February 26, 2014

Jan Brewer rescues Arizona from ruin.

"Ending a day that cast a glaring national spotlight on Arizona, Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, vetoed a bill on Wednesday that would have given business owners the right to refuse service to gay men, lesbians and other people on religious grounds."
The bill was inspired by incidents in other states in which florists, photographers and bakers were sued for refusing to cater to same-sex couples. But it would have allowed much broader religious exemptions by business owners. A range of critics — who included business leaders and figures in both national political parties — said it was broadly discriminatory and would have permitted all sorts of denials of service, allowing, say, a Muslim taxi driver to refuse to pick up a woman traveling solo....

At her news conference, Ms. Brewer acknowledged the qualms that many people have about same-sex marriage and noted that society was undergoing many dramatic changes. She said, “religious liberty is a core American and Arizona value,” but added, “so is no discrimination.”

155 comments:

Shouting Thomas said...

A triumph of dogma over pragmatic reality.

A woman who would allow herself to be picked up by a Muslim cab driver in NYC is risking being raped. That's been a frequent happening lately.

Great analogy, Althouse. Shows how far gone you are.

Time to find a way to resist the Mandarins, folks. Resist them in every way you can. Conceal your resistance.

You have the right to free association. Torpedo the edicts of the Mandarins in every way you can. Do it surreptitiously, or out in the open if you're up to the fight.

The law is an ass. Disobey it however and whenever you can.

Althouse is the oppressor.

Jason said...

"Ruin?"

idiot.

rcocean said...

Honestly this is what I hate about RINO's. The drama, the soul-searching, the 'Will she or won't she?"

When we all knew she was going to veto it.

No RINO bucks the establishment, except when NYT says its OK.

Jason said...

Arizona is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hollywood and Manhattan.

rcocean said...

This will keep her in good with the elites, but will win her Zero votes.

Democrats won't give her any credit, and that goes for the Gays too, after all, all she did was the "decent thing".

Meanwhile, social conservatives will note how she betrayed them, and won't give a rats ass the next time SHE's attacked by the Left.

Shouting Thomas said...

Photographs, florists and bakers, conceal your business and go to a cash basis.

The black market is the traditional resort against Mandarin tyrants like Althouse.

You won't be paying taxes any more.

rcocean said...

Of course, the whole thing is Kabuki theater anyway.

The Federal Judiciary runs American social policy. Ultimately, THEY decide, not the people.

And Republicans like it that way.

rcocean said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Phil 3:14 said...

This is why I love Arizona.

The Crack Emcee said...

“Religious liberty is a core American and Arizona value. So is no discrimination.”


Yeah, sure, tell me about it,….

LilyBart said...


The baker and florist didn't refuse "service" to gay couples, they refused to provide service for a same sex wedding ceremony or celebration on religious grounds.

There's a difference.

So, a gay couple's convenience and feelings trump other people's 1st Amendment religious rights to be 'conscientious objectors' to gay marriage?

Tank said...

Guess we're not going with the liberty instinct on this one.

Nope.

eric said...

Put me in the camp that believes we ought to have the freedom to associate as we please.

This means if a gay man who bakes wedding cakes doesn't want to bake a cake for a couple from the Westboro baptist church doesn't want to work for them, I'm fine with that.

If a bunch of women get together and decide they want to open a women's only business, I'm fine with that.

If a bunch of black people get together and decide they want to start a black's only golf course, I'm fine with that.

We ought to have freedom to associate in this country. Once upon a time we had Jim Crow laws that forced Americans to discriminate. Now we have the opposite of Jim Crow laws which force Americans not to discriminate.

We ought to be forced into neither camp. If we want to discriminate, we ought to be allowed to. If we want to be open to all, we ought to be allowed to.

The answer is, if you're a woman and you don't like it that there is a woman's only business, don't go. Protest. Send off letters. Tell your friends not to go. Whatever you do, don't get the government involved to make decisions for the rest of us.

Titus said...

She is not running again; she is term limited.

You know if this crazy bitch vetoed this thing you know it is a really fucking crazy law.

Also, fags in Arizona, have no recourse anyway, if they are refused service or fired or kicked out of their apartment, because they are not considered a protected class, in Arizona.

So, the good news is that fags can still be denied anything and can't sue anyone in Arizona.

Tank said...

Why should freedom of association be limited to religious people?

LilyBart said...


to clarify my earlier comments - the baker was happy to sell the gay couple anything else - it was the ceremony and/or celebration of a same sex marriage that they wanted to obtain from helping to celebrate. And not for deeply held personal reasons, but based on religious conviction. Now, if you're not a religious person, you may not be able to see the difference, but there IS a difference?

eric said...

Rocean wrote;

"This will keep her in good with the elites, but will win her Zero votes."

titus just demonstrated your point.

6517b6d0-9f59-11e3-8088-000bcdcb2996 said...

I'm a writer by trade. Feel free to sue me to force me to write your gay marriage vows.

LilyBart said...


What are people going to say when the courts and governments require pastors and priest marry gay couples?

Titus said...

And get over it geezers. You lost, it's over. Fucking Kansas would not even pass some similar law.

Move on, focus your anger and hate somewhere else...there is plenty to go around.
But you are still fucking losing in 2014.

old saggy man boob-tits that never get any...vewy sad.

Michael K said...

"Meanwhile, social conservatives will note how she betrayed them, and won't give a rats ass the next time SHE's attacked by the Left."

I assume she has a lobbying job lined up. She'll never get elected to anything again. Too bad. Althouse lets her bias hang out here. Read the bill.

Or, read this .

Eleven leading scholars religious-liberty scholars have written to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer to provide her with a sorely needed rational analysis of S.B. 1062 as she considers whether to sign it. The professors include Stanford’s Michael McConnell, my go to source in these matters, and Douglas Laycock who supports same-sex marriage. The others are Mary Ann Glendon, Helen Alvaré, Thomas Berg, Carl Esbeck, Richard Garnett, Christopher Lund, Mark Scarberry, Gregory Sisk, and Robin Fretwell Wilson University.

Obviously this needs to be posted.

There have been relatively few cases; if you knew little about the Arizona RFRA until the current controversy, that is because it has had no disruptive effect in Arizona. Few people had heard of the federal RFRA before the current litigation over contraception and the Affordable Care Act.

SB1062 would amend the Arizona RFRA to address two ambiguities that have been the subject of litigation under other RFRAs. It would provide that people are covered when state or local government requires them to violate their religion in the conduct of their business, and it would provide that people are covered when sued by a private citizen invoking state or local law to demand that they violate their religion.


