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,

[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,

[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,

[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,

[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,

[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,

[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,

[viperidaenz]

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

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,

[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,

[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,

[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]

"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,

[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]

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,

[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,

[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,

[Fancia]

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

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,

[Kohath]

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

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,

[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,

[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,

[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,

[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,

[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,

[Opportunist]

It can tell 16 million colors apart.

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,

[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,

[righteousness]

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

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,

[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,

[ChrisMaple]

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

Re:First blacks,

[ChrisMaple]

Marriages are fucking contracts.

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

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,

[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,

[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,

[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,

[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,

[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,

[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,

[ynp7]

So kind of like a gay George Clooney?

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,

[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,

[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,

[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,

[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,

[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]

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,

[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,

[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,

[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,

[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,

[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,

[AmiMoJo]

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

So, homophobia.

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...

Re:Some grade A consistency from Apple

[MightyMartian]

Let me get this straight. Because China does bad things, Arizona a free pass?

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: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: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: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

[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?

[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: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.

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.

Re:Religion DOES serve a purpose.

[Bartles]

That's just ignorant and stupid.

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: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.

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: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.

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.