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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
<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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You are missing the other things he did. The messages he sent out to others, sharing the broadcast, sending out tweets, IM's, and more. His culpability comes not in recording the sex, but in distributing it and publishing it in a negative way. Just because you don't forsee the outcome of your actions does not mean that you are not responsible, at least partially, for the outcome.
I think the punishment is appropriate. He, and others and lets be honest punishment is about determent, will think twice about doing things like this because they don't want the news, the fines, and the jail time.
To be honest, if he had not been such a douchebag in court and in the limited time he was in public he probably would have gotten less. Hard to have sympathy for someone who was cold, calculating, and who's only response thus far has essentially been "its not my fault, I should be able to do what I want".
IANAL but I work for some! It depends on who is doing the leaks. The members of the grand jury are usually not restricted from speaking about the proceedings, just witnesses, and others involved in the process. So... if the person(s) doing the tweeting are on the Grand Jury or being told by people on the Grand Jury then he is barking up the wrong tree and likely to be burned by this. The best way for a judge to handle this (as far as I can see) is if the subpoena is not on its face baseless then the judge should request the info, review it him/ her self and see if it warrants further action. That way at worse some people at Twitter and the Judge know who the people are. Not the AG or anyone who can retaliate/ strike back. If the judge find there is cause based on who the person is the issue can be carried forth in the appropriate way: the courts, the bar association, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
Very well said & put!
I have to agree, especially on the last two lines!
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.
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?
<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.
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.
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.
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/
LOL... sorry threesomes are not my thing but you have at!
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!
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.
ROFL.. I know I should not feed the trolls but this line always makes me laugh?
Neither... now my turn to ask!
So, were you raped by a man or forced to live with too many women? Is that why you are straight!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You are missing the other things he did. The messages he sent out to others, sharing the broadcast, sending out tweets, IM's, and more. His culpability comes not in recording the sex, but in distributing it and publishing it in a negative way. Just because you don't forsee the outcome of your actions does not mean that you are not responsible, at least partially, for the outcome.
I think the punishment is appropriate. He, and others and lets be honest punishment is about determent, will think twice about doing things like this because they don't want the news, the fines, and the jail time.
To be honest, if he had not been such a douchebag in court and in the limited time he was in public he probably would have gotten less. Hard to have sympathy for someone who was cold, calculating, and who's only response thus far has essentially been "its not my fault, I should be able to do what I want".
IANAL but I work for some! It depends on who is doing the leaks. The members of the grand jury are usually not restricted from speaking about the proceedings, just witnesses, and others involved in the process. So... if the person(s) doing the tweeting are on the Grand Jury or being told by people on the Grand Jury then he is barking up the wrong tree and likely to be burned by this. The best way for a judge to handle this (as far as I can see) is if the subpoena is not on its face baseless then the judge should request the info, review it him/ her self and see if it warrants further action. That way at worse some people at Twitter and the Judge know who the people are. Not the AG or anyone who can retaliate/ strike back. If the judge find there is cause based on who the person is the issue can be carried forth in the appropriate way: the courts, the bar association, etc.