Conservative double speak?

[guzzijohn]

Conservative Kansas rep (R) Charles Macheers has submitted a bill that would allow business to refuse service to gays. Okay, that is one thing, but then he says this:


"“Discrimination is horrible. It’s hurtful … It has no place in civilized society, and that’s precisely why we’re moving this bill,” he said. “There have been times throughout history where people have been persecuted for their religious beliefs because they were unpopular. This bill provides a shield of protection for that.”


How ironic.
How is this bill not discrimination?
GuzziJohn

[Hairy Chest]

Conservative Kansas rep (R) Charles Macheers has submitted a bill that would allow business to refuse service to gays. Okay, that is one thing, but then he says this:


"“Discrimination is horrible. It’s hurtful … It has no place in civilized society, and that’s precisely why we’re moving this bill,” he said. “There have been times throughout history where people have been persecuted for their religious beliefs because they were unpopular. This bill provides a shield of protection for that.”


How ironic.
How is this bill not discrimination?
GuzziJohn

He's practicing his religious beliefs.  What's the big deal?  They should also deny them from donating blood and paramedics, police and police dogs should avoid contact with gays because of the danger from their bodily fluids.  It's not only a religious issue, but a public health and safety issue. 

[magooch]

In a free world, a private business should have the right to refuse service, or sales to anyone they want, for any reason they want.  Sometimes freedom works that way and those who are refused service are free to go elsewhere.  How is that harder to understand than some dictatorial government dick tater forcing a private business to deal with those who make an issue out of their deviant sex habits?

[guzzijohn]

I do not intend this discussion to be pro or anti gay, but how a rep can make such a statement concerning discrimination while proposing a bill which purpose is clear cut discrimination?
GuzziJohn

[mechanic]

I think this is in reference to some who have been actually prosecuted because they would not provide for gay weddings.  While I believe in live and let live, I too, would not perform a service that would facilitate something the Bible specifically condemns.  Doing so would make me partaker in their evil deeds.

I do see your point, but in the context above, perhaps that is the intention.

Ben

[magooch]

It shouldn't be that hard to understand that there is more than one kind of discrimination and no one should have a right that trumps another's right to discriminate where it concerns private property and private enterprise.  I decide who is allowed on my property, in my house and in my business--period.

[m-g Willy]

A private business should have the right to do business with , and employ whoever they want to.
Just like everyone has the right to spend their money where they want to.

[guzzijohn]

My understanding is that this bill applies to governmental agencies as well. As far as I am concerned it would not be an issue if all could refuse service to anyone, but this is targeting a specific group.
GuzziJohn

[scootrd]

Then

A private business should have the right to do business with , and employ whoever they want to.
Just like everyone has the right to spend their money where they want to.

Then why are Republicans trying to bully the VW union vote outcome in Tenn, threatening legislation , When VW MGMT itself is not against  the vote whatsoever?.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/12/news/companies/vw-uaw-vote/

 The Chattanooga factory, which opened in 2011 to build the Passat, employs about 1,550 hourly workers. On Wednesday they begin a three-day vote on whether to join the union.

Tennessee Republicans warn that if the UAW wins, the state will lose business from companies that want a union-free environment. They say that workers voting in favor of the union will imperil the standard of living in Chattanooga, as well as economic development across the state.

Republicans are also threatening to refuse to give VW any further tax incentives if the plant is unionized.

The VW union vote is unusual because it's not being opposed by the automaker. In fact, anti-union critics charge that VW is siding with the union, a charge it denies. But the company did push back against those pressuring workers to vote no on the union.



Semper Fi

Double speak exists in all forms and at all level in our system of Govt.

[ironglow]

I do not intend this discussion to be pro or anti gay, but how a rep can make such a statement concerning discrimination while proposing a bill which purpose is clear cut discrimination?
GuzziJohn

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

  if perchance that is HB 2203 introduced by Macheers you are being just a tad disingenuous, it was not an "anti-gay" bill, but rather it is a "freedom of faith" bill, homosexuals having very little to do with it....unless the homos try to force their business onto Christians (or Muslims, I assume)..
    We are all aware that the Obamunists more than any recent administration are clubbing people and organizations who do not cater to the homosexual agenda, so this is also an "anti bullying".  As most here said..let them take their business to "gay friendly" venues.

