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

[paperview]

Sigh.

For the 10,000th time...none of those above are protected categories.

Sheesh. Learn the law.

Wrong.

Race is a protected class. The KKK are ALL about race.
Religion is a protected class. Westboro Church is in fact a religious based organization.

Shall I go on?

It doesn't matter what they are "about."

The KKK is not a protected class. If someone operating a business open to the public and discriminates against an individual KKK member stating it is because he is white, then yes, then he would be in violation of the law.

 

[Seawytch]

Make it easy...put up a sign that says: "the law requires that I serve everyone, but I really don't like (fill in the blank). You're welcome to come in and be served, but we won't like doing it".

The "fill in the blank" likely won't visit your establishment.

 

[bravoactual]

I can't wait until it goes to court

Why would it go to court?

Because monkey man, discrimination is against the law.

But **** it any way. Brewer vetoed the piece-o-bill anyway.

If I as a "Small Business Owner" in Arizona, and had this hateful bill become law saw a person with a cross around the neck, I would have the right to refuse service to them based on their attire.

If I owned a resturant in Arizona and saw people praying before a meal, I could (and would) throw them out because I would have the right to refuse them because they are engaging in a practice I DO NOT BElEIVE IN.

 

[paperview]

Make it easy...put up a sign that says: "the law requires that I serve everyone, but I really don't like (fill in the blank). You're welcome to come in and be served, but we won't like doing it".

The "fill in the blank" likely won't visit your establishment.

The Supreme Court of New Mexico (ruling unanimously) addressed this issue as well...


"If a commercial photography business believes that the NMHRA stifles its creativity, it can remain in business, but it can cease to offer its services to the public at large. Elane Photography’s choice to offer its services to the public is a business decision, not a decision about its freedom of speech. [...]


Elane Photography and its owners likewise retain their First Amendment rights to express their religious and political beliefs. They may, for example, post a disclaimer on their website or in their studio advertising that they oppose same-sex marriage but that they comply with applicable antidiscrimination laws."

Elane Photography v. Vanessa Willock <-- Good reading.

 

[paperview]

That same Supreme Court also addressed a similar KKK hypothetical here:

{55}
Elane Photography also suggests that enforcing the NMHRA against it would mean that an African-American photographer could not legally refuse to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally.

This hypothetical suffers from the reality that political views and political group membership, including membership in the Klan, are not protected categories under the NMHRA.

See § 28-1-7(F) (prohibiting public accommodation discrimination based on&#8220;race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity,spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap&#8221.

Therefore, an African-American could decline to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally. However, the point is well-taken when the roles in the hypothetical are reversed&#8212;a Ku Klux Klan member who operates a photography business as a public accommodation would be compelled to photograph an African-American under the NMHRA.

This result is required by the NMHRA, which seeks to promote equal rights and access to public accommodations by prohibiting discrimination based on certain specified protected classifications.

Elane Photography v. Vanessa Willock

 

[dblack]

If I as a "Small Business Owner" in Arizona, and had this hateful bill become law saw a person with a cross around the neck, I would have the right to refuse service to them based on their attire.

If I owned a resturant in Arizona and saw people praying before a meal, I could (and would) throw them out because I would have the right to refuse them because they are engaging in a practice I DO NOT BElEIVE IN.

You guys keep citing scenarios like this as though it's some kind of trump card, like it's going to cause everyone arguing for freedom of conscience to stop and think, "Gee, I guess we were wrong." You clearly aren't getting what is being debated here.

I guess you just assume that everyone arguing for this law, or against public accommodations laws, is a bigot who wants to oppress people they don't like. That's really missing the boat.

Personally, I'm very reluctant to side with homophobes, bigots, racists, etc..., or to associate with them in any way. But our freedoms are always attacked this way, nipped away at the edges, targeting unpopular minorities and beliefs. And if we fail to stand up for freedom when it produces distasteful results, it won't be there when we need it.

 

[kaz]

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.

You really, seriously are an idiot. There is no logical connection between black and gay over this, and you can't stop sucking the balls of leftists that this is an argument over "gay" to grasp that.

Blacks literally could not marry the same people as whites. Gays literally can marry the same people as straights. Pull your head out of Obama's crotch and focus on my argument and stop arguing from what you want me to be saying.

That means it's a job for the legislature. "It's not the same" is a job for the courts, it is the same. "It's not fair" is a job for the legislature. I don't really care about gay marriage. If you weren't such a leftist apologist you would stop arguing from your bigotry and assumption of what other people think and grasp that.

By being willing to grant the courts the power to enforce "fair," in the end there is no difference between you and the liberals you claim to not be one of because in the end what we get is the same.

So stop arguing homophobia, moron and address what I said rather than the voices in your head.

Sorry you are on the wrong end again.
You lose.

Look man, seriously you're just being a dick. I am arguing that the debate over gay marriage belongs in the legislature. I am generally against government marriage, but other than that, I don't really care about gay marriage either way. I am just telling you if you want it it should be done the right way and not by judicial fiat. You can't address the point, you just run around screaming homophobe, homophobe. If you want to continue to be a dick, go ahead. But don't delude yourself as to what you are.

 

[Iceweasel]

So was same-sex marriage. Now it's becoming legal, one state at a time.

Maybe. But that proves it isn't a Constitutional isse.

 

[WorldWatcher]

So was same-sex marriage. Now it's becoming legal, one state at a time.

Maybe. But that proves it isn't a Constitutional isse.

No it doesn't.

The California Supreme Court struck down it's anti-miscegenation law (IIRC) in 1948, others were struck down one at a time until it finally reached the SCOTUS in Loving v. Viriginia in 1967. Such laws were struck down as being unconstitutional.

Technically, you could say that prior to 1967 anti-miscegenation laws were Constitutional. Technically you can say that anti-same-sex-civil marriage laws are currently Constitutional. That doesn't mean that once the SCOTUS accepts review that they will remain Constitutional.

20 years, or so, form California to Loving, it's only been 10 years since the Massachusetts Supreme Court struck down their anti-Marriage Equality provisions. Marriage Equality is doing quite well in the grand scheme of things. It's even started winning at the ballot during General Election Initiatives/Referendums.



>>>>

 

[eflatminor]

It seems to me that if we are to force a Christian to provide their services to a gay wedding, then we must also accept that:

• An African American owned florist must deliver flowers to a KKK meeting
  
• A gay-owed caterer must cater a Westboro Baptist Church party
  
• A Kosher bakery must deliver their goods to a meeting of the neo-Nazi party
  
• A Leftist event organizer can be forced to plan an NRA meeting

Everyone cool with that?

Yep
Yep
Yep
Not "forced", it's her job.
And no, but I am.

Wow. I'm stunned. You collectivist types really have zero respect for the concept of private property. Just wow.

 

[Seawytch]

It seems to me that if we are to force a Christian to provide their services to a gay wedding, then we must also accept that:

• An African American owned florist must deliver flowers to a KKK meeting
  
  
  
• A gay-owed caterer must cater a Westboro Baptist Church party
  
  
  
• A Kosher bakery must deliver their goods to a meeting of the neo-Nazi party
  
  
  
• A Leftist event organizer can be forced to plan an NRA meeting
  

Everyone cool with that?

Yep

Yep

Yep

Not "forced", it's her job.

And no, but I am.

Wow. I'm stunned. You collectivist types really have zero respect for the concept of private property. Just wow.

Oh we do. We also understand the concept of public accommodation. Those laws have been found Constitutional. If you want to exclude people from your business, you have to make it truly private...as in membership like the BSA or country clubs.

 

[eflatminor]

Sigh.

For the 10,000th time...none of those above are protected categories.

Sheesh. Learn the law.

Wrong.

Race is a protected class. The KKK are ALL about race.
Religion is a protected class. Westboro Church is in fact a religious based organization.

Shall I go on?

It doesn't matter what they are "about."

The KKK is not a protected class. If someone operating a business open to the public and discriminates against an individual KKK member stating it is because he is white, then yes, then he would be in violation of the law.

Okay then, by your reasoning, a Black owned florist cannot refuse to service a meeting of the KKK if he tells the truth and states "because they're a hateful white supremacist group". If he udders such a thing, he must either provide his service to the KKK or close his business.

That's some logic there.

Same with the gay owned company and Westboro Baptist Church. The homosexual can't refuse service on the grounds of their fucked up religion.

What a web of PC nonsense you weave!

 

[Iceweasel]

So was same-sex marriage. Now it's becoming legal, one state at a time.

Maybe. But that proves it isn't a Constitutional isse.

No it doesn't.

The California Supreme Court struck down it's anti-miscegenation law (IIRC) in 1948, others were struck down one at a time until it finally reached the SCOTUS in Loving v. Viriginia in 1967. Such laws were struck down as being unconstitutional.

Technically, you could say that prior to 1967 anti-miscegenation laws were Constitutional. Technically you can say that anti-same-sex-civil marriage laws are currently Constitutional. That doesn't mean that once the SCOTUS accepts review that they will remain Constitutional.

20 years, or so, form California to Loving, it's only been 10 years since the Massachusetts Supreme Court struck down their anti-Marriage Equality provisions. Marriage Equality is doing quite well in the grand scheme of things. It's even started winning at the ballot during General Election Initiatives/Referendums.

I guess you don't get it. When interracial marriage prohibition was overturned, it was the law of the land. There was no need for referendums. And the fact that people can be bullied, intimidated or brainwashed doesn't mean much. It's a given.

The fact is that homosexual marriage drastically changes what marriage is/was. The special union of the male/female, each with their characteristics making a better whole. Same sex marriage is the homosexual demand for validation by the state to participate in the lie that it's no different than heterosexual unions.

That said, to go back to your earlier point, people are too confused now to connect the dots and anyone can make the same gay argument. Why not three men? Or a bi-sexual with a male and female partner. It's time government gets out of the marriage business and people can make their own legal arrangements.

 

[eflatminor]

Yep

Yep

Yep

Not "forced", it's her job.

And no, but I am.

Wow. I'm stunned. You collectivist types really have zero respect for the concept of private property. Just wow.

Oh we do. We also understand the concept of public accommodation. Those laws have been found Constitutional. If you want to exclude people from your business, you have to make it truly private...as in membership like the BSA or country clubs.

Found Constitutional by Progressive assholes with no respect for the concept of private property. Yea, I get that.

We're just going to have to disagree on this one. I see absolutely no reason that the owner of a private business shouldn't be free to refuse service. What next? "No shirt, no shoes, no service" going to be outlawed? Does a fancy restaurant have to seat a guy in his underwear?

And further, if you're going to go down this path, we'll have to get rid of every "No guns allowed" signs. After all, the right to bear arms is codified in the Constitution as an individual right. A business owner therefore as no ability to restrict that right in his establishment. You're cool with this also then...or you're a hypocrite.

Again, wow.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

It seems to me that if we are to force a Christian to provide their services to a gay wedding, then we must also accept that:

• An African American owned florist must deliver flowers to a KKK meeting
  
• A gay-owed caterer must cater a Westboro Baptist Church party
  
• A Kosher bakery must deliver their goods to a meeting of the neo-Nazi party
  
• A Leftist event organizer can be forced to plan an NRA meeting

Everyone cool with that?

Yep
Yep
Yep
Not "forced", it's her job.
And no, but I am.

Wow. I'm stunned. You collectivist types really have zero respect for the concept of private property. Just wow.

Private property would mean the black guy would have to cut the flowers from his own garden at his house and drive them over. He doesn't have to do that, that's not his business. Delivering flowers from the shop however is why he bought the cute little white van in the first place. I don't give a damn who ordered the flowers, if he takes their money, and he has no reason not to, then he delivers the damn flowers. The fact that it might be a KKK meeting or a KKK funeral is none of his concern.

 

[paperview]

Wow. I'm stunned. You collectivist types really have zero respect for the concept of private property. Just wow.

Oh we do. We also understand the concept of public accommodation. Those laws have been found Constitutional. If you want to exclude people from your business, you have to make it truly private...as in membership like the BSA or country clubs.

Found Constitutional by Progressive assholes with no respect for the concept of private property. Yea, I get that.

We're just going to have to disagree on this one. I see absolutely no reason that the owner of a private business shouldn't be free to refuse service. What next? "No shirt, no shoes, no service" going to be outlawed? Does a fancy restaurant have to seat a guy in his underwear?

...

Are you calling the people that wrote and passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 progressive assholes too?

 

[Bumberclyde]

I still wouldn't serve muslims. If nobody in North America ever served muslims, do you think that they'd get the hint and leave?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Did anyone else notice this?

Okay, we know the reason the bill wasn't signed was big business didn't want to lose money BUT among the Big Businesses against the signing was Marriott.

Marriott is owned by a mormon. Mormons sometimes say they're "Christian".

So, the question is, did Marriott object to the bill because of Christian morals? The Constitution? Or, was he motivated by the P&L of his his company?

 

[Bumberclyde]

Did anyone else notice this?

Okay, we know the reason the bill wasn't signed was big business didn't want to lose money BUT among the Big Businesses against the signing was Marriott.

Marriott is owned by a mormon. Mormons sometimes say they're "Christian".

So, the question is, did Marriott object to the bill because of Christian morals? The Constitution? Or, was he motivated by the P&L of his his company?

They're confused, that's why.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I still wouldn't serve muslims. If nobody in North America ever served muslims, do you think that they'd get the hint and leave?

Would you, because I'd be okay making that happen.