Common sense rules the day! I used to say "you can't spell crazy
without AZ" but this is inspiring. Utahn's who are thinking the
"religious freedom" thing is going to fly. Take notes son.
Your government is meddling in your religion folks! Liberals demand that we keep
religion out of their government but quite eager to force their government into
@Mountanman: How is government entering into your religion exactly? They are
simply stating that you can't discriminate based on sexual orientation.
Sounds like legislation that was denied in the '60s. It was a bad idea and
Brewer has been very clear that there have been absolutely zero incidences where
religious freedoms have been threatened. In fact, it was one of her major
points. That, and the fact that her legislature has refused to work on more
pressing matters, such as child safety, which should be a religious and secular
Religion keeps trying to meddle in your freedom, folks. It's refreshing to
seed that the arizona governor saw this push for what it was.
No instance of persecution against people's religious beliefs by gays?"A climate of attacks against the LGBT community"?These people live in the United States, right? They're not blind or
deaf, right? I can understand if they are-but if they're not, then
they're not paying very close attention to their surroundings. That's
why this bill was crafted.
@ Utefan. How about the government forcing the Little Sisters of the Poor to pay
for other people's birth control/abortions? How about forcing Christian
ministers to perform gay "marriages"? How about the Catholic Church in
Illinois run out of town for refusing to provide adoptions to same sex couples?
How about forcing photographers and all others who support traditional marriages
to provide their services that contradict their religious liberties? A society
that subverts its own moral immunities sows the seeds of its own destruction.
In ANY free society there must be moral immunities! And that is the precisely
the point! Otherwise we have no freedom FROM immoral behavior of others, period!
Think about it! If individuals can not define morality for themselves no one
will and nothing will be immoral, just like the Nazis.
The article inform us that : "Brewer said in televised remarks from
Phoenix. “I have not heard of one example in Arizona where a business
owner’s religious liberty has been violated.”She said
she worried that the bill had “the potential to create more problems than
it purports to solve.” This is not only a victory for LGBT
people. This is a victory for common sense against paranoia and the threat of
religious zealotry upon anyone.I hope soon certain so called
Christians start acting like true Christians, so secured in their faiths and
convictions that they will stop seeing the boogey man in everything and everyone
that is different.A great day for Arizona and the nation!!!
@Mountanman"How about the government forcing the Little Sisters of the
Poor to pay for other people's birth control/abortions? "They just need to sign an exemption form..."How about forcing
Christian ministers to perform gay "marriages"?"That
doesn't happen." How about the Catholic Church in Illinois
run out of town for refusing to provide adoptions to same sex couples?"Pretty sure they had the same option they had in Massachusetts, use
private money and they can set their own guidelines. "How about
forcing photographers and all others who support traditional marriages to
provide their services that contradict their religious liberties?"A few decades ago we decided segregation was wrong.
When did we become Iran and adopt Sharia law in this country? Unbelievable.
It's one thing when the police come to your house or business and detain
you for committing an actual crime like murder, rape, theft, fraud, etc. (and
it's a good thing at that). But when ayatollahs send moral police to
trespass on private property (an ACTUAL crime) to harass and bully the owner for
thinking a certain way, that is just corrupt and appalling. I would bake a cake
for a gay couple. More money for me. But I would NEVER advocate sending mafiosi
with badges to someone's PRIVATE PROPERTY unless they committed an actual
crime, negligence or breach of contract. MORAL infractions are NOT the
responsibility of the state! Save it for church! Sheesh!
@Mountanman: The Little Sisters of the Poor case relates directly to ObamaCare,
not to homosexuals. The Catholic Church CHOSE to shut down facilities in lieu of
the decision to "consider" same sex parents when reviewing adoptions in
order to obtain state funds. As for those who choose not to serve somebody
simply because of their partner, the question is, if you open a public business,
why would you? There are very few cases of people actually refusing service
because, in this free market, loss of one customer due to this reason equates to
large loss of revenue as a whole. If you feel you cannot serve the people of
your community as a whole, perhaps you should not be in business.
Just curious-- have any of the legions of wedding bakers and photographers who
are so concerned about serving same sex couples ever denied their services to
hetero couples because the groom's tux was a wool-silk blend fabric, the
reception served shrimp, or because the happy couple was marrying for the second
time? There seems to be a selective application of religious principle at work
here.@Mountanman: How is requiring an employer to pay premiums into
an insurance pool that includes contraception coverage any different than
requiring Quakers to pay for weapons and wars with their federal income taxes
that go into a pooled general fund? At what point does the commingling of
fungible money break the connection of causality between the payer and the end
use? Can you trace any dollar spent on an abortion directly back to a Catholic
sister any more (or less) than a dollar spent on a cruise missile can be traced
back to a Friend?
@ Mountanman"How about the government forcing the Little Sisters
of the Poor to pay for other people's birth control/abortions?" Hasn't happened. "How about forcing Christian
ministers to perform gay "marriages"?"Hasn't
happened and won't happen. "How about the Catholic Church
in Illinois run out of town for refusing to provide adoptions to same sex
couples?"They likely chose to close up shop rather than comply
with the law but that was their choice."How about forcing
photographers and all others who support traditional marriages to provide their
services that contradict their religious liberties?"What would
Jesus do? He tells you in Mark 12:13-17. "In ANY free society
there must be moral immunities!"As defined by whom. You?"Otherwise we have no freedom FROM immoral behavior of others,
period!"Morality is subjective. When you trumpet as loudly for
the legal backing to discriminate against adulterers, single mothers,
divorce's, people who eat lobster or wear mixed fibers, get back to us.
@ Schnee.•Vermont 2005: The Christian owners of the Wildflower Inn
were sued for refusing to host a homosexual wedding. In a settlement, owners
ended up paying the homosexual couple $30,000 and agreeing to no longer host any
weddings at their inn.•New Mexico 2006: Elane Photography declined
to photograph a homosexual civil union ceremony. The company was sued under the
state’s anti-discrimination laws. A judge held the company in violation.
The New Mexico Supreme Court upheld this ruling last month.•Kentucky
2012: A T-shirt company, Hands On Originals, was approached by the Gay and
Lesbian Services Organization about printing shirts for the group. When they
politely declined, referring the organization to another t-shirt company
instead, they were promptly sued by the group under Lexington’s
anti-discriminatory laws.•New Jersey 2008: A Methodist church was
sued for not offering its facility for use during same-sex weddings. A judge
ruled against the church.•Washington 2013: A lawsuit was brought
against a florist by the state for refusing to provide flowers for a same-sex
marriage. The florist, Barronelle Stutzman, simply said “I could not do it
because of my relationship with Jesus Christ.”
•Oregon 2013: A bakery owned by a Christian couple recently shut its doors
after it was threatened with a lawsuit for refusing to make a wedding cake for a
lesbian couple. Melissa and Aaron Klein, owners of “Sweet Cakes”
bakery were the victims of an economic war when homosexual activists harassed
and badgered their business for months. The business also came under
investigation by Oregon state officials for violating the Equality Act of 2007
which states that people cannot be denied services due to their sexual
orientation.@ My Two Cents. I decide what is moral for myself but
you and others don't want me to have that freedom! You and others insist
your morality be forced upon me and others as the above examples point out!
@MountanmanAn inn that hosts weddings is a business, not a church.The Jersey one involved a space with a public land tax status that is
rented out. Lesson to churches: keep your assets privately owned and don't
go lending them out to others like a business. As for the
photographer, t-shirt company, florist, and baker, I don't need you to
convince me those things happen, you need to convince me that business owners
should be able to do the equivalent of "no blacks allowed" signs.
Mountanman:Did you notice that all your examples showed someone
breaking a law and the law being enforced.If the judgment in all or
any of the cases you mentioned would have been contrary to the law in what you
call "the victims" opinion, they would have been able to appeal. Did
they? if not, why not?You are making the LGBT movement appear bigger
that what we are. Don't you think that if we had the power your claim we
have. Chances are we wouldn't need to be posting these comments here in the
DN.I try to live my life according to the precepts of Christ. I
surmise you are in the same quest. If you are, I can promise to you as my
brother that we mean no harm to you or anyone. We are just asking for equality
and fairness under the law. We are fighting to gain and uphold our dignity as
human beings. Can you blame us for that? Wouldn't you do the same?You may like to study the meaning of "The Social Contract".
Schnee, my_two_centsnuns should not HAVE to sign a form. you are
admitting congress made a law concerning the establishment of religion by saying
they need to sign a form to comply."How about forcing Christian
ministers to perform gay "marriages"?"That doesn't
happen.Research Edmonds-Tacker Acts, then come back and say the
goverment does not force itself into religious marriages.Shiria law
arguments are foolish and out of place. Predominantly islamic countries do not
have a first amendment.Business owners are PEOPLE. PEOPLE can have
religious convictions and those PEOPLES' rights should be protiected by the
first amendment, which you so callaously are apparently trying to destroy. If
business license requirementsw force the business owner to violate conscience,
those business license requirement violate the first amendment.
lost in DC: The first amendment has absolutely nothing to do with business
licenses. However, if you want to compare. Compare getting a drivers license.
There are rules associated with that as well.
lost in DCYou wrote: " Business owners are PEOPLE. PEOPLE can have
religious convictions and those PEOPLES' rights should be protiected by the
first amendment, which you so callaously are apparently trying to
destroy".Business owners are people: CorrectPeople can
have religious convictions: CorrectThose people rights should be
protected: CorrectWe are 100% in agreement.However, you
are (perhaps choosing) confusing People's rights vs. Business rights and
responsibilities. The laws against discrimination apply to businesses.These laws were created long before the LGBT movement to protect ALL citizens.
Sorry if in your opinion we don't qualify as citizens.
So because this bill was vetoed a gay couple could FORCE a Christian
photographer to photograph their wedding or face all sorts of law suits and
boycotts against their business. A gay couple could FORCE a Wedding Hall owned
by a Christian to host their wedding or again face all sorts of law suits and
boycotts. What about the religious rights of people ? They don't matter
anymore. When a group can FORCE you to violate your religious beliefs then there
is NO religious liberty in America anymore. My understanding was that militant
gays were targeting Christian wedding planners just because they knew what would
To "killpack" the sharia law came to the US the day that the courts
decided that Secular Humanism/Athiesim is the state religion. If you don't
believe me, try an erect a cross or a 10 commandments monument on public
property. Better yet, try and have a prayer listed as a prayer at a public
meeting.To "Schnee" the idea of businesses being able to
deny services to anybody for any reason should be restored. If some racist
doesn't want to serve minorities, that is fine. Let him do that, and
eventually his business will fail. At the same time, a minority member can open
up a business and say that whites are not allowed. If a gay wants to start a
gay only wedding cake business, that is great. If a hetersexual wants to only
cater to hetersexuals, that is great too. By suing those businesses to serve
them, they are pushing people into slavery. Didn't we have a big war to
I have a hard time believing that Jan Brewer wasn't intimately involved in
a bill that all or practically all of the GOP legislators voted for. I think
she saw it as possibly having repercussions but feigned lack of interest / lack
of knowledge in its existence until she saw the handwriting on the wall (in the
form of criticism from business) and then claimed she had only now read it and
decided to put the kibbash on it. Read her statement as to why she did veto
it--nothing about the wrongness of legitimizing discrimination, but rather some
vague statement about how the legislation was unnecessary.
I wonder how many supporters of the bill "protecting religious freedoms"
would support a similar bill allowing businesses to deny services to LDS?
Patriot, re-read your letter and substitute “Mormon wedding” or
“interracial wedding” and see if your logic holds. Then imagine a
Catholic wedding hall owner refusing to rent the space to a Christian couple
where one of them had been divorced--and claiming a sincerely held belief in the
sanctity of marriage as an excuse. Laws regarding businesses take
the approach that you cannot offer a service (host a reception, make a cake,
take pictures) for some people but not for others. I doubt that you would be
happy to have some business refuse to serve you and then claim “religious
freedom” as an excuse.
To "Well.ok" I would support a bill that allowed businesses to deny
services to anybody they wanted to. Think of it this way, how long would a
business last in Utah that denied services to LDS people? Better yet, how much
would it cost a business to pay somebody to stand at their door and ask if that
person is LDS? That business wouldn't last long, so why not let them try
to make a name for themselves.Lets look at it logically. Would you
hire a lawn service that discriminated against any racial group? Would you hire
a lawn service that didn't care if you were black, white, red, yellow,
purple, or blue?Let the market decide.This isn't a
return to the Jim Crow era, because that was GOVERNMENT enforced segregation.
This is letting people shoot themselves in the foot and suffer the consequences.
@ Mountanman"I decide what is moral for myself but you and
others don't want me to have that freedom!"Not true at all.
You have always had the right to decide what is or is not moral for yourself as
long as it is within the confines of the law. What has you in a snit is we are
no longer going to stand still and allow you to force your "morality" on
us. Equal rights under the law means equal rights for all, even those you
disagree with."You and others insist your morality be forced
upon me and others "First, you have been forcing your
"morality" om us for a couple of hundred years; we're tired of it.
Second, if you are going to seek profit in Caesar's market place you must
obey Caesar's rules. You don't have to open a business but if you want
to there are rules and laws in place that must be followed.
@RedShirt: You're right. This isn't government forced segregation, it
is government approved segregation. They are telling business owners they can
discriminate with no reprecussions. It's still an unacceptable act.
@lost in DC"nuns should not HAVE to sign a form."Why not? Are they above the law?"Research Edmonds-Tacker
Acts"Marriage is a function of the state with the state allowing
and authorizing churches to act on the state's behalf in performing
weddings. Edmonds-Tacker defined what was a legal marriage not who could or
could not perform the wedding. No church will have to perform a wedding ceremony
for anyone whose beliefs goes against the teachings of that church."Business owners are PEOPLE."Businesses, however, are not.
They are licensed by the state with the expectation that they will conduct their
business in accordance with the laws and regulations of the state. But,
I'll make a compromise. I'll support legislation that allows
businesses to discriminate on religious beliefs of the owners as long as the
same law requires that business owner to prominently display a disclaimer
stating they "reserve the right to refuse service and/or employment based on
their religious beliefs." This will allow reasonable people to skip by those
shops and take their business elsewhere. Deal?
It is sad that people give into the pressure of that statists who want the state
to control more of our lives. Individuals should have the right to live their
religion, and not be penalized for doing so.
To "Utefan4Lyf" what is more unacceptable, allowing people to make
choices, for good or bad or allowing government to force you to serve others?You are wrong. Their will be reprecussions. Either their business will
suffer because people don't want to be associated with people that
discriminate or else their business will prosper because people with similar
ideals will buy from them. But that is just a side issue.The fact
is, you have to decide what you can live with. Somebody making bad choices, or
government forcing you to serve others.
RedShirt: "Think of it this way, how long would a business last in Utah
that denied services to LDS people?"That's a legitimate,
but weak, example. The real issue is a minority group facing discrimination by
the majority. A more relevant example would be a business in, say, Texas or
Mississippi or Florida, with a predominantly fundamentalist evangelical
Christian population that denied services to LDS people (on the basis of their
deeply held religious beliefs that Mormons were non-Christian). The free market
doesn't function nearly as efficiently in weeding out the bad actors in
this case because there are likely to be multiple discriminating businesses.
The aggrieved minority LDS person might not have any alternative
nondiscriminating businesses to patronize (especially in a small town). The
market calculus changes when the power relationship is reversed.Your
point about Jim Crow being government, not private, discrimination, is well
taken, but remember that it was a symptom of an ingrained cultural attitude. De
facto racial segregation (i.e. discrimination) survived long after de jure
segregation was abolished.
The bill was not anti-gay, but simply pro-religion. A business has the right to
refuse service to anyone, no matter the reason. This is especially true when it
would violate the personal religious of the owner to provide service.
To "Lagomorph" ok, lets visualise a grocery store wanting to
discriminate against LDS people. How are they going to do that? Do they keep a
list of known LDS members at their register, do they pay somebody to stand at
the door and tell LDS people to go away? No matter what, their is no way they
can discriminate against LDS people without it costing them money. Only a
really bad businessman would discriminate in a way that cut into their bottom
line. If they are that determined to discriminate they will probably destroy
their business soon. Plus, think of the community. Do you think that
southerners would shop at a store they knew was intentionally discriminating
against their neighbors?The point is, the free market would play
out, and the really bad businesses will eventually go away.
RedShirt said: To "Schnee" the idea of businesses being able to deny
services to anybody for any reason should be restored. If some racist
doesn't want to serve minorities, that is fine. Let him do that, and
eventually his business will fail. At the same time, a minority member can open
up a business and say that whites are not allowed. If a gay wants to start a gay
only wedding cake business, that is great. If a hetersexual wants to only cater
to hetersexuals, that is great too. Talk about a bad Idea, sure most
civilized places in the USA would gladly allow a racist business to fail but
their are places like Hayden Lake Idaho, home to the Arian brotherhood where
they might thrive. Now your a person who isn't white and christian and your
low on gas, well they don't serve your type round theses parts, so no gas,
you ask, is there someplace we can stay nope no room at the inn for your type,
no food, no service and come dark it could get worse.
To "Happy Valley Heretic" we already have businesses and regions that
discriminate, and nobody cares. You realize that there are "gay bars"
where non-gays are not accepted and are intimidated. There are neighborhoods in
the big cities where if you are not a member of that neighborhoods ethnic group
you will be beat up or killed. Colleges are allowed to discriminate based on
race. So are scholarships. Have you ever heard of a white kid receiving a
scholarship from the Negro College Fund? The government enacted all sorts of
laws requiring businesses hire people based on ethnicity. Even within the
government purchasing system they discriminate based on skin color, veteran
status, and disabled status.The fact is there are many racist
businesses and government entities. Why not let the rest of the population have
the same freedom to discriminate based on whatever they want?If the
government can discriminate, why can't I?
RedShirt: "To 'Lagomorph' ok, lets visualise a grocery store
wanting to discriminate against LDS people. How are they going to do
that?"The same way that people discriminate against homosexuals,
through observation and reasoned inferences and playing on stereotypes. Ever
hear of "gaydar"? It's not hard for a grocer to pick LDS people
out of a crowd of customers. The van in the lot with lots of kids, a
"Families are forever" bumper sticker, BYU sweatshirts, buy tons of
groceries but never coffee or beer, clean-cut and wholesome. Also, in a small
town, say, everyone knows everyone else's business. There are bound to be
false positives and false negatives, but the percentages are good.RedShirt: "The point is, the free market would play out, and the really
bad businesses will eventually go away."Mostly agreed, but you
completely missed my point about minority/majority power relationships. The
market only works if there are options. There may not be alternative businesses
available for an aggrieved minority customer to patronize if 1) there is only
one grocer in town or 2) ALL the grocers in town are part of the discriminating
majority group. Either could be the case in some places.
To "Lagomorph" lets imagine that the situation you describe actually
occurs. Now, you have a business opportunity. Any enterprising person can see
that there is a group that is not being served. If you are a smart businessman,
you start a business that delivers groceries or start your own competing grocery
store and take business away from the discriminating businesses.Only
in a pessimistic "mankind is all evil" world would any lasting problem
exist if people were allowed to pick and choose customers.
@RedShirt: Again, mostly agreed. I agree that an entrepreneur can capitalize
on the market niche of an underserved customer base in your example. However,
you continue to discount the power relationships I cited that can create market
failure and perpetuate discriminatory conditions. It's the difference
between theoretical ideals (rosy) and real world practicalities (not always so
rosy). The free market may prevail in the long run, but locally and in the
short term may not produce the ideal outcome without some external political
nudging.I'm reminded of another thread in months past where a
commenter noted that many southern states had African-American majority
populations and simply could have voted away Jim Crow laws, ignoring the
practical reality that whites held all of the political and economic power.
Blacks couldn't even register to vote, let alone vote or hold office.
Democracy, the "free market" of political power, fails when the
customers (voters) have no options.Same applies here. In a town of
2000, say, is there sufficient customer base to support a second grocery? What
if there is a single Mormon family and all the other 1993 people in town hate
Mormons? Who will open the nondiscriminating competitor store?
To "Lagomorph" the scenario that you paint only exists is a pessimistic
world. When the free market has been able to work, outside of political
interference, things like the Jim Crow laws never exist. For example, in the
early colonial days of the US, the free market was alive and very strong.
Ironically, people did not discriminate during that time. It wasn't until
people thought that the government knew best, and deferred to government for
decisions that they should make that problems arose.Yes the blacks
could have voted away the Jim Crow laws, but the Southern Democrats enacted laws
that prevented most blacks from voting, thus securing their plower. The free
market was not allowed to work there because the Democrats did not want to lose
their power.You are now getting to the point of insanity. The fact
remains that the US is filled with good people, and the small towns even more
so. I would not worry about the LDS family in a small town because that
situation would never exist.