Good work, Arizona (1 Viewer)

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Who is spinning it....they absolutely will draft him earlier than the scouts say he should be. There is zero doubt in my mind. Of course the way he is falling that could be in the 5th now. Unless he starts kicking butt in the combines, his projections might go to 6th or below.

And if he were to sign as a free agent the day after the draft concludes you would still claim to have called it!

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

a) Andrew Sullivan has led this charge. Anyone disagreeing with gay marriage is a bigot, because all of the arguments have been won.

They haven't? Well, technically I think it took some of us (me included) a bit of time to realize there never was an argument to consider against gay marriage, so since there was no such argument none were won.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

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

Us vs Them

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

You keep bringing up the civil rights analogy, and I keep disagreeing with it. It's getting kind of funny.

"Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood" - Coretta Scott King

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

It'll be funny to see your reaction when someone isn't served because they're wearing a cross necklace or a GOP pin.

You assume way too much.

We get it! The GOP is way too far to the left for all of the boards true "both parties suck" "independents".

I look at it as an individualist/state issue, not as a left/right one. So, you're not really correct. At all.

Denying the individual the right to discriminate without a really good, legitimate reason supports these legitimate goals of society (i.e. the state)-

to establish Justice,

to insure domestic Tranquility,

to promote the general Welfare,

to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

and even to provide for the common defence

in order to form a more perfect Union.

Spoiler

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

[PatsWillWin]

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.

What the crap does this have to do with religion?

 

[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.

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.

Well, I don't know what to tell you. No offense intended, but you and every other licensed AZ attorney you've spoken to on it are wrong. I already quoted the statute for you upthread, but I'll quote it again, along with a link. And yes, you are correct that sexual orientation is not a protected class under AZ law, but there are additional protected classes under your state's discrimination law beyond race and sex, all of which are implicated by the now vetoed bill passed by the AZ legislature.

41-1442. Discrimination in places of public accommodation

A. Discrimination in places of public accommodation against any person because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin or ancestry is contrary to the policy of this state and shall be deemed unlawful.B. No person, directly or indirectly, shall refuse to, withhold from or deny to any person, nor aid in or incite the refusal to deny or withhold, accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges thereof because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin or ancestry, nor shall distinction be made with respect to any person based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin or ancestry in connection with the price or quality of any item, goods or services offered by or at any place of public accommodation.

Bonus link

And the Arizonans With Disabilities Act makes it unlawful to discriminate against people with disabilities in places of public accommodation.

Here is your Arizona attorney general's office weighing in:

Discrimination in Places of Public Accommodation Tip Card

Arizona law makes it unlawful for a public accommodation to discriminate because of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex or disability.

And another link from your attorney general:

Public Accommodation Discrimination
The following Categories are protected:

• Race
• Color
• National Origin/Ancestry
• Sex
• Religion/Creed
• Physical/Mental disability

 

[rockaction]

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

Us vs Them

They're is a plural.

 

[rockaction]

You keep bringing up the civil rights analogy, and I keep disagreeing with it. It's getting kind of funny.

"Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood" - Coretta Scott King

citing authority.

 

[rockaction]

It'll be funny to see your reaction when someone isn't served because they're wearing a cross necklace or a GOP pin.

You assume way too much.

We get it! The GOP is way too far to the left for all of the boards true "both parties suck" "independents".

I look at it as an individualist/state issue, not as a left/right one. So, you're not really correct. At all.

Denying the individual the right to discriminate without a really good, legitimate reason supports these legitimate goals of society (i.e. the state)-

to establish Justice,

to insure domestic Tranquility,

to promote the general Welfare,

to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

and even to provide for the common defence

in order to form a more perfect Union.

Spoiler

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Nice preamble to the preamble.

 

[rockaction]

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.

That's kind of what I was getting at.

 

[squistion]

You keep bringing up the civil rights analogy, and I keep disagreeing with it. It's getting kind of funny.

"Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood" - Coretta Scott King

citing authority.

Citing someone who has personally experienced more racism and bigotry than all the pasty white guys on this board put together.

