Arizona Business Community Says Governor Should Scrap Anti-Gay Bill

[Ben Reilly]

Business leaders are reacting with concern over the proposed and potentially discriminatory religion bill passed by the Arizona Legislature Thursday, saying it could damage the state’s recovering economy even as it readies for the potential boost it will get from hosting next year’s Super Bowl.

The Greater Phoenix Economic Council on Friday urged a veto of the controversial legislation that would allow discrimination against gays, saying it could affect Super Bowl XLIX and have “profound, negative” economic effects for years to come.

Another group, the Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce, said it has no official position on SB 1062 at this time. “But our review of the bill raises concerns about the uncertainties this would create for our member businesses,” the group said in a statement.

The controversy comes at a time when Arizona’s economy was just starting to shift into higher gear. BMO Capital Markets, in a report this month, said Arizona’s economy is poised to grow faster than the nation both this year and next. Now those upbeat predictions are coming into doubt.

“The state already is known as being discriminatory,” said Howard Fleischmann, majority owner of six Community Tire Pros and Auto Repair outlets in the Valley. “This would muddy the water and give Arizona a more terrible reputation.”

http://www.azcentral.com/business/arizonaeconomy/articles/20140221phoenix-area-business-council-opposes-religion-bill-lm.html

Related topic:

https://newsfix.niceboard.com/t2697-arizona-senate-passes-bill-allowing-discrimination-on-basis-of-religious-freedom

[Original Quill]

Arizona, as a state, would appear to be single-mindedly conservative and Mormon.  For the most part, The Valley of the Sun, including Phoenix is just that.  Phoenix is the seventh or eighth largest city in the US, and Arizona State University (Tempe, Az), just a few years ago, was the second largest de facto Mormon university in the US.  Since Phoenix dominates the State Legislature, Arizona comes up with this inane collection of laws from SB 1070 Immigration (which was declared unconstitutional) to this, House Bill 2353.

I would just like to point out that this is not the entire state.  Arizona's second largest city, Tucson, is one of the most liberal communities in the West.  Tucson is dominated by a modern, advanced research university, the University of Arizona, and is populated by highly educated persons, who are overwhelmingly liberal.  Few are aware that when the SB 1070 Immigration Bill was alive and kicking, the City of Tucson took the extraordinary step of suing the State of Arizona, its own superior agency, claiming the law was unconstitutional. Indeed, Tucson was one of the first litigants to initiate that case.

So not all of Arizona is that bad.

[Ben Reilly]

Arizona, as a state, would appear to be single-mindedly conservative and Mormon.  For the most part, The Valley of the Sun, including Phoenix is just that.  Phoenix is the seventh or eighth largest city in the US, and Arizona State University (Tempe, Az), just a few years ago, was the second largest Mormon university in the US.  Since Phoenix dominates the State Legislature, Arizona comes up with this inane collection of laws from SB 1070 Immigration (which was declared unconstitutional) to this, House Bill 2353.

I would just like to point out that this is not the entire state.  Arizona's second largest city, Tucson, is one of the most liberal communities in the West.  Tucson is dominated by a modern, advanced research university, the University of Arizona, and is populated by highly educated persons, who are overwhelmingly liberal.  Few are aware that when the SB 1070 Bill (Immigration) was alive and kicking, the City of Tucson was one of the early litigants that sued the State of Arizona, its own superior agency, claiming the law was unconstitutional.

So Arizona is not all that bad.

Haven't there been a few initiatives to have Tuscon become its own state? I don't blame them.

[Original Quill]

Tucson dominates Pima County (above) and the southern part of the state.  It contains most of the Gadsden Purchase, by which the US gained the southern passage for the SP Railroad.

If you look at the purchase, its southern boundary with Mexico takes an abrupt angle north.  For a pittance more, Mexico offered to sell the triangle of land cut out by that angle northward.   As you can see, a straight-line border would have given Arizona a couple of seaports on the Sea of Cortez.



The US said no, as it was only interested in the railroad access.  Imagine what that would be worth today, both both in terms of a commercial port, and resort communities.

Yes, there have been suggestions to split the state.  Unfortunately, there are pockets of conservatives in the south (eg. Gilbert and Sierra Vista), and pockets of liberals in the north (eg, Flagstaff and Prescott).  So it doesn't divide well politically.

[Guest]

I think equality is a great idea and this bill supports the right to serve who you like.

[Ben Reilly]

I think equality is a great idea and this bill supports the right to serve who you like.

Your opinion is wrong.

[Original Quill]

I think equality is a great idea and this bill supports the right to serve who you like.

No it doesn't. In fact, it does just the opposite.

