In the wake of Arizona’s SB 1062, “Jim Crow” is the new “Hitler”

posted at 11:31 am on March 1, 2014 by Jazz Shaw

The entire flap over SB 1062 in Arizona has left a lot of people scratching their heads, particularly given the virtual media explosion over the fate of the bill and what it means going forward. As it turns out, there is similar legislation pending in Georgia even as we speak, and even though public clamor has already led to the bill being taken off the calendar, the rampant hyperbole which marked the coverage of Jan Brewer’s decision is not in short supply.

One of the leading shots across the bow was penned for CNN by the two person team of James Richardson and Stacey Abrams. By way of disclosure, I’ve corresponded with Richardson many times over the years when he worked for the RNC and for Governor Haley Barbour. Abrams is apparently the Democrat minority leader in the Georgia Assembly. And when you get a two party, cross the aisle collaboration like this to denounce something, what could possibly go wrong?

Georgia — with its tumultuous past of discrimination — is following Arizona’s recently failed attempt to pass what amounts to anti-gay legislation with the Preservation of Religious Freedom Act.

The state may shift from the cradle of the civil rights movement to the vanguard of legalized 21st-century bigotry with the consideration of this legislation, modeled on Arizona’s, that would allow businesses to refuse service to gay and lesbian customers on the basis of alleged religious conviction.

Being a bit of a pragmatist – or any of a number of other, less flattering descriptions, as I’ve been so often reminded – I don’t know if Jan Brewer signing that bill would have been the best idea or not. Not because the bill was some horrible exercise in oppression (it wasn’t, in my opinion), but because opponents had so rapidly seized the media high ground in the battle, redefined it as they chose, and turned it into a potentially huge political liability in an election year. But none the less, the tactics employed in Arizona – and now in Georgia – are so over the top that they should have given any journalist with even a smidgen of a conscience left pause. This editorial provides an excellent example.

Like the controversial Arizona bill, this broadly written proposal has profound implications — not only for the aggrieved minority it would directly affect but also for the social reputation of the state at large. Those implications will permanently stain us, cementing the lasting ignominy of Jim Crow.

Seriously? Jim Crow? I have to wonder if any of these people actually read the text of the Arizona bill. I mean, unlike the Affordable Care Act – copies of which are being used as construction material in new hydroelectric dams - this one was only two pages long. It wouldn’t be that tough for them to actually read. And if they did, they might reach at least some of the same conclusions that Rich Lowry did.

The bill was roughly 998 pages shorter than much of legislation that passes in Washington. Clocking in at barely two pages, it was easy to scan for disparaging references to homosexuality, for veiled references to homosexuality, for any references to homosexuality at all.

They weren’t there. A headline from The Week declared, “There is nothing Christian about Arizona’s anti-gay bill.” It’d be more accurate to say that there was nothing anti-gay about Arizona’s anti-gay bill.

The legislation consisted of minor clarifications of the state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which has been on the books for 15 years and is modeled on the federal act that passed with big bipartisan majorities in the 1990s and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

I’m really beginning to think that it’s past time we come up with an updated version of Godwin’s Law. Rather than being the first one to mention Hitler when speaking of someone with whom you disagree, perhaps we should be able to stop listening and tune out anyone who immediately invokes Jim Crow as soon as a legislative matter arises which even tangentially touches on issues of race, sexual orientation or gender, because this was just over the top… if not over the rainbow.

Jim Crow laws barred entire segments of the social structure from people based exclusively on race, resulting in separate but very unequal facilities – if any existed at all – for minorities with the express consent of the government and law enforcement. In the case of these laws we’re talking about individual wedding photographers or bakers who may wish to not provide their services as part of a wedding ceremony which goes against their personal and religious beliefs. It gives such vendors the opportunity to defend themselves from attack and fiscal ruin – such as what has already happened in New Mexico – based on that decision. It does not cut off the couple from getting the same service elsewhere. And as Lowry noted in a somewhat tongue in cheek manner, [t]he wedding business is not exactly bristling with hostility to gay people.

Everyone is welcome to debate the relative merits of these bills on both sides, and particularly given current questions about how heavily the thumb of the government will rest on the shoulders of small business owners, it’s a debate worth having. But let’s cool down on the end of the world hyperbole, shall we? Not everything is the same as Jim Crow laws, no matter how clever you may think that sounds in your op-ed. I swear… some of you people are worse than Hitler.


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 2

You can’t reason with a lynch mob.

myiq2xu on March 1, 2014 at 11:40 AM

With a capital H.

CWchangedhisNicagain on March 1, 2014 at 11:41 AM

Nothing says AMERICA! like the phrase “We don’t serve your kind here.”

dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 11:43 AM

I liked the old Hitler better. I like my bogeymen to be real. Jim Crow didn’t even exist.

HugoDrax on March 1, 2014 at 11:44 AM

You can’t reason with a lynch mob.

myiq2xu on March 1, 2014 at 11:40 AM

Pretty much. It’s ironic in the extreme that a liberal lynch mob would be screaming about Jim Crow.

Doomberg on March 1, 2014 at 11:46 AM

Can Muslim taxi drivers refuse to allow someone with alcohol or pork products in their cabs?

ladyingray on March 1, 2014 at 11:46 AM

Nothing says AMERICA! like the phrase “We don’t serve your kind here.”

dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 11:43 AM

That was the bartender in the Mos Eisley cantina. Nowhere near the US.

HugoDrax on March 1, 2014 at 11:46 AM

Overwhelm the Left on all fronts.

mjbrooks3 on March 1, 2014 at 11:48 AM

Nothing says AMERICA! like the phrase “We don’t serve your kind here.”

dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 11:43 AM

Agreed, freedom of association is too old fashioned and needs to be written out of the constitution. People need the government to tell them who they are supposed to serve.

