“Arizona Governor Jan Brewer came under mounting pressure on Tuesday from other prominent Republicans and consultants to veto a controversial bill described by critics as a license to discriminate against gays and others in the name of religion,” David Schwartz reports for Reuters. “Brewer has yet to say publicly whether she will sign or veto the bill, which would allow business owners to cite their personal religious beliefs as legal justification for refusing to serve same-sex couples or any other prospective customers.”
“The measure passed the Republican-controlled state legislature last week, putting Brewer in the crosshairs of a contentious political debate at a time when she has sought to ease partisan discord while focusing on efforts to revive Arizona’s economy,” Schwartz reports. “Two outside political consultants to Brewer told Reuters they had each urged her to veto the measure, with one saying her track record on such issues made him think she was leaning in that direction. But both stressed no decision had been taken by Brewer.”
“Supporters of the Arizona measure argue that business owners, however, remain vulnerable to lawsuits should they refuse for religious reasons to provide services to gay couples,” Schwartz reports. “Under the legislation, a business would be immune to a discrimination lawsuit if a decision to deny service was motivated by a ‘sincerely held’ religious faith and if providing service would substantially burden the exercise of those belief.”
“In a sign of the growing unease over the measure, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, the 2012 Republican nominee for president, weighed into the debate via Twitter on Tuesday: ‘veto of #SB1062 is right,'” Schwartz reports. “Another former Republican candidate for president, Arizona Senator John McCain, said earlier on CNN that passage of the bill ‘hurts the image of the state… This is going to hurt the state of Arizona’s economy, and frankly, our image. So, I hope that the governor of Arizona will veto this and we move on,’ he said, adding that he has not talked directly with Brewer about the proposal… Brewer spokesman Andrew Wilder said Apple Inc had also requested a veto in a conversation with the governor over the weekend. Three Republican state senators said on Monday they had reconsidered their support for the bill, and urged a veto.”
Read more in the full article here.
I’m guessing Brewer agrees with the Republicans who passed this ridiculous, hateful legislation, but will veto the bill based on fears of the economic ramifications should she sign it.
Gays, etc.,
Do you really want to do business with someone who’s being forced by the government to do business with you? Do you think that will be an enjoyable experience?
First Amendment to the United States Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This also means that forcing Catholic institutions, for example, to provide birth control, against their religious beliefs, is unconstitutional.
Again, I ask: Do you really want to do business with someone who’s being forced by the government to do business with you?
“Do you really want to do business with someone who’s being forced by the government to do business with you?”
Ask that same question about blacks, or women, or anyone from another country, etc. Equality means equality. If they have to be forced to act in ways contrary to their bigotry, then so be it.
Nope, not the same. Not at all.
A Catholic, for example, believes that black people exist. The Catholic religion does not believe in same sex “marriage.” That is the difference. Being compelled to serve all races does not infringe on religious beliefs. Being compelled to aid and abet same sex “marriage” does. Just like being compelled to pay for aiding and abetting the prevention of life (contraceptives) prohibits the free exercise of religion and is therefore unconstitutional (Obamacare fiasco).
First Amendment to the United States Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
You couldn’t be more mis-guided if you tried.
Nice propaganda trick you tried again: “Aiding and abetting”, way to use a term commonly associated with criminal activity in an attempt to prejudice the reader towards your negative stereotype.
If you sell wedding cake, you sell cake. Who eats it, should be on no concern. Quote me the scripture that requires you to deny cake. PROVE it. Cake is served AFTER a wedding, it does not enable, nor aid the process of being married, nor does it consummate it. Your argument is horse shit.
If that wasn’t enough you went full-stupid with this:
“Just like being compelled to pay for aiding and abetting the prevention of life (contraceptives) prohibits the free exercise of religion and is therefore unconstitutional ”
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. If you are a member of a religion and your beliefs are that you should not use contraception, NO_ONE, NO_ONE is telling you you must use it. Now if you employ people, you become and employer, and refusing to allow contraceptive as part of your group coverage, because it is YOUR faith, should be alright? Hello Taliban, no, no it isn’t alright for you to force your PRIVATE religious VIEWS on me.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/closeminded-man-not-even-willing-to-hear-out-argum,35379/
“Equality means equality.” But, if you’re not served equally (proprietors are not going to go out of their way to help those they are being forced to service vs. customers they actually want), then are you really getting “equal treatment?”
I’d be wary of eating that “wedding” cake. You never know what’s in it. 😉
Have it your way First & Then, but you’ll have to admit you believe you have Gaydar.
But all religious establishments who value this law will put signs in their store windows, so that the secular (majority) people will have a clear idea of who the bigots are in our neighborhoods.
If the religious right wants to play this game, fine. But let’s see just how powerful a boycott can truly be. Imagine Phoenix having the Superbowl taken away from them over a STUPID law like this one.
I expected you to come down on the wrong side of history. You’re even attempting to rationalize the application of this law and as just as a fear monger would do, your using the wedding cake as a threat.
Maroon.
If a law like this were enacted then the only fair thing to do is that it apply equally to ALL people of ALL religions.
And in the world there are many actions done by people in the name of their religion that are completely against the laws of the US – including murder.
Like you mormon guys with all your wives, right?
This is so unwise. Very likely not a message down from the Heaven but the from the coconut heads :-p
Agreed. This is a reprehensible piece of SH*T legislation.
This is so blatantly anti-constitutional it’s Onion territory. And, if it’s of any note- I’ve seen strong prejudice and hatred in many areas for many peoples- blacks, hispanics, republicans, etc. but never have I ever seen the sheer unbridled hatred and vitriol for others that I experienced in Arizona and the racial antagonism towards amer-indians. There’s something deep about the bias in AZ.
i hope she doesn’t veto it
because at that point, the consequences of allowing that act to become law will come down on arizona like a ton of bricks. bye-bye superbowl will be just the beginning. even bigots understand economic loss. they will reverse themselves in a hurry once they see they have done more to injure themselves that those they hate.
then, maybe, those intolerant idiots will finally get the message that intolerance does not only not pay, but that they are badly out of synch with the growing consensus of americans.
oh gee, no Supahbo Sunday for Arizona..this will be more devastating than the OK Corral. Hope they pull through.
Hey look it’s Bigot-Bot!! Arn’t we lucky he stopped by to add his hate and general negativity to the party..
gee, I thought my best wishes for the survival of Arizona was quite positive.
This legislation doesn’t make everyone in Arizona an intolerant idiot as you would have everyone here believe.
ARIZONA’S CITIZENS DIDN’T VOTE FOR THIS LAW, nor are we so stupid we’d have to enact this law before realizing we’d be on the wrong side of history.
Phoenix area citizen’s began picketing the day this law passed the senate. Governor Brewer returned from DC to tens-of-hundred’s of picketers at the airport and outside her office, so the message was well received.
What everyone should be asking is, who is the entity behind this legislation. My sense is, they aren’t even from Arizona!
“What everyone should be asking is, who is the entity behind this legislation.”
That’s an excellent and important question.
So, by your “logic,” it’s NOT OK for a business (wedding photographer) to decline to shoot a “wedding” in Arizona over beliefs about gay “marriage,” but it IS OK for a business (the NFL) to decline to hold the Super Bowl in Arizona over beliefs about gay “marriage.”
Uh, (sputter)… Uh… Well… (sputter)…
RACIST BIGOT!!!
Uh… (oh, shit)…
HOMOPHOBE! RACIST! Replace “GAY” with “BLACK!!!”
You really think the passing of this legislation will make a big difference? If so, how? I only know of a wedding photographers that did not want to do the job. I am sure there was another photographer that would have been happy to do the shoot. I don’t see what the fear regarding this legislation is all about.
You don’t see a problem with setting the precedent that religious beliefs trump other legislation?
You clearly haven’t thought this through.
And YOU don’t see a problem with compelling people to provide services in a context that violate their religious beliefs?
Apparently you haven’t thought it through either.
Ok, so Satanists or radical Islamists shouldn’t have to follow laws because these laws would “impose” on their beliefs? Wake up.
No, not at all funnily enough. Every follower compromises the doctrines of their religion every single day without worrying about it.
This is nothing more than allowing people to express their bigotry against a minority, then hide behind the Bible when challenged on it.
Every follower compromises their doctrines everyday? Probably.
Not worrying about it? Don’t know about that. That’s why there are these ancient practices called confession, repentance and restitution.
And you saying it’s bigotry doesn’t actually mean it’s so.
Have you actually read the Bible Sam? Everything it says people aren’t supposed to do? There’s an extremely long list, and virtually every single bit of it is ignored by Christians. They come up with excuses to try and justify why they eat pork, or don’t circumcise their children etc., mostly by twisting the words of “Saint” Paul, a man who came several generations after the supposed founder of their faith and whose entire claim to authority was that he had a vision. Jesus said that his followers had to obey the law, meaning everything set out in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, yet virtually all of that gets ignored. That’s why I say they don’t worry about it, and it’s exactly why they don’t go to confession about transgressing it, because they’ve been told from birth that they don’t have to.
*shakes head*
Get thee to a Sunday School class! You’re embarrassing yourself.
Maybe you guys can help me…
I’m having A LOT of trouble following the inerrant word of god as laid out “the book of all truth”.
I keep having children and then having to stone them to death because they disobey and talk back to me.
And – sheesh – don’t even get me started on how many fornicators, adulterers and others I’ve had to dispatch to the pits of hell. Let’s just say my record makes Ted Bundy look like a sunday school amateur.
Whew! Hard work, I’ll tell ya!
“..then hide behind the Bible..” Is that similar to “hiding behind the Constitution?”
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights.
Dave H, you still aren’t thinking. Or reading.
The operative word here is “compel.” Yes, everyone decides to compromise their doctrines, though whether they worry about it or not is really (a) something you can’t know, and (b) not germane to the discussion.
And your bigoted opinions as to the motivations of other people are (a) laughable, and (b) completely destroy any credibility that an anonymous poster might have had. Thanks for playing.
I have never discriminated against a gay person in action or word. But I don’t agree same-sex marriage based on my faith. And if I had a wedding cake business, if I knew my products or services went toward this type of event, I would probably politely decline, explain why, and offer some recommendations of other fine places to the customer. Here are my questions, based on the above scenario:
1. Did I discriminate against a person, or an event? What if it was a straight person ordering for a SSM and I still declined. Did I still discriminate against a person, or an event?
2. Is it fair for businesses to be fined or be forced to close because they exercised their faith, which is a constitutional right? Again we live in a pluralistic, capitalistic society. Why not let the market decide?
3. Did the above scenario seem respectful and reasonable to you? Did I seem homophobic or hateful? Would a homophobe refer the client to other competing businesses?
And just to let you know, this scenario actually happened a few times in the news, and the clients decided to get them in trouble by having them fine, or inevitably have their business close down. Do these actions seem ‘tolerant’ and ‘inclusive’ to you? Or does tolerance and inclusiveness only go one way?
4. I’ll ask the question again – does one have to support the idea of SSM in order not to be a bigot, or at least labelled as one? Who decides?
What is SSM?
SSM = same-sex marriage.
Wow, I didn’t know it had its own acronym. Learn something new every day.
JEKT
*Jeez, everyone knows that.
Replace “Same Sex Marriage” with “Black” and read your post again. See how much of a bigot you don’t sound like now.
ChrissyOne just taught you a valuable lesson your faith clearly has not.
Also, see w8kwses response below. I think that explains the technicality of it nicely.
You are completely ignorant of the meaning of that passage of the Constitution, just like the guy below.
With all due respect, what you’re saying is ridiculous.
SSM is a type of event. The other is skin colour.
Skin colour is genetically predetermined, innate, heritable and immutable.
Same-sex marriage is based on a type of attraction that has never been proven to be any of the above.
They are completely different categories, my dear, and it’s the reason my so many in the black community get upset by your type of fuzzy logic try to convince them otherwise. Your premise is flawed.
And you using the word ‘bigot’ as a billy club to try to attempt public shaming to prevent real discussion shows how ‘tolerant’ and ‘inclusive’ you are.
Now, how about try again real hard and answer the questions I posed, if it’s not too hard for you.
Sam, whether or not homosexual orientation is innate or not is not the issue. Let’s accept for the moment that homosexual orientation is as much a part of the person as is skin color; it’s STILL not the same thing, because it is not the PERSON that is being denied, but the EVENT that makes a STATEMENT contrary to the service provider’s religious beliefs, which means he can’t provide support for it and remain true to his religion – in other, it denies him the free exercise of his religion. If a gay person wants his/her computer fixed, well and good; if they want ME to program it to provide background music at a same-sex “wedding,” I’ll politely decline, not because the PERSON is gay, but because the EVENT promotes something which directly conflicts with the teachings of my religion, and which I therefore cannot support or facilitate.
I guess we agree!
Interesting that the party of no will use any excuse to discredit science and malign those who do not fit the mold of the flock, isn’t it.
At any rate bigot, there is PLENTY of scientific evidence that sexuality is not a choice. Tell me, since animals do not have free will, how is that your good book explains the number of animal species that also exhibit homosexuality?
Scientific researchers specializing in human sexuality have repeatedly shown that homosexuality is genetic.
A 2005 study reported genetic scans showing a clustering of the same genetic pattern among gay men on three chromosomes – chromosomes 7, 8, and 10. The regions on chromosome 7 and 8 were associated with male sexual orientation regardless of whether the man got them from his mother or father. The regions on chromosome 10 were only associated with male sexual orientation if they were inherited from the mother.
Anthony F. Bogaert, Ph.D., professor at Brock University, said “The research suggests that the development of sexual orientation is influenced before birth.”
other researchers have said:
“Potential for homosexual response is prevalent and genetic,” Santtila P et. al.; Department of Psychology, Abo Akademi University.
“Genetic investigations provide strong evidence for a heritable component to male and female sexual orientation,” Rahman Q et. al.; School of Psychology, University of East London.
“Genetic research using family and twin methodologies has produced consistent evidence that genes influence sexual orientation,” Mustanski BS et. al.; Department of Psychology, Indiana University.
“The survival of a human predisposition for homosexuality can be explained by sexual orientation being a polygenetic trait that is influenced by a number of genes,” Miller EM.; University of New Orleans.
“Human sexual orientation has a heritable component,” Pillard RC et. al.; Department of Psychiatry, Boston University School of Medicine.
The second you use an ad hominem attack (“bigot”) you lose the debate, regardless of the strength of your argument.
When your NAME is an ad hominem attack, what follows doesn’t matter.
My sense is, if we go down this road, which group is next for exclusion? Pedophile priests? Adulterers? Fornicators? Non church members?
‘Council for Responsible Genetics:
“The scientific argument for a biological basis for sexual orientation remains weak. The political argument that it will bolster gay pride or prevent homophobic bigotry runs counter to experience. The lesbian, gay, and bisexual community does not need to have its “deviance” tolerated because its members were born “that way” and “cannot help it.”‘
You, my friend need to learn the difference between genetic predisposition and genetic predetermination.
Remember, when they call you:
Bigot
Homophobe
Hateful
And Heterosexist
That means they can’t refute what you’re saying, so they are trying to shame you into silence.
Replace “Black” with “pro-NAMBLA rally,” or “anti-welfare rally,” and see if you’re still in favor of it. We all have our hot buttons; do you really want to be compelled to support with your actions something you can’t abide?
It’s good to know you haven’t gotten any smarter here at MDN.
Ta.
adios, bitchacho.
Going somewhere Bigot-Bot?
GOOD, we are sick of your drivel anyway..
you’re Truth about like I’m Suzanne Somers.
Now I get you, all your misguided rage and hatred is fueled by your own self-loathing. Still trying to come to grips with the fact that you are gay and do not know how to come out.
It’s OK Suzy-Bot, you will get through this. Maybe you just need a nice older man to show you the ropes?
I hear Tom Delay is outta jail these days….
While I’m not gay, I’m certainly festive.
re adios, bitchacho
How much pissy negativity can one person squeeze into two words? If only those words were you saying ‘goodbye’, botvijerk.
Sean, you will be flattered to know I use you as a reverse moral barometer: if you’re constantly whining about me, that’s how I know I am on the right track. Thank you so much for your guidance.
Why can’t you make all your actual points, and just leave off the all too frequent name-calling and insulting?
There’s no good answer. There’s certainly no POSITIVE justification. The only answers would seem to be variations on that you’re just a nasty, pissy-minded little shit – as one person put it, “a cancer on this forum”.
once again, with feeling:
hypocrisy |hiˈpäkrisē|
noun ( pl. hypocrisies )
the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform; pretense.
ORIGIN Middle English: from Old French ypocrisie, via ecclesiastical Latin, from Greek hupokrisis ‘acting of a theatrical part,’ from hupokrinesthai ‘play a part, pretend,’ from hupo ‘under’ + krinein ‘decide, judge.’
once again with feeling:
If you’d just stop being a nasty little jerk, then I’d have nothing to say to you or about you.
You remind me of Peter Lorre’s character in Casablanca:
LORRE: “You don’t think much of me, do you Rick?”
BOGART: “If I thought about you at all, probably not.”
Typical ChrissyOne. When a point is refuted and you have no response, make an ad hominem attack, drop the mike, and leave.
Thank you for conceding the argument.
Drop by again some time, ChrissyOne. The lads miss your stick-in-the-spokes vitality.
Think of this scenario…
What if…
I belong to a not so small religion that operates in all 50 U.S. states and many other countries.
That religion actively puts forth that all peoples of African decent are direct descendants of Cain (the personage in the “standard” Christian Bible) and thus are inherently “unclean” and “sinful”. Therefore, in order for me lead as pure a life as possible I must not be associated with or have any dealings with them in any way, shape or form. Therefore I must not allow them to be served in my establishment or even be allowed to come into it.
Can I, under the guise of this law — or at least a very simple extrapolation to it — refuse service and even entrance into my establishment to persons of African decent because of my strong religious beliefs with such beliefs clearly codified by my religion?
How far do you think that will get you today? Why do you think that LGBT issues should be any different?
(((And, before anyone says this is a purely hypothetical scenario this WAS the case with a not so small religion in the U.S. up until about 35 years ago with regard to people of African decent. Why would anyone think it cannot happen with regard to fit the LGBT groups?)))
I will say your example is purely hypothetical because the religion you speak of has had members of African descent since it was established in 1830. Well maybe the first Black member joined a few years later, but your characterization about “leading as pure a life as possible by not associating with Blacks” is purely hypothetical, untrue, and misleading. As I recall, the State of Utah never had segregated wash rooms, either.
However, the point you and others are trying to make is good. Will this law lead to segregated washrooms for straights and LGBT’s? I hope so.
We have a bold bigot here, no hiding behind religion for this one, he just plain hates and hopes for segregation. Duly noted.
BTW there is a country in Africa that thinks just like you do, maybe you would be happier there?
BTW, I don’t mind segregated washrooms for boys and girls. Maybe you have different feelings about that. Is there is a word for people with those kinds of feelings? Pervert comes to mind.
Your name calling is so meaningless and laughable since you seem to call everyone a bigot.
not just a mere bigot, but BOLD bigot!
Several points to make here.
First, the fact that that “dogma” of that religion was changed speaks very loudly about the validity, or lack thereof, of that religion.
Second, it is currently the law in the USA that there is compelling public interest which would override public behavior matching what this religion would mandate. I don’t necessarily think that this is an unmitigated good thing, but when such discrimination is institutionalized to the point where a person of the class being discriminated against cannot get services ANYWHERE without unreasonable burden, the public interest becomes involved. One cannot simultaneously hold “All men are created equal before God,” and “blacks are inherently evil” as truths; and the same goes for homosexuals.
This does not mean that I am required to support Klan rallies (or lynchings), Black Panther rallies (or arson parties), or gay rallies, or gay “weddings” (or violent gay acts, for that matter). If I believe that my services would be supporting or facilitating something which I believe to be immoral, I have an obligation to decline to provide those services, and Caesar has no right to compel me to provide them.
I work at American Express which has 6,000 employees in Phoenix. They also sent Brewer a letter asking her to veto the bill.
Apple should just pull ther new factory out of Phoenix now and be done with it.
No way. There’s still a chance that Brewer will do the right thing and veto.
Also where are all the loud mouth and ignorant Limbaugh supporters normally seen here? Guess they kept their traps shut for once.
Pretty sure even not Limbaugh would not support this. But he has surprised me before…
It’s because the loud mouth, ignorant anti Limbaugh people like you can not listen to reason and logic.
Yes because discriminating against someone for being different than you is reasonable.
Logic dictates that to feel this way makes you a BIGOT.
Congress is to pass “no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” … and that rule is made applicable to the States by the 14th Amendment. To deny someone access to commerce based upon religious objections of the commerce operator respects an establishment of religion.
No, it doesn’t, because it’s not the government mandating the denial. In fact, it’s denial of free exercise of religion because the provider of the services is bound by the rules of his religious beliefs to refrain from providing services to events which promote something contrary to his religion. This is the problem with ChrissyOne’s quibble – I would happily provide services to a black person, but not to a Black Panther rally; I would happily provide (and have provided) services to gay people, but not to a same-sex “wedding.”
SOMEONE WHO GETS IT.
C1, pay attention.
Providing a service for hire, AKA selling a wedding cake is NOT promoting something, nor does it implicitly imply approval for how the product is used.
You are twisting words and logic in a pitiful attempt to defend your bigotry and unfair treatment of others. PERIOD.
Selling a cake is selling a cake is selling a cake, it implies you make and sell CAKE. Got it? Why do you care how the cake is used?
Face it, you are just a bigot, without the balls to be who you are without hiding behind religion. It’s fine if you want to be a bigot, just don’t get mad and make shit up when we a point out what a narrow minded asshole that makes you.
Remember, when they call you:
Bigot
Homophobe
Hateful
And Heterosexist
That means they can’t refute what you’re saying, so they are trying to shame you into silence.
First, your moniker is wrong. You should fix it.
Second, if I am providing a service – as opposed to selling someone a pre-baked cake, which I agree should not be covered here; if it’s on the shelf and for sale, I should sell it to anyone who wants to buy it – then it is not a commodity, but something personal; I have a right to refuse SERVICE, though not PRODUCTS.
Third, you should get familiar with the definition of “for hire.” This doesn’t mean that I am obligated to provide these services to anyone, but that I am willing to entertain requests for those services; nothing obligates me to accept such requests.
Fourth, you apparently wouldn’t know logic if it bit you.
You missed the part about “…prohibiting the free exercise of”.
One’s refusal to support same-sex marriage as a part of my religion is just such an exercise.
And ‘an establishment of religion’…meant no government supported state church.
You completely have no idea what you’re talking about.
I’m sorry, but when you decide to go into the service industry, you have to leave your faith behind if it would have you pick and choose which customers you will service when the justification for refusing service comes under the protection of federal and state laws that protect classes of citizens. It’s as simple as that. If your faith doesn’t allow you to do that, then you should not enter the service industry. Seriously, the wording on this bill is so vague. All anyone has to do to defend their refusal to provide service is to claim that their faith prevents their doing so. That’s it. Prove it? How does one prove such a thing? A hotel would be allowed to pick and choose to whom it will rent their rooms, based on the owner’s “faith”. A restaurant could refuse service to anyone based on the owner’s “faith”. The example given, that of a photographer, or a baker, is innocent enough on the face of it, but where does it end? It doesn’t. It’s complete BS. She’d damned well better veto it. What a bunch of friggin’ loonies there are in this country.
And the group of people who support this legislation claim that they’re looking for others to respect their faith and beliefs. It’s very simple. If this is the way your faith and beliefs would have you behave, don’t provide services to anyone. Get out of the industry.
Would you kindly point out where in the Constitution it says that I give up my rights by going into business, or where I am obligated to accept business which facilitates that which is contrary to my religion?
I thought not.
I’m not sure what rights you’re talking about. Are you talking about the right to discriminate based on creed, nationality, color of skin, or other protected classes under the law? Is that the right that you’re talking about? I’m sorry, but the Constitution doesn’t say that you give up those “rights” by going into business. You never had them.
No, that’s not the right I’m talking about. I’m talking about my right to not support an event that exemplifies something contrary to my religious beliefs; in other words, my right to free exercise of my religion.
Now answer my question.
Are you stupid or just obtuse?
What does **ANY** characteristic of your person, lifestyle, have to do with buying something? What right does a seller of widgets have to your personal lifestyle choices, baring issues of legality IE, selling a gun to a felon?
Are you really advocating for business to have some big brother like control of EVERYONE’s lives? If you sell widgets for $5 ea, and I have ten dollars you don’t want my money because what again? What an ignorant argument..
One last point for you high and mighty moral souls, will these businesses be providing services to divorced catholics that have not had a church annulment? How about un married hetero couples living together? are they not also sinners? Can you not see the inherit hypocrisy and insanity of your position?
What happens when there is one grocery store within a hundred miles and they don’t sell groceries to “sinners” should those people starve?
You bigots are so stupid and small minded, then again, I guess that makes you who you are doesn’t it?
Remember, when they call you:
Bigot
Homophobe
Hateful
And Heterosexist
That means they can’t refute what you’re saying, so they are trying to shame you into silence.
There you go with that inaccurate moniker again; please don’t project your problems onto me.
I have said nothing about not providing products to people; I have said that I would not provide SERVICES in support of EVENTS which exemplify something contrary to my religious beliefs.
So if there were an event for divorced Catholics without an annulment (or for unmarried persons) which encouraged them to sleep around, yes, I would decline to provide services for it; or for NAMBLA events; or for other objectionable events.
Why is it that you can’t recognize that you are arguing against assertions that no one is making? Shadow boxing might be fun, but if you think you’re hitting someone, you’re deluding yourself.
I wanna marry my dog, please don’t discriminate against me 🙂
Can your dog indicate informed consent? Does it have legal standing?
No? Then the argument is pointless as a comparison yes?
I warned you about getting involved with that bitch.
I wonder if businesses that have the sign ‘We reserved the right to refuse service to anyone’ at their counters should be considered illegal? Because couldn’t they refuse service, if say, they don’t like the way you look, or they don’t like your ethnicity, based on that sign?
This.
As a business you have the right to refuse service to individuals. You do not have the right to refuse service to certain groups of people. Refusing to serve someone because of their ethnicity is a violation of the law.
If straight person wanted me to bake a cake for a SSM, I’d still say no.
I do want my products going to events that I don’t support.
What’s your responsibility about telling anyone why you are refusing to serve them though?
OK, those of you who are against SB 1062 because you don’t believe that people’s religious beliefs have a place in business – here’s a way to prove that you really support your point.
Find a caterer who advertises that they are a “halal” caterer, and demand that they provide ham sandwiches, pork ribs, and cheeseburgers for your party, and when they refuse sue them for discriminating against you because of their religious beliefs. If you agree in writing to do this, and to follow through, I’ll provide some financial support for the party for the first person willing to sign such an agreement.
Or, alternatively, you can point out how this is any different from a Christian refusing to do things that contradict HIS religion.
It’s a nice idea. So, as you see it, any business should be able to list the “events”, that they deem worthy of their endeavors, or, probably to be more complete, those “events” they deem unworthy of their endeavors. Just post the sign, or come up with names for the sets of events, like “Gay”. We don’t support “Gay Events”. Having a catered luncheon with employees, some of whom are gay? Sorry, we won’t cater it. Cool world. And all brought to you by faith. It’s a wonderful thing, faith.
That’s where the marketplace kicks in. It’s also wonderful.
Replace Gay with Black and tell me again where the “market-place” was. Seems to me they just hung signs and operated separate washrooms.
One minute you guys are all about your faith, your religion, your god’s commandments. Now you are worshiping the false idol that is “the market-place”. The market-place is the savior!!
If you actually think sexual attraction is comparable to skin colour then you really are off your rocker.
And you need to learn the difference between discriminating against an event, versus a person.
If a straight person asked me to bake a cake for a SSM, I’s still say no.
Get it?
Except when it doesn’t. In San Francisco, the market place would effortlessly kick in and the customer would easily find other alternatives. In Billings, Montana? Not necessarily; if there is only ONE caterer that makes gluten-free wedding cakes, and they happen to profess their deep religious belief, the people who their religion does not approve of have no way of getting their wedding cake.
