Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Arizona pro discrimination law

Options
  • 01-03-2014 11:40am
    #1
    20Cent
    Registered Users Posts: 8,934 ✭✭✭


    The republican controlled state legislators in Arizona tried to pass a law which would allow owners with “sincerely held” religious beliefs the legal right to refuse service to anyone if it would conflict with those beliefs. This would mean Christian business owners could refuse service to people just because they are gay.

    Senate bill 1062 was vetoed by the governor Jan Brewer.

    It throws up an interesting conflict between the rights of business owners and the freedom of citizens not to be discriminated against.

    I'm glad the law was vetoed it is obscene that such discrimination would be allowed in 2014. What is going on with theses republicans who claim freedom yet make laws curbing that freedom!! Can't get my head around it.


«1

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Manach
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,671 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    Same way I cannot get my head around examples of a state employee being penalised for discussing political matters on social media on their free time as this was deemed contra-policy.
    The freedom not be be discriminated against should work both ways?


  • Options
    #3
    Black Swan
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,223 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    Arizona Senate passed SB 1062, which would have allowed businesses to reject service to any customer based on the owners' religious beliefs. For example, a Christian business owner could refuse service to persons of different faiths, including Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Mormons (if they did not believe they were "true" Christians). Protestants could deny Catholics, Missouri Synod Lutherans could deny ELCA Lutherans, Creationists could deny Evolutionists, theists could deny to serve agnostics and atheists, etc.

    This bill got all the way to the Arizona Governor's desk, and if she had signed it, it would have become Arizona law.

    This bill shows that the spirit and intent of religious discrimination and prejudice are very much alive in the State of Arizona, as evidenced by the majority of Arizona elected representatives that passed the bill.


  • Options
    #4
    20Cent
    Registered Users Posts: 8,934 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Manach wrote: »
    Same way I cannot get my head around examples of a state employee being penalised for discussing political matters on social media on their free time as this was deemed contra-policy.
    The freedom not be be discriminated against should work both ways?

    Didn't hear about that, what happened?


  • Options
    #5
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    I concur with Black Swan,it's a deeply unsettling law that has come about because they're catering to a horrible portion of people that will vote for them as a result of this. Open game on freedom to discriminate is bloody horrible.


  • Options
    #6
    Manach
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,671 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    20Cent wrote: »
    Didn't hear about that, what happened?

    Came across it when I was looking at general social media studies:
    - link:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    20Cent
    Registered Users Posts: 8,934 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Manach wrote: »
    Came across it when I was looking at general social media studies:
    - link:

    How's that related to the topic in the op?


  • Options
    #8
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,244 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    The Volokh Conspiracy weighs in. (If you don't know it, it's the most-read law blog in the US written mainly by law professors). How many people have actually checked the text of the bill?

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/27/guest-post-from-prof-doug-laycock-what-arizona-sb1062-actually-said/
    According to the New York Times, and as best I can quickly gather, most other news sources, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer vetoed a bill “that would have given business owners the right to refuse service to gay men, lesbians and other people on religious grounds.”

    SB1062, which would have amended Arizona’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, was been egregiously misrepresented both before and after the veto. The federal government and eighteen states have Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRAs).

    That said, I am amused by, and agree with the Governor's comment during her veto speech that "I asked you to help fix the economy, jobs, healthcare... and the first thing I get on my desk is -this-?!" I'd have probably vetoed it just for that.


  • Options
    #9
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 20,885 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    The Volokh Conspiracy weighs in. (If you don't know it, it's the most-read law blog in the US written mainly by law professors). How many people have actually checked the text of the bill?

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/27/guest-post-from-prof-doug-laycock-what-arizona-sb1062-actually-said/



    That said, I am amused by, and agree with the Governor's comment during her veto speech that "I asked you to help fix the economy, jobs, healthcare... and the first thing I get on my desk is -this-?!" I'd have probably vetoed it just for that.

    For some strange reason I like Governor Brewer. She has vetoed a couple of laws now that would appeal to the far right base.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Options
    #10
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    I agree with Brewer's actions. But has anyone here even read the bill? Where in it is the anti-gay language that the op claims?

    http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062s.pdf


  • Options
    #11
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    Amerika wrote: »
    I agree with Brewer's actions. But has anyone here even read the bill? Where in it is the anti-gay language that the op claims?

    http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062s.pdf

    Ireland has a similar piece in our equality laws that allows Catholic schools and hospital to discriminate based on religious ethos.(Due to go for us) While it doesn't specifically specify gay people,the most likely groups to be targeted by such legislation is LGBT people. The same would apply to Arizona's,they're the people who are most vulnerable to this law. Those who want to retain it,wish to do so to discriminate against gay people.

    It's a step back to the days where one could ban people from their establishments because of the colour of one's skin tbh.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 20,885 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    Amerika wrote: »
    I agree with Brewer's actions. But has anyone here even read the bill? Where in it is the anti-gay language that the op claims?

    http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062s.pdf

    The OP never claimed it contained anti-gay language, merely that it was the obvious intent of the bill.

    Surely you can agree?

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Options
    #13
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,821 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Black Swan wrote: »
    Arizona Senate passed SB 1062, which would have allowed businesses to reject service to any customer based on the owners' religious beliefs. For example, a Christian business owner could refuse service to persons of different faiths, including Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Mormons (if they did not believe they were "true" Christians). Protestants could deny Catholics, Missouri Synod Lutherans could deny ELCA Lutherans, Creationists could deny Evolutionists, theists could deny to serve agnostics and atheists, etc.

    This bill got all the way to the Arizona Governor's desk, and if she had signed it, it would have become Arizona law.
    So?

    There are laws on the books in South Carolina that prevent people from holding a public office unless they have a firmly held belief in a Higher Being.

    That said, the Constitution overrides the law, and it simply hasn't been taken off the books yet.


  • Options
    #14
    FISMA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,616 ✭✭✭FISMA


    Black Swan wrote: »
    This bill shows that the spirit and intent of religious discrimination and prejudice are very much alive in the State of Arizona

    What is the deciding factor when the law of man conflicts with the Law of God?

    What about discrimination against religious private business owners?

    Have you not, effectively, outlawed their religious belief and the practice thereof? Their freedom of religion? You are arguing that they be forced to support and condone behaviour that clearly contradicts their beliefs, correct?

    Suppose later on, the laws against hebephilia are dropped or changed. As an individual and business owner, would you condone hebephiles and provide them support?

    Is morality relative or absolute?


  • Options
    #15
    20Cent
    Registered Users Posts: 8,934 ✭✭✭20Cent


    FISMA wrote: »
    What is the deciding factor when the law of man conflicts with the Law of God?

    What about discrimination against religious private business owners?

    Have you not, effectively, outlawed their religious belief and the practice thereof? Their freedom of religion? You are arguing that they be forced to support and condone behaviour that clearly contradicts their beliefs, correct?

    Suppose later on, the laws against hebephilia are dropped or changed. As an individual and business owner, would you condone hebephiles and provide them support?

    Is morality relative or absolute?

    Freedom of religion requires freedom from religion. You can't worship freely if the laws of the land are designed with a particular religion in mind.


  • Options
    #16
    InTheTrees
    Registered Users Posts: 9,900 ✭✭✭InTheTrees


    I believe Mississippi is about to pass a similar law.


  • Options
    #17
    InTheTrees
    Registered Users Posts: 9,900 ✭✭✭InTheTrees


    Religious institutions should have to pay taxes, they effectively get a huge subsidy by not having to pay any.


  • Options
    #18
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    InTheTrees wrote: »
    Religious institutions should have to pay taxes, they effectively get a huge subsidy by not having to pay any.

    Why stop there. How about Educational, Charitable, Scientific, Literary, Testing for Public Safety, Civic Leagues, Social Welfare Organizations, Associations of Employees, Labor Organizations, Agricultural Organizations, Teachers’ Retirement Fund Associations, State Chartered Credit Unions, Cooperative Hospital Service Organizations, etc? They all lobby to have legislation enacted which are beneficial to their causes, values and goals?


  • Options
    #19
    InTheTrees
    Registered Users Posts: 9,900 ✭✭✭InTheTrees


    Amerika wrote: »
    Why stop there.

    :confused:

    Why not stop there?


  • Options
    #20
    ChicagoJoe
    Registered Users Posts: 372 ✭✭ChicagoJoe


    20Cent wrote: »
    The republican controlled state legislators in Arizona tried to pass a law which would allow owners with “sincerely held” religious beliefs the legal right to refuse service to anyone if it would conflict with those beliefs. This would mean Christian business owners could refuse service to people just because they are gay.

    Senate bill 1062 was vetoed by the governor Jan Brewer.

    It throws up an interesting conflict between the rights of business owners and the freedom of citizens not to be discriminated against.

    I'm glad the law was vetoed it is obscene that such discrimination would be allowed in 2014. What is going on with theses republicans who claim freedom yet make laws curbing that freedom!! Can't get my head around it.
    Christ that's all America needs, a new version of the Jim Crow laws :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #21
    onemorechance
    Registered Users Posts: 3,078 ✭✭✭onemorechance


    Surely it's not so simple as a Christian can refuse to serve a Jew simply because of their religion?

    I think it must be service dependent, such as the example where a cake shop owner refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding.

    I doubt that a Christian owned 7/11 could refuse a homosexual from buying a Mars bar for example.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    onemorechance wrote: »
    Surely it's not so simple as a Christian can refuse to serve a Jew simply because of their religion?

    I think it must be service dependent, such as the example where a cake shop owner refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding.

    I doubt that a Christian owned 7/11 could refuse a homosexual from buying a Mars bar for example.

    It's pretty broad,if the business considers a person to be offending their religious ethos. Any shop owner can claim serving a gay customer gay infringes upon their beliefs, no matter how absurd.
    http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062s.pdf


  • Options
    #23
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 20,885 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    Amerika wrote: »
    Why stop there. How about Educational, Charitable, Scientific, Literary, Testing for Public Safety, Civic Leagues, Social Welfare Organizations, Associations of Employees, Labor Organizations, Agricultural Organizations, Teachers’ Retirement Fund Associations, State Chartered Credit Unions, Cooperative Hospital Service Organizations, etc? They all lobby to have legislation enacted which are beneficial to their causes, values and goals?

    What has any of this got to do with lobbying? Religious societies should pay tax because they earn profit. Simple.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Options
    #24
    FISMA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,616 ✭✭✭FISMA


    Brian? wrote: »
    Religious societies should pay tax ... Simple.

    If only it were.

    Many people argue for more taxes in order to help the: homeless, schools, hospitals, children, food kitchens, and elderly, to name but a few.

    That's where the donations are going and at a MUCH higher percentage than my taxes, which are not charity, but forced upon me.

    So if you tax those charitable funds, you are in effect running them through the gov't. To save money? Make money? Seriously? Running the money through a government is going to help? Help who?

    Points of fact:
    The Catholic Church is the most charitable organization on Earth.

    The Catholic Church is the most charitable organization in Ireland.

    The Catholic Church is the most charitable organization in America.

    On a per dollar or per euro basis, the Catholic Church does far more and far better a job than any government organization when it comes to the social services they deliver.

    Politicians understand the above, which is a fundamental reason why religious institutions are not taxed on charitable contributions: it is a losing proposition.

    Do you believe the gov't is going to do a better job than the churches with that money? Seriously? How did the politicians do over the last few years with your tax euros? Are you happy with their job? Do you really want to reward them with more?

    Also, consider Protestant Churches. Their money usually stays local. Localization offers direct oversight as to whom receives the funds. Hence, minimizing fraud.

    It is easy to defraud a gov't, since they are far removed from the distribution process. However, defrauding the person in your community, that probably knows you, is far more difficult and a key to the success of Protestant Churches and charities.

    By the way, are people still flying in to Ireland to draw the dole from their home country?

    In your opinion, in reality, if the Church had to pay taxes, but then pulled all of its services, would the tax payers save money, lose money, or zero sum?


  • Options
    #25
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 20,885 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    FISMA wrote: »
    If only it were.

    It is. Any charitable donations can be written down against tax.
    Many people argue for more taxes in order to help the: homeless, schools, hospitals, children, food kitchens, and elderly, to name but a few.

    That's where the donations are going and at a MUCH higher percentage than my taxes, which are not charity, but forced upon me.

    So if you tax those charitable funds, you are in effect running them through the gov't. To save money? Make money? Seriously? Running the money through a government is going to help? Help who?

    It's not the charitable donations I want taxed. It's the millions brought in by church's which are used to build crystal cathedrals etc.

    Points of fact:
    The Catholic Church is the most charitable organization on Earth.

    The Catholic Church is the most charitable organization in Ireland.

    The Catholic Church is the most charitable organization in America.

    On a per dollar or per euro basis, the Catholic Church does far more and far better a job than any government organization when it comes to the social services they deliver.

    Politicians understand the above, which is a fundamental reason why religious institutions are not taxed on charitable contributions: it is a losing proposition.

    No, the reasons religions aren't taxed is because it would be political suicide.

    Do you believe the gov't is going to do a better job than the churches with that money? Seriously? How did the politicians do over the last few years with your tax euros? Are you happy with their job? Do you really want to reward them with more?

    Also, consider Protestant Churches. Their money usually stays local. Localization offers direct oversight as to whom receives the funds. Hence, minimizing fraud.

    It is easy to defraud a gov't, since they are far removed from the distribution process. However, defrauding the person in your community, that probably knows you, is far more difficult and a key to the success of Protestant Churches and charities.

    By the way, are people still flying in to Ireland to draw the dole from their home country?

    In your opinion, in reality, if the Church had to pay taxes, but then pulled all of its services, would the tax payers save money, lose money, or zero sum?

    Nothing to do with the point at hand. This is a discussion forum for US politics.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Options
    #26
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Brian? wrote: »
    What has any of this got to do with lobbying? Religious societies should pay tax because they earn profit. Simple.

    They reason why lobbying is Important is because the funds are used to get money from politicians, either in the way of obtaining government funding or legislation aimed at advancing their agenda to keep more money in their coffers, and strengthening their membership and influence. "Profit" can easily be made into a shell game... Unions being one of the biggest culprits.


  • Options
    #27
    FISMA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,616 ✭✭✭FISMA


    Today Chase bank, as reported by News.com.a, closed bank accounts owned by high profile porn star.

    Have not heard much about it, far less than the couple that irked the Gaystapo.

    Why are huge banks allowed to pick and their customers, but a small cake shop is not?

    Banks routinely pick and choose their customers. For example, many banks will not do business with anyone in the firearms industry. Anyone looking for a loan to start such a business are routinely denied.

    If you feel the small Christian bakery should be forced to go against their religious beliefs, why should big banks, be afforded the luxury to pick and choose the people with whom they do business?


  • Options
    #28
    jill_valentine
    Registered Users Posts: 7,090 ✭✭✭jill_valentine


    FISMA wrote: »
    Today Chase bank, as reported by News.com.a, closed bank accounts owned by high profile porn star.

    Have not heard much about it, far less than the couple that irked the Gaystapo.

    Why are huge banks allowed to pick and their customers, but a small cake shop is not?

    Banks routinely pick and choose their customers. For example, many banks will not do business with anyone in the firearms industry. Anyone looking for a loan to start such a business are routinely denied.

    If you feel the small Christian bakery should be forced to go against their religious beliefs, why should big banks, be afforded the luxury to pick and choose the people with whom they do business?

    Well, the obvious answer is that they shouldn't.

    Last I heard about the porn star bank story, however, is that it may not have been the banks themselves instigating the moves. Banks like money, after all.

    Also, wtf re: "gaystapo" bit.


  • Options
    #29
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 20,885 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    FISMA wrote: »
    Today Chase bank, as reported by News.com.a, closed bank accounts owned by high profile porn star.

    Have not heard much about it, far less than the couple that irked the Gaystapo.

    Why are huge banks allowed to pick and their customers, but a small cake shop is not?

    Banks routinely pick and choose their customers. For example, many banks will not do business with anyone in the firearms industry. Anyone looking for a loan to start such a business are routinely denied.

    If you feel the small Christian bakery should be forced to go against their religious beliefs, why should big banks, be afforded the luxury to pick and choose the people with whom they do business?

    They shouldn't, it's an absolute disgrace.

    No business should be allowed to discriminate like this, period. Do you support the Bakeries right to discriminate?

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Options
    #30
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    Brian? wrote: »
    They shouldn't, it's an absolute disgrace.

    No business should be allowed to discriminate like this, period. Do you support the Bakeries right to discriminate?

    It's weird that a person can see something that has much in common with racism back in the day as acceptable. Of course it's bloody wrong!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    Jonny7
    Registered Users Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    Brian? wrote: »
    They shouldn't, it's an absolute disgrace.

    No business should be allowed to discriminate like this, period. Do you support the Bakeries right to discriminate?

    It's very unlikely they are discriminating for the sake of discrimination - it's just down to numbers

    Some banks chose not to do business with porn stars, sports stars, politicians because they can be classed as high risk customers and they are simply following risk/compliance/regulatory (and legal) framework

    AKA high risk customers can cost the bank more than they are worth


Advertisement