true

Whether one thinks religion is all hocus pocus one must recognize that religion can be a powerful force. Not just some aspects of Christianity but other major religions have tended, at best, to frown upon homosexuality or to accept or tolerate it grudgingly.

This is not particularly wise since homosexuality is, and has been, an essential component of humanity. Whether it is 5 or 10 percent homosexual any intelligent person would accept it is a fact of life. It has been so throughout history and won't change any time soon

So as far I am concerned it boils down to how one balances an individual's disdain for the homosexual with the rights of that homosexual.

Both groups have perfectly valid viewpoints and rights whether one agrees with one side or the other.

I do not see it as a being clear cut.

Most people don't really care about it; those showing disdain are usually the raging closet queens.

that old chestnut again

Here we go again, Mike. You're either more bigoted than you are prepared to acknowledge, or not a very good troll. It's perfectly clear-cut, and Arizona is wholly wrong.

You pretty much state the argument above. Adherence to a particular religious viewpoint is a choice that people make. In almost all cases, sexual preference is a biological imperative. In nobody's world is it acceptable that the rights of an individual to express a biological fact should be overridden by the rights of an individual to express a choice. It is not OK, ever, anywhere, for an observer of a religion to refuse to do business with somebody because they are gay, or black, or female, or ginger, or left-handed.... all these characteristics are biologically determined, as opposed to the philosophical determination of a religion.

It so happens that the cases you persist in highlighting - and if not defending, then at least fudging - are mostly about "Christian" conservatives. (As an aside, most of them do not have a Christian thought in their heads if they think that their behaviour is appropriate to the religious beliefs they lay claim to.) But it could equally apply to the subjugation of women by some Islamic sects, the intolerance of homosexuality by some Hindus (e.g. the BJP's stance on the anti-gay law in India in the run-up to national elections there), and the many other instances of religiously-justified intolerance around the world.

Which provokes a thought... Much criticism over the years has been levelled at the Anglican church. But right now I think the diminishing flock of Anglicans can look on at some of the corruption and intolerance demonstrated by both Catholic and Baptist communions and realise that woolly-headed compromises and flabby theology have resulted in a rather delicate middle course being steered over the last couple of decades

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-26320102

this is quite an education for those who have just heard of arizona

the map is quite startling

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-26320102

food for thought and it sure puts matters in perspective

maybe you should wake up to the fact there are two sides to the story instead of burying your head in the sand

Mike, if the Arizona bill were say aimed at 'blacks' would that make sense to you? If one religion were, for their own reasons, uncomfortable with dealing with people of colour, should they be allowed under the law to discriminate?

of course not

same applies to homosexuals

all i want to point out is that there are two sides to the story

it is up to the state and courts to rule on this

but people will still have their opinions, good, bad or indifferent

on this thread I have been playing devil's advocate and i hope this will be clear to all readers including oakvillian

I think the point being made that the era of state and courts accommodating discriminatory views is now over. If the people have those bad opinions, then they will have to change them. Simple as that. That's why AZ is making a mistake.

I personally am glad religious people are pushing for all these anti-gay laws, it just underscores how religion = bigotry. keep going, religious nuts!

it will probably end up in the supreme court which will ban discrimination but people will not willingly change their opinions

that is human nature

it boils down to the rights of the collectivity over-riding individual rights, the true hallmark of a democracy

Yes. Also the true hallmark of autocracy!

I tried some sarcasm but forgot it does not work at this site

As your good pal Alan would say, that's not sarcasm. The fact is that in a democracy individuals rights are subordinated to that of the majority (good if you are with the majority, less so if you are not).

You do confuse us Mike with all your devils advocacy and perceived sarcasm.