Arizona Passes Bill Allowing Business Owners to Refuse Service to Gays Based on Relig

You tried your damnedest to shut up Phil. Hell, people like you supported A&E firing his ass saying they have a right to. What happened? The "other side" stood up and demanded he be put back on the show because he has a right to express his feelings, just like anyone else. And what happened? A&E caved. The liberal media had a (*)(*)(*)(*) storm when they heard about that.

So say what you want, but liberals have a history of trying to suppress the views of the other side. It hasn't always worked, but it's always been tried.

 

Show me where I said law!
I'm talking about the mind set of the progressives and their hypocrisy.
Where was the outrage for his comments from the progressives like there was about a damn cake.
So he has a right to free speech and I agree.
The owner of the cake shop doesn't have a right to freedom of religion?

 

Who would Jesus refuse to serve? Can't wait to hear the response. Pseudo-Christians say the strangest things to justify their hostility, hate, and intolerance.

 

So you're saying Jesus is for abortion?

 

You haven't shown "Liberal hypocrisy" either!
But thank you for admitting that you were using an OBVIOUS false equivalency, and that there IS NO comparison between the law that pass Congress in Arizona (and is probably going to be vetoed by the governor, who is too smart to not realize how this law would be DAMAGING for business in Arizona), a law that several other "brain dead" bible belt states would LIKE to pass, but don't have the guts, AND the CASUAL COMMENT made by ONE politician in NY!

DUH!

The owner of the cake shop is not asked to officiate a gay wedding. . .he is asked to do his job. . .bake a cake! DUH!

 

Nope. . I don't give a damn about crazies like Phil. . .or Nugent, or Limbaugh! They are just giving a bad name to the Right, and in fact, that arranges me just fine! Let this stupid big mouths make fools of themselves. . .and those who support them! It just drives more FAIR MINDED and INTELLIGENT Republicans closer to the center. . .and maybe even slightly to the Left!

Amazing how hypocrisy is rampant in your comments and you don't even seem to realize it!

Who made a big deal about President Obama expressing his EMPATHY as the father of two Black teenagers about the death of Trayvon Martin.
Who made a big deal about Hillary Clinton's HONEST comment that, the death of 4 Americans in Benghazi, as sad and horrible as it was, was no longer what we should focus on, BUT INSTEAD, that the focus should be on HOW TO PREVENT further death. . .that was "nicely twisted" by the right. .and yet, I believe Hillary Clinton ALSO has her first amendment rights!

 

Guess this means that real Christians are against abortion and gay marriage and the left can't give one pro argument for either of these or show in the bible that Jesus allows these things. But someone here calls others faux Christians.

 

How can hypocrisy be rampant when I'm saying BOTH sides have rights? You're the one stating over and over that only one side does. Obama had a right to say what he said about Trayvon, and others have a right to use those words to point out his racism.

Nobody said Hillary can't say what she wants. But just like anyone else, you have a right to say what you want and others have a right to use your words against you. Rights have responsibilities. Just like you can't yell "fire" in a theater, you can't say things like "we should no longer focus on the 4 killed in Libya" and not face the consequences. Read up on your documents, I believe it says "right to free speech." It doesn't say "right to consequence-free speech." Big difference, little liberal.

I know you have a hard time differentiating between them, but having a right to say something or do something doesn't mean someone else doesn't have the right to respond. Just like with Phil. Yes, A&E had the right to fire him, and people have the right to boycott A&E for doing so. That was the part liberals were stuck on. All they supported was A&E's rights, they completely forgot about everyone else. That's not removing A&E's right to fire Phil, that's making them pay dearly for their choice.

I, as a business owner, have a right to refuse service to blacks. But, blacks also have a right to use their own freedom of speech to boycott my business, negative advertise my business, etc. Liberals would only support the blacks rights, libertarians support BOTH.

Liberals like yourself have a hard time contemplating that having a right to do something doesn't mean that choice doesn't come with consequences. Try to figure that out, and when you do, you'll have your answers.

 

Your right to refuse service is actually not a blank check to discriminate. There has to be a legal reason for refusal. Too drunk, causing a disruption, being violent and so on. If you just don't like how they were born (skin colour, disability, sex) you don't get to just refuse service.

 

Show me one time in the bible where Jesus served a queer. You want to talk about what Jesus' father said should be done to queers?

Yes it is, if you so choose. Assuming I own the business, for the purpose of this discussion, I have a right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. I don't have to have any legal reason, I have a legal reason, I own the business. Just like saying I have to let people into my house. No I don't, it's my house.

Look at this (*)(*)(*)(*): apparently I beez wrong, at least partially:

http://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/equal-rights/right-refuse-service

Well, but not totally wrong. Refusing someone because they are black, yes, refusing someone for religious reasons: No, that's acceptable under the morality clause.

http://www.lifescript.com/soul/self/well-being/the_right_to_refuse_service_or_discrimination.aspx

On the same note:

 

Or one time when he refused to do so! Who would seriously think Jesus would decide that homosexuals can't get to heaven?

Do you really want to go into a long comparison between the OT god and the NT god? These were pretty much unrelated entities.

This is probably the wrong model, legally speaking. If you are acting as a private citizen, certainly you can choose whom to invite into your home as guests. But a business is more along the model of a "common carrier" like the phone company, obliged to accept any paying customer. So you would probably have to organize your business as a private club, at the very least charging dues. I think there are some private golf clubs the work that way. But those clubs can most emphatically NOT advertise their facilities to the public, and then pick and choose which public they admit. It's either open to the public or it's not.

 

You made the lazy general argument. Don't get mad at him because you are sloppy.

 

How do they know who's gay?

 

Because gay couples love to make a big deal out of it and throw it in the face of Christian families with kids.......complete with ridiculous public displays if affection.

 

That's a key question. Nearly always, they have no clue. So generally speaking, they serve gays all day, every day, without the slightest problem. Guy comes in, buys a 6-pack, pays, out he goes. Gee, did the clerk just violate his religious beliefs? HE sure doesn't know and doesn't care. In fact, it's a vanishingly rare transaction where the sexual orientation of the customer is evident at all, except in a very few special cases the overwhelming majority of businesses never encounter.

So in practice, this bill is pretty much irrelevant except in an extremely tiny percentage of very unusual transactions. It won't affect statewide commerce at all, and it won't inconvenience homosexuals in any of their normal day to day shopping. So really, it's an appeal to a perceived bigot vote, in the hopes that a majority of representatives can leverage re-election at the expense of the the state as a whole, since it will drive away businesses (and the super bowl). By poll the majority of Arizona citizens oppose this bill, but this matters little to gerrymandered districts.

 

A&E made out like bandits from that whole thing. WalMart and other places ran out of Duck Dynasty merch, which is all sold by guess who? A&E. It flew off the shelves during that whole silly mess. A&E gets a cut from that merch. They didn't suffer one bit. It was a great marketing ploy.



And no, you as a business owner most certainly do not have a right to refuse service to black folks. You need to read up on business law. You can lose your business license for that.

 

This law isn't even necessary in AZ. You can already discriminate. Sexual orientation was not a protected class. This law was in response to NM case where photographers refused to take pictures of a same sex wedding. This is illegal in NM but not AZ.

 

Have you ever seen this? I haven't. I've seen couples holding hands, and not always opposite sexes, but I don't go out of my way to be offended. Do you? I might see ANY couples holding hands maybe once a month.

I have to LOL at the "Christian families with kids" schtick. Are you all that afraid that Christian kids might actually realize that they aren't harmed?

 

You know when they come in and ask you to bake a cake and want two men or two women on the top of the cake....lol

 

Marketing ploy? No hardly. But I guess you need to tell yourself that as well as look at phony polls to make yourself feel better.

To be honest if I had a business I would not refuse gays. Even if I was a caterer and got a gig for a gay wedding. Sure they live a perverted lifestyle but business is business.

 

The NFL is losing their minds over this and all it does is reenforce the laws already on the books.

 

Your intolerance is showing.........Christian couples should have the right to go out in public without them being exposed to two men humping each other in leather thongs....

 

But why would a photographer refuse to take pictures? There's no issue here of being paid.

Early on, these photographers would be simply rubber-stamping the status quo. Nobody would notice, so no new business.

In mid-controversy, these photographers would be pimping for the bigot-commerce, which might be worth pursuing.

By now, it's probably a losing strategy even in Arizona. Better to start emphasizing the quality of the photographs.

- - - Updated - - -

Have you ever see this? I wouldn't even know where to go to view this sort of production. I guess that's because I'm not a Christian.

- - - Updated - - -

And for that, you're going to refuse to sell them a cake? Seriously?

 

Losing their minds? They have said that they oppose bigotry and intolerance, and if Arizona chooses to institutionalize these evils, they can move their superbowl to some saner location.

 

Oh, so if gay people have equal rights they're going to hump in public in leather thongs? Please do tell me about this periodic public sex.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't need to tell myself anything. A&E made a ton of cash off the controversy, that's a fact, and so did Phil. Unless you think that selling out of merch hurt them. Way to protest- buy up all the A&E Duck Dynasty merch. Yeah, that's brilliant. A&E laughed all the way to the bank, as did Phil.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Phil-Robertson-Walmart-sells-merchandise.html

Oops. Gotta love it. Best management of a scandal I've ever seen on the part of a corporation.