Arizona's new anti-gay law.

[DaShi]

Bill vetoed.

Aw.

[notyoueither]

A business should be able to decide to refuse service - if it's not because the potential customer belongs to some minority group.

A black owned business should be able to refuse service to white people because of race?

[MrFun]

A black owned business should be able to refuse service to white people because of race?

Scratch that. Discrimination by race, including when a black person discriminates against a white person, is wrong.

[MrFun]

Ah, the good ol' days when "religious liberty" was used to justify racial segregation and anti-miscegenation laws.

[Berzerker]

so now we have GOP politicians opposing discrimination and marriage equality

[Ben Kenobi]

They merely declined to participate in a specific type of event as should be their right to do so.

Sadly, that's not the case anymore. If a potential client claims to be gay, you have to take them on. Remember what I said about special rights, not equal rights? This isn't about equality.

[Ben Kenobi]

Discrimination by race, including when a black person discriminates against a white person, is wrong.

Once again, should a black baker be forced to bake a KKKake?

[molly bloom]

Knee jerk rightwing bowel motion

Jolly good. Consider the discretionary income many gay couples unencumbered by having to support children have at their disposal. Are you really in favour of stupid business owners harming their own businesses ?

Why are you so against employers ? Are you some kind of crypto-Communist, working against capitalism ?

I strenuously yearn to find out.

[molly bloom]

Does a private business have a right to choose its customers and vendors or not?

What happens when they discover they've inadvertently served lesbians, gay men or just plain common or garden atheists ? Is there some kind of juicy punitive Biblically flavoured punishment for such backsliders ?


More to the point- when hoping to refuse service or business, how do these pointy-headed, slope-browed, saliva-dripping inbreeders aim to recognise who is or isn't gay or lesbian ?


Much as it might warm the cockles of the hearts of many a knee jerkoff Rightwinger or Christian (un)Fundamentalist, you really can't tell just from looking at us who is or isn't gay or lesbian.

[DinoDoc]

Are you really in favor of stupid business owners harming their own businesses ?

I'm in favor of freedom and see no real reason for the government to intervene in this instance.

[DinoDoc]

Much as it might warm the cockles of the hearts of many a knee jerkoff Rightwinger or Christian (un)Fundamentalist, you really can't tell just from looking at us who is or isn't gay or lesbian.

They aren't denying service to you as a class. They merely declined to participate in your weddings.

[molly bloom]

One, the Amish are exempt.

From all taxes ?

Do the Amish pay taxes?
Self-employed Amish do not pay Social Security tax. Those employed by non- Amish employers do pay Social Security tax. The Amish do pay real estate, state and federal income taxes, county taxes, sales tax, etc.

The Amish do not collect Social Security benefits, nor would they collect unemployment or welfare funds. Self sufficiency is the Amish community's answer to government aid programs. Section 310 of the Medicare section of the Social Security act has a sub-section that permits individuals to apply for exemption from the self-employment tax if he is a member of a religious body that is conscientiously opposed to Social Security benefits but that makes reasonable provision of taking care of their own elderly or dependent members. The Amish have a long history of taking care of their own members. They do not have retirement communities or nursing homes; in most cases, each family takes care of their own, and the Amish community gives assistance as needed.

http://amishreligiousfreedom.org/amishfaq.htm#tax

Case law :

This case involved a conflict between the beliefs of the Old Order Amish and government regulations on employment and Social Security. The Amish regard the care of the sick and elderly to be one of their religious obligations; as a consequence, they believe that paying Social Security taxes (designed to care for the sick and elderly) would entail acknowledging that the government had that task rather than they. Thus, paying Social Security taxes would mean denying an important aspect of their faith.

Lee, an Amish employer, employed other Amish to work on his farm and in his carpentry shop, but failed to withhold social security taxes from his employees or to pay the employer's share of such taxes. The IRS assessed him for back taxes and Lee sued, arguing that the requirement to pay Social Security taxes infringed upon his right to the free exercise of his religion.

Court Decision

Although Congress had exempted Amish employees from participation in the Social Security program in order to accommodate their religious beliefs, the Supreme Court refused to extend this exemption by allowing Amish employers to also avoid Social Security taxes. Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Burger offered two arguments as a basis for this decision. First, pointed out that the Congressional exemption was only for self-employed Amish, not Amish who employed others; therefore, that exemption could not be construed as being applicable here.

Second, although Burger agreed that Lee's religious beliefs were sincerely held, it simply was not true that all burdens on religion are necessarily unconstitutional. So long as the government can demonstrate a compelling interest, it could be permissible for it to create a limitation on religious liberty:

The tax system could not function if denominations were allowed to challenge it because tax payments were spent in a manner that violates their religious belief. Because the broad public interest in maintaining a sound tax system is of such a high order, religious belief in conflict with the payment of taxes affords no basis for resisting the tax.

Significance

Perhaps the most important point which came out of this decision was the principle that just because some law infringes upon religious liberty doesn't automatically mean that it is an unconstitutional violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Perhaps a heavier burden lies with the government to demonstrate that the infringement should be allowed, but the fact of the matter is such demonstration is possible - so long as a compelling state interest can be argued for.

http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/tax/bldec_USLee.htm

[molly bloom]

AFAIK, none of them had a "No Fudge Packers Allowed" sign up front.

Aww, I love how you demonstrate your respect for freedom of speech and other people's feelings, you sibling-shagging goggle-eyed bedwetter.

Would this mean that heterosexuals making use of the Hershey highway would be discriminated against ? How about heterosexual men who spill their seed on the ground ?

Lesbians aren't renowned for indulging in anal sex- would they get a pass ?

Desperate to know.

[molly bloom]

Remember what I said about special rights, not equal rights?

Yes, in the secular United States of America, you're in favour of them for people who believe the way you do, and if pleaded with, will even extend them to other Christian denominations of which you approve.

That's roughly it, isn't it ?

[molly bloom]

They aren't denying service to you as a class. They merely declined to participate in your weddings.

How does baking a cake force them to participate in a wedding ? Do they check to see if all the ingredients they buy for their bakery come from heterosexual owned firms only ? Or businesses which employ ONLY heterosexuals ?

The horror- some of their flour or eggs or sugar might have been handled by homos !!!!!!!