Arizona's new anti-gay law.

[DinoDoc]

Wouldn't that also apply to the Christians objecting to paying for contraception coverage?

Not a tax.

[Berzerker]

Wouldn't that also apply to the Christians objecting to paying for contraception coverage?

Yes, albeit organized religions cannot account for personal differences of opinion... Some people try to avoid taxes during wars because they feel complicit.

As YOU said:

They're in the same boat as everyone on that. Now I'm sure Quakers feel their religious liberty is being violated, it is... Everyone's religious liberty is being violated. Thats one of the reasons the Constitution tried to limit the violations to a few powers "necessary & proper" for running the country. These include waging wars and raising revenue to pay for them. But Christians have an out, Jesus told them to render unto Caesar. Might be different if those Christians vote for the people waging the wars, render doesn't mean apply for the job.

[rah]

So if a gay bar were to decline service, you'd be arguing that they need to prominently display the rainbow flag or face closure. This is contrary to freedom of conscience, and to freedom of association, both rights guaranteed by the constitution.

You're on the wrong side of history here, rah. I thought you were a supporter of the cause. Apparently not!

And you're a ****ing idiot, so what. That fact that you think that was clever is further proof.

YEAH, if they're making a big deal about denying service, I'd have no problems making them display a sign that says we're gay so if you're Christians don't bother asking for a drink.
People should have to openly display their bigoted tendencies so others can mock them and hopefully shame them into being actual caring human beings. Caring, forgiving and loving beings like Jesus wanted us to be.


Find a few instances where gays are denying to provide services to Christians because they're Christians and get back to us. (and not just because they're asses because as stated, I have no problem with that)


What a moron.

[DinoDoc]

Bill vetoed.

[Berzerker]

those evil corporations got involved

[rah]

Bill vetoed.

There is some sanity. Does this put ben on the wrong side of history?

[MrFun]

Religious liberty isn't the issue here. At least for me. Property rights are. Does a private business have a right to choose its customers and vendors or not?

For the sake of argument, lets assume that you (as a gay man) have a successful print shop and the Westboro Church comes into town and wants you to print flyers for a protest they are doing in town. Are you obligated to take the contract? Why/why not?

First off, you very well know that the proponents of this hate bill put it through as a religious rights bill. Your focus on business rights is a red herring.

Second, are the Westboro group members of a historically oppressed and discriminated against minority??

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

[MrFun]

for me they should have the right based on an individual. But not a general group.

Exactly.

Decide whether or not to provide service on a customer-by-customer basis, and not just because a customer belongs to a historically discriminated against minority group.

[DinoDoc]

Your focus on business rights is a red herring.

My focus on property rights is actually the only way this bill could have been justified IMO.

Second, are the Westboro group members of a historically oppressed and discriminated against minority??

Imran already told you that homosexuality isn't a protected class. But the comparison is also irrelevant because in the cases that touched off the firestorm, the owners weren't denying service to a class of people. AFAIK, none of them had a "No Fudge Packers Allowed" sign up front. They merely declined to participate in a specific type of event as should be their right to do so.

[MrFun]

My focus on property rights is actually the only way this bill could have been justified IMO.Imran already told you that homosexuality isn't a protected class. But the comparison is also irrelevant because in the cases that touched off the firestorm, the owners weren't denying service to a class of people. AFAIK, none of them had a "no gays allowed" sign up front. They merely declined to participate in a specific type of event as should be their right to do so.

And that case happened in New Mexico, where gay people in that state are legally protected against discrimination. Arizona's legislators tried passing a hate bill that was not necessary, because gay people in Arizona do not have any legal protection against discrimination.

And gay people are not considered one of the protected minority groups in America ... yet. They should be, given the history of the level of discrimination and oppression gays have suffered in America, and given the fact that all law abiding Americans of a minority group should be protected by virtue of being citizens of this country.

And you can try to avoid using derogatory hate slurs for the rest of this discussion.

[MrFun]

Anyway, I celebrate this news even if the right-wing governor vetoed it for the wrong reasons (money).

[Al B. Sure!]

MrFun, anti-discrimination laws do have the trade-off in that they limit a business owners right to determine who he sells to. It has been generally agreed upon, however, that the right to not be discriminated against based on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc. trumps business owners' property rights in this regard.

That doesn't mean that you can't recognize that a trade-off has been made.

[MrFun]

MrFun, anti-discrimination laws do have the trade-off in that they limit a business owners right to determine who he sells to. It has been generally agreed upon, however, that the right to not be discriminated against based on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc. trumps business owners' property rights in this regard.

That doesn't mean that you can't recognize that a trade-off has been made.

Well okay. Maybe the trade-off was not worth it, to make racial segregation and racial discrimination illegal.

[Al B. Sure!]

Well okay. Maybe the trade-off was not worth it, to make racial segregation and racial discrimination illegal.

Most people are in favor of that trade-off.

[MrFun]

I was being sarcastic.