Better that AZ stick with fighting the good fight over the invasion of the US.
Where does the government have the authority to compel you to provide a product or service for someone? This is just another example of transferring power from the PEOPLE to the GOVERNMENT.
I can agree to a certain extent. However, if, as a business owner, I have limited time or resources, I would like to be able to choose the customer I feel will be less of a hassle to work with. In addition, if a business chooses not to deal with certain individuals, then it is on them if they fail. And, that is freedom. Making choices in how your business, your property is handled should be up to the owner, not the government.
Hahaha. Arizona does not fight against illegal invaders.
Is anyone forbidding homosexuals from owning and operating their own floral shops, bakeries, photography studios, catering businesses, restaurants, clothing stores, mosques, churches, etc. in Arizona? If homosexual wedding ceremonies are so grand, then this is a great business opportunity for some flamboyant designers and chefs and artists! Have at it! And open homosexual hotels and resorts all over the country! Leave everyone else out.
“Figuring out what someone’s sexual preference, nationality or religion is before allowing them to be your customer just doesn’t work for me.”
It usually becomes evident what customers ‘are’ if and when they flaunt it, or otherwise make it known by their dress and/or behavior. I therefore reject your premise.
Even so, if it ‘doesn’t work for you’, then I suggest you run your business your way and I’ll run mine my way.
So you think it’s OK for the state to force people to provide services which conflict with their religion?
“Figuring out what someone’s sexual preference, nationality or religion is before allowing them to be your customer just doesn’t work for me.”
Actually, it would allow folks with genuine religious objections to NOT support what they believe is evil. This has nothing to do with selling a car, but with forced support of gay marriages (as in, you MUST bake a gay marriage cake or be put out of business for not admiring homosexual marriage).
It would also allow someone to refuse to rent a room out to someone they believe will use it for evil - kind of like years ago, when a Mormon guy in Utah refused to rent a basement apartment to a Baptist guy like me.
And instead of suing, I...hold on, this is pretty incredible...I took my business elsewhere! What a concept!
So you would find no difficulty in focusing a camera and snapping artistic photos of two mans engaged in a lip lock for a wedding album?
I mean, they are paying you, who are you to complain or judge their lifestyle?
Get onboard, everyone must now CELEBRATE same sex couples.
NBC called a married athlete with child and bride an "alternative lifestyle" in this day and age because young heterosexual men just don't get married and raise a family anymore. Of all the nerve.
***************
You do understand that "if one runs a business"--
(unless it is a utility or public transportation...)
As long as mt products & services are legally manufactured & obtained (or created) and leaglly traded...
It is a private enterprise? Yes??
****************
Soooo....
... I think I hear you saying...
I can walk into your upscale, valet-parking, fancy-schmancy, coat & tie required restaurant...
...With no shirt... bad hair... & bad attitude...
...nine pounds of gold chains around my neck....
...flipflops (maybe)... and...
---frayed cargo shorts...
--AND DEMAND TO BE SERVED--
TO HECK WITH YOUR RULES....
...AND TO HECK WITH YOUR CAREFULLY CRAFTED BUSINESS REPUTATION...
...AS A TOP-DRAWER FINE DINING ESTABLISHMENT...
I have money... I am able to pay...
I never leave home without it....
You MUST seat me.... you MUST serve me....
..NOW HOP TO IT...
You won’t know unless they tell you.
When homosexuals want cake, it is they who make it an issue.
It is the right of a business to refuse service.
No, you are wrong here.
What the lavender lobby is demanding is not acceptance, it is approval.
To He!! with that!
So a restaurant or convenience store should take down their, "No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service," signs?
And a bar owner should have to serve an already heavily intoxicated person provided they have the means to pay?
So you’re a veterinarian, and the local bestiality house (coming to your neighborhood soon) wants to hire you to care for their animals ...
The dividing line for me is this: will this work involve personal effort and creativity to support that individual customer's ceremony, where the ceremony itself is something the business owner finds to be abhorrent?
The canonical example is one that impacts me personally: right now, wedding photographers can be forced to have to work an entire exhausting day (plus another week for review and editing) for gay marriages. The courts in New Mexico have actually ruled on this.
Are you saying that if I hang my shingle out as a wedding photographer, that I should be forced to work a week in extensive, exhaustive, and creative support of celebrating gay marriage? That is tyranny.
You missed the point and it’s important people like yourself get it right.
A florist in Washington State was prosecuted early last year for refusing to make wedding floral arrangements for a homosexual ‘wedding’. So she knew from the gitgo who her customer was.
It’s also important to note that she said she would be happy to make floral arrangements for these homosexuals but not for an event that violated her faith and conscience.
She explained clearly that making a floral arrangement is a product of art, that when she made such arrangements she put her passion into the art and thought of the event as she worked. For her to think of something clearly perverted against her faith while making a work of art left her feeling violated and unable to think it was for the good of the business or its homosexual ‘wedding’ customers.
So she refused but referenced other florists that she thought would accommodate the homosexuals. And she repeated that her floral arrangements and services would be available for any other purpose except those associated with homosexual ‘marriage’ or its celebrating events such as engagements or anniveraries.
The B&B owner in Hawaii refused service because of religious beliefs. When two men requested a king size bed to spend their ‘honeymoon’ as newlyweds, again it’s clear who they are. For a person faithful to God to think they are renting a bed to a couple that will commit acts that are an abomination to all things holy leaves a feeling of sickness and immorality. There are plenty of hotels and inns that will take such people. It need not be forced on private inns.
And refusing rooms to certain characters is not unusual. If an inn allows a pimp to house his girls, the inn becomes a brothel. If drug dealers are allowed to use motel rooms as offices, then the motel becomes a center for illegal drugs. And if homosexuals are allowed to spend their ‘honeymoons’ in private inns, then the inn becomes associated with perversity and immorality. Such damage to reputation will turn traditional couples and families away, all forced by coercion to appease less than 2% of the population.
I’m going to be called all sorts of things for this sentiment:
It is called “freedom of association” and it works both ways. Look into it sometime.
I should be able to offer or refuse my services based on anything I choose. Dont like UT fans? No service for you. Dont like red shirts? No service.