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: 8
8
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by bbracken677
 


Sorry, I don't have enough information about the motivation behind or the negative and/or postive outcomes of Affirmative Actions to comment one way or another on the subject.

My arguments and opinions are about the Arizona SB 1062 Bill.

The bill isn't just about Christians taking religious liberties with the rights of "non-believers", it cuts numerous ways.


But conservative Arizonans should also remember that as there is no state-sanctioned religion in the United States, SB 1062 provides a foothold into Arizona of both Sharia law, and, yes, even Satanism. Believe it or not, “the Devil made me do it” — if the House approves the measure — will become the law of the land in the Grand Canyon state.

thenewcivilrightsmovement.com... ldWSo



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




posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 08:49 AM
link   

vkey08
one thing..

Businesses are not public, they are privately owned, unless they are owned by the town the state or the federal government so it is the owners of said business, even if they are catering to the public that would be the ones impacted.

So yes the First amendment and any law that Arizona is trying to pass would also apply to a C Corp as much as it would apply to an individual in this case, from a strictly legal point of view..

Not taking sides in this argument, just pointing out how Civil Rights would see this one, should it ever come up in the Civil Rights office...


Businesses are not private property in the same way that homes are. Public Accommodations, dates back to Old English law and remained through the Revolution and the Civil War up until today. During the Civil Rights movement is when Jim Crow laws were done away with because those laws defined black people as NOT part of the public. Businesses that serve the public must serve the ENTIRE public, not pick and choose who is a member of the public and who isn't.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Kali74

vkey08
one thing..

Businesses are not public, they are privately owned, unless they are owned by the town the state or the federal government so it is the owners of said business, even if they are catering to the public that would be the ones impacted.

So yes the First amendment and any law that Arizona is trying to pass would also apply to a C Corp as much as it would apply to an individual in this case, from a strictly legal point of view..

Not taking sides in this argument, just pointing out how Civil Rights would see this one, should it ever come up in the Civil Rights office...


Businesses are not private property in the same way that homes are. Public Accommodations, dates back to Old English law and remained through the Revolution and the Civil War up until today. During the Civil Rights movement is when Jim Crow laws were done away with because those laws defined black people as NOT part of the public. Businesses that serve the public must serve the ENTIRE public, not pick and choose who is a member of the public and who isn't.


If yo notice I singled out hotels/motels as they have specific laws that pertain to them, however, you can choose who to do business with and who not to, the best example of this would be:

Say you are in the business of doing logos. Fine, it's cool work if you can get it.

Along comes someone wanting a logo that really irks you. Under your line of thinking, you would HAVE to service them because your'e a business and cannot pick and choose who your clientele is. You do the work and get stiffed on payment. Now you have to spend hours and hours and hours and lots of money to recover said payment. All because someone claims your business is public.

Fortunately it doesn't work that way and every business in this country has the legal right to deny service to anyone FOR ANY REASON, so long as they do not openly state the reason. And conversely... every person that is turned down for doing service with a business, CAN write bad reviews, and pass along through word of mouth not to do business with said.

However, I did agree up a few posts that Motels/Hotels (which includes restaurants to some degree as they have some leeway to refuse a customer) actually have laws in place that give only a small certain set of conditions where service can be refused..



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by vkey08
 


Click the link, it gives a large sample of what is considered Public Accommodations. To answer your question, if I am a graphic designer that advertises my business or skill to the public then I don't get to refuse service to anyone unless they are causing a raucous in my place of business or disrupting it in any way. Now if I am person that feels so strongly that I can't do business with all members of the public, I need to think about how I'm going to make a living practicing my skill set, I can become an independent contractor and for example if I'm a Christian and don't want to do business with gay people or non-Christians, I can contact churches and see about putting my name and services in their weekly bulletins, monthly news letters, church boards etc.

The Constitution does not grant the right to open a business, it doesn't grant the right to open a business to part of the public as determined by your own self, it doesn't grant you the right to open a business free from legislation.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Nobody legalized anything. From the OP's source:



Ms. Brewer, who has taken no public position on the legislation that will reach her desk next week .......... vetoed a similar religious freedom bill last year, arguing that it was a distraction from priorities lawmakers had yet to address, including the state budget. And there are similar circumstances this year, as legislators have yet to act on a package of proposed changes to the state’s child welfare system, which has been plagued by a slow response to complaints of abuse and neglect.



And she's right, there are more important issues in Arizona than regulating how businesses choose to conduct their business. If a business doesn't like gay people because of the owners' religious preference, then maybe gay people shouldn't patronize it instead of sueing it, which is effectively forcing the business to serve customers they don't want to, by bringing in the state lawmakers to make that choice for them.

If that business is in the wrong, they will soon see that by way of people not coming in and eventually forcing them to close their doors because no one is spending their money there. This is a choice people need to make for themselves and I think the governor recognizes that as well because there are many issues with children in this state, who can't make choices for themselves, that need to be addressed first.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Kali74

vkey08
one thing..

Businesses are not public, they are privately owned, unless they are owned by the town the state or the federal government so it is the owners of said business, even if they are catering to the public that would be the ones impacted.

So yes the First amendment and any law that Arizona is trying to pass would also apply to a C Corp as much as it would apply to an individual in this case, from a strictly legal point of view..

Not taking sides in this argument, just pointing out how Civil Rights would see this one, should it ever come up in the Civil Rights office...


Businesses are not private property in the same way that homes are. Public Accommodations, dates back to Old English law and remained through the Revolution and the Civil War up until today. During the Civil Rights movement is when Jim Crow laws were done away with because those laws defined black people as NOT part of the public. Businesses that serve the public must serve the ENTIRE public, not pick and choose who is a member of the public and who isn't.


Ah, but you have the concept of corporate personhood of which the Supreme Court has set a precedent regarding free speech with a recent ruling. The concept of corporate personhood extends back to the days of the Romans.

So...this may very well make it to the Supreme Court before all is said and done. The ramifications of that ruling will likely ring for years unless SCOTUS shuts it down quickly.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Taupin Desciple
 


Well stated.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Kali74
reply to post by vkey08
 



The Constitution does not grant the right to open a business, it doesn't grant the right to open a business to part of the public as determined by your own self, it doesn't grant you the right to open a business free from legislation.


It does not exclude the above either, no?

digitalcommons.law.uga.edu...



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by bbracken677
 


And it didn't end too well for the Romans.

At any rate SCOTUS essentially though not literally placed LGBTQ citizens as protected class when DOMA was struck down. Much more of this nonsense could propel that into solidification which will of course nullify any crap laws such as this AZ law.


2. DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 13-26.


Outside the Beltway



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by bbracken677
 


Exclude, nope. But there definitely seems to be more wiggle room Constitutionally for the courts to side with gay folk over business owners wishing to practice discrimination.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


There is no pretty much to it. They are a protected class.

I might add, a concept that to me is abhorrent as it is used.

Equal is supposed to mean just that. Not more than equal, not less than equal...equal. How the protected class concept is used is nothing more than institutionalized discrimination perpetrated by our federal government.

I do not abhor what the intent is behind the protected class concept...it is an attempt to establish equality. The actuality though is much different.



edit on 22-2-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Kali74
reply to post by bbracken677
 


Exclude, nope. But there definitely seems to be more wiggle room Constitutionally for the courts to side with gay folk over business owners wishing to practice discrimination.


I have an extreme quandary in that I believe that people should not discriminate, but I also believe that a business owner should be able to conduct his business as he sees fit.

Kinda like I think the guy that lives next door has the right to be a jerk all he wants to be as long as he does not harm me, mine nor threaten me or mine.

Seems that if a business owner would decide to exclude a part of the population that would, normally, buy his product or service that the loss is the owner's. In this day and age, that could mean the difference between success and failure. Survival of the fittest ... or rather, success to the better business model.

In the arena of gay...I mean really, if a gay person did not advertise their sexual orientation how would a business owner know? Seems that the issue would be a contrived one designed to stir up drama. On the other hand, I can imagine how something like that may make one feel.

I would not want to be the judge making the call on this one.

I guess, as someone else put it, how willing are we to grant the federal govt the right to screw around in our lives in virtually all aspects of our lives?



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by bbracken677
 


No, as of yet they aren't a protected class. Protected class doesn't grant more equal, it just guarantees equal to a targeted group. What's sad is that it is absolutely necessary still but hopefully soon everyone can put on the grown up panties and just stop discriminating.

Here's another point in regard to your later post. A business cannot discriminate, period. They cannot choose who is a member of the public and who is not. They benefit by being in the public, tax payer funded roads, sewers, trash removal (in some areas), policing, fire departments (in some areas), sidewalks, they benefit simply by being in the public eye and by advertisement the entire public can see. By virtue of those benefits, they must in turn be willing to serve the entire public not pick and choose.

Advertising their gayness... let's see. A man and a woman walk hand in hand maybe smooch a little, totally normal for a couple in love. If a man and a man do it it's advertising their gayness and shoving it in peoples faces.

A judge ought not to have any hesitation with this case. It's boldly, not iffy, not wishy-washy unconstitutional.
edit on 2/22/2014 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 





Advertising their gayness... let's see. A man and a woman walk hand in hand maybe smooch a little, totally normal for a couple in love. If a man and a man do it it's advertising their gayness and shoving it in peoples faces.



You words, not mine.

You missed my point. If I were gay, and I wanted a cake from a particular baker and it just "had" to come from them and they would not serve the gay community, why would I walk in with my partner, holding hands and smooching? Why would I not just walk in there by myself and present the specs for the cake as we (partner and I) agreed to?

Part 2: Are you going to tell me that some people are not genuinely offended by such behavior? (not defending, not attacking, just asking). I do know a few people who think that PDA's are not appropriate. I do not agree, but neither do I particularly judge them. They are as they are.

Why do some feel the need to attempt to force others to think as they do? That seems to be the crux of many problems throughout history. Think as I do, or else. Rather than accepting that not everyone is going to think as I do. I find it odd how many supposed progressive thinkers are extremely intolerant with regards to people who think differently from them. Intolerant towards conservatives, intolerant when it comes to religion....

There should be laws that prevent protected classes from being physically harmed (but in the real sense, those laws already exist, no?) So why would we need additional laws that make protected classes even more equal?

In response to your remark that gays etc are not a protected class, the Supreme Court would differ with you. So perhaps we are merely discussing semantics, in which case, fuhgetaboudit.

Bottom line seems to be, when rights come into conflict, whose rights are more right?



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


Oh, and uh, what part of the Constitution declares that a business cannot choose who they will do business with?

Just curious.

Because I do know the answer to this one.
edit on 23-2-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by bbracken677
 


What part declares that they can?



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 01:42 PM
link   

bbracken677


I find it odd how many supposed progressive thinkers are extremely intolerant with regards to people who think differently from them. Intolerant towards conservatives, intolerant when it comes to religion....






Oh please....

Iv'e been labeled, dismissed, insulted, and ignored as a "people like you" by the ATS conservative faction more times than I can count.
Intolerance isn't the private domain of progressives and you know it

Don't let your ideology get in the way of your common sense!!
edit on 23-2-2014 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Kali74
reply to post by bbracken677
 


What part declares that they can?


lol

The fact that there is no part in the constitution that says they cannot choose their customers means this is not a constitutional issue. Besides, if not expressly denied by the Constitution then by definition they are granted unless denied by constitutionally passed law.

HOWEVER: The Civil Rights Act of '64 does make such a law. The laws passed by Arizona and Kansas are up against the Civil Rights Act, not the Constitution.

Do not construe my argument to mean that the laws will not be struck down, I am fairly confident they will be. Do not construe my argument to mean that I support these laws. I support one aspect of the law and that is in a free society I, as a business owner, should be able to conduct business as I choose provided I am not harming another or his property, or threatening harm to another or his property.

On the flip side, I can also see how someone could make a solid argument that said discrimination is harming in nature.



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by bbracken677
 




You missed my point. If I were gay, and I wanted a cake from a particular baker and it just "had" to come from them and they would not serve the gay community, why would I walk in with my partner, holding hands and smooching? Why would I not just walk in there by myself and present the specs for the cake as we (partner and I) agreed to?


What if both partners want to decide together what their cake will look like? Usually with special occasion cakes unless ordering from a catalog you go over with the baker what you want and they tell you if it can be done or how it can be done.



Part 2: Are you going to tell me that some people are not genuinely offended by such behavior? (not defending, not attacking, just asking). I do know a few people who think that PDA's are not appropriate. I do not agree, but neither do I particularly judge them. They are as they are.


It doesn't matter if people are offended by PDA or not. As long as it isn't lewd. Personally I'm not a fan of PDA more than holding hands and pecks but I don't set the standard.



Why do some feel the need to attempt to force others to think as they do?


I don't care what you think, think what you want. But a persons thoughts don't always equal just and when those thoughts are carried out into action, then there's a problem.



I find it odd how many supposed progressive thinkers...


Hmm.



Intolerant towards conservatives, intolerant when it comes to religion....


This argument is so bizarre to me. Now I'm not saying all Conservatives are guilty of intolerance but it is a significant portion otherwise we'd not be having this conversation. There's no intolerance toward religion on the part of most of the people engaging in this dialogue nationally, the debate is about allowing whom of the public religion can dictate to. There's a big difference there. Most people don't care what you do with your religion in your home or place of worship.



So why would we need additional laws that make protected classes even more equal?


This proposed Law would be one reason.



In response to your remark that gays etc are not a protected class, the Supreme Court would differ with you. So perhaps we are merely discussing semantics, in which case, fuhgetaboudit.


Not quite. Semantics is apt because semantics were definitely involved in the statement.
edit on 2/23/2014 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by bbracken677
 


Discrimination absolutely is harmful by nature, I don't see how an argument can be made for otherwise.

I understand you, yourself would not discriminate.

Also Public Accommodations goes back a long, long time... I might later go through the Federalist Papers to see if there's something on this but, definitely goes back to Old England and in the US it goes back pre-civil rights era.
edit on 2/23/2014 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join