Skip to comments.Ariz. Bill Decried As License to Discriminate
Posted on 02/20/2014 9:16:54 PM PST by CorporateStepsister
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
The right to discriminate is a foundational principle of Liberty.
I’m just glad people are pushing back against the chaotic drama that gays are constantly pushing into our lives.
Muslim staff working for Marks & Spencer have been given permission to refuse to serve customers buying alcohol or pork products.
I will die away in shock if Brewer actually signs this.
I think he will; it would be a relief to the business owners of the community.
It’s about time.
***The right to discriminate is a foundational principle of Liberty.***
...and inherent in every law ever written.
Actual biblically faithful Christians would be very unlikely to REFUSE to serve “gays” (even obviously flamey ones) until it came to something like the inscribed faux-wedding cakes that instigators in other states are demanding to have. Or possibly, cohabitation quarters. It’s not Christians who are the ones being mean here.
No of course not; I do know that I wouldn’t be biased against gays if in fact they wouldn’t turn every single stinking day into a new episode in the self inflicted drama of their lives. They should be tickled PINK at living in the US that lets them be themselves so much.
What, we ain’t slaves?
I hope *she* does, but I have doubts. This will have a rough ride at the Ninth Circus, and she hasn’t shown much stomach for these fights lately.
Hey, hate to break it to the Gaymafia, but Christians have rights, too.
The gays went overboard in suing Christian businesses and now is the payback.
Gays must have thought Christians would lie back and surrender.
Only if She refuses to Follow the Constitution:
“In ALL cases where a “STATE” is a Party to the action, the “Supreme Court” “SHALL have ORIGINAL JURISDICTION”.
Any State can Ignore any ruling from ALL INFERIOR COURTS and are only obligated to follow decisions from the Supreme Court.
Just because the USSC REFUSES to abide by the Constitution does not mean that a STATE must also disregard the Constitution. This will create a Constitutional Crisis, but simply reading that passage over and over again on TV will stop the madness post haste.
So if a Muslim cab driver refuses to take a fare who has been to a barbecue restaurant then this law protects their right to do so?
OK, I agree with you, if it comes to it, she'll refuse to follow the Constitution. She's a RINO, and that's what Rats and Rinos do.
Only I don't think it will come to that. I think she'll chicken out on signing it, and she'll Veto it. She's being begged to Veto it by the usual suspects, and I don't think she has the stomach for another battle as we had with SB1040 a couple years back.
I don’t think Muslim cab drivers are really the real problem right now. It’s gays who are getting hysterical and causing trouble for business owners right now.
Considering that people are sick of hysterical homos, I think the Ninth Circuit won’t dare refuse it.
I’m not sure I understand you...are you saying the 9th would take it and uphold it because they’re tired of the homosexuals’ hysterical whining?
Just read the “latest.” The Guv is in DC for the Guvs’ meeting going on, and says she’ll decide by the deadline, as if she just now heard about it. Her finger is wet and in the air, so who knows if she’ll Veto or not...the choices are 1) sign, 2) Veto or 3) do nothing and it become law in 90 days.
Now the sissy-screaming starts, and she’ll have an excuse to Veto.
But can you see any reason why the Arizona law wouldn't protect Muslims under the situations I described?
I can. The law is written specifically to protect the decisions made by "Business Owners". Unless the cabbie owns the cab company, company policy rules.
I suggest you read the law. It applies to individuals and not just business owners. SB1062.
And it's not just homosexuals. Anything that may burden a person's exercise of religion can be refused. So the Muslim example I mentioned should be covered. If a pharmacist objects to filling a birth control prescription then they can't be forced to do so. I would a assume that a Jew could not be forced to work on the Sabbath or a Christian on Christmas. And it's not just private individuals. Nothing in this act says that a government employee or a law enforcement official or a teacher can be forced to do anything that might burden their ability to freely practice their religion.
Thanks DoodleDawg. I was going by the excerpt. Should have known better.