LGBT Discrimination in Arizona

[Jiro]

So what you are saying is that any person can force any business owner to participate in any ritual or they can be sued.


I thought this was America.

You are free to make an idiotic comment and fortunately... this country isn't full of idiots

actually yes and no. it's illegal for business and government to discriminate... but customers are free to discriminate.

What part of "may discriminate" do you not understand? I fail to see how you come up with that question when it has nothing to do with this post. A customer can discriminate but a business cannot discriminate. How did you read it as "a customer can force him to participate in any ritual"? that's not even the same thing.

Perhaps I need to explain it in a language you understand.

You as a GLBT-friendly baker. Me as a homophobic customer. I enter your bakery to look around for a wedding cake. I see on the display of a wedding cake for gay couples.... 2 grooms on the top. I feel disgusted about it and I discriminate you by calling you a faggot and a cake as an abomination because you support gay marriage. So I leave your bakery in disgust and shop somewhere else. Bottom Line? I can discriminate you.

 

[Mewtilation]

I didn't ask for this war, you guys did. So it is war you will get.

Meh, we didn't ask for a war... we asked for equality. You're turning our request for equality and to be treated with respect into a war, not the gay community.

However, if you must term it as a "war", we're still winning.

BOOM....

 

[Jiro]

Meh, we didn't ask for a war... we asked for equality. You're turning our request for equality and to be treated with respect into a war, not the gay community.

However, we're still winning.

BOOM....

I guess women and black people fighting for equality is a war to them as well

 

[Mewtilation]

I guess women and black people fighting for equality is a war to them as well

Clearly... We should all just go back to having separate drinking fountains for black people and women not being able to vote or work. We should be stay at home baby makers and make the men support us. :roll: After all, it IS the only way!

Also, we shouldn't wear mixed fabrics, men shouldn't be able to shave and lordy stone the people working Sundays! Where to start, where to start...

 

[Steinhauer]

You are free to make an idiotic comment and fortunately... this country isn't full of idiots



What part of "may discriminate" do you not understand? I fail to see how you come up with that question when it has nothing to do with this post. A customer can discriminate but a business cannot discriminate. How did you read it as "a customer can force him to participate in any ritual"? that's not even the same thing.

Perhaps I need to explain it in a language you understand.

You as a GLBT-friendly baker. Me as a homophobic customer. I enter your bakery to look around for a wedding cake. I see on the display of a wedding cake for gay couples.... 2 grooms on the top. I feel disgusted about it and I discriminate you by calling you a faggot and a cake as an abomination because you support gay marriage. So I leave your bakery in disgust and shop somewhere else. Bottom Line? I can discriminate you.

So, a religious baker who is legally "forced" to participate (cater, in case you forgot) in a ritual (i.e. wedding between a same sex couple) cannot say anything when the legally "forced" priest asks "If anyone objects to this union, let them speak now or forever hold their peace"?


Or, I can re-phrase in a language you are more familiar with.

A gay couple comes into a bakery and ask for a same sex marriage wedding cake. They also ask the baker to cater at their wedding. The baker says "I am sorry, I do not carry any same sex wedding cakes, I only cater to weddings between one man and one woman, I cannot accommodate your request".

The gay couple then decides that they will ask a Catholic priest to marry them. the Catholic priest says, "I am sorry, I cannot accommodate you, a marriage is between one man and one woman."

So, instead of the gay couple making different arrangements, they go through a malicious legal route and FORCE a private business owner and a priest to participate in a ritual.

A ritual opposed by both parties.

 

[Steinhauer]

I guess women and black people fighting for equality is a war to them as well

This is where you are grievously wrong ... yet again, and where your argument falls apart.

Racist laws were passed by using "scientific research" of the time. In Loving v Virginia, the inter racial couple were challenging a law that was passed in 1923 that was a result of the eugenics movement. The eugenics movement was a direct result of research done by Charles Darwin's brother. Even in "On the Origin of the Species" Darwin wrote that there were different races as a result of differing paces of evolution. In other words, those racist laws that were written into existence were a result of the thought process that one race was superior to another race. The racist laws were not written into existence by Republicans, they were written into law by segregationist Democrats. The same Democrats that fought religion in the Scopes-Monkey trial.

So ... try again ...

I came into existence by a process called "zygote" which was a direct result of my parents' marriage. The ONLY definition of marriage.

When you try to redefine something into what it is not, it is not surprising that you will also try to rewrite history.

 

[Jiro]

So, a religious baker who is legally "forced" to participate (cater, in case you forgot) in a ritual (i.e. wedding between a same sex couple) cannot say anything when the legally "forced" priest asks "If anyone objects to this union, let them speak now or forever hold their peace"?

simple - a baker can refuse a service to ANYONE... ANYBODY...

Or, I can re-phrase in a language you are more familiar with.

