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

[Quantum Windbag]

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.



>>>>

The bill does not allow anyone to discriminate based on race, or even sexual preference, it simply restricts the state's power to regulate religion, just like the Religious Freedom Restoration act does for the federal government. If it actually worked the way you keep claiming then we wouldn't be having this discussion because federal law would allow anyone to discriminate against race, religion, or anything else, based solely on a claim of religious beliefs.

 

[sfcalifornia]

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.

You know how I can tell I am talking to a religious fuckwad?

They start talking about history taking sides in events.

You know how we can can spot a dumbfuck in general? When they post ignorant shit which has no relevance in today's society.

Yeah dumbfuck, we're talking about you, Quantum Fartbag.

Why don't you pull your head out of you ass, look around you and take note of the fact that homosexuals are NOT GOING AWAY, in fact, they are an integral and accepted part of society whether ignorant dipshits like you (who lives in San Feancisco btw... And why is that???) decides to live in the "wrong side of history".

Go ahead: prove to us all how the majority of Americans now disapprove of homosexuals.

In the meantime, BOTH Arizona senators have urged Brewer not to sign the bill as well as countless businesses (including the Super Bowl Host Committee).

LOL what an idiot you are.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

Tell you what, hire me to paint your house on those terms, I dare you.



This is why intelligent people don't try to force people to do business with them in the name of equality.

If you don't understand how business is actually done then you aren't hired. And believe me, the first business to play games with the food for the gays will find out, in short order, that it is no longer a business and that the new owners now fly a rainbow flag outside. If you knew what really happens in a restaurant kitchen, you wouldn't eat there.

 

[nodoginnafight]

my sympathies to the homophobic wingers....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...brewer-expected-to-veto-az-gay-hate-bill.html

I hope she does. Enough of the senators have repudiated their votes that the law would not pass today, so that gives her some standing to veto it.

But I think the courts would have "vetoed" it eventually.

Maybe she will just be saving the taxpayers the expense of trying to defend this warthog of a law.

 

[jillian]

my sympathies to the homophobic wingers....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...brewer-expected-to-veto-az-gay-hate-bill.html

I hope she does. Enough of the senators have repudiated their votes that the law would not pass today, so that gives her some standing to veto it.

But I think the courts would have "vetoed" it eventually.

Maybe she will just be saving the taxpayers the expense of trying to defend this warthog of a law.

probably so.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Legally, they are businesses that operate on a non profit basis.

 

[Mustang]

my sympathies to the homophobic wingers....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...brewer-expected-to-veto-az-gay-hate-bill.html

Cue the crowds with misspelled placards which mention the US Constitution even while the quotes are from the Declaration of Independence. Throw in the word Impeachment (repeatedly), and you've got yourselves a Tea Party rally.

 

[jillian]

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.[/QUOTE]

your view of "serving" G-d isn't mine or that of anyone I know.

so i'll thank you to remember that no... you don't get to define it for anyone but yourself... and no one in our society should be denied services because you think G-d wants you to hate a group of his children.

 

[JakeStarkey]

When a church engages in activities that are in the public domain, then, yes, a church is subject to anti-discrimination laws.

 

[sfcalifornia]

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.

Tell you what, hire me to paint your house on those terms, I dare you.



This is why intelligent people don't try to force people to do business with them in the name of equality.

If you don't understand how business is actually done then you aren't hired. And believe me, the first business to play games with the food for the gays will find out, in short order, that it is no longer a business and that the new owners now fly a rainbow flag outside. If you knew what really happens in a restaurant kitchen, you wouldn't eat there.

LOL

Don't piss off the people who serve you food!!

Will they ever learn?

 

[jillian]

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.



>>>>

The bill does not allow anyone to discriminate based on race, or even sexual preference, it simply restricts the state's power to regulate religion, just like the Religious Freedom Restoration act does for the federal government. If it actually worked the way you keep claiming then we wouldn't be having this discussion because federal law would allow anyone to discriminate against race, religion, or anything else, based solely on a claim of religious beliefs.

I know that's what the wackos are saying...

but really... it's using G-d as a justification for violating the equal rights of others.

shameful

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

The. Hell. You. Do.

By the way, I can cite Supreme Court decisions that specifically say that the government does not have the power to regulate religion, one of them where two Obama appointed Supreme Court Justices voted against the government in a unanimous decision upholding the right of religions to not justify their actions to the government on the basis of generally applicable law.

HOSANNA-TABOR EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH AND SCHOOL v. EEOC | LII / Legal Information Institute

Don't worry though, you know a hell of a lot more about the alw than I do, so you can pretend this doesn't count.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

The side of tyranny always wins, at the beginning. Eventually, everyone realizes how stupid it is, and freedom claims the final victory, just like it did when your side passed the Jim Crow laws.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

If a liberal doesn't like something it should be illegal for everyone. If they like something, it should be legal for everyone.

As far a the civil rights spin, relationships aren't people. Refusing service to a person is one thing, (which should be your right anyway) but refusing service to a relationship is another. Can a racist make a black bakery owner produce a Rebel Flag cake?

This is perhaps the statement of the subject.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Jim Crow was settled law.

So was slavery.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Real whores work for themselves because they are free, but keep insulting them by comparing yourself to them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

In other words, you suck at running a business. No wonder you are a progressive, you think the government should protect you from your own stupidity, and that successful people are making it harder for you to get rich because they cheat by being good at what they do.

Business is fine. My customers are dumb, like you, which is why they need me. About one in ten of them I would consider for a friend. The rest pay their bills so I take care of them. It's business, that's all.

That said everything I need to know about you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Business is fine. My customers are dumb, like you, which is why they need me. About one in ten of them I would consider for a friend. The rest pay their bills so I take care of them. It's business, that's all.

So, you're a gay hooker then?

More like a crack whore.

 

[jillian]

In other words, you suck at running a business. No wonder you are a progressive, you think the government should protect you from your own stupidity, and that successful people are making it harder for you to get rich because they cheat by being good at what they do.

I think he actually runs a business and gets it...

unlike you

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Chambers of commerce are groups that use rent seeking to control businesses.

Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry want the AZ law vetoed.

Of course they do, it might inspire people to compete with their members.