Gov. Jan Brewer (photo: AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

Gov. Jan Brewer (photo: AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

Update: Following Apple’s expression of opposition and much national attention, Governor Brewer has vetoed the bill.

//

Apple has confirmed an NBC report that the company has urged Arizona State Governer Jan Brewer to veto a highly controversial (to put it mildly) bill that would allow businesses to deny service to gay and lesbian customers.

Apple spokeswoman Kristin Hueget confirmed Monday that the company had reached out to Brewer and urged a veto.

American Airlines CEO Doug Parker, Sen. John McCain and three State Senators who originally voted for the bill are also among those who have joined calls for the veto.

Apple’s sapphire plant, believed to be making screens for the iPhone 6, is located in Mesa, Arizona. The company last year applauded the Supreme Court ruling that banning same-sex marriage in California was unconstitutional.

Can't really improve on George Takei's commentary ...

Can’t really improve on George Takei’s commentary …

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

122 Responses to “Apple joins growing call for Arizona to veto anti-gay religious discrimination bill”

  1. Hmm… This will be rather interesting to see how this goes. Arizona already has IBM, but Texas has long courted Apple hence the Austin center, and Nevada to the north already has an Apple Distribution Center along with a Data Center and a future 20-Megawat Solar plant to power it. Plus Nevada not only already has a working relationship with Nevada, but has stricken down anti-LBGT legislation recently…

    Arizona is going to slit their own throats in a hurry if they’re not careful. Lots of other states are already fighting for the opportunity to court Apple as well as other industries and are having great success. What might give some politicians a few votes from extremists right now, will end up killing their tax base as they chase off their constituents.

    Like

  2. rahhbriley says:

    Wish this seemed bizarre to me. I live in Brownbackistan, Kansas. It’s a sad state. I regularly counter-protest the Phelps. There is a lot of hate here. Our Secretary of State is the guy who wrote the AZ profiling immigration bill. We just had a law like this work it’s way through our House. Too many F’d up things are connected with us and AZ.

    Like

    • Ben Lovejoy says:

      Crazy this kind of stuff can happen in the 21st Century

      Like

      • rahhbriley says:

        Ya. Not sure The status of our bill in the state senate, I need to look. Our bill allows for government officials to deny service based on their religious beliefs to gay people. Unconstitutional much? What if there’s only one government official there and you need service?

        Like

  3. I see how it is viewed as wrong to discriminate against people and tell them they cannot be served but isn’t it also the right of the business owner to serve who they deem appropriate. I believe this is one thing wrong with people today, people do not have the right to run their business how they want to reguardless of if it is right or wrong. It should be free market that if the business does not want to serve a certain group that there can be boycotts and if a business hurts enough they will change but it should not be a law.

    Like

    • Ben Lovejoy says:

      Business owners should absolutely be free to decide they don’t want to serve individual customers if they are troublesome, but why should it be any more acceptable to deny service based on sexual preferences than on skin color?

      Like

      • Why should particular groups be protected while others aren’t, Ben? Why is it OK to discriminate against Christians by legislation, but not OK for those businesses to discriminate against those whom they serve?

        Like

      • Well said The Annoyed Elephant. It always seems wrong if one’s beliefs are offended but to offend someone else is not discrimination….it is ALL discrimination.

        Like

      • Ian Grant says:

        The business owners are *not* being discriminated against. To assert that, you need a rather “interesting” definition of discrimination. (How is being told that you can’t judge your customer’s discrimination? Would you like to extend the law into judging Jews? Blacks? Muslims? Women? Single mothers? Because your argument, Annoyed Elephant, is arguing that very precisely.) And no, it’s not okay for a business to discriminate. Why does some business owner get to approve his customer’s lives? Why is it okay for him to judge, but not okay for society to say “thou shalt not judge your customers”? Like I said, you need an “interesting” (i.e. spurious and perhaps even facetious) definition of discrimination to back your argument.

        Christian’s aren’t the victims with this odious law – common sense, civil rights and that wonderful document, The Constitution, are.

        Like

      • “How is being told that you can’t judge your customer’s discrimination? ”

        When someone’s religious beliefs state that they believe certain forms of behavior are wrong or sinful, for you, with the force of government via the courts, to force them at the point of a gun to service those people against their religious beliefs, you are discriminating against them.

        e.g.: http://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-orders-colorado-bakery-cater-sex-weddings/story?id=21136505

        Like

    • Businesses don’t just get to do whatever they want. As a business licensed within a state/country you are granted all sorts of benefits(lower tax, discount programs, insurance, etc) that are possible thanks to the people that live and work hard for your state/country including that 10% that are LGBT. As such you should be respectful and tolerant towards the people of your state/country and you should never expect to reserve the right by law to discriminate on the basis of gender, race or sexual orientation. A business owner can be as intolerant as he pleases but the business itself does not get protection under the law to serve as the platform for the intolerance of its owner.

      Like

    • No way. You discriminate against customers for their sexuality (which they cannot change) then what are you saying? That you can discriminate because they are black, a woman, or Jewish? No. Free market economics does not equate to racism, sexism, or any form of intolerance. It’s distasteful and I for one utterly oppose the notion you’ve put forward as reasonable here.

      Like

      • I never said free market equated to racism, sexism, or any form of intolerance. BUT you are intolerant of the beliefs of individuals just because it seems fair to you? That is yet another form of discrimination sir but you are saying that your form is okay but believing owners of businesses should have the right to run it how they seem far is wrong? I completely oppose the absurd notion you have put forward.

        Like

      • @Smayer We have to be intolerant of ANY belief or belief system that promotes discrimination as an acceptable form of living. To say ‘I belief women should die’ therefor it is ok to kill females otherwise you are are being intolerant towards my belief is utter nonsense. Two guys having sex does not take away your right to be religious or belief whatever you want to belief, the moment you deny somebody’s basic rights based on what you belief, then we have a problem. Always remember that people are born gay, people are not born Christian(or religious x) they chose to be Christian and they chose to practice intolerance and discrimination. That was their choice.

        Like

    • Rob Dowdy says:

      @The Annoyed Elephant — I know, right? Because homosexuality is a BEHAVIOR, that’s all. Really, it’s just a hobby or a bad habit! Like playing checkers or watching TV or biting one’s fingernails. There’s nothing innate about it, that’s why good Christian families NEVER raise up any gay kids. That’s why there are no gays in places where gays are routinely jailed, beaten, and killed for being gay (like many parts of Africa, Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, etc.). I mean, those people CHOOSE to be gay, right? Even though they’re going to be strung up in the center of town for it (Iran) or treated like a freak (many “loving” American Christian homes).

      But that’s not really the point, is it? The point is that this law is just stupid. Look here:

      Deuteronomy 23:2: “A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.”

      So as a Christian, it offends me that people are born out of wedlock. I’m like God, of course, in that I blame the BABY for being born out of wedlock (like being gay, being born out of wedlock is obviously a CHOICE!). Since it’s the baby’s fault for being a bastard, and bastards aren’t welcome in the congregation of the lord, they damn well aren’t welcome in my fine establishment, so out they go! And good riddance!

      And that’s not all! How about the court case of Loving v. Virginia, where the judge ruled:

      “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races show that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

      As a good Christian I agree with that statement in its entirety! So anyone who’s not a decent white person needs to GTFO of my fine establishment! Go straight back where you belong! I dunno where that is, but it’s not in MY fine establishment!

      And don’t even get me STARTED on all these uppity women nowadays!

      1 Timothy 2:12: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.”

      You hear that, lady teachers and bosses? GET OUT OF HERE RIGHT NOW! Disgusting abominations! And to think, these filthy women want equal pay! They’re lucky we let them go outside unsupervised!

      And fully HALF of heterosexual marriages end in divorce! But what did JESUS say about that?

      Matthew 19:8: “Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.””

      Adulterers! Get OUT OUT OUT of my establishment!

      And rich people! Ugh, rich people …

      Matthew 19:23: “Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.””

      You see the front door of MY establishment, rich bozos? That’s the eye of a needle and don’t be trying to squeeze your way through it! OUT OUT OUT!

      Whew. Discrimination is hard! And I’ve only just started throwing out all the people the Bible teaches me I should be mad at! Why, by the time I’m done going through the whole thing and figuring out who I should throw out I bet I won’t have ANY customers at all! Which is good, because I don’t want to become one of those rich people Jesus dislikes so much, now do I?

      And just think, if I was one of any number of other religions I’d have a whole NEW group of people to throw out!

      Except this law wasn’t meant to target any of those people, was it? Of all the people the Bible teaches us to ostracize, it’s only the gays this bill was meant to target. Why not those filthy cripples?

      Leviticus 21:18: “For no one who has a blemish shall draw near, a man blind or lame, or one who has a mutilated face or a limb too long,”

      OUT, you disgusting, disfigured freaks! OUT OUT OUT! There are decent people trying to eat lunch!

      Or women, when they’re suffering from their monthly horror?

      Leviticus 15:19-30: “When a woman has a discharge, and the discharge in her body is blood, she shall be in her menstrual impurity for seven days, and whoever touches her shall be unclean until the evening. And everything on which she lies during her menstrual impurity shall be unclean. Everything also on which she sits shall be unclean. And whoever touches her bed shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water and be unclean until the evening. And whoever touches anything on which she sits shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water and be unclean until the evening. Whether it is the bed or anything on which she sits, when he touches it he shall be unclean until the evening.”

      Just … Ew. GTFO, unclean harlots!

      OMG, kicking out all the right people is a lot of work. Anyway, let’s get back to running my business! Wait, where did everyone go … ?

      Like

  4. Anti-Gay – it’s the new prohibition ! And as such just an as useless attempt at legislation as that law became.

    Like

  5. Why is it not OK to discriminate against gays, but a-OK to force people to do things that are diametrically opposed to their deeply held religious beliefs?

    Here – let me make it simple: if businesses in Arizona want to discriminate against the people who walk in the front door, so long as that business is not a legalized monopoly like a utility – let them do it. If Christians and Muslims want to say no to gay people – fine. If gays want to say no to straight people – fine. If Republicans want to deny their business to people who voted for Hope’n’Change… fine.

    Like

    • Ben Lovejoy says:

      Would you extend this freedom to a business that wanted to say no to African Americans, or to women?

      Like

      • This is non-sequitur, this is about strong religious beliefs about sexual perversion and people’s views on such. Saying no to blacks has no relation to religious beliefs. Don’t try and confuse different arguments into one because they are not the same. To answer your question directly, this business owner’s venture would be short-lived with that decision.

        Like

      • Ben Lovejoy says:

        Religious arguments were used to justify racism in years gone by …

        Like

      • I sure would, and here’s why: the market. If a business owner decides to cut off a portion of their customers, then they, as business owners, will bear the economic responsibilities for that decision. It’s good business sense to not do so, but it should be their right to make bad decisions without government interference.

        Like

      • “Religious arguments were used to justify racism”

        Religious arguments have been used to justify everything. Ergo, “religious arguments” is a ridiculous and silly argument on your part.

        Like

      • @AnnoyedElephant: But isn’t that the point? Yes, using religious arguments to justify any sort of discrimination is ridiculous, thus we should not use it to target specific discrimination to a specific class of people.

        Like

      • Ethan Morgan: Here’s a better option: recognize that we, as humans, will always discriminate against others. Then, just let the market decide which businesses rise and fall.

        The sad thing is that Arizona has to pass a law to protect religious institutions that are already protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution.

        Like

    • fattym77 says:

      Yes, you are right! Discrimination for all is the most logical solution! Idiot

      Like

      • Name calling is the best way to get a point across. *smh* So you are saying it is okay for someone to be discriminated against based on their beliefs about who to provide a service to? Seems like opposite discrimination is perfectally legit in the mind of the uneducated.

        Like

      • Yeah – because legislating away discrimination has worked so well so far. Why, there’s no more racism in the world thanks to our laws legislating discrimination based on race!

        Idiot.

        Like

  6. I think that the law should be redone to protect business from frivolous lawsuits from gay and lesbian groups who want to sue for services denied. Even though I don’t agree w/ discrimination of any group, a business owner should have the right to deny service (as crazy as it sounds) to anyone based on his/her religious beliefs. Just like the signs that read “no shoes no shirt, no service”; should I be able to sue for denial of service at a restaurant because I’m not wearing shoes or shirt?

    Like

    • You choose to wear or not wear a shirt.
      You do not choose your sex, race or sexuality.
      That’s the difference.

      Like

    • Rob Dowdy says:

      @Smayer …. what an idiot. So the “choice” to be of a certain religious mindset should be sacrosanct, right? Because religion is a choice. Following that logic the “choice” to be gay should be JUST AS VALID and EQUALLY PROTECTED.

