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

[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.

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?

Freedom. The fact that people don't support a badly written bill doesn't demonstrate what you think it does. Catching on?

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

Wow. You can't read.

 

[ClosedCaption]

 

[dblack]

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.

How is refusing to associate with someone forcing anything on them? This kind of muddled thinking is really at the core of the problem. Enforcing laws is force. Choosing who we want to work for isn't.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Feel free to pull your head out of your ass, the gay bogeyman is entirely a creation of bigots and assholes.

That is what he just said. The "gay bogeyman is entirely a creation of bigots and assholes" of the social con far reactionary right.

I voted for McCain and Obama.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/health...uctible-6.html

Jake Starkey


I'm sorry Jake, you just can't run from your own words.

All can go to them and see that you and Yurt continue lying about my voting record because you can't argue the OP.

Your deflection is noted, and I have included your url in my signature list also.

 

[kaz]

Of course you are welcome to your opinion, but the United States Supreme Court disagreed just like they disagreed with the Commonwealth of Virginia when they said in the Loving case in 1967 that there no violation of equal protection because coloreds and whites were treated differently

Being gay does not change who you can marry under the law. Being black did change who you could marry under the law. They got that one right.

Regardless of getting Loving right, the SCOTUS isn't deserving of any respect. They have also found in the Constitution:

1) Government can confiscate property from one citizen and give it to another for the benefit of the government and not public use (New London).

2) They can base their rulings on the laws of other countries.

3) Government can regulate political speech heading into elections (so called campaign finance reform).

4) Discrimination in favor of blacks is acceptable for 25 years (O'Conner)

5) Government can regulate intrastate trade

6) Obamacare and all it's regulations and mandates is just a tax.

7) The 9th and 10th amendments were completely eliminated under FDR.

Then there's the oldie and goodie that blacks are property that are to be returned to their owners.

Then there are things they made up completely, including separation of church and State, the right to an abortion and Miranda. And there are gyrations like "privacy." Privacy is iron clad protected by the 9th and 10th amendments. But they eliminated that, so they had to make up a new right to privacy, which then gives them a bunch of more powers.

And while technically I concede you're right they overturned the Federal portion, clearly now all of DOMA has to be overturned because if you accept their argument on Federal employees based on the 14th Amendment for the Federal government, in what possible way are the States not violating the 14th Amendment since the court said not recognizing gay marriage is a violation of the 14th, and the Constitution also says that the States are subject to the Consitution? They aren't of course, but now the Court has to either overturn their bad DOMA ruling or apply it to all of DOMA. Of course they will do the latter, just a matter of time.

 

[protectionist]

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?

They ought to be able to choose who to do business with, whether it is based on religion or not.

 

[protectionist]

Discrimination IS OK, it is practiced widely all the time, and in the case of homosexuals, it ought to be mandatory in many cases (ex. jobs working with kids, close contact jobs, etc)

 

[Gadawg73]

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?

They ought to be able to choose who to do business with, whether it is based on religion or not.

"Because of the press of other engagements I am booked solid and can not handle your engagement or requirements by your deadline"
works every time.
Even with the law most everyone falls under a scenario where this could be used.
Been using it for 35 years.
Wearing the badge of "I am a Christian victim being persecuted" works on the dumb masses as that is why the bill was passed in the first place. All politics.
Could have been very easily avoided.

 

[Gadawg73]

Of course you are welcome to your opinion, but the United States Supreme Court disagreed just like they disagreed with the Commonwealth of Virginia when they said in the Loving case in 1967 that there no violation of equal protection because coloreds and whites were treated differently

Being gay does not change who you can marry under the law. Being black did change who you could marry under the law. They got that one right.

Regardless of getting Loving right, the SCOTUS isn't deserving of any respect. They have also found in the Constitution:

1) Government can confiscate property from one citizen and give it to another for the benefit of the government and not public use (New London).

2) They can base their rulings on the laws of other countries.

3) Government can regulate political speech heading into elections (so called campaign finance reform).

4) Discrimination in favor of blacks is acceptable for 25 years (O'Conner)

5) Government can regulate intrastate trade

6) Obamacare and all it's regulations and mandates is just a tax.

7) The 9th and 10th amendments were completely eliminated under FDR.

Then there's the oldie and goodie that blacks are property that are to be returned to their owners.

Then there are things they made up completely, including separation of church and State, the right to an abortion and Miranda. And there are gyrations like "privacy." Privacy is iron clad protected by the 9th and 10th amendments. But they eliminated that, so they had to make up a new right to privacy, which then gives them a bunch of more powers.

And while technically I concede you're right they overturned the Federal portion, clearly now all of DOMA has to be overturned because if you accept their argument on Federal employees based on the 14th Amendment for the Federal government, in what possible way are the States not violating the 14th Amendment since the court said not recognizing gay marriage is a violation of the 14th, and the Constitution also says that the States are subject to the Consitution? They aren't of course, but now the Court has to either overturn their bad DOMA ruling or apply it to all of DOMA. Of course they will do the latter, just a matter of time.

The law says you can not marry someone you fall in love with of the same sex so your first sentence is false. Of course it does not change it under the law. That is the PROBLEM with the law.
Same as this proposed law.

 

[protectionist]

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?

1. Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

2. They demand to have jobs teaching kids (telling them homosexuality is normal), serve in the military (showering with heterosexuals), play football with heterosexuals (grabbing them, tackling them), engaging in queer sex (guys kissing each other ) in public, etc. They also change the English language (having ruined a wonderful English word > "gay" which I refuse to use to describe queers)

3. Who said I want to see their perversions ? I certainly don't.

 

[Gadawg73]

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?

Freedom. The fact that people don't support a badly written bill doesn't demonstrate what you think it does. Catching on?

Totally agree the bill is badly written.
Happens every time when they try to appeal to the "Christian victim" bogus claims.
Nothing about "freedom" as if it was the bill would not have been "badly written".

 

[Katzndogz]

No one has denied service to any gay person. Those who object don't want to participate in gay events.

 

[Gadawg73]

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?

1. Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

2. They demand to have jobs teaching kids (telling them homosexuality is normal), serve in the military (showering with heterosexuals), play football with heterosexuals (grabbing them, tackling them), engaging in queer sex (guys kissing each other ) in public, etc. They also change the English language (having ruined a wonderful English word > "gay" which I refuse to use to describe queers)

3. Who said I want to see their perversions ? I certainly don't.

The curriculum sets what is taught to all the kids.
"play football, tackling, grabbing them".
LOL, dude I played 14 seasons of football and there were gay guys then and now.

 

[protectionist]

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.

Nonsense! Dozens of types of discrimination go on all the time, everywhere in America, and they are just and proper. Do you want to hire a convicted child molester to baby sit for you ? Do you enlist the help of a pyromaniac to do home improvement work ? Get real.

 

[protectionist]

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?

They ought to be able to choose who to do business with, whether it is based on religion or not.

"Because of the press of other engagements I am booked solid and can not handle your engagement or requirements by your deadline"
works every time.
Even with the law most everyone falls under a scenario where this could be used.
Been using it for 35 years.
Wearing the badge of "I am a Christian victim being persecuted" works on the dumb masses as that is why the bill was passed in the first place. All politics.
Could have been very easily avoided.

No need for the "booked solid" ploy. I owned a video dating service for 12 years, with 3 branch offices in 3 counties. I had an openly proclaimed policy of Heterosexual Only. No homo person ever even walked in my door.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Yeah, but I DON'T work for you, and that's the point. I get to CHOOSE whether or not to work for you, and that baker gets to choose whether or not he wants to work for you. And if working for you contradicts my faith, then no, they aren't different. If your beliefs have no effect on your daily life decisions, then they aren't really your beliefs.

 

[protectionist]

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?

1. Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

2. They demand to have jobs teaching kids (telling them homosexuality is normal), serve in the military (showering with heterosexuals), play football with heterosexuals (grabbing them, tackling them), engaging in queer sex (guys kissing each other ) in public, etc. They also change the English language (having ruined a wonderful English word > "gay" which I refuse to use to describe queers)

3. Who said I want to see their perversions ? I certainly don't.

The curriculum sets what is taught to all the kids.
"play football, tackling, grabbing them".
LOL, dude I played 14 seasons of football and there were gay guys then and now.

"Curriculum" my ass. I had queer teachers in college and they lauded the homosexual lifestyle every day.

You asked me how queers impose their perversions. There's a queer dude, right now, who wants to be an NFL defensive tackle. His job would be grabbing and tackling guys. Normal people don't want to be touched by queers. Got it ?

 

[Cecilie1200]

he mandates in Jude 1 and Romans 1 are very clear and concise.

Unfortunately, you are not.

Try THIS one on for size:

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

or maybe:

"Judge not lest ye be judged."

And if anyone were saying, "You're going to hell. Your soul is lost", these quotes would be appropriate. Since they aren't saying that, your quotes are inappropriate, misquoted cherrypicking, and you've just revealed yourself as someone who knows exactly two things about Christianity - jack and shit - and has no business presuming to preach to anyone.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Discrimination IS OK, it is practiced widely all the time, and in the case of homosexuals, it ought to be mandatory in many cases (ex. jobs working with kids, close contact jobs, etc)

You should run on that. Sounds like a winning Message.

Discrimination IS OK!