Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451:959]

clownboy · Feb 25, 2014

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

WorldWatcher said:
Regular businesses are regulated by the States and Cities as to whom they can refuse. They are called Public Accommodation laws. The same laws the Muslim Cab drivers ran afoul of.

The company in reference was a private company and not part of any government public transportation system.

Yes of course they are a special case.

Muslim religious freedom = bad.

Christian religious freedom = good.

>>>>

Once again you're missing the fact that cabs are considered a part of the public transportation system. Yes, they are chartered by the city to be so. They are a golem of public/private business. A special case and that's why your analogy fails in this instance. The name of the religion has nothing to do with it.

WorldWatcher · Feb 25, 2014

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

clownboy said:
Once again you're missing the fact that cabs are considered a part of the public transportation system. Yes, they are chartered by the city to be so. They are a golem of public/private business. A special case and that's why your analogy fails in this instance. The name of the religion has nothing to do with it.

Under this law, it doesn't matter if it's public or private. It applies equally to government and non-government entities. This law also usurps any local laws also. Even if a city has a local Public Accommodation law, this bill overrides it.

I get it.

Muslim = special case

Christian = religious freedom

***********************************

From the bill SB1062 (Capitalization in the original):

5. "Person" includes ANY INDIVIDUAL, ASSOCIATION, PARTNERSHIP, CORPORATION,
CHURCH, RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY OR INSTITUTION, ESTATE, TRUST, FOUNDATION OR
OTHER LEGAL ENTITY.

<<SNIP>>

F. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, "STATE ACTION" MEANS ANY ACTION
BY THE GOVERNMENT OR THE IMPLEMENTATION OR APPLICATION OF ANY LAW, INCLUDING
STATE AND LOCAL LAWS, ORDINANCES, RULES, REGULATIONS AND POLICIES, WHETHER
STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE, AND WHETHER THE IMPLEMENTATION OR APPLICATION IS MADE
OR ATTEMPTED TO BE MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT OR NONGOVERNMENTAL PERSONS

>>>>

beefheart · Feb 25, 2014

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

Top Cat said:
Yeah it is beautiful this time of year. But these hicks are ****ing your state up.

Tea party rabble....everyone has them...

Woodman909 · Feb 25, 2014

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Risky Thicket said:
It was an honest mistake. In searching for what I had read and to what I was referring I confused a couple of articles. There are tech groups looking at the Phoenix area for expansion. Google is not one of them. Google Fiber is considering Arizona (one of fifteen) states for ultra high speed internet.

There's your crock of BS.

All is well. But the link you provided, did not work for me.

Risky Thicket · Feb 25, 2014

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Woodman909 said:
All is well. But the link you provided, did not work for me.

Try this: Google Fiber a possibility for Phoenix, Scottsdale, Tempe - Phoenix Business Journal

clownboy · Feb 25, 2014

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

WorldWatcher said:
Under this law, it doesn't matter if it's public or private. It applies equally to government and non-government entities. This law also usurps any local laws also. Even if a city has a local Public Accommodation law, this bill overrides it.

I get it.

Muslim = special case

Christian = religious freedom

***********************************

From the bill SB1062 (Capitalization in the original):

5. "Person" includes ANY INDIVIDUAL, ASSOCIATION, PARTNERSHIP, CORPORATION,
CHURCH, RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY OR INSTITUTION, ESTATE, TRUST, FOUNDATION OR
OTHER LEGAL ENTITY.

<<SNIP>>

F. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, "STATE ACTION" MEANS ANY ACTION
BY THE GOVERNMENT OR THE IMPLEMENTATION OR APPLICATION OF ANY LAW, INCLUDING
STATE AND LOCAL LAWS, ORDINANCES, RULES, REGULATIONS AND POLICIES, WHETHER
STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE, AND WHETHER THE IMPLEMENTATION OR APPLICATION IS MADE
OR ATTEMPTED TO BE MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT OR NONGOVERNMENTAL PERSONS

>>>>

So, doesn't repair your analogy. Look we get it, you think the law is bad. You're in luck, the legislators that passed it are of the same mind and have called for the governor to veto.

disneydude · Feb 25, 2014

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Whether for financial reasons or other....it is refreshing and encouraging to see so many companies and so many good people speaking about against this display of hatred and bigotry. The bigots of the world are learning that the vast majority of American is no longer buying into their idealogy. They are a dying breed.

disneydude · Feb 25, 2014

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

ocean515 said:
From what I read, the bill is designed to close some loopholes in a law that already exists. If the law already exists, why all this righteous indignation?

Arizona businesses already can refuse to serve gays: SB1062 explained - latimes.com

Why the need if the law is only under threat in New Mexico?

“Freedom is too important to leave to chance,” LaRue said.

He offered an example:

“There is a law that bans discrimination at public accommodations based on religion in Arizona. Let’s pretend that I’m a bakery and that in my town here in Arizona, Westboro Baptist Church comes to picket a funeral of a soldier, and they tell me to bake a cake. They want it to say, ‘God hates ...’ and that terrible word they use.

“It would offend my dignity. I don’t want to give voice to that horrible message. Right now, they could sue me for discriminating based on their religious beliefs. If the Arizona courts went the way of the New Mexico courts, I would lose and if they targeted me, I could lose my business because of the damages I’d have to pay out. I would never be able to assert my Religious Freedom Restoration Act defense because it’s available only if the government is prosecuting me.”

Businesses still have the right to refuse to print certain messages on cakes. What they are not free to do is discriminate who gets to buy the cake. The law would still protect a business that didn't want to write "**** all Jews" on a cake.

Lutherf · Feb 25, 2014

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

ocean515 said:
From what I read, the bill is designed to close some loopholes in a law that already exists. If the law already exists, why all this righteous indignation?

Arizona businesses already can refuse to serve gays: SB1062 explained - latimes.com

Why the need if the law is only under threat in New Mexico?

“Freedom is too important to leave to chance,” LaRue said.

He offered an example:

“There is a law that bans discrimination at public accommodations based on religion in Arizona. Let’s pretend that I’m a bakery and that in my town here in Arizona, Westboro Baptist Church comes to picket a funeral of a soldier, and they tell me to bake a cake. They want it to say, ‘God hates ...’ and that terrible word they use.

“It would offend my dignity. I don’t want to give voice to that horrible message. Right now, they could sue me for discriminating based on their religious beliefs. If the Arizona courts went the way of the New Mexico courts, I would lose and if they targeted me, I could lose my business because of the damages I’d have to pay out. I would never be able to assert my Religious Freedom Restoration Act defense because it’s available only if the government is prosecuting me.”

Because of our long and storied history of kicking homosexuals out of businesses. Hell, it's in the papers and on the TV every day. As soon as Arizonans found out they could kick gays out of their stores there have been starving homosexuals all over the state because nobody will allow them to buy food.
/s

That's really the kicker here. This bill is pretty much a solution to a non-existent problem and the likely outcome is crusaders from both sides using it as a soap box.....like is happening now.

Linc · Feb 25, 2014

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

From what I just hear on MSNBC, only Phoenix, Tucson and Flagstaff currently safeguard gay rights.
This bill would eliminate those completely .

WorldWatcher · Feb 25, 2014

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

clownboy said:
So, doesn't repair your analogy. Look we get it, you think the law is bad. You're in luck, the legislators that passed it are of the same mind and have called for the governor to veto.

Absolutely correct, I do disagree with the law. I don't think that special privileges should be afforded to people spouting the magic words "sincerely held religious beliefs" so they can choose to discriminate against people based on race, or religion, or sex, or sexual orientation, or etc... If an individual wants to discriminate, they shouldn't hide behind the Bible to do it.

Public Accommodation laws should be repealed in general. Repeal being the only option since the regulation of commerce is a function of government as specified in the Constitution (interstate) at the federal level and inherent in the power of the State (10th Amendment).

>>>>

sneakosview · Feb 25, 2014

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

Its not an anti-gay bill.

sneakosview · Feb 25, 2014

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

It is all based on respect for the beliefs of others. The same beliefs the left chooses to hide behind.

CanadaJohn said:
To be fair, as I understand it, the law allows for the denial of service based on religious beliefs and is not restricted to one set of beliefs, that being related to gay and lesbian customers.

That said, I think it's ludicrous. And doesn't your constitution state that - to paraphrase - no law shall be adopted that promotes or denies religious observance?

Even if it wasn't idiotic, administration of such a law will be a nightmare.

Jerry · Feb 25, 2014

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

It's just election year drama.

AGENT J · Feb 25, 2014

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

sneakosview said:
Its not an anti-gay bill.

you're right its not just an anti-gay bill its an anti individual rights bill

sneakosview · Feb 25, 2014

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

You do have the right to take your business elsewhere. Why would you want to force someone with that kind of attitude to bow down to you? Just pick-up the phone book.

AGENT J · Feb 25, 2014

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

sneakosview said:
1.)You do have the right to take your business elsewhere.
2.)Why would you want to force someone with that kind of attitude to bow down to you?
3.)Just pick-up the phone book.

1.) correct but meaningless to the discussion
2.) LMAO nobody wants that, please stay on topic :shrug:
3.) this and other things is what people already do

Lursa · Feb 25, 2014

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

sneakosview said:
You do have the right to take your business elsewhere. Why would you want to force someone with that kind of attitude to bow down to you? Just pick-up the phone book.

I find it interesting that you feel that being a business owner or in customer service as so subservient. Is it only to gays? Or to all patrons?

Lursa · Feb 25, 2014

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

Jerry said:
One of those people was my ex wife, and no she didn't try to hide it (it's a big sign everyone sees) and no she wasn't fired. She told management of her view and they told her just to use that sign. It was never a problem.

OK. Interesting. I'm pretty sure the chain's management wouldnt sign off on that tho...damages the bottom line...she's not even getting someone else to serve them...she's walking away and they dont spend their $$.

So it was a band-aid, a 'turning the head away.' I'm not discrediting you or her, but it is almost a classic example of trying to ignore bigotry rather than confront it.

AGENT J · Feb 25, 2014

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

even Mitt Romney tweeted for her to veto the bill lol
he has joined many republicans against this insane bill that would even if passed would eventually get destroyed by the courts and rightfully so

Lursa · Feb 25, 2014

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Cryptic said:
That is a good question.

I cant show a copy of the unwritten social contract exists. What I can show is that all societies have had one and that the Founding Fathers of our society never voided some of its principals (mandatory service in common defense, no property is absolutely private and can thus be taxed, or claimed under imminent domain).

Can you think of any societies that held that: One could not be forced to participate in the common defense / group assistance and that property was absolutely private and thus could not be taxed, taken via imminent domain etc?

I dont know if this fits, coming in the middle of the conversation, but a business owner signs a business contract with the state.

And again, to do so based on religious beliefs is very hypocritical since that sin is judged no differently in the Bible and businesses make no effort to request permission to deny fornicators, prostitutes, or adulterers.

Lursa · Feb 25, 2014

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

votemout said:
Issue Analysis: Arizona Bill Does Not Give Businesses License to Discriminate Against Gays

Some have claimed that a bill recently passed by the Arizona legislature would give businesses broad license to not serve someone for being gay. This claim, though, may be a misreading, according a CP legislative analysis. While the bill is an attempt to broaden who is covered under its religious freedom protections, in all cases it actually narrows when a religious belief could be used to refuse service.

Here are six important points to understand about the just-passed bill:

1. If Gov. Jan Brewer (R) signs it, the bill, S.B. 1062, would make some modifications to a 1999 Arizona law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

2. Under current Arizona law, if a business wanted to discriminate against gays, they would not need this bill to be passed to do so. It is not currently illegal for a business to deny service to someone because they are gay. Some cities in Arizona have ordinances against it but there is no state law against it. If business owners in Arizona wanted to deny service to gays, they could do so in most of the state under current law.

you Rainbow people supporters NEED TO QUIT LYING!

There are some states, however, where sexual orientation is a protected class...like WA St. So it would be discriminatory in those states.

BigRedChief · Feb 25, 2014

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

beefheart said:
Well, I live there. I think our legislators are complete morons, I've met many of them, and our GED governor.

It is frustrating. However, it is a beautiful place to live, I was born here and I love being here.

I could never live in a state where the leaders are dumbass's and bigots that do nothing but feather their own nests and pet projects..................................:doh I live in Florida...........my bad.:3oops:

Lursa · Feb 25, 2014

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

WorldWatcher said:
This bill overrides local ordinances that may provide protections under local Public Accommodation laws. What is incorrect in that Statement.

You are correct though, in most of Arizona it is already legal to discriminate against gays and lesbians, but this law does is expands who can be discriminated against. Claim a serious religous belief and this law protects you even if you are discriminating against blacks, asians, Jews, Muslims, etc.

A few years ago there were cases of Muslim cab drivers in another state who refused to carry passengers carrying alcohol (not drinking, carrying closed containers) and to carry service dogs for disabled people. They were found to be in violation of the law. Under this law they would be exempt from Public Accommodation because their sincerely held religious beliefs (as defined under Shaira Law) would exempt them.

>>>>

So this law could also lead to Jews and Muslims refusing service to each other? Yeah, let's go back to the Dark Ages. Wonderful!

Thing is...most businesses know that this will affect their bottom line...and dont do it. Thousands of Jewish bakeries back East make special hot-crossed buns for Easter every year, for example.

This is just a witch hunt against gays. And I believe it will fail.

BretJ · Feb 25, 2014

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

Top Cat said:
Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill - CNN.com

Gotta love the backass republicans who voted for this.

Why anyone would live there is beyond me.

As distasteful as this law appears to many, the law allows a business to live or die by their refusal to exclude any particular segment. I think this is how it should be. I am seeing incidents where well meaning people have politely refused to provide services for gay weddings only to be pilloried for being honest regardless of the fact that there are many other service providers willing to happily take their business. If a business politely refuses to serve a gay couples wedding, by all means, bring it to the publics attention but do not use the force of government to usurp their freedom of religion. It is not the governments place to serve as thought police. Tolerance of someones beliefs (Yeah, you too...the one spitting all over your screen right now) would dictate finding a business that is amiable to serving the gay community.

Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451:959]

Ice Cream for Crow?

Sewer Rat

NIMBY

Well-known member

Well-known member

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Well-known member

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Tenacious

Tenacious

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Tenacious

Tenacious

Member

Tenacious

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency