Of course it will be knocked down. You can’t have people refusing service to, say, black people because they think they have the mark of Cain.
I don’t like Government overview, either, but until people find a way to act in a civil manner, laws like this need to be struck down.

I wouldn’t build a website for Ted Nugent. I would just say I was busy if asked and keep my seething hatred of the man to myself. I’m not sure why these cake bakers and photographers can’t do the same.

Actually, I think I know the answer to that and will keep it to myself.

Any small business should be able to turn away business they do not want. That is a basic human right. If they do not want to do it they should not have to broadcast it. I agree with @johnpowell in that he says: -_’I would just say I was busy if asked and keep my seething hatred of the man to myself__. To me that sound a bit like lobbying or prejudice.

I would build a website for Ted Nugent and support @johnpowell‘s right to not do the same as well as the wedding photographer and bakers religiously influenced right to do or not do business with whom they choose. Rights are sacred in this country and being stolen from us at an alarming rate and time to stand up and fight to keep them….all of them no matter how distasteful they may be to some.

@Cruiser: “Rights are sacred in this country and being stolen from us at an alarming rate and time to stand up and fight to keep them”

Not to derail, but since you mention it, where can I find a reliable list of all of these rights that we are losing at an alarming rate?

There are a very few people I won’t work for but it has more to do with them being assholes than anything else. For better or worse, we must protect our freedom to choose. We shouldn’t try to legislate every situation in life because it’s absolutely futile.

If the law protects homophobia or racism and eliminates equal rights , it is not a good law. If you can still sue for discrimination then I would probably support it.

Definitely, a slippery slope. It will be struck down by the higher courts if it passes, methinks.

@hominid Read the news paper! Do drones in the air over US soil, the Patriot act, the military trials bill, the NSA and IRS activities that abuse our rights to privacy ring any bells? As for reliable sources…email Eric Snowden and I think he can give you a way better answer than I can at this moment.

@Cruiser – You are preaching to the choir – I just was curious about the rate increase. Are we losing more fights than we are winning, and is our win ratio smaller than it was at a particular time in the past? It seems that rights are always fought for – and fought to be maintained.

@LornaLove: “Any small business should be able to turn away business they do not want. That is a basic human right.”

Do you have an reservations at all about this? Any exceptions?

What about a pharmacy? It’s the only one in town, and they decide they will not fill prescriptions for African Americans. Does the right of the small business owner trump the right of someone to get medicine?

What about food? How about banks, or essential services (plumbing, etc)?

If we had regulated government-run pharmacies and food marts that were nearby and convenient for everyone, then I suppose I could see protecting the right of the owner of privately-owned pharmacies. But this is not the case.

It really is strange that there are still places in the country that have yet to realize that THE GAY BOAT HAS SAILED from the port of contestable issues. I mean even Limbaugh and Coulter have conceded that “It“s over.” The law is a meaningless waste of time as Arizona once again seeks to outdo its Southern competitors in pursuit of the moronic bigotry trophy.

If gay people want to be flamboyantly gay, they should not be surprised by negative repercussions.

If business people want to be flamboyantly anti-gay, they should not be surprised by negative repercussions.

Beyond that, it’s almost impossible to comment on the root cases that caused the bill to be written. There is a huge difference between a photographer being hired to take pictures of wedding guests and then refusing to take certain guest pictures because of their pairing, and a photographer declining to take pictures at a gay wedding.

That said, the bill in Arizona is just a waste of time. Narrow minded constituents being pandered to by their elected officials. The pols know the law will never stick, so they’re just lending their lips(ervice) to the Tea Party.

What’s the opposite of secession? Divorce for states? I think we should divorce Arizona.

A small business can do what they want. I’m sure there are plenty of Bakers and Photographers that would be happy to provide this service of them. Unless of course this couple is looking to make a mountain out of a molehill and have their 15 minutes of fame.

A small business should have the right to refuse service to anyone, including Ted Nugent.
No shirt
No shoes
No service.

How small is small to all of you who think they should be able to refuse service? Less than 15 employees? Less than 100? Does it matter if the business has a store front or works out of an office?

I think we need more information, a link to an article about the bill, or something more substantial. Is this the same bill that Kansas was proposing, allowing government workers to refuse service to gays? There’s not enough information given for a genuine discussion of the bill, in my opinion.

Having verified the intent of the bill, I have to say now that that Arizona is poised to officially sanction discrimination, they should immediately start considering a ‘separate but equal’ law.

I’m really torn with this issue. One one side I feel that if a business doesn’t want to serve something based on whatever then that is their call. On the other side, I certainly wouldn’t give my money to any business that made the decision not to serve someone based on sexuality, race or religion and I would hope that enough people would boycott them based on their decision and drive the bigoted arseholes out of business.

Whilst I feel that it should be up to the business owner who they serve, I think it should, by law, be made public knowledge so that people who feel strongly about equality can avoid using the services of any business that refuses gays, blacks, Muslims or whatever else they may discriminate against.

@Leanne1986 EXACTLY!! Vote with your dollars! I would never patronize an establishment that violates my morals and better judgement.

Appropriate response.

I don’t support bigotry in any form. I speak out frequently and using blunt language against people making generalized characterizations of others based on superficial observation, such as race or color, religion, nationality, gender, body type, sexual preference and many others. However, I do believe that the US Constitution’s First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of association, among other things (“the right of the people peaceably to assemble”) also guarantees an obverse “freedom to dissociate”. I believe that such freedoms extend to the property and businesses that people also own: people can dispose of their property and their business in the ways that please them, and which do not infringe on others’ rights.

So even as I respect and defend people’s rights to say things that I don’t want to hear, things that I disagree with and even abhor, I have to defend the right of people to do things with their businesses, too, which I find to be abhorrent, as long as it doesn’t directly damage or infringe on someone else’s right.

There is no “right to demand service” from any business, from any person, for any cause, that I can defend. That’s a form of involuntary servitude, and we have constitutional protections against that, too.

On a more practical side, though, how would such a law be worded? Is there going to be some kind of “gaydar” provision, that “only flamboyantly and in-your-face” homosexuals can be refused service? Is it only homosexuals who are targeted? (That law would fail for obvious reasons.) What are the criteria to refuse service? How are the criteria to be judged on a case by case basis?

It’s a storm in a silly teapot, and as a law, it’s just plain dumb. A 6 year old would have the capacity to appreciate the viability of a law authorizing discrimination against ANYONE based on their sexual orientation.

I’d be fine with this bill if it likewise allowed businesses the right to refuse service to Christians.

<———35 year self employed freelance photographer creative director.

I make myself available to projects I like. I am unavailable for projects I dislike.

It comes down to what I like, or dislike.

So a man commissions me to shoot boudoir photography of his wife, for his parlor. Sure, sounds like a fun and creative project for beauty. Another man wants me to photograph he and his male lover Robert Mapplethorpe style with dead rabbits hanging on hooks from the ceiling. No, I don’t think I want that project. I shouldn’t need any other reason beyond not wanting to associate with it.

I’ve worked for 35 years to build a strong reputation amongst my clientele. My reputation is everything to me, and my clients. I will not risk my reputation (which is my means for feeding myself and putting my kids through school)... I will not risk my reputation on any project that I don’t see fit for my identity.

In fact, refusing to do so, even at the expense of a law suit, would be much better press and public relations for me than if I allow a law made by someone who has no idea what I’ve worked for to change my entire business model. Can’t get there from here. I’d rather go to jail than be forced to photograph something that I believed would do my business more harm than good.

If people are born gay, in other words “If God created them”, then all arguments opposing homosexuality collapse on the spot, and the matter instantly becomes one of civil rights. I cannot understand how anyone could possibly believe that “gay” is a choice that frivolous people would arrive at in a society as murderously homophobic as ours recently was, and in many places continues to be. As the excuses for bludgeoning a group of folks evaporate in front of us, it’s time to get on. God knows, this country has plenty of REAL shit to deal with other than the stupid and tiresome issue of whether or not 2 people should be allowed to marry one another. They’re PEOPLE. Of course they can marry. It’s enough to make you pull your hair and run babbling into the streets. Yes they’re people, but I require protection from the state in case my job requires me to wait at their table or rent them a room. WTF?

Somehow this proposed law got hijacked to be twisted into becoming a gay discrimination issue when the purpose of the law is solely intended to preserve a persons right to exercise choice to do or not related to their own free exercise of religion.

I see it as simply preserving a freedom and right to do and believe in whatever it is we choose to do or believe in. Personally I do not see this amounting to much as a business is in business to make money and choosing to refuse to do business with someone for what ever reason IMHO is not good business sense. If or when someone chooses to refuse service it will only reveal the bigotry of the establishment and then patrons can certainly choose to spend their dollars elsewhere.

A long time ago I went to a bar in Milwaukee to have a beer and when I went to order a second beer the bartender leaned over the bar and said…“son…I don’t think you belong here” and I looked around the bar and then noticed only men and the significance of the ladies bathroom of simply being a storage room for the mops and bucket hit me. I essentially got asked to go elsewhere by a gay bar owner. Did it ruffle my feathers…hell no!

What I’d like to know is how are they going to determine who’s gay and who is not?

What would they do if a lesbian woman and a gay man came into a restaurant together. Both of them are gay, but they are not in a sexual relationship with each other.

What if a gay man comes into a restaurant with his straight friend. One of them is gay, the other is not, would that be a problem?

