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

[Katzndogz]

What you will see are business owners limiting the range of services they provide. They will offer public accommodation, and accommodations by private arrangement. Many businesses do that now. You just don't hear about it. Only when it becomes widespread enough to pinch will you hear about it.

 

[Gadawg73]

What you will see are business owners limiting the range of services they provide. They will offer public accommodation, and accommodations by private arrangement. Many businesses do that now. You just don't hear about it. Only when it becomes widespread enough to pinch will you hear about it.

So you support businesses that deny to serve adulterers and those that eat pork.
Got it.
You support a law that a Muslim business owner of an ambulance service can deny service to an auto accident victim because they eat pork.

Who are you trying to shit here?

 

[Cecilie1200]

When a gay couple walks into your shop and you refuse to serve them what exactly are you objecting to that must be "kept out of the public eye"? That they have matching wedding bands? Exactly what aspect are you attempting to ban here?

No we shouldn't hide people who are homosexuals. But you shouldn't force a citizen to act against his or her own consciences and faith. If anything, this intolerance of personal and spiritual limits should be banned.

Then people should be upfront about it and post a sign in the shop window saying: WE DON'T SERVE GAYS.

You just CANNOT let go of the notion that it's your place to dictate to people what they "should" and "shouldn't" do, can you? Here's a "should" for you: you should mind your own frigging business about running businesses YOU don't own. How's that for a big can-do?

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

You don't speak for Christ, the Bible, or the Christian community. End of story.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Then people should be upfront about it and post a sign in the shop window saying: WE DON'T SERVE GAYS.

Yep. But then again, why does such a suggestion come from someone who opposes such a thing? Aren't you contradicting yourself?

I just think people should be honest. Sure, I think that it's totally homophobic, but if this law passes, people should at least be honest and upfront about their hating and post a sign: I HATE GAYS. Or something similar.

If you're such a big fan of honesty, how about YOU be honest about your desire to micromanage the entire world, whether it's any of your damned business or not?

See if you can wrap whatever remaining brain cells you have around this one: we let people act in accordance with their own religious beliefs and consciences, and we let THEM decide the best way to handle doing so, and YOU stop trying to vote in elections no one's handed you a ballot for.

If anyone's just DYING for your advice on how to live their lives, I'm sure they can find you and ask. And I for one think you should definitely hold your breath while waiting for them to do so.

 

[kaz]

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

Absolutely business owners should have the right to do or not do business with anyone they chose. One thing I would support though would be that they be required to disclose their policy so their other customers, employees and vendors can decide if they want to do business with them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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?

The far right reactonary Christian community cannot comprehend that Christ encompasses all of us where are at right now. The reactionaries are judgmental, meaning they don't follow scriptural guidance.

They are mad that they cannot demonstrate how marriage equality invades their religious or civil liberties.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

You missed my entire point. When you force business owners to serve people against their religious beliefs, that's forcing that way or lifestyle on them. Look, I suggest you read more carefully before critiquing any of my posts.

I'll put it succinctly:

It will stop being our business when you stop making it our business. Understand?

When I say Human Biology, I'm referring to THE HUMAN SPECIES and only that. I am not referring to other animal or creature. And did you just call me a "noob"? Really? Do you think this is a ******* game?

So basically, you only serve Christian straight people, no Jews, muslims, Hindus, Atheists... Because after all, you don't agree with their religious beliefs. Man, your business must be booming.

You are a ******* noob, because your god put those homosexual animals on earth, it's not their ******* DIET!!!!!!!

Still trying to figure out what possible business it is of yours whether or not someone else's decisions make their business boom or fail. Unless you're their silent partner, no one asked you.

What are you, a ******* noob at LIFE?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Sheer sophistry, and insubstantial. Webster's gives us an adequate definition.


That is your assessment. Vast numbers of other people hold differently.


Rather, opponents are prepared to discriminate against people who engage in perverse, sinful, unclean and deviant sexual practices with members of the same sex, utilizing their centuries-old, well-documented, widely-held religious beliefs that associating with such evil constitutes moral wrongdoing, as the basis for that discrimination. It is an interesting approach-vector that may yield some good results, in the Arizona case or some other that 'tweaks' the Arizona model. In any event, the search continues.

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.

Gay Sex ...
Let's Start with the Health Issues

Gay Bowel Syndrome The Journal of the American Medical Association - Many of the bacterial and protozoa pathogens that cause gbs are found in feces and transmitted to the digestive system. This disease is rarely found in normal people ,extremely rarely , but it is epidemic in the Gay community it's caused by ingesting SHIT. Yes - it's a fact Gays are Shit-eaters

HIV/AIDS Among Homosexuals. The human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is responsible for causing AIDS, for which there exists no cure. Some like to cite that this also occurs among normal people but Although Fags represent about 7% of the male population in the United States, in 2010 Gay Sodomy accounted for 78% of the new HIV infections among males.



Anal Cancer: Homosexuals are at increased risk for this rare type of cancer, which is potentially fatal if the anal-rectal tumors metastasize to other bodily organs.

Reduced Life Span. Now the devil on my left shoulder is saying that getting rid of these queers earllier in life is a good thing , but the angel on my tight shoulder say show some compassion even if they are just perverts. A study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology on the mortality rates of homosexuals concluded that they have a significantly reduced life expectancy:

In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age twentyfor gay and bisexual men is eight to twenty years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged twenty years will not reach their sixty-fifth birthday.

Chlamydia - Caused primarily by anal sex and rates are extremely high in the Fruit cake community

Anal Papilloma - rates are extremely high in the Fruit cake community

Human Papillomavirus (HPV) -rates are extremely high in the Fruit cake community

Hepatitis: A potentially fatal liver disease that increases the risk of liver cancer.rates are extremely high in the Fruit cake community

Gonorrhea: An inflammatory disease of the genital tract. rates are extremely high in the Fruit cake community

Syphilis -rates are extremely high in the Fruit cake community

Explain that rates are extremely high in the Fruit cake community to SCOTUS

May I be the first to ask what in the holy **** this has to do with the topic?

 

[kaz]

What you will see are business owners limiting the range of services they provide. They will offer public accommodation, and accommodations by private arrangement. Many businesses do that now. You just don't hear about it. Only when it becomes widespread enough to pinch will you hear about it.

So you support businesses that deny to serve adulterers and those that eat pork.
Got it.
You support a law that a Muslim business owner of an ambulance service can deny service to an auto accident victim because they eat pork.

Who are you trying to shit here?

As a business owner, I can tell you the reality is that we are overwhelmingly trying to figure out how to get new customers, not exclude the ones we have. That you live in such fear that a few business owners may shoot themselves in the foot and you are therefore willing to empower politicians and bureaucrats to force businesses to deal with customers they don't want is a serious failure to grasp the world around you and the incredible abuses they are committing with the power you support giving them. The cure is far worse than the disease.

I do regular work for Democratic politicians. I don't put any political or even sports affiliations on any clothing I wear, on my car or in my office because I'm here to do business, not make statements. The statements can be made when I go home.

 

[Katzndogz]

What you will see are business owners limiting the range of services they provide. They will offer public accommodation, and accommodations by private arrangement. Many businesses do that now. You just don't hear about it. Only when it becomes widespread enough to pinch will you hear about it.

So you support businesses that deny to serve adulterers and those that eat pork.
Got it.
You support a law that a Muslim business owner of an ambulance service can deny service to an auto accident victim because they eat pork.

Who are you trying to shit here?

I know a lot of businesses that don't serve pork at all! I'll bet that I could name half a dozen restaurants right near here that only serve halal. Should a halal restaurant be forced to include pork ribs on the menu?

I support a business that has open doors for the public and the right to refuse to cater "Celebrate the divorce" party.

I support the local bakery recently bought out by muslims who now refuse to make wedding cakes for Christians. They took wedding cakes off the menu. For their community though, they still make them. They have scrumptious croissants anyone can go into that bakery and get some.

That's what you will see. Businesses just limiting what advertised services they are willing to perform.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

I decided to opt out of reading through 50 pages. I'm just going to cut to the chase. Remember Super Bowl XXVII. Boycott Arizona.

Feel free, and please don't think for a second that your company was wanted, or your absence wouldn't be celebrated, if anyone cared enough to notice you exist, anyway. Buh bye.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No need for boycotting AZ.

The legislation is dead on signing.

 

[Iceweasel]

Absolutely business owners should have the right to do or not do business with anyone they chose. One thing I would support though would be that they be required to disclose their policy so their other customers, employees and vendors can decide if they want to do business with them.

They can decide when the shopkeeper says "no". It makes more sense to recognize that not everyone on Earth is onboard with the homosexual alternative lifestyle and may object. Most Muslims are very much against it, same with any number of religions or individuals. These kinds of problems crop up when one assumes too much.

It makes much more sense to call the store and ask. Old fashioned? Maybe. But apparently so is respecting someone else's opinion.

 

[kaz]

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?

The far right reactonary Christian community cannot comprehend that Christ encompasses all of us where are at right now. The reactionaries are judgmental, meaning they don't follow scriptural guidance.

They are mad that they cannot demonstrate how marriage equality invades their religious or civil liberties.

The irony that you're telling people they aren't following the scripture because they don't read it like you do. I learn a lot from the views of others. But the ones like you who lecture me that you know the truth and I'm wrong unless I follow what you say I tune out and avoid.

I also am not clear where in the bible you get that the church has responsibility for who does and doesn't get a government marriage. I do remember Jesus saying "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's." I don't see that as either supporting or refuting gay marriage so much as saying let the government take care of itself and let the church take care of itself.

Can you show me the passages you're finding that I am not where the Bible talks about what government's role should be in church doctrine?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

First off, Kondor just openly admitted to "legislating his own morality based on his religious beliefs". Secondly removing discrimination is not "legislating morality" unless you believe that it is somehow "moral" to discriminate against your fellow citizens. You need to justify the "fairness" to discriminating against them simply because they are in love with someone of the same sex.

