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

[Howey]

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.

lol...I suspect that if you went into some gay bars with shows on a Friday or Saturday night you'd see a hell of a lot more breeders there than you'd suspect.

Any other day of the week you'd see your best friend or an acquaintance hovering discreetly in the corner checking out the dudes. Go say hi. You might get what you want.

 

[KevinWestern]

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.

You can use normal font.

Also, are you saying that the bill won't protect an owner who doesn't want to serve a sandwich to a gay because that action isn't "substantially burdening" the business owner's exercise of religion? Maybe that's the case. But you certainly can't prove that's the case..

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

I am a Libertarian.

I believe in liberty.

The ONLY legitimate transaction is the voluntary sale of goods or services to a voluntary buyer at a price that both agree upon.

ANY other transaction is immoral.

You seek to use the implied violence of the state to force people to work for people they object to. That is slavery, no matter how you frost it.

I oppose slavery.

 

[Mertex]

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.

Why not? Only someone devoid of "free market strategy" would ask such an inane question.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Guess what, you can already do that in Arizona. In fact, you can already do that in most states. Maybe you should try something rarely do, go read the actual bill and compare it to various RFRAs. The federal one is actually imposes fewer restrictions on an individual for claiming a religious exemption to a law, yet no one has ever successfully used it to refuse service to a gay person, even though it is perfectly legal under federal law to refuse servce to a gay person.

Then again, that might make you into something you have shown no sign of being yet, someone who actually studies an issue, gets the facts, and forms a reasoned opinion using the critical thinking skills that are no longer taught in schools. You prefer to come in, take a position, get trashed for your ignorance, and only then will you learn.

 

[KevinWestern]

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?

The young generation is much more tolerant of gay people than my generation. My generation is much more tolerant of gay people than my parent's. My parent's generation is much more tolerant of gays than their parent's generation, so on and so forth.

Do you believe this to be untrue?

Would a gay be more likely to be accepted in a random area of the country in 1950 or 2014?

I said the trend is heading in the direction of tolerance of the gay lifestyle, and you'd be a lying moron to deny that.

 

[KevinWestern]

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.

I am a Libertarian.

I believe in liberty.

The ONLY legitimate transaction is the voluntary sale of goods or services to a voluntary buyer at a price that both agree upon.

ANY other transaction is immoral.

You seek to use the implied violence of the state to force people to work for people they object to. That is slavery, no matter how you frost it.

I oppose slavery.

Dude you can save the lecture. I've stated numerous times that I think a cake owner should have the right to say no.

But I'm OK with things like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which says a business can't turn down a black customer because he/she is black) and I'm OK with adding "sexual preference" to that list (ie age, sex, race, religion). That is all.

 

[protectionist]

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

I live in Tampa and have been here for 25 years. If you think Arizona is anti-gay, you haven't seen anything yet, until you see the fierce anti-queer opposition in this former Confederate area, which still flies the largest Confederate flag in America, over it's most major US interstate junction (I-75 & I-4)

http://www.mybaycity.com/images/2012/admin-0002445.jpg

MyBayCity.com FLORIDA: Confederate Flag Still Flies Here, Folks; What Does That Mean?

Huge Confederate flag in Tampa replaced | wtsp.com

 

[Mertex]

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.

You can use normal font.

Also, are you saying that the bill won't protect an owner who doesn't want to serve a sandwich to a gay because that action isn't "substantially burdening" the business owner's exercise of religion? Maybe that's the case. But you certainly can't prove that's the case..

No he can't......people who shout the same thing over and over are not getting it.....and they think if they shout it, you will see it in the erroneous, quirky, and twisted way they do.....same thing with over-sized fonts.....

 

[Uncensored2008]

Dude you can save the lecture. I've stated numerous times that I think a cake owner should have the right to say no.

But I'm OK with things like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which says a business can't turn down a black customer because he/she is black) and I'm OK with adding "sexual preference" to that list (ie age, sex, race, religion). That is all.

I understand.

You support slavery - I do not.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You can use normal font.

Also, are you saying that the bill won't protect an owner who doesn't want to serve a sandwich to a gay because that action isn't "substantially burdening" the business owner's exercise of religion? Maybe that's the case. But you certainly can't prove that's the case..

I am far from the only one that has been saying that. Every single person that has actually read the bill and compared it to existing laws has said the exact same thing. That crowd actually includes some people who do not want the bill passed, and that think the government should be able to force bakers to bake wedding cakes for same sex marriages.

Try reading it in the context of the Religious Freedom Restoration Ac, you might discover that the bill will actually make it harder for an individual to claim that his religion prohibits him from participating in a marraige ceremony than current Arizona law. The latter is part of the reason some Christians, and Muslims, I am aware of are against it.

You really should learn that news stories are not about facts, they are about ratings and/or page views.

 

[KevinWestern]

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.

Guess what, you can already do that in Arizona. In fact, you can already do that in most states. Maybe you should try something rarely do, go read the actual bill and compare it to various RFRAs. The federal one is actually imposes fewer restrictions on an individual for claiming a religious exemption to a law, yet no one has ever successfully used it to refuse service to a gay person, even though it is perfectly legal under federal law to refuse servce to a gay person.

Then again, that might make you into something you have shown no sign of being yet, someone who actually studies an issue, gets the facts, and forms a reasoned opinion using the critical thinking skills that are no longer taught in schools. You prefer to come in, take a position, get trashed for your ignorance, and only then will you learn.

Wow, getting very heated here Quantam. Cool it, lol. No need to be a dick we're just people talking here (ie "purveyor of ignorance" is an aggressive dialog..).

Let me get to what my main stance is. I would like sexual preference to be included in the Federal law that protects discrimination based on color, sex, age, or race.

That's it.

My opinion.

.

 

[KevinWestern]

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.

You can use normal font.

Also, are you saying that the bill won't protect an owner who doesn't want to serve a sandwich to a gay because that action isn't "substantially burdening" the business owner's exercise of religion? Maybe that's the case. But you certainly can't prove that's the case..

I am far from the only one that has been saying that. Every single person that has actually read the bill and compared it to existing laws has said the exact same thing. That crowd actually includes some people who do not want the bill passed, and that think the government should be able to force bakers to bake wedding cakes for same sex marriages.

Try reading it in the context of the Religious Freedom Restoration Ac, you might discover that the bill will actually make it harder for an individual to claim that his religion prohibits him from participating in a marraige ceremony than current Arizona law. The latter is part of the reason some Christians, and Muslims, I am aware of are against it.

You really should learn that news stories are not about facts, they are about ratings and/or page views.

Then why didn't you just come straight out and say your point after replying originally to my post? Why did you have to type about a total of 1,000 words to get here?

Just speak clearly and concisely - make your point, without red fonts and gimmicks, without the insults - and maybe we could have arrived at some sort of agreement more quickly.

man...

 

[protectionist]

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.

Why not? Only someone devoid of "free market strategy" would ask such an inane question.

It's not an inane question. So if you think you have a good answer, let's hear it ? (perferably with substantial links to base it on)

 

[Mertex]

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.

Because having a team named Redskins hasn't kept them from making money......hosting the NFL in a town that discriminates and most likely will experience boycuts, cuts down on their money-making.....it's a big deal and some in Arizona are finally seeing the light....I think Brewer is, if not, she may be dumber than she appears.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

The young generation is much more tolerant of gay people than my generation. My generation is much more tolerant of gay people than my parent's. My parent's generation is much more tolerant of gays than their parent's generation, so on and so forth.

Do you believe this to be untrue?

Would a gay be more likely to be accepted in a random area of the country in 1950 or 2014?

I said the trend is heading in the direction of tolerance of the gay lifestyle, and you'd be a lying moron to deny that.

That didn't answer my question.

The last time I looked at the polls I saw that they showed strong support for an avenue for same sex couples to get the legal benefits of marraige. That, believe it or not, is not the same thing as a strong support of marriage, and even younger respondents were unwilling to demand that the state define all unions as marriage.

Funny thing happened though, polls stopped asking about splitting hairs between marraige and the benefits, and simply worded the questions toward the legal benefits of marriage. That is when I stopped paying attention to them as I saw they were pushing an agenda. It would be nice to see what the actual numbers are, but I doubt there has been a paradigm shift in less than a year.

 

[protectionist]

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.

Guess what, you can already do that in Arizona. In fact, you can already do that in most states. Maybe you should try something rarely do, go read the actual bill and compare it to various RFRAs. The federal one is actually imposes fewer restrictions on an individual for claiming a religious exemption to a law, yet no one has ever successfully used it to refuse service to a gay person, even though it is perfectly legal under federal law to refuse servce to a gay person.

Then again, that might make you into something you have shown no sign of being yet, someone who actually studies an issue, gets the facts, and forms a reasoned opinion using the critical thinking skills that are no longer taught in schools. You prefer to come in, take a position, get trashed for your ignorance, and only then will you learn.

Wow, getting very heated here Quantam. Cool it, lol. No need to be a dick we're just people talking here (ie "purveyor of ignorance" is an aggressive dialog..).

Let me get to what my main stance is. I would like sexual preference to be included in the Federal law that protects discrimination based on color, sex, age, or race. That's it. My opinion.

I would like exactly the opposite. Homosexuality should be outlawed in various venues, starting with teaching, and anything dealing with children. Contact sports (ex, football) too, as well as public displays of homosexuality (2 guys kissing, etc)

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You can use normal font.

Also, are you saying that the bill won't protect an owner who doesn't want to serve a sandwich to a gay because that action isn't "substantially burdening" the business owner's exercise of religion? Maybe that's the case. But you certainly can't prove that's the case..

No he can't......people who shout the same thing over and over are not getting it.....and they think if they shout it, you will see it in the erroneous, quirky, and twisted way they do.....same thing with over-sized fonts.....

Sometimes you have to shout to be heard over the whinging bitches who can't tell the difference between freedom and tyranny.

 

[protectionist]

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.

Because having a team named Redskins hasn't kept them from making money......hosting the NFL in a town that discriminates and most likely will experience boycuts, cuts down on their money-making.....it's a big deal and some in Arizona are finally seeing the light....I think Brewer is, if not, she may be dumber than she appears.

I'm not convinced the money-making is threatened to any significant degree. I hear a lot of people saying it. Not many presenting evidence.

 

[Mertex]

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

Why not? Only someone devoid of "free market strategy" would ask such an inane question.

It's not an inane question. So if you think you have a good answer, let's hear it ? (perferably with substantial links to base it on)

Don't you read the newspapers or listen to the news? It's inane because companies can see their businesses will be impacted.....do you think that they are doing it because they care about the LGBT community? No, they care about the $$$$.

For someone to be a conservative and go against the free market is rather inane.....you can't be for free market and keep supporting stupid things that tear it down.

Apple, Delta, Petsmart Join Fight Against Arizona's Anti-Gay Bill


Arizona tech firms fight anti-gay bill and a future in a pariah state - Network World