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

[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.

2. "Exercise of religion" means the PRACTICE OR OBSERVANCE OF RELIGION, INCLUDING THE ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially
motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or
central to a larger system of religious belief.​

NOTE: Capitalization in the original bolding mine.

From the law, it is the individuals personal personal religious beliefs, the law does not require and specifically excludes the requirement that it be part of a higher order religious doctrine.



>>>>

Thanks.

 

[Derideo_Te]

What if she just wants the freedom to live by them? As long as she's not harming anyone else, why can't you just mind your own business, and stay out of hers?

When "her business" discriminates against someone it is the same thing as discriminating against me. If we don't defend our rights no one else will. When she decides to discriminate she is harming your rights, my rights and everyone else's rights for that matter.

Let's talk about that. Which rights are we talking about? The idea that we have a 'right to not be discriminated against' seems really bizarre to me. Does that mean everyone who doesn't like me and doesn't treat me the same as all their friends is violating my rights???

The 14th Amendment, Section 1 reads as follows;

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The concept of "equal protection of the laws" means that your rights are exactly the same as mine under the law. If you run a motel you cannot discriminate against who you will rent a room out to because the law forbids discrimination. The recent Windsor decision has effectively extended that protection against discrimination to gays too. The AZ law is an attempt to violate the 14th amendment by allowing people to discriminate.

Just as a clarification, this applies to everything that falls under the jurisdiction of the various government agencies. It does not apply to your next door neighbor or your brother in law. They can snub you publicly and there is nothing you can do about it. But if they own a business and you walk in the door as a customer they are violating the law if they refuse to serve you because that business is regulated and the public accommodations act prohibits them from discriminating.

Does that clear this up?

 

[Derideo_Te]

In what 'sense' do you think I'm using it? Why do you believe it doesn't count? Do we lose all protected rights when engaging in financial association? Or just some? Which ones? Who decides? Let me guess... 'We the People'?

So now you are admitting that you are ignorant of the public accommodation laws that fall under the commerce clause of the Constitution?

Not at all. I'm saying they're based on a bad idea. They violate the fundamental concepts of equal protection, freedom of association and freedom of conscience.

Then the onus is on you to prove that they do exactly that and so far no one has successfully made that case.

 

[Silhouette]

What you have done is hijack the thread in order to attack Christians. If you have a desire to learn what Christianity is about, there are many resources. Try the religion forum on this board. There are a lot of Christians there who will help you.

Now, if you want to talk about the Arizona law, this is the thread to do that in.

Nice pretzel talk! Defending the Bible and its teachings is now, according to "Uncensored"'s smooth and flexible tongue "attacking christians".

Well played! "A" for effort on the material plane. "F" for failure and an expedited trip to the Pit of Fire on the spiritual plane. But you have to admire the smooth one and his hosts and their flexibility with speech!

Bravo, bravo!

Yes, I'm sure you want to surgicallly separate the topic of freedom of religion from this thread. Considering the law in Arizona cites religious freedom, it's fair game. Sorry if you don't want to hear what the Bible tells the faithful to do with regard to enabling a cultural takeover by the church of LGBT. But you have to hear it. It's part of the topic.

 

[bendog]

When "her business" discriminates against someone it is the same thing as discriminating against me. If we don't defend our rights no one else will. When she decides to discriminate she is harming your rights, my rights and everyone else's rights for that matter.

Let's talk about that. Which rights are we talking about? The idea that we have a 'right to not be discriminated against' seems really bizarre to me. Does that mean everyone who doesn't like me and doesn't treat me the same as all their friends is violating my rights???

The 14th Amendment, Section 1 reads as follows;

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The concept of "equal protection of the laws" means that your rights are exactly the same as mine under the law. If you run a motel you cannot discriminate against who you will rent a room out to because the law forbids discrimination. The recent Windsor decision has effectively extended that protection against discrimination to gays too. The AZ law is an attempt to violate the 14th amendment by allowing people to discriminate.

Just as a clarification, this applies to everything that falls under the jurisdiction of the various government agencies. It does not apply to your next door neighbor or your brother in law. They can snub you publicly and there is nothing you can do about it. But if they own a business and you walk in the door as a customer they are violating the law if they refuse to serve you because that business is regulated and the public accommodations act prohibits them from discriminating.

Does that clear this up?

I am not aware of Windsor being used to strike down private discrimination. I didn't see anything via google either. But, I don't mind being shown I'm wrong.

 

[bendog]

So now you are admitting that you are ignorant of the public accommodation laws that fall under the commerce clause of the Constitution?

Not at all. I'm saying they're based on a bad idea. They violate the fundamental concepts of equal protection, freedom of association and freedom of conscience.

Then the onus is on you to prove that they do exactly that and so far no one has successfully made that case.

Goldwater. It's impossible to prove federal restraint on private discrimination has not been overall harmful, nor is it possible to "prove" it's been beneficial. It's clear the Goldwater idealism lost out on race and creed in the court of history.

 

[dblack]

So now you are admitting that you are ignorant of the public accommodation laws that fall under the commerce clause of the Constitution?

Not at all. I'm saying they're based on a bad idea. They violate the fundamental concepts of equal protection, freedom of association and freedom of conscience.

Then the onus is on you to prove that they do exactly that and so far no one has successfully made that case.

Heh.. well, I'm not judging 'success' on my ability to persuade you. Public accommodations laws established bad legal precedent, even if there were solving an urgent problem. I think it's worth reconsidering the means used. Dictating how and why people can choose who they do business with is an unnecessary, and potentially very dangerous, intrusion on personal liberty. We can deal with bigotry in society without creating thought crime.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Let's talk about that. Which rights are we talking about? The idea that we have a 'right to not be discriminated against' seems really bizarre to me. Does that mean everyone who doesn't like me and doesn't treat me the same as all their friends is violating my rights???

The 14th Amendment, Section 1 reads as follows;

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The concept of "equal protection of the laws" means that your rights are exactly the same as mine under the law. If you run a motel you cannot discriminate against who you will rent a room out to because the law forbids discrimination. The recent Windsor decision has effectively extended that protection against discrimination to gays too. The AZ law is an attempt to violate the 14th amendment by allowing people to discriminate.

Just as a clarification, this applies to everything that falls under the jurisdiction of the various government agencies. It does not apply to your next door neighbor or your brother in law. They can snub you publicly and there is nothing you can do about it. But if they own a business and you walk in the door as a customer they are violating the law if they refuse to serve you because that business is regulated and the public accommodations act prohibits them from discriminating.

Does that clear this up?

I am not aware of Windsor being used to strike down private discrimination. I didn't see anything via google either. But, I don't mind being shown I'm wrong.

Huh?

That isn't what I intended. Current law forbids discrimination based upon sex, race and creed. The Windsor decision has effectively extended that protection to gays at the federal level.

 

[natstew]

A man walks into a black owned bakery and orders a cake with KKK on top of it?
A White Supremist walks into a black bakery and orders a cake with a Swastika on top of it?

You Lefties sing a different song then!

I'm not a klan supporter or a White Supremist, but I'm not a black muslim or muslim either, and I wouldn't knowingly serve any of them. I wouldn't make a cake for a Queer wedding either.

 

[Silhouette]

...Current law forbids discrimination based upon sex, race and creed. The Windsor decision has effectively extended that protection to gays at the federal level.

Absolutely, completely and utterly FALSE.

Windsor not only Avered that the question and decision of gay marriage was the "unquestioned authority" of the several states, but it also brought up the 14th by citing Loving as a possible exception and then it went on to Conclude as of its Rendering, that "gay marriage is only allowed in some states" "as of the writing of this Opinion".

That is a de facto vote of "NO" as to applicability to extending the 14ths protection to the cult of LGBT.

Way wrong friend. You couldn't have misinterpreted Windsor worse in my opinion. Or are you part of the "lie/fake it till you make it" cabal?

 

[dblack]

When "her business" discriminates against someone it is the same thing as discriminating against me. If we don't defend our rights no one else will. When she decides to discriminate she is harming your rights, my rights and everyone else's rights for that matter.

Let's talk about that. Which rights are we talking about? The idea that we have a 'right to not be discriminated against' seems really bizarre to me. Does that mean everyone who doesn't like me and doesn't treat me the same as all their friends is violating my rights???

The 14th Amendment, Section 1 reads as follows;

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The concept of "equal protection of the laws" means that your rights are exactly the same as mine under the law.

Yep. You should read that a couple more times.

If you run a motel you cannot discriminate against who you will rent a room out to because the law forbids discrimination.

Right. The law forbidding discrimination is the problem. It creates thought crimes, making certain decisions crimes based on the reasoning behind them and nothing else.

The AZ law is an attempt to violate the 14th amendment by allowing people to discriminate.

Agreed. It does the same thing the laws forbidding discrimination do. In both cases, the laws presume to prohibit - not specific actions - but the thoughts and opinions leading to those actions.

... if they own a business and you walk in the door as a customer they are violating the law if they refuse to serve you because that business is regulated and the public accommodations act prohibits them from discriminating.

Does that clear this up?

That's the standard statist interpretation of the 'commerce clause', which I reject.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Not at all. I'm saying they're based on a bad idea. They violate the fundamental concepts of equal protection, freedom of association and freedom of conscience.

Then the onus is on you to prove that they do exactly that and so far no one has successfully made that case.

Heh.. well, I'm not judging 'success' on my ability to persuade you. Public accommodations laws established bad legal precedent, even if there were solving an urgent problem. I think it's worth reconsidering the means used. Dictating how and why people can choose who they do business with is an unnecessary, and potentially very dangerous, intrusion on personal liberty. We can deal with bigotry in society without creating thought crime.

The law doesn't dictate "how and why people can choose who they do business with". It merely stipulates that everyone must be treated equally. If your business only deals with CPA's or plumbers then it is perfectly legitimate to exclude those who don't fall into the specified category. However within that category you cannot discriminate against gay CPA's or gay plumbers merely because they are gay. That is not an intrusion on your "liberty" as a business owner. It is upholding the right of everyone to be treated equally.

As far as "thought crime" is concerned the idiots who are trying to legalize discriminating against gays are guilty of "lack of thought" crime.

 

[dblack]

Then the onus is on you to prove that they do exactly that and so far no one has successfully made that case.

Heh.. well, I'm not judging 'success' on my ability to persuade you. Public accommodations laws established bad legal precedent, even if there were solving an urgent problem. I think it's worth reconsidering the means used. Dictating how and why people can choose who they do business with is an unnecessary, and potentially very dangerous, intrusion on personal liberty. We can deal with bigotry in society without creating thought crime.

The law doesn't dictate "how and why people can choose who they do business with". It merely stipulates that everyone must be treated equally.

It absolutely does not. It merely prohibits certain reasons for treating people unequally.

As far as "thought crime" is concerned the idiots who are trying to legalize discriminating against gays are guilty of "lack of thought" crime.

Exactly. The law presumes to second guess their reasoning. As I said, it tells them how and why they can choose who they do business with.

 

[bendog]

The 14th Amendment, Section 1 reads as follows;

​

The concept of "equal protection of the laws" means that your rights are exactly the same as mine under the law. If you run a motel you cannot discriminate against who you will rent a room out to because the law forbids discrimination. The recent Windsor decision has effectively extended that protection against discrimination to gays too. The AZ law is an attempt to violate the 14th amendment by allowing people to discriminate.

Just as a clarification, this applies to everything that falls under the jurisdiction of the various government agencies. It does not apply to your next door neighbor or your brother in law. They can snub you publicly and there is nothing you can do about it. But if they own a business and you walk in the door as a customer they are violating the law if they refuse to serve you because that business is regulated and the public accommodations act prohibits them from discriminating.

Does that clear this up?

I am not aware of Windsor being used to strike down private discrimination. I didn't see anything via google either. But, I don't mind being shown I'm wrong.

Huh?

That isn't what I intended. Current law forbids discrimination based upon sex, race and creed. The Windsor decision has effectively extended that protection to gays at the federal level.

Windsor found denying the same econ federal benefits of marriage to same sex marriages as were given same sex marriages violated equal protection. If the tax code doesn't treat them equally now, it will in the near future.

I think the equal protection analysis of Windsor is being extended in other court cases to state law econ benefits.

Also, its hard for me to see how the rational in Windsor will not eventually be applied in same sex marriage challenges, i.e. what's the logical reason to see a difference? And just saying that's how it is in the bible won't cut it. Nor will saying it protects marriages or kids, because there's no verified evidence of that.

 

[bendog]

Heh.. well, I'm not judging 'success' on my ability to persuade you. Public accommodations laws established bad legal precedent, even if there were solving an urgent problem. I think it's worth reconsidering the means used. Dictating how and why people can choose who they do business with is an unnecessary, and potentially very dangerous, intrusion on personal liberty. We can deal with bigotry in society without creating thought crime.

The law doesn't dictate "how and why people can choose who they do business with". It merely stipulates that everyone must be treated equally.

It absolutely does not. It merely prohibits certain reasons for treating people unequally. If your business only deals with CPA's or plumbers then it is perfectly legitimate to exclude those who don't fall into the specified category.

As far as "thought crime" is concerned the idiots who are trying to legalize discriminating against gays are guilty of "lack of thought" crime.

Exactly. The law presumes to second guess their reasoning. As I said, it tells them how and why they can choose who they do business with.

