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

[AmericanFirst]

Actually, I don't think that would be the reason, but I agree with you as to whose side he would take. As he stated, paraphrased, the healthy do not need a doctor, the sick do. He came to save the sinner not the "righteous".

He also took the side of the prostitute, when the crowd, many of whom may have used her services, wanted to stone her.

And just for the record, I do not consider the gay community to be more sinful than myself or any of those who condemn them.

Jesus did side with the prostitute, but he told her to go and sin no more. She stopped being a prostitute. Jesus would most certainly side with the gays, but they would have to stop engaging in homosexual behavior to be saved. Jesus never told the crowd that they had to accept prostitution as a legitimate method of making money nor urge the crowd to teach their children that prostitution was okay and their children should be prostitutes.

How do you know that Jesus and/or the disciples were not gay themselves? Jesus never uttered a single word against homosexuality. Being gay is not a sin, it is simply taking the concept of loving your fellow man literally. OTOH hating gays is most definitely a sin since it flies in the face of Jesus telling you to love one another.

Easy, as a Christian I believe the whole Bible as Gods word. Leviticus says that homosexuality is a sin punishable by death. Jesus spoke against all sin including sexual immorality which homosexuality is. Saying Jesus never spoke against homosexuality is a lame excuse to defend the sick sin of gay. Gay is SICK>

 

[Cecilie1200]

Arizona appears more Southern than the Deep South.

You appear more ignorant than you were yesterday. Seems my perceptions are more accurate than yours.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Equal rights is a concept that applies to government, not general society. We've become confused about this issue.

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

I know. That's the problem.

The irony of it all is, as we continue with the delusional attempt to force everyone to treat each other equally, government becomes more and more discriminatory. This isn't a coincidence. If you task the government with trying to enforce equal rights in a social context, you must create a policy that treats people decidedly unequally. You can't have both equal rights under the law and the sort of social justice that liberals yearn for.

This makes no sense.

No one is attempting “to force everyone to treat each other equally,” and government discrimination results as a consequence of the people acting in a manner offensive to the Constitution and its case law, motivated by fear, ignorance, or hatred.

In fact, government lacks the authority to “force everyone to treat each other equally.”

Moreover, ‘liberals’ don’t ‘yearn’ for ‘social justice,’ whatever that means.

Your position is obviously predicated on the incorrect perception that advocates of comprehensive civil rights are some sort of naïve do-gooders who want to create ‘Kumbaya Nation.’

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Here is how our Constitutional Republic works with regard to the government’s relationship to citizens’ civil liberties:

All persons in the United States possess inalienable rights, they manifest as a consequence of our humanity, and are acknowledged and codified by the Constitution and its case law.

Although inalienable our rights are not absolute, and are subject to reasonable restrictions by government pursuant to a rational motive, objective, documented evidence, and a proper legislative end.

When government seeks to curtail our civil liberties, therefore, the state must meet a very heavy burden to justify that curtailment, and failing to do so, such efforts by the state are invalidated by the courts as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review.

Equality, then, is the consistent, rational, and legitimate application of the state’s authority to all persons as it seeks to govern, prohibiting government from unwarranted violations of civil liberties predicated on subjective animus toward a particular class of persons, such as gay Americans in this case.

This has nothing to do with wishing to ‘make everyone equal,’ as the notion is nonsense and has nothing to do with the civil liberties of gay Americans and the state’s unwarranted efforts to violate those civil liberties.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

This is why I hope this latest PC brouhaha keeps dimwit leftists from visiting the state. As you can see, we already have enough of our own.

 

[Silhouette]

Easy, as a Christian I believe the whole Bible as Gods word. Leviticus says that homosexuality is a sin punishable by death. Jesus spoke against all sin including sexual immorality which homosexuality is. Saying Jesus never spoke against homosexuality is a lame excuse to defend the sick sin of gay. Gay is SICK>

I think it's foolish and counterproductive to say you believe every word of the Bible literally. Because your opponents will manipulate that statement to mean all of the Bible can be rendered into not eating pork products...'silly'.

A distinction is needed between old outdated laws and customs, venial sins of that sort and the clear and distinct mortal sins that come with the direst of warnings. Jude 1 contains such a mandate against a culture of homosexuality taking over...most particularly a warning to those 'faithful' who stand by and do nothing as it happens. The Pit of Fire awaits those who do nothing to "earnestly contend" for the "common salvation"..

I didn't write the book, but I think I know the reasoning behind why it is so adamant about that one point on homosexuality.

If you accept that the world is here to test souls, to temper them and to bring those souls heavenward or hellbound, depending on their performance, blending the matrix these souls are tested in would be among the top ten deadliest sins. And that sin would be tampering with the matrix.

If you talk to liberals about if they support diversity, they instantly say 'yes'. Ask them about cultural diversity across the world and should it be preserved at all costs. They will say "yes, it helps people learn about differences and stimulates growth and change in the observer of a different culture.

Then you ask them if they believe this same theory should be applied to the sexes. ie: should there be different standards for males vs females. Then the answer is "no". Yet males and females are different, it is genetic and their differences cause each other's genderless spirit to grow from a standpoint of observation and interaction with each other.

Gays make the mistake of thinking that because a spirit they like is born in the same gender, they then should have sex with it. This is wrong. For how will spirits of affinity ever learn to just love each other solely as friends? This and many other lessons born from the distinct male/distinct female matrix are dissolved when homosexuality demands to be not just accepted, but eventually as in Sodom, the norm. If you don't believe me that this is the end game, just study Ancient Greece or for a more contemporary admission: http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/341681-white-cis-male-gay-privilege.html

Random sin is bad, like murder, rape etc But to incorporate a mortal sin as a cultural value stands to harm the most people over time than any individual sin ever could dream to do. So this is why I understand Jude 1 and why christians MUST abide. To not do so is to commit the unthinkable crime: tampering with God's plan in the most significant way possible.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Oh, good Lord. Yet another "tug on the heartstrings so we can bypass the brains" faux reason why people should be forced into associations against their will.

I keep praying that the left will grow enough brain cells to differentiate between "this is a bad way to behave" and "thus, I must make it illegal for you to do it". So far, it hasn't happened, and they still feel the compelling need to try legislate - or bully - their own personal "morality" onto everyone else.

When will you fools ever understand that your dictatorial, control-freak behavior is more repugnant than any personal expression of disagreeable opinions could ever be?

 

[Sunshine]

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

This article is about the conscience clause in medicine. For the conscience clause in the 19th century English educational system, see Conscience clause (education).

Conscience clauses are legal clauses attached to laws in some parts of the United States which permit pharmacists, physicians, and other providers of health care not to provide certain medical services for reasons of religion or conscience. In many cases, the clauses also permit health care providers to refuse to refer patients to unopposed providers. Those who choose not to refer or provide services may not be disciplined or discriminated against. The provision is most frequently enacted in connection with issues relating to reproduction, such as abortion, sterilization, contraception, and stem cell based treatments, but may include any phase of patient care.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscience_clause_(medical)

What's good for the doctor..........just sayin'.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I know. That's the problem.

The irony of it all is, as we continue with the delusional attempt to force everyone to treat each other equally, government becomes more and more discriminatory. This isn't a coincidence. If you task the government with trying to enforce equal rights in a social context, you must create a policy that treats people decidedly unequally. You can't have both equal rights under the law and the sort of social justice that liberals yearn for.

Wrong. Your government gives everyone the same protected rights on the one hand, but on the other hand, subjects everyone with the same limitations on those rights.

Where's the injustice?

I'm afraid I'm as confounded with your logic as you (apparently) are with mine. I can make no sense of this.

You're claiming that government policies designed to improve equality actually contribute to inequality.

I don't agree.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Oh, good Lord. Yet another "tug on the heartstrings so we can bypass the brains" faux reason why people should be forced into associations against their will.

I keep praying that the left will grow enough brain cells to differentiate between "this is a bad way to behave" and "thus, I must make it illegal for you to do it". So far, it hasn't happened, and they still feel the compelling need to try legislate - or bully - their own personal "morality" onto everyone else.

When will you fools ever understand that your dictatorial, control-freak behavior is more repugnant than any personal expression of disagreeable opinions could ever be?

Can you explain how this law could not be used to support refusing service to the military?
Would you support it?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

That is correct. In the realm of public accommodation laws, it is irrelevant.

Ahh, the ever-popular "This should be legal because it's legal!" argument. I always love it when leftists argue about what the law should be based on what it is at the moment. It's so refreshing to be reminded just how fucking stupid they truly are.

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

You didn't NEED to? So you were going to? You were going to lie under oath after swearing to God?

You misled someone, clearly. Did those gays? Seems they were the honest ones. I would trust them more than you. The question becomes, "What kind of person are you?"

That's what YOU think because lying is something you would do to gain an advantage. I didn't need to resort to lying. It wasn't necessary. They had no case to begin with. I never misled anyone because I never led them at all. They made an assumption that I was in the business of providing commissioned artwork. They were wrong. Not everyone who makes an erroneous assumption is misled. They just dreamed it up on their own. They assumed that because I exhibited my work at invitation that I was in the business of commissioned artwork. I'm not. Because I am not and never was, they could not prove that I "held myself out as a person engaged in the business of commissioned artist". I don't need to lie about it. It's just a fact. However, this couple felt that because they were lesbians I would be FORCED to paint their portrait. Their status as homosexuals entitles them to nothing.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Think of it this way:

Your rights end where someone else's begins. In essence, your right to be treated equally as a homosexual ends when it infringes on the religious rights of someone else. Or when you force them to treat you preferentially, despite their religiously held beliefs.

Very rudimentary concept.

So your right to own a gun ends when it infringes upon the rights of others to be safe from mentally ill people obtaining guns?

I don't believe anyone's ever objected to preventing the mentally ill from obtaining guns. In fact, if anything, it would be the LEFT that prevents that, with all their distracting blather about magazine sizes and "assault weapons" and their persistent ACLU actions on behalf of "the right not to be treated".

 

[Cecilie1200]

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

I know. That's the problem.

The irony of it all is, as we continue with the delusional attempt to force everyone to treat each other equally, government becomes more and more discriminatory. This isn't a coincidence. If you task the government with trying to enforce equal rights in a social context, you must create a policy that treats people decidedly unequally. You can't have both equal rights under the law and the sort of social justice that liberals yearn for.

This is an instance where the state government is deliberately enacting discrimination. What is even worse is that it is violating the constitution by endorsing religion. That is specifically proscribed by the 1st amendment.

How do you figure that? Does the law say people HAVE to discriminate against anyone? I don't think so. Nor is it "endorsing religion", insofar as it is protecting the rights of ALL religions to choose associations, not just one.

 

[bodecea]

Jesus did side with the prostitute, but he told her to go and sin no more. She stopped being a prostitute. Jesus would most certainly side with the gays, but they would have to stop engaging in homosexual behavior to be saved. Jesus never told the crowd that they had to accept prostitution as a legitimate method of making money nor urge the crowd to teach their children that prostitution was okay and their children should be prostitutes.

How do you know that Jesus and/or the disciples were not gay themselves? Jesus never uttered a single word against homosexuality. Being gay is not a sin, it is simply taking the concept of loving your fellow man literally. OTOH hating gays is most definitely a sin since it flies in the face of Jesus telling you to love one another.

Easy, as a Christian I believe the whole Bible as Gods word. Leviticus says that homosexuality is a sin punishable by death. Jesus spoke against all sin including sexual immorality which homosexuality is. Saying Jesus never spoke against homosexuality is a lame excuse to defend the sick sin of gay. Gay is SICK>

So you follow Leviticus completely, eh?

 

[Silhouette]

Wrong. Your government gives everyone the same protected rights on the one hand, but on the other hand, subjects everyone with the same limitations on those rights.

Where's the injustice?

The injustice is the requirement of the faithful to completely abandon core mandates of their faith. The frivolous ones are one thing, but toying with the matrix itself is a grave, grave mortal sin. You cannot force the faithful to violate their own souls at such a level that is unrecoverable. I gave the example to AmericanFirst:

Easy, as a Christian I believe the whole Bible as Gods word. Leviticus says that homosexuality is a sin punishable by death. Jesus spoke against all sin including sexual immorality which homosexuality is. Saying Jesus never spoke against homosexuality is a lame excuse to defend the sick sin of gay. Gay is SICK>

I think it's foolish and counterproductive to say you believe every word of the Bible literally. Because your opponents will manipulate that statement to mean all of the Bible can be rendered into not eating pork products...'silly'.

A distinction is needed between old outdated laws and customs, venial sins of that sort and the clear and distinct mortal sins that come with the direst of warnings. Jude 1 contains such a mandate against a culture of homosexuality taking over...most particularly a warning to those 'faithful' who stand by and do nothing as it happens. The Pit of Fire awaits those who do nothing to "earnestly contend" for the "common salvation"..

I didn't write the book, but I think I know the reasoning behind why it is so adamant about that one point on homosexuality.

If you accept that the world is here to test souls, to temper them and to bring those souls heavenward or hellbound, depending on their performance, blending the matrix these souls are tested in would be among the top ten deadliest sins. And that sin would be tampering with the matrix.

If you talk to liberals about if they support diversity, they instantly say 'yes'. Ask them about cultural diversity across the world and should it be preserved at all costs. They will say "yes, it helps people learn about differences and stimulates growth and change in the observer of a different culture.

Then you ask them if they believe this same theory should be applied to the sexes. ie: should there be different standards for males vs females. Then the answer is "no". Yet males and females are different, it is genetic and their differences cause each other's genderless spirit to grow from a standpoint of observation and interaction with each other.

Gays make the mistake of thinking that because a spirit they like is born in the same gender, they then should have sex with it. This is wrong. For how will spirits of affinity ever learn to just love each other solely as friends? This and many other lessons born from the distinct male/distinct female matrix are dissolved when homosexuality demands to be not just accepted, but eventually as in Sodom, the norm. If you don't believe me that this is the end game, just study Ancient Greece or for a more contemporary admission: http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/341681-white-cis-male-gay-privilege.html

Random sin is bad, like murder, rape etc But to incorporate a mortal sin as a cultural value stands to harm the most people over time than any individual sin ever could dream to do. So this is why I understand Jude 1 and why christians MUST abide. To not do so is to commit the unthinkable crime: tampering with God's plan in the most significant way possible.

 

[dblack]

I know. That's the problem.

The irony of it all is, as we continue with the delusional attempt to force everyone to treat each other equally, government becomes more and more discriminatory. This isn't a coincidence. If you task the government with trying to enforce equal rights in a social context, you must create a policy that treats people decidedly unequally. You can't have both equal rights under the law and the sort of social justice that liberals yearn for.

This is an instance where the state government is deliberately enacting discrimination. What is even worse is that it is violating the constitution by endorsing religion. That is specifically proscribed by the 1st amendment.

How do you figure that? Does the law say people HAVE to discriminate against anyone? I don't think so. Nor is it "endorsing religion", insofar as it is protecting the rights of ALL religions to choose associations, not just one.

It's endorsing religions specifically by selecting which religious beliefs will be exempt from the law - because certainly not any view that someone claims is religious will qualify. It endorses religious views in general by giving them special status above and beyond secular convictions. Why should a religious person be allowed to discriminate against gays because they believe God told them to, but a secular person can't do likewise if they happen to think homosexuality is an affront to evolution?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I know. That's the problem.

The irony of it all is, as we continue with the delusional attempt to force everyone to treat each other equally, government becomes more and more discriminatory. This isn't a coincidence. If you task the government with trying to enforce equal rights in a social context, you must create a policy that treats people decidedly unequally. You can't have both equal rights under the law and the sort of social justice that liberals yearn for.

This is an instance where the state government is deliberately enacting discrimination. What is even worse is that it is violating the constitution by endorsing religion. That is specifically proscribed by the 1st amendment.

This isn't a freedom of religion issue. It's a freedom of association issue, which is much broader and actually encompasses freedom of religion. But I'd oppose this law, if I lived in Arizona, because I agree with your assessment that it's a mis-application of the first amendment.

How so?

 

[Cecilie1200]

If it passes it will be overturned by the SCOTUS, because it opens the Civil War can of worms.

"It's against my religion to serve blacks, women, the military, liberals, cons, or anyone that doesn't believe the way I do."

It's just more of the GOP attempt to divide the U.S.. They really do hate their own country.

Only a leftist is dumb enough to think unity is something you force on people.

 

[dblack]

This is an instance where the state government is deliberately enacting discrimination. What is even worse is that it is violating the constitution by endorsing religion. That is specifically proscribed by the 1st amendment.

This isn't a freedom of religion issue. It's a freedom of association issue, which is much broader and actually encompasses freedom of religion. But I'd oppose this law, if I lived in Arizona, because I agree with your assessment that it's a mis-application of the first amendment.

How so?

Well, first, let me acknowledge that my take on this isn't mainstream. For the left, or the right. Probably not even for most libertarians. But in my view, the notion that the first amendment justifies ad hoc exemption from a law whenever it conflicts with a person's religious belief actually perverts the intent, causing it to inflict the very thing it was intended to prevent.

The point of the religion clause of the first amendment was to prevent government from dictating our religious beliefs, by preventing the state from both targeting religions for persecution, or endorsing particular faiths as 'state' authorized religion. I believe it was intended to ensure that religious people weren't denied freedom because of their religion. I don't believe it was intended to give them special perks - freedoms others don't enjoy - because of their religious beliefs. And that's the net result when we exempt compliance with a law on 'religious grounds'. It not only violates the basic concept of equal protection, it amounts to the state endorsing certain religious beliefs and spurning others. The exact opposite of the intent of the First.

 

[rightwinger]

This is what I hate about Liberals. They can't make anything easy

You try to pass a simple law that says if you hate fags you don't have to serve them. Just put up a stinkn sign that say "We don't serve faggots" and you done

But NOoooooooo.......liberals have to screw everything up. You can't pass an antifaggot law so you have to make it open ended. So you pass a law that says if you have religious beliefs you can't be forced to do business with anyone who your religion opposes.

So what happens? Now the law applies to soldiers, Jesus killing Jews, Muslims, atheists and whoever. Liberals....why do you have to stick your nose in our business?