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

[TemplarKormac]

You are welcome to let everyone know you are a homophobic knob, yes.

What's more intolerant, allowing the business owner to serve gays of their own volition, or forcing them to serve gays against their will and against their beliefs? You tell me, milady. Methinks it is extremely intolerant and hypocritical to demand tolerance of your own lifestyle from someone else, whilst not showing willingness to tolerate theirs.

All boils down to a matter of respect, not entitlement.

Sometimes rights are a zero sum game.

You grant gays the right to be treated like everyone else, aka equality, but in order to do so, you have to deny certain people their claim to a right to discriminate.

Ask yourself, which of the above most closely reflects the letter and spirit of our Constitution?

The right to equality, or the right to discriminate?

A red herring all of it.

There is no such time where rights are a "zero sum game." To apply an economic theory to the attainment of rights is a misnomer. And pretty stupid.

We will grant gays the right to be treated like everyone else, when they also grant that same respect to those who don't approve of their lifestyle. See what I mean? What good is it to use the constitution to deny one person their rights to give someone else theirs?

So, what is more in line with the spirit and letter of the Constitution? The freedom to serve who you want, when you want and according to your beliefs? Or the tyranny of being forced to serve everyone, against your beliefs?

Since when should man have to sacrifice his own held beliefs for a collective minority whose lifestyles fly in the face of his faith? You haven't the slightest clue, carbine. No amount of bloviating from you will change that.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Think of it this way:

Your rights end where someone else's begins. In essence, your right to be treated equally as a homosexual ends when it infringes on the religious rights of someone else. Or when you force them to treat you preferentially, despite their religiously held beliefs.

Very rudimentary concept.

 

[Seawytch]

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

My big question is why would any gay person want to give anyone their business if they don't want it? Would you want your wedding catered by people who disapprove of your life? I wouldn't. I am sure there are many fine caterers and other businesses who gladly accept gay customers and I would say take your business where it's appreciated and forget the rest.

That's irrelevant.

That is correct. In the realm of public accommodation laws, it is irrelevant.

 

[Seawytch]

The Constitutionality of Public Accommodation laws has already been determined by the SCOTUS in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States

But don't worry, the SCOTUS could change their minds and a case is on the way.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What's more intolerant, allowing the business owner to serve gays of their own volition, or forcing them to serve gays against their will and against their beliefs? You tell me, milady. Methinks it is extremely intolerant and hypocritical to demand tolerance of your own lifestyle from someone else, whilst not showing willingness to tolerate theirs.

All boils down to a matter of respect, not entitlement.

Sometimes rights are a zero sum game.

You grant gays the right to be treated like everyone else, aka equality, but in order to do so, you have to deny certain people their claim to a right to discriminate.

Ask yourself, which of the above most closely reflects the letter and spirit of our Constitution?

The right to equality, or the right to discriminate?

A red herring all of it.

There is no such time where rights are a "zero sum game." To apply an economic theory to the attainment of rights is a misnomer. And pretty stupid.

We will grant gays the right to be treated like everyone else, when they also grant that same respect to those who don't approve of their lifestyle. See what I mean? What good is it to use the constitution to deny one person their rights to give someone else theirs?

So, what is more in line with the spirit and letter of the Constitution? The freedom to serve who you want, when you want and according to your beliefs? Or the tyranny of being forced to serve everyone, against your beliefs?

Since when should man have to sacrifice his own held beliefs for a collective minority whose lifestyles fly in the face of his faith? You haven't the slightest clue, carbine. No amount of bloviating from you will change that.

If a black man wants to eat in a certain restaurant, and the restaurant owner doesn't want to serve blacks,

how do you resolve that issue if you don't deny of those parties their claim to a particular right?

Answer that, or admit that I was absolutely correct that rights issues are sometimes a zero sum game.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Think of it this way:

Your rights end where someone else's begins. In essence, your right to be treated equally as a homosexual ends when it infringes on the religious rights of someone else. Or when you force them to treat you preferentially, despite their religiously held beliefs.

Very rudimentary concept.

Why didn't you say, your religious rights end when they infringe on the civil rights of a homosexual?

 

[dblack]

Think of it this way:

Your rights end where someone else's begins. In essence, your right to be treated equally as a homosexual ends when it infringes on the religious rights of someone else. Or when you force them to treat you preferentially, despite their religiously held beliefs.

Very rudimentary concept.

Why didn't you say, your religious rights end when they infringe on the civil rights of a homosexual?

Equal rights is a concept that applies to government, not general society. We've become confused about this issue.

 

[R.D.]

They'll never get it past Title 9.

Besides, how the hell would anyone know who is, or isn't gay?

Again, in the case where the customer wishes for a service revolving around the relationship

If some guy walked into a florist and asked the owner to send flowers to his young mistresses, knowing he is married the owner might refuse. We would never know because the guy just goes to another florist and not make a nation scene.

(That's happened btw )

 

[Iceweasel]

Which business doesn't need a license? Prove it, or shut it....

If you could read you'd know. It depends on the location and type. I am not being paid to tutor you nor do you have any authority over me. Feel free to be ignorant, it's not my problem.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Think of it this way:

Your rights end where someone else's begins. In essence, your right to be treated equally as a homosexual ends when it infringes on the religious rights of someone else. Or when you force them to treat you preferentially, despite their religiously held beliefs.

Very rudimentary concept.

Why didn't you say, your religious rights end when they infringe on the civil rights of a homosexual?

Equal rights is a concept that applies to government, not general society. We've become confused about this issue.

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Think of it this way:

Your rights end where someone else's begins. In essence, your right to be treated equally as a homosexual ends when it infringes on the religious rights of someone else. Or when you force them to treat you preferentially, despite their religiously held beliefs.

Very rudimentary concept.

So your right to own a gun ends when it infringes upon the rights of others to be safe from mentally ill people obtaining guns?

 

[dblack]

Why didn't you say, your religious rights end when they infringe on the civil rights of a homosexual?

Equal rights is a concept that applies to government, not general society. We've become confused about this issue.

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

I know. That's the problem.

The irony of it all is, as we continue with the delusional attempt to force everyone to treat each other equally, government becomes more and more discriminatory. This isn't a coincidence. If you task the government with trying to enforce equal rights in a social context, you must create a policy that treats people decidedly unequally. You can't have both equal rights under the law and the sort of social justice that liberals yearn for.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Equal rights is a concept that applies to government, not general society. We've become confused about this issue.

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

I know. That's the problem.

The irony of it all is, as we continue with the delusional attempt to force everyone to treat each other equally, government becomes more and more discriminatory. This isn't a coincidence. If you task the government with trying to enforce equal rights in a social context, you must create a policy that treats people decidedly unequally. You can't have both equal rights under the law and the sort of social justice that liberals yearn for.

This is an instance where the state government is deliberately enacting discrimination. What is even worse is that it is violating the constitution by endorsing religion. That is specifically proscribed by the 1st amendment.

 

[Iceweasel]

I know. That's the problem.

The irony of it all is, as we continue with the delusional attempt to force everyone to treat each other equally, government becomes more and more discriminatory. This isn't a coincidence. If you task the government with trying to enforce equal rights in a social context, you must create a policy that treats people decidedly unequally. You can have equal rights under the law and the sort of social justice that liberals yearn for.

Yep. What it boils down to is what the activists want is their point of view enforced. You are not entitled to a differing perspective, that's considered hate and intolerance.

We are headed in the direction Canada took years ago. Here's a few examples:

CULTURE NEWS: Canada: Pastor Found Guilty of Hate Crime
Canada: Pastor Found Guilty of Hate Crime
Five years ago in Alberta, Canada, a former pastor and head of a Christian organization, Stephen Boissoin, sent a letter to a local paper on the issue of sexual orientation. Two weeks later a gay teen was beaten up, and the pastor, and the pastor was charged with violating human rights law because the letter likely exposed gays to hatred and contempt - despite the fact that he had never advocated violence of any sort in his letter or otherwise.

UPDATE 3/18/13: Supremes Rule Bible as 'Hate Speech' in Canada

UPDATE 1/11/14: Preacher Arrested for Talking of Sexual Sin

UPDATE 12/10/09: Famous Canadian Hate Speech Ruling Reversed

UPDATE 6/11/08: Government Bans Pastor from Speaking Against Homosexuality

 

[dblack]

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

I know. That's the problem.

The irony of it all is, as we continue with the delusional attempt to force everyone to treat each other equally, government becomes more and more discriminatory. This isn't a coincidence. If you task the government with trying to enforce equal rights in a social context, you must create a policy that treats people decidedly unequally. You can't have both equal rights under the law and the sort of social justice that liberals yearn for.

This is an instance where the state government is deliberately enacting discrimination. What is even worse is that it is violating the constitution by endorsing religion. That is specifically proscribed by the 1st amendment.

This isn't a freedom of religion issue. It's a freedom of association issue, which is much broader and actually encompasses freedom of religion. But I'd oppose this law, if I lived in Arizona, because I agree with your assessment that it's a mis-application of the first amendment.

 

[dblack]

I know. That's the problem.

The irony of it all is, as we continue with the delusional attempt to force everyone to treat each other equally, government becomes more and more discriminatory. This isn't a coincidence. If you task the government with trying to enforce equal rights in a social context, you must create a policy that treats people decidedly unequally. You can have equal rights under the law and the sort of social justice that liberals yearn for.

Yep. What it boils down to is what the activists want is their point of view enforced. You are not entitled to a differing perspective, that's considered hate and intolerance.

We are headed in the direction Canada took years ago. Here's a few examples:

CULTURE NEWS: Canada: Pastor Found Guilty of Hate Crime
Canada: Pastor Found Guilty of Hate Crime
Five years ago in Alberta, Canada, a former pastor and head of a Christian organization, Stephen Boissoin, sent a letter to a local paper on the issue of sexual orientation. Two weeks later a gay teen was beaten up, and the pastor, and the pastor was charged with violating human rights law because the letter likely exposed gays to hatred and contempt - despite the fact that he had never advocated violence of any sort in his letter or otherwise.

UPDATE 3/18/13: Supremes Rule Bible as 'Hate Speech' in Canada

UPDATE 1/11/14: Preacher Arrested for Talking of Sexual Sin

UPDATE 12/10/09: Famous Canadian Hate Speech Ruling Reversed

UPDATE 6/11/08: Government Bans Pastor from Speaking Against Homosexuality

I just they would recognize what's happening. Equal protection under the law is much more important than being treated equally by fellow citizens, and we're trading in the former for the latter.

 

[hangover]

If it passes it will be overturned by the SCOTUS, because it opens the Civil War can of worms.

"It's against my religion to serve blacks, women, the military, liberals, cons, or anyone that doesn't believe the way I do."

It's just more of the GOP attempt to divide the U.S.. They really do hate their own country.

 

[WinterBorn]

Weren't quite a few conservatives raising hell about Muslims refusing to transport people in their cabs if they were carrying alcohol?

 

[Iceweasel]

I just they would recognize what's happening. Equal protection under the law is much more important than being treated equally by fellow citizens, and we're trading in the former for the latter.

Apparently, some people are more equal than others.

 

[rightwinger]

If a persons religion opposes war, is it OK to refuse service to soldiers in Arizona?