Ali#1, you were right about Arizona.
 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_4854003.html

Jan Brewer Announces Veto Of Arizona Anti-Gay Bill SB 1062

WASHINGTON -- Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) announced her decision to veto legislation on Wednesday that would have allowed businesses to legally refuse service to anyone on "religious freedom" grounds, effectively allowing them to discriminate against same-sex couples.

Sanity reigns in Arizona. But it was basically the same proposal that Dany Smith and Wildrose wanted to bring in... and for providers of government services to boot! "I don't like their type. I'm not serving them."

Not sure I agree with you OK. I do agree that discrimination is bad, but people should have a choice not to be forced to provide a service that violates their moral convictions, such as the baker forced to bake a cake for the gay couple, or for a JP forced to marry a gay couple.

In my opinion, forcing people to do such a thing removes their rights. Big problem is how to balance everyone's rights.

I'm planing on taking a pig into the local muslim butcher shop and have them process it for me.

Fair is fair.

Just like how a baker shouldn't be forced to bake a cake for a black couple if he really deeply believes in white supremacy...:sSig_cool2:

or bake a cake for a black person, or a Jewish person????

I get and support that people should be able to associate with who they want. I'm not even really upset about gender-specific social clubs, etc. I just think you have to draw the line somewhere. And I think when you are licensed by the state as a business, take business deductions to income tax, and offer your services to the public, that's the line.

Can you show that it is under religious grounds? Nope, so then he violates the law.

But homosexuality is prohibited by many religions, and as such he would have grounds.

On the surface that sounds fair, but it's not. Discrimination against people is against the law, not discrimination against products. Now if you went to a Muslim butcher and he said he wouldn't serve you because you were a Christian, then you would have a case. But he doesn't butcher pigs for anyone of any race or religion. He isn't presenting himself to the public as a pig butcher.

I agree to a point, but how do you control it? As Ryry pointed out, he could take a pig to a Muslim butcher and force him to butcher the pig, and there is nothing the butcher could do about it. I think that is wrong. I think a business owner has a right not to violate their religious rights in favor of someone else's rights to service.

Well then he should understand why he won't be allowed with headgear at the Legion....because no one is supposed to wear headgear in there cowboy hat, ball cap, or otherwise....

LC

So if a baker doesn't want to bake cakes on a certain day he doesn't have to? Regardless of who orders one. Got it.

Personally I wouldn't turn anyone away. But the customers that I have come in with Obama bumper stickers and t-shirts pay full retail + 10%.:)

Your opinion implies that religion is reasonable grounds for discrimination. That's a dangerous opinion.

And the same could be said for the baker who said he does not make cakes depicting gay ceremonies, yet he was forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

Why is it ok for one person to deny such services, yet not for the other? Kind of hypocritical isn't it?

And then one needs to wonder why the gay couple took the issue to court to force a baker to bake the cake? Kind of sounds like they were using their agenda to make a point about their rights, and trampled the baker's religious rights in the process.

Religious rights are protected, so how is it a dangerous opinion?

Bottom line is some rights seem to be able to trump other rights. How do you balance this is the question we should be discussing.

Does a gay wedding cake have a fruit filling? Or is it more traditional with candied fruit and nuts?

LC :)

There are Aryan churches you know.. And within my lifetime Blacks were discriminated against in the Mormon church.

So what you are saying is that a Catholic civil servant or business owner should be able to refuse service to anyone who has committed adultery, had an abortion, had sexual relations outside of the sanctity of marriage.... lemme see what other ones I can come up ith... eat shellfish or pork... lemme get my old testament.

We ok with allowing Canadian Muslim business owners to refuse service to or employ "infidels"? ;)

Well let's look at the case of the JP.

Why should the JPs religious rights trump the rights of the gay couple? A JP performs civil ceremonies, which are already pretty well un-christian. JPs are supposed to be civil servants, they should leave their religious beliefs out of their jobs, and if they can't then they shouldn't be JPs.

