Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
This is ridiculous, how do you know someone is gay? My friend and I have taken trips together and if we get a suite with a king bed for the same price as a regular room with 2 beds, we take the suite every time. What if they think we're lesbians? This is just stupid.
The Law gives the business owner discretion.
I do not believe that the typical business owner is going to refuse service to anyone unless he believes that the majority of patrons dislike whatever is it that you are doing.
Economics will prevent merchants from arbitrarily enforcing this right.
.
So give 'em the right to refuse service for french kissing in public. You can't make a law against something that you don't know unless they tell or show you.
I think another state passed something similar to this last week so this must be a trend that is catching on. I agree with this bill that if you are a business owner and believe in and live by your faith that you should be able to refuse service to whoever you want.
Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays
Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays
You thread title and the article title are incorrect, the bill allows for a business to refuse service to anyone, which means:
Service can be refused to races
Service can be refused to other religions
Service can be refused to interracial couples
Service can be refused to women (or men)
Service can be refused to divorcees
Service can be refused basically to anyone, not just the gays
All the person has to do is claim "a sincerely held religious belief", and as the law is written it doesn't even need to be dogma within a major religion - it is the individuals belief. From the law ""Exercise of religion" means the practice or observance of religion, including the ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief."
Arizona SB1062
>>>>
I can't wait until it goes to court
I think another state passed something similar to this last week so this must be a trend that is catching on. I agree with this bill that if you are a business owner and believe in and live by your faith that you should be able to refuse service to whoever you want.
Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays
Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays
You thread title and the article title are incorrect, the bill allows for a business to refuse service to anyone, which means:
Service can be refused to races
Service can be refused to other religions
Service can be refused to interracial couples
Service can be refused to women (or men)
Service can be refused to divorcees
Service can be refused basically to anyone, not just the gays
All the person has to do is claim "a sincerely held religious belief", and as the law is written it doesn't even need to be dogma within a major religion - it is the individuals belief. From the law ""Exercise of religion" means the practice or observance of religion, including the ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief."
Arizona SB1062
>>>>
Do you have a compulsive need to misrepresent everything? The language of this bill is all but identical to the federal RFRA, and only a few whackadoodles have argued that that somehow allows people to discriminate against anyone they want.
I can't wait until it goes to court
Why would it go to court?
it violates the 1964 civil rights act?
No it doesn't. How many restaurants or businesses have you ever been in that had a sign that read "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone!"? I've been in tons of them all over. It should be up to me who I want to serve and who I do not, the making of a profit is on me and only me. America is about freedom, let people choose who they choose to associate with, not forced.
Steve i believe that sign comes with certain rules and stipulations.......
they have the right to refuse service to anyone so they are able to get rid of guests who cause problems. This allows them to ask guests who are disturbing others to leave. They can ask anyone to leave if they see a reason for it.
but they can't discriminate based on race, sex, nationality, religion, etc. of the patron.
Why is that?
Why can't the KKK Bar nor the Black Panther Saloon decide who is going to patronize their respective joints ?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!!?
.
it violates the 1964 civil rights act?
No it doesn't. How many restaurants or businesses have you ever been in that had a sign that read "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone!"? I've been in tons of them all over. It should be up to me who I want to serve and who I do not, the making of a profit is on me and only me. America is about freedom, let people choose who they choose to associate with, not forced.
You can pretend your business has the right to refuse service to a person of color, but you don't.
It is against the law and that law has been upheld as constitutional.
The fact that we even have a law, or debate the legailty of freedom of association is pathetic in a supposedly free country. A business owner, in any state, for any reason, should be allowed to determine who they will provide services to.
But, LOLberals just love the idea of forcing people to do what they believe is right.
it is not as cut and dry as you make it sound.
You will have towns in America where blacks will either have to move, travel long distances for goods and services, or die of starvation.
Yes, we are a free people. But "people" must include all of us. If it doesn't, then we will have groups of people that are not free.
No it doesn't. How many restaurants or businesses have you ever been in that had a sign that read "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone!"? I've been in tons of them all over. It should be up to me who I want to serve and who I do not, the making of a profit is on me and only me. America is about freedom, let people choose who they choose to associate with, not forced.
You can pretend your business has the right to refuse service to a person of color, but you don't.
It is against the law and that law has been upheld as constitutional.
Arizona is like our really dumb older brother who keeps getting pinched for the same thing.
State law cannot supersede federal law.
This issue has been decided and put to bed already.
I think another state passed something similar to this last week so this must be a trend that is catching on. I agree with this bill that if you are a business owner and believe in and live by your faith that you should be able to refuse service to whoever you want.
Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays
Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays
I don't agree with wording the language to target gays, blacks, Jews etc.
I agree with the "freedom of association" idea to keep it NONSPECIFIC; or maybe advise business owners in how to advertise their focus to form an agreement with the community where these limits are understood and respected.
====================
I once made the mistake of bringing a "male feminist" to an all women's group, and he had to be escorted out. The founder explained because there were rape victims in the group, some could only handle being in the company of women, so the group was restricted for their protection to come in anytime and know they would feel safe. So there was a process where he was pulled aside so this could be explained diplomatically. Why can't all groups be that way? Why can't we train people to respect that people have preferences and limits.
==================================
Another case where I thought the wording should be NONSPECIFIC:
The policy change executed directly by Mayor Parker in Houston was to extend city employee benefits to recognize same sex marriage partners the same as heterosexual marriage partners.
In order not to impose either pro-gay or anti-gay agenda in public policy,
the wording should be VOTED on where it is NEUTRAL, such as allowing city employees
to designate ONE beneficiary adult and maybe TWO children/minors/dependents.
So that way it isn't targeting any group bias or label or excluding any.
Just ONE adult/independent beneficiary and up to TWO dependents such as children, elderly, etc. who can be added to one's insurance policy, without specifying.
NOTE: if this does not work, maybe this shows why insurance should remain PRIVATE and not through employers or govt if it causes imposition of either progay or antigay.
The market is open for insurance companies who want to recognize partners
or leave the beneficiary open to whomever the buyer WANTS to add to their policy.
If you can make this work, go for it. But quit forcing it under govt to begin with,
and then trying to legislate from there. Keep it private and we don't have this problem.
(TEXT OF BILL BEGINS ON NEXT PAGE)
[FONT="]
[/FONT] Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
Section 1. Section 41-1493, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:
41-1493. Definitions
In this article, unless the context otherwise requires:
1. "Demonstrates" means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion.
2. "Exercise of religion" means the practice or observance of religion, including the ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief.
3. "Government" includes this state and any agency or political subdivision of this state.
4. "Nonreligious assembly or institution" includes all membership organizations, theaters, cultural centers, dance halls, fraternal orders, amphitheaters and places of public assembly regardless of size that a government or political subdivision allows to meet in a zoning district by code or ordinance or by practice.
5. "Person" includes a religious assembly or institution any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution or other business organization.
6. "Political subdivision" includes any county, city, including a charter city, town, school district, municipal corporation or special district, any board, commission or agency of a county, city, including a charter city, town, school district, municipal corporation or special district or any other local public agency.
7. "Religion‑neutral zoning standards":
(a) Means numerically definable standards such as maximum occupancy codes, height restrictions, setbacks, fire codes, parking space requirements, sewer capacity limitations and traffic congestion limitations.
(b) Does not include:
(i) Synergy with uses that a government holds as more desirable.
(ii) The ability to raise tax revenues.
8. "Suitable alternate property" means a financially feasible property considering the person's revenue sources and other financial obligations with respect to the person's exercise of religion and with relation to spending that is in the same zoning district or in a contiguous area that the person finds acceptable for conducting the person's religious mission and that is large enough to fully accommodate the current and projected seating capacity requirements of the person in a manner that the person deems suitable for the person's religious mission.
9. "Unreasonable burden" means that a person is prevented from using the person's property in a manner that the person finds satisfactory to fulfill the person's religious mission.
Sec. 2. Section 41-1493.01, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:
41-1493.01. Free exercise of religion protected; definition
A. Free exercise of religion is a fundamental right that applies in this state even if laws, rules or other government actions are facially neutral.
B. Except as provided in subsection C, government of this section, state action shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.
C. Government State action may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it the government or nongovernmental person seeking the enforcement of state action demonstrates that application of the burden to the person person's exercise of religion in this particular instance is both:
1. In furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.
2. The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
D. A person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding, and obtain appropriate relief against a government regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceeding.
E. A person that asserts a violation of this section must establish all of the following:
1. That the person's action or refusal to act is motivated by a religious belief.
2. That the person's religious belief is sincerely held.
3. That the state action substantially burdens the exercise of the person's religious beliefs.
F. The person asserting a claim or defense under subsection D of this section may obtain injunctive and declaratory relief. A party who prevails in any action to enforce this article against a government shall recover attorney fees and costs.
E. G. In For the purposes of this section, the term substantially burden is intended solely to ensure that this article is not triggered by trivial, technical or de minimis infractions.
H. For the purposes of this section, "state action" means any action, except for the requirements prescribed by section 41-1493.04, by the government or the implementation or application of any law, including state and local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and policies, whether statutory or otherwise, and whether the implementation or application is made by the government or nongovernmental persons.
Civil rights act does not cover discrimination because of BEHAVIOR... gay is not a race or a sex..
Speaking from a legal aspect, sure it does. Religion is a BEHAVIOR... religion is not a race or a sex...
>>>>
I think another state passed something similar to this last week so this must be a trend that is catching on. I agree with this bill that if you are a business owner and believe in and live by your faith that you should be able to refuse service to whoever you want.
Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays
Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays
This is ridiculous, how do you know someone is gay? My friend and I have taken trips together and if we get a suite with a king bed for the same price as a regular room with 2 beds, we take the suite every time. What if they think we're lesbians? This is just stupid.
The Law gives the business owner discretion.
I do not believe that the typical business owner is going to refuse service to anyone unless he believes that the majority of patrons dislike whatever is it that you are doing.
Economics will prevent merchants from arbitrarily enforcing this right.
.
I can't wait until it goes to court
It might teach you progressive idiots that there are actual limits on what the government can do.
I think another state passed something similar to this last week so this must be a trend that is catching on. I agree with this bill that if you are a business owner and believe in and live by your faith that you should be able to refuse service to whoever you want.
Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays
Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays
This is ridiculous, how do you know someone is gay? My friend and I have taken trips together and if we get a suite with a king bed for the same price as a regular room with 2 beds, we take the suite every time. What if they think we're lesbians? This is just stupid.
The bill allows a business owner to refuse service to anyone, not just gays, and they just have to site their own personal religiously held beliefs. The proposed laws specifically says those beliefs to not have to coincide with major established religious doctrine.
>>>>
it violates the 1964 civil rights act?
No it doesn't. How many restaurants or businesses have you ever been in that had a sign that read "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone!"? I've been in tons of them all over. It should be up to me who I want to serve and who I do not, the making of a profit is on me and only me. America is about freedom, let people choose who they choose to associate with, not forced.
Steve i believe that sign comes with certain rules and stipulations.......
they have the right to refuse service to anyone so they are able to get rid of guests who cause problems. This allows them to ask guests who are disturbing others to leave. They can ask anyone to leave if they see a reason for it.
but they can't discriminate based on race, sex, nationality, religion, etc. of the patron.
Civil rights act does not cover discrimination because of BEHAVIOR... gay is not a race or a sex..
Speaking from a legal aspect, sure it does. Religion is a BEHAVIOR... religion is not a race or a sex...
>>>>
Unless i am wearing some kind of sign about what religion I am how can anyone discriminate against me based on my religion?
You thread title and the article title are incorrect, the bill allows for a business to refuse service to anyone, which means:All the person has to do is claim "a sincerely held religious belief", and as the law is written it doesn't even need to be dogma within a major religion - it is the individuals belief. From the law ""Exercise of religion" means the practice or observance of religion, including the ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief."Service can be refused to races
Service can be refused to other religions
Service can be refused to interracial couples
Service can be refused to women (or men)
Service can be refused to divorcees
Service can be refused basically to anyone, not just the gays
Arizona SB1062
>>>>
Do you have a compulsive need to misrepresent everything? The language of this bill is all but identical to the federal RFRA, and only a few whackadoodles have argued that that somehow allows people to discriminate against anyone they want.
The link to the bill is in the post, please show us where the exemption to discriminate (which applies only to the individuals religious beliefs) is limited to the application of those religious beliefs against gays.
Thank you.
>>>>
D. A person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding, and obtain appropriate relief against a government regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceeding.
E. A person that asserts a violation of this section must establish all of the following:
1. That the person's action or refusal to act is motivated by a religious belief.
2. That the person's religious belief is sincerely held.
3. That the state action substantially burdens the exercise of the person's religious beliefs.
F. The person asserting a claim or defense under subsection D of this section may obtain injunctive and declaratory relief. A party who prevails in any action to enforce this article against a government shall recover attorney fees and costs.
This is ridiculous, how do you know someone is gay? My friend and I have taken trips together and if we get a suite with a king bed for the same price as a regular room with 2 beds, we take the suite every time. What if they think we're lesbians? This is just stupid.
The bill allows a business owner to refuse service to anyone, not just gays, and they just have to site their own personal religiously held beliefs. The proposed laws specifically says those beliefs to not have to coincide with major established religious doctrine.
>>>>
It does not, stop lying.
Do you have a compulsive need to misrepresent everything? The language of this bill is all but identical to the federal RFRA, and only a few whackadoodles have argued that that somehow allows people to discriminate against anyone they want.
The link to the bill is in the post, please show us where the exemption to discriminate (which applies only to the individuals religious beliefs) is limited to the application of those religious beliefs against gays.
Thank you.
>>>>
No problem.
D. A person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding, and obtain appropriate relief against a government regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceeding.
E. A person that asserts a violation of this section must establish all of the following:
1. That the person's action or refusal to act is motivated by a religious belief.
2. That the person's religious belief is sincerely held.
3. That the state action substantially burdens the exercise of the person's religious beliefs.
F. The person asserting a claim or defense under subsection D of this section may obtain injunctive and declaratory relief. A party who prevails in any action to enforce this article against a government shall recover attorney fees and costs.
You are the one that claims he is all about the law as it is applied, show me one example of any case that allows people to discriminate against people based on their race and claim that it is religiously motivated.
Alternatively, you could argue that, as a hack, you just make things up as you go along.
