Religious Discrimination by the Republican State of Arizona?

.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ate-of-arizona.547548/page-14#post-1070064881

 

Not just because. There's no such thing as a simple binary on this kind of issue (I think part of the difficulty here is your attempt to establish them). The opinions and motives of the business owner, at the moment they refused that order and all the procedures going forwards will be varied and complicated (as they would have been for the couple and everyone else involved on ether side). I do believe the (perceived) sexual orientation of the couple and the (perceived) implicit link between same sex marriage and homosexuality would have been significant factors in the owners decision though.

 

Well if the (perceived) sexual orientation of the couple was a factor, then do you imagine that he has something against gay people?

 

I don’t get the impression they’re hateful, and they’ll see it as being against homosexuality rather than against homosexuals (the problem being that the outcome is the same). They’re clearly against homosexuals marrying (each other) which is the core issue here. They’re in a minority within wider society on that point and the law has moved away from them as a consequence. We’ll all be in that position on something or other and we all just have to deal with it.

 

They're clearly against homosexuals marrying each other, or they're clearly against anyone other than a man and a woman marrying each other?

 

Both.

 

So then why did you say that you "believe the (perceived) sexual orientation of the couple and the (perceived) implicit link between same sex marriage and homosexuality would have been significant factors in the owners decision" if you think that he might merely just be against anyone other than a man and a woman marrying each other?

 

I said it would have been a significant factor, not the only factor. Again, I don't believe their reasoning is simple of binary. Frankly I don't believe their reasoning it entirely rational or thought out either so it's not necessarily going to be explainable in the manner you're trying to establish. As with everyone, messy old emotions and instincts will ave been involved too.

 

How could it be even a MINOR factor IF all that he was concerned about is that it isn't a man and a woman marrying each other?

Would you participate in an anti-gay hate group meeting?

 

Still?

 

This trash is why we’re stuck going around in circles! I’ve repeatedly told you that I don’t believe there is any single factor that is “all he is concerned about”. I deliberately gave a one word answer a couple of posts back so it couldn’t be any clearer and I subsequently explained exactly why I believe that. If you’re not addressing what I’m actually saying, how can I possibly respond to your posts?

 

When you said "both", I thought you meant that you think that they're EITHER clearly against homosexuals marrying each other, OR they're clearly against anyone other than a man and a woman marrying each other. Do you think that there is a bit of each? And where was your response to the rest of my post? Did an honest answer threaten to expose something?

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ate-of-arizona.547548/page-19#post-1070080606

It was a stupid question that was far too generic to give any kind of meaningful answer and doesn’t relate to the topic of the thread anyway. Also, given how you seem to be incapable of understanding a single explanation when I give it, I don’t want to confuse matters further by kicking off an additional and entirely separate tangent. If you can’t possibly cope without getting an answer to that question, you’ll need to go in to much more detail about this hypothetical group meeting you’ve dreamed up.

 

How would a fine make it easier?

 

makes news when they get a fine, the fine proves the news is valid, the fine makes it pop up on google when looking up the business

 

Well first of all you can consider, what it might mean that the woman who actually won Arizona's U.S. Senate seat 2 months ago, is a member of the LGBTQ community.

 

She's a member of the LGBTQ community.

 

The more basic problem is that government is interfering a business's ability to choose its customers, in the same way customers can choose a business. Why should it be legal to refuse to do business with a customer who owes money to the business, but illegal because it doesn't want to fill an order for whatever reason? It is none of government's business.

I refused an order today from an Asian country to which I don't want to ship products. Does that make me a racist or just a business man who wants to operate his business in his own way?

 

What country do you operate from?

 

We do have Kalifornians here.

 

Does that make sense?

 

LOL. And what does that mean for your state?

 

What if a business put up a sign that said "No black people allowed" but it wasn't illegal to have such a policy so no fine was issued? Are you seriously saying that it wouldn't be on the news?

 

We sometimes elect the Jeff Flake types or pass laws that are anti faith laws. It is mostly Pinal County but increasingly Maricopa. I live in Gila which still reflects the heartland.