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.
Then let the public decide what to do with their money. It worked out great for Chic Fil A, in Arizona which is a pretty conservative state, those busineses will pprobably do pretty good too by standing up for their Religious Rights.
You obviously didn't read the bill either, each case has to be reviewed by a court. No court is going to allow a restaurant to hang a flag that says '' no gays '', that would be discrimination and wouldn't be approved by the courts at all. It's for more specific protections such as as trying to force a Christian bakery to Bake a cake for a Gay wedding or ceremony. That type of event would be approved of by the courts.
Chik-fil-a does not discriminate against gays in any way in AZ or elsewhere. If they tried to in AZ they would be boycotted out of business. This is not the bible belt. You are wrong about a business hanging out a "No Gays" sign, though. That would be perfectly legal here and in many other states as well (except in the cities that prohibit it). Gays are not protected by the Civil Rights Act. It is a state by state thing.
Then let the public decide what to do with their money. It worked out great for Chic Fil A, in Arizona which is a pretty conservative state, those busineses will pprobably do pretty good too by standing up for their Religious Rights.
You obviously didn't read the bill either, each case has to be reviewed by a court. No court is going to allow a restaurant to hang a flag that says '' no gays '', that would be discrimination and wouldn't be approved by the courts at all. It's for more specific protections such as as trying to force a Christian bakery to Bake a cake for a Gay wedding or ceremony. That type of event would be approved of by the courts.
Complete nonsense.
SB 1062 makes no such allowance as you claim. None. Period.
But feel free to cite the actual part of the bill that says what you claim. You won't, because there is no such part of the bill - even the very words 'review' and 'court' do not appear once, not a single time for either word, in the bill itself.
SB 1062 makes no such allowance as you claim. None. Period.
But feel free to cite the actual part of the bill that says what you claim. You won't, because there is no such part of the bill - even the very words 'review' and 'court' do not appear once, not a single time for either word, in the bill itself.
I provided a link on an earlier thread where a law professor at Arizona State answers questions about the bill. Reading it will clear up a lot of misinformation that is out there:
This is from the link in Post #25. It clarifies that in AZ you can discriminate against gays all you want right now.
Q: Does Arizona need a bill addressing religious freedom in this way?
A: In Arizona we don’t force anybody to do anything with regard to being nice to gay people. Generally, the bill seems to be saying, you can be a bigot if you just say your religion makes you a bigot. The bill is unnecessary, because right now, you can be as bigotous as you want. If you don’t like gay people, you don’t have to serve them if you don’t want to, you don’t have to marry them — you can’t marry them. What do you need a bill for?
That’s the point the Legislature doesn’t get. They say, what’s wrong with giving people freedom of religion? What’s wrong with it is, you don’t have to. And when you do that, people are going to think you’re doing it to encourage discrimination — and that’s what you shouldn’t do.
This is from the link in Post #25. It clarifies that in AZ you can discriminate against gays all you want right now.
Q: Does Arizona need a bill addressing religious freedom in this way?
A: In Arizona we don’t force anybody to do anything with regard to being nice to gay people. Generally, the bill seems to be saying, you can be a bigot if you just say your religion makes you a bigot. The bill is unnecessary, because right now, you can be as bigotous as you want. If you don’t like gay people, you don’t have to serve them if you don’t want to, you don’t have to marry them — you can’t marry them. What do you need a bill for?
That’s the point the Legislature doesn’t get. They say, what’s wrong with giving people freedom of religion? What’s wrong with it is, you don’t have to. And when you do that, people are going to think you’re doing it to encourage discrimination — and that’s what you shouldn’t do.
Whoever is answering these questions forget to mention that many local municipalities in AZ do in fact prevent businesses/employers/landlords from being bigotous towards gay people.
While there are no statewide protections for gay people in Arizona (except the state can't discriminate in hiring/firing public employees based on sexual orientation), many municipalities prohibit discrimination in private employment, housing, and public accommodation based on sexual orientation (including Phoenix - the largest city in Arizona). This law would give religious people in these municipalities the special right* to discriminate against gay people by providing them an affirmative defense against their municipal law.
*(special since non-religious people would not have the right to do the same)
Those senators had second thoughts for the following reasons.
A large portion of Arizona's GDP is tourism and convention services. Many corporations, travel groups and bureaucratic institutions book in Arizona at our major hotels and resorts for extended stays with thousands of people, from out of state. Besides paying for the heads and beds, these individuals and organizations spend tons of money while in the state that far overwhelms the retired snowbirds that stand behind SB1062.
In my career I've worked very closely with all forms of management in the hospitality industry and still keep strong connectins, even though retired.
Guess what? A reasonable portion of management in the hospitality and meeting planning industry are gay. I'm not saying all, but many are.
Talking to some of the management here at some of the resorts, and they are already getting calls and communications from various groups and meeting planners who were tentatively booked at properties, that they would be forced to cancel their upcoming meeting or convention if the bill signs into law. As they put it, "Nothing personal, but we can't take the chance that our clients will be disrespected while in attendance at one of your properties in Arizona."
This is the bottom line nuts and bolts of the situation. The Convention business is huge in Arizona. These republican senators represent the hospitality and convention business.
Those senators had second thoughts for the following reasons.
A large portion of Arizona's GDP is tourism and convention services. Many corporations, travel groups and bureaucratic institutions book in Arizona at our major hotels and resorts for extended stays with thousands of people, from out of state. Besides paying for the heads and beds, these individuals and organizations spend tons of money while in the state that far overwhelms the retired snowbirds that stand behind SB1062.
In my career I've worked very closely with all forms of management in the hospitality industry and still keep strong connectins, even though retired.
Guess what? A reasonable portion of management in the hospitality and meeting planning industry are gay. I'm not saying all, but many are.
Talking to some of the management here at some of the resorts, and they are already getting calls and communications from various groups and meeting planners who were tentatively booked at properties, that they would be forced to cancel their upcoming meeting or convention if the bill signs into law. As they put it, "Nothing personal, but we can't take the chance that our clients will be disrespected while in attendance at one of your properties in Arizona."
This is the bottom line nuts and bolts of the situation. The Convention business is huge in Arizona. These republican senators represent the hospitality and convention business.
I just looked up next year's Super Bowl (XLIX) and it is scheduled to be held in Glendale, Arizona - at the University of Phoenix Stadium! If the NFL gets pressured to move it somewhere else, that is an awful lot of hotel and restaurant business going elsewhere.
One of the GOP who wants the bill vetoed still likes the bill.. he just doesn't like the way it's being presented and the negative reaction it's getting.
UPDATE: In the latest twist in the AZ anti-gay bill passage, three GOP senators have now had a change of heart and are urging Brewer to veto the bill. It would seem that this should be the nail in the coffin for the measure, but in this state, who knows?
Must have taken the hint from obama and like obama, "evolved'.
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.
