Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

    In this day and age you would think people would have better things to do and the state other issues to deal with. Well at least Putin can feel comfortable visiting Arizona should any kind of boycott erupt. Amazes me so much about the only thing I can say is "you got to be kidding me"



    Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill - CNN.com




    (CNN) -- Arizona's Legislature has passed a controversial bill that would allow business owners, as long as they assert their religious beliefs, to deny service to gay and lesbian customers.
    The bill, which the state House of Representatives passed by a 33-27 vote Thursday, now goes to Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican and onetime small business owner who vetoed similar legislation last year but has expressed the right of business owners to deny service.

    "I think anybody that owns a business can choose who they work with or who they don't work with," Brewer told CNN in Washington on Friday. "But I don't know that it needs to be statutory. In my life and in my businesses, if I don't want to do business or if I don't want to deal with a particular company or person or whatever, I'm not interested. That's America. That's freedom."
    Arizona Rep: Law would not shield waiter
    Arizona passes bill seen as 'anti-gay'
    As expected, the measure has drawn criticism from Democrats and business groups who said it would sanction discrimination and open the state to the risk of damaging litigation.

    On Friday, the LGBT group Wingspan staged a protest march to the governor's office that drew about 200 people. Some carried signs with messages "God created us all equal" and "Shame on Arizona."
    Tucson-based Rocco's Little Chicago Pizzeria posted a photo on its Facebook page of a sign with a message for state lawmakers: "We reserve the right to refuse service to Arizona legislators."
    "It's a ridiculous bill," pizzeria manager Evan Stevens told CNN on Friday. "Arizona has much bigger problems than allowing businesses to discriminate against people."

    In a statement, Anna Tovar, the state senate Democratic minority leader, said: "With the express consent of Republicans in this Legislature, many Arizonans will find themselves members of a separate and unequal class under this law because of their sexual orientation. This bill may also open the door to discriminate based on race, familial status, religion, sex, national origin, age or disability."

    The Greater Phoenix Economic Council, in a letter to Brewer on Friday, urged the governor to veto Senate Bill 1062, saying the "legislation will likely have profound, negative effects on our business community for years to come."
    "The legislation places businesses currently in Arizona, as well as those looking to locate here, in potentially damaging risk of litigation, and costly, needless legal disputes," council President Barry Broome wrote, adding that four unidentified companies have vowed to locate elsewhere if the legislation is signed.
    He added, "With major events approaching in the coming year, including Super Bowl XLIX, Arizona will be the center of the world's stage. This legislation has the potential of subjecting the Super Bowl, and major events surrounding it, to the threats of boycotts."

    On CNN's "The Lead with Jake Tapper," Arizona state Rep. John Kavanagh, a Republican, said the bill would not allow hotel clerks or waiters, for instance, to turn away customers, unless there was a "substantial burden on their sincerely held religious beliefs."

    The bill is being pushed by the Center for Arizona Policy, a conservative group opposed to abortion and same-sex marriage. The group has justified the measure on grounds that the proposal protects people against increasingly activist federal courts.
    "As we witness hostility towards people of faith grow like never before, we must take this opportunity to speak up for religious liberty," the group said on its website, asking people to contact Brewer and urge her to sign the bill. "The great news is that SB 1062 protects your right to live and work according to your faith."
    Cathi Herrod, the center's president, told CNN on Friday, "The Arizona bill has a very simple premise, that Americans should be free to live and work according to their religious faith. It's simply about protecting religious liberty and nothing else."
    Herrod said the bill's opponents are "showing unbelievable hostility toward religious beliefs."
    "America still stands for the principle that religious beliefs matter (for) something in this country, that we have the right to freely exercise our religious beliefs," she said.

    But Robert Boston, a spokesman for the Washington-based Americans United for Separation of Church and State, told CNN the legislation would "fling the door wide open to discrimination, not just against gay people, but basically to any class of individuals that a religious fundamentalist decides he or she doesn't want to deal with."
    He added, "A woman who is pregnant out of wedlock, for example, 'Well, out the door, you don't get served in my business."

    The Arizona legislation was passed as conservative states work to counter laws legalizing same-sex marriage. Arizona voters approved a ban on same-sex marriage as a state constitutional amendment in 2008.
    The American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona called the bill "unnecessary and discriminatory."
    "What today's bill does is allow private individuals and businesses to use religion to discriminate, sending a message that Arizona is intolerant and unwelcoming," the group said in a statement.
    Some Republican legislators have defended the bill as a First Amendment issue. Democrats dismissed it as an attack on gays and lesbians.

    "It's a very bad day for Arizona," Rep. Chad Campbell, a Phoenix Democrat who voted against the legislation, told CNN Friday.
    He added, "Let there be no doubt about what this bill does. It's going to allow people to discriminate against the gay community in Arizona. It goes after unprotected classes of people and we all know that the biggest unprotected class of people in the state is the LBGT community. If we were having this conversation in regard to African-Americans or women, there would be outrage across the country right now."

  • #2
    The logical next step is to extend this to every one else. Just claim that your religion prevent you from serving blacks, catholics, Muslims, protestant, Jews, women who uncover any part of their body, Jews, Hindus, single women, etc etc. In the past people have campaigned against 'special rights' for homosexuals. I assume they would want to extend this to everybody.
    sigpic

    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

    Comment


    • #3
      BF, the solution is much simpler and already implemented.

      Attached Files
      No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

      To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
        The logical next step is to extend this to every one else. Just claim that your religion prevent you from serving blacks, catholics, Muslims, protestant, Jews, women who uncover any part of their body, Jews, Hindus, single women, etc etc. In the past people have campaigned against 'special rights' for homosexuals. I assume they would want to extend this to everybody.
        Got something against us Joos?
        Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

        Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

        Comment


        • #5
          Just in case if there are two tables occupied by Jews.
          No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

          To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
            In this day and age you would think people would have better things to do and the state other issues to deal with. Well at least Putin can feel comfortable visiting Arizona should any kind of boycott erupt. Amazes me so much about the only thing I can say is "you got to be kidding me"
            There would have been no issue if people would have been peviously allowed to freely associate to whomever they wanted.Previous law was tyrannical,because it forced people to do bussiness with someone they didn't wanted to.Gay community is not discriminated against.They can do bussiness with those who like them and their money.Let anti-gay suffer financially.Otherwise you finance ''bigotry''

            If the state can force you to do bussiness with certain people,why not force you to accept unwelcomed guests in your house?
            Those who know don't speak
            He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
              Got something against us Joos?
              Sorry BR, I must like you guys so much I included you twice.

              Alternatively, I probably assumed subconsciously that more than one group would want to exclude you. When it reaches the point where you get East Asians rambling on about 'the joos' I'm not sure how much hope there is for humanity.
              sigpic

              Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Doktor View Post
                BF, the solution is much simpler and already implemented.

                [ATTACH=CONFIG]35642[/ATTACH]
                This isn't actually all that surprising.

                The first national King holiday was observed in 1986 by a decision of President Ronald Reagan. That same year, Gov. Bruce Babbitt decided the same for Arizona.

                When Gov. Evan Mecham succeeded Babbitt in 1987, however, he rescinded Babbitt's decision, saying that Babbitt, as governor, did not have the authority to single-handedly declare a paid state holiday......

                The question would be left to the people of Arizona.

                In 1990, voters went to the polls. They considered two ballot propositions that would have created a paid state holiday. On one, the vote was close. But in the end, both failed.

                Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepu...#ixzz2u3IGACNN

                They changed their minds when the NFL pulled a proposed Superbowl in Phoenix. Classy.
                sigpic

                Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                Comment


                • #9
                  This law as well as ones considere din Kansas and Kentucky are predictable backlashes for the revenge seeking of activits gays in Colorado who went after a Baker who refused to make them a wedding cake (but would make them any other cake) base don his religious convictions. They with their ACLU allies took it to the state civil rights commission. The ruling there seems to open the door for activist gays to begin suing whom ever they want- small business owners, churches, pastors....

                  Hence the rise of religious shield laws. How did we come to a point where someone can be sued for their religion? So I guess the neighborhood market is now antisemitic if they don't stock Kosher foods? How about the local texmex joint not stocking Halal? Non-stocking a minorities food is tantamount to refusing them service. People need to leave each other alone. Stop using the government to reward and punish.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by zraver View Post
                    This law as well as ones considere din Kansas and Kentucky are predictable backlashes for the revenge seeking of activits gays in Colorado who went after a Baker who refused to make them a wedding cake (but would make them any other cake) base don his religious convictions. They with their ACLU allies took it to the state civil rights commission. The ruling there seems to open the door for activist gays to begin suing whom ever they want- small business owners, churches, pastors....

                    Hence the rise of religious shield laws. How did we come to a point where someone can be sued for their religion? So I guess the neighborhood market is now antisemitic if they don't stock Kosher foods? How about the local texmex joint not stocking Halal? Non-stocking a minorities food is tantamount to refusing them service. People need to leave each other alone. Stop using the government to reward and punish.
                    No, they are anti-semitic if they refuse to provide a cake for a bar mitzvah because it is a Jewish rite. That is the appropriate comparison.
                    sigpic

                    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Just so I understand: A restaurant can hang a sign saying they reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. As far as I understand it, that means they are allowed to refuse service, aside from based on race, sex, nationality or religion.

                      In today's day and age, there are still people uncomfortable with gays, for whatever reason. I know some people who are fully supportive of gay rights, including gay marriage, but are uncomfortable around them. Being uncomfortable around gays does not equal homophobia. I have friends in NY that work alongside blacks, Hispanics and Asians, but won't walk in certain parts of NYC because they are afraid. They are not racist, they are just being prudent.

                      So, the question is, why do gays feel that it is ok for them to push themselves on people who aren't necessarily against them, but choose not to be around them? If you ask me, a move like this is actually more likely to turn people against gays. Everyone remembers that one kid in school that was kinda ok, but didn't really connect to any of the groups. If the teacher made kids hang out with the first kid, they would just come to resent him, even make fun of him behind his back, or worse, to his face.

                      I'm not saying this law is any better or any worse than the status quo, I'm just wondering what was being done by the gays that it led Arizona feeling that a law like this needed to be enacted. In the end, I see no winners here, only losers.
                      Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

                      Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        BR,

                        I get the point you are making, but disagree with putting it back on the minority not to irritate people by wanting equal treatment. There is a long history of people responding in much the same way to other groups trying to assert equal rights.
                        sigpic

                        Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          What kind of daft business owner would turn down business due to someones sexual status?

                          Bigotry aside, are these people aware that homosexuals on average have FAR higher amounts of disposable business?
                          The best part of repentance is the sin

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by zraver View Post
                            This law as well as ones considere din Kansas and Kentucky are predictable backlashes for the revenge seeking of activits gays in Colorado who went after a Baker who refused to make them a wedding cake (but would make them any other cake) base don his religious convictions. They with their ACLU allies took it to the state civil rights commission. The ruling there seems to open the door for activist gays to begin suing whom ever they want- small business owners, churches, pastors....

                            Hence the rise of religious shield laws. How did we come to a point where someone can be sued for their religion? So I guess the neighborhood market is now antisemitic if they don't stock Kosher foods? How about the local texmex joint not stocking Halal? Non-stocking a minorities food is tantamount to refusing them service. People need to leave each other alone. Stop using the government to reward and punish.
                            I would have no problem if the small owners would practice their religious discrimination across the board,. But they don't. They use their religion to justify their own hates and prejudices.

                            Why target Gays. Did the woman that claimed "It violates my religion to bake gays a cake" also refuse to bake wedding cakes for interracial couples? How about people that wanted a cake for their second marriage after a divorce? The mentioned in the article, unwed mother. And a whole host of other reasons not to serve people. Or if she also closes down when on that "Time of the month" since she would be unclean and barred from the kitchen.

                            If she did. Fine She is being consistent with her religious beliefs and practices.

                            If she applied her religion only against Gays then she deserves no protection under the law.


                            Of course this is the State that voted to bar implementing Dept of Education Common Core standards. Because as one Legislator said the program uses "fuzzy math,'' substituting letters for numbers in some examples.

                            Oops left out the link

                            http://azstarnet.com/news/state-and-...9bb2963f4.html
                            Last edited by Gun Grape; 22 Feb 14,, 17:40.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by chakos View Post
                              What kind of daft business owner would turn down business due to someones sexual status?

                              Bigotry aside, are these people aware that homosexuals on average have FAR higher amounts of disposable business?
                              It is perhaps instructive to note that actual business owners are protesting this asinine law. Only politicians with an agenda Seem to be promoting itr I think the bigoted business owners will quickly find out to their disadvantage that discrimination is not a good business practice
                              "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X