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

[Barb]

There is nothing settled about the idea that people lose their rights simply because they own a business.

except it is.

Public accommodations laws, desegregation, and regulations against red-lining came about because it was found that segregation and stratification of people based on race, gender, and a little later sexual orientation, effectively segregated and stratified economic opportunity.

And yes, Quantum sonicetoseeyou'rebacktodickheadedyou Windbag, they DID used to do so to others under the excuse that it was "God's will."

That is not why they came about.

They came about because they seemed like the easiest way to force the states that mandated discrimination to stop. There was the additional rationalization that, at the time, most public accommodations were government sanctioned monopolies, and hotels were actually few, and far between. Those conditions no longer exist, so only an idiot would insist that we still need the same laws.

did you bump your head? or your face?

 

[JimH52]

If Brewer signs this law, she will be asking for boycotts and the loss of business in Arizona. It is her choice...

 

[Iceweasel]

And it is your thinking which is clearly on the wrong side of history.

Two flaws in your post here: A) Planned Parenthood and homosexuality are two separate issues B) it isn't slander or defamation if the statements made in public are true.

We are talking about homosexuals here. A business which won't sell a hamburger or a pack of gum to a man because he's gay is a very stupid business indeed.

I gave an example of me refusing to do work on principle. That was beyond your scope to comprehend? I also made it clear that people can say what they want but if they get into slander it's defamation. Either read slower or have someone explain it to you.

If a business wants to turn down someone's money that should be their right regardless of how someone else feels about it.

 

[Iceweasel]

There is a huge difference between serving everyone what you already sell and declining to cook a specialized cuisine that isn't on the menu

That's what we've been discussing for about a week now. If you don't sell gay products you shouldn't have to. Welcome to the thread.

 

[racewright]

And it is your thinking which is clearly on the wrong side of history.

Two flaws in your post here: A) Planned Parenthood and homosexuality are two separate issues B) it isn't slander or defamation if the statements made in public are true.

We are talking about homosexuals here. A business which won't sell a hamburger or a pack of gum to a man because he's gay is a very stupid business indeed.

I gave an example of me refusing to do work on principle. That was beyond your scope to comprehend? I also made it clear that people can say what they want but if they get into slander it's defamation. Either read slower or have someone explain it to you.

If a business wants to turn down someone's money that should be their right regardless of how someone else feels about it.

Uh you mean Gays have a sign on that's says we are Gay and going to eat in you restaurant weather you like it or not.
Uh if it is that obvious like Making out or flaunting it then through them out. Other than that
there should be no obvious thing that separate's them from the rest of the crowd and if there is then they need to be disciplined.
Blacks, well in my life time I have never seen a restaurant refuse to serve someone just on the color of there skin, I have seen unruly trouble makers asked to leave and even been physically removed, mostly women.

 

[Iceweasel]

If Brewer signs this law, she will be asking for boycotts and the loss of business in Arizona. It is her choice...

Sounds like a threat. I can't see any normal people cancelling a trip to Arizona because business folks get some rights back. The wackos can stick to their liberal meccas so it's a win win.

 

[BDBoop]

If Brewer signs this law, she will be asking for boycotts and the loss of business in Arizona. It is her choice...

And she's just stupid enough to do so.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Conspiracy theories do not an argument make. You can say "discrimination" all you want, but you need an argument to prove it. So using your logic, how is a man adhering to his faith discriminating, but forcing him to serve gays against his faith isn't?

Do I need to type more slowly, Sparky?

No, we're defending THE RIGHT to discriminate.

The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects your beliefs, but not your ACTIONS.

In 1878, the Supreme Court was first called to interpret the extent of the Free Exercise Clause in Reynolds v. United States, as related to the prosecution of polygamy under federal law. The Supreme Court upheld Reynolds' conviction for bigamy, deciding that to do otherwise would provide constitutional protection for a gamut of religious beliefs, including those as extreme as human sacrifice. The Court said (at page 162): "Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territory which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation." Of federal territorial laws, the Court said: "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices."

