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

[WorldWatcher]

What if someone claimed a religious belief that the races weren't meant to mingle, and/or that blacks were inferior to whites?

Wouldn't they, under the proposed Arizona law, then be able to rightfully discriminate against blacks?

Yes, but only if they claim a religious belief.

No, if they just claimed they didn't want to serve blacks.



>>>>>

 

[Kondor3]

"...Kondor is in a meltdown that began when he realized he'd lost this argument in grand fashion."

You keep saying that, but it just ain't so. Still, feel free to amuse yourself believing thus. Doesn't faze me one way or another.

What's your argument that homosexuality is a 'perversion'?...

The act of homosexual fornication constitutes deviant behavior - it is perverse and unnatural and argues against itself.

"...Specify the definition of perversion you're using first, please."

Sexual behavior that most people believe is unnatural or not normal.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What if someone claimed a religious belief that the races weren't meant to mingle, and/or that blacks were inferior to whites?

Wouldn't they, under the proposed Arizona law, then be able to rightfully discriminate against blacks?

Yes, but only if they claim a religious belief.

No, if they just claimed they didn't want to serve blacks.



>>>>>

You and I have been through this already, it won't allow that. I posted the entire bill to prove that all it does is restrict the government from burdening religion. Arizona already has public accommodation laws that prevent everything the assholes, including you, claim will happen.

Feel free to actually prove me wrong, or shut the fuck up.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are merely the band playing on the deck of a sinking ship. The courts will rule in favor of marriage equality, and when the appeal from the state comes to SCOTUS, they will not hear it.

Doesn't cost anything, for you to believe that to be the case, but I'm not sure how Gay Marriage directly impacts the ability of business folk in Arizona to refuse service to homosexuals, utilizing their Religious Beliefs as the basis for that refusal.

One cannot discriminate in public commerce and interaction.

It's the law.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are merely the band playing on the deck of a sinking ship.

The courts will rule in favor of marriage equality, and when the appeal from the state comes to SCOTUS, they will not hear it.

The Highest Court has already Ruled AGAINST "marriage equality" [gay marriage] in Utah [and California and all the other states where it is still illegal in their constitutions] in DOMA/Windsor when they Upheld that each state gets to decide for itself on the question of gay marriage as its "unquestioned authority" to do so. They even brought up the 14th that gays are so hopeful to manipulate in their favor via Loving v Virginia, and then the Court STILL went on to say that as of the close of the Decision, "gay marriage" was "only allowed in some states".

Sorry. They said a state's sovereign rights to decide on gay marriage was pivotal to the Windsor decision, retroactive to the founding of the country, in "the way the Framers of the Constitution Intended". That's a constitutional Upholding Jake. They aren't likely to reverse it in less than a year's time when Harvey Milk v Utah makes it to the Big Docket.

This is like saying if you're just in the audience at the wedding, instead of being one of the bridesmaids, you didn't actually participate, and so it doesn't qualify as an endorsement of the marriage.

Except that people have been declining wedding invitations because they don't approve of the relationship since forever. No idea why this is suddenly news.

Soon if you refuse to go to a gay wedding if you are invited, you will be sued. The arrests for such 'defiance of the cult' will come later. Probably in about 30 years when the next generation has been properly inducted and indoctrinized.

You are merely twisting the ruling to say something that it doesn't. No one has been sued for not going to interracial marriages. No has been sued for not performing marriages. No one cares about your hetero-fascism about Harvey Milk and LGBT.

You are screaming and filibabbling, but nobody has given you any credit for it, and SCOTUS certainly will not.

No one has affected your right to private association. You can associate in your hateful little cults and no one will bother you at all. But don't ever think you can make it the law.

Tuff.

 

[Kondor3]

You are merely the band playing on the deck of a sinking ship. The courts will rule in favor of marriage equality, and when the appeal from the state comes to SCOTUS, they will not hear it.

Doesn't cost anything, for you to believe that to be the case, but I'm not sure how Gay Marriage directly impacts the ability of business folk in Arizona to refuse service to homosexuals, utilizing their Religious Beliefs as the basis for that refusal.

One cannot discriminate in public commerce and interaction.

It's the law.

Unless doing so violates one's mainstream religious beliefs, thereby impinging upon the provider's Freedom of Religion?

Which, of course, is what the Arizona flap is all about.

And, if they haven't got it fine-tuned quite right to get away with it, they, or somebody else, will probably hit on the right formula, soon enough.

And, when they do, and when that one stands-up under judicial review, then, that, too, will be the law.

