2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her

[SJHovey]

Re: 2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her

To address your second point first, Arizona wouldn't track such things because sexual orientation is not protected in that state.

As to the former, dont you think discrimination is less blatant because of things like civil rights acts? Are you really going to use the effectiveness of the laws as reasons they are no longer needed? The immediate response by certain states once portions of the voting rights act were shot down should dispel you of that logic.

Sure, but it's against the law in Minnesota to discriminate in the employment setting on the basis of age, sex, race, etc..., yet there were nearly 300 charges in the last 6 months alone. There are still employers who are firing people because they are pregnant, or too old, or have developed a disability.

I'm not saying anti-discrimination laws are a bad idea, or even ineffective. What I have been saying is people are getting all worked up about a statute that purports to authorize discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the business contract area, something that anyone who actually owns their own business knows is silly. It would be like the AZ legislature passing a law that authorizes businesses to heap big piles of cow dung in the middle of their store. Great. But I'm still not going to do it.

It's all part of the political charade going on in this country. The right knows the law will get the left worked up. The left will sue, to the pleasure of the right. Someone will prevail, and they'll move on to the next b.s. move.

[Bob Gray]

Re: 2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her

I understand what you are saying but 3 restaurants in a small town are competing for the same dollars, I doubt all 3 are turning folks away. I wouldn't want to eat in the one that was especially if it was forced to serve folks it didn't want to. Its a stupid law and if you are in business turning away peoples money, you are an idiot.

I wonder how many people actually read the bill? I don't think the restaurant example even applies. The bill had a three part test, one of which is that there would need to be proof that being forced to do something "substantially burdens the exercise of the person's religious beliefs.'' If a gay couple comes in to a restaurant and does normal things people do when eating at a restaurant, I don't see how that would substantively burden the exercise of the person's religious beliefs. But, hey, this was never about what the bill actually did or said. As Paul Bender, former dean of the ASU Law School and an often cited source of commentary on legal matters in Arizona, the bill "My summary is, it means almost nothing." But, hey, it's a chance for people to moan and have fits, so nobody wants to miss such a chance, eh?

[Rover]

Re: 2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her

Then I go to a community where I am welcomed. Sometimes, simple answers are good.

BTW, "All Men are Created Equal" is in the Declaration of Independence. Typical left wing mistake.

So for you ethnic cleansing for example is a good thing? Interesting....

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: 2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her

I wonder how many people actually read the bill? I don't think the restaurant example even applies. The bill had a three part test, one of which is that there would need to be proof that being forced to do something "substantially burdens the exercise of the person's religious beliefs.'' If a gay couple comes in to a restaurant and does normal things people do when eating at a restaurant, I don't see how that would substantively burden the exercise of the person's religious beliefs. But, hey, this was never about what the bill actually did or said. As Paul Bender, former dean of the ASU Law School and an often cited source of commentary on legal matters in Arizona, the bill "My summary is, it means almost nothing." But, hey, it's a chance for people to moan and have fits, so nobody wants to miss such a chance, eh?

It got Arizona in the news, which I suspect was the plan all along.

[Bob Gray]

Re: 2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her

It got Arizona in the news, which I suspect was the plan all along.

Naw. A similar bill had gone through the Legislature last year and nobody gave a hoot.

[unofan]

It got Arizona in the news, which I suspect was the plan all along.

And never mind that it was introduced because of the wedding photography and wedding cake cases in neighboring Colorado and New Mexico, states where sexual orientation is a protected basis.

Clearly there was no discriminatory animus behind it whatsoever.

[LynahFan]

Re: 2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her

As Paul Bender, former dean of the ASU Law School and an often cited source of commentary on legal matters in Arizona, the bill "My summary is, it means almost nothing."

Is this supposed to be an argument in FAVOR of the bill? As a libertarian-leaning conservative, I'd much rather that laws were only passed only because there was a substantive need for the law. Based on many of your other comments, I'm a bit surprised that you don't feel the same way.

[Bob Gray]

Re: 2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her

Is this supposed to be an argument in FAVOR of the bill? As a libertarian-leaning conservative, I'd much rather that laws were only passed only because there was a substantive need for the law. Based on many of your other comments, I'm a bit surprised that you don't feel the same way.

No, just saying it's not a big deal one way or another and the furur over it was just plain silly. Personally I don't have an issue with what the bill did, but I don't think it's necessary. Realistically, even if it had passed now, with the way things are going, it'd be overturned a little ways down the road.

[busterman62]

Re: 2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her

Do you guys even read what people post anymore, or is it just knee jerk?

Wikipedia has just replaced their previous entry for "Rhetorical Question" with this quote.

Anything to keep America divided and distracted.

It's good to see someone understands the meaning of the AZ bill.

[5mn_Major]

Re: 2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her

Businesses have the right to serve who they want today. Just as with a buyer, no business is forced to have a transaction they don't want. However, a business cannot stop from selling you or treat you differently based on discrimination. And if they refuse service, they need proof on the discrimination piece.

The law in fact has very little real world application and its application will probably almost never occur. The primary implications are to 1) nationally either get dems riled up or make the GOP look bad depending on your pov 2) be a another piece of legislation that makes AZ look bad 3) charge up the LGBT community and sympathizers.

Regardless, progress marches on.

[Rover]

Re: 2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her

Just curious, but has a liberal state ever tried to pass a law that discriminates against Christians, whities, or crabby old people?

I'll defer to Fishy or someone like that on this one...

[Gurtholfin]

Re: 2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her

Just curious, but has a liberal state ever tried to pass a law that discriminates against Christians, whities, or crabby old people?

I'll defer to Fishy or someone like that on this one...

I was thinking the same thing.

The supposed war on Christianity... where is it?

[SJHovey]

Re: 2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her

Just curious, but has a liberal state ever tried to pass a law that discriminates against Christians, whities, or crabby old people?

I'll defer to Fishy or someone like that on this one...

I would guess that with a little bit of digging people could come up with examples of statutes or municipal ordinances or rules enacted by public Universities and the like that took some action specifically targeted at churches or religious groups. Probably things like efforts to tax a church, the forbidding of religious organizations from holding meetings in public meeting rooms, even though other groups are permitted to use the rooms, etc...

However, I suspect those instances would be few and far between, and probably dated, because politicians, if nothing else, are still politicians, and targeting large voting groups for punishment usually isn't on their agenda.

[St. Clown]

Re: 2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her

CNN reports that the AZ bill was just vetoed.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/26/politi...html?hpt=hp_t2

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2nd Term Part VII: You May Like Your Doctor But You Can't Keep Her

Just curious, but has a liberal state ever tried to pass a law that discriminates against Christians, whities, or crabby old people?

I'll defer to Fishy or someone like that on this one...

How about your affirmative action pieces of legislation, or your race quotas?