It is simply a thinly veiled religious purpose, for discrimination.

[Guest]

I think equality is a great idea and this bill supports the right to serve who you like.

Your opinion is wrong.

no it isn't what is greater equality than being able to chose who you want to serve. :D 

[Ben Reilly]

I think equality is a great idea and this bill supports the right to serve who you like.

Your opinion is wrong.

no it isn't what is greater equality than being able to chose who you want to serve. :D 

What is greater is equality of access to everything within society. When you let certain people into businesses that are "open to the public" but not others, who are otherwise law-abiding citizens, what you've done is relegate a certain group of people to second-class citizenship.

 :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D 

[Original Quill]

Your opinion is wrong.

no it isn't what is greater equality than being able to chose who you want to serve. :D 

That is not equality.  You are confusing equality with majority rule.  Equality is an individual right; majority rule is a formula for governing.

Go back and reread the chapter on Tyranny of the Majority, in de Toqueville's Democracy in America.

[Guest]

no it isn't what is greater equality than being able to chose who you want to serve. :D 

That is not equality.  You are confusing equality with majority rule.  Equality is an individual right; majority rule is a formula for governing.

Go back and reread the chapter on Tyranny of the Majority, in de Toqueville's Democracy in America.

equality is an individual right and now the individual has the right to serve whomever they please, that is equality.

[Guest]

I think equality is a great idea and this bill supports the right to serve who you like.

Your opinion is wrong.

How do you know?

[Original Quill]

That is not equality.  You are confusing equality with majority rule.  Equality is an individual right; majority rule is a formula for governing.

Go back and reread the chapter on Tyranny of the Majority, in de Toqueville's Democracy in America.

equality is an individual right and now the individual has the right to serve whomever they please, that is equality.

But it isn't equality that gives him that option.  Only when the individual joins in a majority--in this case, a gang--that he achieves that.

And here, what does he do?  He passes a law that denies the equality of another person.  Think about it...that's the very way that Germany went in the 1930's.  ::hdintowll::

[Guest]

equality is an individual right and now the individual has the right to serve whomever they please, that is equality.

But it isn't equality that gives him that option.  Only when the individual joins in a majority--in this case, a gang--that he achieves that.

And here, what does he do?  He passes a law that denies the equality of another person.  Think about it...that's the very way that Germany went in the 1930's.  ::hdintowll::

why shouldn't people have the right to refuse service, where is their equality in that?? :D 

[Original Quill]

If they want to refuse service to all, that would be equality.

What you are talking about is privilege. You want the power to exclude based purely on arbitrary criteria. When you divide people into groups and then extend privileges to only some, you are acting on inequality.

Again, you are out of touch with the meaning of equality. You are trying to take power and say it is equality, when it is excluding.

[Guest]

If they want to refuse service to all, that would be equality.

What you are talking about is privilege.  You want the power to exclude based purely on arbitrary criteria.  When you divide people into groups and then extend privileges to only some, you are acting on inequality.

Again, you are out of touch with the meaning of equality.  You are trying to take power and say it is equality, when it is excluding.

no it is equality if the person has the right to refuse sale or service, there is nothing else in it.

[Original Quill]

Is it also equality if I have the right to refuse a business license to that person?

That is your argument...except switching around the pieces. And it's also equality, according to you, if I use my power as a wholesaler to squeeze off his supply source and force him out of business?

[Guest]

Is it also equality if I have the right to refuse a business license to that person?

That is your argument...except switching around the pieces.  And it's also equality, according to you, if I use my power as a wholesaler to squeeze off his supply source and force him out of business?

are you saying such things do not occur anyway... :D 

[Original Quill]

Are you avoiding the point?

[Ben Reilly]

I think equality is a great idea and this bill supports the right to serve who you like.

Your opinion is wrong.

How do you know?

Because I'm smart.

[Guest]

How do you know?

Because I'm smart.

Errrrrrr.....Nope.

[Ben Reilly]

How do you know?

Because I'm smart.

Errrrrrr.....Nope.

Uh ... yep! :D

[Guest]

Are you avoiding the point?

you have no point....business wreck each others business it is the way of the world, the fact that some bill has finally empowered individuals to make their own decision of who they sell to or offer their services too is fantastic and true equality. :D 

[Guest]

Are you avoiding the point?

Hi Quill

He will not grasp what you saying but good luck trying, not sure how more easier you can make it so he can understand.
He now thinks of exceptions where somebody could be vindictive to close something down, is now a reason to HF to empower all religious people only. So they are able to discriminate against ethnic religious, homosexuals etc that differs with the nations law and thus wants to see a new form of apartheid, religious apartheid..

How long before signs are up on doors in establishments, saying who is not welcome I wonder?

[Guest]

Are you avoiding the point?

Hi Quill

He will not grasp what you saying but good luck trying, not sure how more easier you can make it so he can understand.
He now thinks of exceptions where somebody could be vindictive to close something down, is now a reason to HF to empower all religious people only, to be able to discriminate against things that are fine with the nations law and thus wants to see a new form of apartheid, religious apartheid..

How long before signs are up on doors in establishments, saying who is not welcome I wonder?

i get the point fine gays think equality works one way, there way and went it doesn't they start flinging their handbags around... :D 

[Ben Reilly]

It's a stupid idea anyway; Gov. Brewer vetoed the same bill last year. All it would do in the real world is get a couple of small businesses put out of business once their owners were outed as bigots -- they'd lose the majority of their customers and go under. I doubt Gov. Brewer will sign it this time, what with the reports that it would hurt her state's economy.

[Guest]

How so, this is not equality this allowing to discriminate based solely on having a faith, this allows people to be exempt from racial discrimination, Homophobia, anti-Semitic, the list is endless.

What you fail to always grasp is that homosexuals only require to have the same rights as everyone else, which they have had to fight long and hard for, so how is that working one way, when you already have the rights, of which they did not?

[Guest]

It's a stupid idea anyway; Gov. Brewer vetoed the same bill last year. All it would do in the real world is get a couple of small businesses put out of business once their owners were outed as bigots -- they'd lose the majority of their customers and go under. I doubt Gov. Brewer will sign it this time, what with the reports that it would hurt her state's economy.

it is their choice, that's the main thing, that's what equality is about... :D 

[Ben Reilly]

It's a stupid idea anyway; Gov. Brewer vetoed the same bill last year. All it would do in the real world is get a couple of small businesses put out of business once their owners were outed as bigots -- they'd lose the majority of their customers and go under. I doubt Gov. Brewer will sign it this time, what with the reports that it would hurt her state's economy.

it is their choice, that's the main thing, that's what equality is about... :D 

Not here in the U.S. Think about all the abuses this could be put to; an atheist store owner could decide not to serve religious people ... it's just a horrible and divisive idea. The only people who think this is equality in any way are the people who really, really hate gay people.

[Guest]

it is their choice, that's the main thing, that's what equality is about... :D 

Not here in the U.S. Think about all the abuses this could be put to; an atheist store owner could decide not to serve religious people ... it's just a horrible and divisive idea. The only people who think this is equality in any way are the people who really, really hate gay people.

it is peoples right to serve who they wish to serve, they should have that right.

[Ben Reilly]

it is their choice, that's the main thing, that's what equality is about... :D 

Not here in the U.S. Think about all the abuses this could be put to; an atheist store owner could decide not to serve religious people ... it's just a horrible and divisive idea. The only people who think this is equality in any way are the people who really, really hate gay people.

it is peoples right to serve who they wish to serve, they should have that right.

So, how would you feel if you went into a shop and the owner said, "Sorry, we don't serve blacks here, get out"?

[Guest]

So you want religious apartheid HF, how backwards, not that it matters, this will get shown the decency it deserves this apartheid bill, by being used to wipe someones arse. Again if a store discriminates on religious, racial etc grounds they can be done for discrimination here and rightly so

[Guest]

it is peoples right to serve who they wish to serve, they should have that right.

So, how would you feel if you went into a shop and the owner said, "Sorry, we don't serve blacks here, get out"?

I've been politely refused sales before, it makes no difference to me, i just find somewhere that will take my money, businesses need money to survive and on that basis they won't turn to many people away but i defend their right to serve who they wish to serve and turn away who ever they wish to turn away.

the interesting thing about rights and someones rights raise someone else's diminish..

[Ben Reilly]

the interesting thing about rights and someones rights raise someone else's diminish..

That is utter bullshit, nobody's rights come at the expense of anybody else's rights. If people could just mind their own business, they wouldn't get so up in arms about other people who are minding their own business and living their lives as they choose.

[Guest]

So, how would you feel if you went into a shop and the owner said, "Sorry, we don't serve blacks here, get out"?

I've been politely refused sales before, it makes no difference to me, i just find somewhere that will take my money, businesses need money to survive and on that basis they won't turn to many people away but i defend their right to serve who they wish to serve and turn away who ever they wish to turn away.

the interesting thing about rights and someones rights raise someone else's diminish..

Why were you refused and state honestly. If you say religion I will know its bullshit, because if you were on that ground you could claim discrimination, if you did not more fool you

[Ben Reilly]

So, how would you feel if you went into a shop and the owner said, "Sorry, we don't serve blacks here, get out"?

I've been politely refused sales before, it makes no difference to me, i just find somewhere that will take my money, businesses need money to survive and on that basis they won't turn to many people away but i defend their right to serve who they wish to serve and turn away who ever they wish to turn away.

the interesting thing about rights and someones rights raise someone else's diminish..

Why were you refused and honestly, if you say religion I will know its bullshit, because if you wee on that ground you could claim discrimination

It was because he's "black"   

[Guest]

the interesting thing about rights and someones rights raise someone else's diminish..

That is utter bullshit, nobody's rights come at the expense of anybody else's rights. If people could just mind their own business, they wouldn't get so up in arms about other people who are minding their own business and living their lives as they choose.

of course they do. lets get back to Britain and the B&b owners, they were sued by two militant gays because they never had the right to stop two gay men from staying in their family, Christian home...

the gay rights meant they could not be seen to be discriminated against, the fact that no unmarried couples were allowed to stay made no difference at all..

the rights of the Christians were diminished by the rights of the militant gays...

do you believe in karma... :D 

[Ben Reilly]

the interesting thing about rights and someones rights raise someone else's diminish..

That is utter bullshit, nobody's rights come at the expense of anybody else's rights. If people could just mind their own business, they wouldn't get so up in arms about other people who are minding their own business and living their lives as they choose.

of course they do. lets get back to Britain and the B&b owners, they were sued by two militant gays  because they never had the right to stop two gay men from staying in their family, Christian home...

the gay rights meant they could not be seen to be discriminated against, the fact that no unmarried couples were allowed to stay made no difference at all..

the rights of the Christians were diminished by the rights of the militant gays...

do you believe in karma... :D 

Why shouldn't that gay couple have had the same right as every other couple to stay in that hotel?

[Guest]

Why were you refused and honestly, if you say religion I will know its bullshit, because if you wee on that ground you could claim discrimination

It was because he's "black"   

  

That made me chuckle Ben.
The equity law is the same to protect people from such discrimination here in the UK basing this on faiths, ethnicity etc.

[Guest]

That is utter bullshit, nobody's rights come at the expense of anybody else's rights. If people could just mind their own business, they wouldn't get so up in arms about other people who are minding their own business and living their lives as they choose.

of course they do. lets get back to Britain and the B&b owners, they were sued by two militant gays  because they never had the right to stop two gay men from staying in their family, Christian home...

the gay rights meant they could not be seen to be discriminated against, the fact that no unmarried couples were allowed to stay made no difference at all..

the rights of the Christians were diminished by the rights of the militant gays...

do you believe in karma... :D 

They had no right to discriminate against the gay couple, next you will be telling me people should be able to discriminate if a person has darker skin. No religious law based on no real evidence and only faith, showing how dangerous such absurd made up commands are, should supersede any discrimination laws/ Your understanding of the case is absurd to say the least.
Christians have the same rights as any other religious group and all are protected from discrimination.
Thus what was the reason they did not do business with you

[Guest]

of course they do. lets get back to Britain and the B&b owners, they were sued by two militant gays  because they never had the right to stop two gay men from staying in their family, Christian home...

the gay rights meant they could not be seen to be discriminated against, the fact that no unmarried couples were allowed to stay made no difference at all..

the rights of the Christians were diminished by the rights of the militant gays...

do you believe in karma... :D 

Why shouldn't that gay couple have had the same right as every other couple to stay in that hotel?

see now you understand, as one persons right raise another diminish, why shouldn't the Christians be allowed to decide who stays in their home...

do you believe in karma.. :D 

[Ben Reilly]

of course they do. lets get back to Britain and the B&b owners, they were sued by two militant gays  because they never had the right to stop two gay men from staying in their family, Christian home...

the gay rights meant they could not be seen to be discriminated against, the fact that no unmarried couples were allowed to stay made no difference at all..

the rights of the Christians were diminished by the rights of the militant gays...

do you believe in karma... :D 

Why shouldn't that gay couple have had the same right as every other couple to stay in that hotel?

see now you understand, as one persons right raise another diminish, why shouldn't the Christians be allowed to decide who stays in their home...

do you believe in karma.. :D 

But see, you're twisting the story around. This is what you keep calling "their home."

http://www.chymorvah.co.uk/

It's a business, it doesn't matter that they live there, they take public bookings. I could book a room there right now if they have one available. They shouldn't have the right to turn people down who are paying customers and who aren't breaking the law or anything.

[Guest]

see now you understand, as one persons right raise another diminish, why shouldn't the Christians be allowed to decide who stays in their home...

do you believe in karma.. :D 

But see, you're twisting the story around. This is what you keep calling "their home."

http://www.chymorvah.co.uk/

It's a business, it doesn't matter that they live there, they take public bookings. I could book a room there right now if they have one available. They shouldn't have the right to turn people down who are paying customers and who aren't breaking the law or anything.

I'm not twisting anything, the b&b is also their home, i would imagine many un married couples had been turned away yet non of them sued, again is it equality that they cannot chose who enters their Christian home...

still wonder if you believe in karma.. :D 

[Ben Reilly]

see now you understand, as one persons right raise another diminish, why shouldn't the Christians be allowed to decide who stays in their home...

do you believe in karma.. :D 

But see, you're twisting the story around. This is what you keep calling "their home."

http://www.chymorvah.co.uk/

It's a business, it doesn't matter that they live there, they take public bookings. I could book a room there right now if they have one available. They shouldn't have the right to turn people down who are paying customers and who aren't breaking the law or anything.

I'm not twisting anything, the b&b is also their home, i would imagine many un married couples had been turned away yet non of them sued, again is it equality that they cannot chose who enters their Christian home...

still wonder if you believe in karma.. :D 

That's right, it's "equality that they cannot choose who enters their Christian home" and hotel. You're exactly right, for once. They don't have the right to choose who books a room when they advertise their services to the law-abiding public.

Now, about karma -- no, I don't believe in karma, Jesus, leprechauns, Santa Claus, Allah, Vishnu or any other fairy-tales.

[Guest]

Why shouldn't that gay couple have had the same right as every other couple to stay in that hotel?

see now you understand, as one persons right raise another diminish, why shouldn't the Christians be allowed to decide who stays in their home...

do you believe in karma.. :D 

How have they diminished, this is the same policy for all businesses, where they cannot discriminate against groups of people, for example religion.
The couple went against equality and discriminated based off religious beliefs on both homosexuality and people married.

So nothing has diminished for them, the only thing that has, is the belief they can discriminate against groups as a business, which they never had the right to do in the first place.

[Guest]

I'm not twisting anything, the b&b is also their home, i would imagine many un married couples had been turned away yet non of them sued, again is it equality that they cannot chose who enters their Christian home...

still wonder if you believe in karma.. :D 

That's right, it's "equality that they cannot choose who enters their Christian home" and hotel. You're exactly right, for once. They don't have the right to choose who books a room when they advertise their services to the law-abiding public.

Now, about karma -- no, I don't believe in karma, Jesus, leprechauns, Santa Claus, Allah, Vishnu or any other fairy-tales.

and there is your inequality, these people should have had the right to refuse service if things were equal but they were not.

can you explain the existence of gay only hotels??

[Guest]

One ruling for all business and all people:




1. Types of discrimination

It is against the law to discriminate against anyone because of:

• age
  
  
• being or becoming a transsexual person
  
  
• being married or in a civil partnership
  
  
• being pregnant or having a child
  
  
• disability
  
  
• race including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin
  
  
• religion, belief or lack of religion/belief
  
  
• sex
  
  
• sexual orientation
  
  

These are called ‘protected characteristics’.
You’re protected from discrimination in these situations:

• at work
  
  
• in education
  
  
• as a consumer
  
  
• when using public services
  
  
• when buying or renting property
  
  
• as a member or guest of a private club or association
  
  

https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights/types-of-discrimination

[Ben Reilly]

I'm not twisting anything, the b&b is also their home, i would imagine many un married couples had been turned away yet non of them sued, again is it equality that they cannot chose who enters their Christian home...

still wonder if you believe in karma.. :D 

That's right, it's "equality that they cannot choose who enters their Christian home" and hotel. You're exactly right, for once. They don't have the right to choose who books a room when they advertise their services to the law-abiding public.

Now, about karma -- no, I don't believe in karma, Jesus, leprechauns, Santa Claus, Allah, Vishnu or any other fairy-tales.

and there is your inequality, these people should have had the right to refuse service if things were equal but they were not.

can you explain the existence of gay only hotels??

No, you're right -- it was inequality for them not to let anyone from the law-abiding public book their rooms. I'm glad you finally saw sense!

[Guest]

the inequality is them not having the right to refuse..

care to explain gay only hotels??

[Ben Reilly]

the inequality is them not having the right to refuse..

care to explain gay only hotels??

OK, how many times do I have to praise you for becoming more enlightened and embracing the pro-gay position, HF?

Here, here's an honorary rainbow flag to celebrate HF's swearing off of his fear of gay people:



Hurray, heavenly_father loves gay people now!

Happy?

[Sponsored content]