What if 3 gay men, or 3 lesbian women came into the restaurant, 2 of the 3 are a couple, but which ones? Would that be a problem?

What if a gay couple came into the restaurant with a mixed group of men and women, and the gay couple was not readily identifiable, would that be OK?

What if the gay couple didn’t have any characteristics that made them appear to be gay, would that be OK?

What if 2 straight men or 2 straight women came in, but they appeared to have some characteristics that made them appear to be gay, would that be OK?

What if 2 gay platonic friends came in. They are not a couple, would that be OK?

What if a gay teenage boy or girl came in, say around the ages of 12 to 16 and they were a virgin, would that be OK?

What if a bisexual man or woman came in, would that be OK, as long as they were currently dating someone of the opposite sex?

What if the cast of Glee showed up to film a documentary about preventing deaths from drug overdoses, and the episode was dedicated to the memory of Cory Monteith. Would that be OK?

What if I came in with Fran Drescher, my girl crush. Would that be OK?

What if Cher came in with her son Chazz, would that be OK?

What if the Judy Garland fan club wanted to book 100 guests into the restaurant, giving the restaurant a ton of business, would that be OK?

I guess what I’m asking, is will the restaurants have some sort of Gay Detector that people have to walk through?

Some of the following people are, were, or might have been gay. Some of the following people are not gay, but appear to be gay. Some of the following people are gay, but do not appear to be gay. Some of these people are douche bags, some of them are National Treasures. Who do you think the state of Arizona would eject first?

Person 1

Person 2

Person 3

Person 4

Person 5

Person 6

Person 7

Person 8

Person 9

Person 10

@Cruiser ”Somehow this proposed law got hijacked to be twisted into becoming a gay discrimination issue when the purpose of the law is solely intended to preserve a persons right to exercise choice to do or not related to their own free exercise of religion.”

Because we all know that’s exactly what it amounts to. Nothing more, nothing less. I’ll guarantee you no one these days is looking to refuse service to, say, blacks on religious grounds.

We live in this super advanced society which highlights freedom and learning, and this still happens. It’s downright lame. Although having said that, I can’t say I’m surprised. Let’s just hope it doesn’t get signed.

@Darth_Algar That said…sadly I am sure there will be plenty of businesses in Idaho and elsewhere that would refuse to serve any man or woman dressed in traditional Muslim garb regardless of sexual orientation.

The law will never pass a federal judge or jury.

@Cruiser

Maybe, but we know that’s not the impetus behind this Arizona bill (not sure why you’re bringing up Idaho).

@Darth_Algar Idaho is well known to be a bastion to well armed survivalists who are convinced we will be attacked again by Muslim extremists.

@Cruiser

Ok. Still not seeing what that has to do with the topic on hand, but I don’t really care enough to belabor the point.

@Darth_Algar Like I pointed out in an earlier comment this bill is about preserving religious freedom and not an anti gay bill some people seem to want to color it as and the folks in Idaho are exercising this right to form fortified enclaves to protect their families and friends from a threat that they believe conflicts with their religious beliefs. Simply offering up context to show this is not just an issue only people in Arizona believe in.

I would not want to eat a cake known to be made by someone who did not want to make it.

I will allow and encourage you to be whatever you want to be. You can be President. You can be Homeless. You can be rich beyond all measure or broke down as a project window. Be gay, hetero, polygamist. Be a drug addict or a health instructor.

I don’t care.

But I will never obey any law that requires me, forces me to help you be what you want to be.

That’s insane.

Go be yourself. You don’t need my help or permission.

It is important to point out that the rise in anti-LGBT laws is not a coincidence. These laws are not popping up in a vacuum. Here is a carefully considered and well-researched article, which traces the laws back to Focus on the Family and a very few other like-minded, bigoted institutions who authored and actively lobbied to pass these laws.

The article also lays bare the purely anti-LGBT nature of these laws. The language is plainly written into them. To say the laws simply aim to expand religious expression is disingenuous.

“Within US law, public accommodations are generally defined as entities, both public and private (thus treating private business enterprises as if they were part of the government), that are used by the public. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments and service establishments, as well as educational institutions, recreation facilities and service centers. Private clubs and religious institutions are exempt. Public accommodation must be handicap-accessible and must not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin.” Source

Discriminating against protected classes of citizens in areas of public accommodation is illegal. Many states and smaller jurisdictions include LGBT people as a protected class of citizens under public accommodation.

I am a gay man. I am also a drag queen. I have personal experience with bigotry and hate and violence and death. An important scientific study recently released by Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health finds that LGBT people living in areas with high levels of anti-LGBT bigotry and hate die 12 years earlier than in areas without high levels of bigotry and hate. Article

Bigotry and hate impact me directly. Bigotry and hate silence me by telling me to be careful and not be flamboyant in certain places or situations. Bigotry and hate kill me.

I am angry.

Not knowing all the details of the law I will simply go off the details the OP presented. I think a business owner should have the right to refuse business they find goes against their principals, especially religious. Would you force a Muslim café to serve pork simply because some ham aficionados want to have lunch there? I say the governor should sign it, if she has any cajones (no pun intended).

If I were the business person to protect myself from a weak activist government I would take ⅔ of the cost as a non-refundable deposit, slam it together any old way to dispatch it from my service, and if they complain, I can tell them what for, they were served, I warned them they should go elsewhere.

@Leanne1986 The thing about having to make it public knowledge is there was a time in the US when the shop owner was happy to make it public knowledge. They had signs in the window no “Jews no dogs.” Signs saying “Irish need not apply.” Signs saying “Whites Only.” That is illegal now and it should be and gay people deserve the same civil rights.

However, a person who works on their own, like a photographer, I think can always refuse business. They don’t need this law, I think they should be allowed to refuse business without having to give a reason. I think that is what I think anyway. I am still listening to opinions on the topic.

Government worker is different. They don’t get to refuse anyone. Someone above mentioned government workers, I don’t remember who.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I would not want to eat a cake known to be made by someone who did not want to make it. Great point!

@Cruiser “Like I pointed out in an earlier comment this bill is about preserving religious freedom and not an anti gay bill some people seem to want to color it as”

And that, frankly, is a giant pile of bullshit. This is an anti-gay bill. It has nothing whatsoever to do with preserving religious freedom, no matter how much its proponents might want to pretty it up. I’ll guaran-goddamn-tee that if some shop owner evoked this bill as a reason to refuse service to Christians on religious grounds the same people that support this bill for “religious freedom” would have a apoplectic fit.

The issue doesn’t need to be about religious freedom, or gay rights. Anyone who thinks it need be is not looking at the bigger picture.

The mechanic down the road does not work on foreign cars. He just doesn’t. I cannot make him fix a Honda. He doesn’t want to work on them. His reasons don’t matter. The fact is, he doesn’t want to work on them. That’s good enough for me.

Just let everyone decide who they will or won’t provide service to.

If your cause so great and just, then you should have no problems finding others who think like yourself to provide the service.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies

But if you don’t dress it up as “religious freedom” then you can’t act self-righteous about it.

That’s good. Let’s just be logical about it instead. That’s enough.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies You wrote, “The issue doesn’t need to be about religious freedom, or gay rights.” You are right. It doesn’t need to be, but it is, in fact, about civil rights for LGBT people. This law is about misusing religious bigotry and hate to deny services to LGBT people.

Your analogy about the mechanic is illogical. Specialization in mechanical issues is utterly different from bigoted and hateful discrimination. I completely understand that some mechanics spend a lifetime of servicing only one make of automobiles and do not work on other makes. That’s fine. However, if I have that type of make of automobile, and my car breaks down while I’m wearing high drag on my way to a performance, and the mechanic refuses to work on my car due to my attire and supposed sexual orientation, then that is bigoted and hateful discrimination, and if I am part of a protected class in my legal jurisdiction, then you can bet your bottom dollar I’ll take that mechanic to court.

I understand specialization by service providers. Please, specialize. If you’re a photographer, but you don’t do weddings, that’s fine. I won’t call you when I marry my boyfriend. However, if you’re a photographer who widely advertises that shooting weddings is a service you offer, but you refuse to shoot my wedding to my boyfriend simply because it’s the wedding between two men, then there will be legal repercussions.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies: “Just let everyone decide who they will or won’t provide service to.
If your cause so great and just, then you should have no problems finding others who think like yourself to provide the service.”

Ok. So, I am a gay man who lives in a very religious town. I go to the doctor because I am sick and she faxes my rx to my local pharmacy. I go to fill that rx with my partner, and I am told that they will not serve me.

So, the next day, I call my doctor and tell her that I need them to send the rx to another pharmacy. The next pharmacy also will not fill it.

Let’s pause here to assume we’re talking about African Americans or Muslims if it somehow changes the dynamic here.

Are you concerned at all that the owner of the private pharmacy can claim religious freedom and not fill the rx? What if we were talking about food marts? If your response is to simply keep jumping around attempting to find a place that will serve me, please explain how this is justified. More importantly, in what way wouldn’t this be a nation state worthy of being bombed into oblivion?

I’m all for ideals – but if the execution of those ideals means that you’d better be in the majority or things will get shitty real fast, than those ideals need to be re-evaluated.

@Hypocrisy_Central You wrote, “I think a business owner should have the right to refuse business they find goes against their principals [sic], especially religious.” Those words and the sentiment behind them are full of bigotry and hate. Religion was used for eons to promulgate the hateful institution of slavery. Religion spawned wars that killed millions over the course of history.

If we were discussing African-Americans or Jews in this question, your words would have been pounced on for the bigoted and hateful words they are. It was decided 50 years ago in the USA that bigotry and hate such as you espouse were illegal. If you have a place of business or service to the public, then public accommodation laws state you must not discriminate.

@hominid “I’m all for ideals – but if the execution of those ideals means that you’d better be in the majority or things will get shitty real fast, than those ideals need to be re-evaluated.”

You imagined the execution of those ideals. I don’t agree with you on how it will turn out. I believe, in the majority of cases, that homosexuals will be served as well as heterosexuals. Establishments with reputation for serving homosexuals will do well by their markets. Establishments with reputations for not serving homosexuals will do well by their markets.

But more importantly, establishments with reputation for serving everyone will do well by their markets. Everybody wins. And nobody has to make anybody do anything they don’t want to. The only one’s who lose are those who find themselves with such little market that they cannot survive. There is no shame in a survival of the fittest business model. Let the market decide who lives or dies.

“I don’t want to play with you”… “No girls in the club house”… “No shoes no shirt no service”… The reasons DO NOT MATTER. Let people set their own standards and associations for themselves without forcing an engagement of services upon anyone.

Acceptance of alternative lifestyles and points of view are one thing. Forceable engagement with those lifestyles is an entirely different level.

@Hawaii_Jake ”...but you refuse to shoot my wedding to my boyfriend simply because it’s the wedding between two men, then there will be legal repercussions.”

Why would you want to force anyone to do something that they don’t want to do?

I don’t shoot nudes. I don’t shoot weddings. But I might consider shooting a nude wedding. How would you suggest the legal system work that out?

I’m a fashion photographer. Many of my models have asked me to photograph their weddings. Shall I refuse them because I might be forced to photograph other weddings without professional models? How would you suggest the legal system work that out?

How would you suggest the legal system control what an artist want to create?

@hominid “So, I am a gay man who lives in a very religious town.”

A religious man walks into a gay bar. Do you think he will be accepted as equal among the crowd? Sure there will be some who accept him. But there will be others who downright hate him for what he is. What do you expect from being a gay man who lives an a very religious town?

You have options for securing your meds. You don’t even have to involve your partner. If you’re online, then you can accommodate yourself in other ways without forcing yourself upon others who feel uncomfortable serving you.

Look, I’m not saying it’s right. Or that I agree with those who refuse you service. But acknowledging your right to be who you want to be also requires me to acknowledge their right to be who they want to be. My opinion of anyone’s lifestyle doesn’t matter.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies You wrote, “Why would you want to force anyone to do something that they don’t want to do?” I want acceptance. I do not want tolerance.

You also wrote, “But acknowledging your right to be who you want to be also requires me to acknowledge their right to be who they want to be. My opinion of anyone’s lifestyle doesn’t matter.” Columbia University researchers just published a twenty-year-long study concluding that anti-LGBT bigotry and hate actually lead to reduced life expectancy in LGBT people in their communities. Source (I wrote about this in a post above in this thread.) Your opinion does, in fact, matter. Bigotry and hate kill me.

We’re not talking about a nebulous “they” existing out there somewhere. We’re talking about me, a gay man.

Bigotry and hate kill me.

This question is about codifying bigotry and hate aimed specifically at LGBT people. This question is about codifying bigotry and hate aimed specifically at me.

Discrimination in businesses of public accommodation is illegal based on race, color, religion, or national origin. That is already federal law. Many states and smaller jurisdictions include sexual orientation in that class as protected. It’s the law.

If you operate and advertise a photography business, you cannot discriminate based on the legal criteria in the jurisdiction in which you live. You cannot discriminate against protected classes of people. It’s simple.

Would we be having this discussion, if the OP was about codifying discrimination against African-Americans or Jews? No.

Instead of me having to worry about where I can or cannot get service, why don’t we demand all services be offered equally?

For clarity, let me specify I’m talking about business. I’m not talking about art.

Question:

Joe’s Cakes gets hired to make a cake for a wedding. The cake is plain white and pale blue – with flowers on top instead of a plastic couple.

The delivery person brings the cake to the wedding and only then realises that the wedding is a celebration of two females – a lesbian wedding, or handfasting, or whatever.

The cake has been paid for, the contract has been signed. Can the delivery person then decide their religion opposes this business transaction, and leave the couple with no cake?

@Seek_Kolinahr Under the Arizona legislation awaiting their governor’s signature, the answer is yes.

So religious preference trumps contract law?

@Seek_Kolinahr Under the Arizona legislation awaiting their governor’s signature, again the answer is yes.

And if that’s the case, can a person then claim that they do not owe interest payments on their mortgage and credit cards, because their religion (in this case, Islam) doesn’t permit usury?

@Seek_Kolinahr I’ll leave the answer to that question to better legal minds than mine.

@Hawaii_Jake “I want acceptance. I do not want tolerance.”

Do you want it at the expense of being intolerant to others?

@Hawaii_Jake “This question is about codifying bigotry and hate aimed specifically at LGBT people.”

That’s one point of view. Another is this is about codifying right to refuse forceable engagement.

@Hawaii_Jake “You cannot discriminate against protected classes of people.”

I’ll be very frank here. No offense Jake. Really, I respect you. But I don’t believe in concepts like “classes of people”. Therefor I don’t believe any protection is justified.

@Hawaii_Jake “Would we be having this discussion, if the OP was about codifying discrimination against African-Americans or Jews? No.”

General Colin Powell stated that comparing homosexuality to race is a convenient, but unwarranted argument. So having such a discussion would be unwarranted.

@Hawaii_Jake “Instead of me having to worry about where I can or cannot get service, why don’t we demand all services be offered equally?”

We all have to be concerned about our service requirements. I prefer the chocolate at Drewz, which is ten miles further away than Wizards. I’ll go to Drewz for the chocolate I want without forcing Wizards to carry Drewz brand.

I can’t get cable in the city. I can only get DSL. I’ll deal with it.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies You wrote, “Do you want it at the expense of being intolerant to others?” That is a classic illogical argument of blaming the victim.

You further wrote, “That’s one point of view. Another is this is about codifying right to refuse forceable engagement.” I would suggest you don’t engage in business that falls under public accommodation laws.

It doesn’t matter if you believe in the concept of protected classes of people. The law defines such classes exist. Personal belief is not an issue.

I personally do not care what General Colin Powell has to say on the matter of bigotry and hate codified against LGBT people. His opinion is irrelevant in this discussion.

With all due respect, we aren’t discussing chocolate or cable versus DSL. We are discussing life-threatening legislation that harms me.

Powell didn’t say anything (that I know of) about bigotry and hate codified against LGBT. His statement was directed at the comparison of it to racism.

But if he speak upon it, why wouldn’t you care what he had to say? And if you don’t, then why should anyone care what you have to say? Would your opinion be any less irrelevant than you offer Powell?

As to law and personal belief, where do you think laws come from?

It’s an interesting concept that hate and bigotry can threaten a person’s life expectancy. I don’t doubt it at all. Similar, I suppose, psychologically abusing a child or animal. Acknowledging that, I don’t suppose that we agree upon what actually constitutes hate or bigotry. Refusing to photograph your wedding, or bake you a cake doesn’t mean that I hate you. And if I’m reading the definition of bigotry correctly, it doesn’t necessarily mean that I’m intolerant of you either. It could just mean that I don’t want to do business with you. The reasons for which are, quite honestly, no one’s business.

Same answer as before. Property owners are a protected class too. They have property rights which means they should be allowed to decide who they want to refuse service to and who they choose to hire. If gays don’t like it, they can take their business elsewhere or open up their own business to take in all the gay customers who are looking for service. It would be a smart business move to pick up the newly created demand.

Same goes for religious people which is another protected class. One right should not supersede another. Both should be equally respected. The government nor the state should discriminate between the rights it grants to all protected classes. It is absolute hypocrisy for the state or government to discriminate against the property rights of business owners for the sake of protecting the rights granted to gays.

^ You’ll note there was no law written or on the books stating that business owners had to provide service to anyone.

The law in question is basically enforcing the right of someone to break a contract because they choose to interpret the right to be a douchebag as a religious value.

It’s very easy to simply state “No, we are not interested in providing this service for you”, and get away with it. It’s less easy to say “Sure! We’ll do this!” and then leave a paying customer with no food at their event because you decided to break your contract and blame your religion as the reason.

@Darth_Algar I challenge you to show me one line in the bill as it is written that suggests it has anything to do with “anti-gay”. It was written to preserve ones religious principals and there are many layers to those principals besides homophobia…get over it.

@Hawaii_Jake You wrote, “I think a business owner should have the right to refuse business they find goes against their principals [sic], especially religious.” Those words and the sentiment behind them are full of bigotry and hate. Religion was used for eons to promulgate the hateful institution of slavery. Religion spawned wars that killed millions over the course of history.
Wars have been started over pride, greed, vengeance (see GW Bush on that one), and then some. Religion had her hands dirty too, some people have misused it for their own gain because religion is of man, not God. Please don’t come off as no one but people who follow God, or some other god that was man-created, are the authors of bigotry. Most people have a class or group of people they do not want to live around, or work with, and make reason in their head they believe right to justify why those people should not work or live around them.

