The only law they need is to protect business owners from being sued or something for refusing service.
I have not looked at the bill, but that is precisely as it is portrayed
I agree with legal protection for refusal but forcing someone to do it is stupid. Let them stupidly refuse to be paid. It only hurts them.
Roger Godell is gay.........dude sucked over 40mil from the league last season...................now get out there and support this crap...buy a roll of seasons tickets while you pay taxes on your stadium......
Pass whatever you're smoking. It seems like great **CENSORED**!
lol
for what it is worth: http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/26/politics/texas-same-sex/index.html
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.
BINGO!!!Let bigots be bigots. They'll learn to change or die. As everyone's said, this isn't 1964 anymore. People have grown up for the most part.
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.
That is a legitimate Libertarian argument made often. In other words, market forces will crush businesses who take that approach anyway . . . which begs the question "why the law?" or "why the law in a state without an anti-discrimation statute that includes homosexuals?"
I have yet to see a libertarian make this particular argument. Anarchists, maybe. Libertarians do actually believe there is a place for law.
Deny service to gay couples? How does a business even know that a couple is gay unless they are having sex in front of them? Or is it just a law against "looking gay"? And, it's on religious grounds? Wow, with all of us being "sinners", they could deny service to anybody. **CENSORED** them.
Deny service to gay couples? How does a business even know that a couple is gay unless they are having sex in front of them? Or is it just a law against "looking gay"? And, it's on religious grounds? Wow, with all of us being "sinners", they could deny service to anybody. **CENSORED** them.
+1
Their lady gov vetoed the bill today/tonight.
Their lady gov vetoed the bill today/tonight.
if anyone noticed she said a couple times that there was no evidence of this problem (business owners sued by gay couple) in Arizona. She said this because the justification given for the Arizona bill by its supporters was a suit against a business owner . .. . but the suit was in new mexico, where homosexuals are a "protected class." Arizona does not have the same law. The bill was nothing more than hatred.
Their lady gov vetoed the bill today/tonight.
if anyone noticed she said a couple times that there was no evidence of this problem (business owners sued by gay couple) in Arizona. She said this because the justification given for the Arizona bill by its supporters was a suit against a business owner . .. . but the suit was in new mexico, where homosexuals are a "protected class." Arizona does not have the same law. The bill was nothing more than hatred.
Agree, and its encouraging to see at least one Arizona resident has some common sense.
Good job Gov. Brewer. Time to move on.
Deny service to gay couples? How does a business even know that a couple is gay unless they are having sex in front of them? Or is it just a law against "looking gay"? And, it's on religious grounds? Wow, with all of us being "sinners", they could deny service to anybody. **CENSORED** them.
Can you or somebody, please quote the anti-gay wording in the bill? I read it and did not see anything about refusing service to homosexuals. Quite frankly I think business owners are dumb to refuse business on the basis of a person's sexual orientation or preference, but I have not seen the language restricting service to any particular person based on their sexual preference.
