It's funny how morons twist this into "it was not an anti-gay bill". Of course it was, and you even acknowledge it yourself: those damn gays who demand service! Here's the thing: if you're in BUSINESS, you can't deny service to a PROTECTED CLASS. You can deny service to whites, men, tall people, but not blacks, hispanics, women... or gays. If you want to be able to discriminate legally, turn your business into a private club or a church.
The absolutely disgraceful thing about this bill was that it was worded avoiding the use of "gay" (probably to avoid being blatantly unconstitutional) but instead used such incredibly vague "feel" terms that it would have protected any sort of discrimination, so a shop owner would have been within his legal rights to display a "no gays allowed" sign in his window, but also a "no blacks allowed."
An emergency services provider would have also been within his rights to deny service on that basis. Now, put the shoe on the other foot: you need emergency care and the muslim doctor sees a cross around your neck and denies you service based on his religious views. This bill would have allowed that.
Good thing Brewer vetoed it, but she's still a bigoted sad wrinkled bag of shit.
I too am glad that she vetoed it, as I think it was a horrible and unnecessary piece of legislation. This is not to diminish what you wrote but I feel I must point out that unfortunately, gays are NOT a protected class at the federal level, and are only protected from some types of discrimination in certain states. Otherwise, it is already totally legal to discriminate based on sexual orientation. You can be fired from your job, denied housing, etc.
From Slate.com: "Twenty-one states prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment; 21 prohibit discrimination in public accommodations; 21 prohibit it in housing; 26 in hospital visitation; and only 13 in education. (All stats courtesy of the Human Rights Campaign.) Most people don’t realize that American law permits discrimination. A 2011 poll found that 87 percent of people believe that federal law already prohibits discrimination against gays and lesbians in employment. Only 5 percent know that it is legal."
Interesting how this thread is about commerce and sexual orientation.
Jesus is reported to have had something to say about the former (Luke 20:24,25), and nothing about the latter. But he was known for associating with and being on the side of people who were considered outcasts and who were treated with disdain by those with power and advantage.
I think, comely, you have pointed out the essence of this issue. It is about people wanting to crawl into their little holes and throw up barriers of fear and self-righteousness to shield them from people who are different from them.
Not people who ARE different to them but people they THINK ARE different to them.
I had a near fatal accident few years ago several people help me I couldn't care less if they were black gay lesbian Christian catholic protestant muslim i'm just thankful they stopped and help me if they didn't I could've died .The person you turnaway today maybe the person who save you tomorrow
Good point, hill60, provided we don't pretend that there isn't any diversity. I think that everyone is on an equal standing with me and deserves just as much respect and access to every opportunity asI do. On the other hand, I really do treasure the variety in humanity. My own small experience is too confined to be really sufficient.
For example, one of my best friends is from Sri Lanka. His "brownness" is an essential part of who he is as an individual (not in any sense as a "racial" distinction), and I sincerely value that. I don't pretend he is the same colour as me; instead I celebrate the fact that he isn't like me in that respect and in many others.
I have had several significant health issues in the past few years, comely, including cancer. My doctor is from Egypt, the doctor who diagnosed the cancer is from India via the Caribbean, the surgeon who removed the tumor is East Asian, as is my oncologist. The doctor who performed the ablation procedure to cure my atrial fibrillation is South Asian . . . . I could go on. Half of the aforementioned are women. My best friend has Irish biological parents, but was adopted by a Jewish family.
I would have a pretty small life if any by now if I considered any of these people somehow not good enough for me!
To love someone doesn't mean you have to agree with them. A mom and pop cake shop in AZ shouldn't have to make wedding cakes for 2 women who want to get 'married.' But they can still love the women as people.
You are all missing the problem here..... The law / Government is telling us what to do and what not to do
THEY ARE TAKING AWAY OUR INDIVIDUAL CHOICE AWAY!!!
Our greatest gift to us!!!! I love the way the devil works....
I think if a owner want me to not be allowed in their business it is their right!!!!
Let me vote with my dollars by buying products at another establishment
It's my choice not yours!!
What the hell are you talking about? You can't do anything you want. That's why laws are written. What if a doctor decides to not treat a patient because he/she doesn't want to treat Christians? It's his/her personal choice? You people make absolutely no sense. Try thinking beyond the obvious. This bill was cloaked in religious freedom. In fact the governor probably vetoed the bill because of the pressure FROM BUSINESSES (I guess they don't like freedom.) Specific Religious beliefs have no place in public policy. Maybe we should have laws that reflect beliefs in Scientology, Sharia law, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Harre Krishna, Rastafari, Judaism, Bahá'í Faith, Sikhism, etc. etc. etc. Religious freedom means you have the right to practice the religion of your choice, none at all or all of the above. It does not mean you have the right to impose those beliefs on citizens through law.
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).
Interesting how this thread is about commerce and sexual orientation.
Jesus is reported to have had something to say about the former (Luke 20:24,25), and nothing about the latter. But he was known for associating with and being on the side of people who were considered outcasts and who were treated with disdain by those with power and advantage.
I guess he would have associated with Christians today, then.
Isn't that like a celebrity being a part of their own fan club?
If your definition of a celebrity is 'associating with and being on the side of people who were considered outcasts and who were treated with disdain by those with power and advantage,' then maybe.
If your definition of a celebrity is 'associating with and being on the side of people who were considered outcasts and who were treated with disdain by those with power and advantage,' then maybe.
Your post seems more serious than mine. I was attempting to illicit a funny image of Christ hanging out with Christians today. Maybe Christ going to church to hear a sermon about what he said 2,000 years ago.
Your post seems more serious than mine. I was attempting to illicit a funny image of Christ hanging out with Christians today. Maybe Christ going to church to hear a sermon about what he said 2,000 years ago.
Comments
It's funny how morons twist this into "it was not an anti-gay bill". Of course it was, and you even acknowledge it yourself: those damn gays who demand service! Here's the thing: if you're in BUSINESS, you can't deny service to a PROTECTED CLASS. You can deny service to whites, men, tall people, but not blacks, hispanics, women... or gays. If you want to be able to discriminate legally, turn your business into a private club or a church.
The absolutely disgraceful thing about this bill was that it was worded avoiding the use of "gay" (probably to avoid being blatantly unconstitutional) but instead used such incredibly vague "feel" terms that it would have protected any sort of discrimination, so a shop owner would have been within his legal rights to display a "no gays allowed" sign in his window, but also a "no blacks allowed."
An emergency services provider would have also been within his rights to deny service on that basis. Now, put the shoe on the other foot: you need emergency care and the muslim doctor sees a cross around your neck and denies you service based on his religious views. This bill would have allowed that.
Good thing Brewer vetoed it, but she's still a bigoted sad wrinkled bag of shit.
I too am glad that she vetoed it, as I think it was a horrible and unnecessary piece of legislation. This is not to diminish what you wrote but I feel I must point out that unfortunately, gays are NOT a protected class at the federal level, and are only protected from some types of discrimination in certain states. Otherwise, it is already totally legal to discriminate based on sexual orientation. You can be fired from your job, denied housing, etc.
From Slate.com: "Twenty-one states prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment; 21 prohibit discrimination in public accommodations; 21 prohibit it in housing; 26 in hospital visitation; and only 13 in education. (All stats courtesy of the Human Rights Campaign.) Most people don’t realize that American law permits discrimination. A 2011 poll found that 87 percent of people believe that federal law already prohibits discrimination against gays and lesbians in employment. Only 5 percent know that it is legal."
Interesting how this thread is about commerce and sexual orientation.
Jesus is reported to have had something to say about the former (Luke 20:24,25), and nothing about the latter. But he was known for associating with and being on the side of people who were considered outcasts and who were treated with disdain by those with power and advantage.
