I voted yes. And it has nothing to do with my religious beliefs. It has to do with rights of the business owner. If a business owner's beliefs oppose anything (be it sexual orientation, or the color of a t-shirt you're wearing, or your hairstyle) then they should be able refuse to serve you or sell to you, without giving a reason. The owner *OWNS* the business and therefore can decide who they do or do not serve/sell to. It may not be a good business decision, however it is their right as the OWNER of the company.
Currently the owner of a business can refuse to service anyone at anytime for any reason. If the owner of a business asks you to leave the property and you refuse, you are trespassing.
I'm not saying whether I support homosexuality or not as that is irrelevant to the conversation. I do however support the rights of a business owner to choose what happens inside of their business.
I voted yes. And it has nothing to do with my religious beliefs. It has to do with rights of the business owner. If a business owner's beliefs oppose anything (be it sexual orientation, or the color of a t-shirt you're wearing, or your hairstyle) then they should be able refuse to serve you or sell to you, without giving a reason. The owner *OWNS* the business and therefore can decide who they do or do not serve/sell to. It may not be a good business decision, however it is their right as the OWNER of the company.
Currently the owner of a business can refuse to service anyone at anytime for any reason. If the owner of a business asks you to leave the property and you refuse, you are trespassing.
I'm not saying whether I support homosexuality or not as that is irrelevant to the conversation. I do however support the rights of a business owner to choose what happens inside of their business.
Destin - you serious Clark? so you should be able to refuse service to someone of a different race? different religion? I thought we settled this in the '60s.
I am a gay rights supporting, small business owner. I am not a christian and I also voted yes. I would not perform for someone that was destroyed on drugs. I would not perform for a child molester or a rapist. It is a business owners right to serve or not serve anyone they choose... No matter how rooted in hate their reasons may be.
That being said, please see this bill for what it really is. It's a bipartisan fundraising effort focused on getting money out of their bases when all the while everyone knew what the result would be. The governor would veto this bill, Team Red and Team Blue make piles of cash and we all end up more divided.
So you're justifying their right as a "business owner" to legally promote hate harassment? Why not say they can refuse someone because their Native and it goes against their religious views of manifest destiny? You can't just single out GLBT people with such a bill. You shouldn't be singling them out, period.
A business owner should have a right to refuse anyone, so anyone means anyone. To turn this concept and right into a tantrum of specifically target any person or group of people is total ignorance and is simply a means to look for a fight out for no other reason than to hear your own voice. This is yet another example of the tolerant being told by the intolerant to be tolerant of the people who are intolerant of you expressing your right( s ).
More over, who says that the expressing of ones right( s ), especially in this situation, has to be anything major or extreme. I'm pretty sure there has been plenty of tact and consideration in the past. This doesn't have to be seen as an act "against" someone/something, but instead a protection from someone/ something.
I would love to be able to make a decision of where I spent my money. If I see a business discriminating against another peaceful human I surely would not want that person to profit from my labor. Similarly, if I could find a business that discriminates against criminals such as bureaucrats and politicians, I would be able to freely spend my money there.
Imagine the conundrum there would be if the Bakery owners practiced the Muslim Faith and denied the couple service. Which would be more important; a demand to respect the gay lifestyle or a demand to embrace multiculturalism?
I don't raise the point to be facetious. ACO has groups of Muslim guests & Ultra-Orthodox Jewish guests fairly frequently so we're accustomed to honoring their belief system as part of our daily operations (primarily, no female guides on their trips).
Answer: Its no different. The gays are just "sensitive" lol
On the subject of gays. Show me one other creature on earth that participates in homosexual relations, and then ill stop thinking that its un-natural and disgusting. Im not even religious, but I have to side with them on this one. As a free person of this earth, I RESERVE THE RIGHT TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST PEOPLE THAT I DONT WANT TO ASSOCIATE WITH.
In today's economy I dont think i would be turning away business, but i respect the rights of other to turn away business if they so choose.
There is a big difference between refusing to serve someone due to their personal actions (making trouble ON THE PREMISES, failure to pay for previous service, etc), and refusing to serve someone simply because they exist.
Somebody causes you trouble, then by all means shoo them out of your store. But it is just plain wrong to deny service to an individual simply because they exist.
