Arizona governor vetoes business refusal law

Interesting conversation. Personally, I think businesses should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Ultimately, it's their property and their store. I've refused to sell guns to people just because I've thought they were shitbags. Should I be compelled to do something I'm not willing to do?

As for the DM comments, I think it's a different case. It's a well known public good having service from the police/fire/EMT. Those are paid for in part or in whole by public funds so as a public official, they can't choose. As a private entity, they can choose.

As far as gay rights, I'm not for them. I'm for individual rights of all. I don't believe in special interest groups nor special representations for certain favored parties.

Further that, the govt. needs to get out of the marriage business. Everyone files taxes individually and the churches marry who they please. Between me and my God, I do not approve of homosexuality nor gay marriage. If the govt. gets out of the marriage business then gays can do as they wish. I do not favor any laws abridging homosexuals or infringing on them. Do as you wish however, ask no favor or approval from me.

Granted, there are a bunch of groups that I don't approve of. Drug use, thuggery, or just general moral corruption. I don't even like strip clubs. However, save harming another in any form I don't believe in a law against drugs use or moral corruption. Nor do a favor any support when you fall on your face for engaging in those activities.

I'm doing some more research on the topic. Basically the Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlaws denying service based on the classic "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin" grounds. It doesn't specify sexual orientation though. Some states have passed further acts outlawing discrimination on sexual orientation. California has the Unruh Civil Rights Act, which guarantees equal service from a "for-profit" business to anybody.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_Civil_Rights_Act

An example from the above Wiki page showing an exemption: "California courts recently held that a private school's admissions office was not covered by the Act, because it was not a business. (A school had expelled two students who were perceived as bisexual.) "Although the fact the School is nonprofit is not controlling, this does mean it should not be deemed a business unless it has some significant resemblance to an ordinary for-profit business." Doe v. California Lutheran High School Ass'n, 170 Cal.App.4th 828 (2009)."

www.legalzoom.com/us-law/equal-rights/right-refuse-service

Another example showing an example of the act in work: "On the other hand, a California court decided that a restaurant owner could not refuse to seat a gay couple in a semi-private booth where the restaurant policy was to only seat two people of opposite sexes in such booths. There was no legitimate business reason for the refusal of service, and so the discrimination was arbitrary and unlawful." The whole article is an interesting read.


It's been stated that this is in response to Arizona seeing parties in other states getting sued for denying service to gays. It may also be Arizona's way of pre-empting further laws such as the Unruh Act being enacted on state level. In this bureaucratic nation, it's in unsurprising move from a group that may feel as B35 provided and bolded for us in his above post. Besides, you can't blame any state for not wanting to end up more like California. If they are going to legislate their way to a preferred status, pull the ground they may try to stand on from underneath them. I will admit, reading the text is pretty legalese, but it doesn't appear that their is any specific wording to prevent any particular person for using religion as an excuse to not perform public service. I may have missed it or it may not be there.

I'm sure if somebody says their personal spaghetti monster dictates that they are too immoral to receive emergency care and they can live with that on their conscience something like that could happen. With some of the garbage that passes as religion these days it could sound that bad too. I'm sure you guys know a hell of a lot more of the legal requirements of providing emergency service than I ever will, but it doesn't sound like something even the most vehemently anti-gay individual would do. Even if they did, based on B35's post I assume they'd be out of job and career in a snap. 

I think Gingerbread stated it nicely, anybody should be able to refuse service to anybody for any reason, even if it's just because dude is a fuckhead. It has a time and place in many businesses. couple of times I've traded/sold guns privately I had been contacted by somebody that was not being sold a gun, no way no how, legal or not. Not a business venture, but same moral applies. It shouldn't have to come down to pulling out the constitution and relying on religious freedom to grant you the ability to tell them to kick rocks. I'm near-certain the "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" signs are illegal in some jurisdictions. I'm going to do more legwork on that one, but I'm pretty sure I read that it was illegal in one of the mandated workplace-rights posters at my last job, and I haven't seen one of the signs in years.

As far as "hey, we're too booked, call up so-and-so," this is just another unnecessary euphemism for that is really at hand. Evidently, in CA it can get you sued if you get caught in a lie about it. It's pretty sad that laws about who can deny service to who have to be written. It's sad that people treated people of race so poorly that they had to have laws written that not only made them "equal" but also seem favored to many people. It's downright pathetic that people these days that somebody can be sued for sticking to their religious morals. If a Christian business wants to deny business to gay people because they find them immoral, they should be able to do so and tell them why without sugarcoating it. 

B35 makes a great points. Why can't they not make such a stink about and just build the damned cake, or why can't they just find somebody that will build them them a "faaaaabulous" cake? Either isn't too hard to achieve, but I'll side with the first group. People need to get over themselves. Are you seriously such a butthurt entitled victim that you have to sue somebody for something like denial of service when you could have probably went a mile down the road and found somebody that can serve you enthusiastically? I mean, c'mon, how hard can it be to find a gay florist or baker? 

I liked this quote. “It shows that tolerance is one way,” he said, referring to the militant gay protests. “Those who trumpet the message of tolerance have no tolerance for people who disagree with them.” It's America and a cornerstone of this country is tolerating an opposing opinion. We're seriously lacking in this nowadays. I can tolerate any opposing argument as long as it is thought out and not a bunch of rabble. This forum is great for the former. 

Yeah, I agree. That why I think the bakers should have won.


The thing is that they're trying to do this at a time when this preferred status thing should end, not keep going.

You want to be equal, that's fine. Trying to be better than everybody else is an entirely different story.

I can completely see why AZ did this, who wants to end up like Cali? I'm surprised the Gov vetoed it, that'll have some consequences.
You would, Texas DSHS and the National Registry would almost certainly move to suspend someone who refused to treat a pt for some reason other than a medical one. They'd investigate and then if it turned out to be true they'd pull your cert.

No one's going to do that though. Since day one they drill into you if you're on shift you have a duty to act. I've personally treated child molesting and murdering sexual predators. I can't say I was happy about it, but I did my job. Some regular gay dude doesn't have anything on that.

I'm also probably not as anti-gay as you might think. I disagree with it for moral reasons, but it's more of a blasé opposition rather than some burning hatred.


When it comes down to it I agree with the bakers, they should have the right to refuse service to someone if they so choose.

It just seems like such a minor point to stand on though, is it worth all this? Lost their business, getting sued and so on. I'm stubborn as fuck on stuff I believe in, but I usually try to reserve those moments for when its really worth it.

It's obviously worth it to them though and maybe they feel if they give in on the small stuff that it'll just lead to larger situations later.