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

[NYcarbineer]

Nowhere in either the primary sacred texts recognized by Christianity nor within the realm of enduring Church teachings and doctrine do we find support for the Jews being Evil.

The same is not true of homosexuality.

You should read the law in question, it specifically states that personal religiouis beliefs need not be based on the doctrine of major religions. The text of the bill means it is their personal religious beliefs that are the deciding factor, not that they are required to show such beliefs are sanctioned by a major religion.

Just say'n, that's what the law says.

>>>>

Good catch.

Perhaps that's merely the way most folks construe the law.

The actual text is:

"Exercise of religion" means the PRACTICE OR OBSERVANCE OF
RELIGION, INCLUDING THE ability to act or refusal to act in a manner
substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the exercise is
compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief.

So none of your rants about what's in or not in Christianity are relevant.

 

[Kondor3]

So you're not aware of movements in this country, including legislation, to ban Sharia Law?

Shariah Law is foreign to The West and largely incompatible, encroaching and dangerous to the good working order of Western Society as we know it.

.

You could say that about laws that discriminate against minorities.

Granting foreign law precedence over native law is dangerous.

Legitimizing sexual behaviors that weaken and emasculate a population and lead that population to a degenerate state is dangerous.

Dangerous minorities and dangerous minority viewpoints are treated differently than benign ones; accommodated insofar as may be practicable, but kept on a short leash, for the good of the broader community or nation.

And, where barriers exist at-law to such short-leashing, the laws eventually end-up being changed, in favor of safety.

 

[Katzndogz]

So you're not aware of movements in this country, including legislation, to ban Sharia Law?

Shariah Law is foreign to The West and largely incompatible, encroaching and dangerous to the good working order of Western Society as we know it.

.

You could say that about laws that discriminate against minorities.

You know the difference between acting and not acting right? Honor killing is an act, refusing to participate in a same sex wedding is refusing to act.

The question is whether people should be forced to act against their will. If a Christian answers an ad for a cameraman for a premier movie studio and finds out that the studio is VIVID, then refuses the job on religious grounds, should there be some method of compelling that Christian to take the job?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You should read the law in question, it specifically states that personal religiouis beliefs need not be based on the doctrine of major religions. The text of the bill means it is their personal religious beliefs that are the deciding factor, not that they are required to show such beliefs are sanctioned by a major religion.

Just say'n, that's what the law says.

>>>>

Good catch.

Perhaps that's merely the way most folks construe the law.

The actual text is:

"Exercise of religion" means the PRACTICE OR OBSERVANCE OF
RELIGION, INCLUDING THE ability to act or refusal to act in a manner
substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the exercise is
compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief.

So none of your rants about what's in or not in Christianity are relevant.

The above also means that winning a discrimination suit against someone in a relevant case would be almost impossible,

since the defendant is virtually unlimited as to what he or she can claim to be a religious belief, based on the above.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Shariah Law is foreign to The West and largely incompatible, encroaching and dangerous to the good working order of Western Society as we know it.

.

You could say that about laws that discriminate against minorities.

You know the difference between acting and not acting right? Honor killing is an act, refusing to participate in a same sex wedding is refusing to act.

The question is whether people should be forced to act against their will. If a Christian answers an ad for a cameraman for a premier movie studio and finds out that the studio is VIVID, then refuses the job on religious grounds, should there be some method of compelling that Christian to take the job?

A wedding business refusing service to a homosexual is no different than a restaurant refusing service to a black person.

 

[Bfgrn]

Shariah Law is foreign to The West and largely incompatible, encroaching and dangerous to the good working order of Western Society as we know it.

.

You could say that about laws that discriminate against minorities.

Granting foreign law precedence over native law is dangerous.

Legitimizing sexual behaviors that weaken and emasculate a population and lead that population to a degenerate state is dangerous.

Dangerous minorities and dangerous minority viewpoints are treated differently than benign ones; accommodated insofar as may be practicable, but kept on a short leash, for the good of the broader community or nation.

And, where barriers exist at-law to such short-leashing, the laws eventually end-up being changed, in favor of safety.

HERE is how it works...if you don't subscribe to homosexual relationships don't PRACTICE them. After that, you really need to tend to your OWN business and keep your nose out of other people's business.

We have laws against behavior like stealing, killing and causing harm to others. If gays don't violate any of those laws, they should enjoy the VERY SAME liberties, rights and protections under law as even turds like you receive.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Shariah Law is foreign to The West and largely incompatible, encroaching and dangerous to the good working order of Western Society as we know it.

.

You could say that about laws that discriminate against minorities.

Granting foreign law precedence over native law is dangerous.

Legitimizing sexual behaviors that weaken and emasculate a population and lead that population to a degenerate state is dangerous.

Dangerous minorities and dangerous minority viewpoints are treated differently than benign ones; accommodated insofar as may be practicable, but kept on a short leash, for the good of the broader community or nation.

And, where barriers exist at-law to such short-leashing, the laws eventually end-up being changed, in favor of safety.

So you admit that religion is not an inviolable right in this country.

So let's smoothly transition to this:

What is dangerous about a gay couple getting married?

 

[Kondor3]

"...You are literally getting hammered here..."

Hardly. I am merely holding-off several pro-Gay colleagues, simultaneously, without a lot of help. That's not hammering. That's taking a stand, and making a good show of it.

"...bird brain..."

I would not have insulted you thus, simply because you hold and maintained an opposing viewpoint, but your willingness to do just that speaks volumes about your nature. Just remember, in future, you started the rock-throwing, not me.

Consequently, and with your kind permission - and even without your kind permission - you may now proceed to kiss my ass, at your earliest convenience and discretion. Thank you.

"...You are reducing yourself to amateur partisan 'sayings'..."

Oh, an occasional Partisan Maxim, tossed in here and there, does no harm, so long as one does not rely overly much upon such, as the substance of their contribution, eh?

But feel free to continue believing that the Opposition has nothing up its sleeve other than 'partisan sayings'... it makes the counterpointing all the easier. Many thanks.

"...Better debunk yourself..."

Long-since accomplished, in the main, mine good colleague, and always on the lookout to fine-tune and reinforce that state of affairs on a personal basis. Look to your own state, and leave me to mine.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Shariah Law is foreign to The West and largely incompatible, encroaching and dangerous to the good working order of Western Society as we know it.

.

You could say that about laws that discriminate against minorities.

Granting foreign law precedence over native law is dangerous.

Legitimizing sexual behaviors that weaken and emasculate a population and lead that population to a degenerate state is dangerous.

Dangerous minorities and dangerous minority viewpoints are treated differently than benign ones; accommodated insofar as may be practicable, but kept on a short leash, for the good of the broader community or nation.

And, where barriers exist at-law to such short-leashing, the laws eventually end-up being changed, in favor of safety.

A local community with sufficient Muslims to make it politically possible legislates Sharia Law into effect as the local set of statues,

much the same as any local community with comparable governing power at the local level does in this country.

You claim they should be deprived of that set of laws.

On what grounds, exactly?

 

[Kondor3]

You could say that about laws that discriminate against minorities.

Granting foreign law precedence over native law is dangerous.

Legitimizing sexual behaviors that weaken and emasculate a population and lead that population to a degenerate state is dangerous.

Dangerous minorities and dangerous minority viewpoints are treated differently than benign ones; accommodated insofar as may be practicable, but kept on a short leash, for the good of the broader community or nation.

And, where barriers exist at-law to such short-leashing, the laws eventually end-up being changed, in favor of safety.

So you admit that religion is not an inviolable right in this country...

I admit no such thing.

I even provided an illustration of how such rights can be accommodated while not infringing upon the Majority.

"...What is dangerous about a gay couple getting married?"

Nothing.

Gay Marriage is merely the mechanism by which the floodgates are opened.

The legitimizing of homosexuality in all its aspects is where the potential danger lies.

The creation of a licentious, libertine, dissipated, effeminate, emasculated and degenerate state is the risk.

The strength of The Nation is far too important to risk upon such accommodation.

 

[Kondor3]

You could say that about laws that discriminate against minorities.

Granting foreign law precedence over native law is dangerous.

Legitimizing sexual behaviors that weaken and emasculate a population and lead that population to a degenerate state is dangerous.

Dangerous minorities and dangerous minority viewpoints are treated differently than benign ones; accommodated insofar as may be practicable, but kept on a short leash, for the good of the broader community or nation.

And, where barriers exist at-law to such short-leashing, the laws eventually end-up being changed, in favor of safety.

A local community with sufficient Muslims to make it politically possible legislates Sharia Law into effect as the local set of statues,

much the same as any local community with comparable governing power at the local level does in this country.

You claim they should be deprived of that set of laws.

On what grounds, exactly?

On the grounds that the laws of the United States are supreme within its boundaries.

Dispute that and you've got 330,000,000 fellow citizens telling you you're wrong.

 

[Katzndogz]

You could say that about laws that discriminate against minorities.

You know the difference between acting and not acting right? Honor killing is an act, refusing to participate in a same sex wedding is refusing to act.

The question is whether people should be forced to act against their will. If a Christian answers an ad for a cameraman for a premier movie studio and finds out that the studio is VIVID, then refuses the job on religious grounds, should there be some method of compelling that Christian to take the job?

A wedding business refusing service to a homosexual is no different than a restaurant refusing service to a black person.

A restaurant refusing service to someone who is gay is no different than refusing service to a black person. Refusing wedding business to a homosexual couple is refusing to participate in a homosexual wedding.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Shariah Law is foreign to The West and largely incompatible, encroaching and dangerous to the good working order of Western Society as we know it.

.

You could say that about laws that discriminate against minorities.

You know the difference between acting and not acting right? Honor killing is an act, refusing to participate in a same sex wedding is refusing to act.

The question is whether people should be forced to act against their will. If a Christian answers an ad for a cameraman for a premier movie studio and finds out that the studio is VIVID, then refuses the job on religious grounds, should there be some method of compelling that Christian to take the job?

The question has nothing to do with whether people should be forced to act against their will; business owners are subject to all manner of regulatory policy, such as obtaining a business license, health and safety inspections, wage and work hour requirements, and consumer protection. Public accommodations laws are merely another example of appropriate and Constitutional regulatory policy, as government is authorized to regulate markets and ensure their integrity, where to deny service to a customer predicated solely on his race, religion, or sexual orientation poses a threat to that local market and all interrelated markets.

 

[Kondor3]

It's been fun, kids, and I thank you for the time, but, it's time for me to back off for a while and let others play the foil for a while...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You could say that about laws that discriminate against minorities.

You know the difference between acting and not acting right? Honor killing is an act, refusing to participate in a same sex wedding is refusing to act.

The question is whether people should be forced to act against their will. If a Christian answers an ad for a cameraman for a premier movie studio and finds out that the studio is VIVID, then refuses the job on religious grounds, should there be some method of compelling that Christian to take the job?

A wedding business refusing service to a homosexual is no different than a restaurant refusing service to a black person.

Correct.

And to allow both or either poses a threat to the local and interrelated markets, and are regulated accordingly.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You know the difference between acting and not acting right? Honor killing is an act, refusing to participate in a same sex wedding is refusing to act.

The question is whether people should be forced to act against their will. If a Christian answers an ad for a cameraman for a premier movie studio and finds out that the studio is VIVID, then refuses the job on religious grounds, should there be some method of compelling that Christian to take the job?

A wedding business refusing service to a homosexual is no different than a restaurant refusing service to a black person.

A restaurant refusing service to someone who is gay is no different than refusing service to a black person. Refusing wedding business to a homosexual couple is refusing to participate in a homosexual wedding.

Wrong.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Granting foreign law precedence over native law is dangerous.

Legitimizing sexual behaviors that weaken and emasculate a population and lead that population to a degenerate state is dangerous.

Dangerous minorities and dangerous minority viewpoints are treated differently than benign ones; accommodated insofar as may be practicable, but kept on a short leash, for the good of the broader community or nation.

And, where barriers exist at-law to such short-leashing, the laws eventually end-up being changed, in favor of safety.

So you admit that religion is not an inviolable right in this country...

I admit no such thing.

I even provided an illustration of how such rights can be accommodated while not infringing upon the Majority.

"...What is dangerous about a gay couple getting married?"

Nothing.

Gay Marriage is merely the mechanism by which the floodgates are opened.

The legitimizing of homosexuality in all its aspects is where the potential danger lies.

The creation of a licentious, libertine, dissipated, effeminate, emasculated and degenerate state is the risk.

The strength of The Nation is far too important to risk upon such accommodation.

You've been reduced to bigoted ranting.

 

[Tresha91203]

Fear, suspicion and hate of the "other" has been human nature since the dawn of time. Are those that hate black people hiding their latent blackness? Are misogynists secretly women pretending to be normal men? Washingtonians who hate the Lummi tribe closeted Native Americans? I just don't see it.

There are probably many homosexuals who struggle with coming to terms with their orientation and do go through a period of vocal anti-gay speech, but that is a homosexual struggling to survive IMO and more akin to sympathisers and collaborators and self-hatred than actual bigotry.

Suspicion, fear and hatred of the "other" is (or was) about survival. Keeping women and children property ensures that your line survives over anothers. Persecuting the odd culture (even wiping them out, which we have been inclined to do) keeps your culture dominant and in power. The strongest survives, the rest perish, from the beginning to today, not just in America but across the globe.

Colonials/Native Americans, Hutu/Tutsi, Canadians/Quebecois, Christians/everyone else, Muslims/everyone else, heterosexual/homosexual. It is the human condition and takes a long time (if it is even possible) to reconcile two groups of "other". It seems to me that assimilation or absorbsion is the only way, but that kills some very interesting cultures. As long as they are "other," it seems they are wrong and that's a shame.

I think we are further along than we were, obviously, but not there. If we ever get there, I bet another "other" appears for us to fear and be suspicious of, therefore hate ... maybe aliens. If so, it will take generations to breed out that fear ... or they can just squash us lol.

You rarely can change a grown person's worldview. His children are less afraid and hate less, and their children begin to see commonalities rather than "other" due to exposure with little to no noticable ill effects. IMO, that is the point that the "other" is no longer a threat or danger. There is a reason that, historically, stranger = enemy. It is one of the reasons we are still here.

Hardly.

Christians who hold homosexuality at arms' length are oftentimes of the mindset: Hate the sin, love the sinner.

Christians who hold homosexuality at arms' length are oftentimes of the mindset: Refusing to aid and abet the sin or the sinner is demonstrating the resolve of Goodness in the face of Perversity, Aberration, Filth, Sin, Uncleanness and Wrongdoing.

Christians who hold homosexuality at arms' length are oftentimes of the mindset: We are doing the Lord's work, leading by example, in resistance to Evil; just as Jesus would have done.

Christians who hold homosexuality at arms' length are oftentimes of the mindset: of obsessively using that mind to graphically peer into other people's personal lives and bedrooms.

Christians who hold homosexuality at arms' length are oftentimes of the mindset: of really holding THEIR latent homosexual tendencies at arms' length.

Hey God, PLEASE explain how this law will be carried out? How will these 'EVIL sinners' be identified?? Will patrons have to show their papers before being served by these righteous business owners???

In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty.
Thomas Jefferson

For those few it actually was a "choice" to become "heterosexual" and deny their attraction for the same sex as themselves. But that "choice" doesn't alter the way they are wired inside. It is more just a denial of the way they were born because it clashes with the religious dogma they were taught.

 

[Kondor3]

So you admit that religion is not an inviolable right in this country...

I admit no such thing.

I even provided an illustration of how such rights can be accommodated while not infringing upon the Majority.

"...What is dangerous about a gay couple getting married?"

Nothing.

Gay Marriage is merely the mechanism by which the floodgates are opened.

The legitimizing of homosexuality in all its aspects is where the potential danger lies.

The creation of a licentious, libertine, dissipated, effeminate, emasculated and degenerate state is the risk.

The strength of The Nation is far too important to risk upon such accommodation.

You've been reduced to bigoted ranting.

Feel free to continue believing that. Doesn't affect me or my arguments in the slightest.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Dimwit, THE US CONSTITUTION gives religious beliefs special status. Do you now want to tell us that your extra-special, personal revelation that any thought anyone happens to pass through their minds at any given moment should be given the exact same weight should take precedent over the most basic, fundamental legal framework we have? Because the answer is going to be, "Shut the fuck up" if that's the case.

I realize that you would like to believe that the First Amendment mandates governmental indifference and even hostility toward religion, and you have gone to great lengths to facilitate that belief by never, EVER reading the First Amendment and having precious little understanding of the English language, but in fact, the First Amendment (among other things) specifically PROTECTS religion, and it prohibits government from promoting one specific religion over any other. It does NOT prohibit government from protecting ALL religion.

Now personally, I'm a believer in freedom of thought and association as a general rule. But it is a fact that it is RELIGIOUS BELIEF that is specifically protected in our founding laws. Sorry if that doesn't jibe with the hate-filled religiophobic world you'd like to live in, but . . . actually, I'm not sorry. I'm kinda glad it chafes your hide.