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

[Katzndogz]

No one has a problem with gays coming into a business and getting served. It's when guys say you must come to my house whether you want to or not that causes the problem.

 

[rdean]

Hilarious that they same time this thread is making the rounds, there's another one called:

Death To Gays.

 

[blackhawk]

If one has sincerely held religious beliefs should they be forced to do something that goes against them?

 

[Katzndogz]

That's a bit naive. What happens is that if they find out you don't offer gay versions they make it a point to target you for jail or bankruptcy. Gays are so sweet.

That's not the way it works. It's not that they don't offer gay versions. They don't offer versions at all. Unless you know them personally, or know someone who can vouch for you.

I went through this myself when I refused to pay the portrait of a lesbian couple. They took me to court and I won.

no you didnt.

I surely did. Got it knocked out on a summary judgment. They could not prove that I was in the business of painting portraits.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The store owner that refuses service is doing something that negatively effects someone else.

They are making someone's life harder just to be hateful.

Who is the gay person hurting by buying something?

We all have to live in this world together. Why make things more difficult for anyone? Who benefits?

Sent from my SPH-D710 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Sorry, but that's not how it works. You do not have any legal right to have your entire life be pleasant and positive. Nor do you have a right to force people to associate with you, simply because you want them to.

We are also not really talking about gay people "buying something". Do you really imagine the scenario this law addresses is the Safeway making its customers fill out a lifestyle questionnaire before letting them grocery shop?

And finally, shockingly, my choice about how I exercise my rights is not dependent on YOU approving of it or thinking it "benefits" someone. Please, PLEASE try to understand how monstrous it truly is to try to legislate utopia with that gormless expression on your face while you say, "What? This is how things SHOULD be, so why not make it illegal to be different?"

I'm not saying that anyone has the legal right for their whole life to be pleasant or positive. But we as human beings should strive to make this world as fair and just as possible for everyone.

Do you know that when leftist halfwits start throwing around words like "should" and "fair", it gives me a cold chill down my spine? It always means "Brave New World" is right around the corner.

"Fair" is a kindergarten word, with no objective meaning and thrown around by the immature and simpleminded and naive to basically mean "the world the way I want it to be". You don't think it's "fair" that gay people can't be viewed the way they want to be by everyone. Can you understand why other people might think it's not "fair" to have YOU trying to force them to view gay people the way they want to be viewed?
As for "just", how is it just for you to swish in and say, "Your beliefs are wrong, and therefore you have no right to believe them? You must switch over to my beliefs, because they are much better and more moral"?

We don't all have to agree about religion or sexual orientation to live in this world together. What we should all agree on though, is that everyone deserves a fair shot at being happy.

There goes that cold chill again.

There's a big difference between the pursuit of happiness and the bludgeoning of others into complying with your happiness.

Why are some people so determined to make other people miserable?

I don't know. Why are you?

I know that you don't need my approval in how you live your life, but I am entitled to an opinion just like you.

Sure you are. What you are NOT entitled to is the right to make me care about your opinion, or share your opinion, or keep my mouth shut and pretend I agree with your opinion.

And common sense should tell you that ALL laws are made in an attempt to benefit society.

Quite true. Now if you could just wrap your brain around the fact that "benefit society" is not defined as "What N8dizzle thinks is best, because he's so damned much smarter and morally superior to everyone else". This isn't an argument about benefitting society (aka conforming to your personal wisdom) and damaging society (aka disagreeing with your personal wisdom). It's an argument between your PERSONAL OPINION about what benefits society and OTHER PEOPLE'S PERSONAL OPINIONS about what benefits society.

Just because you don't think the freedom to exercise beliefs and choose associations is as important as "being nice" doesn't mean that's the one universal truth here.

 

[Plasmaball]

That's not the way it works. It's not that they don't offer gay versions. They don't offer versions at all. Unless you know them personally, or know someone who can vouch for you.

I went through this myself when I refused to pay the portrait of a lesbian couple. They took me to court and I won.

no you didnt.

I surely did. Got it knocked out on a summary judgment. They could not prove that I was in the business of painting portraits.

no you didnt

 

[rdean]

That's not the way it works. It's not that they don't offer gay versions. They don't offer versions at all. Unless you know them personally, or know someone who can vouch for you.

I went through this myself when I refused to pay the portrait of a lesbian couple. They took me to court and I won.

no you didnt.

I surely did. Got it knocked out on a summary judgment. They could not prove that I was in the business of painting portraits.

Are you saying you lied under oath?

 

[Political Junky]

Arizona appears more Southern than the Deep South.

 

[Katzndogz]

no you didnt.

I surely did. Got it knocked out on a summary judgment. They could not prove that I was in the business of painting portraits.

Are you saying you lied under oath?

I didn't need to. They brought the case. A summary judgment means that everything the plaintiff said is true. And there is still no cause of action. In my case they could not prove that I was in the business of painting portraits or anything else either. They sued my business too. They proved my business was dog grooming but they didn't own a dog so that got tossed right away. I had a tremendous amount of fun with them and their gay lawyer too.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Arizona appears more Southern than the Deep South.

Please point out where Arizona is making a law that requires segregation. The law simply states people have rights to provide services. Says nothing about how they must not provide.

Be as gay as you want, the law simply insures you can't infringe on someone who doesn't want to participate in it.

 

[N8dizzle]

Thier job was to take pictures. Their point of view on gay marriage was irrelevant. I'm sure they weren't trying to get them to do anything "gay."
It would be like refusing to take pictures of an overweight kid because you don't agree with overeating.
It was just a good opportunity for someone to try to ruin someone elses day. Kind of like you calling people idiots.

Lol. And I have Sprint.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[Katzndogz]

The photographer who refused to take the wedding pictures was happy to take studio photographs. What she refused to do was attend the wedding itself. So it was more than just taking a few pictures.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Thier job was to take pictures. Their point of view on gay marriage was irrelevant. I'm sure they weren't trying to get them to do anything "gay."
It would be like refusing to take pictures of an overweight kid because you don't agree with overeating.
It was just a good opportunity for someone to try to ruin someone elses day. Kind of like you calling people idiots.

Lol. And I have Sprint.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Damn, you are one stupid fuck, aren't you?

 

[Billy000]

I think another state passed something similar to this last week so this must be a trend that is catching on. I agree with this bill that if you are a business owner and believe in and live by your faith that you should be able to refuse service to whoever you want.


Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays
Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays

You know you are one of those bigots that hide behind the Christian faith as an excuse. This isn't about religion for you. You just hate gay people. You are too immature to not give a shit what people different from you do behind closed doors.

 

[auditor0007]

I think another state passed something similar to this last week so this must be a trend that is catching on. I agree with this bill that if you are a business owner and believe in and live by your faith that you should be able to refuse service to whoever you want.


Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays
Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays

 

[Noomi]

I think another state passed something similar to this last week so this must be a trend that is catching on. I agree with this bill that if you are a business owner and believe in and live by your faith that you should be able to refuse service to whoever you want.


Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays
Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays

You are welcome to let everyone know you are a homophobic knob, yes.

 

[Camp]

This law will effect members of the United States military, in or out of uniform. The idea that a member serving in the military would be refused service because of the whim or so called "belief" of one of the random citizens of a particular state is simply unacceptable and repugnant. If a state, Arizona, in this case wants to have such a law, the United States and it's military should take immediate steps to protect it's personel from any kind of discrimination, abuse, unfairness or inconvenience this will create. Military personel should be removed from the state to a state that honors the policies of the the military and US Government in regards to fair treatment of it's personel.
Start to empty and shut down the bases. Watch how quickly the bigots get thrown under the bus by the rest of the population.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I think another state passed something similar to this last week so this must be a trend that is catching on. I agree with this bill that if you are a business owner and believe in and live by your faith that you should be able to refuse service to whoever you want.


Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays
Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays

You are welcome to let everyone know you are a homophobic knob, yes.

What's more intolerant, allowing the business owner to serve gays of their own volition, or forcing them to serve gays against their will and against their beliefs? You tell me, milady. Methinks it is extremely intolerant and hypocritical to demand tolerance of your own lifestyle from someone else, whilst not showing willingness to tolerate theirs.

All boils down to a matter of respect, not entitlement.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I think another state passed something similar to this last week so this must be a trend that is catching on. I agree with this bill that if you are a business owner and believe in and live by your faith that you should be able to refuse service to whoever you want.


Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays
Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays

You are welcome to let everyone know you are a homophobic knob, yes.

What's more intolerant, allowing the business owner to serve gays of their own volition, or forcing them to serve gays against their will and against their beliefs? You tell me, milady. Methinks it is extremely intolerant and hypocritical to demand tolerance of your own lifestyle from someone else, whilst not showing willingness to tolerate theirs.

All boils down to a matter of respect, not entitlement.

Sometimes rights are a zero sum game.

You grant gays the right to be treated like everyone else, aka equality, but in order to do so, you have to deny certain people their claim to a right to discriminate.

Ask yourself, which of the above most closely reflects the letter and spirit of our Constitution?

The right to equality, or the right to discriminate?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I think another state passed something similar to this last week so this must be a trend that is catching on. I agree with this bill that if you are a business owner and believe in and live by your faith that you should be able to refuse service to whoever you want.


Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays
Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays

My big question is why would any gay person want to give anyone their business if they don't want it? Would you want your wedding catered by people who disapprove of your life? I wouldn't. I am sure there are many fine caterers and other businesses who gladly accept gay customers and I would say take your business where it's appreciated and forget the rest.

That's irrelevant.