Arizona's new anti-gay law.

[Felch]

What's wrong with the state law, if all it does is reiterate the first amendment?

[DaShi]

So you believe that the Arizona law is just a restatement of the 1st amendment?

[MrFun]

If a baker doesn't want to serve me because I'm Catholic, I'd be 100% cool with that. If Hooters won't hire me because I don't have (nice) tits, I'm 100% cool with that. If some barber doesn't want to cut the hair of any honkies, I'm 100% cool with that. If I go to a head shop and there's a sign and it says, "Our crop just cured and we're getting baked all day, come back tomorrow," I'm 100% cool with that.

You see, I have a healthy attitude about my place in the world. I realize that the world doesn't revolve around me, and that other people do what they do for their own reasons. Insisting on things being otherwise is ****ing childish.

As Imran pointed out, you think that the civil rights movement of 1950s and 1960s was about blacks being childish and thinking the whole world revolved around them?

As Imran also pointed out (damn him for beating me to this stuff), you're white, straight, male, and Christian. You don't exactly have it rough, so your personal hypotheticals sound ridiculous.

[MrFun]

What's wrong with the state law, if all it does is reiterate the first amendment?

Are you really so obtuse as to deny the real motivation for a bill like that?

It's motivated by hatred, not by the principle of free speech.

[Guynemer]

Then what's the point of the Arizona law, if the first amendment already protects these businesses?

To get those lawmakers re-elected by their constituents, duh.

Same reason for any law.

[DinoDoc]

You know, no one seriously tries to argue that bakers shouldn't be able to serve black people (or women, or Catholics) if they don't want to

Any business should be able to serve to customers of their choosing. Let the market, not the government be the judge of the survival chances of those businesses.

[Felch]

As Imran pointed out, you think that the civil rights movement of 1950s and 1960s was about blacks being childish and thinking the whole world revolved around them?

As I already pointed out to him, the Civil Rights movement wasn't about cakes, it was about systematic abuse by the government at every level.

As Imran also pointed out (damn him for beating me to this stuff), you're white, straight, male, and Christian. You don't exactly have it rough, so your personal hypotheticals sound ridiculous.

And so I should just shut up and keep my worthless opinion to myself? **** off, and don't ever tell me what I'm allowed to have opinions about.

[Felch]

I'm still waiting for somebody to explain why I should have to take the Westboro Baptist Church on a bus trip if I don't want to.

[Guynemer]

I'm still waiting for somebody to explain why I should have to take the Westboro Baptist Church on a bus trip if I don't want to.

Because you could perform a public service by driving the bus into the Grand Canyon, jumping out of the window at the last moment to save yourself.

[MrFun]

As I already pointed out to him, the Civil Rights movement wasn't about cakes, it was about systematic abuse by the government at every level.



And so I should just shut up and keep my worthless opinion to myself? **** off, and don't ever tell me what I'm allowed to have opinions about.

Today's civil rights struggle of gay people is not about "just cakes," either you obtuse doofus.

And no, I'm not saying to keep your opinions to yourself, but to compare real world experiences of historically discriminated against minority groups with hypotheticals that a straight, white, Christian male could possibly experience if we lived in an entirely different world is laughable.

Share your opinions, but come up with better, more sound arguments.

[Elok]

No, but when writing a law, you need to consider these scenarios and weigh their impacts. "Wherever it becomes legitimately problematic in non-emotional terms" is still rather vague.

Well, just as soon as an actual problem appears, I'd be all for addressing it. Until then, I'd think civil law would cover any scenarios where somebody actually loses money or property, becomes injured or ill, etc. as a result of some dipwad refusing to do business with him.

[Elok]

Because you could perform a public service by driving the bus into the Grand Canyon, jumping out of the window at the last moment to save yourself.

Waste of a perfectly good bus, innit?

[pchang]

Hardly. Well worth the expense.

[Guynemer]

Waste of a perfectly good bus, innit?

What you don't realize is the bus is the reincarnation of Hitler.

[Aeson]

If a baker doesn't want to serve me because I'm Catholic, I'd be 100% cool with that. If Hooters won't hire me because I don't have (nice) tits, I'm 100% cool with that. If some barber doesn't want to cut the hair of any honkies, I'm 100% cool with that. If I go to a head shop and there's a sign and it says, "Our crop just cured and we're getting baked all day, come back tomorrow," I'm 100% cool with that.

You see, I have a healthy attitude about my place in the world. I realize that the world doesn't revolve around me, and that other people do what they do for their own reasons. Insisting on things being otherwise is ****ing childish.

So the gay kid born in rural America should just be run out of town by bigots or be forced to hide their sexuality? Remember that in many of these small towns there's only 1 of most services ... 1 gas station. 1 barber. 1 supermarket. 1 diner. 1 hardware store. And even if you travel the 30 miles to the next town, you're probably going to have shopkeepers with the same religious views as in the last town.

Are you 100% cool with what boils down to forced relocation for homosexuals and ethnic minorities from many places in small-town America?