Arizona Passes Law that Allows Discrimination

ThatNickGuy

ThatNickGuy

http://www.bilerico.com/2014/02/breaking_az_senate_passes_right_to_discriminate_bi.php

Okay, I'm dropping a rare F-bomb for this one:

What the FUCK, Arizona?

This afternoon, on a party-line 17-13 vote, Republicans in the Arizona Senate bucked the national trend and gave final approval to SB 1062, a GOP-led bill that would create a special "right" to discriminate against LGBT people on the basis of religion.

Under the bill, which was introduced by Republican State Senator Steve Yarbrough, individuals and businesses would be granted the legal right to refuse services to people or groups if they claimed that doing so would "substantially burden" their freedom of religion.

In interviews with local media, Yarbrough made it perfectly clear that the specific purpose of this bill is to legitimize discrimination against the LGBT community. But during today's nearly two-hour-long debate, Yarbrough took a different tack, claiming that the basic rights of LGBT people victimize anti-LGBT Christians.
"This bill is not about allowing discrimination. This bill is about preventing discrimination against people who are clearly living out their faith."​
Arizona Senate Democratic Leader Anna Tovar condemned the legislation in a statement released shortly after the vote. It's after the jump.
"SB 1062 permits discrimination under the guise of religious freedom. With the express consent of Republicans in this Legislature, many Arizonans will find themselves members of a separate and unequal class under this law because of their sexual orientation. This bill may also open the door to discriminate based on race, familial status, religion, sex, national origin, age or disability.

"Legislation of this kind has been attempted this year in Kansas, South Dakota, Tennessee and Idaho. Each of those attempts failed after prominent members of the business community spoke against the measures. While our state continues to recover from the public relations nightmare of SB 1070, the Republican supporters of this bill are willing to elicit the inevitable backlash and boycotts that will result from its passage.

"Arizona does not need this bill, Arizonans do not want this bill and there is no place for this bill in our modern society. We have come too far to turn back the clock with such a disgraceful assault on members of our community based on their sexual orientation."​
The language in Yarbrough's bill is so broad that it could also potentially allow individuals and businesses to discriminate against other protected groups, including unmarried women and non-Christians.

A companion bill is pending before the Arizona House and could come up for a vote anytime. It reportedly stands a good chance of passing.

Stay tuned, folks: Arizona may soon legalize anti-LGBT discrimination. "Because Jesus" could literally become a valid excuse for refusing service to queers in the Grand Canyon State.
Click to expand...
 
bhamv3

bhamv3

So... could I move to Arizona and start my own religion, with a central tenet of "Thou Shalt Not Be a Dumbass", and then refuse service to all these people?
 
Terrik

Terrik

Wait, did any of you guys read the bill? I'm confused. It says its a revision---are the revised parts the parts in blue?
 
Yoshimickster

Yoshimickster

...wow. I...I didn't think it was possible, I have even MORE reason not to revisit Arizona! Hold on...nope sky isn't cracking...yet.

No offense to any Arizonans out there who are cool, its just that everytime I walked in your state I felt like I was walking in an uncomfortable oven. Not JUST an oven, an uncomfortable oven.
 
Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

My aunts are moving to Arizona. If this becomes a problem, I will visit, buy stuff for them, and as I leave the store yell, "Joke's on you! I'm giving this to gay people, suckers!"
 
Ravenpoe

Ravenpoe

Let's ignore how reprehensible this bill is for just a moment, and look at it from the business side of view, which is supposedly is for.

Why would a business -want- to discriminate? It's just asking to be slapped with a civil suit. Basically this bill is inviting people to "Go ahead, be a dick, break the law. It's cool."
 
Dave

Dave

Staff member
Ravenpoe said:
Let's ignore how reprehensible this bill is for just a moment, and look at it from the business side of view, which is supposedly is for.

Why would a business -want- to discriminate? It's just asking to be slapped with a civil suit. Basically this bill is inviting people to "Go ahead, be a dick, break the law. It's cool."
Click to expand...
Look at some places like Chick-fil-A. When it came out (-heh-) that they were anti-gay, there was a smallish backlash and then a MAJOR push by conservative and religious organizations to give them business. Here in Omaha there were lines around the block to get in. For a fucking chicken sandwich.

Never underestimate the buying power of butt-hurt idiots. And considering the majority of people who live in that state are conservative, this idiocy will probably bring business.
 
Bubble181

Bubble181

A) How do you even identify the gay? If I walk in holding hands with Dave, does that mean they can refuse me service? If I then French kiss a waitress, do they have to serve me after all? Will they force all of those filthy demon gay to wear a yellow star on their sleeve?
B) Denying them communion, marriage in your church, that sort of thing - ok. But how is "Thou shalt not serve a beer to a filthy queer" a religious tenet? Does this mean they can refuse service to anyone not in the state of grace? Serving a Muslim or an atheist must be just as wrong as serving a filthy queer. Does that mean you can discriminate against religions again? Huzzah.
C) Lot was, according to the Bible, free from sin. However, he did live in, and drive commerce with, all those dirty sodomites. It says so right in the Bible. Ergo, it is possible to trade with gays and heathens without yourself losing your religious purity. Ergo, this law is bollocks.
 
Krisken

Krisken

Bubble181 said:
A) How do you even identify the gay? If I walk in holding hands with Dave, does that mean they can refuse me service? If I then French kiss a waitress, do they have to serve me after all? Will they force all of those filthy demon gay to wear a yellow star on their sleeve?
B) Denying them communion, marriage in your church, that sort of thing - ok. But how is "Thou shalt not serve a beer to a filthy queer" a religious tenet? Does this mean they can refuse service to anyone not in the state of grace? Serving a Muslim or an atheist must be just as wrong as serving a filthy queer. Does that mean you can discriminate against religions again? Huzzah.
C) Lot was, according to the Bible, free from sin. However, he did live in, and drive commerce with, all those dirty sodomites. It says so right in the Bible. Ergo, it is possible to trade with gays and heathens without yourself losing your religious purity. Ergo, this law is bollocks.
Click to expand...
You can't use the Bible to support your argument. That's their weapon, not yours!
 
Dave

Dave

Staff member
Bubble181 said:
C) Lot was, according to the Bible, free from sin. However, he did live in, and drive commerce with, all those dirty sodomites. It says so right in the Bible. Ergo, it is possible to trade with gays and heathens without yourself losing your religious purity. Ergo, this law is bollocks.
Click to expand...
I love the story of Lot. It's the one where his two daughters thought to themselves, "Hey! There are no men in the desert! Let's get dad drunk and have sex with him so we can have babies!" And they did. And the Lord said the incest was good.[DOUBLEPOST=1392994233,1392994192][/DOUBLEPOST]Oh, and this was shortly after his wife wasn't bad-ass enough to not look back at an explosion, so God turned her into a condiment.
 
Espy

Espy

Now, now Dave, lets remember that just because something historical is in the Bible (like the story of Lot's daughters) it's not there because it's "approved" by God, it's there because it's a part of the story. And even when something *IS* approved by God in the OT we have to learn to understand those things in the context of Ancient Near Eastern Cultures, and let me tell you, it's WAY more complicated than just "God said it". In fact that kind of phrasing is the sort of clue that you need to look deeper at the actual Hebrew language and what was happening culturally at the time.

#yesIhave$50000instudentloansfromgradschool
 
figmentPez

figmentPez

Staff member
I once had a very long argument, on another forum, about how a church should have a right to fire the church secretary who was, openly, in an adulterous relationship. I'm fine with religious institutions requiring that those who represent them actually follow the teachings of that religion. However, this law is stupid. A business is not the same as a church, and should not be treated that way. If you're running a motel, you don't get to turn away the man with his "niece" because you suspect he's having an affair. If you don't know the guy, that's none of your damn business, and most of the time it's not any of your business even if you do know him.

If it harms your religion to do business with sinners, then shut down your business, because there are no customers left to serve.
 
Espy

Espy

Honestly, I cannot for the life of me (and again: $50motherfuckingTHOUSAND in student loans from seminary here), figure out how ANYONE can find anything in scripture that says stuff like this is ok. I can get how they get to the "I think the gay lifestyle is sin, etc" stuff, even if I think thats based on some really terrible interpretation and bad cultural understandings, but not selling a cake to a gay person? Not letting them pay you for your services?

I. Do. NOT. Get. It.

Other than people are horrible bigots. Thats the only thing I can figure out. Because I can't find this in the Bible. If Jesus could sit down and eat with prostitutes and hang with the villains of the day surely your ass can sell some dude a widget.
 
Bowielee

Bowielee

Bubble181 said:
Will they force all of those filthy demon gay to wear a yellow star on their sleeve?
Click to expand...
That was the Jews, we got the pink triangles. Just thought I'd point that out because some people don't even know that gays were also victims of the holocaust.

Speaking of which, doesn't this also allow religious discrimination as well? Because that would be ironic seeing as the backbone of the argument of the bill is to curb "religious discrimination" by forcing you to consort with those filthy homos.
 
Dave

Dave

Staff member
Bowielee said:
That was the Jews, we got the pink triangles. Just thought I'd point that out because some people don't even know that gays were also victims of the holocaust.

Speaking of which, doesn't this also allow religious discrimination as well? Because that would be ironic seeing as the backbone of the argument of the bill is to curb "religious discrimination" by forcing you to consort with those filthy homos.
Click to expand...
It'll probably be more in the vein of, "We ain't serving no filthy muslims!" than anything else.

I always think it would be great if they allowed some of these places to become the homogeneous places they would like it to be. Take a state like Arizona, tell them to have at it, then remove all federal monies and protections. Watch them pull in their Aryan utopia and watch it become the christian version of a sharia country.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Cut Arizona some slack, you guys, they're stressed out because they're beseiged by roaming packs of feral Chihuahuas.

 
Ravenpoe

Ravenpoe

figmentPez said:
I once had a very long argument, on another forum, about how a church should have a right to fire the church secretary who was, openly, in an adulterous relationship.
Click to expand...
Ok, I know this isn't the topic of this thread, but I have to know... why should they fire her? Because she's committing a sin? Isn't one of the tenets of Christianity that we are all sinners? That only God can judge? Let he who is without sin, etc etc?
 
Cajungal

Cajungal

Staff member
Ravenpoe said:
Ok, I know this isn't the topic of this thread, but I have to know... why should they fire her? Because she's committing a sin? Isn't one of the tenets of Christianity that we are all sinners? That only God can judge? Let he who is without sin, etc etc?
Click to expand...
Agreed. It's like the Catholic schools here making their teachers sign a morality contract.
 
figmentPez

figmentPez

Staff member
Ravenpoe said:
Ok, I know this isn't the topic of this thread, but I have to know... why should they fire her? Because she's committing a sin? Isn't one of the tenets of Christianity that we are all sinners? That only God can judge? Let he who is without sin, etc etc?
Click to expand...
It was unrepentant sin. If I remember correctly it was a very unusual case where the affair was made public, and the woman refused to admit that what she was doing was wrong. It wasn't simply that she'd violated some morals clause, and was being fired for a momentary lapse; she was actively pursuing a lifestyle that was contrary to the teachings of the church, and refused to change.
 
Ravenpoe

Ravenpoe

figmentPez said:
It was unrepentant sin. If I remember correctly it was a very unusual case where the affair was made public, and the woman refused to admit that what she was doing was wrong. It wasn't simply that she'd violated some morals clause, and was being fired for a momentary lapse; she was actively pursuing a lifestyle that was contrary to the teachings of the church, and refused to change.
Click to expand...
"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"

Even outside the fact that they shouldn't be judging her, Churches still must adhere to mortal authority. So even if they do decide they want to cast the first stone, they still can't, because the law says discrimination is wrong no matter how much they want to discriminate.
 
figmentPez

figmentPez

Staff member
Ravenpoe said:
"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"

Even outside the fact that they shouldn't be judging her, Churches still must adhere to mortal authority. So even if they do decide they want to cast the first stone, they still can't, because the law says discrimination is wrong no matter how much they want to discriminate.
Click to expand...
First off, see 1 Corinthians chapter 5 for how the Church is supposed to deal with it's own members. The Church is supposed to judge it's own. "13 God will judge those outside. 'Expel the wicked person from among you.'" Who is, and is not, a member of a church is not under the government's say. Thus your "render unto Caesar" argument is completely irrelevant.

Second, it's well established that religious groups are allowed to discriminate in hiring practices when it affects their ability to promote their religious views. Church are well within their right to fill staff positions with people who believe, promote, and practice, what they, as a group, believe. This has been challenged in the courts, and the courts have sided with religious institutions on the matter. (That's why the Boy Scouts are allowed to discriminate against having homosexual leaders.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top