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."

Comments

First blacks,

[Threni]

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.

Re:First blacks,

[Anonymous Psychopath]

I imagine a gay CEO isn't too enthused about doing business with a state that thinks it's ok to refuse to do business with someone because they're gay. It's a two-way street, Arizona.

Re:First blacks,

[QuantumLeaper]

Some American all they can is Hate, it been that way for along time. Sometimes it takes a long time for thing to change, some want to Hate everything that is different then them, be it Gays. Women, Latinos, or whoever or whatever the the person. If the law goes through, I hope Apple move their plans to another State.

Re:First blacks,

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the religions around here are against this sort of discrimination.

Me, I'm sick and tired of the piecemeal approach. You can only be legally protected from discrimination if your identity group gets enough political clout to get on the "race, religion, national origin,..." list.
It's still legal to discriminate against people for being fat, supporting the Green Party, or any other thing that's not on the list.
Why isn't it just illegal for employers and service providers to discriminate against people for every irrelevant thing?

Re:First blacks,

[cas2000]

but I think businesses should have the freedom to refuse service.

why, exactly, should they have that right? it's fair enough for a business to exclude particular individuals who have caused problems in the past (e.g. shoplifiting or being an annoying PITA), but to exclude people simply because they are a member of a particular group ("women", "gays", "blacks", "teenagers", whatever) - or *appear* to be a member of such a group - is discrimination....and that's definitely unethical and almost certainly illegal.

On the other hand, I think this law may open the door to "no hispanics or negroes allowed" signs going up, because someone could claim its their religious belief...

that door is already wide open - "no gays" is no different to "no blacks". it's the same fucking thing.

Re:First blacks,

[geminidomino]

Is Tim Cook gay? Or were you just being hypothetical?

Re:First blacks,

[seebs]

Yes, he's one of the first openly gay major corporation CEOs, which has gotten some amount of commentary... But only some as it turns out to have very little impact on his ability to do his job.

Re:First blacks,

[Jane Q. Public]

"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."

To many people, it's not about gays at all. It's about whether the government can tell them who they can like or do business with and who they can't.

Re:First blacks,

[Anonymous Psychopath]

People have the right to be racist. They also have the right to say & publish racist speech, etc.

I have mixed feelings. I know that the religious nuts are pushing this because of gay hatred, but I think businesses should have the freedom to refuse service. The public is welcome to boycott and post their negative opinion about the business.

On the other hand, I think this law may open the door to "no hispanics or negroes allowed" signs going up, because someone could claim its their religious belief...

Well, your last sentence was correct. Some Christians (I'm looking at you, Southern Baptists) used to preach that being black was the Mark of Cain and used it to justify first slavery and then racism. To purposefully legalize this behavior is stupidity of the first order. As the law is written, a business in Arizona could use the Mark of Cain argument to refuse to do business with blacks.

Re:First blacks,

[Anonymous Coward]

but to exclude people simply because they are a member of a particular group ("women", "gays", "blacks", "teenagers", whatever) - or *appear* to be a member of such a group - is discrimination....and that's definitely unethical and almost certainly illegal.

Unless that particular group happens to be "men".

Re:First blacks,

[ebno-10db]

but I think businesses should have the freedom to refuse service

Why?

To me there are basically three categories, public, private, and something in-between that I'll call "public accommodation". In your private affairs you can be as bigoted as you want. You can also speak or write about it, have religious convictions, whatever. Obviously prejudice at the public (government) level shouldn't be tolerated, and can easily be made illegal. The third "public accommodation" category refers to things that are privately owned but readily accommodate the public, such as stores, restaurants, hotels, etc. If you've got the money (and in some cases are dressed appropriately) you can walk in and do business. Libertarians, in their Manichean view, would argue that such businesses are privately owned. Sorry, but I don't think that private ownership gives you the right to do anything you want. It reminds me of the Greensboro Four, whose (intentional) offense was to try to order some food at a segregated lunch counter. Should that be legal?

Re:First blacks,

[MightyMartian]

The bigots lost this argument fifty years ago. Why do some continue to try to fight that which law and jurisprudence forbids them?

You're rights as a business are not an absolute on a number of fronts.

Re:First blacks,

[bondsbw]

Why isn't it just illegal for employers and service providers to discriminate against people for every irrelevant thing?

Setting aside the Constitution for a moment, this probably isn't a great idea. How do we define "relevant"?

Could you kick someone out of your bar for getting naked and defecating in the middle of the room? He could claim that his religious beliefs led him to do so, and that those acts have nothing to do with buying drinks. (Well... I guess it could if you buy too many...)

I think I'd rather stick to letting the business owner have the responsibility of deciding matters of business, including whose business he wants. Let the chips fall where they may... people will see the discrimination and get offended and probably even make a case of it in the news. And I don't know of any business that is better off discriminating against good faith customers.

Re:First blacks,

[ebno-10db]

People have the right of free association. the government should not force someone to associate with someone. this includes being forced by the government to perform a service or sell a product with someone you don't want to.

You forgot the "taxes are theft" line. Private affairs means your home and whatnot. If you have a business that otherwise lets anybody with the money and proper attire to come in, then it's no longer a strictly private affair, even though it's privately owned.

Re:First blacks,

[geminidomino]

Huh. I didn't know that (that he was gay, not that being gay had fuckall to do with job performance).

Re:First blacks,

[Jane Q. Public]

Different question: is it okay for the state to tell someone who they must do business with?

Completely leaving aside sexual orientation. Or not. Take your pick of prejudices. Can the state tell someone they must not refuse to do business with brunettes? Or people with freckles?

I did not oppose a Federal gay marriage law out of hate for gays. I opposed it because marriage is none of the Federal government's f*ing business.

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?

Re:First blacks,

[SpankiMonki]

...but I think businesses should have the freedom to refuse service.

In Arizona, businesses *already* have the ability to refuse service to homosexuals.

This law is one of the last gasps of the "culture war" that the religious right has fought and lost. If Brewer signs it into law (unlikely), it will be quickly challenged in court and declared unconstitutional. That's the real stupidity of the religious nutters pushing through this law - if they'd have just kept their bigoted mouths shut, businesses that want to discriminate based on sexual orientation would likely have been able to do so until a federal law made such discrimination illegal.

Re:First blacks,

[ebno-10db]

To many people, it's not about gays at all. It's about whether the government can tell them who they can like or do business with and who they can't.

So we should re-legalize discrimination against black people? That would be progress.

Re:First blacks,

[ebno-10db]

Maybe he's British. They use that word in reference to both sexes. Perhaps we should send a "Birds and Bees" book to that island.

Re:First blacks,

[Jane Q. Public]

"The bigots lost this argument fifty years ago. Why do some continue to try to fight that which law and jurisprudence forbids them?"

You don't have to be a bigot to ask the question.

"You're rights as a business are not an absolute on a number of fronts."

Of course. The question is: where is the line?

Your comment about "bigots lost the fight 50 years ago" was about Federal government, and the Constitutionality of that is being questioned even now. But this is about businesses over which presumably the Federal government has no jurisdiction. So where does the state power end?

But back to the point: I wasn't referring to bigotry or anything of that nature. My question was simply: to what extent can government tell people who they must do business with? It's easy to see that there can be a point that is too far. I'm just asking where that point is. That is all.

Re:First blacks,

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. It is okay for the state to tell someone they cannot refuse to do business with someone based on any prejudice. Example: https://www.humanrights.gov.au/guide-australias-anti-discrimination-laws

Re:First blacks,

[Jane Q. Public]

"Libertarians, in their Manichean view, would argue that such businesses are privately owned."

First, it is disingenuous to pretend to know what someone else "would argue" unless they actually do it. But what really has my curiousity up is where your characterization "Manichean" came from. It does not seem to apply here.

Re:First blacks,

[ButchDeLoria]

What about by lying about motive, like firing policies in most states?

Re:First blacks,

[Bartles]

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. Beyond that, this law is entirely unnecessary, because the default state of law is no restriction on activity.

Re:First blacks,

[mythosaz]

This is one of those times where my principles likely disagree with what I think is right.

One of the incidents at the root of these recent attempts at laws was a wedding photographer who elected not to be the photographer for a gay wedding, because, well, his invisible sky person doesn't believe in anything other than man+woman=marriage.

Should the photographer be forced to be the photographer for the wedding because he wasn't already booked that day?

It's obviously stupid that the gay couple would want the anti-gay photographer to shoot their wedding, but why can't the photographer refuse? Can he refuse to shoot May-December couples? Blacks? Whites? Little people? Pepsi drinkers? Mensa members?

It's obvious to me -- in that it trips my bullshit meter -- that posting a sign at the Circle K on the corner that says, "Sorry, no homos." is wrong - deeply wrong - but I can't make a logical argument against the business that doesn't get into businesses being dependent on roads and police and fire and other government services, and as such, the government can make rules that force you to cater to your enemies. Businesses need licenses, and depend on state services -- after that, I got nothing. Let the shitty businesses out themselves as close-minded bigots.

Re:First blacks,

[Anonymous Coward]

This is typical Slashdot flamebait without context. This law is a knee-jerk response to a case that happened last year in Colorado:
http://www.christianpost.com/news/gay-couple-sues-colo-bakery-for-refusing-wedding-cake-97574/

Basically, a gay couple went to bakery and wanted a wedding cake. The bakery refused - they don't support gay marriage. The debate can rage on about whether or not the bakery is bigoted or standing on principles (and frankly I think less of the bakery for doing this), but the gay couple - instead of going somewhere else as would be sensible - sued the bakery to force them to make a cake for them and won. The bakers were forced to make a cake for someone they did not want to make a cake for under penalty of law. As being compelled by law to do something you don't want to do is unpleasant, a law like this is made to be business friendly. This law is a response to that wacky decision to a very wacky case though.

Re:First blacks,

[Bartles]

Because this is not a Fascist country. That's why.

Re:First blacks,

[viperidaenz]

So what shade of skin colour do you draw the line at? Anything darker than your pointy white hat?

Re:First blacks,

[Anonymous Coward]

that door is already wide open - "no gays" is no different to "no blacks". it's the same fucking thing.

You can't use this drinking fountain, the gay fountain is over there by the gay urinals.

Gays have to ride in the back of the bus.

Sorry, but the ambulance driver refuses to take you to the hospital because you are gay, you'll have to wait for another one.
 

Once you cross that bridge, where do you draw the line?

Re: First blacks,

[ebno-10db]

Wheelchair with an RPG launcher. Cool.

Re:First blacks,

[Jane Q. Public]

"would likely have been able to do so until a federal law made such discrimination illegal."

Federal laws of that nature only apply to businesses that are involved in "interstate commerce". There are lots of businesses it simply would not affect.

Re:First blacks,

[stonecypher]

Did it ever occur to you that this might be more complicated than it seems from the outside, and that the politics going on here might not actually reflect the bulk of the population?

Would you like to tell us what country you're in, so that we can share with you how we feel about your country's choices?

The modern homosexual rights movement started in the United States, and has derived the vast bulk of its force from the United States. The United States has the first gay rights group, the first gay bookstore, the first gay bar, the first gay political group, the first gay autobiography in modern times, the first magazine openly for gays and about gay culture; we invented and performed the first sex reassignment (Sweden was the first to make that legal, but that's because it was never illegal here; we performed the first one seven years before anyone else made it legal;) we were the first to successfully fight discharge over orientation, though far from the first to allow gays in the military directly; we were the first modern Western country to have a gay leader at the senator level, though we have not yet hit the presidential level and Iceland has; if you remove France, who got it in the late 1700s, we were the first Western country to eliminate sodomy laws; we had the first gay kiss on a major magazine cover (probably first at all, but who can exhaustively search minor magazines?,) we started the transsexual rights movement, the first officially sanctioned university group for gay advocacy, we invented pride parades and hold them everywhere; we created gay as a protected class for discrimination, also trans, and we'll probably be the first to poly; we had the first gay ordained minister; we invented the rainbow flag (sorry, I wish it was less ugly) and thereby probably the first major pride symbol (but I can't exclude so maybe there's something earlier?,) we started the Gay Games, we missed the first statuory discrimination ban by months, we had the first city and first territory (state, thank you) to extend marriage benefits to gay partners, we came to terms with AIDS way ahead of the pack, we did gay adoption first, etc.

Are you sure Americans are anti-gay, and not just a country of a third of a billion people who have a handful of bad apples, a media system faking controversy to generate viewership, a slashdot reader who's forgotten what percentage of the internet is trolling, and a parochial political system pandering to margins to get voted in?

The phrase "utter fucking cunts" suggests the UK, and to look at Wikipedia's gay rights map, it looks like the US and the UK are world leaders, and that the US is ahead of the UK.

Looks like England is ahead of the US, but hey, California's ahead of England, and California is both larger than and nearly as populous as Britain, so I think that's the actual natural comparison. You guys don't have national gay marriage observation yet. We *do*. (We don't have national performance yet, but that's no big deal; just take a $200 trip to California. It's still binding in every hateful corner of the South. The UK has no such privilege.) North America is the only continent where this is wall to wall legally supported; Eastern Europe misses it by four countries (no illegal but four no recognition,) and South America by six (five no recognition, one illegal.)

Africa has only one country where gay marriage is legal, and Asia has only one (and shockingly it's not Japan) plus six more where it's not recognized.

Uganda just recently worsened their practice to making homosexuality a capital offense. Cameroon, Iran, Nigeria, and Ethiopia all carry the death penalty (these are all nations in the Britain population range.)

The United States is vascillating over whether it's legal for a private business to choose to ask someone to leave over their preference. And we're so shocked by this that there's a national uproar.

We've had several states where this has been legal for decades, and our states are often the size of what you think of as small countries.

So slice it and dice it however you want, but I think the US is actually doing quite well with regards to homosexuality law, thanks.

Please don't blame me and my countryfolk for the things that happen on TV.

Re:First blacks,

[geekoid]

"I opposed it because marriage is none of the Federal government's f*ing business. "
but it is. It shouldn't be, but it is.There are thousands of federal rules and laws with the word married in them. So denying gay marriage is denying those right.
That's why I'm for it. Would I rather the government got rid of those laws? yes.

Then there are thousand of uses of the word married in insurance, contract, housing, and so on.

Opposing the laws in this context is bigotry and depriving people of rights. You may not hate people who are gay, but you are acting just like people who do.

"is it okay for the state to tell someone who they must do business with? "
Yes. When a group is in a position they can't get services, and goods.
There are many more specific and clear reason written by people smarter than me*.

*I know , right?

Re:First blacks,

[Anonymous Coward]

> Different question: is it okay for the state to tell someone who they must do business with?

Yes. And if they don't comply, the state should be a lot freer to tell them that they don't get to do business with anyone ever again.

Re:First blacks,

[rearden]

I would not call him "openly" gay. He is unmarried. He has been seen to be in romantic situations with men. He has coyly refused to respond to questions of his sexuality. He is openly supportive of gay rights, and gay groups. People have referred to him as gay and he does not deny it.

Not sure that is openly gay, but it is certainly not actively not gay I guess.

I don't go around telling people I am gay, but then again when I am asked I do say "I do have a Husband" and smile. So I take calling him "openly" gay with a grain of salt.

That is unless he has said something that I am not familiar with, the closest was that discrimination statement at Auburn University.

Re:First blacks,

[ebno-10db]

First, it is disingenuous to pretend to know what someone else "would argue" unless they actually do it.

That I've heard libertarians make this argument 100 times shows that I'm not pretending. It's a broadly held belief amongst libertarians. I didn't say it was absolutely universal, and I presume you could figure that out without me making every statement in legally precise terms. This is a blog post, not a treatise.

what really has my curiousity up is where your characterization "Manichean" came from

From characterizing everything as either strictly private, or strictly public, as though private ownership of a business made everything that business does a strictly private matter.

Re:First blacks,

[rahvin112]

As soon as you legalize and exception to discrimination laws based on something specious like religious views you've opened the door to discrimination for anything.

IMO a business has the right to refuse service to anyone they choose for whatever they choose as long as that business is a private membership. The second that business offers services to the open public they relinquish the right to refuse service to people on the basis of their age, gender, race, disability, and sexual identification. If you don't like that the close your business to the public and serve only private members.

Business owners what to have their cake and eat it too and I say they can go fuck themselves. Do you know why people get so angry at the gay lobby? It's because they have real power. Between themselves and people that care about them or support them they have real economic power and they can damage any business that discriminates against them. And I'm a willing supporter of that cause even though I'm straight. Arizona enacts laws protecting discrimination of this sort and I will not be doing business with Arizona (or any resident thereof) and I will encourage everyone I know to do the same.

Those fucking snowbird racists and homophobes living in AZ want to turn Arizona into some anti-gay, anti-Hispanic haven. Maybe this will wake the rest of the population up and they will throw the lot of them out of office.

Re:First blacks,

[ebno-10db]

You're confusing the affairs of a business with the private affairs of a customer.

Re:First blacks,

[SpankiMonki]

Federal laws of that nature only apply to businesses that are involved in "interstate commerce". There are lots of businesses it simply would not affect.

Um....NO.

Re:First blacks,

[Bing Tsher E]

Its well established that you can't figure out religion. Anybody who is religious might say you're trying too hard. In the same context you can't force an understanding of poetry. But why bemoan the issue by blabbing about it on a blog?

Re:First blacks,

[FooAtWFU]

I think it's not as simple as that and we're being confused by the proximate issue. I know that a typical case is "is it okay for a business run by some fundamentalist Christians allowed to refuse service to bake cakes or provide flower arrangements a gay wedding." Let's use different groups here to make the issues clearer. Is it okay for an event-planning business run by a Buddhist to refuse service to plan a KKK rally? To refuse to bake a cake that says [insert offensive thing a KKK member might want on a cake here]? How about just to refuse to provide services to a KKK member? Refuse to provide sale of goods?

If the answer is "no" to the Christian baker's refusals and "yes" to the KKK rally refusal, what are the differences between these hypothetical situations? If relevant, what are the differences between the rally and the general sale of goods? What are the differences between these hypothetical situations and the law(s) being proposed?

Re:First blacks,

[Jane Q. Public]

"So we should re-legalize discrimination against black people? That would be progress."

I didn't say that or anything like it. I am just asking where government power to tell people who they can do business with ends. It must end somewhere. But where is that line? Opinions vary.

What I'm saying is: you don't have to be a racist in order to not like government trying to tell you what to do. What if (just hypothetically) you know 3 people, one white, one black, and one gay (any color) who are all assholes? And you don't want to do business with them. Should you get in trouble for NOT doing business with only one of them? Which one and why?

Re:First blacks,

[gandhi_2]

if a wedding photographer doesn't want to sell services for a gay wedding, who are YOU to force them?
oh, we take a vote then?
how about we vote to take all YOUR shit and hand it out to the rest of us?
labeling this "anti-gay legislation" is total bullshit. a law calling for the arrest of gays, now THAT would be anti-gay legislation.
gays should have a right to get maried. photographers should have a right to pick which jobs to do. you can have your abortion, i won't be forced to help you.

Re:First blacks,

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, fuck this fuck that. Ill side with Brewer just to tick off idiots like you who have such a poor grasp of the English language.

Why does the gay/lesbian side always have to feel that everything they want is right?

How is it ok for someone to claim that they cant fall in love with someone who isnt the same gender as them,
but it is wrong for someone to claim that they cant fall in love with someone who isnt the same skin color as them?

Both are born that way, 1 just gets to be a bigot in public with all the parades and the other is considered trash.

If you only like your own kind your a bigot, gay/lesbian or whatever.

Re:First blacks,

[FooAtWFU]

It is no longer strictly a private affair. However, if the government decides to make certain laws that substantially burden some individual's ability to exercise his religion, such as by limiting the conditions under which he may operate a business, then those laws may be found unconstitutional -- something about "congress shall make no law" blah blah blah.

Re:First blacks,

[Jane Q. Public]

"but it is. It shouldn't be, but it is."

No, it isn't. The Federal government has no Constitutional authority to tell you who you can marry and who you cannot. The "Defense of Marriage Act" was blatantly unconstitutional. It doesn't matter whether it's right or wrong. It was a law without lawful authority. The neighborhood kid has just as much lawful authority to decide who marries whom as the Federal government did. That is to say: none.

"There are thousands of federal rules and laws with the word married in them."

Means nothing. Even the Supreme Court would say (because they DID, on several occasions): the fact that laws were passed does not make them Constitutional.

"Opposing the laws in this context is bigotry and depriving people of rights."

NO, it isn't, and that's an extremely offensive thing to say. I oppose the laws because they are ILLEGAL. I don't have to be a bigot to oppose laws that aren't legal in the first place. Fuck you very much.

Re:First blacks,

[TsuruchiBrian]

It is possible to believe in free association without thinking taxes are theft.

Businesses that only let in people with proper attire and enough money are also discriminating, just based on different criteria.

You are free to draw the line between public and private where you have, but I don't see any good reason to draw it there, unless your only concern is preventing blatant discrimination.

The real question is whether you think a restaurant should have the right to discriminate against gays, black people, jews, swedes, poor people, poorly dressed people, etc. I think they should. It's not because I think discrimination is ok. I just think freedom is more important than masking discrimination. It is the same reason I support the freedom to say racist, anti-gay, anti-poor, etc things. I believe freedom of speech is more important than not hearing bigoted speech.

Also, I would rather know the truth about how people feel rather than forcing them to behave a certain way.

Re:First blacks,

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you do have that choice. You also accept dealing with the consequences of that choice. Is it really in your own best interest to exercise that choice in all cases?

You may not discriminate on employment laws (protected classes) but you do have the choice to not associate with certain demographics. The only way to do that in a legal and fair way is to close your business.

You may refuse service for any reason. However, you might be forced to close your business as a possible consequence is the general public holding the opinion that you are an asshole. You may choose to carry products or provide services that cater to certain demographics but there will always be exceptions to those demographics and you will limit your market if you try this for reasons other than maximizing profits.

The government didn't force you to make those choices. You may not turn around and force the government or the public to support your choices so you may stay in business. If you don't want the government to make choices for you then don't look to the government to protect you from the outcome of those choices.

To use a more visceral example, you are free to go to certain neighborhoods and loudly insult the heritage of the predominant residents (be it German, Italian, African American, Chinese, Irish, Peruvian, Korean, whatever). If you do, you accept their reactions and the consequences.

In civilized society, we often tolerate things we don't like we often hold our tongues. We do this for the greater good of overall peace and for our own self interest of wanting to avoid being on the receiving end during changes in public opinion. We the People use the government to resist certain things because of activities not the demographics of the actors. Yes, hold an opinion, but there is no reason to put on blinders or to move in lockstep.

Though on a much slower pace, society sees bigotry the same way the internet sees censorship - as damage. Like the internet, society just routes around it. If someone chooses to suggest let alone vote for let alone sign a law like this, fine. It's not needed - businesses are already free to make their choice and deal with the consequences.

CAPCHA: reasoner

Re:First blacks,

[ksheff]

Marriage is irrespective of religion. You can have marriages that never come into contact with any religion. Marriages are fucking contracts. Contract law is certainly part of Federal law.

But the reason that people get so worked up over it is due to it traditionally being a religious ceremony & institution. Make the government only recognize civil unions which is what it is completely free to define and be done with it (which is what México does). I'm surprised this sort of thing where you have secular govt benefits tied to a religious ceremony hasn't resulted in a "separation of church & state" lawsuit.

Re:First blacks,

[TsuruchiBrian]

I would say the law should go one step further and remove the restriction to justify refusing service to blacks with anything (much less some passage from some meaningless book).

This way it now becomes possible to find out who these bigots are, and refuse service to them on non-religious grounds.

Re: First blacks,

[Brian_Ellenberger]

Congratulations, your hateful vitriol against people who believe differently than you does more to justify the need for this legislation than any argument supporters could make....

Tolerance comes in both directions. If you can't see the difference between refusing to serve someone based on skin color and refusing to go to and participate in a ceremony that your religion disagrees with, I genuinely feel sorry for your blind hatred.

Re:First blacks,

[TsuruchiBrian]

In your private affairs you can be as bigoted as you want. You can also speak or write about it, have religious convictions, whatever.

Why?

Re:First blacks,

[icebike]

I opposed it because marriage is none of the Federal government's f*ing business.

This is where you are wrong and where everyone who keeps parroting this dumb line is conpletely wrong..

Marriage is irrespective of religion.

And this is where you jump to conclusions.
Nobody said anything about religion.

Perhaps you should reacquaint your self with the law of the land.

Re:First blacks,

[rearden]

Well as someone who has had that notion put upon me, to the point of being told that it must have happened (the abuse) but I just don't recall it (wow really!) I just laugh at it now.

I also get asked "Well how do you know?" I answer with "I have slept with two women. How do you know you are not gay? How many men have you had sex with?"

Funny, the question when reversed just seems absurd right? Well that is how it looks from my perspective when you ask me.

Some things we just know. They are.... wait for it... innate parts of who and what we are.

PS: Glad your not really a troll!

Re:First blacks,

[Dragonslicer]

It's obvious to me -- in that it trips my bullshit meter -- that posting a sign at the Circle K on the corner that says, "Sorry, no homos." is wrong - deeply wrong - but I can't make a logical argument against the business that doesn't get into businesses being dependent on roads and police and fire and other government services, and as such, the government can make rules that force you to cater to your enemies. Businesses need licenses, and depend on state services -- after that, I got nothing. Let the shitty businesses out themselves as close-minded bigots.

It's sort of a tragedy of the commons (it looks like tyranny of small decisions is a more accurate name). If you allow discrimination in "private" business, you reduce the availability of some product or service to the group that you're discriminating against. If the availability gets reduced enough, you begin to get a class of people that can't participate in the economy, or even in society at all, because there's simply no way for everyone in that group to get what they're trying to buy, even if they have the money. Obviously this is a much bigger issue when it comes to basic necessities like food and housing, but it can still cause problems for general consumer goods and services.

Re:First blacks,

[thaylin]

The reason " hard right Christians" get so worked up about it...I have no issue with your conclusion, but your entry needs work

Re:First blacks,

[ebno-10db]

In your private affairs you can be as bigoted as you want.

I'm talking about enforcing anti-discrimination laws, and you're talking about the Thought Police.

You can also speak or write about it, have religious convictions

1st Amendment. You should have learned that in school.

Re:First blacks,

[Jane Q. Public]

"What about by lying about motive, like firing policies in most states?"

Well, sure, but what are you going to do about that? I mean seriously. People lie about motive all the time:

"Honest, judge, I didn't reject his job application due to age. I just thought he would not be a good fit for the company."

Etc., etc., ad nauseum. Just an example but you know it happens.

Re:First blacks,

[beelsebob]

Yes, its absolutely okay for a state to tell someone that they may not refuse business based on inconsequential reasons that cause the lives of others to get worse.

That's an obvious liberty balance. One side has liberties infringed (their liberty to live their life how they feel), while the other has no consequential liberty infringed at all.

Re:First blacks,

[thaylin]

Except you have created a public business. You asked for a public business license, you use public facilities to make your business. Your business is no longer a private thing. You are basically saying you want to be able to use things paid for by the same people you dont want to service... Sorry but that is not how society works.

Re:First blacks,

[ebno-10db]

There is a difference between a law that may conflict with someone's religious religious principles, and a law that exists for the purpose of restricting someone's religious belief or practice. If there was a religion that sacrificed small children by the light of a half moon, would the fact that it's illegal be a violation of the 1st Amendment?

Re:First blacks,

[MattskEE]

The word marriage is heavily entrenched in law and contract as a civil status. Religion may have used the term first (I don't actually know, nor do I care) but it's a legal word now and religious institutions should suck it up. It would probably even be expensive for the government to change the name of marriage to civil union.

If religious institutions don't like sharing a word for marriage because gays are finally allowed to get married in a subset of states then religions should invent a new term which refers solely to their religions sacrament (maybe "religious union"? "no-gays-allowed union"?) because they are the ones who have a problem, not us.

Religious people who oppose homosexuality are fleeing in vain from the march of history, because the march towards equal rights will not stop despite the loud but few voices against homosexuality. If religions can get on board we'll get equal rites too.

Re:First blacks,

[beelsebob]

No, it's not okay to refuse them service. Unless their actions have a direct negative impact on your business.

Re:First blacks,

[profplump]

You can choose who you serve without interference from the government, even if you want to exclude protected classes. You just can't claim to be open to the public while refusing service to certain groups -- either you serve the entire public, or you're a members-only club.

Re:First blacks,

[Jane Q. Public]

"That I've heard libertarians make this argument 100 times shows that I'm not pretending. It's a broadly held belief amongst libertarians."

Fair enough. It would be dishonest to deny that.

"From characterizing everything as either strictly private, or strictly public, as though private ownership of a business made everything that business does a strictly private matter."

I think you meant a different word. I do think you're kind of getting at "duality" here, but "black and white" is not the kind of duality implied by "Manichean", which has more of a religious connotation.

Re:First blacks,

[thaylin]

Because it is private and people can do in their homes as they please. It does not seem the author is saying they can do it in their business.

Re:First blacks,

[Anonymous Coward]

" being a religious ceremony & institution"

Excuse me, but WHOSE religious ceremony and institution
Christians... only happened in the last 2014 years, and before that... ?
Perhaps Muslims, Buddhist, Hindus, etc etc etc marriages are also not counted because they are not Christian ?

Religion inserted itself into Marriage, not the other way around.
Religion saw Marriage as a means of control and inserting their influence into the family.

The Same biggots against Gay Marriage would have been against interracial marriage not that long ago.

Re:First blacks,

[Jane Q. Public]

"Um....NO."

With all respect, I really don't think that page is proof of much of anything. It's all about the law, sure, but there isn't a single word about jurisdiction.

Re:First blacks,

[Fancia]

Would you have supported the bakery if they denied the couple due to race?

Re:First blacks,

[ebno-10db]

It is possible to believe in free association without thinking taxes are theft.

True, but people who think the former should allow businesses to discriminate, often believe in the latter.

Businesses that only let in people with proper attire and enough money are also discriminating, just based on different criteria.

You're being silly.

I just think freedom is more important than masking discrimination

Because you narrowly define freedom to refer only to an extreme interpretation of freedom of association, and not freedom from discrimination in public accommodations. Read the 14th Amendment for a different point of view.

I believe freedom of speech is more important than not hearing bigoted speech.

Nobody is talking about restricting freedom of speech.

Re:First blacks,

[Sponge Bath]

Could you kick someone out of your bar for getting naked and defecating in the middle of the room?

Yes, because defecating in the middle of the room is a health issue and can damage property. Your question is the same as "If you allow gay marriage, why not marrying sheep?" If the difference between being gay and defecating in someone's business is not very clear to you, you have a problem.

Re:First blacks,

[thaylin]

Me thinks you do not understand logic. First of all because something is not proven does not make it clearly the opposite. in any case, incase you missed it, http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/gay-g...

There is nothing in most religion (especially Christians) that promote the bigorty from the religion itself..

you are right they dont need extra rights, they need full access to the rights they are already supposed to have, that they dont have today. Equal protection being one of the biggest.

Re:First blacks,

[TsuruchiBrian]

I'm talking about enforcing anti-discrimination laws, and you're talking about the Thought Police.

I'm not just talking about the thought police. I am also talking about actions as well. Some people probably choose friends and girl/boyfriends based on race, attractiveness, or wealth. Why should this form of discrimination be allowed? Isn't it bad too? What's different about it?

1st Amendment. You should have learned that in school.

The constitution is a law. We are the ones who create and uphold laws. We can change them if we think they are not up to our standards. As a society we don;t follow laws because they are laws. We make laws that reflect our collective morality.

The question of why should we allow free speech is not sufficiently answered by "Because of the first amendment". The question is "Why should we have the first amendment?"

Re:First blacks,

[YukariHirai]

What I'm saying is: you don't have to be a racist in order to not like government trying to tell you what to do. What if (just hypothetically) you know 3 people, one white, one black, and one gay (any color) who are all assholes? And you don't want to do business with them. Should you get in trouble for NOT doing business with only one of them? Which one and why?

If you refuse to do business with all of them because they are arseholes, there is no problem. If you refuse to do business with the gay man and the black man ostensibly because they're arseholes but do business with the white arsehole anyway, then absolutely you should get in trouble, because you are discriminating. The same applies to any other combination of which arseholes you do business with and which you refuse, unless you do business with all of them anyway or refuse all of them.

Now of course, I don't like the idea of being forced to do anything any more than the next man. But if it's a choice between having to do business with someone from a group I don't like or allowing people to deny service to innocent people for stupid reasons... then I'll grit my teeth and do business with the group I don't like.

Re:First blacks,

[Kohath]

Not forcing people to make wedding cakes against their will is "hatred" now?

Re:First blacks,

[epyT-R]

As much as I agree with you about religion, I have a better idea. How about people get to choose who they interact with without the state nannying them? After all, no one gives a shit when a white straight male is turned down at the welfare office.

Re:First blacks,

[YukariHirai]

Sure. And they can send back some plumbing textbooks that explain the difference between a toilet and a bathroom.

Re:First blacks,

[ebno-10db]

I didn't say that or anything like it.

I wasn't saying you did. It's a reductio ad absurdum.

I am just asking where government power to tell people who they can do business with ends. It must end somewhere. But where is that line? Opinions vary.

And my opinion is that it should extend far enough to ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

who are all assholes? And you don't want to do business with them

If you stop doing business with assholes, you're going to be out of business in a real hurry.

Re:First blacks,

[Darinbob]

I am a bit confused here on some points. I spent a lot of time in Sunday school growing up, I've read almost all of the Bible, I've heard plenty of sermons in my time. And yet no where in all of that have I heard about some religious restriction from doing business with gay people. Not once. Sure someone may decide that they don't want to do business with a sinner, but that's not at all the same thing about not doing business with only one particular kind of sinner while happily accepting money from everyone else.

Re: First blacks,

[SvnLyrBrto]

So what?

You are confusing (probably deliberately) the difference between the baker (a person) and the bakery (a business). Even if the baker is the owner or operator of the bakery, they are two different legal entities, and for good reason. As a society, we routinely hold businesses to different, sometimes higher and sometimes lower, standards than we do individuals.

The bakery, as a business, is for example almost certainly required to hold to standards of cleanliness and sanitation, and subject to inspections to verify same, that the baker is free to ignore at home. Do health codes and inspections infringe on the baker's personal right to be a slob if he wants? Of course not. They regulate a separate entity: the bakery... the business.

Re:First blacks,

[thaylin]

Well seeing as those same people follow a religion that says dont judge and love everyone I am not seeing your point.

Re:First blacks,

[Kohath]

Government should force people to bake wedding cakes against their will because ... else someone of some special race will be sad? Why don't they just buy a wedding cake from someone who wants to sell them one?

Re:First blacks,

[cbhacking]

Religion co-opted marriage and turned it into a religious thing millennia ago, but before that it was about as secular as things got. True, it was a kind of awful arrangement in a lot of the world, with the wife either effectively or literally being property of the husband (a man typically purchased his wife-to-be from her father), but most of the world also openly practiced slavery back then... Anyhow, it was a business arrangement, generally enforced by whatever secular law there was in that time and place, that essentially said
A) I have a right to this woman
B) I have a right to her children
C) Those (male) children have a right to inherit from me.

Obviously, I'm simplifying and combining a number of somewhat different systems, but it was no more a religious ceremony than setting sail in a ship was (i.e. you might ask the gods for blessings on the woman's fertility and childrens' health, just as you might ask for calm seas and favorable winds, or for strength and protection before going into battle). In places with a codified set of laws, marriages were reported to the government (actually, much as they are today). The question of who presided over them varies widely, and was indeed sometimes a priest or shaman (and sometimes was nobody but the relevant families or even just fathers), but it wasn't generally considered a religious institution until just a few thousand years ago (early human civilizations, and their belief systems and governments, go back much further than that).

In any case, marriage in the US has always been a matter of secular law, at least at the federal level. You can get a religious ceremony performed if you want, but that is neither sufficient nor necessary to be considered married (my grandmother "married" her third "husband" in a religious but non-legal ceremony to assuage her guilt at "living in sin" without overly complicating her inheritance; the ceremony was lovely but had no secular recognition). The right to grant marriage licenses is owned by the states, and some states might hypothetically refuse to grant them if not approved by a member of some recognized religion or similar bullshit, but it is the state governments and not the religious institutions that decide who is married, and it is the state-granted marriage licenses that the federal government recognizes. That was the major aspect of the DOMA that was struck down last year: the idea that the federal government could refuse to recognize a state-issued marriage license just because the couple were of the same sex.

Thus, aside from the terminology (which really is *not* inherently religious, despite what various clergy might have you believe) the secular benefits and protections are already tied to a secular institution.

Re:First blacks,

[thaylin]

Because at the very least his business is using tax money the gay couple created. I see no reason the gay couple should want him, but he should not be allowed to discriminate. Those are 2 very different things. Saying they should not want them has no bearing on if he should be allowed to discriminate..

Re:First blacks,

[Jane Q. Public]

"Obviously this is a much bigger issue when it comes to basic necessities like food and housing, but it can still cause problems for general consumer goods and services."

Right. But that just takes us in circles, back to the same point.

It really isn't just one question. Or rather it is, but it has many aspects. Each of those aspects has (or should have) a line somewhere. I think we just haven't figured out where those lines are.

How much intrusion into peoples' business matters is justifiable in the name of discrimination? At what point does it become "government meddling in your private business"?

Given that some anti-discrimination legislation is necessary, how much of it is necessary to help victims of discrimination? At what point does it become reverse discrimination?

I am fascinated by the question of how Government anti-discrimination laws may unintentionally serve to institutionalize discrimination, rather than eliminating it.

Re:First blacks,

[DJRumpy]

You forget that such policies are applied equally to everyone. If anyone comes in with no shirt, then anyone matching that is is denied service. The rules don't specifically say black with no shirt, or rapist with no shirt. The state has also failed to establish how serving a gay customer is substantially different than serving a straight person a cup of coffee. The simple act of purchasing a coffee does not violate anyone's religious freedoms, and the state has yet to prove how such a coffee purchase does so or how it is i the states best interest to protect such 'coffee buying' from allowing homosexuals to purchase it in the same way as a heterosexual. It's not as if the person walking in is somehow demanding that the business perform gay sex acts on demand. It is a public company. The owner opted into the market and as such has to accept both the benefits and controls that come with operating a business in the public domain.

As to the bible, Jesus at with prostitutes and thieves. Apparently it didn't harm his religious beliefs in the slightest. Kind of a hard example to cite when one of the major religious figures supposedly ignored such separation and did the exact opposite.

Re:First blacks,

[thaylin]

It depends. Telling someone who has mistreated your staff, or been an asshole is not the type of discrimination we are talking about here. Those are controllable things.

Re:First blacks,

[Kohath]

"is it okay for the state to tell someone who they must do business with? "
Yes. When a group is in a position they can't get services, and goods.

Because the world will spin off its axis if the government doesn't force people to bake wedding cakes against their will? Instead of sending in the wedding cake police, how about just buy a wedding cake from someone who wants to make you a wedding cake?

Re:First blacks,

[thaylin]

then dont think about things that have absolutely no bearing on your life. I dont wanna know that many Christians are the stupidest people on the planet, it makes me depressed realizing how many of them lack logic and fundamental thinking skills who will go on to make laws that affect me, but I still have to deal with it, and provide service to them.

Re:First blacks,

[TsuruchiBrian]

Businesses that only let in people with proper attire and enough money are also discriminating, just based on different criteria.

You're being silly

What's silly about it?

Because you narrowly define freedom to refer only to an extreme interpretation of freedom of association, and not freedom from discrimination in public accommodations. Read the 14th Amendment for a different point of view.

I didn't narrowly define freedom. I am saying the freedom of association should trump the freedom not to be discriminated against by individuals and businesses. Just like freedom of speech trumps the freedom not to hear racist speech.

I am not saying that freedom to discriminate *is* freedom and freedom not to be discriminated against is *not* freedom. I am saying I think we should have one freedom at the expense of the other.

People working on behalf of the government should *not* have the freedom to discriminate or say racist things.

Nobody is talking about restricting freedom of speech.

I am talking about restricting freedom of speech as it relates to discrimination in the private sector, because I think it is perfectly analogous.

Re:First blacks,

[gIobaljustin]

Oh, absolutely. The freedom to be part of whatever religion you want and believe what you want is the same as having the freedom to do whatever you want in the name of your religion!

Re:First blacks,

[Jane Q. Public]

"If you refuse to do business with all of them because they are arseholes, there is no problem. If you refuse to do business with the gay man and the black man ostensibly because they're arseholes but do business with the white arsehole anyway, then absolutely you should get in trouble, because you are discriminating. The same applies to any other combination of which arseholes you do business with and which you refuse, unless you do business with all of them anyway or refuse all of them."

I would accept this as a reasonable answer. It is the answer I would give, I think. I'm just not convinced everybody thinks the same way.

The problem with this scenario is enforcement. If you refuse to do business with the black or gay man, they might (but not necessarily, of course) cry "discrimination" when in fact you're trying to avoid that very thing. And that could make life difficult for you. The caucasian does not have that option though. Does this skew social power in favor of minorities? I'm not saying it does, just asking your opinion.

Re:First blacks,

[thaylin]

How about you want to refuse service because you dont like something that has no bearing on you, fine, but you cannot use ANY public services that would have been paid for partly by that person or groups money..

Re:First blacks,

[thaylin]

Ahh, that strawman, makes it easy when you take things out of context doesnt it.

Re:First blacks,

[Kohath]

No one "asked" for a public business license. The local government warlord sends armed men to wreck your shop and take you to prison if you don't bend a knee and pay for one of their business licenses.

Re:First blacks,

[thaylin]

Some believe it did have some religious aspect to it, but even if it didnt, that has no bearing on the discussion.. Second I like how you assume he is atheist and not agnostic, or even a believer.. Religion is evil, in general, faith not so much. They are completely different.

Re:First blacks,

[thaylin]

Because the first generally does not attack the second and then go, what, was that wrong, no, tht was not wrong.

Re: First blacks,

[thaylin]

So people have to be tolerant of people who are not tolerant towards them, otherwise there is a problem, so the first person to be intolerant wins...

Re:First blacks,

[The Grim Reefer]

why, exactly, should they have that right? it's fair enough for a business to exclude particular individuals who have caused problems in the past (e.g. shoplifiting or being an annoying PITA), but to exclude people simply because they are a member of a particular group ("women", "gays", "blacks", "teenagers", whatever) - or *appear* to be a member of such a group - is discrimination....and that's definitely unethical and almost certainly illegal.

I agree with you completely on this. I have, and have had, gay, lesbian, and bi friends. I don't get it, and it's not my thing. But I also don't understand a lot of things that friends of mine who are from other cultures do or believe either. But I don't have to. I can accept that they think differently than I do, even if I disagree. What I do get sick of is when gay and lesbian groups go on a tirade against companies whose owners/CEO openly admit that they don't agree with the LGBT lifestyle. I am tired of hearing about calls to boycott a company simply because the CEO doesn't agree with them. Not that they refuse service or to do business, but simply don't agree. How is that being tolerant? I feel like everyone has to be "tolerant" of each other. But only of those that are on the approved list.

It reminds me of some old Steppenwolf lyrics:

• You're free to speak your mind my friend,
• as long as you agree with me.
• Don't criticize the fatherland,
• Or those who shape your destiny
• 'Cause if you do,
• you'll lose your job, you mind, and all the friends you knew.
• We'll send out all our boys in blue
• They'll find a way to silence you

that door is already wide open - "no gays" is no different to "no blacks". it's the same fucking thing.

From a religious perspective, there is though. I'm not justifying this belief, or even supporting it. But many religions specifically are not tolerant of LGBT people. I'm not in that category. But as long as they aren't harming anyone, I don't care what they think. They have the freedom of religion in the US, and as long as they don't hurt anyone, so what. How is being opposed to a lifestyle "hate speech", but excoriating them from the opposite viewpoint not?

Re:First blacks,

[Anonymous Coward]

Marriage is irrespective of religion. You can have marriages that never come into contact with any religion. Marriages are fucking contracts. Contract law is certainly part of Federal law.

But the reason that people get so worked up over it is due to it traditionally being a religious ceremony & institution. Make the government only recognize civil unions which is what it is completely free to define and be done with it (which is what México does). I'm surprised this sort of thing where you have secular govt benefits tied to a religious ceremony hasn't resulted in a "separation of church & state" lawsuit.

No, the reason people get worked up over it is because they are sheep that get manipulated for political purposes.

Re:First blacks,

[TsuruchiBrian]

You forget that such policies are applied equally to everyone.

They don't apply equally to everyone. They don't apply equally to people with and without shirts.

The question is not whether the rule applies equally to everyone, because any rule that excludes people is not going to apply equally to everyone by definition. The question is whether it should be allowed.

The simple act of purchasing a coffee does not violate anyone's religious freedoms

If by "religious freedom" you mean "the freedom to practice whatever religion you want", then no it doesn't. I think employers should be allowed to fire religious people for not doing their job for religious reasons. Some people think "religious freedom" means "The freedom to practice whatever religion you want without threat of being fired", or "the freedom to force my religion on other people", and I don't think anyone should have these sorts of freedoms because they are unjustly at the expense of the freedoms of others.

As to the bible, Jesus at with prostitutes and thieves. Apparently it didn't harm his religious beliefs in the slightest. Kind of a hard example to cite when one of the major religious figures supposedly ignored such separation and did the exact opposite.

The bible is not true. I don't think we should be using the Bible for any kind of guidance in terms of morality or law. The bible also says that people who work on the sabbath should be put to death and that homosexuals is an abomination along with shell fish. Fuck the Bible. It's trash. I do however respect anyone's right to believe it isn't.

Re:First blacks,

[Kohath]

What if a black couple doesn't want to hire a white supremacist wedding photographer?

Re:First blacks,

[Jane Q. Public]

"If you stop doing business with assholes, you're going to be out of business in a real hurry."

Hahaha! Good answer. :)

Re:First blacks,

[eof]

I can grudgingly accept the right to bigotry on an individual level (but, as with all free speech, there is no freedom from the consequences of it). However, this isn't about individuals, it's about businesses, and that changes everything. Businesses are not people. They are artificial constructs brought into being by government. They do not, and should not, enjoy the same freedoms as individuals, and that most certainly includes discrimination. If a government does not want the businesses it creates to exercise bigotry, it is well within its rights to mandate that, and can do so without impinging one iota upon the rights of individuals.

Re:First blacks,

[mythosaz]

The argument there is that the anti-gay business contributes taxes as well... As long as everyone pays taxes for their share of the basic infrastructure...

Re:First blacks,

[Jason Levine]

An answer from someone who is straight: You and I might think it's gross, but that's someone else's idea of a good time. Just like I might love eating certain foods that others find gross or I might enjoy reading some kinds of books that others would find tedious. People have different interests and enjoy different activities. To me, the idea of sleeping with a man sounds gross, but I know that some men think the exact same thing about sleeping with a woman. To each his own.

Getting back on topic: I might think that the act itself is "gross" (as in "I wouldn't want to do that") but as long as nobody is forcing me to watch or take part in said activities (and last time I checked nobody is), other people engaging in activities I don't myself enjoy doesn't affect me at all. Not doing business with someone just because they partake in an activity that you personally don't like is idiotic. Come to think of it, nobody in the LGBT community is forcing me to watch/partake in sexual acts that I don't enjoy, but plenty of people in the religious fundamentalist community are trying to force their religion on me. Who's the bigger threat to freedom here?

Re:First blacks,

[thaylin]

you asked to be able to open a business in public space, which requires a business license. If you kept it private in your home you generally do not need it.

Re:First blacks,

[thaylin]

What is lost by allowing people to be racist in their own homes, nothing, as long as it stays there.

Re:First blacks,

[rearden]

There are physical reasons why it can be pleasurable for many men (see link at end). The prostrate being the biggest one. There are some gay men who do not have anal sex at all. I know of two like that. It just does not appeal to them. Some only prefer being the "giving partner" often referred to as the top. Other prefer to be only the "receptive partner" often referred to as the bottom.

To understand being gay you have to realize its an attraction/ feeling not a particular act (sexual or otherwise). In a purely sexual act, devoid of emotions, no matter the sexes involved the orgasm is the goal and the pleasure (excluding kinks and other ways to get endorphin's to keep things simple). When emotions are mixed in the intimacy of the act and the closeness to the partner is the attraction. Oral sex is pleasurable, but insertion is the closest form of mutual intimacy for most- gay or straight. So, since both male/female with penis/vagina and male/male penis/anus give pleasure to both parties and bring them closer for many it is preferred.

So, no its not just a convenient or "second best" option. It is an equivalent sharing of feelings and intimacy. But just as some men or women don't do oral some gay men don't do anal. As to it being a predisposition... I would say it is as predisposed in gay men as vaginal sex is in straight men. Its mutually pleasurable for both parties so both are willing to participate.

http://www.goodinbed.com/blogs/sex_doctors/2010/04/prostate-stimulation-and-male-sexual-pleasure/

Re:First blacks,

[noh8rz10]

Different question: is it okay for the state to tell someone who they must do business with?

Completely leaving aside sexual orientation. Or not. Take your pick of prejudices. Can the state tell someone they must not refuse to do business with brunettes? Or people with freckles?

Answer is it depends. depends on who is involved and where you are. The rest of this comments assumes we're in the US.

Generally speaking there's a balance between an individual's right to do what he wants without government interference, and an individual person's right to not be discriminated against, even by a private party.

In US, the big federal law is the Civil Rights Act, which bans discrimination against people at public establishments (i.e. businesses) based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. this is what makes it illegal to have segregated lunch counters, for example. Many States have similar statutes that extend protection to other groups. For example, CA has a law called Hughes Act which essentially extends the CRA to hippies :X

The rest is pretty much judgment. When a person sues a business claiming he/she was unlawfully discriminated against, the judge looks at major laws like CRA, minor laws that fill the gaps, and prior case law/precedent to make a decision. The Arizona bill in the summary is essentially one of these minor laws - it provides direction to judges that it's ok to discriminate on religious grounds (gross simplification). It's on the judge to throw this law into the mix with all the other laws when making his determination.

So, given your example, would it be OK to discriminate based on freckles or brunette. Depends on what kind of group is impacted. in CA it's definitely not ok, because the hughes act makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of appearance, which would seem to include all physical characteristics. Now if the example were red hair, most people would agree that the vast majority of redheads are white, so if you discriminate on redheads you're effectively discriminating by race.

BIG REALLY RELEVANT NOTE: the reason why this is a gay rights issue is because sexual orientation is not in the CRA and is not protected under the same umbrella as gender, race, etc. So while this AZ law bears no threat to minorities because CRA trumps all, it can apply to gays and lesbians.

Re:First blacks,

[dog77]

Elaine Huguenin did not want to take pictures at a same sex marriage because she did not believe in it. Vanessa Wilcock found another photographer, but decided to file a lawsuit, and won her case, and Elane Photography was ordered to pay $6637. Who is acting like the $%##? What about respect for others beliefs? Does that only apply to non-Christians now? Stupid cases like this is why Arizona feels the need to make bills like this.

http://winteryknight.wordpress...

Re:First blacks,

[noh8rz10]

it would be illegal for the bakery to refuse due to race or interracial couple. this is in the civil rights act. the civil rights act doesn't talk about homosexuals, so the law is murkier.

Re:First blacks,

[thaylin]

That does not mean that one group can exclude the other from the use of that money as your argument seems to make. you are using something paid for partially by me, why do you get to exclude me in that use for a public company. You even get tax breaks paid by me in many cases.

Re:First blacks,

[misexistentialist]

The "march of history" seems to be going backwards to those ancient decadent cultures that celebrated homosexuality. We know how that story ends alright

Re:First blacks,

[Opportunist]

Do you fuck goats? No? Well, maybe you just haven't found the right one yet.

Re:First blacks,

[MightyMartian]

1. Pedophilia is unlawful and involves minors who cannot give lawful consent.
2. Quit willfully missing the point.

Re:First blacks,

[Opportunist]

I'd probably ask what gives you the idea that someone would be. Think about it: If you were abused as a child (most likely by a male), would you be attracted to males? Especially, not despite but BECAUSE of that?

I can't help to think that this would be, if anything, a reason to be straight.

Re:First blacks,

[Opportunist]

It can tell 16 million colors apart.

Re:First blacks,

[beelsebob]

They have the right to think racist/homophobic thoughts. They have the right to say racist/homophobic things. What they do not have the right to do is damage someone else's live and liberty based on that though.

Re:First blacks,

[pr0fessor]

I already live in a state were a business can refuse service to anyone, reason not required. Rarely have I seen this right exercised and usually only in the case of a trouble maker, shoplifting, or someone starting a fight with another patron. Any business that refuses customers may eventually find there bottom line hurting and be replaced by someone ready to provide goods and services to the entire public.

I would be very much against this law because it singles out a group.

Re:First blacks,

[rearden]

Wedding cakes is an easy one.

How about pharmacist in a town with only one pharmacy? Will you deny them their life saving/ needed medications?

How about gas station on a lonely open Arizona highway with only one gas station for the next 100 miles? Will you strand them on the road?

Hotel in a town with only one and the next nearest is 2 hours away? Will you send them away at midnight to drive overly tired to the next town or sleep in their car?

Where do you draw the line? Only one employee? Only certain types of business? If you do that then you have watered down the argument that it is a violation of a religious freedom. Either it is, or is not. Either it is defensible in its entire application or it is not. Making it more nuanced does not make it better or more right, it just makes it more complicated and more likely to either be ignored or misapplied.

Re:First blacks,

[tburkhol]

Why don't they just buy a wedding cake from someone who wants to sell them one?

Because if you allow anyone to discriminate based on race or sexual preference, then you allow everyone to discriminate based on race or sexual preference. It may be a single bakery refusing to sell a cake to a single icky gay couple that started the fuss, but the the consequence of the law may make it difficult or impossible for any gay person to buy any product from any store. Or to force a two-tiered system of businesses where gays can only do business with a subset of "gay friendly" businesses (which, one imagines, would be boycotted by upstanding Christians).

If you're in the business of making cakes, then make the damn cake. If you're in the business of being a religious busybody, then don't sell cakes.

Re:First blacks,

[noh8rz10]

On the other hand, I think this law may open the door to "no hispanics or negroes allowed" signs going up, because someone could claim its their religious belief...

that door is already wide open - "no gays" is no different to "no blacks". it's the same fucking thing.

Actually not true in the US. Racial minorities are protected under the Civil Rights Act. It does not include gays. Gays are included in many state civil rights act like in CA, but not all states have this. So the AZ law will not open the for no blacks, because of the civil rights act.

An interesting question is the prohibition "no fat chicks". This would be illegal in CA because the CA civil rights act forbids discrimination based on appearance. you might be able to make an argument that it's illegal under the civil rights act because you're outlawing fat chicks but not fat dudes. Laws, some crazy stuff!

Re: First blacks,

[geminidomino]

Only if it's Shadowrun or Call of Cthulu. Those White Wolf pansies deserve to die in the gutter.

Re:First blacks,

[geminidomino]

The constitution is a law. We are the ones who create and uphold laws. We can change them if we think they are not up to our standards. As a society we don;t follow laws because they are laws. We make laws that reflect our collective morality.

And I bet you live in a post-scarcity society thanks to matter replicators, too.

Re:First blacks,

[seebs]

Except it's not "historically a religious institution/ceremony". If exactly one religion, or maybe two, had "marriage", you might have a case. But we see "marriage" in many cultures, across many religions and no religions and everything else, and religions that don't have marriage ceremonies acquire them -- because they are a thing people add to their religions.

Christianity in particular acknowledged that marriage was a thing, but didn't do religious ceremonies for it for about their first millennium. Rich people who had property bothered with formal marriages, though.

It's not inherently religious, and there is no reason religion should be entitled to a monopoly on it.

Re:First blacks,

[ALeader71]

Personally, I think allowing businesses to post anti-gay signs will make them easier to boycott and drive out of business. Let their imagined victory be the yoke that drags these businesses into the grave.

As for Americans and racism. At least ours is out in the open. France bans Arabic head scarves in schools. Former Warsaw Pact countries are full of centuries old hatreds and revenge fantasies. Yugoslavia. Hungary. Europe buries it's hatred and covers it up with not so polite humor.

The US has somehow manages to isolate it's most vocal racists in tiny enclaves. Even the Tea Party, for all of it's bluster and nearly Christ free Christianity, found its power limited by the very Constitution they claim to uphold. The Defense of Marriage Act is the latest example. A Supreme Court with several GOP appointed justices struck this law down. We've allowed women on Navy ships and combat aircraft since the 90s and women (officially) in front line combat roles today. We aren't perfect but we are progressing. Our system is designed to prevent one person or group from obtaining too much power but it also means change happens slowly, and that's a good thing. A nation the size of the United Sates shouldn't be turned on a dime. It happened in the Weimar Republic in a destitute Germany and look how that turned out. Imagine a newly elected radical President with the same authority granted to him or her that was given to Hitler.

Re:First blacks,

[dryeo]

I thought the 14th amendment gave the federal government the power to stop the States from discriminating. Section one in particular,

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Are you saying gay people should not get equal protection of laws?

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph P. Bradley commented in the Civil Rights Cases that “individual invasion of individual rights is not the subject-matter of the [14th] Amendment. It has a deeper and broader scope. It nullifies and makes void all state legislation, and state action of every kind, which impairs the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, or which injures them in life, liberty or property without due process of law, or which denies to any of them the equal protection of the laws.”

Seems the Supreme Court says the 14th allows the Federal government to override State laws that remove equal protection under the law. The rights that go with marriage should be available to all adults and if a State attempts to remove those rights then it seems it would be the Federal governments duty to override those State laws.

Re:First blacks,

[stdarg]

Who are you to define what is inconsequential to someone else?

There's a sliding scale of how relevant a person's identity is to a business transaction.

If I sell hammers in a hardware store, whether my customer is gay or black or whatever doesn't really affect me. I'm not really even interacting with them unless I'm the cashier, and generally the cashier doesn't make the rules.

If I sell wedding cakes, and someone wants to pay me to make a wedding cake for a gay marriage, that's pretty close to paying me for political speech because I'm creating something to celebrate gay marriage in a way that a generic hammer does not.

Then when you get really personal, it's quite obviously fine. If I'm a porn star, I don't have to participate in gay scenes just because someone wants me to. I don't have to have sex with people of a certain race. I don't have to not discriminate against people over 40. Porn is too personal, so discrimination is an inherent and obvious right.

To me, someone who refuses to bake a cake celebrating gay marriage is well within their rights. It's personal enough that I think refusal to do business is protected. If a hammer store said "no gays" then that seems unfair, but on the other hand, does that actually happen in reality? How would the hammer store guy even tell? It's easy for the cake guy and the porn guy.

Re:First blacks,

[Opportunist]

The problem is that exactly by disallowing gays to marry the government does interfere: It's a service the government offers but refuses to offer to a subset of people. Yes, churches may or may not allow gays to marry, that's none of the state's business.

But it's none of any churches business when two people want to get joined and have that join protected by the laws that protect such a union of two people. There is no sensible reason why these two people should be of different gender.

Re:First blacks,

[swimboy]

Because that was the argument that Woolworth's used to keep black people from eating at their lunch counter. Woolworth's claimed that blacks could eat somewhere else, but virtually everyone else said the same thing. If you're a public accommodation, you accommodate *all* of the public, or none. They're called public accommodation laws for a reason.

Re:First blacks,

[geminidomino]

Are you sure Americans are anti-gay, and not just a country of a third of a billion people who have a handful of bad apples, a media system faking controversy to generate viewership, a slashdot reader who's forgotten what percentage of the internet is trolling, and a parochial political system pandering to margins to get voted in?

Your point about over-generalization is valid, but to be fair, it's far more than just "a handful of bad apples" when it can be reasonably leveled at, for example, 47% of voting-age people in the state of Florida (2008 election, 61.9% in favor of anti-gay marriage amendment out of 75.2% turnout).

Re:First blacks,

[gIobaljustin]

Well, you sure debunked all of his arguments. Good work!

Re:First blacks,

[dryeo]

You mean the 14th that removed the States right to discriminate?

Re:First blacks,

[whodunit]

Best post I've seen on /. all month. Thank you. Wish I had mod points.

Re:First blacks,

[rearden]

Very well said & put!

I have to agree, especially on the last two lines!

Re:First blacks,

[righteousness]

What does openly gay mean? Does he perform homosexual acts in public?

Re:First blacks,

[Kohath]

Again, no one "asked". The space was rented or purchased, like a home that is rented or purchased. Licensing is a shakedown.

Re:First blacks,

[Mashiki]

Ahh, that strawman, makes it easy when you take things out of context doesnt it.

Having seen the "context" before people tried "correcting it" I'd say that my outsiders view of what Obama said, would be correct.

Re:First blacks,

[the eric conspiracy]

The United States has outlawed discrimination in places of public accommodation for various classes of individuals based on national origin, race and sex for some 50 years now.

I grew up during the time when these laws were being imposed. It sure looked like hate to me when opponents of these laws were out burning crosses and the National Guard had to be called out to protect the first black students going to some formerly segregated schools.

This proposed law is obviously the result of the same thing. Hate.

Re:First blacks,

[jd2112]

I did not oppose a Federal gay marriage law out of hate for gays. I opposed it because marriage is none of the Federal government's f*ing business.

Since marriage is none of the government's business then why should they be able to tell you who you cannot marry?

Re:First blacks,

[UnknowingFool]

Different question: is it okay for the state to tell someone who they must do business with?

Yes otherwise state may say it's okay not to business with African Americans, minorities, Catholic, Jews, Muslims, women, transgender, disabled or ANY other group a business wants to discriminate against?

I did not oppose a Federal gay marriage law out of hate for gays. I opposed it because marriage is none of the Federal government's f*ing business.

I see this as extremely hypocritical with the right where they are opposed to government intrusion into their lives except when they want the government to intrude into other peoples' lifestyles they personally disagree with.

Re:First blacks,

[Kohath]

Free people should be free to choose. Even if you think they might make the wrong choices, regardless of whatever happened to whomever at whatever lunch counter. You can say "public accommodation" 100 times. You're still using government threats and bullying to force innocent people -- people who have harmed no one -- to act against their will.

Re:First blacks,

[rearden]

Ok... I will take the bait on the last point, the first two being a disagreement of semantics.

You say that contract law is based on Common Law. To be clear for most of the states (Louisiana excluded) that would be English Common Law correct?

You then state that this has nothing to do with the Federal government because Common Law predates the Constitution. That misses a few big things:

1. There are more US Federal laws than just the US Constitution
2. Many of them are based on or feed off of English Common Law
3. Article 1, Section 10 references contracts, a common law item, so by its very nature accepts it and relies on it for adjudication
4. Since the judiciary, especially the Federal judiciary, relies on English Common Law to regularly settle contract issues of an interstate nature by its very nature the Federal government adjudicates Common Law often
5. Marriages are treated, in Federal court (witness testimony, etc) as a contract and for purposes of severability (Bankruptcy law) are handled as such

So, the US Federal government does deal in Common Law and Contract law all the time. So the fact that a marriage is a contract is important when viewed and adjudicated in the face of US Federal law.

Re:First blacks,

[rearden]

Ummm ok... but... not my position of choice :)

Also a really lame joke. I get/ hear better ones from my straight friends. They are usually cruder and harsher... but most importantly they are funny!

Re:First blacks,

[ultranova]

Different question: is it okay for the state to tell someone who they must do business with?

Of course not, that would be slavery. Now making doing business with any comer a condition of getting some legal benefit, such as incorporation, on the other hand... Also, in a multi-owner company, it's very questionable whether turning down customers because of their sexuality is legal simply because it's losing shareholders money.

Re:First blacks,

[dryeo]

And if no-one wants to sell them something? Taken to the extreme there may be no-one willing to even sell them flour or even land to grow their own. Add in no-one willing to sell them transportation (or imagine if all roads were private) and you have the equivalent of a persons right to swing their fist being more important then the right not to get punched in the face.
There is always give and take when it comes to rights with the right to injure others usually restricted.

Re: First blacks,

[stdarg]

Health codes and regulations do infringe on the baker's personal right to be a slob. How is that in question? He, personally, cannot be a slob if he wants to bake, even if he is his own boss, even if he explicitly advertises his bakery as unregulated and unhygienic. You just can't do that in our society. The fact that a business is involved is irrelevant... even if you're personally baking and giving away food as a charitable act with no money changing hands, you have to meet those regulations.

We have to find a balance between personal rights and our duties to society. Maybe it's okay to restrict the personal right to be a slob in the food preparation business -- I don't think many people WANT to be slobs in that business, and lots of people want to feel safe buying food, so that's a pretty clear case.

I have no problem with discrimination in some kinds of business, especially service businesses where the person performing the service simply doesn't want to. If someone is a masseuse and doesn't want to give massages to obese people, I think that's fine. If someone is an artist, and doesn't want to paint portraits of nude men, but nude women are okay, good for him. How is it in society's interest to force him to paint things that he does not want to paint? It's not, which is why that kind of discrimination is not illegal. I don't know how it's worded legally, but I'm 100% sure that an artist can turn down a portrait request for people he doesn't want to paint, including "protected classes" like people of a certain gender or religion or with a physical disability.

Re:First blacks,

[Kohath]

"Taken to the extreme", lots of things don't make sense. So lets not do that. Then we can all co-exist peacefully, baking cakes or not, as we choose. Why are you against peaceful co-existence?

Re:First blacks,

[Bing Tsher E]

Why are you bundling in race in every mention. The civil rights act precludes this law from racial discrimination. Be honest and drop 'race' from your phrasing.

Re:First blacks,

[ChrisMaple]

When the government is telling you who you must do business with, the government is, by definition, fascist.

Re:First blacks,

[litehacksaur111]

You do realize that back in the 1960's that not one of the restaurants in the deep South would have gone bankrupt if they refused service to black people right. I mean I am not able to understand what the hell your problem is with guaranteeing civil rights. Please go and re-read the 14th amendment because you clearly are not able to get it through your head. Now if you want to prevent gays or blacks from entering your private residence that is perfectly fine because that is not a public establishment.

Re:First blacks,

[ChrisMaple]

Marriages are fucking contracts.

Actually, in most states a fucking contract can get you jailed.

Re:First blacks,

[Jane Q. Public]

"Article 1, Section 10 references contracts, a common law item, so by its very nature accepts it and relies on it for adjudication"

INSOFAR as those contracts relate to interstate trade. This isn't a refutation of what I was saying. The Federal government might rule that a State has interfered with contract law. That doesn't give it authority over Contract Law itself.

"Since the judiciary, especially the Federal judiciary, relies on English Common Law to regularly settle contract issues of an interstate nature by its very nature the Federal government adjudicates Common Law often"

INSOFAR as it relates to interstate trade (commerce clause). But again... you are making generalizations. This has nothing specific to do with contract law. The Federal government has the power to "regulate" interstate trade, but that does not give it authority over Contract Law. You are invalidly conflating one with the other.

"Marriages are treated, in Federal court (witness testimony, etc) as a contract and for purposes of severability (Bankruptcy law) are handled as such"

Irrelevant. The marriage laws in question are governed by State, not Federal law. The Federal government might treat it as a contract but that contract is in accordance with State, not Federal, law.

Re:First blacks,

[Xenkar]

1. Sodomy was unlawful. Homosexuality was considered a mental illness. At the rate things are going it'll soon be legal for perverts to groom children for sexual relationships in two decades.
2. The point is that we don't have freedom of association anymore. All standards of decency must be undermined as a sacrifice for the Progressive god(dess?)

Progressives believe that by somehow destroying every pillar of society that somehow we'll achieve some sort of utopia. I'm just hoping I can find a place to flee to before they do.

Re:First blacks,

[Frobnicator]

The word marriage is heavily entrenched in law and contract as a civil status. Religion may have used the term first (I don't actually know, nor do I care) but it's a legal word now and religious institutions should suck it up. It would probably even be expensive for the government to change the name of marriage to civil union.

Strongly disagree.

By redefining marriage, in turn the effect is telling religions that they must redefine themselves. Are you really going to claim that all religions, many with histories extending back for millennia, must all redefine themselves? All the Jewish variants, the Christian and assorted protestant faiths, the Muslim believers, the native American nations with their beliefs, they must all redefine their religions for the convenience of the US government?

Governments have decided to hang many benefits on the convenient hook of marriage. Up until recently this was generally accepted because most people got married. Today with so many unwed families, non-traditional arrangements (not just homosexual, but also open relationships or those with assorted plural relationships), the government is struggling to hook those benefits on to something else.

Re:First blacks,

[stdarg]

The second that business offers services to the open public they relinquish the right to refuse service to people on the basis of their age, gender, race, disability, and sexual identification.

There's no way you honestly believe that. For instance do you think it should be illegal for a daycare to not allow 20 year olds to enroll? Discrimination on age, check.

Should it be illegal for a portrait artist to only do portraits of women? (or only men?)

Should it be illegal for a prostitute (in areas where prostitution is legal) to deny service to people who are obese or have horrible disfigurements (or in general a disability)? What if they don't want to have sex with people of a certain race?

Who knows, maybe you don't agree with me on all of those, although I suspect the daycare one is pretty uncontroversial. But it does show that blanket statements about discrimination being bad are incorrect or at least debatable. Certainly not a given.

Re:First blacks,

[rearden]

your missing the point.

Discrimination on what they wear is applied equally - white, black, gay, straight, male, female, etc.

Discrimination on who they are is discrimination on an immutable element that is not changeable or equally applicable.

Its an attempt to compare to non-equal or comparable items. Null is not equal to 0.

Re:First blacks,

[Jeremi]

Can the state tell someone they must not refuse to do business with brunettes? Or people with freckles?

Yes.

Re:First blacks,

[TranquilVoid]

is it okay for the state to tell someone who they must do business with?

An excellent question. Like most things, our principles behind this are confused and it mostly boils down to supporting laws that force your particular belief. For example, a gay bookshop is unlikely to hire a Christian who believes homosexuality to be immoral, even if they were the best applicant for the job and could perform the role without bringing in their personal beliefs. This would be considered perfectly reasonable by most pro-gay people, but perhaps not in the opposite situation of a Christian bookshop refusing to hire gay staff (which of course most anti-gay Christians would find perfectly reasonable).

Reversing it all, customers are allowed to boycott businesses because they don't like their stance on an issue (or even the owner's stance, businesses rarely need to have a stance on hot polticial issues). Perhaps this hypocrisy in anti-discrimination laws is a recognition that businesses usually hold the power, or perhaps it's just simple social engineering.

To counter all this, you could say it is about professionalism - business is about cold, hard money, so you cannot refuse to do business with someone for reasons other than business success. The laws do not seem to consistently reflect this principle however.

Re:First blacks,

[litehacksaur111]

I think if you pick extreme examples then obviously you will find loopholes because no rights are absolute. For example, I would not expect a Jewish baker to make a cake with a Swastika. However, I don't think it would be reasonable for the Jewish baker to say that he won't bake cakes for Germans or people who are not Jewish because it violates his belief. If he wants to operate like that then he should do so in a private venue like at home, not in a public setting.

Re:First blacks,

[Jane Q. Public]

Correction: last paragraph should have read "The marriage CONTRACTS in question are governed by State, not Federal, law."

Re:First blacks,

[SpankiMonki]

With all respect, I really don't think that page is proof of much of anything. It's all about the law, sure, but there isn't a single word about jurisdiction.

You claimed "federal laws of that nature only apply to businesses that are involved in interstate commerce", which is demonstrably false. The page I linked to lists eight federal laws that apply to *all* US businesses - not just those businesses engaged in interstate commerce. Maybe if you'd read the page a little more thoroughly, you would have realized the invalidity of your original assertion. Better luck next time I guess.

Cheers!

Re:First blacks,

[cas2000]

a bakery business might have some limited right to refuse to, e.g. bake cakes with a message that they personally consider offensive ("suck my cock" or "kill all blacks", for example) but they don't have the right to refuse service to people just because they're gay or a member of the KKK or some other group.

Re:First blacks,

[Jeremi]

Government should force people to bake wedding cakes against their will because ... else someone of some special race will be sad? Why don't they just buy a wedding cake from someone who wants to sell them one?

1950's Kohath: Government should force people to make sandwiches for black people? Why don't the black people just go find another lunch counter that's willing to serve them?

Re:First blacks,

[Kohath]

That was 50 years ago and 1000 miles away. Why are you living in the past? The wedding cake bakers didn't own any old south restaurants from 60 years ago. They are not guilty of whatever happened back then.

It's simply not necessary to have the government threaten and bully people into baking wedding cakes and shooting silly wedding pictures. So why are you so hellbent on doing it?

Re:First blacks,

[sycodon]

Should a Black Photographer be forced to take pictures at a wedding of two outspoken White Supremacists? At a Klan rally?

Should a Jewish deli owner be forced to cater an openly anti-Semitic Muslim...or an avowed Nazi?

Should a Muslim waiter be forced to server pork ribs? Or, Jewish for that matter. How about a vegan?

You have to be careful with all this stuff about people being forced to provide services to others. Everyone can support the public accommodations thing when it's applied to race or religion. But when you start in on all these other things, you are opening a can of worms that you may not want to be opened. It cuts both ways.

Re:First blacks,

[rearden]

Your argument answers it self. If the pharmacy goes out of business then EVERYONE is EQUALLY affected. Not just ONE specific group you have chosen to deny.
These are not false hypothetical situations, they are real:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5490-2005Mar27.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18615556
http://fox43.com/2014/02/07/oklahoma-restaurant-owner-refuses-to-serve-gay-or-freak-customers/

Do you have any other straw man arguments you want to put for us to knock down?

You have yet to make one single logically cohesive and pragmatically enforceable argument to support your point.

Re:First blacks,

[TsuruchiBrian]

Do you really believe that racism does no harm when it is confined in a home? It's not a coincidence that children who grow up in racist homes have ahigher chance of being racist themselves. Even if you do think nothing is lost by racism existing in the home, "in the home" is just a euphemism for racism in your personal life. Surely who you make friends with, who you treat like shit, who you call a racial slur has negative effects on society, even if they are confined to your personal (i.e. outside of any business setting) relationships with people.

Re:First blacks,

[Kohath]

What's your point? Forcing people to do things against their will is perfectly fine for any situation? All situations are exactly like stuff that happened to black folks in 1950?

Jeremi from now: NSA spying is ok because ... black people ... lunch counter ... 1950s. Government bullying solved that problem, therefore government should always bully everyone for everything, regardless of how trivial and needless it is.

Re:First blacks,

[asylumx]

Why the hell did this get marked insightful? This is a stupid cherry-picked example that is clearly trying to make a reasonable concern look absurd. That is NOT insightful.

Re:First blacks,

[TsuruchiBrian]

I really have no idea what it is that you are arguing. Are you saying we as a society are not the creators of laws? I didn't think my statement of laws being made by humans was even remotely controversial.

Re:First blacks,

[asylumx]

Was going to say the same thing, you beat me to it.

Re:First blacks,

[beelsebob]

Of course. The question is: where is the line?

Simple. The line is "if you can come up with a legitimate reason that that person wrongs you, then you can discriminate against them."

Re:First blacks,

[TsuruchiBrian]

Poverty might be mutable in principle, but it doesn't mean that every single person is capable of changing it. Forcing a dress code is wealth discrimination, unless you provide people with slacks and sport coats that don't have them.

Incidentally, dress codes are a very common way that certain businesses use to discriminate against people they deem to be lower class.

Poll taxes were used to discriminate against black people indirectly, by "fairly" discriminating against poor people, who were disproportionately black.

Re:First blacks,

[beelsebob]

Who are you to define what is inconsequential to someone else?

If you can prove in court that they wronged you, then feel free to discriminate against them.

Re:First blacks,

[Kohath]

Your argument answers it self. If the pharmacy goes out of business then EVERYONE is EQUALLY affected. Not just ONE specific group you have chosen to deny.

Which seems like an argument for no pharmacy ever being allowed to close, even for 1 second. Why do you prefer (hypothetical) situations where everyone is hurt the maximum amount?

If wedding cake bakers shouldn't get to choose, wedding cake buyers shouldn't get to choose either. And everyone should have to buy a wedding cake, regardless of whether they're getting married. Also, everyone should be forced to bake wedding cakes, whether they're in the cake-baking business or not. Because then we'll all be EQUAL. (See! It's persuasive and logical because of the capital letters!)

Re:First blacks,

[sribe]

Which is, in itself, a beautiful thing. Back when Steve Jobs first hired him, it was big news in the business rags, about the first openly gay CxO of a Fortune Whatever corporation. Nowadays, nobody talks about it, because almost nobody cares, and lots of younger folks don't even know it. Which is exactly as it should be.

Re:First blacks,

[gandhi_2]

Actually, the real Gandhi was much more racist than I am.

Re:First blacks,

[rearden]

Ok...

You made the broad claim, not I. I followed your broad claim, that you now seek to narrow. True mostly about interstate trade, but that excludes Bankruptcy and Criminal law, which both acknowledge and involve marriage and rights and privileges for each. You can not simply call two major parts of the judiciary "irrelevant".

Point 1: The SCOTUS on a regular basis reviews and adjudicates contract disputes- do a simple Google search. The limitation on interstate is only a limitation of the courts preview, not of the fact that they can not adjudicate Common Law Contracts - a claim you made. Second, where a contract conflicts with a Federal law or right (see EEOC, NLRB, FCC, etc) then a NON-Interstate contract can be adjudicated by the Federal courts. So, point in fact, the US Federal courts do handle and work with Common Law contracts. Finally, no one has authority over "Contract Law" they have the power in the executive/legislative branch to codify things in law that were previous Common Law and they have a right in the Judiciary to adjudicate it. Not sure where you get this notion of "authority" over. Either way at the end of the day your first statement that the US Federal government has nothing to do with Common Law was on its face a false statement.

Point 2: And you just ignore and pass by the Elastic Clause. The US Federal powers have expanded, like it or not (I am not all that happy about it often), and with the elastic clause they can and do pass into non-interstate issues where they feel they have a "necessary and proper" justification.

Point 3: Foreign marriages are validated by the Federal government, and not a state. Also the SCOTUS has already rules on non-interstate private contracts RE; Energy Reserves Group v. Kansas Power & Light and many since. And the Federal government has not always relied on a states definition of a marriage - see Loving v Virginia when the Federal government validated the marriage, but the state of Virginia did not. Pile on Federal rights and privileges and you have a compelling interest for the Federal government to review and adjudicate the nature of Marriage contract law. Even if all of that did not count the Full faith and Credit Clause would make all marriage issues a Federal one when one state does not acknowledge another states acts.

You have attempted to narrow your arguments again. But the fact remains you made a broad statement, argued it, and now to defend it you keep narrowing it down.

Re:First blacks,

[Frobnicator]

Arizona's new law was clearly inspired by their neighboring state's recent judgements.

Their neighbor's supreme court just recently ruled that photographers who had previously taken wedding photos are now compelled to take all similar wedding and reception photographs, regardless of the individual's beliefs and preferences. The ruling was also worded to include other types of photography and other types of businesses. If the photographer had taken shots at traditional weddings, they must now photograph non-traditional weddings. Similarly, if the photographer had attended straight porn filmings they must now attend all non-straight types if asked. If they had once taken nude non-pornographic shots of women, they must now attend all genders and types of events if asked. If a caterer attends traditional weddings they must attend non-traditional weddings. If a band plays for traditional weddings they must play for non-traditional weddings.

Businesses that deal in non-sexual contexts clearly have no need to discriminate for sexual orientation.

Businesses that deal with weddings (which are inherently sexual) in any way, such as church buildings holding the events, musicians performing at the events, caterers, and so many others, all of them are pulled into the sexual debate simply by virtue of their presence.

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.

For businesses dealing in non-sexed events, I absolutely agree about this being sexual discrimination. But for weddings, civil unions, 'bondings', plural marriages, and whatever else the events are called, compelling a business to participate in the event that they object to for religious or other principles is absolutely out of line.

Re:First blacks,

[noh8rz10]

I think it should be law that these people can't refuse to service any customer, and the customer gets to choose the price. crappy photos? not paying much! this will set the stage for good photo companies and wedding picture.

Re:First blacks,

[noh8rz10]

the bakers are perfectly free to change jobs to a bakery that will not make them bake gay cakes. for example, the bakery can have several people on staff, some of whom specialize in gay cakes. this way the individual freedoms are respected for the bakers and the gay people.

Re:First blacks,

[rearden]

I did not bring up the Pharmacy closing, you did. You brought up the extreme (hypothetical) not me so that question is best asked of you. I simply answered your question about that being discriminatory or not.

As to the second point it makes no point. Where are you going with this? No one has said you have to purchase from everyone. If you wish to conflate refusing to sell to the public as a public business with being forced to buy from everyone then you are going to first have to make an argument of how they are similar in nature, function, and law. Otherwise I am arguing against false facts and we will both be going nowhere.

Re:First blacks,

[Frobnicator]

Come to think of it, nobody in the LGBT community is forcing me to watch/partake in sexual acts that I don't enjoy, but plenty of people in the religious fundamentalist community are trying to force their religion on me. Who's the bigger threat to freedom here?

That is exactly the purpose of the law.

People at their wedding, or civil union, or reception, or whatever you want to call it, ARE being forced in to it.

Several state courts have issued rulings that compel the photographer, the caterer, the musicians, the church or reception hall and their staff, and all the others at the event to either accept and attend the event or face civil discrimination lawsuits.

Most of these businesses have been able to pick and choose in the past. Churches could limit events to traditional weddings and reject things like dom/sub 'bondings', civil union receptions (even when they aren't legally weddings), plural marriage additions, and the rest. But now in some states they are compelled to take them all. Their banners, logos, signs, and name are being associated with something contrary to their religious standards. This is not right.

Similarly photographers being compelled to attend the full range of events because they previously took pictures at traditional weddings, now their name and reputation gets affiliated with something against their beliefs. Musicians who performed at traditional weddings are getting compelled to tie their names to events that may be against their beliefs.

Like it or not, everything related to marriage ceremonies and their receptions are being forced into that agenda. Many are fighting back in courts on free speech, free religion, and free association grounds.

Re:First blacks,

[dryeo]

The slippery slope is a real thing and there have been lots of times in the past when it ran counter to peaceful co-existence.

Re:First blacks,

[rearden]

I would agree with you on the mutable but difficulty of changing poverty. But then you are ascribing discrimination in another place to the restaurant. You can no more hold the restaurant guilty for the ills of society than you can a son for the crimes of a father.

That said, I would have to agree that the lack of mobility in our current US economy is an issue and may even be discriminatory if not at least wrong on principal.

Yes things can be "fairly" legislated but unfairly applied- this law does just that in fact. That does not however ever make everything unfair by its nature so I do not see where you are going with this point other than sharing history. Which is a favorite topic of mine so always happy to discuss!

Re:First blacks,

[Mousit]

...(We don't have national performance yet, but that's no big deal; just take a $200 trip to California. It's still binding in every hateful corner of the South. The UK has no such privilege.)...

If only that were true, but no. You remember DOMA, right? The Defense of Marriage Act? It explicitly allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex unions performed in other states. That section of DOMA has NOT been struck down. Only Section 3 (which prevented the federal government itself from recognizing same-sex unions) was ruled unconstitutional. The rest of the act has not been struck down as yet, despite the big hullabaloo that happened back in the summer of last year when Section 3 got the boot.

Of the 29 states that have state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions (and 4 more states that ban it by law), only two--Oregon and Missouri--actually recognize out-of-state same-sex unions. Missouri recognizes them for joint-file tax purposes only and nothing else, so really it's just Oregon.

So you could say we have "national observation" in the sense that the federal government now recognizes legal same-sex unions no matter where you live in the country, but unfortunately it is not "binding in every hateful corner of the South," since the states themselves don't have to recognize it. And really, the vast majority of benefits that come with marriage are state-level benefits, so the striking down of Section 3, while important, still leaves a whole hell of a lot to be desired.

Re:First blacks,

[rearden]

I do not think that word means what you think it does...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discrimination

Unless people without shirts has become a "class of people" and I was not made aware :)

The term has a specific legal meaning. It does not mean to just turn away or say no. It is based on the hows and the whys of turning them away. I made the error of using it and now I must correct that. I should have said "Refusing to server someone based on what they wear..."

That is a failure to correct earlier in the argument on my part.

Re:First blacks,

[stdarg]

I don't see how what you said is related to the quote from me. What does "inconsequential" as you used it have to do with proving stuff in court? In fact if you have been wronged and can prove it in court, it is not at all inconsequential.. so you have completely changed what you originally said and what I responded to.

Re:First blacks,

[bondsbw]

That was an exaggerated example. Your response doesn't speak to my point, but to a straw man.

Re:First blacks,

[rearden]

Ok, first of all his point was to sex acts. On that point, I hear people of religion being "afraid" of being forced to have gays in their lives and I call bullshit. But even if this was true, why is it ok to force me to live under your religious rules but not vice verse? See "In God we Trust", Sodomy laws, swearing oaths, etc. If you are willing to forgo all of those things then we can have an honest open debate on their place in law & life. Otherwise... not so much.

Also, find me a case of where a church was required to host a gay wedding and I will help fund their defense. Churches are places of worship and are protected. The only cases of things like that are cases where they did not limit access except to gay couples and I have never seen it with a church. Only with the auxiliary services they offer- Adoption, Housing, etc. In most of those cases they took Federal money. The issue was not that they could not limit it, it was that they could not limit it while using MY MONEY. If YOUR money cannot pay or abortions or condoms then MY MONEY can not pay for things I can not use.

Having gotten married as a gay man I can speak on this in a way you probably can not- first person. My friend and his husband were turned away (well my husband and I on their behalf since we were doing the planning), and in one instance we were ok with it in another we were not. Our first choice for caterer turned us away by saying they would rather not do it and why but that they would. They then kindly offered us a referral and helped us get started with them. The second was for the venue, they just said no, rudely and then began to tell us why we were horrible people. Them I referred to the state to deal with the consequences. The first realized their obligation and if no one else would have done the wedding they would have- because they realized that they would never want to be in the same place we were.

At the end of the day if you want to serve the public, then serve the public. If you want to serve only your church, then start a membership, charge a membership fee, and serve only members.

As for traditional... Christianity is only ~2014 years old and marriage predated that in the time of the Greeks, the Romans, and in places with no mon-theistic gods so to claim it as a religious ceremony of tradition with limits can only be done if you ignore history. Many cultures allowed for plural marriages, and others allowed for extra marital relationships, and multigender marriages. Heck some are even described in the Bible. So for those that argue tradition I ask.

Who's tradition? From what time frame? In what culture? As interpreted by whom?

Homosexuality was ok with the Greeks... Can we go back to that time?

Re:First blacks,

[Kohath]

Lets try peaceful coexistence instead of government bullying this time. Then maybe it'll be easier next time and even easier the time after that. We can get the slippery slope sloping in the direction of peaceful coexistence rather than toward government bulling for every occasion.

Re:First blacks,

[Kohath]

the bakers are perfectly free to change jobs

gays are perfectly free to marry people of the opposite sex

See how free everyone is?

Re:First blacks,

[ynp7]

So kind of like a gay George Clooney?

Re:First blacks,

[rearden]

Wow...

Did you really just compare Justice Bradley, a US Supreme Court Justice, and his opinion joined by the majority of a court appointed by elected Representatives of the US Senate as nominated by the President of the US as authorized by the US Constitution (which you herald later as the absolute power) to the imagined powers of the neighbor kid!?!?

Ok, rational thought has exited the door. You can disagree with him, you can argue against his ideas, but to attempt to denigrate the position and the man while heralding the document that created it is just... hypocritical to the full extent.

Quick question, was the neighbor kid vetted by an elected legislative body of those he rules? Does he have a written basis for his rule that rule...Just wondering how organized your neighbor kids are.

Re:First blacks,

[lmnfrs]

Is there a connection between homosexuality and anal sex, where if you are gay you are predisposed to it? Or is it a "second best" option that allows two men to experience intimacy, and thus is welcomed?

Similarly to what rearden said, no, there is no direct connection. Some people like some things, others are disgusted by those things. It's the same as everything else; what is it about women that is attractive to a straight man? It depends on the man.

For an unrelated comparison, do you prefer Coke or Pepsi? Personally I don't drink much cola, but when I do, it's RC :)

Re:First blacks,

[Type44Q]

Thank fuck that shit is on the way out.

Is it?

Re:First blacks,

[noh8rz10]

it sounds to me like if a bakery is forcing a baker to do something that is against his religious beliefs he should sue the bakery for religious discrimination.

Re:First blacks,

[rearden]

Also the CAPS are because on the mobile edition the bold italics etc don't work so sorry. Not shouting just used for emphasis.

Re:First blacks,

[Kohath]

For the sake of peace, let me suggest a compromise:

For businesses that serve a critical need, like the only ambulance or pharmacy or gas station or hotel within 100 miles, they must accept everyone. They lose a little freedom to choose, but they are a monopoly and can charge monopoly prices to make up for it.

For every other business, the business owner gets to pick and choose her customers freely -- unless all businesses offering similar, critically needed services excluded the same people. Then the customer could demand to be served because of "unfair discrimination". If the business owner refuses, she faces lawsuits and/or other government reprisal. If the customer falsely claims "unfair discrimination", he faces similar lawsuits and/or other government reprisal.

How's that for a fair compromise that solves all the hypothetical problems?

It should be good enough ... unless government bullying of innocent people is the actual objective and this pharmacy argument is just a way to sell it to people who, on balance, would rather the government not harass wedding cake bakers.

Re:First blacks,

[dryeo]

"Are you saying gay people should not get equal protection of laws?"

Don't try to put words in my mouth. I did not write that and did not imply that.

Does not the States have laws about public establishments? Once a business is open to the public it usually falls under different laws from pure private property. eg the police are free to enter a restaurant and examine the menu without a warrant.
 

However, since we're talking about facts, we should ask ourselves realistically whether laws against discriminating against one group of people infringe on the rights of another group of people. It's a legitimate question.

That's the thing about rights. As soon as you have more then one person exercising rights there is the potential for conflict. The classic is the limitation on swinging fists ending in the space occupied by another person. More complicated is the right of passage against property (not a home). The right to get service vs the right to refuse service. The right to marry your partner vs the right of people to be offended and stop it. It is complex and when it comes to where the federal government fits in, the Constitution should be a living document, living in the sense of growing through amendments, not through being ignored. But currently the way your country works is by using the Constitution as a guide line and the Constitution will probably need to be reworked to fix it and Americans are so scared of opening that can of worms they couldn't amend the Constitution to make the Air Force legal, an amendment that I'd think would have passed easily and if it didn't pass, well having air arms of the Navy and Army wouldn't be bad.

"Seems the Supreme Court says the 14th allows the Federal government to override State laws that remove equal protection under the law. "

Justice Bradley declared that, so it's fact? If the kid next door claims to be ruler of the universe, should I accept it as fact?

It shows that the answer is not clear cut with different learned Justices coming to different interpretations.

The Supreme Court is no more immune from attempting to power-grab than anyone else. But our country was founded by States which delegated some of their sovereign authority to the Federal government. The Federal government was never intended to be the "ruler" of the States. Rather it was the other way around.

Sadly that state of being was thrown out by Lincoln when he unilaterally declared war on some of the States. As he is considered one of your greatest Presidents it seems the vast majority of Americans agree on the federal power grab and now your country is at the present point.

Other judges and Constitutional scholars have claimed that the 14th Amendment says no such thing. Who deified Bradley?

  But all that aside: is Arizona proposing to pass a law that would deny equal protection under the law? How so? There is no law against discriminating against straight people either. Seems to me passing laws that relate specifically to certain groups of people is exactly the opposite of "equal protection under the law".

It does seem that laws have to keep getting more accurate to close loop holes. Stop discrimination on the basis of race and people still discriminate based on religion. Stop discrimination on the basis of religion and people discriminate based on sex, etc. The problem is that a general law like no discrimination gets beat down by the courts, blame the silver tongued lawyers.

I'm not making claims either way. I am definitely against interfering with "equal protection". But we might not agree 100% over whether particular anti-discrimination laws really meet that criterion.

Re:First blacks,

[rearden]

The writer is making the point that the issue the CRA solved for African-Americans is the very problem this new law creates for gays. S/He is not being dishonest they are making a point that the issue of refusal of service back then is the same one being dealt with now. The best way to show how to solve a current problem, or to avoid it, is to look at how you solve a similar problem in the past- provided it was successful. I think most will agree that the CRA was a success.

Re:First blacks,

[Barlo_Mung_42]

Lol. Obvious troll is obvious. The classic "See how many stupid arguments I can get away with" troll. You did quite well.

Re:First blacks,

[rtb61]

It is also a contractual thing. You advertise your business, people divert from the course to attend you business in preference to other locations, a contractual obligation has been established based upon the advertisement and the cost inherent with visiting the business. When you get there business is refused the contact abrogated with no recompense for the attending customer upon arbitrary 'religous' reason ie the state is attempting to claim arbitrary indefinite religious beliefs of no definable duration take precedence over contract law and constitutional rights of all people being equal.

Consider the time duration of being a homosexual, is a person homosexual all the time or factually only homosexual when they are committing a homosexual sexual act that does not necessarily result in orgasm but does involve mutual interaction with their same sex genitalia. Are people when not engaged in sexual activity for that time (by far the majority of time) definitively asexual as they are not engaging in sexual activity. The limit must of course be actual activity involved in direct genital contact, else a grandfather kissing and hugging their grandson becomes a homosexual act, an Aunt hugging her niece becomes a homosexual act because their breasts are pressed together.

That does not even touch attempt to prove a belief in court because their in no time limit to define an extent of that belief and attempting to bring it into contract laws means, "I believe", "I don't believe", "Changed my mind again I believe", "Just kidding, I don't believe", "Believe don't belief fuck you my contractual obligation is meaningless because I believe it to be so" now becomes contractually legal in that state. The smallest nobody can now challenge the largest corporations contract based upon the claimed religious belief in being able to break a contract because the corporation was conducting an activity that it did not advertise and the person was unaware of and has a religious opposition to it ie contract void.

Re:First blacks,

[rearden]

LOL...
When logic can not be applied your reply is to conflate conflate conflate.

1950's "No Negros Served" is comparable, equal to, and similar to "No Gays Served".

The NSA and spying has no rational relation. So you spout off catch phrases and point to the distance and yell "government!!!"

Its easy for you to say "Just let it go and lets see if it is a problem before we try to solve it". Its not your life. Its not your problem. Its not you who suffers the indignity, the abuse, and its not you who watches kids turned away from homes, families, and jobs contemplate if life is worth it.

Tell you what, lets tax all straight white men 75% of their income. No, don't fight it. Lets test it out and see if its really a problem. Then and only if it become a real problem for lots of people will we evaluate how to deal with it. Dumb ideas huh? Yeah, waiting is not such a good plan when your on the wrong end of the wait.

Re:First blacks,

[Barlo_Mung_42]

A business isn't the same thing as a private club. When we get together via our representatives and agree to grant a business license there is a social contract that goes along with it. We give them money for goods and services and they sell those goods and services in a fair way.
If these bigots don't want to sell to the public they should go do something else. If there is a real need for their business the forces of capitalism will find someone willing to do it.

Re:First blacks,

[rearden]

I have a question. Why is it Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Association but...

You argue Freedom FROM Association. You are conflating the right to be able to associate with the right not associate.

If you want to push the Freedom FROM Association then I get to push the Freedom FROM Religion.

Kinda leaves things in a mess huh? Hence why it OF and FROM.

Re:First blacks,

[rearden]

Sorry, its late, that should be "Hence why its OF and not FROM."

Re:First blacks,

[rearden]

Your willingness to trade simple clear laws with easy adjudication for complex, complicated, subjective laws surprises me.

It is a compromise, and it does meet the basics and cover the bases in general.

It is not a world I would like to live in though. I find most laws too draconian for their complexity and them being left to being open to interpretation. I also find anything that generates more work for lawyers to be a failure. So, it would work, but I would move and I would never want to open a business. What if Joe across the street used to server KKK members but as of yesterday he stopped and I did not know. I refuse them and now I am in court fighting fines. No thank you!

But it would "work".

Re:First blacks,

[jopsen]

I imagine a gay CEO isn't too enthused about doing business with a state that thinks it's ok to refuse to do business with someone because they're gay. It's a two-way street, Arizona.

Let's not pretend the free market can or should fix this... The proposed law will be found to conflict with basic human rights.

Re:First blacks,

[righteousness]

You go from "no attempt to hide" to "actively seeks out...contribute to or take part in" to "advertising". That's a really broad spectrum. Can't you be more specific?

Re:First blacks,

[Copid]

You're probably OK not doing business with one asshole. It's when, say, every black person who comes in the door gets labeled an "asshole" that you start to have a problem.

Re:First blacks,

[MattskEE]

By redefining marriage, in turn the effect is telling religions that they must redefine themselves. Are you really going to claim that all religions, many with histories extending back for millennia, must all redefine themselves? All the Jewish variants, the Christian and assorted protestant faiths, the Muslim believers, the native American nations with their beliefs, they must all redefine their religions for the convenience of the US government?

I don't care whether or not churches redefine themselves. I make no demand on them whatsoever. They can do whatever they please within the bounds of the law because it does not affect me. I even respect their right to grant the marriage sacrament only to straight couples, though I would personally prefer that such discrimination not be legal for an organization which is able to claim significant tax privileges.

My point in my first post was that if a religious organization wants a sacrament of union that doesn't share a name with a civil status that can be conferred on homosexual couples then the churches can rename their sacrament. That's all.

Maybe I got a little carried away by telling religious groups to suck it up but it makes so unhappy to hear about people who oppose gay marriage and homosexuality in general, or think that homosexuality is a choice, or a sign of moral decay, or a result of sexual trauma. Many of the staunchest critics of homosexuality push their views in the context of an organized religion, which tends to make me think poorly of organized religions in general since I can find no logical reason to be opposed to homosexuality.

I decided to spend 5 minutes looking into the precedence issue and found a random online source about the history of marriage which seems to suggest that civil marriage predates religious marriage in Rome anyway. This may persuade some (if civil marriage does truly predate religious marriage), but religious and civil origins or marriage are both millennia past and don't matter much in my opinion.

Re:First blacks,

[RightSaidFred99]

You're fucking crazy. Any business should be able to refuse service to anyone they like. It's called "freedom of association", pretty sure it's somewhere in the Constitution.

Re:First blacks,

[MattskEE]

This is a good point, thanks.

Re:First blacks,

[RightSaidFred99]

Lol, it's amusing you think being against illegal immigrants is "racist". God I wish Canadians would stream over the border, spit out kids and soak up education and welfare dollars. Then when the northern states complained the heads asploding over being unable to label them "racists" would be awesome.

Don't get me wrong, I hate the god damned white-hairs. They will vote in that corrupt jackass Arpaio no matter what - he could be caught, dick in hand, with a 10 year old boy and they would still vote for him.

And the religious aspect of the bill is idiotic. We've officially become a country that thinks if you believe some weird shit that you should have special privileges. "Oh, I believe this bible so I should be able to be exempt from Obamacare!" or "Oh, I believe in a 12-armed god so must wear this fucking cool hat and can't wear shorts!".

But I believe the legitimate part of this is the attempt to force people to associate with people they do not want to. In New Mexico, they told some photographer she must take pictures at a Lesbian wedding even though she doesn't want to. Ridiculous. She should take the pictures then smear them in shit while she hands them over.

Re:First blacks,

[mvdwege]

Does this skew social power in favor of minorities?

Yes, it does. Now my counterquestion: if that social power is heavily skewed against minorities, is it a bad thing to skew it to more of a balance?

Re:First blacks,

[Savage-Rabbit]

Which is, in itself, a beautiful thing. Back when Steve Jobs first hired him, it was big news in the business rags, about the first openly gay CxO of a Fortune Whatever corporation. Nowadays, nobody talks about it, because almost nobody cares, and lots of younger folks don't even know it. Which is exactly as it should be.

Agree with you completely other than that I don't it's god if people forget, it's the fact that they don't seems care that he is gay that is a sign of progress.

Re:First blacks,

[Frobnicator]

In that part I am in complete and total agreement, and always have been: Government has no part in marriage.

Other nations have (quite successfully) attached the civil law aspects to a contract, leaving religious groups free to do whatever they want with marriage.

Moving on...

On the second issue of businesses dealing with marriage, that is a balancing act that is currently in a horrible condition. This specific law in Arizona is about COMPELLING businesses to accept customers. It stands in stark contrast to the Constitution and guarantees about free speech, free association, and free religion. The key point about the Arizona law is one of legal compulsion, which is a very big deal.

In a post up above there is a list of businesses who are in lawsuits because they hold that non-traditional wedding events violate their Constitutionally-guaranteed rights. Compelling a business to act is an extreme thing to do, and should be VERY thoughtfully considered. When governments broadly compel action, allowing zero tolerance and zero exceptions, removing all rational thought from the process, it often results in amazingly horrible results.

Should a business be COMPELLED to accept customers in a non-discriminatory way? For the venue, let's take racial discrimination first. If we look back a few decades when the organizations were in full swing, should the government COMPEL a venue to host a Black Panther rally and a KKK rally on the same day just because they have enough open rooms? You can imagine a riot breaking out in the lounge that management could easily avoid. Moving back to this Arizona law, today some states COMPEL businesses to accept non-traditional marriage events if they have room, and do not allow the business to consider other factors like safety of their guests, beliefs of other guests, or predominant religious views held within the organization.

On to other business, should a photographer be COMPELLED to take pictures at a non-traditional wedding, not just homosexual, but perhaps also a Dom/Sub 'bonding' or a plural marriage adding a spouse? Should they be COMPELLED to create artistic photographs, watch and record the kissing and petting and other (usually light) sexual behavior at the events? Does the photographer lose their rights to free association, free speech and expression, and the religious freedom to not attend an event of a different faith?

On another business, should a band be COMPELLED to attend one of these events just because they have performed at other events? Should they be COMPELLED to attend the venue, even if it takes place in a bar (for a band who doesn't drink for religious reasons), or takes place in a very smoky lounge (health concerns) or takes place in a church they dislike (compelled religious observance?) or for any other reason a facility contrary to their beliefs or associations?

And the last business since it has become popular in this /. topic, should sex workers be COMPELLED to accept homosexual events and clients? Should the porn star who has maintained a straight career be compelled to engage in homosexual acts? After all, they're just a contractor like the musician, photographer, or venue. They are a small business of one, should they be COMPELLED to accept any client, gay or straight? Or on a racial level, should they be COMPELLED to have any race relations because it would be discriminatory? Should they be COMPELLED to have any legally-aged relation, denying them their choice because of age discrimination concerns?

When you get into situations where government is COMPELLING a group to act, or when an organization or group like the gay community is trying to FORCE businesses to do something under the full authority of law, there really needs to be a lot of thought involved. This law says they are not compelled, and if it is in error, it is likely erring on the side of safety. If there is a choice between freedom or compulsion, I'd go with freedom.

Re:First blacks,

[TsuruchiBrian]

I consider the freedom of association to be both "of" and "from", in the sense that I think all associations should be mutual agreements, that either side is free to terminate at any time (e.g. like the right to get married). The right to marriage doesn't entail the right to force someone to marry you, but it does include the right to force someone to become divorced from you.

I think the term freedom from religion has 2 different connotations, one of which I am for and one which I am against. I totally support the freedom to not be part of a religion or the freedom to not have religion forced on you. I do not support the freedom to live in a world where others can not be religious.

And no, I don't think serving gay people unjustly violates your freedom. I think someone being fired for not serving gay people is just an instance of an employer choosing to exercise his/her freedom of association to terminate an association with a bigot, and I wish this was legal as well.

Re:First blacks,

[TsuruchiBrian]

I don't think the concept of fairness is objective. Different people clearly have different concepts of fairness. Rich people believe equality of opportunity is fairness (not realizing they had more opportunities). Poor people think equality of outcome is fairness. I think allowing everyone to be a bigot is fair. Others think not allowing anyone to be a bigot is fair. Every freedom comes at the cost of a different freedom, and people value different freedoms. Maybe I just don;t value the right not to be discriminated against by individuals and businesses as highly as others. I only care that I am not discriminated against by the government. I think it would be nice if nobody discriminated, but I am skeptical of the benefit of laws designed to change people's attitudes. I think laws like this may even make things worse due to human psychology and people being stubborn when forced to do something. I would much rather bigots be allowed to be bigots and ridiculed by everyone else.

Re:First blacks,

[Jane Q. Public]

"You made the broad claim, not I. I followed your broad claim, that you now seek to narrow. "

Nonsense. I'm not narrowing anything. I was stating that the "exceptions" you cite aren't genuine exceptions. The Federal government does not regulate the principles of contract law. It is a matter of Common Law and a matter for the courts to decide. Federal courts may decide whether a law conflicts with Common Law, or vice versa, but that's not the same thing.

I am not "narrowing my argument". I agreed with some of your points but I was saying -- and still say -- they aren't exceptions to what I was saying. We're talking about two different things.

Re:First blacks,

[Kohath]

3-4 sentences is a "complex" law, I guess.

My preference is for zero laws telling people who to do business with. If that doesn't work out great for some people, then maybe they should consider making some different life choices. But there's nothing wrong with a fair compromise.

Re:First blacks,

[Jane Q. Public]

"Yes, it does. Now my counterquestion: if that social power is heavily skewed against minorities, is it a bad thing to skew it to more of a balance?"

Maybe. It depends on how many toes you have to step on in order to make people un-step on others.

But here's another one for you. Do you have any evidence that such laws -- as opposed to, say, social pressure -- and today, not in the 50s or 60s, actually result in much less discrimination? My guess is that social pressure is more effective.

Again, I'm not pretending to have the answers here. I'm just asking questions. The problems with laws is that they are almost never 100% good. They nearly always do some bad as well.

Many, many times I have seen people push for laws because of the good they think the law will do, while totally ignoring the unintended consequences or the bad the law might do. And that's bad.

--
You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered." -- Lyndon B. Johnson

Re:First blacks,

[Jane Q. Public]

Let me add one more thing. I believe this as a matter of principle but I do not claim that it is always true in every instance: It doesn't seem to me that institutionalizing discrimination is an effective way to cure discrimination. Or to put it a different way: we already have guarantees of equal treatment under the law. And today (finally) many people are actually starting to believe it. So my question is: how does passing laws that specify different treatment for certain groups of people promote equal opportunity under the law?

Re:First blacks,

[Kohath]

That's the reason for the law. Some woman in New Mexico was fined for refusing to be a wedding photographer for a lesbian wedding.

http://www.deseretnews.com/art...

The law is to keep innocent people from being bullied by (or with in the case of lawsuits) the government for choosing who they do business with.

Re:First blacks,

[cbhacking]

If WBC member came into my (hypothetical) store wearing a "God hates fags" shirt, then you better believe I'd refuse them service. Not because of their affiliations, but because of their hateful and discriminatory message to everybody around them. If they came in, bought a common random item off the shelf and paid for it quietly and politely, I'd take their money same as anybody else... I wouldn't even know who they were. If I recognized them by the name on the credit card I'd feel kind of dirty about it, but whatever.

That doesn't mean I'd support their organization, mind you. If the WBC got hacked by Anonymous and they tried to hire me to help secure their computers, I would probably refuse.

The difference, by the way, is that the WBC hurts people. They actively seek to cause harm to others. Being gay hurts nobody. Not me personally, not my friends or family, not the people around them, and not even themselves (at least, not in any way that they can help; the "being gay is a choice" crowd always makes me wonder what is wrong with their brain, because given the discrimination they face, who the hell would *choose* that life?). Being a member of the WBC and picketing military funerals with hateful signs and slogans? Totally a choice. Same, incidentally, for Neo-Nazis and for Catholics... the difference being that most Catholics (unlike the other two groups) aren't out to ruin other people's lives. I wouldn't let them preach in the store, though...

Re:First blacks,

[Anonymous Coward]

Please STFU and refer to the pre-1960's US South for the prime example of why it is legitimate for the government to compel business that serve the public to provide that service to all without regard of irrelevant factors (e.g race, ethnic background, gender, (and more recently being asserted) sexual orientation). It is a restriction on freedom, yes, but it enforced to prevent the potential for a much greater loss of freedom by people who could be marginalized and denied equal footing in society. Homosexuals fall under this category, perhaps not to the same extent as black in America, but probably more so than women (although it is easier to hide being homosexual).

Re:First blacks,

[Jane Q. Public]

"Their neighbor's supreme court just recently ruled that photographers who had previously taken wedding photos are now compelled to take all similar wedding and reception photographs, regardless of the individual's beliefs and preferences. The ruling was also worded to include other types of photography and other types of businesses. If the photographer had taken shots at traditional weddings, they must now photograph non-traditional weddings. Similarly, if the photographer had attended straight porn filmings they must now attend all non-straight types if asked. If they had once taken nude non-pornographic shots of women, they must now attend all genders and types of events if asked. If a caterer attends traditional weddings they must attend non-traditional weddings. If a band plays for traditional weddings they must play for non-traditional weddings."

I am sure some people would disagree with me, but to me, that law is clearly discriminatory. In attempting to enforce "equal treatment for all" it is in fact doing the opposite, from what I understand.

"Businesses that deal in non-sexual contexts clearly have no need to discriminate for sexual orientation. "

I don't think "need" is really the right context here.

"Businesses that deal with weddings (which are inherently sexual) in any way, such as church buildings holding the events, musicians performing at the events, caterers, and so many others, all of them are pulled into the sexual debate simply by virtue of their presence."

Right. But what of their own desire to be left alone, and to leave others alone? This makes them subject to bullying by minorities because then the minority member can say "You won't do it for me... it HAS TO be discrimination!" Regardless of whether it is true, that can cause big problems for people.

And please don't tell me people won't do that because I've seen people do that with my own eyes. (Not that you would try to tell me that... just a figure of speech.)

To put it bluntly: while other people here obviously think otherwise by their comments, I'm very much behind equal treatment for all. But not all "anti-discrimination" laws really serve to guarantee equality. I think some definitely do more harm than good. Nevertheless, some people seem to think that anybody who even questions PC-think must be a bigot. And there are some, I am quite sure, who don't really think that but will say that anyway.

Re:First blacks,

[JasonGoatcher]

Well, I'm going to reveal something here to make a point. I'm attracted to underage girls, and very much so. The reason you won't find my name in the online registry of pedophiles is I was "lucky" enough to contract schizophrenia, so ended up dealing with my problem before I was let back loose after the age of eighteen. I committed the crime multiple times before the age of eighteen, but because of a combination of laws and the opinions of my therapists, I haven't suffered for it.(I haven't figured out which scripts it's safe to enable, so sorry that if this is one continuous paragraph). You guys may say ewwwww gross, what a pervert, but absent any idea of absolute morality, like Christianity, my perversion is just as defensible as the homosexuals. You say I harmed children, but I could just as easily argue that it's the culture that screws them up mentally because they all had to be told they're victims, they didn't decide this on their own. I'm not claiming my acts were okay, I'm just setting up my argument. The Christian argument is that sexual sin, whether it's porn, homosexuality, adultery, etc. is that the person is basically committing a crime against their own body. So the proper position of a Christian is to reject the behavior, but not persecute the offender. Tax write-offs are obviously a sign of approval of the behavior, which is why we, as Christians, don't want the laws on the books. On the other hand, refusing to serve them in a store is persecution, since being a customer very rarely has any connection to who you like to have sex with. It just shows the weakness of some people's faith that they try to "do God's job for Him" and end up going too far. Better to follow the song lyric I keep hearing on Pandora,"Reject the guilt, not the guilty, and I promise a better night's sleep."

Re:First blacks,

[geminidomino]

You didn't say "humans" made laws, you said that "society" makes them according with some "collective morality," a concept so utopian as to border on willful naivete. Morality and legality are utterly orthogonal concepts, and if law were to be limited only to that which is "collectively" accepted, "law libraries" could be replaced with "law post-it notes."

Re:First blacks,

[Jane Q. Public]

"Wow...

Did you really just compare Justice Bradley, a US Supreme Court Justice, and his opinion joined by the majority of a court appointed by elected Representatives of the US Senate as nominated by the President of the US as authorized by the US Constitution (which you herald later as the absolute power) to the imagined powers of the neighbor kid!?!?

NO, I did not. You misunderstood what I was saying. Maybe I didn't put it clearly.

I have studied American history, and Constitutional history in particular, for many years. The fact -- which you will not learn in public school but which is a matter of public record and IS in many adult history books -- is that when the States formed the Union, they did not raise "the general government", as it was often put, above the States. Rather, the Federal government was a convenience for the States to do certain things together. Like manage a common currency, settle disputes between the States, and defend against foreign invasion.

But something that is VERY clear from the ratification debates among the States, is that the States were guaranteed that they would retain their essential sovereignty. In fact it was a condition that the states insisted upon before they would ratify the Constitution. The U.S. is not -- and never was -- a "nation". It is a Federation of independent States. That's why we have a Republican form of government, not a National government. Seriously. Look up what "Republic" means.

In the early days of the U.S., many people, including Jefferson and Madison, and including during those ratification debates and afterward, spoke and wrote about this principle.

I suggest you read James Madison's "Report of 1800" before the Virginia legislature. He discusses this same issue, and explains how the States must retain the ultimate right to determine whether the Federal government has overstepped the Constitution, not the Supreme Court. Because (A) the States created the Federal government to act as their servant, not the other way around, and (B) the Supreme Court is no more immune to corruption and power-grabbing than any other branch of the Federal government, which is a problem because (C) the Federal government was never given the authority to decide what its own power should be.

It is very well written and his logic is impeccable. I highly recommend giving it a read. But that's just one example. Don't think I'm relying on just his word... there are reams upon reams of historical writings that reference the subject.

Which brings us back to my comment. The Federal government had no authority to declare its supremacy over the States by Amendment, or by proclamation of the Supreme Court, or by any other means. It is a declaration without legal authority.

In THAT sense, but only in that sense, was Bradley acting like the kid next door who declares himself ruler of the universe. Both declarations are completely without any actual legal authority to give them weight. In point of fact, the Bradley court's decision is exactly one of the big things the Founders warned us about.

Re:First blacks,

[geminidomino]

From my limited understanding, the spectrum starts at "no attempt to hide it" and includes everything more "open" than that. I'm not sure, but I think it coincides with the term "out of the closet."

Re:First blacks,

[Jane Q. Public]

I am amused by someone modding comments "flamebait" for just giving rude and insulting people a taste of their own medicine. How about the people who started it, eh?

Re:First blacks,

[Jane Q. Public]

"The page I linked to lists eight federal laws that apply to *all* US businesses"

And does it say on that page that it applies to every business in the U.S.?

Funny, but I don't see that anywhere. And unless it says that, that page isn't proof of your claim. Which is what I said before.

It's easy enough to write a rule or law that says "everybody must do this", but if you have no authority over that everybody, then it is not true that they must do it.

Laws are often written using that kind of language. For example, a State law may say "it is unlawful for anyone to do X." Clearly, even though the law SAYS "everyone", it doesn't apply to someone in another state.

In exactly the same way, lots of Federal laws claim to apply to everybody but don't. There are LOTS of things over which the Federal government has no jurisdiction.

Re:First blacks,

[Mashiki]

What if a white couple doesn't want to hire a black supremacist wedding photographer?

Re:First blacks,

[rearden]

I better understand where you come from now and the point you were trying to make. It was not clear and was very flippant at best.

I have read many of the Jefferson & Madison & Henry papers (really more letters)- a consequence of growing up in Virginia & having an interest in history. It is true that many of them were concerned about a large central government. Henry advocated that Virginia not even join the Union for he feared any central government. Franklin wanted a stronger central government than most, but even he was wary. I am well aware of us being a Republic, hence you notice I made points not to refer to us a Democracy or any of the other often misused terms. We are a representative republic. We are not America, we are THE United STATES of America, a Union of States. I more than understand that distinction and despite your not so subtle put down did not learn my history in a weak public school having failed to read adult books. Though I do not carry a degree in history I can read and I can process logic, and amazingly enough carry on an intelligent conversation.

All that said they gave the people a tool for changing the document. Right or wrong, like it or not, they made it a framework and accepting their fallibility they made it changeable. The supremacy the Federal government, like it or not, has gained over the years has been some what at the hands of courts but more so at the hands of the people and the states- the amendments. The 18th amendment besides outlawing alcohol at the Federal level gave the government vast powers to enforce and take action. As did the 16th, 17th, and some would argue the 19th all moved powers from the states to the Federal level. In fact in nearly every amendment the power of enforcement was given to the Federal government time and again.

So, while you do not like a strong central government (and I think our government is too large and far away often even at the state level) the reality is that the people have through attrition and some would say the Tyranny of Small Decisions moved the power in this nation to the Federal government.

I think the issue is that you argue what you feel things should be at the Federal government and I argue from what I see as the pragmatic position of what they are. No matter what our "Founding Fathers" (which as a quick aside were far from Christian and far more Humanist but I digress) wanted or feared they gave the people the power to make changes, and changes they have made. We have moved from from what they started, and closer in many ways to what they feared. Despite doing so this is still "Of the People by the People" and so it is a reflection of that, be it through action or inaction, and so when I evaluate the Marriage as a Contract of Common Law and see it as a Federal issue I do so not in the light of Jefferson & Madison or Henry, but in the light of the will and acts of the people since.

The law is not history, it something that evolves over time and in this nation it ostensibly does it according to the will of the people or at least through their inaction.

Re:First blacks,

[rearden]

The complexity is in the application, not the length of the law. Something can be written simply and complex to apply and enforce.

Make different life choices? You mean like stop believing in invisible sky creatures that command their every move in life? All for it!

Re:First blacks,

[rearden]

I like the idea. I have often spoken that I would love it if we could live it. But the reality is that we are not there yet as a people- meaning humanity.

Question, just as a curiosity. Would my right to Freedom from Religion be impinging on your Freedom of Religion if it was against the law for you to proselytize or knock on my door to push a deity?

Re:First blacks,

[rearden]

And reading is your friend, you can't just Google "Church Gay Lawsuit" and pick a few, you have to actually READ:

Iowa' Gortz Haus lawsuit (Mennonite): They are preemptively suing out of fear, they have never been forced or asked. They are just afraid. Fear is not a lawsuit. Also, its not a church but a Bed and Breakfast that was a former church. So, again not a religious place just religious people who want to have a public business that is only open to the public types of people they like. http://christiannews.net/2013/10/13/mennonite-wedding-venue-files-counter-suit-to-avoid-being-forced-to-host-same-sex-weddings/

New Jersey's United Methodist Church in Orange Grove: this one is dicey and I personally would come down on the side of the church but they set themselves up. They let others not of their faith (non-christians) and even counter to their faith (Jewish) rent the facility. So to suddenly say no to a group on religious grounds is disingenuous. They even booked a non-christian wedding after they said no to the gays. So, why are they not applying this "faith" to everyone? That was the issue and nothing else. If they really have Faith then why is not applied to everyone? You can't pick and choose. Either you are and you have rules or you are not and you don't. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/judge-rules-christian-facility-cannot-ban-same-sex-civil-union-ceremony-on/

Emmanuel Temple House of Praise and Lighthouse Outreach Center Assembly of God: This one argues against you! The law has protections to PREVENT them from being forced, and they still sued. Again they were never asked they just don't want gays getting married. http://www.religioustolerance.org/hommarrhi11.htm

The issue with a continuum is where does it start and where does it stop? Ok, only Marriage services? Ok, well this law goes MUCH further than that. I could walk into a Pharmacy and be denied and force to leave. I could walk into ANY kind of store and be denied service. You want to argue on a continuum, then who makes the list, who enforces it, and what if a facility offers multiple services? If one is "protected" and the other is not which rules apply? You could write it but realistically it would be a nightmare to maintain, enforce, etc. It will become a political game and the winner will be the people with more money, it won't be based on such lovely ideas as morals, rights, wrongs, and fair. For evidence see the tax code and nearly every other "continuum" system we have.

Again you seek to narrow history. Hate to tell you, life and history and people existed BEFORE the USA. Just because they have what you believe to be easy explications and reasons for why they did things does not make it something you can exclude from history or "tradition" just because we have found another way to solve them. They are part of our history and our traditions. In South America they have plural men to one woman in some ethnic groups. Same in African nations. In Arab nations they still have multiple wives. There are many people here from Arab nations shall we follow their traditions? You left out the Greeks, the Egyptians, the Romans, the Huns, and Aboriginal people. Again you focus on a few European groups that follow you beliefs. Does not make it plural or traditional, just what you are most familiar with.

Marriage is a word, it is defined by the users. Religious groups do not have a trademark on the term. So it is defined and used as desired by the plurality of the people. Don't like it? Create a new term, trademark it, and license it only to people who agree with you. The politicians are lazy, but in this case they were right. They used the colloquial term used by most all no matter if they got a religious or non-religious contract.

Also, you say "many countries". Can you list them out? I know of few that went that route that were not already that way. In fact I know of none that have not started the process of full Marriage due to the difference in application of the laws, but I am sure I have not check them all.

Re:First blacks,

[rearden]

Fairness is objective. Which is why the law seeks to avoid it. You are promised equality, not fairness. You can measure equality, not fairness. Fairness is a feeling.

Equality is not fairness, and people on both sides get that wrong. Following on your thoughts about laws intended to change peoples thinking, they are not fair an they do not work. Heck, I am against Hate Crimes laws- something I catch hell for from friends. I don't like them because they are laws against thoughts.

That said, discrimination laws are not against thoughts. They are not intended to change thoughts. They are to ensure equality of action and so they are against actions. I can not complain because while hosting my wedding the guy was thinking anti-gay things, or even saying them- though that may be a contract issue of suitability of services provided, a whole other topic. What I can sue for is if he refuses to take the wedding, I can sue for the act. Not the thought and not to change minds. But to prevent a repeat of the act. Thus I get equality of action, not of results or thoughts or other things.

We can never legislate or enact perfect equality, but that does not mean its not worth preventing a decent into abject intolerance and discrimination.

Re:First blacks,

[Evtim]

I've always wanted to see real competition between social systems. The original idea of the US had the potential to do just this, but alas, it did not happen. The central government should have insured only free travel and commerce between the states, defense and perhaps a few critical infrastructures and that's it. Then let the people move to the state which has the system closest to their attitude.

In fact I'd extend this idea to the whole globe. Let's not have countries but regions that are run by different social systems. Let's see then where the interesting people will go, the creative people, the productive people. Let the bigots cluster and live the way the want it.

The problem is of course that people always fight with each other. It is not enough to live and let live. I know almost no person that fully subscribes under this principle. No, we have to remove, stamp on or kill the ones that do not agree with our way of life...so sad.

Re:First blacks,

[joss]

Anyone can sue for anything but having a strong case is another thing. People's religious beliefs can include any random nonsense and no business could operate if it had to pander to whatever people can think of. You make the responsibilities clear at the start then if they take the job they are agreeing to do the work. If a muslim got a a job in a pork processing plant then claimed his religious beliefs prevented him from handling pigs, well.. get another job.

Re:First blacks,

[Evtim]

We don't want any "pillars", thank you. Which pillars exactly are you lamenting for?

The pillar of religion? Don't make me laugh....
The pillar of "free and independent" press. keep on laughing
The pillar of democracy with proper check and balances. staring to hyperventilate with so much laughter
The pillar of outdated believes, general ignorance that still battles with century old ideas [evolution]. collapsing on the floor laughing.
The pillar of peaceful coexistence, tit for tat, non-violent competition . Oh wait, THIS is not a pillar of our society...'nuf said.

When people lament the loss of "norms and values" what they lament is that they are not allowed to kill the ones that disagree with them. Bigots that want to reverse the clock and bring back all the magnificent social ideas of the past /sarcasm

Re:First blacks,

[cmdr_tofu]

Different question: is it okay for the state to tell someone who they must do business with?

Indeed this is something that I and many others believe should be regulated (and it is regulated).

It was only the government telling private businesses that they had to treat customers equally or forcing them to treat customers of different races equally (in a famous case letting them eat at lunch counters) that ended Jim Crow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws)

Re:First blacks,

[cmdr_tofu]

An understated point (at least I've never heard anyone state it.. just thought of it). Some religions might be fore same sex marriage. Indigineous people had the berdache, could Arizona be violating people's right to freedom of religion. If your religion says you have to be gay,then Arizona is no just discriminating against gay people, but they are practicing religious discrimination. Putting a sign outside the store saying "no (insert name of religious faith here) allowed" would be more obviously illegal.

Re:First blacks,

[Kjella]

Should a business be COMPELLED to accept customers in a non-discriminatory way? (...) If there is a choice between freedom or compulsion, I'd go with freedom.

So basically you want to return to before Rosa Parks where black people had to ride in the back of the bus and yield their seat to white people. Hey they should be happy they were allowed to ride on the same bus at all, right? You do an awful lot of rationalization for your racism/bigotry. I don't think anyone should be compelled to participate specifically in the acts that offend, like being forced to conduct a gay wedding. But if you want to discriminate against gays trying to buy a wedding cake, then I think that absolutely should be illegal discrimination. Clearly YMMV.

Re:First blacks,

[TsuruchiBrian]

Society is made of humans. "collective morality" just means it is the aggregate morality of the collective (i.e. the humans that comprise society). There is nothing utopian about it. If 99% of people think murder is wrong and that there should be a law against it, then this law is made.

Collectively doing something doesn't imply unanimity. Voting is an exercise in collective will. It doesn't mean every single person agrees on the outcome, in fact, usually a big fraction do not.

Re:First blacks,

[TsuruchiBrian]

This is not a question of religious freedom. It is actually matter of private property and trespassing. If you don't want to hear what someone has to say, you are not obliged to on your own property because you have the right to make them leave, or have the cops remove them forcibly. If you are in a public space, you do not have the freedom to make everyone else shut up, so you don't have to hear any one else's religious beliefs. You do have the freedom to leave yourself. Public spaces are places where you are free to say whatever you want and not

free to prevent anyone else from doing the same.

Now the thing about going up to people's doors is a gray area, because technically it's on your property, but there is a convention that people are assumed tobe allowed on your doorstep until you tell them to leave. I suppose you can put a sign up indicating to people that they are trespassing, and you can theoretically have them arrested if they do not follow your sign. I don't know how well this works in practice.

If someone is pushing deities on the public street outside your house, I'd say they are free to do that, so long as they comply with local noise ordinances, etc.

Re:First blacks,

[DJRumpy]

A foolish argument, stating that a no-shirt policy should apply to someone with a shirt, no?

As to firing someone for practicing religion while working, absolutely they should be fired, if the employer doesn't allow such. It's still a private company, which company policy and employees excepted to perform and act within company guidelines.

I can't claim one way or another what is or isn't true in the bible, and frankly don't care what book some people want to thump as long as it doesn't interfere in my private life, although common sense shows us that a simple message rarely ever makes it past 20 people in a room and comes out the same. Why someone would expect a book that is supposed to be passed down through generations of corrupt humans to stay true to it's source is beyond me. It was an example of a story they espouse as gospel, not a submission of absolute fact.

Re:First blacks,

[AlphaWolf_HK]

This.

In the past businesses have always been allowed to refuse service to anybody at any time for any reason. Why does this suddenly need to change? It's probably not good business to refuse service to a tenth of the population, but if that's what you want to do, then so be it.

Let the market decide which businesses should continue running. I'm sure those customers would happily take their business elsewhere.

Besides, does it really make you feel any better to force somebody you hate to accept your money? (Read: you are PAYING this person YOUR money.) Think about it.

Re:First blacks,

[TsuruchiBrian]

That said, discrimination laws are not against thoughts.

They are. If you fire someone for being incompetent it is not racial discrimination. If you fire that same person for being chinese then it is racial discrimination. Sure you can say, well if the person is incompetent then it's not racial discrimination and if they are competent then it is. But it's not that simple. What if they are incompetent and chinese? What if you fire only the incompetent chinese people but do not fire incompetent white people? To know if the discrimination is truly racially based (assuming the person doesn't admit it), is to know what the person is thinking.

Affirmative action is not based on thoughts. It just says you have to hire at least x% of each race. It doesn't care why you acted the way you did, only *that* you acted a certain way. Anti-discrimination laws punish the motive for an action, not the action itself. Firing a chinese person is not necessarily discrimination, it is only discrimination if you fired them *because* they were chinese, and that knowledge is private. Not hiring x% chinese people *is* against affirmative action even if you have no bias against chinese people.

Someone can refuse to perform a wedding for 2 gay people because he is simply overworked and it is not anti-gay discrimination. He can refuse to perform a wedding for 2 gay people because he hates gay people and now it is anti-gay discrimination. The actions are identical. The motives are different.

We can never legislate or enact perfect equality, but that does not mean its not worth preventing a decent into abject intolerance and discrimination.

I agree. But I don't think anti-discrimination laws are preventing us from falling into abject intolerance. I think maybe they did at one point. Now I think they prevent little discrimination and just serve to provide jobs to more lawyers. I think anti-discrimination laws are like training wheels for a society just getting over things like racism. At some point you have to take the training wheels off because they are only slowing you down. You never really know if you still need them until you try removing them.

Why do I think society (at least in the US) can survive without anti-discrimination laws? Well for one thing, discrimination is actually very unpopular. Even if people actually do it, they are careful to frame this discrimination in other terms (like religious freedom). In the past it was normal and accepted to support discrimination. Obviously there is still racism out there, and there always will be. That can't be the metric for deciding when we take the training wheels off.

I personally think that removing anti-discrimination laws will actually accelerate the demise of racism. It will allow people to be more honest. Bigots will be able to be honest about their bigotry, and other people will be more honest about their displeasure for bigotry. This is a debate/culture war that should be happening out in the open rather than behind closed doors. People need to see that it is not ok to be racist, not because of the law, but because it is morally wrong, and it is not acceptable to your fellow citizens (not just unacceptable to big government).

Re:First blacks,

[characterZer0]

It is not okay for a state to tell an individual person who he must do business with.

It is okay for the state that sanctions the legal constructs called "corporations" to tell those corporations who they must do business with.

Re:First blacks,

[TsuruchiBrian]

Replace the word shirt with black. If you think a "no shirt policy" is applied equally. Then a "no blacks" policy is applied equally as well. Granted one of these is definitely immoral and the other is likely not, but the mechanics of applying discrimination rules work the same way regardless of whether they are done in a sensible scenario or in a morally despicable scenario. They are both discrimination. Discrimination isn't always bad.

As to firing someone for practicing religion while working, absolutely they should be fired, if the employer doesn't allow such. It's still a private company, which company policy and employees excepted to perform and act within company guidelines.

I would go one step further and allow people to be fired for any reason, including just being a member of a religion, or being a bigot, or being anything. If the reason is good, then the community will support it. If it is not a good reason then the community might do a boycott or leave negative yelp reviews, etc. The point is that I think this kind of public shaming is a better mechanism for enforcing this kind of good behavior than laws. The law is pretty good at figuring out if you are guilty of murder. It is not good at figuring out if you are a bigot (because this is rather subjective).

I can't claim one way or another what is or isn't true in the bible,

Enough of it is ridiculously false that I think it's pretty safe to discount the entire thing as untrustworthy. I'm sure there is some stuff in the bible that must be trivially true, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.

You can find good stories in Lord of the rings that teach people to be moral as well. In fact in lord of the rings they don't condone slavery, rape, and genocide, so it's probably a better moral guide than the Bible.

Re:First blacks,

[Eunuchswear]

[...] the Muslim believers, [...] non-traditional arrangements (not just homosexual, but also open relationships or those with assorted plural relationships) [...]

Uh, "assorted plural relationships" are not "non-traditional" for all religions.

Re:First blacks,

[Megol]

Free people should be free to choose. Even if you think they might make the wrong choices, regardless of whatever happened to whomever at whatever lunch counter. You can say "public accommodation" 100 times. You're still using government threats and bullying to force innocent people -- people who have harmed no one -- to act against their will.

Refusing serve someone because they are black, homosexual or christian will in most cases cause harm. Mostly emotional but potentially physical - up to even causing death (no I'm not exaggerating).

But sure the state could make sure one could discriminate in whatever way they wanted, but then IMHO those persons shouldn't be allowed to use public facilities like roads.

Re:First blacks,

[TubeSteak]

Should a business be COMPELLED to accept customers in a non-discriminatory way?

Yes.
There. We're done.
You could have saved yourself a lot of time and effort constructing a list of straw man arguments.

Now if you want to go further, I'd start by disputing your phrase "COMPELLED to accept customers"
No business is COMPELLED to accept customers.
However, if a business wants to ACCEPT customers, they don't get to pick and choose based on the owner's biases.

Now I'm just going to skip to the end, because TLDR, it isn't worth picking apart all those individual points.

This law says they are not compelled, and if it is in error, it is likely erring on the side of safety. If there is a choice between freedom or compulsion, I'd go with freedom.

The side of safety? What the fuck?
There used to be signs hung up in front of businesses that said *"No Dogs, No Negroes, No Mexicans"
That is literally what you are advocating as "freedom."
Because Jesus.

*If you were in other parts of the country, you'd see "Jews" instead of Mexicans

Re:First blacks,

[Megol]

Of course not. However if anybody of those start talking bullshit you can throw them out. The same applies to homosexuals that would annoy you or your customers in some way. Or even a atheist that begins proselytizing and annoy your christian (or whatever - maybe atheist) customers.

But really, your three examples are much more likely to cause any problems than any homosexual...

Re:First blacks,

[N1AK]

Like it or not, everything related to marriage ceremonies and their receptions are being forced into that agenda

What agenda? I'd have a little sympathy for the position people pushing to be able to discriminate against homosexuals if they also support the right to discriminate against Jews, Christians, Blacks, Women, Republicans etc but the vast majority don't. People who believe that discrimination should be allowed on freedom grounds at least have an ethically sound position, even if I disagree with it.

Furthermore, surely Apple is exercising its freedom if it refuses to do business with states that allow discrimination? The people of Arizona may vote themselves the right to be legally homophobic but they don't have the ability to stop people doing business there if they do.

Re:First blacks,

[TubeSteak]

You can get a religious ceremony performed if you want, but that is neither sufficient nor necessary to be considered married (my grandmother "married" her third "husband" in a religious but non-legal ceremony to assuage her guilt at "living in sin" without overly complicating her inheritance; the ceremony was lovely but had no secular recognition).

Well.. about that.
Depending on which State your grandmother lived in, she might have actually gotten herself officially married under common law.

Currently, the only States that allow common law marriage are:
Alabama, Colorado, Kansas, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Iowa, Montana, Utah and Texas (and the District of Columbia)

Some States used to recognize common law marriages, but have since passed laws banning the practice.
That said, all States will recognize a common law marriage if it met [legal criteria] in the state it was performed in at the time.

Re:First blacks,

[Antique Geekmeister]

Actually, like being white, male, young, married, Christian, or born in the USA, it can certainly affect job performance. Being a member of the "power" ethnic or social jobs can certainly affect political power and perceived acceptability a social and political effect. But most relevant for job performance is the likelihood of being married, and having children, which also affect work availability and available weekly work hours. Then look at the number of business and political leaders who do _not_ have a spouse who takes care of their home and their children. And do _not_ be shocked that the possibility of dating, of or sexual interaction, effects the work place. And anytime there's a possible sexual interaction with a superior or a subordinate, it effects the work relationship.

That said, I'm delighted that we're more accepting of different lifestyles than we were at the start of my career. Let's just not ignore the direct effects of marriage, and of children, on work performance because they remain quite profound. Schedule a major product release for Christmas, Valentine's Day, or for graduation day and see who can do the work if you think it's irrelevant.

Re:First blacks,

[N1AK]

To put it bluntly: while other people here obviously think otherwise by their comments

To put it bluntly: He was making the exact same points as you, so maybe you should consider posts more carefully before 'rebuffing' ones that agree with you.

Is it ok for a company to have a policy of only promoting men to senior positions? Is it ok for a department store to only admit and serve white customers?

If you answered yes to both then at least you're consistent, though I'm glad I don't live in a country with people who agree with you. If you answered either no then the rest of your posts is bollocks, changing what identifying feature people are discriminated against for doesn't change how wrong it is.

Re:First blacks,

[N1AK]

Because the world will spin off its axis if the government doesn't force people to bake wedding cakes against their will? Instead of sending in the wedding cake police, how about just buy a wedding cake from someone who wants to make you a wedding cake?

Yeah. Fuck those niggers they can get cake somewhere else, and if they don't like riding at the back of the bus then they can get the hell off and walk. Maybe they should go somewhere they are wanted.... How is this kind of bollocks still tolerated, let alone modded insightful? Maybe I can get some cheap karma by claiming women in skirts are asking for it, Queers are all wannabe paedophiles and women should get back to the sink.

Re:First blacks,

[Antique Geekmeister]

> Religion co-opted marriage and turned it into a religious thing millennia ago

Religions have been involved in major life events throughout the history of civilization. Can you point to any history or culture in which marriage, like birth and death, was +not+ treated as a religious matter? I suspect that any culture which handled marriage as a purely civil issue would integrate religion into it very, very quickly.

Re:First blacks,

[TubeSteak]

Should a Black Photographer be forced to take pictures at a wedding of two outspoken White Supremacists? At a Klan rally?

Should a Jewish deli owner be forced to cater an openly anti-Semitic Muslim...or an avowed Nazi?

Should a Muslim waiter be forced to server pork ribs? Or, Jewish for that matter. How about a vegan?

Should a *Christian plumber be forced to fix toilets in the homes of Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Wiccans, or Athiests?
Fuck, what if it's a Catholic household?

Or maybe the answer to your and my hypothetical questions is "Yes, if it's safe. That's what it means to own a business or be employed by one."

*Obviously in the USA "Christian" means "Protestants"

Re:First blacks,

[N1AK]

If a hammer store said "no gays" then that seems unfair, but on the other hand, does that actually happen in reality? How would the hammer store guy even tell?

He couldn't have a sign saying "no blacks" and that's because it did happen. You've had to contrive to put in caveats such as cashiers don't normally make the rules etc to point out that it's unlikely, so what? It's unlikely that someone is going to kill me with a harpoon gun, that doesn't make doing it any more ok than if they'd used a pistol. Is that something you'd allow? If not then why is it ok to discriminate in exactly the same way for some products but not others? Do we need to leave some jobs that are fine for homophobes so all the god fearing former hardware store owners have an alternative?

Re:First blacks,

[N1AK]

Should a Muslim waiter be forced to server pork ribs? Or, Jewish for that matter. How about a vegan?

Firstly, if he was a waiter on staff at a restaurant then he should be expected to serve the product produced (or expressly agree otherwise with the owner when taking the job). Secondly, refusing to serve ribs isn't the same as refusing to serve ribs to a homosexual when you would to anyone else. It is the latter that is covered by discrimination laws not the former.

Yes to both other examples. If the customer is rude or behaves in a way that is inappropriate then I'd expect them to be dealt with accordingly. The deli example is pretty bizarre given that discrimination the other way would apparently not be ok? If a 'Nazi' is willing to be polite when ordering from a Jewish deli then they should be entitled to do so, if they aren't polite then they can be barred for the behaviour just like anyone else; obviously one might question why a Nazi would want to pay a Jew for food and be polite about it...

Re:First blacks,

[TubeSteak]

If there was a religion that sacrificed small children by the light of a half moon, would the fact that it's illegal be a violation of the 1st Amendment?

Well shit, let's start that religion in Arizona and see what happens.

Either it's declared illegal and this law is gone...
Or it's declared legal and in a few generations there won't be anyone left in Arizona to discriminate against gay people.

Re:First blacks,

[Sique]

That is a typical case of correlation, not a case of causation. People who perform good in a job often also have a stable private life, and for heterosexual people, in the most cases it means having a spouse and a family. Different cultural backgrounds interpret this correlation differently. You opt for "married men make better performers", just 50 years ago it was: "men with a steady job make good marriage material" or "first find a job, then find a spouse".

Both interpretations have long traditions. In the Middle Ages, men without a regular profession were denied marriage general, based on the second interpretation. In St. Paul's letters, you find the characterization of a good bishop which includes having a wife and childen (until now, you can't become an christian-orthodox priest without being married), emphasizing the first interpretation.

But all we really have is a correlation. People performing good at tasks with great responsibility tend to perform good at being the CxO of a company or having a stable family life.

Re:First blacks,

[dskoll]

Should a business be COMPELLED to accept customers in a non-discriminatory way?

Yes, definitely. A business should be COMPELLED to accept customers in a non-discriminatory way unless it can prove that this would cause undue hardship, and infringing on "sincerely held religious beliefs" most certainly does not qualify.

So getting back to your examples, a hotel could refuse to host the KKK and the Black Panthers at the same time out of legitimate fears for security, or it could demand both organizations to fully fund the large numbers of security guards that would be needed.

A sex worker could refuse a homosexual client because that would qualify as undue hardship for a heterosexual sex worker.

But a bakery certainly could not refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple... where's the undue hardship?

Re:First blacks,

[dskoll]

Should a Black Photographer be forced to take pictures at a wedding of two outspoken White Supremacists? At a Klan rally?

Probably not, because his or her safety might be endangered.

Should a Jewish deli owner be forced to cater an openly anti-Semitic Muslim...or an avowed Nazi?

Yes, unless his or her safety were endangered.

Should a Muslim waiter be forced to server pork ribs? Or, Jewish for that matter. How about a vegan?

Yes, yes and yes. Islam, Judaism and Veganism prohibit the consumption of pork. They don't prohibit the serving of pork, so there's no undue hardship.

But when you start in on all these other things...

Fortunately, the West is becoming more enlightened and sexual orientation is widely accepted as an invalid basis for discrimination, just as color has been for many years.

Re:First blacks,

[N1AK]

It's simply not necessary to have the government threaten and bully people into baking wedding cakes and shooting silly wedding pictures.

Then would you repeal the laws 'threatening' and 'bullying' people into doing it for black people? You keep spouting this same 'poor old cake makers' nonsense but refuse to discuss the parallel with racial discrimination laws. It just makes you look like a homophobe who is looking for a more palatable excuse to defend and continue the discrimination.

Re:First blacks,

[N1AK]

If that doesn't work out great for some people, then maybe they should consider making some different life choices.

Well at least I don't need to wonder if you might be a closet homophobe any more. You could of just said queers should choose to be straight in your first post and saved us the time.

You've heard it here first guys, Kohalth reckons the whole things unnecessary because if gays just chose to be straight we'd have no problem.

Re:First blacks,

[strikethree]

Can't Americans just stop acting like utter fucking cunts for a few moments and work on their hatred?

If you had not included the first part of your comment in the subject line (like a cunt) I would have been able to cut and paste that as part of your quote.

Blame Americans if you must but that kind of hatred is fucking rampant in this world. In Saudi Arabia, they can execute you. They just passed some laws in Russia that make the Arizona law look tame in comparison... and you fucking blame the Americans for hatred? Go fuck yourself.

Re:First blacks,

[Sique]

Actually no. Your sexuality is what it is. Abuse, upbringing, morality, religiosity and everything connected to it are determining how you deal with your sexuality. But it doesn't change it. As an analogon: There are people who, are righthanded and those, who are lefthanded. Being wounded early in life at one hand doesn't change that (as everyone knows who was forced into righthandedness as a child).

Re:First blacks,

[Sique]

In most of Europe, there are only "common law marriages", e.g. only the marriages as civil unions are recognized. Churches are allowed to perform whatever ceremony they want. But to apply for any benefits connected to marriage like tax benefits, visiting rights etc.pp., the marriage has to be recognized as civil union.

Re:First blacks,

[Sique]

The whole Roman empire saw marriage as a civil act, a matter of contract.

Re:First blacks,

[AmiMoJo]

The laws forces people to do lots of stuff against their will in order not to discriminate against people they don't like. A bar tender is required to pour a drink for a black man, even if he hates black men, because refusal on the grounds of race is illegal. That's a good thing, otherwise some areas would be impossible for black people to live in since no-one would serve them or sell them a house to live in.

If you run a business part of the deal is that you have certain obligations, like paying people a minimum wage, offering a minimum warranty on certain goods and not discriminating on the grounds of race or gender or sexuality.

Re:First blacks,

[AmiMoJo]

What possible grounds would a business have for choosing not to photograph a lesbian wedding, other than homophobia? Unless they were fully booked there is no reason to turn down income other than bigotry.

In actual fact the studio explicitly stated that they would not do gay weddings. They hadn't even met the couple, and when the other partner called and didn't mention her sexual orientation they sent her a price list right away. Sorry, but this was not bullying or someone making an innocent choice not to do business with someone else, it was simply homophobia and businesses have no protection for that.

Re:First blacks,

[Vermonter]

Let me propose a scenario: A group of neo nazis walk in to a cake shop. They ask the shop owner, who is Jewish, to make a cake. The owner asks them what they want on the cake. The Neo nazis reply "We want the cake to say "Happy Birthday Hitler, thank you for the Holocaust" Should this shop owner be required by law to endorse Hitler's birthday and the Holocaust? Or to use a non Godwin example: The Westboro Baptist Church walks in to a cake shop and asks the gay owner for a cake that says "God hates fags" on it. Should the owner be forced by law to make this cake? Also, a point a lot of people miss, is that there is a difference between refusing service to someone because of who they are, and refusing service because of what they are asking for.

Re:First blacks,

[AmiMoJo]

In that part I am in complete and total agreement, and always have been: Government has no part in marriage.

What about if you die without writing a will? By law if you are married your spouse automatically inherits your assets in most places. If the law does not recognize marriage at best they would have to use the courts, and would probably be sued by companies you have outstanding debts with who want a share to pay them off.

What if you want to move abroad with your partner? Most countries have provisions for spouses coming with their partners who are working, but if your government won't provide you with a marriage certificate you may have a hard time making use of them.

There is also the issue of regulation. Insurance policies that offer benefits for married couples should apply to anyone legally married, rather than having each company define marriage according to their own rules. Sure, you could employ a lawyer to figure out if a particular definition would cover you, but it's easier if the government just sets out a legal definition of the word.

I could go on, but the point is that the government provides lots of services based around the concept of a marriage between two people. If you get rid of all that everyone loses those valuable services and will have to get them some other way, which usually means high fees that a lot of people can't afford.

Re:First blacks,

[Alioth]

If you are holding out to the public a service of baking cakes, then you shouldn't be allowed to discriminate. If you want to be able to discriminate in who you bake cakes for, well, you're free to not do it as a business.

Re:First blacks,

[Cyberax]

Answer is: "Yes, they should be compelled". If they don't want to be compelled, they're always free to switch to a different carrier.

Re:First blacks,

[AmiMoJo]

On to other business, should a photographer be COMPELLED to take pictures at a non-traditional wedding, not just homosexual, but perhaps also a Dom/Sub 'bonding' or a plural marriage adding a spouse? Should they be COMPELLED to create artistic photographs, watch and record the kissing and petting and other (usually light) sexual behavior at the events? Does the photographer lose their rights to free association, free speech and expression, and the religious freedom to not attend an event of a different faith?

Homosexuality is not the same as bondage. You can't choose to be a homosexual, it is genetic and people are either born gay or not. Entering a dom/sub relationship is a lifestyle choice and as such not legally protected against discrimination in the same way that homosexuality is. Frankly comparing the two in insulting.

Plural marriages are illegal in most places and no-one is born needing more than one spouse, so again it isn't a reasonable comparison at all and protecting homosexuals is not some kind of slippery slope towards protecting everything.

And yes, if the photographer sets up as a business they are legally required not to discriminate and must provide services to all. If they really hate black people and can't stand to photograph them kissing then they should find another line of work. Ditto homosexuals.

Re:First blacks,

[cbhacking]

White supremacists are not a protected group, nor should they be. They are what they are by choice, and they choose to be harmful to others. That is not the case with gay people.

Similarly to the openly anti-Semitic person. Again, that is a choice, and one harmful to the people in question. Now, "religious" *is* a protected group, so the deli owner would have no right to refuse to serve somebody *just* because they're Muslim... but that's not what you said. They certainly have the right to refuse service to somebody who is intentionally choosing to insult or otherwise harm them. Also, "Nazi" is most definitely not a protected group, so again, if the person in question was (by their words/actions/behavior) harming or intending to harm the deli owner, they would be well within their rights to tell that pig to fuck off.

If the waiter in question wants to keep their job, yes, they should. Why the hell would a waiter who in unwilling to serve certain foods get a job serving food at a restaurant that serves those foods anyhow? Now, a nice restaurant manager might attempt to reach an accommodation with such waiters, but at the end of the day, if your job is "deliver food to customers" and you decide you don't want to do it, then you have no business in that job. Nobody is forcing them to eat it, though, nor is the restaurant owner allowed to say "we won't hire Muslim waiters". They might make sure the waiters agree to serve pork as a condition of their employment, which is a completely reasonable thing to require in a restaurant that serves pork, but if the potential waiter chooses not to it is *their* choice to fail to fulfill their job requirements, and nothing more.

Re:First blacks,

[Cyberax]

Yes, they should be forced. The same argument applies. Of course, a black photographer at a KKK rally might reasonably ask for security guarantees.

Re:First blacks,

[geoffrobinson]

They believe participating in it would be celebrating and giving approval of something they don't approve of.

Re:First blacks,

[rearden]

First of all, I of course meant to say "Fairness is subjective". Typing tired does not go as well.

Interestingly enough you have setup scenarios that are in my wheelhouse. Without dragging my employer into things employment law and situations is what the company I work for is all about. You are right, often times in 1 off actions there is little to no evidence of causation. However, if you refuse EVERY gay couple ,or fire EVERY Chinese person then its easy to pick out. Often times it does not take a lot of cases, and people usually leave a really obvious trail (emails, statements to others, even written policies!) Someone doing things on "personal ideological grounds" will take action at every opportunity. So, can these laws stop every case of discrimination? No, but neither do speed laws, laws against murder or pretty much any other law we pass. Yet we keep them. Also, with your broadening of the idea of a "thought crime law" then every law is a thought crime law because nearly every crime and law is predicated on the how/why which involves thought- coercion laws, blackmail, corruption, the list goes on in criminal and civil. So, generally speaking thought crime laws refer to laws that make the "thought" illegal, not one that outlaw an act. Affirmative action and laws like that are something completely different and don't really apply to the law being discussed in AZ. No one is setting limits or thresholds on the number of Gay employees.

Your reasoning for taking away the anti-discrimination laws is one I hear often. It is one I often wonder about. Then I see in my job the numbers and cases and I am just boggled that in this time and age it goes on. The point a friend made I thought was well put. He said "We are fooling ourselves as non-protected members if we think we have come a long ways in barely one generation. Just look at smoking to know that with 22% of people under 25 smoking we have not let the information and ideas simmer long enough to have meaningful effect. If smoking still takes up 22% of our youth, then at a similar distribution for discrimination we will be allowing a lot of people to be hurt out of hope".

So, let me ask you. Are you someone protected by the anti-discrimination acts? I ask because, if you are not then spend some time really talking to people who are and ask them just how often they are hit with shit and if they would feel safe or functional in society if those people had freedom of action? I am not of a protected group being gay, and I have been fired for being gay. I catch shit all the time, on a daily basis, even in different cities so the "well move" does not really apply. We just are not there yet, the logic, thinking, and facts have not percolated through enough generations to have lowered the effect enough that we would not be subjecting a large population to a lot of pain out of just a hope.

Re:First blacks,

[geoffrobinson]

If it was a racist white-hooded rally that wanted to be photographed and a black photographer refused, would you have objected?

Re:First blacks,

[SpankiMonki]

Funny, but I don't see that anywhere. And unless it says that, that page isn't proof of your claim.

I guess you're saying you require proof that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (the first law listed listed on that page) applies universally across the US.

I must admit, your demand for proof of something that is so painfully obvious displays a level of ignorance I'm not prepared to address. Congratulations! You got me!

Re:First blacks,

[jsepeta]

religions have changed over time. i no longer have to sacrifice a goat on a mountain to show praise for god. if so-called-Christians can't accept Gays as being normal human beings, they need to ignore the old testament and reread the new testament with feeling. There are ZERO reports of Christ saying anything about gays; but he sure liked to hang out with prostitutes.

Re:First blacks,

[jsepeta]

in each of these instances, you have referenced flawed people. they need to get over themselves.

Re:First blacks,

[rearden]

I like the idea. So another few questions and the challenge:

What about "In God we Trust" on government and other public spaces and similar deity based proclamations?
What about statements about God in the Pledge of Allegiance and other government "approved" songs and chants?

I am willing to give "them" Freedom FROM Association in non-life threatening situations under three conditions:
1. They must be open and public about it. In advertisements and in signs out front they must state who they will not allow in. This is so I can book my hotel and car and such when traveling in advance with reasonable assurances. It must be clear, in sufficiently large print, and applied equally

2. There must be some kind of protections in place to keep people from simply using this to drive up the cost of business for a certain class of people. All of the grocery stores can not refuse Black people only to build one that allows them and then charges five times the amount for everything else. I am not a fan of price controls but if Freedom FROM Association includes the right not to rent, hire, or share space with then there must be some kind of protections or people will be driven from their homes by the inability to function in society. It won't happen in big cities, but it will in small rural towns.

3. All forms of Religion and Deity based items must be removed from the law, the government, and all references struck. The application or use of it in ANY government function, service, or organization must be illegal and punishable by law. I will not support Freedom FROM Association until they allow Freedom FROM Religion. Its the only leverage point we have!

Now you seem like a reasonable person. We may disagree on things but you seem reasonable. So, being pragmatic, do you really think the current Congress, the leaders of most Southern USA states, and most of the "religious right" will support this? I don't, so being pragmatic I ask you what do you do now? The utopia of Freedom from/of Religion and Freedom from/of Association is great, and I like it, but much like communism the Utopian idea is just not capable of being practically applied in my opinion. Not until some people give up some deeply held ideologies and concepts- like a "christian based nation" and "God created the USA" and other such things. I don't think we are there yet and I think we have a number of generations to go before we would likely to be there.

Re:First blacks,

[martyn1807]

I bet those representatives have no problem looking hip by buying products designed by fashion-conscious gay people either :p

Re:First blacks,

[ganjadude]

And to this I would say to myself "ok, gay people tend to spend more money for the things they want, no one else is doing photos for gay people. Business opportunity!

Unless we banned gays from owning businesses, I dont see how there would be no one to service them

Re:First blacks,

[MrNemesis]

Not only is it equally applicable to both sexes in british english (although it's generally far more common to see terms "acting like a cunt" applied predominantly to males), but in certain contexts it's used as an honorific or even as a term of affection as well, much like the endlessly versatile "fuck". I thought this was common parlance in all commonwealth streams of english (although I've only really been exposed to UK, kiwi and ozzie flavours myself), do the canadians not do the same thing or is "cunt" just as verboten there as it is in the US?

To decry someone solely because of their idiomatic use of a word is a wonderful exercise in self-fulfilling hypocrisy.

Re:First blacks,

[ganjadude]

for the record, being against gay marriage is not the same as being homophobic. One can be against the government meddling of marriage and not hate gay people. I know gay people who are against gay marriage

Re:First blacks,

[sycodon]

Religion is also a choice. It is also one of the pillars of civil rights.

Re:First blacks,

[sycodon]

Many people have different definitions of what constitutes "flawed". Who and how do you decide who is flawed?

Re:First blacks,

[Opportunist]

Of course. The point was, assuming that abuse did have some effect on sexuality, shouldn't it turn someone away from the sex that abused one?

Personally I don't think that sexual preference is a choice. But the argument of "abuse makes you gay" fails even if one assumed THAT abuse had some sort of influence on sexual preference.

Re:First blacks,

[stdarg]

He couldn't have a sign saying "no blacks" and that's because it did happen.

Yes and as it turns out sometimes the laws are not very consistent. There are laws related to racism being modified or overturned now that the major problems are over. For instance, the Supreme Court recently overturned bits of the Voter Rights Act that subjected historically problematic state to increased scrutiny over redistricting -- basically a federal commission had to approve changes to ensure that minorities weren't unfairly impacted... a requirement that other states did not have to deal with.

So yeah... maybe 50 years ago a "no blacks" sign would have been widespread and a major problem, and laws were passed to react to that. 50 years from now I don't think such laws would be necessary, and our kids may well look on those laws as archaic and unfair, just like Americans today often criticize Europe's hate speech laws (especially laws against antisemitism) as violating our notion of free speech.

You've had to contrive to put in caveats such as cashiers don't normally make the rules etc to point out that it's unlikely, so what?

My point wasn't to weasel out of confronting the issue, it's that there is a qualitative difference when the business owner IS the business (i.e. a service business where the owner has to personally do something for the customer) versus a typical retail operation where the owner is off at the country club and couldn't care less if gays or blacks are giving their money to his cashier.

My point was to illustrate two far ends of the spectrum, and a hardware store where the owner isn't present day-to-day is farther out on that spectrum than a mom and pop store where the owner is the one dealing with the customers every day.

If not then why is it ok to discriminate in exactly the same way for some products but not others?

Hopefully you see the difference between a hammer and a wedding cake as political statements today. Gay marriage is a contemporary political issue where people are personally for or against it. Wedding cakes are symbols of marriage. If you are forced to put your time and energy into making a beautiful cake that says "Adam and Steve!" or whatever, then it's very close to forcing you to make political speech. I can't think of a contemporary political issue for hammers which is why I used them as a far end of the spectrum I was talking about...

Do we need to leave some jobs that are fine for homophobes so all the god fearing former hardware store owners have an alternative?

Yes, my whole point is that some people are homophobic and that there are some jobs where it's very obviously okay to express your homophobia (porn star), and some jobs that are more in the middle of the spectrum (wedding cake maker), and some jobs that it doesn't really make sense but it probably wouldn't have a big effect anyway (hammer vendor).

Re:First blacks,

[Dragonslicer]

And if not enough camera shops are willing to sell to gay people, or even to photographers that will work with gay people? You might see the business opportunity, but if you can't get the supplies that you need, your business won't succeed.

If only 5% of businesses refuse service, it probably isn't an issue. If 50% of businesses refuse service, it probably will be an issue. Tyranny of small decisions is not a logical proof, only a potential outcome.

Re:First blacks,

[Gryle]

I did not oppose a Federal gay marriage law out of hate for gays. I opposed it because marriage is none of the Federal government's f*ing business.

This is an instance where it has to be because of the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution: "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof (Article IV, Section 1)." If it's allowed in one state another state must recognize it by constitutional law (note that this doesn't apply to state-specific certifications for things like teaching, civil engineering and so forth). One of the more puzzling aspects of the Defense of Marriage Act was, to me, why the Supreme Court ruled in the act unconstitutional based on Section Three, not Section Two which blatantly contradicts the full faith and credit clause.

Re:First blacks,

[ilsaloving]

YES, it is, and it's extremely offensive that you disagree.

If there are Federal benefits or whatnot that apply to only married people, then the Federal gov't needs to have a clear policy on what is and isn't considered a legally binding marriage. If your access to Federal benefits depends on whether or not you grew up in some bass-ackward hick state, then that is discriminatory.

If you have an issue with the federal government stomping on the toes of state government, that's one thing. To claim that argument as an excuse to deny privileges to a specific group of people is descrimination, period. It doesn't matter how you justify it to yourself. It doesn't matter what excuses you use.

At the end of the day, you are getting something and denying that same something from someone else. That's discrimination. This is not debatable.

If you want the feds to get out of your way, then fight to remove the benefits YOU enjoy first. THEN maybe you'll have a moral leg to stand on when you try to deny those same benfits from someone else.

Re:First blacks,

[MachineShedFred]

Are you really advocating for the revocation of the first amendment? I sure hope not.

The brilliance of James Madison, and the first amendment is this: Other people are free to express their stupidity, prejudice, and backwards-ass thinking, and I'm free to call them stupid because of what they say.

Any law that limits any of that is unconstitutional, and would immediately be thrown out by any judge worth wearing the robe.

Re: First blacks,

[ganjadude]

not wanting to photograph something is not hateful or bigoted. Lets look at it from a different point. Should a muslim photographer be forced to photgrraph a bacon expo? should a jewish photographer be forced to photograph a nazi rally? should a black photographer be forced to photograph a klan meeting? because if this law passes, that is what we will get if people get their way

Re:First blacks,

[MachineShedFred]

What is gained, is that restricting people from being racist in their own home sets a dangerous precedent in law.

If the government can regulate what is thought and said in a private home regarding racism, what's to prevent the government from regulating what can be thought and said in a private home regarding religion, taxes, science, or any other topic?

Re:First blacks,

[Rich0]

Anyhow, it was a business arrangement, generally enforced by whatever secular law there was in that time and place, that essentially said
A) I have a right to this woman
B) I have a right to her children
C) Those (male) children have a right to inherit from me.

Setting aside history, I'm not aware of any US state that considers marital state in dealing with any of those questions today. Marriage does not convey a legal right to a spouse. People have legal rights to their children regardless of marriage. The inheritance of children isn't really impacted by marriage either, though inheritance does work differently for a spouse (I'm not convinced that we need marriage to make that work).

As long as marriage is legalized I fully support the right of any pair of adults to become legally married or not married at any time (the former requiring mutual consent, the latter not requiring mutual consent). However, I think we'd be better off if neither civil unions nor marriage were legally recognized.

Re:First blacks,

[Rich0]

That was 50 years ago and 1000 miles away. Why are you living in the past? The wedding cake bakers didn't own any old south restaurants from 60 years ago. They are not guilty of whatever happened back then.

They're quite guilty of what they're trying to do right now. They're the ones living in the past. Just because they constitute a majority in some geographic area doesn't mean that they ought to be allowed to behave in this way.

Nobody cares if they're the descendants of slave owners. This is about their own sins.

Re:First blacks,

[Rich0]

Why are you bundling in race in every mention. The civil rights act precludes this law from racial discrimination. Be honest and drop 'race' from your phrasing.

I see, so beating your slave is OK as long as it is legal? We're talking about unjust laws here - the fact that the laws are legal has no bearing whatsoever. Just about all unjust laws are legal, whatever that even means.

Re:First blacks,

[Sique]

Not necessarily. It also could increase the attraction to somehow overcompensate for the tort done to oneself. Reactions are often very ambivalent, they can swing both ways. Being betrayed once can turn you paranoid, or it can have you search for the ultimately trustworthy person and hoping to find it in the next best guy who didn't betray you at first sight.

Re:First blacks,

[AmiMoJo]

Should a Black Photographer be forced to take pictures at a wedding of two outspoken White Supremacists? At a Klan rally?

Bigotry is a lifestyle choice, being black is genetic. Discrimination on a person's views and choices is fine, discrimination on their genetic make-up is not.

Is that really so hard to understand?

Re:First blacks,

[Rich0]

I've always wanted to see real competition between social systems. The original idea of the US had the potential to do just this, but alas, it did not happen. The central government should have insured only free travel and commerce between the states, defense and perhaps a few critical infrastructures and that's it. Then let the people move to the state which has the system closest to their attitude.

The problem with this is that it is a race to the bottom. You can't have things like public healthcare and worker protections unless you also have tariffs and restrictions on immigration. Otherwise people who consume more of these things can elect to do so, and those who do not need to consume them can elect to move out, and then the whole system collapses. Companies can manufacture goods where worker protections are weak and sell them freely in areas where they are strong, thus destroying local industry.

Whether socialism is right or not is beside the point. It can exist in competition with other social systems, but not if there is free travel and commerce.

Re:First blacks,

[Rich0]

You're fucking crazy. Any business should be able to refuse service to anyone they like. It's called "freedom of association", pretty sure it's somewhere in the Constitution.

Probably right next to the 3/5ths clause...

Re:First blacks,

[dlt074]

no. he was comparing their authority to legislate on the issue, not their position/title/appointments. the 10th Amendment is very clear on who can do what.

i would trust the neighbor kid and their rational, common sense "rulings" over anyone we currently have in office today.

Re: First blacks,

[ganjadude]

*doesnt pass*

Re:First blacks,

[Rich0]

...I can't make a logical argument against the business that doesn't get into businesses being dependent on roads and police and fire and other government services, and as such, the government can make rules that force you to cater to your enemies.

That's exactly the point though. Why should a business have the right to choose who they provide services to, but the police not have the right to decide which crimes they investigate? Why do the people need to recognize the rights of that business to own property in the first place?

Either others have a say in what your rights are, or we're living in a society where your rights are whatever you can defend with the barrel of a gun.

Re:First blacks,

[ganjadude]

True, Night clubs discriminate on appearance all the time. Try getting into a NYC night club wearing ripped jeans and a tanktop

Re:First blacks,

[noh8rz10]

sorry if woosh, but seriously? Maybe you are making up a story to hammer home an odd point of view.

Re:First blacks,

[AmiMoJo]

They believe participating in it would be celebrating and giving approval of something they don't approve of.

So, homophobia.

Re:First blacks,

[ganjadude]

oh but you have to do business with people from AZ if the law is veto'd, you cant discriminate because of their beliefs....

Re:First blacks,

[anagama]

Maybe I got a little carried away by telling religious groups to suck it up but it makes so unhappy to hear about people who oppose gay marriage and homosexuality in general ....

Your solution is elegant and simple and you did not get carried away. Never apologize to bigots who are willing to apply one part of the bible out of hate, but not others. We don't see non-virgin women who get married, being stoned to death do we? We don't see divorcees getting stoned to death either. And you don't see Christians turning up their nose at shellfish out of some type of moral indignation? Shellfish are an abomination: http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/

So please. Don't apologize to selective reading bigoted assholes. Ever. They have a right to their opinion, but they have no right to your respect.

Re:First blacks,

[RightSaidFred99]

You are lying. I'll tell you what - go to your local wedding cake store and tell them you're having a Nazi themed wedding - see if they'll make you your cake with a Swastika on it.

Re:First blacks,

[BBadhedgehog]

I am not sure that I understand the point you are trying to make. Gay folk are perfectly capable of having stable family life including a steady partner and children so how is this different from straight people? I am not aware of anything that says a gay couple shouldn't arrange things so there is a worker bee and a house-spouse.

As the the possibility of relationships between more colleagues of differing seniorities (NOT superiorities FFS) - I don't know that sexuality has any major impact there. Beside which - icky power differentials are really grotty in a relationship (though that last bit is just my preference).

Rosie

Re:First blacks,

[dave420]

You couldn't get what you wanted, so you made sure others couldn't to. What a wonderful person you are. The righteous thing to do would be to not oppose the ban, and instead campaign for the government to get out of the marriage business entirely. That's what sane, normal people would do. You sound like you're either ignorant, or looking for an excuse to mess with gay people. Neither choices reflect well on you.

Re:First blacks,

[JohnFen]

Yes, it is. Marriage itself is a governmental invention -- it's a special kind of incorporation that required governmental approval. That makes it the government's business (not the federal government, but the government nonetheless).

I personally believe that the government should do away with the concept of marriage entirely. Replace it with an overt kind of incorporation that has no connection to the idea of love, family, etc. and can be entered into by anybody. It would be incredibly useful for all kinds of situations, and would preserve the legal aspects of marriage for those who want to marry. It would also put "marriage" back to where it should be -- a matter of the local culture (religion, etc.) the people who want get married are a part of.

Re:First blacks,

[sycodon]

Religion is also a choice. Yet it is a pillar of civil rights.

Do you support Discrimination on a person's religion?

Re:First blacks,

[Bob the Super Hamste]

I think you may have just found a logically coherent reason for me to be against this legislation and I like it. Lets take the common cited example and law suit that started this of a photographer not wanting to do a gay wedding because of religious objections. Lets re-frame the scenario as there was a photographer not wanting to to do a sinners (in the eyes of their religion they were sinners) wedding because of religious objections.

Now we can have a reasonable discussion about the issue so time to think aloud. If the photographer was consistent in only photographing people who were not living in his religion's view of sin and rejecting all others because of religious objections I would probably be willing to support that. But since the photographer's religion probably has rules about unmarried cohabitation, premarital sex, consumption of shell fish, are of a different religion, etc. and the photographer has done work for those sinners it see that their argument is much weaker. Also we already have laws preventing discrimination based off of religion, which at this point the photographer probably has fallen afoul of.

Re:First blacks,

[Grishnakh]

That's really unfortunate. The last thing homosexuals need is some powerful sociopath giving them a bad reputation. I guess it's not so bad, it shows that they're no different from the rest of us, warts and all.

Re:First blacks,

[flargleblarg]

There are physical reasons why it can be pleasurable for many men (see link at end). The prostrate being the biggest one. [...]

Lying stretched out on the ground with one's face downward is pleasurable?

Re:First blacks,

[Bartles]

You obviously have never actually thought about the 3/5ths compromise, and what it actually means. Would you rather slaves have been considered whole persons for purposes of apportionment, so that slave owning states would have had that much more power in congress? Better than 3/5ths would have been 0/5ths, because that would have made slave states less powerful. Better than either would have been outright banning of slavery and full citizenship, but then we wouldn't have had a constitution at all. Grow up and learn something, you ignoramus.

Re:First blacks,

[Grishnakh]

The religionists are extremely hypocritical (big surprise): they get "offended" just seeing homosexuals holding hands in public, however they think it's perfectly OK to knock on my door and interrupt me so they can try to convert me.

Re:First blacks,

[Bartles]

If WBC member came into my (hypothetical) store wearing a "God hates fags" shirt, then you better believe I'd refuse them service. Not because of their affiliations, but because of their hateful and discriminatory message to everybody around them. If they came in, bought a common random item off the shelf and paid for it quietly and politely, I'd take their money same as anybody else... I wouldn't even know who they were. If I recognized them by the name on the credit card I'd feel kind of dirty about it, but whatever.

If I knew, you're damn right I'd refuse them service, and I'd put my thumb up the nose of any government that tried to force me to serve them.

Re:First blacks,

[Bartles]

Nobody said they were except for you, coward.

Re:First blacks,

[Grishnakh]

It's very hard to prove anything with hiring, as you point out.

However, with customers, it's an entirely different matter. It's pretty hard to justify turning away customers who have cash and are willing to pay. If you run a quik-e-mart, how are you going to justify that you refused service to black people who just want to buy some coffee and donuts? "I thought he would not be a good fit" isn't an excuse here.

Re:First blacks,

[Grishnakh]

The Federal government has no Constitutional authority to tell you who you can marry and who you cannot. The "Defense of Marriage Act" was blatantly unconstitutional.

That didn't stop Obama from trying to defend it for many years.

Re:First blacks,

[martas]

Unless their actions have a direct negative impact on your business.

That leaves the door wide open for a lot of arguments. "If I let a black person join my club, all the white people will leave" wouldn't be a very outlandish statement, especially not 50 years ago. Today, same goes for "if I allow a gay marriage to be performed in my establishment, I'll lose a lot of straight couples" in a lot of places.

Re:First blacks,

[mcgrew]

First, I don't understand the religious aspect. Whose freedom of religion are they trying to protect, Islam? Because Christians are forbidden from judging others, and ordered to love everyone. Neither Jesus nor Bhudda would agree with this law.

Second, why are you bashing the US rather than Russia or Uganda, where you can go to prison for life for being gay?

Third, WTF is this doing on "news for nerds?" The fact that a tech company, Apple, joined the NFL and a lot of other anti-nerd groups in opposing this does not make it "news for nerds". News for gays, news for bigots, news for Arizonans, yeah, but not "news for nerds".

Having stories like this on slashdot is worse than Beta, they're trying to attract a "wider audience" which means bringing in even more greengrocers and other aliterates (if you think that is a misspelling, you may be an aliterate!). This attracts all those n00bs who say "Nasa is a waste of taxpayer dollars" and "global warming is a hoax" and "they spent my tax money studying THAT??"

In short, they're attracting the folks I come here to escape from. I get enough non-nerd ignorance IRL.

Re:First blacks,

[Grishnakh]

Is it really homophobia? "-phobia" means there's a fear of something, which is different from a dislike.

If I openly state that I do not like Justin Bieber music and will not accept Bieber as a customer, does that mean I'm Bieber-phobic?

What if I state that I disapprove of the Scientology cult, er scam, er "religion" and that I will not accept Scientologists as customers. Does that make me Scientologophobic?

What if I state that I disapprove of Arizona legislators and think they're a bunch of assholes, and that I refuse to serve them in my place of business. Does that make me AZlegislatorphobic?

Re:First blacks,

[rearden]

Do you feel big for pointing out a spelling/typographical error I made while typing on mobile device?

Does it advance the discussion? Did you make some amazing point doing this? Or do you just get to feel big in a very small way?

Yep. You caught me. I made a typo. Yet somehow everyone else knew what I meant and I am even betting you did to.

*clap clap clap* Congratulations

Re:First blacks,

[martas]

The poorly dressed/shirtless analogy doesn't really work. Businesses that enforce a dress code do so for practical reasons. Legally speaking, it's only discrimination if [you can convince a judge that] the criteria used by the business to refuse service have no direct relevance to their interests as a business.

Re:First blacks,

[david672orford]

Should a business be COMPELLED to accept customers in a non-discriminatory way?

Yes, definitely. A business should be COMPELLED to accept customers in a non-discriminatory way unless it can prove that this would cause undue hardship, and infringing on "sincerely held religious beliefs" most certainly does not qualify.

Interesting. What would you do if you were a graphic artist and someone came into your shop and asked you to design a poster for an anti-gay campaign? Do you believe the situations are the same or different?

Re:First blacks,

[Grishnakh]

I think the big difference, legally speaking, between the porn actor/actress and the hardware store and wedding cake store, is the idea of being "open to the public". (Any lawyers want to help me out on the legal terms?) A porn actor is not a place of business, and certainly not a place of business open to the public. They're a performer, and usually operate on a contractual basis. Employees and contractors have very wide latitude to refuse assignments, quit jobs, etc. if they decide they don't like the terms. For instance, as a contractor in software development, if I get an offer from two companies, I can choose either one (or none at all), and I don't have to justify myself in any way. One of those companies can't sue me because I "discriminated" against them by refusing their offer. It's the same for porn actors; they can accept an assignment, or not. They can walk off the job if they want (subject to contract terms; this may trigger a lawsuit based on contract violation or whatever). They cannot be forced to do something they don't want to do.

A business with a storefront, which is "open to the public", isn't like this at all. There's a lot of rules they have to follow that are unique to them, precisely because they're "open to the public". They might need wheelchair ramps or other ADA provisions, they might require certain signage, they have to show their business license, they can't post incorrect prices, and finally, they can't discriminate against customers (according to certain protected classes; they can usually discriminate for some things like not wearing a shirt or shoes). The wedding cake store, like the hardware store, is "open to the public", so they probably can't discriminate in many places against black customers, or gay customers. (A wedding cake business which has no storefront and operates more on a contractual basis, delivering the product to the customer after a contract is signed for "custom work", however, might be able to get away with it. After all, wedding cakes are not like hammers, they're all unique and made on a one-by-one basis, so a business making them might be able to pursue this angle if they want to discriminate.)

Back to porn; if the porn star decided to open up a brothel (in a state that allowed this, hypothetically speaking), I think this is much more like the hardware store example. Services here arguable aren't all that personalized: handjobs $50, BJs $150, missionary sex $500, etc. So a brothel that turns away customers for discriminatory reasons might be able to be sued for this. Anyone know what the law is in Nevada? It's really no different from a message parlor after all, and I'm pretty sure those can't turn away customers arbitrarily.

Re:First blacks,

[AmiMoJo]

A phobia is an irrational fear. There is no rational reason to be afraid of gay marriage or homosexuals in general. The only justification people have is a childish "eww" reaction to the idea of homosexual sex or religious dogma.

Re:First blacks,

[Grishnakh]

CA has a law called Hughes Act which essentially extends the CRA to hippies :X

Citation? I tried looking this up out of curiosity and all I could find was a "Hughes Bill" which had something to do with special-ed students in public schools.

Re:First blacks,

[Grishnakh]

However, by the same logic, the government is discriminating by not allowing 3-or-more-person groups of people to marry. Why shouldn't 3 or 4 people get the same protections and benefits as two people? Plural marriages existed even in ancient times in some societies, so it's similarly discriminatory for the government to not offer this service to groupings of more than 2 people.

Re:First blacks,

[AmiMoJo]

Yes. Religion is a choice and should have no special protection.

Re:First blacks,

[TsuruchiBrian]

What about "In God we Trust" on government and other public spaces and similar deity based proclamations?

It's not a violation of religious freedom per se. But it is a violation of the idea of separation of church and state. The 1st amendment is a bit ambiguous, but the supreme court has ruled that it is effectively enforcing separation of church and state. Maybe it's not a serious enough violation (or one that is easily fixed), and so the issue hasn't been pushed.

What about statements about God in the Pledge of Allegiance and other government "approved" songs and chants?

The pledge of allegiance should be removed from schools even if it didn't mention God. We should be teaching our kids to be critical thinkers, not forcing them to swear allegiance to a nation before they are even old enough to understand what it means. Needless to say, the government should not be in the song approval business.

1. If it is a big enough company (e.g. 20 people?), it will be made public because it's pretty hard to organize lots of people into enforcing institutionalized racism without this information getting out. For really small businesses, I think it will just have to be up to the businesses to be honest about their racism or up to yelpers to call them out. Honestly I don;t see a reason for store owners not to advertise their bigotry. If they are trying to make publicity, this helps. If they don't gays in their store, what better way than to tell them they are not welcome before they even come in?

2. I think this might have been a problem in the 50's or something. If anyone did that now there would even be republicans calling for boycotts of these businesses. This is exactly the sort of thing I would want to happen. I want to see bigots being bigots in public and being completely crushed in public discourse, and ruined financially. But I don;t think this is likely to happen with any big chains.

3. Absolutely. I think it may take some time to remove it from all money in circulation. I would personally be OK with just removing it from any newly printed money to save.......money.

So, being pragmatic, do you really think the current Congress, the leaders of most Southern USA states, and most of the "religious right" will support this?

Not today or tomorrow. But there is a very fast shift away from religiosity in this country. The only major religion that is actually growing in terms of relation to the population, is islam, and that's happening in africa, middle east, and asia. IN the US by far the fastest growing group is non religious. The percentage has doubled since 2006 (I believe is it like 8%->15%). I think there are a lot of people who are religious simply because they want to conform with the majority. Once non-religious people get to around 40% or so, there will be no clear majority and that will be the tipping point. All the people who believe in Christianity because it was the easiest thing to do in their community, will switch to believing in science as a religion instead (i.e. science is true because the scientists said so). This is probably not ideal, but it's better than the alternative. We had only 1 confirmed atheist in congress (pete stark who left office in 2013). This is going to change big time in the next decade or 2. The reason it hasn't happened already is because there are no districts with 50% atheists, like there are districts with 50% black, latino, asian, etc. Atheists don't clump together. So we don;t see any benefit from having 15% market share. But once this goes higher, it will be a different story.

I think we will start seeing big changes in 1 generation, and nearly a complete transformation by 2. It only took Europe about that long to go from the deferender of christianity to the most secular continent.

Re:First blacks,

[hypergreatthing]

Honestly and foremost:
This applies to government making laws/regulations that were discriminatory.
This did not apply to individuals making discriminatory decisions.

Re:First blacks,

[rochrist]

Sadly that state of being was thrown out by Lincoln when he unilaterally declared war on some of the States. As he is considered one of your greatest Presidents it seems the vast majority of Americans agree on the federal power grab and now your country is at the present point.

Sadly, you're understanding of history is lacking. Lincoln did not declare war unilaterally. He did not declare war at all, since there was no foreign country involved. Additionally, it was the South that initiated the conflict by firing on a Federal military installation. All of which has fuck all do to with why crackpot Christians should be able to force gay folk to the back of the bus.

Re:First blacks,

[Jane Q. Public]

"To put it bluntly: He was making the exact same points as you, so maybe you should consider posts more carefully before 'rebuffing' ones that agree with you. "

Maybe YOU should read posts more carefully. I wasn't "rebuffing" him, I was agreeing with him and being chatty. You got a problem with that?

"Is it ok for a company to have a policy of only promoting men to senior positions? Is it ok for a department store to only admit and serve white customers? "

Neither of these have anything to do with what either of us were saying, and both the content and manner of asking imply trolling, so I'm going to ignore them.

Re:First blacks,

[mvdwege]

"Not using the actual proof, do you have any proof that these laws work?"

Fuck you. I'm not going to discuss things with people who start out by stacking the deck in their favour.

Re:First blacks,

[dryeo]

In Canada, while same sex marriage is legal, there is also an exception for churches and such to not perform them for religious belief reasons. I can't imagine forcing a priest to perform a wedding that goes against their beliefs. Services such as photography and catering being forced also seems wrong though something like a hall that is usually available to anyone with money should probably not be allowed to discriminate.

Re:First blacks,

[rochrist]

There's no way you honestly believe that. For instance do you think it should be illegal for a daycare to not allow 20 year olds to enroll? Discrimination on age, check. Specious example. The daycare service is not providing a service or doing business with the child, but with the child's parents. Should it be legal for them to refuse to enroll the child of black or gay parents?

Re: First blacks,

[Grishnakh]

So basically the bakery can be forced by law to produce a cake for gay people, but the baker working there (as an employee) cannot be compelled to. So the bakery can fire him if they choose (unless he's also the owner), get someone else to make it, or get a different bakery to make it for them.

Re:First blacks,

[dryeo]

Canada's gay marriage law includes the right for churches and such to refuse to perform gay marriages for religious reasons. I believe marriage commissioners (sorta like a JP) do have to perform gay marriages. Seems like the right compromise, the Provinces have to issue marriage licenses and the government employees have to perform the wedding. Individual churches etc can decide for themselves.
I don't think services are forced either but public businesses such as restaurants can't refuse service based on sexual orientation.

Re:First blacks,

[Grishnakh]

Because not everything is worth protecting, or there's other issues.

Should a business be allowed to discriminate against people for not wearing shirts and shoes? Most people would agree they should. Wearing clothing is an accepted part of our society. A blanket law against all discrimination would disallow this, which is rather stupid. What if a customer wants to wear Neo-Nazi attire into your business? Why should you not be able to kick him out (so your other customers aren't made uncomfortable and forced to leave)? What about the guy shitting on the floor, as the other poster said? Yes, it's a public health issue, but a badly-worded law saying "no discrimination of any kind" would arguably override the public health laws, since you'd be discriminating based on behavior. (Things like this is why laws can frequently be very wordy and complicated, so you don't wind up with dumb situations where good intentions create a worse situation.) Even for fat people, there's good reasons to discriminate. What if some 600 pound guy feels he's been discriminated against because he can't sit in a standard airline seat? Do we now need to make all seats large enough for 600lb people? (Yes, it'd be nicer to have bigger seats, but that's just excessive, plus I'd rather deal with current-size seats and $200 tickets rather than mega-size seats and $1000 tickets because the plane can now only hold a fraction as many people.) What if the 600lb guy sues because the door is too small for him? Now every business across the country needs to undergo major renovations to have 5-foot-wide doors installed everywhere? This stuff can get absurd fast, but that's what you'll get with a blanket law that disallows any kind of discrimination of any kind at all.

You even mention the word "irrelevant"; but you can't write that into a law (e.g. "no discrimination for irrelevant factors"). That's so vague that it'll result in tons of lawsuits because no one can agree on what is or isn't relevant. You probably think it's "common sense" what is and isn't relevant (like the 600lb guy and airline seats), but to have common sense applied in a legal matter, you have to see a judge, because lots of people don't have any common sense.

Re:First blacks,

[Jane Q. Public]

"All that said they gave the people a tool for changing the document. Right or wrong, like it or not, they made it a framework and accepting their fallibility they made it changeable."

No, you're still not getting it. Let me give you an analogy. It may not be a perfect analogy, but it conveys the idea:

Let's say my neighbors and I all get together and agree to hire a security service to patrol the neighborhood. We establish a 1-year contract that is negotiable over time.

Now, when it is time to renegotiate the contract, the security firm claims that only it has the power to decide the terms, and whatever you say doesn't matter. It will set the terms to whatever it wants, and you have to live with it.

Was that action legal? Did your contract state anywhere that the security firm had the right to unilaterally decide its own place in the contract? Of course not. There is no way you'd put up with that. You'd fire them and get a different firm.

Similarly, an amendment does not give the federal government the power to change the relationship between the states and the federal government. There are other aspects of government that it might change, but that isn't one of them. Ultimately the Federal government is still the employee, subject to the desires of the states.

That is why I suggested reading that particular Madison piece. He explains quite clearly that thinking the Federal government (including the Supreme Court, which is PART of the Federal government) may decide its own power is not just against the entire design of the government, it is a logical fallacy. Like the kid next door, they can claim it all they want; that does not make it so in reality. On the contrary, it is precisely that kind of political power-grabbing he is warning about.

"On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve." -- James Madison, Report of 1800

And I will repeat: it is not just Madision I am relying on here. A great many Constitutional scholars agree with me: the Bradley court's decision amounted in all practical ways to somebody declaring themselves rulers of all, without any legal authority to do so. If it happened anywhere else, it would be called a "political coup" and the installation of an illegal government.

Re:First blacks,

[Grishnakh]

The law makes sense because of other cases, not the wedding photographer instance. What if you're gay (or black) and need a vital medication, and there's only one pharmacy in your town (or the town you happen to be traveling through) and they refuse to serve gay (or black) people? You just get to die? What if you need gas and you're at the one gas station within 100 miles and they don't like you? What if you need medical treatment and the medivac people don't want to transport you or the ER trauma team doesn't want to treat you? This is why these laws (specifically the Civil Rights Act) exist, not because of some stupid wedding cakes or photos.

If you're a business open to the public, you have to serve all the of public, or none of it. You can't pick and choose (well you can, just not for protected classes; refusing people for not wearing a shirt and shoes is usually OK). These silly-seeming cases are only being done to reinforce the law.

As for the photographer, it's easy: if he has a business that's open to the public, he has an obligation to serve the public, regardless of his personal views. It's no different than if he ran a restaurant; he can't refuse to serve blacks. However, that's an obligation only for his business. If he, personally, doesn't want to do the photography, he doesn't have to. He can refuse outright, and be sued (and lose). Or, he can hire someone else to do the photography so he doesn't have to do it. The company (which he might be the sole owner of) is the one responsible, and obligated to perform the service, since the company is open to the public. He, the employee (though he may also be the owner), is not.

Re:First blacks,

[stdarg]

Specious example. The daycare service is not providing a service or doing business with the child, but with the child's parents.

Specious reasoning. They are discriminating on the basis of the child's age. Would you be okay with them not enrolling children who are adopted, or who are mixed race, even though they are "not providing a service or doing business with the child?" Would you not consider it racial discrimination if they said "Black parents are fine, but black children, nope, no way!"

Should it be legal for them to refuse to enroll the child of black or gay parents?

In the example of daycare, I would say no, because the daycare is not interacting much with the parents so it doesn't really affect them. But you're really changing the subject here... I'm pointing out places where discrimination DOES happen and is fine with society, not making an argument about daycares in all types of discrimination. With daycares it's about age, not race or sexual orientation.

Re:First blacks,

[rearden]

You put fort the idea that the Federal government is "still the employee, subject to the desires of the states". I would agree this was true when the Constitution was written. I would agree that it was Madison's and especially Jeffersons (his fear of the people is well known) plans and ideas. What I am saying is it is no longer true. When the Constitution was amended in 1913 to make Senators directly elected it stopped being for the States and became a direct servant to the people. Do I like that? No. Do I think it was a bad idea? Yes! And do you see an increase in amendments from that point forward pushing more and more power to the Federal level? Yes! My point to you is, that ONE decision is not the basis of it all. Even if we grant it was a bad decision, and roll it back, the power given since still makes the Federal government ONLY beholden to the electorate and not the states. This has neutered the power the states held over the Federal government, now the states must convince the electorate to support their ideas and when faced with a powerful central government with lots of money to spend (thanks to the 16th amendment) to make people "happy" they lose time and time again.

The Elastic Clause was something that should never have been put in the Constitution, and the 17th amendment should never have happened. It should have been something the states would have to delegate, and the Senate was the states only real power over the Federal government (real power, not stated or assigned, but real power to act and make changes).

We are going to have to agree to disagree I have a feeling, but the discussion has been enjoyable.

Re:First blacks,

[ejasons]

For the sake of peace, let me suggest a compromise:

I would base the "compulsion to serve" more on whether the service is creative or not.

I don't even understand why anyone would want to compel a photographer to photograph their wedding! It would seem very unlikely that the quality of work would be very good.

Doubly so for forcing someone to make a wedding cake for me; I wouldn't want to take a bite of that...

Re:First blacks,

[dryeo]

The U.S. is not -- and never was -- a "nation". It is a Federation of independent States. That's why we have a Republican form of government, not a National government. Seriously. Look up what "Republic" means.

A republic is basically the opposite of a monarchy. There is no reason that a federation needs to have a president instead of a monarch. Canada is a federation made of Sovereign Provinces. National laws are signed by the Queens representative, the Governor General and Provincial laws are signed by the Queens representative, the Lieutenant Governor.
Now our federation does have a stronger federal government then the USA, as our Fathers of Confederation really wanted to avoid the mistakes that America made in its Constitution that led to the American Civil War (plus we were scared of the victorious American army turning north)

Which brings us back to my comment. The Federal government had no authority to declare its supremacy over the States by Amendment, or by proclamation of the Supreme Court, or by any other means. It is a declaration without legal authority.

Forgive my ignorance, but aren't amendments passed by the States and the States as Sovereign entities can give up more of their sovereignty?
As for the Supreme Court, the writers of the Constitution should have been more clear on its job as it does look like it has usurped more power then it was meant to have. Really America should have had a Constitutional court of some kind, ideally appointed by the States.
Anyways the Civil War seems to have in practice cemented the power of the Federal Government whether constitutional or not as who ever is control of the Army rules.

Re:First blacks,

[Jane Q. Public]

"I guess you're saying you require proof that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (the first law listed listed on that page) applies universally across the US."

No, that wasn't what I'm saying and that isn't what I'm saying. You said that page was proof of what you were saying. But that page is proof of nothing. The end. I wasn't asking for other proof.

I'm am NOT disputing that we are guaranteed equal protection under the law. Okay? So let's get that straight.

But having said that: none of that is any guarantee that any particular State anti-discrimination law actually serves to give us that equal protection. It depends on the law, and it depends on the context.

The Federal government originally justified the Civil Rights Act under the "commerce clause", which gives it authority over businesses involved in interstate trade. (In the Wickard v. Filburn decision, the Supreme Court tried to claim that the commerce clause gave the Federal government authority to regulate nearly anything, anywhere. But now many States, backed by Constitutional scholars and even judges, are pushing back on that idea. It is a clear example of Federal overreach.)

The government later expanded their justification for the Civil Rights Act to include the "equal protection" clause. I will buy that. We ARE guaranteed equal protection by the Constitution.

But again, whether a particular law actually guarantees us that equal protection is another story.

Anyway, you may not expect this but the long and short of it is: my comment that Federal laws only apply to certain businesses in this context was wrong... I wasn't thinking about the equal protection clause. BUT... the page you linked wasn't "proof" of that, it was just a list of laws.

Re:First blacks,

[Jane Q. Public]

"When the Constitution was amended in 1913 to make Senators directly elected it stopped being for the States and became a direct servant to the people."

Yes, I do disagree, and I am not alone in that disagreement. But I am aware that you are not alone, either.

As for the 17th Amendment, I agree that it should never have been passed. But in the context of the analogy above: does who you send to the negotiating table matter to the relationship between employer and employee? I would argue not.

Regardless of how it shakes out, no matter how you look at it we still very clearly have a Federal government that took power without legitimate Constitutional authority; that makes it an illegal government by international law.

Re:First blacks,

[dryeo]

My understanding is that Lincoln did not ask Congress for authorization to use military force against the Sovereign States who had left the Union and founded their own country.

Re:First blacks,

[TsuruchiBrian]

I am not advocating for it. I am saying that we shouldn't just take it for granted. I am saying that the rationale for the 1st amendment is important and it's scope is not limited to just speech. It is not sufficient to simply advocate free speech. We must know the reason why it is good in order to see if the same reasons apply anywhere else.

Any law that limits any of that is unconstitutional, and would immediately be thrown out by any judge worth wearing the robe.

As I have said before, I am not arguing that it is not illegal to violate the 1st amendment. The rationale for preserving a particular law should not simply be "because it's the law". We can change laws. It's not as if they are given to us by God. We must be capable of deciding what laws are good and why, and simply assuming the laws that already exist must be good or they wouldn't be there is not good enough.

Re:First blacks,

[rearden]

Following your analogy, it does matter who you send. Because if the person who shows up is told "you're not my boss" and then has no real power to enforce that they are in fact the boss then who you send is a big deal. The problem is the Feds show up as the "employee" and the States show up as the "boss" and the employee says "what are you going to do about it?" and the answer is.... nothing. The states allowed themselves to be neutered. They can not control funding, the 16th amendment saw to that. They can not force a change, the 17th amendment saw to that. They are left with two options, I am excluding the SCOTUS for obvious reasons, they can push forth a new Amendment repealing the 16th, 17th, and Elastic Clause or... they can raise an army. That is about it. International courts will have no effect, between the economic fear other nations have of a disorganized USA and the real fear of the military they will at most bark, but most will kowtow to the mighty 15 trillion dollar bond beast.

It takes power, not implied or claimed, but REAL power to make that kind of mark and the states just don't have it- at least as far as I can see.

Re:First blacks,

[TsuruchiBrian]

If the government can regulate what is thought and said in a private home regarding racism, what's to prevent the government from regulating what can be thought and said in a private home regarding religion, taxes, science, or any other topic?

Slippery slope arguments are always a bit tough to pull off. Even if the government never overstepped it's bound of only restricting racist discrimination in private, I think there is something gained by not giving the government his power.

What is gained by allowing people to be racist is a society where people are allowed autonomy. That is they are allowed to think their own thoughts and make their own decisions so long as it does not unjustly harm anyone else. It probably is not practical to offer 100% autonomy to people, but I would say that any restriction of autonomy should come with a very strong justification.

For example: "People may be offended by racial slurs" is not a string enough justification for restricting autonomy (i.e. freedom of speech).

I argue that: "People might not hire you because of your race" or "People might not serve you at a business because of your sexual orientation" is not enough justification for restricting autonomy either.

For me I am willing to restrict autonomy when someone's life is in danger, but probably not much else.

Re:First blacks,

[TsuruchiBrian]

I am not talking about the legal definition of discrimination. Obviously there are all sorts of discrimination that aren't referred to as such in law. Schools discriminate against kids who didn't study when they give them bad grades. The NBA discriminates against short people. But we can't use the law itself as a guide to what the law *should* be.

Re:First blacks,

[Grishnakh]

How do you know it's fear though? What if someone just doesn't like a group of people?

For instance, Muslim extremists/fundamentalists. I'm not particularly afraid of them, but I really don't like them, because I don't like their principles and actions: they abuse and oppress women, they push their crappy religion and Sharia Law, etc. Am I an "Islamophobe" because I don't like Islamic fundamentalists?

Or how about Christian fundamentalists: I'm not particularly afraid of them, but I really don't like them, because I don't like their principles and actions. They seek to oppress women and homosexuals, they push their crappy religion and creationist and young-earth ideas, even in public schools, etc. Am I a "Christianophobe" because I don't like Christian fundamentalists?

I'm not saying I agree with the anti-gay people of course (remember, I'm anti-Christian-fundamentalism as I stated above), but what if they just don't like homosexuals? What if they want to live in a society where there's no visible homosexuality and it's not tolerated, so they dislike gay people because they've come out of the closet and are threatening that? I'm sure you'll say something about progress or freedom or whatever, but let's turn it around: Suppose I want to live in a society where homosexuals and others are tolerated and accepted and no one cares about that stuff and there's no protests with people holding signs saying "kill the gays!" etc. Christian fundamentalists (including Westboro people) are actively working against this society I'd like to live in, so I dislike them for it. That doesn't mean I'm afraid of them, but I definitely do actively dislike them. I should hope that homosexuals would dislike such people too, since those people actively seek to oppress them. Why would you not dislike someone who wants to oppress you, and tries constantly to do so and have this oppression encoded in law through their voting?

Re:First blacks,

[Rich0]

I'm well-aware of all of this. The 3/5ths compromise made perfect sense in the context of slavery being legal. Really the issue is with the legalization of slavery in the first place.

My point is that the Constitution isn't some kind of documented state of perfection. Freedom of association can be abused, just like many other freedoms.

Re:First blacks,

[micahraleigh]

If someone walks into a business with a menacing look on their face and is refused service, is that discrimination against people with menacing looks on their faces?

Should businesses be allowed to discriminate against polygomists? Or pedophiles?

Sounds like a lot of work deciding how to police these businesses. I guess the government doesn't mind because they want to control everything everyone does all the time.

... Or, you know, we could just let businesses decide who they want to do business with.

Re: First blacks,

[rearden]

Well, hate to shoot holes in your thoughts but my husband and I pay more in taxes as a married couple than we did as individuals so not really sure where you want to go with that. In fact most well paid people do. The only ones that get a tax break for being married are the 80/20 people where one person makes 80% of the income. For all but one of the married gay couples I know, that just does not apply and I know at least 23 married couples. There are not a lot of hard fast numbers out there on this because this is the first year any can file as married. So we will have to see if that pattern bears out.

I think you are thinking of the child deduction, and since we are in process of adopting we would get that deduction, but you state you are ok with that. So, I think you may need to double check your assumptions and maybe if its a state level thing you need to have your state re-evaluate tax policy. Taxes are collected to pay for common public services and goods (Police/Fire and parks) not to promote particular ideologies. That said tax policy is misused all the time, lets fix that problem, not create a new one from it.

Re:First blacks,

[rearden]

That is not what the word "discrimination" means so no it would not be discrimination, you should look it up it would make things clearer for you. Pedophilia is illegal and involves an inability to give consent so that is not even in the same ballpark as two consenting adults. As to polygamy, personally I don't care who people marry as long as:

1. Its consensual
2. They can deal with it

So I would not care, but arguably polyamorousness is not an innate trait so... yes they would be able to discriminate.

Its easy for you to say "let businesses decided" when you're not the one being turned away from the only two hotels in a town because you want to share a room with your husband and they won't even serve you after they realize that. Then you have to drive hours away to sleep after driving a full day to get there. When the pain is not yours its always easy to say "deal with it".

Re:First blacks,

[noh8rz10]

sorry, some lysdexia. it's the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

This site has some general info, although I wish it had more citations. If you find anything more please post
http://www.legalzoom.com/us-la...

Re:First blacks,

[Jason Levine]

Knock on the door? I had one couple try to convert me and my family in an elevator in Walmart. If I'm going to change my religious affiliation, it won't be based on a one minute conversation in a Walmart elevator!

Re:First blacks,

[SpankiMonki]

Hey, admitting a mistake is a sign of good character - and I respect you for that. Such admissions are damn near nonexistent on this site. Cheers!

Re:First blacks,

[rochrist]

They are not discriminating on the basis of the child's age. They provide a service. To the PARENTS. The service is to provide daycare facilities that accommodates children of a certain age. You might as well say that a barber is discriminating for refusing to dryclean your suit.

Re:First blacks,

[Agent0013]

I don't see how it is right to force someone to do something. So some gay people want to force a photographer to take pictures of their wedding. For one it is stupid to want to hire someone that does not want to do the job. You can't force them to take good pictures. What if they all come back crappy and off center, now you are going to have to sue them again.

What comes next, forcing someone to do a job they don't even do. I have made my own websites in the past. The couple of times I have tried to make them for someone else turns into a clusterfuck as they wanted the worst blinky flashy crap that was going out of style even at the time I was doing that. I ended up dropping them as I could not create something I felt was that crappy looking. So now is someone going to force me to make a crappy web page for them when I am not even a web designer. Where does it stop.

Whatever happened to "we reserve the right to refuse service". What if the photographer was already booked up. Now you can sue them and claim it was because you are gay that they didn't take your business. I can see that a grocery store or some such should not be allowed to discriminate and stop certain types of people from entering and peacefully buying products. But hiring someone to perform a service like wedding photography is quite a different deal.

Re:First blacks,

[Agent0013]

I want to start out with saying that I personally have no problem with gay people. I have friends past and present.

But I feel forcing someone to do a job is not going to lead to good results. When the photos come back all out of focus and crappy, what then. You lost your one chance at getting good photos of your wedding. You cannot just reenact it for a new photographer. I guess your stuck trying to sue to get your money back. It seems to me it would be better to just find a photographer that wants your business.

Can I hire an architect and tell them I want a building shaped like a giant dick fucking the American flag and they have no right to not take my business? Wouldn't it be discrimination if they don't want to do dick shaped building? Or they don't agree that the US has become a giant asshole and should be fucked by a giant dick. They aren't booked up, they just don't want to do a dick fucking the US building, that's discrimination.

Re:First blacks,

[Frobnicator]

Most people hear the words "discriminate" and immediately think to evil, horrible, offensive actions.

The truth is that we discriminate all the time. We have to. There is a very short list of things that employers and governments are prohibited from discriminating against, but everything else is fair game.

When we have job interviews, we discriminate based on education, personality, work history, the perceived ability to to do the job, felony convictions, and so much more. We cannot discriminate based on age, gender, nationality, race, religion, veteran status, family status, sexual orientation, and a few others, but that is only because they are not significant to being a programmer. If they are relevant to the job (such as gender of a guard in the case of an all-women prison or something) then these can also be used for discrimination.

Many state courts and also many LGBT groups are pushing far beyond that. It is increasingly common to say that because the possibility exists for sexual orientation discrimination, businesses are COMPELLED to give them preferential treatments and cannot discriminate based on any other (perfectly legal) factors. A business may have many other reasons to stop working with someone, maybe they don't like the attitude or they just don't feel comfortable around them. But if the business is working with anyone in the LGBT community, be careful because some of them will sue you for everything under the perceived slight that the discrimination is not based on personality or a litigious attitude, but based on sexual orientation.

Re:First blacks,

[Agent0013]

Unless the contract is for you to watch two other people fucking and you are video recording the act. Then it's ok!

Re:First blacks,

[Agent0013]

And then the gay couple asked for a completely gaudy giant dick shaped cake. And you don't have the right to refuse. Now your business is associated with giant dick shaped cakes. How is that fair to that business?

Just for clarification: I am gay friendly, I just think it is wrong to force someone to create something they don't want to. Whether that is the photos, the cake, or a horrible looking website that is covered by the BLINK tag. If I don't want to do the job you should not be able to force me. That sounds like slavery to me.

Re:First blacks,

[Frobnicator]

If someone walks into a business with a menacing look on their face and is refused service, is that discrimination against people with menacing looks on their faces? Should businesses be allowed to discriminate against polygomists? Or pedophiles? ... Or, you know, we could just let businesses decide who they want to do business with.

Yes, businesses and individuals can discriminate on almost anything. And they do. We discriminate based on personality, attitudes, clothing, work history, salary, ability to pay, credit history, and so much more. Businesses CAN and DO discriminate all the time, and it is perfectly legal.

Federal law prohibit discrimination based on: race, religion, age (40 and over), gender, pregnancy, citizenship, disability status, veteran status, genetic information, or sexual orientation. ... unless one of those things is relevant to the job or the action at hand. If you are looking for a clothing model for women's fashion in the 20-something age group, you absolutely can discriminate the models based on those relevant items like apparent age and gender as well.

Most people hear "discriminate" and instantly jump to "horrible awful treatment of minorities". That is not what the word means.

Re:First blacks,

[beelsebob]

I have not in any way changed my response. As you say, if you have been wronged at can prove it in court it is not inconsequential. That is my definition of inconsequential. If you can not prove this, then it is inconsequential, and you have no right to refuse service.

Re:First blacks,

[beelsebob]

I'm pretty sure that this has already been argued to death and found that you're talking out of your ass. The last time it was argued you can substitute the word "gay" for "black", and you will find that then, as now, the conclusion was "they're not doing anything to harm you, so you can't harm them".

Re:First blacks,

[Straif]

I'm trying to figure out how forcing someone to provide a service to another person (for whatever reason) does not have an affect on the person PROVDING the service.

For the cake buyers: their initial state is cakeless.
When they are refused a cake: their final state is cakeless.

There has been no change to their state of well being or a violation of any liberty. They are in the exact same point as where they started and are not restricted from making their own cake or finding another baker. They may be slightly upset over having their cake order refused but there is no constitutional protection from having your feelings hurt.

For the baker: Initial state is he is living his lives according to their beliefs
After being forced to cater a gay wedding: not only has he violated his beliefs but he's had to sacrifice his resources (time and product) to do so.

Only 1 party in this transaction has had any major change in their status and that is the baker.

If you disagree with this baker the proper option is to open up a competing bakery which does provide services to gay weddings and let the market decide. In reality, in one bakery case the owner was told that he would have to provide services for all gay weddings in the future or face up to 12 months in prison and another closed his shop and started working out of his home because of the harassment from organized gay rights groups and death threats to his children.

Re:First blacks,

[Jane Q. Public]

"Following your analogy, it does matter who you send. Because if the person who shows up is told "you're not my boss" and then has no real power to enforce that they are in fact the boss then who you send is a big deal."

It's only an analogy, but if we're really following it: I can give authority to negotiate contracts on my behalf to anyone I want.

According to the Supreme Court itself, the 16th Amendment actually gives no new taxation powers to the Federal government. So that argument doesn't fly. (Of course, this is just another example of the Supreme Court contradicting itself, which is another reason it was never given authority to be the "ultimate arbiter" of constitutionality.)

But as for "the reality" of the situation, again as the Supreme Court itself has ruled: the longevity of unconstitutional rule or situation does not make it any less unconstitutional. It could be 1000 years and it would still be wrong.

Re:First blacks,

[AmiMoJo]

But I feel forcing someone to do a job is not going to lead to good results. When the photos come back all out of focus and crappy, what then.

I'm not disputing that it would be dumb to hire that person. Doesn't change the fact that it is illegal for them to refuse to take the job on the grounds of the client's sexuality though.

Wouldn't it be discrimination if they don't want to do dick shaped building?

No. Your desire for a phalic building surrounded by American flags, perhaps modelled on the Washington Monument, is a choice. The architect would be free to judge that choice. Being gay is not a choice, any more than being black or male or tall is.

Re:First blacks,

[AmiMoJo]

It's fear in the sense that most Muslims are not dangerous, so being afraid of them because of a relatively small percentage of extremists is irrational. If you only hate the extremists though you are correct in stating that it isn't a phobia or Islamophobic.

but what if they just don't like homosexuals?

Homosexuals make up about 5% of the population. You can't really make any generalizations about such a large number of people (15m+ people in the US alone). To say you "just don't like 5% of the population" shows you must have preconceptions about what they are like, which is irrational.

Disliking them because your culture or society doesn't tolerate homosexuality is homophobic. Homosexuals in such a society are repressed. They are born gay but forced to hide the fact. You might as well argue that black people living in South Africa 30 years ago could just have applied white make-up and tried to blend in so as not to offend anyone. Furthermore there is no rational reason not to tolerate homosexuality, it doesn't harm anyone, so it is an irrational fear. Usually an irrational fear of being corrupted by gay people, or punished by god for tolerating it,

Re:First blacks,

[beelsebob]

I'm trying to figure out how forcing someone to provide a service to another person (for whatever reason) does not have an affect on the person PROVDING the service.

No one is forcing them to provide a service. They are asserting that if they decide to provide a service they must serve all people equally unless there's a compelling reason why they would be wronged by serving that person more than by serving anyone else.

Re:First blacks,

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Especially since 90% of the people who buy Apple products are gay.

Re:First blacks,

[Marxist Hacker 42]

It explains iOS to me- got to be the most flamboyant operating system on the market today. Also all those pink i-devices.

Re:First blacks,

[Kohath]

Free people do not have to justify not performing a service. She chose not to. Her reasons are none of anyone's business.

Re:First blacks,

[Kohath]

Every time the government uses force or authority or coercion, it's bullying -- regardless of the reason.

Re:First blacks,

[Opportunist]

I'm not a psychologist, I'm a statistician (by degree, not profession). But somehow I'd consider it more likely that someone would avoid a situation that they associate with pain, suffering, humiliation and trauma.

Re:First blacks,

[Opportunist]

I agree. People should have the right to define family as they please.

Re:First blacks,

[rmckeethen]

The real question is whether you think a restaurant should have the right to discriminate against gays, black people, jews, swedes, poor people, poorly dressed people, etc. I think they should. It's not because I think discrimination is ok.

I see two problems here. First, you seem to be contradicting yourself. Either you believe it's OK to discriminate or you don't. If you think a restaurant should have the right to discriminate based on sexual orientation, race, religion or attire, than you believe discrimination is OK. You may not practice such discrimination yourself, but your statement makes it clear that you don't have a problem when other people do practice such discrimination.

The second issue I note is a little more subtle, but I think it too deserves attention. Specifically, discrimination based on something like attire, which is relatively easy for anyone to alter to meet a businesses' requirement, is inherently different from discrimination based on an inflexible aspect like ethnicity. In other words, I can change my shirt and tie without too much trouble, but I can't ever change the racial makeup of my parents, grandparents, etc. Conflating these two types of discrimination is, in my opinion, intellectually dishonest. It leaves people with the false impression that restrictions on 'discrimination' are simply trying to limit or curtail the ability of businesses to make *any* choices regarding their clientele, customers, policies, etc. That's not what's going on here. The question at hand is, "In Arizona, will a restaurant be able to post a sign that reads, 'We refuse to serve gays.'"

Re:First blacks,

[TsuruchiBrian]

I see two problems here. First, you seem to be contradicting yourself. Either you believe it's OK to discriminate or you don't.

That's a false dichotomy. I think discrimination should be legal. I do not think it is "ok" or "good" or that anyone should do it. This shouldn't be hard to understand. For example, if you believe in freedom of speech, it means you think it should be legal to say racist things. Does that mean you think it's ok to say racist things? That's a semantic debate. If you say yes, then I think it's ok to discriminate. If you say no then I don't. In short I think it is the same kind of ok to discriminate is how it is ok to say racist things.

Specifically, discrimination based on something like attire, which is relatively easy for anyone to alter to meet a businesses' requirement, is inherently different from discrimination based on an inflexible aspect like ethnicity. In other words, I can change my shirt and tie without too much trouble, but I can't ever change the racial makeup of my parents, grandparents, etc. Conflating these two types of discrimination is, in my opinion, intellectually dishonest.

I am not conflating these two types of discrimination any more than they deserve to be conflated (i.e. they are both types of discrimination). I am not saying they are morally equivalent, or have no noteworthy distinctions (you mentioned the distinction of being able to change your shirt but not your ethnicity), and I agree. There are other forms of discrimination that are equally as unchangeable as ethnicity, like height, some slightly more changeable like weight and income, and all these features by which one can be discriminated against falls on a spectrum of differing changeability (or mutability as someone else in this thread called it).

The question at hand is, "In Arizona, will a restaurant be able to post a sign that reads, 'We refuse to serve gays.'"

I don't know what will happen. I am just expressing what I think should happen (i.e. my preference), and I am trying to convince others that they may actually want this outcome too. I would prefer if people had the right to post a sign saying "we refuse service to gays". But this is not *all* I want. I also want people to post signs like this "We refuse service to anyone who is anti-gay", or "We will fire any employee who refuses to serve a gay person even for religious reasons". In short I would like a society which values autonomy and free association over the right not to be discriminated against by private citizens.

I think this will be a more open and honest society where people act with intention. If someone acts in a racist manor, it is because he is racist. If someone goes out of their way to be unbiased, it is not because they are just trying to avoid a lawsuit. I think the social pressure to do the right thing will be a better tool to combat racism and anti-gay prejudice than laws.

Re:First blacks,

[Jeremi]

All situations are exactly like stuff that happened to black folks in 1950?

Not all situations, no. But this situation? Certainly.

Re:First blacks,

[Antique Geekmeister]

My point is that can it can _affect_ job performance, just as age, gender, religion, nationality, size, weight, skin color, and marital status can do so. The effects can be modest, and are often legislatively barred from affecting hiring. But to pretend that they are not factors, or that they do not alter people's chances of behing hired or affect evaluations of performance is disingenuous.

And let's be clear: many people consider "icky power differentials" to be attractive, both for the more powerful person to enjoy the power, and for the less powerful person to enjoy the attention of a more successful or powerful person. It can be wildly abused, but it's been common practice throughout human history. Ignoring it won't prevent it.

Re:First blacks,

[Antique Geekmeister]

> You opt for "married men make better performers"

Please: I didn't say that. It affects the role. For example, married men may be unwilling to perform 80 hour work weeks at crunch time. Being older, and willing to object to abusive contracts or work hours, certainly affects _my_ work performance. And my age is correlated with my work experience.

What I'm saying is that it's unrealistic, and unreasonable, to say these factors don't _affect_ work performance. In soome cases, they may _improve_ work performance! It depends on the situation and the role.

Re:First blacks,

[cbhacking]

Eh... things like automatic power of attorney and being automatically an inheritor of the other's estate (assuming no children and/or will stating otherwise) are pretty damn important legal considerations that we give to married couples under law. So is the right to stay in the country, for that matter. There are hundreds of others, actually.

Mind you, I'm not convinced that things like the federal income tax deduction for marriage is required (I understand the historical reasoning behind it, but I don't feel that a financial incentive towards marriage makes a lot of sense in today's world). I think it makes a lot of sense to give legal recognition of families, simply on the basis that society is composed of human beings, and forming life-partnership bonds with other humans is a thing that we do. In an ideal world, we wouldn't need civil marriage, but in the world we have, it's the easiest and most obvious solution to the problem. Now, if certain assholes would stop trying to ruin it for the rest of us...

Re:First blacks,

[Sique]

Tell that to the hundred of thousands of runners in large marathon events. (And yes, I've run a marathon myself. I know of the pain, suffering, humiliation and trauma. And I will be running a half-marathon next.)

Re:First blacks,

[Rakarra]

It means the subject makes no attempt to hide their sexual orientation when the subject comes up, and often actively seeks out LGBT events and organizations that they can contribute to or take part in

I'm openly gay, but I make no attempt to seek out LGBT events and organizations any more than a straight person actively seeks out straight events and organizations. Most gay people don't either.

Re:First blacks,

[Rakarra]

Homosexuality is not the same as bondage. You can't choose to be a homosexual, it is genetic and people are either born gay or not. Entering a dom/sub relationship is a lifestyle choice

And here we will get to the root of the matter; these religious groups will strongly disagree that homosexuality is anything but a choice, and that you can choose to be gay or you can choose to be straight. You can go on and on about sociology or genetics but their religion will say that God did not create people gay, and their books will always, always trump yours, by definition.

So it's an argument that will never go anywhere.

Re:First blacks,

[MachineShedFred]

Yes, laws can change. But, the guys who set up this country 225+ years ago were wise enough to hold some laws over others, and make them so hard to change that it is unlikely to happen outside of extraordinary circumstances. That is why they wrote a separate process for Constitutional Amendments, and then proceeded to ratify ten of them enshrining for all to see the basic freedoms that are owned by the people, and can never* be touched by government.

And, as James Madison was a genius, he saved the most important one for last: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This is the one that exists specifically so some CHUD won't think that the other nine were a list of enumerated rights, and if it's not listed, then it doesn't exist.

*for various values of "never". See: Clinton, Bush, Obama administrations and policies.

Re:First blacks,

[Anonymous Psychopath]

If someone walks into a business with a menacing look on their face and is refused service, is that discrimination against people with menacing looks on their faces?

Should businesses be allowed to discriminate against polygomists? Or pedophiles?

Sounds like a lot of work deciding how to police these businesses. I guess the government doesn't mind because they want to control everything everyone does all the time. ... Or, you know, we could just let businesses decide who they want to do business with.

It's legal to refuse to do business with any individual. It's illegal to refuse to do business with an entire class of people, simply because they're a member of that class.

In Arizona being gay is not a class. So this law is attempting to solve a "problem" that doesn't actually exist.

In terms of religion, there's a big difference between beliefs and practices. Any and all beliefs are legal in the USA. Practices must exist within the law.

Re:First blacks,

[bmo]

The Federal government does not regulate the principles of contract law.

You're a fucking moron. For fucking reals.

--
BMO

Re:First blacks,

[TsuruchiBrian]

And yet the guys who set up this country 225+ years ago were not wise enough to see that slavery was wrong. Clearly we can not take their ideas as gospel. They must be re-evaluated periodically to see if they still make sense, and also to see if any of their ideas would have any implications on new scenarios (e.g. how does the right to bear arms relate to nuclear weapons, etc)

Re:First blacks,

[flargleblarg]

Dude, relax. It was a joke. Would the humor have been clearer if it had ended in ";)" ?

Re:First blacks,

[micahraleigh]

I don't understand why the government is determining why we should give people special privileges because we can lump them in with a "class".

Seems like a technicality to me.

Should people in a certain age demographic be treated with better rights than "people who like to garden"? Etc.

It sounded like you were saying there was something meaningful about that earlier, but now I'm not sure if you're saying it's a formality we have to go along with.

Re:First blacks,

[micahraleigh]

I don't think sexual orientation is a protected class. I think it's just something the government is not allowed to discriminate against within itself due to the fact that it is based on executive order and not law written by elected officials.

Anyway, you are right about the connotation people get when they hear the word "discrimination", but there is a bait and switch going on here: it's OK for Hollywood to "discriminate" against ugly, old, fat people (this is the Hollywood which is supposed to be so inspiring at the academy awards, right?) but it's bad for religious people to "discriminate" against people who have different values (or the lack thereof).

How is that not a double standard?

Re:First blacks,

[gmanterry]

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.

This is why the Republican (American Taliban) party is unelectable. They spend all their time shoving their religion down the throats of non Republicans and then are amazed that those folks don't want to vote for them. I live in Arizona and I'm a fiscal conservative but Republican Taliban obsession with their religion is just wrong.

Re:First blacks,

[shutdown -p now]

Different question: is it okay for the state to tell someone who they must do business with?

Depends on how common it actually is. If there are just a few lone nuts who are actively discriminating, it's not worth the bother, because the ability of those people being discriminated against to function normally in society is not affected in any meaningful way - they can just ignore the nuts, and still have thousands of establishments and businesses serving them.

If, OTOH, the discrimination is common and routine, and especially if it is effectively enforced through social pressure towards those who do not participate (i.e. you may not personally have anything against gays, but you have to discriminate against them because otherwise most straight patrons will not deal with you), then absolutely, it's well worth limiting the freedom of association for the sake of letting the discriminated group breathe freely. The anti-segregation laws of the Civil Rights era were a good example of that.

However, once such laws are enacted, if, at some point, the situation evolves from rampant discrimination to a few lone nuts - as it tends to do over time - then such laws no longer have utility and should be discarded.

Re:First blacks,

[shutdown -p now]

Yes, "homophobia" is not the best term. "Homomisia" might be more appropriate.

Re:First blacks,

[shutdown -p now]

why, exactly, should they have that right?

Because freedom of association is a fundamental right.

I wish people would acknowledge this instead of trying to weasel around it. I support anti-discrimination laws that force businesses to cater to groups that are observably actively discriminated against, but I recognize it as a limitation of the natural rights of those businesses and the people that run them. It just so happens that, in this particular case, the common good that comes out of it outweighs the harm caused by limiting the right. But we should never forget about that balance, lest we start completely ignoring the right and trample over it in other circumstances where this isn't appropriate.

Re:First blacks,

[Rakarra]

That's fine. Sometimes some people really need bullying then, if that's the definition we're going to use.

Re:First blacks,

[micahraleigh]

Your method of evaluation is shifting like the sands. In one case you defer to law (pedophilia, which the Guardian is arguing in favor of legalizing btw), but homosexuality has no legal grounds in my places (including NC where I live) so you appeal to whether or not you care.

Do people have a moral obligation to care for their neighbor. Sure. That doesn't mean the government gets to enforce that, and who should be doling out what to who, the IRS gets to step on certain people for their political views, etc.

If the government passes a law that saws gays get to have a room extended to them the same as any other label you can imagine (water melon pickers, employees of Walmart, etc) who gets the credit for sheltering those people? You and the government? But you and the government haven't done anything except boss someone else around.

As for the innate trait, I am digusted by your fatalism. Any belief, view, or practice that depends on denying your ability to make your own choices is simply obscene. Is your DNA going to tell you when you can take a vacation or what shows to watch on TV? Own your choices, or you are qualitiatively indistinguishable from an invertabrate.

Re:First blacks,

[sh00z]

Churches could limit events to traditional weddings and reject things like dom/sub 'bondings', civil union receptions (even when they aren't legally weddings), plural marriage additions, and the rest. But now in some states they are compelled to take them all. Their banners, logos, signs, and name are being associated with something contrary to their religious standards. This is not right.

The way around this is to set a generic, non-discrimatory policy that they will perform marriages only for members of their own congregation. Everything else is just a money-grab. If a minister is out there in the world at large, offering to sell his or her services as a marriage officiant, then that minister has forfeited all right to pick and choose who they will marry. Similarly, if I were of a persuasion that is discriminated against, do you think I would WANT a photographer or caterer or florist who disapproved of me or my lifestyle? No way! I wouldn't try to hire that person in the first place, because they're not going to put their best effort into the product, whatever it is.

Re:First blacks,

[Rich0]

Eh... things like automatic power of attorney and being automatically an inheritor of the other's estate (assuming no children and/or will stating otherwise) are pretty damn important legal considerations that we give to married couples under law. So is the right to stay in the country, for that matter. There are hundreds of others, actually.

Yes, but you didn't mention any of those in your post, and the three things you did mention really had no relevance today. I certainly agree in their historical importance.

Honestly, I don't think there is any right conveyed by marriage that really requires "marriage" in the sense that exists today to function. By all means allow people to register with the government a power of attorney for medical/etc decisions. That should be able to be anybody - a parent, a child, a friend, whatever. It might be a list of 5 people with majority rules.

Instead we have an institution that basically started out as a property interest in a woman and kids in exchange for support/inheritance, which has transformed into a religious institution mainly oriented around who is/isn't allowed to sleep together with civil perks for compliance. Now we're trying to fix some of the biggest glaring problems with that, but we're not questioning why the institution really needs to exist in the first place.

Virtually every problem solved by marriage is already solved by other rules/institutions already. They have to be, because not everybody is married but must about everybody is subject to them. Kids are born out of wedlock every day, 19-year-olds have medical problems for which they can't make legal decisions due to incapacitation, 80-year-old widows have medical decisions, and so on.

My gripe with marriage is that we have standardized solutions that only apply to half of the population, and that pool of people is shrinking. We neglect coming up with solutions that work well for everybody else. And the whole reason that fewer people are getting married is that it comes with so much legal baggage that many feel it is something best avoided entirely. The reason it has so much baggage is because we tie so many benefits/rules/rights/etc to a single legal relationship, and it is constantly under pressure by various interests to make it conform to their model of how everybody should live.

Re:First blacks,

[stdarg]

I asked you an analogous question about race but you didn't reply.

Your viewpoint simply does not make sense because it would provide an end-run around all discrimination laws. "My lawn mowing service does not do business with blacks. But we don't discriminate against blacks... we discriminate against people with black biological parents. But we're not providing service to the biological parents so that's okay!!"

Your analogy with the barber doesn't make sense because you are asking the barber to perform a different service for the same client. I'm talking about a daycare providing the same service to a different client. The needs and supervision requirements of a 6 year old don't substantially differ from those of a 5 year old... and yet, a daycare would be perfectly within its rights to say "Sorry, we stop providing care at 5." That's age discrimination.

Re:First blacks,

[stdarg]

I see... Your argument confused me because we are talking about what the laws should be. But now you're revealing that your definition of consequential and inconsequential is simply a mirror of what the state already says.

If the laws changed so that it's okay to not do business with minorities, then you would support that, because minorities would not be able to win a court case about it, because it's not against the law.

How is that useful to the discussion?

Re:First blacks,

[rochrist]

I can't figure out what you're trying to get out of me, but from my point of view, the daycare example is nonsense. I'll restate: It is not discrimination to deny enrollment to a 20 year old if they are providing a daycare service for small children (for example 2-6 years old). The service is not aimed at 20 years old. It wouldn't be discrimination if the person was 15 or 51 either. Just like it wouldn't be discrimination for a university to deny addmission to a preschooler. Or is that discr4imination based on age as well?

Re:First blacks,

[stdarg]

I can't figure out what you're trying to get out of me, but from my point of view, the daycare example is nonsense.

I'm trying to get you to explain how your out for age discrimination doesn't also apply to racial discrimination.

You're saying that daycares don't discriminate based on the characteristics of kids, because they are actually providing the service to the parents. So I'm responding that if the daycare doesn't provide service to black kids, but black parents are fine (in other words, black parents could enroll an adopted while child), that's STILL racial discrimination. I mean it's rather obvious.

So if we accept that the child's race plays a role, then why doesn't the child's age?

I mean the real answer is that the needs and supervision requirements of a 20 year old are very different than a 2-5 year old, so the daycare is justified in having an age policy. In other words, we as a society say that it's okay for daycares to discriminate based on age because age plays a significant role in what is required. Race, in theory, does not... the care required by a black 5 year old is not substantially different than the care required by a white 5 year old.

But you didn't say that.

Just like it wouldn't be discrimination for a university to deny addmission to a preschooler. Or is that discr4imination based on age as well?

Yes, of course it is.. if the preschooler is qualified to be admitted, and they don't admit him, that is age discrimination. In reality universities are happy to admit underage people if they are qualified. I've heard of 12 year olds in college. If an 11 year old were qualified, they'd admit the 11 year old. I don't believe there is a minimum age to attend university, although practically speaking no 2 year old is realistically going to be qualified.

Re:Not pro-business?

[khasim]

No. It would be similar to allowing restaurants to refuse to serve black customers.

This is not about business. It is about the personal beliefs and prejudices of the person owning that business. Those beliefs are not the same as business.

Hate is not a religious freedom worth protecting

[Jharish]

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.

Re:Not pro-business?

[noh8rz10]

If large businesses pull out of Arizona because of this law, then it can accurately be described as anti-business. perhaps when people are sitting home alone and unemployed they can console themselves by thinking about how the remaining businesses have "more choice" as a a result of this law...

Read the bill yourself it mentions nothing about

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Not pro-business?

[MightyMartian]

"White only" and "colored only" bars, laundromats, cafes, taxis and the like gave businesses a choice, too. No freedom is absolute, nor was any freedom intended to be.

Re:Some grade A consistency from Apple

[MightyMartian]

Let me get this straight. Because China does bad things, Arizona a free pass?

Re:Read the bill yourself it mentions nothing abou

[MightyMartian]

Sounds like a good solid Jim Crow law.

Tempted to Bite the Apple Arizona....?

[Bob_Who]

...Or will the Genesis of Arizona end in Eden.

It sure as Hell doesn't sound like Paradise over there.

Re:Tempted to Bite the Apple Arizona....?

[turp182]

If hell is full of fire then Arizona is a suburb (this works well given the attempted legislation of Hate, the wool is thick over their eyes - when I was religious, briefly as a child, I was taught tolerance and acceptance were the true message of Jesus, these folks are working for the dark side and don't even realize it - the deception of the dark one has them entranced by hatred, almost enough to make me believe again... - UCC as a child for the record, baptized by Sledgehammer's father, Reverend Rashe, in my grandmother's home - name drop...).

I've lived in Arizona (2001-2005), it is a terrible place to live (referring to Phoenix/Scottsdale - a bland suburb as far as the eye can see, to their credit, Williams and Flagstaff were very nice to visit). Good for vacations though, and the Grand Canyon is just that.

Re:Some grade A consistency from Apple

[ShanghaiBill]

The difference is that Apple has leverage in Arizona. The governor is on the fence, and hasn't decided whether she will sign or veto it. So a nudge from Apple may make a difference. In China, Apple has no influence whatsoever on government policy. American corporations are not going to "fix" China. That is up to the Chinese people.

Re:Not pro-business?

[R3d M3rcury]

The problem is that businesses are made up of people. If I can't hire the people I want to hire because of laws that are hostile to them, then it's anti-business.

Re:Some grade A consistency from Apple

[Bob_Who]

They may be evil hypocrites with wads of cash, but at least they're politically correct and over rated.... what you said.

Re:Not pro-business?

[rearden]

What your are missing is that the individual has the right, not just the business. So all of these business's that want to keep serving gay, or really perceived gay customers, will have a scheduling nightmare. They will have to start asking people if they are willing to serve gay (or again perceived gay people) and if the person says no they have to schedule someone else along with that person to make sure everyone is covered. That is the kind of nightmare that business's want to avoid.

Then pile on top of that someone calls in sick to say Walgreen's and the check out person refuses to serve someone they perceive as gay, and boom- they have a PR nightmare b/c the other checkout person called out sick and the fill in is not in yet. Not the kind of scheduling, HR, or PR nightmares that any company wants to deal with.

For most business's putting aside the issues of the principle, the real issue or them is the lawsuits (they made me serve gay people ick!), the PR issues (they would not serve me boycott!), and the HR issues (I don't work Sundays & I don't serve people I think are gay!). The principle of the idea just makes something that is a legal and paperwork nightmare into something beyond reasonable.

Re:Yeah this law should work out well

[MightyMartian]

And apparently discriminating against Jews and blacks (and presumably Communists and Catholics too) will be just fine in Arizona.

Until the bigots suddenly find themselves hauled into Federal court under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Ah Arizona, land of bigots and morons.

Religion DOES serve a purpose.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Religion DOES serve a purpose.

[Bartles]

That's just ignorant and stupid.

Re:Religion DOES serve a purpose.

[thaylin]

you do not have to be atheist to not be religious... I am not atheist, and I am not religious.. Dont forget that there is also agnostic, which I would say most of the brilliant scientists are, because that is the open minded version of the 3. Many atheists and religious people are very close minded in general due to the nature of humans to want to be right.

Re:Religion DOES serve a purpose.

[gIobaljustin]

Well, I don't accept the existence of Santa Claus, invisible magical unicorns, the Tooth Fairy, and any number of other things. I guess I'm not "open minded." Hey, maybe I'm not! But I'd say it's be pretty stupid to not be closed-minded about these things. Why would I believe completely ridiculous claims when there is no evidence (ignorance does not qualify as evidence) that they are true? Why would I even entertain the idea for more than a second? I maintain that the probability that a god exists is extremely, laughably small, based on current knowledge.

Also, many claim to be agnostic atheists, so there's that.

Re:Religion DOES serve a purpose.

[thaylin]

Firstly you apparently cannot read, I said MANY, not all.. You can be agnostic Christian as well...It just means you accept your faith, but are open to the possibility that you could be wrong..

I dont know why would you? If you are Christian you believe in the same things long the lines of Santa Claus and the invisible magical unicorns or the tooth fairy. All are things you cannot prove exist or not, along with the Christian God..

Re:Religion DOES serve a purpose.

[gIobaljustin]

Firstly you apparently cannot read, I said MANY, not all

Read my post more carefully. I'm saying that it's perfectly okay for atheists to be 'closed-minded' when it comes to such things, and explained why.

Unless you were just replying to my final sentence.

Re:Religion DOES serve a purpose.

[Bartles]

I appreciate your agreement on the matter.

Re:Religion DOES serve a purpose.

[thaylin]

I am replying to your second sentence. You assumed because I said many I was talking about you specifically.

Re:Religion DOES serve a purpose.

[flyneye]

The word you are searching for through an extended explaination, would be Agnostic.

Re:Religion DOES serve a purpose.

[geoffrobinson]

Your own words condemn you.

Re:Religion DOES serve a purpose.

[TangoMargarine]

99.9999% of people are stupid to begin with. I don't agree that this correlates to religiousness.

Re:Religion DOES serve a purpose.

[gIobaljustin]

I actually didn't assume you were talking about me.

Re:Pro freedom, not anti-gay

[MightyMartian]

If the baker didn't believe in miscegenation, would you object then?

The United States has been down this road before; hence the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Re:Hear hear

[rmdingler]

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, Reddit.

We have Mike Tyson on /..

Re:Not pro-business?

[OhPlz]

I guess you're not planning on hiring any religious fundamentalists then? Keep the law, and the state is "hostile" towards homosexuals. Strike the law, and the state becomes "hostile" towards religious people.

Is there any middle ground here?

Re:Pro freedom, not anti-gay

[seebs]

So what? No one's asking them to believe anything, just to not discriminate against people.

Look, think it through. Imagine that someone's sincerely held religious beliefs were that interracial couples weren't legitimate and couldn't be validly married, and they wanted to refuse to make cakes for them. Or just they didn't think black people could get married. Would you expect people to just stand by and watch someone refuse to serve people based on skin color, given how long it took to fight that battle? I wouldn't.

I don't think it's a nuisance suit, any more than I think the various lawsuits about refusing service to blacks were nuisance suits. I think it's a fundamental question about what we think is the baseline of acceptable behavior in our society.

Doesn't sound very "pro-freedom" to me.

Re:Not pro-business?

[cbhacking]

TL;DR: It's anti-people, and businesses are made up of people

It's not very "pro-business" when it makes it hard to hire people to work there! The west-coast culture, which by-and-large embraces different sexual orientations and gender identities, is very prevalent in computer culture as well (largely because many of the best computer tech universities, and best computer industry jobs, are in California or Washington). Most of those people - even those who are cis and straight - aren't going to want to work in a state that has given official sanction to homophobia and transphobia. Ignoring the jokes about Apple fans (I don't like their products, but I have no problem with their hiring practices), this would likely be a problem for any major tech company. They simply can't afford to build a major location in a state where they're going to have to write off a significant number of potential employees simply due to the political environment.

Sheesh, as if "papers, please" wasn't enough! Arizona really does seem to want to shoot itself in the foot...
We hired one guy from Arizona. He was overjoyed to move to Seattle and had no trouble convincing a couple other guys to do so too. Dude landed a huge referral bonus before his first six months at the company were up. People want *out* of that state!

Re:Not pro-business?

[rsclient]

Some of the earliest (European) laws are about the duty of hotels to serve all comers. If you're a country, and you want people to travel to market towns to buy and sell, it turns out that you have to make laws requiring that hotels treat everyone uniformly; that traders can go to a town knowing (with high confidence) that they will be able to eat and sleep.
In some places, there were additional requirements that hotels be able to feed and care for a herd of animals, too.
This is also why hotels are required to safes: traders have to know that their goods are secure, especially from the people most able to steal it (the hotel workers)

Re:It's because we allow freedom of religion

[ebno-10db]

This really is dangerous, as religion should be contained and eliminated from society.

Are you familiar with the word "irony"?

Re:Read the bill yourself it mentions nothing abou

[overshoot]

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.

Re:Not pro-business?

[OhPlz]

Then pile on top of that someone calls in sick to say Walgreen's and the check out person refuses to serve someone they perceive as gay, and boom- they have a PR nightmare b/c the other checkout person called out sick and the fill in is not in yet. Not the kind of scheduling, HR, or PR nightmares that any company wants to deal with.

Good point. That's already a problem in some places. I've heard of cases where a pharmacist refuses to fill the morning after pill because of their beliefs. Taken to an extreme though, would it be agreeable to force a doctor who doesn't want to perform abortions to do so? Where do we stop, or do we? Why would the doctor have a choice but not the pharmacist? I'm not picking one point-of-view over another, I just think it's an interesting conflict of competing rights.

Re:Not pro-business?

[cdrudge]

It's similar, but there is one major difference. Race is one of the protected criteria for civil rights. Sexual orientation isn't universally protected yet, particularly when it comes to private employers.

Re:Hypocrisy

[Yunzil]

Yeah, no. One is a company deciding of their own free will where to locate their business. The other is the government attempting to enact legally-sanctioned discrimination.

Re:Pro freedom, not anti-gay

[overshoot]

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.

In New Mexico. Under a State Constitutional guarantee against discrimination that covers sexual orientation. This has -- what? -- to do with Arizona?

And BTW: "nuisance suits" generally have to be meritless. In the NM case, the plaintiffs prevailed on the merits.

Re:Not pro-business?

[MrEricSir]

It's not like business exists in some kind of vacuum where one can't hurt others in the community. You can argue that it was "anti-business" to require BP to clean up all the oil they spilled, but I'm sure there's an entire industry of fisherman who would disagree.

Re:Read the bill yourself it mentions nothing abou

[rearden]

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.

Re:It's because we allow freedom of religion

[gIobaljustin]

Religion doesn't seem to be doing a very good job of keeping people from doing Bad Things, so I somewhat doubt what you're saying.

but it's the fear of Hell that can keep a sociopath in line.

Where is your evidence of this?

Re:Read the bill yourself it mentions nothing abou

[ebno-10db]

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.

Two different forms of "freedom".

[khasim]

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.

Segregationists weren't practicing a right.

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.

Re:Two different forms of "freedom".

[OhPlz]

BUT, once you open a PUBLIC business then you must treat all classes of people the same regardless of what your PRIVATE beliefs are.

Fox favors conservatives, MSNBC favors liberals. BET favors black entertainers. Businesses have biases.

Re:Two different forms of "freedom".

[tlambert]

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.

Unless you are, you know, wearing no shirt or no shoes. Then it's OK for a public business to discriminate.

Re:Two different forms of "freedom".

[khasim]

Fox favors conservatives, MSNBC favors liberals. BET favors black entertainers. Businesses have biases.

Liberals can watch Fox. Conservatives can watch MSNBC. So that is not the same as NOT providing a service to a class of people.

Businesses have markets. Markets are not biases. The people who own the business have biases. They cannot let their biases influence which classes of people they will serve.

Re:Two different forms of "freedom".

[thaylin]

No, reverse each of those phrases, conservative favors fox. Most of those businesses dont really care who their customers are, as long as they get money, other than maybe fox.

Re:Two different forms of "freedom".

[OhPlz]

Businesses have markets. Markets are not biases. The people who own the business have biases. They cannot let their biases influence which classes of people they will serve.

What about a company like "Curves" whose market is women? It's not bias driven (I assume), but it does limit the "class" of people they serve.

I don't think this is as clear-cut as many seem to think it is.

Say you have a company that markets itself as a christian tour group that visits holy sites important to that faith. Can they refuse a group of staunch atheists out of fear that they might ruin the expensive trip for the other customers?

Re:Two different forms of "freedom".

[khasim]

What about a company like "Curves" whose market is women? It's not bias driven (I assume), but it does limit the "class" of people they serve.

And there have been lawsuits against them for exactly that reason.
http://www.seattlepi.com/lifestyle/article/So-far-women-only-gyms-are-allowed-by-the-courts-1133532.php
We still have women-only bathrooms. We still have some women-only sports teams.

Say you have a company that markets itself as a christian tour group that visits holy sites important to that faith. Can they refuse a group of staunch atheists out of fear that they might ruin the expensive trip for the other customers?

No. Because that "fear" is unsubstantiated with that group of atheists. The same as if they refused a group of blacks "out of fear that they might ruin the expensive trip for the other customers".

Re:Two different forms of "freedom".

[willy_me]

Unless you are, you know, wearing no shirt or no shoes. Then it's OK for a public business to discriminate.

Sexual orientation is not a choice but one's attire is.

Re:Two different forms of "freedom".

[Rich0]

Unless you are, you know, wearing no shirt or no shoes. Then it's OK for a public business to discriminate.

Sexual orientation is not a choice but one's attire is.

Honestly, whether it is a choice isn't really the main issue. You can't choose whether you're born blind, but it makes sense to not allow blind people to drive (though it would not make sense to prohibit them from riding unaccompanied in self-driving cars in the future).

Attire in a restaurant isn't about preference - it is about hygiene and usually regulated by law. If it were just about preference it would be an unjustified rule.

Re:Two different forms of "freedom".

[Agent0013]

I like the Curves example. Now they can't refuse to allow men to come in and ogle all the women working out!!! ~end sarcastic remark~

Re:Not pro-business?

[mythosaz]

No. It would be similar to allowing restaurants to refuse to serve black customers.

It would be exactly like allowing restaurants to refuse to serve black customers, or have a separate black customer price sheet.

...but isn't that choice "pro business?" Aren't those "freedoms" beneficial to the business?

Re:Read the bill yourself it mentions nothing abou

[R3d M3rcury]

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?

Re:Not pro-business?

[OhPlz]

BP had to clean up the spill because it's against the law to destroy the environment.

I understand the harm to the community point you're making, but aren't you also harming the practice of religion at the same time? It seems like both should be on equal footing, but I don't see that there's a workable solution to accomplish that.

Re:Not pro-business?

[mythosaz]

To some extent this happens in businesses already. More than once have I gone through the checkout at a grocery or big-box store only to have the cashier have to step aside so someone not deeply religious could process my alcohol or pork.

...maybe not my pork, but you get the idea, and it's happened to other's pork.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fin...

In short, they don't serve my kind!

Re:Not pro-business?

[rearden]

Interestingly enough this issue has been covered before regarding doctors and settled. The situation is that if performing an abortion is the only/ best way to save the life of a patient then the doctor must perform it. Otherwise it is an elective procedure and one only need find another doctor to do the surgery.

So the question become, well why not do that with Hotels, Restaurants, or other places? The issue becomes one of accommodation.

Where I grew up there was ONE Hotel. If they refuse to allow you to stay, and its 11PM at night you get to drive 90 minutes to 2 hours to the next Hotel. If they refuse where do you go from there? What about grocery stores? Gas stations? That is why for places of "Public Accommodation" you must serve the public or be a private place fully with no public walk up service.

The only way this kind of idea works is if you only allow it in a place where two places are serving the public at the same or similar price point and one must advertise their restrictions. Even then it become dicey and the enforcement and paperwork would be insane. I can see the lawyers salivating now!

Finally, if we want real freedom of this, then why don't I have the freedom FROM religion? Why does this bill not allow me to refuse to serve people who are religious and refuse to serve others? Libritarianism is a great idea, and as one I believe it has its place, this is just not one of them. At some point people must have a reasonable expectation to be able to function in a society.

Re:Some grade A consistency from Apple

[mythosaz]

I think Brewer just wants 5 days in the news during her veto window.

She's a political animal of the highest caliber. [See: Obama finger-wag.]

Re:Not pro-business?

[rk]

The thing is, I really like it here. I like Seattle too, but I'm a desert person at heart. The problem is we have a seriously fucked up state legislature that are a bunch of complete whack jobs. I don't want the sensible people to move away; I want more of them here so we can finally push these nutters to the fringe where they belong. But I will tell you: the balance is shifting in this state. I think you may find in 2016 that AZ will be in play for the presidential election instead of assuming to be reliably Republican. If not 2016, definitely by 2020. It wasn't even that long ago we had a Democrat as a governor who was doing a decently good job (Thanks, Obama!). Brewer sucks, but she's not going to sign something that will kill more than 2,000 jobs. Even most conservatives here are going "WTH?" at this point, so it won't be long before the pendulum takes its abrupt turn.

I'm glad your coworker and his buds are happy and all, but it's really not as bad here as the media makes it to be. Me, I'll be sticking, and hoping I can help keep things balanced.

Re:Some grade A consistency from Apple

[viperidaenz]

They built the platform and the tools you use to develop that software.
They design, market and sell the hardware your software needs to run.
They run the store that sells your software.
They host the bandwidth to deliver it for you.
They process the payment and pay the merchant fees for you.

You could do all that yourself if you're not happy with a 30% cut.

Re:Not pro-business?

[Xeno man]

Yes, fuck the religious people. When states and laws try to cater to religious groups, you create several different rules for different people just by claiming something is against your religion. Muslims don't have to wear helmets when riding motorcycles because they wear their turbans for religious reasons. Christians want to be able to refuse serves to gays. I though we were all supposed to be equal? Laws apply to everyone. Religion comes second.

I am offended

[TsuruchiBrian]

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.

Re: It's because we allow freedom of religion

[Bing Tsher E]

You misspelled puerile.

Re:Some grade A consistency from Apple

[viperidaenz]

American corporations contribute a lot to the GDP of China.

If they all up and left, half the currently employed people would lose their jobs.
Entire provinces like Guangdong would fall like a brick.
The airlines and shipping companies would all go broke too.

Re:Yeah this law should work out well

[rk]

Not all of us, or even most of us, thankyouverymuch.

Re:Not pro-business?

[rearden]

In some places it does happen. And ask most any business if they would like to be rid of this complication and they will say yes. I have seen people, in Canada, walk out of the place without finishing their transaction because of something like this. Their response, when asked "I don't want to support this kind of idea..." So, agree with it or not business's are afraid of loosing business, and of dealing with lawsuits. So when and where they can they oppose it and view it as any business- which it is very much anti-business. Anything that increases the regulatory cost, paperwork, and staff cost is anti-business.

The question is not if something is anti-business but if the rights/privileges/principals in question trump the cost to the business.

Re:Not pro-business?

[OhPlz]

Where I grew up there was ONE Hotel. If they refuse to allow you to stay, and its 11PM at night you get to drive 90 minutes to 2 hours to the next Hotel. If they refuse where do you go from there? What about grocery stores? Gas stations? That is why for places of "Public Accommodation" you must serve the public or be a private place fully with no public walk up service.

I see that, but someone else mentioned that this whole issue came up because of a bakery and a wedding cake. If businesses can't refuse service, does that baker have to put any decoration on a cake no matter how repulsive they might find it? Heck, someone could force a gay print shop to print religious fliers condemning homosexuality. Would that be okay?

Finally, if we want real freedom of this, then why don't I have the freedom FROM religion? Why does this bill not allow me to refuse to serve people who are religious and refuse to serve others?

Freedom from religion would require that the government prevent others from practicing religion. The second question is quite interesting.

Two different things here....

[shizzle]

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.

Re:Two different things here....

[bledri]

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?

If the baker has a genuine religious belief to oppose interracial marriages, can they deny providing a cake to an interracial couple? This is a real thing, people use Deuteronomy 7:3 among other verses to justify it. Their beliefs are repugnant, but "genuine." My answer is that if you sell to the public, you sell to the public. Selling someone a cake is not "supporting gay marriage." It's selling them a cake. The baker is free to have all the hateful, unloving, non-compassionate thoughts they want. Presumably God can read minds and will understand that they are good righteous people.

Re:Two different things here....

[shizzle]

If the baker has a genuine religious belief to oppose interracial marriages, can they deny providing a cake to an interracial couple? This is a real thing, people use Deuteronomy 7:3 among other verses to justify it.

That's a good question. I didn't specifically say that case 2 should or should not be legal, just that it's a much harder question than case 1, which is what most people seem to be assuming (and having knee-jerk reactions about).

What about cases where the owner is "progressive" and it's the client that's not in step with the prevailing sentiment... say I'm Jewish and I own a sign shop, and the local KKK chapter comes in wanting to print up signs for their next rally, am I obliged to do that for them? Or what if I'm pro-choice, and the local pro-life group comes in an wants me to run off a hundred giant posters of aborted fetuses? Or what if I'm gay, and the Westboro Baptist Church wants me to make up posters for their next protest?

If you're willing to say yes to all of those cases too, then at least you're consistent.

Re:Two different things here....

[profplump]

The only restrictions in the AZ law are that the interaction cannot be trivial or technical. Those two terms are not well defined, and would probably need to be settled via case law. I'd like to think that a PoS transaction is pretty trivial, but it's hard to say what a court would decide.

But honestly it doesn't matter. The line isn't (or at least shouldn't be) "how involved the seller feels" it's "are you offering services to the public". If you're offering services to the public, you must serve the entire public, even the parts you disapprove of. If you only offer services to members then you don't have to worry about these rules. As such a pastor who only performs ceremonies for members of his church is free to discriminate as he sees fit, but a for-rent chapel that's open to the public would not be in a position to refuse.

Please stop pretending this is a new and open question -- it's been settled both legislatively and in the courts for decades, and the only difference here is the specific group being discriminated against. You either know that and are trolling, or you're not informed enough to participate in the debate.

Re:Two different things here....

[shizzle]

You've totally missed the point. The distinction between the two cases is the type of service provided, not the person being served. If I would refuse to make a cake with two grooms on top even if the person requesting the cake were straight, then I am technically not denying service to someone based on their sexual orientation.

And if this issue is so "settled", why is a similar situation (regarding contraceptive waivers and Obamacare) up before the Supreme Court?

And thanks for the condescending tone, btw, that really helps make your point seem valid.

Re:Two different things here....

[shizzle]

If someone (gay or straight) came into the cake shop and wanted a cake with imagery of an erect phallus on it, could the shop refuse to sell it because they "don't do those kinds of cake"?

Quite possibly... I can imagine a bakery having a "terms of service" that says they refuse to do "obscene" images. Should that be illegal?

Re:Two different things here....

[shizzle]

[...] let's say it's a clerk of the courts. Do you want them deciding who they want to allow to marry or not?

That's very different, as the clerk of the courts is a public official.

As for the bakery run by a convent, if they're selling to the public, then they should also comply with the laws.

As I've said, it seems to me this is very similar to the Little Sisters of the Poor case making it through the federal courts. So it's hardly settled law, but it might be before too long.

Re:Pro freedom, not anti-gay

[Gavrielkay]

There are quite a few sins referred to in the bible. Are we really willing as a nation to allow businesses to stop serving unwed mothers? Or obese people? People who work on Sundays? Seriously, with all the choices of sins in the bible, how can it be anything other than bigotry to single out homosexuals for discrimination? When the "values" are applied unevenly that's discrimination.

Until these same people want laws to forbid working on Sundays or laws to forbid divorce etc then they are just cherry picking what little bigotry is still (for now) somewhat culturally acceptable.

A baker doesn't have to believe in gay marriage to bake a stupid cake. He just has to put aside his bigotry long enough to perform a service for someone who's willing to pay for it.

Re:So what sexual deviation gets a pass next?

[Gavrielkay]

Only blithering idiots don't understand the difference between relations between consenting adults and those inflicted upon children.

Re:There doesn't need to be middle ground.

[Bing Tsher E]

You apparently don't understand that there is a constitutional right not to be discriminated against on the basis of religion. Ignorance like that is chilling.

Re:Not pro-business?

[MrEricSir]

Only a handful of religions really have a problem with gay people. But so what? It's not like business should allowed to discriminate against religious people or gay people. If certain people don't get along that's not something you solve by letting businesses bully certain minority groups.

Re:Not pro-business?

[rearden]

I see that, but someone else mentioned that this whole issue came up because of a bakery and a wedding cake. If businesses can't refuse service, does that baker have to put any decoration on a cake no matter how repulsive they might find it? Heck, someone could force a gay print shop to print religious fliers condemning homosexuality. Would that be okay?

Yes and Yes. The cost of freedom of speech is that I must allow the person I consider to be a bigoted idiot speak (i.e.: Westboro Baptist Church) so that I may speak what I wish. The cost of ensuring that I have a hotel room, a full tank of gas, and a meal in a city I do not live in is that I must serve those I find distasteful and dislike.

Its what is known as reasonable compromise. Something lacking from modern American politics, but is a pragmatic reality so we can have a functional society.

A compromise has been reached!

[Rob_Bryerton]

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...)

Re:news ford nerds?

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. When I posted some blogs critical of Slashdot, I mentioned that Slashdot has become too political. Sure, the flame war attracts visitors and clicks -- but is not good for the community (Where is John Carmack?)

Re:Not pro-business?

[Bing Tsher E]

I once had a sales clerk in a drugstore actually run away from the checkout counter because I was trying to pay for some condoms. It was a little peculiar, but another clerk replaced her to take my money.

I believe that private companies should have the r

[defaria]

I believe that private companies should have the right to discriminate against anybody. Otherwise they are not really free are they?

Re:It's because we allow freedom of religion

[TsuruchiBrian]

some percentage of society are sociopaths; the type of people who, when they believe no one is watching and they can get away with it, will do anything evil if it gives them an advantage.

We sure don't need Christianity then. Christianity has some justifications for some pretty horrible shit. Plenty of sociopaths have used religion to justify their craziness. "God wanted me to blow up the bus, it was full of people who were working on the sabbath."

Maybe we should indoctrinate our children with Jainism instead of Christianity if we are really worried about sociopaths.

Also, an intelligent sociopath who believes in religion (is there even such a thing?) would probably reasonably deduce that God can see into his sociopathic soul and know that he is only refraining from evil deeds to avoid punishment. He knows he would do evil stuff if God didn;t exist, and he knows that God knows. He may as well just commit the evil deeds if he is an evil person, because he isn;t getting into heaven anyway.

Another line of reasoning an "intelligent" religious sociopath might have is the following. He knows he is a sociopath, and reasons that God must have made him a sociopath for a reason. Maybe he is destined to blow up a bus full of children as part of God's plan. Maybe he is supposed to be the evil that God's love appears super awesome in relation to. God made Satan. Maybe God made sociopaths for the same reason he made Satan (i.e. to do bad stuff and take the blame).

Re:Not pro-business?

[ksheff]

Yes, there have been some cases in the US where Somali cab drivers refused customers who were carrying alcohol or other items that they deemed to be forbidden by their religion. That's supposedly to be accepted under the guise of multiculturalism, but this isn't?

Re:Not pro-business?

[msobkow]

You have the right to practice your religion. You just don't have the right to be a bigoted asshole about it.

What's next? I want to butcher children because my religion tells me to sacrifice them to my god?

Re:Reason The Law Was Proposed

[ksheff]

I don't see why they just didn't refer the customer to another business or quote them a price significantly higher than any of their competitors and then subcontract it out to one of them.

Re:It's because we allow freedom of religion

[Kohath]

It's because we allow freedom of speech.

This really is dangerous, as speech I disagree with should be contained and eliminated from society.

Free speech serves no positive purpose, and only works to hinder the good that government itself does in socialization.

etc.

Re:It's because we allow freedom of religion

[thaylin]

Some religiouns. The problem is most people follow one of the 2 religions that dont punish bad people, Christianity being the worse.

Re:Is it ok to refuse service to a class of people

[profplump]

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

Irrelevant.

[LikwidCirkel]

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".

Re:There doesn't need to be middle ground.

[gl4ss]

just claim that being gay is a religion then too. but the constitution really not having anything to do with this.. it's just a paper, a very old paper that has been modified many times in the past. ignorance like that is chilling, thinking that you can't add it to the constitution.

and one thing about everyone who claims that being being gay is a choice: they are at least bi-sexual if they _really_ believe that when they wake up every morning they can make the choice if they've attracted to dicks or pussy.

Re:It's because we allow freedom of religion

[Darinbob]

Even if you eventually have naturally occuring atheist cultures that develop over time, they will also retain many of the negative aspects that come with a culture: bigotry, hatred, desire for power and control of society, etc.

In fact you don't have to wait that long, many atheists are openly hostile to religious people of any sort, many will be openly hostile to one particular type of religion (such as whatever it was that their parents practiced). Ie, just look at posts here claiming anyone religious is automatically a stupid person. So if the atheist son comes home one day and tells the atheist parents "I want to marry my religious girlfriend", how many are going to be cool with that? I certainly know some people in that situation who'd start wondering where they went wrong in their parenting.

Re:Not pro-business?

[thaylin]

You can practice your religious beliefs without refusing service to gays, or can someone point out where the Jesus said "love everyone but the gays". And this is where your argument fails. Your religion does not hate gays, you hate gays. and by you I mean the people who are trying to claim the religious exemption.

The law is not what you all imagine it to be

[reboot246]

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/

Re:The law is not what you all imagine it to be

[the eric conspiracy]

You are right, The law is MUCH WORSE than it is being portrayed. If it weren't for federal laws such as the Civil Rights Act it would give Arizonans protection from legal action for discriminating based on sex, race, religion, disability and any other damn thing they want.

This is a most disgusting law. It completely wipes out any non-discrimination statutes that the state of Arizona may have had - all you have to do is claim a religious basis and you can do anything you want.

Re:The law is not what you all imagine it to be

[RightSaidFred99]

Law sounds great to me other than the religious bullshit. Private individuals should be able to associate with whomever they like for any dumbass reason they like. You don't like blacks? Put up a "no blacks allowed" sign - I'm sure your business will do _great_. Same with gays, or atheists, or whoever.

You people are so fucking weak, you seem to think that allowing people the right to be assholes will somehow upset the universe. We'll get along fine.

Re:Not pro-business?

[thaylin]

Huh? that made no sense. No one is claiming it is wrong for someone not to be able to fall in love because of skin color.

Re:Not pro-business?

[thaylin]

As opposed to the right wingers pushing bigotry into everyone face and trying to brain wash everyone into believing that is ok? Morals are a society based thing, and right now society is saying what you claim are morals are not actually the morals of the society.

Re:There doesn't need to be middle ground.

[thaylin]

And you apparently assume there isnt a constitutional right to not be discriminated against for being gay..The same right that gives the religious people the anti discrimination right is broad enough to apply to gays. understand that the 1st amendment only applies to the government, without the 14th there would not be the same for businesses.

Secondly since it is the religious people who are generally the hostile ones it is technically them being unwilling to work, not the job discriminating.

Re:Not pro-business?

[cbhacking]

Good for you (and I say that sincerely, not sarcastically). There's a lot to be said for staying and fighting. On the other hand, picking up and leaving is a form of protest as well; as you note, the concept of thousands of jobs moving out of the state is a concern that motivates people to reconsider things. Still... I'd be willing to attend a rally in Arizona, if it was big enough and I could take the time for travel. I would not, given what I've read and heard in the (almost entirely non-mainstream) news and from people who've been or lived there, want to stay for very long. It's not the weather, either.

As for my co-workers, they were from Phoenix or nearby, and don't really seem to miss the desert on a day-to-day basis (we've got a good chunk of desert ourselves, a few hours drive east). One of them went to our San Francisco office instead of coming up to WA; I don't know him very well. The others, though, say they basically wanted to work "anywhere but Arizona." Maybe it isn't actually that bad, but that was their perception. They are, to the best of my knowledge, straight white cis-gender males with college degrees and good job prospects too, so they probably weren't facing any particularly strong prejudice personally, either.

Re:Read the bill yourself it mentions nothing abou

[cbhacking]

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.

Re:Read the bill yourself it mentions nothing abou

[rearden]

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.

Re:Not pro-business?

[OhPlz]

Why do you presume hatred?

Re:Read the bill yourself it mentions nothing abou

[F. Lynx Pardinus]

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?

Re:Not pro-business?

[artor3]

So let's say the KKK comes to your cake shop, and asks for a cake decorated with a panorama of a lynching. You presumably don't feel comfortable spending hours of your life hand-crafting such a disgusting scene. Should you be imprisoned for telling them to go elsewhere?

Doesn't freedom in speech include the right to not participate in speech you don't like? Can you really be compelled to say something you disagree with, just because someone offered to pay you?

I am 100% against the Arizona law, by the way, but I do think the question is more complex than people are acknowledging.

Pressure from megacorporation

[manu0601]

I think it is the first time I see government lobbying by a megacorporation as a positive thing.

Misdirection and doublespeak...

[rts008]

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.

Re:Not pro-business?

[OhPlz]

Yes and Yes. The cost of freedom of speech is that I must allow the person I consider to be a bigoted idiot speak (i.e.: Westboro Baptist Church) so that I may speak what I wish.

No, I can't agree with that. You can't force the proprietor of the business to do anything the customer wants. Let's say the baker's kid just died, is it okay for a customer to demand that the baker ice the cake saying something nasty about the dead kid? It's freedom of speech, right? For some people, something religious will invoke a similarly strong emotion. Why would the state demand that the customer have more rights than the business person?

I get the hotel and gas station argument, but I don't buy the absolutism. It stinks of "zero-tolerance" policies which are rarely (if ever) good ideas.

Re:Read the bill yourself it mentions nothing abou

[artor3]

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.

Re:Not pro-business?

[thaylin]

What else is there. There is love, hate and indifference. It is obviously not love or indifference.

Re:Not pro-business?

[thaylin]

Who said it was a dick-waving contest. The largest amount of brain washing goes on by the religious right, so you win apparently.

Re:Not pro-business?

[rearden]

<quote><p>Yes and Yes. The cost of freedom of speech is that I must allow the person I consider to be a bigoted idiot speak (i.e.: Westboro Baptist Church) so that I may speak what I wish.</p> </quote>

<p>No, I can't agree with that. You can't force the proprietor of the business to do anything the customer wants. Let's say the baker's kid just died, is it okay for a customer to demand that the baker ice the cake saying something nasty about the dead kid? It's freedom of speech, right? For some people, something religious will invoke a similarly strong emotion. Why would the state demand that the customer have more rights than the business person?</p><p>I get the hotel and gas station argument, but I don't buy the absolutism. It stinks of "zero-tolerance" policies which are rarely (if ever) good ideas.</p></quote>

First lets be clear, Freedom of Speech as a right protects you from being limited in what you say only by the government. Not by others or being free from the consequences of what you say.

You say you have a problem with the government forcing a person to do business with not SOMEONE but a GROUP OF PEOPLE they don't like. Keep in mind they are not saying you can not do business with someone who is an asshole or disruptive, they said you cant no do business because of WHO they are. So, they are two separate things. Make a policy against putting disparaging or curse words on your cakes- totally enforceable as it applies to all equally. Make a policy to not serve gays or blacks- that is enforced against only a type of people, not a person.

Moving on, you want a more nuanced law. Ok. Where do you draw the line? As a libertarian I do not like the government forcing met to do anything. That said, I like even less, the idea of there being a group of people making up lists of necessary and "protected" services or widgets and enforcing it. The complexity and very nature of a law like that reeks of abuse and misuse from the start! Having a roving group of enforcers or worse the lawsuits from the misapplication of this just makes my head spin.

Re:Not pro-business?

[epyT-R]

It's perfectly ok for someone to claim that, just as much as it's ok for someone to claim the opposite. It should also be ok for buyer or seller to discriminate for/against each other however they choose. How many liberals discriminate against walmart because they sell firearms? How many conservatives discriminate against Apple for their pro-gay stance?

Re:Not pro-business?

[rearden]

My husband is a baker, and has faced an issue like this. I like his response, so I will steal it from him.

"I would never want someone turned away for one of their happiest events. So, I would bake the cake. I would make the purchaser aware of the fact that I am against their beliefs, I am against their ideas, and I dislike them. Then I would ask them if they still want me to do it. If they say yes, I bake the best damn KKK cake I can muster and move on."

You can keep extending on to greater and greater levels of extremism but the reality is, anything less than yes yields years of lawsuits and even more regulation. Who makes the decision on where the line is? If you say the line is X and refuse to make it, and this now arbitrary group decides you are wrong its Y, then the fines could kill your business. Thus, in practice the answer will be yes anyway. Why make it more complicated?

? Curious

[Wild_dog!]

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?

Re:? Curious

[Grishnakh]

And who really thinks a christian variant of sharia law is a good idea in a modern civilized democratic republic?

A very large portion of American citizens, unfortunately.

Re:? Curious

[Wild_dog!]

A large portion, or a vocal small portion who votes in large numbers while everyone else is apathetic? I thought religion was dwindling in the US as it has in other regions of the world. Is this a flawed assessment?
I haven't seen that the numbers of the christian fundamentalists has risen. They seem to have figured out how to use the system we have more effectively to put politicians in power who have their same sets of beliefs. Since these politicians only owe their allegiance to the vocal minority who put them in power and with whom they agree, it is sort of a perfect storm for a new fundamentalist order in some regions of the country.

Re:? Curious

[Grishnakh]

From what I've seen, the numbers of Christian fundamentalists have indeed risen in recent decades. (Sorry, don't have any links handy.) While the number of non-religious has also risen, the number of fundies has also risen; the group that's fallen is mainly the "mainline" Protestants (Episcopals, Presbyterians, Lutherans, etc.). Basically, it seems the younger Protestants have abandoned the traditional churches (which these days are preaching tolerance for homosexuals, some even have female and/or openly gay pastors) and moved to the fundie and evangelical megachurches which are very outspoken on these issues and politically active.

In addition to that, we've had a large influx of Hispanics over the past couple of decades, and most of them are Roman Catholic, though many of them are also converting to evangelical Christianity.

So overall, it does seem to me like things are polarizing more.

Re:Pro freedom, not anti-gay

[seebs]

See, I actually think that photography case should have gone to the photographer, because photography is a creative endeavor and thus it's a free speech issue. But in the case of a restaurant or whatever? That's not a nuisance suit, that's a legitimate discrimination complaint. You don't get to decide you're only willing to feed some people when you're selling food.

You're entirely right that "the gay agenda" is bullshit. The entire concept that there's an agenda there other than "being allowed to live your life normally same as everybody else" is bullshit.

Re:I believe that private companies should have th

[seebs]

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?

Re:Not pro-business?

[rearden]

Ok. What about Hotels? Hospitals? Pharmacy's? Restaurants? Gas stations on lonely AZ roads where the next one is not for miles?

What about if you fly into San Francisco and all business's there refuse to give you a hotel room or a meal because you identify publicly as Christian? Now you have no where to stay.

Its easy to say go elsewhere,and in big cities is is even pragmatically practical. However, having grown up in small rural southern towns, that is not always true. Where and how do you draw the line? When is it acceptable, who keeps the list of protected services and products?

The answer is that there is no good answer, but if the choice is force someone who has BY CHOICE created a business of Public Accommodation or risk having an entire group of people denied services, goods, and removed from the economy the answer, to me and many others, obvious. If you find the idea so horrible and think you can support your business with people like minded then make it a truly private business. Charge a small membership fee, and only do work for members. Or don't open a public business at all.

The great irony is that many of the same Christian organizations that support this bill here fight the same problem in China where Chinese Christians beyond being persecuted by the government also are locked out of the economy on basic goods! It boggles the mind that they support here against others what they decry in other places.

Can americans stop acting like cunts? No we cannot

[TiggertheMad]

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!"

Re:Read the bill yourself it mentions nothing abou

[whodunit]

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.

Re:So what sexual deviation gets a pass next?

[geminidomino]

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.

Re:Hate is not a religious freedom worth protectin

[righteousness]

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?

Re:Sodomy is a hobby not a lifestyle

[Brad1138]

Not sure "Anonymous Coward" has ever been more appropriate than for you...

Compelling businesses

[Frobnicator]

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.

Re:Compelling businesses

[N1AK]

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.

Stop imagining up fringe cases to try and make discrimination seem less toxic. The only thing that is under attack is peoples ability to discriminate against others, as it should be. Unless you're against all anti-discrimination laws then your position has nothing to do with freedoms or oppression of service providers it is entirely to do with wanting to allow people to discriminate against gays.

A photographer who doesn't shoot weddings won't be forced to shoot any weddings just because they did one in the past, they will however not be able to refuse business purely because it is from a gay couple or black couple. They can still refuse events that they would refuse for reasons other than sexuality.

Re:Compelling businesses

[geoffrobinson]

"Stop imagining up fringe cases"

i.e. "his logic is correct"

Re:Compelling businesses

[AmiMoJo]

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.

This is the Putin Argument. Homosexuality is about sex, therefore children should not be taught about it and it is a matter for personal preference for everyone. To make it worse you are talking about marriage, the loving union of two people who want to share their lives together, which in the case of homosexuals clearly cannot lead to consummation via the creation of a child anyway.

If you are only getting married for the sex you are doing it wrong, and probably won't stay married either.

Re:Sodomy is a hobby not a lifestyle

[Brad1138]

If you say so... Just sad seeing bigotry and ignorance where ever it appears.

Re:Not pro-business?

[Sentrion]

Ya, old white people are all so racist, sexist and bigoted. And agist too! Always making over-reaching generalizations about other classes of people. I've never met an old white person that wasn't constantly berating minorities. What's really scary is that there is evidence that old white people are controlling the Federal Reserve and keeping inflation low, which mainly helps old white people living on fixed incomes. Voter turnout among old white people is higher than any other demographic, and this is proof that old white people are undermining minorities in all our elections, even though whites are the minority in many U.S. cities. Those old white people also vote against Obamacare for younger people while clinching to medicare like it was an inalienable right. We should make old white people pay more taxes to punish them for their hatred. That would show them!

Re:Good for AZ

[Brad1138]

Being "godless" makes them smarter in my book, and since "hell" doesn't exist, I am fairly sure they aren't worried about that.

Re:Not pro-business?

[Sentrion]

And yet if I take both of my wives to a restaurant the staff can refuse to serve me. Nobody is standing up for our rights to be treated as equal. How is that fair?

Re:Some grade A consistency from Apple

[Sentrion]

Let me get this straight...

Why do you have to get this "straight", you insensitive, homophobic flame-baiter!?!

Re:Hear hear

[Sentrion]

So being hateful toward folks for conditioned adult sexual preferences is OK?

Re:Good for AZ

[seebs]

This is an excellent summary of the fundamental issue:

The above post is the sole real motivation behind any of this. There are a lot of ostensible excuses, but they're all lies. The above is the truthful statement of intent behind it all, and that's exactly why the bigots are losing every fight they pick these days; because they've gotten more and more angry and insulting until they made it completely crystal clear what the real motivation was. That's a big part of why David Blankenhorn, once one of the most respected and influential opponents of marriage equality, switched sides; he concluded that the real underlying motivation of most of the people he was working with was simple hostility, and he didn't want to support it.

It all comes down to people who nominally believe that other people will be punished for being different later, but also believe that God's not fast enough or competent enough and it needs to happen now before they lose their rageboner.

Thank you, anon. It was people like you who defeated the anti-gay amendment in Minnesota, by trying not quite hard enough to conceal your seething rage, and turning a state full of Lutherans who are a little uncomfortable with social changes like the widespread use of electricity around. They would never have voted against that amendment on its own; it wasn't until the people advocating for it started talking that Minnesota Nice came into play.

Re:Pro freedom, not anti-gay

[Sentrion]

And yet there is no law to protect me and my two fiancees when we are seeking wedding bakers and photographers. I don't hear any outrage to stop the discrimination we face constantly, from "couples nights" that bar us entry to the adoption agencies that don't consider our loving family to be "suitable" for raising young orphans.

Re:Some grade A consistency from Apple

[nbetcher]

Silly Fanboi... parent was pointing out the hypocrisy.

Enough with the cake analogy :P

[DeanCubed]

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!

Re:Not pro-business?

[artor3]

That sets a frightening precedent, and your support for it seems to rest on a line drawing fallacy.

Society is good at drawing semi-arbitrary lines and sticking to them. We have cut-off ages for "adult" vs. "minor". We have cut-off dollar amounts for "petty theft" vs "grand theft". We even have "protected classes" for exactly this sort of problem.

It seems like adding sexual orientation (and, while we're at it, gender identity) to the list of protected classes would be a better solution. SCOTUS already kind of made sexual orientation a protected class in the DOMA ruling last year. Just let the courts strike Arizona's law down under the same logic.

Problem solved, no need for scary new precedents wherein people can be compelled to fight against causes they care about.

Re:Not pro-business?

[OhPlz]

Could just be that they have different beliefs and don't care to involve themselves in things that don't interest them.

Re:Not pro-business?

[OhPlz]

You can keep extending on to greater and greater levels of extremism but the reality is, anything less than yes yields years of lawsuits and even more regulation. Who makes the decision on where the line is? If you say the line is X and refuse to make it, and this now arbitrary group decides you are wrong its Y, then the fines could kill your business. Thus, in practice the answer will be yes anyway.

That sounds rather defeatist. You're basically saying that we can't hope to stand up against the man and the special interests, so why bother. Ugh.

Re:Not pro-business?

[Barlo_Mung_42]

"Segregationists weren't practicing a right."

You need to go back and look at the history. Religion was often cited as justification for discriminating against black people.

Re:Not pro-business?

[hey!]

Your example raises an interesting point in that the justification to refuse to serve the KKK is arguably *less* than refusing to serve a gay couple. A cake is not an instrument of violence and oppression, unless the Klan starts leaving sinister cakes instead of burning crosses on people's lawns. A gay wedding cake is actually about redefining what has been the recent cultural norm for marriages.

I actually think that if this law were only confined to fancy cakes and photographers, it wouldn't be so bad. Unfortunate, perhaps, but people can bake their own cakes and take their own pictures if need be. What I'm concerned about is the cumulative effect of *any* kind of business being denied to people on the basis of their private behavior and beliefs.

For example imagine a gay couple living in a small Arizona town. The local grocery store won't sell to them, so they have to drive fifty miles to shop at Walmart. Then their car breaks down and the local mechanic won't fix it. If you like for "gay" substitute "atheist", "Mormon", or "black" if you like. It's one thing not to associate with people you disapprove of, it's another to drive them out of town. To live in a place you need to be able to purchase goods and services.

The law can't make us like each other, nor should it try, but it should enable us at a minimum to live together in peace and order.

Re:Not pro-business?

[rearden]

I would agree to that in a heartbeat. Unfortunately the current US Congress and enough of the US does not that its not a reality. So, I must work within the confines of the world I live.

For the sake of simplicity we draw a ton of arbitrary lines. We would have more courts, more judges, and less life if we made everything be a "it depends" situation. I don't like arbitrary lines any more than you probably do, but I recognize them for the pragmatic solution they often provide in the face of issues of scale.

Re:Not pro-business?

[rearden]

When we start to successfully stand up in less complicated areas I would be the first to support it in the complicated ones. However given humanity's penchant for finding every which way to do do the wrong thing or to screw over the "other".. yeah keep it simple. Just being pragmatic no matter how much the idea sucks.

The problem with the bill is the "religious" part.

[RightSaidFred99]

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.

NO...

[sarabd11]

I don't think so..

Re:Not pro-business?

[willy_me]

No, I can't agree with that. You can't force the proprietor of the business to do anything the customer wants. Let's say the baker's kid just died, is it okay for a customer to demand that the baker ice the cake saying something nasty about the dead kid? It's freedom of speech, right?

Sorry, but your analogy is horribly flawed. I do not think anyone is claiming that business owners have to serve jerks. It is only a issue when a business refuses to perform a service that they would otherwise perform based solely on the sexual orientation of the customer. With the bakery, it was only a problem because the baker would gladly draw genitalia for straight customers - but not a gay couple.

Re:Not pro-business?

[RightSaidFred99]

Yes. And yes business should have this right. Why is it you lot think it's such an awesome argument to shift from discrimination against gays to discrimination against blacks? Do you think that argument helps you?

The US Constitution has been fucked by the Civil Rights act, at least parts of it. All parts relating to government entities are 100% necessary and correct. All the parts relating to how private individuals behave in a business are contrary to the freedom of association we're supposed to have.

We've become a nation of weaklings and bitches. Instead of just not patronizing discriminatory businesses (can you fucking imagine the uproar over a business with a "no blacks" or "no gays" sign?) we think we have to appeal to the iron fist of the law.

You're trying to outlaw being an asshole. This makes you the king of the Assholes.

Re:Not pro-business?

[RightSaidFred99]

Yeah, those are a real problem nowadays. You could repeal every piece of the Civil Rights Act that refers to the private domain and it would have 0 impact today.

Re:Pro freedom, not anti-gay

[RightSaidFred99]

Yes. I would agree.

What now?

You guys crack me up. It's so _cu-cu-cuhraaaazy!_ that someone would think people should not be forced to associate with or provide their work or their property to someone they hate. Who cares _why_ they hate them, people are just stupid usually but it's some sort of a kissing cousin to indentured servitude.

I for one can't wait until a Church of Satanic Racism member goes to a nice liberal photographer in Berkeley and demands that they come film their kinky sex-act wedding where they denigrate all other races and make up cool racist satan songs. Boy will that lawsuit be a doozy.

Re:Pro freedom, not anti-gay

[RightSaidFred99]

Lol. So it's cool to force someone to photograph you at your wedding when they don't want to?

Where does this end? What if the photographer is a sweet 18 year old Mormon girl and they decide their wedding will have lots of fisting and scissoring, and maybe some gay sex. Can you still force her to show up and photograph it?

My way is much easier - let people do what the fuck they want. If you don't want to provide services to a gay wedding, that's cool. Maybe they can find someone else. If you don't want to shoot photographs at a Christian wedding - more power to you. Probably some nice alternatives there.

Wow, what a LOAD of bullshit

[SmallFurryCreature]

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.

Re:Wow, what a LOAD of bullshit

[stonecypher]

You do know that in Modern times the first decriminilazation of homosexual activity was en-acted under Napolean, in 1811?

Why, yes. I even said that, in my comment, though I named the country instead of the leader. Search my comment for France.

You spelled his name wrong, you got the wrong leader, and you got the year wrong. It was during the French Revolution, not under Napoleon; it was in 1791, not 1811; it was the Constituent Assembly, in replacing the penal code, not by a single leader. .

NOTHING with regards to human rights started in the US.

Lol okay :) .

You are so fucking ignorant you make Fox News seem informed.

Says the guy who tried to make a correction to a comment that already contained what he wanted to say, and in a single factual claim made three fundamental errors.

I mean you at least got which country it was right, at least.

This isn't Reddit. Generally slashdotters are expected to hold better behavior than this.

The chamber of commerce is against

[SmallFurryCreature]

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?

Re:Not pro-business?

[artor3]

Wait, what? I'm the one arguing in favor of arbitrary lines here. That we should say "You can refuse service at your discretion, except in cases X, Y, and Z". I concede that that does open the door to more lawsuits. You'll doubtless have cases of someone denying service because the customer is gay, but claiming it's for some other reason. But I think we should be willing to pay that price, rather than compel people to take ANY customer, or else close up shop.

And I agree Congress won't do anything, which is why I suggested letting the courts handle it. A year ago, I would have been very pessimistic on that front, but after the DOMA ruling it seems that they're ready to recognize gay people as a protected class.

Re:Not pro-business?

[rearden]

Sorry, your statement of semi-arbitrary lines was, to me, a bit of the type that could go for or against.

Its one of those things. The courts take a long time, I see people hurt every day by these laws and acts and its hard to say "wait". I understand Martin Luther Kings Letter from a Birmingham Jail better every day. When you have friends who have anti-gay family's and when he gets sick keeps his partner of 15 years out and keeps all of his friends out- you just scream. After a while the small injustices just add up to so much you finally say enough.

Courts, acts, laws, whatever it takes just short of violence. And in places like Nigeria & Russia I say get violent. Mandela started with Gandhi and finished with guerrilla warfare. It does not look like it will have to go that far here, but a few more years and it would have been dicey.

Sure, but...

[Arancaytar]

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.

"don't believe in"

[Arancaytar]

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.

Nope.

[Arancaytar]

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.

So ...

[cascadingstylesheet]

... 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?

Re:So ...

[rochrist]

So you're fine with black people being denied service where ever they go, right? Freedom of fucking association and all that?

Re:So ...

[cascadingstylesheet]

So you're fine with black people being denied service where ever they go, right? Freedom of fucking association and all that?

I must have missed your answers to my questions ...

Re:Not pro-business?

[thaylin]

Then they would be indifferent and not care about the political side of it, or if someone purchased from them.

Re:Not pro-business?

[thaylin]

People lined up at chick fil a is not the majority so I fail to see your point.

Re:So what sexual deviation gets a pass next?

[Shaiken]

Friend, friends, ... Why all the fighting?
Can't he be an idiot and an asshole?

Re:The use if force

[EmagGeek]

That's about the size of it. The lesson here is that you must provide your services under threat of force from government.

If this law does NOT get passed, it will become commonplace to get sued for turning away business, for whatever reason? Schedule already booked up? Too bad, go to court accused of discrimination. Going on vacation that week? Too bad, go to court accused of discrimination. Don't want to bake a swastika cake for the local neo-nazi ball? Too bad, go to court accused of discrimination.

Re:It's because we allow freedom of religion

[flyneye]

Further we have examples of every participant of civilization, even the uncivilized having religion even before recorded history. Its built into us as Voltaire said, If God did not exist, we would have to create him.

How about: Deny Service to Sinners? =-)

[fygment]

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.

Re:Some grade A consistency from Apple

[BitZtream]

If you had a clue about working in the retail world, you'd thank them.

30% off the top is standard ... with NOTHING in return, oh, and unless you're a big player, they in some super store ... not only do they take 30% off the top, they ALSO charge you for shelf space.

Or think of it another way and pull your head out of your ass. Apple doesn't take 30% of your profit, they sell your product on their store for a 30% markup over your price. So you set your price to what you want to make, but your customers are going to pay an extra 30% ... just like every other store on the planet.

Get a clue

Re:Hate is not a religious freedom worth protectin

[BitZtream]

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.

Gay Business owners could retaliate. . .

[realsilly]

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.

Re:Not pro-business?

[Anonymous Coward]

Right! The business is not the person.

Business owners go to great lengths to separate themselves from their business. The assets are separate, the funds are separate, the taxes are separate, the liability is separate...

So how come the religion of the business isn't separate?

A business is not a person, and if a business decides to enter a market (no one is forcing the business into existence), it doesn't get to say "no homos".

The business owner's religious views need to stay out of the business.

Re:It's because we allow freedom of religion

[ganjadude]

We sure don't need homosexuality then. homosexuality has some justifications for some pretty horrible shit. Plenty of sociopaths have used homosexuality to justify their craziness.

See how easy that is?

So you want to ban one group while empowering another? hypocrite much??

Re:First blacks

[aaaaaaargh!]

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.

Re:Not pro-business?

[Grizzley9]

No. It would be similar to allowing restaurants to refuse to serve black customers.

This is not about business. It is about the personal beliefs and prejudices of the person owning that business. Those beliefs are not the same as business.

Being black and homosexually active are not the same thing at all. Stop trying to get on that bandwagon of "me too". Race you can do nothing about. Your choice of who or what you have sex with in private is entirely elective. Oh, but I touched that wire that says you can't put private issues back into being private. Since when did flaunting how you get off become proper public discourse? Because that's the essence of what is being said when someone comes out. Props to those like Tim Cook and other celebrities who say it's none of your business. But can't say that here without being anonymous, no siree.

Re:It's because we allow freedom of religion

[TangoMargarine]

So we should be intolerant of religion in order to be tolerant of ethnicity/race/gender? Hmm.

Re:It's because we allow freedom of religion

[nightfire-unique]

Athiests are occasionally "bigots" with regards to the choices others make, like religion. Religious folks, on the other hand, are occasionally bigots with regards to the properties of others. There is a difference.

Re:Neighboring state's recent judgements

[Frobnicator]

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.

Then it sounds like you would want this Arizona law. It says that basically while they don't want discrimination, they'll accept some since the alternative is to compel people an businesses into potentially bad choices.

I agree with you, as mentioned at several other points along the discussion. When the choice is between government-compelled actions and freedom, the default should be freedom.

The zero-thought, zero-tolerance "ALL THINGS NON-TRADITONALLY-SEXUAL MUST BE ALLOWED EVERYWHERE!" cry going around the nation is just as bad as the "ALL WEAPONS AND POTENTIAL MUST BE SEVERELY PUNISHED AT SCHOOLS" from the 90s. and the "ALL AIRPORT USERS ARE TERRORISTS!" garbage after 9/11. The situation in schools brought us school lockdowns, involuntary-yet-'consentual' searches at schools, suspensions of 6-year-olds with knifes to cut their birthday cake, or with spoon/knife/fork camping supplies, and a long list of 17-year-old honor student boy scouts getting suspended because of a knife still in the car. The airport garbage is still..., well, we all know. The consequences of an "ALL THINGS IN NON-TRADITIONAL SEX" decree would be far worse in magnitude. (... But if precisely enforced, after the first decade or so of very expensive lawsuits and media firestorms would hopefully get repealed quickly.)

Re:Not pro-business?

[ganjadude]

I disagree, The liberals own the schools, as such they own the title of biggest brainwashers.

Re:Not pro-business?

[ganjadude]

Yes, fuck the rgay people. When states and laws try to cater to gay groups, you create several different rules for different people just by claiming something is against your sexual orientation..... Laws apply to everyone. sexual orientation comes second.

Do you not see how you are doing the exact same thing, you are arguing against because of your bias against religion?

Nice article

[CCarrot]

This article sums it up nicely, I think.

Nice going, Arizona. Or at least, Arizona politicians.

Re:Hate is not a religious freedom worth protectin

[squiggleslash]

Next they can pass laws saying that religious freedom can also include suicide bombing.

In fairness, that's proven very difficult to prosecute anyway...

Re:Good for AZ

[seebs]

It's funny that you say that, when it's the anti-gay folks that have been pushing so hard for anti-gay legislation and constitutional amendments.

But yeah, the state does get involved when people aren't willing to do things voluntarily. Not willing to voluntarily refrain from killing people? We involve the state. Not willing to voluntarily refrain from discriminating against people, to try to deny them basic human rights? We involve the state. That's the one thing the state is legitimately for.

Re:It's because we allow freedom of religion

[gIobaljustin]

See how easy that is?

Your post didn't have any actual reasons to justify your statements, unlike his. The question was whether religion does good, and whether it keeps sociopaths from doing Bad Things.

So you want to ban one group while empowering another? hypocrite much??

It doesn't look like he wants to ban anything. Read the post he replied to and then read his reply to see the context.

In any case, that wouldn't be hypocrisy (a word that has pretty much lost its meaning); it would be more like a double standard, if anything. Hypocrisy is about direct contradictions.

Re:It's because we allow freedom of religion

[TsuruchiBrian]

We don't *need* homosexuality to keep people from doing evil things, for the same reason we don't need beanie babies to prevent people from doing horrible things. Nobody ever claimed that homosexuality or beanie babies were stopping sociopaths from doing terrible things.

Unlike homosexuality and beanie babies. Some people actually do

claim that we need religion/Christianity to prevent sociopaths from acting out. This is when pointing out that we don;t need Christianity for this purpose becomes relevant.

So you want to ban one group while empowering another? hypocrite much??

I never said anything about banning anything.

Re:Reason The Law Was Proposed

[Straif]

In at least one of the original cases (I believe the cake one) and possibly both, the business owners DID in fact give the couple a list of other businesses that would be fine with providing the service they needed. There didn't appear to be any animosity on the businesses part, merely a deep held religious belief that they did not want to violate. The couples decided to sue anyway out of spite and not out of lack of options.

In a proper free market, a privately owned business would have the right to discriminate based on whatever criteria they wanted with the complete knowledge that in doing so they would be opening themselves up to potential competition. You bake cakes but don't do gay weddings, then another baker can open up and grab not only the gay wedding business but that of those who are offended by your choice.

They are not government entities so shouldn't have to cater to all members of the community but in most cases actively discriminating against a certain clientele is just simply bad for business.

Forcing people to do business

[Agent0013]

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!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Not pro-business?

[OhPlz]

That's not for you to decide, not in a free country.

Re:First blacks

[david672orford]

>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.)

Re: There doesn't need to be middle ground.

[david672orford]

People certainly have a choice about whether to attend a particular church or not. But I am not sure religious belief is something you can just turn off. I suppose you could drive them into the um... closet.

To say that it is OK to discriminate against ideas is dangerous because then someone has to decide which ideas are incorrect and thus fair game. If that had been the way things worked, then the gay rights movement would never have gotten off the ground.

Re:Not pro-business?

[MrEricSir]

In that case it sounds like the baker is operating a church, not a business.

Re:So

[david672orford]

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."

Re:So what sexual deviation gets a pass next?

[david672orford]

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.

Re:So what sexual deviation gets a pass next?

[geminidomino]

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.

The Bill Is Not What Has Been Reported

[BrianPRabbit]

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.