Summations Only

Gee that sounds so reasonable in a twisted sort of way. Call it "discrimination" -- such as a person's conscience against gay marriage -- and you can vilify anyone or anything these days. You are in fact expressing a really weird bigotry of your own that never existed in America or on this planet until recent decades. If one had the luxury of musing on these things I'm sure it would be very interesting to trace the source of this bizarre attitude.So let me get this straight: Nobody is allowed to refuse to make a wedding cake or take wedding photos for a gay wedding ceremony.Got it. That's been thoroughly established on this thread. So now whenever somebody does refuse service on such grounds you can run them out of business, reduce them to begging on the streets, or whatever your little heart thinks such "discrimination" deserves.What would you suggest?ABE How about forcing them to watch the most obscene gay parade imaginable? You know, consciousness-raising, or re-education as the communists used to call it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I think this is a really valid point. Even taking the pictures or baking the cake for the ceremony, the individual can believe that the commitment ceremony is wrong and sinful...I think this is a really good article explaining the decision that this law was supposed to be a preemptive strike against in Arizona. It discusses how, while the idea of discriminating against a minority class in a business operated in the public sector is abhorrent, we must have empathy for those who are pushed into this position because they are actually acting on sincerely held beliefs, just how those who were against inter-racial marriage had sincerely held beliefs against that type of marriage. It is a long process to change the hearts and minds of a population and decisions like this, while beneficial to society as a whole, do hurt the individuals who are feeling oppressed. It was an interesting take and one I would like to hear some opinions on, including yours Faith. The New Mexico Supreme Court Applies Anti-Discrimination Law

I'm pretty sure a racist or sexist could and would claim that serving a non-white or a women goes against their conscience.
Should they be allowed to refuse service?although I see you've already been asked this.

If you own a business, put up a sign that says, "We serve whites only," and see if what you claim is true.

We aren't talking about your conscience. We are talking about you refusing service to fellow human beings. So by forcing white business owners to treat blacks equally, we were discriminating against white business owners? In many states, you are allowed to refuse service on that basis since LGBT is not a protected group in those states. However, laws are quickly changing which is why some states, like Arizona, are trying to get ahead of the curve before these groups are expected to be treated equally.Are you really asking us why businesses should treat everyone equally? I would expect that you would consider that to be the moral thing to do, but I guess not. What do you think happened when segregation ended in the South. Requiring your business to treat all americans equally is not the same as forcing someone to watch a parade in their free time.

I don't.

From the minority opinion:

quote:

---

Nonetheless, as the concurrence explains, that right to stay out of things, in the manner that plaintiff seeks, in a context in which a business otherwise operates as a public accommodation, is simply too harmful to the excluded parties to be tolerable

---

This essentially the reasoning behind Brown vs. Board of education, and is, in my mind, the reason for choosing sides in this battle of rights.Because there is no question in my mind that the New Mexico Supreme Court decision does put limits on the First Amendment Rights of faux Christians. But the state sanctioned discrimination that results from taking the opposite path is far more harmful to society.And I don't expect the aggrieved haters to accept that truth any more than did Lester Maddox, the Georgia Governor who defended his restaurant against desegregation by passing out ax handles to his patrons.No, I don't have nearly the empathy some suggest we ought to feel for "the sincerely held beliefs" of those who were against inter-racial marriage. Sorry, but that idea is just plain repulsive to me.

It was probably legal to do so in AZ before this attempt to enshrine discrimination into law occurred, and I'm not so sure it isn't legal despite the veto.

Where is this right of which you speak granted? I do not see the tight to refuse service anywhere. Not in Constitution or Bill of Rights or any state constitution.There is no right to refuse service.

In my own state of Idaho there is a push to include LGBT as a protected group under state law, the "Add the Words" campaign. Currently, they are not protected. In Idaho, you can refuse to employ someone because of their LGBT status without facing legal retribution. Like AZ, ID legislators are trying to enact a law that would protect licensed businesses from losing those licenses if they discriminate against the LGBT community. It is pretty clear that they are trying to pre-emptively protect those who discriminate before the LGBT community is given equality.

Of course they can refuse, they will obviously be fully booked on the day that the service is required.Or would they prefer to be martyrs?

Yes, you have this correct. This is the biggest idiocy involved in the passing of that law in this state. It is fully legal in Arizona to discriminate based upon sexual orientation because LGBT is not considered a protected group in our state. This is why Jan Brewer mentioned that she did not see the pressing needs of adding this law, which was so open-ended it could have added even more discrimination against other groups. Her decision to veto didn't have to do with protecting the LGBT community from discrimination, but rather from the discriminatory backlash that could be brought about by the law.Properly, Arizona needs to get some more progressive people involved in the legislative branch and begin to move forward, removing all the discriminatory laws we have on the books. One funny thing that holds us back is that pay for State legislators is determined by popular vote, which means not many people want the gig of being a legislator because it pays less than 30,000 dollars a year in my state (our voters notoriously vote pay raises down, I think the last one was 82% opposed). I believe, and don't hold me to exact numbers, that they currently make a little over 27,000 dollars.

That is exactly how it would work out in the real world. Most business owners aren't that stupid. They will simply say that they can't take on any new clients at this time. They won't say, "Eww, your icky gay, I won't help you".On the flip side, non-discriminating business owners will have their names passed on by word of mouth within the LGBT community. In the end, no one wants to have a wedding photographer that doesn't want to be at the wedding.

Fred Phelps is not prevented by law from expressing his views.So Christians are not prevented by law from expressing their views.

Not their conscience, Faith. They can keep that all they want. Bigoted action is the issue. You may want to call it a fine line but we know you here, Faith. We know you understand the difference.It doesn't matter how much wailing and gnashing of teeth you do. You cannot take your actions of bigotry and hatred into the marketplace.Just like you cannot take hateful bigoted action by denying rights and services based on race, sex, age, disability or religion, society is now adding sexual orientation to that list.I think the message is clear. Taking hateful bigoted actions against anyone is not going to be looked upon kindly by our free secular society.Some people who, through nature or nurture, have defective brains twisted in hate, like skinheads and those westboro baptist freaks, really love to hate people for flimsy reasons. But, for a normal, feeling, human being with any sense of empathy and compassion for the human condition, I would think that if your Jesus required you to hate anyone, that would be a good reason to quit and leave that cult behind, wouldn't you?Or are you condoning hatred and bigotry in society?