Posted on 02/26/2014 9:18:20 AM PST by lbryce
CNN host Anderson Cooper battled with Arizona state Sen. Al Melvin (R) on Monday night over the fate of a state bill that would allow businesses to refuse service to lesbian and gay customers.
Melvin is a candidate for governor who voted for the SB 1062 legislation and is urging Gov. Jan Brewer (R) to sign it. Melvin and other proponents of the bill argue it is a protection of religious freedom for individuals whose beliefs condemn homosexuality. However, Melvin had trouble defending the bill to Cooper and struggled when the CNN host asked him to describe an example where religious people had suffered persecution as a result of being prevented from discriminating against gays and lesbians.
"You can't give me one example of this actually happening?" Cooper said.
"No, I can't," Melvin said. "But we've seen it in other states, and we don't want it to happen here."
"No, I can't," Melvin said. "But we've seen it in other states, and we don't want it to happen here."
"But you can't cite one example where religious freedom is under attack in Arizona," said Cooper.
"Not now, no, but how about tomorrow?" Melvin responded.
Cooper took exception to this line of argument.
"Well — I don’t understand what that means," he said. "I mean, if you can't cite in the entire history of Arizona, one case where religious freedom has been under attack — or even in the last year where it's been under attack — is this really the most important thing for you to be working on?"
Later in the interview, Melvin insisted that he didn't know anybody in Arizona who would discriminate against a "fellow human being."
"Really? Discrimination doesn't exist in Arizona?" Cooper asked incredulously.
See Video
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
"Really? Discrimination doesn't exist in Arizona?" Cooper asked incredulously.
Sounds to me like Cooper destroyed himself with this contradiction.
I think the issue is far more complicated than that. I had the same thought initially but changed my thinking.
The line is drawn, federally, at specific groups legally protected from discrimination. “Color, sex, national origin, disability, creed, family status” (maybe one more?) and, in some states, “sexual orientation or gender”. HOWEVER “Creed” is taken as “religion”, but it’s been long argued that it should cover sexual orientation and identity. Ie, it’s something looked down upon by the morals of particular religions, so if that’s not part of one’s religion, he shouldn’t be discriminated against for the values of his own.
If a business does something discriminatory against these groups (eg hiring, fair housing, associations, etc), they can be sued.
If there is an institutional or government-based discrimination of those groups, it is illegal.
A business CAN generally refuse non-essential services (eg, not medical, emergency, etc) on personal grounds. But if they violate those protected classes, they can be sued. The end result will usually depend on the precedence in that particular court circuit. And, if “sexual orientation” isn’t in that state’s laws, how the judge and precedence in that circuit reads “creed.”
Lately there’s obviously been a push for ‘private businesses don’t have to do business with anyone’. But the laws that de-segregated lunch counters (by statute or end result) made that not so much the case.
As for Klan rally cake hypothetical...
Hate speech IS illegal, and in some situations considered an ‘incitement to violence’ (in some states, every case). Use of a swastika or firey cross on a cake is generally considered hate speech except in a historical context. A business owner is usually encouraged by local associations to refuse to serve requests involving hate speech. But they are certainly entitled to refuse service in any case.
The problem is the same rules actually shouldn’t apply unilaterally here; a nazi’s/white supremacists rights are not being infringed upon by being refused service because it involved hate speech. A man’s rights are being violated if he is refused service, especially essential services, for his sexual orientation or gender identity.
Basically, those same people who, fairly illegally, don’t want to serve gays can (and should) very legally be refused (nonesesential) service for being prejudiced against gays. It’s a two way street.
Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action
“Anderson Blooper, CNN’s resident sodomite “destroying” someone over their religious views? I needed a good laugh this morning.”
It simply proves that CNN is not a credible news station as they are having an admitted homosexual work on a story and even editorialize on a story about Arizona Gays being granted Extra-Constitutional privileges by forcing Christians who are employed as lawyers, doctors, innkeepers, bakers, taxi drivers, accountants, firemen, teachers, mechanics and photographers to provide services to gays.
Being homosexual, Anderson is blatantly bias for the Gay Agenda should not be allowed to work on a story concerning gays.
No. That happened in New Mexico, where discrimination is already AGAINST the law. Hence the lawsuit.
In AZ, it’s perfectly ok under the law to discriminate on ANY grounds, including Religious, so the law makes no sense. It’s a waste of time and money. Anderson Cooper made that Senator look like an idiot. His PR handlers left him high and dry to look like an idiot.
Do we really need laws telling us it’s ok to do something under the law that the law already says is ok to do? If that sounds silly, it’s because it is.
Again, this was an issue in New Mexico where discrimination is against the law. In AZ, no such law exists. The AZ government didn’t force anyone to do anything. There’s no need for this law.
There are more people commenting on this thread than there are actually watching Anderson Poofter on CNN.
Business Insider’s main editor is gay, so don’t expect an unbiased article from them.
***********
Nice to know. A gay’s comments on business and economic conditions can certainly be as astute as anyone else’s. But I would not trust a gay to offer an unbiased opinion about the business prospects of an individual firm that won’t toe the gay line.
How about this scenario...a gay person owns a fabric store and the KKK walks in and wants to purchase some white fabric. The gay store owner doesn’t want to sell the fabric to the KKK. Who would Anderson Cooper defend..the KKK or the gay store owner?
The gay store owner, of course.
“Being homosexual, Anderson is blatantly bias for the Gay Agenda should not be allowed to work on a story concerning gays”
Replace Anderson’s name with that openly sodomite federal judge that overruled the will of the people in California, and you have the exact same thing. He should have never been allowed to rule on Prop 8. But he did, and the US Supreme Court went right along with him. That’s how low the Supreme Court has became in this country. Any court lead by John Roberts can never be trusted to do the right thing.
If a homosexual wanted to buy a cake at a bakery the bakery could not refuse to sell the cake.
What it would do is give the businessman standing to refuse to be a participant in actions that violated his conscience such as a homo wedding which catering such an event would require him to do.
“Replace Anderson’s name with that openly sodomite federal judge that overruled the will of the people in California, and you have the exact same thing.”
Exactly, and it runs even deeper than gay judges being able to rule on cases concerning gays, they very same cases that will grant the judge special privileges from himself.
Consider the states where the legislatures passed gay marriage. Were the members of the these state legislatures who were gay allowed to vote on the gay marriage issue thereby granting themselves special privileges?
There could even be a problem is the couple states where the voters passed Gay Marriage and gays were allowed to vote on a measure that gave them special rights.
So if a school shooting occurs In Colorado, liberals in Connecticut can’t legitimately pass laws to prevent the same thing happening there...?
Can Cooper deny that business owners have been sued by gays when the refusal of service was because of religious beliefs?
Can Cooper deny that many homosexuals were sexually abused as children, or that homosexuality is closely linked with pedophilia, or that anal sex is filthy and spreads diseases, from bladder and prostate infections to AIDS?
Can Cooper deny that gay marriage essentially changes the definition of marriage that dates back to the dawn of civilization, and that the ancient definition has great moral and religious significance that should not be tread on viciously by hedonistic pop culture?
Pass the law Arizona. Help lead civilization back from the abyss.
Here in TN, a business owner has a right to refuse to do business with anyone for any reason EXCEPT if you’re one of the federally protected classes. Sexual preference is not one of those classes. That’s not true in every state. Some states have identified homosexuality as a protected class.
You use this as a comparative case to the people who refused to make a cake for a homosexual couple; could you please cite a case in which there was an order for a cake with a swastika or firey cross? If there has been no such case, there is no precedent - or law - against hate speech with your evidence here. If this is the case, please provide a better example.
Exactly! He could have simply said, it’s about to start if this bill is vetoed. This bill is intended to prevent the inevitable.
I'd say it started in 2006 when a photographer in New Mexico declined to take pictures at lesbian ceremony.
Unless AZ is one of those states that has made sexual preference a protected class I don’t know what point you have made.
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.
