Fair or Foul? - Religious owned businesses can refuse service to homosexuals
Options
Comments
-
damobb2deep wrote: »ThirdEyeFive wrote: »damobb2deep wrote: »
the "War on Drugs" is not a law... its failed strategy that ppl are actively fighting to change...
fines for sagging are not discrimination... blacks and whites deplore that disgusting ? ... KYS
but why is those laws more dominantly enforced in black communities?
btw that "stop frisk law" in new york.. just because they stop a white person "every now and then" dont mean they dont target minorities mostly..
lol @ yall being so jaded about this..
my mom has been with females most of my life and she would say "? them if they dont want me in they ? ... i will go somewhere else... yall fail 2 realize no more then like 5 percent of those businesses will even take part in this ? ...
stop and frisk has been found to be unconstitutional... ? /coke sentencing disparity has been addressed...
you see how discrimination is being fought against on the legal front? thus supporting my original statement?
nah, u dont... -
That is not up to you it's for the business owners to decide. -
the bill got vetoed lol close this thread...
-
damobb2deep wrote: »I was listening to Howard today and they said that the people want to defend their religious beliefs, this isn't an attack on one specific group of people. But, it's the whole reason this started.
smh religious folks disgust me
this is what i dont get yall acting if the law passes that ? are not gonna be able 2 live they life... so what a place dont want them there... america has become so "politically correct" that u have 2 fake like u agree with somthing u dont.. being neutral is one thing.. but bashing people cuz of they beliefs is just as bad as what yall saying the religious people are doing...
Christians claim they're "under attack", because of 'worldly' things. They claim "? " is taken out of everything. They claim that Miley Cyrus is acceptable and prayer isn't.
That's all ? .
Christianity is NOT under attack.
The word ? is still used on our money and in the PoA in school.
No one has ever said prayer wasn't acceptable.
No one has discriminated against Christians the way they wish to discriminate against others.
Their claim is that "Jesus loves all", "WWJD", all that ? . Biblically, Jesus turned away no one and he taught the word of loving thy neighbor.
So why discriminate against homosexuals?
What's a soda to them? What does it change?
Will they also discriminate against people who wear certain fabrics? Murderers? Adulterers?
No, they're specifically targeting one group.
This is nothing new, though. They claim to be the ones under attack yet they attack everyone else.
Why haven't we had an atheist president? Because believers won't allow it.
This is definitely still a nation run under a heavy belief in ? .
But that's slowly changing.
-
Malcolm Xtra wrote: »Sneak Dissa wrote: »Malcolm Xtra wrote: »If u can't respect other peoples religious beliefs than u are uncivilized....
Does that include mutilations, human sacrifice and pedophelia? Or do you pick and choose which religious beliefs to respect and which you consider to be harmful, stupid or dangerous like everybody else?
Respecting a belief and ritual are two different things....
?
nice cop-out and feelings caught.Malcolm Xtra wrote: »Fair....unless the religious organization or business is receiving some type of benefit from the government...only then can the government step in and say something.
Folks really dont understand how your beliefs can be utilized to shield you and those who share your same beliefs from some of this craziness goin on in society.
ps... since you're calling people "? " why don't you actually read what this law is about before you continue spouting off. You're under the erroneous impression that this only applies to religious organizations - this would actually apply to all businesses and it's flagrant discrimination to the point that the law only comes into play if someone is suing a business owner for discrimination. -
Yo mama eat ? ?
-
damobb2deep wrote: »I was listening to Howard today and they said that the people want to defend their religious beliefs, this isn't an attack on one specific group of people. But, it's the whole reason this started.
smh religious folks disgust me
this is what i dont get yall acting if the law passes that ? are not gonna be able 2 live they life... so what a place dont want them there... america has become so "politically correct" that u have 2 fake like u agree with somthing u dont.. being neutral is one thing.. but bashing people cuz of they beliefs is just as bad as what yall saying the religious people are doing...
Christians claim they're "under attack", because of 'worldly' things. They claim "? " is taken out of everything. They claim that Miley Cyrus is acceptable and prayer isn't.
That's all ? .
Christianity is NOT under attack.
The word ? is still used on our money and in the PoA in school.
No one has ever said prayer wasn't acceptable.
No one has discriminated against Christians the way they wish to discriminate against others.
Their claim is that "Jesus loves all", "WWJD", all that ? . Biblically, Jesus turned away no one and he taught the word of loving thy neighbor.
So why discriminate against homosexuals?
What's a soda to them? What does it change?
Will they also discriminate against people who wear certain fabrics? Murderers? Adulterers?
No, they're specifically targeting one group.
This is nothing new, though. They claim to be the ones under attack yet they attack everyone else.
Why haven't we had an atheist president? Because believers won't allow it.
This is definitely still a nation run under a heavy belief in ? .
But that's slowly changing.
bruh do u kno how many times ive heard "they might take out 'under ? ' in the pledge? and how do u kno they wont discriminate against adulterers and people like that.. u are assuming... everybody has they own views and beliefs.. dont act like all religious people are the same... as u kno i believe in ? ... but i also believe that each person has the right 2 live they life the way they want... i can dissagree with it but they should be able 2 do them as long as it aint forced on me.... take u for example we always get in debates over religion.. u have yo view i have mines... im not gonna change yo view... you cant change mines but that dont mean i dont tolerate you.. i dont force you 2 try and become a Christian and you dont try and force me 2 become atheist... -
You just made and excellent case for segregation and jim crow laws.
-
I wonder if any of the businesses that supported this law sell shellfish.
-
Malcolm Xtra wrote: »Foul even though I don't agree with homosexuality they shouldn't be refused service. This bill is a slippery slope because first it's gonna be the ? then the "illegal immigrants" and then the blacks. It's not like religion especially Christianity hasn't been used to defend slavery and the unethical treatments of black throughout American history.
Whats wrong with that tho? If a company chooses not to do business with a group of certain people whats the problem? ? can easily go to there own people, buy from their own, create their own....Thats the issue i got with the blacks, they are always crying discrimination and racism when buying some product or service from some other races....My question is...WHY THE ? WOULD U BUY FROM PEOPLE THAT DONT LIKE U?????
I respect Asians because they dont give a ? about nobody but their own....They sell to anyone but when it comes to buying ? the majority of the time they buy from their own.
sadly this powerful message will be ignored
if only I could teach my people to understand economic solidarity
but our community has already been destroyed from the inside.....we too busy trying to "fit in" with everybody else -
AZ Gov. Jan Brewer vetoes controversial bill
The controversial measure faced a surge of opposition in recent days from large corporations and athletic organizations, including Delta Air Lines, the Super Bowl host committee and Major League Baseball.
Fiercely divided supporters and opponents of the bill ramped up pressure on Brewer after the state's Republican-led Legislature approved it last week.
On Wednesday, the governor said she made the decision she knew was right for Arizona.
"I call them as I see them, despite the cheers or the boos from the crowd," Brewer said, criticizing what she described as a "broadly worded" bill that "could result in unintended and negative consequences."
Brewer said she'd weighed the arguments on both sides before vetoing the measure, which is known as SB 1062.
Read Gov. Brewer's full statement
"To the supporters of the legislation, I want you to know that I understand that long-held norms about marriage and family are being challenged as never before. Our society is undergoing many dramatic changes," she said. "However, I sincerely believe that Senate Bill 1062 has the potential to create more problems than it purports to solve. It could divide Arizona in ways we cannot even imagine and no one would ever want.
"Religious liberty is a core American and Arizona value. So is non-discrimination."
Her announcement spurred cheering and hugs by protesters of the bill outside the state Capitol in Phoenix.
CNN's Miguel Marquez, Greg Botelho, Michelle Richmond, Jessica Jordan, Matthew Stucker, Leigh Ann Caldwell, Ana Cabrera and Dana Bash contributed to this report. -
Nah she vetoed it because the NFL threatened to host the Super Bowl elsewhere. As expected though.
-
yep...i mean however you can get discrimination off the books should be taken as a W...but it obviously ain't genuine. had the super bowl not been a factor she probly woulda signed it.Raging Raven wrote: »Nah she vetoed it because the NFL threatened to host the Super Bowl elsewhere. As expected though.
-
the nfl didnt threaten ? people was tryna make them say they would...Raging Raven wrote: »Nah she vetoed it because the NFL threatened to host the Super Bowl elsewhere. As expected though.
-
damobb2deep wrote: »
the nfl didnt threaten ? people was tryna make them say they would...Raging Raven wrote: »Nah she vetoed it because the NFL threatened to host the Super Bowl elsewhere. As expected though.
Dog the NFL said they would consider moving the Super Bowl if they signed the bill just like they moved it back when Arizona refused to acknowledge MKL day. -
Lord_Hannibal wrote: »Fair. Business is business and I respect the right to refuse service.
