More progress from Tempe

[stevek64]

Originally Posted by Ponderosa

That is a common misconception. The Civil Rights act does not protect gays at all. It is perfectly legal in almost all of Arizona (and much of the US) to refuse to hire or to fire someone or pass them over for promotion solely for being gay. Likewise, any business owner in most of AZ can kick gay people out because they are gay or refuse them service.

That's a good point and opens up an interesting question/can of worms. How far should laws go to protect any group? And I'm going beyond the Civil Rights act, but more in line with this law that was just passed in Tempe for a specific group of people.

Scenario. What if 2 people come into a restaurant who are Atheist's. The person serving them overheard them talking and knew they were an Atheist and the owner got wind of it. Since an atheist is not protected under the civil rights laws as far as I know, ie it's certainly not a religion, or any other law for that matter that I know of protects such a person of their belief(non belief I guess you could say), does someone who owns a business have the right to not serve such a person? I would say yes, they have that right. If so, wouldn't many people find this wrong and discriminatory? Therefore, why don't we now have a law to protect Atheist's so they aren't discriminated against?

I of course used a specific example here but I think we can all play plug in a specific group of people with "X" belief that's outside of the protected laws group, of which there are a bunch, and see the point in all of this.

I think you can see with my example we can open a Pandora's box with all of this. "Well, if so and so group is protected, and I'm not and I feel my beliefs are being discriminated against.......where do we draw the line?

Thoughts?

[DetroitN8V]

Originally Posted by stevek64

That's a good point and opens up an interesting question/can of worms. How far should laws go to protect any group? And I'm going beyond the Civil Rights act, but more in line with this law that was just passed in Tempe for a specific group of people.

Scenario. What if 2 people come into a restaurant who are Atheist's. The person serving them overheard them talking and knew they were an Atheist and the owner got wind of it. Since an atheist is not protected under the civil rights laws as far as I know, ie it's certainly not a religion, or any other law for that matter that I know of protects such a person of their belief(non belief I guess you could say), does someone who owns a business have the right to not serve such a person? I would say yes, they have that right. If so, wouldn't many people find this wrong and discriminatory? Therefore, why don't we now have a law to protect Atheist's so they aren't discriminated against?

I of course used a specific example here but I think we can all play plug in a specific group of people with "X" belief that's outside of the protected laws group, of which there are a bunch, and see the point in all of this.

I think you can see with my example we can open a Pandora's box with all of this. "Well, if so and so group is protected, and I'm not and I feel my beliefs are being discriminated against.......where do we draw the line?

Thoughts?

Discrimination against atheists is illegal. A good lawyer could argue that one all day. What other groups?

[stevek64]

Originally Posted by DetroitN8V

Discrimination against atheists is illegal. A good lawyer could argue that one all day. What other groups?

hehehe....fill in whatever name you like!

So that answer leads to me to ask.....why do we need any such laws if a good lawyer could argue in favor of a non-served person because of their belief? Or why don't we pass a special law to protect athiests in Tempe?

btw.....this is all fun and theoretical. I like mental exercises playing "what if?". I don't want this to get personal for those who choose to respond. Sound good everyone? I'm a live and let live guy and if a Bird wants to marry a frog, I will find the fattest worm for the bird as a wedding gift and the biggest fly for the frog and wish them well.

I know these subject matters can get emotional/personal but let's keep it cool. Now that we are disarmed(I hope.....).....

[DetroitN8V]

Originally Posted by stevek64

hehehe....fill in whatever name you like!

So that answer leads to me to ask.....why do we need any such laws if a good lawyer could argue in favor of a non-served person because of their belief? Or why don't we pass a special law to protect athiests in Tempe?

btw.....this is all fun and theoretical. I like mental exercises playing "what if?". I don't want this to get personal for those who choose to respond. Sound good everyone? I'm a live and let live guy and if a Bird wants to marry a frog, I will find the fattest worm for the bird as a wedding gift and the biggest fly for the frog and wish them well.

I know these subject matters can get emotional/personal but let's keep it cool. Now that we are disarmed(I hope.....).....

I was speaking specifically to atheism. Religious affiliation can apply also to lack thereof which is easily argued and there's already case law in place. It's tough to argue against gay discrimination with no laws on the books at all other than these recently passed localized ones.

[observer53]

Discussion of the potential reach of anti-discrimination ordinances generally is OFF TOPIC for this thread.

Back to topic, please.

[RenW]

I'm so happy to see this proposition passed! We are looking to buy a house in a year and Tempe had been on top of our list, but we've been considering other communities because of lower prices. I've been really impressed with Tempe since we've lived here and I'm considering it might be worth the extra money to live here.

[azriverfan.]

As I mentioned, Tempe is a hot ticket right now. It has arguably the best location in the Valley due to it's central location and proximity to downtown Phoenix, the airport, South Scottsdale, and Chandler. It's progressive and one of the true liberal/blue aeas of the Valley. And they welcome vertical development and urbanization. In the next 10 years, Tempe is really going to build a national reputation and be a little version of Austin, TX.

[Ponderosa]

Originally Posted by RenW

I'm so happy to see this proposition passed! We are looking to buy a house in a year and Tempe had been on top of our list, but we've been considering other communities because of lower prices. I've been really impressed with Tempe since we've lived here and I'm considering it might be worth the extra money to live here.

Scottsdale adopted a similar ordinance a few years ago. The City of Phoenix did last year. So Tempe is hardly the only place that has done it. In fact, the city of Phoenix is the only city in AZ to get a perfect 100 in the Human Rights Campaign's Municipal Equality Index. Tempe is third, behind Tucson, in the state with a 72.