• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Controversial bill to expand religious protections advances

Somerville

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
17,822
Reaction score
8,296
Location
On an island. Not that one!
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
Some people really don't understand the word "discrimination"

Controversial bill to expand religious protections advances

Opponents: Measure could allow discrimination

Senate Bill 1062, pushed by the conservative advocacy group Center for Arizona Policy and introduced by Sen. Steve Yarbrough, R-Chandler, would allow individuals to use religious beliefs as a defense in a lawsuit filed by another individual.

Specifically, the bill proposes to:

- Expand the state’s definition of the exercise of religion to include both the practice and observance of religion;

- Expand those protected under the state’s free exercise of religion law to “any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution, estate, trust, foundation or other legal entity.”

<snip>
Yarbrough called the bill a “modest clarification” of the state’s existing religious-freedom law.

“Prohibited discrimination remains prohibited,” he said. “In no way does this bill allow discrimination of any kind.”

Why wouldn't refusal to hire a gay person simply because of that person's sexual orientation be discrimination?

What if the employer thinks unmarried pregnant women should be shunned, not be allowed to work for him/her? Isn't that discrimination?

White supremacists often use the Bible to justify their racism. This proposed law would allow a member of the Aryan Nation cult to refuse entry into his business, refusal to rent to those he considers inferior beings, etc. Like I posted at the beginning, there are some people who really don't understand the meaning of "discrimination"
 
This bill is rather ridiculous.
 
Some people really don't understand the word "discrimination"



Why wouldn't refusal to hire a gay person simply because of that person's sexual orientation be discrimination?

What if the employer thinks unmarried pregnant women should be shunned, not be allowed to work for him/her? Isn't that discrimination?

White supremacists often use the Bible to justify their racism. This proposed law would allow a member of the Aryan Nation cult to refuse entry into his business, refusal to rent to those he considers inferior beings, etc. Like I posted at the beginning, there are some people who really don't understand the meaning of "discrimination"
Why would gays want to belong to an organisation which thought they were bad people? You don't see many blacks signing up for the KKK. I just don't get. Gays, stop beating this dead horse. It's their tree house they can hang a "no X allowed" sign if they want. Don't like it, don't go there, I know I won't and I'm not gay. No problem.
 
Some people really don't understand the word "discrimination"



Why wouldn't refusal to hire a gay person simply because of that person's sexual orientation be discrimination?

What if the employer thinks unmarried pregnant women should be shunned, not be allowed to work for him/her? Isn't that discrimination?

White supremacists often use the Bible to justify their racism. This proposed law would allow a member of the Aryan Nation cult to refuse entry into his business, refusal to rent to those he considers inferior beings, etc. Like I posted at the beginning, there are some people who really don't understand the meaning of "discrimination"

Always straight to the most ridiculous comparison with you guys isn't it? Anywho, I suppose we should sue the Amish people too, right? Just drag their arses into court for discrimination.
 
Always straight to the most ridiculous comparison with you guys isn't it? Anywho, I suppose we should sue the Amish people too, right? Just drag their arses into court for discrimination.


OK - let us then go with instances that have actually occurred in various locales around the country. Actual happenings where a religious fanatic with a public business refused to serve others because their "religious" beliefs were offended. Under the Arizona law as proposed, all of these cases of discrimination would be legal in Arizona.

Sweet Cakes' refusal of same-sex wedding order found to violate customers' rights: Readers weigh in | OregonLive.com

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarne...an-photographers-must-compromise-beliefs.html

LifeSiteNews Mobile | Judge Rules Christian facility cannot ban same-sex civil union ceremony on its own premises

Atheist group claims civil rights victory over Rochester Hills country club | MLive.com

No idea what you are saying with your comment about the Amish, but some Amish in Kentucky did spend a few days in jail for a really silly reason - Religious Discrimination? 8 Amish Men Jailed After Refusal to Post Safety Signs on Buggies | Video | TheBlaze.com

doing the Google, I did find a case of an Amish-owned company losing a discrimination suit. The company tried to argue that being “non-Amish” is not a protected category under Title VII; one must be discriminated against because of one’s religion—not one’s non-religion. The court rejected this argument. - Document 16 :: McIntire v. Keystone RV Company :: 3:2010cv00508 :: Indiana Northern District Court :: US Federal District Courts Cases :: Justia
 
OK - let us then go with instances that have actually occurred in various locales around the country. Actual happenings where a religious fanatic with a public business refused to serve others because their "religious" beliefs were offended. Under the Arizona law as proposed, all of these cases of discrimination would be legal in Arizona.

