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

[Kondor3]

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.

Which leaves those with an objection to a Law or Effect or Outcome of a Law little recourse but to try to either Repeal or Amend or Circumvent that law, using the legal system, which, of course, is what the Arizona sortie is all about.

It is the misfortune of those who favor allowing business folk to refuse service to sexual perverts (as their sacred texts and religious teachings and interpretations and understandings inform them to be so), that their so-called 'champions' in the Arizona state legislature didn't have the brains God gave an ant, to anticipate at least the most glaringly-obvious loopholes and ways in which their poorly-crafted proposed law could be used for other than its intended purpose - causing even most supporters to begin distancing themselves from it - and thereby throwing-away an opportunity to advance their own cause...

Win some... lose some... and live to see some foolishly thrown away, for oh-so-predictable and preventable reasons. Dolts. Dullards. Idjits. Men of small vision and even smaller imagination.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

Which leaves those with an objection to a Law or Effect or Outcome of a Law little recourse but to try to either Repeal or Amend or Circumvent that law, using the legal system, which, of course, is what the Arizona sortie is all about.

It is the misfortune of those who favor allowing business folk to refuse service to sexual perverts (as their sacred texts and religious teachings and interpretations and understandings inform them to be so), that their so-called 'champions' in the Arizona state legislature didn't have the brains God gave an ant, to anticipate at least the most glaringly-obvious loopholes and ways in which their poorly-crafted proposed law could be used for other than its intended purpose - causing even most supporters to begin distancing themselves from it - and thereby throwing-away an opportunity to advance their own cause...

Win some... lose some... and live to see some foolishly thrown away, for oh-so-predictable and preventable reasons. Dolts. Dullards. Idjits. Men of small vision and even smaller imagination.

The law specifically says those who which to discriminate must base that discrimination on "their sacred texts and religious teachings and interpretations and understandings inform them to be so", the law is base purely on the indivdiuals religious beliefs.

As such refusing service to an interracial or interfaith couple and mouth religious reasons is fine.



>>>>

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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?

Something that you don't understand either it seems. What is a Church? Public or Private, and I mean LEGALLY.

 

[Kondor3]

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.

Which leaves those with an objection to a Law or Effect or Outcome of a Law little recourse but to try to either Repeal or Amend or Circumvent that law, using the legal system, which, of course, is what the Arizona sortie is all about.

It is the misfortune of those who favor allowing business folk to refuse service to sexual perverts (as their sacred texts and religious teachings and interpretations and understandings inform them to be so), that their so-called 'champions' in the Arizona state legislature didn't have the brains God gave an ant, to anticipate at least the most glaringly-obvious loopholes and ways in which their poorly-crafted proposed law could be used for other than its intended purpose - causing even most supporters to begin distancing themselves from it - and thereby throwing-away an opportunity to advance their own cause...

Win some... lose some... and live to see some foolishly thrown away, for oh-so-predictable and preventable reasons. Dolts. Dullards. Idjits. Men of small vision and even smaller imagination.

The law specifically says those who which to discriminate must base that discrimination on "their sacred texts and religious teachings and interpretations and understandings inform them to be so", the law is base purely on the indivdiuals religious beliefs.

As such refusing service to an interracial or interfaith couple and mouth religious reasons is fine.>>>>

Nolo contendere... no contest... no argument.

But it is that sort of secondary effect (beyond the realm of the bill's intended homosexual focus) which renders it toxic, and which is making even its early supporters walk way from it, now that all the potential secondary effects are coming to light, which the bill's crafters (supposedly) did not anticipate.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

"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.

The hell we don't. We call it the Law. If serving God to means beating children to you, we have a nice kind of warm prison cell waiting for you. It's our right, as a society, to define the boundaries, and we do so stay within them.

 

[dblack]

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.

Nonsense. History is full of examples of policies that seemed like a good idea at the time (maybe even for a long time), but were eventually understood to be counter-productive, or just plain wrong. If anything, I'd argue it may be too soon. We've yet to see the full ramifications of dismissing freedom of association. When we do, I suspect we'll call foul on this kind of intrusive government and find better ways to deal with bigotry.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

Obviously you are leftist, thus you view everyone as property of the state.

A business owner is not your slave, though you demand that they be.

This is from a document that you and your filthy party has never been exposed to;

{Article XIII.

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. }

Any attempt to FORCE a person to bake a cake, take a photograph, or otherwise labor against their will, is involuntary servitude, and a violation of the United States Constitution.

Don't like it? Move to ******* Cuba.

 

[Kondor3]

"...It's our right, as a society, to define the boundaries..."

Indeed. Which is exactly what this Arizona sortie was all about; trying to define the boundaries. It is their (and their supporters) misfortune that they bungled the job so badly. They (or someone else) will have better luck in the coming weeks and months, I expect, but that's all in the future, and purely speculative in nature.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

you two have devolved into the patently absurd, with more than a hint of word salad thrown in.

If I don't like liver, I can't sue to have it removed from the menu; if Thai food makes me sick I can't force the Thai restaurant to serve Italian - as well OR instead; but if either refuse someone service because, for example I'm a woman, or your sexual orientation, or Quantum's race (or religion!), THEN they violate public accommodations law.

You are the one with the problem. Have you ever considered what the logical end result of a quest for equality will be? I know reading a Sparks Note version of a novel is beyond your skill set, but perhaps a video will give you a taste of what you are arguing for.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

They didn't teach that in public school? Why am I not surprised?

 

[Kondor3]

Better to just repeal Public Accommodation laws in general. >>>>

Too late, way too late.

Nonsense. History is full of examples of policies that seemed like a good idea at the time (maybe even for a long time), but were eventually understood to be counter-productive, or just plain wrong. If anything, I'd argue it may be too soon. We've yet to see the full ramifications of dismissing freedom of association. When we do, I suspect we'll call foul on this kind of intrusive government and find better ways to deal with bigotry.

Practically speaking, it probably IS too late to repeal such Public Accommodation Laws, in light of the perception that they do far more good than harm. For those topical areas (like dealing with people who are perceived as wrongdoers according to various mainstream religious teachings) that represent relative new and uncharted territory in matters of Law-versus-Religion, it seems more likely that we will see some considerable tweaking to Public Accommodation Laws, in the form of supplemental legislation such as Arizona tried (and, apparently, failed) to create in this latest sortie. One badly-executed effort does not mean it's over; hardly; most likely, they're only getting warmed up, and will find a way, in the long run.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.


>>>>

He probably isn't, but you are.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Was that the same link that I used to prove you are making things up?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Let me get this straight, the people that claimed that they were offended, and sued those businesses, were lying?

The public accommodation laws were just the excuse.

 

[dblack]

Too late, way too late.

Nonsense. History is full of examples of policies that seemed like a good idea at the time (maybe even for a long time), but were eventually understood to be counter-productive, or just plain wrong. If anything, I'd argue it may be too soon. We've yet to see the full ramifications of dismissing freedom of association. When we do, I suspect we'll call foul on this kind of intrusive government and find better ways to deal with bigotry.

Practically speaking, it probably IS too late to repeal such Public Accommodation Laws, in light of the perception that they do far more good than harm. For those topical areas (like dealing with people who are perceived as wrongdoers according to various mainstream religious teachings) that represent relative new and uncharted territory in matters of Law-versus-Religion, it seems more likely that we will see some considerable tweaking to Public Accommodation Laws, in the form of supplemental legislation such as Arizona tried (and, apparently, failed) to create in this latest sortie. One badly-executed effort does not mean it's over; hardly; most likely, they're only getting warmed up.

That's exactly why I'm opposed to the 'tweaking'. It only delays the nation's realization that the general principle behind these kinds of laws is fundamentally flawed, and runs counter to the American traditions of liberty and equal protection. But I'm not as pessimistic. We're moving steadily into areas where the harm done is increasing and the perceived benefit more questionable. I think people will wake up. Eventually.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

Obviously you are leftist, thus you view everyone as property of the state.

A business owner is not your slave, though you demand that they be.

This is from a document that you and your filthy party has never been exposed to;

{Article XIII.

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. }

Any attempt to FORCE a person to bake a cake, take a photograph, or otherwise labor against their will, is involuntary servitude, and a violation of the United States Constitution.

