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.

 

That is my point. But more importantly the monetary hit that would take place. Let me rephrase. Once this became as national as it did, the Superbowl pulling out etc., this had about a 0% chance of passing. Money talks. You are looking at it from the policy side, I am looking at it from the PR and money side.

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?

So a business owner's religious freedom ends when the "open for business" sign lights up?

That is my point. But more importantly the monetary hit that would take place. Let me rephrase. Once this became as national as it did, the Superbowl pulling out etc., this had about a 0% chance of passing. Money talks. You are looking at it from the policy side, I am looking at it from the PR and money side.

 

No I agree, I just took your earlier comment to mean the national attention "much ado about nothing."

So a business owner's religious freedom ends when the "open for business" sign lights up?

 

They are afforded that religious freedom by the laws of our country, the same laws that say that all people should be treated the same regardless of religion, race and that should include sexual orientation...

They are afforded that religious freedom by the laws of our country, the same laws that say that all people should be treated the same regardless of religion, race and that should include sexual orientation...

 

 

I know many a pastor that won't marry couples that have previously been married and divorced. Do you feel they should be forced to marry such couples?

I know many a pastor that won't marry couples that have previously been married and divorced. Do you feel they should be forced to marry such couples?

 

 

Churches are not businesses. They should be allowed to worship as they see fit as long as it does no harm to others. So no, I do not feel like they should have to marry those couples. I also don't believe churches should be compelled to marry gay couples.

Churches are not businesses. They should be allowed to worship as they see fit as long as it does no harm to others. So no, I do not feel like they should have to marry those couples. I also don't believe churches should be compelled to marry gay couples.

 

Should a doctor be compelled to do an abortion.

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.

 

 

Umm...that DID happen in real life. It wasn't a Jewish bakery but the other facts were the same. Guy ended up having his child taken away from him and has since fathered a few more that have also been taken away. I think he named a daughter Eva Braun and had another son whose name I can't remember.

Should a doctor be compelled to do an abortion.

 

That's a bit of an oversimplification isn't it? People don't just walk into their doctor's office and ask for an abortion. The doctors that perform those types of operations evidently made their peace with it before becoming certified.

 

Should your theoretical doctor be able to refuse care to a gay person?

They are afforded that religious freedom by the laws of our country, the same laws that say that all people should be treated the same regardless of religion, race and that should include sexual orientation...

You didn't answer the question. Does a business owner's right to religious freedom end when they open for business? And why should it include sexual orientation?

You didn't answer the question. Does a business owner's right to religious freedom end when they open for business? And why should it include sexual orientation?

 

I did answer the question. I think that they should have to treat everyone the same if they do business with the public period.

You didn't answer the question. Does a business owner's right to religious freedom end when they open for business? And why should it include sexual orientation?

 

Are you trying to say that it's okay to discriminate if it falls in line with religious beliefs?

 

Why is it okay to discriminate based on religious beliefs, but not skin color, gender, or age?

I did answer the question. I think that they should have to treat everyone the same if they do business with the public period.

Actually you danced around it but I have to assume you believe that religious freedom does not apply to business owner.

 

I have to wonder how this would play out if it was a black photographer that was sued by the KKK for denying to photograph a KKK rally.

Actually you danced around it but I have to assume you believe that religious freedom does not apply to business owner.

 

I have to wonder how this would play out if it was a black photographer that was sued by the KKK for denying to photograph a KKK rally.

 

Do you really think the KKK would hire a black photographer?

 

A lot of gay people don't look or act gay. Should those good Christian business owners ask everyone if they are gay or straight before they serve them? Perhaps we should have them stitch something to their clothing to show that they are gay, or make them wear an armband. But they could simply not wear that, maybe we should tattoo a serial number on their forearms so that every good Christian business owner would know not to serve them...It seems like that was done before somewhere.

 

Of course we'll have to come up with different types for people that are Muslim, Jewish, Agnostic, atheist, have children out of wedlock etc. We wouldn't want those business owners having to serve anyone that did doesn't share their religious beliefs. Or is it okay to just single out the gay people and not serve them?

Are you trying to say that it's okay to discriminate if it falls in line with religious beliefs?

 

Why is it okay to discriminate based on religious beliefs, but not skin color, gender, or age?

I didn't say anything. I was asking a question. What I'm struggling with is where the right to religious freedom begins and ends. I struggle based mainly on this...

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

A person did not choose what color, gender, or age they are.