Arizona law and signmakers

[Gino]

So..... supersignmart gets it, but you two don't ?? How's that possible ??

I'm tired of everytime we turn around the government is telling me/us how to conduct business..... good or bad.

I'm tired of paying for the needy, the geighs, the religious or atheists....... the anyones who feel threatened or mistreated. Where or when does it stop ?? Not once in my job application did it ask who all I want/wanted to support the rest of my life. Why must the government be called in on a personal note ?? Can't these frickin' dummies fend for themselves ??

If some guy comes in the door all liquored up, swaying and wants to order a sign, just because I like drinking, doesn't mean I have to do business with him. If some punk kid with an orange, green and blue woody-wood pecker haircut wants to order some signs..... do I hafta do business or just tell him politely, we don't serve his kind. If some Catholic, Muslim or Buddhist comes in.... must I do business with them ?? If some guy with a seeing eye dog comes in and wants a sign, do I need to conduct business ?? If some Norwegian comes and and I can't understand a word.... and I have no means of communications, do I need to waste time and stare at him/her. If some girl comes in and she's good looking or ugly, do I need to have a reason to or not to do business with her ??

These are.... or should be my personal decision. Nothing laid down by the law of the land. I don;t care what they want or think I need, I've done it all so far without any government help. If anything, they've gotten in the way many times and I hafta go the extra mile to make them happy.

Okay, let's try this backwards. Where is the governement telling people they MUST do business with me and they MUST pay my prices ?? Where is my protection and rights to do business in an honest fashion helped by my government ?? Why does the entire population get rights, which I evidently tread on all the time, but they can spend their money on drugs, church, booze, toys, casinos, boats, houses and whatever, without being hounded..... let alone popping out kids without any responsibility except they know I'll pay for them ?? As ridiculous as that sounds, that's how ridiculous it is the other way round when you run an honest life your whole life. The good thing is.... you can make fun of me and I can make fun of you, but if we use a wrong word or something gets bent outta shape, the Political Correctness' Police are on your @ss in a minute.

 

[Asuma01]

IMO the law endorses bigotry and ignorance.

 

[bob]

OK, I'm not even sure what your issue is here... The Arizona law, if passed, says that you can refuse service to a customer based solely on the fact that they are gay.l...

No, that is not what it says.

It says that you can refuse any business which is in conflict with your religious beliefs. The latter being protected under the first amendment, the former not so much. It most certainly does not say that you can refuse business because someone is a homosexual. Big difference.

As for myself, I will refuse service to anyone for whatever reason it might please me to do so, or for no reason at all, merely because I want to and I can.

 

[BK Vinyl]

No, it doesn't. Try reading it, instead of what you are being spoon fed.

I've read it. I've also heard from the people that say it's about protecting freedom. They all seem to be worried about the Jewish caterers being forced to serve pork.
I've just never heard of this happening. Gino, has anyone ever sued you for refusing to make a banner with burning flags that says death to america? Law or no law,
you would turn that job down. It's just not a concern because it doesn't come up. If you read between the lines and see what people are really being discriminated
against in the name of "freedom of religion" it is clear this law is not about pork sandwiches...

 

[Steve C.]

The Baker and Photographer are not discriminating because of Who They Are.
They are refusing to take part in, or provide for a ceremony they find offensive
according to their religion. I don't know, but I'd bet that the Photographer would
do a portrait and the Baker sell a donut to any gay person. This has nothing to
do with MY personal beliefs. I think the government should stay the heII out of
it and the gays can find another business that has no such religious convictions.

And now this thread is in danger of being removed.

 

[Techman]

This is a non issue. No one has to be offended. And no one has to do anything but take the money and run.
Get back to real issues such as the millions of unemployed who cannot find a job.
Get back to the illegal immigration problems.
Get back to the inaction of our government and hold them accountable.

All this type of news does is pander to those who want or need an issue around which to create drama.
R&R at its best. Remove and replace. Oldest trick in the book when dealing with little kids. Remove that which could hurt him and replace it with some other toy. The gubmint is doing just hat... Remove the real issues and replace them with emotional non issues over which the sheep will bleat.

 

[CES020]

This is a non issue. No one has to be offended. And no one has to do anything but take the money and run.
Get back to real issues such as the millions of unemployed who cannot find a job.
Get back to the illegal immigration problems.
Get back to the inaction of our government and hold them accountable.

All this type of news does is pander to those who want or need an issue around which to create drama.
R&R at its best. Remove and replace. Oldest trick in the book when dealing with little kids. Remove that which could hurt him and replace it with some other toy. The gubmint is doing just hat... Remove the real issues and replace them with emotional non issues over which the sheep will bleat.

