Arizona's new anti-gay law.

[rah]

Do you really believe that 85% of americans agree that you should be able to deny service based on color, religious believes, sex, or sexual preference.

Hopeless.

[MrFun]

Although Arizona Governor Brewer vetoed the hate bill, some politicians and business leaders are saying that the damage has already been done.

For instance, the Hispanic National Bar Association said they would not have their national convention in Phoenix in 2015, because their lawyers are committed to equal rights. Not sure how much money Phoenix will be losing out on because of this, but I'm sure it's substantial if the mayor of Phoenix is concerned about this.

There were also at least three airlines that expressed concern and called for the veto, as they did not want any of their employees or customers who may happen to be gay to be humiliated by unfair discrimination.

[rah]

It was probably the prospect of losing the super bowl that tipped the scales.

[MrFun]

It was probably the prospect of losing the super bowl that tipped the scales.

That too.

[DinoDoc]

Coming soon to the US:

Woman denied haircut, files human rights complaint

Barbers in Toronto who refused to cut a woman’s hair have become the target of a human rights complaint, in a case that pits religious freedom against gender equality.

When Faith McGregor went into the Terminal Barber Shop requesting a short haircut, she was told the shop only grooms men.

The reason, co-owner Omar Mahrouk said, was that as a Muslim he could not cut the hair of a woman who was not related to him.

But for McGregor, the rejection of her patronage amounted to sexism.

“Fundamentally, my hair is the same as their male clients, so why would they have a problem with that,” she told CTV News.

“I felt like a second class citizen, like it was hard to hear that they refused and there was no discussion."

So the 35-year-old filed a complaint with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

Under the law, business owners aren’t supposed to discriminate based on gender, but Mahrouk felt he had religious rights.

A lawyer for the owners also says in their defence they've only ever trained to cut men's hair and that they'd bought a barbershop on the expectation they would only have to serve male clientele.

The Terminal bills itself as “the oldest standing barber shop in Toronto,” offering haircuts, massages and hot lather shaves “in a classic barber shop setting,” since 1925.

Its client list includes former prime minister Paul Martin and actor Woody Harrelson, who can be seen posing with the owners in a photograph on the shop’s website.

Some are standing behind the barbershop’s owners, pointing out that there are women-only spas and gyms.

“If I wanted to have a specialized business geared just towards men that wanted hot razor shaves and cuts, why not,” said Sean Gibson of the Ontario Barber Association.

But McGregor disagrees and is hoping to force the shop to service women too.

Her case goes to mediation in the new year.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/woman-...aint-1.1040609

[Elok]

This is the downside of rights; everything they touch turns into a raging battle with no room for sense, compromise or reasonable accommodation. I AM ENTITLED, YOU WANKER! NO MATTER HOW NEGLIGIBLE THE HARM DONE, YOU WILL YIELD! RARRRR!

[Elok]

I mean, seriously: relations with wedding photographers can be deeply unpleasant even when they aren't being forced to serve against their will. What is the point of this?

Also that cake will have a significant amount of human mucus in it. Guaranteed.

[MrFun]

It would absolutely be horrible for so-called "Christians" to treat others the way they themselves would like to be treated.

[regexcellent]

The man is muslim you ****ing ******.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I mean, seriously: relations with wedding photographers can be deeply unpleasant even when they aren't being forced to serve against their will. What is the point of this?

Also that cake will have a significant amount of human mucus in it. Guaranteed.

So, basically we're going to make laws or decisions on a case by case basis? Yeah, that'll go over well.

Forget the wedding cake for a moment, but consider it was a right wing Christian gas station owner, in West Texas, where gas stations can be very few and far between. Or a hotel owner in a rural area. Gay couple is low on gas in the middle of night, or wants to sleep for the night. They are refused...

Or do you have different accommodation laws for cake makers and hoteliers? Have fun with that.

[Aeson]

I mean, seriously: relations with wedding photographers can be deeply unpleasant even when they aren't being forced to serve against their will. What is the point of this?

Also that cake will have a significant amount of human mucus in it. Guaranteed.

Far better for the business to be able to brand themselves as bigots. That way the gay man can take his beard with him to buy the cake, get pictures of the baker making the deal with the husband, the cake being cut by the happy couple ... then "expose" the baker as being gay-friendly on various Christian forums across the internet.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Far better for the business to be able to brand themselves as bigots. That way the gay man can take his beard with him to buy the cake, get pictures of the baker making the deal with the husband, the cake being cut by the happy couple ... then "expose" the baker as being gay-friendly on various Christian forums across the internet.

Well, something like that has been kind of done already:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/30/sweet-cakes-by-melissa-oregon_n_3355314.html

An Oregon bakery that refused to make a cake for a lesbian wedding readily agreed to do business with an undercover reporter who pretended to be hosting a variety of events social conservatives often find offensive, according to an alternative weekly paper in Oregon.

"I was wondering if you could do two little cakes. My friend is a researcher at OHSU and she just got a grant for cloning human stem cells, so I thought I’d get her two identical cakes—basically, two little clone cakes. How much would they cost?" the covert reporter asked an employee at Sweet Cakes By Melissa in Gresham, Ore.

“Ha. All right. When are you looking to do it? It’ll be $25.99 each, so about $50 to start," a bakery employee told the reporter, according to The Willamette Week.

In addition to agreeing to make a cake for a "pagan solstice party" (the reporter requested a pentagram of icing on the cake), Sweet Cakes also agreed to make custom cakes for a divorce party and a party for a woman who'd had multiple babies out of wedlock, the paper notes.

So, it isn't that they are Christian, rather that they hate gays and want to discriminate against them in violation of Oregon law.

[MrFun]

So, basically we're going to make laws or decisions on a case by case basis? Yeah, that'll go over well.

Forget the wedding cake for a moment, but consider it was a right wing Christian gas station owner, in West Texas, where gas stations can be very few and far between. Or a hotel owner in a rural area. Gay couple is low on gas in the middle of night, or wants to sleep for the night. They are refused...

Or do you have different accommodation laws for cake makers and hoteliers? Have fun with that.

[Zevico]

Wow, I never knew the First Amendment was anti-gay.

[Elok]

Or do you have different accommodation laws for cake makers and hoteliers? Have fun with that.

How about a general rule that says: if providing a vital, non-replaceable service, you can't deny it. If providing a luxury, fine. Individual cases to be decided based on precedent and individual circumstances with an eye to harm actually done, same as everything else in the law. If we can have a tax code that provides exemptions for left-handed iguana breeders, we can allow cranks to be cranky if they hurt nothing but feelings.

EDIT: There's a clear spectrum here, from "gay couple stranded in the middle of nowhere"--serious harm done--to "gay couple can't get a wedding cake from one particular baker"--negligible harm done. Then there's cases like the marriage counselor I mentioned (was it this thread?), where freedom of conscience is unambiguously violated. The sensible response is for the law to be discerning, and only stomp on serious violations. Which are presumptively pretty rare, because gays are not currently protected, MrFun posts on here every time a gay guy stubs his toe, and we haven't heard about the Gas Station Lunatics yet. But perhaps that's just because most gay couples don't routinely make out in front of strange gas station clerks, so they're taken for friends or brothers?