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

[JakeStarkey]

Only if you assume that my bakery is the only one withing 1000 miles. As I recall you specifically proved me right about that when you tried to tell me that Tyler only has one theater.

I said no such thing. I told you Tyler had several theatres.

I corrected your error with several other examples, including Jasper, Center, and Kirbyville for starters.

Lying will not improve your lack of cred.

That is gone on the Board, forever.

That was funny.

That you lied about Tyler?

And you cite a sports' writer from the Times.?

Oh, you are so easy to toy with.

 

[1751_Texan]

The courts are committing no crimes on the issue of marriage equality.

If legislators would follow the Constitution, then the courts would not have to intervene.

We are not a Jacksonian majoritarian democracy.

Regulation of marriage is not an enumerated power. That means that, by definition, the states are following the Constitution when they regulate it, even if they regulate it in a way you don't like.

that is incorrect on many levels. Firstly, eventhough is in not an emumerated right does not negate it as a right.

1) Marriage pre-dates the US Constitution as a right. Marriage did not need to be enumerate just as the right to self-defense was not needed to be listed.

2) Because it is not enumerated does not mean that he 9th amendment does not apply.

3) lastly, the US Supreme Court distinguised marriage as a right in thier opinion ruling in Loving v Virginia.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

CJ Warren

Replace "race" with gender in this SC opinion and what is the difference?

 

[Uncensored2008]

I am a Christian.
A Christian that would never question your or anyone else's religious beliefs.
Because I follow the teachings of Jesus.
Unlike many of the so called Christians here.

You just proved yourself to be a liar.

You just proved yourself not a Christian.

Which isn't questioning anyone's religious beliefs...

 

[DriftingSand]

Seven mothers-in-law? Insanity at that level should be treated.

Insane topic diversons and point deflections like PMH's should be treated.

How do you feel about polygamy PaintMyHouse? Should it be as legitimately legalized as gay marriage?

Good question. I see no rational arguments against it, as long as everyone is an adult. You certainly can't use the Bible to argue against it in this case.

It will cause problems however, since we haven't even made it fully to just two adults yet. One step at a time eh?

Then you have no problem with a brother marrying his sister or a father marrying his "adult" (18 or older) daughter? (As long as they're both consenting adults -- of course).

 

[DriftingSand]

Our principles are to not allow religious influence in government.
ALL your views on homosexuality are based on religious beliefs.
That is not what a conservative is. The tradition of this country has always been to follow THE LAW, not religious beliefs.

If a "principle" is good then it SHOULD be allowed to influence the direction of governments.

My views on homosexuality are partially based in Scripture but also in basic common sense and observation. The male/female "plumbing" doesn't change just because I'm a Christian. Christian or not ... it's clear to me that a man was/is meant to mate with a woman.

The "law" of this land was based on the tenets and beliefs of this land's Christian founders. Certainly you don't believe that a bunch of Christians would form a government that would be anti-Christian -- do you?

Who decides what is "good" as a "principle"?
You, me, your preacher, my preacher, GOVERNMENT?
Refer to the Constitution for that answer.
NO one's religious beliefs or principles are to be dominant.
THE LAW is what rules, not changing like the wind various religious beliefs.

For me (a Christian) the Bible defines what is right and wrong. Laws change -- even our Constitutional laws but the Word of God remains steadfast and true (unless you buy one of the "New" versions which are full of distortions).

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Insane topic diversons and point deflections like PMH's should be treated.

How do you feel about polygamy PaintMyHouse? Should it be as legitimately legalized as gay marriage?

Good question. I see no rational arguments against it, as long as everyone is an adult. You certainly can't use the Bible to argue against it in this case.

It will cause problems however, since we haven't even made it fully to just two adults yet. One step at a time eh?

Then you have no problem with a brother marrying his sister or a father marrying his "adult" (18 or older) daughter? (As long as they're both consenting adults -- of course).

There are two arguments that can be made against it, one is somewhat rational and one isn't. The somewhat rational one is that reproduction between close relatives does carry a higher risk of genetic defects and congenital deformity. It's not nearly as high as people tend to think but it's still a factor, however if they don't or can't have children that goes away completely. The other argument is the irrational one, the Ick Factor as in That's Icky. That doesn't hold water.

So, am I happy about it? No, I personally find it rather icky as well, but there really is no good reason to ban it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The courts are committing no crimes on the issue of marriage equality.

If legislators would follow the Constitution, then the courts would not have to intervene.

We are not a Jacksonian majoritarian democracy.

Regulation of marriage is not an enumerated power. That means that, by definition, the states are following the Constitution when they regulate it, even if they regulate it in a way you don't like.

that is incorrect on many levels. Firstly, eventhough is in not an emumerated right does not negate it as a right.

1) Marriage pre-dates the US Constitution as a right. Marriage did not need to be enumerate just as the right to self-defense was not needed to be listed.

2) Because it is not enumerated does not mean that he 9th amendment does not apply.

3) lastly, the US Supreme Court distinguised marriage as a right in thier opinion ruling in Loving v Virginia.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

CJ Warren

Replace "race" with gender in this SC opinion and what is the difference?

Damn, another idiot that cannot read.

Tell you what, go back and show me where I mentioned rights in my post, then you can tell me what I got wring in saying that the federal government has no authority to regulate marriage.

 

[Bumberclyde]

Regulation of marriage is not an enumerated power. That means that, by definition, the states are following the Constitution when they regulate it, even if they regulate it in a way you don't like.

that is incorrect on many levels. Firstly, eventhough is in not an emumerated right does not negate it as a right.

1) Marriage pre-dates the US Constitution as a right. Marriage did not need to be enumerate just as the right to self-defense was not needed to be listed.

2) Because it is not enumerated does not mean that he 9th amendment does not apply.

3) lastly, the US Supreme Court distinguised marriage as a right in thier opinion ruling in Loving v Virginia.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

CJ Warren

Replace "race" with gender in this SC opinion and what is the difference?

Damn, another idiot that cannot read.

Tell you what, go back and show me where I mentioned rights in my post, then you can tell me what I got wring in saying that the federal government has no authority to regulate marriage.

Is that why everyone has to fill out forms to get married? I even had to have a government official authorize my marriage to a foreigner. So in fact, the government has been regulating marriage forever.

 

[Gadawg73]

Unless you are going to argue that the law is Gawd you cannot argue that your source of support is the law. If you were half as smart as you think I am that would be obvious because, using the law, I can argue that cops can shoot unarmed people simply because they don't have a Taser.

Damn, I was wrong about you.
How many posts have you made and read here and other threads on gay marriage?
And you do not even know the basics of the law.
How many courts have now ruled against states that ban gay marriage under what QW?
UNCONSTITUTIONAL ring a bell there ole boy?
Do I have to also tell what part of the United States Constitution they are citing in their rulings striking down all these state bans?
The latest round of suits are headed by Republicans and the lead plaintiff is an Army Major.
Excuse me but I figured you were up to speed on the law.
But I love reading your comical claims about the myths you stutter about the law.

Again, this thread is not about marriage, it is about freedom.

That said, more states say that it is illegal to marry someone of the same sex than say it isn't. If, as you claim, your support is the law, you are still wrong.

After you deal with that, feel free to point out where I said anything about any of the lawsuits.

I do support the law of each state.
And I support the legal challenges against those statutes that are then proven unconstitutional based ON THE LAW.
Legislatures can pass all the laws they want to but once again, if they are not CONSTITUTIONAL then that law is null and void.
Amazing you still do not understand that the United States Constitution is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.
Again, tell us what IN THE CONSTITUTION are the FEDERAL courts using to over turn state laws banning gay marriage.
Yes, it is about freedom, FREEDOM OF GAY FOLKS TO MARRY.

 

[Andylusion]

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

>>>>

Is freedom of religion a fundamental right of the people, or not?

 

[Gadawg73]

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

>>>>

Is freedom of religion a fundamental right of the people, or not?

As long as that freedom does not step on the freedom of someone else.

 

[Andylusion]

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

>>>>

Is freedom of religion a fundamental right of the people, or not?

As long as that freedom does not step on the freedom of someone else.

There is no 'right to use my service'. There is no constitutional right to force me to sell my services to you.

What freedom do you think you have that I am infringing by not selling to you?

Just reverse the conversation, and see how it falls apart. If conducting trade (trading goods and services to each other), is a fundamental right.... can the seller also demand that buyers be forced to buy?

I'm a white male Christian Fundamentalist, and I sell lawn mowing services, to fund my Christian Evangelism. I demand you buy my service.

You *MUST* buy my service, or you are violating my economic rights.

Of course that's crazy. You are not required to fund anyone, and nor should I be required to service anyone.

I have just as much right to demand you buy or sell to me, as you have a right demand I buy and sell from you. Which of course is zero.... there is no "right" to demand people engage in trade with you, or me.

 

[Gadawg73]

Is freedom of religion a fundamental right of the people, or not?

As long as that freedom does not step on the freedom of someone else.

There is no 'right to use my service'. There is no constitutional right to force me to sell my services to you.

What freedom do you think you have that I am infringing by not selling to you?

Just reverse the conversation, and see how it falls apart. If conducting trade (trading goods and services to each other), is a fundamental right.... can the seller also demand that buyers be forced to buy?

I'm a white male Christian Fundamentalist, and I sell lawn mowing services, to fund my Christian Evangelism. I demand you buy my service.

You *MUST* buy my service, or you are violating my economic rights.

Of course that's crazy. You are not required to fund anyone, and nor should I be required to service anyone.

I have just as much right to demand you buy or sell to me, as you have a right demand I buy and sell from you. Which of course is zero.... there is no "right" to demand people engage in trade with you, or me.

Hey man, agree with a lot of but the law says differently.
But one question: how come it is ONLY GAY folks that are denied the service and not ALL sinners?
And why did Governor Brewer say "to date we have not found ONE business owner in the state of Arizona that has had their religious freedom denied"?
Where is that person in AZ that had their religious freedom denied?
There aren't any found so why a law?
Seriously, come on, can't you see politicians grandstanding for nothing on this?
Look at the Kansas law also, Republicans KILLED it also.
These "religious freedom" laws are a JOKE. No one has been denied their religious freedom in AZ.
And the baker with the cake? He serves ALL OTHER SINNERS.
Why would we need a jaywalking ordinance in the middle of the desert 30 miles from the nearest road?

 

[Gadawg73]

Every Chamber of Commerce in America are conservative Republican.
They ALL oppose these "religious freedom" laws.
They are very bad for business as they single out gay folks telling them "NO FAGGOTS SERVED HERE".
No one with any agenda other than a hatred of gay folks supports gay folks being singled out over all other sinners as not worthy of service.
Real world.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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

>>>>

Is freedom of religion a fundamental right of the people, or not?

Do you support the repeal of Public Accommodations so that businesses can refuse service to anyone? Or should special exemptions be given only for religoius views about "the gays"?



I support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws as they apply to private businesses, at that point whether it the refusal of service is based on religion or not is irrelevant.

>>>>

 

[Andylusion]

As long as that freedom does not step on the freedom of someone else.

There is no 'right to use my service'. There is no constitutional right to force me to sell my services to you.

What freedom do you think you have that I am infringing by not selling to you?

Just reverse the conversation, and see how it falls apart. If conducting trade (trading goods and services to each other), is a fundamental right.... can the seller also demand that buyers be forced to buy?

I'm a white male Christian Fundamentalist, and I sell lawn mowing services, to fund my Christian Evangelism. I demand you buy my service.

You *MUST* buy my service, or you are violating my economic rights.

Of course that's crazy. You are not required to fund anyone, and nor should I be required to service anyone.

I have just as much right to demand you buy or sell to me, as you have a right demand I buy and sell from you. Which of course is zero.... there is no "right" to demand people engage in trade with you, or me.

Hey man, agree with a lot of but the law says differently.
But one question: how come it is ONLY GAY folks that are denied the service and not ALL sinners?
And why did Governor Brewer say "to date we have not found ONE business owner in the state of Arizona that has had their religious freedom denied"?
Where is that person in AZ that had their religious freedom denied?
There aren't any found so why a law?
Seriously, come on, can't you see politicians grandstanding for nothing on this?
Look at the Kansas law also, Republicans KILLED it also.
These "religious freedom" laws are a JOKE. No one has been denied their religious freedom in AZ.
And the baker with the cake? He serves ALL OTHER SINNERS.
Why would we need a jaywalking ordinance in the middle of the desert 30 miles from the nearest road?

Doesn't matter. I support anything, that supports freedom of religion. No matter what the issue is.

I know of a motel right now, that won't offer a room to a man and a woman that are not married. You show up with different last names, and / or without a rings on the fingers, and they won't give you a single room. You have to purchase two rooms.

Freedom of Religion. That's how that works.

 

[Andylusion]

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

>>>>

Is freedom of religion a fundamental right of the people, or not?

Do you support the repeal of Public Accommodations so that businesses can refuse service to anyone? Or should special exemptions be given only for religoius views about "the gays"?



I support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws as they apply to private businesses, at that point whether it the refusal of service is based on religion or not is irrelevant.

>>>>

Yes of course. Private though. Not public. Public is public. If you have a public building, that the tax payers paid for, then that's different.

But anything private.... is private. My property, is mine. Not yours, or anyone elses. It's mine, and therefore I determine who is allowed on it, or in it, or uses it.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

There is no 'right to use my service'. There is no constitutional right to force me to sell my services to you.

What freedom do you think you have that I am infringing by not selling to you?

Just reverse the conversation, and see how it falls apart. If conducting trade (trading goods and services to each other), is a fundamental right.... can the seller also demand that buyers be forced to buy?

I'm a white male Christian Fundamentalist, and I sell lawn mowing services, to fund my Christian Evangelism. I demand you buy my service.

You *MUST* buy my service, or you are violating my economic rights.

Of course that's crazy. You are not required to fund anyone, and nor should I be required to service anyone.

I have just as much right to demand you buy or sell to me, as you have a right demand I buy and sell from you. Which of course is zero.... there is no "right" to demand people engage in trade with you, or me.

Hey man, agree with a lot of but the law says differently.
But one question: how come it is ONLY GAY folks that are denied the service and not ALL sinners?
And why did Governor Brewer say "to date we have not found ONE business owner in the state of Arizona that has had their religious freedom denied"?
Where is that person in AZ that had their religious freedom denied?
There aren't any found so why a law?
Seriously, come on, can't you see politicians grandstanding for nothing on this?
Look at the Kansas law also, Republicans KILLED it also.
These "religious freedom" laws are a JOKE. No one has been denied their religious freedom in AZ.
And the baker with the cake? He serves ALL OTHER SINNERS.
Why would we need a jaywalking ordinance in the middle of the desert 30 miles from the nearest road?

Doesn't matter. I support anything, that supports freedom of religion. No matter what the issue is.

I know of a motel right now, that won't offer a room to a man and a woman that are not married. You show up with different last names, and / or without a rings on the fingers, and they won't give you a single room. You have to purchase two rooms.

Freedom of Religion. That's how that works.

Got a name and number? It would be fun to sue them. I've always wanted to own a motel.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Is freedom of religion a fundamental right of the people, or not?

Do you support the repeal of Public Accommodations so that businesses can refuse service to anyone? Or should special exemptions be given only for religoius views about "the gays"?



I support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws as they apply to private businesses, at that point whether it the refusal of service is based on religion or not is irrelevant.

>>>>

Yes of course.

So if a business can refuse service for any reasons (including race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, veterans status, etc.) without having to justify it based on religion - then the reason as in "because of religion" becomes irrelevant to the conversation as justification is not required.

So it's not really a religious issue.

Most who cite a desire for "religious belief" exemption to the generally applicable laws don't support that. They want special rights to discriminate against the gays ONLY and ONLY for religious reasons. In general they are fine with Public Accommodation laws being applied based on race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, veterans status, etc.


>>>>

 

[Uncensored2008]

There are two arguments that can be made against it, one is somewhat rational and one isn't. The somewhat rational one is that reproduction between close relatives does carry a higher risk of genetic defects and congenital deformity.

Of course that would acknowledge that the societal impetus for marriage is driven by reproduction, thus undermining the position of the counter-culture and the general war on society.

So you probably don't want to go there.

It's not nearly as high as people tend to think but it's still a factor, however if they don't or can't have children that goes away completely. The other argument is the irrational one, the Ick Factor as in That's Icky. That doesn't hold water.

So, am I happy about it? No, I personally find it rather icky as well, but there really is no good reason to ban it.

So then, you support brother/sister marriage?

Two years ago I posted a thread on this board that Incest is the new gay - now here we are....