license to discriminate....

Ariz. Bill Decried As License to Discriminate


PHOENIX — The Arizona Legislature gave final approval Thursday to legislation that allows business owners asserting their religious beliefs to refuse service to gays and others, drawing backlash from Democrats who called the proposal "state-sanctioned discrimination" and an embarrassment.
The 33-27 vote by the House sends the legislation to Republican Gov. Jan Brewer and puts Arizona back at the forefront of a polarizing piece of legislation four years after the state enacted an immigration crackdown that caused a national furor.





Similar religious protection legislation has been introduced in Ohio, Mississippi, Idaho, South Dakota, Tennessee and Oklahoma, but Arizona's plan is the only one that has passed.
Republicans stressed that the bill is about protecting religious freedom and not discrimination. They frequently cited the case of a New Mexico photographer who was sued after refusing to take wedding pictures of a gay couple and said Arizona needs a law to protect people in the state from heavy-handed actions by courts and law enforcement.
Opponents raised scenarios in which gay people in Arizona could be denied service at a restaurant or refused medical treatment if a business owner thought homosexuality was not in accordance with his religion.
All but three Republicans in the House backed the bill Thursday evening. The Senate passed the bill a day earlier on a straight party-line vote of 17-13.
Republican Sen. Steve Yarbrough called his proposal a First Amendment issue during the Senate debate.
"This bill is not about allowing discrimination," Yarbrough said. "This bill is about preventing discrimination against people who are clearly living out their faith."
Democrats say it is an outright attack on the rights of gays and lesbians.





"The heart of this bill would allow for discrimination versus gays and lesbians," said Sen. Steve Gallardo, D-Phoenix. "You can't argue the fact that bill will invite discrimination. That's the point of this bill. It is."

Those fools think it will only be used against gays. Just wait until people start using it against minorities, old people and the like.

ariz. also refused to recognize martin luther king day as a hoilday until the n.f.l. said you don't get to host a super bowl until you change that law.... they changed it....
i would think this would be a tremendous hit for ariz as far as tourism....business....senior citizens with gay children grandchildren gay friends....

So its okay to take away someone's business because they don't want to serve someone regardless of the reason. Maybe you haven't heard of the Washington state family who lost their business because they would not make a wedding cake for a gay wedding though they did try to give the couple a name of another business. That wasn't good enough for the couple. They took it to court and said that they were harmed by the refusal. That their "rights" were superior to the rights of the family bakery.

The gay position http://www.advocate.com/business/201...n-wedding-cake

The bakery position http://www.foxnews.mobi/quickPage.ht...ntent=96842881

Remember back when there signs that used to say, "the owner retains the right to refuse service to anyone". Now if a owner is dumb enough to refuse service to an entire sector of society then that is their right and probably their downfall.

NO SHIRT
NO SHOES
NO SERVICE

I liked the one on the storefront said....

We reserve the right to refuse service to legislators.

Those fools think it will only be used against gays. Just wait until people start using it against minorities, old people and the like. Originally Posted by BigLouie

Actually, I am quite sure they INTEND it to be used against minorities. Anyone who "looks like an illegal immigrant". But why stop there? This is legalized Deliverance, Kingman Arizona style. Don't you know those folk firmly believe it's against their religion to sell gas to a long-haired hippie? Certainly they will burn in hell if the sell it to a black man.

Actually, I am quite sure they INTEND it to be used against minorities. Anyone who "looks like an illegal immigrant". But why stop there? This is legalized Deliverance, Kingman Arizona style. Don't you know those folk firmly believe it's against their religion to sell gas to a long-haired hippie? Certainly they will burn in hell if the sell it to a black man. Originally Posted by Old-T

When you got nothing... PLAY THE RACE-CARD


TYPICAL

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.

I just have to say this Old T...you make a lot of stupid assumptions without any evidence to back it up. You really do have liberal tendencies. You think the worst of people and we need government to rein in our evil selves.

It is liberals that judge people by their skin color.

Nope. Just going by the recent few years of AZ legislature, and personal experiences driving through Kingman, the white supremacist capital of the southwest. And I don't remotely have short hair or a tie-died shirt.

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

Exactly! +1

I really don't care about dudes diddling dudes, but I really don't want to see or hear about it, and I'm willing to suffer less overt public feminine sexuality (what I consider hot) to achieve that.

I don't understand nor agree that all of a sudden homosexuality is acceptable and not perverse; I don't appreciate it, but I don't think those who disagree should be persecuted, nor should I for not appreciating it. And I know my business would be persecuted if I openly expressed the slightest anti-homosexual sentiment.

For that reason, I'd love to eat Barilla pasta at Chik-Fil-A, if only it was open on Sunday. I'm glad some folks in AZ are standing up for people's right to not accept.

if someone sincerely believes in a long held, standard, widely accepted, supportable by centuries of practice, religious aspect of life ...of course when it does no harm to another...surely the courts can develop criteria concerning things that meet a standard.... why should they be forced to participate in its antithesis just because of make a living doing something?

what happened to the first amendment?


is it appropriate that those whose beliefs are opposed to those of another and who have no respect for their religious beliefs, can by police force, trample those beliefs?

what is missing by some is that a persons religious beliefs, if sincere, don't end at the church door, they try to live them

I say each party can have their beliefs and each can agree to disagree and both can move along undisturbed

if john travolta can use a male masseuse then al gore shouldn't get to only use female ones

A food place in Houston solved their problem with openly gay people in their establishment simply by playing Christian music and placing symbols of their faith throughout the restaurant. They stopped coming and families returned with their children because they did not have to be exposed to public displays of affection between same sex couples. They did not need a law nor did they need to discriminate. They allowed the patrons to be the ones that discriminated.

Funny how that works. A business owner cannot discriminate but the customer can.