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

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Incorrect.

Refusing to accommodate unmarried couples has nothing to do with ‘freedom of religion’ and everything to do with the fact that unmarried couples don’t constitute a class of persons protected by public accommodations laws in that jurisdiction.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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 is even sadder t think that I, as a veteran who fought for freedom, might be forced to attend a wedding simply because a gay person demands my services.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Incorrect.

Refusing to accommodate unmarried couples has nothing to do with ‘freedom of religion’ and everything to do with the fact that unmarried couples don’t constitute a class of persons protected by public accommodations laws in that jurisdiction.

Prove it by showing that the case he is talking about was decided on public accommodation grounds and not freedom of religion grounds.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Incorrect.

Refusing to accommodate unmarried couples has nothing to do with ‘freedom of religion’ and everything to do with the fact that unmarried couples don’t constitute a class of persons protected by public accommodations laws in that jurisdiction.

Prove it by showing that the case he is talking about was decided on public accommodation grounds and not freedom of religion grounds.

"He" did not provide a link to the case did he? Saying "I know a guy" is not proof of anything.

While there are a number of states, cities, etc. that specifically protect marital status in their public accommodation laws, without knowing exactly what state "he" lives in, we are playing the "what if" game.

 

[dblack]

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.

Incorrect.

Refusing to accommodate unmarried couples has nothing to do with ‘freedom of religion’ and everything to do with the fact that unmarried couples don’t constitute a class of persons protected by public accommodations laws in that jurisdiction.

"Incorrect" ?

Heh... listen, if you're going to go all pedantic, at least get it right. Anti-discrimination laws don't purport to protect classes of 'persons'. If they did, they'd be even more obviously in violation of equal protection. (Unless you care to explain how extending special protections to certain classes of people amounts to 'equal').

Instead, they seek to outlaw discrimination of people based on certain classes of traits, traits that everyone has (age, sex, race, etc...). That creates the even more bizarre and intrusive legal precedent of outlawing certain kinds of reasoning, rather than the acts that result from the reasoning. (eg It's perfectly legal to refuse service to people because they aren't dressed how you like, but it's illegal to refuse because they're espousing a religion you believe is immoral.)

 

[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.

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?

Supreme Court has ruled how many times against your failed, vague and narrow legal opinion of the cake baking case which to date is THE ONLY person the Christian victim trumpeters have found.
How is the search going in Arizona for that ONE business owner that has their "religious freedom" denied.
And how has the baker had his "religious freedom" denied?
Baking a cake forces him to lose his religious freedom?
LOL, that is about the most absurd thing I have ever heard.
You do know the baker claimed HIS RELIGIOUS FREEDOM was denied, don't you?
His religious freedom has not been denied and this is what these KOOKS claim they are fighting for.
And you believe that?

 

[Gadawg73]

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.

Incorrect.

Refusing to accommodate unmarried couples has nothing to do with ‘freedom of religion’ and everything to do with the fact that unmarried couples don’t constitute a class of persons protected by public accommodations laws in that jurisdiction.

"Incorrect" ?

Heh... listen, if you're going to go all pedantic, at least get it right. Anti-discrimination laws don't purport to protect classes of 'persons'. If they did, they'd be even more obviously in violation of equal protection. (Unless you care to explain how extending special protections to certain classes of people amounts to 'equal').

Instead, they seek to outlaw discrimination of people based on certain classes of traits, traits that everyone has (age, sex, race, etc...). That creates the even more bizarre and intrusive legal precedent of outlawing certain kinds of reasoning, rather than the acts that result from the reasoning. (eg It's perfectly legal to refuse service to people because they aren't dressed how you like, but it's illegal to refuse because they're espousing a religion you believe is immoral.)

Health Department laws allow dress codes in restaurants. And vague laws allow stretches.
You want it both ways.
Just get government out of the support of bans against PEOPLE FOR WHO THEY ARE.
Nothing to do with how they dress. How they dress does not single out folk based on who they are-their love for someone of the same sex.
GAY FOLK is all their after in their "religious freedom" laws.
Even Ray Charles could have seen that.

