Controversy Over Arizona "Religious Freedom" Bill

[Cabal]

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/



Frickin' Boomers.

Some other interesting bits from that article:

Regular churchgoers (those who attend at least once or twice a month), particularly those who belong to religious groups that are supportive of same-sex marriage, are likely to over- estimate opposition for same-sex marriage in their churches by 20 percentage points or more.

„„About 6-in-10 (59%) white mainline Protestants believe their fellow congregants are mostly opposed to same-sex marriage. However, among white mainline Protestants who attend church regularly, only 36% oppose allowing gay and lesbian people to legally marry while a majority (57%) actually favor this policy.

Roughly three-quarters (73%) of Catholics believe that most of their fellow congregants are opposed to same-sex marriage. However, Catholics who regularly attend church are in fact divided on the issue (50% favor, 45% oppose).

The same poll finds that a significant number of Millennials who have left the church saying that the church’s perceived negativity towards LGBT folks had a lot to do with it. That strikes me more as a rationalism than a reason. If that were true, they would go to one of the liberal, gay-affirming churches. For reasons that are not entirely clear, once many people cease to believe in traditional Christian teaching on sexuality, they cease to believe in Christianity in any meaningful sense. Which came first? Hard to say. But if a church or denomination’s view on homosexuality were a deciding factor, we would see liberal churches gaining members among the Millennials. In fact, all churches are losing their affiliation.

 

[Madison320]

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.

But in a free society you should able to discriminate, period.

If the KKK wants to open up a KKK-Mart, that only serves whites, they should be allowed.

 

[erowe1]

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.

How did it strengthen the foes of freedom?

It's one thing if you say the bill didn't actually accomplish anything because the right to discriminate against gays is already protected. But then when you go on to say stuff like "strengthen the foes of freedom" that makes it sound like you don't even agree that there is such a right.

 

[Madison320]

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.

I'm not familiar with those laws that Rand introduced.

This is a complicated topic. There's a school of thought, which I tend to agree with, that we shouldn't have a Bill of Rights. If you discretely list a set of rights, the implication is that anything not listed is not a right. But I don't have too much of a problem with a law that protects a basic, broad right like the 2nd amendment. But in this case the law is protecting a very narrow, specific case. Why have a law that only allows one type of discrimination when all discrimination should be allowed? That's like having a law that says you can barbecue in your backyard on weekends. So you mean I can't barbecue during the week?

 

[erowe1]

I'm not familiar with those laws that Rand introduced.

This is a complicated topic. There's a school of thought, which I tend to agree with, that we shouldn't have a Bill of Rights. If you discretely list a set of rights, the implication is that anything not listed is not a right. But I don't have too much of a problem with a law that protects a basic, broad right like the 2nd amendment. But in this case the law is protecting a very narrow, specific case. Why have a law that only allows one type of discrimination when all discrimination should be allowed? That's like having a law that says you can barbecue in your backyard on weekends. So you mean I can't barbecue during the week?

I agree.

It's not that I actually oppose Rand pushing a 4th Amendment Protection Act. I just think it's kind of silly, and more symbolic than substantive.

I suppose that after that bill became a law and they kept violating our rights, someone would push a 4th Amendment Protection Act Protection Act. And then when that one didn't work, a 4th Amendment Protection Act Protection Act Protection Act.

 

[Acala]

But in a free society you should able to discriminate, period.

If the KKK wants to open up a KKK-Mart, that only serves whites, they should be allowed.

Agreed. We were not talking about what the law should be, but what it is.

 

[erowe1]

Agreed. We were not talking about what the law should be, but what it is.

When you say that this bill would strengthen foes of freedom, that makes it sound like you're talking about what the law should be.

 

[Acala]

How did it strengthen the foes of freedom?

It's one thing if you say the bill didn't actually accomplish anything because the right to discriminate against gays is already protected. But then when you go on to say stuff like "strengthen the foes of freedom" that makes it sound like you don't even agree that there is such a right.

Because it galvanized the opposition. It got people up off their asses and out into the streets in organized protest. It gave opponenets of the idiot Republicans a rallying point. And it divided the Republicans - the Republican legislature passed it and the Republican governor vetoed it.

I will not be surprised to see a ballot measure that adds sexual orientation to protected classes in this state as a direct result of this stupid bill.

I believe in the absolute right of free association. If the bill had tried to overturn existing laws that impair the right of free association, I would have supported it. It didn't do that. It was a solution to a problem that did not exist in this state. It made the Republicans look like small-minded bigots and divided them for no reason at all.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Long thread, haven't gone through all of it so I don't know if anyone posted this article I found on Matt Walsh's blog. He's got a pretty good handle on the situation IMO. Click the link to read the article....he deserves the traffic:

Problem solved: let private businesses refuse service to anyone anytime for any reason

 

[Acala]

When you say that this bill would strengthen foes of freedom, that makes it sound like you're talking about what the law should be.

You have to go back to PRB's post where he said this as a statement of existing law:

"Businesses cannot discriminate unless
-customer has no money/business
-customer is disruptive to business
-even in the above, if customer is disabled, ADA makes lots of exceptions (service dog for starters)
-even if all of the above are met, if customer is a protected group, he can still cry foul."

I was pointing out that this is not correct. Under existing law a business can descriminate for any reason at all, so long as it is not specifically prohibited. I was not agreeing with the law as it exists, but clarifying what it is. (By the way, it is possible that there is a state law somewhere that differs, but I don't think so)

 

[erowe1]

Because it galvanized the opposition.

That is a good point. I can definitely see that.