Arizona passes bill protecting religious freedom of business owners

[Paprika]

under the American law, I don't think there should be any legal objection to a business saying "We don't serve blacks" for sincere religious reasons.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/ar...eliefs-114903/

The bill allows any business, church or person to cite the law as a defense in any action brought by the government or individual claiming discrimination. It also allows the business or person to seek an injunction once they show their actions are based on a sincere religious belief and the claim places a burden on the exercise of their religion.

So, freedom of religion, or freedom to discriminate?

[Outis]

* "I have a sincere religious objection to homosexuality, therefore I will not serve gays."
* "I have a sincere religious objection to race mixing, therefore I will not serve blacks or mixed-race couples."

Is there a difference?

[Paprika]

* "I have a sincere religious objection to homosexuality, therefore I will not serve gays."
* "I have a sincere religious objection to race mixing, therefore I will not serve blacks or mixed-race couples."

Is there a difference?

Legally, under this law? No.

[Darth Executor]

* "I have a sincere religious objection to homosexuality, therefore I will not serve gays."
* "I have a sincere religious objection to race mixing, therefore I will not serve blacks or mixed-race couples."

Is there a difference?

No, both are used by you to justify slavery.

[Darth Executor]

Legally, under this law? No.

Actually there probably is since I believe racial discrimination is illegal at a federal level.

[Jedidiah]

* "I have a sincere religious objection to homosexuality, therefore I will not serve gays."
* "I have a sincere religious objection to race mixing, therefore I will not serve blacks or mixed-race couples."

Is there a difference?

No, but neither reflect the law in question.

[Paprika]

Actually there probably is since I believe racial discrimination is illegal at a federal level.

Which means that the legal system has inconsistencies. Who'd have thunk it?

[Paprika]

So I didn't notice someone else had already started a thread on this. Oops. Moderators, please feel free to close this thread.

[Darth Executor]

Which means that the legal system has inconsistencies. Who'd have thunk it?

Yes, that tends to happen when liberal imperialists attempt to exercise passive-aggressive dominion on people they believe to be their lessers.

[Sam]

Which means that the legal system has inconsistencies. Who'd have thunk it?

[Paprika]

I must admit to not knowing how you guys do with two different laws.

Aren't there lots of trouble when something is permitted by one law and prohibited by another?

[Sam]

I must admit to not knowing how you guys do with two different laws.

Aren't there lots of trouble when something is permitted by one law and prohibited by another?

[claymore]

I don't mind if there are two thread on the same topic

[Cow Poke]

I think this thread is more appropriately titled.

[Outis]

So, freedom of religion, or freedom to discriminate?

Here's a sign that Arizona restaurants can use. Be sure to change "white" to whatever preferred group will be discriminated against.

whites-only-1.jpg