Arizona Gov. Brewer says she has vetoed bill that allows businesses to discriminate against gays

[Corki]

So you don’t have any qualms about all the Leviticus stuff involving killing people for eating shellfish, wearing the wrong clothing?

No, I have no qualms about that being in Leviticus, if that’s what you mean. The dietary laws of the ancient Jews are not relevant to this discussion at all.

Nor do I have a problem with someone who wants to follow old testament provisions by avoiding shellfish or certain clothing.

 

[Holly3278]

I would rather have that bill passed into law than allow more photographers, bakers, and florists to be forced to disobey their consciences and provide services to “gay weddings”.

 

[acarlson]

Thank God!!

This kind of discriminatory behaviour that the bill intended to advance reminds me of Jim Crow against blacks in the South, “for whites only”.

And it would have been a disaster for Arizona’s economy.

This entirely discriminatory and uncharitable bill was not the way to advance any moral values or ‘religious freedom’, or ‘speak out against sinners’. No Catholics should delude themselves about that fact.

Bravo, Governor Brewer!

Exactly! As I said on Facebook, would these people also refuse to serve adulterers? Fornicators? ANY other sinner? Because that’s what engaging in homosexual behavior is – a sin. It is not an inherent defect that makes one deserving of different treatment. One need not buy into gay “marriage” to see how wrong a bill like this is, despite the good intentions of it (and even then, I’m not sure how “good” the intentions were of those who proposed it). There are better, more appropriate ways to defend marriage and our religious consciences than a vague bill that has the wrong intentions behind it – if you’re willing to look.

 

[WKW_69]

The veto of this law makes no difference for Arizona businesses. The reason is that the State of Arizona allows the discrimination of people based on sexual orientation by not having a law protecting such people from discrimination based on sexual orientation.

I’m not saying it is right or wrong. Just pointing out this veto of that law does nothing for homosexuals.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Right wing commentators, legislators,

:dts:

:nope:

The same old tired liberal koolaid: conservatives are dumb, liberals are smart.

and even the owners themselves must have a very poor understanding of business law.

Yeah, business owners don’t know much ado about business laws.

That makes sooo much sense.

This has never been an issue of religious freedom.

It’s an issue of religious freedom for white Christian men, but I haven’t seen a gay rights activists contest refusal of service from African-American Christians, Jews or Muslims.

I guess keeping the more or less fragile left-wing voting bloc in place is too important to ruffle feathers even in the name of what is twisted as “equality”.

There is no law stating that a person cannot discriminate against x, y, or z.

I sure wish that were the case and people would let the free market work. But it’s fun and cool to be an activist, especially without fully understanding the issues.

I guess it’s the American way now, particularly for the youth.

Public accommodation laws apply to businesses not to people.

Businesses are people.

The people involved in these lawsuits, a baker in your example, were named because they are the owners of an unincorporated business. Under the law, the owners of an unincorporated business and the business itself are the same legal entity in terms of liability.

That’s bad policy. A frequent occurrence in blue states. :yup:

The owner of a business is already protected so what these people are really asking for is either to declare businesses persons and grant them the enumerated rights in the Constitution or pass legislation to expressly allow businesses to discriminate against gay people.

There is no right in the Constitution against getting services denied on the basis of human behavior.

To paraphrase Jason Lewis, that would then make the tax code unconstitutional because it discriminates against the rich.

If there is any Constitutional violation, it is that of religious freedom in the First Amendment, which absolutely trumps those who wish to celebrate homosexual acts. :yup:

And if gay relationships are so great, why do they need all the attention and fanfare?

 

[livingwordunity]

The influence of money, power, and propaganda.
“so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name.” - Revelation 13:17

 

[Corki]

Public accommodation laws apply to businesses not to people. The people involved in these lawsuits, a baker in your example, were named because they are the owners of an unincorporated business. Under the law, the owners of an unincorporated business and the business itself are the same legal entity in terms of liability. This means that the owners are legally liable for everything that goes on with/in their business including violations of public accommodation law and especially if they are the ones breaking the law in their official capacity as the owner of the business. They are not required under the law to personally provide services which they find objectionable, but the business is.

It sounds like you are saying that if the bakery was incorporated and had the owner as its sole employee, it could have legally refused to provide the cake. The **employee **(the baker) could exercise his religious freedom to not personally do anything he found religiously objectionable and the **employer **(also the baker, but incorporated) could tell the customer, “sorry, I don’t have anyone available who can make the cake”. The business is liable but not to the extent that it would have to hire someone new to handle this one customer’s needs. In that case, the employer’s liability could have been fulfilled simply by referring the customer to another bakery, which I believe he did anyway.

Boy, the law is twisted sometimes. But if this is truly the legal landscape, it is no wonder the radio airwaves seem to be flooded with ads offering to help sole proprietors incorporate their businesses.

 

[Vicki817]

**I can see that this is a sticky issue. If you refuse services to gays and lesbians, who will be next? Blacks, Whites, Hispanics, Men, Women, Children, handicapped, veterans, etc.? Where does it end?

Also,a business does not have religious freedom; individuals do. Those of us who step out into the world and expose ourselves through the businesses we create and services we provide have no right to refuse service to anyone unless they are not in control of their faculties and the authorities need to become involved. If you do not like a person because of the color of their skin, their religious beliefs or their sexual orientation, maybe you should not be in business.

Perhaps the best way to resolve this is for businesses such as photographers and bakers for weddings, have the “couple” complete a form with name, address, telephone, type of service requested, requested date and time (maybe request first, second and third choices for dates and times, etc. so that the business is not blind-sided about the reason for the requested service…then they could say that none of those dates and times are available. Of course, this forces the person to be deceitful, which is not good.

What I fear here is that gays and lesbians will go to a wide variety of businesses and challenge their sensibilities just because they can. Unfortunately, this “victory” for gays and lesbians can unintentionally create more dissention between heterosexual and homosexual people. There is far too much hatred in the world today with politicians creating a greater divide among the people of America. It has not been this bad in my lifetime.**

 

[Dwyer]

Meanwhile, religious citizens are victims of Secular Intolerance all the time and have no Civil Rights.

We are lied to by News Media all the time and told we’re “Free to Choose” and have the civil right to exercise the freedom of our conscience.

Remember all the Pharmacists fired for being Pro-Life? Here’s one of the latest stories about that and News Media keeps silent about it like it never happens:

Dr. Philip Hall was fired in September after six years of employment with the Walgreens chain of drugstores. During those six years, Hall says he had received nothing but positive reviews from his employers, despite the fact that his Baptist beliefs prevented him from dispensing abortifacient drugs like Plan B. Because federal and state laws and Walgreens corporate policy all make allowance for pharmacists whose religious beliefs preclude them from dispensing certain drugs, Hall was allowed to ask another pharmacist to fill prescriptions for Plan B when they came in.

In August, the FDA ordered Plan B sold over-the-counter; however, because of its high cost, most pharmacies keep it under lock and key. When asked by his superiors how he would handle requests for the drug, Hall reminded them of his religious objections, and informed them that he would continue to follow corporate procedures allowing him to avoid dispensing the drug directly. He was immediately fired.

lifesitenews.com/news/pharmacist-fired-for-refusing-to-dispense-morning-after-pill-sues-for-relig

Why isn’t the above News Story national Headline news?

 

[Darryl1958]

It is a form of propaganda that is no different than Nazis did to compare this kind of law to Jim Crow laws.
It trivializes the injustice of the Black American experience to pretend the the two are in any way comparable.

It is like the animal rights fascists and their Holocaust on a Plate plate comparisons.

Comparing Jews to chickens, or what Blacks had to go through to someone not agreeing to put a plastic figurine on a cake is contemptuous to the value of human life.

It is the kind of thing that Nazis do.

 

[Havard]

Exactly! As I said on Facebook, would these people also refuse to serve adulterers? Fornicators? ANY other sinner? Because that’s what engaging in homosexual behavior is – a sin. It is not an inherent defect that makes one deserving of different treatment. One need not buy into gay “marriage” to see how wrong a bill like this is, despite the good intentions of it (and even then, I’m not sure how “good” the intentions were of those who proposed it). There are better, more appropriate ways to defend marriage and our religious consciences than a vague bill that has the wrong intentions behind it – if you’re willing to look.

That’s not what the bill was about at all. A person couldn’t just make up a religion to discriminate, it had to have a valid basis and a court would still have to make that determination. As for your comment about fornicators, if a deeply religious baker was asked to bake a risqué cake for a strip club or a bachelor/bachelorette party, the baker should be able to refuse service. And for that matter, if Amish or plain Catholics have stricter standards of modesty, I certainly wouldn’t expect them accept portrait commissions of people in the nude.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

It sounds like you are saying that if the bakery was incorporated and had the owner as its sole employee, it could have legally refused to provide the cake. The **employee **(the baker) could exercise his religious freedom to not personally do anything he found religiously objectionable and the **employer **(also the baker, but incorporated) could tell the customer, “sorry, I don’t have anyone available who can make the cake”.The business is liable but not to the extent that it would have to hire someone new to handle this one customer’s needs. In that case, the employer’s liability could have been fulfilled simply by referring the customer to another bakery, which I believe he did anyway.

Yes and no. The owner can exercise what you call his religious freedom whether the business is unincorporated or incorporated. The business is still required to comply with public accommodation law either way and cannot do an end-run around the law by not hiring people willing to do the job. If it is doing that then it would still be penalized and must come into compliance with public accommodation law. The only difference is in the liability when that happens. Now, if someone wants to start/own a business which can legally discriminate then they can open one which requires private membership to do business with.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

The veto of this law makes no difference for Arizona businesses. The reason is that the State of Arizona allows the discrimination of people based on sexual orientation by not having a law protecting such people from discrimination based on sexual orientation.

I’m not saying it is right or wrong. Just pointing out this veto of that law does nothing for homosexuals.

The law was intended to be preemptive. Anyone with their eyes open knows that there is a powerful, well-funded push to make homosexuals a “protected class” in state constitutions and legislation. If it hasn’t come yet to a particular state such as Arizona, it will within the next year or so. Christians aren’t required to stick their heads in the sand with regard to present realities. Prudence is a virtue.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

Even I was surprised how quickly Arizona politicians, culminating in Gov. Brewer, folded under the economic and social pressure against the bill. It confirms what I have long thought, that the GOP’s heart, including the “Tea Party” wing, is with money, and not with the moral issues with which they have gotten the votes of Christians for years.

It was also instructive to hear the language Gov. Brewer used in her speech. She talked about the traditional family and traditional values being “under challenge” rather than (more accurately) “under attack” and she adverted to the present “change” in our country without indicating whether it was good or bad change. In other words, there is nothing in her speech that indicates any resolution to protect traditional marriage in the future; instead, expect an “evolution” such as occurred with Obama on her part and the part of all prominent Republicans in the near future.

 

[JimG]

I would rather have that bill passed into law than allow more photographers, bakers, and florists to be forced to disobey their consciences and provide services to “gay weddings”.

Here’s a summary of some businesses that have been attacked by the gay lobby.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Here’s a summary of some businesses that have been attacked by the gay lobby.

Interesting. So you’re saying that you should be allowed to refuse us service, but we are “attacking” your business if we don’t patronize it and choose instead to avoid it and encourage others to do so?

 

[Birdpreacher]

It is a form of propaganda that is no different than Nazis did to compare this kind of law to Jim Crow laws.
It trivializes the injustice of the Black American experience to pretend the the two are in any way comparable.

It is like the animal rights fascists and their Holocaust on a Plate plate comparisons.

Comparing Jews to chickens, or what Blacks had to go through to someone not agreeing to put a plastic figurine on a cake is contemptuous to the value of human life.

It is the kind of thing that Nazis do.

this post…you get mad at people for over exaggerating…then you compare them to nazis…

 

[Nacho45]

What is the point of having a constitution if its going to be ignored?

What’s the point of taking a stand for what is right if you’re just going to buckle under the pressure later?

America has some serious issues these days.

 

[Nacho45]

So you don’t have any qualms about all the Leviticus stuff involving killing people for eating shellfish, wearing the wrong clothing?

I must apologize for my lack of understanding as to how your question is related in any way.

 

[Nacho45]

Freedom FROM Religion. It’s in the constitution.