Understanding SB1062: 8 things you need to know about Arizona's controversial bill

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I would remove the reference to indecent exposure, too. It's kind of indecent.

Too late. My opportunity to edit has expired.

[JohnR! 5,495]

In paper it is all very well, except that Federal Law supersedes state law, and that is even if Jen actually signs the bill.

The Mormons had to end their policy of segregation in 1978, despite their religious beliefs.

Furthermore, what comes after this bill? Denial of service or refused admission to jews? Did they not try that already somewhere else?

Edited February 24, 2014 by Gegel

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

Yes it is no doubt. However is it the Govt's place to tell you who you can and can not serve.

If you want to open a coffe shop that serves only black sailors, as distasteful as I may find it, I am not sure it should not be your right

Like I said it's sticky slope. Not sure the right answer. Deprive one persons rights to ensure anothers.

Have you not learned about desegregation efforts in the south? The gov certainly told people who they could serve. This has also been upheld in multiple supreme court cases.

And the phrase is "slippery slope."

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Have you not learned about desegregation efforts in the south? The gov certainly told people who they could serve. This has also been upheld in multiple supreme court cases.

And the phrase is "slippery slope."

I have said before I would side with not allowing them to discriminate, I just find it distasteful to not allow people to choice who and what the associate with, but in the end agree non-discrimination is the bigger right

Who are you to say what my phrase is. To me it's a sticky slope.

[mota bhai 2,675]

Good luck sliding down a sticky slope.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I love mixed metaphors:

Sticky wicket + slippery slope.

Edited February 24, 2014 by The Postmaster

[mota bhai 2,675]

I think it would be fun to see a Hindu Brahmin store owner use this to exclude achuts from his business. No Christians, No Muslims, No Jews, No sinners of any kind, no one but devout Hindu Brahmins wearing the ceremonial thread (that means no women either).

Or how about a Muslim store owner who wishes to not do business with the kuffar? No Hindus, no homosexuals and no agents of the Zionist occupation (so anyone wearing a yarmulke, maybe?)...

Edited February 24, 2014 by mota bhai

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

"...and what are all those ants crawling around down there?"

"Brahmins, every one."

Edited February 24, 2014 by The Postmaster

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

I think it would be fun to see a Hindu Brahmin store owner use this to exclude achuts from his business. No Christians, No Muslims, No Jews, No sinners of any kind, no one but devout Hindu Brahmins wearing the ceremonial thread (that means no women either).

Or how about a Muslim store owner who wishes to not do business with the kuffar? No Hindus, no homosexuals and no agents of the Zionist occupation (so anyone wearing a yarmulke, maybe?)...

I have no idea who most of those groups are so I guess it would be ok

[mota bhai 2,675]

Sinners? That would be you, my friend.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Good luck sliding down a sticky slope.

But that's just it . A slippery slope you slide right on down. Not so much a sticky slope, you keep getting stuck

I used the metaphor that way on purpose,

I took dancing lessons one time. The instructor was Nazi like in her expectation of foot placement being exact, hand movement being exactly to standard. I told her I thought dancing was supposed to be fun, and moving as the music made you feel. I stopped after 3 lessons. The fanaticism was extreme

My point is, why is my expression wrong just because it does not mimic someone else. Sticky slope is much more accurate.

Edited February 24, 2014 by The Nature Boy

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Sinners? That would be you, my friend.

Jesus loves sinners.

[mota bhai 2,675]

Yes, but this bill doesn't just protect the religious rights of people who love Jesus.

It protects all religious rights.

That's the problem.

They should amend this bill to limit the protection to evangelicals, as the people who thought this bill up in the first place had in mind.

[JohnR! 5,495]

I think it would be fun to see a Hindu Brahmin store owner use this to exclude achuts from his business. No Christians, No Muslims, No Jews, No sinners of any kind, no one but devout Hindu Brahmins wearing the ceremonial thread (that means no women either).

Or how about a Muslim store owner who wishes to not do business with the kuffar? No Hindus, no homosexuals and no agents of the Zionist occupation (so anyone wearing a yarmulke, maybe?)...

You don't get it. It does not work that way. The law only applies if you are a god-loving peace-mongering christian.

[mota bhai 2,675]

Yeah, I get the feeling someone doesn't like watching men kiss or hold hands, so voila... a new bill was born.

They didn't think this through.