      See, I think religion is stupid. It’s a way for stupid people to feel better about the fact that their lives are meaningless in the grand scheme of things and someday relatively soon they are going to die. It’s Santa Claus for grownups. But, fine, right? If they CHOOSE to believe in some old man in the sky more power to them if it makes them feel better … but when their hateful old imaginary sky man starts telling ME how to live MY life, well then their CHOICE is now directly impacting me, isn’t it?

      And I don’t like that.

      Just as they don’t like that my “choice” is impacting THEM …

      So. Chaos ensues. Or as a society we pass some reasonable laws that force us to grit out teeth and get along. Or we end up with the lines at the DMV going from all-day-misery to just-kill-yourself-and-get-it-over-with misery because the Jews aren’t serving the Muslims, the Muslims aren’t serving any non-Muslims, the Christians aren’t serving the Jews, Muslims, or Christians of the wrong denomination, the atheists aren’t serving ANYONE …

      Your world would be a profoundly shitty place to live in. Come to think of it, I’m sure it actually is.

      Like

  7. Ben, I do not think it is okay to discriminate against people because of their skin color, sexual preference and/or religious beliefs but also I do not think it is correct for the government to tell someone they must serve anyone who comes in their doors. Also, I completely disagree with the fact that the government tells preachers that their beliefs are of no importance and they must go against their beliefs and marry a gay couple. Once again, it should be up to the individual and not the mega-government to dictate what someone does.

    On a side note, how do I respond to a comment like you did with mine earlier? I am new to 9to5 sites and would like to become active. Thanks.

    Like

    • Ben Lovejoy says:

      I think it’s ok to say as a society that we hold it to be self-evident that all are created equal and should be treated as thus …

      You should see a small reply icon in the border of a post – click that to reply.

      Like

      • ” society that we hold it to be self-evident that all are created equal”

        All are created equal? Yay! So when do you guys plan on distributing those Super Bowl rings?

        Here’s a revelation for you: we aren’t all created equal.

        Like

      • @AnnoyedElephant: we are all, in fact, created equal. No one person is better than any other based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. How you are raised, the wealth you obtain, how you live your life are obviously not equal, but then again those aspects are not what Ben was referring to.

        Like

      • Ben is clearly referring to the US constitution, which reads:
        “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
        Its not so hard to see that the philosophical extent of this fundamental US belief extends to sex, race, creed.
        It does not mean a bigot who runs a shop has a right to withdraw those rights, just because they were inadequately potty trained.

        Like

      • “The Annoyed Elephant” is the reason why legislation is required to protect vulnerable members of society from bigots and racists. It’s maddening that we are living in the 21st century and still having discussions on whether a gay individual can purchase a coffee at an establishment run by a bigot.
        Thank God I live in Canada.

        Like

      • @Johnny Evans, but if that business owner’s pursuit of happiness is that he does not have to have things against his beliefs forced down his throat then you sir are the one taking away his constitutional rights.

        Like

      • @ iphonenick, I’ll copy here Annoyed Elephant’s comment from another post: “because legislating away discrimination has worked so well so far. Why, there’s no more racism in the world thanks to our laws legislating discrimination based on race!”

        So now gay people are “vulnerable”??? Please, they are adults who make decisions and function in society just like anyone else. We don’t more laws, there are already enough on the books already.

        Like

      • Ethan Morgan: No, we aren’t created equal. Some are better at things than other people. Some are born into wealth – others into poverty. Some are born with athletic bodies, others with birth defects. We are not created “equal”.

        Like

      • jonny evans: It’s not in the Constitution. It’s in the Declaration of Independence which, while nice, is not the law of the land. Also, it was written by people who clearly didn’t think black people were equal.

        iphonenick: Let’s see… there’s a political system that stems from people who want to force all people living under the thumb of a government to think, act, and obey the whims of that government, under penalty of re-education. I think they tried it in Italy. Enjoy your brownshirt.

        Like

      • Ian Grant says:

        So, Annoyed Elephant, the founding words, the basic idea of America is… Well, something you don’t approve of?

        “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

        You don’t think those stirring words apply? Those Jefferson-penned words aren’t all that important to you? That all are not created equal, and that it’s okay for you, for some random business owner, to determine who is worthy of equal treatment and whom it is to be denied to? You are arguing, with that familiar right wing pedantry we have all come to know, that all are not created equal in the eyes of the law? That, for all the faults of the original Constitution and the ignorance the Declaration of Independence has about slaves, that we are not equal? You argue that, and yes I’m going there, Hitler and the Fascists had it right? That some aren’t equal? Because of some aspect of their life *you* don’t approve of? Who gave you the right to approve the lives of others? Who granted you such power over other people? Who made you more equal?

        Your argument is facetious and obscene.

        Like

      • @IanGrant, is it possible for you to actually answer a question w/out asking another question? Your response above has to be the paragraph w/ the most questions posted to an answer I have ever seen.

        Usually happens when someone is caught between a rock and a hard place and has no other way to provide a coherent argument.

        Like

      • Ian Grant says:

        I love the irony, Mario. :-)

        You question if I can respond to a question without issuing another question… Just LOVE it! :-)

        Like

      • “So, Annoyed Elephant, the founding words, the basic idea of America is… Well, something you don’t approve of? ”

        I sure do approve of it. Especially the part about religious freedom.

        “You don’t think those stirring words apply? ”

        Stirring words – yes. Law? No. The Declaration of Independence is not the law of the land.

        “That all are not created equal, and that it’s okay for you”

        It’s called reality, genius. We aren’t all created equal. Period. It’s a fantasy.

        “You argue that, and yes I’m going there, Hitler and the Fascists had it right? ”

        Absolutely not. I am arguing that it is wrong for government to force “right thinking” upon people – you know, just like Hitler and the fascists did.

        “Who granted you such power over other people? Who made you more equal?”

        I would say “God”. Others would say “nature”. Either way – it’s a fact, Jack. We aren’t all created equal. If you think you ARE equal, go try out for the Denver Broncos defensive line. We need the help.

        Like

      • Ian Grant says:

        Wow, Ticked-off Dromedary, you really do like to construct fantastical justifications.

        You’re arguing that it’s okay for discrimination to happen in certain circumstances, but not in others? Wow.

        What you’re arguing is that it’s okay for someone to treat another as a lesser person because of… Religion? Because of some carefully constructed, very fragile and incredibly obtuse, not to mention deceptive, argument about “born equal”?

        Holy cannoli.

        Like

      • You mean like how you’re treating me as a lesser person because of my religion?

        Sorry if you don’t grasp the concept, but let’s be honest: you think you’re better than me. That means that even you, for all your caterwauling, don’t think all men are created equal.

        Like

      • Ian Grant says:

        You’re expecting me to consider you equal when you’ve already argued that people aren’t equal? *And* have made it clear that gay people are less than you? I think you’re just trying to give me a headache. Anyway, I was mocking your ideas. I reckon you’d prefer it if I doffed my hat, begged your favor to speak, but not freely, and didn’t annoy you by reciprocating your obvious disdain for others. Ain’t gonna happen. :-)

        Like

      • Ah – so it’s OK to consider me unequal because I don’t toe the line on your philosophy. Ergo – in your mind, your philosophy is the baseline for deciding what is considered to be equal or not. Ergo… those who do not agree with your philosophy are not equal.

        Typical hypocritical ego-liberalism.

        Like

      • Ian Grant says:

        Excuse me, but I think you’re under the impression that you’re a special kind of jackass. Please permit to disavow of you that notion – you’re not.

        Anyway, I’ve got better things to do with my time than entertain a hypocritical homophobic-supporting, discrimination-supporting troll of a dromedary who doesn’t understand his own arguments.

        Have a nice day, now. :-)

        Like

    • Correct me if I am wrong, but (at least in the US) I don’t think any state that has legalized gay marriage has any law forcing a religious organization to marry a gay couple. I believe every state explicitly protects the ability of the church to decide whether it will marry gay couples or not. The only thing these laws require is that the state recognize same-sex marriage and that the state must issue a marriage license to these individuals.

      Like

      • Tell that to businesses who’ve shut down because of court orders mandating that they service gay marriages.

        Like

      • Ian Grant says:

        That’s a claim where, I think, you have to prove it. I tried Googling it and came up with two stories. One was a B&B in England, which has a long-standing policy against piously-inspired bigotry, and that cake shop.

        Like

      • There’s been a few in the US. The problem is that it sets precedent.

        Like

      • Ian Grant says:

        Like I said: evidence, please.

        Can’t find any? Oh my.

        Like

      • Oregon: Oregon labor board declares bakery (Sweet Cakes By Melissa) in violation of Oregon laws for refusing to service gay weddings. The bakery closed.

        Colorado: Judge Robert Spence orders Masterpiece Cakeshop to cater to gay weddings. The bakery closed.

        And if you think these are isolated incidents… wait.

        Like

      • Ian Grant says:

        “Lots!” of discrimination cases! Wow. Two.

        The first closed because the bakery’s customer’s didn’t like doing business with judgmental bakers.

        Masterpiece Cakes has a website and, apparently, “business is booming”.

        Meh. Like I said before, you don’t know what your own point is. You’re becoming tedious.

        Like

    • I see the term bigot used a lot here. What do you call the person who wants to trample on another persons religious beliefs?

      Like

      • Ian Grant says:

        What do you call someone who cries, desperately, about not being able to discriminate against others? Hmm?

        Like

      • @Ian Grant – I don’t know – but I noticed you deflected without an answer. You’re so quick to protect the gay community – but not the religious community. Is that because you’re not religious? Again, what do you call the person that wants to trample on another persons religious beliefs? A private store owners religious beliefs?

        Like

      • Ian Grant says:

        “Deflected without an answer”, hmm? I didn’t think it warranted “an answer”. As in, I didn’t think your point required careful consideration and examination of “both sides”.

        Am I religious? Do I need to be? Would you consider me your equal if I were? Unequal if I’m not? Why is that important? Would it help you, re-assure you, if I told you my Mom is a lay-preacher? Need to know the religion of my wife? Need to approve my marriage, do you? Why is it important?

        Quick to defend the gay community, am I? How about this: I reckon discrimination is a fundamental evil. Officially enshrined discrimination all the more so. Discrimination, to me, is the act of small-minded twits who can’t cope with the fact that there’s so much wonder in all of humanity. Just look at the incredible, exciting diversity of people on city streets! The astonishing people I’ve met all across America, and Canada and Britain. it’s incredible – such an array of beliefs, personalities, lives. It’s incredible, wonderful. *I* certainly don’t want to be in the business of approving anyone’s life. You, I gather, are of a different mind. I certainly think America would be well-served to move on from the desperate desire of some to enact Jim Crow laws, regardless of the alleged, and oh-so-fragile, piety that motivates them. (You did ask, so don’t complain about my response.)

        Not that that is *any* of your business, I’m a life-long atheist.

        Like

      • I call them an anti-religious hate-filled bigot.

        And lest we forget… “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech”.

        My right to believe in a religion that says homosexuality is a sin is protected by the same Amendment that guarantees my right to say Obama is an idiot.

        Like

      • Which of your rights are being trampled upon? Your Bible tells you it’s okay to sell your children into slavery, stone unwed mothers to death, and further put to death anybody working on the sabbath. HOW DARE the government TRAMPLE on your religious freedoms because ALL OF A SUDDEN, your murdering ways are unfairly curtailed by Obama’s fascist thugs?

        Oh, but suddenly, this one issue is a serious problem, though, right? Because you’re so deeply religious, and stuff.

        Like

      • Rob Dowdy says:

        In this case, they’re called “people trying to live their lives” …

        Do you really want to live in a world where you never know when you walk into the grocery store if you’re going to be thrown out or not? Or even why? Why didn’t the cowards who passed this bill leave in the amendment that said, “You have to post a sign out front telling everyone who you won’t serve”? Why not have that sign? Surely if you are going to deny service you are PROUD of that fact, right? You’re not ashamed of your beliefs are you? I’d fully support this bill if every business had to post a list of who they’re going to shit on right on the front window and then abide by it. Let everyone SEE what you believe and walk in the front door knowing that.

        That’s what this law does, it gives everyone the right to treat everyone else like shit, on a whim, and then say, “Jesus / Allah / Krishna / Spaghetti Monster made me do it!”

        I’ll let you in on a little secret: being gay isn’t a choice. I promise you, I never chose this, but I have to live in a world full of people who don’t believe me when I say that and who think their choice (to be religious) is more valid than what they see as my own (to be gay, which I cannot change). It’s hard sometimes, okay? It’s hard sometimes when you’re traveling to go into a hotel lobby in some small town and ask for a room for the night with your partner of 12 years whom you dearly love and to get “the look” — two men, one bed, uh huh. There are places where it wouldn’t just be “the look” if this law passed, it would be, “You need to leave, we don’t serve your kind around here …” Oh, brave new world … that sounds JUST like progress, doesn’t it? The bible speaks out about so many, many groups: the divorced, women on their periods (anything they touch is unclean, including people), children born out of wedlock (unto the 10th generation!). Why target a few homos when there are so damn many other sinners? Why refuse to serve gays (sinners) while serving remarried divorcees (sinners)? It boggles the mind, doesn’t it?

        I grew up in a very small town. I’ve just turned 40. When I was a teenager in the late 80s, in my tiny town of a few hundred people, I knew that if anyone found out what I was I’d be risking EVERYthing. Everything. People would have shunned me, at the very least. I’d seen it happen to others, heard the whispers. They’d have beaten me to a pulp, most likely. I’d seen that, also. Or worse things, maybe. It was not like now, not remotely. It was a bad time, it was a bad place. Those people would have said that it was okay to treat me that way, because their god hates me.

        Before I ever knew I was gay I knew I didn’t believe in the supernatural, so then one day in 7th grade I realize, “Holy shit, I have a crush on my best friend … what’s WRONG with me?” And I knew I was defective, right? Because that’s what I’d been taught to believe my whole life. I already felt defective because I didn’t believe in Jesus, now I’m also gay? It was as if I woke up one morning and realized I wasn’t even HUMAN anymore.

        Except, the only thing that saved me, crazily enough, was the festering, pervasive racism of my tiny, north Florida hometown (not far from the Georgia and Alabama lines). I’d never been able to understand it, even at 12 or 13 years old: WHY did these people despise black people so much? Why did they use the n-word all the time? Why were they so mean and small and why was their god so hateful and cruel? One of my uncles used to pack up his family and drive two hours to church: it was the closest one he could find that still preached that after Cain killed Abel god made him black so that everyone would know he was unworthy and less than the white man.

        If not for that racism I’d probably have fared a lot worse as a teenager, but I looked around me and said, “If they can be so wrong about black people they might be wrong about me, too.” And I had to fight every day for every shred of dignity and self-esteem I could hang onto in an environment that was actively hostile to me as a human being. There were very bad times, when I couldn’t imagine a happy future for myself, ever. Children should never, never have to live that way. I’ll be honest, I had a bad time and I did some stupid, self-destructive things. My mom and dad were not racists, thankfully, but they were no fans of the gays. I had no one to talk to, no help, no role models, no nothing except fear and loneliness and an omnipresent dread that I’d be found out. My mom and dad, to this day, have a hard time with that, with how hard it must have been for me and how alone I was.

        I somehow found a way, later on, to be okay and to find someone to spend my life with who makes me happy. At the end of it all, that’s really all any of us can hope to accomplish: some fleeting happiness with people we love in the few decades we have to live. That’s it.

        It makes me sad that we need laws to keep people from destroying the happiness of others, but we do. But this law is not one of those laws, is it? If it was, they’d have kept in the part about posting a sign, wouldn’t they?

        We DO NOT serve gays …
        We DO NOT serve bastards …
        We DO NOT serve Muslims …
        We DO NOT serve Jews …
        We DO NOT serve women who do not know their proper place …

        Put it on the window so I can see it and walk away without going inside and being humiliated. But the cowards in Arizona took that part out so that other cowards could have it both ways.

        I promise you, if you put a sign in the window saying I’m not welcome I’ll go away and never come back.

        But just ask yourself, what if the sign in the window is about YOU? Or your sister / mother / best friend?

        I’d support this law 100% if they’d had the courage of their convictions and made it mandatory for businesses to clearly list those whom they wish to keep out.

        Like

  8. Based on the comments I’ve read here, I think many of you are missing the point of the bill. I’ll preface this by saying I am taking no sides here. The bill is directed at religious business owners that do not wish to condone or participate in the gay lifestyle. Most recently was a wedding cake maker who refused to make a cake for a gay couples wedding strictly due to religious beliefs. They felt by making the cake they were condoning or profiting off of a lifestyle the believe is a sin. So if you make it illegal for them to discriminate against the gay couple, you are then discriminating against the religious business owner. It’s a no win situation. The cake shop was boycotted and closed. The free market spoke. I’m not sure we need the government for this.

    Like

    • Actually, some bakeries have closed. Others have thrived. Some of those who’ve closed did so because the courts – not the free market – forced their hand.

      Like

      • Regardless – I don’t think we need government here. Your business will sink or swim on its own – all based on business decisions – Let the market do what the market does. You may charge me $10 for a gallon of milk or a bottle of water during a hurricane – but I promise you, when the hurricane is over – your business will be too.

        Like

      • That’s pretty much my point.

        Like

      • Rob Dowdy says:

        Why do you suppose they stripped out the amendment that would have required businesses to post a list of who they refuse to serve? Surely they aren’t ashamed? Let them put up their list of desired clientele and let the free market decide, right?

        And yet that part of the bill somehow got left out … I wonder why. I mean, just put it in the window, right? Then I never even go IN the store and they never even have to see me. Seems quite efficient, doesn’t it? Or maybe they don’t want anyone to know who they won’t serve? Seems a bit cowardly to me. No, not a bit. A lot.

        Like

      • Why do you think it’s a good idea to publish a list of people’s names who don’t agree with the politically correct cause of the week?

        Hint: it involves shirts. Brown in color.

        Like

  9. This is a hard argument to have, i believe they have the right to choose who they serve, after all it is there business, but by all accounts, you cannot tell everyone that is gay or lesbian, thus creating a problem… If you are going to ban a particular sector of the public, then maybe it should be as simple as they must display a sign banning that particular group… Thus meaning they could do it legally. It would also give people the freedom to choose if they used such a shop for purchases… No sign, then no banning and would be breaking the law… If that makes any sense…

    People will vote with their feet and the owner will have the freedom to choose who he serves…

    Like

    • Rob Dowdy says:

      Why only gays?

      Jesus says that to divorce and remarry is to commit adultery. Why not divorcees?

      Paul said that women should not be allowed to teach or given authority over men. Why not them?

