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

[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.

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.

Got it backwards. The Nazi is a political philosophy and as such a person has a right to reject it. However, Jewishness is a protected category, so a Nazi would have to bake a Jewish wedding cake. Cool, huh?

 

[Antares]

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.

You voted for Obama nothing you say matters assbite.

 

[Moonglow]

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.

Got it backwards. The Nazi is a political philosophy and as such a person has a right to reject it. However, Jewishness is a protected category, so a Nazi would have to bake a Jewish wedding cake. Cool, huh?

Didn't Hitler say, I wish I knew you were coming, I would have baked you a ****!

 

[The Professor]

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

This is ridiculous, how do you know someone is gay? My friend and I have taken trips together and if we get a suite with a king bed for the same price as a regular room with 2 beds, we take the suite every time. What if they think we're lesbians? This is just stupid.

The Law gives the business owner discretion.

I do not believe that the typical business owner is going to refuse service to anyone unless he believes that the majority of patrons dislike whatever is it that you are doing.

Economics will prevent merchants from arbitrarily enforcing this right.

.

You are correct, of course. The effect of this law will be minimal for the reasons you have stated.

Plus, technically, the right to refuse to serve gay customers/clients does not extend to those business owners who merely profess a religious belief against homosexuality. The lawful refusal is conditional and extremely restrictive in that it only allows businesses to refuse to serve gays based on the owners' "sincerely held religious beliefs.” This is a lawyer's dream come true since the owner's bare assertion of a “sincerely held religious belief” can be challenged in court.

There are some interesting legal questions that will most likely find there way to the courthouse. For example, how does one prove a sincerely held religious belief against homosexuality? Is membership in a church or religious association necessary? What about the doctrine of the religious organization? Will the owner's mental state ultimately be judged by the same criteria that was first used years ago to determine conscientious objector status?

After a lawsuit or two, there will be damn few business owners in Arizona willing to put themselves at risk just to avoid dealing with the requests of a few gays. The only ones that will continue to refuse providing certain services for gays will be those with a legitimate sincere and deeply rooted religious belief against homosexuality.

The law, at least as I read the link provided by the OP, does not permit business owners – regardless of their religious beliefs – to refuse to serve a person solely because that person is gay. For example, a restaurant cannot refuse to serve a man openly know to be gay. Business owners can, however, refuse to perform a service associated with gayness, such as making a wedding cake with two men or two women on the top tier.

In the final analysis, I suppose the question is this: Which is the greater violation of individual rights: requiring a person to perform a service which is against his/her religious beliefs regarding homosexuality, or denying someone who is gay the right to be served by this person, especially considering the fact the same service can easily be provided by others. I believe the greater harm is to the person with religious convictions.

Having said all this, what the SCOTUS would do with this issue, should it ever get that far, is completely unpredictable.

 

[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.

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..

Silohuette's weak headness is revealed yet again. Orientation is a protected category by the 14th Amendment. You wish to impose an compulsion of your understanding of a particular moral imperative on the rest of us. But . . . it has no standing before the court.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Gadawag73 delivers the mortal blow to the hypocrisy of few small minded reactionaries of the far Christian right. Step off.

 

[Antares]

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..

Silohuette's weak headness is revealed yet again. Orientation is a protected category by the 14th Amendment. You wish to impose an compulsion of your understanding of a particular moral imperative on the rest of us. But . . . it has no standing before the court.

You gay Bammy boi?

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

You voted for Obama nothing you say matters assbite.

I voted Romney, as you admitted elsewhere, and nothing you can do now can save your industry, because of your greed. You are getting the reward of your behavior.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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..

Silohuette's weak headness is revealed yet again. Orientation is a protected category by the 14th Amendment. You wish to impose an compulsion of your understanding of a particular moral imperative on the rest of us. But . . . it has no standing before the court.

You gay Bammy boi?

Nope, married to two women in my life, the second after the first died. They are the only women with whom I have had sexual relations. I have several children and 15 grand children. I am, I believe, one the truly practicing Christians on this Board, and I call the hypocrites of the far reactionary Christian right for what they are: they are as if whited sepulchers, that gleam alabaster bright on the outside yet stinketh of corruption inside.

 

[Antares]

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

You voted for Obama nothing you say matters assbite.

I voted Romney, as you admitted elsewhere, and nothing you can do now can save your industry, because of your greed. You are getting the reward of your behavior.

You voted for McCain AND Obama liar, YOUR words

 

[bodecea]

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.

You voted for Obama nothing you say matters assbite.

Poor baby...and having to see PRESIDENT Obama for 8 years.

 

[Antares]

Silohuette's weak headness is revealed yet again. Orientation is a protected category by the 14th Amendment. You wish to impose an compulsion of your understanding of a particular moral imperative on the rest of us. But . . . it has no standing before the court.

You gay Bammy boi?

Nope, married to two women in my life, the second after the first died. They are the only women with whom I have had sexual relations. I have several children and 15 grand children. I am, I believe, one the truly practicing Christians on this Board, and I call the hypocrites of the far reactionary Christian right for what they are: posers.

Christians don't lie.
YOU do, shall I show you again liar?

 

[bodecea]

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..

Silohuette's weak headness is revealed yet again. Orientation is a protected category by the 14th Amendment. You wish to impose an compulsion of your understanding of a particular moral imperative on the rest of us. But . . . it has no standing before the court.

You gay Bammy boi?

I do not believe Jake is...but we love him anyways. Are you gay? It seems to take up a bit of your front and center focus.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You voted for Obama nothing you say matters assbite.

I voted Romney, as you admitted elsewhere, and nothing you can do now can save your industry, because of your greed. You are getting the reward of your behavior.

You voted for McCain AND Obama liar, YOUR words

You have already said I voted for McCain and Romney.

Yep, you are receiving your just reward.

 

[Moonglow]

You gay Bammy boi?

Nope, married to two women in my life, the second after the first died. They are the only women with whom I have had sexual relations. I have several children and 15 grand children. I am, I believe, one the truly practicing Christians on this Board, and I call the hypocrites of the far reactionary Christian right for what they are: posers.

Christians don't lie.
YOU do, shall I show you again liar?

You go-sock boi!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"...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.

Correct, which is why the ‘argument’ fails – subjective religious doctrine and dogma are legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, thankfully and appropriately so.

 

[bodecea]

You gay Bammy boi?

Nope, married to two women in my life, the second after the first died. They are the only women with whom I have had sexual relations. I have several children and 15 grand children. I am, I believe, one the truly practicing Christians on this Board, and I call the hypocrites of the far reactionary Christian right for what they are: posers.

Christians don't lie.
YOU do, shall I show you again liar?

 

[JakeStarkey]

You gay Bammy boi?

Nope, married to two women in my life, the second after the first died. They are the only women with whom I have had sexual relations. I have several children and 15 grand children. I am, I believe, one the truly practicing Christians on this Board, and I call the hypocrites of the far reactionary Christian right for what they are: posers.

Christians don't lie. YOU do, shall I show you again liar?

You have just lied above, my friend. You are no cred.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nope, married to two women in my life, the second after the first died. They are the only women with whom I have had sexual relations. I have several children and 15 grand children. I am, I believe, one the truly practicing Christians on this Board, and I call the hypocrites of the far reactionary Christian right for what they are: posers.

Christians don't lie.
YOU do, shall I show you again liar?

 

[Kondor3]

"...Correct, which is why the ‘argument’ fails – subjective religious doctrine and dogma are legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, thankfully and appropriately so."

True - right up to the point where the law infringes upon one's Freedom of Religion... that's the litmus test... and that's the vector that the Arizona folks are trying... interesting possibilities, either in connection with that particular articulation of the concept, or, simply, the concept itself, spun another way, if the Arizona attempt does not work out...