Arizona bill sponsor, supporters reverse course; Update: NBC says Brewer likely to veto

posted at 10:41 am on February 25, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Thanks to the attempt to force same-sex marriage into the civil-rights paradigm, businesses in the wedding industry are increasingly faced with a choice between their personal religious beliefs and public-accommodation laws that could force them out of their livelihoods. Arizona’s legislature tried amending the state’s protection of religious belief, but the effort may end up backfiring. With Governor Jan Brewer contemplating whether to sign or veto the bill, a number of Republicans now want the latter — including one of the original sponsors of the legislation:

The chorus of opposition has grown each day, and on Monday, three state senators who voted in favor of the bill changed course and said they oppose it. U.S. Sen. John McCain asked Brewer to veto the measure, as did Apple Inc. and the CEO of American Airlines Group Inc.

State Sens. Bob Worsley, Adam Driggs and Steve Pierce sent their letter urging a veto just days after they joined the entire 17-member Senate GOP caucus in voting for the bill.

“I think laws are (already) on the books that we need, and have now seen the ramifications of my vote,” Worsley told The Associated Press. “I feel very bad, and it was a mistake.”

With the three GOP senators joining all 13 Senate Democrats in opposition, there would be enough votes to defeat the measure in a re-vote. But too much time has passed to allow for reconsideration, and the bill was sent to Brewer in a routine transmittal Monday that was accompanied by “boos” from Senate Democrats.

Worsely’s name is on the bill as a sponsor. Both US Senators from the state, Republicans John McCain and Jeff Flake, want a veto. So does the Arizona Chamber of Commerce, which nominally represents the business interests this bill is supposed to support, because of the fear that the legislation will result in broad discrimination not just against participation in same-sex weddings but gays and lesbians in all businesses — and result in a backlash against the state’s tourism industry. At the same time, though, Georgia’s legislature is now considering a similar bill.

In essence, what we have is a legislative sledgehammer coming in response to the abuse of another legislative sledgehammer, thanks to the redefinition of “tolerance” to “forced acceptance and participation.” In my column for The Week today, I prescribe a lot more old-school tolerance and a healthy respect for personal choice as the antidote:

Most people, including faithful Christians, would and should object to refusing service to gays and lesbians simply on the basis of their orientation and lifestyle. But there is a difference between baking a birthday cake and baking a wedding cake, or photographing a birthday party and a wedding. The latter involves participation in an event that very clearly cuts across the religious beliefs of a great number of Americans, and hardly seems unreasonable for a demurral on that basis. …

The passage of the bill has stoked hyperbolic and amusing commentary on all sides, including debates over whether Jesus would have baked a cake for a gay person. All of this misses the point by a mile, which is the need for tolerance. The religious beliefs of these vendors can and should be assumed to be sincerely held, and under the law the government is required to assume that about religious beliefs. Wedding cakes and photographers are not exactly scarce commodities, nor are they an overriding state interest in the same sense that housing might be in discrimination claims. Both sides have used the legal and legislative systems like sledgehammers, and states have been too eager to impose forced participation rather than foster tolerance and let adults figure out their options.

Tolerance does not mean acceptance or participation. It means allowing people to make their own choices about what they choose to do, and to respect the ability of their fellow citizens to do the same as long as it does no injury to them. What this contretemps shows is that America is getting a lot more intolerant the more “tolerant” we become.

Matt Lewis is on the same page at The Daily Caller:

Opponents of these bills score points when they argue that florists and bakers aren’t exactly granting their imprimatur when they make a cake or put together a flower arrangement for a gay wedding. Additionally, they are correct in assuming that most Christians, whether they agree with same-sex marriage, or not, would still bake the cake. In fact, this could be seen as an example of Christian love.

But this is another example of how this schism cannot be easily brushed aside like so many wedding cake crumbs. In recent years, libertarian-leaning conservatives have largely sided with the gay rights argument. Proud members of the “leave us alone” coalition were apt to side with a group of people who just wanted to be left alone to love the person they love (and what happens in the bedroom is nobody’s business).

At some point, however, “leave us alone” became “bake us a cake. Or else!”

And that’s a very different thing, altogether.

I’m going to avoid getting into a theological debate over the issue of participating in same-sex weddings, because it’s an unresolvable topic. Some Christians might see it as Christian love, while others who read Corinthians might see a parallel to Paul’s ruling on eating meat sacrificed to idols, or even Jesus’ forgiveness of the adulterer with the proviso to “sin no more.” The point is that Christians and those of other religions on that spectrum of belief hold those beliefs sincerely, and that should be enough to allow them to choose when and whether to participate in such events. The right of religious expression takes precedence over the state interest in forcing bakers to produce cakes for same-sex weddings, or photographers to attend them.

David Harsanyi argues that this is why social conservatives should embrace libertarianism:

Should social conservatives “commit themselves” to a political philosophy that not only strives for gay equality, but one that seeks to impel others to participate in these new norms despite religious objections? Should they commit to a philosophy that impels them to fund contraception coverage and abortions — either through direct funding or fungible dollars? A philosophy that continues to force them to send their kids to crappy public educational systems that often undermine their faith-based beliefs? A philosophy that attacks parents who seek alternative means of education, like homeschooling? Or should they be more interested in wedding themselves to a political philosophy that downgrades the importance of politics in everyday life and  allows citizens to structure their communities without interference?

The growing state, after all, not the atheist, is religion’s biggest rival. And, intentionally or not, government is crowding out parts of community life that have traditionally been taken care of by civil society. It’s draining resources once used by communities to implement services and take care of their own. And even more destructive, perhaps, is that government is becoming a source of moral authority for so many.

Admittedly, it seems counterintuitive to suggest that social conservatives embrace a laissez-faire political philosophy.  And I’m definitely not Pollyannaish about my fellow human beings. Paul is right to advocate for sentencing reform and a more judicious foreign policy, but he’s also right when he says that libertarianism doesn’t mean “do whatever you want. There is a role for government, there’s a role for family, there’s a role for marriage, there’s a role for the protection of life.” (Abortion is a debate about when life is worth protecting. Despite the misconception by many in the media, there is no single libertarian position.) As is often pointed out, Adam Smith wrote The Theory of Moral Sentiments before he wrote Wealth of Nations. One does well with the other. There is no conflict between political freedom and faith.

Leave us alone, indeed.

Update: NBC now reports that Brewer is likely to veto the bill:

She vetoed a similar bill earlier, so this would not be a surprise, especially with Republicans switching sides now.

Update: I like this take from my very good friend Elizabeth “The Anchoress” Scalia:

Writing in USA Today, last week, Fox News contributor Kirsten Powers compared what some call the “anti-gay marriage” bills to “homosexual Jim Crow laws.” That may be a rhetorical bridge too far. More worth consideration is her claim that “Whether Christians have the legal right to discriminate should be a moot point because Christianity doesn’t prohibit serving a gay couple getting married. Jesus calls his followers to be servants to all. Nor does the Bible call service to another an affirmation.”

Well, yes and no. While Jesus socialized with those the temple priests would condemn, and healed the “unclean” lepers, he used those opportunities to teach about the love of God and the wideness of God’s mercy. A soul opened to God’s love begins to love God in return, and—for the sake of that love, and in honor of that mercy—eventually conforms life and manner to God’s will. …

Jesus is the source of articulated doctrine on both marriage and divorce. The world may disagree—it clearly stopped listening about divorce some decades ago—but the churches are and will remain bound to his teachings.

Meanwhile, if we lose the ability to respect that people can only go as far as their consciences will allow, we risk becoming mired in a muck of illusion, imagining hate where none exists, equating compelled behavior with authentic love, and losing sight of the fact that traveling together sometimes means that we walk the extra mile on one challenging road, and they walk it on the next. Everyone spares a bit of shoe-leather for the sake of the other. This is how love travels.

Jesus observed the law and fulfilled the law. He did not throw the law away, for the sake of love. For the sake of love, he threw himself away. That’s another counterintuitive lesson he gave to us, as we all proceed together, slouching toward “tolerance” and carrying our consciences along the way.

While the Arizona bill has potentially bad and unintended effects, it’s not “Jim Crow.” The Jim Crow laws required businesses to segregate, rather than allow them to do so. It was a system of state-enforced segregation, which pointedly did not allow for individual conscience on the issue. This may well be a bad bill, but Kirsten Powers is off base on that comparison.

Update: Andrew Sullivan finds common ground with Erick Erickson:

That’s my feeling too. I would never want to coerce any fundamentalist to provide services for my wedding – or anything else for that matter – if it made them in any way uncomfortable. The idea of suing these businesses to force them to provide services they are clearly uncomfortable providing is anathema to me. I think it should be repellent to the gay rights movement as well.

The truth is: we’re winning this argument. We’ve made the compelling moral case that gay citizens should be treated no differently by their government than straight citizens. And the world has shifted dramatically in our direction. Inevitably, many fundamentalist Christians and Orthodox Jews and many Muslims feel threatened and bewildered by such change and feel that it inchoately affects their religious convictions. I think they’re mistaken – but we’re not talking logic here. We’re talking religious conviction. My view is that in a free and live-and-let-live society, we should give them space. As long as our government is not discriminating against us, we should be tolerant of prejudice as long as it does not truly hurt us. And finding another florist may be a bother, and even upsetting, as one reader expressed so well. But we can surely handle it. And should.

Leave the fundamentalists and bigots alone. In any marketplace in a diverse society, they will suffer economically by refusing and alienating some customers, their families and their friends. By all means stop patronizing them in both senses of the word. Let them embrace discrimination and lose revenue. Let us let them be in the name of their freedom – and ours’.

Indeed.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6 7 8

Huh????? Wow.

Just to be clear, I’m a lifelong Christian who agrees with both the Church and the conservative wing of the GOP on almost everything except GLBT issues. As I already stated, I’m very much not a fan of Dan Savage, and for pretty much all the kinds of things you mention. That doesn’t mean, however, that I think the Church has been fair to GLBT persons. Some people I know at my church and elsewhere who take a more traditional view than I do are absolutely wonderful people. That doesn’t mean though that I won’t express my own opinion when I think they’re wrong. Most Christians criticize their Church for something, or at least churches in general, and I do to. That doesn’t mean, however, that I want the Church to fail. Quite the opposite.

MinnesotaSlinger on February 25, 2014 at 2:48 PM

And yet, here you are siding with the bigots and the community that want religious believers punished, that want the government to discriminate against religious belief, and who openly call for the death of people based on their religious beliefs.

Tell us: do you think the same gays and lesbians who are calling for the murder of Christians are going to stop if you just cave?

northdallasthirty on February 25, 2014 at 3:01 PM

I would advise you to not respond to or even read anything northdallasthirty posts.

alchemist19 on February 25, 2014 at 3:00 PM

In other words you have nothing in the way of a response so its best to keep chanting “I can’t hear you. I can’t hear you!

sharrukin on February 25, 2014 at 3:02 PM

I addressed this in my first response to you.

You’re pretending like this bill is coming from a vacuum with no context.

Gays are currently the only group suing people and demanding anti-discrimination laws and status.

So of course the bill specifically targets them – they’re the ones who are pushing this.

Somehow, because I think that all anti-discrimination laws should be done away with I can only support laws which do that all of that in one fell swoop? And as I’ve already said, you’d just come back and call that law homophobic as well as racist and sexist.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 2:57 PM

This is another great example of how “liberals” (I put it in quotes because they’re not really liberals, they’re statists and soft-tyrants) project onto others. They pretend this is some sort of 2014 Jim Crow law when in reality it’s they who are using the government to force religious business owners to violate their consciences just like Jim Crow did to business’ in regards to blacks.

jawkneemusic on February 25, 2014 at 3:03 PM

Must a black photographer offer their services for a KKK rally?

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 2:42 PM

Down for the count. No way Verbal$#@+ can counter that honestly.

viking01 on February 25, 2014 at 3:04 PM

JetBoy told me that a priest friend of mine was wrong for not attending the wedding as a guest of my (ex-Catholic) sister outside the church to a non-Catholic. JetBoy took it upon himself to in essence tell a priest that his view on religion was wrong.

Leftists are so…arrogant in this way.

cptacek on February 25, 2014 at 2:57 PM

Which makes JetBoy’s previous blabbering attempts to argue that he will respect the clergy and churches all that more entertaining, since it’s clear that he will overrule and strip them of any protections if HE doesn’t think they’re working right.

LOL.

northdallasthirty on February 25, 2014 at 3:05 PM

I don’t recall the final disposition of the ‘Muzzie Minneapolis-airport cabbies refusing passengers with seeing-eye dog’ case. Anyone?

slickwillie2001 on February 25, 2014 at 2:39 PM

Settled in favor of blind.

Ricard on February 25, 2014 at 3:05 PM

melle1228 on February 25, 2014 at 2:30 PM
Your question doesn’t make sense. All I’m asking is if these people are providing services to people who are remarrying following a divorce, thereby “endorsing” adultery as it has been stated in the Old Testament and reiterated by Jesus in the New Testament? Certainly having to provide services to people in this situation would violate their religious faith, would it not?

