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

[N8dizzle]

Oh I'm sorry I must have misunderstood. I thought that they just wanted the photographer to take pictures of the wedding. I didn't realize that they were actually expecting the photographer to celebrate with them.
Yeah, if they actually wanted the photographer to take part in the ceremony then I agree, that wouldn't be right.
Sorry, I misunderstood.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Don't you know that wedding photographers actually have to GO TO THE WEDDING? I thought everyone that had ever been to a wedding knew that.

This is like saying if you're just in the audience at the wedding, instead of being one of the bridesmaids, you didn't actually participate, and so it doesn't qualify as an endorsement of the marriage.

Except that people have been declining wedding invitations because they don't approve of the relationship since forever. No idea why this is suddenly news.

Photographing a wedding doesn't mean that you are participating in it. Actually, the whole idea is that they are a "fly on the wall" just capturing the images of the people that are participating. I'm sure that most of the time the wedding photographer doesn't know anything about the people getting married. The photographer's opinion about the marriage is irreverent.

 

[bendog]

Well, whether you agree with the civil rights act of 64 or not, ultimately the congress had the authority under interstate commerce and equal protection under the 14th amendment to outlaw private discrimination on race by biz entities providing public accomodations.

 

[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. >>>>

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.

Better to just repeal Public Accommodation laws in general.


>>>>

 

[JakeStarkey]

The government is NOT empowered to force us not to discriminate, they simply are not.

We the People empowered the government to do so, Billy. Step off.

Cecilie1200, you don't have to respect it, but you can't discriminate against in public accommodation.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Amazingly enough, it's HIS choice who he does his job for, because he's not a slave. Just because I make my living talking to customers on the telephone doesn't give you the right to force me to answer YOUR phones and talk to YOUR customers.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

You don't have to respect gay relationships either. What you can't do is force the government to not acknowledge a gay relationship while they do acknowledge one of your daughters relationships

 

[Silhouette]

Photographing a wedding doesn't mean that you are participating in it. Actually, the whole idea is that they are a "fly on the wall" just capturing the images of the people that are participating. I'm sure that most of the time the wedding photographer doesn't know anything about the people getting married. The photographer's opinion about the marriage is irreverent.

The mandates in Jude 1 and Romans 1 are very clear and concise. Photographing a "gay wedding" is enabling. It is the passive assent to that which is strictly forbidden. It is assisting the dissolving of the matrix itself within which sin vs salvation is tested. Individual sins are nothing in comparison with giving a leg up to the Big Plan where the unique male/female interaction was set in stone as the primary sexual bond relationship. Sodom was given as an example of that huge tampered-with matrix being scrubbed off the map and those responsible, all of them, sent to the Pit of Fire:

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.

Here are some folks who are taking the passages of Jude 1 and Romans 1 seriously. They are "earnestly contending" for the "common salvation". Good on them. See how easy it is? It can be as easy as buying a chicken sandwich..


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

And of course across the nation that fateful Wednesday:

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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?

Amazingly enough, it's HIS choice who he does his job for, because he's not a slave. Just because I make my living talking to customers on the telephone doesn't give you the right to force me to answer YOUR phones and talk to YOUR customers.

If you work for me it does. And when I walk in with cash, you do work for me if my request is reasonable, it's what you do, and you have or can get what I need. We call that Business, it's different from Faith.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

Better to just repeal Public Accommodation laws in general.


>>>>

Too late, way too late.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Interesting how you seem to equate "running a business" with "being a civil servant". Somewhere along the way, we've gone from making money selling goods and services to people to being obligated to provide goods and services to everyone.

By the way, I thought the whole point of owning your own business was freedom from working for someone else and having to do things their way. Seems like you would have business ownership be a bigger shackle than being an employee is.

 

[Gadawg73]

Obvious few if any of you are old enough to remember how things were.
As hard as you folks try to make gay folk the new ******* there are those of us that just ain't going to allow you.
Get used to it. We ain't going away.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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?

Amazingly enough, it's HIS choice who he does his job for, because he's not a slave. Just because I make my living talking to customers on the telephone doesn't give you the right to force me to answer YOUR phones and talk to YOUR customers.

The courts and law have decided otherwise.

 

[Gadawg73]

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.

Interesting how you seem to equate "running a business" with "being a civil servant". Somewhere along the way, we've gone from making money selling goods and services to people to being obligated to provide goods and services to everyone.

By the way, I thought the whole point of owning your own business was freedom from working for someone else and having to do things their way. Seems like you would have business ownership be a bigger shackle than being an employee is.

The law applies equally.

 

[nodoginnafight]

he mandates in Jude 1 and Romans 1 are very clear and concise.

Unfortunately, you are not.

Try THIS one on for size:

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

or maybe:

"Judge not lest ye be judged."

 

[Barb]

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.

Give an example of "gay" products.

 

[Gadawg73]

Chambers of Commerce are FOR PRIVATE BUSINESS ONLY.
And all of them everywhere oppose these laws.

 

[Kondor3]

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.

Better to just repeal Public Accommodation laws in general.

>>>>

Too late, way too late.

Yes, it does, indeed, appear to be far too late for that.

That should not prevent people of goodwill from fine-tuning such laws or overhauling them, to provide some latitude in refusing service for a variety of good and true reasons, but first you have to have Legislators and Bill-Drafters with sufficient grey matter and imagination and foresight to craft proposed legislation that doesn't open up a dozen other cans of worms in the process...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

Interesting how you seem to equate "running a business" with "being a civil servant". Somewhere along the way, we've gone from making money selling goods and services to people to being obligated to provide goods and services to everyone.

By the way, I thought the whole point of owning your own business was freedom from working for someone else and having to do things their way. Seems like you would have business ownership be a bigger shackle than being an employee is.

What you think is incorrect. Try running a business and you'll find out there is work, in the good times, but not freedom. I do work for people I wouldn't piss on if they were on fire in other circumstances. It's just business.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Better to just repeal Public Accommodation laws in general.

>>>>

Too late, way too late.

Yes, it does, indeed, appear to be far too late for that.

That should not prevent people of goodwill from fine-tuning such laws or overhauling them, to provide some latitude in refusing service for a variety of good and true reasons, but first you have to have Legislators and Bill-Drafters with sufficient grey matter and imagination and foresight to craft proposed legislation that doesn't open up a dozen other cans of worms in the process...

In America? Good luck with that.

 

[Kondor3]

Too late, way too late.

Yes, it does, indeed, appear to be far too late for that.

That should not prevent people of goodwill from fine-tuning such laws or overhauling them, to provide some latitude in refusing service for a variety of good and true reasons, but first you have to have Legislators and Bill-Drafters with sufficient grey matter and imagination and foresight to craft proposed legislation that doesn't open up a dozen other cans of worms in the process...

In America? Good luck with that.

Yeah, I know...