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

[Katzndogz]

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.

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

You don't understand the law.

Anyone will be served. If Bill says to the photographer "Steve and I are getting married and we want you to take our wedding pictures" the photographer will be able to refuse.

This should never get to the point of rights when it is clearly an issue of involuntary servitude.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"...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..."

Quite true.

It is interpretation of sacred texts and historical teachings, and applying them to a modern-day problem; something that is done all the time, in any number of focal areas. This is no exception.

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

Quite true. But Freedom of Religion is an inviolable right that the Constitution has protected for far, far longer than it has been operative in shielding homosexuals.

The beauty and genius of such 'Religious Objection' laws is that sooner or later one of them is bound to hit a high-end judicial nerve in connection with Freedom of Religion.

I suspect that The Opposition will continue to probe along those lines until it hits upon the right formula, and wins-back the playing field.

The 3% cannot dictate to the 97% indefinitely - it's simply unsustainable.

Freedom of Religion is an inviolable Right in this country?

Then why can we convict people of murder for committing honor killings, even if that person does it in the name of his religion?

One reason is that they aren't doing it in the name of their religion, they are doing it in the name of their culture.

Another is that your personal right to believe whatever you want does not trump my right to breathe.

And, finally, we have the indisputable fact that you are an idiot that can't put together a coherent argument.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Wrong. The backlash is due to legislation being passed by the vocal minority. That vocal minority wants everyone to treat their alternative relationships the same as traditional relationships regardless of the individual's moral compass. If something isn't done to curb thetyranny it will spread nationally. What you percieve as a vocal minority is the tip of the iceburg. Most people want the freedom to entertain their values instead of having their values dictated to them by the vocal minority.

Observe the insidious right wing mind...the FEAR driven 'slippery slope' has again reared it's ugly head...


Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

That was hilarious.

The only fear I have seen is from the idiots that think letting people make their own choices will lead to laws that make it illegal to be Jewish.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Freedom of Religion is an inviolable Right in this country?

Then why can we convict people of murder for committing honor killings, even if that person does it in the name of his religion?

Are you saying that Freedom of Religion is NOT an inviolable right in this country?

He is saying it is not an absolute. Especially when it conflicts with the laws of the country

And you would be wrong about that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

That's hilarious. We're talking about a law allowing people to choose to stay out of people's lives, and you're saying the answer is for them to mind their own business?! Asshole, they're TRYING to mind their own business, and you're wanting to prance in and say that homosexuals have a right to FORCE people to participate in their lives.

Next time, try some linear logic, fucktard.

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.

Unfortunately for you, making someone associate with you is only a "right" inside of your diseased mind. As is whatever the fuck "abuse" you've dreamed up to believe you're arguing against.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Wow, nothing in there about allowing a business to discriminate against a homosexual.

I guess that makes you wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

How is it not different?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Yet, for some reason, you want to be able to force people that don't want to show up at their weddings to attend, while simultaneously arguing that they have every right not to attend a wedding they don't want to go to.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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 same grounds that you would deny a Christian community from doing the same thing, separation of church and state.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

None of which require people to attend weddings.

 

[Iceweasel]

That's hilarious. We're talking about a law allowing people to choose to stay out of people's lives, and you're saying the answer is for them to mind their own business?! Asshole, they're TRYING to mind their own business, and you're wanting to prance in and say that homosexuals have a right to FORCE people to participate in their lives.

Next time, try some linear logic, fucktard.

That made me laugh. They are a stubborn bunch if anything.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Define the threat, or shut the fuck up.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm glad to hear that the gay bashers are willing to openly show their homophobia and hate. Just like Jesus would have wanted them to do. Bravo!

There's far more subtle stuff going on here, if you pay attention.

They should just cut to the chase and post a sign in their windows saying something like: "I'm a fucking homophobe and won't serve gays because I spend way too much time worry about not being gay myself". Would that about cover it?

Gosh, I'm SOO glad that we have another simplistic juvenile here to mural the walls with its crayons. We were starting to run low.

 

[Immanuel]

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?

We were in Flagstaff a few years ago and went to a Pub which had a sign on it's front door stating "No GUNS". A second piece of evidence that not everyone in Arizona is nuts.

Most enigmatic is the how ultra conservatives in Arizona hate Gays and Communism - would V. Putin win if he ran for governor in Arizona? Don't those fools who claim to support liberty and freedom understand they are authoritarians?

Do you and your side?

I seem to recall being told that leftist are all about freedom and equality, but all I see is assholes telling me I can't have a "Big Gulp", can't smoke in my own home even if I wanted to, must drive with a seat belt, can't worship God on public property, can't drive faster than 55 because it wastes gas (thank God that was repealed) can't legally pray in front of an abortion mill etc. etc. etc.

So, while those fools, are promoting discrimination and disavowing "liberty and freedom", perhaps you fools should pull the plank out of your eye before seeking to pull the splinter out of theirs?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Jesus was gay: he only hung around with guys, looks pretty buff and effeminite in all the paintings of him, wore a dress, only fucked a woman once (meaning he didn't like it), and rode a donkey, which only women rode.

Has it been pointed out to you recently that you're the biggest driveling idiot in a five-mile radius?

Seriously, sterilize yourself for the benefit of humanity.

 

[Iceweasel]

How is it not different?

That's the crux of the argument. We are all supposed to view homosexuality like a race, gender or religion without that ever being determined.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

The onus is on you to prove that this "special status" exists for religion and that there is anything that religion needs to be "protected" from.

Well, why don't you go check out the First Amendment, and then YOU tell ME.

Whether or not there's anything that religion needs to be protected from is answered by this thread and others like it.

 

[Bfgrn]

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....

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

I have never come across a gay person who was "invasive, intrusive, loud proud in your face and angry or rude, condescending and generally unpleasant". That would be heterosexual males with a few drinks in them. My daughter and her girlfriends would often go to gay bars to get away from being constantly hit on by obnoxious "invasive, intrusive, loud proud in your face and angry or rude, condescending and generally unpleasant" straight males. She says gay men treat women with respect and are much more kind.

I have never seen a group of gay people invading my neighborhood, ringing my doorbell, trying to 'convert' me and my wife to their beliefs and not taking no for an answer.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Well, if that's all you got...

As I said, I don't think intent of the first was to give religious views special status, but to prevent them from being specific targets. Many early Americans came here to escape religious persecution and they wanted to make sure it didn't happen again.

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.

"Hate-filled, religiophobic" ?? Heh... seriously, you don't know me at all.

Why do you insist on maintaining a belief that is not based in reality? I can provide you with references that indicate that the people who wrote the Constitution, and the First Amendment, did believe that religious beliefs have a special status. The reason for that is quite simple, religious beliefs are extremely personal, and they did not want the government to be able to regulate what anyone believes, even if they insisted, like you want to, that they don't have a religious belief.

In other words, your beliefs, whatever you want to call them, have the exact same status under the Constitution as mine. You are just as free to believe whatever you want, and practice those beliefs, as anyone else. This is not a special right other people have, it is a right everyone has.


The problem here is that you don't see a need for it in your life, so you want to deny it to others.

That makes you wrong.

The fact that you refuse to admit you are wrong, or even strive to understand how you are denying everyone a right simply because you don't use yours, makes you no different than the people that want to take away your rights simply because they don't see your rights as significant.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If a business is open to the public, then 'public' needs to be defined. Should a restaurant be allowed not to serve blacks?

Do you actually think you're likely to find a lot of those?

That's not an answer to the question. Should a restaurant be able to not serve blacks, yes or no?

A Unique Religious Exemption From Antidiscrimination Laws in the Case of Gays? Putting the Call for Exemptions for Those Who Discriminate Against Married or Marrying Gays in Context

As a matter of fact, I don't support government telling business owners how to run their businesses, so long as they're not ripping people off.

And before you run off down this, "Let's talk about the BLACKS because I can't defend myself on the actual topic" tangent, don't bother. Not equivalent, and very much a sign that you've lost and know it.