While it is true that the bill did not mention LGBT individuals or couples or
discrimination, the debate surrounding the bill did. Including debate by the
legislators supporting the bill.
The bill's intent was clarified by identifying those who supported it and
what they said publicly.
This is a case where big business trampled over the freedom of religion. Big
business bullied devoutly religious people. No one should be forced to do
something that is against their basic religious beliefs. That is not freedom,
that is the opposite.
I liked the proposal by one person I heard on this matter. If a cake baker for
example is asked by a homosexual couple to bake a cake for their
"wedding" and if the cake baker didn't want to, the baker should
tell they their beliefs in no uncertain terms. Let the "couple" know
what you think of homosexuality and that you support what God has said on the
matter.Tell them you will bake them a cake but the proceeds will be
given to a number of groups that support traditional marriage only.Then, obey the law and bake their cake. Give them their cake and thank them
for supporting the defense of families.Problem solved!
Gay people continually whine and shout that their rights are being ignored.
They cry and say they just want to be understood. Yet when it comes to the
rights of a religious person, running a business, the gays say the business
owner's rights don't matter. Why don't gay people just go to
businesses that want their patronage and seek it. Leave the religious
person's business alone and be tolerant and accepting of his/her rights.
Basically the same thing you want. Take your business elsewhere..
"But the lack of any reference to gays in the bill apparently didn't
stop critics."It didn't stop the proponents either.
If the bill wasn't written as an effort to enable religious based
discrimination against gays, why was it written at all? It's pretty sad and
cheap for people to try to run away from the original intent of this bill now
that it's been called out.
There are around a dozen other states all attempting this sort of thing though
many have since been dropped. The primary motive, heavily mentioned even by
people who support it, is to prevent lawsuits from gay people against
Chris B, I love reading your comments... except when it comes to BYU
articles! You are always concise and to the point. Best Wishes...Go BYU :)
This headline encapsulates the whole debate. "To tell the truth is not
merely to state the facts, but to leave a true impression." -- R.L.
Stevenson. Was the Arizona bill about gays? Yes. Is the current debate
"about the children?' No. Is it about states' rights? No. Is it
so hard just to tell the truth? Most people just aren't comfortable with
the fact that other people are attracted to the same gender.
It seems to me that Gays have decided to make put themselves in the position of
being the victims all the time. Being gay is a lifestyle and a moral issue. Why
should a person that doesn't wish to serve somebody be forced to. Every
time there is a bill that sets up protection to religious values the courts and
states cuts them down. This country will pay for the evil that is being called
good. I guess Arizona needs to get a new governor.
And yet it is ok for minority groups to boycott any business because of
religious or other beliefs. Ironic, don't you think? Leave the
market place alone. No one is obliged to shop at any store, and any store
should be allowed to limit its goods and/or services.
@ Upson DownsOwning a business is not a right, it's a
privilege.@ Lovely DesertNone of your religious beliefs
have been trampled on. Please show me any religious teaching that says people
who are different should be discriminated against......
Let's not be hyprocritical. Everybody knows what was behind the bill. Even
the caption next to the picture of this very article says:"SB1062, a bill designed to give added protection from lawsuits to people
who assert their religious beliefs in refusing service to gays"So it is about refusing service to people who are different. And that is
Refusing or perform professional services for anyone is, by definition,
discrimination. Discrimination is the result of judgment. Jesus said,
"Judge not, that ye be not judged."Refusing service is saying,
"I do not deem you worthy of my service." I once took my white son and
his African-American girlfriend to dinner in a small Texas city. The waitress
was unfriendly, slammed down our plates, and treated us with as little respect
as she could get away with. Had the restaurant refused to serve us, what could
we have felt but animosity? How would that have helped anything? Whether the
Arizona bill was intended to protect business people who judge gay people, or
whether its intent was broader, it was a bill to protect bigotry, and bigotry is
not generally compatible with Christian values.
I still don't think the bill should even have to be considered. Since when
does operating a private business in America mean you are compelled to provide
services to individuals? Just as an example, would anyone shout
"discrimination" to a baker who refused to bake a cake for a Klu Klux
Klan meeting? While their behavior and organization is reprehensible, don't
they have a right to assemble and a right to free speech? If so, then
doesn't any "right to receive services" apply to them just as much
as to gays & lesbians? This is far beyond a gay rights issue or even a
religious liberty issue. A private business or individual should have no
requirements to provide services to anybody! It makes no sense at all! You have
to provide me a service or good and you have to take my money...the founding
fathers are rolling over in their graves.
If there are businesses in Arizona that refuse service to couples who
heterosexual activity the business owners find unacceptable -- that would make
for an interesting article.
