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

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

You would be outraged if a law was passed enabling gays to discriminate against Christians and you would be squealing about "special rights for gays". This law is exactly the reverse of that where Christians are being allowed "special rights" to discriminate against gays. What is good for the goose...

I have no problem with gays, or anyone else, telling anyone, including Christians, to keep out of their business.

Which would be consistent with your ignorance of Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

 

[Immanuel]

"...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.

I realize this is a long way back in the discussion and maybe it was discussed later but as someone who feels that in an ideal world public accommodation laws would neither exist nor be needed, I feel that anyone who opens a business must obey the laws of the jurisdiction in which the business is undertaken. If I were going to open a restaurant as a Christian and I held beliefs that say I should not serve gays, then I had better find a different business or change my business plan to a private club.

The law is the law. If I don't like it, I can work to change it, but until that has been accomplished, I either follow it or face the consequences as determined by the court.

I could have said to either follow the law or close my business but I need not do that. I break the law every time I get behind the wheel of a car as I tend to have a lead foot. I do, however, have to face the consequences when I get caught.

Since we have public accommodation laws, we are not living in a totally free society, but would any of us truly want a totally free society? I know for a fact, I would not.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

And you have a problem with that, too?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Wouldn't it be beautiful if you hypocrites actually believed in the markets and your profession that "everyone" agrees with you, and let the chips fall where they may, instead of trying to legislate your morality because you secretly don't think your ideas can work without force of government?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

The question was, or is, how much harm can 'religious' Americans be allowed to inflict on their fellow Americans.

A business that is open to the public must be open to the public. All else being equal, a business discriminating against a person who is homosexual is violating one of the most basic principles of our Constitution.

Feel free to specify which principle you are talking about, keeping in mind that you are restricted to what the Constitution actually says. Since everything it says is about government, and it doesn't say one word about businesses, I doubt you can actually do so, but I would love to see you try.

 

[Sunshine]

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

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

And you have a problem with that, too?

Gays are the only ones who seem to be shouting from the roof tops who they screw. Just because a couple gay or straight is sitting together, unless they tell you or fuck on the table top, then you don't know if they are screwing someone. They can be put out of the church and often were in times past. If you studied the Bible, you would know that. Chu8rches I've been to won't ever put anyone out because they believe to do so would deprive the person of the chance they need to get right with God. I don't like the apostle Paul, and rarely if ever quote him. The reason I did this time is because NYC stated there was nothing in the Bible which stated you should not associate with anyone. And there is. That isn't the only place. Since you are so interested, let me suggest you look for them yourself. I proved my point. The Bible DOES tell you who you should not associate with. Jesus alluded to gays and that has been posted too. I won't look it up for you. I'm not your search engine. Find it for yourself. But don't sit there in the glory of your ignorance like NYC did and proclaim it is not in the Bible. Because it is.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

You need to learn the difference between "this is the right way to behave" and "therefore, the government must mandate it". Whether or not it's the right thing to do for people to choose not to associate with other people, the right thing for government to do is stay the hell out of it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

One response...this sign is real, in a Tucson pizzeria:

According to the mentally retarded in this thread, the above will hurt this guy's business.

Want to bet?

The only people I have seen that said that discrimination would hurt a business are the idiotds that keep lying about what the Senate bill that sparked this thread will do in the first place.

In other words, assholes like you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

What?! You mean Jesus didn't save that woman because He was a big fan of fucking around like a rabid weasel?! Say it ain't so!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"...You are drawing a line between heterosexuals and homosexuals..."

One exists. Always has. Always will.

"...and erroneously assuming that all 97% of heterosexuals embrace outmoded religious mores..."

Nope.

I am assuming that that the 97% of the population which is heterosexual has more in common between them than with the 3%, and will, for that reason, band together more often than not, when Opposition to aspects of the increasingly encroaching and obnoxious and arrogant Gay Agenda is indicated.

Please provide a link to this alleged "increasingly encroaching and obnoxious and arrogant Gay Agenda"

This thread is itself an example of the Gay Agenda.

Take something that is deeply personal to a significant number of people, lie about it, misrepresent everything they believe in, and call them bigots, all just to pretend that you aren't an asshole.

Congratulations on properly employing Goebbels' propaganda tactics.

 

[Bfgrn]

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?

Wouldn't it be beautiful if you hypocrites actually believed in the markets and your profession that "everyone" agrees with you, and let the chips fall where they may, instead of trying to legislate your morality because you secretly don't think your ideas can work without force of government?

The REAL irony is the proposed law you defend uses the brute force of government to protect discrimination.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"...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.


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.

God, is that YOU?

More like, "We're not perfect, but unlike you, we're at least trying."

I don't actually care about an opinion of my flaws that comes from a group of people that publicly embraces and celebrates their own flaws.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Leftists, Moderates, Centrists, Independents, and anyone who might actually think for themselves. You can keep your right wing lunacy down there. I won't be visiting anytime soon.

Well, thank God SOMETHING good has come out of this!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Arizona is a homophobic state. Using religion to discriminate is just what Jesus had in mind, don't you think?

No, it isn't what Jesus would do. Jesus didn't refuse anyone service. These people are not acting within the tenants of their faith by not doing business with icky gays, they are acting within their bigotry and nothing more.

Unless you became God while I wasn't looking you have no right to tell anyone what they can, and cannot, believe. Insisting that you can, and demanding that the government enforce your view of religion on others, makes you the moral equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition. Is that really the side of history you want to be on?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The extreme right has been adamantly opposed to all background checks to determine if anyone has a history of mental illness. But hardly surprising that you want to blame the left for the obstruction of the extreme right.

Source?

He doesn't have one.

If he did he would have used it to refute my blowing his claim out of the water. The guy is a fucking hack that can barely spell.

 

[Bfgrn]

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.


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.

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.

God, is that YOU?

More like, "We're not perfect, but unlike you, we're at least trying."

I don't actually care about an opinion of my flaws that comes from a group of people that publicly embraces and celebrates their own flaws.

TRYING to do what?
Understand...no.
Accept...no.
Show tolerance...no.
Dictate discrimination using the brute force of government...yes.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Arizona is a homophobic state. Using religion to discriminate is just what Jesus had in mind, don't you think?

No, it isn't what Jesus would do. Jesus didn't refuse anyone service. These people are not acting within the tenants of their faith by not doing business with icky gays, they are acting within their bigotry and nothing more.

I'll ask this again, and maybe THIS time one of you sanctimonious chickenshit leftists will develop the sack to answer: what are your qualifications to define the tenets of someone else's faith?

 

[Bfgrn]

Arizona is a homophobic state. Using religion to discriminate is just what Jesus had in mind, don't you think?

No, it isn't what Jesus would do. Jesus didn't refuse anyone service. These people are not acting within the tenants of their faith by not doing business with icky gays, they are acting within their bigotry and nothing more.

Unless you became God while I wasn't looking you have no right to tell anyone what they can, and cannot, believe. Insisting that you can, and demanding that the government enforce your view of religion on others, makes you the moral equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition. Is that really the side of history you want to be on?

And what side are you on? Demanding that the government enforce your view of religion on others and sanction discrimination.

 

[Bfgrn]

Arizona is a homophobic state. Using religion to discriminate is just what Jesus had in mind, don't you think?

No, it isn't what Jesus would do. Jesus didn't refuse anyone service. These people are not acting within the tenants of their faith by not doing business with icky gays, they are acting within their bigotry and nothing more.

I'll ask this again, and maybe THIS time one of you sanctimonious chickenshit leftists will develop the sack to answer: what are your qualifications to define the tenets of someone else's faith?

“If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands.”
Douglas Adams

 

[Sunshine]

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

Jesus and the apostle Paul never met. A brief guide to the Apostle Paul, and why he is so important - Beliefnet.com So your point is moot. You stated that nowhere in the BIBLE does it say with whom you should not associate. And it does. The apostle Paul followed the teachings of Jesus. No one can say that Jesus didn't say this or that because what he said was not always written down. The Bible itself even states that:

John 21:25

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they *were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself *would not contain the books that *would be written.

And there are many ancient texts that were not included in the Bible by the king who wanted the Bible to consist of a rule book that would make good subjects to the

You are not a Christian. You have not studied the Bible. People like you are such easy pickins' for those of us who have.