Speakeasy forum

General discussion

I'm for this ban

by Steven Haninger / February 25, 2014 3:32 AM PST
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: I'm for this ban
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: I'm for this ban
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
there is some demented thought process
by James Denison / February 25, 2014 8:23 AM PST
In reply to: I'm for this ban

that says anyone who walks in off the street has more rights in your place of business than you who pay for the building, who works there daily, who orders the goods, who provides the service, and then after depriving you the owner of all your rights, turns around and with a Big Lie in their mouth declare it is civil "rights".

Collapse -
It is a civil rights issue
by Diana Forum moderator / February 25, 2014 1:07 PM PST

just like denying blacks a place at the counter. Tell me the difference and don't say that it is different because gays are bad in the Bible. The whites used the same book to justify that and used it to justify slavery.


Collapse -
Politeness vs Rights
by James Denison / February 26, 2014 8:46 PM PST

You can be an unpolite jerk and yet still be within your rights. What does being nice or polite have to do with determination of rights? Because someone else might not like your attitude? If that was the criteria, then there'd be a number in this forum too who would already be deprived of their right to free speech. Is it because someone's feelings might be hurt? Well, that can happen, but getting all sappy faced and cry baby about something doesn't deprive someone else of their rights. Whiners should always get their way? No, not to the trampling of other people's rights. The question is NOT about how one might choose to discriminate in regards to that which they own, but how their rights to the say over what they own should be protected, not rejected. If there is to be any favoritism, it should be done by right and that to whom the right belongs and not someone else's distorted view thereof because they somehow feel excluded. Rights must be protected, not abrogated just because someone else got their knickers in a twist about it.

Collapse -
The guy needs to open his pizzeria in his place of worship
by JP Bill / February 26, 2014 8:55 PM PST
In reply to: Politeness vs Rights

That should keep the gays out.

Collapse -
(NT) I defer to your greater experience in being both. Rob
by Rob_Boyter / February 27, 2014 5:06 AM PST
In reply to: Politeness vs Rights
Collapse -
It's a shame, that at your age
by James Denison / February 26, 2014 9:00 PM PST

You still can not understand the distinction between enslaving someone versus refusal of someone. I can tell someone to stay off my property, but that's a completely different concept from dragging them onto my property and forcing them to work for me.

Collapse -
RE: I can tell someone to stay off my property,
by JP Bill / February 26, 2014 9:19 PM PST

You also could serve them and when they leave...destroy everything they've touched.

Collapse -
(NT) Or I could send them to your place
by James Denison / February 27, 2014 2:08 AM PST
Collapse -
(NT) Send? You are a dreamer aren't you?
by JP Bill / February 27, 2014 3:31 AM PST
Collapse -
James, retailers normally favour gay clients. Gay people
by Rob_Boyter / February 27, 2014 5:08 AM PST

generally spend very freely.


Collapse -
So...when their "OPEN" sign is flashing
by JP Bill / February 25, 2014 11:20 PM PST


It will now read

OPEN to heterosexuals.......OPEN to heterosexuals.....OPEN to heterosexuals.

Collapse -
Started with licensing requirements and
by Steven Haninger / February 26, 2014 12:54 AM PST

continued with zoning restrictions. You want to start a business? You must only build in certain places and you must be licensed. There are rules...our rules. Follow the rules and you'll live long and prosper.

Collapse -
RE: more rights in your place of business
by JP Bill / February 26, 2014 12:30 PM PST

your place of business.......not your place of worship?

Arizona religious bill that angered gays vetoed

The Republican governor said she gave the legislation careful deliberation in talking to her lawyers, citizens, businesses and lawmakers on both sides of the debate. Her office said it received more than 40,000 calls and emails on the legislation, with most of them urging a veto.

Collapse -
Wow....40 thousand made their voices heard
by Steven Haninger / February 26, 2014 5:33 PM PST

I wonder just how many of them actually read the proposed legislation. My guess...not many. We just need to watch the news, see people jump up and down, hear from a few celebrities and make up our minds based on the side that those we like come down on. Yep...this is the age of information, all right.

Collapse -
RE: I wonder just how many
by JP Bill / February 26, 2014 7:44 PM PST
I wonder just how many of them actually read the proposed legislation.

Do you have to "read a bill" IF you know that one effect of a bill is that "a gay person won't be served in a restaurant" AND you think that isn't "the way it should be"?

When was the last time you "read a piece of legislation"....from beginning to end?

How many pages long was it?

Have you read SB 1062?

Tell us how many pages long it is, no peeking.

Do you think Bill 1062 should have been enacted?

I don't...What about you?
Collapse -
Already prepared for this challenge
by Steven Haninger / February 26, 2014 10:13 PM PST

The text of the bill is in here.

No...I hadn't read it until today. Why?...I had no personal interest in it but I think I heard quite a bit of knee-jerking going on. All that seemed to be mentioned is that the bill was anti-gay so, when in doubt about what something says...read it! What I find is that the Arizona law isn't new. This bill seeks to amend and clarify it. There is NO mention of gay persons or gay activities in this bill. The writer of this piece did include some examples of what has happened recently that might have been involved in prompting a few legislators to revisit the law and make sure there was less confusion about what circumstances might be considered if someone had a moral objection to a request. I say that telling a baker they'd go to jail if they'd not make a wedding cake for a gay couple is a bit over the top. This really isn't much different from a doctor refusing to perform an elective abortion on moral grounds. One does not want to be required to do or participate in something they think is immoral. This isn't any different from service people who don't want to load bombs onto airplanes. Which objection is reasonable and which is not?...asked rhetorically, of course.

As for my own opinion, I don't find anywhere that the Christian religion is opposed to serving a meal to gay persons in their restaurant. It would be opposed to hosting a wedding reception for a gay couple. I can't have a problem with either of those treatments. I also believe a restaurant owner should be permitted to refuse service to someone with whose clothing contains what he considers to be profane. I can think of plenty of things that a business owner might object to on moral grounds and not want to participate in. As long as the person is sincere in that objection as is outlined in this litmus test from the article.





You asked if I supported the bill. My answer is that I find nothing objectionable about it and, in the absence of substantial evidence that the bill specifically targeted certain people or groups of people, I find no reason to not let it pass as an amendment to the existing law.

If you object to it, your work isn't done because you'll need to try and rescind the original law as well.

Collapse -
RE: No...I hadn't read it until today. Why?.
by JP Bill / February 26, 2014 11:23 PM PST

OH..I don't know..perhaps because YOU wondered

I wonder just how many of them actually read the proposed legislation.

Glad to see you were "Already prepared for this challenge" 2 1/2 hours AFTER I issued the challenge

Collapse -
Isn't it time for you to stick your own neck out there
by Steven Haninger / February 27, 2014 12:54 AM PST

and actually contribute some thoughts to the bill rather than critique what others say and how they say it? No...that's not your style, is it. Still just swinging that noose waiting for a chance to use it.

Collapse -
RE: Isn't it time for you to stick your own neck out
by JP Bill / February 27, 2014 3:34 AM PST

What do you want me to say that I haven't said before?

Do you think Bill 1062 should have been enacted?

I don't...What about you?

Not hard to find...Look up a few posts in this thread...you'll find it.

We just need to watch the news, see people jump up and down, hear from a few celebrities and make up our minds based on the side that those we like come down on. Yep...this is the age of information, all right.

and some just go to their house of worship.

Collapse -
Such a thoughtful reason
by Steven Haninger / February 27, 2014 3:42 AM PST

"I don't..." followed up by some nonsense rather than sense.

Collapse -
I don't......... because
by JP Bill / February 27, 2014 3:57 AM PST

We're all human beings...all should be treated equally, especially by each other.

Seems pretty basic.

How would you expand on that? And WHY? Paid by the word?

Collapse -
RE: followed up by some nonsense rather than sense.
by JP Bill / February 27, 2014 4:09 AM PST

This part was yours

We just need to watch the news, see people jump up and down, hear from a few celebrities and make up our minds based on the side that those we like come down on. Yep...this is the age of information, all right.

This part was mine

and some just go to their house of worship.

IF you're confused, my point was...

You remark on people getting their opinions from the press...I compare that to some people getting their opinions from the pulpit.

Collapse -
My point in wondering how many protesting the bill
by Steven Haninger / February 27, 2014 5:28 AM PST

without reading it is just to claim people don't always think before reacting. I didn't make any comment about the bill until I did read it. I could ask you if you did the same...read it first. I don't think we can have common sense law or make common sense decisions without examining more than just some headline but that's what folks do. My reason for posting this in the first place had nothing to do anyone's rights or their being threatened. It was about silly lawmakers doing what they can to keep their jobs rather than to do their jobs. They get no welcome in my pizza joint.

Collapse -
A business is, by definition accessible to the public.
by Rob_Boyter / February 27, 2014 5:04 AM PST

The laws governing places accessible to the public are different from those governing a private residence. That is the reason that there are, or used to be, Capacity signs in public bars. Capacity 200 persons, or No More than 150 patrons.

Your Florida upbringing is showing, James. I bet you were all set to join Lester Maddox with his axe handle or pick handle in front of his business in the early 60's. Gee from Lester Maddox to Jimmy Carter in 10 short years. Georgia certainly did progress when it had to.


