Arizona Senate Passes Bill Allowing Business Owners To Refuse Service To Gays

[bendog]

We love blacks muslims and Mexicans ... so long as they aren't queer. (-:

 

[JohnA]

It reminds me of white only and black only bathrooms. That didn't survive in the 50's in the south--and as the decades have long now passed we are a much better country for being inclusive of "everyone"--regardless of race.

I lived in Mississippi in 1969 and the restrooms were segregated. So was school from the 12th to the 4th grade.

Gays do not "choose" to be gay. There is no man or woman that wakes up one morning and decides to have sex with the same sex.

Human sexuality is as complicated as humans are but it's completely different than race. Segregation laws were illegal because not all people were treated the same under the law. Unless a man is having sex with his male partner at the restaurant table the issue wouldn't come up. Homosexuality isn't a rece or gender no matter how hard the propagandists try to make it so.

funny you say gays dont * CHOOSE * pedifiles say the same thing so do those who indulge in incest

 

[bendog]

Equating gays with rapists again. (sigh)

As to the topic, personally I'd be more inclined to buy something at a bakery that had a sign "we gladly serve all people, so long as they have shirts and shoes on" (pants or dresses go without saying) (-:

 

[bendog]

It reminds me of white only and black only bathrooms. That didn't survive in the 50's in the south--and as the decades have long now passed we are a much better country for being inclusive of "everyone"--regardless of race.

I lived in Mississippi in 1969 and the restrooms were segregated. So was school from the 12th to the 4th grade.

Gays do not "choose" to be gay. There is no man or woman that wakes up one morning and decides to have sex with the same sex.

Human sexuality is as complicated as humans are but it's completely different than race. Segregation laws were illegal because not all people were treated the same under the law. Unless a man is having sex with his male partner at the restaurant table the issue wouldn't come up. Homosexuality isn't a rece or gender no matter how hard the propagandists try to make it so.

So, Anti-miscegenation laws were ok?

 

[JohnA]

Equating gays with rapists again. (sigh)

As to the topic, personally I'd be more inclined to buy something at a bakery that had a sign "we gladly serve all people, so long as they have shirts and shoes on" (pants or dresses go without saying) (-:

so you would shop at a place where a guy was wearing a dress ?? women wear pants anyway

 

[JohnA]

It reminds me of white only and black only bathrooms. That didn't survive in the 50's in the south--and as the decades have long now passed we are a much better country for being inclusive of "everyone"--regardless of race.

I lived in Mississippi in 1969 and the restrooms were segregated. So was school from the 12th to the 4th grade.

Gays do not "choose" to be gay. There is no man or woman that wakes up one morning and decides to have sex with the same sex.

Human sexuality is as complicated as humans are but it's completely different than race. Segregation laws were illegal because not all people were treated the same under the law. Unless a man is having sex with his male partner at the restaurant table the issue wouldn't come up. Homosexuality isn't a rece or gender no matter how hard the propagandists try to make it so.

So, Anti-miscegenation laws were ok?

being gay is NOT a right under the constitution either

 

[WorldWatcher]

It does not, stop lying.

It does, actually. If you get in a cab with a case of beer, the Muslim driver can refuse you service because alcohol is against his religion.

"We refuse service to infidels". That is basically the objection to making a cake for gays, right?

Well, that objection has many, many applications.

In a Muslim country, yes. In the U.S. he will lose his license, unless one of the beers is open.

Not under this law. A muslim can cite religious reasons for refusing a customer and be fully within the law. He would contact his dispatcher and tell them to send another cab and company would have to do that. But they couldn't fire him nor would the cab licensing board be able to suspend his professional license.


(Not the "open container" comment as that is against the law, speaking to the original premise that the customer was just carrying a case of beer.)

>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

It depends on what service it is. If a gay couple walk into a bakery and want to buy two dozen chocolate chip cookies it is wrong to refuse to serve them. If they want a personal service like a wedding cake, the baker should be allowed to refuse the service. That's a personal service. Since we don't allow slavery, anyone should be allowed to refuse to perform personal services at any time.

It's not up to the People to accommodate the discriminatory whims of a business. It's up to the business to accommodate the non-discriminatory laws of the land,

or get out of that business.

It's a special order, everyone should have the right to refuse a special order, for whatever reason. What if they are too busy and don't have enough decorators or bakers?

If you refuse an order because they don't have enough decorators or bakers that is a perfectly valid reason and not based on race, religion, ethnicity, gender, etc.



>>>>>

 

[dblack]

It's not up to the People to accommodate the discriminatory whims of a business. It's up to the business to accommodate the non-discriminatory laws of the land,

or get out of that business.

It's a special order, everyone should have the right to refuse a special order, for whatever reason. What if they are too busy and don't have enough decorators or bakers?

If you refuse an order because they don't have enough decorators or bakers that is a perfectly valid reason and not based on race, religion, ethnicity, gender, etc.



>>>>>

Should customers be allowed to avoid shopping at a store based on the race, religion, ethnicity, gender, etc. of the store owner?

 

[WorldWatcher]

It's a special order, everyone should have the right to refuse a special order, for whatever reason. What if they are too busy and don't have enough decorators or bakers?

If you refuse an order because they don't have enough decorators or bakers that is a perfectly valid reason and not based on race, religion, ethnicity, gender, etc.



>>>>>

Should customers be allowed to avoid shopping at a store based on the race, religion, ethnicity, gender, etc. of the store owner?

Is the intent of your question to ask me about what the law "should be" or the way the law "actually is"?

In my world private businesses would not be subject to Public Accommodation laws and would be able to refuse service based on their own criteria whether that be race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, gender, etc... If an employee discriminated, then an employer would have grounds for termination for failure to perform required duties. "Public Accommodation" laws would only apply to government entities, government employees would be restricted on discriminating against tax payers and government entities would be restricted from entering into contracts with private businesses that practiced discrimination.

The reality is though that Federal Public Accommodation laws have been found Constitutional and under the 10th Amendment States can regulate commerce within that State.


>>>>

 

[bendog]

I lived in Mississippi in 1969 and the restrooms were segregated. So was school from the 12th to the 4th grade.
Human sexuality is as complicated as humans are but it's completely different than race. Segregation laws were illegal because not all people were treated the same under the law. Unless a man is having sex with his male partner at the restaurant table the issue wouldn't come up. Homosexuality isn't a rece or gender no matter how hard the propagandists try to make it so.

So, Anti-miscegenation laws were ok?

being gay is NOT a right under the constitution either

the freedom to marry outside one's race is not explicitly in the consititution. In fact, that was Scalia's question in DOMA. When does this right to marry come into existence?

It's a constitutional right to not have a state treat a gay marriage differently than a straigjht. You lost, get over it.

As to whether a private biz must trade with a gay person .... I don't see a legal reason why they should. Rather, I think biz's who refuse should be outed, ridiculed, boycotted, and people who continue to trade with them should be likewise treated.

 

[bendog]

I lived in Mississippi in 1969 and the restrooms were segregated. So was school from the 12th to the 4th grade.
Human sexuality is as complicated as humans are but it's completely different than race. Segregation laws were illegal because not all people were treated the same under the law. Unless a man is having sex with his male partner at the restaurant table the issue wouldn't come up. Homosexuality isn't a rece or gender no matter how hard the propagandists try to make it so.

So, Anti-miscegenation laws were ok?

being gay is NOT a right under the constitution either

the freedom to marry outside one's race is not explicitly in the consititution. In fact, that was Scalia's question in DOMA. When does this right to marry come into existence? The Answer: when the Court says so.

It's a constitutional right to not have a state treat a gay marriage differently than a straigjht. You lost, get over it.

As to whether a private biz must trade with a gay person .... I don't see a legal reason why they should. Rather, I think biz's who refuse should be outed, ridiculed, boycotted, and people who continue to trade with them should be likewise treated.

 

[Uncensored2008]

They'll never get it past Title 9.

Besides, how the hell would anyone know who is, or isn't gay?

 

[Immanuel]

If a liberal doesn't like something it should be illegal for everyone. If they like something, it should be legal for everyone.

As far a the civil rights spin, relationships aren't people. Refusing service to a person is one thing, (which should be your right anyway) but refusing service to a relationship is another. Can a racist make a black bakery owner produce a Rebel Flag cake?

Only one change should be made to your post.

"If a liberal doesn't like something it should be illegal for everyone. If they like something, it should be forced upon everyone."

 

[WorldWatcher]

They'll never get it past Title 9.

Besides, how the hell would anyone know who is, or isn't gay?

When you go to a printer and ask for wedding invitations and the announcement says "Joan Smith and Jane Davis wish to invite you to their wedding" - that would be a hint.

When you go to a baker and ask for wedding cake want the figures on top to both be male - that would be a hint.

When you go to the County Clerk's office for a wedding license and spouses are both named Edward - that would be a hint.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

They'll never get it past Title 9.

Besides, how the hell would anyone know who is, or isn't gay?

Um...two men wanting a wedding cake for themselves? Two women applying to adopt kids? Two men wanting a photographer to photograph their "wedding"? Two women wanting their "wedding" catered?

 

[Uncensored2008]

They'll never get it past Title 9.

Besides, how the hell would anyone know who is, or isn't gay?

When you go to a printer and ask for wedding invitations and the announcement says "Joan Smith and Jane Davis wish to invite you to their wedding" - that would be a hint.

When you go to a baker and ask for wedding cake want the figures on top to both be male - that would be a hint.

When you go to the County Clerk's office for a wedding license and spouses are both named Edward - that would be a hint.



>>>>

Fair point.

 

[g5000]

It reminds me of white only and black only bathrooms. That didn't survive in the 50's in the south--and as the decades have long now passed we are a much better country for being inclusive of "everyone"--regardless of race.

I lived in Mississippi in 1969 and the restrooms were segregated. So was school from the 12th to the 4th grade.

Gays do not "choose" to be gay. There is no man or woman that wakes up one morning and decides to have sex with the same sex.

Human sexuality is as complicated as humans are but it's completely different than race. Segregation laws were illegal because not all people were treated the same under the law. Unless a man is having sex with his male partner at the restaurant table the issue wouldn't come up. Homosexuality isn't a rece or gender no matter how hard the propagandists try to make it so.

funny you say gays dont * CHOOSE * pedifiles say the same thing so do those who indulge in incest

But we can show that pedophilia and incest, in the aggregate, are socially harmful activities.

You cannot demonstrate the same for two adult guys smoking each other's poles.

 

[g5000]

Equating gays with rapists again. (sigh)

As to the topic, personally I'd be more inclined to buy something at a bakery that had a sign "we gladly serve all people, so long as they have shirts and shoes on" (pants or dresses go without saying) (-:

so you would shop at a place where a guy was wearing a dress ??

One of my favorite comedians is Eddie Izzard.

 

[Silhouette]

But we can show that pedophilia and incest, in the aggregate, are socially harmful activities.

You cannot demonstrate the same for two adult guys smoking each other's poles.

Unless you're talking about Harvey Milk, gay icon and "embodiement of the LGBT movement across the nation and the word" [as legally defined in California].

He liked to sodomize orphaned teen homeless boys who were addicted to drugs and mentally unstable. One at least was a documented minor for years while this was going on. Milk officiated as that boy's father/guardian as well. That crosses the line, and yet they still defend him. 60+ LGBT groups in full knowledge of Milk's "sexual preference" from the US, Mexico and Canada petitioned tirelessly to have the Harvey Milk postage stamp issued this year. Here's his creepy lurker mug with the rainbow "USA" at the top: