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

[JakeStarkey]

From the liberal dictionary: Translate: Making a snarky, politically motivated statement which demonstrates no grasp of the actual point made and just has some tertiary connection to a few of the words used in the statement.

Thanks for translating that for me.

The irony is that Kaz does not understand that s/he is projecting.

That's why you need to "translate" for me!!! Keep digging that hole you're in...

Projection again, Kaz. Here let me help you out. Oh, you want to stay there with your arms folded. OK.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It's how they define discrimination. Gays have the negative right now to be left alone. That isn't good enough. The left demands they get positive rights, the right to be belligerent about being gay and infringe on other's rights.

Translated: Gays are fine as long as they are quiet and in the closet...as soon as they demand rights equal to Kaz's...oooh, bad, bad gheys.

I prefer my position.

They can say, or do, whatever the **** they want, as long as they don't force other people to participate in their lives. In return, I can say, or do, whatever the **** I want, as long as I don't force the gays to participate in my life.

And, no, them dancing naked in the street is not forcing me to participate in their lives anymore than me preaching on the same street is forcing them to participate in mine. In fact, they can dance naked while I preach if they want. I still won't force them to go to church.

If you own and operate a business in a jurisdiction whose public accommodations laws address sexual orientation, and you refuse to accommodate a gay patron, you’ll be subject to whatever penalties the law provides, including a lawsuit and being enjoined from discriminating against gay patrons, and appropriately so.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't lie, didn't you say the following?



http://www.usmessageboard.com/8722175-post69.html

I see no reason to deny what I said.

I still get to point out that you lied.

"In QW's mind "all hunters are gay and all gays are hunters".. "

Should I repeat the question for you? Do I intimidate you so much that your only way of dealing with me is lying?

Yeah, where is the lie....you think all gays are hunters and all hunters are gay...the most absurd thing I've ever heard, but then, nobody can point out to you how stupid your comments are.

I will take this as a yes.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So if a straight teacher told their class they were getting married, having a baby, getting a divorce, etc...no biggie

but if one of "the gheys" does it...the world just ends for you?

How old are you?

How about this, tell the teachers, straight or gay or whatever, to keep their private lives out of the classroom completely.

Sure. Show the SAME amount of outrage over MRS Smith teaching class...and using the "MRS" part...flaunting her sexuality like that in public. Where's the outrage?

Only puppets get outraged.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Translated: Gays are fine as long as they are quiet and in the closet...as soon as they demand rights equal to Kaz's...oooh, bad, bad gheys.

I prefer my position.

They can say, or do, whatever the **** they want, as long as they don't force other people to participate in their lives. In return, I can say, or do, whatever the **** I want, as long as I don't force the gays to participate in my life.

And, no, them dancing naked in the street is not forcing me to participate in their lives anymore than me preaching on the same street is forcing them to participate in mine. In fact, they can dance naked while I preach if they want. I still won't force them to go to church.

Cool...as long as we're getting legally married, too...that's great!

Did I finally make my point about you not having a right to a wedding cake?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Translated: Gays are fine as long as they are quiet and in the closet...as soon as they demand rights equal to Kaz's...oooh, bad, bad gheys.

I prefer my position.

They can say, or do, whatever the **** they want, as long as they don't force other people to participate in their lives. In return, I can say, or do, whatever the **** I want, as long as I don't force the gays to participate in my life.

And, no, them dancing naked in the street is not forcing me to participate in their lives anymore than me preaching on the same street is forcing them to participate in mine. In fact, they can dance naked while I preach if they want. I still won't force them to go to church.

If you own and operate a business in a jurisdiction whose public accommodations laws address sexual orientation, and you refuse to accommodate a gay patron, you’ll be subject to whatever penalties the law provides, including a lawsuit and being enjoined from discriminating against gay patrons, and appropriately so.

People like you used to make the same arguments about Jim Crow laws and slavery, people like me stood up to the laws because they were wrong.

Which side won again?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Bingo.
People need need new ******* to look down on as beneath them and someone to point their finger at and say "there you go, they are different and the Bible says we must not allow them as equals".
And the dumb masses eat it up.
1001 other more important issues and the gay boogeyman always brings them out.
And mainly AND ONLY most of the time at election time.

What a load of shit - and really Dawg, if you are agreeing with Saul Goodman (Clayton,) you KNOW you're dead wrong on the issue, regardless of what that issue is.

I'm walking down a crowded street - quick, who are the queers? You can't tell, because homosexuality is a BEHAVIOR, not a race. Unless a dude drops in the middle of the street and starts sucking some guys cock, there is nothing to identify homosexuals - it's a behavior.

The ONLY way someone can discriminate against homosexuals is based on what they do, not color of skin.

Saul wants to make behavior equivalent to race, but then the closest Saul gets to logic, is logical fallacy.

It's how they define discrimination. Gays have the negative right now to be left alone. That isn't good enough. The left demands they get positive rights, the right to be belligerent about being gay and infringe on other's rights.

One can only assume the source of this delusional nonsense is your unwarranted hatred of gay Americans.

The issue has nothing to do with being ‘left alone,’ the left ‘demanding’ anything, or anyone being ‘belligerent.’

The issue only concerns the rights gay Americans have always possessed, the same rights all Americans possess: the right to due process and equal protection of the law. Gay Americans are not seeking ‘new’ rights, or ‘special’ rights, nothing could be further from the truth – they seek only recognition of that which they’ve always possessed, since before the advent of the Republic: the right to due process and equal protection of the law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What a load of shit - and really Dawg, if you are agreeing with Saul Goodman (Clayton,) you KNOW you're dead wrong on the issue, regardless of what that issue is.

I'm walking down a crowded street - quick, who are the queers? You can't tell, because homosexuality is a BEHAVIOR, not a race. Unless a dude drops in the middle of the street and starts sucking some guys cock, there is nothing to identify homosexuals - it's a behavior.

The ONLY way someone can discriminate against homosexuals is based on what they do, not color of skin.

Saul wants to make behavior equivalent to race, but then the closest Saul gets to logic, is logical fallacy.

It's how they define discrimination. Gays have the negative right now to be left alone. That isn't good enough. The left demands they get positive rights, the right to be belligerent about being gay and infringe on other's rights.

Translated: Gays are fine as long as they are quiet and in the closet...as soon as they demand rights equal to Kaz's...oooh, bad, bad gheys.

Exactly.

And don’t forget to be glad you live in America, and only being denied your civil rights, if you lived in some other country you might be put to death.

 

[protectionist]

And to add to your comment, if a man does not have the common sense and intelligence not to put his stick in the mud, does that homosexual man have the common sense and intelligence not to tell Children he is a homosexual.

The answer was given to me when my daughter was 10, in school, when her Homosexual teacher told the whole class that he was breaking up with his "life partner".

What right do Homosexuals have to tell 10 year old children that are not theirs about Homosexuality?

Well, this is the beginning of a terrible story that I will end here.

anyone who does not have the intelligence to control their sexual proclivities has not the intelligence to be around children.

So if a straight teacher told their class they were getting married, having a baby, getting a divorce, etc...no biggie

but if one of "the gheys" does it...the world just ends for you?

How old are you?

You don't seem to get it. The straight teacher could speak about his normal marriage without exposing the kids to harmful ideas. No biggie, that's correct. The minute the queer teacher does, he IS exposing the kids to harmful ideas, and that IS a biggee.
And age has nothing to do with it.

 

[protectionist]

What a load of shit - and really Dawg, if you are agreeing with Saul Goodman (Clayton,) you KNOW you're dead wrong on the issue, regardless of what that issue is.

I'm walking down a crowded street - quick, who are the queers? You can't tell, because homosexuality is a BEHAVIOR, not a race. Unless a dude drops in the middle of the street and starts sucking some guys cock, there is nothing to identify homosexuals - it's a behavior.

The ONLY way someone can discriminate against homosexuals is based on what they do, not color of skin.

Saul wants to make behavior equivalent to race, but then the closest Saul gets to logic, is logical fallacy.

It's how they define discrimination. Gays have the negative right now to be left alone. That isn't good enough. The left demands they get positive rights, the right to be belligerent about being gay and infringe on other's rights.

One can only assume the source of this delusional nonsense is your unwarranted hatred of gay Americans.

The issue has nothing to do with being ‘left alone,’ the left ‘demanding’ anything, or anyone being ‘belligerent.’

The issue only concerns the rights gay Americans have always possessed, the same rights all Americans possess: the right to due process and equal protection of the law. Gay Americans are not seeking ‘new’ rights, or ‘special’ rights, nothing could be further from the truth – they seek only recognition of that which they’ve always possessed, since before the advent of the Republic: the right to due process and equal protection of the law.

And they will continue to be refused those rights due to the fact that they constitute HARM to the American people, especially children, military members, sports athletes, etc.

 

[protectionist]

It appears the protectionist has applied Strict Scrutiny in the opposite direction from what it actually is...

From last months ruling --

Lately, it seems like every day brings another falling domino in the fight for marriage freedom. Today's victory comes from Virginia, where a federal judge declared the state's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. The case, Bostic v. Rainey, looks a lot like every other marriage case -- loving and committed same-sex couples want nothing more than to have their love recognized by the state.

Judge Arenda Wright Allen, a former Judge Advocate General in the Navy and public defender and an Obama appointee to the federal bench, declared Virginia's ban unconstitutional, but took a different path than some other judges who have recently come to similar conclusions. The decision concludes that marriage is a fundamental right and, as such, any ban on fundamental rights has to be evaluated under strict scrutiny.

But Judge Wright Allen notes that she does not have to go the far: the ban fails very easily under equal protection, and under the lowest form of scrutiny. But, as you will see from our discussion below, this decision feeds off recent decisions elsewhere on marriage equality, proving that a victory in one case does indeed make it easier to win the next case.

Regular Towleroad readers should be familiar with this argument. It does not break any new ground and will probably stand up at the appellate level. And although the Fourth Circuit has for years been a deeply conservative court, President Obama's recent appointees have tipped the balance. Even if they had not, we have seen many Republican appointees honestly apply the law and find these bans unconstitutional.

States cannot restrict fundamental rights, which are rights so important to what it means to be an American, unless they provide a "compelling interest" and "narrowly tailor" their actions to result in the least restriction possible. That is strict scrutiny, and Virginia's arguments could not even come close.

Virginia's Gay Marriage Ban Struck Down: Analysis of the Ruling| Gay News | Towleroad

Looks like you're not understanding what strict scrutinity is all about, or you only want to perceive it when it's used in the pro-queer way. For your edification, strict scrutiny, and its attachment (compelling interest), are used by 34 states in the USA, in a wide variety of ways. As a result, queers are denied equal protection of the law in those states, because there, they see a compelling interest to enact those denials, and this has held up for decades. Click the links to see the results.

https://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/maps-of-state-laws-policies

 

[KNB]

The law was vetoed and Jan Brewer won't seek reelection.

 

[Mertex]

I see no reason to deny what I said.

I still get to point out that you lied.

Should I repeat the question for you? Do I intimidate you so much that your only way of dealing with me is lying?

Yeah, where is the lie....you think all gays are hunters and all hunters are gay...the most absurd thing I've ever heard, but then, nobody can point out to you how stupid your comments are.

I will take this as a yes.

Yes what? That you are the one that is lying.....or yes, your comments are stupid....either one will do.

 

[protectionist]

It appears the protectionist has applied Strict Scrutiny in the opposite direction from what it actually is...