A gay couple comes into a bakery and ask for a same sex marriage wedding cake. They also ask the baker to cater at their wedding. The baker says "I am sorry, I do not carry any same sex wedding cakes, I only cater to weddings between one man and one woman, I cannot accommodate your request".

and....? that's not illegal to refuse a service. but I would advise a baker to keep it short and simple - "No I cannot."

The gay couple then decides that they will ask a Catholic priest to marry them. the Catholic priest says, "I am sorry, I cannot accommodate you, a marriage is between one man and one woman."

and....? that's not illegal to refuse a service. but I would advise a priest to keep it short and simple - "No I cannot."

So, instead of the gay couple making different arrangements, they go through a malicious legal route and FORCE a private business owner and a priest to participate in a ritual.

A ritual opposed by both parties.

in case you didn't know.... a baker and a priest are free to refuse a service to anyone... anybody... A malicious legal route? force? where? in your imagination?

 

[Foxrac]

So, a religious baker who is legally "forced" to participate (cater, in case you forgot) in a ritual (i.e. wedding between a same sex couple) cannot say anything when the legally "forced" priest asks "If anyone objects to this union, let them speak now or forever hold their peace"?


Or, I can re-phrase in a language you are more familiar with.

A gay couple comes into a bakery and ask for a same sex marriage wedding cake. They also ask the baker to cater at their wedding. The baker says "I am sorry, I do not carry any same sex wedding cakes, I only cater to weddings between one man and one woman, I cannot accommodate your request".

The gay couple then decides that they will ask a Catholic priest to marry them. the Catholic priest says, "I am sorry, I cannot accommodate you, a marriage is between one man and one woman."

So, instead of the gay couple making different arrangements, they go through a malicious legal route and FORCE a private business owner and a priest to participate in a ritual.

A ritual opposed by both parties.

That's NOT true at all.

Most anti-discrmination law has religious exemption clause, but possibly not case with Oregon, Washington, Colorado or New Mexico because of dispute with anti-discrmination law and need court to rule it out.

I'm sure that NY anti-discrmination law has religious exemption, so gay couple can't sue anti-gay bakery for refuse to serve the wedding cake.

For Arizona, there is no anti-discrmination law that protect sexual orientation, so businesses are free to refuse to offer service to customers.

 

[Mewtilation]

This is where you are grievously wrong ... yet again, and where your argument falls apart.

Racist laws were passed by using "scientific research" of the time. In Loving v Virginia, the inter racial couple were challenging a law that was passed in 1923 that was a result of the eugenics movement. The eugenics movement was a direct result of research done by Charles Darwin's brother. Even in "On the Origin of the Species" Darwin wrote that there were different races as a result of differing paces of evolution. In other words, those racist laws that were written into existence were a result of the thought process that one race was superior to another race. The racist laws were not written into existence by Republicans, they were written into law by segregationist Democrats. The same Democrats that fought religion in the Scopes-Monkey trial.

So ... try again ...

I came into existence by a process called "zygote" which was a direct result of my parents' marriage. The ONLY definition of marriage.

When you try to redefine something into what it is not, it is not surprising that you will also try to rewrite history.

You came to existence by a process called sex, and is not a result of being married or not being married. It is more common to have children outside of marriage these days than in one. Some may get married because of pregnancy ( so totally wrong ) but you didn't come into existence from a marriage, you came into existence by your parents getting it on... Plain and simple.

Now a days, 17 states ( Soon to be 18 ) don't define that as the only definition of marriage..

To keep it short and sweet, marriage was not defined by your personal beliefs or anyone else'. Otherwise, Agnostics couldn't get married.

Also, I found this nifty article that made me smile. Yet, another step in equality's direction, a leap away from close mindedness.

Webster’s dictionary redefines ‘marriage’

 

[Jiro]

when I was doing my tax in TurboTax...

 

[Foxrac]

That's NOT true at all.

Most anti-discrmination law has religious exemption clause, but possibly not case with Oregon, Washington, Colorado or New Mexico because of dispute with anti-discrmination law and need court to rule it out.

I'm sure that NY anti-discrmination law has religious exemption, so gay couple can't sue anti-gay bakery for refuse to serve the wedding cake.

For Arizona, there is no anti-discrmination law that protect sexual orientation, so businesses are free to refuse to offer service to customers.

I checked it out - there are religious exemption in anti-discrmination law, also First Amendment protect religious freedom too.

It means court will throw or dismiss the anti-discrimination case out if it is due to religious reason.

 

[Mewtilation]

when I was doing my tax in TurboTax...

That's awesome!

I think my H&R block one didn't ask... maybe because I'm in Florida..

 

[Foxrac]

Sweet Cakes by Melissa violated same-sex couple's civil rights when it refused to make wedding cake, state finds | OregonLive.com

It hasn't went thorough the court yet.

I'm predicting that court case filed by Oregon labor board will eventually dismiss due to bakery use religious belief to reject the service to gay customers.

If not, that will be very complicated but all anti-discrmination law has religious exemption, so may US Supreme Court have say about it.

