Jump to content
IGNORED

az mulls bill permitting business from refusing service to gays


ayin jade

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  10
  • Topic Count:  5,823
  • Topics Per Day:  0.74
  • Content Count:  45,880
  • Content Per Day:  5.81
  • Reputation:   1,905
  • Days Won:  83
  • Joined:  03/22/2003
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  11/19/1970

I agree with most of what you said, what I do not understand is how baking a cake can conflict with your faith.  You are not joining in on the sexual choice, you are not giving an approval of the sexual choice, you are not doing anything different than you do with every other cake (or whatever service you are offering).

In other words, your moral belief is that creating something for the wedding is not taking part in nor giving a stamp of approval to the sexual choices; and you believe that anyone who has a different moral belief is wrong.

Thus, your desire is to change the moral belief of others to conform to the moral belief you hold to.

 

If Jesus can eat with sinners we should be able to bake a cake for them

When it comes to whom Jesus hung out with, we miss something that is key to this - He hung out with those who accepted and received him, no matter who they were or what their status was.

 

He ate at the home of a pharisee who invited him in, even. Rich man Joseph of Arimethia was called a disciple of Jesus as well.

 

So you see, He ate with the "sinners" because they received Him, not because they were "sinners".

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  21
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,009
  • Content Per Day:  0.29
  • Reputation:   100
  • Days Won:  3
  • Joined:  09/20/2005
  • Status:  Offline

 

 

 

thats funny because your advocating making a law to force behavior change looking. the people at the bakery arnt in congress demanding they outlaw gay marriage. they just refused to bake them a cake. Thats all that bakery did. yet your supporting the government FORCING them to bake the gay couple a cake?  so what your saying is your in favor of laws only if they benefit gays, who cares if they trample on christians rights? 

The states involved in the court cases have laws against discrimination regarding providing services.

 

The rulings aren't just about weddings cakes and wedding photos. If the courts in the cases I brought up said it was fine for someone to refuse service based on sexual orientation for wedding photos and wedding cake, it would mean that someone could refuse service based on sexual orientation for literally any service or product, whether that is a cake, a photo, an apartment/house rental/purchase, a car, car repairs... Literally, just about anything.

 

The states upheld the law that states that you cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation. In a phrase, your rights stop where another person's rights begins.

 

They aren't being forced to bake a cake. They are being forced to not discriminate how they provide their services.

 

The laws that were upheld in those court cases are the same ones that protect your right to not be discriminated against as a Christian, if you wanted to purchase something.

 

There are no consitutionally protected right for simply being gay  There are American civil rights for gays and for normal people, but gays do not have speical rights or minority rights or anything based on the way they have sex.

 

In Jewish law, it is forbidden to sell ceratain religious items to nonJews.   A Jewish bookstore owner cannot sell tefillin (phylacteries) or tzitziot to Gentiles.  Gentiles can avail themselves of other goods and services in a Jewish bookstore, but there are services for which a Gentile can be denied in that bookstore due to the religious convictions of the Jewish bookstore owner.

 

It does not violate the freedom of the nonJew that he is denied the right to buy those items he is not supposed to own according to Jewish law.  I have never heard of Gentile complain that they were discriminated against because there was a something they were not allowed to purchase.   But this mirrors the exact same scenario. As with the photographer and the bakery.    The Jewish bookstore owner isn't a racist and he is not infringing on rights of the Gentile.  He is simply following his religious convinctions.

 

The same applies.  The bakery and photographer were following their religious convictions and those freedoms are not cancled out by the fact that someone is gay. 

 

Furthermore, there are churches who do not allow homosexuals to be members of their congregations, do not perform civil unions for gays, do not accept gays to be ministers in their congregations.   Churches are doing nothing different than the Christian business owners are doing.

 

In the court cases it doesn't matter if it is protected by The Constitution, it matters if they have rights granted to them period, such as by the state. Which is what the state anti-discrimination laws passed to protect them. Which the state supreme court has ruled applies to those cases. If the courts ruled otherwise, it wouldn't apply to just specific instances of religious items, it would mean that people could deny service to gays for accommodations. Religious arguments were used against providing accommodations for people of other races in the past, and I've heard religious arguments for denying services of many kinds to differing groups even today. The Arizona law does not make a distinction about what is considered reasonable in the way you might. It only states that anyone could deny service based on sincerely held religious beliefs, regardless of whether that is central to the religion or not.

 

Your right to practice your religion stops where another persons rights begin. It does not infringe upon their rights to get food, shelter, or services from other public businesses if their right to do so is otherwise protected under the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  44
  • Topic Count:  6,188
  • Topics Per Day:  0.85
  • Content Count:  43,885
  • Content Per Day:  6.06
  • Reputation:   11,342
  • Days Won:  58
  • Joined:  01/03/2005
  • Status:  Offline

The business owner has a right not to be forced to shut down because he was targeted by a gay rights agenda. 

 

This is the bill btw.

 

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  21
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,009
  • Content Per Day:  0.29
  • Reputation:   100
  • Days Won:  3
  • Joined:  09/20/2005
  • Status:  Offline

The business owner has a right not to be forced to shut down because he was targeted by a gay rights agenda. 

 

This is the bill btw.

 

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.pdf

I've read the bill. It's good to link it here though. I think you've said this part to me earlierin the thread, which I've responded to.

 

I'd take a look at this.

http://cronkitezine.asu.edu/stateofchange/connections/connections_how_mlk_day_changed_the_super_bowl.html

The LGBT community is ready to boycott Arizona if this law gets signed. The LGBT community spends about $830 Billion a year Across America, and this would probably cost Arizona half a billion dollars in lost revenues, which isn't a good thing to happen with the next super bowl coming up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
In the court cases it doesn't matter if it is protected by The Constitution,

 

Oh yes, it does matter.  Courts are put in place to judge cases and the US Constitution is the law of the land.  States are bound to uphold just like the Federal Government is. .

 

 

it matters if they have rights granted to them period, such as by the state.

 

There is no state law that give minority protection to gays and they can't.   Homosexuals are not a minority and there are no special rights granted them on that basis.

 

Which is what the state anti-discrimination laws passed to protect them. Which the state supreme court has ruled applies to those cases. If the courts ruled otherwise, it wouldn't apply to just specific instances of religious items, it would mean that people could deny service to gays for accommodations. Religious arguments were used against providing accommodations for people of other races in the past, and I've heard religious arguments for denying services of many kinds to differing groups even today. The Arizona law does not make a distinction about what is considered reasonable in the way you might. It only states that anyone could deny service based on sincerely held religious beliefs, regardless of whether that is central to the religion or not.

 

Anti-discrimination laws don't apply, here.  No one is being banned from businesses on the grounds that they are gay.   That is the ONLY way a discrimination case could be made.  If Christian owners were saying that they would not allow gays to patronize their restauraunts, bakerys, clothing stores, etc. for simply being gay, then I think there would be grounds for a discrimination cases.

 

 

Your right to practice your religion stops where another persons rights begin.

 

That argument cuts both ways.   Gays targeting a Christian business and forcing Christian business owners violate their religious beliefs upon penalty of prosecutoin is a trampling of the religious freedom and free exercise of religion guaranteed to all Americans by the Constituion.   They do not have the right to force a Christian to violate their religious convictions on the grounds.  If they have a right to be gay, that right ends where someone else's rights as Christians begin.

 

The gays did not have their rights violated in that they were not banned from any place of business, they were not denied service on the grounds they were gay.  There was no attempt to encourage other businesses to deny them service, there was no attempt to prevent them from having a same sex wedding.

 

It would be no different than if a satanist come into the bakery and asked the owner to make him/her a cake that emphasised or celebrated some aspect of Satanism.   If the owner refuses to do so on the grounds that as a Christian he cannot be connected either directly or indirectly.   No one's rights are being violated. The satanist would simply be obliged to go down the street and find another bakery willing to accomodate his needs.

 

The notion that Chrisian business owners are all of a sudden going to deny  services to gays is ridiculous.  For one thing, it supposes that these business owners are going to be able to know every time that someone walks into their shop that said person is either gay or straight.    It's not like people walk into a shoe store and say, "I am gay."  They simply walk in and try on shoes, buy them and leave.  I have never walked into a Chrisian business and have the owner or manager come up to me and ask me if I am gay or not. 

 

 

It does not infringe upon their rights to get food, shelter, or services from other public businesses if their right to do so is otherwise protected under the law.

 

That's not what we are talking about, here.    We are talking about specialized services that have nothing to do with basic needs or general services needed for a human standard of living.

 

If a straight person asks for something that the Christian business owners feels violates his faith to participate in, he should not be forced to comply with that request, either.  Being gay or straight isn't really the issue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357

 

The business owner has a right not to be forced to shut down because he was targeted by a gay rights agenda. 

 

This is the bill btw.

 

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.pdf

I've read the bill. It's good to link it here though. I think you've said this part to me earlierin the thread, which I've responded to.

 

I'd take a look at this.

http://cronkitezine.asu.edu/stateofchange/connections/connections_how_mlk_day_changed_the_super_bowl.html

The LGBT community is ready to boycott Arizona if this law gets signed. The LGBT community spends about $830 Billion a year Across America, and this would probably cost Arizona half a billion dollars in lost revenues, which isn't a good thing to happen with the next super bowl coming up.

 

LOL,  AZ will survive without the gays if it comes to that.  The LGBT community isn't big enough to break the bank.  I wish they would  boycott Missouri.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  21
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,009
  • Content Per Day:  0.29
  • Reputation:   100
  • Days Won:  3
  • Joined:  09/20/2005
  • Status:  Offline

 

In the court cases it doesn't matter if it is protected by The Constitution,

 

Oh yes, it does matter.  Courts are put in place to judge cases and the US Constitution is the law of the land.  States are bound to uphold just like the Federal Government is. .

 

 

it matters if they have rights granted to them period, such as by the state.

 

There is no state law that give minority protection to gays and they can't.   Homosexuals are not a minority and there are no special rights granted them on that basis.

 

Which is what the state anti-discrimination laws passed to protect them. Which the state supreme court has ruled applies to those cases. If the courts ruled otherwise, it wouldn't apply to just specific instances of religious items, it would mean that people could deny service to gays for accommodations. Religious arguments were used against providing accommodations for people of other races in the past, and I've heard religious arguments for denying services of many kinds to differing groups even today. The Arizona law does not make a distinction about what is considered reasonable in the way you might. It only states that anyone could deny service based on sincerely held religious beliefs, regardless of whether that is central to the religion or not.

 

Anti-discrimination laws don't apply, here.  No one is being banned from businesses on the grounds that they are gay.   That is the ONLY way a discrimination case could be made.  If Christian owners were saying that they would not allow gays to patronize their restauraunts, bakerys, clothing stores, etc. for simply being gay, then I think there would be grounds for a discrimination cases.

 

 

Your right to practice your religion stops where another persons rights begin.

 

That argument cuts both ways.   Gays targeting a Christian business and forcing Christian business owners violate their religious beliefs upon penalty of prosecutoin is a trampling of the religious freedom and free exercise of religion guaranteed to all Americans by the Constituion.   They do not have the right to force a Christian to violate their religious convictions on the grounds.  If they have a right to be gay, that right ends where someone else's rights as Christians begin.

 

The gays did not have their rights violated in that they were not banned from any place of business, they were not denied service on the grounds they were gay.  There was no attempt to encourage other businesses to deny them service, there was no attempt to prevent them from having a same sex wedding.

 

It would be no different than if a satanist come into the bakery and asked the owner to make him/her a cake that emphasised or celebrated some aspect of Satanism.   If the owner refuses to do so on the grounds that as a Christian he cannot be connected either directly or indirectly.   No one's rights are being violated. The satanist would simply be obliged to go down the street and find another bakery willing to accomodate his needs.

 

The notion that Chrisian business owners are all of a sudden going to deny  services to gays is ridiculous.  For one thing, it supposes that these business owners are going to be able to know every time that someone walks into their shop that said person is either gay or straight.    It's not like people walk into a shoe store and say, "I am gay."  They simply walk in and try on shoes, buy them and leave.  I have never walked into a Chrisian business and have the owner or manager come up to me and ask me if I am gay or not. 

 

 

It does not infringe upon their rights to get food, shelter, or services from other public businesses if their right to do so is otherwise protected under the law.

 

That's not what we are talking about, here.    We are talking about specialized services that have nothing to do with basic needs or general services needed for a human standard of living.

 

If a straight person asks for something that the Christian business owners feels violates his faith to participate in, he should not be forced to comply with that request, either.  Being gay or straight isn't really the issue. 

 

You can say anti discrimination laws don't apply here all you want. What do those laws actually say? In New Mexico, a Photographer denied services to a gay couple, was sued, and lost. 

 

The New Mexico Human Rights Act:

http://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/2011/chapter28/article1/section28-1-7

 

The Court Decision:

http://www.volokh.com/files/willockopinion.pdf

 

The court decision goes into much detail and more or less disassembles your entire argument.

 

In summary of the decision it was found that it does not constitute a violation of the first amendment, as there have been several cases of this nature about publicly available services.

 

In all of these cases were the business was sued and lost, it was in fact found that these businesses did in fact discriminate their services based on whether the customer was gay. I'm citing experts on this, many court decisions on this matter based on established legal precedent regarding discrimination. That is a a proper citation for my argument.

 

You can say no it's not discrimination all you want, but unless you've specialized in constitutional law, or can cite cases talking about how this does not apply, then you really have not argument to stand on.

 

The Constitution grants the right to sue. If gays get denied service, they have a right to file a lawsuit. It isn't a violation of the first amendment rights of the business owner if someone else exercises their constitutional right to petition for a redress of grievances. 

 

 

The business owner has a right not to be forced to shut down because he was targeted by a gay rights agenda. 

 

This is the bill btw.

 

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.pdf

I've read the bill. It's good to link it here though. I think you've said this part to me earlierin the thread, which I've responded to.

 

I'd take a look at this.

http://cronkitezine.asu.edu/stateofchange/connections/connections_how_mlk_day_changed_the_super_bowl.html

The LGBT community is ready to boycott Arizona if this law gets signed. The LGBT community spends about $830 Billion a year Across America, and this would probably cost Arizona half a billion dollars in lost revenues, which isn't a good thing to happen with the next super bowl coming up.

 

LOL,  AZ will survive without the gays if it comes to that.  The LGBT community isn't big enough to break the bank.  I wish they would  boycott Missouri.

 

It's enough to have Republicans come out against the bill, and for Governor Brewer to start waffling on whether she's going to pass the bill or not. When Hawaii legalized gay marriage, It means an estimated $217 Million in revenues.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/hawaii-legalizes-same-sex-marriage-joining-14-other-states-v21442014

 

I have no doubt Arizona will survive a boycott, but it just means half a billion dollars get's spent elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  10
  • Topic Count:  5,823
  • Topics Per Day:  0.74
  • Content Count:  45,880
  • Content Per Day:  5.81
  • Reputation:   1,905
  • Days Won:  83
  • Joined:  03/22/2003
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  11/19/1970

The LGBT community is ready to boycott Arizona if this law gets signed. The LGBT community spends about $830 Billion a year Across America, and this would probably cost Arizona half a billion dollars in lost revenues, which isn't a good thing to happen with the next super bowl coming up.

 

Considering how few businesses there are that would have a religious objection to serving a wedding ceremony between gay couples, I do find it humorous in a way that the LGBT community would cancel any plans to ever visit the Grand Canyon over this bill.

 

And I'm sure there are plenty of people not tied to LGBT that would be more than happy to buy what would have been their tickets to attend the Superbowl.

 

So how much of a threat is this really?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Seeker
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  10
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  1,033
  • Content Per Day:  0.26
  • Reputation:   67
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  12/26/2013
  • Status:  Offline

 

I agree with most of what you said, what I do not understand is how baking a cake can conflict with your faith.  You are not joining in on the sexual choice, you are not giving an approval of the sexual choice, you are not doing anything different than you do with every other cake (or whatever service you are offering).

 

If Jesus can eat with sinners we should be able to bake a cake for them

 

 

 

In other words, your moral belief is that creating something for the wedding is not taking part in nor giving a stamp of approval to the sexual choices; and you believe that anyone who has a different moral belief is wrong.

 

 

Correct.

 

Thus, your desire is to change the moral belief of others to conform to the moral belief you hold to.

 

 

I am not trying to change anything, I am stating my opinion  Though that does seem to be a big difference between myself and many on here, they are trying to win an argument and make people believe what they do.  I am stating my opinion, what you do with it is up to you.

 

 

 

When it comes to whom Jesus hung out with, we miss something that is key to this - He hung out with those who accepted and received him, no matter who they were or what their status was.

 

He ate at the home of a pharisee who invited him in, even. Rich man Joseph of Arimethia was called a disciple of Jesus as well.

 

So you see, He ate with the "sinners" because they received Him, not because they were "sinners".

 

 

So all the sinners that came to join him eating dinner at Levi's house had received Him?  Really?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Seeker
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  10
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  1,033
  • Content Per Day:  0.26
  • Reputation:   67
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  12/26/2013
  • Status:  Offline

 

The LGBT community is ready to boycott Arizona if this law gets signed. The LGBT community spends about $830 Billion a year Across America, and this would probably cost Arizona half a billion dollars in lost revenues, which isn't a good thing to happen with the next super bowl coming up.

 

Considering how few businesses there are that would have a religious objection to serving a wedding ceremony between gay couples, I do find it humorous in a way that the LGBT community would cancel any plans to ever visit the Grand Canyon over this bill.

 

And I'm sure there are plenty of people not tied to LGBT that would be more than happy to buy what would have been their tickets to attend the Superbowl.

 

So how much of a threat is this really?

 

 

Should this pass they would likely loose the Super Bowl, again.  How much do you think losing the Super Bowl could cost the state?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Our picks

    • You are coming up higher in this season – above the assignments of character assassination and verbal arrows sent to manage you, contain you, and derail your purpose. Where you have had your dreams and sleep robbed, as well as your peace and clarity robbed – leaving you feeling foggy, confused, and heavy – God is, right now, bringing freedom back -- now you will clearly see the smoke and mirrors that were set to distract you and you will disengage.

      Right now God is declaring a "no access zone" around you, and your enemies will no longer have any entry point into your life. Oil is being poured over you to restore the years that the locust ate and give you back your passion. This is where you will feel a fresh roar begin to erupt from your inner being, and a call to leave the trenches behind and begin your odyssey in your Christ calling moving you to bear fruit that remains as you minister to and disciple others into their Christ identity.

      This is where you leave the trenches and scale the mountain to fight from a different place, from victory, from peace, and from rest. Now watch as God leads you up higher above all the noise, above all the chaos, and shows you where you have been seated all along with Him in heavenly places where you are UNTOUCHABLE. This is where you leave the soul fight, and the mind battle, and learn to fight differently.

      You will know how to live like an eagle and lead others to the same place of safety and protection that God led you to, which broke you out of the silent prison you were in. Put your war boots on and get ready to fight back! Refuse to lay down -- get out of bed and rebuke what is coming at you. Remember where you are seated and live from that place.

      Acts 1:8 - “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses … to the end of the earth.”

       

      ALBERT FINCH MINISTRY
        • This is Worthy
        • Thumbs Up
      • 1 reply
    • George Whitten, the visionary behind Worthy Ministries and Worthy News, explores the timing of the Simchat Torah War in Israel. Is this a water-breaking moment? Does the timing of the conflict on October 7 with Hamas signify something more significant on the horizon?

       



      This was a message delivered at Eitz Chaim Congregation in Dallas Texas on February 3, 2024.

      To sign up for our Worthy Brief -- https://worthybrief.com

      Be sure to keep up to date with world events from a Christian perspective by visiting Worthy News -- https://www.worthynews.com

      Visit our live blogging channel on Telegram -- https://t.me/worthywatch
      • 0 replies
    • Understanding the Enemy!

      I thought I write about the flip side of a topic, and how to recognize the attempts of the enemy to destroy lives and how you can walk in His victory!

      For the Apostle Paul taught us not to be ignorant of enemy's tactics and strategies.

      2 Corinthians 2:112  Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices. 

      So often, we can learn lessons by learning and playing "devil's" advocate.  When we read this passage,

      Mar 3:26  And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end. 
      Mar 3:27  No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strongman; and then he will spoil his house. 

      Here we learn a lesson that in order to plunder one's house you must first BIND up the strongman.  While we realize in this particular passage this is referring to God binding up the strongman (Satan) and this is how Satan's house is plundered.  But if you carefully analyze the enemy -- you realize that he uses the same tactics on us!  Your house cannot be plundered -- unless you are first bound.   And then Satan can plunder your house!

      ... read more
        • Oy Vey!
        • Praise God!
        • Thanks
        • Well Said!
        • Brilliant!
        • Loved it!
        • This is Worthy
        • Thumbs Up
      • 231 replies
    • Daniel: Pictures of the Resurrection, Part 3

      Shalom everyone,

      As we continue this study, I'll be focusing on Daniel and his picture of the resurrection and its connection with Yeshua (Jesus). 

      ... read more
        • Praise God!
        • Brilliant!
        • Loved it!
        • This is Worthy
        • Thumbs Up
      • 13 replies
    • Abraham and Issac: Pictures of the Resurrection, Part 2
      Shalom everyone,

      As we continue this series the next obvious sign of the resurrection in the Old Testament is the sign of Isaac and Abraham.

      Gen 22:1  After these things God tested Abraham and said to him, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am."
      Gen 22:2  He said, "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you."

      So God "tests" Abraham and as a perfect picture of the coming sacrifice of God's only begotten Son (Yeshua - Jesus) God instructs Issac to go and sacrifice his son, Issac.  Where does he say to offer him?  On Moriah -- the exact location of the Temple Mount.

      ...read more
        • Well Said!
        • This is Worthy
        • Thumbs Up
      • 20 replies
×
×
  • Create New...