Arizona bill: gay discrimination or religious rights?

[Daverino]

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

Don't even bother.

Incorruptible is a racist turd that only shows up to spew hate here between his many many bans. He's in the category of posters that you shouldn't even try to engage.

 

[CitizenKain]

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

I wonder what the home school teachers at the compound Incorruptible posts from think about his arguments.

Like, are they graded on how incomprehensible they are? Bonus points for the word libtard?

Or do they shake their head and acknowledge that even their master race is going to need ditch diggers.

 

[Incorruptible]

Don't even bother.

Incorruptible is a racist turd that only shows up to spew hate here between his many many bans. He's in the category of posters that you shouldn't even try to engage.

How am I a racist? You're full of shit and have an irrational hatred of guns yet you attack me. You're nothing but racist and miserable human garbage.

I wonder what the home school teachers at the compound Incorruptible posts from think about his arguments.

Like, are they graded on how incomprehensible they are? Bonus points for the word libtard?

Or do they shake their head and acknowledge that even their master race is going to need ditch diggers.

Keep up with the ASSumptions you pathetic excuse of a human being. Read my other posts and you would find I am against home-schooling but keep spreading your BS.

 

[boomerang]

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

Wow! That's what you got out of "What's next? No shirt, no shoes, no service? Can we really discriminate against poor, starving people that have no shoes?" In all seriousness, what is wrong with you? I know you're a tender flower that thinks Canadian law should trump U.S. law when it comes to free speech but the conclusion you've drawn from what I posted is beyond ridiculous, it's in mental health issues territory. That you have no internal filter that thinks through what goes through your brain and precludes you from typing whatever comes into it should be a warning sign. It is to me, it needs to be to you.

Tell you what, you explain how my post meant what you think it meant and I'll give you an explanation of what it really meant. I'm really curious to hear the depravity angle your brain associated with it. For bonus points, you can explain how you derived that I have a "slippery slope bigoted fear" which is a sequence of words the meaning of which I believe could only be known to you. The words are of English origin, but no rational person would string them together.

Or, you could stomp off in one of your typical huffs proclaiming how the Forums are going downhill and Anand should be ashamed to be associated with them, etc., etc.

Either choice is acceptable to me.

 

[bradly1101]

The verbosity of insults in this place is stunning.

 

[HAL9000]

If you're open to the public...you're open to the public regardless of the business owners bigotry imo.

Got it in the first reply.

 

[sportage]

I just have to say first of all, I am gravely concerned the media is taking his so lightly.
Second, if you remember your history, this is exactly how it all started in Nazi Germany.








Over the top? I don't think so.. Not one bit...
.
.

 

[orbster556]

If you're open to the public...you're open to the public regardless of the business owners bigotry imo.

Although I think a very good argument could be made that refusing to serve gay individuals is 'un-Christian', I am somewhat uncomfortable with the state intervening to coerce a private citizen into doing something she doesn't want to do. Just as I think it would be wrong to force a gay caterer to work an event held by the Westboro Baptist clowns, I think it would be wrong to force or require a Christian caterer to work a GLAAD convention.

Of course, there are certain areas on which society has taken away the right of the individual to choose whom to serve. For such intervention to be justified, I think the category being protected must be universal. The moral strength of our laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, for example, springs from such laws preventing discrimination against *all* races, viz. it doesn't protect one or two of the racial groups while leaving others vulnerable to discrimination.

It would be possible, of course, to prohibit discrimination on the basis of any and all sexual orientations. The problem, however, is that if the broad classifications and categorizations used in the Civil Rights Act were applied in this context, I think we wind up sanctioning a whole host of non-heteronormative sexual identifications (e.g., polyamoury, zoophilia, necrophilia, incest etc.). I'm not sure if society is tolerant enough to be handle this.

 

[orbster556]

Jim Crow lives on.

Although such legislation might be bad policy or morally unjustifiable, it is fundamentally different from Jim Crow.

Specifically, Jim Crow laws prohibited *all* businesses from either transacting with a class of persons or transacting with that class of persons on the same basis as others.

The AZ law, by contrast, does not compel or coerce businesses into rejecting or refusing to enter into commerce with a class of persons.

Again, there are good arguments to be made that the AZ law is misguided or morally unsound. It is not, however, similar to Jim Crow.

 

[boomerang]

I just have to say first of all, I am gravely concerned the media is taking his so lightly.
Second, if you remember your history, this is exactly how it all started in Nazi Germany.

Over the top? I don't think so.. Not one bit...

Explain the parallels so we can understand your position better. We have the business owner and gays. One has to be the Nazi and one has to be the Jew. Tie in the legislature and the media if you wish.

 

[JManInPhoenix]

I just have to say first of all, I am gravely concerned the media is taking his so lightly.
Second, if you remember your history, this is exactly how it all started in Nazi Germany.








Over the top? I don't think so.. Not one bit...
.
.

Jan Brewer is a demented old bag but she is hardly Hitler...

 

[boomerang]

The bill would provide some additional protections from lawsuits to the baker, to use the example cited.

TUCSON -- Say a gay couple in Phoenix walks into a bakery to order their wedding cake. The baker refuses to take their order because of his deeply held religious beliefs. Under a measure that passed the Arizona Legislature this week, the baker would have greater protection to invoke religion to shield himself from a discrimination lawsuit.

So the case to be made is do the rights of gays trump the rights of the religious?

So as I did earlier, draw a parallel. One of seemingly little consequence. Hence, "No shirt, no shoes, no service." Does a store owner open themselves up for suit if they bar an individual that does not meet that dress code? How about, "Only two teenagers allowed in the store at one time." Is that the level of discrimination that can result in a lawsuit?

One more that comes to mind. "Unaccompanied minors not allowed." Lawsuit material?

Now, let's get a little more serious. A state that allows open carry. An individual goes to enter a card shop to buy a card for his significant other to find posted on the door, "No weapons allowed in store". This notice is based on the personal feelings of the store owner and not in state law. Does the concealed pistol holder have grounds for suit?

What we have are two hot-button issues. Gays and religion. But take the emotion out of it. Should the store owner have some degree of protection from lawsuits based on their religious convictions?

Whose rights trump whose?

 

[MomentsofSanity]

The bill would provide some additional protections from lawsuits to the baker, to use the example cited.

So the case to be made is do the rights of gays trump the rights of the religious?

So as I did earlier, draw a parallel. One of seemingly little consequence. Hence, "No shirt, no shoes, no service." Does a store owner open themselves up for suit if they bar an individual that does not meet that dress code? How about, "Only two teenagers allowed in the store at one time." Is that the level of discrimination that can result in a lawsuit?

One more that comes to mind. "Unaccompanied minors not allowed." Lawsuit material?

Now, let's get a little more serious. A state that allows open carry. An individual goes to enter a card shop to buy a card for his significant other to find posted on the door, "No weapons allowed in store". This notice is based on the personal feelings of the store owner and not in state law. Does the concealed pistol holder have grounds for suit?

What we have are two hot-button issues. Gays and religion. But take the emotion out of it. Should the store owner have some degree of protection from lawsuits based on their religious convictions?

Whose rights trump whose?

Let me ask you this. Who decides what is a valid religious belief for the purpose of discrimination? Is the state going to be deciding religious validity?

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Although such legislation might be bad policy or morally unjustifiable, it is fundamentally different from Jim Crow.

Specifically, Jim Crow laws prohibited *all* businesses from either transacting with a class of persons or transacting with that class of persons on the same basis as others.

The AZ law, by contrast, does not compel or coerce businesses into rejecting or refusing to enter into commerce with a class of persons.

Again, there are good arguments to be made that the AZ law is misguided or morally unsound. It is not, however, similar to Jim Crow.

Yes, a wee bit of hyperbole on my part.

 

[her209]

That is correct. And sexual orientation is not a protected class in Arizona.

The bill as written makes no mention of sexual orientation but instead allows a resident of Arizona to ignore any accommodations so long as it's because of a sincerely held religious belief. Text of the bill here: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/hb2153h.pdf

Now that's immediately unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. It would allow someone to refuse services to any class of individual that one found religiously objectionable. And religion having as many interpretations as there are souls on the Earth, it's a blank check for discrimination.

I don't see any way this law will go into effect. Arizona will be sued and they will waste a lot of money defending it and lose.

Based on text of that legislation, someone is allowed to kill puppies and kittens so long as they claim religious belief.

Think of all the dead puppies and kittens!!!

 

[boomerang]

Let me ask you this. Who decides what is a valid religious belief for the purpose of discrimination?

The tenets associated with various religions are well known. To cite some examples:

The Catholic religion does not condone homosexuality.

Jews don't eat pork and shellfish.

Muslims don't eat pork and don't condone homosexuality.

So far, we accept those as part of us being a nation with freedom of religion. They are all valid under the law.

Is the state going to be deciding religious validity?

We have freedom of religion and because we do, there is no decision that needs to be made. The gay couple can go into any bakery they want and ask for a wedding cake. The store owner can refuse. At issue is protections for the store owner. The gay couple can find another bakery and they have their cake. Should the store owner that refused be financially ruined over a cake is what is being addressed.

