Arizona bill: gay discrimination or religious rights?

[Daverino]

Nope, that's not the law. You do not have to accommodate everyone in the public, you just cannot discriminate based on specific categories (race, color, religion, or national origin).

You are free to discriminate against the shoeless by requiring those who want service to wear shoes.

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.

 

[shadow9d9]

As long as they don't legislate their morality on others, knock on doors trying to convert people, and don't refuse to serve other people when running a business, who cares. That is the difference between christians and atheists.

 

[theeedude]

There is a tradeoff between discrimination and freedom of speech.
Here is where I draw the line. A gay person should be able to order any cake that any other person can order, but not to require the baker to make a special cake design that it does not offer to anyone else. Either sell a cake to all comers or don't sell it to anyone, but once you decide to sell it, don't discriminate.

 

[boomerang]

As a Christian, I could claim that my religion tells me I should not serve non-Christians. Which of course would mean I would not serve you, as you are a fundamentally un-Christian person in my view.

That would really suck for you if I was an EMT and you were having a heart attack, but oh well.

If you want to expound on your sadistic fantasies, L&R might be a better place.

 

[smackababy]

As a Christian, I could claim that my religion tells me I should not serve non-Christians. Which of course would mean I would not serve you, as you are a fundamentally un-Christian person in my view.

That would really suck for you if I was an EMT and you were having a heart attack, but oh well.

Can you please find where it says, in Christian religious documents, that "thou shalt not serve infidels"? I am pretty sure there are examples of Jesus "serving" those that were 'sinners'. What makes you think his example isn't to be followed?

And, do explain how not rendering life saving aid, when being the only person trained in such, not constitute as causing the death of someone, and therefore excluded under the "thou shalt not kill" part?

Also, I feel I should point out that if you, as an EMT, refused to render aid to someone I cared about and they died, not only would I sue you, after I won, I'd shoot you.

 

[Retro Rob]

Can you please find where it says, in Christian religious documents, that "thou shalt not serve infidels"? I am pretty sure there are examples of Jesus "serving" those that were 'sinners'. What makes you think his example isn't to be followed?

And, do explain how not rendering life saving aid, when being the only person trained in such, not constitute as causing the death of someone, and therefore excluded under the "thou shalt not kill" part?

Also, I feel I should point out that if you, as an EMT, refused to render aid to someone I cared about and they died, not only would I sue you, after I won, I'd shoot you.

'

lol, pretty much because no such injunction exists.

 

[smackababy]

'

lol, pretty much because no such injunction exists.

Which is why this law is such BS. I am pretty sure the same religious objection against serving gays can be used against serving Muslims or Jews, and you can't legally do that. They need to just hurry and make make sexuality a protected class. Do we really need for it to get as far as it did with non-whites before we protect a class of people?

 

[bradly1101]

Happy to say I know the guy who runs this place

Too cool.

 

[werepossum]

Trying to anger him? What if it's two guys holding hands buying wedding rings? Is that intentionally angering behavior?

Warts, dregs, needs to be saved? Gay dollars help drive this economy big-time. In fact I'll be upgrading my desktop soon. Maybe I'll send a photo of me and my partner to Amazon to piss them off. I wonder if I'll get my stuff.

For the former, pretty clear he meant truly egregious behavior. Think of a gay pride parade, and remember you're allowed to refuse service to straights for such behavior as well. If some chick is recreating the works of Miley Cyrus with her boyfriend in your shop, you are just as entitled to throw them out as if it were her girlfriend. (Actually more so, as in the latter case one's male customers would likely start a boycott.)

For the latter, pretty clear he meant not that gays are warts or the dregs of society, but rather than Christian behavior is not judging people as acceptable or not acceptable. By Jesus accepting the dregs of society, He made this abundantly clear, which SHOULD (but obviously does not) stop the rules lawyering. (i.e. "Sure, adulterers shouldn't be judged, but it's good and necessary to judge gay people who are an offense to G-d.") By ministering to the dregs of society, Christ showed us that G-d's love is for ALL people, not just the obedient, rather than setting a particular bar. (Which only makes sense; if one can create a universe full of life, why would one love only those who do as they are told?)

tl/dr: Calm down, dude, Doc's not your enemy. If you let the douches who push such laws convince you that everyone is against you, they've achieved at least a partial victory.

 

[werepossum]

Happy to say I know the guy who runs this place

LOL

In a slightly related vein, I generally can't stand Ann Richards but she said something hilarious just after Texas passed its anti-sodomy law. The two main Republican sponsors were slapping each other on the back at having the landmark bill pass and Richards told them "Don't get too excited, you're both going to jail, because under the law you just passed it's a felony for a prick to touch an asshole."

