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

[Cecilie1200]

Because having a team named Redskins hasn't kept them from making money......hosting the NFL in a town that discriminates and most likely will experience boycuts, cuts down on their money-making.....it's a big deal and some in Arizona are finally seeing the light....I think Brewer is, if not, she may be dumber than she appears.

They won't boycott the Super Bowl.

You can't be sure of that, and the NFL wouldn't want to take that chance....

Yeah, I can be sure of that. Do you know how many people go to the Super Bowl, and how many are dying to but can't get a ticket? If you think that somehow, the stadium is going to have empty seats on Super Bowl Sunday because some homosexuals got their feelings hurt, you're delusional beyond the hope of modern medicine.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's more a matter of "Gays can form any relationships they want. What they can't do is demand that everyone respect their relationships." If you don't consider your relationship to be valid and existing without recognition from other people, that sounds remarkably like a personal issue you need to take up with your therapist.

Yes, and I say the exact same thing about my heterosexual marriage. My wife and I had our 25th year anniversary in November. We have two beautiful daughters. We were married by the minister in my wife's church with both our families present. Whether government validates our relationship with a piece of paper means absolutely zero to me. I don't stay because I have one and I would not leave if I didn't.

Exactly! I simply do not understand the mindset of "Government is refusing to endorse my relationship, therefore government is telling me I cannot HAVE the relationship." The government doesn't endorse a lot of what I do and think and feel, and I can't say it's ever really crossed my mind that it should, or that I should care.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's more a matter of "Gays can form any relationships they want. What they can't do is demand that everyone respect their relationships." If you don't consider your relationship to be valid and existing without recognition from other people, that sounds remarkably like a personal issue you need to take up with your therapist.

Yes, and I say the exact same thing about my heterosexual marriage. My wife and I had our 25th year anniversary in November. We have two beautiful daughters. We were married by the minister in my wife's church with both our families present. Whether government validates our relationship with a piece of paper means absolutely zero to me. I don't stay because I have one and I would not leave if I didn't.

Well, I think that's the point. So long as the secular govt treats their "marriages" exactly the same as theirs, and they are free to obtain any religious blessing any church wishes to offer ... they're as happy as anyone else.

You're right, that IS the point. Why do they need the approval of anyone else to be happy?

Oh, and who the **** ever stopped them from collecting the blessings of whatever church chooses to offer them? When was THAT ever prohibited?

 

[TooTall]

Sorry folks, what it boils down with most of you is that you do not like gay folks having the same rights as straight folks.
You believe homosexuality is wrong and those people are perverts.

I can't speak for others, but your assessment most certainly does not apply to me.

I don't believe anyone group should have more rights than any other. I don't not pass any judgement about right or wrong on any consensual activity between adults. I do not consider homosexuals to be perverts.

But again, that does not mean I don't respect the rights of private property and how important that is to a functioning Republic.

Now, if you want gay people to have the same rights to marry as straight people, I argue we should get the government the hell out of the marriage business and to stop granting any special privileges whatsoever to ANY particular group. That way, anyone could marry anyone they like. Problem solved.

Government has no business knowing, regulating or otherwise meddling with personal relationships with the possible exception of those in military service.

You can't get a marriage license to marry your sister. Are you sure you want the state to allow that?

 

[eflatminor]

Sorry folks, what it boils down with most of you is that you do not like gay folks having the same rights as straight folks.
You believe homosexuality is wrong and those people are perverts.

I can't speak for others, but your assessment most certainly does not apply to me.

I don't believe anyone group should have more rights than any other. I don't not pass any judgement about right or wrong on any consensual activity between adults. I do not consider homosexuals to be perverts.

But again, that does not mean I don't respect the rights of private property and how important that is to a functioning Republic.

Now, if you want gay people to have the same rights to marry as straight people, I argue we should get the government the hell out of the marriage business and to stop granting any special privileges whatsoever to ANY particular group. That way, anyone could marry anyone they like. Problem solved.

Government has no business knowing, regulating or otherwise meddling with personal relationships with the possible exception of those in military service.

You can't get a marriage license to marry your sister. Are you sure you want the state to allow that?

Are they both adults? Then they're free to call themselves married. Freedom of speech and all. I really don't give a shit.

The point is, you shouldn't need a license. Think about it. Without government running the market for marriage, anyone could call themselves married and it wouldn't make a bit of difference.

