Pressure mounts over Arizona bill opposed by gays

AP ^ | February 24, 2014 | Bob Christie

[C19fan]

Republican Gov. Jan Brewer faced intensifying pressure Monday from CEOs, politicians in Washington and state lawmakers in her own party to veto a bill that would allow business owners with strongly held religious beliefs to deny service to gays and lesbians.

[glennaro]

Just the normal "news" cycle:

Monday: Black, black, black, black, black, black, black ...
Tuesday: Gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay ...
Wednesday thru Sunday: Repeat cycle

How two groups which together comprise less than 15% of the population of the United States get so much attention from the other 85% percent is mind-boggling!

[DoodleDawg]

So? Why shouldn’t a private business be able to serve those they want?

You own a grocery store and your Jewish employee says they won't ring up pork because it violates their religious beliefs, and oh by the way forget them coming in on the Sabbath. Under this law you can't do anything to them. A government clerk refuses to give a marriage certificate to a couple where one was divorced before claiming it violates their religious beliefs. Under the law they're free to do so. A Muslim cab driver refuses to pick up a blind person with a seeing-eye dog. Legal under this act. That's what I said, it's a poorly written law that leaves it open for all kinds of questionable actions.

[NKP_Vet]

“Last week they had Monica Crowley on”

Crowley should take a cue from Michele Malkin and refuse to go on O’Reilly. Malkin got sick and tired of him berating her for attacking King Obama (telling the truth). He would of course always try to talk over her. He does the same with Crowley and everyone else. Many times you want to hear these real conservatives talk and loudmouth will not let them. He actually thinks liberals are watching his show and he wants to be seen as an “independent”. No doubt in my mind if MSNBC had hired O’Reilly years ago he would be a skinny version of Ed Shultz. He’s about as conservative as my St. Bernard when she’s hungry. By the way Malkin refuses to go on is show now. Crowley should do the same.

[ilovesarah2012]

I believe private busineses shoild be allowed to run their business as they choose.

[fwdude]

The very fact of the screeching vitriol by the homosexists is solid proof that this bill is desperately needed.

[RetSignman]

You want a cake, here’s a cake.
+++++++
The baker may bake the cake but it doesn’t have to be good one. If it ‘turns out’ to taste like crap, he can politely offer their money back if they complain.

[MikeyB806]

Let’s be honest, anyone can refuse service to anyone if they come up with a legal reason, e.g., “I didn’t like his attitude.”

What these bills do is help religious people avoid lawsuits by homosexual activists who are trying to outlaw religion.

[Aqua Buddhist]

Becuase they're poorly written. Under the Arizona law as passed, any person can deny any services to anyone for any reason so long as they claim it violates their religious beliefs.

It's worse that that. An employee could make up a cockamamie "relgious" excuse for goofing off all day and nobody would be able to do anything about it.

[Cyber Liberty]

Are they asking me to put weird things on the cake? I’ll say no, If I don’t have the right to do that, that’s a problem.

What if they ask you to put two guys wearing tuxedos on the top of the cake? Would you do that?

[Cyber Liberty]

The great Jan Brewer will fold like a cheap suit and Veto this. Sher hasn't the stomach nor the motivation to stand up to the gays.

I have to laugh, because of all the singing of her praises on FR a couple years back. Photo shops were done with her as a tough Rosie the Riveter.

Remember this one? The only reason she stood tall was because she was pandering. I hate pandering, even if it's to us, because they always revert to form when you need them the most.

[RightOnTheBorder]

If I don’t want your business how can the government FORCE me to give you service?

Easy, civil rights laws. Those statues created to force businesses to serve blacks in the 1960’s opened the door to what we have now. Rather than use economics and shame to end racist practices we gave the government the power to decide what discrimination is appropriate and now we get “human rights commissions” forcing Christians at gunpoint to serve homosexuals.

That is why this Arizona bill is a bad idea. We do not need to further enshrine civil rights legislation with band-aide fixes. We need to rip out the problem at the root and do away with the original freedom violating laws.

[PTBAA]

Why shouldn’t any private citizen be allowed the freedom of association, including those he does business with?

[JohnnyM]

"It's worse that that. An employee could make up a cockamamie "relgious" excuse for goofing off all day and nobody would be able to do anything about it."

This is incorrect and pretty ignorant coming from someone on these forums.

Here is an article that has a really good overview of the bill and why it came about. It does not allow for any person, to deny any service, for any religious reason. It does not allow for cockamamie religious excuses to goof off all day. It simply protects individuals from participating in events that violate their conscience and this protection must pass certain legal hurdles in order to be upheld:

1) They must be a sincerely held religious belief (annihilates the cockamamie religious excuse talking point)

2) There is no compelling government interest, which pretty much annihilates denying anyone for any reason argument.

Here is the actual text of the bill, so that you may look for yourself.

JM

[daniel1212]

Another frequently cited example is a suit brought against an Oregon baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. (see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3113856/posts )

Fact. That State's own constitution (rightly) discriminates against homosexuals by refusing to recognize gay marriage, which is what the baker refused to do. The judge thus indicted the States constitution as violating the law, because a subsequent law added sexual orientation (south) to the an nondiscrimination law.

Fact: The baker offered to sell them other things but not a custom work of art specifically celebrating a moral abomination.

Fact: If a black baker, sign-maker or artist refused to make a custom sign celebrating a KKK convention,

or a Muslim for the birth of Israel, or refused to make hot dog rolls,

or if a liberal musician refused to make a song for Republicans,

or a homosexual hardware store owner refused to do business with the AFA,

then it is very unlikely the bakers/sign makers/artists/owners would be found guilty of violating discrimination laws, unless there was no one else to obtain services from.

And a liberal rock band threatened Romney with a lawsuit for playing one of their songs on ideological grounds, even though they had a license.

Suppose Jim Robinson sold bandwidth. Then he would be forced to sell to clearly liberal sites. Maybe the baker needs to "rent" the cakes with a license they must agree to.

Fact: The homosexual lobby has duped the willing into believing the same rights as belong to non moral aspects race and skin color are given also belongs to a behavior have.

[Carlucci]

I find it very interesting to read the comments here while remembering many of the comments on the story of MN cabbies refusing to carry passengers with alcohol, from way back in 2006.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1622917/posts?q=1&;page=1

[DoodleDawg]

But you will agree that the bill applies to individual employees as well as businesses, and could be used by just about anyone claiming religious reasons for their actions? If I truly, honestly believe that those who divorce and remarry are committing adultery, and feel that as a Christian I cannot in good conscience aid and abet such sin by issuing them a marriage license then where does the law say I can’t do it? If a Muslim feels that a person or activity is unclean, and God knows just about everything seems to be unclean to them, then under the law couldn’t they refuse service to any woman not wearing a headscarf?

[daniel1212]

So? Why shouldn’t a private business be able to serve those they want?

They should as regards ideology and behavior, but not based amoral aspects such as race, skin color, country, etc. A Jewish or black business should not be forced to serve a KKK convention, but no business should refuse to serve Jews or blacks simply because they are.

Being compelled to take pictures of a homomarriage or sell a special cake for them is not the same as racism, but having cast off the Word of God then they are deceived.

Israel hath cast off the thing that is good: the enemy shall pursue him. They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not: of their silver and their gold have they made them idols, that they may be cut off. (Hosea 8:3-4)

[Mr Rogers]

“Under the Arizona law as passed, any person can deny any services to anyone for any reason so long as they claim it violates their religious beliefs. “

No. The religious objection has to be founded in some genuine religious belief. Someone cannot say, “I belong to the “Hate Blacks Church” and deny service to blacks.

Furthermore, it expressly allows:

“C. State action may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it the opposing party demonstrates that application of the burden to the person’s exercise of religion in this particular instance is both:

1. In furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.

2. The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”

http://legiscan.com/AZ/text/SB1062/id/912244

“Section 41-1493 of the Arizona Revised Statutes regulates who can claim religious freedom or exercise thereof as a defense in a lawsuit. AB 1062 revises that law by expanding the definition of who is a person to “any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution, estate, trust, foundation or other legal entity”,[4] and allows for religious-freedom lawsuits “regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceeding.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_SB_1062

[Aqua Buddhist]

I find it very interesting to read the comments here while remembering many of the comments on the story of MN cabbies refusing to carry passengers with alcohol, from way back in 2006.

Good point. Do we want a law that allows a Muslim cab driver to strand a blind man with a guide dog at the curb?

[Aqua Buddhist]

The law theoretically prevents made-up-on-the-spot "religious" rules (though given that it boils down to a judgment call, it opens the door to clogging the courts with frivolous claims).

That still leaves problems about acts which are clearly contrary to public policy and can be defended as established religious practice (e.g. the Minnesota cases mentioned earlier in the thread where Muslim cab drivers refused to carry blind passengers with guide dogs or passengers with alcohol in their possession).