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

[JohnR! 5,495]

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.

Italians and Russians, notably, will not fare well under this bill.

[Teddy B 17,252]

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.

Sounds kinda like the new family friendly VJ.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

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.

Like I keep saying. In the end I would error on the side of not allowing the store owners to discriminate, but anytime you deprive one persons liberty to satisfy another, it is not such an easy decision and lines blur. I would never discriminate against Gays or anyone else for that matter but where does it end.

How about Nudist. In my opinion, it's not a big deal and many places in Europe is accepted and non-sexual. What if we tell all places that offer swimming they have to allow Nudism, even if some strongly object.

What is the answer that balances all peoples rights.

If I am asked to bake a cake depictions of Same Sex couples, and I am truly deeply offended by that, should I have to.? What if I am asked to bake a cake with a Nude couple on it and that deeply offends me.

What if i am Muslim and I am asked to make a cake for a pg farming Jesus freak that has pigs and Jesus on it? I know that is absurd but where does it end

How about I am black and I am asked to bake a cake for the Daughters of the Confederacy and it has the confederate flag on it?

[mota bhai 2,675]

Sounds kinda like the new family friendly VJ.

Well, between the influx of same sex couples here on VJ and the continually high numbers of mail order bride couples who come through here... Ewok had a serious problem. I get it. But this is a marriage based visa forum. That means men and men, women and women, men and exploited east asian mail order brides and women and eager north african/arab boytoys...

There's just no getting around the sexual angle to this forum.

Maybe he should change it into a work visa forum with no forum for dependents.

[GandD 5,966]

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.

Its the government's place to enforce civil liberties. Something that private businesses should be held to imo.

[mota bhai 2,675]

Its the government's place to enforce civil liberties. Something that private businesses should be held to imo.

So you will require us to watch the spectacle of women making out with each other but you won't tolerate an individual's need to remain faithful to his God.

Good to know where your priorities are.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Its the government's place to enforce civil liberties. Something that private businesses should be held to imo.

On the end game I Agree. I would strike the law down if I was the judge or vote against it.

However Civil liberties also flow to the individual.

Less controversial

Smoking..I hate smoking in Restaurants.

However If I want to cater to smokers in my restaurant who is the Govt to say I can't open a restaurant that allows smoking? I would not trade there, but that is choice?

So you will require us to watch the spectacle of women making out with each other but you won't tolerate an individual's need to remain faithful to his God.

Good to know where your priorities are.

Watching women make out is healthy and good.

[mota bhai 2,675]

Watching women make out is healthy and good.

It is disgusting and perverted and anathema to the family friendly values of this country and this website.

[GandD 5,966]

So you will require us to watch the spectacle of women making out with each other but you won't tolerate an individual's need to remain faithful to his God.

Good to know where your priorities are.

A religious person is not complicit in what they consider "sin" by selling a gay dude this week's people magazine.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

It is disgusting and perverted and anathema to the family friendly values of this country and this website.

It is perverted I give you that much..But so goeth so goeth I

[mota bhai 2,675]

A religious person is not complicit in what they consider "sin" by selling a gay dude this week's people magazine.

And if your faith forbids you, as some faiths in fact do, from engaging in commercial activities with sinners?

Remember, this isn't limited to Bible-folk.

Edited February 24, 2014 by mota bhai

[GandD 5,966]

On the end game I Agree. I would strike the law down if I was the judge or vote against it.

However Civil liberties also flow to the individual.

Less controversial

Smoking..I hate smoking in Restaurants.

However If I want to cater to smokers in my restaurant who is the Govt to say I can't open a restaurant that allows smoking? I would not trade there, but that is choice?

Watching women make out is healthy and good.

People that want to smoke can still go outside. People that want to smoke pot have no right to do so. The misconception of people's rights is a common phenomenon. You do not have a "right" to allow people to smoke in your restaurant. Well, I guess in some places you still do.

And if your faith forbids you, as some faiths in fact do, from engaging in commercial activities with sinners?

Remember, this isn't limited to Bible-folk.

Then they wouldn't be able to do business with anyone.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

A religious person is not complicit in what they consider "sin" by selling a gay dude this week's people magazine.

Not by your religious beliefs and Moral code or by mine.

It's hard to have this discussion on here, because some that can't understand ( not you) , claim it's simple and I that I am saying discrimination against gays is ok. I am not saying that at all.

All I am saying is that it's complicated and you have to deny one persons liberty to ensure the liberty of another. Being an ignorant backwards ####### inbreed idiot may be offensive to us, but it is a liberty none the less.

[mota bhai 2,675]

Then they wouldn't be able to do business with anyone.

No, certain religions clearly forbid certain people from engaging in commerce with certain classes of people.

They should really amend this to make clear that only Judeo-Christian standards will apply.

Not by your religious beliefs and Moral code or by mine.

It's hard to have this discussion on here, because some that can't understand ( not you) , claim it's simple and I that I am saying discrimination against gays is ok. I am not saying that at all.

All I am saying is that it's complicated and you have to deny one persons liberty to ensure the liberty of another. Being an ignorant backwards ####### inbreed idiot may be offensive to us, but it is a liberty none the less.

Another angle is the parenting angle. Does a Christian parent have the freedom to protect his or her child from immoral displays like male-on-male intimacy? Does the 'normalization' of such behavior amount to oppression of people of Christian faith?

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

It's not complicated. Any person has freedoms as long as those freedoms do not infringe on another person's rights.

I cannot decide that my religion is mass murder, and then ask the gov to give me a pass based on religious freedom.

Religious freedom does not trump all.