You did not state the nature of the fictitious business but in all likelihood I'd be able to clean your clock in court if you denied me services simply because I'm Jewish. This isn't even close to an apples to apples comparison though. You are talking denying services only BECAUSE someone is Jewish. Not because they are asking you to do something that is against your religion. And your words "assuming i was a wacked out christian" is very telling and revealing about your lack of tolerance for other people's religious views. How ironic. And you clearly have little understanding of the current laws on the books.
Again...your comments are very telling and revealing of your own intolerance of religion and ignorance of The Constitution and Christianity in general. The First Amendment protects Americans from the likes of you. No one is restricted to honoring their religions in their hearts (per the First Amendment). In fact, most religions suggest or require that their followers spread the word and not suppress their beliefs. And even suggesting that what's going on in the U.S. is in anyway similar to what the Taliban does is one of the silliest things I've ever read in my 15 years on this board.
With that said....I think that the bill was probably overkill and wasn't needed. The media did what they do best and over sensationalized the issue by making the average American naively believe that the SB1062 was a discriminatory law that was going to allow business to just discriminate at will for any reason they felt. And that couldn't have been any further from the truth.
Your not addressing THIS bill's intention as "I" was in a ficticious nature. Of course there are current laws to protect people, as in New Mexico, where the photographer LOST her case in court because she did IN FACT deny service to a lesbian couple.
She and her husband violated a state law protecting persons from being discriminated against for sexual orientation.
Of course this bill is OVERKILL, but yet, the religious zealots who tried to pass it attempted to confuse the issue and hide its intentions. Thats why the uproar.
If this bill was signed by Jan Brewer, and I denied you service in my ficticious business in my illustration, you would NOT HAVE the right to SUE me for any reason.
I expressed my religious beliefs and opposed yours (ficticiously of course) and asked you to leave on that basis.
At that point, SB1062 would have protected me and "MY" religious beliefs.
This was the point of the opposition. It opens the door to such nonsense. While the intention was to deny GAY couples and protect christians from serving them, it also opened the door to other forms of religious denials.
Lets say I was a tow truck driver and you called for a pickup because you were stranded along side the road. I arrive and notice your star of david and then I decide that I dont believe in the jewish religion so I refuse to pick up your car, would that be ok for you as long as I cited my religious beliefs for doing so??
Lets stick with the case at hand. Think about it from the perspective of SB1062.
This is what it was about, it was what is contained in the bill and the ultimate reason it was vetoed. It was an END RUN on discriminatory protections.
You have to think outside the box (sotospeak) to grasp the ramifications that could arise from such a bill.
TOS.
--but rather for a person who has claimed he has done well financially -lives in a great neighborhood with family and friends --yet displays pure hatred.
