In her column today, Kellie Fiedorek poses some interesting questions: "Do
you believe a photographer who identifies as homosexual should be punished for
refusing to photograph an event celebrating the Westboro Baptist Church’s
hateful ideas? Do you believe a Jewish printer should be threatened for
declining to promote a conference criticizing Israel? Do you believe a pacifist
should be coerced to paint pro-war posters for a rally?" These
are the kind of questions that all the detractors of Arizona's bill must
ask themselves. And of course we could come up with a dozen more.
Wise decision, Governor Brewer. History doesn't look kindly on those who
stand against equality.
The radical right is moving to a very small corner by choice.
it is good to see common sense prevailed in uncommon legislation. As for
business owners, if they offer a service either follow through with the
commitment to serve or at least recommend another vendor to serve the customer.
However the offended party needs to spend their money elsewhere if the business
refuses service. Running to the courts because you are offended seems to have
gotten all too common.
I think this was best. I support a persons right to not to be forced to
"participate" in gay weddings and similar activties that go against a
persons religious beliefs. However, I am not sure that right can be worded
properly. Going forward, I suggest that those businesses who offer
those type of personal services simply hire a "subcontractor" to go do
the wedding pictures, bake the cake, or whatever "service" they dont
want to do themselves. This wont validate the persons religious
"right" but it should help prevent them for actually participating in
the objectionable activity.
"And of course we could come up with a dozen more."Yes we
could.Could a Jehovahs Witness Surgeon refuse to give a blood
transfusion during an operation?Could an Evangelical employer refuse to
hire a Mormon because he felt they were not Christian?Could a hotel refuse
to rent a hotel room to someone wearing a Muslim headscarf?Could a
restaurant refuse to serve a bi-racial couple?Could a Catholic Doctor
refuse to write a prescription for birth control?Could a LDS businessman
refuse to hire someone who drinks coffee?This is a complex issue.
The discrimination can cut both ways.Didn't we have the exact
same issues concerning black people in the past?
Our differences are prolific and vast, but it's comforting to see common
sense and common ground.
@RGthe simple answer is yes, if they choose to do business in the
public square and the work they are asked to do does not violate the law
(including discrimination laws) then they should not be allowed to discriminate.
We may find what these organizations stand for distatsteful but it is the price
of living in a free society.
Someday, someone with more power and more authority will veto her ability to
govern.You can write up whatever you want and call it a law. But
writing a law saying 'gravity doesn't exist' doesn't change
the anything but your own wisdom and intelligence. Most people don't
realize how serious their actions are. That's the point in this life, to
learn what is true. But the number of those who wish to learn nothing but
dictate their own morality... it's growing./////Imagine trying to jump from an airplane then re-write the laws of gravity mid
flight.Imagine trying to jump from the most functional human system
in existence and re-write the consequences.The sad part is that
we're not even preventing people from jumping. We just don't want
people to tear down the recognized plaque of value for the system we already
have. Push comes to shove... this issue was never about freedom or equality, but
forcing your opinions on social institutions, your choices on business owners,
and forcing your way into defining what privilege and right are to overthrow
reason in favor of self-denial about morality and consequences.
@RGlet me ask you this, should evangelical business owners be allowed to
deny services to an LDS person because they believe their religion is a cult?
Would such actions not be a violation of the LDS persons religious freedoms?
this law, the way it was written, would have allowed for such actions.
@ RG: The simple answer to your questions is "yes". If you have a
business it is your obligation as part of your business license to follow the
laws of the state and community in which you operate - you do not get to cast
judgement on your customers and decide if they are worthy of receiving your
services.If you do not want to treat all people equally, don't
own a business - or limit the scope of your business such that you will not be
required to provide services you find questionable.It really is not
a difficult situation after all and has been addressed before.
The intended purpose for the "Religious Rights" bill seems to be an
attempt to provide the same basic protections found in the First Amendment.
Presumably it would be cited in lawsuits where such issues are argued. The
passage or veto will not change the nature of this conflict. The much maligned
"NO GAYS ALLOWED" signs will continue to be just as much on display in
Arizona as they ever were.
We all enjoy freedom of the press but nobody is required to read what you or I
write.We have freedom of speech. Nobody is required to listen.Rights do not place obligations on others.Gay activists seek to
place obligations on others simply because they disagree with them.For the record, this has nothing in common with the civil rights struggles of
I like how the headline says "so-called" as if it meant something else.
I wonder how long it will be before someone is sued for providing a service in
what they feel is contrary to their religious conviction and doesn't
exhibit the "proper" enthusiasm, or simply because they don't smile
as broadly as the offended claimant thinks is their due?All of this
kind of political correctness is just a short step away from the kind of coerced
devotion to the "Dear Leader" in N. Korea.Freedom of
expression and thought includes the right NOT to express.
Operating a business is a privilege.Freedom of religion is a right.A
privilege does not become a right, just because the privilege holder is
This is a HUFE blow to individual freedom and liberty.Apparently
homosexuals can now force another into forced servitude.Where does
the public end and personal or special labor and personal or special service
begin?I believe no one is entitled to another service or labor when
becomes personal or special service or personal labor.Onsite
photography requires a person's person and therefore personal labor and
service.Making a special cake require special service and therefore
personal labor.Please explain where the public ends and the personal
begins?What state law requires special and/or personal service and
labor?It is not discrimination when it becomes personal or special.
@samhill Yes we have so much evidance of people being sued all the
time with all the other groups of people that ready have protections from
discrimination (religion, race, gender) oh wait no we don't. I almost
bought I tithe dooms day there for a minute.
@the truthWell Said!! There is so much difference between selling a
product and a personal service. You should have the right to sell a personal
service under the paramaters that you establish. You basically have people
making an argument that you must provide servitude to every request as long as
it is legal. This argument is crazy! Basically commenters are arguing that a
photographer would be forced to shoot nude photographs if that is what his
client requested. Let's have some common sense here. Selling a pair of
shoes is so much different than photographing a wedding. @Tolstoy,
@Kilindra - your arguments are ridiculous. You are basically saying that you
have no right to ever say no if you decide to run your own business.
You know, people say that they are just trying to do what the constitution
states, giving everyone freedom of religion, speech, etc.., as well as following
the 14th amendment. This is true completely. Everyone should be able to have as
many rights as they want. However, as in the recent bill in
Arizona... The constitution does say that no state shall deny equal protection
of law. It does not say that the citizens can't refuse service to other
citizensThat last sentence sounds bad, and probably reminds people
of oppression of the blacks during the 1960s. Many of you are probably going to
say Blah Blah Blah Civil Rights Act Blah Blah Blah. This still sounds terrible.
The civil rights act of 1964 says that you can't discriminate based of of
Gender, race, religion, color, origin. Last time I checked, Homosexual
isn't a religion. Also, because the companies in Arizona sold to both male
and female, just not to gays, it is legal to do so. It may not be right, and it
is not my position to decide, but it is LEGAL
Also, by refusing the owners of companies to refuse Homosexuals, you take away
some of their rights in return for the rights of those benefited. In large
corporations, this should be illegal, because they have a charter from the
federal government in order to operate as a corporation. However, Sol
Proprietorship, and partnerships, should still have this right should they
choose to exercise it.
Not a single lawsuit in Arizona by someone who was sued due to their religious
beliefs. Not a single one and even their Governor admitted that tonight in her
veto speech. Yet if the Baptist church goes to the gay printer and is refused
service, they can now under current law sue that gay printer. There are no
state protections for LBGT people in Arizona. So you can say all you want that
LBGT people are attacking religion. I would have to say by sheer evidence that
is not the case. In fact I know more religious LBGT people who are more
Christian than most of these so called religious conservatives. If you want to
see how our Bible is used to discriminate go see the movie "12 Years a
Slave". Slave owners used religion and Biblical verses to rationalize their
detestable behavior towards their fellow men, including murder. to:
the truth, Your logic was used to discriminate and separate Blacks, Jews,
Catholics and yes even Mormons during certain era's in our history. It
wasn't right then and it isn't right for the LBGT community now!
@joeblow, we have had the same issues in the blacks, however those laws
didn't say anything about homosexuals, so there needs to be a new piece of
national legislation. Until then, discriminating against homosexuals is
legal.@I know it i live it i love it, I see where you are coming
from, but from the most recent General conference, one of the apostles
essentially said that Gods standards will not change, even if the law does, and
that whatever society deems right isn't necessarily right. Let the world
do what they want, and people like us will continue to do what we believe is
correct. When these come in conflict, we try to work it out peacefully, and
without drawing attention to ourselves.@the truth, Servitude? Other
than that I basically agree that there needs to be a line between public and
personal. I like the argument/idea.
If you don't want a particular job, just bid higher than everyone else.
The governor vetoed a very bad bill. Good for her.
I believe that this issue is before the Supreme Court. It really would do no
good to pass a law which would immediately be challenged in court. I believe
that businesses have a right to refuse service to anyone for any reason with
such as "no shirt, no shoes, no service". However, the Supreme Court
may think otherwise. Governor Brewer now may live to fight another day.
