Arizona passes controversial anti-gay bill

[Jiggyfly]

The trend of gay people suing small businesses who refuse to cater to their lifestyle. Like the case in Colorado where a wedding cake shop would not make a cake featuring two grooms. They got sued.

The wedding cake shop shouldn't have to make such a cake if they don't want to.



You are misinformed.

This law was proposed to preempt gay people from having a cause of action against a small business for refusing to cater to them.... thus saving the businesses from having to invest in attorneys fees to defend themselves for acting according to their consciences.



It is no such thing, gay people suing small businesses like that could be a very real problem going forward. You could litigate them out of business if you get an overzealous fascist plaintiff attorney trying to make a name for himself, even if a court were to decide that the small business does not have the obligation to specifically cater to them.

The court's job is to interpret the law. The law in Arizona may now say "there is no recognizable lawsuit against a small business for discrimination on the basis of homosexuality due to a small business not catering to their specific lifestyle."

Since homosexuality isn't a federally protected class, Arizona will have done the right thing by passing this law.

Some bigots might use it as a shield.... other honest religious people, however, need it to protect their consciences.

And since last I checked this was a free country, I guess gay people will have to find a non-religious bakery to get their cakes from. Oh, the horror.

So to you a trend is one case and shouldn't that case be tried on its own merits instead of enacting more laws?

 

[Jiggyfly]

It's not a law. It's a proposed bill.

All it takes is the governors signature to become law its passed being a proposed bill.

 

[L.T. Fan]

All it takes is the governors signature to become law its passed being a proposed bill.

It will likely be vetoed and go away.

 

[Jiggyfly]

It will likely be vetoed and go away.

The fact that it even made it this far is troubling to me and why is being gay the main sin to be targeted.

Why not decline service to all sinners?

 

[Smitty]

So to you a trend is one case and shouldn't that case be tried on its own merits instead of enacting more laws?

It's not just one case, there have been numerous cases of this occurring.

 

[Smitty]

The fact that it even made it this far is troubling to me and why is being gay the main sin to be targeted.

Why not decline service to all sinners?

They should pass a law saying you can't sue businesses for declining to cater to you.

 

[L.T. Fan]

The fact that it even made it this far is troubling to me and why is being gay the main sin to be targeted.

Why not decline service to all sinners?

You've preaching to the choir but this the land of the free which allows for differing views and beliefs.

 

[Carp]

It's not a law. It's a proposed bill.

Semantics...changes nothing about my point.

 

[BipolarFuk]

VETOED!

 

[boozeman]

VETOED!

Amazing what the threat of losing a Super Bowl can do.

 

[BipolarFuk]

Amazing what the threat of losing a Super Bowl can do.

Yeah, who's gonna pass up half a billion just so a few dipshits with Ted Nugent blaring in their stores can tell fags to get lost.

 

[L.T. Fan]

Semantics...changes nothing about my point.

I don't remember what your point was.

 

[Bob Roberts]

 

[Carp]

I don't remember what your point was.

Ignorance is bliss.

 

[L.T. Fan]

Ignorance is bliss.

Watch it I'm getting pissy these days you know. Can't imagine why though.

 

[fortsbest]

I think this is a stupid law if its passed- but I gotta be honest, I think stuff like this is just the beginning for the gay crowd.

The problem is the gays want to force every state to recognize their right to be married and have equal rights. OK...I'm fine with that...AS LONG as everyone else's rights aren't trampled in the process.

If the MAJORITY of a voting segment in a state votes against gays being married or certain gay rights, then that should be it. If you are gay and in a state that's not gay-friendly, then move to a state that allows gay marriage or the gay rights that suit you.
The basic fundamental right and wishes of the voter and the voting majority are nullified because of a small minority and a judge. That's scary, IMO.

And that is exactly what is happening in some states. CA for instance where the voters voted gay marriage down but a gay judge didn't recuse himself and overturned it

I think it may be the Constitution that nullifies laws like this. I'm no expert, but I think there is something in there about no citizen will be discriminated against or something.

Protected classes are race, sex, religion, color and national origin. Later age and a few others, but not Sexual preference.

Now you're talking smart.

Iimagine if McDonalds, in today's twitter and facebook society, decided to do away with handicap ramps.

The backlash would be astronomical.

So before we pretend that we're going to return to 1940s Jim Crow because we don't make every business jump through rigid and uncompromising anti-discrimination statues, which in turn actually do trample on religious freedoms, consider the fact that those scenarious would be pure fantasy in today's society.

If you want proof, look at how quickly gay marriage, as an issue, has gone from having almost universal condemnation, even in fairly liberal states, to almost universal acceptance. Like ten years has seen a complete 180 in public opinion.

There's no justification whatsoever in forcing small businesses to comply, other than fucking fascism.

I don't think there's been a complete 180 to universal acceptance. I think there has in most recent years been quite the universal tolerance to now mandated acceptance being forced on people. I agree with you that a business ought to be able to serve anyone it wants to and deny service as it pleases. the market will decide if its actions are acceptable or not.

The fact that it even made it this far is troubling to me and why is being gay the main sin to be targeted.

Why not decline service to all sinners?

Maybe its not so much gayness being targeted as much as people who find it repugnant and sinful don't want to be forced to service it. I told you all in the last version that it wasn't tolerance the radical gays wanted, it was total forced, in your face acceptance of every aspect of their lifestyle. It started a 20 plus page thread. I'm still waiting for the gay couple that sues a church (Catholic maybe) for not wedding them and having Holder take up the case.

 

[Jiggyfly]

 

[Jiggyfly]

And that is exactly what is happening in some states. CA for instance where the voters voted gay marriage down but a gay judge didn't recuse himself and overturned it

do you actually believe this is why it was overturned.

Forts its hard to take anything you say on this subject seriously when come up with crock like this.

And yes i'm still waiting on this gay curriculum being forced on schools that you were wailing about in that thread you were talking about.

 

[fortsbest]

You should have read the entire thread then because I posted a few cases where it was happening.

 

[fortsbest]

And that is exactly what is happening in some states. CA for instance where the voters voted gay marriage down but a gay judge didn't recuse himself and overturned it

do you actually believe this is why it was overturned.

Forts its hard to take anything you say on this subject seriously when come up with crock like this.

And yes i'm still waiting on this gay curriculum being forced on schools that you were wailing about in that thread you were talking about.

Vaughn Walker (a conservative I might add) was the presiding judge that heard the case of prop 8 in District Court after the California Supreme Court ruled the law Constitutional ( without their AG Jerry Brown's help I might add). He is gay and should have recused himself. How is that a crock dude?