KevinG Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Seems silly to even have a law when a business could just deny services and probably get away with it. prolly should just do away with speed and most traffic laws then. Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Now that Brewer has vetoed SB 1062 (the Anti-Gay bill), the right has predictably lost their collective minds. Declaring this is to be an assault on Christians, against religious freedoms, etc. What I can't understand or wrap my head around is exactly how making a business treat every person the same an assault on Religious freedom? A person is still able to practice their religion, and without this bill you are still able to think whatever you want about anyone. You are just not allowed to discriminate. You have to treat everyone equally. Can anyone spell out how this veto is an assault on religious freedom? Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Now that Brewer has vetoed SB 1062 (the Anti-Gay bill), the right has predictably lost their collective minds. Link? Link to post Share on other sites
ih8music Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Some Christians in the wedding industry (florists, banquet halls, event planners, etc) are worried about getting sued if they refuse to work gay weddings. I say just give a horribly high bid for the job and either you'll be spared the horror of it all or make a nice profit for your trouble. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 It's not illegal to refuse work. Link to post Share on other sites
Winston Legthigh Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 You are just not allowed to discriminate. You have to treat everyone equally. The government shouldn't be allowed to discriminate, yes, but why put that on private business? Why shouldn't I be able to choose to not do business with Illinois Nazis? The KKK? The Catholic Church? Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 I've turned down business because I didn't like the buyer. Discrimination based on personality. Link to post Share on other sites
Tweedling Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 "We Reserve The Right To Refuse Service To Anyone" Link to post Share on other sites
gogo Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 http://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/equal-rights/right-refuse-service: The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin." The right of public accommodation is also guaranteed to disabled citizens under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which precludes discrimination by businesses on the basis of disability. In addition to the protections against discrimination provided under federal law, many states have passed their own Civil Rights Acts that provide broader protections than the Federal Civil Rights Act. For example, California's Unruh Civil Rights Act makes it illegal to discriminate against individuals based on unconventional dress or sexual preference. In the 1960s, the Unruh Civil Rights Act was interpreted to provide broad protection from arbitrary discrimination by business owners. Cases decided during that era held that business owners could not discriminate, for example, against hippies, police officers, homosexuals, or Republicans, solely because of who they were. There is no civil rights act in Arizona that expands protection based on sexual preference. So it's always been (and continues to be) legal for businesses in Arizona to refuse to serve anyone on that basis. But the "right to refuse service" is a limited right, more or less, depending on where you are. Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 I've turned down business because I didn't like the buyer. Discrimination based on personality. Except personality is something you can control. You are not genetically an asshole. Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 The government shouldn't be allowed to discriminate, yes, but why put that on private business? Why shouldn't I be able to choose to not do business with Illinois Nazis? The KKK? The Catholic Church? It all come down to choice I guess. Being a Nazi, or in the Catholic Church is a choice. Being gay isn't. Link to post Share on other sites
uncool2pillow Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Except personality is something you can control. You are not genetically an asshole. Have you met his parents? I've heard good things about his mom, so you might be right. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Except personality is something you can control. You are not genetically an asshole.Bravo Link to post Share on other sites
Atticus Posted June 5, 2014 Author Share Posted June 5, 2014 at least we can all agree on the Bergdahl swap. Link to post Share on other sites
NoJ Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 at least we can all agree on the Bergdahl swap. Yep, precedent was already set so its all good. Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 at least we can all agree on the Bergdahl swap. yep that Obama could cure the common cold and the GOP would demand hearings and impeachment for putting drug companies out of business. Link to post Share on other sites
IRememberDBoon Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 do you think if we had pulled out next year and Bergdahl was still in captivity the Republican/Independents would have accused him of "leaving a man behind"???And the SH*T about him causing the deaths of six other soldiers is pure garbage Link to post Share on other sites