From last months ruling --

Lately, it seems like every day brings another falling domino in the fight for marriage freedom. Today's victory comes from Virginia, where a federal judge declared the state's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. The case, Bostic v. Rainey, looks a lot like every other marriage case -- loving and committed same-sex couples want nothing more than to have their love recognized by the state.

Judge Arenda Wright Allen, a former Judge Advocate General in the Navy and public defender and an Obama appointee to the federal bench, declared Virginia's ban unconstitutional, but took a different path than some other judges who have recently come to similar conclusions. The decision concludes that marriage is a fundamental right and, as such, any ban on fundamental rights has to be evaluated under strict scrutiny.

But Judge Wright Allen notes that she does not have to go the far: the ban fails very easily under equal protection, and under the lowest form of scrutiny. But, as you will see from our discussion below, this decision feeds off recent decisions elsewhere on marriage equality, proving that a victory in one case does indeed make it easier to win the next case.

Regular Towleroad readers should be familiar with this argument. It does not break any new ground and will probably stand up at the appellate level. And although the Fourth Circuit has for years been a deeply conservative court, President Obama's recent appointees have tipped the balance. Even if they had not, we have seen many Republican appointees honestly apply the law and find these bans unconstitutional.

States cannot restrict fundamental rights, which are rights so important to what it means to be an American, unless they provide a "compelling interest" and "narrowly tailor" their actions to result in the least restriction possible. That is strict scrutiny, and Virginia's arguments could not even come close.

Virginia's Gay Marriage Ban Struck Down: Analysis of the Ruling| Gay News | Towleroad

It appears the protectionist has applied Strict Scrutiny in the opposite direction from what YOU THINK it actually is IN VIRGINIA
.

Which earns you a big fat SO WHAT ? So what if Virginia on February 13, 2014, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that Virginia's ban on marriage equality is unconstitutional ?

This is ONE STATE out of 34, that deny queers equal protection of the law, based on strict scrutiny and a compelling interest to do so. (the compelling interest being to not allow the state's culture to be turned into a nutjob one to accomodate a bunch of nutjobs). You could have gone further and cited the Oklahoma ruling, the same. In both of these two cases the rulings are stayed pending appeal, meaning marriages will not occur immediately in Oklahoma or Virginia. And it is only upon a pro-queer verdict on appeal that SSM will actually ever occur in these states. Well, they could appeal it until they turn blue, and it won't do any good. Why not ? You think this hasn't happened before ? In numerous other states, this has already been done and the strict scrutiny principle of compelling interest has repeatedly been applied to rule that queers may be denied equal protection of the law, for one primary reason. Because they are not equal. Don't believe it ? Click the link, and its list of links, and look at the mass of states that deny queers equal protection in a whole host of ways.

https://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/maps-of-state-laws-policies

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yeah, where is the lie....you think all gays are hunters and all hunters are gay...the most absurd thing I've ever heard, but then, nobody can point out to you how stupid your comments are.

I will take this as a yes.

Yes what? That you are the one that is lying.....or yes, your comments are stupid....either one will do.

Aren't you the one that claimed that, since you don't live in Arizona, nothing that happens there makes a difference to you?

 

[protectionist]

Actually that is the gist of the Loving decision in 1967. That states can regulate Civil Marriage until such time as they violate rights.



Which case was that?

United States vs. Carolene Products Co., and Korematsu v. United States

Strict scrutiny is the most stringent standard of judicial review used by United States courts. It is part of the hierarchy of standards that courts use to weigh the government's interest against a constitutional right or principle. The lesser standards are rational basis review and exacting or intermediate scrutiny. These standards are used to test statutes and government action at all levels of government within the United States.

The notion of "levels of judicial scrutiny", including strict scrutiny, was introduced in Footnote 4 of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Carolene Products Co. (1938), one of a series of decisions testing the constitutionality of New Deal legislation. The first and most notable case in which the Supreme Court applied the strict scrutiny standard and found the government's actions valid was Korematsu v. United States (1944), in which the Court upheld the exclusion of Japanese Americans from designated areas during World War II.

U.S. courts apply the strict scrutiny standard in two contexts, when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed,[1] particularly those found in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause or "liberty clause" of the 14th Amendment.

To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must be justified by acompelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred.

The United States vs. Carolene Products Co., and Korematsu v. United States were just the earliest of the cases of strict scrutiny requiring compelling interest. Over the years, there have been hundreds of cases involving this principle such as the Supreme Court under Earl Warren adopted an expansive view of the Free Exercise Clause. The Court required that states have a "compelling interest" in refusing to accommodate religiously motivated conduct as it decided Sherbert v. Verner (1963).

The "compelling interest" doctrine became much narrower in 1990, when the Supreme Court held in Employment Division v. Smith that, as long as a law does not target a particular religious practice, it does not violate the Free Exercise Clause.

in 1993, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which sought to restore the "compelling interest" standard. In City of Boerne v. Flores (1997) the Court struck down the provisions of the Act that forced state and local governments to provide protections exceeding those required by the First Amendment, which the courts enjoy sole power to interpret. According to the court's ruling in Gonzales v. UDV (2006), RFRA remains applicable to federal statutes, which must therefore still meet the "compelling interest" standard in free exercise cases.

Here's a few more examples (quoted right off the Supreme Court bench) >>>

“It [the university] must show that its regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn to achieve that end.” (Widmar v. Vincent, 454 US 263, 270, 1981)

“For the state to enforce a content-based exclusion it must show that its regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn to achieve that end.” (Perry Ed. Assn. v. Perry Local Ed. Assn., 460 US 37, 45, 1983)

“The Court of Appeals found the injunction to be content based and neither necessary to serve a compelling interest nor narrowly drawn to achieve that end.” (Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, 512 US __, __, 1994)

“Requiring a State to demonstrate a compelling interest and show that it has adopted the least restrictive means of achieving that interest is the most demanding test known to constitutional law.” (City of Boerne v. Flores, 1997 US Lexis 4035, 46)

OK, I may have misunderstood. Of course the government can discriminate if their is a compelling government interest. But of course there is no compelling government interest in discriminating against gays as a function of government. Hell, not only does it not have a compelling government interest, it doesn't even rise to the rational basis test standard.

Take for example Colorado's Amendment 2 which attempted to strip equality from homosexuals and leave them with no legal recourse to challenge discrimination, not only at the State level is voided even local laws that attempted to provide legal recourse. In Romer v. Evans the court stated:

"The Fourteenth Amendment's promise that no person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws must co-exist with the practical necessity that most legislation classifies for one purpose or another, with resulting disadvantage to various groups or persons. Personnel Administrator of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 271- 272 (1979); F. S. Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia, 253 U.S. 412, 415 (1920). We have attempted to reconcile the principle with the reality by stating that, if a law neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class, we will uphold the legislative classification so long as it bears a rational relation to some legitimate end. See, e.g., Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. ___, ___ (1993) (slip op., at 6).

Amendment 2 fails, indeed defies, even this conventional inquiry. First, the amendment has the peculiar property of imposing a broad and undifferentiated disability on a single named group, an exceptional and, as we shall explain, invalid form of legislation. Second, its sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests."​

Just to reiterate, the court said the the desire to discriminate against homosexuals lacked a rational basis.

Who cares what the state court said ? This is a lower court ruling (stayed on appeal), which will be overturned, based on the strict scrutiny (compelling interest) principle, as have many of these which have resulted in the USA map being massively a map of discrimination against queers. Don't think so ? Click the link, it's link list, and look at the maps for your self.

https://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/maps-of-state-laws-policies

This post is like trying to put the weight of a fly up against the weight of an elephant. The fly is your feeble Amendment 2 example. The elephant is the 34 states in the USA which allow discrimination every day against queers, in marriage, adoption, public accomodations, teaching, housing laws, hospital visitation, employment, etc, etc. + the numerous anti-queer laws that exist all over the country***, firmly resting upon the platform of strict scrutiny's compelling interest to keep homosexuals from establishing their perversion as an acceptable entity in society, which would be harmful to Americans and America, turning it into one big giant nuthouse.

*** A few examples >>>

1. In Alabama, state law dictates that homosexuality is not an acceptable lifestyle: (ALA CODE § 16-40A-2-c8)

2. According to Arizona law, not only is there nothing positive about being gay, there is no safe way to have homo sex:
C. No district shall include in its course of study instruction which:
1. Promotes a homosexual life-style.
2. Portrays homosexuality as a positive alternative life-style.
3. Suggests that some methods of sex are safe methods of homosexual sex. (AZ 15-716C)

3. Louisiana has a law censoring homosexuality in sex education, but it only applies to “any sexually explicit materials depicting male or female homosexual activity.” Given the law’s emphasis on abstinence from sexual activity outside of marriage and the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, non-pictorial discussions of homosexuality could probably be considered violations as well.(RS-17-281)

4. Mississippi law dismisses the possibility that there is any kind of queer sex that is safe, appropriate, or legal:
(1) Abstinence education shall be the state standard for any sex-related education taught in the public schools. For purposes of this section, abstinence education includes any type of instruction or program which, at an appropriate age: [...]
(e) Teaches the current state law related to sexual conduct, including forcible rape, statutory rape, paternity establishment, child support and homosexual activity; and
(f) Teaches that a mutually faithful, monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the only appropriate setting for sexual intercourse. (37-13-171)

5. North Carolina law implies that queer sex is inherently unhealthy: e. Teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous heterosexual relationship in the context of marriage is the best lifelong means of avoiding sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS. (115C-81)

6. Oklahoma’s law focuses specifically on preventing the transmission of the “AIDS virus” (HIV), claiming that “homosexual activity” is among the causes primarily responsible for contact with it:
D. AIDS prevention education shall specifically teach students that:
1. engaging in homosexual activity, promiscuous sexual activity, intravenous drug use or contact with contaminated blood products is now known to be primarily responsible for contact with the AIDS virus;
2. avoiding the activities specified in paragraph 1 of this subsection is the only method of preventing the spread of the virus; (§70 11 103.3)

7. In South Carolina:
(5) The program of instruction provided for in this section may not include a discussion of alternate sexual lifestyles from heterosexual relationships including, but not limited to, homosexual relationships except in the context of instruction concerning sexually transmitted diseases. (South Carolina Code 59-32-30. Local school boards to implement comprehensive health education program; guidelines and restrictions).

8. Even though it was Texas’s sodomy law that the Supreme Court struck down over 10 years ago, that law is still part of the state’s sex education policy:
(b) The materials in the education programs intended for persons younger than 18 years of age must:
(1) emphasize sexual abstinence before marriage and fidelity in marriage as the expected standard in terms of public health and the most effective ways to prevent HIV infection, sexually transmitted diseases, and unwanted pregnancies; and
(2) state that homosexual conduct is not an acceptable lifestyle and is a criminal offense under Section 21.06, Penal Code.

The law also asserts that “sexual activity before marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical consequences,” and given that same-sex marriage is banned in Texas, this implies that all gay sex is harmful in such fashion.

9. Utah law prohibits “the advocacy of homosexuality.” (53A-13-101-AII)

10. In Florida, lawmakers this year rejected a statewide domestic partnership registry that would have granted health care visitation, among other rights, to same-sex couples. Homo members of the National Guard recently were prohibited from signing up for federal benefits at state buildings. And a Broward County Republican Party leader almost lost her job for voicing support for homosexual marriage. Florida's state constitution continues to define marriage as between a man and a woman, and prohibits gays from adopting children.
Florida is also one of nine states that refused to register same-sex spouses of National Guard personnel for health and death benefits, and refuses to issue them identification cards to access military bases.

