My understanding is that the law would have made it harder for people to be sued for denying services to patrons based on religious belief.

Gays couldn't have sex inside a private business.

Business owners had the legal right to deny people their services as a business for religious reasons.

The bill is a carbon copy of the Ohio bill, which I read many times. The issue hasn't gone away at all, and will be fought across the country again and again.

It refers specifically to state actions and says no state action may be a burden on the 'exercise of religion' by any individual, corporation, church, etc even if it is a rule of general applicability (like an anti-discrimination law). Exercise of religion being defined as action or inaction based on 'sincerely held belief'.

Since it's in reaction to a New Mexico lawsuit in which a tort by a couple who was refused service by a photographer was successful, it's quite obviously to preclude people with 'sincere religious beliefs' from doing anything they find objectionable, like not treating gay people like pariahs.

These same people, naturally, had no problem trying to impose Christian school prayer on religious minorities for the past half century. So I find the irony here delicious. I'll be especially tickled once Muslims start demanding paid holidays for Eid al Fitr, and the ability to pray five times a day at any government workplace, and women start teaching in Texas in full niqabs, when some state does successfully pass this law, which you know they will.

So anyway Semck, are you playing the media conspiracy angle and actually defending this law, or what is this all about?

I'd be surprised to hear there was any media conspiracy, Putin. I'll post my thoughts after there are more responses. Thank you for responding.

Wait, shouldn't a private business be able to deny service to whomever they want? What laws would denying service to gays break? I'm not supporting the idea at all, but just wondering what the legal base for the challenge in New Mexico was.

NM passed a human rights act prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations, among other things, with respect to sexual orientation and gender identity. The photographer denied a service based on sexual orientation, and was found to be in violation of the law.

http://statecasefiles.justia.com/documents/new-mexico/supreme-court/33-687.pdf?ts=1377306434

The bill was a last-ditch effort by the Holy Bastions of Righteousness for Our Lord to stop the Gay Onslaught from infecting everyone in Arizona with the AIDS Dick.

Did I get it right?

This appears to me to be another example of conflicting rights and the Mayor (or whoever held the veto) coming down on one side. Similar cases will be argued many times.

In the UK we have had some interesting case. One where a gay couple turn up at a B&B and are turned away by the christian owners and a Roman Catholic voluntary organisation that is likely to disband its services in assisting adoptions as they refuse to also offer services to same sex couples.

For those unfamiliar with a B&B it is where people rent a room out in their own home and provide a breakfast for their guests.

We also had a case where a guy was demoted at work for posting on his facebook that he didn't understand why Gays wanted to get married in church. He remained demoted even though he shouldn't have been (according to court of appeal).

I think the tide is against those who advocate the right to discriminate against gays and they may be better served by offering services and goods to all or leaving that particular trade/profession. I also think some people, like the mamagers who demoted a guy for facebook postings are going to have to be careful not to over-compensate just because someone was hurt by a facebbok post on same sex marriage.

"NM passed a human rights act prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations, among other things, with respect to sexual orientation and gender identity. The photographer denied a service based on sexual orientation, and was found to be in violation of the law. "

I don't know how I feel about this. On one side, I'm happy the LGBTQ community is seeing a victory, but on the other side, I'm still in support of private business owners having a right to their exercise their freedom of religion.

The photographer made a free speech case, challenging the law on 1st amendment grounds. The court said that the photographer's first amendment rights were not restricted, because nothing precluded him from putting up a sign in his store voicing opposition to same-sex marriage, so long as the services were still rendered. But he also did not deny he was in public accommodations. If you want to treat gays like pariahs to be shunned, then don't own such a business.

Hands On Originals (a Lexington KY printer) is dealing with the aftermath of discrimination of just this sort as well, and they haven't even gotten to any fining or what not. They are being boycotted by all kinds of groups for their stance against Lexington's Gay Pride rally by refusing to print t-shirts *after* taking an order for them.

The backlash has been from the public themselves and they are hurting. But they were found to have discriminated because they had taken other "offensive" or "vulgar" orders which should have violated their religious sensibilities as well. And on that basis, I agree they were seriously in the wrong. You can't pick and choose which business you are going to take amongst those that violate your religious ethics. That much is for damned certain.

Obviously there wasn't much media coverage about the Arizona law here in Europe but what I gathered about it is that business owners who pledged to shut up about Christian clergy abusing their kids would no longer be required to provide anal lube to the gays whenever they are having gay sex in their shop.

@Draugnar, you take the rights that derive from mere ownership way too far. Do you realize that ownership was once used as a justification to whip slaves? I agree that the business owners have a relevant stake in these cases, but they certainly aren't the only one.

What if a candy store owner joins the Church of the Blasting Infant and believes that his God demands him to give live grenades to every six year old that enters his shop. Would you consider that too religion of freedom granted through ownership? Would you argue that parents should just send their kids to another candy store?

Freedom of religion does not over ride the first and foremost right to life. So your question is not only inflammatory, but fucking stupid.

But lets keep it in the other thread. One active thread is enough.

What are you talking about, right to life? Grenades don't kill people, six year olds do.

Anyway, you just acknowledged that there are indeed concerns beyond just the freedom of religion of owners, which was my point. Being able to take part in society without being ostracized is one such concern. It might not be as urgent as the right to life, but it certainly outweighs the inconvenience of a baker baking a cake for a perfectly legal festivity of people that don't share his religious beliefs.

As I said, the other thread. I'm not commenting more here and I already addressed exactly this issue in that thread.

I don't understand the uproar over the law at all. I'm appalled that this is even a discussion.

Business owners have a fundamental right to refuse business to anyone for any reason. Anything else is outright coercion. If I have product X and you have currency Y, and I wish to keep product X at the expensive of your currency Y, guess what? I don't have to take your money and you don't have to take my product!

Trade is an agreement between *both/all* parties, and *either/any* party can cancel/refuse any transaction

*at the expense of

"Business owners have a fundamental right to refuse business to anyone for any reason. "

So we should repeal the Civil Rights Act?

Give it up Putin, there's no reasoning with an ownership fundamentalist.

I was not aware of how many segregationists we had here. Rather breathtaking.

The Civil Rights Act should be struck down on constitutional grounds. The *government* can't discriminate, this much is said in the Constitution under the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the government's inability to discriminate does not extend to private individuals or private businesses for that matter.

Private businesses should be able to refuse business to anyone for any reason, religion aside.

That being said, each state should be free to pass and enforce its own anti-discrimination legislation if it chooses to.

You just said businesses had a 'fundamental right' to discriminate, now you're walking back from that statement?

I can't make heads or tails of your belief system.

"Private businesses should be able to refuse business to anyone for any reason, religion aside. "

What do you mean by "religion aside". If an atheist wants to refuse to do business with a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, whatever, they should be just as free to do so as the religious person or organization is free to refuse to do business with them. It's a two way street and equality demands reciprocation.

The Constitution may forbid government rather than individuals to discriminate, but it doesn't forbid government to pass laws against discrimination by individuals. So no, that's not a constitutional ground to strike down the Civil Rights Act, not even within your insanely narrow interpretation of the Constitution.

@ Putin33

Under the Tenth Amendment, the States and the People have the option to exercise authority over any power not explicitly delegated to the federal government.

I believe that private businesses do indeed have a fundamental right to refuse business to anyone for any reason, but I also believe that the states have a right to criminalize the act. My point is that the federal government should stay out of the mix because the federal government has NO authority over businesses which do not conduct interstate commerce i.e. a bakery that refuses to bake for gay couples.

I would personally oppose anti-discrimination laws in my state on the grounds of freedom, but that's beside the point. I oppose federal anti-discrimination laws on Constitutional grounds.

@ Draugnar

By "religion aside" I mean that the refusal of business against gay couples by "Christian" business owners shouldn't be a religious issue. 1) Nothing in the New Testament says anything about gay people being any better or worse than any other sinner.

2) and more importantly, any business owner can refuse business to anyone regardless of religion. If I'm a (hypocritical) Christian who chooses not to interact with gay people in my place of business, my motivations don't matter. My right to refuse business is a secular Tenth Amendment right, not a religious First Amendment right.

@ oscarjd74

See the Tenth Amendment. Basically, the *federal* government cannot do anything that isn't explicitly stated in the Constitution. Since the Constitution does not give the *federal* government the authority to pass anti-discrimination legislation that covers private individuals or businesses, sections of the Civil Rights Act are unconstitutional. I will reiterate that all 50 states can pass whatever anti-discrimination laws they want, also under the Tenth Amendment.

It was the Arizona legislature attempting to pass Sharia law

Don't compare the two; that's unfair. It's not like Arizona passed a law to start beheading homosexuals or stoning adulterers.