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

[DriftingSand]

There’s nothing ‘overreaching’ about the legal principles that are the foundation of public accommodations laws; Commerce Clause jurisprudence authorizes sound and warranted regulatory policies appropriate for a modern, 21st Century economy. It’s naïve, reactionary nonsense to argue otherwise.

Well, I think using the Commerce Clause for social engineering, to mitigate race relations and manipulate social mores, is very overreaching, regardless of how much 'case law' supports the practice. Laws that dictate whom we must associate with and why are inhumane and deeply violate basic freedom of conscience.

Name one law that forces you to associate with anyone.
The subject is "religious freedom" and the guidelines as what that exactly means when we write laws granting exemptions for that vague term.
One can claim that their religion bars them from waiting on gay people because they believe gay folks are sinners yet they will wait on someone that was a convicted felon for fraud and they cheat on their wife.
"Religious freedom" is what is being argued here and NO ONE has ever seen a case in Arizona where a business owner's religious freedom has been violated.
Similar to passing a jaywalking ordinance where there are no roads.

Forcing a Christian baker to write "Congratulations To Adam & Steve On Their Special Wedding Day" IS a violation of the baker's religious freedom if the baker sees homosexuality as an absolute violation of the religious tenets he believes and accepts as true. He's being forced to condone and participate in an event that the Bible considers to be of "the world." The Bible specifically states that Christians are to avoid worldly pleasures and activities at all costs. Therefore, forcing the baker to bake a cake for a "gay" wedding is a direct assault on his religious freedom and beliefs.

1 Thessalonians 5:22, "Abstain from all appearance of evil."

1 John 2:15, "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him."

James 4:4, "Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? Whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God."

1 John 2:16, "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world."

Romans 12:2, "And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God."

Following are some of the definitions of "world" as found in the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance (take special note of the definitions in red):

Strong's world #G2889 - "World" (or Greek "kosmos"):

1. an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government
2. ornament, decoration, adornment, i.e. the arrangement of the stars, 'the heavenly hosts', as the ornament of the heavens. 1 Pet. 3:3
3. the world, the universe
4. the circle of the earth, the earth
5. the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family
6. the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ
7. world affairs, the aggregate of things earthly
   1. the whole circle of earthly goods, endowments riches, advantages, pleasures, etc, which although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce from God and are obstacles to the cause of Christ
8. any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort
   1. the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews (Rom. 11:12 etc)

The above definition was borrowed from the site found at this link: Greek Lexicon :: G2889 (KJV)

 

[Bumberclyde]

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! ."

Meh..in 40 years the Republicans will be trying to take credit for gay civil rights.

MLK must have been a republican, he was an adulterer and a wife beater.

 

[johnwk]

This is another attack upon rights associated with property ownership just like the smoking control freaks who also use government force to seize control over another person’s private property for their personal use and enjoyment who forbid the owner of said property to allow his guests to smoke thereon. But we were warned against submitting to such tyranny:


”Submit to despotism for an hour and you concede the principle. John Adams said, in 1775, “Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud.” It is the only thing a people determined to be free can do. Republics have often failed, and have been succeeded by the most revolting despotisms; and always it was the voice of timidity, cowardice, or false leaders counseling submission, that led to the final downfall of freedom. It was the cowardice and treachery of the Senate of Rome that allowed the usurper to gain power, inch by inch, to overthrow the Republic. The history of the downfall of Republics is the same in all ages. The first inch that is yielded to despotism - the first blow, dealt at the Constitution, that is not resisted - is the beginning of the end of the nation’s ruin.” See: THE OLD GUARD, A MONTHLY JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF 1776 AND 1787, HOW TO TREAT UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTS OF CONGRESS


When these control freaks are finished there will be nothing left standing but publically owned property and the iron fist of a communist government!


JWK

[P]roperty [does not] lose its private character merely because the public is generally invited to use it for designated purposes. _____ LLOYD CORP. v. TANNER, 407 U.S. 551 (1972)

 

[DriftingSand]

Yes, it is hypocrisy. And, I'm not lying. You and others like you are trying to claim that you want to keep "marriage" sacred, but when one of your heroes drags marriage through the mud, you look the other way.

If you are so bent on keeping marriage "honorable" then anything that defiles it, would be reason for you and those that think like you to try and write bills to change it, but the truth is that it isn't so much about keeping marriage sacred, but more about hating gays. Haters gotta hate......

I'm opposed to anyone - "gay" or straight - who redefines marriage to suit his or her personal tastes. I'm opposed to straight, married men or women who cheat on their spouses. I'm opposed to straight, married men or women who marry for money. I'm opposed to folks marrying for convenience without understanding and accepting the deep commitment that true marriage requires. I'm all for the historical definition of marriage as held by most cultures and most religions - that is that marriage is a vow and intimate contract between a man and a woman.

 

[Bumberclyde]

Yes, it is hypocrisy. And, I'm not lying. You and others like you are trying to claim that you want to keep "marriage" sacred, but when one of your heroes drags marriage through the mud, you look the other way.

If you are so bent on keeping marriage "honorable" then anything that defiles it, would be reason for you and those that think like you to try and write bills to change it, but the truth is that it isn't so much about keeping marriage sacred, but more about hating gays. Haters gotta hate......

I'm opposed to anyone - "gay" or straight - who redefines marriage to suit his or her personal tastes. I'm opposed to straight, married men or women who cheat on their spouses. I'm opposed to straight, married men or women who marry for money. I'm opposed to folks marrying for convenience without understanding and accepting the deep commitment that true marriage requires. I'm all for the historical definition of marriage as held by most cultures and most religions - that is that marriage is a vow and intimate contract between a man and a woman.

You're just homophobic. Now you know.

 

[DriftingSand]

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! ."

Meh..in 40 years the Republicans will be trying to take credit for gay civil rights.

MLK must have been a republican, he was an adulterer and a wife beater.

Interestingly, there are documented cases of prominent Democrats being members of the KKK. But that's another topic for another thread.

 

[kaz]

Speaking of guns someone that goes by the 10 Commandments where one is "Thou shall Not Kill" can claim it is against their "religious freedom" to serve people carrying guns.
Don't you feel just a little bit silly defending this vague and ridiculous law that assumes there are people out there having their "religious freedom" denied when in fact THEY AREN'T?

A kid was rude to his parents in the fast food restaurant so they deny service to the kid. Religious freedom.

Again, amazing educated folks buy into this nonsense.

I actually agree it's not right to grant a religious exemption to this law - but do you at least see how the overreaching legal principles behind public accommodations laws are driving this?

There’s nothing ‘overreaching’ about the legal principles that are the foundation of public accommodations laws; Commerce Clause jurisprudence authorizes sound and warranted regulatory policies appropriate for a modern, 21st Century economy. It’s naïve, reactionary nonsense to argue otherwise.

Government forcing it's citizens with guns to do business with people they don't want to do business with isn't "overreaching?" Seriously? You're over-sick. This is why I keep ... accurately ... calling you people authoritarian leftists. Liberals love freedom, including from government. You love government forcing it's citizens to do your bidding. You have nothing in common with liberal, nothing in any way at all.

 

[kaz]

Meh..in 40 years the Republicans will be trying to take credit for gay civil rights.

MLK must have been a republican, he was an adulterer and a wife beater.

Interestingly, there are documented cases of prominent Democrats being members of the KKK. But that's another topic for another thread.

Including the "Conscience of the Senate," Robert Byrd. He not only was in the KKK, but he hated blacks so much he joined the KKK in an area there were virtually no blacks.

 

[Bfgrn]

I actually agree it's not right to grant a religious exemption to this law - but do you at least see how the overreaching legal principles behind public accommodations laws are driving this?

There’s nothing ‘overreaching’ about the legal principles that are the foundation of public accommodations laws; Commerce Clause jurisprudence authorizes sound and warranted regulatory policies appropriate for a modern, 21st Century economy. It’s naïve, reactionary nonsense to argue otherwise.

Government forcing it's citizens with guns to do business with people they don't want to do business with isn't "overreaching?" Seriously? You're over-sick. This is why I keep ... accurately ... calling you people authoritarian leftists. Liberals love freedom, including from government. You love government forcing it's citizens to do your bidding. You have nothing in common with liberal, nothing in any way at all.

Kaz's 'liberalism'...

 

[DriftingSand]

Kaz's 'liberalism'...

The question at hand has to do with religious freedom and a person's right to stand on his or her religious tenets. There's nothing in the Bible that required a Christian not to cater to someone of a different race but the Bible explicitly states and homosexuality is a very sinful behavior. Therefore, your post compares apples to oranges.

A person of any particular race can't choose to be a different race. However, a homosexual can choose to give up his sin and embrace normalcy.

 

[paperview]

Kaz's 'liberalism'...

The question at hand has to do with religious freedom and a person's right to stand on his or her religious tenets. There's nothing in the Bible that required a Christian not to cater to someone of a different race but the Bible explicitly states and homosexuality is a very sinful behavior. Therefore, your post compares apples to oranges.

A person of any particular race can't choose to be a different race. However, a homosexual can choose to give up his sin and embrace normalcy.

The religious right has used the bible to discriminate against blacks for a long time, and was even used as late as the Loving v Virginia decision.

There are direct parallels, and the most recent ruling from the Federal judge in Virginia itself overturning the ban on same sex marriage spoke to that.

You may disagree it was wrong for people to interpret the bible the way they did to discriminate, and you may hold the opinion homosexuality is a choice -- but the overwhelming amount of evidence shows to you be incorrect on both counts.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Kaz's 'liberalism'...

The question at hand has to do with religious freedom and a person's right to stand on his or her religious tenets. There's nothing in the Bible that required a Christian not to cater to someone of a different race but the Bible explicitly states and homosexuality is a very sinful behavior. Therefore, your post compares apples to oranges.

A person of any particular race can't choose to be a different race. However, a homosexual can choose to give up his sin and embrace normalcy.

The law specifically excluded ANY requirement that the religious belief be held by or be "compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief.

It's the claim of a person for their individual beliefs, not something that has to be supported by any external central religious doctrine.

Well, that of course is your opinion, but others disagree...

From Bob Jones University v. United States (SCOTUS, 1982):

The sponsors of the University genuinely believe that the Bible forbids interracial dating and marriage. To effectuate these views, Negroes were completely excluded until 1971. From 1971 to May, 1975, the University accepted no applications from unmarried Negroes, [n5] but did accept applications from Negroes married within their race.​

>>>>

 

[Iceweasel]

So if a person denied service to someone because they drank beer you would stand by that?
Fact is the ONLY sin you good folks condemn and support not giving service to people IS BEING HOMOSEXUAL.
The dude would bake a cake for an ex con getting married but not a gay person.
Don't you feel just a little bit silly?

No but you should. I don't believe in sin and said repeatedly that I support anyone's right to do business with whoever they want.

 

[Iceweasel]

You conveniently didn't respond to my post. Why aren't you upset by people that make a mockery out of marriage, like Rush Limbaugh

It wasn't worth responding to. It has nothing to do with the subject and I'm not Rush Limbaugh.

 

[johnwk]

Yes, it is hypocrisy. And, I'm not lying. You and others like you are trying to claim that you want to keep "marriage" sacred, but when one of your heroes drags marriage through the mud, you look the other way.

If you are so bent on keeping marriage "honorable" then anything that defiles it, would be reason for you and those that think like you to try and write bills to change it, but the truth is that it isn't so much about keeping marriage sacred, but more about hating gays. Haters gotta hate......

I'm opposed to anyone - "gay" or straight - who redefines marriage to suit his or her personal tastes. I'm opposed to straight, married men or women who cheat on their spouses. I'm opposed to straight, married men or women who marry for money. I'm opposed to folks marrying for convenience without understanding and accepting the deep commitment that true marriage requires. I'm all for the historical definition of marriage as held by most cultures and most religions - that is that marriage is a vow and intimate contract between a man and a woman.

You're just homophobic. Now you know.

And you appear to ignore rights associated with property ownership!

As I previously noted:

This is another attack upon rights associated with property ownership just like the smoking control freaks who also use government force to seize control over another person’s private property for their personal use and enjoyment who forbid the owner of said property to allow his guests to smoke thereon. But we were warned against submitting to such tyranny:


”Submit to despotism for an hour and you concede the principle. John Adams said, in 1775, “Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud.” It is the only thing a people determined to be free can do. Republics have often failed, and have been succeeded by the most revolting despotisms; and always it was the voice of timidity, cowardice, or false leaders counseling submission, that led to the final downfall of freedom. It was the cowardice and treachery of the Senate of Rome that allowed the usurper to gain power, inch by inch, to overthrow the Republic. The history of the downfall of Republics is the same in all ages. The first inch that is yielded to despotism - the first blow, dealt at the Constitution, that is not resisted - is the beginning of the end of the nation’s ruin.” See: THE OLD GUARD, A MONTHLY JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF 1776 AND 1787, HOW TO TREAT UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTS OF CONGRESS


When these control freaks are finished there will be nothing left standing but publically owned property and the iron fist of a communist government!


JWK

[P]roperty [does not] lose its private character merely because the public is generally invited to use it for designated purposes. _____ LLOYD CORP. v. TANNER, 407 U.S. 551 (1972)

 

[Bumberclyde]

I'm opposed to anyone - "gay" or straight - who redefines marriage to suit his or her personal tastes. I'm opposed to straight, married men or women who cheat on their spouses. I'm opposed to straight, married men or women who marry for money. I'm opposed to folks marrying for convenience without understanding and accepting the deep commitment that true marriage requires. I'm all for the historical definition of marriage as held by most cultures and most religions - that is that marriage is a vow and intimate contract between a man and a woman.

You're just homophobic. Now you know.

And you appear to ignore rights associated with property ownership!

As I previously noted:

This is another attack upon rights associated with property ownership just like the smoking control freaks who also use government force to seize control over another person’s private property for their personal use and enjoyment who forbid the owner of said property to allow his guests to smoke thereon. But we were warned against submitting to such tyranny:


”Submit to despotism for an hour and you concede the principle. John Adams said, in 1775, “Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud.” It is the only thing a people determined to be free can do. Republics have often failed, and have been succeeded by the most revolting despotisms; and always it was the voice of timidity, cowardice, or false leaders counseling submission, that led to the final downfall of freedom. It was the cowardice and treachery of the Senate of Rome that allowed the usurper to gain power, inch by inch, to overthrow the Republic. The history of the downfall of Republics is the same in all ages. The first inch that is yielded to despotism - the first blow, dealt at the Constitution, that is not resisted - is the beginning of the end of the nation’s ruin.” See: THE OLD GUARD, A MONTHLY JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF 1776 AND 1787, HOW TO TREAT UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTS OF CONGRESS


When these control freaks are finished there will be nothing left standing but publically owned property and the iron fist of a communist government!


JWK

[P]roperty [does not] lose its private character merely because the public is generally invited to use it for designated purposes. _____ LLOYD CORP. v. TANNER, 407 U.S. 551 (1972)

Got anything else besides copy%paste gibberish that's not relevant to my point?

 

[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?

Prime example of how a turd thinks.

NONE of those end users would even consider hiring your examples...

Riiiiiight, and a homosexual would never even consider hiring a fundamentalist Christian....

Your overwhelming hypocrisy is noted.

 

[kaz]

There’s nothing ‘overreaching’ about the legal principles that are the foundation of public accommodations laws; Commerce Clause jurisprudence authorizes sound and warranted regulatory policies appropriate for a modern, 21st Century economy. It’s naïve, reactionary nonsense to argue otherwise.

Government forcing it's citizens with guns to do business with people they don't want to do business with isn't "overreaching?" Seriously? You're over-sick. This is why I keep ... accurately ... calling you people authoritarian leftists. Liberals love freedom, including from government. You love government forcing it's citizens to do your bidding. You have nothing in common with liberal, nothing in any way at all.

Kaz's 'liberalism'...

So in a thread about gays where I said no one should be forced to do business with anyone by government guns, I'm a segregationist racist. Got it

OMG, you have no functioning male parts at all. You are just a bitch of the Democratic party.

 

[DriftingSand]

Kaz's 'liberalism'...

The question at hand has to do with religious freedom and a person's right to stand on his or her religious tenets. There's nothing in the Bible that required a Christian not to cater to someone of a different race but the Bible explicitly states and homosexuality is a very sinful behavior. Therefore, your post compares apples to oranges.

A person of any particular race can't choose to be a different race. However, a homosexual can choose to give up his sin and embrace normalcy.

The religious right has used the bible to discriminate against blacks for a long time, and was even used as late as the Loving v Virginia decision.

There are direct parallels, and the most recent ruling from the Federal judge in Virginia itself overturning the ban on same sex marriage spoke to that.

You may disagree it was wrong for people to interpret the bible the way they did to discriminate, and you may hold the opinion homosexuality is a choice -- but the overwhelming amount of evidence shows to you be incorrect on both counts.

You seem to forget that Abraham Lincoln (and many union troops and officers) were Christians who helped free the slaves. But, again, this is another topic for another thread.

 

[paperview]

The question at hand has to do with religious freedom and a person's right to stand on his or her religious tenets. There's nothing in the Bible that required a Christian not to cater to someone of a different race but the Bible explicitly states and homosexuality is a very sinful behavior. Therefore, your post compares apples to oranges.

A person of any particular race can't choose to be a different race. However, a homosexual can choose to give up his sin and embrace normalcy.

The religious right has used the bible to discriminate against blacks for a long time, and was even used as late as the Loving v Virginia decision.

There are direct parallels, and the most recent ruling from the Federal judge in Virginia itself overturning the ban on same sex marriage spoke to that.

You may disagree it was wrong for people to interpret the bible the way they did to discriminate, and you may hold the opinion homosexuality is a choice -- but the overwhelming amount of evidence shows to you be incorrect on both counts.

You seem to forget that Abraham Lincoln (and many union troops and officers) were Christians who helped free the slaves. But, again, this is another topic for another thread.

Yes, another topic for another thread -- but many preachers, pastors and christians throughout the south used the bible to defend slavery and subjugating blacks. Evidence of that is rife.