[rwfromkansas]

Look, I looked at the legislation. It could be used to do ANY denial of service based on religion.

You could have Christians refusing to serve Muslims or vice versa or Muslims refusing to serve pork etc.

Furthermore, I agree a person contracted for a gay wedding should have right of refusal before serving.

But, at the same time, no more public place like a restaurant should have the right to refuse service for that reason unless there is something additional, like lewd behavior, being loud, etc. Otherwise, we have no legitimate reason to say they can’t deny service to Jews, blacks etc.

I support the intent of the law. But, the law went much further.

[massgopguy]

Two highly intoxicated women were asked to leave Dillon’s in Boston a few weeks ago. It is a restaurant and Sports Bar. They put some Hip Hop on the Juke Box and proceeded to put on a show which they themselves described as “Grinding”. They were on the floor. People on Facebook started a smear campaign against Dillon’s saying the restaurant refuses entry to Gays.

[lepton]

Do you have a link to the text of the amendments?

[Mathews]

I didn’t have anything to do with denying service. It had everything to do with PROTECTING business owners from a lawsuit should the owner deny a job based on some criteria being asked of them by the customer which does not sit right with the religion/theology of the owner.

[Fiji Hill]

Look, I looked at the legislation. It could be used to do ANY denial of service based on religion.

Would this law allow a Muslim cabbie to refuse to pick up blind people with service dogs?

[andyk]

But, at the same time, no more public place like a restaurant should have the right to refuse service for that reason unless there is something additional, like lewd behavior, being loud, etc. Otherwise, we have no legitimate reason to say they can’t deny service to Jews, blacks etc.

They should absolutely have that right to refuse services for reasons of which you disapprove. That's the whole point. We either have the right to own and run our own businesses, or we don't. We can't (do but shouldn't) pick and choose in which ways an individual decides to discriminate against another.

Now we finally see the public accommodation crap used against us and decide it's a bad thing. Too bad, so sad.

[lepton]

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.pdf

Rw...you’ve got to be kidding. In effect, the amendment simply adds that the ability of the government to force an action is not affected by whether the government is a party to the lawsuit, and the same argument in defense of religious belief can be made in court even if the government is not a direct party to the suit. Ummm. Wow.

[lepton]

It would seem to apply to your examples of a Muslim-owned business refusing to serve pork...and so?

[CitizenUSA]

You’re on the right track, but laws against discrimination create endless government regulation and litigation. Someone doesn’t get his order of fries, for example, and he’s suddenly suing the business for discrimination based on his skin color or sexual preference.

The free market better addresses the issue of businesses that refuse service on racial, religious, or other grounds. For example, businesses that are perceived to treat customers unfairly will have to pay a price for doing so.

None of this applies to government of course. That is the only entity that is constitutionally prohibited from discriminating based on skin color or sex (even though they do it all the time). Don’t ask me how I as a private citizen can’t refuse service based on skin color, but the government can hire someone or prefer them in a contract based on skin color.

Just to be clear, I have no problem doing business with homosexuals. I’m not a wedding photographer, and I haven’t even considered if I’d have a problem photographing a gay marriage. What I do know is I shouldn’t be forced to violate my faith as a price of doing business if I decide it’s morally wrong. I’d also extend the same liberty to others who may not want to do business with me.