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

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

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.

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

No you don't have that right in most places, you are correct. I still say if you want to open a Restaurant that caters to smokers, why is that any of the Govt's business.

If you hate smoking in Restaurants vote with your dollars. A gross overreach of Gov't responsibility.

Now I agree if the owner bans it yes, smokers have no right. Should be the owners choice.

What gives you and I the right to tell the owner people can not smoke in a place he owns?

Once again-- I would not eat there, but that is my choice.

[mota bhai 2,675]

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

The rights of the majority to have a moral nation supercede the rights of a minority to indulge in adolescent displays of sexuality.

[GandD 5,966]

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.

Are you talking about Hinduism?

[mota bhai 2,675]

Are you talking about Hinduism?

That's one. There's a whole bunch of us out in Arizona.

[JohnR! 5,495]

No you don't have that right in most places, you are correct. I still say if you want to open a Restaurant that caters to smokers, why is that any of the Govt's business.

If you hate smoking in Restaurants vote with your dollars. A gross overreach of Gov't responsibility.

Now I agree if the owner bans it yes, smokers have no right. Should be the owners choice.

What gives you and I the right to tell the owner people can not smoke in a place he owns?

Once again-- I would not eat there, but that is my choice.

How about a hospital that does not take blacks or Asians? How about a pharmacy that reserves the right to serve only Jehovah's witnesses? What is all gas stations in one state decided not to sell fuel to blacks? Where does one draw the line?

[mota bhai 2,675]

But that's a distraction. This bill is really about homosexuals, isn't it?

[JohnR! 5,495]

But that's a distraction. This bill is really about homosexuals, isn't it?

The bill is a trojan horse. The gays are only the evident excuse, one chosen to distract from its real intent.

[mota bhai 2,675]

So what do you think the real intent is? Just curious. I assumed it was about the revulsion Christianists felt at the open sexual displays of homosexuals.

[GandD 5,966]

That's one. There's a whole bunch of us out in Arizona.

Its hard to guarantee everyone's rights when the only way to guarantee one groups right is to allow them to discriminate against others based on their beliefs or lack of beliefs. For me, i tend to favor less religious rights over individual rights but that's because I'm not really religious. Besides, its not like they can prove definitively that doing business with certain folks is a sin for them. Its all speculation.

[mota bhai 2,675]

Its hard to guarantee everyone's rights when the only way to guarantee one groups right is to allow them to discriminate against others based on their beliefs or lack of beliefs.

Yes, so doesn't it make more sense to guarantee the rights of the majority at the expense of the minority and not the other way around?

The principle of least damage.

[JohnR! 5,495]

So what do you think the real intent is? Just curious. I assumed it was about the revulsion Christianists felt at the open sexual displays of homosexuals.

I think the real intent is to leave the door open to statutory discrimination at all levels, based on religion. We can therefore presume that in Arizona it is considered acceptable for the parents of a child to prohibit such child from going to school based on religious belief. It should also hold true that hospitals and clinics should be able to perform female circumcision, as mandated by religious beliefs. It should stand to reason that based on religion, Mormons should be able to revert to a policy of segregation.

Incidentally, if these christians feel revulsion at the open sexual displays of homosexuals, they should consider not seeking gay porn movies in the internet. In addition, there are many gays who are also christians, which really just makes the point moot.

Edited February 24, 2014 by Gegel

[GandD 5,966]

Yes, so doesn't it make more sense to guarantee the rights of the majority at the expense of the minority and not the other way around?

The principle of least damage.

Not really. When your right is based on denying a right to someone else, you're wrong, no matter your majority. The South was wrong in the 60's regardless of how many people wanted to continue unchanged.

No you don't have that right in most places, you are correct. I still say if you want to open a Restaurant that caters to smokers, why is that any of the Govt's business.

If you hate smoking in Restaurants vote with your dollars. A gross overreach of Gov't responsibility.

Now I agree if the owner bans it yes, smokers have no right. Should be the owners choice.

What gives you and I the right to tell the owner people can not smoke in a place he owns?

Once again-- I would not eat there, but that is my choice.

I would agree in principle, but the free market has not exactly been progressive in many cases. For some folks, they'd rather lose money than accommodate more people.

[mota bhai 2,675]

Since when did it become so important that everything be progressive?

That is how the homosexual lobby pushed their stuff down our collective throats, by implying that we must be progressive and accepting their sexual wantonness was the progressive thing to do.

[JohnR! 5,495]

Since when did it become so important that everything be progressive?

That is how the homosexual lobby pushed their stuff down our collective throats, by implying that we must be progressive and accepting their sexual wantonness was the progressive thing to do.

Time flows in one direction only, so being progressive is intrinsic to the universe.

What you say is true of everyone. Everyone is capable and practicing of wantonness when it comes to sex. You can kiss the 50s good bye, although the matter at hand has to do with the law, not with the sexual revolution.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

Edited February 24, 2014 by Gegel

[GandD 5,966]

Since when did it become so important that everything be progressive?

That is how the homosexual lobby pushed their stuff down our collective throats, by implying that we must be progressive and accepting their sexual wantonness was the progressive thing to do.

Or, some of us have friends/family members that we care about and don't want to see discriminated against.