I heard an interview on the radio with a guy that recently wrote a book about how Washington works. To sum it up, he said they were all the same. He said they announce things only to drum up money from various groups. I think he cited an example and showed how it all worked using big oil as an example. He said no one's going to pass any energy bills, but the left will introduce a bill trying to do something to "big oil" and it'll stir up their side into donating money to the cause. Then the right will go to big oil and get money from them to try and fight the bill, when neither one of them had any intentions of doing anything about any of it, they just wanted to stir up the people to get money flowing in. He had numerous examples and it was very interesting to hear. That would also explain on why nothing gets done. Because no one wants anything to get done. He also said they each congressman had about 4-6 different accounts that you could donate to. So when your contributors hit the limit for what they can give you as a Senator, then they move you to their PAC, and then to their next thing down the line, until they have tapped you out 4-6 different times.

He said it really was filthy and disgusting to see how it was all currently working.

 

[Mosh]

Mosh,
I have to ask,...what is the VIP treatment in a Gay strip club like?

I have NO IDEA...but I would imagine a different type of pole dance goes on there...

I think I just threw up a little thinking about that....

 

[cajun312]

My friend that owns a bar has this on a sign

We reserve the right to refuse you service
No matter who you think you are
Or who your daddy is

 

[Joe Diaz]

I personally see there being a huge difference in being forced to make something I disagree with vs refusing to do work for a group of people. For example I would do work for any person regardless of the color of their skin, but I wouldn't make a sign or banner that says death to whitey or death to Asians etc etc... I'm assuming our legal system can distinguish the difference between the two.

It seems to boil down to what is more important to our society: protecting the right to refuse to do work for certain groups of people based on prejudice feelings, or the rights of a group of people to shop where other groups can shop. It's a debate that keeps recurring though. It seems like as time goes on we keep making the same choice though. For instance, now we live in a society (here in the U.S. anyway) where we don't have "Whites only" signs hanging in businesses up and down main street.

I agree with Techman though. My issue is that this is an issue. There are more pressing matters right now, and from my understanding this "preemptive" law "fixes" a problem that barely existed if at all in Az. And of course it's political and has everything to do with gays. I highly doubt this has to do with people having the ability to turn away people who get divorced, who eat shellfish, who gossip, who have sex before marriage, who work on the Sabbath etc... However if it were law it should protect that as well. But since no one would do that, than what else could it be about?

 

[Gino]

I've read it. I've also heard from the people that say it's about protecting freedom. They all seem to be worried about the Jewish caterers being forced to serve pork.
I've just never heard of this happening. Gino, has anyone ever sued you for refusing to make a banner with burning flags that says death to america? Law or no law,
you would turn that job down. It's just not a concern because it doesn't come up. If you read between the lines and see what people are really being discriminated
against in the name of "freedom of religion" it is clear this law is not about pork sandwiches...

Nope. No one has ever sued me for something like that. Many other things, but not that. I've never lost a case in some 60 plus years being on this earth. Anyway, first of all, it has never happened, but second of all, I know I'm the type who would've kicked them out and made threats to their life. I won't hurt their little feelings or rights, but I will make them run and never come back...... guaranteed. In my store, in my house, in my life, it's pretty much my way.... or the highway. I don't want others interfering with what I do if I'm within my rights. If you don't like it, that's fine with me. I don't care, but let me the heck alone with what's mine.

Now, like tech mentioned, the bigger picture is, this is all smoke and mirrors, pay attention to what this hand over here is doing while my other hand is deep in your pockets.
​

 

[Pat Whatley]

Now, like tech mentioned, the bigger picture is, this is all smoke and mirrors, pay attention to what this hand over here is doing while my other hand is deep in your pockets.

Exactly.

 

[TammieH]

As a gay transexual, yes, I believe people should not be allowed to discriminate for any reason.

People in the community have died in the past because hospitals, doctors and emergency medical techs have refused to give aid to some people
in the LGBT community.

I do not know if AZ's law would go that far, but when you start closing doors, how far will people go?

Regardless this is bad business practice for anyone, when you decide to alienate one class of people, you will also lose their supporters.

Having said that, I would not want to patronize these establishments in the first place. I would much rather give my hard earned dollars
to someone who is much more open, accepting or friendly.

 

[bob]

...If you read between the lines and see what people are really being discriminated
against in the name of "freedom of religion" it is clear this law is not about pork sandwiches...

Freedom of religion is an enumerated right and reading between the lines is usually recommended when someones wants something interpreted their way instead of the way it's actually stated. There is no 'freedom of religion" in quotes in the context in which you use the term. It's an unalienable right. If exercising such a right presents some sort of perceived discrimination then there will be some sort of perceived discrimination. So what.

It would appear that there in your village religious freedom is OK until it's your ox that's gored. Then the term gets placed into quotes and it is trivialized. A common cry of the provincial mind is "Well, freedom of x does not mean that you can do X!". For example "Freedom of speech does not mean you can say THAT!". Which is exactly what is does mean. If it didn't it would be a right, merely a conditional indulgence.

 

[Gino]

As a gay transexual, yes, I believe people should not be allowed to discriminate for any reason.

People in the community have died in the past because hospitals, doctors and emergency medical techs have refused to give aid to some people
in the LGBT community.

I do not know if AZ's law would go that far, but when you start closing doors, how far will people go?

Regardless this is bad business practice for anyone, when you decide to alienate one class of people, you will also lose their supporters.

Having said that, I would not want to patronize these establishments in the first place. I would much rather give my hard earned dollars
to someone who is much more open, accepting or friendly. Like me, huh ??

I had no idea you were all those things rolled up into one. Which came first, being geigh or finding out you were a transsexual. So, what made you decide to change so many things around ?? I'll bet being a sign-person [I use that term in a non-gender style] did it to ya..............

 

[Billct2]

No, Bob, you're wrong. Freedom of religon does not mean you can do anything in the name of religious freedom and freedom of speech does not mean that you can say anything anywhere you feel like it.

 

[bob]

As a gay transexual, yes, I believe people should not be allowed to discriminate for any reason...

Really? When you go to a restaurant you just say "Bring whatever you have the most of" instead of selecting from the menu? Everyone should be forced to like Brussels sprouts?

Anyone should be able to like or not like and choose to associate or not associate with anyone or anything for any reason that strikes their fancy or no reason at all.

 

[bob]

No, Bob, you're wrong. Freedom of religon does not mean you can do anything in the name of religious freedom and freedom of speech does not mean that you can say anything anywhere you feel like it.

I might go along with your interpretation of the former. One probably could not be, say, a cannibal, in the name of religious freedom. However, I do believe the practitioners of Santeria are give some slack in their dubious animal offerings to their gods. It's uncertain just where the boundaries might currently be drawn.

As to the latter, freedom of speech does mean exactly that. Spare me the injunction against shouting "Fire" in a crowed theater. You are perfectly free to shout whatever, including"Fire", in a crowded theater. You will be held accountable for what ensues but not for merely saying the word. What if you shouted "Fire" in a crowded theater and the entire audience simply continued watching the show and munching their JuJubes? Would you be guilty of anything? Could you be prosecuted? Don't think so. Freedom of speech does indeed mean that saw whatever you want anywhere you want. It does not, however, absolve you of responsibility for anything you might foment with your words.

 

[TammieH]

I had no idea you were all those things rolled up into one. Which came first, being geigh or finding out you were a transsexual. So, what made you decide to change so many things around ?? I'll bet being a sign-person [I use that term in a non-gender style] did it to ya..............

LOL maybe it was because of all the lead in the paint.

No, but serious,I've known since before I was 5 years old. But growing up in the 60's and being Catholic...I don't need to go on

 

[JR's]

I have NO IDEA...but I would imagine a different type of pole dance goes on there...

I think I just threw up a little thinking about that....

:ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:

Mosh, you have a strange sense of humor. Funny crap though. I don't care who you are that stuff is funny.

If doing work for that kind of clientele bothers you, you should just charge a pain in the butt surcharge. Wink wink,
　
I think this is good no service for gay people, blacks, Jewish, and Irish need not apply.

First they came for the Socialist, but I did not help. Then they came for the gun owners, but I did not help.
then they came for the gays, and I did not help. Then they came for African American, but I did not help.
Then they came for the Jews, but I did not help.
THEN they came for me, I cried out for help but there was nobody left to help me.

　
　
　
　
"First they came …" is a famous statement and provocative poem attributed to pastor Martin Niemöller </wiki/Martin_Niem%C3%B6ller> (1892–1984) about the cowardice of German intellectuals </wiki/Intellectual> following the Nazis </wiki/Nazism>' rise to power and the subsequent purging of their chosen targets, group after group. There is some disagreement over the exact wording of the quotation and when it was created; the content of the quotation may have been presented differently by Niemöller on different occasions.[1]