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

[PaintMyHouse]

Don't CARE. Since when did GAY=Black?

Since we decided they also had rights.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why? So a Court can tell a private business HOW it must conduct itself? A private business can REFUSE SERVICE to anyone. Get it?

A little clarification here, yes any business can refuse service to any person. If they don't offer the product, they have a scheduling conflict, if the customer is rude and disruptive, etc...

However in Arizona it's the legislature - not the court - under it's 10th Amendment powers to regulate business within the State that says a business of Public Accommodation CANNOT refuse business based on Race, Color, National Origin/Ancestry, Sex, Religion/Creed, or Physical/Mental disability.

If a black man walks into a kosher deli and orders a ham sandwich - the black man can be refused because the deli does not serve ham.

On the other hand if the deli does service ham (they are non-kosher) and refuses to serve the black person because they are black - that violates the State law.

Get it?


(BTW - Public Accommodation laws have been upheld by the court, multple states and at the Federal level going back to Heartland of Atlanta Motel v. United States.


>>>>

Putting all of the legality aside for a moment, let me ask you an honest question:

Should a man give up his religious beliefs to a) run a business and b) adhere to public accommodation laws?

It's up to him. Segregation of the races was defended on religious grounds in the past. Should religion have won that argument?

 

[TemplarKormac]

A little clarification here, yes any business can refuse service to any person. If they don't offer the product, they have a scheduling conflict, if the customer is rude and disruptive, etc...

However in Arizona it's the legislature - not the court - under it's 10th Amendment powers to regulate business within the State that says a business of Public Accommodation CANNOT refuse business based on Race, Color, National Origin/Ancestry, Sex, Religion/Creed, or Physical/Mental disability.

If a black man walks into a kosher deli and orders a ham sandwich - the black man can be refused because the deli does not serve ham.

On the other hand if the deli does service ham (they are non-kosher) and refuses to serve the black person because they are black - that violates the State law.

Get it?


(BTW - Public Accommodation laws have been upheld by the court, multple states and at the Federal level going back to Heartland of Atlanta Motel v. United States.


>>>>

Putting all of the legality aside for a moment, let me ask you an honest question:

Should a man give up his religious beliefs to a) run a business and b) adhere to public accommodation laws?

Easy answer. How you live your faith is mostly a private matter. How you run your business is mostly a public one, when you serve the public that is. You don't have to give up anything more than you have to to work for someone else. If the boss says stop preaching, it's stop and compromise or hit the road. We can only allow for so much faith when the goal is business.

If you work in my Agnostic Bookstore and I tell you to take the cross off, you can do it or you can vote with your feet. I'm not a church, I'm a business.

How I run my business should be no business of anyone else's. I won't let a group of people tell me how to run it. I'll run a business which employs anyone with any belief, but I as the owner should be able to determine who I serve and when I serve them. That's a business decision.

Moreover, Jesus never intended Christianity to be totally "private." While he did say that a Christian should pray in secret, he behooved us to spread the message of the Gospel through our deeds and words in the eyes of the public.

Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me; Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Matthew 28:18-20

The rest is ignoratio elenchi.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Don't CARE. Since when did GAY=Black?

Since we decided they also had rights.

Not exactally the same thing, but hey gays equal black to you, go for it. How long til some conservative gay opposes the gaystopo agenda, eill the be called uncle toms and oreos or even question their gayness?
I cant wait for that, hes a republican, he cant be gay, hes not gay enough



Lolololololol

 

[bodecea]

Don't CARE. Since when did GAY=Black?

Since we decided they also had rights.

Not exactally the same thing, but hey gays equal black to you, go for it. How long til some conservative gay opposes the gaystopo agenda, eill the be called uncle toms and oreos or even question their gayness?
I cant wait for that, hes a republican, he cant be gay, hes not gay enough



Lolololololol

That kind of stuff already happens.

 

[TemplarKormac]

A little clarification here, yes any business can refuse service to any person. If they don't offer the product, they have a scheduling conflict, if the customer is rude and disruptive, etc...

