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

[KevinWestern]

From a Facebook Post on my newsfeed:

Here is a simple fact: if you want to force someone to violate their religious beliefs by forcing them to provide a service to your gay wedding ceremony--that their religion considers a sin--you are not a civil rights activist, you are a mini-tyrant. Here is another fact: one can sincerely love people while disagreeing with some of their actions. We need to get over the idea that disagreement is hate and that your freedom to get married is your invitation to erase the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion.

How about we agree on this. I think it’s reasonable that if a cake maker doesn’t want to participate in a gay wedding based on religious beliefs he should have the right to say no. That’s fine.

However, if that right is reinforced through new legislation (like in AZ), I think it also should be paired with an “arbitrary discrimination ban” that would prevent someone like a restaurant owner from refusing gays a sandwich simply because he “doesn’t like gays”.

I think that’s fair – you?

 

[Howey]

there is no chance that the nfl will punish anyone whether they pass the legislation or not. The nfl learned years and years ago that they are in the entertainment business - not the sports business - just like the wwe.

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

you mean like when the nfl punished arizona over the mlk holiday in the 90's? The nfl will pull the super bowl in a heartbeat if this somehow passes.

do you honestly think the nfl will spend billions of dollars to move next years super bowl ?

absofuckinlutely!

 

[protectionist]

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!

Doesn't matter if we're talking about employment or selling to customers. In many cases, sellers have good reasons for discriminating. If a bar allows queers to hang out in its bar, it becomes known as a "Gay bar", and then normal people avoid going there. The position is not weak at all. As for extremes, the examples are no more extreme than the practice of homosexuality, which is very extreme. Your post is where the "weakness" resides.

Also, HA HA, you just agreed with me. In case you didn't know your word "VETTING" is synonomous with DISCRIMINATION. It is choosing who to accept and who to not accept. SO now why don't you go ahead and answer the questions ? ( 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 ?)

 

[protectionist]

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.

Now you can hear the LOUDER slap he just got in the previous post > Post # 1743.

 

[Katzndogz]

From a Facebook Post on my newsfeed:

Here is a simple fact: if you want to force someone to violate their religious beliefs by forcing them to provide a service to your gay wedding ceremony--that their religion considers a sin--you are not a civil rights activist, you are a mini-tyrant. Here is another fact: one can sincerely love people while disagreeing with some of their actions. We need to get over the idea that disagreement is hate and that your freedom to get married is your invitation to erase the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion.

How about we agree on this. I think it’s reasonable that if a cake maker doesn’t want to participate in a gay wedding based on religious beliefs he should have the right to say no. That’s fine.

However, if that right is reinforced through new legislation (like in AZ), I think it also should be paired with an “arbitrary discrimination ban” that would prevent someone like a restaurant owner from refusing gays a sandwich simply because he “doesn’t like gays”.

I think that’s fair – you?

That's the law! It's the same thing.

 

[Derideo_Te]

What’s interesting and telling about this issue is that there are Arizona business owners who oppose the measure, as well as at least two Arizona state republican lawmakers and the 2008 GOP presidential nominee.

What's so interesting ? In Arizona or anywhere else, business owners generally have one primary objective > optimizing PROFITS, and everything gets funneled into that. Including , unfortunately, right and wrong.

Optimizing profits means avoiding controversy. The NFL has no interest in being perceived as anti gay therefore they will relocate the Superbowl elsewhere.

 

[Katzndogz]

The NFL is moving quite quickly to being pro pansy. Not merely "gay".

 

[Mertex]

Being a smart ass is a natural talent.

That's probably all there is....

Tell me something, what do you think I got wrong in that post? It will cost billions for the NFL to move next years Super Bowl. There is a reason they pick the venue 5 years out, after all. The host city has to put together a proposal, come up with the tax incentives, have a convention center as well as a stadium big enough for the Super Bowl, be able to fork over a few hundred million for the extra security, have the infrastructure to support all the media that will show up, and have enough hotel space for the teams and all the super rich people that make the Super Bowl one of their yearly parties. On top of that, it actually will require 24 of the 32 team owners to approve the move. In other words, it will only take 9 people to nix it.

It doesn't matter....the NFL is prepared to go elsewhere, and any city would jump at the opportunity to host it, don't know where you are getting all that "hoopla" - they wouldn't do that if they are just relocating it.

I think Brewer has already seen the sign on the wall......the dollar $$$$ sign that is, and she will definitely veto it.....otherwise Ariz is going to turn itself into a giant ghost town.



Even as momentum continues to build against Arizona's controversial bill that would allow businesses to deny service to gay couples on religious grounds, the NFL on Wednesday morning began investigating the necessary steps to move next season's Super Bowl from the Phoenix area, if the proposal becomes law, a source close to the situation confirmed.
The Tampa Bay area finished as the runner-up and was the only other finalist in the bidding for Super Bowl XLIX, which was awarded to Arizona in October 2011, and would in all likelihood be the NFL's first option for relocating the game at this relatively late date.

Super Bowl XLIX relocation: NFL begins exploring options - NFL - Don Banks - SI.com

 

[protectionist]

What’s interesting and telling about this issue is that there are Arizona business owners who oppose the measure, as well as at least two Arizona state republican lawmakers and the 2008 GOP presidential nominee.

What's so interesting ? In Arizona or anywhere else, business owners generally have one primary objective > optimizing PROFITS, and everything gets funneled into that. Including , unfortunately, right and wrong.

Optimizing profits means avoiding controversy. The NFL has no interest in being perceived as anti gay therefore they will relocate the Superbowl elsewhere.

The NFL no interest in being perceived as anti gay ? Why not ? Sounds like a perfectly reasonable thing to me.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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!

Doesn't matter if we're talking about employment or selling to customers. In many cases, sellers have good reasons for discriminating. If a bar allows queers to hang out in its bar, it becomes known as a "Gay bar", and then normal people avoid going there. The position is not weak at all. As for extremes, the examples are no more extreme than the practice of homosexuality, which is very extreme. Your post is where the "weakness" resides.

Plenty of thriving gay bars are doing just fine. Bartenders don't care as long as they get paid. Gays aren't known to be lushes who run up tabs and don't pay them. Gay bars are usually respectable up market places.

That flushing sound you hear is your position heading for the sewer.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What’s interesting and telling about this issue is that there are Arizona business owners who oppose the measure, as well as at least two Arizona state republican lawmakers and the 2008 GOP presidential nominee.

It gives the temporary delusion that Republicans are championing the free market, then I get over it.

 

[Katzndogz]

It is true that once gays start congregating in a bar it becomes known as a gay bar and normals quit going. But, no one much cares. The bar still thrives, it makes money from gay clientele just as it did from normal clientele. The normals go off to some other bar and make one that might have failed, successful.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Do you honestly think the NFL will spend billions of dollars to move next years Super Bowl just because you are a nutbag? You do realize that it would take a vote of all the owners, and quite a few of them hate you as it is, don't you?

Yep, the NFL is fully capable of doing that in a heartbeat.

Feel free to explain why I should believe that you can get an organization that has a team named the Redskins to care enough about public opinion to throw away billions of dollars simply to assuage public opinion.

 

[KevinWestern]

That's the law! It's the same thing.

No, I don't think so. This law is meant to protect people from being forced to participate in things they don't agree with - like a gay wedding - however I want to make sure it's not used to arbitrarily discriminate gays in situations when they're serving drinks, or selling clothes, etc.

If the business can't legally justify in court that selling a sandwich to a gay person is violating their right to freely practice their religion (which selling a sandwich shouldn't be), then the customer - if he/she wants - should have the right to sue.

That's my opinion. Look up "arbitrary discrimination". In states like California businesses can't refuse to sell to people who "have a dark birthmark" - for example - because there's no rational basis for the refusal.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

From a Facebook Post on my newsfeed:

Here is a simple fact: if you want to force someone to violate their religious beliefs by forcing them to provide a service to your gay wedding ceremony--that their religion considers a sin--you are not a civil rights activist, you are a mini-tyrant. Here is another fact: one can sincerely love people while disagreeing with some of their actions. We need to get over the idea that disagreement is hate and that your freedom to get married is your invitation to erase the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion.

How about we agree on this. I think it’s reasonable that if a cake maker doesn’t want to participate in a gay wedding based on religious beliefs he should have the right to say no. That’s fine.

However, if that right is reinforced through new legislation (like in AZ), I think it also should be paired with an “arbitrary discrimination ban” that would prevent someone like a restaurant owner from refusing gays a sandwich simply because he “doesn’t like gays”.

I think that’s fair – you?

How about this: Discuss the issues here based on reality, the bill does not do what everyone, including you, says it does.
Once you do that, we can actually discuss whatever you think the ******* problem here is.

 

[Uncensored2008]

How about we agree on this. I think it’s reasonable that if a cake maker doesn’t want to participate in a gay wedding based on religious beliefs he should have the right to say no. That’s fine.

However, if that right is reinforced through new legislation (like in AZ), I think it also should be paired with an “arbitrary discrimination ban” that would prevent someone like a restaurant owner from refusing gays a sandwich simply because he “doesn’t like gays”.

I think that’s fair – you?

That is already covered under "critical services provisions." You cannot deny service to anyone that endangers their life or physical welfare, for any reason, including ability to pay.

However, a lesbian couple will not die if a Christian refuses to bake a cake celebrating their relationship.

 

[KevinWestern]

What's so interesting ? In Arizona or anywhere else, business owners generally have one primary objective > optimizing PROFITS, and everything gets funneled into that. Including , unfortunately, right and wrong.

Optimizing profits means avoiding controversy. The NFL has no interest in being perceived as anti gay therefore they will relocate the Superbowl elsewhere.

The NFL no interest in being perceived as anti gay ? Why not ? Sounds like a perfectly reasonable thing to me.

The polls consistently show that the majority of Americans approve of gay marriage. And that's gay marriage; a much greater percentage are at least tolerant of the gay lifestyle, in general, and do not welcome discrimination.

It's most certainly in the NFL's best interest not to be perceived as anti-gay. Any person with at least one braincell can see where the trend is going (and will be in 10-15 years).

 

[KevinWestern]

How about we agree on this. I think it’s reasonable that if a cake maker doesn’t want to participate in a gay wedding based on religious beliefs he should have the right to say no. That’s fine.

However, if that right is reinforced through new legislation (like in AZ), I think it also should be paired with an “arbitrary discrimination ban” that would prevent someone like a restaurant owner from refusing gays a sandwich simply because he “doesn’t like gays”.

I think that’s fair – you?

That is already covered under "critical services provisions." You cannot deny service to anyone that endangers their life or physical welfare, for any reason, including ability to pay.

However, a lesbian couple will not die if a Christian refuses to bake a cake celebrating their relationship.

I get the cake one - I said that. It's actively participating in something that is against someone's religion.

But refusal to serve a gay a sandwich is arbitrary discrimination. There's no religious violation, and the discrimination is simply because the business owner doesn't like a certain type of person or lifestyle. Refusal to serve a courteous black guy who has money to pay for food a sandwich is arbitrary discrimination.

Again, this is my opinion that these two laws should be passed in unison so we don't end up with a situation where entire towns won't serve the one kid who's rumored to be gay, and be legally protected to do so.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's the law! It's the same thing.

No, I don't think so. This law is meant to protect people from being forced to participate in things they don't agree with - like a gay wedding - however I want to make sure it's not used to arbitrarily discriminate gays in situations when they're serving drinks, or selling clothes, etc.

If the business can't legally justify in court that selling a sandwich to a gay person is violating their right to freely practice their religion (which selling a sandwich shouldn't be), then the customer - if he/she wants - should have the right to sue.

That's my opinion. Look up "arbitrary discrimination". In states like California businesses can't refuse to sell to people who "have a dark birthmark" - for example - because there's no rational basis for the refusal.

Then tell me something, oh purveyor of ignorance, why hasn't there been a single successful defense of the right to discriminate based on religious beliefs under the federal RFRA, which actually grants you more freedom to claim religious exemptions than the Arizona bill? If this bill is the ultimate way to discriminate, why does it restrict your basis for refusing service to actual texts?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Optimizing profits means avoiding controversy. The NFL has no interest in being perceived as anti gay therefore they will relocate the Superbowl elsewhere.

The NFL no interest in being perceived as anti gay ? Why not ? Sounds like a perfectly reasonable thing to me.

The polls consistently show that the majority of Americans approve of gay marriage. And that's gay marriage; a much greater percentage are at least tolerant of the gay lifestyle, in general, and do not welcome discrimination.

It's most certainly in the NFL's best interest not to be perceived as anti-gay. Any person with at least one braincell can see where the trend is going (and will be in 10-15 years).

Is that what the polls show, or is that what the reporters tell you the polls show?