Arizona lawmakers pass bill to allow faith-based refusal of services

Comments (94)
Kenzen wrote:

Hmm, thought American was about equality? So how does one know who is gay or not gay? Appearance? How they talk? Oh, you had sex with them? They tell you that they are gay? You do not like their mullet hair cut? You just do not like them? They have a rainbow shirt on? They come in with a same sex friend and they both have wedding rings one? Two pre-teens girls come in holding hands? OH, you say you have gayder? You saw them have sex with the same sex person through their window while you watch? Some homosexuals there is no way to tell. So eventually this will end up in a civil law suit about discrimination, business will lose everything, the other person will win esp. if they are not gay or even gay.

I thought that Christians were to show love toward everybody.

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord
thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul,
and with all thy mind. This is the first and great
commandment.” (Matthew 22:37-38 KJV)

“And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy
neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang
all the law and the prophets. (Matthew 22:39-40 KJV)

So how do these type of laws fit in with Christ’s teaching? If you neighbor is gay do you judge and hate him? Hmm, not sure that is what Christ would say or do. So be a witness to them show compassion and loving kindness to all humans no matter who they are or represent. These laws show what the problem is with religion and not with spirituality.

Feb 20, 2014 10:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Kenzen wrote:

Hmm, thought American was about equality? So how does one know who is gay or not gay? Appearance? How they talk? Oh, you had sex with them? They tell you that they are gay? You do not like their mullet hair cut? You just do not like them? They have a rainbow shirt on? They come in with a same sex friend and they both have wedding rings one? Two pre-teens girls come in holding hands? OH, you say you have gayder? You saw them have sex with the same sex person through their window while you watch? Some homosexuals there is no way to tell. So eventually this will end up in a civil law suit about discrimination, business will lose everything, the other person will win esp. if they are not gay or even gay.

I thought that Christians were to show love toward everybody.

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord
thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul,
and with all thy mind. This is the first and great
commandment.” (Matthew 22:37-38 KJV)

“And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy
neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang
all the law and the prophets. (Matthew 22:39-40 KJV)

So how do these type of laws fit in with Christ’s teaching? If you neighbor is gay do you judge and hate him? Hmm, not sure that is what Christ would say or do. So be a witness to them show compassion and loving kindness to all humans no matter who they are or represent. These laws show what the problem is with religion and not with spirituality.

Feb 20, 2014 10:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Kenzen wrote:

Hmm, thought American was about equality? So how does one know who is gay or not gay? Appearance? How they talk? Oh, you had sex with them? They tell you that they are gay? You do not like their mullet hair cut? You just do not like them? They have a rainbow shirt on? They come in with a same sex friend and they both have wedding rings one? Two pre-teens girls come in holding hands? OH, you say you have gayder? You saw them have sex with the same sex person through their window while you watch? Some homosexuals there is no way to tell. So eventually this will end up in a civil law suit about discrimination, business will lose everything, the other person will win esp. if they are not gay or even gay.

I thought that Christians were to show love toward everybody.

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord
thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul,
and with all thy mind. This is the first and great
commandment.” (Matthew 22:37-38 KJV)

“And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy
neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang
all the law and the prophets. (Matthew 22:39-40 KJV)

So how do these type of laws fit in with Christ’s teaching? If you neighbor is gay do you judge and hate him? Hmm, not sure that is what Christ would say or do. So be a witness to them show compassion and loving kindness to all humans no matter who they are or represent. These laws show what the problem is with religion and not with spirituality.

Feb 20, 2014 10:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
JoeNCA wrote:

I’m still awaiting to hear where in the bible it calls upon Christians to discriminate against anyone!

Feb 20, 2014 11:02pm EST  --  Report as abuse
WhyMeLord wrote:

Arizona is an accident just waiting to happen; loose cannons, etc.
Allowing them to operate outside federal law will turn out poorly.

Feb 20, 2014 11:30pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Big2Tex wrote:

It is not outside federal law, religious freedom is federal law. But, one could argue that seculers and atheists could refuse to offer services to religious folks as it goes against their beliefs.

Feb 21, 2014 12:20am EST  --  Report as abuse
horrified wrote:

this was political suicide and even Kansas was smart enough to shoot it down in the state Senate.
discrimination is discrimination regardless of your religion. Hate is hate and discrimination is a form of hate which is supposed to be against religious beliefs too

Feb 21, 2014 12:29am EST  --  Report as abuse
horrified wrote:

discrimination is discrimination regardless of your religion. Hate is hate and discrimination is a form of hate which is supposed to be against religious beliefs too

this was political suicide and even Kansas was smart enough to shoot it down in the state Senate.

Feb 21, 2014 12:30am EST  --  Report as abuse
kafantaris wrote:

Keep pushing Arizona back to the Stone Age.

Feb 21, 2014 12:42am EST  --  Report as abuse
mharris660 wrote:

Katzenbach v. McClung, Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States…. Good luck with that bigotry and racism Arizona. That Commerce Clause will get you every time.

Feb 21, 2014 1:16am EST  --  Report as abuse
mharris660 wrote:

Katzenbach v. McClung, Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States…. Good luck with that bigotry and racism Arizona. That Commerce Clause will get you every time.

Feb 21, 2014 1:16am EST  --  Report as abuse
sugarmag418 wrote:

SO I am wondering if I could refuse service to a creationist because it causes me distress and sincerely burden my freedom to not practice a religion?

Feb 21, 2014 5:02am EST  --  Report as abuse
FRPSR wrote:

The choice of happiness over property was a cagey one by Thomas Jefferson . The wording which hurts the feelings of those proud folks who think widely of themselves , was give a great amount of thought .
That makes twice the thought of a backwards movement which appears to exist to defame Jesus Christ .

Feb 21, 2014 6:11am EST  --  Report as abuse
YVETTE50 wrote:

I COULD ONLY WISH THAT ALL STATES FELT THR SAME WAT. I WOULDN’T GO TO A PLACE OR SHOP WHERE SOMEONE DID ‘NOT’ BELIEVE IN OUR FATHER ‘JESUS CHRIST! ANYWAY..

Feb 21, 2014 7:18am EST  --  Report as abuse
wayner1 wrote:

Sign in Phoenix bakery….”We are Christians…..We do not serve amputees because Leviticus teaches us that they are unclean in the eyes of God…..This includes Veterans…..NO EXCEPTIONS!!!!!”

Feb 21, 2014 7:41am EST  --  Report as abuse
Bert4738 wrote:

What a disgusting move. Never, would I raise my family in such a bigoted place, nor would I ever move my company there. This is the 21st century. These actions to me are indicative of a very immature and backward state to be avoided for the establishment of any business.

Feb 21, 2014 8:07am EST  --  Report as abuse
njglea wrote:

Attention venture capitalists! Here’s a real opportunity for you. I’m starting my own business – burkas made in America. They will be made of the same material Jesus wore when he was crucified in homage to the supposed christian martyrs who are using his name to try to control everyone in the United States. One more small step for discrimination one more step towards religionist control of OUR country. Good people of Arizona please wake up and send all republicans and your illustrious governor home in the next elections. The success of America relies on keeping radical christians and other radical religionists out of OUR politics, government and lives except as we choose in church.

Feb 21, 2014 9:07am EST  --  Report as abuse
ChuckH1967 wrote:

Jesus wasn’t too good to work with sinners, Arizona Republicans seem to think they’re better than the Savior. Arizona: It’s A Dry Hate.

Feb 21, 2014 9:43am EST  --  Report as abuse
XianHumanist wrote:

Well there is at least a bright side to this bill. Employers would be free to protect themselves from persons or employees who substantially burden the employers religious concerns with their lapel pins, crosses, bumper stickers or other indicators of right wing views that negatively impact the caring society. I would love to get those fundamentalist evangelicals out of my workplace. Would make it so much happier a place to work if we only employed those who support a society that provides an adequate social safety net, minimum wage, abolition of guns, extended unemployment insurance, and other benefits of the good society..

Feb 21, 2014 9:47am EST  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

This is ridiculous. An excuse to be intolerant and prejudiced.

Ask yourself… would Jesus ever have refused to help someone? We all know the answer is ‘no’, so these Arizona people are full of carp: they are not refusing to provide service on religious grounds. They are refusing because they are small-minded, prejudiced idiots and trying to use religion as an excuse.

Feb 21, 2014 10:39am EST  --  Report as abuse
rvm3 wrote:

The Governor will veto the bill. Else her state will be subject to a boycott of enormous size. No Super Bowls, or anything else.

Feb 21, 2014 10:51am EST  --  Report as abuse

The link to Mexico should have been to New Mexico

Feb 21, 2014 11:25am EST  --  Report as abuse
Saminthevan wrote:

Hit ‘em where it hurts. Stop buying real estate and stop vacationing there. Imagine the economic chaos people could inflict by boycotting that State.
As a Canadian, I can choose to not vacation in Arizona. Shame on you, Arizona.

Feb 21, 2014 11:31am EST  --  Report as abuse
gregbrew56 wrote:

Except, Big2Tex, atheism is not a belief. Atheism is the lack of belief in deities (all of them), usually due to a lack of compelling evidence. Generally, atheists have no problem with folks practicing their various deity worship as long as these folks do not attempt to impose these faith-based policies on those that do not share them. Atheists are becoming more outspoken lately because theists are attempting to do just that with American political policies and decisions. The First Amendment protects us all from this behavior, as it surely will in the case outlined in the article.

As for your other statement: I defy you to provide even a single example of an atheist refusing service to a person of faith.

Feb 21, 2014 11:32am EST  --  Report as abuse
CLTrugger wrote:

Talking about poking a hornets nest. I can’t wait until someone is denied service because they mixed that fabric. Because we all know that most Christians are so tolerant of diversity.

Feb 21, 2014 11:42am EST  --  Report as abuse

The United States is a nation of law because it is a republic, not a democracy where public opinion takes precedence. Many of the restaurants where we eat that are privately owned already had posted signs for years that state, “We have the right to deny service to anyone.” Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States or in the Bill of Rights does it force anyone to provide business services to anyone else. This has always been a matter of personal discretion until the federal government began meddling with our Constitutional rights.

I can only hope that no parent would allow their children to play in another child’s poop. Unfortunately, there are people who I consider perverts that do play in each others poop, and I consider that very unsanitary and unhealthy. This is only the tip of the iceberg concerning the perversion that has escalated in this country because of the federal government’s interference with our unalienable rights and states’ rights. It is important to remember that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which all law is to be governed by, were created by our forefathers for a moral and ethical society. There are many things taking place in our society today that are no longer moral or ethical. I personally do not want to be forced to associate with anyone who plays in poop, and business owners have the right to only provide service to moral and ethical people.

Feb 21, 2014 11:46am EST  --  Report as abuse
pbug wrote:

So if you professed a religious belief that having someone of a different race serve customers was wrong, you wouldn’t have to hire them? Sounds like this bill was written by the KKK!

Feb 21, 2014 11:49am EST  --  Report as abuse

SO forgetting that this is basically a green light to discriminate, do Arizona Legislators even understand the Constitution at all. Federal anti-discrimination laws with trump this. This is the second bill they have passed that ANY lawyer would tell you is blatantly un-constitutional.

Feb 21, 2014 11:59am EST  --  Report as abuse
kl193 wrote:

In the USA we have a freedom from religion just like a freedom for it. People should be protected from religious tenets they don’t abide ruining their lives.

Feb 21, 2014 12:01pm EST  --  Report as abuse
rvm3 wrote:

Harleymunchkin, you are ignorant of the commerce clause.

Feb 21, 2014 12:15pm EST  --  Report as abuse
rvm3 wrote:

Harleymunchkin, you are ignorant of the commerce clause.

Feb 21, 2014 12:15pm EST  --  Report as abuse
illinois1973 wrote:

disgusting. Absolutely disgusting and reprehensible. Keep religion out of laws else we’re going to turn into something from the Taliban where religion IS law. This is just one more reason to add to my pile of why I turned my back on all religions and instead choose to treat all people with love and acceptance, and forgiveness where needed.

Arizona, I may be hetero, but I will not go to your state to vacation or anything again. I refuse to give my hard earned money to a State who is this blind, prejudice and disgusting. Be sure to stop selling bacon at stores and restaurants since that’s an unholy animal, by the way. Bible clearly says the swine is unclean.

Feb 21, 2014 12:17pm EST  --  Report as abuse
sabrefencer wrote:

Arizona, has started down a slippery slope…there is no stop to hate and freedoms, being taken away from all citizens, thru the guise of religious freedom….today , it maybe one group, tomorrow it maybe all the Baptists…this is the land of the free, but I know of no prophet, that said , cast your hate on another , because he looks different, acts different, believes different, from you…so if Arizona, is allowing this kind of behavior to get started again, it is disobeying, all the laws of any G-d, that is worshiped by almost anyone….shame on those, that voted this into effect….you did the state, the country, your religion, a real dis-service…

Feb 21, 2014 12:22pm EST  --  Report as abuse

rvm3, you are ignorant of the Constitution.

Feb 21, 2014 12:32pm EST  --  Report as abuse

sabrefencer, you toss around supposed quotes from prophets, but God and the Bible state that homosexuality is a sun homosexuals should be put to death. So who is the one disobeying all the law of God?

Feb 21, 2014 12:35pm EST  --  Report as abuse
najia7 wrote:

Please! If a Muslim refused to sell alcohol because it violates their religious beliefs, these people of this bill would be the first to claim that Muslims were trying to enforce sharia law on everyone. If a Jew refused to sell a meal at a restaurant because it contained pork, these same people would be yelling that all Jews hide behind anti-Semetism. The fact is, the bill is just for conservative Christians so they can violate the rights of other people, as always. At least all Christians aren’t like these bigots. A true human being would never refuse to help another person and no one that is really faithful should ever use their religion as an excuse to discriminate!

Feb 21, 2014 12:43pm EST  --  Report as abuse
lildevil81 wrote:

harleymunchkin you’re a pathetic excuse for a human being. Arizona deserves you as a resident. Bigotry wrapped in prayer is still bigotry. And for the record, sabrefencer wasn’t quoting the Bible he said, and I qoute, “but I know of no prophet that said….”. Doesn’t sound like a Bible quote to me…

Feb 21, 2014 1:18pm EST  --  Report as abuse
snowymom wrote:

To harleymunchkin:
Why don’t you pursue something more meaningful like the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Let us know what you find.

Feb 21, 2014 1:22pm EST  --  Report as abuse

@harelymunchkin, there are many passages in the bible that can be interpreted in many different ways. Heck if you took the bible literally the Earth is only 6-8000 years old. Using a work of fiction as justification for your hate towards your fellow human is wrong on so many different levels both intellectual and moral.

Feb 21, 2014 1:28pm EST  --  Report as abuse
sabrefencer wrote:

@Harley who wrote the bible??? humans, NOT g-d…

Feb 21, 2014 1:30pm EST  --  Report as abuse
gregbrew56 wrote:

harleymunchin,

Fortunately, the U.S. Constitution protects us from people like you.

Feb 21, 2014 1:42pm EST  --  Report as abuse

I am a gubernatorial candidate here in Arizona. An Independent and the only man walking to the table with an actual, viable plan and over $100 Billion in new Arizona industry with me. I will become Arizona’s next Governor. http://jlmealer.com

Keep in mind as you read this that my comments/examples are not poking fun at anyone except these lawmakers and their ignorant “law within the law” scheme. It is ignorant, because Arizona business already has the “right to refuse service”. The lawmakers are simply playing to a crowd that no one really knows exists. I certainly don’t know of anyone in Arizona who would appreciate this vague and unambiguous bill.

My views on this bill:
We’ve had this “fight” before. Why is there a need to bring it up again? This is the tip of the iceberg and actually an insult to Arizona’s intelligence. It makes us appear to be a group of inbred hillbillies.

This Bill, if made into Law, and acted upon by a place of business would be in violation of federal law and will further violate IRS laws (not that I am a fan of the IRS) and any church exercising it would lose it’s 501(c)3 tax rating.

YES, I do agree that every business has the right to refuse service to anyone provided that business is NOT INCORPORATED. However, once the individual incorporates, they give up their right to refuse service to certain individuals. However, one corporation may refuse another corporation.

Last time I checked, there is no such thing as a literal “Gay Patron Food Eaters, Inc” or “Sweaty Construction Crew, Inc” and as such, this Law is already nullified before it begins. Let me make certain this is clear— One of these two fabricated “Inc” businesses cannot possibly eat at any business or read any books at a business, whether that business is incorporated or not. So the only exclusion to the rule falls flat on it’s face.

Joe Shmoe walking in Lenny Person’s Fish Sandwich Shop could technically be refused service for whatever reason, but then again, the tax license and food license would prevent Lenny Person from refusing service to Joe Schmoe.

Sure, if a group of smelly construction workers walk into a fine dining restaurant (been there done that) and want to eat amongst those who are there to celebrate a very important event, I can see the restaurant either ‘seating us in the back’ or refusing service.

As a mostly white male, I have been 86′d from enough places here in Arizona to know that Arizonans do not normally discriminate due to skin color or overt sexual orientation (cross dressing? stick with me here, I’m guessing on the “red flag” for a religious refusal to service), but instead on the basis of people like me (decades ago!) who show up in a place of business without a shirt (this IS Arizona, we do that quite often) and are tossed out politely.

This is a redundant law. A bad law. In my opinion, it better not fly with Governor Brewer, although she is owned by her party and they do seem to be on this mission of self-destruction, so whatever string they pull, she reacts to it.

Here’s what will happen with this law- MAJOR BACKFIRE:

Against everything that these lawmakers had in mind, a group of people will form their own business –to the shock of everyone perhaps Muslim in faith(?)perhaps according to protections by the First Amendment, “Gay-Cross-Dressing-Church Anon” (or something that will really piss-off the lawmakers who will be long gone by then)– and these church groups (albeit 100% opposing each other) will grow their string of businesses to take over large parts of Metro Phoenix or somewhere near the Grand Canyon. Then they get to play the power player and shut out everyone who they do not like and it will most likely be every Christian faith based type of people or those as they deem fit for their business.

Okay, let me sum this up and get back to work campaigning;

Dumb (pending) law. Unconstitutional (pending) law. Not thought through (pending) law.

The lawmakers involved creating this bill/law have absolutely no idea what they are basing their skewed views on unless someone’s medical marijuana made it to the meeting room’s box of donuts. In that case, they simply want to eat more donuts and can’t figure out why they grow more hungry with every bite of Dope Laced Donuts. That gives me the idea of calling this the “D.L.D. Bill” and it should not be signed by Governor Brewer.

No one has thought this through (period) as much as I have done it just 90 seconds of my very simple overview.

If the businesses are truly worried that a group of smelly construction workers will upset their fine dining (like I said, “been there, done that”), the law can be tweaked to prevent discriminating from normal people with different views vs actually disruptive patrons.

JL Mealer
Bear with me on this quick response and ignore the typos! I refuse to proof read this. http://jlmealer.com

Feb 21, 2014 1:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Ciao wrote:

@USAPragmatist2 “Federal anti-discrimination laws with trump this” actually I’m not sure that’s true. I don’t believe that sexual preference is a federally protected class, so I don’t think federal laws will apply.

Feb 21, 2014 2:38pm EST  --  Report as abuse

Seems to me as if Big2Tex’s last sentence in last post needs a rewrite, here is what more effects the reality ‘I refuse to hire homosexuals, baby killers, domestic abuser, drug users or other hedonistic folks mainly because I hate those so different then myself, but I was my faith as a justification for my otherwise irrational hate to make myself feel better.’

Big2Tex, you may consider moving to Russia, you can discriminate all you want their legally.

@ciao, recent court decisions have ALL been on the side of giving the same rights to all sexual orientations. Rightly I may add.

Feb 21, 2014 3:23pm EST  --  Report as abuse
pickled wrote:

So, how exactly will they know if an individual is gay? How will they make them prove it?

Feb 21, 2014 3:34pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Ciao wrote:

@USAPragmatist2 You mentioned federal anti-discrimination laws. They pertain to a specific list of protected classes. Since sexual preference is not on that list, those laws don’t apply.
However, as you noted there have been rulings that some of the recently passed state laws violate the equal protection clause of the constitution, but that is different than federal law trumping state law (supremacy clause).

Feb 21, 2014 3:42pm EST  --  Report as abuse
greentheway wrote:

wow.

Feb 21, 2014 3:42pm EST  --  Report as abuse
artifexd wrote:

I suppose this brings about two questions. First is it right to deny service to someone based on their sexuality. Second though, is it right to force someone to serve you against their will and against their conscience?

I personally think that if I’m a business owner I should be able to deny my services to anyone I want for any reason. If I just don’t feel like it I should be able to say no. No one is forced to use my establishment at all. If I’m willing to lose the business that’s my loss. But as it’s a business and I want to make money the it’s unlikely I’d turn away paying customers.

On the other hand if I’m a consumer, I really wouldn’t want to shop in a place that didn’t want me and my money. I don’t feel the need to raise a ruckus, I simply let my money talk and go somewhere else. I don’t have a right for someone to serve me just because I have dollars in my pocket.

Feb 21, 2014 4:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse
artifexd wrote:

I suppose this begs the question. Is it right to force someone to serve you against their will or conscience?

Feb 21, 2014 4:15pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Bluzpower wrote:

Looks like Arizona continues to aspire to the title of most bigoted state in the Country again. Guess they learned nothing from their unsuccessful to deny the MLK holiday for their state. This will cost business’es in Arizona millions of dollars just like their bigoted campaign to not celebrate a National Holiday

Feb 21, 2014 4:50pm EST  --  Report as abuse

@ciao, you are correct, I worded it wrong, should have said the Constitution, but in my defense that is the supreme federal law of the nation :) and my overall point is the same, there is no way this would pass the Constitutionality test.

Feb 21, 2014 4:51pm EST  --  Report as abuse
SOKRATES wrote:

Even A life-long heathen like me knows this is correct, as you cannot have freedom FROM religion without freedom OF religion.

And besides that, most gays are Pagan and/or Socialist and think Christians and Jews should be eliminated. Any businesses they own will be the first target.

I wonder how they convinced you they were atheists, or secular. Almost none of my friends were.

Feb 21, 2014 6:38pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TedHewlett wrote:

Forcing someone to provide a service (e.g. bake a cake) to celebrate something that is against one’s conscience is a violation of religious freedom.

Feb 21, 2014 7:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TedHewlett wrote:

Forcing someone to provide a service (e.g. bake a cake) to celebrate something that is against one’s conscience is a violation of religious freedom.

Feb 21, 2014 7:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Savannahman wrote:

How about doing what the an older protest group did to Cracker Barrel when they fired homosexual employees: Stage a sit-in at some of those businesses, taking up the seats of those establishments, and not buying anything. Of course, tip the employees (IF they are not actively discriminating against you). But, his them in their pockets. Make appointments with some of those business, show up (or have them show up if they will) and don’t buy or use their services. Plan a vacation to this state, stay at places who do not discriminate, then, make reservations at those that do…don’t show up. When it comes down to the almighty dollar, and they are hit where it really hurts, they might see the error of their ways. NEVER, during any of these types of protests, should you even MENTION you are a member of a group they are discriminating against.

Feb 21, 2014 8:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse
A-V wrote:

Appropriately onerous defense…

I’d say that this law simply invites deniers of services to make their case in court for everyone to hear; the invite is hardly more polite than the average citation.

Somehow, I don’t expect pork from halal butchers [just better than average everything else...]. Quite happy to see lent-proof menus in season & the like. The more, the merrier !

Feb 21, 2014 8:35pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Big2Tex wrote:

USAPrag, what I am doing is perfectly legal. I own my company and make all hiring and firing decisions. There is no law to stop what I do. If you are queer, you will not get hired. If you have had an abortion, you will not get hired. If you beat your wife or kids, you will not get hired, if you use drugs, you will not get hired….and if you are flaming liberal like you, you will not get hired.

Feb 21, 2014 8:50pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

This is a dumb bill. Are atheists allowed to discriminate against religious people? If not? Why?

