It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

BREAKING: AZ Senate Passes 'Right to Discriminate' Bill

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by QueenofSpades
 


Yes but in those cases it was a clear discrimination because the owners were stupid enough to claim "the why" they were refusing service. Hence my statement, if you are dumb enough to say why you are refusing service instead of just saying I don't wish to serve you, you deserve the consequences of your actions..

It would be like the religious exception that CPS loves to harp on, as some religions are opposed to (I can't imagine why but they are) medical treatment of any kind outside of homeopathic remedies. They routinely take parents to court over those exemptions and lose every single last time... But it doesn't stop them from trying and someday they may find a judge that agrees with their position.

The simple fact remains that if you do not give a reason for refusal, just a refusal, (unless you are a hotel/motel as there are specific rules for lodging that every state has, and the refusal reasons must be one of a handful) then you cannot get in trouble for it, if you state that you are refusing because you don't cater to people that worship the Great Spaghetti Monster then you are guilty of discrimination under Federal Civil Rights Laws... it's a tough one for a business, which i why most, don't refuse except in very controlled conditions..



(post by buster2010 removed for political trolling and baiting)

posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 08:52 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by vkey08
 


Exactly.

This is what I have tried to explain, yet they keep assuming that discrimination means "to physicaly harm".

And yes, a private business owner should technically have the right to refuse service; just don't state the reason why.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 11:56 AM
link   

flammadraco
reply to post by ATSmediaPRO
 


I'm shocked at some of the comments on this thread supporting this bill. What happens when Atheist and Deism's business owners refuse to serve Christian's and other religious folks. What will happen if a rich Jewish businessman buys a load of land and builds houses just for other Jewish people, and refuses to sell homes to Christian's.


Well I'd say that's THEIR prerogative ! Thats what it's supposed to be like in the US - a business owner should have the freedom to refuse service to anyone - even if he just doesn't like the persons looks.

You don't want to be refused as a Christian, don't use a Jewish rental service - LOL.. it IS really that simple.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


And then this will be a slippery slope for the US. As someone has already said during this thread, this will be the downfall for religion in the Western World, this will take the US back years.

How on Earth did a country that sent man to the moon have such backward views on equality. Would be interesting to know what the average IQ score would be in these states that want to bring in this draconian law. I can't see it being above average IMO.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 12:09 PM
link   

QueenofSpades
reply to post by vkey08
 


Exactly.

This is what I have tried to explain, yet they keep assuming that discrimination means "to physicaly harm".

And yes, a private business owner should technically have the right to refuse service; just don't state the reason why.


It's discrimination for me to refer to an African American using the "N" word. That's not physical harm either but still classed as discrimination.

And Yes this kind of discrimination can physically affect someone, The physical effects are: headaches, poor appetite, a change in eating habits, sleeplessness, loss/gain of weight, deterioration of health, bruises, ulcers, lack of personal hygiene and lack of energy. the emotional effects are: low self esteem, lack of confidence, feeling unwanted, insecurity, becoming withdrawn, depression/stress, anxiety..... The list goes on.

What happens when this backfires onto religious people when other businesses decide they don't want to deal with Christians? This mentality will take the US back decades.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by bbracken677
 



Beezer
I don't hate gay folks. I don't hate Christian folks. I don't hate Muslim folks. I don't hate Jewish folks. I don't hate smokers. I don't hate obese people. I don't hate tall people or short people or thin people. I don't hate white people black people yellow people or brown people.



Me
But this issue isn't about you and how you feel. It's about the empowerment of people who DO hate gay folk, Muslim folk, etc, etc, and moving the social collective line in the sand backwards into ignorant territory. Because, prejudice and bigotry are borne of ignorance.



You
Or is it about a business owner's rights to run his business as he chooses?


Frankly, I don't think it is. I think that most business owners are like Beezer. They don't hate gay folks, Muslim folk, etc., This law is for the business owners who's remedial hatred they are unable to control, and therefore need a special exemption of the law and legal protection from civil suits, in order to project that hate into their business practices and onto their would be customers.

Just my opinion.







edit on 21-2-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by flammadraco
 


Actually, you do have the right to say any word you please. Use of that word does not constitute physical harm or a violation of any civil right.

I'm black; I may feel 'offended' by the use of the 'n' word, but offending should not be a crime.

We can't take away people's right to dislike a person's sexual orientation, religion, or even appearance.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 01:30 PM
link   
How many times has it been said that "you can't legislate morality" when it came to abortion?

Yet now, people are being "legislated to acceptance" of a characteristic that goes against their religious teachings.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 




Yet now, people are being "legislated to acceptance" of a characteristic that goes against their religious teachings.


"Acceptance of a characteristic"? As opposed to what?

In early AD Rome, Roman tax collectors determined what the appropriate tax rate for men was by examining their genitals. If they were circumcised (like Jews were) they paid a higher tax, because of their religious "characteristic".

Should we allow our society to go back in proverbial time and subject certain people to different standards, higher prices or flat out banishment based on the color of their skin or their race, like the mixed gender couple that recently got Cheerios in hot water, gender or the religion of who they befriend or love?




edit on 21-2-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by QueenofSpades
 


Then your understanding of the word "discrimination" is flawed;

discrimination
NOUN
[MASS NOUN]
1the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex:
victims of racial discrimination
discrimination against homosexuals

www.oxforddictionaries.com...



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


So you think that we can legislate morality?



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


I don't equate treating people equally, under the law of the land, with legislating morality. Justice is blind, not necessarily moral.

EDIT: No, I don't think we can, nor should we try to legislate morality. But we should demand civility.
edit on 21-2-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 02:18 PM
link   

windword
reply to post by beezzer
 


I don't equate treating people equally, under the law of the land, with legislating morality. Justice is blind, not necessarily moral.

EDIT: No, I don't think we can, nor should we try to legislate morality. But we should demand civility.
edit on 21-2-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)


You aren't demanding civility.

You're legislating it.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 





You aren't demanding civility.

You're legislating it.


What's the difference?



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 02:26 PM
link   

windword
reply to post by beezzer
 





You aren't demanding civility.

You're legislating it.


What's the difference?



People have a choice if you're simply demanding it.

Once you legislate it, they have no choice.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by bbracken677
 


How is serving someone in a Restaurant a Religious Freedom? i may be Ignorant to religious scriptures and Dogma, but in the Bible does it say "Thou Shalt not serve homosexuals"? maybe hyperbolic but i wonder, how is having the "Right" to discriminate providing Religious Freedom?

Do i being a Gay male wanting to purchase something take away someones religious freedom? you are Free to practice and believe what you want, these people want protection against discrimination, it has nothing to do with Religion. and for all those that want smaller government, and the "Liberal Big Government" is destroying the constitution are the same people that want the Government to grant them Rights to discriminate, Hypocritical the House Down!

Your point on how do they know someone is Gay is the same as the Witch Trials, they can assume anyone is and deny them until they "Prove" they are Straight. how would one prove they are Heterosexual or Homosexual?



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


I disagree, but we're only talking semantics, I guess.

I see it as "asking" verses "demanding". We are all asked to be courteous drivers, but the law demands all drivers to stop at a stop sign. Of course, one can run a stop sign, but if a police officer sees it, a ticket and a demand of the payment of a fine will be issued. Of course, one can refuse to pay the fine.........



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 02:41 PM
link   

windword
reply to post by beezzer
 


I disagree, but we're only talking semantics, I guess.

I see it as "asking" verses "demanding". We are all asked to be courteous drivers, but the law demands all drivers to stop at a stop sign. Of course, one can run a stop sign, but if a police officer sees it, a ticket and a demand of the payment of a fine will be issued. Of course, one can refuse to pay the fine.........



The problem is that for centuries, Christians thought and were taught that homosexuality was wrong.

Now society is saying that it isn't wrong. So the Christians are being forced to change.

Which goes against their religious beliefs. And that is protected in the 1st Amendment.

So who gets denied their rights?

Homosexuals?
Christians?

The answer has been made clear with most stating that Christians should be denied their rights over homosexuals.

I'm saying that when we stop discriminating against one group only to start discriminating against another group, we haven't solved a single problem.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join