@Furry1993You don't need to use all CAPS or a BTW qualifier to
get me to hear you."Taking pictures, baking a cake, providing
flowers, etc., does not in any way constitute taking part in a ceremony."
Um... yeah, it does. The photographer has to be there for the ceremony. The
priest has to be there for the ceremony. The caterer has to be there for the
ceremony. See the examples from my comment.Wedding cakes are so easy
to get around I don't know why I should bother explaining, but - just put
the two guys on top of the cake yourself. Why do politicians have to legislate
this in order to get traditionalists and non-traditionalists to play nice? I feel for people on both sides of this coin - so I suggested a fair
compromise. But if your "line of respect" is only for those who agree
with you; well, then I'm happy to be on the other side of your
"line." I know I can't please everyone... but at least I tried.
Happy Valley Heretic: "This nonsense about private business on private
property, you own a "Privilege" that is all. Can you operate a business
without a license from government at some or several levels?...Sounds a
lot like "you didn't build that." The truth is, without business,
and without the income it provides to people and to the government, there would
be no government to which you could ask for protection from such
"bigotry." I am having a hard time understanding who really is
the "bigot" any more...
@MercyNLovelieYou wrote:" It's a slap in the
face to those traditionalists with deeply held religious beliefs about marriage.
Frankly, traditionalists are being forced to reject their God or break the laws
of their country."Here's the problem. In this context, what
you call "traditionalist" business owners, routinely provide services to
couples who run afoul of any number of biblical proscriptions.1.)
Couples who live together - and have decided to get married.2.) Couples,
either of whom is divorced and are now contemplating re-marriage.3.)
Couples, either of whom specifically reject the idea of the existence of a
supreme being.4.) Couples who plan to have an open marriage.5.)
Couples, either of whom has a proven track record of being a deadbeat parent.6.) Couples where the husband plans to be a stay-at-home dad, while the wife
will be the main bread-winner. . . and so on. note: this is only a
partial list.So, looking over this list (and let's be clear,
couple-groups listed above are provided services ALL the time), it starts to
look like the "deeply held religious beliefs" prevent serving one group
of people and not others. Hmmm . . . why would that be?
This is one LDS Republican who believes this bill in Arizona is a horrible bill
and should be vetoed. It will do nothing in terms of religious freedom except
create greater animosity and divisiveness.Ever heard the expression,
"Cut your nose off to spite your face,"? Sounds like a good number of
lawmakers in Arizona are doing just that. Let's just hope Governor Brewer
isn't one of them.
I wonder how many Mormons, if any, opposed this bill?
Two for Flinching: "Photographers don't have to work nudist weddings,
so long as they have that same policy for ALL nudist weddings."Photographers don't have to work Gay weddings so long as they have that
same policy for ALL Gay weddings...Hmmm... Which should it be? And
why is one different than the other?
"Religious liberty" doesn't mean you have the liberty to use your
religion as a weapon. Remember, a few decades ago it was some people's
"sincerely-held religious beliefs" that justified Jim Crow. And a
couple of centuries ago it was other people's "sincerely-held religious
beliefs" that led to Mormon persecution, up to and including rape and
murder.This bill is a REALLY bad idea, and I hope Gov. Brewer vetoes
it. If not, well, let's just say I'm looking forward to the first
time some evangelical bigot refuses service to a Mormon.... (I'd love to
think that none of my fellow Arizona Mormons are supporting this ignorant,
unconstitutional, anti-liberty anti-freedom anti-brains bill, but I know
I'd be incorrect.)
I never said I hate anyone.Interesting?I just asked why?I have lived outside of the state of Utah and have met those who really
and truly hate Mormons. Not sure why, but they do. My life style has no effect
on theirs. I would never do business with them. I wouldn't even think to
try to force them to. I know that no matter where you live, no
matter what service you need, you can find those who have no problem with your
way of life.
@MercyNLovelie 6:00 a.m.Taking pictures, baking a cake, providing
flowers, etc., does not in any way constitute taking part in a ceremony. Doing
those things is nothing more or less than providing a product for remuneration.
It has no true personal or relgious element. One's religious sensibilities
are not (or SHOULD not) be implicated in any way (certainly not rising to the
level of "rejecting their God") any more than what a flight attendant
who is LDS would rationally feel when serving an alcoholic drink to a passenger
on the plane on which s/he is working. YOU should draw the line of
respect, and reject prejudice in your interaction with others. If you do not
believe in homosexual interaction, then don't do it. If you don't
believe in homosexual marriage, don't have one. Just don't try to use
the guise of religion to camoflage prejudice and discrimination.BTW
-- I'm a straight woman in her 60s. I has been married to my husband (also
straight) for over 44 years. We are Temple-sealsed and fully active members of
the LDS Church. We believe in loving our neighbors as ouselves, and try to show
No medical caregiver should ever be required to participate in providing an
The line is actually quite simple. There's a distinction between gay
marriage and gay people. These services are marriage services. You don't
force a traditional priest to marry gays, you don't force a traditional
photographer to take their wedding pictures, and you don't force a
traditional baker to bake their wedding cake. It's a slap in the face to
those traditionalists with deeply held religious beliefs about marriage.
Frankly, traditionalists are being forced to reject their God or break the laws
of their country.No problem serving gays in restaurants, hospitals,
housing, etc. But marriage services? Draw the line. Politicians - draw that line
of respect, please. It's really not that hard!
Being a Libertarian, I believe that all businesses should be able to
discriminate based on sex, religion, race, national origin, etc… Our
society has chosen another path. Religious business owners shouldn't be
given "special rights" to discriminate against groups when atheists are
not given such rights. Since the law doesn't restrict the
discrimination to only be aimed against gays, I can't wait for a non-LDS
business to refuse to serve an LDS. How will the DN react? Will it claim it to
be a victory for religious freedom or condemn it? The DN's reaction
shouldn't be based on who the victim or the perp is. The statue of justice
holding the scales and sword is blindfolded for a reason.JcobabeI will certainly be watching carefully to see just how many "NO GAYS
ALLOWED" signs are posted by business owners in Arizona.KJKWouldn't it be nice the law REQUIRED businesses to post in their windows
and advertisements which groups they didn't serve. They shouldn't
hide it. It's like politicians not wanting their individual votes on
legislation made public. Let all stand up for their choices.
sprywolfSalt Lake City, UT"This walks a fine line. While no on
should be discriminated against for the way they live their life. I also believe
that people should not be forced to do something they don't feel
comfortable with."- For example" if I worked in a business,
and a mormon came in, I should not be forced to wait on them, because of Prop
8.- Following your logic: people will be turned away or insulted
because "they look Gay", "they are dressed like a mormon", or
"I hate talking to fat people"-----------------------Happy Valley HereticOrem, UT"county mom said: 'I guess
the question should be,why would you want to do business with someone who hates
you and your way of life?' "How about: This is
America, and no citizen deserves to be wary about where he shops, not knowing
who will insult him and refuse service?----------------------To set up fear of public accomodation situations sounds like Russia to me
@Two For Flinching!If they were buying an existing cake off the
shelf that may be true, when you demand someone's personal and special
labor and service in support of something they are against it is not.Living your religion is part of every aspect of your life. It is part of
everything you are and everything you do.You never stop being
Mormon, or a catholic, or a jew, or a muslim, or an a baptist, or any religion
or belief system, even an atheist, when you go to go work, or to school, go
shopping, or even when you politic.You can not separate being
something that is part of every aspect of your life.The government
forcing an institutional belief system is against the first amendment, makes
many second class citizens, and into forced servitude, and is most vile.
@ the truthMaking a cake has nothing to do with practicing your
religion. Absolutely nothing. Behaving straight is also a choice.
Being gay/straight is not. You're advocating for discrimination just
because people are different than you; and that is wrong.
county mom said: "I guess the question should be,why would you want to do
business with someone who hates you and your way of life? "Thanks for your honesty. Most of your fellow commenters try and justify there
hate as some kind of religious tenet or freedom, but it really is just hate.This nonsense about private business on private property, you own a
"Privilege" that is all.Can you operate a business without a
license from government at some or several levels?Do you pay property
taxes on real property connected to said business?Are you subject to
inspections for safety and health?Do you operate across state or national
borders without permission?Can you discriminate against others simple
because of bigotry and hate wrapped in some distorted view of religion not even
described in one owns scriptures? Thankfully NO.
Why is it that a bill that is designed to protect an individual's right to
exercise their religion according to the dictates of their own conscience, ie,
"relgious freedom" is instead reported in virtually every mainstream
media venue as simply "anti-gay"?That screams media bias
loud and clear.
Why is it that individuals who craft a bill that is designed to protect their
God-given right to exercise their religion according to their conscience, it is
instead reported in the mainstream media as merely being "anti-gay"?
Why is it not reported as being "pro-religion"?I tried
posting a comment twice on this story.Once, I had the word
"they" in all caps. There's no italics option on these posts so
when you try to emphasize a word, even as benign as "they", it's
taken as shouting and rude. Really?The next time I uncapitalized
"they" and it was still rejected.Why? Why is it that when a
poster writes that homosexual activity is immoral it is denied?Think
these comments don't pertain to this story? Think again.
Apparently for gays and gay supporters, bigotry AGAINST religious people is OK,
and forced servitude of religious people is OK; is that what we are to
understand?I believe this law is good and strikes a good balance in
protecting religion and religious people.Is institutionalized
bigotry against religious people OK?Is practicing your religion a
fundamental right?Is it less fundamental than practicing
homosexuality?People have the right to practice their religion in
the public square.A business license does not require you to give
your constitutional right to practice your religion.Behaving gay is
a choice and can not in any way be made equivalent with skin color or
ethnicity.While one may be of a race or sexual persuasion, however
everyone can choose how they behave or act.You should not get rights
based on those choices.This law does offer protection for
CONSTITUTIONALLY guaranteed rights.
American rights are inalienable and must not be forced on others because that is
an alienable action. If one organization attempts to make laws based its sole
beliefs whether it be religious beliefs, political beliefs, etc. and these laws
do not provide equality for all Americans, it is committing an alienable action.
For example: When same-sex couples get married, it does not affect heterosexual
couples marriages. Non-religious businesses, schools, hospitals etc. should
welcome all law abiding American citizens. All Americans should be considerate
of religious institutions beliefs and not attempt to force or harass them, and
It would be nice if religions were at least as moral as the secular world.
@ LovelyDeseretIf you can't fulfill all the requirements of a
job then you simply shouldn't do it. If pork eating is a requirement, then
a devout Jewish man would be wise to not apply....Same thing about
working on the Sabbath. This paper is produced 7 days per week, that requires
some LDS people to work of the Sabbath. It's not a violation of rights,
it's just fulfilling the requirements of a paying job.Photographers don't have to work nudist weddings, so long as they have
that same policy for ALL nudist weddings.A restaurant has complete
control over what is served on their menu. In short, everything you
said is completely incorrect.
@ a_voice_of_reasonSimple. Making a cake or taking pictures does
nothing to violate your religious beliefs. You aren't being asked to
participate. You are being asked to provide a service (the reason you decided
to open a business in the first place). Your religion tells you to love thy
I guess the question should be,why would you want to do business with someone
who hates you and your way of life? Why not support those who
support you? There are thousands of businesses who have no problem
with differing life styles. They would be happy for your business.Why try to force someone to make a cake, take your pictures, rent you an
apartment or fix your car? I know from past experience, they will
not do a good job and talk bad about you if they do end up taking your business.
If your car does not run right, you are the jerk, you are at fault.
@Joe: "what specific clause in the Constitution gives you or anybody else
the right to tell me how to run my private business."== U.S.
Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 3: Congress has the power to "regulate
Commerce…among the several States…". In the case, Heart of
Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States (1964), SCOTUS held that the federal
gov’t could require private businesses to serve the protected classes
covered by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, under the power granted by the Commerce
Clause.== Utah Constitution: Art.XII, Sec.12; Art.XII, Sec.20;
Art.XVIRelated to this discussion, from SCOTUS: "When followers
of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the
limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are
not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in
that activity." United States v Lee (1982) and "We have never held
that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an
otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate."
Employ. Div v Smith (1990).
Thank you Arizona for beating us to this one and sparing us the national
"attention". We needed the break. What's the score in you vs us
in becoming the new Florida??? Thank you to those of you who see it for the
hateful bigotry that it is- you restore my faith in humanity :)
Sprywolf, are you serious? People shouldn't have to do things in the
course of their employment that they are uncomfortable with?A
teacher is "uncomfortable" with a gay student in their class--so the
student gets kicked out? A teacher is "uncomfortable" with
a Mormon student in their class---should we make the student leave? A Jehovah's Witness photographer or musician or florist thinks that
Mormons are an evil sect--should he be able to decline the wedding gig because
it makes him "uncomfortable"? It makes me
"uncomfortable" to pay property taxes when the church down the block
doesn't. It offends my sense of fairness. Do I get a pass?
@a_voice_of_reason & Viva la Migra;Unless you're being
forced to have a gay marriage, you are NOT being forced to do anything against
your "religion". There is NOT ONE scripture - anywhere - that says you
shouldn't do business with homosexuals or other sinners. NOT ONE.Any claim of "religious conscience", then, is NOT supported by your
The people opposed to this bill have ignored reality. The reality is the issues
in question have always involved attempts to force others to participate in
ceremonies they object to for deeply held religious reasons. This bill is not
going to lead to people being denied service in restaurants, and claims that it
will are totally false and out of touch with reality.
It would seem to me that it would be a golden opportunity for business owners to
take advantage of the situation. If other businesses are refusing to accept
business from certain groups of clientele then open a business catering to that
under serviced group. All of this lamenting about the "collective not
servicing the individual" is an opportunity. If you don't like
something, go fix it yourself. Quit waiting around. Quit trying to force others
to fix it for you. Open your own business and accept the windfall of profits
@Res Novae - "what the government provides to businesses goes to the very
core of each and every business transaction: the ability to enforce the very
contractual obligations necessary to do business. Every business in the country
relies on that government power as the foundation of free enterprise."You make a very good point: the government enforces sales contracts when
it comes to credit purchases, and the government creates the currency and coins
used for cash purchases. However, bartering could go on very well without
government. Our government fascilitates commerce, but it also relies on
commerce to more easily levy taxes.Government has the power to
regulate businesses, and that includes anti-discrimination laws. It is better
for people to learn good principles and govern themselves. "Taking your
brother to law" is discouraged in the New Testament.
Jared from CT, take a bow! You hit the nail on the head!
As an Arizona Citizen I contacted each of my representatives and demanded they
vote yes on this law.Without it, a Jewish taste tester would be forced to
eat pork.Without it, a Seventh-Day Adventist could be forced to work on
Saturdays.Without it, a Muslim female photographer could be forced to take
pictures at a nudist wedding.Without it, a Hindu restaurant owner could be
forced to serve beef. Without it, anyone with religious beliefs could be
forced to sacrifice them so that someone else can take advantage of their
services.Arizona is doing the right thing for freedom's sake.
@esto Just because this law gives business owners the power to defend themselves
rather than force them to choose between their faith and their business
doesn't mean they will immediately use it to discriminate against someone.
You'll see that the bill would require a burden of proof on the business
owner to establish that they are actively practicing their faith. The thought
behind this bill seems to be a way to protect a business owner from state
penalties or worse in the event they choose not violate their personal beliefs.
After all, no one would ask a gay person to violate their sexual preference in
the name of running a business.Most of our laws are based upon or
can be traced back to the original 10 commandments. And unless someone has
entered your home without permission and held you at knife point while you were
forced to read scripture, nothing is being forced on you. My freedom to practice
my religion according to my conscience does not equate to forcing you to accept
said religion. You are as free as the wind to believe what you will.
"Religious" indignation has always been fuel for persecution, even
toward Mormons. I remember "We reserve the right to refuse service to
anyone" on business doors. Such signs were a more subtle form of the
"white only" signs in the South. The Southern states, where my ancestors
lived for many generations, are referred to as "The Bible Belt" because
of the religiosity there. It was, in part, deeply ingrained "religious"
conviction that kept segregation alive and oppressive for so long. The Memphis
of Martin Luther King's time bragged that it had "more churches than
gas stations." Arizona has a history of discrimination. At one time, the
KKK was a presence there, even among Phoenix city fathers. The city directory in
1920 stated: "Phoenix is a modern town of 40,000 people and the best kind of
people, too. A very small percentage of Mexicans, Negroes or foreigners."
If it had been an issue at the time, I'm 100% positive "or
homosexuals" would have been added. There has to be a more civil way of
protecting the right to worship according to our consciences than to use
"freedom of religion" as an excuse for legal discrimination.
I think there should be some sort of balance between the rights of the people
wanting a service performed and a business owner who has strong convictions
based on their own religious or moral beliefs. There seems to be a trend
popular with gay rights activists where they target Christian-based business
owners with stated policies against participating in gay wedding ceremonies, and
suing them for discrimination. In Colorado the legislature is talking about
raising the fine from $150 to $3000 every time a business turns down a gay
wedding request.How long is it going to take them to start targeting
religions for not performing a gay marriage? If this continues
unchecked, what would stop a pornographer from trying to sue a Christian owned
video editing company for refusing to edit his films? Or an atheist from suing
a Mormon owned web development company for refusing to create an anti-Christian
website that attacks his own faith?
Would anyone please show me where in the constitution you have the right to be
serviced by my business. Everyone here says it is unconstitutional, but
discrimination laws are not part of the constitution. They are laws which limit
the righy of free assembly under the First Amendment. The problem is that
everyone now wants the government to force other people to acvept what they do,
but notto accept the rights of third parties to do something else. I can boycot
yor business if I do not like your religious beliefs, but you still have to
serve me. A couple of years ago a doctor was successfully sued in
California for refusing to do invitro fertilization for a lesbian couple. He
even referred them to another doctor who would. Can the government
force a doctor to commit an abortion if he is the only one in town. Do I have
to rent my hotel room to a prostitute to a prostitute if prostitution is legal?
Do I have to selling farming equipment to a pot farm in Colorado. If the
government can force you to provide services which violate you conscience, you
are not free.
I agree with many that feel this legislation is pointed and on its surface seems
to attack gays & lesbians. However, I would respectfully ask, how then do we
protect religious individuals from being forced to act in violation of their
personal beliefs if the first amendment isn't sufficient protection as
we've seen in the cases cited by the republicans in this article? In my
opinion the first amendment should be sufficient and the law should be
unnecessary, but if a religious photographer can be forced to take photos at a
gay wedding because they provide that service to heterosexual couples it would
seem necessary to do something. While many fear the law says "gays
aren't welcome in Arizona" recent court decisions seem to be saying
"religion isn't welcome in public." How do we make both welcome?
@HeresAThought;Your business opened it's doors to the public.
ALL the public; ergo, it is no longer private.
@jcobebeNo doubt there will be few if any signs as those that choose
to engage in such discrimination are to big of cowards and will try to keep
their refusal to serve people out of the headlines. Hopefully those that are
refused services do not allow them to hide in the shadows.
@Jared from CT"What about the homosexual that chooses not to shop at
an establishment such as Chick-Fil-A? Isn't that discrimination by the
homosexual against a group that doesn't share the same beliefs?"There's no mandate to buy chicken...
"The government provides NOTHING of its own self"No, Jared
from CT, what the government provides to businesses goes to the very core of
each and every business transaction: the ability to enforce the very contractual
obligations necessary to do business. Every business in the country relies on
that government power as the foundation of free enterprise.Those
businesses providing accomodation to the general public and which practice
discrimination having no rational basis (health, safety, etc) should in turn
lose the lawful protections afforded to them by the legal system.
Hurrah for Arizona! It appears that only Arizona has the guts to stand against
the bullying of the LGBT agenda. That agenda has long since abandoned
live-and-let-live, no, the real LGBT agenda is to FORCE ENDORSEMENT. Our
constitutionally guaranteed Freedom of Religion means that I do not have to
choose between what I know, and what the shout-down, protest, boycott, lawsuit,
LGBT thugs want to compel me to do. Other states could learn from Arizona on how
to protect their citizens.
Many gay and straight people are disappointed to see others pushing hateful
discriminating laws against Americans. Laws are civil, not religious, and
intelligent human beings need to stop forcing their individual religious
freedoms on all Americans.
@ranch - your home is private, and so is your business, hence why it's
called "private property"; it's why loitering isn't allowed,
and why you as an owner can call the police when a patron or loiterer is causing
a disturbance. Public property includes parcels, buildings and other
establishments which are open to the public because they are maintained by
public funds, aka taxes.
For a long time I was in staunch opposition to Obamacare. After actually reading
some of its proposed actions, and hearing the opinions of supporters and
opponents, I changed my mind. I decided it was better to pass bad legislation
and allow it to fail on its own merit. You win twice when it does: the Nancy
Pelosi's are less likely to be voted into office, and the public will start
becoming more interested in politics and their own future. The
extreme negativity surrounding this bill (I am from AZ btw) is par for the
course. If residents and non-residents are confident this will permit
discrimination, say nothing. The bill will speak for itself in 6 months, and
could get repealed after the mid-terms. My money is on it staying a bill, and
here's the reason: No business owner would commit suicide by refusing
service to a person based on an assumption of sexual preference. That's
just bad business, and word of mouth is great for advertising (see Amy's
Baking Company). Give the bill a chance to fall on its face if it truly fosters
hate. You might be surprised when it doesn't.
This is how the Nazi party handled Jews in Germany not too long ago!
One of the "doom" predictions by opponents is the assertion that
discrimination will now run rampant. I will certainly be watching carefully to
see just how many "NO GAYS ALLOWED" signs are posted by business owners
in Arizona. I have no doubt that it will be noted by the news media, should any
such thing ever take place. I suspect there will probably not be a significant
increase in the number of such signs posted.This legislation could
be reasonably classified as "bad law", or more accurately characterized
as superfluous, as long as the context of current events is ignored. But in that
light, it is just a symptom of backlash against judicial activism and
compromises to the Constitutional rights of the majority, catering to special
interests. Absent that, no such legislation should ever be wanted or necessary.
@ joe5So if you own a private business, say a food service place,
should you have the right to not allow African American customers to sit at your
lunch counter? You can run your business however you want, we are just saying
that discrimination is wrong. Using religion to justify it is even worse....
This is very simple. Private individuals and businesses have a fundamental
inalienable right to choose who they associate with and do business with.What about the homosexual that chooses not to shop at an establishment
such as Chick-Fil-A? Isn't that discrimination by the homosexual against a
group that doesn't share the same beliefs?Why should a private
business be denied the choice of who to sell to when a private individual is
allowed to choose indiscriminately who to buy from?Don't give
me this crap about taxes and infrastructure, etc., that the business owner
benefits from. ALL citizens benefit from those things. And, it isn't the
government that provides them, it's the citizens and businesses that
provide them, via taxes. (The government provides NOTHING of its own self.)The only entities that should be legally prohibited from
"discrimination" are government entities. Unfortunately, in today's
society, the chief discriminator is the government, discriminating against
traditional religious beliefs, while pushing non-traditional religious beliefs
such as homosexuality on the public at large.
@Meckofahess" straight citizens would certainly be more sensitive to
their concerns and issues."Half of straight people in this
nation support same-sex marriage. I'm sure most of them including myself
don't care for being lumped into the group you're classifying."Moreover, law suits intended to cause business owners to lose their
livelihoods because they have religious convictions only serves to polarize
society and cause turmoil for everyone."That's like saying
we weren't racially polarized until black people got upset that they had to
sit in the back. @Owl" If selling Plan B birth control
pills is the question, it depends on whether you are the only pharmacy in town
or one of many"The issue is not a business providing a service
to nobody, it's about businesses providing a service to some but not all.
Willem: Do you know what the Constitution says? I asked a question earlier that
nobody has answered yet. Since you claim to be a patriot who doesn't ignore
the Constitution, please tell me what specific clause in the Constitution gives
you or anybody else the right to tell me how to run my private business.
-legislation like this clearly demonstrates they are neither patriots (patriots
don't ignore the Constitution) or christians (Jesus preached tolerance, not
hate).I'll be canceling my upcoming Grand Canyon trip due to the
state's disgusting bigotry. Bummer.
@gmlewisIWe agree: there are ways for people not to make a big deal
about differences, and treating people with respect is the best idea.Fairness in employment, housing and public accommodations matters in a country
that values equality. If a business offers goods and services to the
public--that needs to mean all the public, not just the groups the owner deems
morally acceptable.As with the job loss you believe was based on
your religion, many people find themselves treated unfairly because someone
didn't "like their kind": too old, too Mormon, too gay. It's
injustice every time. There are many ways for businesses to attract
and repel the clientele they prefer. BUT. The baseline needs to be legal
equality.Will gay people sue when disapproving bakers won't
bake cakes? Some will. And it should be their right to sue, as it was your
right if you thought you had a case against your former employer for religious
discrimination. A fine may be a cost of doing business their way.But
when faced with hostility, most do what you did: go somewhere else and get on
with it, knowing they could sue if they wanted to.
@Meckofahess says:"Lets hope the Governor signs the
legislation."-- Actually, I'm hoping the same thing, that
way it'll go to court and be overturned, preventing other, similar
abominations from being passed.@D. Call;It isn't
"in favor of religious liberty", it's in favor of discrimination.
@Fred Vader;Do you refuse to photograph for *all* go-go-dancer
parties, or only for certain go-go-parties? When you treat all the same, there
isn't a problem.BeSmart says:Cheyenne, WY"But any private business owner should have a right to refuse
service."-- Not without a VALID reason (i.e., disruptive,
improperly dressed, inebriated, etc.). "Religious beliefs" are not a
valid reason."but a business OWNER loses his rights of refusal
because he has to serve someone he is against? "-- The business
owner KNEW the law BEFORE opening his doors (or at least he should have). If he
can't/won't obey non-discrimination laws, he does not deserve to be in
business.gmlewis says:"Let LGBT folks learn not to
flont their predilictions,..."Do you hold hands with your spouse
in public? Do you put pictures of your family on your desk? You are
"flaunting" your "predilections". You're a hypocrite to
expect LGBT people to refrain from doing what you do without a second thought.
This is the end of this story as it appears on MSN:After hearing
that the legislation was approved, Rocco DiGrazia, owner of Rocco's Little
Chicago Pizzeria in Tucson, put up a sign on a window Thursday night that reads
"We reserve the right to refuse service to Arizona legislators."It's the best part!
We already agree it's okay to refuse to give service to people who
don't wear shirts or shoes, so I don't see the problem in this. I do
believe that a business owner has the right to decide who he will and who he
won't do business with. I'm tired of the government
pushing the gay agenda down everyone's throat and I'm happy to see
Arizona take a stand.
What constitutional clause gives any of you the right to tell me how to run my
open minded: "...there are only 2 kinds of people in this world- those who
are God's children and those who aren't."Are we not
ALL God's children? Maybe I better check my genealogy...
It is not ethically sustainability to deny critical or scarce services on the
basis of ones religious beliefs. If selling Plan B birth control pills is the
question, it depends on whether you are the only pharmacy in town or one of
many. but readily or universally available items such as photographs and cakes?
Can the corner baker refuse to decorate a cake with swastikas to commemorate
This is NOT a religious thing in any way. I want proof of how refusing service
to someone who is gay is a Religious belief. Where in any religion on the planet
does it say, "Thou Shalt Not Serve They Gay neighbor" or anything even
close to that? You can't claim religious freedom if NO where in your
religion does it say to not provide the same service for Gay people as you would
other people. If "religious people" are claiming they don't
want to be forced to provide services to a "sinner" then they would be
out of business; We are all sinners. I would add, there are only 2 kinds of
people in this world- those who are God's children and those who
aren't. God loves all his children and has told us to do the same.
"We're making some tweaks here because of what's been going on in
other states where people have been punished for their beliefs," Farnsworth
said."Nobody has been punished for their beliefs, they were
sanctioned because of their hurtful actions.What surprises me, it
that religious people wonder why churches are empty. New generation don't
want anything to do with bigotry and discrimination.Many (not all)
Christians ask for protection for their religion. What they are asking for their
right to discriminate. If they really believe in the words of Christ they should
be afraid:Matthew 7: 21-23 21 “Not everyone who says to me,
‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who
does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day,
‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out
demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them
plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
A shockingly hateful bill from people who profess to follow Jesus'
teachings.Not to mention the foolishness of imagining that
discrimination will work only in favor of your own group. A law like this
authorizes religiously-motivated discrimination against women, minorities,
Mormons, Jews, Muslims and people who wear funny clothes.Good thing
Arizona doesn't have any other pressing needs for the taxpayer funds it
will take to defend this bill in court and lose, big time.
D Call, interesting you focused on the word "hateful" and completely
ignored the far more relevant "unconstitutional."
@nycut: I'm recommending that people ramp down their emotions on both sides
of the issue. I have several co-workers who have same sex unions. They
discussed their family events without referencing they were gay unions. Over
time I realized their unions were same sex, but I didn't make a big deal of
it one way or another. One recently lost his companion after 34 years of being
together, and I expressed condolensces like I would for any other.I
understand the need to work politically to get same sex marriage legalized.
However, suing a company for discrimination is not going to solve the problem.
We need to change people's hearts, and that takes time and kindness. I
believe that I lost my job once because of my religion. There was no way that I
was going to sue; that would just cement the bad feelings about my faith. I
just hit the road and worked to find another job.Eventually, people
will recognize that there is good in all of us, and the prejudice melts away.
Not everyone will agree, but they will find grounds for mutual respect.
This reminds me of the old biblical passage. "Blessed are those that use
their power and influence to hold down the weak and disenfranchised, for
despising those who are different and treating your fellow man with utter
contempt is the key to the kingdom of heaven"
@mcdugallSo if anyone disagrees with your (until recently) extreme
veiws they are automatically 'hateful'? How about you stop putting
words in peoples mouths. Didn't you read the article where the sponser of
the bill said he loves everyone as God's children? If being in favor of
religious liberty makers you 'hateful' then I guess George Washington,
James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Martin Luther King etc were all haters.
This hateful, and unconstitutional, legislation will be extremely costly to AZ
Lets hope the Governor signs the legislation. This is needed to protect
religious freedoms from being abused by extremist judges and gay people who may
think they are the only citizens that have sensitivities and rights. It is
apparent that if our gay citizens would show understanding and respect for
religious freedoms and moral concerns, straight citizens would certainly be more
sensitive to their concerns and issues. Serious problems arise when a group
attempts to force other folks to do things against their religious conscience.
Moreover, law suits intended to cause business owners to lose their livelihoods
because they have religious convictions only serves to polarize society and
cause turmoil for everyone.
@gmlewis says: "Let LGBT folks learn not to flont their predilictions, or
face the rare discrimination.""Flaunt" is such an odd
word. Consider this statement: "My husband and I are going to the movies
tonight." When a woman says this, it is just conversation. When a man says
this, he is somehow "flaunting" his "predilection."No. Best that the listener not "flaunt" their "discomfort" at
the fact that a human beings marry who they love and go to the movies together.
Just smile and relate to the fact that you and your spouse go to the movies too.
This is tolerance.At any rate, it's a bit difficult not to
"flaunt" the fact that one is gay when arranging a wedding for two men
or two women, and it's not "rare" that a couple would look for a
wedding cake at a bakery that, in fact, offers cakes for people to buy.To the handful of bakers who feel compelled to express their disapproval of
gay people: try putting a sign out saying 10% of proceeds from wedding cakes are
donated to WE-THINK-GAYS-ARE-BAD.ORG." Everyone wins. Enshrining
discrimination in our laws works for no one.
I think some are taking themselves way too seriously. It smacks of worshipping
one's religion rather than what their religion is ostensibly about.
@jamescmeyeryou wrote:"What this bill is for is to protect
Arizonans from being bullied by those who would force them to do business in
relation to so-called "weddings" by those of the same sex."Then why not have the bill state that specifically? State who is being
targeted --specifically-- and state what event and/or activity the individual or
business-owner wants to be exempted from.
Redshirt,Actually, this: Studies show that if you are a single
while male that you are most likely to be given assignments that require you to
work late - most certainly is discrimination under the law. Any worker who
feels this is happening to him has very right to grieve the policy - and use the
legal process if necessry.
Let business owners learn to serve the LGBT community like they would anyone
else. Let LGBT folks learn not to flont their predilictions, or face the rare
discrimination. If I make it a point to let others know I'm LDS (which I
frequently do), then I better have a thick enough skin not to be offended by
someone who is uncomfortable with that.Then give it time. Let the
emotions ramp down. Let people learn to get along together. We
don't need more laws that are easily circumvented or repealed.
"... gay people in Arizona could be... refused medical treatment"False.Besides that, a business owner, for a restaurant for
instance, would never, ever deny service to someone on the basis of sexual
orientation. Look at the media! It would destroy them!What this
bill is for is to protect Arizonans from being bullied by those who would force
them to do business in relation to so-called "weddings" by those of the
same sex. That is what is actually out there, going on now.
@ RanchI ran a privately owned business and was very successful.I
never once denied anyone service because of anything.A business may have
to have the right to public access. But any private business owner should have a
right to refuse service.How do you know that these other sinners
aren't denied service? I was denied service in Alabama because I was from
Utah after a football game. Should I throw a fit because I was
"discriminated" against because of where I resided?All I am saying
is a business owner should have the right to refuse service (it is money out of
their pocket).Survey 10 weddings companies and I bet even in Utah maybe 1
would refuse service.It is discrimination when a certain group of people
are stripped of rights (LBGT Marriage), but a business OWNER loses his rights of
refusal because he has to serve someone he is against? That in turn will create
more discrimination out of anger.People should have a right to decide what
is done with their property a fundamental right in the declaration of
independence.If a business owners refuses me service, I move on to a
If I were a photographer or a baker, I would not have a problem taking picutres
or making a cake for a GLBT wedding. However, I am curious as to where folks
think a line could be drawn, or do folks think all businesses have to help
everyone for every occaision that walks in your door?For example:
If I am a photographer and a hetero couple hires me to photo the groom's
bachelor party and the party includes "Go-Go Dancers" (for lack of a
more printable term). If I say "no" based on religious reasons for not
wanting to be present for the "Go-Go Dancers" have I discriminated
against that groom? What if it is a GLBT couple? Same question. Seems to me
that some lines should be able to be drawn against providing services for
certain events for religious purposes. Not based on the customer, but on the
@BeSmart;"No shirt, no shoes, no service" fills a LEGITIMATE
business purpose. There are many health codes that could be impacted.
Additionally, the offending party can EASILY rectify the problem by putting on
the missing attire. LGBT citizens can not simply change their orientation to
satisify the bigoted demands of business owners.Furthermore, this is
clearly a "discrimination issue" since the businesses in question
continue to do business with other "sinners" that regularly violate the
"religious conscience" of the business owners: Adulterers are served,
fornicators are served, Sabbath breakers are served, etc. If it weren't a
"discrimination issue", then these "sinners" would also be
@Redshirt1701You've put your finger on a very important point.
Discrimination happens all the time. In law, though, the relevant
concern is not discrimination, per se -- the concern is, is it UNJUST
I absolutely understand a business declining to participate in a same sex
wedding, but this AZ bill appears to overreach. There is a big
difference between refusing to provide services to someone because of their
sexual orientation and refusing to participate in an event that violates your
conscience. Vegetarian photographers shouldn't be required by law to
photograph something like a BBQ festival if it violates their conscience.The AZ Republic points out: The proposed law is so poorly crafted it
could allow a Muslim taxi driver to refuse service to a woman traveling alone.
BeSmart,"....Privately owned business are not public in any
way...."______________________________Under law, the act
of being open for business is a legal offer of general public access.
Excellent! Let Arizona spend taxpayer money trying to defend an
unconstitutional law for a change.
To "Social Mod Fiscal Con" but we discriminate all the time against
people for various reasons.For example, if you go to an amusement
park and are an adult that is really short, you may not be able to go on all of
the rides. Isn't that height discrimination?Airlines are able
to charge overweight people more because they overflow their seats. Isn't
that weight discrimination?Studies show that if you are a single
while male that you are most likely to be given assignments that require you to
work late. Isn't that discrimination too?The last time you
were walking around a big city an approached that beggar that didn't look
good or smell good, did you do so cautiously. That too is discrimination.The fact is that discrimination can be a good thing when it protects
people and their rights. If you run around saying that discrimination is bad,
then you only show your ignorance of the many times per day that you
discriminate against other people.To "Vince here" yes
bigotry is alive and well, and maybe the militant gays will give up on it
@ Be Smart: Business owners "should have the right to refuse service to
anyone." No, I don't think so. That POV is illegal for a public
business. The civil rights movement took care of the "right to refuse
service to anyone (w/ a black skin).Maybe I think fat people are
guilty of the sin of gluttony and should refuse service on that basis? Maybe I
don't want to serve Jews because they killed Christ (not). Maybe I want to
refuse to serve Mormons because they are poly-theistic. No end to this
baloney.What religious activity takes place during the process of
making a wedding cake? Help me understand that one.
The facts of life and the laws of nature can't be compromised. it is what
it is it ain't what it ain't.
@ RanchA ranch and farm are a business so anyone can come on it and do as
they please?I doubt that would clearly allow government workers to not
uphold their duties as employees.Any individually owned business is
private property. A grocery store, bank, anything has the right to kick you off
their property or refuse service. (no shirt, no shoes, no service? so if I
don't wear a shirt I can say it is discrimination?)This is a business
owner right issue, not a discrimination issue.Privately owned business are
not public in any way. If I own something I should have the right to kick anyone
off, refuse any service pertaining to my property.
Should a Jewish cabdriver refuse to pick you up at the supermarket if he notices
you have a package of bacon in your shopping bag? Muslim cabdrivers at the
Minneapolis airport refused to pick up passengers who had alcohol. This happened
about a year ago.At what point can people simply declare a religious
belief allows them to behave as they wish? If my religion requires me to kill
infidels, who are you to say secular law trumps that deeply held belief? And the
law in Arizona isn't simply about wedding cakes.Some businesses
will refuse to hire or rent to gays, others to Mormons, still others to blacks.
Anything can be justified in the name of religion (read the Old Testament for
guidance here). And does the religion in question have to be registered with the
government or can I simply proclaim my religious beliefs require me not to pay
taxes and allow me to take drugs?
Someone needs to point this out. The Arizona bill potentially affects MANY
people. For example, a devout Muslim, under this bill, would be able to refuse
service to any woman unaccompanied by a male relative. Bus rides, transactions
at a pharmacy, the list goes on. -- Let that sink in for a moment.Of
course, in reality, the bill is aimed DIRECTLY at LGBT people, though it
doesn't even mention them by name. Consider the disingenuousness of a bill
like this. If one is Christian, other groups of "sinners" -- cough,
everyone -- are, in practice, almost NEVER targeted. Private business services
are routinely provided to people, that, if one used a checklist of biblical
proscriptions, could be publicly refused and sent packing.
If business owners wish to discriminate and deny their services to other
citizens then the business owner should be required to reimburse those they
discriminate against their fair share of taxes for street cleaning, crime
control, city improvements, etc that make it possible for the business owner to
operate a safe successful business.
Foolish. foolish, foolish! If you are looking for discrimination, you will find
it! How someone can equate discrimination with someone standing for something
is beyond me! If I don't want to allow an alcoholic in my house, or
business, and deny him/her a beer because I don't want that influence in my
house, or business, how is that anything but standing up for my religious right?
Yup, Jesus might say come on in and drink up a storm, but I am not Him, and
I'm not sure He would do that either. He might, but He is different than
me. I need to protect my family, business, and children from influences that I
deem harmful. I'm not against the alcoholic to go drink his beer somewhere
where he/she feels more comfortable. I think all these people walking around
screaming "discrimination" need to look for the good in others, instead
of the negative. Being a victim your whole life doesn't help either.
George Washington Carver grew up with all kinds of discrimination and negativity
and he overcame it by just doing what was right and looking for the good.
@Alacrity;The law says:"The bill allows ANY business,
church OR PERSON to cite the law as a defense in any action brought by the
government or individual claiming discrimination."This would
clearly allow "government workers" as well as they fall under the
category of ANY PERSON. Many states are specifically allowing government
workers to refuse service to LGBT couples in their laws.Businesses
do not have religion. Businesses do not worship. Businesses do not have the
right to "refuse service to anyone" without a legitimate reason.
Religious beliefs are not a legitimate reason to discriminate.@BeSmart;They "own" their business. They operate under
the permission of the government. Your home and business are separate entities.
One is a "public access", the other is private.
@ Vince hereSame-sex marriage as far as the government goes is a
constitutional issue, what they decide Whether or not it is constitutional
constitutional I will support that decision, but there is something called the
seperation of church and state.There are lots of scriptures in the bible
for standing for what you believe is right.The golden rule is do unto
other as you would have them do unto you. I would not be offended one bit if I
was refused service because somehow I practiced,or was contrary to someones
beliefs. That is a fundamental right every business owner should have.They
OWN the business.I think it is discrimination if you do not let me in your
house, you should have to let me in even if you own the house? It is a right
that should not be infringed upon.
@sprywolf 8:22 a.m. Feb. 21, 2014This walks a fine line. While no on
should be discriminated against for the way they live their life. I also believe
that people should not be forced to do something they don't feel
comfortable with.---------------For the record, I'm
a straight woman in her 60s. If this bill passes there's something my
husband and I won't feel comfortable with -- spending even one penny that
will somehow benefit Arizona. This type of bill is disgusting, and goes against
everything I know about honor, and about equal protection under the
Constitution. Funny thing, "religious" people -- gays and lesbians are
people too, and are well eligible and suitable for you to respect. Sexuality
"just is" -- it isn't chosen and it doesn't happen as the
result of a conscious decision. Gay men and lesbian women have
every right to their place in the market on an equal basis with everyone else.
It is truly sad when people try to deny them that. AND denying them equal
treatment is not a religious way to live (whatever happened to loving one's
neighbor as oneself).For shame, Arizona. You (your people) should
As a business person I would not deny service to anyone because of what they
are. That is part of doing business. But I would want the right to deny
service if a customer wants me to perform a service that would associate me(my
business) with a behavior, belief or life style that I find objectionable.
I'm sure the businesses in question sell cakes all the time without
discriminating against anyone. The same with photography. But if the customer
wants your service in such a way that associates your business as a supporter of
their objectionable activity or belief then the business should have the right
to deny service. This has been the standard up until now without having to pass
new laws but because some press the issue to suit their own agenda we end up
with what is going on today.
Bigotry, alive and well - In the name of religious freedom -
let's see, let me look that up in the New Testament - hmmm - refuse
service, nope, that's the Sermon on the Mount, that won't do. Golden
Rule, naw. "True religion undefiled is this, to clothe the naked, to feed
the hungry..." - nope, that's only for Sunday School.
@bandersonThe act of discriminating is foolish, childish, and most
assuredly provocative. Actually, I take back childish, since
that's an insult to children.
Private business owners usually pay huge sums of money and take big risks in
acquiring their own businesses. As such, they should be given some prerogative
as to how and with whom that business is run. And they certainly
shouldn't be forced into conduct that goes against their innate religious
beliefs. As such, this freedom of religion bill is a good for Arizona and good
for America. Hopefully, other states will follow Arizona's common sense
example.LGBT people will still be able to purchase whatever they
want in Arizona. There won't be that many businesses that will enact and
use this law. But the ones that do should definitely have that right. If LGBT people force others into doing things they don't want to do...
especially something related to their personal religious beliefs, they are truly
going to create more animosity toward themselves, thus defeating part of their
agenda about wanting to be accepted. Forcing others never creates a feeling of
acceptance. @ Ranch:Did you even read the article? This
is only about private business owner's rights. No government service will
ever be denied to anyone because of this law. So no issue there.
This should be a fundamental right to any business owner.They should have
the right to refuse service to anyone.What is lost in this situation are
the business owners rights.I can guarantee that there are plenty of
businesses who will cater to any community. A business owner should have
the right to refuse service to anyone. Why because it is their business, their
money, and their reputation. Just like an owner of a home had the right to not
let someone in their home.If this community wants the rights to marry.
Then they should respect business owners rights to refuse service.Pot
calling the kettle black.
I don't think that someone should discriminate against a person because of
their sexual orientation or their religion. People should be able to boycott an
event. So if Bob the Baptist goes to a restaurant Andy the Atheist's
restaurant, he can't be turned down. If Bob calls up the restaurant and
wants a church function to be catered, then Andy the Atheist can refuse. Same
thing for someone who objects to gay marriage. He/she can discriminate against
the event.What if I don't want to invest in stocks in Israeli
companies because of their oppression of the Palestinians? Am I anti-semitic,
on the same level as a Nazi?People will disagree that if they
don't want to cater a gay wedding then they should not be caterers or
wedding photographers. The effect of that regressive stand is institutional
discrimination where one set of people are given a disadvantage. That should
not be happening in a society that truly values diversity.
This is just another attempt by people to come to terms with the fact that the
states have the right to decide issues such as this. You can't
"fix" things with laws, whether it's gays demanding special rights,
or a straight person demanding federal passage of DOMA. The states, however,
were intended to decide issues such as this, not the federal government. 50
states being allowed to decide what they think is in their best interests makes
for a vibrant union, not forcing everyone to think and act the same, such as
happens with those who want some evil dictator to compel everyone to be the
same. The Constitution should be followed and God-given rights protected. There
is nothing in the Constitution that says the someone should be forced to go
against his/her religious belief. A business owner has the right to refuse
service to anyone based on his/her religious belief. If their
"religious" idea is bad, stupid, or foolish, or even discriminatory,
sooner or later, the business won't be in business anymore. The cry of
"discrimination" is foolish, childish, and provocative! Support
states' rights and your rights in the Constitution. Leave everyone else
This is bad legislation.First, nobody should be given the legal
right to discriminate against another person.Second, the situations
we have seen in the news were not about discriminating against an individual but
about discriminating against an event. There is a big difference and this law
doesn't address that difference.What they should have done is
made it clear that a business has the right to provide alternative options (a
referral to another appropriate business) without repercussions. If there is no
other option available (within a reasonable time or distance) then the business
must service the client/event.Religious Freedom is critical to our
way of life in the country. It is central to the framework the Constitution was
built on. However, when it comes in conflict with the principles of equality we
hold dear, there must be some compromise.
This is absurd that a measure like this is even controversial. The founding
father cared so much about the freedom of religion that they put it as the first
item of the first amendment to the constitution. I think they were sending a
message; freedom of religion is the center piece of our rights and our
@sprywolf;If people don't feel comfortable doing business with
"sinners" (lgbt to be specific), then they shouldn't go into
business. They KNOW the laws BEFORE they open their doors.
Hopefully it won't be long in Arizona before some business or service is
refused to someone who is straight on religious grounds.
Exactly Craig. Certainly SCOTUS won't buy it. It was pretty clear what
their intentions were. If Brewer signs this, she have signed a big check to a
bunch of lawyers.
This walks a fine line. While no on should be discriminated against for the way
they live their life. I also believe that people should not be forced to do
something they don't feel comfortable with.
"We see a growing hostility toward religion, said Josh Kredit," -- Bills like this are very much the reason why!"This
bill is not about allowing discrimination," Yarbrough said." -- It absolutely is!"... in other states where people have
been punished for their beliefs," Farnsworth said."-- They
were punished for breaking anti-discrimination laws, not for their religious
beliefs.This law should be called the "Feel Free to Discriminate
Against Gays Bill". Religious freedom? Not! There is not one single
scripture that says you shouldn't do business with gays (nor do business
with any sinners, for that matter).You allow ANY person to claim
religious freedom and they go to the government for services and are denied by
that person, doesn't that violate the Constitution Amendment 14? "...
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws." Talk about specifically denying people "equal protection of the
I don't think the Arizona Republicans pushing this bill actually believe
this is a bill to protect religious freedom. Not many people across the country
will buy that either.