 

[Daverino]

Can you please find where it says, in Christian religious documents, that "thou shalt not serve infidels"? I am pretty sure there are examples of Jesus "serving" those that were 'sinners'. What makes you think his example isn't to be followed?

And, do explain how not rendering life saving aid, when being the only person trained in such, not constitute as causing the death of someone, and therefore excluded under the "thou shalt not kill" part?

Also, I feel I should point out that if you, as an EMT, refused to render aid to someone I cared about and they died, not only would I sue you, after I won, I'd shoot you.

It was a tongue-in-cheek statement. But the folks at the Westboro Baptist Church call themselves Christian and they'd probably be comfortable in allowing a homosexual to bleed out. And that's the issue: the bill as worded allows anyone to discriminate so long as they claim their religion backs them up. And since there are no standards for the tenets of one person's religious beliefs it's a blank check for discrimination. While the legislators may have had homosexuals in mind, there's nothing that prevents someone from discriminating against gender or race on religious grounds.

It's a waste of time law and conservative red meat. It will be found unconstitutional via the 14th Amendment and Arizona will waste money defending it. Assuming that Jan Brewer doesn't just veto the stupid thing.

 

[sandorski]

A similar Law in Kansas was at least delayed, possibly killed

 

[Retro Rob]

Which is why this law is such BS. I am pretty sure the same religious objection against serving gays can be used against serving Muslims or Jews, and you can't legally do that. They need to just hurry and make make sexuality a protected class. Do we really need for it to get as far as it did with non-whites before we protect a class of people?

We really shouldn't have to "protect" a class of people...the fact that we have to is quite embarrassing.

I think they're taking this to a bigoted extreme; not approving of gay marriage doesn't mean you refuse common human services to gay people, and I do agree that if these laws are passed, then we will see 'conscientious objections' to serving Jews (for rejecting their Messiah, of course...and are therefore heretics), or blacks (cursed by God after the Flood) and more stupid, bigoted laws.

 

[Daverino]

We really shouldn't have to "protect" a class of people...the fact that we have to is quite embarrassing.

I think they're taking this to a bigoted extreme; not approving of gay marriage doesn't mean you refuse common human services to gay people, and I do agree that if these laws are passed, then we will see 'conscientious objections' to serving Jews (for rejecting their Messiah, of course...and are therefore heretics), or blacks (cursed by God after the Flood) and more stupid, bigoted laws.

I agree with you on both counts. It is embarrassing that we need protected classes. But they didn't sprout out of nowhere. Each protected class has suffered a long history of discrimination. They're protected not because we think they might need protection in the future. They're protected because they've been abused and discriminated in the past. Maybe, someday, we'll grow up and not need them. But this bill shows we're not quite there.

As to the second point, one Democratic law maker pointed out that the new law would allow a Muslim taxi driver to refuse picking up an unaccompanied woman. And here I was thinking we were trying to fight off Sharia law in America?

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I agree with you on both counts. It is embarrassing that we need protected classes. But they didn't sprout out of nowhere. Each protected class has suffered a long history of discrimination. They're protected not because we think they might need protection in the future. They're protected because they've been abused and discriminated in the past. Maybe, someday, we'll grow up and not need them. But this bill shows we're not quite there.

As to the second point, one Democratic law maker pointed out that the new law would allow a Muslim taxi driver to refuse picking up an unaccompanied woman. And here I was thinking we were trying to fight off Sharia law in America?

And who gets to decide what religions or religious views are valid? Perhaps I can create my own with all sorts of fun discriminatory practices.

 

[smackababy]

We really shouldn't have to "protect" a class of people...the fact that we have to is quite embarrassing.

I agree, but there will always be people who, for whatever reason, prey upon others.

I think they're taking this to a bigoted extreme; not approving of gay marriage doesn't mean you refuse common human services to gay people, and I do agree that if these laws are passed, then we will see 'conscientious objections' to serving Jews (for rejecting their Messiah, of course...and are therefore heretics), or blacks (cursed by God after the Flood) and more stupid, bigoted laws.

The thing is, even with this law, it doesn't allow them to discriminate against protected classes IIRC. So, it really is only against gays. You can't use a religious excuse to deny a black person on your bus. But, since sexuality isn't protected under federal law, this allows them to refuse gays.

The problem with marriage is that it you can disagree with it, but that doesn't mean it should not be legal for everyone. You can disagree with gay sex, but should that be illegal? How about wearing white after labor day? I disagree with wearing pajama pants in public, but I don't reasonably agree it should be illegal (I'd still vote yes for the law though).

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

so much for that separation of church and state.

 

[Incorruptible]

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

 

[werepossum]

We really shouldn't have to "protect" a class of people...the fact that we have to is quite embarrassing.

I think they're taking this to a bigoted extreme; not approving of gay marriage doesn't mean you refuse common human services to gay people, and I do agree that if these laws are passed, then we will see 'conscientious objections' to serving Jews (for rejecting their Messiah, of course...and are therefore heretics), or blacks (cursed by God after the Flood) and more stupid, bigoted laws.

Agreed, and well said.

 

[davmat787]

Is there any historical proof that Jesus viewed homosexuality as a sin? Or did Constantine have that bit added 300+ years later when HE determined what or what not would be in the bible that is taken as gospel today?

 

[Daverino]

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

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?

 

[Daverino]

And who gets to decide what religions or religious views are valid? Perhaps I can create my own with all sorts of fun discriminatory practices.

That's kinda the problem with the law right there. . .

The thing is, even with this law, it doesn't allow them to discriminate against protected classes IIRC. So, it really is only against gays. You can't use a religious excuse to deny a black person on your bus. But, since sexuality isn't protected under federal law, this allows them to refuse gays.

The problem with marriage is that it you can disagree with it, but that doesn't mean it should not be legal for everyone. You can disagree with gay sex, but should that be illegal? How about wearing white after labor day? I disagree with wearing pajama pants in public, but I don't reasonably agree it should be illegal (I'd still vote yes for the law though).

I read the bill and honestly I don't see where it makes exceptions for protected classes. It's incredibly vague and broad. It basically says the state can enforce no law where a "person is prevented from using the person's property in a manner that the person finds satisfactory to fulfill the person's religious mission." if he or she feels their religious beliefs are being violated. A blank check to discriminate on religious grounds.

Courts have held over and over that religious freedom ends when it runs afoul with other people's Constitutionally protected rights. Religion was used as a reason for opposing gender equality and racial equality in the past. The reason we have to have protected classes is because people have hid behind sociology or religion or bad science or what not to justify their bigotry.

This law Constitutionally floats like a lead balloon.

Businesses in Arizona are opposed to the law as well. Believe me, Google is not going to move to Arizona if their employees are going to be legally discriminated against. And Lord knows when they'll ever get another Super Bowl if this passes.

 

[sportage]

If the governor signs this into law, I can 100% guarantee this will backfire big time on AZ business. BIG TIME!!!

First of all, any business that takes advantage and refuses service, the word will spread like wildfire throughout the community, and people not just gays but all people will boycott and thus causing that business to profoundly fail.
That is an solid guarantee.

There are many business that would probably love to turn away gays but were afraid to do so, until now. What this does, the backfire big time aspect, would expose exactly each and every business that holds bigotry as their means of operation.
Take note.
And people will notice, the word will spread, and I can 100% totally absolutely guarantee you that every business thus "outed" with supporting discrimination will profoundly suffer and profoundly fail.

If this bill goes into law, and mind you it won't take long, people will witness business failures mount one upon another simply due to discrimination policies.
You won't have to wait for the gays to complain to the courts, or for the minorities to complain.
The business community itself will cry out in anger as every business, not just those that would openly discriminate, but every single business operating within that community suffers profound financial loss and failure.

I believe this is the first time such a bill has or possibly might actually go into law.
And in a way it will be worth it's passage for the world to then witness just how this process of mass scaled backfire actually works for such a stupid state.
And how any legislation branch in today's world, can operate so ass backwards.
Add into this that every other state so considering such a bill will take notice and think twice.

I don't care what one believes about homosexuality or religion, or personal rights, even the most anti gay religious fanatics will realize this stunt was a huge nightmare of a mistake.
The repercussions will be devastating for business in Arizona.
All business.
Especially small business. The very business every state depends upon for that states success.
That I can guarantee. You can take that to the bank.

I know the governor of AZ is a little loony, but even old Jan Brewer can or should easily see this is a total loss - loss situation for her state.
But we shall see what we shall see.
And if she should sign, that will be the final nail in her political coffin, as well as every republican congress member that allowed this bill to see the light of day.
You can take that to the bank as well.
.
.

 

[Moonbeam]

Respecting people different than you should be normative behavior in our society. Yeah...I'm a dreamer.

Except the conservative brain defect turns them into vicious team players.

 

[SlickSnake]

Absolutely not. I'm not in favor of discriminating against anyone. However, I'm also for people to have the right to freely practice their religious beliefs. Funny how people around here are all too quick to toss out freedoms for things they don't agree with (religion), in favor of other supposed "freedoms".

You can freely practice those religious beliefs, in your church. Not in a church? Then shut the hell up about it when it encroaches on someone else's rights to not be part of your little cult. Politically legislating religious discrimination based on sexual identity is no different than doing it because of race.