Skip to comments.6 Proposals Denying Service to Gays You Havenít Heard About
Posted on 02/27/2014 9:54:54 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer sent cheers rippling through a group of protesters gathered outside the state capitol on Wednesday evening when she vetoed a controversial bill that would have protected business owners who cited their religious views in denying service to gays. Ohio spiked a similar measure on Wednesday. Kansas lawmakers created the same kind of firestorm earlier this month when the House passed a bill allowing private and public employees to refuse to serve same-sex couples (the state Senate later killed that measure).
And this could still be just the beginning.
These two high-profile legislative debates are just part of a budding trend across the nation, with states pushing measures that proponents call religious freedom bills but opponents label state-sanctioned discrimination.
Here are six related proposals getting less attention than the battles in Kansas and Arizona.
(Excerpt) Read more at nation.time.com ...
Martin Luther King (MLK) was a strong influence to forward this evil conscience about discrimination - an individual's right to choose associations. MLK confused the individual morality issue of choosing to exclude blacks with the legal and constitutional issue of the federal government's power and authority to interfere with an individual's choices. (MLK has become some sort of "untouchable" - "Oh, how could you say that about MLK?")
So now, discrimination is generally thought of as a bad word. In American consciousness and lexicon, discrimination is a "bad" thing, making no distinction between an individual's legal right to discriminate and his private moral decision about whether it is "right" to do so. This evil conscience needs to be countered and corrected whenever and wherever possible because an individual has every legal right and duty to discriminate. This is not to be confused with an individuals moral right and duty to examine how and where they exercise their right which is an issue between that person and his God and no one else. And the federal government has no constitutional power to interfere with either an individuals legal right or moral right.
So an important step to in taking back our freedoms is changing the consciousness of as many people as possible in the country from thinking that discrimination is "bad" to realizing that discrimination is our God-given right of freedom of choice. Not a five-minute job and may very well require God himself to do that. But people like me will shout it from the mountaintops every chance we get.
Having said that, what will it take to either override the veto or generate a proposition to amend the AZ constitution? If neither, consider moving to a state that will uphold your right to discriminate.
Politicians with spines.
They will be found with the unicorns and flying pigs.
A boycott the Super Bowl would be just. And defunding of NFL fascist funded playgrounds. Taxpayers shouldn’t be paying the tab for a billion dollar gaming industry.
This has nothing do do with homosexuals. It’s is about personal freedom.
This attitude I have comes about from my faith in free markets. If a business owner refuses to serve a paying customer, for whatever reason, someone else is going to serve that person. The refuser cannot stay in business long if he turns away paying customers.
Laws forbidding the owner from refusing service are SUPERFLUOUS.
In the 50’s/60’s it was Government LAW to specificially discriminate against Blacks and Whites.
Private Buisinesses could actually be charged with breaking the law for NOT discriminating.
The Left forgets that 99% the civil rights struggle was to make illegal not the actions of private businessmen, but to make illgal the states and city writing LAWS that ACTIVELY discriminated against Tax payer provided or subsidized services like public parks, schools, drinking fountains and city busses and the like.
The same oppresive government force that discriminated against the blacks in the south is now seen as the savior by the left to force people into doing things they don;t want to do.
If you asked a College Student who studied “Race Studies” about who owned the “Whites only” Restrooms and Drinking fountains in the south inthe 1950’s and 1960’s they would tell you that it was private businesses....
The truth is those places 99% of the time owned by the CITY or STATE GOVERMENTS!!!!
History has been re-written...
You don’t need politicians at all to pass a proposition to amend a state constitution. You need a minority of citizens with fierce determination who can pursuade the majority of voters.
I have been saying for a long time that TRUE freedom is UGLY! It means that there may well be a store with a sign that says, “Blacks not allowed.” And you know what, that is his right to limit his business and his customers to whomever he so chooses.
It is also my right to simply go to another store that doesn’t blatantly discriminate. Soon enough, he will be out of business because his customer base will wilt and die.
THAT is true freedom; ugly in every way, but freedom.
Of course, there are those that would say, “We need to go petition him and get the government to shut him down!” And I say, “Why?” I would rather that person learn the lesson about being a blatant racist AFTER he looses all his money and time in a failed business - the lesson will be more personal and deeply engrained!
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
About time. We should not be forced to participate in their perversion.
But how many of those proposals will survive with Arizona as a precedent and Eric Holder as Atty. General?
“Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer”
Despicable traitor to the human race.
If they legalize prostitution in our state, will I have to invite them to my Tupperware party?
“The refuser cannot stay in business long if he turns away paying customers.”
He can when those customers constitute only 2% of the population.
Before our Federal Politicians in both political parties stuck a PC Left Fork into our Constitution, the sign in the window that read: The owner of this establishment reserves the right to refuse service to anyone. was held to be the Owners Fair Notice of his protected Freedom of Choice.
RE: He can when those customers constitute only 2% of the population.
And only a handful of them choose to “marry”.
When you add the friends, relatives, and colleagues of the 2% you rapidly get into business threatening range.
You are correct!
The bill that Brewer vetoed was never about the deviant behavior crowd!
It was about the Right of Christian’s to practice what they believe!
Religious belief’s that seem to matter only matter when you are [b]Muslim[/b] !
Things turn out differently when non Christian [b]Muslims[/b] are involved!
[b]Obama Inc. Sues Trucking Company for Firing Muslim Drivers Who Refused to Deliver Alcohol[/b]
[quote]Considering the sheer number of things that Islam bans (pork, alcohol, movies, music, chess, kites, etc ) a Muslim driver who refuses to drive a truck containing them is mostly useless.
When Muslim taxi drivers refused to drive passengers with seeing eye dogs or who carried bottles of alcohol, there was an uproar. But now Obama Inc. is claiming that Muslim discrimination is a civil right that employers must accommodate.[/quote].
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/obama-inc-sues-trucking-company-for-firing-muslim-drivers-who-refused-to-deliver-alcohol/]Obama Inc. Sues Trucking Company for Firing Muslim Drivers Who Refused to Deliver Alcohol | FrontPage Magazine
The only exception to federal government not constitutionally allowed to interfere with a state's choices is the Fourteenth Amendment. It states, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The badly and hastily written Post-Civil-War 14th Amendment was aimed at doing away with Jim Crow laws, state-forced segregation of former slaves - blacks. The original intent of the Amendment, passed during Post Civil-War Reconstruction, was to put former slaves on equal legal footing with the rest of American citizens. This original intent was confirmed by SCOTUS in the 1873 Slaughterhouse cases.
However, in the 20th Century, activist courts seeking to enlarge government power have sought to continually expand the original intent of the amendment. But there are no constitutional grounds for these later decisions to break the Slaughterhouse precedent. The correct thing to do is overturn these later decisions on the basis of the Constitution and the stare decisis of Slaughterhouse. Until then, I think nullification on constitutional grounds is in order.
Therefore, the feds may interfere only if a state law (not individual action) requires racial (not gender or sodomite) segregation (not integration). There NOTHING in the Constitution to allow the federal government to force integration or to interfere with an individual's freedom to discriminate or choose.
I apologize for the ‘bracketing’ in my post!
Being new to the forum, I mistakenly used the common php way of quoting and highlighting.
I can find no way to edit after submitting?
BTW, if discrimination against a gay wedding because of religious convictions are not allowed, how do you explain this:
Obama Inc. Sues Trucking Company for Firing Muslim Drivers Who Refused to Deliver Alcohol
Why is the Muslims religious convictions more worthy of protection by the Obama administration than the Christians?
“It means that there may well be a store with a sign that says, Blacks not allowed. And you know what, that is his right to limit his business and his customers to whomever he so chooses.”
You have as much, if not more, chance of re-instituting human slavery as ever having that happen.
You would be hard [ressed to find 50,000 people in the entire USA who would go along with that, and 10x than number who would burn such an entity to the ground.
Well, we must do what we can to counter that and trust the rest to the Lord who has been our guardian over the centuries.
far from it
“When you add the friends, relatives, and colleagues of the 2% you rapidly get into business threatening range.”
You don’t get all of those people. I’m not sure it should be business-threatening, particularly when you think of all the new business they will get from decent people.