Featured Petition on Arizona SB 1062

No, I don't. Business owners in AZ already have the right to refuse making posters that support abortion.

Do we need a new law to codify discrimination based not on any old reason, but SPECIFICALLY on religion? Meaning someone could discriminate against born again Christians for no other reason except that they were Christians.

 

Then I suppose they could just as easily refuse to serve Christians.

And by the way the state of NM does not allow that. AZ is only looking to the future.

 

Right now, business owners in AZ cannot refuse to do business with Christians using the excuse, "I'm not doing business with you because you are one of those born-again Christians". They can simply decline to do business without citing a reason. However, if this law had gotten passed they could refuse service and the reason given could be "because you are a Christian."

Not sure what you mean. Cannot bouncers at night clubs refuse anyone entrance?

 

A photographer was told by the courts that they cannot refuse to do photos for a homosexual wedding.

 

Yes, I KNOW that. The ruling was based on discrimination grounds. But supposing instead of saying, "as a Christian I believe marriage is between one man and one woman and that homosexuality is an abomination in the sight of God" the photographer would have said, "I can't do your wedding, I think I'm busy that day" and given them the name of another photographer?

Now, can't a business owner in New Mexico refuse to do business with someone without having to give a reason?

 

Should you be dishonest about the reason, if it is required ?

 

Not unless you can't help it. There's nothing wrong with saying, "I can't do it." If pressed with questions about "Why can't you do it?", all you need to say is "I can't do it."

 

But they can simply decline the business, giving no reason. That's been perfectly legal since 1965.

 

I just don't agree with the dishonesty. I agree with the last part. You gotta admit there's a lot of folks who will flip out and accuse you of something as soon as you say "no".

 

I don't know where that came from, NCT, but that's not the whole language of the bill. This is (the numbers on the left are line numbers, as required in formatting legislation in Arizona).

I linked this earlier, in post # 9. You're right, seems innocuous. No mention of gays, lesbians, Martians or any other "minority" group.

But let me ask you a couple straightforward questions and you give me honest answers, OK?

1. What types of individuals have sued recently for being denied services?
2. What types of individuals have those first types sued?
3. For what purpose was this law, therefore, intended to be revised?
4. Are you aware, as I have stated numerous times over the last few days, that the "right to refuse service" clause of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 covered this situation already?
5. Given that to be the case, why was it deemed necessary to revise the law?

Your answers should lead you, if you're honest in giving them, to see that this was nothing more than a law being rewritten to allow discrimination, by legalizing the phrase, "Because you're gay ..." followed by any statement that refuses services, products or perhaps even education to a person because of the sexual preference. That's wrong. That's illegal. That's not something Christians want to be a party to, if we are going to be serious about fulfilling the Great Commission.

I do not favor recognizing "gay rights." As a group of black clergymen said on FNC the other day, recognizing the current clamor as a "gay rights movement" is an insult to the civil rights activists and workers of the 1960s. However, everyone has a reasonable expectation to be treated fairly. If you open a shop on Main Street, you'd best be prepared to serve all comers. If you are not, then you have no excuse when they cry "Foul!"

You opened your doors to the public. That means all the public, and if you don't want to serve them, you can't single out their sexual proclivity, color, religion, or nationality as an excuse to do so. If you do, you're guilty of discrimination, and deserve the consequences. Simply saying "I can't do it," is a legal out that has been available to us for nearly 50 years. We don't need another law that does the same thing while at the same time legalizing discrimination. The law would never have stood up to a court test. It needed to be vetoed. Thank God it was.

 

That is your personal opinion and nothing more. You are entitled to it but that is not how others see it or understand it.

 

***SIGH***

You need to look at that link. Great googly-moogly!! Any bill introduced for the purpose of amending a law carries the language of the existing law, and the proposed changes. That's what I quoted. You obviously didn't read the entire quote, or look at the supplied link.

Besides which, that has absolutely nothing to do with the questions I asked you to answer as honestly as you can.

Thanks for your input and civility, Rev, but can you tell me how you'd answer those questions?

