Arizona Senate Passes Bill Allowing Discrimination On Basis Of Religious Freedom

[ltr]The Republican-controlled Arizona state Senate voted along party lines Wednesday to pass Senate Bill 1062, a measure that would allow businesses to reject service to any customer based on the owners’ religious beliefs.[/ltr]
[ltr]The bill reads:[/ltr]

[ltr]"Exercise of religion" means the PRACTICE OR OBSERVANCE OF RELIGION, INCLUDING THE ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially motivated by a religious belief whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief.[/ltr]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/20/arizona-religious-freedom-discrimination_n_4823334.html


Religious apartheid, which will allow anyone of any faith to discriminate against anyone else based on their beliefs, so now people can use this also to discriminate against ethnic groups.


This is in the west as well

true equality, they way it should be.

heavenly father wrote:true equality, they way it should be.

That is not equality, it is endorsing inequality

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:true equality, they way it should be.

That is not equality, it is endorsing inequality

no its not its endorsing everyones right to chose, that is equality, just how it should be.

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:



That is not equality, it is endorsing inequality

no its not its endorsing everyones right to chose, that is equality, just how it should be.

Its not it is endorsing people to discriminate, thus making equality go backwards

Equality is the same for all, thus a non religious person could not discriminate along religious grounds

DOH

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

no its not its endorsing everyones right to chose, that is equality, just how it should be.

Its not it is endorsing people to discriminate, thus making equality go backwards

Equality is the same for all, thus a non religious person could not discriminate along religious grounds

DOH

yes equality is the same for all and this gives everyone the right to serve who ever they please or not, in does not get more equal than that.

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

no its not its endorsing everyones right to chose, that is equality, just how it should be.

Its not it is endorsing people to discriminate, thus making equality go backwards

Equality is the same for all, thus a non religious person could not discriminate along religious grounds

DOH

I've said loads of times that, if people pushed the equality agenda too far, so that it became more than equality but preference, eventually the majority would kick back and any good reforms would be lost. Looks like that's starting to happen.

Tess. wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Its not it is endorsing people to discriminate, thus making equality go backwards

Equality is the same for all, thus a non religious person could not discriminate along religious grounds

DOH

I've said loads of times that, if people pushed the equality agenda too far, so that it became more than equality but preference, eventually the majority would kick back and any good reforms would be lost.  Looks like that's starting to happen.

not at all just common sense has at last prevailed, people should have equal rights and that means having the right to refuse sale or service if you wish.. :D 

I think it would be extremely funny to see how you guys felt about a similar law being passed in the U.K., that would, for example, give a Muslim grocer the right to refuse to do business with anybody who isn't a Muslim.

Tess. wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Its not it is endorsing people to discriminate, thus making equality go backwards

Equality is the same for all, thus a non religious person could not discriminate along religious grounds

DOH

I've said loads of times that, if people pushed the equality agenda too far, so that it became more than equality but preference, eventually the majority would kick back and any good reforms would be lost.  Looks like that's starting to happen.

Nothing to do with it Tess, these laws were once allowed before in the west, have a think on that, then also see these laws have been around for years before in the west which now we mainly associate with Islamic countries where they do discriminate along religious grounds.
This is religion in the states fighting a pitiful last stand, as this law will no doubt be challenged

Ben_Reilly wrote:I think it would be extremely funny to see how you guys felt about a similar law being passed in the U.K., that would, for example, give a Muslim grocer the right to refuse to do business with anybody who isn't a Muslim.

it would be there equal right... :D 

Ben_Reilly wrote:I think it would be extremely funny to see how you guys felt about a similar law being passed in the U.K., that would, for example, give a Muslim grocer the right to refuse to do business with anybody who isn't a Muslim.

Well funny you should say that Ben as many went nuts when M&S allowed a Muslim employee to discriminate against customers wanting alcohol by refusing them and guess what they went nuts but rightly so because no religious law should supersede discrimination laws

heavenly father wrote:

Tess. wrote:
I've said loads of times that, if people pushed the equality agenda too far, so that it became more than equality but preference, eventually the majority would kick back and any good reforms would be lost.  Looks like that's starting to happen.

not at all just common sense has at last prevailed, people should have equal rights and that means having the right to refuse sale or service if you wish.. :D 

Religious Rights should not trump Human Rights which include equal rights. Religions by definition are open to so many interpretations they can be so easily abused and exploited to the point as Ben says people could simply refuse to serve someone of a different faith- it would be as much a farce as religion itself and I'm sure this law will be challenged into ruin tbh.

heavenly father wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:I think it would be extremely funny to see how you guys felt about a similar law being passed in the U.K., that would, for example, give a Muslim grocer the right to refuse to do business with anybody who isn't a Muslim.

it would be there equal right... :D 

So you agree then with M&S allowing a Muslim employee to not serve alcohol then?

