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

[TemplarKormac]

And World Watcher:

Judge Scalia is wrong to sit there and confine our faith to "Conscientious scruples." The tenets and doctrine are what drive our lives. But hey, the law of man trumps the laws of faith all thee time, doesn't it?

 

[Howey]

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.

Super Bowl 1993. Devastating to the Arizona economy. And they're scheduled to host next year.

 

[GibsonSG]

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

Does this mean that all the homophobes will move to Arizona where all the beaners are?

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

From the law (Capitalization in the orginal, not added)...

"5. "Person" includes ANY INDIVIDUAL, ASSOCIATION, PARTNERSHIP, CORPORATION, CHURCH, RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY OR INSTITUTION, ESTATE, TRUST, FOUNDATION OR OTHER LEGAL ENTITY"

<<SNIP>>

"F. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, "STATE ACTION" MEANS ANY ACTION
BY THE GOVERNMENT OR THE IMPLEMENTATION OR APPLICATION OF ANY LAW, INCLUDING STATE AND LOCAL LAWS, ORDINANCES, RULES, REGULATIONS AND POLICIES, WHETHER STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE, AND WHETHER THE
IMPLEMENTATION OR APPLICATION IS MADE OR ATTEMPTED TO BE MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT OR NONGOVERNMENTAL PERSONS."

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.pdf​

Since a Hospital falls under the definition of person as a corporation (or legal entity), then even as a non-government "person" they would be prohibited by law from taking action against another "person" (in this case an ambulance company or it's employee) that refused service based on religious beliefs. In addition, the ambulance company (and it's employee) are protected from ciivil suits so if the injured/sick person sues - they would be required to pay the attorney's fees for the ambulance company defending their negligence.

Do I believe that will happen? Personally, no. But technically under the law it could.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

And World Watcher:

Judge Scalia is wrong to sit there and confine our faith to "Conscientious scruples." The tenets and doctrine are what drive our lives. But hey, the law of man trumps the laws of faith all thee time, doesn't it?

Sorry dude, you were the one that threw out the phrase "ignorance of these laws" when in fact you don't understand them yourself.

When you disagree pretty much with every state legislature, state court, federal court, and even one of the most conservative Justices in the history of the United States - maybe it's time you re-examine the idea that your opinion might not be correct.

Religious beliefs are not a blanche exemption to secular law.

>>>>

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

From the law (Capitalization in the orginal, not added)...

"5. "Person" includes ANY INDIVIDUAL, ASSOCIATION, PARTNERSHIP, CORPORATION, CHURCH, RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY OR INSTITUTION, ESTATE, TRUST, FOUNDATION OR OTHER LEGAL ENTITY"

<<SNIP>>

"F. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, "STATE ACTION" MEANS ANY ACTION
BY THE GOVERNMENT OR THE IMPLEMENTATION OR APPLICATION OF ANY LAW, INCLUDING STATE AND LOCAL LAWS, ORDINANCES, RULES, REGULATIONS AND POLICIES, WHETHER STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE, AND WHETHER THE
IMPLEMENTATION OR APPLICATION IS MADE OR ATTEMPTED TO BE MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT OR NONGOVERNMENTAL PERSONS."

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.pdf​

Since a Hospital falls under the definition of person as a corporation (or legal entity), then even as a non-government "person" they would be prohibited by law from taking action against another "person" (in this case an ambulance company or it's employee) that refused service based on religious beliefs. In addition, the ambulance company (and it's employee) are protected from ciivil suits so if the injured/sick person sues - they would be required to pay the attorney's fees for the ambulance company defending their negligence.

Do I believe that will happen? Personally, no. But technically under the law it could.

That's the portion of the bill that would be relevant, your posted section doesn't say that. IF that's the case then it was poorly written, emergency services are not elective services like cake baking or greeting cards. You don't have time to shop around with your spleen laying in your lap. They will probably consider that or amend the bill, I doubt that was the intent.

 

[Wildman]

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.

stupid is what you liberfools are about this subject,

personally.., i do NOT believe she will sign the bill into law.., NOT because of how you libernuts have demonized her, but simply because businesspersons have always had this sign in effect for longer than you mush for brains have been wasting good O2. ... ...

 

[GibsonSG]

Geez, what about refusing service to all the illegal alien beaners for a start?

 

[Antares]

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.

Sorry, deflection from the topic at hand only works on the less experienced posters but your attempt at it has been duly noted.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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.

Whether the governor vetoes it; the senate re-vote; or the courts strike it down - it's not going to stand imho. For my part, I'm glad. I'm sick of people trying to twist the Christian faith into a political tool.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Pretty sleezy to alter a person't quote. Pretty dishonest to put your words under someone else's name.

I think I've learned all I really need to learn about you and your positions.

Too bad their is no "religious intolerance" for crap like that.

 

[Katzndogz]

As always, the law does not say what liberals claim.

Issue Analysis: Arizona Bill Does Not Give Businesses License to Discriminate Against Gays

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act has been the law since 1999. This is merely a modification of existing law.

 

[Iceweasel]

Pretty sleezy to alter a person't quote. Pretty dishonest to put your words under someone else's name.

I think I've learned all I really need to learn about you and your positions.

Too bad their is no "religious intolerance" for crap like that.

Somebody call the waaaambulance. I'm not religious so no, I have no religious intolerance for humor.

 

[Jarhead]

Fixed it for ya.

I suggest you either retract your post or fix it. Maybe read the rules of the forum.

Your action is frowned on by all posters on this site...form all ideologies.

Fixed it for ya.

Ya got balls. Gotta give that to ya.

In the meantime, do as you please. In my eyes, no reason to post on here if you have lost all credibility....

But please, do as you wish.

 

[Iceweasel]

In the meantime, do as you please. In my eyes, no reason to post on here if you have lost all credibility....

But please, do as you wish.

Your credibility meant so much to me too.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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.

I have a hard time believing any law would allow a first responder to sit and watch someone die without lifting a finger because "they don't like gays". I don't think anyone in their right mind would vote for a law like that.

I don't like this law and I don't think it can survive judicial review. I think it opens up a nasty can of worms and reflects poorly on people who call themselves Christians, but man .... let someone die, legally ???? I don't think so. I just can't believe that.

 

[bendog]

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.

I have a hard time believing any law would allow a first responder to sit and watch someone die without lifting a finger because "they don't like gays". I don't think anyone in their right mind would vote for a law like that.

I don't like this law and I don't think it can survive judicial review. I think it opens up a nasty can of worms and reflects poorly on people who call themselves Christians, but man .... let someone die, legally ???? I don't think so. I just can't believe that.

It's too bad iceweasel did that, but ....

It may be ironic that this is in Arizona, because Goldwater is imo a great man, and although he deplored racism and denying services to anyone because of race, and had no issue with homosexuality, he did vote against civil rights laws outlawing private discrimination because of his views on individual freedom ... essentially the freedom to be uncivil and boorish.

However, I don't think Ariz's law does, or will, allow discrimination by state employed police/medical personnel. See the top of page two and Sec. 2 (C)

As to first responders

 

[JakeStarkey]

Churches are public.

Bang!

Please tell me that you don't believe a church is Public? Some are open to the public but they are entirely private.

Churches are not public.

However, let them give up tax-exempt status.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, they are Private, and protected, for the most part.

I would love for churches to be public non-exempt entities if they are going to engage in politics. But they are not and they won't.

There you go talking out your ass again. The IRS carefully monitors churches, and denies them the right to free speech, just to be sure jerkwads, like you, get their swish about keeping churches out of politics.

Are you drink posting? Yes, they are private. Go tell Templar Kormac.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Churches are public.

No, they are Private, and protected, for the most part.

Tell that to Ocean Grove, I am sure they will feel so much better about losing the lawsuit knowing that you are an idiot.

NEWARK – A state administrative law judge has ruled (50k PDF) that the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association violated the state’s Law Against Discrimination when it denied Ocean Grove residents Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster the use of its boardwalk pavilion for their 2007 civil union ceremony. The association had allowed members of the public to rent the pavilion and had never before declined a permit other than for scheduling conflicts until it received Paster and Bernstein’s reservation request. The association rejected the couple’s application to use the space, stating that civil unions violated its Methodist doctrine. Judge Rules in Favor of Same-Sex Couple in Discrimination Case

Judge was right. Can't deny public accommodation.