 |
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?
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:22 PM. |