We should also reconsider freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, and protection against unreasonable search and seizure, since all these things inconvenience the Democrats/the left and the right cannot be trusted to exercise these rights “responsibly.” /

Doomberg on March 1, 2014 at 11:48 AM

The idea that Brewer signing the bill being a bad idea because the media had already poisoned the well over the issue with malicious and erroneous reporting is capitulization.

So they should win simply on the basis of them LYING about it?

THIS is why we lose. Every damn time.

Cleombrotus on March 1, 2014 at 11:49 AM

Can Muslim taxi drivers refuse to allow someone with alcohol or pork products in their cabs?

ladyingray on March 1, 2014 at 11:46 AM

Of course!

Only white Christians are forced to do things which may be against their religious convictions.

darwin on March 1, 2014 at 11:49 AM

Nothing says AMERICA! like the phrase “We don’t serve your kind here.”
dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 11:43 AM

Which is, I suppose, why gay-sex bigots like you do it already.

northdallasthirty on March 1, 2014 at 11:50 AM

Can Muslim taxi drivers refuse to allow someone with alcohol or pork products in their cabs?

ladyingray on March 1, 2014 at 11:46 AM

They are running a public accommodation. The cab driver shouldn’t be able to expect your baggage to accord with his private religious beliefs in a city licensed business.

dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 11:51 AM

The idea that Brewer signing the bill being a bad idea because the media had already poisoned the well over the issue with malicious and erroneous reporting is capitulization.

So they should win simply on the basis of them LYING about it?

THIS is why we lose. Every damn time.

Cleombrotus on March 1, 2014 at 11:49 AM

This isn’t a new meme. Remember the idea that was floating around back during the Tucson shootings that Palin should be dropped as a presidential candidate, because the media had ruined her on the basis of that lie.

Doomberg on March 1, 2014 at 11:51 AM

I see Dieudonne has come around to tell us that Christians are just like Hitler.

Worthless gay- sex bigot.

northdallasthirty on March 1, 2014 at 11:51 AM

Since you included the link to the Wikipedia article on Godwin’s Law, I shouldn’t have to point out that it does not offer any guidance about whether the person who first mentions “Hitler” or “Nazi” in conjunction with a topic has somehow “lost” the argument or should be ignored. It simply says that the longer a discussion continues, the probability that someone will do so increases, making it inevitable.

Since the Left controls main stream media and (re-)defining what their opponents say is a standard practice, I won’t be surprised to find that, say, a bill dealing with non-government schools, many of which are religious in character, will be branded “anti-gay”, at which point they become toxic. The only way to make them stop doing it is to show a little backbone and ignore the epithet. Giving in to the mob does not make them like you; it makes them double down on the thuggery.

The Monster on March 1, 2014 at 11:52 AM

Which is, I suppose, why gay-sex bigots like you do it already.

northdallasthirty on March 1, 2014 at 11:50 AM

Once again, I’m not doing that and I don’t support it. Making you, once again, a flat liar attempting to mainstream the fringe of a group. Shame on you, you lying liar.

dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 11:53 AM

Being a bit of a pragmatist – or any of a number of other, less flattering descriptions, as I’ve been so often reminded – I don’t know if Jan Brewer signing that bill would have been the best idea or not. Not because the bill was some horrible exercise in oppression (it wasn’t, in my opinion), but because opponents had so rapidly seized the media high ground in the battle, redefined it as they chose, and turned it into a potentially huge political liability in an election year.

I think you are exactly right in this, Jazz. Yes, the media liberals in their accelerating insanity and hyperbole over Gayness had re-defined this narrowly written legal concept into the 2014 version of American Nazism, and Brewer (apparently) said (much as Boehner had said in the debt ceiling suicide-surrender) “this is pointlessly self-destructive and will take our eyes off the mid-term-election ball”.

Although it is frustrating, I have to agree. My annoying Sunday Morning Talk Show review has for many months pointed to network and cable news and their version of liberal propaganda — moderators of every single show are demonstrably liberal Democrats and most of them are essentially media activists for the liberal agenda; and invited commentators fall almost exclusively into the bi-partisan liberal camp of Democrats and RINOs. Actual conservatives are not completely shut out, but represent a tiny minority of voices.

This issue — the complete control of television, movies, network news, education at all levels, government, and advertising by a groupthink which demonizes Christians generally and conservatives in particular puts all socially conservative policyholders in an untenable position, politically. Hold fast to that which is good, and prepare to become unrepresented in government…period.

In this case, a bill was written to protect business owners from being forced by government power to engage in business under circumstances which violate their closely-held religious beliefs, and that bill could not be defended by anyone in public office.

There is no law which effects what the media has effected by decree, it would immediately be declared null as a violation of the First Amendment. But some Federal judge has declared it so, that a bakery owner cannot refuse to honor the “marriage” of two homosexuals in violation of the Biblical admonition “abomination” and the views of every Christian church in the world other than the UCC, a sort of pretend church.

Jaibones on March 1, 2014 at 11:54 AM

They are running a public accommodation. The cab driver shouldn’t be able to expect your baggage to accord with his private religious beliefs in a city licensed business.
dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 11:51 AM

And yet they can and have.

But gay-sex bigots like you don’t attack Muslims, because they kill people who do that.

So why should Christians not respond similarly? Gay-sex bigots like you don’t respect anything but force; we can certainly give it to you.

Ever think about that, trash?

northdallasthirty on March 1, 2014 at 11:54 AM

Once again, I’m not doing that and I don’t support it. Making you, once again, a flat liar attempting to mainstream the fringe of a group. Shame on you, you lying liar.
dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 11:53 AM

Of course you support it. You’re not running around comparing that business owner to Hitler. Hypocrite.

northdallasthirty on March 1, 2014 at 11:57 AM

Ever think about that, trash?

northdallasthirty on March 1, 2014 at 11:54 AM

As you are seemingly incapable of non-abusive commentary, in spite of several attempts to treat you with respect, I will be ignoring from here on out. I hope you find a way to cope with your inner torments.

dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 11:57 AM

The charge of Racism is the first refuge of scoundrels.

Another Drew on March 1, 2014 at 11:58 AM

Overwhelm the Left on all fronts.

mjbrooks3 on March 1, 2014 at 11:48 AM

Unfortunately, that’s impossible. The left controls the media and for every conservative/right group there are 100+ leftist groups. Go to any leftist protest/march and just look at all the different front groups they have represented. Look at how Soros funds as well as other libtard foundations like the Ford Foundation, etx..

HumpBot Salvation on March 1, 2014 at 11:58 AM

They are running a public accommodation. The cab driver shouldn’t be able to expect your baggage to accord with his private religious beliefs in a city licensed business.

So is a bakery. A bakery also serves the public and it is also licensed by the city to do that. A muslim demanding that his religious sensibilities take precedence when they conflict with the interests of the customer has already been deemed a bridge too far by the general public.

HugoDrax on March 1, 2014 at 11:59 AM

So, is this a gay thread, a race thread, or a freedom thread?

davidk on March 1, 2014 at 11:59 AM

Jim Crow was a democrat.

mrt721 on March 1, 2014 at 12:00 PM

There is a segment of business’ that will always be a threat to liberals.

They must install themselves in lawsuits, rather than choose another business. I feel they purposly invade religious business’ to “Pick a fight” rather than being respectful of others thoughts and beliefs. Respect my convictions, but screw yours is their motto.

There is no War on Women, but there does seem to be a War on Religion, from the tolerant Left.

Sabercat2 on March 1, 2014 at 12:00 PM

Oh my God, it’s Selma all over again!

slickwillie2001 on March 1, 2014 at 12:01 PM

Nothing says AMERICA! like the phrase “We don’t serve your kind here.”
dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 11:43 AM

Agreed. On senior discount night I’m going to demand a 15% discount too even though I’m under age 55.

Bishop on March 1, 2014 at 12:02 PM

So I guess the Constitution is controversial now. I guess we should all bow down to Obama and the government masters who rule our lives

Brock Robamney on March 1, 2014 at 12:02 PM

They are running a public accommodation. The cab driver shouldn’t be able to expect your baggage to accord with his private religious beliefs in a city licensed business.

So is a bakery. A bakery also serves the public and it is also licensed by the city to do that. A muslim demanding that his religious sensibilities take precedence when they conflict with the interests of the customer has already been deemed a bridge too far by the general public.

HugoDrax on March 1, 2014 at 11:59 AM

Cab driver, drive your cab. Baker, bake your cake. Don’t concern yourselves with what’s in the luggage or why they are eating the cake. If you are incapable of doing those things you are likely in the wrong business.

dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 12:02 PM

As you are seemingly incapable of non-abusive commentary, in spite of several attempts to treat you with respect, I will be ignoring from here on out. I hope you find a way to cope with your inner torments.
dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 11:57 AM

Actually, I am quite capable.

But you are worthless and bigoted trash, a filthy little Obama road who comes in here and compares good people and religious faith to Nazism and segregation.

Since you won’t stop slandering good people so that your sick antireligious bigotry can be coded into law, you will get nothing but abuse.

Liberal pigs like you are nothing more than indecent spoiled children with no morals who will do and say anything to hurt others.

You get what you deserve, troll.

northdallasthirty on March 1, 2014 at 12:03 PM

HA confessional open.

Murphy9 on March 1, 2014 at 12:04 PM

Nothing says AMERICA! like the phrase “We don’t serve your kind here.”

dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 11:43 AM

Nice non sequitur, the inability to think clearly being the great hallmark of liberalism.

Jaibones on March 1, 2014 at 12:04 PM

Jim Crow was a democrat.
mrt721 on March 1, 2014 at 12:00 PM

So was Governor Wallace, the KKK, but let’s not let facts get in the way of a good meme

Brock Robamney on March 1, 2014 at 12:04 PM

The fascists aren’t the one’s who supported SB1062.

The real fascists are the one’s who opposed SB1062 with hyperbole, misinformation, massive amounts of moral equivalency fallacies, and non-stop projection.

They are the one’s insisting on leveraging the power of the state to trample rights in order to advance tyranny.

They are the one’s who are embracing and advocating – all are equal, some are just more equal than others.

They are achieving Orwell’s nightmare via enacting Rousseau, Marat, Marx, Sanger, Ayers, Alinsky, and Cloward & Piven.

Athos on March 1, 2014 at 12:04 PM

Agreed. On senior discount night I’m going to demand a 15% discount too even though I’m under age 55.

Bishop on March 1, 2014 at 12:02 PM

You mean to tell me that you are being refused service on on senior discount night?

The truth is that when this becomes about personal dignity rather than religious liberty the argument fails. You’re asking Americans to stand up for the “we don’t serve your kind here” line and they hate it.

dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 12:05 PM

The truth is that when this becomes about personal dignity rather than religious liberty the argument fails. You’re asking Americans to stand up for the “we don’t serve your kind here” line and they hate it.
dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 12:05 PM

Says the lying piece of Obama trash who calls all Christians Nazis and racists.

northdallasthirty on March 1, 2014 at 12:09 PM

Nice non sequitur, the inability to think clearly being the great hallmark of liberalism.

Jaibones on March 1, 2014 at 12:04 PM

It’s the exact opposite of a non-sequitur. I wasn’t the one who decided to use the example of bakers not wanting to bake cakes for homosexuals. This law was all about wanting to deny services to individuals due to personal religious objections to their lives. “We don’t serve your kind here” is exactly the behavior this bill was meant to protect.

dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 12:11 PM

Cab driver, drive your cab. Baker, bake your cake. Don’t concern yourselves with what’s in the luggage or why they are eating the cake. If you are incapable of doing those things you are likely in the wrong business.
dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 12:02 PM

In other words, religious freedom exists only within the doors of a church.

And the government should block you from making a living because of your religious beliefs.

This shouldn’t surprise us, though; dieudonne and its fellow gay-sex bigots want the government to strip you of your parental rights if you object to lesbians having sex with your fourteen-year-old daughter in a public-school restroom.

northdallasthirty on March 1, 2014 at 12:17 PM

It does not cut off the couple from getting the same service elsewhere.

The idea that homosexuals just happened by accident found the Christian bakery/photographer/Bed&Breakfast that didn’t want to serve them, out of hundreds or thousands of other providers, is ludicrous.

Homosexuals have been specifically targeting these businesses for the express purpose of forcing people of faith into involuntary servitude, as part of the progressive homosexual’s assault on Christianity.

And if that seems paranoid, just look at what’s happening in England and Canada.

It’s already happening in America, and it’s all downhill from here.

Rebar on March 1, 2014 at 12:21 PM

I wonder why the liar dieudonne wants to force black bakers to make cakes for KKK members.

The answer is, of course, that dieudonne doesn’t want that; he wants to punish people for objecting to gay -sexarriage and enable gay-sex bigots like himself to force others to do his bidding based on sexual orientation.

Dieudonne is just projecting. This bill would have blocked his gay-sex bigotry and restored people’s rights and freedoms, so of course he opposed it.

northdallasthirty on March 1, 2014 at 12:22 PM

Does anyone recall Walmart (I think) refusing to provide a birthday cake to the family whose child’s first & middle names were Adolph Hitler? How did that one end? I thought the family lost, why is this different?

Gunrights on March 1, 2014 at 12:25 PM

The idea that homosexuals just happened by accident found the Christian bakery/photographer/Bed&Breakfast that didn’t want to serve them, out of hundreds or thousands of other providers, is ludicrous.
Homosexuals have been specifically targeting these businesses for the express purpose of forcing people of faith into involuntary servitude, as part of the progressive homosexual’s assault on Christianity.
And if that seems paranoid, just look at what’s happening in England and Canada.
It’s already happening in America, and it’s all downhill from here.
Rebar on March 1, 2014 at 12:21 PM

Nailed it, Rebar.

Gay-sex bigots and their enablers like dieudonne are driven solely by hatred and malignant intent toward Christians.

northdallasthirty on March 1, 2014 at 12:27 PM

It’s the exact opposite of a non-sequitur. I wasn’t the one who decided to use the example of bakers not wanting to bake cakes for homosexuals. This law was all about wanting to deny services to individuals due to personal religious objections to their lives. “We don’t serve your kind here” is exactly the behavior this bill was meant to protect.

dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 12:11 PM

Except that in non of these cases did the business owner refuse to serve anyone — they just refused to offer a special service to them that amounted to endorsing immoral behavior.

Count to 10 on March 1, 2014 at 12:31 PM

Does anyone recall Walmart (I think) refusing to provide a birthday cake to the family whose child’s first & middle names were Adolph Hitler? How did that one end? I thought the family lost, why is this different?

Gunrights on March 1, 2014 at 12:25 PM

The family was reported to CPS. I’m not sure what they were supposed to do other than force a legal name change on the family. I don’t recall the particulars but I don’t recall a name change happening. Someone else who should have baked the cake instead of having a tantrum about the personal actions of others.

dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 12:31 PM

This law was all about wanting to deny services to individuals due to personal religious objections to their lives. “We don’t serve your kind here” is exactly the behavior this bill was meant to protect.

dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 12:11 PM

There are no constitutional rights to not be offended. Those individuals who own a private business have a right to do business with whomever they want or do not want to do business with. They have freedom of speech rights and freedom of association rights.

For those whom a business declines to do business with, they are free to find another business for those services. They are also free to organize a community boycott – letting the marketplace react to the business owner’s decision.

The fact that these cases are resulting in legal challenges reflects incredibly poorly on those filing those challenges. They seek to trample the rights of others in order to fulfill their social and political agenda – to achieve a societal recognition of their lifestyle via intimidation, bullying, and asserting that their rights are superior to the rights of others, particularly those who hold strong religious beliefs.

What’s so telling about the phoniness of these efforts is that none of them have targeted Muslim businesses. They prefer to use the tyranny of the minority to continue the societal war against Christians.

Athos on March 1, 2014 at 12:31 PM

Except that in non of these cases did the business owner refuse to serve anyone — they just refused to offer a special service to them that amounted to endorsing immoral behavior.

Count to 10 on March 1, 2014 at 12:31 PM

So you’re saying that no one was refused service when the cake baker refused to offer the special service of baking a cake?

dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 12:34 PM

This law was all about wanting to deny services to individuals due to personal religious objections to their lives.

No, it was not. It has nothing whatsoever to do with denying services to individuals. It has everything to do with denying certain kinds of services.

In the case of the Colorado baker, he explicitly said he’d be happy to do cakes for the gay couple’s birthdays, graduations, etc., but that he would not do one for the “wedding”, because that wedding is against his religion. Their birthdays and other events are not.

Suppose I wanted to hire a Muslim caterer for one of the Monsterettes’ wedding receptions and said I want him to serve Filet Mignon. That would violate his religion, and under this bill he’d have the legal protection he needs to tell me no without fearing any reprisal. Do I get to force him to touch “unclean” bacon or go out of business?

The thing about Jim Crow is that it didn’t just allow people to discriminate against blacks, it required them to do so. The railroads didn’t want to maintain separate cars because then they’d have a bunch of unsold seats on each car. Jim Crow forced them to do what didn’t make any economic sense, just to placate the prejudices of the electoral majority.

Personally, I find the “public accommodation” laws to be unjustified. I don’t believe government has any just power to compel anyone to do business with someone. If such laws are to exist, they must be very narrowly tailored, limited to such services as lodging, transportation, emergency health care, etc., where shopping around to get the service from some other place is not practical. Wedding cakes and bacon don’t fit that definition.

The Monster on March 1, 2014 at 12:35 PM

I’m going to start hiring gay web designers to design me a website for a Homosexual Conversion Clinic and suing everyone that refuses.

p0s3r on March 1, 2014 at 12:36 PM

It’s the exact opposite of a non-sequitur. I wasn’t the one who decided to use the example of bakers not wanting to bake cakes for homosexuals. This law was all about wanting to deny services to individuals due to personal religious objections to their lives. “We don’t serve your kind here” is exactly the behavior this bill was meant to protect.
dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 12:11 PM

“We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.”

That is a sign in many businesses across the country. There’s never been a problem with its sentiment as there’s always been an understanding that property rights and ownership has been respected. Forced commerce is not an American ideal.

anuts on March 1, 2014 at 12:36 PM

In the wake of Arizona’s SB 1062, “Jim Crow” is the new “Hitler”

The solution to these sorts of things is to propose bills, pass them quickly, and then when the left goes into a hissy-fit, tell them that the bill is the law of the land and to move on.

None of the media reaction has anything to do with justice. It has everything to do with their ability to coordinate, intimidate, and slander. And shamefully, the Chamber of Commerce was more than happy to enable them in this matter.

Stoic Patriot on March 1, 2014 at 12:37 PM

One thing conservatives conveniently forget here is “redress of government” is a First Amendment right. The people can exact pressure on governments to change laws – or prevent their passage.

Furthermore, let me play Devil’s advocate.

Is there nothing more hyperbolic than religion? Why, many HotAryans were right on this site calling for Jesus to come back and end the world. All because citizens got a governor to veto a “nothingburger” of a law according to their own side. In a state full of retirees out in the desert.

antisense on March 1, 2014 at 12:38 PM

What’s so telling about the phoniness of these efforts is that none of them have targeted Muslim businesses. They prefer to use the tyranny of the minority to continue the societal war against Christians.

Athos on March 1, 2014 at 12:31 PM

Demography alone suggests that it’s going to be hard to find a Moslem baker. It seems reasonable, given the relatively small number of bakers who raise objections to baking these cakes, that it is going to be even harder to find an expressly Moslem baker that will similarly refuse. I think such a prospect is the exact opposite of shooting fish In a barrel. It lets you make a nice evidence free claim that they are, deliberately or otherwise, avoiding Moslem bakers.

(Aside for halal butchers I just don’t see a lot of Moslem themed business. My dry cleaner, otoh, claims to be a Christian business. I’m not sure what is expressly Christian about the way they dip my clothes in lighter fluid but there you go.)

dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 12:42 PM

And it’s always amusing that a totalitarian dictator can even be compared to those who submit the state has no right to exert coercive force in any particular affair of a privately owned business.

anuts on March 1, 2014 at 12:42 PM

Jim Crow laws barred entire segments of the social structure from people based exclusively on race, resulting in separate but very unequal facilities – if any existed at all – for minorities with the express consent of the government and law enforcement.

The AZ law also stamped discrimination with the “express consent” of government and law enforcement, did it not?

And you’re wrong that with this bill “we’re talking about individual wedding photographers or bakers.” It applied to all public accommodations.

righty45 on March 1, 2014 at 12:43 PM

Personally, I find the “public accommodation” laws to be unjustified. I don’t believe government has any just power to compel anyone to do business with someone. If such laws are to exist, they must be very narrowly tailored, limited to such services as lodging, transportation, emergency health care, etc., where shopping around to get the service from some other place is not practical. Wedding cakes and bacon don’t fit that definition.

The Monster on March 1, 2014 at 12:35 PM

I could finitely get behind that idea. :)

That, however, is not what the Arizona bill did. I would have supported it if it had.

dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 12:44 PM

Someone else who should have baked the cake instead of having a tantrum about the personal actions of others.
dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 12:31 PM

Well imagine that! So your argument had nothing to do with principles.

anuts on March 1, 2014 at 12:46 PM

“We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.”

That is a sign in many businesses across the country. There’s never been a problem with its sentiment as there’s always been an understanding that property rights and ownership has been respected. Forced commerce is not an American ideal.

anuts on March 1, 2014 at 12:36 PM

I’ve never seen that sign. And yes, there has often been a problem with that sentiment. That’s why we passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and countless state and local laws barring invidious discrimination in public accommodations.

righty45 on March 1, 2014 at 12:48 PM

I’m going to start hiring gay web designers to design me a website for a Homosexual Conversion Clinic and suing everyone that refuses.

p0s3r on March 1, 2014 at 12:36 PM

More power to you. Such silliness carried out en masse will (hopefully) lead to reform of public accommodation laws.

dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 12:49 PM

You can’t reason with a lynch mob.

myiq2xu on March 1, 2014 at 11:40 AM

This is more factual than you probably realize.

I firmly believe that 52% of this country is being emotionally sheep driven and unable to form their own rational thoughts because the leftists have succeeded in making them feel unpowered and unable to control their own destinies. Economic instability. Unemployment. “environmental instability” where winter storms that used to be a minor inconvenience are now DISASTERS where everyone should shelter in place and wait for the government to give the all clear that it’s safe to come out. Moral instability where what you know is “good” isn’t and the state must punish you to behave properly.

These are not the signs and actions of a free country and populace. These are the signs of a communist and oppressed people.

Skywise on March 1, 2014 at 12:49 PM

It’s just like the leprous sores of tyrannical British slavery in ’75!

Some things never change.

BL@KBIRD on March 1, 2014 at 12:50 PM

Someone else who should have baked the cake instead of having a tantrum about the personal actions of others.
dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 12:31 PM

Well imagine that! So your argument had nothing to do with principles.

anuts on March 1, 2014 at 12:46 PM

It very much has to do with principles. But that cake was extraordinarily different in as much as it involved CPS and an attempt to seize children from parents. Because of a legal name on a birthday cake. It’s simply not a 1:1 with what’s being spoken of here. I don’t know of any gay couples having CPS attempting to seize children due to a wedding cake.

dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 12:53 PM

Ok, I think I got it now; parents have no right to name their kid whatever they want (no matter how misguided) but gays have the right to force a business to endorse a lifestyle with which they disagree.
If I recall correctly, it was determined that Walmart could not be compelled to put “Happy Birthday Adolph Hitler” on a birthday cake for a kid.
Nope, I don’t get it; I’m still confused!

