May not be a "flap" to you, but to many it is. Profiling and discrimination to the nth degree.

 

I'm one of the many.

Saw an immigration post on Facebook today. It had a photo of a Native American ancestor and read:

 

"So you're against immigration. Great! When did you leave?"

Jan Brewer vetoed it.

 

I have not read the bill. I have only heard commentary about it.

 

From what they said. No where in the bill are the words gay, lesbian, homosexual or any other discriminatory language used.

 

It's called the Religious Freedom Bill. My understanding is that this started over a gay wedding. Apparently the couple wanted a particular photographer. The photographer said that homosexuality was counter to his religion and wouldn't do it. There was also a similar issue with a cake maker. Naturally someone sued saying they were discriminated against.

 

 

If the people I heard discussing it are portraying it accurately this was a matter of saying that you cannot force someone to do something that conflicts with their religious beliefs?

 

It had nothing to do with refusing service to someone at a restaurant or a store. It had to do with someone not having to perform a service if they felt it conflicted with their religion.

 

It's a very slippery issue on both sides.

 

It doesn't sound as if it was ill meaning. It was a misguided attempt to protect one side.

 

How do you protect both sides?

 

Should someone like this photographer be forced to take the pictures of a wedding contrary to his beliefs.

Good for Jan Brewer.

Good for Jan Brewer.

While I agree, this bill had about 0% chance of not being vetoed. It was a media circus over something that would never pass.

While I agree, this bill had about 0% chance of not being vetoed. It was a media circus over something that would never pass.

 

That's hard to agree with. The bill was already passed by the legislature and Brewer has been an outspoken, conservative governor who has signed controversial legislation in the past. That seems about as favorable as conditions get. I find it hard to believe that the national interest - and largely negative reaction, even among conservatives - didn't affect her decision.

Wonder if she got a call from Roger Goddell in the past day or so?

Wonder if she got a call from Roger Goddell in the past day or so?

 

This should have been renamed the "Please don't take away our Super Bowl Bill."

Jan Brewer vetoed it.

 

I have not read the bill. I have only heard commentary about it.

 

From what they said. No where in the bill are the words gay, lesbian, homosexual or any other discriminatory language used.

 

It's called the Religious Freedom Bill. My understanding is that this started over a gay wedding. Apparently the couple wanted a particular photographer. The photographer said that homosexuality was counter to his religion and wouldn't do it. There was also a similar issue with a cake maker. Naturally someone sued saying they were discriminated against.

 

 

If the people I heard discussing it are portraying it accurately this was a matter of saying that you cannot force someone to do something that conflicts with their religious beliefs?

 

It had nothing to do with refusing service to someone at a restaurant or a store. It had to do with someone not having to perform a service if they felt it conflicted with their religion.

 

It's a very slippery issue on both sides.

 

It doesn't sound as if it was ill meaning. It was a misguided attempt to protect one side.

 

How do you protect both sides?

 

Should someone like this photographer be forced to take the pictures of a wedding contrary to his beliefs.

 

There is no slippery slope. No one forced anyone to go into a field where they have to serve the public. If you are going to go into business to serve the public then serve the public. Since you were so quick to remove gay, lesbian and homosexual from your explanation lets do just that. Now let's replace those words with Jewish, Muslim and Baptist. Is it okay to deny any of those groups service because you don't agree with their beliefs? No one is forcing any of those merchants to be merchants. They can be farmers, factory workers, assassins, soldiers of fortune, rocket scientists, pretty much anything that they want to be. What they should not be, however, is a judge of another persons beliefs. There is no slippery slope here. Everyone should be able to go to the store and buy something as long as they are not disrupting operation of the store. Let's say you are the only pharmacy in a town in the middle of a desert. A gay couple comes in where one of the members just got stung by a bee and they are allergic. The next pharmacy is an hour away. Should that person die because you don't agree with their lifestyle? Now let's replace the gay couple with an interracial couple and your religion doesn't believe in interracial marriage. Is that okay?

There is no slippery slope. No one forced anyone to go into a field where they have to serve the public. If you are going to go into business to serve the public then serve the public. Since you were so quick to remove gay, lesbian and homosexual from your explanation lets do just that. Now let's replace those words with Jewish, Muslim and Baptist. Is it okay to deny any of those groups service because you don't agree with their beliefs? No one is forcing any of those merchants to be merchants. They can be farmers, factory workers, assassins, soldiers of fortune, rocket scientists, pretty much anything that they want to be. What they should not be, however, is a judge of another persons beliefs. There is no slippery slope here. Everyone should be able to go to the store and buy something as long as they are not disrupting operation of the store. Let's say you are the only pharmacy in a town in the middle of a desert. A gay couple comes in where one of the members just got stung by a bee and they are allergic. The next pharmacy is an hour away. Should that person die because you don't agree with their lifestyle? Now let's replace the gay couple with an interracial couple and your religion doesn't believe in interracial marriage. Is that okay?

 

You're missing the point. I'm not saying anyone should be refused anything. I don 't think they should. I think this bill should have been vetoed because it opens a door to discrimination.

 

I am asking the question. Is a citizen of the United States compelled to do any job for anyone simply because they are in a profession?

Edited February 27, 201412 yr by coldweatherfan

 

I am asking the question. Is a citizen of the United States compelled to do any job for anyone simply because they are in a profession?

That's a good question and one worthy of conversation.

That's a good question and one worthy of conversation.

 

That's why I said it's slippery.

 

The examples being used here are eating at a restaurant, going to a pharmacy, shopping at a store. In my mind I don't even coincider these activities. There is no religious connection to them. I don't know anyone who believes anyone should be refused anything at any time.

 

As with all legal/moral arguments we have to look at both extremes.

 

So I ask the question. Should a US citizen of Muslim faith be compelled to perform an abortion simply because he/she is a gynecologist? That would be contrary to their faith.

Here's to hoping the Arizona Cardinals draft Michael Sam.

That's why I said it's slippery.

 

The examples being used here are eating at a restaurant, going to a pharmacy, shopping at a store. In my mind I don't even coincider these activities. There is no religious connection to them. I don't know anyone who believes anyone should be refused anything at any time.

 

As with all legal/moral arguments we have to look at both extremes.

 

So I ask the question. Should a US citizen of Muslim faith be compelled to perform an abortion simply because he/she is a gynecologist? That would be contrary to their faith.

 

Good Point, I think it is sad for there to be a need for this law to even be needed. You bring up a good point, reminds me of an episode of Southland where a White Supremacist couple went to a Jewish Bakery and ordered a NAZI themed Birthday cake for their son Adolph and the bakers refused.

Good Point, I think it is sad for there to be a need for this law to even be needed. You bring up a good point, reminds me of an episode of Southland where a White Supremacist couple went to a Jewish Bakery and ordered a NAZI themed Birthday cake for their son Adolph and the bakers refused.

 

And if that happened in the real world, I think they have the right to say no.