LGBT News Arizona passes "Right to Discriminate" bill.

Simple I agree this is possible but its not likely as profit is often a better motivator then prejudice and more and more people are against such a thing. And even if such a thing were to happen it is tragic and suckish but it still doesn't give a person the right to force another to do business with them.

You can feel like you wish that is your right. However you cannot point to a right infringed by this. A person does not have the right to demand a business persons time or product against their will.

 

So the right of a business would trump the right of a person to not be forced out of their life long home? 0.0

I disagree. A corporation would think with 'profit' first. Some uneducated hicks from a small town who have been force fed the bible since they were children on the other hand? No, they'll do 'gods work' first and then worry about whether or not they made a sound business decision.

 

Oh no, you can enact Jim Crow laws and still look good, you've just got to make sure you're discriminating against gays instead of black people and you've got to go on and on about protecting Christian privile...I mean religious freedom.

Because the good Lord knows them gays have enough rights as it is, they don't need no more because I said so.

 

They are not being forced from the home by law or a person with a gun but circumstance. It sucks but you do not have the right to demand things from others they do not want to give you. You could choose to stay and travel to get what you need. Its just not practical nor fair. But life is not.

 

Thank you, couldn't have said it better myself. Took the words right out of my mouth.

 

I think one thing we have to understand is that the US has a common law system where precedent and laws influence our government. Laws that are deemed "discriminatory" can usually be appealed to the federal courts on several grounds, including the fact that states are forbidden from certain types of discrimination based on the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment which states that "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." I suppose we could say those states are giving the matter their "due process" by enacting them via the legislature. However, if laws were passed where people could refuse service to people based on "race" in "public accommodations," (to prevent infringement of freedom of association I did not say "private" venues), a slew of constitutional and case law arguments could be made against it.

The issues with this AZ law is that we have two, on some accounts, diametrically opposed groups that could be construed to enjoy "strict scrutiny" (religious freedom supporters, yes, but LGBT status on their discrimination-protection-level is still to be debated, unfortunately). At one point, we will have to balance those issues and make peace that we won't be able to completely appease anyone nor protect someone's freedom at the expense of the other.

 

Alamo I have already said people recieving public monies cannot discriminate. Also this law does not deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property.

 

I disagree. If you're intentionally fixing circumstances to bring harm to another person knowing they won't have any other choice in the matter than there is no excuse and no justification for that. In my eyes you're committing a crime. In my eyes it is no different than going to their home with a gun and telling them 'leave or die'. You may disagree, but it's the same thing with a different weapon.

 

Listen I doubt I can change your mind. However one is circumstance making a person move in a situation that would be very difficult and unlikely to come about. The other is literally setting the precedent that people have the right to another time or property even if they dont want to give it to them.

 

You're right about that, but I am expanding the argument to those that provide "public accommodations." Discrimination based on gender, race, national origin, etc. are not codified in the US Constitution but are still protected as a matter of law and the 14th Amendment has been a bedrock for that argument and the expansion of the Federal Government's oversight into such matters at the local and state level.

Further, I would love to hear how you define "liberty" in the 14th Amendment. You have to agree the Constitution's ability to be "evolve" has been one of the reasons it has lasted for so long, though I'd bet you're a strict constructionist :lol:.

 

I don't know why it's okay to bend over backwards and take it up the rear for corporations and businesses, but when it comes to people we can just drop their bodies off by the nearest ditch and then go take a nap -.-'

Are corporations and businesses really higher in value than people?

 

Well, that's where you're wrong: the courts ruled against this long ago. You can't have segregated businesses, sorry.

If you feel like the right to discriminate is greater than the right to equality among spaces open to the public, then your views are very outdated.

I'd suggest looking into some other country to live in.

 

Considering your state's immigration policy, I'm not surprised.

 

Well the solution is obvious, no?

Declare being gay a religion! Voila!

We'll need a Pope of course...or some pope-equivalent (Ru-Paul?), sprinkle in some dogma from the Gay Agenda...maybe a holy book (or set of books, like the Bible...Armistead Maupin's Tales of the City perhaps?).

Oh! We could have fun with this...

 

'Right to Discriminate' doesn't even sound legal. No one is naturally inclined to divide others, it is what theyre taught. This sickens me. No wonder I'm not fond of the south. The need to get their heads out of their A words and into reality.

 

This is stupid. Why can't people just accept that Women weren't just meant for men and visa versa?

 

I don't think you really answered my question. I had posted:

So are you suggesting that the 'free market' should have determined whether or not black people should have been treated equal to whites? That you believe someone should be able to put a sign in their window refusing service to blacks, jews, gays, and whoever else they don't want? You're suggesting that the market should decide, and people should just move to where they don't face that kind of descrimination?

 

Another question is this:

How is a person/business to decide to decline service based on sexual orientation? It's not something like being black, or Asian. You can't just look at a person and say with any certainty what their sexual preference is. Given this ambiguity, such laws would make it possible to discriminate against any person, based on whatever whim. Clearly this is an insult to both human dignity and reason.

A law like this was in fact passed in Colorado in the 1990s, and it was decided in Romer V. Evans (1996) by the US Supreme Court that one could not make a law saying it was OK to discriminate, or to specifically deny a group of people equal protection.

These laws already go against established legal precedent, and are bound to collapse when help up to legal scrutiny. In his majority opinion, justice Kennedy wrote, "It is not within our constitutional tradition to enact laws of this sort."

 

Republicans must think they're in a win win situation then. If no one challenges it then they get votes from the conservative crowd, if someone does and the state loses then they can claim that the court is over ruling the will of the people and get votes that way.

A conspiracy theorist would say they only did this bill as a way of reminding certain groups about who gets the last word on equal rights.

 

Im not american but surely this is unconstitutional and the supreme court will block this?