Posted on 02/22/2014 12:51:43 AM PST by kingattax
A bill that would allow businesses to refuse service to customers based on personal, religious beliefs is now on the desk of Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, as protests continue.
The state legislature passed the bill late Thursday, but not without a fiery debate.
"This is simply protecting religious freedom that is recognized and defended and supported in the First Amendment that the founders wanted, nothing else," said Republican Rep. Eddie Farnsworth, who sponsored the bill.
"There's only type of equality," said House Minority Leader Chad Campbell, a Democrat. "And it's equal."
Brewer, a Republican, vetoed a similar bill last year but had not said whether she'd sign the latest measure into law.
In the US, 21 states have laws specifically prohibiting a business from discriminating based on sexual orientation.
States, however, including Kansas, Ohio and Idaho have tried to pass similar laws to Arizona's bill and failed. Utah is now considering one.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Let’s say you have a religious objection to gluttony and a grossly overweight person enters your restaurant. Can you refuse to serve him, modify his order, etc.?
Michelle Obama has done that in school cafeterias with her rabbit food diet forced on kids. Why isn’t that illegal?
“There’s only type of equality,” said House Minority Leader Chad Campbell, a Democrat. “And it’s equal.”
No. This is a socialist lie. In the US, there is equality before the law, and equal opportunity to succeed, which means *only* that government cannot legally “keep someone down”.
In no way is there *any* justice in “equality of outcomes”, or “equality of good and bad behavior”, “equality of wealth”, “equality of hard work, intelligence or talent”, “equality of biology”, etc. And anyone who pushes for it is a tyrant, a brute, and a scoundrel.
Because there is equality of liberty and freedom, not granted by men, but by the creator, whether you accept the existence of the creator, or not. It is not within the power of the socialist to grant it, or take it away, if there is any justice.
Does a veto mean that African-American businesses in the state would be unable to refuse to serve KKK members in full Klan garb?
You know, “equality,” and all that.......
How bout just turn away DEMOCRATS/SOCIALISTS/MARXISTS and all of their ilk.
No law against that....YET
State laws requiring segregation of blacks from whites are another matter and are unconstitutional (14th Amendment).
That is not true.
The Constitution forbids the government intruding into Christianity.
It does NOT forbid "the mixing of religion with government"
What's with playing the "hate" card towards other members here??
Freepers love to conflate religious bigotry with behavior. They have to hate...someone...So if FR is NOTHING but people that HAVE TO HATE...why not move on?
FR members love the constitution...as written...not twisted like your statement.
warchild9 wrote:
<<
Freepers love to conflate religious bigotry with behavior. They have to hate...someone...
>>
You sound like a DU troll. No one is hating here... Freepers are simply sick and tired of having our religious freedoms trampled on to appease and accommodate homo-loving activists (like yourself, apparently).
By the way, I wonder how Jim Robinson would appreciate you bashing Freepers?
<<
The Constitution explicitly forbids the mixing of religion with government
>>
No, it most certainly does NOT. I challenge you to read the Constitution again and cite for me where it specifically prohibits the “mixing” of religion and government? In fact, our Founding Fathers frequently made religious references in the very documents that form our government!
“just ignore this fag loving obama ass sniffing troll, the zot is coming...Brewer is gonna back down but hopefully it passes.”
You said it best my friend.
It'll be the first, she'll Veto.
She said she's not going to do anything with it until Friday, (left unstated:) it's because she wants the pro-gays to pound her office from around the country, and then she'll have a good excuse to kill it. SOP for Brewer. I'd say I've been disappointed in her, but I disliked her from the instant I met her and her smarmy husband.
First one is legal, second illegal. In the first example, you’ll potentially lose your clientele and business. In the second, the government threat of force is illegal as in unconstitutional. They have no right to dictate that to us.
SHUPNOOB
Its horrible that it takes a law to give you the right that should be self evident which is that you should be able to refuse service or to deal with anyone for any reason without threat of government reprisal. We are not slaves and whether or not I agree with the decisions of another whether or not to do business with me, hire me, or fire me I support a person’s right to make their own decisions and let the market decide. We all know these “anti-discrimination” laws are at there heart just ways for the left to force their social attitudes on everyone religious or not and I don’t believe this should be confined to religion. Business has been integrated with government to far too great a degree. Businesses are drafted to expend resources collecting taxes as if they are an extension of the government sphere and every year it seems the federal government extends its reach into every aspect of running a business now even telling businesses what the quality and type of benefits they must provide. We need to be careful that this is not just couched as a religious issue because it is a liberty issue for everyone. What are we going to do force black chefs to cater skin head weddings but of course we know why these gays target Christian bakers, photographers, etc and then make a big deal of having their business politely rejected. Its to force approval of their behavior and lifestyle. They are trying to use the heavy hand of government to force Christians to serve them or else. What is ridiculous is that businesses can reject providing server for any type of precocious reason but if one happens to be a gay oh my you must accept their business even if they are rude, nasty, etc or they will sue you and even if you were justified in the eyes of the whiny masses your will suffer the legal cost and the negative press and the forced attendance to diversity appreciation classes. The whole point is to make it just easier to give in and let the leftist hedonist aberrant bastards win without a fight. God help anyone for any reason that tries to force me to provide a service I do not want to. I am no ones slave especially not to some sexually retarded pervert who dares think they can destroy me because I think their disgusting lifestyle is disgusting and wrong.
If all those that don’t agree with homosexuals would stop keeping quiet in a generation we’d have them back in the closet where they belong.
remember brewer was reluctant to sign sb 1o7o. mccain and flake are urging brewer to veto it.
When Jan Brewer is deciding on what to do about a Veto, it pays to look at a calendar. If she’s likely to face an election, she’ll make the tough choices (a couple of really good gun carry laws in 2010 for example), but the instant she’s past an election challenge from the right, she reverts to full-RINO (proceeded to Veto a really good gun carry law in 2011).
She’s not facing any more elections, so I expect her (after much “soul searching”) to Veto this and any other conservative bills from here on out. She’s washed up as far as we’re concerned. There will be no more standing up to Obastard. We’re finished with good conservative laws until we win the next election next year. If the Rats get another Napolitano in, then AZ will roll back the advances made over the past five years.
The government is heavily invested in marriages, tho, and should be. Marriage is the building block of society: it channels male sexuality into protecting his family, building his community, and providing for the common good. It invites long-term employment and the stability of civilization. It protects and nurtures children and provides a safe nest for them. It provides for the family, so the state and other taxpayers do not bear the responsibility for raising the young.
Children are a tremendously important investment for all of us, for they are the next generation of our country. If they are not protected, nurtured, and provided for, the stink will permeate for many gnerations down the road.
How many homosexual-owned businesses turn away straight customers, I wonder?
judges disregard the law.
If a judges knows the party wronged has no money for an appeal, a judge will EASILY rule against them.
This is the right concept.
Remember this is a BEHAVIOR not an immutable trait. NOBODY is born homosexual. The behavior is conditioned.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.