• 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!

Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451:959]

Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

Samhain said:
If its open ended, and it sounds like it is, you can decline service by referencing your religion. Similar to the ability to refuse combat assignments in the military.
Click to expand...

This is AZ we are talking about. Call a spade a spade. No pun intended.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

Top Cat said:
Honest and accurate? Oh you mean in a Fake News kind of way? Wink, wink.
Click to expand...

No, I don't see how scanning the text can be seen as anything like Fake News (wink wink). The bill sucks. It could be used as an excuse to discriminate against gays and lesbians, as well as people who have had, or performed abortions. It doesn't stop there. It's bad. The OP focuses on sexual preference, but it's far more than only that.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

Top Cat said:
This is AZ we are talking about. Call a spade a spade. No pun intended.
Click to expand...

Its a change to an existing law( been on the books since 1999 ). Here is a nice annotated version showing what was added/removed. Biggest change is the previous version was in reference to a religious organization or assembly only, while the new version adds individuals.

Bill Text: AZ SB1062 | 2014 | Fifty-first Legislature 2nd Regular | Engrossed | LegiScan

As written, it expands existing "discriminatory" practices.

Furthermore, it doesn't disallow someone to sue for discrimination. If a person sues for discrimination, and wins, the person sued can claim religious exemption, and the state reimburses them for their loss.
 
Last edited:
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Issue Analysis: Arizona Bill Does Not Give Businesses License to Discriminate Against Gays

Some have claimed that a bill recently passed by the Arizona legislature would give businesses broad license to not serve someone for being gay. This claim, though, may be a misreading, according a CP legislative analysis. While the bill is an attempt to broaden who is covered under its religious freedom protections, in all cases it actually narrows when a religious belief could be used to refuse service.

Here are six important points to understand about the just-passed bill:

1. If Gov. Jan Brewer (R) signs it, the bill, S.B. 1062, would make some modifications to a 1999 Arizona law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

2. Under current Arizona law, if a business wanted to discriminate against gays, they would not need this bill to be passed to do so. It is not currently illegal for a business to deny service to someone because they are gay. Some cities in Arizona have ordinances against it but there is no state law against it. If business owners in Arizona wanted to deny service to gays, they could do so in most of the state under current law.




you Rainbow people supporters NEED TO QUIT LYING!
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

votemout said:
Issue Analysis: Arizona Bill Does Not Give Businesses License to Discriminate Against Gays

Some have claimed that a bill recently passed by the Arizona legislature would give businesses broad license to not serve someone for being gay. This claim, though, may be a misreading, according a CP legislative analysis. While the bill is an attempt to broaden who is covered under its religious freedom protections, in all cases it actually narrows when a religious belief could be used to refuse service.

Here are six important points to understand about the just-passed bill:

1. If Gov. Jan Brewer (R) signs it, the bill, S.B. 1062, would make some modifications to a 1999 Arizona law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

2. Under current Arizona law, if a business wanted to discriminate against gays, they would not need this bill to be passed to do so. It is not currently illegal for a business to deny service to someone because they are gay. Some cities in Arizona have ordinances against it but there is no state law against it. If business owners in Arizona wanted to deny service to gays, they could do so in most of the state under current law.




you Rainbow people supporters NEED TO QUIT LYING!
Click to expand...


This bill overrides local ordinances that may provide protections under local Public Accommodation laws. What is incorrect in that Statement.

You are correct though, in most of Arizona it is already legal to discriminate against gays and lesbians, but this law does is expands who can be discriminated against. Claim a serious religous belief and this law protects you even if you are discriminating against blacks, asians, Jews, Muslims, etc.

A few years ago there were cases of Muslim cab drivers in another state who refused to carry passengers carrying alcohol (not drinking, carrying closed containers) and to carry service dogs for disabled people. They were found to be in violation of the law. Under this law they would be exempt from Public Accommodation because their sincerely held religious beliefs (as defined under Shaira Law) would exempt them.



>>>>
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Cryptic said:
That is a good question.

I cant show a copy of the unwritten social contract exists. What I can show is that all societies have had one and that the Founding Fathers of our society never voided some of its principals (mandatory service in common defense, no property is absolutely private and can thus be taxed, or claimed under imminent domain).

