[Closed] Arizona legislation more anti-gay than Russia - should mtbers boycott it?

and if you can't tell which establishments it is that discriminate just by looking

not stop people selling you stuff because you looked it...

Stuff like this needs the publicity to remind those who were very high and mighty over Russia to start sorting things out at home first.

No its OK as they are Christians.

American churches fund the anti gay christian missionaries doing such good work in Uganda at the mo too.

[i]The irony is strong in this one...[/i]

I can see how you interpreted what I said there 🙂

I hope what I meant to say came across as well: if I don't want to spend money somewhere that discriminates and there's no sign on the doors of those that do/don't should I just visit another state?

Land of the Free.

You are brave Drac... 😉

I can see how you interpreted what I said there

Not at what you said but the fact that it's all to be done on what somebody thinks...

America exposes itself again to be backward, Shocker!

ctk - Member
No its OK as they are Christians.

Tch!! You just HAD to bring religion into it, didn't you.

Oh, wait...

and there's more on that;

[i]
filmmaker @RogerRossWill on #Uganda #homosexuality law - says US Christian evangelicals behind antigay campaign[/i]

from bbc's @rdhearing on twitter.

I am pretty sure the good people of Al-Qaeda would back away slowly and not make eye contact if they realised how nuts America is between the coasts. Fundamental attitudes doesn't quite cover it.

We're an LGB rights advocacy group now?

I don't think our combined economic might would cause the state much lost sleep. I'm pretty sure there are a lot of businesses in Arizona who would actively defy this rather than penalising them you should see if you can support a 'stop this law' campaign of which I'm sure there will be a few. i.e. if you're that bothered petition the legislature. There's also probably a few mtbers in the 'hate the gays' camp too, not least in the us of a of america's heartlands so i think you plea fot mtber unity will fall on deaf ears (deafened by the exchange of hystrionic screeching on scottish independance).

That said, it is top notch hypocrisy.

America exposes itself again to be backward, Shocker!

"ungrateful" ? How is that relevant to anything? In some ways the US is a great place, and lives up to the ideals it sets itself. In other ways, really, really not. Ask any resident of Guantanamo Bay, or any of the huge prison polulation, or ...etc etc

Look at where the US has been ahead of the curve in legislating against discrimination on the basis of sex, race, gender and disability

Where was this then?

konabunny if you listen to the idiot ramblings of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Michael Savage on the radio then America is indeed backwards. They make the like of Nick Ferrari, Littlejohn and Morgan seem positively rational

It might help to read the actual proposal or indeed the article , the law says that shopkeepers can (not must) refuse service if it they have strong religious views . It does not make being openly homosexual a crime. I have no doubt there are deeply homophobic people in Arizona who commit hate crimes (as there are around the world) but unlike Russia( and parts of the African continent eg Uganda) they are not being applauded for their actions and presented as roll models by politicians.

So a massive stretch of the truth to suggest Arizonan legislation is more Anti Gay than Russia . Still a rubbish law though but it could be a covert bluff to out the Homophobic shopkeepers so people can chose which business to support.

You know what? There are probably people in England that don't really want to serve me. And mostly I Couldn't care less. How will they know? It's not like I have "I'm a dyke" tattooed on my forehead.

Mental, legal permission to discriminate.

Its also inconsistent, there are plenty of other things that the Bible says you shouldn't do, but there are no laws for those. Eating Pork, Getting a tattoos, Working on Sundays, women speaking in church etc

So basically this is either another step aware from growing up and stopping believing in fairies or it is just that some people are using the right to believe in fairies to pick and choose how they oppress others.

I am going to commit myself to making sure Arizona never gets the Winter Olympics.
Seriously though we have a gay couple come in the shop who must be knocking on 80.
They are just about the nicest people you will ever meet. How anyone could hold a grudge against them I don't know.

It might help to read the actual proposal or indeed the article , the law says that shopkeepers can (not must) refuse service if it they have strong religious views

When a state authority makes it lawful to discriminate against someone on the basis of their race or sexuality, it instantly makes that person a second-class citizen in their own home. The message is clear - a citizen's distaste for you and your lifestyle is more important than your rights to be treated equally. It may not criminalise being homosexual, but it sends a clear message about how they are to be (mis)treated.

The US has never been 'the land of the free'. This little blast from the past should serve as a reminder of the nation's heritage.

http://www.seditionproject.net/

emsz - Member
You know what? There are probably people in England that don't really want to serve me. And mostly I Couldn't care less. How will they know? It's not like I have "I'm a dyke" tattooed on my forehead.

Giving people the power to discriminate on a whim is very dangerous.

Look at where the US has been ahead of the curve in legislating against discrimination on the basis of sex, race, gender and disability

I'm also keen to know when this was?

+100 for mikewsmith too - a very slippery slope.

My mum used to get people thinking she was a lesbian back in the 60s, because she was an athlete. So she could've been refused service. In a small town, someone else in the shop could easily gossip on that and the rumour spreads. Imagine being refused service in half your town?

If your religion told you not to like black people, would it also be okay to refuse to serve them?

The cheap reflexive and brainless anti-American stuff that pops up here is so incredibly stupid and tedious.

Not sure that anyone is anti everything about America - just about the stupid backward bigoted religious nonsense.

Jesus Christ, you snotty little ungrateful gits.

Overreact much?

Jesus Christ, you snotty little ungrateful gits.

Blasphemy, I would have you locked up for that you devil lover

It's not like I have "I'm a dyke" tattooed on my forehead.

Do you have 'ekyd' tatooed on because you did it in the mirror? 😆

well im now boycotting arrizona

edit

seems that Pivot Cycles are based in Arizona
so I will be boycotting them also

"???p"

'cos you were stood on your head looking in a mirror?

We're an LGB rights advocacy group now?

There are probably people in England* that don't really want to serve me. And mostly I Couldn't care less. How will they know? It's not like I have "I'm a dyke" tattooed on my forehead.

Not sure how good the gaydar of the average bigot is tbh

* The non english dont feel like this - that was why you said england yes?

* The non english dont feel like this - that was why you said england yes?

Damn right. Just you wait n see how gay an independent Scotland is!

and back to the OP I don't think this makes Arizona more wrong than Russia, the Russian laws are a big step further and for Emz, I don't think they are so much worried about the "Lady Gays" but the "Man Gays"

That's right Junky I'm a homophobe. Well done. The question was about MTBers I don't think you'll find we have a representative group of any kind that takes a stance on human rights issues. Similarly you won't have heard of the following groups, because they don't exist.

Flower arrangers against apartheid
Morris dancers rainbow league
Woodturners free tibet movement

In the UK people don't HAVE to serve anyone they don't want anyway, and they don't have to state why they don't want to. There's no legal obligation to sell things to people?

(not that I'm suggesting it's OK to discriminate, just that there's plenty of ways to do it legally anyway)

[i]In the UK people don't HAVE to serve anyone they don't want anyway,[/i]

possibly not but to refuse service based on customer sexuality and your own religious belief isn't legal;

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10477636/Christian-BandB-owners-lose-Supreme-Court-battle-over-gay-discrimination.html ]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10477636/Christian-BandB-owners-lose-Supreme-Court-battle-over-gay-discrimination.html[/url]

But you'd have to actually state that's why in the first place.

Ultimately there's very few of these raging homophobes about, it makes more sense to ignore them until they die out than to boycott states who won't even notice you're missing.At the end of the day you don't change people's opinions by force, you either can't change them (so it's pointless trying and no loss to the world) or you change them with reason and logic.

At the end of the day you don't change people's opinions by force, you either can't change them

You may not be able to change their opinions, but you can legislate against their actions.

You may not be able to change their opinions, but you can legislate against their actions.

Yep, but I'm not sure what it gains you other than service by someone who hates you and will likely do everything they can to make you feel unwelcome anyway. Just go to a better shop.

