It's a **CENSORED**ed up law but on the other hand why would you want somebody to give you a service who clearly doesn't want to do it for you?How good is that wedding cake going to be when you practically forced an unwilling baker to make it? Take your money elsewhere because I'm sure someone else is going to take it.
It's about stamping this out so it can't be legal. I hate comparing it to how some places refused to serve blacks, but that's almost exactly what it is.
I get it and it is similar to it but I wouldn't want to spend my money at a place that doesn't want me there as a black man there. I'll be paying full price for shitty unwilling service. Screw that. Somebody else will gladly take my cash. That business in Arizona is going to suffer because gay people will tell their straight friends and they'll probably stop going there too. It's bad for business if your intent is to make green. You can't pay a light bill with your personal moral stance.
I don't see the point of the NFL getting involved in this matter. And for the NFL to get involved via leverage/threat... ill advised.
I disagree. Media: "NFL has a player safety issue"NFL: "We're openly supporting equal rights for all people by threatening/moving the Super Bowl"Media: "NFL are good guys"NFL: "Distraction successful!"
Completely ignorant?? How about reading the bill. Nothing in it is going to stop the super bowl from being played in Arizona..so again, much ado about nothing
How about reading the article. The NFL wouldn't be moving it because of the bill but because the bill violates the NFL policies and standards.
Completely ignorant?? How about reading the bill. Nothing in it is going to stop the super bowl from being played in Arizona..so again, much ado about nothing
How about reading the article. The NFL wouldn't be moving it because of the bill but because the bill violates the NFL policies and standards.
Damn, yea I did completely misread the article. My apologies.However, I do feel the country as a whole is overreacting to a "new" law that essentially already exists. Businesses already have the right to deny someone service as they see fit. As for the NFL, I believe the hassle it would take to break already- in-place contracts that is more protective than discriminatory in nature(I'm sure I'll get flamed for that comment).Before the comments come, let me say that I think its disgusting to deny someone service based on sexuality, however I think its an even bigger violation of actual rights to force someone to provide services for something that is against their religion, i.e. A Christian baker being forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding.
Before the comments come, let me say that I think its disgusting to deny someone service based on sexuality, however I think its an even bigger violation of actual rights to force someone to provide services for something that is against their religion, i.e. A Christian baker being forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding.
I could see the Christian baker dening making a gay pride cake but not denying service to a gay person. Making something against your beliefs would be an issue but refusing to serve someone is un-Christian and goes against the entire basis of the faith.
Completely ignorant?? How about reading the bill. Nothing in it is going to stop the super bowl from being played in Arizona..so again, much ado about nothing
How about reading the article. The NFL wouldn't be moving it because of the bill but because the bill violates the NFL policies and standards.
Damn, yea I did completely misread the article. My apologies.However, I do feel the country as a whole is overreacting to a "new" law that essentially already exists. Businesses already have the right to deny someone service as they see fit. As for the NFL, I believe the hassle it would take to break already- in-place contracts that is more protective than discriminatory in nature(I'm sure I'll get flamed for that comment).Before the comments come, let me say that I think its disgusting to deny someone service based on sexuality, however I think its an even bigger violation of actual rights to force someone to provide services for something that is against their religion, i.e. A Christian baker being forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding.
no one is forced to bake a cake for anyone . .(except perhaps in NM, lol) and the problem is codifying the part in bold. The act of codifying that reality (the law actually goes farther) is a political move that SANCTIONS discrimination . . . maybe the sponsor of the bill should focus on some of the many other problems in his state and in this country? Just a thought.If anyone cares, this is a good discussion of the pros and cons, stemming from a New Mexico decision based on a New Mexico anti-discrimination statute: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/court-holds-that-wedding-photographer-cannot-refuse-service-to-gay-couples/ I could be wring, but I don't think AZ has a similar anti-discrimination statute. if not, then that only indicated more that the AZ bill stems from animus more than a legit concern
Before the comments come, let me say that I think its disgusting to deny someone service based on sexuality, however I think its an even bigger violation of actual rights to force someone to provide services for something that is against their religion, i.e. A Christian baker being forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding.
I could see the Christian baker dening making a gay pride cake but not denying service to a gay person. Making something against your beliefs would be an issue but refusing to serve someone is un-Christian and goes against the entire basis of the faith.
I agree to an extent. I had this debate with someone earlier in that I believe that while Christ would have absolutely ministered and loved a homosexual PERSON, I sincerely doubt He would've presided over a homosexual wedding.
Why would you want to force anybody to serve you tho? Why pay full price for most likely crappy service because the person was unwilling from the start? Somebody else will gladly take your money and give you what you paid for.If they don't want your money screw them. I could see if EVERY business is anti-gay then sure but most businesses are pro-green.
Why would you want to force anybody to serve you tho? Why pay full price for most likely crappy service because the person was unwilling from the start? Somebody else will gladly take your money and give you what you paid for.If they don't want your money screw them. I could see if EVERY business is anti-gay then sure but most businesses are pro-green.
+1the answer is because advocates seek out these scenarios and portray them as something different
Completely ignorant?? How about reading the bill. Nothing in it is going to stop the super bowl from being played in Arizona..so again, much ado about nothing
How about reading the article. The NFL wouldn't be moving it because of the bill but because the bill violates the NFL policies and standards.
Businesses already have the right to deny someone service as they see fit.
No, they don't actually. The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin." It is whether you believe the LGBT issue is a Civil Rights issue or not. I applaud the NFL for taking this stance as well. I believe sexual orientation is not a choice and as such, someone should not be denied service based on their orientation.
Why would you want to force anybody to serve you tho? Why pay full price for most likely crappy service because the person was unwilling from the start? Somebody else will gladly take your money and give you what you paid for.If they don't want your money screw them. I could see if EVERY business is anti-gay then sure but most businesses are pro-green.
Once it is legalized, entire communities can justify their discrimination and there might not be any opportunities at all
Before the comments come, let me say that I think its disgusting to deny someone service based on sexuality, however I think its an even bigger violation of actual rights to force someone to provide services for something that is against their religion, i.e. A Christian baker being forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding.
If it's against my religion to serve black people, is that defensible?
Why would you want to force anybody to serve you tho? Why pay full price for most likely crappy service because the person was unwilling from the start? Somebody else will gladly take your money and give you what you paid for.If they don't want your money screw them. I could see if EVERY business is anti-gay then sure but most businesses are pro-green.
Once it is legalized, entire communities can justify their discrimination and there might not be any opportunities at all
You want to know how to lose ALOT of customers? Announce your moral stance and let everyone know who you will not serve.Gay people won't go there including...Their family members, their friends, pro gay people, and everyone else that doesn't agree with your moral stance.The day Walmart says they won't serve gays, I bet the doors at Target will fly open for them.
I think business should be able to deny anyone service but it shouldn't violate The Federal Civil Rights Act. Just don't say why you are denying them service. That's how it working for employment for the most part. (Employment at will). The problem is when they go after a specific group of people. There are legal ways to do that but singling out people/groups isn't going to fly.