Gunrights on March 1, 2014 at 12:55 PM

I’ve never seen that sign. And yes, there has often been a problem with that sentiment. That’s why we passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and countless state and local laws barring invidious discrimination in public accommodations.
righty45 on March 1, 2014 at 12:48 PM

I have it in my business. They’re very common in bars (the business I’m in). Still very common even after the civil rights act of 1964.

anuts on March 1, 2014 at 12:56 PM

Demography alone suggests that it’s going to be hard to find a Moslem baker. It seems reasonable, given the relatively small number of bakers who raise objections to baking these cakes, that it is going to be even harder to find an expressly Moslem baker that will similarly refuse. I think such a prospect is the exact opposite of shooting fish In a barrel. It lets you make a nice evidence free claim that they are, deliberately or otherwise, avoiding Moslem bakers.

So you admit that the likelihood of people being denied service is extremely small.

Then you compare that to Jim Crow laws in which the government mandated denial of services.

So you just acknowledged that you’re a malicious liar.

northdallasthirty on March 1, 2014 at 12:59 PM

I have it in my business. They’re very common in bars (the business I’m in). Still very common even after the civil rights act of 1964.

anuts on March 1, 2014 at 12:56 PM

No you don’t and no they’re not. The reason is because you can’t refuse service to anyone you want. I understand you don’t like that, but that’s been the law for half a century. You lost this battle long ago.

righty45 on March 1, 2014 at 1:00 PM

Demography alone suggests that it’s going to be hard to find a Moslem baker.

(Aside for halal butchers I just don’t see a lot of Moslem themed business…)

dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 12:42 PM

Demographics didn’t stop most of the one’s in other states who brought legal challenges from shopping to find private business owners who would choose to not provide services based on religious grounds. IIRC, one couple patronized a bakery for 10 years before asking for a wedding cake – at which point the Christian owner declined to do.

In the town adjacent to where I live, there’s a store that is part of a small chain of grocery stores that offers / advertises halal products. There’s another where I can get kosher products. They aren’t hard to find if one wants to look.

It’s not because of demographics. It’s because those businesses were chosen for a specific reason – advancing the tyranny of the minority over the majority. To bully and intimidate the majority using the courts and the left’s victim / identity political agenda.

That’s why so many never read the 2 page bill. That’s why the accusations are based on false moral equivalency examples – while others are ignored / dodged (or blamed on demographics). That’s why so much of the argument was based on hatred of religion, in particular Christianity, as well as projection against the ‘conservative’ viewpoint. That’s why the entire effort is all about some having more rights, superior rights, to others – particularly Christians.

Athos on March 1, 2014 at 1:01 PM

Gunrights on March 1, 2014 at 12:55 PM

I just did a quick google. Wal-Mart decorated the cake. Maybe someone else refused to? It was the basis for a CPS compliant but the parents had already lost custody of the children for other reasons. At any rate it’s still not a 1:1 with what’s going on here.

dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 1:01 PM

It very much has to do with principles. But that cake was extraordinarily different in as much as it involved CPS and an attempt to seize children from parents. Because of a legal name on a birthday cake. It’s simply not a 1:1 with what’s being spoken of here. I don’t know of any gay couples having CPS attempting to seize children due to a wedding cake.
dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 12:53 PM

And what principle is that?

That one company should be compelled against their conscience to engage in commerce for reason x but another should decide on their own not to engage in commerce for reason y?

anuts on March 1, 2014 at 1:02 PM

antisense on March 1, 2014 at 12:38 PM

Um… I think you meant “HotAIRians”. All the HotAryans are in Germany serving beers at Octoberfest and wearing Lederhosen.

Cleombrotus on March 1, 2014 at 1:02 PM

Is there nothing more hyperbolic than religion? Why, many HotAryans were right on this site calling for Jesus to come back and end the world. All because citizens got a governor to veto a “nothingburger” of a law according to their own side. In a state full of retirees out in the desert.
antisense on March 1, 2014 at 12:38 PM

Yes.

Gay-sex bigots like yourself who declare a “right” to have sex with fourteen-year-olds in public school restrooms.

northdallasthirty on March 1, 2014 at 1:03 PM

It’s not because of demographics. It’s because those businesses were chosen for a specific reason – advancing the tyranny of the minority over the majority. To bully and intimidate the majority using the courts and the left’s victim / identity political agenda.

Athos on March 1, 2014 at 1:01 PM

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that they passed up an objecting Moslem baker to select a Christian objecting baker? Anything at all? It seems to be what you are stating.

dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 1:04 PM

No you don’t and no they’re not. The reason is because you can’t refuse service to anyone you want. I understand you don’t like that, but that’s been the law for half a century. You lost this battle long ago.
righty45 on March 1, 2014 at 1:00 PM

You’re saying I don’t have that sign in my business. Is that what your saying? And that you’ve never encountered that sign before in any bar?

anuts on March 1, 2014 at 1:04 PM

No you don’t and no they’re not. The reason is because you can’t refuse service to anyone you want. I understand you don’t like that, but that’s been the law for half a century. You lost this battle long ago.
righty45 on March 1, 2014 at 1:00 PM

And anyway, yes you most certainly can refuse service to anyone you want. You just can’t legally do so for the sole reasons outlined in the law.

anuts on March 1, 2014 at 1:08 PM

No you don’t and no they’re not. The reason is because you can’t refuse service to anyone you want. I understand you don’t like that, but that’s been the law for half a century. You lost this battle long ago.
righty45 on March 1, 2014 at 1:00 PM

Man, is it easy to show what hypocrites you gay-sex bigots are.