It's not like the institution of marriage needs government support or oversight. Marriage has been around a lot longer than any government and it isn't going anywhere. There's no need to meddle in it with the force of law.

Now if two people want to enter into a contract together, that's what the civil courts are for. What they call that contractual relationship should be up to them, not lawmakers.

 

[Cecilie1200]

This ahere is what we call retarded.

We're all one race. you go with that freakbait.

Actually leftard, we ARE all of a single race. What we learned from the human genome project is that the very concept of race in humans is false, a fabricated construct.

RACE - The Power of an Illusion . Background Readings | PBS

Well howdy how.

Does that mean you and your ilk and the Rushbabies will stop calling Obama a Halfrican?

Let's work on the US Census next, K?

When he stops making his Presidency about his skin color, we'll stop mentioning it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You just said exactly the OPPOSITE of what she said. Because the KKK is a political organization (you realize the KKK is not a race, religion, ethnicity, gender, etc. - right?) it is not protected under Public Accommodation laws that restrict owners from discriminating based on race, religion, ethnicity, gender, etc.

As such a black business owner is free to turn down a catering job because they are a political organization, he is not free to turn them down because they are white.

Wrong. By her reasoning, if the Black forest turns down the KKK gig by stating it's because they're a WHITE supremacists group, that's illegal. That's what she said. Nothing about politics, but race...which is a protected class.

Point is there should be NO class protected over any other class, IMO.

Now if the KKK were to file a complaint with the appropriate agency, that agency will do an investigation. They will look at the group and they will look at the business - if the business. The business will say "No I didn't turn them down because they were white, here is a list of all my catering jobs over the last 2 years. As you will notice I routinly cater to white customers so that claim is false." Based on that evidence alone (that the owner supplies THE SAME catering service to white customers) the investigation would be closed and the case dismissed.


Sorry, the KKK thing is just stupid. You think businesses have records?

Doesn't matter. The proof is in the pudding. That Christian baker that was forced to service the gay wedding had done MANY gay events. Had PLENTY of gay customers...as their records showed. But when the gay wedding emerged, which conflicted with their protected status of religion, the PC police ruled in favor of the gay community.

Oh what a slippery slope.

How is baking a cake for a wedding against someone's religion?

It isn't.

 

[Uncensored2008]

How is baking a cake for a wedding against someone's religion?

There is a barbeque place near me that is superb. I stumbled across is because there was a 55 gallon drum outside of this place that smelled heavenly.

My wife and I went inside, and a black gentleman about our age greeted up. This guy could talk the way my wife talks, ie non-stop. He gave us samples of his food and was not only supremely knowledgeable about the process, but obviously and rightfully proud of what he made. We ended up chatting with the guy for 45 minutes, about kids, grand kids, dogs, cooking, you name it. What I mean is this is a truly good man.

If a person walked in with a full Klan clown costume on, should this man be forced to serve him? Why or why not?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Okay then, by your reasoning, a Black owned florist cannot refuse to service a meeting of the KKK if he tells the truth and states "because they're a hateful white supremacist group". If he udders such a thing, he must either provide his service to the KKK or close his business.

That's some logic there.

You just said exactly the OPPOSITE of what she said. Because the KKK is a political organization (you realize the KKK is not a race, religion, ethnicity, gender, etc. - right?) it is not protected under Public Accommodation laws that restrict owners from discriminating based on race, religion, ethnicity, gender, etc.

As such a black business owner is free to turn down a catering job because they are a political organization, he is not free to turn them down because they are white.

Wrong. By her reasoning, if the Black forest turns down the KKK gig by stating it's because they're a WHITE supremacists group, that's illegal. That's what she said. Nothing about politics, but race...which is a protected class.

Point is there should be NO class protected over any other class, IMO.

Now if the KKK were to file a complaint with the appropriate agency, that agency will do an investigation. They will look at the group and they will look at the business - if the business. The business will say "No I didn't turn them down because they were white, here is a list of all my catering jobs over the last 2 years. As you will notice I routinly cater to white customers so that claim is false." Based on that evidence alone (that the owner supplies THE SAME catering service to white customers) the investigation would be closed and the case dismissed.


Sorry, the KKK thing is just stupid. You think businesses have records?

Doesn't matter. The proof is in the pudding. That Christian baker that was forced to service the gay wedding had done MANY gay events. Had PLENTY of gay customers...as their records showed. But when the gay wedding emerged, which conflicted with their protected status of religion, the PC police ruled in favor of the gay community.

Oh what a slippery slope.

Ignorant nonsense.

Public accommodations laws don't "violate" any one's religious liberty.

 

[rightwinger]

I love these butthurt....I don't have to serve gays laws

It is an acknowledgement from the right that they have lost the gay marriage debate. All they have left is ......You may get married but I won't serve you if you do

It was tried in Jim Crow and it didn't work then either

 

[Cecilie1200]

Because the Constitution doesn't allow for gender based discrimination.

No, see, you can't change the words around to suit the LGBT cult's agenda. The Constitution doesn't allow discrimination based on gender, NOT "gender based discrimination".

Behaviors vs race, gender or religion. The act of wanting to marry someone of the same gender is a behavior, not a race, gender or religion.

You've read Windsor of June 2013 where the US Supreme Court brought up Loving v Virgina and Found anyway that gays were "only allowed" to marry "in some states" as of the close of that Decision?

There's your sign on how they view the behaviors petitioning them for equality as "race, gender or religion". Religion is the one that comes the closest though. Talk about evangelizing. They've made worship of their messiah/pedophlie an indoctrinated law in California. The kids there have to worship him in school no less each May.

Whether you call it "discrimination based on gender" or "gender based discrimination," it still amounts to a person being denied equal protection "based on the gender" of the person they choose to marry. It also deprives them of the liberty they are guaranteed by the Constitution.

Learn the difference between "discriminated against because I'm a woman" and "discriminated against because I like to **** women".

 

[Cecilie1200]

When 'Religious Liberty' Was Used To Justify Racism Instead Of Homophobia | ThinkProgress

God Of The Segregationists
Theodore Bilbo was one of Mississippi’s great demagogues. After two non-consecutive terms as governor, Bilbo won a U.S. Senate seat campaigning against “farmer murderers, corrupters of Southern womanhood, [skunks] who steal Gideon Bibles from hotel rooms” and a host of other, equally colorful foes. In a year where just 47 Mississippi voters cast a ballot for a communist candidate, Bilbo railed against a looming communist takeover of the state — and offered himself up as the solution to this red onslaught.
Bilbo was also a virulent racist. “I call on every red-blooded white man to use any means to keep the n[*]ggers away from the polls,” Bilbo proclaimed during his successful reelection campaign in 1946. He was a proud member of the Ku Klux Klan, telling Meet the Press that same year that “[n]o man can leave the Klan. He takes an oath not to do that. Once a Ku Klux, always a Ku Klux.” During a filibuster of an anti-lynching bill, Bilbo claimed that the bill will open the floodgates of hell in the South. Raping, mobbing, lynching, race riots, and crime will be increased a thousandfold; and upon your garments and the garments of those who are responsible for the passage of the measure will be the blood of the raped and outraged daughters of Dixie, as well as the blood of the perpetrators of these crimes that the red-blooded Anglo-Saxon White Southern men will not tolerate.

For Senator Bilbo, however, racism was more that just an ideology, it was a sincerely held religious belief. In a book entitled Take Your Choice: Separation or Mongrelization, Bilbo wrote that “[p]urity of race is a gift of God . . . . And God, in his infinite wisdom, has so ordained it that when man destroys his racial purity, it can never be redeemed.” Allowing “the blood of the races [to] mix,” according to Bilbo, was a direct attack on the “Divine plan of God.” There “is every reason to believe that miscengenation and amalgamation are sins of man in direct defiance to the will of God."

Sound familiar?

Yeah, we hear dipshit leftist sites quoted as though they're valuable and relevant all the time. You're not a unique snowflake in the "dumbfuck waste of time" department around here. Hope that doesn't disappoint you.

 

[Mertex]

I have been married for almost 38 years.
How does gay marriage affect my marriage?
Or ANY heterosexual marriage?

How would it effect your marriage if three, four or a dozen people could marry? I don't know but it changes the definition of marriage and means they can't define their own culture if it's against the popular view.

And the definition of marriage means what to you?

How about people that marry, divorce, remarry, divorce, remarry, divorce, remarry.....don't they affect your definition of marriage? Why aren't you against remarriage?

 

[Cecilie1200]

If I as a "Small Business Owner" in Arizona, and had this hateful bill become law saw a person with a cross around the neck, I would have the right to refuse service to them based on their attire.

If I owned a resturant in Arizona and saw people praying before a meal, I could (and would) throw them out because I would have the right to refuse them because they are engaging in a practice I DO NOT BElEIVE IN.

You guys keep citing scenarios like this as though it's some kind of trump card, like it's going to cause everyone arguing for freedom of conscience to stop and think, "Gee, I guess we were wrong." You clearly aren't getting what is being debated here.

I guess you just assume that everyone arguing for this law, or against public accommodations laws, is a bigot who wants to oppress people they don't like. That's really missing the boat.

Personally, I'm very reluctant to side with homophobes, bigots, racists, etc..., or to associate with them in any way. But our freedoms are always attacked this way, nipped away at the edges, targeting unpopular minorities and beliefs. And if we fail to stand up for freedom when it produces distasteful results, it won't be there when we need it.

That's pretty much it. The only protection MY freedoms have from those who disagree with me is my willingness to defend freedoms for those I disagree with.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Learn the difference between "discriminated against because I'm a woman" and "discriminated against because I like to **** women".

I applied to be a towel attendant at a local spa in the women's locker room. They turned me down because I am a man.

Should I be outraged?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Learn the difference between "discriminated against because I'm a woman" and "discriminated against because I like to **** women".

I applied to be a towel attendant at a local spa in the women's locker room. They turned me down because I am a man.

Should I be outraged?

A man and a woman meet in an elevator. "Where are you heading today?" the man asks.
"I'm going to the second floor to give blood."
"How much do you get paid for that?"
"$20" she says.
"Wow," says the man, "I'm going to the fourth floor to donate sperm, and they pay $100."
The woman sighs and gets off on floor two.
The next day, the man and woman meet in the elevator again.
"Fancy meeting you again. Where you off to today?" he asks.
She holds up four fingers with her mouth full.

Sometimes you just have to be what they need and life can be unfair.

 

[eflatminor]

You just said exactly the OPPOSITE of what she said. Because the KKK is a political organization (you realize the KKK is not a race, religion, ethnicity, gender, etc. - right?) it is not protected under Public Accommodation laws that restrict owners from discriminating based on race, religion, ethnicity, gender, etc.

As such a black business owner is free to turn down a catering job because they are a political organization, he is not free to turn them down because they are white.

Wrong. By her reasoning, if the Black forest turns down the KKK gig by stating it's because they're a WHITE supremacists group, that's illegal. That's what she said. Nothing about politics, but race...which is a protected class.

Point is there should be NO class protected over any other class, IMO.

Now if the KKK were to file a complaint with the appropriate agency, that agency will do an investigation. They will look at the group and they will look at the business - if the business. The business will say "No I didn't turn them down because they were white, here is a list of all my catering jobs over the last 2 years. As you will notice I routinly cater to white customers so that claim is false." Based on that evidence alone (that the owner supplies THE SAME catering service to white customers) the investigation would be closed and the case dismissed.


Sorry, the KKK thing is just stupid. You think businesses have records?

Doesn't matter. The proof is in the pudding. That Christian baker that was forced to service the gay wedding had done MANY gay events. Had PLENTY of gay customers...as their records showed. But when the gay wedding emerged, which conflicted with their protected status of religion, the PC police ruled in favor of the gay community.

Oh what a slippery slope.

Ignorant nonsense.

Public accommodations laws don't "violate" any one's religious liberty.

Plenty of people, including that baker in New Mexico, would disagree.

I suppose you're fine with a gay owned caterer being forced by law to service a Westboro Baptist Church event. After all, if public accommodation laws don't violate any protect class, be it religion, race or sexual orientation.

 

[Silhouette]

I applied to be a towel attendant at a local spa in the women's locker room. They turned me down because I am a man.

Should I be outraged?

Yes, according to the clearest interpretation of the doctrine of the church of LGBT, you should be suing them by now.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I applied to be a towel attendant at a local spa in the women's locker room. They turned me down because I am a man.

Should I be outraged?

Yes, according to the clearest interpretation of the doctrine of the church of LGBT, you should be suing them by now.

You can always sue, but can you win?

 

[Gadawg73]

Heterosexual marriages end over 50% of the time in divorce.
Great tradition that is.