Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Arizona passes bill protecting religious freedom of business owners

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Arizona passes bill protecting religious freedom of business owners

    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
    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?


  • #2
    * "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?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Outis View Post
      * "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.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Outis View Post
        * "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.
        "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

        There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Paprika View Post
          Legally, under this law? No.
          Actually there probably is since I believe racial discrimination is illegal at a federal level.
          "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

          There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Outis View Post
            * "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.
            Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
              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?

              Comment


              • #8
                So I didn't notice someone else had already started a thread on this. Oops. Moderators, please feel free to close this thread.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                  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.
                  "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                  There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                    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
                    "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Sam View Post
                      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?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                        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
                        "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I don't mind if there are two thread on the same topic

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I think this thread is more appropriately titled.
                            "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                              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

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by mikewhitney, Today, 08:39 PM
                              0 responses
                              4 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post mikewhitney  
                              Started by Darfius, Today, 02:11 PM
                              3 responses
                              41 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by CivilDiscourse, Today, 02:06 PM
                              15 responses
                              58 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 09:13 AM
                              18 responses
                              139 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Ronson
                              by Ronson
                               
                              Started by CivilDiscourse, 11-29-2020, 09:32 AM
                              27 responses
                              184 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Electric Skeptic  
                              Working...
                              X