 

[protectionist]

Translated: Gays are fine as long as they are quiet and in the closet...as soon as they demand rights equal to Kaz's...oooh, bad, bad gheys.

I prefer my position.

They can say, or do, whatever the **** they want, as long as they don't force other people to participate in their lives. In return, I can say, or do, whatever the **** I want, as long as I don't force the gays to participate in my life.

And, no, them dancing naked in the street is not forcing me to participate in their lives anymore than me preaching on the same street is forcing them to participate in mine. In fact, they can dance naked while I preach if they want. I still won't force them to go to church.

If you own and operate a business in a jurisdiction whose public accommodations laws address sexual orientation, and you refuse to accommodate a gay patron, you’ll be subject to whatever penalties the law provides, including a lawsuit and being enjoined from discriminating against gay patrons, and appropriately so.

Solution: Move to a better jurisdiction.

 

[KNB]

Solution: **** off and take your Bible with you.

 

[WorldWatcher]

OK, I may have misunderstood. Of course the government can discriminate if their is a compelling government interest. But of course there is no compelling government interest in discriminating against gays as a function of government. Hell, not only does it not have a compelling government interest, it doesn't even rise to the rational basis test standard.

Take for example Colorado's Amendment 2 which attempted to strip equality from homosexuals and leave them with no legal recourse to challenge discrimination, not only at the State level is voided even local laws that attempted to provide legal recourse. In Romer v. Evans the court stated:

"The Fourteenth Amendment's promise that no person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws must co-exist with the practical necessity that most legislation classifies for one purpose or another, with resulting disadvantage to various groups or persons. Personnel Administrator of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 271- 272 (1979); F. S. Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia, 253 U.S. 412, 415 (1920). We have attempted to reconcile the principle with the reality by stating that, if a law neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class, we will uphold the legislative classification so long as it bears a rational relation to some legitimate end. See, e.g., Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. ___, ___ (1993) (slip op., at 6).

Amendment 2 fails, indeed defies, even this conventional inquiry. First, the amendment has the peculiar property of imposing a broad and undifferentiated disability on a single named group, an exceptional and, as we shall explain, invalid form of legislation. Second, its sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests."​

Just to reiterate, the court said the the desire to discriminate against homosexuals lacked a rational basis.

Who cares what the state court said. This is a lower court ruling (stayed on appeal), which will be overturned...

Ummmm...

The case of Romer v. Evans was a Supreme Court of the United States case and not a state court decision. The SCOTUS is the one who defined that under the United States Constitution that laws targeting homosexuals are unconstitutional and as it referred to amendment 2 had no rational basis - let alone needing to rise to strict scrutiny.

Romer v. Evans | LII / Legal Information Institute




*************************


Your opinion that throwing around the words "strict scrutiny" is going to be some kind of magic spell that can be invoked to deny equal treatment under the law for homosexuals is misplaced. A careful reading of the Romer decision and Windsor v. United States (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf) would - and should - make someone in your position very nervous. The arguments you propose have and are being shot down. Not just in the courts mind you, but in the legislatures, and as we saw in the 2012 General Election, with Same-sex Civil Marriage winning at the ballot box as well.


>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

I prefer my position.

They can say, or do, whatever the **** they want, as long as they don't force other people to participate in their lives. In return, I can say, or do, whatever the **** I want, as long as I don't force the gays to participate in my life.

And, no, them dancing naked in the street is not forcing me to participate in their lives anymore than me preaching on the same street is forcing them to participate in mine. In fact, they can dance naked while I preach if they want. I still won't force them to go to church.

Cool...as long as we're getting legally married, too...that's great!

Did I finally make my point about you not having a right to a wedding cake?

Goodness no...there is no point to make with bullshit "religious objections" to public accommodation laws. You got the business license, now do the ******* business. If you live in a state that includes gays in public accommodation laws, do business with them or move.

In all 50 states I must serve a Christian even if I "object" to their religiosity. Suck it up, Sunshine.