Ali#1, you were right about Arizona.

[rwm1273]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_4854003.html

Jan Brewer Announces Veto Of Arizona Anti-Gay Bill SB 1062

WASHINGTON -- Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) announced her decision to veto legislation on Wednesday that would have allowed businesses to legally refuse service to anyone on "religious freedom" grounds, effectively allowing them to discriminate against same-sex couples.

[Okotokian]

Sanity reigns in Arizona. But it was basically the same proposal that Dany Smith and Wildrose wanted to bring in... and for providers of government services to boot! "I don't like their type. I'm not serving them."

[rwm1273]

Not sure I agree with you OK. I do agree that discrimination is bad, but people should have a choice not to be forced to provide a service that violates their moral convictions, such as the baker forced to bake a cake for the gay couple, or for a JP forced to marry a gay couple.

In my opinion, forcing people to do such a thing removes their rights. Big problem is how to balance everyone's rights.

[Ryry4]

I'm planing on taking a pig into the local muslim butcher shop and have them process it for me.

Fair is fair.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by Ryry4

I'm planing on taking a pig into the local muslim butcher shop and have them process it for me.

Fair is fair.

On the surface that sounds fair, but it's not. Discrimination against people is against the law, not discrimination against products. Now if you went to a Muslim butcher and he said he wouldn't serve you because you were a Christian, then you would have a case. But he doesn't butcher pigs for anyone of any race or religion. He isn't presenting himself to the public as a pig butcher.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

On the surface that sounds fair, but it's not. Discrimination against people is against the law, not discrimination against products. Now if you went to a Muslim butcher and he said he wouldn't serve you because you were a Christian, then you would have a case. But he doesn't butcher pigs for anyone of any race or religion. He isn't presenting himself to the public as a pig butcher.

Well then he should understand why he won't be allowed with headgear at the Legion....because no one is supposed to wear headgear in there cowboy hat, ball cap, or otherwise....

LC

[Ryry4]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

On the surface that sounds fair, but it's not. Discrimination against people is against the law, not discrimination against products. Now if you went to a Muslim butcher and he said he wouldn't serve you because you were a Christian, then you would have a case. But he doesn't butcher pigs for anyone of any race or religion. He isn't presenting himself to the public as a pig butcher.

So if a baker doesn't want to bake cakes on a certain day he doesn't have to? Regardless of who orders one. Got it.

Personally I wouldn't turn anyone away. But the customers that I have come in with Obama bumper stickers and t-shirts pay full retail + 10%.

[rwm1273]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

On the surface that sounds fair, but it's not. Discrimination against people is against the law, not discrimination against products. Now if you went to a Muslim butcher and he said he wouldn't serve you because you were a Christian, then you would have a case. But he doesn't butcher pigs for anyone of any race or religion. He isn't presenting himself to the public as a pig butcher.

And the same could be said for the baker who said he does not make cakes depicting gay ceremonies, yet he was forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

Why is it ok for one person to deny such services, yet not for the other? Kind of hypocritical isn't it?

And then one needs to wonder why the gay couple took the issue to court to force a baker to bake the cake? Kind of sounds like they were using their agenda to make a point about their rights, and trampled the baker's religious rights in the process.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by Ryry4

I'm planing on taking a pig into the local muslim butcher shop and have them process it for me.

Fair is fair.

BRILLIANT!!!!!

Do it. This is what needs to be done to put a stop to the none sense. If they refuse it will set a precedence for future law suits, it will benefit all Canadians.

[The Elkster]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

BRILLIANT!!!!!

Do it. This is what needs to be done to put a stop to the none sense. If they refuse it will set a precedence for future law suits, it will benefit all Canadians.

Not so brilliant. Any butcher can opt to butcher (or not) whatever they want as part of their business model. Many butchers won't butcher wild game. So what. You gonna sue them? Now if they simply won't butcher a Christians wild game then you have a case. As long as a business is consistent and not singling out one group for select omissions then nothing is amiss. The fact that they choose to cater their business model to their religious beliefs is hardly illegal. Don't see many Christian book stores carrying porn do we? C'est la vie.

