Anyone still believe the Tea Party is not a social conservative/RR organization?

[KingOrfeo]

There has been a long-running controversy, in the Lit and more broadly, as to whether the Tea Party is mainly an economic-libertarian, small government organization, or a social conservative/religious-right organization. And one notes that RR messages as such rarely appear on their rally-signs or in their literature. (Neither does anything about immigration, IME.)

However, WRT Arizona Gov. Janet Brewer's recent veto of the "religious freedom" bill, while the matter certainly touches on economic libertarianism, this is not the reaction of a secular economic libertarian.

In a lengthy rant posted on Tea Party Nation’s website on Thursday morning, Phillips accused Brewer of buckling under pressure from “the left and the homosexual lobby” and condemning Arizona to a dystopian future in which LGBT people force God-fearing Arizona cake makers to provide them with penis-themed sweets.

Describing the vetoing of SB 1062 as “tyranny on the march,” Phillips writes that opponents of SB 1062 want to enslave its supporters.

“The left and the homosexual lobby are both pushing slavery using the Orwellian concepts of ‘tolerance’ and ‘inclusiveness,’” he warns. He then levels one of the most damning criticisms possible in Republican circles, saying Brewer “proved she was no Ronald Reagan.”

Claiming that he was merely copying the left’s “absurd hypotheticals,” which it uses in order “to scream that there must be compliance with their fascism,” Phillips also warned that, without SB 1062, Arizona would soon become a place overrun by the evil of penis cakes.

Not penis cakes! Please think of the children! And of their penises! A lot!

 

[julybaby04]

Seems interesting to me that business are not allowed to have ethics. I guess this is just a by-product of what is leading the Federal government today..

Perhaps no private body part cakes, but the veto of this bill does not require bakers to make a good cake.....just a cake.

This whole bakery thing was so political.....those people who sued could have gone anywhere for a cake.....they made it about their lifestyle and everyone supporting it. Typical!

 

[KingOrfeo]

Seems interesting to me that business are not allowed to have ethics.

Of course they're allowed to have ethics, which is why they're not allowed to discriminate against blacks, gays, etc.

 

[julybaby04]

Of course they're allowed to have ethics, which is why they're not allowed to discriminate against blacks, gays, etc.

Don't think this had anything to do with anyone but gays.

...and they could still go somewhere else.

I do not get why any gay person would WANT to do business with someone that is known to be against that lifestyle?

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Seems interesting to me that business are not allowed to have ethics. I guess this is just a by-product of what is leading the Federal government today..

Perhaps no private body part cakes, but the veto of this bill does not require bakers to make a good cake.....just a cake.

This whole bakery thing was so political.....those people who sued could have gone anywhere for a cake.....they made it about their lifestyle and everyone supporting it. Typical!

What issues happen when straight people want penis (and/or vagina) cakes?

What issues happen when married people of both sexes want penis (and/or vagina) cakes?

Because (hold onto your chastity belt, July, this might make you wet your flower-print bloomers) you know...they do request them.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Don't think this had anything to do with anyone but gays.

...and they could still go somewhere else.

I do not get why any gay person would WANT to do business with someone that is known to be against that lifestyle?

Where else could they go?

Do you know of other bakeries they could've gone to that would've accommodated their request?

Everyone keeps saying this shit like it's easy peasy and like people never thought about going somewhere else before. But maybe that's not the point. Because being discriminated against has everything to do with accessibility. Maybe people don't want to have to drive into another county or state just to hope they can get something done as long as the other person doesn't mind to serve "their kind."

 

[KingOrfeo]

Don't think this had anything to do with anyone but gays.

...and they could still go somewhere else.

I do not get why any gay person would WANT to do business with someone that is known to be against that lifestyle?

Every single thing you're saying there, substituting race for sex-orientation, might have been (and probably was) said by Jim-Crow defenders in the late '50s and early '60s.

Does that fact tell you nothing?!

 

[Boxlicker101]

Of course they're allowed to have ethics, which is why they're not allowed to discriminate against blacks, gays, etc.

The difference is that most discrimination by race and other factors is illegal according to federal law, but sexual orientation is not one of those factors. Maybe it should be, but it isn't. Some states have laws that include sexual orientation, but AZ is not one of them.

I don't know if a bakery could be compelled to provide an R rated cake or not. Maybe not yet, but who knows about the future.

From what I have read, the main issue that resulted in this bill was a team of wedding photographers who refused to provide their services to a lesbian couple. They didn't want to associate with people they considered to be extreme sinners.

 

[Dazzle1]

There has been a long-running controversy, in the Lit and more broadly, as to whether the Tea Party is mainly an economic-libertarian, small government organization, or a social conservative/religious-right organization. And one notes that RR messages as such rarely appear on their rally-signs or in their literature. (Neither does anything about immigration, IME.)

However, WRT Arizona Gov. Janet Brewer's recent veto of the "religious freedom" bill, while the matter certainly touches on economic libertarianism, this is not the reaction of a secular economic libertarian.



Not penis cakes! Please think of the children! And of their penises! A lot!

You are painting the Tea Party as a monolith. are we to assume that we can call the NAACP a racicst organization because of previous Ben Jealous comments?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The difference is that most discrimination by race and other factors is illegal according to federal law, but sexual orientation is not one of those factors. Maybe it should be, but it isn't. Some states have laws that include sexual orientation, but AZ is not one of them.

I don't know if a bakery could be compelled to provide an R rated cake or not. Maybe not yet, but who knows about the future.

From what I have read, the main issue that resulted in this bill was a team of wedding photographers who refused to provide their services to a lesbian couple. They didn't want to associate with people they considered to be extreme sinners.

