Posted on 02/26/2014 9:18:20 AM PST by lbryce
CNN host Anderson Cooper battled with Arizona state Sen. Al Melvin (R) on Monday night over the fate of a state bill that would allow businesses to refuse service to lesbian and gay customers.
Melvin is a candidate for governor who voted for the SB 1062 legislation and is urging Gov. Jan Brewer (R) to sign it. Melvin and other proponents of the bill argue it is a protection of religious freedom for individuals whose beliefs condemn homosexuality. However, Melvin had trouble defending the bill to Cooper and struggled when the CNN host asked him to describe an example where religious people had suffered persecution as a result of being prevented from discriminating against gays and lesbians.
"You can't give me one example of this actually happening?" Cooper said.
"No, I can't," Melvin said. "But we've seen it in other states, and we don't want it to happen here."
"No, I can't," Melvin said. "But we've seen it in other states, and we don't want it to happen here."
"But you can't cite one example where religious freedom is under attack in Arizona," said Cooper.
"Not now, no, but how about tomorrow?" Melvin responded.
Cooper took exception to this line of argument.
"Well — I don’t understand what that means," he said. "I mean, if you can't cite in the entire history of Arizona, one case where religious freedom has been under attack — or even in the last year where it's been under attack — is this really the most important thing for you to be working on?"
Later in the interview, Melvin insisted that he didn't know anybody in Arizona who would discriminate against a "fellow human being."
"Really? Discrimination doesn't exist in Arizona?" Cooper asked incredulously.
See Video
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
Do you think Christian business owners should be forced to take pictures, provide flowers or bake cakes for gay weddings or print gay brochures or T-shirts?
There isn't issue more important that stopping the government from forcing a business owner to violate his or her religious beliefs. The whole country was founded by those seeking religious freedom.
We can have the bloodiest of civil wars in the Republican party and conservative movement before those principles are abandoned.
No, 1062 narrowed the definition - read the original version.
Wouldn’t this law have made it legal to refuse service to someone based solely on the grounds that it was against their religious beliefs? What if I interpret my faith to mean that all of (insert race, creed, gender, etc.) are not worthy of being served by me? How loosely can it be interpreted? Isn’t that basically the same as Jim Crow laws? These situations arise all across a spectrum, and while there are easy cases on the ends, there are hard cases in the middle. I know I’m raising more questions than answers ... that’s how law often is, unfortunately.
Then why do you think there was this effort to pass 1062 in the first place. Do you actually think that religious freedoms have not been erroded over the past few years?
In fact, the case the left made against 1062 is that it was discriminatory against homosexuals when NO MENTION of homosexuallity was in 1062. If the case of the left is valid, it is valid to think that ANYTHING religious - or any religion for that matter - is discriminatory, and thus should be illegal!
Sad that Brewer glossed over it. It doesn’t look like a monster on paper.
“Religion” is so lukewarm today that it would be the rare odd case who would make himself a serious nuisance this way.
” Do you actually think that religious freedoms have not been erroded over the past few years?”
Not really, no. As a Christian, I haven’t seen the effects some people are concerned about. I’m fairly strong on the separation of church and state, myself.
While 1062 didn’t mention homosexuality implicitly, wasn’t that the main source of it, in terms of reasons? Religious freedom was already protected in AZ, and there are no provisions against discrimination for sexual orientation on the books in the state either....so...what was the point of this?
A combination of things, really. Philosophy, precedent, how I envision a just society...It would be a long answer indeed. Can you be more specific?
The question was very strait forward, however please elaborate further on “just society.”
If you are blind to the effects some people are concerned about, then no answer will be suitable for you. You are strong on the separation of church and state (SOCAS)? I now understand the source of your reasoning. SOCAS is not in the Constitution. What are you doing on Free Republic? That view of is EXREMELY liberal! I also see that you are new to Free Republic – you have been here since Jan 9, 2014. Free Republic is a conservative chat room. Try Huffington Post, I’m sure you will find like minded people there. Good bye and good luck!
Please read post 111
I was getting to that. I just wanted to draw out more information and the progressive fundamentals of this one.
It’s straight forward, yes....but also requires an enormously long answer:) Things are very case specific and context matters. Even something like “Thou shall not kill” has grey area. Killing is a bad thing, but self defence is ok. Wars are sometimes necessary. So to ask what I mean by a “just society”, or how I interpret something as complex as separation of church and state, would require a lot of citing of cases and circumstance. This is why the courts and legislature are continually debating these things—nothing is so cut and dried as a society grows and changes.
Are there specific circumstances you want to ask about to clarify? Or maybe you can show me how you would answer the question so i know what level of detail you’re seeking.
Actually, Cooper’s point is valid in that this seems to be another example of government passing a law for the sake of passing a law to solve a problem that really doesn’t exist. This is like passing a law to ban so-called “assault” rifles when the statistics show that “assault” rifles are the weapon of choice in less than 300 homicides a year nation-wide, which is significantly less than the number of homicides attributable to hands, feet, and hammers, or the number of deaths from drowning in backyard swimming pools. Legislative bodies should not be in the business of passing laws to solve hypothetical problems that my never become real problems.
refuse “a particular” service is different than refuse service. I am sure the bakery would have made them a cake, it’s that they wanted a gay wedding cake. Why should they be forced to make that if it is against their faith. If a black person came in and ordered a “white people suck” cake, it wouldn’t be wrong for the bakery to say, sorry, hate is against our religion, find someone else. Would that be racial discrimination?
;-]
“Wouldn’t this law have made it legal to refuse service to someone based solely on the grounds that it was against their religious beliefs? What if I interpret my faith to mean that all of (insert race, creed, gender, etc.) are not worthy of being served by me? How loosely can it be interpreted?”
This is an anti-libertarian and anti – conservative view. It is better to have A business' discriminations out in the open so that the public can decide whether or not they would patronize such a place, citizens are perfectly capable in making such a decision – and businesses that overtly discriminate will go out of business very quickly. I personally would not patronize a homosexuals business if I knew he hated Christians, and not too many here at Free Republic would patronize such a place either – but we would all believe that the homosexual has a right to run its business the way it wants to!
“Isn’t that basically the same as Jim Crow laws?”
Here is a complete misunderstanding of the Jim Crow laws – these laws were from government and not businesses – they were government discrimination laws and not laws against discrimination. These laws FORCED businesses to discriminate!
No matter how they try to describe it, it still comes down to forcing someone else to do a job that they do not want to do, or be severely punished.
Now a total stranger off of the street can walk into your business and enslave you, and you can't do a thing about it.
-PJ
This is an AZ issues and in AZ we have not had these issues. The law would get more support if and when the issue becomes relevant. But really the bottom line is if you going to pass a controversial law like this you need to get out in front of it and sell it properly and not hide from it as the AZ Republicans that supported and passed the law did. Plus, if you going to send a rep to debate the law with the MSM, have someone better versed and prepared than the buffoon that went on Anderson Cooper.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.