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

[Kondor3]

"...You are drawing a line between heterosexuals and homosexuals..."

One exists. Always has. Always will.

"...and erroneously assuming that all 97% of heterosexuals embrace outmoded religious mores..."

Nope.

I am assuming that that the 97% of the population which is heterosexual has more in common between them than with the 3%, and will, for that reason, band together more often than not, when Opposition to aspects of the increasingly encroaching and obnoxious and arrogant Gay Agenda is indicated.

 

[rightwinger]

"...You are drawing a line between heterosexuals and homosexuals..."

One exists. Always has. Always will.

"...and erroneously assuming that all 97% of heterosexuals embrace outmoded religious mores..."

Nope.

I am assuming that that the 97% of the population which is heterosexual has more in common between them than with the 3%, and will, for that reason, band together more often than not, when Opposition to aspects of the increasingly encroaching and obnoxious and arrogant Gay Agenda is indicated.

You assume wrong

The majority of the 97% side with the rights of the 3%

 

[Kondor3]

"...You are drawing a line between heterosexuals and homosexuals..."

One exists. Always has. Always will.

"...and erroneously assuming that all 97% of heterosexuals embrace outmoded religious mores..."

Nope.

I am assuming that that the 97% of the population which is heterosexual has more in common between them than with the 3%, and will, for that reason, band together more often than not, when Opposition to aspects of the increasingly encroaching and obnoxious and arrogant Gay Agenda is indicated.

You assume wrong

The majority of the 97% side with the rights of the 3%

Public opinion polls are fickle things, and support for Gay Marriage has only recently overtaken its Opposite...

It won't take much to reverse the effect, either...

You put far too much faith in public opinion polls, I think.

But, as I and others have said, time will sort this out, one way or another.

 

[Derideo_Te]

"...You are drawing a line between heterosexuals and homosexuals..."

One exists. Always has. Always will.

"...and erroneously assuming that all 97% of heterosexuals embrace outmoded religious mores..."

Nope.

I am assuming that that the 97% of the population which is heterosexual has more in common between them than with the 3%, and will, for that reason, band together more often than not, when Opposition to aspects of the increasingly encroaching and obnoxious and arrogant Gay Agenda is indicated.

Please provide a link to this alleged "increasingly encroaching and obnoxious and arrogant Gay Agenda"

 

[rightwinger]

One exists. Always has. Always will.


Nope.

I am assuming that that the 97% of the population which is heterosexual has more in common between them than with the 3%, and will, for that reason, band together more often than not, when Opposition to aspects of the increasingly encroaching and obnoxious and arrogant Gay Agenda is indicated.

You assume wrong

The majority of the 97% side with the rights of the 3%

Public opinion polls are fickle things, and support for Gay Marriage has only recently overtaken its Opposite...

It won't take much to reverse the effect, either...

You put far too much faith in public opinion polls, I think.

But, as I and others have said, time will sort this out, one way or another.

Yes, it will take much to reverse the effect.

The tide has turned and it is not going back. Gay marriage is here and most have figured out it is no big deal

 

[Kondor3]

"...You are drawing a line between heterosexuals and homosexuals..."

One exists. Always has. Always will.

"...and erroneously assuming that all 97% of heterosexuals embrace outmoded religious mores..."

Nope.

I am assuming that that the 97% of the population which is heterosexual has more in common between them than with the 3%, and will, for that reason, band together more often than not, when Opposition to aspects of the increasingly encroaching and obnoxious and arrogant Gay Agenda is indicated.

Please provide a link to this alleged "increasingly encroaching and obnoxious and arrogant Gay Agenda"

I have no link.

I'm serving up personal opinion, with respect to how the Gay Rights Agenda is being perceived in mainstream America, beyond the reach of some of polls that have been cited here...

I saw an overwhelming show of support for Chick-Fil-A in 2012 and a public relations disaster for the Gay Lobby, as an outcome of that incident...

I saw an overwhelming show of support for Duck Dynasty cast in 2013 and a public relations disaster for the Gay Lobby, as an outcome of that incident...

These massive outpourings of public support for the OPPONENTS of the Gay Lobby should tell us something about the unreliability of the polls being cited...

Consider them the Canary in the Coal Mine, for our purposes here...

Ignore that Canary to your very great peril...

Still, outpourings of public support for the OPPONENTS of the Gay Lobby don't amount to diddly squat, until it materializes into Law...

And efforts at such Law, on the State level, continue apace...

Which is what we're all doing, haunting this particular thread...

 

[Kondor3]

"...Yes, it will take much to reverse the effect. The tide has turned and it is not going back. Gay marriage is here and most have figured out it is no big deal."

Gay marriage, by itself, is no big deal, but it opens floodgates that risk great damage to society at large, to wit: the legitimizing and mainstreaming of homosexuality.

It is not so much Marriage, but the rest of it which follows, which will trigger a reaction that will cause you to lose much of what you have gained to date.

But that's all future speculation and as yet unproven.

 

[rdean]

I didn't need to. They brought the case. A summary judgment means that everything the plaintiff said is true. And there is still no cause of action. In my case they could not prove that I was in the business of painting portraits or anything else either. They sued my business too. They proved my business was dog grooming but they didn't own a dog so that got tossed right away. I had a tremendous amount of fun with them and their gay lawyer too.

You didn't NEED to? So you were going to? You were going to lie under oath after swearing to God?

You misled someone, clearly. Did those gays? Seems they were the honest ones. I would trust them more than you. The question becomes, "What kind of person are you?"

That's what YOU think because lying is something you would do to gain an advantage. I didn't need to resort to lying. It wasn't necessary. They had no case to begin with. I never misled anyone because I never led them at all. They made an assumption that I was in the business of providing commissioned artwork. They were wrong. Not everyone who makes an erroneous assumption is misled. They just dreamed it up on their own. They assumed that because I exhibited my work at invitation that I was in the business of commissioned artwork. I'm not. Because I am not and never was, they could not prove that I "held myself out as a person engaged in the business of commissioned artist". I don't need to lie about it. It's just a fact. However, this couple felt that because they were lesbians I would be FORCED to paint their portrait. Their status as homosexuals entitles them to nothing.

First, you are saying it again " I didn't need to resort to lying. It wasn't necessary." That gives the impression that you would lie under oath. How can you not see that?

Second, you seem to be saying that you had some amateur artwork on display somewhere, two lesbians saw it and suddenly you were hit with a lawsuit because you wouldn't do a picture of them?

Do you know how ridiculous that sounds???? You admit to being a liar. I believe you are making up this story. It's simply too ridiculous to believe.

You just want to make up something anti gay so you are making up this lie.

Well, I've got news for you. It backfired.

 

[Bfgrn]

"...Stealing, murder, rape and perjury are against the law. Being gay is NOT..."

The wide variety of anti-Sodomy laws in this country - past and present - tell us a different story, even if many or all are no longer operative or being enforced.

"...All you are doing is justifying your wrongdoing...discrimination..."

Incorrect.

All I am doing is representing the Opposing Viewpoint, which happens to disagree with your own, and which believes that its own stance is righteous and moral, in the face of an unfortunate and immoral outcome of secularism.

It is no surprise that the 'immoral' and 'unclean' and 'sinful' would holler rationalizing counterpoints, when their immorality and uncleanness and sinfulness are publicly decried, of course.

Predictable, and merely inconvenient brickbats which must be endured and dodged, along the path to correcting a grotesque imposed upon the Righteous.

"...Discrimination 1. the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex."

A modern-day definition.

Sexual orientation would not have appeared in such a definition, only a couple of decades ago.

The Opposition will continue to work to reverse the present state of affairs, as we see at work now, in various State-level (home-rule) efforts; one or more of which is bound to be hit upon as a Winning Formula, and then rapidly copied elsewhere.

God, is that YOU?

 

[Kondor3]

Does anyone else notice that most of the hateful comments on here are made by the people supporting this hateful law. Its crazy. Every time someone makes a great point about how wrong this law is, someone on the other side will jump in in say "that's wrong stupid." It's really sad if there isn't a good argument in support of the law that doesn't start or end with an insult...

Puh-leeze... the pro-Gay side of the discussion is oftentimes the very first to 'get nasty'... and usually over nothing more than the voicing of strong opposition to homosexuality.

 

[Kondor3]

"...Stealing, murder, rape and perjury are against the law. Being gay is NOT..."

The wide variety of anti-Sodomy laws in this country - past and present - tell us a different story, even if many or all are no longer operative or being enforced.


Incorrect.

All I am doing is representing the Opposing Viewpoint, which happens to disagree with your own, and which believes that its own stance is righteous and moral, in the face of an unfortunate and immoral outcome of secularism.

It is no surprise that the 'immoral' and 'unclean' and 'sinful' would holler rationalizing counterpoints, when their immorality and uncleanness and sinfulness are publicly decried, of course.

Predictable, and merely inconvenient brickbats which must be endured and dodged, along the path to correcting a grotesque imposed upon the Righteous.

"...Discrimination 1. the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex."

A modern-day definition.

Sexual orientation would not have appeared in such a definition, only a couple of decades ago.

The Opposition will continue to work to reverse the present state of affairs, as we see at work now, in various State-level (home-rule) efforts; one or more of which is bound to be hit upon as a Winning Formula, and then rapidly copied elsewhere.

God, is that YOU?

As you like...

You'll run out of Christian funny-pictures lllllllooonnnnnnngggg before I run out of freak pictures from your side of the fence...

Done yet?...

 

[Political Junky]

The wide variety of anti-Sodomy laws in this country - past and present - tell us a different story, even if many or all are no longer operative or being enforced.


Incorrect.

All I am doing is representing the Opposing Viewpoint, which happens to disagree with your own, and which believes that its own stance is righteous and moral, in the face of an unfortunate and immoral outcome of secularism.

It is no surprise that the 'immoral' and 'unclean' and 'sinful' would holler rationalizing counterpoints, when their immorality and uncleanness and sinfulness are publicly decried, of course.

Predictable, and merely inconvenient brickbats which must be endured and dodged, along the path to correcting a grotesque imposed upon the Righteous.

A modern-day definition.

Sexual orientation would not have appeared in such a definition, only a couple of decades ago.

The Opposition will continue to work to reverse the present state of affairs, as we see at work now, in various State-level (home-rule) efforts; one or more of which is bound to be hit upon as a Winning Formula, and then rapidly copied elsewhere.

God, is that YOU?

As you like...

You'll run out of Christian funny-pictures lllllllooonnnnnnngggg before I run out of freak pictures from your side of the fence...

Done yet?...

 

[Kosh]

Another far left thread fail.

Gay, Abortion, free BC pills is about all the far left has in their arsenal. One can thank the far left president Obama who has managed to take away all the other far left talking points when he followed in Bush's foot steps.

 

[auditor0007]

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

This is why I hope this latest PC brouhaha keeps dimwit leftists from visiting the state. As you can see, we already have enough of our own.

Leftists, Moderates, Centrists, Independents, and anyone who might actually think for themselves. You can keep your right wing lunacy down there. I won't be visiting anytime soon.

 

[Derideo_Te]

One exists. Always has. Always will.


Nope.

I am assuming that that the 97% of the population which is heterosexual has more in common between them than with the 3%, and will, for that reason, band together more often than not, when Opposition to aspects of the increasingly encroaching and obnoxious and arrogant Gay Agenda is indicated.

Please provide a link to this alleged "increasingly encroaching and obnoxious and arrogant Gay Agenda"

I have no link.

I'm serving up personal opinion, with respect to how the Gay Rights Agenda is being perceived in mainstream America, beyond the reach of some of polls that have been cited here...

I saw an overwhelming show of support for Chick-Fil-A in 2012 and a public relations disaster for the Gay Lobby, as an outcome of that incident...

I saw an overwhelming show of support for Duck Dynasty cast in 2013 and a public relations disaster for the Gay Lobby, as an outcome of that incident...

These massive outpourings of public support for the OPPONENTS of the Gay Lobby should tell us something about the unreliability of the polls being cited...

Consider them the Canary in the Coal Mine, for our purposes here...

Ignore that Canary to your very great peril...

Still, outpourings of public support for the OPPONENTS of the Gay Lobby don't amount to diddly squat, until it materializes into Law...

And efforts at such Law, on the State level, continue apace...

Which is what we're all doing, haunting this particular thread...

The volume of the noise does not correlate to the actual numbers of people involved. A single car with a booming stereo system passing by can drown out an entire orchestra playing in the park.

So let's put this in perspective. Those "backlashes" are the vocal minority who are opposed to gays. You are correct that it doesn't "amount to diddly squat, until it materializes into Law..." and that is where the rubber meets the road.

So let's recap the opposition to Gay marriage from a legislative perspective. It was a hot button issue in the 1990's and that resulted in DOMA being passed by the anti-gay lobby. Another 30 states chose to enact similar anti-gay marriage laws onto their books.

That was the status quo until the legal challenges to DOMA reached the Supreme Court in the Windsor case. The sheer unconstitutional discriminatory basis for DOMA was overturned by the majority of the court. However that only invalidated DOMA at the federal level. The court did not invalidate the state laws.

But Scalia was so incensed by the overturning of DOMA that he wrote a 26 page dissenting opinion. In one paragraph he provided the explicit wording that could be used in the Windsor decision to overturn the anti-gay marriage laws at the state level. Subsequently 5 of the 7 states that have had their anti-gay marriage laws overturned in lower courts have actually cited Scalia's dissent. The latest state didn't even try to fight it and just conceded that it was unconstitutional. There is every reason to believe that the other 23 states will end up having their laws overturned in next couple of years too.

So this brings us to the current attempt to enact anti-gay legislation. In order to be successful it must avoid the appearance of discrimination. With the Windsor decision now on the books that makes it illegal to discriminate against gays as a class.

This AZ law is a "Hail Mary" pass at attempting to make religious belief into a "protected class" all by itself. But the Constitution specifically forbids state endorsement of any religion whatsoever. So even if it becomes law it will be overturned as soon as it reaches the courts, let alone the Supreme Court.

The fanatical extreme right anti-gay movement is fighting a losing "rear guard" legal battle that flies in the face of the Constitution and individual rights. There is no legitimate basis for encoding discrimination against gays.

Your "Canary in the Coal Mine" metaphor is being misinterpreted. The problem the anti-gay movement faces is that is about to become an endangered species. The demographic shift will continue to work against them as more and more people adopt a realistic approach to treating gays as equal members of society.

 

[natstew]

The Federal Government has no Constitutional right to tell anyone who they must do business with. I believe in the old sign I used to see at most businesses, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone".

The U.S. Supreme Court is supposed to be arbitrator of the Constitution, but it is not. What it is is another political tool. The Republican appointees make rulings according to the Constitution, the Democrat appointees make rulings in accordance with their ideology.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Because (a) it is a far more severe action involving the taking of a life and (b) it is not in the best interests of society-at-large to allow it.

This second bit... (b)... is usually the litmus test for whether something is allowed or not, over the long haul, despite an occasional flip-flop on legal standing here and there...

So depriving an American of, in this case, her life is verboten, religious rights and freedoms notwithstanding...

...what degree of harm can we rightfully allow? At what point is the amount of the harm a person would suffer from someone acting against them in the name of religion be small enough to make it permissible?

Tell us where that line of demarcation is.

Hell if I know.

Shooting from the hip, I would say...

We draw the line at Traditional Interpretations of Morals and Community Standards...

According to Western Law, homosexuality has been illegal for much of its recorded history, post-Antiquity, in most lands and jurisdictions and at most times...

And, of course, we brought those Traditional Interpretations of Morals and Community Standards along with us, from the Old World, and have been evolving our own 'flavor' of them ever since...

A sort of Differentiation of Species, in a metaphorical legal context, now that we have Western Law on ONE side of The Pond and another flavor of Western Law on ANOTHER side of The Pond...

Over the past few decades since the end of WWII, which largely enervated and emasculated Europe as a world power point-of-origin, the European variant of Western Law has grown increasingly dissipated and degenerate and emasculating to match...

Over the past few decades, America has resisted this downward slide towards degeneracy, but imperfectly, and homosexuals have done an excellent job of creating rationalizations and legal arguments and propaganda not only to advance their cause but to convince an increasingly large percentage of the Straight population to at least let up on them enough to allow them to make some legal progress...

Many folks have reached the conclusion that this process has gone too far, and that we are allowing our own 'flavor' of Western Law to more closely mirror the dissipated and degenerate and emasculated state of such Law in Europe...

So, they start talking about DE-legitimizing homosexuality as detrimental to society, to counter putting the rights of the 3% above the rights of the 97%... a state of affairs which simply cannot be sustained for very long.

The question was, or is, how much harm can 'religious' Americans be allowed to inflict on their fellow Americans.

A business that is open to the public must be open to the public. All else being equal, a business discriminating against a person who is homosexual is violating one of the most basic principles of our Constitution.

 

[TemplarKormac]

God, is that YOU?

As you like...

You'll run out of Christian funny-pictures lllllllooonnnnnnngggg before I run out of freak pictures from your side of the fence...

Done yet?...

Oh so you want to play THAT game?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Federal Government has no Constitutional right to tell anyone who they must do business with. I believe in the old sign I used to see at most businesses, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone".

The U.S. Supreme Court is supposed to be arbitrator of the Constitution, but it is not. What it is is another political tool. The Republican appointees make rulings according to the Constitution, the Democrat appointees make rulings in accordance with their ideology.

Then why is it illegal to refuse service to people of color, because of their color? Why is that constitutional?

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Wrong. They just haven't been challenged yet. That's the only reason they are still around.

There have been many legal challenges to dress codes.

The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone Because of Appearance, Odor or Attitude?