Sweet Cakes' refusal of same-sex wedding order found to violate customers' rights: Readers weigh in | OregonLive.com

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarne...an-photographers-must-compromise-beliefs.html

LifeSiteNews Mobile | Judge Rules Christian facility cannot ban same-sex civil union ceremony on its own premises

Atheist group claims civil rights victory over Rochester Hills country club | MLive.com

No idea what you are saying with your comment about the Amish, but some Amish in Kentucky did spend a few days in jail for a really silly reason - Religious Discrimination? 8 Amish Men Jailed After Refusal to Post Safety Signs on Buggies | Video | TheBlaze.com

doing the Google, I did find a case of an Amish-owned company losing a discrimination suit. The company tried to argue that being “non-Amish” is not a protected category under Title VII; one must be discriminated against because of one’s religion—not one’s non-religion. The court rejected this argument. - Document 16 :: McIntire v. Keystone RV Company :: 3:2010cv00508 :: Indiana Northern District Court :: US Federal District Courts Cases :: Justia

UGH.....I am really tired of gay noise....Just get married already and leave the rest of us alone....As for the Atheist....They settled a case and they are dancing in the streets...Big deal. The Amish in KY, yeah, don't get why they refused but ok....And the final Amish story, of a guy suing over losing his job, I think KeystoneRV made the wrong case...Instead of trying to argue title VII they should have just dismissed out of hand any sort of discrimination, and stuck with the reason he was fired....Safety....Once they entertained the dismissed employee's claim, they gave it credit....Poor attorney's.
 
UGH.....I am really tired of gay noise....Just get married already and leave the rest of us alone....As for the Atheist....They settled a case and they are dancing in the streets...Big deal. The Amish in KY, yeah, don't get why they refused but ok....And the final Amish story, of a guy suing over losing his job, I think KeystoneRV made the wrong case...Instead of trying to argue title VII they should have just dismissed out of hand any sort of discrimination, and stuck with the reason he was fired....Safety....Once they entertained the dismissed employee's claim, they gave it credit....Poor attorney's.


Good to see you accepting reality
 
Some people really don't understand the word "discrimination"



Why wouldn't refusal to hire a gay person simply because of that person's sexual orientation be discrimination?

What if the employer thinks unmarried pregnant women should be shunned, not be allowed to work for him/her? Isn't that discrimination?

White supremacists often use the Bible to justify their racism. This proposed law would allow a member of the Aryan Nation cult to refuse entry into his business, refusal to rent to those he considers inferior beings, etc. Like I posted at the beginning, there are some people who really don't understand the meaning of "discrimination"

Discrimination is denying someone a "right".

What gives a homosexual person the "right" to a job at a business? Even one who's owner doesn't want that particular person as an employee? How is enforcing one persons right in such cases also not a case in discrimination against the right of the other person? Each has a right, one, exercise of religious freedom is guaranteed by the constitution while the other is inferred, so who's right is greater?

As to unmarried pregnant women, why should someone hire a person whom they know will soon be taking maternity leave, leaving them without an employee for that time, instead of hiring a person who will still be available? How much training costs will be lost if the pregnant woman decides to quit after having the baby? How much training costs are involved in re-qualifying her after maternity leave?
 
It's fascinating how there are no such cases of anyone's ability to practice their faith in private or order their own life according to the beliefs being infringed. It's only when people try to exercise power over others that problems arise. Isn't that interesting? It's almost like everyone's right to practice whatever religion or non-religion they like is being protected equally, and not just the majority religious positions. Can you imagine what would happen if Protestants were being fired over their employers' religion?
 
It's fascinating how there are no such cases of anyone's ability to practice their faith in private or order their own life according to the beliefs being infringed. It's only when people try to exercise power over others that problems arise. Isn't that interesting? It's almost like everyone's right to practice whatever religion or non-religion they like is being protected equally, and not just the majority religious positions. Can you imagine what would happen if Protestants were being fired over their employers' religion?

Are you sure you are in the right thread?

From the OP:

"Senate Bill 1062, pushed by the conservative advocacy group Center for Arizona Policy and introduced by Sen. Steve Yarbrough, R-Chandler, would allow individuals to use religious beliefs as a defense in a lawsuit filed by another individual."

So you are against religious freedom?
 
It's fascinating how there are no such cases of anyone's ability to practice their faith in private or order their own life according to the beliefs being infringed. It's only when people try to exercise power over others that problems arise. Isn't that interesting? It's almost like everyone's right to practice whatever religion or non-religion they like is being protected equally, and not just the majority religious positions.

The government fined a family who was only practicing relgiion in the privacy of their own home:

California Family Fined for Bible Study in Home - ABC News

Can you imagine what would happen if Protestants were being fired over their employers' religion

A protestant being fired because his boss doesn't agree with that relgioin would not bother me in the slightest. It's the owner's business, and he should hire whoever he wants.
 
The government fined a family who was only practicing relgiion in the privacy of their own home:

California Family Fined for Bible Study in Home - ABC News



A protestant being fired because his boss doesn't agree with that relgioin would not bother me in the slightest. It's the owner's business, and he should hire whoever he wants.

and then the Fromms got their money back from the city - San Juan Capistrano Adopts Changes To Shield Home Bible Studies « CBS Los Angeles
 
Some people really don't understand the word "discrimination"



Why wouldn't refusal to hire a gay person simply because of that person's sexual orientation be discrimination?

What if the employer thinks unmarried pregnant women should be shunned, not be allowed to work for him/her? Isn't that discrimination?

White supremacists often use the Bible to justify their racism. This proposed law would allow a member of the Aryan Nation cult to refuse entry into his business, refusal to rent to those he considers inferior beings, etc. Like I posted at the beginning, there are some people who really don't understand the meaning of "discrimination"

This bill is from the talibornagain wing of AZ that does whatever the ALEC theocrats tell them to do. We have the worst legislators in AZ, conspiracy theorists, birthers, and flat out racists and theocratic ninnies.
 
Some people really don't understand the word "discrimination"



Why wouldn't refusal to hire a gay person simply because of that person's sexual orientation be discrimination?

What if the employer thinks unmarried pregnant women should be shunned, not be allowed to work for him/her? Isn't that discrimination?

White supremacists often use the Bible to justify their racism. This proposed law would allow a member of the Aryan Nation cult to refuse entry into his business, refusal to rent to those he considers inferior beings, etc. Like I posted at the beginning, there are some people who really don't understand the meaning of "discrimination"

And I thought the claims of Sharia Law making inroads in America were all just a hoax. This law is unconstitutional and will never stand up in court.
 
The government fined a family who was only practicing relgiion in the privacy of their own home:

California Family Fined for Bible Study in Home - ABC News

And it would have been an open and shut case with no defense whatsoever if they had been reading any other book besides the bible. That this was even a controversy demonstrates exactly the special protections that religion gets. As Somerville showed, the family got their money back. They were allowed to violate the law, solely because they were violating it for religious reasons. That's completely unacceptable.

A protestant being fired because his boss doesn't agree with that relgioin would not bother me in the slightest. It's the owner's business, and he should hire whoever he wants.

That's seriously messed up. You think that someone should, by virtue of wealth and owning stuff, be able to punish someone for their religious affiliation? I will never understand the pro-aristocracy mindset that so many conservatives have.

"Senate Bill 1062, pushed by the conservative advocacy group Center for Arizona Policy and introduced by Sen. Steve Yarbrough, R-Chandler, would allow individuals to use religious beliefs as a defense in a lawsuit filed by another individual."