Why bother having laws at all, after all society proves time and time again that it is self policing and never marginalises minority's when left to its own devices 🙄

Society marginalises despite laws; education and prevention of physical and verbal abuse is key to turning things round. But not serving someone is somewhat more akin to offending them, in the grand scheme of things. I've been refused a B&B room in Edinburgh because the owner didn't like the fact that I wasn't married to my other half who was with me, but really it wasn't worth caring about and I found another up the road (Who also didn't like it but didn't feel they could refuse lol). I wouldn't expect legislation to protect my right to rent a B&B room while unmarried, I will just avoid that B&B and not recommend it?

what if they all barred you for being unmarried or no one would serve the gays?

FWIW I think you both have a point so I am fence sitting but I do tend to challenge prejudice

I think the difference between being unmarried and being gay is that one is a life choice that you've made the other is who you are.

Discrimination against either is bad but the latter is far more of an absolute rejection of someone than the former.

what if they all barred you for being unmarried or no one would serve the gays?

But that's an extreme that's not exactly realistic, or even close to as far as I can tell. If that were the case I could see the argument for legislating. Don't get me wrong, I am all for gay rights (and unmarried couples rights!) but I'm also not for stepping on the toes of people who feel it's an afront to their stupid religious beliefs for the sake of not offending another group. I'm all for opening their eyes and educating them, but forcing them to do something they don't want will simply breed further hatred too. Rock. Hard place.

I think the difference between being unmarried and being gay is that one is a life choice that you've made the other is who you are.

As a staunchly non-religious person I'd say unmarried partner is "who I am", to insist I must be married is to insist I accept some religion or notional form of religion that is acceptable to others?

Just go to a better shop.

What if it's the only shop in town and you desperately need something it's selling?

(Reasonably likely in rural Arizona)

EDIT: or the last gas station for hundreds of miles

As a staunchly non-religious person I'd say unmarried partner is "who I am", to insist I must be married is to insist I accept some religion or notional form of religion that is acceptable to others?

Is that any different to insist that somebody must be straight to fit in with religious beliefs?

I don't see how you can think, in the example given, discrimination should be legislated against for one group ie the unmarried, but not for another.

What if it's the only shop in town and you desperately need something it's selling?

(Reasonably likely in rural Arizona)

Indeed, tricky. I just can see both arguments to some degree, and while I naturally fall on the side of "that's wrong" I have a tendency to test a thought by playing devils advocate for a bit.

I don't see how you can think, in the example given, discrimination should be legislated against for one group ie the unmarried, but not for another.

I think I may have mis-represented what I meant if that's the view you took of it. I didn't suggest any preference for any group in legislation? If someone doesn't want my unmarried ass in their shop, fine, screw them - I don't care(and while I don't know for sure, I reckon I'd think the same if I was gay)! My thought was more that if people find something personally offensive, maybe it's not entirely useful to force people to do those things against their will.

Indeed, tricky. I just can see both arguments to some degree, and while I naturally fall on the side of "that's wrong" I have a tendency to test a thought by playing devils advocate for a bit.

To be honest, I was on the fence with you until I thought of the gas station example. Now I'm all about legislating on their asses. 😀

I guess if there were no legislation and it was just done on personal preference, it would be <shrugs>but to legislate that people CAN discriminate, it does seem wrong in the cold light of day. BURN THEM (but I won't be boycotting a chance to ride there!)

to legislate that people CAN discriminate

And this is the nub of it for me. I'm all for less legislation and allowing the moral zeitgeist to evolve to the point where no discrimination exists because that is the right thing. However, as someone pointed out, history shows that this is often not the best approach. Legislation to ALLOW people to discriminate seems downright wrong and retrograde to me.

Business owners had this Right to [s]discriminate[/s] in the UK for centuries its called;

"The Management reserve the right to refuse Service"

The key to it is NOT to give a reason (that was why the [s]Right Wing Fundamentalists[/s] Christian B&B owners got into trouble.

Listed under various reasons I have had include "you're wearing trainers/jeans/leather jacket"* to "I don't like your face" and my personal favourite "your hair is to long" which I have had several times in my life but the last was last year in a Cafe in Wooler FFS - (as I pointed out it was shorter than hers but I will admit that I might not have helped my case as the rest of my response whilst being articulate utilised the full range of my ex-military vocabulary )

*mind you I have seen the opposite in our local rock club... "you are far to tidy to drink in here!"