You hit the nail on the head with the obscene cake.

But I wonder if the law wasn't a scheme by conservatives to expose stealth RINOs. Plenty of GOP jumped on the band wagon.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

What is this fascination with a dead movement?

 

[renard_ruse]

So you're trying to get people to support the Tea Party?

 

[renard_ruse]

You are painting the Tea Party as a monolith. are we to assume that we can call the NAACP a racicst organization because of previous Ben Jealous comments?

I'm confused, he's saying that the Tea Party being a pro-values movement would be a negative for it?

 

[renard_ruse]

Every single thing you're saying there, substituting race for sex-orientation, might have been (and probably was) said by Jim-Crow defenders in the late '50s and early '60s.

Does that fact tell you nothing?!

Substitute hang gliding or bowling for gay and it always fits into the sentence. Why don't we have special rights for hang gliders or bowlers, if we are giving special rights based on a behavior?

 

[Liar]

You hit the nail on the head with the obscene cake.

No. He hit himself in the head with the obscene cake.

Telling a business they must allow their product to be bought by anyone is in no way the same as telling a business they have to sell a product they don't want to.

That's not to say that can't happen too. Look at pharmacies. But that's some very specfiic circumstances.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Substitute hang gliding or bowling for gay and it always fits into the sentence. Why don't we have special rights for hang gliders or bowlers, if we are giving special rights based on a behavior?

It's not just a matter of behavior. It's what you are. The bill might have allowed a business to refuse service to an obvious, mincing fag even if he's also a virgin in every sense conceivable.

 

[julybaby04]

Where else could they go?

Do you know of other bakeries they could've gone to that would've accommodated their request?

Everyone keeps saying this shit like it's easy peasy and like people never thought about going somewhere else before. But maybe that's not the point. Because being discriminated against has everything to do with accessibility. Maybe people don't want to have to drive into another county or state just to hope they can get something done as long as the other person doesn't mind to serve "their kind."

Or maybe, it was all for political gain and had NOTHING to do with actually getting a cake.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Or maybe, it was all for political gain and had NOTHING to do with actually getting a cake.

That was what the bill was, certainly. Red meat for the base; no one can seriously have believed it would pass a court challenge if enacted.

 

[julybaby04]

Every single thing you're saying there, substituting race for sex-orientation, might have been (and probably was) said by Jim-Crow defenders in the late '50s and early '60s.

Does that fact tell you nothing?!

It tells me that blacks were not treated well.

I would 100% agree with you if I believed that homosexuality was not a choice. Skin color is not a choice.

(and just as a little example of why I feel this way, I have watched my "gay" cousin, as he STILL can't decide what he is. He has flipped flopped his whole life and when with a woman, he says that is ALL he is attracted to. Then he changes his mind and men are ALL he is attracted to. I know, he may be an exception or whatever, but he is living proof to me that he is choosing when and where to be homosexual.) There are of course, other stories about people who were gay changing their minds and becoming straight. I just do not believe that something that is so unnatural in nature is not a choice.

 

[jeninflorida]

Seems interesting to me that business are not allowed to have ethics. I guess this is just a by-product of what is leading the Federal government today..

Perhaps no private body part cakes, but the veto of this bill does not require bakers to make a good cake.....just a cake.

This whole bakery thing was so political.....those people who sued could have gone anywhere for a cake.....they made it about their lifestyle and everyone supporting it. Typical!

KingofTards is one of those mental defectives. Clearly, his rants here on GB are a cry for help. I'm guess as he becomes more desperate, he will post more obama regime bullshit.

Its sad, when someone becomes so mentally ill like he is .... can drugs or years of therapy help fix him and his kind?

 

[KingOrfeo]

I'm confused, he's saying that the Tea Party being a pro-values movement would be a negative for it?

Certainly, if they are social conservative values. I don't know whether you've noticed: Economic conservatives sometimes have arguments worth listening to, but social conservatives are always entirely wrong -- not about everything, perhaps, but definitely about everything that distinguishes them from others, everything on their particular agenda.

 

[julybaby04]

I have a question.....

With the Arizona Bill in mind........

Is there a way for business to be able to uphold their own beliefs while at the same time not discriminating against people?

If yes, how?

If no, then should one be able to trump the other in that if say for homosexuals, if they are a protected class, religious freedom is also protected in the Constitution.

How can both work in concert without one having to give up their rights?

 

[RobDownSouth]

I have a question.....

With the Arizona Bill in mind........

Is there a way for business to be able to uphold their own beliefs while at the same time not discriminating against people?

If yes, how?

If no, then should one be able to trump the other in that if say for homosexuals, if they are a protected class, religious freedom is also protected in the Constitution.

How can both work in concert without one having to give up their rights?

Your putrid religious beliefs do not trump the Constitution, no matter how much you really really believe.

Deal with it.

Or don't....it really doesn't matter. Just be prepared to surrender your cherished Disney World fund as liquidated damages when you arbitrarily discriminate against those who fail to meet your religious standards.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I have a question.....

With the Arizona Bill in mind........

Is there a way for business to be able to uphold their own beliefs while at the same time not discriminating against people?

If yes, how?

If no, then should one be able to trump the other in that if say for homosexuals, if they are a protected class, religious freedom is also protected in the Constitution.

How can both work in concert without one having to give up their rights?

This thread is about the Tea Party, not the Arizona bill; but, WRT the above, bear in mind that no one has a constitutional right to run a business.

 

[Liar]

I have a question.....

With the Arizona Bill in mind........

Is there a way for business to be able to uphold their own beliefs while at the same time not discriminating against people?

A business is a piece of paper. It does not have beliefs.