DescentBB

Under the guise of "religious freedom", a new bill has passed the Arizona legislature that gives businesses the right to serve only those people they deem worthy and not in violation of their religious beliefs. All it needs is a John Hancock from Brewer. Hmm, this harkens back to the good old days before the Civil Rights Bil became law, and Blacks could be refused service by any business just because of the color of their skin. And lest people forget, racism was couched in the biblical belief that blacks were inferior to whites, so that gave business owners the right to refuse service to anyone they deemed unworthy of patronizing their businesses. Where does this nonsense end?

http://www.dailynews.com/general-news/2 ... -is-signed

Lest anyone think that the Civil Rights Bill is antiquated and no longer needed, case in point.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/08/25 ... mer-video/

That sounds like a crazy law (on its face) but I didn’t read it.

Anyone that has a license to serve the public, must do just that…serve the public, now if the business is private, they have every right to act like assholes.

I pick and choose my customers, but I am not open to the public.

..................................

“Republicans stressed that the bill is about protecting religious freedom and not discrimination. They frequently cited the case of a New Mexico photographer who was sued after refusing to take wedding pictures of a gay couple and said Arizona needs a law to protect people in the state from heavy-handed actions by courts and law enforcement.”

See this is the kind of bull★■◆● that drives this kind of thinking in the first place. (maybe )

I wonder how the courts even allow a stupid case like that…any photographer can turn down any job they want, based on whatever reasons they want…maybe a photographer turns down a job, because he doesn’t have the right equipment to do the job…and gets sued.

You cannot force people to work…..

Pathetic!

Yeah, tolerance is in order here. It's a roundabout way to stiffen religious liberties, but the end result could be another holocaust. If you personally disagree and don't want to take the pictures, no one said you had to give a reason. Laws set precedent, and precedent covers the details. I'm seeing the same thing in Uganda, and I bet my bottom dollar in just a few years we will see them slaughtered there.

I like to tell the customers I turn down, it's because they are fat and ugly.

You are exactly right, the guy should have kept his mouth shut.

So it's in giving a reason that there is a problem? I've heard of a case involving refusal to decorate a cake for a homosexual wedding. If it were me, I wouldn't decorate the cake, I wouldn't take the photos, and--more pertinent to my situation--I wouldn't do a related website. You're asking me to do something against my conscience. So there are a few ways this could go, theoretically. I could simply decline. I could decline and give my reason (my choice). I could quote them double the going rate (essentially declining). I could be an ass and get them to leave in a huff. ... So many possibilities. You know, I would never decline a basic service to someone, but we're not talking basic services, we're talking personal creativity/involvement at a professional level, IMO.

I myself think the problem lies more with the refusal, considering the circumstances. Why does it bother others if someone is gay. They obviously are, at that point, what is more beneficial? To openly condemn them and make them feel worthless or to try and be friendly and uplifting? I don't get it, in fact, I have strong suspicions that homophobes are masking their feelings. Otherwise, why not just love everybody and let God deal with it? Way above my pay grade. I always remember the Lord's words when highly critical and judgmental people come on the scene. "Prostitutes and Tax Collectors are entering the Kingdom ahead of you", and that's coming strictly from a 'religious' viewpoint, for lack of a better word. Much more is to be considered when living in a free society. I never have understood how people could expect their opinions and freedoms to be upheld, while refusing to stand up for other's, on secular grounds. Seems to me that if you go around biting and tearing at each other too much, you might just end up destroying yourself.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:So it's in giving a reason that there is a problem? I've heard of a case involving refusal to decorate a cake for a homosexual wedding. If it were me, I wouldn't decorate the cake, I wouldn't take the photos, and--more pertinent to my situation--I wouldn't do a related website. You're asking me to do something against my conscience. So there are a few ways this could go, theoretically. I could simply decline. I could decline and give my reason (my choice). I could quote them double the going rate (essentially declining). I could be an ass and get them to leave in a huff. ... So many possibilities. You know, I would never decline a basic service to someone, but we're not talking basic services, we're talking personal creativity/involvement at a professional level, IMO.

Well Sergeant, if you have that attitude towards customers of a certain ilk, you'd better put a sign up in your window warning them that you don't like certain people and their lifestyle and that you won't to do business with them. It'd save these people the trouble of even walking into your establishment and having to deal with the likes of you. Say I were a business owner and this type of law passed in my state, what's to stop me from posting a sign in my window saying I don't believe in Christianity and that I won't do business with them because they like to violate the rights of other people who are not of their faith? But isn't all this just a little petty, when the point of owning and running a business is to make money, not advertise an opinion statement about how someone who you don't know lives their own life the way they choose, THEN lose money in the process? Sounds counterproductive in more ways than one. It's so tribal that it makes me wonder how we've kept the United States united for so long.

TC, where is the logic in telling me I'd better go do something that you just stated you were afraid these things would lead to? Are you an idiot? You really need to read my post again. Anyone, anywhere that doesn't want to deal with the likes of me is welcome to jump off of the earth. I do not demand that everyone agree with me in order to coexist, but I have my boundaries.

Well I think it boils down to public trust, if you are in a position of serving the public, then you have no right to discriminate, and you shouldn’t have gotten in that business in the first place.

What if the last gas station before many miles of desert refused to service blue cars…that would be a serious problem.

I have a problem with certain people who have bought delis in this area, and act like handling meat is going to kill them, and have no idea what has gone bad and should no longer be sold, or even the importance of keeping meat cold.

Should have bought a damn nail salon!

Heh, yea I wonder which businesses would have the balls to place a “We Don’t Serve Homos” sign outside.

I think you would be surprised Spidey, it worked well for Chik-Fila. I can't even remember the details surrounding that but people were lined up to buy tumorous chicken for days. I couldn't think of anything more polarizing and divisive, although, I don't think anyone was more surprised than Lot

tunnelcat wrote:Under the guise of "religious freedom", a new bill has passed the Arizona legislature that gives businesses the right to serve only those people they deem worthy and not in violation of their religious beliefs. All it needs is a John Hancock from Brewer. Hmm, this harkens back to the good old days before the Civil Rights Bil became law, and Blacks could be refused service by any business just because of the color of their skin. And lest people forget, racism was couched in the biblical belief that blacks were inferior to whites, so that gave business owners the right to refuse service to anyone they deemed unworthy of patronizing their businesses. Where does this nonsense end?

http://www.dailynews.com/general-news/2 ... -is-signed

Lest anyone think that the Civil Rights Bill is antiquated and no longer needed, case in point.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/08/25 ... mer-video/

Your "case in point" is a great example of something that should be talked about but it sure as hell isn't an example of black people being denied a seat because they are black. Not unless you want to go on record as claiming all black people are obnoxious race baiting assholes!

You’re only getting one side of story here. I work at the restaurant and your representation of the events is way off base. The group was being loud and obnoxious to both customers and staffers. They kept complaining about their long wait and were talking about how “whitey” was able to get seated, but they were not. The problem was that they had a large group and insisted on sitting next to each other. We only had one area that could accommodate their large group and the patrons in that area were not done. So yes, some “whities” were able to be seated before them, but only because they were going to a different area. We also seated non-whites in other areas too…They made this a racial issue before anything. One of the guests also insulted a deaf white girl because she didn’t respond to one of them telling her to move (she was deaf and didn’t hear them) They were also all standing in the middle of the walk way, making it difficult for customers to leave. We asked them if they could move over, but they said they can stand wherever they want, and if we wanted them out of the way then we should seat them. The customer that was offended was offended by a particular individual’s constant uses of the word “n*gger” When asked to stop, he threw out a long string of racial epithets against one of my co-workers.

From here

shortly after that incident there were a couple stories in local media about the truth behind it, including a few witnesses who's account of the the events all coroborate the fact that these people were held to wait for a large table and while they waited they got beligerant at the sight of small parties of white people getting to sit down.

Having worked many years in a restaurant in Myrtle Beach, right up the coast from Charleston, I can tell you this happens all the time. different types of people in groups deal with it differently, drunk golfers from up north try to buy their way to a faster seating....old people complain about health issues of someone in their party....and quite often black women start ★■◆● just like this and then play the race card if anyone takes offense at their behavior.

Now you've got me pissed off, TC. I don't think you have the vaguest ★■◆●ing idea what "that" attitude is. I think you have a ★■◆●ing axe to grind and you'll just jump to most extreme ★■◆●ing conclusions with anyone who doesn't walk your ★■◆●ing line. It doesn't violate anyone's rights that I don't want to be involved in what they are involved in. You really need to read my whole reply.

That begs the question Will, what does the media have to gain by only giving half the story. It's truth they are already conditioned to respond that way, a clever person would use that to his advantage. I think they are being set up.

Spidey wrote:Well I think it boils down to public trust, if you are in a position of serving the public, then you have no right to discriminate, and you shouldn’t have gotten in that business in the first place.

What if the last gas station before many miles of desert refused to service blue cars…that would be a serious problem.

I agree. I think any reasonable person can tell difference between gas, food, clothing, ... and photography, cake decoration, and web design.

flip wrote:That begs the question Will, what does the media have to gain by only giving half the story. It's truth they are already conditioned to respond that way, a clever person would use that to his advantage. I think they are being set up.

Who is being set up?
Are you suggesting these people who run the restaurant created the scenario where the group of black people would be fooled into reacting to a ploy designed to anger them?
Or the group of black people set up the restaurant workers?

As to why the media would run the half researched story? Because customers of the media like TC want to buy that product. Operators like Huffington Post want to repeat it. Bill Mahr needs some more material to bash the South with...etc. etc.

Basically they believe their own spin so any mention of white guy hurts black guy out of hate is believed without question.

I could get rich working that audience just like Sean Hannity works his but I like sleeping peacefully at night.

I could get rich working that audience

Bingo! Blacks are more subject to manipulation at this point in time than any other. They are just bold enough to react and that reaction is completely predictable.

I enjoy that a Phoenix pizzeria has responded by hanging a sign stating that they reserve the right to refuse service to bigoted lawmakers.

flip wrote:

I could get rich working that audience

Bingo! Blacks are more subject to manipulation at this point in time than any other. They are just bold enough to react and that reaction is completely predictable.

OK, I see the potential obviously, I know it well, I'm the guy who contends Trayvon Martin was killed by that kind of hyper sensitivity 'programming' as much as it was Zimmerman's zealous desire to be a 'cop', but I don't see the evidence in this case that the potential for reaction was triggered purposely.

And more importantly, I don't see a motive. They would have to want to aggravate the black people so much that they get numerous customers and employees involved and to what end? Just to amuse themselves at causing a big national uproar that gets the media to call them racists? Charleston is a black city as much as it is white, I imagine that restaurant has lots of black customers every day and night. So I'm not buying that one.

Sometimes I love the White House petition site.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:TC, where is the logic in telling me I'd better go do something that you just stated you were afraid these things would lead to? Are you an idiot? You really need to read my post again. Anyone, anywhere that doesn't want to deal with the likes of me is welcome to jump off of the earth. I do not demand that everyone agree with me in order to coexist, but I have my boundaries.

I read your post ST. You essentially said that you personally wouldn't perform a job for a gay person if they walked into your business. You said that you wouldn't decorate that cake, or take those photos. You said that you wouldn't do anything against your conscience. Now what I'm saying is that if you're going to operate your business that way, that IS your right, abhorrent as that is. But look at this from the customer's point of view.

If I were a gay person, I personally would NOT want to walk into a business that didn't like my character and didn't like the way I lived my life. I would like to know that fact BEFORE I entered said business and had an uncomfortable and insulting encounter with the business owner. That's why I suggested the signage as a warning, to give me a chance to stay the hell away in the first place, if such a law as the one proposed in Arizona became a fact of life. It would also give any of my friends that same chance to NOT do business with you as well. Let the market decide if that's the way homophobes and bigots want to run things.

As for violating people's civil rights, whenever someone choses to discriminate against another person based on that person's traits, and doing so when dealing with them in the public sphere, that IMO, is a violation of their basic human rights. So who's rights are the most important in this situation, the Christian business owner who doesn't want to deal with gays because it violates his religious tenants, or the gay person wants to be treated just the same as any other public customer looking to do a business transaction?

I'm curious about how those cake-shop owners or photographers would react if they were requested for, say, a civil marriage ceremony, or a Hindu ceremony, or a *gasp* Muslim ceremony. Surely those wouldn't reconcile with the proprietor's personal beliefs on a valid marriage, would they? And yet apparently it's this one singular issue that they feel the need to put their foot down for some reason.

So who's rights are the most important in this situation, the Christian business owner who doesn't want to deal with gays because it violates his religious tenants, or the gay person wants to be treated just the same as any other public customer looking to do a business transaction?

I would have to say in that case, the person whose rights are more important would have to be the person who has to do some kind of work, rather than someone that can simply go somewhere else. (active vs. passive) But I also don’t think this should boil down to a pissing contest either.

Well, obviously Will I didn't mean they intentionally caused the situation, they just never let a good opportunity go to waste

IE: In other words, the media uses every opportunity that comes along, to continually stir the pot.

What you're failing to acknowledge, TC, is the difference between serving a gay person as a business, and becoming creatively involved in their activities. There is one right way to deal with a homosexual, as a Chrisitan, and that is directly--not to use a business to try to hurt them. I have served homosexuals in my places of work in the past, and I've always treated them fairly.

As I read all of this I can't understand why this is happening in 2014. There is no difference between someone who is gay or not. Sexual preference is a choice people take.

I'm sure some of the homophobes have no problems watching 2 women but have serious issues when it comes to 2 guys. Two faced? I think so.

Why can't we put Religion aside and just get along?

Will we still be having these stupid issues in 2750? Come on. Get with the times. Things change and people have to adapt. If they don't, they will be left behind.

You're asking that I only be concerned with the emotional aspects of life. But as a man I am obliged to deal with life in all of its complexity and responsibility. What you're saying is irresponsible, first and fore-most, and also wrong on several points.

So lets see, a member of the Phelps family from the Westboro Church goes into a AZ print shop owned by a gay couple and wants some signs printed up saying God hates fags. Guess the gay owners have no choice but to print up the signs.

how about something like this.

http://www.laweekly.com/informer/2012/0 ... -statement

flip wrote:Well, obviously Will I didn't mean they intentionally caused the situation, they just never let a good opportunity go to waste

IE: In other words, the media uses every opportunity that comes along, to continually stir the pot.

Ahh, ok, I see what you were pointing toward now.

I think in this case the media didn't actively cause reaction because there was already plenty of drama to craft a hot story from. It had the popular element of 'rich white America oppressing black people'! A very fertile field to grow ratings from.

We saw in the Zimmerman case they are more than willing to take an active role to stir up reaction as in editing 911 calls to make it sound like Zimmerman cited race as the reason he suspected Trayvon...they edited the photos so Zimmermans injuries were not visible then reported he appeared to have no injury....they described him as a white man to complete the templates requirements to make a 'white man stalks and shoots black angel for no reason'story.

So certainly in this case they would likely stop searching for the whole story when their requirements for a "whole story" were handed to them in the form of the initial complaint - white people won't serve black people in restaurant'.
The problem is they make more money selling incite-full narrative than they do from an acurate accounting of events.

woodchip wrote:So lets see, a member of the Phelps family from the Westboro Church goes into a AZ print shop owned by a gay couple and wants some signs printed up saying God hates fags. Guess the gay owners have no choice but to print up the signs.

legally speaking, yes, they do.....
Now, what has been missed so far in this thread is that this is NOT an Arizona thing. A similar law has been proposed, in some cases actively pending in at least 14 states, by 'conservative' lawmakers(guess which party, exclusively?). Those include: Georgia, Kansas, Missisippi, Ohio, Tennessee, Nevada
and Idaho. They are using the guise of 'religious freedom' as the new way to put the screws to gay people. Ultimately, it seems that public outcry kills off these stupid bills before they make it too far, with Arizona as the sole exception.....and there, we'll see what Gov. Brewer does with it. I note that the NFL has not-so-subtly suggested that the 2015 Super Bowl would be moved, a massive financial hit for the state, and both NBA and WNBA franchises have launched protests. The Georgia legislation just passed their House of Reps the other day, so expect similar outcry there.

Actually as the owner of a print shop, I can tell say, you do have the option to turn down work that might be considered “objectionable” content, but that is a different issue.

You would also have the right to turn down that job on the basis of producing work that provides direct competition to your own business*, but the law allows for exceptions in the case of major media carriers like Comcast, where they actually do have to carry ads from competition. (there are also other exceptions)

The shop also has the right to ban any person it considers a threat to the establishment.

And there may well be other scenarios where refusing that job may be legal, but I don’t have the time to explore every detail. (direct libel may even be one)

But no, in general a print shop that has its doors open to the general public, could not turn down a job from a customer they “didn’t like”.

*(“god hates fags” could be construed as something that would hurt your business, if it got out…so to speak)

I hope that any business that refuses any gay person pays the ultimate price by going bankrupt. This notion that you should hate gays because your God says so is so beyond stupid. Why you people think for themselves(being a nice person) and stop living life according to some book written thousands of years ago in a language no one speaks anymore and translated hundreds of times?

So is it ok for gay businesses to turn away straights? As The Abby has done in West Hollywood.

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local ... 16865.html

That’s a good question, if the club is private and you need a reservation to have a party there, then he is probably within his legal rights.

On the other hand, when he has his doors open to regular patrons…probably not.

Is it legal to have a Jewish old folks home or a dating service for country folks…yes.

Heretic, no it isn't right, and yes, I can attest it does happen. On one of our trips up to Provincetown, my wife and I were not so much refused service, but ignored by the wait staff, as a hetero couple. I filed a complaint with the state of Massachusetts, but have no idea what ever came of it(got a form letter in response). I have never had another issue like that there, before or since. Many businesses and residents in that town are gay, but most seem very welcoming and almost all seem to be glad to have my business.

Are there really so many Christians/Muslims/etc. out there who would prefer to not do business with Gay people that there really is support for a law like that?

Something just doesn't add up in my mind. What is missing from this story?

I keep asking myself that same thing, Will. I cannot understand why this has become the conservative Republican gameplan du jour. I just don't encounter that many(so-called, IMO) Christians who are so adamant that they don't wish to have to encounter gay people in routine life. Yet, as I pointed out, at least 14 states had these bills crop up in the past year, with two of them(Georgia and Arizona) getting legislative traction, and in two more states, they would have if the respective governors hadn't declared such legislation dead on arrival.

callmeslick wrote:I just don't encounter that many(so-called, IMO) Christians who are so adamant that they don't wish to have to encounter gay people in routine life.

Let's also not forget the non-religious anti-gay, which I think might be a surprising number. I have no proof they exist en masse, but anecdotally I have a non-religious friend who is angrily anti-gay. I've called him out on it a few times and over the years he has lightened up a bit, but still very adverse. He's also a lawyer, but I don't know if he's ever refused services to gays. I suspect he might fall into the crowd who would support this law, though I've never brought it up to him (political talk is low on our list of conversation topics, rather talk about the wife and kids, etc.).

CDN_Merlin wrote:I hope that any business that refuses any gay person pays the ultimate price by going bankrupt. This notion that you should hate gays because your God says so is so beyond stupid. Why you people think for themselves(being a nice person) and stop living life according to some book written thousands of years ago in a language no one speaks anymore and translated hundreds of times?

So to recap the key points...
-Anyone who conscientiously objects to condoning a homosexual relationship hates gays. Agree with 'em or hate 'em--that's just the way it is.
-Merlin hates you.
-Christians don't think for themselves.
-The older a book gets the more irrelevant it is--moral truth has a shelf life, much like macaroni.
-Languages which are presently unspoken cannot be understood and have little value.
-The Bible was translated hundreds of times somehow to get from Greek and Hebrew to English. (there were apparently a lot of interstitial languages between the two that we know nothing about).

How'm'I doin'? I went a little overboard on some of them, but I figured it was the order of the day, so...

I see your point, Vision, but EVERY respectable polling agency shows a HIGH degree of public tolerance(hell, over 70% support gay marriage) of homosexuals. I just don't get the politics behind these laws.