Ali#1, you were right about Arizona. - Page 6

pickrel pat · #**151** 02-27-2014, 06:37 PM

one of you three is in over their head.....

ali#1 · #**152** 02-27-2014, 06:39 PM

I think we have gotten derailed here.

Like I said earlier I believe the governor vetoed it for multiple reasons. First I believe it goes directly against the civil rights act. Second I think there was a significant magnifying glass put on it by the media. Third it would have hurt financially I heard a number of businesses put pressure on the governor to quash it. Fourth the Feds were going to go after it hard to set a prescient for the other states that are trying to pass similar bills. This was a test and the test failed. I have no doubt it will be back somewhere else.

CanuckShooter · #**153** 02-27-2014, 06:39 PM

I think if the bakers religion makes him refuse service to anyone he is in the wrong job. In this country we go way too far accommodating religious zealots, if they can't do the job without discriminating they should find more suitable work or get their buns sued off.

rwm1273 · #**154** 02-27-2014, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ali#1

History books you mean.

You claimed it so you back it up. I want to see a poll from 1859 that's says white people wanted blacks free and the government just did the will of the people.

Here is a good article on the issue of segregation and the differences between counties, both in Canada and the US. It often depended on where you were on what kind of rights you had a a black person. And that has more to do with who was running the town or county.

http://www.archives.com/genealogy/fa...-american.html

And this is a good sight that discusses black history in Canada.

http://blackhistorycanada.ca/timeline.php?id=1600

ali#1 · #**155** 02-27-2014, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CanuckShooter

I think if the bakers religion makes him refuse service to anyone he is in the wrong job. In this country we go way too far accommodating religious zealots, if they can't do the job without discriminating they should find more suitable work or get their buns sued off.

It is rife for abuse hidden as religious beliefs. Personally I don't think if it were passed signs would go up overnight saying we don't serve gays. But I think it's the beginning of a slippery slope.

ali#1 · #**156** 02-27-2014, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwm1273

Here is a good article on the issue of segregation and the differences between counties, both in Canada and the US. It often depended on where you were on what kind of rights you had a a black person. And that has more to do with who was running the town or county.

http://www.archives.com/genealogy/fa...-american.html

And this is a good sight that discusses black history in Canada.

http://blackhistorycanada.ca/timeline.php?id=1600

We never had slavery in Canada.

Abraham Lincoln wasn't really for government making people give up slaves in the beginning, he ran in 1860 saying he wanted containment in slavery and wanted to keep the Missouri compromise as the line in slavery. Only in the middle of war in 1863 did he even give his emancipation proclamation and free the slaves. And it was only really after passing the 13th amendment were the slaves actually free. The civil war was more about states rights vs fed rights than it was about slavery.

rwm1273 · #**157** 02-27-2014, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ali#1

Sure is never say they didn't. I said if given a vote in 1910 women would not have been given the vote. Fact is sometimes government has to force things to happen popular majority or not.

Wrong again.

Sir John A MacDonald wanted the women to have the vote in 1885. And this largely hinged upon the women being tax payers, and this meant they had also to be property owners.

rwm1273 · #**158** 02-27-2014, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ali#1

We never had slavery in Canada.

Abraham Lincoln wasn't really for government making people give up slaves in the beginning, he ran in 1860 saying he wanted containment in slavery and wanted to keep the Missouri compromise as the line in slavery. Only in the middle of war in 1863 did he even give his emancipation proclamation and free the slaves. And it was only really after passing the 13th amendment were the slaves actually free. The civil war was more about states rights vs fed rights than it was about slavery.

Wrong again. We had slavery in Canada.

This sight gives a history of Blacks in Canada, including the history of slavery in Canada.
http://blackhistorycanada.ca/timeline.php?id=1600

rwm1273 · #**159** 02-27-2014, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ali#1

I think we have gotten derailed here.

Like I said earlier I believe the governor vetoed it for multiple reasons. First I believe it goes directly against the civil rights act. Second I think there was a significant magnifying glass put on it by the media. Third it would have hurt financially I heard a number of businesses put pressure on the governor to quash it. Fourth the Feds were going to go after it hard to set a prescient for the other states that are trying to pass similar bills. This was a test and the test failed. I have no doubt it will be back somewhere else.

We haven't gotten derailed, you just keep talking about things you don't have a good understanding of.

ali#1 · #**160** 02-27-2014, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwm1273

Wrong again.

Sir John A MacDonald wanted the women to have the vote in 1885. And this largely hinged upon the women being tax payers, and this meant they had also to be property owners.

Sir john was but the people (men) of the country didn't. The famous five took their fight to the Supreme Court and to England to be recognized as "persons" and why did they want to be "persons" ? So they could vote that's why. If people were for it as you say why was there a 20 year fight over it ?

ali#1 · #**161** 02-27-2014, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwm1273

We haven't gotten derailed, you just keep talking about things you don't have a good understanding of.

I guess I wasn't right then

ali#1 · #**162** 02-27-2014, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwm1273

Wrong again. We had slavery in Canada.

This sight gives a history of Blacks in Canada, including the history of slavery in Canada.
http://blackhistorycanada.ca/timeline.php?id=1600

Canada became a country in 1867.

rwm1273 · #**163** 02-27-2014, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CanuckShooter

I think if the bakers religion makes him refuse service to anyone he is in the wrong job. In this country we go way too far accommodating religious zealots, if they can't do the job without discriminating they should find more suitable work or get their buns sued off.

The baker issue is just one such issue. It could be a church being forced to hire someone that they deem inappropriate, such as the case has been with religious schools refusing to hire gay people because it goes against their religious beliefs.

