re a witless ufcking creep who thinks that anything you desire is magically transformed into a ‘right’, and that you can force others into dealing with you.
    The time draws near when, if you haven’t learned how wrong that ‘belief is, it’s going to be taught to you.

    Is this beyond you, too?

    Comment by Jman1961 — February 24, 2014 @ 11:03 pm - February 24, 2014

  16. I guess we’re not leaving the childish insults aside, then. Pity.

    Comment by hmm_contrib — February 24, 2014 @ 11:08 pm - February 24, 2014

  17. rusty, what does that have to do with anything? That guy is obviously a moron and everyone would probably be better served by not giving him any attention.

    The crime here would be to not serve a paying customer for discriminatory reasons. To deny service. To refuse to do business with. To turn down commerce.

    None of those things is a “crime.” There are obviously parts of the Civil Rights Act that are flagrantly illegitimate based on the fact that government has no right whatsoever to involve itself in the dealings of private businesses as long as no actual law is being violated. And, in the case of refusing to serve someone, it isn’t. It is not against the law to hurt someone’s feelings, according to possibly the most fundamental of all rights: the right to free speech/conscience. Which is absolute. Considering that, prove that the businesses are infringing people’s rights by refusing service. The real crime here is being committed by the government: its over-regulation of commerce.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — February 24, 2014 @ 11:08 pm - February 24, 2014

  18. I don’t think anyone is arguing that discrimination is good; we are arguing that, in a free society, you have to tolerate the individual’s right to see things differently than you do.

    It’s much more dangerous to have a Government busy-bodying its way into everyone’s private business than it is to accept the fact that a few people are going to do things you don’t like. The market will take care of the latter problem just fine.

    Comment by V the K — February 24, 2014 @ 11:13 pm - February 24, 2014

  19. I don’t think anyone is arguing that discrimination is good

    This is another example of what Ignatius pointed out in the ‘infanticide’ thread.
    A lot of discrimination IS good.
    It wasn’t that long ago where it was a high compliment to say that a person had “discriminating taste”.

    Can we agree to stop accepting the Leftist definitions of these words?

    Comment by Jman1961 — February 24, 2014 @ 11:20 pm - February 24, 2014

  20. I guess we’re not leaving the childish insults aside…

    No, you little twerp, it’s a very accurate foretelling of what’s going to happen to creeps like you if you don’t back off.
    But clearly, you’re too intellectually powerful and nuanced to comprehend such a basic, straightforward concept.
    And THAT’S the real pity.

    Comment by Jman1961 — February 24, 2014 @ 11:24 pm - February 24, 2014

  21. I know! Saying, “I will do something for money” and then not being able to discriminate against which customers I do the thing (I chose to do) for on the basis of their race or religion or which gender they date is just like slavery. And I as the business owner don’t even get paid! The price I charge for my services gets stolen by the gay mafia. Then I am forced by law to celebrate the wedding, and the celebration is confirmed by a lie detector test.

    Now this is an example of childish.
    But hmm_brownshirt is so ucfking blind that it can’t see it.
    Motto: You GET as good as you GIVE.
    That’s a form of equality.
    And we all know how Leftists like hmm_dipsh*t love equality, don’t we?

    Comment by Jman1961 — February 24, 2014 @ 11:29 pm - February 24, 2014

  22. Oh, so rusty and hmm_contrib want to play cut’n’paste?

    Very well then.

    The locally-owned gym, with locations throughout the Bay Area, decided to close the steam rooms at the Castro and SoMa locations because they couldn’t police the sexual activity, particularly in the Castro location.

    Jarring yellow tape greeted steam-heat fans this week, blocking them from both entrance and eroticism. (The Castro location’s room of sweat and heat, we should point out, is famous for après-workout sexual release; “the protein pod” is what one friend of SFist crudely calls it.) The Fitness SF management told SFist that they decided to close the steam rooms at both locations after allegedly receiving loads of negative feedback. “We’ve received too many complaints,” they explained, adding, “Now that the steam rooms are closing, we’ll expand the shower area with more stalls and provide stalls with doors.”