1) we’re in Arizona, not Montana.
2) then there is an untapped market. Someone can open a shop that caters to SSM. Or hire someone’s mom or aunt to bake one.
Marketplace 101
If they are advertising as a halal caterer, they provide halal meats. They don’t provide other meats and never suggested that they do. In the same way, I can’t go into a bakery or a fish market and demand that they provide me with a ham sandwich. They don’t sell them and aren’t required to just because I demand one.
On the other hand, if the bakery sells wedding cakes, it cannot refuse to sell one to interracial couples, even if the owner has sincere and strongly held religious principles against miscegenation. If the photographer sells photographic services, the same principle applies.
Don’t bother pointing out that race and sexual orientation are different things. The Arizona bill applies equally to both. The issue is whether a business that holds itself out as providing services to the public can refuse to do so based on the would-be customer’s membership in a suspect class.
Well mr false-equivelence, iIn my experience ALL caterers have a menu of items they provide, some specialize in a specific item or type of food, and many will not deviate from their menu offerings just because you want bologna roll-ups.
If they do not sell ham, they do not sell ham. If you want ham, find someone who specializes in ham. If the cake maker only makes chocolate cake, doesn’t matter what color, religion or otherwise, you are not getting vanilla cake there. Your poor analogy doesn’t work.
Here we go again.
Those who forget the past…
lol.
LL Cool Snoop Santayana.
How to watch your brother die
For Carl Morse©
~~Michael Lassell
When the call comes, be calm.
Say to your wife, “My brother is dying. I have to fly
to California.”
Try not to be too shocked that he already looks like
a cadaver.
Say to the young man sitting by your brother’s side,
“I’m his brother.”
Try not to be shocked when the young man says,
“I’m his lover. Thanks for coming.”
Listen to the doctor with a steel face on.
Sign the necessary forms.
Tell the doctor you will take care of everything.
Wonder why doctors are so remote.
Watch the lover’s eyes as they stare into
your brother’s eyes as they stare into
space.
Wonder what they see there.
Remember the time he was jealous and
opened your eyebrow with a sharp stick.
Forgive him out loud
even if he can’t
understand you.
Realize the scar will be
all that’s left of him.
Over coffee in the hospital cafeteria
say to the lover, “You’re an extremely good-looking
young man.”
Hear him say,
“I never thought I was good enough looking to
deserve your brother.”
Watch the tears well up in his eyes. Say,
“I’m sorry. I don’t know what it means to be
the lover of another man.”
Hear him say,
“It’s just like a wife, only the commitment is
deeper because the odds against you are so much
greater.”
Say nothing, but
take his hand like a brother’s.
Drive to Mexico for unproven drugs that might
help him live longer.
Explain what they are to the border guard.
Fill with rage when he informs you,
“You can’t bring those across.”
Begin to grow loud.
Feel the lover’s hand on your arm
restraining you. See in the guard’s eye
how much a man can hate another man.
Say to the lover, “How can you stand it?”
Hear him say, “You get used to it.”
Think of one of your children getting used to
another man’s hatred.
Call your wife on the telephone. Tell her,
“He hasn’t much time.
I’ll be home soon.” Before you hang up say,
“How could anyone’s committment be deeper than
a husband and wife?” Hear her say,
“Please. I don’t want to know the details.”
When he slips into an irrevocable coma,
hold his lover in your arms while he sobs,
no longer strong. Wonder how much longer
you will be able to be strong.
Feel how it feels to hold a man in your arms
whose arms are used to holding men.
Offer God anything to bring your brother back.
Know you have nothing God could possibly want.
Curse God, but do not
abandon Him.
Stare at the face of the funeral director
when he tells you he will not
embalm the body for fear of
contamination. Let him see in your eyes
how much a man can hate another man.
Stand beside a casket covered in flowers,
white flowers. Say,
“Thank you for coming,” to each of the several hundred
men
who file past in tears, some of them
holding hands. Know that your brother’s life
was not what you imagined. Overhear two
mourners say, “I wonder who’ll be next?” and
“I don’t care anymore,
as long as it isn’t you.”
Arrange to take an early flight home.
His lover will drive you to the airport.
When your flight is announced say,
awkwardly, “If I can do anything, please
let me know.” Do not flinch when he says,
“Forgive yourself for not wanting to know him
after he told you. He did.”
Stop and let it soak in. Say,
“He forgave me, or he knew himself?”
“Both,” the lover will say, not knowing what else
to do. Hold him like a brother while he
kisses you on the cheek. Think that
you haven’t been kissed by a man since
your father died. Think,
“This is no moment not to be strong.”
Fly first class and drink Scotch. Stroke
your split eyebrow with a finger and
think of your brother alive. Smile
at the memory and think
how your children will feel in your arms,
warm and friendly and without challenge.