 

[rockaction]

You keep bringing up the civil rights analogy, and I keep disagreeing with it. It's getting kind of funny.

"Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood" - Coretta Scott King

citing authority.

Citing someone who has personally experienced more racism and bigotry than all the pasty white guys on this board put together.

True.

 

[rockaction]

rockaction, I do not regard you as a bigot or homophobic. Your responses are far too intelligent to make that insulting assumption, and I would never do so. But I do believe that you, for whatever reason, are giving much too much of a libertarian regard to this particular issue when it's out of place in context of greater issues. Let's look at your concerns, one by one:

1. Private conscience IS important. Some of my friends back in college boycotted Coke for dealing with Apartheid South Africa, and that's fine. But in terms of offering products to the general public, we cannot allow for discrimination based on private conscience, IMO. In a 100% libertarian society, I could refuse someone service because they were black or Chinese or Muslim. It would entirely be MY decision. But I don't want to live in a society like that; do you?

2. It seems to me that the political activism came, in this instance, from the writers of this bill. Furthermore, in past years, opposition to gay issues has garnered much more political activism than the other side. In 2004, it heavily influenced the result of a presidential election. So I think blaming the pro-gay side for pushing these issues is ill-thought out and just plain wrong.

3. If by "personal", you mean that anti-homosexuality is increasingly being perceived by our society as an objective wrong, then to me that's a positive, or at least far better than the opposite. (a) I don't agree with Andrew Sullivan's absolutism on this issue. Several times in this forum I have defended opponents on gay issues as not necessarily bigoted. However, I think this is a really minor concern. (b) Beavers was being facetious. You seem a lot angrier than she did.

4. Actually people start topics on the increase in government all the time. The issue of Obamacare has dominated political discussion in this forum for the past several years, and the entire essence of that discussion regards the growth of the federal government. Compared to that, this issue is extremely minor (so far as the growth of government power is concerned.)

Finally, it depends which elements of the New Deal you want to roll back, and, just as importantly, how it can be done without causing too much pain to existing situations. I'm sure some would suggest you a loon; not me. This type of forum is the perfect place to have such a discussion IMO, and in fact we've had many.

Sorry I didn't get around to this until late-night. You put the time in, and deserve a response.

1) My concern is private, religious conscience. I know it's a problematic point, but it's one I'm willing to stick by.

2) I really don't believe that. I think the legislation has been a reaction -- or, as both Zow and bigbottom have expressed, a preemptive prophylactic (not that they agree at all, I'm limiting it to this sentence only) -- to the lawsuits. Good for the goose, gander, all that stuff.

3) I mean that protests about political structures become inherently personal. Like, you're rejecting someone's inner-most core if you disagree with their political position based on their identity. This is problematic in the gay community, because most of this does indeed -- yes -- focus around normal service and normal acceptance of monogamous relationships. It is almost inherently personal. Perhaps I need to re-trace on this one.

4) Obamacare is fine. But I'm not a policy wonk like many on the board are. Let's get the legal historians in here and do Roscoe Pound's journey from New Dealer to conservative. Or I'd be willing to humbly join a thread that dealt with political philosophy. Stuff like that would interest me.

Anyway, Tim, thanks for your response.

 

[jon_mx]

Who is spinning it....they absolutely will draft him earlier than the scouts say he should be. There is zero doubt in my mind. Of course the way he is falling that could be in the 5th now. Unless he starts kicking butt in the combines, his projections might go to 6th or below.

And if he were to sign as a free agent the day after the draft concludes you would still claim to have called it!

I will claim I was right if he is drafted before what he is projected at. If he gets more endorsements than any other person in his draft position. And if there is no significant backlash against him.

If coming out was a net positive for the guy, then I was right. The naysayers all started off proclaiming how brave this was, how difficult it was going to be for him, how his draft position was going to hurt by being gay. That is just not the case.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Who is spinning it....they absolutely will draft him earlier than the scouts say he should be. There is zero doubt in my mind. Of course the way he is falling that could be in the 5th now. Unless he starts kicking butt in the combines, his projections might go to 6th or below.