    According to some Yelp reviews, the steam scene has gotten out of control, and not in a good way. “Locker room, steam, and Sauna have become nothing more than a gay bathhouse with management encouraging this behavior by turning a blind eye to it. Regulars to the bathhouse bypass the workout facilities and go directly to the wet area,” notes Dave D. about the SoMa gym. While James E. fumes, “I feel the steam room and locker room should be off limits when searching for your next Mr. Right now! I mean, come on, there are other venues to patronize if you are looking for naughty fun—there are some guys that just want to change, shower, and use the steam room without having to be gawked at and/or accosted.”

    Since pigs like rusty and hmm_contrib will not self-police or follow the rules, this is what businesses are forced to do.

    Now rusty and hmm_contrib; either start your piety dancing or run away and prove that a “health worker” such as yourself supports leaving semen all over a business’s facility and exposing other customers to your unwanted behavior.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 24, 2014 @ 11:39 pm - February 24, 2014

  23. If this bill represents “what used to be a basic principle of commerce,” then why do we need the bill? Oh yeah, ‘cuz religious viewpoints need formalized protection under the US and State Constitutions since the First Amendment is insufficient… and Christianity only need apply, of course. When you’ve finished explaining that piece of sophistry, I’ll be happy to include you with the rest of the “activist” judges, the “gheys,” and the other Liberal ilk you roundly denounce.

    Comment by Mike Roberts — February 24, 2014 @ 11:58 pm - February 24, 2014

  24. I don’t think I could respond to Mike Roberts any better than this:
    http://youtu.be/5hfYJsQAhl0

    Obviously, religious viewpoints do require protection, because the freedoms of religious people are being violated when they are forced to participate in rituals that are contrary to their religious beliefs; noting that there is no harm that results from them not participating.

    Comment by V the K — February 25, 2014 @ 12:04 am - February 25, 2014

  25. Comment by Mike Roberts Another Leftist A-hole — February 24, 2014 @ 11:58 pm

    Wow!
    This is the type of comment that someone posts when they’re on a meth binge.

    Scary.

    Stay off the internet until you’re sober, sport.

    Comment by Jman1961 — February 25, 2014 @ 12:06 am - February 25, 2014

  26. If this bill represents “what used to be a basic principle of commerce,” then why do we need the bill?

    Because it attempts to restore what used to be, you inane simpleton.
    And I’ll just bet that you got a real kollege ejumakashun, too.
    Right?

    Comment by Jman1961 — February 25, 2014 @ 12:10 am - February 25, 2014

  27. Corporate tech giant Apple has asked Gov. Jan Brewer to veto the controversial religious freedom bill SB1062, the company and the Governor’s Office confirmed.
    Brewer spokesman Andrew Wilder said the governor spoke on the phone with the company.
    The request comes as Apple prepares to open a new sapphire glass manufacturing plant in Mesa. The plant, which Brewer and other political leaders have touted as economic development coup for Arizona, will employ about 700 full-time employees.
    With its veto request, Apple joins other anti-SB1062 business groups that have asked Brewer to veto the controversial bill. The Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona Technology Council, Greater Phoenix Economic Council and Tucson Hispanic Chamber of Commerce came out against the bill the day after the Legislature passed it. The influential Arizona Chamber of Commerce, Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce and Greater Phoenix Leadership have since sought a veto from Brewer as well.
    The chorus of anti-SB1062 businesses kept getting louder on Monday as 83 companies, trade organizations and other business groups signed onto a letter, originally sent on Friday by the Arizona Technology Council, urging the governor to veto the bill. The additional signees included several major hotel chains, tourism groups, corporate giants like AT&T and other technology companies.
    Numerous business organizations have urged Brewer to veto SB1062, which supporters say will protect religious freedom and critics say will allow companies to use religious beliefs to discriminate against the LBGT community.

    Read more: http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2014/02/24/apple-joins-anti-sb1062-chorus/#ixzz2uJAVQ6yv

    Comment by rusty — February 25, 2014 @ 12:20 am - February 25, 2014

  28. The idiot volunteer appears to be trapped in Cut n Paste loop.

    Comment by Jman1961 — February 25, 2014 @ 12:21 am - February 25, 2014

  29. Maybe lgbtq outa drop dead. It couldn’t be too soon.

    Comment by larry — February 25, 2014 @ 12:24 am - February 25, 2014

  30. I’m sorry, do we need to have a lesson in constitutional law? The “establishment of religion” bit referred to the creation of a state religion; as Thomas Jefferson wrote to the first Baptists, it was not meant to keep religion out of the affairs of the state, but the state out of the affairs of religion. It was specifically crafted to protect religions from the oppression of an unfriendly state.

