license to discriminate....

Then businesses that do cater to people of color and those with disabilities will thrive, while the others wither. There aren't enough racists left to support an economy. You are worried about nothing. This problem will take care of itself. Personally, I'd prefer to see businesses identify themselves as hostile to certain groups. I'd know to not spend my money there. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Like NO INDIANS ?

I don't agree with this bill and hope it will be Vetoed.

Lets look at this law a different way. I am stealing this analogy from the LA times.

There is a law that bans discrimination at public accommodations based on religion in Arizona. Let’s pretend that I’m a bakery and that in my town here in Arizona, Westboro Baptist Church comes to picket a funeral of a soldier, and they tell me to bake a cake. They want it to say, ‘God hates ...’ and that terrible word they use.
“It would offend my dignity. I don’t want to give voice to that horrible message. Right now, they could sue me for discriminating based on their religious beliefs. If the Arizona courts went the way of the New Mexico courts, I would lose and if they targeted me, I could lose my business because of the damages I’d have to pay out. I would never be able to assert my Religious Freedom Restoration Act defense because it’s available only if the government is prosecuting me.


http://www.latimes.com/nation/nation...#ixzz2uHbWQaAZ

The last time I checked, most people don't wear their sexual orientation on their sleeves. As long as you keep private matters private, you can't be discriminated against, right? So what's the problem?

In the case of the photographer, the customers had to reveal they wanted to hire him for a gay wedding. The photographer wasn't comfortable accepting their business. So why couldn't they just move on and find someone else? You don't want anyone at your wedding who isn't comfortable being there, do you?

What if I try to hire a photographer to make a movie of me fucking Tera Patrick and he says no? Can I sue him for discriminating against porno stars?

Nobody uses common sense anymore. Suing the wedding photographer is a violation of common sense, unless of course you just want to force him out of business to spite him for not applauding and condoning same-sex marriage.

Like NO INDIANS ? Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Why would I care? If a business doesn't want my money because of my heritage, I'd like to know up front. I'd rather patronize businesses who realize the only color that matters is green.

The last time I checked, most people don't wear their sexual orientation on their sleeves. As long as you keep private matters private, you can't be discriminated against, right? So what's the problem?

In the case of the photographer, the customers had to reveal they wanted to hire him for a gay wedding. The photographer wasn't comfortable accepting their business. So why couldn't they just move on and find someone else? You don't want anyone at your wedding who isn't comfortable being there, do you?

What if I try to hire a photographer to make a movie of me fucking Tera Patrick and he says no? Can I sue him for discriminating against porno stars?

Nobody uses common sense anymore. Suing the wedding photographer is a violation of common sense, unless of course you just want to force him out of business to spite him for not applauding and condoning same-sex marriage. Originally Posted by lustylad

THere are a lot of people in the LGBT community who wear who they are on their sleeves. It's easy to spot a twink or a transgender out in the crowd.

Two of the reps who voted for it are now asking the Governor to veto it. Seems like if they pass it they will lose the Superbowl. Money talks.

It's easy to spot a twink or a transgender out in the crowd. Originally Posted by hungryhippo

What a clueless comment.

Two of the reps who voted for it are now asking the Governor to veto it. Seems like if they pass it they will lose the Superbowl. Money talks. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Are you implying that some of these legislators didn't think before pushing the legislation?

Or are you saying their moral principles are for sale?

Personally I would guess "both".

They didn't think ....

They didn't think .... Originally Posted by i'va biggen

But are you implying they WOULDN'T sell out their principles for a few super bowl dollars? I think you overestimate their scruples.

Yep......................

The GLTGCDGH crowd should encourage all their members (and sympathizers) to bring their business to Arizona; show America how much business the "religious zealots" are losing.....

But they won't, they will do the opposite and call for a boycott..........

Let's see what Gov. Brewer does............I hope she signs the law........but I doubt she will.

They could always shop/eat/use services at places that don't discriminate.
If they lose enough business because of it, watch how fast those owners change their stance. Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

I'd rather patronize businesses who realize the only color that matters is green. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I'd prefer a world where principles and ethics meant more than money, even if those principles were based on hate. I'd rather deal with people who believe in something other than the next dollar, those people are without principles. Those people create derivative trading and pyramid schemes. Those people live by the mantra, fuck the next guy.

I quoted COG not to be anti-COG, just the words he used.

I'd prefer a world where principles and ethics meant more than money, even if those principles were based on hate. I'd rather deal with people who believe in something other than the next dollar, those people are without principles. Those people create derivative trading and pyramid schemes. Those people live by the mantra, fuck the next guy.

I quoted COG not to be anti-COG, just the words he used. Originally Posted by JohnnyCap

I agree

if you are faithful, its not about adjusting your faith to meet life, its about adjusting your life to fit your faith (and yes sometimes that's hard) and that needs to be accommodated in our laws

a wedding ceremony is to many, and used to be mainly, and is biblically, a religious ceremony. to many people there is a distinction between serving at a wedding ceremony and just providing service in a secular setting

How would you feel if Woody Allen came to your candy store...



Figured some of you would hurt yourselves trying to figure it out. You see Woody Allen has been accused of being a child molester and the popular notion is that molesterd entice children with candy. So he is coming to your store, which sells candy, and you have a problem with him because of unproven allegations. To be safe, you deny his business. He can now sue you for something. Maybe because he's Jewish, or from New York City. The point is that as owner of the store, you have NO rights to refuse anyone. This law changes that on religious grounds but not racial or sexual. How would you feel that as real straight arrow someone wanted you to make them a "pussy" cake and you no other recourse than to do it.

I'd prefer a world where principles and ethics meant more than money, even if those principles were based on hate. I'd rather deal with people who believe in something other than the next dollar, those people are without principles. Those people create derivative trading and pyramid schemes. Those people live by the mantra, fuck the next guy.

I quoted COG not to be anti-COG, just the words he used. Originally Posted by JohnnyCap

me too