I can't beleive we haven't talked about this yet.

What a horrible, horrible idea. WTF was their state legislature thinking? I can't even see our own legislature coming up with something like this.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/25/news/economy/arizona-anti-gay-bill/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

2/26/2014 3:18:21 PM

Cool, we've dropped out of first place for the time being.

2/26/2014 3:28:12 PM

We actually have talked about this in the GOP credibility thread. The only reason it's not being talked about that much is because its just not surprising to most people, this is the kind of shit they expect from old, bigoted republicans

2/26/2014 3:37:07 PM

Here is your devils advocate I came across earlier.

http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/02/25/yes-of-course-a-business-owner-should-have-the-right-to-refuse-service-to-gay-people/

Thoughts?

2/26/2014 5:08:50 PM

The problem with that counterpoint is that the law would go way beyond denying service, they could fire you.

But even that kinda misses the point, its already legal to do that. They already have the legal right to deny service to gays, they are not included as a protected class in AZ public accommodation laws or the federal civil rights act. The only point of the law is to be hateful.

I don't see why a photographer should not be allowed to reject someone for any reason they want, I don't understand why access to a photographer needs to be protected. We have a long history to decide what types of places should be protected, the Civil Rights Act described them as public places related to interstate commerce. This was then clarified to include public accommodation (e.g., hotels, motels, and trailer parks), restaurants, gas stations, bars, taverns, and places of entertainment and other cases added schools. To me it seems that while we can debate if that is an accurate or complete list of "public places", it seems to me that there are some places where we expect that doors are open to public and anyone is allowed in and there are some places that are by appointment or selective of their customers. I don't agree that access to the latter should be constitutionally protected, in those places people should be allowed to choose their customers for whatever reason.

Edit:
Previously I said that the only purpose of the law was to be hateful. I forgot that some towns in AZ have local ordinances protecting LGTB access rights, so the law is intended to trump those.


[Edited on February 26, 2014 at 5:50 PM. Reason : .]

2/26/2014 5:30:14 PM

I kinda stopped keeping track of the GOP watch thread, as everytime I go there its folks bashing the GOP no matter what they do.

But this thing...it is just boneheaded.

"Lets see, half the country already thinks we're bigots. What can we do to prove them we're not? I KNOW....I have an idea for a new law..."

2/26/2014 5:45:10 PM

I don't understand what Jan Brewer has to debate about this, she should have already vetoed it.

2/26/2014 5:50:13 PM

How is this a "Don't Be Gay" law? It says businesses can discriminate against homosexuals, not that they have to discriminate against homosexuals.

Yeah, if someone runs a wedding photography business and wants to only serve heterosexual couples, that's up to them. They won't get my business or my respect, but I don't believe I have any right or desire to say how they spend their time or their resources.

The people that discriminate are bad people with stupid beliefs, but I don't want a law to force them to do the right thing. I'm also not sure why, as the party being discriminated against, you would want to give money to people that hate you.

[Edited on February 26, 2014 at 6:15 PM. Reason : ]

2/26/2014 6:15:22 PM

what if you are in a small town with one grocery store, the next closest option is over an hour away? you can't think of any scenario where you would want to patronize that business even though they wan't to discriminate against you? what if its a drug store? gas station? etc...

2/26/2014 6:22:47 PM

^^ gays weren't a protected class in AZ, they could have already been discriminated against, and no legal recourse would be available. This means the laws purpose, rather than to stop or solve any problem from happening, is to send an extra-clear message to the world that the government of Arizona doesn't care about you, if you are gay.

Are you a fan of creating extra laws to make doubly sure a class of people can be discriminated against?

What message does this send schools and other child-focused organizations when they try and teach tolerance?


Seems pretty wrong to allow religious nut jobs to use the state government as their religious billy club. I can't see any future for laws like this than to eventually have them ruled unconstitutional, but it's sad people still choose to go through the rigamarole of making themselves look like idiots.



[Edited on February 26, 2014 at 6:32 PM. Reason : ]

2/26/2014 6:28:45 PM

Freedom of religion needs to go. It was a good idea hundreds of years ago when everyone thought the sky fairy made it rain but it's time to move on.