And this: But nothing in the amendment would say who wins in either of these cases. The person invoking RFRA would still have to prove that he had a sincere religious belief and that state or local government was imposing a substantial burden on his exercise of that religious belief. And the government, or the person on the other side of the lawsuit, could still show that compliance with the law was necessary to serve a compelling government interest.

Oh well, religion never did anything for tho country anyway. Right, garage ?

Shouting Thomas said...

@Titus

The fight has just started.

Althouse and her fellow Mandarin tyrants will be invading my Catholic Church soon.

I've been sitting on the sidelines, but I'm preparing for and expecting all out war.

DKWalser said...

The bill was poorly written. It required a business to prove that serving someone was a violation of the business person's religious beliefs. It would have required courts to determine the legitimacy and sincerity of beliefs. That's not a role for courts and would have been a magnet for nuisance suits.

Drago said...

Titus: "And get over it geezers. You lost, it's over."

Yes Titus, go and celebrate with you liberal friends.....just not in NYC on Sundays with bottomless brunches.

The lefty scolds in NY have decided that restaurants are no longer allowed to sell "unlimited beverages" over a set period of time for a single price.

Thanks Titus!!

Forward!

sane_voter said...

There should be no protected classes. There should be equal protection under the law.

Drago said...

Sane Voter: "There should be no protected classes. There should be equal protection under the law"

Dude that is so 1800's!!!

Get. With. It.

Equal protection?

Where did you get that crazy idea?

David said...

I'm not feeling a whole lot of reconciliation in the comments to this post.

Simon said...

Who knew she was running for President? After this, she'll be lucky to run for dog catcher.

Simon said...

Who knew she was running for President? After this, she'll be lucky to run for dog catcher.

Simon said...

rcocean said...
"This will keep her in good with the elites, but will win her Zero votes.

Democrats won't give her any credit, and that goes for the Gays too, after all, all she did was the "decent thing".

Meanwhile, social conservatives will note how she betrayed them, and won't give a rat's ass the next time SHE's attacked by the Left.
"

THIS, in forma specifica. Her career is over. She'll be lucky to gross vote two after this.

PB Reader said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
EDH said...

The bill was inspired by incidents in other states in which florists, photographers and bakers were sued for refusing to cater to same-sex couples.

The same sex plaintiffs in these cases always seemed like bullies to me.

I always thought the interesting test case in these artistic business cases would be if the florist, photographer or bakers said, sure, we'll serve you.

But the photos, flower arrangement or wedding cake will all depict you burning in Hell.

You know, a cake topper figurine with fire, brimstone, devils, those caves, the ragged clothing and the heat, my god, the heat!

Could the law go so far as to not only compel these businesses to offer service to same sex couples, but to proscribe their artistic and religious expression in the work product they produce?

PB Reader said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
PB Reader said...

Do you think this was about cakes?

How far is it to go to require OB-GYN's to perform abortions, even if they object on religious grounds?

For Dems, it's always about abortion.

Kelly said...

Why would you want someone to bake you a wedding cake if they don't agree with your lifestyle? It isn't as though there aren't fifty other bakery's or florists or photographers more than willing to take your money.

EDH said...

Kelly, that's why it seems like bullying to me (see above), and why offering service that preserves the religious and artistic expression of the business owner is the perfect retort.

Humperdink said...

"Do you think this was really about cakes?"

Nope, it was (and is) always about forcing the homosexual agenda to the forefront. Forcing it on the American culture. This will not end well for America. History repeats.

Shouting Thomas said...

@Kelly

We are in the opening round of the attack on the Catholic and Mormon churches.

These are the primary remaining institutions standing in opposition.

I've been criticized for comparing the gay activists to the Soviet communists... but, there it is!

Simon said...

Tank said...
"Why should freedom of association be limited to religious people?"

That was the problem I had with the Arizona bill. The religious rhetoric, I mean, it's for show. It doesn't matter. And the problem that I had with the Kansas bill was that it was restricted, IIRC, to gays. Lookit, to me, this is very simple. There is a right to contract freely. It isn't a constitutional right, and it can be and has been abrogated in some cases by statute—antitrust, title VII, and so forth. But those exceptions confirm the background principle, which is that people are free to contract, or not, with whomever they please. It should not be necessary to preserve that right through statute, but in a world where courts have started to infringe upon it, it becomes necessary. The reality is that Title VII was a temporary and extraordinary measure, necessary against the background of the time; we should be talking about standing it down, not extending it.

RecChief said...

According to the Christian Post, it would be even harder to claim the right not to serve gays. I'm not sure about that but here is alink to the article: http://www.christianpost.com/news/issue-analysis-arizona-bill-does-not-give-businesses-license-to-discriminate-against-gays-115093/

It does look to me like their current RFRA law allows people to decide whether to bake cakes etc. for gay couples. In all the handwringing (on both sides) over this issue, did anyone actually read the bill that was sent to the Governor of did everyone just fall into their usual roles? I know I didn't read it.

Not so sure I believe the "ruin" part.

eric said...

Kelly wrote;

"Why would you want someone to bake you a wedding cake if they don't agree with your lifestyle? It isn't as though there aren't fifty other bakery's or florists or photographers more than willing to take your money."

Exactly. I think we all know the answer to this, but, because it's such an evil, we don't want to believe it.

Michael K said...

"The bill was poorly written. It required a business to prove that serving someone was a violation of the business person's religious beliefs."

No, it wasn't. That is why the lefties and scolds were wrong about this being
discrimination." It was left to the baker or photographer to prove their religion was affected. It was fair but that is not enough for the gay mafia.

Phil 3:14 said...

fags in Arizona, have no recourse anyway, if they are refused service or fired or kicked out of their apartment, because they are not considered a protected class, in Arizona.

You've been to Arizona then Titus, I presume.

(If not then please keep your uninformed comments to yourself)

Phil 3:14 said...

When all was said and done I didn't support the bill.

BUT....

Far off on the horizon

Real American said...

ignorance and fascism win again. what a shock.

chickenlittle said...

@Phil 3:14

Practically the only thing that separates us from Britain's sorry fate is our Establishment Clause.

sunsong said...

"Support for same-sex marriage jumped 21 percentage points from 2003, when Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage, to 2013. Currently, a majority (53%) of Americans favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to legally marry, compared to 41% who oppose. In 2003, less than one-third (32%) of Americans supported allowing gay and lesbian people to legally marry, compared to nearly 6-in-10 (59%) who opposed."

Pew Research

chickenlittle said...

Well that and the 2nd Amendment.

Sorry Piers Morgan fans.

chickenlittle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
chickenlittle said...

chickenlittle said...
@sunsong: What would "Pew Research" poll regarding forcing churches to marry same sexes?

Cliff said...

Ugh. These comments are ugly. People using the Bible to try to support their discrimination of others would do well to follow the teachings of Jesus. Love the Lord, love your neighbor, love your enemy. Bigots have been led astray by false prophets whose own actions violate his teachings.

Revenant said...

As Reason Magazine points out here, Arizona businesses already had, and continue to have, the right to refuse service to homosexuals.

Amusing theory from the link: one of the reasons Republicans quietly turned against the bill is that it would have encouraged Sharia-based discrimination against women.

SteveR said...

Win-Win People got to bitch, moan, cry, preach, posture, pander. 2014 America

eric said...

chickenlittle,

What does it matter what Pew research would say? This is tyranny. It doesn't have to make sense. Just because it's cloaked in the words "Human rights" doesn't make it any less tyrannical.

They are using fantasy to justify their tyranny. Every case so far brought to court is about the refusal of someone to support the actions of gay people, rather than gay people themselves.

For example, here in Washington a florist is being sued for not catering a gay wedding. The gay men suing her admitted she served them for 10 years before they requested she cater their gay wedding. She has no issue with gay people at all. However, she doesn't not support the activity. A gay wedding.

See? It's not the people she refuses to serve, it's the activity.

But they make up fantasies and pretend like somewhere out there is a Denny's manager who will refuse service to a gay person, or a cab driver will keep driving past a gay man because he's gay. Which isn't happening.

But what is happening is florists, and cake bakers, and photographers are serving gay men and women all over the country without complaint. Until it comes time for those gay men and women to force the florist, the cake baker or the photographer to serve their activity, of which they disapprove.

Just imagine if Divorce parties become a big thing. And a photographer believes divorce is a bad thing that shouldn't be celebrated. And this woman who had her wedding photographed by this photographer demands she photograph her divorce party. And she is refused. And the woman sues. How stupid is that?

This is the same thing.

It's not the people they are objecting to. It's the activity.

The Cracker Emcee said...

"Why would you want someone to bake you a wedding cake if they don't agree with your lifestyle? It isn't as though there aren't fifty other bakery's or florists or photographers more than willing to take your money.

2/26/14, 9:17 PM"

This. For the same reason you don't needlessly antagonize waitstaff in a restaraunt. Do you really want lots of baked-in sputum and rat shit goodness in your wedding cake? Legalistic bullying may force someone to do business with you but why would you want to give them your business? If I'm gay my trade is going to the most proudly out business that can competitively meet my needs. I get the symbolic value but as a practical matter, gays get less than nothing from this.

eric said...

Bah,

That should say, "she does not support the activity"

Dumb double negatives.

chickenlittle said...

I can't see how going forward with a litigious strategy against butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers in various states is going to win over people any more than reactionary laws to prevent it. Ultimately, people will sense that only lawyers are getting rich. This is one question I don't see addressed by Althouse and Inga, or anyone of that mind.

Henry said...

And just think that it was only this morning that much of the Althouse commentariate agreed that there were too many laws.

There's an easy Venn diagram you could make of this, but it's really not worth the trouble to draw.

Mr. Colby said...

People should be allowed to be jerks, shouldn't they?

Mr. Colby said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
somefeller said...

Between this and today's court victory in Texas, I'm tempted to ask America's social conservatives for the terms of their surrender. But then I think, why bother? Time to move on and let the losers mutter into their beer.

The Cracker Emcee said...

Faulkner has a great line in The Hamlet. It's referring to the attitude of a truculent rural people towards authority, but it applies to the vast majority of Americans, of all stripes, that I've known.

"Not in the attitude of What must I do but What do you think you think you would like for me to do if you was able to make me do it."

As I said, in my experience that's a pretty universal American sentiment, excluding all but the most whipped-in middle-class liberals.
That's in no way a justification for discrimination, but it does speak to the counter-productive futility of trying to strong-arm people's hearts.

Revenant said...

But they make up fantasies and pretend like somewhere out there is a Denny's manager who will refuse service to a gay person, or a cab driver will keep driving past a gay man because he's gay. Which isn't happening.

You know what else isn't happening? People in Arizona being forced to serve gay couples.

Your Washington florist is being sued because Washington PASSED A LAW making it illegal for businesses to refuse service to homosexuals. Arizona has no such law on the books.

Michael K said...

"Barrie Drewitt-Barlow, 42, and his partner, Tony, 49 — millionaires who run a surrogacy company in Britain and the U.S. — have been a high-profile couple since 1999 when they became the first gay couple to be named on the birth certificate of their child."

God help us. The Anglican Church has been so leftist that I doubt it's a problem. Except, of course, for people who believe in God. Few of them Anglicans.

chickenlittle said...

somefeller said...
Between this and today's court victory in Texas, I'm tempted to ask America's social conservatives for the terms of their surrender.

You must not be a "Gaystapo" as I assumed you were. They will accept only unconditional surrender.

Smilin' Jack said...

She said, “religious liberty is a core American and Arizona value,” but added, “so is no discrimination.”

And so, above all else, is the Almighty Dollar.

Sam L. said...

Rescued from ruin? Well, certainly all the lefties would have dumped on them, and dumped some more.

Who was it said, "Can't we all get along?" Well, no, "we" can't, and won't, and will never let you have a moment's peace until you bow down to "us".

somefeller said...

"Gaystapo". Ha, ha, good one, Chickie! You should apply to be a screenwriter for Sarah Palin's new reality show. What, you mean the dialogue isn't spontaneous and unrehearsed? Anyway, she could use the help and it would be great if you could turn your hobby into a paying gig.

chickenlittle said...

Careful there, somefeller. You slip is showing. ;)

cyrus83 said...

It doesn't even have to be about religious liberty, simply liberty to decide who you will and will not accept as clients when you are in the field of personal services.

Individuals should remain absolutely free to decide what projects they will and will not do, what people and organizations they will and will not work with, for whatever reason they wish.

Jason said...

What kind of pathetic idiot do you have to be to be unable to find a gay florist.

mccullough said...

The NFL was threatening to pull the Super Bowl. Arizona is a growing state and businesses are expanding there. This veto was a no brainer.

Levi Starks said...

The bill of rights and the constitution used to be about things the State could not do to you, or force you to do.
the New bill of rights is all about things the state can compel you to do for your own good, And things it can force you to do that violate your personal sense of decency, in an effort to protect other citizens who couldn't seem to make it under the old bill of rights.

Oso Negro said...

So what is the punishment if the bakers simply DO NOT want to bake homocakes? Armed SWAT teams are sent to their shops to force them, at gunpoint to bake? The armed division of the FDA (yep, all Federal agencies have one) sends rainbow booted stormtroopers to smash their doors and yank their license? Perhaps they are sent to Fabulous Camp to get their cis-gendered religious minds right. Perhaps their children will be taken from them so that they can't be raised in an atmosphere of hate.

Oso Negro said...

I am starting to wish that in the past we had actually oppressed homosexuals savagely. You know, something that would justify the endless whining now.

Levi Starks said...

The correct way to deal with this situation if you're a business owner, and find providing services to gay themed events objectionable is provide to the services requested free of charge, and only in the most mediocre way possible.
Essentially you explain to them that you will not take their money, and you will do no more than the law requires. The law can make you do many things, but it can't make you pretend to enjoy it. If you genuinely object to an activity the law forces you to do then you must be willing to make a sacrifice for your own conscience.

heyboom said...

“religious liberty is a core American and Arizona value,”

Except when it involves actually trying to exercise that religious liberty in the manner laid out in the First Amendment.

heyboom said...

Go into almost any establishment here in California and you will see a sign that says,

We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.

Why is that not considered discrimination?

NotquiteunBuckley said...

"A Constitution is made for people of fundamentally differing views." - Justice Holmes.

We can't have that. We are decent and advanced and know correct views and bigotry and hatred.

Alex said...

the "Freedom of association" ship sailed in the 1960s. If you can't discriminate on the basis of race at a lunch counter, than discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation at the same lunch counter is no different.

I predict gay marriage is legal in all 50 states by 2020.

rhhardin said...

Derbyshire

04 — Hunting season on dissidents. Outrage of the week took place in Denver, Colorado.

The story begins last year when two homosexuals, Dave Mullins and Charlie Craig, got "married" in Massachusetts and flew to Colorado for their honeymoon. They naturally wanted a wedding cake with which to celebrate the happy event, so they showed up at the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Denver and asked the proprietor, Jack Phillips, to bake them a cake and decorate it in appropriate style — with pansies, perhaps, I don't know.

Mr. Phillips, who is a devout Christian, politely declined to do so. The homosexuals thanked him for his time and went back to their Yellow Pages to find another cake shop …

No,wait; that's what happened in Bizarro U.S.A., a sensible country where citizens respect each other's harmless beliefs. In the nation we actually inhabit, the United States of Grievance, nobody behaves like that any more.

What Mr. and Mr. Craig did was, they ran off squealing in outrage to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and filed a complaint. The armies of the law mobilized for action, and this week, after long and weighty deliberations, Judge Robert N. Spencer ruled that, yes, Mr. Phillips had unlawfully discriminated.

Mr. Phillips doesn't have to do any jail time, but if he persists in his vile discriminatory practices he faces penalties and the revocation of his business license.

Mr. and Mr. Craig (I'm assuming, from the look of them, that Mr. Craig is the dominant partner) declared the ruling "fabulous." Other homosexuals held a jeering demonstration in front of Mr. Phillips' cake shop, holding up signs saying Let Them Eat Cake.

Mr. Phillips' attorney summed up the situation for us. Quote from him:

The judge's order puts Mr. Phillips in an impossible position of going against his Christian faith. He can't violate his conscience in order to collect a paycheck. If Jack can't make wedding cakes, he can't continue to support his family. And in order to make wedding cakes, Jack must violate his belief system. That is a reprehensible choice. It is antithetical to everything America stands for.

End quote. I'm afraid I have to correct the counsellor there: The judge's ruling is antithetical to everything America used to stand for. It is entirely in line with what America now stands for: totalitarian liberalism. Conform to the left-liberal narrative, or suffer the consequences.

In fact totalitarian liberalism is now in its hunting phase. There can't be much doubt that these homosexuals picked out Mr. Phillips, or had him picked out for them by one of the countless taxpayer-funded homosexualist organizations, precisely in order to harass and humiliate him. They can do that, and be sure that a judge will support them. Forget your liberties — they're long gone. It's hunting season on dissidents.

Those signs the homosexuals are holding are in a way appropriate. Liberalism has now reached Marie Antoinette levels of arrogance and contempt towards despised and humiliated non-liberals like Mr. Phillips.

gadfly said...

And then there is item from KNX CBS Eyeball News in LA:

"David Cooley, the founder of The Abbey Food & Bar located at 692 North Robertson Blvd., has announced the popular gay bar will add any legislator in any state who votes for “bills to allow for discrimination against LGBT people” to a “Deny Entry List.”

But that is OK . . . LA will get another Super Bowl.

paminwi said...

No shoes, no shirt, no service. Fuck you, I'm gay and I want service even if I don't have pants on.

I'll sue your ass if I don't get service now!

rhhardin said...

Belmont Club see also in comments

Once the state enforces tolerance, tolerance necessarily disappears.

Phil 3:14 said...

Our governor receives accolades for her veto

donald said...

What Makes Jam Brewer a crazy bitch? It's all cute and all that you make everything about your sexuality I suppose. I'm sure many are amused by it, kinda like your some kind of anthropological curiosity I suppose.

But your just a nasty little queen that has to make everything about your sex life. It's not flattering and you're not intelligent in anyway.

Nope, your just another slimy stupid liberal.

And Eric I find it sad that you used allowed in your otherwise good post.

tim maguire said...

That was one perk of being in the liquor business--we were allowed to refuse service to any person. Period.

It should be that way for any business--if you want to turn people away, the downside to you is you lose the business. Do it too often and you go out of business.

What higher protection is needed?

Mary E. Glynn said...

I'm not a liar.
You folks are just deniers.

Shouting Thomas said...

You are far worse than a liar, Mary.

Bearing false witness against your neighbors is a sin.

Your desire to destroy your neighbors' families is a sin.

I suspect you are miserable and you want to inflict your misery on everybody around you.

Bill S. said...

Along with immigration reform and the minimum wage, the AZ bill is a deception designed by Dems to take attention away from Obamacare. Republicans would be well-served to stay focused on two issues: Obamacare and job creation. Both are failures of the current administration. Republicans should not just be critical, they should present their solutions on healthcare and jobs to the voting public.

RecChief said...

"You folks are just deniers."

the epithet of the religious to the unrepentant heathens

jr565 said...

The law did seem overly broad, but what then is the remedy for those who are used for refusing to cater to same sex couples?
"The bill was inspired by incidents in other states in which florists, photographers and bakers were sued for refusing to cater to same-sex couples."
You should have a right to refuse jobs and not be compelled by govt. Even if you don't have religious objections.
What about racial objections.
Suppose for example a klansman wants a cake for his marriage that has an image of a black man hanging from a tree. And he takes this request to a black baker. Must the black baker take his business? would govt compel him to make such a cake?
Would govt compel a Muslim to be a photographer for a shoot that has women dressed in bikinis?
Why can't gay people simply go to a different florist?

James said...

A range of critics — who included business leaders and figures in both national political parties — said it was broadly discriminatory and would have permitted all sorts of denials of service, allowing, say, a Muslim taxi driver to refuse to pick up a woman traveling solo....

Muslim taxi drivers in Minneapolis and Detroit have been denying service to people carrying alcohol or traveling with service dogs for years now and the local government has done little or nothing to rein them in.

So its okay for Muslims to discriminate (and we know how they feel about gays) but the Christians are only allowed to practice their religious beliefs in their place of worship.

"Some Muslim cab drivers are refusing service to a growing number of passengers with alcohol or dogs, and officials at Minneapolis-St. Paul International airport are trying to fight it.

Some Muslim Cabbies in Minneapolis Refusing Service to Passengers With Alcohol, Dogs


Each month, about 100 people are denied cab service at the airport. Refusals for religious reasons have grown in recent months, airport officials said. About three-quarters of the 900 taxi drivers at the airport are Somali, many of them Muslim."

jr565 said...


"This means if a gay man who bakes wedding cakes doesn't want to bake a cake for a couple from the Westboro baptist church doesn't want to work for them, I'm fine with that."
Yeah this cuts both ways doesn't it. Wouldn't we compel the gay guy to bake a wedding cake for people,HE may find morally objectionable. Like the owner of chica fila.

jr565 said...

James wrote:
"Each month, about 100 people are denied cab service at the airport. Refusals for religious reasons have grown in recent months, airport officials said. About three-quarters of the 900 taxi drivers at the airport are Somali, many of them Muslim.""
Forget religion for a second. What about cabbies who just don't go to Brooklyn or Harlem. I've had cabs pull up to me and ask where I'm going. I tell them downtown and they say they're going in a different direction and so don't take me. Do I have a lawsuit?
Or, do,I just wait for the next cab?

Hagar said...

I agree with DKWalser above; the bill was poorly written, and in any case, religion should not be mentioned.

Driving a taxi can be a hazardous occupation, and taxi drivers should indeed be entitled to refuse service to passengers they do not like the looks of.

jr565 said...

Hagar wrote:

Driving a taxi can be a hazardous occupation, and taxi drivers should indeed be entitled to refuse service to passengers they do not like the looks of.


A lot of occupations are a lot of things. Why should cabbies have rights that religious people don't have?

jr565 said...

Rhhardiin wrote:
Mr. and Mr. Craig (I'm assuming, from the look of them, that Mr. Craig is the dominant partner) declared the ruling "fabulous." Other homosexuals held a jeering demonstration in front of Mr. Phillips' cake shop, holding up signs saying Let Them Eat Cake.


They're so dumb they can't even get talking points to make sense.
The baker is not preventing them from eating cake. He's preventing them from eating HIS cake. So, what this amounts to basically is gay people are demanding to pay money to a guy who doesn't want to bake them a cake.
Doesn't it usually work the opposite?i f you don't like someone you usually don't give them your business. But the gays here are demanding that the bigot take their business.

jr565 said...

Does it matter if gay marriage is legal or illegal in the state?I f illegal could a baker refuse to make a cake for the couple?
Does it carry over to polygamy? What if a polygamous trio wanted to have a cake made? Would the govt force the baker to make a cake while at the same time continue to deny polygamists the right to marry?

realwest said...

jr565 said:
You should have a right to refuse jobs and not be compelled by govt. Even if you don't have religious objections.

EXCEPT:
The Constitution -as amended and interpreted by SCOTUS - means, for now at least, that when your core BUSINESS is religious (e.g., The Catholic Church)then laws cannot make you do something against your Catholic Religious principles. But if you happen to be a devout Catholic who is a Baker, that does not give you the right to refuse to bake cakes for anyone who is NOT a devout Catholic.
Folks are getting themselves messed up trying to rationalize that which is manifestly true: America is LEGALLY GOVERNED by the U.S. Constitution and no where in the Bill of Rights (or anywhere else in the Constitution) does that Roman Catholic Baker have the right to engage in a SECULAR business but REFUSE TO serve Americans who are not Roman Catholics.

2/27/14, 7:32 AM

jr565 said...

Doesn't it usually work the opposite?i f you don't like someone you usually don't give them your business. But the gays here are demanding that the bigot take their business.

find a business that is gay friendly and give them your money. That's the way it's supposed to work. Why reward the "bigot" with sales?

jr565 said...

Real west wrote:
The Constitution -as amended and interpreted by SCOTUS - means, for now at least, that when your core BUSINESS is religious (e.g., The Catholic Church)then laws cannot make you do something against your Catholic Religious principles. But if you happen to be a devout Catholic who is a Baker, that does not give you the right to refuse to bake cakes for anyone who is NOT a devout Catholic.

so You think a black baker should be compelled to make a cake for. Aklansman?

Simon said...

jr565 said...
"Why can't gay people simply go to a different florist?"

Advocatus diaboli, why can't blacks just go to the other counter, carriage, or seat? I mean, that's the question to which supporters of these laws must have an answer. (And there are answers.)

jr565 said...

Real west wrote, look back to what heyboom wrote:

"Go into almost any establishment here in California and you will see a sign that says,

We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.

Why is that not considered discrimination?"

Answer that question.

RecChief said...

might want to read this and reflect.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theanchoress/2014/02/26/culture-wars-its-all-fun-and-games-until-someone-gets-hurt/

Simon said...

realwest said...
"America is LEGALLY GOVERNED by the U.S. Constitution"

There's your fundamental mistake. American isn't governed by the Constitution, the federal and state governments are governed by the constitution. The bill of rights is a "charter of negative liberties" that restrains the exercise of otherwise-legitimate authority by those governments—the idea that private individuals have only the rights afforded by them by the Constitution is wildly inaccurate.

jr565 said...

Simon wrote:
jr565 said...
"Why can't gay people simply go to a different florist?"

its a perfectly valid question and one in which discerning customers make all the time. I don't like how a business is run, I go elsewhere and THEY get my business.

jr565 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Simon said...

jr565 said...
"Go into almost any establishment here in California and you will see a sign that says, 'We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.' Why is that not considered discrimination?"

Again playing devil's advocate, I suppose that a possible answer might be that where the determination is made against the individual, when it is ad hoc and personalized, that is one thing, but when it is exercised against a class (or at least a suspect classification, it becomes discrimination. In doctrinal vernacular, it would survive a facial challenge while being vulnerable to as-applied challenges—so, for instance, if you have a black guy who is covered in tattoos and "sagging" and you refuse him service for those reasons, fair enough, but if you refuse him service because he is black, and a jury can infer that from your offering of service to similarly-bedecked whites, that could be another.

But then the question becomes, why is race a suspect classification and "people with tattoos" not? Is it just because of our history with race? And if so, what then of gender—is that a suspect classification? Aren't goths a discrete and insular minority? Etc. etc.

Hagar said...

How far does Althouse want to take this?
As a law prof. she presumably is not offering her services to the public, but I assume she holds she holds a license to practice law.
So, if I come to Wisconsin and offer to pay for her services, must she take me on as her client? If so, to what degree can I demand that she spend time and effort and creative thinking in furthering my interests?

Simon said...

jr565 said...
"its a perfectly valid question and one in which discerning customers make all the time. I don't like how a business is run, I go elsewhere and THEY get my business."

It is a perfectly valid question, yes, and it's the one that I would ask. But the response is also valid—are you ready to say that people should (at least in 2014) be able to refuse service on the basis that someone is black, that they're a Catholic, and so on? I am. But if you aren't, if you wouldn't repeal the public accomodations provisions of the civil rights act, you need some rational way to distinguish those restrictions on the right to free contract from these restrictions on the right to free contract. And there are several possible answers to that, most of which start with "I'm willing to grandfather that in" for one reason or another, but I think that you need to be able to answer that question, don't you? If not, why not?

Hagar said...

Exactly where is the dividing line?

Or is it just that whatever I want at the moment is good?

Hagar said...

The provisions of the Civil Rights Acts are there because there was a general conspiracy to punish those who broke "the code" of Jim Crow, and that had to be broken up somehow.

I do not know of any such general conspiracy with regards to LGBT issues, or whatever. It is just an individual thing, and if one shop won't make you a cake, or one law firm won't take your case, you just go on to the next one.

This is about egos, not civil rights.

realwest said...

OK, lets try this again: we are talking about State Government (AZ)allowing Public Accommodations or those who provide Services to the general public, to discriminate simply because their potential customers offend the business owner's religious sensibilities.
Does anyone here remember when a public lunch counter refused to serve black Americans because they were black, not white? Or when many State governments said in terms of public education, blacks and whites could be legally separated until SCOTUS in Brown v. Board of Education said "Separate necessarily means NOT EQUAL" ?
When a business OF ANY TYPE purports to sell goods or services to the GENERAL PUBLIC, they are and should not be allowed to hide behind their personal religious convictions to engage in discrimination against their fellow Americans. That is DIFFERENT IN BOTH QUALITY AND KIND from Religious Freedom - I don't think the Roman Catholic Church can or should be legally compelled, for example, to support homosexual marriages. A baker who would sell wedding cakes to ANYONE but a Homosexual couple - or a black couple or a Jewish couple should be allowed to hide behind the fact that said business owner's
PERSONAL RELIGIOUS BELIEFS should shield him/her from selling products generally available to the General public to a sub-class of the General Public because his/her PERSONAL RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. find something objectionable about that sub-class of the general public.

realwest said...

I hope that y'all will forgive my typos, but for some reason TypePad won't allow me to edit my comments either in the Preview box or in the comment box.

Civilis said...

From the previous thread:

What, legally or logically, differentiates a 'whites only' bathroom from a 'males only' bathroom? Does 'separate is necessarily not equal' not apply? Emotionally, we (correctly) say the comparison is absurd, but can we state a logical reason, and where else might that logical reason apply?

The logic behind barring discrimination behind gays is that people cannot help who they are attracted to, and laws are codified to ban discrimination based on a nebulous concept of sexual orientation. Hypothetical lawyer question: "We all know that Sir Mix-a-Lot is sexually attracted to women with large posteriors. He discovers that one of his employees is attracted to women with small posteriors, and fires him explicitly based on this difference. Does the fired employee have a claim for discrimination based on sexual orientation? Justify your answer."

Also:
Is there a difference when the works are of a commissioned, artistic nature, such as a photograph or a wedding cake?

Robert Cook said...

"A woman who would allow herself to be picked up by a Muslim cab driver in NYC is risking being raped. That's been a frequent happening lately."

Baloney.

Robert Cook said...

"Photographs, florists and bakers, conceal your business and go to a cash basis."


Aren't most photographers, florists and bakers gay anyway?

MadisonMan said...

If I were a businessman, and I wanted to deny service to someone, I would just lie about the reason. Take their order, and their deposit, and then back out, citing some family emergency. That's what my students do, sort of, in my class when they miss an assignment, sometimes.

I think it's bad business to be openly hostile to a customer. Show some nuance.

I'm happy the Governor vetoed this (too) broadly-written bill. I'm going to a conference in Phoenix in January, and this makes attending an easier choice.

MadisonMan said...

My problem with the baker who refuses to bake a cake for a same-sex couple (other than that baker's foolhardiness in refusing business) is that the cake itself is just a celebration of the event, it's not intrinsic to the marriage. (I rarely eat wedding cakes, I'm always disappointed in the taste/texture/etc). It's not like the absence of a cake invalidates the wedding. So a bill like this that would allow such a thing is just pandering, IMO.

I'd have a different viewpoint of the baker who is making the host to be consecrated in the ceremony. If they don't want -- on religious grounds -- to have to make communion wafers for a church that performs same-sex marriages because they view it as against their religion, that is a viewpoint I can support, because their product is intrinsic to the ceremony that is counter to their own religious views. The gay couple can just bring along something else to be consecrated in that event.

Simon said...

realwest said...
"OK, lets try this again: we are talking about State Government (AZ)allowing Public Accommodations or those who provide Services to the general public, to discriminate simply because their potential customers offend the business owner's religious sensibilities."

Perhaps part of the problem is that you are thinking about this backwards. We are talking about a state government refusing to allow a vocal minority to force business owners to contract with them.

"Does anyone here remember when a public lunch counter refused to serve black Americans because they were black, not white? Or when many State governments said in terms of public education, blacks and whites could be legally separated until SCOTUS in Brown v. Board of Education said 'Separate necessarily means NOT EQUAL'"

The key point that you're missing here is that government cannot discriminate based on race. And I am willing to stipulate that government cannot discriminate based on sexuality

"When a business OF ANY TYPE purports to sell goods or services to the GENERAL PUBLIC, they are and should not be allowed to hide behind their personal religious convictions to engage in discrimination against their fellow Americans."

That is the newly-minted principle that has been bandied around, yes. Well done, you have parroted your talking points correctly, but here's the problem: That principle is novel and ad hoc. It has no provenance; it never existed until called into existence by the need to attack bakers and florists and the like. It is recited in the talking points as if it were an ancient maxim of law universally-acknowledged whence these rogue state legislatures are weirdly deviating, but it's no such thing. It was forged solely for the purpose of its current use. If you doubt this, try to trace its lineage. Try to find some reference to it before, say, last year.

Civilis said...

I'd have a different viewpoint of the baker who is making the host to be consecrated in the ceremony. If they don't want -- on religious grounds -- to have to make communion wafers for a church that performs same-sex marriages because they view it as against their religion, that is a viewpoint I can support, because their product is intrinsic to the ceremony that is counter to their own religious views. The gay couple can just bring along something else to be consecrated in that event.

That logic makes sense, to a degree. A logical counter argument would be that the cake is an artistic composition, unlike, say, the wine. It would be like asking a singer of one religion to compose a religious verse for a completely different faith. Could I sue a Baptist Gospel singer for being unwilling to compose a song celebrating the life of John Paul II because of religious discrimination?

There is a logical distinction that could appease both sides, although the line is gray enough to keep lawyers busy. A hotel or restaurant would be a public accomadation, in that the service provided is not unique to the individual, and therefore discrimination laws would apply. A wedding cake would be a unique artistic work, and therefore the artist has authority to turn down a client for any reason.

Robert Cook said...

"ignorance and fascism win again. what a shock."

Yes, because those who hate homosexuals simply for who they choose to have sex with are stalwart soldiers against ignorance and fascism!

MadisonMan said...

Could I sue a Baptist Gospel singer for being unwilling to compose a song celebrating the life of John Paul II because of religious discrimination?

You can sue, of course. (Win, different story, maybe).

Of course, were I that Baptist Gospel singer, and I saw what the person would do if I didn't write the song, I'd just write the most execrable JPII love song ever.

Robert Cook said...

Those here who are attacking Prof. Althouse for her headline seem to assume too easily she is stating her own opinion, (and perhaps she is).

Have none of you, whom I presume are frequent if none-too-close readers of her blog, not considered that her hed is simply her distilled restatement of points made in the article she links to, (or of those who are applauding Gov. Brewer for her action)?

Civilis said...

"When a business OF ANY TYPE purports to sell goods or services to the GENERAL PUBLIC, they are and should not be allowed to hide behind their personal religious convictions to engage in discrimination against their fellow Americans."

Have you thought out the full, logical implications of this?

See the following for the full list of protected classes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class

Note that businesses are, in some cases, required by law to discriminate against some of those classes which they are also prohibited from discriminating against. For example, discriminating based on citizenship is legally required when potentially classified info gets into the picture.

Paul Zrimsek said...

When a business OF ANY TYPE purports to sell goods or services to the GENERAL PUBLIC, they are and should not be allowed to hide behind their personal religious convictions to engage in discrimination against their fellow Americans.

What about personal non-religious convictions-- such as the one on which the National Hispanic Bar Association and the NFL are basing their discrimination?

Civilis said...

You can sue, of course. (Win, different story, maybe).

You're right, of course, that in the real world, the singer would likely find an excuse or turn in a shoddy product. But is this a good answer? Should the singer have to cheat or lie?

But why, logically, would I have less of a case against the singer if they were honest than I would have against the cake baker?

EMD said...

This was a bad law.

Brewer was right to veto it.

Hagar said...

so You think a black baker should be compelled to make a cake for. Aklansman?

And with figurines in KKK get-ups and perhaps a dark-complexioned figure hanging from a tree?

According to these people, yes.
The Klan also has free speech rights, and the ACLU will no doubt defend them against al comers.

EMD said...

Aren't most photographers, florists and bakers gay anyway?

Ha. Cook. Making with the funny.

EMD said...

so You think a black baker should be compelled to make a cake for. Aklansman?

Maybe they would rather be their legal counsel.

realwest said...

Simon - you said "The key point that you're missing here is that government cannot discriminate based on race. And I am willing to stipulate that government cannot discriminate based on sexuality..."
NO. The government said a privately owned lunch counter cannot refuse to serve people of color. It was NOT a case of the Government refusing to serve colored people but of a privately owned lunch counter,serving the general public, was not allowed to refuse service to members of the public because of those members skin color.
You then go on to say "That is the newly-minted principle that has been bandied around, yes. Well done, you have parroted your talking points correctly,..."
It is NOT NEWLY MINTED (although I confess I don't know what you mean by newly - Brown V. Board of Education isn't "newly" to me - but a simple self-evidential fact of life: it is personally dishonest IN THE EXTREME to hide your biases and prejudices regarding one or more groups of CITIZENS of the United States - who all should benefit from the protections of the U.S.Constitution- behind your personal religious beliefs.
And I stopped "Parroting" anyone's talking points the day I got out of the U.S. Army Infantry after my service in Vietnam, having discovered first hand how adept the U.S. Government can be at lying to the American People.

Fernandinande said...

...a bill on Wednesday that would have given business owners the right to...

No, bills never give anyone rights.

What they give is the ability to exercise rights without being harassed by gov't goons.

Jason said...

Ok, anyone who seriously uses the term 'discrimination' without differentiating between lawful and unlawful discrimination is an idiot.

Anglelyne said...

She said, “religious liberty is a core American and Arizona value,” but added, “so is no discrimination.”

There's that brain-dead "no discrimination" again. Lol.

No discrimination, gov'nuh? None? No liberty then, either.

Of course all societies, even the most free, put limits on liberty. I'm sure Brewer is on board with all kinds of discrimination - the right kinds. The kind that she likes, that is. What the fight is about, despite the pretense to process and principle, is who gets to dictate those limits.

Contemporary progressives are sure that they are infinitely the moral superiors of our forebears (those hypocrites), who talked about equality and liberty while practicing discrimination and restricting liberties. But the progs really differ only in that the want to dissolve and remake the structure of liberty and limit: they want to loosen what was once restricted, and practice tyranny where there was once liberty. Thus "equality" and "no discrimination" are glibly invoked as justification for absolutely anything they want to do, but ignored for anything they don't want you doing.

Shouting Thomas said...

@Robert Cook

Another iteration of the "if you disagree with me you hate gays" idiocy.

Disagreement with any liberal on any issue these days is proof that you hate an entire class of people.

Birches said...

In the Jim Crow era, the law in many states and municipalities prevented an integrated lunch counter from opening. It was illegal to mix the races in the public sphere.

So the comparison with this AZ law is really off, unless this AZ law said it was illegal to service a gay wedding.

But the alarmists don't want to hear that. For the record, I thought the law was silly and unnecessary (because of the existing laws in place in AZ), but the people criticizing it (and yes, even the NYT) have such a poor understanding of what the law did, that I reflexively defended it.

jr565 said...

Birches wrote:
In the Jim Crow era, the law in many states and municipalities prevented an integrated lunch counter from opening. It was illegal to mix the races in the public sphere.

So the comparison with this AZ law is really off, unless this AZ law said it was illegal to service a gay wedding.

But the alarmists don't want to hear that. For the record, I thought the law was silly and unnecessary (because of the existing laws in place in AZ), but the people criticizing it (and yes, even the NYT) have such a poor understanding of what the law did, that I reflexively defended it.


Exactly! Just because one baker doesn't want to provides. Service doesn't mean that they can't get that service from any other bakers. In Jim Crow you couldn't get that service anywhere by law.

jr565 said...

Real west wrote:
The government said a privately owned lunch counter cannot refuse to serve people of color.

can a gym refuse to allow membership of people with penises? Curves Gym and Lucille Roberts.

Audacity17 said...

So if I want a cake of Obama being assassinated, they have to make it now, right?

Hagar said...

jr,
Not so. Jim Crow was enforced by "if you break "the code," we will boycott your business, we will not associate with your wife, and we will not let your kids play with our kids."

And that is what had to be broken up, one way or another, because you cannot keep running a democratic society with that festering.

Hagar said...

And this bakery thing; it is not about the cake so much as the pair of "grooms" or "brides" on top, which make the bakers feel they are forced to participate in what they consider a farce and desecration of a religious rite.

ErnieG said...

The business about the wedding cakes and the photography is all about Chicago Rules. You put one of our guys in the hospital, we put one of your guys in the morgue. You inconvenience us, we put you out of business or in jail.

jr565 said...

Hagar, there is no other code though that would prevent bakers from catering to gays, nor a penalty if they did so.
This just says that one baker can choose not to, not that he must, and not that he mustn't accomodate.
I can see a lot of reasons not to accomodate certain ripple that don't even have to do with religion, that a lot of people saying they are against this would probably even agree with.For example, all the women working out at Curves Gym.

jr565 said...

Ernieg wrote:
ErnieG said...
The business about the wedding cakes and the photography is all about Chicago Rules. You put one of our guys in the hospital, we put one of your guys in the morgue. You inconvenience us, we put you out of business or in jail.

except, hilariously! this is all about enriching the so called bigot baker. he gets the business. Those protesting the store make sure of it. You are going to bake that cake and take my money, damnit! That extra profit really showed that baker!
And were just going to have to keep on shopping at this bakery to make sure that she knows she can't not sell stuff to us!

Mary E. Glynn said...


You're right, of course, that in the real world, the singer would likely find an excuse or turn in a shoddy product. But is this a good answer? Should the singer have to cheat or lie?
-------
Don 't ask, don't tell.
It's all good, no?

Revenant said...

Not so. Jim Crow was enforced by "if you break "the code," we will boycott your business, we will not associate with your wife, and we will not let your kids play with our kids."

There was a social aspect to it, sure, but the real problem with the Jim Crow laws is that they were *laws*. Businesses were not allowed to ignore the race of their customers or treat them equally.

In the absence of the law were there still people who refused to patronize businesses that catered to all races? Sure, but not enough to make a difference. The thing is, the South has a huge black population -- even if you lose the hard-core racist whites, the black customers make up for it. That's why racists had to pass the laws in the first place, because businesses weren't voluntarily being racist enough.

Revenant said...

I see people are still having hysterics over this law despite the fact that Arizona businesses were already free to discriminate against homosexuals.

But no, we have to hear another round of stories about how people in places that AREN'T Arizona are being forced to serve gays against their will.

Simon said...

Revenant said...
"There was a social aspect to it, sure, but the real problem with the Jim Crow laws is that they were *laws*. Businesses were not allowed to ignore the race of their customers or treat them equally."

Precisely. When people compare things like the Arizona bill to the Jim Crow laws, they are confessing total ignorance of what Jim Crow involved. (Most of them seem unaware that Jim Crow was the target of the laws rather than their progenitor.)

Mary E. Glynn said...

Another iteration of the "if you disagree with me you hate gays" idiocy. Disagreement with any liberal on any issue these days is proof that you hate an entire class of people.
-------

You don't need government permission to hate or dislike or disagree.

You just can't assume special rights and privileges and protections for your group anymore. You know, like special lunch counters and all.

Don't let anyone you don't like into your home kitchen where you can legally refuse to serve them.

Civilis said...

Don 't ask, don't tell.
It's all good, no?


Good unless you like your first amendment; the government can compel you to create speech, you're just allowed to make it of very poor quality.

Shouting Thomas said...

You just can't assume special rights and privileges and protections for your group anymore. You know, like special lunch counters and all.

So, you're the usual idiot on all counts, Mary.

I never had any special rights or privileges. Maybe you did, and you need to atone for that.

I grew up in central Illinois.

It isn't 1966 any more. If you want to pretend that it is, wait for the Holodeck to become a common appliance. Then you can pretend to your heart's content.

You're too late to the dance to be a civil rights hero. But, by all means, continue to fantasize that you are marching on Selma.

As I said, all the predictable idiot crap.

Chuck said...

Althouse, have you run a post yet, regarding the letter drafted on Professor Doug Laycock's University of Virgina Laws School letterhead? The one co-signed by a dozen constitutional/religious freedom academics?

This letter:
http://www.adfmedia.org/files/SB1062LegalProfsLetter.pdf

The media treatment of this issue has been nothing short of journalistic malpractice.

jr565 said...

"Don't let anyone you don't like into your home kitchen where you can legally refuse to serve them."


Mary do u work out at Lucille Roberts and/or Curves gym? If you do and I never saw you there its probably because I'm not allowed to workout at curves gym. Because of my penis.