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

[Cecilie1200]

Accommodating gay Americans – whether compelled to do so by law or not – does not constitute one to “give up his religious belief,” it’s a manifestation of ignorance and hate, not religious doctrine or dogma.

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.

No, Sparkles, my values are always MY values. You don't have to agree with them or like them, but you don't get to demand that they be silenced so that you don't have to be aware of them, and you don't get to redefine them to suit yourself. And if you can show me anywhere that the Constitution says, "The free exercise thereof . . . but only in private", then we'll talk.

Oh, wait, never mind. That juvenile drama princess line of "drink the blood of infants" just invalidated YOUR opinion from ever appearing on my screen again. Why don't you call us when puberty is over, the hormones have cleared, and you can talk without getting hysterical?

FLUSH!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

God, do you know how predictable and boring it is that every time you leftists get in trouble, you run to the blacks to hide behind them?

His point is valid so why don't you just answer his question?

I will.

There is no religion that forbids commerce between blacks and whites.

The Christians of America past would disagree, and they also found plenty of support for using blacks as commerce. The Bible supports just about any kind of evil you can think of if you if search for it long enough.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Religion has been discriminating against all kinds of people for centuries. No news here, move along.

EVERYONE discriminates every day of their lives, bubba. It's called "making choices". Don't act like it's some squalid quirk of other people, and your own cloak hem is unspattered.

 

[Jarhead]

Pretty much everybody does run a business the way I do. It's bad business not to. And it's just business. If I only served Liberal Agnostics where I live my customer base would be one in a 100. Ain't happin' no matter what I believe about the nonsense they believe.

actually, you are dead wrong with that premise.

Now, before I go on, I am against the bill in Arizona for it will open the door to some very ugly situations.

However.....

When a business has a target audience....be it "blacks" (there are retailers who carry African art; certain ethinic styles of clothes, etc.)....or "Christians", (there are stores that sell religious items strictly for the Christian faith)....or "Jews", (there are stores that sell only kosher items)....they tend to do very well for they do not buy and display "non sellable items" and they tend to get the entire community of those in that group;.

Targeting one group has been a proven business model for centuries.

A store that doesn't sell everything is smart, but you have to have the customer base. I'm not a store and to only serve clients like myself means I wouldn't have any. That's bad business. Even in your example, if you walk in with cash the correct phrase is How can we help you today not Get out fagboy.

I agree. That is why the bill is foolish and will not be signed into law.

But your premise is incorrect. It may be correct for certain services....but overall, it is incorrect.

I knew a Hassidic attorney who would ONLY represent Hassidic clients. He would turn down all other clients for if he represented one that was not Hassidic, he would alienate his Hassidic clients....who tend to not care for anyone not Hassidic.

Sick? Yes. But it worked for him. He was quite successful. He had a corner on the market of Hassidic clients.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

You don't "associate" with someone when you bake them a cake or take their pictures. If anyone has "muddled thinking" it is those who are misusing terms like "forcing" and "associate".

As a business you work for your customers in exchange for the money they pay you. That is what a commercial transaction is all about.

No one is "forcing" you to "associate" with your customers on any other level other than on a purely financial basis.

 

[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.

No, Sparkles, my values are always MY values. You don't have to agree with them or like them, but you don't get to demand that they be silenced so that you don't have to be aware of them, and you don't get to redefine them to suit yourself. And if you can show me anywhere that the Constitution says, "The free exercise thereof . . . but only in private", then we'll talk.

Oh, wait, never mind. That juvenile drama princess line of "drink the blood of infants" just invalidated YOUR opinion from ever appearing on my screen again. Why don't you call us when puberty is over, the hormones have cleared, and you can talk without getting hysterical?

FLUSH!

Why don't you grow up? It was an example of the fact that even your religious freedom has limitations, and if you knew Christian history you'd know why I used that example.?

Just because you call it Religion doesn't mean you can get away with whatever you like. And little one, in the Marketplace we set the rules. Your values have to bend to our laws.

 

[Jarhead]

His point is valid so why don't you just answer his question?

I will.

There is no religion that forbids commerce between blacks and whites.