And they're trying... ohhhhhhh sooooo hard... and they're willing to keep at it... for ohhhhhh sooooo long.

That's the level to which Popular Resistance is presently committed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The 'evil' is a business engaged in public commerce discriminating against folks for what they are.

That's wrong, un-American, and won't stand.

 

[AmericanFirst]

The 'evil' is a business engaged in public commerce discriminating against folks for what they are.

That's wrong, un-American, and won't stand.

What is evil is a tyrannical gov't. telling a business how to run that business.

 

[WorldWatcher]

"...Specify the definition of perversion you're using first, please."

Sexual behavior that most people believe is unnatural or not normal.

Then you must not consider homosexual acts as perverse since opinions have shifted quite a bit in the last few years...

"Their acceptance of gay and lesbian relations has increased the most, up 19 percentage points in the past 12 years -- to a record high of 59% today."

In U.S., Record-High Say Gay, Lesbian Relations Morally OK​

Last I checked, "59%" constituted "most people" or more accurately put - a majority of people.



>>>>

 

[Iceweasel]

The 'evil' is a business engaged in public commerce discriminating against folks for what they are.

That's wrong, un-American, and won't stand.

In other words, you would force a Jew to bake a Nazi cake. Your side is tyranical and people are fighting back. Sounds like some of you aren't accustomed to that.

 

[Bfgrn]

"...What if someone claimed a religious belief that the races weren't meant to mingle, and/or that blacks were inferior to whites?

Wouldn't they, under the proposed Arizona law, then be able to rightfully discriminate against blacks?"

As soon as you find globally-accepted sacred texts and globally-common scripture-based centuries-old mainstream religious teachings which say to shun Blacks, or Whites, or Reds, or Yellows, or Browns, et al, come back and ask me again...

As opposed to already being in possession of globally-accepted sacred texts and globally-common scripture-based centuries-old mainstream religious teachings which say that homosexuality is wrong and sinful and which condemn it...

Not quite an apples-to-apples comparison, is it?

You keep on trying to bolster your argument to defend the practice of discrimination by referring to a 'sacred' text. The Bible and all religious text were written by men. There has never been a book that was written by God.

 

[deltex1]

Let the homos eat wherever, whatever, whoever they want. If they have a dick, let them call themselves wives. If they have vaginas, let them call themselves husbands. No matter what the court says they will always live in their own reality...but it will remain their reality alone.

 

[Kondor3]

"...Specify the definition of perversion you're using first, please."

Sexual behavior that most people believe is unnatural or not normal.

Then you must not consider homosexual acts as perverse since opinions have shifted quite a bit in the last few years...

"Their acceptance of gay and lesbian relations has increased the most, up 19 percentage points in the past 12 years -- to a record high of 59% today."

In U.S., Record-High Say Gay, Lesbian Relations Morally OK​

Last I checked, "59%" constituted "most people" or more accurately put - a majority of people.



>>>>

Feel free to continue serving-up Opinion Polls...

Those polls basically indicate a substantial increase in willingness to tolerate...

Those polls do not change the attributes of 'perversity' and 'deviance' which attach to homosexuality...

Polls are fickle things...

And leaning on them too hard can result in embarrassment...

As the Gay Lobby found out...

In the massive popular outpouring of support for Chick-Fil-A in 2012...

Or the massive popular outpouring of support for the Duck Dynasty cast in 2013...

Both of which turned out to be Public Relations Disasters for the arrogant folk advancing the Gay Lobby agenda...

Makes objective folk wonder, just how reliable those polls really are, when you get out-and-about amongst mainstream Americans...

 

[Kondor3]

"...What if someone claimed a religious belief that the races weren't meant to mingle, and/or that blacks were inferior to whites?

Wouldn't they, under the proposed Arizona law, then be able to rightfully discriminate against blacks?"

As soon as you find globally-accepted sacred texts and globally-common scripture-based centuries-old mainstream religious teachings which say to shun Blacks, or Whites, or Reds, or Yellows, or Browns, et al, come back and ask me again...

As opposed to already being in possession of globally-accepted sacred texts and globally-common scripture-based centuries-old mainstream religious teachings which say that homosexuality is wrong and sinful and which condemn it...

Not quite an apples-to-apples comparison, is it?

You keep on trying to bolster your argument to defend the practice of discrimination by referring to a 'sacred' text. The Bible and all religious text were written by men. There has never been a book that was written by God.

You're talking to a Christian-Agnostic, metaphorically speaking...

