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

[Quantum Windbag]

Yep

Yep

Yep

Not "forced", it's her job.

And no, but I am.

Wow. I'm stunned. You collectivist types really have zero respect for the concept of private property. Just wow.

Oh we do. We also understand the concept of public accommodation. Those laws have been found Constitutional. If you want to exclude people from your business, you have to make it truly private...as in membership like the BSA or country clubs.

Which reminds me, the governing council on all things collective just declared that homeless people have a civil right to access your bedroom, bathroom, and kitchen. You, being an upright collectivist, are herewith ordered to post a sign on your front door announcing this to the world, and to never lock your house.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Oh we do. We also understand the concept of public accommodation. Those laws have been found Constitutional. If you want to exclude people from your business, you have to make it truly private...as in membership like the BSA or country clubs.

Found Constitutional by Progressive assholes with no respect for the concept of private property. Yea, I get that.

We're just going to have to disagree on this one. I see absolutely no reason that the owner of a private business shouldn't be free to refuse service. What next? "No shirt, no shoes, no service" going to be outlawed? Does a fancy restaurant have to seat a guy in his underwear?

...

Are you calling the people that wrote and passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 progressive assholes too?

No, but the idiots that think we still need it are.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Did anyone else notice this?

Okay, we know the reason the bill wasn't signed was big business didn't want to lose money BUT among the Big Businesses against the signing was Marriott.

Marriott is owned by a mormon. Mormons sometimes say they're "Christian".

So, the question is, did Marriott object to the bill because of Christian morals? The Constitution? Or, was he motivated by the P&L of his his company?

Did anyone get that business responded to he invisible hand of the market, the same one you say cannot be trusted to get to the right place?

Pretty much everyone but you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The KKK is not a protected class. If someone operating a business open to the public and discriminates against an individual KKK member stating it is because he is white, then yes, then he would be in violation of the law.

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.

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 don't think businesses have records?


>>>>

You do realize that you completely misrepresented the impact of SB 1062, don't you? Until you are willing to admit you were wrong, publicly, and explain why you were wrong, you really shouldn't lecture anyone else on the law. It makes you look like a hack.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

When did you become the single person that knows enough about religion to trump everyone else on the planet?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

For the sake o argument, let's assume you are right. You still have a problem, I can quote actual gay people who say the same thing that I do. Unless you aree willing to dismiss them as homophobic bigots, which would make you look like a complete idiot, you have to come up with an argument that deals with their objections that is based on something other than, "I am not a homophobe."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

What I believe or you believe or Joe Blow believes is irrelevant.. the freedom for each of us to believe it, act upon it, and not be forced into participating in or condoning being a part of it is the issue... and that freedom should not be squashed by authoritarian overreaching government

So if I don't want to serve blacks, I can post a sign in the window saying: "We don't serve Blacks"? Or "Blacks must sit in the back of the restaurant"?

Feel free.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The part that stomped all over private property rights, yes.

You should tell that to your fellow conservatives - they get all puffy and proud (well, pre-this month) as they like to so often announce how if it wasn't for 'publicans, yanno, the Civil Rights Act never would have passed!!

It's a real point of pride for them. Well, it used to be.

Sometimes they would even throw in a "Did you know MLK was a republican! ."

One, I'm not a conservative.

Two, every point save one of the CRA was indeed a good law. PUBLIC property should definitely not be segregated. I (and the Conservatives) agree with that.

What I don't agree with is the section that forces private property owners to relinquish their rights for certain groups of people (I want to say it was Title II of the CRA). While I would NEVER agree to support such an establishment and would be the first to boycott, picket or otherwise shame them out of business, I maintain it's the right of a private property owner to be an asshole. What changes that is market forces and hitting them in the pocket book, not PC bullshit laws that are the epitome of the a slippery slope...as we're seeing today.

I want to address the specific issue you have raised in the last paragraph.

At the time the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed we had had 80 years of government mandated racism because the Supreme Court said that the 14th Amendment did not give Congress the power to pass laws prohibiting state laws on segregation because that power was outside the enumerated powers of the Constitution. Frankly, that was probably the single stupidest thing the Supreme Court ruled, even if I wish they would apply that same standard to more things today.

That, coupled with the fact that public accommodations, which were narrowly defined at the time, were actually few and far between, raised the very real possibility that someone could freeze to death, or starve, because they were unable to get shelter or food. That doesn't actually make the law right, but I do want to point out that it is possible make a pretty good case for needing it.

The real problem comes from the fact that, once the law existed, it got bigger. That slippery slope/camel's nose thing came into play, and the government intruded more and more into areas they have no business even thinking about, much less actually regulating.

 

[Contumacious]

You should tell that to your fellow conservatives - they get all puffy and proud (well, pre-this month) as they like to so often announce how if it wasn't for 'publicans, yanno, the Civil Rights Act never would have passed!!

It's a real point of pride for them. Well, it used to be.

Sometimes they would even throw in a "Did you know MLK was a republican! ."

One, I'm not a conservative.

Two, every point save one of the CRA was indeed a good law. PUBLIC property should definitely not be segregated. I (and the Conservatives) agree with that.

What I don't agree with is the section that forces private property owners to relinquish their rights for certain groups of people (I want to say it was Title II of the CRA). While I would NEVER agree to support such an establishment and would be the first to boycott, picket or otherwise shame them out of business, I maintain it's the right of a private property owner to be an asshole. What changes that is market forces and hitting them in the pocket book, not PC bullshit laws that are the epitome of the a slippery slope...as we're seeing today.

I want to address the specific issue you have raised in the last paragraph.

At the time the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed we had had 80 years of government mandated racism because the Supreme Court said that the 14th Amendment did not give Congress the power to pass laws prohibiting state laws on segregation because that power was outside the enumerated powers of the Constitution. Frankly, that was probably the single stupidest thing the Supreme Court ruled, even if I wish they would apply that same standard to more things today.

Yo Vern,

was the Fourteenth Amendment lawfully ratified?

.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

In some states they can be prosecuted for claiming to be married.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.



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.

What case law do you have to back that up?

Try to avoid the one case that was actually rescinded by federal law when you come up with something.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

The Supreme Court disagrees, what they have said is that, although it can be a significant burden on religion, that burden is outweighed by other factors.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

One, I'm not a conservative.

Two, every point save one of the CRA was indeed a good law. PUBLIC property should definitely not be segregated. I (and the Conservatives) agree with that.

What I don't agree with is the section that forces private property owners to relinquish their rights for certain groups of people (I want to say it was Title II of the CRA). While I would NEVER agree to support such an establishment and would be the first to boycott, picket or otherwise shame them out of business, I maintain it's the right of a private property owner to be an asshole. What changes that is market forces and hitting them in the pocket book, not PC bullshit laws that are the epitome of the a slippery slope...as we're seeing today.

I want to address the specific issue you have raised in the last paragraph.

At the time the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed we had had 80 years of government mandated racism because the Supreme Court said that the 14th Amendment did not give Congress the power to pass laws prohibiting state laws on segregation because that power was outside the enumerated powers of the Constitution. Frankly, that was probably the single stupidest thing the Supreme Court ruled, even if I wish they would apply that same standard to more things today.

Yo Vern,

was the Fourteenth Amendment lawfully ratified?

.

Irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[WorldWatcher]

By the ay, did you know that California is one of the states that has one of these "anti-gay" laws in place, and that it was signed by Jerry Brown just 2 years ago?

The bill passed by the California Legislature and signed by Jerry Brown two years ago was the commonly known as the California Workplace Non-discrimination Act or formally known as "AB 1964, Yamada. Discrimination in employment: reasonable accommodations." or "An act to amend Sections 12926 and 12940 of the Government Code, relating to employment." Signed into law by the Governor on September 8, 2012.

The laws were (Arizona and California) are fundamentally different.

The California law deals with employment practices and has nothing to do with Public Accommodation laws. On the other hand the Arizona law was created specifically in response to court cases in other States (New Mexico, Oregon, and Colorado) where same-sex couples filed complaints under the Public Accommodation laws of those States after their Public Accommodations were changed to include sexual orientation.

However in Arizona homosexuals have no such protection because Arizona has not passed legislation which prohibits discrimination against homosexuals. In other words it's already OK to discriminate against the gays. I business is not required to provide equal goods and services to homosexuals. (Hell, Arizona employment law doesn't cover homosexuals so it's OK to fire someone just for being gay.)


http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billSearchClient.xhtml
Search for 1964 for the 2011-2012 session.


>>>>

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

How is government using guns to force someone to bake a cake something that could be done in a free country?

Speaking of guns someone that goes by the 10 Commandments where one is "Thou shall Not Kill" can claim it is against their "religious freedom" to serve people carrying guns.
Don't you feel just a little bit silly defending this vague and ridiculous law that assumes there are people out there having their "religious freedom" denied when in fact THEY AREN'T?

A kid was rude to his parents in the fast food restaurant so they deny service to the kid. Religious freedom.

Again, amazing educated folks buy into this nonsense.

I actually agree it's not right to grant a religious exemption to this law - but do you at least see how the overreaching legal principles behind public accommodations laws are driving this?

There’s nothing ‘overreaching’ about the legal principles that are the foundation of public accommodations laws; Commerce Clause jurisprudence authorizes sound and warranted regulatory policies appropriate for a modern, 21st Century economy. It’s naïve, reactionary nonsense to argue otherwise.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

By the ay, did you know that California is one of the states that has one of these "anti-gay" laws in place, and that it was signed by Jerry Brown just 2 years ago?

The bill passed by the California Legislature and signed by Jerry Brown two years ago was the commonly known as the California Workplace Non-discrimination Act or formally known as "AB 1964, Yamada. Discrimination in employment: reasonable accommodations." or "An act to amend Sections 12926 and 12940 of the Government Code, relating to employment." Signed into law by the Governor on September 8, 2012.

The laws were (Arizona and California) are fundamentally different.

The California law deals with employment practices and has nothing to do with Public Accommodation laws. On the other hand the Arizona law was created specifically in response to court cases in other States (New Mexico, Oregon, and Colorado) where same-sex couples filed complaints under the Public Accommodation laws of those States after their Public Accommodations were changed to include sexual orientation.

However in Arizona homosexuals have no such protection because Arizona has not passed legislation which prohibits discrimination against homosexuals. In other words it's already OK to discriminate against the gays. I business is not required to provide equal goods and services to homosexuals. (Hell, Arizona employment law doesn't cover homosexuals so it's OK to fire someone just for being gay.)


Bill Search
Search for 1964 for the 2011-2012 session.


>>>>

Tell me something, how are they fundamentally different when both are designed solely to protect the freedom of religion? Is it because you have been wrong about the Arizona law, and refuse to admit it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Speaking of guns someone that goes by the 10 Commandments where one is "Thou shall Not Kill" can claim it is against their "religious freedom" to serve people carrying guns.
Don't you feel just a little bit silly defending this vague and ridiculous law that assumes there are people out there having their "religious freedom" denied when in fact THEY AREN'T?

A kid was rude to his parents in the fast food restaurant so they deny service to the kid. Religious freedom.

Again, amazing educated folks buy into this nonsense.

I actually agree it's not right to grant a religious exemption to this law - but do you at least see how the overreaching legal principles behind public accommodations laws are driving this?

There’s nothing ‘overreaching’ about the legal principles that are the foundation of public accommodations laws; Commerce Clause jurisprudence authorizes sound and warranted regulatory policies appropriate for a modern, 21st Century economy. It’s naïve, reactionary nonsense to argue otherwise.

What is naive is assuming that you know what you are talking about.

 

[Mertex]

Wow. Just keep saying the same godamn thing and it becomes true, huh? There ARE examples where gays have piled on if you did not provide a service against your wishes. One I know of happened 10+ years ago in Seattle, long before gay marriage existed here. It could be that they were trying to head it off at the pass since these things have happened. Yes, you are participating in it if you are printing homosexual wedding invitations, cakes, posters, whatever.

It's time we take the country back from the tyranical left.

You conveniently didn't respond to my post. Why aren't you upset by people that make a mockery out of marriage, like Rush Limbaugh?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/8699848-post2013.html

 

[The T]

Wow. Just keep saying the same godamn thing and it becomes true, huh? There ARE examples where gays have piled on if you did not provide a service against your wishes. One I know of happened 10+ years ago in Seattle, long before gay marriage existed here. It could be that they were trying to head it off at the pass since these things have happened. Yes, you are participating in it if you are printing homosexual wedding invitations, cakes, posters, whatever.

It's time we take the country back from the tyranical left.

You conveniently didn't respond to my post. Why aren't you upset by people that make a mockery out of marriage, like Rush Limbaugh?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/8699848-post2013.html

The ONLY ones making a mockery of it are the LEFT. Rush is married you DOLT.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Wow. Just keep saying the same godamn thing and it becomes true, huh? There ARE examples where gays have piled on if you did not provide a service against your wishes. One I know of happened 10+ years ago in Seattle, long before gay marriage existed here. It could be that they were trying to head it off at the pass since these things have happened. Yes, you are participating in it if you are printing homosexual wedding invitations, cakes, posters, whatever.

It's time we take the country back from the tyranical left.

You conveniently didn't respond to my post. Why aren't you upset by people that make a mockery out of marriage, like Rush Limbaugh?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/8699848-post2013.html

The ONLY ones making a mockery of it are the LEFT. Rush is married you DOLT.

Well that's true, Rush is very committed to marriage - I mean hell, he's done it four times. The good news is he believes in marriage more than divorce, married four times but only divorced three.


Nope no mockery there.


>>>>