Arizona Passes Law that Allows Discrimination
- Thread starter ThatNickGuy
- Start date
Some things to consider;
The examples of florist, baker and photographers being sued for not providing their services all occurred in states where it is illegal to discriminate against sexual orientation.
Sexual orientation is not a protected class in Arizona. Under state law it is completely legal to discriminate against some one for being gay.
The major cities of Phoenix, Tucson, and Flagstaff have taken it upon themselves to draft and pass their own municipal legislation making it illegal to discriminate against sexual orientation in those cities.
This bill sought to extend the privileges already granted to religious organizations in the state to not be forced into actions against their religion to include individuals and would only affect individuals inside those three cities.
This post was written while listening to Disposable Heroes.
The examples of florist, baker and photographers being sued for not providing their services all occurred in states where it is illegal to discriminate against sexual orientation.
Sexual orientation is not a protected class in Arizona. Under state law it is completely legal to discriminate against some one for being gay.
The major cities of Phoenix, Tucson, and Flagstaff have taken it upon themselves to draft and pass their own municipal legislation making it illegal to discriminate against sexual orientation in those cities.
This bill sought to extend the privileges already granted to religious organizations in the state to not be forced into actions against their religion to include individuals and would only affect individuals inside those three cities.
This post was written while listening to Disposable Heroes.
Consider http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...e-may-be-understated-in-public-opinion-polls/
Public polling is notoriously hard to do well and interpret correctly. But one such poll gives 53% in support of a national gay marriage mandate, so I'll concede the point.
stienman said:
I think I'm going to outsource my arguing to you from now on, I hope your rates are good.
I will say I've heard the proprietor of a gun store relate a tale of a guy coming in to buy a gun. "Why do you want it?" he asked. "To kill that <n-word>," he replied. The potential customer further went on to say that if he did not sell him a suitable weapon during his visit, that he would sue him for racial discrimination (the patron was black, the owner was white). In the end, he sold the man a 12ga double-barreled shotgun, figuring that if he was going to be railroaded (blackmailed, really) into this situation, he did not want the guy who was going to be on the receiving end of the blast to have any chance of suing him (the business owner) as an accessory. The story (which may or may not be apocryphal) went that the customer waited until the victim showed up, emptied both barrels simultaneously through a screen door (killing the victim, obviously) and the recoil was enough to temporarily injure the (inexperienced) customer such that it aided in his apprehension. I do not know the ultimate outcome, but it was an interesting conundrum. I wonder at exactly what proportion of responsibility the owner should bear, compared to what proportion he believes he bears.
--Patrick
Well, that took a turn I wasn't expecting.
That was pretty brilliant.
I'm glad you specified, 'cause I would've been confused. But as for being done, pretty much probably?
EDIT: Forget it; I don't want to get into it, it was two pages ago.
The NFL may have been a factor, but the bigger issues were that it was legislation that had no benefit for the majority of the states citizens, inflamed relations between rural and urban centres and put the state business at considerable risk of legal action at the same time as establishing a precedent for granting protections held previously by only corporate entities onto individuals. Every (what ever adjective describes law making) lawyer in the state was of the mind that the bill could only generate a flux of litigious nightmares for the state government.