Arizona: SB 1062, state sponsored hate or religious freedom?

[Polar Bear]

The state of Arizona recently passed a bill designed to "protect" religious freedom by allowing businesses to discriminate against those they feel violate their religious beliefs. Essentially a legalized defense to discriminate against anyone! See the actual bill here Arizona Bills (http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=SB1062&Session_ID=112).

This Los Angeles Times article sheds more light on this bill:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-ff-gay-rights-arizona-20140221,0,1812097.story#axzz2uAhnSAZk

In my opinion this bill is nothing but state sponsored hate. This will give anyone wishing to discriminate a viable defense by claiming religious privilege. If you happen to be fat, atheist, disabled, LGBT, of color, female, drive a motorcycle, have tattoos, dress differently...the list is endless, this bill will essentially allow businesses, industry, even private citizens to discriminate at will. This is a disgraceful back-step in the quest for equal rights. Its been my experience that businesses already have the right to refuse service for legitimate reasons. I'm sure you've seen the signs: no shoes, no shirt, no service. Do we need a state law forcing the issue? No! In fact this is not a law protecting the good citizens of Arizona, this is a law protecting businesses so they won't be sued by people who feel that they were discriminated against. If a business or individual claims that service to another will violate their religious beliefs, this bill shields them to discriminate and refuse service to that person or organization.

This has far reaching affects. If you live in a community where the nearest hospital is managed by a religious entity, you can legally be refused entry if they think you are LGBT or a host of other self identified titles. If a local grocery store has a religious owner and decides that the elderly gay man in a wheel chair doesn't deserve entry to their store, this bill allows them to refuse service to that person even if its the only lifeline this elderly person has to get what they need to survive.

This sounds disturbingly familiar to the lunch counter discrimination against those of color back in the 60's. Why then does this bill and its supporters feel that the very same discrimination that we fought against for so many years, is now okay because we placed a religious banner over the top? Jan Brewer, don't allow the great state of Arizona to sink to the level of Russia, Uganda, and a host of other countries and become another footnote in the set back for human rights. Veto this bill!


I ask the supporters of this bill 1 simple question...

WHAT ARE YOU SO AFRAID OF?


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QP9A--4qoLA/UwpHjefZ7jI/AAAAAAAAAmk/BH843yidakI/s1600/Arizona+flag.jpg (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QP9A--4qoLA/UwpHjefZ7jI/AAAAAAAAAmk/BH843yidakI/s1600/Arizona+flag.jpg)

http://jebenedict.blogspot.com/

[void()]

[ Commentary blocked in AZ, commenter Atheist & anarchist bisexual man with ink. ]

* commenter turns, faces AZ State, throws up two middle fingers while walking off * "Not enough middle fingers, damn it."

[tenni]

This type of behaviour needs a shift in thinking in order to accommodate religious rights compared to secular rights of all citizens.

In Canada, this has been dealt with based on our Charter of Rights and Freedoms section 15.

People have the right to religious freedom but they do not have the right to prevent other citizens from human rights. It is a right of citizenship that same sex couples may marry in the country but organizations/churches do not have to marry them. There must be a way for the citizen to obtain the same rights as others in the state.

In the case of a business and an argument that they are private is a slightly more delicate position. I'm not sure if I am clear on this point. There has been a b&b that chose to discriminate against same sex couples. They would not permit them to stay in what they called their home. I believe the argument of separating your home from a business may still be in the courts. A restaurant or public space may not refuse entry to any citizen based on such factors as gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, physical or mental disability, and age. Similarly, physically disabled people have won the right to force businesses to provide access. Certainly government are now required to provide access to all places. In Toronto, both the blind and deaf have won the right to the same service as sighted and hearing. There is now both a sign showing the next stop and an audio saying the same stop.

The same would apply to a church. If a church wants access to government funding (not usual I would guess?) the church would have to prove that they are providing equal rights to all citizens.

