Yeah, voter’s remorse! Makes me smh whenever he speaks.
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.
There’s a religion that doesn’t let you do business with “sinners”?
Hell, some almost *require *you taking their money when you can, don’t they?
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.
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.)
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?
Ah, you’re thinking of Yen Buddhism.
Against federal law, yes, but not unconstitutional. There’s nothing in the US constitution about “protected classes.”
In Arizona, there are no other religions. 
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.
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.
My understanding of the Windsor ruling is…yeah, probably.
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.
There’s nothing in the Constitution about a great many basic rights.
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.
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)?
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.
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.
: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.
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:
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: