Jan Brewer may be an old hag, but at least she knows when to use common sense!

[oldngray]

Your not addressing THIS bill's intention as "I" was in a ficticious nature. Of course there are current laws to protect people, as in New Mexico, where the photographer LOST her case in court because she did IN FACT deny service to a lesbian couple.

She and her husband violated a state law protecting persons from being discriminated against for sexual orientation.

Of course this bill is OVERKILL, but yet, the religious zealots who tried to pass it attempted to confuse the issue and hide its intentions. Thats why the uproar.

If this bill was signed by Jan Brewer, and I denied you service in my ficticious business in my illustration, you would NOT HAVE the right to SUE me for any reason.

I expressed my religious beliefs and opposed yours (ficticiously of course) and asked you to leave on that basis.

At that point, SB1062 would have protected me and "MY" religious beliefs.

This was the point of the opposition. It opens the door to such nonsense. While the intention was to deny GAY couples and protect christians from serving them, it also opened the door to other forms of religious denials.

Lets say I was a tow truck driver and you called for a pickup because you were stranded along side the road. I arrive and notice your star of david and then I decide that I dont believe in the jewish religion so I refuse to pick up your car, would that be ok for you as long as I cited my religious beliefs for doing so??

Lets stick with the case at hand. Think about it from the perspective of SB1062.

This is what it was about, it was what is contained in the bill and the ultimate reason it was vetoed. It was an END RUN on discriminatory protections.

You have to think outside the box (sotospeak) to grasp the ramifications that could arise from such a bill.

TOS.

Exactly as I said before. The problem was the bill was poorly written not that there was anything wrong with its intent. Arizona will rewrite the bill to make it clear exactly what it covers then it will be signed into law.

 

[Jones]

Exactly as I said before. The problem was the bill was poorly written not that there was anything wrong with its intent. Arizona will rewrite the bill to make it clear exactly what it covers then it will be signed into law.

How do you think they should reword it?

 

[oldngray]

I'm no lawyer but tighten up any gray areas and limit it to situations involving people not being forced to violate their religious doctrines.

 

[Jones]

I'm no lawyer but tighten up any gray areas and limit it to situations involving people not being forced to violate their religious doctrines.

I'm not a lawyer either but the intent of the law was to allow business owners to refuse service to LGBT folks by citing their religious beliefs. I'm pretty sure there's no way to rewrite it so that it would pass a constitutional challenge. They may give it a shot though, so we'll see.

 

[MAKAVELI]

I'm no lawyer but tighten up any gray areas and limit it to situations involving people not being forced to violate their religious doctrines.

Just where is it in the Christian doctrine to refuse service to someone who is gay? Is this what Jesus would've done?

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

Your not addressing THIS bill's intention as "I" was in a ficticious nature. Of course there are current laws to protect people, as in New Mexico, where the photographer LOST her case in court because she did IN FACT deny service to a lesbian couple.

She and her husband violated a state law protecting persons from being discriminated against for sexual orientation.

Of course this bill is OVERKILL, but yet, the religious zealots who tried to pass it attempted to confuse the issue and hide its intentions. Thats why the uproar.

If this bill was signed by Jan Brewer, and I denied you service in my ficticious business in my illustration, you would NOT HAVE the right to SUE me for any reason.

I expressed my religious beliefs and opposed yours (ficticiously of course) and asked you to leave on that basis.

At that point, SB1062 would have protected me and "MY" religious beliefs.

This was the point of the opposition. It opens the door to such nonsense. While the intention was to deny GAY couples and protect christians from serving them, it also opened the door to other forms of religious denials.

Lets say I was a tow truck driver and you called for a pickup because you were stranded along side the road. I arrive and notice your star of david and then I decide that I dont believe in the jewish religion so I refuse to pick up your car, would that be ok for you as long as I cited my religious beliefs for doing so??

Lets stick with the case at hand. Think about it from the perspective of SB1062.

This is what it was about, it was what is contained in the bill and the ultimate reason it was vetoed. It was an END RUN on discriminatory protections.

