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 ridiculous, how do you know someone is gay? My friend and I have taken trips together and if we get a suite with a king bed for the same price as a regular room with 2 beds, we take the suite every time. What if they think we're lesbians? This is just stupid.
The Law gives the business owner discretion.
I do not believe that the typical business owner is going to refuse service to anyone unless he believes that the majority of patrons dislike whatever is it that you are doing.
Economics will prevent merchants from arbitrarily enforcing this right.
.
You are correct, of course. The effect of this law will be minimal for the reasons you have stated.
Plus, technically, the right to refuse to serve gay customers/clients does not extend to those business owners who merely profess a religious belief against homosexuality. The lawful refusal is conditional and extremely restrictive in that it only allows businesses to refuse to serve gays based on the owners' "sincerely held religious beliefs.” This is a lawyer's dream come true since the owner's bare assertion of a “sincerely held religious belief” can be challenged in court.
There are some interesting legal questions that will most likely find there way to the courthouse. For example, how does one prove a sincerely held religious belief against homosexuality? Is membership in a church or religious association necessary? What about the doctrine of the religious organization? Will the owner's mental state ultimately be judged by the same criteria that was first used years ago to determine conscientious objector status?
After a lawsuit or two, there will be damn few business owners in Arizona willing to put themselves at risk just to avoid dealing with the requests of a few gays. The only ones that will continue to refuse providing certain services for gays will be those with a legitimate sincere and deeply rooted religious belief against homosexuality.
The law, at least as I read the link provided by the OP, does not permit business owners – regardless of their religious beliefs – to refuse to serve a person solely because that person is gay. For example, a restaurant cannot refuse to serve a man openly know to be gay. Business owners can, however, refuse to perform a service associated with gayness, such as making a wedding cake with two men or two women on the top tier.
In the final analysis, I suppose the question is this: Which is the greater violation of individual rights: requiring a person to perform a service which is against his/her religious beliefs regarding homosexuality, or denying someone who is gay the right to be served by this person, especially considering the fact the same service can easily be provided by others. I believe the greater harm is to the person with religious convictions.
Having said all this, what the SCOTUS would do with this issue, should it ever get that far, is completely unpredictable.
You have already said I voted for McCain and Romney.
