"freedom" isn't pushing it. Are bakers not allowed to discriminate against hate groups (if they aren't allowed to discriminate against anyone), or are we only allowed to dissociate from people who the government allows us to (if discrimination against one group is ok but not another group)? Allowing a minority of bakers to make silly stands for their faith is more palatable than either alternative, IMO.

My wife is forced to provide medical service to members of hate groups often enough. She doesn't get to refuse service.

We're comparing gays with hate groups now? Can we not find a line that would allow a baker to refuse to bake a cake for a KKK wedding but he can't refuse to serve a cake at a same-sex wedding? There's a clear distinction in the offense the baker could take in either case, you have to admit that.

A business already has the right. What's the big deal. "We deserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason" is in nearly every business around here. Not that I support anti-gay business practices, but let the business lose money and let the gay community organize a boycott and picket line out front. In other words, let the market and the people deal with it. Government should keep it's nose out both ways.

So this law changes absolutely nothing? That can't be right...

This bill provides a legal justification for the denial of service so that a business can't be sued. In other words, it provides a legal framework for what would otherwise be a dubious claim of religious "freedom".

"A business already has the right"

No, it doesn't. Arbitrary discrimination with respect to services provided to the public, like for instance restaurants, transportation services, shopping malls, etc are prohibited by law.

Exactly. The law would prevent lawsuits and pickets lines and that is as wrong as forcing the business to serve people. Government should stay out of private business practices. And publicly traded companies aren't private businesses. I'm talking sole-proprietorships and partnerships.

So if it was already legal for businesses to deny service based on personal preference, why is a law necessary to prevent lawsuits for something that is entirely legal, Draug?

Draugnar, should the Americans with Disabilities Act be repealed, then?

This harkens back to the question of segregated lunch counters. As I understand existing law says that "common carriers" which serve the general public are not allowed to discriminate. I think a law that allowed discrimination against racial or religious people would be unconstitutional on its face (there is a slight twist there in reality). So here, we have another protected group that Arizona wants to target for discrimination. As a constitutional matter this will probably only be legal for a few more years.

As a policy matter giving way to religious dictates to discrimination is terrible policy

No, Putin, restaurants can discriminate. Public busses, no. Private limos, yes. The mall, no. The stores in the mall, yes (unless they are prohibited by their mall contract). I own a business as well as being a partner in two others. Only housing (I.e. my investment properties), public services (bus/taxi, the mall) and healthcare are forbidden. The tobacco shop I am a partner in is not restricted, nor the deli, or Draugnar Productions. We don't discriminate against anyone except people who don't have money to spend :-) but we can if we choose.

Ogion, no, we can't discriminate against a protected class, but gays aren't protected at this time.

"We're comparing gays with hate groups now? Can we not find a line that would allow a baker to refuse to bake a cake for a KKK wedding but he can't refuse to serve a cake at a same-sex wedding? There's a clear distinction in the offense the baker could take in either case, you have to admit that."

Sure there is, but we're talking about a legal argument, which ultimately boils down to "The government gives me permission to discriminate against X but not Y." While I have no issue with making the distinction as there's clearly a difference between gays and hate groups, contextually we're talking about government permission. I think the government should allow both and that boycotts should be organized against people who discriminate. It's not at all difficult to avoid shopping with establishments that discriminate against gays, because they're small in number.

The purpose of this bill is to try and cut off the feds before sexual orientation becomes a protected class at the federal level. We have some very anti-gay states trying to send a message, but it is a bad message to send as it disenfranchises are significant portion of the population.

@PE, part of the reason discrimination is illegal is because it isn't common.

I mean uncommon, of course. :)

"No, Putin, restaurants can discriminate. "

No, they cannot.

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=97&page=transcript

See everything under: TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION

Discrimination against gays in the form of denial of service, etc. isn't very common at all in the private sector. There's an occasional baker who supports traditional marriage that doesn't want to serve gays. That's about it.

PE, do you honestly think people have the time or ability to get services that will actually service them if certain services decide to discriminate? Is the ability to boycott supposed to be any solace to those deprived service when they need it? Who is going to compensate people for not being able to get to work because the buses refused to pick them up? This is where your theory becomes completely impractical.

"There's an occasional baker who supports traditional marriage that doesn't want to serve gays. That's about it."

But your position is not contingent on how many people actually discriminate, is it? Would you change your position if the practice became pervasive?

"Sure there is, but we're talking about a legal argument, which ultimately boils down to "The government gives me permission to discriminate against X but not Y." While I have no issue with making the distinction as there's clearly a difference between gays and hate groups, contextually we're talking about government permission. I think the government should allow both and that boycotts should be organized against people who discriminate. It's not at all difficult to avoid shopping with establishments that discriminate against gays, because they're small in number."

OK, so we're safe until 25% of services discriminate against gays, then we'll reevaluate our homophobia.

I know you have a hard time with reading comprehension, Putin, so I will point out again that I said I was referring to a non-protected class. Title II only covers protected classes. Sexual orientation isn't protected. You fail, as usual.

No, that's not at all what you said.

You said:

""We deserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason" is in nearly every business around here."

You didn't say anything about protected classes. You said the government should stop interfering in private business decisions, period. You then made some bizarre claim about how only certain public accommodations were covered, restaurants not being one of them. That's flatly untrue.

The very next post from me, if you had bother to read, made it clear I was referring to non-protected classes before you even responded. But I wouldn't expect intellectual integrity from you. It isn't your modus operandi.

I will clarify so Putin hears me loud and clear. There are protected classes. Women, race, disability... These are protected. Sexual orientation is not. I actually support adding sexual orientation to the list of protected classes, but until then, private businesses can legally discriminate if they choose.

"The very next post from me, if you had bother to read, made it clear I was referring to non-protected classes before you even responded"

No it doesn't. You don't mention non-protected classes anywhere. In your next post you reiterated your position that government should not interfere in private business practices.

Here's what you said in that post:

"Exactly. The law would prevent lawsuits and pickets lines and that is as wrong as forcing the business to serve people. Government should stay out of private business practices. And publicly traded companies aren't private businesses. I'm talking sole-proprietorships and partnerships."

"These are protected. Sexual orientation is not. I actually support adding sexual orientation to the list of protected classes,"

This is not all consistent with what you have been saying throughout this thread. Tell me how you reconcile this position with your repeated statements that government should stay out the affairs of private business?

We are talking about a state government. I support federal legislation that declares orientation as a protected class. But I also believe that there are some protections that aren't required. Private business protection is not required. I would actually repeal that aspect. But protection against discrimination in true public services (transportation, healthcare, government services, fire, police, etc.) I support. I believe that businesses that discriminate will find themselves out of business when their competitors who don't take away their business.