Look, I think this whole cabal is a joke. It’s a lousy law. The practice of Christianity is not impeded by baking a cake for someone. The only freedom being impeded is the freedom to discriminate against those whose lives you view as sinful in the course of running a publc business…

Newsflash: That’s UN-Christian.

dpduq on February 25, 2014 at 2:41 PM

It doesn’t matter whether you think it is unChristian or not. There are plenty of beliefs and practices that Christians of different sects disagree on, but it is a matter of conscience. If a person’s personal Christian beliefs draw the line at providing services for a gay marriage versus a divorced person’s marriage, that is their right of conscience – whether someone else views it as hypocritical, discriminatory, or whatever. For participatory services such as wedding planner, special events bakery, etc., the government is not supposed to force people to provide such services against their conscience and convictions unless there is a substantially compelling reason for doing so. Access to baked goods, photography or even certain venues just shouldn’t be justifiable. Now, something like access to competent counsel or medical services is a different story and we have tons of laws that articulate such differences. This is why the original civil rights laws addressing businesses focused on public accomodation businesses, like hotels or restaurants where the next room or meal might be great distances away. The anti-discrimination laws have become a means of social engineering towards groups that people like versus those they don’t. This, by definition, will result in the establishment of a religion – albiet one you approve of.

studentofhistory on February 25, 2014 at 3:06 PM

A baker who refuses to facilitate a gay wedding on religious grounds is no different from a Pastor who refuses to facilitate a gay wedding on religious grounds. It’s the same thing.

tommyboy on February 25, 2014 at 3:00 PM

I don’t think that’s the way the law works.

alchemist19 on February 25, 2014 at 3:06 PM

Some people I know at my church and elsewhere who take a more traditional view than I do are absolutely wonderful people. That doesn’t mean though that I won’t express my own opinion when I think they’re wrong. …
MinnesotaSlinger on February 25, 2014 at 2:48 PM

Not only do you think they are wrong but you think that they should, in action, conform to your opinion or else face the full weight of the law. That’s what this thread is about.

BoxHead1 on February 25, 2014 at 3:07 PM

I would advise you to not respond to or even read anything northdallasthirty posts. I’m not totally sure whether he’s a liar, a troll or just one of the most confused people walking the Earth but his statements are totally self-contradictory so he’s regarded as an unserious person whom you’re better off not dealing with. To listen to him he claims to be a gay man but will then claim Dan Savage speaks for all gay people, or attending some rather odd street fairs in San Francisco is typical behavior for the gay community and what gay people are really interested in when in fact he should be living proof to himself that the things he says aren’t true. If we’re to take him at his word then the level of cognitive dissonance that must go on in his head is mind boggling. Whatever the case actually is, he’s not worth spending any time on. I skip his posts without reading them and you would be well advised to do the same.

alchemist19 on February 25, 2014 at 3:00 PM

And you just outed yourself as a bigot.

Look at your statement. You insist that any gay person who disagrees with you is mentally ill and can’t really be gay.

What’s the matter, alchemist19? Not mentally capable of acknowledging that gays and lesbians can think and act differently than you want?

Such a bigot and hypocrite you are. You try to put yourself in the position of speaking for gays and then demonize and attack as mentally ill any gay person who doesn’t agree with you.

Was there ever any more proof that you are just on a pathetic power trip and exploiting gay people to get your way?

northdallasthirty on February 25, 2014 at 3:08 PM

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 2:54 PM

Addressed it at 2:17 above.
But in short, if someone rents out space to the public – they can’t refuse customers due to their personal beliefs.
I suppose there could be a case made that a black owner had reason to feel physically threatened by a KKK rally held at his business.
But that would be a different argument.
(How often does this issue come up in AZ?)

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 3:09 PM

sharrukin on February 25, 2014 at 3:02 PM

I respond to serious questions and statements but I try not to feed the obvious trolls, that’s all.

alchemist19 on February 25, 2014 at 3:09 PM

alchemist19 on February 25, 2014 at 3:00 PM

You have long held the view (at least in your arguments to me) that all of our arguments against gay “marriage” are really arguments about non-discrimination laws, and you say that if we have problems with gay “marriage”, we should address the non-discrimination laws instead of the “marriage” laws. Here we are, trying to curb the non-discrimination laws. You should approve of this Arizona law. Do you?

cptacek on February 25, 2014 at 3:09 PM

You try to put yourself in the position of speaking for gays and then demonize and attack as mentally ill any gay person who doesn’t agree with you.

northdallasthirty on February 25, 2014 at 3:08 PM

He says he isn’t gay.

cptacek on February 25, 2014 at 3:10 PM

In other words you have nothing in the way of a response so its best to keep chanting “I can’t hear you. I can’t hear you!“

sharrukin on February 25, 2014 at 3:02 PM

Exactly.

Alchemist19 is pretending to speak for all gays in order to advance itself and its antireligious bigotry.

The fact that alchemist19 demonizes as mentally ill, self-loathing, and cognitively dissonant any gay person that disagrees with alchemist19 demonstrates that alchemist19 does not see gays and lesbians as people, but as plantation slaves for it to manipulate.

Alchemist19 is nothing more than the wannabe Al Sharpton for gays.

In other words, lying trash.

northdallasthirty on February 25, 2014 at 3:11 PM

cptacek on February 25, 2014 at 3:09 PM

I basically support the spirit of the Arizona law but on principles of freedom in general; it shouldn’t be necessary to mix religion in and give it even more special protection than it normally enjoys. The idea that “This behavior would normally be unacceptable but if you’re doing it in the name of your religion then it’s okay,” is abhorrent to me.

alchemist19 on February 25, 2014 at 3:13 PM

I respond to serious questions and statements but I try not to feed the obvious trolls, that’s all.

alchemist19 on February 25, 2014 at 3:09 PM

Naah.

You just run away from and demonize anyone who disagrees with you.

If they’re straight, you call them a homophobe. If they’re gay, you scream that they’re an Uncle Tom and a race traitor who is mentally ill.

The fact that you hate gay people who disagree with you and insist that they’re not really gay outs you as a bigot and a liar right away.

northdallasthirty on February 25, 2014 at 3:14 PM

So when you run a public business the state gets to decide whether your religious beliefs are sincere or valid?
The state gets to decide that you forfeit your rights of association and speech? It’s not unusual for photographers and bakers to consider what they do art – so now the state can compel your speech to celebrate something just because you run a “public business”?

Being in the public square means you have to be a defacto arm of implementing the state’s policies on social issues?

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 2:45 PM

I don’t see where the state is deciding anything related to one’s religious beliefs or the exercise thereof unless the business owner’s religious beliefs call for a him/her to wantonly discriminate against someone he/she views as sinful — except in this case, that’s not a tenet of true Christianity. The state is not requiring individuals to endorse or support gay marriage – or even provide cause for it to happen. These people are getting married with or without the stupid cake — their cake is inconsequential to the act. This is a bad law predicated on a poorly construed and twisted view of “religious freedom” since it really has no bearing whatsoever on the exercise of one’s religion. I think this law would do more harm than good to the religious liberty of Americans in the long run.

dpduq on February 25, 2014 at 3:14 PM

The only long term solution to all of this is to first, end marriage as a government function. Civil contracts for all. Marriage becomes a separate spiritual, religious or traditional ceremony practiced outside of the government. End all joint taxation (yes, the results in a “marriage” penalty, but it is worth the peace and quiet we will enjoy). The only secular interests the government has in marriage is the orderly transfer of property, taxation and the orderly raising of children – so we don’t have a bunch of orphans running around that the state is responsible to care for. All other reasons are religious or philosophically based and therefore outside of the government’s interest. Second, any small private company (less than 50 owners) which offers products or services that are neither essential participatory services (i.e., doctor, pharmacy, only competent lawyer in town) nor public accomodations (i.e., restaurant, hotel) should be allowed to deny services or products to anyone. Let the market then decide whether their services will be profitable (or even sustainable).

studentofhistory on February 25, 2014 at 3:15 PM

MinnesotaSlinger on February 25, 2014 at 2:48 PM

.