    And wrt Arizona: does this law specifically say “only Christians can refuse people business to religious grounds”? My understanding is that the wedding cake example was used as a topical example. Why shouldn’t a Jewish butcher be free to refuse to prepare a non-kosher slice? Why shouldn’t a Muslim be free to refuse to transport somebody who has alcohol on their breath or is walking their dog, as was successfully argued in New York a while back?

    How would a store owner who refused to sell goods to gay people know that a person was gay? Either the person tells the store owner they are gay, they are dressed like Johnny Weir-do, or they are making out with somebody of the same sex. So, either the person is intentionally antagonizing the store owner to make a point, or they are an affront to public decency, in which case even I would refuse to sell them goods.

    Have the activist gays ever considered the fact that the reason people don’t like them is because they wrap their crappy personalities in the mantle of personal rights? Like the Key and Peele skit: “Oh, I get it. I’m not oppressed, I’m just an a*****e.”

    Comment by Sean — February 25, 2014 @ 7:33 am - February 25, 2014

  31. Couldn’t find a gay photographer…or cake maker…or florist? Unpossible! Take your business elsewhere. It’s really not that difficult. I don’t want anyone who doesn’t approve of my lifestyle involved in one of the most important days of my life. Being perpetually offended is no way to go through life. Merry Wedding!

    Comment by Amalgamated Cliff Divers, Local 157 — February 25, 2014 @ 8:04 am - February 25, 2014

  32. Precisely. I can’t imagine why you would want somebody who doesn’t want to be there at your wedding. Unless you’re the kind of person who gets off on making people do what you want to them to because you don’t like them, in which case, f#$% you.

    Comment by Sean — February 25, 2014 @ 8:54 am - February 25, 2014

  33. ‘a restaurateur could deny service to an out-of-wedlock mother, a cop could refuse to intervene in a domestic dispute if his religion allows for husbands beating their wives, and a hotel chain could refuse to rent rooms to Jews, Hindus, or Muslims.’

    A cop could not refuse. He is not a private actor, he is a representative of the state, and the state should indeed be forced to not discriminate. Re: the other two, private actors should be able to do business with whomever they want, and to refuse service to whomever they want. The consequences may not be what they want, but it’s their choice.

    Please, don’t even try to mention Jim Crow. That was GOVERNMENT in action, not individuals.

    Comment by alanstorm — February 25, 2014 @ 9:44 am - February 25, 2014

  34. Anybody who tries to compare the position of gay people in today’s society to that of blacks during the Civil Rights Movement either has a bad grasp of history or an over-inflated sense of self. Take your pick.

    Comment by Sean — February 25, 2014 @ 9:55 am - February 25, 2014

  35. Really, I have read enough on this subject that it makes my head wobble. What it comes down to is that gays and lesbians should respect the right of those who for whatever reason don’t want to serve them to do as they like. Patronize gay friendly businesses. The Gay Rights Movement is ill served when we engage in harassment. These days we do have the upper hand on most issues. We don’t need to abuse the power that we have obtained over the last five decades.

    Comment by SC.Swampfox — February 25, 2014 @ 10:02 am - February 25, 2014

  36. Anybody who tries to compare the position of gay people in today’s society to that of blacks during the Civil Rights Movement either has a bad grasp of history or an over-inflated sense of self. Take your pick. – Comment by Sean

    Very true. Being homosexual is vastly different. And, historically this country and most of the rest of the modern world has poor record of looking down upon us as defects and passing laws that made us resort to staying in the closet or facing harsh punishment if chose not to. We don’t ask to be gay. At least I did not ask to be gay. And, the loneliness and fear that I felt upon realizing that I was gay will remain to me until the day I die. Everyone needs some system of support, I had no one to reach out to back over 50 years ago. I just pray that the next generation of gays and lesbians don’t have to go through the anxiety and periods of depression that I experienced.

