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

[Gadawg73]

Who here believes that they have no religious freedom if they can not deny service to gay folks?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

But, according to your post, that's exactly what you're worried about - that the wrong authoritarians will take control and teach things you disagree with. The only way to protect ourselves from this is to keep government out of the business of 'shaping' society in the first place.

No, the proper thing is to scrutinize the schools, their teachers, and course contents, and keep them clean to what we deem proper (ex. No Muslim jihadist propaganda, no homo propaganda, etc) You seem to miss the point that govt is us. And it is we who should shape our society.

No, it's not. It's an institution that, at best, represents the interests of the majority , at worst, organized special interests that want to control us. In neither case is government the equivalent of all the people, and it's certainly not the same thing as society.

The founders had it right on this. Government should be the servant of society, not its master.

Nonsense.

The government and the people are one in the same.

It’s naïve and inane to perceive ‘the government’ as some alien entity separate and apart from the people; government reflects the will of the people, it acts at the behest of the people, and the people are solely responsible for what government does.

And it’s the judicial branch of the government whose job it is to safeguard the rights of the people – including safeguarding the rights of the people from the people when they err.

 

[Gadawg73]

Who here knows someone that has had their religious freedom denied them because they had to serve gay folks?

 

[Gadawg73]

All you are doing is describing what happens to govt when we the people neglect to manage it properly. Well sure. Nothing is good if/whenever it's mismanaged. The correct thing is to strive to rise to the TOP of the ideal of govt, not succumb to the BOTTOM of its symptoms of corruption and neglect.

The correct thing to do is what the founders intended; limit government constitutionally so that neither the majority nor special interests can use it to force their will on society capriciously.

Fine. But that doesn't mean to not have a legislature, and not make new laws according to the will of the majority of the people. In fact the founders in their Constitution did just that. Providing for 3 branches of govt, one of which is the legislature, and 2 of which are created by "the majority".

"make new laws according to the will of the majority of the people"
Scary shit there my man.
The majority of the people are DUMB ASSES.

The Constitution forbids that.
The will of the majority of the people is not what this country was founded on.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It does? Where?

According to the SCOTUS, the 14th Amendment.

The purity of public morals, the moral and physical development of both races….require that they should be kept distinct and separate… that connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law, and be subject to no evasion.

Ahh, yes. The familiar leftist song: "The Constitution says it because we got a bunch of judges to say it does. Who needs to cite the actual words of the Constitution, when we can just cite someone's opinion of what the Constitution should be?"

Here's a hint: Any time someone asks you what the Constitution says, and your answer includes the words "The Supreme Court", you've just lost.

Um, actually, it is you who has lost if you discount SCOTUS. Period.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The correct thing to do is what the founders intended; limit government constitutionally so that neither the majority nor special interests can use it to force their will on society capriciously.

Fine. But that doesn't mean to not have a legislature, and not make new laws according to the will of the majority of the people. In fact the founders in their Constitution did just that. Providing for 3 branches of govt, one of which is the legislature, and 2 of which are created by "the majority".

"make new laws according to the will of the majority of the people"
Scary shit there my man.
The majority of the people are DUMB ASSES.

The Constitution forbids that. The will of the majority of the people is not what this country was founded on.

The majority may not tyrannize the minority, thus the amendments.

Tuff that, sam.

 

[dblack]

No, the proper thing is to scrutinize the schools, their teachers, and course contents, and keep them clean to what we deem proper (ex. No Muslim jihadist propaganda, no homo propaganda, etc) You seem to miss the point that govt is us. And it is we who should shape our society.

No, it's not. It's an institution that, at best, represents the interests of the majority , at worst, organized special interests that want to control us. In neither case is government the equivalent of all the people, and it's certainly not the same thing as society.

The founders had it right on this. Government should be the servant of society, not its master.

Nonsense.

The government and the people are one in the same.

It’s naïve and inane to perceive ‘the government’ as some alien entity separate and apart from the people; government reflects the will of the people, it acts at the behest of the people, and the people are solely responsible for what government does.

And it’s the judicial branch of the government whose job it is to safeguard the rights of the people – including safeguarding the rights of the people from the people when they err.

The pure physical fact is that they are not the same thing. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt assume you get that. And that what you're really trying to say is that the will of the majority is the same thing as the will of the people, but that's false as well. The will of the majority, by definition, ignores the will of the minority. It's not the will of all the people, and for those who don't share the majority view, it is very much a separate entity forcing them to comply.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Dear Androw:
You care to take up this issue with the Bone Marrow Registry?
in order to save lives of minorities: Latino, African American, Asian and Native American,
they created 4 nonprofits to educate and solicit registered donors from these four groups.

Their reason is the HLA compatibility is only 1/10 chances of finding a match for minorities (versus 9/10 for caucasians who tend to be compatible with each other at a higher rate).

With minorities, the HLA is more likely to be compatible with the same race, and even greater probability by matching people of the same region, such as Nigerians with Nigerians or Vietnamese with Vietnamese. the HLA is THAT specific.

With interracial patients, the match is almost impossible to find, but greater chance if the donor is the same two mixed races. For example, for one child who was half Indian and half Irish, there was a worldwide search to find a donor, where a compatible donation came from a newborn baby who was also half Indian and half Irish. the chances were 1/200,000 of finding a match and saving that kid's life.

Do you really want to take this up with the doctors who make the assessments and decisions on compatibility, and whether the patient has high enough chance of not rejecting the bone marrow to go through the expense of the surgical procedures?

finding a match is not only based on race, but specifically depends on national ethnicity as well, where people closer genetically are more likely to be compatible. it makes a difference between life and death.

 

[emilynghiem]

No, the proper thing is to scrutinize the schools, their teachers, and course contents, and keep them clean to what we deem proper (ex. No Muslim jihadist propaganda, no homo propaganda, etc) You seem to miss the point that govt is us. And it is we who should shape our society.

No, it's not. It's an institution that, at best, represents the interests of the majority , at worst, organized special interests that want to control us. In neither case is government the equivalent of all the people, and it's certainly not the same thing as society.

The founders had it right on this. Government should be the servant of society, not its master.

Nonsense.

The government and the people are one in the same.

It’s naïve and inane to perceive ‘the government’ as some alien entity separate and apart from the people; government reflects the will of the people, it acts at the behest of the people, and the people are solely responsible for what government does.

And it’s the judicial branch of the government whose job it is to safeguard the rights of the people – including safeguarding the rights of the people from the people when they err.

yes and no.
because the people act like bigots toward opposing views/groups
yes, the political process and even judges can reflect the same conflicts and do.

but no, the govt is NOT supposed to impose the religious views of one group over another
unfortunately that happens where people are not perfect and are running the govt

yes, when a judge/ruling/law reflect OUR beliefs then we say
YES the govt is the people and that is justified

but
no, what happens when a ruling or law goes against our beliefs?
we yell HEY WAIT, that's unconstitutional, the govt isn't supposed to impose religious bias

and yes, this happens back and forth, because
the govt is run by people, and people are not perfect
but we are biased and tend to project those biases
if we do not respect equal constitutional rights, checks and balances,
and protections of the opposing views that are equal under law

we make these mistakes all the time, of giving in justifying and projecting our biases.
and so our govt is prone to the same, as a reflection of the people

you are right, but it is still WRONG
and we still need to correct these biases that interfere with constitutional governance

thank you CCJones
I think you are a fair person, and no more or less biased
than other people on here who equally struggle to be fair
we are all in this together, and yes, I do believe as we
come to resolve our issues, so will our govt reflect that resolve

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Who here believes that they have no religious freedom if they can not deny service to gay folks?

That would be a subset of the people that believe that Jim Crow is happening tomorrow.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, the proper thing is to scrutinize the schools, their teachers, and course contents, and keep them clean to what we deem proper (ex. No Muslim jihadist propaganda, no homo propaganda, etc) You seem to miss the point that govt is us. And it is we who should shape our society.

No, it's not. It's an institution that, at best, represents the interests of the majority , at worst, organized special interests that want to control us. In neither case is government the equivalent of all the people, and it's certainly not the same thing as society.

The founders had it right on this. Government should be the servant of society, not its master.

Nonsense.

The government and the people are one in the same.

It’s naïve and inane to perceive ‘the government’ as some alien entity separate and apart from the people; government reflects the will of the people, it acts at the behest of the people, and the people are solely responsible for what government does.

And it’s the judicial branch of the government whose job it is to safeguard the rights of the people – including safeguarding the rights of the people from the people when they err.

Of all the dumb things you have said on this board, that is, by far, the dumbest.

Explain something, given that the purpose of the judiciary is to protect the rights of the people, why did I grow up in a Constitution Free Zone? Why does such an abomination exist in the first place? Could it be ebcause the courts exist in order to enable the government to screw people over?

 

[Gadawg73]

Who here believes that they have no religious freedom if they can not deny service to gay folks?

That would be a subset of the people that believe that Jim Crow is happening tomorrow.

After 35 years in my business having interviewed over 30,000 witnesses I always know when someone is bull shitting.
You ask a Yes or No question and they punt.

 

[emilynghiem]

No, it's not. It's an institution that, at best, represents the interests of the majority , at worst, organized special interests that want to control us. In neither case is government the equivalent of all the people, and it's certainly not the same thing as society.

The founders had it right on this. Government should be the servant of society, not its master.

Nonsense.

The government and the people are one in the same.

It’s naïve and inane to perceive ‘the government’ as some alien entity separate and apart from the people; government reflects the will of the people, it acts at the behest of the people, and the people are solely responsible for what government does.

And it’s the judicial branch of the government whose job it is to safeguard the rights of the people – including safeguarding the rights of the people from the people when they err.

The pure physical fact is that they are not the same thing. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt assume you get that. And that what you're really trying to say is that the will of the majority is the same thing as the will of the people, but that's false as well. The will of the majority, by definition, ignores the will of the minority. It's not the will of all the people, and for those who don't share the majority view, it is very much a separate entity forcing them to comply.

yes dblack
the day the people and govt are one
there would be "consensus," the govt would perfectly represent all people in unison

right now, with people SUING the govt these are divided and not one in opinion
CLEARLY the govt does NOT reflect ALL the people but only certain lobbies or interests
who can swing majority rule or political power to rule in their favor

(not just nationally but locally I've put up with this for years with the City of Houston violating constitutional principles unless sued, so that's not inalienable if you have to hire lawyers to sue and to win in order to defend rights)


what is sad about ACA is neither the singlepayer on the left feel represented nor the free market advocates on the right; so the majority of people do not consent to this, but we are stuck with it because people don't agree what to change it to. and it is held over our heads like being held hostage. this is not the proper use of govt process, but that is what our country has come to because people failed to resolve conflicts and resort to bullying.

as for laws about discrimination, the marriage laws should be written openly to neither endorse nor ban gay marriage and leave it open to interpretation and choice. If people want to perform or participate or don't want anything to do with gay marraige, that should be respected in private. resolve conflcits directly with people and keep it out of courts and legislatures.

we already have the first and fourteenth amendments. if we don't practice respect for freedom and for equal protections equally, no amount of added legislation is going to fix that problem. if people are bigoted, that needs to be addressed locally; it cannot be legislated out of people because the laws are already written anyway. if people aren't agreeing to practice them, that's theproblem of the people.

Some things I might recommend changing in writing
is clarifying that "political beliefs" should be included in religious beliefs/creed and not be discriminated against;
and more emphasis should be placed in conflict resolution to make decisions by consensus and reduce laws and lawsuits.
these changes could be made by education and free choice, given the laws we already have, and what it takes to enforce them as is.
But given the inability of people to resolve conflicts,
it may take agreeing to them and/or changing them in writing to enforce these concepts.
Consensus is already necessary for all people to be represented equally by law,
but if that isn't happening, maybe we do need to emphasize this in writing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Who here believes that they have no religious freedom if they can not deny service to gay folks?

That would be a subset of the people that believe that Jim Crow is happening tomorrow.

After 35 years in my business having interviewed over 30,000 witnesses I always know when someone is bull shitting.
You ask a Yes or No question and they punt.

Excuse me? What makes a question that begins with the word who a yes or no question? Are your hypothetical children named Yes and No?

 

[protectionist]

No, the proper thing is to scrutinize the schools, their teachers, and course contents, and keep them clean to what we deem proper (ex. No Muslim jihadist propaganda, no homo propaganda, etc) You seem to miss the point that govt is us. And it is we who should shape our society.

No, it's not. It's an institution that, at best, represents the interests of the majority , at worst, organized special interests that want to control us. In neither case is government the equivalent of all the people, and it's certainly not the same thing as society.

The founders had it right on this. Government should be the servant of society, not its master.

Nonsense.

The government and the people are one in the same.

It’s naïve and inane to perceive ‘the government’ as some alien entity separate and apart from the people; government reflects the will of the people, it acts at the behest of the people, and the people are solely responsible for what government does.

And it’s the judicial branch of the government whose job it is to safeguard the rights of the people – including safeguarding the rights of the people from the people when they err.

For once CCJ, we agree.

 

[freedombecki]

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

>>>>

Any business owner with half a brain and a yen for what real alive people want will give faithful service to most everyone in the community.

