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

[RandallFlagg]

The fact that we even have a law, or debate the legailty of freedom of association is pathetic in a supposedly free country. A business owner, in any state, for any reason, should be allowed to determine who they will provide services to.

But, LOLberals just love the idea of forcing people to do what they believe is right.

Educate yourselves you right wing fascists.

Do you know ANYTHING about the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

Yeah, as a black man in 1964 I learned (firsthand) about the civil rights act. Your point? That it somehow gives two perverts the right to behave in an unnatural manner?

I would suggest that YOU learn a little more about the civil rights act of 1964. But that wouldn't fit your agenda, now would it?

 

[RandallFlagg]

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.

It's legal to go barefoot, for men to go without a shirt, and teenagers to wear their pants off their butts. "No shoes, no shirt" signs have been up for decades. I'm also seeing "pull up your pants or don't come in" signs. No one is stroking out about those and they are clearly discriminatory.

Why Sunshine!!! Don't you understand that these people are violating the civil rights of the barefooted or the shirtless!?!?! How DARE YOU!!!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Incorrect.

The issue has nothing to do with where rights ‘begin’ or ‘end,’ that’s a naïve and ignorant perception.

The issue of rights pertains to the relationship only between the citizen and the state, and compelling the state to justify its efforts to curtail civil liberties.

Again, our rights are inalienable but not absolute, which is why one does not have the First Amendment right to shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater, and the state is justified to subject one who does to punitive measures.

Moreover, one does not have ‘rights’ as a ‘homosexual,’ he as rights as a consequence of being a person, where his sexual orientation is irrelevant. And when the state seeks to disadvantage a gay American predicated solely on his sexual orientation, such laws are appropriately invalidated by the courts because they lack a rational basis and seek only to make gay Americans different from everyone else.

In the private realm, absent government laws and measures, citizens are at liberty to hate gay Americans to their hearts’ content, and to exclude them from private organizations such as the BSA or Christian churches whose dogma is hostile to homosexuals.

But with regard to public accommodations, laws prohibiting business owners from discriminating against classes of persons based solely on who they are, are justified pursuant to Commerce Clause jurisprudence authorizing governments to regulate markets as well as to combat discrimination (Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US (1964)), where markets are subject to regulation regardless how small and as a consequence of all markets being interrelated (Wickard v. Filburn (1942)).

A private citizen who is homosexual is not ‘infringing’ upon the ‘rights’ of a Christian solely due to his being gay; and that one is a Christian does not warrant his ignoring or violating just and proper laws such as public accommodations laws because the Christian perceives homosexuality as ‘offensive’ to his faith (Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith (1990)).

Most importantly, public accommodations laws do not 'force' anyone to “treat [one] preferentially,” nor do public accommodations laws compel one to ‘violate’ his “religiously held beliefs.”

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

It's legal to go barefoot, for men to go without a shirt, and teenagers to wear their pants off their butts. "No shoes, no shirt" signs have been up for decades. I'm also seeing "pull up your pants or don't come in" signs. No one is stroking out about those and they are clearly discriminatory.

No, that is not discriminatory. That is a dress code and if the individual complies they will be served like everyone else. Those signs are usually in establishments that serve food and the dress code is about hygiene and it applies to patrons as well as staff. You would be upset if you found what looked like a pubic hair in your soup. But it could just as easily have come from a man who was not wearing a shirt as the waiter passed him by to bring you your soup. So dress code laws are not discriminatory.

 

[Kondor3]

"...nor do public accommodations laws compel one to ‘violate’ his “religiously held beliefs.”

And if it is my religiously held belief that it is unholy or otherwise wrong in the eyes of the God of My Understanding, to have dealings with homosexuals, and if I operate a public business, must I violate my religiously-held belief, and serve such persons?

 

[RandallFlagg]

"...nor do public accommodations laws compel one to ‘violate’ his “religiously held beliefs.”

And if it is my religiously held belief that it is unholy or otherwise wrong in the eyes of the God of My Understanding, to have dealings with homosexuals, and if I operate a public business, must I violate my religiously-held belief, and serve such persons?

Apparently, according to the marxists members of this forum, your "rights" have no bearing on the matter. YOUR rights MUST be given up in order for YOU to conduct business. Whether or not you agree with the infringement, it makes no difference - as long as the perverts are free to practice their perversion. They will tell you, that if the behavior offends you (and ESPECIALLY if you are religious) you must close your business down, rather than offend those offending you.

THEIR rights supecede yours.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

It's legal to go barefoot, for men to go without a shirt, and teenagers to wear their pants off their butts. "No shoes, no shirt" signs have been up for decades. I'm also seeing "pull up your pants or don't come in" signs. No one is stroking out about those and they are clearly discriminatory.

Also incorrect.

Such requirements are not ‘discriminatory’ because they’re applied to everyone equally; an individual not wearing shoes does not constitute a ‘class of persons.’

If a business owner, however, where to apply a shirt and shoes policy only to Asian-Americans, that would be a potential act of discrimination, as a single class of persons is singled-out to be disadvantaged.

 

[Kondor3]

"...nor do public accommodations laws compel one to ‘violate’ his “religiously held beliefs.”

And if it is my religiously held belief that it is unholy or otherwise wrong in the eyes of the God of My Understanding, to have dealings with homosexuals, and if I operate a public business, must I violate my religiously-held belief, and serve such persons?

Apparently, according to the marxists members of this forum, your "rights" have no bearing on the matter. YOUR rights MUST be given up in order for YOU to conduct business. Whether or not you agree with the infringement, it makes no difference - as long as the perverts are free to practice their perversion. They will tell you, that if the behavior offends you (and ESPECIALLY if you are religious) you must close your business down, rather than offend those offending you.

THEIR rights supecede yours.

That's their Party Line, alright...

And why Normal Folk are trying to find a way around it...

Best wishes for success, for that legal exploration...

With any luck, eventually the 97% will hit on a formula to prevent the 3% from forcing them to do things they don't want to do...

 

[Derideo_Te]

"...nor do public accommodations laws compel one to ‘violate’ his “religiously held beliefs.”

And if it is my religiously held belief that it is unholy or otherwise wrong in the eyes of the God of My Understanding, to have dealings with homosexuals, and if I operate a public business, must I violate my religiously-held belief, and serve such persons?

Apparently, according to the marxists members of this forum, your "rights" have no bearing on the matter. YOUR rights MUST be given up in order for YOU to conduct business. Whether or not you agree with the infringement, it makes no difference - as long as the perverts are free to practice their perversion. They will tell you, that if the behavior offends you (and ESPECIALLY if you are religious) you must close your business down, rather than offend those offending you.

THEIR rights supecede yours.

Your response above says volumes about why you consider yourself to be a "proud Tea Party member".

 

[Katzndogz]

All the business owner has to do is remove the good or service from being offered to the public. Then they don't have to worry about it any more.

 

[Katzndogz]

And if it is my religiously held belief that it is unholy or otherwise wrong in the eyes of the God of My Understanding, to have dealings with homosexuals, and if I operate a public business, must I violate my religiously-held belief, and serve such persons?

Apparently, according to the marxists members of this forum, your "rights" have no bearing on the matter. YOUR rights MUST be given up in order for YOU to conduct business. Whether or not you agree with the infringement, it makes no difference - as long as the perverts are free to practice their perversion. They will tell you, that if the behavior offends you (and ESPECIALLY if you are religious) you must close your business down, rather than offend those offending you.

THEIR rights supecede yours.

That's their Party Line, alright...

And why Normal Folk are trying to find a way around it...

Best wishes for success, for that legal exploration...

With any luck, eventually the 97% will hit on a formula to prevent the 3% from forcing them to do things they don't want to do...

Finding a way around it is not as hard as you might think.

 

[Kondor3]

And if it is my religiously held belief that it is unholy or otherwise wrong in the eyes of the God of My Understanding, to have dealings with homosexuals, and if I operate a public business, must I violate my religiously-held belief, and serve such persons?

Apparently, according to the marxists members of this forum, your "rights" have no bearing on the matter. YOUR rights MUST be given up in order for YOU to conduct business. Whether or not you agree with the infringement, it makes no difference - as long as the perverts are free to practice their perversion. They will tell you, that if the behavior offends you (and ESPECIALLY if you are religious) you must close your business down, rather than offend those offending you.

THEIR rights supecede yours.

Your response above says volumes about why you consider yourself to be a "proud Tea Party member".

I am very sorry that we are on opposites sides of this issue but that's the way of it sometimes.

I happen to agree with Flagg's response in large part, because it speaks truth.

It is forcing 97% of the population to do things that they do not want to, and which (for many of them) their faith informs them is an unclean association with perverse individuals, merely to accommodate the 3%...

I understand the legal arguments on both sides, to some modest extent, and even the ethical ones, to some extent, but this is as much about doing what one believes to be right, or, at a minimum, having the freedom not to do something which your upbringing or faith or interpretation of sacred texts tells you is wrong...

Clearly, something is going to have to be done about this, to re-empower the 97%...

And, I suspect, a way will be found, more quickly than we can presently envision...

 

[rightwinger]

And if it is my religiously held belief that it is unholy or otherwise wrong in the eyes of the God of My Understanding, to have dealings with homosexuals, and if I operate a public business, must I violate my religiously-held belief, and serve such persons?

Apparently, according to the marxists members of this forum, your "rights" have no bearing on the matter. YOUR rights MUST be given up in order for YOU to conduct business. Whether or not you agree with the infringement, it makes no difference - as long as the perverts are free to practice their perversion. They will tell you, that if the behavior offends you (and ESPECIALLY if you are religious) you must close your business down, rather than offend those offending you.

THEIR rights supecede yours.

That's their Party Line, alright...

And why Normal Folk are trying to find a way around it...

Best wishes for success, for that legal exploration...

With any luck, eventually the 97% will hit on a formula to prevent the 3% from forcing them to do things they don't want to do...

Even the 3% have rights

And the majority if the 97% recognize it

 

[Bfgrn]

The fact that we even have a law, or debate the legailty of freedom of association is pathetic in a supposedly free country. A business owner, in any state, for any reason, should be allowed to determine who they will provide services to.

But, LOLberals just love the idea of forcing people to do what they believe is right.

Educate yourselves you right wing fascists.

Do you know ANYTHING about the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

Yeah, as a black man in 1964 I learned (firsthand) about the civil rights act. Your point? That it somehow gives two perverts the right to behave in an unnatural manner?

I would suggest that YOU learn a little more about the civil rights act of 1964. But that wouldn't fit your agenda, now would it?

SO, you had no problem being refused to be served at a lunch counter because you are black?

We all have the right to our religious beliefs. But we do not have the right to discriminate because of our religious beliefs.

 

[Bfgrn]

Apparently, according to the marxists members of this forum, your "rights" have no bearing on the matter. YOUR rights MUST be given up in order for YOU to conduct business. Whether or not you agree with the infringement, it makes no difference - as long as the perverts are free to practice their perversion. They will tell you, that if the behavior offends you (and ESPECIALLY if you are religious) you must close your business down, rather than offend those offending you.

THEIR rights supecede yours.

That's their Party Line, alright...

And why Normal Folk are trying to find a way around it...

Best wishes for success, for that legal exploration...

With any luck, eventually the 97% will hit on a formula to prevent the 3% from forcing them to do things they don't want to do...

Even the 3% have rights

And the majority if the 97% recognize it

Isn't it amazing how these right wing turds jump on board with majority rule when it fits their fascism?

 

[Kondor3]

Apparently, according to the marxists members of this forum, your "rights" have no bearing on the matter. YOUR rights MUST be given up in order for YOU to conduct business. Whether or not you agree with the infringement, it makes no difference - as long as the perverts are free to practice their perversion. They will tell you, that if the behavior offends you (and ESPECIALLY if you are religious) you must close your business down, rather than offend those offending you.

THEIR rights supecede yours.

That's their Party Line, alright...

And why Normal Folk are trying to find a way around it...

Best wishes for success, for that legal exploration...

With any luck, eventually the 97% will hit on a formula to prevent the 3% from forcing them to do things they don't want to do...

Even the 3% have rights

And the majority if the 97% recognize it

Indeed...

Most of the surviving mainstream religions in the world view homosexuality as an aberration and anathema...

That puts Homosexuals into a category unlike any other...

People have spin-doctored Sacred Texts to squeeze out marginal rationalizations for discriminating against other folks based upon religion or skin-color or the like...

But no such stretch of the imagination is required, to discern the absolute condemnation we find for homosexuality, either in various Sacred Texts or in mainstream interpretations and teachings...

Billions of good people, worldwide, have been taught that homosexuality is wrong, on any number of levels, and in any number of ways...

And huge, extremely large subsets of those billions believe that association with homosexuals or having dealings with homosexuals is also very wrong and akin to aiding and abetting the sinful and morally unclean...

Rights or no, you cannot legislate against such overwhelming power and expect to sustain that over time...

I also would not lean too heavily upon those popular polls related to support for Gay Marriage...

As more and more of the 97% come to understand that this is tantamount to legitimizing homosexuality, ways will be found to work around those so-called 'rights', in the narrow context of service provision...

The 3% have had a good run in recent years and won some considerable victories...

They will come to understand that the arrogance with which they continue to pursue theri agenda beyond a few basic rights is going to blow up in their faces...

But it is the fate of Men that they do not listen, while they are temporarily on top...

In this case, that King (or Queen) of the Hill status is not going to last very long...

There's too much power aligned (and aligning, and soon to align) against it, for it to last very long...

Or so it seems, to this observer...

 

[dblack]

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.

Incorrect.

The issue has nothing to do with where rights ‘begin’ or ‘end,’ that’s a naïve and ignorant perception.

The issue of rights pertains to the relationship only between the citizen and the state, and compelling the state to justify its efforts to curtail civil liberties.

Again, our rights are inalienable but not absolute, which is why one does not have the First Amendment right to shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater, and the state is justified to subject one who does to punitive measures.

Moreover, one does not have ‘rights’ as a ‘homosexual,’ he as rights as a consequence of being a person, where his sexual orientation is irrelevant. And when the state seeks to disadvantage a gay American predicated solely on his sexual orientation, such laws are appropriately invalidated by the courts because they lack a rational basis and seek only to make gay Americans different from everyone else.

In the private realm, absent government laws and measures, citizens are at liberty to hate gay Americans to their hearts’ content, and to exclude them from private organizations such as the BSA or Christian churches whose dogma is hostile to homosexuals.

But with regard to public accommodations, laws prohibiting business owners from discriminating against classes of persons based solely on who they are, are justified pursuant to Commerce Clause jurisprudence authorizing governments to regulate markets as well as to combat discrimination (Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US (1964)), where markets are subject to regulation regardless how small and as a consequence of all markets being interrelated (Wickard v. Filburn (1942)).

A private citizen who is homosexual is not ‘infringing’ upon the ‘rights’ of a Christian solely due to his being gay; and that one is a Christian does not warrant his ignoring or violating just and proper laws such as public accommodations laws because the Christian perceives homosexuality as ‘offensive’ to his faith (Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith (1990)).

Most importantly, public accommodations laws do not 'force' anyone to “treat [one] preferentially,” nor do public accommodations laws compel one to ‘violate’ his “religiously held beliefs.”

The presumption here is that the commerce clause justifies violating the business owner's freedom of association. This is exactly why the broad interpretation of the commerce clause is so insidious - it essentially nullifies all other rights.

 

[Tresha91203]

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

Well, all I can say is I hope the good citizens of Arizona--(all of them) refuse to do business with any company that would do this.

It reminds me of white only and black only bathrooms. That didn't survive in the 50's in the south--and as the decades have long now passed we are a much better country for being inclusive of "everyone"--regardless of race.

Gays do not "choose" to be gay. There is no man or woman that wakes up one morning and decides to have sex with the same sex.

Maybe men ... but plenty of women experiment with other women. Ann Haiche (sp? Lazy) had a long term relationship with Ellen and she's not gay. While I doubt it is as common among men, I bet its not "no one."

Edited to add a "t"

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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"?



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.



I don't know. Why are 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.

Why are you stuck on this idea that I'm trying to force my opinion on you?
Isn't the whole idea of this to discuss something that we all don't agree on?
I don't expect you to change your views for me, or to agree with me. I'm just saying what I believe. How is that any different than you talking about your beliefs?
So... when you say whatever you want about the subject thats ok, but when I say something I'm trying to force my beliefs on you.
You seem to think that I'm the only one who disagrees with you. You haven't noticed that this is a highly debated issue? I never claimed that anyone personally owes me an explanation or that my view is more important than other people's.
This law doesn't even effect me personally. I don't own a business, and I'm not gay. I think that when a law is passed that is hateful and does nothing but hurt our society, people who realize it should speak up.
And it doesn't surprise me that the word "fair" gives you chills. If I were as closed minded as you I wouldn't like the words "fair" or "just" either.
I shutter to think of how you feel when you see the word "equality."

You'd probably fall over dead if you read the constitution.






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

It might just be that little detail that you want the government to impose your viewpoint on people just because you are right.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

It. Does. Not. Do. That.

I think it does, for the reasons I've stated. But I appreciate the fact that you see it differently and I see no reason to rehash the debate.

How do you reconcile your belief with the actual facts in the example that you deleted from my post?