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

[Quantum Windbag]

The Federal Government has no Constitutional right to tell anyone who they must do business with. I believe in the old sign I used to see at most businesses, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone".

The U.S. Supreme Court is supposed to be arbitrator of the Constitution, but it is not. What it is is another political tool. The Republican appointees make rulings according to the Constitution, the Democrat appointees make rulings in accordance with their ideology.

#1 - States have their own version of Public Accommodation laws. Elaine Photography (New Mexico) and Sweetcakes by Melissa (Oregon) were cases of national attention - however those cases were under State Law, not Federal Law, and an excercise of STATE regulation of commerce. An interesting note, which highlights that Public Accommodation laws are a separate issue from Same Sex Civil Marriage is that there is no Civil Marriage in either of those states.

#2 - You are incorrect about who approved it based on political affiliation. The landmark Federal case was Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States and the court voted unanimously (9-0) or (8-1), I don't remember which, that Federal Public Accommodation laws are constitution under the powers to regulate commerce. It's also interesting to note that Justice Scalia was the author of Employment Division v. Smith, a landmark case which established that it is Constitutional for government to require general applicability of a law even if it does not comport with an individuals personal religious beliefs.





>>>>

It is even more interesting to not that Smith resulted in a backlash against the Supreme Court that was strong enough, and bipartisan enough, that Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993, which passed the House on a voice vote, and got 97 Yays in the Senate.

But, please, keep pretending you come from where the law is even while lying about what the Arizona version of the RFRA will do.

 

[Tresha91203]

The growing acceptance boils down to something much more simple. Almost everyone has a family member, friend, co-worker or acquaintance who is gay. Suddenly they are not monsters...an epiphany....[/QUOTE]

For the one group, I very much agree. Usually, except for the extreme, family is not "other" so not threatening or to be feared. They know and love that family member, and that love and belonging does not die when the homosexual and family become aware of that orientation. That is the norm, IMO. When that same family member becomes invasive, intrusive, loud proud in your face and angry; however, there is conflict. It can destroy the family, just as it can divide the community on a larger scale. At that point, it is not homosexuality that is the issue, it is plain ole "I don't want to be around assholes so F off." It is the same as when a family member finds Jesus and you can no longer have any conversation except ones involving sharing the message or saving your soul. We have to tell them that if they cannot respect the rest of the family's dinner, we would rather them not come over for dinner.

I am happy you found Jesus. Please don't badger me with him. It is rude, intrusive, condescending and generally unpleasant. That pushes people away, the very people who love you. If you cannot have a conversation without telling me how your Jesus is the real one and mine is the devil pretending to be Jesus to deceive me, I don't want to have a conversation with you.

Your sexuality is personal, just as mine is. Your faith is personal, just as mine is. There is no need to be hostile and rude to the very people who love or support you. That is the group where I am seeing backlash. For instance, the snide way I have been called "breeder," despite having no children, is no different than those calling homosexuals "butt pirates." Can you not understand the pushback?

I have no objection to homosexuals. I have an objection to invasive rudeness, as it hinders our ability to live together happily. It applies to all genders, sexual orientations, creeds and cultures equally. It especially applies to loudness to me, personally, as that feels agressive or hostile to me, but that may be a me thing.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Fundamentalist Christians abuse Jesus more than they abuse homosexuals.

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.

Hey, I think the Inquisition used the exact same words. The Inquisition was pretty damn Godly don't ya think? Bring back the rack for those damn homos. That'll teach em the way of the Lord. Right dude?

Other people are drama queens. YOU are a drama goddess.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Your damned straight, sonny. And damned proud of it.

You’re proud to be an ignorant, hateful bigot?

That’s a strange thing to be ‘proud’ of.

Of course, you have the right to be an ignorant, hateful bigot, but you don’t have the right to seek to codify your ignorance and hate.

I can prove that far left Democrats are more likely to be ignorant than members of the Tea Party, want to give it a go?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The 'freedom' of businesses to refuse service to whom they choose looks like this:

The actual sign that German businesses put in their shop windows.

That sign was required by law, which is exactly why I oppose giving the government the power to tell businesses who they can, and cannot, serve.

But, please, keep making my point for me.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Gee..it's a shame that you've never read the Bible...


As it turns out, yes, He did. As a matter of fact, He spoke very clearly and directly about it.

Matthew 19:4. Here Jesus is answering a question from the Pharisees regarding divorce. However, his answer is very telling concerning the entire issue of sexuality, the purpose of sexuality, marriage and the proper form of marriage. Here are the words of Jesus:

“And He answered and said to them, ‘Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning “made them male and female,” and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”?’” (Matthew 19:4)



Now, I understand that the limp-wrists refer to each other as "Husband and Wife" however, this perversion doesn't qualify - as much as they would have us believe that it does. Marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN. Period.

Actually, I've never known a male-male couple that referred to either side as "wife". It's generally "husband-husband".

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I have no link.

I'm serving up personal opinion, with respect to how the Gay Rights Agenda is being perceived in mainstream America, beyond the reach of some of polls that have been cited here...

I saw an overwhelming show of support for Chick-Fil-A in 2012 and a public relations disaster for the Gay Lobby, as an outcome of that incident...

I saw an overwhelming show of support for Duck Dynasty cast in 2013 and a public relations disaster for the Gay Lobby, as an outcome of that incident...

These massive outpourings of public support for the OPPONENTS of the Gay Lobby should tell us something about the unreliability of the polls being cited...

Consider them the Canary in the Coal Mine, for our purposes here...

Ignore that Canary to your very great peril...

Still, outpourings of public support for the OPPONENTS of the Gay Lobby don't amount to diddly squat, until it materializes into Law...

And efforts at such Law, on the State level, continue apace...

Which is what we're all doing, haunting this particular thread...

The volume of the noise does not correlate to the actual numbers of people involved. A single car with a booming stereo system passing by can drown out an entire orchestra playing in the park.

So let's put this in perspective. Those "backlashes" are the vocal minority who are opposed to gays. You are correct that it doesn't "amount to diddly squat, until it materializes into Law..." and that is where the rubber meets the road.

So let's recap the opposition to Gay marriage from a legislative perspective. It was a hot button issue in the 1990's and that resulted in DOMA being passed by the anti-gay lobby. Another 30 states chose to enact similar anti-gay marriage laws onto their books.

That was the status quo until the legal challenges to DOMA reached the Supreme Court in the Windsor case. The sheer unconstitutional discriminatory basis for DOMA was overturned by the majority of the court. However that only invalidated DOMA at the federal level. The court did not invalidate the state laws.

But Scalia was so incensed by the overturning of DOMA that he wrote a 26 page dissenting opinion. In one paragraph he provided the explicit wording that could be used in the Windsor decision to overturn the anti-gay marriage laws at the state level. Subsequently 5 of the 7 states that have had their anti-gay marriage laws overturned in lower courts have actually cited Scalia's dissent. The latest state didn't even try to fight it and just conceded that it was unconstitutional. There is every reason to believe that the other 23 states will end up having their laws overturned in next couple of years too.

So this brings us to the current attempt to enact anti-gay legislation. In order to be successful it must avoid the appearance of discrimination. With the Windsor decision now on the books that makes it illegal to discriminate against gays as a class.

This AZ law is a "Hail Mary" pass at attempting to make religious belief into a "protected class" all by itself. But the Constitution specifically forbids state endorsement of any religion whatsoever. So even if it becomes law it will be overturned as soon as it reaches the courts, let alone the Supreme Court.

The fanatical extreme right anti-gay movement is fighting a losing "rear guard" legal battle that flies in the face of the Constitution and individual rights. There is no legitimate basis for encoding discrimination against gays.

Your "Canary in the Coal Mine" metaphor is being misinterpreted. The problem the anti-gay movement faces is that is about to become an endangered species. The demographic shift will continue to work against them as more and more people adopt a realistic approach to treating gays as equal members of society.

Best post on this thread Derideo_Te. By FAR... well done!

I bet I can disprove over half of it without even trying, care to make a wager?

 

[Tresha91203]

The growing acceptance boils down to something much more simple. Almost everyone has a family member, friend, co-worker or acquaintance who is gay. Suddenly they are not monsters...an epiphany....[/QUOTE]

For the one group, I very much agree. Usually, except for the extreme, family is not "other" so not threatening or to be feared. They know and love that family member, and that love and belonging does not die when the homosexual and family become aware of that orientation. That is the norm, IMO. When that same family member becomes invasive, intrusive, loud proud in your face and angry; however, there is conflict. It can destroy the family, just as it can divide the community on a larger scale. At that point, it is not homosexuality that is the issue, it is plain ole "I don't want to be around assholes so F off." It is the same as when a family member finds Jesus and you can no longer have any conversation except ones involving sharing the message or saving your soul. We have to tell them that if they cannot respect the rest of the family's dinner, we would rather them not come over for dinner.

I am happy you found Jesus. Please don't badger me with him. It is rude, intrusive, condescending and generally unpleasant. That pushes people away, the very people who love you. If you cannot have a conversation without telling me how your Jesus is the real one and mine is the devil pretending to be Jesus to deceive me, I don't want to have a conversation with you.

Your sexuality is personal, just as mine is. Your faith is personal, just as mine is. There is no need to be hostile and rude to the very people who love or support you. That is the group where I am seeing backlash. For instance, the snide way I have been called "breeder," despite having no children, is no different than those calling homosexuals "butt pirates." Can you not understand the pushback?

I have no objection to homosexuals. I have an objection to invasive rudeness, as it hinders our ability to live together happily. It applies to all genders, sexual orientations, creeds and cultures equally. It especially applies to loudness to me, personally, as that feels agressive or hostile to me, but that may be a me thing.

Edit: sorry to fail at quoting. I was quoting/responding to Bfgrn

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The 'freedom' of businesses to refuse service to whom they choose looks like this:

...

The actual sign that German businesses put in their shop windows.

What a self-serving, horseshit equivalency...

Give a whiny, petulant Liberal enough time, and they'll pull out the Godwin card...

That's OK... it was overdue from your side of the aisle, anyway...

It's not a 'Godwin' card it's a perfectly analgous historical reference. Tell me the material difference between a business refusing to serve Jews and a business refusing to serve homosexuals.

No it is not, asshole. That sign was required by German law, just like segregated lunch counters were required by law. That means the state, your favorite thing, was enforcing discrimination.

That, my idiotic opponent, is evil.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Or, as Pope Francis recently said about homosexuals..."Who am I to judge?"

Good point.

Trouble is, (a) Francis does not lead the entire Christian community, (b) much of the large chunk of the community that he does lead does not agree with his latter-day modernistic interpretation, and (c) his perspective is not well-rooted in Church doctrine or teachings.

"...btw, what 'sinners' did Jesus shun?"

Beats me. I wasn't talking about Jesus shunning. I was talking about Jesus being one who was likely to resist evil.

1. So essentially, someone can make up any belief they want about gays and call it 'Christian?

2. You said Christians who hold homosexuality 'at arm's length' were acting just like Jesus acted.

I asked you what 'sinners' Jesus shunned, which is synonymous with holding something at arm's length, figuratively speaking.

1. Are you God? If not, what fucking right do you have to tell anyone that their beliefs are wrong?
2. Pretty sure he didn't say that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

1. So essentially, someone can make up any belief they want about gays and call it 'Christian?...

Why not, so long as it has some basis in Christian sacred texts and Church teachings over the past 2000 years or so?

Are not the schisms and separations between various branches of Christianity the result of Group A or B holding and interpreting both sacred texts and teachings in a manner that suits them?

Or should all Protestants throw out the King James Bible because they made up (and/or reinterpreted) any belief they wanted to about the universe and spiritulity and the godhead at-large, never mind a narrow-range issue like homosexuality, and set down those new or revised beliefs in a revised and unauthorized version of the Bible?


No, I think I said that Christians who hold homosexuality at arms' length were resisting Evil, just as Jesus would have done.

Jesus called prostitution 'sin'. He forgave and loved the sinner after telling her to sin no more.

Other than interacting with a prostitute in order to convince her to refrain from sinning, it seems logical to posit that Jesus would not associate with prostitutes who were 'active' in such a lifestyle; otherwise, he would be endorsing or legitimizing such sinful behaviors.

It's easy enough to replace the word 'prostitution' with 'homosexuality' and bring the concept forward 2000 years, without stretching either the imagination nor credibility.

"...I asked you what 'sinners' Jesus shunned, which is synonymous with holding something at arm's length, figuratively speaking."

Adequately address, above, hopefully.

Jesus never admonished businesses to refuse service to 'sinners'. That is a wholly fabricated, aftermarket if you will, belief that some so-called Christians have latched onto out their own biases.

Religion is not a magic bullet that can shoot holes in the Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The 'freedom' of businesses to refuse service to whom they choose looks like this:

...

The actual sign that German businesses put in their shop windows.

What a self-serving, horseshit equivalency...

Give a whiny, petulant Liberal enough time, and they'll pull out the Godwin card...

That's OK... it was overdue from your side of the aisle, anyway...

Ask the laughing man in your pic if this will satisfy him as to the validity of my point:

Again, required by law.

Thus making you wrong, and everyone else right.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Right-Wing Media Push For GOP Obstruction Of Gun Violence Prevention Efforts | Research | Media Matters for America

Mark Levin: Anyone Who Does Not Filibuster Gun Legislation Is "Voting Against The Constitution." During an April 9 interview with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), The Mark Levin Show host Mark Levin lavished praise on Cruz for his threat to filibuster gun violence prevention legislation, concluding that anyone in the Senate who does not support a filibuster by Cruz and some of his colleagues are "voting against the Constitution." [Cumulus Media Networks, The Mark Levin Show, 4/9/13]

Erick Erickson: "The Only Way To Stop It Is To Filibuster." In an April 9 RedState blog post, Fox News contributor Erick Erickson chastised certain Republican senators for wanting to allow an up or down vote on gun violence prevention legislation, claiming that the legislation can only be stopped by a filibuster:

Several of the Republicans are using the Manchin-Toomey compromise plan as an excuse to cave on the gun filibuster. They claim that Senators Lee, Cruz, and Paul are running ahead of the conference in their insistence on a filibuster.

What they fail to see is that the cloture vote is the vote to stop the gun legislation from passage.

Several Republican Senators intend to vote against the filibuster, but then vote against the overall bill. This is too clever by half. The GOP does not control the Senate as the GOP is want to say every time they don't want to fight.

Their only power to block a gun control bill is to unite and filibuster.

Voting for cloture is voting for the gun control bill because, again, as the GOP reminds us, they are not in the majority. The only way to stop it is to filibuster. [RedState, 4/9/13]

Laura Ingraham: "I Say Thank Goodness" For A Filibuster Of Gun Legislation. During the April 8 edition of her radio show, host and Fox News contributor Laura Ingraham praised a potential filibuster of gun violence prevention legislation by Republicans, thanking them for having the "courage to stand and be reviled."

INGRAHAM: My question to you is, is there anyone, I mean anyone, today, in Congress or the Senate who speaks with the clarity, and the conviction and the courage, of a Lady Thatcher? One, one person. I know there are people coming up through the ranks. Do you believe for instance, someone like a John McCain, speaking about the filibuster that is coming to stop the gun control bill from being considered. Now the filibuster is going to be led by Mike Lee, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and 12 -- I guess a total of 13, Rand Paul, all of this. They're going to go up there and they're going to stand for the Second Amendment and individual liberty -- the ability to defend oneself.

[...]

And so for Rand Paul and Mike Lee and all the rest to be standing for the Second Amendment, I say thank goodness it is finally happening. Thank goodness we have people of conviction and frankly, courage to stand and be reviled. [Courtside Entertainment Group, The Laura Ingraham Show, 4/8/13]

Oh, WELL, Media Matters for America says it, so how could we POSSIBLY have thought otherwise?

You sure you don't want to quote Mother Jones at us as well, before I go off to laugh my ass off at you?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I know that it happens on both sides but it seems like it happens more often from people in support of this law.
And I'm not pro-gay, I'm pro-tolerance . I personally think that homosexuality is unnatural and I have a hard time understanding how they can live their lives that way.
But... I believe that everyone has the right to live their lives the way they want. As long as they aren't hurting me, why would I care who they want to love?
Sometimes I think that the people who are so against gay people are gay themselves. I think they're so worried that someone's going to figure them out that they feel they have to disguise their true feelings with hate.
Or else why would they spend so much time and effort worrying about homosexuality?


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

Congratulations on completely missing the issue.

I was wrong, you aren't dumb, you are flat out a moron.

 

[Sunshine]

Good point.

Trouble is, (a) Francis does not lead the entire Christian community, (b) much of the large chunk of the community that he does lead does not agree with his latter-day modernistic interpretation, and (c) his perspective is not well-rooted in Church doctrine or teachings.

Beats me. I wasn't talking about Jesus shunning. I was talking about Jesus being one who was likely to resist evil.

1. So essentially, someone can make up any belief they want about gays and call it 'Christian?

2. You said Christians who hold homosexuality 'at arm's length' were acting just like Jesus acted.

I asked you what 'sinners' Jesus shunned, which is synonymous with holding something at arm's length, figuratively speaking.

1. Are you God? If not, what fucking right do you have to tell anyone that their beliefs are wrong?
2. Pretty sure he didn't say that.

He thinks he is God. He also thinks he has knowledge of the Bible. When someone says the Bible does NOT say something, I know they are full of shit. And they also have not read other ancient writings which were not chosen for the Bible. The Bible AND Jesus DO say a lot about these topics we discuss.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

>>>>

Which actually brings the bill into alignment with multiple Supreme Court precedents on freedom of religion.

Just saying.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Fundamentalist Christians abuse Jesus more than they abuse homosexuals.

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.

"Get away from me, because I want to know all about your life!" There's the brilliant "logic" I've come to expect from you.

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

Ahh, yes, the "Takes one to know one!" argument from the PeeWee Herman School of Debate.

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???

And there's the leftist strawman I predicted ages ago.

You people really are like a cartoon.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I am quite willing to bet you here and now that I can cut anyone you wish to point out open and that you won't be able to find a single wire inside them.

 

[Katzndogz]

At less than 3% of a population of over 300 million almost everyone does not know someone who is gay or has a family member that is gay. Most people don't know anyone who is gay. They know OF gay people from what the media is promoting in television and the movies.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"...The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872."

Ho-hum...

Hitler was a nominal Christian but not a practicing one, he was in favor of superseding Christianity with a more pagan-like Tuetonic belief-system that was supportive of his own agenda, and only paid lip service to Christianity so as to 'bring along' his own population, which was still largely Christian by confession.

Meanwhile, as to Christianity's own prohibitions and condemnations of homosexuality... take it up with the authors of the Old Testament, and the teachings of various branches of the Christian Church over the past 2000 years.

Any similarities you note here are mere coincidence and are not similarly motivated.

Next slide, please.

So Hitler wanted Nazism to be, in effect, a religion? You would thus want Nazism in this country to be considered constitutionally protected, as a religion, and therefore,

the businesses run by Nazi believers would in fact have your blessing to refuse service to Jews.

I bet you wouldn't be able to find any Jews that would insist on doing business with a Nazi. On the other hand, I can find examples of people pushing the queer agenda that insist on doing business with people that they claim hate them.

Be honest now, does that make sense?