Arizona bill: gay discrimination or religious rights?

[SlickSnake]

a business owner should have every right to choose who they serve, and who they don't. regardless of their reason.

a consumer should have every right to choose who they do business with, and who they don't. regardless of their reason.

If the business owner runs private club, they can already restrict access to anyone for any reason at all. Even a public/private church or school can also be granted those rights to discriminate. You don't have to let in Muslims into a Christian church, it might cause a disruption. You don't have to let in adults to a preschool, it wouldn't be appropriate. You don't have to let in non paying students into college, because it won't be fair to the others who payed to be there. You get the idea, right?

But a publicly accessible business open to anyone who walks in the door is just that, a PUBLIC BUSINESS. The only allowable exclusions would be hygienic ones, like no shoes, no shirt, no service, which would also be backed up by health codes and a little common sense, and would apply to everyone equally.

The poor having no shoes or shirt is a good strawman argument, I guess, but if you really needed food or clothing from a business, some exceptions could always be made. Regardless, if you had no money for shoes or a shirt, then why would you want to be in a business in the first place with no money to spend?

 

[shira]

The two most common verses cited are:

1 Corinthians:
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,

10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

Leviticus 20:13

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Now the Leviticus one is right by the section that says you can't have sex with a woman during her period, cannot masturbate, cannot eat lobster, cannot cut your hair or your beard, cannot eat rare steak, and that blind men cannot offer up prayers. So it's pretty hard to justify accepting it as Christian doctrine.

Corinthians, of course, was written by Paul, fifty years after the death of Christ. It is part of the Epistles, not the Gospel.

The Corinthians passages clearly contradict the basic tenet of Christianity: That accepting Jesus as your savior is the necessary and sufficient condition for being saved.

 

[Retro Rob]

The Corinthians passages clearly contradict the basic tenet of Christianity: That accepting Jesus as your savior is the necessary and sufficient condition for being saved.

Jesus said a man will leave his father and mother and stick to his wife, not his husband - Matt 19:4.

The basic tenet of Christianity is accepting Jesus, but mere acceptance doesn't make one a Christian no more than accepting science make one a scientists.

You need actions to back than up.

 

[sandorski]

Jesus said a man will leave his father and stick to his wife, not his husband - Matt 19:4.

The basic tenet of Christianity is accepting Jesus, but mere acceptance doesn't make one a Christian no more than accepting science make one a scientists.

You need actions to back than up.

That's a very weak statement given the issue at hand. Especially since it is one verse within the context of whether Divorce was acceptable. Within that discussion, verse 9 is the most interesting:

"9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

I wonder how many Christians fail to live up to that?

The Bible certainly doesn't support such a thing as Same Sex Marriage, however, Jesus certainly didn't directly address the issue.

 

[sportage]

How about the fact this could allow misguided discrimination against heterosexuals just as well?

Two men or two women, quite heterosexually straight, seeking to rent a house or apartment as roommates to share expenses, could be assumed to be actually gay and rejected from renting because the landlord did not wish to take that chance that any two of the same sex seeking to rent together just might be gay.

Or that single person renting from you, you the landlord, where one day he or she renter decides that they need a roommate to cut expenses, so they advertise for a roommate and that landlord assumes the renter must be gay for seeking another of the same sex to share, and thus can now legally kick you out.
Their unjust actions now fully supported by law and the state of Arizona.

How about job seeking for the heterosexual straight but single middle aged job seeker?
A lot of people assume anyone middle aged and still single must be gay.
So now that no longer matters. You can be rejected for employment consideration simply because some potential employer might believe you could actually be gay.
Why else would someone 40 years old single never married job seeker be assumed they were anything else but gay by that employer?
Or maybe you were married, then divorced, never re-married. Are you gay?
Should that moral religious employer take that chance?
Will they take that chance?
After you are turned down for that desired employment position, how would you ever know if that employer thought you too might be gay? And when actually you are not.
But that fact no longer matters, does it?

How are you, that heterosexual straight studly macho never married or once divorced male ever going to convince any religious moraled employer that you are not some closeted gay?
Or that employer that never really like you and uses this new law to fire you, you a single but totally heterosexual employee, but still if that employer wants to use this new law to get fire you because you fall under the stereotype as probably gay?

Yes, that blade can cut both ways.
This law does not potentially only attack gays.
You too, mr ms heterosexual, could find yourself stereotyped by some gay-phobic morally guided religious fanatic.
Possibly your landlord?
Possibly that potential employer?

