Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
i dont know, but then its not my problem as i dont own a business. and if i did i wouldnt care if the people i did business with were gay, green, blue, from saturn, believed the devil was running the show, or what ever. my concerns would be;
1: do they pay their bills?
2: do they cause trouble?
BR is right, the law allows businesses to reserve teh right to refuse service to ANYONE. it was put in the law so that a business could refuse to serve someone who was disruptive to the business. if you want to go into a business and cause trouble for the business, the people running the business can tell you to go away or risk arrest.
wrong, it means that business with religious objections to homosexuality can refuse to serve gays if they choose. its that simple. but again as i said before, virtually NOTHING will come of this as the vast majority of business owners are not going to refuse service to their customers, unless they are a disruptive influence.
wrong again, businesss owners CAN refuse to serve ANYONE they choose. they dont have to give a reason. the law allows that in every state as long as the business owner posts a proper sign that says, management reserves the right to refuse service to anyone.
there are going to be business owners that take advantage of the law, if it passes and is signed into law, but they would be working against the best interests of their business as consumers have the right to refuse to patronize those businesses.
Sorry, you are very wrong. You can't toss the Constitution by putting a sign in the window. Gays are not a "protected" class and that is why you can theoretically get away with it with them - for now.
To be fair, Arizona's anti-discrimination in public accommodation law doesn't cover sexual orientation - even without this new law it's perfectly legal for businesses in (parts)* of Arizona to not serve gays
*(various Arizona cities do have anti-discrimination in public accommodation laws - this new state law would essentially invalidate them)
Which is really sad and so freaking backwards. I'm sure there are stories out there of people being refused service in Arizona for being gay..some may not have even realized that when told the inn was full, that it really wasn't etc.
I've experience that in California years ago.
The feeling of anger and humiliation was huge.
If this law does pass, it also will signal to the haters it's open season.
The sad fact is we had this debate in this nation already and it lost already.
People have very short memories. When it was ok to be a racist to black people, when the laws began to change racists made a similar argument that not allowing my business to discriminate against black people was a violation of the constitution.
We know how that turned out. It is a dead end position that bigots always argue near the end.
LMAO! Trying to compare the legitimate struggles of blacks to gays.... LOL! SMH... Not even the same issue. Not even what the bill allows, not any thing close to it.
Stop using false history fallacies. Stop with the name calling too. Just because religious people want their religious rights protected doesn't mean that we hate gay people. I guess you hate religious people then, using your logic.
This is about promotion of the "anything goes no matter how freaky or disgusting" agenda. Prejudice against normal people, denial of freedom of the person to interact with whom they please, and legislating hatred on the part of a very vocal and overly-dramatic minority.
Personally, I'd like to be aware of businesses that find my patronage objectionable that I may take my money elsewhere. At present, I will not knowingly support certain businesses. If I object to the owner, why would I?
So gay people are freaky? Normal people? Freedom by restricting a groups freedom? It's like talking to someone in 1890.
You do realize that the majority of people think your thought process about human rights is terribly flawed?
You don't have equality without…well equality.
Sorry, you are very wrong. You can't toss the Constitution by putting a sign in the window. Gays are not a "protected" class and that is why you can theoretically get away with it with them - for now.
And should a group become a protected class defined by where they like to stick their genitals, a behavior-based criteria?
Religious Rights are protected under the Constitution last time I checked.
If a business says '' no Gays allowed '' that would be discrimination from the business. If a Gay couple says '' bake me a cake for my Gay wedding/Ceremony, I don't care if it violates your religion, do it or I'll sue you ' ' that would be discrimination by the Gay couple.
And believe me, that very scenario happened, I think in Oregon, where lesbians managed to cause a Christian bakery to close for not baking a cake for their wedding. That's why these bills are being introduced and passed, if gay people respected the beliefs of religious people these bills would not have to be made. But because they don't these bills are necessary.
This bill is simply protecting the religious rights of those business owners. Religious Rights that are being attacked by gay activsts and their Liberal lap dogs. Under this bill, a business has to show its religious reasoning for refusing a service to a court and they review the case. It's not like businesses can just refuse gays all together.
Bigotry isn't a religious freedom.
Also, what is the difference between a straight wedding cake and a gay wedding cake?
LMAO! Trying to compare the legitimate struggles of blacks to gays.... LOL! SMH... Not even the same issue. Not even what the bill allows, not any thing close to it.
Stop using false history fallacies. Stop with the name calling too. Just because religious people want their religious rights protected doesn't mean that we hate gay people. I guess you hate religious people then, using your logic.
Religious people rights are protected. They should really read about separation of church and state…they seem to forget that one.
As for the comparing black people struggle to gay people, it's fair. Of course they're not exactly the same struggle, but the common threads are there. A persecuted group who have been killed, denied rights, forced to live as 2nd class citizens decide enough is enough.
If you read social history you will see that the gay rights movements, as well as the women's movement took cues from those movements.
And should a group become a protected class defined by where they like to stick their genitals, a behavior-based criteria?
Many would argue that being gay is a state or an unalterable condition and not a behavior. The body of scientific evidence would support that, not that a good conservative would let science dispel what prejudice has planted.
And should a group become a protected class defined by where they like to stick their genitals, a behavior-based criteria?
Sexual orientation is not a behavior-based criterion. Sexual orientation is an innate, biological characteristic.
But that said, we include religion as a protected class, and religion is a purely chosen characteristic.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