All good arguments, and that is why it is open to discussion. For every argument you have for one opinion, I can bring others, and we end up running around in circles.

Honestly, I would never discriminate against someone based on sexuality, age, religion or color, or sex. I will discriminate based upon actions.

And as for your point about infidels, ever wonder why most Chinese restaurants seem to only employ Asians? Or Indian restaurants Indians? Are they violating the laws by only hiring a particular race of people?

I don't disagree. All I know is that if I was looking for a JP to do a service for me, I would find one that was truly happy for me, not one that was doing it out of obligation. I think some leeway should be given to let people follow their moral compass without big brother stepping in and forcing them to do something against their will.

With the push for gay rights has come the minimizing of religious rights in some aspects.

Good point. But they don't openly declare that they will not hire others, and it's not allowed in law. If you could provide evidence of discrimination, they could be charged.

And my white neice works PT in a Chinese restaurant. ;)

I get a kick out of how Christians cling to old testament bull**** and use it to enforce their narrow-mindedness. What's immoral about gay marriage? Two people want to be committed to one another openly. How is that immoral according to the new testament?

If one makes the choice to open a business, then one should expect that your customers are going to be from the area you open that business.

If one is Muslim, perhaps opening a butcher shop in North America is not the best decision for said Muslim, since in North America, we eat pork.

IMO, refusing service on these grounds and using religion as an excuse is gutless more than it is viable.

For the Muslim opening a butcher shop, the building you're in, the equipment you use, and the customers you serve, eat pork (as a generalized statement). Your religion didn't stop you from using the equipment, renting the shop, etc. Your business is sustained by people that eat pork. without the pork eating people, your business likely will not survive. Seems hypocritical.

Same for the Christian baker. Your business is to make cakes. Sorry to say, but many of the cakes you make are eaten by gay people. Much of the equipment and supplies at some point have had a hand in it by someone that was gay.

Seems like religion is an excuse used when it benefits them to use it. If not, they've chosen the wrong line of work to align with their beliefs.

Cheers

You don't know me, you don't know my religion, and you don't know how I live my life, so how can you come up with such a comment about me?

My point is, and always will be, how do we balance rights without harming each other.

Many religions, not just Christians consider homosexuality as a sin. By forcing someone to provide certain services, such as marrying them can be seen as forcing that person to violate their religious convictions, and this would be a violation of their religious rights.

Any idea what the Koran says about gay marriage?

Do you guys realize that this bill only gave a business owner the right to have his case heard in court. If he did refuse service on religious grounds he would still have to prove in court that it was a legitimate objection. Without this bill the business owner has no chance to prove his objection is legitimate, he is simply forced to go along with any request. The gay lobby and left wing media have portrayed the law as if it would allow a business owner to hang a sign in the window saying "homosexuals not served here."

They are using the same tactics Wendy uses in the gun control fight.

Ahhh another one of them forum scrums until someone crosses the line and father moderator shuts 'er down and a few timeouts are issued! :scared0018:

I have found nothing in the words attributed to Jesus where he even addressed the issue of homosexuality. Paul did, but not Jesus.

I actually refused to shoot a wedding back in the early 1990s, as the couple's beliefs went against my moral convictions. I really couldn't stomach the thought of doing it, and of being around more people like them.

I'm horribly conflicted when it comes to things like this. I really do feel that people should be able to decline servicing someone they're not comfortable with (I'd be a hypocrite otherwise), but at the same time I loathe the thought of someone being rejected based on racial, religious, gender, or other protected issues.

The whole thing shorts-out my brain.

Not a problem here in Bodo. we don't have any service industries, restaurants, stores, or businesses, or bars. And yet, and yet, and yet, a country boy can survive, without growth hormones. the only ones around here that get to change their gender are calves.

BRILLIANT!!!!!

Do it. This is what needs to be done to put a stop to the none sense. If they refuse it will set a precedence for future law suits, it will benefit all Canadians.