Vox

Musings, rants, rambling, general nonsense

Conversations on SB1062

Posted on | February 22, 2014 | 3 Comments

desde ArizonaFinally got sick of all the hysteria over SB1062 (known as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act) and posted a bit of a rant over on Facebook – which got a few comments going. I wanted to make a lot of the same points over here, but I am too lazy to retype everything. Besides, I wanted to include the discussion, such as it is (it does go a bit off the rails or off topic at points)

I anonymized the comments, so you won’t know who they are. Since I know who they are, I can tell you that no one in this thread is “anti-gay”. It is a shame I have to point that out, but these days any disagreement is seen as “H8”
(BTW: The “D” below is not my D. My D stayed above of the fray)

My original rant:

To all of you “OMG! Arizona is treating teh gays like Jews during the Holocaust! OMG NAZIS, BADGES, CONCENTRATION CAMPS!!!!!!” people:

Read the damn bill FFS

Starbucks ain’t gonna suddenly stop selling you coffee cause they think you might kiss boys. (That isn’t what the bill is about, and it isn’t what the bill says)

BUT – If a business *were* to refuse you service – for any reason – WHY would you want to force them to TAKE YOUR MONEY? Go across the street & give your money to someone who deserves it.

(BTW: The law is meant to provide the protection that SCOTUS gave at a Federal level, but has not reached the individual state level, yet)

And…the comments:

P: But then you could say that about blacks and businesses who want to deny them service!!!
G: And we could put them out of business too.
VoxAZ: A) Again, not what the bill is about

B) Business owners should have the right to refuse anyone, actually – even if it is stupid. That is a move that is self-policing in a free society. If someone doesn’t want gun owners in their restaurant, that is their right – and it is my decision whether to give them my business or take it elsewhere

C) This isn’t about an entire city refusing service like the Jim Crow South, where a person of color *couldn’t* just go across the street. This is about individual people not being forced to violate their religious beliefs.

P: I was being sarcastic
VoxAZ: Ah, can never be sure online – and I got into a bit of an outragey froth at all the outrage from folks who believe whatever they see in an outragey Facebook graphic
R: I get WHAT and WHY but don’t you think it’s a step BACK?
G: We really need a <sarcastic> font.
R: IF a restaurant didn’t want to serve me because I’m gay, they dont deserve my money… but it’s still RIDICULOUS and bigoted.. imo
VoxAZ: Two cases that come to mind that illustrate the mindset that may have led to this bill being drafted; the CO bakery that was forced to make a wedding cake for a SS wedding, NM photographers who can’t refuse to do SS weddings.

Both are examples of businesses that provide neither essential nor exclusive service, so the couples could have easily gone elsewhere. Both were taken to court by people who wanted to force them to TAKE MONEY. Do *not* understand why you would choose to give cash to people who don’t want it

R: OR the stupid one… Hi, I’m going to sue eharmony for not allowing gays…why the EFF do you want to sign up for a dating sight that doesn’t have GAYS ON IT!
R: But my absolute serious question is, how are they going to know if people are gay or not?
G: SS marriage was not legal in CO or NM at the time of the rulings, which makes it hard for me to comprehend how the baker or photographer violated anyone’s rights. Looking at it at it from another angle, would you be okay patronizing an establishment that provides funding for neo-Nazi’s, as long as they served anyone who walks through the door?
VoxAZ: They won’t know, R. If you go around telling people about your sex life (no matter which way you swing), they may refuse you service just for being obnoxious LOL
R: Exactly. Unless you’re at Romans and it’s okay.
G: I’m not gay, but I can be obnoxious. I refuse to comment on whether I’ve been denied service for being obnoxious.
VoxAZ: Seriously, either of those cases I referenced should have ended up with someone tweeting “Hey, Joe’s Bakery won’t make a cake for our wedding” – and someone smart tweeting, “We here at Jane’s Bakery love making cakes for SS weddings! Come in and see us” They would get the business of not only that couple, but likely all their friends. Joe’s biz loses, Jane’s biz wins – couple still gets a cake and has no reason to ever think about Joe & his beliefs ever again.
R: For the record, Starbucks loves boy kissers. Lol
VoxAZ: BTW: I had an acquaintance who got very upset that eHarmony wouldn’t let him sign up before his divorce was final (how they knew, I don’t know) Dude had issues.
R: Yeah I’m not setting up a eHarmony. Or match for that matter. I’m not looking for shit.
A: Are you saying this law is not discriminatory?
D: No. She is saying that the law will not force homosexuals into concentration camps or force them to wear pink triangles.
A: There is a big difference between “choosing” to carry a gun and being “gay” someone doesn’t choose to be gay. In addition a gun can kill people, last time I checked being gay never killed anyone…
D: Are you saying that gays cannot commit murder? I would also argue that there were gays whose sexually reckless lifestyle lead to their deaths like Freddy Mercury, for one.
VoxAZ: The bill which “Modifies the definition of exercise of religion and allows a person to assert a free exercise claim or defense in a judicial proceeding regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceeding” is not discriminatory (although the part where someone has to prove “that the person’s religious belief is sincerely held” seems a bit troubling.)

Here is the bill

Here is the fact sheet which is easier to read (though few people seem to bother)

My point about gun ownership was merely to show the business owners’ choice. It could easily have said they can refuse service to left-handers, and left-handers can choose to take their business elsewhere.

Gun ownership is guaranteed by the BoR, as is the free exercise of religion. Telling a person they have to ignore their religious beliefs because the gov’t disagrees (whether the gov’t is right or wrong) is antithetical to the Liberty our nation was founded on.

If this bill said, “all businesses must have a separate but equal area for homosexuals” it would be discriminatory. If it said people could use their religious beliefs to round up gays and put them in stocks in the center of town, it would be scary.

It says, “if I don’t want to make you a cake for your wedding, and you decide to sue me, I can use my religious beliefs as a defense in court” (and apparently puts the burden of proof on the baker)

D: Wait? Gun ownership is a right? There are sure a lot of people who wish it were otherwise.
A: D- I never said anything like that, that’s just stupid to say such a thing. What I am saying is it will not kill someone by serving or sitting next to them. However carrying a gun for protection can and has resulted in deaths.
R: I believe the point is, someone doesn’t want to serve you why do you want to be there in the first place.
A: I don’t have a problem with guns at all. However, I do have a problem with ignorant comments about people who are gay.
R: I don’t know, my gay child doesn’t think I’m ignorant.
C: I’ve been watching this discussion from afar and I think it has totally gone off the rails. Personally, if I knew a business refused service to ANYONE, I would find another service provider. Gay, straight, right handed, left handed, gun owner or not … it doesn’t matter. I prefer to patronize accepting businesses where I live. If you don’t agree with something, take positive action to effect change; don’t just carp about it on FB.
A: That comment wasn’t directed at you R it was directed at D.
R: I don’t know, no offense to anybody but D is a smart cookie.
A: He’s a smart cookie?! You must be seeing something that I am not. Reread his comments responding about a gay being in a place. I personally go out a lot and I have yet to commit murder and I have been gay for 16 years…
D: What ignorant comment did I make? That Freddy Mercury died of AIDS? That gays are just as capable of committing murder as straight people? That the Arizona law does not require badges or concentration camps for gays? (Which it does not). Which?
A: That wasn’t the point and you and I both know it.
C: Internet fights never changed anyone’s mind, people!
R: I read his concentration, camp comment. And made total sense.
He’s totally right about Freddie Mercury. And also many other straight people from that time. He died from AIDS for being reckless. You can actually be charged with murder if you knowingly infect someone with AIDS. If you shoot someone in self-defense you will not be charged with murder.

Again it’s not about gun-control. The establishment owner has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason that this is his right as an American. Is it back asswards? Yeah. I don’t agree with discriminating against gay people. But I do agree with a business owner being able to serve who he effing wants to

A: R, are you and D a couple or relative or something? Being serious not sarcastic.
R: No. I’m pretty good friends of his wife.
A: Makes sense…I guess my thing is that if they are going to single out gays in particular, shouldn’t it be that way for anyway who sins shit nobody will be able to go anywhere… Cheaters won’t be welcome, gays, liars what’s next?!
R: Come to think of it. Don’t think I’ve ever said two words to D. Hi D!!!

