The following comes from a Feb. 21 story on the RT website.
The Arizona state Senate approved legislation Wednesday permitting businesses in the state to refuse service to potential customers based on an owner’s religious beliefs, infuriating equal rights advocates who claim the bill legalizes LGBT discrimination.
The bill, known officially as Senate Bill 1062, was approved by the Republican-controlled Senate, which voted along strict party lines. State Democrats proposed eight amendments to the bill in an attempt to stop what they decried as discrimination against the gay and lesbian community, but each of those efforts failed.
The most polarizing part of the bill reads, in part:
“’Exercise of religion’ means the practice or observance of religion, including the ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially motivated by a religious belief whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief.”
State Senator Steve Yarbrough, the bill’s sponsor, said he has been pressing for the bill because of a New Mexico state Supreme Court ruling that allowed a gay couple to sue a photographer for refusing to take pictures at their wedding.
The bill’s opponents say that Yarbrough and other social conservatives are trying to portray themselves as martyrs as they aim to pass a vague law that would leave widespread discrimination unchecked.
The Arizona Republic reported that the bill, which has a counterpart in the state House of Representatives known as HB 2153, was written by the conservative Center for Arizona Policy and Alliance Defending Freedom – a non-profit Christian lobby group that dedicates funding to the pro-life movement and has long opposed marriage equality.
The bill now heads to the desk of Republican Governor Jan Brewer. She has five days to sign or veto the bill. If she chooses to ignore it, it will automatically become law. While the governor has given little indication about which way she is leaning, Brewer has forged her reputation as a conservative on similar hot button social issues like immigration and abortion.
EJ Montini, a columnist with the Arizona Republic, said that SB 1062 sets a dangerous precedent for people of various backgrounds:
“Essentially what it would do is allow people to refuse service to people who may be gay, who may be of certain religious affiliations – we don’t know, there could be a lot of exposure in this particular bill- only because they have a particular religious belief,” he said. “We really have no issue like this in Arizona and this is extremists in the legislature essentially appeasing zealots out in the community…It is the most ungodly way to view religious freedom.”
While Arizona would be the first state in the US to approve such a bill, other right-leaning states including Idaho, South Dakota, and Kansas have considered similar legislation. A number of the bills have come in response to the federal government’s recent announcement that same-sex couples will be given the same treatment as heterosexual couples under current tax law.
To read the original story, click here.
Religious liberty has been used to try to slow every civil rights movement in our country, whether it had to do with race, gender, marital status, and now sexual orientation. We knew this would come, but America will not fall for it. Proponents of the bill know that, and that is why they obfuscate about the intent of the bill.
Sorry dude, but MY fellow Catholics are authentic Catholics and understand what the position of God and His Commandments must be in any society. Perversion and sexual disorder is not a civil right, rather it is a matter of rebellion against God. If America is falling for something it is the illusion that the LGBT agenda is progressive towards what is really a false freedom, for anything which exists for itself rather than for the greater glorification of God exists only to further the ploys and snares of Satan.
Hey Dude: The CCC prohibits unjust discrimination against gay people. Look it up! The Arizona response to gay people is to try to use religious liberty to establish a segregationist system in which gay people can be excluded from restaurants, bakeries, and any public place or service. Surely this is prohibited by the CCC. Dude.
YFC, just because someone owns a business does not mean that he must give up his civil rights. If I owned a catering company and I was asked by Planned Parenthood to provide food for one of their fundraising “events” or I was asked to cater a pre-porno film awards banquet, I could not in good conscience provide my services for either of these “events”. There are numerous other “events” which I would also need to turn down due to my conscience, including catering a Mason “event” or a mock wedding “event” by two men.
You would be hard pressed to convince me that the CCC would consider this “unjust discrimination”.
Your civil rights are not being jeopardized. Please stop making yourself the victim. I know you like to pretend that you are a martyr for your faith, but we are talking about a constitutional system designed to allow people who do not agree with each other to co-exist without becoming another Northern Ireland, or Middle East. If we don’t treat everyone with equal dignity and pretend that the sale of baked goods represents some kind of moral dilemma, then our society will truly crumble, and we will be a nation in which we are constantly at war with each other, segregated according to our beliefs. Do you want to relive the haydays of the segregated south? Or perhaps apartheid South Africa? Or Nazi Germany? Each of these places and times had what you seem to want: An unwillingness of one group of people to tolerate and respect other groups. We must treat each other with more acceptance or we will suffer dearly. Segregate gay people if you like, but I think your world will be lonelier and more hate filled for it.
It is against the law to discriminate if you have a business license, for any reason. However, it is not against the law to bid your services at a price the potential customer does not want to pay.
Actually Bob One, it is not illegal in Arizona to discriminate against gay people. Some cities in Arizona, yes it’s illegal, but not statewide.
Tracy … As I understand it I can refuse to cater a Planned Parenthood event or say a Tea party event because they aren’t part of a protected class. Race, religion, ethnicity and yes, sexual orientation are.
The CCC also says that marriage is between one man and one woman and that sodomy is a mortal sin, so the Catholic teaching is that no person should have to attend such a “wedding” under any circumstances unless it was an emergency to save a life. Therefore, there is no unjust discrimination there.
The Anonymous post at 12:56 am yesterday was mine.
Anonymous, this bill has NOTHING to do with same sex weddings. There are no same sex weddings in Arizona for a person to attend!! This bill allows anyone anywhere in the state to deny any service to ANYONE because of their “deeply held religious beliefs”. It allows people to smoke crack cocaine if their religious beliefs allow it. It allows people to not pay the interest on their mortgages if they take the literal words of the bible to heart. It even permits sacrificial offerings of human beings if their faith requires it!
However YFC, we are NOT to:
PARTICIPATE in,
ENCOURAGE,
or TOLERATE – – – – – – – MORTAL SIN.
CCC: ” 1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:
– by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
– by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
– by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
– by protecting evil-doers. ”
CCC: ” 2396 Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices.”
Gen 19:1-29; Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; Tim 1:10.
Those who wish to commit SODOMY MARRIAGE can simply take their money to a vendor who wishes to participate in their sinful and mocking process.
YFC, when are you going to tell people the truth that you are not Catholic, or are a Catholic heretic and schismatic?
Redefining marriage is not a civil right.
Many federal courts have now ruled that keeping same sex couples from marriage does indeed violate their civil rights, despite your assertion, Brian. In fact, every court to look at the matter since the Supreme Court ruling in Windsor have found this. Are you Brian Brown, by any chance?
More importantly the US Constitution protects religious freedom.
The Government has no authority to make people violate their religious beliefs, which some politicians and judges are trying to do.
The religious beliefs of Catholics are clearly posted in the 25 year old “CCC 2nd Ed” for everyone to see.
