View topic - Arizona's business freedom bill • Redscape

: freeman3; Adjutant; Posts: 3741; Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

09 Mar 2014, 9:23 pm

This site goes over which verses have been used to justify a ban on intra- racial marriage. http://www.religioustolerance.org/marracbib.htm
Please don't bother explaining that the verses don't justify a ban on inter-racial marriage. The point is that some have used them and there is nothing to stop them from doing so
Did you know that there were Christians in the South during in the antebellum
South? In fact, every one was Christian. And, yet, slavery persisted. Must have been preachers railing from the pulpits every Sunday, right? Hmm they are Christian and yet they believed in slavery...they are Christian and yet believed in Jim Crow la
(after the Civil War) They are Christian and yet they they believe it is wrong for a black person cannot drink out of a water fountain. This is not ancient history nor did it constitute a small ignorant few.

Last edited by freeman3 on 10 Mar 2014, 7:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

: bbauska; Administrator; Posts: 7463; Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

09 Mar 2014, 11:21 pm

freeman3 wrote:This site goes over which verses have been used to justify a ban on intra- racial marriage. http://www.religioustolerance.org/marracbib.htm
Please don't bother explaining that the verses don't justify a ban on inter-racial marriage. The point is that some have used them and there is nothing to stop them from doing so.

Which was exactly my point...

: danivon; Ambassador; Posts: 16006; Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

10 Mar 2014, 12:54 am

So, bbauska, does that mean religious freedom as you argue for it means that a baker can refuse to make a cake for a mixed-race wedding?

: Doctor Fate; Ambassador; Posts: 21062; Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

10 Mar 2014, 6:16 am

freeman3 wrote:You set yourself a tall task since I said some biblical verses could be used to justify a ban on inter-racial basis not that you or other mainstream Christians currently interpret them that way.

Look, you could probably find someone who says the Bible proves extra-terrestrials built the pyramids. Just because some wingnut says the Bible says something or other doesn't make it so. You have to read the Bible utilizing a decent system of hermeneutics and rule #1 is "context, context, context."

Moreover, we know that some Christians have used the Bible to justify a ban on inter-racial marriage and they did so in the United States of America. I think the following legal brief summarizes the history fairly well.

This fact that you "know" has been established here. You may believe it, but that does not make it so.

As for that summary, I didn't see any Bible verses justifying a ban on inter-racial marriage.

The religious tolerance link . . . did you read it? It explains why every one of those passages does NOT mean what the racists want it to mean.

The sole NT reference (Acts 17:24-26) is from a chapter with which I'm very familiar. It's Paul's preaching on the Areopagus. He is preaching the Gospel to Greeks in Athens. He's telling them about the "unknown God" and what He has done. Nothing in what he says has to do with marriage or marriage between races. It is rather an explanation of the sovereignty and power of God.

The Athenians were elitists, if not racists. They believed they were superior to other people groups. Paul says God created us all and that we all have a common ancestor. The verses preach equality. As further evidence, I would cite v. 27 (ESV) "that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us." There is no difference between any man--all are equally near God.

There's an old saying, "You can't fix stupid." Some people may be biblically illiterate enough to believe the Bible teaches inter-racial marriage is sinful. However, you can't fix stupid. The Bible is quite clear on the qualifications for a husband and wife and they are notably silent regarding race.

: freeman3; Adjutant; Posts: 3741; Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

10 Mar 2014, 7:27 am

Whoa. Some Christians used the Bible to justify slavery and a ban on inter-racial marriage Do you actually dispute that? It is not just something I "know", it's a fact, like the earth revolving around the sun is a fact. Like evolution is a fact. I don't appreciate the argument technique of putting something that is not disputable as if it were just my opinion. If you want, I'll go through and do a treatise on the subject....I would assume that you would just concede the point and move on, but I'll establish the point to a certainty if you like.

: bbauska; Administrator; Posts: 7463; Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

10 Mar 2014, 8:39 am

freeman3 wrote:Whoa. Some Christians used the Bible to justify slavery and a ban on inter-racial marriage Do you actually dispute that? It is not just something I "know", it's a fact, like the earth revolving around the sun is a fact. Like evolution is a fact. I don't appreciate the argument technique of putting something that is not disputable as if it were just my opinion. If you want, I'll go through and do a treatise on the subject....I would assume that you would just concede the point and move on, but I'll establish the point to a certainty if you like.