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/arizona-anti-gay-discrimination-roccos-pizza

or the last gas station for hundreds of miles

If it's self service, just fuel up and when you mince in looking as camp as you can and get refused, just drive off. Win/win.

Saw that on the Daily Show last week...

Also mentioned...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/kansas-lawmaker-legalize-spanking-children-hard-article-1.1618849

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/21/missouri-republicans-introduce-creationist-bill-that-could-eviscerate-the-teaching-of-biology/

How many larger buisnesses can afford to stop people shopping in their shop, restraunt, wbhen all the facebook/twitter media deluge starts , its going to be small enterpises owned and run by numptioes that are gong to refuse service, just beacuase they can, and then again what stereotypical model are they going to use for accusing someone of being gay,short hair, longhair , tight jeans, jeans down youre arse,baggy jeans,bright colured shirts, tight shirts, baseball hats, trainers and whatever straights wear.
Even possibly middle ageed men riding a bike, wearing lycra under baggy shorts with un shaved legs.

mikewsmith - Member
So then it becomes stuff based on a rumour, or gossip. Then the girl with short hair or they guy who works as a hairdresser and has a pink shirt on.

I am not a hair dresser but have my pink 'management' shirts.... better tell the wife that I need to go into the closet! 🙂

For those who are a fan of George Takei he is advocating a ban of Arizona [url= http://www.allegiancemusical.com/blog-entry/razing-arizona ]link[/url]

In it he says: [i]"And maybe you just never learn. In 1989, you voted down recognition of the Martin Luther King holiday, and as a result, conventions and tourists boycotted the state, and the NFL moved the Superbowl to Pasadena. That was a $500 million mistake."[/i]

What puzzles me is how people rant against discrimination, as in this case, but are happy to slag off people beliefs. You can't have your cake and eat it. If you insist on condemning people you have to accept condemnation.
Modern reasoning about freedom of speech, action and belief is hypocritical beyond any common sense. If you want me to accept your views you have to accept mine. If you won't accept mine then tell me why I should accept yours?
The issue is irrelevant.
I would also point out that this is none of my business.

There is a big difference between voicing a negative opinion of someone's beliefs to taking action which discriminates in a very real way because of that opinion.

This isn't a law which just permits a whispering campaign against those who are considered different, it allows real discrimination on a very practical and real. As critical as I frequently am of religion I would certainly be against any law which allowed somebody to be refused service because they were wearing a cross.

I don't know whether to find it funny or sad when religion tries to pretend it is the victim when it isn't allowed to victimise other groups.

The easiest and simplest solution would be to either tattoo "gay" on the back of their hands or compulsory carrying of gay cards.
It worked well about 75 years ago across Europe....

The easiest and simplest solution would be to either tattoo "gay" on the back of their hands or compulsory carrying of gay cards.
It worked well about 75 years ago across Europe....

Think youll find the word gay 75 years ago meant bright and liveley, then was adopted by Standerwick for its fleet of VRL double deccker coaches using the Gay Hostess tagline, ,the word gay was then borrowed by homosexuals as it was more easlily spoken off the tounge than homosexual.
And hitler made all homesexual men wear a pink triangle in the death camps.Perhaps thats what america wants.

What puzzles me is how people rant against discrimination, as in this case, but are happy to slag off people beliefs. You can't have your cake and eat it. If you insist on condemning people you have to accept condemnation.

tolerant of all but the intolerant

I get your point but personally I dont mind discriminating against those who wish to discriminate - if this means they condemn me then fine.

You are also confusing the right to say something and the right to do something.

Panic looms in Arizona as businesses realise they are going to lose the custom of the British MTB community.

Not a great law but there are many other places to boycott first. Anyone bought anything made in China recently?

http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/countries/asia-and-the-pacific/china

Modern reasoning about freedom of speech, action and belief is hypocritical beyond any common sense. If you want me to accept your views you have to accept mine. If you won't accept mine then tell me why I should accept yours?