Can you think of any societies that held that: One could not be forced to participate in the common defense / group assistance and that property was absolutely private and thus could not be taxed, taken via imminent domain etc?
Click to expand...


wrong again, no social contract exist, because to make such a claim is to say America has a collective society, based on the group, instead of the individual,.

we know this not to be the case ,rights are individual rights, not collective, the group does not get to chose what rights people will have.

the founders had no mandatory service, false, property such as as imports could be taxed by the feds, duties, impost, there was no income tax, states are not limited and can tax the people, imminent domain was meant that property had to be used to the good of the union, not individuals or corporations.

you seem to be lost and are getting state powers crossed with federal powers.

our founders are against collectivism, and created our senate to stop such action before the 17th amendment, as stated by Madison in federalist 63

" The true distinction between these and the American governments, lies in the total exclusion of the people, in their collective capacity, from any share in the latter, and not in the total exclusion of the representatives of the people from the administration of the former.

so you need to stop confusing state and federal powers, and stop, saying things which are not correct.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

tecoyah said:
Having an irrational fear of a thing is considered a phobia.
Click to expand...

It has to be a anxiety disorder for it to be a phobia, not just an irrational fear. Can you prove anyone suffers from such a thing towards gays? Oh, and once again, racism is not a phobia.
 
Last edited:
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

Brewer is going to veto.

/thread
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

American said:
Brewer is going to veto.

/thread
Click to expand...

Good for her. She should veto it.

(Waiting to see what hyperpartisan conclusions Zyphlin draws from this....)
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

WorldWatcher said:
This bill overrides local ordinances that may provide protections under local Public Accommodation laws. What is incorrect in that Statement.

You are correct though, in most of Arizona it is already legal to discriminate against gays and lesbians, but this law does is expands who can be discriminated against. Claim a serious religous belief and this law protects you even if you are discriminating against blacks, asians, Jews, Muslims, etc.

A few years ago there were cases of Muslim cab drivers in another state who refused to carry passengers carrying alcohol (not drinking, carrying closed containers) and to carry service dogs for disabled people. They were found to be in violation of the law. Under this law they would be exempt from Public Accommodation because their sincerely held religious beliefs (as defined under Shaira Law) would exempt them.



>>>>
Click to expand...

Cabs are a whole different class of business. They are already very highly regulated unlike most brick and mortor businesses. Not to mention their place of business is subject to more than regular business regulation but vehicle as well as roadway regs including the DOT, both federal and state.
 
Last edited:
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

rocket88 said:
Good for her. She should veto it.

(Waiting to see what hyperpartisan conclusions Zyphlin draws from this....)
Click to expand...

I don't think she should. In fact I think the NFL in particular should lose it's protected status for making the threat. I know I'll never use American Airlines again.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

clownboy said:
Cabs are a whole different class of business. They are already very highly regulated unlike most brick and mortor businesses. Not to mention their place of business is subject to more than regular business regulation but vehicle as well as roadway regs.
Click to expand...


What I'm seeing is that because they are Muslim beliefs, well we just call it a different situation.


>>>>
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

WorldWatcher said:
What I'm seeing is that because they are Muslim beliefs, well we just call it a different situation.


>>>>
Click to expand...

No, not really. Sorry I added it too late for your response, but cabs are also uniquely regulated by state and federal DOT. That's not true of vanilla brick and mortor business.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

clownboy said:
No, not really. Sorry I added it too late for your response, but cabs are also uniquely regulated by state and federal DOT. That's not true of vanilla brick and mortor business.
Click to expand...

Brick and mortor stores are uniquely regulated by state and federal building and safety code not applicable to cabs. DOT, Safety codes, Fire Codes, etc. have no bearing on the premise.

Christians discriminating against "the gheys" for religious reasons - OK, religious freedom.

Muslim cab drivers discriminating against regular folks for religious reasons - not OK, they don't count.




You don't see the attempt at justification and hypocrisy of that position?


>>>>
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

Top Cat said:
Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill - CNN.com

Gotta love the backass republicans who voted for this.

Why anyone would live there is beyond me.
Click to expand...

Well, I live there. I think our legislators are complete morons, I've met many of them, and our GED governor.

It is frustrating. However, it is a beautiful place to live, I was born here and I love being here. It has been in the 80's for the last few weeks, citrus is blooming, my papapays and bananas are growing well. When it is really hot in the summer, San Diego is a short drive or flight away. It is a beautiful state, but we have some very ugly people in our legislature. I was a republican, but the actions of the clowns under the copper dome made me become an independent. I don't reward the stupidity of the talibornagain idjits that try to pass theocratic laws.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

beefheart said:
Well, I live there. I think our legislators are complete morons, I've met many of them, and our GED governor.

It is frustrating. However, it is a beautiful place to live, I was born here and I love being here. It has been in the 80's for the last few weeks, citrus is blooming, my papapays and bananas are growing well. When it is really hot in the summer, San Diego is a short drive or flight away. It is a beautiful state, but we have some very ugly people in our legislature. I was a republican, but the actions of the clowns under the copper dome made me become an independent. I don't reward the stupidity of the talibornagain idjits that try to pass theocratic laws.
Click to expand...

Yeah it is beautiful this time of year. But these hicks are ****ing your state up.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

WorldWatcher said:
Brick and mortor stores are uniquely regulated by state and federal building and safety code not applicable to cabs. DOT, Safety codes, Fire Codes, etc. have no bearing on the premise.

Christians discriminating against "the gheys" for religious reasons - OK, religious freedom.

Muslim cab drivers discriminating against regular folks for religious reasons - not OK, they don't count.




You don't see the attempt at justification and hypocrisy of that position?


>>>>
Click to expand...

No considering cab companies are also regulated by the states and cities as to whom they can refuse. They are part of the public transportation system. All this is in addition to all the other business laws, regs and ordinances normal brick and morter is subject to. They are indeed a special case.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

Top Cat said:
Yeah it is beautiful this time of year. But these hicks are ****ing your state up.
Click to expand...

From what I read, the bill is designed to close some loopholes in a law that already exists. If the law already exists, why all this righteous indignation?

Arizona businesses already can refuse to serve gays: SB1062 explained - latimes.com

Why the need if the law is only under threat in New Mexico?

“Freedom is too important to leave to chance,” LaRue said.

He offered an example:

“There is a law that bans discrimination at public accommodations based on religion in Arizona. Let’s pretend that I’m a bakery and that in my town here in Arizona, Westboro Baptist Church comes to picket a funeral of a soldier, and they tell me to bake a cake. They want it to say, ‘God hates ...’ and that terrible word they use.

“It would offend my dignity. I don’t want to give voice to that horrible message. Right now, they could sue me for discriminating based on their religious beliefs. If the Arizona courts went the way of the New Mexico courts, I would lose and if they targeted me, I could lose my business because of the damages I’d have to pay out. I would never be able to assert my Religious Freedom Restoration Act defense because it’s available only if the government is prosecuting me.”​
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

clownboy said:
No considering cab companies are also regulated by the states and cities as to whom they can refuse.
Click to expand...

Regular businesses are regulated by the States and Cities as to whom they can refuse. They are called Public Accommodation laws. The same laws the Muslim Cab drivers ran afoul of.

clownboy said:
They are part of the public transportation system.
Click to expand...

The company in reference was a private company and not part of any government public transportation system.

clownboy said:
All this is in addition to all the other business laws, regs and ordinances normal brick and morter is subject to. They are indeed a special case.
Click to expand...

Yes of course they are a special case.


Muslim religious freedom = bad.

Christian religious freedom = good.



>>>>
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Woodman909 said:
..you wanna back that crock of BS up...?


the bill is stupid , it sucks... but this statement is equally misguided. C'mon
Click to expand...

It was an honest mistake. In searching for what I had read and to what I was referring I confused a couple of articles. There are tech groups looking at the Phoenix area for expansion. Google is not one of them. Google Fiber is considering Arizona (one of fifteen) states for ultra high speed internet.

There's your crock of BS.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

American said:
Brewer is going to veto.

/thread
Click to expand...

Indeed, but the question is why is she waiting so long to do so? It would seem wise to send a resounding "NO" that can be heard nationally.

Arizona honestly has a problem with a small group of very narrow-minded legislators working in concert or on behalf of powerful religiously affiliated lobbying groups. There is no question this most recent brain fartery has already cost the state (taxpayers) money in lost revenue.

Look beyond the immediate issue if you are thinking of expanding your business or moving your business to Arizona. The legislature here is pretty hosed up. There really is no guarantee that the morons who control the legislature aren't going to do similar things in the future. In fact they have some bone head things in the works according to the newspaper.

Yes, Brewer will veto the bill. Not quickly enough, it seems. But beyond that is more uncertainty and there is a recent history of really idiotic extremism in the state legislature. Would you bet your business future on the stability of Arizona State Government and move it or expand it here only to have the state mandate some other kind of crackpot social engineering law(s) that would hamper you from attracting talented workers from out of state? What if you moved your business here only to have the state legislature pass more of this kind of garbage and have Arizona businesses boycotted in protest as happened as a result of SB1070 the anti-imigration law?

What the current bill is doing is reinforcing valid concerns about the stability of Arizona's business environment. Those concerns will not go away when the governor vetoes the bill.
 
Re: Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451]

I would expect Gov. Brewer to use similar language as she used with a veto once before.
This is a "bridge too far".

As much as I should sympathize with the majority of GOP voters who do not feel this way,
the voters of AZ did elect these people and they are the Majority.

The GOP will begin to reshape itself and regrow as soon as National Leaders weigh in as Sen. McCain and Sen. Flake did, as Mr. Boehner used to.
As well, this is a GOP issue, and I will be glad to light up the DEMs as soon as they do this stuff .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom