How many Democratic Senators will Lose Their Seats?

This thread seems to have become a general discussion on US politics and values so I thought I'd throw a current headline in for discussion.

"Arizona politicians have passed a bill that would allow hotels and restaurants in the US state to refuse service to gay customers on religious grounds."

Sounds in step with Uganda and Russia. The article I read said that other minority groups like Jews and Mormons were concerned that it could also be applied to them.

Now, this appeared in our press, is it accurate, and if so, is it seen to be acceptable to the majority? Certainly would not be countenanced here.

This thread seems to have become a general discussion on US politics and values so I thought I'd throw a current headline in for discussion.

"Arizona politicians have passed a bill that would allow hotels and restaurants in the US state to refuse service to gay customers on religious grounds."

Sounds in step with Uganda and Russia. The article I read said that other minority groups like Jews and Mormons were concerned that it could also be applied to them.

Now, this appeared in our press, is it accurate, and if so, is it seen to be acceptable to the majority? Certainly would not be countenanced here.

Partially acceptable. In the US it is considered completely unacceptable to force someone to violate sincerely held religious tenets. Allowing them to refuse service to gays per se steps beyond that and is unlikely to be allowed by the courts. However, if it is something that implies an endorsement of a gay lifestyle, for example requiring them to host a gay pride event or a gay wedding that is likely to be allowed because forcing someone to endorse a lifestyle which they sincerely believe is a sin is considered a violation of the Right of Religious freedom.

The driving issue behind this particular bill is that people were being sued for not wanting to serve gay weddings i.e. not wanting to endorse the gay lifestyle. However, the actual Arizona bill is much broader than your headline implies. It specifically codifies the tradition that protects businesses, corporations and people if they deny services based on a “sincere” religious belief. Any sincerely held religious belief not just the belief that homosexuality is a sin. So it could be used (and if signed is likely to be used) more broadly. For example Muslims could refuse to host a meeting of the pig farmers of America etc.

In general the law is probably unnecessary as the activity is probably already protected, although it may take a lawsuit all the way up to the supreme court to clarify the boundary of what is religious freedom and what is not. Every right has limits.

Many thanks for a well reasoned and presented information piece. I too would baulk at being required to endorse something I strongly disagreed with.
The possibility you mention of it going further though would be a difficulty here.

biochem wrote:

This thread seems to have become a general discussion on US politics and values so I thought I'd throw a current headline in for discussion.

"Arizona politicians have passed a bill that would allow hotels and restaurants in the US state to refuse service to gay customers on religious grounds."

Sounds in step with Uganda and Russia. The article I read said that other minority groups like Jews and Mormons were concerned that it could also be applied to them.

Now, this appeared in our press, is it accurate, and if so, is it seen to be acceptable to the majority? Certainly would not be countenanced here.

Partially acceptable. In the US it is considered completely unacceptable to force someone to violate sincerely held religious tenets. Allowing them to refuse service to gays per se steps beyond that and is unlikely to be allowed by the courts. However, if it is something that implies an endorsement of a gay lifestyle, for example requiring them to host a gay pride event or a gay wedding that is likely to be allowed because forcing someone to endorse a lifestyle which they sincerely believe is a sin is considered a violation of the Right of Religious freedom.

The driving issue behind this particular bill is that people were being sued for not wanting to serve gay weddings i.e. not wanting to endorse the gay lifestyle. However, the actual Arizona bill is much broader than your headline implies. It specifically codifies the tradition that protects businesses, corporations and people if they deny services based on a “sincere” religious belief. Any sincerely held religious belief not just the belief that homosexuality is a sin. So it could be used (and if signed is likely to be used) more broadly. For example Muslims could refuse to host a meeting of the pig farmers of America etc.

In general the law is probably unnecessary as the activity is probably already protected, although it may take a lawsuit all the way up to the supreme court to clarify the boundary of what is religious freedom and what is not. Every right has limits.