So you are against religious freedom?

This will have nothing to do with religious freedom. It will allow people to violate the law as long as they cite a religious reason for doing so. This is just a move to cripple the protections for employees and give special rights to majority religions. Believing something is not a defense against civil liability.
 
Some people really don't understand the word "discrimination"



Why wouldn't refusal to hire a gay person simply because of that person's sexual orientation be discrimination?

What if the employer thinks unmarried pregnant women should be shunned, not be allowed to work for him/her? Isn't that discrimination?

White supremacists often use the Bible to justify their racism. This proposed law would allow a member of the Aryan Nation cult to refuse entry into his business, refusal to rent to those he considers inferior beings, etc. Like I posted at the beginning, there are some people who really don't understand the meaning of "discrimination"

And religious conservatives are worried about the progressive liberals advancing the reach of Sharia Law and Muslim doctrine? Oy vey!
 
Are you sure you are in the right thread?

From the OP:

"Senate Bill 1062, pushed by the conservative advocacy group Center for Arizona Policy and introduced by Sen. Steve Yarbrough, R-Chandler, would allow individuals to use religious beliefs as a defense in a lawsuit filed by another individual."

So you are against religious freedom?

The eternally uptight Kathi Herrod is the head of Center for Az Policy, and she is a full on, whacked out talibornagain who tries to get all kinds of ALEC crap passed in our state. She just lost another big one when she tried to have abortions banned at 20 weeks, every year she gets all these theocratic bills introduced that are unconstitutional and we waste more and more money on these morals commandants who are in constant fear that someone else may actually be enjoying their lives and living in a free society. Bah!

This bill is there for one purpose, to allow religious groups to discriminate, it won't stand a lawsuit, it is a waste of time.
 
Personally, I'm against any secular business activity using religious freedom or freedom from religion as a crux to conduct themselves in a discriminatory manner. Likewise, I'm all for religious institutions and any business activity they run being allowed to operate under policies that discriminate based on their religious teachings/beliefs.

I believe this law to be one that goes too far, just as I believe DHS regulations under Obamacare forcing religious entities to provide contraceptive care options to employees goes too far, and as I believe DHS has the right to create regulations that require secular businesses to provide that contraceptive care, regardless of the religion of the owner/operator.

Separation of church and state has to mean something.
 
The eternally uptight Kathi Herrod is the head of Center for Az Policy, and she is a full on, whacked out talibornagain who tries to get all kinds of ALEC crap passed in our state. She just lost another big one when she tried to have abortions banned at 20 weeks, every year she gets all these theocratic bills introduced that are unconstitutional and we waste more and more money on these morals commandants who are in constant fear that someone else may actually be enjoying their lives and living in a free society. Bah!

This bill is there for one purpose, to allow religious groups to discriminate, it won't stand a lawsuit, it is a waste of time.

Never heard of abortion described as 'enjoying life'..... ah well...
 
Never heard of abortion described as 'enjoying life'..... ah well...

Guess what? You aren't overturning abortion in the USA in either of our lifetimes.
 
My questions are:

1) How do you define a secular business vs. a religious one? Would a company with a Christian as the CEO be religious? Should we even create this distinction as it concerns discrimination of people based on their biological features?

2) What constitutes a valid "religious excuse" vs. actual discrimination? Are we going to start quoting scripture in secular courtrooms now as an actual defense for why you didn't do what you were supposed to? Legal liability should not be based on religion, and if it needs to be, that should be made clear before signing contracts.

I dunno... the secular reasoning behind most discrimination laws makes sense. I can understand Church organizations having ideological reasons for, say, not hiring gay people or something like that. It sucks but it's their choice how they decide to view the world. I don't see why we need to make a special law separating "religious" business from "secular" business. This is one country with one economy, and one social policy.

People just need to stop being dicks to one another, and stop looking to nanny government to allow them to do it. If you have integrity and self-respect as a business owner then you can serve anyone and not take it personally. Take personal responsibility for the way you feel and stop projecting it onto everyone else.
 
Back
Top Bottom