[talaniman]

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?

[Catsmine]

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.

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.

[speechlesstx]

They already have that right. It's the consumer who loses a legal protection of non discrimination against business owners.

Hogwash.

[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.

[paraclete]

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

[cdad]

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

[smoothy]

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

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.

[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

[speechlesstx]

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.

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.

[paraclete]

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

[speechlesstx]

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.

[talaniman]

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.

[smoothy]

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.

[talaniman]

You can go to Taco Bell and ask for a Big Mac too! You will still get a crazy look!

[NeedKarma]

You can go to Taco Bell and ask for a Big Mac too! You will still get a crazy look!

Perfect answer. LOL!

[speechlesstx]

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?

[speechlesstx]

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:




Well Sally, thanks for being the bigger person and elevating the discourse.

[talaniman]

In other words Muslims can discriminate based on religious beliefs?

What are you talking about?

[speechlesstx]

What are you talking about?

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?

[NeedKarma]

In other words Muslims can discriminate based on religious beliefs?

No, the services smoothy refers to would not be part of their offerings to begin with.
If someone came to cake shop and asked for moose meat, is the shop discriminating if it doesn't fulfill the order?