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

[dblack]

The law was too broadly written.

But for the other ones coming up to pass in other states, they will be narrowed more to a situation where you are forcing someone else to practice gay cult values in violation of their faith. How they would "know" you are and my boyfriend getting married", or "will you cater my wedding to my gay is if you are standing there asking them to make a gay wedding cake with two guys on top or two women. Or if you said "will you photograph me husband"?

On those grounds christians are required to refuse to participate re: Jude 1 and Romans 1 and the warning of being sent to hell for eternity for enabling a Sodom like takeover of another culture.

I'd actually argue the opposite. The law was too narrowly written. The problem here is with the idea that government can force us to cater to other people against our will. Outside of enforcing contractual obligations, the state simply has no business micro-managing our personal decisions like this.

"Personal decisions" of homosexuality are more than just personal decisions. They are societal decisions, which affect everyone. The state has plenty of business micromanaging it.

Nope. Not as long as it's between consenting adults. It's none of your business, nor the state's.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

That's the point. The entire law (the public accommodations nonsense) should be ruled out.

Tell us, why do you suggest such things when that won't happen? The laws have been on the books for decades. Why do think there's even a chance that would change?

 

[dblack]

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.

That's the point. The entire law (the public accommodations nonsense) should be ruled out.

Tell us, why do you suggest such things when that won't happen? The laws have been on the books for decades. Why do think there's even a chance that would change?

Uh.. the same reason you think getting rid of ACA would result in single payer? We've all got our deluded hopes I suppose.

And... eventually, I do think they'll be reversed. Historically, that happens. Bad laws outlive their perceived usefulness and are repealed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This (Jude 1 and Romans 1 and the warning of being sent to hell for eternity for enabling a Sodom like takeover of another culture) means that all the early Christians "went to hell" because they could not prevent the excesses of Greco-Roman culture.

What an uninformed, partisan analysis of scripture by Sil.

 

[Bumberclyde]

No queers are never OK. Closeted or not. I was talking about the alleged need for so-called "gay rights" discrimination law. If a black person walks in to a job interview, it's apparent that he's black. If a woman or disabled person walks in to a job interview, their gender or condition is apparent. Not so with queers. Get it ?

So they should have a tattoo on their arm, or just a star on their jacket?

Tattoo on forehead might be better. Arms can be covered by long-sleeve shirts. Actually, if they don't show any signs of their affliction, they are relatively harmless.

Oh, you're just a troll. Got it.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

That's the point. The entire law (the public accommodations nonsense) should be ruled out.

Tell us, why do you suggest such things when that won't happen? The laws have been on the books for decades. Why do think there's even a chance that would change?

Uh.. the same reason you think getting rid of ACA would result in single payer? We've all got our deluded hopes I suppose.

Why would you consider that a delusion? The trend has been clear for decades. Each decade we put more and more of our citizens on government-sponsored healthcare plans. In your case each decade we expand the list of those who are a protected class. Both trends are clear, and neither are reversing. See how that works now?

 

[dblack]

Tell us, why do you suggest such things when that won't happen? The laws have been on the books for decades. Why do think there's even a chance that would change?

Uh.. the same reason you think getting rid of ACA would result in single payer? We've all got our deluded hopes I suppose.

Why would you consider that a delusion? The trend has been clear for decades. Each decade we put more and more of our citizens on government-sponsored healthcare plans. In your case each decade we expand the list of those who are a protected class. Both trends are clear, and neither are reversing. See how that works now?

Trends do reverse. They burn themselves out. The more 'protected classes' we add, the more people will begin to question the practice. That's what's happening now. That's why states are pushing back. So keep expanding that list, until people get fed up and whole mess is seen for the hypocrisy it is.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Uh.. the same reason you think getting rid of ACA would result in single payer? We've all got our deluded hopes I suppose.

Why would you consider that a delusion? The trend has been clear for decades. Each decade we put more and more of our citizens on government-sponsored healthcare plans. In your case each decade we expand the list of those who are a protected class. Both trends are clear, and neither are reversing. See how that works now?

Trends do reverse. They burn themselves out. The more 'protected classes' we add, the more people will begin to question the practice. That's what's happening now. That's why states are pushing back. So keep expanding that list, until people get fed up and whole mess is seen for the hypocrisy it is.

The state attempts to push back have so far all failed, when they got high enough in the courts. Just like the repeals of gay marriage bans, the voters have changed their minds. I know you wish it weren't so but it is.

 

[dblack]

Why would you consider that a delusion? The trend has been clear for decades. Each decade we put more and more of our citizens on government-sponsored healthcare plans. In your case each decade we expand the list of those who are a protected class. Both trends are clear, and neither are reversing. See how that works now?

Trends do reverse. They burn themselves out. The more 'protected classes' we add, the more people will begin to question the practice. That's what's happening now. That's why states are pushing back. So keep expanding that list, until people get fed up and whole mess is seen for the hypocrisy it is.

The state attempts to push back have so far all failed, when they got high enough in the courts. Just like the repeals of gay marriage bans, the voters have changed their minds. I know you wish it weren't so but it is.

I wonder if you'd have made the same kinds of inane arguments to the abolitionists? "It's been decided" "It's been this way for decades" "You will surely fail!"

Heh... rather comical really, but I'm beginning to suspect that's your schtick.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Trends do reverse. They burn themselves out. The more 'protected classes' we add, the more people will begin to question the practice. That's what's happening now. That's why states are pushing back. So keep expanding that list, until people get fed up and whole mess is seen for the hypocrisy it is.

The state attempts to push back have so far all failed, when they got high enough in the courts. Just like the repeals of gay marriage bans, the voters have changed their minds. I know you wish it weren't so but it is.

I wonder if you'd have made the same kinds of inane arguments to the abolitionists? "It's been decided" "It's been this way for decades" "You will surely fail!"

Heh... rather comical really, but I'm beginning to suspect that's your schtick.

Nothing inane at all. In abortion the trend is always towards earlier, safer, and fewer but still legal. Pretty much exactly what you are seeing, even if the right attempts to make it unavailable the public doesn't agree.

 

[dblack]

The state attempts to push back have so far all failed, when they got high enough in the courts. Just like the repeals of gay marriage bans, the voters have changed their minds. I know you wish it weren't so but it is.

I wonder if you'd have made the same kinds of inane arguments to the abolitionists? "It's been decided" "It's been this way for decades" "You will surely fail!"

Heh... rather comical really, but I'm beginning to suspect that's your schtick.

Nothing inane at all. In abortion the trend is always towards earlier, safer, and fewer but still legal. Pretty much exactly what you are seeing, even if the right attempts to make it unavailable the public doesn't agree.

What??? Are you trying to make an argument, or just assuming that because I'm arguing against public accommodations that abortion will get under my skin? Just like you probably assume I'm anti-gay or somesuch. You're wrong on both counts (and many others).

That's what I mean by 'schtick'. It seems you're just here to play the assclown, not to have substantive discussions.

My point, which you either deliberately ignored or were too stupid to understand, is that appeals to "trends" and the "status quo" are empty, and say nothing about whether a given position is well-founded, or not. They also say nothing about the long-term sustainability of bad policy.

 

[kaz]

This guy could have been Hitler's right-hand tattoo artist. Another sad case of born too late I guess.

So you equate restriction of homosexuality, with the fascism of Hitler, then. I can see somebody's got YOU programmed.

Well you can't all it Freedom now can you?

We have fundamentally different views of what freedom means.

To me, freedom related to this thread is the right for a consumer to decide where he wants to shop and what he's willing to pay and and a merchant to decide who he wants to sell to and what he's willing to sell his merchandise and services for. When they agree, a transaction occurs.

To you, freedom is the right of a consumer to run to government and have them use the force of guns to compel the merchant to sell to them whether they want to or not.

In no possible way is the use of force to compel citizens to transact "freedom."

 

[WorldWatcher]

So you equate restriction of homosexuality, with the fascism of Hitler, then. I can see somebody's got YOU programmed.

Well you can't all it Freedom now can you?

We have fundamentally different views of what freedom means.

To me, freedom related to this thread is the right for a consumer to decide where he wants to shop and what he's willing to pay and and a merchant to decide who he wants to sell to and what he's willing to sell his merchandise and services for. When they agree, a transaction occurs.

To you, freedom is the right of a consumer to run to government and have them use the force of guns to compel the merchant to sell to them whether they want to or not.

In no possible way is the use of force to compel citizens to transact "freedom."

RE: Bolded

Except that is not what this bill was about, it in no way provided a merchant the right to decide who he want's to sell to. This bill provided special rights for a merchant to exclude customers only if they uttered the magic phrase "sincerely held religious beliefs". The ability to reject a customer was still limited for other reasons.

So the idea that this bill provided merchants (in general) any additional freedom is false, it was about creating a special exemption to only one class of merchants (those smart enough to shield their actions through the guise of religion.)



>>>>

 

[dblack]

Well you can't all it Freedom now can you?

We have fundamentally different views of what freedom means.

To me, freedom related to this thread is the right for a consumer to decide where he wants to shop and what he's willing to pay and and a merchant to decide who he wants to sell to and what he's willing to sell his merchandise and services for. When they agree, a transaction occurs.

To you, freedom is the right of a consumer to run to government and have them use the force of guns to compel the merchant to sell to them whether they want to or not.

In no possible way is the use of force to compel citizens to transact "freedom."

RE: Bolded

Except that is not what this bill was about, it in no way provided a merchant the right to decide who he want's to sell to. This bill provided special rights for a merchant to exclude customers only if they uttered the magic phrase "sincerely held religious beliefs". The ability to reject a customer was still limited for other reasons.

So the idea that this bill provided merchants (in general) any additional freedom is false, it was about creating a special exemption to only one class of merchants (those smart enough to shield their actions through the guise of religion.)



>>>>

Exactly!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

If you have a problem with the parameters of the original case, take it up with the guy that posted it. Clayton assumed he was telling the truth, and then claimed that the case was decided on public accommodation laws. I want him to prove his position, which is perfectly reasonable given the way the argument went.

In other words, you are upset because I trumped the only guy you think understands the law. If you actually knew anything about the law, you would know that he is the intellectual equivalent of a creationist in his understanding of the subject.

 

[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'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?

The Supreme Court also said that separate but equal works.

In other words, they can be wrong, and pointing to them simply because you aren't smart enough to defend your opinion only proves how stupid you are.

 

[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.

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

Asked and answered.

 

[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.

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.

Which part of that is hard to understand when you yourself keep arguing that the law allows the government to force a photographer to take pictures of a gay wedding? Care to explain how I can take pictures of the wedding unless I actually show up?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act is vague? Why, please be specific. While you are at it give me a list of all the chambers that opposed it, and explain why only 3 out of 535 congresscritters voted against it.

 

[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.

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

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Are you a racist? Why do you keep talking about race when the subject is freedom?