Philosophy Now Forum

I don't have an English link because the news appeared in my national newspaper, but basically a town in the US, in Arizona, has passed a law which gives restaurants the right to not serve homosexuals if it goes against their belief (like, if they think homosexuality is evil for instance and they don't want to serve evil people).

This is the kind of news I grew up with and it has always made me think that the US is one fucked up country, although it's more accurate to say that it's kind-of schizophrenic because supposedly you can have wildly different sets of laws from one place to another.

But why am writing this, is because I want to know... is this possibly constitutionally legal? Aren't there laws which prohibit such forms of very direct and explicit discrimination in the federal constitution, and that would make this legislation unconstitutional?

(That said, it probably won't come into act because it needs approval by the governor, and any governor who would pass such an act would be crazy... I'd think that even those fucked up people who thinks homosexuality is a sin would rarely go as far as this).

Lol only in America.

Never underestimate the stupidity of religious fundamentalists, it drives otherwise well educated (not in the case of American fundamentalists I hasten to add because it's all just wrong), rational men to fly planes into buildings and try and pass inconsequential and bigoted laws that are basically just wrong.

I don't think the constitution covers homosexuality either but then I am no expert, certainly it covers the rights of all men to treated equally under the law so there's probably something applicable.

The Voice of Time wrote:But why am writing this, is because I want to know... is this possibly constitutionally legal? Aren't there laws which prohibit such forms of very direct and explicit discrimination in the federal constitution, and that would make this legislation unconstitutional?

Hi, VoT.

Some Brief Historical Points

Although the centralization of political power in the United States has gradually reduced the ability of state governments to pursue their own policies, it's important to remember that America is still technically a federal republic. This reflects the founding era notion that a political union implies the uniting of several constituent parts, in this case, "states." For statesmen like James Madison, however, federal unification was not synonymous with national consolidation. The former required that states maintain a degree of autonomy as sovereign polities; the latter envisioned the states existing primarily as subordinate administrative outposts for the implementation of laws enacted by the national government. There were a number of reasons that many of America's founders preferred the federal system, including the observation made by Alexander Hamilton that citizens have greater affection for and are more likely to trust a proximal rather than a distant government. Indeed, this observation appears to hold true today: some modern survey data reveal a declining rate of trust and confidence among respondents as the government moves from local to state to national. In addition, in a geographically expansive country like America, proximal governments are more adept at creating and implementing legislation that harmonizes with their residents' particular customs and temperaments.

That said, America's peculiar history with racial slavery presented an especially troubling problem for federalism. It forced Americans to consider whether certain ideals ought to be prioritized over certain political principles. This was the philosophic core of the debate between Stephen Douglas and Abraham Lincoln. Douglas adopted a positivistic position that subordinated the question of slavery to the principle of federalism, while Lincoln argued that the principles of the Declaration of Independence ought to serve as a blueprint for the implementation of federalism. The Civil War more or less resolved the greater political question, but it failed to resolve the questions that remained a part of everyday society, e.g., anti-miscegenation laws, segregation, etc. Thus, in 1964, Congress attempted to bring about such a resolution by passing the Civil Rights Act, which required certain elements of society (e.g., private businesses offering public accommodations—hotels, restaurants, and so on) to adopt anti-discriminatory practices upon threat of penalty. The 1964 Civil Rights Act, however, does not mention sexual orientation, but only race, color, religion, and national origin.

Regarding Your Questions

There is no provision in the U.S. Constitution that expressly prohibits private business owners from refusing to do business with customers whose sexual practices the owners find objectionable. Thus, the question to ask is this: "Is Arizona's law permissible with respect to existing national legislation?"

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a public statute and not an element of the U.S. Constitution, and all public statutes are subordinate to the U.S. Constitution. In other words, although the U.S. Constitution's supremacy clause amplifies the authority of national law, that national law is not necessarily fortified until it survives scrutiny by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Civil Rights Act underwent such scrutiny on a number of occasions in the last quarter of the twentieth century, and in most instances the Court upheld the constitutionality of the Act's provisions. However, as I said above, the Act specifies only race, color, religion, and national origin. It does not acknowledge sexual orientation as a protected category.

I would therefore argue that Arizona's law is statutorily permissible.

The Voice of Time wrote:I don't have an English link because the news appeared in my national newspaper, but basically a town in the US, in Arizona, has passed a law which gives restaurants the right to not serve homosexuals if it goes against their belief (like, if they think homosexuality is evil for instance and they don't want to serve evil people).

This is the kind of news I grew up with and it has always made me think that the US is one fucked up country, although it's more accurate to say that it's kind-of schizophrenic because supposedly you can have wildly different sets of laws from one place to another.

But why am writing this, is because I want to know... is this possibly constitutionally legal? Aren't there laws which prohibit such forms of very direct and explicit discrimination in the federal constitution, and that would make this legislation unconstitutional?

(That said, it probably won't come into act because it needs approval by the governor, and any governor who would pass such an act would be crazy... I'd think that even those fucked up people who thinks homosexuality is a sin would rarely go as far as this).

Why is it that religious conservatives are expected to tolerate "Liberalism" and homosexuality, yet all the while "Liberals" and homosexuals have the right to be intolerant to religious conservatives? Seems hypocritical, do you think?

WanderingLands wrote:

The Voice of Time wrote:I don't have an English link because the news appeared in my national newspaper, but basically a town in the US, in Arizona, has passed a law which gives restaurants the right to not serve homosexuals if it goes against their belief (like, if they think homosexuality is evil for instance and they don't want to serve evil people).

This is the kind of news I grew up with and it has always made me think that the US is one fucked up country, although it's more accurate to say that it's kind-of schizophrenic because supposedly you can have wildly different sets of laws from one place to another.

But why am writing this, is because I want to know... is this possibly constitutionally legal? Aren't there laws which prohibit such forms of very direct and explicit discrimination in the federal constitution, and that would make this legislation unconstitutional?

(That said, it probably won't come into act because it needs approval by the governor, and any governor who would pass such an act would be crazy... I'd think that even those fucked up people who thinks homosexuality is a sin would rarely go as far as this).

Why is it that religious conservatives are expected to tolerate "Liberalism" and homosexuality, yet all the while "Liberals" and homosexuals have the right to be intolerant to religious conservatives? Seems hypocritical, do you think?

In what country do liberal homosexuals have that right?

No seems to me America is a bit of a mess, in our legal system no one has the right to deprive anothers rights majority or minority. This seems sensible, fuck knows what goes on in America but it aint justice any more than a blind man shooting a homosexual is justified because he could not see him. Dumb American legal adjuncts aside it's all just bs.

It seems quite simple to me:

1) no means of enforcing a persons rights should restrict another persons rights.

2) every man or woman has the same basic rights.

3) you do not talk about fight club

4) each mans or womens beliefs are his or her own, inalienable regardless of what others beliefs are or lack of beliefs

5) each person man or woman has the right to be treated as an individual and by said laws, if not the law should compensate said parties to the extent it can and any resultant sexual discrimination should not and can not sway the legal system, it must be fair regardless of a persons sex.

6) Whatever a man or womans personal sexual predeliction he or she has the right to love who he or she loves regardless of another's beliefs on the matter. Sexuality is not something that is subject to a subjugation of laws and rights regardless of a man's beliefs.

7) regardless of a man's or women's age he or she is a person and deserves to be treated according to his own abilities not prejudice about age

8 ) you have the right to complain about another man's wants and beliefs, you do not have the automatic right to stop those wants and beliefs because they are not yours. But can bring such contention before the legal system.

Simple secular humanist laws that apply to all EU countries or you are out of the family.

Fundamentalists can have all the self righteous ire they like but I don't think in America people are going to stand for persecution over common sense. The world is not lobby groups from minority idiots in any country but those who are autocratic not democratic, it should not have to be.

Blaggard wrote:
In what country do liberal homosexuals have that right?

No seems to me America is a bit of a mess, in our legal system no one has the right to deprive anothers rights majority or minority. This seems sensible, fuck knows what goes on in America but it aint justice any more than a blind man shooting a homosexual is justified because he could not see him. Dumb American legal adjuncts aside it's all just bs.

It seems quite simple to me:

1) no means of enforcing a persons rights should restrict another persons rights.

2) every man or woman has the same basic rights.

3) you do not talk about fight club

4) each mans or womens beliefs are his own, inalienable regardless of what others beliefs are or lack of beliefs

5) each person man or woman has the right to be treated as an individual and by said laws, if not the law should compensate said parties to the extent it can and any resultant sexual discrimination should not and can not sway the legal system, it must be fair regardless of a persons sex.

6) Whatever a man or womans personal sexual predeliction he or she has the right to love who he or she loves regardless of another's beliefs on the matter. Sexuality is not something that is subject to a subjugation of laws and rights regardless of a man's beliefs.

7) regardless of a man's or women's age he or she is a person and deserves to be treated according to his own abilities not prejudice about age

8 ) you have the right to complain about another man's wants and beliefs, you do not have the automatic right to stop those wants and beliefs because they are not yours. But can bring such contention before the legal system.

Simple secular humanist laws that apply to all EU countries or you are out of the family.

Fundamentalists can have all the self righteous ire they like but I don't think in America people are going to stand for persecution over common sense. The world is not lobby groups from minority idiots in any country but those who are autocratic not democratic, it should not have to be.

Liberalism and Homosexuality is gaining very big grounds about almost all over the western world (especially America). They are now promoting homosexuality in schools with children's books, TV shows, boy scouts, the military, and so on. They are gaining a stronghold on power in the Western world; definitely not in Muslims countries and other nations that don't tolerate this perversion.

You see, the elites are not really promoting "tolerance" or "multiculturalism" to the the world. They are forcing the world under the ideologue of American Exceptionalism: including immorality such as that of homosexuality and the like. They want to promote it because it goes hand in hand with Population control (ie. Agenda 21), and goes hand in hand with dumbing down the masses into herds of sheep.

WanderingLands wrote:

Blaggard wrote:
In what country do liberal homosexuals have that right?

No seems to me America is a bit of a mess, in our legal system no one has the right to deprive anothers rights majority or minority. This seems sensible, fuck knows what goes on in America but it aint justice any more than a blind man shooting a homosexual is justified because he could not see him. Dumb American legal adjuncts aside it's all just bs.

It seems quite simple to me:

1) no means of enforcing a persons rights should restrict another persons rights.

2) every man or woman has the same basic rights.

3) you do not talk about fight club

4) each mans or womens beliefs are his own, inalienable regardless of what others beliefs are or lack of beliefs

5) each person man or woman has the right to be treated as an individual and by said laws, if not the law should compensate said parties to the extent it can and any resultant sexual discrimination should not and can not sway the legal system, it must be fair regardless of a persons sex.

6) Whatever a man or womans personal sexual predeliction he or she has the right to love who he or she loves regardless of another's beliefs on the matter. Sexuality is not something that is subject to a subjugation of laws and rights regardless of a man's beliefs.

7) regardless of a man's or women's age he or she is a person and deserves to be treated according to his own abilities not prejudice about age

8 ) you have the right to complain about another man's wants and beliefs, you do not have the automatic right to stop those wants and beliefs because they are not yours. But can bring such contention before the legal system.

Simple secular humanist laws that apply to all EU countries or you are out of the family.

Fundamentalists can have all the self righteous ire they like but I don't think in America people are going to stand for persecution over common sense. The world is not lobby groups from minority idiots in any country but those who are autocratic not democratic, it should not have to be.

Liberalism and Homosexuality is gaining very big grounds about almost all over the western world (especially America). They are now promoting homosexuality in schools with children's books, TV shows, boy scouts, the military, and so on. They are gaining a stronghold on power in the Western world; definitely not in Muslims countries and other nations that don't tolerate this perversion.

You see, the elites are not really promoting "tolerance" or "multiculturalism" to the the world. They are forcing the world under the ideologue of American Exceptionalism: including immorality such as that of homosexuality and the like. They want to promote it because it goes hand in hand with Population control (ie. Agenda 21), and goes hand in hand with dumbing down the masses into herds of sheep.

Why is homosexuality immoral? I mean I don't give a shit who a man or woman sticks the respective sockets against myself but this idea that if they do it is immoral seems outdated and against nature, since almost all animals of any species have homosexuality how can it be wrong in terms of evolution to have a sexual nature that is only geared towards the same sex. Surely if such a sexual congress was not favoured by evolution it would not exist? So hence why is it wrong and in what way?

I can't believe you have a moral/religious reason to object so what is the real reason?

WanderingLands wrote:You see, the elites are not really promoting "tolerance" or "multiculturalism" to the the world. They are forcing the world under the ideologue of American Exceptionalism: including immorality such as that of homosexuality and the like. They want to promote it because it goes hand in hand with Population control (ie. Agenda 21), and goes hand in hand with dumbing down the masses into herds of sheep.

Lemme see if I've got this right: the 'elite' are forcing us to become exceptional American homosexual sheep? Wowzah. What should we do about it WanderingLands?
On a general point, what sort of idiot cares what consenting adults do to each other in private?

Blaggard wrote: Why is homosexuality immoral? I mean I don't give a shit who a man or woman sticks the respective sockets against myself but this idea that if they do it is immoral seems outdated and against nature, since almost all animals of any species have homosexuality how can it be wrong in terms of evolution to have a sexual nature that is only geared towards the same sex. Surely if such a sexual congress was not favoured by evolution it would not exist? So hence why is it wrong and in what way?

I can't believe you have a moral/religious reason to object so what is the real reason?

You are getting emotional over nothing (ie. someone simply disagreeing over homosexuality). Here are reasons why homosexuality is immoral.

1) Sex is primarily about procreation, ie. giving birth to a new generation. Animals, of all kinds, have sex to procreate, and they do so as a heterosexual couple (not homosexual). You see, animals are not homosexuals by any means. These myths are misinterpreted by homosexuals, when in reality animals are of their limited primal instincts. Here is a paper that debunks this myth: http://www.narth.org/docs/animalmyth.html

Without procreation, life wouldn't exist here on earth, which is why there are two polar opposite sexes (with different sex organs), which enable procreation. This is where homosexuals and proponents of it fail at this aspect of biology.

2) Homosexuals cannot have an adequate family unit as compared to a heterosexual family unit. Sociologist Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas found that when reporting data for lesbian mothers and homosexual fathers, as compared to a regular family unit, Mark found that, "the children of homosexuals did worse (or, in the case of their own sexual orientation, were more likely to deviate from the societal norm) on 77 out of 80 outcome measures". Here are some facts from the Family Research Council (citing this) that Mark has found.

Children in homosexual family units are:

"Are much more likely to have received welfare (IBF 17%; LM 69%; GF 57%)
Have lower educational attainment
Report less safety and security in their family of origin
Report more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of origin
Are more likely to suffer from depression
Have been arrested more often
If they are female, have had more sexual partners--both male and female"

"Are more likely to be currently cohabiting
Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance
Are less likely to be currently employed full-time
Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed
Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual
Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting
Are an astonishing 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver."
Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been "physically forced" to have sex against their will
Are more likely to have "attachment" problems related to the ability to depend on others
Use marijuana more frequently
Smoke more frequently
Watch TV for long periods more frequently
Have more often pled guilty to a non-minor offense"

Read more at the Family Research Council: http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study ... s-research

uwot wrote:Lemme see if I've got this right: the 'elite' are forcing us to become exceptional American homosexual sheep? Wowzah. What should we do about it WanderingLands?
On a general point, what sort of idiot cares what consenting adults do to each other in private?

1) Yes, in fact it is true. You can see it all over the media, which is creating a generation that has no direction and no clue of what's going on in this barbaric modern era. I'd bet that if there weren't media promoting hyper-sexuality and homo-eroticism, that there wouldn't be homosexuality, as with pornography and rape and so on.

2) It is not about what's being done in privacy; it's what's being promoted and hoisted upon people who disagree with this ideology.

WanderingLands wrote:

uwot wrote:Lemme see if I've got this right: the 'elite' are forcing us to become exceptional American homosexual sheep? Wowzah. What should we do about it WanderingLands?
On a general point, what sort of idiot cares what consenting adults do to each other in private?

1) Yes, in fact it is true. You can see it all over the media, which is creating a generation that has no direction and no clue of what's going on in this barbaric modern era. I'd bet that if there weren't media promoting hyper-sexuality and homo-eroticism, that there wouldn't be homosexuality, as with pornography and rape and so on.

2) It is not about what's being done in privacy; it's what's being promoted and hoisted upon people who disagree with this ideology.

1) it's not created by this generation such issues have been around since civilisation began and in fact long before no doubt, they have just become more vocal in recent times because a small minority of fundamentalists are choosing to interpret liberal laws about a man or womans sexuality as a major issue.

2) it has never been hoisted on people, but it has at various times been considered either immoral or illegal, but seldom in most countries until the right wing got a hold of it, by which I mean Christian right wing.

You didn't answer my question though, why is it morally wrong?

And a second point in almost all animal species from flies to goats to apes, homosexuality exists, how would it not exist hence if somehow magically there weren't homosexuals out their spreading this viral meme? Are you seriously saying that people become gay because of gay propaganda? You can't really be that naïve surely?

Blaggard wrote:
1) it's not created by this generation such issues have been around since civilisation began, they have just become more vocal in recent times because a small minority of fundamentalists are chosing to interpret liberal laws about a man or womans sexuality as a major issue.

2) it has never been hoisted on people, but it has at various times been considered either immoral or illegal, but seldom in most countries until the right wing got a hold of it, by which I mean Christian right wing.

You didn't answer my question though, why is it morally wrong?

And a second point in almost all animal species from flies to goats to apes, homosexuality exists, how would it not exist hence if somehow magically there weren't homosexuals out their spreading this viral meme?

1) They've become vocal because Homosexuals and Liberals are promoting it. Fundamentalists are merely just reacting to this epidemic.
2) It is being hoisted on people. There are several lobbying groups, especially in the United States, that are promoting homosexuality. Many of these lobbying groups, as well as pro-Gay rights in all forms, are connected to corporations, such as: Progressive Insurance, Disney-ABC (which promotes Ellen DeGeneres, another top homosexual) and Hearst Corporation, both of which are financial sponsors of the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association.

Accuracy in Media - Another Target for the Gay Lobby: http://www.aim.org/aim-column/another-t ... gay-lobby/
Americans For Truth About Homosexuality - 100-Percent Pro-Gay Corporations: http://americansfortruth.com/issues/100 ... porations/

P.S. I already went over the facts (including the animal homosexuality myth) of what I said in my last post on this thread.

WanderingLands wrote:

Blaggard wrote:
1) it's not created by this generation such issues have been around since civilisation began, they have just become more vocal in recent times because a small minority of fundamentalists are chosing to interpret liberal laws about a man or womans sexuality as a major issue.

2) it has never been hoisted on people, but it has at various times been considered either immoral or illegal, but seldom in most countries until the right wing got a hold of it, by which I mean Christian right wing.

You didn't answer my question though, why is it morally wrong?

And a second point in almost all animal species from flies to goats to apes, homosexuality exists, how would it not exist hence if somehow magically there weren't homosexuals out their spreading this viral meme?

1) They've become vocal because Homosexuals and Liberals are promoting it. Fundamentalists are merely just reacting to this epidemic.
2) It is being hoisted on people. There are several lobbying groups, especially in the United States, that are promoting homosexuality. Many of these lobbying groups, as well as pro-Gay rights in all forms, are connected to corporations, such as: Progressive Insurance, Disney-ABC (which promotes Ellen DeGeneres, another top homosexual) and Hearst Corporation, both of which are financial sponsors of the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association.

Accuracy in Media - Another Target for the Gay Lobby: http://www.aim.org/aim-column/another-t ... gay-lobby/
Americans For Truth About Homosexuality - 100-Percent Pro-Gay Corporations: http://americansfortruth.com/issues/100 ... porations/

P.S. I already went over the facts (including the animal homosexuality myth) of what I said in my last post on this thread.

The gay agenda and the gay mafia are working to subvert America. Oooookay then.

Animal homosexuality is a myth? Are you genuinely on the same planet as anyone else?

Man you just sound crazy at this moment, and not the good sort of crazy, the bad sort where you wake up with blood on your hands two days later with no memory of the last 48 hours, and wonder what you did?

I am still waiting to hear why homosexuality is immoral though..?

Blaggard wrote:
Animal homosexuality is a myth? Are you genuinely on the same planet as anyone else?

Man you just sound crazy at this moment, and not the good sort of crazy, the bad sort where you wake up with blood on your hands two days later and wonder what you did?

So if I don't agree with what the masses say regarding homosexuality, that makes me a "crazy" person? Hey, so be it.

WanderingLands wrote:

Blaggard wrote:
Animal homosexuality is a myth? Are you genuinely on the same planet as anyone else?

Man you just sound crazy at this moment, and not the good sort of crazy, the bad sort where you wake up with blood on your hands two days later and wonder what you did?

So if I don't agree with what the masses say regarding homosexuality, that makes me a "crazy" person? Hey, so be it.

You still haven't explained why it is immoral?