Freeman,
I don't know if you are directing this post to me or not. I am conceding that some ignorant people are/were using the Bible for whatever purpose they desire.

: bbauska; Administrator; Posts: 7463; Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

10 Mar 2014, 8:46 am

danivon wrote:So, bbauska, does that mean religious freedom as you argue for it means that a baker can refuse to make a cake for a mixed-race wedding?

I am NOT arguing ANY freedom other than personal freedom. If someone wants to make a cake, then fine If not, then fine. You can base it upon what you think is religious intolerance if you so desire... I am saying a much different thing though.

How about this. A same-sex couple asks for a cake and the baker does not want to. The baker does a minimum level job and the cake does not present well. Is this a problem (other than the passive-aggressive attitude)?

Is this going to devolve into standards to avoid lawsuit? I can see it now...

"My baker did not want to make a cake, and I mad them do it anyway. He did a crappy job, and I am not happy with it. I want $500,000 in damages."

: Doctor Fate; Ambassador; Posts: 21062; Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

10 Mar 2014, 9:35 am

bbauska wrote:
freeman3 wrote:Whoa. Some Christians used the Bible to justify slavery and a ban on inter-racial marriage Do you actually dispute that? It is not just something I "know", it's a fact, like the earth revolving around the sun is a fact. Like evolution is a fact. I don't appreciate the argument technique of putting something that is not disputable as if it were just my opinion. If you want, I'll go through and do a treatise on the subject....I would assume that you would just concede the point and move on, but I'll establish the point to a certainty if you like.

Freeman,
I don't know if you are directing this post to me or not. I am conceding that some ignorant people are/were using the Bible for whatever purpose they desire.

Um, I was pretty clear to Freeman on what I actually said. Now, he's dragging slavery into it. If he really wants to get into a debate about what the Bible means, fine. If he wants to argue that some stupid people twist the Bible, I've already agreed with that. In fact, even some people who don't claim to be Christians do that. :rolleyes:

: Sassenach; Emissary; Posts: 3405; Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

10 Mar 2014, 10:03 am

The whole point of this thread is that Arizona wants to introduce a law which would allow business owners to refuse service to anybody on religious grounds. Since it isn't proposing to enshrine into state law the correct ways to read biblical verses this will inevitably mean that the law is a blank cheque for any kind of bigotry and discrimination so long as somebody can claim that it's rooted in their faith. If most sane christians don't agree with their interpretation that doesn't mean that the individual themselves doesn't profoundly believe it to be the word of God. Freeman is merely pointing out where this might lead.

: Doctor Fate; Ambassador; Posts: 21062; Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

10 Mar 2014, 10:51 am

Sassenach wrote:The whole point of this thread is that Arizona wants to introduce a law which would allow business owners to refuse service to anybody on religious grounds. Since it isn't proposing to enshrine into state law the correct ways to read biblical verses this will inevitably mean that the law is a blank cheque for any kind of bigotry and discrimination so long as somebody can claim that it's rooted in their faith. If most sane christians don't agree with their interpretation that doesn't mean that the individual themselves doesn't profoundly believe it to be the word of God. Freeman is merely pointing out where this might lead.

Your statement is misleading about the nature of the AZ law:

“The bill has been egregiously misrepresented by many of its critics,” stated Douglas Laycock, a leading expert on religious freedom at the University of Virginia Law School.

Laycock wrote a letter to Brewer warning her that the bill had been mischaracterized as a license to discriminate. The letter was signed by a bipartisan group of legal scholars, including Harvard law professor Mary Ann Glendon, Notre Dame’s Richard Garnett, and Stanford’s Michael McDonnell, all experts on constitutional law.

“[The bill] does not say that businesses can discriminate for religious reasons. It says that business people can assert a claim or defense under RFRA," stated Laycock’s letter, which noted that the courts would then weigh such claims with no guaranteed outcome.

