Comments

  1. oncemorewithfeeling says

    Could that “Constitutional attorney” possibly be any more slimey? He looks exactly like someone you would expect to see on “To Catch a Predator”. I wouldn’t let him anywhere near my children.

  2. woodroad34d says

    So, if jews don’t like muslims they can discriminate against them in their business because their religion denounces muslims–religion on religion discrimination? Or Methodists and Baptists? That’s what this door is opening. These fools are black holes in the soul of humanity–everything will be sucked in and destroyed by them and their fear.

  3. busytimmy says

    Woodroad34d, this is specifically against LGBTQ citizens.

    “Within US law, public accommodations are generally defined as entities, both public and private (thus treating private business enterprises as if they were part of the government), that are used by the public. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments and service establishments, as well as educational institutions, recreation facilities and service centers. Private clubs and religious institutions are exempt. Public accommodation must be handicap-accessible and must not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin.[1][2]”

    Within the United States, legislation dealing with public accommodations include:
    Civil Rights Act of 1964
    Americans with Disabilities Act
    State-level LGBT protection, such as in Colorado
    State-level protections for breastfeeding in public[3]

  4. David says

    I try to read the four gospels throughout each year. One for each season. I can’t recall anything whatsoever in those four books that in anyway endorse this bill sponsored by “Christians”. In fact everything that I have read over and over states the opposite. I guess I need to re-read them as I am obviously missing something…

  5. ThomT says

    How long will it take for the people of Arizona to realize that this isn’t simply a bill that allows discrimination against gay people? This is a bill that will allow discrimination against ANYONE if the person who is discriminating (refusing service) can justify their actions by declaring that it is against their strongly held religious beliefs. There are plenty of reasons many of the super religious folks will find to deny service (divorce, mixing of the races, cutting your hair, tattoos, eating shellfish, using birth control, living together without marriage, belonging to a religion other than their own, etc.). So, while the original intent may have been to deny equal treatment to gay people it simply won’t stop there. And, for those Christians who support this bill, please remember that it means anyone of ANY religion may use it to deny service so you absolutely can be denied service if someone of another faith finds Christianity morally offensive – so it’s important to remember that this law you so whole heartedly support can be used against you too!

  6. ThomT says

    The 2015 Super Bowl is scheduled for February 1, 2015 in the University of Phoenix Stadium in Glendale Arizona. Super Bowl XXVII was was denied Arizona due to conflict over the observance of the Martin Luther King holiday. Maybe it’s time that the NFL take another look at holding the game in Arizona in 2015.

  7. Bill says

    @ThomT: the bill requires that someone using this exemption would have to do something that was substantially in conflict with his religious beliefs. You would be hard pressed to claim that carrying a plate to a table impacted your religious beliefs. A Christian photographer could probably use it as an excuse to not photograph a Muslim wedding held in a mosque as he would have to be there and attend a religious service. A waiter refusing to drop off a salad is going to have a much harder time making that claim.

    It’s still a bad law, but after the courts get done interpreting it (assuming it is not vetoed), it won’t be as bad as people think. Unfortunately, for the courts to interpret it, people would have to be discriminated against – otherwise they wouldn’t have standing to file a lawsuit – so it would end up being a mess, as in “full employment act for lawyers”.

  8. says

    The principle behind the bill is rotten, so yes it will be as bad as people think, whether the religious have to jump through one hoop or four to justify their bigotry. It will also–sooner or later, likely sooner–be found unconstitutional if Gov. Brewer is dumb enough to let it go ahead, but in the meanwhile it will also be very bad for Arizona. The discrimination bed they’ll have made and will have to lie in as businesses start dropping the state.

  9. Bill says

    @Ernie: People seem to be assuming that the bill could be used as an excuse to deny service at a restaurant. The law, however, talks about a situation that “substantially burdens the exercise of the person’s religious beliefs,” and a defendant has to prove that this is the case, not merely assert it. If it turns out that the law can’t be used to deny service at a restaurant, it is objectively not as bad as people think.

    It is merely a case of pointing out that if people think it is bad because it will do A, B, and C, and it turns out that it can only do C, then the law isn’t as bad as people think.

    Does anyone think they can stand there in court, under penalty of perjury, and say with a straight face that “making a salad, carrying it to a table, and collecting a tip from a gay couple substantially violates my religious beliefs,” and have the judge buy it? And imaging trying to defend that nonsense under cross examination: “Exactly where in your religion’s sacred texts does it say, “Thou shalt not give a gay dude a salad, for it is an affront to the gods?” And if the guy is a fundamentalist Christian, what happens when the plaintiff calls a professor of theology as an expert witness who says that no Christian sect has ever imposed such a restriction on its members because you can’t “hate the sin but lover the sinner” by making the sinner starve to death.

  10. says

    You’re assuming, Bill, that the burden of proof is high. I wouldn’t be so sure. In any event, that remains to be seen, if the legislation is enacted.

    But I’m not really talking about service in restaurants. I’m talking about the broader principle of the bill and the ugly precedent it would set. Whatever the burden of proof, legislation that carves out a special pass to discriminate based on religious belief is bad. It’s un-American, unconstitutional, and completely against the values many of us stand for.

    Whether or not the bigots are able to carry it out as thoroughly as they like doesn’t change the core evilness of the bill. The sooner such attempts are shot down, the better.

Leave A Reply