Galatians 3:28 :
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Luke 6:20-8:3 :
And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said: “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. “Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you shall be satisfied. “Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh. “Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man! Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven; for so their fathers did to the prophets. “But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation.
Do you really think that anyone will bother reading through your post? I’m sorry, but it is really way, way too long. I’m sure you wanted to make a powerful point, but it will be lost on pretty much everyone here. Which is probably a shame, since (judging by the ending), you put a lot of effort into it…
It’s one poem and two verses from the bible in total. I’m quite fine with the thought of people not bothering to read it. It’s simply a viewpoint that hasn’t been expressed yet from the comments posted above it. I’m not going to judge others because they don’t have the attention span to grasp it. I’m truly fine with that… But thanks for your concern.
The summary:
It’s easy to judge people in a hypocritical way when they aren’t walking in their shoes.
I read the whole thing and rather liked it.
There is one fundamental problem here with this whole debate, and it hasn’t been touched upon by anyone yet.
There is a fundamental difference between being asked (or forced) to do something that is against the rules of someone’s faith (for example, officiate at a same-sex wedding, or assist in, or perform termination of pregnancy, or assist, or perform euthanasia, etc), and selling a product, or providing a service to someone who happens to lead a lifestyle that is in conflict with the rules of one’s faith.
Selling a cake to someone is NOT the same as officiating at that person’s wedding. A wedding cake does NOT confer the status of marriage on anyone; it is a dessert that people eat after their main meal, and it is usually consumed at a social function that follows a civil or religious ceremony. The dinner itself, though, is NEVER part of the ceremony, and can never be construed as such. Claiming that selling wedding cake for a same-sex wedding violates religious belief is a massive stretch and cannot possibly be acceptable in reasonable societies.
If the wedding planner just neglected to mention the fact to the caterer, and the caterer later found out that their cake was eaten by people who had several hours earlier attended a wedding ritual between two people of same sex, exactly HOW would this person have the right to feel “violated” (religiously)?
TL;DR 😉
/s
Good point, but bringing logic to a religious debate is like bringing a penny to a knife fight.
Wouldn’t they figure it out when they were asked to put a tiny same-sex couple on top of the cake?
There are protections that need to be provided for everyone. There is a difference between refusing to serve a person (a meal in your restaurant, for example), and not being compelled to be part of an event that grieves your heart for reasons of faith. Anyone who has known the grace of God toward their own sin, cannot possibly look down on anyone else. No christian can rightly refuse to serve a meal to someone they disagree with (we are commanded to love and feed our neighbours and even those who count us as their enemies). I do not believe the constitution, however, supports forcing someone to provide a service such as photographing, catering or officiating at a same-sex marriage, if it grieves their heart to do so, and the not wanting to be part of the event for them is an act of love for these individuals, not hate. Christians cannot lawfully (US or God’s law) act abusively or hatefully. The law ought not force everyone to have the same opinion on this matter of same-sex marriage. It should protect all from violence and abuse against their persons. I can see that some would argue that not wanting to participate in a same-sex wedding, for example as the officiating pastor, is abusing the couple – but it may be done out of love. There are no doubt those who call themselves christians (and have been through history) who hate and do violence against others (e.g. the KKK – their actions show they are not christians) – this is not christian and is rightly illegal. We are in a legal position now of potentially doing violence against a person’s heart-held and heart-felt faith – something the government is prohibited in the constitution from doing. This is a delicate area, and everyone must be protected. A christian should have no problem being the friend of and caring for gay men and women – they should be able to express that friendship in honesty, and not participate in a wedding out of love, not hate.
Quick example, many years ago I knew a young women, who was a professing christian who was getting married to a non-christian (the pastor’s son) – something the scriptures indicate a christian should not do (yes, I know many will feel this is small-minded – but again, it is a matter of faith – therefore, beyond the reach of the constitutional government). The pastor and most of the church members, who had known both of these young people since they were born, wrote loving letters to them explaining to them why they could not be part of their wedding. It was not a matter of hatred; it was not a matter of pride; it was not a matter of racism – for them it was a matter of faith and love. I will not get into the end of the story, except to say it was a very happy ending – especially for the young people involved.
The law should not allow faith to be used as an excuse a reason to do violence to others; neither should it overstep its bounds and say that we must act against conscience. Refusing to participate in a same-sex wedding should be done in a respectful, loving manner. Both parties should be shown respect by the law.
“The law should not allow faith to be used as an excuse a reason to do violence to others”
By the logic of this proposed law, why not? If it’s a “sincerely held religious belief” how can someone propose to say that some such beliefs are okay and others are not. The whole argument for this law hinges on “sincerely held”.
It would be arrogant in the extreme to say that the sincere beliefs of just a very particular religion allow breaking what is otherwise the law, while the sincere beliefs of another religion give no excuse.