If this bill were to pass in Arizona, a Muslim could reject the business of a
Mormon because to deny that Mohammed is the true prophet and to say that latter
day prophets walk the Earth is blasphemy. A Unitarian in clear conscience could
not serve a gun owner. A Catholic Walgreen's employee should be able to
refuse to sell birth control and not be fired. A Jewish waitress at Red Lobster
should kindly decline to place any order that contains shellfish. A Brahmin
Hindu shopkeeper should be able to prevent a low caste dark skinned Hindu from
be-fowling their purity by having their shadow fall upon their person. The list
goes on. It is not about gays.
Everything about SB 1062, the national events that precipitated its writing, the
candid statements made by its proponents while it was under discussion and the
legal analysis of the likely consequences of its enactment, all made it
abundantly clear that the purpose of the bill was to permit individuals,
business and governments to discriminate against people on the basis of sexual
orientation and hide their bigotry behind a mask of "religious
freedom."This news article is a transparent and sadly desperate
attempt to deny that reality.
The underlying premise of this bill and the reporter's argument is religion
is under attack in Arizona and elsewhere. It isn't. That being said, the
motivations for the Arizona bill were events that happened in other states with
other laws that created protected classes (like gays) that cannot happen in
Arizona. The legislature was solving a problem it didn't have.What not only the business community --around the country-- and others did was
point out that needless, divisive poorly thought out laws (like AZ's
earlier bill SB1070) that permit even the slightest possibility of
discrimination or injustice against citizens is bad for business. Love, which
some believe is the hallmark of religion, may make the world go around, but
money greases the wheel.
Yes it was designed to denigrate the gay community including us LDS gay couples,
thats exactly the way the Nazi party handled the Jews in Germany not too long
The article is correct that gays are not directly mentioned, but no matter how
you sugar-coat it discrimination of any kind, for any reason is wrong. If your
business doesn't want to serve American citizens or foreign tourist
because it goes against your "religious beliefs" that's fine. It
would perhaps make more sense to take your business to a different country, one
that better fits your "religious beliefs", say maybe Russia or Uganda.
In the USA everyone has non-discrimination civil rights and courtesies should be
afforded to all.
It doesn't matter if the bill was written in an effort to protect religious
freedom and principles!! The point is that there was nothing in the bill
targeting LGBT or mentioning it.Why is it that LGBT do not
understand that these people or gays who represent them going around filing
discrimination law suits for any reason for any reason under the sun are only
causing a backlash and extreme reactions to their behavior not just in this
country but around the world against gays.The LGBT is to blame for the
rise of anti-gay laws in other countries as they're reacting to the rise of
the "pushy" gay culture in America.. they can see the slippery slope and
they want no part in it.. The pendulum has swung hard in the opposite
direction.Forcing people to like or agree with the gay lifestyle
will only galvanize and polarize people.. The LGBT should have learned a
valuable lesson from this administration. What's happening to Obama-care
and progressivism is evidence that ramming ideology down people's throat is
not popular very long!!
Chris B. Excellent! You should run for President!
" Let the "couple" know what you think of homosexuality and that you
support what God has said on the matter."Yes, Im sure this would
never escalate when some fundamentalist goes off in someones face.And then
the attacked, can tell them how they feel about their imaginary friends, and all
will agree to change their beliefs.This is not proselytizing,
it's some kind of personal stoning for what?
@Chris B 9:48 p.m. Feb. 28, 2014. . .Let the "couple"
know what you think of homosexuality and that you support what God has said on
the matter.Tell them you will bake them a cake but the proceeds will
be given to a number of groups that support traditional marriage only.Then, obey the law and bake their cake. Give them their cake and thank them
for supporting the defense of families.-----------------My
husband and I are straight and long-married, so that wouldn't be an issue
directly for us. BUT, If that were done to a family member or friend of ours,
we would promptly make a donation in the name of the baker (with acknowledgment
for the donation being sent to the baker) to the Human Rights Campaign Fund or
Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) or another organization that
REALLY defends families. We would, of course, also thank them both for the
excellent cake AND the fact that their donation helped gay rights and defending
the rights of ALL families.