US Constitution: Bill of Rights, Article I
” Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ”
When Catholics do not wish to participate in the MORTAL SINS of others, they are being denied their religious freedom.
Have you not read the words of JESUS?
Mt 19: 4-6 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” – JESUS
He did NOT say man and man or woman and woman.
Amen, Brother Brian. Amen!
On the contrary religious people and religious organizations spearheaded the advance of important civil rights movements, like the civil rights movement which began in the early 19th century to end slavery and is still going on today as the greater liberation and integration of blacks into our society continues. Religious liberty is not a weapon to impede progress, it is an important and cherished feature of American society, because it facilitates progress.
SOME religious people have behaved the way you state, Rodney, and we should be proud of them. But other religious people have used religious liberty as a weapon to deny the rights of others. We have a choice: We as people of faith can promote the civil liberties of gay people, or we can unjustly discriminate against them and then claim that we are the victims. History will not be kind to those who choose that latter path.
YFC, you say that “other religious people have used religious liberty as a weapon to deny the rights of others”. You aren’t per chance speaking about the numerous Muslim dominated countries in the world?
Tracy I am speaking about Christians, some Catholics even, in this country who claimed biblical support for slavery, for women’s inability to vote or hold property, for Jim Crowe laws, for the perpetuation of unfair labor practices, etc etc. No need to go outside our country or even our faith to know that our own faith has been used to justify horrible things, just as it is being used to justify this horrible Arizona law.
For example, please see: https://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/02/26/3333161/religious-liberty-racist-anti-gay/
No Christian has any obligation to abet EVIL, YFC. Same-sex marriage is an EVIL. You really want hard-working, faithful people to go bankrupt and lose all they’ve worked for so two sodomites can play house under cover of an unjust law? Your analogy is absurd. Racial differences are natural, same-sex attraction is objectively disordered. I’m a Catholic school teacher who teaches my kids exactly that, YFC. You want to toss me and mine out of work? Bring it on!
Same sex attraction is a normal thing in those who are gay or bisexual. Having those attractions is neither a choice nor a sin. Denying people their basic civil rights, unjustly discriminating against them by instituting a segregationist regime as Arizona is attempting to do, is simply a violation of the CCC.
YFC, would you therefore also need to draw the same conclusion that being sexually attracted to young children is a “normal thing” in those adults who are pedophiles? That “having those attractions is neither a choice nor a sin”? And that therefore, “Denying pedophiles their basic civil rights, unjustly discriminating against them by instituting a segregationist regime……….. is simply a violation of the CCC”?
Keep trying to justify your hatred of gay people all you want Tracy. You just make yourself look foolish.
YFC, there is no hatred of gay people on Tracy’s part. Hating the promotion of something disordered, unhealthy, and against God’s law is the issue, and that is virtuous and ultimately charitable.
One could easily say to you, ‘Stop hating on God’s law, YFC. You just make yourself look foolish.”
Same sex attraction is a disordered thing, YFC. That is disordered toward the nature of what reproductive organs and ‘attraction’ are inherently intended to engender. That being procreation.
Those who make ‘music’ by cracking a guitar to bits may be inclined to do so. They may be encouraged to believe that such activity is ‘normal’ for them. But it is not normal for the guitar. And no matter how many feel inclined to crack the guitar, they are in reality misusing the instrument which is not normative.
You might be offended by Tracy’s comparison to pedophilia, but what is pedophilia but an unwanted attraction? As we are seeing all around us, the civil law can and does change in accordance with popular opinion and the pursuit of the almighty dollar. The why is because more folks are turning from what God commands, and nature, to what they want.
So whereas you might advocate strongly for homosexual rights, do not be surprised or offended at the logical assertion that others will soon demand their ‘rights’, too. And what then?
YFC, I hope you know that I have very real sympathy for the abuse that homosexuals have received from society.
But, even I think that New Mexico case of punishing fundamentalist Christians for refusing to participate in a gay commitment ceremony by photographing the event was a poor legal decision.
To me, the key is that they would have had to attend, and at least tangentially participate in, religious ceremonies that violated their beliefs. I think that 1st amendment freedom of religion should have prevailed to the extent that non-discrimination statutes should not result in forced participation in religious ceremonies contrary to your beliefs.
Consequently, I see attempts to remedy this bad decision by state-level legislation as an inevitable response. Now the Arizona statute might be overly broad. I happen to live an Tucson, and there’s considerable concern about that.
JonJ thanks for your post. I agree that it was a poor choice to use this photography gig to test the legalities, mostly because there is a certain element of creativity that is not present in, say, a caterer. I can’t imagine wanting to hire these people to photograph MY wedding. They don’t deserve my business if only because of their bigotry. And I agree that the Arizona bill goes too far. If the Arizona governor signs this bigoted segregationist law, I predict it will be thrown out almost immediately by the courts, and in the meantime, the state will suffer serious economic consequences, including perhaps the moving of the Super Bowl and a loss of a lot of tourist trade.
YFC, as Catholics, we are not supposed to participate in gay commitment ceremonies or gay marriages, right? It is not bigotry. It is loyalty. To God and to His Church. Other Christians also feel that it is a test of their loyalty to God and His Word. That is not bigotry either. I’m surprised to see a Catholic that does not understand the difference. It is not discrimination because it is not about the individuals involved at all. It is about obedience to one’s religion.
Anonymous, first of all, I’m not sure where you get the claim that we are not supposed to participate in commitment ceremonies. Where can I find that in scripture or Tradition? The claim is made up by people who for some odd reason do not seem to like love celebrated and encouraged, but you won’t find it in the Deposit of Faith.
Secondly, there is no same sex marriage in Arizona, and this bill is not at all limited to same sex people or the ceremonies they may engage in. It is a wholesale license to discriminate against anyone for any “faith” reason, in any context, and in any way. It is appalling to me that you would try to use the Catholic faith to justify a segregationist bill and that you don’t understand that that is what this is.
YFC, you are an intelligent and well read man.
There is no way I can believe your above claim that there is nothing immoral and/or sinful in attending/supporting a same-sex commitment ceremony. One commits sin by supporting others in their sin, YFC. And these ceremonies are not just about being friends. If so, there would be nothing special about them. Nothing to celebrate.
As Catholics hold homosexual acts to be gravely sinful in accordance with the teachings of God and that of natural law, it follows that Catholics shouldn’t attend these ceremonies as they would be then encouraging the ‘sin’ of others. To do so is sinning.
That is the seemingly ‘odd reason’ why believing Catholics, ‘do not seem to like (the gravely immoral sexual behavior you mislabel as – love) to be celebrated and encouraged’. Because it is gravely sinful and can be physically damaging, too.
Your post indicates a serious misunderstanding, perhaps willful. Many mistakes are made by people looking for love. I recommend that you read “Deus Caritas Est (God is Love)” by Pope Benedict XVI. The section on eros vs agape in Part One made give you some things to pray over. It is pretty deep. I have to spend much time re-reading it.
YFC, so you predict that Arizona might loose out on the Almighty Dollar if they uphold peoples rights to obey Almighty God? Hum, sounds like a difficult choice :)
“As for me and my house we will serve the Lord.” God provides for His own. It is better to dine on a meager meal with a good conscience than to feast at the table of evil doers. as the Book of Sirach says.
If you truly obeyed Almighty God, you would not be in favor of segregationist bills like this one. And if the Almighty Dollar helps you understand that, then so be it.
YFC, I stopped going to professional sports games years ago when many of the team members got into illegal drugs and their records, as compared to those made in previous generations, were doubtful; or beat up their wives or girl friends (usually girlfriends) and filth was shown at half time. As far as I am concerned most professional games now are not much different from the decadence that brought down the pagan Roman Empire in the Circus Maximus. I will not be missing anything as I do not even bother to watch the boring stuff on television. By the grace of God, I am active, not a couch potato.
YFC, God help me if I ever choose to bow down to the false god of money by choosing to make a profit through my participation in an “event” which promotes an intrinsic evil.
Faithful Catholics have and continue to put up with poverty, and sometimes even torture and death itself for the Name of Jesus. Jesus told His followers that they would be persecuted for His Name.
Tracy, please drop us a line the next time you are tortured for your faith. In the meantime, please stop unjustly discriminating against your fellow catholics.
YFC, I doubt it that if I it ever gets to the point that I AM tortured for my faith, that my torturers would allow me to drop you a line. That being said, as long as I still DO have my Freedom of Speech intact, I will not silence myself!
You would be hard pressed to convince me that the Church would consider my refusing to participate in an immoral “event”, including an immoral event which is hosted by fellow catholics to be “unjust discrimination”.
YFC, I hope we can agree that the rich and powerful (most definitely including the NFL) have far too much power over the lives of ordinary people in this country, and that their power within and over the government urgently requires reduction.
You who call yourself YFC, your god (with a small “g” since it is a pagan one), is not mine. I have no problem with bakeries serving anyone as long as they are not forced to go to any weddings or other places against their will, or put something on a cake or other item that is immoral. No business should be forced to take baked goods to a house of ill repute, or any other immoral place. If I were a baker or caterer, I would solve that problem by limiting my service to Catholic weddings and not serve the general public, or I would provide regular baked goods or pastries for certain holidays and nothing further. One cannot be sued for that. No baker has to serve every kind of goods that every customer wants. They have the right to limit what they will do. Many bakeries do not serve at weddings or banquets. Heterosexual couples can always bake their own wedding cakes or pay a friend to do so. Wedding that are too large and expensive often end up in divorce anyway. Pope Francis is right: there is too much greed, and it is fueling all this. My husband and I had a small wedding with relatives making the food, and a friend paid for making the cake, and we are still married fifty years later. We in turn helped others out. Too may weddings are just for show.
The Anonymous post at 10:09 pm, Feb. 14 is mine.
YFC.. As a caterer I have mixed feelings about all this. In addition to my own parish, I have a “cadre” of churches, mainline Protestant and Baptist as well as a synagouge which refer to me. Obviously there are parts of their religious teachings I disagree with but have no problem with providing service and appriciating their people’s joys and sorrows. I honestly don’t know how I’d feel about being asked to cater a reception for something really weird such as Scientology or the “Church of Satan.” especially if my staff or I would need to be present during a really creepy ritualist thing. I wonder if some of these folks who don’t like gay weddings would think it’s OK to refuse to provide flowers or food for a gay persons funeral at the request of his or her spouse? Anyway, I really believe that this kind of homophobia will soon , as my 92 year old neighbor Jack says, “go the way of high button shoes.”
Who do you think was responsible for civil rights movement? Dah, reilgious people!
Of course, Brewer won’t sign this because of the tactics of the ‘homofascists’. Blackmail, intimidation and intolerance will work once again. When are people going to wake up in this country and stand up to these violations of our constitution rights of religious liberty
I think she’s very likely too sign it. Brewer is pretty conservative, in a very right wing state.
She will veto it, and that should be your evidence of the fruit borne by the “conservative” values of the Republican party in this country, and of how worthy that party is of Catholic support.
Ronnie, in other words, you are saying that Brewer will be BULLIED into not signing the bill. How can this be? I thought that TOLERANT individuals never BULLY anyone for any reason what-so-ever. Right?!!!!!
Tracy…Yes, she is definitely being bullied and threats from the business community and now the NFL will persuade her to veto it. We have no idea how threatening the homosexual lobbby is. They are persistent and never give up and unfortunately most Americans are asleep or indifferent. But the gay lobby knows that and that’s why they make progress…People have no clue that …evil florishes when good men do nothing..
So Ronnie, why is it that anti-gay people use the market to exercise their “religious liberty”, but when gay people use the market to exercise their same religious liberties, they are bullying?
YFC…Gays using the market to exercise their same religous liberties??….Since when is engaging in sin a religious liberty? And furthermore, religious people generally do not use fascist tactics to intimidate, bully, blackmail, etc. to exercise their religious liberty. Most people I know say ..live and let live. However, when the redefinition of marriage is involved, we must oppose this disordered counterfeit unions. Society, marriage and children are the casualties as we’ve witnessed in Canada which is a perfect example:
Loss of free speech; parental rights violated; persecution of Christians; workplace discrimination and lastly infiltrating the Catholic schools and school boards and using propaganda to intimidate and indoctrinated young Catholic school children into the gay lifestyle….
For an extremely intelligent response to this victory, I suggest one read Patrick J. Buchanan’s piece regarding big brother and basically how the civil rights movement means no rights for anyone.
Pat Buchanan and “intelligent” don’t belong in the same sentence.
This is the guy that constantly bangs the “balance of trade” drum without looking at other economic indicators. In SOME circumstances a negative balance of trade is a problem. In other cases, a negative balance of trade is inevitable, AND indicates a STRONG economy.
E.G.—IF your economy is booming and foreign investment floods in, you will inevitably have a negative balance of trade. Which isn’t a problem, as long as your economy is building companies and economic entities that are generating bigger profits than the revenue streams pledged for use of that incoming capital (some of which will be foreign). In that case, using foreign capital is just a wealth multiplier.
JonJ, let’s agree that Pat Buchanan is unintelligent about economics. Would this therefore mean that he is unintelligent about everything else? If an accomplished brain surgeon is unintelligent about fixing cars, even though he thinks he is good at it, would you then conclude that he is necessarily unintelligent about brain surgery too? I seriously doubt it!
Why don’t you first read Patrick J. Buchanan’s piece regarding “big brother” as Fr. Karl suggested before you dismiss it. Your response was first and foremost an insult to Fr. Karl.
Sorry, but foreign investment in American assets doesn’t contribute to a negative trade balance. The statistics simply don’t account for the nationality of the asset owner. Whether Fiat, Mercedes, or Cerberus Hedge Fund owned Chrysler was irrelevant to balance of trade accounting.
Meanwhile no prosperous nation has maintained a negative balance of trade for any period of time and remained prosperous. You simply can’t get rich by buying more stuff than you sell, whatever accounting gimmick you use to kid yourself while you’re doing it.
Meanwhile, I hope it is not unnoticed that Republicans are leading the way for Governer Brewer to veto this bill, so all should be sure to include them as the “homofacists”, including their last two Presidential nominees, the ones some say it was a mortal sin to vote against….
Brian, I’m sorry, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Let’s make this simple. Lets suppose Suzi owns a lemonade stand. Let’s suppose Ikido, in Japan, reads Suzi’s business plan and really likes her concept and wants to invest.
Let’s presume currency exchanges do not exist, to make clear what happens on a macro scale. Now, Ikido’s investment doesn’t do Suzi any good as Yen that she can’t spend. And, since currency exchange is not available, SHE HAS TO BUY GOODS FROM JAPAN TO EXPAND HER BUSINESS. So Suzi goes out and buys lemons, sugar, chairs, tables, and computers built in Japan to expand her business.
In return for his money, Ikido gets an ownership stake in Suzi’s business and a future revenue stream (in dollars). Now, if Suzi’s profit margin exceeds the cost of capital, THEN both Suzi and Ikido are better off.
So, what’s the balance of trade between Japan and the United States due to Suzi and Ikido’s transactions? Guess what…there’s a NEGATIVE BALANCE OF TRADE.
Now, Suzi is helping her business as long as her profit margin is larger than her cost of capital. If Suzi has to pledge 6% interest (in dollars) to Ikido, the negative balance of trade she’s running with Japan acts as a WEALTH MULTIPLIER IF her profit margin from her business is 7% or more.
Now, expand this over 1,000’s of Suzi’s and Ikidos, and you have an environment where a negative balance of trade is actually healthy.
Your example is pretty good JonJ, but not in the way you intend it to be. Yes, in your example, Suzy and Ikido get rich selling lemonade. But nobody can argue that negative trade balances can’t benefit individuals – they obviously do. The question is its affect on the health of the nation as a whole.
When we multiply your example we wind up with Japan making and selling computers and agricultural products and America enriching Suzy and Ikido.
But how are those American consumers to get their dollars to buy those Japanese lemons? If they aren’t able to sell something to replace the ones that go to Japan, we must either reduce our consumption, borrow, or inflate.
In your example, as in real life, Suzy gets rich and Ikado gets rich, but the rest of us are charging lemonade on a credit card, and getting poorer everyday.
To grasp this conceptually, let’s look at how a healthy economy can be maintained even with a persistent trade deficit.
Let’s suppose in our above example the US has 5% annual growth and Japan has 1% (which explains why Ikido wants to invest overseas).
To make it simple lets throw out compounding. That means in 20 years the US economy would double. Over 100 years, the US economy is 32X larger while Japan’s is only 2X larger.
What that means is that the US economy’s money supply can increase 32X while still maintaining stable prices. THAT’s where your money comes from. In practice, you will get inflation because governments favor them as a hidden tax.
So how does a permanent trade deficit happen in a healthy economy? Remember, we’ve got Ikido with a dollar revenue stream. Now, eventually Ikido will buy US goods with his $ so intuition suggests the trade balance will move to neutral. UNLESS, Ikido decides to reinvest in the US economy.
Something else can happen to keep a permanent trade deficit: IF THAT CURRENCY HAS A USE IN FOREIGN MARKET OTHER THAN THE ABILITY TO DEMAND U.S. GOODS.
Many people overseas hoard dollars due to hedge against 1) hyperinflation in their national currencies and 2) the risk that their government collapses.
In short, they’re acquiring dollars they never intend to spend. In effect, they export goods in return for the ability to indemnify themselves against financial risks inherent in their own currencies and governments.
Any money stored in mattresses overseas represents goods purchased at only the risk of redemption. If the mattress burns, we get the goods for nothing. So we agree on that. Reserve currency = good.
I’m guessing that your example is based on the United States and Japan – not that Japan is our current supplier. So do you suggest that we have, or are on path to, increase our standard of living to 32X of the Japanese standard within a lifetime? Nonsense.
How about naming an actual country that has maintained a high growth rate, relative to ts trading partners, while maintaining a trade deficit for a working life of 40 years? Even England, awash in slave-produced sugar during the 18 century, or 19th century America, supplying ever-more immigrants settling an open continent did not do that.
Legislating a special right to discriminate. How un-American.
peter, “legislating a special right to discriminate”? Have you ever heard of governmental mandated quotas? Yes, those too are un-Constitutional and un-American. But for the past 100 years of or so there happens to have been a lot of un-American things being forced onto us by our legislators and our men in black robes.
Interesting thought, Tracy. Counter-legislated Affirmative Action for gay-friendly wedding planners, photographers, and cake bakers. Must be at least 1 of each per 1000 homosexuals available within a 10 mile radius, or the federal government will provide these nationawide as tax payor supported services. State’s could also subsidize existing gay-friendly businesses and provide additional tax break incentives. Brilliant. Problem gone. I love where this is going. I’m taking it right to the Pink Committee!!
As a gay friendly (and gay) caterer, I’m all for it. Where do I sign the petition?
Homosexual agenda and Saul Alinsky caterers indeed.
* RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)
* RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)
* RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
Quota — An allotment. A production assignment.
This sounds more like Communist China or the former Communist Soviet Union than America. Communism is never fair, and it is always brutal.
C & H are you really sure that this is what you want to sign up for? Are you really that much against freedom? Remember, it is God Himself who gave us the freedom of conscience. Please consider WHY God in His providence, love and mercy did not create the Utopia you seem so keen on creating.
The concept of “discrimination” has gone way too far, in America! One has a MORAL DUTY to “discriminate” against wrongful, harmful, immoral activities! One has a MORAL OBIGATION to PROTECT SOCIETY against all sin!! YES– one must have the courage to SAY NO, and to MEAN NO– to people doing wrong, or demanding that you participate in their wrongful doings! Example: What if a local Muslim Jihadist(Al Qaeda-type), or “Christian” Ku Klux Klan, or “Man-Boy (pedophile) Love,” or Nazi organization, or “Gay Leather” (Sado-Masochism) group came to a church, or to a businessman, with a request to regularly rent out a room, for meetings?? Do such groups have the “right” by law, to demand what they want, and to state, by law, that if you refuse them their demands– you are breaking “anti-discrimination” laws?? America is a place that upholds basic rights and freedoms for all– but within decent moral limits!! America also must proudly uphold a good and decent moral standard! Our country once proudly stated, “In God We Trust,” celebrated Christmas and Easter officially, and upheld a Christian moral standard of excellence!! This excellent Christian moral standard benefitted people of all religious faiths! Without a good moral standard– a country is bankrupt and 100% WORTHLESS!! Regardless of the standard of living and material blessings of its inhabitants. All good American citizens must have a good training in their morals and their manners– from birth, at their mother’s knee, as well as in the Nation’s schools and churches!
So let’s get this straight. It is NOT OK to refuse food to a person for whom the state has issued a death certificate, yet it IS ok to withhold food from a gay person who wonders into your restaurant? How does that have any moral justification whatsoever? How is that not exactly the unjust discrimination against gay people that the CCC prohibits?
C’mon YFC – we’ve discussed this elsewhere. Filling a cup of coffee is an entirely different level of involvement than catering a wedding. Different levels of mitigation are properly warranted to respect the server & the served.
As for ‘unjust discrimination’, injustice is always wrong. ‘Just discrimination’, for example, the discrimination an individual might make to attend, or not attend, a celebration which mocks Christian marriage, must be protected and should not disappear with one’s entry into business, not if we are to lead holistic lives.
Meanwhile, why a gay couple would want to hire a caterer hostile to their marriage is lost on me and the insistence that they be forced to do so is simply how conquerers mark their territory, and remind the conquered of who is in charge.
“why a gay couple would want to hire a caterer hostile to their marriage is lost on me” Brian …. Price, quality and service. Also in our business, availability. I can’t do two big gigs on the same day. I once had to turn down doing a friend’s daughter’s wedding. I can envision a situation where the venue has an approved list of caterers and the last one available won’t do gay weddings making the couple switch venues at the last minute.
YFC….More misinformation typical of the gay lobby. Distortion, lies, intimidation, intolerance and then public compliance. This is about a florist, a photographer, a caterering hall, being FORCED to take part in a same-sex disorder counterfeit union…..That’s all it is…
Ronnie, as I have posted many other times, this law has nothing to do with same sex weddings AT ALL. There are no such things in Arizona in the first place. What this law would have done is to allow anyone to use a faith based excuse to refuse any kind of service to anyone. A Catholic nurse could refuse an IV to a Muslim. An athiest clerk could refuse to issue a marriage license to a straight Catholic couple wanting to marry in the Church. A Muslim pilot could order any “infidels” on his flight to leave his plane. etc. etc. etc.
YFC, many public sector jobs require that the person holding the job swear to uphold the constitution. The main reason for this is that the one who works in the public sector is a servant of the public and is being paid by mandated tax dollars from the general public. Private businesses which do not work for government contracts, on the other hand, are not guaranteed a livelihood.
Tracy this bill excludes public employees from obeying the law if they have a religious belief. Did you actually read the bill? I have a feeling you did not. Literally an atheistic clerk could deny two catholics intending to marry in a catholic church a marriage license. Is that the kind of state you want to live in?
Besides that, you completely ignore that private businesses are often engaged in a class of business known as public accommodations. That is, companies that enter into daily transactions with the public like restaurants, hotels, bakeries, etc, are forbidden from refusing service to protected classes. This is the law of the land. Before we had public accommodations laws, we had segregated lunch counters at Woolworths. Remember that “bullying” that happened at that lunch counter a few decades ago??? If public accommodations are allowed to segregate for any religious reason, then they will segregate by sexual orientation, race, gender, and any other classification that any nutcase believes God put him here to enforce. It happened only to recently, and if segregationist bills like Arizona’s are signed into law, that is the country we will return to.
” This is the law of the land. Before we had public accommodations laws, we had segregated lunch counters at Woolworths. Remember that “bullying” that happened at that lunch counter a few decades ago???”
The culture of death has always had a history of selling and marketing great big lies in order to achieve even more evil. The word “choice” means zero tolerance for those who are pro-life. The homosexual agenda started with the word “tolerance” but this really means zero tolerance for anyone who does not embrace their agenda to normalize sin and perversion. God is in charge and God is allowing mankind to use their gift of free will to either travel down the broad road of the culture of death or the narrow road that leads to eternal life. God will not be mocked and His Justice reigns Supreme over any misguided court system that pretends otherwise. Choose the ongoing fantasy of having your temporary idea of heaven by committing acts of legalized mortal sins and legalized immorality on earth OR pick up your cross and choose eternal life. Many homosexuals are blinded by habitual sin and caught up in the slavery of addiction to fantasy and sin, many prefer and still choose fantasy and sin over the reality that they are greatly offending God and they continue to ignore God at their own peril. They are bringing many souls down with them including relatives and all in the name of honoring a “selfish sin”.
continued
Many black fellow Americans are rightfully offended and outraged when homosexual activists use the comparison that even our trolls try to use.
Once again, thanks to the CCD poster who provided everyone with the information regarding the *truthful* and heartfelt lyrics of a popular black Christian rapper.
You rather fight God, then fight sin
The Bible is alright, until it calls what you like sin
And I feel so disrespected that you were so desperate
You would compare your sexual habits to my skin (What?!?)
Calling it the new black
Tell me where they do that
They hung us like tree ornaments, where were you at?
They burned us for entertainment, you go through that?
Mom’s raped in front of they kids, while they shoot dad
Ever been murdered just for trying to learn how to read bro? (Nope.)
A show of hands?
I didn’t think so
So, quit comparing the two. It ain’t the same fight
You can play straight. We can never play white
Using black people as pawns for yo’ agenda
And these sell out rappers will do whatever you tell em’
Skirts on stages, campaigning for that black vote
Afraid to be blackballed, so they play that role
You were never oppressed, the devil was a liar
The only thing oppressed was yo sexual desire
Thank you for posting that rap, Catherine. Well said indeed!
Catherine, you can plagiarize an anonymous rapper all you want, someone who may or may not have ever worked to eliminate discrimination. I would prefer to stand with a person like Rep. John Lewis, contemporary of MLK and literally bloodied from the struggle for civil rights:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Wsi71F_T9Q
I have many other videos featuring genuine black civil rights leaders. Would you like me to post a few of them?
