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

[Silhouette]

The link between homophobic actions and repressed latent homosexual tendencies has been scientifically proven. And in all of the studies, participants who reported supportive and accepting parents were more in touch with their implicit sexual orientation, meaning it tended to jibe with their outward sexual orientation. Students who indicated they came from authoritarian homes showed the biggest discrepancy between the two measures of sexual orientation.

"In a predominately heterosexual society, 'know thyself' can be a challenge for many gay individuals," lead author Netta Weinstein, a lecturer at the University of Essex in the United Kingdom,said in a statement. "But in controlling and homophobic homes, embracing a minority sexual orientation can be terrifying."

And fear is the very core of conservatism.

The history of mankind has been a struggle between those who want to increase freedom, opportunity and rights to all people and those who want to restrict them. The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals. The people who have fought to restrict them are conservatives.

And witness the last-ditch attempt to ditch the conversation lest it gets too uncomfortable..lol..

The old "if you disagree with us, you must be a closet homo". That usually does the trick, right Bfgrn?

Take my own case for example. I became a vocal opponent of the gay agenda [LGBT-defined "closet homo"] when my good family friend died of AIDS and his brother told our family that it was because he was molested as a boy by a man, grew up without treatment for that crime and as a result became compulsively promiscuous sexually with men, while at the same time only able to fall in love with women. This torture led him to seek subconscious revenge when, predictably, his lifestyle led him to contract HIV. He went out and had as much rampant unprotected sex as he could in a murderous/suicidal rampage. He finally died of a horrible lingering death in his early 30s. AIDS claimed another victim.

And that's why I "subconsciously long to be a homo" like LGBT would have you believe.

They usually pull that one from deep inside their bag of tricks when their backs are getting really close to the wall. I'd say this little predicament between their steamroller advancing on common cultural values and the 1st Amendment prescribed in Jude 1 and Romans 1 is a clear indication of the level of fear they have about christians being able to stick to their faith and deny enabling of the homosexual cult/wildfire currently overtaking every nook and cranny.

They would have you believe that each and every single individual who opposes their unwanted advances in any arena is a "closet homo"/ "bigot"/ "hater" etc. Meanwhile their unexamined psyches have two of the same gender parading around as "man" and "woman" [butch/femme] in nearly every coupling they have. And somehow we are to believe there are no closet heteros in their ranks?..lol..

Why is it that a woman would be attracted to another woman who dresses, acts, looks, walks and talks like a man?

There's your closet activity folks. Discuss...

And witness the last-ditch attempt to ditch the conversation lest it gets too uncomfortable..lol..

The old "if you disagree with us, it's because you fail to see and direly FEAR the oncoming Armageddon and that always present 'slippery slope' that will consume all humanity...

THAT is how you identify the very CORE of conservatism...

Except that I'm a registered democrat, voted [unfortunately] for Obama and all the other democratic hopefuls since the 1980s, and every public healthcare issue and green energy issue since forever.

There are quite a clot of us in the middle blue party. You may have heard of the Chic-fil-a and Duck Dynasty dems? That's us. Tens of millions of "us" right smack in the middle and very much on the fence about all this sudden and extremely perverse and seemingly-unstoppable gay cult advancements. It's too much, too soon. Even the younger crowd is sitting up and acting a little shocked about it all..

Fringe behaviors and outright insanity have a way of SHOCKING people back to their moorings. When this became legal medical practice, that's when the line was crossed and even nutty people begin to sober up:

 

[Bfgrn]

Soon if you refuse to go to a gay wedding if you are invited, you will be sued. The arrests for such 'defiance of the cult' will come later. Probably in about 30 years when the next generation has been properly inducted and indoctrinized.

And lest we forget the ULTIMATE right wing argument...the polarized all or none, black or white Armageddon FEAR induced dogmatic rant...

THAT is how you expose the CORE of conservatism...FEAR.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Are you saying that Freedom of Religion is NOT an inviolable right in this country?

Actually that would have been Justice Scalia (not known for his liberal positions) in Employment Division v. Smith, a decision he authored.



>>>>

 

[Bfgrn]

And witness the last-ditch attempt to ditch the conversation lest it gets too uncomfortable..lol..

The old "if you disagree with us, you must be a closet homo". That usually does the trick, right Bfgrn?

Take my own case for example. I became a vocal opponent of the gay agenda [LGBT-defined "closet homo"] when my good family friend died of AIDS and his brother told our family that it was because he was molested as a boy by a man, grew up without treatment for that crime and as a result became compulsively promiscuous sexually with men, while at the same time only able to fall in love with women. This torture led him to seek subconscious revenge when, predictably, his lifestyle led him to contract HIV. He went out and had as much rampant unprotected sex as he could in a murderous/suicidal rampage. He finally died of a horrible lingering death in his early 30s. AIDS claimed another victim.

And that's why I "subconsciously long to be a homo" like LGBT would have you believe.

They usually pull that one from deep inside their bag of tricks when their backs are getting really close to the wall. I'd say this little predicament between their steamroller advancing on common cultural values and the 1st Amendment prescribed in Jude 1 and Romans 1 is a clear indication of the level of fear they have about christians being able to stick to their faith and deny enabling of the homosexual cult/wildfire currently overtaking every nook and cranny.

They would have you believe that each and every single individual who opposes their unwanted advances in any arena is a "closet homo"/ "bigot"/ "hater" etc. Meanwhile their unexamined psyches have two of the same gender parading around as "man" and "woman" [butch/femme] in nearly every coupling they have. And somehow we are to believe there are no closet heteros in their ranks?..lol..

Why is it that a woman would be attracted to another woman who dresses, acts, looks, walks and talks like a man?

There's your closet activity folks. Discuss...

And witness the last-ditch attempt to ditch the conversation lest it gets too uncomfortable..lol..

The old "if you disagree with us, it's because you fail to see and direly FEAR the oncoming Armageddon and that always present 'slippery slope' that will consume all humanity...

THAT is how you identify the very CORE of conservatism...

Except that I'm a registered democrat, voted [unfortunately] for Obama and all the other democratic hopefuls since the 1980s, and every public healthcare issue and green energy issue since forever.

There are quite a clot of us in the middle blue party. You may have heard of the Chic-fil-a and Duck Dynasty dems? That's us.

And you are a liar, also a core tenet of conservatism.

“If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands.”
Douglas Adams

 

[WorldWatcher]

Are you saying that Freedom of Religion is NOT an inviolable right in this country?

Shariah Law is foreign to The West and largely incompatible, encroaching and dangerous to the good working order of Western Society as we know it.

It is not a tradionally shunned and condemned behavior.

It is a politico-sociological-cultural threat-axis.

And is being treated accordingly by those who believe thus.

So you agree, freedom of religion is not an inviolable right in this country correct?


For example the Muslim cab drivers a few years ago that were found in violation of licensing/permit requirements for refusing to provide services to anyone carrying alchohol or blind/disabled people with service dogs.

>>>>

 

[NYcarbineer]

On the grounds that the laws of the United States are supreme within its boundaries.

Dispute that and you've got 330,000,000 fellow citizens telling you you're wrong.

I'm referring to local American laws passed by Muslim-Americans in a community - laws that happen to reflect Sharia law.

On what grounds are you going to deprive them of that set of laws?

Sharia law has no place in the USA. Sharia law is satans law followed by satan worshipers.

On what grounds are you going to deny American Muslims the freedom to practice their religion?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Hate to break it to these people, but - religion aside - I tend to find gays to be very unpleasant people to deal with, and generally avoid businesses where the owner is noticeably "out" for that reason.

 

[NYcarbineer]

On the grounds that the laws of the United States are supreme within its boundaries.

Dispute that and you've got 330,000,000 fellow citizens telling you you're wrong.

I'm referring to local American laws passed by Muslim-Americans in a community - laws that happen to reflect Sharia law.

On what grounds are you going to deprive them of that set of laws?

So long as they do not substantively conflict with United States Law, no problemo.

Cross that line and all bets are off.

It's the answer and open-door that you've been waiting for all morning.

Run with it.

And thus an Arizona religious law, granting its citizens the right to do or not do something based on their religious beliefs,

cannot in the process conflict with other rights and protections granted in the Constitution.

Pretty much case closed there, eh?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Do you actually think you're likely to find a lot of those?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Depends on whether or not they're accompanying their condemnation with wholesale slaughter.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Not at all. They aren't engaging in traditionally shunned and condemned behaviors.

So you're not aware of movements in this country, including legislation, to ban Sharia Law?

Shariah Law is foreign to The West and largely incompatible, encroaching and dangerous to the good working order of Western Society as we know it.

It is not a tradionally shunned and condemned behavior.

It is a politico-sociological-cultural threat-axis.

And is being treated accordingly by those who believe thus.

Ironic!

 

[Cecilie1200]

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...

Correct.

But there are mainstream teachings within most of the branches and offshoots of Christianity that DO teach that homosexuality is sinful or otherwise an aberration or unnatural or anathema.

And, folks logically and naturally take that one step further, and figure that if the practitioners of such perversity and aberration are sinful and unclean, that association with them (including doing business with them) is sinful and unclean or otherwise lending aid and comfort to the enemies of God, and goodness.

Go figure...

I actually doubt any of the Christians involved in the legal cases which sparked this bill considered homosexuals "unclean", but they DID consider their relationships to be sinful, and therefore did not wish to participate in them by contributing to their "weddings".

Anything more than this is just inflammatory hyperbole.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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?

Dimwit, THE US CONSTITUTION gives religious beliefs special status. Do you now want to tell us that your extra-special, personal revelation that any thought anyone happens to pass through their minds at any given moment should be given the exact same weight should take precedent over the most basic, fundamental legal framework we have? Because the answer is going to be, "Shut the **** up" if that's the case.

I realize that you would like to believe that the First Amendment mandates governmental indifference and even hostility toward religion, and you have gone to great lengths to facilitate that belief by never, EVER reading the First Amendment and having precious little understanding of the English language, but in fact, the First Amendment (among other things) specifically PROTECTS religion, and it prohibits government from promoting one specific religion over any other. It does NOT prohibit government from protecting ALL religion.

Now personally, I'm a believer in freedom of thought and association as a general rule. But it is a fact that it is RELIGIOUS BELIEF that is specifically protected in our founding laws. Sorry if that doesn't jibe with the hate-filled religiophobic world you'd like to live in, but . . . actually, I'm not sorry. I'm kinda glad it chafes your hide.

The onus is on you to prove that this "special status" exists for religion and that there is anything that religion needs to be "protected" from.

 

[Silhouette]

The onus is on you to prove that this "special status" exists for religion and that there is anything that religion needs to be "protected" from.

See the pictures at the top of this page.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Arizona pizzeria?s amazing response to state?s anti-gay bill* - NY Daily News

Rocco's Little Chicago Pizzeria wanted to let Arizona politicians know what the restaurant thinks about Senate Bill 1062.

An Arizona pizzeria is serving legislators a slice of humble pie.

Rocco’s Little Chicago Pizzeria in Tucson had a message for the politicians who supported a bill that allows business owners to refuse to serve gays and lesbians.

“We reserve the right to refuse service to Arizona legislators,” the sign read.

“Funny how just being decent is starting to seem radical these days,” the restaurant commented on Facebook.



Read more: Arizona pizzeria?s amazing response to state?s anti-gay bill* - NY Daily News

Puhleeze. I've been to Rocco's. The asshole's just looking to cadge free publicity off the situation. Do you know how rarely state legislators even COME to Tucson - including the ones who are nominally from the area - let alone eat at University area dives?

 

[Immanuel]

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.

I disagree. Well maybe you are using "extreme" so you can limit your statement later to a few gun nuts, but the right has opposed the added burdens this administration has been attempting to place on citizens who have a legal right to own guns. They have opposed these added restrictions with the argument that we already have laws preventing the mentally ill and criminals from acquiring guns AND that the proposals do nothing to prevent those who should not have guns from acquiring them, but do inhibit law abiding citizens from obtaining legal weapons.

There are extremists that oppose any and all restrictions on the second amendment, even several on this site. But for the most part, I think most of us on the right see this for what it is, another attempt to force left wing philosophy on everyone else. The powers that be in Washington do not want us to be able to defend ourselves. They want us to rely upon them. Therefore, guns in the hands of citizens is something that must be prevented at all costs.

The idea that we as a people could rise up and over throw the "tyrants" is ludicrous. It is not what they are afraid of. What they want is for us to be dependent on them for all things even our own protection.

Common sense gun control is one thing, but what the current administration is pushing is by no means common sense and serves only to further inhibit the acquisition of guns by citizens with the legal right to own them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I am religious and I am rather offended that anyone would hide behind Jesus when they discriminate against gays. Christianity is not that complicated. Love your neighbor as yourself. What is happening here has absolutely nothing to do with that message and nothing to do with following Jesus.

The fact that you describe yourself as "religious" and not as a Christian, and then mistakenly think Christianity is not complicated, speaks volumes about whether or not anyone should give a shit about your opinion of how Christians should and shouldn't behave.

More to the point, when did you think you acquired a vote on what other people believe and whether or not the freedom to exercise those beliefs should be protected? Are you aware of the fact that I think your beliefs are a giant pile of steaming shit? Does that mean your right to exercise those beliefs is invalidated by my personal determination that they're incorrect?

Why do leftists not understand that their approval is not asked, not required, and irrelevant to other people's rights?

 

[Seawytch]

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?

Do you actually think you're likely to find a lot of those?

That's not an answer to the question. Should a restaurant be able to not serve blacks, yes or no?

A Unique Religious Exemption From Antidiscrimination Laws in the Case of Gays? Putting the Call for Exemptions for Those Who Discriminate Against Married or Marrying Gays in Context

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Quite true.

It is interpretation of sacred texts and historical teachings, and applying them to a modern-day problem; something that is done all the time, in any number of focal areas. This is no exception.


Quite true. But Freedom of Religion is an inviolable right that the Constitution has protected for far, far longer than it has been operative in shielding homosexuals.

The beauty and genius of such 'Religious Objection' laws is that sooner or later one of them is bound to hit a high-end judicial nerve in connection with Freedom of Religion.

I suspect that The Opposition will continue to probe along those lines until it hits upon the right formula, and wins-back the playing field.

The 3% cannot dictate to the 97% indefinitely - it's simply unsustainable.

Freedom of Religion is an inviolable Right in this country?

Then why can we convict people of murder for committing honor killings, even if that person does it in the name of his religion?

Are you saying that Freedom of Religion is NOT an inviolable right in this country?

All of our rights are inalienable, but they are not absolute, and subject to reasonable restrictions by the state – including religious rights enshrined in the First Amendment. This is why human sacrifice, child molestation, and the use of illegal drugs as part of some ‘religious dogma’ are lawfully prohibited, and where those prohibitions are not in violation of the Free Exercise Clause.

As already correctly noted, a unanimous Supreme Court held that religious belief is not justification to ignore or violate a just and proper law. In Employment Division, a Native American was convicted of using an illegal drug, peyote, and lost his job with the state of Oregon consequently. The Native American claimed that the use of the drug was warranted by his religion, and that he should not be subject to punitive measures for its religious use.

The Supreme Court wisely and appropriately rejected this argument, maintaining that criminal suspects would attempt to contrive a defense predicated on their ‘religious belief,’ which would result in judicial chaos as courts would be forced to determine what constitutes a ‘legitimate’ religion and what does not.

This, then, is why public accommodations laws are appropriate, warranted, and Constitutional. In addition to the state’s regulatory authority with regard to commerce, that one is of the opinion that homosexuality is offensive to his faith is not justification to refuse to serve gay Americans who seek to patronize his business, in violation of the law. And to compel a business owner to indeed accommodate gay customers in no way ‘violates’ the business owner’s religion or right to practice that religion.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You know the difference between acting and not acting right? Honor killing is an act, refusing to participate in a same sex wedding is refusing to act.

The question is whether people should be forced to act against their will. If a Christian answers an ad for a cameraman for a premier movie studio and finds out that the studio is VIVID, then refuses the job on religious grounds, should there be some method of compelling that Christian to take the job?

A wedding business refusing service to a homosexual is no different than a restaurant refusing service to a black person.

A restaurant refusing service to someone who is gay is no different than refusing service to a black person. Refusing wedding business to a homosexual couple is refusing to participate in a homosexual wedding.

Nonsense.

It no more constitutes ‘participation’ than baking a birthday cake means the baker is ‘participating’ in the birthday party or baking a cake for a graduation means the baker is 'participating’ in the graduation ceremony.

Your hatred of gay Americans is subjective and irrational, which is why you and others on the social right are incapable of making an objective, rational argument in support of denying gay Americans their civil liberties.

A business owner’s refusal to accommodate a gay customer has nothing to do with his ‘religious beliefs,’ and everything to do with his fear and hatred of gay Americans.