Well, here's where I must differ. I don't see any "thought police." Some will say CPA's should be able to only do straights' taxes, and others will say the CPA's must be forced to do anyone's taxes.

the bakers aren't refusing cakes to anyone but gays. It's not the gays goring oxes (-: here. If the bakers didn't want to bake cakes for Nazis or Jews, the issue would not be any different.

Still, I'd agree when you say people have the right to be boors and bigots, so long as they don't impact my economic rights or safety.

And watch out for Rabbi. He thinks he can spill oil upstream from your drinking water. LOL

 

[WorldWatcher]

I will.

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

2. "Exercise of religion" means the PRACTICE OR OBSERVANCE OF RELIGION, INCLUDING THE ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially
motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or
central to a larger system of religious belief.​

NOTE: Capitalization in the original bolding mine.

From the law, it is the individuals personal personal religious beliefs, the law does not require and specifically excludes the requirement that it be part of a higher order religious doctrine.



>>>>

Thanks.

Pleasure to help.


>>>>

 

[dblack]

The law doesn't dictate "how and why people can choose who they do business with". It merely stipulates that everyone must be treated equally.

It absolutely does not. It merely prohibits certain reasons for treating people unequally. If your business only deals with CPA's or plumbers then it is perfectly legitimate to exclude those who don't fall into the specified category.

As far as "thought crime" is concerned the idiots who are trying to legalize discriminating against gays are guilty of "lack of thought" crime.

Exactly. The law presumes to second guess their reasoning. As I said, it tells them how and why they can choose who they do business with.

Well, here's where I must differ. I don't see any "thought police." Some will say CPA's should be able to only do straights' taxes, and others will say the CPA's must be forced to do anyone's taxes.

The [bolded] CPA bit was a fumbled quote on my part. Not part of my intended comment.

the bakers aren't refusing cakes to anyone but gays. It's not the gays goring oxes (-: here. If the bakers didn't want to bake cakes for Nazis or Jews, the issue would not be any different.

I'll bet they refuse to bake cakes for people who can't pay. Probably also some cases of them refusing to do business with people who are verbally abusive, or make ridiculous demands, or because the baker's just in a bad mood. Let's not be coy. Not everyone will get equal treatment. That's a fact. It's the reasons for the unequal treatment that are at issue, and these kinds of laws make certain reasons criminal, and give others a pass. Even if the treatment is the same.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Nice pretzel talk! Defending the Bible and its teachings is now, according to "Uncensored"'s smooth and flexible tongue "attacking christians".

Distorting the most fundamental doctrine of Christianity, that of salvation, substituting instead some bizarre system of Karma, then judging the religion on the distortion you created, is indeed attacking.

Well played! "A" for effort on the material plane. "F" for failure and an expedited trip to the Pit of Fire on the spiritual plane. But you have to admire the smooth one and his hosts and their flexibility with speech!

Bravo, bravo!

Yes, I'm sure you want to surgicallly separate the topic of freedom of religion from this thread. Considering the law in Arizona cites religious freedom, it's fair game. Sorry if you don't want to hear what the Bible tells the faithful to do with regard to enabling a cultural takeover by the church of LGBT. But you have to hear it. It's part of the topic.

Religious freedom is a matter of constitutionality. The idea that a business has the freedom to follow their own faith is the question at hand, irrespective of doctrine. Are Muslims compelled to serve ham sandwiches? Must a Jewish caterer provide treats for the local Nazi celebration of Hitler's birthday?

With freedom, there is no such question, as any business serves those the business chooses to serve. But in our brave new world, the state decides who a business serves, and thus the questions of whose dick the state will step on arises.

Liberty is not only more just, it's also a lot simpler. Commerce between willing buy, and willing seller. What a concept!

 

[Bombur]

Nice pretzel talk! Defending the Bible and its teachings is now, according to "Uncensored"'s smooth and flexible tongue "attacking christians".

Distorting the most fundamental doctrine of Christianity, that of salvation, substituting instead some bizarre system of Karma, then judging the religion on the distortion you created, is indeed attacking.

Well played! "A" for effort on the material plane. "F" for failure and an expedited trip to the Pit of Fire on the spiritual plane. But you have to admire the smooth one and his hosts and their flexibility with speech!

Bravo, bravo!

Yes, I'm sure you want to surgicallly separate the topic of freedom of religion from this thread. Considering the law in Arizona cites religious freedom, it's fair game. Sorry if you don't want to hear what the Bible tells the faithful to do with regard to enabling a cultural takeover by the church of LGBT. But you have to hear it. It's part of the topic.

Religious freedom is a matter of constitutionality. The idea that a business has the freedom to follow their own faith is the question at hand, irrespective of doctrine. Are Muslims compelled to serve ham sandwiches? Must a Jewish caterer provide treats for the local Nazi celebration of Hitler's birthday?

With freedom, there is no such question, as any business serves those the business chooses to serve. But in our brave new world, the state decides who a business serves, and thus the questions of whose dick the state will step on arises.

Liberty is not only more just, it's also a lot simpler. Commerce between willing buy, and willing seller. What a concept!

In a perfect economy I think your idea could work. The problem is that in reality such an approach has lead to discrimination and harm coming to those discriminated against. Markets have been slow and non-responsive in too many cases.

Relying on market economics despite the evidence to the contrary is naïve.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If Brewer signs this law, she will be asking for boycotts and the loss of business in Arizona. It is her choice...

Sounds like a threat. I can't see any normal people cancelling a trip to Arizona because business folks get some rights back. The wackos can stick to their liberal meccas so it's a win win.

Try to get a life outside a message board.

And yes, threats HAVE been issued...by businesses.

Businesses lash out over Arizona's anti-gay bill

NEW YORK (CNNMoney)

Businesses are lashing out over an Arizona bill that would allow retailers to refuse service to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender customers based on the owners' religious convictions.

The Arizona Legislature passed the bill last Thursday, and it is now awaiting Gov. Jan Brewer's signature. While proponents say the legislation was introduced as a way to afford religious freedom to business owners, critics say it opens the door to discrimination.

"When the legislature passes bills like this, it creates a reputation that Arizona is judgmental and unwelcoming," states a letter that more than 80 businesses sent to Gov. Brewer on Monday. "This will haunt our business community for decades to come."

National corporations including American Airlines, AT&T, Delta Airlines (Fortune 500), Intel (Fortune 500), Marriott (Fortune 500), PetSmart (Fortune 500) and Yelp are among those urging Brewer to veto the bill, saying the law would be bad for the state's reputation and bad for business -- repelling tourists, potential employees and current workers who live in the state.

"I can assure you that this proposed legislation is causing tremendous concerns for our employees, particularly those who live and work in Arizona," American Airlines CEO Doug Parker wrote in a letter to Brewer.

Meanwhile, Intel, which has nearly 12,000 employees in Arizona, said the bill directly conflicts with its own non-discrimination policy, which "values and welcomes diversity in the workplace."

Meanwhile, business development groups fear that new companies will no longer want to relocate to the state -- dealing a huge blow to an economy that is only just beginning to recover from the recession.

Barry Broome, president & CEO of the Greater Phoenix Economic Council, said in a letter to Gov. Brewer that four companies that were considering expanding to Arizona have already threatened to cancel their plans unless the bill is vetoed.

Even Apple (Fortune 500), which recently announced plans to build a new glass plant in Mesa, Ariz., and bring 2,000 new jobs to the state, reportedly called on Brewer to veto the bill.

There are also questions about whether next year's Super Bowl would still take place in Arizona if the bill is passed, with the event expected to be a big boon to the economy.

"This legislation has the potential of subjecting the Super Bowl, and major events surrounding it, to the threats of boycotts," Broome's letter states.



Arizona Anti-Gay Law Would Be 'Devastating,' John McCain, Jeff Flake Warn

WASHINGTON -- With signs emerging that Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) may veto the anti-gay bill passed by the state legislature last week, Arizona's two U.S. senators repeated their pleas for her to do so, saying the law would be "devastating."

Sen. Jeff Flake (R) said he had a chance to express his concerns to the governor in person Monday night.

"I encouraged her again to veto it," Flake told several reporters on Capitol Hill Tuesday.

"I don't think it's needed, and ... it would be devastating economically to the state," he said of the bill, SB 1062, which makes it legal for businesses to discriminate against gay people on the grounds of promoting religious freedom.

Flake said the bill's message is "not one that we want to send."

Business leaders have spoken out vehemently against the bill. The Super Bowl Host Committee that's preparing for the 2015 championship, slated to be held in Glendale, Ariz., has also weighed in, advising Brewer to use her veto pen.

"The entire business community is galvanized in a way that I've never seen against this legislation," said McCain. He added that the Super Bowl was only part of the problem.

"That's one of [business leaders'] concerns, but the major concern is frankly tourism and location of businesses in Arizona," he said.

Tell me something, He Who Forever and Ever will Hate Businesses, isan't this proof that the free market actually does what I keep saying it does?