Hixter Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 And the SH*T about him causing the deaths of six other soldiers is pure garbageNo, it is not. At a minimum, he needs to be tried for desertion and given a dishonorable discharge. He should also have to repay the costs of the search efforts. If it is found that he collaborated with the enemy, he should be executed. As an earlier poster said, precedent has been set and it's all good. Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 What do you think of the efforts and deals that went into retrieving him, Hixter? Link to post Share on other sites
NoJ Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 No, it is not. At a minimum, he needs to be tried for desertion and given a dishonorable discharge. He should also have to repay the costs of the search efforts. If it is found that he collaborated with the enemy, he should be executed. As an earlier poster said, precedent has been set and it's all good. I think the precedent being referred to is when Reagan traded weapons with Iran in order to get those 52 hostages released. Link to post Share on other sites
Winston Legthigh Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 No, it is not. At a minimum, he needs to be tried for desertion and given a dishonorable discharge. He should also have to repay the costs of the search efforts. If it is found that he collaborated with the enemy, he should be executed. As an earlier poster said, precedent has been set and it's all good. Seems like the overwhelming precedent would be to not be executed? Or, you can go with the single execution in over 20,000 cases of desertion during WWII... Link to post Share on other sites
NoJ Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 Seems like the overwhelming precedent would be to not be executed? Or, you can go with the single execution in over 20,000 cases of desertion during WWII... This is true, Paris was overrun with deserted GIs, stealing supplies destined for the front line and getting into gun battles with MPs and Parisian police. Link to post Share on other sites
Hixter Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 What do you think of the efforts and deals that went into retrieving him, Hixter?It was a big mistake. Bergdahl deserted his fellow soldiers in a war zone and sought refuge with, and may have aided, the enemy. We turned over 5 dangerous men to Qatar, which has already said that the men would be allowed to travel freely within the country. After one year they'll be allowed to return to Afghanistan, where they will likely return to their evil ways. I think this was a trial balloon for an eventual emptying of Gitmo. The administration's execution was ham-fisted and embarrassing - especially the White House photo op with the parents and Susan Rice's assertion that Bergdahl had 'served with honor and distinction.' In the end, we traded 5 dangerous terrorists for a traitor. Not much of a bargain. I think the precedent being referred to is when Reagan traded weapons with Iran in order to get those 52 hostages released.I understood that; I was just mentioning a precedent of my own. Seems like the overwhelming precedent would be to not be executed? Or, you can go with the single execution in over 20,000 cases of desertion during WWII...There are allegations that Bergdahl collaborated with the Taliban. If it can be proved that he assisted them by describing security details, methods of operation, etc., then he likely has the blood of American soldiers on his hands and he's more worthy of execution than Private Slovik. Link to post Share on other sites
uncool2pillow Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 Hixter, I absolutely agree with you IF the worst allegations are proven in a court (martial) of law. Not having read too much about this, it seems like many are turning themselves in to prosecutor, judge and jury with scant evidence. It seems that the right wing media machine wants to declare Bergdahl guilty so they can declare Obama guilty and proceed ASAP with impeachment hearings. Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 Hixter, I absolutely agree with you IF the worst allegations are proven in a court (martial) of law. Not having read too much about this, it seems like many are turning themselves in to prosecutor, judge and jury with scant evidence. It seems that the right wing media machine wants to declare Bergdahl guilty so they can declare Obama guilty and proceed ASAP with impeachment hearings. Exactly. Nearly, everyone has jumped on this to support their narrative. It is the problem this country has, we are so hyper divided politically, and we all have outlets confirming our point of view, and in essence bolstering a sometime misguided half truths. There are some questions that need to be answered on this. When the story first broke I said the whole thing seems weird and there is more to this than is being told. But the GOP and the right wing have such a hatred and disdain for Obama they jump over reason in order to some how "get him" they miss the larger point and end up doing more harm than good. They did it with ACA, Benghazi, the VA, and now this Bergdahl thing. A little moderation and thought is needed, but the right doesn't seem to think before they act. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts