I'm going to invoke Godwin's law because the AZ legislation necessitates it.

[Skidmore]

The following thread gelled something my husband and I were talking about in regard to the discrimination against gays and whomever they could add to the list of people the good Christian folk of AZ deem unworthy to associate with lest they loose their purity:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024567411

Our discussion last night centered around the very question of how could one tell if the person they were denying service to were gay or not. You can't, unless you have some sort of identifying mark or paperwork forced on someone to make them comply with being discriminated against. Hitler's yellow star of David and other badges served this purpose identifying the Jews and any other unclean individuals, including homosexuals, for imprisonment and death. The ultimate sanctions for not being pure enough then was by far worse than not being served a meal or some service by a business, although if applied in the harshest manner, this would put a person beyond the ability to engage in trade or find living quarters or hold a job.

Now, my guess is that Brewer will not sign the law, but I do want to emphatically state that not a single one of us is beyond having a label slapped on us by the righteous. In this slow march toward establishing our own very special form of theocracy, the right amazingly is behaving in exactly the same manner that fundamentalists fear so much would be directed toward them with that New World Order and the roll out of the real life production of the Book of Revelations. Self-fulfilling prophecies of the religiously insane and the charlatans who pick their pockets.

Shutting down a law is one thing but there comes a time when the forces behind the law must be called out for what they are. In my mind, these people have the same sensibilities as Nazis and seek to impose a state that enshrines there sense of righteous purity within the law. This cannot be tolerated because crossing the line with these laws endangers all of us. What I see in front of us is as ugly as anything devised in the bowels of the Third Reich and tiptoeing around with niceties of language only discounts the vicious intent of these people. No one has denied anyone the right to their religion. We do have a right to speak out when that practice interferes with society at large and when it seeks to use the law to terrorize anyone else deemed not worthy.

[Cleita]

1. K&R

[former9thward]

2. I don't think you know how Goodwin's law works.

The first person to raise the Nazis in an argument loses. You just lost.

[Skidmore]

4. I know and my point was that we all lose if

we don't push back on this mindset.

[Jackpine Radical]

5. Nope.

That's Godwin's Law.

I don't have a clue about Goodwin and any laws.

[former9thward]

6. I just spelled it like the OP did in the Headline.

Interesting that did not seem to grab your attention.

[Jackpine Radical]

7. I saw them both but was only motivated to comment when

I saw the apparent error repeated.

Doe that make me a Spelling Nazi?

[former9thward]

9. Yes, I''m sure that was the reason....

[okaawhatever]

12. Godwin's law of grammar. nt

[Skidmore]

8. Sorry for the typo. Corrected.

[okaawhatever]

13. I believe it is you who ,misunderstands. From wiki:

Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies[1][2]) is an assertion made by American attorney and author Mike Godwin in 1990[2] that has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."[2][3] In other words, Godwin said that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably makes a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis.

There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself)[3] than others.[1] For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.[7] This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law. It is considered poor form to raise such a comparison arbitrarily with the motive of ending the thread. There is a widely recognized corollary that any such ulterior-motive invocation of Godwin's law will be unsuccessful.

Also known as: Reductio ad Hitlerum

[former9thward]

15. I understand it well.

You don't. Sad.

[JoeyT]

17. That's not actually how it works either.

All Godwin's law states is that as a discussion goes on, the likelihood of someone being compared to Hitler or Nazis gradually increases until it becomes a near certainty. It doesn't say anything about winning or losing.

[former9thward]

18. No.

Godwin’s Law is an internet adage that is derived from one of the earliest bits of Usenet wisdoms, which goes “if you mention Adolf Hitler or Nazis within a discussion thread, you’ve automatically ended whatever discussion you were taking part in.”

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/godwins-law

I'd say that is losing. Maybe you have a different definition.

[arcane1]

3. That does seem to be a sort of loophole in the law.

Race and religion are protected at the federal level. But with this law, you can discriminate based on race or religion, and just claim you discriminated because you thought the person was gay. That's how I read it, anyway.

[LanternWaste]

10. Does anyone (other than the under-educated) place any credibility in Godwin's law?

Does anyone (other than the under-educated, the sub-literate or the uber-trendy) actually place *any* credibility in Godwin's law in the first place?

When the comparison or the analogy or the contrast is valid, forget about damnable internet memes-- critical thought is enough!!!

[Bluenorthwest]

11. But straight folks should still feel comforatable praising anti gay clerics like Francis.

That hate speech never amounts to anything, it's just good times fun.

[npk]

14. This is not what the law is for

It's not about kicking a gay person out of a bar or restaurant. This is about denying services to openly gay individuals and then preventing those said individuals from being able to file a law suit. Like in the case of the wedding cake baker who didn't want to bake and design a cake for an openly gay couple.

This isn't about preventing every gay person from patronizing an establishment, just the openly gay individuals who want a business owner to recognize that they are gay and have a right to be treated equally. What the hell is so wrong with wanting to be treated with equal rights, nothing. It's all about power and influence nag the religious right feel they are losing both.

[freshwest]

16. Well said. n/t