Posted on 02/26/2014 9:18:20 AM PST by lbryce
Sorry didn’t proof read before posting:)
The sentence you mentioned basically meant, if in a hypothetical world where these laws existed, someone were to refuse to serve gays, then they in turn could be refused service for being prejudiced against gays. Kind of a vicious cycle.
No, I’m not a troll. I’m just someone who happens to disagree on this particular issue. I trend Libertarian, and as such don’t much care about what people do in their bedrooms, and don’t see the big fuss about homosexuality. More of a live and let live kinda guy. I believe I can still agree with other parts of this site and other issues without having to toe the line on this one.
I would say there is plenty of evidence that human sexuality is largely a question of genetics. I didn’t choose to be straight, after all. I just am. And there is plenty of evidence of gay people being oppressed. You can’t seriously be arguing otherwise.
Equality. I’m all for it. I think the country has bigger fish to fry (economics, foreign policy, etc.) than this. It’s a distraction.
The baker can refuse him. There is no law compelling him to bake the cake, because the Klan Wizard is not a protected class against discrimination. Also as I wrote originally, “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.”
It’s a tricky question, I grant you. But do we really want to return to a time when people could refuse services on the basis of race, for example, or gender, or...? I don’t have the answers on this one, but I do know that the Arizona law (now vetoed) was not a step I wanted to see happen. bad for business, for starters. Too much backlash.
If the queers would stay in their bedrooms and bugger themselves into oblivion - that's one thing. But, that is not what this is about.
The mainstreaming of that perverse behavior is what FReepers stand against. For me it goes to the fundamentals of the Founding; i.e. a flouting of Natural Law. When the philosophical and moral bases are destroyed, the structure must surely fall.
I don’t have an example, no. It was a hypothetical—several people posted them on this thread...seems to be fairly normal to discuss hypotheticals when a-yet-unsigned-law is on the table.:)
I misspoke somewhat when discussing the legality of hate speech, and that was my mistake. I recently returned from a long trip to Europe and made the leap that hate speech laws over there were somehow also in effect to the same degree back home.
This is not refusal to simply serve a gay person. This is refusal to take part in a ceremony that goes completely against the religious convictions of the business. That is why we have a first amendment- to protect citizens from violating their religious beliefs. I would have a problem if the woman simply wanted some muffins that morning. That is not the issue. They wanted a particular item that the business did not provide....gay wedding cakes. You cannot force the baker to make gay wedding cakes!
I saw another lawmaker say the same thing. Essentially he said that he glossed over it quickly and decided to vote for it without really considering what it would do. (duh!)
It would have cost the state almost 500 million to implement so I think it was easy to veto and a good call by Brewer. She’s been a good Governor from and economic standpoint and has helped bring that state through the recession very well. AZ relies big time on tourism, especially as a spring break destination for tens of thousands of college kids from CA and NV.
It’s been vetoed since we chatted so we’ll see what, if anything, happens from here.
Actually, if you read the bill - just 3 pages long, and most of it on just defining the ammendmant - it only states that religious freedom will be protected. If anyone can imagine a discrimination against homosexuality in it, they can imagine discrimination against anything that involves the beleif of any religion - that includes cults.
Free exercise of religion is a fundamental right that applies in this state even if laws, rules or other government actions are facially neutral.
B. Except as provided in subsection C OF THIS SECTION, STATE ACTION shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.
C. STATE ACTION may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if THE OPPOSING PARTY demonstrates that application of the burden to the PERSON'S EXERCISE OF RELIGION IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE is both:
1. In furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.
2. The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
D. A person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT IS A PARTY TO THE PROCEEDING. THE PERSON ASSERTING SUCH A CLAIM OR DEFENSE MAY OBTAIN APPROPRIATE RELIEF. A party who prevails in any action to enforce this article against a government shall recover attorney fees and costs.
E. FOR THE PURPOSES OF this section, the term substantially burden is intended solely to ensure that this article is not triggered by trivial, technical or de minimis infractions.
F. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, "STATE ACTION" MEANS ANY ACTION BY THE GOVERNMENT OR THE IMPLEMENTATION OR APPLICATION OF ANY LAW, INCLUDING STATE AND LOCAL LAWS, ORDINANCES, RULES, REGULATIONS AND POLICIES, WHETHER STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE, AND WHETHER THE IMPLEMENTATION OR APPLICATION IS MADE OR ATTEMPTED TO BE MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT OR NONGOVERNMENTAL PERSONS.
I agree wholeheartedly.
If you equate homosexuality with being handicapped or a race, then you've got problems.
Didn’t people say the same things about inter-racial marriages? That they flouted Natural Law? I’m pretty sure they did.
If the Christian baker refuses on religious grounds to make a cake for a gay marriage, but agrees to make a wedding cake for the marriage of two divorcees, then the Christian baker is singling out one group to discriminate against, even though the Bible considers both groups sinful. The Bible also instructs Christians (”sinners”) not to judge others, as that is left only for God. Clearly, refusing to serve someone judged as “sinful” is in direct violation of Christianity. So, by peeling away the layers of hypocrisy, it’s clear that this isn’t about religion at all. It’s a clear case of bigotry. Jim Crow laws are illegal. If I have a religious belief against serving black people, should I be able to refuse on moral grounds?
I think that’s the point; the law is so broad and general it could be used to defend anything at all. Freedom of religion is already protected.
The baker has the right to refuse to make a cake for divorcees if she wishes. She has the right to refuse to bake a cake for the grand opening of a porn shop. This isn’t refusing to serve a particular person. It is refusing to make a particular kind of cake. The baker can say they don’t make gay wedding cakes...but I’d be happy to show you some other cakes we do sell. Refusing a black patron just because they are black is unconstitutional by amendment. If the black patron wanted a cake that says, “Free Mumia”, the baker should be able to say, I don’t sell those kinds of cakes.
What would a divorce cake look like anyhow. Split?
This is different from the one that Brewer turned down?
It wasn't legal in New Mexico when a photographer in 2006 was fined for refusing to take pictures at a gay wedding.
There should not be a problem getting legislation through that specifies that the law pertains to the conscience rights of religious business owners than don't want to participate in an act that violates their religious beliefs. Even the Illinois Supreme Court upheld the right of pharmacies not to sell abortion pills.
These laws are necessary since courts are intent on forcing gay marriage on the nation.
No
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.