AZ Tea Party get legalized discrimination bill to pass

[bigdoublezero]

Just want to say that after reading this thread I am exhausted for JH. Regardless of position, that is like Leonidas defending the gap vs. the Persian army on this thread. It is like 20 vs. 1 and he keeps it going for a long time. Impressive endurance.

He was dead wrong about the one thing he loves so dearly and danced around until he was painted into a corner; instead of admitting defeat, he just vanished. So yeah, well done, Sparta.

 

[FuckmouthedRube]

Pennsylvania has its own Arizona anti-gay bill

Jan Brewer's a train wreck, but even she vetoed the bill. McCain (fresh off his censure by the AZ GOP) and Jeff Fluke lobbied against it, as did Romney. Mike Pence has presidential aspirations and wanted a same-sex marriage ban on the ballot in Indiana, but the legislature gutted the bill thereby keeping the proposed amendment off the ballot for at least a few years. May still be a same-sex marriage ban amendment in the 2016 GOP platform to appease the social conservative base, but anti-gay rights legislation is facing stronger resistance even from GOP pols in red states. Kansas may pass their bill which is similar to AZ's signed into law, but don't see any traction in PA. Wonder if social conservatives finally split off from the GOP or surrender since the future is pretty clear on gay rights nationally.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

You're right 2&2. It's perfectly OIK to have laws in place to allow people to be fired simply for being gay.

For the sake of argument let's say being gay is a choice and a "lifefstyle". There's no question being a Christian is a choice and many live their lives according to their Christian faith.

If it's constitutional to allow people to be fired for their "choice" of being gay, it must be equally constitutional to fire for their "choice" to be Christian.

Uh, I was agreeing with you.

 

[bigdoublezero]

May still be a same-sex marriage ban amendment in the 2016 GOP platform to appease the social conservative base.

This would be a good idea if the GOP wants eight years of Hilary.

 

[Liquid Karma]

You're right 2&2. It's perfectly OIK to have laws in place to allow people to be fired simply for being gay.

For the sake of argument let's say being gay is a choice and a "lifefstyle". There's no question being a Christian is a choice and many live their lives according to their Christian faith.

If it's constitutional to allow people to be fired for their "choice" of being gay, it must be equally constitutional to fire for their "choice" to be Christian.

It never gets old watching you make a complete ass of yourself.

 

[RJKarl]

Uh, I was agreeing with you.

my bad

 

[WFFaithful]

We have around the same number of posts, but he's probably posted 3x the number of words on this board as I have

Lectro has to have the highest average word count per post.

 

[Liquid Karma]

Lectro has to have the highest average word count per post.

Arlington?

 

[bmoneydeac]

Arlington?

Kanho was up there. Strickland33 gets pretty wordy on the sports board.

 

[BarcaDeac]

Arlington?

His words were all original at least. Lectro's are mostly copy pasted. And his actual original thoughts are unintentional gibberish.

 

[BeachBumDeac]

It's hard out here for Christians

http://www.mediaite.com/online/tea-...ves-christians-into-baking-giant-penis-cakes/

Phillips foresees a world in which bakers are forced to “create a cake for a homosexual wedding that has a giant phallic symbol on it” and photographers must “photograph a homosexual wedding where the participants decide they want to be nude or engage in sexual behavior.” He asks, “Would they force a Jewish photographer to work a Klan or Nazi event? How about forcing a Muslim caterer to work a pork barbeque dinner?”

 

[jhmd2000]

He was dead wrong about the one thing he loves so dearly and danced around until he was painted into a corner; instead of admitting defeat, he just vanished. So yeah, well done, Sparta.

Take this in the spirit in which it is offered, but I think you've mistaken an appreciation for the law of diminishing marginal utility for surrender. If you're really opposed to discrimination in Arizona, I'm only asking that you be consistent by extending your righteous indignation to de jure, racial discrimination by the State government itself (in flagrant violation of the letter of the Equal Protection Clause, to which it actually applies), and not just limit your outrage to the types of discrimination you disagree with (which, oddly enough, does not violate the letter of the Equal Protection Clause....details, details, details).

But my emotional investment in persuading someone who has decided for himself that he's right (that's like Oprah making the cover of OPRAH magazine 12 months in a row and thinking that makes her a cover model, by the way. Please pass the grain of salt.) has long since passed. There's no point in arguing with someone who isn't listening. Or as you say, I've surrendered. Either way.

 

[BeachBumDeac]

Take this in the spirit in which it is offered, but I think you've mistaken an appreciation for the law of diminishing marginal utility for surrender. If you're really opposed to discrimination in Arizona, I'm only asking that you be consistent by extending your righteous indignation to de jure, racial discrimination by the State government itself (in flagrant violation of the letter of the Equal Protection Clause, to which it actually applies), and not just limit your outrage to the types of discrimination you disagree with (which, oddly enough, does not violate the letter of the Equal Protection Clause....details, details, details).

But my emotional investment in persuading someone who has decided for himself that he's right (that's like Oprah making the cover of OPRAH magazine 12 months in a row and thinking that makes her a cover model, by the way. Please pass the grain of salt.) has long since passed. There's no point in arguing with someone who isn't listening. Or as you say, I've surrendered. Either way.

170 words 1026 characters

 

[Deacon923]

is this the right time for the #neverfails? I'm not so good with teh hashtags.

 

[bigdoublezero]

Take this in the spirit in which it is offered, but I think you've mistaken an appreciation for the law of diminishing marginal utility for surrender. If you're really opposed to discrimination in Arizona, I'm only asking that you be consistent by extending your righteous indignation to de jure, racial discrimination by the State government itself (in flagrant violation of the letter of the Equal Protection Clause, to which it actually applies), and not just limit your outrage to the types of discrimination you disagree with (which, oddly enough, does not violate the letter of the Equal Protection Clause....details, details, details).

But my emotional investment in persuading someone who has decided for himself that he's right (that's like Oprah making the cover of OPRAH magazine 12 months in a row and thinking that makes her a cover model, by the way. Please pass the grain of salt.) has long since passed. There's no point in arguing with someone who isn't listening. Or as you say, I've surrendered. Either way.

Wait, so you haven't surrendered? (This is a good spot for a #neverfails.)

In that case, just a simple yes/no on whether the military has been a longstanding supporter of affirmative action will do.

 

[Milhouse]

he is still reading the brief

 

[ImTheCaptain]

is this the right time for the #neverfails? I'm not so good with teh hashtags.

lolzzz

 

[ImTheCaptain]

improvise, adapt, overcome

 

[jhmd2000]

Wait, so you haven't surrendered? (This is a good spot for a #neverfails.)

In that case, just a simple yes/no on whether the military has been a longstanding supporter of affirmative action will do.

Let's say that the military offers up the politically sanitized (ribbed for BDZ's pleasure) answer that they support affirmative action. If it will make you feel even more correct in your own opinion (congrats again on that, by the way) we can put aside difficult questions of their sincerity of their investment in that idea through the implementation of name-blind promotions process according the AF publication I cited you to...let's stipulate that they claim to be a long-time supporter of that policy.

As the deposed Secretary of State once famously inquired, "What difference does it make?" Does it turn that bad idea into a good idea? I don't think so.

Now, are you willing to oppose all forms of de jure discrimination in Arizona, or just the ones that are politically out of fashion at the present?

 

[BeachBumDeac]

Let's say that the military offers up the politically sanitized (ribbed for BDZ's pleasure) answer that they support affirmative action. If it will make you feel even more correct in your own opinion (congrats again on that, by the way) we can put aside difficult questions of their sincerity of their investment in that idea through the implementation of name-blind promotions process according the AF publication I cited you to...let's stipulate that they claim to be a long-time supporter of that policy.

As the deposed Secretary of State once famously inquired, "What difference does it make?" Does it turn that bad idea into a good idea? I don't think so.

Now, are you willing to oppose all forms of de jure discrimination in Arizona, or just the ones that are politically out of fashion at the present?

138 words 807 characters