: Sassenach; Emissary; Posts: 3405; Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

10 Mar 2014, 11:32 am

It amounts to the same thing. The bill proposed to bring in a defence under the law which would permit discrimination on religious grounds. The fact that it would need to go through the courts is not really relevant since these things inevitably do end up in court.

What is interesting though, which I found out from reading around the subject a little, is that Arizona law already permits business owners to refuse service to anybody for any reason, religious or not. As such this was probably unnecessary and the veto won't really change anything for gay people in Arizona.

: Doctor Fate; Ambassador; Posts: 21062; Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

10 Mar 2014, 11:55 am

Sassenach wrote:It amounts to the same thing.

Not so. You wrote:

Since it isn't proposing to enshrine into state law the correct ways to read biblical verses this will inevitably mean that the law is a blank cheque for any kind of bigotry and discrimination so long as somebody can claim that it's rooted in their faith.

It's not a "blank check (sic)."

And, this was also false:

Freeman is merely pointing out where this might lead.

He was pointing out what some KKK-types said half a century ago. That's the past, NOT "where this might lead." There is no evidence that in this case past is prologue.

: danivon; Ambassador; Posts: 16006; Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

10 Mar 2014, 12:13 pm

freeman3 wrote:Whoa. Some Christians used the Bible to justify slavery and a ban on inter-racial marriage Do you actually dispute that? It is not just something I "know", it's a fact, like the earth revolving around the sun is a fact. Like evolution is a fact. I don't appreciate the argument technique of putting something that is not disputable as if it were just my opinion. If you want, I'll go through and do a treatise on the subject....I would assume that you would just concede the point and move on, but I'll establish the point to a certainty if you like.

You would think that Christians would be a bit wary of the idea that you could have scripture proven (or disproven) in a court. Frankly I don't think that's what courts should be for in a secular situation (and it would appear to cross the 2nd Amendment in some way, surely), but that is surely what would happen if you do allow religious grounds for discrimination but require that they prove a basis for it in court if challenged.

I already have pointed to a link which discussed the very arguments used from the Bible to justify slavery and segregation (of which mixed-race marriage bans are a subset). The reality is that even if one person thinks they can 'prove' these are false, that does not detract from the reality that religious people don't all agree on what the truth is (otherwise we would only see one religion, rather than several world religions, each of which has various sects and traditions).

If you allow one, on the basis of religious freedom, you have to allow all. Otherwise that would also fall foul of the 2nd Amendment.

Sassenach wrote:What is interesting though, which I found out from reading around the subject a little, is that Arizona law already permits business owners to refuse service to anybody for any reason, religious or not. As such this was probably unnecessary and the veto won't really change anything for gay people in Arizona.

Well, except that the law would be superseded by things like the Civil Rights Act.

The other thing is that gay marriage is also not legal in Arizona - civil unions or domestic partnerships are recognised in some cities and one county. So a baker there is not really likely to need the legal protection to be able to refuse to make for a gay marriage service.

But yes, Arizona is not massively gay friendly in terms of legislation. The state recognises benefits for partners of state employees, but did actually change that law in 2009 to exclude domestic partnerships. I think Diaz v Brewer nullified that change in the law, but I'm not sure if the case is legally exhausted yet.

: bbauska; Administrator; Posts: 7463; Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

10 Mar 2014, 12:24 pm

Sassenach wrote:It amounts to the same thing. The bill proposed to bring in a defence under the law which would permit discrimination on religious grounds. The fact that it would need to go through the courts is not really relevant since these things inevitably do end up in court.

What is interesting though, which I found out from reading around the subject a little, is that Arizona law already permits business owners to refuse service to anybody for any reason, religious or not. As such this was probably unnecessary and the veto won't really change anything for gay people in Arizona.

Were gay people asking for special treatment under the law in Arizona? Does anyone want gays treated differently?

: danivon; Ambassador; Posts: 16006; Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

10 Mar 2014, 12:35 pm

bbauska wrote:Were gay people asking for special treatment under the law in Arizona? Does anyone want gays treated differently?

Homosexuals want to be treated equally. Arizona State law actively prevents that. So who wants them to be treated differently? Legislators.

Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Arizona's business freedom bill