AZ Legislature turns back clock, resumes segregation, but this time for gays

[MaxQue]

This bill has even lost the ultimate weathervane for Republican conventional wisdom. Mitt tweeted to Jan Brewer to veto.

Mitt is on Marriott's board isn't he?

Yes (as are the Chairman of Nortel and the Dean of Business of Wake Forest U, among others).

[MaxQue]

It was apparently only a two page bill

Which is why it is so astonishing that it could be so misinterpreted by the media and by most of the posters in this thread.  SB 1062 is not segregation. It does not even mention gays or sexual orientation and it does not mention discrimination.  It is not specific to a certain religion or religious viewpoint.   Those who that are screaming about how this bill is the reinstatement of the Spanish Inquisition should read this open letter from several law professors:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The national discussion over this bill has been a sick joke, but at least now we know how few people truly value religious liberty, when push comes to shove. 

Yep you're right. The word "gay" isn't technically mentioned in the bill at all. What the text of the bill literally allows is for individuals to claim a burden on their religious liberties as a defense to literally any lawsuit. And this is good because???

It is good if you value religious liberty. If you think that religious liberty is completely irrelevant to the law and the state should be able to compel people to go against their religious beliefs without being challenged or questioned, then it is not good, but I would not want to live in the society you are advocating.

So, religious liberty trumps all other liberties?

[MaxQue]

Being tolerant of other types of people is not equivalent to being tolerant of other people's intolerance.  Homophobia is wrong and is a set of beliefs, not a group of people who immigrated to this country for Homophobiavania. 

This. Tolerance doesn't mean pretending that horrible people aren't horrible.

And to the homophobes, homos are horrible people.  That's why you need a much better reason than "it's horrible" if you're going to justify government action that forces people to do things they would rather not do.

That sort of makes sense in the abstract.  In reality, we recognize certain judgements are illegitimate.  If a large employer wants to fire someone because they're female or Muslim or black, we force them to do something they don't want to do.  We do take a side against unfair discrimination in those contexts.  If we're going to have a civilized society, you can't allow systematic discrimination in terms of basic necessities like housing and employment.

I'm still waiting for a clear actual or hypothetical example of this religious discrimination against homophobes.  If you can't even come up with a plausible hypothetical of what you're worried about, I don't think it's a big deal.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/education/pressure-mounts-on-law-societies-to-reject-faith-based-schools-graduates/article16623462/

I don't see any problem here. An university has no business regulating personal life of their students. If it was a divinity school, I could understand, but not a law school.

[MaxQue]

I don't see any problem here. An university has no business regulating personal life of their students. If it was a divinity school, I could understand, but not a law school.

And what business is it of the law societies what personal code of conduct a law school may require of its students?  How does that code of conduct make those students unfit to be lawyers?

It's the duty of a law society to assure than the rights of its members (the persons) and future members are respected.

[MaxQue]

I don't see any problem here. An university has no business regulating personal life of their students. If it was a divinity school, I could understand, but not a law school.

And what business is it of the law societies what personal code of conduct a law school may require of its students?  How does that code of conduct make those students unfit to be lawyers?

It's the duty of a law society to assure than the rights of its members (the persons) and future members are respected.

Doesn't that mean that the law societies shouldn't violate the rights those who choose to go to that school by denying them accreditation solely because of the code of conduct that they voluntarily agreed to when they decided to go there?

Those people are free to end their education in another school. Canadian universities usually recognize courses followed in other universities. Current students just would have to change universities (and it's their fault if they chose that university, knowing that controversial code of conduct).

[MaxQue]

I think than the main point is than many persons fail to understand than freedoms are for persons, not businesses.

"Personal freedom" trumps "business freedom to impose their ideas on their employees/students/customers"

[MaxQue]

No, what I mean is than you can't impose your ideas on other people. You can think homosexuality is a sin, but you can't impose it on your customers or your students.

In another situation, I'm a social democrat, but I can't decide to only hire social democrats or open a school and force people to agree with a code of condct saying they must be social democrats.

You seem to confuse political or religious groups with schools and businesses. A business isn't a religious group.

Let's take a person. Let's suppose he can't enter a jewelry without stealing it. The logical consequence to protect the jeweller is than the person shouldn't enter the jewelry.

Let's take another person. Let's suppose he can't manage a business without forcing down its religious values on its employees. The logical consequence to protect the employees is than the person shouldn't create a business.

[MaxQue]

To Cassius, well, we will just agree to disagree. You see my point, I see yours. We just don't agree. I just have one comment, about "why a gay person would want to deal with an openly homophobic business owner?". Well, I come from a remote area and, often, you don't choose with which business you deal, you deal with the only one offering that service (not than I ever had that issue, since we are remote and neglected by the rest of Quebec, the ideology is than we accept everyone wanting to live here). But, I would suspect it's not the same in all remote or rural areas.

To Ernest, I do believe a commercial organisation has no political or religious rights, first of all. Those rights are only for people, in my opinion.
As for kleptomaniacs and homophobes, I think we can agree than both are problems and than both should face consequences for it.
And I don't think than people "accept" employment. In minimum-wage jobs, most people are forced into employment. If the choice is between being forced into values you don't agree with or starving, most people will obviously take the former. And it forces people to not change their values as long they go to that school or keep that job.
It's wierd than you talk about me forcing my beliefs on people, when defending businesses and schools doing the same with their employees.

[MaxQue]

Apparently, Ernest has never lived outside of a big city.

[MaxQue]

I agree that I have no personal experience with the issue, but who the heck is going to know what your sexuality is when you go to the grocery store, even if they were bigoted enough to want to know so they could discriminate against gays?

If you happen to walk in with your husband.

How dare you impose the view of an happy gay couple to "Christians"!