[MegaHorn]

white power!

[whammy]

Originally Posted by rwm1273

Not sure I agree with you OK. I do agree that discrimination is bad, but people should have a choice not to be forced to provide a service that violates their moral convictions, such as the baker forced to bake a cake for the gay couple, or for a JP forced to marry a gay couple.

In my opinion, forcing people to do such a thing removes their rights. Big problem is how to balance everyone's rights.

Just like how a baker shouldn't be forced to bake a cake for a black couple if he really deeply believes in white supremacy...

[rwm1273]

Originally Posted by whammy

Just like how a baker shouldn't be forced to bake a cake for a black couple if he really deeply believes in white supremacy...

Can you show that it is under religious grounds? Nope, so then he violates the law.

But homosexuality is prohibited by many religions, and as such he would have grounds.

[whammy]

Originally Posted by rwm1273

Can you show that it is under religious grounds? Nope, so then he violates the law.

But homosexuality is prohibited by many religions, and as such he would have grounds.

Your opinion implies that religion is reasonable grounds for discrimination. That's a dangerous opinion.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by rwm1273

Can you show that it is under religious grounds? Nope, so then he violates the law.

But homosexuality is prohibited by many religions, and as such he would have grounds.

There are Aryan churches you know.. And within my lifetime Blacks were discriminated against in the Mormon church.

So what you are saying is that a Catholic civil servant or business owner should be able to refuse service to anyone who has committed adultery, had an abortion, had sexual relations outside of the sanctity of marriage.... lemme see what other ones I can come up ith... eat shellfish or pork... lemme get my old testament.

We ok with allowing Canadian Muslim business owners to refuse service to or employ "infidels"?

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by rwm1273

Can you show that it is under religious grounds? Nope, so then he violates the law.

But homosexuality is prohibited by many religions, and as such he would have grounds.

Once again...the mere act of baking a cake in exchange for money is not an endorsement of homosexuality any more than a Ukrainian baker baking a cake that said something about Christmas being on 25 Dec would be an endorsement of that belief.

Its a simple exchange of services for money... no different than any other.

Besides... there are plenty of ways to avoid customers that you do not wish to have without running to the goivernment looking for someone else to cover your play.

What kills me here is that most here that supported the proposal would be the same who lost their minds if it happened to be (for instance) Muslims trying to do the same thing.

I also think its pretty funny that a certain group complains about too much government and too much regulation but sees no problem in supporting government for their petty little gripe.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by rwm1273

Can you show that it is under religious grounds? Nope, so then he violates the law.

But homosexuality is prohibited by many religions, and as such he would have grounds.

So should a fanatical devote Muslim be allowed to not provide essential services to a Christian because in his religion he can't help infidels?

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by rwm1273

but people should have a choice not to be forced to provide a service that violates their moral convictions, such as the baker forced to bake a cake for the gay couple, or for a JP forced to marry a gay couple.

or bake a cake for a black person, or a Jewish person????

I get and support that people should be able to associate with who they want. I'm not even really upset about gender-specific social clubs, etc. I just think you have to draw the line somewhere. And I think when you are licensed by the state as a business, take business deductions to income tax, and offer your services to the public, that's the line.

[rwm1273]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

or bake a cake for a black person, or a Jewish person????

I get and support that people should be able to associate with who they want. I'm not even really upset about gender-specific social clubs, etc. I just think you have to draw the line somewhere. And I think when you are licensed by the state as a business, take business deductions to income tax, and offer your services to the public, that's the line.

I agree to a point, but how do you control it? As Ryry pointed out, he could take a pig to a Muslim butcher and force him to butcher the pig, and there is nothing the butcher could do about it. I think that is wrong. I think a business owner has a right not to violate their religious rights in favor of someone else's rights to service.

[Sneeze]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

. And I think when you are licensed by the state as a business, take business deductions to income tax, and offer your services to the public, that's the line.

So what you are saying is if I want to refuse service to homosexual Muslims I first have to stop paying income tax & am not required to have a business licence?

Sign me up! When can I start discriminating?

[DarkAisling]

Originally Posted by rwm1273

Not sure I agree with you OK. I do agree that discrimination is bad, but people should have a choice not to be forced to provide a service that violates their moral convictions, such as the baker forced to bake a cake for the gay couple, or for a JP forced to marry a gay couple.

In my opinion, forcing people to do such a thing removes their rights. Big problem is how to balance everyone's rights.

I actually refused to shoot a wedding back in the early 1990s, as the couple's beliefs went against my moral convictions. I really couldn't stomach the thought of doing it, and of being around more people like them.

I'm horribly conflicted when it comes to things like this. I really do feel that people should be able to decline servicing someone they're not comfortable with (I'd be a hypocrite otherwise), but at the same time I loathe the thought of someone being rejected based on racial, religious, gender, or other protected issues.

The whole thing shorts-out my brain.

[rwm1273]

Originally Posted by DarkAisling

I actually refused to shoot a wedding back in the early 1990s, as the couple's beliefs went against my moral convictions. I really couldn't stomach the thought of doing it, and of being around more people like them.

I'm horribly conflicted when it comes to things like this. I really do feel that people should be able to decline servicing someone they're not comfortable with (I'd be a hypocrite otherwise), but at the same time I loathe the thought of someone being rejected based on racial, religious, gender, or other protected issues.

The whole thing shorts-out my brain.

This is exactly why I see a need to allow service providers to be permitted to deny some services. But according to the law, and also according to some here, you broke the law, and you should be held accountable.

I just think there should be some protections for everyone. How to do this without violating other's rights is the difficulty.

[DarkAisling]

Originally Posted by rwm1273

This is exactly why I see a need to allow service providers to be permitted to deny some services. But according to the law, and also according to some here, you broke the law, and you should be held accountable.

I just think there should be some protections for everyone. How to do this without violating other's rights is the difficulty.

To the best of my knowledge, the people I rejected weren't a protected group: then or now.

But, even if they were protected against discrimination by law, I still wouldn't have shot the wedding. I just would have been dishonest in the way I approached the situation to avoid being sued. I would have either a) told them I wasn't available, or b) jacked the price up to the point where I knew they wouldn't agree.

There is a second group I would reject, and that one could really get me into trouble.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by DarkAisling

I'm horribly conflicted when it comes to things like this. I really do feel that people should be able to decline servicing someone they're not comfortable with (I'd be a hypocrite otherwise), but at the same time I loathe the thought of someone being rejected based on racial, religious, gender, or other protected issues.

I absolutely get that. I often grapple with that sort of thing as well. Sometimes both sides have a valid point and government or the courts just have to decide and make a ruling.

[GreenCanada]

Originally Posted by rwm1273

Not sure I agree with you OK. I do agree that discrimination is bad, but people should have a choice not to be forced to provide a service that violates their moral convictions, such as the baker forced to bake a cake for the gay couple, or for a JP forced to marry a gay couple.

In my opinion, forcing people to do such a thing removes their rights. Big problem is how to balance everyone's rights.

Fortunately for us, your rights end where another persons rights begin.

Period.

[pickrel pat]

LOL.... This thread would be 1 page if 2 people here were to pm each other.

[GreenCanada]

Originally Posted by pickrel pat

LOL.... This thread would be 1 page if 2 people here were to pm each other.

Haha, yea no doubt.

Maybe we should petition for rwm1273 to have a sticky for news releases, huff post, fox "news", etc. I'd keep other threads on the front page for more than a couple hours.

[ali#1]

Originally Posted by rwm1273

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_4854003.html

Jan Brewer Announces Veto Of Arizona Anti-Gay Bill SB 1062

WASHINGTON -- Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) announced her decision to veto legislation on Wednesday that would have allowed businesses to legally refuse service to anyone on "religious freedom" grounds, effectively allowing them to discriminate against same-sex couples.

Can't believe I just saw this thread.