Remember the ads for Hyatt Legal Services? " Somewhere, in all these dusty law books a great idea got lost. The idea that law is for people."
Well, somewhere in 3 pages of proposed legislation and the din of noise from media outlets and partisan hacks, a great idea got lost. The idea that our freedom to practice religion (or not practice it at all) was a fundamental cornerstone of this nation.
SB 1062 was not about gay rights or business rights. It was not about hate speech or discrimination. It was not about the rights of a religion over the rights of a protected class. It was not about gay marriage (or gay anything for that matter) or Christian bigotry.
SB 1062 was about the right of redress. Our ancestors fled England because the government was setting the parameters of their faith and it's free practice, not the people. In our founding documents, in order to protect that right in a new nation, laws were set forth so that when those freedoms were breached, the oppressed would have the right to challenge the oppressor. That simple principle applies throughout or laws both criminal and civil.
SB 1062 simply ensured that a person or group who could establish "unreasonable burden" had the opportunity to seek redress. It didn't mean that we had to agree or disagree with that person or group, it just meant that they had the right to petition the courts and let the merits of their individual situation decide the outcome. Isn't that a protection we should all desire? What is offensive to some is acceptable to others and what is permissible in some faiths is strictly prohibited in others. Since we are a nation that respects ALL faiths, then we should stand equally for the protections of EVERY one.
This was a sad display of our legislative system at work. A simple bill that at it's core protected all of us regardless of our faith of lack thereof, was hijacked and propelled to the point of being tried in the court of partisan hackery, not on it's merit, but on the agendas of both sides. When state legislation is held hostage by the threat of the removal of a Super Bowl, hope is lost.
Three simple pages when read over and over, reveal an idea we should all have been behind...but somewhere in all those dusty law books...
The denial of service is NOT due to the fact that this person "exists". The issue is that the owner should have the right to refuse service because of what these people DO. It IS about their actions and behaviour, not their 'existence'.
The first thing that comes to mind after reading about Arizona's failed law is the scene in "Giant," when Sarge (the restaurant owner) and 'Bick' Benedict scuffle over an attempt to eject a Latino family. Sarge wins the fight and tosses a sign at Bick. The sign reads, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." The film was released in the 1950s amid the racial tensions in Jim Crow south, and the theme was not lost on any who viewed it.
60 years later, most Americans would likely assume that such arbitrary examples of discrimination would not only be rare but prosecutable. ...As in the 1990s when 'Denny's' was fined $54 million for biased treatment of Black customers.
Few people walk into a store and wonder whether their politics, race, ethnicity, gender or sexual preference will affect the quality of service they are afforded. We as a culture have moved beyond such pettiness (at least overtly).
Using religious freedom as the hook to hang one's bigotry on- pretending that prejudice can be legitimized by one's religious beliefs is absurd. Legislating such nonsense is unfathomable.
Let's ponder a hypothetical: a pharmacist's personal belief holds that birth control is a sin. Feeling justified by a law similar to SB 1062, this pharmacist substitutes a placebo for birth control pills. Would it be defensible?
If one opens a business, there is more than an expectation of fair-handed-ness. Customers expect a certain level of service, safety and trustworthiness. In fact there is more than an expectation; there are laws to protect the customer.
A customer is not simply wandering into a private home. There is an enforceable level of treatment demanded when operating a public, commercial establishment.
Suggesting that there is a nice place down the street that caters to 'your kind of people' doesn't cut it.
For those of you who voted
For those of you who voted "yes"...
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2014/02/using-religious-liberty-as-excus…
...and you are voting that way because of your supposed religious views, then I expect you to be a bit more faithful...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/26/1280375/-Cartoon-Arizona-discr…
Did anybody actually read SB
Did anybody actually read SB 1062?
I voted yes. And it has
I voted yes. And it has nothing to do with my religious beliefs. It has to do with rights of the business owner. If a business owner's beliefs oppose anything (be it sexual orientation, or the color of a t-shirt you're wearing, or your hairstyle) then they should be able refuse to serve you or sell to you, without giving a reason. The owner *OWNS* the business and therefore can decide who they do or do not serve/sell to. It may not be a good business decision, however it is their right as the OWNER of the company.
Currently the owner of a business can refuse to service anyone at anytime for any reason. If the owner of a business asks you to leave the property and you refuse, you are trespassing.
I'm not saying whether I support homosexuality or not as that is irrelevant to the conversation. I do however support the rights of a business owner to choose what happens inside of their business.
I voted yes. And it has
I voted yes. And it has nothing to do with my religious beliefs. It has to do with rights of the business owner. If a business owner's beliefs oppose anything (be it sexual orientation, or the color of a t-shirt you're wearing, or your hairstyle) then they should be able refuse to serve you or sell to you, without giving a reason. The owner *OWNS* the business and therefore can decide who they do or do not serve/sell to. It may not be a good business decision, however it is their right as the OWNER of the company.
Currently the owner of a business can refuse to service anyone at anytime for any reason. If the owner of a business asks you to leave the property and you refuse, you are trespassing.
I'm not saying whether I support homosexuality or not as that is irrelevant to the conversation. I do however support the rights of a business owner to choose what happens inside of their business.
I hadn't yet. So I went and
I hadn't yet. So I went and found it. For everyone's viewing pleasure: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.pdf
Destin - you serious Clark?
Destin - you serious Clark? so you should be able to refuse service to someone of a different race? different religion? I thought we settled this in the '60s.
Interesting read isn't it
Interesting read isn't it Jason? Did you find it supporting any of the media narratives?
I am a gay rights supporting,
I am a gay rights supporting, small business owner. I am not a christian and I also voted yes. I would not perform for someone that was destroyed on drugs. I would not perform for a child molester or a rapist. It is a business owners right to serve or not serve anyone they choose... No matter how rooted in hate their reasons may be.
That being said, please see this bill for what it really is. It's a bipartisan fundraising effort focused on getting money out of their bases when all the while everyone knew what the result would be. The governor would veto this bill, Team Red and Team Blue make piles of cash and we all end up more divided.
So you're justifying their
So you're justifying their right as a "business owner" to legally promote hate harassment? Why not say they can refuse someone because their Native and it goes against their religious views of manifest destiny? You can't just single out GLBT people with such a bill. You shouldn't be singling them out, period.
The irony is that I'm moving
The irony is that I'm moving to Arizona in a few weeks.
Karlie, read the bill, it is
Karlie, read the bill, it is 3 pages. After the title and definitions page, there is only one page of actual legislation proposed.
A business owner should have
A business owner should have a right to refuse anyone, so anyone means anyone. To turn this concept and right into a tantrum of specifically target any person or group of people is total ignorance and is simply a means to look for a fight out for no other reason than to hear your own voice. This is yet another example of the tolerant being told by the intolerant to be tolerant of the people who are intolerant of you expressing your right( s ).
More over, who says that the expressing of ones right( s ), especially in this situation, has to be anything major or extreme. I'm pretty sure there has been plenty of tact and consideration in the past. This doesn't have to be seen as an act "against" someone/something, but instead a protection from someone/ something.
I would love to be able to
I would love to be able to make a decision of where I spent my money. If I see a business discriminating against another peaceful human I surely would not want that person to profit from my labor. Similarly, if I could find a business that discriminates against criminals such as bureaucrats and politicians, I would be able to freely spend my money there.
Imagine the conundrum there
Imagine the conundrum there would be if the Bakery owners practiced the Muslim Faith and denied the couple service. Which would be more important; a demand to respect the gay lifestyle or a demand to embrace multiculturalism?
I don't raise the point to be facetious. ACO has groups of Muslim guests & Ultra-Orthodox Jewish guests fairly frequently so we're accustomed to honoring their belief system as part of our daily operations (primarily, no female guides on their trips).
I see signs in businesses all
I see signs in businesses all the time that say
"MANAGEMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE"
How is this any different?
Answer: Its no different. The gays are just "sensitive" lol
On the subject of gays. Show me one other creature on earth that participates in homosexual relations, and then ill stop thinking that its un-natural and disgusting. Im not even religious, but I have to side with them on this one. As a free person of this earth, I RESERVE THE RIGHT TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST PEOPLE THAT I DONT WANT TO ASSOCIATE WITH.
In today's economy I dont think i would be turning away business, but i respect the rights of other to turn away business if they so choose.
Christopher, for your
Christopher, for your education.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_beha…
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx
http://www.yalescientific.org/2012/03/do-animals-exhibit-homosexuality/
Between 450 to 1500 species have homosexual activity as a commonplace practice Christopher. Look at these articles and see for yourself.
Now will that fact make you stop thinking homosexual relations is unnatural and disgusting? I doubt it, but you placed that challenge there....
There is a big difference
There is a big difference between refusing to serve someone due to their personal actions (making trouble ON THE PREMISES, failure to pay for previous service, etc), and refusing to serve someone simply because they exist.
Somebody causes you trouble, then by all means shoo them out of your store. But it is just plain wrong to deny service to an individual simply because they exist.
Remember the ads for Hyatt
Remember the ads for Hyatt Legal Services? " Somewhere, in all these dusty law books a great idea got lost. The idea that law is for people."
Well, somewhere in 3 pages of proposed legislation and the din of noise from media outlets and partisan hacks, a great idea got lost. The idea that our freedom to practice religion (or not practice it at all) was a fundamental cornerstone of this nation.
SB 1062 was not about gay rights or business rights. It was not about hate speech or discrimination. It was not about the rights of a religion over the rights of a protected class. It was not about gay marriage (or gay anything for that matter) or Christian bigotry.
SB 1062 was about the right of redress. Our ancestors fled England because the government was setting the parameters of their faith and it's free practice, not the people. In our founding documents, in order to protect that right in a new nation, laws were set forth so that when those freedoms were breached, the oppressed would have the right to challenge the oppressor. That simple principle applies throughout or laws both criminal and civil.
SB 1062 simply ensured that a person or group who could establish "unreasonable burden" had the opportunity to seek redress. It didn't mean that we had to agree or disagree with that person or group, it just meant that they had the right to petition the courts and let the merits of their individual situation decide the outcome. Isn't that a protection we should all desire? What is offensive to some is acceptable to others and what is permissible in some faiths is strictly prohibited in others. Since we are a nation that respects ALL faiths, then we should stand equally for the protections of EVERY one.
This was a sad display of our legislative system at work. A simple bill that at it's core protected all of us regardless of our faith of lack thereof, was hijacked and propelled to the point of being tried in the court of partisan hackery, not on it's merit, but on the agendas of both sides. When state legislation is held hostage by the threat of the removal of a Super Bowl, hope is lost.
Three simple pages when read over and over, reveal an idea we should all have been behind...but somewhere in all those dusty law books...
The denial of service is NOT
The denial of service is NOT due to the fact that this person "exists". The issue is that the owner should have the right to refuse service because of what these people DO. It IS about their actions and behaviour, not their 'existence'.
Spot on, Jeff! Those with a
Spot on, Jeff!
Those with a political agenda can twist even the most basic legislative ideas...
The first thing that comes to
The first thing that comes to mind after reading about Arizona's failed law is the scene in "Giant," when Sarge (the restaurant owner) and 'Bick' Benedict scuffle over an attempt to eject a Latino family. Sarge wins the fight and tosses a sign at Bick. The sign reads, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." The film was released in the 1950s amid the racial tensions in Jim Crow south, and the theme was not lost on any who viewed it.
60 years later, most Americans would likely assume that such arbitrary examples of discrimination would not only be rare but prosecutable. ...As in the 1990s when 'Denny's' was fined $54 million for biased treatment of Black customers.
Few people walk into a store and wonder whether their politics, race, ethnicity, gender or sexual preference will affect the quality of service they are afforded. We as a culture have moved beyond such pettiness (at least overtly).
Using religious freedom as the hook to hang one's bigotry on- pretending that prejudice can be legitimized by one's religious beliefs is absurd. Legislating such nonsense is unfathomable.
Let's ponder a hypothetical: a pharmacist's personal belief holds that birth control is a sin. Feeling justified by a law similar to SB 1062, this pharmacist substitutes a placebo for birth control pills. Would it be defensible?
If one opens a business, there is more than an expectation of fair-handed-ness. Customers expect a certain level of service, safety and trustworthiness. In fact there is more than an expectation; there are laws to protect the customer.
A customer is not simply wandering into a private home. There is an enforceable level of treatment demanded when operating a public, commercial establishment.
Suggesting that there is a nice place down the street that caters to 'your kind of people' doesn't cut it.