Arizona, site of next Super Bowl, sends anti-gay bill to governor

Supporters of the bill harp on the business owner's right to refuse service based on religion.

Far be it from me to agree with Colin Cowherd but he said it best this morning: You can be against gays all day but once you apply for a business license, you are bound by applicable laws, particularly anti-discrimination laws. Don't want to be open on Sunday? That's fine, because you're shutting your doors to EVERYone. But you can't pick and choose who you serve.

 

When you own a business, you are likely going to deal with people who hold differing political viewpoints from you... and it's very likely you'll do business with someone whose viewpoints you are very much aware of... and that you might even the person is off his rocker with said viewpoints.

The First Amendment protects one's political viewpoints.

But nobody in their right mind would say they should be able to refuse to do business with the person whose political viewpoints differ from the business owner's.

The point? That invoking the First Amendment as it pertains to religion, when it comes to who you do or don't deal with in your business, is just as ridiculous.

Providing services to somebody whose views or practices differ from yours does not equal endorsing them. It's a business transaction, no more, no less. View it that way or don't bother running a business.

 

Seems a little odd and convenient that Brucie Boy's alter ego pops on as soon as a member of Gamma Alpha Upsilon becomes newsworthy.

Too odd and too convenient.

 

Last I knew, there was a right to freedom of religion. I don't find a right to have someone bake you a cake in the Constitution. So, basically, the government is exercising its monopoly on violence to squash an actual right in the Constitution to protect something that's not a right in the Constitution.

 

If the NRA or Fox News or MSNBC asked some of you to do some writing for them, or they tried to hire a company you own to do some work, I think many of us would say "fuck them, I cannot swallow vomit that fast." So I am actually sort of torn on this. If you own a company, I guess you do have a choice of who you can and cannot serve, as prohibitive to your business model as it seems, this is still a free country. And if you are an employee who chooses not to do this work, I would start updating the resume ASAP.

If you own a business you should be able to choose who you work for and who you don't. I guess that includes the decisions of cavemen companies, but so be it.

 

Yep. As a private individual or corporation, you have the right to discriminate against anyone you damn well please, for any reason or no reason. Otherwise, I'd have plenty of lawsuit ammo.

 

I try to simplify things for the less bright here. It appears I didn't simplify it enough for you.

 

Tony, we do have freedom of religion, but that doesn't give you the right to do anything you want in religion's name. A "neutral law of general applicability" still would apply - for example, you would not be able to use heroin in some religious ceremony. This is because it is illegal for reasons unrelated to religion.

That said, sexual orientation is not a protected trait under the Constitution. Right now, only race and gender are. But, yes, state laws fill the gap in a lot of cases. Even when the Supreme Court shoots down gay marriage bans, most do not believe it will do so by making gays a new protected class.

 

Yesterday the Supreme Court let stand a state supreme court ruling that a wedding photographer violated New Mexico's Human Rights Act by refusing to photograph a same-sex ceremony.

http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-rejects-appeal-over-gay-bias-case-181423954--politics.html