 Summary of HB2203:  http://kslegislature.org/li/b2013_14/measures/documents/summary_hb_2203_2013.pdf


  BTW:  I took the trouble to look up Mr Macheers, if we had a few thousand elected representatives of his good sense and decent character, this country would be a much better place!  Check him out guys:   http://kslegislature.org/li/b2013_14/members/rep_macheers_charles_1/

  Note; he is a big supporter of the 1st amendment, 2nd amendment & rest of the constitution as well as veterans, Boy Scouts and many other worthwhile things.

[ironglow]

Then

A private business should have the right to do business with , and employ whoever they want to.
Just like everyone has the right to spend their money where they want to.

Then why are Republicans trying to bully the VW union vote outcome in Tenn, threatening legislation , When VW MGMT itself is not against  the vote whatsoever?.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/12/news/companies/vw-uaw-vote/

 The Chattanooga factory, which opened in 2011 to build the Passat, employs about 1,550 hourly workers. On Wednesday they begin a three-day vote on whether to join the union.

Tennessee Republicans warn that if the UAW wins, the state will lose business from companies that want a union-free environment. They say that workers voting in favor of the union will imperil the standard of living in Chattanooga, as well as economic development across the state.

Republicans are also threatening to refuse to give VW any further tax incentives if the plant is unionized.

The VW union vote is unusual because it's not being opposed by the automaker. In fact, anti-union critics charge that VW is siding with the union, a charge it denies. But the company did push back against those pressuring workers to vote no on the union.



Semper Fi

Double speak exists in all forms and at all level in our system of Govt.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

  Now there's a switch..unions supposedly being "bullied"..

  How many over the years who resisted unions got to wear some concrete shoes in the Hudson or Chicago rivers?  What did Jimmy Hoffa's "brothers" do with him?

   How many instances of union thuggery can we each remember ?

   Here's one where justice is being served right now:
     http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/federal-court/local-17-union-racketeering-trial-begins-20140117

  Why did you not mention that VW employees have formed their own organizations.. hoping to keep the union thugs out?  They have even erected billboards..

[Casull]

  if perchance that is HB 2203 introduced by Macheers you are being just a tad disingenuous, it was not an "anti-gay" bill, but rather it is a "freedom of faith" bill,

 
 
 
Ironglow, thanks for the information.  I believe you were being generous when you said guzzijohn was being "just a tad disingenous".  After reading the actual bill, it appears he was being dishonest.  There is no mention in the bill whatsoever of what he claimed, or even any mention of homosexuality or so-called "gays".

[two-blocked]

And that's as it should be because the anti-gay bill is 2453 not 2203

Kansas House OK's Bill Seeking To Allow Businesses To Discriminate Against Gays
http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=17784&MediaType=1&Category=26

Now aren't you a tad embarrassed?

[Casull]

I'll stand corrected as to the first bill.  However, the bill does not appear to be an "anti gay" bill, but rather a pro religious freedom bill.  Clearly, the bill does not penalize or harm so-called "gays", but prohibits the punishment of those following their religious views.  Are you embarrassed?

[guzzijohn]

The "pro religious freedom bill" is nothing but spin. The intent of the bill is to make access denied to a specific group.
GuzziJohn

[Casull]

The intent of the bill is to make access denied to a specific group.

 
 
 
No, the intent is to protect those that deny access from being punished by the state.

[ironglow]

And that's as it should be because the anti-gay bill is 2453 not 2203

Kansas House OK's Bill Seeking To Allow Businesses To Discriminate Against Gays
http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=17784&MediaType=1&Category=26

Now aren't you a tad embarrassed?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

  It all depends upon the individual perspective.  That headline could have just as easily read, " State representative sponsors bill to defend the 1st amendment clause of religious freedom".. Of course, since you hang out at a website that is apparently consumed by homosexual issues, what kind of headline should we expect.
  First article of the Bill of Rights guarantees a right to freedom of religious practice and expression.  I find nothing similar in the Bill of Rights or the constitution, which guarantees that homosexuals be treated a certain way...  Further, I see nothing in the Bill of Rights which says a retailer must serve any joker who enters his shop..

