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

[kucing]

I can not listen to any comments

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

My brain needs an America that thinks clearly, so I'm screwed.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Tell you what: when you can show me anything in the Constitution that says I have to justify my beliefs to you before I can exercise them, then I'll get right on that. Until then, you should stick to minding your own business, and I'll call this for what it is: You being nosy and judgemental.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

That may work but there are very old and valid reasons why we don't allow that anymore. No Irish is just as unworkable for us now as No Gays. You'll just have to follow society and move past it. That dog won't hunt.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

Interesting concept and on a very small scale in a like minded segment of society it will probably work.

But as soon as you try franchising your operation on a state or a national level you will discover the same thing that AZ is encountering. The appetite for tolerating discrimination is very limited. Chick-Fil-A learned that lesson the hard way.

Furthermore legislating discrimination raises red flags. So now AZ is facing boycotts and very real fiscal penalties for attempting to implement a discriminatory law.

PS I was using you in the generic sense rather than indicating that I meant you personally.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

They shouldn't flatter themselves. Hating them would require that I first muster enough interest to even care about them. As long as they're doing me the courtesy of not making out in public or some equally vulgar display - which I object to every bit as much from heterosexuals, just for the record - I'm quite likely to forget they even exist for days and weeks at a time.

 

[Jarhead]

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.

That may work but there are very old and valid reasons why we don't allow that anymore. No Irish is just as unworkable for us now as No Gays. You'll just have to follow society and move past it. That dog won't hunt.

Just an FYI...I am with you on this one. Just gave you an example of why the business model would work if, in fact, it were deemed legal.

By the way.....no disrespect when I say this...

But a quick glance at your screen name and I see the word pantyhose.

Likely my problem. I can be a bit perverted at times......but none- the less, I see the word pantyhose.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

Tell you what: when you can show me anything in the Constitution that says I have to justify my beliefs to you before I can exercise them, then I'll get right on that. Until then, you should stick to minding your own business, and I'll call this for what it is: You being nosy and judgemental.

You can believe that Blue Teapots dance on the Moon but if They Told Me So is your excuse for doing 100 in a school zone you'd be one hell of a lawyer, or bring a dancing blue teapot from the moon with you to court. Just because you call it religion doesn't mean you can get away with whatever you damn well please.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

That may work but there are very old and valid reasons why we don't allow that anymore. No Irish is just as unworkable for us now as No Gays. You'll just have to follow society and move past it. That dog won't hunt.

Just an FYI...I am with you on this one. Just gave you an example of why the business model would work if, in fact, it were deemed legal.

By the way.....no disrespect when I say this...

But a quick glance at your screen name and I see the word pantyhose.

Likely my problem. I can be a bit perverted at times......but none- the less, I see the word pantyhose.

It's already been used, several times.

 

[Uncensored2008]

My brain needs an America that thinks clearly, so I'm screwed.

You can move to North Korea and enjoy the nation you seek to turn this one into.

Better yet, you can crawl back to ThinkProgress and stop trolling this board...

 

[Derideo_Te]

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?

"Professional Escorts" are illegal under the current laws. That is wrong and should be made legal just as marijuana should be legalized.

But your example falls apart because no one is going to sue a "professional escort" for discrimination because that is tantamount to admitting to breaking the law.

 

[Jarhead]

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.

Interesting concept and on a very small scale in a like minded segment of society it will probably work.

But as soon as you try franchising your operation on a state or a national level you will discover the same thing that AZ is encountering. The appetite for tolerating discrimination is very limited. Chick-Fil-A learned that lesson the hard way.

Furthermore legislating discrimination raises red flags. So now AZ is facing boycotts and very real fiscal penalties for attempting to implement a discriminatory law.

PS I was using you in the generic sense rather than indicating that I meant you personally.

Yes, I realize you were. I am most certainly disheartened that this bill made it to the governors desk.

The reason why I even mentioned it was because another poster said it is a poor business practice to discriminate and will result in a failed business....and I learned as an Economics major (years ago) that such a business model was actually quite successful for centuries.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

My brain needs an America that thinks clearly, so I'm screwed.

You can move to North Korea and enjoy the nation you seek to turn this one into.

Better yet, you can crawl back to ThinkProgress and stop trolling this board...

Sweden is what I want, you want the Vatican it seems, or Chaos more likely, and take your "Informal board enforcer" attitude and shove it. If you can't stand the heat and debate honestly, take your advice and beat it. Most right-wing Propaganda sites would be happy to have you. They are full of nitwits like you think they own the moral high ground but can't debate honestly or their ideology fails in seconds.

 

[whitehall]

You almost gotta laugh at the hypocrisy on the left. The left is adamant that no offensive religious orientated medallions or clothing or politically offensive T's that depict the NRA or can be worn in schools because they might offend agnostics and athiests but they encourage boys to use the girls locker room and bathroom if they feel "insecure" about their sexuality. The left wants normal people and even deeply religious people to be tolerant of hairy men in dresses and overt sodomites who disrupt service in small business establishments.

 

[dblack]

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.

You don't??

If anyone has "muddled thinking" it is those who are misusing terms like "forcing" and "associate".

My point exactly.

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

So? Financial association "doesn't count"??

 

[kaz]

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.

And where you take what you feel is fairness is the legislature. The Constitution doesn't give the Supreme Court the power to make life fair, and it doesn't let you off the hook to take your view of fairness to elected officials instead of self appointed dictators.

I personally don't care either way about gay government marriage. I oppose all government marriage. Gay marriage specifically doesn't really matter to me. The Supreme Court legislating does matter to me.

I could care less what is fair or not. Fair has nothing to do with but I do agree it is a state's issue but the Supreme Court has ruled how many times against states denying equal access under the law striking down anti gay marriage statutes?

Interestingly my addressing that point was embedded in your quote.

The 14th amendment says the law cannot be applied differently to different people. It isn't a formula, and it doesn't say if it tugs on your heartstrings or your sense of fairness the Supreme Court can go ahead and legislate.

Gays can marry exactly the same people straights can. No more, no less. Therefore, it passes constitutional muster. Fairness and heart strings need to be taken to the legislature. If straights could marry people of the same sex or gays could not enter man/woman government marriages then you'd have an argument. However, neither is the case, gays can marry exactly the same people straights can. And no one can provide an example of the 14th being applied to a formula. Well that isn't who they WANT to marry. Fair view, take it to the legislature where it belongs.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Sweden is what I want,

Go for it.

Oh wait, they have closed borders. They aren't stupid enough to allow hoards of foreigners with competing cultures to corrupt their system.

you want the Vatican it seems,

Or at least that's what the hating points that ThinkProgress gave you as a script tells you to say,,,

or Chaos more likely, and take your "Informal board enforcer" attitude and shove it. If you can't stand the heat and debate honestly, take your advice and beat it. Townhall.com would be happy to have you. It's full of nitwits like you think they own the moral high ground but can't debate honestly or their ideology fails in seconds.

You're a troll. You are a leftist fuckwad from the hate sites, seeking to disrupt this board.

I'm sure you'll claim to be an "Eisenhower Republican" at any moment....

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You almost gotta laugh at the hypocrisy on the left. The left is adamant that no offensive religious orientated medallions or clothing or politically offensive T's that depict the NRA or can be worn in schools because they might offend agnostics and athiests but they encourage boys to use the girls locker room and bathroom if they feel "insecure" about their sexuality. The left wants normal people and even deeply religious people to be tolerant of hairy men in dresses and overt sodomites who disrupt service in small business establishments.

That laugh is that's what you think reality is. We've got school girls more rational than that.

 

[kaz]

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.

That may work but there are very old and valid reasons why we don't allow that anymore. No Irish is just as unworkable for us now as No Gays. You'll just have to follow society and move past it. That dog won't hunt.

Just an FYI...I am with you on this one. Just gave you an example of why the business model would work if, in fact, it were deemed legal.

By the way.....no disrespect when I say this...

But a quick glance at your screen name and I see the word pantyhose.

Likely my problem. I can be a bit perverted at times......but none- the less, I see the word pantyhose.

Your mind is in the gutter! In other words, sounds like you're a perfectly normal guy...

BTW, now I see "pantyhose" too.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You almost gotta laugh at the hypocrisy on the left. The left is adamant that no offensive religious orientated medallions or clothing or politically offensive T's that depict the NRA or can be worn in schools because they might offend agnostics and athiests but they encourage boys to use the girls locker room and bathroom if they feel "insecure" about their sexuality. The left wants normal people and even deeply religious people to be tolerant of hairy men in dresses and overt sodomites who disrupt service in small business establishments.

Because it's not about a rational and just society. The culture war is a very real war with an aim to destroy the constitutional Republic and establish a totalitarian socialist state.