Collapse -
Speaking of "demented thought processes"
by JP Bill / February 27, 2014 12:03 PM PST
How Corporate America forced Arizona bill's veto

Companies have long spoken out about certain issues they felt threatened their bottom lines, such as taxation and the minimum wage. The strong opposition to the Arizona bill signals an acknowledgement by businesses that it's not just economic policies that can be harmful to their profits. They need to be more willing than ever to wade into social issues.

Companies also recognize that many of their employees and customers are gay and try to foster an open and inviting corporate environment.
Collapse -
Probable VETO by Govnr.
by Willy / February 26, 2014 12:06 AM PST
In reply to: I'm for this ban

Already it's an issue not because of how it effects gays, but business. Already some politicians are asking the Govnr. to veto the bill. Further, being pushed by big business and probably business in general to veto it as well. All because of the Super Bowl coming next yr. to Arizona. If anyone really screwed-up it was having the bill now whether than after the Super Bowl playoffs, etc..Here is a clear example how things work in politics regardless of the issue at hand. the forces line-up and defend what they consider sacrosanct. -----Willy Happy Oh, what a tangled web we weave...

Collapse -
by all means, let us worship
by James Denison / February 27, 2014 2:10 AM PST

the neo-coliseum crowds. If only they'd toss free bread to them. No need, probably have plenty of beer there, as the stands fill with puke from the drunks.

Collapse -
Maybe I'm expecting too much from some people
by Steven Haninger / February 27, 2014 2:44 AM PST

I was sort of hoping politicians would be different and not think their jobs are more important than their integrity. Some just think that sort of behavior is called "internal compromise" rather than hypocrisy.

Collapse -
I don't see that vetoing a deliberately discriminatory law
by Rob_Boyter / February 27, 2014 4:51 AM PST

is either hypocritical or wrong. Additionally laws of this type have already been ruled Unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Most retailers want all the customers they can get. Most retailers don't get to cherry pick their customers either. "Sorry, you can't come in, I can tell that you're not going to spend enough money here", or "You're not really serious about shopping today, so get out."

True story, or so it was presented to me by people up here. Rompin' Ronnie Hawkins is an Arkansas boy who settled in Toronto in the late 50's. He had a couple of minor hits in the states with Forty Days, and Mary Lou (the good one, not the Ricky Nelson one). Apparently Toronto was a major hot spot for R&B acts in the 50's and 60's and for almost any touring band. He bought a club on Yonge Street and played night and day, in the process pulling together the musicians who would go on to be The Band.

One day he decided to go out and buy a new car, so he stopped into an AMC dealership in downtown Toronto which also sold Rolls Royce. They didn't believe this "cracker" could possibly be serious so they asked him to leave. He cursed a bit, then went to the Bank, got the entire price of the car in small bills and returned dressed as he had been (jeans, checked shirt, cowboy boots, maybe a leather vest) and put the shopping bag on the salesman's desk and started the negotiation again. He drove out in his new Rolls.

Had there been two Rolls dealerships, I'm sure he would have gone to the other one in preference, but there wasn't.

Whatever happened to "The Customer is Always Right"? I'm sure that Henry Ford wasn't happy about Jewish people driving his cars, but did he forbid the sale of them? Not a chance, and he had the power to do that because the dealers worked for Ford. They were not independent retailers in the 20's and 30's.


Collapse -
But does it really single anyone or any group out
by Steven Haninger / February 27, 2014 5:50 AM PST

with the intention of mistreating them? This isn't a new law but a revision to an existing one and I'd guess it's based on new experiences. If you read it, you might find that there's nothing sinister in it though you might think it could be used for sinister purposes. That's why we have judges available to sort out the gray areas. Right now, I suspect there are plenty of folks who think they are being discriminated against for not being able to act on their consciences. The first amendment didn't mean people could go to the church of their choice but couldn't follow the principles of their faith once exiting the door. It meant they could live as they believed was proper. Nothing I've ever seen or read in authoritative Christian doctrine says we should disrespect or mistreat anyone. In fact, quite the opposite is true. It is also true that sometimes the answer to a request is "No". That's not disrespect or mistreatment. I'd say that, to force another person to go against their principles, is disrespect and mistreatment. I would grant you that many who say they are Christian have interpretations of its teachings which are not what I believe to be true. I'd hate to see laws that punish the sincere for the wrongdoings of the insincere. The Arizona seems to address that.

Popular Forums
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions


Help, my PC with Windows 10 won't shut down properly

Since upgrading to Windows 10 my computer won't shut down properly. I use the menu button shutdown and the screen goes blank, but the system does not fully shut down. The only way to get it to shut down is to hold the physical power button down till it shuts down. Any suggestions?