bdkennedy1 wrote: »
Gay people have a ton of disposable income. Arizona would have missed out on a lot of it.
That is a good question but I think it has already been addressed. When you sign up for an ad feed from say, Google, you can tailor the type of ads that you want to display and block any organizations, for example competitors, form being in the queue. I think the same thing probably applies to philosophical competition as well. For example I have two non-profit organizations that do not want to have their ads appear on the same page and that is a bit of challenge programatically. They both do the same kind of work but really don't like sharing the limelight.
So do you think a wedding photographer should be compelled to take pictures at a gay wedding if they believe it's a sin (or for any reason)? This (vetoed) law said 'no.' That seems like the right answer to me even though I'll vote in favor of gay marriage in my state (if I ever get the chance; the judges seem intent on deciding this on their own).
Is that considered a logical argument? "Due to a change in the law in 1964 you can't do A, B, of C, therefore courts are saying that you can't do D." I wonder what other restrictions the Court will discover/invent.
Yes, that's how the court system in the U.S. works. Congress passes a law (in this case, the Civil Rights Act of 1964) and then the courts figure out how they apply through various cases that come in front of them. The justices didn't wake up one morning and say, "We're going to unleash the gays on malax's house." Instead, cases are coming before them, and they are looking at whether the 14th Amendment and various acts passed by Congress apply.
Constitutional amendments don't cover all possibilities - they are actually quite vague and meant for interpretation by the courts. The courts just happen to be leaning toward giving people rights instead of taking them away. Not sure why people are against that, personally.
I'm pretty sure that meets the definition of assault. I don't think anyone here is suggesting that violence against gays or anyone else is acceptable. And if Woolworth (do they still exist) tried that today, there would (rightfully) be a massive uprising and they would decide that policy immediately.
All Woolworths did was refuse to serve these customers because they didn't like who they were and it was against their beliefs to serve blacks.
paxman wrote: »
But are there any gay people in AZ?
This is obviously good news but it seems wrong to celebrate the prevention of a reactionary dimwit bigot bill as 'progress'.
This bill has a far reaching concern for me. So this bill would have someone from a business refuse you service because of religious belief.
What's interesting about this bill are the bigger implications behind it. Yes folks grabbed onto the gay rights thing. But 'religious reasons' can go a lot further. How much further. Well lets see.
My hypothetical religion thinks that women shouldn't be allowed out of the house so my store bans all females from coming in. Unless they are properly supervised by a male who is the actual one doing the business. The women are to say nothing, touch nothing.
Blacks, Indians, Hispanics are all devils children and should be refused, per my religion.
My religion also says that anyone with a physical or mental disability is shameful in the eyes of God and should be destroyed. So keep that retard out of my store.
and so on. All based on my 'religious beliefs'. Should I have the right to any of that? I would hope most folks would say no
That's right, there is lot of ambiguity in "race, color, religion or national origin." If you squint really hard, can you see where it says "gender or sexual orientation?"
This AZ law was about clarifying that people have rights to freely associate/do business with (or not) people based on their personal beliefs. Saying that people don't have that choice is taking away rights not giving them.
And courts should, in general, refrain from just making stuff up because times have changed. I expect that at some point capital punishment will be deemed "cruel and unusual" and prohibited. If laws need to be rewritten, let's rewrite them through legislation and amendments, not judicial fiat.
Ever since 1964, signs like that haven't actually been true. You can't, by law, refuse right to service to someone because of race, color, religion or national origin.
He didn't say anything about signs saying 'no blackies allowed' etc. He said simply "right to refuse service"
You absolutely should have the right. And others would have the right to protest and boycott your store. Freedom is messy. Oh well.
Curious as to why would GLB want to go to an establishment that doesn't want them there?
Curious as to why would a negro want to go to an establishment that doesn't want them there?
But if I own a business and would prefer not to sell a cake to a colored (or God forbid a colored and a white) couple that should by my right. If they don't like it they can get a cake from someone else who will happily make one for them.
Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.
As someone who was alive (and "colored") when fucktards said the same thing back in the 60s there's a reason that laws like this are fought and only idiots who can't do the very simple word replacement don't "get it". Or they do "get it" and are just playing dumb. In which case, **** you.
Why not just repeal the Fair Housing Act too? It's my fucking property, I shouldn't have to sell to negros, japs or gays if I don't want to.
Goddamn if these aren't the dumbest posts I've seen ever written on AI.
Of course not. The wedding photographer is either up front about the conflict and the gay couple moves on, or if they insist, he tells the couple: Look, this is a really special event and I don't want to risk screwing it up due to my emotional conflict. You really should find another photographer for your special moment. Lets not put our opposing views into the mix. You really need a different photographer, sorry. Simple as that. The only time a problem would arise is if someone, or their lawyer, wants to make a political sensation out of it.
The CEO of Apple being gay seems to be a rather tenuous link for this story to appear on an Apple rumours site. I've always automatically associated Apple with beautifully made well designed products but now it seems that Tim Cook has unfurled a rainbow flag atop Apple House.
dasanman69 wrote: »
Show me one baby that doesn't take what they want, when they want.
SpamSandwich wrote: »
Republicans continue to foolishly push Christians-only laws and they will continue to marginalize their party. They need to get back to a platform of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism.
While I agree with you on the discrimination issues, the Fair Housing Act is about rent and lending. A seller can refuse an offer with no reason given.
frugality wrote: »
There are no gay people. Only heterosexual people with identity issues.
solipsismx wrote: »
I can't say I've outgrown liking boobs even if the reasons have changed.
vertti koskinen wrote: »
Shit? You have way too many lawyers in the USA. Rest of the world... we have only THE common sense and need for that.
Welcome to Europe and Finland or Spain or well Europe!!