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

[nodoginnafight]

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

I think you are right. I linked to the story and particularly appreciated the clergy who came out to oppose this law. Twisting religion to one's own purposes is certainly nothing new. "God is on our side," has always been a popular political rallying cry. I just cringe every time I see it.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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.

I've always argued that Separation of Church and State protects the Church as much or more than it protects the State.

I've left a few churches because they were too political.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9tn2Y8TcbU]Fischer Says Gay Activists Are 'Jack-Booted Homofascist Thugs' - YouTube[/ame]

 

[bendog]

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

I think you are right. I linked to the story and particularly appreciated the clergy who came out to oppose this law. Twisting religion to one's own purposes is certainly nothing new. "God is on our side," has always been a popular political rallying cry. I just cringe every time I see it.

I'm sorry. I failed to input the link. The top of page two. Sec 2 (C)

http://www.azcentral.com/ic/pdf/SB-1062-bill.pdf

 

[Kondor3]

Yes, sadly, it appears as though support for the Arizona bill allowing a refusal of service to homosexuals, on the grounds of religious objection, is evaporating faster than a pan of water on a stove-burner turned on high...

And, admittedly, for good reason...

It's one thing to protect the right of a small business owner to refuse service to those whom he believes are engaged in evil or perverse or unnatural or sinful or unclean sexual practices and related lifestyle manifestations, and to refuse such services because he believes that providing them would be aiding and abetting sinful practices, as informed by his religious convictions and beliefs...

It's quite another to deny basic life-sustaining or life-saving products or services to anyone, for any reason...

There were a thousand-and-one ways to craft the wording on such a bill, to stipulate a range of products and services and business that would be excluded... those provided by the public sector, grocery stores, utility companies, medical and healthcare facilities and the like, which anybody should be entitled to, regardless of their deviant sexual practices...

And, like all dull-witted, unimaginative, blinkered lawyer-type fat-cat legislators who couldn't anticipate such glaringly obvious weaknesses and write such a bill 'defensively' to save their souls - or their own asses - or their own bill...

The Arizona Senate bill is now going down in flames (bad bun intended), because the dolts who wrote it didn't have the ability to anticipate the fatal effect of such weaknesses and compensate for same during the course of its drafting...

Any group of 1st- or 2nd-year law students could probably have done better...

Assholes...

Idiots...

Better luck next time, with a drafting committee that can anticipate its way out of a wet paper bag...

C'est la vie...

For the most part though, this thread has had its share of hard-hitting and effective debate on the subject, and turned out to be more enjoyable than most of its genre...

 

[nodoginnafight]

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

I think you are right. I linked to the story and particularly appreciated the clergy who came out to oppose this law. Twisting religion to one's own purposes is certainly nothing new. "God is on our side," has always been a popular political rallying cry. I just cringe every time I see it.

I'm sorry. I failed to input the link. The top of page two. Sec 2 (C)

http://www.azcentral.com/ic/pdf/SB-1062-bill.pdf

I found it - and the section you mentioned does seem to cover these compelling interests.

 

[Silhouette]

I think you are right. I linked to the story and particularly appreciated the clergy who came out to oppose this law. Twisting religion to one's own purposes is certainly nothing new. "God is on our side," has always been a popular political rallying cry. I just cringe every time I see it.

It's not a question of "twisting religion". The mandates in Jude 1 and Romans 1 are very clear and concise:

JUDE 1

3. Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

4. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

5. I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not...

..7. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire...

...14. And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

15. To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

16. These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.

17. But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;

18. How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.

19. These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.

20. But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,

21. Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

22. And of some have compassion, making a difference:

23. And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

24. Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy..

ROMANS 1

22. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23. And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25. Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29. Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30. Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31. Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32. Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

"...not only do the same [homosexuality] , but have pleasure in them that do them"

ie: the enablers also are in big trouble.

Which begs the question if the Governor via her veto, will show the world she's not quite ready to "earnestly contend" for the faith and the "common salvation"? This no longer is a question for her in the secular arena, to get votes etc. It's a question of if she believes the Bible and the saints dire warnings are real to enablers of the cult of LGBT or if the Governor of Arizona thinks the warnings about her eternal damnation are just "hogwash"?

She may also be considering the boon to her state. Undoubtedly she remembers the Chic Fil A crowds and the Duck Dynasty supporters. Imagine if Arizona suffered for want of the company of homosexuals and their enablers but instead was swamped with those who are for free speech and the earnest contention for the common salvation?

It seems to me like the numbers have always been grossly over inflated as to the "supporters" of the gay cult. But then again, their organizers have always known the psychology of herd-think. If one leader or a group of them are seen as "doing such and such", then the herd follows. As such, the Arizona Governor is in a very unique position to either do the will of God and perserve the normal learning-matrix of man/woman relationships or if she will with the stroke of her pen, start a chain reaction of the final unravelling of that matrix; and, according to the Bible's strongest warnings, commit an unforgiveable sin of a magnitude that few will be able to comprehend. But she will.

The French Pro Normal-Marriage Rally early this year 2014:

And of course across the nation that fateful Wednesday:

 

[bendog]

I fear Phoenix will arise anew as a pillar of salt.

 

[Kondor3]

I fear Phoenix will arise anew as a pillar of salt.

Better to end one's days as Lot's wife than as Lot's butt-buddy...

 

[Bumberclyde]

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

So now you have to declare your sexuality to buy shit in Arizona?

 

[WorldWatcher]

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

So now you have to declare your sexuality to buy shit in Arizona?

No why do you ask?


This bill allows people to refuse to sell to anyone blacks, interracial couples, interfaith couples, old people, Muslims, etc. - the business owners just has to claim a "sincerely held religious belief and they get a pass.


Let's see a couple walks in and orders a wedding cake - they ask for a white man and black woman topper - have they announced their race?

Let's see a couple walks in and orders a wedding cake - they ask for a white woman and black woman topper - have they announced their sexuality?



If the owner has a sincerely held religious belief against interracial marriage - they can be refused. If the owner has a sincerely held religious belief against same-sex marriage - they can be refused.



>>>>

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I fear Phoenix will arise anew as a pillar of salt.

Better to end one's days as Lot's wife than as Lot's butt-buddy...

Lot's buddies were his daughter, who got him drunk and fucked his brains out.

 

[Bumberclyde]

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

So now you have to declare your sexuality to buy shit in Arizona?

No why do you ask?


This bill allows people to refuse to sell to anyone blacks, interracial couples, interfaith couples, old people, Muslims, etc. - the business owners just has to claim a "sincerely held religious belief and they get a pass.

Let's see a couple walks in and orders a wedding cake - they ask for a white man and black woman topper - have they announced their race?

Let's see a couple walks in and orders a wedding cake - they ask for a white woman and black woman topper - have they announced their sexuality?

If the owner has a sincerely held religious belief against interracial marriage - they can be refused. If the owner has a sincerely held religious belief against same-sex marriage - they can be refused.

>>>>

I don't mind darkies marrying white women, they usually take the fat ugly ones anyways.

But what if a single white woman walks in and orders a cake with rainbow icing? Then what happens?

 

[whitehall]

The sissies won't let it go. There are about three posts on the same thing.

 

[Kondor3]

Arizona Senate Passes Bill Allowing Business Owners To Refuse Service To Gays So now you have to declare your sexuality to buy shit in Arizona?

No why do you ask? This bill allows people to refuse to sell to anyone blacks, interracial couples, interfaith couples, old people, Muslims, etc. - the business owners just has to claim a "sincerely held religious belief and they get a pass. Let's see a couple walks in and orders a wedding cake - they ask for a white man and black woman topper - have they announced their race? Let's see a couple walks in and orders a wedding cake - they ask for a white woman and black woman topper - have they announced their sexuality? If the owner has a sincerely held religious belief against interracial marriage - they can be refused. If the owner has a sincerely held religious belief against same-sex marriage - they can be refused. >>>>

Yeah, it's a can-o-worms alright, far too many loopholes for abuse beyond the realm of its original intent, poorly envisioned, poorly drafted, poorly presented - it's a dead duck, and deserves to be, not because of what it attempted to safeguard, but for the thousand-and-one things that it would stop safeguarding, and that just won't cut it in the Real World. This is what happens when you turn over a worthwhile idea to Idiot Legislators without a jot of imagination or common sense.

 

[Kondor3]

I fear Phoenix will arise anew as a pillar of salt.

Better to end one's days as Lot's wife than as Lot's butt-buddy...

Lot's buddies were his daughter, who got him drunk and fucked his brains out.

Yeppers... one way or another, ol' Lot (or his bunch, anyway) were friggin' pervs... nolo contendere... amazing that the Angel(s) of the Lord let 'em leave the city before they nuked it.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I think you are right. I linked to the story and particularly appreciated the clergy who came out to oppose this law. Twisting religion to one's own purposes is certainly nothing new. "God is on our side," has always been a popular political rallying cry. I just cringe every time I see it.

It's not a question of "twisting religion". The mandates in Jude 1 and Romans 1 are very clear and concise:

JUDE 1

3. Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

4. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

5. I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not...

..7. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire...

...14. And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

15. To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

16. These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.

17. But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;

18. How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.

19. These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.

20. But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,

21. Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

22. And of some have compassion, making a difference:

23. And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

24. Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy..

ROMANS 1

22. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23. And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25. Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29. Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30. Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31. Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32. Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

"...not only do the same [homosexuality] , but have pleasure in them that do them"

ie: the enablers also are in big trouble.

One more "Christian" who can recite words without a clue about the meaning.

Here are some more words for you:

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

 

[WorldWatcher]

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

So now you have to declare your sexuality to buy shit in Arizona?

No why do you ask?


This bill allows people to refuse to sell to anyone blacks, interracial couples, interfaith couples, old people, Muslims, etc. - the business owners just has to claim a "sincerely held religious belief and they get a pass.

Let's see a couple walks in and orders a wedding cake - they ask for a white man and black woman topper - have they announced their race?

Let's see a couple walks in and orders a wedding cake - they ask for a white woman and black woman topper - have they announced their sexuality?

If the owner has a sincerely held religious belief against interracial marriage - they can be refused. If the owner has a sincerely held religious belief against same-sex marriage - they can be refused.

>>>>

1. I don't mind darkies marrying white women, they usually take the fat ugly ones anyways.

2. But what if a single white woman walks in and orders a cake with rainbow icing? Then what happens?

1. "Darkies", wow you must be a hoot at parties.

2. Ahhh - she pays for it, takes her cake and walks out?


>>>>

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Excellent points all. You are a breath of fresh air in this fetid squalor of fascism and thought control. (I'd have repped you, but it's too soon to do it again.)

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Shoot, I don't respect my daughter's "boyfriend du jour" relationships, and they're heterosexual. I see no reason why I should be required by law to respect anyone else's relationship if it doesn't engender that respect on its own.