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 3:09 PM

.

alchemist19 on February 25, 2014 at 3:09 PM

.
“Homosexuality will NEVER be accepted as a valid, legitimate, alternate state of ‘normal’.”
.
I’m not sure if I said that seriously enough, though.

listens2glenn on February 25, 2014 at 3:16 PM

Alchemist19 is pretending to speak for all gays in order to advance itself and its antireligious bigotry.

northdallasthirty on February 25, 2014 at 3:11 PM

It’s all about power. They want the power to bend others to their will through government, or the judiciary.

sharrukin on February 25, 2014 at 3:16 PM

I don’t think that’s the way the law works.
alchemist19 on February 25, 2014 at 3:06 PM

How so? A baker is entitled to the exact same protection of his religious liberties as a Pastor is.

tommyboy on February 25, 2014 at 3:16 PM

Addressed it at 2:17 above.
But in short, if someone rents out space to the public – they can’t refuse customers due to their personal beliefs.
I suppose there could be a case made that a black owner had reason to feel physically threatened by a KKK rally held at his business.
But that would be a different argument.
(How often does this issue come up in AZ?)

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 3:09 PM

Ok, so I think that entering the public square doesn’t require you to surrender your rights and you do.

And as a matter of law discrimination is allowed and in others demanded (e.g., affirmative action). Businesses can turn people down for a whole host of reasons. No shirt, no shoes, no service.
The ACLU doesn’t take just anyone.

Must services offered to everyone be done on the same terms for everyone? Can the ACLU accept some clients pro bono but not others?

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 3:18 PM

But in short, if someone rents out space to the public – they can’t refuse customers due to their personal beliefs.

So the state has the power to force a private business owner to undertake actions that the business owner has a personal belief / objection towards?

Why do the rights of the potential customer supersede those rights and freedoms of the private business owner?

How is this not tyranny – an abuse of the power of the state against one’s freedom and liberty to even, in some cases, be a bigot?

Yeah, it’s just like the contraception mandate.
If the government isn’t making someone give it to you then somehow you’re being denied access to it.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 2:38 PM

Freedom of association necessitates that bigots must be free to be bigots. Guaranteed freedom doesn’t exist for the people who you’ll defend, it exists for those that you won’t.

nobar on February 23, 2014 at 2:06 PM

Athos on February 25, 2014 at 3:19 PM

“Homosexuality will NEVER be accepted by me as a valid, legitimate, alternate state of ‘normal’.”

listens2glenn on February 25, 2014 at 3:16 PM

Fixed for you.

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 3:19 PM

I don’t see where the state is deciding anything related to one’s religious beliefs or the exercise thereof unless the business owner’s religious beliefs call for a him/her to wantonly discriminate against someone he/she views as sinful — except in this case, that’s not a tenet of true Christianity.

dpduq on February 25, 2014 at 3:14 PM

Ah, so you’re acknowledging that the state has the power to rule on whether or not someone’s religious beliefs are “true”.

Will you, alchemist19, and JetBoy be staffing the new Department of Religious Validity Verification?

The state is not requiring individuals to endorse or support gay marriage – or even provide cause for it to happen. These people are getting married with or without the stupid cake — their cake is inconsequential to the act.

dpduq on February 25, 2014 at 3:14 PM

So you are arguing that people should be forced to do what you yourself admit is an inconsequential act and not required.

So this is an exercise of raw power. It has nothing to do with the event itself being harmed by lack of cake; it is because you want the state to force this to happen. You want to teach this person a lesson and punish them for not doing your bidding.

Granted, your “friends” like alchemist19 will call you a self-loathing Jewish Nazi Uncle Tom race traitor with cognitive dissonance unless you force people to bake cakes for you, so I can see why you’re so desperate to put in this enforcement of state power.

northdallasthirty on February 25, 2014 at 3:19 PM

How so? A baker is entitled to the exact same protection of his religious liberties as a Pastor is.

tommyboy on February 25, 2014 at 3:16 PM

Your copy of Constitution must be missing the clauses which say that freedom of association and religion and speech only apply to the four walls of your church or home and that once you step outside you surrender them to the state to regulate.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 3:19 PM

Businesses can turn people down for a whole host of reasons. No shirt, no shoes, no service.
The ACLU doesn’t take just anyone.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 3:18 PM

And no urinating in the plant pot.
Your point?

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 3:21 PM

listens2glenn on February 25, 2014 at 3:16 PM

I think the recent trend suggests that your statement will not hold true for a majority of Americans for much longer, assuming it is even true now.

alchemist19 on February 25, 2014 at 3:21 PM

I don’t see where the state is deciding anything related to one’s religious beliefs or the exercise thereof unless the business owner’s religious beliefs call for a him/her to wantonly discriminate against someone he/she views as sinful — except in this case, that’s not a tenet of true Christianity. The state is not requiring individuals to endorse or support gay marriage – or even provide cause for it to happen. These people are getting married with or without the stupid cake — their cake is inconsequential to the act. This is a bad law predicated on a poorly construed and twisted view of “religious freedom” since it really has no bearing whatsoever on the exercise of one’s religion. I think this law would do more harm than good to the religious liberty of Americans in the long run.

dpduq on February 25, 2014 at 3:14 PM

So now you and the state are arbiters of freedom of religion and what it means to practice your religion?
And you didn’t address freedom of association and speech.

A photographer and baker are being paid to specifically join the celebration of marriage and use their labor and speech towards that end.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 3:22 PM

And no urinating in the plant pot.
Your point?

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 3:21 PM

My point? You claimed that businesses couldn’t refuse to service anyone. Maybe you were speaking theoretically that this was your preference but as a practical matter it’s not the case.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 3:24 PM

How long until we are prosecuted for even arguing against the gay lifestyle being forced upon us?

Ellis on February 25, 2014 at 3:25 PM

How so? A baker is entitled to the exact same protection of his religious liberties as a Pastor is.

tommyboy on February 25, 2014 at 3:16 PM

What can a person not do even if they claim it’s part of their religion to do it? I don’t need an all-inclusive list, just a couple examples should suffice.

alchemist19 on February 25, 2014 at 3:25 PM

I don’t see where the state is deciding anything related to one’s religious beliefs or the exercise thereof unless the business owner’s religious beliefs call for a him/her to wantonly discriminate against someone he/she views as sinful — except in this case, that’s not a tenet of true Christianity. The state is not requiring individuals to endorse or support gay marriage – or even provide cause for it to happen. These people are getting married with or without the stupid cake — their cake is inconsequential to the act. This is a bad law predicated on a poorly construed and twisted view of “religious freedom” since it really has no bearing whatsoever on the exercise of one’s religion. I think this law would do more harm than good to the religious liberty of Americans in the long run.

Your argument is premised on the idea that a persons religious beliefs and the exercise of those beliefs begin and end when they are in their place of worship or committing an act of worship. For most people, Christians, Jews, Muslims and Hindus included, the faith permeates almost every aspect of how they live their life. Whether that permeation is hypocritical in its execution is irrelevant. Whether you agree with it is irrelevant. It is their belief and not yours and how it affects their daily lives is a matter of their conscience, not yours. This is why discriminatory laws are such a problem – it automatically establishes one persons belief about what is or is not legitimate, hypocritical, etc. as a matter of law. Private businesses whose services do not affect a person’s right to fundamental rights should not be the subejct of antidiscrimination laws because it automatically means that you are interfering with another persons conscience. An atheist should have just as much right to refuse to serve a Christian’s baptism as a conservative Christian can refuse to serve a gay wedding. It doesn’t matter whether you or I agree or disagree. It should not be a matter of law that they provide such service.

studentofhistory on February 25, 2014 at 3:25 PM

How is this not tyranny – an abuse of the power of the state against one’s freedom and liberty to even, in some cases, be a bigot?

Yeah, it’s just like the contraception mandate.
If the government isn’t making someone give it to you then somehow you’re being denied access to it.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 2:38 PM

Freedom of association necessitates that bigots must be free to be bigots. Guaranteed freedom doesn’t exist for the people who you’ll defend, it exists for those that you won’t.

nobar on February 23, 2014 at 2:06 PM

Athos on February 25, 2014 at 3:19 PM

It’s not tyranny because liberals have good intentions!

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 3:25 PM

It’s not tyranny because liberals have good intentions!

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 3:25 PM

Pshew…I feel sooo much better now given their track record.

/

Athos on February 25, 2014 at 3:27 PM

What can a person not do even if they claim it’s part of their religion to do it? I don’t need an all-inclusive list, just a couple examples should suffice.

alchemist19 on February 25, 2014 at 3:25 PM

You really are disingenuous.

In other threads discussing SSM – as someone else already pointed out – you said the real issue wasn’t SSM but anti-discrimination laws.

And now, here you are, arguing for anti-discrimination laws.

As for your list, how about you are free to exercise your religion as long as it doesn’t do any material harm to anyone else.

And you guys still don’t have an answer for the other freedoms being violated here – speech and association.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 3:27 PM

the business owner’s religious beliefs call for a him/her to wantonly discriminate against someone he/she views as sinful — except in this case, that’s not a tenet of true Christianity.
dpduq on February 25, 2014 at 3:14 PM

The bakers in question are discriminating against a blasphemous event not persons which is most certainly a tenent of Christianity. Carpenter Jesus didn’t build tables for the sinning money changers he overturned them and flogged them with a whip to drive them out of the Temple.

tommyboy on February 25, 2014 at 3:28 PM

Pshew…I feel sooo much better now given their track record.

/

Athos on February 25, 2014 at 3:27 PM

I was joking but seriously, this is why I think verbaluce and others are so squirrelly about facing these issues head on.

They are a little leary of coming right out and saying that your rights are being infringed for your own good and that of society.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 3:30 PM

What can a person not do even if they claim it’s part of their religion to do it? I don’t need an all-inclusive list, just a couple examples should suffice.

alchemist19 on February 25, 2014 at 3:25 PM

Could you at least do us the service of not calling yourself a libertarian any more.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 3:31 PM

What can a person not do even if they claim it’s part of their religion to do it? I don’t need an all-inclusive list, just a couple examples should suffice.
alchemist19 on February 25, 2014 at 3:25 PM

Murder, rape or just about any violent criminal offense for starters. And to turn the question around, what religious exercise can’t the state ban or prohibit if they claim the desire to do. Just a couple of examples should suffice and an expanation how that’s any different than forcing a Christian to commit blasphemy in order to appease favored political classes?

tommyboy on February 25, 2014 at 3:32 PM

What can a person not do even if they claim it’s part of their religion to do it? I don’t need an all-inclusive list, just a couple examples should suffice.

alchemist19 on February 25, 2014 at 3:25 PM

Whatever they want to. They have the freedom to be what they want to be. Their employer can set the conditions of employment and if the employee doesn’t like that they can leave. If it’s their own business, it’s their choice just as it is the choice of customers to patronize that business or another.

sharrukin on February 25, 2014 at 3:32 PM

A photographer and baker are being paid to specifically join the celebration…

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 3:22 PM

Well…no.
They’re being paid to bake a cake or take some pictures.

Somewhat of an aside – but the passion/concern over services being provided for a gay wedding…due to ‘religious beliefs’.
You don’t hear about some devout baker having a problem baking a cake for some guy’s hetero-wedding number 4.
There’s just no avoiding the irony sometimes…

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 3:33 PM

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 3:27 PM

I’m in an awkward position because I oppose discrimination laws, ALL discrimination laws, on principle so they have no place in my ideal world; I live in the real world though where we have discrimination laws and a Fourteenth Amendment so if I’m having to explain why, if we’re protecting minority groups with these laws that already exist and I can’t do anything to get rid of that we’re obligated to afford homosexuals the same protections offered to other historically persecuted groups. Since I’ve lost the argument about whether or not we should have them I’m arguing now that we’ve got to deal with them in a fair and Constitutional manner.

alchemist19 on February 25, 2014 at 3:34 PM

You don’t hear about some devout baker having a problem baking a cake for some guy’s hetero-wedding number 4.
There’s just no avoiding the irony sometimes…

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 3:33 PM

I’ve certainly heard of it. I’ve know of Christians business people who refused to accomodate such weddings. Earth to verby, just because the liberal media doesn’t get the vapors over it doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.

tommyboy on February 25, 2014 at 3:36 PM

My point? You claimed that businesses couldn’t refuse to service anyone. Maybe you were speaking theoretically that this was your preference but as a practical matter it’s not the case.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 3:24 PM

Why would you try and equate health rules here?
I see no comparison in ‘you have to wear shoes’ and ‘you can’t be gay’.
Right?

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 3:36 PM

I’m in an awkward position because I oppose discrimination laws, ALL discrimination laws…

alchemist19 on February 25, 2014 at 3:34 PM

So, you’re in favor polygamy now?

sentinelrules on February 25, 2014 at 3:38 PM

You don’t hear about some devout baker having a problem baking a cake for some guy’s hetero-wedding number 4.

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 3:33 PM

Maybe because the 4-times-divorced lobby isn’t suing anyone.

cptacek on February 25, 2014 at 3:38 PM

“I see no comparison in ‘you have to wear shoes’ and ‘you can’t be gay’.
Right?
verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 3:36 PM

Right, the difference is only one of those two is protected in the US Constitution and it aint the healh code regulations.

tommyboy on February 25, 2014 at 3:40 PM

What can a person not do even if they claim it’s part of their religion to do it? I don’t need an all-inclusive list, just a couple examples should suffice.

alchemist19 on February 25, 2014 at 3:25 PM

I’ll throw a couple out so that you don’t feel like your question is being ignored:

1. Fail to provide medical services for non-voluntary illness and injury (i.e, no forcing a doctor to provide abortions, plastic surgery, sex changes);
2. Fail to provide public accomodations (i.e., hotel and restaurant services, pharmacy services, legal public advocacy; taxi service, etc.)
3. Fail to provide public needs by private contractors (i.e., water, septic, sewage, etc.)

I’m sure we can think of a few more. However, personal private services like photography, baking, or even architecture (although what objection someone would have I can’t imagine) – these are not essential and should not be subject to criminal or civil prosecution in the even someone wants to be discriminatory. Defeat them through denial of business.

studentofhistory on February 25, 2014 at 3:40 PM

Well…no.
They’re being paid to bake a cake or take some pictures.

Somewhat of an aside – but the passion/concern over services being provided for a gay wedding…due to ‘religious beliefs’.
You don’t hear about some devout baker having a problem baking a cake for some guy’s hetero-wedding number 4.
There’s just no avoiding the irony sometimes…

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 3:33 PM

There is no irony.
If the state was demanding these people service the 4th wedding of some guy I’d be just as annoyed. Of forcing a photographer to take pictures at any event or for any institution they didn’t want to.
Or is there some serial-marriage lobby pushing to demand anti-discrimination laws on their behalf I missed?

I’d be just as annoyed if the owner of a gay business was being forced to offer some service or product.

This isn’t about gay marriage – it’s about liberty.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 3:42 PM

You don’t hear about some devout baker having a problem baking a cake for some guy’s hetero-wedding number 4.
There’s just no avoiding the irony sometimes…

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 3:33 PM

I’ve certainly heard of it. I’ve know of Christians business people who refused to accomodate such weddings. Earth to verby, just because the liberal media doesn’t get the vapors over it doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.

tommyboy on February 25, 2014 at 3:36 PM

The media reports on the obsession with homosexuality by many Christians. Some Christians would well be in favor in moving on here a bit. But that’ll get sorted internally.
In the meantime, the show that’s playing will get the reviews.

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 3:42 PM

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 3:36 PM

Should a gay florist be allowed to refuse service to the West Boro Baptist Church?

jawkneemusic on February 25, 2014 at 3:43 PM

I’m in an awkward position because I oppose discrimination laws, ALL discrimination laws, on principle so they have no place in my ideal world; I live in the real world though where we have discrimination laws and a Fourteenth Amendment so if I’m having to explain why, if we’re protecting minority groups with these laws that already exist and I can’t do anything to get rid of that we’re obligated to afford homosexuals the same protections offered to other historically persecuted groups. Since I’ve lost the argument about whether or not we should have them I’m arguing now that we’ve got to deal with them in a fair and Constitutional manner.

alchemist19 on February 25, 2014 at 3:34 PM

You are the ONLY “libertarian” I’ve run across who never actually makes the libertarian argument in favor of “hey we lost, so lets just surrender”.

You also seem to have a very expansive view of how the 14th amendment should be interpreted and applied and the limits placed on government.

Anti-discrimination laws were first enacted to deal with a truly extraordinary situation that one could argue warranted it for a limited time. But not anymore and certainly not for the list of “special” groups which want special status. If you were really a libertarian you’d be arguing that no more of this should be going on.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 3:44 PM

They are a little leary of coming right out and saying that your rights are being infringed for your own good and that of society.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 3:30 PM

Of course they are. To do so would be not only embracing tyranny, but openly advocating for tyranny – that all are equal, but some are just more equal than others. The ‘greater good’ argument is as false as arguing that the ‘ends justifies the means’.

Athos on February 25, 2014 at 3:46 PM

Well…no.
They’re being paid to bake a cake or take some pictures.

Somewhat of an aside – but the passion/concern over services being provided for a gay wedding…due to ‘religious beliefs’.
You don’t hear about some devout baker having a problem baking a cake for some guy’s hetero-wedding number 4.
There’s just no avoiding the irony sometimes…

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 3:33 PM

Sometimes I love your unintentional self parody.

I don’t think the 4th marriage lobby can afford the legal fees. They aren’t the cause du jour.

NotCoach on February 25, 2014 at 3:46 PM

Why would you try and equate health rules here?
I see no comparison in ‘you have to wear shoes’ and ‘you can’t be gay’.
Right?

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 3:36 PM

You are the one who claimed that businesses couldn’t deny ANYONE service.

I was offering just a few examples of that not being true.

The connection is that it shouldn’t be the role of government to dictate and micromanage the ways in which businesses conduct themselves.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 3:47 PM

“Homosexuality will NEVER be accepted by me as a valid, legitimate, alternate state of ‘normal’.”

listens2glenn on February 25, 2014 at 3:16 PM

.
Fixed for you.

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 3:19 PM

.
That “correction” is true sure ’nuff, but so was the original.

I am saying/stating unequivocally that my original statement speaks for a majority of the population of the U.S.

listens2glenn on February 25, 2014 at 3:47 PM

The media reports on the obsession with homosexuality by many Christians.

No, the media reports on the Christian obsession not to be forced to accomdate homosexuality by authoritarian liberals. And that has nothing to do with whether there are some Christian business which will not facilitate second, third or fourth marriages.

tommyboy on February 25, 2014 at 3:47 PM

Murder, rape or just about any violent criminal offense for starters. And to turn the question around, what religious exercise can’t the state ban or prohibit if they claim the desire to do. Just a couple of examples should suffice and an expanation how that’s any different than forcing a Christian to commit blasphemy in order to appease favored political classes?

tommyboy on February 25, 2014 at 3:32 PM

Why are violent offenses not okay when done in the name of a religion but non-violent offenses alright? Aren’t you still letting the government restrict the freedom of religion if they forbid violent offenses done in the course of its practice? Besides, the government already stands idly by and allows the violent mutilation of the genitals of newborn children if it’s done in the name of religion so I guess we’ve already crossed the bridge you think we shouldn’t.

I believe the standard that’s been used is that if the state would at the very least need to present a compelling reason for whatever they were doing. I can’t think of a reason they would require a Christian (or Muslim or Jew or Hindu or any other group) to commit blasphemy. There could theoretically be one I guess but if so then it’s not coming to mind.

alchemist19 on February 25, 2014 at 3:47 PM

What can a person not do even if they claim it’s part of their religion to do it? I don’t need an all-inclusive list, just a couple examples should suffice.

alchemist19 on February 25, 2014 at 3:25 PM

That’s easy, goofy.

Look at the OTHER amendments.

Oddly enough, none of them mention gay-sex marriage.

northdallasthirty on February 25, 2014 at 3:48 PM

This isn’t about gay marriage – it’s about liberty.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 3:42 PM

Do you support SSM?

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 3:49 PM

listens2glenn on February 25, 2014 at 3:16 PM

.
I think the recent trend suggests that your statement will not hold true for a majority of Americans for much longer, assuming it is even true now.

alchemist19 on February 25, 2014 at 3:21 PM

.
I reject your data.

listens2glenn on February 25, 2014 at 3:49 PM

“Why are violent offenses not okay when done in the name of a religion but non-violent offenses alright? Aren’t you still letting the government restrict the freedom of religion if they forbid violent offenses done in the course of its practice?”

Becaause others have a right not to be physically attacked. There is not corresponding right to force someone to facilitate your gay wedding. Pretty simple.

tommyboy on February 25, 2014 at 3:49 PM

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 3:36 PM

Should a gay florist be allowed to refuse service to the West Boro Baptist Church?

jawkneemusic on February 25, 2014 at 3:43 PM

He’d be wise to take their money.

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 3:49 PM

“Let them eat bake cakes”

Schadenfreude on February 25, 2014 at 3:52 PM

Do you support SSM?

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 3:49 PM

That’s totally irrelevant. And you already know the answer.

I’ve already stated that I don’t think I should get special status in anti-discriminatory laws because of my religious beliefs.

The only relevant argument is about the role of the state in dictating the terms of being in the “public square”.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 3:52 PM

He’d be wise to take their money.

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 3:49 PM

Hyuck, hyuck, hyuck.

NotCoach on February 25, 2014 at 3:52 PM

This isn’t about gay marriage – it’s about liberty.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 3:42 PM

.
Do you support SSM?

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 3:49 PM

.
Doesn’t wash … marriage is NOT a Constitutional “liberty”, and neither is ‘social acceptance’.

listens2glenn on February 25, 2014 at 3:52 PM

He’d be wise to take their money.

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 3:49 PM

Like you have a clue about wisdom…

What kind of freedoms are those bakers and photographers going to have if we don’t force them to do things?

/S

viking01 on February 25, 2014 at 3:52 PM

This isn’t about gay marriage – it’s about liberty.
gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 3:42 PM

.
Do you support SSM?

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 3:49 PM

And you can’t name a single state where SSM is illegal.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 3:52 PM

I can’t think of a reason they would require a Christian (or Muslim or Jew or Hindu or any other group) to commit blasphemy. There could theoretically be one I guess but if so then it’s not coming to mind.
alchemist19 on February 25, 2014 at 3:47 PM

But forcing a Christian to facilitate a gay wedding IS forcing them to commit blasphemy. So you are defending a government’s exercise of authoritarian power you acknowledge they have no right to impose.

tommyboy on February 25, 2014 at 3:53 PM

Why would you try and equate health rules here?
I see no comparison in ‘you have to wear shoes’ and ‘you can’t be gay’.
Right?

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 3:36 PM

You are the one who claimed that businesses couldn’t deny ANYONE service.

I was offering just a few examples of that not being true.

The connection is that it shouldn’t be the role of government to dictate and micromanage the ways in which businesses conduct themselves.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 3:47 PM

Come on.
Is your challenge to me really that a business can refuse service to a shirtless, shoe-less, or smoking customer.

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 3:53 PM

Why are violent offenses not okay when done in the name of a religion but non-violent offenses alright? Aren’t you still letting the government restrict the freedom of religion if they forbid violent offenses done in the course of its practice? Besides, the government already stands idly by and allows the violent mutilation of the genitals of newborn children if it’s done in the name of religion so I guess we’ve already crossed the bridge you think we shouldn’t.

LOL.

Think any of the other amendments require due process of law before the taking of life, liberty, or property?

The Constitution makes perfect sense if you’ve ever read it. But you’re a desperate and irrational bigot who is flailing about looking for an excuse to carry out your hatred of religion, so it’s understandable you wouldn’t comprehend it.

Not to mention the fact that you’ve already admitted you ignore any posts or references or facts that you don’t agree with.

I believe the standard that’s been used is that if the state would at the very least need to present a compelling reason for whatever they were doing. I can’t think of a reason they would require a Christian (or Muslim or Jew or Hindu or any other group) to commit blasphemy. There could theoretically be one I guess but if so then it’s not coming to mind.

alchemist19 on February 25, 2014 at 3:47 PM

Of course you can. You would have to force them to do it in order to make gay people feel good about themselves. You just make up the reason as you go, now that you’ve stated there is no valid religious objection to anything.

And as you’ve already stated, you already “know” and can act on behalf of all gay people, and that any gay person who disagrees with you is mentally ill.

northdallasthirty on February 25, 2014 at 3:53 PM

“Let them eat bake cakes”

Schadenfreude on February 25, 2014 at 3:52 PM

Ha

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 3:53 PM

Come on.
Is your challenge to me really that a business can refuse service to a shirtless, shoe-less, or smoking customer.

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 3:53 PM

My challenge to you?

I’ve already clearly stated my position. You’re the one who seems to have difficulty clearly articulated exactly what your position is.

You said that businesses should not refuse service to anyone. Is that the sum total of your position?

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 3:55 PM

Is your challenge to me really that a business can refuse service to a shirtless, shoe-less, or smoking customer.

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 3:53 PM

Sure

In one more complicated case, a court held that a cemetery could exclude “punk rockers” from a private funeral service. A mother requested that the funeral service for her 17-year-old daughter be private and that admission to the service be limited to family and invited guests only. The cemetery failed to exclude punk rockers from the service. The punk rockers arrived in unconventional dress, wearing makeup and sporting various hair colors. One was wearing a dress decorated with live rats. Others wore leather and chains, some were twirling baton-like weapons, drinking, and using cocaine. The punk rockers made rude comments to family members and were generally disruptive of the service.

Schadenfreude on February 25, 2014 at 3:56 PM

You are the ONLY “libertarian” I’ve run across who never actually makes the libertarian argument in favor of “hey we lost, so lets just surrender”.

The Libertarian Party is certifiably insane and I pride myself on being more practical than most. Making the best of the current situation is better than taking my ball and going home if I don’t get my way on an issue.

You also seem to have a very expansive view of how the 14th amendment should be interpreted and applied and the limits placed on government.

Again, making the best of the current situation. My end goal is a radical shift from the current status quo into a society of limited government, individual liberty, personal accountability and self-reliance. We’re a LONG way from that and unlike most of my philosophical libertarian brethren, I recognize that radical shifts don’t happen so the proper approach is gradualism. The left spent a century building the current edifice of government and it will take at least that long to tear it down.

Anti-discrimination laws were first enacted to deal with a truly extraordinary situation that one could argue warranted it for a limited time. But not anymore and certainly not for the list of “special” groups which want special status. If you were really a libertarian you’d be arguing that no more of this should be going on.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 3:44 PM

It shouldn’t be going on but if you recall the hell that then-candidate Rand Paul caught when he talked about the Civil Rights Act in early 2010 it’s apparent the American people don’t realize they’re ready for it yet.

alchemist19 on February 25, 2014 at 3:57 PM

You said that businesses should not refuse service to anyone. Is that the sum total of your position?

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 3:55 PM

If it is, then verbie is a fascist leftist thug, like all the others. I look forward to a statement to the contrary.

Schadenfreude on February 25, 2014 at 3:57 PM

Do you support SSM?

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 3:49 PM

That’s totally irrelevant. And you already know the answer.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 3:52 PM

I’m honestly not recalling a position…or assuming one.

I am curious if your concern is purely a constitutional one – or if an objection to SSM or homosexuality is an influence/factor.

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 3:57 PM

But forcing a Christian to facilitate a gay wedding IS forcing them to commit blasphemy. So you are defending a government’s exercise of authoritarian power you acknowledge they have no right to impose.

tommyboy on February 25, 2014 at 3:53 PM

Blasphemy is speaking against a god. You’re employing a rather liberal use of the term.

alchemist19 on February 25, 2014 at 4:00 PM

Come on.
Is your challenge to me really that a business can refuse service to a shirtless, shoe-less, or smoking customer.