A Christian -leaning Doubting Thomas, for lack of a better descriptor...

I'm fully aware that various so-called sacred texts were written by men...

But people of faith oftentimes believe that such texts were composed via Divine Inspiration...

Rendering them the next best thing to being written by God...

Isn't that convenient?

 

[Silhouette]

The 'evil' is a business engaged in public commerce discriminating against folks for what they are.

That's wrong, un-American, and won't stand.

Ah, Jake's false premise rears its head yet again. It's the behavior Jake, not the person: the behavior. Making behaviors recipients of the blessings of the 14th will set a new precedent for the US Supreme Court so, they should be very careful to rule out LGBT as behaviors before they kick the barn door open for any compulsives to gain access to ??? over the years as the brand new precedent would allow..

 

[Bfgrn]

As soon as you find globally-accepted sacred texts and globally-common scripture-based centuries-old mainstream religious teachings which say to shun Blacks, or Whites, or Reds, or Yellows, or Browns, et al, come back and ask me again...

As opposed to already being in possession of globally-accepted sacred texts and globally-common scripture-based centuries-old mainstream religious teachings which say that homosexuality is wrong and sinful and which condemn it...

Not quite an apples-to-apples comparison, is it?

You keep on trying to bolster your argument to defend the practice of discrimination by referring to a 'sacred' text. The Bible and all religious text were written by men. There has never been a book that was written by God.

You're talking to a Christian-Agnostic, metaphorically speaking...

A Christian -leaning Doubting Thomas, for lack of a better descriptor...

I'm fully aware that various so-called sacred texts were written by men...

But people of faith oftentimes believe that such texts were composed via Divine Inspiration...

Rendering them the next best thing to being written by God...

Isn't that convenient?

The very same sacred text you refer to sanctions abortions.

Isn't that convenient?

 

[Kondor3]

You keep on trying to bolster your argument to defend the practice of discrimination by referring to a 'sacred' text. The Bible and all religious text were written by men. There has never been a book that was written by God.

You're talking to a Christian-Agnostic, metaphorically speaking...

A Christian -leaning Doubting Thomas, for lack of a better descriptor...

I'm fully aware that various so-called sacred texts were written by men...

But people of faith oftentimes believe that such texts were composed via Divine Inspiration...

Rendering them the next best thing to being written by God...

Isn't that convenient?

The very same sacred text you refer to sanctions abortions.

Isn't that convenient?

Doesn't bother ME in the slightest...

Even if it IS true...

Your arrow missed its mark...

 

[Gadawg73]

I think another state passed something similar to this last week so this must be a trend that is catching on. I agree with this bill that if you are a business owner and believe in and live by your faith that you should be able to refuse service to whoever you want.


Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays
Arizona Senate: Business owners can cite religion to refuse service to gays

Only a dumb ass business man refuses to serve customers based on their Christian faith.
They can not serve people that have affairs on their spouses
They can not serve people that do not honor their mother and father
They can not serve people that eat pork.
They can not serve people that eat catfish.
They can not serve people that eat shrimp.
They can not serve people that eat oysters.
They can not serve people that eat scallops.
They can not serve people that eat snails.
They can not serve people that eat any fat.
They can not serve people that eat blood.
They can not serve people that eat certain birds per Leviticus
They can not serve people that wear certain types of clothes per Leviticus
They can not serve people that "mingle linen and wool".
They can not serve people 'that round the corners of their head" per Leviticus
They can not serve people that "mar the corners of their beard".
They can not serve people that have tatoos per Leviticus
They can not serve people that "sow their field with mingled seed".
They can not serve people that "let their cattle gender with a diverse kind".
They can not serve any people that "avenge or bear any grudge against the children of thy people"

who the hell does that leave?
But of course a TRUE Christian ignores all of the above as a TRUE Christian ONLY refuses to serve gay folks.
To hell with Love thy Neighbor which is the most written phrase in the Bible.
A real Christian does not refuse to serve gay folks.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Let the homos eat wherever, whatever, whoever they want. If they have a dick, let them call themselves wives. If they have vaginas, let them call themselves husbands. No matter what the court says they will always live in their own reality...but it will remain their reality alone.

Remember that their reality is just as legitimate and just as entitled to Constitutional protections as your own reality.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The 'evil' is a business engaged in public commerce discriminating against folks for what they are.

That's wrong, un-American, and won't stand.

What is evil is a tyrannical gov't. telling a business how to run that business.

We the People through our constitutional liberties have set certain standards of humanity by which we live in this country.