Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

LIVEFRMNYC

macrumors 604
Original poster
Oct 27, 2009
7,433
8,605
You got to love how Republicans only care about their rights and no one else's.


http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/21/us/arizona-anti-gay-bill/

Arizona's Legislature has passed a controversial bill that would allow business owners, as long as they assert their religious beliefs, to deny service to gay and lesbian customers.

The bill, which the state House of Representatives passed by a 33-27 vote Thursday, now goes to Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican and onetime small business owner who vetoed similar legislation last year but has expressed the right of business owners to deny service.

"I think anybody that owns a business can choose who they work with or who they don't work with," Brewer told CNN in Washington on Friday. "But I don't know that it needs to be statutory. In my life and in my businesses, if I don't want to do business or if I don't want to deal with a particular company or person or whatever, I'm not interested. That's America. That's freedom."
 

quagmire

macrumors 603
Apr 19, 2004
6,255
1,063
Now a non-christian can discriminate against christians based on their religious beliefs and see how they like being discriminated solely because they are christian.

Only upside I can think of...... Though they already think they are being discriminated against if they didn't have this bill... So maybe there isn't an upside.....
 

LizKat

macrumors 603
Aug 5, 2004
5,324
29,834
Catskill Mountains
All these "my rights" fools go to open a business and then don't want to serve customers?

So their business fails and they end up working in McD's serving anyone who comes to the counter because their boss says so and because... that's what works.

Amazing how many states with rightwing-heavy legislatures are doing this copycat legislation. Must have been in the talking points at some RNC briefings.
 

rdowns

macrumors Penryn
Jul 11, 2003
27,345
12,408
One restaurant owner with the right idea. Were it me, my sign would read, "We reserve the tight to refuse service to bigoted Christians".

 

zioxide

macrumors 603
Dec 11, 2006
5,725
3,711
This is gonna end up being challenged and getting overturned by the Supreme Court just like "separate but equal" did.
 

steve knight

macrumors 68030
Jan 28, 2009
2,596
6,958
Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Certain christians have to feel persecuted as it makes them think they are true Christians. But in realty Christians are the ones doing most of the persecuting.
 
Last edited:

rdowns

macrumors Penryn
Jul 11, 2003
27,345
12,408
Jesus dealt with prostitutes/tax collectors/lepers, HOW do some get to claim "religious beliefs" here? I don;t get it

The key word in your question is claim. They can claim religion all they want but let's get real, this is bigotry, plain and simple.
 

steve knight

macrumors 68030
Jan 28, 2009
2,596
6,958
one of the better responses to the crap of a law.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/diana-butler-bass/jan-brewer-religious-freedom_b_4831799.html
Dear Governor Brewer,

I love Arizona. I grew up there, a proud honors graduate of Saguaro High School, where I was president of the Teen-Age Republicans. Indeed, I was such a good teen-age Republican that in 1976 Sen Goldwater named me Arizona State Teen-Age Republican of the Year. I still have his letter.

Not only do I love Arizona, but I love religion. That might sound odd, I know. But I hold three advanced degrees in the subject: a college minor, a seminary MA, and a Ph.D. in the History of Christianity from Duke University. I have spent my adult life as a professor of religious studies, a best-selling author of eight books in the field, and an internationally-known expert in religious trends. And, more humbly, I hope, I am a serious, practicing Christian. I was confirmed in faith at Scottsdale United Methodist Church on Miller Road when I was 14 years old.

It pains me to say it, but I am now ashamed to read the words, "Arizona" and "religion" in the same sentence regarding HB2153, the legislation making its way to your desk under the guise of protecting religious freedom. One of the things Christianity teaches me is that God is love, and the God of Love loves everybody, even when we struggle to do the same. Yes, our religious denominations teach many different things about what is sin or what is sinful -- and our Constitution gives each of us the right to practice our religion as we choose. But as children of God and citizens of a great nation, we should not legally aid discriminatory or hateful acts against those whom we find difficult to embrace. As I read HB2153, it seems to care more about protecting exclusion than about creating a society where all citizens have equal rights under the law. One may not like someone or approve of their choices on the basis of religious faith, but we all must understand that faith also demands that every human being is treated with respect and dignity (that's actually in my church's baptism vows).

Please veto this bill. I no longer live in Arizona. But I am a daughter of the beautiful state in the desert, a person whose own journey was deeply shaped by living in a place where God is present in every sunrise and sunset. My native friends taught me that the Great Spirit lives in us all. I pray that you would be strengthened by the God whose heart is ever-open, and the God who through all of human history has challenged us to love our neighbors as ourselves.

Most sincerely yours,

Diana (Hochstedt) Butler Bass, Ph.D.
Saguaro High School, class of 1977
Student government officer and former TARS president
 
Last edited by a moderator:

rdowns

macrumors Penryn
Jul 11, 2003
27,345
12,408
Former Bush Strategist: Anti-LGBT Law Uses Christianity Like Muslim Terrorists Use Islam

On This Week With George Stephanopoulos, former George W Bush campaign director Matthew Dowd predicted that Arizona Governor Jan Brewer would veto a just-passed bill that would allow discrimination against LGBT customers, and also read the impetus behind the bill into the history of people using religion to mask exploitation and repression.

