By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - George Takei’s Ripping Letter to AZ about ‘Turn Away the Gay’ Bill

Zappykins said:
kidvizious said:
 

Of course the bill is bullshit but storeowners do have to right to refuse order to anyone for whatever their reason is. It is their business. If they don't like gays in their store/restraunt they do have the right to refuse service. That's part of the United States. Jews can be refused service as can Christians as can 5 year olds as can anyone if the store owner does not want to do business with someone for whatever reason.

You may think it's wrong but that's the way it is due to the people's beliefs. and that is something that can't be taken away from them. 

Edit: and I say this all because I see LGBT supporters and anit-LBGT supporters attacking each other and insulting one another due to these differences instead of just accepting that they don't agree. Everything from religion to upbringings to races are being attacked with some even being banned. Why discuss or bring the topic if people who disagree are going to be banned or people agree will be banned? That is the ultimate hypocrisy.

Actually it's not that simple.  This was shown during the 60's when people refused to serve people of colour in restaurants.  If you engage in public service, you can refused service on a individual, but you can not refuse a group of people because of prejudice. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 doesn't address homosexuality so yes, you actually can refuse a person service for whatever reason as long as it doesn't violate the Act.

What this law does is change that.  So what would be illegal - say to refuse to service people with blue eyes - would now be legal if you have a religious reason - no matter how feeble.  So if you follow the Bible women having their monthly cycles could be consider unclean and throw out of your business if you want. Eye color is completely different from sexual orientation which is addressed in religious scriptures. 

But as others have pointed out, it's really hiding behind one's religion to discriminate, as it wouldn't be clearly illegal without the law. There is the attack on religion again for the people that do not agree with the lifestyle.

And what’s happening is some uses prejudices are being exposed.  They are not being respectful and they are getting themselves in trouble. Well let them get in "trouble". In trouble for what? For being against LGBT? 

 

This post summed everything that is wrong with this and the hypocrisy. Instead of accepting that people don't agree, people are getting in "trouble", religion is being attacked, and people are fighting. This is completely against the core idea of LGBT which is acceptance.



Around the Network

kidvizious said:

 This post summed everything that is wrong with this and the hypocrisy. Instead of accepting that people don't agree, people are getting in "trouble", religion is being attacked, and people are fighting. This is completely against the core idea of LGBT which is acceptance.

 

Preventing bigotry and discrimination is attacking religion?



curl-6 said:

kidvizious said:

 This post summed everything that is wrong with this and the hypocrisy. Instead of accepting that people don't agree, people are getting in "trouble", religion is being attacked, and people are fighting. This is completely against the core idea of LGBT which is acceptance.

 

Preventing bigotry and discrimination is attacking religion?

By attacking religion for the members having different viewpoints is bigotry. So yes, it is attacking religion. You are responding to bigotry with bigotry. See the problem?



kidvizious said:
curl-6 said:

kidvizious said:

 This post summed everything that is wrong with this and the hypocrisy. Instead of accepting that people don't agree, people are getting in "trouble", religion is being attacked, and people are fighting. This is completely against the core idea of LGBT which is acceptance.

 

Preventing bigotry and discrimination is attacking religion?

By attacking religion for the members having different viewpoints is bigotry. So yes, it is attacking religion. You are responding to bigotry with bigotry. See the problem?

It's not bigotry to prevent discrimination. Religion is not a license to discriminate, and people who behave as though it is give all religion a bad name.



The NFL can also refuse Arizona the 2015 Super Bowl (y'know the biggest sporting event in the US, the one that generates hundreds of millions in revenue) and they have let it be known they are watching this situation closely. That whole "free market" and all. There are also a ton of Canadians who have vacation homes and spend tons of money in Arizona in the winter ... Arizona may find that their politics don't align with this law, those people may opt to go elsewhere in the winter (California and Las Vegas are rather nice this time of year, dontcha think?). 

That free market sure is peachy. I'm sure the people in Arizona who are hit hard by that will sure appreciate that some 60 year old religious tight wad doesn't have to bake a cake for a gay couple, even if it means them losing tons of business in other areas. 

Hah, all these politicans and religious tightwads probably had their underpants turn brown when the NFL weighed in on the issue and said they were monitoring it. lol. There's your free market in action, this bill has ZERO chance of passing. It'd be funny if the NFL moved the Superbowl anyway. 



Around the Network
kidvizious said:
Zappykins said:
kidvizious said:
 

Of course the bill is bullshit but storeowners do have to right to refuse order to anyone for whatever their reason is. It is their business. If they don't like gays in their store/restraunt they do have the right to refuse service. That's part of the United States. Jews can be refused service as can Christians as can 5 year olds as can anyone if the store owner does not want to do business with someone for whatever reason.

You may think it's wrong but that's the way it is due to the people's beliefs. and that is something that can't be taken away from them. 

Edit: and I say this all because I see LGBT supporters and anit-LBGT supporters attacking each other and insulting one another due to these differences instead of just accepting that they don't agree. Everything from religion to upbringings to races are being attacked with some even being banned. Why discuss or bring the topic if people who disagree are going to be banned or people agree will be banned? That is the ultimate hypocrisy.

Actually it's not that simple.  This was shown during the 60's when people refused to serve people of colour in restaurants.  If you engage in public service, you can refused service on a individual, but you can not refuse a group of people because of prejudice. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 doesn't address homosexuality so yes, you actually can refuse a person service for whatever reason as long as it doesn't violate the Act.

What this law does is change that.  So what would be illegal - say to refuse to service people with blue eyes - would now be legal if you have a religious reason - no matter how feeble.  So if you follow the Bible women having their monthly cycles could be consider unclean and throw out of your business if you want. Eye color is completely different from sexual orientation which is addressed in religious scriptures. 

But as others have pointed out, it's really hiding behind one's religion to discriminate, as it wouldn't be clearly illegal without the law. There is the attack on religion again for the people that do not agree with the lifestyle.

And what’s happening is some uses prejudices are being exposed.  They are not being respectful and they are getting themselves in trouble. Well let them get in "trouble". In trouble for what? For being against LGBT? 

 

This post summed everything that is wrong with this and the hypocrisy. Instead of accepting that people don't agree, people are getting in "trouble", religion is being attacked, and people are fighting. This is completely against the core idea of LGBT which is acceptance.


Not sure if you understand what the word "hypocricy" means. It seems to get thrown around here whenever someone wants to insult someone and does not have a strong argument against them. There's nothing hypocritical about the bolded or anything you mentioned about LGBT organizations. If LGBT teams fought for equality and then asked to remove the right from straight people to get married, that would be hypocritical. Same if they had stores where they denied service to straight couples. Had they accepted the way they were being treated back in the 70's, things would be massively diffrent now. It's acceptance through fight for equal rights. If they don't do anything about this law, they'd send the wrong message.

Had they not said anything when Tracy Jordan joked about stabbing his son if he were gay, homophobic celebrities would say all sorts of things that severely hurt especially young people's feelings (some of whom commit suicide) and also influence heterosexual people's perception of homosexuals. Saying something homophobic is not acceptance. Now if a gay celebrity made heterophobic comments and they applauded them, then that would be hypocricy and lack of acceptance on their part.

Denying service to a group of people because of their race, sexual orientation, gender etc is by all means dangerous and people need to fight against it. You might not have experienced discrimination, but trust me, it's a terrible thing.

As for gay gaming conventions, I get it. It's people who think that the LGBT community is severely underrepresented in video games and want to show that there is an audience for such games. It can also help single people to find other gay men/women who are interested in video games. From my experience that's pretty rare. Just like gay clubs, I'm sure straight people can attend such events, as long as they are respectful of LGBT people.



Pardon my ignorance, but, what is lgbt? I only have one thing I want to say, I don't beleive a law can exist like this in this day and age, love who you want, it has never bothered me. I have a gay cousin, never bothered me. If there is one thing that had bothered me is this: gay parades.... Seriously, they don't need to go and have a parade to proclaim their sexuality! Straight people don't have straight parades. Just my 2 cents... Maybe it's worth only 1 cent, but, it is what it is.... Not trying to be offensive, that's just how I feal about that one thing in particular.....



Justagamer said:
Pardon my ignorance, but, what is lgbt? I only have one thing I want to say, I don't beleive a law can exist like this in this day and age, love who you want, it has never bothered me. I have a gay cousin, never bothered me. If there is one thing that had bothered me is this: gay parades.... Seriously, they don't need to go and have a parade to proclaim their sexuality! Straight people don't have straight parades. Just my 2 cents... Maybe it's worth only 1 cent, but, it is what it is.... Not trying to be offensive, that's just how I feal about that one thing in particular.....

LGBT = Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transexual



The m ore I think about this, the angrier I get. You cant expect to mske life harder for any group and then expect good things yo happen from that. The more you make gayness a moral crime, the more gay people will have to go back to their old ways fucking in parks and hooking up all the time bc they cant get married, snd font have the advantage of a psychological formal bond like straight people have.



George being fooled by fake Schwarzenegger
part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQGUNsJTGuM

part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZVWBhE7stc