So, what I get here is that Public Accommodation laws are unconstitutional, since in order for a man of faith to adhere to these laws, he must rescind his religious beliefs and opinions to avoid breaking the law. Thus you are asking him to stop practicing his faith in public in order to appease the public. Is that right? So what we have here is your ignorance of these laws, which do indeed "interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions" of these proprietors.

Is Justice Scalia, not known for his liberal positions on the court, also ignorant of the law? From Employment Division v. Smith (where he wrote the opinion):

"Our decisions reveal that the latter reading is the correct one. We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition. As described succinctly by Justice Frankfurter in Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 594-595 (1940):

Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities."​

Just because a government can do something though, does not mean the government should do something.


>>>>

 

[Gadawg73]

Well see there it is....

You gamble, I don't....you make shit up as you go and so far you pretty much suck at it.

You don't get to both denigrate AND take credit for Religions role in things.

But hey....feel free to keep pretending your nose isn't in my ass.

Have not made anything up.
Been beat up, shot at and left for dead. Crossed the lines many a times and played 4 quarters against the best.
I get to do whatever I want, take credit for what I want to.
And there is nothing you can do about it but whine like a milk weak pup.

But nothing compares to being able to pick on defenseless people like you.

So far you are not a worthy opponent kid, jus sayin.

"kid" is what one of my first coaches called me in 1960.
Thanks for bringing back the memories.
To date you have failed to answer how an ambulance driver can use their religious beliefs to deny treating a gay or pork sandwich eating accident victim.
But keep up the slants, distortions and side stepping.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Believe it or not, everyone else does to. And, believe it or not, not doing business with someone is not evil.

Public accommodations laws, desegregation, and regulations against red-lining came about because it was found that segregation and stratification of people based on race, gender, and a little later sexual orientation, effectively segregated and stratified economic opportunity.

So...it kind of is.

What a surprise, the resident idiots sent in another idiot that doesn't know the difference between government enforced segregation, AKA Jim Crow laws, and people making the choice not to serve vegetarian food because they think PETA freaks are idiots.

Come back when you get a clue.

It was proven to you the other day that not all segregation in the South was mandated, and that much of it was simply permitted - the businesses could choose to segregate or not -

but you quickly ran away from that point.

Now stop lying about it.

 

[nitroz]

The fact that we even have a law, or debate the legailty of freedom of association is pathetic in a supposedly free country. A business owner, in any state, for any reason, should be allowed to determine who they will provide services to.

Businesses should have the right to refuse service at their descretion.

Working in liquor store, I have to put up with alot of people. But the customers are much more behaved than those in store.

 

[Iceweasel]

... how an ambulance driver can use their religious beliefs to deny treating a gay or pork sandwich eating accident victim.

Which religious belief calls for denying help to someone, especially if its' your job. Never heard that one before.

 

[rightwinger]

The bill is falling apart. Arizona cannot get away from it fast enough.

What were we thinking?

3 Ariz. senators backtrack on service refusal bill

 

[Seawytch]

That got me thinking how ridiculous this is. Should vegetarians be able to sue restaurants who serve meat because its offensive and discriminatory to vegetarians? I mean yeah, that's about as bad as gay couples suing a religious business owner for refusing them service based on his religious beliefs.

They aren't being sued because they offended anyone, they are sued because they broke the public accommodation law of the state. What it is "as bad as" is interracial couples and black people suing because they were denied service.

 

[Gadawg73]

... how an ambulance driver can use their religious beliefs to deny treating a gay or pork sandwich eating accident victim.

Which religious belief calls for denying help to someone, especially if its' your job. Never heard that one before.

Wow, hard to believe you have to have this explained to you so here goes:
The law proposed allows business owners to deny service to people based on their religuous beliefs.
Ambulance companies are business owners.
An owner or an employee of a private ambulance service could legally deny service to a gay person based on their religious beliefs.
On "principle" as you guys like to say.
For better understanding see the recent Kansas case where the Republicans said the exact same thing I just did when the law passed their House and the Republican caucus killed it because of the exact same reason I am bringing up.
Senate President Republican Susan Wagle "I believe when you hire police officers or fireman they have no choice in who they serve. They should serve anyone who is vulnerable, any age, any race and any sexual orientation."
The bill would have given any business group, individual, entity, or government official the right to deny services to gay people for "sincerely held religious beliefs".
Understand now. Kansas Republicans know the law opens the door for public safety responders TO DENY SERVICE based on religious beliefs.
Same as this case.
Kansas Chamber of Commerce a heavily conservative group opposed the Kansas law.
Very bad legislation and amazing anyone that is pro business supports it.

