quote:

Arizona passes controversial anti-gay bill

(CNN) -- Arizona's Legislature has passed a controversial bill that would allow business owners, as long as they assert their religious beliefs, to deny service to gay and lesbian customers.

The bill, which the state House of Representatives passed by a 33-27 vote Thursday, now goes to Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican and onetime small business owner who vetoed similar legislation last year but has expressed the right of business owners to deny service.
Source

quote:

ORIGINAL: FrostedFlake

I think these guys are hiding behind religion. The last refuge of a scoundrel. Last, because there is nowhere further to go.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

Arizona passes controversial anti-gay bill
(CNN) -- Arizona's Legislature has passed a controversial bill that would allow business owners, as long as they assert their religious beliefs, to deny service to gay and lesbian customers.
The bill, which the state House of Representatives passed by a 33-27 vote Thursday, now goes to Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican and onetime small business owner who vetoed similar legislation last year but has expressed the right of business owners to deny service.
Source

Now wasn't there members of these boards who still claim that the Conservatives are not openly against LGBT rights?
Or if the discrimination is based on the Christian dogma of non forgiveness and non acceptance it is okay.
Gotcha

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

Here's the thing, though... why shouldn't a business owner be allowed to deny service to anyone he or she wants? IMO, a business owner that chooses to not serve LGBT patrons will have issues staying open. I do believe there are enough people who are either LGBT, or supportive of LGBT's that there won't be enough patrons for that business to stay open. That's the same thing for any kind of discrimination.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

Arizona passes controversial anti-gay bill
(CNN) -- Arizona's Legislature has passed a controversial bill that would allow business owners, as long as they assert their religious beliefs, to deny service to gay and lesbian customers.
The bill, which the state House of Representatives passed by a 33-27 vote Thursday, now goes to Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican and onetime small business owner who vetoed similar legislation last year but has expressed the right of business owners to deny service.
Source

Now wasn't there members of these boards who still claim that the Conservatives are not openly against LGBT rights?
Or if the discrimination is based on the Christian dogma of non forgiveness and non acceptance it is okay.
Gotcha

I can't imagine this getting passed the Supreme robes.

Here's the thing, though... why shouldn't a business owner be allowed to deny service to anyone he or she wants? IMO, a business owner that chooses to not serve LGBT patrons will have issues staying open. I do believe there are enough people who are either LGBT, or supportive of LGBT's that there won't be enough patrons for that business to stay open. That's the same thing for any kind of discrimination.

If a business wants to discriminate against whites, let them.

The same does not go for government, though. Everyone should be equal in the eyes of government. There should be no government money going towards businesses that discriminate, either (that would be supporting the discrimination).

Government should let businesses decide how they are run for themselves. And, when a business makes decisions that hurt it's business, government should allow that business to fold.

What will end up happening, is that businesses that can draw the greatest number of patrons will survive, or will do better than the others. A business that discriminates against blacks won't be as successful as one that doesn't discriminate against blacks. The same goes for sexist, ageist, racist, etc. discriminators. They, generally, won't be as successful as their non-discriminating peers. The business owner will, then, have a decision to make: either stop discriminating, or fold.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

Arizona passes controversial anti-gay bill
(CNN) -- Arizona's Legislature has passed a controversial bill that would allow business owners, as long as they assert their religious beliefs, to deny service to gay and lesbian customers.
The bill, which the state House of Representatives passed by a 33-27 vote Thursday, now goes to Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican and onetime small business owner who vetoed similar legislation last year but has expressed the right of business owners to deny service.
Source

Now wasn't there members of these boards who still claim that the Conservatives are not openly against LGBT rights?
Or if the discrimination is based on the Christian dogma of non forgiveness and non acceptance it is okay.
Gotcha

I can't imagine this getting passed the Supreme robes.

Here's the thing, though... why shouldn't a business owner be allowed to deny service to anyone he or she wants? IMO, a business owner that chooses to not serve LGBT patrons will have issues staying open. I do believe there are enough people who are either LGBT, or supportive of LGBT's that there won't be enough patrons for that business to stay open. That's the same thing for any kind of discrimination.

If a business wants to discriminate against whites, let them.

The same does not go for government, though. Everyone should be equal in the eyes of government. There should be no government money going towards businesses that discriminate, either (that would be supporting the discrimination).

Government should let businesses decide how they are run for themselves. And, when a business makes decisions that hurt it's business, government should allow that business to fold.

What will end up happening, is that businesses that can draw the greatest number of patrons will survive, or will do better than the others. A business that discriminates against blacks won't be as successful as one that doesn't discriminate against blacks. The same goes for sexist, ageist, racist, etc. discriminators. They, generally, won't be as successful as their non-discriminating peers. The business owner will, then, have a decision to make: either stop discriminating, or fold.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
So the wonderful panacea the free market will cure all social ills if only the Govt will butt out and let business solve all the problems of the world ..... as if!
Business/'the market' has had centuries to solve this particular issue and guess what - it failed totally. It's failure was such that Govt was forced to intervene and insist that those businesses that offered services to the public did so without discriminating. Bigots of various hues will discriminate for as long as the law allows them to do so.
Essentially your post proposes a known and proven policy failure as the solution ....

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

I don't have a problem with a business owner making the decision not to serve gays. In fact I think they should put a sign in their window stating that so I know to take my money elsewhere. I don't understand why someone would want to support a business that takes this stand, yet not only do they want to, they go to court for the right to do so. Sorry but I don't like giving my hard earned cash to bigots. While I think they have the right to feel the way they do for what ever reason, I also have the right to shop elsewhere. I am sure there is a gay friendly equivalent that would welcome the extra business.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

I don't have a problem with a business owner making the decision not to serve gays. In fact I think they should put a sign in their window stating that so I know to take my money elsewhere. I don't understand why someone would want to support a business that takes this stand, yet not only do they want to, they go to court for the right to do so. Sorry but I don't like giving my hard earned cash to bigots. While I think they have the right to feel the way they do for what ever reason, I also have the right to shop elsewhere. I am sure there is a gay friendly equivalent that would welcome the extra business.

And if there isn't? What about towns with one pharmacy? or some other service? Would you be so sanguine then?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

Arizona passes controversial anti-gay bill
(CNN) -- Arizona's Legislature has passed a controversial bill that would allow business owners, as long as they assert their religious beliefs, to deny service to gay and lesbian customers.
The bill, which the state House of Representatives passed by a 33-27 vote Thursday, now goes to Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican and onetime small business owner who vetoed similar legislation last year but has expressed the right of business owners to deny service.
Source

Now wasn't there members of these boards who still claim that the Conservatives are not openly against LGBT rights?
Or if the discrimination is based on the Christian dogma of non forgiveness and non acceptance it is okay.
Gotcha

I can't imagine this getting passed the Supreme robes.

Here's the thing, though... why shouldn't a business owner be allowed to deny service to anyone he or she wants? IMO, a business owner that chooses to not serve LGBT patrons will have issues staying open. I do believe there are enough people who are either LGBT, or supportive of LGBT's that there won't be enough patrons for that business to stay open. That's the same thing for any kind of discrimination.

If a business wants to discriminate against whites, let them.

The same does not go for government, though. Everyone should be equal in the eyes of government. There should be no government money going towards businesses that discriminate, either (that would be supporting the discrimination).

Government should let businesses decide how they are run for themselves. And, when a business makes decisions that hurt it's business, government should allow that business to fold.

What will end up happening, is that businesses that can draw the greatest number of patrons will survive, or will do better than the others. A business that discriminates against blacks won't be as successful as one that doesn't discriminate against blacks. The same goes for sexist, ageist, racist, etc. discriminators. They, generally, won't be as successful as their non-discriminating peers. The business owner will, then, have a decision to make: either stop discriminating, or fold.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

“The rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.” JFK

Like the right of free association? Why should any individual or group of individuals, no matter who they are, have the power to compel others to associate with them? Forcing people into close contact with others who are antagonistic to them seems a poof formula for achieving bliss and harmony.

K.