Skip to comments.Arizona Bill Targets Discrimination Against Religion
Posted on 02/20/2014 4:49:40 AM PST by LD Jackson
Arizona has passed a bill that is aimed at expanding the rights of businesses to refuse service to homosexuals and others. The usual rhetoric applies. The liberals declare it will open the door to discrimination and the state's economy will be damaged. They have even went so far as to say it will allow people to get away with criminal activity by declaring it as an expression of faith. Like I said, the usual rhetoric applies.
What can not be argued against is this. Homosexuals have declared a war on businesses that refuse them service. I'm not talking about refusing to allow them to eat in a restaurant or ride a bus. I'm talking about suing a business because the owner refused to take pictures of a same-sex marriage or cater the event. If you believe this legislation is an unnecessary preventive measure, think again. I suggest you read a couple of posts from OK Politechs, showing the undeniable fact that Christian businesses are under attack from homosexual activists.
Christian Business Owners Bullied Into Closing
Homosexual Assault On Business: Marginalizing Morality
Reading those two posts, packed with evidence that Christian businesses are faced with lawsuits designed to force them to accept homosexual behavior as normal, no one should be able to deny how needful a law patterned after the Arizona law is.
Fox News - Democrats and civil rights groups opposed the bill that was pushed by social conservatives, saying it would allow discriminatory actions by businesses.America was founded, in part, on freedom of religion and freedom of speech. How sad it is that states are forced into taking action to assert what should be a right that is guaranteed under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Even some businesses that are affiliated with the homosexual movement have recognized how dangerous a precedent this would establish. They understand that forcing a Christian business into providing a service that sanctions an activity they disagree with on religious grounds is not a good course to take.
But sponsor Sen. Steve Yarbrough of Chandler said his push for Senate Bill 1062 was prompted by a New Mexico case in which the state Supreme Court allowed a gay couple to sue a photographer who refused to take pictures of their wedding. He says he's protecting religious rights.
"This bill is not about allowing discrimination," Yarbrough said during a debate that stretched for nearly two hours. "This bill is about preventing discrimination against people who are clearly living out their faith."
To anyone who would agree that Christian businesses should be forced to provide wedding services to homosexuals, I would ask this questions. Where will this path take us? Are we willing to take America down a road that will lead to our religious freedoms being restricted even more? Ponder on that for a while.
Discrimination is not only a good thing but a Constitutional right.
We have the freedom to assemble. That includes the freedom to choose not to assemble at all.
Discrimination for some reasons is the correct business choice. Many people, myself included, do not frequent businesses that support perversion.
Discrimination can be a poor business choice. Businesses that discriminate against blacks (for example) may see their business decrease as they are instantly cutting out something like 17% of their potential customers. (Although these days many whites feel far safer in environments that are black free. You don’t get knock-out-gamed if there are no blacks around).
Whether discrimination is a good choice, or a poor choice, it is a choice that is solely the business owner’s to make. He has to live with the bottom line consequences.
Once the state steps in to FORCE him to assemble with those he would choose not to assemble with, he is no more than a slave.
In libtard la-la land, the fake right to poke one’s pecker into someone else’s poop chute trumps the real right of people to practice their religion. That’s all it boils down to.
If they were so worried about the economy of the state's, then Obamacare would never have seen the light of day.
If it was a homosexual owner being forced to bake an cake for the American Family Association, or a Muslim bakery being forced to bake an anniversary cake for the modern state of Israel, or a black bakery being forced to bake a cake for the KKK, or then what would they say?
If they declare war on us, absolutely unconstitutionally, because of our religious beliefs, they’re the criminals and the thugs.
I don’t think they want a REAL war. That would fall under “the law of unintended consequences.”
Businesses get 80% of their income from 20% of their customers. It’s called the Pareto Principle.