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

it would be there equal right... :D 

So you agree then with M&S allowing a Muslim employee to not serve alcohol then?

If the muslim took the job which paid him/her to serve alcohol, then they couldn't refuse to do so on religious grounds, as if that were the case they wouldn't take the job in the first place.

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

it would be there equal right... :D 

So you agree then with M&S allowing a Muslim employee to not serve alcohol then?

yes, if they allow a jew not to work the sabbath, it is equality but now you are straying on to employees, this was dealing with businesses and their services..

Tess. wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


So you agree then with M&S allowing a Muslim employee to not serve alcohol then?

If the muslim took the job which paid him/her to serve alcohol, then they couldn't refuse to do so on religious grounds, as if that were the case they wouldn't take the job in the first place.

Agreed but this law would allow it, especially like with M&S where they are respecting religious views Tess, the point you are missing

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


So you agree then with M&S allowing a Muslim employee to not serve alcohol then?

yes, if they allow a jew not to work the sabbath, it is equality but now you are straying on to employees, this was dealing with businesses and their services..

I talking about being able to discriminate against others, what you are saying is being exempt, to different things, again you seem confused, do you need me to break it down for you.

People in the west were allowed to discriminate on religious grounds for centuries, these is a reverse back to it thus putting Arizona back into the 4th century AD

Tess. wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Its not it is endorsing people to discriminate, thus making equality go backwards

Equality is the same for all, thus a non religious person could not discriminate along religious grounds

DOH

I've said loads of times that, if people pushed the equality agenda too far, so that it became more than equality but preference, eventually the majority would kick back and any good reforms would be lost.  Looks like that's starting to happen.

There are two different kinds of equality: distributive equality and proportional equality. If you think about it, there is no natural state of equality. Most often, what we do is take the state of affairs at any given point, and artificially call that the starting point of equality. Thus, it is called distributive equality, as in distributing in equal proportion from how you found things. But how you found things is not sacrosanct. It's just chance. More than that, if you had previously intentionally held someone back, how you find things is intentional inequality. That's the situation in America with slavery.

That brings us to proportional equality. This is the idea that we adjust the starting point to adjust for those intentionally held back--as in racist former slave holders, or anything you want to take into account. So you give those kids a bit of a 'head-start' not to treat anyone unequally, but so they may have a chance to pull even with others who already had a head start. That is the theory of affirmative action.

Lastly, when you appreciate that any given starting point is arbitrary and capricious, you must admit to yourself that there is, ever, only proportional equality. You cannot justify the status quo any more than you can justify privilege.

Original Quill wrote:

Tess. wrote:
I've said loads of times that, if people pushed the equality agenda too far, so that it became more than equality but preference, eventually the majority would kick back and any good reforms would be lost.  Looks like that's starting to happen.

There are two different kinds of equality: distributive equality and proportional equality.  If you think about it, there is no natural state of equality.  Most often, what we do is take the state of affairs at any given point, and artificially call that the starting point of equality.  Thus, it is called distributive equality, as in distributing in equal proportion from how you found things.  But how you found things is not sacrosanct.  It's just chance.  More than that, if you had previously intentionally held someone back, how you find things is intentional inequality.  That's the situation in America with slavery.

That brings us to proportional equality.  This is the idea that we adjust the starting point to adjust for those intentionally held back--as in racist former slave holders, or anything you want to take into account.  So you give those kids a bit of a 'head-start' not to treat anyone unequally, but so they may have a chance to pull even with others who already had a head start.  That is the theory of affirmative action.

Lastly, when you appreciate that any given starting point is arbitrary and capricious, you must admit to yourself that there is, ever, only proportional equality.  You cannot justify the status quo any more than you can justify privilege.

Happy to be the student with your knowledge here Quill and agree 100%, that was excellent and have learnt more myself, so thanks.

PhilDidge wrote:[ltr]The Republican-controlled Arizona state Senate voted along party lines Wednesday to pass Senate Bill 1062, a measure that would allow businesses to reject service to any customer based on the owners’ religious beliefs.[/ltr]

[ltr]The bill reads:[/ltr]

[ltr]"Exercise of religion" means the PRACTICE OR OBSERVANCE OF RELIGION, INCLUDING THE ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially motivated by a religious belief whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief.[/ltr]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/20/arizona-religious-freedom-discrimination_n_4823334.html


Religious apartheid, which will allow anyone of any faith to discriminate against anyone else based on their beliefs, so now people can use this also to discriminate against ethnic groups.


This is in the west as well

Arizona is the second largest Mormon state in the US. Mesa Arizona is the home of the second largest ward in the entire religion. The First Amendment has posed some unique issues for Mormons.

The First Amendment holds that there should be neither political/government establishment of religion, nor political/government prohibition of religious practices. What this is, essentially, is an extension of a Mormon doctrine...that any government banning of polygamy and under-aged marriages, is a prohibition outlawed by the Constitution (and further enabled by this law). You will see further laws placed upon the chess board in the future.

Mormon doctrine says that perishers have a duty to god to procreate as much as possible. This means polygamy, and it also means taking young girls and marrying them as soon as the go through puberty. This means multiple marriages and child brides, which are practices still engaged in among Mormons. We occasionally read about Fundamental Latter Day Saints (FLDS) still engaging in these practices, in places like Waco Texas, Colorado City, Arizona, and Brigham City Utah. In 1925 these practices were outlawed in Utah, Arizona and other places--largely by pressure from the Federal Government--but they still go on. Believe me, as a former Arizona Assistant Attorney General, I have had my hands full trying to prosecute these folks.

As I say, look for further lawmaking in this area. Now that Republicans and conservatives, as most Mormons are, have found a gold mine in local and state government takeovers, they obviously plan to extend Church doctrine...or, at least create test cases to bring to the uber-conservative Supreme Court.

Original Quill wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:[ltr]The Republican-controlled Arizona state Senate voted along party lines Wednesday to pass Senate Bill 1062, a measure that would allow businesses to reject service to any customer based on the owners’ religious beliefs.[/ltr]



[ltr]The bill reads:[/ltr]






http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/20/arizona-religious-freedom-discrimination_n_4823334.html


Religious apartheid, which will allow anyone of any faith to discriminate against anyone else based on their beliefs, so now people can use this also to discriminate against ethnic groups.


This is in the west as well

Arizona is the second largest Mormon state in the US.  Mesa Arizona is the home of the second largest ward in the entire religion.  The First Amendment has posed some unique issues for Mormons.

The First Amendment holds that there should be neither political/government establishment of religion, nor political/government prohibition of religious practices.  What this is, essentially, is an extension of a Mormon doctrine...that any government banning of polygamy and under-aged marriages, is a prohibition outlawed by the Constitution (and further enabled by this law).  You will see further laws placed upon the chess board in the future.  

Mormon doctrine says that perishers have a duty to god to procreate as much as possible.  This means polygamy, and it also means taking young girls and marrying them as soon as the go through puberty.  This means multiple marriages and child brides, which are practices still engaged in among Mormons.  We occasionally read about Fundamental Latter Day Saints (FLDS) still engaging in these practices, in places like Waco Texas, Colorado City, Arizona, and Brigham City Utah.  In 1925 these practices were outlawed in Utah, Arizona and other places--largely by pressure from the Federal Government--but they still go on.  Believe me, as a former Arizona Assistant Attorney General, I have had my hands full trying to prosecute these folks.

As I say, look for further lawmaking in this area.  Now that Republicans and conservatives, as most Mormons are, have found a gold mine in local and state government takeovers, they obviously plan to extend Church doctrine...or, at least create test cases to bring to the uber-conservative Supreme Court.

Okay point taken on this state, but that is one state where religion plays a part on conservatism, again not all are or is based upon religion

Again I am conservative and like others stand against discrimination to groups of others

You see on this area called law your understanding of this is staggering way better than I could ever hope to achieve and happy to concede but my psychology points still stand and was really enjoying the other debate as I do take on board what you say even when I disagree

Though off out soon so if I don;t reply have a good weekend and catch up on this soon again