Come on, proggie. Either sue those businesses or acknowledge that you’re a pathetic screaming liar.

northdallasthirty on March 1, 2014 at 1:08 PM

That one company should be compelled against their conscience to engage in commerce for reason x but another should decide on their own not to engage in commerce for reason y?

anuts on March 1, 2014 at 1:02 PM

Whoever refused to decorate the cake originally claimed that it caused positive harm to the child. They called CPS for that reason. I think these cases are apples and oranges. Ive not heard anyone claim that gay wedding cakes is abusive to children.

dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 1:09 PM

Gay-sex bigots and their enablers like dieudonne are driven solely by hatred and malignant intent toward Christians.

northdallasthirty on March 1, 2014 at 12:27 PM

But Dildo-on is so much smarter than you! Can’t you right-wing homofobs see that he/she/it is trying to educate you !!! Geez !

cableguy615 on March 1, 2014 at 1:12 PM

Nothing says AMERICA! like the phrase “We don’t serve your kind here.”
dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 11:43 AM

Gay bars do that all the time. Is it wrong when they do it?

JannyMae on March 1, 2014 at 1:12 PM

You’re saying I don’t have that sign in my business. Is that what your saying? And that you’ve never encountered that sign before in any bar?

anuts on March 1, 2014 at 1:04 PM

I can confirm that hey are very common in businesses that serve alcohol. I have one in my art gallery where I host wine tastings. It kindly let’s me point at that sign instead of calling the person a lush when I have to ask them to leave because they’ve “tasted” until they have more alcohol than blood.

dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 1:12 PM

Nothing says AMERICA! like the phrase “We don’t serve your kind here.”

dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 11:43 AM

Yeah, it’s only America who does this kind of stuff-the fact that Muslims worldwide discriminate against women (and gays) is totally irrelevant.

F-

Del Dolemonte on March 1, 2014 at 1:13 PM

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that they passed up an objecting Moslem baker to select a Christian objecting baker? Anything at all? It seems to be what you are stating.
dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 1:04 PM

Notice how the duplicitous liar tries to play a game here.

The question is not Moslem versus Cheistian in this case. It is the assertion of the gay-sex bigots that there was no one else anywhere who would make them a cake or provide accommodations.

The reason this is important is that the duplicitous liar has spun that halal butchers cannot be forced to provide bacon-trimmed filets because people can go elsewhere. Thus, in order to be consistent, the duplicitous liar must prove that there was no other cake-baker available and that the gay-sex bigots had not been offered service elsewhere; otherwise, it is clear that this baker was targeted.

And this the duplicitous liar would be exposed.

northdallasthirty on March 1, 2014 at 1:14 PM

dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 1:12 PM

Thank you for not calling me a liar.

anuts on March 1, 2014 at 1:16 PM

Gay bars do that all the time. Is it wrong when they do it?

JannyMae on March 1, 2014 at 1:12 PM

Some woman here in Houston tried to sue a gay bar about ten years ago on that basis according to a lawyer friend of mine. It turns out that every gay bar in our town allowed women to go there except for one (or two?) that were run as private clubs that you had to have membership for. Private clubs are not public accommodations and it went down in flames.

dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 1:17 PM

Yeah, it’s only America who does this kind of stuff-the fact that Muslims worldwide discriminate against women (and gays) is totally irrelevant.

F-

Del Dolemonte on March 1, 2014 at 1:13 PM

I object to such discrimination anywhere. I especially object to it in my country. The fact that I object to it in my nation doesn’t mean that I’m ok with it elsewhere. Not one thing I said implied that I thought this should be the case only in America.

For the record, it’s wrong when such descrimination happens in Moslem countries as well.

dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 1:19 PM

But Dildo-on is so much smarter than you! Can’t you right-wing homofobs see that he/she/it is trying to educate you !!! Geez !
cableguy615 on March 1, 2014 at 1:12 PM

Lol.

The funny part is that I AM gay, and I’m not bothered by giving people the option whether or not to provide me services. Moreover, I am religious, and I know full well Christians do not hate gays.

You have to wonder why liberals like dieudonne are so desperate to “save” me and “protect” me from religious people. What it makes obvious is that gay people are just a convenient smokescreen for them to carry out their own bigoted and anti-Christian vendettas.

northdallasthirty on March 1, 2014 at 1:20 PM

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that they passed up an objecting Moslem baker to select a Christian objecting baker? Anything at all? It seems to be what you are stating.

dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 1:04 PM

So, the issue now is for ME to provide evidence that they passed on other religions in order to challenge a Christian to advance their agenda?

Interesting.

Shifting the burden is a classic fallacy. So is moving the goalpost.

Rather than present a case as to why a gay couple, who was denied service by a private business owner claiming religious rights, has superior rights to those of the private business owner, the burden shifts?

All because I contend, using the example that only Christian businesses were targeted in this manner in other states, this was specifically targeted at Christians? It’s now my ‘job’ to prove that only Christian businesses were targeted despite no examples of non-Christian businesses being targeted.

What this tells me is that you are bereft of a cogent and valid argument to explain why one person / couple have more rights than another individual who is standing on not only his religious rights, but also the rights of free speech and free association. That there isn’t a cogent and valid argument beyond a social / political agenda as to why this wasn’t addressed via the marketplace – with the offended seeking services elsewhere. And that there is a strong case being made that bigotry against Christians also has a place in these actions.

Athos on March 1, 2014 at 1:21 PM

Some woman here in Houston tried to sue a gay bar about ten years ago on that basis according to a lawyer friend of mine. It turns out that every gay bar in our town allowed women to go there except for one (or two?) that were run as private clubs that you had to have membership for. Private clubs are not public accommodations and it went down in flames.

dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 1:17 PM

I see you didn’t answer the question.

How unsurprising. Let’s try again.

Gay bars do that all the time. Is it wrong when they do it?

