[Re Arizona Governor vetoing discriminatory anti-gay bill.]
I don't have any first hand knowledge of the bill, but I don't think there was any reference to homosexuals in it. I do believe the "anti-homosexual" aspect was created by the leftist machinations in our country.
I grew up reading signs on the doors of businesses that said, "No shirt, No shoes, No service", and other signs that said, "We have the right to refuse service". I'm wondering, in this day and age, if a business owner dare refuse service to anyone for any reason?
The governor of Arizona probably made the right choice with the bill that was reported to be written in a very broad way that could lead to all sorts of difficulty. But I do think a business owner should have the right to refuse service as they choose, without any regard to religious beliefs, just as I think I have the right to avoid restaurants where smoking is still allowed. It's about personal liberty.
29 comments
Random business owner: "I thought you said business owners should have the right to refuse service as they choose!"
Tall Timbers (facepalms): "Towards people whose ways of living *I* DON'T APPROVE OF! Is that so hard to understand, oatmeal-for-brains????"
"I do believe the "anti-homosexual" aspect was created by the leftist machinations in our country"
You do believe incorrectly. The anti gay hysteria was created by the fundieist machinations in our country
Hey, Americans: could you enlighten me a bit?
DO they have the right to refuse service or not?
About half the posts seem to be about this now.
Yeah, because dress codes are equivalent to discriminating against gay people. I'm sure it'd totally work out swell if business could put "no queers allowed" or "we don't support same sex weddings" on their front door.
Funny enough if anti-smoking bans hadn't gone into practice it would be very, very difficult for people to find smoke free places to go to.
"I grew up reading signs on the doors of businesses that said, "No shirt, No shoes, No service", and other signs that said, "We have the right to refuse service". I'm wondering, in this day and age, if a business owner dare refuse service to anyone for any reason?"
And your grandparents grew up reading signs that said "No blacks, no Irish". But now shop keepers are forbidden from discriminating against people just because of their ancestry.
Boo hoo.
I do believe the "anti-homosexual" aspect was created by the leftist machinations in our country.
Bull. Fucking. Shit. The entire law was created by pissed off Republicans who want to give people the right to discriminate against gay people. That's the sole reason this bill was ever drafted. Republicans were afraid that poor, innocent Christian caterers and bakers would have to serve gay weddings, and they didn't want to face this loss of their bigotry.
My question has always been, "how are you going to know who's gay?" Because let's face it, the myth of the limp wristed nancyboy or the bull dyke is just that, a myth.
Buttons? Armbands? Maybe a pink triangle of some kind...
@Grimsoncrow: i don't live in Arizona, so i'm no expert on the particular laws of that state. but the general rule of thumb in the USA is, business owners can refuse service to anyone (with rare exceptions) but not for just any reason.
behave like a jackass in their store, they can throw you out for being a jackass. cause a scene, cost them money, that's good enough reason. but they usually canNOT refuse you service just for having the wrong color skin, or being the wrong religion, or being the wrong gender.
the debate --- underneath the hysterical screaming --- is really about whether "having the wrong sexual orientation" should be one of those classifications; there's an actual legal term for them, but i'm not a lawyer either.
@Nomen Nescio: Cheers, yo!
Plus, we get all this hilarious butthurt to sneer over in FSTDT...
To Fallen Timbers....
MISter Timbers! There is a huge difference between refusing a topless, shoeless person service and refusing service to someone due to sexual orientation, ethnicity or color.
Shirtless/shoeless person can just put on a shirt & shoes but the others cannot change skin color or sexual orientation.
I never thought I'd EVER say this but I applaud that frummer-hag of doom who's running Arizona for once. She's actually done something decent (although the reasoning is more 'bad for business' rather than any sense of decency. She probably would've OKed it if it wasn't for the outrage & political suicide that would ensue).
"I grew up reading signs on the doors of businesses that said, "No shirt, No shoes, No service", and other signs that said, "We have the right to refuse service"."
Yes. And what's to stop, say... a Muslim taxi driver refusing to take someone who's inebriated as drunkenness is against his religion?
And - via that one example - have you right-wing Fundamental ist Christains realised the worse -than Pandora's Box world of shit you've opened up for yourselves, with this bill in Arizona. Because just imagine how such would become infinitely worse for your 'agenda', should just one Christain say 'But we didn't mean for this to apply to all religions!'...!
...and after all, don't you lot always bang on & on about how 'Atheism is a religion' too?! Such a world of shit-unleashing bill - which fortunately was vetoed, as said governor realised the extremely adverse repercussions such a precedent would set - frankly, would be the least of your problems, Ruptured Retards, and you know it.
Your time as the Dominant Paradigm; Christainity & it's power over people for so long (perhaps longer than it had the right to in the first place): it's over.
Let go.
I don't think there was any reference to homosexuals in it.
In which case there's nothing in it to stop the return of racial segregation which has been banned by the Supreme Court.
I grew up reading signs on the doors of businesses that said, "No shirt, No shoes, No service"
The difference is that anyone can put on a shirt and a pair of shoes.
But I do think a business owner should have the right to refuse service as they choose
I'd like to see what you think after a restaurant run by a Mormon refuses you a cup of coffee.
1062 is a very short bill; there's no excuse for not looking it up and reading it.
Since armpits and feet are generally considered to be more germy than other bits likely to be exposed, some municipal health codes discourage allowing people who are scantily dressed to eat together in an enclosed space. Rules are different when you're vending from a food truck or in a cabana.
"No shirt, No shoes, No service"
I wouldn't care if they had no pants just as long as they had cash to spend.
@Sangfroid
Nice Godwin. Most Godwins just outright say Nazi, SS, Hitler, Holocaust, Goebbels, etc. But yours was more subtle. I like it when the Nazi analogy isn't shoved in your face and you only realize it after the fact. Those, I believe, are the most effective Godwins (comparatively speaking).
Why can't fundies Godwin like this?!
I don't have any first hand knowledge of the bill, but I don't think there was any reference to homosexuals in it.
And that was the problem with it. If it had explicitly mentioned homosexuals, it would certainly have been unconstitutional under the "equal protection" clause. So they made it more general, while making sure its supporters understood it was directed toward homosexuals (wink, wink). Unfortunately, it also allowed Muslims to discriminate against Christians, Baptists to discriminate against Catholics, Christians to discriminate against Jews, etc. Businesses, who want money from anybody and don't want to discriminate or be associated with it, hit the roof. This wasn't defeated by the left. It was defeated by what always makes the world go 'round: good old fashion moola.
I don't have any first hand knowledge of the bill, but I don't think there was any reference to homosexuals in it. I do believe the "anti-homosexual" aspect was created by the leftist machinations in our country.
Hahaha, bullshit! It was only broadly worded because if it specifically allowed discrimination against only gay people it would have been shot down as unconstitutional immediately. I'm pretty sure some of the supporters of the bill explicitly mentioned it was drafted in response to people being sued because they refused to take pictures of a same sex wedding. In any case, it's not that hard to read between the lines unless you're being an obtuse moron.
If you're going to open a business to the public, you serve anyone. If you don't want to serve everyone don't open up a business, just start your own private homophobe club. no one will miss you.
"I don't have any first hand knowledge of the bill, but"
That is a REQUIREMENT of you religious douche bags. If you had (and talked about) actual knowledge of any real science, history, reality, etc, you would be shunned by your cult.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
