Controversy Over Arizona "Religious Freedom" Bill

[Brett85]

Except there IS no Federal law protecting sexual orientation. And there is no State law protecting sexual orientation in Arizona. It was a gratuitous swipe at an unpopular group for political gain.

And there IS harm in what has been done. It has increased the polarization of the people over a non-issue. It has focused attention on government as a broker of rights when it should not be. It has needlessly called out and alienated a class of people when we should be trying to bring people together to help restrain runaway government. It has helped consolidate support for the Democratic party while splitting the Republicans. It is bad tactics and bad manners.

You sound like the gay rights movement is somehow some friend of liberty. I can guarantee you that they're not. They don't just want "equal rights." They want to punish and shut down those who disagree with them. You're going to see more and more stories about Christians who are forced to accept homosexuality as morality acceptable by the state. You're going to see more and more examples of Christian business owners who are forced to provide services to homosexuals, specifically provide services to gay weddings. The laws in Arizona and Kansas are a necessary preemptive action to ensure that the police state that the gay lobby is pushing won't make its way into Kansas and Arizona.

 

[Queer_Libertarian_Radical]

You sound like the gay rights movement is somehow some friend of liberty.

So you don't believe consenting adults should be allowed to have sexual relationships with each other? Do you believe the state to criminalize same-sex relationships? If so you are anti-gay rights.

I can guarantee you that they're not. They don't just want "equal rights." They want to punish and shut down those who disagree with them. You're going to see more and more stories about Christians who are forced to accept homosexuality as morality acceptable by the state. You're going to see more and more examples of Christian business owners who are forced to provide services to homosexuals, specifically provide services to gay weddings.

Who is this "they" you talk about? I'm bisexual myself and I'm not in favor of the state forcing anyone to do anything against their free will. Also what if a homosexual business owern doesn't provide serve to a Christian and is force to do so by the state. You seem to only believe only religion, specially Christians, should get special privileges under state law.

The laws in Arizona and Kansas are a necessary preemptive action to ensure that the police state that the gay lobby is pushing won't make its way into Kansas and Arizona.

No. It's more statist laws you are supporting. There is not anti-discrimination law for sexual orientation, but there is one for organized religion. This allows religious organizations to sue for discrimination against their religious beliefs. If you really want to get rid of anti-discrimination laws at the federal and state level. Religion is currently against the law to discriminate in federal and state law. Do you support repealing the law that makes it illeagal to discriminate against organized religion?

 

[PRB]

thank God gay people are not yet a group that's forcifully protected by the federal government, they will soon, but not yet.

 

[Brett85]

So you don't believe consenting adults should be allowed to have sexual relationships with each other? Do you believe the state to criminalize same-sex relationships? If so you are anti-gay rights.

Of course not. What does that have to do with this bill? Bills like the ones in Kansas and Arizona have been introduced in order to stop involuntary servitude, the idea that people should be forced by the state to serve certain groups of people. I oppose involuntary servitude.

Who is this "they" you talk about? I'm bisexual myself and I'm not in favor of the state forcing anyone to do anything against their free will. Also what if a homosexual business owern doesn't provide serve to a Christian and is force to do so by the state. You seem to only believe only religion, specially Christians, should get special privileges under state law.

At least with the bill that was introduced in Kansas, the language of the bill simply says that a private business won't be forced to provide services for any marriage. So under that bill, a homosexual business owner would be protected from having to provide marriage services to a Christian couple. The Kansas bill is as pro liberty and pro freedom as you can possibly get.

Do you support repealing the law that makes it illeagal to discriminate against organized religion?

Absolutely. All anti discrimination laws should be repealed. A private business owner should be allowed to serve whoever he wants to serve and deny service to whoever he wants to deny service to. But just because we have these kind of anti discrimination laws on the books, that's not a justification to expand anti discrimination laws to additional groups of people.

 

[PRB]

The law was not needed. Businesses already could discriminate if they so desired. It was just a grandstand play pandering to the intolerant. Way to go Arizona.

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.

 

[Acala]

You sound like the gay rights movement is somehow some friend of liberty. I can guarantee you that they're not. They don't just want "equal rights." They want to punish and shut down those who disagree with them. You're going to see more and more stories about Christians who are forced to accept homosexuality as morality acceptable by the state. You're going to see more and more examples of Christian business owners who are forced to provide services to homosexuals, specifically provide services to gay weddings. The laws in Arizona and Kansas are a necessary preemptive action to ensure that the police state that the gay lobby is pushing won't make its way into Kansas and Arizona.

I worked side by side with several gay men on Ron Paul's campaign so I am not as inclined as you to lump "them" into a class and label them enemies of freedom. A wise man once said that freedom brings us together. I believe that. If it is not true, liberty has no chance.

 

[Acala]

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.

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.

 

[Brett85]

I worked side by side with several gay men on Ron Paul's campaign so I am not as inclined as you to lump "them" into a class and label them enemies of freedom. A wise man once said that freedom brings us together. I believe that. If it is not true, liberty has no chance.

I wasn't talking about all gay people, but the gay rights movement, the people who are going insane over a bill that simply prevents involuntary servitude.

 

[Queer_Libertarian_Radical]

Of course not. What does that have to do with this bill? Bills like the ones in Kansas and Arizona have been introduced in order to stop involuntary servitude, the idea that people should be forced by the state to serve certain groups of people. I oppose involuntary servitude.

My position on gay rights is the right to engage in sexual actives and association. I don't believe in "special rights" for gay people, I believe in equal rights for ALL people. That right is being attacked everywhere around the world. (Russia, Uganda, etc.)

Expect they didn't try to repeal their state's anti-discrimination laws. So it doesn't create the ideal freedom of association.

At least with the bill that was introduced in Kansas, the language of the bill simply says that a private business won't be forced to provide services for any marriage. The Kansas bill is as pro liberty and pro freedom as you can possibly get.

Why do they need law for that? Why not just repeal the state's anti-discrimination law? Because they are cowardly people who would never even dream of repealing their state's anti-discrimination laws. Seriously name ONE politician, other than Ron Paul, who has ever advocated repealing anti-discrimination laws?

So under that bill, a homosexual business owner would be protected from having to provide marriage services to a Christian couple.

Again the state public accomidation laws protects creeds and religions. You can't discriminate against organized religion in Arizona under law. What to be pro-liberty and freedom? Repeal the federal and state level anti-discrimination laws nationwide.

Absolutely. All anti discrimination laws should be repealed. A private business owner should be allowed to serve whoever he wants to serve and deny service to whoever he wants to deny service to. But just because we have these kind of anti discrimination laws on the books, that's not a justification to expand anti discrimination laws to additional groups of people.

I agree as well. I'm just saying that government should be neutral on this issue, like how it should be neutral on almost every other issue. This AZ law isn't neutral on the issue, because it give special privileges to religious organizations.

Business should be free to serve and not serve and fire and not fire whoever they please, but don't create some kind of special "religious freedom" law.

 

[gjdavis60]

I'm sure many who are active in the LGBT political movement would like sexual orientation to be granted the same status as race and see the two as interchangeable. That is the golden ring that all minorities aspire to: the federally protected class. It would require that sexual orientation be determined equivalent to race in many SCOTUS decisions, such as Loving v. Virginia, which is the precedent that will be cited in some of the cases being brought before SCOTUS against states that do not allow SSM (citing equal protection). I really couldn't care less what they do with the definition of government marriage, as it's already a terrible racket, and nothing in the offing will relieve the discrimination that the state already practices against non-married people like me.

Non-discrimination in the workplace and in business transactions vis a vis protected classes, such as we have in the "public accommodations" clause of the CRA, cannot be implied by anything in the Constitution, and so must be legislated as some states have already done to the delight of their progressive constituents, and I'm sure also to many so-called conservatives who don't really understand the implication of undermining property rights.

Non-discrimination prohibitions in private affairs is a license for state exploitation and expropriation writ large.

 

[Brett85]

I would like to repeal all anti discrimination laws, but obviously the American people have no concept of the principles of liberty, so unfortunately that isn't going to happen any time soon. In the meantime, I at least want to prevent the expansion of these anti discrimination laws. Also, at least in regards to the law in Kansas, it doesn't allow discrimination against gay couples except for when it comes to weddings. The purpose of the law is simply to protect private business owners from being forced to provide services for gay weddings. And as I said, the bill also protects a gay person from having to provide services for a marriage between a Christian couple. But the law in Kansas doesn't allow a business owner to kick a gay couple out of his establishment who came their to eat. All it does is say that no business owner will be forced to provide services for any marriage. I haven't read the Arizona law, but I imagine that it's similar to the Kansas law.

 

[Acala]

I wasn't talking about all gay people, but the gay rights movement, the people who are going insane over a bill that simply prevents involuntary servitude.

The bill prevents nothing.

I think the liberty movement is much better served by finding ways to reach out to as many people as possible rather than going out of our way to alienate them because we don't approve of them in some way. The omnipotent state depends on a divided population.

 

[Brett85]

The bill prevents nothing.

I think the liberty movement is much better served by finding ways to reach out to as many people as possible rather than going out of our way to alienate them because we don't approve of them in some way. The omnipotent state depends on a divided population.

You're going to have a hard time reaching out to people who believe in involuntary servitude.

 

[DamianTV]

What happens in 5 to 10 years when most people completely forget about the bill, regardless of pass or fail? (including those in Govt) People will act according to what they believe. Some will discriminate regardless of existence of the law, others will not. Lawsuits will still occur over discrimination. In the grand scheme of things, the bill will fail to have any impact on those who simply are unaware of the existence of this bill as a law.

I think the better solution is to promote understanding of existing laws and rights, and set examples of being reasonable in the application of those rights. If you own a private business, sure, it is within your power to kick me out for wearing a hat with a logo of a sports team that is a rival of your favorite sports team. But being reasonable, you can also choose to allow patrons to wear said offending hats as a means of surviving your business. However, entering your establishment butt ass naked and high as a kite demanding "free service" would be more than reasonable to kick me out. Whatever your decision is, it will hardly be influenced by the existence of the proposed "Religious Freedom" bill mentioned here today, but forgotten about tomorrow.

 

[Brett85]

I think the better solution is to promote understanding of existing laws and rights, and set examples of being reasonable in the application of those rights. If you own a private business, sure, it is within your power to kick me out for wearing a hat with a logo of a sports team that is a rival of your favorite sports team. But being reasonable, you can also choose to allow patrons to wear said offending hats as a means of surviving your business. However, entering your establishment butt ass naked and high as a kite demanding "free service" would be more than reasonable to kick me out. Whatever your decision is, it will hardly be influenced by the existence of the proposed "Religious Freedom" bill mentioned here today, but forgotten about tomorrow.

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

 

[Madison320]

I hate the idea of a law that grants a little piece of freedom. Freedom of association is a basic right. It reminds me of "free trade" agreements. Why do you need those? Just leave us alone and let us trade. You don't need an "agreement".

 

[Lucille]

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/

In reality, they seem to be looking for a fight that does not exist and that could come with unintended consequences. If the goal was to give Democrats something to really rally behind and opportunity after opportunity to campaign and network during this election cycle, they are certainly doing a wonderful job.

Barry Hess, Libertarian candidate for Governor in Arizona recently posted the following statement regarding SB1062 on Facebook. I think he sums it up perfectly:

“Statement regarding whether, as Governor, I would sign SB1062.

No. While all individuals, and non-government businesses retain an absolute right to refuse to do business with anyone (including government), for any reason; proposing a law to that effect is not only redundant, but unnecessarily incites argument. Worse yet, it is an invitation and encouragement for businesses to discriminate against a specific group, for purely political reasons.

The ‘bread and butter’ for the kind of politicians who would propose such legislation is the division of the masses. They seek only to divide us (the American People) up into groups, pit them against one another, and then offer to referee.

I happen to be of the opinion that here, in America (Arizona included), all individuals are absolutely equal, without regard to the usual attempts to divide us based on spiritual beliefs, sex, sexual preferences, skin color, mental capabilities or national or ethnic origins. Our strength as a nation depends only upon our common beliefs as a free People, and the protection of our inherent, God-given rights as individuals, and as Governor, I intend to uphold those beliefs, without exception.”

Barry Hess for AZ Governor!

 

[Brett85]

I hate the idea of a law that grants a little piece of freedom. Freedom of association is a basic right. It reminds me of "free trade" agreements. Why do you need those? Just leave us alone and let us trade. You don't need an "agreement".

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.

 

[Brett85]

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!

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.

 

[Cabal]

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!

Well stated, IMO. It's too bad more people aren't so rational.