Arizona passes bill protecting religious freedom of business owners

[Paprika]

under the American law, I don't think there should be any legal objection to a business saying "We don't serve blacks" for sincere religious reasons.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/ar...eliefs-114903/

The bill allows any business, church or person to cite the law as a defense in any action brought by the government or individual claiming discrimination. It also allows the business or person to seek an injunction once they show their actions are based on a sincere religious belief and the claim places a burden on the exercise of their religion.

So, freedom of religion, or freedom to discriminate?

[Outis]

* "I have a sincere religious objection to homosexuality, therefore I will not serve gays."
* "I have a sincere religious objection to race mixing, therefore I will not serve blacks or mixed-race couples."

Is there a difference?

[Paprika]

* "I have a sincere religious objection to homosexuality, therefore I will not serve gays."
* "I have a sincere religious objection to race mixing, therefore I will not serve blacks or mixed-race couples."

Is there a difference?

Legally, under this law? No.

[Darth Executor]

* "I have a sincere religious objection to homosexuality, therefore I will not serve gays."
* "I have a sincere religious objection to race mixing, therefore I will not serve blacks or mixed-race couples."

Is there a difference?

No, both are used by you to justify slavery.

[Darth Executor]

Legally, under this law? No.

Actually there probably is since I believe racial discrimination is illegal at a federal level.

[Jedidiah]

* "I have a sincere religious objection to homosexuality, therefore I will not serve gays."
* "I have a sincere religious objection to race mixing, therefore I will not serve blacks or mixed-race couples."

Is there a difference?

No, but neither reflect the law in question.

[Paprika]

Actually there probably is since I believe racial discrimination is illegal at a federal level.

Which means that the legal system has inconsistencies. Who'd have thunk it?

[Paprika]

So I didn't notice someone else had already started a thread on this. Oops. Moderators, please feel free to close this thread.

[Darth Executor]

Which means that the legal system has inconsistencies. Who'd have thunk it?

Yes, that tends to happen when liberal imperialists attempt to exercise passive-aggressive dominion on people they believe to be their lessers.

[Sam]

Which means that the legal system has inconsistencies. Who'd have thunk it?

Not so much a matter of inconsistency as a matter of jurisdiction. Since race, religion, gender, et al. are protected from discrimination under federal law, civil suits dealing with such discrimination would be a matter for federal courts. In states with their own anti-discrimination statutes, the party filing the complaint might have the option to sue either in federal or state court.

—Sam

[Paprika]

Not so much a matter of inconsistency as a matter of jurisdiction. Since race, religion, gender, et al. are protected from discrimination under federal law, civil suits dealing with such discrimination would be a matter for federal courts. In states with their own anti-discrimination statutes, the party filing the complaint might have the option to sue either in federal or state court.

—Sam

I must admit to not knowing how you guys do with two different laws.

Aren't there lots of trouble when something is permitted by one law and prohibited by another?

[Sam]

I must admit to not knowing how you guys do with two different laws.

Aren't there lots of trouble when something is permitted by one law and prohibited by another?

Not necessarily. Marijuana legalization is probably a good example: under federal law, possession and distribution of marijuana is a crime. Under Colorado and Washington state law (as of 2014), it's legal to distribute and possess marijuana. So while state officials (policemen, prosecutors, judges) can't prohibit people from possessing marijuana, federal officials could. In the case of marijuana, there's basically been a promise by the Department of Justice that the federal government isn't going to interfere with CO and WA state marijuana laws.

In the Arizona case, federal anti-discrimination law exists "on top" of Arizona state law. So even if Arizona doesn't have any law prohibiting discrimination based on class, the federal prohibitions give people the right to appeal to the federal government as US citizens even though they have no standing as Arizona citizens.

It's just a two-tier system with each group (federal and state) responsible for enforcing its own set of laws. In the case of true conflict, federal law overrides state law (via the Supremacy Clause) unless the conflict is about a power specifically given to the states in the Constitution.

—Sam

[claymore]

I don't mind if there are two thread on the same topic

[Cow Poke]

I think this thread is more appropriately titled.

[Outis]

So, freedom of religion, or freedom to discriminate?

Here's a sign that Arizona restaurants can use. Be sure to change "white" to whatever preferred group will be discriminated against.

whites-only-1.jpg