Petition on Arizona SB 1062

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

Probably a waste of time, but please sign:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/endorse-arizona-sb-1062-and-call-governor-arizona-immediately-sign-important-legislation/dHgTP2F0

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

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.

 

[InTheLight]

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.

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

All moot now, she vetoed it.

This law would not have allowed or encouraged discrimination of anyone. There was no mention of homosexuals at all. It simply protected people from lawsuits for practicing their religion.

So when the homosexual couple sues your church for not letting them use your building, or sues your pastor for not conducting their ceremony . . . .

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

This law would not have allowed or encouraged discrimination of anyone. There was no mention of homosexuals at all. It simply protected people from lawsuits for practicing their religion.

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.

So when the homosexual couple sues your church for not letting them use your building, or sues your pastor for not conducting their ceremony . . . .

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

 

[Salty]

... Church bylaws typically reserve the use of the church for members only.

But the courts could rule that is unconsititional - especialy since churches are tax exempt

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

But the courts could rule that is unconsititional - especialy since churches are tax exempt

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?

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

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.

No that is not accurate. You have been misled by the media TND. There was no intent to refuse service to anyone and there was no mention of homosexuals. The law has been on the books for years and mirrors laws in dozens of other states and the first amendment. The change to the law that became SB 1062 was not in itself a new law, but simply an amendment that defined "persons" under the law to include companys as well as individuals.

If you had a religious objection to doing something, like officiating over a homosexual marriage, or providing a "day after" abortion pill, or delivering alcohol, and you owned a business then your company could not be sued for following your, as the owners, religious beliefs.

As for church bylaws, more and more churches are incorporating and those bylaws will not save them under the law.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

No that is not accurate. You have been misled by the media TND.

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.

There was no intent to refuse service to anyone and there was no mention of homosexuals.

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

The law has been on the books for years and mirrors laws in dozens of other states and the first amendment.

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.

If you had a religious objection to doing something, like officiating over a homosexual marriage, or providing a "day after" abortion pill, or delivering alcohol, and you owned a business then your company could not be sued for following your, as the owners, religious beliefs.

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.

As for church bylaws, more and more churches are incorporating and those bylaws will not save them under the law.

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.

 

[InTheLight]

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.

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.

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

Well suffice it to say we will disagree on this. While I agree with you ITL that we don’t need most laws, this is precisely the kind of changes to the law we do need, because they are written not to restrain individuals (or companies) but to restrain government and restrain our legal system. This change would not cause more government regulation, it would cause less.

It is obvious that it is possible to read this bill and come away with completely different understanding of what it says. So perhaps the governor was not too far off when she said the change was too vague to be effective. When I read it I come away believing that the change to the law would increase religious freedom and protect people of all faiths. I don’t see anything that would threaten anyone, unless they wanted to restrict other’s religious freedom and expression.

Of course that is the goal of the homosexual extremists. They are not content to simply be left alone; they want to silence anyone who speaks out against their lifestyle for any reason. You are not allowed to have a contrary opinion and if you do then you certainly can’t voice it. That is their definition of tolerance.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Well suffice it to say we will disagree on this. While I agree with you ITL that we don’t need most laws, this is precisely the kind of changes to the law we do need, because they are written not to restrain individuals (or companies) but to restrain government and restrain our legal system.

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.

This change would not cause more government regulation, it would cause less.

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.

 

[Revmitchell]

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

 

[InTheLight]

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?

 

[Salty]

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?

They should have the right to do so, if they wish.

 

[InTheLight]

They should have the right to do so, if they wish.

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?

 

[Aaron]

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

 

[just-want-peace]

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!!!!

 

[InTheLight]

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!!!!!!!

 

[Revmitchell]

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?

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