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

[Kondor3]

He also didn't say government should grant government marriage to gays. It's the nature of not having said anything about government marriage, you can pick any statement on government marriage and correctly observe he didn't say that.

So you agree that Jesus never said that government shouldn't extend marriage to gays?

Yes, no shit dick tracy. Do you have any more obvious points to make?

Jesus also didn't say we should not require people to present IDs to vote

 

[kaz]

Defending prejudice and bigotry on principle? What's the principle?

The principle that everyone is entitled to freedom of religion, expression, and association whether you approve of them or not.

Figures you wouldn't be able to recognize principle without help.

No rights are absolute. With respect to religion, muslims aren't allowed their sharia law in the US, just to show that everything has a limit. Now you know.

The distinction in a free country is when you are making religious decisions for yourself and when you are making them for others. People can follow sharia law in this country other than for safety issues like not displaying their face for a drivers license and not following laws for things like getting on an airplane. But no one has the right to force anyone else to follow sharia law, including their spouse.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yeah, and if you think the ongoing battles in the political landscape on this subject are unrelated simply because those states haven't yet overridden the will of the people via judicial fiat, you're even more naive and obtuse than I previously thought.

Neither of those cases was via judicial fiat, Public Accommodation laws are in the statutes and those statutes covered sexual orientation along with race, ethnicity, national origin, sex, etc.

For example here is the law passed by the Legislature:

"F. any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to any person because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap, provided that the physical or mental handicap is unrelated to a person's ability to acquire or rent and maintain particular real property or housing accommodation ;"

New Mexico One Source of Law®


>>>>

Yes, that old leftist trick of pretending that a reference is to something other than it was, so that you can derail the conversation by making someone explain to your blank ass over and over what they're talking about works SOOO well.

Fail.

So let's make sure that we have this straight, I pointed out that neither New Mexico's or Oregon's cases regarding Elaine Photography or Sweetcakes was based on marriage law.

You response was it was judicial fiat.

I posted the law showing it was passed by the legislature.

And I get accused of pulling a trick because you were speaking out of your ass?






>>>>

 

[Iceweasel]

Maybe I just didn't understand your point, you seemed to be still talking specifically about gays. As for "disclose," you suggested a phone call. I didn't really propose how they disclose it. If you're saying they need to respond accurately if asked, then that doesn't necessarily contradict what I said.

My view is that it should be like privacy laws. Government simply requires companies to have a policy, and to follow their own policy. I think it should be the same for discrimination. Companies should be required to have a policy and follow their own policy. I don't particularly care if they plaster it everywhere, I would be fine with your solution they only need to provide it if asked.

As I said to another poster, businesses are overwhelmingly trying to get customers, not exclude them. All this government interference in this is a case of the cure (government power) being far, far worse then the disease.

Personally, that someone is gay is irrelevant to me. But I do think it's stupid for anyone to believe government should be able to force anyone to do business with anyone.

Yes, I agree with that. I'm against government getting involved in private decisions, period. I only used gay because that's the topic. A racist may not want to serve a black, or a white. It's their loss. I'd feel the same way if a Black Panther wanted a racist theme or visa versa for the KKK.

Forcing disclaimers on what all you won't accomodate is an uneccessary burden and who knows what kinds of suits that could bring? We do have anti-discrimination laws though so saying you don't serve blacks will get you in hot water. The problem with this gay issue is that homosexuality hasn't been legally classified in the equal protection clause (which would widden the scope considerably) and yet in some cases are being treated as such.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The problem with this gay issue is that homosexuality hasn't been legally classified in the equal protection clause (which would widden the scope considerably) and yet in some cases are being treated as such.

In Arizona, no sexual orientation is not included in the protected classes of their Public Accommodation laws.

"Yet some cases are being treated as such", in those states (for example the New Mexico photographer and Oregon baker) that have garnered a lot of national attention, ya - sexual orientation IS a protected class under those States Public Accommodation laws.



>>>>

 

[Iceweasel]

In Arizona, no sexual orientation is not included in the protected classes of their Public Accommodation laws.

"Yet some cases are being treated as such", in those states (for example the New Mexico photographer and Oregon baker) that have garnered a lot of national attention, ya - sexual orientation IS a protected class under those States Public Accommodation laws.

I said all along that it's regional. In some cases, Seattle passed the law maybe 10 years ago when only Canada had gay marriage. Oregon, like many states, are largely controlled by the big cities.

It will be a much bigger challenge to amend the equal protection clause of the Constitution though since then we have to start examining human sexuality. Where do we start and where do we stop? How about Bisexuals? Transgendered? Transexual?

 

[WorldWatcher]

In Arizona, no sexual orientation is not included in the protected classes of their Public Accommodation laws.

"Yet some cases are being treated as such", in those states (for example the New Mexico photographer and Oregon baker) that have garnered a lot of national attention, ya - sexual orientation IS a protected class under those States Public Accommodation laws.

I said all along that it's regional. In some cases, Seattle passed the law maybe 10 years ago when only Canada had gay marriage. Oregon, like many states, are largely controlled by the big cities.

It will be a much bigger challenge to amend the equal protection clause of the Constitution though since then we have to start examining human sexuality. Where do we start and where do we stop? How about Bisexuals? Transgendered? Transexual?

Since the Equal Protection clause already includes all citizens, I don't see the need to amend it to include others.

Bisexuals, Transgendered, Tran-sexual - Yes, the government should treat them equally under the law barring a compelling government interest in not doing so.


>>>>

 

[GreenBean]

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

May I be the first to ask why in the holy **** people who can't follow a thread insist on posting ?

In Reply to:

To demonstrate that Gay Sex {Sad Sodomy} is considered immoral to some, although morals really don't count in legaleez - And unhealthy and detrimental to society

Concluded with :

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

You want to talk about "following the thread"? How about you explain to me what diseases have to do with a thread about Arizona's Senate passing a bill allowing business owners to refuse service based on religious beliefs?

Pretty sure this isn't a thread about "why gays are gross and unnatural", any more than it's a thread about "why religious people are stupid and wrong", no matter how much people on both sides want to wander down tangents to their favorite soapboxes.

Finally - a point I can't argue - yes it was OT

 

[Iceweasel]

Since the Equal Protection clause already includes all citizens, I don't see the need to amend it to include others.

Bisexuals, Transgendered, Tran-sexual - Yes, the government should treat them equally under the law barring a compelling government interest in not doing so.

But it doesn't mention sexuality so Constitutionally speaking one cannot claim discrimination based on sexuality. But they do.

 

[Bombur]

Now the only real problem Arizona faces is finding an efficient way to label them so that people know who they are supposed to hate. Maybe a rainbow patch!

 

[WorldWatcher]

But it doesn't mention sexuality so Constitutionally speaking one cannot claim discrimination based on sexuality. But they do.

A don't see were equal treatment is excluded to citizens because of their sexuality.


Colorado tried passing a State constitutional amendment to exclude equal treatment under the law based on sexuality - it was struck down by the SCOTUS.

>>>>

 

[BillyZane]

In Arizona, no sexual orientation is not included in the protected classes of their Public Accommodation laws.

"Yet some cases are being treated as such", in those states (for example the New Mexico photographer and Oregon baker) that have garnered a lot of national attention, ya - sexual orientation IS a protected class under those States Public Accommodation laws.

I said all along that it's regional. In some cases, Seattle passed the law maybe 10 years ago when only Canada had gay marriage. Oregon, like many states, are largely controlled by the big cities.

It will be a much bigger challenge to amend the equal protection clause of the Constitution though since then we have to start examining human sexuality. Where do we start and where do we stop? How about Bisexuals? Transgendered? Transexual?

Since the Equal Protection clause already includes all citizens, I don't see the need to amend it to include others.

Bisexuals, Transgendered, Tran-sexual - Yes, the government should treat them equally under the law barring a compelling government interest in not doing so.


>>>>

You're right, the GOVERNMENT should treat everyone equally. They should NOT however be allowed to FORCE me to do so. That's the central point you and others are missing here.

The government is NOT empowered to force us not to discriminate, they simply are not. What's next, the government starts mandating who you must date if you sign up for a dating web site? Why couldn't they? I mean , you've already let them in the door to control discrimination.

What is the fundamental difference between being in business and looking for a date?

I don't understand why so many Americans are so comfortable giving more and more authority to a government which has clearly shown that they don't deserve the authority they DO have.

The government can barely do what it is in fact constitutionally required to do, much less "make things right" elsewhere.

That's my simple question, which too my knowledge no one has answered is where in the COTUS is the federal government empowered to pass laws requiring us to not discriminate? Because if it isn't there, it doesn't exist.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's exactly it. NO respect for other people at all.

No decent person who respected others would force someone to do business with them just because the current law allows it.

Who even wants to spend money with someone who openly does not want their business?

lol, so now we're to where the victims of discrimination are the villains.

words have meanings. Someone who is told "I'd rather not bake a cake for your gay wedding" is NOT a victim. If they try to force those people to bake them a cake, they are however a piece of shit.

Since you are obviously racist and anti-gay, of course you don't think that refusing to do business with someone of color or someone who is homosexual is not victimizing them.

Our constitution says otherwise.

 

[Iceweasel]

But it doesn't mention sexuality so Constitutionally speaking one cannot claim discrimination based on sexuality. But they do.

A don't see were equal treatment is excluded to citizens because of their sexuality.

Colorado tried passing a State constitutional amendment to exclude equal treatment under the law based on sexuality - it was struck down by the SCOTUS.

So your definition of equal treatment means that a baker is required by law to bake a gay wedding cake if he bakes wedding cakes. That's exactly the point and why there is a backlash. Welcome to the discussion. Sheesh.

I'm not familiar with the Colorado law but if liberal Colorado has a problem that should speak to you.

 

[Iceweasel]

Since you are obviously racist and anti-gay, of course you don't think that refusing to do business with someone of color or someone who is homosexual is not victimizing them.

Our constitution says otherwise.

Where does it mention homosexuals? Or is homosexual a race?

 

[bodecea]

But it doesn't mention sexuality so Constitutionally speaking one cannot claim discrimination based on sexuality. But they do.

A don't see were equal treatment is excluded to citizens because of their sexuality.

Colorado tried passing a State constitutional amendment to exclude equal treatment under the law based on sexuality - it was struck down by the SCOTUS.

So your definition of equal treatment means that a baker is required by law to bake a gay wedding cake if he bakes wedding cakes. That's exactly the point and why there is a backlash. Welcome to the discussion. Sheesh.

I'm not familiar with the Colorado law but if liberal Colorado has a problem that should speak to you.

Why would he not? It's business.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Since you are obviously racist and anti-gay, of course you don't think that refusing to do business with someone of color or someone who is homosexual is not victimizing them.

Our constitution says otherwise.

Where does it mention homosexuals? Or is homosexual a race?

Are homosexuals not people? Are they not capable of US citizenship?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Just a reminder several hundred posts in -

The Arizona law is not limited to cake bakers and gays.

 

[Mustang]

But it doesn't mention sexuality so Constitutionally speaking one cannot claim discrimination based on sexuality. But they do.

A don't see were equal treatment is excluded to citizens because of their sexuality.

Colorado tried passing a State constitutional amendment to exclude equal treatment under the law based on sexuality - it was struck down by the SCOTUS.

So your definition of equal treatment means that a baker is required by law to bake a gay wedding cake if he bakes wedding cakes. That's exactly the point and why there is a backlash. Welcome to the discussion. Sheesh.

I'm not familiar with the Colorado law but if liberal Colorado has a problem that should speak to you.

There's no such thing as a gay wedding cake just like there's no such thing as a straight wedding cake. It's just a cake regardless of the sexual orientation of who it's made for. So, regardless of whether the wedding cake is made for a straight or a gay couple, it's still just a damn cake. Consequently, if the baker is ever asked if he makes gay wedding cakes, he can say no. He just makes wedding cakes. What happens to the cake after it leaves his bakery, should be none of his concern.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I said all along that it's regional. In some cases, Seattle passed the law maybe 10 years ago when only Canada had gay marriage. Oregon, like many states, are largely controlled by the big cities.

It will be a much bigger challenge to amend the equal protection clause of the Constitution though since then we have to start examining human sexuality. Where do we start and where do we stop? How about Bisexuals? Transgendered? Transexual?

Since the Equal Protection clause already includes all citizens, I don't see the need to amend it to include others.

Bisexuals, Transgendered, Tran-sexual - Yes, the government should treat them equally under the law barring a compelling government interest in not doing so.


>>>>

You're right, the GOVERNMENT should treat everyone equally. They should NOT however be allowed to FORCE me to do so. That's the central point you and others are missing here.

Psst - I support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws as applied to private business.

I don't see a difference between a person having a secular reason for wanting to discriminate against black and a persons "sincerely held religious belief" that blacks are inferior.

Both are equally valid (to that person as a sincerely held belief, personally I think they are disgusting - just an example) and the government should allow (in general) the market to influence outcomes. IMHO. (1) Private businesses should be exempt from Public Accommodation laws with the only exception being life saving medical treatment. (2) Public Accommodation laws should only apply to government entities. (3) Government entities, since the spend tax payer dollars, should be restricted from conducting business and issuing contracts to businesses that function in a discriminatory manner.



Care to comment about "the central point" that I'm missing?



>>>>