I think, comely, you have pointed out the essence of this issue. It is about people wanting to crawl into their little holes and throw up barriers of fear and self-righteousness to shield them from people who are different from them.
Not people who ARE different to them but people they THINK ARE different to them.
"people they THINK ARE different"
Good point, hill60, provided we don't pretend that there isn't any diversity. I think that everyone is on an equal standing with me and deserves just as much respect and access to every opportunity asI do. On the other hand, I really do treasure the variety in humanity. My own small experience is too confined to be really sufficient.
For example, one of my best friends is from Sri Lanka. His "brownness" is an essential part of who he is as an individual (not in any sense as a "racial" distinction), and I sincerely value that. I don't pretend he is the same colour as me; instead I celebrate the fact that he isn't like me in that respect and in many others.
I have had several significant health issues in the past few years, comely, including cancer. My doctor is from Egypt, the doctor who diagnosed the cancer is from India via the Caribbean, the surgeon who removed the tumor is East Asian, as is my oncologist. The doctor who performed the ablation procedure to cure my atrial fibrillation is South Asian . . . . I could go on. Half of the aforementioned are women. My best friend has Irish biological parents, but was adopted by a Jewish family.
I would have a pretty small life if any by now if I considered any of these people somehow not good enough for me!
To love someone doesn't mean you have to agree with them. A mom and pop cake shop in AZ shouldn't have to make wedding cakes for 2 women who want to get 'married.' But they can still love the women as people.
Maybe they shouldn't serve Christians.
That's absolutely true. If you are a Jew in Palestine in B.C. years.
When was the part in the Bible that you cling to written? You seem to pick & choose.
You are all missing the problem here..... The law / Government is telling us what to do and what not to do
THEY ARE TAKING AWAY OUR INDIVIDUAL CHOICE AWAY!!!
Our greatest gift to us!!!! I love the way the devil works....
I think if a owner want me to not be allowed in their business it is their right!!!!
Let me vote with my dollars by buying products at another establishment
It's my choice not yours!!
What the hell are you talking about? You can't do anything you want. That's why laws are written. What if a doctor decides to not treat a patient because he/she doesn't want to treat Christians? It's his/her personal choice? You people make absolutely no sense. Try thinking beyond the obvious. This bill was cloaked in religious freedom. In fact the governor probably vetoed the bill because of the pressure FROM BUSINESSES (I guess they don't like freedom.) Specific Religious beliefs have no place in public policy. Maybe we should have laws that reflect beliefs in Scientology, Sharia law, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Harre Krishna, Rastafari, Judaism, Bahá'í Faith, Sikhism, etc. etc. etc. Religious freedom means you have the right to practice the religion of your choice, none at all or all of the above. It does not mean you have the right to impose those beliefs on citizens through law.
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).
What about doctors?
I guess he would have associated with Christians today, then.
The Old Testament was written particularly to the Jews.
Isn't that like a celebrity being a part of their own fan club?
If your definition of a celebrity is 'associating with and being on the side of people who were considered outcasts and who were treated with disdain by those with power and advantage,' then maybe.
Your post seems more serious than mine. I was attempting to illicit a funny image of Christ hanging out with Christians today. Maybe Christ going to church to hear a sermon about what he said 2,000 years ago.
Fair do's.
"I guess he would have associated with Christians today, then."
?As long as they were not disdainful and did not exert their power or advantage to diminish or denigrate anyone else in any way.
The Old Testament was written particularly to the Jews.
Not sure how this relates to my comment. I was making a point on frugality's posts & his/her selective interpretation of the Bible.
The Old Testament was written particularly to the Jews.
Muslims and Christians.
Torah, Koran and Old Testament are pretty much the same series of books with variations on interpretation.
We need laws that allow business owners to have values. Even if some don't like them.
Business owners (like anyone) have always had a right to hold their own personal values.
Declining serve to a customer because their personal values do not align with your own is not the practise of "having values."