Arizona senate oks refusing same sex customers

[Simon_Jester]

Ah. OK then.

Of course, you might actually lose more customers than you gain by going on record and saying your restaurant is Scientologist in the middle of Arizona.

[General Zod]

I can certainly see the argument for why a for-profit corporation can't claim religious freedom exceptions to laws.

Either it's legally an immortal bodiless person owned by its shareholders, in which case its claim to be a member of a religion is laughable (can anyone show me the baptismal records? What would Buddha or Christ or Muhammed say about the soul of a corporation?)...

Or it's legally a subhuman entity that exists purely as a 'bag' for holding aggregated wealth, and has no direct rights in its own person at all- not even freedom of speech, let alone freedom of religion.

What if there's a disagreement within the company of who they can discriminate against? Doesn't seem like an easy problem to resolve and could end up being messy.

[Simon_Jester]

Could you provide an example? I'm not sure exactly what kind of situation you're referring to.

[General Zod]

Could you provide an example? I'm not sure exactly what kind of situation you're referring to.

Let's say one manager refuses to serve Jews, but another manager says it's okay. But the first manager complains that his rights were being violated by the second manager, even though the second one says it's fine according to his religious beliefs. Which belief takes priority?

[Simon_Jester]

If it becomes a chain of command issue then you're right, it gets entertainingly hard to resolve.

[General Zod]

If you take the chain of logic far enough, at some point you're going to have to rule that some religious beliefs are more correct than others.

[Borgholio]

If you take the chain of logic far enough, at some point you're going to have to rule that some religious beliefs are more correct than others.

Oh won't that be fun. "All men are created equal, but some are just created more equal than others."

Save me a seat in the courtroom and pass the popcorn.

[Lagmonster]

As an aside, I'm starting to read about speculation that this will get vetoed not because Brewer is tolerant, but because she doesn't want Arizona to lose out on hosting the Superbowl next year. It's a big money-maker, and there have already been a few quotes from NFL reps saying they're "keeping an eye" on this situation and repeating their stance that the NFL doesn't discriminate against its fans. A serious boycott would be trouble, whether by businesses that support the superbowl, or celebrities who might appear there, or even players themselves (imaging Michael Sam makes it to the superbowl in a state where legally, stadium employees could refuse him service).

There's no damn chance business owners in Arizona have forgotten when they lost a big financial boom from the 1990 Superbowl, thanks to voters who didn't want to recognize MLK day, so I bet you Brewer is waiting to see if the NFL really means it. If it's a choice between hating gays and hosting football, football will win.

[Edi]

It's also blatantly unconstitutional and an invitation to have the courts stomp on the law with both feet, for the reasons Sea Skimmer outlined in the Kansas thread. Basically, using state power to enforce and impose the business owner's religious views on other people, which is a strict no-no.

[Lagmonster]

It's also blatantly unconstitutional and an invitation to have the courts stomp on the law with both feet, for the reasons Sea Skimmer outlined in the Kansas thread. Basically, using state power to enforce and impose the business owner's religious views on other people, which is a strict no-no.

Yes, but politics is a game of power. The decision is never right and wrong, nor reasonable vs unreasonable. The decision is 'which action will gain me the most followers and alienate the fewest?'. In this case, I'm talking about a battle to see whose camp is larger and angrier: business owners or bigots.

We all know that a bill that is 'unconstitional and an invitation to have it overturned by the courts' only wastes time and money, and a legally unreasonable but politically aggressive bill can serve to win votes or support from various action groups/lobbies/industries/other people with money and/or campaign usefulness.

[Edi]

Of course politics is a game of power and American conservatives have not been shy to play the bigotry of their constituents to the hilt every time while whining about how they are oppressed.

However, there are other quite baldly unreasonable provisions in that bill that would specifically extend personhood to all corporations and other legal construct entities so that they would be fully covered by everything in the first amendment, which would make regulating them very much harder than it is now. It's got no redeeming features whatsoever unless you happen to be both a bigot and a randroid.

[Elheru Aran]

In pertinent news, given the backlash that's risen up against the law, it appears that Brewer is likely to veto it. Even people who voted for it are saying they don't support it anymore, and a host of companies are coming out and protesting. The Super Bowl city selection committee has also lodged a protest, and that one's likely to tip the balance.

And, of course, George Takei...

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

In pertinent news, given the backlash that's risen up against the law, it appears that Brewer is likely to veto it. Even people who voted for it are saying they don't support it anymore, and a host of companies are coming out and protesting. The Super Bowl city selection committee has also lodged a protest, and that one's likely to tip the balance.

And, of course, George Takei...

I'm half-expecting her to sign it. Brewer has unhesitantly signed into law far-right darlings, such as the infamous "papers, please" law, and restrictions on womens' reproductive rights ... even though the courts have slapped down such efforts before.

[Lagmonster]

I'm not giving it a chance no matter what Brewer personally believes. Like I said above, Arizonans remember 1990.

[Tsyroc]

I'm not giving it a chance no matter what Brewer personally believes. Like I said above, Arizonans remember 1990.

The only concern I have in regard to that is one of the reasons people in Arizona voted against making MLK day a legal holiday was because all kinds of groups from out of state talked a bunch of shit about how we better vote it in. Nothing quite like telling people in a Right-Wing/Libertarian state that they have to do something to get them to not do it.

There were other reasons (another government paid holiday, racism) that it didn't pass the first time around but sometimes it takes several different reasons to get enough people to vote for or against something. I'm just hoping that the there is enough of a memory of losing out on the Super Bowl, and that the other elements aren't enough to push it through. I'm optimistic that it will get vetoed now that some of the legislators who voted for the bill have come out saying that it was a mistake and that the governor should veto it.

It's kind of depressing that the "money is everything" element that is fucking up this country is what seems likely to keep this idiotic bill from becoming law.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Just breaking out of Phoneix Az.
Brewer Killed it!!!!!

looks like Money won out over bigotry!!

[Lagmonster]

...and it's a brilliant victory for football fans throughout the state.

No, to be serious, it's rather obvious that Brewer understands one fact: in today's America, discriminatory laws do more political and economic harm than good. That's a good thing. It means that while a bigot may remain in power (and they always will be there), his hands are tied. He can seethe and spout venom, but he can't act on it without doing significant damage to himself and his peers.

[Darth Lucifer]

We're going to hear all kinds of screeching from the talking heads today. A point in particular; conservatives who support this bigotry in legislative form refer to the now-defeated act as a "Religious Freedom Bill" instead of what it really is, which is a faith-based discrimination bill.

[Borgholio]

Religious freedom does not = freedom to discriminate. Sooner or later they'll learn this.

[Lagmonster]

If you think you're going to hell if you come into contact with a certain thing (pork, gay people, women, whatever), then you probably consider the need to discriminate central to your religious freedom. In the same kind of way that an Aztec who isn't allowed to sacrifice people would be sincerely worried about...whatever bad thing would happen that they figured killing people solved.

[Imperial Overlord]

If you think you're going to hell if you come into contact with a certain thing (pork, gay people, women, whatever), then you probably consider the need to discriminate central to your religious freedom. In the same kind of way that an Aztec who isn't allowed to sacrifice people would be sincerely worried about...whatever bad thing would happen that they figured killing people solved.

The sun going dark.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Just so everyone knows what the bill actually is (which is not Bigotry turned into law, but Insanity written into law), here is the full text

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.pdf

[Purple]

If you think you're going to hell if you come into contact with a certain thing (pork, gay people, women, whatever), then you probably consider the need to discriminate central to your religious freedom. In the same kind of way that an Aztec who isn't allowed to sacrifice people would be sincerely worried about...whatever bad thing would happen that they figured killing people solved.

The sun going dark.

Well that is pretty major.