Arizona's new anti-gay law.

[Kidlicious]

That doesn't make since because I support equal rights.

Not for men.

[100% Wolf]

Who else? Giraffes?

[Kidlicious]

Who else? Giraffes?

Why do you oppose gay rights threads?

[100% Wolf]

Well obviously I only want equal rights for lesbians /sarcasm

[Kidlicious]

Well obviously I only want equal rights for lesbians /sarcasm

Seriously, I don't think you would threadjack a lesbians thread. Either would I because she might call the police.

[notyoueither]

What happened to my thread?

It got taken over by kidvicious.

[MrFun]

There are still a lot of newer posts that Kiddy has made in spite of what his stated intention to not post anymore.

But they're hidden now that he's joined Benny on my Ignore list.

[Kidlicious]

It got taken over by kidvicious.

Bull****

[Kidlicious]

There are still a lot of newer posts that Kiddy has made in spite of what his stated intention to not post anymore.

But they're hidden now that he's joined Benny on my Ignore list.

Your thread got jacked by gribbler, Sava and Ming. Eat ****!

[Sava]

Harpy hag Jan Brewer vetoed the bill. This topic is dead.

[Aeson]

Then there's no need to change the laws at present, if as you say, they are working just fine.

Yes, there's absolutely no need for Arizona to enact this new law since the old way was working so well.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes, there's absolutely no need for Arizona to enact this new law since the old way was working so well.

What law are they changing? Constitutionally, they are exercising their right to freedom of association. Whether Brewer passes the bill or not will not change their right to decline unwelcome clients.

[Dinner]

In related news here is an article with a shocking NSFW photo of a gay person in Uganda getting lynched and burned to death for being gay.

http://www.ynaija.com/shocking-gay-man-burned-alive-by-anti-homosexual-mob-in-uganda-viewer-discretion/

[Aeson]

What law are they changing? Constitutionally, they are exercising their right to freedom of association. Whether Brewer passes the bill or not will not change their right to decline unwelcome clients.

Hypothetically speaking, if they already have the constitutional right to deny service to anyone for any reason, they don't need a new law to protect their right to deny service to anyone for any reason.

I disagree with you (as does SCOTUS) about whether they have that constitutional right or not, but I'm glad we can all agree that it's a useless law that serves no point other than to waste time and money in an attempt to appeal to bigots.

[Ben Kenobi]

Hypothetically speaking, if they already have the constitutional right to deny service to anyone for any reason, they don't need a new law to protect their right to deny service to anyone for any reason.

That's how freedom of association works. Arguing that a business must supply a client is wrong. The business can protect itself by declining business that it does not want or need.

A business cannot continue to operate at a loss, and if a business believes that it's own interests are jeopardized by a particular client, that is their judgment call to make.

I disagree with you (as does SCOTUS) about whether they have that constitutional right or not

Well, then, the law is essential in order to protect their constitutional rights from people who do not respect them. That's why laws get made. You can either respect their constitutional rights, or watch as laws get passed when folks choose to disregard them.

, but I'm glad we can all agree that it's a useless law that serves no point other than to waste time and money in an attempt to appeal to bigots.

Arguing that the constitution doesn't protect them when it does seems to shatter the merit of the 14th amendment argument of your side. If you can disregard the 1st amendment, then what authority does the 14th have?