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

[Iceweasel]

I do believe that businesses should be allowed to conduct business with anyone they want to but I also believe that a business which refuses service to anyone simply because they are gay are incredibly stupid and they should re-examine the reason why they are in business to begin with. Money is money and if a business is going to turn down a dollar simply because it is pink then it deserves all the boycott, ridicule and derision the gay community and it's supporters can muster, a practice also guaranteed by law.

That's the most contradictory post I've seen here so far. A business owner may not want to promote homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle and turn down the work based on his or her values. I've turned down work for Planned Parenthood for principles, something your thinking clearly lacks.

Not everyone, business people included, considers money the most important thing on Earth. If the gay crusaders want to boycott with their friends that's a good thing, it spares everyone grief. They can ridicule and deride in private all they want but if it's taken into the public arena they open themselves up to slander and defamation lawsuits. Also a right. The sword cuts both ways, most of us learn this by the time we are 13 years old.

 

[Chaussette]

Yep. But then again, why does such a suggestion come from someone who opposes such a thing? Aren't you contradicting yourself?

I just think people should be honest. Sure, I think that it's totally homophobic, but if this law passes, people should at least be honest and upfront about their hating and post a sign: I HATE GAYS. Or something similar.

Now you're being outrightly facetious. How childish.

When a noob can't attack the post, he attacks the poster.

 

[TemplarKormac]

First off, Kondor just openly admitted to "legislating his own morality based on his religious beliefs". Secondly removing discrimination is not "legislating morality" unless you believe that it is somehow "moral" to discriminate against your fellow citizens. You need to justify the "fairness" to discriminating against them simply because they are in love with someone of the same sex.

Don't muddy the waters with the "reproduction" issue either. This has nothing to do with that aspect at all. This is about trying to dictate who someone is allowed to love and who they can't. There is no justification for that kind of moralizing and attempting to legislate it.

Whoa whoa whoa... hold the phone:



So a business owner refusing service to a gay couple is somehow telling them they can't love each other? Am I getting this straight? So, in response we must force this person to act against his faith? Reference my previous posts for how I feel about that.

I frankly don't care what Kondor said. I find it hypocritical for someone to say "you can't legislate morality" then sit there while our state governments pass legislation which foist the morals and lifestyles of homosexuals on Christians via legislation. When you remove a man's right to act as his faith teaches, that within itself is discrimination.. You don't force tolerance. You don't force a man to believe what he doesn't want to believe, nor should force him to accommodate those beliefs.

Being a Libertarian, I believe homosexuals should be treated equally. But in addition, I believe that a businessman or owner should be able to run his business how he sees fit, even if that means refusing service to peoples whose lifestyles run against the grain of his religion. I believe, Derideo, that it is unfair to force a man to act against his religious beliefs by forcing another set of contradictory beliefs upon him. Let him believe how he chooses, and run his business accordingly. Same for gays. This is a core tenet of libertarianism: to let the citizen dictate his own fate and the fate of his endeavors, to let the citizen believe how he chooses without being forced to conform to societal norms. It's that simple.

You are free to hate anyone you wish. But as a public business you are not allowed deny service based on your hatred

Such a witty riposte! I will have to give you a gold star for such a devastating rebuttal. No, not really. When you stop basing your arguments and beliefs off of hatred, then you can lecture me about it, got it?

 

[Kondor3]

...Raises the specter of how exactly you intend to distinguish 'such folk' in everyday life?...

Quite true. Implicit in that 'freedom to refuse service' is the foreknowledge that a prospective customer is homosexual. How one attains that foreknowledge is a related but subsequent matter which will admittedly not be easy to resolve. But that does not detract from the desire or need on the part of many to have the freedom to refuse service to those which their religious beliefs inform them are evildoers and perverts.

"...If you make them wear pink armbands I can promise you that I will wear one too and so will everyone else that I know."

A little too Godwin-esque and Think-Pink and Drama-Queen-ish for this early in the morning, isn't it?

"...So you don't actually have anything substantive?..."

Oh, I think that the centuries-old prohibitions against and condemnations of homosexuality - to be found in the sacred texts and teachings of mainstream Christianity, Judaism and Islam - provide sufficient 'substance' to assert in a court of law that such forced 'association' or 'service provisioning' is perceived by Believers as forcing them to interact with those whom they perceive to be evil-doers and perverts.

What more is needed?

Now, whether folks will be allowed to shun such perverts or be allowed to refuse service to such persons on Religious Grounds is an entirely different matter, of course, but the establishment of those grounds and the assertion of their broad acceptance as morally operative is not an overly demanding task in itself.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You mistake an increased willingness to tolerate perversity, so long as it is kept out of the public eye, with the definition of perversity itself. It's an important distinction that seems to escape you. Your deficiency of understanding, not mine.

========================================

perversion: 1. sexual behavior that people think is not normal or natural

Perversion - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

========================================

Do not confuse increased tolerance for the definition itself.

If it was not viewed as perverse by the majority, then 97% would be Gay and 3% would be Straight, rather than the other way around.

Q.E.D.

When a gay couple walks into your shop and you refuse to serve them what exactly are you objecting to that must be "kept out of the public eye"? That they have matching wedding bands? Exactly what aspect are you attempting to ban here?

No we shouldn't hide people who are homosexuals. But you shouldn't force a citizen to act against his or her own consciences and faith. If anything, this intolerance of personal and spiritual limits should be banned.

Don't you see the irony in what you just posted?

 

[Immanuel]

"...So basically, you only serve Christian straight people, no Jews, muslims, Hindus, Atheists... Because after all, you don't agree with their religious beliefs...."

Not at all...

Merely looking for the freedom to refuse service to those whose sexual practices are condemned in the sacred texts and/or historical and present teachings of at least three of the world's largest mainstream religions, and which are believed to be perverse, unnatural, unclean and an aberration in the eyes of God and Man - the freedom to shun wrongdoing and wrongdoers in accordance with mainstream religious teachings on the subject.

A different 'filter' than the holistic one that you are trying (and failing) to apply here.

I have pretty much disagreed with just about everything you have posted in this thread because to me, you sounded as if you endorsed discrimination against gay people.

Although I, myself, believe a business owner should have such right, it sickens me to think Christians are advocating such hatred.

Thank you for at least attempting to put it into a different tone.

"Should have the right" does not equal "will ever exercise said right". Although we would be lying to ourselves if we said no one would exercise that right.

An example, to bring this to the progressive way of thinking would be this. How many of you are pro-choice and have claimed that you support the right of a woman to attain an abortion, but you would never choose one yourself? Pro-choice people here say that all the time. Just because you support a right does not mean you would exercise that right.

I have lots of rights that I choose not to exercise. I think there are several Christians in this thread who are thinking the same thing yet the message is not coming through.

I believe the right to be a racist/"homophobic" bigot should exist. That does not mean I choose to be one. I think the majority of us Christians would welcome gay couples into our businesses. It does not mean we support their lifestyles, but we recognize them as human beings and the utter ugliness of hate and discrimination.

To me, if I were a baker, I would have no problem baking a cake for such a couple. On the other hand, I am not sure that I would want to actually attend the wedding as a photographer. I believe I would be uncomfortable in that situation. Normal wedding/reception fine; gay orgy during the reception and I am out of there!

 

[Kondor3]

I just think people should be honest. Sure, I think that it's totally homophobic, but if this law passes, people should at least be honest and upfront about their hating and post a sign: I HATE GAYS. Or something similar.

Now you're being outrightly facetious. How childish.

When a noob can't attack the post, he attacks the poster.

As you have been seen to do repeatedly on this thread?

Good point.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I just think people should be honest. Sure, I think that it's totally homophobic, but if this law passes, people should at least be honest and upfront about their hating and post a sign: I HATE GAYS. Or something similar.

Now you're being outrightly facetious. How childish.

When a noob can't attack the post, he attacks the poster.

When Chaussette has no argument, s/he argues just to argue. Brilliant! You're woefully unintelligent, or purposefully misleading, I can't tell yet. You've already tried to mischaracterize my argument, so from here on out I can't take you seriously anymore.

 

[Derideo_Te]

"...So basically, you only serve Christian straight people, no Jews, muslims, Hindus, Atheists... Because after all, you don't agree with their religious beliefs...."

Not at all...

Merely looking for the freedom to refuse service to those whose sexual practices are condemned in the sacred texts and/or historical and present teachings of at least three of the world's largest mainstream religions, and which are believed to be perverse, unnatural, unclean and an aberration in the eyes of God and Man - the freedom to shun wrongdoing and wrongdoers in accordance with mainstream religious teachings on the subject.

A different 'filter' than the holistic one that you are trying (and failing) to apply here.

Your religious freedom at the expense of the rights of others to be treated equally? Sounds like you are pushing for a theocratic state.

 

[TemplarKormac]

When a gay couple walks into your shop and you refuse to serve them what exactly are you objecting to that must be "kept out of the public eye"? That they have matching wedding bands? Exactly what aspect are you attempting to ban here?

No we shouldn't hide people who are homosexuals. But you shouldn't force a citizen to act against his or her own consciences and faith. If anything, this intolerance of personal and spiritual limits should be banned.

Don't you see the irony in what you just posted?

Nope. You want discrimination banned, I want this forcing people to act against their faith to serve homosexuals banned. Are those two things not the same? Come to think of it, both of these things are acts of discrimination, are they not? If there is any irony to be had here, it's that you're condoning one form of discrimination while admonishing the other.

 

[TemplarKormac]

"...So basically, you only serve Christian straight people, no Jews, muslims, Hindus, Atheists... Because after all, you don't agree with their religious beliefs...."

Not at all...

Merely looking for the freedom to refuse service to those whose sexual practices are condemned in the sacred texts and/or historical and present teachings of at least three of the world's largest mainstream religions, and which are believed to be perverse, unnatural, unclean and an aberration in the eyes of God and Man - the freedom to shun wrongdoing and wrongdoers in accordance with mainstream religious teachings on the subject.

A different 'filter' than the holistic one that you are trying (and failing) to apply here.

Your religious freedom at the expense of the rights of others to be treated equally? Sounds like you are pushing for a theocratic state.

Your right to be treated equally at the expense of others' religious freedom? Sounds like you are pushing for a secular state. Just saying, bud.

 

[Gadawg73]

"alternative lifestyle"
Is a guy that fucks his wife in the ass, left ear and right nostril living in an "alternative lifestyle".
Folks that do not know gay folk use that term and it is absurd.
They are living THEIR normal life. Not normal to me but it is to them.
No one chooses to be gay, come on folks.
Explain to me how you chose to be straight.

 

[Gadawg73]

I do not like laws that tell me who I can work for.
But I also would never turn down working for gay folk.
Most all of them I know professionally are hard working and good people.
My opinion is someone has to be crazy to use religious reasons to turn down working for them.
Jesus would not do that. He would accept them as he did everyone.

 

[Kondor3]

"...So basically, you only serve Christian straight people, no Jews, muslims, Hindus, Atheists... Because after all, you don't agree with their religious beliefs...."

Not at all...

Merely looking for the freedom to refuse service to those whose sexual practices are condemned in the sacred texts and/or historical and present teachings of at least three of the world's largest mainstream religions, and which are believed to be perverse, unnatural, unclean and an aberration in the eyes of God and Man - the freedom to shun wrongdoing and wrongdoers in accordance with mainstream religious teachings on the subject.

A different 'filter' than the holistic one that you are trying (and failing) to apply here.

I have pretty much disagreed with just about everything you have posted in this thread because to me, you sounded as if you endorsed discrimination against gay people.

Although I, myself, believe a business owner should have such right, it sickens me to think Christians are advocating such hatred.

Thank you for at least attempting to put it into a different tone.

"Should have the right" does not equal "will ever exercise said right". Although we would be lying to ourselves if we said no one would exercise that right.

An example, to bring this to the progressive way of thinking would be this. How many of you are pro-choice and have claimed that you support the right of a woman to attain an abortion, but you would never choose one yourself? Pro-choice people here say that all the time. Just because you support a right does not mean you would exercise that right.

I have lots of rights that I choose not to exercise. I think there are several Christians in this thread who are thinking the same thing yet the message is not coming through.

I believe the right to be a racist/"homophobic" bigot should exist. That does not mean I choose to be one. I think the majority of us Christians would welcome gay couples into our businesses. It does not mean we support their lifestyles, but we recognize them as human beings and the utter ugliness of hate and discrimination.

To me, if I were a baker, I would have no problem baking a cake for such a couple. On the other hand, I am not sure that I would want to actually attend the wedding as a photographer. I believe I would be uncomfortable in that situation. Normal wedding/reception fine; gay orgy during the reception and I am out of there!

This was very well said.

Much depends on which one of the Heinz 57 flavors of Christianity we're talking about, I'm sure.

There are schools of thought that are more tolerant of homosexuality than others.

There are schools of thought that are more condemnatory of homosexuality than others.

Each of us according to our own lights, or whatever light that Nature or God granted to us.

Respect for each others' opinions is oh-so-important.

Respect for each others' right to engage, or to refuse to engage, in matters of moral conscience, are also oh-so-important.

Personally, I have enough trouble walking through life keeping my own socks pulled up, never mind fussing overly much about who is sleeping with who.

I believe homosexuality to be a degenerate and perverse state, and abhor the concept, the practices, and many of its practitioners.

But, personally, I would not refuse to provide service to some Gay person or another.

I merely want the freedom to do so, and despise any law that takes that freedom of choice away from me.

I want that freedom for myself, in case I ever change my mind, and for those who already wish to refuse such service.

If a business person's religious beliefs inform them that homosexuality is a perversion and evil and if those same beliefs inform them that associating with such persons or providing services to such persons is a wrong or immoral thing to do, then, I'm all in favor of them continuing to retain the freedom to make that choice.

I maintain an ultra hard-line stance during debating exchanges on the subject because such hard-line thinking is required in order to force the issue and to re-empower folks to make those choices for themselves rather than having Big Brother do it.

We do not see these things the same way, but I'm not quite as far to the Right of Attila the Hun as I might appear during these exchanges.

 

[TemplarKormac]

"alternative lifestyle"
Is a guy that fucks his wife in the ass, left ear and right nostril living in an "alternative lifestyle".
Folks that do not know gay folk use that term and it is absurd.
They are living THEIR normal life. Not normal to me but it is to them.
No one chooses to be gay, come on folks.
Explain to me how you chose to be straight.

What I see here, sir, is an attempt by the left to have others see the guy who fucks his wife in the ass , left ear and right nostril as someone who is living an "alternate lifestyle."

 

[Derideo_Te]

"...First off, Kondor just openly admitted to 'legislating his own morality based on his religious beliefs'..."

Quite true. But it can be pitched somewhat different when it comes to going public. All's fair in love and war. And, I assure you, this is war, from the Opposition's perspective.

Thank you for admitting that the "Opposition" is suffering from delusions.

"...Secondly removing discrimination is not 'legislating morality' unless you believe that it is somehow 'moral' to discriminate against your fellow citizens..."

It is only 'moral' to discriminate against your fellow citizens when they openly admit to immoral and perverse acts and practices.

Rather like shunning a pedophile or some other flavor of pervert.

Now you are erroneously conflating homosexuality with pedophilia which means that your position is even weaker than you know.

"...You need to justify the 'fairness' to discriminating against them simply because they are in love with someone of the same sex..."

3000 years of the combined condemnations by Judaism, Christianity and Islam have taken care of all those pesky moral complications.

I really do not believe that you appreciate the sheer and overwhelming power and persistence and stamina of the forces now aligning against you.

I suspect that you have no idea of how unlikely it is that people will give up their rights for your theocratic utopia.

"...This has nothing to do with that aspect at all. This is about trying to dictate who someone is allowed to love and who they can't..."

It's not even about that.

It's about forcing somebody to provide services to someone who engages in perverse and unnatural sexual behaviors and related lifestyles and moral relativism.

No one is forcing you to ask anyone if they are gay before you sell them a burger and fries.

It's about those forced to do so, finding ways to fight back, in order to preserve their right to refuse such services, based upon their religious beliefs and teachings.

You are inventing an excuse to force your unconstitutional religious beliefs onto others.

 

[Kondor3]

"...So basically, you only serve Christian straight people, no Jews, muslims, Hindus, Atheists... Because after all, you don't agree with their religious beliefs...."

Not at all...

Merely looking for the freedom to refuse service to those whose sexual practices are condemned in the sacred texts and/or historical and present teachings of at least three of the world's largest mainstream religions, and which are believed to be perverse, unnatural, unclean and an aberration in the eyes of God and Man - the freedom to shun wrongdoing and wrongdoers in accordance with mainstream religious teachings on the subject.

A different 'filter' than the holistic one that you are trying (and failing) to apply here.

Your religious freedom at the expense of the rights of others to be treated equally? Sounds like you are pushing for a theocratic state.

My freedom to judge what is Morally Right and what is Morally Wrong and not to be forced to associate with those whom I judge to be Morally Wrong - as reinforced by a couple of thousand years of Christian-Judaic-Islamic narratives and teachings, on a global scale. Separation of Church and State has worked out very well for us here. Just keep the damned State out of my Church, metaphorically speaking - just stop forcing me to interact with those whom my faith condemns as perverts and unnatural and abominations in the eyes of God and Man.

 

[Gadawg73]

The fact that we even have a law, or debate the legailty of freedom of association is pathetic in a supposedly free country. A business owner, in any state, for any reason, should be allowed to determine who they will provide services to.

But, LOLberals just love the idea of forcing people to do what they believe is right.

So a business owner that owns an ambulance service can refuse service to who he wants to?

Amazing there are as many people that thanked your post without thinking for half a second of the consequences of your insane post.
Republicans killed their law last week because of exactly what I posted above.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I suspect that you have no idea of how unlikely it is that people will give up their rights for your theocratic utopia.

I suspect that you have no clue how unlikely it is that people will give up their rights for a secular one, either. There is no such thing as a one sided coin, my friend.

 

[TemplarKormac]

But then again, I have better things to do than waste time on this thread. Seriously I do. I did pull an allnighter working on a project, and I haven't slept in 16 hours, so later.