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

[Iceweasel]

No law stops people from discriminating not even most of the time.
But to NOT have the law that fights discrimination that is 100% based on religious intolerance is worse.

What are you talking about? There are laws that stop discrimination and the issue is philosophical in nature, not religious. Some religious people are in the same boat as the homosexual crusaders and some non-religious people oppose them and want to decide for themselves.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What if someone claimed a religious belief that the races weren't meant to mingle, and/or that blacks were inferior to whites?

Wouldn't they, under the proposed Arizona law, then be able to rightfully discriminate against blacks?

Yes, but only if they claim a religious belief.

No, if they just claimed they didn't want to serve blacks.



>>>>>

The law is clearly unconstitutional. You cannot refuse service to people of color, no matter what your religious argument is.

 

[Katzndogz]

Allowing individuals to choose their associations is not a theocratic state.

Allowing individuals to discriminate is not constitutional. There are legal differences between who you can choose to hang out with and who you can choose to do business with.

It's not that complicated.

If you cannot choose who you do business with, then you are on the path to a tyrannical state under the guise of secularism. There is no difference between theocratic tyranny and secular tyranny. That's why we have freedom of association.

If a homosexuals walks into a restaurant they should be served like anyone else. If the homosexual wants that restaurant to cater an event, the primary purpose of which is to advance homosexuality, the restaurant owner should have the freedom to refuse, not because of the status of the person, but because of the nature of the event.

 

[Moonglow]

Allowing individuals to choose their associations is not a theocratic state.

Allowing individuals to discriminate is not constitutional. There are legal differences between who you can choose to hang out with and who you can choose to do business with.

It's not that complicated.

If you cannot choose who you do business with, then you are on the path to a tyrannical state under the guise of secularism. There is no difference between theocratic tyranny and secular tyranny. That's why we have freedom of association.

If a homosexuals walks into a restaurant they should be served like anyone else. If the homosexual wants that restaurant to cater an event, the primary purpose of which is to advance homosexuality, the restaurant owner should have the freedom to refuse, not because of the status of the person, but because of the nature of the event.

That is where freedom becomes a twist on both sides of the story.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

I do not like laws that tell me who I can work for.
But I also would never turn down working for gay folk.
Most all of them I know professionally are hard working and good people.
My opinion is someone has to be crazy to use religious reasons to turn down working for them.
Jesus would not do that. He would accept them as he did everyone.

That is how I feel, Gadawg. I wouldn't want the govt forcing any business or employee to do something that was against their conscience. Christian or non Christian. This is America. There should be free choice all around. There are plenty of businesses out there to choose from. On the other hand, I never turned down work from my gay clients. I enjoyed working for them and never felt any conflict over my being a christian. Evidently they didn't either or they wouldn't have hired me!

 

[Katzndogz]

The answer to abuses of freedom is more freedom not less. To imagine that religious people will voluntarily give up religious rights to serve the interests of secularism is mythic. They won't. What they will do is FURTHER separate themselves until we do have a completely divided public.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You gay Bammy boi?

Nope, married to two women in my life, the second after the first died. They are the only women with whom I have had sexual relations. I have several children and 15 grand children. I am, I believe, one the truly practicing Christians on this Board, and I call the hypocrites of the far reactionary Christian right for what they are: posers.

Christians don't lie.
YOU do, shall I show you again liar?

A REAL Christian would never have made the statement Jake just did, because he would know it for the mortal sin it is.

 

[Cecilie1200]

As soon as you find globally-accepted sacred texts and globally-common scripture-based centuries-old mainstream religious teachings which say to shun Blacks, or Whites, or Reds, or Yellows, or Browns, et al, come back and ask me again...

As opposed to already being in possession of globally-accepted sacred texts and globally-common scripture-based centuries-old mainstream religious teachings which say that homosexuality is wrong and sinful and which condemn it...

Not quite an apples-to-apples comparison, is it?

You keep on trying to bolster your argument to defend the practice of discrimination by referring to a 'sacred' text. The Bible and all religious text were written by men. There has never been a book that was written by God.

Correct, which is why the ‘argument’ fails – subjective religious doctrine and dogma are legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, thankfully and appropriately so.

Yes, the Constitution that specifically protects religion views it as irrelevant because the received wisdom from Internet fucktards is that it isn't real, and therefore unimportant, never mind that millions of people worldwide consider it the most central fact to their existence.

If I were going to try to invent a display of the most insane hubristic arrogance, I could not come close to what you losers actually think.

 

[Gadawg73]

You gay Bammy boi?

Nope, married to two women in my life, the second after the first died. They are the only women with whom I have had sexual relations. I have several children and 15 grand children. I am, I believe, one the truly practicing Christians on this Board, and I call the hypocrites of the far reactionary Christian right for what they are: posers.

Christians don't lie.
YOU do, shall I show you again liar?

"Christians don't lie"

 

[Cecilie1200]

Thank you for openly admitting that you are attempting to legislate your own morality based upon religious beliefs.

You are going to have a hard time explaining why blow jobs and anal sex between a man and a woman are not equally perverted and evil to the Supreme Court.

Hold on there friend.

It's hypocritical to stand there and accuse him of "legislating his own morality based on his religious beliefs" while the Liberals try to legislate the lifestyles of the homosexual on the religious. If you want examples of this, look no further than to the states which have legalized gay marriage... through legislation based on their own sets of morals and in some ways the morals of their constituents.

Can you explain to me how that's fair? How is it right for one but not the other?

Oh, human biology was built for heterosexual intercourse. You can't have children by sticking your whatchamacallit up another man's backside, nor can you do it when two women lock legs or play strap-ons. It contradicts the reproductive aspect of the species. Homosexuality is a flaw, it always will be. Science (when applied genuinely) will also say the same thing.

Nobody's forcing their lifestyle on anyone. Just because gays get married doesn't force heteros to marry gays. **** are you a noob. If you're against gay marriage, don't marry a gay person, otherwise, it's really none of your business what other people get up to. Pretty simple.

And there are plenty of examples in nature of homosexual behavior, some species are even bi on purpose to reproduce.

Damn, you're stupid. You can really look at what's going on on the political landscape today, the homosexual couples using the whole "It's legal for us to get married, therefore I'm going to sue you out of existence for hurting my feelings" thing that has SPARKED this law, and REALLY tell us that homosexual "marriage" has no effect on anyone outside of the two people pretending to be a married couple?

Are you brain-damaged?

 

[Gadawg73]

The answer to abuses of freedom is more freedom not less. To imagine that religious people will voluntarily give up religious rights to serve the interests of secularism is mythic. They won't. What they will do is FURTHER separate themselves until we do have a completely divided public.

No one is asked to give up any religious "rights".

 

[bodecea]

Nope, married to two women in my life, the second after the first died. They are the only women with whom I have had sexual relations. I have several children and 15 grand children. I am, I believe, one the truly practicing Christians on this Board, and I call the hypocrites of the far reactionary Christian right for what they are: posers.

Christians don't lie.
YOU do, shall I show you again liar?

A REAL Christian would never have made the statement Jake just did, because he would know it for the mortal sin it is.

What is the mortal sin statement that Jake made? That he only have two women in his life?

 

[bodecea]

The answer to abuses of freedom is more freedom not less. To imagine that religious people will voluntarily give up religious rights to serve the interests of secularism is mythic. They won't. What they will do is FURTHER separate themselves until we do have a completely divided public.

No one is asked to give up any religious "rights".

The religious "right" to discriminate against other citizens, apparently.

 

[Gadawg73]

As soon as we boot the religious right back to where all of the rest of us are and quit allowing them to dictate what they believe is moral or immoral and take their moral police badges and decoder rings back we can MAYBE start to win elections again and defeat Democrats.
But they are not interested in winning elections as then how could they claim and continue their Christian Victim Crusade?
I want to win. Gay boogeyman issue is a stupid one.

 

[Chaussette]

Hold on there friend.

It's hypocritical to stand there and accuse him of "legislating his own morality based on his religious beliefs" while the Liberals try to legislate the lifestyles of the homosexual on the religious. If you want examples of this, look no further than to the states which have legalized gay marriage... through legislation based on their own sets of morals and in some ways the morals of their constituents.

Can you explain to me how that's fair? How is it right for one but not the other?

Oh, human biology was built for heterosexual intercourse. You can't have children by sticking your whatchamacallit up another man's backside, nor can you do it when two women lock legs or play strap-ons. It contradicts the reproductive aspect of the species. Homosexuality is a flaw, it always will be. Science (when applied genuinely) will also say the same thing.

Nobody's forcing their lifestyle on anyone. Just because gays get married doesn't force heteros to marry gays. **** are you a noob. If you're against gay marriage, don't marry a gay person, otherwise, it's really none of your business what other people get up to. Pretty simple.

And there are plenty of examples in nature of homosexual behavior, some species are even bi on purpose to reproduce.

Damn, you're stupid. You can really look at what's going on on the political landscape today, the homosexual couples using the whole "It's legal for us to get married, therefore I'm going to sue you out of existence for hurting my feelings" thing that has SPARKED this law, and REALLY tell us that homosexual "marriage" has no effect on anyone outside of the two people pretending to be a married couple?

Are you brain-damaged?

Ok, it does have an effect, it drives homophobes like you CRAZY!

 

[Katzndogz]

The answer to abuses of freedom is more freedom not less. To imagine that religious people will voluntarily give up religious rights to serve the interests of secularism is mythic. They won't. What they will do is FURTHER separate themselves until we do have a completely divided public.

No one is asked to give up any religious "rights".

Do people of religious conscience have to participate in same sex weddings? Yes. That was the point of this law in the first place. It was to afford protections to businesses like Sweet Cakes and Elaine's Photography. It was to protect business people who say "No I will not attend your wedding".

 

[Chaussette]

The answer to abuses of freedom is more freedom not less. To imagine that religious people will voluntarily give up religious rights to serve the interests of secularism is mythic. They won't. What they will do is FURTHER separate themselves until we do have a completely divided public.

No one is asked to give up any religious "rights".

Do people of religious conscience have to participate in same sex weddings? Yes. That was the point of this law in the first place. It was to afford protections to businesses like Sweet Cakes and Elaine's Photography. It was to protect business people who say "No I will not attend your wedding".

Sorry, but religious reasons have to be excluded, Jesus would never discriminate against gays. Got anything else?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Damn, you're stupid. You can really look at what's going on on the political landscape today, the homosexual couples using the whole "It's legal for us to get married, therefore I'm going to sue you out of existence for hurting my feelings" thing that has SPARKED this law, and REALLY tell us that homosexual "marriage" has no effect on anyone outside of the two people pretending to be a married couple?

Are you brain-damaged?

Just to point out, the two cases that really got national attention were Elaine Photography (New Mexico) and Sweetcake by Melissa (Oregon).

Neither one of those cases is predicated on Civil Marriage being legal in those States for same-sex couples - because neither State has legal Civil Marriage for Same-sex couples.



>>>>

 

[NYcarbineer]

Examples of the religious argument for segregation:

Segregation

Segregationists made similar biblical arguments to oppose integration efforts in the 20th century.[xxix] They used Genesis 9:18-29 to make the case that God approves of segregation. These verses tell the story of the separation of people after the flood through division of the sons of Noah.[xxx] Additionally, the curse of Ham in Genesis, discussed above, was offered to justify segregation.[xxxi] Segregation supporters also used the Genesis story about the confusion of tongues at Babel (Genesis 11:1-9) to argue that God believes the races should be kept separate.[xxxii] Another frequently used Bible passage was Leviticus 19:19 which forbids a mixing of certain animals, plants, or fabrics.

Segregationists used "calls for a pure Israel," as found in Deuteronomy 21, to advocate for a racially separated society.[xxxiii] One segregationist, S.E. Rogers, argued that support for segregation was rooted in Christian love.[xxxiv] Other opponents of racial equality argued that the Gospels justified segregation. Just as Jesus Christ refused to associate with certain people, they too could refuse to associate with black people and not be considered un-Christian.[xxxv] Supporters of segregation used many other Biblical arguments to justify their arguments.[xxxvi]

The Arizona law would effectively make such religious based arguments a legally legitimate justification for segregationist policies,

including the refusal of businesses to serve certain people.

https://libertyeducationforum.org/issues/12-religion/47-the-bible-tells-me-so.html

 

[NYcarbineer]

Allowing individuals to choose their associations is not a theocratic state.

Allowing individuals to discriminate is not constitutional. There are legal differences between who you can choose to hang out with and who you can choose to do business with.

It's not that complicated.

If you cannot choose who you do business with, then you are on the path to a tyrannical state under the guise of secularism. There is no difference between theocratic tyranny and secular tyranny. That's why we have freedom of association.

If a homosexuals walks into a restaurant they should be served like anyone else. If the homosexual wants that restaurant to cater an event, the primary purpose of which is to advance homosexuality, the restaurant owner should have the freedom to refuse, not because of the status of the person, but because of the nature of the event.

The restaurant owner has the freedom not to enter into a business that is going to require him,

under the laws of the land, to do something he considers unpleasant.

To define the entire realm of anti-discrimination law in this country as 'tyranny' is pretty much a blanket rejection of one of the most fundamental principles of the government that our Constitution created.