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

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I bet you think that is clever, don't you.

Quick question, does the gun store charge me for the gun I own, or the one they own that I would like to own?

 

[Bfgrn]

That's their Party Line, alright...

And why Normal Folk are trying to find a way around it...

Best wishes for success, for that legal exploration...

With any luck, eventually the 97% will hit on a formula to prevent the 3% from forcing them to do things they don't want to do...

Even the 3% have rights

And the majority if the 97% recognize it

Indeed...

Most of the surviving mainstream religions in the world view homosexuality as an aberration and anathema...

That puts Homosexuals into a category unlike any other...

People have spin-doctored Sacred Texts to squeeze out marginal rationalizations for discriminating against other folks based upon religion or skin-color or the like...

But no such stretch of the imagination is required, to discern the absolute condemnation we find for homosexuality, either in various Sacred Texts or in mainstream interpretations and teachings...

Billions of good people, worldwide, have been taught that homosexuality is wrong, on any number of levels, and in any number of ways...

And huge, extremely large subsets of those billions believe that association with homosexuals or having dealings with homosexuals is also very wrong and akin to aiding and abetting the sinful and morally unclean...

Rights or no, you cannot legislate against such overwhelming power and expect to sustain that over time...

I also would not lean too heavily upon those popular polls related to support for Gay Marriage...

As more and more of the 97% come to understand that this is tantamount to legitimizing homosexuality, ways will be found to work around those so-called 'rights', in the narrow context of service provision...

The 3% have had a good run in recent years and won some considerable victories...

They will come to understand that the arrogance with which they continue to pursue theri agenda beyond a few basic rights is going to blow up in their faces...

But it is the fate of Men that they do not listen, while they are temporarily on top...

In this case, that King (or Queen) of the Hill status is not going to last very long...

There's too much power aligned (and aligning, and soon to align) against it, for it to last very long...

Or so it seems, to this observer...

Years ago people had been taught that blacks were sub human creatures that should not be given the rights of the majority. DISCRIMINATION is wrong, on any number of levels, and in any number of ways...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Which explains why the NRA supports them and the ACLU raises privacy issues about them, because the NRA is left wing, and the ACLU is extreme right.

The NRA wants an ?active? mental illness database. Thirty-eight states have that now.

https://www.aclu.org/criminal-law-reform/aclu-statement-senate-gun-control-package

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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...

I have no problem with gays, or anyone else, telling anyone, including Christians, to keep out of their business.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Just wait until a Kosher Deli won't sell me a cheeseburger? That already happened, I went down the street to a place that would.

 

[Bfgrn]

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...

I have no problem with gays, or anyone else, telling anyone, including Christians, to keep out of their business.

If a business is open to the public, then 'public' needs to be defined. Should a restaurant be allowed not to serve blacks?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

I bet I know more than you.

Not that that is a high bar. ****, rdean probably knows more about it than you, and all he can say is 6%.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Incorrect.

The issue has nothing to do with where rights ‘begin’ or ‘end,’ that’s a naïve and ignorant perception.

The issue of rights pertains to the relationship only between the citizen and the state, and compelling the state to justify its efforts to curtail civil liberties.

If I were to accept this view as definitive I would have to conclude that the 1964 Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Apparently, according to the marxists members of this forum, your "rights" have no bearing on the matter. YOUR rights MUST be given up in order for YOU to conduct business. Whether or not you agree with the infringement, it makes no difference - as long as the perverts are free to practice their perversion. They will tell you, that if the behavior offends you (and ESPECIALLY if you are religious) you must close your business down, rather than offend those offending you.

THEIR rights supecede yours.

Your response above says volumes about why you consider yourself to be a "proud Tea Party member".

I am very sorry that we are on opposites sides of this issue but that's the way of it sometimes.

I happen to agree with Flagg's response in large part, because it speaks truth.

It is forcing 97% of the population to do things that they do not want to, and which (for many of them) their faith informs them is an unclean association with perverse individuals, merely to accommodate the 3%...

I understand the legal arguments on both sides, to some modest extent, and even the ethical ones, to some extent, but this is as much about doing what one believes to be right, or, at a minimum, having the freedom not to do something which your upbringing or faith or interpretation of sacred texts tells you is wrong...

Clearly, something is going to have to be done about this, to re-empower the 97%...

And, I suspect, a way will be found, more quickly than we can presently envision...

Rights are for INDIVIDUALS. It doesn't matter if 99.99999% are on one side and only 0.00001% are on the other the rights of the individual supercede those of the majority.

Your math is also wrong. There are not 97% opposed to gays being treated equally and without discrimination. The actual number of those who are trying to use their religion as a club against gays is probably under 20% of the population.

Individual rights are not subject to the tyranny of the majority because if they were they would be meaningless.

 

[Tresha91203]

It does, actually. If you get in a cab with a case of beer, the Muslim driver can refuse you service because alcohol is against his religion.

"We refuse service to infidels". That is basically the objection to making a cake for gays, right?

Well, that objection has many, many applications.

In a Muslim country, yes. In the U.S. he will lose his license, unless one of the beers is open.

Not under this law. A muslim can cite religious reasons for refusing a customer and be fully within the law. He would contact his dispatcher and tell them to send another cab and company would have to do that. But they couldn't fire him nor would the cab licensing board be able to suspend his professional license.


(Not the "open container" comment as that is against the law, speaking to the original premise that the customer was just carrying a case of beer.)

>>>>

Dogs as well, as they are deemed unclean. Not sure if they refuse people with cats or other pets, but you can't force him to take a dog.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

No, that is not discriminatory. That is a dress code and if the individual complies they will be served like everyone else. Those signs are usually in establishments that serve food and the dress code is about hygiene and it applies to patrons as well as staff. You would be upset if you found what looked like a pubic hair in your soup. But it could just as easily have come from a man who was not wearing a shirt as the waiter passed him by to bring you your soup. So dress code laws are not discriminatory.

It is discriminatory to practiuoners of Jainism, but don't let reality intrude on your attempt to justify your imposition of morality on others.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Also incorrect.

Such requirements are not ‘discriminatory’ because they’re applied to everyone equally; an individual not wearing shoes does not constitute a ‘class of persons.’

If a business owner, however, where to apply a shirt and shoes policy only to Asian-Americans, that would be a potential act of discrimination, as a single class of persons is singled-out to be disadvantaged.

The mere fact that a law applies equally is not proof it is not discriminatory. It does, however, prove you don't know jack about law.

 

[Kondor3]

Even the 3% have rights

And the majority if the 97% recognize it

Indeed...

Most of the surviving mainstream religions in the world view homosexuality as an aberration and anathema...

That puts Homosexuals into a category unlike any other...

People have spin-doctored Sacred Texts to squeeze out marginal rationalizations for discriminating against other folks based upon religion or skin-color or the like...

But no such stretch of the imagination is required, to discern the absolute condemnation we find for homosexuality, either in various Sacred Texts or in mainstream interpretations and teachings...

Billions of good people, worldwide, have been taught that homosexuality is wrong, on any number of levels, and in any number of ways...

And huge, extremely large subsets of those billions believe that association with homosexuals or having dealings with homosexuals is also very wrong and akin to aiding and abetting the sinful and morally unclean...

Rights or no, you cannot legislate against such overwhelming power and expect to sustain that over time...

I also would not lean too heavily upon those popular polls related to support for Gay Marriage...

As more and more of the 97% come to understand that this is tantamount to legitimizing homosexuality, ways will be found to work around those so-called 'rights', in the narrow context of service provision...

The 3% have had a good run in recent years and won some considerable victories...

They will come to understand that the arrogance with which they continue to pursue theri agenda beyond a few basic rights is going to blow up in their faces...

But it is the fate of Men that they do not listen, while they are temporarily on top...

In this case, that King (or Queen) of the Hill status is not going to last very long...

There's too much power aligned (and aligning, and soon to align) against it, for it to last very long...

Or so it seems, to this observer...

Years ago people had been taught that blacks were sub human creatures that should not be given the rights of the majority. DISCRIMINATION is wrong, on any number of levels, and in any number of ways...

Yes, we've all seen that device trotted-out in counterpoint; perhaps once too often.

You have to stretch the imagination and credibility to the breaking point, to find Religious Support and erzatz rationalizations for discrimination against blacks.

You don't have to stretch the imagination at all, to find Religious Condemnation of homosexuality.

One should not discriminate against Skin Color.

One should discriminate against wrongdoing.

And, in the eyes of so many millions, homosexuality = wrongdoing.

Go figure.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Even the 3% have rights

And the majority if the 97% recognize it

Indeed...

Most of the surviving mainstream religions in the world view homosexuality as an aberration and anathema...

That puts Homosexuals into a category unlike any other...

People have spin-doctored Sacred Texts to squeeze out marginal rationalizations for discriminating against other folks based upon religion or skin-color or the like...

But no such stretch of the imagination is required, to discern the absolute condemnation we find for homosexuality, either in various Sacred Texts or in mainstream interpretations and teachings...

Billions of good people, worldwide, have been taught that homosexuality is wrong, on any number of levels, and in any number of ways...

And huge, extremely large subsets of those billions believe that association with homosexuals or having dealings with homosexuals is also very wrong and akin to aiding and abetting the sinful and morally unclean...

Rights or no, you cannot legislate against such overwhelming power and expect to sustain that over time...

I also would not lean too heavily upon those popular polls related to support for Gay Marriage...

As more and more of the 97% come to understand that this is tantamount to legitimizing homosexuality, ways will be found to work around those so-called 'rights', in the narrow context of service provision...

The 3% have had a good run in recent years and won some considerable victories...

They will come to understand that the arrogance with which they continue to pursue theri agenda beyond a few basic rights is going to blow up in their faces...

But it is the fate of Men that they do not listen, while they are temporarily on top...

In this case, that King (or Queen) of the Hill status is not going to last very long...

There's too much power aligned (and aligning, and soon to align) against it, for it to last very long...

Or so it seems, to this observer...

Years ago people had been taught that blacks were sub human creatures that should not be given the rights of the majority. DISCRIMINATION is wrong, on any number of levels, and in any number of ways...

Almost right.

Discrimination is wrong, but government sanctioned discrimination, ie Jim Crow law, is downright evil. What you want is another Jim Crow era where the government gets to tell people what they can, and cannot, believe.

In other words, even if they are wrong for not going to a gay weeding to take pictures, which is debatable, you are evil for trying to force them to do it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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...

I have no problem with gays, or anyone else, telling anyone, including Christians, to keep out of their business.

If a business is open to the public, then 'public' needs to be defined. Should a restaurant be allowed not to serve blacks?

Why do you feel a need to define public, and to force your definition on everyone else? If you ran a business that was open to the public could a church group come in and preach? Why not?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Your response above says volumes about why you consider yourself to be a "proud Tea Party member".

I am very sorry that we are on opposites sides of this issue but that's the way of it sometimes.

I happen to agree with Flagg's response in large part, because it speaks truth.

It is forcing 97% of the population to do things that they do not want to, and which (for many of them) their faith informs them is an unclean association with perverse individuals, merely to accommodate the 3%...

I understand the legal arguments on both sides, to some modest extent, and even the ethical ones, to some extent, but this is as much about doing what one believes to be right, or, at a minimum, having the freedom not to do something which your upbringing or faith or interpretation of sacred texts tells you is wrong...

Clearly, something is going to have to be done about this, to re-empower the 97%...

And, I suspect, a way will be found, more quickly than we can presently envision...

Rights are for INDIVIDUALS. It doesn't matter if 99.99999% are on one side and only 0.00001% are on the other the rights of the individual supercede those of the majority.

Your math is also wrong. There are not 97% opposed to gays being treated equally and without discrimination. The actual number of those who are trying to use their religion as a club against gays is probably under 20% of the population.

Individual rights are not subject to the tyranny of the majority because if they were they would be meaningless.

If you really believed that you wouldn't have a problem with a business owner saying that he wouldn't cater a gay wedding. Since you do, it is obvious you don't believe that, you actually believe that the 50.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the population trumps everyone else.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There is no known teaching in all of Christianity, traceable to the Bible, that commands that a good Christian must refuse to do business with a homosexual.

Therefore the idea that such is a Christian belief is merely an invention. If one can invent 'religious' beliefs on a whim,

and then use the law to act on those 'religious' beliefs, and circumvent the rest of the Constitution in the process,

what's the point of having constitutional rights?

 

[Bfgrn]

Indeed...

Most of the surviving mainstream religions in the world view homosexuality as an aberration and anathema...

That puts Homosexuals into a category unlike any other...

People have spin-doctored Sacred Texts to squeeze out marginal rationalizations for discriminating against other folks based upon religion or skin-color or the like...

But no such stretch of the imagination is required, to discern the absolute condemnation we find for homosexuality, either in various Sacred Texts or in mainstream interpretations and teachings...

Billions of good people, worldwide, have been taught that homosexuality is wrong, on any number of levels, and in any number of ways...

And huge, extremely large subsets of those billions believe that association with homosexuals or having dealings with homosexuals is also very wrong and akin to aiding and abetting the sinful and morally unclean...

Rights or no, you cannot legislate against such overwhelming power and expect to sustain that over time...

I also would not lean too heavily upon those popular polls related to support for Gay Marriage...

As more and more of the 97% come to understand that this is tantamount to legitimizing homosexuality, ways will be found to work around those so-called 'rights', in the narrow context of service provision...

The 3% have had a good run in recent years and won some considerable victories...

They will come to understand that the arrogance with which they continue to pursue theri agenda beyond a few basic rights is going to blow up in their faces...

But it is the fate of Men that they do not listen, while they are temporarily on top...

In this case, that King (or Queen) of the Hill status is not going to last very long...

There's too much power aligned (and aligning, and soon to align) against it, for it to last very long...

Or so it seems, to this observer...

Years ago people had been taught that blacks were sub human creatures that should not be given the rights of the majority. DISCRIMINATION is wrong, on any number of levels, and in any number of ways...

Yes, we've all seen that device trotted-out in counterpoint; perhaps once too often.

You have to stretch the imagination and credibility to the breaking point, to find Religious Support and erzatz rationalizations for discrimination against blacks.

You don't have to stretch the imagination at all, to find Religious Condemnation of homosexuality.

One should not discriminate against Skin Color.

One should discriminate against wrongdoing.

And, in the eyes of so many millions, homosexuality = wrongdoing.

Go figure.

Discrimination is the 'wrongdoing'. Do you stand up for religious condemnation when the religion is Islam?

 

[Derideo_Te]

That's their Party Line, alright...

And why Normal Folk are trying to find a way around it...

Best wishes for success, for that legal exploration...

With any luck, eventually the 97% will hit on a formula to prevent the 3% from forcing them to do things they don't want to do...

Even the 3% have rights

And the majority if the 97% recognize it

Indeed...

Most of the surviving mainstream religions in the world view homosexuality as an aberration and anathema...

That puts Homosexuals into a category unlike any other...

People have spin-doctored Sacred Texts to squeeze out marginal rationalizations for discriminating against other folks based upon religion or skin-color or the like...

But no such stretch of the imagination is required, to discern the absolute condemnation we find for homosexuality, either in various Sacred Texts or in mainstream interpretations and teachings...

Billions of good people, worldwide, have been taught that homosexuality is wrong, on any number of levels, and in any number of ways...

And huge, extremely large subsets of those billions believe that association with homosexuals or having dealings with homosexuals is also very wrong and akin to aiding and abetting the sinful and morally unclean...

Rights or no, you cannot legislate against such overwhelming power and expect to sustain that over time...

I also would not lean too heavily upon those popular polls related to support for Gay Marriage...

As more and more of the 97% come to understand that this is tantamount to legitimizing homosexuality, ways will be found to work around those so-called 'rights', in the narrow context of service provision...

The 3% have had a good run in recent years and won some considerable victories...

They will come to understand that the arrogance with which they continue to pursue theri agenda beyond a few basic rights is going to blow up in their faces...

But it is the fate of Men that they do not listen, while they are temporarily on top...

In this case, that King (or Queen) of the Hill status is not going to last very long...

There's too much power aligned (and aligning, and soon to align) against it, for it to last very long...

Or so it seems, to this observer...

Religious teachings would dictate that women are subservient to men. Why was that overturned as being false? How has it been sustained over time that women are not subservient even though all of these religious texts have never been "corrected" in this regard?

The same applies to blacks and other minorities. The religious texts that endorse slavery have not prevailed. The individual right to be treated equally has been demonstrated to supercede religious beliefs not matter how many billions have been indoctrinated by archaic and outdated mythology.

The same now applies to gays. The religious texts cannot be held to be the supreme law of the land over the rights of individuals to not be discriminated against. To allow that to happen means trashing the 1st amendment. Once that goes so does your right to the religion of your choice.

And to reiterate, it is not 97% who are opposed to the equality of the 3%. It is a fanatical subset who at most comprise 20% who are trying to deprive the 3% of their equal rights.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Indeed...

Most of the surviving mainstream religions in the world view homosexuality as an aberration and anathema...

That puts Homosexuals into a category unlike any other...

People have spin-doctored Sacred Texts to squeeze out marginal rationalizations for discriminating against other folks based upon religion or skin-color or the like...

But no such stretch of the imagination is required, to discern the absolute condemnation we find for homosexuality, either in various Sacred Texts or in mainstream interpretations and teachings...

Billions of good people, worldwide, have been taught that homosexuality is wrong, on any number of levels, and in any number of ways...

And huge, extremely large subsets of those billions believe that association with homosexuals or having dealings with homosexuals is also very wrong and akin to aiding and abetting the sinful and morally unclean...

Rights or no, you cannot legislate against such overwhelming power and expect to sustain that over time...

I also would not lean too heavily upon those popular polls related to support for Gay Marriage...

As more and more of the 97% come to understand that this is tantamount to legitimizing homosexuality, ways will be found to work around those so-called 'rights', in the narrow context of service provision...

The 3% have had a good run in recent years and won some considerable victories...

They will come to understand that the arrogance with which they continue to pursue theri agenda beyond a few basic rights is going to blow up in their faces...

But it is the fate of Men that they do not listen, while they are temporarily on top...

In this case, that King (or Queen) of the Hill status is not going to last very long...

There's too much power aligned (and aligning, and soon to align) against it, for it to last very long...

Or so it seems, to this observer...

Years ago people had been taught that blacks were sub human creatures that should not be given the rights of the majority. DISCRIMINATION is wrong, on any number of levels, and in any number of ways...

Almost right.

Discrimination is wrong, but government sanctioned discrimination, ie Jim Crow law, is downright evil. What you want is another Jim Crow era where the government gets to tell people what they can, and cannot, believe.

In other words, even if they are wrong for not going to a gay weeding to take pictures, which is debatable, you are evil for trying to force them to do it.

They are not forced to do it. They can quit the wedding photography business.

It might be evil to have to drive 55 mph on the highway, but the government doesn't force you to do it,

you can simply choose not to drive.