Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-20-2014, 04:04 PM
 
Location: Sonoran Desert
39,075 posts, read 51,205,311 times
Reputation: 28314

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by charolastra00 View Post
...Um, sarcasm? I understand in this thread it is hard to decipher who is actually flaunting their bigotry and who's not, but come on! This law would allow business owners to refuse service to black people if the could cite religious obligations - and many DID in the pre-Civil Rights era South. Dubious at best, of course, but that's similar to objections to gay marriage while the Bible cites many more things in our daily lives that are theologically problematic.

I grew up Jewish in the South. Even in the 1990s when I was a child, we had a cross burned on my lawn and no people of color felt safe to live in my community. When my parents first moved there (before the days of Google), there were a handful of signs (down from a height in the early 80s) heading north stating "N*****s, don't let the sun set on your back in Forsyth County." The realtor didn't show my relocating parents that part of the area. Trust me, I know more about bigotry from experience - codified or otherwise - than I would ever wish on anyone else.
No it would not. That would be a violation of both federal and state laws. Race is a protected class in AZ, so is religion. Gay is not. This bill would keep people from being sued for refusing service to GAYS, but it would not apply to any protected class.

 
Old 02-20-2014, 04:06 PM
 
Location: texas
9,127 posts, read 7,939,644 times
Reputation: 2385
Quote:
Originally Posted by no1brownsfan View Post
For the record the 10 Commandments in a school or a public property doesn't bother me. Praying in school doesn't either, because you're right... if one doesn't have faith, or is a different religion, why not just not partake in the prayer, or pray in your own religion how you see fit. Oh well. Whatever. I don't get offended by too much. Let people live their lives, and live your own. That is the way I see it. Too many people are in each other's business in this day and age.
It does not matter if it upsets you or not. Since it has already been ruled Unconstitutional, it does not matter to anyone...

It does not matter to me if the 10 commandments are not displayed in public schools. See how that works.
 
Old 02-20-2014, 04:08 PM
 
Location: Pa
20,300 posts, read 22,214,990 times
Reputation: 6553
I'm on the fence with this one. On one hand I believe a business owner should have the right to decline doing business with whom ever they want. Lost business is their loss. On the other hand, where do you draw the line? No blue eyes allowed?
Is it a service only they provide? Do they have Gov contracts? Take Gov money?
I remember a case in Phili where they posted a sign English only and the ACLU got involved. I supported the Deli's right to require english only.
 
Old 02-20-2014, 04:11 PM
 
Location: Camberville
15,860 posts, read 21,427,956 times
Reputation: 28198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponderosa View Post
No it would not. That would be a violation of both federal and state laws. Race is a protected class in AZ, so is religion. Gay is not. This bill would keep people from being sued for refusing service to GAYS, but it would not apply to any protected class.
Which is actually quite silly, since it is irrefutable that religion is 100% a choice. Unfortunately, it seems like many in Arizona have made a bad choice.
 
Old 02-20-2014, 04:24 PM
 
9,091 posts, read 19,214,540 times
Reputation: 6967
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponderosa View Post
No it would not. That would be a violation of both federal and state laws. Race is a protected class in AZ, so is religion. Gay is not. This bill would keep people from being sued for refusing service to GAYS, but it would not apply to any protected class.
Not true.

It extends the shelter that religious institutions had to non-religious entities that are operating under their religious beliefs.

For example, gender is a protected class. As is religion. However, a Catholic Church couldn't be compelled to put a female in to a position that the Church wouldn't allow.

This brings those same protections to the private sector.

Even the sponsor admitted that a hotel could potentially refuse service to an LDS group wearing BYU shirts during the debate
 
Old 02-20-2014, 04:33 PM
 
Location: texas
9,127 posts, read 7,939,644 times
Reputation: 2385
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponderosa View Post
No it would not. That would be a violation of both federal and state laws. Race is a protected class in AZ, so is religion. Gay is not. This bill would keep people from being sued for refusing service to GAYS, but it would not apply to any protected class.
Windor v US and lesser appellate courts cases has set Homosexuality as a protected class. It won't be long that Homosexuality is added to the protected class list.

So says the US Supreme Court so says us all. If the US and the constitution recognizes homosexuality as a protected class...Az is not far behind. Kicking and screaming...or by their own volition.
 
Old 02-20-2014, 04:42 PM
 
Location: texas
9,127 posts, read 7,939,644 times
Reputation: 2385
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finger Laker View Post
Not true.


For example, gender is a protected class. As is religion. However, a Catholic Church couldn't be compelled to put a female in to a position that the Church wouldn't allow.
Caveat. The position has to have some religious significance and a history of not being offered and held by women.

In the same vain, the church can not discrimate on a position simply because they believe it is tradionally held by men and not women.

Of course the church aready knows this, so they dont discrimate in this form.
 
Old 02-20-2014, 04:47 PM
 
9,091 posts, read 19,214,540 times
Reputation: 6967
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimuelojones View Post
Caveat. The position has to have some religious significance and a history of not being offered and held by women.

In the same vain, the church can not discrimate on a position simply because they believe it is tradionally held by men and not women.

Of course the church aready knows this, so they dont discrimate in this form.
yeah ... it has to be backed by their religion and practiced as such

this SB is basically amending the existing language that allows for such protection, broadening some of the wording in it and then expanding the entities that can have that protection
 
Old 02-20-2014, 04:54 PM
 
17,842 posts, read 14,377,437 times
Reputation: 4113
I think that if anti-gay conservative Christians want to claim supposed religious beliefs to discriminate against gay and lesbian people, then perhaps they need to show that they follow every command in the Bible themselves in their daily lives.

 
Old 02-21-2014, 01:46 AM
 
16,431 posts, read 22,189,163 times
Reputation: 9623
Quote:
Originally Posted by katzpaw View Post
Boycott Arizona. Goodbye tourism, conventions, and snowbirds.
I'm planning a trip to the Grand Canyon right now. I support those that support religious freedom. Whiney gays can visit the Golden Gate and People's Park.
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:43 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top