 |
A business owner doesn't cede his rights because he opens his doors to the public and we aren't talking anything Sharia extreme. Businesses discriminate every day, they say no every day. It only perturbs liberals when a Christian says no because that goes against their beliefs and this is just the foot in the door to coercing pastors to perform gay weddings just as they're trying to coerce Christians to buy contraceptives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
you could be in business to serve a particular group of customers afterall isn't this what a church is
Like a Christian bookstore? An LGBT bookstore?Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
We agree on the point we don't need a law so why are they making one? And who is making it? You really should stop blaming liberals for making you do stuff since plenty of Christian use contraceptives, and a lot of pastors perform gay weddings freely and willingly.
It's all this anti-discrimination stuff, afterall the homosexuals think they shouldn't be made to come face to face with community attitudes towards their lifestyle. My attitude is I know they exist, I don't wish to come face to face with their attitudes
Tal, the point behind the law is to hold persons harmless for practicing their faith. We already have other laws like this in other catagories. One such law states that you can't sue someone that is doing there best to help you when in an accident. The good samaritan law.
Ref:
Good Samaritans Law & Legal Definition
We have that law here, so explain why this Arizona law helps gay people you refused service too? You cannot sue if you think you are discriminated against? First it was the blacks (MLK day), then the browns (papers please), now it's the gays. What's really up in Arizona?
So because liberal Christians perform gay weddings they all should? Because some Christians use contraceptives we should force others to buy them? Btw, they're backing off from the law, so why can't you back off? As I said before I would probably bake the cake, but I wouldn't force sometime else to. What's the problem with that?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
I must apologize for my recent statement about Arizona. They are not alone in trying to ram anti gay laws down the throats of its citizens, Georgia is trying the same crap.
Georgia legislature considering near-carbon copy of anti-gay Arizona bill
So to respond about backing off I can only say that I will, if they will.
Oklahoma Restaurant: No Freaks, F*ggots, N*ggers, Disabled or Welfare "Freeloaders"
I like what the president of Uganda said the other day, you know Uganda, just passed some anti-gay laws. He said he didn't understand, afterall there are all these beautiful women................... for him it just didn't compute, he couldn't get his head around it, and I think that is where a lot of us are.
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/25/wo...html?hpt=hp_t3
what we are starting to see is the pendulum swinging back, it is a case of been there, done that, and now we would just rather do the other thing
One idiot in Oklahoma no more represents the reasonable business owners adhering to their faith any more than Westboro represents Christianity. In fact you guys say that sort of thing every time I highlight one of your women haters.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
So then, when you highlight a woman hater he by no means represents whatever party he's from. Is this correct?Quote:
One idiot in Oklahoma no more represents the reasonable business owners adhering to their faith any more than Westboro represents Christianity. In fact you guys say that sort of thing every time I highlight one of your women haters.
I don't believe I've ever made the argument that all Dems are woman haters because of one moron.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Bipartisan group of legal scholars asks Brewer to sign the bill.
Quote:
As I explained here, Arizona S.B. 1062 would not subject gays to a regime of discrimination. The bill is simply an attempt (successful in my view) to balance the right to religious freedom and the right of non-discrimination.
Eleven leading scholars religious-liberty scholars have written to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer to provide her with a sorely needed rational analysis of S.B. 1062 as she considers whether to sign it. The professors include Stanford’s Michael McConnell, my go to source in these matters, and Douglas Laycock who supports same-sex marriage. The others are Mary Ann Glendon, Helen Alvaré, Thomas Berg, Carl Esbeck, Richard Garnett, Christopher Lund, Mark Scarberry, Gregory Sisk, and Robin Fretwell Wilson University.
SB1062, which amends Arizona’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, is on your desk for signature. The bill has been egregiously misrepresented by many of its critics. We write because we believe that you should make your decision on the basis of accurate information.
Some of us are Republicans; some of us are Democrats. Some of us are religious; some of us are not. Some of us oppose same-sex marriage; some of us support it. Nine of the eleven signers of this letter believe that you should sign the bill; two are unsure. But all of us believe that many criticisms of the Arizona bill are deeply misleading.
The federal government and eighteen states have Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRAs). Another twelve or thirteen states interpret their state constitutions to provide similar protections. These laws enact a uniform standard to be interpreted and applied to individual cases by courts. They say that before the government can burden a person’s religious exercise, the government has to show a compelling justification.
That standard makes sense. We should not punish people for practicing their religions unless we have a very good reason. Arizona has had a RFRA for nearly fifteen years now; the federal government has had one since 1993; and RFRA’s standard was the constitutional standard for the entire country from 1963 to 1990.
There have been relatively few cases; if you knew little about the Arizona RFRA until the current controversy, that is because it has had no disruptive effect in Arizona. Few people had heard of the federal RFRA before the current litigation over contraception and the Affordable Care Act.
SB1062 would amend the Arizona RFRA to address two ambiguities that have been the subject of litigation under other RFRAs. It would provide that people are covered when state or local government requires them to violate their religion in the conduct of their business, and it would provide that people are covered when sued by a private citizen invoking state or local law to demand that they violate their religion.
But nothing in the amendment would say who wins in either of these cases. The person invoking RFRA would still have to prove that he had a sincere religious belief and that state or local government was imposing a substantial burden on his exercise of that religious belief. And the government, or the person on the other side of the lawsuit, could still show that compliance with the law was necessary to serve a compelling government interest.
As a business gets bigger and more impersonal, courts will become more skeptical about claims of substantial burden on the owner’s exercise of religion. And as a business gets bigger, the government’s claim of compelling interest will become stronger....
Sounds perfectly reasonable and sound to me. Sign the bill.
There seems to be more support to veto the bill than sign it, and personally extending individual rights to businesses and the beliefs of the owners with no redress in the courts just doesn't seem fair plus it would rewrite existing laws that facilitate fair treatment.
https://www.azag.gov/discrimination/...discrimination
Boy you ultra conservatives and haters are always looking to screw somebody else's rights while maximizing your own.
This bill should be vetoed AGAIN!
I understand there is pressure to veto, but as the letter says it's based on misleading representation of the bill. And obviously you didn't even read it because it expressly states the courts would decide, so what is this "no redress in the courts" nonsense?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
So what's the problem? And why shouldn't the person who believes their religious rights have been violated have an opportunity for redress in the courts?Quote:
But nothing in the amendment would say who wins in either of these cases. The person invoking RFRA would still have to prove that he had a sincere religious belief and that state or local government was imposing a substantial burden on his exercise of that religious belief. And the government, or the person on the other side of the lawsuit, could still show that compliance with the law was necessary to serve a compelling government interest.
Tal, the link you posted has nothing on it regaurding sexual orientation. Isnt that what this whole argument is about?
Yes it is. You can use religious belief as an excuse to discriminate against gay people because they are not specifically covered under current law. Everybody else is protected against using religious belief as an excuse to not be served. But this amends that protection for everybody, not just gay people. It rewrites the current law cdad.Quote:
Originally Posted by cdad
They already have that right. It's the consumer who loses a legal protection of non discrimination against business owners.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Here's an example more germane to the statute. A former client cancelled his service because I don't attend the same church he does. He can prove his sincerity, he's been a deacon for decades.
Tal, Ex, are you arguing that I should be allowed to demand service fees because he discriminated against me due to of his religious beliefs?
Wouldn't that be a matter for the legal contract he signed? Now if you canceled him for the same reason that would be a good case of discrimination, wouldn't it?
In this thread you and Ex seem to be trying to prohibit him from cancelling his service on strictly religious grounds. The Arizona law would prohibit me from suing for continued service fees.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Everybody discriminates ALL the time. Which of the four Starbucks on the same corner you go into discriminates against the other three. Eric Holder claims discriminatory enforcement authority over all of the U.S. Code. Lots of posts here argue about how he uses it.
That's the point to this thread. Discrimination in a private citizen is essential to every aspect of Western culture. Discrimination in a Public Official is necessary to the operation of government. Discrimination in a Statute or the Court prohibits the exercise of the necessary and essential discriminations by individuals. The Arizona bill limits the scope of discrimination by the Court.
Hogwash.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Not any more. Brewer just vetoes the bill citing creating more problems than it solves, and it was overly broad. Even Speech agreed that there was no need for this law. Brewer said the same.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/27/us...bill.html?_r=0
Even Fox News was against this bill.
seems to me before elected candidates are able to take their seat and enact legislation they should have to pass a course of instruction in constitutional law, thereby not wasting everyone's time, this might mean legislative simplification since there would be less attempts to violate the constitution and the various rights of the citizens
According to the left there is no constitution. There is only a dream document that can be spit on and torn up at any time.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/27/us...pgtype=article
That will never happen... they don't even want people to prove they are legally entitled to vote before they can vote. Otherwise dead people and illegals will never get to cast theirs.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
yes this dead people casting votes is a problem everywhere but they just keep whittlin them down, I give a A for effort to the guy who voted 15 times in the last election, not often we have elections that close that it would have made any difference but I guess he might have stuffed up some of those close senate counts
No, there shouldn't be a need for a law because reasonable people should be able to turn down a job on reasonable religious grounds and be respected, just as reasonable people regularly decline to patronize a business with on principle. The problem is the LGBT lobby has abandoned reason to demand codified acceptance in spite of anyone else's rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
so let's see if I get this right, no gays in church, no criminals in the police force, no incompetents in government, somehow I can't see it working
That's because no one is calling for that extreme, although I could go for the no incompetents in government.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
I keep running out of popcorn watching the right wingers fall all over themselves making laws and rules to stroke their fears and perceptions. This measure has been all over the country and so far failed everywhere. And the backlash was from republicans and businesses. That should tell the far right a thing or two, when your own party doesn't like it.
What a waste of time, and popcorn.
Wait until the first Muslimcatering business gets sued for refusing to serve Bar-B-Que pork at a Bar Mitzvah. Bet the ACLU defends them.
You can go to Taco Bell and ask for a Big Mac too! You will still get a crazy look!
Perfect answer. LOL!Quote:
You can go to Taco Bell and ask for a Big Mac too! You will still get a crazy look!
In other words Muslims can discriminate based on religious beliefs?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Even when you give the rabid left what they want, aka "do the right thing" in their eyes, you still get attacked. Vile, rabid CNN lefty Sally Kohn had this to say:
http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/u...aDVOGLqX-L.png
Well Sally, thanks for being the bigger person and elevating the discourse.
What are you talking about?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
What are you not understanding? If you can force a Christian to bake a cake with 2 grooms on top can you force a Muslim caterer to serve haram?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
No, the services smoothy refers to would not be part of their offerings to begin with.Quote:
In other words Muslims can discriminate based on religious beliefs?
If someone came to cake shop and asked for moose meat, is the shop discriminating if it doesn't fulfill the order?
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:48 AM. |