Controversy Over Arizona "Religious Freedom" Bill

[DamianTV]

It should be within the power of a business owner to kick someone out of their business for any reason.

I agree. Just pointing out that the ability to determine who is kicked out and for what should be completely up to you. It puts both the Authority of your Property in your hands, but more importantly, the Authority to Grant Permissions without external influence, even to those who would violate any rules or standards you may have. For example, I repair a gun for you. But you have a "no guns" rule in your store. I would advise the gun is repaired and request permission to violate your "no gun" rule prior to entering your property, and would enter the realm of your Authority in a manner that you prescribe. I might be advised to bring it by your house, you come out and meet me, bring it around the back, put it in a box, or just bring it right in straight to you. Its your property so that determination is totally up to you, and always has been.

What it seems to me is happening here is not the Reinforcement of a Right, but rather an encouragement to discriminate against people for specific reasons. Most people dont get Rights at all like we do here on the forum. Hell, they cant name even one of the ten Bill of Rights. So Im not trying to undermine your reasoning, but rather support both sides of it. The Authority to Grant or Deny permissions and state that the ability to do BOTH is more important than choosing one or the other.

 

[PRB]

False. A business can discriminate for ANY reason not specifically prohibited by law, or for no reason at all so long as it cannot be shown to be a pretext for unlawful discrimination.

we don't disagree at all, basically business can only legally discriminate, and not unlawfully discriminate.

 

[PRB]

So you don't support laws like the 4th amendment protection act and other similar laws that Rand and Amash have introduced? Unfortunately, sometimes laws are necessary to reinforce basic rights.

closet statist reveals his true colors.

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

Ha! The guy is less libertarian than the Republicans in the state legislature. That's why I say that the Libertarian Party is often less libertarian than the Republican Party.

But Libertarianism means "fiscally Conservative, socially accepting." That's why Gary Johnson is more of a Libertarian than Ron Paul!

 

[Brett85]

closet statist reveals his true colors.

Huh? I don't believe that either Rand or Amash are statists. I support both of them and their efforts to restore the Bill of Rights.

 

[Brett85]

But Libertarianism means "fiscally Conservative, socially accepting."

That's what it seems to mean to people like PRB as well.

 

[DamianTV]

But Libertarianism means "fiscally Conservative, socially accepting." That's why Gary Johnson is more of a Libertarian than Ron Paul!

Subjective conclusion so there isnt really a "right" or "wrong" answer. In my opinion, the term Libertarian includes Constitutional Moderate, but can also mean other things at the same time.

 

[osan]

The Right to Refuse Business is already protected by the 9th and 10th.

That appears not to have slowed down some of the states who feel it lies within their delegated authorities to use force in the manner under discussion.

And for the record, what exactly does a persons sexuality have to do with Religion in general? They are about as similar as Apples and Carburetors.

Bad comparison, given all the people I knew in college who used apples as carburetors.

 

[chudrockz]

Vetoed!!

 

[johnwk]

Gov. Brewer’s vetoes bill and ignores a fundamental right.

Of course Gov. Brewer vetoed the bill and refused to protect the people’s fundamental right to be free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.

Let us not forget this is the same Governor that signed onto Obamacare and agreed to expand Medicaid and put an additional 300,000 residents on government’s free cheese wagon which hard working taxpayers are having their paycheck confiscated to fund.

What she ignored today was upholding the Constitution and a fundamental right of people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.


JWK

A legislative act which "impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured by the Constitution is presumptively unconstitutional." See: Harris v. McRae United States Supreme Court (1980) Also see City of Mobile v. Bolden, 466 U.S. 55, 76, 100 S.Ct. 1490, 64 L.Ed.2d 47 (1980)

 

[phill4paul]

So this bill just protected religious people from discrimination? Typical. Private property rights are naturally inherent for any one.

 

[hardrightedge]

I really don't care what these freaks do anymore...

She should've told the NFL and anyone else who threatened boycotts to go F themselves...veto or no veto...

 

[johnwk]

Gov. Brewer spat upon our Constitution

I really don't care what these freaks do anymore...

She should've told the NFL and anyone else who threatened boycotts to go F themselves...veto or no veto...

The very intentions for which the 14th Amendment was adopted was to prohibit state legislation to discriminate based upon race, color or previous condition of slavery. It was never intended to interfere with the people's fundamental right to mutually agree in their contracts and associations. The intention of the 39th Congress which drafted the 14th Amendment is summarized as follows:



“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shallabarger, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293


JWK



Is America on the verge of submitting to communism without a shot being fired?

 

[PRB]

So this bill just protected religious people from discrimination? Typical. Private property rights are naturally inherent for any one.

Businesses are not private property for many purposes under current laws (this is why you will not see any parking lot with parking spaces but without a ADA reserved space). This bill doesn't protect religious people from discrimination, it just reinforces the existing law that private businesses are free to exclude gays or anybody who they believe are in violation of the business owner's religious beliefs, unless the person's part of a protected group (race, sex, ethnicity, religion).

 

[PRB]

Of course Gov. Brewer vetoed the bill and refused to protect the people’s fundamental right to be free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.

that right has been long gone, gay rights are just starting catch up. nobody who owns a business can refuse to serve handicapped people, or even avoid reserving a parking spot for them, regardless of the likelihood of it actually needed. luckily in today's world, more people own properties and businesses, so the probability of finding a minority friendly business is much higher, but being a minority isn't a choice and being refused a service you want, or sometimes need, is nothing like a 'mutual agreement'. my point isn't that government should protect minorities, but rather, there is no right for anybody to enjoy any services provided by any private business, and as much as I wish it to be true, it's not the case that private property is above minority rights.

I'm willing to bet, a lot of hypocrites here would defend the government's power to force property/business owners to allow guns on their business premises, or protect employees from being 'voluntarily' asked to give their facebook passwords to employers....let's not forget people who defend laws that force GMO labeling, net neutrality and 'right to use electricity without smart meters'.

 

[Acala]

Stupid idiot boomer Republicans are going to turn this state blue with their idiotic culture war.

http://flagliberty.wordpress.com/2014/02/23/republicans-pick-unnecessary-fight-with-sb1062/



Barry Hess for AZ Governor!

Hess is exactly right. The bill did nothing to protect freedom and a great deal to strengthen the foes of freedom. It was a bonehead move motivated by short-sighted politics.

 

[Acala]

we don't disagree at all, basically business can only legally discriminate, and not unlawfully discriminate.

Your post implied that there is a list of lawful reasons for discrimination in employment or service and that one must follow that list. That is not correct. It is the other way around. There is a list of prohibited types of discrimination and everything else is lawful. You can discriminate for every stupid, irrational reason possible so long as it is not on the list of prohibited acts.

 

[Acala]

Of course Gov. Brewer vetoed the bill and refused to protect the people’s fundamental right to be free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.

The right was not in danger. This was pure political grandstanding.

Let us not forget this is the same Governor that signed onto Obamacare and agreed to expand Medicaid and put an additional 300,000 residents on government’s free cheese wagon which hard working taxpayers are having their paycheck confiscated to fund.

I'm no Brewer fan, but the legislature should not have sent here this POS. I probably would have vetoed it too, with an admonishment to the legislature to stop wasting time on pandering and start working on restoring liberty.

What she ignored today was upholding the Constitution and a fundamental right of people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.


JWK

A legislative act which "impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured by the Constitution is presumptively unconstitutional." See: Harris v. McRae United States Supreme Court (1980) Also see City of Mobile v. Bolden, 466 U.S. 55, 76, 100 S.Ct. 1490, 64 L.Ed.2d 47 (1980)

This bill would have done nothing at all to protect any right since the right addressed was not in danger.

 

[Lucille]

This is why that bill was not helpful to conservatives in AZ. I wouldn't be surprised if the Ds win a majority in the legislature after this stunt, which will not be helpful to conservative issues in AZ.

BS like this is not why I voted for Rs. I would have appreciated a medical liberty bill, or another go at reclaiming AZ lands from the fedgov especially after the Obama-Reid government shutdown.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/the-collapse-of-the-anti-ssm-side/

A major, decisive battle in the culture war is over. The other side won. Soon their efforts will amount to little more than bouncing the rubble.

I don’t know what else to conclude from this latest comprehensive poll from this new, comprehensive poll from the non-partisan Public Religion Research Institute, taking a snapshot of America’s views on same-sex marriage. Excerpts:

„„Today, roughly equal numbers of Americans say they strongly favor (22%) legalizing same-sex marriage as say they strongly oppose it (20%). By contrast, a decade earlier strong opponents (35%) outnumbered strong supporters (9%) by roughly a 4-to-1 ratio.

„„Today, majorities of Americans in the Northeast (60%), West (58%), and Midwest (51%) favor allowing gay and lesbians to legally marry, while Southerners are evenly divided (48% favor, 48% oppose).

According to the PRRI press release, it is hard to overestimate the age/generation factor in opposing same-sex marriage. Opponents of SSM are literally dying off. For the overwhelming majority of Millennials, SSM is seen as just and right. None of this is news, by the way, not to anybody who has been following this story.

Frickin' Boomers.

 

[Lucille]

http://reason.com/blog/2014/02/26/gov-brewer-vetoes-arizona-sb-1062

Anyway, this particular battle is over and I suspect much celebration in the lesbian and gay community, even though, as I pointed out, they still don't have any state protection from business discrimination. It would not be a surprise, though, if this fight were used to push forward an addition to the state's public accommodation laws.

No doubt.

They passed a civil rights ordinance in Flagstaff last year. That didn't stop the local hack press from pointing out that the mayor and another council member made contributions to Barton and are therefore bigots, even though they both voted for the ordinance (which they conveniently left out of the "news" piece).