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

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

[bedstuy]

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.

[DC Al Fine]

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/

[Indy Texas]

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/

There is a difference between treating someone differently because of who they are (racially, sexually, or otherwise) and treating someone differently because they engage in precisely that sort of discrimination.

We choose our religious beliefs and we choose in what way we apply those beliefs to our conduct. People who choose to hold hateful beliefs and apply them in hateful ways should live with the consequences. Nothing 21st century society does to homophobic, regressive Christians is remotely close to the literal crucifixion that Jesus went through.

[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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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?

[bedstuy]

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?

That's discrimination by a private organization, not the government.  It's not relevant to the point at hand here.

[SteveRogers]

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.

'

Of course. I was referring to the common rebuttal that conservatives give when a celebrity (like Duck Dynasty guy) is publicly ridiculed for making homophobic remarks. That argument goes something like this: "Liberals sure are hypocrites because they claim to value tolerance, but they sure don't tolerate my homophobia." So I'll offer the extended version of my original comment: Tolerance doesn't mean pretending that horrible people aren't horrible, but it does entail recognizing their right to think horrible thoughts and say horrible things. (Though this should be accompanied by a recognition of the fact that freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism and rebuke for one's speech, but that is a separate matter).

But anyway, once we get  to actual conduct, we must recognize this: It is a demonstrable fact that the way a gay person chooses to live their life will never meaningfully impact the way that a homophobe chooses to live their life. On the other hand, the way in which a homophobic business owner chooses to discriminate against a gay customer can indeed have a negative impact on the latter's quality of life.

[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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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?

[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).

[Deus Naturae]

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?

That's discrimination by a private organization, not the government.  It's not relevant to the point at hand here.

How is it not? Isn't the argument about whether private businesses should be legally allowed to discriminate against gays?

[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"

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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).

So you favor punishing people because of their opinions?  In case you hadn't noticed, it's 2014, not 1984.  I do not favor having thoughtcrimes.  Now if you could point out how this student code of conduct would prevent them from practicing law once they have graduated, I could perhaps buy the argument you're trying to make, but as far as I can see, it's irrelevant to whether one is capable of being a lawyer.

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"

I think I understand you now.  People are free to have ideas only so long as they are lone individuals.  The moment they try to organize into groups they lose all rights to have ideas that you disagree with.

[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.

[Cassius]

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.

This case isn't about imposing one's ideas upon others, it is about having the freedom to not have to associate with certain people in society if one so wishes. Now, you might counter that point by saying 'well they run a business and therefore should expect to have to do so'. Now, I understand that position, but, you see, in my view, the primary purpose of running a business is simply to make money (there may be other purposes, other perfectly valid ones, but, to me, that is the central point), not to 'serve the community' as a first priority (I would argue that that is the purpose of setting up a charity or other volunteer group, and even then only within certain boundaries). Thus, I would say that the business owner should be allowed to run his business in whatever way he sees fit (as long as it is legal) and that the only people who should be allowed to have any veto power over this are his or her shareholders. Now, of course, it is illegal to discriminate. But I believe such laws designed to prevent discrimination are, in certain circumstances, wrong. I believe it is wrong to force people together if one or both parties object to such dealings (incidentally, why would a gay person actually want to make use of the services provided by such an openly homophobic businessman?). Now, there is a crucial difference, to my mind, between discrimination in the private sphere and the public sphere. In the public sphere I believe that it should be banned regardless of private beliefs because, at the end of the day, we all have a stake in the workings of the state, through the taxes we (and our families) pay to it in order to ensure that it's basic functions run. The private sphere is different, because not everyone has a stake in a particular business/club/church etcetera. In my opinion, I believe that discrimination should be permissible as long as the stakeholders of a particular organisation are decided firmly in favour of it.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

Why?  Why does having a primary goal of making money deprive an organization of its political and/or religious rights?  It can't force people to buy its products and if it is a school it can't force students to attend, so it isn't imposing anything on anyone.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd have no problem with that.  You might have difficulty getting students to agree to that.  But since it would be their choice, there is no force involved.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So you're saying that homophobes are insane criminals just as the kleptomaniac is?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

First off, do the employees even need protection?  I could perhaps see the need if after accepting employment, the employer changed its requirements, but this is a case of people freely choosing whether or not to abide by the code of conduct that the school requires.  They aren't forced into accepting the code because if they don't accept it they can go to a different school that doesn't have it.  Rather you are advocating forcing your own beliefs on businesses and organizations.  I agree with those beliefs, but I strongly disagree with forcing others to act upon those beliefs.

[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.

[Deus Naturae]

Denial of service is not an "imposition" of anything.

Personal freedom includes the right to control of one's own private property (in this case, one's own business). Besides, no one has the "personal freedom" to force others to serve them.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

And it forces people to not change their values as long they go to that school or keep that job.

Didn't you just say that affected students would find it easy to transfer to another school?  Indeed, you did!

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

You can't logically claim on the one hand that forcing students to change schools has no impact upon them and then say on the other hand that it is an intolerable impact if they have to change schools because their beliefs change so that they are incompatible with those of the school they were attending.  The only difference between the two situations is why they have to change schools.

It's weird than you talk about me forcing my beliefs on people, when defending businesses and schools doing the same with their employees.

If all businesses and schools required the same set of beliefs, you would have a point.  But they don't.  Indeed, it appears only one law school in Canada has this student code of conduct you disapprove of so it certainly is not forcing anything.  Unless that law school suddenly became a monopoly that was the only way to become a Canadian lawyer, they can't impose their beliefs on anyone.  However, the law societies are a monopoly in each province.  They have the ability to impose beliefs.  That's why unless that belief impairs the ability to be a lawyer, they should not be allowed to act upon that ability. How does being a homophobe keep one from being a competent lawyer who can act on behalf of one's chosen clients, and if it does not, then why should the law societies care about the beliefs of its members or of its law schools?

[bedstuy]

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?

That's discrimination by a private organization, not the government.  It's not relevant to the point at hand here.

How is it not? Isn't the argument about whether private businesses should be legally allowed to discriminate against gays?

This is confusing.  Obviously, a private organization can say, we have a non-discrimination policy which includes gay people.  I think most reputable organizations have such a policy.  Obviously, the HRC can say, we won't hire people who are homophobic.  That's all 100% fine.  However, the government cannot practice certain kinds of discrimination against viewpoints and religious exercise.  That's the difference.

I'm still waiting for an example of the government of a state or the federal government discriminating against religious people on account of their homophobia.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Denial of service is not an "imposition" of anything.

Personal freedom includes the right to control of one's own private property (in this case, one's own business). Besides, no one has the "personal freedom" to force others to serve them.

I firmly believe that the government should be able to regulate the smooth flow of commerce. There is nothing good or efficient about a market where you have to deal with a player who might not sell you X or Y because "RELIGION."

What happens when the only gas station in town refuses to sell you gas? If the only restaurant or grocery store in town refuses to serve you? The only pharmacy in town refuses to fill your birth control prescription? Or, what if your ability to obtain that birth control prescription simply depended on whose day it was to work the counter?

You can say that, OK, a free market will weed this out. Would it really? Passing a bill would be seen as the government implicitly OKing discrimination, giving the country a green flag to start doing it again. The free market and personal bias could conceivably recreate the era of segregation, albeit as a smaller niche market. The upside seems to be 0 and the downside seems to be quite grim, so why would we even consider the question of returning policy back to the way it was during Jim Crow as if it worked so well back then.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Jim Crow was an aberration fostered in part by de jure required segregation.  Also, unlike race or gender discrimination, discrimination based on non-visually determinable characteristics would require what in most situations would be a fairly intrusive line of inquiry to find out if you'd even want to discriminate.  After all, that was one reason the Nazis made use of the infamous yellow star: to make it easy for people to discriminate against the Nazi's chosen targets.  Hence anyone who would be likely to be even able to discriminate against people of a particular religion or sexual identity would need to be in a business in which they would ordinarily learn enough about that person in the ordinary course of business.  That ain't gonna apply to gas stations, grocery stores, or most other retail businesses.

[Likely Voter]

How is this even a debate? Is anyone going to defend the right of businesses to refuse to serve people based on race, religion, sex or disability? (all of which are federally protected) Sexual orientation is just the latest thing to be added to the list (albeit in a patchwork of states and cities and not yet federally).

Unfortunately in AZ it is still legal to discriminate based on sexual orientation, so for most of the state this law really was meaningless. The real effect of this law was nullifying city ordinances in Phoenix, Tuscon and some other towns that had laws against LGBT discrimination. 

[bedstuy]

This argument is really turned around.  Here's the clearest understanding I have of things:

1.  BOTH Jim Crow-esque segregation of homosexuals and government sanctioned religious persecution of fundamentalist Christians are not real issues in America.  Thus, Arizona's new law is not the beginning of a serious anti-gay campaign, nor it is remotely useful.

2.  Some private discrimination against gay people should be legal for religious institutions and individuals, but it shouldn't be tolerated on an individual or private level.  Homophobia is repulsive, but like private racism, it should be perfectly legal.

3.  Employment and housing discrimination against homosexuals should be illegal, except for those exceptions already under Title VII and the FHA, like extremely small businesses.  Similarly, we out to add sexual orientation to hate crime legislation.