You have to think outside the box (sotospeak) to grasp the ramifications that could arise from such a bill.

TOS.

I can actually see both sides of this issue. Believe me I can. The problem though is that (and this is where, as you stated, you would need to think outside the box) discrimination and having a genuine conflict on religious grounds are two different things. Just because someone doesn't want to take pictures at a gay wedding or bake a cake for one because of religious reasons doesn't mean they are discriminating. There is such a thing as a genuine fear of having religious conflicts of interest. I would prefer that if they are going to attempt to pass these laws they need to be specific about what is covered instead of leaving it open to be interpreted that it is applied on such a broad scale. And that is where I can see the POTENTIAL for discrimination. The laws, should they be attempted again, should clearly state what, how, why, etc. they apply. If it's done that way it tightly restricts the guidelines that determines on which religious grounds a business can legitimately refuse service and would virtually eliminate arbitrary and hateful discrimination.

Or...an even better solution....if someone doesn't want to serve you....take your business elsewhere. That's what I do.

 

[Jones]

I can actually see both sides of this issue. Believe me I can. The problem though is that (and this is where, as you stated, you would need to think outside the box) discrimination and having a genuine conflict on religious grounds are two different things. Just because someone doesn't want to take pictures at a gay wedding or bake a cake for one because of religious reasons doesn't mean they are discriminating. There is such a thing as a genuine fear of having religious conflicts of interest. I would prefer that if they are going to attempt to pass these laws they need to be specific about what is covered instead of leaving it open to be interpreted that it is applied on such a broad scale. And that is where I can see the POTENTIAL for discrimination. The laws, should they be attempted again, should clearly state what, how, why, etc. they apply. If it's done that way it tightly restricts the guidelines that determines on which religious grounds a business can legitimately refuse service and would virtually eliminate arbitrary and hateful discrimination.

Or...an even better solution....if someone doesn't want to serve you....take your business elsewhere. That's what I do.

Tightening the language is a catch-22 because it just makes it even more obvious that the law is targeting a specific group (LGBT). That's actually one of the reasons it was written so broadly because that was the only way to make it sound like it was about religious freedom rather than discrimination against a specific class of people. Like I said they might try and rewrite in such way that they can get Jan Brewer to sign off on it, but I don't see any way they can write it that would survive a court challenge.

 

[The Other Side]

I can actually see both sides of this issue. Believe me I can. The problem though is that (and this is where, as you stated, you would need to think outside the box) discrimination and having a genuine conflict on religious grounds are two different things. Just because someone doesn't want to take pictures at a gay wedding or bake a cake for one because of religious reasons doesn't mean they are discriminating. There is such a thing as a genuine fear of having religious conflicts of interest. I would prefer that if they are going to attempt to pass these laws they need to be specific about what is covered instead of leaving it open to be interpreted that it is applied on such a broad scale. And that is where I can see the POTENTIAL for discrimination. The laws, should they be attempted again, should clearly state what, how, why, etc. they apply. If it's done that way it tightly restricts the guidelines that determines on which religious grounds a business can legitimately refuse service and would virtually eliminate arbitrary and hateful discrimination.

Or...an even better solution....if someone doesn't want to serve you....take your business elsewhere. That's what I do.

We as a nation, should never look to provide a means for discrimination on religious anything. If you open a business, you open it with the intention on serving the public. That public is a protected class. That public has a right to believe what they want without having to subscribe to anyone eles's belief system.

NO matter how you write it, discrimination is discrimination. IF you are a person who believes so strongly in a religion that you cant bring yourself into accepting someone who doesnt believe as you do, then you shouldnt open or offer a service that would attract people of all religious backgrounds.

You cant write a bill that is specific enough to target one segment of society. You cant write a bill that broadly protects one class of people while discriminating against another class.

The religious right of this country seeks more power in our government, power that has been restricted by the founders for this very reason.

When I compare extremist christians (like the Alliance Defending Freedom) to the Taliban, the reason is simple. They too dont want to associate with others who dont believe as they do, only difference is, they kill the opposition.

Here, money and political favoritism brings these kinds of bills about. 5 republicans came forward to say they didnt read the bill or understand it before they voted on it.