However in Arizona it's the legislature - not the court - under it's 10th Amendment powers to regulate business within the State that says a business of Public Accommodation CANNOT refuse business based on Race, Color, National Origin/Ancestry, Sex, Religion/Creed, or Physical/Mental disability.

If a black man walks into a kosher deli and orders a ham sandwich - the black man can be refused because the deli does not serve ham.

On the other hand if the deli does service ham (they are non-kosher) and refuses to serve the black person because they are black - that violates the State law.

Get it?


(BTW - Public Accommodation laws have been upheld by the court, multple states and at the Federal level going back to Heartland of Atlanta Motel v. United States.


>>>>

Putting all of the legality aside for a moment, let me ask you an honest question:

Should a man give up his religious beliefs to a) run a business and b) adhere to public accommodation laws?

It's up to him. Segregation of the races was defended on religious grounds in the past. Should religion have won that argument?

Carbine, I want people to be able to practice their faith in public, not just in private. Whomever made the religious argument to commit racism also bastardized the faith to carry out their inner xenophobia. The KKK and the Knights Templar did things like this to proselytize others. This on the other hand is completely different. White and Black are equal (sort of) but when it comes to the religious and the secular, the battle lines are being drawn.

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

How can it be not correct if locales feel the need to pass further legislation?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Our current secular state is what provides you with those rights. You are advocating a theocratic state that would deprive people of their rights.

[MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION]

I never said a word about supporting a "theocratic state."

You don’t need to.

The actions and positions you and others on the social right advocate are unquestionably predicated on subjective, errant religious dogma – in violation of the Constitution.

There is no rational basis for your opposition to equal protection rights for gay Americans, for example; you seek to deny them their civil liberties based solely on the belief that being who they are ‘violates’ your religious tenets, absent any objective, documented evidence in support, and pursuant to no proper legislative end.

In fact, public accommodations policy is in no way “forcing pious businesspeople to act against their faith,” the notion is ignorant nonsense, particularly with regard to Christianity, where there is no consensus that homosexuality is a ‘sin,’ where the vast majority of gay Americans are Christian, and where scores of Christian denominations and churches welcome gay adherents.

 

[Uncensored2008]

National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie

No similarity, Comrade.

The right to petition government is guaranteed by the Constitution.

Do you think those same Nazis should be able to force a Jewish Synagogue to rent them a room to celebrate Hitler's birthday?

Why, or why not?

Should a Jewish Deli be forced to serve ham sandwiches at the affair?

Why, or why not?

 

[Uncensored2008]

A wedding cake is food, for a wedding reception. If you can discriminate against gays having a wedding reception, you can discriminate against gays coming into your restaurant for supper, or coming to your bar for drinks,

or renting your apartment, or shopping at your store, or, for that matter, you can refuse to hire a person you know is gay, just because he or she is gay.

That is not the way the law and the Constitution are going to work in this country.

You lose. Move if you can't tolerate it.

Then you agree that a Jewish deli should be force by law to serve ham to celebrate Hitler's birthday at a Nazi rally, right?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why? So a Court can tell a private business HOW it must conduct itself? A private business can REFUSE SERVICE to anyone. Get it?

A little clarification here, yes any business can refuse service to any person. If they don't offer the product, they have a scheduling conflict, if the customer is rude and disruptive, etc...

However in Arizona it's the legislature - not the court - under it's 10th Amendment powers to regulate business within the State that says a business of Public Accommodation CANNOT refuse business based on Race, Color, National Origin/Ancestry, Sex, Religion/Creed, or Physical/Mental disability.

If a black man walks into a kosher deli and orders a ham sandwich - the black man can be refused because the deli does not serve ham.

On the other hand if the deli does service ham (they are non-kosher) and refuses to serve the black person because they are black - that violates the State law.

Get it?


(BTW - Public Accommodation laws have been upheld by the court, multple states and at the Federal level going back to Heartland of Atlanta Motel v. United States.


>>>>

Don't CARE. Since when did GAY=Black?

Of course you don’t care – like most on the right you ignore or have contempt for the Constitution and its case law, reject objective facts and evidence that conflict with rightist dogma, and retreat to your conservative redoubt of fear, anger, bigotry, and ignorance.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Since when is love a perversion?