Feb 21, 2014 9:06pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@Big2Tex

There are definitely laws that prohibit your descrimination. Make it known that you didn’t hire someone based on that information and you will get sued into oblivion. And if you are trying to be a Christian, you are failing miserably. Jesus reached out to the sinners, you are doing the exact opposite. Jesus helped a homosexual couple in the bible. Jesus said he who is without sin cast the first stone when they were going to kill a harlot. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Feb 21, 2014 9:13pm EST  --  Report as abuse
FlaCracker wrote:

Big2Tex, And I would not hire you or use your company’s products or services because of your flaming bigoted, prejudiced and discriminatory opinions. Those opinions, that you justify based on your interpretation of your Bible would not be a good fit. You sir, will not get hired!

Feb 21, 2014 9:52pm EST  --  Report as abuse
mrpeal wrote:

This seems nothing more than a cover that allows for further discrimination. Why not refuse service to those of “Any” religious affiliation? That would go over like a ton of bricks. This is nothing more than another futile attempt to prolong the inevitable. I wish those that have introduced or support this bill should be prosecuted and thrown into prison and be forced to attend sensitivity training. Take their rights away and see how it makes them feel.

Feb 21, 2014 10:44pm EST  --  Report as abuse
f00 wrote:

“Discrimination” is simply free association. Declaring it unconstitutional was judicial tyranny. The FFs would have agreed, not even the minutest speck of doubt about that.

The best one can hope for — if one is so inclined — is to get away with it. Not that I’m saying you should break tyrannical laws or resist them in any way. That would be illegal. And “hateful.” Nothing’s worse than “hate.” Ewww.

Feb 21, 2014 11:12pm EST  --  Report as abuse
crod526 wrote:

Arizona lawmakers the Taliban would be proud!!

Feb 22, 2014 12:29am EST  --  Report as abuse
jasan wrote:

gays want the right to be gay, but they do not respect the rights of others who do not find their life style correct. In today’s world if you don’t approve of gays than you are wrong. If gays want to come out of the closet than they will have to deal with the various attitudes we all face. Gay want everyone to like them, this is not the case in a lot of situation among other cultures. No one is liked by everyone.

Feb 22, 2014 12:39am EST  --  Report as abuse
jasan wrote:

gays want the right to be gay, but they do not respect the rights of others who do not find their life style correct. In today’s world if you don’t approve of gays than you are wrong. If gays want to come out of the closet than they will have to deal with the various attitudes we all face. Gay want everyone to like them, this is not the case in a lot of situation among other cultures. No one is liked by everyone.

Feb 22, 2014 12:40am EST  --  Report as abuse
Glummulf wrote:

Arizona’s law complies with the First Amendment and the 10th Amendment.

The recent lawbreaking by

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

By ruling against state laws protecting marriage and ruling against persons who exercise the right to refuse service on the basis of religion we have judges blatantly breaking the law, specifically the First Amendment. It is unconscionable for any judge to make up excuses such as the 14th Amendment somehow covering what it does not cover. If it does as so many dishonest judges have said of late, then there is a conflict in the constitution. You can’t have it one way for Muslims and another way for Christians. If you follow the rulings, you know exactly what I am speaking of, such as the 6th Court of Appeals flatly breaking the tenth Amendment and further, respecting the Islamic religion and respecting Islamic persons in the ruling against Oklahoma’s law that excludes non-U.S. laws.

You can’t have it both ways.

The 10th Amendment is very specific: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. ”

If it’s not covered by the Constitution elsewhere, its in the province of the people and the States.

This idea that a federal judge can ignore the U.S. constitution in order to find homosexual privilege, to find room for Shariah, to push a host of other things that harm the public, and it is nothing short of evil.

Moral evil by a judge.

What judges have done of late is to say “I know what the Constitution says, but I want to what I want, and so I’m going to find an excuse to do it.

Euphemisms like “judicial activism” and “the Constitution is a living document” are used, but both are lies used to try to justify a judge’s personal caprice and love of personal power. It’s wrong in the same way that a burglar or murderer or thief breaks the law and such despicable rulings affect far more people than the typical criminal.

Feb 22, 2014 2:09am EST  --  Report as abuse
theovulator wrote:

wayner1 wrote:
“Sign in Phoenix bakery….”We are Christians…..We do not serve amputees because Leviticus teaches us that they are unclean in the eyes of God…..This includes Veterans…..NO EXCEPTIONS!!!!!””

Wrong. Keep reading. The laws of Leviticus were for the Jews only. And what you’ve quoted only concerns who was allowed to approach the temple. Specifically, “no persons of blemish”.

In regards to what it is to be a Christian, well please, all of you, read the gospels. And Acts.

AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS TO YOU.

Many don’t because they’re afraid to. Fearful of the FREE GIFT held in the outstretched hands, stretched out TO YOU.

In the end, the ONLY thing that’s TRULY fair in this world, is God’s judgment.

The only ones who aren’t saved are those who “chose” NOT to be.

Seems mind boggling? Read it and decide for yourself. Else, what excuse have you?

Feb 22, 2014 5:56am EST  --  Report as abuse
theovulator wrote:

njglea wrote:
“Attention venture capitalists! Here’s a real opportunity for you. I’m starting my own business – burkas made in America. They will be made of the same material Jesus wore when he was crucified in homage to the supposed Christian martyrs who are using his name to try to control everyone in the United States……………..”

njglea. Martyrs are dead. They don’t “use” or “do” anything.
Take a class in English writing. Your above can be interpreted something like three different ways.

Feb 22, 2014 6:05am EST  --  Report as abuse
theovulator wrote:

@TheNewWorld
She wasn’t a harlot, she was one who had been caught in the act of adultery.

After Jesus’ words, they all filed out from the oldest to the youngest. All of them having rightfully judged THEMSELVES unqualified for the title of “sinless”.

Concerning your assertion “Jesus helped a homosexual couple in the bible.” No such thing is recorded.

I’m not saying that Jesus would not, in some way, have helped an individual or a couple who were living in sin in some manner equivalent to all other sinners . . . . those who he came seeking to help. It’s just that nothing is recorded evidencing so.

Feb 22, 2014 7:35am EST  --  Report as abuse
theovulator wrote:

gregbrew56 wrote:
“Except, Big2Tex, atheism is not a belief. Atheism is the lack of belief in deities (all of them), usually due to a lack of compelling evidence……………….”

Perhaps atheists have compelled themselves to IGNORE the evidence? And thus, do so at their own “eternal” peril.

After all,

“Only a fool, in his heart, says “there is no God.””

As well as;

“The anger of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”

“For although they knew God, they neither glorified him AS God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.”

“Therefore God gave them over, in the sinful desires of their hearts, to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than THE Creator—who is FOREVER praised.”

“Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way, the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.”

“Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have No understanding, No fidelity, No love, No mercy. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things, but also APPROVE of those who practice them.”

God’s words, not mine. Indicative of the current state of mankind?

You decide if they’re relevant concerning you or those around yougregbrew56.

All of us, at one point or another, must wrangle with the truth, intrinsic truth. Especially at the end of all things, as it pertains to us individually. It’s a personal thing.

Click as “abuse” at your own peril. For if removed, you close the door for yourself, as well as, all others who might read it.

As for your other statement:
“I defy you to provide even a single example of an atheist refusing service to a person of faith.”

His point was, that under this law, if passed, they MIGHT do so. Equally, with any others. As in, equal footing.

Feb 22, 2014 7:41am EST  --  Report as abuse
theovulator wrote:

sabrefencer wrote:
“@Harley who wrote the bible??? humans, NOT g-d…”

Declared word of god, dictated to, and written down, by, specially chosen, humans.

sabrefencer. Read it. THE WHOLE THING. And then decide.

Decisions made from knowledge are certainly preferred over decisions made out of ignorance. Aren’t they? A reasonable proposition wouldn’t you agree?

For how can anyone TRULY decide, concerning the thing, lest they actually read it?

Anything less than that, “YOUR MOUTH DOETH RUNNITH OVER”. LOL.

Feb 22, 2014 8:34am EST  --  Report as abuse
theovulator wrote:

Bakhtin wrote:
“This is ridiculous. An excuse to be intolerant and prejudiced.”

“Ask yourself… would Jesus ever have refused to help someone? We all know the answer is ‘no’, so these Arizona people are full of carp: they are not refusing to provide service on religious grounds. They are refusing because they are small-minded, prejudiced idiots and trying to use religion as an excuse.”

A rather harsh judgment on your part wouldn’t you say Bakhtin?

Considering that thus far no one has “refused” anything for anyone.
You claim that “THEY” use religion as an excuse. Who are “they”? And what has been done by “they” that you can cite?

This is an article about lawmakers pushing something forward. Not about any actions accomplished by anybody under this law, which has not even been passed.

Perhaps you can offer for all of us what is YOUR excuse for your small-minded, prejudiced remark? Made so without basis.

Feb 22, 2014 8:37am EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@theovulator

Matthew 8:5-13

The Greek word that the Roman centurion uses in this passage to describe the sick man – pais – is the same word used in ancient Greek to refer to a same-gender partner.

He helped the gay Centurion by healing his gay partner… Yes the validity of the story can be questioned all day along with much of the bible. But you can not change the fact that the word pais is ancient Greek to refer to a same-gender partner. It is obviously glossed over in the English King James Versions, but the original greek texts still stand…

Feb 22, 2014 9:45am EST  --  Report as abuse
theovulator wrote:

@TheNewWorld
There seems to be no strong consensus backing your assertion.

Feb 22, 2014 11:07am EST  --  Report as abuse
f00 wrote:

Looks like we got a religious flame war going on between the deity-worshiping religious kooks on one side and the secular, state-worshiping, anti-”hate” haters called liberals on the other.

Rational thought rejects religion, and rational thought defends the natural right to “discriminate.”

Feb 22, 2014 12:33pm EST  --  Report as abuse
hawkedup wrote:

Love this bill, hope it goes to every state.

Feb 22, 2014 7:03pm EST  --  Report as abuse
hawkedup wrote:

Love this bill, hope it goes to every state.

Feb 22, 2014 7:03pm EST  --  Report as abuse
hawkedup wrote:

Love this bill, hope it goes to every state.

Feb 22, 2014 7:03pm EST  --  Report as abuse
hawkedup wrote:

Love this bill, hope it goes to every state.

Feb 22, 2014 7:03pm EST  --  Report as abuse
hawkedup wrote:

Love this bill, hope it goes to every state.

Feb 22, 2014 7:03pm EST  --  Report as abuse
hawkedup wrote:

AZ. as well as most states already have laws that allows business right to refuse service. This is just adding more protection to the owners. Love it.

Feb 22, 2014 7:06pm EST  --  Report as abuse
gregbrew56 wrote:

Ah, theovulator…spouting the tenets of religious terrorism at its best I see. You are essentially saying “believe in my god, or you are doomed to spend an eternity of torture in hell”.

I want nothing to do with your “god”, nor any of the thousands of other ones.

By the way…we’re waiting for “evidence” of your deity, as we have been since the dawn of time. Still none.

Feb 22, 2014 10:13pm EST  --  Report as abuse
framewrights wrote:

So this means that right wing, religious fanatics can refuse to serve people of color, people with brown eyes, people over 50, amputees, women, people with IQs under 100, bald people, people under 5′, on the grounds of religious freedom. . .

Feb 23, 2014 10:43am EST  --  Report as abuse
kram59 wrote:

Finally, a State with balls

Feb 23, 2014 10:59am EST  --  Report as abuse

The servants are not refusing to serve the servants…WHO are looking for service’…The slaves are refusing to be served by the servants Who have no respect for slavery.

Feb 23, 2014 4:46pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Follower wrote:

The servants are not refusing to honor the servants Who always look for good service’…The slaves are respectfully refusing to be served Honorably by the servants of thier good service.

Feb 23, 2014 5:05pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Follower wrote:

The servants are not refusing to honor the servants Who always look for good service’…The slaves are respectfully refusing to be served Honorably by the servants of thier good service.

Feb 23, 2014 5:06pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Follower wrote:

The servants are not refusing to honor the servants Who always look for good service’…The slaves are respectfully refusing to be served Honorably by the servants of thier good service.

Feb 23, 2014 5:07pm EST  --  Report as abuse

For those who want to show support for marriage equality and protest the bigoted, discriminatory laws like the one just passed by the Arizona State Senate allowing businesses to not serve people who they disagree with based on “religious expression” – I have designed a TShirt to allow you to show your support. You can find it on Café Press here: http://www.cafepress.com/newintellectualism

Feb 23, 2014 8:02pm EST  --  Report as abuse

For those who want to show support for marriage equality and protest the bigoted, discriminatory laws like the one just passed by the Arizona State Senate allowing businesses to not serve people who they disagree with based on “religious expression” – I have designed a TShirt to allow you to show your support. You can find it on Café Press here: http://www.cafepress.com/newintellectualism

Feb 23, 2014 8:02pm EST  --  Report as abuse
KonzRKrooks wrote:

Please email the bigoted Rep. Eddie Farnsworth at:
efarnsworth@azleg.gov
and let him know what you think about his legislated discrimination.

Feb 24, 2014 7:39pm EST  --  Report as abuse
KonzRKrooks wrote:

Write Rep. Eddie Farnsworth at:
efarnsworth@azleg.gov
And tell him what you think about legalizing discrimination.

Feb 24, 2014 7:41pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Forevarurs wrote:

If businesses start doing this than the next thing is they will only hire people with only their belief systems as well. Whats the difference of hiring someone with a different belief system and serving one who doesn’t follow their beliefs. If they don’t serve gays they won’t hire gays so its back to discrimination. If your not catholic or whatever belief system they are you won’t get served. There goes discrimination which is against our constitution against religion. Isn’t god suppose to judge not us. I study different religions and I am not prejudice against anyone. I laugh at those who judge only to teach not to judge such hypocrites. What if your religion believes in slaves, or like the surreal law muslims are trying to pass. What next? Are people that stupid to allow this law to pass. So stupid. This goes beyond gays.

Feb 25, 2014 3:43pm EST  --  Report as abuse
W0LF wrote:

@harleymunchkin

So by your logic you’re let your children play in vaginal fluid and semen and encourage others to do the same? Everybody poops, grow up.

“So who is the one disobeying all the law of God?”

I’m going to guess that it’s the bimbo who has usurped the right of judgement of her fellow man, a right denied to all but God Almighty, a crime that is punished by being cast in a lake of fire. If you doubt that’s in your Bible take another look at Romans where you learned that homosexuality was an “abomination”. It’s only two damned verses after that. If you’re going to try to use your religion as an excuse for your poop-covered intolerance and pathological need to cast your personal judgement on others, at least make a token effort to follow it’s rules.

Feb 25, 2014 9:29pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.