2/26/2014 6:31:12 PM

^^^ The sad thing is that you wouldn't have to be doing anything, you just have to be existing, to face the discrimination. If you were an atheist, and the store owner found out, they could refuse you service simply based on your existence. No one would be against a business telling someone yelling at customers, or proselytizing, or otherwise being disruptive to be refused service, but this law goes a step further and allows discrimination based on mere thought.

And what happens if someone THINKS you're gay or muslim or atheist or a divorcee? Are they then allowed to discriminate against you? Does their mere fear of what they perceive you to be justify an irrational action?

Nothing about this type of law makes any sense.

[Edited on February 26, 2014 at 6:33 PM. Reason : ]

2/26/2014 6:33:05 PM

freedom of religion is fine, the problem is that some people think it means that they are free to use their religion to pass laws telling you what to do

Quote :

" If you were an atheist, and the store owner found out, they could refuse you service simply based on your existence"

they already can, and will still be able to when this is vetoed

[Edited on February 26, 2014 at 6:34 PM. Reason : .]

2/26/2014 6:33:29 PM

typically religion is a protected class, and arguably you might could sue if someone did that...

I think this law would make that a little bit more murky too though.

2/26/2014 6:38:45 PM

atheism is a religion? yeah, i guess its true if it is.

2/26/2014 6:45:20 PM

Legal question:

Shouldn't sexual orientation be a protected class? We have established by the civil rights act that some classes are protected and provide them extra protections. If you apply US v. Windsor to that, shouldn't those protections then extend to LGTB people?

[Edited on February 26, 2014 at 6:48 PM. Reason : .]

2/26/2014 6:47:48 PM

'Toed

2/26/2014 8:20:01 PM

Quote :

"but this law goes a step further and allows discrimination based on mere thought"

Let me talk to you about hate crime legislation...

2/26/2014 9:05:41 PM

Or, you know, different degrees of crimes that depend on motive

2/26/2014 9:07:20 PM

I think it was pretty clear she was going to veto it after the Republicans who sent it to her had second thoughts following the backlash.

"Hey dont sign this bill we sent you."

Seems pretty cut and dry to me, but at least it moves NC down to #4 on the crazy list after AZ, FL, and SC.

2/26/2014 9:20:13 PM

Thank God it was vetoed.

2/27/2014 9:16:02 AM

since when did freedom of religion come to mean forcing your religion onto others, especially via government?

2/27/2014 10:23:37 AM

If you exclude people from your place of business based on your religious beliefs - that is very vague. One could take a literal biblical view and pretty much exclude everybody.

I agree that someone should be able to pick and choose who they do business with, but if you codify that into law...sticky situation.

2/27/2014 10:29:56 AM

Why are you concerned with how Arizona chooses to run their affairs... Are you a citizen there?

2/27/2014 9:32:40 PM

He's right guys. Box it up, time to leave. No sense in worrying, talking, discussing, and debating about what's happening outside of your government's jurisdiction.

2/27/2014 9:55:09 PM

this law would not have allowed discrimination against religion, that's a federal protected class.

the law (if signed) really wouldn't have changed anything at all except trumping local ordinances some municipalities in AZ had passed that made LGTB a protected class.

2/27/2014 10:18:44 PM

It's against my religion to respect other religions

2/27/2014 10:21:59 PM

My neighbors talk about other neighbors as heated as you do. It's also gossip... Which at times causes unnecessary tension... For the neighbors who are worried about everyone else.

She should be more focused on her own affairs though.

2/27/2014 10:39:57 PM

uh, wat?

2/27/2014 10:42:30 PM

^^^^
There's probably some unintended side effect that could result.

But the message the law sends and the atmosphere of hate that it encompasses and harbors is the most damaging aspect.

And undoing protections for gays on Arizonas biggest most populous cities isn't trivial either.

2/27/2014 11:34:48 PM

Quote :

"since when did freedom of religion come to mean forcing your religion onto others, especially via government?"

Wait a minute. I think this law is stupid, but this isn't forcing your religion onto others via the government. Allowing someone to refuse service to another, while despicable and stupid, doesn't force anyone to believe or practice anything they didn't already want to believe or practice; rather, it's allowing a certain level of freedom of disassociation which implicitly comes from freedom of association. Again, I think it's stupid, but don't act like this is in any way similar to forcing someone to attend church or pray to any particular deity.

2/28/2014 12:28:52 AM

2/28/2014 1:17:08 AM

just shut up and go bake your gay cake if the gays want to pay you for your gay cake

2/28/2014 1:24:45 AM

If it isn't aligned with your values, you get upset...

Sounds aggravating...

2/28/2014 3:58:56 AM

Uh, wat?

2/28/2014 6:36:23 AM

Quote :

"Wait a minute. I think this law is stupid, but this isn't forcing your religion onto others via the government. Allowing someone to refuse service to another, while despicable and stupid, doesn't force anyone to believe or practice anything they didn't already want to believe or practice; rather, it's allowing a certain level of freedom of disassociation which implicitly comes from freedom of association. Again, I think it's stupid, but don't act like this is in any way similar to forcing someone to attend church or pray to any particular deity."

No one can force another person to believe something. But when one group tries to force a particular set of behaviors that are tenants of their religious beliefs, by either direct or indirect means, including disallowing associations with those who do not behave in what their religion has determined to be acceptable, is in fact, forcing religion on others.

[Edited on February 28, 2014 at 8:49 AM. Reason : .]

2/28/2014 8:48:53 AM

YOU don't view it as a religious value.

THEY view as a religious value.

Stalemate.

2/28/2014 4:49:59 PM

^^ You don't get it. The gov't isn't disallowing associations. it is allowing people to practice their preexisting right to freedom of association. You are conflating private actions with government actions, and that is just plain disingenuous.

2/28/2014 6:00:13 PM

Right to association... didn't see that in the bill of rights...

Elaborate on this term.

2/28/2014 7:15:00 PM

government says: hey folks, you can tell blacks stay out of your place of business

government says: hey folks, you can tell gays to stay out of your place of business

I don't see the difference. Unless it's the gay/black thing. Gays must be the new blacks. Gotta hate somebody.

The only reason the wingnuts are pushing these laws is to further their religious agenda. To say otherwise is to say that for 200 some years, we have been denied the right of freedom of association (which like ^ points out, isn't really an expressed right...). Black Gay patronage haven't been an issue in the past, but now it is? All of a sudden we must have laws that say we can kick out blacks gays otherwise your rights are being violated? Absurd. What's disingenuous is that you repeat the mantra that this bill was about rights when it was nothing about religious belief and forcing it, or at least its ideals, onto others.

It's no different than the vast majority of controversial bills passed throughout red nation over the last several years. You can claim it's about ensuring personal choice for private actions, but the reason is to push religious belief. By codifying into law that business owners can discriminate against people based on their skin color sexual orientation (which how would they know in most cases?) is not equivalent to freedom of association, it's pure and simple discrimination. Now why would we need to keep gays out of Dick's? Why would Dick want no gays in his store? Hmm, could it be because he's chosen to salivate over a few phrases in a really old, badly translated book that tell him: gays bad?

For the most part, business owners can already choose who they want to do business with. And in many states, if done covertly, can deny to do business with a person from any group you want to assign them. In others, overtly doing this is illegal. So that doesn't change and I don't think anyone really cares about that in the grand scheme of things. So what's the point of this failed law? Because god hates blacks gays.

[Edited on February 28, 2014 at 7:25 PM. Reason : .]

2/28/2014 7:19:57 PM

If I were a business owner, hell I'd want all the business I could get. Not sure it's really smart turning away paying customers, regardless of their views. Its dumb and you deserve to go out of business, not because you're denying a person access, but because you're just....dumb.

2/28/2014 8:44:15 PM

^ this.
^^^ It's closely related to freedom of assembly, which is most assuredly in the Bill of Rights. Moreover, freedom of speech is worthless without freedom of association, because people forming a group (associating with one another) can make their voice more powerful, as stated in NAACP vs Alabama.

^^ I'm not dumb enough not to see the parallels between this law and the history of segregated businesses. But that has nothing to do with whether or not this is someone using the gov't to force their religion on others. Moreover, this is much different than Jim Crow laws, which were laws that specifically said "blacks can't use these businesses". "You must deny service to so and so" is worlds different than a law that says "you can deny service to so and so".
And, for the record, I think if a business is dumb enough to want to deny service to a race of people, it should be able to do so. but, that's another conversation

2/28/2014 9:12:11 PM