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

[Katzndogz]

The 'evil' is a business engaged in public commerce discriminating against folks for what they are.

That's wrong, un-American, and won't stand.

In other words, you would force a Jew to bake a Nazi cake. Your side is tyranical and people are fighting back. Sounds like some of you aren't accustomed to that.

And that is the crux of the matter. The left believes that "their" ideology is good. everyone els's is bad. So yes, they WOULD have a Jew bake a Nazi a birthday cake AND fix his shower head.

You're dealing with pure evil here.

The left would not only force a Jew to bake a Nazi celebration cake but attend the Nazi celebration too.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

In other words, you would force a Jew to bake a Nazi cake. Your side is tyranical and people are fighting back. Sounds like some of you aren't accustomed to that.

And that is the crux of the matter. The left believes that "their" ideology is good. everyone els's is bad. So yes, they WOULD have a Jew bake a Nazi a birthday cake AND fix his shower head.

You're dealing with pure evil here.

The left would not only force a Jew to bake a Nazi celebration cake but attend the Nazi celebration too.

Nah, baking a cake is all we ask. That's his job right, how he makes his living?

 

[Bombur]

In other words, you would force a Jew to bake a Nazi cake. Your side is tyranical and people are fighting back. Sounds like some of you aren't accustomed to that.

And that is the crux of the matter. The left believes that "their" ideology is good. everyone els's is bad. So yes, they WOULD have a Jew bake a Nazi a birthday cake AND fix his shower head.

You're dealing with pure evil here.

The left would not only force a Jew to bake a Nazi celebration cake but attend the Nazi celebration too.

Clearly you have no choice but to fight back against this tyranny! Did you mom clean your brown shirt yet?

 

[g5000]

In other words, you would force a Jew to bake a Nazi cake. Your side is tyranical and people are fighting back. Sounds like some of you aren't accustomed to that.

And that is the crux of the matter. The left believes that "their" ideology is good. everyone els's is bad. So yes, they WOULD have a Jew bake a Nazi a birthday cake AND fix his shower head.

You're dealing with pure evil here.

The left would not only force a Jew to bake a Nazi celebration cake but attend the Nazi celebration too.

National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie

 

[g5000]

In other words, you would force a Jew to bake a Nazi cake. Your side is tyranical and people are fighting back. Sounds like some of you aren't accustomed to that.

And that is the crux of the matter. The left believes that "their" ideology is good. everyone els's is bad. So yes, they WOULD have a Jew bake a Nazi a birthday cake AND fix his shower head.

You're dealing with pure evil here.

The left would not only force a Jew to bake a Nazi celebration cake but attend the Nazi celebration too.

Let's reword this a bit so you can see what an idiot you really sound like: The left would not only force a Negro to bake a KKK celebration cake but attend the KKK celebration too.

 

[RandallFlagg]

And that is the crux of the matter. The left believes that "their" ideology is good. everyone els's is bad. So yes, they WOULD have a Jew bake a Nazi a birthday cake AND fix his shower head.

You're dealing with pure evil here.

The left would not only force a Jew to bake a Nazi celebration cake but attend the Nazi celebration too.

Let's reword this a bit so you can see what an idiot you really sound like: The left would not only force a Negro to bake a KKK celebration cake but attend the KKK celebration too.

That's a pretty good analogy if you consider that the KKK had as many democrats as republicans as members. Like I said - the left is full 'o crap.

Again - the left is pure unadulterated evil.

 

[g5000]

The left would not only force a Jew to bake a Nazi celebration cake but attend the Nazi celebration too.

Let's reword this a bit so you can see what an idiot you really sound like: The left would not only force a Negro to bake a KKK celebration cake but attend the KKK celebration too.

That's a pretty good analogy if you consider that the KKK had as many democrats as republicans as members. Like I said - the left is full 'o crap.

Again - the left is pure unadulterated evil.

Katzndogz statement had at least one logical fallacy in it. Can you spot it?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I suspect that you have no idea of how unlikely it is that people will give up their rights for your theocratic utopia.

I suspect that you have no clue how unlikely it is that people will give up their rights for a secular one, either. There is no such thing as a one sided coin, my friend.

Our current secular state is what provides you with those rights. You are advocating a theocratic state that would deprive people of their rights.

[MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION]

I never said a word about supporting a "theocratic state." I, like you, believe in separation of church and state. I also believe that concept works both ways. Just because I was posting in conjunction with Kondor should not imply that I advocate a "theocratic state." Moreover, our current "secular state" is what's forcing pious businesspeople to act against their faith. So what rights do they have, perchance? Must you sacrifice your religious freedom to run a business?

 

[The T]

I can't wait until it goes to court

Why? So a Court can tell a private business HOW it must conduct itself? A private business can REFUSE SERVICE to anyone. Get it?

 

[WorldWatcher]

DOMA was a direct implementation of the full faith and credit clause. The striking down of DOMA only proved we have a criminal, corrupt Supreme Court that doesn't base it's rulings on what the Constitution says but what they want it to say. They are dictators in robes. Well, the ones who voted to violate the Constitution and usurp the powers of the Legislative branch are.

DOMA had two Sections. Section 2 was an exercise of Congresses full faith and credit clause, that section was not addressed by the courts.

Section 3 having to do with Federal recognition (not state to state recognition, which was Section 2) was a violation of equal protection. Section 3 had nothing to do with full faith and credit between the states.


>>>>

OK, I see what you're saying on the section that was struck down, and I agree that's not full faith and credit.

That's OK, easy to forget that DOMA has two functional sections.

Section 3 has nothing to do with equal protection though Two straight men or two straight women also can not get family insurance.

Of course you are welcome to your opinion, but the United States Supreme Court disagreed just like they disagreed with the Commonwealth of Virginia when they said in the Loving case in 1967 that there no violation of equal protection because coloreds and whites were treated differently.

The class to which DOMA directs its restrictions and restraints
are those persons who are joined in same-sex marriages made lawful by the State. DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition
and protection to enhance their own liberty. It imposes a disability on the class by refusing to acknowledge a status the State finds to be dignified and proper. DOMA
instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the
marriages of others. The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose
overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment. This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages.​

The ruling of course applies to only the Federal DOMA, whether States can discriminate in the realm of Civil Marriage based on the gender composition of the couple is a case they will have to address in the future.


>>>>

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I can't wait until it goes to court

Why? So a Court can tell a private business HOW it must conduct itself? A private business can REFUSE SERVICE to anyone. Get it?

Actually you're the one who doesn't get it. That's not what the law says, and it hasn't for decades. We tell private businesses what to do here just like we tell private citizens what to do here. It's not a Freedom Free-For-All here, nor was it ever meant to be, nor is a business a church. And just because you call religion doesn't mean you can start burning witches and dropping virgins into volcanoes.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I can't wait until it goes to court

Why? So a Court can tell a private business HOW it must conduct itself? A private business can REFUSE SERVICE to anyone. Get it?

A little clarification here, yes any business can refuse service to any person. If they don't offer the product, they have a scheduling conflict, if the customer is rude and disruptive, etc...

However in Arizona it's the legislature - not the court - under it's 10th Amendment powers to regulate business within the State that says a business of Public Accommodation CANNOT refuse business based on Race, Color, National Origin/Ancestry, Sex, Religion/Creed, or Physical/Mental disability.

If a black man walks into a kosher deli and orders a ham sandwich - the black man can be refused because the deli does not serve ham.

On the other hand if the deli does service ham (they are non-kosher) and refuses to serve the black person because they are black - that violates the State law.

Get it?


(BTW - Public Accommodation laws have been upheld by the court, multple states and at the Federal level going back to Heartland of Atlanta Motel v. United States.


>>>>

 

[NYcarbineer]

I suspect that you have no clue how unlikely it is that people will give up their rights for a secular one, either. There is no such thing as a one sided coin, my friend.

Our current secular state is what provides you with those rights. You are advocating a theocratic state that would deprive people of their rights.

[MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION]

I never said a word about supporting a "theocratic state." I, like you, believe in separation of church and state. I also believe that concept works both ways. Just because I was posting in conjunction with Kondor should not imply that I advocate a "theocratic state." Moreover, our current "secular state" is what's forcing pious businesspeople to act against their faith. So what rights do they have, perchance? Must you sacrifice your religious freedom to run a business?

Yes you must, if your religious 'freedom' includes actions that violate laws or the Constitution.

Remember, we're a secular nation that tolerates religion up to a point, not a theocracy that tolerates secularism up to a point.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I can't wait until it goes to court

Why? So a Court can tell a private business HOW it must conduct itself? A private business can REFUSE SERVICE to anyone. Get it?

A little clarification here, yes any business can refuse service to any person. If they don't offer the product, they have a scheduling conflict, if the customer is rude and disruptive, etc...

However in Arizona it's the legislature - not the court - under it's 10th Amendment powers to regulate business within the State that says a business of Public Accommodation CANNOT refuse business based on Race, Color, National Origin/Ancestry, Sex, Religion/Creed, or Physical/Mental disability.

If a black man walks into a kosher deli and orders a ham sandwich - the black man can be refused because the deli does not serve ham.

On the other hand if the deli does service ham (they are non-kosher) and refuses to serve the black person because they are black - that violates the State law.

Get it?


(BTW - Public Accommodation laws have been upheld by the court, multple states and at the Federal level going back to Heartland of Atlanta Motel v. United States.


>>>>

Putting all of the legality aside for a moment, let me ask you an honest question:

Should a man give up his religious beliefs to a) run a business and b) adhere to public accommodation laws?

 

[JakeStarkey]

In other words, you would force a Jew to bake a Nazi cake. Your side is tyranical and people are fighting back. Sounds like some of you aren't accustomed to that.

And that is the crux of the matter. The left believes that "their" ideology is good. everyone els's is bad. So yes, they WOULD have a Jew bake a Nazi a birthday cake AND fix his shower head.

You're dealing with pure evil here.

The left would not only force a Jew to bake a Nazi celebration cake but attend the Nazi celebration too.

Horse shit.

Let's get you dribblers cleaned up.

Nazis have no protection simply because they are political, other than they can speak their mind.

Jews do have protections because of what they are.

So, no, a Jew would not have to bake a birthday cake for a Nazi.

Yes, a Nazi would have to bake a birthday cake for a Jew.

Look up derivative false analogy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Huh? We are discussing the relationship. Relationships aren't people. There is no Constitutional requirement for anyone to honor gay relationships, that's why the laws are created in various liberal locales.

A wedding cake is food, for a wedding reception. If you can discriminate against gays having a wedding reception, you can discriminate against gays coming into your restaurant for supper, or coming to your bar for drinks,

or renting your apartment, or shopping at your store, or, for that matter, you can refuse to hire a person you know is gay, just because he or she is gay.

That is not the way the law and the Constitution are going to work in this country.

You lose. Move if you can't tolerate it.

 

[The T]

I can't wait until it goes to court

Why? So a Court can tell a private business HOW it must conduct itself? A private business can REFUSE SERVICE to anyone. Get it?

A little clarification here, yes any business can refuse service to any person. If they don't offer the product, they have a scheduling conflict, if the customer is rude and disruptive, etc...

However in Arizona it's the legislature - not the court - under it's 10th Amendment powers to regulate business within the State that says a business of Public Accommodation CANNOT refuse business based on Race, Color, National Origin/Ancestry, Sex, Religion/Creed, or Physical/Mental disability.

If a black man walks into a kosher deli and orders a ham sandwich - the black man can be refused because the deli does not serve ham.

On the other hand if the deli does service ham (they are non-kosher) and refuses to serve the black person because they are black - that violates the State law.

Get it?


(BTW - Public Accommodation laws have been upheld by the court, multple states and at the Federal level going back to Heartland of Atlanta Motel v. United States.


>>>>

Don't CARE. Since when did GAY=Black?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why? So a Court can tell a private business HOW it must conduct itself? A private business can REFUSE SERVICE to anyone. Get it?

A little clarification here, yes any business can refuse service to any person. If they don't offer the product, they have a scheduling conflict, if the customer is rude and disruptive, etc...

However in Arizona it's the legislature - not the court - under it's 10th Amendment powers to regulate business within the State that says a business of Public Accommodation CANNOT refuse business based on Race, Color, National Origin/Ancestry, Sex, Religion/Creed, or Physical/Mental disability.

If a black man walks into a kosher deli and orders a ham sandwich - the black man can be refused because the deli does not serve ham.

On the other hand if the deli does service ham (they are non-kosher) and refuses to serve the black person because they are black - that violates the State law.

Get it?


(BTW - Public Accommodation laws have been upheld by the court, multple states and at the Federal level going back to Heartland of Atlanta Motel v. United States.


>>>>

Putting all of the legality aside for a moment, let me ask you an honest question:

Should a man give up his religious beliefs to a) run a business and b) adhere to public accommodation laws?

Public accommodation should not be infringed on by anyone's religious belief. The former is public, the latter is private.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Why? So a Court can tell a private business HOW it must conduct itself? A private business can REFUSE SERVICE to anyone. Get it?

A little clarification here, yes any business can refuse service to any person. If they don't offer the product, they have a scheduling conflict, if the customer is rude and disruptive, etc...

However in Arizona it's the legislature - not the court - under it's 10th Amendment powers to regulate business within the State that says a business of Public Accommodation CANNOT refuse business based on Race, Color, National Origin/Ancestry, Sex, Religion/Creed, or Physical/Mental disability.

If a black man walks into a kosher deli and orders a ham sandwich - the black man can be refused because the deli does not serve ham.

On the other hand if the deli does service ham (they are non-kosher) and refuses to serve the black person because they are black - that violates the State law.

Get it?


(BTW - Public Accommodation laws have been upheld by the court, multple states and at the Federal level going back to Heartland of Atlanta Motel v. United States.


>>>>

Putting all of the legality aside for a moment, let me ask you an honest question:

Should a man give up his religious beliefs to a) run a business and b) adhere to public accommodation laws?

Easy answer. How you live your faith is mostly a private matter. How you run your business is mostly a public one, when you serve the public that is. You don't have to give up anything more than you have to to work for someone else. If the boss says stop preaching, it's stop and compromise or hit the road. We can only allow for so much faith when the goal is business.

If you work in my Agnostic Bookstore and I tell you to take the cross off, you can do it or you can vote with your feet. I'm not a church, I'm a business.

 

[TemplarKormac]

A little clarification here, yes any business can refuse service to any person. If they don't offer the product, they have a scheduling conflict, if the customer is rude and disruptive, etc...

However in Arizona it's the legislature - not the court - under it's 10th Amendment powers to regulate business within the State that says a business of Public Accommodation CANNOT refuse business based on Race, Color, National Origin/Ancestry, Sex, Religion/Creed, or Physical/Mental disability.

If a black man walks into a kosher deli and orders a ham sandwich - the black man can be refused because the deli does not serve ham.

On the other hand if the deli does service ham (they are non-kosher) and refuses to serve the black person because they are black - that violates the State law.

Get it?


(BTW - Public Accommodation laws have been upheld by the court, multple states and at the Federal level going back to Heartland of Atlanta Motel v. United States.


>>>>

Putting all of the legality aside for a moment, let me ask you an honest question:

Should a man give up his religious beliefs to a) run a business and b) adhere to public accommodation laws?

Public accommodation should not be infringed on by anyone's religious belief. The former is public, the latter is private.

Uhh so, I might have missed the Constitutional Convention to strike the 1st Amendment from Constitution. A man dreams should not come at the cost of his beliefs. It's that simple.