The Christians of America past would disagree, and they also found plenty of support for using blacks as commerce. The Bible supports just about any kind of evil you can think of if you if search for it long enough.

I repeat...

There is no religion that forbids commerce between blacks and whites. Your interpretation of a religion that you do not follow or believe in is irrelevant.

There is no religion that forbids commerce between blacks and whites.

That is a valid answer to a very immature post by Bumberclyde.

 

[Jarhead]

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.

You don't "associate" with someone when you bake them a cake or take their pictures. If anyone has "muddled thinking" it is those who are misusing terms like "forcing" and "associate".

As a business you work for your customers in exchange for the money they pay you. That is what a commercial transaction is all about.

No one is "forcing" you to "associate" with your customers on any other level other than on a purely financial basis.

This is true.

The bill is flawed and will not be signed into law.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

That you need to use such extremes exposes the weakness of your position.

Babysitters are vetted and require trusted references. Customers don't!

Employers do background checks and require references before hiring workers. Customers don't!

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Like . . . oh, I don't know, educating people? Conducting meaningful public dialogues where everyone gets to freely express their opinions instead of being shouted down?

Naaahh, that'll never work. Better to bludgeon your opponents with the legal system so they go underground and you create even more of them and have civil unrest and division. Right, leftists?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

actually, you are dead wrong with that premise.

Now, before I go on, I am against the bill in Arizona for it will open the door to some very ugly situations.

However.....

When a business has a target audience....be it "blacks" (there are retailers who carry African art; certain ethinic styles of clothes, etc.)....or "Christians", (there are stores that sell religious items strictly for the Christian faith)....or "Jews", (there are stores that sell only kosher items)....they tend to do very well for they do not buy and display "non sellable items" and they tend to get the entire community of those in that group;.

Targeting one group has been a proven business model for centuries.

A store that doesn't sell everything is smart, but you have to have the customer base. I'm not a store and to only serve clients like myself means I wouldn't have any. That's bad business. Even in your example, if you walk in with cash the correct phrase is How can we help you today not Get out fagboy.

I agree. That is why the bill is foolish and will not be signed into law.

But your premise is incorrect. It may be correct for certain services....but overall, it is incorrect.

I knew a Hassidic attorney who would ONLY represent Hassidic clients. He would turn down all other clients for if he represented one that was not Hassidic, he would alienate his Hassidic clients....who tend to not care for anyone not Hassidic.

Sick? Yes. But it worked for him. He was quite successful. He had a corner on the market of Hassidic clients.

He had a better client base than I have. When I have that kind of base I could tell the Christians to go to Hell, but I won't and it would be unfair if I did. Until then it's So happy to hear from, what's up?

 

[paperview]

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.

That you need to use such extremes exposes the weakness of your position.

Babysitters are vetted and require trusted references. Customers don't!

Employers do background checks and require references before hiring workers. Customers don't!

I heard the sound of that slap from here.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I don't have a side, and If I were you I wouldn't talk. Your kind is the reason why Obama won, twice.

LOL

You're a troll from the hate sites. You THINK that you have an ally with Dawg - but you'll find that his views track closer to mine than to yours. The ONLY reason you two have common ground here is that Dawg has a hatred of Christians that makes him spin out of orbit.

 

[Iceweasel]

"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.

Being forced to lie works for you?

See Jesus, I didn't bake the cake, and I'll I had to do was break a Commandment.

Your brain needs some fresh air.

 

[Gadawg73]

My Pakistani friend that manages the Exxon by my office is Muslim and believes homosexuality is a sin, same as many Christians.
And I have no problem with that even though I disagree with it.
But on the gay marriage issue he says this "I oppose it but do not want government to mandate a law forbidding it. That is why I left with all of my family to come to America as where we lived in Pakistan the government stretches MY OWN religions' religious beliefs to pass laws that deny certain groups certain things. You allow that it grows and one day they come after you."
BINGO.

 

[Jarhead]

A store that doesn't sell everything is smart, but you have to have the customer base. I'm not a store and to only serve clients like myself means I wouldn't have any. That's bad business. Even in your example, if you walk in with cash the correct phrase is How can we help you today not Get out fagboy.

I agree. That is why the bill is foolish and will not be signed into law.

But your premise is incorrect. It may be correct for certain services....but overall, it is incorrect.

I knew a Hassidic attorney who would ONLY represent Hassidic clients. He would turn down all other clients for if he represented one that was not Hassidic, he would alienate his Hassidic clients....who tend to not care for anyone not Hassidic.

Sick? Yes. But it worked for him. He was quite successful. He had a corner on the market of Hassidic clients.

He had a better client base than I have. When I have that kind of base I could tell the Christians to go to Hell, but I won't and it would be unfair if I did. Until then it's So happy to hear from, what's up?

I understand. And I, too, am the same way. It is what being "human" is all about...and what being an American is all about.

But for those that don't give a crap about ethics and humanity, they, too, can achieve success....and that is why I responded to your post.

It is a business model that is wrong, yes. But it is a business model that will work.

For example...

If I advertised that I am a racist and I hate blacks and I refuse to assist them with my service....Over time, I will have a corner on the market of all black hating racists in my marketplace.

 

[Gadawg73]

One can legally deny anyone almost anything NOW using their own business priorities without having to invoke religion.
Amazing the right wing does not see this as a Christian religion thing.
Very bad law that will hurt most all business anywhere.
And that is why most Republicans are now running from it like a monkey on fire.
Us business folks hate laws that are bad business.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

A couple of things about this debate really amuse me.

1) I have several friends who are professional escorts (and you leftists had better think long and hard before making ANY moral condemnations at this point). Now, most people would think if there was any profession in the world where one HAS to do business with anyone, regardless of any personal antipathy toward them, being a prostitute would be it, right? Except that my friends very much reserve the right to choose their own customers, and refuse to do business with anyone they don't want to, simply because they don't want to. The only girls in the game who don't have that freedom, and have to service anyone with the cash to pay, are the ones on the lowest rung of the ladder who have abusive pimps who control them, slap them around, and take most of their money afterward.

Anyone else seeing a disturbing analogy to leftists and their use of government vis a vis private businesses emerging here?

2) This capitalism argument we keep hearing - "Business is about making money, and nothing else!" - sounds really jarring coming from the mouths of people who are normally outraged by the suggestion that the purpose of business is to make a profit, as opposed to providing jobs and a "living wage", helping the environment, making social statements, etc. Since when did you leftists out there become such fans of the bottom line?

 

[ClosedCaption]

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

Discrimination IS OK!

Church of LGBT hyperbole aside, discrimination IS OK when it comes to behaviors. We do it all the time in civil and penal codes across the country. Unless of course you're talking about elevating a cult above the law?

Civil Penal Codes? Just because I'm allowed to kick someone in the face in the ring doesnt mean I'm going to support a measure to kick people in the face in general.

 

[Gadawg73]

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.

A couple of things about this debate really amuse me.

1) I have several friends who are professional escorts (and you leftists had better think long and hard before making ANY moral condemnations at this point). Now, most people would think if there was any profession in the world where one HAS to do business with anyone, regardless of any personal antipathy toward them, being a prostitute would be it, right? Except that my friends very much reserve the right to choose their own customers, and refuse to do business with anyone they don't want to, simply because they don't want to. The only girls in the game who don't have that freedom, and have to service anyone with the cash to pay, are the ones on the lowest rung of the ladder who have abusive pimps who control them, slap them around, and take most of their money afterward.

Anyone else seeing a disturbing analogy to leftists and their use of government vis a vis private businesses emerging here?

2) This capitalism argument we keep hearing - "Business is about making money, and nothing else!" - sounds really jarring coming from the mouths of people who are normally outraged by the suggestion that the purpose of business is to make a profit, as opposed to providing jobs and a "living wage", helping the environment, making social statements, etc. Since when did you leftists out there become such fans of the bottom line?

So your business model analogy is one that is illegal.
Arizona Chamber of Commerce is opposing this because they are "the mouths of people who are normally outraged by the suggestion that the purpose of business is to make a profit".

You have no clue.

Go back to partying with your friends that earn their living by spreading their legs because you know nothing of the real business world where "how much extra do I have to pay if you swallow" is not on the price list.