06-30-2014 01:17 AM
1,813 ... 6263646566 ...
tools
  1. NoYankees44's Avatar
    A family friend of mine growing up had a business that did patches and embroidery and such. He was contacted by a "white supremacy" group to do some patches(I never was told what they was supposed to be on them). He of course refused. I guess that was "wrong" of him.
    02-26-2014 05:57 AM
  2. The Hustleman's Avatar
    A family friend of mine growing up had a business that did patches and embroidery and such. He was contacted by a "white supremacy" group to do some patches(I never was told what they was supposed to be on them). He of course refused. I guess that was "wrong" of him.
    Excellent analogy.

    I guess he should have been forced to make those patches by law...

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk 2
    02-26-2014 07:24 AM
  3. Mooncatt's Avatar
    An interesting example was given yesterday by one of the lawmakers that passed this bill. He asked if you were a gay printer, and Westboro Baptist Church wanted you to print up some flyers, would you want to do it? Ironic question, since with OR without this bill the gay person would have no such recourse to refuse them.
    You answered your own question.

    You have a right to refuse service to someone being disruptive or threatening in some way...
    As far as everyone that's ok with this type of discrimination, my question is would you be ok with this type of discrimination if it was against a demographic that you're a part of? Something tells me that you're ok with this level of discrimination because it doesn't affect you on a personal level, but if it did affect you, you'd scream foul.
    I'd take my business elsewhere. With this being the era of social media, it wouldn't take long for word to spread if a business wasn't friendly to any specific group of people. By the same token, I'd also avoid a business if they had a sign saying no gays allowed (or other groups), even though I'm straight.
    02-26-2014 10:09 AM
  4. palandri's Avatar
    A family friend of mine growing up had a business that did patches and embroidery and such. He was contacted by a "white supremacy" group to do some patches(I never was told what they was supposed to be on them). He of course refused. I guess that was "wrong" of him.
    Just my opinion, but I don't think that's a good example. I think a better example is the gay printer that is asked to print anti-homosexual material.

    I don't think a white supremacy group represents freedom of expression or freedom of speech, rather I think they represent hatred and racism which shouldn't be tolerated in our society,

    Just my 2 cents.
    02-26-2014 12:18 PM
  5. Mooncatt's Avatar
    I don't think a white supremacy group represents freedom of expression or freedom of speech, rather I think they represent hatred and racism which shouldn't be tolerated in our society,
    The fact that such groups can exist in our country without legal repercussions simply due to their words and beliefs is exactly a good representation of our freedom of speech. It's the idea that everyone is free to think and say what they want without fear of government striking them down. That is, as long as it's not hindering the rights and privileges of others of course. No one has to tolerate or listen to any group, but you do have to accept their right to express their views. That's one of the pillars of our society.
    02-26-2014 12:43 PM
  6. GadgetGator's Avatar
    Interesting polling data on this issue. It seems as if even Republicans do not want this bill approved:

    In the automated poll of 802 Republicans by Coleman Dahm, a Republican political consulting firm in Phoenix, 57.1 percent of respondents who were asked about the bill said they would like Brewer to veto it. Only 27.6 percent said they want her to sign SB1062. The remaining 15.3 percent had no opinion.

    Read more: Poll: GOP voters want Brewer to veto SB1062 | Arizona Capitol Times

    I know it's not scientific, but found it interesting that the reader poll on that page also is running against the bill by a wide margin....86% against the bill.
    palandri likes this.
    02-26-2014 02:11 PM
  7. palandri's Avatar
    The fact that such groups can exist in our country without legal repercussions simply due to their words and beliefs is exactly a good representation of our freedom of speech. It's the idea that everyone is free to think and say what they want without fear of government striking them down. That is, as long as it's not hindering the rights and privileges of others of course. No one has to tolerate or listen to any group, but you do have to accept their right to express their views. That's one of the pillars of our society.
    You can repeat that to me until you're blue in the face, but I'll never accept hatred and racism as freedom of expression or freedom of speech. Hatred and racism have no place in our society.
    02-26-2014 02:12 PM
  8. palandri's Avatar
    Interesting polling data on this issue. It seems as if even Republicans do not want this bill approved:

    In the automated poll of 802 Republicans by Coleman Dahm, a Republican political consulting firm in Phoenix, 57.1 percent of respondents who were asked about the bill said they would like Brewer to veto it. Only 27.6 percent said they want her to sign SB1062. The remaining 15.3 percent had no opinion.

    Read more: Poll: GOP voters want Brewer to veto SB1062 | Arizona Capitol Times

    I know it's not scientific, but found it interesting that the reader poll on that page also is running against the bill by a wide margin....86% against the bill.
    Her name would mud if she signs the bill, and then it would be quickly overturned as a violation of the 14th amendment, equal protection under the law.
    02-26-2014 02:17 PM
  9. NoYankees44's Avatar
    Just my opinion, but I don't think that's a good example. I think a better example is the gay printer that is asked to print anti-homosexual material.

    I don't think a white supremacy group represents freedom of expression or freedom of speech, rather I think they represent hatred and racism which shouldn't be tolerated in our society,

    Just my 2 cents.
    Discrimination is discrimination. It is in the same realm of topic. If we are going to have the conversation, we might as well talk about all possibilities.

    Plus, not all groups are cut and dry. There can be alot of grey area. You may think a group is full of hate. Someone else may not. Who is to be the final judge?

    You can repeat that to me until you're blue in the face, but I'll never accept hatred and racism as freedom of expression or freedom of speech. Hatred and racism have no place in our society.
    See, you do not believe in absolute rights. You believe in subjective rights. Which is fine as long as you agree with whomever is judging. But what happens when that judge changes? If there is no absolute rights, the pendulum can swing wildly and there is no clear "right" or "wrong". Whoever is in power can change whatever they want.

    Freedom is an ugly and expensive thing.
    toober likes this.
    02-26-2014 02:53 PM
  10. Aquila's Avatar
    I'm inclined to agree that choosing to hold someone accountable for their decisions is not the same thing as discrimination. A white supremacist was not born into that group. They may have been born stupid, fearful and susceptible to being a joiner, but they still ultimately make the choice in their behavior. The same analogy would be criminals. We don't let them all walk free because to hold them would be discriminating against their right to be a criminal, we lock them away because their behaviors dictate to us that we must. Choosing to not provide services because of the color of their skin is a totally different thing altogether and it's making the decision based on criteria stemming from who they are (or appear to be), not what they do. That's one root distinction between judging and prejudging.
    02-26-2014 04:03 PM
  11. nolittdroid's Avatar
    Bill was was vetoed. Many seemed to agree that it would cause more problems than solve them.

    SG3/iPad2/OG NookColor
    02-26-2014 07:34 PM
  12. GadgetGator's Avatar
    So now that this particular bill has been killed, some questions remain. As I mentioned way back in this thread, this Arizona bill was just one of numerous bills that spouted up like weeds after a rainstorm. Just all of the sudden....all over the place in different states.

    Ohio - House Bill 376 Pulled after comparisons to Arizona's bill
    Indiana - Dead on arrival, killed by House leadership
    Tennessee - SB2566 dropped by sponsor of the bill saying it was unnecessary
    Idaho - Bill shelved
    Georgia - House Bill 1023 unclear if it will meet committee deadlines
    Missouri - Senate Bill 916 in process
    Mississippi - Senate Bill 2681 Subcommittee voted to strike discriminatory provisions and modify
    South Dakota - rejected in legislative committee
    Oklahoma - Bill being redrafted
    Kansas - Senate leadership torpedoed bill
    Arizona - the only one to make it out of a legislature and now vetoed.


    So not a great track record. Yet more examples of Republican fail all over this. But, why did these supposedly separate legislative bodies all jump on the same train at the same time? And they have done such things before with things like abortion restrictions and so called "Voter ID" laws. In each case it is apparent that some wizard is behind the curtain pulling the levers and deciding want to go after next.

    If you pull back the curtain, some interesting theories emerge as to why this particular set of bills came out when they did. And what it boils down to is this...

    Seeing that they are losing the marriage fight, the religious right is panicking and trying desperately to do whatever they can. First, they want to somehow make a villain in all of this. By claiming they are suffering some great harm and that they themselves are the victims, court challenges might have a better shot then the losing streak they have been on (including yesterday, yay Texas). The problem with this strategy of course, is that it is ten years too late. Yes...this year marks one whole decade since same sex marriages were first made legal somewhere in the United States. And with no demonstration of harm...to anyone... the religious right is grasping for something...anything, to make their case for them.

    The additional reason is seen as something of a backup plan strategy. Forced to accept the reality of the lost battle, they now want to exclude themselves from the war. Back to the safety of their bubble. I don't agree with the "white" part in the title of this article, but the rest of it is good and spells it out better then I can:

    White America’s “waiver mania”: The right’s plot to minimize its culture war defeat - Salon.com

    The additional question that arises in the wake of yet another defeat, is how much damage has this done to Republicans. Once again, another article states it better then I can: "The fact that they're doing it Jim Crow-style is remarkable, considering the fact that one would think the GOP would like to be electable among people under 50 sometime in the near future."

    Inside the Conservative Campaign to Launch "Jim Crow-Style" Bills Against Gay Americans | Mother Jones
    palandri likes this.
    02-27-2014 02:29 AM
  13. Mooncatt's Avatar
    But, why did these supposedly separate legislative bodies all jump on the same train at the same time? And they have done such things before with things like abortion restrictions and so called "Voter ID" laws. In each case it is apparent that some wizard is behind the curtain pulling the levers and deciding want to go after next.
    This isn't anything new, and every state is guilty of it at some point. Once one state starts thinking about passing some new law that's out of the ordinary like this, other states look to follow. This often rears its head when it comes to budgets and funding, when a new type of tax is looking to be levied. I wouldn't bother looking too deep in to this, as I doubt there's any one person or group telling these states what to do. If that were the case, the curtain would be bulging out with all the different people apparently pulling strings for all the different issues states.

    A troubling example of this is Tennessee, I believe, was the first to pass a law that it's illegal to have an aftermarket hidden compartment added to your vehicle. Now other states are looking into the idea, with the assumption that having such a compartment must be because you're running drugs. Some states, Tennessee included, don't allow for any exemptions (people traveling for a living or simply vacation would have good reason too hide spare cash and valuables), but others may also need additional evidence like traces of drugs found in said compartment.

    That's just one example of states playing follow the leader.
    02-27-2014 06:47 AM
  14. The Hustleman's Avatar
    This isn't anything new, and every state is guilty of it at some point. Once one state starts thinking about passing some new law that's out of the ordinary like this, other states look to follow. This often rears its head when it comes to budgets and funding, when a new type of tax is looking to be levied. I wouldn't bother looking too deep in to this, as I doubt there's any one person or group telling these states what to do. If that were the case, the curtain would be bulging out with all the different people apparently pulling strings for all the different issues states.

    A troubling example of this is Tennessee, I believe, was the first to pass a law that it's illegal to have an aftermarket hidden compartment added to your vehicle. Now other states are looking into the idea, with the assumption that having such a compartment must be because you're running drugs. Some states, Tennessee included, don't allow for any exemptions (people traveling for a living or simply vacation would have good reason too hide spare cash and valuables), but others may also need additional evidence like traces of drugs found in said compartment.

    That's just one example of states playing follow the leader.
    That hidden compartment law is stupid, it's already illegal to sell and possess drugs so that law is redundant

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk 2
    02-27-2014 07:49 AM
  15. Tall Mike 2145's Avatar
    Anyone who cannot distinguish between a hate group (such as a White Supremacist group) and a sexual orientation doesn't deserve to be taken seriously or debated here.
    02-27-2014 12:09 PM
  16. pappy53's Avatar
    Anyone who cannot distinguish between a hate group (such as a White Supremacist group) and a sexual orientation doesn't deserve to be taken seriously or debated here.
    Or the Black Panthers.

    Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
    02-27-2014 01:35 PM
  17. Scott7217's Avatar
    Anyone who cannot distinguish between a hate group (such as a White Supremacist group) and a sexual orientation doesn't deserve to be taken seriously or debated here.
    The problem is that these people can still vote for laws that discriminate, whether you debate them or not. Personally, I'd rather continue the debate. If I can change even a single person's mind, it will be worth it.
    02-27-2014 02:27 PM
  18. GadgetGator's Avatar
    This isn't anything new, and every state is guilty of it at some point. Once one state starts thinking about passing some new law that's out of the ordinary like this, other states look to follow.
    That's not the case here. These efforts are being pushed by an organized right wing agenda. They aren't something that states look at with envy and say, "oh, I would like to have that too". You can tell that merely from the timing. Legislative bodies don't move that fast usually. So when this stuff swoops down out of thin air in many places simultaneously, with the same boiler plate language, it's noticeable. And you can be assured that there is something and someone behind it. Right wing organizations push for this and in some cases even draft the language. It's a very coordinated effort. Just as it was with the abortion bills and the voter ID bills.
    msndrstood likes this.
    02-27-2014 02:41 PM
  19. nolittdroid's Avatar
    This was purely a political stunt and im glad they were called out for it. Religion is NOT an excuse to be a bigot to anybody. Its not about your religious beliefs, its about treating everyone equally.

    SG3/iPad2/OG NookColor
    02-27-2014 02:45 PM
  20. Mooncatt's Avatar
    They aren't something that states look at with envy and say, "oh, I would like to have that too". You can tell that merely from the timing. Legislative bodies don't move that fast usually.
    You'd be surprised.
    02-27-2014 02:50 PM
  21. Scott7217's Avatar
    These efforts are being pushed by an organized right wing agenda.
    Politicians can do whatever they want as long as I can laugh in their face every time they fail. Make no mistake about it, they will fail, each and every time, because the American people won't stand for this nonsense.
    02-27-2014 03:31 PM
  22. NoYankees44's Avatar
    I know that hating the haters and making sweeping generalizations on the Internet is the cool thing to do, but you might want to check who is actually condemning and and supporting this bill. The answer of who is condemning might surprise you.

    This bill was struck down as it should have been, but there are 2 other issues brought that are much bigger than the gay rights issues.

    1. The rights of business to choose whom they do business with.

    2. What and when is religion an excuse for an action and where is the line for when legislation goes too far and infringes on religious practices.

    This country was colonized and founded mostly by people that were wanting economic and religious freedom. There are lines and ramifications that go far beyond this bill. If you want to take it for face value and ignore these deeper issues, you are free to do so.
    02-27-2014 04:17 PM
  23. anon8126715's Avatar
    So now that this particular bill has been killed, some questions remain. As I mentioned way back in this thread, this Arizona bill was just one of numerous bills that spouted up like weeds after a rainstorm. Just all of the sudden....all over the place in different states.

    Ohio - House Bill 376 Pulled after comparisons to Arizona's bill
    Indiana - Dead on arrival, killed by House leadership
    Tennessee - SB2566 dropped by sponsor of the bill saying it was unnecessary
    Idaho - Bill shelved
    Georgia - House Bill 1023 unclear if it will meet committee deadlines
    Missouri - Senate Bill 916 in process
    Mississippi - Senate Bill 2681 Subcommittee voted to strike discriminatory provisions and modify
    South Dakota - rejected in legislative committee
    Oklahoma - Bill being redrafted
    Kansas - Senate leadership torpedoed bill
    Arizona - the only one to make it out of a legislature and now vetoed.


    So not a great track record. Yet more examples of Republican fail all over this. But, why did these supposedly separate legislative bodies all jump on the same train at the same time? And they have done such things before with things like abortion restrictions and so called "Voter ID" laws. In each case it is apparent that some wizard is behind the curtain pulling the levers and deciding want to go after next.

    If you pull back the curtain, some interesting theories emerge as to why this particular set of bills came out when they did. And what it boils down to is this...

    Seeing that they are losing the marriage fight, the religious right is panicking and trying desperately to do whatever they can. First, they want to somehow make a villain in all of this. By claiming they are suffering some great harm and that they themselves are the victims, court challenges might have a better shot then the losing streak they have been on (including yesterday, yay Texas). The problem with this strategy of course, is that it is ten years too late. Yes...this year marks one whole decade since same sex marriages were first made legal somewhere in the United States. And with no demonstration of harm...to anyone... the religious right is grasping for something...anything, to make their case for them.

    The additional reason is seen as something of a backup plan strategy. Forced to accept the reality of the lost battle, they now want to exclude themselves from the war. Back to the safety of their bubble. I don't agree with the "white" part in the title of this article, but the rest of it is good and spells it out better then I can:

    White Americas waiver mania: The rights plot to minimize its culture war defeat - Salon.com

    The additional question that arises in the wake of yet another defeat, is how much damage has this done to Republicans. Once again, another article states it better then I can: "The fact that they're doing it Jim Crow-style is remarkable, considering the fact that one would think the GOP would like to be electable among people under 50 sometime in the near future."

    Inside the Conservative Campaign to Launch "Jim Crow-Style" Bills Against Gay Americans | Mother Jones
    I scanned the list real quick and didn't see Texas on that list which makes me hopeful, especially when you see the list and you're expecting dueling banjos to start playing......

    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
    02-27-2014 04:47 PM
  24. Scott7217's Avatar
    This country was colonized and founded mostly by people that were wanting economic and religious freedom.
    That's a fair point. In fact, SB 1062 explicitly points this out, at least with respect to religion:

    "Free exercise of religion is a fundamental right that applies in this state even if laws, rules or other government actions are facially neutral."

    Opponents to this bill were able to successfully spin it into one about discrimination against gay people.
    02-27-2014 05:08 PM
  25. Timelessblur's Avatar
    I scanned the list real quick and didn't see Texas on that list which makes me hopeful, especially when you see the list and you're expecting dueling banjos to start playing......

    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
    My fear is Texas will try next year. Only reason it has not been done yet is Texas legislative branch only meets on odd number years. You can bet money they would of tried it if they met this year.
    Put nothing pass the party of Hate and Bigotry.
    02-27-2014 05:56 PM
1,813 ... 6263646566 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Automatic time zone and date/clock are wrong
    By ajua in forum HTC One M7
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 07-04-2018, 01:12 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-05-2013, 10:34 AM
  3. Using the TMobile Note 2 in Asia (not Japan & Korea) and Europe for 3G internet
    By Internet_Tough_Guy in forum T-Mobile Galaxy Note 2
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-27-2013, 01:54 PM
  4. Icon question and SMS question
    By JT Peters in forum Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-26-2013, 02:55 PM
  5. USA today review and water damage...
    By quietlybrilliant in forum Samsung Galaxy S4 Active
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-26-2013, 11:13 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD