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

[WorldWatcher]

And we're forced to accept your homophobic lifestyle?

Not making a gay wedding cake is a lifestyle? If that's your definition then yes, you should be subjected to it and take your business elsewhere. That's all the bill was supposed to be for. Not refusing to serve you if you were gay, although it still isn't clear how a business can read minds. Some of you act like the law would legalize gay lynchings. Which side is propagandizing the issue? The side that says business folks should be allowed to choose what they offer?

You incorrectly state the functioning of the bill for a couple of different reasons:

1. This Public Accommodation law (which in Arizona doesn't include sexual orientation) does not restrict what a business can "offer" in terms of goods and services, Public Accommodation laws mean that when a good or service IS OFFERED by the owner, that the owner cannot discriminate based on race, region, gender, ses, national origin, etc... For example the law does not require a Deli to serve ham - therefore no one can order a ham sandwich and be in violation of the law. On the other hand if a bakery offers wedding cakes, they can't refuse to sell one to an interracial couple because of their race. What this law does is allow a special exemption to Public Accommodations law to allow the baker to discriminate against the interracial couple - they just now need to claim a "sincerely held religious belief".

2. The second way you are in error is this law does not allow the business owner to choose who to sell to. Their actions are still restricted. Under Arizona Public Accommodation law the owner can't refuse to sell to colored, Mexican's, Jews, the handicapped, etc. - unless they mouth the words "sincerely held religious beliefs". If the basis of the discrimination isn't based on religion - the government IS STILL RESTRICTING the reasons that a business can refuse a sale.​

BTW - In a previous post you said you hadn't read the bill yet. Have you now? Do you realize that no where in the bill does it limit the exemption to only business transactions concerning "the gheys"?



>>>>

 

[Derideo_Te]

Why would it go to court?

It goes against Civil Rights. Leave it to the loonies on the far right to think this is acceptable in the United States.

What civil rights? And when did GAY become a race? What we are talking about here is forced acceptance of a lifestyle upon society.

Why should you have the special right to force acceptance of your "chosen heterosexual lifestyle" upon society?

 

[TemplarKormac]

It goes against Civil Rights. Leave it to the loonies on the far right to think this is acceptable in the United States.

What civil rights? And when did GAY become a race? What we are talking about here is forced acceptance of a lifestyle upon society.

Why should you have the special right to force acceptance of your "chosen heterosexual lifestyle" upon society?

Why should gays have the special right to force acceptance of their homosexual lifestyle upon society?

 

[Iceweasel]

You incorrectly state the functioning of the bill for a couple of different reasons:



On the other hand if a bakery offers wedding cakes, they can't refuse to sell one to an interracial couple because of their race. What this law does is allow a special exemption to Public Accommodations law to allow the baker to discriminate against the interracial couple - they just now need to claim a "sincerely held religious belief".

The issue that brought this forward is homosexuality, not race. I said it sounds like it was poorly drafted. I also said I support a business owner's right to serve who they want for whatever they want so I'd be in favor of that.

2. The second way you are in error is this law does not allow the business owner to choose who to sell to. Their actions are still restricted. Under Arizona Public Accommodation law the owner can't refuse to sell to colored, Mexican's, Jews, the handicapped, etc. - unless they mouth the words "sincerely held religious beliefs". If the basis of the discrimination isn't based on religion - the government IS STILL RESTRICTING the reasons that a business can refuse a sale.

BTW - In a previous post you said you hadn't read the bill yet. Have you now? Do you realize that no where in the bill does it limit the exemption to only business transactions concerning "the gheys"?

Who said anything about gheys? Is the topic too emotional for you? It sounds like it is.

It's a bill, not a law and probably won't be for the reasons mentioned. And I didn't misrepresent the bill, I said what it's intent was. Do you have evidence that Christian business owners wanted to deny service to blacks or interracial couples or are you just running your yap?

 

[Iceweasel]

Why should you have the special right to force acceptance of your "chosen heterosexual lifestyle" upon society?

Another Mensa candidate.

Turning down work isn't forcing anything on you apart from showing you the door.

 

[Wildman]

why do the qweers (i am NOT a politically correct sort of person, in my time we called them QWEERS, also, ******* QWEERS ) need special protection and laws in their favor ?

note to all qweers on this forum:

why don't you all just do your thing, don't flaunt your shit in front of me and we will get along fine, even tho i know you all are democRAT liberals, soooo, SHUT THE **** UP !

Equal isn't special, and we went out of our way to pass these Equality laws because people like you went out of your way to give them shit. It's your fault actually. and as you can see, I'm not PC either.

i personally had nothing to do with it, i had/have more important things to do in my life than protest your lifestyle, sleep/**** any one you wish, just don't push what you do on me.., O ******* K ??

no, i can not "SEE" your perversion and i thank GOD !!!

 

[TemplarKormac]

It goes against Civil Rights. Leave it to the loonies on the far right to think this is acceptable in the United States.

What civil rights? And when did GAY become a race? What we are talking about here is forced acceptance of a lifestyle upon society.

And we're forced to accept your homophobic lifestyle?

Touche, so we're forced to accept your homophilic lifestyle?

 

[Wildman]

Why would it go to court?

It goes against Civil Rights. Leave it to the loonies on the far right to think this is acceptable in the United States.

What civil rights? And when did GAY become a race? What we are talking about here is forced acceptance of a lifestyle upon society.

AMEN BROTHER !

but these homo liberal lovers here will do all they can to support this "forced acceptance"........, i wonder how many liarberals here will out themselves rather than hide behind their rhetoric ?

 

[Derideo_Te]

What civil rights? And when did GAY become a race? What we are talking about here is forced acceptance of a lifestyle upon society.

Why should you have the special right to force acceptance of your "chosen heterosexual lifestyle" upon society?

Why should gays have the special right to force acceptance of their homosexual lifestyle upon society?

You need to direct that question at The T since he is the one alleging that this is happening.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Why should you have the special right to force acceptance of your "chosen heterosexual lifestyle" upon society?

Another Mensa candidate.

Turning down work isn't forcing anything on you apart from showing you the door.

Tell that to the T since it was his allegation in the first place.

 

[Gadawg73]

Am sure Jesus is real proud of folks denying service to others based on their sexuality.
No Christian does that if they truly believe in LOVE THY NEIGHBOR and DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD THEM DO UNTO YOU. Golden Rule and Luke 6:31 which I memorized at age 5: "And as you wish that others would do to you, do SO TO THEM".
Bunch of sad sack Christians here.

Hypocrisy unlimited. Queers impose their perversions on the normal society, but refuse to accept the normal society's standards. They break the golden rule into a thousand pieces.

What Golden Rule do they break into a thousand pieces?
Tell us how queers impose their perversions on you.
Why would you want to participate in seeing "queer perversions" when you clearly state here you hate queers?

 

[dblack]

Why should you have the special right to force acceptance of your "chosen heterosexual lifestyle" upon society?

Another Mensa candidate.

Turning down work isn't forcing anything on you apart from showing you the door.

Tell that to the T since it was his allegation in the first place.

I think you're misreading. T was claiming that force occurs when service providers are legally required to associate with people they want to avoid. Are you claiming refusing to associate with someone is 'forcing' something on them?

 

[Gadawg73]

No it doesn't. Stop being a sheep trying to be in the cool crowd and being proud to be an asshole.

You think supporting gay folks is "trying to be in the cool crowd"?

No. Supporting gays at the expense of others puts you in the "I'm cool" crowd. Thinking isn't a necessity with that group.

Was not cool in the early 60s when I also supported black folks.
Not about being cool.
And I do not support individual groups. I support and defend the rights of everyone.
Including folks like you that believe being cool is more important than what this nation was founded on.

 

[Gadawg73]

Another Mensa candidate.

Turning down work isn't forcing anything on you apart from showing you the door.

Tell that to the T since it was his allegation in the first place.

I think you're misreading. T was claiming that force occurs when service providers are legally required to associate with people they want to avoid. Are you claiming refusing to associate with someone is 'forcing' something on them?

So a private ambulance company can deny service to an accident victim if they are not legally required to "associate" with people they want to avoid.
That is not force. They can deny service but must suffer the consequences of doing so.
A civilized society does not function that way.
And thought this was about "religious freedom".
That is what they hide behind falsely.
It is about folks not liking gay folks and don't want to serve them anything.
Ride the back of the bus.
No matter how hard folks try to sell this as "religious freedom" you can never polish that turd.

 

[Wildman]

**** the NFL !!

There is no chance that the NFL will punish ANYONE whether they pass the legislation or not. The NFL learned YEARS and YEARS ago that they are in the entertainment business - NOT the sports business - just like the WWE.

The only God the NFL bows to is money. Their view of gays or straight or man or woman means NOTHING to their views of the face on the dollar bill. Make no mistake about it - they couldn't care less - as long as the money keeps rolling in.

You mean like when the NFL punished Arizona over the MLK holiday in the 90's? The NFL will pull the Super Bowl in a heartbeat if this somehow passes.

punished...?? that was blackmail ! and Arizona should have never capitulated to this extortion.

 

[dblack]

A civilized society does not function that way.

Sure. But does a civilized society force the matter with the threat of violence?

And thought this was about "religious freedom".
That is what they hide behind falsely.

Agreed. It's a much deeper issue.

 

[Iceweasel]

So a private ambulance company can deny service to an accident victim if they are not legally required to "associate" with people they want to avoid.
That is not force. They can deny service but must suffer the consequences of doing so.
A civilized society does not function that way.
And thought this was about "religious freedom".
That is what they hide behind falsely.
It is about folks not liking gay folks and don't want to serve them anything.
Ride the back of the bus.
No matter how hard folks try to sell this as "religious freedom" you can never polish that turd.

It was and should be once again, freedom, period. Not religious freedom. And if you have to go to the extreme of comparing wedding cakes to ambulance services it shows how weak the argument is. I'll bet you can't find a single example of a gay being denied a ride due to his sexuality.

No one is forcing gays into the back of the bus, into their own restrooms, water fountains or denied a vote.

 

[Gadawg73]

So a private ambulance company can deny service to an accident victim if they are not legally required to "associate" with people they want to avoid.
That is not force. They can deny service but must suffer the consequences of doing so.
A civilized society does not function that way.
And thought this was about "religious freedom".
That is what they hide behind falsely.
It is about folks not liking gay folks and don't want to serve them anything.
Ride the back of the bus.
No matter how hard folks try to sell this as "religious freedom" you can never polish that turd.

It was and should be once again, freedom, period. Not religious freedom. And if you have to go to the extreme of comparing wedding cakes to ambulance services it shows how weak the argument is. I'll bet you can't find a single example of a gay being denied a ride due to his sexuality.

No one is forcing gays into the back of the bus, into their own restrooms, water fountains or denied a vote.

Chamber of Commerce opposes the bill.
Comprehend?
Many businesses large and small are posting "Open for Business for Everyone" in their windows.
See the trend?
Both Republican Senators oppose the bill.
Catching on what is motivating the opposition?
ALL industry associations in the state oppose the bill.
Why?
This is a BUSINESS issue ONLY.
Brewer is pro business and will veto the bill. She is pro business.
Anti business support the bill.
Pro business opposes the bill.
Which side are you on?

 

[Gadawg73]

So a private ambulance company can deny service to an accident victim if they are not legally required to "associate" with people they want to avoid.
That is not force. They can deny service but must suffer the consequences of doing so.
A civilized society does not function that way.
And thought this was about "religious freedom".
That is what they hide behind falsely.
It is about folks not liking gay folks and don't want to serve them anything.
Ride the back of the bus.
No matter how hard folks try to sell this as "religious freedom" you can never polish that turd.

It was and should be once again, freedom, period. Not religious freedom. And if you have to go to the extreme of comparing wedding cakes to ambulance services it shows how weak the argument is. I'll bet you can't find a single example of a gay being denied a ride due to his sexuality.

No one is forcing gays into the back of the bus, into their own restrooms, water fountains or denied a vote.

Show us in the bill where they ONLY allow cake bakers to deny service based on religious freedom.
Where is it.
Respectfully, if you have no clue or understanding this allows ANY BUSINESS to deny service to gays and lesbians then you need to stay out of the discussion.
ANY denial would be legal based on the vague claim of "religious freedom".
Doesn't matter. Brewer is pro business and will veto it.
Capitalism wins out once again.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Another Mensa candidate.

Turning down work isn't forcing anything on you apart from showing you the door.

Tell that to the T since it was his allegation in the first place.

I think you're misreading. T was claiming that force occurs when service providers are legally required to associate with people they want to avoid. Are you claiming refusing to associate with someone is 'forcing' something on them?

No, I am holding up a mirror. Service providers don't get to discriminate and "force" their "chosen heterosexual lifestyle" onto others. If they are in business then everyone must be treated equally as far as the service is concerned. If they want to discriminate then they must accept that they are violating federal laws and will be punished accordingly. There are no "special rights" for "religion" when it comes to commercial transactions.