 

[Gadawg73]

The bill is falling apart. Arizona cannot get away from it fast enough.

What were we thinking?

3 Ariz. senators backtrack on service refusal bill

They read the Kansas Senate responses to it and how that caucus of Republicans with a 5-1 advantage of Democrats ran from the bill like monkeys on fire.
And why did Kansas Republicans in the Senate run from it?
Because it would allow emergency responders to deny treatment to injured folks.
Same as this bill would.
Oh my, amazing what "sincerely held religious beliefs" does to cloud the common sense and judgment of those that otherwise one would believe had just a little bit of.

 

[Seawytch]

Yet another idiot equating Fags to Blacks. Good lord.....Will someone actually attempt to tell me exactly WHAT Civil Right is being violated? The Paralegal ran from the argument, so, anyone?? That's what I thought.

Exhibiting bigotted behaviour towards somebody due to their sexuality is so 17th century. I see it a violation of their civil rights for sure. Judging people on their sexuality, gender, ethnicity or colour of their skin has no place in a civilised society. Now, if you want to live in a country like Uganda which just passed anti-gay laws - well that kinda tells you what company you keep. How does it feel?

The company they keep? Hell, Americans are responsible for the Uganda law. It was American Christian Evangelicals that helped get Uganda's law passed. They would like to see it here.

 

[Seawytch]

The bill is falling apart. Arizona cannot get away from it fast enough.

What were we thinking?

3 Ariz. senators backtrack on service refusal bill

They read the Kansas Senate responses to it and how that caucus of Republicans with a 5-1 advantage of Democrats ran from the bill like monkeys on fire.
And why did Kansas Republicans in the Senate run from it?
Because it would allow emergency responders to deny treatment to injured folks.
Same as this bill would.
Oh my, amazing what "sincerely held religious beliefs" does to cloud the common sense and judgment of those that otherwise one would believe had just a little bit of.

Shit, one of these states went so far as to apply the law to local government employees.

 

[Iceweasel]

Wow, hard to believe you have to have this explained to you so here goes:
The law proposed allows business owners to deny service to people based on their religuous beliefs.
Ambulance companies are business owners.
An owner or an employee of a private ambulance service could legally deny service to a gay person based on their religious beliefs.
On "principle" as you guys like to say.

I asked which religious belief you are talking about. That's a smokescreen, not an articulate answer. Here's some reality, which is devoid in your "answer". Any ambulance service that was stupid enough to do that (assuming there actually was a religious belief you alude to) would be immediately terminated by every hospital, police and emergency service in their area.

For better understanding see the recent Kansas case where the Republicans said the exact same thing I just did when the law passed their House and the Republican caucus killed it because of the exact same reason I am bringing up.
Senate President Republican Susan Wagle "I believe when you hire police officers or fireman they have no choice in who they serve. They should serve anyone who is vulnerable, any age, any race and any sexual orientation."
The bill would have given any business group, individual, entity, or government official the right to deny services to gay people for "sincerely held religious beliefs".
Understand now. Kansas Republicans know the law opens the door for public safety responders TO DENY SERVICE based on religious beliefs.
Same as this case.
Kansas Chamber of Commerce a heavily conservative group opposed the Kansas law.
Very bad legislation and amazing anyone that is pro business supports it.

I haven't seen the law but my guess is that there's more to it, like political blackmail. I'm surprised any business person doesn't support the right to do private business with whom they choose, religious or not.

No one gets into the ambulance/emergency business to serve heterosexuals only. I call bullshit.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If Brewer signs this law, she will be asking for boycotts and the loss of business in Arizona. It is her choice...

I hope she does. And defies everything you stand for in the process. Given how people reacted with Chick-fil-A, she'll probably get more business than she would ever dream otherwise.