      Jesus said a rich man would no sooner pass through the gates of heaven than a camel would pass through the eye of a needle. Why not ban the rich?

      The same verse in acts that speaks out against homosexuality also speaks out against greed. Why not ban the avaricious?

      That same verse speaks out against idolaters (any god who isn’t God is an idol). Why not ban any non-Christians?

      The same verse speaks out against adulterers and sexual immorality of a general nature (premarital sex, etc.). Why not ban anyone who has had sex outside of wedlock?

      What makes such a small group so very, very SPECIAL? So much more important than ALL the other sinners?

      It truly boggles the mind.

      Like

  10. rahhbriley says:

    Kansas’ version of this bill allows Government employees to deny service based on the religious views. Someone try to justify that.

    Like

    • rahhbriley says:

      Their*

      Like

    • Government employees should not be allowed to deny access to government services, but they should be allowed to refuse to work with people or to perform actions that violate their religious beliefs. A government employee, for instance, should not be required to provide abortions to people, if they are religiously opposed to such action.

      And before anyone gets up in arms over abortion, let me ask you this: should a Muslim government employee be required to make ham sandwiches for people? Yeah. Didn’t think so.

      Like

      • Ian Grant says:

        Wow. That’s some stretching! So, tell me, should a government employee be able to refuse to rescue someone from a burning building because the person in need of rather immediate service and happens to be Jewish? Black? A Muslim? Gay? Transgender? Should, as you assert, government service be predicated on the religious beliefs of the person behind the counter? Will you also require a twenty-questions session at the DMV? I can just imagine it: “You’re gay? I’m sorry, I do n’t approve of how you live your life. Go find another line to wait in.”

        Tell me, how many gay people have you come across? How many do you know? You can easily identify the gay folk standing in line, can you? If not, how do you expect those poor, innocent, clerks to identify these allegedly unsavory characters, a pink star on a queer license? Or just on their jacket lapel? Would you also require that any Jew standing in line to be served by an Islamic clerk have a yellow star? Or would you maintain that gay customers only attend gay stores, gay clerks and so on? I’m getting a headache trying to limit the number of permutations your ridiculous, obscene, argument to a reasonable number.

        And I happen to know a Muslim chap who likes ham sandwiches. And there are plenty of Islamic liquor store owners. So your point would be… What, exactly? That you like discrimination? Yeah, that would be it.

        Like

      • Ian Grant: Your argument is so full of strawmen that it’s beyond ridiculous. However, I will address your concerns.

        1. If it’s a government service that involves life-saving actions like fire protection, law enforcement, etc., then they should be locked in. However, beyond that – no.

        2. I’ve known plenty of gays. What’s your point, exactly?

        3. You know a Muslim who loves ham sandwiches? Then you know a Muslim who doesn’t care that, according to their religion, even touching pork can potentially condemn you to hell.

        Do I like discrimination? No. Do I think government should enforce non-discrimination? No.

        Like

      • Ian Grant says:

        I didn’t introduce the straw-men. You did. All I did was provide concrete examples of *your* straw-men. :-)

        So you’ve known plenty of “gays”, hmm? Well, good for you. Ever consider that they might be people, worthy of not being discriminated against? Or is your absolute libertarianism so absolute you can’t perceive the failures of your own absolute libertarianism? The problem with such Ayn Rand-worshipping libertarianism is that it generally collapses under its own fallacies. *Especially* when it comes into contact with American Evangelism and Christian Fundamentalism. (Am I okay in being amused that you’re clearly pious and also an believer of Ayn Rand’s economic libertarianism? And probably haven’t been able to negotiate the treacherous shoals of “truth” within that, erm, theological [I guess] framework? So you’ve chosen to ignore them altogether? Pretend they don’t exist? And so on?)

        Re the ham-munching Muslim. So what? I also known Christians who eat shellfish, wear mixed-fiber clothing and have divorced. I know plenty who’ve had affairs, including one chap who had a boyfriend that his wife didn’t know about. I know a Jewish lad who’s rather fond of bacon. Are they all to be held to your high standard as well? Or does your in-depth [sic] knowledge of Islam mean you can only comment on that?

        Meh. You don’t even know what you’re arguing.

        Like

      • I don’t even know what I’m arguing. That’s rich coming from a guy who calls it “American evangelism”.

        Like

      • Ian Grant says:

        The particular variety of Christianity under discussion is American in origin. It’s called “evangelicalism”. Therefore, “American Evangelicalism”.

        Let me know if you find any part of that difficult. :-)

        Like

      • OK. Define “evangelicalism”.

        Like

      • Ian Grant says:

        “Zealously advocating something”; these days, that “something” is often a politically right-wing informed version of Christianity.

        Like

      • Ian Grant says:

        Shoot, I forgot to include this bit: “Evangelism” is a modern name for Evangelicalism. I’m not sure because I can’t be bothered to look it up, but Evangelicalism might be the archaic version of the word.

        Like

      • Sorry, dummy… “Evangelism” is a noun that means “the preaching or promulgation of the gospel; the work of an evangelist”.

        Evangelicalism is a movement “denoting or relating to any of certain Protestant sects or parties, which emphasize the importance of personal conversion and faith in atonement through the death of Christ as a means of salvation ”

        You were wrong. About a great many things.

        Like

      • Ian Grant says:

        Yes, indeed, I am wrong about many things. But not being as arrogant or as discriminatory as you, I can admit when I am wrong. And this is most assuredly *not* one of those times.

        Like

      • rahhbriley says:

        I totally get what you are trying to say, however, I don’t think your example quite holds based on…if preforming abortions or preparing ham sandwiches is against your belief set…then don’t sign up to work at an abortion clinic or sandwich shop.

        Like

      • Fine. Then if someone doesn’t cater to gays, let them go somewhere else. See how easy that works?

        Like

  11. Under this law then, businesses who deny service to gay people, ARE THUS OBLIGATED to turn away divorced people, single moms, people who have premarital sex, unwed cohabitants, unfaithful spouses, those who do not attend mass every Sunday, those who use curse words…. basically EVERY SINNER. Otherwise, they are being discriminatory.

    No business, whose taxes citizens pay to support, should be allowed to turn people away because of BIOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES. No one chooses to be gay. Just like no one chooses to be straight, or black, or left-handed.

    We’ve gone backwards in history, we haven’t learned a damn thing.

    Like

    • Can you please prove the science that proves people are born gay? Where is the gay gene? Unless I am wrong there has never been one found nor anything remotely close to saying people are born gay.

      Like

      • @Smayer – seriously? Can you show us the left handed gene, or even the straight gene for that matter? That has to be the most ignorant comment I’ve ever read on this site.

        @HereNorThere – Who said anything about tax payer support. If I own a clothing store and a homeless man comes in that smells so bad you can smell him from 5 feet away and wants to try on 5 suits – that I will certainly have to clean after he leaves – do I have to let him? If I don’t, am I discriminating against the homeless? As the owner, I am repulsed by this person just as the Christians are repulsed by gay people.

        Like

      • Ian Grant says:

        Samyer, you need to become your own research assistant. Go google your request. (So, tell us all: when did you decide to become straight?)

        Like

      • There is some indication that sexual orientation may be genetic, however, the science is not complete. There have been competing studies. It is entirely possible that it’s a psychological condition as opposed to a genetic one.

        Having said that… I don’t care one way or the other.

        Like

      • Rob Dowdy says:

        Where is the religion gene that makes you Muslim, Jewish, Christian (which denomination? How is that coded in DNA?)

        Why is the choice of a “religious lifestyle” sacrosanct and to be protected when the “choice” of a “gay lifestyle” is to be condemned?

        See, there is at least the CHANCE that being gay is influenced genetically (just because it hasn’t been found doesn’t mean there’s nothing to find — lack of proof is NOT proof of lack). But I’d be VERY interested to see the gene that codes for, say, Pentecostal Holiness Snake Handlers Who Also Drink Poison.

        Can you point me to the research showing that religion is not a choice? Because we should only protect and respect those things that are not choices, right?

        Like

      • Rob Dowdy says:

        Annoyed Elephant, I’m really quite curious to know … why do you think any business who chooses not to serve gay people based on the bible should get to pick and choose only the gays?

        Why not divorcees who have remarried? Why not illegitimate children? Why not idolaters (anyone who believes in a god other than God)? Why not anyone who has had premarital sex? Why not the greedy? The rich?

        Why the gays, a relatively small subset of sinners, but not “sinners” in general?

        Why are gays special? Take these three statements:

        1) The Bible it true.
        2) The Bible says being gay is bad.
        3) The Bible (Jesus Himself, actually) says divorcing and remarrying is bad.

        Now follow the logic:

        1) We, as a business, will not make wedding cakes to support the union of homosexuals because that union is one of sin.
        2) We, as a business, also will not make wedding cakes to support a union containing a divorced person because to divorce and remarry is to create a union of sin (adulterers).

        Wait, what? You mean they haven’t been checking to see if everyone they marry has never been married before?

        Did they check whether the divorce was just in the eyes of Jesus:

        Matthew 19:8: “Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.””

        Surely they aren’t singling out the gays, are they? I mean, they just don’t condone SIN itself, right, which is why there are so many headlines about them refusing to service anyone entering in a second (or 4th) marriage?

        If it’s JUST the gays they won’t serve and not other sinners, that would be … why, that would be nothing more than petty discrimination masquerading as religious freedom!

        So obviously none of these bakeries who refuse to service gays would ever, EVER make a cake for a union of divorcees. Right?

        Because that would be wrong. Just as wrong, in the eyes of their god, as blessing the union of adulterers.

        Like

  12. vertsub says:

    You have all missed the point of what is horribly wrong with this issue. It isn’t the matter of gay rights or discrimination; it is how this cabal that Apple has just joined is undermining democracy. While I don’t want to touch on the matter of the bill I just wanted to highlight how modern day democracy is a sham. These elected individuals have the duty to represent the views of their constituents NOT the views of some corporate CEO. It should be the people who live in the region who’s opinions should decide the outcome of this bill, not someone who lives in a completely different state!

    Like

    • rahhbriley says:

      DUUUUUDE (or DUUUUUDET) though I totally agree with the position Apple is advocating, what you are saying was my first thought with the whole issue. I just HAPPEN to agree with this corporation’s stance on this issue. However, I don’t think corporations should be interjecting into our politics. I get corporations have vested interests in laws, but especially social issues, they need to butt out. I don’t like it that the Koch Brothers have such involvement here in KS, well everywhere, and I don’t think it’s right. I (and others) shouldn’t be giving Apple a pass on that just because we like Apple or the position they are supporting.

      But this brings up another issue all together. Recently Apple and others have teamed up to advocate for a change in “patent troll” laws. These are laws and regulations (or a lack-there-of) that have a direct affect on these corporations… in these instances do they have a right to speak up or advocate for a position?
      I don’t have an answer. They are the target of something that most people with knowledge of the issue, don’t agree with. Are they allowed to influence our laws then? If the answer is yes in the “patent troll” case, then where is the line…which I’m guessing would be a grey one?

      Like

    • Rob Dowdy says:

      Apple is an employer in Arizona. Apple does not believe its employees should suffer discrimination. Should this bill become law, then the state of Arizona is now at odds with Apple’s own POLICIES and Apple will have a very difficult time saying to someone, “Come work for us in Arizona, where you might get kicked out of the grocery store because of … well, any number of reasons.”

      Apple isn’t trying to do anything except make sure it can hire the best possible people and this bill will make some of those people very reticent about moving to or staying in Arizona.

      From a purely business perspective this bill is incredibly stupid.

      Like

  13. CNN is reporting that the bill will get vetoed. That is what the Republicians are saying.

    Like

  14. Nice can of worms Ben – way to go!

    ;o)

    Like

  15. This is currently the front page story on cnn.com I’ll try posting a link… not sure if it’s allowed here.

    http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/25/us/arizona-brewer-sb1062/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

    Like

  16. rahhbriley says:

    Anyone here who thinks it is okay for someone to deny service based on someone being gay, but NOT race, and I’ve seen that argument in the comments (I can at least stomach the argument that a business owner should be able to refuse service to anyone they don’t want to, I don’t completely agree, but I don’t completely disagree). Then I’d like you to tell me when you chose to be straight. The prejudice that it is okay to deny gay people but not black people, is predicated that being gay is a choice. I’d like to honestly know when you decided you were straight…seeing as how your argument suggests gay people chose to be gay and you don’t agree with their decision. Someone doesn’t chose to be what race they are, and people making that arguement seem to acknowledge that you shouldn’t discriminate based on race because it isn’t a choice. Explain to me how being gay is a choice. And even if it is in your opinion (which I categorically don’t agree with), we all come from the same creator, even if we can’t agree to it, and you’re playing god and making judgement. All sin is created equal (though I do not thing being gay is a sin, just arguing to those who do), and I highly doubt you live a life free of sin. Who are who to call someone else out on their particular sin, and deny them service based on your judgement. Jesus never preached discrimination.

    Like

    • Rob Dowdy says:

      What difference does it make, though? Religion is supposed to be a protected CHOICE, one’s sexuality is supposed to be … dictated by the state? By society? I don’t get that, I really don’t. Why is one choice supposedly sacred and the other not? Both are deep, fundamental parts of what it means to be a free human being, and yet the same people who would scream the loudest if their ability to choose was taken away are those who fight the hardest to take away the choices of others.

      And when you add in that being gay is actually not a choice (not a conscious one I ever made, anyway), then it becomes all the more despicable because then it is not about competing choices anymore, then it becomes a large group of people saying that their CHOICE to be religious trumps my right to exist as I simply AM, about which I had and have … zero choice.

      That’s pretty much the definition of cruel, isn’t it?

      Like

  17. You know, we’re all sitting here debating over gay rights vs religious rights and while arguing, Ugandan President Signs Anti-Homosexuality Bill Into Law – which states you’ll go to jail for life if you’re gay in Uganda – So yeah… that just happened.

    Like

  18. BRIAN ELLIS says:

    Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, 10 or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people—none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God. 1COR 6:9-10

    Like

    • Ian Grant says:

      I’m trying to decide if you’re applying Poe’s Law* or are serious?

      *”Without a blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of extremism or fundamentalism that someone won’t mistake for the real thing.”

      Like

    • Rob Dowdy says:

      My favorite part of that is that the religious nutsos use it to beat gays over the head, while forgetting this part: Jesus says that to divorce and remarry is to commit adultery.

      Matthew 19:8: “Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.””

      So the VERY SAME VERSE they use to be so nasty to the gays would condemn about half those idiots who are doing the condemning in the first place and they just choose to ignore that part.

      For as Jesus said about the gays, “…”

      And greed? It’s practically the national motto of the United States at this point …

      But skip over all that! Ew, men kissing each other! Ew ew ew!

      Like

  19. Let’s use an example from Oregon that I read about.

    A bakery told a gay couple that they wouldn’t make a wedding cake for the couple’s same sex marriage.

    Is it discrimination when the couple had several other bakeries to choose from? When they could have left the first bakery and found another? They would be voting with there money. Also, the couple would have every right to make it widely known that that particular bakery was not gay friendly.

    To me, it would only be discrimination if all of the bakeries banded together and denied cakes to gay couples. However, if we are going to define discrimination as a business denying a person service for religious beliefs, then how is it not discrimination to violate the businesses religious beliefs and force them to provide the service? Beyond that, if the aforementioned is discrimination, then we better force all businesses to remove their “No shirt, no shoes, no service” signs because they threaten discrimination to all those who believe in going barefoot. Isn’t it also discrimination to prevent legal gun carriers from entering some businesses? They have the legal right to carry and are sanctioned by their state to do so, yet some businesses won’t allow them in.

    “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” -Thomas Jefferson

    Like

    • Rob Dowdy says:

      Does that same bakery refuse to make cakes for anyone entering a second (or 3rd, or 4th) marriage?

      Matthew 19:8: “Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.””

      Why do they have no problem making cakes for adulterers (sinners) but not the gays (sinners)? Does the bible not teach also that all sin is equal in the eyes of the lord?

      See, if they refuse to make cakes for ANY sinners, that’s religious freedom. If they single out a group of people they find icky and then come up with a convenient religious reason not to serve them then that’s discrimination pretending to be religious freedom.

      So that bakery you read about? Why don’t you call and ask them if they make cakes for weddings other than FIRST weddings? Then ask them to explain how they can justify making one type of sin-cake and not another. I’m sure you’d find the answer quite enlightening, if they’re able to think of one.

      Ask them if they even ASK whether the people they’re making cakes for have been married before or if they just see a boy name and a girl name and make a cake.

      Ask them why they think adulterers are better than gays, since that is clearly — VERY clearly — not what the bible states. In various places it suggests that gays AND adulterers should be killed so that they can enjoy the fires of hell forever and ever, amen.

      Of course, if they didn’t make cakes for other than first marriages in THIS country, with it’s 50% divorce rate, they’d be cutting themselves out of a hell of a lot of business wouldn’t they?

      Oh, the sanctity of marriage. What a frigging joke.

      Like

      • The question should not be “Why does a PRIVATE business choose who and who not to serve?”, it should be “Do PRIVATE businesses have have the right to choose whom they choose to serve?”

        If the answer to the second question is ‘Yes’, then the ‘why’ doesn’t matter.

        Every person has the right to choose who they ask to make their cake? Does every baker have the right to choose whom they bake a cake for?

        Like

      • Sorry. Misplaced question mark. Should have read…

        Every person has the right to choose who they ask to make their cake. Does every baker have the right to choose whom they bake a cake for?

        Like

  20. Peter Rooke says:

    Things are really getting out of hand when your imaginary friend starts telling you how to deal with real people.

    Like

  21. Ian Grant says:

    She did the right thing and vetoed it. Hurrah.

    (She did take her time over doing so, which is astonishing considering that a veto of this odious, repugnant excuse for sanctioning bigotry should have been a no-brainer.)

    Like

  22. Let’s turn the tables a little bit. True Story. A friend of mine belongs to a Catholic Church that he has been going to since he was born. His preacher has known him his entire life. He decided to get married to a woman who had been married before. The preacher and close friend of the family – refused to marry them and refused to allow them to get married in his church. Is that now NOT ok? Can we force the preacher to marry them and let them use the church?

    Like

    • Ian Grant says:

      To be honest, having visited many small towns all across America, I’m not so sure there’s very much difference at all. Those mega-churches seem to be all about business.

      That being said, I think you’ll agree there’s a significant difference between a religious institution and a place of business. I think you’ll also agree there’s a world of difference between a Catholic priest and a business owner. Therefore your argument fails on its own merits. (And you’re trying the backdoor advancement of the idea that discrimination is fine if it has a “moral” purpose.)

      I’d say it’s not up to the priest to judge the lives and mistakes of others.

      Like