There

R: Personally I’d rather eat dinner with the gay guy than a cheater or a liar. One of the reasons I’m getting divorced.
A: Lmao!
R: Like I said it’s freaking ass backwards. But in every state especially in the South you’re going to find discrimination even against black people still. That’s just the way it is you can’t change people’s minds.
Every business owner has his right to refuse service anybody no matter how ignorant the reason.
Every person has a right to refuse to frequent their establishment.
I don’t visit the country bar down the street because it’s a bunch of freaking hookers in there.
I’m just saying. Ignorant but it’s legal.
A: Well then if that’s true why can the state tell business owners they can’t let smoke in their business?
R: Because secondhand smoke apparently kills people.
R: I mean after the heart attack they have from their 10 pound steak and loaded baked potato, the secondhand smoke will kill them
A: If it’s there business shouldn’t they be able to do what they want in there? And before you ask, I don’t smoke… Well so do gays according to D.
R: Okay nevermind. Not at all what D said so I give up. White flag. Going to go eat some freaking fattening food and smoke pot. Of which I do neither by the way
A: That was a joke just so you know. Not a funny one, but a joke nonetheless. Have a good night.

Thankfully, the discussion so far seems to have ended with a truce.

UPDATE: A good comment from another FB thread

This bill reinforces the 1st Amendment. If you get into a cab with a Muslim driver and ask him to take you to the bar he can refuse as it is against his religion. If you turn around and then ask him to drop you off a block away he can still refuse as he already knows your intent. This bill will protect him. If you are a Jew and get into his cab wearing a Star of David and ask him to take you home, he can’t refuse.

I think he should still be able to refuse – though, in the cab example, there may be other factors. Is he working for a company that has no issue with transporting Jews, does the business owner’s interest & policy trump the driver’s Muslim beliefs? Is the potential passenger in a dangerous area? Is he unlikely to find another cab in a reasonable amount of time?

I believe they have allowed Muslim cabbies at the airport to pick & choose passengers, but there are so many taxis lined up, there is no issue with finding transportation quickly from another driver. If you called for a cab, waited, then found out he wouldn’t take you so you had to call & wait again…that might be an issue – unless, like one of the articles I linked suggested, the company had clear policy stating that they didn’t drive Jews or that you had to specifically request a non-Muslim driver….? #RunOnSentencePalooza



✏

Category: AZ, Law, politics

Comments

3 Responses to “Conversations on SB1062”

  1. John Moore
    February 22nd, 2014 @ 6:01 pm

    This whole issue has gotten me so ticked off I’m avoiding FB. The left is just plain vicious – if you disagree with any of their coercions, you’re a stupid bigot.

    I am avoiding responding to the threads trashing AZ for this bill. I’m tempted to suggest that maybe they are in favor of Jews being required to provide catering to a Nazi Party get-together. Or, gays being required to do wedding photography for someone in the Phelps “church.”

    The left has gone bat-sh*t stupid. And that stupidity is crushing freedom in the US, whether it’s freedom of expression, freedom of religion or free association.

    I’ve had it with them. No more am I going to presume that their motives are benign – because they sure as hell assume that my motives are purely evil.

    Once upon a time, my views about gays and how society should acommodate them were considered liberal. I have the same views, but because I am in favor of protecting freedom, too many people would call me a bigot.

    Screw them!

  2. Vox AZ
    February 22nd, 2014 @ 8:04 pm

    I actually saw a post that had this as the intro:

    “It is critical that Arizona stand for EQUAL human and civil rights for all. Allowing a person to discriminate against gays based on a misguided reading of the Bible is unconscionable.”

    So, not only are they going to accuse someone of being a bigot for not supporting an alternative lifestyle, they are also going to tell people how to interpret their own Bible?

    “I don’t believe in gay marriage” <= bigot "I don't believe in your Bible" <= somehow not a bigot (Your comment also reminded me of a joke I saw recently: "Of all the different kinds of poop in the world, who decided that bats had the craziest?" LOL )

  3. John Moore
    February 23rd, 2014 @ 7:52 pm

    Oh yes. I was faced with an argument just now about how the Bible was inconsistent, and Jews and Christians draw different conclusions, so… well, so…

    yeah.

Leave a Reply





Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.