AZ. passes new business friendly bill

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by 96Gatorcise, Feb 23, 2014.

  1. MichiGator2002
    Online

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    16,928
    Likes Received:
    820
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +3,624
    50 years later, there's also a set of people who didn't notice that there is just no basis in American equal protection law that equates "black" and "gay" unless or until someone pull's one out of their jurisprudential ass, so the entire comparison is as insulting as it is irrelevant. Ask the black vote in California in 2008 if "black" and "gay" are the same -- went 60% plus in favor of prop 8.

    Az, what say you about the legal prostitute? Does one of the independent contractors at the Bunny Ranch have the right to refuse service on the basis of race? Or if she's just not into girls, shouldn't she still have to serve an interested lesbian?
  2. MichiGator2002
    Online

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    16,928
    Likes Received:
    820
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +3,624
    Legitimate question. It is objectively a restriction on the freedom of a business owner, and that should never be just blithely cheered on as though it's not even a cost consideration -- but again, it is just flat out ignorant of the law to talk about "race, gender, nationality" as legally interchangeable in this area with "gay". And for good reason. Wasn't by accident. Even gender, btw, isn't quite the same as race or national origin, those are still a tier above.
  3. NJG8tor
    Online

    NJG8tor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2007
    Messages:
    4,413
    Likes Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +163

    Hmm . . . I don't know. I give this law about as much chance of holding up as snow fort when Spring comes. The root of the problem is that this fight was really lost over 50 years ago (or perhaps even earlier than that) when Americans conceded that businesses didn't have the right to decide who they served. Preventing further discrimination against African Americans may have been a good cause, but any intervention by the Federal government to solve social problems is really a Faustian bargain, because they will to use the same premise to solve additional problems individual liberty be damned. And that is exactly what has happened.
  4. dynogator
    Offline

    dynogator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    5,819
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +290
    At one time, it was legal to discriminate against all the now-protected classes. I've no doubt sexual orientation will be added to the favored classes in due time. Sooner than later with controversial and confrontational laws like this bringing the issue to the forefront.
  5. NJG8tor
    Online

    NJG8tor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2007
    Messages:
    4,413
    Likes Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +163
    There ain't none. And hasn't been for some time.
    Two points.

    (1) It's not what you or I think. It's what a federal judge will think. And I suspect the law will be struck down.

    (2) There will most likely be federal anti-discrimination legislation signed within the next few years protecting gays. If challenged it court, it will most likely be upheld.

    You are correct regarding the theoretical distinctions, but when it goes before a judge, it just becomes a matter of what the Court wants to see happen. And the tide seems to be turning in favor of sexual orientation being treated like those other suspect classes.
  6. icequeen
    Offline

    icequeen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2013
    Messages:
    5,481
    Likes Received:
    2,388
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Buffalo, NY
    Ratings Received:
    +4,106
    So back to what someone else said earlier about wedding caterers and the like. Say there's a church that has a hall a parishioner rents out for a ceremony, but it turns out it's a gay wedding. Shouldn't the church be able to say "no" since it's against their beliefs? Caterers are a bit more of a gray area - unless the reception is at the church, too. Can the caterer say it's against their religion and refuse? It's not the same as say a grocery store or some shop saying "no gays", as these are tied to what some view as religious events.

    As a side, it'd be stupid in today's economy to bar anyone from your establishment, especially smaller shops, as they're already hurting for business as it is. They'd alienate gays and any heterosexuals that find the law repulsive, be subjected to all kinds of protests/boycotts, etc. Just not smart.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. 96Gatorcise
    Offline

    96Gatorcise Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2008
    Messages:
    7,504
    Likes Received:
    552
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Tampa
    Ratings Received:
    +1,728
    As I originally posted I have no problem with this bill. And I believe you should be able to turn away any business. But there should be a regulation for every business that states up front who you will and will not do business with. The customer has the right to know beforehand if they wish to give you their business.

    I would think that any business in today's environment that puts up a no service sign for any particular group or sin will be out of business quickly. And this situation would take care of itself, free market principles.

    Personally my sign would read: All are welcome!!!! as I watch the $$$$ flow in.
  8. fredsanford
    Offline

    fredsanford VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    12,339
    Likes Received:
    231
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +1,693
    Fixed
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  9. 108
    Online

    108 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    18,469
    Likes Received:
    486
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    NYC
    Ratings Received:
    +1,825
    Add Liberals
  10. 108
    Online

    108 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    18,469
    Likes Received:
    486
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    NYC
    Ratings Received:
    +1,825
    Nice to hear Bill
  11. MichiGator2002
    Online

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    16,928
    Likes Received:
    820
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +3,624
    Except for the same reason Business Owner is free to decline business on Monday, she is also free to change her mind on Tuesday and back again on Thursday. Because... free?

    Nice to see you recognize that the free market can and will respond to address discord of this sort, though, and it doesn't take the clenched fist of government to "fix" people.
  12. rivergator
    Online

    rivergator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    32,580
    Likes Received:
    446
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +2,311
    GOP gubernatorial candidates want Brewer to veto the bill, including one who voted for it.

    http://www.dcourier.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=128850
  13. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,880
    Likes Received:
    492
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +2,177
    If religious people want to codify bias & bigotry as protected "free excercise" of their religion, its doesnt do much to change some people's thinking about Christians being bigots when it comes to gays, might even sway some people who are on the fence or gave them the benefit of the doubt on the "hate the sin" stuff. I tend to think most Christians (or at least Republicans) understand this proposed bill would be counterproductive, as Kansas did.
  14. GatorBen
    Online

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,184
    Likes Received:
    623
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,455
    So, um... do the people who think laws like this are a good idea actually delude themselves into thinking that they are doing some good in the grand battle?

    Because passing crap like this does more to articulate the argument as to why sexual orientation ought to be a protected class under the federal antidiscrimination laws than pretty much anything a supporter of gay rights could say.

    And, while it is being slow played to try to let this play out through ordinary political processes, it ought to be pretty blatantly clear that the Supreme Court already has the votes to declare sexual orientation a suspect classification if they feel like they need to - and passing facially discriminatory laws that are exceedingly likely to get appealed the whole way up that pretty much challenge the Court to do so is probably not the wisest idea.
  15. MichiGator2002
    Online

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    16,928
    Likes Received:
    820
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +3,624
    Nobody has really taken on my question of what free exercise even means anymore, entirely apart from free speech and free association.

    I don't think there will ever be a logically dignified justification for deeming homosexuality a suspect classification, any more than nail biting or nose picking. The only form of conduct based classification that is protected is religion, which I would argue would be the "front door" to suspect classification for homosexuality, to define itself as an anti-natalist humanist religion... but that would subject huge swaths of progressive ideology to the establishment clause, not to mention repudiate the choice to hard sell homosexuality as an as-yet-unsupported inherent genetic trait.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  16. malligator
    Offline

    malligator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    3,347
    Likes Received:
    86
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ahwatukee
    Ratings Received:
    +341
  17. GatorBen
    Online

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,184
    Likes Received:
    623
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,455
    If you just want a theoretical discussion of free exercise, I'll bite. It is more or less meaningless in terms of federal law now because the RFRA test is more stringent than the free exercise clause test is (RFRA applies the Sherbert test to federal law rather than the Smith test, Smith is applicable to state law still).

    If we want to get theoretical I think RFRA is a bad law, and I find the reasoning of Smith persuasive. The free exercise test itself as currently stated is more or less that the government can't set out with the purpose of interfering with the practice of religion, but that laws that apply to everyone and are not targeted or passed with the purpose of interfering with the free exercise of religion are constitutionally valid even if they may have the incidental effect of burdening religious practice. That seems right to me. We shouldn't want the government going around looking to screw over religions, but having the ability to say "no, I don't believe in that, so that law doesn't apply to me" seems equally problematic - a scenario where every man can be a law unto himself is incompatible with an easily and uniformly administered legal scheme.

    Scalia has hinted at it in past opinions, I wish someone would bring a case that facially raises the question of whether RFRA, as applied to federal statutes enacted after 1993 (the area where it is still applicable) is unconstitutional as legislative entrenchment. Basically the argument would be that the legislature isn't allowed to tie the hands of future legislatures and that by legislatively mandating that a religious exemption be carved into all future federal enactments that didn't exist yet when they passed RFRA they have done so.
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2014
  18. Bushmaster
    Offline

    Bushmaster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    3,146
    Likes Received:
    192
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +953
    This one will get glossed over.

    A man gets pissed that a hooker won't do him. He rapes her, throws $100 at her (her going rate), then leaves.

    At his trial, it is proven she is a hooker and open for business. What is to stop him from claiming she discriminated him for whatever reason?

    Ridiculous I know, but its the argument.
  19. MichiGator2002
    Online

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    16,928
    Likes Received:
    820
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +3,624
    Don't even need the rape hypo -- a legal prostitute refuses an Asian man because she doesn't find Asian men attractive enough even to take money. He sues for discrimination. What result?

    Same facts, except she refuses a lesbian, lesbian sues. What result?

    Now, make no mistake, the courts would find some angle by which the prostitute is not violating their civil rights -- some hotch-potch of court made doctrines, her privacy right, right to consensual sex, as well as legit questions of conflict with rape statutes and the same 13th Amendment considerations that weigh against specific performance as a remedy in a services contract. But she would get a deference that someone relying on the explicit (and historically speaking, pinnacle) right of free exercise of religion.

    But that right has been abrogated, apparently.
  20. AzCatFan
    Offline

    AzCatFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,694
    Likes Received:
    236
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +741
    Actually it's not surprising that the most recent minority group to earn equal rights is turning around and joining in on the discrimination of the next group. Historically, it happened with both the Italians and the Irish, who used to be heavily persecuted. But once accepted, they turned around and did the same thing to African Americans and Hispanics, and were often times leading the persecution. Maybe the newly accepted group just wanted to prove they belonged with the "in-crowd?" Maybe they were just continuing a cycle? Either way, it's a specious argument to make that the discrimination African Americans faced is different than the discrimination gays are currently facing, and therefore, the discrimination against gays is legal. Especially when there are plenty of similarities, which I'll address later.

    For 49 states, this is a non-issue, since there is no legal prostitution, and no state regulated "Hooker License." In general, how the laws are applied is yes, all customers need to be treated equally. That isn't to say a gay man should be guaranteed a gay prostitute, especially if one isn't "on the menu." It's akin to walking into a Jewish, kosher-kept restaurant and expecting pork. Not going to happen, and it's ok, since pork isn't available to anyone. What isn't ok is a Muslim couple walking into the restaurant and not getting the same service as any other couple. So yes, technically, if a man and a woman walk into a brothel in Nevada and order the same woman on two separate trips, legally, they both should get what they want. Of course, the brothels could eliminate 99% of the problems by advertising what each contractor prefers, and the majority of customers would oblige.

    Now, back to the similarities between any future pending lawsuit brought on by the new Arizona law and the Heart of Atlanta Motel case. Let's assume Brewer signs the law for a second and it's challenged. In both cases, it would deal with a person(s) being denied service. In both cases, the business would be seeking protection from a Constitutional Amendment, the 1st in Arizona, and the 5th in the HoAM case. Are the cases exact? No, but as you can see, there are several parallels one can draw on and use the HoAM case as legal precedent.

    The question will then come down to is what gives a business 1st Amendment protection when it cannot have 5th Amendment protection? The answer will be nothing, and Arizona will lose. Especially given the fact that the law is written so that any discrimination can be protected in Arizona under the guise of religion. Therefore, if the law is enacted, it would be possible for a business to deny an interracial couple if the business owner believed that miscegenation is against his religion. Then uh-oh, the HoAM case becomes 100% relevant...

Share This Page