Arizona's new anti-gay law.

[Elok]

So . . . if you remove the bit about public employees, what's the problem? Won't gay people and their straight allies simply take their business elsewhere?

[rah]

It technically could lead to EVERY restaurant denying service. Similar to when whites did it to blacks. Yes, back then there were white diners and black diners. Do we really want to go back to that type of mentality.

[DinoDoc]

It technically could lead to EVERY restaurant denying service.

You base this on what exactly? The most likely result is that a small number of observant Christians decide to take advantage.

Similar to when whites did it to blacks.

To use the examples that touched off this episode, is there only one photographer or bakery in the town? When did the cry of "leave us alone" become a demand to "bake us a cake"?

[Elok]

In the case of photographers or bakers, it just doesn't make sense to push it in the first place. You don't want grudging service under those circumstances. Weddings are stressful enough as it is, without having to coerce the help.

[Elok]

I don't like the law, but I think there has to be some level of compromise here. When it comes to chasing the gays out of your restaurant, that's silly; no reasonable person would construe letting them eat your burgers as approval of their lifestyle. But something directly related to the relationship--like wedding services, or marriage counseling, for example--I can see the point of drawing the line there.

[Kidlicious]

"No soup for you!"

I don't know if anyone said that yet.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So . . . if you remove the bit about public employees, what's the problem? Won't gay people and their straight allies simply take their business elsewhere?

Over the last 50 years, the country has decided that some classes of people are subject to egregious discrimination and therefore are protected against discrimination in the legal process (or there is at least a higher standard to pass a law against them). Initially it was race, color, national origin, and religion. Since then we've added a few others (the last few have been Veterans, Disability, Genetic Information, Pregnancy, etc). There is a move to include Sexual Orientation as a protected class due to the discrimination that has been visited to those who have the "wrong" sexual orientation (and the decision in U.S. v. Windsor alluded to a potential higher standards in the matter). This is a move that I am highly in favor of.

[DinoDoc]

Over the last 50 years, the country has decided that some classes of people are subject to egregious discrimination and therefore are protected against discrimination in the legal process (or there is at least a higher standard to pass a law against them). Initially it was race, color, national origin, and religion. Since then we've added a few others (the last few have been Veterans, Disability, Genetic Information, Pregnancy, etc). There is a move to include Sexual Orientation as a protected class due to the discrimination that has been visited to those who have the "wrong" sexual orientation (and the decision in U.S. v. Windsor alluded to a potential higher standards in the matter). This is a move that I am highly in favor of.

This looks like a lot of words to say that homosexuality isn't a protected class right now.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The Lord willing, it is close to being there. These moronic attempted laws in Arizona, et all, may be the final shove.

[Ben Kenobi]

The Lord willing, it is close to being there. These moronic attempted laws in Arizona, et all, may be the final shove.

For whom? Forcing Christians to act against their faith isn't going to work. I thought gay people were all about 'respect', but it's obvious now that's not the case. If you disagree with them they will try to destroy you and your livelihood.

Push people hard enough - put them out of business, what's going to happen to that person, and that person's family? Are they going to be supportive of the 'movement?' No.

They are going to make forever enemies.

[Ben Kenobi]

But something directly related to the relationship--like wedding services, or marriage counseling, for example--I can see the point of drawing the line there.

A business can kick someone out if they are being disruptive. The owner does have the right to refuse service. A wedding photographer isn't required to accept every job thrown at them, they do have the right to say no.

If you take away the right to say no, you also take away the right to say yes.

[Ben Kenobi]

When did the cry of "leave us alone" become a demand to "bake us a cake"?

When gay people learned that they could destroy others with impunity. That's all this is, they think they can get away with this, and with bringing the law down on these folks and they are probably right about that, folks are willing to give them a pass, because they hate the other side more.

That's really all it is, and it's especially bad when you've got folks who claim to be Christians (rah, Imran), crying for Barabbas. But you had Jews like that too with Christ.

[Ben Kenobi]

Besides, this law is not really about "religious freedom." It's about hatred and bigotry when you peel away the layers of rhetoric.

Do you believe that opposition to fornication is motivated by hatred and bigotry?

[Ben Kenobi]

Any kind of segregation of a minority group sanctioned by the state is reminiscent, to varying degrees, of Jim Crow laws with Jim Crow laws obviously having been far more pervasive and systematic. Segregation does not have to be based on race.

Does a Christian group have the right to bar manifest sinners from participation?

[Elok]

Over the last 50 years, the country has decided that some classes of people are subject to egregious discrimination and therefore are protected against discrimination in the legal process (or there is at least a higher standard to pass a law against them). Initially it was race, color, national origin, and religion. Since then we've added a few others (the last few have been Veterans, Disability, Genetic Information, Pregnancy, etc). There is a move to include Sexual Orientation as a protected class due to the discrimination that has been visited to those who have the "wrong" sexual orientation (and the decision in U.S. v. Windsor alluded to a potential higher standards in the matter). This is a move that I am highly in favor of.

I can see the general sense of it, but in this case there are clearly points in which this conflicts with religious liberty. I actually have heard of a case where a marriage counselor got censured for refusing to counsel a lesbian couple--was she supposed to spend hours and hours acting against her conscience, or just find a whole different career so she wouldn't offend a small minority of potential clients? There needs to be some sensible wiggle room here.