Featured Petition on Arizona SB 1062

I'm not certain it should be signed by Gov. Brewer, NCT. I don't believe we should ever, in the name of the Bible, the church, or any other entity, codify discrimination. Anyone can refuse to do business with anyone as it is. The mistake made by the people who were sued in court cases recently was to tell the prospective customer it was because they were gay. All they had to do was say, "Sorry, I can't. Let me give you a couple names of people who may be able to help you." End of story.

The Kansas House passed a very similar bill last week. The Senate voted it down. They should have. It's a bad idea.

 

Once this law passed suppose Catholics decided their religious beliefs told them not to serve Mormons? Or Baptists? How open ended to interpretation would this law end up being?

No thanks. We don't need a new law for people to abuse.

 

But clearly the intent is to be able to refuse service to homosexuals. A simple "We reserve our right to refuse service to anyone" sign is all that needs to be done, end of story. We've been able to refuse service to anyone based on our preferences since the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Unreasonable expectations, NCT. Church bylaws typically reserve the use of the church for members only.

 

You're right. They could. Courts could rule the sky is green and the ocean is red, too. The question is, will they?

Highly unlikely they will take away our rights as a church. Not today or very soon, at any rate, but I expect to see it in my lifetime. As I told Ann on the other thread, there is coming a time when we will be persecuted, lied about, arrested, etc. That time is not now. Why do we want to take the same attitude toward gays that will be taken against us sometime in the future? What comes, comes. Are we not trusting that the Lord will be with us then, as He is now?

 

No, I have not. The bill does not mention gays as the target, but there is no way any reasonable person can deny the bill was written in such a fashion as to allow Christians to refuse service to gays. The law isn't needed. The "right to refuse service" is already codified in U.S. and state laws, as I've repeatedly stated, without contradiction, on this board over the last three days.

If you actually believe that, I have beachfront property for sale in New Mexico you might be interested in.

The law as it is on the books iin other states, and as it was in Arizona, was written so that the government could not "substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability." The bill is online here, and you can see the changes made were referencing the government being replaced to include any "INDIVIDUAL, ASSOCIATION, PARTNERSHIP, CORPORATION, CHURCH, RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY, OR INSTITUTION, ESTATE, TRUST, FOUNDATION OR OTHER LEGAL ENTITY."

That substantially changes the law in such a way that is totally unnecessary, and is definitely prejudiced. It was specifically aimed, despite not carrying the language "gay, homosexual, gender preference, sexual preference," etc., at those people and types of relationships. Only a very naïve person would believe otherwise. The changes were made after the events in which a bakery and a photographer were sued in separate cases because they refused service specifically based on the fact the potential customer was gay. That, whether we as Christians like it or not, is illegal.

As a business owner, corporation, association, institution or any other legally established entity, you already have that right under the "right to refuse service" clause of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. You just can't tell anyone the reason for the refusal. "It's because you're black." "It's because you're gay." "It's because your Muslim." This bill would have legalized that statement.

"Big deal," many of us on this board are saying, in so many words. Well, it is a big deal. It is just one more reason for gays, liberals, etc., to hate and demonize us. It is one more reason for those who want to outlaw the Christian religion in this nation to garner support and activists who will campaign to do just that. It is one more reason for them to hasten the day when they are allowed to persecute us, curb our ability to worship, arrest us, even execute us for being Christian.

You want that day to come sooner, fine. Engage in hatred, which is what this bill is, whether some on here want to admit it or not. Personally, I'd rather be free to drive to my church and worship as my wife and I see fit for a few years longer. Claiming this bill is "innocent" and should have been signed into law is driving one more nail in the coffin of freedom to worship. No thanks.

That's absolutely absurd. Bylaws are written for the purpose of establishing how a corporation, public, private or non-profit will function, and bylaws that state the church building can only be used by church members are legal, and have been upheld in numerous lawsuits over the last few years. Incorporation protects the church, it does not put it's practices in danger.

 

Completely hit it out of the ball park!

People, we don't need another law.

Interesting that most conservatives claim they don't want any more government regulations--unless of course, it suits their issue.

 

NCT, read the law!! It already restrained the govenrment. If that's what you wanted, the law was already on the books and didn't need to be changed.

Absolutely untrue. The law as it was written restrained government. If you'd click on the link I provided, that would be obvious to you. This was an extension to virtually everyone else, and as I said, provided for more hatred and animosity toward Christians.

 

The law was completely misrepresented. It was not directed at any single group.

 

Well, it was a reaction by AZ lawmakers because of lawsuits filed by gays against Christians but I guess it was directed at everyone.

So do you want Catholic business owners to post a sign, "We Don't Serve Born Again Evangelicals"? Would you want to be discriminated against because of someone else's religious beliefs?

 

Question was not whether or not they should have the right, the question was: Would you want to be denied services or products because you are a Christian?

 

Then it's an irrelevant question. The context is what one is compelled to do by statute.

 

Extremely telling that the main point gets chewed up and spit out to create more rabbit trails so as not to address the ACTUAL ISSUE!!!!

 

The actual issue is the ability to discriminate against people by citing religious beliefs. Revmitchell said the law was not directed at anyone in particular. Since the law is not directed at anyone I raised the hypothetical situation where a born again Christian could be discriminated against. The law would allow this. How is this not the MAIN POINT!!!!!!!

 

If you own a print shop do you want to have to make posters supporting abortion?