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

[Bumberclyde]

So a business owner in Arizona could put up a sign " WHITES ONLY" ? And claim it's a religious thing?

 

[WorldWatcher]

So a business owner in Arizona could put up a sign " WHITES ONLY" ? And claim it's a religious thing?

Yes.


Kind of silly but yes they can put up that sign and claim it's a religious thing.


>>>>

 

[Cecilie1200]

I do believe that businesses should be allowed to conduct business with anyone they want to but I also believe that a business which refuses service to anyone simply because they are gay are incredibly stupid and they should re-examine the reason why they are in business to begin with. Money is money and if a business is going to turn down a dollar simply because it is pink then it deserves all the boycott, ridicule and derision the gay community and it's supporters can muster, a practice also guaranteed by law.

That's the most contradictory post I've seen here so far. A business owner may not want to promote homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle and turn down the work based on his or her values. I've turned down work for Planned Parenthood for principles, something your thinking clearly lacks.

Not everyone, business people included, considers money the most important thing on Earth. If the gay crusaders want to boycott with their friends that's a good thing, it spares everyone grief. They can ridicule and deride in private all they want but if it's taken into the public arena they open themselves up to slander and defamation lawsuits. Also a right. The sword cuts both ways, most of us learn this by the time we are 13 years old.

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.

Could be, but I don't think it's the government's job to protect him and his business from his stupidity if so.

I also don't think we're talking about someone being refused purchase of a hamburger or gum, do you?

 

[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?

Accommodating gay Americans – whether compelled to do so by law or not – does not constitute one to “give up his religious belief,” it’s a manifestation of ignorance and hate, not religious doctrine or dogma.

And here we have you yet again arrogating to yourself the task of deciding what someone else's beliefs "really" are, and whether or not they're good enough to be valid.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Religious beliefs supported slavery, Jim Crow and segregation.

The road to freedom is one of the great themes of American history. The story of the Underground Railroad exemplifies the profound power of that journey. Following the lead of its famed anti-slavery preacher Henry Ward Beecher, Plymouth Church played a fundamental part in New York City's underground activity.

Plymouth Church :: About Our Church -> Our History - Underground Railroad

You'll need to improve, so far you aren't up to this.

Hell, the Quakers were the major spearheads of the abolition movement long before it became the least bit popular. They were famous for purchasing slaves and allowing them to live as de facto freedmen in states where manumission was illegal. Talk about putting your money where your mouth is.

 

[Barb]

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?

Probably not, Sil.

George Takei Threatens Arizona With A Boycott | The New Civil Rights Movement

And maybe you just never learn. In 1989, you voted down recognition of the Martin Luther King holiday, and as a result, conventions and tourists boycotted the state, and the NFL moved the Superbowl to Pasadena. That was a $500 million mistake.

See, you might think you're actually a majority because those who still associate with you think just like you, but there is a broader consensus who actually find you and your views repugnant. They have expendable income, and the chamber of commerce in any given state should (and now most do) think twice before telling them they don't want their green.

There is a difference between your crowd changing the channel on the last unpaid month of whatever cable service they currently have, or flocking to the local "fine dining" establishment, and traveling to another state to pay huge prices to watch the super bowl live, take a family vacation, book a group in the most expensive resorts for business trips...

savvy?

 

[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?

Accommodating gay Americans – whether compelled to do so by law or not – does not constitute one to “give up his religious belief,” it’s a manifestation of ignorance and hate, not religious doctrine or dogma.

And here we have you yet again arrogating to yourself the task of deciding what someone else's beliefs "really" are, and whether or not they're good enough to be valid.

In the marketplace, your values are our values. At home, and in church, knock yourself out but even there we, the people, have an interest so don't get stupid and start beating the kids or drinking the blood of infants.

 

[Bumberclyde]

^^^^^^^^^^^^ I'm for gay rights and even I think George Takei is a little creepy.

 

[Bumberclyde]

Accommodating gay Americans – whether compelled to do so by law or not – does not constitute one to “give up his religious belief,” it’s a manifestation of ignorance and hate, not religious doctrine or dogma.

And here we have you yet again arrogating to yourself the task of deciding what someone else's beliefs "really" are, and whether or not they're good enough to be valid.

In the marketplace, your values are our values. At home, and in church, knock yourself out but even there we, the people, have an interest so don't get stupid and start beating the kids or drinking the blood of infants.

Religion has been discriminating against all kinds of people for centuries. No news here, move along.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Since we decided they also had rights.

And what rights have they NOT that everyone else has? Hmm? Can't answer that one, can you?

Sure I can. The right to marry the competent adult they love. We call it, Equality.

Sweetie, no one's stopping them from "marrying the person they love". They can have any damned relationship they want and, contrary to their opinion, no one gives a shit. What they want is the right to force OTHER people to recognize their relationship as a marriage and equivalent to a heterosexual marriage, and you have no rights at all when it comes to what other people think of you.

 

[paperview]

Conservatives...always, always on the wrong side of history.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

And what rights have they NOT that everyone else has? Hmm? Can't answer that one, can you?

Sure I can. The right to marry the competent adult they love. We call it, Equality.

Sweetie, no one's stopping them from "marrying the person they love". They can have any damned relationship they want and, contrary to their opinion, no one gives a shit. What they want is the right to force OTHER people to recognize their relationship as a marriage and equivalent to a heterosexual marriage, and you have no rights at all when it comes to what other people think of you.

I'm not gay kiddo, and I got my marriage license from the State, just like they will. As for the business angle. that's just business and we set the rules on how that works eh?

You either dance to our music or you get your own band.

 

[hunarcy]

Conservatives...always, always on the wrong side of history.

Liberals...always, always trying to impose their beliefs on the rest of the world.

 

[paperview]

Irony. On a stick.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

I do. How else do we get members? Through a secret underground order? We conduct outreach. Do you have any idea how Churches operate?

Yes I do know, which is why I know that they are Private but open to the Public, in most cases. If they were Public they would belong to us, and they don't. It's not possible in thie country where we separate Church and State, Public and Private. A church is like a country club, that has an Open House on most Sundays.

"Private but open to the public". WTF are you babbling about?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

In case you missed it, Barb, race and homosexuality have nothing to do with one another. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc argument denied.

Minorities, and now both becoming equally protected classes. Don't ya just love equality? I know I sure do.

"Protected classes is equality." Your posts are getting exponentially more idiotic. I'm just waiting to see if they can get dumb enough to actually violate the laws of physics.

 

[paperview]

It's simple. Do churches have to abide by public accommodation laws.

No.

There, see? So easy even a caveman can get it.

 

[Iceweasel]

"Private but open to the public". WTF are you babbling about?

It's the old "we built your business" ploy so they share in ownership. Until it comes time to pay the bills. And do the work. And buy supplies, etc.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"Equally protected classes" yeah... you don't see them as people, you see them as "classes."

I see them as what they are, minorities. As for your other argument, a business is not a church. Lots of people have to compromise their faith to make a buck. Why do you think Jesus told you time and again that you can't serve two masters? Business is business, faith is faith. Don't mix them up, bad things happen when you do and we, men, set the rules that businesses follow. That's not optional in this case. Serve one, serve all, or you'd better have a damn good reason why you won't and "it goes against my religion" isn't one of them, not in the communal capitalist marketplace.

Try to remember just this, baking a cake isn't serving God.

Try to remember just this: you don't define what serving God is for anyone else.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yup, and you don't define the law, Cecilie, for anyone else. That is what our leges of We the People and the courts are for to protect everyone who has the constitutional right to do be protected before the law. That's the fact. That you don't like it does not mean anything in law.