Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Facebook | Twitter | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 
Latest Post:
Started By:
Rank:
Category
450 days ago.
by BeRight
Kendall78
#1

Arizona's SB1062 Legal or Illegal?

The state legislature of AZ passed this and it awaits for Gov. Brewer to either sign it into law or Veto it. Basically put, it allows owners of businesses to refuse to serve people if it conflicts with their religious beliefs. So, is it a good bill? Bad? Legal or illegal?

 
 

Member Comments

luvthesouth

exofDevola...good morning. i am just curious. what do you consider one must do to be christian and how do they maintain that label?

Posted 453 days ago.

exofDevola

Arizona has aways been very strange, the bill is not even disguised, it's discrimination plain and simple. People can refuse service to gay people or people they think might be gay , is no different than refusing people because of their color. I can't believe you can justify that. Wrong is wrong, And merchants that claim to be for the bill from their so called Christian belief system are certain to have a big problem. What they are doing is in effect saying I'm so much better than you therefore, you can't come in my store, and you cant do anything to me because. Im protected by the law Really Christian, huh?

Posted 453 days ago.

Caspiansynn

In the end who are the real losers? Is it the customers that can easily patronize another business, or is it thee business owners who are chasing money out the door and to their competitors?

Posted 453 days ago.

Caspiansynn

While I have not had a chance to review the Az. law and I'm not likely to either, I do support the right of private business owners to serve or refuse to serve anyone at their discretion with or without reason, I also support the right of customers to patronize the businesses of their choice with or without reason. Not only is it a matter of personal liberty it is also called Capitalism.

Posted 453 days ago.

exofDevola

Greek and ask not, common ground at last!

Posted 454 days ago.

exofDevola

And so meant as not being as bad, is really too late,

Posted 454 days ago.

exofDevola

Sorry not Morley, , Moral objection ,is too late.

Posted 454 days ago.

exofDevola

Greek, no discrimination is correct, racially or gender, or sexually oriented. That you believe , one the sexually oriented patrons , is understandable because ome prope might have a Morley objection to it , means you just font get it. Sorry because I know you probably are not a homophobe , but because you excuse as being not the dad, well sorry discrimination is just that. One type is not worse or better than the other, it all bad.

Posted 454 days ago.

luvthesouth

asknot and exofdevola....i guess it will be prudent to leave it at that. it is unfortunate that the zeal of the debate clouds one's ability to realize common ground when it presents itself.

Posted 454 days ago.

luvthesouth

the particulars about the person to me is irrelevent. it is the action that is undesirable and not the person...unless their level of cleaniness warrants attention...then it becomes personal. 8-)

Posted 454 days ago.

luvthesouth

gentlemen....stop and think for a moment. in your haste to defend your postition i think you have overlooked a few stated positions in my posts. 1) i agreed that all should be served. 2) i stated that there are reasons that some people of all persuasions are refused service. 3) i should not be compelled by law to violate my recognized religious beliefs. 4) not all religious beliefs are the same. 5) i have zero problem selling my products or having any company i am associated with serve anyone unless it violates an established law. 6) i do not support the law as it is written. i think it needs to be more specific if it is designed to protect and preserve anyone's freedom of religion. exofdevola...while i respect your question regarding the catholic bar owner, i will only respond to you thusly...the right of the patrons to not be harrassed by any other patron to me would allow the offending patron to be requested to leave, assisted in leaving or have them removed by law enforcement. the

Posted 454 days ago.

exofDevola

I would also like you to explain it LTS, lets say I'm a catholic bartender, and in walks a baptist quoting scripture and telling my customers, it's against Gods word to,be in be in my establishment drinking. In my church and opinion ,I disagree with him.,does that mean I can throw him out? I don't think so. He'd have to be preventing me from serving my customers. Somehow I don't think hiding behind my religion by saying I don't tolerate you because sorry my faith is better than yours.

Posted 454 days ago.

exofDevola

Lts, you say one thing , but then the however word.I can see you say but conduct that is unacceptable. What conduct? We are talking eating here. It's really a fine line to say no one will be denied food because of sexual orientation, but then if you don't like the way the gay couple looked at each other out they go? And ask not just said they kissed, then out they go? Personally I just want eat, I could care less if the couple next to me is kissing is gay or straight, I m hoping not hear the f word as a verb, noun & adjective. I don't want to look at someone's dirty feet or bare chest( a health issue) but the minute you start saying your conduct is objectionable to me that could mean anything most likely I think you're gay,, that's discrimination, and illegal except in Arizona.

Posted 454 days ago.

luvthesouth

BobBarker.....are you dense?????....i am agreeing with you. i am just pointing out that there are reasons that exist for denying service. a person being gay is not one of them unless the requested service undeniably compels a person to be compromise their faith and that will be decided by the courts.

Posted 454 days ago.

luvthesouth

may i repeat for those that do not understand. "let me be perfectly clear. goods or service should not be denied if offered to others unless it compells one to violate or compromise their faith. 99.9% of businesses would not even be asked to do that." i am agreeing that people should not be denied service...however, there are circumstances that allow service to either be denied or the patrons being asked to leave. that is ultimately decided by the courts as to the legality. in addition certain actions can be taken when other customers express their displeasure or discomfort with "any" activity or situation.

Posted 454 days ago.

luvthesouth

exofDevola...let me be perfectly clear. goods or service should not be denied if offered to others unless it compells one to violate or compromise their faith. 99.9% of businesses would not even be asked to do that. however, conduct within establishments should allow relief based on the owners discretion. service can be denied based on several reasons legally. i think that any and all should be tested by the court systems...don't you? i mean who hasn't seen the no shirt...no shoes...no service signs posted?

Posted 454 days ago.

exofDevola

Lts, I see exactly where Kendall is going . Letmsatb your family restaurant has a sign up saying this a family business. All people using profanity , or acting in a profane manner,will be asked to leave, In walks an openly gay couple, they just want to eat in fact,they have their child with them who is also hungry. They have not done anything but order their food. However they look gay to the owner, and she believes that in her religion is profane, so she kicks them out. That is discrimination right there. And what if the couple was not a couple, it was a gay woman , a straight woman and child and they want to eat . But the owner thinks this is wrong , so out they all go, again okay with the owner , but not illegal, but in Arizona it can now happen.it is is one terrible law.

Posted 454 days ago.

luvthesouth

*your

Posted 454 days ago.

luvthesouth

Kendall78, you comment should end any discussion beyond your point. however, it must be noted that although service should not be denied based on sexual orientation, refusal of service for conduct as well as any others decided on in court would be justified. one can be denied service based on their exercise of free speech. for example, we have a family-oriented restaurant that has a prominant sign that states no profanity allowed. this lends the question as to what is profane? most common conduct codes are based on community standards and thus can vary across the nation. the only rub that i can see is where forced participation in actions that compel a business owner or anyone for that matter to compromise their religion. if one can be forced or compelled to abandon their faith could they also be forced or compelled to accept the same?

Posted 454 days ago.

Kendall78

This bill has potential to effect many other states in our nation...if it would pass the Arizona Gov. Let's say it did pass, would other Republican dominated state governments begin to work other such laws into their states?

Personally I think it's a bad law and will be eliminated. Either by the AZ Gov or eventually by the US Supreme Court.

A person may have individual rights of freedom of religion but when you open a business to the public, you cannot discriminate against specific facets of the public.

Posted 454 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or