 

[Steinhauer]

simple - a baker can refuse a service to ANYONE... ANYBODY...


and....? that's not illegal to refuse a service. but I would advise a baker to keep it short and simple - "No I cannot."


and....? that's not illegal to refuse a service. but I would advise a priest to keep it short and simple - "No I cannot."


in case you didn't know.... a baker and a priest are free to refuse a service to anyone... anybody... A malicious legal route? force? where? in your imagination?

You apparently are not up to date on the news. The reason this bill was brought before the Governor in the first place, is because of a court case in New Mexico where a Christian photographer was sued for refusing to photograph a same sex wedding. Same sex marriage isn't even legal in New Mexico.

And like Foxrac brought up, the baker in Oregon.

Excuse me, but why in the hell would someone force anyone to participate in something they find conscientiously objectionable? This is America, not some despotic regime.

Another thing, the Governor of Arizona cut off all benefits to illegal immigrants. Yet, after reading her response to why she vetoed this bill, I can somewhat understand why. No one in Arizona has forced a person of faith to do something against their faith, then sued them when they refused. When and if it does, I expect she will reverse her stance.


Forcing a Christian to participate in Samhain, is like forcing an Orthodox Jewish deli owner to serve bacon. The GLBT community that is so full of how wonderful they are that they have to cram their agenda down everyone's throats needs a big wake up call. Other people have rights too, and you cannot tread on them without repercussions.

 

[Jiro]

You apparently are not up to date on the news. The reason this bill was brought before the Governor in the first place, is because of a court case in New Mexico where a Christian photographer was sued for refusing to photograph a same sex wedding. Same sex marriage isn't even legal in New Mexico.

discrimination is illegal. that's the part you keep forgetting.

And like Foxrac brought up, the baker in Oregon.

discrimination is illegal. that's the part you forget again.

Excuse me, but why in the hell would someone force anyone to participate in something they find conscientiously objectionable? This is America, not some despotic regime.

like I said.... they're free to refuse a service. and I would advise them to keep their answer short and simple - "No I cannot".

again... it's illegal to discriminate people. you are forgetting that these lawsuits were not to force them into doing something they do not want. they broke the law. plain and simple.

 

[Steinhauer]

discrimination is illegal. that's the part you keep forgetting.


discrimination is illegal. that's the part you forget again.


like I said.... they're free to refuse a service. and I would advise them to keep their answer short and simple - "No I cannot".

again... it's illegal to discriminate people. you are forgetting that these lawsuits were not to force them into doing something they do not want. they broke the law. plain and simple.

The part you keep forgetting is religious liberty. Every citizen of the United States has the sole right to freedom of religious expression. The US Government cannot pass any law prohibiting the right to freedom of religion. You cannot discriminate against a person of faith who is practicing the tenets of their faith.

End of story.

 

[Jiro]

The part you keep forgetting is religious liberty. Every citizen of the United States has the sole right to freedom of religious expression. The US Government cannot pass any law prohibiting the right to freedom of religion. You cannot discriminate against a person of faith who is practicing the tenets of their faith.

End of story.

again... the law clearly says you cannot discriminate customers. if people of faith have problem with that as business owners... perhaps they should move to somewhere else like... Vatican City

and you're on a very slippery slope.... to convert this country into a Medieval Age where the Crusaders were massacring people. Our Constitution and law prevent that from happening. What part of "All men are created equal" do you not get? If you don't like it - then get out of public land.

 

[Jiro]

Arizona's decision unlikely to end the religious liberty movement - CNN.com

you are losing the war....

 

[Mewtilation]

The part you keep forgetting is religious liberty. Every citizen of the United States has the sole right to freedom of religious expression. The US Government cannot pass any law prohibiting the right to freedom of religion. You cannot discriminate against a person of faith who is practicing the tenets of their faith.

End of story.

The part YOU keep forgetting about is the part where your religious liberty doesn't get to interfere with my freedom.... end of story.

Don't like gay marriage, don't gay marry! That's the beauty of religion, not everyone has to believe in the same thing or support it! It is a CHOICE... not a requirement... thankfully. You can't force me to believe in your crap and I can't force you to believe in mine. However, what goes hand in hand with this is you can't force anyone to believe in your CRAP that is against gay marriage. Not everyone believes in that, thankfully. So, your one man one woman standpoint / belief is only founded on your religion. Which again, can not dictate others actions or control them. You have no legal ground or standing... which is why gay marriage being legalized faster than taco bell gives people diarrhea. It's glorious. I can't wait until it keeps going and going and all states approve it... and then I can just start a thread that is full of little 's... It's happening, and there's nothing you can do about it except throw temper-tantrums like 2 year olds... I find it quite humorous, all these temper-tantrums over equality... hilarious really... just makes me laugh.

 

[shel90]

Bullying is unacceptable.

Religious people bullying gay and lesbian people by refusing services to them, yep I agree with you that it is bullying.