- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 2/25/14 at 9:47 pm to Sentrius
quote:
We only use laws when it allows us to violate private property rights for something that pisses us off.
What ever let's you sleep at night.
You and the majority of the "freedom lovers" on this thread are wrong.
But whatever...either she signs this shite or does not. Either way Arizona once again has taken a knee to the nuts and economically it's going to hurt the state.
Posted on 2/25/14 at 9:50 pm to asurob1
quote:You were fapping earlier today of the possibility of that, now your fricking worried about it?
Either way Arizona once again has taken a knee to the nuts and economically it's going to hurt the state.
Posted on 2/25/14 at 10:16 pm to Jbird
quote:
You were fapping earlier today of the possibility of that, now your fricking worried about it?
Why would I be worried about it.
Not my money being lost ;-).
Posted on 2/25/14 at 10:16 pm to Jbird
During the extended interview, not all of which aired, Cooper pressed Al Melvin, Arizona senator, about whether the bill could actually be used to justify discrimination, suggesting an example of a loan officer refusing to provide a loan to a divorced woman because of his religious belief against divorce. Melvin avoided addressing the question, repeatedly asserting that the bill protects “religious freedom.” Cooper challenged him to provide one example of what exactly needs protected, but Melvin could not provide a single example:
COOPER: You say it’s all about protecting people of faith in Arizona. Can you give me a specific example of someone in Arizona who’s been forced to do something against their religious belief or [been] successfully sued because of their faith?
MELVIN: Again, I think if anything, this bill is preemptive: to protect priests —
COOPER: You can’t give me one example of this actually happening?
MELVIN: No I can’t, but we’ve seen it in other states and we don’t want it to happen here. [...]
COOPER: You can’t cite one example of where religious freedom is under attack in Arizona.
MELVIN: Not now, no, but how about tomorrow?
COOPER: You say it’s all about protecting people of faith in Arizona. Can you give me a specific example of someone in Arizona who’s been forced to do something against their religious belief or [been] successfully sued because of their faith?
MELVIN: Again, I think if anything, this bill is preemptive: to protect priests —
COOPER: You can’t give me one example of this actually happening?
MELVIN: No I can’t, but we’ve seen it in other states and we don’t want it to happen here. [...]
COOPER: You can’t cite one example of where religious freedom is under attack in Arizona.
MELVIN: Not now, no, but how about tomorrow?
Posted on 2/25/14 at 10:19 pm to asurob1
Link?
Posted on 2/25/14 at 10:21 pm to Jbird
quote:
Link?
don't be lazy...it's on CNN.
You frickers who can't be troubled to use google yourself humor the shite out of me.
Posted on 2/25/14 at 10:22 pm to asurob1
Arizona will do fine economically no matter what happens. Tourists will still go to the Grand Canyon (the North Rim is closed until May 15th, so scratch that option for a while) to places like Sedona, Williams, Phoenix, Tuscon and Flagstaff. Lake Havasu will still be packed come Spring Break and lots of retirees and snowbirds will continue to stream in. Only an idiot would think otherwise.
This post was edited on 2/25/14 at 10:24 pm
Posted on 2/25/14 at 10:22 pm to asurob1
Well assholes that cut n paste can link ya lazy frick. 
Posted on 2/25/14 at 10:29 pm to asurob1
quote:
You and the majority of the "freedom lovers" on this thread are wrong.
If loving freedom is wrong, I don't ever want to be right.
Posted on 2/25/14 at 10:43 pm to Sentrius
quote:
I don't even know what to say to that.
The only thing stopping the strong from taking from the weak is man made law. Fact.
quote:
And?
Do those businesses belong to you? Do they belong to the gov't?
When you open your business up to trade in a state in a country, you open yourself up to the rules that provide you with those benefits. Anti discrimination laws are a minimal rule, especially stacked up against the good they provide and the other benefits laws provide a business owner.
quote:
Do you know what place on Earth does not respect property rights?
War torn Africa, the theocratic Mideast, parts of communist China. They violate property rights all the time under the guise of legislating morality, much like what you support. Do you really want to join them?
Property rights are tantamount to a free, productive and capitalistic society which is the complete opposite of the above.
This is worse than a slippery slope argument you just skip the slope and go straight to the cliff. No i don't think anti-discimination laws make us the same as any of these countries, and as in many cases they are to the extreme.
quote:
How does that practice hurt people, steal or conduct slander or fraud?
Dude, to deny people property rights means to turn people into property owned by the state.
The practice opens groups of citizens to being kept out of potentially all businesses owned by religious people.
I can't legally set my house on fire. I guess the state owns it. I can't start a factory in my house in a residential neighborhood. Guess the state owns it.
bullshite.
Posted on 2/25/14 at 11:14 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
The only thing stopping the strong from taking from the weak is man made law.
You can't take from the weak by not giving them something.
quote:
When you open your business up to trade in a state in a country, you open yourself up to the rules that provide you with those benefits.
What benefits?
The only rules that should be acceptable is violence, theft and fraud/slander rules. That's it.
quote:
Anti discrimination laws are a minimal rule, especially stacked up against the good they provide and the other benefits laws provide a business owner.
Ah, the necessary evil argument. I consider any restrictions on private property based on morality an unecessary evil and should not even be considered, especially considering morality's all relative.
quote:
No i don't think anti-discimination laws make us the same as any of these countries, and as in many cases they are to the extreme.
In the public sector, this should be accepted and encouraged as there can be absolutely no discrimination in all activities, buildings, services and products that are publicly funded. This is what was wrong with Jim Crow and why it was evil and violated due process.
Private sector, gov't has no right to interfere between two private citizens contracting with each other. Willingness to provide services and products must be freely given, not forced through state power under the guise of morality. That is an inappropriate role for gov't to take. It's not the government's responsibility to make sure we all hold hands and sing kumbaya.
quote:
The practice opens groups of citizens to being kept out of potentially all businesses owned by religious people.
Are they being hurt by it, stolen from or conned/slandered? No? Well then that's the end of it.
quote:
I can't legally set my house on fire. I guess the state owns it. I can't start a factory in my house in a residential neighborhood. Guess the state owns it.
You should have that right, it's your property and only yours to see how it should be used.
Posted on 2/25/14 at 11:28 pm to asurob1
so your argument is, because this amendment extends possible protection to an entity like a bank, this hypothetical practice (talking about the loan officer/divorce drivel here) could happen legally in Arizona under the amendment?
or is it the "any state action" part of the amendment?
how many banking institutions have policies like this? zero. how many could if this bill becomes law? zero.
or is it the "any state action" part of the amendment?
how many banking institutions have policies like this? zero. how many could if this bill becomes law? zero.
This post was edited on 2/26/14 at 12:04 am
Posted on 2/25/14 at 11:54 pm to EastBankTiger
quote:
Arizona will do fine economically no matter what happens. Tourists will still go to the Grand Canyon (the North Rim is closed until May 15th, so scratch that option for a while) to places like Sedona, Williams, Phoenix, Tuscon and Flagstaff. Lake Havasu will still be packed come Spring Break and lots of retirees and snowbirds will continue to stream in. Only an idiot would think otherwise.
After 1070 passed and was signed Arizona's tax revenues went into a free-fall. Largely due to lost revenue from the tourist industry. Companies were canceling conventions and even spring baseball was feeling the economic hit.
Now Arizona's economy was already in the shitter at the time with the housing bubble already wrecking revenues in this fine state.
One of the thing's Grandma Jan is seriously looking at is the fact that Arizona is just now recovering from the last time something like this went down and not wanting to derail the recovery.
Believe me, money trumps religion each and every time.
Posted on 2/25/14 at 11:54 pm to Sentrius
quote:
You can't take from the weak by not giving them something.
That doesn't make sense, or seem like it has anything to do with wether or not property laws are man made (they are)
quote:
What benefits?
The only rules that should be acceptable is violence, theft and fraud/slander rules. That's it.
Those are benefits. and significant ones i would say.
quote:
Ah, the necessary evil argument. I consider any restrictions on private property based on morality an unecessary evil and should not even be considered, especially considering morality's all relative.
I consider discrimination immoral and unnecessary evil of personal property laws. Impasse it seems.
quote:
Private sector, gov't has no right to interfere between two private citizens contracting with each other. Willingness to provide services and products must be freely given, not forced through state power under the guise of morality. That is an inappropriate role for gov't to take. It's not the government's responsibility to make sure we all hold hands and sing kumbaya.
I think there is an argument that the government is there for the benefit of its people. I would consider anti discrimination laws a huge benefit for black people so far.
quote:
Are they being hurt by it, stolen from or conned/slandered? No? Well then that's the end of it.
It has the potential to greatly hurt people, including me. if people decided they didn't want to serve jews i would be in a bit of a bind. I would have maybe three places to eat in BR, probably no where to get groceries. And it owudl be perfectly legal if this was the law here.
quote:
You should have that right, it's your property and only yours to see how it should be used.
i think you lose a little but of that right when you enter the public world if you want to do public business you should have to follow laws. Those laws may require that you are open to the public as a whole.
Posted on 2/26/14 at 12:00 am to asurob1
quote:
Now Arizona's economy was already in the shitter at the time with the housing bubble already wrecking revenues in this fine state
Ah yes...the one caused by Barney Frank and his ilk.
quote:
Grandma Jan
shows me where your mindset is...and why you shouldn't be taken seriously.
This post was edited on 2/26/14 at 12:01 am
Posted on 2/26/14 at 12:04 am to asurob1
Do you even know what this amendment does?
Posted on 2/26/14 at 12:05 am to McLemore
quote:
how many could if this bill becomes law? zero.
you would be wrong about this.
Under this law...a deeply Christian could refuse to give a Jewish person a loan based solely on his religious beliefs.
When we talk about slippery slopes...this law is a 90 degree angle.
Posted on 2/26/14 at 12:15 am to EastBankTiger
quote:
Ah yes...the one caused by Barney Frank and his ilk.
yup.
quote:
shows me where your mindset is...and why you shouldn't be taken seriously.
The woman is not qualified to hold such a high office.
The only reason...and believe me she was getting horse whipped in the polls before she did this...she was re elected is because she signed 1070.
Her performance in the debates was high comedy...but then again Anderson Cooper once again showed just how dumb most of the GOP is in the state the other nite when he buried Senator Martin in an interview regarding this bill.
For Jbird since he doesn't have google on his computer.
Posted on 2/26/14 at 12:17 am to McLemore
quote:
Do you even know what this amendment does?
yup.
It allows me to put a sign in my restaurant that says "no jewish people served here."
Let my taxi cab company refuse to pick up men in Turbans.
All I have to do is say my religion forbids me from celebrating your sinish ways and bam...I get to discriminate against you with the backing of the state government.
Page 25 of 36
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News