Not Against The Law In Arizona To Be A Bigot Apparently

[mikey4444]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-26299559

When will Americans realise that you don't give someone freedom by taking it away from somebody else ?

[ToraToraTora]

surely they have a right to protest mikey, not sure what you are getting at.

[emmie]

then all right minded folk should boycott any place that insists on this type of discrimination

[beso]

Yet if a person refused service to a person on the grounds of their religious persuasion they would be charged.

[mikey4444]

TTT, I am sure you were perfectly aware of the point that I was making but just in case......its not the people protesting TTT...its the chance of a law being passed in Arizona that makes it legal for people to be bigots. There are probably lots of people in America that don't really like blacks but they have laws to stop non-white people from being discriminated against. My point was that you don't give freedom and rights to one group of people, by taking it away from another group.

Beso...Religious people have a choice, but gay people can't change their sexuality, so need some kind of protection against bigotry, just like the disabled and the non-whites. The State of Arizona shouldn't be legislating for ignorant people. Tolerance is what is needed, not pro-discrimination laws.

[anotheoldgit]

mikey4444

/// My point was that you don't give freedom and rights to one group of people, by taking it away from another group. ///

What about the freedom and rights of religious people, are all those who oppose them, also ignorant bigots?

[emmie]

why would you discriminate against someone because of their sexuality,

[mikey4444]

AOG...read my post. Religious people have a choice about whether to be religious or not. Gay people don't have a choice about their sexuality. If someone discriminates against another person on account of sexuality, then they are bigoted in the same way as if they discriminated on the grounds of race or disability. This is in a country where millions of so-called educated people believe that early man chased dinosaurs for their lunch on a daily basis and that the Grand Canyon is only 6000 years old.

Again I make the point that you don't give freedom to one group of people by taking it away from others.

[mushroom25]

//Religious people have a choice about whether to be religious or not.//

really? so why is it that Sikh motorcyclists are excused the mandate to wear helmets?

[mikey4444]

mushroom...not sure what Sikh and their helmets has to do with a law that may be passed in America that will make discrimination legal ?

[naomi24]

//why is it that Sikh motorcyclists are excused the mandate to wear helmets? //

Because they're choosing to be religious?

[mushroom25]

mikey - I'm focusing on your assertion that the religious have a choice. A choice it seems that the legal authorities are only too happy to bend over backwards to accommodate, whether in the US or the UK.

[mikey4444]

No...still can't see why people should be allowed to discriminate against gay people in Arizona, just because there may be a few Sikh motorcyclists in Britain that don't have to wear helmets.

Isn't anybody going to address the issue of giving freedom to one group, by taking it away from another group of people ?

[mikey4444]

Mushroon...are you then in agreement that gay people should be discriminated against in Arizona, or anywhere else come to that ? That was the point of my post, not bl00dy motor-cycle helmets !

[ladybirder]

Calm down dear:-)

[naomi24]

^^ :o)

[mushroom25]

//Mushroon...are you then in agreement that gay people should be discriminated against in Arizona, or anywhere else come to that ? That was the point of my post, not bl00dy motor-cycle helmets ! //

I didn't say that, you did. Whilst it's wrong to us, you have to bear in mind how fundamentally religious the southern united states is - every bit as intolerant as the Taliban. and like every group that makes the most noise, they get listened to by the legislature - like motor cycling Sikhs, like those who would have sharia law introduced in Britain (and it has been). I use my examples to show how religious intolerance manages to obtain legal exceptions for itself. This is no different in the US, the UK or anywhere else. That doesn't make any of it right, far from it.

[ludwig]

Couldn't the Sikhs just wrap bandages around a helmet thus transforming it into a big fat hard turban? Religious and civil laws are satisfied, and the Sikhs are safer. Everyone's a winner.

[emmie]

someone will always lose out when laws come into place. Its mad but there you are.

[sp1814]

mushroom25

I think it's better to discuss this without reference to Sikhs and Muslims.

I can understand mushroom25's point, but a so-called advanced Western government enshrining bigotry in law is a huge subject, which perhaps doesn't benefit from comparison to what the Taleban get up to.

[sp1814]

Delete 'so-called'.