 

[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?

Supreme Court has ruled how many times against your failed, vague and narrow legal opinion of the cake baking case which to date is THE ONLY person the Christian victim trumpeters have found.
How is the search going in Arizona for that ONE business owner that has their "religious freedom" denied.
And how has the baker had his "religious freedom" denied?
Baking a cake forces him to lose his religious freedom?
LOL, that is about the most absurd thing I have ever heard.
You do know the baker claimed HIS RELIGIOUS FREEDOM was denied, don't you?
His religious freedom has not been denied and this is what these KOOKS claim they are fighting for.
And you believe that?

Nope. Never said that. I happen to agree that it's not a matter of religious freedom. It's a freedom of association issue. The problem with the Arizona law is that it's too narrow.

 

[Bumberclyde]

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 is even sadder t think that I, as a veteran who fought for freedom, might be forced to attend a wedding simply because a gay person demands my services.

Hey asshole, where do you live that forces people to attend wedding?

 

[Bumberclyde]

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?

Supreme Court has ruled how many times against your failed, vague and narrow legal opinion of the cake baking case which to date is THE ONLY person the Christian victim trumpeters have found.
How is the search going in Arizona for that ONE business owner that has their "religious freedom" denied.
And how has the baker had his "religious freedom" denied?
Baking a cake forces him to lose his religious freedom?
LOL, that is about the most absurd thing I have ever heard.
You do know the baker claimed HIS RELIGIOUS FREEDOM was denied, don't you?
His religious freedom has not been denied and this is what these KOOKS claim they are fighting for.
And you believe that?

Nope. Never said that. I happen to agree that it's not a matter of religious freedom. It's a freedom of association issue. The problem with the Arizona law is that it's too narrow.

Hetero people buy wedding cakes from gay bakers all the time.

 

[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.

It is even sadder t think that I, as a veteran who fought for freedom, might be forced to attend a wedding simply because a gay person demands my services.

You are full of shit.
You are a veteran and are telling us you believe someone will force you to go to a wedding.

You said it and don't believe it yourself.

 

[Gadawg73]

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?

Supreme Court has ruled how many times against your failed, vague and narrow legal opinion of the cake baking case which to date is THE ONLY person the Christian victim trumpeters have found.
How is the search going in Arizona for that ONE business owner that has their "religious freedom" denied.
And how has the baker had his "religious freedom" denied?
Baking a cake forces him to lose his religious freedom?
LOL, that is about the most absurd thing I have ever heard.
You do know the baker claimed HIS RELIGIOUS FREEDOM was denied, don't you?
His religious freedom has not been denied and this is what these KOOKS claim they are fighting for.
And you believe that?

Nope. Never said that. I happen to agree that it's not a matter of religious freedom. It's a freedom of association issue. The problem with the Arizona law is that it's too narrow.

I believe you.
Except one important issue.
NO law written as "religious freedom" that allows denial of service in the private sector will ever be anything but vague.
And the broader you make these laws the wider the latitude it goes.
Private company ambulance companies denying service to folks that have been eating hog sandwiches would be allowed.
You see, if you make an exclusion for that in the law you blow up your entire legal argument for "freedom of association" and the entire law is ruled out.
These laws are turds and no matter how hard you try you can not polish a turd.
That is why every Chamber of Commerce opposes them as they are very bad for business also.

 

[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.

It is even sadder t think that I, as a veteran who fought for freedom, might be forced to attend a wedding simply because a gay person demands my services.

How many interracial weddings have you been forced to go to?

 

[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.

Incorrect.

Refusing to accommodate unmarried couples has nothing to do with ‘freedom of religion’ and everything to do with the fact that unmarried couples don’t constitute a class of persons protected by public accommodations laws in that jurisdiction.

Whatever. The reason they refused to allow shacking up couple to do one night stands in their motel, was because of religious views, and that's a constitutional right. Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Association.

Whatever legalese you come up with, doesn't matter to me. If that's what you want to go with, fine. Knock yourself out. As for me, the group that funded the defense of the motel, was a Christian Rights group. They seem to know what they were fighting for.

 

[Andylusion]

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 is even sadder t think that I, as a veteran who fought for freedom, might be forced to attend a wedding simply because a gay person demands my services.

How many interracial weddings have you been forced to go to?

There is no 'race'. We're all humans. The differences in DNA that account for appearance differences, are a insignificant to others. I can have more similarity in DNA with a Chinese guy from China, than the white guy across the street, and look completely different from the Chinese guy compared to the white guy next door.

There is no race. There is only the human race. Science has finally caught up with what the Bible has said for thousands of years. We are all one race. We started from Adam and Eve. The idea that there are different races, is more of an evolutionary idea.

 

[Gadawg73]

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.

Incorrect.

Refusing to accommodate unmarried couples has nothing to do with ‘freedom of religion’ and everything to do with the fact that unmarried couples don’t constitute a class of persons protected by public accommodations laws in that jurisdiction.

Whatever. The reason they refused to allow shacking up couple to do one night stands in their motel, was because of religious views, and that's a constitutional right. Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Association.

Whatever legalese you come up with, doesn't matter to me. If that's what you want to go with, fine. Knock yourself out. As for me, the group that funded the defense of the motel, was a Christian Rights group. They seem to know what they were fighting for.

Christian Rights groups should be out feeding, housing and clothing the poor before they are involved in law suits.
How did the hotel owner know they were "shacking up"?

 

[protectionist]

On the other hand ALL citizens are have equal protections under the law and States may not infringe on that without a compelling interest, capricious and invidious discriminatory laws are not allowed. THAT principal is embodied in the 14th Amendment.

But there IS a compelling interest. That of PROTECTING the American people from the lunacy of homosexuality, and the spread of it, especially to children.

Lots of exceptions to the equal protections under the law of the 14th Amendment exist, in addition to queers. There are people locked up in mental institutions, criminals locked up in prisons, people who are denied rights to drive cars, buy guns, etc. What else is new ?

 

[protectionist]

Oh? What right of yours is "destroyed" by my being legally married? This should be good.

How you're going about of it, encouraging judges to legislate from the bench completely destroys our Constitutional rights. The Constitution lays out Federal limits and the roles of the branches of government.

"Encouraging"? Hardly. It is the natural progression of violating the Constitution.

FALSE! Legislating from the bench is not a natural progression of anything. The role of judges is supposed to be limited to deciding what is or isn't legal, withing the context of existing law, not making new law, that heretofore didn't exist.

 

[Gadawg73]

On the other hand ALL citizens are have equal protections under the law and States may not infringe on that without a compelling interest, capricious and invidious discriminatory laws are not allowed. THAT principal is embodied in the 14th Amendment.

But there IS a compelling interest. That of PROTECTING the American people from the lunacy of homosexuality, and the spread of it, especially to children.

Lots of exceptions to the equal protections under the law of the 14th Amendment exist, in addition to queers. There are people locked up in mental institutions, criminals locked up in prisons, people who are denied rights to drive cars, buy guns, etc. What else is new ?

Ronald Reagan said how many decades ago "homosexuality is not a disease like measles and a person's sexual identity is determined at an early age"?

Do you really believe you could have been swayed into sucking cock as a child?
Not me brother, not in a million years.

 

[protectionist]

Why would anyone care if 2 gay folks get married?

Because it is a sick, perversion of what is normal and natural, is thereby harmful, and should not be accepted as legitimate behavior. To have same-sex marriage also induces the less intelligent and much younger people to accept this aberrant behavior, as is happening right now in foolish states like New York, California, Illinois, etc.