YFC…Nonsense. I have read the bill and SB1062 does not say that businesses can discriminate for religious reasons. What it does state is business people can assert a claim under the ‘Religous Freedom Restoration Act’. They need a burden of proof. It offers people like bakers, photograhers, etc. the chance to fight back agsinst the fascist homosexual lobby who are trying to intimidate, fine and run them out of their businesses for not serving those engaged in disordered unnatural counterfeit unions…….
A lot of nonsense! The Arizona Bill would have made it harder for businesses to refuse to serve gays! And it didn’t evern mention gays! The distortion and lies are unbelieveable. This bill would have allowed a business to sumbit a claim uner the Relgious Freedom Restoration Act. And it only involved people in businesses that offer a service for those counterfeit unions, like florists, photographers, catering halls, etc
You seem very confused about what the bill would have done, Ronnie. The bill does not mention gays, marriages, unions, or anyone else. It did attempt to “protect” lots of people including government employees, or employees in larger corporations. In fact, one of the business objections was that if a company had a policy of non-descrimination against, say for example, gays, an individual employee could claim she couldn’t be fired if she refused service to gays, contrary to corporate policy. THe law was so badly written, it is entirely possible that literally anarchy would reign.
YFC, you said, “the bill does not mention gays”. Ronnie said, “And it (the bill) didn’t even mention gays!” It sounds to me that at least on this point you both agree. Yet you said that Ronnie “seem(s) very confused” to you. YFC, is it really necessary for you to malign someone, by suggesting that he might be “very confused”, just because you hold an opposing viewpoint? :(
Tracy you seem confused either about what the word confused means and implies, or about what the word maligned means. To say that someone is confused is not a statement maligning them, but a statement informing them of their own confusion. Words seem to confuse you often Tracy. I’m sorry about that. But if you wish to keep maligning me, in spite of your own confusion, I shall offer you the other cheek.
Should a Jewish Bakery be required to Decorate Birthday Cakes with “Happy Birthday Ernst Rohm’ (Pederast Coprophile founder of the Homo-Nazi Storm Troopers and Hitler Youth – and Hitlers Mentor & Boyfriend, at least until he was assassinated in the ‘night of the Long Knives) and put flowery frosting swastikas on it as a sign of ‘tolerance.
This is Not about Selling Baked Goods – but about Forcing Mandatory Pandering to objectively disordered pathological perversions and exterminationist Misandry – in thought word and deed, or else.
The Scam is to Destroy the Free Speech Rights of Persons of Conscience – by Making them Endorse Evil / Depravity and Hate or lose their living – in other words, the agenda of the Abomination and its Gaystapo Propagandists.
‘But it is just about love’ – is What Larry Brinkin will no doubt say at his Racist Toddler Rape-Porn Sentencing in Frisco on March 5, and one wonders how many of Brinkin’s Fellow Travelers posting here – will be there in support of his Denial of “Moral Turpitude” applying to Racist Homosex Toddler Rape-Porn?
Anyone who actually believes the obscene level of ‘Double-Think’ behind (sometimes literally) this Gaystapo Hate Propaganda ought to invest in wooden nickels, for all the real value to either.
In the 1930s the Homo-Nazi Storm Troopers ‘SA’ used to salute people with the stiff arm ‘hitler salute’ – and anyone who failed to respond in kind – was targeted as an enemy of progress. Little has changed since then, save for the social media platforms that ‘dr. Goebbels’ pioneered.
“Caesar, coercion, and the Christian conscience: a dangerous confusion
February 24, 2014 (Albert Mohler) – Several states are now considering legislation that would provide explicit protections to citizens whose consciences will not allow an endorsement of same-sex marriage…
Millions of American citizens are facing a direct collision between their moral convictions and the demands of their government.
They are being told, in no uncertain terms, that they must participate in providing services for same-sex weddings or go out of business… That sets up the inevitable collision of law and values and Christian conviction.
– the key issue is not a willingness to serve same-sex couples, but the unwillingness to participate in a same-sex wedding. Christian automobile dealers can sell cars to persons of various sexual orientations and behaviors without violating conscience. The same is true for insurance agents and building contractors. But the cases of pressing concern have to do with forcing Christians to participate in same-sex weddings — and this is another matter altogether.
…
Judges and legal scholars also knew the collision was coming. Judge Michael McConnell, formerly a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit and now director of Stanford University’s Constitutional Law Center, suggested many years ago that the coming conflict would “feature a seemingly irreconcilable clash between those who believe that homosexual conduct is immoral and those who believe that it is a natural and morally unobjectionable manifestation of human sexuality.”
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/caesar-coercion-and-the-christian-conscience-a-dangerous-confusion
Be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it. This bill is not about gay marriage, nor is it even limited to gays. It would also become legal for a Muslim cab driver to refuse carrying a passenger because the passenger had a dog, or a ham sandwich, or a was taking a bottle of wine to the church. Going for vacation in Arizona? Better bring along your marriage license (husband and wife), because a hotel clerk might find it against his “deeply held religious beliefs” to rent a room to a couple unless they can prove they are married. Or you are in a restaurant, and your evangelical waiter sees you making a sign of the cross after your blessing. Out of there for you, you have offended his deeply held religious belief! Don’t think it could happen? There have already been incidents with cab drivers in Minnesota.
TedN.
The things you mentioned don’t bother me.
If a cabbie doesnt’ want a shedding dog in his cab,
or some business does not want my money because I choose to make the sign of the cross in public,
I’ll simply take my business and money elsewhere.
Where does that leave you if there is no “elsewhere”?
MAC, The point was about unintended consequences. For instance, a couple of years ago, the Louisiana legislature granted subsidies for parents to send their children to private schools. The Christians were ecstatic – government money was supporting their Christian schools. But guess what – the Islamic schools were also covered. The Christians were rather upset to learn that their tax money was therefore also funding Islamic schools. At least one of the legislators who had voted for the proposal later said she did not realize that would happen, and wished that she had not voted for it.
And yes, the bill in Arizona, which fortunately Jan Brewer vetoed, allowed for ANYONE to discriminate against ANYONE else, and it would be OK as long as it was a “deeply held religious belief”, whatever that means.
Exactly, Peter. Or, what if it is something for which there is no substitute, e.g., the Grand Canyon?
Catholic readers, feeding the trolls, again and again and again. Tsk, tsk.
Well, Hymie, sometimes Big Bill Goat Gruff strikes a knock out. Lots of laughs.
Ya sure it’s not an Own Goal?
But you are right, Hymie, in most cases we should not feed the trolls.
Blessing yourself before meals in restaurants will soon become a crime… as it may offend the “atheist-gay patrons”, who are loathe to be reminded of a belief that CONDEMNS this repugnant behavior as a “sin that cries to Heaven for vengeance”…abortion, pornography, same-sex marriages…all signs of the DEMONIC…and those who champion these values, are doing the epress bidding of the devil…let’s ask ourselves yet again…what would our Lord do?…if he would not partake, or endorse this activity…should we?
Ridiculously untrue. Blessing yourself a crime? Not in the US. never. However, if laws like the Arizona law are passed, it could be that folks wearing a cross or blessing themselves could be asked to leave the restaurant. Is that what you want?
YFC, I have read the proposed amendment changes and it does not do that. This was really badly misrepresented in the media.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/27/guest-post-from-prof-doug-laycock-what-arizona-sb1062-actually-said/
Anonymous, the analysis you site hinges on the preposterous notion that the author claims to not know anyone who would discriminate, therefore, there can be no claims of discrimination and people need to be protected for using their faith to “not discriminate”. It’s all a shell game. If there is no discrimination, then there are no lawsuits that the person of faith needs to be protected against.
If there IS discrimination, then the person needs something to protect themselves from lawsuits that seek damages for the discrimination. Therefore, the author is admitting that there is discrimination. He (and you) just don’t want to face the music for discriminatory behavior. Shall we have lunch at the Woolworth’s lunch counter?
YFC, it had a link to the bill.
The Woolworth’s is closed. It’s now a museum but if you want to meet there, OK. We’ll have to have lunch somewhere else. My treat.
Not ridiculous at all…I served in the military…gay men were given a section 8 discharge if they disclosed they were gay, when I was a member in the 80’s…now gays are “all over” the military, waving the rainbow flag, not Old Glory!…25 years ago, you would have been viewed as delusional, if you held the belief that men could some day “LEGALLY” marry other men, with the government giving it’s blessing!…the Christmas tree that was so much a part of the tradition in Santa Monica during the holidays, was attacked and challenged, by those who despise Christmas and what it stands for!…nonsense indeed…you are walkin’ around blind without a cane my friend…actually, as long as you remain “gay”…you most certainly are not my friend…you advocate a lifestyle that is gravely sinful and disordered…
I wll take my money and my business where I am wanted.
Others should do the same.
The Southern Baptists had a DEEPLY HELD religious belief, not too long ago, that the races shouldn’t mix.
So…when a young mom lost her baby, the child was buried in a Southern Baptist cemetery, UNTIL the church learned the father was black. Then they wanted to dig up the coffin and move it!
Only national outcry forced them to change their “deeply help religious belief” and allow the baby to rest in peace.
Anonymous, you said that “only national outcry FORCED them (Southern Baptist) to change their deeply held religious belief…..”
First of all, the use of the word “forced” here, does not accurately explain what happened. I would suggest to you that a more accurate word which would explain “why they changed their minds” would be “influenced” (as opposed to “forced”).
At any rate, the fact that the Southern Baptist were influenced into taking a different viewpoint, is a perfect demonstration of the value of American’s “Freedom of Speech”. The dangerous trend, which I believe we are now witnessing, is actually an endorsement of tyranny. We now have some of our fellow Americans who actually support and encourage our GOVERNMENT officials to TRULY FORCE individuals or institutions into acting a certain way. The more a government FORCES it’s citizens to do anything, the less free it’s citizens are.
Any deeply held “religious” belief that the color of one’s skin has anything to do with Faith is NOT a true “religious” belief, but a human prejudice.
Any Christian Faith that not prove their beliefs based upon the Bible has no leg to stand on.
Sodomy is condemned in many places in the Bible both the Old and New Testaments. It is a MORTAL Sin in which none of us should participate in or approve of.
If a wedding photographer doesn’t want to cover a homosexual wedding, couldn’t he simply say, “I’m booked that day?”
And who would WNAT someone to photograph their wedding if they hated the couple anyway?
Because they were black, or Jewish, or gay, or annoying?
“Questions You’re Asking About Cakes, Gays, and Religious Freedom
Whose liberty is at stake? Is it just business owners’?
Everyone’s. When the government starts forcing people to do things that violate their deeply held beliefs, we have a problem.
Unless the government proves that there is a compelling government interest in doing so (and that there was not another, less restrictive means possible), citizens should be left free.
We need legislation protecting religious liberty for all, because in a growing number of cases, government coercion and penalties have violated religious freedom.
https://blog.heritage.org/2014/02/28/questions-youre-asking-cakes-gays-religious-freedom/
O, silly rabbit, we have such a law. It’s called the United States Constitution.
When Nigeria’s Christians are getting killed by Muslim extremists, the post gets about three replies.
When we’re talking about homosexual cake and punch, the strong goes on for miles.
What’s going on?
Obsessions. Fanaticisms. Blindness to log jammed eyes.
An absolute right to refuse service – By J. Matt Barber
Albert Einstein once said, “Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it.”
He was right.
In the aftermath of the Arizona religious freedom skirmish, I have a few questions for those who would presume to compel religious business owners, under penalty of law, to “provide goods and services” to homosexuals in a way that violates that business owner’s conscience.
To wit:
https://www.renewamerica.com/columns/mbarber/140302
To wit, who cares what Matt Barber thinks. Noone is seeking to compel business owners to violate their conscience. Same-sex couples are asking that business owners provide the same service that they provide to every other person who walks through the door. There is nothing radical about that. On the contrary, it is these business owners (and those who would support them) who are attempting to compell all others to legally affirm their ability to segregate public services, judge, humilate, and discriminate because they think their religion mandates it. They are the one demanding that the rest of us affirm their bad theology and codify it in the law. That is what’s radical.
peter, for the record, I care about what Matt Barber thinks. So peter, are YOU now the judge of what does or does not violate another human being’s conscience? This position is the dangerous Heresy of Relativism.
IF a Catholic participates in any EVIL EVENT, even while under the threat of loss of property or life itself, it would be an offense to God himself. Our Holy God commands us to discriminate between good and evil!
A declaration of a lifetime of love and commitment is an evil event only if one subscribes to the devil’s twisted lies.
YFC, an evil event IS an evil event. So how does what you say change any of what I told peter, which is: “that IF a Catholic participates in any EVIL EVENT, even while under the threat of loss of property or life itself, it would be an offense to God himself. Our Holy God commands us to discriminate between good and evil”?
…what twisted lie would that be, YFC? Binding oneself to that which represents an occasion of sin is sinful, isn’t it? Like celebrating a lifetime commitment to being surrounded by the chocolate you ‘love’ while understanding full well that eating even one bite will cause diabetic coma.
Where is the logic in that? Or the real love in helping to ‘celebrate’ such a foolhardy commitment?
That’s exactly my point Tracy. No one is asking (let alone compelling) anyone to violate their conscience by participating in or celebrating a disapproved “event”. It’s these businesses that are attempting to insert themselves where they are not wanted. Why is it too much to ask of anyone baking cakes to bake a cake? No one is asking the baker to affirm the purpose for the cake. Why the presumption that these business owners have been invited to participate in anything? That anyone of a protected class chooses to avail himself of a service otherwise made available to the general public without being on the receiving end of discrimination is the issue here. If one’s religion prevents him from providing a service to the general public equally (i.e. to all “We the People”), then he is in the wrong business to begin with; why set up a business that would force one to violate their conscience? And then to suggest that legal protections are now necessary to prevent near exposure to the occasion of sin? Discrimination based on religious grounds is still discrimination.
peter, very clever. I was talking about “EVIL EVENTS”, not “disapproved events”. Your entire rebuttal clearly places the power of STATE “approval” above the sovereignty of God’s “approval”. Who are you to decide if someone is in the right business or not? You are the one making the claim that those NOT in the so-called “protected class” should be “FORCED” to violate their conscience under certain circumstances.
Are you so sure that the STATE, in which you now so eagerly place your faith, will always protect YOUR interest?
Be careful in whom you choose to place your trust!
We discriminate every day, Peter. And it is a good thing as discrimination is what gives us the ability to make choices. That said, someday you will have a line that is crossed and then it will mean something to you.
Until then, those with a mind to obey God’s laws will be persecuted for the sake of change and a new set of rules based on popular opinion or, in reality, whoever has the most $$$ and power to lobby their cause.
So replace God with the state if that is your choice. But don’t be surprised at the resistance of others. That’s diversity!
Tracy writes: “…Our Holy God commands us to discriminate between good and evil!”
Thank you for putting it out there, Tracy, as this very basic concept is increasingly heaped over with all manner of emotional drivel in order to draw those who have the light back into darkness.
Funny, though, as those who put forth the Constitution as the prevailing doctrine are the very same who would dismiss it when it proves inconvenient. Cafeteria Catholics = Cafeteria Constitutionalists.
Ann Malley, Yes Cafeteria Catholics do equal Cafeteria Constitutionalists! May I further point out that:
Cafeteria Catholics = Cafeteria Discriminators + Cafeteria Bullies!
Too true, Tracy. Too true.
Great link, Michael, and very true. A lesbian recently went to a Muslim barber shop that serves only men and is trying to force him to cut her hair in a mannish style. He told her he was only allowed to cut the hair of his wife. I think she is nuts! Women do not belong in men’s locker rooms either.
Anne, she probably has a very good sex discrimination claim. However, the fact that you told us that this woman was a lesbian only shows your animosity towards lesbians, as the issue is not her sexual orientation but her gender. If she sues, it will be tried purely on the fact that she is a woman not that she is a lesbian.
Having said that, if a government employee turned you away at your polling place because his sincerely held religious belief says that women shouldn’t have the right to vote, what would you do? In all honesty, that is exactly what the Arizona bill would have allowed. Even government employees could be free to not carry out their jobs if they felt that their sincerely held religious beliefs were at stake.
The polling place example is ridiculous. The current law already protects against the government violating one’s freedom of religion. The proposed bill wanted to extend the protection to include intrusions on one’s freedom of religion from private parties.
Not ridiculous at all anonymous. The Arizona law permitted government employees to not perform their duties if it violated their religious liberty. Nowhere in American law had this existed before.
It did not. It is possible that a government employee may go to their boss and get out of an assignment because of a religious belief. The boss would get someone else to do it. Obviously, people who man voting booths cannot turn people away based on religious beliefs or any reason other than that they are not a registered voter. The law in AZ and many other states and the federal government of the United States currently is that government cannot make someone do something that violates their religion, unless they have a pressing reason. (They may have declared martial law and people can’t get to Church on Sunday.) This controversial bill extended the prohibition to non-governmental persons and it spelled out that exercise of religion included things other than just worship, It was opposed because it was seen as a way for business owners to legally discriminate against LBGT persons. The governor vetoed it. On a more general note: Freedom of conscience laws are very dangerous and have the potential to undermine the entire judicial system.
Hi Anne…It’s pretty much a myth that you can tell a woman is gay by hair style. A lot of straight women wear it “short and sassy” and then there are the “clipped hair nuns” that Canisius mentions from time to time. If a woman wants a short haircut, any haircutter can accomodate her. I personally wear mine in a medium length bob though in the past it’s been shoulder length. BTW where did you hear about this unusual encounter and how do we know she was a lesbian?
Here is a link to the article Anne T. posted about the woman who was refused a haircut by the Muslim barber. https://news.nationalpost.com/2012/11/30/gender-vs-religion-woman-refused-haircut-by-muslim-barber-highlights-problem-of-colliding-rights/ The following link mentions that she is a lesbian. https://www.examiner.com/article/muslim-barber-refuses-to-cut-hair-of-lesbian
The video that I actually saw, nevertheless, clearly stated that she was a lesbian and asked people to donate money to force the man to cut her hair. No man should be forced to cut some woman’s hair if he does not want to do so. I never go to a male hairdresser, let alone a barber. The one (male hairdresser) my mother took me to one time cut my hair so short I never went to another male hairdresser again. It does remind me of the time when our military was trying to force a young newly wed sailor to serve in a lighthouse alone with a pretty young Wave. He did not want to do so since he felt it was too much of a temptation. That was when John Cardinal O’Connor, God bless him, came to the young sailors defense, and said that it was improper to force a young man to serve alone with a young woman. There was a time when that would never have been allowed — and rightly so. If this woman gets her head loped off, let the lesbians and homosexuals go fight for her. All she is doing is trying to pick a fight.
Hey .. We’re all going to get ashes tomorrow. Do these laws (one’s apparently being proposed here in Calif>) mean that afterwards I could walk into a cafe and have the owner tell me, “My religious beliefs are that a I can’t serve heretical, papist , spawn of Satan Catholics” and get away with it?
If he does, just get up and walk out.
Take your money and business elsewhere. :)
The law would say that if you sued him for that, he could use his religion as a defense. That would be an interesting case.
C & H, if I walk into a vegetarian cafe tomorrow with an ash cross on my forehead and the owner informs me that he will not serve me because to do so would violate his conscience which tells him that I am a “heretical, papist and spawn of Satan Catholic”, how would this harm ME? If I were to file a claim in court, what would my claim be? Should my claim state that the restaurant owner FORCED me to extend my Ash Wednesday Fast a bit longer than I had planned on? Would my claim be that he FORCED me to eat meat? Would my claim be that he EMBARRASSED me by refusing to allow me to eat in his restaurant? Now let’s say that the court found the restaurant owner guilty of what I accused him of, what PENALTY do you think the STATE should now FORCE on HIM? To what extent and in what manner should the STATE ENFORCE it’s ruling against the restaurant owner?