A bill that allows for a business to refuse service to anyone also allows the owner to refuse to give service to:

• Anyone who has ever stolen property or goods from the business owner
• Anyone who sexually harasses an employee of the business
• Anyone who smears himself with excrement and enters the business or enters with the intention of dirtying the business or targeting customers of the business for revenge against someone who works at the business
• Anyone who enters the business with a dripping ice cream cone that can create a slick and dangerous floor
• Anyone who enters screaming that everyone is going to hell except himself and his small group of flunkies and orders everyone on their knees to save their sinful souls.
• Anyone who enters the business and tries to force employees to join an organization against their will
• Anyone who enters the business and tries to solicit customers to buy his or her competitive products in a retail establishment in which he pays no rent and has no loyalty to the business
• A competitive business owner who enters the business, sees a former customer, and starts a sales pitch to the customer off his premises to leave right away and shop at his establishment instead and engages in a heated argument when the customer declines in order to gain sympathy of other customers or a confederate who gives him enough credibility to persuade others to leave and go to his place of business.
• Anyone who was seen exiting the business without paying for his purchase at an earlier date and is responsible for shoplifting items from the store.
• Anyone who enters the store and engages in contentious diatribe that obstructs the operations of the business

Not every law targets all the things political foes can dream up as possible, they usually simply want to give the business a chance without having to contend with endless jabs from competitors and/or their employees / confederates to destroy the existing business the owner has worked so hard to make a go of.

It doesn't surprise me that states this administration has gone into one legal fracas after another over exercising its freedom to be a unique state would have its legislative measures ninny-hammered on national political boards and forums where political points could be scored on things that are possible but not likely in civil circles of business in which people just want to take home a little bacon to their families if they can just figure out how to deal with unfair competitor habits.

Killing free enterprise is a hallmark of developing communist organizations. The downside is that by targeting the megalithic energy industry, Obama organizers went overboard on the BP Petroleum incident by shutting the BP Co. off from looking into what went wrong with a Presidential dictate to keep the company away from finding the source of the explosion, which has since been scuttle-butted into the fuzzy universe of politics bent on killing big industries by obfuscating the facts so no one will really know what happened to the rig. It also unemployed 30,000 workers in an economy that had seen the unemployment skyrocket since a political unknown took a meteoric rise to salvage a party divided by unfortunate helm decisions to sate power-glutton Jesse Jackson.

Oh, and what do Democrats cherry pick to define this bill that gives small business owners a tiny bit of power in life to keep the business on an even keel? They use abusing gays as their thesis--a scumbag lie if there ever was one, to spread the alleged political incorrectness of one single person opposed to something even some gays opposes, to dirty not just Arizona, but the nation of conservatives, and in particular, Republicans.

It's an example of politics that use bottom-feeding as the bottom line for such a tenuous platform by a party that has taken the national debt far above the 1.3-trillion deficit that started out on day 1 of the Obama administration.

Obama claims the Bush deficit is One trillion, three hundred billion dollars after Bush (A 1.3 trillion deficit) and that he would cut it in half by 2009 (he didn't.)

Obama's explanation of the alleged $1.3 trillion deficit:

 

[protectionist]

Fine. But that doesn't mean to not have a legislature, and not make new laws according to the will of the majority of the people. In fact the founders in their Constitution did just that. Providing for 3 branches of govt, one of which is the legislature, and 2 of which are created by "the majority".

"make new laws according to the will of the majority of the people"
Scary shit there my man.
The majority of the people are DUMB ASSES.

The Constitution forbids that. The will of the majority of the people is not what this country was founded on.

The majority may not tyrannize the minority, thus the amendments.

Nor may the minority tyrannize the majority.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

"make new laws according to the will of the majority of the people"
Scary shit there my man.
The majority of the people are DUMB ASSES.

The Constitution forbids that. The will of the majority of the people is not what this country was founded on.

The majority may not tyrannize the minority, thus the amendments.

Nor may the minority tyrannize the majority.

So, play nice kiddos and get on with your lives,

 

[protectionist]

xxxxxx

 

[protectionist]

No, it's not. It's an institution that, at best, represents the interests of the majority , at worst, organized special interests that want to control us. In neither case is government the equivalent of all the people, and it's certainly not the same thing as society.

The founders had it right on this. Government should be the servant of society, not its master.

Nonsense.

The government and the people are one in the same.

It’s naïve and inane to perceive ‘the government’ as some alien entity separate and apart from the people; government reflects the will of the people, it acts at the behest of the people, and the people are solely responsible for what government does.

And it’s the judicial branch of the government whose job it is to safeguard the rights of the people – including safeguarding the rights of the people from the people when they err.

The pure physical fact is that they are not the same thing. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt assume you get that. And that what you're really trying to say is that the will of the majority is the same thing as the will of the people, but that's false as well. The will of the majority, by definition, ignores the will of the minority. It's not the will of all the people, and for those who don't share the majority view, it is very much a separate entity forcing them to comply.

As when the minority fail to get the president of the US that they voted for. Oh well. That's the American system. Been that way for over 200 years. If anybody doesn't like it, there are countries that don't abide by majority rule elections. Plenty to choose from. Dictatorships abound. All you majority haters can pick Iran, Saudi Arabia, Cuba.
Here's my personal favorite > SYRIA. Bon Voyage!