It is curious how both Clinton and Obama have historically stood for traditional
marriage when it was easy to do so, however when it isn't, or when their
political careers call for it, their feelings "evolve". That being said,
the narrative on this bill was dictated by the media (surprisingly) from defense
of religious beliefs to an aggressive attack on LGBT and the right to deny them
a service or good. Not only did they have absolutely zero proof or factual
evidence to support that kind of approach would work (see photographer, baker et
al), they had compelling evidence to the contrary. Those famous cases were cited
because of their direct relevance, and the outcomes seem to have been
overwhelmingly one sided. So, insinuating that anyone in AZ attempting to refuse
serving gays pending using this amendment to existing law is either ignorant or
terrible at customer service. Not only do those cases highlight the social
beheading of people who have already stood up for their beliefs, but they give a
foreboding of what is to come for those whose faith is a major factor in their
Who is the one being discriminated against? Is it the Minority (take your pick,
there are more minorities than "majorities") or the one who has been
guaranteed religious freedom by the Constitution?There are many
choices on where people of any group can go and be welcomed. Sometimes the
minority individual will target a specific business because of the policy they
hold, not because they want their service. Discrimination is bad for
business but the business belongs to the person who put the effort into building
it up. What they choose to do to promote the business should be up to them and
them alone.Let the free market decide if the business succeeds or
fails. That is what Brewer did. She caved to the pressure of businesses and
organizations who wanted to take their business elsewhere. The
pressure for change like this comes best from the marketplace and not activist
groups with an agenda.
You know Chris B, I don't really disagree with you this time. Maybe I'm missing something, but as a non religious person (an atheist) I
don't really have a problem with someone having the right to express a
personal opinion in public. You have to recognize however that there
are limits to public speech also so when you say "obey the law" I would
include free speech laws also.
Not that many years ago, the name of God and religion was gladly called upon to
explain and demand that businesses be allowed to discriminate against black
people. We know how wrong that was even though the God-fearing people at the
time were absolutely certain that they were in the right. Many still think they
were right.@Upson Downs, try to re-read your post like this, and see
how it may change the way it feels, because this IS the way it feels to many of
us:"Black people continually whine and shout that their rights are
being ignored. They cry and say they just want to be understood. Yet when it
comes to the rights of a religious person, running a business, the blacks say
the business owner's rights don't matter. Whey don't black people
just go to businesses that want their patronage and seek it. Leave the religious
person's business alone and be tolerant and accepting of his/her rights.
Basically the same thing you want. Take your business elsewhere."
Assuming most of the bloggers are fellow Latter Day Saints, I am saddened to see
so many negative comments. Your Church loves all people. We do not love the sin
of the sexual act in Homosexual behavior. That being said, a Business person,
open to the Public, does not have the right to discriminate or refuse business
unless the customer is acting in a way that is dangerous for the owner, the
employees or the business. I could easily see this law being used to deny
African Americans access based on the now discredited position of being
"cursed" or "less Valiant" in a prior existence. After all, as
all point out, the bill never mentions who specifically could be refused
service.As an aside, amazed how many on here wish to hide their
identity. Always makes it easier to through stones.
Spin it any way you like, but the express purpose of this bill was to allow
people to discriminate against gays and use their religion as their excuse.Conservatives are trying to make it look like they're the victims
here. Spin, spin, spin, too much more spin and it's going to interfere
with the rotation of the Earth.
@Hutterite. How would this bill have discriminated against gays. It simply
protected religious people from being forced to doing business with them. Get
that word, force? Gays don't want our morals forced on them. We
don't want their lifestyle forced on us. It's call freedom.
@LovelyDeseret;Please show me ANY scripture in your religion that
says you shouldn't do business with gays or lesbians, or any other sinners
for that matter. Any scripture.@Chris B;We gays are
happy to support the "defense of families" as we have/are families too.
Thanks for your support.@Upson Downs;Same question for
you as LovelyDesert. Where do your scriptures tell you to not serve gays and
lesbians? And why should we have to go from business to business to business to
find ONE that will serve us when the business we approach first provides that
same service for everyone else?Additonally, do these religious
bigots refuse to serve adulterers? Murderers? Fornicators? If so, then it
really ISN'T about "religious conscience" is it! It's about
disapproval of gays.@Concerned;Being gay is only a
"moral issue" in the same way that being straight is a "moral
issue" (i.e., it's not).
This is a very touchy subject and one that can become complicated very quickly.
One almost needs a crystal ball to detect each situation and every circumstance
correctly.Should we discriminate? Of course not. Should we
deliberately seek out opportunities to set up people and businesses for a law
suit. Definitely not.I believe that both of these extremes happen
on a regular basis. In today's world where litigation is one of the top
money earners in the country, it is understandable that many individuals and
businesses are nervous - a single incident can result in complete and total
bankruptcy. At the same time, the world is full of haters who are anxious to
dictate how everyone should conduct their lives.We need to find
common ground. People need to be allowed to live their lives as they choose
without anyone else undermining them. This goes for 'both sides'.
