"So-called" Freedom Bill (lawyers, exemptions, shop)

[Bondurant]

As I understand it, this legislation was brought forth and passed after an incident in another state where a photographer was sued for refusing his/her services at a gay wedding.

I know it's not politically correct but I believe said photographer (or any private enterprise) should have the right, without legal retaliation, to associate with whomever they want for whatever reason.

Those choosing to engage in such denial, however, should be aware of the negative impact it may have on their image and bottom line.

As for the law just passed, well it's not officially a law and I have doubts Brewer will sign it, I'd have to read the document before making a decision. Knowing the slippery cretins who passed it, there's probably some other stuff in there as well. The GOP leadership loves to sneak in other things into their legislation.

[DetroitN8V]

Originally Posted by LBTRS

Lol, it's an Arizona bill...it can't "supersede" federal law. It can only have ramifications against groups that are not protected under federal law.

So much for accuracy...

I stand corrected on that front. [mod cut- rude]

[DetroitN8V]

Originally Posted by Bondurant

As I understand it, this legislation was brought forth and passed after an incident in another state where a photographer was sued for refusing his/her services at a gay wedding.

I know it's not politically correct but I believe said photographer (or any private enterprise) should have the right, without legal retaliation, to associate with whomever they want for whatever reason.

Those choosing to engage in such denial, however, should be aware of the negative impact it may have on their image and bottom line.

As for the law just passed, well it's not officially a law and I have doubts Brewer will sign it, I'd have to read the document before making a decision. Knowing the slippery cretins who passed it, there's probably some other stuff in there as well. The GOP leadership loves to sneak in other things into their legislation.

I see your point but do you really think it should be legal for a restaurant to refuse service to black people, for example? I'm all for freedom but some things need protection from stupidity.

[caryberry]

Originally Posted by westcoastbabe

Okay just moved to Arizona, but I have to say Im really disappointed with this freedom bill that was just passed. Really shocked and surprised that this was passed considering its a form of discrimination. Correct me Im wrong, but we are all equal, whether black, white, straight, gay, male, female. Way to turn back the hands of time Arizona

Welcome to AZ

[Bondurant]

Originally Posted by DetroitN8V

I see your point but do you really think it should be acceptable for a restaurant to refuse service to black people, for example? I'm all for freedom but some things need protection from stupidity.

Legally, yes. Morally, no. A private business owner should have the right to refuse service to anyone for whatever reason. I believe a restaurant legally be able to refuse service to white people, brown people, black people, tall people, blonde people, pretty people..or even legislators.

[goodlife36]

Originally Posted by DetroitN8V

Incorrect. There is no mention of homosexuals in the bill. It would give a business owner the right to refuse service to ANYONE if they claim doing so burdens their exercise of religion. This would allow people to discriminate against anyone, including straight Christians.

I do not know anything about this bill but that is exactly how I interpreted it. It must be stopped.

[observer53]

Originally Posted by Bondurant

Legally, yes. Morally, no. A private business owner should have the right to refuse service to anyone for whatever reason. I believe a restaurant legally be able to refuse service to white people, brown people, black people, tall people, blonde people, pretty people..or even legislators.

Problem is, a restaurant is a "place of public accommdation" as defined by federal antidiscrimination laws, and is in fact prohibited from discriminating on the basis of membership in any number of classes protected by federal law.

[Bondurant]

Originally Posted by observer53

Problem is, a restaurant is a "place of public accommdation" as defined by federal antidiscrimination laws, and is in fact prohibited from discriminating on the basis of membership in any number of classes protected by federal law.

I was asked a hypothetical question and gave a hypothetical response. Federal law was irrelevant to the answer. As I stated in a previous post Brewer likely will not sign this as it will be purely "symbolic" and lead to an unnecessary mess.

[goodlife36]

Originally Posted by Bondurant

Legally, yes. Morally, no. A private business owner should have the right to refuse service to anyone for whatever reason. I believe a restaurant legally be able to refuse service to white people, brown people, black people, tall people, blonde people, pretty people..or even legislators.

How is it legal to refuse to serve people? I do not understand.

[Finger Laker]

Originally Posted by Bondurant

Legally, yes. Morally, no. A private business owner should have the right to refuse service to anyone for whatever reason. I believe a restaurant legally be able to refuse service to white people, brown people, black people, tall people, blonde people, pretty people..or even legislators.

No they shouldn't

It's a condition of them operating as a licensed operation in their jurisdiction ..... if they don't want to deal with the conditions of being licenses then don't open up shop

Just because you put up capital and have an idea doesn't give you free reign