Homosexuality = perversion

So when Jesus said "love one another" that is also a perversion under your definition?

FYI homosexuality is just 2 consenting adults who love one another. If you intend to discriminate against people who love each other then you are going to have a really hard time finding a legal loophole.

If you ever get a brain you will put a bullet in it if you come back and read this post.

 

[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?"

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?

The bible justifies slavery and Christians enslaved blacks using that biblical justification. One of the slave ships used to bring black slaves to America was even named Jesus.

The Bible does not justify slavery. It dealt with slavery as a fact of life imposed by the secular government, Jews were specifically prohibited from making people into slaves in the way you think of slavery.

But, pl;ease, keep exposing your ignorance. it amuses the assholes.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The bible justifies slavery and Christians enslaved blacks using that biblical justification. One of the slave ships used to bring black slaves to America was even named Jesus.

The comparison will not hold up under a close scrutiny - comparing the use of the Bible to resurrect slavery in The West, versus using the Bible to distinguish Normal sexual practices from Perverse ones - although I understand why your side of the aisle so frequently and persistently tries to get away with that.

Actually it will because there is ample hard documented evidence to support it.

As far as the bible being the final arbiter of what is considered to be normal is a slippery slope. It can be used to justify abortion just as easily. If you base your position on the bible then so can everyone else. Pandora's box will be nothing compared to the unintended consequences that will arise if you try to take that path.

I doubt you can find any evidence that the Bible justifies slavery. Feel free to present it you think you can just so I can show you that what it actually is is a bunch of people, like you, who didn't actually read the Bible arguing that their morals trump everything else.

By the way, I can show you reams of scientific evidence used to justify slavery.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

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.

Tell me something, Oh Great and Mighty Font of Ignorance, do you think it is stupid for a vegan restaurant not to serve steaks? How about a steak house not catering to vegans by refusing to serve tofu steaks? Why the fuck not, isn't that discrimination?

Stop pretending to be smart and you will never look like an idiot.

 

[Moonglow]

If the law passes and stays, I will need to open a business to provide for the discriminated.

 

[The T]

Don't CARE. Since when did GAY=Black?

Since we decided they also had rights.

And what rights have they NOT that everyone else has? Hmm? Can't answer that one, can you?

 

[The T]

A wedding cake is food, for a wedding reception. If you can discriminate against gays having a wedding reception, you can discriminate against gays coming into your restaurant for supper, or coming to your bar for drinks,

or renting your apartment, or shopping at your store, or, for that matter, you can refuse to hire a person you know is gay, just because he or she is gay.

That is not the way the law and the Constitution are going to work in this country.

You lose. Move if you can't tolerate it.

Then you agree that a Jewish deli should be force by law to serve ham to celebrate Hitler's birthday at a Nazi rally, right?

These idiots have no idea the virtual Pandora's box they are trying to open.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Thank you for openly admitting that you are attempting to legislate your own morality based upon religious beliefs.

You are going to have a hard time explaining why blow jobs and anal sex between a man and a woman are not equally perverted and evil to the Supreme Court.

Hold on there friend.

It's hypocritical to stand there and accuse him of "legislating his own morality based on his religious beliefs" while the Liberals try to legislate the lifestyles of the homosexual on the religious. If you want examples of this, look no further than to the states which have legalized gay marriage... through legislation based on their own sets of morals and in some ways the morals of their constituents.

Can you explain to me how that's fair? How is it right for one but not the other?

Oh, human biology was built for heterosexual intercourse. You can't have children by sticking your whatchamacallit up another man's backside, nor can you do it when two women lock legs or play strap-ons. It contradicts the reproductive aspect of the species. Homosexuality is a flaw, it always will be. Science (when applied genuinely) will also say the same thing.

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.

WHAT
THE
FUCK
??????????
​

Can you explain something to me, asshole, How is telling me that it is wrong to discriminate, and then writing fucking laws that actually make it illegal, not legislating morality?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Wanna bet?

Didn't think so.