AZ SB 1062 discrimination against LGBT

Post Reply New Topic

No, it's your designating my moral stand as a lack of ethics that I would wear as a badge of pride.
How is standing by my beliefs a lack of ethics?

You should know that this is specious nonsense.

Free speech is routinely curtailed for a number of reasons: the protection of property (copyright); the protection of personal integrity (libel, slander and defamation); the prohibition of crime (fraud); the prevention of mischief (yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre). Where the state has a legitimate interest to protect, individual rights may justifiably be curtailed in order so to do.

Allowing a bigot to spout racist nonsense is not on the same level as empowering a business to deny goods and services, and you know it.

As for the internet, let's bear in mind that this is a two edged sword. There are many who would proudly raise the standard of bigotry in the expectation of the custom of other bigots. And while I have absolutely no objection to a business putting a "God hates fags" poster in the window, I reject utterly the notion that such a business can refuse service on that basis.

That the way I view it. When Coke was turning down blacks, Pepsi capitalized on it. If they are going to be stupid about serving everyone, then their business will suffer, or who knows, it may grow. In the end it is about profits and none else, and they will have to deal with that at the end of the say.

^^^
Excellently stated, VisiGrunt!

How does disallowing business from discriminating on the basis of race, sexual orientation, disability ect set precedents that can be later used in less well meaning ways? How exactly are those laws abused by the government? and does it really outweigh the benefits of having such laws in place? Those are the things that should be considered.

With the fire bit, they would be violating the theater code of conduct, thus violating their property rights. Copyrights were made to control speech during the age of kings, so I call BS. As for personal integrity, they owe you nothing.

^^^
I certainly disagree with you concerning copyrights. If I write and publish something, I don't want someone to be able to take credit for my work, or to make use of it unless I've given permission.

Just out of curiosity, is there anything that you think should not be protected under the free speech philosophy? Does the freedom of speech extend to those who incite violence, make concrete threats on a personal or national level, the WBC (should they be allowed to protest at the graveside?), sexually explicit language in an elementary school parking lot, trying to convince toddlers how wonderful heroin can be, sharing protected personal information, revealing military secrets, perjury in a court of law, plagiarism, politicians lying to cover up fraud and/or corruption charges, or using the F-word repeatedly in cartoons for kids.

Just interested in finding out where you would draw the line.

Unfortunately, if someone refused service to a couple for being homosexual and it went viral, I'm certain that they would instantly get national support and likely financial rewards from those who believe that homosexuals are inferior/abominations/hell-bound/responsible for the destruction of the country.

Look at the Duck Dynasty incident. While many of those supporting that guy were supporting him an the basis of free speech, there were plenty of very vocal supporters who made it very clear that anyone who is gay is somehow evil and ran out to buy up WalMart's full stock of DD merch.

Yes, the expansion of social media has made it possible for hate and discrimination to be exposed more easily and more quickly. Unfortunately, it has also made it equally possible for people to spread their own personal hate speech and superiority issues, often in a very effectively.

The whole question of business owners being able to chose who they will or will not serve is pretty academic. Consider a business that sought to charge different prices to different people based on some classification of those people:

Can of Coke: for sale to white christians for $1, to white homosexuals for $10, for black homosexuals for $20

Probably illegal.

Now take it to its logical conclusion:

Can of Coke: for sale to white christians for $1, to white homosexuals we are charging more than all the money that exists in the world. Ditto for black homosexuals.

Basically the same as refusing to serve white homosexuals or black homosexuals.

I find it very troubling as a gay man that the bill could even get as far as it has in a US state, but it really isn't a surprise as the extreme evangelicals have supported laws like those in Uganda, Russia, and any place that buys into their warped world view. What I even find worrying is how many people of faith actually are happy about this bill not to mention how many wish they could pass laws like that in Uganda in the USA. I really am starting to worry about something like what has happened in Uganda to happen in this nation as our country has never been in short supply of reactionary bigots. It seems despite how much we fought for in the LGBT community is being used as a rallying cry for the Christian base of the GOP, and is now used as way to raise money from this segment of the population.

I've heard on CNN just today that Gov. Brewer may in fact veto the bill. Keep your fingers crossed!

I hope she does! I heard that Apple was thinking about reconsidering their plans for a factory if it is not Vetoed.

Well, we're talking about a cake shop, not a national TV show which already had a fan base and a range of merchandise. And for all the yammering about hotels and restaurants, it's hard to see how such discrimination could be practiced outside wedding-related businesses. Other shop owners may put up all the signs they like, but until an electronic gaydar device is invented, they can't divine the sexual orientation of their customers. Two men, or two women, may shop together, dine together, share a hotel room etc. without being gay.

I don't expect the law to succeed, due to precedent. However, the shop owner will still be able to put up signs, billboards even, calling homosexuality an abomination – that's freedom of speech. He can publish a book averring that gayness is the downfall of western civilization. He can make himself available to the media as a sort of spokesman for the anti-gay cause. And if this brings him fame and fortune, what do you propose to do about it? People have the right to express their opinions and to spend their money as they please.

And there actually are gay people who want to walk past the signs and billboards in order to buy a cake from such a person? I just don't get it.

What if they wanted to not serve autistic people or people with other disabilities . . . would that be acceptable too to protect their freedom of religious expression? Or are the disabled a group that needs special protection from society that gay people don't?

http://tribuneherald.net/2013/08/23/kkk ... imination/