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.
A hotel owner who won't rent to an interracial couple. On religious grounds, of course.
An anti-Semitic doctor that refuses to treat a patient. The patient is a Jew, of course.
A business owner who won't employ women. Why? Oh, the usual "I call religion, so I get to discriminate!" free pass that this embarrassment of a law allows.
Frankly, this falls under the entire class of repugnant and despicable actions that we (the United States, collectively) determined back in 1964 had no place in the public sphere of businesses open to the aforementioned public. That determination was called the Civil Rights Act. While it did not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, the principle is exactly the same - prohibiting discrimination in the business realm against suspect classes.
People - and non-business entities, such as religions - are free to channel their inner medieval selves and discriminate to their black heart's content. But when they decide to establish or become a business, interfacing with the public, licensed by various state and federal agencies, they lose the right to discriminate against people based on color, or gender, or orientation (or, ironically, religion). We had a case here in Minnesota a few years back in which many Muslim cab drivers at the local airport (the large local Somali immigrant population makes up a majority of the cab drivers servicing MSP) were refusing to take on passengers carrying alcohol (not uncommon for travellers) and those with service dogs. The excuse? The usual - religion. They were told to stop discriminating against such travelers, or they'd lose their taxi licenses. Rightly so. And the victims of that discrimination weren't even members of a protected class (they were people with service dogs and people with alcohol - neither constitutes a suspect class). It was still unacceptable.
If you want to take on the case of calling for the abrogations of the Civil Rights Act so long as there is a religious excuse being served up as an excuse, have at it. Don't expect much company.
I like how you act as if all Christians hate gays.
I also had no idea that all Christians "whine and moan" about being persecuted. Where did you get this from?
LOL! I'm not playing that game. The whole "not ALL of us are like that" argument is just a way for you to make it appear like Christians are being persecuted again - and it deflects away from the real topic of discussion, which is this Arizona law, by making the thread all about me (i.e. ad hominems).
You don't seem particularly repulsed that Christians are pushing for pro-discrimination laws and seem far more perturbed that I didn't qualify my statements with "some" or "most," etc.
Which ... I dunnae ... kinda tells me more than you think.
And yet Sundays after church the red lobster parking lot is full of people fresh from church.
Oh, I forgot, THAT abomination doesn't count anymore. Only the icky gay abomination still counts.
So much for that "unchanging" god.
That's so funny and true! What about the mixing of two fibers? All of those Christians with their polyester cotton blend polo shirts chowing down on shrimp and lobster?
Shirina, I am an Atheist and I will defend the law.
Some people have strong religious beliefs. If their job is to provide a service, they should have the right to refuse a service that reasonably violates their religious beliefs.
For example, what if an Orthodox Jewish photographer refuses to take pictures at a Catholic wedding in the presence of idols they find abhorrent?
What if the same photographer refuses to take pictures at a family celebration where a pig is butchered, roasted, and devoured by the guests?
What if a devout Muslim pharmacist refuses to sell condoms to two men who come into the store holding hands?
What do you think about these three examples?
These are all discriminatory actions. The companies in question should lose their business license and be prohibited from conducting commerce. As a society we have determined that all should be treated equally, regardless of any one person's opinion (or the AZ state legislature). If you cannot abide by the rules to treat all equally and not discriminate, you lose your opportunity to play in that arena.
I suppose that one could create a paradox with this type if thinking. If I am a Satanist that does not want to allow Christians into my restaurant, am I not infringing on their legally protected rights by exercising my right to discriminate?
Honestly, I am truly shocked that there are posters defending a law that so blatantly sanctions discrimination. And in the words of Forrest Gump...that's all I got to say about that.
Thanks.
Hello Hyker.
To explain why this Arizona law isn't such a paradox, I'm going to set up a scenario applicable to Christians owning a business, and through the use of logic, explain why this law is completely bogus. This isn't directed at you (Hyker) but anyone in general.
I hear from Christians quite often about how they "hate the sin but love the sinner." Really? Anyone who truly believes that should be against this law without reservation. Here's why:
Let's say you're a Christian business owner and into your store walks a man you suspect through his mannerisms is a homosexual. Under what pretext, including religion, do you have in throwing him out or denying him service?
You really don't know who this man is or what his sexual proclivities are. Simply acting gay doesn't mean he is one. Some men are just naturally effeminate or they may have picked up a few gay mannerisms from a close (and platonic) friend who really IS gay. Or, this man might really be gay but is still a virgin, thus he has not actually committed the sin of homosexuality. Or, perhaps he is gay but is a devout Christian and has decided not to engage in homosexual acts.
Regardless, you can never know with 100% certainty that anyone who walks through your door has actually committed the sin of homosexuality. Without knowing for sure, what right do you really have in discriminating against him?
But even more importantly, just WHAT are you discriminating against? The sin? Well, it's not as though this man is having gay sex right there on your showroom floor. Therefore, you can't claim that you're kicking the sin out of your store because the sin was never there to begin with. Simply BEING gay is not a sin, it's the actual sex that constitutes the sin, and the Bible supports me on this point. Therefore, you're discriminating against a man not for sinning, but for being gay. In fact, it isn't even that specific. You're discriminating against him because you THINK he MIGHT be gay because he has gay mannerisms - thus your entire reason for discrimination centers on what you imagine he may (yes, MAY) have done in the privacy of his own home, a sin you can't even know for certain this man even committed.
So how can any Christian who claims to only hate the sin justify this law - given that discriminating against a person you think might be gay is ... doing what? Punishing the sin? Kicking sin out of your store? NO! If you discriminate against this man, you're hating the sinner. You can't hate this man's sin because YOU don't actually know what his sins even are. So where would you get off judging him?
Now, please, Christians, don't hand me some trumped up exception like a gay couple coming into your store and making out right there at the cash register. Hell, I would be inclined to kick any couple out for being that rude. I'm simply not going to respond to that kind of situation because that is far from the norm.
So explain to me, if you can, just who or what you're discriminating against? And how is it you can possibly claim to only hate the sin while simultaneously taking it out on the sinner - providing he even IS one?
LOL! I'm not playing that game. The whole "not ALL of us are like that" argument is just a way for you to make it appear like Christians are being persecuted again - and it deflects away from the real topic of discussion, which is this Arizona law, by making the thread all about me (i.e. ad hominems).
You don't seem particularly repulsed that Christians are pushing for pro-discrimination laws and seem far more perturbed that I didn't qualify my statements with "some" or "most," etc.
Which ... I dunnae ... kinda tells me more than you think.
I have never heard of this before: Christians stating that they are being persecuted in the USA when it's a generally Christian nation. If you can't answer my question about what makes you despise Christians so much, then why'd you reply? You seem furious. I'll just let you complain on the internet. Goodbye.
I uphold the right of Christians to refuse to serve heterosexual temple prostitutes who are engaging in ritualistic vaginal and anal sex acts while worshipping 1st century or Canaanite pagan fertility gods and goddesses right there in their store/restaurant/business.
Especially if they bring along their big stone/bronze pagan idols in the shape of animals, birds, reptiles etc.
Why do Christians keep using that "love the sinner, hate the sin" quote by Gandhi? It's not even Biblical.
I dunnae, but they say it ... so they're bound by that no matter who said it originally.
Moderator cut: delete
Last edited by Miss Blue; 02-21-2014 at 10:00 PM..
Reason: calling posters liars is nt allowed
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.
