[johnwk]

SEE: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoes controversial anti-gay bill, SB 1062

This is another attack upon rights associated with property ownership just like the smoking control freaks who also use government force to seize control over another person’s private property for their personal use and enjoyment who forbid the owner of said property to allow his guests to smoke thereon. But we were warned against submitting to such tyranny:

”Submit to despotism for an hour and you concede the principle. John Adams said, in 1775, “Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud.” It is the only thing a people determined to be free can do. Republics have often failed, and have been succeeded by the most revolting despotisms; and always it was the voice of timidity, cowardice, or false leaders counseling submission, that led to the final downfall of freedom. It was the cowardice and treachery of the Senate of Rome that allowed the usurper to gain power, inch by inch, to overthrow the Republic. The history of the downfall of Republics is the same in all ages. The first inch that is yielded to despotism - the first blow, dealt at the Constitution, that is not resisted - is the beginning of the end of the nation’s ruin.” See: THE OLD GUARD, A MONTHLY JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF 1776 AND 1787, HOW TO TREAT UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTS OF CONGRESS

When these control freaks are finished, if not stopped, there will be nothing left standing but publically owned property and the iron fist of a communist government!

JWK


[P]roperty [does not] lose its private character merely because the public is generally invited to use it for designated purposes. _____ LLOYD CORP. v. TANNER, 407 U.S. 551 (1972)

[subego]

As I've said before, the idea of private businesses only serving who they wish to philosophically appeals to me. If you don't want to serve me, I should be (and want to be) going someplace else.

This runs into a practical concern however. My ability to go someplace else is ultimately dependent on my income. If it's not high enough, I don't have the ability to go someplace else.

Likewise, do not churches give up some of their private nature in return for tax exemption?

Further, while I actually have sympathy for the tension between religion and gay rights, couldn't this bill have been a whole lot more specific? Am I mistaken in saying the problem isn't providing religious services to homosexuals, it's the problem of providing a single, specific service?

Lastly, I heard this was a "bullshit bill" which got out of hand. It was supposed to fail, thus allowing fire and brimstone types to show their constituents they're doing "God's work", without actually having consequences for it having passed. I bet Jan is peeling some heads right about now. She was supposed to get the same political payout. She can support the bill all she wants if it never gets to her desk.

[subego]

Does refusing a religious service potentially impact the freedom of religion for the refused?

[besson3c]

What is it about MacNN that makes it a magnet for conservative politics?

[auto_immune]

What is it about conservative politics that makes it a magnet for racism, bigotry, and hate - all using religion as a excuse for reprehensible behavior?

[ebuddy]

That's rich. As if a black caterer should be compelled by Federal law to serve a KKK conference or a gay atheist be required to serve a banquet at the Westboro Baptist Church. Somehow I'm certain this lunacy will NOT work both ways.

And for the last time; there is no more racism, bigotry, hate, or phobia among the right than there is among the left. People need to quit arguing like a 3 year old who had his lollipop taken away. It makes no more sense to define religious people by their lowest common denominator than it does to define homosexuals or women or black people by theirs. [/PSA]

Yes, the AZ law was written in a hopelessly sloppy fashion and in fact there is already Federal law to protect religious sensitivities in the marketplace. The problem here is inept lawyers on one side and activist judges on the other.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Does refusing a religious service potentially impact the freedom of religion for the refused?

No. There is no right to this Pastor or that Priest. You're still free to worship as you please.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No. There is no right to this Pastor or that Priest. You're still free to worship as you please.

For now. Obama changed from saying "freedom of religion" to "freedom of worship" a while back. You can "worship" all you want one hour on Sunday, but check it the door when you leave Mass.

These are the court cases that prompted SB1062

Four Businesses Whose Owners Were Penalized for Their Religious Beliefs | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News from The Heritage Foundation

Then there is the Obama administration putting abortion ahead of human trafficking victims

HHS Ends Contract With Church Program for Trafficking Victims, Stressing Need for Contraception | Daily News | NCRegister.com

I'm sure there are people trolling every bakery, photography, hall, printer, anyone in the wedding business here in Az to find one that will turn down a job because they hold to the traditional view of marriage so they can be sued.

I heard an excellent idea on "Catholic Answers Live" last week. Accept those jobs, and inform them you will donate the proceeds to Alliance Defending Freedom, or other similar group.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What is it about MacNN that makes it a magnet for conservative politics?

A fellow Mac enthusiast tuned me here. I got caught up in the whole "Think different" thing before it finally became annoying.

[subego]

Looking at the list of cases listed by Chongo.

First one is FUD. The law in New Mexico is a business cannot refuse service due to sexual orientation. That's why she got sued and unanimously lost.

Arizona has no such law, so the claim they need a law to combat such activities is a load of bull.

[subego]

Looked at the second case. Right in the article it says what the baker did is illegal in Oregon because there's an Oregon statute which makes it against the law to refuse services due to sexual orientation. Again, that isn't the law in Arizona, so the claim its citizens need protection is another load.

I'm sensing a pattern here...

[subego]

Last two cases. One in Colorado, one in Washington state.

Guess what... refusing service due to sexual orientation is against the law in these states. Not in Arizona, where protection from this is supposedly needed.

Zero for four here. I want my half-hour back.

[subego]

I do want to repeat though, I am sympathetic to the issues of being forced to serve a client, as well as the problems with protected classes. Specifically, how said classes will fight for that protection whether it's deserved or not... in perpetuity.

That said, I also sympathize with the need to protect classes. As I mentioned earlier, there is a direct correlation between whether protections are needed and income level. If, ironically, we had some form of socialist "living wage", insuring people had the freedom of movement to patronize who they wished, then you could go full-on libertarian for the rest.

[andi*pandi]

On the one hand, I wouldn't want to patronize an establishment whose beliefs were so offensive, so thanks for letting me know, racist/sexist/whateverist cake shop! When turned down, just take your dollars elsewhere.

On the other, there are not that many good cake shops in town.

Sometimes, it's nice not knowing what other peoples politics are.

I had an unorthodox (heh) wedding. We were turned down by several religious officials, mostly in a nice way. It didn't occur to us to sue, because religion was at the heart of the disparity. If we had also been turned down by the cake baker or the florist, that would probably have been different. What does religion have to do with making cakes?

Then again, it's so easy for a baker or florist to just say, "oh, so sorry, we are all booked up that weekend! Here's the card of someone I've worked with in the past. Have a great day!" No need to get in someone's face and be mean about it. Sure, it's a lie, but a white lie to spare someone's feelings? Seems more Christian to me than "get out of my shop, f******."

[subego]

Is it prying too much prying to ask what the issues were?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Looked at the second case. Right in the article it says what the baker did is illegal in Oregon because there's an Oregon statute which makes it against the law to refuse services due to sexual orientation. Again, that isn't the law in Arizona, so the claim its citizens need protection is another load.

I'm sensing a pattern here...

Well... yeah. The pattern is; pass a law in one direction or face laws in another.

[ebuddy]

I heard it said that the businesses should politely agree to provide their services with an understanding that all proceeds will be going to the Family Research Council or lobbies opposed to same-sex marriage.

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I heard it said that the businesses should politely agree to provide their services with an understanding that all proceeds will be going to the Family Research Council or lobbies opposed to same-sex marriage.

That's just saying FU in a different way, isn't it? Why mess up someone's day by being vindictive?

Subego, I had an interfaith marriage. So we had to find both a rabbi and a priest who were willing to perform the ceremony a) together b) not in a church c) without requiring either of us to convert or sign an oath that we'd raise the children in only one tradition. Whee!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

That's just saying FU in a different way, isn't it? Why mess up someone's day by being vindictive?

It's not about being vindictive, it's about maintaining some control over your wares. If folks are going to be compelled by law to serve and/or participate in that which they have fundamental qualms, they may be compelled to bolster their grievances monetarily.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by auto_immune 

What is it about conservative politics that makes it a magnet for racism, bigotry, and hate - all using religion as a excuse for reprehensible behavior?

I take it you have a problem with people exercising a fundamental right to be free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations? From this point of view, religion has nothing to do with the issue.


JWK

A legislative act which "impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured by the Constitution is presumptively unconstitutional." See: Harris v. McRae United States Supreme Court (1980) Also see City of Mobile v. Bolden, 466 U.S. 55, 76, 100 S.Ct. 1490, 64 L.Ed.2d 47 (1980)

[ghporter]

The way I see it, in order for a particular business to deny service to someone based on that customer's sexual orientation, they'd have to ask every customer "are you a homosexual?" Or are they really saying "we don't want funny looking people in this establishment"? Or maybe they just don't like the fact that someone they don't agree with has the same civil rights that they do...

There is ALREADY the basic principle "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." What's the big deal? It's labeling. Discriminating against people acting like idiots in your store is fine - it's a behavior that you're discouraging. Discriminating against people for how they feel is identical to discriminating against people for their religious beliefs.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

The way I see it, in order for a particular business to deny service to someone based on that customer's sexual orientation, they'd have to ask every customer "are you a homosexual?" Or are they really saying "we don't want funny looking people in this establishment"? Or maybe they just don't like the fact that someone they don't agree with has the same civil rights that they do...

There is ALREADY the basic principle "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." What's the big deal? It's labeling. Discriminating against people acting like idiots in your store is fine - it's a behavior that you're discouraging. Discriminating against people for how they feel is identical to discriminating against people for their religious beliefs.

And you object to allowing a business owner to exercising a fundamental right of mankind which is to be free to mutually agree in his/her contracts and associations? Why?


JWK

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Well... yeah. The pattern is; pass a law in one direction or face laws in another.

Arizona won't have to face those laws unless the residents elect a legislature who thinks they should be on the books. A legislature of that stripe would be more than capable of repealing the law killed by Brewer. If this is the fear, I must be missing something.

The best I can come up with is it's being argued laws are like cooties, and Arizona may catch them from Colorado. While an entertaining idea, I assume that's not what's being argued.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by johnwk 

And you object to allowing a business owner to exercising a fundamental right of mankind which is to be free to mutually agree in his/her contracts and associations? Why?


JWK

What is mutual about being denied for a requested transaction based on non-voluntary genetic characteristics?

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by johnwk 

And you object to allowing a business owner to exercising a fundamental right of mankind which is to be free to mutually agree in his/her contracts and associations? Why?


JWK

I object to a business owner saying they want my business - unless I happen to think differently from him. This is different from individuals interacting as individuals. Operating a business is a public thing and is not the same thing as interacting with others as individuals.

Today, most people accept that businesses cannot refuse to serve individuals because of those individuals' skin color. But we continue to see discrimination in businesses based on the business owners' or managers' perception of a particular customer's religious beliefs. This is even less acceptable to me than discrimination due to skin color, since the Constitution doesn't say we're all free to believe the way the majority does. It says we're free to believe according to our own hearts. The only way your or my religious beliefs are safe from other's intrusion is by all of us being free of each other's intrusions on our beliefs.

We cannot legislate beliefs, but we can regulate behaviors. Nondiscrimination laws do this by regulating public behaviors. Individuals can choose to avoid interacting with specific other individuals by simply departing the scene, or by not inviting those others into their homes. Businesses are public places and business workers are expected to behave evenly and fairly in their interactions with customers. If a business owner fears that he/she may be forced to "work with "those sorts of people," they probably need to rethink their business models.

I'll point out that the huge flap over the CEO of Chic-Fil-A's statements about his feelings on homosexuality was because he may have been speaking as an individual, but as CEO he was, by default, speaking for the company. Corporate policy isn't something you make this way, but it's how it is perceived, and it cost his company a lot of money and good will just because he didn't characterize his statement as personal, rather than a corporate policy.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I object to a business owner saying they want my business - unless I happen to think differently from him. This is different from individuals interacting as individuals. Operating a business is a public thing and is not the same thing as interacting with others as individuals.

Well, I don't object and I respect rights associated with property ownership.


JWK

[P]roperty [does not] lose its private character merely because the public is generally invited to use it for designated purposes.___ LLOYD CORP. v. TANNER, 407 U.S. 551 (1972)

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What is mutual about being denied for a requested transaction based on non-voluntary genetic characteristics?

This is like a guy claiming he cheated on his wife because of an immutable, non-volutary genetic characteristic of polyamory. Do we just keep saying this until science somehow purports to have caught up with us in identifying some genetic foundation for homosexuality? LaVay, Bailey & Pillard, Hamer and others have all gone about to identify an innate, genetic component and admit failure. Hamer goes on to conclude that its foundation is primarily that of psycho-social, environmental factors. The APA on homosexuality; "Many scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological, and social factors." For example, must a bisexual be with both sexes or can they not eventually choose? Must Anne Heche finally make a decision that we can then attribute to an immutable, non-voluntary genetic characteristic? Of course not. For many, it appears to be voluntary. The question is, does that matter?

A well-rounded answer shouldn't always come from a gay-centric perspective. From the perspective of the photographer or bake shop for example, it's not based on the individual homosexual(s) at all as they may not have known if it weren't for the request to participate in its celebration. You can say it's morally wrong to oppose, but should that be illegal? Should we be compelled to serve that which we find offensive? Many of you would immediately say "YES" until the scenario is turned on its head requiring homosexuals to serve celebrations of another kind -- say a NARTH convention of ex-gays featuring their testimonies. It simply shouldn't work that way.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Arizona won't have to face those laws unless the residents elect a legislature who thinks they should be on the books. A legislature of that stripe would be more than capable of repealing the law killed by Brewer. If this is the fear, I must be missing something.

The best I can come up with is it's being argued laws are like cooties, and Arizona may catch them from Colorado. While an entertaining idea, I assume that's not what's being argued.

If someone sues you for denying a service and they win, it seems clear that if you want to maintain the right to deny service, you're going to need some of those pesky laws to protect you. Without the challenge, there wouldn't be a desire. For example, DOMA was in response to the numerous challenges that had been brought against State courts for denying same-sex marriage. You either pass laws in one direction or face laws in the other. That's the trend I'm seeing from the data.

[Chongo]

So, as a caterer, I can not refuse anyone who wants me to cater their event?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

So, as a caterer, I can not refuse anyone who wants me to cater their event?

You live in Arizona, pretty sure you can do whatever the **** you want.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If someone sues you for denying a service and they win, it seems clear that if you want to maintain the right to deny service, you're going to need some of those pesky laws to protect you. Without the challenge, there wouldn't be a desire. For example, DOMA was in response to the numerous challenges that had been brought against State courts for denying same-sex marriage. You either pass laws in one direction or face laws in the other. That's the trend I'm seeing from the data.

Umm... the reason we have a 10th Amendment is so your state doesn't have to enact a law to deny service. I'm still getting an Arizona can catch Colorado law like cooties vibe here. Refusing service due to sexual orientation is legal in Arizona. Other states can't make it illegal. The Federal Government can't make it illegal. If someone were to challenge a refusal of service over sexual orientation in Arizona, they'd lose.

I'm not sure if you consider yourself a proponent of "small government", but if you do, the claim "make a law or else we get a counter-law" flies so hard in the face of small-government, you need to tear up your membership card.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

So, as a caterer, I can not refuse anyone who wants me to cater their event?

Originally Posted by subego 

You live in Arizona, pretty sure you can do whatever the **** you want.

Try calling Segal's Deli and having them cater your event with bacon wrapped shrimp, lobster thermidor, and barbecued pork loin.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Umm... the reason we have a 10th Amendment is so your state doesn't have to enact a law to deny service. I'm still getting an Arizona can catch Colorado law like cooties vibe here. Refusing service due to sexual orientation is legal in Arizona. Other states can't make it illegal. The Federal Government can't make it illegal. If someone were to challenge a refusal of service over sexual orientation in Arizona, they'd lose.

I'm not sure if you consider yourself a proponent of "small government", but if you do, the claim "make a law or else we get a counter-law" flies so hard in the face of small-government, you need to tear up your membership card.

When did I advocate this behavior? And what does the 10th Amendment have to do with Joe Baker refusing service to John Q. Homosexual? If Joe Baker continues to get taken to court for refusing service and loses, he's breaking something. I've merely stated that's the trend I'm showing from your information, not whether or not law is more effective when used offensively or defensively or State vs Federal (though if it must be, let it be at the State). People don't talk anymore, or maybe they're done talking, but ultimately -- they litigate until they legislate. I was opposed to DOMA for example, but we can certainly see what they were up to in passing it, right? I mean, you could call that a fear of cooties I suppose, but then the linguistic silliness would be virtually without boundary.

If you're losing lawsuits, you may work toward drafting a legal foothold. That's all. A photographer, in New Mexico I believe, was fined more than $6k for refusing to photograph a gay wedding. Their laws regarding refusal-of-service rights were no more (un)defined than AZ's and yet she lost. She'd photographed many a gay and straight alike, individually with no qualms. 10th Amendment - deal with your State. Well... one major way people do that is through their laws.

[subego]

Now at least I understand the "cootie" theory.

Your reasoning is solid, but you start from a faulty premise.

If, in fact, the New Mexico photographer lost despite her right-of-refusal being undefined, I'd agree with you 100%. Not only that, I'd find the precedent horrifying. There's judicial activism, and then there are insane scenarios like that. I shudder at the thought.

Thankfully, that's not what happened. The New Mexico photographer lost because the New Mexico legislature has defined her right-of-refusal. The state defines it as quite simply, not existing.

In New Mexico, it is illegal to refuse service based on sexual orientation. Full stop. That photographer had three choices. Take the job, move to a state like Arizona, where she'd be fully within her rights to refuse, or break the law.

She chose the third, and so suffered the consequences. These were not consequences based on the largesse of a jury, or the acts of a judge gone wild, they were the consequences of doing something lawmakers legislated to be illegal.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Try calling Segal's Deli and having them cater your event with bacon wrapped shrimp, lobster thermidor, and barbecued pork loin.

Refusing to carry a product ≠ refusing service.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

She chose the third, and so suffered the consequences. These were not consequences based on the largesse of a jury, or the acts of a judge gone wild, they were the consequences of doing something lawmakers legislated to be illegal.

While I had missed that New Mexico had such a law, this establishes my point none the less. Like I told you from the beginning, you either pass laws in one direction or face laws in the other. Imagine if NM had taken legislative action in 2004 to protect her right to refuse as had been attempted in AZ -- there wouldn't be a situation where this Christian photographer was compelled to participate in a gay wedding. Homosexuality is often regarded similarly to minorities and others as protected classes. Apparently, for this photographer to have maintained her right to refuse service -- there would've had to have been a law protecting her from such a thing. As it turns out, there was a law in the other direction and she was dinged. She hadn't refused services to an individual based on their sexual orientation mind you as she claims to have photographed many people gay and straight alike, she declined participation in a gay wedding.

And it certainly can be horrific. Imagine some twisted Westboro Baptist tards want to have gays serve a meeting of theirs. Should the gay entrepreneur really be compelled to serve them by law?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

So, as a caterer, I can not refuse anyone who wants me to cater their event?

The only way you could make it more difficult for legislation to compel you to serve is to pass a law that would then have to be undone to compel you. What they sloppily tried to do in AZ.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

Refusing to carry a product ≠ refusing service.

To be a caterer and not carry seafood, or make cheese burgers (mix meat and diary) is a religious choice. Just as running a pizza shop and not selling meat lovers pizza.



I can't walk into King Solomon's Pizza and order a meat lovers pizza. Maybe I will file a lawsuit claiming they are discriminating against carnivores like the Vegans have against Burger King and Mac Donald's for not selling Veggie Burgers. Carnivores are just as much a protected class as anyone else in most states.

