Slashdot Mirror
Apple Urges Arizona Governor To Veto Anti-Gay Legislation
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "According to NBC, Apple has confirmed that it urged Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer to veto a bill that would allow business owners with strongly held religious beliefs to deny service to gays and lesbians. Last November Tim Cook announced that Apple was building a sapphire glass plant in Mesa, AZ, that would bring 2,000 new jobs to the state. 'Apple is indisputably one of the world's most innovative companies and I'm thrilled to welcome them to Arizona,' said Gov. Brewer at the time. 'Apple will have an incredibly positive economic impact for Arizona and its decision to locate here speaks volumes about the friendly, pro-business climate we have been creating these past four years.' According to Philip Elmer-DeWitt, it sounds like Tim Cook may be having second thoughts about how 'friendly' and 'pro-business' the climate in Arizona really is."
now gays. Can't Americans just stop acting like utter fucking cunts for a few moments and work on their hatred? I'm guessing it's religious in nature; after all, religious texts are full of specious, homophobic nonsense. Thank fuck that shit is on the way out.
Regardless of one's feelings regarding human sexuality, how is the proposed law not "pro-business"? The law gives businesses a choice. Offering business a choice is pro-business. Taking choices away would be anti-business.
This really is dangerous, as religion should be contained and eliminated from society.
Religion serves no positive purpose, and only works to hinder the good that government itself does in socialization.
Eventually religion will die, due to the socialization that the world is currently experiencing due to communications technology. Can you imagine a middle eastern person in 23 AD learning about science and pornography and art and cultures?
Some of the shit we know & see these days must be completely insane to the mind of a primitive person that would actually thinks religion is real.
And of course, you'll notice that religion is strong in non-socialized rural environments, where people don't get to normally interact with other races & cultures. Once they actually start to interact with black or gay people they end up figuring out that they're not so bad, and that their religion was probably lying to them all along.
They're cool with China suppressing political speech, committing wrongful imprisonment, treating employees like shit, mortgaging the planet's future for short term gain, and providing no legal protections for homosexuals, but Arizona doing only one of those things gets them threatened by the Apple CEO. I love it
I don't pretend to understand the dynamic that makes a man attractive to another man, and I have no frame of reference regarding how a woman feels whatsoever, but being hateful towards folks for an innate adult sexual preference is like kicking puppies.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
I'm all for religious freedom, but institutionalizing the hatred of religious zealots who tend to ruin religion for everyone else seems a very inhuman thing to do.
Next they can pass laws saying that religious freedom can also include suicide bombing.
There is no mention of sexuality in the bill at all. It allows a business to use religious believes as a defense when sued - it doesn't guarantee they win the suit.
I personally oppose the bill and live in AZ, I read the bill and it mentions nothing about sexuality. Someone decided to be a drama queen here and blow this out of proportion. It's a bill for small businesses in my opinion, no profitable company run by real business professionals would ever turn away a customer based on sexual orientation. I feel it was drafted more for small business owners that work out of their homes. It protects people from frivolous lawsuits if they don't want to provide service to someone for some 'other' reason.
Sounds like a good solid Jim Crow law.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
And most things that don't.
And you have to sell me stuff, walmart.
does being trysexual make us even more unperfect? there is hope for us unchosens? stop killing each other off might help? the WMD on credit genociders would prefer nothing more than convincing coercing us into offing each other on a glowbull scale? does apple inc. have a heart or a conscience instead of us?
...Or will the Genesis of Arizona end in Eden.
It sure as Hell doesn't sound like Paradise over there.
I'm pretty sure the KKK have some pretty strongly held religious beliefs about black people and Jews.
"Apple urges Arizona and their governor not to be backwards twits."
FTFY
This whole thing started when a baker who sold confections to gay and straight clients was asked to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding. The baker refused on religious grounds and got nuisance-sued. It wasn't because the clients were gay. It's because the baker didn't believe in gay marriage.
And what's Arizona's view on people that have strong religious beliefs that they should smoke pot (i.e. rastafari)? Would they be excused too?
Religion is for people too stupid to understand and/or process real-world information. You're not going to be able to convince these people if they choose not to see. Instead, it's best to understand religion, and apply psychology to convince people to do the right thing based on reasons that they can understand and relate to. Simple minds need simple reasons and simple explanations. Where none exist, make them up in a way such that the resulting actions are still positive.
So Apple is going to withhold business from Arizona because Apple thinks the bill is wrong? The bill merely gives a company the right to withhold business from a customer based on one's sense of right and wrong (i.e., religion). This is a picture-perfect example of hypocrisy.
I personally oppose the bill and live in AZ, I read the bill and it mentions nothing about sexuality.
Wink, wink, nudge nudge.
All of the other main targets of discrimination are covered by Federal law such as the 1964 Civil Rights Act. However, you're correct that the Arizona bill [1] would not exclusively affect the LGBT population. It would also affect the XX population, for instance, when they're looking for emergency contraception. Or for that matter contraception at all -- because a pharmacist who doesn't believe in it, or for that matter a clerk who disapproves etc. -- becomes untouchable.
[1] Yeah, I live here too. Born in Queen Creek, in fact -- 60+ years ago. I'm also leaving in part because of shit like this.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Jim Crow laws required blacks to be treated differently than whites. This allows business to use religious beliefs in defense for refusing service. This is in reaction to gay couples suing bakers and photographers who refused their business. But it is different from Jim Crow and that it is left to the business owner, not required by the state. I'm kinda libertarian in my leanings and think this is fine. If enough people refuse to do business with the owners they'll either have to change or go out of business.