And if he were to sign as a free agent the day after the draft concludes you would still claim to have called it!

I will claim I was right if he is drafted before what he is projected at. If he gets more endorsements than any other person in his draft position. And if there is no significant backlash against him.

If coming out was a net positive for the guy, then I was right. The naysayers all started off proclaiming how brave this was, how difficult it was going to be for him, how his draft position was going to hurt by being gay. That is just not the case.

So who is the authority for "what he is projected at"? The statements of other GMs and front office staff who don't want the distraction on their team? The bigots in the locker room who tell us during thosethings no longer called "mini camps" that "they have nothing against him being on their team, but he just isn't that good of a player"?That is the beauty of your position - it can't be wrong. Even if no team brings him to camp-

"Well his talent level projected him as a non NFLer all along, but his announcement at least got him to the combine and a 'pro day'."

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

You keep bringing up the civil rights analogy, and I keep disagreeing with it. It's getting kind of funny.

"Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood" - Coretta Scott King

citing authority.

Would you have preferred if I just asked how having one's civil rights denied is not analogous to civil rights issues? Equal protection under the law requires that we treat people as people, and protect people from others that would deny that status.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

1) My concern is private, religious conscience. I know it's a problematic point, but it's one I'm willing to stick by.

How are these beliefs private when they are resulting in bigoted actions in the public sphere?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

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

Us vs Them

They're is a plural.

Why are you concerned about "those people" that are being wronged winning lawsuits as if it is wrong?

 

[msommer]

1) My concern is private, religious conscience. I know it's a problematic point, but it's one I'm willing to stick by.

How are these beliefs private when they are resulting in bigoted actions in the public sphere?

How about if all people who have strong beliefs (religious or otherwise) that would stop them from serving or engaging with ALL potential customers, regardless of sexual preference, race, acestry, religion etc, refrain voluntarily from entering into professions that would tempt them to deny ANY other person their civil rights?

That would solve the issue, and lighten the burden for legislators and courts.

 

[jon_mx]

Who is spinning it....they absolutely will draft him earlier than the scouts say he should be. There is zero doubt in my mind. Of course the way he is falling that could be in the 5th now. Unless he starts kicking butt in the combines, his projections might go to 6th or below.

And if he were to sign as a free agent the day after the draft concludes you would still claim to have called it!

I will claim I was right if he is drafted before what he is projected at. If he gets more endorsements than any other person in his draft position. And if there is no significant backlash against him.If coming out was a net positive for the guy, then I was right. The naysayers all started off proclaiming how brave this was, how difficult it was going to be for him, how his draft position was going to hurt by being gay. That is just not the case.

So who is the authority for "what he is projected at"? The statements of other GMs and front office staff who don't want the distraction on their team? The bigots in the locker room who tell us during thosethings no longer called "mini camps" that "they have nothing against him being on their team, but he just isn't that good of a player"?That is the beauty of your position - it can't be wrong. Even if no team brings him to camp-

"Well his talent level projected him as a non NFLer all along, but his announcement at least got him to the combine and a 'pro day'."

I threw out names like Mel Kioer or other scouting sources that are not going to judge based on his sexuality.

 

[matuski]

I agree, Ron does a good job around here.

 

[Apple Jack]

Who is spinning it....they absolutely will draft him earlier than the scouts say he should be. There is zero doubt in my mind. Of course the way he is falling that could be in the 5th now. Unless he starts kicking butt in the combines, his projections might go to 6th or below.

And if he were to sign as a free agent the day after the draft concludes you would still claim to have called it!

I will claim I was right if he is drafted before what he is projected at. If he gets more endorsements than any other person in his draft position. And if there is no significant backlash against him.If coming out was a net positive for the guy, then I was right. The naysayers all started off proclaiming how brave this was, how difficult it was going to be for him, how his draft position was going to hurt by being gay. That is just not the case.

So who is the authority for "what he is projected at"? The statements of other GMs and front office staff who don't want the distraction on their team? The bigots in the locker room who tell us during thosethings no longer called "mini camps" that "they have nothing against him being on their team, but he just isn't that good of a player"?That is the beauty of your position - it can't be wrong. Even if no team brings him to camp-

"Well his talent level projected him as a non NFLer all along, but his announcement at least got him to the combine and a 'pro day'."

I threw out names like Mel Kioer or other scouting sources that are not going to judge based on his sexuality.

Do they try to predict where he will go or where he should go?

Also, Raising Arizona was on the TV when I woke up. Pretty awesome start to the day.

 

[squistion]

Who is spinning it....they absolutely will draft him earlier than the scouts say he should be. There is zero doubt in my mind. Of course the way he is falling that could be in the 5th now. Unless he starts kicking butt in the combines, his projections might go to 6th or below.

And if he were to sign as a free agent the day after the draft concludes you would still claim to have called it!

I will claim I was right if he is drafted before what he is projected at. If he gets more endorsements than any other person in his draft position. And if there is no significant backlash against him.

If coming out was a net positive for the guy, then I was right. The naysayers all started off proclaiming how brave this was, how difficult it was going to be for him, how his draft position was going to hurt by being gay. That is just not the case.

Now you are moving the goalposts.

Previously you only talked about where he was drafted. Now you get to be right if he gets more endorsements than a similarly drafted player (well you can't lose that one, he will get some endorsements simply because he is the first gay player, so no matter where he is taken it will be more endorsements than any other player taken in round 3 or whenever). Also backlash (and what kind) had never been discussed or even defined before this either significant or otherwise. Geez.

 

[fatness]

Who is spinning it....they absolutely will draft him earlier than the scouts say he should be. There is zero doubt in my mind. Of course the way he is falling that could be in the 5th now. Unless he starts kicking butt in the combines, his projections might go to 6th or below.

And if he were to sign as a free agent the day after the draft concludes you would still claim to have called it!

I will claim I was right if he is drafted before what he is projected at. If he gets more endorsements than any other person in his draft position. And if there is no significant backlash against him.

If coming out was a net positive for the guy, then I was right. The naysayers all started off proclaiming how brave this was, how difficult it was going to be for him, how his draft position was going to hurt by being gay. That is just not the case.

Now you are moving the goalposts.

Previously you only talked about where he was drafted. Now you get to be right if he gets more endorsements than a similarly drafted player (well you can't lose that one, he will get some endorsements simply because he is first gay player, so no matter where he is taken it will be more endorsements than any other player taken in round 3 or whenever). Also backlash (and what kind) had never been discussed or even defined before this either significant or otherwise. Geez.

Anyone taking the moving bet will have to find out the terms of it from jon after the draft.

 

[Apple Jack]

How many revolutions of the sun is it until the draft?

 

[squistion]

Bill Maher ‏@billmaher

Ironic Arizona ruled gay men can shop sans discrimination, cuz if you ever shopped with a gay man, they're the ones who are discriminating

 

[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.

Well, I don't know what to tell you. No offense intended, but you and every other licensed AZ attorney you've spoken to on it are wrong. I already quoted the statute for you upthread, but I'll quote it again, along with a link. And yes, you are correct that sexual orientation is not a protected class under AZ law, but there are additional protected classes under your state's discrimination law beyond race and sex, all of which are implicated by the now vetoed bill passed by the AZ legislature.

41-1442. Discrimination in places of public accommodation

A. Discrimination in places of public accommodation against any person because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin or ancestry is contrary to the policy of this state and shall be deemed unlawful.B. No person, directly or indirectly, shall refuse to, withhold from or deny to any person, nor aid in or incite the refusal to deny or withhold, accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges thereof because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin or ancestry, nor shall distinction be made with respect to any person based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin or ancestry in connection with the price or quality of any item, goods or services offered by or at any place of public accommodation.

Bonus link

And the Arizonans With Disabilities Act makes it unlawful to discriminate against people with disabilities in places of public accommodation.

Here is your Arizona attorney general's office weighing in:

Discrimination in Places of Public Accommodation Tip Card

Arizona law makes it unlawful for a public accommodation to discriminate because of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex or disability.

And another link from your attorney general:

Public Accommodation Discrimination
The following Categories are protected:

• Race
• Color
• National Origin/Ancestry
• Sex
• Religion/Creed
• Physical/Mental disability

I'd agree that the AZ law is apparently more broad than I anticipated. Nice research.

However, I'd still argue that, while 1062 doesn't mention sexuality, that the current anti-discrimination statutes don't include sexuality. Nonetheless, I'd agree with you now that maybe my initial reading was too narrow and that the proposed 1062 bill may have done a little bit more in the sense that it may have provided a defense to discriminating against other immutable/semi-protected classes.

 

[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.

What the crap does this have to do with religion?

Because the business owners in these examples are acting out of a sense of religious belief, freedom of religion is religious speech which is free speech, it's all the same thing.

 

[jon_mx]

The only people moving the goal posts are you guys. You don't understand what the word 'if' means. I made lots of statements beyond simply what his draft position was going to be.

 

[squistion]

The only people moving the goal posts are you guys. You don't understand what the word 'if' means. I made lots of statements beyond simply what his draft position was going to be.

Endorsements and backlash were not discussed at the time and the only thing you were willing to bet on was draft position (and we couldn't even pin you down on a specific round for that).

 

[Koya]

You keep bringing up the civil rights analogy, and I keep disagreeing with it. It's getting kind of funny.

"Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood" - Coretta Scott King

People generally don't like to be called bigoted, especially when they are.

That's what I've take from years of people saying that rights for people who are born homosexual are not the same as those who are born black.

 

[rockaction]

You keep bringing up the civil rights analogy, and I keep disagreeing with it. It's getting kind of funny.

"Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood" - Coretta Scott King

People generally don't like to be called bigoted, especially when they are.

That's what I've take from years of people saying that rights for people who are born homosexual are not the same as those who are born black.

Yeah, good job. Go to motive. You don't know me at all. Good work. #### off. I'm glad you showed up in the thread to make an ### of yourself.

eta* Everyone else is in here trying their hardest to have a rational debate and you come in and scream "BIGOT!" ####### child.

eta2* This tactic, of ascribing motive and hatred to anyone who disagrees with your position should also be dead, just like eye-rolling and ridicule as a statement. It's also lame-brained and uncalled for. It does nothing to advance any debate. Do it on the merits. I find it hard to take you seriously ever again with this little stunt you just pulled. Why not comment at Gawker if this is what you do?

 

[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.

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?

I don't think I handled that first question very well, I should have gotten to the heart of your question because I don't think you thought I got your point.

I realize what you're saying about religious beliefs being used to justify the denial of equal opportunity to individuals in commerce years ago. I 100% agree that was morally wrong.and also unconstitutional. I have relatives who stood up against segregation in the civil rights era in New Orleans, and I'm proud of them, it's very real for me.

The situation you offer is not a hypothetical at all, 1966 or any other year it was unconstitutional, not permissible.

But I think you're missing what I said in my response now as well. Here's the difference: - Religious liberty and any other right cannot trump or defeat other rights. It's been asked here several times already, but is orientation on a legal par with race and gender as protectable legal classes of the highest order? I think we all agree it never has been before; now some people are arguing it should be. I get that, do you?

 

[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.

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.

Squiz, much respect to you but I don't know where name-calling gets us, unless it's intended to intimidate somehow. I try to avoid it.

You and I may just see this issue the same way - we would both object if someone tried to deny services to someone because of who they were married to (or getting married to).

But do you realize these are different conversations?

That is:

- What we would do personally?

- Vs Whether what business owners do in this regard as being moral or immoral (right or wrong) in our view?

- Vs what is legal or even constitutional? - This is what I'm talking about, not the other issues.

 

[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, 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.

What the crap does this have to do with religion?

Because the business owners in these examples are acting out of a sense of religious belief, freedom of religion is religious speech which is free speech, it's all the same thing.

What does that have to do with anything? If anyone evicts someone from their business or doesn't serve them on any grounds stemming from their own "belief", it's the same.

This is still trying to carve out a special privilege to discriminate based on using the justification of "religion", that's all.

 

[Run It Up]

This went to a dark, gay place really quickly.

Not surprised honestly.

 

[LinusMarr]

This went to a dark, gay place really quickly.

Not surprised honestly.

Yeah even i have lost interest in this thread, blah....

 

[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.

What the crap does this have to do with religion?

Because the business owners in these examples are acting out of a sense of religious belief, freedom of religion is religious speech which is free speech, it's all the same thing.

What does that have to do with anything? If anyone evicts someone from their business or doesn't serve them on any grounds stemming from their own "belief", it's the same.

This is still trying to carve out a special privilege to discriminate based on using the justification of "religion", that's all.

Let me see if I have this straight (pun intended):

Guy walks into a business with a t-shirt that is graphically pro-Dahmer, as above.

And you don't think that there is a business owner anywhere who could legally, morally, rightfully be able to not serve him and evict him, because based on his religious beliefs (or just his plain morals) he thinks that guy is disgusting and stands for abhorrent things?

(No not comparing the two things the point is there are some people you can refuse to do business with on the basis of religion).

 

[jon_mx]

The only people moving the goal posts are you guys. You don't understand what the word 'if' means. I made lots of statements beyond simply what his draft position was going to be.

Endorsements and backlash were not discussed at the time and the only thing you were willing to bet on was draft position (and we couldn't even pin you down on a specific round for that).

I specifically stated 3 round 15th pick several times was what i was will to bet on based upon the several sites pegging him as a 4-5th rounder. But now his projected draft position has probably fallen to 6th round plus, so that is a no go now.

 

[squistion]

Paul Lander ‏@paul_lander

Ariz. Gov Brewer vetoed the state's Anti Gay legislation. Well there goes Putin's plans to retire to Arizona.

 

[CBusAlex]

To me, race (ethnicity/anationality) is enshrined in the 13th-14th Amendments. It's specifically mentioned.

Actually, it's not.

XIII

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

XIV

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

To me, race (ethnicity/anationality) is enshrined in the 13th-14th Amendments. It's specifically mentioned.

Actually, it's not.

XIII

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

XIV

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

You're right, I should have also included:

15. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

And:

19. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

The 13th and 14th were specifically created to ensure blacks would be citizens everywhere and in every way; that's who it was ment to include, The 15th and 19th specifically mention race and gender. All I'm saying is that the American people went out of their way to specifically include named groups of people (classes) in the Constitution.

It hasn't been done, sorry; I'm not saying it shouldn't be, I would probably vote for a state amendment or a congressman who supported a national amendment, I'm just saying it hasn't been.

How does someone become a protected class? Either the people declare it by vote or the courts just say it's so. Has that happened in AZ?

 

[fatness]

Let me see if I have this straight (pun intended):

Guy walks into a business with a t-shirt that is graphically pro-Dahmer, as above.

And you don't think that there is a business owner anywhere who could legally, morally, rightfully be able to not serve him and evict him, because based on his religious beliefs (or just his plain morals) he thinks that guy is disgusting and stands for abhorrent things?

(No not comparing the two things the point is there are some people you can refuse to do business with on the basis of religion).

I think throwing religious beliefs into discussing this is irrelevant. Either someone can throw someone else out for the shirt, or they can't. Trying to parse it based on "belief" is irrelevant, as though those who do it out of "belief" may be more justified than others who do it.

This law was not passed to protect all rights of all people to deny service to anyone for any "belief"-centered reason. Paying attention to who supports the law tells you what it is really about --- letting Christians deny service to gay people if they choose, despite any state laws to the contrary. That was the intent of this law. Discussing it as if that were not the case is disingenuous. Put up a thousand hypotheticals doesn't change that. This law was to allow Christians to deny service to gay people without repercussion.

 

[fatness]

Provisions of Arizona's Proposed Anti-Gay Law, according to the Onion.

• Hotel clerks must provide notarized letter from God or other deity when turning away guests
• Reverses law requiring small business owners to perform same-sex commitment ceremonies after serving gay customers
• If refusing service, business owners required to spit tobacco before saying, “We don’t take kindly to you folk”
• Would no longer obligate businesses to treat all patrons as faceless, mindless sources of revenue
• Gays can still buy muffins at the bakery, but they have to wait until the straight people have taken their pick
• Thirty-eight-page speculative description of gay sexual encounter
• Real estate brokers may now refuse whatever service they’ve convinced themselves they’re offering
• Requires straight customers to spend a little extra money to make up the difference
• Does not provide funding for Native American scholarships, which might’ve helped this baby go down a little smoother
• Sets framework for Arizona State University to reject an applicant for the very first time in school’s history
• Safeguards Arizona residents’ freedom to practice Jesus Christ’s teachings of love, inclusion, and tolerance

 

[Clifford]

People can legally sue you for all kinds of stupid reasons.

Doesn't mean they win and doesn't mean you should codify discrimination to stop it.

So can the Dahmer shirt guy sue? Probably. Will he win? Seriously doubtful as the business owner has a good reason to throw him out. His shirt is plainly offensive to other customers and bad for business.

For one to suggest that this would be the same as refusing to serve a gay, you'd have to be able to make the same case, that gays are plainly offensive and bad for business. Which I doubt many courts would rule.

 

[Clifford]

The tobacco one was good, but this is the best

Gays can still buy muffins at the bakery, but they have to wait until the straight people have taken their pick

 

[Koya]

You keep bringing up the civil rights analogy, and I keep disagreeing with it. It's getting kind of funny.

"Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood" - Coretta Scott King

People generally don't like to be called bigoted, especially when they are.That's what I've take from years of people saying that rights for people who are born homosexual are not the same as those who are born black.

Yeah, good job. Go to motive. You don't know me at all. Good work. #### off. I'm glad you showed up in the thread to make an ### of yourself.

eta* Everyone else is in here trying their hardest to have a rational debate and you come in and scream "BIGOT!" ####### child.

eta2* This tactic, of ascribing motive and hatred to anyone who disagrees with your position should also be dead, just like eye-rolling and ridicule as a statement. It's also lame-brained and uncalled for. It does nothing to advance any debate. Do it on the merits. I find it hard to take you seriously ever again with this little stunt you just pulled. Why not comment at Gawker if this is what you do?

Dude, relax. I don't know you from a hole in the wall. I was speaking about the quote.

That said, nice (over) reaction. Don't know if the shoe indeed fits, but that reaction does make ya wonder.

For me it's a simple question here: do you believe that the right to marry should not extend to two men or two women just as it has to one man and one woman? That's the only question they matters to me on this topic.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

http://nysiaf.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Arizona-its-a-dry-hate.png

 

[rockaction]

You keep bringing up the civil rights analogy, and I keep disagreeing with it. It's getting kind of funny.

"Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood" - Coretta Scott King

People generally don't like to be called bigoted, especially when they are.That's what I've take from years of people saying that rights for people who are born homosexual are not the same as those who are born black.

Yeah, good job. Go to motive. You don't know me at all. Good work. #### off. I'm glad you showed up in the thread to make an ### of yourself.

eta* Everyone else is in here trying their hardest to have a rational debate and you come in and scream "BIGOT!" ####### child.

eta2* This tactic, of ascribing motive and hatred to anyone who disagrees with your position should also be dead, just like eye-rolling and ridicule as a statement. It's also lame-brained and uncalled for. It does nothing to advance any debate. Do it on the merits. I find it hard to take you seriously ever again with this little stunt you just pulled. Why not comment at Gawker if this is what you do?

Dude, relax. I don't know you from a hole in the wall. I was speaking about the quote.

That said, nice (over) reaction. Don't know if the shoe indeed fits, but that reaction does make ya wonder.

For me it's a simple question here: do you believe that the right to marry should not extend to two men or two women just as it has to one man and one woman? That's the only question they matters to me on this topic.

My bad. That is an overreaction. Apologies. I should have been cooler about it, anyway, and regretted it after I typed it.

I do believe in the right to marry.