However, this is not a case of me not liking someone. If it were a friend of mine who was gay, I would explain to him/her why I could not; they either except and respect my faith issue as I respect their lifestyle choice or we will have to part ways. I won’t expect them to go to my church, pray to my God, etc. for us to be friends. They can’t carry out what I consider sin in my house but likewise I can’t tell them not to grope each other or show DOA in my presence. If they decide to do that I have the choice of not visiting them in their home. I can like them as friends but not like or approve of their behavior. That is far from bigotry as you claim. If I am a photographer taking a photo of two people who are gay in a park, by a monument, etc. is no problem so long as they are in a plutonic pose, kissing sensually caressing, then we have a problem. Trying to have a photo taken of a marriage I can’t recognize is no different than if a husband wanted to have a photo taken with his ”sister wives”, he would be in the same boat; not from me: hardly bigotry. I can think them nice people but I will not legitimize or support what the Bible tells me and I agree with is sin they are doing.

If we were discussing African-Americans or Jews in this question, your words would have been pounced on for the bigoted and hateful words they are.
There are two distinct differences; to hate someone off their nationality is a sin. To be whatever nationality, Black, Jew, Irish, etc. is not a sin, but people in those nationalities can sin, and do. A person is what they were born from the moment the vagina popped them in the world, there was no mistaking it. One did not come to a certain age then discover they were Irish, Hispanic, Black, etc.; and again, there is no sexual immorality simply being Irish, Jewish, Native American, etc. To you my words might be hateful, to others it is not.

The cake has been paid for, the contract has been signed. Can the delivery person then decide their religion opposes this business transaction, and leave the couple with no cake?
The delivery person had nothing to do with making the cake for a cause that is against God. His/her obligation is to their employer, their boss has to deal with God. Their delivery of the cake IMO doesn’t violate their consciousness. If they had to sing a greeting in support of the event like a singing telegram, then I would say they can opt out on grounds it is making them a willing participant or supporter in said sin or iniquity.

@Seek_Kolinahr

I see. The issue is a protected class (religious people) vs Contract law? If that is the case, I would say that if the business owner agreed to service a person, he should fulfil the agreement. So to avoid the issue with contracts, the logical thing for a business owner to do is to refuse servicing gays before ever agreeing to service them.

Looking back at the financial crisis in 08, the people who signed contracts with banks and then defaulted on their houses ended up suing banks for misinformation or withholding information in the contract. In a huge class action lawsuit, they won the lawsuit. Considering that case, it would seem that a contract is only as good at how well the information is presented even if the person gave consent with the signature.

This means that if the business owner agreed to service a person and later finds out that person is gay, then the business owner should have a right to void the contract by refusing to service the gay customer because the customer never disclosed that he or she was gay. I’m not saying that customers should have to disclose their sexual preference to the owner by law, but since they did not do so, it violates the contract due the religious rights of the business owner.

If there is a sign before you come in that says “we do not service gays”, and the gay person doesn’t disclose they’re gay upon entry, then it is further evidence of withholding information or misrepresenting, which would make any agreement with the owner invalid and allow the owner to refuse service even after agreement.

I believe it, mostly because the area we call “The red states” (The South, Southwest, and a fair bit of the Midwest) is not really part of the US; it’s a separate culture of intolerance and ignorance that, sadly, we fought in the 1860s to keep, and thus is technically part of our country even though they are a separate nation that passes laws that we would never pass on a federal level, and may even strike down as unconstitutional.

Persecution should never be part of the laws in any free nation. If that is how they want to roll, then they should just disband the three branches of their state government and have the clergy run things.

Funny, a few weeks ago I was telling someone I am loyal to Marriott hotels when I travel and they said, “they are owned by Mormons.” It is not the first time someone has said that to me. The conversation took a few turns and I mentioned that Marriott openly advertises and markets its brand to gay people. Gay weddings, gay honeymoons, etc. their response was, “for the money.”

@Seek_Kolinahr There is a law that business must provide service if the business is considered a public venue. Places like restaurants fall under that designation even though they are private companies on private property. As far as I know the protected classes under that law are race, religion, color, national origin, but I think sexual orientation has not been added to it yet. I could be wrong, maybe it has been added. I am pretty sure sexual orientation was added as a protected class for employment. I’m sure some jellies here will know and correct me where I am wrong. The legal question I have is if the photographer who runs his own little business legally has take black people on as clients. Housing laws allow individuals to discriminate. If I own a house and want to rent it out, I can get away with being racist. If I own several units that I rent out I cannot discriminate. There is a threshold to whether an individual conducting certain businesses can ignore discrimination laws. In hiring practices it’s true also. Businesses under 15 employees when I was in college didn’t have to concern themselves with affirmative action for instance. I don’t know how those laws read today exactly.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I don’t know exactly what Powel said but I know a lot of black people who get pissed off when gay rights issues are called civil rights issues. These particular black people feel that gay people do not suffer in the way black people did. They are not slaves, they are not threatened within an inch of their life regularly, gay people can come and go as they please without being questioned. I know people will argue gay people are threatened in places in our country, etc etc, but my point is some black people want the term “civil rights” to be their own.

I have my doubts Powell thinks civil rights is only a race issue, but I would not doubt that when he compares racism to discrimination regarding gay people he thinks it was much much worse for black people in history in America. Maybe that is true, but gay rights issues are still civil rights issues. The black people I know who get really pissed off when gay rights are compared to race related rights usually are very religious and prejudiced themselves against gay people. I don’t think Powell is prejudiced against gay people, I am going to assume he is just trying to make a comparison to the horrors of slavery and segregation regarding black people. I’m ok with that. When I hear black people go on about their history I sometimes interrupt and say, “my people were sent to the ovens.” But, I sure as hell support civil rights regarding race and I do for sexual orientation also. Doesn’t matter if race discrimination was a 10 in history and sexual orientation discrimination is only an 8 on some arbitraty scale of 1–10. Either way discrimination in America is an embarrassment and in my opinion unconstitutional, but I’m not a lawyer.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies “Acceptance of alternative lifestyles and points of view are one thing. Forceable engagement with those lifestyles is an entirely different level.”

Serving someone with a differing point of view or lifestyle does not equate to engagement with those lifestyles/point of views. This is, frankly, nonsense. Serving a customer is a simple business transaction, goods/services for money. Nothing more. It’s not as if by serving them you’re going home with them and entering their bed.

As far as Christians feeling justified to discriminate against gay people for religious reasons, they did that same shit regarding black people and slavery and segregation.

“Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling” (Ephesians 6:5), or “tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect” (Titus 2:9).

Christians who opposed slavery focused on biblical principles of justice and equality and not on one or two lines from the bible.

Christians who still think it is ok to keep a slave are simply wrong I don’t care what the bible says. They are wrong regarding discriminating against gay people also.

I think Jesus is “rolling over in his grave” regarding the AZ law.

@Cruiser

I can’t tell if you’re deliberately missing my point or what. This legislation as written may not have any language about being “anti-gay” (and at no point did I claim that it had), but we all know that’s the underlying reason behind it.

Though I tend to agree with you at face value @Darth, as a photographer, I can tell you that the photo forums are ablaze with discussions of photographers being sued for refusing to take gay wedding jobs.

Some feel the idea of telling an artist what to point a camera at is absurd.

Others feel their photography is indeed an “intimate” art form. And though they may not be required to go home to bed with homosexuals, they are required to spend a full day amongst them. I get the feeling they fear they’ll be the only hetero in the midst of a large gathering of gays, forced to interact on very personal levels. Chances are they think they’ll be watching gays kiss and fondle one another all day, and night, and be forced to continue their interaction through the reception after everyone is wild dancing drunk, as they do at other weddings.

I cannot speak for bakers. But wedding photographers definitely get into it with the entire wedding party, all day and through the night. I cannot blame someone for not feeling comfortable doing that with a large group of homosexuals.

Can’t we just vote Arizona out of the Union? Ship all the haters off to their own private island somewhere or to the moon?

They’ve already shown their antipathy to blacks, ( refusing to celebrate MLK day) Mexicans, (encouraging local law enfotcement people to turn over presumed illegals to ICE) and now LGBTQ folks. What’s next on the list to codify laws against; Muslims, Asians, disabled people? Where does it end for them? How much is enough to assure them that they’ll never have to bother dealing with anyone who isn’t middle/ upper class white and hetero?

(and yes I’m aware that not every single person in Arizona feels this way. They can stay; just ship out the haters. But they’ll most likely need to change the name of the state since it has become synonymous with intolerance :)

@Buttonstc I think part of the reason AZ was against adding MLK day was because they have a very small black population and there are cost considerations for the state. I think they were going to get rid of one of the other recognized holidays if they added MLK day. I would guess once it is made a holiday then schools and all public offices would be closed that day. I think MLK was an amazing man in our history and I do think he represents civil rights for all people, but since he is perceived as a black leader probably a lot of Arizonians (is that what they are called?) didn’t perceive MLK day as their day.

For instance, communities don’t have to have schools closed on Yom Kippur, but if there is a large Jewish community in the school district it usually becomes a scheduled day off. Some holidays are based on the population in the immediate area. I think there is some rule in some districts that if over 30% of the student population is out on a given day the day does not count.

If the brouhaha over MLK were being discussed in isolation then your point about AZ would have more import.

But in conjunction with the other things I mentioned, I think it points to a clear pattern by those in AZ of intolerance to “THE OTHER” (whatever that other happens to be).

That attitude cost them countless millions in revenue when the Superbowl was moved to Pasadena instead and coubtless conventions transferred their plans elsewhere in protest of their attitude.

If they pass this current bill I’m hoping that a similar vacation/travel boycott by the LGBT community (and their relatives and friends) ensues so they can likewise tangibly feel the effect of their intolerance.

@JLeslie ” I think part of the reason AZ was against adding MLK day was because they have a very small black population”

In that case, what about NH? When I left 5 years ago, my home county was actually starting to get racially diverse; it was only 97.7% White. I am not being flippant; those are the actual numbers from the 2010 US census! The urban areas pushed the state average down to 93.9% White, 2.2% Asian, and 1.1% Black.

By comparison, Arizona is only 73% White, and 4.1% Black, in addition to having five times the total population. In other words, their black population is 20 times (5*4) a state that has no issues with MLK Day being too expensive.

Simple numbers prove that argument to be utter bullshit.

No, I have to side with @Buttonstc here; Arizona law is pretty much discriminatory against everyone that isn’t a heterosexual white Christian, and I’m not sure how they are about women.

@Darth_Algar I am not missing your point….you simply choose to make this bill into something it is not to suit your agenda….I get that!

@Buttonstc @jerv All good points. I just read through this wikipedia page about MLK day, I found it very interesting. NH was the last state to actually have a day named after King, but they previously had Civil Rights Day. It also mentioned that many companies who bothered to give MLK day off traded observing MLK day for another day that they stopped observing.

I actually think maybe Civil Rights day is a good designation. The country needs to be thinking in terms of equal rights for all people. MLK’s message was about the poor and treating all people equally, not just black people. It could be a holiday that represents gay people, women, and other minorities. Maybe then the black people who feel just in their mindset of thinking equality is for black people but not for gay people will start to change their opinion. In the Civil Rights museum in Memphis there is a very small section talking about civil rights of other groups besides black people and some people are pissed the section is there. Last I read they were going to renovate the museum, I wonder what they will do regarding other groups and civil rights issues. You walk through that museum and see what happened during the civil rights movement and it is so similar to what is happening regarding gay rights it is eerie and disheartening.

Washington’s birthday has evolved to be also called President’s day. Columbus Day seems to be the holiday that has been left by the wayside often times to allow for MLK day.

@JLeslie I think that the existence of non-black minorities may have been a factor in NH’s case, especially as Blacks are a smaller minority than Asians there.

@Cruiser The great thing about being able to make laws is that it often comes with great powers of obfuscation. Politicians are great at hiding bullshit by planting a rose garden in it. It looks all pretty and flowery, but it’s still a shit-pile, only now covered in thorns. There was an agenda there; it just needed some floweriness to allow it to have even a chance of passing.
Or are you a person who judges a book by it’s cover and takes everything at face value? I would hope not, since that reeks of “lack of due diligence”. And not seeing the pattern in Arizona if, at best, myopic.
Face it, this legislation was meant to be abused, and to legitimize discrimination with the force of law. Maybe not specifically anti-gay, but given what else has happened in Arizona, it’s a bad thing regardless.

@jerv So, are you agreeing with my original point? The quanitity of minorities in a state might influence whether to make it a state holiday officially and doesn’t necessarily mean the state is discriminating? I still agree AZ seems to have to many instances to ignore surrounding this sort of thing, but I also think statistics count. We don’t have Chanukah as a federal holiday, but Christmas is. We could argue it should not be a federal holiday since it is a religious holiday, but the thing is the majority of the population is not going to show up to work, so the federal government and private business might as well make the holiday official.

@jerv I do not see how preserving anyone’s right to their religious principals is bad. That bad part is when people inject their own fears, prejudices and agendas into making it into something IMO it clearly is not.

And what if there is a religion that believes that black people are the cursed sons and daughters of Ham and shouldn’t be fraternized with? Should we pass a law that allows restaurants to put up signs that say “no coloreds” on the outside? After all, in doing that, they would be exercising their “religious freedom”. Of course, if there really were such a religion that wanted to do this, there is no way in hell they would get away with it, considering the country’s history. But it is a lot easier to get away with it when the people in question are homosexuals (also considering the fact that it is simply much more difficult to tell who is homosexual, per the examples that @Kardamom brought up, which illustrates the absurdity of the whole law in the first place).

But my only real problem is hypocrisy. I want to make sure you can discriminate against ANYONE and it isn’t just gays that are subject to it. If restaurants are allowed to refuse service to gays, they should also be allowed to refuse service to blacks, atheists, Muslims, women, Christians, etc. Allow one and you should allow the other. Maybe I’m a Muslim restaurant owner and I believe Christians seek to take over the Middle East and Westernize it and if I see someone wearing a cross or speaking about Jesus, I want to throw them out of my restaurant because it clashes with my religious beliefs. (I don’t ultimately believe that these types of actions are beneficial to society as a whole, but if I have a right to do one of these things, I should be able to do the other).

@Cruiser

So tell me, what are the other layers to these religious principals in this bill.

@DominicX “And what if there is a religion that believes that black people are the cursed sons and daughters of Ham and shouldn’t be fraternized with? Should we pass a law that allows restaurants to put up signs that say “no coloreds” on the outside? After all, in doing that, they would be exercising their “religious freedom”. Of course, if there really were such a religion that wanted to do this, there is no way in hell they would get away with it, considering the country’s history.”

Mormons. Well use to be anyway. The LDS church only changed that stance in the late 1970’s once it became clear to them that this position was no longer politically or socially tenable for them (one of the neat things about Mormon doctrine is that God can change his mind and does so whenever the head of the church says he does).

Right. I didn’t think of the Mormons.

The point is: it would be really bad business to want to refuse service to black people or women, even if it were on religious grounds. These prejudices are no longer mainstream and these demographics simply constitute a much larger percentage of the population than gay people do. Plus, like I said before, it is much harder to tell who is gay and who isn’t—therefore it easier for this type of discrimination to go unnoticed. Discriminating against gays is much more accepted in this day and age, particularly with same-sex marriage issues so prominent.

But my problem isn’t really whether or not you can discriminate against gays, it’s whether, assuming you can, if you can also discriminate against various other demographics as long as you claim it’s based on a religious aversion to them. If you can, then I’m happy. Discrimination for everyone!

Nah. The Az senate won’t pass it. It’ll go the same was as the Kansas bill that was passed.

@Cruiser We already have laws to protect religious freedom. Thing is, in America equality trumps religion. Actually, criminal law trumps religion also. Our constitution is our basis for laws in America not religion. If someone wants to stone their wife they can’t do it here, we don’t care what their religious belief is.

The things Christian right wingers say regarding states rights, religious freedom, and not wanting federal government interference is exactly the same stuff they said during slavery and segregation. They can’t use that stuff anymore without sounding like the same hateful, power hungry, judgmental, self righteous people they were back then. They screwed themselves with being awful in the past. They can’t live it down if they still are doing the same schpiel.

I’m not lumping you in with religious right wingers, I don’t feel you are racist in any way. Even I support a sole proprietors right to refuse businesses in some cases as I said above.

This law in my opinion is nothing but push back for the law suits I read about I assume. I think the suits probably should not have been filed in most cases.

@Darth_Algar AFAICT there are none….the link I provided has the bill word for word and it is pretty specific to one layer only and that is the right to freedom of religious principals. That said because of the apparent contentious interpretation of this bill by many….I am sure the state Supreme Courts will be working overtime to sort this all out if it is indeed signed into law.

We’re dealing with the private sector here. I think it would be hard to enforce laws of these types either way. If a person at their core really opposes something legislation is not going to change their mind, but make them even more combative.
I’m sure there are plenty of businesses that would gladly take the place of the above ones with a bias against gays.

I generally support pro LGBT laws, especially when the public sector or legal issues are involved. This is why I support gay marriage rights, because this isn’t a ‘religious’ issue to me when there are tax incentives and other legal issues involved. Personally though I think a law such as the above will just create more red tape. Perhaps some people just need to say “hey, fuck you and your business, I’ll go elsewhere for service”.

And then we’ll have another Chick-fil-Aesque situation where people who boycott the business are accused of “taking away freedom of speech” as if people are legally obligated to patronize certain businesses…

@Cruiser “_AFAICT there are none_….the link I provided has the bill word for word and it is pretty specific to one layer only and that is the right to freedom of religious principals. That said because of the apparent contentious interpretation of this bill by many….I am sure the state Supreme Courts will be working overtime to sort this all out if it is indeed signed into law.”

Then the point of this bill is what, exactly? I mean aside from free exercise of religion, which is already enshrined in the Constitution.

@Dutchess_III It was already passed by the Senate. It is only awaiting Brewer’s signature.

Also, just to say, the buisness organizations in AZ do not want this bill. Take that as you will.

Well, in that case…holy crap. At least the Kansas bill that was approved by the house never actually saw the light.

Actually, the scenario that @Seek_Kolinahr posits, where a delivery person can scotch a deal because performing this particular service violates their religion, already occurs, daily, all over the USA. Of course, that refers to “a product” and not “a lifestyle”, but the bridge is easy enough to see.

Muslims who work for many delivery services will not – and cannot be forced to – deliver alcohol and pork products (among others) to customers. Here is a link from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of the US government to prove the point.

@Darth_Algar you are either clueless, daft or simply choosing to argue this rather obvious point for reasons unclear to me. Read the bill in the link I gave above….it is crystal clear in it’s intent and in no way reflects the direction you are trying to take it. I will not waste any more of my time trying to point out the obvious to you.

@Cruiser

I read the bill, doesn’t change what it is. A turd wrapped in a pretty box is still a turd, and this bill is a giant, festering turd. If it were truly about protecting religious convictions then it would be absolutely unnecessary.

@Cruiser So, you do take things at face value, and believe that people are inherently good and honest. Your inentional blindness astounds and depresses me. That, and I’d wager that you never faced real discrimination; maybe a little verbal abuse due to your political beliefs, but nothing truly life-affecting.
I think that the AZ Supreme Court won’t be the final word here either. If this passes, I see it going to SCOTUS.

@JLeslie Insofar as Arizona is bad at math, yes. But considering that we demand wheelchair ramps for the handicapped, it’d be one hell of a double standard if we considered hundreds to outweigh tens of thousands.

Who is the hundreds in your example?

Regarding handicap ramps, the ramps help more people than just the handicapped. They help parents with strollers too.

@JLeslie I mean that I see more Blacks, Asians, Muslims, and homosexuals by 9 AM than I see strollers in a week or wheelchairs in a month. It’s a simple matter of numbers. If we cater to small minorities, why not cater to larger ones?

Oh. LOL. Handicap ramps are not the same as whether we have a holiday or not. Even if we don’t have a holiday someone can still take the day off. The named holiday doesn’t guarantee a day off. Plenty of people use a personal day or vacation day for Yom Kippur. Black people can do the same for MLK day if their comany doesn’t close that day.

Hm. I wonder if gay people will be legally allowed to discriminate against straight people.

@Dutchess_III It should work both ways.

The way the bill is worded, yes, that’s possible. Though the bill states it must be from a ‘sincerely held religious belief’, which is a) bullcrap since it means it’s up to a judge to determine sincerity of a religion and level of belief and b) will obviously favor more established (aka christian) religions with conveniently homophobic passages (which is not to say a Christian necessarily is, but we all know those passages exist and are used as such by some). Would a judge allow a Mormon to deny service to an African American because they fought against heaven (yes, this is a real belief, or was if it has since been redacted by a later ‘prophet’)? In that ‘sincerely held’? How do you tell? Etc

If the governor signs it, it’ll go to the Supreme Court where it will be kilt daid. It’s just shameful that anyone even dreamed up such an idea.

@BhacSsylan I wasn’t aware that there were “established” religions other than Christianity in Arizona. And I somehow suspect that “sincerity” and “tolerance” are mutually exclusive in the eyes of some judges; “sincerity” will be measured by how strongly the judge agrees with the beliefs of the one doing the discriminating rather than any objective standards.

@jerv I mean that I see more Blacks, Asians, Muslims, and homosexuals by 9 AM than I see strollers in a week or wheelchairs in a month. It’s a simple matter of numbers.
I see more wheelchairs and strollers by 9 am than I see Asian people, so I guess the numbers only count where you happen to be at the moment.

I usually don’t see Asian people until after 4.

LOL.

“This establishment does not serve Christians.”

@Hypocrisy_Central True. I can only speak for places I’ve been; NH, Boston, San Diego, Orlando, and Seattle mostly.

@hominid Excellent point. However a pharmacist does not have to have a lot of contact with a person if you consider how a photographer does. Plus a photographer has to maintain a service relationship with the client for a period after. I did say it sounded like lobbying so I think ‘that’ persons goal is somewhat different.

I do believe I should not have to enter into a forced relationship with any client I do not want to. Say for example I was massaging for a living. I would decline a drunk client.

I don’t think acceptance is a good expectation but tolerance is.

@LornaLove – Are you saying that it is possible that there should be some jobs/services where it’s not acceptable to refuse service (pharmacy and food for example)?

But for the other “non-essential” services, is it possible to simply not take a client and say you were busy, as @johnpowell mentions at the top of this thread? Why would we need this bill?

And if there is a reason you feel the bill is necessary, wouldn’t it be unacceptable without exceptions, such as the essential services I have mentioned?

In my opinion, one should have the responsibility to avoid situations in which their religious preferences would affect their ability to perform their job.

I mean, if you work at McDonald’s and the uniform is a pair of black pants, and your religion says you have to wear a dress, that’s not a big deal, provided the dress is not dragging on the ground where it can cause a hazard.

If you work in a grocery store, and your religion says you can’t touch a bottle of wine – you have the responsibility to avoid touching wine without adversely affecting the service the grocery store provides. If that means you need to work it out with your manager so that you don’t get placed at a register and only stock the non-alcoholic products, fine. If a customer has to wait while your register is transferred to someone else, that’s affecting customer service and unacceptable.

If you’re a small business owner, you absolutely have the right to refuse service. However, once you have signed a contract, you have accepted the responsibility to perform that service. No takesie-backsies. If you don’t want to make a cake for a gay couple, feel free to say “I’m not available, but here’s a list of people I can recommend to you”. Taking a deposit, signing a contract, and then fucking up someone’s wedding is just a dick move all around.

@Seek_Kolinahr GA. Is that what happened with the wedding incidient? The cake person cancelled at the last minute?

At my straight wedding I had gay people there, so as far as the photographer, they are going to be seeing gay people through their lense more and more, even if it is not the couple getting married.

I don’t think so. I think it was just that these people exercised their right to spread the word that this cake person was being an intolerant jackass. Because while you have the right to refuse service, you’re not immune from people letting others know you refused them service.

But what spawned the bill isn’t the point – the point is what the bill will allow. Basically, it’s allowing people to break contracts without legal repercussion.

As I read the bill (page 2 is key, and the key phrase is in bold – not mine), it seems that this is a way for individuals to opt out of performing acts that they claim would violate their religious tenets, but the service is still to be performed by others employed by ‘the entity’.

It seems unworkable as worded. If the bakery owner is the one whose religious sensibilities would be offended, it seems unlikely that he or she would direct someone in his employ to bake the cake, doesn’t it? And if it’s a mom-and-pop operation, and neither of them want to bake “that” cake, then who will they direct to perform the service?

I don’t read this in any way as “a way to break contracts”, though.

It is just cruel, and any Christian who thinks otherwise should ask themselves, “How would I feel if I was divorced and ready to get re-married, and some wedding caterer said, “I’m not going to cater your wedding. You’ve been divorced so that makes you a sinner. You’re disgusting. Get out of my establishment.”

@Dutchess_III I think the really extreme Christians who think they would never get a divorce do really look down on those who do divorce. I think there are very few Christians like that, but I think they exist. They basically shun them, and if you live in a small town of people who think like that it is hard to go anywhere including the bakery. Basically gay people are wearing a scarlet letter I guess to use an old analogy.

I am always stunned at how many Christians cannot put themselves in the other person’s shoes. Simply can’t. It doesn’t compute. If everyone around them pretty much thinks like them than they cannot put themselves in the minorities place. Whether the minority is race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

Telling someone who wants to refuse business to a gay person that they should think about how they would feel if someone refused business to them if they are Christian; most likely they just feel that would never happen and don’t even let their mind go there.

@CWOTUS That is the Kansas bill, not Arizona. Try here.

The important text would be (crossed out sections are those amended, capitalized text is the new text for that section):

5. “Person” includes a religious assembly or institution ANY INDIVIDUAL, ASSOCIATION, PARTNERSHIP, CORPORATION, CHURCH, RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY OR INSTITUTION, ESTATE, TRUST, FOUNDATION OR OTHER LEGAL ENTITY.

This part is blatantly unconstitutional, as it has been repeatedly upheld by the supreme court when held in relation to public institutions and corporations:

B. Except as provided in subsection C, government OF THIS SECTION, STATE ACTION shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.

And then the breaking contracts bit is:

D. A person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding, and obtain appropriate relief against a government REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT IS A PARTY TO THE PROCEEDING. THE PERSON ASSERTING SUCH A CLAIM OR DEFENSE MAY OBTAIN APPROPRIATE RELIEF. A party who prevails in any action to enforce this article against a government shall recover attorney fees and costs.

Essentially, this law may be used as a shield against any and all claims of discrimination from any source to any source, and anti-discrimination laws specifically be damned.

You’ll like this @JLeslie… this one fb person who is a strong proponent of that bill was carrying on about her religious beliefs.
Well, I happen to know that about 30 years ago she divorced her husband and ran off with the pastor of their church. It was a bad scene. Her kids were witness to a couple of them involving their father and that pastor. They’re still together. They’re Catholic.

@Dutchess_III They always use that line that we are all sinners or something similar. Thank goodness most Christians do not discriminate on a daily basis that would impede business or even overtly make someone uncomfortable in daily life. I know people who vote against gay marriage, but they treat people equally during day to day transactions both business and friendly. I know gay people will feel using equal in that sentence is not really a good word, and I would agree, but I use it for lack of a better word. Even in small Christian towns most people I know would treat a gay person with respect during an interaction.

I think Arizona is just trying to get some attention.

The bill says that a person must be “sincere” in their belief that it violates their religion to serve a particular group of people. I got to thinking about this. Judge says, “OK, you missed church 3 times last year so I determine you are not sincere, you are just an asshole. You are hereby fined $50,000 for being an asshole.”

I mean, really. The bill, and any bill like it, is just saying that some people can be assholes and some can’t. That makes NO sense.

@Dutchess_III I can’t tell you how many people bitch about a Jewish person taking Yom Kippur off when they know that person never goes to synagogue. Doesn’t matter if they go to synagogue, it’s still a high holy day in their religion.

When is Yom Kippur? I want to take that day off!

What does it matter whether a Jew is observant of the religion, @JLeslie? Lots of so-called Christians who never attend church still take Christmas “religiously”, primarily, I think, because it’s a family holiday, if nothing else.

Thanks for the correction, @BhacSsylan.

Well, many businesses just close down over Christmas. There is no one there. They pay you to take the time off whether you’re Christian or not.

@CWOTUS Doesn’t matter at all. My point is if someone decides something is important to them because of their religion it doesn’t matter how observant they are in general.

@Dutchess_III Right, but the Jews still get Yom Kippur even if they get Christmas too.

I hate Christmas! And I still get it off.

I have been following this since the news broke on this highly contested emotionally charged bill and with all the smoke and haze involved in the debate I have not been able to see everything I would like to see to better understand the real issues driving a bill that at face value appears incredibly discriminatory. I did run into a very in depth point by point analysis of this bill and it’s predecessor bill the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and some interesting points are made in this article written by the Christian Post. An article by a religious organization would almost automatically draw suspicion of a bias in the matter, but I could not find one and just the opposite I read a very open unbiased interpretation of the crux of this debate. I am offering this up just to give another perspective on this I have not yet read. Point #5 is particularly interesting. My overall take away is this new bill will actually make it harder for someone to deny service for religious reasons. It’s a very long read and here is a snippet…........

Some have claimed that a bill recently passed by the Arizona legislature would give businesses broad license to not serve someone for being gay. This claim, though, may be a misreading, according a CP legislative analysis. While the bill is an attempt to broaden who is covered under its religious freedom protections, in all cases it actually narrows when a religious belief could be used to refuse service.

Here are six important points to understand about the just-passed bill:

1. If Gov. Jan Brewer® signs it, the bill, S.B. 1062, would make some modifications to a 1999 Arizona law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

2. Under current Arizona law, if a business wanted to discriminate against gays, they would not need this bill to be passed to do so. It is not currently illegal for a business to deny service to someone because they are gay. Some cities in Arizona have ordinances against it but there is no state law against it. If business owners in Arizona wanted to deny service to gays, they could do so in most of the state under current law.

3. Even though business owners across most of Arizona (and much of the United States) have the right to deny service to gays, they are not doing so. Opponents of the bill claim it would usher in an era of “Jim Crow for gays,” in which gays would be denied service at businesses across the state. If business owners really wanted to do this, though, they could already be doing it. The bill does not make that more or less likely. Business owners do not want to deny service to gays. This is not because they fear government sanction. Rather, it is because: 1) Their religious, ethical or moral beliefs tell them it is wrong to deny service; and/or, 2) the profit motive – turning away customers is no way to run a business.

4. A RFRA law, either state or federal, does not give anyone the license to do anything they want based upon their religious beliefs. Rather, it says what needs to happen for the government to take away someone’s religious freedom. RFRA provides citizens with religious freedom protections, but that does not mean that everyone who claims their religious freedom is violated will win a court case using RFRA as their defense.

5. No business has ever successfully used RFRA, either a state RFRA or the federal RFRA, to defend their right to not serve gays. In fact, no business has even been before a court claiming to have that right.

6. Even if a business wanted to claim the right to not serve gays under RFRA, their claim would be even harder to defend under S.B. 1062. So, anyone who is concerned that someone may one day try to use RFRA to discriminate against gays should prefer the bill that was just passed over current law.

[snip]
Given that, here are some of the main changes the Arizona bill would make:

Those covered by RFRA would include “any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution or other business organization.”
A religious freedom violation can be asserted “regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceeding.”
The person asserting a religious freedom violation must show three things: “1. That the person’s action or refusal to act is motivated by a religious belief. 2. That the person’s religious belief is sincerely held. 3. That the state action substantially burdens the exercise of the person’s religious beliefs.”

In sum, the bill would essentially make three changes for RFRA: 1) Clarify that any association, including for-profit corporations, are covered. 2) Clarify that the government does not have to be a party in the case. And, 3) to prevent frivolous RFRA claims, require that those claiming a religious freedom violation show that there is an actual religious belief behind their action, that they are sincere in their religious belief, and a state action has placed a substantial burden on their religious belief.

Why does it have to be a religious belief though? Why can’t it just be a sincerely held personal belief whether the person is religious or not?

@Dutchess_III Because religious freedom is protected under the law.

@Cruiser I really wish that article had used ther term gay people rather than gays. I myself get sloppy and right blacks, whites, Hispanics, etc, but I wouldn’t when responsing to a bill in a formal message or article.

If the other law sucks they should do away with that law and maybe stop there.

But doesn’t the fact that religious freedom is protected under the law, but sincerely held secular beliefs are not, discriminatory?

@Dutchess_III Probably so. This is why I say law trumps religion. You don’t get to be a criminal or a racist in the name of religion.

^ Sure you do. Being a religious person, or having a religious figure testify to your character, has gotten lighter sentences for violent criminals for many many years.

Just look at the people who committed child neglect causing the death of their son, who now get a few years’ probation instead of jail time because of their “sincere religious beliefs”.

In fact, find one place where a grown man sucking on a baby boy’s penis is totally legal other than a Bris?

No, I can’t believe it. Next they’ll be on the back of the bus or otherwise demonized. I’m a Christian and I believe the complete opposite.

@Seek_Kolinahr You might be aboemto find all sorts of exceptions and examples, of lighter punishment, but it doesn’t change that law trumps religion. People might be given some sympathy when something goes wrong, because they strongly felt it was right due to religious conviction, but when it goes really wrong thenlaws change sometimes and make it much clearer to religious people that it will not be tolerated in the US, no more excuses. Your example of the bris is a good one. Now sterile and clean practices must be utilized period.

The law is uneven no matter what. Whether we include religious excuses or not. We can find examples of people being punished harsher than they should be or barely any punishment when it should be harsher. I don’t think the Rabbi for instance would get off for religious reasons, he gets a lighter sentence because we might have some understanding, then we come out with a law so it never happens again. Cases where parents don’t let their child have medical treatment the government does step in and force treatment sometimes.

The law doesn’t support religious people harming others.

@JLeslie Correct, although the Bible also says this:
Romans 13:8 ESV
Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.

People can abstain from sexual activity, or stop believing in a religion, but not from being an from an ethnicity, race.

@KNOWITALL That’s a nice quote, but it is rather abstract.

@flo What does that have to do with anything? Plus, I disagree, because Jews can stop believing and stop calling themselves Jews, but the antisemite still will see them as born a Jewish person and still hate them. As far as sexual activity, are we asking heterosexuals to stop having sex? Or, just gay people? Should they stop loving their long term partners also?

Asexual homoromantics get married, too.

@flo “People can abstain from sexual activity, or stop believing in a religion, but not from being an from an ethnicity, race.”

Abstaining from sexual activity doesn’t negate ones sexual orientation.

@Darth_Algar I understand some Christians feel that abstaining from sexual activity is the difference between a good gay person and a sinner because God says repent and sin no more. That’s why they harass them into being hetero, getting married and all that, denying their authentic selves.

This

@Dutchess_III You’re so right. :)

I made that! I wrote a post on fb that said that, and people started sharing it so I made it all pretty.

@Dutchess_III I saw that. I shared that one post of yours and none of my friends seemed to like it much -teehee, oh well. Wouldn’t be the first time I’ve lost friends for standing up for LGBT rights, idiots.

@KNOWITALL I understand some Christians feel that abstaining from sexual activity is the difference between a good gay person and a sinner because God says repent and sin no more.
To be clear, that doesn’t start or stop with gays; that goes for the man cheating on his wife, the woman who wants to be one of 5 ”sister wives”, the kid jacking off to a porno wishing it was him and his neighbor’s daughter, or the man boinking his unwed girlfriend every night. Anyone not having sex under the construct God put in place is not correct, be they heterosexual or homosexual, or anywhere in between. ;-)

What did they say about it @KNOWITALL?

I’ll just leave this here

@Hypocrisy_Central Right, and I get that.

@Dutchess_III Nothing really, zero likes, zero comments, but I think I’m a friend or two short today, and I even have LGBT’s on my fb that didn’t say a word, how weird is that?!

God’s a white guy @Seek_Kolinahr? I did not know that.

I don’t know… a gay Italian man painted him like that in the 1500s, and that’s WAY closer to the time God actually talked to people than we are, so it must be right.

@Darth_Algar “Abstaining from sexual activity doesn’t negate ones sexual orientation.” No it doesn’t, and I never indicated it did.
@JLeslie Some people (including myself previously) lump all discrimination together. I am not suggesting LGBT people should be persecuted.

@flo

Then what was your point?

@Darth_Algar Maybe I will find a way to explain it. Maybe someone else will.

Brewer can do the right thing every now and again. Even if it’s probably for the wrong reasons. It’s been vetoed

@flo

Honestly I’d rather hear your explanation than someone else’s guess about what your point was.

@Darth_Algar For example, Is Toddlers and Tiarra (beauty pageant for children) a crime against society or not? If your answer is not a strong yes, then I don’t think you would see it.

@flo

I gotta be honest, you’ve got me at a loss here. Try as I might I can’t see any connection between child beauty pageants and the topic on hand.

@Darth_Algar Alright then that is what I mean. I cited Toddlers and Tiarra just as an example by the way.
Is there anything that has a connection to the topic at hand in your opinion?

What in the fuck?

@Darth_Algar

This might help.

@Seek_Kolinahr I can’t tell what that might help, it’s not comprehensible.
“If God doesn’t exist… then how has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?”
What does that mean?...?!?

@flo I really am having trouble connecting your dots. I know you hate Toddlers and Tiaras, you have said it on many Q’s. I fail to see what it has to do with gay people being refused service at a business. You’re just saying they are both immoral? Is that it? We could list a zillion immoral things people can do, but I would think there should be some sort of connection if we are citing other examples. All I can guess is anything having to do with sex triggers your disgust for sexualizing young children.

@Darth_Algar I’m disappointed, just a simple exchange turns.
@dabbler that link looks like an atheist trying to make thesits dumb, I think.
@JLeslie Vested interst maybe.

@JLeslie ignore the above response to you, it wasn’t meant to go there.

It is not a necessity to have a sexual partner, people live perfectly fine without being sexual. It is not a necessity to have a wedding, it is not a necessity to have a wedding cake, or a wedding cake by a professional baker, or a wedding cake made by a professional baker who would be forced to make one. It is a necessity to be parented by not money hungry, non pervert friendly, people who would not use their children for labor.

@flo

That’s a pretty specious connection/point/whatever you’re trying to make there.

@flo It isn’t about necessary, it is about all people having equal civil rights. Are you saying gay people should not care about receptions and cakes and the legal document when straight couples can have all of those things? How does perverted pedophiles come in to this conversation at all?

@flo Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to be saying that all the things that are offered to straight people is not a necessity so gays should not be offered the same services? Are you saying that gays are bad parents that use their children for labor?

Yeah, @flo Lost you on that one…. “pervert friendly”?

^^ It isn’t about necessary, it is about all people having equal civil rights.
All people don’t have equal rights, and it doesn’t stop or start with gay people>.

How does perverted pedophiles come in to this conversation at all?
Ties in with your first line in many ways.

@JLeslie I’m confused, too.

I know a married couple of lesbians, with a young daughter, that seem to be doing a great job as loving parents, much better than a few hetero, constantly fighting, cussing and screaming abuse at each other. Those kinds of comparisons aren’t necessarily doing hetero’s a favor if that’s the implication. Even child psychologists agree that happy parents are better parents, so in that case, gay or straight parenting can’t really be compared.

@Hypocrisy_Central I think all adults should have the right to sign a civil marriage contract. Why should the government be able to say what gender can enter into that civil agreement? Religious marriage is a different thing. I am completely fine with clergy refusing to marry a couple. I don’t care what their reason is. It can be race, religion, hair color, I don’t care, but as a civil matter it should be equal for everyone. Anyone two adults should be able to enter into that contract.

Perverted pedophiles ties in with my first line? I don’t understand what you mean. Care to explain further?

@JLeslie Just to clarify, I sent this to HC the other day and want to make sure anyone interested reads it.

http://notalllikethat.org/about/

@JLeslie Perverted pedophiles ties in with my first line? I don’t understand what you mean. Care to explain further?
If you can step outside personal and popular believes and acceptance and just go with the pure unadulterated logic, you will see. You said It isn’t about necessary, it is about all people having equal civil rights. that places it in the arena that all people be treated a like no matter what nationality or gender etc. Equal rights should extend beyond that then, but in reality it doesn’t. Even your opening line here speaks of bias that prevents a class of people from getting equal treatment. Equal treatment if I am following you, should be extended to all even if you don’t like them. If someone doesn’t like Black people, obese people, gay people they should be treated equally; have the same rights. However, everyone is OK with a felon, even if he/she did not do time for having sex with a minor, are striped of their Constitutional right to bear arms,—they don’t need equal protection because they are ”Perverted pedophiles”. One you have ”paid your debt to society”, if one is holding true to the Constitution, you are restored all of your inalienable rights. Not unlike those people from the Middle East who got rousted up and held outside the Constitution by not been given a lawyer, facing their accusers, having the ability to make bail, etc. Because they were the scapegoats for our Saudi friends of which most of the attacker were from. Equality only goes as far as your great lawyer, and only if he/she doesn’t care about popular opinion. If we are to go off popular opinion, then whom the masses like gets equality and who they don’t like doesn’t. In its true basic sense, no one has any real quality outside the artificial bubble of being in a ruling class that is accepted and or liked.

You are as capable as anyone of striping rights or barring people from them based on how well you like their actions and thus make a determination of them, some people the line is with orientation as much as with a sexual act deemed heinous

Equal treatment in that a Nazi war criminal would be treated as fairly as a LGBT person, for example, with no judgement on them whatsoever?

^ Secularly of Biblically? That makes a huge difference.

@Hypocrisy_Central Secularly.

@KNOWITALL Equal treatment in that a Nazi war criminal would be treated as fairly as a LGBT person, for example, with no judgement on them whatsoever?
In the secular, as with man, it never is equal, it certainly always comes down to who has the most might to oppose their will; that will becomes right, until someone else can trump it. In the secular a person who steals 23 million with paperwork and a computer instead of a shotgun is seem as a better thief or less heinous criminal, even though his theft could have altered the lives and retirement of dozens upon dozens of people; sending some to nursing homes to die instead of their own home as planned. Secular, the trauma they received having their whole life’s financial work and effort erased is not as bad as the clerk who was robbed at gunpoint of other people’s money. Secular is ripe full of contradictions and hypocrisies based off feelings and emotions devoid of any real logic or justice. That is why it is flawed.

Because of that emotion a Nazi would be seen as worse even though he may have not had a choice but be in the Nazi party or be thrown in prison. Stalin by comparison was worse than Hitler if you take in account the trail of bodies, but since Stalin did not gas them wholesale in boxcars and cremate them in ovens he was seen as better, oh, he was a US ally.

@Hypocrisy_Central To compare adults who consent and desire to be in a relationship together to a pedophile is absurd. Someone just said somethngnsimilar to me on facebook today. I guess that is the new schtick on some right wing or religious website or radio program or email that floated around. I won’t bother to continue to talk about pedophiles regarding equal rights. Gay people are not criminals. Why are we even talking about criminals?

@Hypocrisy_Central “If you can step outside personal and popular believes and acceptance and just go with the pure unadulterated logic, you will see.”

Or you could explain what you mean plainly rather than ducking the question, if it’s “pure unadulterated logic” then it shouldn’t be difficult to do so. But I’m guessing you choose to duck because you don’t have a logical explanation.

^^^I agree. What is this “unadulterated logic?”

@JLeslie Why are we even talking about criminals?
Crime is where you happen to live. If we were in the Middle East it would be a crime to be gay. But here in the US we pick and choose what is crime; this we like, so we vote it not a crime, that we don’t like, so it is. All that is neither here nor there, what is, is what rights get striped if you happen to land on the wrong side of the law, and I am referring to all crime, it is that as people go, I have to assume by your comment, you think as such also, that some crimes are worse than murder. Even if a murderer does his/her time and is released, however they gain release, they have paid their debt to society, when you pay a debt, there is no further payment or balance, but here in the US, there is. Rights are never truly equal because men control them based on emotions and choices as to who is worse or more deserving of rights than another person, crimes notwithstanding.

@Darth_Algar Or you could explain what you mean plainly rather than ducking the question, if it’s “pure unadulterated logic” then it shouldn’t be difficult to do so.
I have nothing I need to duck, certainly not from anyone here. Here is the simple truth; here in the US the Constitution gave all certain rights. However, those rights are not metered evenly because people dispense them based of what they feel and not off the rule of law which is the foundation of the Constitution. A Nazi war criminal who served his time, a pedophile who served his/her time and a member of the LGBT community under the Constitution are the same when it comes to who gets rights or not. To say ”well, those rights should not be extended to them because he was convicted as a pedophile, or he was an officer in the Waffen SS 75–80 some odd years ago”, to assign ranking like that is a double standard dripping in hypocrisy. If this were the Middle east those of the GLBT community more than likely would be seen worse than the Nazi guy at least he was against Jews, there, by comparison, members of the GLBT community could be seen as much of a social pariah as anyone here who has had sex with a minor; and before you run off the cuff trying to put words in my mouth that I didn’t say, I am not making comparisons of gays and pedophiles just how they can be viewed based on what audience you are playing to.

Yeah, nowhere in that rambling block of text did you have anything approaching a coherent point.

If you do not know what a point looks like, you spend all day looking on a bowling ball for one

Edited:By “It is a necessity to be parented by not money hungry, non pervert friendly, people who would not use their children for labor.” I meant that those children are prisoners of their parents, and all the other co-criminals, like the fans of the show. They have no way of fighting against them, so LGBT people and hetro people, and…. people alike take them out of their slavery if they want to be about rights, Human rights.

What children are you referring to @flo?

@flo

So since no gay people have adopted “Honey Boo Boo” then they shouldn’t ask to be treated with the same respect as anyone else?

Aw man, I hate how mean people are about Honey Boo Boo. I’m not saying you were being mean @Darth_Algar you just made me think of it.

You are not going to see it, since you have trouble acknowledging that Toddlers and Tiara is a crime.

@flo

Seriously, what in God’s holy name does ‘Toddlers and Tiaras’ have to do with the issue of discrimination against gays?

@Darth_Algar Forget my posts, start from the top of the thread, you can counter the people who have given the most direct answers.
You can’t say @RealEyesRealizeRealLies‘s and @Cruiser‘s posts for example have nothing to do with the OP.

@flo

I addressed those posts already. No point in addressing them again.