In Canada, hospitals are funded by the government and must adhere to equal rights of section 15 of the Charter. Hospitals and school boards with a religious connection are struggling to justify discrimination. The Roman Catholic Church has government funded schools in my province. The reasons are long and historical as well as based on past discrimination based on religion. The factors may not be eliminated yet but the religious schools must provide equal access and this includes permitting Straight/Gay alliances to be formed in the RC separate school. The Church is fighting this but will not win due to being connected to government funding. Private schools without state sponsored funding may try to prevent access but this has not been tested in court. A law section of a BC university is planning offering courses that discriminate against same sex and so this is an on going case for courts to enforce the Charter. This has not been tested in the courts to see if and how it matches section 15 of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms ..yet.

[fredtyg]

I strongly disagree and support Arizona's legislation. It should have nothing to do with sexuality, although it was a gay couple that started this. Businesses should be free to do business, or not, with whomever they want, for whatever reasons.

I believe the incident behind this was a gay couple that asked a photographer to photograph their wedding. The photographer felt that same sex marriage was morally wrong and contrary to his religious beliefs. He refused to do the job. I feel he had every right to, even if it didn't have anything to do with religion. The gay couple should have just done what we all do when we find a business that isn't accommodating: Shop elsewhere.

I find this one of the more frightening aspects of the LGBT community and the Left in general. We all have a human right to both association and non- association. For government to force someone to do business with some business or person they find objectionable is among the most immoral aspects of totalitarianism.

To be clear, most business owners will take business wherever and from whomever they can get it. Those that chose not to do business with someone or some group have every right not to. And you have every right to not do business with them as a result of their actions.

[tenni]

I strongly disagree and support Arizona's legislation. It should have nothing to do with sexuality, although it was a gay couple that started this. Businesses should be free to do business, or not, with whomever they want, for whatever reasons.

I believe the incident behind this was a gay couple that asked a photographer to photograph their wedding. The photographer felt that same sex marriage was morally wrong and contrary to his religious beliefs. He refused to do the job. I feel he had every right to, even if it didn't have anything to do with religion. The gay couple should have just done what we all do when we find a business that isn't accommodating: Shop elsewhere.

I find this one of the more frightening aspects of the LGBT community and the Left in general. We all have a human right to both association and non- association. For government to force someone to do business with some business or person they find objectionable is among the most immoral aspects of totalitarianism.

To be clear, most business owners will take business wherever and from whomever they can get it. Those that chose not to do business with someone or some group have every right not to. And you have every right to not do business with them as a result of their actions.

I think that in the case of a photographer wishing to do a job that there would be plenty of reasons to deny the job. As Fred states there are plenty of businesses who will take on a job and not refuse based on sexuality. Without knowing the details of this case, I don't know. Did the photographer actually identify the reason as being the couple's sexuality? That may make a difference.

I'm also uncertain as to your use of association as we are in different countries. Generally, association in Canada means the right to come together, join or leave a group? I don't understand your though Fred? Canadian governments are applying the Charter rights and insuring that they are equal. In Canada, a business is not permitted to discriminate as far as I can tell. It gets tricky when it is a private business. Usually, there is enough peer social pressure to get a business to comply. If you live in a very bigoted society, I guess that it gets easier to discriminate? It is a matter of values?

[fredtyg]

As far as I'm concerned, association means any kind of association: friends or business relations. Then there's the any number of anti- discrimination laws that pretty much say you can't discriminate against pretty much anybody (they keep adding classes of people to that list). I disagree with that, too.

It should be a person or businesses right to deal with whomever they want. I don't care if it's a big business, or a one man operation such as mine.

There's more than enough alternative sources for whatever someone wants. They have no need (or right, imo) to attack someone for not wanting to deal with them. As I already wrote, the VAST majority of businesses make a point out of serving everyone. For the few that might not choose to, pardon the pun, that's their business.

Personally, aside from this case and a similar one in Texas (another gay thing) I don't know that I've heard of any discrimination cases against businesses not choosing to serve someone.

As an aside, that one in Texas was a landscaper that was asked by a gay couple to do some work. He refused the job because he thought gays were immoral, or some such. They sued him for discrimination. I believe the judge ruled in their favor, too. I find that outrageous.

[void()]

fred,

In some regards I can agree with your view. The State has no right
to mandate anyone do business with anyone else, for whatever reason.

That aside, imagine if you will a hospital which is owned by Atheists
whom refuse to treat anyone but Atheists. Imagine then a Jewish
child is rushed to the nearest hospital after having been shot as a
bystander in gang warfare. The nearest hospital refuses her treatment,
because they treat only Atheists.

This opens a door to highly slippery slope. How can it be determined
the Atheist hospital did not act with malice in not treating the
girl? How can it be determined that it was simply business and free
expression of religious preference? A certain decorum of human decency
is granted in having non-discrimination standards.

Granted it would unethical, immoral for an Atheist owned hospital
to refuse anyone treatment for any reason. Still, this hypothetical
illustrates a very real point and case which may arise. And you can
plug in any religion, creed, race, nationality. All these fucking
petty divisions serve only to further fear, hate. Death does not
care. why should we?

[void()]

fred,

Need to apologize. My post earlier was a bit too reactionary.

Ultimately, I can see how the view of having government intervene
is only seeking more trouble. Life is such a dual bladed dagger at
times, difficult to be still, think, draw rational thoughts. Not sure
I am fully rational yet but do note a sense of more clarity at this
moment. Guess we accept what we are granted up to a point.

[12voltyV2.0]

It really gets me with that extremist far right religious and conservative crowd---among their many "hates" is that they hate "victimhood status"--but a few years ago they switched up the narrative that made them one of the "last permissible discriminated groups" and turned it all around that if they were not allowed to hate and discriminate--then they were the ones that were being persecuted and discriminated against. Surely an example of Orwellian "thinkspeak" or something of that nature I can think of being put into action.

Got to hand it to them--they have largely been successful doing shit like this and they don't really get challenged and called on it--especially by the evil, liberal mass media. They have basically turned the media into a bunch of simpering cowards who have been denutted and don't call them on their bullshit.

Legislation of this sort fits into this new narrative that far right extremist dominion christians should have total carte blanche to be able to discriminate against anyone who does not practice their form of bastardized christianity and that no one can stop them from doing what they will because THEY and only THEY--know the mind of God and have a direct line "to God" and what they are all about is to "bring America back to a Godly way."

[Polar Bear]

Volty, very well said. While Fredtyg has a valid point, a company should have the right to refuse service to anyone within their establishment for valid reasons such as; unable to pay the bill, abusing the staff, no shoes-no shirts-no service, and overstaying your welcome. But as a business owner I don't believe the license to do business should include a license to freely discriminate against people you just don't like, or they don't follow your religion, or maybe they're not your color.

As someone doing business with the public I believe there's some social responsibility involved. What if schools decided to do the same thing, after all this new bill will protect them too. What if hospitals decided to discriminate just because they feel like it. The point is, where you draw the line. I find it difficult to understand how a society such as ours finds LGBT such a threat that they will do anything to prevent them from living their life as they see fit. Do we really need to exercise nanny state mentality to protect the self-proclaimed "victims" of the so-called LGBT agenda? Once again I pose a very simple question to the supporters of this bill… What are you afraid of?

[fredtyg]

As someone doing business with the public I believe there's some social responsibility involved. What if schools decided to do the same thing, after all this new bill will protect them too

The fact is the vast majority of schools and businesses don't, and don't want to discriminate against anybody. You may feel you have a social responsibility as a businessman. Many others do, too. Good for you. You shouldn't have the power to tell everyone else they have to feel the same social responsibilities you do.

Forcing someone to serve someone he doesn't want to serve, for whatever reason, is essentially slavery.

[12voltyV2.0]

What is interesting about this legislation---even many of the Republican lawmakers who voted for it in the state legislature are now calling on the governor to veto it--she did so last year for a very similar measure.

Many of Arizona's top corporations are calling upon the law to be vetoed, as have both Republican US Senators. The NFL says that if the law goes through--they might pull an upcoming Superbowl from the state.

But what is bad---Alabama and I understand that Georgia are also having such bills rapidly moving through their legislatures and could pass in both of those states.

I just don't understand all of this stuff---I for one am sick and tired of this all this "cultural war" crap----especially when our "dear leaders" need to get off this shit and spend time enacting legislation to help bring industry and jobs back to the states.

[void()]

What is interesting about this legislation---even many of the Republican lawmakers who voted for it in the state legislature are now calling on the governor to veto it--she did so last year for a very similar measure.

Many of Arizona's top corporations are calling upon the law to be vetoed, as have both Republican US Senators. The NFL says that if the law goes through--they might pull an upcoming Superbowl from the state.

But what is bad---Alabama and I understand that Georgia are also having such bills rapidly moving through their legislatures and could pass in both of those states.

I just don't understand all of this stuff---I for one am sick and tired of this all this "cultural war" crap----especially when our "dear leaders" need to get off this shit and spend time enacting legislation to help bring industry and jobs back to the states.

That boat has long sailed and will not be returning. They expect by 2049 around 49% of jobs which do remain will be automated, given out to robotics.
And it is coming in actual fact. The Army is reducing by at least one fourth its current size, swapping Joes with robots. The Navy has already reduced
one third of itself, being replaced with automatons and robotics. Once the military starts adopting such policy, figure the reality is civilian corporations
are planning similar roll outs soon, maybe sooner than expected. And with machine learning set to know more than humans by about 2018/20 49% of
remaining jobs may well end up being 75% or better. So, yes it seems we can grow used to zombie people milling about unemployed.

Add on that Peak Oil likely occurred in the last five years but no one has officially had the balls to say it aloud, and you see why the American
petrol based dollar will crash. When it crashes, it will not merely create a Depression here but globally. American currency was the global Reserve
currency. Now ask the Chinese to accept American cash, watch them laugh you away. No one is investing in America, they know it's coming down.

Hyperinflation and unending debt to create infinite growth has to face reality of finite supply. It is an immovable force meeting an unstoppable
wave. Ross Perot's great "sucking sound"? More like a huge thundering tidal crashing unto the rocky shore, now. It could have been avoided,
but no more. The Great Depression will seem like they lived the life of Riley compared to what is in the wind. Bohica, Bohica.

[12voltyV2.0]

For those who may not have heard the news---Arizona Governor Jan Brewer vetoed the legislation after even many Republican lawmakers who had supported and voted for the bill said they wanted to see the measure vetoed, as did both US senators from Arizona--both Republicans that includes John McCain.

There are another group of states that had similar measures going through their legislatures at various stages and the last I heard--for one reason or another-----those measures have been pulled.

In Arizona---they had many top corporations with major interests in the state----like Marriott Hotels--even thought its owned by Mormons --operates some incredible resorts and motels in the state was opposed to the law, as was the NFL which threatened to pull the upcoming Superbowl from the state had the law gone in, as well as Major League Baseball that was going to call on all major league teams with spring training camps to pull out of the state and other similar corporate warnings they would do that same with their operations.

Arizona is a major state for conventions and many bookings were going to be lost and not made up because basically there would have been a boycott for future convention bookings had the law been passed.

It may be more a case that instead of Brewer and state legislators with cold feet in the issue being concerned with the morality of the measure-----the fact that the state faced a potential economic tsunami had they gone on with the law--was the real reason they backed off from this.

At least some reason held sway no matter the reason and "they did the right" thing by backing away from such a law.

Let's hope that those forces that wish to try to limit "gay rights" realize that times have changed and to try to put in such restrictions--is "going against the tide of history" and they will be on the losing side if they continue to push for such restrictions.

[Polar Bear]

GOOD JOB ARIZONA!

25256

[goldenfinger]

Some states are no better then Uganda.

[jamieknyc]

Does this mean that a Moslem or Jewish business in Arizona can now be sued for refusing to serve pork?