    Comment by SC.Swampfox — February 25, 2014 @ 10:20 am - February 25, 2014

  37. […] From The Gay Patriot: […]

    Pingback by Let’s Make It Illegal To Dislike Gay People | Conservative Blogs Central — February 25, 2014 @ 1:36 pm - February 25, 2014

  38. Just what the new America needs….bolshevik Godless filthy hippie trash…..legislating our moral codes.

    Comment by snake — February 25, 2014 @ 4:45 pm - February 25, 2014

  39. Very true. Being homosexual is vastly different. And, historically this country and most of the rest of the modern world has poor record of looking down upon us as defects and passing laws that made us resort to staying in the closet or facing harsh punishment if chose not to. We don’t ask to be gay. At least I did not ask to be gay. And, the loneliness and fear that I felt upon realizing that I was gay will remain to me until the day I die. Everyone needs some system of support, I had no one to reach out to back over 50 years ago.

    And yet, amazingly, Lefties have adapted and thrived w/o any such support group or law, overcoming the exact same adversities?

    So tell me Swampfox (since last time I pointed this out you couldn’t) Why are lefties so awesome, and you suck?

    Comment by The_Livewire — February 25, 2014 @ 6:46 pm - February 25, 2014

  40. Yep. Gay rights is way different than being black. When was the last time blacks were killed just for being black? Gays are being beaten to death with logs in Africa. On camera. What blacks were jailed when someone discovered they were black? Run out of their church and family for being black? Told God HATES them for being black? Asked to kill themselves for being black rather than shame the family? Blacks had it great compared to openly homosexual people. And when was the last time a black person was fixed up with someone’s daughter only to have them freak out when they figured out the person was black? lol

    Comment by ted — February 26, 2014 @ 1:10 am - February 26, 2014

  41. Maybe there should be a law that says business owners don’t have to follow the laws of the state, city, or feds.

    Wait, they just passed one.

    They tried this in Louisiana until we, the gay lobby, came out for it because they seemed to forget that since our church accepted gay marriage, that they would have legalized gay marriage! THey had to put a clause in there the next time that said “except where gay marriage is concerned”. hahahahaha we got that killed outright.

    Comment by ted — February 26, 2014 @ 1:13 am - February 26, 2014

  42. Arizona is a bunch of crybaby whiners. Actions have consequences. They are so in love with their religion, they should be willing to sacrifice $$$$$ for making God happy. I mean what is monetary gain here in light of eternal salvation? I say approve the law, and live with it. You will have your faith to keep you warm.

    Comment by ted — February 26, 2014 @ 1:15 am - February 26, 2014

  43. It is good that you, V the K, understood that my query was rhetorical. I will enumerate the differences of opinions: that a single religious viewpoint is under siege; that some Americans are “forced” to contravene such viewpoints; and that new formal legislation is urgently needed to rectify the attack on American freedom (q.v., Religious Freedom Restoration Act(s) at federal and state levels). If one wants to be a Texas sharpshooter, very well. I see a slippery solution in search of a problem, and this legislation will end by affirming its consequences. Your comments beg whose religion is offended, how activity is coerced, and what freedom(s) is/are impinged.

    Arbitrary discrimination depends upon the business owner’s action being reasonable and for good cause. The customer’s conduct must be on-premises, and be improper, illegal, or immoral. The customer’s actions need to be found harmful in accordance with community standards. As community standards constantly change, the business owner’s exclusion of service and the patron’s actions must be considered case-by-case. Depending upon community standards, reasons for refusing service to a patron typically CANNOT include: religion, reputation, age, social status, race/ethnicity, sexual preference/identity, and dress (the latter may reflect community standards, but once established must always be enforced equally). Given both the history of the US and the intended vagueness of the Constitution on religious matters of exercise and conscience, the Arizona bill and its federal antecedent sadly mock religious convictions.

    Jman1961 merely perpetuates the tedious “ad hominem” responses several persons use (and have used) over the years that I have read this website.

    I have not your facility with sound bites, though your video serves to underscore my observation that Conservatives can be just as puerile as Liberals- the extremes always meet.

    I am reminded of what a female friend of Daniel Blatt’s wrote many, many moons ago: to paraphrase, I enjoy sparring with Daniel, but the rest of you sling too much dirt. And so it goes (that’s for you, V the K).

    Comment by Mike Roberts — February 26, 2014 @ 1:38 am - February 26, 2014

  44. ted,

    I’m not sure if you’re off your meds or just ignorant of current events, but lets not forget that the current administration wishes to normalize relationships with countries that hang and stone people for being different.

    Oh and don’t forget, it’s the official position of the Federal AG that people should ignore laws they think are unconstitutional.

    Comment by The_Livewire — February 26, 2014 @ 10:09 am - February 26, 2014

  45. And to think all this arguing has been over a law that was misrepresented by the media.
    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/02/25/Law-Profs-Send-Letter-To-Gov-Brewer-Warn-SB1062-Being-Egregiously-Misrepresented

    Comment by Juan — February 26, 2014 @ 11:02 am - February 26, 2014

  46. Yep. Gay rights is way different than being black. When was the last time blacks were killed just for being black? Gays are being beaten to death with logs in Africa. On camera. What blacks were jailed when someone discovered they were black? Run out of their church and family for being black? Told God HATES them for being black? Asked to kill themselves for being black rather than shame the family? Blacks had it great compared to openly homosexual people. And when was the last time a black person was fixed up with someone’s daughter only to have them freak out when they figured out the person was black? lol

    Yeah, being forcefully removed from your home and forced to harvest cotton under threat of being whipped must have been a picnic in comparison. As was being lynched for daring to date a woman who happens to have a different skin colour. As was being segregated from mainstream society. And it’s not like black people could hide their skin colour. Gays in America have it much worse than that.

    Of course, attitudes in other countries have always been different than those in the West. Being a woman or gay is pretty awful in Iran, for example. It’s probably also pretty awful to be black in Mauritania or Sudan, a Muslim in Myanmar, a Jew in most majority Muslim countries, almost anyone in North Korea, etc.

    Arizona is a bunch of crybaby whiners. Actions have consequences. They are so in love with their religion, they should be willing to sacrifice $$$$$ for making God happy. I mean what is monetary gain here in light of eternal salvation? I say approve the law, and live with it. You will have your faith to keep you warm.

    SB 1062 is more about essential freedom than religion. It is unfortunate that the law only protects religious freedom, as people should be allowed to deny service to people for any reason, but it is still important to protect those freedoms when they are under assault by people who think their hurt feelings are an excuse to force people into dealing with them.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — February 26, 2014 @ 11:30 am - February 26, 2014

  47. Arbitrary discrimination depends upon the business owner’s action being reasonable and for good cause. The customer’s conduct must be on-premises, and be improper, illegal, or immoral. The customer’s actions need to be found harmful in accordance with community standards.

    Comment by Mike Roberts — February 26, 2014 @ 1:38 am – February 26, 2014

    So under which of those does this fall?

    David Cooley, the founder of The Abbey Food & Bar located at 692 North Robertson Blvd., has announced the popular gay bar will add any legislator in any state who votes for “bills to allow for discrimination against LGBT people” to a “Deny Entry List.”

    In a statement, Cooley said The Abbey will also display headshots of each state representative who support bills on the security list, including Kansas House Bill 2453, Arizona Senate Bill 1062, Idaho House Bill 426, Ohio House Bill 82 and other similar proposals.

    “I want to send a message to all those people out there who conflate Christian values with discrimination: we don’t want your kind here,” Cooley said. “I’ve learned that I can’t stop crazy, ignorant or stupid, but I can stop it from coming through my doors.”

    Now, while you choke on that, since it displays so blatantly how gay-sex bigots like yourself have no intention of following or living by the rules you demand for others, let’s deal with our newest troll “ted”:

    Asked to kill themselves for being black rather than shame the family?

    Comment by ted — February 26, 2014 @ 1:10 am – February 26, 2014

    Funny, you and your fellow gay-sex bigots tell people to kill themselves all of the time, ted.

    So will you admit you’re pathetic scum and a hypocrite? Or will you admit that Christians are better than gays and lesbians, since gays and lesbians are clearly mentally and morally incapable of not telling people to kill themselves?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 26, 2014 @ 11:37 am - February 26, 2014

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.