“I think in the end Governor Brewer is going to veto this,” Dowd said. “It’s an easy veto to do because of the things going in the business economy there.”

“This is one of those problems where people use religion as a way to enforce discriminatory practices,” he continued. “People used religion back in the 1860s, when they used religion to defend slavery. We’ve used religion to go to war. People criticize Islam because they use religion to fight and kill people. This is the problem. I think she vetoes it, because there’s no way this can survive.”
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/former-bush-strategist-anti-lgbt-law-uses-christianity-like-muslim-terrorists-use-islam/
 

SLC Flyfishing

Suspended
Nov 19, 2007
1,486
1,639
Portland, OR
The law is too large. The governor should veto it.

The only thing such as this that I could get behind is a law protecting people who merely wish not to participate in a SSM, namely wedding photographers, ministers, caterers and such.

But no one should be able to prevent someone from patronizing a business solely because of who they are or who they love.
 

chown33

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 9, 2009
8,360
4,343
Gourd City
The only thing such as this that I could get behind is a law protecting people who merely wish not to participate in a SSM, namely wedding photographers, ministers, caterers and such.
Ministers can already refuse to participate. No law needs to specifically exempt ministers (or priests, rabbis, imams, etc.), because they're already exempt.

As I have previously pointed out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations
Within US law, public accommodations are generally defined as entities, both public and private (thus treating private business enterprises as if they were part of the government), that are used by the public. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments and service establishments, as well as educational institutions, recreation facilities and service centers. Private clubs and religious institutions are exempt. Public accommodation must be handicap-accessible and must not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin.[1][2]

If you don't qualify as a private club or religious institution, AND you accept business from the general public, THEN you are acting as a public accommodation and civil rights laws apply to you.
 

quagmire

macrumors 603
Apr 19, 2004
6,255
1,063
The only thing such as this that I could get behind is a law protecting people who merely wish not to participate in a SSM, namely wedding photographers, ministers, caterers and such.
If the wedding is non-religious, I don't see why they should be able to deny their services either.
 

SLC Flyfishing

Suspended
Nov 19, 2007
1,486
1,639
Portland, OR
If the wedding is non-religious, I don't see why they should be able to deny their services either.
I should clarify my stance here too. I don't think this has to be a religious objection. I just think business owners should be able to refuse work without needing to provide reason or fear prosecution.

Else what is there to prevent a gay couple from raising a discrimination claim (and the investigation that goes along with it) if a photographer wants to take a vacation during the time the couple requests?
 

quagmire

macrumors 603
Apr 19, 2004
6,255
1,063
I should clarify my stance here too. I don't think this has to be a religious objection. I just think business owners should be able to refuse work without needing to provide reason or fear prosecution.

Else what is there to prevent a gay couple from raising a discrimination claim (and the investigation that goes along with it) if a photographer wants to take a vacation during the time the couple requests?
They can't deny service based on race, gender, etc already. Sexual orientation should be included.

Want to cover yourself from that vacation situation? Put it in their planner to show to the gay couple. And have that planner verified by a witness( fellow employee, etc) to ensure the person didn't just write it in as an excuse to deny their service to the gay couple.
 

SLC Flyfishing

Suspended
Nov 19, 2007
1,486
1,639
Portland, OR
They can't deny service based on race, gender, etc already. Sexual orientation should be included.

Want to cover yourself from that vacation situation? Put it in their planner to show to the gay couple. And have that planner verified by a witness( fellow employee, etc) to ensure the person didn't just write it in as an excuse to deny their service to the gay couple.
And if you're a freelancer who doesn't have employees?
 

Huntn

macrumors demi-god
May 5, 2008
17,039
16,521
The Misty Mountains
Any political body that wastes it's time promoting religion based laws (for any religion) should be impeached for dereliction of duty.
 

pdjudd

macrumors 601
Jun 19, 2007
4,040
65
Plymouth, MN
I should clarify my stance here too. I don't think this has to be a religious objection. I just think business owners should be able to refuse work without needing to provide reason or fear prosecution.
We already have laws that prohibit discriminating against protected classes (of which should include homosexuals since this proves that they are being targeted for discrimination and thus should be protected). The rules of business in general are, if you serve the public, you ought to accept the public - and that is all of it unless you have a specific reason. Sorry, I refuse to accept religion as a basis of discrimination unless your business is solely a religious organization or another private business.

Else what is there to prevent a gay couple from raising a discrimination claim (and the investigation that goes along with it) if a photographer wants to take a vacation during the time the couple requests?
The only way is to bite your tongue and serve the public and not discriminate.
 

SwiftLives

macrumors 65816
Dec 7, 2001
1,339
240
Charleston, SC
That doesn't answer the question.

What about if you're just otherwise engaged, and not discriminating. Do you expect these folks to have to defend themselves against lawsuits?
Is there currently a problem of people suing after being denied service for the above stated reason? Being "otherwise engaged" is not discrimination. Showing a pattern of refusing service to a protected class of the population is.

Personally, I can't imagine a scenario where a discrimination lawsuit filed against someone otherwise engaged on a specific date would be successful. How would that even work?