Arizona bill: gay discrimination or religious rights?

[bradly1101]

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nati...a-bill-20140220,0,6953661.story#axzz2tyfkEkn7

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

If you're open to the public...you're open to the public regardless of the business owners bigotry imo. If the business owner is insulted in some way (e.g. gays flaunt their sexual orientation to intentionally anger him) he should be allowed to kick them out. Now, how to write that into law? I have no idea.

Edit: This brings to mind something that too many "righteous" Christians don't get. Jesus intentionally hung out with the lowest dregs of society...and the reason he did this was not to judge them, but to show them God's mercy and save them. God takes us all as we are...warts and all.

“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye’; and look, a plank is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.” (Matthew 7:1–5)

Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment. (James 2:12-13)
​

 

[Daverino]

People claimed a religious objection to desegregation as well. They said mixing races was un-Christian.

If we allow religious objections to serving homosexuals, we allow religious objections to serving blacks, women, people with guns, people without guns, toaster lovers, you name it.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

This shouldn't need an answer really. I only wonder how far it will get taken. Don't like gays, get out. You're a Muslim? Get out.

Jim Crow lives on.

 

[smackababy]

Perhaps I am not as well versed on the Bible as the people who made this bill, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't say "gays not allowed!"

I really hope this law is struck down, but I doubt it will be. Sexuality is not a protected status, yet.

 

[brycejones]

Using your religion (especially one that actively encourages engagement with others) to justify discrimination and bigotry is just wrong.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Using your religion (especially one that actively encourages engagement with others) to justify discrimination and bigotry is just wrong.

The same goes for atheists...it would be wrong for them to discriminate against religious people as well imo. And as we saw in a recent poll here, there are many more athiests that hate Christians than vice versa. Bigotry is ugly regardless of flavor.

 

[Daverino]

Perhaps I am not as well versed on the Bible as the people who made this bill, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't say "gays not allowed!"

I really hope this law is struck down, but I doubt it will be. Sexuality is not a protected status, yet.

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.

 

[Moonbeam]

Where there are standards of behavior bigotry can exist.

Where there are no standards of behavior social chaos exists.

Truth is always some third way, an integration of opposites at a higher level of understanding.

One can say words that are true, but one can't cause higher understanding in folk who do not have it.

 

[Meghan54]

Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

 

[smackababy]

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.

Corinthians doesn't state you can't serve gays in your establishments, just that they won't get into heaven.

Leviticus is another story. As, that translation, says "they shall surely be put to death" which could easily mean someone other than the witnesses, perhaps God, would put them to death, not for us to kill them.

 

[fskimospy]

This seems like a bad idea all around. First, it's mean spirited, pointless, and discriminatory. Second, it seems to be quite obviously on the wrong side of history. Right at the time when gay rights are pretty much winning across the board, an attempt to codify anti-gay discrimination seems particularly foolhardy.

Brewer vetoed a previous bill that was similar to this one and despite her overall nuttiness has actually vetoed some of the crazier legislation to come out of the legislature. I wouldn't be shocked if she vetoed this as well.

 

[K1052]

I'm sure this appeals to a lot of the old folks waiting for their ride to the great beyond.

Arizona is a weird place.

 

[PokerGuy]

In light of some of the abuses we've seen -- like the one where the business in Oregon got essentially shut down because they didn't want to provide cakes for an occasion their religion forbids them to celebrate -- a law like this is needed. I'm not familiar with the specifics of this law, but a law that upholds everyone's rights, not just those of a particular group is a good thing.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I'm sure this appeals to a lot of the old folks waiting for their ride to the great beyond.

Arizona is a weird place.

It's not just Arizona. Several states are now pushing these similar styled laws to make discrimination legal against gays.

The only thing they all have in common is the GOP.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

In light of some of the abuses we've seen -- like the one where the business in Oregon got essentially shut down because they didn't want to provide cakes for an occasion their religion forbids them to celebrate -- a law like this is needed. I'm not familiar with the specifics of this law, but a law that upholds everyone's rights, not just those of a particular group is a good thing.

Not familiar with it, but so long as it lets you ban and fire gays for being gay you're all for it.

 

[smackababy]

In light of some of the abuses we've seen -- like the one where the business in Oregon got essentially shut down because they didn't want to provide cakes for an occasion their religion forbids them to celebrate -- a law like this is needed. I'm not familiar with the specifics of this law, but a law that upholds everyone's rights, not just those of a particular group is a good thing.

No, what needs to happen is the SCOTUS needs to just classify sexuality as protected status from any discrimination.

 

[Retro Rob]

I've been trying force into my mind how my religious freedoms would be violated by performing what I call a human service...such as merely selling a gay couple a wedding cake. I don't see how my freedom of religion would be violated somehow.

Would these same people refuse to perform CPR -- another human service -- on an unconscious gay person because it violates their religious freedoms, or put a gay person's house fire out if he's (religious person) a fireman?

This just stinks, really, and is sub-human to suggest such a segregationist piece of legislation.

 

[fskimospy]

In light of some of the abuses we've seen -- like the one where the business in Oregon got essentially shut down because they didn't want to provide cakes for an occasion their religion forbids them to celebrate -- a law like this is needed. I'm not familiar with the specifics of this law, but a law that upholds everyone's rights, not just those of a particular group is a good thing.

What's awesome is that you think that businesses NOT being able to deny services to gay people in the same way that the south was able to deny services to black people during segregation is an abuse AGAINST the businesses.

lol.

 

[HomerJS]

In light of some of the abuses we've seen -- like the one where the business in Oregon got essentially shut down because they didn't want to provide cakes for an occasion their religion forbids them to celebrate -- a law like this is needed. I'm not familiar with the specifics of this law, but a law that upholds everyone's rights, not just those of a particular group is a good thing.

Nice. So a gay guy goes into a pharmacy to get his nitro-glycerin pills refilled. Pharmacists says since homo-sexuality is an abomination you get no pills.

 

[Moonbeam]

Nice. So a gay guy goes into a pharmacy to get his nitro-glycerin pills refilled. Pharmacists says since homo-sexuality is an abomination you get no pills.

Bigots can't think. Their bigotry is always hides behind some altruism that is always generally true, like upholding everybody's rights is a good thing when in fact what is being upheld is just bigotry. A bigot believes that because he has a right to be a bigot that also makes it right to be a bigot. Remember, you can always tell a bigot, but you can't tell him much.

 

[boomerang]

If we allow religious objections to serving homosexuals, we allow religious objections to serving blacks, women, people with guns, people without guns, toaster lovers, you name it.

Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Happy to say I know the guy who runs this place

 

[boomerang]

What's next? No shirt, no shoes, no service? Can we really discriminate against poor, starving people that have no shoes?

 

[alzan]

there are many more atheists on ATPN that hate Christians than vice versa. Bigotry is ugly regardless of flavor.

FTFY

I'm not sure you could extrapolate that poll to the nation at large, much less the world.

I seriously doubt that we have an accurate sampling of the various groups involved in the poll plus some of the answers are loaded. There are extremists within in all groups and they are paid the most attention which will also skew results. Hate is a pretty strong word; I'd be willing to bet most of us don't know co-workers, relatives and even friends well enough to actually hate them.

As far as the bill itself (and it's near twin in Kansas) I can't understand why any businessperson would willingly turn away business in any economy, much less in an economy that is in recovery mode.