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

[NYcarbineer]

[There's no such thing as a gay wedding cake.... .

Except in the sense that all wedding cakes are very very very very gay.

 

[WorldWatcher]

But it doesn't mention sexuality so Constitutionally speaking one cannot claim discrimination based on sexuality. But they do.

A don't see were equal treatment is excluded to citizens because of their sexuality.

Colorado tried passing a State constitutional amendment to exclude equal treatment under the law based on sexuality - it was struck down by the SCOTUS.

So your definition of equal treatment means that a baker is required by law to bake a gay wedding cake if he bakes wedding cakes. That's exactly the point and why there is a backlash. Welcome to the discussion. Sheesh.

I'm not familiar with the Colorado law but if liberal Colorado has a problem that should speak to you.

I support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws.

If a baker doesn't want to bake a wedding cake for Jews - for secular or non-secular reasons, they shouldn't have to.

If a baker doesn't want to bake a wedding cake for an black couple - for secular or non-secular reasons, they shouldn't have to.

If a baker doesn't want to bake a wedding cake for a 90 year old couple - for secular or non-secular reasons, they shouldn't have to.

If a baker doesn't want to bake a wedding cake for two women - for secular or non-secular reasons, they shouldn't have to.




The difference between myself and many here is that mandatory compliance with Public Accommodation laws is just fine with them for race, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation (for non-secular reasons), etc., etc. That's just fine. But when it comes to "The Gheys", Oh no in that case special exemptions have to be given to "sincerely held religious beliefs" - but only if those beliefs are about "The Gheys".

Kind of hypocritical, IMHO, if the position is supposed to be about freedom of association and rights of property.



>>>>

 

[Iceweasel]

Are homosexuals not people? Are they not capable of US citizenship?

Huh? We are discussing the relationship. Relationships aren't people. There is no Constitutional requirement for anyone to honor gay relationships, that's why the laws are created in various liberal locales.

 

[Iceweasel]

There's no such thing as a gay wedding cake just like there's no such thing as a straight wedding cake. It's just a cake regardless of the sexual orientation of who it's made for. So, regardless of whether the wedding cake is made for a straight or a gay couple, it's still just a damn cake. Consequently, if the baker is ever asked if he makes gay wedding cakes, he can say no. He just makes wedding cakes. What happens to the cake after it leaves his bakery, should be none of his concern.

A groom and a groom would be gay, sorry. I'd be OK with what you say if they get their figurines elsewhere and kept their private affairs private.

 

[bendog]

Are homosexuals not people? Are they not capable of US citizenship?

Huh? We are discussing the relationship. Relationships aren't people. There is no Constitutional requirement for anyone to honor gay relationships, that's why the laws are created in various liberal locales.

The supremes torpedoed DOMA

Like it or not, the feds may not deny equal benefits to GLBT, and the cases are percolating up as to whether states may do so.

 

[Iceweasel]

The supremes torpedoed DOMA

Like it or not, the feds may not deny equal benefits to GLBT, and the cases are percolating up as to whether states may do so.

DOMA has zip to do with this and if it was a federal issue, it wouldn't be a state issue.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The supremes torpedoed DOMA

Like it or not, the feds may not deny equal benefits to GLBT, and the cases are percolating up as to whether states may do so.

DOMA has zip to do with this and if it was a federal issue, it wouldn't be a state issue.

What you said was there was no Constitutional right to the recognition of gay relationships, the striking of DOMA shows that yes there is a Constitutional issue when gay relationships are not recognized equally.

Sorry you don't like it, but the fact remains, the non-recognition of legally established gay relationships was struck down.


>>>>

 

[kaz]

So your definition of equal treatment means that a baker is required by law to bake a gay wedding cake if he bakes wedding cakes.

Why would he not? It's business.

Nice little word game there. Why would he not? It's business is a fair question to ask ... the baker. I agree with the sentiment, as a business owner, I have no group that I exclude. I do business with Republican and Democratic candidates, lots of religious institutions, planned parenthood. I don't care. The only people I don't do business with are people who jerk me around about paying me even if they pay me eventually and people who are abusive to my staff. I have a list of about 5 customers in 5 years we will not accept their orders. None of them because of any group they belong to, all of them because of their personal behavior.

However, that government would require someone to do business with someone has nothing to do with business, it has to do with out of control government abusing it's power over it's people.

 

[BillyZane]

A don't see were equal treatment is excluded to citizens because of their sexuality.

Colorado tried passing a State constitutional amendment to exclude equal treatment under the law based on sexuality - it was struck down by the SCOTUS.

So your definition of equal treatment means that a baker is required by law to bake a gay wedding cake if he bakes wedding cakes. That's exactly the point and why there is a backlash. Welcome to the discussion. Sheesh.

I'm not familiar with the Colorado law but if liberal Colorado has a problem that should speak to you.

I support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws.

If a baker doesn't want to bake a wedding cake for Jews - for secular or non-secular reasons, they shouldn't have to.

If a baker doesn't want to bake a wedding cake for an black couple - for secular or non-secular reasons, they shouldn't have to.

If a baker doesn't want to bake a wedding cake for a 90 year old couple - for secular or non-secular reasons, they shouldn't have to.

If a baker doesn't want to bake a wedding cake for two women - for secular or non-secular reasons, they shouldn't have to.




The difference between myself and many here is that mandatory compliance with Public Accommodation laws is just fine with them for race, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation (for non-secular reasons), etc., etc. That's just fine. But when it comes to "The Gheys", Oh no in that case special exemptions have to be given to "sincerely held religious beliefs" - but only if those beliefs are about "The Gheys".

Kind of hypocritical, IMHO, if the position is supposed to be about freedom of association and rights of property.



>>>>

You've cleared your position up nicely, and you and I agree. The whole "it's religious" thing is a bogey.

It's MY business, I have a right to associate with whomever I please, and the government does NOT have a right to tell me I can't just because I happen to own my own business.

 

[Katzndogz]

A don't see were equal treatment is excluded to citizens because of their sexuality.

Colorado tried passing a State constitutional amendment to exclude equal treatment under the law based on sexuality - it was struck down by the SCOTUS.

So your definition of equal treatment means that a baker is required by law to bake a gay wedding cake if he bakes wedding cakes. That's exactly the point and why there is a backlash. Welcome to the discussion. Sheesh.

I'm not familiar with the Colorado law but if liberal Colorado has a problem that should speak to you.

Why would he not? It's business.

Not quite. He is required by law to bake a gay wedding cake if he advertises that he bakes wedding cakes and holds himself out as a person who bakes wedding cakes. If the baker takes wedding cakes off the publicly offered services, gays can buy an offered apple pie instead.

 

[kaz]

The supremes torpedoed DOMA

Like it or not, the feds may not deny equal benefits to GLBT, and the cases are percolating up as to whether states may do so.

DOMA has zip to do with this and if it was a federal issue, it wouldn't be a state issue.

What you said was there was no Constitutional right to the recognition of gay relationships, the striking of DOMA shows that yes there is a Constitutional issue when gay relationships are not recognized equally.

Sorry you don't like it, but the fact remains, the non-recognition of legally established gay relationships was struck down.


>>>>

DOMA was a direct implementation of the full faith and credit clause. The striking down of DOMA only proved we have a criminal, corrupt Supreme Court that doesn't base it's rulings on what the Constitution says but what they want it to say. They are dictators in robes. Well, the ones who voted to violate the Constitution and usurp the powers of the Legislative branch are.

 

[Katzndogz]

Are homosexuals not people? Are they not capable of US citizenship?

Huh? We are discussing the relationship. Relationships aren't people. There is no Constitutional requirement for anyone to honor gay relationships, that's why the laws are created in various liberal locales.

The supremes torpedoed DOMA

Like it or not, the feds may not deny equal benefits to GLBT, and the cases are percolating up as to whether states may do so.

No the supremes didn't. obama did when he refused to defend the law in the courts. It never got to the supremes to make a ruling one way or other.

 

[Iceweasel]

What you said was there was no Constitutional right to the recognition of gay relationships, the striking of DOMA shows that yes there is a Constitutional issue when gay relationships are not recognized equally.

How is that logical to you? DOMA was the protection of tradtiionally defined marriage if it was foisted on them by minority decree, especially judicial. Yes, gay is in both concepts but different topics.

Sorry you don't like it, but the fact remains, the non-recognition of legally established gay relationships was struck down.

I haven't spoken about DOMA but you think that forces bakery owners to make gay themed wedding cakes? That's creative, I'll give you that.

 

[WorldWatcher]

DOMA was a direct implementation of the full faith and credit clause. The striking down of DOMA only proved we have a criminal, corrupt Supreme Court that doesn't base it's rulings on what the Constitution says but what they want it to say. They are dictators in robes. Well, the ones who voted to violate the Constitution and usurp the powers of the Legislative branch are.

DOMA had two Sections. Section 2 was an exercise of Congresses full faith and credit clause, that section was not addressed by the courts.

Section 3 having to do with Federal recognition (not state to state recognition, which was Section 2) was a violation of equal protection. Section 3 had nothing to do with full faith and credit between the states.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Huh? We are discussing the relationship. Relationships aren't people. There is no Constitutional requirement for anyone to honor gay relationships, that's why the laws are created in various liberal locales.

The supremes torpedoed DOMA

Like it or not, the feds may not deny equal benefits to GLBT, and the cases are percolating up as to whether states may do so.

No the supremes didn't. obama did when he refused to defend the law in the courts. It never got to the supremes to make a ruling one way or other.

What the hell????

SCOTUS struck Section 3 of the Federal DOMA in the case of United States v. Windsor.



http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf


>>>>

 

[bendog]

Huh? We are discussing the relationship. Relationships aren't people. There is no Constitutional requirement for anyone to honor gay relationships, that's why the laws are created in various liberal locales.

The supremes torpedoed DOMA

Like it or not, the feds may not deny equal benefits to GLBT, and the cases are percolating up as to whether states may do so.

No the supremes didn't. obama did when he refused to defend the law in the courts. It never got to the supremes to make a ruling one way or other.

NO. The surpremes held congress may not pass a law allowing gay marriages to be offered lesser federal benefit via federal laws than straight marriages.

You would be correct if you said the issue was left for another day as to whether a state could prohibit gay marriage, or if such a prohibition violated equal protection. Those cases are percolating upward. I suspect that the supremes will do nothing because as more states recognize same sex marriages, it will become a non-issue.

Iceweasle posted "There is no Constitutional requirement for anyone to honor gay relationships, that's why the laws are created in various liberal locales."

That is not correct.

 

[WorldWatcher]

What you said was there was no Constitutional right to the recognition of gay relationships, the striking of DOMA shows that yes there is a Constitutional issue when gay relationships are not recognized equally.

How is that logical to you? DOMA was the protection of tradtiionally defined marriage if it was foisted on them by minority decree, especially judicial. Yes, gay is in both concepts but different topics.

Sorry you don't like it, but the fact remains, the non-recognition of legally established gay relationships was struck down.

I haven't spoken about DOMA but you think that forces bakery owners to make gay themed wedding cakes? That's creative, I'll give you that.

DOMA (Section 3) was struck based on case from New York State which passed the law legislatively.

What the hell are you talking about????

YOU said there was no Constitutional requirement to recognize gay relationships. It was pointed out to you that was incorrect. New York recognized gay relationships, the Federal government refused to recognize them with DOMA (section 3). The SCOTUS ruled (and I paraphrase) "No, you [the Federal government] MUST recognize them equally". You made a mistake with the comment, you should man up.




Secondly, I'd appreciate it if you would stop trying to tell me what I think. Please review -->> http://www.usmessageboard.com/8677814-post982.html

I'm more than happy to tell you what I think if you have a real question.

>>>>

 

[kaz]

DOMA was a direct implementation of the full faith and credit clause. The striking down of DOMA only proved we have a criminal, corrupt Supreme Court that doesn't base it's rulings on what the Constitution says but what they want it to say. They are dictators in robes. Well, the ones who voted to violate the Constitution and usurp the powers of the Legislative branch are.

DOMA had two Sections. Section 2 was an exercise of Congresses full faith and credit clause, that section was not addressed by the courts.

Section 3 having to do with Federal recognition (not state to state recognition, which was Section 2) was a violation of equal protection. Section 3 had nothing to do with full faith and credit between the states.


>>>>

OK, I see what you're saying on the section that was struck down, and I agree that's not full faith and credit.

Section 3 has nothing to do with equal protection though Two straight men or two straight women also can not get family insurance.

 

[RandallFlagg]

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.

And that is the crux of the matter. The left believes that "their" ideology is good. everyone els's is bad. So yes, they WOULD have a Jew bake a Nazi a birthday cake AND fix his shower head.

You're dealing with pure evil here.

 

[Katzndogz]

The supremes torpedoed DOMA

Like it or not, the feds may not deny equal benefits to GLBT, and the cases are percolating up as to whether states may do so.

No the supremes didn't. obama did when he refused to defend the law in the courts. It never got to the supremes to make a ruling one way or other.

What the hell????

SCOTUS struck Section 3 of the Federal DOMA in the case of United States v. Windsor.



http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf


>>>>

Did you miss this part:

While the suit was pending, the Attorney General notified the Speaker of the House of Representatives that the Department of Justice would no longer defend §3’s constitutionality