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 3:53 PM

We can do even better than that.

David Cooley, the founder of The Abbey Food & Bar located at 692 North Robertson Blvd., has announced the popular gay bar will add any legislator in any state who votes for “bills to allow for discrimination against LGBT people” to a “Deny Entry List.”
In a statement, Cooley said The Abbey will also display headshots of each state representative who support bills on the security list, including Kansas House Bill 2453, Arizona Senate Bill 1062, Idaho House Bill 426, Ohio House Bill 82 and other similar proposals.

“I want to send a message to all those people out there who conflate Christian values with discrimination: we don’t want your kind here,” Cooley said. “I’ve learned that I can’t stop crazy, ignorant or stupid, but I can stop it from coming through my doors.”

So this gay-sex bigot is directly discriminating against people based on their profession, sexual orientation, and religious beliefs and denying them service.

Which alchemist19, dpduq, verbaluce, and the rest of the gay-sex bigot brigade have shrieked he has no legal right to do.

So let’s see the gay-sex bigot brigade file a lawsuit against him, since “public accomodation” is their little fig leaf.

Or be exposed as utter hypocrites.

northdallasthirty on February 25, 2014 at 4:01 PM

Verbalpest is simply a loser who demands “acceptance” by perverting the law if necessary.

viking01 on February 25, 2014 at 4:02 PM

alchemist19 on February 25, 2014 at 3:57 PM

I never mentioned the Libertarian Party.

And as for preferring gradual shifts to radical ones – fine but that also requires to to actually argue in favor of limited government, freedom, personal responsibility and all the rest of it. But that’s not what you do. You say that issue after issue has already been lost and then default to arguing for the liberal position.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 4:03 PM

Becaause others have a right not to be physically attacked. There is not corresponding right to force someone to facilitate your gay wedding. Pretty simple.

tommyboy on February 25, 2014 at 3:49 PM

There’s no right to not be physically attacked in the Constitution! So if my sincerely held religious beliefs require punching an Asian person in the face on the third Wednesday of every month or the mutilation of the genitals of an infant then who are you to tell me I can’t do that!? First Amendment!

alchemist19 on February 25, 2014 at 4:03 PM

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 3:36 PM

Should a gay florist be allowed to refuse service to the West Boro Baptist Church?

jawkneemusic on February 25, 2014 at 4:03 PM

alchemist19 on February 25, 2014 at 4:03 PM

You are an idiot.

DisneyFan on February 25, 2014 at 4:05 PM

But in short, if someone rents out space to the public – they can’t refuse customers due to their personal beliefs.
I suppose there could be a case made that a black owner had reason to feel physically threatened by a KKK rally held at his business.
But that would be a different argument.
(How often does this issue come up in AZ?)

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 3:09 PM

So is there an exception if they rent out space to the private? Who else would they be renting out space to but the public?

Nutstuyu on February 25, 2014 at 4:06 PM

You conservatives just love your big government enforcing morality at the expense of individual rights and liberties.

everdiso on February 25, 2014 at 2:03 PM

NO, you are the slavish sheepledom, living high at the backs of taxpayers, at the national tit, while enslaving the stupid masses.

You hate individualism, freedom and liberty. YOU are always leftist fascist thugs, never liberal or progressive.

YOU need to learn what you type.

Schadenfreude on February 25, 2014 at 4:06 PM

I’m honestly not recalling a position…or assuming one.

I am curious if your concern is purely a constitutional one – or if an objection to SSM or homosexuality is an influence/factor.

verbaluce on February 25, 2014 at 3:57 PM

No, it’s not. If you’ve been reading what I’ve written there’s nothing in there that would give you that impression.

I’ve even said that if I was discriminated against based on my religious beliefs (and I belong to a religion that has seen historical discrimination) I wouldn’t seek redress of the state. I don’t think religious discrimination should be illegal.

I think gay owners should be free to run their businesses as they see fit too. Or any owners. Sexual orientation is totally irrelevant.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 4:06 PM

northdallasthirty on February 25, 2014 at 4:01 PM

Ker-Slam!!!

Nutstuyu on February 25, 2014 at 4:07 PM

“Let them eat bake cakes”

Schadenfreude on February 25, 2014 at 3:52 PM

We have a thread winner

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 4:07 PM

There’s no right to not be physically attacked in the Constitution!

No there isn’t. Fortunately, the Second Amendment takes care of that.

So if my sincerely held religious beliefs require punching an Asian person in the face on the third Wednesday of every month or the mutilation of the genitals of an infant then who are you to tell me I can’t do that!? First Amendment!

alchemist19 on February 25, 2014 at 4:03 PM

You have every right to try that, but as pointed out before, we have every right to stop you.

An armed society is a polite society.

nobar on February 25, 2014 at 4:08 PM

So let’s see the gay-sex bigot brigade file a lawsuit against him, since “public accomodation” is their little fig leaf.

Or be exposed as utter hypocrites.

northdallasthirty on February 25, 2014 at 4:01 PM

I’ll bet on “…utter hypocrites”.

Micah68 on February 25, 2014 at 4:09 PM

So this gay-sex bigot is directly discriminating against people based on their profession, sexual orientation, and religious beliefs and denying them service.

Which alchemist19, dpduq, verbaluce, and the rest of the gay-sex bigot brigade have shrieked he has no legal right to do.

So let’s see the gay-sex bigot brigade file a lawsuit against him, since “public accomodation” is their little fig leaf.

Or be exposed as utter hypocrites.

northdallasthirty on February 25, 2014 at 4:01 PM

Ha ha ha. That’s awesome.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 4:11 PM

There’s no right to not be physically attacked in the Constitution! So if my sincerely held religious beliefs require punching an Asian person in the face on the third Wednesday of every month or the mutilation of the genitals of an infant then who are you to tell me I can’t do that!? First Amendment!

alchemist19 on February 25, 2014 at 4:03 PM

Cleanup on page 6 for straw man vomit!

The Constitution enumerates our rights to be secure in our person and property, and physically attacking someone is also an imposition on someone. Refusing to associate with someone is not.

NotCoach on February 25, 2014 at 4:11 PM

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 4:03 PM

I’m arguing for the best outcome on the narrow issue before me, and occasionally playing a bit of Devil’s advocate when I see someone taking a position that doesn’t appear to be grounded. I would like to see an end to all discrimination statutes but since that’s not being discussed then seriously advocating that in this context would be a bit silly, wouldn’t it?

alchemist19 on February 25, 2014 at 4:11 PM

nobar on February 25, 2014 at 4:08 PM

There is a right to not be physically attacked in the general sense, but you’re right that part of that right is the right to self defense.

NotCoach on February 25, 2014 at 4:13 PM

NotCoach on February 25, 2014 at 4:11 PM

Yet we allow infant genital mutilation when it’s done in the name of religion. Or am I imagining that?

alchemist19 on February 25, 2014 at 4:13 PM

Cakes, photographs, and floral arrangements at a wedding are all celebratory artistic expression. Of course they are. One cannot be forced into such things no matter what your religion.

xuyee on February 25, 2014 at 4:13 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6 7 8