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

[PaintMyHouse]

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....

My position is clear.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Crazy making isn't it?
I think it must be psychologically "overcompensating" by going after people who WILL comply with law and due process, because of the problems caused by people who don't.

Like looking for your lost wallet in the areas that have good lighting, but not in the place where you actually dropped because it's too dark to look there. Remember that old joke?

By due process, we have no right to go after "alleged suspects" even if we know and they admit they did the crime, without a legal process; and in cases where people can't afford to pay the debts and damages for their crime, there is no justice. And with govt accountability, it's even worse with immunity, and people leaving office while the leaving the damage behind for no one else to clean up since they didn't do it.

But crying out about discrimination by race or orientation allows immediate accusations to get attention the media, as a short cut to bypass due process.
by making scapegoats of people or cases in the media, by pushing bills that regulate LAWABIDING citizens, people are trying to overcompensate; and end up NOT giving due process to law abiding citizens (who have to sue to defend liberties taken away) as the criminals who get their defense paid for. The law abiding citizens get treated worse than criminals who are guaranteed due process.

So for the systemic lack of "redress of grievances" and inability to hold real crooks, criminals and govt corruptocrats accountable, it seems people project that need for justice and control onto any "easy target" they can find. And these issues of gay and racial discrimination etc. ends up being an easy target for venting and projecting.

The real issues are still unresolved; the conflicts underlying these cases are not being addressed, but there is only projection back and forth that represents the conflicts in the legal and legislative realm. While real issues remain on the personal level within people.

Very curious if people will resolve these issues INTERNALLY that come up externally.
It's almost like people are using Zimmerman and gay cakes as the focus of group therapy, going public with all their pent up issues, and finally working out these grievances that have nothing to do directly with Zimmerman or Christian bakers, as targets for shooting practice.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Dear Gadawg: to be fair, to be equally and Constitutionally inclusive,
both the political beliefs incorporating Christian beliefs
and the political beliefs based on secular laws
should be counted equally, and not assuming one as the default
and the other as the minority being oppressed and in need of liberation.

In fact, both sides feel the other is oppressing them.
So to be fair, both should be liberated from imposition by the other.

In order to protect and include both sides equally,
all such conflicts should be resolved by consensus, so neither feels imposed upon.
Especially NOT by abusing govt to take one side in a dispute and impose on the other.

Otherwise, both sides are equally wrong to impose on each other.
And two wrongs don't make a right, but double the injustice.

 

[Immanuel]

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.

Since I don't know you very well, let me ask this. Do you feel this way with regard to race? Should a white restaurant owner be permitted to refuse service to non-whites?

How about the reverse?

My personal opinion is that yes this should be allowed and the free market should drive such businesses out of business. But it does not work that way. Bigots seem to find enough like minded people to keep them in business.

Without PA laws we would be back to separate but equal relations in no time. As much as I like the idea of complete freedom, I realize that it doesn't work.

So until we either overcome bigotry or come up with a better solution, I support PA laws.

 

[DriftingSand]

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.

Stop using so much gosh-darn common sense. Will you?

You're apt to give the lock-stepping, lily-livered, libs brain aneurisms.

Hmmmm ... okay ... keep using common sense.

 

[kaz]

Should a white restaurant owner be permitted to refuse service to non-whites? - Yes

How about the reverse? - Yes

My personal opinion is that yes this should be allowed and the free market should drive such businesses out of business. But it does not work that way. Bigots seem to find enough like minded people to keep them in business.

I disagree, Immie. Sure, there will be some redneck bars that don't allow blacks here and there, and probably some inner city businesses that don't serve whites, but I think they would be the exception, and the reality is they are pretty unwelcoming now, so this brings them out in the open.

Another fact that is contrary is that while white racism gets more air time, particularly from the left, the reverse is a lot more prevalent and stronger and more open. I would do nothing from a government standpoint about that either.

 

[DriftingSand]

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.

Dear Gadawg: to be fair, to be equally and Constitutionally inclusive,
both the political beliefs incorporating Christian beliefs
and the political beliefs based on secular laws
should be counted equally, and not assuming one as the default
and the other as the minority being oppressed and in need of liberation.

In fact, both sides feel the other is oppressing them.
So to be fair, both should be liberated from imposition by the other.

In order to protect and include both sides equally,
all such conflicts should be resolved by consensus, so neither feels imposed upon.
Especially NOT by abusing govt to take one side in a dispute and impose on the other.

Otherwise, both sides are equally wrong to impose on each other.
And two wrongs don't make a right, but double the injustice.

Good points. Ours is supposed to be a government "by the people" until, that is, the people agree on an issue that steps on the toes of the special interest groups. Then it becomes a government by a handful of federal judges and the special interest groups.

The "gay marriage" issue has been voted upon and solved in several states but a coven of activist judges have trampled on the "rights" of the voters by overturning states' rights.

So much for "democracy."

 

[dblack]

Since I don't know you very well, let me ask this. Do you feel this way with regard to race? Should a white restaurant owner be permitted to refuse service to non-whites?

How about the reverse?

You mean should a non-white customer be permitted to refuse to shop at white owned business?

 

[Andylusion]

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.

Actually they were sued, and they won the lawsuit. That's how I found out about it. It was in an article that they won. Hello..... Freedom of Religion is a fundamental right. That's how that works. You either have Freedom of Religion, or you don't. You don't like that? Too bad. Sucks we can vote too, huh?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.


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.

Do you have a fundamental problem understanding that the city clerk does not work for the federal government? The only reason immigration gets involved is to make sure the marriage isn't fake in order to start the process of citizenship for the spouse, they don't don't issue the license. Also, they can't stop the marriage if they decide they don't like you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I hate to point out the obvious, but the issue is not marriage, the issue is forcing people to be slaves.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You do not have a right to a wedding cake.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Only assholes defend their position by saying "It's the law." If you actually think the law is wrong you should be urging people to break it.

"An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law” “An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law." Martin Luthor King

"An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so. Now the law of nonviolence says that violence should be resisted not by counter-violence but by nonviolence. This I do by breaking the law and by peacefully submitting to arrest and imprisonment." Mahatma Gandhi

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

The African American, Asian American, and Hispanic American Chambers of Commerce are all conservative Republicans? I bet even rdean won't believe you on this one, which actually makes you dumber than rdean.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

>>>>

I think everyone has a moral obligation to disobey any unjust law.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Since I don't know you very well, let me ask this. Do you feel this way with regard to race? Should a white restaurant owner be permitted to refuse service to non-whites?

How about the reverse?

My personal opinion is that yes this should be allowed and the free market should drive such businesses out of business. But it does not work that way. Bigots seem to find enough like minded people to keep them in business.

Without PA laws we would be back to separate but equal relations in no time. As much as I like the idea of complete freedom, I realize that it doesn't work.

So until we either overcome bigotry or come up with a better solution, I support PA laws.

What actual, real world, evidence do you have that reducing the scope of public accommodation laws would result in state mandated segregation?

 

[Uncensored2008]

The African American, Asian American, and Hispanic American Chambers of Commerce are all conservative Republicans? I bet even rdean won't believe you on this one, which actually makes you dumber than rdean.

I'm not sure that is physically possible.

Rdean is like the speed of light, he is the barrier to dumb.... If the level of dumb exceeds Rdean, then time reverses and we go back into the past.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The African American, Asian American, and Hispanic American Chambers of Commerce are all conservative Republicans? I bet even rdean won't believe you on this one, which actually makes you dumber than rdean.

I'm not sure that is physically possible.

Rdean is like the speed of light, he is the barrier to dumb.... If the level of dumb exceeds Rdean, then time reverses and we go back into the past.

Have you read all the idiots that think we are in 1950?

 

[Gadawg73]

We have returning combat veterans from Afghanistan now.
And sad sack American "citizens" here want to deny the gay veterans the same rights that the straight ones receive.
And label it "religious freedom" for businesses where NOT ONE business owner in the entire state had been found that had their religious freedom denied.
And then they come one here and claim they support "freedom" for people that do not exist.

 

[dblack]

We have returning combat veterans from Afghanistan now.
And sad sack American "citizens" here want to deny the gay veterans the same rights that the straight ones receive.
And label it "religious freedom" for businesses where NOT ONE business owner in the entire state had been found that had their religious freedom denied.
And then they come one here and claim they support "freedom" for people that do not exist.

It's not a question of equal rights. There's no such thing as a 'right' to make someone bake you a cake. What you're really after is to outlaw bigotry, and I guess you think this is one way to get at some bigots. But what about the bigots who are shopping? Should engaged Christians be forced to buy wedding cakes from openly gay bakers? How is their bigotry any different?