-
saccityprince wrote: »Lord_Hannibal wrote: »Fair. Business is business and I respect the right to refuse service.
You do realize that business owners don't actually have a right to refuse service to people based on prejudice right? If not, you should. -
Raging Raven wrote: »damobb2deep wrote: »
the nfl didnt threaten ? people was tryna make them say they would...Raging Raven wrote: »Nah she vetoed it because the NFL threatened to host the Super Bowl elsewhere. As expected though.
Dog the NFL said they would consider moving the Super Bowl if they signed the bill just like they moved it back when Arizona refused to acknowledge MKL day.
bruh consider and threaten are not the same thing..
-
That's so petty.
I hope them ? organize, walk into all those establishments posed as straights, order everything on the menu, and soon as the food comes, complain about how they are unhappy with how it looks and walk out like a boss. -
Malcolm Xtra wrote: »Foul even though I don't agree with homosexuality they shouldn't be refused service. This bill is a slippery slope because first it's gonna be the ? then the "illegal immigrants" and then the blacks. It's not like religion especially Christianity hasn't been used to defend slavery and the unethical treatments of black throughout American history.
Whats wrong with that tho? If a company chooses not to do business with a group of certain people whats the problem? ? can easily go to there own people, buy from their own, create their own....Thats the issue i got with the blacks, they are always crying discrimination and racism when buying some product or service from some other races....My question is...WHY THE ? WOULD U BUY FROM PEOPLE THAT DONT LIKE U?????
I respect Asians because they dont give a ? about nobody but their own....They sell to anyone but when it comes to buying ? the majority of the time they buy from their own.
They (we) weren't "crying". Their wasn't that many people to do business with. It was primarily out of necessity. It wasn't like there was an internet. Blacks had to go FARR out of their way just for some basic sh*t. Black families wanted to take a road trip, so they had to take the round about way because our resources to take care of ourselves weren't spread out far enough.
You have to remember, we were building from below scratch. To be masters and experts in a craft takes time and patience. We needed certain resources now…. but its tough when your outnumbered and kicked in the face when you finally get up right on to your knees.
Plus we had a green book so it wasn't like we weren't trying. -
You miss the obvious point as usual.Considering or hinting is a threat.damobb2deep wrote: »Raging Raven wrote: »damobb2deep wrote: »
the nfl didnt threaten ? people was tryna make them say they would...Raging Raven wrote: »Nah she vetoed it because the NFL threatened to host the Super Bowl elsewhere. As expected though.
Dog the NFL said they would consider moving the Super Bowl if they signed the bill just like they moved it back when Arizona refused to acknowledge MKL day.
bruh consider and threaten are not the same thing..
-
Raging Raven wrote: »
You miss the obvious point as usual.Considering or hinting is a threat.damobb2deep wrote: »Raging Raven wrote: »damobb2deep wrote: »
the nfl didnt threaten ? people was tryna make them say they would...Raging Raven wrote: »Nah she vetoed it because the NFL threatened to host the Super Bowl elsewhere. As expected though.
Dog the NFL said they would consider moving the Super Bowl if they signed the bill just like they moved it back when Arizona refused to acknowledge MKL day.
bruh consider and threaten are not the same thing..
you are obviously reaching... and bruh i RARELY miss the point of anything i discuss on here... just because i dont agree dont mean im missing the point.. me saying " hey i dont like florida state laws.. i might CONSIDER not goin there this summer" is way different then "hey i dont like Florida state laws i WILL NOT go there till they change"
-
Lord_Hannibal wrote: »Fair. Business is business and I respect the right to refuse service.
? no, didnt bother to read any more posts once I read this. Is being ? the same as being black, no, but discrimination is discrmination.
you cant give these type of people an inch cuz they'll go for the yard everytime. Now would be an appropriate time for any and all civil rights leaders/groups to be like hold the ? up.....
very nicely put...eloquentRaging Raven wrote: »I can never understand hating someone because they are different even if you are religious. Being religious should make you be more humble and respectful than the opposite. You know my feelings on ? , but refusing to serve them will open up to refusing people for being people in general. Things such as clothing and etiquette does not compare to sexuality or race. If they want to refuse making money then so be it though.
-
Lord_Hannibal wrote: »Being ? isn't a real struggle. Foh with that ? .
if are not ? then how would you really know...I know for a fact being different(because I was that LONER growing up) can be difficult.
I dont have any feelings about ? one way or the other but foul is foul.
-
As long as it prevents man on man kisses, im all for it
