Arizona law and signmakers

[Fred Weiss]

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Insomuch as the Arizona law's primary thrust was to ensure one could not be sued for that above highlighted in red, but then went on to set down conditions to prove it, it was contradictory in nature to begin with. One could still be sued, for example, on the grounds that one's beliefs were not firmly held on the basis of religion.

As such it failed to serve it's stated purpose and was redundant. The rest is clearly covered by the U.S. Constitution. Thus, were one sued over refusal of service, one could mount a viable defense of religious belief and the suit should be dismissed as unconstitutional.

 

[Marlene]

Addie the day I need the likes of you to explain anything to me will be the end times.

bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

then call me a bigot because I ahve no tolerance for you

 

[Gino]

You do realize that this was going to be an addition of a law, not the removal of one.

Depends. Were you referring to the people in government or the people of this site as being ironic big-government ??

Again, I could really care less about this one incident, but it will continue until it finally takes hold, no matter what party or who is in power. It'll just be about a different set of circumstances and when they get their belly full of that BS, they'll move on until they are fully prepared to make a move, which will not be possibly argued by either side. How many things at local level or all the way up to the White House can you say have been brought about in a democratic manner ??

 

[Asuma01]

"My religion says that being an ******* to others who are slightly different then me actually makes me a good person! Government needs to quit trying to limit my religious freedom and liberty to take away the rights of others!"

Is all I hear most of you saying.

 

[Joe Diaz]

Depends. Were you referring to the people in government or the people of this site as being ironic big-government ??

Again, I could really care less about this one incident, but it will continue until it finally takes hold, no matter what party or who is in power. It'll just be about a different set of circumstances and when they get their belly full of that BS, they'll move on until they are fully prepared to make a move, which will not be possibly argued by either side. How many things at local level or all the way up to the White House can you say have been brought about in a democratic manner ??

"Depends"? What do you mean? Depends if you realize it's not the removal of a law? Why would who I'm referring to matter?

Anyway, if anything the law was just a waste of time. It wasn't necessary other than for politicians of both sides to use it to make a statement, but the idea that it was going to give or take away someones freedom was just a guise. It was a waste of time and money.

 

[Steve C.]

I think you are over thinking this Gino as it isn't doomsday or the end times or Soylent Green. this was a law to make it legal to not do business with gay people. I am not missing anything. if you are a person who has such strong religious reason for not doing business with a group, then that is up to you to figure out what you need to do, not the governments job to try to pass a law for you. we all know that religion might have been behind it but the end result would be the right to be a bigot and that is not OK for anyone.

You must be missing something if you believe that is what the law
would do. The law allows a business owner to conduct his business in
accordance with his/her religious beliefs. It would not allow discrimination
of LGBTs, I think we already have anti discrimination laws. The first
amendment guarantees freedom of religion. But the supreme court says
that a business has no such right. This law would give the business owner
the right to conduct his business in accordance with his or her religious views, so
the baker, photographer is not forced to participate or provide goods for
the ceremony offensive to their religious views.

 

[Gino]

"Depends"? What do you mean? Depends if you realize it's not the removal of a law? Why would who I'm referring to matter?

Anyway, if anything the law was just a waste of time. It wasn't necessary other than for politicians of both sides to use it to make a statement, but the idea that it was going to give or take away someones freedom was just a guise. It was a waste of time and money.

Calm down there, Joe. Don't blow a gasket.

The part 'depends' was referring to was W H O . W E R E . Y O U . S P E A K I N G . A B O U T ??

Adding, repealing, amending.... whatever to a law, I was referring to who was/were the ironic ones you accused of being anti-big government. Other members here or government themselves. Simple answer to your open-ended question/statement.

Regardless of whatever point you were trying to make..... just about everyone on here [s101] is on the same page as this is all a farce to thwart off the actual intentions of finding out what makes us tick. It also serves to poise emotional confrontations in an area which will keep the majority occupied while they use their magic elsewhere.
​

 

[rfulford]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins

Here is a nice little excerpt:In almost every list, pride (Latin, superbia), or hubris (Greek), is considered the original and most serious of the seven deadly sins, and the source of the others. It is identified as believing that one is essentially better than others, failing to acknowledge the accomplishments of others, and excessive admiration of the personal self (especially holding self out of proper position toward God).

 

[Joe Diaz]

Calm down there, Joe. Don't blow a gasket.

The part 'depends' was referring to was W H O . W E R E . Y O U . S P E A K I N G . A B O U T ??

Adding, repealing, amending.... whatever to a law, I was referring to who was/were the ironic ones you accused of being anti-big government. Other members here or government themselves. Simple answer to your open-ended question/statement.

Regardless of whatever point you were trying to make..... just about everyone on here [s101] is on the same page as this is all a farce to thwart off the actual intentions of finding out what makes us tick. It also serves to poise emotional confrontations in an area which will keep the majority occupied while they use their magic elsewhere.
​

Totally calm. I'm not typing in all caps or anything.

I stated: "You do realize that this was going to be an addition of a law, not the removal of one." Your answer was "depends". That response didn't make sense. It would be like saying you do realize our planet has a gravitational force that stops us from floating away, and you would respond with, that depends if your talking about red headed children or not. I'm not upset with your response, just confused by it.

"Other members here or government themselves" Why would that matter? It doesn't matter if it's a sign maker or a career politician, If someone says they don't like government involvement in their lives, why do they support the addition of or to laws? If you don't support the law, which your last statement leads me to believe that you don't because you stated you thought it was "farce", than I guess my original statement had nothing to do with you, as hard as that may be for you to believe. And honestly it wasn't directed at you. Most of the time I try to avoid responding to things that you post because you tend to read in to things that aren't there...

 

[Stanton]

Everyone has expressed HOW they FEEL.

Nobody has explained WHY they THINK.




Hmmmmmmm . . . . . . .

 

[Fred Weiss]

Everyone has expressed HOW they FEEL.

Nobody has explained WHY they THINK.




Hmmmmmmm . . . . . . .

Cogito Ergo Sum

 

[Locals Find!]

Addie the day I need the likes of you to explain anything to me will be the end times....

The end times are upon us. I truly feel sorry for you as your ignorance apparently knows no bounds.

But the supreme court says
that a business has no such right.

Please state the supreme court case your referring too. I would be interested in reading it.

 

[Gino]

Totally calm. I'm not typing in all caps or anything.

I stated: "You do realize that this was going to be an addition of a law, not the removal of one." Your answer was "depends". That response didn't make sense. It would be like saying you do realize our planet has a gravitational force that stops us from floating away, and you would respond with, that depends if your talking about red headed children or not. I'm not upset with your response, just confused by it.

"Other members here or government themselves" Why would that matter? It doesn't matter if it's a sign maker or a career politician, If someone says they don't like government involvement in their lives, why do they support the addition of or to laws? If you don't support the law, which your last statement leads me to believe that you don't because you stated you thought it was "farce", than I guess my original statement had nothing to do with you, as hard as that may be for you to believe. And honestly it wasn't directed at you. Most of the time I try to avoid responding to things that you post because you tend to read in to things that aren't there...

:ROFLMAO: You're a good one, alright. I'm really glad you pointed my blunders out and explained to me what I meant, when you can't even understand explanation after explanation. Suffice it to say, you need not respond to me here or anywhere else in this forum should you choose to or not to do so. Besides, I didn't think it was directed at me at all. I know better. You don't talk to me unless you're forced, so play it safe and be quite. That seems to be your MO, lately. It was just the open-endlessness of your still another attempt to be clever, just eluded me, once again and I tried to answer it when you did finally address me. It just amazes me at how well you know me, tell me what I'm really thinking and explain to me..... and all the others, what I really mean and I don't have a clue as to what you are ever talking about or your own harangues.

Your turn.........
​

 

[Perks]

Business is business

Run your business the way you want. Put your best foot forward.
Burlesque shows back in the day kept many showcard writers busy lettering incredible art for advertising in entertainment venues ie. GoGo bars.
You cant dictate morality. If you run an honest business the who cares.
Im not allowed to paint signs in Historic Districts the way I like.
Why am I discricminated just because I am creative and painted signs with some substance? Proof is in the before and after examples within the ordinances of many towns like Somerville, Ma Who am I offended? There should be descent. SORRY HILLARY

The support from each other is what keeps all of us pursuing the common good.
The historic preservation law is not a sign design law. The preservation trust and the pro bono work coming from the design collaboratives is hardy better than the old traditional signs. You can see the in amatuer results under their brand of uniformity. No personality at all.

 

[greytees]

total nonissue!

im gay and could not care less about these political diversions. when big business is giving campaign contributions to both democrat and republican candidates running for the same office, then that raises a big question to me! big business is just making sure their *** is covered and the guy or gal who gets elected is indebted to them more than the american people they are supposed to be representing. politicians (democrat and republican) represent the fortune 500...not the american people. intead of united states of america maybe we should change the name to UNITED CORPORATIONS OF AMERICA! as a gay man im sick and tired of politicians using my sexual orientation as a diversion so they dont have to answer any real questions about education, health care, national debt, economy, global warming, prison overcrowding, shrinking middle class, or god forbid answer some questions about the 1% getting richer and richer (how much $ does the 1% give to politicians each year)! someone asks a politician about any of these issues and they reply..."uhh, gays blah blah blah". republicans and democrats alike.

if someone doesnt want to serve me, fine, ill give my money elsewhere. if a signmaker doesnt want a minority's business...fine again...ill take their money instead. i might not like it but i feel the last thing we need are more laws about nonissues. how about lawmakers spend their time in office on real issues! that would never happen bc they would have to do things that their campaign contributers would not like. .