Well not quite. I can criticise your beliefs, but that's not the same as attempging to suppress them.

I for example am not gay - if you start talking about how dishy some bloke is, I will disagree. But I won't try and convince you he's not!

project - Member

The easiest and simplest solution would be to either tattoo "gay" on the back of their hands or compulsory carrying of gay cards.
It worked well about 75 years ago across Europe....

Think youll find the word gay 75 years ago meant bright and liveley, then was adopted by Standerwick for its fleet of VRL double deccker coaches using the Gay Hostess tagline, ,the word gay was then borrowed by homosexuals as it was more easlily spoken off the tounge than homosexual.
And hitler made all homesexual men wear a pink triangle in the death camps.Perhaps thats what america wants.

Not a great law but there are many other places to boycott first. Anyone bought anything made in China recently?

http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/countries/asia-and-the-pacific/china

Whataboutery at it's finest.

[s]America[/s] A single state exposes itself again to be backward, Shocker!

Fixed that for you.

The state Governor has vetoed the legislation 🙂

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-26363704 ]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-26363704[/url]

which given her social conservatism is a surprise to me.

Good to see a lot of companies putting their heads over the parapet to say it was wrong, too:

[url= http://news.delta.com/index.php?s=43&item=2275 ]http://news.delta.com/index.php?s=43&item=2275[/url]

Money talks, bullshyt walks...

In doing so, Ms Brewer sided with the business community - including firms such as Intel, Yelp, Marriott and Major League Baseball and the Arizona Chamber of Commerce.

Looks like some sections of UKIP have the same views as the Arizona neo-conservatives.

I do love 'libertarians' - it seems to mean "Anyone can do anything I agree with."

Want to refuse to serve gay people because it's your business? That's great.

Want to employ someone from a different country because they have skills you need or are cheap to employ? Not going to happen matey.

[url= http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/11052868.Lewes_UKIP_councillor_says_businesses_should_have_power_to_turn_away_women_and_gay_people/ ]http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/11052868.Lewes_UKIP_councillor_says_businesses_should_have_power_to_turn_away_women_and_gay_people/[/url]

[url= http://www.deepsouthprogressive.com/2014/03/mississippiantigayarizonastyle.html ]Mississippi[/url] is now trying to pass a similar law.

I do love 'libertarians' - it seems to mean "Anyone can do anything I agree with."

That not libertarianism tho is it...? more like bigotry.

Anyhow, the "law" got chucked out. Thats how liberal democracy and free speech works. Progressive? Cools lets do that. Regressive and oppressive... lets not. (mostly).

Right wing bigots are pushing for their beliefs just like everyone else (just like they always have). Going on all over the world. Its up to free thinking liberal minded people to fight back.

Looks like some sections of UKIP have the same views as the Arizona neo-conservatives.

That's a bit unfair on the Arizonian neo-conservatives, the UKIP councillor goes much further than they do. She wants businesses "to be allowed to refuse service to anyone they want for whatever reason they want".

So whilst the Arizonian neo-conservatives wanted businesses to be allowed to refuse to serve on the basis of alleged religious beliefs, the UKIP councillor says she would be ok if gays, black people, Irish, fat people, women, etc, were all refused service for no reason at all.

This story sounds like it might be a PR disaster for UKIP but the good news for them is that their potential voters don't give a toss what UKIP has to say. They are not Conservative, Labour, or LibDem, and that's all that matters to them.

Officially UKIP has no policies : [url= http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/01/nigel-farage-disowns-all-of-ukips-2010-manifesto-policies/ ]Nigel Farage disowns all of Ukip’s 2010 manifesto policies[/url] But this lack of policies doesn't stop about 20% of the electorate saying they will vote for them.

Nigel Farage smiles, laughs, holds a pint of beer in his hand, and he doesn't much like foreigners, [i]that's[/i] what impresses them.

We don't serve [s]gays[/s] ****s.

FTFY, Arizona...