By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Arizona lawmakers pass anti-gay bill

Lumikki on 23 February 2014

I think the company has its rights to choose its customers and with whom its co-operating with. Nevertheless this seems a bit wrong just to limit the law to LGBT folks.

I dunno how it's in NA, but here for example the bar can choose who they are letting in and who not. Even if the legal drinking age here is 18, some bars do not allow people less than 20 to get in. Same goes with clothing, if the bar judges that you do not have a proper clothing (wearing sandals etc) they again have a right not let you in.

Though I think it's illegal here to refuse possible customers by their sexuality and ethnics....



PS2|Wii|DS lite|3DS XL|PSP|Android

Around the Network
SocialistSlayer on 23 February 2014
Mr Khan said:
Kasz216 said:
the2real4mafol said:
Wow, new segregation!
What is actually there problem with LGBT? I though Republicans especially were against "big government" and yet when they can use it to hurt minorities they do it. Hypocrites!

As long as LGBT people harm no one, they should be allowed to do what they want. It's there bodies.

Also, surely there are bigger issues out there than gay people.


New Segregation seems a bit sensationalist.

You do realize that this was the case in the UK up until 2007 right?

 

All and all, the law is just... totally pointless, because Arisona wasn't one of the states where you couldn't refuse service to gay people in the first place.   Buisnesses have the right to refuse service in most states, and most countries, to anybody except on the basis of Race, Nationality or Disability.

The US also has age on it's list.


Some US states and other countries have gay... but far less countries then you would think.

 

It just rarely happens because... people like money.


Pointless and terrible, but not really anything beyond that.

The more interesting one is that an interpretation of this law could open up for discrimination in other regards, like if a Muslim waiter at a general-purpose restaurant begins refusing to even handle anything with pork in the ingredients, and demanded he can still keep the job. I wonder what the advocates of the law would say in that case?

no, because said muslim waiter was volunterly offering his services and the business was volunterly employing him. No one was forced to do anything, he is free to leave, and the business is free to fire him.

back to the Op, the business should be able to volunterrly offer their services, and customers should be able to volunterly accept their service. You are advocating for compulsery labor, which is slavery.



 

Mr Khan on 23 February 2014
SocialistSlayer said:
Mr Khan said:

The more interesting one is that an interpretation of this law could open up for discrimination in other regards, like if a Muslim waiter at a general-purpose restaurant begins refusing to even handle anything with pork in the ingredients, and demanded he can still keep the job. I wonder what the advocates of the law would say in that case?

no, because said muslim waiter was volunterly offering his services and the business was volunterly employing him. No one was forced to do anything, he is free to leave, and the business is free to fire him.

back to the Op, the business should be able to volunterrly offer their services, and customers should be able to volunterly accept their service. You are advocating for compulsery labor, which is slavery.

Right. If you are voluntarily offering your business, you are perfectly free to shut it down should you not be able to conduct business without discriminating. No one is forced to do anything. Nobody's forcing you to bake wedding cakes, after all.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

SocialistSlayer on 23 February 2014
Mr Khan said:
SocialistSlayer said:
Mr Khan said:
 

The more interesting one is that an interpretation of this law could open up for discrimination in other regards, like if a Muslim waiter at a general-purpose restaurant begins refusing to even handle anything with pork in the ingredients, and demanded he can still keep the job. I wonder what the advocates of the law would say in that case?

no, because said muslim waiter was volunterly offering his services and the business was volunterly employing him. No one was forced to do anything, he is free to leave, and the business is free to fire him.

back to the Op, the business should be able to volunterrly offer their services, and customers should be able to volunterly accept their service. You are advocating for compulsery labor, which is slavery.

Right. If you are voluntarily offering your business, you are perfectly free to shut it down should you not be able to conduct business without discriminating. No one is forced to do anything. Nobody's forcing you to bake wedding cakes, after all.

no but youre also free to bake or not to bake wedding cakes. does the phrase "we reserve the right to refuse service" ring any bells.

also nobody forced the customers to go to that place of business either.



 

NobleTeam360 on 23 February 2014

I don't see the problem.



Around the Network
Leadified on 23 February 2014
SocialistSlayer said:
Mr Khan said:
Kasz216 said:
the2real4mafol said:
Wow, new segregation!
What is actually there problem with LGBT? I though Republicans especially were against "big government" and yet when they can use it to hurt minorities they do it. Hypocrites!

As long as LGBT people harm no one, they should be allowed to do what they want. It's there bodies.

Also, surely there are bigger issues out there than gay people.


New Segregation seems a bit sensationalist.

You do realize that this was the case in the UK up until 2007 right?

 

All and all, the law is just... totally pointless, because Arisona wasn't one of the states where you couldn't refuse service to gay people in the first place.   Buisnesses have the right to refuse service in most states, and most countries, to anybody except on the basis of Race, Nationality or Disability.

The US also has age on it's list.


Some US states and other countries have gay... but far less countries then you would think.

 

It just rarely happens because... people like money.


Pointless and terrible, but not really anything beyond that.

The more interesting one is that an interpretation of this law could open up for discrimination in other regards, like if a Muslim waiter at a general-purpose restaurant begins refusing to even handle anything with pork in the ingredients, and demanded he can still keep the job. I wonder what the advocates of the law would say in that case?

no, because said muslim waiter was volunterly offering his services and the business was volunterly employing him. No one was forced to do anything, he is free to leave, and the business is free to fire him.

back to the Op, the business should be able to volunterrly offer their services, and customers should be able to volunterly accept their service. You are advocating for compulsery labor, which is slavery.

You're already allowed to deny people of your services if they violate your rights. You're just not allowed to deny someone solely based on discrimination on things like race, sex or sexuality. All this bill does is give a legal defence to a business, so if a gay couple were to sue them they can't win because the business did not break the law.

The only people who profit are those who dislike LGBT people and this bill gives them the impression that the Republican party is acutally doing something. So they will continue to support them in the next election, even if it means continuously voting for people who pass self-destructing legislation.



Kasz216 on 24 February 2014
Leadified said:
SocialistSlayer said:

no, because said muslim waiter was volunterly offering his services and the business was volunterly employing him. No one was forced to do anything, he is free to leave, and the business is free to fire him.

back to the Op, the business should be able to volunterrly offer their services, and customers should be able to volunterly accept their service. You are advocating for compulsery labor, which is slavery.

You're already allowed to deny people of your services if they violate your rights. You're just not allowed to deny someone solely based on discrimination on things like race, sex or sexuality. All this bill does is give a legal defence to a business, so if a gay couple were to sue them they can't win because the business did not break the law.

The only people who profit are those who dislike LGBT people and this bill gives them the impression that the Republican party is acutally doing something. So they will continue to support them in the next election, even if it means continuously voting for people who pass self-destructing legislation.

Actually I'm pretty sure your totally allowed to deny people service soley due to sexuality.  I mean

 

 

It might not be 1 to 1, but i gotta think refusal to service and being able to fire are fairly even in standing.



Zappykins on 24 February 2014
J_Allard said:
I'm not a religious person, I have no problem with this bill. You might discriminate against LGBT people with it, but its equally wrong to force someone to do business with someone that clashes with their religious beliefs IMHO. So either way someone is getting screwed.

So, then it's ok for traditional Mormons to kick black people out of their restaurants and hotels because they aren't considered even human in their books?



 

Really not sure I see any point of Consol over PC's since Kinect, Wii and other alternative ways to play have been abandoned. 

Top 50 'most fun' game list coming soon!

 

Tell me a funny joke!
Zappykins on 24 February 2014
Kane1389 said:
Kasz216 said:
the2real4mafol said:
Wow, new segregation!
What is actually there problem with LGBT? I though Republicans especially were against "big government" and yet when they can use it to hurt minorities they do it. Hypocrites!

As long as LGBT people harm no one, they should be allowed to do what they want. It's there bodies.

Also, surely there are bigger issues out there than gay people.


New Segregation seems a bit sensationalist.

You do realize that this was the case in the UK up until 2007 right?

 

All and all, the law is just... totally pointless, because Arisona wasn't one of the states where you couldn't refuse service to gay people in the first place.   Buisnesses have the right to refuse service in most states, and most countries, to anybody except on the basis of Race, Nationality or Disability.

The US also has age on it's list.


Some US states and other countries have gay... but far less countries then you would think.

 

It just rarely happens because... people like money.


Im pretty sure a bakery recently got closed in the US because they refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding

Well, the law in Arizona is a direct violation of the US Constitution..  So that's a problem.  It will get thrown out, but waste a bunch of tax dollars in the process.

The Baker in question, had serviced the couple FOR YEARS and only decided not to service them because it was their wedding. At the same time, they also fulfilled atheist parties and pagan parties so it was the just hate gay people and not about religion. Plus it was in a direct violation of that State's Laws.

They closed their business because they wanted to.  They weren't forced out, they wanted to discriminate and realized they couldn't.  So they closed up shop.



 

Really not sure I see any point of Consol over PC's since Kinect, Wii and other alternative ways to play have been abandoned. 

Top 50 'most fun' game list coming soon!

 

Tell me a funny joke!
Leadified on 24 February 2014
Kasz216 said:
Leadified said:
SocialistSlayer said:

no, because said muslim waiter was volunterly offering his services and the business was volunterly employing him. No one was forced to do anything, he is free to leave, and the business is free to fire him.

back to the Op, the business should be able to volunterrly offer their services, and customers should be able to volunterly accept their service. You are advocating for compulsery labor, which is slavery.

You're already allowed to deny people of your services if they violate your rights. You're just not allowed to deny someone solely based on discrimination on things like race, sex or sexuality. All this bill does is give a legal defence to a business, so if a gay couple were to sue them they can't win because the business did not break the law.

The only people who profit are those who dislike LGBT people and this bill gives them the impression that the Republican party is acutally doing something. So they will continue to support them in the next election, even if it means continuously voting for people who pass self-destructing legislation.

Actually I'm pretty sure your totally allowed to deny people service soley due to sexuality.  I mean

 

 

It might not be 1 to 1, but i gotta think refusal to service and being able to fire are fairly even in standing.

Makes the whole situation even less suprising then, similar laws were proposed in Kansas and Tennesee which are both orange states, so all in all the only reason they're passing this law is because why not, they might be able to get away with it.