Good work, Arizona (1 Viewer)

[Sarnoff]

If Arizona loses the 2015 Super Bowl, there's less than 1 year to find a replacement host... who gets it? Could NYC host it again? Give it to San Francisco as a shout-out to the gays?

 

[Koya]

Let the law pass.

Let those who are bound by religion to humanity then disallow any bigots in their restaurant while the bigots don't allow interracial couples in.

Things will sort themselves out.

 

[beavers]

I'm traveling to Scottsdale for work in the middle of March. If this passes, I'm going out to the most conservative bar, I'll first pretend to be a heterosexual, even going as far as grabbing a guy's ###. Then, when I've had enough and have a good buzz going, I am going to scream "beware everyone, I'm a homosexual and have pics to prove it." If that doesn't get me kicked out and subsequently, a free tab, then I'm going grab the first chick I see and make out with her. A no lose situation. Thanks Arizona!

 

[Koya]

I'm traveling to Scottsdale for work in the middle of March. If this passes, I'm going out to the most conservative bar, I'll first pretend to be a heterosexual, even going as far as grabbing a guy's ###. Then, when I've had enough and have a good buzz going, I am going to scream "beware everyone, I'm a homosexual and have pics to prove it." If that doesn't get me kicked out and subsequently, a free tab, then I'm going grab the first chick I see and make out with her. A no lose situation. Thanks Arizona!

Yes. Yelling I HAVE PICS WITH ME AND OTHER CHICKS will definitely alienate all the hetero males in the bar. Oh, and kissing some chick is only going to result in cheers and maybe a few dollar bills raining down.

PS - let me know which bar so I can check it out. Just as an exercise in observation of course.

 

[jon_mx]

I'm traveling to Scottsdale for work in the middle of March. If this passes, I'm going out to the most conservative bar, I'll first pretend to be a heterosexual, even going as far as grabbing a guy's ###. Then, when I've had enough and have a good buzz going, I am going to scream "beware everyone, I'm a homosexual and have pics to prove it." If that doesn't get me kicked out and subsequently, a free tab, then I'm going grab the first chick I see and make out with her. A no lose situation. Thanks Arizona!

I am not sure about most of your theory, but if you grab my ### you won't have to worry about your tab.

 

[squistion]

Dressing up discrimination as religion doesn't change the fact that it's discrimination.

is discrimination some big sin in the 21rst century?

Only if you are a bigot.

 

[hammerva]

Let the law pass.

Let those who are bound by religion to humanity then disallow any bigots in their restaurant while the bigots don't allow interracial couples in.

Things will sort themselves out.

I will and when the first person is discriminated because the owner's religion looks down on things like divorce or adultery or robbery or many other sins that the bible doesn't particularly like. According to the law there is nothing stopping them.

I love how apparently in order to protect your religious freedom that is apparently being taken away day after day you have to kick other people's freedom in the nuts. Judgement day is going to be so much fun for some of these people.

 

[proninja]

I'm traveling to Scottsdale for work in the middle of March. If this passes, I'm going out to the most conservative bar, I'll first pretend to be a heterosexual, even going as far as grabbing a guy's ###. Then, when I've had enough and have a good buzz going, I am going to scream "beware everyone, I'm a homosexual and have pics to prove it." If that doesn't get me kicked out and subsequently, a free tab, then I'm going grab the first chick I see and make out with her. A no lose situation. Thanks Arizona!

I am not sure about most of your theory, but if you grab my ### you won't have to worry about your tab.

You'd pick it up for him after just one ### grab, huh?

 

[fatness]

Dressing up discrimination as religion doesn't change the fact that it's discrimination.

Put a Jennifer Aniston mask on a pig and it's still a pig. Put a religion mask on bigotry and it's still bigotry. It fools some people for awhile until they wise up on the charade.

I love how apparently in order to protect your religious freedom that is apparently being taken away day after day you have to kick other people's freedom in the nuts.

And that's the motivation for the charade.

 

[BobbyLayne]

If Arizona loses the 2015 Super Bowl, there's less than 1 year to find a replacement host... who gets it? Could NYC host it again? Give it to San Francisco as a shout-out to the gays?

SB L (2016) is already going to SF (Santa Clara, close enough).

If they gave it away, I'd think it would go to a city like Miami or New Orleans - they've each had ten, could probably handle it on shortened notice.

When Arizona voters rejected the referendum to make MLK a holiday in 1990, the NFL pulled SB XXVII in less than 12 hours. Pasadena got that one, but the NFL had three years lead time.

 

[Koya]

Dressing up discrimination as religion doesn't change the fact that it's discrimination.

Put a Jennifer Aniston mask on a pig and it's still a pig. Put a religion mask on bigotry and it's still bigotry. It fools some people for awhile until they wise up on the charade.[/quotation]

I had the strangest thought before, but it's resonated with me, since.

At what point do we accept that freedom allows one to be a bigot? If you are a private citizen in private life, if you want to be a bigot shouldn't we respect your freedom to do so?

I understand there's a large balance here in terms of your bigoted actions harming others, but it's worth a discussion.

At the least we won't be close to a "post racial society" until we allow folks the freedom to act in a bigoted manner in private life.

 

[Apple Jack]

New Orleans. Needs it and doesn't have the stock January hotel clientele that Miami has.

 

[fatness]

SB L (2016) is already going to SF (Santa Clara, close enough). If they gave it away, I'd think it would go to a city like Miami or New Orleans - they've each had ten, could probably handle it on shortened notice.

The NFL just pulled off having a Super Bowl in a cold weather city, outdoors. They're pretty confident right now that they can pull off whatever they want to with the Super Bowl.

 

[fatness]

With Arizona potentially passing a law that would allow business owners to deny service to gay couples on religious grounds, the NFL could be pull the plug on the next Super Bowl, which is due to be played at University of Phoenix Stadium in Glendale.

“Our policies emphasize tolerance and inclusiveness, and prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other improper standard,” the NFL said in a statement issued to Albert Breer of NFL Network. “We are following the issue in Arizona and will continue to do so should the bill be signed into law, but will decline further comment at this time.”

Asked by Breer whether the league has an alternate site picked for Super Bowl XLIX, the league declined comment.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/02/25/nfl-wont-rule-out-a-move-of-super-bowl-xlix/

 

[fatness]

If you call yourself a Christian, now is the time to stand and be counted in the name of God, country and family.

Saturday was a day of highs and lows for me. I had the pleasure of roasting my good friend, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, along with Gov. Rick Perry, Ted Nugent, Steven Seagal, Congressman Matt Salmon, and several other great patriots.

However, I was very disappointed to see some of our Republican candidates for governor lose their nerve when it came to Senate Bill 1062, which amends the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

According to a former Arizona senate president .

 

[bigbottom]

Dressing up discrimination as religion doesn't change the fact that it's discrimination.

Put a Jennifer Aniston mask on a pig and it's still a pig. Put a religion mask on bigotry and it's still bigotry. It fools some people for awhile until they wise up on the charade.

I had the strangest thought before, but it's resonated with me, since.At what point do we accept that freedom allows one to be a bigot? If you are a private citizen in private life, if you want to be a bigot shouldn't we respect your freedom to do so?

I understand there's a large balance here in terms of your bigoted actions harming others, but it's worth a discussion.

At the least we won't be close to a "post racial society" until we allow folks the freedom to act in a bigoted manner in private life.

It's a fair point and a valid discussion. But the concept of "private life" becomes blurred when you are in the business of serving the public. Making money by running a business that falls within the definition of a public accommodation necessarily invites a discussion of the social contract and surrendering certain private rights to societal rules. You don't want to marry a Muslim? No problem. You don't want to have gay people as guests in your home? Fine. But you want to run a lunch counter open to the public but deny service to African-Americans? That's further down the continuum from private life to public life.

 

[bigbottom]

It's sounding like Brewer is going to veto the bill. She's pro-business and the business lobby in the state is apparently pushing for a veto. She's also vetoed a similar bill once before, stating then that the legislature should be focused on other priorities. Looks like she'll pull AZ out of the fire on this one.

 

[msommer]

I can imagine Putin's comments if the bill passes and is enacted...

 

[NCCommish]

hey man same crap different era when you do not like a group and want to be prejudiced or bigoted you just say that god made me do it well hey gang i have news for you i do not think that god is up there saying hey brohans nice job on hating your nieghbor i think he is looking at guys twisting his words to increase hate and shaking his head and he is pretty disappointed and thinking man they have messed up the one one thing i gave them that i thought they would never mess up and that is love take that to teh bank brohans

Yep

 

[McGarnicle]

If Arizona loses the 2015 Super Bowl, there's less than 1 year to find a replacement host... who gets it? Could NYC host it again? Give it to San Francisco as a shout-out to the gays?

Whoooooooo!!! Thuper Bowl you guys!!!

 

[Zow]

I'm traveling to Scottsdale for work in the middle of March. If this passes, I'm going out to the most conservative bar, I'll first pretend to be a heterosexual, even going as far as grabbing a guy's ###. Then, when I've had enough and have a good buzz going, I am going to scream "beware everyone, I'm a homosexual and have pics to prove it." If that doesn't get me kicked out and subsequently, a free tab, then I'm going grab the first chick I see and make out with her. A no lose situation. Thanks Arizona!

What you just described is pretty typical behavior for bars in Old Town Scottsdale. You'd have much better luck in Mesa or Gilbert.

But regardless, shoot me some notice so I can be there. TIA.

 

[LinusMarr]

I'm traveling to Scottsdale for work in the middle of March. If this passes, I'm going out to the most conservative bar, I'll first pretend to be a heterosexual, even going as far as grabbing a guy's ###. Then, when I've had enough and have a good buzz going, I am going to scream "beware everyone, I'm a homosexual and have pics to prove it." If that doesn't get me kicked out and subsequently, a free tab, then I'm going grab the first chick I see and make out with her. A no lose situation. Thanks Arizona!

What you just described is pretty typical behavior for bars in Old Town Scottsdale. You'd have much better luck in Mesa or Gilbert. But regardless, shoot me some notice so I can be there. TIA.

Lennay love....

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

If Arizona loses the 2015 Super Bowl, there's less than 1 year to find a replacement host... who gets it? Could NYC host it again? Give it to San Francisco as a shout-out to the gays?

Welcome back to New Orleans.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It's sounding like Brewer is going to veto the bill. She's pro-business and the business lobby in the state is apparently pushing for a veto. She's also vetoed a similar bill once before, stating then that the legislature should be focused on other priorities. Looks like she'll pull AZ out of the fire on this one.

I agree.

It's also overbroad. Some nutjob will deny service to a non-white or a woman or a Jewish or muslim person, all of which are unconstitutional. As long as that exists any arguably constitutional denials of service are irrelevant.

 

[Mr. Ected]

One question I keep hearing is why hasn't she instantly vetoed the bill? Does waiting until Saturday nite or whenever the last minute the bill can be vetoed gain her anything?

 

[joffer]

One question I keep hearing is why hasn't she instantly vetoed the bill? Does waiting until Saturday nite or whenever the last minute the bill can be vetoed gain her anything?

Either :1. She's pandering to the base

2. She actually hasn't read it

3. She's gonna sign it.

4. She's collecting IOUs for vetoing it

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Wait a second, if gay marriage isn't legal in AZ, why is this even relevant or "needed"? How would this situation arise, someone from New Mexico asks an AZ restaurant to cater their reception?

 

[fatness]

Wait a second, if gay marriage isn't legal in AZ, why is this even relevant or "needed"? How would this situation arise, someone from New Mexico asks an AZ restaurant to cater their reception?

I'm not sure why you think the bill is limited to denying service to people requesting service for gay marriages. From earlier in the topic:

SB1062 redefines and expands the state's definition of "exercise of religion" and "state action" to protect businesses, corporations and people from lawsuits after denying services based on a sincere religious belief. According to the bill, "A person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or a defense in a judicial proceeding, regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceeding."

"Denying service based on a sincere religious belief" can cover many things. The bill is there to expand what bigots can do if they cite "sincere" religion as their reason.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Wait a second, if gay marriage isn't legal in AZ, why is this even relevant or "needed"? How would this situation arise, someone from New Mexico asks an AZ restaurant to cater their reception?

I'm not sure why you think the bill is limited to denying service to people requesting service for gay marriages. From earlier in the topic:

SB1062 redefines and expands the state's definition of "exercise of religion" and "state action" to protect businesses, corporations and people from lawsuits after denying services based on a sincere religious belief. According to the bill, "A person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or a defense in a judicial proceeding, regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceeding."

"Denying service based on a sincere religious belief" can cover many things. The bill is there to expand what bigots can do if they cite "sincere" religion as their reason.

Well I was reading from this in the OP:

It reads, in part: "No individual or religious entity shall be required by any governmental entity to do any of the following, if it would be contrary to the sincerely held religious beliefs of the individual or religious entity regarding sex or gender:

"Provide any services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges; provide counseling, adoption, foster care and other social services; or provide employment or employment benefits, related to, or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement."

I'd say this is driven by the stories in 1-2 states of folks who were sued for refusing perform services like flower delivery for gay marriage ceremonies. But obviously it could be used to justify things like denying restaurant service or a hotel room to others and a wide variety of things. Like I said, it's overbroad, I agree.

Not to mention - the word "sincerely" is so loaded and asking for trouble it's crazy. A judge is going to examine if someone's religious belief is "sincere"? Roll out the sharia scroll.

 

[bigbottom]

Wait a second, if gay marriage isn't legal in AZ, why is this even relevant or "needed"? How would this situation arise, someone from New Mexico asks an AZ restaurant to cater their reception?

I'm not sure why you think the bill is limited to denying service to people requesting service for gay marriages. From earlier in the topic:

SB1062 redefines and expands the state's definition of "exercise of religion" and "state action" to protect businesses, corporations and people from lawsuits after denying services based on a sincere religious belief. According to the bill, "A person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or a defense in a judicial proceeding, regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceeding."

"Denying service based on a sincere religious belief" can cover many things. The bill is there to expand what bigots can do if they cite "sincere" religion as their reason.

Well I was reading from this in the OP:

It reads, in part: "No individual or religious entity shall be required by any governmental entity to do any of the following, if it would be contrary to the sincerely held religious beliefs of the individual or religious entity regarding sex or gender:

"Provide any services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges; provide counseling, adoption, foster care and other social services; or provide employment or employment benefits, related to, or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement."

I'd say this is driven by the stories in 1-2 states of folks who were sued for refusing perform services like flower delivery for gay marriage ceremonies. But obviously it could be used to justify things like denying restaurant service or a hotel room to others and a wide variety of things. Like I said, it's overbroad, I agree.

Not to mention - the word "sincerely" is so loaded and asking for trouble it's crazy. A judge is going to examine if someone's religious belief is "sincere"? Roll out the sharia scroll.

You're quoting from the Kansas staute. This started out as a thread about a bill in the Kansas legislature to a more recent bill just passed by the Arizona legislature. The bills have different language.

 

[Clifford]

I can't wait for the court case where no one on the defense can point to a single passage in the bible that says you should shun sinners. I think you could stay in kooky religious ville for the whole trial and still prove that nowhere in Christian texts does it support shunning sinners, and thus any attempt to deny service to anyone would not be a sincere religious belief.

Did the governor allow this monstrous piece of #### to become law?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Wait a second, if gay marriage isn't legal in AZ, why is this even relevant or "needed"? How would this situation arise, someone from New Mexico asks an AZ restaurant to cater their reception?

I'm not sure why you think the bill is limited to denying service to people requesting service for gay marriages. From earlier in the topic:

SB1062 redefines and expands the state's definition of "exercise of religion" and "state action" to protect businesses, corporations and people from lawsuits after denying services based on a sincere religious belief. According to the bill, "A person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or a defense in a judicial proceeding, regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceeding."

"Denying service based on a sincere religious belief" can cover many things. The bill is there to expand what bigots can do if they cite "sincere" religion as their reason.

Well I was reading from this in the OP:

It reads, in part: "No individual or religious entity shall be required by any governmental entity to do any of the following, if it would be contrary to the sincerely held religious beliefs of the individual or religious entity regarding sex or gender:

"Provide any services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges; provide counseling, adoption, foster care and other social services; or provide employment or employment benefits, related to, or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement."

I'd say this is driven by the stories in 1-2 states of folks who were sued for refusing perform services like flower delivery for gay marriage ceremonies. But obviously it could be used to justify things like denying restaurant service or a hotel room to others and a wide variety of things. Like I said, it's overbroad, I agree.

Not to mention - the word "sincerely" is so loaded and asking for trouble it's crazy. A judge is going to examine if someone's religious belief is "sincere"? Roll out the sharia scroll.

You're quoting from the Kansas staute. This started out as a thread about a bill in the Kansas legislature to a more recent bill just passed by the Arizona legislature. The bills have different language.

Gotcha, apologize for the confusion. Thanks.

 

[LinusMarr]

I can't wait for the court case where no one on the defense can point to a single passage in the bible that says you should shun sinners. I think you could stay in kooky religious ville for the whole trial and still prove that nowhere in Christian texts does it support shunning sinners, and thus any attempt to deny service to anyone would not be a sincere religious belief.

Did the governor allow this monstrous piece of #### to become law?

Forgiving someones "sins" and being accepting and applauding those sins are 2 different things, cliff....

 

[NCCommish]

I can't wait for the court case where no one on the defense can point to a single passage in the bible that says you should shun sinners. I think you could stay in kooky religious ville for the whole trial and still prove that nowhere in Christian texts does it support shunning sinners, and thus any attempt to deny service to anyone would not be a sincere religious belief.

Did the governor allow this monstrous piece of #### to become law?

It's going to get the veto. Brewer has been on her meds lately. And if it doesn't Apple may pull their new manufacturing facility, the NFL may pull the Super Bowl, Businesses in general are not happy. Even people that voted for this stupidity are begging her to veto it.

 

[jon_mx]

I'm traveling to Scottsdale for work in the middle of March. If this passes, I'm going out to the most conservative bar, I'll first pretend to be a heterosexual, even going as far as grabbing a guy's ###. Then, when I've had enough and have a good buzz going, I am going to scream "beware everyone, I'm a homosexual and have pics to prove it." If that doesn't get me kicked out and subsequently, a free tab, then I'm going grab the first chick I see and make out with her. A no lose situation. Thanks Arizona!

I am not sure about most of your theory, but if you grab my ### you won't have to worry about your tab.

You'd pick it up for him after just one ### grab, huh?

For one, it is a her. And for two, why not? It would not be the worst money I spent.

 

[NCCommish]

I can't wait for the court case where no one on the defense can point to a single passage in the bible that says you should shun sinners. I think you could stay in kooky religious ville for the whole trial and still prove that nowhere in Christian texts does it support shunning sinners, and thus any attempt to deny service to anyone would not be a sincere religious belief.

Did the governor allow this monstrous piece of #### to become law?

Forgiving someones "sins" and being accepting and applauding those sins are 2 different things, cliff....

"So when they continued asking him, he raised himself up and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first."

Pretty sure Jesus would be fine with baking a gay couple a cake. Or delivering them flowers. Or serving them in a restaurant. Worry about the log in your eye and let your neighbor worry about the mote in his..

 

[Mr. Ected]

I can't wait for the court case where no one on the defense can point to a single passage in the bible that says you should shun sinners. I think you could stay in kooky religious ville for the whole trial and still prove that nowhere in Christian texts does it support shunning sinners, and thus any attempt to deny service to anyone would not be a sincere religious belief.

Did the governor allow this monstrous piece of #### to become law?

It's going to get the veto. Brewer has been on her meds lately. And if it doesn't Apple may pull their new manufacturing facility, the NFL may pull the Super Bowl, Businesses in general are not happy. Even people that voted for this stupidity are begging her to veto it.

Heard another thing today...Shouldn't people like Apple, NFL, etc be pissed at Arizona even if the law gets vetoed. It was passed by their legislature. Enough of the people and their representatives think this is an OK idea. Just because the governor has the balls ( ) to veto it doesn't mean the law wasn't passed.

 

[Clifford]

Whoever is dreaming up this new era of Jim Crow needs to be #####slapped. I'd love for Kansas to be suffering material losses as a result of their law, but wheat and corn are fairly apolitical.

I am really tired of Republicans ####### things up for everyone just throw red meat to their backward, rabid hardcore base and further their own careers. There's a bill in Alabama right now that would allow all medical professionals to refuse service to someone based on "religious beliefs" in the name of protecting "conscience."

If you are the type of piece of #### who puts their own ####ed up beliefs in the way of helping someone in medical need, and you work in the medical field, the word "conscience" is already a joke to you.

 

[bigbottom]

The actual text of the Senate Bill is pretty confusing. You can read it here.

As best as I can tell from skimming it, they took an already existing law that exempted religious institutions from the state's anti-discrimination laws if their actions were based on religious beliefs and expanded it generally to individuals and businesses.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hypothetically, without this law (and it stinks, let's get that out the way) would a Catholic or an Orthodox Jewish flower shop owner be able to legally refuse to provide flowers to a divorced man who was marrying a woman on the grounds that the owner believed it was against the will of God, or that it was just plain wrong??

 

[Clifford]

I can't wait for the court case where no one on the defense can point to a single passage in the bible that says you should shun sinners. I think you could stay in kooky religious ville for the whole trial and still prove that nowhere in Christian texts does it support shunning sinners, and thus any attempt to deny service to anyone would not be a sincere religious belief.

Did the governor allow this monstrous piece of #### to become law?

Forgiving someones "sins" and being accepting and applauding those sins are 2 different things, cliff....

OK, since you took the bait, how is refusing someone service forgiving their sins, loving thy neighbor as thyself, respecting all of God's creations, whatsoever you do unto the least of my brothers you do unto me and so on and so on? How is carrying out a simple service you would perform for anyone else and you get paid for "applauding and accepting" what they wrongly view as sin? Sorry, if you really believe what you wrote you're going to have to defend that ridiculous line of thought.

Trying to make the case that allowing people to discriminate against people they are prejudiced against is somehow protecting religious freedom is the biggest crock of #### I have ever heard. And frankly I am sick and tired of hearing bigots use my religion and my savior to justify their own bigotry, somehow claiming it is His.

SWC nailed it, go back and read his.

I doubt you believe this. This post is directed at the people who really advance this BS and not you. Sorry for rant.

 

[LinusMarr]

I can't wait for the court case where no one on the defense can point to a single passage in the bible that says you should shun sinners. I think you could stay in kooky religious ville for the whole trial and still prove that nowhere in Christian texts does it support shunning sinners, and thus any attempt to deny service to anyone would not be a sincere religious belief.

Did the governor allow this monstrous piece of #### to become law?

Forgiving someones "sins" and being accepting and applauding those sins are 2 different things, cliff....

"So when they continued asking him, he raised himself up and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first."

Pretty sure Jesus would be fine with baking a gay couple a cake. Or delivering them flowers. Or serving them in a restaurant. Worry about the log in your eye and let your neighbor worry about the mote in his..

Im sure he would!

 

[NCCommish]

I can't wait for the court case where no one on the defense can point to a single passage in the bible that says you should shun sinners. I think you could stay in kooky religious ville for the whole trial and still prove that nowhere in Christian texts does it support shunning sinners, and thus any attempt to deny service to anyone would not be a sincere religious belief.

Did the governor allow this monstrous piece of #### to become law?

Forgiving someones "sins" and being accepting and applauding those sins are 2 different things, cliff....

"So when they continued asking him, he raised himself up and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first."

Pretty sure Jesus would be fine with baking a gay couple a cake. Or delivering them flowers. Or serving them in a restaurant. Worry about the log in your eye and let your neighbor worry about the mote in his..

Im sure he would!

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

 

[LinusMarr]

I can't wait for the court case where no one on the defense can point to a single passage in the bible that says you should shun sinners. I think you could stay in kooky religious ville for the whole trial and still prove that nowhere in Christian texts does it support shunning sinners, and thus any attempt to deny service to anyone would not be a sincere religious belief.

Did the governor allow this monstrous piece of #### to become law?

Forgiving someones "sins" and being accepting and applauding those sins are 2 different things, cliff....

OK, since you took the bait, how is refusing someone service forgiving their sins, loving thy neighbor as thyself, respecting all of God's creations, whatsoever you do unto the least of my brothers you do unto me and so on and so on? How is carrying out a simple service you would perform for anyone else and you get paid for "applauding and accepting" what they wrongly view as sin? Sorry, if you really believe what you wrote you're going to have to defend that ridiculous line of thought.Trying to make the case that allowing people to discriminate against people they are prejudiced against is somehow protecting religious freedom is the biggest crock of #### I have ever heard. And frankly I am sick and tired of hearing bigots use my religion and my savior to justify their own bigotry, somehow claiming it is His.

SWC nailed it, go back and read his.

I never said it was ok to discriminate? I dont do it in my everyday life.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Without this (stupid) law in AZ: Could a Muslim photographer legally refuse to take pictures at a wedding reception for a bride and groom because he felt that the bride and the bridesmaids' dresses were too short and thus inappropriate?

 

[bigbottom]

Hypothetically, without this law (and it stinks, let's get that out the way) would a Catholic or an Orthodox Jewish flower shop owner be able to legally refuse to provide flowers to a divorced man who was marrying a woman on the grounds that the owner believed it was against the will of God, or that it was just plain wrong??

I'm not well-versed in Arizona's discrimination statutes, but the answer to this is probably yes.

 

[17seconds]

What good does this law do? I honestly don't know the pro-side argument.

I can't imagine this thing goes through. Way too much public and corporate backlash, and they might lose the SB? No ####### way

 

[Clifford]

I can't wait for the court case where no one on the defense can point to a single passage in the bible that says you should shun sinners. I think you could stay in kooky religious ville for the whole trial and still prove that nowhere in Christian texts does it support shunning sinners, and thus any attempt to deny service to anyone would not be a sincere religious belief.

Did the governor allow this monstrous piece of #### to become law?

Forgiving someones "sins" and being accepting and applauding those sins are 2 different things, cliff....

OK, since you took the bait, how is refusing someone service forgiving their sins, loving thy neighbor as thyself, respecting all of God's creations, whatsoever you do unto the least of my brothers you do unto me and so on and so on? How is carrying out a simple service you would perform for anyone else and you get paid for "applauding and accepting" what they wrongly view as sin? Sorry, if you really believe what you wrote you're going to have to defend that ridiculous line of thought.Trying to make the case that allowing people to discriminate against people they are prejudiced against is somehow protecting religious freedom is the biggest crock of #### I have ever heard. And frankly I am sick and tired of hearing bigots use my religion and my savior to justify their own bigotry, somehow claiming it is His.

SWC nailed it, go back and read his.

I never said it was ok to discriminate? I dont do it in my everyday life.

doubt you believe this. This post is directed at the people who really advance this BS and not you. Sorry for rant.

-added to post

sorry, hotbutton topic. Though I don't practice religion I hate seeing Christ and Christianity used as a pretext for people's bigotry.

 

[bigbottom]

What good does this law do? I honestly don't know the pro-side argument.

I can't imagine this thing goes through. Way too much public and corporate backlash, and they might lose the SB? No ####### way

By my read, it allows businesses to discriminate against customers for religious reasons when such discrimination would otherwise be unlawful under state anti-discrimination laws. It is worth noting, however, that sexual orientation is not currently a protected class under Arizona's discrimination statutes. I suspect that this was largely a prophylactic measure.

 

[Clifford]

What good does this law do? I honestly don't know the pro-side argument.

I can't imagine this thing goes through. Way too much public and corporate backlash, and they might lose the SB? No ####### way

None, in any sense, including a purely religious view. Exercising this option for Christians would actually cause them to sin by breaking the law on which all others hang.

Check out this headline from the Washington Post, what is supposed to be a respectable paper:

Kansas, Arizona bills reflect national fight over gay rights vs. religious liberty

Why are we allowing the proponents of these bills to frame the debate in this way? Not discriminating against people is not affecting anyone's liberty to exercise their religion. Allowing people to frame the debate this way means taking a defensive, assailable posture from the outset.

I get that the paper is trying to be fair, but I think our journalists have a duty to challenge the very notion that not being allowed to discriminate against gays somehow allows people greater religious freedom. There is nothing in the Bible that says if you are a Christian that you have the right to never have to interact with people that might not share or even challenge your beliefs.

There's also the fact that many gay people are in fact Christian. So in those cases you would be discriminating against people who share the same faith that you do.

This is just so wrong, on a purely religious level, it's just mind-boggling.

ETA: According to an article referencing a Pew study, 52% of LGBT are religious affiliated, and of that 52%, 53 percent were Protestant and 26 percent were Catholic.