Maybe if they had an actual discussion on this bill in the first place in the AZ legislature with both sides represented, it would have died a timely death on the floor. Instead, MONEY was in the drivers seat with this bill as the ADF poured millions of dollars into the coffers of GOP politicians to get it on the floor and voted on before anyone could research its hidden intentions.

To deny that its intention was to protect discriminating practices is disengenuous on its face.

TOS.

 

[The Other Side]

you would need to think outside the box) discrimination and having a genuine conflict on religious grounds are two different things. Just because someone doesn't want to take pictures at a gay wedding or bake a cake for one because of religious reasons doesn't mean they are discriminating. quote]

thats odd, the NEW MEXICO supreme court ruled that the photographer and her husband violated state discrimination laws by denying service based on sexual orientation of the patrons regardless of the religious beliefs of the photographer.

The case was clear, the couple attempted to use the ADF position in their defense (the ADF paid for the defense counsel) and they lost.

Because of this, the ADF based its action on creating this bill in three states upon the premise that they needed to protect business owners from being sued for these discriminating practices.

You say its not discrimination because they didnt want to take pictures or bake a cake, but the High Court says otherwise.

You have to accept the high courts ruling as law. There is no other option.

TOS.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

Tightening the language is a catch-22 because it just makes it even more obvious that the law is targeting a specific group (LGBT). That's actually one of the reasons it was written so broadly because that was the only way to make it sound like it was about religious freedom rather than discrimination against a specific class of people. Like I said they might try and rewrite in such way that they can get Jan Brewer to sign off on it, but I don't see any way they can write it that would survive a court challenge.

Make it sound like? In their minds they are protecting the religious beliefs of business owners. There is no motive of deception. The laws, should they be attempted again, should specify that if serving someone will genuinely violate their religious beliefs then (not simply because they are in the presence of the individual(s), and only then, can they be permitted to deny service. Now if you really think about this how many business would be able to discriminate with the law written so tightly? Arbitrary and blatant acts of discrimination such as TOS's fictitious tow truck incident and the Jew in the whatever business would not be able to happen without consequences. Those services aren't causing the business to violate their religious beliefs. Christian beliefs don't even dictate that such terrible behavior is even acceptable. The law should reflect that for the sake of the people that might be affected by it. On both sides.

 

[Jones]

Make it sound like? In their minds they are protecting the religious beliefs of business owners. There is no motive of deception. The laws, should they be attempted again, should specify that if serving someone will genuinely violate their religious beliefs then (not simply because they are in the presence of the individual(s), and only then, can they be permitted to deny service. Now if you really think about this how many business would be able to discriminate with the law written so tightly? Arbitrary and blatant acts of discrimination such as TOS's fictitious tow truck incident and the Jew in the whatever business would not be able to happen without consequences. Those services aren't causing the business to violate their religious beliefs. Christian beliefs don't even dictate that such terrible behavior is even acceptable. The law should reflect that for the sake of the people that might be affected by it. On both sides.

You're making my point. The intent of the law was to allow business owners to deny service to LGBTs specifically but of course they couldn't write it like that because that would be obviously discriminatory, so they wrote it as a religious exemption which is a lot broader because people can cite all sorts things that go against their religious beliefs. If they tighten it down so that it can only be used against LGBTs (which is really the intent here) then you're back to square one.

 

[Babagounj]

Even as the Obama administration denounced what it called anti-gay legislation in Arizona and the president sat out the Sochi Olympics because of Russia’s crackdown on same-sex couples, the State Department allowed an Islamic preacher who called for the death penalty for homosexuals into the country for a tour of hate.

Sheikh Mohammad Rateb al-Nabulsi was issued a visa for a 17-city tour of US mosques to raise money and support for the Syrian uprising. He arrived New Year’s Day.

The radical Syrian cleric has made no secret of his virulent anti-gay views. Appearing April 28, 2011, on al Aqsa TV, the official network of the Hamas terrorist organization in Gaza, al-Nabulsi said: “Homosexuality involves a filthy place and does not generate offspring. Homosexuality leads to the destruction of the homosexual. That is why, brothers, homosexuality carries the death penalty.”
http://nypost.com/2014/03/02/state-dept-lets-anti-gay-muslim-leader-into-u-s/

 

[MAKAVELI]

Even as the Obama administration denounced what it called anti-gay legislation in Arizona and the president sat out the Sochi Olympics because of Russia’s crackdown on same-sex couples, the State Department allowed an Islamic preacher who called for the death penalty for homosexuals into the country for a tour of hate.

Sheikh Mohammad Rateb al-Nabulsi was issued a visa for a 17-city tour of US mosques to raise money and support for the Syrian uprising. He arrived New Year’s Day.

The radical Syrian cleric has made no secret of his virulent anti-gay views. Appearing April 28, 2011, on al Aqsa TV, the official network of the Hamas terrorist organization in Gaza, al-Nabulsi said: “Homosexuality involves a filthy place and does not generate offspring. Homosexuality leads to the destruction of the homosexual. That is why, brothers, homosexuality carries the death penalty.”
http://nypost.com/2014/03/02/state-dept-lets-anti-gay-muslim-leader-into-u-s/

Well look at that. Something Muslims and Christians have in common. And who says we can't live in peace?

 

[The Other Side]

Even as the Obama administration denounced what it called anti-gay legislation in Arizona and the president sat out the Sochi Olympics because of Russia’s crackdown on same-sex couples, the State Department allowed an Islamic preacher who called for the death penalty for homosexuals into the country for a tour of hate.

Sheikh Mohammad Rateb al-Nabulsi was issued a visa for a 17-city tour of US mosques to raise money and support for the Syrian uprising. He arrived New Year’s Day.

The radical Syrian cleric has made no secret of his virulent anti-gay views. Appearing April 28, 2011, on al Aqsa TV, the official network of the Hamas terrorist organization in Gaza, al-Nabulsi said: “Homosexuality involves a filthy place and does not generate offspring. Homosexuality leads to the destruction of the homosexual. That is why, brothers, homosexuality carries the death penalty.”
http://nypost.com/2014/03/02/state-dept-lets-anti-gay-muslim-leader-into-u-s/

Hey Bro, the Saudi Arabians still behead their citizens for being gay and one Saudi prince holds the second largest shares of FOX NEWS. The Saudis are one of the most violent peoples on the face of the earth, yet they hold billions of dollars in USA real estate and companies.

You dont seem to have a problem with them coming and going from the USA now, do you??

TOS.

 

[The Other Side]

You're making my point. The intent of the law was to allow business owners to deny service to LGBTs specifically but of course they couldn't write it like that because that would be obviously discriminatory, so they wrote it as a religious exemption which is a lot broader because people can cite all sorts things that go against their religious beliefs. If they tighten it down so that it can only be used against LGBTs (which is really the intent here) then you're back to square one.

This is correct. I dont see how anyone can view it differently? Nobody can explain how to re write it to be more specific, they just want it more specific no matter how its worded.

The real issue here is how this came to be in the first place. It wasnt like the AZ legislators thought of a bill they could pass on their own.

They had to be influenced and the ADF and the Center for Arizona Policy were the groups responsible for making this happen.

The CAP


They make a nice outline giving the sense that everything is on the up and up. But of course, it isnt. Something GOD wouldnt be proud of.

The ADF in summary
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/25/arizona-anti-gay-bill/5823133/

Of course its obvious what the writers/sponsors wanted to see happen, but really, if christians really needed protection for their religious beliefs, then I say MAKE them place signs on the front of their businesses or advertisements that outline their religious preferences and what they find offensive to them.

Big signs on windows that could read "GAYS UNWELCOMED", "MUSLIMS UNWELCOMED" "ATHEISTS UNWELCOMED" "JEWS UNWELCOMED"...

Then nobody could be confused over the owners intentions.

