21st century

The 21st is magic. It made the middle class disappear.

Unfortunately, some things did not disappear, see the new "Right to Discriminate" law that Arizona passed.

First off, SB-1060 is not technically a right to discreminate law. To truly understand it you would have to read the whole thing. The media only gives bits and pieces that can get them ratings. But besides all that, our governor vetoed the thing anyways. I do not agree with it (with the bill - glad it was vatoed), but I actually looked into the whole thing, not just what the media presents.

I did read the bill, I always read these bills for myself.  The law granted protection from lawsuits in which the person denied services based on deeply seated religious beliefs.  It would have been interesting to see if someone denied service to a Black person based on deeply seated religious beliefs if they would have been protected or not since that is covered under federal laws.  While Arizona does not give protection to sexual orientation, it was the purpose of the bill as drafted by the religious hate groups that crafted and promoted the bill.  As one person stated, it was a solution looking for a problem.  As Jan Brewer noted when vetoing the bill, it was broadly worded and if you read the bill it would have allowed protection from lawsuits on any discrimination, race, religion, sex, anything.  If my deeply seated religious belief stated that interracial marriage is a sin, then I could refuse service to an interracial couple knowing that I was protected from any lawsuit the couple may bring against me.  That is what the law did, it granted immunity from possible lawsuits if one discriminated.  Therefore, it was viewed as the right to discriminate bill.

You are correct in what has been the trending translation of the bill. I do not agree with the Bill, but I do understand its origins. It was not meant as a right to discriminate, but - it can be used as a way to discriminate. With most things that are created for a good purpose, there are those who will expose it for their evil means.

See, the flip side is this. What if Religion A strictly forbids the serving of Religion B - should those from religion A be sued because it has been a long standing practice of that religion to not serve those from religion B? I personally do not think they should. But - there are those who would have attempted to exploit the law for the wrong reasons. That does not make the bill itself wrong because there are those who will use it for wrong.

This is the thing, there are laws on both the state and federal level that regulate businesses.  If you wish to operate a public business (private clubs and bars, etc. are different) then you must operate under the laws.  You either follow the laws and regulations or pay the penalties.  I saw a lot of silly arguments on the internet during the debate of the bill.  For example, one was trying to pass off the "No shirt, no shoes, no service" as an example; it was a silly argument made by a silly person.

If the law states that you can not discriminate on the basis of religion and you are operating a business under the laws, then yes, you must serve religion B even if your religion says you can not serve them.  In that case, you don't operate a public business; you have to operate under the laws and you should learn what those laws are to see if you can tolerate operating a public business in which you will have to serve religion B.

And that is where the problem starts. See, if Religion A says I can't serve Religion B, and the law says I have to - then technically, my religious freedoms are being violated. Unfortunately, there is no way to make laws that will appease everyone. Someone will be offended and some rights will be violated.

I will say this, although I may not agree with all religious traditions, I will respect them. I would want someone to respect my religious beliefs in the same manner.

I am one of the reasons of this "21st" century shit...

I have never hidden my personal side of my life.

I have been with the same mate since 1989, that is 25 years to date. I live in one of the most "anti gay" states in the union.

Putting your religion or bible, written by man, aside, we  have been happy for all these years. The sad thing is that the city of Jacksonville Fl can and does discriminate against gay citizens. Arizona is no new news here...

http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/print-edition/2012/05/04/anti-gay-bias-perception-hurts-business.html?page=all

tired and fed up with your thoughts...

As I said, if you have a problem complying with the laws for doing business, then don't do business.  Some, like Wally World, don't like the labour laws and try to circumvent them.  The Supreme Court of the US has a case before it on the contraceptions.  To me, if you are an employer, it does not matter what your religious views are, you have to comply with the laws just like any other business.  I am hoping the Supreme Court rules correctly.  Otherwise, then any employer out there can circumvent the laws based on their religious views.  A business owned by a church is still a business and if the law says your health insurance must cover contraceptions, which by the way 80% of Catholic women take, then you bloody well supply them.

Yes, I will respect them.  Where I draw the line is when that person, like the religious hate group that crafted the Arizona bill, try to impose their belief on others.  Let'stake homosexual marriage.  OK, some religious persons says they don't believe in homosexual marriage.  OK, no problem there, if they don't believe in it then they should not marry someone of the same sex as they are, end of story; or it should be end of story but it isn't.  They spend millions of dollars to try and stop someone else from having the same rights they have.  They use stupid arguments that marriage is about having babies; yes, that was presented to the SCOTUS as an argument.  Why?  Because some bigot preacher stood up on a pulpit and told them it was evil and how homosexuals were paedophiles and a lot of other garbage?  Why?  Really, I would like a real honest answer and not the repeated religious crap.

Yes, states do have the power to regulate marriage.  However, the Constitution of the United States of America states that everyone has equal protection under the law.  What this means is that you must pass laws that cover everyone equally.  You can pass a marriage law that states you have to be 16 years of age or older to get marry and that applies to all classes; what you can not do is to say that Blacks have to be 18 but Whites can marry at 16; that is not equal protection under the law.  You can not deny marriage to one class of citizens and allow it to another.  That is why these anti-gay marriage laws are being struck down; they violate the equal protection afford to everyone by the US constitution.

Yep... gay people should be allowed to get married.  Why shouldn't they be as miserable as everyone else?

 hell yeah! i am technically divorced but my ex moved in back in "temporarily" when I was working out of town about 3 1/2 years ago.  I think she likes to make me miserable lol. I am not kicking her out till the kids (15 yr old twins ) move out . it nice having them around