 

[Retro Rob]

That's a very weak statement given the issue at hand. Especially since it is one verse within the context of whether Divorce was acceptable. Within that discussion, verse 9 is the most interesting:

"9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Of course, divorce was the prime issue, but the point was the sanctity of marriage -- one man, one woman, till death.

I wonder how many Christians fail to live up to that?

I don't know, far more that what should be the number. However, I am not a party to the political or social opposition to SSM, so address your question to those who are.

The Bible certainly doesn't support such a thing as Same Sex Marriage, however, Jesus certainly didn't directly address the issue.

Jesus didn't address necrophilia, which was practiced way before his time in Egypt, not did he address child molestation....I guess given his silence on those issues, Christians can scripturally engage in those things without Divine reprisal, amirite?

"Silence" isn't an argument in favor of something.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

The bill needs to pass to defend private property rights. Business owners have the right to discriminate.

Sure.... And let's say a business decided to let its muslim employees refuse to sell... Oh I don't know... Liquor or pork if it was against their religious views, you'd fully support the employee and business for making that choice based on their faith right? I mean you certainly wouldn't insist that they shouldn't work there or something.

 

[sandorski]

Of course, divorce was the prime issue, but the point was the sanctity of marriage -- one man, one woman, till death.

I don't know, far more that what should be the number. However, I am not a party to the political or social opposition to SSM, so address your question to those who are.

Jesus didn't address necrophilia, which was practiced way before his time in Egypt, not did he address child molestation....I guess given his silence on those issues, Christians can scripturally engage in those things without Divine reprisal, amirite?

"Silence" isn't an argument in favor of something.

I didn't say it was. I merely pointed out the Fact that Jesus said nothing on the subject.

 

[sandorski]

Sure.... And let's say a business decided to let its muslim employees refuse to sell... Oh I don't know... Liquor or pork if it was against their religious views, you'd fully support the employee and business for making that choice based on their faith right? I mean you certainly wouldn't insist that they shouldn't work there or something.

uhoh

 

[Retro Rob]

I didn't say it was. I merely pointed out the Fact that Jesus said nothing on the subject.

Understood.

In almost every instance, however, both Christians and non-believers alike point to Jesus' silence as some sort of evidence that Jesus would have approved of it, and that's why I counter with other things he was silent about.

Arguments from silence is one of the most over-used fallacies in this particular debate because you'd have to completely ignore everything the bible says on the matter and only accept the 4 Gospels, which are silent on the issue of homosexuality.

But I do appreciate your honesty in your initial post about that point.

 

[sandorski]

Understood.

In almost every instance, however, both Christians and non-believers alike point to Jesus' silence as some sort of evidence that Jesus would have approved of it, and that's why I counter with other things he was silent about.

Arguments from silence is one of the most over-used fallacies in this particular debate because you'd have to completely ignore everything the bible says on the matter and only accept the 4 Gospels, which are silent on the issue of homosexuality.

But I do appreciate your honesty in your initial post about that point.

I wouldn't exactly call that a fallacy, although I understand what you mean by that. It's because of whom Jesus is believed to be by most. Some take Jesus in the context of being the whole point of the Bible. Others do not or more accurately kinda put Jesus on the same level as the rest of the Bible.

For the group that focuses on Jesus, only that which he condemns is "wrong".

For the group that focuses on the Bible as a whole, Jesus not mentioning something doesn't matter.

This is why the Historicity of the New Testament is so very important. Paul wrote his books first and his books introduced so many Old Testament restrictions that Jesus never did, according to the later written Gospels. So if Paul was a fraud, a whole bunch of things were added on top of what Jesus(allegedly) stated and Christianity is not what Jesus intended it to be. But I digress.

 

[Incorruptible]

Sure.... And let's say a business decided to let its muslim employees refuse to sell... Oh I don't know... Liquor or pork if it was against their religious views, you'd fully support the employee and business for making that choice based on their faith right? I mean you certainly wouldn't insist that they shouldn't work there or something.

STFU You scumbag. You go out of your way to attack Christians but you always defend radical Islamists, Why don't you condemn radical Islam? Unless you support it because you're a pathetic excuse for a human being.

If they let the employees refuse to sell liquor they can do that because it's private property you worthless scumbag. You clearly have no idea how private property works and you should just STFU instead of making more assumptions.

You're alright with a Muslim employee refusing to sell alcohol but you would be outraged if a Christian employee refused to sell birth control. Why the double standard you leftist moron.

uhoh

Uhoh you're an idiot. Got anything useful to add or did you just come in for the left wing circlejerk with your jihadist buddy.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

STFU You scumbag. You go out of your way to attack Christians but you always defend radical Islamists, Why don't you condemn radical Islam? Unless you support it because you're a pathetic excuse for a human being.

If they let the employees refuse to sell liquor they can do that because it's private property you worthless scumbag. You clearly have no idea how private property works and you should just STFU instead of making more assumptions.

You're alright with a Muslim employee refusing to sell alcohol but you would be outraged if a Christian employee refused to sell birth control. Why the double standard you leftist moron.




Uhoh you're an idiot. Got anything useful to add or did you just come in for the left wing circlejerk with your jihadist buddy.

And once again you ignore the question and resort to nothing but insults which, again by your own repeated assertions, means you have nothing.

Remember the other day when you asked how you're a hypocrite? This is how.

 

[Incorruptible]

STFU You scumbag. You go out of your way to attack Christians but you always defend radical Islamists, Why don't you condemn radical Islam? Unless you support it because you're a pathetic excuse for a human being.

If they let the employees refuse to sell liquor they can do that because it's private property you worthless scumbag. You clearly have no idea how private property works and you should just STFU instead of making more assumptions.

You're alright with a Muslim employee refusing to sell alcohol but you would be outraged if a Christian employee refused to sell birth control. Why the double standard you leftist moron.




Uhoh you're an idiot. Got anything useful to add or did you just come in for the left wing circlejerk with your jihadist buddy.

And once again you ignore the question and resort to nothing but insults which, again by your own repeated assertions, means you have nothing.

Remember the other day when you asked how you're a hypocrite? This is how.

And once again you ignore my post and refuse to address my response. Read the post again you libtard.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

And once again you ignore my post and refuse to address my response. Read the post again you libtard.

Why should I address your insane rantings that amount to nothing more than person attacks which have no basis in fact if you've ignored my question that was relevant to the topic and was directly related to statements you have made before?

You ranted for days about a muslim refusing service due to their religious beliefs who had the full support of their employer, yet here you want this law to pass that allows employers/employees to refuse service that they feel is against their religioius beliefs.

Why do you support it now but not in the circumstance you created a thread about a few months ago?

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Well since we are quoting you here's what you said about this exact circumnstance when it was a muslim involved.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2360317

This is just wrong. What about Sikh and Hindu employees who can't eat meat or have alcohol? They don't complain but do the job and it's not like they're being forced to consume them.

Would they allow this for a Christian refusing to serve gay people or a Jewish employee not wanting to handle pork?

Many customers were furious over this and have rightfully threatened to boycott the store. If employees don't want to handle pork, alcohol or other meat then don't work there.

See in that thread you asked if they would allow it for a christian refusing to serve a gay person. Well that's exactly what this is and you support it. But you were against it when it was a muslim person.

 

[Thebobo]

STFU You scumbag. You go out of your way to attack Christians but you always defend radical Islamists, Why don't you condemn radical Islam? Unless you support it because you're a pathetic excuse for a human being.

If they let the employees refuse to sell liquor they can do that because it's private property you worthless scumbag. You clearly have no idea how private property works and you should just STFU instead of making more assumptions.

You're alright with a Muslim employee refusing to sell alcohol but you would be outraged if a Christian employee refused to sell birth control. Why the double standard you leftist moron.

Uhoh you're an idiot. Got anything useful to add or did you just come in for the left wing circlejerk with your jihadist buddy.

If I may make a suggestion. If your intent was to point out the errors in ones way leave out the "STFU You scumbag, leftist moron, you should just STFU, left wing circlejerk with your jihadist buddy" type of wording especially in the first sentence because it tends to make people not listen to what you have to say. It will just piss them off and attack you back. Well unless that was your intent then carry on.

 

[fskimospy]

STFU You scumbag. You go out of your way to attack Christians but you always defend radical Islamists, Why don't you condemn radical Islam? Unless you support it because you're a pathetic excuse for a human being.

If they let the employees refuse to sell liquor they can do that because it's private property you worthless scumbag. You clearly have no idea how private property works and you should just STFU instead of making more assumptions.

You're alright with a Muslim employee refusing to sell alcohol but you would be outraged if a Christian employee refused to sell birth control. Why the double standard you leftist moron.

Uhoh you're an idiot. Got anything useful to add or did you just come in for the left wing circlejerk with your jihadist buddy.

Why am I not surprised that you resort to insults. Just STFU unless you got something useful to contribute.

lol.

 

[runzwithsizorz]

Couple of guys go into a bar. They are talking loud, annoying other customers, and picking fights.

Couple of gays go into a bar. They're holding hands, hugging, swapping spit, and generally creeping out the regular customers.

In which case would an owner be allowed to ask them to leave?

 

[Whiskey16]

This thread is a pleasant surprise. Tolerance and respect appears to be the vocal order of the topic, with apparently only two extremist bigots ranting against law and ethical moral expectations in society.

boomerang, care to explain your slippery slope bigoted fear of accommodating equal service to homosexuals will lead to depravity?

Incorruptible, how ill must one be to find so much time and interest to thread crap with anti-Muslims baiting and constantly engage in vitriolic personal attacks?

 

[Incorruptible]

This thread is a pleasant surprise. Tolerance and respect appears to be the vocal order of the topic, with apparently only two extremist bigots ranting against law and ethical moral expectations in society.

boomerang, care to explain your slippery slope bigoted fear of accommodating equal service to homosexuals will lead to depravity?

Incorruptible, how ill must one be to find so much time and interest to thread crap with anti-Muslims baiting and constantly engage in vitriolic personal attacks?

STFU and read the posts again you pathetic excuse of a human being. It was that leftist scumbag who brought in Muslims. Why don't you go after him? He brought it up to attack me yet you refuse to call him out. You're nothing but a coward.

You got your ass kicked real good so you come on P&N and accuse people of being bigots. The only bigot is you.

Sure.... And let's say a business decided to let its muslim employees refuse to sell... Oh I don't know... Liquor or pork if it was against their religious views, you'd fully support the employee and business for making that choice based on their faith right? I mean you certainly wouldn't insist that they shouldn't work there or something.

It's clear that your leftist buddy brought up Muslims and I responded to him. So why are you coming after me? You clearly lied and made false accusations, Yet you will either ignore it or just spread more BS.

So you going to admit you were wrong or continue to make a fool out of yourself?

And before you call me a bigot would you like to know about the interracial relationships in my family? NO, It's much easier for cowards like you to spread lies. Now STFU you worthless bigot.

 

[fskimospy]

STFU and read the posts again you pathetic excuse of a human being. It was that leftist scumbag who brought in Muslims. Why don't you go after him? He brought it up to attack me yet you refuse to call him out. You're nothing but a coward.

You got your ass kicked real good so you come on P&N and accuse people of being bigots. The only bigot is you.




It's clear that your leftist buddy brought up Muslims and I responded to him. So why are you coming after me? You clearly lied and made false accusations, Yet you will either ignore it or just spread more BS.

So you going to admit you were wrong or continue to make a fool out of yourself?

And before you call me a bigot would you like to know about the interracial relationships in my family? NO, It's much easier for cowards like you to spread lies. Now STFU you worthless bigot.

Why am I not surprised you resort to insults. STFU until you have something useful to contribute.

 

[brycejones]

STFU and read the posts again you pathetic excuse of a human being. It was that leftist scumbag who brought in Muslims. Why don't you go after him? He brought it up to attack me yet you refuse to call him out. You're nothing but a coward.

You got your ass kicked real good so you come on P&N and accuse people of being bigots. The only bigot is you.




It's clear that your leftist buddy brought up Muslims and I responded to him. So why are you coming after me? You clearly lied and made false accusations, Yet you will either ignore it or just spread more BS.

So you going to admit you were wrong or continue to make a fool out of yourself?

And before you call me a bigot would you like to know about the interracial relationships in my family? NO, It's much easier for cowards like you to spread lies. Now STFU you worthless bigot.

Someone likes to get tough on the internet. STFU? Seriously? Are you just a drunk frat boy ranting away?

 

[Venix]

Not legally in this country. Perhaps you should move to Nigeria or Somalia? Or write your Congressman to start a drive to repeal the 14th Amendment.

Funny, you like the 2nd Amendment so much, why so much hate on the 14th?

That's a grossly incorrect understanding of Constitutional law. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled for 130 years that the Fourteenth Amendment applies only to the state, not to businesses or private individuals.

In fact, many anti-discrimination laws have been overturned (e.g. Civil Rights Act of 1875, part of the Violence Against Women Act) because Congress attempted to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause against private entities. The civil rights laws of the 1960's only survived review because of the Supreme Court's expanded interpretation of the Commerce Clause.

This Arizona law could potentially run afoul of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (and others), but there is certainly no Fourteenth Amendment basis on which it can be challenged.

 

[BlueWolf47]

The bill needs to pass to defend private property rights. Business owners have the right to discriminate.

So i can put my "No colored allowed" sign back up?