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

[Bfgrn]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think this law singles out gays. In and of itself, that would likely render it as unconstitutional.

So, the law supposedly would allow people to deny service to people from a particular group due to sincerely held religious beliefs.

How about Christians denying service to Mormons because they see them as a cult?

How about Christians denying service to Jehovah's witnesses for similar reasons?

How about Christians denying service to Jews because they say they killed Jesus?

How about Muslims denying service to Christians?

Or Jews denying service to Muslims?

Or Muslims denying service to Jews?

If Christians want this law, will they be willing to accept the consequences if and when they THEMSELVES are discriminated against by people who claim they are simply exercising their sincerely held religious beliefs?

There is no way of the right denying who and what they really are.

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

Then they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemöller

 

[rightwinger]

The actual facts of the case are that it grants special protections to religious people making decisions based on religious reasons (implicitly state-approved religions at that, because someone must judge whether such a claim represents a "legitimate" religious faith or not). It provides no such protection for non-religious people making exactly the same decisions for secular reasons. As I've said, I don't believe the intent of the first amendment is to grant special privileges to religions.

How do you separate a religious person from the average fag hater?

Wait, I've heard this one.... with a crowbar?

Hint: They are one in the same

 

[Bombur]

I am religious and I am rather offended that anyone would hide behind Jesus when they discriminate against gays. Christianity is not that complicated. Love your neighbor as yourself. What is happening here has absolutely nothing to do with that message and nothing to do with following Jesus.

 

[Sunshine]

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!!!

Don't you love the way they cherry pick the stuff they are oh so indignant about! LOL. They wouldn't know the Civil Rights Act from the Commerce Clause. Given that it was the Commerce Clause that brought about the earliest civil rights for blacks! The Civil Rights Act was late to the party!

 

[Kondor3]

"...Stealing, murder, rape and perjury are against the law. Being gay is NOT..."

The wide variety of anti-Sodomy laws in this country - past and present - tell us a different story, even if many or all are no longer operative or being enforced.

"...All you are doing is justifying your wrongdoing...discrimination..."

Incorrect.

All I am doing is representing the Opposing Viewpoint, which happens to disagree with your own, and which believes that its own stance is righteous and moral, in the face of an unfortunate and immoral outcome of secularism.

It is no surprise that the 'immoral' and 'unclean' and 'sinful' would holler rationalizing counterpoints, when their immorality and uncleanness and sinfulness are publicly decried, of course.

Predictable, and merely inconvenient brickbats which must be endured and dodged, along the path to correcting a grotesque imposed upon the Righteous.

"...Discrimination 1. the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex."

A modern-day definition.

Sexual orientation would not have appeared in such a definition, only a couple of decades ago.

The Opposition will continue to work to reverse the present state of affairs, as we see at work now, in various State-level (home-rule) efforts; one or more of which is bound to be hit upon as a Winning Formula, and then rapidly copied elsewhere.

 

[Sunshine]

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.

Wrong. They just haven't been challenged yet. That's the only reason they are still around.

 

[dblack]

How do you separate a religious person from the average fag hater?

Wait, I've heard this one.... with a crowbar?

Hint: They are one in the same

Agreed. But my point is that this law treats them differently. As egregious as I find the "thought crime" presumptions of public accommodations laws, special exemptions for religious reasons isn't the answer.

 

[Kondor3]

Maybe God has changed his mind about homosexuality...

As soon as Religious Folk get the memo from God, they'll be in your corner, too, but, until the Big Guy cuts that memo, well...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Our laws don't allow honor killings in this country, even if the motive behind them is religious belief.

Why is that?

 

[Kondor3]

Our laws don't allow honor killings in this country, even if the motive behind them is religious belief. Why is that?

Because (a) it is a far more severe action involving the taking of a life and (b) it is not in the best interests of society-at-large to allow it.

This second bit... (b)... is usually the litmus test for whether something is allowed or not, over the long haul, despite an occasional flip-flop on legal standing here and there...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Maybe God has changed his mind about homosexuality...

As soon as Religious Folk get the memo from God, they'll be in your corner, too, but, until the Big Guy cuts that memo, well...

We don't allow homosexuals to be killed in the name of any religion in this country. Did God change his mind on that,

or is our secular government acting in defiance of God's teachings? Or at least ignoring them?

 

[Kondor3]

Maybe God has changed his mind about homosexuality...

As soon as Religious Folk get the memo from God, they'll be in your corner, too, but, until the Big Guy cuts that memo, well...

We don't allow homosexuals to be killed in the name of any religion in this country. Did God change his mind on that,

or is our secular government acting in defiance of God's teachings? Or at least ignoring them?

Or have Believers spun their own rationalization for allowing them to live, while holding them at arms' length?

I dunno.

 

[Sunshine]

There is no known teaching in all of Christianity, traceable to the Bible, that commands that a good Christian must refuse to do business with a homosexual.

Therefore the idea that such is a Christian belief is merely an invention. If one can invent 'religious' beliefs on a whim,

and then use the law to act on those 'religious' beliefs, and circumvent the rest of the Constitution in the process,

what's the point of having constitutional rights?

Psstt.......try I Corinthians 5

9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:

10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.

11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?

13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Our laws don't allow honor killings in this country, even if the motive behind them is religious belief. Why is that?

Because (a) it is a far more severe action involving the taking of a life and (b) it is not in the best interests of society-at-large to allow it.

This second bit... (b)... is usually the litmus test for whether something is allowed or not, over the long haul, despite an occasional flip-flop on legal standing here and there...

So depriving an American of, in this case, her life is verboten, religious rights and freedoms notwithstanding...

...what degree of harm can we rightfully allow? At what point is the amount of the harm a person would suffer from someone acting against them in the name of religion be small enough to make it permissible?

Tell us where that line of demarcation is.

 

[Mustang]

There is no known teaching in all of Christianity, traceable to the Bible, that commands that a good Christian must refuse to do business with a homosexual.

Therefore the idea that such is a Christian belief is merely an invention. If one can invent 'religious' beliefs on a whim,

and then use the law to act on those 'religious' beliefs, and circumvent the rest of the Constitution in the process,

what's the point of having constitutional rights?

Psstt.......try I Corinthians 5

9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:

10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.

11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?

13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

So, with this law Christians could deny service to unmarried couples of the opposite sex too?

 

[NYcarbineer]

There is no known teaching in all of Christianity, traceable to the Bible, that commands that a good Christian must refuse to do business with a homosexual.

Therefore the idea that such is a Christian belief is merely an invention. If one can invent 'religious' beliefs on a whim,

and then use the law to act on those 'religious' beliefs, and circumvent the rest of the Constitution in the process,

what's the point of having constitutional rights?

Psstt.......try I Corinthians 5

9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:

10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.

11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?

13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

Those were Paul's words, and contradict those of Jesus.

 

[Sunshine]

There is no known teaching in all of Christianity, traceable to the Bible, that commands that a good Christian must refuse to do business with a homosexual.

Therefore the idea that such is a Christian belief is merely an invention. If one can invent 'religious' beliefs on a whim,

and then use the law to act on those 'religious' beliefs, and circumvent the rest of the Constitution in the process,

what's the point of having constitutional rights?

Psstt.......try I Corinthians 5

9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:

10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.

11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?

13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

Those were Paul's words, and contradict those of Jesus.

Link?

How quickly you forget your own words.

 

[Political Junky]

There is no known teaching in all of Christianity, traceable to the Bible, that commands that a good Christian must refuse to do business with a homosexual.

Therefore the idea that such is a Christian belief is merely an invention. If one can invent 'religious' beliefs on a whim,

and then use the law to act on those 'religious' beliefs, and circumvent the rest of the Constitution in the process,

what's the point of having constitutional rights?

Psstt.......try I Corinthians 5

9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:

10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.

11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?

13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

So, with this law Christians could deny service to unmarried couples of the opposite sex too?

Yep -

 

[NYcarbineer]

There is no known teaching in all of Christianity, traceable to the Bible, that commands that a good Christian must refuse to do business with a homosexual.

Therefore the idea that such is a Christian belief is merely an invention. If one can invent 'religious' beliefs on a whim,

and then use the law to act on those 'religious' beliefs, and circumvent the rest of the Constitution in the process,

what's the point of having constitutional rights?

Psstt.......try I Corinthians 5

9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:

10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.

11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?

13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

So, with this law Christians could deny service to unmarried couples of the opposite sex too?

A gay married couple would not fornicators would they?

 

[Sunshine]

Psstt.......try I Corinthians 5

So, with this law Christians could deny service to unmarried couples of the opposite sex too?

A gay married couple would not fornicators would they?

13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

That pretty much covers it.

Read the whole thing before you start preaching. You simply don't know what you are talking about.