Religious Liberty, AZ Gets it Right

[Jermyn Davidson]

Christian wedding planners shouldn't provide services for people who are not Christian as they are helping sinners to celebrate and will likely defile their unholy matrimony bed with unspeakable deeds that are surely just like the sins that the people of Sodom were guilty of committing.

The desire to have relations with angels-- well that was just the icing on the cake!

[Jermyn Davidson]

Christian bakers should not provide their services for the unsaved who will consume their tasty baked goods while engaging in idolatry and possibly even witchcraft.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Christian candlestick makers should make sure that their product is sold with the disclaimer "not intended for use by sinners."

[n david]

New bill in the AZ House...HB2481. Haven't read it yet. It's a bill offering cover for Ministers or Judges who refuse to marry a couple because of religious convictions.

I supported SB1062 because businesses and individuals should be covered; however, I believe this bill should be voted down. Gay marriage is illegal here anyway (for now) so there's no need for this bill.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by n david

New bill in the AZ House...HB2481. Haven't read it yet. It's a bill offering cover for Ministers or Judges who refuse to marry a couple because of religious convictions.

I supported SB1062 because businesses and individuals should be covered; however, I believe this bill should be voted down. Gay marriage is illegal here anyway (for now) so there's no need for this bill.

Ok, so now it seems like Conservatives in AZ are just trying to save face.

The rights of Clergy are already protected.

Judges, servants of the public, that's a different can of worms. I hope this bill is defeated as well because Judges are indeed servants of the public.


When you say businesses and individuals should be covered, what exactly are you saying?

Are you saying that businesses and individuals should have the right to deny services to law-abiding but sinful citizens?

[MissBrattified]

If I recall correctly, the upheaval wasn't about serving a cake to a gay couple; it was about making a cake for their wedding reception. I understood that the business owners then felt complicit in a celebration they saw as sinful. That's not the same as refusing to serve them a slice of cake or a drink, although technically I believe in business owners' rights enough to say they should be allowed to serve or not serve whomever they please. In that instance, I would think they were simply ignorant about Christianity, but still within their rights as a business owner to choose who they serve.

I do agree that true Christianity requires us to serve everyone, but I also see where we must draw a line at participating in sin ourselves, and that is the gray area here. My personal charity ends where I would be required to participate in sin. For example, I am fine with giving homeless people cash occasionally, but if one of them INFORMED me that they were going to use that cash to hire a hooker, I would absolutely refuse to give them "charity" at that point.

If the business owners felt that making a cake for the gay wedding reception comprised them participating in sin, then it falls under religious freedom, as well as business owners' rights. The idea that this has anything to do with racism is a straw man. For one thing, any business owner who posted something like "no blacks" or worse on his front door would be asking to go OUT of business. That business would self-destruct and who cares? The business owner is technically free to be STUPID and his potential customers are free to respond by withholding their business. This "fear" that this will somehow allow people to express racism again is laughable for two reasons: 1. It would destroy the business in question, and 2. Racism isn't as alive and well as it used to be and it is therefore nearly a moot point. If someone wants to post a sign on their door that says, "We don't serve anyone wearing green hats or red shirts", that is their prerogative.

The real issues here are the rights of business owners and religious freedom. It is not about gay rights at all.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

...=Are you saying that businesses and individuals should have the right to deny services to law-abiding but sinful citizens?

On what constitutional basis would a business or individual NOT have that right?

[n david]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

When you say businesses and individuals should be covered, what exactly are you saying?

Are you saying that businesses and individuals should have the right to deny services to law-abiding but sinful citizens?

Under a 1999 bill, only religious assemblies or institutions are protected by law. SB1062 would have extended protection to businesses and individuals, among others.

Yes, I believe a business or individual should be free to conduct their business as they wish, with whomever they wish.

The free market will weed out the bad businesses who simply wish to discriminate just to discriminate.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

On what constitutional basis would a business or individual NOT have that right?

There are amendments designed to ensure that all law-abiding citizens in the public arena be treated fairly.

If CVS were to deny me the ability to sit a their counters and receive service today (or if their Pharmacists refuse) and their refusal is because of my race, class, gender, etc., then they are breaking the law.

I am using the Pharmacist purposefully.

Laws and amendments have ripple effects and what's good for the baker is good for the pharmacist.

Or do you think that individual pharmacists should be able to reserve the right to serve or not serve whoever or whatever?

Where will it stop?

Now Arizona is trying to protect Judges?

These public servants are the bedrock of our justice system!

The whole thing is ludicrous.

We live in an open, pluralistic society, not a theocracy.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by n david

Under a 1999 bill, only religious assemblies or institutions are protected by law. SB1062 would have extended protection to businesses and individuals, among others.

Yes, I believe a business or individual should be free to conduct their business as they wish, with whomever they wish.

The free market will weed out the bad businesses who simply wish to discriminate just to discriminate.

Your logic does not take into account the relatively recent history of the Jim Crow South Era, nor the racism that would happen in the north but never publicized.

Your logic would have tabled, indefinitely, the Civil Rights Act.

We live in a pluralistic society, where all people are supposed to be treated equally.

These recent bills and amendments are definitely steps towards the proverbial "slippery slope".