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

[PaintMyHouse]

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?

Follow the money is still very good advice.

 

[Gadawg73]

Credit the writers of the Bill for sending a message to the business and gay community for a pow wow on getting a bill that does not offend anyone and really does protect all religions without discriminating against anyone.
I believe many are sincere about that.
But few here as making sure gays are continued to be treated as 2nd class citizens for their sins and perversions is #1.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

Special union huh? I gather your dad isn't a divorce attorney?

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

You just said exactly the OPPOSITE of what she said. Because the KKK is a political organization (you realize the KKK is not a race, religion, ethnicity, gender, etc. - right?) it is not protected under Public Accommodation laws that restrict owners from discriminating based on race, religion, ethnicity, gender, etc.

As such a black business owner is free to turn down a catering job because they are a political organization, he is not free to turn them down because they are white.

Now if the KKK were to file a complaint with the appropriate agency, that agency will do an investigation. They will look at the group and they will look at the business - if the business. The business will say "No I didn't turn them down because they were white, here is a list of all my catering jobs over the last 2 years. As you will notice I routinly cater to white customers so that claim is false." Based on that evidence alone (that the owner supplies THE SAME catering service to white customers) the investigation would be closed and the case dismissed.


Sorry, the KKK thing is just stupid. You don't think businesses have records?


>>>>

 

[Gadawg73]

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?

Go see the movie Lone Survivor which is based on a true story on Navy Seal Luttrell and his team.
Muslims in AFghanistan fought off the Taliban and saved his life.
Ask the Navy Seals what they think about most Muslims in Afghanistan.
The massive support for the wars against terrorism is all about FUNDING MUSLIMS.
That is what the military wants as part of their strategy.
Get informed.

 

[Gadawg73]

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?

The bill was not signed Because Brewer said NOT ONE case of someone being denied their religious freedom has ever happened in Arizona.

Similar to passing a law against jay walking in an area where there are no roads.

 

[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?

Follow the money is still very good advice.

And, to be fair, it wasn't just the morm who is more interested in making a buck than in civil rights, Christian morals/ethics or our Constitution.

The so-called "christians" really showed their true colors with this non-issue.

 

[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?

The bill was not signed Because Brewer said NOT ONE case of someone being denied their religious freedom has ever happened in Arizona.

Similar to passing a law against jay walking in an area where there are no roads.

The last thing Brewer/AZ cares about are teh civil rights of anyone. Read the history of her votes as well as the votes of the state legislature.

She didn't sign because AZ would have lost enormous income if she had.

 

[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.

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.

Where he gets his flowers is beside the point. But I get it, and I have to say, I must acknowledge your consistency. I couldn't be more against it, but at least you're consistent.

I simply disagree that anyone should be forced to take someone's money "because it's their job". A business is private property as far as I'm concerned, to be used as the owner sees fit.

But again, thanks for not being a hypocrite like so many others around here. I have to give you that comrade.

 

[eflatminor]

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?

The part that stomped all over private property rights, yes.

 

[eflatminor]

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.

You just said exactly the OPPOSITE of what she said. Because the KKK is a political organization (you realize the KKK is not a race, religion, ethnicity, gender, etc. - right?) it is not protected under Public Accommodation laws that restrict owners from discriminating based on race, religion, ethnicity, gender, etc.

As such a black business owner is free to turn down a catering job because they are a political organization, he is not free to turn them down because they are white.

Wrong. By her reasoning, if the Black forest turns down the KKK gig by stating it's because they're a WHITE supremacists group, that's illegal. That's what she said. Nothing about politics, but race...which is a protected class.

Point is there should be NO class protected over any other class, IMO.

Now if the KKK were to file a complaint with the appropriate agency, that agency will do an investigation. They will look at the group and they will look at the business - if the business. The business will say "No I didn't turn them down because they were white, here is a list of all my catering jobs over the last 2 years. As you will notice I routinly cater to white customers so that claim is false." Based on that evidence alone (that the owner supplies THE SAME catering service to white customers) the investigation would be closed and the case dismissed.


Sorry, the KKK thing is just stupid. You think businesses have records?

Doesn't matter. The proof is in the pudding. That Christian baker that was forced to service the gay wedding had done MANY gay events. Had PLENTY of gay customers...as their records showed. But when the gay wedding emerged, which conflicted with their protected status of religion, the PC police ruled in favor of the gay community.

Oh what a slippery slope.

 

[Gadawg73]

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?

The bill was not signed Because Brewer said NOT ONE case of someone being denied their religious freedom has ever happened in Arizona.

Similar to passing a law against jay walking in an area where there are no roads.

The last thing Brewer/AZ cares about are teh civil rights of anyone. Read the history of her votes as well as the votes of the state legislature.

She didn't sign because AZ would have lost enormous income if she had.

Of course that was part of it but there is no evidence of what the law claimed to protect from ever happening.

 

[Gadawg73]

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.

You just said exactly the OPPOSITE of what she said. Because the KKK is a political organization (you realize the KKK is not a race, religion, ethnicity, gender, etc. - right?) it is not protected under Public Accommodation laws that restrict owners from discriminating based on race, religion, ethnicity, gender, etc.

As such a black business owner is free to turn down a catering job because they are a political organization, he is not free to turn them down because they are white.

Wrong. By her reasoning, if the Black forest turns down the KKK gig by stating it's because they're a WHITE supremacists group, that's illegal. That's what she said. Nothing about politics, but race...which is a protected class.

Point is there should be NO class protected over any other class, IMO.

Now if the KKK were to file a complaint with the appropriate agency, that agency will do an investigation. They will look at the group and they will look at the business - if the business. The business will say "No I didn't turn them down because they were white, here is a list of all my catering jobs over the last 2 years. As you will notice I routinly cater to white customers so that claim is false." Based on that evidence alone (that the owner supplies THE SAME catering service to white customers) the investigation would be closed and the case dismissed.


Sorry, the KKK thing is just stupid. You think businesses have records?

Doesn't matter. The proof is in the pudding. That Christian baker that was forced to service the gay wedding had done MANY gay events. Had PLENTY of gay customers...as their records showed. But when the gay wedding emerged, which conflicted with their protected status of religion, the PC police ruled in favor of the gay community.

Oh what a slippery slope.

How is baking a cake for a wedding against someone's religion?

 

[paperview]

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?

The part that stomped all over private property rights, yes.

You should tell that to your fellow conservatives - they get all puffy and proud (well, pre-this month) as they like to so often announce how if it wasn't for 'publicans, yanno, the Civil Rights Act never would have passed!!

It's a real point of pride for them. Well, it used to be.

Sometimes they would even throw in a "Did you know MLK was a republican! ."

 

[Iceweasel]

Special union huh? I gather your dad isn't a divorce attorney?

A divorce attorney can change biology? WTF?

I simply disagree that anyone should be forced to take someone's money "because it's their job". A business is private property as far as I'm concerned, to be used as the owner sees fit.

That concept is lost on many. I wonder how many of them have businesses. It might be bad for business but the marketplace should decide on the winners and losers, not government or special interest groups.

 

[Gadawg73]

I have been married for almost 38 years.
How does gay marriage affect my marriage?
Or ANY heterosexual marriage?

 

[paperview]

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.

You just said exactly the OPPOSITE of what she said. Because the KKK is a political organization (you realize the KKK is not a race, religion, ethnicity, gender, etc. - right?) it is not protected under Public Accommodation laws that restrict owners from discriminating based on race, religion, ethnicity, gender, etc.

As such a black business owner is free to turn down a catering job because they are a political organization, he is not free to turn them down because they are white.

Wrong. By her reasoning, if the Black forest turns down the KKK gig by stating it's because they're a WHITE supremacists group, that's illegal. That's what she said. Nothing about politics, but race...which is a protected class.

Point is there should be NO class protected over any other class, IMO.

Now if the KKK were to file a complaint with the appropriate agency, that agency will do an investigation. They will look at the group and they will look at the business - if the business. The business will say "No I didn't turn them down because they were white, here is a list of all my catering jobs over the last 2 years. As you will notice I routinly cater to white customers so that claim is false." Based on that evidence alone (that the owner supplies THE SAME catering service to white customers) the investigation would be closed and the case dismissed.


Sorry, the KKK thing is just stupid. You think businesses have records?

Doesn't matter. The proof is in the pudding. That Christian baker that was forced to service the gay wedding had done MANY gay events. Had PLENTY of gay customers...as their records showed. But when the gay wedding emerged, which conflicted with their protected status of religion, the PC police ruled in favor of the gay community.

Oh what a slippery slope.

That's not what I said.

 

[paperview]

Special union huh? I gather your dad isn't a divorce attorney?

A divorce attorney can change biology? WTF?

I simply disagree that anyone should be forced to take someone's money "because it's their job". A business is private property as far as I'm concerned, to be used as the owner sees fit.

That concept is lost on many. I wonder how many of them have businesses. It might be bad for business but the marketplace should decide on the winners and losers, not government or special interest groups.

I own a business, and have for a long time. I have no problem with PA laws.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Special union huh? I gather your dad isn't a divorce attorney?

A divorce attorney can change biology? WTF?

I simply disagree that anyone should be forced to take someone's money "because it's their job". A business is private property as far as I'm concerned, to be used as the owner sees fit.

That concept is lost on many. I wonder how many of them have businesses. It might be bad for business but the marketplace should decide on the winners and losers, not government or special interest groups.

He believes in "special unions" there little buddy. They are so "special" that some people have five or six of them in a lifetime.

 

[Iceweasel]

He believes in "special unions" there little buddy. They are so "special" that some people have five or six of them in a lifetime.

I was referring to biology, a concept that apparently eludes you. Which is why you are so effed up.