Arizona Buisnesses May Be Able to Ban LBGT Customers

[Seraph]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/21/us/arizon ... hpt=hp_bn1
And right in my home state too.


Thoughts?

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

Thoughts?

My knee-jerk reaction: it is a bad idea.

I live in French Canada which is a very dark place, spiritually speaking. I hear God's name blasphemed hourly, and even on TV and other media. I went into a plumbing store a few months ago and was surprised to see a sign reading:

The Name Of God Is Honored In This Establishment.
Please Refrain From Using It Disrespectfully. Thank You.

While I was there, I didn't hear a single improper invocation of God's Name. Considering where I live and the type of store, this was nothing short of amazing.

Perhaps Arizona businesses could learn something from that plumbing store.

FL

[Seraph]

I too think it's a bad idea. Sinful or not, homosexuals are a group that I have sympathy/compassion for and I feel that they've been unnecessarily driven away from Christianity.

In my view, a Christian business owner banning them from their establishment for being gay is a sad tarnish on Christianity's reputation.

[FlawedIntellect]

I too think it's a bad idea. Sinful or not, homosexuals are a group that I have sympathy/compassion for and I feel that they've been unnecessarily driven away from Christianity.

In my view, a Christian business owner banning them from their establishment for being gay is a sad tarnish on Christianity's reputation.

Well, businesses like Chick-Fil-A don't really ban people from having jobs or from entering their establishment and eating there. However, some of their money goes to different organizations that try to function as therapy programs to help people address the matter of their homosexuality. The business sparked quite a bit of controversy over this.

And well, it's good to have sympathy and compassion, though it's also important to acknowledge that right is right and wrong is wrong. However, by the same token, we must also realize that in our own histories of behavior, we are not in any way "better" than them. Righteousness is a gift from God, not something we earn.

To an extent, they've been unnecessarily driven away from Christianity, but on the flipside, it's also the case that they won't even consider Christianity because of what it has to say about their lifestyles. That is, Christianity inconveniences them.

And then, there's places like a local church I attend, where they are very welcoming to LGBT people, but... I see it as being as much a good thing as a bad thing. On one hand, there's the potential of them establishing their own relationship and walk with Christ. It's good for them to have that opportunity. But on the other hand, they're notably dishonest when it comes to dealing with the subject of the aforementioned LGBT. I can't tell whether this is deliberate or unintentional, but... it does concern me, and I'm rather hesitant to talk with people there about it. They seem to be genuinely nice people who care for one another, which is all well and good, but... with my uncertainty of how they'll react, will they just calmly shrug it off and act like I just don't understand the matter? Or will they turn hostile? I've actually experienced a bit of both reactions online before.

Sorry for straying off topic. In any case, well, compassion is a good thing, though if businesses were to ban such customers, it would be a PR nightmare. Not to mention the already hectic political BS that's going on these days.

Final note: Arizona is a state with serious problems involving domestic abuse of women. It gives me a headache just thinking about it, for certain reasons...

[PeteSinCA]

Two perspectives:

Broad and general: What's a pizza or a computer or a pair of pants got to do with a potential customer's sexuality?

Focused and specific: Should a photographer or baker or caterer who is religious and believes homosexual acts to be sin be forced to recognize the validity of a same-sex "marriage" by contributing to and participating in that marriage?

Much more generally, should government be sticking its nose into a business's choices about which customers to serve? Race? Religion? Lifestyle? Heinous past? For example, if a business is barred from a whites-only service policy, what about people of a different religion or lifestyle? Or child molesters who have served their sentences?

I don't see simple and easy answers.

[Seraph]

Much more generally, should government be sticking its nose into a business's choices about which customers to serve? Race? Religion? Lifestyle? Heinous past? For example, if a business is barred from a whites-only service policy, what about people of a different religion or lifestyle? Or child molesters who have served their sentences?

I see what you're saying, but I think it should. In my view anyway, the intended purpose of government is to carry out social justice and strive for a "greater good" for everyone. They don't always do that obviously, but cases like this are where the government is needed. If the government never intervened, things like the Jim Crow laws never would have been taken out.

[SeekingSanctuary]

Much more generally, should government be sticking its nose into a business's choices about which customers to serve? Race? Religion? Lifestyle? Heinous past? For example, if a business is barred from a whites-only service policy, what about people of a different religion or lifestyle? Or child molesters who have served their sentences?

I see what you're saying, but I think it should. In my view anyway, the intended purpose of government is to carry out social justice and strive for a "greater good" for everyone. They don't always do that obviously, but cases like this are where the government is needed. If the government never intervened, things like the Jim Crow laws never would have been taken out.

Of course, Jim Crowe was a product of government intervention to begin with.

[Seraph]

Of course, Jim Crowe was a product of government intervention to begin with.

At the state levels, enacted by states that were very recently part of the confederacy. It's an example of where the federal government is necessary to step in at times, when states have laws that are profoundly contrary to the American spirit and morally wrong.

[PeteSinCA]

Much more generally, should government be sticking its nose into a business's choices about which customers to serve? Race? Religion? Lifestyle? Heinous past? For example, if a business is barred from a whites-only service policy, what about people of a different religion or lifestyle? Or child molesters who have served their sentences?

I see what you're saying, but I think it should. In my view anyway, the intended purpose of government is to carry out social justice and strive for a "greater good" for everyone. They don't always do that obviously, but cases like this are where the government is needed. If the government never intervened, things like the Jim Crow laws never would have been taken out.

Ouch! On a couple of levels! Murder, theft, rape, kidnapping, fraud, etc., are pretty well defined crimes, but what is "social justice"? Is it "social justice" that an electronic engineer gets a higher salary than a janitor? Is it "social justice" that a manager or franchise owner at M is paid more than a burger-flipper at the same store? Is it "social justice" that Safeway or Kroger seldom locate stores in certain urban areas, leaving those residents to buy groceries at small higher-priced stores? Some would/have answered all three questions with a, "Yes". Do education/skill and scarcity have any bearing on the engineer vs. janitor or manager vs. burger-flipper questions? Does being willing to work long hours and risk one's money have any bearing in the owner & manager vs. burger-flipper question? Do the higher shoplifting, theft and violent crime rates in those certain urban areas have any bearing in the Safeway/Kroger question? IMO, much of the time "social justice" is a euphemistic smokescreen for agendas that would commit real injustice.

"(S)trive for a 'greater good'" ... really? How well defined is that? Is it Ayn Rand style semi-anarchic libertarianism? Is it Marxian-Leninist-Stalinist confiscate-all-businesses-and-property-and kill-all-owners-and-managers Socialism (that's what Marx advocated and Lenin & Stalin did!)? I think government should focus on protecting its citizens from attack - foreign invasion and domestic crime - and maintain some infrastructure, and go beyond that very reluctantly and carefully.

[Seraph]

It can be hazy. I would define it as closely as possible as whatever creates the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people, and preventing certain parties from benefiting at the malicious expense of others.

[PeteSinCA]

Much more generally, should government be sticking its nose into a business's choices about which customers to serve? Race? Religion? Lifestyle? Heinous past? For example, if a business is barred from a whites-only service policy, what about people of a different religion or lifestyle? Or child molesters who have served their sentences?

I see what you're saying, but I think it should. In my view anyway, the intended purpose of government is to carry out social justice and strive for a "greater good" for everyone. They don't always do that obviously, but cases like this are where the government is needed. If the government never intervened, things like the Jim Crow laws never would have been taken out.

Of course, Jim Crowe was a product of government intervention to begin with.

Jim Crow laws were ... laws ... enacted by government. They also violated the higher law known as the US Constitution. Jim Crow laws also illustrate a concept important to keep in mind when considering human government: Tyranny of the Majority. IMO, many forms of government can work reasonably well; every form of human government can be evil when exercised by evil people (rulers and/or citizenry).

[PeteSinCA]

It can be hazy. I would define it as closely as possible as whatever creates the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people, and preventing certain parties from benefiting at the malicious expense of others.

I think you need to qualify that, so as to preclude things such as Jim Crow laws, which obviously were intended to make a majority of the people in those states happy.

[PeteSinCA]

And what about states like OR, CO, and NM, where, evidently, forcing Christian photographers, bakers, and caterers to participate in same-sex "weddings" evidently makes most citizens in the states happy? Is this, therefore, just and right?

Like I said ... no easy answers.

[Seraph]

And what about states like OR, CO, and NM, where, evidently, forcing Christian photographers, bakers, and caterers to participate in same-sex "weddings" evidently makes most citizens in the states happy? Is this, therefore, just and right?

Like I said ... no easy answers.

Probably about as right as if those photographers, bakers, and caterers didn't want to participate in the wedding of black people.

I think you need to qualify that, so as to preclude things such as Jim Crow laws, which obviously were intended to make a majority of the people in those states happy.

I think the latter part I added about entities not benefiting at the expense of others would address something like the Jim Crow laws.

[FlawedIntellect]

And what about states like OR, CO, and NM, where, evidently, forcing Christian photographers, bakers, and caterers to participate in same-sex "weddings" evidently makes most citizens in the states happy? Is this, therefore, just and right?

Like I said ... no easy answers.

Probably about as right as if those photographers, bakers, and caterers didn't want to participate in the wedding of black people.

Forgive me if I'm wrong (and correct me if I'm not understanding you correctly), but it sounds like you're equating the stance of opposing the LGBT lifestyles to racism (which is the devaluing/dehumanizing of fellow human beings on the basis of skin tone.)

Racism is a matter of questioning whether or not individuals are somehow lesser people or even less than human on the basis of skin tone, which is a view that violates the intrinsic value of human life.

Opposition to LGBT lifestyles, on the other hand, is calling into question the moral acceptability of the lifestyles. It is not calling into question their intrinsic value as human beings.

Clearly, these two issues have very fundamental differences in foundation and assumptions.

So, how is expression of opposition to the lifestyle in any way prejudice against them as human beings, instead of being simply objections to their behaviors?

(Don't get me wrong, there are people who oppose the lifestyle who do so by dehumanizing means, but such people are in error and haven't taken the issue seriously.)

As for my prior post, that one was dealing with the more general view. People who claim to be LGBT do very well need respect as human beings and the ability to work and support themselves. So, this is why I hold to the more general view regarding how businesses are to do things.

PSCA did a nice job pointing out something I overlooked and forgot about, though. The general view advocates the ability of "LGBT" people to live and support themselves, whereas the more narrow and specific view advocates the ability of people to stand for their values rather than be forced to violate them.

I think you need to qualify that, so as to preclude things such as Jim Crow laws, which obviously were intended to make a majority of the people in those states happy.

I think the latter part I added about entities not benefiting at the expense of others would address something like the Jim Crow laws.

This is a little vague, as governments putting more funding into one program instead of another can be said to be a case where one group of people benefits at the expense of another.

The legal system (ideally) is intended to benefit law-abiding citizens (so as to preserve the peace and prevent infringement of certain core rights, such as right to live, and right to be in good health to the best of one's ability, the right to own property, etc...) at the expense of law-breakers (such as murderers, domestic abusers, and robbers, etc... who forfeit some of their liberties temporarily or permanently depending on the severity of their actions.).

I get what you're trying to say, though, and the examples I mentioned probably aren't what you meant.