Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 30 of 30

Your favorite Apple, iPhone, iPad, iOS, Jailbreak, and Cydia site.


Thread: Apple Enters Controversial Political Debate in Arizona

  1. #21
    Some major rants and tangents here. I prefer to stick to the facts. We are talking about legislating PRIVATE businesses, not major corporations. The idea of refusing people hamburgers is some idiots way of taking something to an extreme - last time I checked McDonalds doesn't ask your sex preference.
    Not only are businesses asked to do something that goes against the owners personal religious beliefs (yes some still have convictions) but it may cause owners to force employees to do work going against the employees religious beliefs.
    As mentioned before, rather than make up wild scenarios, a New Mexico photographer is being sued for turning down the chance to do a gay wedding because of his religious beliefs. So what if it's a Sunday wedding and the photographer says I don't work on Sundays cause of beliefs. You believe it's okay to force them and their employees to against what they stand for?
    Same as before, if you are photographer and are asked to shoot something pornographic, it's not okay to say no?

  2. #22
    Default The Bill isn't about gay marriage.
    Quote Originally Posted by barrist View Post
    Most Arizonans support gay marriage.

    http://www.azcentral.com/news/politi...marijuana.html

    The legislation is bowing to pressure from religious groups, not following their constituents' opinions.
    The Bill in question isn't about gay marriage at all. It's about religious freedom. No one should have to give up or violate their own religious beliefs just to please others. If I can refuse service to someone without shoes or a shirt, I should be able to refuse my business services to someone who violates my religious beliefs and teachings. We are really getting the tail wagging the dog in this country when it comes to gay rights. I have no problem with what anyone wants to do in private, but when it begins to impact me and/or my family, then I refuse to be bullied by those claiming gay rights!

  3. #23
    My iPhone is a Part of Me Feanor64's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    678
    Thanks
    875
    Thanked 463 Times in 248 Posts

    Quote Originally Posted by fleurya View Post
    First, if every Christian followed the bible like that, please explain all the slavery, segregation, lynchings, etc that happened in the name of Christianity in the past 2,000 years. Also, nobody said that a restaurant selling food has to agree with a person's sexual orientation to sell them a sandwich. Agreement doesn't factor into the transaction at all! Do you check to make sure you agree with everything a person or business believes in before you do business with them? If you did, you've never get anything done!



    Including the Bible! Which is what is going on here exactly! Show me in the Bible where Jesus refused to help someone because of their religion, sexual orientation, etc. I bet I can find some examples of the opposite!



    I didn't see that anywhere in this legislation, so why are you bringing it up?



    Really? I don't see legislation being passed that allows gays to refuse service to people, nor are they trying to get any such legislation passed. How is gay person wanting to walk into a restaurant and buy a meal that any other person would buy, regardless of sexual orientation, being intolerant? Again, I go back to the agreement argument. If I walk into a hardware store to buy a hammer, and the store owner is republican and I'm independent, am I being intolerant of his political preference simply because I have my own different preference? NO! Is has no bearing on the act of buying a hammer! So why would it make sense to refuse me?



    1. But at one time race was considered detrimental! There were all kinds of so-called scientists that attested with no real proof to the notion that black people were physically inferior to whites, and to spread their blackness to others was detrimental to others! Ever heard of Eugenics? Look into it!
    2. STD's can be, and are, communicable to anyone regardless of sexual orientation! So that argument doesn't hold water, no matter what group has what diseases! Unless you plan to discriminate against anyone with an STD, rather than sexual orientation, that argument is useless.
    3. It's only detrimental to a person who is careless with who they engage in sex with, again regardless of sexual orientation. It doesn't just jump from person to person. So how is that at all relevant to a gay person buying a meal in a restaurant? Does this restaurant give unprotected sexual favors as appetizers??



    You shouldn't be okay with your teacher telling you kid anything sexually-related at all outside of an explanation of the physical anatomy! What if your kid's teacher thinks it's perfectly normal to have multiple partners at the same time in S&M scenarios? Are you okay with that as long as no boy parts touch other boy parts?? YOU should be teaching you kid those things, not the schools! If any public school is trying to teach any sexual orientation as right or wrong, they are wrong no matter what. If a kid asks, they can tell the kid to ask their parents!



    "Normal" is always a matter of opinion. I don't think it's normal for a person to jump out of a perfectly good airplane or off a cliff, but if they want to do that they can. And it doesn't effect me at all. And it doesn't effect a situation where that person wants to walk into a hardware store and buy a hammer!
    Yes, we do need standards in society. And one of them should be that when a person's opinion or private actions have no bearing a given situation, like buying a hammer, those opinions or private actions should not be used to prevent that person from buying a stupid hammer!



    Oh please. Your "think of the children" argument is weak against all the horrible things children are already exposed to in society that they shouldn't be. Graphic sexual scenes in TV and movies, brutal murdering, sexually objectifying women wearing barely nothing on magazines. Where's all your outrage for those things? I'd personally rather a child see a small innocent kiss between two grown men than the graphic nearly nude sex or murder scenes that you can find on prime time TV any given night. But that's my opinion, and I don't base whether or not I watch other shows on network by just one show that has nothing to do with another show. And if my child happens to see such content, it's my job as a parent to teach them about what they saw in the way I want to teach them.



    Straw man argument, and just idiotic to boot. The only time I can recall of any group attempting to infringe on the actions of a religion is when Christian organizations try to stop the building of mosques because of their irrational fear of people of another faith and disapproval, and disrespect, of their faith.



    Again, everyone's idea of "normal' differs. There are tons of things people don't think are normal, or they don't want their kids to see. I wouldn't want my daughter to think it's normal to wear a bikini and sit on a motorcycle so guys can stare at her, but you can find that on a magazine anywhere. Are you going to go on a crusade to make sure all magazine cover photos only display what people think is "normal" and not objectionable to their point of view? Of course not. And if my daughter were to see that, or anything I find objectionable, it's my job to teach her that I think it is wrong if I want her to believe that. Just like if your child saw 2 men holding hands in public, it would be your job to teach your child that it is wrong if you believe it is.

    You seem to be holding onto this idea that the whole world must adhere to what you consider "normal" but I'm sorry to tell you that the world doesn't revolve around you. the world is full of objectionable things not everyone believes in. That's life. And that's freedom! Deal with it! If you don't like that, and if you want to have a society where the actions and lifestyles of people should be dictated by religion, then try moving to Iran. America is not the Christian version of Iran. It is a nation with freedom of religion, and that includes freedom FROM religion. Deal with it or get out!
    All your arguments are still about not being tolerant of someone's religious beliefs. Can't you see that when someone buys a hammer as you put it that's a hammer. The guys issue is taking pics of a gay wedding. In his religion it is a sin. By taking pics he is a part of the ceremony. In his eyes he is using his god given talent to condone a lifestyle his religion says is wrong. This man is brave enough to take a stand. Think of how it easy it would have been to just take the pics. Lol eugenics. So we are comparing a photographer to eugenics...that's just great. Gays want to be accepted. Maybe they should be accepting. You talk about freedom like you want everyone to have it except for Christian business owners. Do we have freedom or not?

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by ThatOneProfile View Post
    Are we going to be open to pedophiles next?
    Straw man fallacy.

    The major difference is that gay adults are CONSENTING ADULTS! Which is entirely different pedophilia. Last I checked we live in a free country where two consenting adults can do what they want as long as it doesn't impact anyone else, including children. This isn't a theocracy like Iran. If that's how you want to live, please move there instead.

    Quote Originally Posted by exNavy View Post
    Your argument doesn't work. I have no issue with a black person marrying another black person. I DO have a problem with a man "marrying" a man or a woman "marrying" a woman. It goes against my religious beliefs. I think a business owner should not be FORCED to violate their conscience because someone else doesn't have one.

    What about my rights to not be discriminated against?
    You do realize there was once a time when black people were not even considered people, and had no rights at all, including marriage. I'm sure you've seen it before as a good Christian person because it's in the BIBLE!

    And if a religion does decide that two black people getting married is against their religion, does that mean they can be shut out from any business in this country simply because of a religious belief?

    Quote Originally Posted by Villebilly View Post
    Some major rants and tangents here. I prefer to stick to the facts. We are talking about legislating PRIVATE businesses, not major corporations. The idea of refusing people hamburgers is some idiots way of taking something to an extreme - last time I checked McDonalds doesn't ask your sex preference.
    Not only are businesses asked to do something that goes against the owners personal religious beliefs (yes some still have convictions) but it may cause owners to force employees to do work going against the employees religious beliefs.
    As mentioned before, rather than make up wild scenarios, a New Mexico photographer is being sued for turning down the chance to do a gay wedding because of his religious beliefs. So what if it's a Sunday wedding and the photographer says I don't work on Sundays cause of beliefs. You believe it's okay to force them and their employees to against what they stand for?
    Same as before, if you are photographer and are asked to shoot something pornographic, it's not okay to say no?
    The photographing pornography example is still invalid no matter how many times it’s repeated. Here’s what the NM supreme court rule said. "a commercial photography business that offers its services to the public, thereby increasing its visibility to potential clients," is subject to state anti-discrimination laws "and must serve same-sex couples on the same basis that it serves opposite-sex couples." Now, I don’t know what that photographer advertised, but I’m sure it was full of family and wedding style photos and completely devoid of pornography. So, again I say, that example is invalid as it does not hold up again the court ruling about how and what services the photographer was offering to begin with.

    Major corporations are private businesses too! The law does not specify which business can and can't refuse services, so a large corporation that is very anti-gay, like Chick-Fil-A could absolutely refuse to serve people in Arizona. Also, a McDonalds can be owned as a franchise by a single person, so it's entirely possible for a McDonalds to refuse service under this law. So the example is not extreme at all. Besides, I wasn't talking about a McDonalds. It could be any single, mom and pop restaurant, which is still within your narrow definition of a "private business".

    Unless the law specifically stated photographers, or any other business, any scenario that falls under the law is perfectly valid and possible. that is the danger of the law you don't seem to be grasping. People don't seem to realize that court judgements and laws have implications that extend way beyond the specific incident that triggered the consideration of the law.

    Your working on Sunday example, however, is invalid because businesses have always been able to dictate normal operating hours and days without any religious reasoning. So if any business, including a photography business, doesn't want to work on Sunday, they don't have to! I may want some Chick-Fil-a on a Sunday, but I'm not going to get it because they are closed on Sunday. Whether or not it's a religious reason (which it is) is irrelevant.

    There are already laws that protect an employee from being forced to do something at work that goes against their religion and allows them reasonable accommodation as long as it doesn’t have a direct impact on their specific job requirements. If it does go against their specific job requirements, then they shouldn’t have taken the job in the first place! For example, a Jewish person going to work for a pork packing plant and then demanding all kinds of preclusion from his job because he can’t handle pork products.
    Last edited by fleurya; 2014-02-26 at 02:44 PM.

  5. #25
    I think you are missing the point, and your mention of Chick-Fila shows it. How many gay people have they refused to serve? Unless it is a lot, how are they anti gay (unless of course you think we need to be void of diversity and we all must be forced to think alike, now that sounds like Iran)?
    I don't think anyone is advocating refusing basic services (hamburgers, shopping, etc) because that would be unfair as well as bad business. What is in question is providing services that come in conflict with religious beliefs - not just Christian ones.
    The US constitution is about from OF religion not freedom FROM religion.
    The straw man is when you compare this to blacks rights (racial discrimination was never justified in the bible) or saying religions would just make up laws because that would not stand up in court. Much like I could claim I don't believe in paying taxes but I would end up serving time for my unjustified belief.
    The great irony in the NM case is had it been a Muslim photographer they would never have been sued.

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor64 View Post
    All your arguments are still about not being tolerant of someone's religious beliefs.
    How is taking photographs of something being intolerant of the photographer's beliefs? The only way it can be is if taking photos means the photographer is somehow endorsing or agreeing with the subject of the photos, which is a ridiculous idea. Photographers take photos of objectionable things all the time. It doesn't mean they endorse them!

    Can't you see that when someone buys a hammer as you put it that's a hammer.
    My point is this law broadly includes ANY transaction between a business and consumer, not just photographers. Even the photographer from the case in NM believed that the issue shouldn't extend that far. But the AZ law does take it that far.

    The guys issue is taking pics of a gay wedding. In his religion it is a sin. By taking pics he is a part of the ceremony. In his eyes he is using his god given talent to condone a lifestyle his religion says is wrong.
    First of all, they guy is the case is actually a woman, which tells me you don't even have the facts of the original story. It was a case in New Mexico, not Arizona. Arizona is just using it as an example to pass a law.
    Second, it wasn't a wedding. Gay marriage was illegal New Mexico at the time. It was a commitment ceremony. And there was nothing religious about it.
    Third, as I have already mentioned, taking a photo does not imply you condone what you photographing!

    When I got married I didn't force my photographer to agree with my beliefs, and they didn't care what those beliefs were. They were just there to take some photos that they didn't have to endorse and they didn't have to publicly display in any way. They just took the photos, processed them, sent them to me, and were done. Exchange or agreement with religious beliefs didn't play into the situation at any point, nor did it have to with these people. The photographer made it an issue.

    Think of how it easy it would have been to just take the pics.
    I know, right? Why didn't she?

    Lol eugenics. So we are comparing a photographer to eugenics...that's just great.
    you brought it in when you started talking about it being ok to discriminate based on gays being "a detriment to public health" which is EXACTLY the kind of argument proponents of eugenics used for everything from discrimination all the way to forced castrations of US citizens. Which, by the way, did happen right here in the US in the 20's, and just illustrates how dangerous such thinking is!

    Gays want to be accepted. Maybe they should be accepting.
    They are accepting! Did you see anywhere where they rejected the photographer because of her religious beliefs? NO! This is the dumbest and most dangerous notion. Christians seem to think that people acting their own religious beliefs is being intolerant of Christianity, yet they feel they should be able to act on christian religious beliefs and nobody else can say a word! It's the biggest double-standard I've ever seen! Everything is intolerant of Christianity unless it is Christianity!

    That's not religious freedom. That's a religious theocracy. And I'm sorry to tell you, we don't operate like that in the US. If that's what you want, go live in Iran or get a job at the Vatican.

    You talk about freedom like you want everyone to have it except for Christian business owners. Do we have freedom or not?
    Christians have more freedom than any group in the US, and at the same time are the least tolerant group! Most Christan holidays are recognized by government and businesses while other religious holidays are all but ignored completely. If you need examples, just look around in the month of December! All you see is signs of Christian holiday. Yet, at the same time, if someone dares to give a holiday greeting other than "merry Christmas" in an attempt to be tolerant, Christians jump all over it spouting "war on Christmas" and "reason for the season" GIVE ME A BREAK!

  7. #27
    My iPhone is a Part of Me Feanor64's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    678
    Thanks
    875
    Thanked 463 Times in 248 Posts

    Quote Originally Posted by fleurya View Post
    How is taking photographs of something being intolerant of the photographer's beliefs? The only way it can be is if taking photos means the photographer is somehow endorsing or agreeing with the subject of the photos, which is a ridiculous idea. Photographers take photos of objectionable things all the time. It doesn't mean they endorse them!



    My point is this law broadly includes ANY transaction between a business and consumer, not just photographers. Even the photographer from the case in NM believed that the issue shouldn't extend that far. But the AZ law does take it that far.



    First of all, they guy is the case is actually a woman, which tells me you don't even have the facts of the original story. It was a case in New Mexico, not Arizona. Arizona is just using it as an example to pass a law.
    Second, it wasn't a wedding. Gay marriage was illegal New Mexico at the time. It was a commitment ceremony. And there was nothing religious about it.
    Third, as I have already mentioned, taking a photo does not imply you condone what you photographing!

    When I got married I didn't force my photographer to agree with my beliefs, and they didn't care what those beliefs were. They were just there to take some photos that they didn't have to endorse and they didn't have to publicly display in any way. They just took the photos, processed them, sent them to me, and were done. Exchange or agreement with religious beliefs didn't play into the situation at any point, nor did it have to with these people. The photographer made it an issue.



    I know, right? Why didn't she?



    you brought it in when you started talking about it being ok to discriminate based on gays being "a detriment to public health" which is EXACTLY the kind of argument proponents of eugenics used for everything from discrimination all the way to forced castrations of US citizens. Which, by the way, did happen right here in the US in the 20's, and just illustrates how dangerous such thinking is!



    They are accepting! Did you see anywhere where they rejected the photographer because of her religious beliefs? NO! This is the dumbest and most dangerous notion. Christians seem to think that people acting their own religious beliefs is being intolerant of Christianity, yet they feel they should be able to act on christian religious beliefs and nobody else can say a word! It's the biggest double-standard I've ever seen! Everything is intolerant of Christianity unless it is Christianity!

    That's not religious freedom. That's a religious theocracy. And I'm sorry to tell you, we don't operate like that in the US. If that's what you want, go live in Iran or get a job at the Vatican.



    Christians have more freedom than any group in the US, and at the same time are the least tolerant group! Most Christan holidays are recognized by government and businesses while other religious holidays are all but ignored completely. If you need examples, just look around in the month of December! All you see is signs of Christian holiday. Yet, at the same time, if someone dares to give a holiday greeting other than "merry Christmas" in an attempt to be tolerant, Christians jump all over it spouting "war on Christmas" and "reason for the season" GIVE ME A BREAK!
    Well man all I can say is this person is being persecuted for his personal religious beliefs. Hopefully everything will be ok.

  8. #28
    One more thing for anyone else still backing this (now vetoed) law. Words of wisdom from a fellow Christian.

    Walking the Second Mile: Jesus, Discrimination, and ‘Religious Freedom’

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Villebilly View Post
    So you guys are saying the New Mexico photographer who is getting sued has no right to refuse service to anyone?
    I disagree. If your business is "open to the public" such as restaurants, retail, etc. then they are open to ALL of the public. But a photographer, or lawyer, or doctor (except in the event of a life or death emergency), etc. do have the right to say that they are not interested in this person's business. I don't like it, and if I were any of those people I would not say it was because the person asking for service was gay. But what is stopping people now from doing the same thing? It's done all the time. The lawyer doesn't like you because you might look like a criminal. The doctor doesn't want to treat you because you have a STD that you caught while you were unfaithful to your spouse. The photographer that doesn't want to shoot you because you are not good looking enough or your ideas don't fit in with their type of shooting.

    People are already being denied service. But in an open to the public place, we cannot let it happen.

  10. #30
    Fluerya, the link is pretty weak. Most Christians do support gays not being mistreated. They do not support gay marriage or special rights (if a gay hits me it is assault, if I hit a gay it's assumed a hate crime).
    While the AZ bill was a bit overreaching, businesses should have some protection. Don't we protect the rights of employees?
    It's funny how people are bashing Christians (not other similar groups) even though the main instances (photographer, bakery) involve only Christians wanting to not participate in gay weddings rather than refusing just because someone was gay as so many have given in example.
    So several years back in my town OJ Simpson was here and went to a high end steakhouse. Problem is, they refused to serve him. Should they be sued?
    If businesses refused gays just for being gay it would be a dumb business move and we all know the bottom line drives most businesses.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •