ocean515
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2013
- Messages
- 36,760
- Reaction score
- 15,468
- Location
- Southern California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
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.
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.
Keep in mind, this was wallmart. A customer saw the sign and just went to another register as if she were under 18 and unable to sell those things anyway. they still spent their money.
Likewise a gay person can just find another cake shop instead of suing them out of business.
Based on what I have read, you are exactly right. Once again, the powers that be have directed the lemmings to get crazy, even though they are completely clueless about the issue.
I believe this PC crap is heading for a real day of reckoning.
Ok. So? If the law already exists, why all the threats and outrage?
But think of the thousands of cake shop owners and wedding photographers in Arizona who have been forced against their sincerely held religious convictions to provide services to the sodomites or they were sued into oblivion. This is a big problem in that state.
You forgot the bigots who don't like icky black people and are forced to photograph their weddings. Is that a big problem in the state as well?
Most (all) of the cases I have seen so far involved providing services to celebrate a wedding. To many people, a wedding is sacred. Given there are plenty of other providers, there is plenty of room to accommodate religious beliefs. Otherwise it is just being petty and vindictive.
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.
If the photographer is travelling to the venue, then that is a contract. Any business owner should be able to decline any contract, for any reason - or for no stated reason.You forgot the bigots who don't like icky black people and are forced to photograph their weddings. Is that a big problem in the state as well?
Is gay marriage legal in Arizona?
Probably because you're to young and your parents failed to mention the personal freedoms they once had and you never experienced. /
If they aren't violating anyones rights then the state has no justification to act on them. Sorry, but you have no case if there is no human right violation. :lol:
But think of the thousands of cake shop owners and wedding photographers in Arizona who have been forced against their sincerely held religious convictions to provide services to the sodomites or they were sued into oblivion. This is a big problem in that state.
The law doesn't already exist. You were making a claim that businesses would be required to, for example, write "**** all Christians" on a cake. I simply pointed out that no.....the law would NOT require a business owner to print or write such a statement....it would only disallow the business from selling the cake.
Keep in mind, this was wallmart. A customer saw the sign and just went to another register as if she were under 18 and unable to sell those things anyway. they still spent their money.
Likewise a gay person can just find another cake shop instead of suing them out of business.
Hey Nimby :2wave:
I think there is more behind this legislation than just a minority being outraged that they can't force the majority or any individual to accept buggery.
I guess it calls for a new thread. Don't know exactly where in what forum I will put it. But it's just an opinion column and it has more than just one message. When the elders are telling their children or grand children about the personal freedoms they once had and no longer have, it may be too late.
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).
>>>>
It has been clearly pointed out that this law specifically does away with GLBT rights
in the three cities where they currently exist, Phoenix--Flagstaff--Tucson.
These rights do not exist anywhere else in AZ.
As well, the law is written broadly as to circumvent Romer v. Evans.
It would allow a Muslim cabbie to not pick YOU up if you've been drinking, as an example.
Gov. Brewer is aware of the damage to her state's economy ALREADY, with cancellations and decreased visitation at the Grand Canyon.
The Super Bowl is riding on her decision, as it did in 1993 when AZ lost the Super Bowl due to not having a MLK Jr. day .
There is no such thing as "GLBT rights" and as has already been shown the cabbie example is a bust. As for the last, total bull****, there have been no boycotts of the Grand Canyon and anything Arizona loses from a few butthurt homosexuals they gain and more from the majority of folks who go there anyway.
It has been clearly pointed out that this law specifically does away with GLBT rights
in the three cities where they currently exist, Phoenix--Flagstaff--Tucson.
These rights do not exist anywhere else in AZ.
As well, the law is written broadly as to circumvent Romer v. Evans.
It would allow a Muslim cabbie to not pick YOU up if you've been drinking, as an example.
Gov. Brewer is aware of the damage to her state's economy ALREADY, with cancellations and decreased visitation at the Grand Canyon.
The Super Bowl is riding on her decision, as it did in 1993 when AZ lost the Super Bowl due to not having a MLK Jr. day .
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?