Schnee: "prevent lawsuits from gay people against
photographers/florists/etc"No. The "motive" stated by
people who are proposing these laws is to prevent lawsuits from gay people
against religious people, who are photographers, florists, bakers, dress-makers,
limousine drivers, and a whole host of others with businesses in the
"wedding" industry.Their reason? They do not want to serve
or do business with other people - some who are religious, some who are not.
Rather than demonstrate their faith, they want to run away from it.At best, they want to advertise as a "Christian Baker," "Religious
Florist," or "Traditional Wedding Photographer." Nothing prevents
that now, without the proposed law. They cannot be sued for truthful
advertising in Arizona, or other states.At worst, they want to avoid
any challenge to their faith. What is that called?
"... now-vanquished 'Jim Crow' laws in many Southern states
..."Jim Crow laws were found in Northern States as well.One example will suffice:The notorious school-desegregation
case was Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas.
Businesses discriminate all the time. (Personally, I think a man should sue
Victoria's Secret because they don't sell items for men....isn't
that discrimination?) Let businesses rise or fall on their own. If a baker
really refused to service me due to my religious convictions, would I sue, no.
Would I really want to eat something that someone was forced to make for me..no
way! What this all boils down to is the fact that there are some people who try
to drum up money making opportunities by screaming discrimination. Sad, but
@a_voice_of_reason:"would anyone shout "discrimination" to a
baker who refused to bake a cake for a Klu Klux Klan meeting?"There is a vast difference between refusing to provide a service for an
organization whose purpose is to spread hatred and intolerance, and refusing to
provide a service to an individual based on who he is, rather than what he does.
While the bill did not specifically reference gays as its target, it
is clear from all of the discussion by its proponents that this is exactly who
they meant to see discriminated against. Who else would they like us to think
that they wanted businesses to be able to refuse service to? Blacks?
Republicans? Soldiers? Hispanics? No, what they wanted to say was that they
don't have to do business with those they see as sinners; but there is only
one "sin" that they have in mind. The rest of the sinners -- those who
lie, steal, fornicate, the gluttons, the lustful, etc. -- all of them get a free
pass and they have no problem doing business with them.
I find it fascinating that both President Obama and former President Clinton
have both supported traditional marriage in the past (Clinton even signed DOMA
into law) when it was easy to express that feeling; now that it is a highly
unpopular stance, their feelings have "evolved". I'm sure it was
just a growing phase and not politically motivated.That being said,
the media, not inviduals, made SB1062 about denying service to gays. While it is
true that recent cases involving small business owners rejecting the offer for
business to a same sex wedding out of religious objection to SSM, not the
inviduals, was a large part of the narrative, the author of the story is
correct. The bill did not include verbiage that specifically called out gays.
These stories were relevant to the dialogue because they spotlight
the one-way street of tolerance. They also call attention to the fact that none
of the business owners faired very well afterwards, whether it was to penalties,
harassment or otherwise. These stories were newsworthy and documented evidence
in favor FOR this bill to be passed. However, in changing the narrative, the
media successfully launched an aggressive attack on those of faith.
Notes to both sides:1-Voice your opinion. Great!2-If it comes
to a vote. Vote!3-If a judge declares it unconstitutional. System working
as intended!4-If you want to appeal, sure try!5-The appeal is
successful or not!Work in your own circles of influence (where
appropriate) to make a change for what you think is better. If needed vote with
your feet. The system will be as moral as the people. If society
lowers its standards in the inexorable march to the left, do not expect
"morals" to stop it as the system is people, it follows society.
Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is not presently illegal in
Arizona. So the bill was unnecessary in that respect. But if there were an
anti-discrimination law in the future, it should include protection for
religious freedom, just as some of the local anti-discrimination ordinances do
here in Utah, although it needs to protect individual religious freedom as well,
not just churches and similar institutions. The law should protect the rights
of both sides (homosexuality and religion) or neither side, but not one at the
expense of the other. Discrimination against someone based on either sexuality
or religion is equally wrong. But forcing one to support the other is also
wrong! That is the important distinction.
God created all humanity including gays and it is not a choice, because I am gay
and I did not choose to be that way. Same sex is also in the animal kingdom as
pointed out by science.People created money and business and they
should treat each other with kindness instead of creating negative bills etc.
which discriminate against others.
@Thid Barker"Chris B. Excellent! You should run for President!"Heh, Politifact would have to hire more workers just to analyze all his
falsehoods in assessing BYU sports. @Clifton"Jim Crow laws
were found in Northern States as well.One example will suffice:The
notorious school-desegregation case was Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka,
Kansas."Kansas was a slave state, it's not considered
northern. Basically, pick something from a blue state if you want something
northern (I'm pretty sure something exists, probably including school
segregation).@Mom of Six" I think a man should sue
Victoria's Secret because they don't sell items for men....isn't
that discrimination?"No, the issue is selling a product to some
people but restricting it from others. So, if Victoria's Secret didn't
let men make purchases from their store, that'd be the similar situation.
@HeresathoughtReverse it for Obama, he'd supported
same-sex marriage before running for President but wimped out of it since there
wasn't enough public support so he gave those nonsensical statements about
Dear Mom of Six: When I see the catalog, go into the store, I know what
Victoria's Secret sells. Some men DO buy their products and DO use their
products.If you want, gay couples who marry and want to order a
cake, could send someone else to the bakery to do that for them, order online,
or by phone.Does Victoria's Secret really ask any of their
customers "Who are you?" and "What do you want to purchase this item
for?" Do any employees or the CEO think: "Because I know how our
products can be used, I'm going to tell (some - any - all) customers they
cannot have what we sell unless I agree to what they do with it?Is
there a "Christian Victoria's Secret" chain separate from the
The notion that this bill wasn’t proposed as an anti-gay measure strikes
me as ludicrous. Why would several major corporations threaten to pull out of
Arizona if they did not see SB 1062 as a means to discriminate against a
targeted minority group within the state. It would seem that the
legislators who passed this bill haven’t gauged the extent to which most
Americans are no longer comfortable with the prejudice that still exists when it
comes to the treatment of gay people. When political leaders in
Arizona, saw what effect the passage of SB 1062 would have on the business
climate in the state, they added their significant voice to the calls for a
veto. Good for them.Governor Jan Brewer got it just right in her
veto message saying that"I sincerely believe that Senate Bill
1062 has the potential to create more problems than it purports to solve. It
could divide Arizona in ways we cannot even imagine and no one would ever
want."Well said, Governor.
Those waging the war of religion, as represented by this piece, are not being
candid and forthright.
To avoid embarrassing situations and keep unwanted customers from walking
through the door, businesses could post signs in their windows and publish
notices in the phone book and on their websites saying, for example:"As Christians, we proudly refuse to serve _______________,
_______________, and _______________, because to do so would violate our
religious beliefs."(Filling in the blanks with all applicable
characteristics ("sinners") or party affiliations, ethnicities,
religions, genders, sexual orientations, etc.)And to anticipate
awkward questions, they could add something like this:"We
reserve the right to judge who is a sinner," etc.And this:"It does not violate our religious beliefs to break Jesus's
commandment to 'treat others as you would want them to treat you,'
even though he said 'in everything,' even though he said that
'this fulfills the law and the prophets,' and even though he
*didn't* say 'except sinners,' or 'except _______________,
_______________, and _______________.'"(Again listing the
offensive group(s).)Like-minded customers would flock to such
businesses, and those of a different mind could shun them.Such
measures would surely be conducive to a more pleasant commercial atmosphere than
having to refuse people to their faces.
So, sounds like many here who think business owners should be able to pick and
choose their customers believe Utah should get rid of their own public
accommodation law. Or is that only if sexual orientation was a protected
class?13-7-3. Equal right in business establishments, places of
public accommodation, and enterprises regulated by the state.
All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal and are
entitled to full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges,
goods and services in all business establishments and in all places of public
accommodation, and by all enterprises regulated by the state of every kind
whatsoever, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, religion,
ancestry or national origin. Nothing in this act shall be construed to deny any
person the right to regulate the operation of a business establishment or place
of public accommodation or an enterprise regulated by the state in a manner
which applies uniformly to all persons without regard to race, color, sex,
religion, ancestry, or national origin; or to deny any religious organization
the right to regulate the operation and procedures of its establishments.
Jesus would have baked them a cake. And taken their wedding pictures, too.
It is behavior like this that gives religion a bad name. The motivation behind
the bill was explicit, yet today it's being denied. The motivation behind
the SSM bans is transparently religious, yet the current argument is that it was
really "about the children." I'm sorry, but this is just
dishonesty. And an insult to the intelligence. Own your stuff. I may still
disagree with it, but at least I can respect your truthfulness.
I have a simple solution. Any business that wishes to avoid being sued for
discrimination will be required to post a list of any services or people they
will not do business with based on their 'religious' beliefs',
and then we'll let the free market decide if the general public will
continue to support these business. No confusion, no surprises. These business
get to keep themselves free from 'supporting and availing sin' (insert
eye roll here) and the rest of us will know immediately if this business is
worthy of our support..
@Chris B:"Then, obey the law and bake their cake."The
bakery should bake the cake and charge triple or more for it. Noting that doing
business with LGBT's would surely have a negative effect on future
business.@Janet:"Jesus said, 'Judge not, that ye be
not judged.'"He also drove the money changers out of the
temple. Would that be judging?"Refusing service is saying,
'I do not deem you worthy of my service.'"Not so... it
means I have a right to serve who I will. Some are denied service in some
establishments unless they're dressed properly."I once took
my white son and his African-American girlfriend to dinner in a small Texas
city. The waitress was unfriendly, slammed down our plates, and treated us with
as little respect as she could get away with."I'm guessing
you didn't leave a tip.@AZEIR:"The underlying premise
of this bill and the reporter's argument is religion is under attack in
Arizona and elsewhere. It isn't."Which religion are you
referring to...? If Christian the answer is, yes, it is under attack. If Muslim
or atheism the answer is, no.
Two For Flinching @ 2/28/14 11:56 PM and RanchHand @ 3/1/14 8:45 AM:There
are lots of religious teachings that (1) homosexual behavior is wrong and (2)
people (including business owners) should be able to make their own decisions.
Are you denying that those religious teachings exist?I understand
Two For Flinching's premise that it is wrong to discriminate against people
who are "different." Lots of people discriminated against
Chick-Fil-A's founder (through criticizing him and boycotting his business)
when he made some statements that were "different" from their beliefs.
Did you disagree with that discrimination against him? Or was he the wrong type
of "different"?Regarding RanchHand's question whether
"these religious bigots refuse to serve adulterers? Murderers?
Fornicators?" If I owned a bakery, then yes, if someone asked me to bake a
cake in celebration of their relationship with a person who is married to
someone else, I probably would refuse to do so.In response to lots
of other commenters, it is intellectually lazy to say that, because you can see
a couple of similarities to the Holocaust or to Jim Crow laws, today's
situation is automatically the same.
@Josephbunzol:"That being said, a Business person, open to the Public,
does not have the right to discriminate or refuse business unless the customer
is acting in a way that is dangerous for the owner, the employees or the
business."Suppose the owner had a young son or daughter helping
around the shop. Serving an LGBT may send the message to the children that such
a life-style was OK... nothing wrong with it. So the kid goes out and tries it.
Would that be harmful or dangerous? Yes.@RanchHand:"Please show me ANY scripture in your religion that says you
shouldn't do business with gays or lesbians, or any other sinners for that
matter. Any scripture."Who knows... the money changers driven
from the temple by Jesus coulda been gay/lesbian.@Mom of Six:"Personally, I think a man should sue Victoria's Secret because they
don't sell items for men....isn't that discrimination?"Men shop there... those who wear women's clothes."Would I
really want to eat something that someone was forced to make for me..no
way!"Agreed. They mighta put something horrid in the cake...
like a goober.
@HeresA: "I find it fascinating that both President Obama and former
President Clinton have both supported traditional marriage in the past (Clinton
even signed DOMA into law) when it was easy to express that feeling; now that it
is a highly unpopular stance, their feelings have "evolved". I'm
sure it was just a growing phase and not politically motivated." If the will of the people changes they should too if they're our
representatives- assuming they are there for us and not themselves. "Highly
unpopular stance" is the key here. Also, "in changing the
narrative, the media successfully launched an aggressive attack on those of
faith"- I'm afraid "those of faith" bring attacks on themselves
when they spew hateful bigotry or act nothing like the God they preach of. There is a difference between a NATION and a CONGREGATION. I welcome
and enjoyed your comment but it made me think....
"However, in changing the narrative, the media successfully launched an
aggressive attack on those of faith."Please. It is
intellectually lazy to hide behind victimhood mentality.SB 1062 was
never an issue of religious freedom, it was about an opportunity to circumvent
the public commerce clause when imposing one's personal code upon others.
Shouting religious freedom was an attempt to make the victimizer the victim in
order to justify intolerance.Look, there is no defensible position
to take with regard to SB 1062. None. It was morally reprehensible on every
level. It is transparently disingenuous to suggest this bill didn't
specifically target gays.
@ Upson DownsYou said: "Gay people continually whine and shout
that their rights are being ignored."The majority of citizens
now recognize that gay people actually face significant injustice. The same
can't be said for religious people. That obviously does not stop them from
continually crying wolf however.
LeslieDF says;"No. The "motive" stated by people who are
proposing these laws is to prevent lawsuits from gay people against religious
people,..."These are BUSINESS PEOPLE. That is what they do,
operate a business. Their businesses HAVE NO RELIGION. Their businesses do not
worship. Their businesses do not believe. Their businesses do not pray.
Businesses have no religion and should not be allowed to use religion as a
reason to discriminate - period.@Mom of Six;Your
comparison is faulty. Victoria Secret sells women's items. Men's
Warehouse sells men's items. That is their business model. Similarly, a
business that bakes wedding cakes bakes wedding cakes and a business that
photographs weddings photographs weddings. That is their business model. The
question to ask yourself is does the women's apparel business sell to all
women or do they tell some to go elsewhere? Same for the men's apparel,
bakers and photographers.
@Ranchhand: you said "Please show me ANY scripture in your religion that
says you shouldn't do business with gays or lesbians, or any other sinners
for that matter. Any scripture."You do not understand the issue.
The issue is not about doing business with gays, lesbians, or sinners. Selling
gays, lesbians, or sinners bread or cookies or birthday cakes is one thing. But
baking a cake especially to celebrate a gay union is a different thing. You
would force the baker to celebrate something they have deep religious
convictions against. And the same would go for me, if I was a baker, I would not
want to bake a cake for a couple that was celebrating "shacking up
together." And I would not want to bake a cake with a frosting marijuana
leaf to celebrate someone's love of pot. But I'd be happy to sell
these people my normal products.
@AZEIRSo should handicapped people just not go outside, I mean until the
ADA it was very hard to live a public life with a physical handicap especially
in a wheelchair. But we should get rid of that, wouldn't want any protected
classes of people right? What about the fact that it's illegal to
discriminate against someone because of their religion. I wouldn't want to
be LDS in the south..... What about race? Are you really OK with someone who is
in the KKK being able to deny service at the ER because their religion(and they
claim religious roots) says anyone who isn't white is subhuman?
"Yes it was designed to denigrate the gay community including us LDS gay
couples, thats exactly the way the Nazi party handled the Jews in Germany not
too long ago."I actually agree with you, and think it is not
only shameful, but unpatriotic, and immoral, but another Nazi reference? Please, please, stop comparing everything you don't like with the
Nazi's. If your argument can't stand on it's own
without being analogous to the Nazi's, you'd better re-think it. If
it does stand alone, say it and move on.
Let's explain what's really on the line here: Forcing someone to
violate their religious freedom just so you don't have to drive another
block to get the same product or service is unconscionable. That sounds like we
are sacrificing the important interest for the trivial interest. America is
selling away its first freedom for pennies. The punishment store
owners or employees should face are free market repercussions, i.e. loss of
business or loss of employment. The solution is not force people to violate
their religion. Unlike African-Americans of the last century, there is no
evidence that gays are being economically repressed. The overwhelming majority
of businesses value them as customer, and rightly so. By allowing gays to have a
cause of action against the scant few who might discriminate against them is to
allow gays to run roughshod over another's closely held beliefs for no
meaningful benefit to society at large. Once again, the masses are
inviting tyranny by confusing "They shouldn't do that" with "We
shouldn't let them do that."
For Governor Brewer, her final veto was about Arizona losing the super bowl...
@GB;Sure, there are many scriptures relating to "sinners";
Jesus said "treat others how you want to be treated", he never said
"don't do business with sinners". You've skirted the question
and failed to show a direct scripture "do not do business with
sinners".@wrz;Those "money changers", like
today's, are the one's manning the temples (i.e., "faithful
Christians").RG says:"But baking a cake
especially to celebrate a gay union is a different thing. You would force the
baker to celebrate something they have deep religious convictions against.
"Hardly. Does the baker actually "celebrate" the
weddings of his heterosexual customers? No. He simply bakes a wedding cake.
The same thing asked by the gay customer. @Zona Zone;The day that these businesses actually refuse to bake cakes, sell flowers or
photograph the weddings of other sinners, then you can say it's about
"religious freedom"; until that day, it is only bigotry. Using religion
to justify bigotry is insulting to religion; not to mention it is driving more
and more people away from your "god".
I think Gov Brewer made the right call and said the right things. You can't legislate a perfect world and we already have the 1st
Amendment. I think the bill was unnecessarily divisive, probably too broadly
drafted, and would have hurt AZ more than it helped.I love Chris
So if an Evangelical uses this statute or one like it to refuse to rent an
apartment to a Mormon because of his sincerely held religious belief that
Mormons are not Christians that would be a justifiable act of religious liberty?
I think this newspaper would be up in arms about it. As it says in the Talmud,
"That which is hateful to yourself, do not unto others."
@ Zona ZoneI'm sorry, which religion teaches that people should
discrimianate against LGBT people? There are no religious freedoms being
violated in this case.
@ Zona Zone: The free market means I go into a bakery to buy a cake. I do not
go in to find out what religious beliefs the owner may have. The owner does not
come with the cake to our wedding. Nor does eating cake in any way involve
being married, or who I marry.My time in finding a business that
sells what it advertises - wedding cake - is just as important and economically
relevant as the price. The baker's "sincerely held religious
beliefs?" I'm not buying that, paying for that, or wasting my time
(money) for that.What would buying a bed involve, under your scheme,
from a "Christian" furniture store, or salesperson? How would I know
before entering the store?
@wrz:"Which religion are you referring to...? If Christian the
answer is, yes, it is under attack."Christianity is hardly under
attack here. Churches are flourishing more in the US than anywhere in the
world. The fact that people criticize Christians or churches is just part of the
price we pay for having freedom of speech along with religious freedom. When
was the last time you heard of a church being burned in the US by an angry mob,
or a missionary lynched? Or is it that you can't force school children to
be preached to in schools and make your religion the official national religion?
Any restrictions on religious activities faced by Christians are the same ones
that apply to all religions; not just your own. The fact is, Christians in many
other countries would give everything they have in order to obtain the same
religious liberty found in the US.
Two decisions last week on same-sex relationships reaffirmed the United
States’ commitment to treat all Americans equally and fairly under the
law:A federal court Wednesday declared a Texas law banning same-sex
marriages to be unconstitutional. The same day, in Arizona, Gov. Jan Brewer
vetoed a bill that could have allowed Arizona businesses to discriminate against
same-sex couples on religious grounds.Mormons are you listening?
"Why should a person that doesn't wish to serve somebody be forced to.
Every time there is a bill that sets up protection to religious values the
courts and states cuts them down."Was the proposed law a
solution trying to find a problem? In Arizona, a business can already refuse
to provide service to homosexuals for any reason. The law was
needed so that emergency rooms could refuse to admit homosexuals and so that 911
operators could refuse to dispatch an ambulance to homosexuals based on
sincerely held religious beliefs.
The fact that SB1062 was written in facially neutral terms should not have
caused anybody to doubt the true purpose of this bill. With a recent rash of US
District Court decisions (in the wake of US v. Windsor, 570 U.S. ___ (2013)) all
mandating that the states concerned recognize and permit gay marriage (Texas
became the latest such state -- see De Leon v. Perry (February 26)), right-wing
fanatics are trying to claim exemption from non-discrimination statutes on
religious liberty bases. However, non-discrimination measures have been tested
before the US Supreme Court, and have passed constitutional muster under a
Commerce Clause analysis.The irony is that Arizona is one of more
than half the states which do NOT have state-wide protections against sexual
orientation discrimination on their books! (I do not know which cities, towns,
or other jurisdictions may carry such measures at the local level). Arizona law
already permits the owner of a restaurant, motel, hotel, or other place of
public accommodation to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, just as
it permits landlords to evict gay tenants (absent local measures to the
contrary).This bill was about creating a climate of hostility and
Arizona didn't have a law that prohibited discrimination against GLBT
people. This was just a mean spirited law that just shored up discrimination by
making it explicit. The states where business owners have been successfully
sued have nondiscrimition laws that include GLBT people. To my knowledge Utah,
Arizona (and Texas) are such places. I think the businesses that don't
want to serve gay weddings should be required to post it on their stores or
websites so that I'll know not to go to that photographer or baker for any
Business is business. It doesn't matter whether you're talking about a
bakery or a restaurant, a photo studio or a factory. They aren't in the
business of providing spiritual guidance or enforcing moral doctrines. They are
there to turn a profit. As such, they are obligated to abide by prevailing civil
rights laws, whether those laws protect people from discrimination based on
race, religion, or sexual orientation. Conservative columnist Erick
Erickson came to the defense of Christian business owners: "Committed
Christians believe in a doctrine of vocation. They believe that their work is a
form of ministry. Through their work, they can share the gospel and glorify
God." Oh, and also rake in as much money as possible. You can
wax poetic all you want about "glorifying God," but at the end of the
day these businesses wouldn't exist were it not for the profit motive.
This bill has nothing to do with homosexuals. The purpose of the bill is to
protect people from the atrocities and discrimination religious people
increasingly face in the United States, of all places.The reason
it's twisted to be "anti-gay" is because the vast majority of that
discrimination and intimidation are from those trying to change marriage.
@Jamescmeyer"The purpose of the bill is to protect people from the
atrocities and discrimination religious people increasingly face in the United
States, of all places."According to the FBI, in 2012 (the latest
year available) there were 1,318 violent hate crimes committed against Gay and
Lesbian Americans. The Southern Poverty Law Center examined population
percentages and FBI statistics over a 13 year period and found that Gay and
Lesbian Americans are 8.3 times more likely to be the victim of a violent hate
crime than other Americans - more likely than any other group. In
other news, a Christian photographer was asked to take pictures of a Gay
commitment ceremony, and two different Christian bakers were asked to bake
wedding cakes for gay weddings.