Fair or Foul? - Religious owned businesses can refuse service to homosexuals
Options
VIBE
Members Posts: 54,384 ✭✭✭✭✭
Kansas, Arizona bills reflect national fight over ? rights vs. religious liberty
? rights are colliding with religious rights in states like Arizona and Kansas as the national debate over ? marriage morphs into a fight over the dividing line between religious liberty and anti-? discrimination.
More broadly, the fight mirrors the national debate on whether the religious rights of business owners also extend to their for-profit companies. Next month, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether companies like Hobby Lobby must provide contraceptive services that their owners consider immoral.
The Arizona bill, which is headed to Gov. Jan Brewer’s desk for her signature, would allow people who object to same-sex marriage to use their religious beliefs as a defense in a discrimination lawsuit.
Similar legislation has been introduced in Ohio, Mississippi, Idaho, South Dakota, Tennessee and Oklahoma, according to The Associated Press, while other efforts are stalled in Idaho, Ohio and Kansas.
A bill in Kansas that passed the state House but appears dead in the state Senate was blasted by critics as a “? segregation” bill, allowing businesses, hotels and restaurants to deny services or accommodations to ? and lesbians based on an employee’s religious convictions.
Proponents cite the case of a New Mexico photographer who was sued after she declined to take photos of a ? commitment ceremony. In asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review her case, photographer Elaine Huguenin said she could take a portrait of a ? couple but not participate in their same-sex ceremony because it would violate her religious beliefs.
In ruling against Huguenin’s case, New Mexico Supreme Court Justice Richard C. Bosson wrote that while Huguenin and her husband are “free to think, to say, to believe, as they wish,” the public accommodation of differing beliefs is “the price of citizenship.”
The Arizona bill would broaden the state’s definition of the exercise of religion to include both the practice and observance of religious beliefs. It would expand those protected under the state’s free-exercise-of-religion law to “any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution or other business organization.”
The law was written by the conservative advocacy group Center for Arizona Policy and Alliance Defending Freedom, a prominent Arizona-based Christian law firm.
At the federal level, ? rights advocates for 20 years have failed to win passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would prohibit businesses from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.
“This is the next front in ? rights,” said Adam Winkler, a law professor at UCLA. “These laws, by making this issue front and center, will encourage more efforts to pass a federal anti-discrimination law.”
While the Kansas bill explicitly allows businesses and individuals to deny services to ? and lesbians, Arizona’s law is worded more broadly to apply to anything that could violate a person’s religious conscience.
The Kansas bill sparked some infighting within Christian circles. After commentator Kirsten Powers published a column in USA Today arguing that Jesus would bake a cake for a same-sex couple, it set off a chain of objections.
In response to some of the criticism he received for his quotes in the column, Atlanta-area megachurch pastor Andy Stanley tweeted: “Remember the time Jesus told everybody to quit paying taxes imposed by Rome? That was awesome.” And: “Remember that awesome speech Jesus gave about defending religious liberty?” He later deleted the tweets.
The Kansas Catholic Conference released a defense of the bill, written on a model from the Washington-based Ethics and Public Policy Center. But even those debating Christians’ role in the debate were hesitant to defend the wording used in the Kansas law.
“I have no interest in defending the legislation that recently failed in Kansas,” wrote Denny Burk of Boyce College. “I think that good people can disagree on whether that particular law would have been a good idea.”
Arizona already has a state Religious Freedom Restoration Act that protects a person’s free exercise of religion, similar to legislation in about 15 or so other states. The new law is simply strengthening the earlier one, said Charles Haynes, senior scholar at the Freedom Forum First Amendment Center.
“Nondiscrimination is an important American value and a strong value on civil rights. Religious freedom is also highly valued. It’s a core commitment of our country,” he said. “You have two very important claims, and the challenge is to balance these claims, especially when it comes to for-profit businesses.”
Finding a balance between the two will be hard to navigate, said Douglas Laycock, a professor at University of Virginia Law School.
“It’s hard to get the middle that protects the rights of ? individuals to marry and protects the rights of those who don’t want to participate,” he said. “Both ? rights and religious liberty people want rights for their side but not for the other.”
? ? ? tl;dr
Religious owned businesses can refuse services to homosexuals in a new bill if signed by Arizona govener.
It's discrimination and a violation of the constitution, but is this fair or foul to you?
Comments
-
Fair. Business is business and I respect the right to refuse service.
-
I personally don't want to go anyplace I'm not welcome. But still how can they tell your a homosexual?
-
-
Sure but its dumb af on their part
? usually have more expendable income than heterosexual ppl
Money is green -
long as it's a private institution & they're not getting federal/state funding then they can do what they want.
i'm not sure why they'd turn the business down tho. it's a bunch of depraved mufuckas that aren't ? that patron all types of establishments. *shrug* -
how they gonna identify the homosexuals? they wear badges or they think they'll be skipping and tongue kissing upon entry in to the establishments?
-
If it is acceptable for them to do this against ? , it should also be acceptable in the case of blacks. So foul.
-
I think its actually easy to spot a ? .
Like this chick kept telling me about her male best friend, I was a little concerned. Then she shows me a snap of the dude and I thought to myself "oh ok, this dude is probably a ? " just off a 6 second snapchat I saw. And then she's like "yeah he's totally ? " and I thought it was hilarious how easy it was to tell. -
I support a business right to refuse service to anyone they choose. I think the point of it is that if someone comes in tossing glitter and pixie dust in many ways to make it obvious that they are ? then it applies when its more than transparent.
-
If white clubs can turn black folk away for "baggy jeans"...
And im noticin a pattern. @Vibe is a ? pacifist. He pacifies ? -
Lord_Hannibal wrote: »Fair. Business is business and I respect the right to refuse service.
I hope that one day you experience someone's "right" to refuse YOU service!! -
A Talented One wrote: »If it is acceptable for them to do this against ? , it should also be acceptable in the case of blacks. So foul.
Change your avi ? pacifist #2. I dny like thw association -
The user and all related content has been deleted.
-
u can't refuse service for any ol ? reason...
-
Saying you support the right to refuse is basicaly like saying you supported segregation.
-
The user and all related content has been deleted.
-
Lord_Hannibal wrote: »Fair. Business is business and I respect the right to refuse service.
I hope that one day you experience someone's "right" to refuse YOU service!!
I brushed it off and took my money elsewhere.
I wasn't wearing a tie and blazer and they wouldn't let me dine in their restaurant.
You can't get mad and catch feelings bcuz someone doesn't want your money. Chalk that ? up and keep pushing.
-
The user and all related content has been deleted.
-
Lord_Hannibal wrote: »Lord_Hannibal wrote: »Fair. Business is business and I respect the right to refuse service.
I hope that one day you experience someone's "right" to refuse YOU service!!
I brushed it off and took my money elsewhere.
I wasn't wearing a tie and blazer and they wouldn't let me dine in their restaurant.
You can't get mad and catch feelings bcuz someone doesn't want your money. Chalk that ? up and keep pushing.
-
i think they are talking about the overt ? ... the "normal" ? prolly could be unnoticed...
-
INB4 somebody compares ? to bl......A Talented One wrote: »If it is acceptable for them to do this against ? , it should also be acceptable in the case of blacks. So foul.
......Too late.
-
Saying you support the right to refuse is basicaly like saying you supported segregation.
different... these people are saying they dont want 2 be around/ disagree with that life style (religious reasons)... segregation was based off our color only.. -
I can never understand hating someone because they are different even if you are religious. Being religious should make you be more humble and respectful than the opposite. You know my feelings on ? , but refusing to serve them will open up to refusing people for being people in general. Things such as clothing and etiquette does not compare to sexuality or race. If they want to refuse making money then so be it though.
-
ugh.
I hate ignorance.
this ? happened to blacks, Latinos, Asians, native americans and others.
? that ? . -
Saying you support the right to refuse is basicaly like saying you supported segregation.
And what's wrong with that