Jim Crow isn't dead

[mrswdk]

Reported for derailing.

[Dukasaur]

Reported for derailing.

[thegreekdog]

disclaimer; the poster is hereby aware this article has nothing to do with Kansas legislation. It has to do with the Jim Crow part. If you can handle this, please continue reading

GOP state Rep. David FitzSimmons became more than a conservative newbie last May when he secured passage of an amendment giving churches that refuse to perform same-sex marriages sturdier legal protection (BUT THE LAW ALREADY SAYS THAT!!!!, TELL ME MOREZ ABOUT THIS 'STURDIER LEGAL PROTECTION' THINGYRARRR!!!), and then voted for the marriage-legalization bill. He became a good legislator.

We already have the 1st amendment too, that doesn't mean the same radical sex marriagers give a shit about it!!!! As I also said earlier, it's a fact they also don't give a shit about state Constitutional amendments, so I'm not going to pretend with you they give a shit about what is acceptable under Kansas law. They are going to continue to try to overturn the law in Kansas and states like Kansas, so articles like the OP are going to have to be constantly pointing out said states constantly giving sturdier legal protection and reinforcing current laws, and I'm sure they are well aware the laws they are trying to reinforce are laws that already exist.

+50 Saxbucks for the Mr. Perfect gif
-200 Saxbucks for continuing to be stupid

All Rep. Fitzsimmons is doing is calling attention to the issue. Again, the law is not needed at all. The purpose, per the quote, is to provide "sturdier legal protection." Further, you note that radical sex marriagers don't give a shit about the first amendment, constitutional amendments generally, etc. So why are radical sex marriagers going to care about this sturdier legal protection that Rep. Fitzsimmons is going for. Again, you apparently don't know how the legislative process works, but we'll get to that in a moment.

There doesn't need to be "sturdier legal protection." In order for a person to sue, he/she must have standing. Gays in Kansas don't have standing to sue because being gay is not a protected class in Kansas. Therefore, gays cannot bring a discrimination case against a private company in Kansas. What sturdier legal protection does Rep. Fitzsimmons's bill provide? What possible sturdier legal protections are necessary if the baseline is that gays don't have standing to sue? They literally are not permitted to bring a law suit.

Furthermore, if radical sex marriagers don't care about constitutions, why would they care about Fitzsimmons's law? Seems Fitzsimmons's law would have less force and effect (and in real life, it really does have less force and effect) than a constitution. In legal ranking, constitution comes first, laws come after. So if radical sex marriagers don't care about constitutions, they certainly will not care about laws. I mean you literally say that radical sex marriagers don't care about the first amendment (true), they don't care about state constitutional amendments, and they are going to continue to try to overturn Kansas's non-inclusion of gays as a protected class. If all that is true, Fitzsimmons's law is still irrelevant BECAUSE THE RADICAL SEX MARRIAGERS COULD JUST OVERTURN THAT TOO!

Even further, if the radical sex marriagers have enough support in the legislature, the legislature just repeals or changes Fitzsimmons's law. If the ostensible purpose of the law is to provide "sturdier legal protection" for churches against the radical sex marriagers, all that needs to happen to remove that "sturdier legal protection" is to repeal the law, which still wouldn't give the gays standing to sue. There would need to be a further law amending the definition of a protected class to include gays.

Ignoring that this is not a fiscal issue, which you've stated is all you care about (and where you've vehemently defended that statement), this is so far down on the list of things that should matter for conservatives that it boggles the mind. Phatscotty, I'm begging you, ignore what you think my stance is on gay marriage. Ignore that I used a saxitoxin quote as my sig that apparently offends you. Use your brain. This whole thing is merely a political ploy by GOPers in Kansas to raise an issue that doesn't exist so they can get Christian Coalition types to go out and vote for them in the next election. Gays could never and still can't sue any private business in Kansas for discrimination. Fitzsimmons's bill is irrelevant and a waste of time.

In sum... your logic is flawed, your understanding of the legislative process is flawed, and your insistence that this is an important issue is flawed. Maybe it's a slow news cycle or something, I don't know.



Fast forward to 7:00.

[/]

http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/ ... rsial.html

Going a fair bit further than the Kansas legislation, Arizona may or may not sign a law by this Friday that gives individuals freedom to ignore public accommodation laws and individual business policies in favor of their own respective religious beliefs.
Is this going too far?
Not far enough?
And to stick with the title topic, is Jim Crow alive?

[Night Strike]

http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/articles/20140221brewer-religion-bill-1062-controversial.html

Going a fair bit further than the Kansas legislation, Arizona may or may not sign a law by this Friday that gives individuals freedom to ignore public accommodation laws and individual business policies in favor of their own respective religious beliefs.
Is this going too far?
Not far enough?
And to stick with the title topic, is Jim Crow alive?

She stupidly just vetoed the law. All it does is clarify what laws on the books for 20 years already do.

http://www.azcentral.com/opinions/artic ... kupec.html

[thegreekdog]

But the couple sued Elaine’s business anyway, alleging that it had violated a law banning sexual-orientation discrimination.

But the couple sued Elaine’s business anyway, alleging that it had violated a law banning sexual-orientation discrimination.

But the couple sued Elaine’s business anyway, alleging that it had violated a law banning sexual-orientation discrimination.

[thegreekdog]

http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2014/02/ ... edom-lgbt/

But legal experts say the bill would without a doubt allow more discrimination against gay people – at least in Phoenix, Flagstaff and Tucson, which have enacted their own, more stringent anti-discrimination ordinances that cover sexual orientation. In the rest of the state, gays do not have such legal protections and the bill would not make a difference, legal authorities say.

Still, they say claims made by opponents that the bill would allow discrimination based on gender, race or religion are untrue – because, unlike gays, those classes are already protected under federal and state laws.

Read this Phatscotty. READ IT!

[notyou2]

Perhaps you have to rub his nose in it like a dog.

[Metsfanmax]

She stupidly just vetoed the law. All it does is clarify what laws on the books for 20 years already do.

http://www.azcentral.com/opinions/artic ... kupec.html

If it just clarifies existing laws, why was it useful to pass in the first place?

[muy_thaiguy]

Vetoed a law that would have put Arizona on par with the South before the Civil Rights Act, except against gays and lesbians.

[Dukasaur]

She stupidly just vetoed the law. All it does is clarify what laws on the books for 20 years already do.

http://www.azcentral.com/opinions/artic ... kupec.html

If it just clarifies existing laws, why was it useful to pass in the first place?

Some laws need a lot of clarifying.

[Phatscotty]

disclaimer; the poster is hereby aware this article has nothing to do with Kansas legislation. It has to do with the Jim Crow part. If you can handle this, please continue reading

GOP state Rep. David FitzSimmons became more than a conservative newbie last May when he secured passage of an amendment giving churches that refuse to perform same-sex marriages sturdier legal protection (BUT THE LAW ALREADY SAYS THAT!!!!, TELL ME MOREZ ABOUT THIS 'STURDIER LEGAL PROTECTION' THINGYRARRR!!!), and then voted for the marriage-legalization bill. He became a good legislator.

We already have the 1st amendment too, that doesn't mean the same radical sex marriagers give a shit about it!!!! As I also said earlier, it's a fact they also don't give a shit about state Constitutional amendments, so I'm not going to pretend with you they give a shit about what is acceptable under Kansas law. They are going to continue to try to overturn the law in Kansas and states like Kansas, so articles like the OP are going to have to be constantly pointing out said states constantly giving sturdier legal protection and reinforcing current laws, and I'm sure they are well aware the laws they are trying to reinforce are laws that already exist.

+50 Saxbucks for the Mr. Perfect gif
-200 Saxbucks for continuing to be stupid

All Rep. Fitzsimmons is doing is calling attention to the issue. Again, the law is not needed at all. The purpose, per the quote, is to provide "sturdier legal protection." Further, you note that radical sex marriagers don't give a shit about the first amendment, constitutional amendments generally, etc. So why are radical sex marriagers going to care about this sturdier legal protection that Rep. Fitzsimmons is going for. Again, you apparently don't know how the legislative process works, but we'll get to that in a moment.

There doesn't need to be "sturdier legal protection." In order for a person to sue, he/she must have standing. Gays in Kansas don't have standing to sue because being gay is not a protected class in Kansas. Therefore, gays cannot bring a discrimination case against a private company in Kansas. What sturdier legal protection does Rep. Fitzsimmons's bill provide? What possible sturdier legal protections are necessary if the baseline is that gays don't have standing to sue? They literally are not permitted to bring a law suit.

Furthermore, if radical sex marriagers don't care about constitutions, why would they care about Fitzsimmons's law? Seems Fitzsimmons's law would have less force and effect (and in real life, it really does have less force and effect) than a constitution. In legal ranking, constitution comes first, laws come after. So if radical sex marriagers don't care about constitutions, they certainly will not care about laws. I mean you literally say that radical sex marriagers don't care about the first amendment (true), they don't care about state constitutional amendments, and they are going to continue to try to overturn Kansas's non-inclusion of gays as a protected class. If all that is true, Fitzsimmons's law is still irrelevant BECAUSE THE RADICAL SEX MARRIAGERS COULD JUST OVERTURN THAT TOO!

Even further, if the radical sex marriagers have enough support in the legislature, the legislature just repeals or changes Fitzsimmons's law. If the ostensible purpose of the law is to provide "sturdier legal protection" for churches against the radical sex marriagers, all that needs to happen to remove that "sturdier legal protection" is to repeal the law, which still wouldn't give the gays standing to sue. There would need to be a further law amending the definition of a protected class to include gays.

Ignoring that this is not a fiscal issue, which you've stated is all you care about (and where you've vehemently defended that statement), this is so far down on the list of things that should matter for conservatives that it boggles the mind. Phatscotty, I'm begging you, ignore what you think my stance is on gay marriage. Ignore that I used a saxitoxin quote as my sig that apparently offends you. Use your brain. This whole thing is merely a political ploy by GOPers in Kansas to raise an issue that doesn't exist so they can get Christian Coalition types to go out and vote for them in the next election. Gays could never and still can't sue any private business in Kansas for discrimination. Fitzsimmons's bill is irrelevant and a waste of time.

In sum... your logic is flawed, your understanding of the legislative process is flawed, and your insistence that this is an important issue is flawed. Maybe it's a slow news cycle or something, I don't know.



Fast forward to 7:00.

I know far more about how the legislative process works that you do Greekdog. I know you have your hands full with work and family and life in general just like the rest of us, and that's why I never call you out for not being informed of the latest news on some issues, and why you disagree with some issues where if you had been up to date you would know better what I was talking about. And yes there does need to be sturdier legal protection, unless you are willing to ignore that laws are being overturned all the time. Just today a Clinton appointed judge overruled the Texas Constitution concerning gay marriage. You really gonna sit there and hold the position that these kind of laws are doing just fine and don't have to worry about politically seated judges overturning it all?

But I'll level with you, even though I know you won't level with me and will probably try to twist what I say to fit your narrative again, or bring up fiscal policy for the 200th time (very childish). It is true some probably did do this to rile up the base, but it's also true (where you won't level with me) that states that believe marriage is what it always has been are constantly under attack, and sometimes need to act pre-emptively, or shore up loopholes in laws, or firm up the terminology. nothing about anything I said is flawed, but let me back up to the beginning of our disagreement...

Remember last year you said that religions will never be forced to perform, facilitate, or recognize same-sex marriages 'because of the 1st amendment'? I think you might want to reconsider, and think about why you were wrong, and why I was right. Maybe you could understand now how this issue was weakening the first amendment, that you said was so strong we'd never have to worry about things like this....

Judge Rules Christian facility cannot ban same-sex civil union ceremony on its own premises

A New Jersey judge ruled against a Christian retreat house that refused to allow a same-sex civil union ceremony to be conducted on its premises, ruling the Constitution allows “some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals.”

So, how did you get it so wrong? How did you not see where the issue was going? I always knew this was just a matter of time, and it has always saddened me that the first amendment would have to be deformed first in order for you to finally see what you were supporting was actually working against the First Amendment. Wasn't my prediction about this just shrugged off by you as 'slippery slope' nonsense?

[Phatscotty]

She stupidly just vetoed the law. All it does is clarify what laws on the books for 20 years already do.

I don't think she was stupid to veto it, I think the Senate was stupid to pass it. She vetoed it because it isn't a problem in her state, ie no fascists have tried to clockwork orange religious people to service their gay weddings.

It seems they shoulda handled it the way Obamacare was handled, that being 'you can't sue until AFTER it screws everything up.'

[Phatscotty]

Vetoed a law that would have put Arizona on par with the South before the Civil Rights Act, except against gays and lesbians.

lol someone has been watching MSNBC

... a much more realistic and directly related comparison

[Phatscotty]

http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2014/02/25/reality-vs-rhetoric-in-the-az-sb1062-debate-religious-freedom-lgbt/

But legal experts say the bill would without a doubt allow more discrimination against gay people – at least in Phoenix, Flagstaff and Tucson, which have enacted their own, more stringent anti-discrimination ordinances that cover sexual orientation. In the rest of the state, gays do not have such legal protections and the bill would not make a difference, legal authorities say.

Still, they say claims made by opponents that the bill would allow discrimination based on gender, race or religion are untrue – because, unlike gays, those classes are already protected under federal and state laws.

Read this Phatscotty. READ IT!

A couple things about why it's impossible for us to have a real conversation, mostly your fault, while you keep trying to have a conversation.

1) you are emotionally involved in the issue.
2) you have AndyDufresne backing you up
3) you are trying to be a dick

But, I will appeal yet again in the utmost patience for you to come around and get serious for a just a moment even. Really, no fiscal policy stuff.

Let's talk about 'discrimination'. Are you sure the article is using the word discrimination correctly? Are not groups and religions and businesses being discriminated against by the government as well? Who is pushing for 'special classes'? Who is the one using force in the issue? Who is the one pushing for more regulations on the issue? who is the one pushing for the government to tell people how to run their businesses and their lives? Who is the one that owns the property, and what are their rights as the property owner? Who is the one fighting against freedom of association? Where are you on freedom of religion, and what do you say to the freedom as it related to the current issue? Who is the one trying to force their values on others?

With your answers, the next question is, are you really standing up for that?

[Dukasaur]

[Phatscotty]

and it always cracked me up, with these issues where people are trying to get the government to back up 'their view of things'....

Jim Crow laws were only Jim Crow laws because the government fully backed them, and told everyone how they need to live, and whose values they need to accept.

[Metsfanmax]

Vetoed a law that would have put Arizona on par with the South before the Civil Rights Act, except against gays and lesbians.

lol someone has been watching MSNBC

... a much more realistic and directly related comparison

Yes, that is definitely realistic. Just like being gay, dressing up in white robes and masks and lynching people you don't like is just behavior that people are born with.

[muy_thaiguy]

Vetoed a law that would have put Arizona on par with the South before the Civil Rights Act, except against gays and lesbians.

lol someone has been watching MSNBC

... a much more realistic and directly related comparison

You see, it's people like you that give Conservatives and Libertarians a bad reputation. A person's private life should not be a factor in whether they can get a job or not. Next you'll be telling me that single mother's should not be alowed to get jobs, or some other group for some stupid reason that only comes from bigotry towards that group.

And I don't watch MSNBC or Fox, FYI. I don't know how many times I have to tell you I don't watch either brain washing channel, but it's been quite a few.

[crispybits]

Let's talk about 'discrimination'. Are you sure the article is using the word discrimination correctly? (A) Are not groups and religions and businesses being discriminated against by the government as well? (1) Who is pushing for 'special classes'? (2) Who is the one using force in the issue? (3) Who is the one pushing for more regulations on the issue? (4) who is the one pushing for the government to tell people how to run their businesses and their lives? (5) Who is the one that owns the property, and what are their rights as the property owner? (6) Who is the one fighting against freedom of association? (7) Where are you on freedom of religion, and what do you say to the freedom as it related to the current issue? (8) Who is the one trying to force their values on others? (9)

With your answers, the next question is, are you really standing up for that?

A - I believe that discrimination is treating any group of individuals as having lesser status/rights/whatever because of any characteristic they have no control over, such as age, race, or yes sexual orientation (except if you believe the "gayness is a choice" claptrap which has been debunked oh so very many times now).

1 - By the above definition no. They are permitted to perform any legal activity they like, worship however they like, and associate with whomever they like in their private time. If they offer a general public service (such as a shop, hotel, or bank) then that public service must meet anti-discrimination laws. As it stands in AZ, that means they can refuse serivce or not to gay people at will anyway for the most part, because except in a few cities sexuality is not a characteristic protected under law or the constitution.

2 - The people pushing against this form of law are pushing for everyone, regardless of any characteristic they were born with, to be treated equally according to their merit. The fact that there are groups who wish to discriminate based on X or Y are the ones who cause groups X or Y to eventually gain mention in the law. If people weren't bigoted asshats to start with there would be no need for any special classes.

3 - Using force? Well in AZ that would appear to be the right wing christian types who feel it necessary to enshrine their right to discriminate into law (and they failed at that too)

4 - See answer 3

5 - See answer 3, with the caveat that if a business that offers a service to the public has the right to withdraw that offer at any time it does not find it convenient/profitable to provide that service all they have to do is say "sorry we're too busy" or "sorry we don't want your custom". The argument only arises because most of the fundamentalist christians are too damn stupid and always have to scream and shout about doing it because the potential customer is gay. Imagine someone said "you can't buy this from me because you're black" or "you can't buy this from me because you're a woman". All they need to say is "sorry I've decided not to sell this in this instance" and leave it there and voila, no legal issue with discrimination.

6 - see the caveat in answer 5

7 - The ones fighting freedom of association are the ones that are trying to pass laws saying that a business owner can decide not to allow his staff to do business (one form of free association) with people the business owner doesn't approve of. Imagine you're a salesperson with no strict religious beliefs and you just sold something for a hefty commission, and your boss vetoes the sale because the customer is gay / divorced / wearing mixed cloth / eating shellfish while they wait or any of the other conveniently ignored bits of the bible...

8 - Everyone is free to have whatever religion they want, and to conduct their private worship of that religion in any way they choose. Nobody has the right to insist that anyone else conform to their religious beliefs or face the withdrawal of publicly offered services as advertised to all.

9 - see answer 3

[Dukasaur]

You see, it's people like you that give Conservatives and Libertarians a bad reputation. A person's private life should not be a factor in whether they can get a job or not. Next you'll be telling me that single mother's should not be alowed to get jobs, or some other group for some stupid reason that only comes from bigotry towards that group.

Your hypothetical mother's right to get a job does not translate into an obligation by me to give her one. If your mother is a tarantula, and I have a fear of spiders, why should I have to spend my work day trembling just so that she can have a job? By all means, let her have a job. Just not with me.

You're so busy worrying about the rights of one party to be what they want, you completely forget about the other party's right to be what they want.

[mrswdk]

Ah, the challenges of balancing all the interests and beliefs of the American rainbow. A system of bribery would solve that puzzle. Is the employer prepared to pay more to keep the single mother out of the company than she is prepared to pay to get in? Is a gay prepared to pay more to get married than the KKK is prepared to pay to blockade the church doors?

Once morality has been removed from the clutches of state ownership, the market will determine what people really care about far more efficiently than Obama's Ministry of Truth ever has.

[thegreekdog]

disclaimer; the poster is hereby aware this article has nothing to do with Kansas legislation. It has to do with the Jim Crow part. If you can handle this, please continue reading

GOP state Rep. David FitzSimmons became more than a conservative newbie last May when he secured passage of an amendment giving churches that refuse to perform same-sex marriages sturdier legal protection (BUT THE LAW ALREADY SAYS THAT!!!!, TELL ME MOREZ ABOUT THIS 'STURDIER LEGAL PROTECTION' THINGYRARRR!!!), and then voted for the marriage-legalization bill. He became a good legislator.

We already have the 1st amendment too, that doesn't mean the same radical sex marriagers give a shit about it!!!! As I also said earlier, it's a fact they also don't give a shit about state Constitutional amendments, so I'm not going to pretend with you they give a shit about what is acceptable under Kansas law. They are going to continue to try to overturn the law in Kansas and states like Kansas, so articles like the OP are going to have to be constantly pointing out said states constantly giving sturdier legal protection and reinforcing current laws, and I'm sure they are well aware the laws they are trying to reinforce are laws that already exist.

+50 Saxbucks for the Mr. Perfect gif
-200 Saxbucks for continuing to be stupid

All Rep. Fitzsimmons is doing is calling attention to the issue. Again, the law is not needed at all. The purpose, per the quote, is to provide "sturdier legal protection." Further, you note that radical sex marriagers don't give a shit about the first amendment, constitutional amendments generally, etc. So why are radical sex marriagers going to care about this sturdier legal protection that Rep. Fitzsimmons is going for. Again, you apparently don't know how the legislative process works, but we'll get to that in a moment.

There doesn't need to be "sturdier legal protection." In order for a person to sue, he/she must have standing. Gays in Kansas don't have standing to sue because being gay is not a protected class in Kansas. Therefore, gays cannot bring a discrimination case against a private company in Kansas. What sturdier legal protection does Rep. Fitzsimmons's bill provide? What possible sturdier legal protections are necessary if the baseline is that gays don't have standing to sue? They literally are not permitted to bring a law suit.

Furthermore, if radical sex marriagers don't care about constitutions, why would they care about Fitzsimmons's law? Seems Fitzsimmons's law would have less force and effect (and in real life, it really does have less force and effect) than a constitution. In legal ranking, constitution comes first, laws come after. So if radical sex marriagers don't care about constitutions, they certainly will not care about laws. I mean you literally say that radical sex marriagers don't care about the first amendment (true), they don't care about state constitutional amendments, and they are going to continue to try to overturn Kansas's non-inclusion of gays as a protected class. If all that is true, Fitzsimmons's law is still irrelevant BECAUSE THE RADICAL SEX MARRIAGERS COULD JUST OVERTURN THAT TOO!

Even further, if the radical sex marriagers have enough support in the legislature, the legislature just repeals or changes Fitzsimmons's law. If the ostensible purpose of the law is to provide "sturdier legal protection" for churches against the radical sex marriagers, all that needs to happen to remove that "sturdier legal protection" is to repeal the law, which still wouldn't give the gays standing to sue. There would need to be a further law amending the definition of a protected class to include gays.

Ignoring that this is not a fiscal issue, which you've stated is all you care about (and where you've vehemently defended that statement), this is so far down on the list of things that should matter for conservatives that it boggles the mind. Phatscotty, I'm begging you, ignore what you think my stance is on gay marriage. Ignore that I used a saxitoxin quote as my sig that apparently offends you. Use your brain. This whole thing is merely a political ploy by GOPers in Kansas to raise an issue that doesn't exist so they can get Christian Coalition types to go out and vote for them in the next election. Gays could never and still can't sue any private business in Kansas for discrimination. Fitzsimmons's bill is irrelevant and a waste of time.

In sum... your logic is flawed, your understanding of the legislative process is flawed, and your insistence that this is an important issue is flawed. Maybe it's a slow news cycle or something, I don't know.



Fast forward to 7:00.

I know far more about how the legislative process works that you do Greekdog. I know you have your hands full with work and family and life in general just like the rest of us, and that's why I never call you out for not being informed of the latest news on some issues, and why you disagree with some issues where if you had been up to date you would know better what I was talking about. And yes there does need to be sturdier legal protection, unless you are willing to ignore that laws are being overturned all the time. Just today a Clinton appointed judge overruled the Texas Constitution concerning gay marriage. You really gonna sit there and hold the position that these kind of laws are doing just fine and don't have to worry about politically seated judges overturning it all?

But I'll level with you, even though I know you won't level with me and will probably try to twist what I say to fit your narrative again, or bring up fiscal policy for the 200th time (very childish). It is true some probably did do this to rile up the base, but it's also true (where you won't level with me) that states that believe marriage is what it always has been are constantly under attack, and sometimes need to act pre-emptively, or shore up loopholes in laws, or firm up the terminology. nothing about anything I said is flawed, but let me back up to the beginning of our disagreement...

Remember last year you said that religions will never be forced to perform, facilitate, or recognize same-sex marriages 'because of the 1st amendment'? I think you might want to reconsider, and think about why you were wrong, and why I was right. Maybe you could understand now how this issue was weakening the first amendment, that you said was so strong we'd never have to worry about things like this....

Judge Rules Christian facility cannot ban same-sex civil union ceremony on its own premises

A New Jersey judge ruled against a Christian retreat house that refused to allow a same-sex civil union ceremony to be conducted on its premises, ruling the Constitution allows “some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals.”

So, how did you get it so wrong? How did you not see where the issue was going? I always knew this was just a matter of time, and it has always saddened me that the first amendment would have to be deformed first in order for you to finally see what you were supporting was actually working against the First Amendment. Wasn't my prediction about this just shrugged off by you as 'slippery slope' nonsense?

I'm convinced you simply are not reading my posts. I'll keep trying to get you to understand the legal issues because while I'm not a "legal expert" I'm certainly an attorney and I can read. I'm going to try to parse it out a little bit to help you, but let's get one thing out of the way first. This discussion has nothing to do with my thoughts on you or my position on gay marriage of gays in general or Andy Dufresne posting doctored wrestling photos (you know you can simply not look at those, right?). As far as I'm concerned, if you bring any of those things up, you're not participating in this discussion in an honest way. So I will ignore them. So, let us parse, shall we?

(1)

that laws are being overturned all the time

This is absolutely true but does not support your position that the laws being passed are necessary. In fact, it cuts into your position. As I said before, in the hierarchy of law, constitution comes first and laws come second. If a judge is willing to overturn a constitutional provision, why would the judge not be willing to overturn the law. Furthermore, and more importantly, if the legislature in a state is willing to make gays a protected class, WHY WOULD THAT LEGISLATURE NOT BE ABLE TO OVERTURN A LAW PROTECTING BUSINESSES FROM BEING SUED FOR DISCRIMINATION BY GAYS? Now, you may say "who cares, let's pass the law anyway" but as I stated previously (and this is FACT, not opinion), THERE IS NO BASIS FOR GAYS TO SUE BUSINESSES IN KANSAS. So the law is unnecessary twice over; first because it purports to protect against an issue that does not exist and second because it purports to protect against a different law being overturned when in fact the law itself can be overturned by the legislature or court at any time.

(2)

states that believe marriage is what it always has been are constantly under attack, and sometimes need to act pre-emptively, or shore up loopholes in laws, or firm up the terminology.

Also true. But this is not true in Kansas or Arizona (with the exception of three cities). There are no loopholes in any laws in Kansas. Kansas does not permit lawsuits by gays against businesses. How do you not address this at all? You simply ignore when I type that. There are no terminology issues in Kansas. Gays are not a protected class and do not have standing to sue. You know how I know that? Because I'm a lawyer and because I read what legal experts said about these types of laws. I trust their opinions over your opinion or a political pundit's opinion or a self-interested politician's opinion.

(3)

Judge Rules Christian facility cannot ban same-sex civil union ceremony on its own premises

A New Jersey judge ruled against a Christian retreat house that refused to allow a same-sex civil union ceremony to be conducted on its premises, ruling the Constitution allows “some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals.”

First, post the link to the story if you're going to quote from it. Second, I suspect this was a lower court, no? Must have been since it's a "New Jersey judge." So this will get appealed and the first amendment should take precedence over "important societal goals." I firmly believe that the United States Supreme Court would throw out the law suit. Third, and most importantly, this has absolutely no effect on the laws concerning private businesses that we're (or at least I'm) talking about. As I stated at the beginning of this post, you are ignoring what I'm typing in favor of some other dialogue in which you wish to engage. You wish to have a discussion about gay marriage. I'm having a discussion about the unnecessary nature of these laws that conservatives are trying to pass. And again, if a New Jersey judge is going to rule that the Constitution doesn't protect religious freedoms in the context of performing a same-sex civil union ceremony, WHY WOULD THE SAME JUDGE NOT INVALIDATE A LAW THAT PROTECTS BUSINESSES FROM LAW SUITS BY GAYS? How do you not get this?

Let's sum this up again:

(1) Judges/legislatures/Congress are going to overturn constitutional protections for religion (I tend to agree until we get the Supreme Court to weigh in). Why do you think a "protection from gay lawsuits" law would not get similarly overturned?
(2) In a state where gays cannot sue a private business for disrimination, why would is a "protection from gay lawsuits" necessary?

This is the basis of the discussion. The basis for the discussion is not whether I think gay marriage is good or bad or will succeed or is a violation of religion.

Let's talk about 'discrimination'. Are you sure the article is using the word discrimination correctly? Are not groups and religions and businesses being discriminated against by the government as well? Who is pushing for 'special classes'? Who is the one using force in the issue? Who is the one pushing for more regulations on the issue? who is the one pushing for the government to tell people how to run their businesses and their lives? Who is the one that owns the property, and what are their rights as the property owner? Who is the one fighting against freedom of association? Where are you on freedom of religion, and what do you say to the freedom as it related to the current issue? Who is the one trying to force their values on others?

With your answers, the next question is, are you really standing up for that?

Seriously dude. This post right here is a classic case of how you derail serious discussion. You simply ignore the point of my posts, though I've layed the issues out clearly multiple times. My response to your questions is that my answering them address none of the points of my posts.

When legal authorities say "in the rest of the state, gays do not have such legal protections and the bill would not make a difference," I pay attention. Because that means exactly what it says it means. The law is unnecessary. The law will do nothing. This is what I'm discussing. Why can't you address these issues? And now, I will get personal. You can't address these issues because you simply cannot admit when you're wrong. And you're wrong. So admit it. Then we can move on to discussing whether freedom of religion is under attack, which is a much more important issue.

She vetoed it because it isn't a problem in her state, ie no fascists have tried to clockwork orange religious people to service their gay weddings.

Why do you think that is? Could it because GAYS HAVE NO STANDING TO SUE IN ARIZONA?!?!?!?

By the way, guess what state has given gays standing to sue? New Jersey. See above.

By the way by the way, the only reason I use caps and bold letters here is because you are either not reading what I'm typing or you're not addressing it.

By the way by the way by the way, my next tactic here when you again don't admit you're wrong is to engage in a little impromptu deposition. So get your answers ready.

[Night Strike]

She stupidly just vetoed the law. All it does is clarify what laws on the books for 20 years already do.

http://www.azcentral.com/opinions/artic ... kupec.html

If it just clarifies existing laws, why was it useful to pass in the first place?

Because in New Mexico it was ruled that the wording of their RFRA law only applied to the government and not to businesses, even though the actual intent of RFRA laws (including the federal one) was to apply to businesses. Arizona's RFRA law was virtually identical to New Mexico's law, so they were trying to reword it to actually match its intent. All it states is that businesses have the ability to claim religious exemptions to their actions if sued in court....it doesn't guarantee that the business would win that claim (which is the case in the Kansas law).

[Metsfanmax]

You see, it's people like you that give Conservatives and Libertarians a bad reputation. A person's private life should not be a factor in whether they can get a job or not. Next you'll be telling me that single mother's should not be alowed to get jobs, or some other group for some stupid reason that only comes from bigotry towards that group.

Your hypothetical mother's right to get a job does not translate into an obligation by me to give her one. If your mother is a tarantula, and I have a fear of spiders, why should I have to spend my work day trembling just so that she can have a job? By all means, let her have a job. Just not with me.

You're so busy worrying about the rights of one party to be what they want, you completely forget about the other party's right to be what they want.

No one completely forgot about it. It's not like the same discussion wasn't happening in the 1960s. Yes, there's a good reason why both sides should be allowed to do what they want. It's just that society generally gets ugly when you start explicitly condoning that discrimination based on factors that people can't change. I don't like telling people they have to work with people they don't like, but I like even less telling gay people that they can't get a job because they happen to live in Arizona.