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

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Why?

 

[protectionist]

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?

Can't imagine why they'd bother. I mean, really. It's the Super Bowl. If some dimwit decides to boycott it by not buying a ticket, does anyone REALLY believe there won't be someone else - or ten someone elses - who will say, "Screw gay people, I'm going to the Super Bowl" and buy that ticket instead?

HA HA HA. Thank you. Common sense makes for a healthy thread.

 

[1776]

Ok....some GOP politician in small town USA wins the city mayor election over some Democrap business owner....so the GOP winner wants to rent out the restaurant or hotel or whatever the business owner owns to celebrate the victory in his face.....so would a judge force the losing politician to "cater" to his enemy???

You are violating the rights of that person to rent out your hotel and party his victory over you....see how this works?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Ok....some GOP politician in small town USA wins the city mayor election over some Democrap business owner....so the GOP winner wants to rent out the restaurant or hotel or whatever the business owner owns to celebrate the victory in his face.....so would a judge force the losing politician to "cater" to his enemy???

You are violating the rights of that person to rent out your hotel and party his victory over you....see how this works?

Would depend on the State. Can you list ANY state that has "Political Affiliation" as one of the groups of people listed in their Public Accommodation law?

If you can find such a state (of which I'm pretty sure there is not a single one) - then ya.

If the state does not have "Political Affiliation" as part of it's law - then no.




So is the next question "Can I force a kosher Jewish deli to make me a ham sam'ich?"?


>>>>

 

[1776]

That is one hypothetical....

We can also throw in a hotel owner being forced to host a gun show, gay porn convention, radical Islamic nuts preaching death to the USA, etc.....

See how stupid this is???

If the state can violate the US CONSTITUTION abridging the religious rights of a US citizen forcing them to partake in an event/activity counter to their religious beliefs, then anything goes.

You don't like gun owners...well **** you....you are going to throw them a party in your hotel.

Ok....some GOP politician in small town USA wins the city mayor election over some Democrap business owner....so the GOP winner wants to rent out the restaurant or hotel or whatever the business owner owns to celebrate the victory in his face.....so would a judge force the losing politician to "cater" to his enemy???

You are violating the rights of that person to rent out your hotel and party his victory over you....see how this works?

Would depend on the State. Can you list ANY state that has "Political Affiliation" as one of the groups of people listed in their Public Accommodation law?

If you can find such a state (of which I'm pretty sure there is not a single one) - then ya.

If the state does not have "Political Affiliation" as part of it's law - then no.




So is the next question "Can I force a kosher Jewish deli to make me a ham sam'ich?".


>>>>

 

[1776]

Your rights only go as far to violate my rights.

You don't have the right to force me to participate in an event/activity for you that I oppose.

Are you going to force business owners to have a float in the local gay parade? Are you going to force people to attend gay pride events and cheer you fags on in your underwear?

A business can't deny someone service for being gay, but you can't force a business to take part in an event/activity that supports the gay lifestyle....so once you force the business owner to accept the actions of a gay person, then you violate the rights of the business owner.

 

[1776]

Amendment I (1): Freedom of religion, speech, and the press; rights of assembly and petition
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

[Gadawg73]

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.

I ain't the left.
Life long conservative.

 

[Gadawg73]

As a life long business owner no way I would want this law on the books.
This law is as anti business as they come.
Amazing the ignorance of the religious right when it comes to basic business principles.
This law is terrible. Why else would the Chamber oppose it?
The bill passed the Legislature shows the lack of influence gays have in AZ.
Chamber opposes it because business opposes it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

"Whining Bitches"? Who the **** are you man? I'm clearly here talking with you, absorbing information, learning things with an open mind, and agreeing with many of your points.

I'm sorry everyone can't be an expert on the intricacies of every bill discussed in every thread (despite the fact that you clearly are (or think you are)); that's why we come here - to learn. If you think my viewpoint was mistaken - fine - I'll read what you have to say and if I believe it to be valid I might change my own opinion on the subject.

But one thing I know is when you're an asshole you rarely win anyone over - even if your evidence is solid and irrefutable. You need to learn some more effective communication skills.

.

I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure your name isn't Mertex.

Maybe you should stop taking things personally.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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?

Perhaps. But I am compelled as Cecilie is to ask: Why?

"It has nothing to do with refusing someone a sandwich. It has everything to do with making Arizona a safe place for people to freely live out their faith..."

Douglas Napier, Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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...

Because I have made the point at least 20 times already.

Sorry Quantum, I don't have time to post 40 comments/a day and couldn't review the entire thread before joining in.

.

Which brings me back to my point, doesn't it? You don't have time to get all the facts, and expect other people to treat you like your version of an adult anyway.

 

[Silhouette]

Cancelling those plans to visit Arizona. Too bad. Maybe I'll go to Utah instead... depends of course.

This boycott thing and pressure can work both ways.

 

[Gadawg73]

Bill was just vetoed.
Told you so.

 

[Gadawg73]

For all the heads in the sand fools here that are too stubborn to admit they were wrong:

Governor Brewer stated that "the bill could have unintended and negative consequences".
Uh, yeah, been saying that from the start SAME AS governor of Kansas said as the bills would ALLOW ambulance and other medical personnel to DENY service to gay folks.
WELL DUH
"Senate Bill 1062 has the potential to cause more problems than it purports to solve".
Of course it would. Anyone objective to what the bill SAYS knows that.
Good to see someone is not a stubborn fool with their head in the sand.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

For all the heads in the sand fools here that are too stubborn to admit they were wrong:

Governor Brewer stated that "the bill could have unintended and negative consequences".
Uh, yeah, been saying that from the start SAME AS governor of Kansas said as the bills would ALLOW ambulance and other medical personnel to DENY service to gay folks.
WELL DUH
"Senate Bill 1062 has the potential to cause more problems than it purports to solve".
Of course it would. Anyone objective to what the bill SAYS knows that.
Good to see someone is not a stubborn fool with their head in the sand.

A politician lied? Tell me it ain't so.

 

[Gadawg73]

For all the heads in the sand fools here that are too stubborn to admit they were wrong:

Governor Brewer stated that "the bill could have unintended and negative consequences".
Uh, yeah, been saying that from the start SAME AS governor of Kansas said as the bills would ALLOW ambulance and other medical personnel to DENY service to gay folks.
WELL DUH
"Senate Bill 1062 has the potential to cause more problems than it purports to solve".
Of course it would. Anyone objective to what the bill SAYS knows that.
Good to see someone is not a stubborn fool with their head in the sand.

A politician lied? Tell me it ain't so.

Yes, the politicians that passed Senate Bill 1062 are a bunch of liars.
Good point.
4 of them publicly changed their minds after the bill passed and stated they were manipulated with false information from "religious" organizations and other members that lobbied for the bill.
They were all Republicans.
As a conservative that concerns me.
For partisan hack ideologues like you it does not matter.

 

[Gadawg73]

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.

How do you know so much about gays and gay bars?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

For all the heads in the sand fools here that are too stubborn to admit they were wrong:

Governor Brewer stated that "the bill could have unintended and negative consequences".
Uh, yeah, been saying that from the start SAME AS governor of Kansas said as the bills would ALLOW ambulance and other medical personnel to DENY service to gay folks.
WELL DUH
"Senate Bill 1062 has the potential to cause more problems than it purports to solve".
Of course it would. Anyone objective to what the bill SAYS knows that.
Good to see someone is not a stubborn fool with their head in the sand.

A politician lied? Tell me it ain't so.

Yes, the politicians that passed Senate Bill 1062 are a bunch of liars.
Good point.
4 of them publicly changed their minds after the bill passed and stated they were manipulated with false information from "religious" organizations and other members that lobbied for the bill.
They were all Republicans.
As a conservative that concerns me.
For partisan hack ideologues like you it does not matter.

Because they disagreed with the Great and Infallible Gadawg, right?

 

[Gadawg73]

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.

Wrong.
Laws against interracial marriage were propped up with your phony baloney "the laws for blacks being legal to marrying only blacks is the same as the law for whites marrying only whites" same people nonsense.
Last time I heard that bogus argument I fell off my dinosaur.