TOS.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

You're making my point. The intent of the law was to allow business owners to deny service to LGBTs specifically but of course they couldn't write it like that because that would be obviously discriminatory, so they wrote it as a religious exemption which is a lot broader because people can cite all sorts things that go against their religious beliefs. If they tighten it down so that it can only be used against LGBTs (which is really the intent here) then you're back to square one.

You completely missed my point. The purpose of tightening the language down would be to make it absolutely crystal clear that the businesses aren't going to have there religious beliefs violated. Not to target LGBT's for discrimination. The tightening of the language would eliminate the possibility of a business to discriminate simply because someone is LGBT. They would only be able to refuse service if that service caused them to actually violate their beliefs. Not because they just don't like their lifestyle. And since there aren't that many businesses where the services provided would actually conflict with said religious rights or beliefs then the tightening of the law would be highly affective in weeding out discrimination from legitimate refusal.

 

[Jones]

You completely missed my point. The purpose of tightening the language down would be to make it absolutely crystal clear that the businesses aren't going to have there religious beliefs violated. Not to target LGBT's for discrimination. The tightening of the language would eliminate the possibility of a business to discriminate simply because someone is LGBT. They would only be able to refuse service if that service caused them to actually violate their beliefs. Not because they just don't like their lifestyle. And since there aren't that many businesses where the services provided would actually conflict with said religious rights or beliefs then the tightening of the law would be highly affective in weeding out discrimination from legitimate refusal.

Well if you change it to that degree then it pretty much loses it's whole purpose, at least from the perspective of the folks who currently support it. It's really silly anyway, I mean if you don't want to take pictures at a gay wedding or whatever all you have to do is tell the people that you're overbooked or something.

 

[oldngray]

There are so many options to chose from for a wedding cake or photos why would people try to force themselves on business that don't agree with their lifestyle? The only reason would be to force the issue and promote gay agenda. I don't care where they go for their business other than I strongly object to them forcing themselves into situations just to generate controversy.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

Well if you change it to that degree then it pretty much loses it's whole purpose, at least from the perspective of the folks who currently support it. It's really silly anyway, I mean if you don't want to take pictures at a gay wedding or whatever all you have to do is tell the people that you're overbooked or something.

Maybe but one shouldn't have to lie in that situation. To me forcing someone via the courts, or, simply under the threat of being taken to court, to do something that violates their religion is tyranny disguised under the false flag of protecting gays from discrimination. If a gay couple walks into Chick fi a and is refused service by the manager simply because they are gay then that is definitely discrimination because the services provided by Chick fi a don't force the employee to violate any religion. Certainly not Christianity. There is nothing in The Bible about not being able to serve food to homosexuals. But if that same couple goes into a wedding related business or to a priest to help with their wedding then either should be able to politely decline because their services could definitely be construed as something that violates their religious beliefs. See the difference? That's what I'd want any laws dealing with this issue to address. It essentially would protect both sides from each other.

I think gays and those that support them need to take a step back and realize what they are doing is attempting to force their agendas down everyone's throats. And using discrimination as the platform from which to attack dissenters is a blatant attempt at doing an end around The First Amendment.

 

[The Other Side]

There are so many options to chose from for a wedding cake or photos why would people try to force themselves on business that don't agree with their lifestyle? The only reason would be to force the issue and promote gay agenda. I don't care where they go for their business other than I strongly object to them forcing themselves into situations just to generate controversy.

Another ridiculous argument.

How would an unsuspecting customer know in "ADVANCE" what religious beliefs a business person had?

This is such a stupid concept its not even funny. How would a potential customer know what business owners dont agree with their lifestyles? Do you agree with me that large signs should be placed in windows and in advertisements spelling out the business owners religious beliefs?

As for forcing an issue, you have that all backwards my friend.

It was the photographer who "forced" the issue with the support and legal advice of the ADF and CAP. She refused service solely based upon the sexual orientation of a potential customer despite laws in new mexico preventing this from happening.

It was to be the "test case" for both the ADF and CAP.

Fortunately, they lost the case and have to pay thousands in fines, fees and damages. I applaud the decision from the high court.

As much as you want to make it about religious freedoms, its simple a tool for discrimination.

Sorry, your beloved bill is dead.

TOS.