Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 whembly wrote:
Gov Jan Brewer officially vetoed this bill.

Her statement was quite well constructed.

I'm glad Gov Brewer used her veto...I'm also glad the NFL basically said if this crap becomes a law...then yall get no super bowl....

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Prove to me that people need cake at a wedding in the first place....

How do we know the cake isn't Satan

Well, Satan DID want a Ferrari cake...

Seriously though, what a pathetic and disgusting bill. There is no place in a "free" society where governmental regulation discriminates against a class of its own people. Religion, generally speaking, is an institution that preaches hatred and intolerance and often demonizes minority groups that conflict with its "values". This bill is a perfect example of that. People do NOT have the right to discriminate against other people regardless of what religion you ascribe to.

Religion does not generally speaking hate and intolerance.

It's a small number of religious people who take pieces out of their religion to justify their own bigotry.

There's nothing in the Bible that tells us it is a sin to serve homosexuals.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Gov Jan Brewer officially vetoed this bill.

Her statement was quite well constructed.

Well, it's not like she's planning on stopping at being governor. Who wants this kind of anchor around their neck when attempting bigger things, that not even the chamber of commerce wants?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Religion does not generally speaking hate and intolerance.

It's a small number of religious people who take pieces out of their religion to justify their own bigotry.

There's nothing in the Bible that tells us it is a sin to serve homosexuals.

No, but it does say homosexuality is a sin. And sin is to be abhorred. And its perfectly reasonable to not want to take part in something like providing a service related to that sin.

Why would this be any different than a caterer refusing the cater a party with strippers? Or one that was for a porn star or some other immoral thing.

"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" should be the rule. I should be allowed to refuse to serve someone for any reason. They can get their wedding cake or flowers somewhere else.

People tend to confuse hating the sin with hating the sinner. I hate homosexuality. I don't hate gay people, I hate what they do.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
I've yet to go to (or hear of) a wedding (gay or straight) where there is not cake. Certainly social convention dictates there be cake at a wedding.

So, observations of reality in the form of established social norms suggests that you can consider there to be a need for cake at a wedding...

My wife and I did not have cake for our wedding. You're welcome

Clearly you did it wrong

 Grey Templar wrote:

"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" should be the rule. I should be allowed to refuse to serve someone for any reason.

No, actually, you shouldn't. It's exactly that type of close-mindedness that started this bill in the first place. Why should you be allowed to discriminate against someone else just because you take issue with a personal choice they make that doesn't affect you in any way? Not only that, but where does it stop after that? Are you going to start refusing service to people of color? People that have long hair? People with orange shoes? How would you feel if you were refused a hair cut because the stylist thought you were ugly?

 ironicsilence wrote:
I'm also glad the NFL basically said if this crap becomes a law

I'm not. Given the benefits they reap from State and Federal governments they have no business interfering with politics regardless of the issue involved.

 Grey Templar wrote:
People tend to confuse hating the sin with hating the sinner. I hate homosexuality. I don't hate gay people, I hate what they do.

At least the Westboro Baptist Church has the testicular fortitude to tell you plain how they feel, without feeling the need to dress up their hatred with condescending sappiness and holier-than-thou platitudes. I think i respect their stance more than the "love the sinner, hate the sin" types.

 Breotan wrote:
I'm not. Given the benefits they reap from State and Federal governments they have no business interfering with politics regardless of the issue involved.

Does your objection extend to all corporations that receive benefits from governments?

 Grey Templar wrote:

People tend to confuse hating the sin with hating the sinner. I hate homosexuality. I don't hate gay people, I hate what they do.

What if the homosexuals in question are lipstick lesbians?

 Retrogamer0001 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" should be the rule. I should be allowed to refuse to serve someone for any reason.

No, actually, you shouldn't. It's exactly that type of close-mindedness that started this bill in the first place. Why should you be allowed to discriminate against someone else just because you take issue with a personal choice they make that doesn't affect you in any way? Not only that, but where does it stop after that? Are you going to start refusing service to people of color? People that have long hair? People with orange shoes? How would you feel if you were refused a hair cut because the stylist thought you were ugly?

Actually numerous states already have "refuse to serve" laws in place. As long as it's not arbitrary, it's legal. Using one of your examples, if orange shoes denote gang affiliation, I can, for the safety of my patrons and business, refuse folks that wear orange shoes. I also can and have, refused service to folks without shirts/shoes, wearing offensive shirts, wearing their pants below their ass, etc etc. It's perfectly legal and has been in place for quite some time. Your slippery slope doesn't exist.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Religion does not generally speaking hate and intolerance.

It's a small number of religious people who take pieces out of their religion to justify their own bigotry.

There's nothing in the Bible that tells us it is a sin to serve homosexuals.

No, but it does say homosexuality is a sin.

There is also a load of other stuff in there about loving your fellow man.

Not to mention plenty of nonsensicle gibberish...

"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" should be the rule. I should be allowed to refuse to serve someone for any reason. They can get their wedding cake or flowers somewhere else.

'We dont like brown people round here - no cake for you..."

"We don't believe it is right women should be able to get the morning after pill... it doesn't matter that we are the only pharmacist for 100 miles... our god tells us you should be pregnant!"

Or maybe that wouldnt work...

People tend to confuse hating the sin with hating the sinner. I hate homosexuality. I don't hate gay people, I hate what they do.

People tend to hate things they dont understand and use comforting excuses to back up their unreasonable hatred of things they dont understand.

People also tend to confuse following selected parts of religious texts and not others while being a horrible person to those around them because they don't like what they think of their lifestyle/colour/religious or political beliefs as being a good person worthy of praise and emulation.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Why would this be any different than a caterer refusing the cater a party with strippers? Or one that was for a porn star or some other immoral thing.

"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" should be the rule. I should be allowed to refuse to serve someone for any reason. They can get their wedding cake or flowers somewhere else.

Depends on the service being refused. It should be fine to refuse to make a porn star to make a dildo shaped cake that they wanted to use in a wedding themed porn, but refusing them a hotel room for a night as they drive through town on the way to a shoot? That's some oppressive bs.

The question that needs to be asked is whether the service you're being asked to provide directly relates to whatever it is you disapprove of, and whether your contribution involves any specific crafting for that exact purpose. So, in the case of the wedding cake, a person really should be able to refuse to spend their time and creative efforts making a cake for a wedding they oppose on religious grounds, but refusing to serve a burger and fries to a gay couple should not be tolerated at all.

People tend to confuse hating the sin with hating the sinner. I hate homosexuality. I don't hate gay people, I hate what they do.

That's because there's no difference at all between hating someone for what they are, and hating them because of their innate sexual identity.

 nels1031 wrote:

 Retrogamer0001 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" should be the rule. I should be allowed to refuse to serve someone for any reason.

No, actually, you shouldn't. It's exactly that type of close-mindedness that started this bill in the first place. Why should you be allowed to discriminate against someone else just because you take issue with a personal choice they make that doesn't affect you in any way? Not only that, but where does it stop after that? Are you going to start refusing service to people of color? People that have long hair? People with orange shoes? How would you feel if you were refused a hair cut because the stylist thought you were ugly?

Actually numerous states already have "refuse to serve" laws in place. As long as it's not arbitrary, it's legal. Using one of your examples, if orange shoes denote gang affiliation, I can, for the safety of my patrons and business, refuse folks that wear orange shoes. I also can and have, refused service to folks without shirts/shoes, wearing offensive shirts, wearing their pants below their ass, etc etc. It's perfectly legal and has been in place for quite some time. Your slippery slope doesn't exist.

So, apparently you would refuse service to a child wearing orange shoes? Or an elderly man? That seems quite arbitrary to me. I'm not sure what state you live in, but denying service to someone because you think they're "in a gang" based on what they're wearing/what they look like is discrimination and unconstitutional. I believe the court system still incorporates "innocent until proven guilty" into their acumen. Your other examples, refusing service to people without shirts/shoes and wearing offensive t-shirts has to do with public decency, which are two completely different things.

 Retrogamer0001 wrote:

So, apparently you would refuse service to a child wearing orange shoes? Or an elderly man? That seems quite arbitrary to me.

Nah, I'd actually lose a lot of my business if I didn't sell to gang bangers. Without getting into the details, I sell something that's integral to a certain part of my local gang culture. But yes, I could legally refuse the kid or the elderly man in orange shoes if I was so inclined.

/I'm not sure what state you live in, but denying service to someone because you think they're "in a gang" based on what they're wearing/what they look like is discrimination and unconstitutional.

Race, color (as in skin, not shoe color ), religion, and national origin are the only things protected under the Federal Civil Rights Act. Gang insignia/colors or what's perceived to be such are fair game to refuse service. There are laws throughout the USA that ban anything perceived to be gang colors. Even Jerseys with certain numbers on them for example.

I believe the court system still incorporates "innocent until proven guilty" into their acumen.

And that applies to the court of law, not my business.

Your other examples, refusing service to people without shirts/shoes and wearing offensive t-shirts has to do with public decency, which are two completely different things.

Nah, it's still a refusal of service, which you say shouldn't exist.

 cincydooley wrote:
Until you knock em up it seems. I'm finding this out the hard way. Couldn't have ever expected full blown convulsive sobbing over the wrong brand of peanut butter.....

My Wife spend an hour in floods of tears because she dropped a scarf on the floor when she was 7 months pregnant.
I feel your pain.

"Yeah, I meant to put something in there about homosexuality; Jesus never talked about it to my knowledge. "

I said that once in a shouting match in the main hall of our church at a meeting when all the churches were splitting and some feren devil bishops were saying we were evil. I didn't get a rebuttal except for Paul's letters to the laundromat or whatever. Evidently if you reply with "Paul can suck my balls" some people take offense.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ironicsilence wrote:
I'm glad Gov Brewer used her veto...I'm also glad the NFL basically said if this crap becomes a law...then yall get no super bowl....

Is that a threat or a reward?

 sebster wrote:

The question that needs to be asked is whether the service you're being asked to provide directly relates to whatever it is you disapprove of, and whether your contribution involves any specific crafting for that exact purpose. So, in the case of the wedding cake, a person really should be able to refuse to spend their time and creative efforts making a cake for a wedding they oppose on religious grounds, but refusing to serve a burger and fries to a gay couple should not be tolerated at all.

that's my concern. Laws that make creative people or professional expend their skills to further something they disprove of are worrying.

It's fine line, but it's the difference between cash and carry, open to all retail, and contracted custom stuff.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Religion does not generally speaking hate and intolerance.

It's a small number of religious people who take pieces out of their religion to justify their own bigotry.

There's nothing in the Bible that tells us it is a sin to serve homosexuals.

No, but it does say homosexuality is a sin. And sin is to be abhorred. And its perfectly reasonable to not want to take part in something like providing a service related to that sin.

Not if your guidelines for what's a sin is a book written by a dead civilization in another language on a different continent two thousand years ago, by people who also thought owning slaves was a good idea. There's nothing reasonable about that.

People tend to confuse hating the sin with hating the sinner. I hate homosexuality. I don't hate gay people, I hate what they do.

I don't see the appreciable difference.

 iproxtaco wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Religion does not generally speaking hate and intolerance.

It's a small number of religious people who take pieces out of their religion to justify their own bigotry.

There's nothing in the Bible that tells us it is a sin to serve homosexuals.

No, but it does say homosexuality is a sin. And sin is to be abhorred. And its perfectly reasonable to not want to take part in something like providing a service related to that sin.

Not if your guidelines for what's a sin is a book written by a dead civilization in another language on a different continent two thousand years ago, by people who also thought owning slaves was a good idea. There's nothing reasonable about that.

Yes because its awesome to crap on the beliefs of the majority of the earth's population. Way to go sunshine, and by sunshine I mean BIGOT.
Another shining example of why this law was attempted in the first place.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Religion does not generally speaking hate and intolerance.

It's a small number of religious people who take pieces out of their religion to justify their own bigotry.

There's nothing in the Bible that tells us it is a sin to serve homosexuals.

No, but it does say homosexuality is a sin. And sin is to be abhorred. And its perfectly reasonable to not want to take part in something like providing a service related to that sin.

...

I suppose it's possible to say that being a maid in a hotel and making the bed in the room where a homosexual couple are staying, is providing a service related to the sin of homosexual sex, though you have to make the assumption that the couple will engage in sex in the bed.

I still don't see how the Bible forbids making the bed, though.

Why specifically single out gay couples, though? Adultery is a sin, too. So is masturbation. What if a single man stayed in the hotel?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Religion does not generally speaking hate and intolerance.

It's a small number of religious people who take pieces out of their religion to justify their own bigotry.

There's nothing in the Bible that tells us it is a sin to serve homosexuals.

No, but it does say homosexuality is a sin. And sin is to be abhorred. And its perfectly reasonable to not want to take part in something like providing a service related to that sin.

...

I suppose it's possible to say that being a maid in a hotel and making the bed in the room where a homosexual couple are staying, is providing a service related to the sin of homosexual sex, though you have to make the assumption that the couple will engage in sex in the bed.

I still don't see how the Bible forbids making the bed, though.

Why specifically single out gay couples, though? Adultery is a sin, too. So is masturbation. What if a single man stayed in the hotel?

Or a woman on her period, the bible is pretty specific in what to do in that situation.

I am disappointed this law was ever even debated seriously, let alone had to reach the governor to be vetoed.

This is why overly broad laws are bad ideas.

I think most people agree that it's possible for a person's religious beliefs to want to avoid certain types of work. The classic caterer for a gay wedding.

Most people agree that denying gay people service in most instance, just because they are gay, is pretty intolerant, and likley not super christian.

This law was written to prevent the former, but would allow the latter. It's a bad law, it was vetoed.

We can argue the obsession conservative christians have with homosexuality in many, many other threads, but that's not why this law was bad.

Or divorced woman. Or unwed mother. Or they ordered a bacon cheezeburger via room service. Or you saw different fabrics in the closet. Or a Muslim book. Or a married couple and you see a condom wrapper in the trash. Or you saw that they used the coffee maker. Or you see a bottle of alcohol.

Kick them out of the hotel and refuse them service for all of those things.

I still don't see how the Bible forbids making the bed, though.

Bedicus: "Thou shalt not maketh thine bed, lesteth thine dachshund hath burrowed into it, and verily.

Why specifically single out gay couples, though? Adultery is a sin, too. So is masturbation. What if a single man stayed in the hotel?

Excellent point and problem with the law. of course the reality is that this is not the issue as no one would have objected. Frankly I'm not seeing the instance where someone would have objected.

AKA: chances are that someone would have used the law are about as high as Godzilla showing up and photobombing local tourists in Phoenix. Its all bluster for idiots to go back to their hard core wacky base and say "looky looky what I dones for ya."

Meanwhile, in Texas, our gay couples will be taking pictures with longhorns and renting 20 goot long Ford 350 limos for the reception.

But the BBQ will be fabulous!

 motyak wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Religion does not generally speaking hate and intolerance.

It's a small number of religious people who take pieces out of their religion to justify their own bigotry.

There's nothing in the Bible that tells us it is a sin to serve homosexuals.

No, but it does say homosexuality is a sin. And sin is to be abhorred. And its perfectly reasonable to not want to take part in something like providing a service related to that sin.

...

I suppose it's possible to say that being a maid in a hotel and making the bed in the room where a homosexual couple are staying, is providing a service related to the sin of homosexual sex, though you have to make the assumption that the couple will engage in sex in the bed.

I still don't see how the Bible forbids making the bed, though.

Why specifically single out gay couples, though? Adultery is a sin, too. So is masturbation. What if a single man stayed in the hotel?

Or a woman on her period, the bible is pretty specific in what to do in that situation.

I am disappointed this law was ever even debated seriously, let alone had to reach the governor to be vetoed.

Agreed.

Correct em if I am wrong, but there is no federal or state legislation supporting similar legal protections for homosexuals correct? Therefore, how is this an issue? Couldn't they refuse service now? If there were federal legislation this law would be subordinate to it. So whats the point again?

the law provides an affirmative defense, in both civil and criminal cases, of religious belief when refusing service.

That's been on the books for a while, what this law actually did was allow corporations and other legal persons to claim that defence. Previiously only natural persons and religious organziations could claim it.

 Polonius wrote:
the law provides an affirmative defense, in both civil and criminal cases, of religious belief when refusing service.

That's been on the books for a while, what this law actually did was allow corporations and other legal persons to claim that defence. Previiously only natural persons and religious organziations could claim it.

Why would a corporation need this?