Don't like it? Move to ******* Cuba.

Take your own advise and vote with your feet. My side is winning here just fine so there's no reason for me to leave. You, on the other hand, should start saving boxes.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

"...It's our right, as a society, to define the boundaries..."

Indeed. Which is exactly what this Arizona sortie was all about; trying to define the boundaries. It is their (and their supporters) misfortune that they bungled the job so badly. They (or someone else) will have better luck in the coming weeks and months, I expect, but that's all in the future, and purely speculative in nature.

They screwed up alright but bills like this will never last, not for long, even if carefully written. The direction our society is taking is clear and this "gay wedding" issue is just a bump in the road. Besides, those who feel this way will solve the problem for us soon enough, by dying.

 

[Political Junky]

Every indication is that the governor will not sign the bill.

 

[Kondor3]

Nonsense. History is full of examples of policies that seemed like a good idea at the time (maybe even for a long time), but were eventually understood to be counter-productive, or just plain wrong. If anything, I'd argue it may be too soon. We've yet to see the full ramifications of dismissing freedom of association. When we do, I suspect we'll call foul on this kind of intrusive government and find better ways to deal with bigotry.

Practically speaking, it probably IS too late to repeal such Public Accommodation Laws, in light of the perception that they do far more good than harm. For those topical areas (like dealing with people who are perceived as wrongdoers according to various mainstream religious teachings) that represent relative new and uncharted territory in matters of Law-versus-Religion, it seems more likely that we will see some considerable tweaking to Public Accommodation Laws, in the form of supplemental legislation such as Arizona tried (and, apparently, failed) to create in this latest sortie. One badly-executed effort does not mean it's over; hardly; most likely, they're only getting warmed up.

That's exactly why I'm opposed to the 'tweaking'. It only delays the nation's realization that the general principle behind these kinds of laws is fundamentally flawed, and runs counter to the American traditions of liberty and equal protection. But I'm not as pessimistic. We're moving steadily into areas where the harm done is increasing and the perceived benefit more questionable. I think people will wake up. Eventually.

I feel your pain, and ostensibly agree with you, in principle; it's just that our Optimism or Pessimism thresholds, and Sense of the Practical, and Vision of Likely Outcomes aren't on the same page.

In situations like this, when there is such a forcing by the State, for business folk to accommodate those whom they believe to be wrong-doers or evil-doers, I'm mindful of the old maxim...

"The Perfect is the Enemy of the Good"

...meaning, of course, better to bolt-together Afterthought -caliber supplemental legislation and to provide relief, rather than letting the situation rot and fester and become entrenched and gain credibility as 'custom and usage', as well as 'precedent', and risk losing it all.

Better to act quickly, while there is still time, before the passage of time renders the situation un-salvageable.

At least the 'tweaking' buys time... doing nothing may lose it all.

Or so it seems to this observer...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Nonsense. History is full of examples of policies that seemed like a good idea at the time (maybe even for a long time), but were eventually understood to be counter-productive, or just plain wrong. If anything, I'd argue it may be too soon. We've yet to see the full ramifications of dismissing freedom of association. When we do, I suspect we'll call foul on this kind of intrusive government and find better ways to deal with bigotry.

Practically speaking, it probably IS too late to repeal such Public Accommodation Laws, in light of the perception that they do far more good than harm. For those topical areas (like dealing with people who are perceived as wrongdoers according to various mainstream religious teachings) that represent relative new and uncharted territory in matters of Law-versus-Religion, it seems more likely that we will see some considerable tweaking to Public Accommodation Laws, in the form of supplemental legislation such as Arizona tried (and, apparently, failed) to create in this latest sortie. One badly-executed effort does not mean it's over; hardly; most likely, they're only getting warmed up.

That's exactly why I'm opposed to the 'tweaking'. It only delays the nation's realization that the general principle behind these kinds of laws is fundamentally flawed, and runs counter to the American traditions of liberty and equal protection. But I'm not as pessimistic. We're moving steadily into areas where the harm done is increasing and the perceived benefit more questionable. I think people will wake up. Eventually.

Thinking, not you're strong suit. The law is settled. It's just getting it done now.