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

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Ahh, yes, but when conservatives do the same thing, THEY are hate-filled, intolerant bigots who OBVIOUSLY share the views of the people whose rights they're defending, which only goes to prove that leftists are either 1) morons, 2), hypocrites, or 3) both.

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.)

Really? You remember when Reagan did something he didn't actually do? Tell me, do you also remember when Hitler won WWII? When the Confederacy was allowed to peacefully exercise its right to secession from the Union? When John Lennon survived his gunshot wound? Exactly how many things that never happened do you remember?

Such a fucking idiot.

 

[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?

As has been pointed out countless times, those are Constitutionally protected.

Where does the Constitution guarantee protection from discrimination conducted by NON-GOVERNMENT entities? The Constitution is a limiting document on government, not on private individuals.

Whether a Muslim will bake a Christian a themed cake would depend on what they wanted on it. Protection doesn't mean endorsement.

Very good, just as baking a wedding cake for a couple of lesbians doesn't mean endorsement.

But see that is the claim of those evangelical folks, that baking the cake for a lesbian wedding was somehow "endorsing" their marriage.

So why is it not "endorsement" for the Muslim baker, but it is "endorsement" for the Christian baker?

If you don't get it don't blame others.

Oh, I get it.

Religious beliefs against interracial marriage = Bad, should be illegal.

Religious beliefs against interfaith marriage = Bad, should be illegal.

Religious beliefs against same-sex marriage = Good, should be legal.

It's a pretty hypocritical to say, religious freedom should prevail, but only if I agree with those religious beliefs.



>>>>

 

[DriftingSand]

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.

Christ loved everyone enough to die for them and shed every bit of His blood but not everyone will see the Kingdom of God (according to the Bible and the Words of Christ, Himself).

John 3:18, "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

Acts 19:4, "Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus."

Look up the word "repentance." It's key to ones belief in Christ and ones hope of salvation.

 

[Steinlight]

The only problem is you shouldn't need a justification(like religious belief) to discriminate, you should just be allowed to discriminate period, since it is in fact your property. If you do not have the right to determine who is allowed on your property or whom you wish to serve and thereby associate with, you don't own yourself or your property, the state does, since they make said regulations. Those who advocate "anti-discrimination laws" are really advocating state ownership of individuals and their property.

 

[Silhouette]

Well should a muslim baker have to bake a gay wedding cake too?

 

[Silhouette]

I noticed someone else answered for you with a derogatory tangent but...Hey worldwatcher, you might have missed this question on the last page. What's your answer?

#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?

ie, which sexual orientations is it illegal to discriminate against in Seattle? All of them? Only some? Which ones and why?

 

[Cecilie1200]

You can't address the facts so you attack the man? Really? That's called "stooping."

Anyone with half a brain can tell that he knows history better than the libs in media and/or today's Congress (and folks like yourself).

Barton has been debunked time and again. Google him.

If you wish to post some of his "claims", do so and we'll tear them apart. It's quiet so now would be a good time. And ask yourself, shouldn't you get your history from someone actually trained in such a thing?

Did he state facts in the two videos above or did he not? Were many of the founders preachers of the Gospel or were they not? Did Jefferson hold Church services in the halls of Congress or did he not? Quit attacking Barton while sidestepping the actual facts presented by him.

And let us not forget that the Constitutional Convention is well-documented in the notes of the attendees, and tell us that the Bible was referenced more often than all other sources combined during those deliberations.

 

[Steinlight]

"Anti-Discrimination" movements are built on self-entitlement and narcissism, believing they are entitled access to the property and services of others. A very egotistical and immature bunch they are.

 

[Dr Grump]

Such a fucking idiot.

You calling anybody an idiot is akin to Stalin accusing Hitler of mass murder. Ronnie Raygun did lie about Iran Contra..

But you do moron so well.....

 

[Iceweasel]

Where does the Constitution guarantee protection from discrimination conducted by NON-GOVERNMENT entities? The Constitution is a limiting document on government, not on private individuals.

14th Amendment | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
14th Amendment
Amendment XIV
Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Whether a Muslim will bake a Christian a themed cake would depend on what they wanted on it. Protection doesn't mean endorsement.

Very good, just as baking a wedding cake for a couple of lesbians doesn't mean endorsement.

Wrong. Two women on a cake makes a statement.

But see that is the claim of those evangelical folks, that baking the cake for a lesbian wedding was somehow "endorsing" their marriage.

So why is it not "endorsement" for the Muslim baker, but it is "endorsement" for the Christian baker?

I made that clear already.

If you don't get it don't blame others.

Oh, I get it.

Religious beliefs against interracial marriage = Bad, should be illegal.

Religious beliefs against interfaith marriage = Bad, should be illegal.

Religious beliefs against same-sex marriage = Good, should be legal.

It's a pretty hypocritical to say, religious freedom should prevail, but only if I agree with those religious beliefs.

No, that isn't what I said. So no, you don't get it because your brain cannot receive information it disagrees with.

 

[Iceweasel]

I noticed someone else answered for you with a derogatory tangent but...Hey worldwatcher, you might have missed this question on the last page. What's your answer?

#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?

ie, which sexual orientations is it illegal to discriminate against in Seattle? All of them? Only some? Which ones and why?

Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer.

 

[dblack]

Where does the Constitution guarantee protection from discrimination conducted by NON-GOVERNMENT entities? The Constitution is a limiting document on government, not on private individuals.

14th Amendment | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
14th Amendment
Amendment XIV
Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

What do you think that means? Maybe you should read it again. It's referring to the actions of state governments, not businesses or individuals.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

::yawn:: You keep declaring your opinion that anything short of approbation for a person's every act is hatred of the person, and you keep getting spit on and ignored. Exactly how thick is your skull that you can't see that your wish isn't going to become reality, and you're never going to be right about this?

Likewise, Billy Graham, you keep telling us all about what Jesus was and wasn't, and how Christians are practicing THEIR beliefs - theirs, not yours - incorrectly based on YOUR interpretation - yours, not theirs - of the Bible. I'd go to the trouble of asking you to explain to us how your two bullshit theories coincide by demonstrating how Jesus "loved everyone" by applauding every damned action they ever took and never, ever condemning anything anyone did, except that to do so would inappropriately validate you and make you think that you're not an arrogant, hubristic dumbass. And I do so want you to understand that about yourself.

So let's leave it at this: I believe what I believe. I practice it according to what I think it requires. You are not me, and you are not God. Therefore, you have exactly two things to say about what my beliefs are and should be, and how they should be practiced: fuck and all. Any statement otherwise has all the value of a fart in a wind tunnel . . . as do you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

#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?

In other words, you know Silhouette is correct, you have no serious answer, and you're too much of a chickenshit douchebag to just admit it.

 

[Londoner]

Well should a muslim baker have to bake a gay wedding cake too?

You might reconsider the relationship between these two units along the capitalist chain.

Our economic transaction are fraught with people and values we may disagree with. Our oil comes from terrorists. Over 20% of our products are manufactured in Communist China. Our iPhones are assembled beneath brutal dictators in places like Taiwan.

Research Milton Friedman's beautiful example of how global capitalism produces a simple pencil... specifically, how the raw material comes from all these different places - places with very different values. The brilliance of capitalism is that it allows all these different people and values to coalesce efficiently inside the market place. The sexuality, nationality, and values of all these diverse units along the supply chain disappears behind the singular goal of efficiency.

Can you imagine if we put Conservative Moral Nazis at every juncture of the supply chain? The economy would shut down because the Conservative would constantly reject involvement with "bad" people.

Whether or not you sell a wedding cake to a gay person or fill your tank with gas, you are often going to be involved with people who don't share your values. Capitalism works most efficiently when you don't clog every market transaction with externalities.

The brilliant conservative professor, Daniel Bell, addresses the conflict between Conservatism and the Free Market in his seminal book "The Cultural Contradiction of Capitalism". You should read it. You may disagree with it, ultimately, but it will help you understand the problem with imposing too many values on market transactions. Hint: capitalism works most efficiently when the nationality of your baker and the sexuality of his client are not obstacles to the transaction - when they become impersonal economic units. Once you open the door and allow values to clog every transaction, you put all sorts of chains on productivity. If you, personally, want to hate on muslims and gays, than do it on your own time - but don't fuck with capitalism's ability to rationally and surgically focus only on maximizing efficiency and profit.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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,

And you're whom, exactly, that you're flattering yourself that your opinion matters?

 

[Contumacious]

. Capitalism works most efficiently when you don't clog every market transaction with externalities. .

Externalities such as Londoner who doesn't know what Capitalism is , hence he - somehow - confuses it the unbridled fascism which has been in effect in the US since 1913.

.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Well should a muslim baker have to bake a gay wedding cake too?

1. There is not difference in ingredients and preparation of a "gay wedding cake" and a "straight wedding cake". There is just a cake, the customers though are gay or straight.

2. A Muslim baker would have the same requirements to comply with State Public Accommodation laws just as a secular or Christian baker would. Just like Muslim cab drivers in Minnesota couldn't claim a religious exemption to discriminate against blind people with service dogs.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

I noticed someone else answered for you with a derogatory tangent but...Hey worldwatcher, you might have missed this question on the last page. What's your answer?

#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?

ie, which sexual orientations is it illegal to discriminate against in Seattle? All of them? Only some? Which ones and why?

Polyandry is a woman married to more than one man, in such a case there is only one sexual orientation - heterosexual.

Necrophilia and Pederasty is criminal activity, no baker is required to provide services to criminal activities. Homosexual commitment ceremonies (in states that don't recognize Same-sex Civil Marriage), Civil Unions (in states with those), and Civil Marriages (in states that have those) are not criminal activities.




>>>>

 

[Cecilie1200]

I noticed someone else answered for you with a derogatory tangent but...Hey worldwatcher, you might have missed this question on the last page. What's your answer?

Specifically which sexual orientation? Polyandry? Necrophilia? Pederasty?

ie, which sexual orientations is it illegal to discriminate against in Seattle? All of them? Only some? Which ones and why?

Polyandry is a woman married to more than one man, in such a case there is only one sexual orientation - heterosexual.

Necrophilia and Pederasty is criminal activity, no baker is required to provide services to criminal activities. Homosexual commitment ceremonies (in states that don't recognize Same-sex Civil Marriage), Civil Unions (in states with those), and Civil Marriages (in states that have those) are not criminal activities.




>>>>

A lot of people would tell you that polyamory is a different orientation than monogamous heterosexuality, and who are you to tell them otherwise? Leftists want so badly to let people they approve of and agree with define themselves and their inclinations in whatever way they feel good about, so it would be sort of hypocritical now to come up and insist that you get to pigeonhole someone according to your personal worldview, hmmm?