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

[Silhouette]

#2 - Seattle wouldn't need to pass such a law as it is already illegal in Washington State to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Specifically which sexual orientation? Polyandry? Necrophilia? Pederasty?

 

[Iceweasel]

Well two things:

#1 - In Arizona, the bill would have usurped Public Accommodation measures adopted by some cities. Aren't we supposed to be about local governments being able to make their own laws? Why is it OK for conservatives to pass laws that usurp local governments, but not OK for liberals? Sound like a double standard.

Well, because the two operate differently, for one. When the left doesn't like something they want to outlaw it for everyone. A conservative moves on. Ganging up on a Christian greeting card company, fine after fine, until they go out of business is NOT how conservatives go about business!

#2 - Seattle wouldn't need to pass such a law as it is already illegal in Washington State to discriminate based on sexual orientation. (http://www.hum.wa.gov/documents/Brochures/PA091407B.pdf)

Well, duh. Welcome to the conversation. It happened when only Canada had gay marriages. And why does sexual orientation trump religious orientation? Especially when religion is protected by way of the Constitution and sexuality isn't.

 

[Bumberclyde]

Well the Normalphobes got the edge this time around but perhaps a Governor with a better judgement and a touch of inner fortitude will do a better job in the future. If I were a Christian baker living in Arizona I would still follow my conscience and beliefs and say NO to anyone requesting me to bake a cake with any sort of perverted message on it.

And as a baker in Arizona you are not required, nor been required, to supply cakes with perverted messages.

In Arizona though you can't refuse service to customers based on race, religion, national origin, sex, age, or disability.

You realize that many in the past considered interracial marriages "perverted" and interfaith wedding, meaning discrimination based on religion.


>>>>

The issue has nothing to do with refusing service to "gays." It has to do with forcing bakers to write messages on a cake that flies in the face of their beliefs.

The problem is solved if his or her (the baker's) patrons don't discuss their sexual orientation; sexual lusts; or political leanings. Simply ask the baker to bake a cake and leave it at that. If they ask the baker to write some sort of perverted message like "Congratulations to Adam & Steve On Their Wedding Day" then the baker should be able to refuse that portion of their service based on his or her religious beliefs. You do believe in protecting the rights of religious folks -- don't you?

A belief based solely on hate is the perversion. Jesus loved everyone. Religious motive denied. Unless, of course, you're a carpet kissing sharia dog, then you should be deported ASAP.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The issue has nothing to do with refusing service to "gays." It has to do with forcing bakers to write messages on a cake that flies in the face of their beliefs.

Ya, sure.

If Elane Photography (New Mexico), Sweetcakes by Melissa (Oregon), and Masterpiece Cakes (Colorado) had refused to provide wedding cakes to an interfaith or interracial couple and claimed it was their conflicted with their "beliefs" and it wasn't the people involved but the event - we wouldn't be having this discussion.

(And no it matters not one wit if you were to agree or disagree with the validity of their "beliefs" it that had been the case as the Arizona law (the subject of this tread) specifically EXCLUDED the idea that those beliefs had to be supported by other religious tenets or by any outside religious organization).

The problem is solved if his or her (the baker's) patrons don't discuss their sexual orientation; sexual lusts; or political leanings. Simply ask the baker to bake a cake and leave it at that. If they ask the baker to write some sort of perverted message like "Congratulations to Adam & Steve On Their Wedding Day" then the baker should be able to refuse that portion of their service based on his or her religious beliefs. You do believe in protecting the rights of religious folks -- don't you?

A woman walks into into a bakery and ask for a wedding cake, she and the baker agree on a type, frosting, servings, etc. At the end she tells the baker to write "Congratulations John and Jane" and to have a male and female topper (you know the figurines on top).

A woman walks into into a bakery and ask for a wedding cake, she and the baker agree on a type, frosting, servings, etc. At the end she tells the baker to write "Congratulations Joan and Jane" and to have two brides toppers (you know the figurines on top).


Did one "discuss their sexual orientation; sexual lusts; or political leanings" any different then the other?



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Well, duh. Welcome to the conversation. It happened when only Canada had gay marriages. And why does sexual orientation trump religious orientation? Especially when religion is protected by way of the Constitution and sexuality isn't.

Why only sexual orientation?

Under this law if a business owner had sincerely held religious beliefs and didn't want to service blacks, interracial couples, Muslims, or interfaith couples that they wouldn't be exempt under the law?

Should a person be able to claim a religious exemption to any law?


>>>>

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Well, duh. Welcome to the conversation. It happened when only Canada had gay marriages. And why does sexual orientation trump religious orientation? Especially when religion is protected by way of the Constitution and sexuality isn't.

Why only sexual orientation?

Under this law if a business owner had sincerely held religious beliefs and didn't want to service blacks, interracial couples, Muslims, or interfaith couples that they wouldn't be exempt under the law?

Should a person be able to claim a religious exemption to any law?


>>>>

Exactly why we passed these PA laws. Too many people use their holy books to hate too many other people. We don't have time for that.

 

[dblack]

Well, duh. Welcome to the conversation. It happened when only Canada had gay marriages. And why does sexual orientation trump religious orientation? Especially when religion is protected by way of the Constitution and sexuality isn't.

Why only sexual orientation?

Under this law if a business owner had sincerely held religious beliefs and didn't want to service blacks, interracial couples, Muslims, or interfaith couples that they wouldn't be exempt under the law?

Should a person be able to claim a religious exemption to any law?


>>>>

Of course not. The problem with the public accommodations laws isn't a religious freedom issue, it's a freedom of association issue. I suspect we'll figure that out eventually.

 

[Howey]

#2 - Seattle wouldn't need to pass such a law as it is already illegal in Washington State to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Specifically which sexual orientation? Polyandry? Necrophilia? Pederasty?

I hope you realize the entire world is laughing at you.

Did you ever answer my question, Silly Silhouettte?

How old were you when Father O'Diddle diddled you?

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, it's not as simple as all that. "women and blacks" are states of being since birth. "gays" are part of a behavioral group, a cult movement of some, but not all, deviant sexual behaviors.

Tell me, how could I check to see whether someone was actually a "woman"? Genetics maybe? Is XX female, and XY male? What if I had on my hands a male but they looked like a woman? What are they really, male or female?

If you had your hands on a man that you were convinced was a woman, what they really would be is "mentally ill", and male of course. If that level of denial of reality of what a person was born with between their legs can lead to such a state of complete delusion and confusion that they would seek the assistance of medical "professionals" to amputate healthy organs and body parts then that soul in that body is so tweaked, so twisted, so disturbed that you should run a thousand miles per hour to the most distant point of the globe of that person.

That's why you see the parody in film on the classic "man discovers the woman he was with was actually a man" leading to the next inevitable scene: projectile vomiting. It's because we are hardwired to recognize perverse and severe mental illness when it slaps us upside the head with a brick like that.

My personal thesis on why we are hardwired in such a way is rabies. Bear with me. The main symptom of this completely 100% fatal zoonotic disease [crosses all warm blooded species] that has been with the animal kingdom for millions of years is an animal clearly acting mentally disturbed. A visceral revulsion for highly disturbing behavior quite likely evolved as hardwired as a survival tool. So actually, properly in this argument, if my thesis is correct, wise "homophobia" is actually the only thing "born that way", while gay behaviors are the result of faulty imprinting at highly suggestable age just on the verge of puberty. Animals acting patently bizarrely are always ostracized from the herd with good reason.

Any time a leftist "genius" tries to tell me there's some confusion about what something is or isn't based on what it "looks like" to them, I'm reminded of how they've utterly eviscerated our education system such that basic questions of biology are now bewildering conundrums to them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Churches were deeply involved in fighting slavery and assisting runaway slaves. And most Christians today are not anti-gay and don't believe anyone is going to hell for being gay.

If one Christian believes something liberals don't like, they can paint all Christians with their wide brush. But if all Democrats say the same thing, you can't generalize that someone who is a Democrat believes that.

Liberalism, it is a double standard, wrapped in a hypocrisy, inside cluelessness...

I certainly don't hate "gays" but I do believe that they may be in jeopardy of hell if they don't repent of their sins. The same is true of anyone who rejects the Gospel of Christ in favor of embracing his or her particular sinful behavior. However, I'm not the final Judge. There is One much greater than myself Who has reserved that job for Himself. Each and every one of us will have to stand before Him and answer for our actions. A day of judgment IS coming (if we believe what the Bible says).

The bottom line for me is that I believe a business owner has the right to model his or her business in a manner that fits his or her particular belief system. If any one of us doesn't like a business person's business model then we have the right to do business elsewhere. None of us has the right to force a business owner to cave into our personal whims. If that were the case then I could force "gay" business owners to conform to my personal whims and beliefs.

Business owners have to obey the law, just like anybody else. If they feel they can't, then they shouldn't be in business. And, right now some states have laws prohibiting discriminating against gays....if you live in such a state and you have a business, you have to obey the law. If you claim that you have the right to discriminate them, and they sue you, you may lose. That's the way it rolls. You can claim you want this or that, but if it goes agains the law you're just pissing in the wind.

I do so love being told what the law should be based on what it is at the moment, because it saves me SOO much time I might otherwise have spent mistakenly believing the person talking is a rational human being with more than two functioning brain cells and a moral compass, and jumps right to identifying them as a useless waste of protoplasm who can safely be ignored without fear of ever missing anything that needed to be said.

And yes, Mertex, I AM talking about you. Just wanted to clear that up, since you obviously aren't smart enough to figure it out without clear directions.

 

[Iceweasel]

Well, duh. Welcome to the conversation. It happened when only Canada had gay marriages. And why does sexual orientation trump religious orientation? Especially when religion is protected by way of the Constitution and sexuality isn't.

Why only sexual orientation?

Under this law if a business owner had sincerely held religious beliefs and didn't want to service blacks, interracial couples, Muslims, or interfaith couples that they wouldn't be exempt under the law?

Should a person be able to claim a religious exemption to any law?

As has been pointed out countless times, those are Constitutionally protected. Whether a Muslim will bake a Christian a themed cake would depend on what they wanted on it. Protection doesn't mean endorsement. If you don't get it don't blame others.

 

[Barb]

I certainly don't hate "gays" but I do believe that they may be in jeopardy of hell if they don't repent of their sins. The same is true of anyone who rejects the Gospel of Christ in favor of embracing his or her particular sinful behavior. However, I'm not the final Judge. There is One much greater than myself Who has reserved that job for Himself. Each and every one of us will have to stand before Him and answer for our actions. A day of judgment IS coming (if we believe what the Bible says).

The bottom line for me is that I believe a business owner has the right to model his or her business in a manner that fits his or her particular belief system. If any one of us doesn't like a business person's business model then we have the right to do business elsewhere. None of us has the right to force a business owner to cave into our personal whims. If that were the case then I could force "gay" business owners to conform to my personal whims and beliefs.

Business owners have to obey the law, just like anybody else. If they feel they can't, then they shouldn't be in business. And, right now some states have laws prohibiting discriminating against gays....if you live in such a state and you have a business, you have to obey the law. If you claim that you have the right to discriminate them, and they sue you, you may lose. That's the way it rolls. You can claim you want this or that, but if it goes agains the law you're just pissing in the wind.

I do so love being told what the law should be based on what it is at the moment, because it saves me SOO much time I might otherwise have spent mistakenly believing the person talking is a rational human being with more than two functioning brain cells and a moral compass, and jumps right to identifying them as a useless waste of protoplasm who can safely be ignored without fear of ever missing anything that needed to be said.

And yes, Mertex, I AM talking about you. Just wanted to clear that up, since you obviously aren't smart enough to figure it out without clear directions.

A reprehensible and repugnant snatch such as yourself advising Mertex, or anyone, on matters of moral compass or intelligence is, well,

 

[The T]

Well, duh. Welcome to the conversation. It happened when only Canada had gay marriages. And why does sexual orientation trump religious orientation? Especially when religion is protected by way of the Constitution and sexuality isn't.

Why only sexual orientation?

Under this law if a business owner had sincerely held religious beliefs and didn't want to service blacks, interracial couples, Muslims, or interfaith couples that they wouldn't be exempt under the law?

Should a person be able to claim a religious exemption to any law?


>>>>

Picture via Doc Thompson/Facebook

​

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Well, duh. Welcome to the conversation. It happened when only Canada had gay marriages. And why does sexual orientation trump religious orientation? Especially when religion is protected by way of the Constitution and sexuality isn't.

Why only sexual orientation?

Under this law if a business owner had sincerely held religious beliefs and didn't want to service blacks, interracial couples, Muslims, or interfaith couples that they wouldn't be exempt under the law?

Should a person be able to claim a religious exemption to any law?


>>>>

Picture via Doc Thompson/Facebook

​

Bake the damn cake. What a bunch of pantywaists.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Liberals have consistently fought for the right of people to be racists and bigots, which is why the ACLU was always willing to go to court to defend the rights of the KKK to hold protests, and why they still speak up in defense of Westboro Baptist Church.

They're defending free speech. Without Constitutional Protections, African Americans and minorities would be far worse off.

I have a deeply Libertarian friend who happens to be a criminal attorney. He believes that Government should not be able to incarcerate citizens without due process. He believes in the Rights that all citizens are accorded by our legal system, and he thinks that maintaining those Rights is crucial to a free society. He doesn't want the US to become like the Soviet Union where people are jailed for their political beliefs. He believes in the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution as much as the ACLU believes in the First Amendment. Does this mean - per your ACLU logic - that my friend wants criminals to go free? Answer: no, because the biggest crime of all is a world where Government doesn't give citizens legal rights. (Psst: you can't only defend the Constitution when it produces outcomes you agree with. This is what Conservatives tend to do)

(I remember when Reagan ignored the Constitution by selling weapons to Iran. Then Bush ignored the Constitution with his illegal wiretapping program, subsequently brought within FISA. It made me realize that Republicans are typically willing to destroy the Constitution when the cause, in their opinion, is just. The ACLU, on the other hand, believes that defending our Constitutional protections is the most just cause of all. Anyway, you are proving my point.)

Who the fuck are you arguing with?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And as a baker in Arizona you are not required, nor been required, to supply cakes with perverted messages.

In Arizona though you can't refuse service to customers based on race, religion, national origin, sex, age, or disability.

You realize that many in the past considered interracial marriages "perverted" and interfaith wedding, meaning discrimination based on religion.


>>>>

Gays aren't race, religion [well not officially yet], national origin or GENDER [not sexual activity]. They are a behavioral cult. As such and according to Jude 1 and Romans 1, the cult of LGBT must not be enabled. That goes for making "gay wedding" cakes. Given the gravity of warnings to the faithful in Jude 1 and Romans 1, requiring christians as a matter of law to cater to "gay weddings" is one and the same as requiring them to put the image of Lucifer on a cake for a satanist wedding.

Blacks are getting plenty sick of the comparison of the church of LGBT and their own legitimate civil rights movement based on how they were born, and not later became instead. You don't become or discover you are black one day. Or switch from black to white and then back again. That's behavior.

Some do some don't.

"The NAACP is an historic organization which 103 years ago set on a path to ensure the political, educational, social and economic equality of all people. As Board members, we take the responsibility to guide this organization seriously. One of the crucial roles we play is to ensure that our mission which helped define America in the last century continues to be implemented in this our Association’s second century.

When people ask why the NAACP stands firmly for marriage equality, we say that we have always stood against laws which demean, dehumanize, or discriminate against any person in this great country. That is our legacy. For over 103 years we have stood against such laws, and while the nature of the struggle may change, our bedrock commitment to equality of all people under the law never will."​

NAACP Chairman Roslyn Brock Statement on Marriage Equality | NAACP


>>>>

Tell me again, how did the membership of the NAACP react to that statement?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Business owners have to obey the law, just like anybody else. If they feel they can't, then they shouldn't be in business. And, right now some states have laws prohibiting discriminating against gays....if you live in such a state and you have a business, you have to obey the law. If you claim that you have the right to discriminate them, and they sue you, you may lose. That's the way it rolls. You can claim you want this or that, but if it goes agains the law you're just pissing in the wind.

I do so love being told what the law should be based on what it is at the moment, because it saves me SOO much time I might otherwise have spent mistakenly believing the person talking is a rational human being with more than two functioning brain cells and a moral compass, and jumps right to identifying them as a useless waste of protoplasm who can safely be ignored without fear of ever missing anything that needed to be said.

And yes, Mertex, I AM talking about you. Just wanted to clear that up, since you obviously aren't smart enough to figure it out without clear directions.

A reprehensible and repugnant snatch such as yourself advising Mertex, or anyone, on matters of moral compass or intelligence is, well,

Is that because only people who agree with your morals are actually moral?

Where have I heard that before?

 

[Gadawg73]

Have there been any updates on The Onward Christian Soldiers' search for that business owner in Arizona that has had their "religious freedom" denied?
Everyone wants to be first.
Where is that person and why are they hiding?

 

[jillian]

Business owners have to obey the law, just like anybody else. If they feel they can't, then they shouldn't be in business. And, right now some states have laws prohibiting discriminating against gays....if you live in such a state and you have a business, you have to obey the law. If you claim that you have the right to discriminate them, and they sue you, you may lose. That's the way it rolls. You can claim you want this or that, but if it goes agains the law you're just pissing in the wind.

I do so love being told what the law should be based on what it is at the moment, because it saves me SOO much time I might otherwise have spent mistakenly believing the person talking is a rational human being with more than two functioning brain cells and a moral compass, and jumps right to identifying them as a useless waste of protoplasm who can safely be ignored without fear of ever missing anything that needed to be said.

And yes, Mertex, I AM talking about you. Just wanted to clear that up, since you obviously aren't smart enough to figure it out without clear directions.

A reprehensible and repugnant snatch such as yourself advising Mertex, or anyone, on matters of moral compass or intelligence is, well,

ain't that the truth!

 

[Cecilie1200]

How do I really tell if someone is male or female?

You ask the easiest questions, I swear: DNA swab, usually around the inside of the cheek or a hair sample. [A hair sample would be the most discreet way to test if your "female" friend was actually male if "doctors" had already assisted him with amputation and plastic surgery]

The more important question to ask is "How do I really tell if someone is mentally ill?". Well the answer oddly is the same. If you are hetero and someone you're with you suspect might have a pelvis or fingers or adam's apple that is more proper to your same gender [males' pelvic bones reach higher up on the torso, their adam's apple protrudes more and their ring fingers are often longer than their index finger] a DNA swab or hair sample would tell you whether or not you are dealing with someone who is mentally ill.

...omg....

Do you like walk around with swabs in your pocket?

Ohmigod! Are you imagining that people are called upon on a daily basis to render a judgement on whether or not someone else is male?