 

Yes, I read all of your posts, and everyone else's, before I reply. I know what you did in pasting the bill's copy in one of your posts, but that doesn't give an adequate representation of what the bill previously said, and how it is being changed. That is why I cut-and-pasted the entire language into my post.

No offense, but I have an excellent understanding of the bill, and the situation in Arizona, and in Kansas, where a very similar bill was passed by our state House but voted down in the Senate. I have to wonder why you would first say that I "explained [my] position well" but then claim I have "a poor understanding of the situation." My opinion of those seemingly opposed comments is that you see this issue from a very narrow perspective, and that is preventing you from considering the overall aspect of not only the proposed laws in the two states, but the existing "right to refuse service" laws that are on the books of most states and at the federal level. You don't seem to grasp, as most others on here don't, that the issue is not about protecting Christian rights. It is about the perception of Christians and our faith as a result of both or either of these bills being passed.

Your answer to my question #4 indicates you don't understand what I've been saying. No, the federal "right to refuse service" law didn't cover the circumstances for the two most prominently reported cases, but that isn't the fault of the law, as though it provided a lack of coverage. It is the fault of the business owners for 1) not posting signage stating they reserved the right to refuse service to anyone, and 2) specifically stating the refusal of service was due to the customer being gay.

We may think that's reasonable, but it is not. It is blatant discrimination, and whether or not we believe it is warranted under our First Amendment right or not, court rulings of the past regarding minorities -- again, not a status I believe gays have, but nonetheless ... -- have made it clear specific statements of that type will not be acceptable defenses before the court. Why? Because they represent the blatant discrimination that no one should have to put up with, regardless of ethnicity, religion, or other "boundary" that separates them (usually in their own minds) from others.

How would you feel if you went into a bakery, ordered catering from the owner for a special Sunday evening church service. You're given the order to sign, and after doing so, you remark that your church is grateful for the reasonable price, as you will be showing "Passion of the Christ" at the Sunday evening service he has just agreed to cater and hope to have several unchurched attend so they will hear the gospel. He surprises you by yanking back the paperwork and stating,, "I'm sorry, I didn't know this was a church service. I'm atheist, I don't associate with Christians, and I won't be able to cater the event for you." Unfair? Discriminatory? Of course it is. And while you don't have an agenda to place atheists in difficult situations, as gays do with Christians, he has violated your rights as a customer with reasonable expectations of being treated fairly. He opened a store on Main Street. By doing so, he has an unspoken contract to serve the public, regardless of personal prejudices or closely held personal beliefs.

Most gays in the situation with the photographer and the baker in the news recently would have shrugged and moved on, not wishing to have someone serve them who didn't want to, so it is obvious the lawsuits were premeditated. Nonetheless, had the photographer and the baker had the proper signage up and made a general, non-specific excuse to not accept the business, there would have been no lawsuit.

Your answers to my questions #1 and #2 are proof that a change to the law would have exacerbated, not mollified, the situation. I don't care how much we dislike gays or their agenda, we don't ever help matters telling them to their face we won't associate with them because they're gay. Bernard Goldberg, a conservative commentator, and a man of faith, said it better than I can in his blog The On-Going Battle Between Social Conservatives and the Rest of America. Though Bernie makes a couple of errors by believing being gay is not a choice or that the photographer and the baker were not targeted, his overall point is still valid: When so-called Christian values begin to look more like hate and discrimination, it is time to review how exactly they are being expressed.

 

So far nobody has answered this question. Not when you've asked it and not the two of three times I've asked it.

 

Being a good witness goes both ways, as in you being the one who says, "I'm sorry, you're gay, I can't do this event for you." You seem to think it is all right for us to treat the world the way the world treats usf. This response indicates your desire to be a witness. Then witness with love, and do the right, legal thing.

They don't know Christ. Why would you expect them to act like Him?

You do know Christ. Why would you not act like Him? Do you honestly believe He would refuse to heal a gay person? Deliver him/her from addiction? Heal his/her cancer? Heal his/her AIDS??

If you do, then you are obligated to be as Him.

If not, you need to get to know Him better.