[speechlesstx]

In Florida a gay guy can just shoot 'em if he FEELS threatened by hate speech, and keeps the non refundable deposit.

That's extreme. Again, turn the tables around and what's your answer?

[excon]

Hello again,

Do you right wingers know that you sound very Talibanish when you speak of your religion and women's rights??? You FORCE your religion on us in school. You FORCE your religion on us in the workplace. You FORCE your religion on us in the public square.

Why would you wanna do that?? Isn't freedom GOOD?

excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello again,

Do you right wingers know that you sound very Talibanish when you speak of your religion and women's rights??? You FORCE your religion on us in school. You FORCE your religion on us in the workplace. You FORCE your religion on us in the public square.

Why would you wanna do that?? Isn't freedom GOOD?

excon

I've never forced my religion on anyone, it goes against everything MOST Christians believe contrary to popular liberal opinion.

So should the "God hates fags" group be allowed to celebrate in the gay place or not, or does your rule only apply to gays forcing a baker to make a cake? And why do you keep changing the subject?

[tomder55]

should a Black caterer be forced to cater a local KKK rally ? NAH ;you know that aint happening . The courts would kick that case out before any serious argument was made .

[excon]

Hello again,

I don't mumble... Leave your religion in church. If you open your doors to the PUBLIC, that means the PUBLIC. If SOME of the activities of your customers DISTURBS you to the point where you REFUSE to do business with them, then you SHOULDN'T BE in business.

Lemme ask you this.. If this bakery, or that hobby shop can REFUSE to serve people based on their DEEPLY held religious beliefs, can a COP? Can the drivers license bureau? Can his legislator? Can an election worker? Can a fireman? Why should THEIR religious freedom be compromised?

I've tried to point out to you what kind of country we'd have if you COULD discriminate like you WANT to... I suspect you can find religious reasons for slavery.

Nope. This is ANTI American. It's ANTI freedom. It's VERY Russian. In fact, it's very TALIBANISH!

excon

[tomder55]

none of your examples are private businesses. The Civil Rights laws correctly addressed government discrimination. It goes too far when forcing private individuals or businesses to give up their right of free association .

[Wondergirl]

So should the "God hates fags" group be allowed to celebrate in the gay place or not, or does your rule only apply to gays forcing a baker to make a cake? And why do you keep changing the subject?

The gay restaurant owner can say no but he will lose money -- LOTS of money. He's in business to make money. He doesn't have to say he's gay. And if the group knows that, it would be to his ADVANTAGE -- for business and political and social reasons -- to host the group. Actually, it would be a pie in the face of the "hate fags" group -- or as the Bible says, it would heap coals of fire on their heads.

***ADDED*** When I started dating, my very conservative Lutheran parents refused to allow me to date Catholic boys. They believed there was something sinister about them and that they would lure me into the back seat of the car and have their way with me. (Think Reformation and Martin Luther and the Catholic Church as the historical basis for this concern.) Yes, I know -- silly, senseless discrimination. (P.S. I found out teen Baptist and Jewish and atheist AND Lutheran boys were just as interested in the back seat of a car.)

[talaniman]

Of course the gay haters have as much right to service and products as anyone right? Or to build a church too!!

[speechlesstx]

Hello again,

I don't mumble... Leave your religion in church. If you open your doors to the PUBLIC, that means the PUBLIC. If SOME of the activities of your customers DISTURBS you to the point where you REFUSE to do business with them, then you SHOULDN'T BE in business.

Lemme ask you this.. If this bakery, or that hobby shop can REFUSE to serve people based on their DEEPLY held religious beliefs, can a COP? Can the drivers license bureau? Can his legislator? Can an election worker? Can a fireman? Why should THEIR religious freedom be compromised?

I've tried to point out to you what kind of country we'd have if you COULD discriminate like you WANT to... I suspect you can find religious reasons for slavery.

Nope. This is ANTI American. It's ANTI freedom. It's VERY Russian. In fact, it's very TALIBANISH!

excon

I may be open to the public but it's still MY business, not a government agency. You don't have an unlimited right to force me to participate in things I find abhorrent. I realize you think you do, like forcing pharmacists to sell abortifacients, doctors to perform abortions, nuns to buy contraceptives or bakers to cater gay weddings, but that vision of your Country is much more terrifying than allowing reasonable people to set limits on accommodating everyone's demands in their private lives and "private" businesses. Your view is fascist.

[tomder55]

The gay restaurant owner can say no but he will lose money -- LOTS of money. He's in business to make money. He doesn't have to say he's gay. And if the group knows that, it would be to his ADVANTAGE -- for business and political and social reasons -- to host the group. Actually, it would be a pie in the face of the "hate fags" group -- or as the Bible says, it would heap coals of fire on their heads.

***ADDED*** When I started dating, my very conservative Lutheran parents refused to allow me to date Catholic boys. They believed there was something sinister about them and that they would lure me into the back seat of the car and have their way with me. (Think Reformation and Martin Luther and the Catholic Church as the historical basis for this concern.) Yes, I know -- silly, senseless discrimination. (P.S. I found out teen Baptist and Jewish and atheist AND Lutheran boys were just as interested in the back seat of a car.)

it's called the business owner's choice. #39 I argued that it's against the business interest if it's strictly a financial decision. But obviously there is more involved in the decision than that . Does a restaurant lose business when they discriminate against men without shirts and shoes ? Yes ;but they are catering to a clientele of their choice.

[speechlesstx]

Does a network discriminate when it refuses to air an ad for a Catholic hospital or a pro 2nd amendment ad? How about a doctor that refuses a Medicaid patient?

[talaniman]

it's called the business owner's choice. #39 I argued that it's against the business interest if it's strictly a financial decision. But obviously there is more involved in the decision than that . Does a restaurant lose business when they discriminate against men without shirts and shoes ? Yes ;but they are catering to a clientele of their choice.

No shoes, No shirt, No service", Now No GAYS? Well it use to be NO blacks, or whites only.

Does a network discriminate when it refuses to air an ad for a Catholic hospital or a pro 2nd amendment ad? How about a doctor that refuses a Medicaid patient?

Is that discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs?

[Catsmine]

Does a restaurant lose business when they discriminate against men without shirts and shoes ? Yes ;but they are catering to a clientele of their choice.

I have to call you on this one. The discrimination is in the Health Code. Bare feet are prohibited from restaurants for sanitation reasons. This is why you often see beach-side restaurants with racks of flip-flops by the door. It's cheaper to provide the flip-flops than make beach goers change.

[tomder55]

ok then I'll take it up a notch .. There are restaurants here that will not serve men unless they are wearing a suit jacket . No sanitation issues there .

[Wondergirl]

ok then I'll take it up a notch .. There are restaurants here that will not serve men unless they are wearing a suit jacket . No sanitation issues there .

And schools that demand their students wear uniforms. And sports teams that demand the players wear protective pads and helmets or uniforms that look like underwear.

[Catsmine]

ok then I'll take it up a notch .. There are restaurants here that will not serve men unless they are wearing a suit jacket . No sanitation issues there .

A better example by far. Another would be more historical: "No Irish" signs on numerous businesses up until the 50s.

This ties in with the thread I started about the Bank manager carrying a gun. What rights does a business owner have? Whether exercising those rights is profitable is a distraction.

[speechlesstx]

A better example by far. Another would be more historical: "No Irish" signs on numerous businesses up until the 50s.

This ties in with the thread I started about the Bank manager carrying a gun. What rights does a business owner have? Whether exercising those rights is profitable is a distraction.

Exactly.

[paraclete]

my right trumps your right is a useless debate

[Catsmine]

Clete,

How many useless debates have you or I or the both of us participated in on this one forum?

[tomder55]

part 1 ... too long to put in one response :

Some have claimed that a bill recently passed by the Arizona legislature would give businesses broad license to not serve someone for being gay. This claim, though, may be a misreading, according a CP legislative analysis. While the bill is an attempt to broaden who is covered under its religious freedom protections, in all cases it actually narrows when a religious belief could be used to refuse service.

Here are six important points to understand about the just-passed bill:

1. If Gov. Jan Brewer (R) signs it, the bill, S.B. 1062, would make some modifications to a 1999 Arizona law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
2. Under current Arizona law, if a business wanted to discriminate against gays, they would not need this bill to be passed to do so. It is not currently illegal for a business to deny service to someone because they are gay. Some cities in Arizona have ordinances against it but there is no state law against it. If business owners in Arizona wanted to deny service to gays, they could do so in most of the state under current law.
3. Even though business owners across most of Arizona (and much of the United States) have the right to deny service to gays, they are not doing so. Opponents of the bill claim it would usher in an era of "Jim Crow for gays," in which gays would be denied service at businesses across the state. If business owners really wanted to do this, though, they could already be doing it. The bill does not make that more or less likely. Business owners do not want to deny service to gays. This is not because they fear government sanction. Rather, it is because: 1) Their religious, ethical or moral beliefs tell them it is wrong to deny service; and/or, 2) the profit motive - turning away customers is no way to run a business.

4. A RFRA law, either state or federal, does not give anyone the license to do anything they want based upon their religious beliefs. Rather, it says what needs to happen for the government to take away someone's religious freedom. RFRA provides citizens with religious freedom protections, but that does not mean that everyone who claims their religious freedom is violated will win a court case using RFRA as their defense5. No business has ever successfully used RFRA, either a state RFRA or the federal RFRA, to defend their right to not serve gays. In fact, no business has even been before a court claiming to have that right.
5. No business has ever successfully used RFRA, either a state RFRA or the federal RFRA, to defend their right to not serve gays. In fact, no business has even been before a court claiming to have that right
6. Even if a business wanted to claim the right to not serve gays under RFRA, their claim would be even harder to defend under S.B. 1062. So, anyone who is concerned that someone may one day try to use RFRA to discriminate against gays should prefer the bill that was just passed over current law.