|
|
Post by Beangirl on Feb 26, 2014 14:31:27 GMT -5
Just curious, wondering what you all think of Arizona's "anti gay" law? This gives businesses the right to refuse service to gays and lesbians. As a lesbian I am appalled. As a US citizen I am enraged. Takes us right back to the civil rights movement and "Jim Crow" laws of yesteryear. Have we learned anything from history?
|
|
|
|
Post by Classicblast on Feb 27, 2014 1:56:40 GMT -5
Whoa. This is a heavy one.
All right I can start with the law in this context is wrong. Obviously refusing to serve someone because of their orientation is not right nor should it be legal. I know this is sensitive, but I am not real receptive to same sex marriages, but that does not mean I am against the right to have a relationship. How you live is each persons right and their privacy is theirs.
Like you said it's not too different from racial discrimination as far as merchants not serving on that basis.
Obviously I mean no disrespect or offense to Beangirl. And I am not in favor of a law that allows refusal to serve on a base of orientation or race.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beangirl on Feb 27, 2014 12:09:20 GMT -5
No offence taken. I have never been a "shove it in your face" person. The law has been vetoed as of yesterday. This just reminded me of the Woolworth's Drugstore sit in back in the sixties. This really has nothing to do with gay marriage. This meant that if gay people, lets say wanted to have a party for there kids at Chuckie Cheeses the venue had a right to refuse service.
|
|
|
|
Post by Phil on Feb 27, 2014 14:36:26 GMT -5
The above 2 posts from Beangirl and Classic show that society today could use to see the difference there. Not serving a customer because they were gay is the same as not selling me a product because I'm Polish. O S T R O T K I E W I C Z, you get a cookie if you say it right, 13 letters. Back on subject. Some pro gay equality groups have done the 'in your face' approach as a militant 'you can't stop us' and that has been met with some anger that is just as inappropriate.'
Restaurants and stores have no such right. Like you said its like 'back of the bus' all over again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Classicblast on Feb 27, 2014 21:37:33 GMT -5
Its looking like it's become a topic of major controversy. Times like that it would be difficult to be a governor because you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.
But the bill has been vetoed some say the Governor did so under pressure but it looks like the bill will not go into effect.
Businesses should not refuse anybody service on account of orientation, race, ethnicity or occupation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beangirl on Feb 28, 2014 12:28:14 GMT -5
Yes, and that was my point. It is about a human right to be treated as a human. The LGBT society do have a lot of "In your face" people I am not one of them. Oh I read the stuff but I don't believe any one should be forced to believe or support anything if they choose not to. What bothered me was that in Arizona if I went into a store and a worker spotted a pride sticker on my car the store could turn me away. ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
Post by Classicblast on Mar 1, 2014 1:08:11 GMT -5
It's barbarianlike that even a proposal would happen in this century.
|
|
Alan
Full Member
Swamp Thing
Posts: 95
|
Post by Alan on Mar 1, 2014 22:04:50 GMT -5
Our legal system had gone to the dogs.
In Washington (state of) and Colorado you can legally smoke pot. Other states are about to follow. They're letting Washington and Colorado be the guinea pig for now. Then we have a state that almost lets supermarkets refuse a shopper because they're a homosexual..... go figure.
I might be able to see a photographer or service business not wanting to preside over a union because of disapproval but there is much difference between the two. There are some photographers in our area who decline to work an interracial wedding. That's up to them and that's not even legal they could just say they're busy that week.
The proposed Arizona law was uncalled for though that's that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nitro God on May 21, 2014 8:45:35 GMT -5
Whoa. This is a heavy one. All right I can start with the law in this context is wrong. Obviously refusing to serve someone because of their orientation is not right nor should it be legal. I know this is sensitive, but I am not real receptive to same sex marriages, but that does not mean I am against the right to have a relationship. How you live is each persons right and their privacy is theirs. Like you said it's not too different from racial discrimination as far as merchants not serving on that basis. Obviously I mean no disrespect or offense to Beangirl. And I am not in favor of a law that allows refusal to serve on a base of orientation or race. You don't have to be receptive to gay marriage but the good news for you is that b/c you're a heterosexual man married to a women, this literally effects in you no way whatsoever. It's fine not to be receptive, as long as you don't oppose it.  |
|
