Since this Bill extends "Religious Freedom" to corporations, and allows these corporations to be entitled to "relief" under this, it looks like the corporations can sue picketers for relief for lost business under this law!
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Arizona Senate Passes Religious Discrimination Bill
- Thread starter tytlyf
- Start date
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
We almost moved to Canada back in the early 1970's, and it's been a long-time regret that we didn't take advantage of the opportunity. The thing that kept us from moving was because my wife's parents were terrible with English, so my wife had to go over to the house an average of about twice a week to help out with paperwork and finances.
As it is, I spend a lot of time there and, as a matter of fact, we're gonna be there Sunday & Monday, although it's not that big of deal since it's only a 20 minute drive for us to get there. BTW, I'm gonna cheer for them when their hockey team plays for the gold against Sweden. Shhhhhhhh, don't tell my relatives in Sweden that I'm not pulling for their hockey team. This is just a secret between you and I, OK?
Last edited:
Since this Bill extends "Religious Freedom" to corporations, and allows these corporations to be entitled to "relief" under this, it looks like the corporations can sue picketers for relief for lost business under this law!
Awesome. I'll move my business to Arizona and publish my Mystic Manifesto and discriminate against people because of my Mystic beliefs. Then I can enjoy the gravy train of corporate welfare.
dawny0826
Mother Heathen
This law does not excuse discrimination. People can still take businesses, churches and individuals to court for that which is perceived as discrimination. That doesn't change.
What this provides the business, church or individual...is the ability to cite the law as a defense and seek injunction if they've demonstrated that their actions were based on a deeply held religious belief.
What this provides the business, church or individual...is the ability to cite the law as a defense and seek injunction if they've demonstrated that their actions were based on a deeply held religious belief.
Last edited:
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
How in the world would that work? I can see in case of a religious personal conviction not to force a person to go against his or her religion directly.
How about general common instances like refusing to rent an apartment soley based upon a landlords religious objections not involving his faith directly, yet was a deeply held belief ?
Last edited:
dawny0826
Mother Heathen
It's the aforementioned scenario that the law is designed for. (Forcing a person to go against a sincerely held religious belief, directly.)
This law does not null fair housing laws in AZ.
https://www.azag.gov/discrimination/housing
Last edited:
averageJOE
zombie
The problem is is that this bill reaches farther than just businesses that sell products or services to customers. It gives cops the legal right to NOT help a homosexual who is being beaten on the street. It gives a doctor the right to NOT help save the life of a homosexual. It gives a landlord the right to kick out a homosexual from their home. It even gives a principle the right to kick a student out of school if either they or their parents are gay.
dawny0826
Mother Heathen
This bill doesn't null and void existing discrimination law.
Sees
Dragonslayer
Would be so much easier if dumb ***** just took the bigotry in old texts as historical, cultural bias rather than divine truth.
People see this as "oh jeez, religion is causing problems again" when it's the same few knuckleheads and their spawn for thousands of years. The same who cry and claim they are always persecuted and bullied - king of ironies.
People see this as "oh jeez, religion is causing problems again" when it's the same few knuckleheads and their spawn for thousands of years. The same who cry and claim they are always persecuted and bullied - king of ironies.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
homosexual, or atheist business people should not allow religions people into their business, it sounds childish but that's the only way these people think.
The Neo Nerd
Well-Known Member
Yeah but we've got the most deadly.
and the 2nd most deadly and so on.
Everything is trying to kill you in this country.
Enai de a lukal
Well-Known Member
"Their actions" potentially including discrimination. Thus the problem: the law establishes a legal basis for discrimination, provided one can claim it as a matter of religion. :clap Awesome job Arizona, stay classy.
Sees
Dragonslayer
Nobody should even passingly defend this...it's a waste of society and humanity's energy. We are too kind in dealing with this, I think. 
Something pathetic, harmful, unfair, intolerant being treated with tolerance and respect. Taking advantage of the tolerance and respect of better people with better ideologies.
Something pathetic, harmful, unfair, intolerant being treated with tolerance and respect. Taking advantage of the tolerance and respect of better people with better ideologies.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
I'll take that over the South American rain forest.
Don't try to scare me. I got my bags packed and passport in hand........:canoe:
averageJOE
zombie
For the record, it's not legal yet...
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
And it isn't over. Other ("cookie cutter") bills designed like this are in various other states.....:sw:
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
It should be declared unconstitutional by the supreme court. That carries a little bit more weight.
dawny0826
Mother Heathen
In practical application, how would this have jived with existing discrimination laws?
I'm quite okay with the fact that bill was vetoed. But, I'm still trying to wrap my brain around how people would have gotten away with "no homosexual" signs in windows and blatant discrimination, given current discrimination law. That perplexes me. Perhaps someone with greater insight as to how law works can explain things to me.