# What the hell, Arizona? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 25, 2014, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-hell-arizona/682268 "2014-02-25T23:21:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![etv78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d78d45/32.png) [@etv78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/etv78)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-hell-arizona/682268/81 "2014-02-27T04:40:52Z")
Yeah, voter’s remorse! Makes me smh whenever he speaks. ---
**Author:** ![Machine\_Elf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/82dd89/32.png) [@Machine\_Elf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machine_Elf)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 9:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-hell-arizona/682268/82 "2014-02-27T09:55:53Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > You can’t. I’ve also never heard of any Muslim business owner arguing that if for no other reason that some interpretations of Islam, like Orthodox Judaism forbid coming into physical contact with women they’re not married or related to, but that’s different from “interacting”. So what’s the deal in Saudi Arabia? Is the separation of unrelated men/women a cultural thing, or does it come from their version of Islam? In any event, my point is that if Arizona legislators want to allow Christians to be dickheads toward gays on the basis of their religion, I wonder how they will deal with any non-Christian person who claims their religion requires them to be a dickhead to some other subgroup. ---
**Author:** ![coffeecat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coffeecat/32/3405_2.png) [@coffeecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coffeecat)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-hell-arizona/682268/83 "2014-02-27T12:49:55Z")
There’s a religion that doesn’t let you do business with “sinners”? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-hell-arizona/682268/84 "2014-02-27T13:34:22Z")
Hell, some almost \*require \*you taking their money when you can, don’t they? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-hell-arizona/682268/85 "2014-02-27T13:37:49Z")
I keep coming back to the line from ‘Repo Man’: Bud: All free? Free my ass. What are you, a fuckin’ commie? Huh? Otto: No, I ain’t no commie. Bud: Well, you better not be. I don’t want no commies in my car. No Christians either. ---
**Author:** ![Gedd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gedd/32/4938_2.png) [@Gedd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gedd)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-hell-arizona/682268/86 "2014-02-27T13:45:47Z")
> [@coffeecat](#): > > There’s a religion that doesn’t let you do business with “sinners”? Yeah, Christianity! 'Cause you know Jesus, he stayed away from all those sinners and was only friends with the righteous people like the priest and the scribes and the Pharisees. He didn’t talk to or eat with any tax collectors, prostitutes, adulterers, or low people like cripples, diseased ones, or poor fishermen. (That hurt. I think I need to go do some penance.) ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-hell-arizona/682268/87 "2014-02-27T13:53:57Z")
> [@Palo\_Verde](#): > > I’m here in Arizona and the truth about this law is a little different than has been widely reported. “Under Arizona law, employers and businesses may fire, not hire or refuse to serve people because they’re gay. The cities of Phoenix, Flagstaff and Tucson have ordinances that prohibit this, but SB 1062 would pre-empt those local laws if the business person cites his or her religious beliefs. In fact, if the bill becomes law, voiding those ordinances may be its main practical effect.” > > So actually this is pre-empting a local (city) law with a state ordinance. But didn’t _United States v. Windsor_ add sexual orientation to the list of protected classes meaning that Federal Law would make the Arizona bill (had it not been vetoed) unconstitutional anyway? ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-hell-arizona/682268/88 "2014-02-27T14:04:55Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Hell, some almost \*require \*you taking their money when you can, don’t they? Ah, you’re thinking of Yen Buddhism. ---
**Author:** ![Machine\_Elf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/82dd89/32.png) [@Machine\_Elf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machine_Elf)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-hell-arizona/682268/89 "2014-02-27T14:35:25Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > But didn’t _United States v. Windsor_ add sexual orientation to the list of protected classes meaning that Federal Law would make the Arizona bill (had it not been vetoed) unconstitutional anyway? Against federal law, yes, but not unconstitutional. There’s nothing in the US constitution about “protected classes.” ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-hell-arizona/682268/90 "2014-02-27T15:05:12Z")
> [@Machine\_Elf](#): > > In any event, my point is that if Arizona legislators want to allow Christians to be dickheads toward gays on the basis of their religion, I wonder how they will deal with any non-Christian person who claims their religion requires them to be a dickhead to some other subgroup. In Arizona, there **are** no other religions. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Antinor01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-hell-arizona/682268/91 "2014-02-27T15:22:11Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > What would Judy think about all that, I sometimes wonder . . . Church of Liza (Liza with a Z, not Lisa with an S would be a chant or creed). She’d be fine with it, hell she married gay men. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-hell-arizona/682268/92 "2014-02-27T15:44:15Z")
> [@Machine\_Elf](#): > > So what’s the deal in Saudi Arabia? Is the separation of unrelated men/women a cultural thing, or does it come from their version of Islam? Er… for all it’s faults women go into stores in Saudi Arabia all the time to buy goods. The Salafists(more commonly known as Wahhabis) are whackos, but they don’t go so far as to tell the owners of corner stores not to let women in. Beyond that, Saudi Arabia is hardly representative of the Islamic world. A better argument would be that based on the law, Muslim business owners could declare they won’t allow service dogs in their store because they feel dogs are unclean, regardless of laws for handicapped people. It’s a rather stupid interpretation of Islic law, but that’s another story. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-hell-arizona/682268/93 "2014-02-27T15:44:16Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > But didn’t _United States v. Windsor_ add sexual orientation to the list of protected classes meaning that Federal Law would make the Arizona bill (had it not been vetoed) unconstitutional anyway? My understanding of the _Windsor_ ruling is…yeah, probably. ---
**Author:** ![Uncle\_Jocko](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/uncle_jocko/32/2932_2.png) [@Uncle\_Jocko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncle_Jocko)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-hell-arizona/682268/94 "2014-02-27T16:24:37Z")
> [@Chimera](#): > > Since there is no inherent Right to own a business, and since the law of the land demands equal treatment from those running public serving businesses, both in hiring and in public interaction, there is only one legitimate solution to a personal need to not interact with certain kinds of people. > > Don’t operate a business. This is worth repeating. A lot. There is no inherent, constitutional (or religious) right compelling anyone to start or run a public business. That’s entirely the businessperson’s choice, and if you operate a public business that provides a good or service to the public, you can’t really hide behind “religious persecution” if there are certain groups you don’t want to serve. Either admit the real reason you don’t want to serve them. or suck it up and treat them all like, you know, **customers** in this great capitalistic, profit-driven society. Or don’t operate a business. One of the most insidious parts of this bill was the declaration that corporations, businesses, churches - heck, basically any group of people (I guess even a beer league softball team) - was to be considered a _person_, with the religious stance of that group’s leader, I guess, now being given full state protection as not to be challenged. Crazy talk, but thanks a bunch, _Citizens United_ Supreme Court. “Corporations are people, my friend” - like hell. They **are** _made up_ of people, but why do they receive individual, personal rights? Next thing you know, they’ll be voting. God help us all. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-hell-arizona/682268/95 "2014-02-27T20:15:42Z")
> [@Machine\_Elf](#): > > Against federal law, yes, but not unconstitutional. There’s nothing in the US constitution about “protected classes.” There’s nothing in the Constitution about [a great many basic rights](http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstateconstitution/p/Constitution.htm). If only we had a branch of the government whose job it was to interpret the Constitution… Oh wait, we do. It’s called the Supreme Court. And that’s who ruled in _Windsor_ which added sexual orientation to the [list of Protected Classes](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class). What do you think the Supreme Court does, exactly, if not determine whether federal laws, executive orders and state laws are, in fact, constitutional (or, on the other side, unconstitutional)? ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-hell-arizona/682268/96 "2014-02-27T20:18:34Z")
I just hope that, someday, the very idea of “protected class” is ruled unconstitutional. It violates the very basic tenant of EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW. Either we are all protected, or none of us are. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-hell-arizona/682268/97 "2014-02-27T20:36:53Z")
Tenet. Sheesh. Love it when someone bloviates about the constitution and can’t spell. “Protected classes” is a pragmatic issue. It arises when, in fact, there is large-scale discrimination. Is there large-scale discrimination against golf players, stamp collectors, or wigmakers? No? Then they don’t need special protection. If such discrimination started to rise to serious levels, then would be added. If you call the police and say there’s a prowler outside, and they station a car on your street to watch for trouble, you aren’t getting “special protection.” You’re getting appropriate protection. Equal protection under the law doesn’t mean that every street now has to have a police car stationed to watch for trouble. Equal protection under the law doesn’t mean that stamp collectors are a protected class. ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-hell-arizona/682268/98 "2014-02-27T20:39:27Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Tenet. Sheesh. Love it when someone bloviates about the constitution and can’t spell. :rolleyes: Jackass. There should be NO classes, no groups who need to be singled out for protection. I realize today isn’t that day, but ideally, and long term, this crap is nonsense. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-hell-arizona/682268/99 "2014-02-27T20:39:39Z")
> [@Chimera](#): > > I just hope that, someday, the very idea of “protected class” is ruled unconstitutional. It violates the very basic tenant of EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW. No it doesn’t. It ensures equal protection under the law. I could type it in all caps if you think it would help my argument… :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![John\_Bredin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/96bed5/32.png) [@John\_Bredin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Bredin)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-hell-arizona/682268/100 "2014-02-27T20:40:39Z")
> [@Chimera](#): > > I just hope that, someday, the very idea of “protected class” is ruled unconstitutional. It violates the very basic tenant of EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW. > > Either we are all protected, or none of us are. While that sounds very noble and idealistic, the law always works by making distinctions, also known as discriminating. People who didn’t pay their taxes are treated differently than people who did. People who committed robbery or battery or murder are treated differently than those who didn’t. City residents are treated differently than non-residents in whether they can vote in city elections. 15-year-olds are required to go to school but 19-year-olds aren’t. If all discrimination by government was unconstitutional – if there weren’t classifications that are acceptable and others that aren’t (protected classes) – then government couldn’t govern. :smack: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-hell-arizona/682268.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-hell-arizona/682268.md?page=6)