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

[nodoginnafight]

Tell you what. When someone can produce an historical, religious text that says, "Thou shalt not bake cakes for the gays" then I'll join in support of this law. Until then, I'll stick with "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and call this for what it is: Haters trying to use religion to justify their hate.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.


>>>>

Technically, you are full of shit.

There are multiple laws covering the area you are blathering about, and both Federal and Arizona law already prohibit anyone who is a first responder or delivers medical treatment from denying services to anyone, which is why nurses cannot refuse to assist in an emergency abortion if they work in the ER even if they go on record in advance as not approving of it.

Funny thing, the same laws that protect against the scare tactics you are worried about also permit that same nurse to refuse to assist in an abortion if it isn't an emergency.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

Actually that claim was made in Heartland Motel of Atlanta v. United States which was the landmark case where the SCOTUS reviewed the Constitutionality of Public Accommodation laws.

They dismissed it.

"We find no merit in the remainder of appellant's contentions, including that of "involuntary servitude." As we have seen, 32 States prohibit racial discrimination in public accommodations. These laws but codify the common law innkeeper rule, which long predated the Thirteenth Amendment. It is difficult to believe that the Amendment was intended to abrogate this principle. Indeed, the opinion of the Court in the Civil Rights Cases is to the contrary as we have seen, it having noted with approval the laws of "all the States" prohibiting discrimination. We could not say that the requirements of the Act in this regard are in any way "akin to African slavery." Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328, 332 (1916)."

Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States | LII / Legal Information Institute​

>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Tell you what. When someone can produce an historical, religious text that says, "Thou shalt not bake cakes for the gays" then I'll join in support of this law. Until then, I'll stick with "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and call this for what it is: Haters trying to use religion to justify their hate.

The law in question specifically says the owners religious beliefs need not be, as you put it "historical" or part of "religious text".



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

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.

"various mainstream religious teachings". You mean Jude 1 and Romans 1? The crux there is if you ask people to enable the church of LGBT's advances on eradicating the foundation of the christian matrix, you are asking them to dissolve God's plan and creation at its foundation. These passages explain:

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. Any form of enabling is "illegal" to christians. You can't enact laws that force them to condemn themselves to the pit of hell forever. Will you ask them to redact their Bible to accomodate the teachings of the church of LGBT instead, as a "compromise"? That's like asking someone to compromise on the speed limit by never taking their car out of the garage. ie,that's shutting down the christian faith. It will be the final death of it. And that's where the debate steps directly into 1st Amendment territory... It is the insidious, silent forcing of christians to abandon their faith and not be able to practice their religion, especially as to such a mortal sin as enabling the changing of God's matrix in a society.

 

[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.

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.

As someone who believes in the original intent of the bill, namely: to allow business folk to refuse service to those whom their mainstream religious beliefs and teachings and interpretations inform them are wrong-doers...

I think you overestimate the extent of popular support for the Gay Agenda as a sustained phenomenon over time.

This isn't so much about Generation A or B or C as it is timeless religious and moral teachings and historical perceptions, and changing perceptions as people age and find a need to protect their own young from the worst degeneracies that society has to offer...

But, like you, I don't have a crystal ball, and that's all in the future, and unproven...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

What does that have to do with what I said?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

In other words, churches are only private when it is convenient.

 

[Kondor3]

Tell you what. When someone can produce an historical, religious text that says, 'Thou shalt not bake cakes for the gays' then I'll join in support of this law...

A lot of folks don't need that, to trigger faith-based objections. All they require is 'hate the sin, love the sinner' to conjure-up the legitimate position that by associating with or servicing such folk, they are aiding and abetting sin, and therefore contributing to the moral or spiritual downfall or continued wrongdoing of those which fate has obliged them to love from a distance, until they mend their ways...

"...Until then, I'll stick with 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone'..."

Nobody here is casting stones or hanging Gays - literally or figuratively - merely standing their ground for their right not to associate with nor service Sinners, and thereby aid and abet their Sinful Ways.

"...and call this for what it is: Haters trying to use religion to justify their hate."

Which does grave disservice to the huge numbers of people who do not wish to provide services to Gays, but who do so from the perspective of not wanting to be associated with or to aid and abet Sinfulness or Pervsity, rather than from any hateful feelings or motivation.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Because if you don't respect their relationship you must hate gays.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Ever photograph a wedding?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

That doesn't make it right to do so, does it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Why didn't we the people empower them to make everyone like everyone else?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

This thread is about the government forcing people to respect relationships, or did you miss that part?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Tell you what. When someone can produce an historical, religious text that says, "Thou shalt not bake cakes for the gays" then I'll join in support of this law. Until then, I'll stick with "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and call this for what it is: Haters trying to use religion to justify their hate.

The law in question specifically says the owners religious beliefs need not be, as you put it "historical" or part of "religious text".



>>>>

so what?

That's my position. Show me the religious tradition to support your hate or you got no "religious" grounds to stand on.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

That is where you are wrong, asshole. Free people work for themselves, all the time, you cannot even rent them,

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Negged for being an asshole racist

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

That is where you are wrong, asshole. Free people work for themselves, all the time, you cannot even rent them,

You are incorrect. Run a business and you'll find out what it means to be a whore, a real one not a college girl who walks home in the morning.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Actually, they haven't. What they have decided is that idiots can pretend that the government can do that, but free people still make their own choices.

 

[Bombur]

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.

"various mainstream religious teachings". You mean Jude 1 and Romans 1? The crux there is if you ask people to enable the church of LGBT's advances on eradicating the foundation of the christian matrix, you are asking them to dissolve God's plan and creation at its foundation. These passages explain:

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. Any form of enabling is "illegal" to christians. You can't enact laws that force them to condemn themselves to the pit of hell forever. Will you ask them to redact their Bible to accomodate the teachings of the church of LGBT instead, as a "compromise"? That's like asking someone to compromise on the speed limit by never taking their car out of the garage. ie,that's shutting down the christian faith. It will be the final death of it. And that's where the debate steps directly into 1st Amendment territory... It is the insidious, silent forcing of christians to abandon their faith and not be able to practice their religion, especially as to such a mortal sin as enabling the changing of God's matrix in a society.

Please do not lump all Christians into your lot.

If you don't want to associate with certain people are able to do so.