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.
Correct , thats why i was wondering how this was anti gay .
This bill is so that owners CAN NOT GET SUED because they dont want to serve someone. I think its a great bill since it seems like today everyone trys to sure for whatever reason they can.
I wonder where the outrage is for the " no shoes no shirt no service " ? Can liberals answer that.
You can always put on a shirt. You can't stop being gay.
Correct , thats why i was wondering how this was anti gay .
This bill is so that owners CAN NOT GET SUED because they dont want to serve someone. I think its a great bill since it seems like today everyone trys to sure for whatever reason they can.
I wonder where the outrage is for the " no shoes no shirt no service " ? Can liberals answer that.
For the 20th time at least: a business owner can refuse service to gays in AZ under current law. A business can discriminate for any reason they want including sexual preference other than what is prohibited by the Civil Rights Act and state laws that have similar action - race, religion, gender, and national origin. Some cities here like Phoenix, Flagstaff, maybe Tucson have city ordinances prohibiting discrimination against gays, though.
Correct , thats why i was wondering how this was anti gay .
This bill is so that owners CAN NOT GET SUED because they dont want to serve someone. I think its a great bill since it seems like today everyone trys to sure for whatever reason they can.
I wonder where the outrage is for the " no shoes no shirt no service " ? Can liberals answer that.
You think a hygiene issue of allowing people to not wear clothing in a restaurant is comparable to flat out refusing service in a public accommodation to an entire group of people based on who they are?
Shall we have gays wear pink triangles on their arm so Arizona businesses have an easier time of figuring out who to kick out?
Did you have a problem with blacks being denied access to hotels or restaurants during the 60s?
You think a hygiene issue of allowing people to not wear clothing in a restaurant is comparable to flat our refusing service in a public accommodation to an entire group of people based on who they are?
Oh so now its all about what can be comparable and what cant right? Stupid logic
Shall we have gays wear pink triangles on their arm so Arizona businesses have an easier time of figuring out who to kick out?
Nobody is asking them to do that so i dunno where you come up with that? Where are you getting this idea that every business will refuse ALL gays? So now you are just making an assumption with no facts.
Did you have a problem with blacks being denied access to hotels or restaurants during the 60s?
Putting aside the ludicrousness of promoting the religious freedom of business to discriminate against a class of people, this will be bad for business in AZ. There will be organizations and groups who will choose to take their money elsewhere. Look at what happened when AZ said no to Martin Luther King, Jr. Holiday - the NFL pulled Tempe's Superbowl hosting and put in in Pasadena.
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.
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.
Wrong analogy. Chik-fil-A doesn't deny service to people based upon who they are. The founders' faith in terms of business dictates that they don't open on Sundays. Which doesn't discriminate between classes of customers. Now if they want to refuse service to one group of people vs. others, they will be in trouble with the law. Sure, the head of the company made homophobic comments but it doesn't affect their business operations (and customers are free to choose to go or not go to their stores).
Your logic is flawed, so yes, it is about what can be compared and what can't. Your argument was stupid, because it lacked basic logic or rationality.
And despite this being 2014, you conservatives still act like it's the 60s. Actually, a lot of you act like it's the 1860s.
Im sorry , i dont comprehend the language , i never said i was conservative here did i ?
My logic? How is it flawed?
Last edited by CaseyB; 02-24-2014 at 12:48 PM..
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.
. 