JannyMae on March 1, 2014 at 1:21 PM

Whoever refused to decorate the cake originally claimed that it caused positive harm to the child. They called CPS for that reason. I think these cases are apples and oranges. Ive not heard anyone claim that gay wedding cakes is abusive to children.
dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 1:09 PM

And I’ve never heard that baking a birthday cake ever harmed a child either.

anuts on March 1, 2014 at 1:22 PM

BTW, gay bars don’t allow straight people into them. My comment had nothing to do with women wanting to go into them.

JannyMae on March 1, 2014 at 1:24 PM

I see you didn’t answer the question.
How unsurprising. Let’s try again.
Gay bars do that all the time. Is it wrong when they do it?
JannyMae on March 1, 2014 at 1:21 PM

Indeed they do, even this week.

Isn’t it amazing? Anti-Christian bigot dieudonne is all about discrimination when he’s doing it against people he doesn’t like.

northdallasthirty on March 1, 2014 at 1:26 PM

And the point is, dieudonne, is that in both cases the action of providing the service would/did harm the consciences of the service providers. That’s where they are apples and apples. That’s the principle involved.

anuts on March 1, 2014 at 1:26 PM

So, the issue now is for ME to provide evidence that they passed on other religions in order to challenge a Christian to advance their agenda?

Interesting.

Shifting the burden is a classic fallacy. So is moving the goalpost.

Athos on March 1, 2014 at 1:21 PM

You SEEM to be saying that these people were specifically targeting Christians to exercise a minority tyranny over the majority. If that’s the case then they would also have to be deliberately passing over minority bakers who would do the same thing in favor of targeting Christians. Do you have any evidence of minority bakers such as Jews or Moslems doing this? Is there any evidence that they were passed over in favor of targeting a Christian? Demography suggests that if gay couples are being refused wedding cake services it’s more likely to be by a Christian than a Jew, Moslem, B’hai, etc. The simplest answer is that they went to the baker, the baker refused, and they objected to the refusal without regard to the faith in question.

dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 1:29 PM

By the way, everyone, feel free to use my quotes and links. Gay-rights crusader dieudonne is ignoring my posts because he thinks any gay who doesn’t agree with his anti-Christian and anti-conservative rants is mentally ill and only abusing him.

Funny, isn’t it? He claims to be fighting for my rights, but starts screaming that I’m mentally ill and some kind of self-loathing Uncle Tom when I don’t agree with him.

northdallasthirty on March 1, 2014 at 1:29 PM

BTW, gay bars don’t allow straight people into them. My comment had nothing to do with women wanting to go into them.

JannyMae on March 1, 2014 at 1:24 PM

I’m straight. I went to a gay bar with a gay friend last night. He bought drinks so he chose the location. It was known to the doorman and bartender that I was not homosexual. I brought my straight sister and her husband with us. So much for gay bars not allowing straights in to the establshment.

If you’ve been denied services on that basis you are right to object and agitate for reform.

dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 1:33 PM

You SEEM to be saying that these people were specifically targeting Christians to exercise a minority tyranny over the majority. If that’s the case then they would also have to be deliberately passing over minority bakers who would do the same thing in favor of targeting Christians. Do you have any evidence of minority bakers such as Jews or Moslems doing this? Is there any evidence that they were passed over in favor of targeting a Christian? Demography suggests that if gay couples are being refused wedding cake services it’s more likely to be by a Christian than a Jew, Moslem, B’hai, etc. The simplest answer is that they went to the baker, the baker refused, and they objected to the refusal without regard to the faith in question.
dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 1:29 PM

Duplicitous lie once again.

The question is not whether they went to minority bakers; the question is if they were offered service at ANY other baker, yet chose to target only the one where it was refused. That makes it clear that they were targeting that one bakery and exposes that their intent was to file a lawsuit, not obtain a cake.

The duplicitous liar and bigot dieudonne seems quite unable to cope with that.

northdallasthirty on March 1, 2014 at 1:33 PM

No, this is not Jim Crow for gays – Understanding Arizona’s SB1062

Bipartisan group of legal scholars: Critics ‘egregiously misrepresented’ Arizona’s SB1062

In a four-page letter sent this week to Brewer, the scholars said the Arizona law had been “egregiously misrepresented by many of its critics.”

“Some of us are Republicans; some of us are Democrats. Some of us are religious; some of us are not. Some of us oppose same-sex marriage; some of us support it,” the letter said.

Nine of the signers of the letter said they supported the legislation; two were not sure. “But all of us believe that many criticisms of the Arizona law are deeply misleading,” the letter said.

The federal government and 18 states have Religious Freedom Restoration Acts on their books. More than 12 other states have interpreted their state constitutions to provide similar protections to religious individuals.

Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the government is barred from imposing a substantial burden on a person’s exercise of religion unless the government can offer a compelling justification for the burden and then minimize the burden as much as possible.

The law empowers individuals to challenge government laws that infringe upon the exercise of their religious beliefs. It also provides a defense for someone who claims that a neutral, generally applicable law is forcing them to choose between fidelity to the law or fidelity to their religious beliefs.

Athos on March 1, 2014 at 1:36 PM

And the point is, dieudonne, is that in both cases the action of providing the service would/did harm the consciences of the service providers. That’s where they are apples and apples. That’s the principle involved.

anuts on March 1, 2014 at 1:26 PM

Shop-Rite didn’t object to decorating the cake because it harmed the bakers conscience but rather because they believed there was positive harm in the form of child abuse. They called CPS and reported abuse not that their feelings were hurt.

dieudonne on March 1, 2014 at 1:36 PM

Wow, isn’t that amazing.

Known bigot and duplicitous liar dieudonne “just happened” to go to a gay bar last night, which of course trumps the referenced news story about how his fellow gay-sex bigots are actually practicing discrimination.

Magic.

northdallasthirty on March 1, 2014 at 1:42 PM

Comment pages: 1 2