Queerty is better as a member
That’s AWESOME! I’m glad the response has been positive. He took a risky position, not having waited to see what the public temperature is on this issue. Rocco has guts and solid values.
I’m against any discremination ! And Rocco has no rights to do that !!! Sorry.
You just know conservatives are gonna b&#ch that he’s discriminating against their discrimination like it’s logical.
@Stefano: Clearly your mother & father were brother & sister.
THANK YOU, sir, for your support and display of fellowship!
@Stefano: I don’t think legislators are a protected class.
@Respect4all : no need to be a protected class to be discrimated !!! Come on ! If i’m white and straight i can’t be discriminated ? That’s what you are saying ?
Finally, discrimination done right :D
@Stefano: You’re really not the brightest bulb.
@Respect4all: okay. Remove the white pointed hood already.
@Respect4all: sry. That was meant for Stefano.
@Fawkes @Harley : you can think what ever you want, i don’t care ! And continue your name calling, that’s all you can do because you have no arguments.
Maybe you need to learn a new word…heterophobia. A woman in France was attact by two gays guys because she was against gay marriage.
Sorry…”a woman has been attacked in France…”
@Stefano: No, what I’m saying is that you don’t know anything about discrimination and civil rights law and you don’t know what “protected class” means. A “protected class” is a specific identity that is included in an anti-discrimination law. In the U.S. and in all states and local areas, I believe, these include race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, national origin, etc. If someone believes he/she has been discriminated against on the basis of one of these factors, he/she can bring a discrimination lawsuit against the person who has discriminated against him/her. In about 20 states and some other towns and cities, sexual orientation is a protected class. However in the other 30 states, and on the federal level, it is not a protected class. That means that if someone refuses to hire a gay person or rent him/her an apartment, there is no basis for a lawsuit. If you believe you are the victim of discrimination because you are white, you can sue because race is a protected class. If the discrimination is because you are straight, your right to sue depends on whether sexual orientation is a protected class in the place where the discrimination took place. Getting back to your original error and my correction: Rocco’s DOES have the right to do that because state legislators are not a protected class. Do you understand now? There, you’ve learned something today……. You’re welcome.
@Stefano: How awful for her.
Now then–shall we talk about the vast number of gay guys who have been attacked and worse in France for simply breathing, let alone trying to marry? Or is that bit of irony beyond your capacity to understand?
DON`T YOU BELIEVE IT GUYS! I am in Tucson, that is mostly Democrat. But we still have dose who think they are whiter then me. The enemy of the world are the WHITE CHRISTIAN REPUBLICAN.
Wish I was in Arizona, I’d head right over to Rocco’s and get a few pizzas
Any business owner who feels strongly about state governments trying to set back LGBT progress to equal rights should seriously consider similarly worded (why just legislators, how about homophobes in general, would that work or just invite violence?) signs in their places of business.
Stefano is what you call a “hit and run” troll.
Heterophobia of gays is so pathetic.
Wait—wait—wait . . .
It’s okay to discriminate against someone (i.e., AZ legislators) in a pizzeria, but it’s not okay to discriminate against us in bakeries? What kind of double-standard horseshit is this? For those so blinded by their ideology that they can’t see their own hypocrisy, send me your address and I’ll mail you a quarter so you can buy a clue.
@Stefano: Your wording may be a bit ham-handed, but your point is valid. Discrimination is discrimination—we can’t pick and choose who we will or won’t discriminate against (and those who do are deserving of being on the receiving end).
@BJ McFrisky: Retaliation is not a double standard.
I know, I know, you have this fixation that liberals try to be “kumbaya” and “tolerant” all the time, so when we aren’t, you gleefully point the finger at “hypocrisy.” Meanwhile conservatives are SUPPOSED to be hateful and intolerant all the time – in fact being intolerant is their defining characteristic, their “raison d’etre” – so by this imaginary standard, conservatives can’t ever be called hypocritical. Talk about a double standard!
At any rate, the retaliation in this case is rather tongue-in-cheek. Are anti-gay state senators so recognizable that the Rocco’s staff will immediately know who they are?
SPOT ON. And I thank you all for the support you give under the notion of “good moral practices and human decency to are fellow men. The republications that live in “GLASS HOUSES” I have a load of bricks for you.
It’s Tucson, not Tuscon. *facepalm*
@Stefano: You’re really, really not the brightest bulb.
@the other Greg: I fully understand that it’s virtually impossible to discriminate against a legislator (unless they’re wearing a badge that identifies them as such), but yes, it IS a double standard. To state, “I reserve the right to refuse you service because of how you vote in the state legislature” is absolutely tantamount to saying, “I reserve the right to refuse you service because of who you fuck in your bedroom.”
Failure to recognize this as such is pure arrogance and ignorance, and will only serve to keep us in the back of the bus.
@BJ McFrisky: Yes – it IS exactly the same, and so what?
Even if it were a double standard in the past (debatable), it won’t be now because the legislators have made it legally allowable to do it.
The legislators are the ones making a NEW law to make such discrimination totally okay where it wasn’t before. Rocco’s and the gays didn’t have the power to do that, but now that it’s done (unless the gov vetoes it) they have the right to “benefit” from the law just like anybody else.
If Jan Brewer and her GOP thugs continue to deny rights to ANY persons that they decide to toss out ANYWHERE for reasons they like then I think Rocco has the right NOT to serve members of the Legislature. This is HIS business. Too much pussy footing around this topic. If people like Brewer can continue to use her power (lol) to discriminate then the good people of AZ should continusously barrage her with emails, calls and letters to let her know that this is the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Sorry,@the other Greg: I’m on your side, but it’s not exactly the same. See my previous comment (if Queerty doesn’t block if for some ridiculous reason). And it’s not a law yet; the governor has not yet signed it.
Are people really so dimwitted that they don’t recognize political satire when it’s right in front of them?
You don’t seriously think that the pizzeria intends to enforce the very discrimination they object to, do you? Really??
Sometimes I’m still incredulous at the level of stupidity on the internet. My only hope is that these are trolls dropping by rather than actual, thinking, living, gay people.
Idiots are exhausting.
Qur’an (5:51) – “O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.”
There is real danger in allowing the religious to discriminate. If such a bill passes, do not be surprised to find Christians banned from businesses with alternate religious leanings.
Often laws are used in ways that were never foreseen by the authors. Perhaps Arizona is about to get an education in these subjects.
my neighbor’s mother-in-law makes $75 /hour on the internet . She has been out of a job for nine months but last month her income was $18167 just working on the internet for a few hours. browse around this website………. http://x.co/3x3ap
@Stefano: STEFANO, GO FUCK YOURSELF; You sound like you are a Catholic.
@christineisalesbian: We do We do, going to Rocco`s to support hem in anyway we can.
Just playing devil’s advocate here, while i don’t think it should be law, i kind of like the idea of knowing upfront which establishments don’t want my “gay money”,
i think if they just had stickers that said “no gays” (or inter racial unions, denominational, etc) it would show them pretty quickly the power of our and our ally’s spending. For now, gay weddings is just a subset of overall weddings, but i bet there are straight people who would want to get their wedding services from inclusive vendors.
For better or worse, the basis of our capitalist society is choice of business and i think we could vote with our dollars who to support.
@HereinNYC: We all have the right to decide how, where and if we spend our money, but that decision should not be made for us.
Need an account? Register It's free and easy.
PHOTOS: Party Down With The DILFS In Sydney
PHOTOS: Luring London Lads Take Miami And It's Just Beyond
PHOTOS: Looking Back At 16 Glorious Years Of The Santa Speedo Run
PHOTOS: Get Goosed Inside D.C.'s Newest Gay Bar
PHOTOS: Gibus Club In Paris Is All About Hot Guys And Hip Hop Music