I can walk out my door and murder the first person I see. It's a crime and I will be punished for it. In some states I may lose my life because of it. We are all free to do anything we wish. Anything. No matter how heinous, ridiculous, dangerous, etc., we are all free to do anything we wish. But society has established laws governing our behavior and if we break them, there is a cost associated with that behavior. The store owner can discriminate and not provided a cake to a gay couple. They absolutely can. At issue in this case is what price will they pay. Separate the gay part and the religion part and it becomes very ho-hum. Take the emotion out of it.

 

[her209]

If a Muslim couple walked into a busy restaurant and ordered some food and there was a mix up where the couple wound up getting and partially consuming a plate containing pork products, does the Muslim couple win a lawsuit against the restaurant owners based on religious belief? Let's say for the sake of argument, the owner's religious beliefs are such that they believe consuming pork product is allowed hence why it is on the menu.

 

[Texashiker]

I'll just leave this here.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201..._to_work_with_women_sparks_rights_debate.html

When Jews or Muslims do something, it is religious freedom.

When Christians do something, they are bigots.

 

[Bird222]

Let me ask you this. Who decides what is a valid religious belief for the purpose of discrimination? Is the state going to be deciding religious validity?

The tenets associated with various religions are well known. To cite some examples:

The Catholic religion does not condone homosexuality.

Jews don't eat pork and shellfish.

Muslims don't eat pork and don't condone homosexuality.

So far, we accept those as part of us being a nation with freedom of religion. They are all valid under the law.

We have freedom of religion and because we do, there is no decision that needs to be made. The gay couple can go into any bakery they want and ask for a wedding cake. The store owner can refuse. At issue is protections for the store owner. The gay couple can find another bakery and they have their cake. Should the store owner that refused be financially ruined over a cake is what is being addressed.

I can walk out my door and murder the first person I see. It's a crime and I will be punished for it. In some states I may lose my life because of it. We are all free to do anything we wish. Anything. No matter how heinous, ridiculous, dangerous, etc., we are all free to do anything we wish. But society has established laws governing our behavior and if we break them, there is a cost associated with that behavior. The store owner can discriminate and not provided a cake to a gay couple. They absolutely can. At issue in this case is what price will they pay. Separate the gay part and the religion part and it becomes very ho-hum. Take the emotion out of it.

This doesn't matter. The question still stands. There are many variations of what we would call 'common religions'. This for once really is a slippery slope. I could establish any 'religion' I want just to discriminate against someone.

 

[fskimospy]

I'll just leave this here.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201..._to_work_with_women_sparks_rights_debate.html

When Jews or Muslims do something, it is religious freedom.

When Christians do something, they are bigots.

Let me know if you can find out a difference between a student and an employee or a public accommodation.

Do you think a professor would have been fired if he or she refused to teach women? The answer is yes.

 

[Texashiker]

Let me know if you can find out a difference between a student and an employee or a public accommodation.

Like this?

http://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/ruth-rosen/modesty-wars-women-and-hasidim-in-brooklyn

 

[Daverino]

The Catholic religion does not condone homosexuality.

Jews don't eat pork and shellfish.

Which Catholic Church are you talking about?

Latin (Roman) Catholic, Albanian Catholic, Belarussian Catholic, Bulgarian Catholic, Greek Catholic, Hungarian Greek Catholic, Italo-Albanian Catholic, Macedonian Greek Catholic, Melkite, Russian Catholic, Ruthenian Catholic, Slovak Greek Catholic, Ukranian Catholic, the Coptic Catholic Church, the Ethiopian Catholic Church, Maronite, the Syriac Catholic Church, Syro-Malanakara , Syro-Malabar, the Armenian Catholic Church or the Chaldean Catholic Church?

And which Jews don't eat pork? Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist or Humanist Jews?

What are the opinions of each of the 32 distinct sects of Islam on homosexuality?

 

[fskimospy]

Like this?

http://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/ruth-rosen/modesty-wars-women-and-hasidim-in-brooklyn

Did you read this article? I have no idea what point you might be trying to make from it as it does not involve people refusing service.

 

[Bird222]

Which Catholic Church are you talking about?

Latin (Roman) Catholic, Albanian Catholic, Belarussian Catholic, Bulgarian Catholic, Greek Catholic, Hungarian Greek Catholic, Italo-Albanian Catholic, Macedonian Greek Catholic, Melkite, Russian Catholic, Ruthenian Catholic, Slovak Greek Catholic, Ukranian Catholic, the Coptic Catholic Church, the Ethiopian Catholic Church, Maronite, the Syriac Catholic Church, Syro-Malanakara , Syro-Malabar, the Armenian Catholic Church or the Chaldean Catholic Church?

And which Jews don't eat pork? Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist or Humanist Jews?

What are the opinions of each of the 32 distinct sects of Islam on homosexuality?

Exactly.

 

[Newell Steamer]

I am being oppressed by not being allowed to oppress others!!