Don't muddy the waters with the "reproduction" issue either. This has nothing to do with that aspect at all. This is about trying to dictate who someone is allowed to love and who they can't. There is no justification for that kind of moralizing and attempting to legislate it.

Whoa whoa whoa... hold the phone:



So a business owner refusing service to a gay couple is somehow telling them they can't love each other? Am I getting this straight? So, in response we must force this person to act against his faith? Reference my previous posts for how I feel about that.

I frankly don't care what Kondor said. I find it hypocritical for someone to say "you can't legislate morality" then sit there while our state governments pass legislation which foist the morals and lifestyles of homosexuals on Christians via legislation. When you remove a man's right to act as his faith teaches, that within itself is discrimination.. You don't force tolerance. You don't force a man to believe what he doesn't want to believe, nor should force him to accommodate those beliefs.

Being a Libertarian, I believe homosexuals should be treated equally. But in addition, I believe that a businessman or owner should be able to run his business how he sees fit, even if that means refusing service to peoples whose lifestyles run against the grain of his religion. I believe, Derideo, that it is unfair to force a man to act against his religious beliefs by forcing another set of contradictory beliefs upon him. Let him believe how he chooses, and run his business accordingly. Same for gays. This is a core tenet of libertarianism: to let the citizen dictate his own fate and the fate of his endeavors, to let the citizen believe how he chooses without being forced to conform to societal norms. It's that simple.

I think I mentioned in some thread before that the problem is that leftists don't have the courage of their convictions. They are literally incapable of saying, "This is me, this my decision, it works for me, **** you if you don't like it." They are incredibly fragile and vulnerable to peer pressure, and so at the first sign of anything less than complete approbation, they crumple like a wet Kleenex.

If they could just learn to have some sack and be confident in themselves, it would solve so many problems.

 

[Katzndogz]

It won't matter whether it is signed or not. Businesspeople of conscience will find ways of avoiding the consequence of being forced to perform personal services for causes they object to. The end result will be exactly the same. Gays will be forced into doing business only with those who advertise as being open to such business arrangements. They just won't have a choice.

 

[kaz]

Absolutely business owners should have the right to do or not do business with anyone they chose. One thing I would support though would be that they be required to disclose their policy so their other customers, employees and vendors can decide if they want to do business with them.

They can decide when the shopkeeper says "no". It makes more sense to recognize that not everyone on Earth is onboard with the homosexual alternative lifestyle and may object. Most Muslims are very much against it, same with any number of religions or individuals. These kinds of problems crop up when one assumes too much.

It makes much more sense to call the store and ask. Old fashioned? Maybe. But apparently so is respecting someone else's opinion.

So as clarification, I thought your central point was that businesses should be able to decide who they deal with, which I agree with you on.

Are you saying it's just gays they should be able to refuse to do business with? I would not agree with that. Either we are free to chose our own customers or we are not. I don't get the logic of singling out gays but forcing us to do business with everyone else.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"...So basically, you only serve Christian straight people, no Jews, muslims, Hindus, Atheists... Because after all, you don't agree with their religious beliefs...."

Not at all...

Merely looking for the freedom to refuse service to those whose sexual practices are condemned in the sacred texts and/or historical and present teachings of at least three of the world's largest mainstream religions, and which are believed to be perverse, unnatural, unclean and an aberration in the eyes of God and Man - the freedom to shun wrongdoing and wrongdoers in accordance with mainstream religious teachings on the subject.

A different 'filter' than the holistic one that you are trying (and failing) to apply here.

Sacred texts are nothing but fairy tales. Nothing of importance can be proved in any religion. And do you really think that Jesus preached to hate gays? Since you know he didn't, then it's man who wrote in the hating gays stuff in your sacred noob books. Jesus was not a gay basher. Or was he?

And here we have yet another example of your complete inability to understand that NO ONE ASKED YOU. What possible relevance do you think your personal opinion of other people's beliefs has on their right to exercise them? Do we get to vote on whether or not YOUR beliefs are a pile of steaming shit, and should therefore be violated, trampled, and ignored?

 

[Iceweasel]

It won't matter whether it is signed or not. Businesspeople of conscience will find ways of avoiding the consequence of being forced to perform personal services for causes they object to. The end result will be exactly the same. Gays will be forced into doing business only with those who advertise as being open to such business arrangements. They just won't have a choice.

I agree with much of that, a business can always claim they are busy, bump up the price or any number of things. I don't they need to advertise anything special, the whole problem is based on either assumptions or agendas. Most gays are not doing "gay" things, a business wouldn't know or care. It's only when something like wedding invitations or ceremonies take place. All it takes is a phone call. Surely there are people that would be happy for the business.

I do occasionally work for gay folks, although not gay specific things. I really don't care and don't know why they feel the need to announce it.