Requiring a Kosher deli to carry pork, shrimp, and lobster is the same as forcing a Catholic to provide wedding services to a same sex couple. Choosing to do so is (bake a cake or cater/photograph) for such an event constitutes "formal cooperation with evil" and is a mortal sin. This would be the same as paying for birth control or an abortion; tor the act of knowingly driving someone to an abortion clinic is also formal cooperation with evil.

[andi*pandi]

Ebuddy raises a good point about the doors swinging both ways (heh). Gay businesses probably wouldn't want to provide services to those that think their lifestyle is evil... but lots of them probably do to support the bottom line, or are not "Out" in their business life.

Chongo, baking someone a cake doesn't much seem like consorting with evil. If God damns someone to hell for doing so, well, there's a case against God right there.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Ebuddy raises a good point about the doors swinging both ways (heh). Gay businesses probably wouldn't want to provide services to those that think their lifestyle is evil... but lots of them probably do to support the bottom line, or are not "Out" in their business life.

Alliance Defending Freedom (they sponsored the AZ bill) had a photographer turn them down for a shoot on because she did not like their politics.

Chongo, baking someone a cake doesn't much seem like consorting with evil. If God damns someone to hell for doing so, well, there's a case against God right there.

https://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/COOPRTN.HTM#3

The Nature And Kinds Of Cooperation In Evil

Cooperation in evil has a very broad scope since it encompasses every form of concurrence in the evil action of another person. It ranges from ordering or advising others to perform some illicit action to selling an intrinsically good object to a person who will use it for a morally evil purpose.

Nonetheless a distinction is usually made between <scandal> (an action by which another person is incited to sin) and <cooperation> in a strict sense (an action which enables or facilitates another's sinful action without directly influencing the other person's will to sin). Thus those forms of cooperation in evil (in the broad sense) which influence the other person's will to sin (commands, advice, and the like) are really equivalent to scandal, which is never lawful.(5)

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

While I had missed that New Mexico had such a law, this establishes my point none the less. Like I told you from the beginning, you either pass laws in one direction or face laws in the other. Imagine if NM had taken legislative action in 2004 to protect her right to refuse as had been attempted in AZ -- there wouldn't be a situation where this Christian photographer was compelled to participate in a gay wedding. Homosexuality is often regarded similarly to minorities and others as protected classes. Apparently, for this photographer to have maintained her right to refuse service -- there would've had to have been a law protecting her from such a thing. As it turns out, there was a law in the other direction and she was dinged. She hadn't refused services to an individual based on their sexual orientation mind you as she claims to have photographed many people gay and straight alike, she declined participation in a gay wedding.

And it certainly can be horrific. Imagine some twisted Westboro Baptist tards want to have gays serve a meeting of theirs. Should the gay entrepreneur really be compelled to serve them by law?

I'm still utterly baffled.

The only way the residents of Arizona have to worry about "facing" a law which interferes with their right-of-refusal is if the state legislature passes a law saying it is illegal to refuse service.

Why would the legislature that just passed a bill granting the right-of-refusal, turn around and pass a bill outlawing that refusal?

[subego]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Ebuddy raises a good point about the doors swinging both ways (heh). Gay businesses probably wouldn't want to provide services to those that think their lifestyle is evil... but lots of them probably do to support the bottom line, or are not "Out" in their business life.

Chongo, baking someone a cake doesn't much seem like consorting with evil. If God damns someone to hell for doing so, well, there's a case against God right there.

And there are absolutely homosexuals who are snots, and would love to take advantage of non-refusal laws to rub it in the faces of the religious.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

To be a caterer and not carry seafood, or make cheese burgers (mix meat and diary) is a religious choice. Just as running a pizza shop and not selling meat lovers pizza.



I can't walk into King Solomon's Pizza and order a meat lovers pizza. Maybe I will file a lawsuit claiming they are discriminating against carnivores like the Vegans have against Burger King and Mac Donald's for not selling Veggie Burgers. Carnivores are just as much a protected class as anyone else in most states.

Requiring a Kosher deli to carry pork, shrimp, and lobster is the same as forcing a Catholic to provide wedding services to a same sex couple. Choosing to do so is (bake a cake or cater/photograph) for such an event constitutes "formal cooperation with evil" and is a mortal sin. This would be the same as paying for birth control or an abortion; tor the act of knowingly driving someone to an abortion clinic is also formal cooperation with evil.

As I said, refusing to carry a product is not the same as refusing service.

Edit: and to be clear, there's nothing barring someone from refusing a job on religious grounds, the issue in all the examples from your article is you can't refuse a job because of the client's sexual orientation. If the photographer had refused the job because "you're not Catholic enough for me", she would have been fully within her rights to refuse. She ran afoul of the law because she specified the reason as being sexual orientation.

BTW, the vegetarians I know order a "Veggie Mac", which is a Big Mac with no patties.

[subego]

Also, isn't being coerced into something against your will (say, as a wedding photographer when you are forced to take the job by law) make it material cooperation, not formal cooperation?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm still utterly baffled.

I'm not sure I can unbaffle you. You may be resistant to attempts to unbaffle you here. It makes absolutely perfect sense to me right out of the gate.

The only way the residents of Arizona have to worry about "facing" a law which interferes with their right-of-refusal is if the state legislature passes a law saying it is illegal to refuse service.

Why would the legislature that just passed a bill granting the right-of-refusal, turn around and pass a bill outlawing that refusal?

You act as if AZ exists in a vacuum. There are lobbies and interests that travel far and wide to disrupt, encourage, activate, and get laws passed. Did the refusal-of-service law pass by a landslide in AZ? Is there no gay lobby in AZ. Is it entirely stagnant? Active? Growing? Can legislators not see the legal handwriting on the walls and pass affirmative defenses for the future?

[subego]

Okay, I'm out.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Okay, I'm out.

See? This is where you'd sue me. We can't talk anymore. It's frustrating to me that either the photographer or the customer or both couldn't have handled it effectively enough to have avoided the court system. That's where I'm hopelessly baffled.

Photographer; "I'm sorry Jane Q Homosexual, but I have fundamental qualms with a gay marriage ceremony. I'm concerned I won't be as effective at capturing the more intimate moments of the most important celebration in your life. I think you'd be best served by going to _________."

Jane Q Homosexual; "I find your 'qualms' laughable, but if you're telling me you might somehow botch my wedding photos, by all means I'll be going elsewhere and will ensure my straight friends do too."

Done.

[subego]

I have no desire to sue you, but you pushed me past my limit on this one.

You base your argument on a false premise, and then say the problem is I'm not trying hard enough.

Extra ironic considering you brought up the example of the New Mexico photographer as if you were introducing it, when that was the exact case I was addressing, as it was the first case in listed in Chongo's article.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

I have no desire to sue you, but you pushed me past my limit on this one.

You base your argument on a false premise, and then say the problem is I'm not trying hard enough.

Extra ironic considering you brought up the example of the New Mexico photographer as if you were introducing it, when that was the exact case I was addressing, as it was the first case in listed in Chongo's article.

My premise had simply been that you would either pass laws in one direction or face laws in the other. By passing laws like the refusal-of-service laws proactively, you're solidifying your position. You're creating a legal element that has to first be undone. I don't think it's fair to call it a false premise when it seems logical to conclude that's exactly what the thought-process was behind the proposed legislation in AZ and in fact what happened with DOMA.

[subego]

You're saying it's unfair because you're only thinking of "false premise" in terms of whether your argument is consistent.

I'm not thinking of it in those terms. I'm thinking of it in terms of someone having a discussion with you. A factual error in the premise may not of broken your argument, but it made it really hard to understand what that argument was.

Having just gotten to the bottom of that issue, and still trying to cope with the complete shift in gears, I express my lack of understanding...

And then you whack me. The problem is "I'm resistant". To be honest, I felt that was a little beyond unfair.