Good work, Arizona (1 Viewer)

[bigbottom]

Pretty sure Arizonans can refuse to provide commercial services to people on religious grounds (as long as it's not racially motivated).

Right?

No. There are a number of protected categories. Race is only one of them.

 

[Gr00vus]

I thought religion and gender were in the mix too?

That generally applies to the state/government making laws which discriminate against those groups. We're talking private sphere here.*

*Although I'd defer to a con law guy here. I haven't tackled non-4th,5th,6th,8th con law issues in several years.

Are there no such non-discriminatory regulations/laws at the Federal level concerning inter-state trade? What would happen if a national airline started denying service to Chinese people because they were Chinese?

That's race. There's likely a federal statute prohibiting such discrimination.

So could a national airline deny service to Zoroastrians because they are Zoroastrians and not run afoul of Federal regulations/laws? Similarly with women?

 

[bigbottom]

Pretty sure Arizonans can refuse to provide commercial services to people on religious grounds (as long as it's not racially motivated).

Right?

According to Anderson Cooper, his legal expert, and a State Senator planning a gubernatorial run, gays are not a protected class according to Arizona law without the new bill. So while someone could be sued for refusing to serve gays, they would be generally protected against that suit since there are no explicit laws designating gays as a protected class.

I'm not a lawyer but neither the Senator nor the legal expert said that was not true.

underscoring the point that this was nothing but red meat to the hardcore base and a political stunt more than anything aimed at actually changing anything.

Note, however, that the language of the Arizona bill was not limited to discrimination against homosexuals.

 

[Clifford]

OK, can we stop the presses for a second on this religious liberty garbage?

Who here actually thinks it really infringes a Christian's religious liberty to have to provide service to a gay couple, and what is the justification of that belief that factors in the TOTALITY of Christ's teachings.

Until I get a satisfactory answer on that all the "concerns" for "religious liberty" is total horse#### IMO.

 

[bigbottom]

Pretty sure Arizonans can refuse to provide commercial services to people on religious grounds (as long as it's not racially motivated).

Right?

According to Anderson Cooper, his legal expert, and a State Senator planning a gubernatorial run, gays are not a protected class according to Arizona law without the new bill. So while someone could be sued for refusing to serve gays, they would be generally protected against that suit since there are no explicit laws designating gays as a protected class.

Aside from maybe a suit pursuant to a city ordinance, this is my legal opinion as well. Which is the main reason I thought the bill was ####### stupid, because it serves little to no practical purpose.

The bill is not limited to sexual orientation. I feel like I have to keep repeating myself.

 

[rockaction]

OK, can we stop the presses for a second on this religious liberty garbage?

Who here actually thinks it really infringes a Christian's religious liberty to have to provide service to a gay couple, and what is the justification of that belief that factors in the TOTALITY of Christ's teachings.

Until I get a satisfactory answer on that all the "concerns" for "religious liberty" is total horse#### IMO.

So in order to be taken seriously, one's Biblical interpretations have to agree with yours? That's the highest bar I've ever heard.

 

[rockaction]

Pretty sure Arizonans can refuse to provide commercial services to people on religious grounds (as long as it's not racially motivated).

Right?

According to Anderson Cooper, his legal expert, and a State Senator planning a gubernatorial run, gays are not a protected class according to Arizona law without the new bill. So while someone could be sued for refusing to serve gays, they would be generally protected against that suit since there are no explicit laws designating gays as a protected class.

Aside from maybe a suit pursuant to a city ordinance, this is my legal opinion as well. Which is the main reason I thought the bill was ####### stupid, because it serves little to no practical purpose.

The bill is not limited to sexual orientation. I feel like I have to keep repeating myself.

So BB, what's the link or the summary?

 

[Plorfu]

OK, can we stop the presses for a second on this religious liberty garbage?

Who here actually thinks it really infringes a Christian's religious liberty to have to provide service to a gay couple, and what is the justification of that belief that factors in the TOTALITY of Christ's teachings.

Until I get a satisfactory answer on that all the "concerns" for "religious liberty" is total horse#### IMO.

Waste not thy strudel on those who shall commit buggery, for if ye feed the sinners dessert, thou art a buggerer as well, and shall not see the Kingdom.

 

[Clifford]

OK, can we stop the presses for a second on this religious liberty garbage?

Who here actually thinks it really infringes a Christian's religious liberty to have to provide service to a gay couple, and what is the justification of that belief that factors in the TOTALITY of Christ's teachings.

Until I get a satisfactory answer on that all the "concerns" for "religious liberty" is total horse#### IMO.

So in order to be taken seriously, one's Biblical interpretations have to agree with yours? That's the highest bar I've ever heard.

No, just has to be consistent with the totality of Christ's teachings. My interpretation is irrelevant.

 

[bigbottom]

Not when the lawsuit wins, man. And they're winning them pretty consistently.

Nobody's forcing them to be in the cake sales business. But if they are going to be a public, for-profit business in the U.S. the law says they can't discriminate based on class/grouping. They can move to some other country that would let them run a business and discriminate who they serve if they want.

Not really. It's state law, not federal. Also, gays are not a protected class, which is where I suppose this is all going when one of these cases winds up in the S. Ct.

"I'm ignorant - are there any states in the U.S. that allow refusal of service by for profit businesses based on class/group?"

Gays aren't a class/group in a lot of states. I think you'd need an equal protection recognition or human rights statute and then recognition as a protected class to be a group and not just a couple of people.

A Con Law guy should check me on this.

There are state laws that prohibit discrimination in places of public accommodation with respect to certain protected classes.

 

[bigbottom]

I thought religion and gender were in the mix too?

That generally applies to the state/government making laws which discriminate against those groups. We're talking private sphere here.*

*Although I'd defer to a con law guy here. I haven't tackled non-4th,5th,6th,8th con law issues in several years.

There are staututory discrimination laws. Not everything is constitutional.

 

[bigbottom]

Pretty sure Arizonans can refuse to provide commercial services to people on religious grounds (as long as it's not racially motivated).

Right?

According to Anderson Cooper, his legal expert, and a State Senator planning a gubernatorial run, gays are not a protected class according to Arizona law without the new bill. So while someone could be sued for refusing to serve gays, they would be generally protected against that suit since there are no explicit laws designating gays as a protected class.

Aside from maybe a suit pursuant to a city ordinance, this is my legal opinion as well. Which is the main reason I thought the bill was ####### stupid, because it serves little to no practical purpose.

The bill is not limited to sexual orientation. I feel like I have to keep repeating myself.

So BB, what's the link or the summary?

I linked to the actual bill upthread. (Be prepared, it's sort of confusing).

 

[rockaction]

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.

I didn't even interpret it that far. I interpreted it as really only being a prophylactic against potential future legislation which may "force" business owners to cater to groups they find unsavory. Which, in my opinion, they probably can already do anyway so this law is basically just an assurance to the religious business owners that the Arizona legislature has their proverbial back.

I don't think the language of the statute supports your more narrow reading. Arizona currently has discrimination laws that apply to places of public accommodation. This statute would allow business to raise a religious defense to violation of existing discrimination laws. So while I think it was passed as a prophylactic against future legislation deisgnating sexual orientation as a protected class, as I read it, it still has application with respect to existing law (i.e., it's against my religion to serve Muslims).

Huh. Hadn't read the bill, but that sounds about right. Nowhere in this bill is "gay" mentioned. This is broad.

 

[CBusAlex]

and what is the justification of that belief that factors in the TOTALITY of Christ's teachings.

It doesn't matter. It's not like a religious belief that's consistent with Christ's teachings is somehow more valid than one that isn't. As far as the government is concerned, "because Jesus says so", "because Fred Phelps says so" and "because this space coyote I saw in a dream one time said so" ought to be equally valid justifications.

 

[timschochet]

Couple hypotheticals:

• 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?
• 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??

1. If he signed a contract to take photos, and then refuses to do so, he can be sued for violating his contract. On the other hand, if he makes a stipulation on the contract that he would not take photos under such conditions, that perfectly legal. But this is very different from a retail service offered to the general public.

2. No. A flower shop owner sells his merchandise to the general public, and cannot pick and choose.

Ok on the contract issue I agree, but that's it, the couple couldn't/wouldn't/shouldn't be able to sue for discrimination.

On No. 2 I completely disagree with you - the idea that an Orthodox Jew could be offended by the fact that someone was divorced is absolutely not something that can be sued upon anywhere. Not only that, it would be immoral and just plain wrong to punish someone for their religious beliefs in that way.

If an Orthodox Jew owns a flower shop that is open to the public, then he has to comply with the laws that governs retail that is open to the public. That means that he cannot discriminate for such a reason. Yes, he might be forced at some point to sell flowers to divorced people. (How he would know they were divorced is a good question.) If he's got a problem with this, then he shouldn't open up a flower shop.

 

[timschochet]

The problem with Clifford's argument is that the "totality of Christ's teachings" is subjective.

 

[LinusMarr]

The problem with Clifford's argument is that the "totality of Christ's teachings" is subjective.

I think Clifford has a lot of problems....

 

[Clifford]

and what is the justification of that belief that factors in the TOTALITY of Christ's teachings.

It doesn't matter. It's not like a religious belief that's consistent with Christ's teachings is somehow more valid than one that isn't. As far as the government is concerned, "because Jesus says so", "because Fred Phelps says so" and "because this space coyote I saw in a dream one time said so" ought to be equally valid justifications.

I think it matters to take people to task on a false claim, which is that being forced to serve or interact with gays limits religious liberty. To Tim, subjectivity is too fine a point for this. It's blatantly inconsistent with Christ's teachings.

 

[CBusAlex]

I think it matters to take people to task on a false claim, which is that being forced to serve or interact with gays limits religious liberty. To Tim, subjectivity is too fine a point for this. It's blatantly inconsistent with Christ's teachings.

The people who would refuse to serve gay customers because Fred Phelps tells them to are still following a religion, although it may be one that places the teachings of Phelps above the teachings of Jesus.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Couple hypotheticals:

• 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?
• 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??

1. If he signed a contract to take photos, and then refuses to do so, he can be sued for violating his contract. On the other hand, if he makes a stipulation on the contract that he would not take photos under such conditions, that perfectly legal. But this is very different from a retail service offered to the general public.

2. No. A flower shop owner sells his merchandise to the general public, and cannot pick and choose.

Ok on the contract issue I agree, but that's it, the couple couldn't/wouldn't/shouldn't be able to sue for discrimination.

On No. 2 I completely disagree with you - the idea that an Orthodox Jew could be offended by the fact that someone was divorced is absolutely not something that can be sued upon anywhere. Not only that, it would be immoral and just plain wrong to punish someone for their religious beliefs in that way.

If an Orthodox Jew owns a flower shop that is open to the public, then he has to comply with the laws that governs retail that is open to the public. That means that he cannot discriminate for such a reason. Yes, he might be forced at some point to sell flowers to divorced people. (How he would know they were divorced is a good question.) If he's got a problem with this, then he shouldn't open up a flower shop.

I'm sorry but that is just crazy and I don't agree.

Another couple hypos:

Say a liberal San Fran coffee shop owner refuses to sell to a guy wearing a "George Bush Was Right" t-shirt, and then later a kid wearing a "Young Republican" t-shirt. I'd say he's totally within his rights to do that.

Say a conservative bar owner in Montana refuses to sell beer to a customer with long hair, sandals and a "Hope/Change" Obama campaign shirt. I'd say he's totally within his rights.

Religious liberty is also religious speech, which is free speech. Words are not the only way to speak under the Constitution, actions are speech too.

A business owner is not required to serve any and all persons who come into his business.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

and what is the justification of that belief that factors in the TOTALITY of Christ's teachings.

It doesn't matter. It's not like a religious belief that's consistent with Christ's teachings is somehow more valid than one that isn't. As far as the government is concerned, "because Jesus says so", "because Fred Phelps says so" and "because this space coyote I saw in a dream one time said so" ought to be equally valid justifications.

I think it matters to take people to task on a false claim, which is that being forced to serve or interact with gays limits religious liberty. To Tim, subjectivity is too fine a point for this. It's blatantly inconsistent with Christ's teachings.

I just want to say I totally agree with you on this basis.

One of the horrible things about that law (and maybe it was the Kansas law that was posted earlier in the thread) was that it required a determination if the business owner was acting in a "sincere" manner. We would be turning judges into religious imams or theocrats making decisions based on religious law (and remember folks it's not just Christians who would be applying this principle, so the judge could be interpreting the Talmud, the koran, you name it, not just the Bible, because Christians are not the only possible religion who could be objecting to serving gay customers).

 

[squistion]

Couple hypotheticals:

• 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?
• 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??

1. If he signed a contract to take photos, and then refuses to do so, he can be sued for violating his contract. On the other hand, if he makes a stipulation on the contract that he would not take photos under such conditions, that perfectly legal. But this is very different from a retail service offered to the general public.

2. No. A flower shop owner sells his merchandise to the general public, and cannot pick and choose.

Ok on the contract issue I agree, but that's it, the couple couldn't/wouldn't/shouldn't be able to sue for discrimination.

On No. 2 I completely disagree with you - the idea that an Orthodox Jew could be offended by the fact that someone was divorced is absolutely not something that can be sued upon anywhere. Not only that, it would be immoral and just plain wrong to punish someone for their religious beliefs in that way.

If an Orthodox Jew owns a flower shop that is open to the public, then he has to comply with the laws that governs retail that is open to the public. That means that he cannot discriminate for such a reason. Yes, he might be forced at some point to sell flowers to divorced people. (How he would know they were divorced is a good question.) If he's got a problem with this, then he shouldn't open up a flower shop.

I'm sorry but that is just crazy and I don't agree.

Another couple hypos:

Say a liberal San Fran coffee shop owner refuses to sell to a guy wearing a "George Bush Was Right" t-shirt, and then later a kid wearing a "Young Republican" t-shirt. I'd say he's totally within his rights to do that.

Say a conservative bar owner in Montana refuses to sell beer to a customer with long hair, sandals and a "Hope/Change" Obama campaign shirt. I'd say he's totally within his rights.

Religious liberty is also religious speech, which is free speech. Words are not the only way to speak under the Constitution, actions are speech too.

A business owner is not required to serve any and all persons who come into his business.

So, in other words, you think that segregation was just fine in the 50s/60s South and should not have been outlawed as far as public accommodations and restaurants/diners were concerned?

 

[Clifford]

Pretty much no part of either law is necessary, makes sense, or is executable in any practical manner. In all instances, it would inhibit business growth, tie up courts with needless and complex cases and litigation, and would allow bad behavior instead promoting good behavior.

 

[Run It Up]

A business owner is not required to serve any and all persons who come into his business.

So, in other words, you think that segregation was just fine in the 50s/60s South and should not have been outlawed as far as public accommodations and restaurants/diners were concerned?

Now you're just putting words in his butt.

 

[rockaction]

Pretty much no part of either law is necessary, makes sense, or is executable in any practical manner. In all instances, it would inhibit business growth, tie up courts with needless and complex cases and litigation, and would allow bad behavior instead promoting good behavior.

I think this is why both were shelved. The ####show it would have entailed in the courts and in practical matters is unreal. Goodbye to this stuff. Legislators will now look to the courts for tough decisions.

I don't endorse it, but that's what is going to happen.

 

[Clifford]

Why Republicans insist on wasting everyone's time with unpassable and unworkable bills is beyond me. It's like they're trying to alienate as many people as possible.

 

[njherdfan]

Couple hypotheticals:

• 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?
• 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??

1. If he signed a contract to take photos, and then refuses to do so, he can be sued for violating his contract. On the other hand, if he makes a stipulation on the contract that he would not take photos under such conditions, that perfectly legal. But this is very different from a retail service offered to the general public.

2. No. A flower shop owner sells his merchandise to the general public, and cannot pick and choose.

Ok on the contract issue I agree, but that's it, the couple couldn't/wouldn't/shouldn't be able to sue for discrimination.

On No. 2 I completely disagree with you - the idea that an Orthodox Jew could be offended by the fact that someone was divorced is absolutely not something that can be sued upon anywhere. Not only that, it would be immoral and just plain wrong to punish someone for their religious beliefs in that way.

If an Orthodox Jew owns a flower shop that is open to the public, then he has to comply with the laws that governs retail that is open to the public. That means that he cannot discriminate for such a reason. Yes, he might be forced at some point to sell flowers to divorced people. (How he would know they were divorced is a good question.) If he's got a problem with this, then he shouldn't open up a flower shop.

I'm sorry but that is just crazy and I don't agree.

Another couple hypos:

Say a liberal San Fran coffee shop owner refuses to sell to a guy wearing a "George Bush Was Right" t-shirt, and then later a kid wearing a "Young Republican" t-shirt. I'd say he's totally within his rights to do that.

Say a conservative bar owner in Montana refuses to sell beer to a customer with long hair, sandals and a "Hope/Change" Obama campaign shirt. I'd say he's totally within his rights.

Religious liberty is also religious speech, which is free speech. Words are not the only way to speak under the Constitution, actions are speech too.

A business owner is not required to serve any and all persons who come into his business.

Are you basing this on what you view as appropriate? Does this extend to race?

 

[rockaction]

Why Republicans insist on wasting everyone's time with unpassable and unworkable bills is beyond me. It's like they're trying to alienate as many people as possible.

Yeah, but it's not ridiculous, IMO. They're just turning it over to the courts. The legislatures and courts can't handle what their own legislation entails. Narrowing might be the first step. Like tightening up real religious entities and ceremonies. Then moving onto socially conscious dissenters. That might work. But these bills are so broad, it can't bear the weight.

 

[Zow]

Pretty sure Arizonans can refuse to provide commercial services to people on religious grounds (as long as it's not racially motivated).

Right?

According to Anderson Cooper, his legal expert, and a State Senator planning a gubernatorial run, gays are not a protected class according to Arizona law without the new bill. So while someone could be sued for refusing to serve gays, they would be generally protected against that suit since there are no explicit laws designating gays as a protected class.

Aside from maybe a suit pursuant to a city ordinance, this is my legal opinion as well. Which is the main reason I thought the bill was ####### stupid, because it serves little to no practical purpose.

The bill is not limited to sexual orientation. I feel like I have to keep repeating myself.

I never said it wasn't. It's limited to areas where there are no compelling state interests or whatever.

 

[Zow]

I thought religion and gender were in the mix too?

That generally applies to the state/government making laws which discriminate against those groups. We're talking private sphere here.*

*Although I'd defer to a con law guy here. I haven't tackled non-4th,5th,6th,8th con law issues in several years.

There are staututory discrimination laws. Not everything is constitutional.

I recognize that. And I stated that my interpretation (which is shared by every other licensed AZ atty I've spoken to on it) is that our state statutes do not cover discrimination outside race and sex. Some city ordinances may, but, if we're speaking within the limited issue of GLBT rights (which, while not mentioned in the bill, is the driving force) I don't believe discrimination against this group is made unlawful by state statute.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Couple hypotheticals:

• 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?
• 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??

1. If he signed a contract to take photos, and then refuses to do so, he can be sued for violating his contract. On the other hand, if he makes a stipulation on the contract that he would not take photos under such conditions, that perfectly legal. But this is very different from a retail service offered to the general public.

2. No. A flower shop owner sells his merchandise to the general public, and cannot pick and choose.

Ok on the contract issue I agree, but that's it, the couple couldn't/wouldn't/shouldn't be able to sue for discrimination.

On No. 2 I completely disagree with you - the idea that an Orthodox Jew could be offended by the fact that someone was divorced is absolutely not something that can be sued upon anywhere. Not only that, it would be immoral and just plain wrong to punish someone for their religious beliefs in that way.

If an Orthodox Jew owns a flower shop that is open to the public, then he has to comply with the laws that governs retail that is open to the public. That means that he cannot discriminate for such a reason. Yes, he might be forced at some point to sell flowers to divorced people. (How he would know they were divorced is a good question.) If he's got a problem with this, then he shouldn't open up a flower shop.

I'm sorry but that is just crazy and I don't agree.

Another couple hypos:

Say a liberal San Fran coffee shop owner refuses to sell to a guy wearing a "George Bush Was Right" t-shirt, and then later a kid wearing a "Young Republican" t-shirt. I'd say he's totally within his rights to do that.

Say a conservative bar owner in Montana refuses to sell beer to a customer with long hair, sandals and a "Hope/Change" Obama campaign shirt. I'd say he's totally within his rights.

Religious liberty is also religious speech, which is free speech. Words are not the only way to speak under the Constitution, actions are speech too.

A business owner is not required to serve any and all persons who come into his business.

Are you basing this on what you view as appropriate? Does this extend to race?

Personally? No, I don't think it's appropriate, but it is legal.

And no, it never extends to race, not morally or legally.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Couple hypotheticals:

• 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?
• 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??

1. If he signed a contract to take photos, and then refuses to do so, he can be sued for violating his contract. On the other hand, if he makes a stipulation on the contract that he would not take photos under such conditions, that perfectly legal. But this is very different from a retail service offered to the general public.

2. No. A flower shop owner sells his merchandise to the general public, and cannot pick and choose.

Ok on the contract issue I agree, but that's it, the couple couldn't/wouldn't/shouldn't be able to sue for discrimination.

On No. 2 I completely disagree with you - the idea that an Orthodox Jew could be offended by the fact that someone was divorced is absolutely not something that can be sued upon anywhere. Not only that, it would be immoral and just plain wrong to punish someone for their religious beliefs in that way.

If an Orthodox Jew owns a flower shop that is open to the public, then he has to comply with the laws that governs retail that is open to the public. That means that he cannot discriminate for such a reason. Yes, he might be forced at some point to sell flowers to divorced people. (How he would know they were divorced is a good question.) If he's got a problem with this, then he shouldn't open up a flower shop.

I'm sorry but that is just crazy and I don't agree.

Another couple hypos:

Say a liberal San Fran coffee shop owner refuses to sell to a guy wearing a "George Bush Was Right" t-shirt, and then later a kid wearing a "Young Republican" t-shirt. I'd say he's totally within his rights to do that.

Say a conservative bar owner in Montana refuses to sell beer to a customer with long hair, sandals and a "Hope/Change" Obama campaign shirt. I'd say he's totally within his rights.

Religious liberty is also religious speech, which is free speech. Words are not the only way to speak under the Constitution, actions are speech too.

A business owner is not required to serve any and all persons who come into his business.

So, in other words [they're yours I'm afraid], you think that segregation was just fine in the 50s/60s South [NOPE!] and should not have been outlawed [wowza, no way is that correct] as far as public accommodations [nope] and restaurants/diners [and nope] were concerned?

Yikes, man overboard.

Let's reel that baby in there. I've put my notes in with your question above because there are a lot of suppositions and I want to be sure to cover them all. Basically the answer is: no, I don't believe that at all.

Race is different. You completely ignore the two hypotheticals there which had nothing to do with perceived race or ethnicity on anyone's part.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Why Republicans insist on wasting everyone's time with unpassable and unworkable bills is beyond me. It's like they're trying to alienate as many people as possible.

The defining moment I recall and always remember was the Terry Schiavo bill. An ex post facto bill directed towards one (albeit suffering) person and her family.

I think the answer to your question as to "why" is 1. overreaction and 2. fundraising. I think wedge issues like this used to work for them and somehow someway, maybe between Lewinskygate and Obama's birthplace people just stopped listening to them. I don't think people are really listening to Democrats either but the Demos seem to have learned that they shoudl be the ones laughing at the overreactors not being the ones laughed at.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Let's see if we can find a hypothetical we ALL agree with.

Man walks into a Milwaukee coffee shop filled with kids and parents wearing a t-shirt that says "Jeffrey Dahmer Was Right!" with graphic images on it.

The coffee shop is owned by a very religious Jewish man who is immediately, personally appalled and disgusted and decides to evict the man based on his religious beliefs.

Must the coffee shop owner serve that man with the t-shirt?

We all agree that gay marriage is not in the same conversation, I'm sure. It is not a comparison. But we can agree that there are some other grounds upon which a business owner can evict someone from their business or just not serve them on religious grounds.

 

[fatness]

"Religious liberty" is just the newest Magic Trump Card being tried out to cover the real reason for something, in this case trying to deny someone else some right or ability. Magic Trump Card phrases try to make opponents seem to be against children, or for terrorists, or whatever. ("think of the children" and "terrorism" were earlier Magic Trump Card phrases used to cover real intention, and both phrases now have worn out much of their magic). So now there's "religious liberty", and if you oppose what it advocates you're supposedly against religion, or against god, or against Christians, etc.

People seldom want to argue openly in favor of discrimination. So "religious liberty" is the cover it's wrapped in.

 

[fatness]

Let's see if we can find a hypothetical we ALL agree with.

Man walks into a Milwaukee coffee shop filled with kids and parents wearing a t-shirt that says "Jeffrey Dahmer Was Right!" with graphic images on it.

The coffee shop is owned by a very religious Jewish man who is immediately appalled and disgusted and decides to evict the man based on his religious beliefs.

Must the coffee shop owner serve that man with the t-shirt?

What difference does it make why he evicts the guy? Is evicting him for supposed religious reasons better than evicting him for another reason?

 

[Gr00vus]

Let's see if we can find a hypothetical we ALL agree with.

Man walks into a Milwaukee coffee shop filled with kids and parents wearing a t-shirt that says "Jeffrey Dahmer Was Right!" with graphic images on it.

The coffee shop is owned by a very religious Jewish man who is immediately appalled and disgusted and decides to evict the man based on his religious beliefs.

Must the coffee shop owner serve that man with the t-shirt?

I don't think he does, but the reason for his refusal doesn't necessarily have to stem from any particular religious beliefs. The shirt is disruptive regardless of religion. Also inappropriate t-shirt wearers aren't really anywhere near consideration as a protected class, so I don't think this is a great discussion scenario for the topic at hand.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Let's see if we can find a hypothetical we ALL agree with.

Man walks into a Milwaukee coffee shop filled with kids and parents wearing a t-shirt that says "Jeffrey Dahmer Was Right!" with graphic images on it.

The coffee shop is owned by a very religious Jewish man who is immediately appalled and disgusted and decides to evict the man based on his religious beliefs.

Must the coffee shop owner serve that man with the t-shirt?

What difference does it make why he evicts the guy? Is evicting him for supposed religious reasons better than evicting him for another reason?

No, there are moral reasons outside religiously based ones, but both kinds of reasons have merit.

 

[timschochet]

Let's see if we can find a hypothetical we ALL agree with.

Man walks into a Milwaukee coffee shop filled with kids and parents wearing a t-shirt that says "Jeffrey Dahmer Was Right!" with graphic images on it.

The coffee shop is owned by a very religious Jewish man who is immediately appalled and disgusted and decides to evict the man based on his religious beliefs.

Must the coffee shop owner serve that man with the t-shirt?

Yes, they can evict him. But Id like to see you make the argument that their right to evict him in this instance would also allow a baker to refuse service to a gay couple- because I'm not seeing it.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Let's see if we can find a hypothetical we ALL agree with.

Man walks into a Milwaukee coffee shop filled with kids and parents wearing a t-shirt that says "Jeffrey Dahmer Was Right!" with graphic images on it.

The coffee shop is owned by a very religious Jewish man who is immediately appalled and disgusted and decides to evict the man based on his religious beliefs.

Must the coffee shop owner serve that man with the t-shirt?

I don't think he does, but the reason for his refusal doesn't necessarily have to stem from any particular religious beliefs. Also inappropriate t-shirt wearers aren't really anywhere near consideration as a protected class, so I don't think this is a great discussion scenario for the topic at hand.

I have to admit I may have missed a beat - in Arizona specifically are gays/lesbians a protected class?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Let's see if we can find a hypothetical we ALL agree with.

Man walks into a Milwaukee coffee shop filled with kids and parents wearing a t-shirt that says "Jeffrey Dahmer Was Right!" with graphic images on it.

The coffee shop is owned by a very religious Jewish man who is immediately appalled and disgusted and decides to evict the man based on his religious beliefs.

Must the coffee shop owner serve that man with the t-shirt?

Yes, they can evict him. But Id like to see you make the argument that their right to evict him in this instance would also allow a baker to refuse service to a gay couple- because I'm not seeing it.

I may be late to the party if you guys have been discussing this, but I'm basing this on teh idea that in Arizona at least orientation is not on a protected level on a par with race.

So what I'm saying is based on that - but to answer your question, once you establish that religious objection is a legitimate grounds for refusing to do business with someone it can go in any number of directions and any degrees.

This is a free speech and free association issue, not a religious liberty issue.

 

[Gr00vus]

Let's see if we can find a hypothetical we ALL agree with.

Man walks into a Milwaukee coffee shop filled with kids and parents wearing a t-shirt that says "Jeffrey Dahmer Was Right!" with graphic images on it.

The coffee shop is owned by a very religious Jewish man who is immediately appalled and disgusted and decides to evict the man based on his religious beliefs.

Must the coffee shop owner serve that man with the t-shirt?

I don't think he does, but the reason for his refusal doesn't necessarily have to stem from any particular religious beliefs. Also inappropriate t-shirt wearers aren't really anywhere near consideration as a protected class, so I don't think this is a great discussion scenario for the topic at hand.

I have to admit I may have missed a beat - in Arizona specifically are gays/lesbians a protected class?

Apparently not. But I think that's the crux of the problem - things seem to be heading that way in a de facto manner. I should really leave these kinds of comments to the lawyers and business owners among us.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Let's see if we can find a hypothetical we ALL agree with.

Man walks into a Milwaukee coffee shop filled with kids and parents wearing a t-shirt that says "Jeffrey Dahmer Was Right!" with graphic images on it.

The coffee shop is owned by a very religious Jewish man who is immediately appalled and disgusted and decides to evict the man based on his religious beliefs.

Must the coffee shop owner serve that man with the t-shirt?

I don't think he does, but the reason for his refusal doesn't necessarily have to stem from any particular religious beliefs. Also inappropriate t-shirt wearers aren't really anywhere near consideration as a protected class, so I don't think this is a great discussion scenario for the topic at hand.

I have to admit I may have missed a beat - in Arizona specifically are gays/lesbians a protected class?

Apparently not. But I think that's the crux of the problem. I should really leave these kinds of comments to the lawyers and business owners among us.

Ok fair enough, everything I'm saying is based on the idea that in AZ at least (and lots of places) orientation is not a protected class.

 

[fatness]

Let's see if we can find a hypothetical we ALL agree with.

Man walks into a Milwaukee coffee shop filled with kids and parents wearing a t-shirt that says "Jeffrey Dahmer Was Right!" with graphic images on it.

The coffee shop is owned by a very religious Jewish man who is immediately appalled and disgusted and decides to evict the man based on his religious beliefs.

Must the coffee shop owner serve that man with the t-shirt?

What difference does it make why he evicts the guy? Is evicting him for supposed religious reasons better than evicting him for another reason?

No, there are moral reasons outside religiously based ones, but both reasons have merit.

So why does your example only include evicting him for religious reasons? Religious reasons should carry no more or less weight than other reasons.

 

[timschochet]

SaintsInDome, what if, in the year 1966, a baker refuses to make a wedding cake for an interracial couple? The baker explains that he's not anti-black at all; it's just that his religious beliefs are that races shouldn't mix. (This is NOT some hypothetical- lots of religious Christians believed this 50 years ago and some still do.) does this baker have the right to refuse based on your religious liberty argument?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Let's see if we can find a hypothetical we ALL agree with.

Man walks into a Milwaukee coffee shop filled with kids and parents wearing a t-shirt that says "Jeffrey Dahmer Was Right!" with graphic images on it.

The coffee shop is owned by a very religious Jewish man who is immediately appalled and disgusted and decides to evict the man based on his religious beliefs.

Must the coffee shop owner serve that man with the t-shirt?

What difference does it make why he evicts the guy? Is evicting him for supposed religious reasons better than evicting him for another reason?

No, there are moral reasons outside religiously based ones, but both reasons have merit.

So why does your example only include evicting him for religious reasons? Religious reasons should carry no more or less weight than other reasons.

Well I agree, you can expand it. It can be whatever underlies the owner's beliefs. Let's stick with the Dahmer t-shirt guy because we all agree he's disgusting (right?).

Let's say the owner's not Jewish, he's an aetheist and he most definitely has morals and his moral code says what this customer stands for is absolutely anathema to everything this business owner believes. As far as I'm concerned same thing goes. Call it morality or "belief" or "code of behavior" the owner stands on, but no matter what it's translated as speech, his speech, and he speaks freely and shows his disgust when he kicks that man out.

And he has a right to do that (IMO).

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

SaintsInDome, what if, in the year 1966, a baker refuses to make a wedding cake for an interracial couple? The baker explains that he's not anti-black at all; it's just that his religious beliefs are that races shouldn't mix. (This is NOT some hypothetical- lots of religious Christians believed this 50 years ago and some still do.) does this baker have the right to refuse based on your religious liberty argument?

The answer is no.

We have rights but our rights do not rample other people's rights.

You can't just steal someone's tv and defend yourself by saying "well I hated the guy and I just wanted to show it, it's free speech."

To me, race (ethnicity/anationality) is enshrined in the 13th-14th Amendments. It's specifically mentioned. We do not all have a right to go to our specific favorite baker and make him serve us a cake (think of the Soup Nazi in Seinfeld... Jerry and George didn't get to sue after all). We do have a right that the service not be denied us because of our race.

 

[timschochet]

SaintsInDome, what if, in the year 1966, a baker refuses to make a wedding cake for an interracial couple? The baker explains that he's not anti-black at all; it's just that his religious beliefs are that races shouldn't mix. (This is NOT some hypothetical- lots of religious Christians believed this 50 years ago and some still do.) does this baker have the right to refuse based on your religious liberty argument?

The answer is no.

We have rights but our rights do not rample other people's rights.

You can't just steal someone's tv and defend yourself by saying "well I hated the guy and I just wanted to show it, it's free speech."

To me, race (ethnicity/anationality) is enshrined in the 13th-14th Amendments. It's specifically mentioned. We do not all have a right to go to our specific favorite baker and make him serve us a cake (think of the Soup Nazi in Seinfeld... Jerry and George didn't get to sue after all). We do have a right that the service not be denied us because of our race.

But that's not happening in my hypothetical. He is not refusing a black person service. He is refusing an interracial couple due to his religious beliefs. If you think he can't refuse them, then logically he can't refuse a gay couple either. What's the difference?

 

[Dr Oadi]

If a company performs wedding services for the general public, then they shouldn't be able to discriminate against gay people or anyone else.

Sorry, I meant should religious institutions be forced to provide wedding services for gay people against their will?

Should a church or synagogue be forced to perform a gay wedding? No. Did you have something else in mind?

So a preacher is ok if he discriminates against gays at the marriage altar but not ok to discriminate against gays before his part time bakery store. Serve blacks and gays comparison. Big steaming pile of crap.

 

[squistion]

SaintsInDome, what if, in the year 1966, a baker refuses to make a wedding cake for an interracial couple? The baker explains that he's not anti-black at all; it's just that his religious beliefs are that races shouldn't mix. (This is NOT some hypothetical- lots of religious Christians believed this 50 years ago and some still do.) does this baker have the right to refuse based on your religious liberty argument?

The answer is no.

We have rights but our rights do not rample other people's rights.

You can't just steal someone's tv and defend yourself by saying "well I hated the guy and I just wanted to show it, it's free speech."

To me, race (ethnicity/anationality) is enshrined in the 13th-14th Amendments. It's specifically mentioned. We do not all have a right to go to our specific favorite baker and make him serve us a cake (think of the Soup Nazi in Seinfeld... Jerry and George didn't get to sue after all). We do have a right that the service not be denied us because of our race.

But that's not happening in my hypothetical. He is not refusing a black person service. He is refusing an interracial couple due to his religious beliefs. If you think he can't refuse them, then logically he can't refuse a gay couple either. What's the difference?

There isn't any, conceptually it is the same logic and if he were honest he would say so - but he would be automatically branded as a bigot if he was consistent and said service should be denied on the basis on race because of religious beliefs and he doesn't want to go there.