Arizona bill: gay discrimination or religious rights?

[JockoJohnson]

Was there a big outcry on the left when Muslim cabbies could deny people from getting in their cab if they had a dog or alcohol? If I missed it, I apologize ahead of time.

 

[fskimospy]

Was there a big outcry on the left when Muslim cabbies could deny people from getting in their cab if they had a dog or alcohol? If I missed it, I apologize ahead of time.

Carrying alcohol is not protected by anti-discrimination statutes.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Was there a big outcry on the left when Muslim cabbies could deny people from getting in their cab if they had a dog or alcohol? If I missed it, I apologize ahead of time.

Very few places allow open containers of alcohol in the street let alone in a vehicle. Pretty much any cabbie could refuse it based on the law. As for a dog, if it's not a service dog then again there really isn't an issue.

 

[smackababy]

Very few places allow open containers of alcohol in the street let alone in a vehicle. Pretty much any cabbie could refuse it based on the law. As for a dog, if it's not a service dog then again there really isn't an issue.

This. In quite a few places, any open alcoholic container in a vehicle is illegal. I know limos can get away with it because of the partition, but I don't believe cabs are excluded from the law at that point. Dogs, also are not under any protection, unless it is a service animal. Any cabby can refuse to allow pets in their car.

 

[Daverino]

No. I've neither said nor implied anything of the sort.

You dismissed the sincerely held religious belief test as "unverifiable" and "un-Constitutional," and insisted that "it's absurd to think that the government would get involved in determining which beliefs are sincerely held." I educated you about how the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does exactly that.

There are many legitimate reasons to oppose this law. Your ignorant complaints about the sincerely held religious belief doctrine are not among them.

You don't really understand much about how Title VII works then. It did not get the government into the 'determining which religious belief is valid' business because it's not about picking which religious beliefs can be applied by religious people to others. The protections afforded by title VII make no judgement about the belief itself and purposefully so. It also uses beliefs in the narrow context of protecting individuals from discrimination AND only when the beliefs can be reasonably accommodated.

From Title VII:
(j) The term “religion” includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.

So yeah, you're flat wrong. Title VII does not put the government in the 'which beliefs are valid' business. Any belief that can be reasonably accommodated is covered. You seem to feel that context isn't relevant. What is being done in the Arizona law is grossly different from what is being done in Title VII. The Arizona law allows the uses of religion to protect people against accusations of discrimination. Now the person with the 'sincerely held belief' is not the aggrieved party, but the aggrieving party. The shield has become a sword. That DOES put the government in the 'which beliefs are valid' business because you have a discriminated party that results from the belief and requires resolution.

 

[JockoJohnson]

Very few places allow open containers of alcohol in the street let alone in a vehicle. Pretty much any cabbie could refuse it based on the law. As for a dog, if it's not a service dog then again there really isn't an issue.

I never said open container, did I? I know of others on this board who put words in other people's mouths and now I get to experience it.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/25/oppenheim.cabbies/index.html?eref=rss_latest

Old story but still happened. Unopened containers of alcohol purchased in duty free shops. It is legal to buy alcohol in this country.

And for the record, this bill is stupid. If you are a business not specifically running as a religious business (a church, catholic hospital, etc.) then you serve everyone. A Catholic church doesn't have to marry a gay couple, do they? But if you are a photographer, baker, whatever, you damn well better serve everyone. Religous beliefs should not come into play in the course of a "regular" business.

 

[JockoJohnson]

This. In quite a few places, any open alcoholic container in a vehicle is illegal. I know limos can get away with it because of the partition, but I don't believe cabs are excluded from the law at that point. Dogs, also are not under any protection, unless it is a service animal. Any cabby can refuse to allow pets in their car.

Why go through such lengths to defend one religion and not the other? Both are WRONG. As I stated in my previous reply, I never said OPEN container. WTF is wrong with the reading comprehension of people on this board.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I never said open container, did I? I know of others on this board who put words in other people's mouths and now I get to experience it.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/25/oppenheim.cabbies/index.html?eref=rss_latest

Old story but still happened. Unopened containers of alcohol purchased in duty free shops. It is legal to buy alcohol in this country.

And for the record, this bill is stupid. If you are a business not specifically running as a religious business (a church, catholic hospital, etc.) then you serve everyone. A Catholic church doesn't have to marry a gay couple, do they? But if you are a photographer, baker, whatever, you damn well better serve everyone. Religous beliefs should not come into play in the course of a "regular" business.

Ahhh... My bad I immediately jumped to open. So yes in that circumstance I don't support it at all. They should be providing the service.

 

[smackababy]

Why go through such lengths to defend one religion and not the other? Both are WRONG. As I stated in my previous reply, I never said OPEN container. WTF is wrong with the reading comprehension of people on this board.

For starters, I didn't quote you. And, the cab drivers in that case are wrong. They don't get a religious exemption for alcohol (pets, on the other hand, I have no problem with).

 

[JockoJohnson]

Ahhh... My bad I immediately jumped to open. So yes in that circumstance I don't support it at all. They should be providing the service.

I can understand assuming that because cabs are typically the mode of transport if drinking too much. But I wasn't think in terms of that until after reading the comments. I just remember this story coming up specifically because Muslims view people who carry alcohol, even if unopened, as transporters of alcohol --- which is a sin in their eyes.

And I am not trying to divert the thread but stating that all this religious belief crap has to stop. You run a business in America, you follow the laws.

 

[fskimospy]

For starters, I didn't quote you. And, the cab drivers in that case are wrong. They don't get a religious exemption for alcohol (pets, on the other hand, I have no problem with).

They aren't getting a religious exemption, they were just picking up whoever they wanted. I'm pretty sure that the laws in that jurisdiction did not require them to pick up every person regardless of circumstances (but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).

If they weren't required to do it that way, there's no 'exemption' to be had. Now if you asked me if there SHOULD be a law that required them to pick everyone up I would say yes, but that's a different story altogether.

 

[smackababy]

They aren't getting a religious exemption, they were just picking up whoever they wanted. I'm pretty sure that the laws in that jurisdiction did not require them to pick up every person regardless of circumstances (but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).

If they weren't required to do it that way, there's no 'exemption' to be had. Now if you asked me if there SHOULD be a law that required them to pick everyone up I would say yes, but that's a different story altogether.

I didn't mean to imply they were getting one. I meant they don't get one. However, I think there could be a debate that their cabs could be declared as alcohol free if all of that company abides by it.

I know religious people don't want to hear this, but a compromise could easily be made here (alcohol is required to be closed, for example). Which brings up a real issue that if you are going to be providing a service that might interfere with your religious beliefs and cannot (or will not) bend them, you should not be in the position to provide that service at all. I know for a fact that the Muslim food laws provide exception if no other food exists. Perhaps, another exception could be made?

 

[Daverino]

In a new twist, three of the Arizona State Senators who voted for the bill are urging Brewer to veto it. They feel the bill was rushed and regret voting for it.

 

[zinfamous]

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.

To be fair, I don't want toaster lovers in my store, either.

 

[brycejones]

To be fair, I don't want toaster lovers in my store, either.

As long as they keep their toaster love behind closed doors I don't care. But whenever I see PDA from toaster lovers I just want to throw up. But I'm not against toaster lovers.

 

[smackababy]

To be fair, I don't want toaster lovers in my store, either.

It depends if they are boy toasters or girl toasters.

 

[surfsatwerk]

It depends if they are boy toasters or girl toasters.

What if they were made boy toasters and some shady dude at the pawn shop made them girl toasters?

:$

 

[brycejones]

What if they were made boy toasters and some shady dude at the pawn shop made them girl toasters?

:$

That's just un-natural and un-holy. I hope there is a law against such trans toasters.

 

[Incorruptible]

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.



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.

That's right, Run away you leftist scumbags. You make up crap and when I point out the truth you run away.

Was there a big outcry on the left when Muslim cabbies could deny people from getting in their cab if they had a dog or alcohol? If I missed it, I apologize ahead of time.

Gotta love the hypocrisy of these morons, If a Muslim business owner wanted to discriminate these leftist idiots wouldn't say anything. Also a Muslim business owner has every right to discriminate because it's private property which too many idiots on here don't understand.

 

[zinfamous]

That's right, Run away you leftist scumbags. You make up crap and when I point out the truth you run away.

why are you calling yourself a leftists scumbag? did you sign into the wrong troll account again?

 

[Daverino]

That's right, Run away you leftist scumbags. You make up crap and when I point out the truth you run away.

How about that time where the darkies were gonna attack the white folk if Obama lost?

There were many threats of riots if romney won, it was already known that they would not tolerate romney winning and would go out and riot.

If romney won there would be riots over the US and they would be destroying everything and maybe even target white people

Or when you went on defending racist protestors

Or that time you said blacks voting for Obama weren't integrated into society

Or that WHOLE THREAD you spent defending that woman who got fired for her racist rant.

Or that other thread you made that got locked by the admin for trolling and bigotry

You are a one-trick bigot pony. Seriously, will you just please move on to Stormfront of FreeRepublic? Some of the other trolls here are amusing if not repetitious. You're just a blight on this forum. You've had more bans than I can count. Hopefully one day it'll finally stick.

 

[werepossum]

To be fair, I don't want toaster lovers in my store, either.

LOL

It depends if they are boy toasters or girl toasters.

At first I was upset because I didn't know how to tell them apart, so I didn't know how to feel about them. Then I realized that if they're hot, obviously they are girl toasters since I'm straight. However, lately I've discovered that my own toaster appears to be treacherously changing sex occasionally, generally around breakfast time when I'm groggy and therefore morally vulnerable, presenting a very real threat of toaster gaiety. I'm hoping that my toaster is simply some sort of reef fish, otherwise I may have to take it out back and beat it to death with a shovel to prove my manly . . . um . . . straightitude . . . and I'm worried that is a hate crime. Stupid Obama, writing hate crime executive orders that prevent me from exercising my G-d given right to destroy my toaster in defense of my straightivity.

 

[Texashiker]

As long as they keep their toaster love behind closed doors I don't care. But whenever I see PDA from toaster lovers I just want to throw up. But I'm not against toaster lovers.

I totally understand how you feel on that.

 

[zinfamous]

LOL


At first I was upset because I didn't know how to tell them apart, so I didn't know how to feel about them. Then I realized that if they're hot, obviously they are girl toasters since I'm straight. However, lately I've discovered that my own toaster appears to be treacherously changing sex occasionally, generally around breakfast time when I'm groggy and therefore morally vulnerable, presenting a very real threat of toaster gaiety. I'm hoping that my toaster is simply some sort of reef fish, otherwise I may have to take it out back and beat it to death with a shovel to prove my manly . . . um . . . straightitude . . . and I'm worried that is a hate crime. Stupid Obama, writing hate crime executive orders that prevent me from exercising my G-d given right to destroy my toaster in defense of my straightivity.

Admittedly, I'm an outsider to the appliance sexual identity community, and frankly the idea disgusts me even though I don't wish to outright restrict your freedom to do what makes you happy in the comfort of your own home, but I am curious.

Since the female toaster is the hot version, how does the human male deal with the hot slot?

:hmm:

 

[smackababy]

Admittedly, I'm an outsider to the appliance sexual identity community, and frankly the idea disgusts me even though I don't wish to outright restrict your freedom to do what makes you happy in the comfort of your own home, but I am curious.

Since the female toaster is the hot version, how does the human male deal with the hot slot?

:hmm:

Just remember this one thing: you have to be careful; get burned and you're toast!