Larry Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 I don't think you read the same bills I did elkabong.,,or you are seeing much more in them add the Ariz bill, the other is linked in the op http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.pdf I'll agree that the scary scenario he's painting is an assumption. But can you quote the part of the law that says it won't happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 I'll agree that the scary scenario he's painting is an assumption. But can you quote the part of the law that says it won't happen? Thought I already did.... compelling state interest, commonly refers to travel,lodging,food,medical care ect.ect.....in short necessities of life going from memory sec2 line three. add (I think that was Ariz) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 I'm going to discuss the AZ law in the thread that's dedicated to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 I'm going to discuss the AZ law in the thread that's dedicated to it. the same exclusion is fairly standard, to find it you would need to go to the law the kansas bill amends it is not only a exclusion,it is a responsibility of the state if ya want me to find it ,it will be tommorow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 I'm sure the above examples are exactly the type of America our forefathers had in mind. Our founding fathers owned slaves, fathered illegitimate children by them, and would have jailed homosexuals for buggery. But please continue to impose modern sensitivities on them. Carry on freedom fighter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 I'll agree that the scary scenario he's painting is an assumption. But can you quote the part of the law that says it won't happen? same wording as Ariz....page 2 line 3 http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2013_14/measures/documents/hb2203_00_0000.pdf (1) Is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 same wording as Ariz....page 2 line 3 http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2013_14/measures/documents/hb2203_00_0000.pdf (1) Is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. So, your claim is that selling gas, and tow trucks, are a compelling government interest? AND that there is no way to further that interest other than mandating that towing companies cannot discriminate against gays? ---------- If so, then I wonder why they haven't passed a law, saying that towing companies cannot discriminate against gays. Edit: Also pointing out that the law you linked isn't the Kansas that that the thread was started about. The thread was started about HB2453. Your most recent link is to HB2203. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Our founding fathers owned slaves, fathered illegitimate children by them, and would have jailed homosexuals for buggery. But please continue to impose modern sensitivities on them. Carry on freedom fighter. Really? I had no idea. This is the first I'm hearing of it. Tell me more. I was talking about the ideas they put forth. We all know their actions didn't always match their ideals, and that's usually the case with most any person. But what I clearly was imposing was their sentiments of equality, the founding principles of this country, you know "all men created equal" "certain inalienable rights" and what not. Our forefathers enacted laws and founding principles that would allow for equality and had the ability to change over time to be more inclusive. But please, continue confusing their actions with the ideas they set in place and carry on with the unnecessary attitude, it goes over so well and only fosters constructive dialogue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 I was talking about the ideas they put forth. We all know their actions didn't always match their ideals, and that's usually the case with most any person. But what I clearly was imposing was their sentiments of equality, the founding principles of this country, you know "all men created equal" "certain inalienable rights" and what not. And he's pointing out that those noble sentiments you're attributing to him, never existed in the first place. "All men are created equal"? They may have believed that there was no such thing as a divine right of Kings. But I think it's a pretty safe bet that if Will Turner, the local blacksmith, had so much as expressed an interest in the daughter of Thomas Jefferson, plantation owner, Tom would have sent a few guys to go beat the **** out of Will, and no one would have thought it improper. Because they just weren't equal. To get things more back on topic, I think it's a safe bet that, when the 14th Amendment was written, with the words "All persons . . . are citizens. And are [entitled to] equal protection under the law", they absolutely, positively, did not intend to create a federal mandate for gay marriage. The words may say that. But if you had accused them of writing that, you probably would have got killed. Heck, when they wrote those words, they didn't intend to say that women could vote. Or blacks, for that matter. (They put that in a separate amendment.) (And, even when they put it in a separate amendment, it wasn't till 100 years later when they actually could.) yeah, I think they did a lot of really good things, for their time. Think they deserve a whole lot of credit, for what they accomplished. I think they made the world a better place. But I'm not delusional enough to try to claim that they agreed with my views on gay marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 And he's pointing out that those noble sentiments you're attributing to him, never existed in the first place. "All men are created equal"? But I'm not delusional enough to try to claim that they agreed with my views on gay marriage. I'm not delusional enough to claim they agreed with gay marriage either. That wouldn't fit the context of their time at all. That's why I didn't word my post in that way. "I'm sure the above examples are exactly the TYPE of America our forefathers HAD IN MIND," and that was sarcasm obviously. I made sure NOT to be specific because I was referencing their ideas, not their actions. The potential of their ideas is only limited by the actions of people and the world in which they live. They allowed for change but stressed ideas. I'll just rephrase it like this: Did the forefathers want to create an America where citizens were discriminated against in the name of religion? The ideas they put forth in founding the country certainly don't suggest that was the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 I'll just rephrase it like this: Did the forefathers want to create an America where citizens were discriminated against in the name of religion? The ideas they put forth in founding the country certainly don't suggest that was the case. did they want to create one where you are forced to act against your beliefs? one where you are compelled by law to do so to earn a living? there is a balance somewhere....denying a defense/freedom ain't it neither is swinging at each others nose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 did they want to create one where you are forced to act against your beliefs? one where you are compelled by law to do so to earn a living? there is a balance somewhere....denying a defense/freedom ain't it neither is swinging at each others nose Love the way that suddenly, discriminating against people is a constitutional right. If the person doing the discriminating invokes this brand-new excuse for discriminating, which we just now invented and legislated, for the specific purpose of encouraging discrimination. Also love the "forced" and "compelled by law to do so to earn a living" to try to justify "well, discriminating against gays is already legal, here, that doesn;t give people who discriminate enough freedom, so we have to pass more legislation, giving them special protection from all laws, regulations, civil actions, and anything else we can think of Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Love the way that suddenly, discriminating against people is a constitutional right. If the person doing the discriminating invokes this brand-new excuse for discriminating, which we just now invented and legislated, for the specific purpose of encouraging discrimination. Also love the "forced" and "compelled by law to do so to earn a living" to try to justify "well, discriminating against gays is already legal, here, that doesn;t give people who discriminate enough freedom, so we have to pass more legislation, giving them special protection from all laws, regulations, civil actions, and anything else we can think of who is actually in danger of losing freedom in this whole idea discrimination? Does the individual baker lose freedom of choice because he's compelled to bake a cake for a gay marriage which is immoral to him? Or does the the gay couple lose freedom because some bakers refuse to bake a cake for them? Is it both? And which is a greater freedom lost? One that is lost absolutely or one that is potentially lost in some cases? All good questions I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Wondering how long it's going to be, before people actually acknowledge that it's legal to discriminate against gays, right now. (In Arizona.) (In fact, discriminating against gays, right now, is legislated, in Arizona. It's mandatory.) Admiring the way people can look at a situation in which 1) All gay people in the state, have discrimination against them intentionally written into the state's constitution. 2) Bigoted bakers are not illegal in any way. But they don't have special rights written into the law, to give them even more rights. And feel sorry for the poor oppressed people in group 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 admiring how freedom became a brand new concept Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Why can't bakers just say they're too busy? It's not that hard for a business owner to come up with a reason for a customer to take their business elsewhere that doesn't involve being a judgmental dickhead (even if they are). The need to shove their disapproval in the face of those they disapprove of is an ugly one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 26, 2014 Author Share Posted February 26, 2014 admiring how freedom became a brand new concept or the tug of war between freedom and equality. Should one group's freedom mean the supression of another? Do we believe in protected classes anymore? Why should genders, races, and religions be protrected? Doesn't that hamper the freedom of business owners too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 admiring how freedom became a brand new concept Amazing how we managed to survive as a nation without special laws giving special protection that we never needed before, to protect the "freedom" to discriminate. But I'm glad to see the GOP being to progressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 special protection? is that what you call freedom and the ability to defend yourself (in court or otherwise)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 26, 2014 Author Share Posted February 26, 2014 special protection? is that what you call freedom and the ability to defend yourself (in court or otherwise)? I do. We offer special protection to specific classes of people against discrimination. We do so on the basis of race, gender, and religion, and in some cases age. You can't legally discriminate against those groups as a business and your ability to defend yourself in court if you choose to discriminate against these groups is limited. Are you really now arguing that businesses should be able to defend themselves if they choose to have a "whites" only water fountain or bathroom in their business? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 special protection? is that what you call freedom and the ability to defend yourself (in court or otherwise)? Right. Because without this law, defendants in court had no protection whatsoever. How did we ever survive without this? And why doesn't it simply apply to everyone, all the time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 You can't legally discriminate against those groups as a business and your ability to defend yourself in court if you choose to discriminate against these groups is limited. Just pointing out that, in the jurisdictions passing these laws, and the baker who they (falsely) claim is the target of the new laws*, that said baker CAN legally discriminate against gays, and his ability to defend himself is exactly the same as any other person in civil court who hasn't done anything illegal. Right now. Without this law. * It's pretty obvious that the actual intent of said laws, is to attempt to enshrine as a constitutional right, the ability of government employees to discriminate against citizens, even though the government is prohibited by the constitution from doing so. There is no indication that the courts are about to start forcing bakers to bake cakes, even though there's no law that says they have to. The courts ARE ruling that government employees have to stop discriminating. Are you really now arguing that businesses should be able to defend themselves if they choose to have a "whites" only water fountain or bathroom in their business? Actually, he's arguing that they need new protections, that don't apply to other people who are doing legal things. But only if they claim that God told them to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Right. Because without this law, defendants in court had no protection whatsoever. How did we ever survive without this? And why doesn't it simply apply to everyone, all the time? it does apply to everyone, unless they exclude themselves it restores the strict scrutiny level that was common at the the individual level ya know, the govt needs a good reason one. the outage is fun,as is the pressure applied to defend denying rights ain't it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinC Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 special protection? is that what you call freedom and the ability to defend yourself (in court or otherwise)? Defend yourself in court against what though? Being asked to provide a service to someone you don't want to because you don't like them, their lifestyle or life choices? Where does that start and end? Saying its a balance of one freedom against another is a fudge - in a civilised society people should not be able to discriminate against others based on things like race, gender, religion OR sexual orientation. Would it be OK if I declined to serve someone wearing a cross or carrying a bible because I'm an atheist? I don't think it would - and nor should it be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Are you really now arguing that businesses should be able to defend themselves if they choose to have a "whites" only water fountain or bathroom in their business? Why yes I certainly am.....I am also certain they will lose except in very special circumstances. Their ability to make the govt make a good case USED to be important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.