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

[Quantum Windbag]

Why do some people on here think it's necessary to call other peoole dumb?
Are you that insecure about your argument that you have to resort to insulting those who disagree with you?
And it's always calling someone dumb, stupid, or an idiot like a third grader. Grow up and think of something intelligent to say if your going to claim someone else is "dumb".
I'm sure if you put your mind to it you could come up with an argument that's actually worth reading.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Because some people are dumb, idiot.

 

[N8dizzle]

Sorry, but that's not how it works. You do not have any legal right to have your entire life be pleasant and positive. Nor do you have a right to force people to associate with you, simply because you want them to.

We are also not really talking about gay people "buying something". Do you really imagine the scenario this law addresses is the Safeway making its customers fill out a lifestyle questionnaire before letting them grocery shop?

And finally, shockingly, my choice about how I exercise my rights is not dependent on YOU approving of it or thinking it "benefits" someone. Please, PLEASE try to understand how monstrous it truly is to try to legislate utopia with that gormless expression on your face while you say, "What? This is how things SHOULD be, so why not make it illegal to be different?"

I'm not saying that anyone has the legal right for their whole life to be pleasant or positive. But we as human beings should strive to make this world as fair and just as possible for everyone.

Do you know that when leftist halfwits start throwing around words like "should" and "fair", it gives me a cold chill down my spine? It always means "Brave New World" is right around the corner.

"Fair" is a kindergarten word, with no objective meaning and thrown around by the immature and simpleminded and naive to basically mean "the world the way I want it to be". You don't think it's "fair" that gay people can't be viewed the way they want to be by everyone. Can you understand why other people might think it's not "fair" to have YOU trying to force them to view gay people the way they want to be viewed?
As for "just", how is it just for you to swish in and say, "Your beliefs are wrong, and therefore you have no right to believe them? You must switch over to my beliefs, because they are much better and more moral"?



There goes that cold chill again.

There's a big difference between the pursuit of happiness and the bludgeoning of others into complying with your happiness.



I don't know. Why are you?

I know that you don't need my approval in how you live your life, but I am entitled to an opinion just like you.

Sure you are. What you are NOT entitled to is the right to make me care about your opinion, or share your opinion, or keep my mouth shut and pretend I agree with your opinion.

And common sense should tell you that ALL laws are made in an attempt to benefit society.

Quite true. Now if you could just wrap your brain around the fact that "benefit society" is not defined as "What N8dizzle thinks is best, because he's so damned much smarter and morally superior to everyone else". This isn't an argument about benefitting society (aka conforming to your personal wisdom) and damaging society (aka disagreeing with your personal wisdom). It's an argument between your PERSONAL OPINION about what benefits society and OTHER PEOPLE'S PERSONAL OPINIONS about what benefits society.

Just because you don't think the freedom to exercise beliefs and choose associations is as important as "being nice" doesn't mean that's the one universal truth here.

Why are you stuck on this idea that I'm trying to force my opinion on you?
Isn't the whole idea of this to discuss something that we all don't agree on?
I don't expect you to change your views for me, or to agree with me. I'm just saying what I believe. How is that any different than you talking about your beliefs?
So... when you say whatever you want about the subject thats ok, but when I say something I'm trying to force my beliefs on you.
You seem to think that I'm the only one who disagrees with you. You haven't noticed that this is a highly debated issue? I never claimed that anyone personally owes me an explanation or that my view is more important than other people's.
This law doesn't even effect me personally. I don't own a business, and I'm not gay. I think that when a law is passed that is hateful and does nothing but hurt our society, people who realize it should speak up.
And it doesn't surprise me that the word "fair" gives you chills. If I were as closed minded as you I wouldn't like the words "fair" or "just" either.
I shutter to think of how you feel when you see the word "equality."

You'd probably fall over dead if you read the constitution.






Sent from my SPH-D710 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[Derideo_Te]

Jesus did side with the prostitute, but he told her to go and sin no more. She stopped being a prostitute. Jesus would most certainly side with the gays, but they would have to stop engaging in homosexual behavior to be saved. Jesus never told the crowd that they had to accept prostitution as a legitimate method of making money nor urge the crowd to teach their children that prostitution was okay and their children should be prostitutes.

How do you know that Jesus and/or the disciples were not gay themselves? Jesus never uttered a single word against homosexuality. Being gay is not a sin, it is simply taking the concept of loving your fellow man literally. OTOH hating gays is most definitely a sin since it flies in the face of Jesus telling you to love one another.

Easy, as a Christian I believe the whole Bible as Gods word. Leviticus says that homosexuality is a sin punishable by death. Jesus spoke against all sin including sexual immorality which homosexuality is. Saying Jesus never spoke against homosexuality is a lame excuse to defend the sick sin of gay. Gay is SICK>

According to Exodus you must murder children with Tourettes that swear at their parents if you "believe the whole Bible as Gods word". How does murdering children equate with the "Thou shalt not kill"? If you really "believe the whole Bible as Gods word" then you don't get to cherry pick but I am willing to bet you will do exactly that in response.

 

[dblack]

How do you figure that? Does the law say people HAVE to discriminate against anyone? I don't think so. Nor is it "endorsing religion", insofar as it is protecting the rights of ALL religions to choose associations, not just one.

It's endorsing religions specifically by selecting which religious beliefs will be exempt from the law - because certainly not any view that someone claims is religious will qualify. It endorses religious views in general by giving them special status above and beyond secular convictions. Why should a religious person be allowed to discriminate against gays because they believe God told them to, but a secular person can't do likewise if they happen to think homosexuality is an affront to evolution?

It. Does. Not. Do. That.

I think it does, for the reasons I've stated. But I appreciate the fact that you see it differently and I see no reason to rehash the debate.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

I could be wrong, but I don't think eating in a restaurant is actually a right. If it was, they wouldn't be able to charge you for the service.

Want to try again?

lol, so I guess owning a gun isn't a right because gun stores are able to charge you to purchase one.

 

[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?

I don't believe anyone's ever objected to preventing the mentally ill from obtaining guns. In fact, if anything, it would be the LEFT that prevents that, with all their distracting blather about magazine sizes and "assault weapons" and their persistent ACLU actions on behalf of "the right not to be treated".

The extreme right has been adamantly opposed to all background checks to determine if anyone has a history of mental illness. But hardly surprising that you want to blame the left for the obstruction of the extreme right.

 

[dblack]

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.

I could be wrong, but I don't think eating in a restaurant is actually a right. If it was, they wouldn't be able to charge you for the service.

Want to try again?

lol, so I guess owning a gun isn't a right because gun stores are able to charge you to purchase one.

You're getting warmer! Now you just need to recognize the difference between owning something, and making someone else give it to you. The former is a right, the latter is theft.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

How do you figure that? Does the law say people HAVE to discriminate against anyone? I don't think so. Nor is it "endorsing religion", insofar as it is protecting the rights of ALL religions to choose associations, not just one.

You would be outraged if a law was passed enabling gays to discriminate against Christians and you would be squealing about "special rights for gays". This law is exactly the reverse of that where Christians are being allowed "special rights" to discriminate against gays. What is good for the goose...

 

[dblack]

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.

How do you figure that? Does the law say people HAVE to discriminate against anyone? I don't think so. Nor is it "endorsing religion", insofar as it is protecting the rights of ALL religions to choose associations, not just one.

You would be outraged if a law was passed enabling gays to discriminate against Christians and you would be squealing about "special rights for gays". This law is exactly the reverse of that where Christians are being allowed "special rights" to discriminate against gays. What is good for the goose...

Would you, Cecelie? Let's get a roll call. How many of those opposed to "public accommodations" laws would complain if the tables were turned?

 

[dblack]

How do you figure that? Does the law say people HAVE to discriminate against anyone? I don't think so. Nor is it "endorsing religion", insofar as it is protecting the rights of ALL religions to choose associations, not just one.

You would be outraged if a law was passed enabling gays to discriminate against Christians and you would be squealing about "special rights for gays". This law is exactly the reverse of that where Christians are being allowed "special rights" to discriminate against gays. What is good for the goose...

Would you, Cecelie? Let's get a roll call. How many of those opposed to "public accommodations" laws would complain if the tables were turned?

Speaking for myself, if repeal of anti-discrimination laws resulted in a business discriminating against me, I would complain, perhaps quite loudly, depending on my mood. But I wouldn't call the police to force them to cater to me. It's their right to refuse.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Would you, Cecelie? Let's get a roll call. How many of those opposed to "public accommodations" laws would complain if the tables were turned?

Conditions:
I'm opposed to Public Accommodation laws as applied to private businesses. Public Accommodation laws should only apply to government entities. Government entities should not be allowed to discriminate in the functions and services provided to law abiding, tax paying, US Citizens. In addition, Public Accommodation laws should restrict the contracting and purchases of services using taxpayer dollars with businesses who have a history of discriminatory conduct. Fundamentally, Public Accommodation laws infringe on the rights of property and free association for non-government entities - JMHO of course.

Result:
There would be no "tables to turn" since there wouldn't be a table to begin with.



Now, just because I have an opinion about what the law should be, does not mean I confuse what the functioning of the law is in reality.

>>>>

 

[RandallFlagg]

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

Good for them!

 

[Mustang]

Just wait until the first Christian is discriminated against because of this law.

 

[Katzndogz]

The photographer who refused to take the wedding pictures was happy to take studio photographs. What she refused to do was attend the wedding itself. So it was more than just taking a few pictures.

Oh I'm sorry I must have misunderstood. I thought that they just wanted the photographer to take pictures of the wedding. I didn't realize that they were actually expecting the photographer to celebrate with them.
Yeah, if they actually wanted the photographer to take part in the ceremony then I agree, that wouldn't be right.
Sorry, I misunderstood.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Don't you know that wedding photographers actually have to GO TO THE WEDDING? I thought everyone that had ever been to a wedding knew that.

 

[RandallFlagg]

This makes no sense.

Just want to point out that this is probably the first thing Clayton got right in a while, his post does make no sense.

No one is attempting “to force everyone to treat each other equally,” and government discrimination results as a consequence of the people acting in a manner offensive to the Constitution and its case law, motivated by fear, ignorance, or hatred.

Let me get this straight, when the government makes a public accommodation law that claims that you have to treat the Gay Nazi exactly the same way you treat the Baptist minister they aren't actually forcing you to do it because...

Well, just because.

For the record, the only action that is offensive to the Constitution is action originated by the government. Individuals cannot offend the Constitution, even if they stand on the steps of the Supreme Court, tear it up, burn it, and piss on it.

But, please, keep pretending you are intelligent.



Yet public accommodation laws exist, and are enforced, and you support it.



True, that is progressives who call themselves liberals.

And you know what it is because you support it with most of your posts.



How is that perception wrong? Isn't that there goal? Isn't that naive? Is their real goal something else? Can you tell us what it is?



In a world where [MENTION=29614]C_Clayton_Jones[/MENTION] posts everything is closer to the truth than anything he says.



This is going to be wrong, I guarantee it.



Newsflash, genius, that has nothing to do with the Constitution, that is the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution actually does not codify our rights, it codifies the powers of, and the restrictions on, the government.


Although inalienable our rights are not absolute, and are subject to reasonable restrictions by government pursuant to a rational motive, objective, documented evidence, and a proper legislative end.



That was funny.

Tell me something, how is it possible to define any burden the courts place on the government as heavy? Didn't the Supreme Court just hand down a ruling that said that any dog a cop says is trained is the functional equivalent of a search warrant? Haven't the also credited cops with the uncanny ability to smell raw marijuana through a hermetically sealed door and down a 25 foot long walkway? Does that really sound like a heavy burden to you?

Equality, then, is the consistent, rational, and legitimate application of the state’s authority to all persons as it seeks to govern, prohibiting government from unwarranted violations of civil liberties predicated on subjective animus toward a particular class of persons, such as gay Americans in this case.

Consistent, that is funny.

If the state is consistent why does San Francisco, which has a 2% black population, have a jail population that is over 60% black? Are they just really good at arresting black people who are travel ling through the city? Do they raid Oakland?

This has nothing to do with wishing to ‘make everyone equal,’ as the notion is nonsense and has nothing to do with the civil liberties of gay Americans and the state’s unwarranted efforts to violate those civil liberties.

If it is nonsense then I am sure you join with me in the call for the repeal of all public accommodation laws, the Civil Rights Act, affirmative action, and Title IX rules.

If, on the other hand, you are just bloviating, feel free to pretend you don't see this post.

It's perfectly acceptable to this paralegal for those with religious convictions that don't accept the "gay" proposition - like most every religion in the world - to be forced to give up THEIR rights so limp-wrists can have THEIR way.

The notion that a man and a man or a woman and a woman is somehow "the same" as the natural order of a man and a woman and that they should be afforded the same "rights" to me is abhorrent; however "accepted" it is. And to then take it a step farther and assume that gay "rights" are somehow equated on the same plain as civil "rights" again, is abhorrent.

There should ALWAYS be that certain "distance" in allowing civil unions - as opposed to actual "marriage" between a man and a woman. But to be FORCED to accept perverted behavior because a few in this country engage in it is immoral and, in my opinion, unlawful to those religious entities that believe that way - as I do.

It's more or less like the current state of that mess called "Obarrycare" in trying to force religious institutions (or those with strong religious convictions) to provide birth control for employees. It is wrong. You're upset that the "Sisters of Mercy" don't provide contraception? Look for another job.

 

[Bfgrn]

The fact that we even have a law, or debate the legailty of freedom of association is pathetic in a supposedly free country. A business owner, in any state, for any reason, should be allowed to determine who they will provide services to.

But, LOLberals just love the idea of forcing people to do what they believe is right.

Educate yourselves you right wing fascists.

Do you know ANYTHING about the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

 

[Bfgrn]

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

Good for them!

You just earned the other half.

 

[Kondor3]

The fact that we even have a law, or debate the legailty of freedom of association is pathetic in a supposedly free country. A business owner, in any state, for any reason, should be allowed to determine who they will provide services to.

But, LOLberals just love the idea of forcing people to do what they believe is right.

You didn't read the Constitution where it says if you are a business liberals have a right to your goods and services?

i think it is in between the right to kill unborn children and the right to have someone else pay for your medical bills.

Ouch.

 

[Kondor3]

Just wait until the first Christian is discriminated against because of this law.

Given that most of the Provider base is ALSO Christian, I think think the Christians can afford to take a hit here-and-there, so long as those who so-hold that this is wrong, based on their faith, do not have to provide services to or contribute to or cater to person(s) and event(s) which their 2000-year-old faith and 3000-year-old sacred texts tells them is perverse and abhorrent and sinful and filthy and degenerate and anathema in the eyes of both God and Man.

Translation: It would probably be worth it to them, to let it stand thus. Take a hit 1% of the time, win the ability to refuse service to homsexuals the other 99% of the time. Win-win-win-win-win-win-win-lose-win-win-win-win... a non-issue.

 

[Sunshine]

That's irrelevant.

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

Ahh, the ever-popular "This should be legal because it's legal!" argument. I always love it when leftists argue about what the law should be based on what it is at the moment. It's so refreshing to be reminded just how ******* stupid they truly are.

It's legal to go barefoot, for men to go without a shirt, and teenagers to wear their pants off their butts. "No shoes, no shirt" signs have been up for decades. I'm also seeing "pull up your pants or don't come in" signs. No one is stroking out about those and they are clearly discriminatory.