Contrary to what liberals believe, not everyone is equal. There is a group of
people who work and pay the taxes. If you take away their right to form and
order society and place it in the hands of the entitled who do no work, then you
are preparing for a violent collision. Hopefully, this will be solved with the
November election and the turning over of the Senate to the Republicans. This
would allow the Democrats to reform their agenda into a more common sense
@The Rock;The business owner took that "obligation" upon
him/herself when s/he chose to open a business that served the public. A Run says:"...by refusing the owners of companies to refuse
Homosexuals, you take away some of their rights..."--- Not true.
They exercised their right by agreeing to obey the laws when they chose to open
the business. When they open that business they know they will be required to
operate as a business and serve ALL customers.
Because of Delta, American Airline, Marriotts and others economic threats, I
can tell you I will do everything I can to not use their products and services.
This bill should have passed and I am very disappointed in Governor Brewer. The
only unintended consequences will be when the Gay and Lesbian Community get all
the power, they will not rest until Churches are forced to marry them or lose
their tax exempt status. Mark my words this will happen, regardless of all the
lies we have been told, this is not about equality, this is about the
acquisition of power.
A "so-called" anti-gay bill.... really, DN? Seriously?Please....
@JNA: "The only unintended consequences will be when the Gay and Lesbian
Community get all the power, they will not rest until Churches are forced to
marry them or lose their tax exempt status"Where to begin...I invite you to consider the definition of xenophobia:"Xenophobia can manifest itself in many ways involving the relations and
perceptions of an ingroup towards an outgroup, including a fear of losing
identity, suspicion of its activities, aggression, and desire to eliminate its
presence to secure a presumed purity."
Can someone please explain this to me? 1. A public school cannot have any
references to God or a Christian religion displayed on their walls or property
because it is considered to be an endorsement by the school of that religion
which violates the Separation Clause. 2. A photographer who must attend
and be present during a same-sex wedding ceremony as an active participant by
photographing various parts of the ceremony cannot refuse to do this even though
it also is considered an endorsement by him/her of that ceremony which is
contrary to his/her religious beliefs. What exactly is the difference that
allows the photographer to be forced to endorse an action that violates personal
@techpups Again it's not complicated, they are both a form of
business. Schools are restricted due to their role as a government) which.
Cannotendorse a religion over others) run entity that serves the public. The
photographer is running a business that serves the public and is bound by public
accomadation laws. The school staff and photographer still have the right to
believe what ever they choose and express those views ow ever they wish, short
of insighting violence, to the hearts content outside the work place. When you
make the choose to start a business you agree to abide by the laws that govern
"A public school cannot have any references to God or a Christian religion
displayed on their walls or property because it is considered to be an
endorsement by the school of that religion which violates the Separation
Clause"Of course they can. As long as they are willing to allow
any and every religion to display their religious symbols. And there becomes
the rub.Why is it so hard to see that it is much easier in the long
run, and much more conducive to a learning environment, to just keep religion
out of schools? A kid can pray anytime he wants, be it before, during or after
school.But, that is not what some want. They want to make a big
production of it. They want the kid to be able to pray over the loudspeaker, or
in front of the class or football stadium.How about we keep schools
for learning and practice your religion silently, or outside of school.
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. I know in my
history classes we only ever seemed to get to the Vietnam war before running out
of time in the semester. Did some of you not manage to make it to the 60s and
the Civil Rights movement? I'm just wondering because some of you seem to
be just cool with the equivalent of signs in restaurants saying they won't
serve black people.
@Bingham Student said: "one of the apostles essentially said that Gods
standards will not change, even if the law does, and that whatever society deems
right isn't necessarily right."But theirs evidence that God
(Man) does change his mind… "Shall I tell you the law of God in
regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed
mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is
death on the spot. This will always be so." (Journal of Discourses, Vol.10,
People are very confused as to what individuals rights are versus businesses.
The Idea that a business is a member of a religious organization and should be
able to use their business to treat others poorly is an interesting ideal. Then again the knights of the klu klux klan were/are a very religious
organization who use their religious beliefs as a base for all sorts of evil
based on what the Bible allowed them to justify. I would expect a jump in
membership from the same folks who believe they should be able to treat others
poorly because of their "Beliefs." Let move forward folks,
devolution isn't a good look.
horribly misleading headline. It is not an anti-gay bill.a better
headline would be "Brewer vetoes pro-first amendment bill"
@ Tolstoy "let me ask you this, should evangelical business owners be
allowed to deny services to an LDS person because they believe their religion is
a cult? " This is a totally different question. You're comparing
apples and oranges. Christian Cake bakers and wedding photographers usually have
no problem baking birthday cakes or photographing birthday parties for gay
people, because they don't believe that birthdays are sins. But asking for
a gay marriage cake or photographing a gay marriage is something different.
Remember the role of the market: businesses that discriminate too much will just
go out of business. Problem solved. @Joeblow: Some of your scenarios
(the hotel and restaurant ones) are also comparing apples to oranges. And yes a
Catholic Dr. should not be forced to prescribe birth control. But that dr.
should refer the patient to a different dr. @ Tolstoy and Kalindra
and Joeblow: do you REALLY believe that a Jewish photographer must be forced to
photograph a NeoNazi meeting? Or a black baker must be forced to create a cake
for the KKK with terrible words on it?
@the truth"This is a HUFE [sic] blow to individual freedom and
liberty.Apparently homosexuals can now force another into forced
servitude."I heard exactly the same argument when lunch counters
were "forced" to serve meals to blacks back in the early '60s.
When you open any sort of business that comes under the classification of being
a "public accommodation," you take on an obligation to serve the general
public regardless of who they are. You still have the right to refuse service to
individuals, but that refusal must be based on what they do; not on who they
are. In other words, you can deny service to someone who is drunk, belligerent,
naked, so filthy they stink, or if they've stolen from you in the past or
threatened you with physical harm, but not because of innate characteristics
such as race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or the color of their
@RG@ Tolstoy "let me ask you this, should evangelical business
owners be allowed to deny services to an LDS person because they believe their
religion is a cult? " This is a totally different question. You're
comparing apples and oranges."No, it's the same quesiton.
If a person believes that the LDS church and its members are simply cultists and
believe that providing a service or product to them would violate their
religious convictions, should they be allowed to ddeny said service or product?
According to this law, the answer is "Yes."
@RG"But asking for a gay marriage cake or photographing a gay marriage
is something different."Is it different from, let's say,
making a cake for a Mormon marrying a gentile, or for someone entering any other
marriage that isn't approved by your church? Should a baker be asking for
all the details of the relationship and their background, or do they have
different standards for one particular "sin" rather than another? If his
church believes that divorce is forbidden, should he be demanding to know if
this is a second marriage for either partner before agreeing to bake a cake? In any case, bakers and photographers aren't asked to approve or
endorse the wedding. Rather, they're asked to provide food or a service.
If the baker's religion teaches that gluttony is a sin, can he refuse to
sell to obese people on religious grounds? What if he thinks drinking alcohol is
a sin and there might be booze at the wedding? Or are some "sins" okay?
Calling this bill "anti-gay" is a lie. This bill protects to freedom of
all people to implement their religion in all aspects of their life without the
government penalizing them for it. This is a good thing. Sadly, the liberal
media has told never ending laws about the bill.
the headline calling this a "so-called anti-gay" bill shows
editorialization of the headlines. There is no question that the bill would
have allowed discrimination, for better or worse, against gays.
The idea of subcontracting to avoid participation in something objectionable
isn't a bad one. Another might be to discourage the potential client from
wanting to use your business. "I don't know much about fondant
sculpture (if that's true, of course), but XYZ Bakery does some beautiful
work." "I've already booked a wedding for that day (again, if
true), but I can recommend another excellent photographer." I don't
see why refusing to bake a cake, arrange flowers, or take photos or video at a
gay wedding is making a positive difference in the world. The couple is still
getting married. If I were a printer, I'd hate printing flyers for a
pro-choice rally, but if I did or not, they'd still get printed. I am
deeply religious and agree that religion is under attack by certain voices in
America, but that is partly because of the "culture wars" mentality of
religious people who try to bully rather than follow Jesus' example of
meekness and quiet strength. Granny used to say, "You can catch more flies
with honey than with vinegar."
Fellow Mormons lets stamp out Homophobia now!
@techpubs: 1. A public school cannot have any references to God or a Christian
religion displayed on their walls or property because it is considered to be an
endorsement by the school of that religion which violates the Separation Clause.
Schools CAN have reference to Christianity as long as they also
allow other religions to have access and protect the rights of non-Christian
students. If you want Christian stuff on the walls of schools you also must
support the rights of Jews, Muslims, Pagans, Wiccans, Mormons and others to
display their symbols, too. Most Christians only want public religious displays
that exclude all other religions. That then becomes government endorsement of