[RPRNY]

Then

A private business should have the right to do business with , and employ whoever they want to.
Just like everyone has the right to spend their money where they want to.

Then why are Republicans trying to bully the VW union vote outcome in Tenn, threatening legislation , When VW MGMT itself is not against  the vote whatsoever?.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/12/news/companies/vw-uaw-vote/

 The Chattanooga factory, which opened in 2011 to build the Passat, employs about 1,550 hourly workers. On Wednesday they begin a three-day vote on whether to join the union.

Tennessee Republicans warn that if the UAW wins, the state will lose business from companies that want a union-free environment. They say that workers voting in favor of the union will imperil the standard of living in Chattanooga, as well as economic development across the state.

Republicans are also threatening to refuse to give VW any further tax incentives if the plant is unionized.

The VW union vote is unusual because it's not being opposed by the automaker. In fact, anti-union critics charge that VW is siding with the union, a charge it denies. But the company did push back against those pressuring workers to vote no on the union.



Semper Fi

Double speak exists in all forms and at all level in our system of Govt.

That VW management is scared to voice an anti-union opinion due to the backlash from their fraternal Euopean Socialist trades unions only has a bearing on Republican opposition to a pro-union vote to the extent that it supports their position. That the management of a company is afraid to advocate a position advantageous to its shareholders because of union pressure elsewhere simply supports the claims of those who oppose the union vote that unionization will lead to confrontation, diminished agility, and ultimately diminished productivity and earnings for both shareholder and employee.

No need to respond with any outdated, populist, Stalinist, Socialist, trades unionist clap-trap slogans. They were old and useless before the end of the last Century and have no place in this one. Constructive collective bargaining can be undertaken without the corruption, politicization, and inherent confrontation of a union.

Sent from my KFOT using Tapatalk 2

[powderman]

How ironic.
How is this bill not discrimination?
GuzziJohn

 
Nothing to do with discrimination. I wouldn't expect an obummerbot to know the difference between right and wrong, which is what that bill is all about. POWDERMAN. 

[nw_hunter]

How ironic.
How is this bill not discrimination?
GuzziJohn

 
Nothing to do with discrimination. I wouldn't expect an obummerbot to know the difference between right and wrong, which is what that bill is all about. POWDERMAN. 

Are you attempting to flame another member by calling them a derogatory name, and  insinuations? Well Yes!, I believe you are Powderman and flaming is a big no no!

[BBF]

Do all y'alls not remember that VW had a plant in TN years ago?
That plant went South so to speak to Mexico. Perhaps VW isn't worried about a Union coming in. They've done the move once they can do it again.

[gypsyman]

guzzi, would it be the same, if muslim cab drivers, and check out clerks, were forced to sell alcohol, ham, or take riders that were drunk. Seems they put up quite a stink, against allah you know. Would that be discrimination against them?  Actually, gays going into a business in this country and get turned down, should look on the bright side. If they were in any of many Mideast country's, and were known gay, probably just escorted out back and beheaded. gypsyman

[SHOOTALL]

A private business should have the right to do business with , and employ whoever they want to.
Just like everyone has the right to spend their money where they want to.

If this is not the rule then freedom does not exist.

[guzzijohn]

Quote from gypsyman:
"guzzi, would it be the same, if muslim cab drivers, and check out clerks, were forced to sell alcohol, ham, or take riders that were drunk. Seems they put up quite a stink, against allah you know. Would that be discrimination against them?  Actually, gays going into a business in this country and get turned down, should look on the bright side. If they were in any of many Mideast country's, and were known gay, probably just escorted out back and beheaded. gypsyman"


First, if a Muslim or anyone else goes to work they should follow company policy or not accept the job. Like a pharmacist should not be able withhold any drugs on religious grounds. The last half of your statement is really weak. The gays have no reason to be happy, especially when discriminated against in a supposedly "free country". Just because we don't behead them does not mean we are doing the right thing. I am Christian but I also strongly believe that we need to guard against ANY religion influencing our laws. We can not let Christianity dictate laws anymore than Islamic, Hinduism or any other religion. You and I both know what the intent of this bill is by it's sponsor which is what makes his comment so insane.
GuzziJohn

[Casull]

First, if a Muslim or anyone else goes to work they should follow company policy or not accept the job.

 
 
 
 
Nice deflect.  But, we are NOT talking about someone violating company policy, but STATE ACTION coming down on someone for following their religious views.

[lgm270]

Has anybody else noticed that every time they pass a new civil rights law or create some new privileged group the vast majority of us who  aren't into sodomy  and other forms of degeneracy  have less freedom?

Discrimination is the method by which healthy organisms,  people, societies and races protect themselves from harmful associations with the unfit, the misbegotten and the dysfunctional. 

Three cheers for discrimination!   Hopefully the right of freedom of association will one day be restored to normal white people  for whom it has been abolished.     

[powderman]

HUNTER. No flame, stating facts. Guzzi seems proud of everything his hero Obama does. Obama supports sin, as do all who follow and support him. A Christian business owner should NOT be required by law to support people like them, which they would be doing. If the shoe fits, wear it. The pervs want a cake?? Go buy some twinkies and put candles in them. The bakers would be condoning them if they baked them a cake, Godly people should NOT be forced to do that. Let the perverts go somewhere else, leave Good people alone. POWDERMAN. 

[ironglow]

  Back to "double-speak".. 
  Barry talks about the "people's rights"..but he is concerned only with "governments power and rights"..

  Here he doesn't like the constitution, being concerned that the constitution is a bill of negative liberties for the government!
    UH...Mr "constitutional scholar".. that is exactly what our constitution was meant to be !  DUH!

       http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/06/18984-obama-rants-that-the-constitution-is-a-charter-of-negative-liberties/

  He talks about personal freedom..and goes to Kenya to campaign for and with Odinga, the communist candidate.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6eVVVKFHu0

  Odinga says "communism is like food to me"..

      http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,833698,00.html

  This is the man Barry crosses the ocean to campaign for ?

[magooch]

Last year a case came up in the Portland, Oregon area where a couple of mo's were to be married.  They wanted a cake baked by a particular vendor--who after due consideration of the nature of the union, refused the order.  I don't remember if a law suit ensued, but one way, or another the baker was ordered by some activist judge to bake a cake.  If I remember right, the baker said no way, no how and closed her business.


Putting personal and group proclivities aside, what normal person would even want to do business with someone who wasn't up for the gig?  And especially so where it concerns a product that is to be eaten.  Now I don't know about you guys, but I flat ain't gonna eat anything that is prepared by someone who doesn't want to do it and is doing it under duress.  There just might be some ingredients in there that uh, that uh ... you know what I mean. 


This case and the one in Kansas smacks of the type of people who are used to forcing their way down other people's throats--and into other bodily orifices.

[ironglow]

  Here's "double speak":

  Back in reply #25, Guzzi replys; "First, if a Muslim or anyone else goes to work they should follow company policy or not accept the job."

  Common sense then says if one baker doesn't want to bake a cake for you, then don't give him/her your business, go elsewhere!
       
   I believe most of us would not even begin to deal with anyone who doesn't want our business!  The perverts are only seeking trouble!


  Another point; in most cases there is nothing wrong with being discriminate!
         See how Merriam-Webster defines the word "discriminate":
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

               
                 dis·crim·i·nate verb \dis-ˈkri-mə-ˌnāt\ 

: to unfairly treat a person or group of people differently from other people or groups

: to notice and understand that one thing is different from another thing : to recognize a difference between things

dis·crim·i·nat·eddis·crim·i·nat·ing

Full Definition of DISCRIMINATE

transitive verb

1

a :  to mark or perceive the distinguishing or peculiar features of 

b :  distinguish, differentiate <discriminate hundreds of colors>

2

:  to distinguish by discerning or exposing differences; especially :  to distinguish from another like object

intransitive verb

1

a :  to make a distinction <discriminate among historical sources> 

b :  to use good judgment

2

:  to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit <discriminate in favor of your friends> <discriminate against a certain nationality
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````.

    The problem seems to be in verbal comprehension.  While the Left seems to comprehend only the first and last examples, most on the Right seem to recognize all the phases of "discriminate".
   
       Personally; I most ofthen view thw owrd in context of "to use good judgement".