This happened in Edmonton a number of years ago at King's College.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delwin_Vriend

rwm1273 · #**164** 02-27-2014, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ali#1

Canada became a country in 1867.

Semantics. You claimed Canada didn't have slavery, and I proved we did. You then rely upon when we became a nation only to uphold your argument? That is a straw man argument.

ali#1 · #**165** 02-27-2014, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwm1273

Semantics. You claimed Canada didn't have slavery, and I proved we did. You then rely upon when we became a nation only to uphold your argument? That is a straw man argument.

What you claim happened almost 200 years before Canada became a country. Now if it happened in 1850 I would say yeah Canada had slavery. But the mid 1600's that's England baby.

rwm1273 · #**166** 02-27-2014, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ali#1

Sir john was but the people (men) of the country didn't. The famous five took their fight to the Supreme Court and to England to be recognized as "persons" and why did they want to be "persons" ? So they could vote that's why. If people were for it as you say why was there a 20 year fight over it ?

The fight was on for a lot longer than 20 years. And to be historically accurate, the Famous Five were more interested in being recognized as "persons", not for the vote, but so they could get appointed to the senate.

ali#1 · #**167** 02-27-2014, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwm1273

The baker issue is just one such issue. It could be a church being forced to hire someone that they deem inappropriate, such as the case has been with religious schools refusing to hire gay people because it goes against their religious beliefs.

This happened in Edmonton a number of years ago at King's College.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delwin_Vriend

Who is ever forced to hire anybody ? If they receive a resume they can easily put it in the recycle bin, after an interview they can decide to hire somebody else. Nobody is forced to hire anybody with or without this law.

Boots270 · #**168** 02-27-2014, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ali#1

I guess I wasn't right then

Ya gotta respect a man who keeps coming back swinging after he gets knocked down.
Or is this your rope a dope routine.

Which ever it is....I think you're cute.

pickrel pat · #**169** 02-27-2014, 07:03 PM

pm much?

ali#1 · #**170** 02-27-2014, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwm1273

The fight was on for a lot longer than 20 years. And to be historically accurate, the Famous Five were more interested in being recognized as "persons", not for the vote, but so they could get appointed to the senate.

We'll it was both to serve in public office and to have a vote.

ali#1 · #**171** 02-27-2014, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boots270

Ya gotta respect a man who keeps coming back swinging after he gets knocked down.
Or is this your rope a dope routine.

Which ever it is....I think you're cute.

I guess I wasn't right then

pickrel pat · #**172** 02-27-2014, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boots270

Ya gotta respect a man who keeps coming back swinging after he gets knocked down.
Or is this your rope a dope routine.

Which ever it is....I think you're cute.

welcome back 3rd man!!!

Sundancefisher · #**173** 02-27-2014, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CanuckShooter

I think if the bakers religion makes him refuse service to anyone he is in the wrong job. In this country we go way too far accommodating religious zealots, if they can't do the job without discriminating they should find more suitable work or get their buns sued off.

Amen brother.

rwm1273 · #**174** 02-27-2014, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ali#1

What you claim happened almost 200 years before Canada became a country. Now if it happened in 1850 I would say yeah Canada had slavery. But the mid 1600's that's England baby.

Wrong again.

Canada still had black segregated schools in Canada until the 1980's or 1960s, depending what documents you read.

Upper Canada, as it was called back then, still had some slaves when the British abolished slavery in 1833. So Canada still had slaves and it was still legal to have slaves until 1833.

rwm1273 · #**175** 02-27-2014, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ali#1

We'll it was both to serve in public office and to have a vote.

Nope, wrong again. You may want to read Edwards v. Canada (Attorney General), since this was the case that the famous five brought to court, and it was specifically about rights to be appointed to the senate, specifically Emily Murphy.

ali#1 · #**176** 02-27-2014, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwm1273

Wrong again.

Canada still had black segregated schools in Canada until the 1980's or 1960s, depending what documents you read.

Upper Canada, as it was called back then, still had some slaves when the British abolished slavery in 1833. So Canada still had slaves and it was still legal to have slaves until 1833.

Canada hasn't been great on black people or Japanese either with internet camps for that matter, or natives with residential schools but I'd say our record is better than our neighbour to the south.

Sundancefisher · #**177** 02-27-2014, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by covey ridge

Baking cake.... not essential

Medical attention...essentail

You totally miss the point. Who makes the arbitrary decision as to what is exempt from religious bigotry and who makes the decision as to what is important to a religion to let them cry exemption?

Anyone can make a religion these days. Jehovah's claim exemption from blood transfusions. Is that abuse of a child that needs it or it a fair exemption? Do we only let Christians decide the law or are Muslims, Jewish, Hindu, scientologists get to decide?

rwm1273 · #**178** 02-27-2014, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whammy

I'm not misunderstanding it. It's very clear to almost everyone what the issue is.

No, you are fixated on just one particular issue.

I don't disagree that this is a major issue, but not the only issue.

ali#1 · #**179** 02-27-2014, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwm1273

Nope, wrong again. You may want to read Edwards v. Canada (Attorney General), since this was the case that the famous five brought to court, and it was specifically about rights to be appointed to the senate, specifically Emily Murphy.

Women gained the right to vote one province at a time around the same time. I still don't see what this had to do with anything though ?

rwm1273 · #**180** 02-27-2014, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ali#1

Who is ever forced to hire anybody ? If they receive a resume they can easily put it in the recycle bin, after an interview they can decide to hire somebody else. Nobody is forced to hire anybody with or without this law.

Your right, but what tends to get these groups in trouble is they are too honest and explain why they won't hire certain people.