Discrimination against religious people is not even close to the same thing as discrimination against homosexuality. Religious fanatics like to justify their actions by claiming being gay is a choice. Of course it's not, but what IS a choice is associating yourself with a religion.
I see nothing wrong whatsoever with discriminating against ideas like religions, however discriminating against innate qualities like sexual orientation is unacceptable.
You are right, in the literal writing of the bill it says nothing about sexuality. However, when you put it in the context of the rest of the laws and the Federal laws you realize quickly the ONLY people you can discriminate against are... Gays. Why you ask?
This law trumps all other AZ & AZ locale laws to say that in question of"rights" the Religious right wins, UNLESS there is a prevailing Federal law. This is only because AZ state law cannot trump Federal law. So, if we look at the Federal law then what is covered: Race, Sex/Gender, Pregnancy, Religion, National Origin, Disability, Age (over 40 only), Military, Bankruptcy and Citizenship status. So... the only thing NOT covered is Sexual Orientation.
So without listing it they make it the only one. To say it is not "against gays because it never mentions them" is strictly factual while being very intellectually dishonest.
Huh?
It was proposed because either in that state or some other photographers were being forced to work at gay weddings against their religious beliefs. I don't think it's anything to get worked up over.
You're being terribly naive. Nobody writes a bill that says "ok to discriminate against gay people". It's always couched in some more general language, with some sort of more general rationale, as cover for the real agenda. Has there recently been a spate of frivolous lawsuits against people working out of their homes that "don't want to provide service to someone for some 'other' reason"? Didn't think so.
1. The freedom to do X.
You can hold whatever beliefs you want in private. And you have the right to publicly speak about those beliefs. And you have the right to freely congregate with others who also hold those beliefs.
2. The freedom not to be forced to do X.
No one is telling you that you have to congregate with blacks / gays / whatever in private.
BUT, once you open a PUBLIC business then you must treat all classes of people the same regardless of what your PRIVATE beliefs are.
Yes they were. It was legal for them to do so. And a lot of black people were injured and killed in fighting to change those laws.
I gotta admit, this is one of those things that I wonder about.
Let's say I'm out to dinner with my same-sex husband. It's our second anniversary and I've picked out a wonderful restaurant with great reviews. I go to the restaurant and I tell the waiter that it is our anniversary. The waiter--a devout Christian--informs me that he does not "approve of my lifestyle." Which would I rather do?
1. Ask for a different waiter and, if one is not available, go someplace else?
2. Force this waiter to provide adequate service.
I'm sure the waiter will forget to bring food and refill glasses. If he does that to a few other tables, how am I supposed to tell the difference between discrimination and just getting a crappy waiter? If the answer is "because he told you," that doesn't really inspire the waiter to tell me of his prejudices, does it? Yet my anniversary evening is still ruined. Whereas if people can be upfront and honest, at least I know where I stand and can work around it.
I mean, would I really want a homophobe making my wedding cake?
I am offended that this bill unfairly discriminates against people whose discriminatory views stem from dumb beliefs other than religion.
Why should a person whose idiotic views stem from some idiotic religion be given special privileges over someone whose idiotic views stem from some other idiotic belief system like astrology, ESP, belief in aliens, belief that the moon landing was faked or that 9/11 was an inside job. These idiotic views are just as legitimate as Christianity for purposes of discriminating against people.
These discussions seem to miss the point entirely. No one would argue that a business shouldn't be able to refuse service to someone asking them to help espouse a particular, commonly reviled viewpoint - say a Klan member or NAMBLA member asking a printing press to produce some of their literature or marketing materials. Should a business be legally barred from refusing such service? To go a bit further, what about those people who believe that homosexuality (since this is the real lighting pole at the moment) is not a genetic trait but a sexual fetish or habit, like at least in kind if not moral repugnance to fetishes like bondage, beastiality or pedophila. If this is so, you can't afford the same significance to people wishing to refuse to have business dealings with homosexuals as we do with clear cases of discrimination based on racial markings or gender. In the latter cases, people have no control over such characteristics; in the former, it's only ever an issue when made overtly known through participation in the characteristics of a culture or sub-culture.
I think it has to be argued pretty conclusively that people are born homosexual for sexual orientations to be afforded the same legal protections against discrimination that race and gender enjoy, but in such a case I don't see why you would avoid affording not just homosexuality legal protections, but beastiality, polygamy, pedophila, and any of a host of negative sexual orientations. Why would people be born gay, but not any of these others?
is this really a news for nerds? Is this site becoming a local politics news outlet?
People seem to be conflating two different things:
1. Refusing to serve gays because they are gay. A gay person goes into a bakery, asks for one of those croissants in the display case, and the owner refuses to serve that person solely because they are gay. This is what most people seem to be imagining.
2. Refusing to participate in/support an event that goes against one's religious beliefs. Similar bakery, but now someone (straight or gay) asks for a wedding cake for a gay wedding (with two grooms on top, say). If the baker has a religious belief that opposes gay marriage, must they still provide the cake?
Expanding on #2 a bit:
- What if the bakery customer is a Satanist, and wants a cake with a graphic depiction of a virgin sacrifice, or a ritual orgy, or something like that?
- What if it's a church rather than a bakery; should a gay couple be allowed to force a pastor to perform a gay wedding, even if that goes against the church's teachings? Most people would say no, but where's the line between a church and a bakery? What if the bakery is run by a convent? This is similar to the situation in front of the Supreme Court, with the Obamacare contraception coverage waiver.
