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

[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...

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.

Hell if I know.

Shooting from the hip, I would say...

We draw the line at Traditional Interpretations of Morals and Community Standards...

According to Western Law, homosexuality has been illegal for much of its recorded history, post-Antiquity, in most lands and jurisdictions and at most times...

And, of course, we brought those Traditional Interpretations of Morals and Community Standards along with us, from the Old World, and have been evolving our own 'flavor' of them ever since...

A sort of Differentiation of Species, in a metaphorical legal context, now that we have Western Law on ONE side of The Pond and another flavor of Western Law on ANOTHER side of The Pond...

Over the past few decades since the end of WWII, which largely enervated and emasculated Europe as a world power point-of-origin, the European variant of Western Law has grown increasingly dissipated and degenerate and emasculating to match...

Over the past few decades, America has resisted this downward slide towards degeneracy, but imperfectly, and homosexuals have done an excellent job of creating rationalizations and legal arguments and propaganda not only to advance their cause but to convince an increasingly large percentage of the Straight population to at least let up on them enough to allow them to make some legal progress...

Many folks have reached the conclusion that this process has gone too far, and that we are allowing our own 'flavor' of Western Law to more closely mirror the dissipated and degenerate and emasculated state of such Law in Europe...

So, they start talking about DE-legitimizing homosexuality as detrimental to society, to counter putting the rights of the 3% above the rights of the 97%... a state of affairs which simply cannot be sustained for very long.

 

[Mustang]

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

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

Yep -

But everyone knows that won't happen. What WILL happen is that people who call themselves Christian will be extremely selective in who they will and won't do business with, regardless of what's in the Bible.

Perhaps this is the time for people who are commonly referred to as customers to decide that they won't spend their money at businesses owned and operated by people who identify as Christian conservatives. Then we will watch this law die a quick death as Christians rediscover their love of Mammon.

 

[Katzndogz]

Exactly. It will work just the way it worked with Chuck Fil A.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

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

Link?

How quickly you forget your own words.

1. Jesus saved the adulterous woman from being stoned to death; had he been an adherent to what Paul said above, he would have never gone near her.

2. Similarly in Luke 7 36-50

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Yep -

But everyone knows that won't happen. What WILL happen is that people who call themselves Christian will be extremely selective in who they will and won't do business with, regardless of what's in the Bible.

Perhaps this is the time for people who are commonly referred to as customers to decide that they won't spend their money at businesses owned and operated by people who identify as Christian conservatives. Then we will watch this law die a quick death as Christians rediscover their love of Mammon.

And it’s this sort of conflict that would prove disruptive to the markets, and why government is authorized to regulate commerce, including the implementation of public accommodations laws.

 

[Mustang]

Yep -

But everyone knows that won't happen. What WILL happen is that people who call themselves Christian will be extremely selective in who they will and won't do business with, regardless of what's in the Bible.

Perhaps this is the time for people who are commonly referred to as customers to decide that they won't spend their money at businesses owned and operated by people who identify as Christian conservatives. Then we will watch this law die a quick death as Christians rediscover their love of Mammon.

And it’s this sort of conflict that would prove disruptive to the markets, and why government is authorized to regulate commerce, including the implementation of public accommodations laws.

Wouldn't it be beautiful irony if the Christian love of capitalism and perfect markets came back to bite them in the ass as people voted with their wallets and refused to do business with these purveyors of discrimination?

 

[dblack]

But everyone knows that won't happen. What WILL happen is that people who call themselves Christian will be extremely selective in who they will and won't do business with, regardless of what's in the Bible.

Perhaps this is the time for people who are commonly referred to as customers to decide that they won't spend their money at businesses owned and operated by people who identify as Christian conservatives. Then we will watch this law die a quick death as Christians rediscover their love of Mammon.

And it’s this sort of conflict that would prove disruptive to the markets, and why government is authorized to regulate commerce, including the implementation of public accommodations laws.

Wouldn't it be beautiful irony if the Christian love of capitalism and perfect markets came back to bite them in the ass as people voted with their wallets and refused to do business with these purveyors of discrimination?

Ah, come on. Where's the fun in letting people decide for themselves? We need a law!

 

[rightwinger]

And it’s this sort of conflict that would prove disruptive to the markets, and why government is authorized to regulate commerce, including the implementation of public accommodations laws.

Wouldn't it be beautiful irony if the Christian love of capitalism and perfect markets came back to bite them in the ass as people voted with their wallets and refused to do business with these purveyors of discrimination?

Ah, come on. Where's the fun in letting people decide for themselves? We need a law!

Decide...I hate fags?

 

[N8dizzle]

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.



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.

Not because it's my viewpoint. Because it's right.

God forbid me to expect the government to do what's right.



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

 

[Gem]

Mustang Wrote:

Wouldn't it be beautiful irony if the Christian love of capitalism and perfect markets came back to bite them in the ass as people voted with their wallets and refused to do business with these purveyors of discrimination?

Well...YES...and that is exactly what SHOULD be allowed to happen. A private business owner should be allowed to refuse service to whoever they want. I, as a private individual, then should have the right to refuse to patronize bigots, racists, homophobes, and other people I deem obnoxious, stupid, and not worthy of my hard-earned dollars. Hopefully, more people will agree with me than them and they will be forced to change their policies or lose their business.

Why does is seem like we are always so damned eager and excited to allow government to regulate and control more and more and more...when we could sort this out quite easily for ourselves?

 

[AmericanFirst]

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

Link?

How quickly you forget your own words.

1. Jesus saved the adulterous woman from being stoned to death; had he been an adherent to what Paul said above, he would have never gone near her.

2. Similarly in Luke 7 36-50

Funny how people who don't know the Bible use it to defend their stupidity. Paul did not contradict anything. Jesus spoke against sexual immorality which homosexuality is.

 

[rightwinger]

Mustang Wrote:

Wouldn't it be beautiful irony if the Christian love of capitalism and perfect markets came back to bite them in the ass as people voted with their wallets and refused to do business with these purveyors of discrimination?

Well...YES...and that is exactly what SHOULD be allowed to happen. A private business owner should be allowed to refuse service to whoever they want. I, as a private individual, then should have the right to refuse to patronize bigots, racists, homophobes, and other people I deem obnoxious, stupid, and not worthy of my hard-earned dollars. Hopefully, more people will agree with me than them and they will be forced to change their policies or lose their business.

Why does is seem like we are always so damned eager and excited to allow government to regulate and control more and more and more...when we could sort this out quite easily for ourselves?

Sorry....I don't serve *******

 

[bodecea]

Link?

How quickly you forget your own words.

1. Jesus saved the adulterous woman from being stoned to death; had he been an adherent to what Paul said above, he would have never gone near her.

2. Similarly in Luke 7 36-50

Funny how people who don't know the Bible use it to defend their stupidity. Paul did not contradict anything. Jesus spoke against sexual immorality which homosexuality is.

When did this Jesus speak of homosexuality?

 

[AmericanFirst]

1. Jesus saved the adulterous woman from being stoned to death; had he been an adherent to what Paul said above, he would have never gone near her.

2. Similarly in Luke 7 36-50

Funny how people who don't know the Bible use it to defend their stupidity. Paul did not contradict anything. Jesus spoke against sexual immorality which homosexuality is.

When did this Jesus speak of homosexuality?

Read the Bible and learn. Jesus spoke of sexual immorality which covers homosexuality. Man I hate repeating myself to people who refuse to learn for themselves.

 

[N8dizzle]

And they just happen to be the ones who disagree with you?
I'm sure there are stupid people on both sides of the argument, but if all you have to say is "your dumb" then your only weakening your side.
That's ok though, in a way your proving my point. Hateful people supporting a hateful law.


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

 

[N8dizzle]

Does anyone else notice that most of the hateful comments on here are made by the people supporting this hateful law.
Its crazy. Every time someone makes a great point about how wrong this law is, someone on the other side will jump in in say "that's wrong stupid."
It's really sad if there isn't a good argument in support of the law that doesn't start or end with an insult.

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

 

[bodecea]

Funny how people who don't know the Bible use it to defend their stupidity. Paul did not contradict anything. Jesus spoke against sexual immorality which homosexuality is.

When did this Jesus speak of homosexuality?

Read the Bible and learn. Jesus spoke of sexual immorality which covers homosexuality. Man I hate repeating myself to people who refuse to learn for themselves.

I have a bible right here...KJV...Book, chapter and verse please.

 

[Silhouette]

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?

rightwinger is the type of posters LGBT strategists dream about to drum up sympathy for..

...hey....wait a minute...?

 

[Derideo_Te]

"...And to reiterate, it is not 97% who are opposed to the equality of the 3%..."

Indeed.

The US Census Bureau estimates that 97% of the population of the US identifies as heterosexual, while 3% of the population identifies as something other than Straight.

Popular opinion in support of Gay Marriage has only reached a favorable tipping point very recently, if one looks as the poll results spanning a decade or two, and fickle opinion can range up and down by a dozen points at the drop of a hat.

And, given that many of those Straights temporarily or recently speaking-out as favoring Gay Marriage do not realize that this opens the door for a more holistic legitimization of homosexuality in society, which, had they contemplated that in advance, would have quite probably caused a great many to come down in the 'Opposed' column after all.

In the end, the 97% are in this together, and are differentiated from the 3%.

Time will sort this out, one way or another.

"...It is a fanatical subset who at most comprise 20% who are trying to deprive the 3% of their equal rights."

I have no idea where you pulled your 20% figure from but am content not to dispute it for now - it really doesn't matter much.

What does matter is that this is being perceived as the Legitimizing of Wrongdoing in many quarters, and, as such, it may very well prove unsustainable in the long run.

Again... time will sort that out.

You are drawing a line between heterosexuals and homosexuals and erroneously assuming that all 97% of heterosexuals embrace outmoded religious mores. That has been proven to be wrong by actual election results where ballot initiatives are nowhere even close to your 97%.

In reality almost every single family has at least one gay member. It might be a cousin or an aunt or uncle but they are there. Furthermore there is almost zero discrimination of gays amongst people under 30. The bulk of the discrimination stems from a very small minority of fanatical Christians. The 20% figure represents the hard core extreme right who also embrace this bizarre notion that gays are "sinners". The other 67% of heterosexuals are either ambivalent or have positive feelings about gays.

Time always trends towards liberalism. By the time the generation under 30 reaches 60 there won't be any question whatsoever that it is illegal to discriminate against gays. The fanatical anti-gay religious extreme right will have receded to the fringes as an anachronism.

But in the meantime AZ will suffer yet another black eye for being the most regressive state in the union. They were hammered in the early 1990's for refusing to embrace MLK day and it cost them an estimated $300 million in lost revenue as the NFL teams all boycotted the state until they finally caved in. Then in 2010 they had another similar scandal with the racial profiling stop & frisk law based on appearances only. Now they are setting themselves up to be hammered for illegally discriminating against gays.

Once is a mistake, twice is stupidity, the third time is a pattern of behavior that will ruin the state's reputation for many decades to come.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

There have been many legal challenges to dress codes.