As others have mentioned, the Arizona bill doesn't directly mention sexuality at all, so it's not immediately obvious whether it only addresses case 2 or if it also covers case 1. But they're clearly different, and it would be nice if more people would recognize that.
Actually hate is the most important freedom to protect, because hate is a thought and freedom of thought is necessary for any other freedom to follow. Look, I think it's a stupid thing to discriminate against your customers, especially over issues that are none of your damn business, but ultimately, it's your choice to be pissing away that money. Here's how it should work, businesses should have every right to refuse service to whatever customers they like, but in return a business must make this fact known up front. Just like most of the things we legally allow businesses to discriminate against (firearms, smokers etc) we should simply require a legally mandated, visible, prominently displayed and standardized sign that announces up front, before the potential customer can enter the door, that this business discriminates against certain individuals. Want to discriminate against gays? Fine, you need a 1x1 sign of a rainbow triangle in a red circle with a line through it on the front door. Christians? 1x1 sign of a cross with a line through it. Muslims? 1x1 sign of a crescent moon. Jews? Star of David. Heterosexuals? I'd probably go with an interlocked male/female symbol. Men? Male symbol. Women? Female symbol. That way everyone who comes to your business can know, before they ever set foot in your store that you and your business is an asshole.
Always remember that giving the power to the government to deny something is also giving them the power to require it. The moment we declare the government has the authority to force us to do business with someone, we've also declared they have the authority to force us not to do business with someone. And if you think it's far fetched that they might, just remember that Jim Crow laws were legalized and in many cases MANDATED discrimination.
I grew up in the north, I currently live in the south and I can tell you this. I've met some of the most overtly racist and ignorant people here in the south, pure honest to goodness sterotypes of southern hicks. But I've also been able to spot them from a mile off, and everyone else treats them like the fools they are. Yes, there are some places where they might be "welcome" but for the most part, they're a laughing stock. And because in the south they feel free to spout their bigotry from the hill tops, everyone knows who they are and can avoid them. By comparison, when I lived in the north, I met a lot of people who were closeted bigots. Oh they talk the right talk, and when everyone is watching they walk the right walk. But behind the curtains, quietly and secretly, they exercise their bigotry, in little ways so much so that sometimes you know these sorts of people for years before you realize they're bigots. Racial tension in the north is (in my experience) nearly as bad if not more so than in the south. The difference is that in the south, it's out in the open, you know where people stand and you don't have to watch your back. The analogy I once saw that I like, is souther racism is like two teenage boys in a fight. It's bloody, it's loud, it's nasty looking, but you know exactly what's going on because it's a damned fist fight on the lawn, and in the end, if the fight ever gets settled, they'll either go their separate ways, or they might become best buds, but you won't know until it's over. Racism in the north is like two teenage girls in a fight. Everything seems perfectly normal on the surface, but look closer and there's the subtle snubbing, the whispers, the sideways glances and the backstabbing. And even if the fight eventually gets settled, the emotional wounds that were inflicted will linger for years to come.
So let the haters hate. Let them fly their flags, let them march their marches and let them post on the doors to their businesses "no X allowed". And let the rest of us know who the idiots are. If I'm looking to do business with a company, I'd much rather know before I start that they march in the Nazi parades, than to find out after the contracts are signed and they're being introduced to my black, gay, jewish accounts manager. As long as these people aren't actively infringing on other peoples rights (and no, service from others is not a right) then let them be, just require that they are obvious about it.
Only blithering idiots don't understand the difference between relations between consenting adults and those inflicted upon children.
A compromise has been reached! Arizona businesses have agreed to continue doing business with 'those people'. As a matter of fact, there will be special sections in restaurants, separate water fountains, and even reserved seating at the back of the buses!
Truly a breakthrough in this day and age of enlightenment and tolerance. The governors of North & South Carolina, Alabama, and Mississippi called the governor in Arizona to praise this forward thinking development and show their support!
(For the humor and/or sarcasm-impaired, the above is fictional and is meant as a piece of dark humor...)
I believe that private companies should have the right to discriminate against anybody. Otherwise they are not really free are they?
How is this different than a business posting a 'No Guns' sign? Is that ok? If it is, than tell me how refusing service to the CCW 'class' based on a hopolophobic fear if an inanimate object is OK, but this is wrong. I personally think the court should have stayed the hell out of the original Colorado gay couple/bakery suit and left the previous 'rule' that a business may refuse service to anyone for any reason. It's their damn business and if they are daft enough to refuse all customers then they won't be in business for long.
Just leave your stupid guns at home. Problem solved. A queer person can not leave his/her/their identity at home just like a black person can not leave his/her black skin at home. And why should they. Carrying a gun is a moronic and utterly stupid choice, being black or queer is not.
Providing a wedding cake is just selling a cake. Nothing else. It doesn't make you gay and it doesn't sponsor the imaginary gay agenda.
A) They're not discriminating against people who hold a permit, just people currently exercising it -- you have a right to defecate, but I bet you'll only eat at restaurants who throw out people who do it on the table.
B) Your gun is not a person and cannot itself be discriminated against
C) Anti-discrimination laws only apply to immutable and difficult-to-change attributes; you can easily disarm yourself and suffer no direct harm as a result
Where does the AC say anything about the constitution? Furthermore, the constitution is written by humans, and can be flawed just like any other document or work. Saying "it's in the constitution, therefore just and ethical" is no different than saying "it's in the Bible, therefore just and ethical".
Nobody would want service from someone who hates them because obviously the service would be terrible. But what goes along with this are other unpleasant behaviours, like being allowed to post a sign that says “NO FAGGOTS” in the window, or being able to scream at someone when they walk in the business because the owner claims ‘he looked like teh gays and that offended me’. Where these behaviours might be open to court actions on their own, with the law in place they would become religiously protected.
The idea of using religious freedoms to counter civil rights is an old one. The exact same argument was used constantly for justifying segregation in the past, and it’s been used to justify discrimination against women too. Probably the only groups that haven’t had religious freedom used as an excuse against them are the disabled and the elderly, and even then an enterprising lawyer could probably dredge up a case somewhere.
Tim also has 6 retail stores he can close as well.
if it was up to the faggots, we would all be forced to bend over so we can get force fed through our a-hole. eventually our society will be extinct anyway, and the once the faggots have won, this is the end result.
How about instead of flying off the handle, why don't you read the damned law first and see for yourself what it says and what it actually does?
Then read the article at this site: http://www.christianpost.com/news/issue-analysis-arizona-bill-does-not-give-businesses-license-to-discriminate-against-gays-115093/
visit www.Mkroyanlaw.com if you wanna know about divorce attorney , divorce lawyer, probate lawyer, probate attorney , Mediation Services, Family Law
He's not an idiot, he's an asshole.
Well, and gender identity and a few other things. It's not *only* going to affect gays, if it passes.
It will definitely affect them, though, despite not actually saying anything to that effect whatsoever.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
Gender identity is not always true, but most likely yes. Some times judges have covered aspects of this under "sex", especially where there was a legal change in gender identity. It varys wildly and often by judge and circumstance.
That said, to be legally accurate, yes it would affect anyone not specifically protected by the federal statutes.
Huh?
You expect the waiter to act like a professional, not whine about their feeings, and do their job like a boss. When did being professional become a lost art?
I think it is the first time I see government lobbying by a megacorporation as a positive thing.
Yeah, that's the problem with these 'religious freedom' discussions.
All to often what they really want is the religious freedom for their religion only.
What they fail to understand is in order to have religious freedom, you also have to have equal freedom from religion, or it is nothing more than outright discrimination by the majority religion; a theocracy in other words.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Blacks aren't intolerant, lawsuit-happy, degenerate asshats. They also can't hide and pretend to be something that they aren't when it suits them.
Well, I think this sort of law is particularly dangerous in small towns. What if there are only three restaurants in the town, and all of them refuse service to gay people? What if you literally can't rent an apartment in town because every landlord turns you away the moment they see your husband?
You might not want a homophobe making your wedding cake, but you might prefer it to not being able to get a cake at all.
Is it ok for a state to codify religiously based bigotry? I thought that is what our constitution was against favoring any religious based doctrine over any other.
And who really thinks a christian variant of sharia law is a good idea in a modern civilized democratic republic?
You're right, they're not really free. They also don't have the right to kill people, even if it makes them money. Tragic, no?
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
Your comments about it being religious in nature are interesting; I always thought that religion's traditional hatred of homosexuality gave it's adherents' an excuse to voice their petty hatred. "It's ok to hate faggots, because the Bible says so."
Religion is a great thing though, don't get me wrong. I love big shiny gold crosses worn as jewelry. It makes it easy for me to spot those primitive, savage idiots and stay the hell way from them. "I believe in invisible shit that nobody has ever even seen, Dhurrrrrrrrrr!"
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Tell him to fuck off. I serve Democrats at work all day. I know they're Democrats by their pins, bumper stickers, etc. I don't like Democrats much, I don't like them at all. I don't feel an overwhelming need to act like a fucking asshole about it and get in their face because they dare have a different opinion then I do. People afflicted with such holier-then-thou attitudes (often literally) are the real problem; its their conviction that they're Right, above all reproach, that we need to worry about.
Even you "special people" that want "special rights" Remember when the world was just plain and simple?
Well now people want to inject their rights where they don't belong. Into other peoples ideals.
Who cares if your gay? unless you're trolling for buttholes buddy, keep it to yourself.
As far as I'm concerned anyone that comes out and admits to being 'openly gay'
is asking for dates, right? I mean I don't go around asking people to accept me because I like vaginas.
Sheet man you will never be 'normal' to me so just get your political army off my case and out of my state.
Well, duh.
Have you ever heard a legitimate (i.e. excluding religious) argument against gay marriage?
"Blithering idiot" is a prerequisite for this sort of discussion.
Because anyone who wants to discriminate but not be discriminated against is a hypocrite and a coward and I do not want to do any business with them.
What's that? Special rights for religious folks? I DON'T THINK SO.
If Abercrombie and Fitch can pick their own customers why can't other businesses?
Sissies are the only "group" that has tried to subvert free speech in America outside of NAZI, socialist and communist groups that they are associated with.
There can be no other point of view than theirs in the workplace, schools or almost anywhere else.
Everyone pays for public schools, but everyone is forced to let their children be indoctrinated to believe it's OK to
use your colon as a theme park because of sissies.
Sissies are not the equivalent of being black or another minority. They only have a hobby they want everyone to accept and puke when they
get an ear full about it.
Another reason to NOT support Apple!
Tell him he just lost out on a generous tip due to his bigotry or at least his inability to keep his religious feelings in check to perform his job.
OT, but I'm curious. Which part of suicide bombing do you oppose? Is it the suicide part of the bombing part? Is bombing without suicide okay? What about suicide without the bombing?
Don't fornicate. Seriously, just don't do it.
Tim Cook can't even get Apple to produce a decent version of OS X,
and he is going to try to tell Arizona how to legislate ?
Goof luck with that, Tim.
And by the way, Mavericks is awful, Safari is an unsafe browser, and
all the versions of iTunes in the last year are utter shit. I think maybe you
ought to concentrate on making sure the company you are supposedly
leading is making decent products, instead of trying to get into the business
of people in a state where you don't even live.
I dont give a damn about sexual orientation but Apple products have really started to
be a lot less worthwhile than they used to be when Jobs was running the show.
I get the definite sense that Cook is NOT PAYING ATTENTION to the products.
It seems insensitive and illogical, because a business owner already has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. No need to pass a law when the right already exists.
Different question: is it okay for the state to tell someone who they must do business with? ... Granted, this is not Federal but State. But that other question still remains: is it okay for the State to tell someone they can't do business with someone they don't like?
This, so many times over.
For some businesses it does make sense. Refusing to serve a lunch or to sell a suit or to sell a home, those are one thing. Many types of businesses have no intersection with sexual lives. However, everything related to marriage is deeply entwined with sexual relationships. For those businesses that have nothing to do with sex: wonderful! No need to discriminate, serve everyone the same.
Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your viewpoint) things are pushing beyond that.
Look at the rulings coming in from across the nation, everything touching marriage (and therefore sexual orientation) is under attack:
Compelling photographers, because at one point in their career they photographed a wedding they must now photograph all such events (not just gay, but open-relationship unions, Dom/Sub 'bondings', and more), even if it is against their beliefs, even if they dislike the couple, they must comply or face discrimination charges.
Compelling church-affiliated businesses and reception halls, because at some point they hosted a reception for people not of their faith, that they must now host all such receptions, even when the individuals are not of their faith or are demonstrating actions against their faith, or face discrimination charges.
Compelling bands and musicians who have performed at weddings in the past, that now they must perform at any such event when asked, or face discrimination charges.
Several states have dealt with this so far, and IIRC both Hawaii and New Mexico state supreme courts have compelled photographers, reception homes, and musicians to work at the events when asked (even when they object) or face extremely harsh penalties.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
Those godless faggots can go to hell for being unnatural scum.
I gotta admit, this is one of those things that I wonder about.
Let's say I'm out to dinner with my same-sex husband. It's our second anniversary and I've picked out a wonderful restaurant with great reviews.
The speculation you wrote above makes you look like a person who doesn't understand the importance of good
planning. This is a laughably simple situation. You need to speak with the manager of the restaurant BEFORE your date
and ask the questions which will reveal whether the restaurant will be suitable for your date. Questions like :
Do you mind if we fudge-packing limp wristed cum slurping faggots fall all over each other and cause your
heterosexual clients to leave abruptly and never return ?
There are people here essentially calling for some to be punished for thought crimes. There's no physical harm being done to anyone by refusing service.
The only psychological "damage" is the expression of disapproval that comes with refusing service, but so many of you are willing to destroy people financially for that -- because they don't believe what you believe.
You people are scary.
Here's my biggest problem with forcing service, regardless of any arbitrary 'class' of either party - as a state action, it's the use of force to compel labor. A basic test I use frequently: would I be comfortable holding a gun to someone's head to compel the following of a given law? In this case (and sadly many others), no. It's no more moral to use the government as a proxy for the same act.
Action compelled by force is literally slavery. I cannot condone the government making more slaves. You may counter 'but their buisiness is still getting paid!' Yes, and slaves must be kept fed. We are only free when we exchange goods of our own volition. You are not entitled to someone else's labor without their consent.
Counter bigotry with boycotts and more counter speech, not by threatening them with force. Break the buisinesses that refuse service by out-competing them (here's a hint - it should be easier now that they're serving a smaller subset of people). Remember, just because it may be easy to lump everyone who disagrees with your view in the same camp, label them all bigots, and call it a day, doesn't make your cheap ad hominem attack (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Guilt_by_association) any less fallacious. I support the gay rights movement, though I prefer to seek the destruction of marriage as a government institution, I accept the need to open up marriage recognition as a legal course as an intermediate step. I fervently hope the gay community will find continued widening acceptance. I withdraw my support when they go to the government to enslave those that disagree.
I'm a DJ - I like a certain type of music, but if I get hired to DJ a dance, and the people are requesting Justin Bieber songs, who am I to tell these people that Bieber sucks and refuse to play their requests? I can hate Bieber all I want at home, but when I'm working - dammit I'll sing along to every Bieber song out there if that's what the guy paying me and his guests hire me to do!
Born to Play
This is extremist being extremist, and is totally stupid. Private business owners should have the right to refuse service to any one for any reason, just like clubs or any other private organization. That's America, people do what they want, and group with people that think like them and act like them. The only group I can't stand in America is the group that tries to force me to think and behave like them. Public stuff is different of course.
You nudist bigot!
I don't think human rights get much more fundamental than "I fucking hate you." Unless you're assaulting, robbing, defrauding, or legally defaming someone you have every right to hate them and to choose not to associate with them.
So Arizona's law is dumb because of the religious jibba jabba, but they have one thing correct - our rights to the freedom of association are being eroded. If you hate Lesbians and don't want to shoot photographs at their wedding, then what the fuck kind of sense does it make to _force_ you to do so? Yeah...no.
I don't think so..
Marriage is none of the federal governments business but I bet you do take advantage of the tax breaks for married couples.
Bigotted piece of filth.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Ok, this a rant. WHERE IS THE DAMN "parent" button? I'd like to read the parent post, but how do I do it? Also, when replying to some post sevveral levels deep the whole reply thing is HORRIBLY broken. One word per line, gray vertical lines fill the screen. And what's with the reply topic? Why can't it be in the damn box as a default? I'm also missing the "preview comment" text from the button. I read slahdot for the stupid comments and for the ability to post them myself. This is BS. I've been giving time to fix the problems, but nothing seems to happen. You better improve seen or there is another one who will find some other forum to waste time on.
You do know that in Modern times the first decriminilazation of homosexual activity was en-acted under Napolean, in 1811? NOTHING with regards to human rights started in the US.
You are so fucking ignorant you make Fox News seem informed.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
This has NOTHING to do with business. If the chamber of commerce is against a supposed pro-business move then the move ain't pro-business. Or do you see the average chamber of commerce as a hotbed of hippie action?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Are pharmacies completely free to decide if they will sell some drugs or not in the USA? If they are, they are completely free to net sell some morning after pill or contraceptives. Just sell only aspirin for all I care, there will hopefully be a competing pharmacy ready to open next week with a better selection of products.
When it comes to docters the situation is more complex, because if they feel tehy are killing the fetus they really can't do it. Is it ok to order someone to kill someone else? I think you can require all future doctors to perform abortions. As they would know they might have to perform them when they are making the choice to become a doctor. (same situation when you decide you want to become a plumber, you decide it's ok you might have to touch other peoples feces, it is part of the job description)
Just wear a cross upside down or some visible islam thing or something. If they deny service because you are gay you can easily win $$ in court because the religious signs were visible and they might have been the real reason.
is the most basic human right of all.
Surely if MOST people think that being 'gay' is just great and normal, those 'evil' businesses that refuse to serve 'gays' should lose huge amounts of business and go bust?
LOL.
You have every right to kick out and refuse service to minorities for any reason. HOWEVER since corporations are government created legal entities they are NOT YOU and they are certainly not humans or citizens!
If you want corporate powers you must abide by their limitations. I can't think of any serious business that wouldn't incorporate, just for sake of financial protections and welfare (the biggest user of welfare too BTW) so they'd give all that up if they wanted to retain their bigotry rights.
Plenty of heterosexual business owners are putting pressure on Arizona too. Because you don't have to be gay to oppose this crap, just not an asshole.
Yeah, and maybe he doesn't believe in bacteria, so he shouldn't be obligated to wash his hands before handling food. Or he doesn't believe in fire, so he doesn't need to ensure his shop is in line with public safety codes. Or he doesn't believe in paying taxes.
Does Apple sell factories, and it has a public shop where it sells them, and Arizona walked in to ask to buy one?
Then no, Apple choosing not to build a factory in Arizona is a completely different thing than a business refusing service to a customer. I don't even get how you'd arrive at this stupid analogy.
Their neighbor state now forces photographers, musicians, caterers, and others to attend the event even when it is against their beliefs. So I immediately imagine a high profile gay wedding taking out a full-page printed public notice of a gay wedding, catered by Chick-fil-a (an anti-gay eatery), photographed by a major anti-gay photographer, with music by an anti-gay band, all of them compelled to be there or face serious civil lawsuits.
Similarly, if the photographer had attended straight porn filmings they must now attend all non-straight types if asked.
Uh... I'm no photographer, but I understand that one wouldn't mind taking pictures in straight scenes while being incomfortable regarding gay scenes, religious belief is not even a matter here, neither is homophobia.
... a tailor should have to make neo-nazi uniforms, if asked to?
... a sign company should have to make banners for dogfights, if asked to?
What's that, no? So businesses shouldn't have to serve anyone who walks in? Businesses can discriminate, so long as you and your tribe agree with their choices?
Friend, friends, ... Why all the fighting?
Can't he be an idiot and an asshole?
If your only reason why it's different is because one is protected, the other isn't, then this can be solved EASILY to EVERYONE'S satisfaction: make sexual orientation protected like race or religion.
And everyone's happy.
Because, you know, women have mouths too.
But I guess you'll have heterosex with your hand again tonight, in celebration of your "getting one over on a gay".
I do sculptures in ice, limestone, clay, and other materials. If this Law passes, I would be forced by government to comply with a request I recently turned away.
That request was for a piece of art - a limestone sculpture of a young boy, but with an erect penis (customer also specified he wanted the erect penis to be 7-8" in length and 1.5-2" in diameter). I immediately said "no way" but the customer, who was openly, of not obviously gay, argued that the erect penis was a legitimate artistic expression of the sexual angst and tension young boys feel as they go through puberty. Yeah, right, with such exact size specifications.
So yeah, the government wants to compel me under threat of force to sculpt young boys with oversized erect penises for gay customers.
Sorry, but fuck you. I'm still not doing it.
Sapphire FABULOUS plant! amirite???
That's the point right? Gays/lesbians are sinners, so reserve the right to deny service because of that.
Of course, good luck finding any non-sinners. Even if there was one, would you believe her or him? Doubtful, I mean that person would have to be ....
Well, there you go. The legislation is really about identifying the 'Second Coming'. Well played boys.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
You allow people all the freedom they want as long as they can not force it on someone else.
You let a business owner do whatever they want because that business owner can not force you to use their business, you can go to someone else.
A suicide bomber on their own property with no one else to be harmed should be perfectly legal, assuming they notify the authorities in advance so we don't have to waste a bunch of time figuring out what happened and picking body parts out of trees a half mile away.
A suicide bomber at Walmart is not acceptable, since its going to hurt a whole bunch of people who wanted no part of that ordeal.
Its not what you do, its what you do unto others that matters.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
I find Anti-Gay legislature to be an awful step in the wrong direction. What would stop a Gay business owner from then refusing to sell to straight people? Shit would hit the fan then.
I understand people have their personal beliefs and prejudices, but to go to such extremes as to put Anti-anything in the laws is just immoral in my humble opinion.
Discrimination is in everyone, some are more extreme than others, but if a potential customer walks into a jewelery store and that person's actions make it look like they are casing the place, doesn't a business owner have the right of refusal of a point of sale, in order to protect themselves. Some would say yes, some would say no. That example is not really the same as an Anti-gay legislature to prevent sales based on open discrimination, but if someone's strong moral beliefs feel that they must protect themselves from a potential customer who is gay, they under that same scenario one would think they have a right of refusal. To me it's a ridiculous perspective, but I'm sure someone will say "See, she gets it."
This is only a point being made for discussion, playing devil's advocate as it were. Talk amongst yourselves.
Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
That depends very much on the business and the situation as a whole.
For example, I wouldn't mind if some homophobic racist piece shit owner of a local bar in Arizona would deny handing me over a drink, but it would be problematic if the only ISP in town could refuse a gay person as a customer or if all gas stations in Arizona would decide not to offer their services to owners of "gay cars". and what if you're living in a small town with only one grocery store and the next town is hundreds of miles away? Perhaps you don't care because you live in a place where there are plenty of choices, but that's not always the case.
So to answer your original question: Yes, in many cases the state should regulate business and tell them they must not refuse service to gays, christians, people with freckles, or brunettes. It's kind of obvious if you give it some thought.
AZ has been doing great with out Apple I am sure they will continue to do so if Apple changes its mind, the State is not dependent on one company doing business there. it might be better if they didn't goto AZ considering how they are now going to use economical forces to sway votes inside of states like that. I hope Jan Brewer listens to her people and not be drawn in to taking a bribe from Apple if they say they wont build this plant here if she wont Veto it, that's just manipulation and I am glad I don't buy apple products and never will.
Brandon
Hate as a thought and actions based on hate are two entirely different things. Thoughtcrime should never be a crime, not in any form, but taking an action that harms another because of your hateful thoughts should be prohibited. As was established elsewhere, refusing to do business with an entire class (or even a perceived association with that class) of people reduces their access to the goods or services the business is providing. Reduce this sufficiently and they may lose access altogether. This might not be a big deal for, say, luxury items, but for necessities or near-necessities, it is a major issue.
Freedom of association is a natural right and government forced association is tyrannical and oppressive. Although, since the current administration is post constitutional they do not follow the constitution nor natural law. Given King Barry, er I mean President Obama, has usurped the entire legislative branch, our current state of the federal government much more resembles a monarchy rather than a representative republic. Really, Obama, Holder and rest of the cronies should have resigned a long time ago except for the fact that their constituents are apparently completely ignorant of the constitution and the terrible consequences of not following it.
I am waiting to see what happens when christian shop keepers refuse to sell to jews because of the whole killing jesus thing. If they sincerely believe it, why not? Where are the right whiners with their slippery slope arguments? They love using that argument
This article sums it up nicely, I think.
Nice going, Arizona. Or at least, Arizona politicians.
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
In fairness, that's proven very difficult to prosecute anyway...
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Umm, Mormons still believe being black is the Mark of Cain, that is current doctrine and additionally appears all over their Book of Mormon.
would it be agreeable to force a doctor who doesn't want to perform abortions to do so?
There's a difference between discriminating between people and discriminating between products.
The pharmacist might refuse to fill a morning-after pill prescription because they don't stock that medication. No pharmacy stocks every pill in the Physician's Desk Reference. If they choose not to stock that one, their choice. If the doctor chooses to practice oncology instead of gynecology, their choice. If you want an abortion, go to a physician who performs that service.
What is definitely improper is for the pharmacist or physician to offer the service to some, but not to others. "I'm sorry, you can't buy a morning-after pill because you're not married and I don't approve of living in sin. But that other customer can buy it, because they're married and so I'm just helping recover from an accident." A business must offer its products and services equally to all, even if that equal level of offering might be zero.
The Arizona law says that discrimination between people is OK. It's not.
But I think the question was does the Fed (or State) have the right to Require that someone do business with someone they do not like.
Its quite ok for a state to tell people that hatred is not an acceptable aspect of a 21st C society.
If the law can force a bakery to bake a cake they would rather not bake, and force a photographer to take photos they don't want to take, then how is it ok for people to boycott a business they disagree with. Shouldn't we all be forced to do business with all businesses since discrimination is wrong. I don't shop at Walmart because I think they suck. Is it ok to force me to shop there. We all just end up becoming slaves to our governmental masters!
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The law also means blacks can't be forced to bake a cake with a picture of the klan burning a cross on it and gays won't be forced to take wedding pictures of a guy marrying his mom. Those are extreme examples but intelligent people will understand the law provides equal protection.
BTW homosexuality is the moral equivalent of incest, someday we'll be so broadminded we'll accept that too. Ain't advancement grand?
I doubt a voice would be raised if a black refused to serve a klansman. Gays have learned to kick and scream so well it puts Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to shame. Pretty soon our nation will be celebrating the married brother and sister who were brave enough to go public.
It's really pretty sad that otherwise intelligent people could so easily be brainwashed to believe that homosexuality is normal and moral. You are the same guys who are anti-Christ and who are evolutionists. I wonder how being gay fits into evolution since they don't reproduce?
BTW being black is by birth, being gay is a choice. Don't compare the two. It cheapens the actual hell blacks have gone through in this nation.
"I am not a huge fan of Neo Darwinian evolution. Nevertheless, there is some clear evidence that natural selection (and sexual selection) does act upon populations and has acted on our own species to produce racial differences. Natural selection postulates that those genetic mutations that favor survival and reproduction will be selected, whereas those that compromise survival and reproduction will be eliminated. Obviously, a gene or series of genes that produce non-reproducing individuals (i.e., those who express pure homosexual behavior) will be rapidly eliminated from any population. So, it would be expected that any "gay gene" would be efficiently removed from a population. However, it is possible that a gene favoring male homosexuality could "hide" within the human genome if it were located on the X-chromosome, where it could be carried by reproducing females, and not be subject to negative selection by non-reproducing males. In order to survive, the gene(s) would be expected to be associated with higher reproductive capacity in women who carry it (compensating for the generation of non-reproducing males). I can't imagine a genetic scenario in which female homosexuality would ever persist within a population."
You bring up 'identity'... hmmm ok , so I'm tackleberry from police acsdemy... are gun my identity? How about ted nugent? At what point does what you belive in become your identity?
I represent gun loving meat eating americans.
What if there are only three restaurants in the town, and all of them refuse service to gay people?
Probability is not your strong suit. 3 coin flips, 8 outcomes (s=straightsonly, g=gaystoo) (each coin like each restaurant is unique, so "gss" is not the same as "ssg").
You fret about the unlikely "sss" when your concern ought to be not knowing. "???" is worse than any outcome besides the most likely, "ggg" (cause literally people don't give a fuck enough to make a policy on these things en masse).
What you have demonstrated is that you don't trust people to be free. So I want to start a business that discriminates against anyone outside the liberty movement. You fucks just aren't worth it. ;)
>Is it OK to refuse service to someone from the Westboro Baptist church? The Catholic church? How about a Neo-Nazi? Because if your answer is yes, you cannot rationally support a veto.
I think that would depend a lot on the nature of the service. There is a big difference between seating the pastor of the Westboro Baptist Church in your restaurant as part of the lunch crowd and renting him the banquet hall for a dinner celebrating his organization's programs.
Similiarly, I think there is a difference between a photographer taking a picture of two men who come into his or her studio and say that they want a family portrait just like the man and woman before them got and going to their wedding with the express purpose of memorializing it.
I think the difference that in the second parts of the examples above is that speach is the central element of the event. Furthure, the person providing the service is expected to stand in the view of the audiance and smile and provide services supporting the speakers including (in the case of our hypothetical photographer) services which amplify and transmit that speach.
I don't think making people pretend to support speach which they find repugnant is fair or reasonable. On the other hand, it is not right to deny unpopular speakers a meaningful way to express their views. I am not sure how to balance this.
(If you are wondering why I have implied that a wedding is speech, that is because a declaration is the central defining element of a wedding in all cultures of which I am aware. It has sometimes taken the form of a solomn oath pronounced in front of one or more witnesses, sometimes it has been the signing of a document, in some ancient cultures the groom went to the bride's father's home and led her pompously through the streets to his home in the company of friends and relations.)
It is not all or nothing. When rights conflict a balance must be struck. To refuse blacks service in McDonald's would clearly be illegal because any freedom of association argument would be frivilous. (A white person's argument that he is being forced to associate with black people because he can see some of them at another table while he is eating his Big Mac is pretty silly.)
However, the KKK absolutely can refuse to accept black people as members. If they have a clubhouse with a lunch counter, they absolutely can prohibit black people from eating at it just by making a members-only rule.
Maybe this should be changed. If it were, then we could find a KKK chapter with a clubhouse and 50 members. We could then find 51 black volunteers who would join up. At the next club business meeting they could all come and vote to disband the chapter or amend its charter to support racial equality.
In theory this would be a good thing since it deprives an obnoxious organization of its clubhouse. But remember how it goes: "First they came for the KKK, but I did not speak up because I am not a racist." all the way down to "Then they came for me and no one spoke up because there was no one left."
Have you ever heard a legitimate (i.e. excluding religious) argument against gay marriage?
How about arguments against it made by gays? There are at least some who believe that the gay-marriage movement is unnessary or counter-productive.
For example, this essay by a gay man can be found on the BBC website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/maga...
And here is a blog by a gay man who disavows the gay marriage movement: http://nogaymarriage.wordpress...
Here is a site with lots of links on the subject: http://www.againstequality.org...
Admittedly, the positions taken in these essays are not as strong as those of certain religions organizations, but they are definitly arguments against gay marriage.
For example, this essay by a gay man can be found on the BBC website
Boils down to "Well, I'm not going to do that. It feels weird..." He doesn't want it, great, but he even says that he's not against the idea, it's just "not for him." Good for him. I'm straight and marriage is "not for me," either. Even if I misread and he IS against the idea, his reason boils down to "I don't want it." Not legitimate.
And here is a blog by a gay man who disavows the gay marriage movement: http://nogaymarriage.wordpress...
He says takes issue with the insistence on "marriage" terminology, and the narcissism of the weddings, as opposed to "civil unions" and the like getting the same legal rights. (And then goes on to rant about "economically ignorant liberals" and tax breaks.)
Here is a site with lots of links on the subject: http://www.againstequality.org...
Complains about gay marriage "propaganda", not gay marriage.
SB 1062 does not legalize discrimination based on sexual preference (http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.pdf) because it already is legal to do so (https://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/lgbt-inclusive-public-accommodations-laws1). I am not saying such discrimination should be legal. Anyone saying otherwise, however, is either ignorant or perpetrating the political equivalent of a fraud.