The example of requiring a Muslim to cater an event for pig farmers eloquently explains the rationale in a manner that is comprehensible to the poetically incorrect. Another example would be requiring a Jewish owned business to serve Neonazis.

For me the deciding issue is the inconviance suffered by the customer from whom service is witheld. A taxi or bus driver that refuses service is inflicting a serious inconvienance but a bakery that declines to supply a cake is not. The customer can easily go to another bakery.

biochem wrote:

This thread seems to have become a general discussion on US politics and values so I thought I'd throw a current headline in for discussion.

"Arizona politicians have passed a bill that would allow hotels and restaurants in the US state to refuse service to gay customers on religious grounds."

Sounds in step with Uganda and Russia. The article I read said that other minority groups like Jews and Mormons were concerned that it could also be applied to them.

Now, this appeared in our press, is it accurate, and if so, is it seen to be acceptable to the majority? Certainly would not be countenanced here.

Partially acceptable. In the US it is considered completely unacceptable to force someone to violate sincerely held religious tenets. Allowing them to refuse service to gays per se steps beyond that and is unlikely to be allowed by the courts. However, if it is something that implies an endorsement of a gay lifestyle, for example requiring them to host a gay pride event or a gay wedding that is likely to be allowed because forcing someone to endorse a lifestyle which they sincerely believe is a sin is considered a violation of the Right of Religious freedom.

The driving issue behind this particular bill is that people were being sued for not wanting to serve gay weddings i.e. not wanting to endorse the gay lifestyle. However, the actual Arizona bill is much broader than your headline implies. It specifically codifies the tradition that protects businesses, corporations and people if they deny services based on a “sincere” religious belief. Any sincerely held religious belief not just the belief that homosexuality is a sin. So it could be used (and if signed is likely to be used) more broadly. For example Muslims could refuse to host a meeting of the pig farmers of America etc.

In general the law is probably unnecessary as the activity is probably already protected, although it may take a lawsuit all the way up to the supreme court to clarify the boundary of what is religious freedom and what is not. Every right has limits.

The difference between the bakery and the taxi driver isn't so much a matter of convenience but the services required. The bakery declining to make a special same sex wedding cake is refusing to do something beyond the scope of his/her normal business. Going beyond that scope is endorsing what he/she disagrees with. Telling a gay person the owner refuses to sell existing cakes or goods on display steps beyond the line. The same would apply to neonazis in a jewish bakery.

The same logic applies to bus drivers and taxi drivers. Providing a cab ride doesn't endorse the beliefs over the passenger. A muslim asked to give a pig farmer and his prize pig a ride to the convention center would be considered such an endorsement. The former service must be provided to protected classes while the latter can be refused.

We in Colorado are dealing with the same sex wedding cake issue right now.

namelessfly wrote:The example of requiring a Muslim to cater an event for pig farmers eloquently explains the rationale in a manner that is comprehensible to the poetically incorrect. Another example would be requiring a Jewish owned business to serve Neonazis.

For me the deciding issue is the inconviance suffered by the customer from whom service is witheld. A taxi or bus driver that refuses service is inflicting a serious inconvienance but a bakery that declines to supply a cake is not. The customer can easily go to another bakery.

I think that this hearing eloquently addresses the biggest problem with Congress:

http://freebeacon.com/the-imperial-presidency/

Foreigners either have no clue as to how profoundly our system of Government is being transformed or applaud it because Obama is their guy. Theynshould consider the probable reprucusions.
http://freebeacon.com/the-imperial-presidency/

Hmm Dems feeling the heat attack Cancer patients whose coverage evaporated due to the "Un-" Affordable Care Act http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/02/24/Democrats-Declare-War-Against-Obamacare-Cancer-Patients

Poker

I think that this hearing eloquently addresses the biggest problem with Congress:

http://freebeacon.com/the-imperial-presidency/

Foreigners either have no clue as to how profoundly our system of Government is being transformed or applaud it because Obama is their guy. Theynshould consider the probable reprucusions.
http://freebeacon.com/the-imperial-presidency/

Both Obama and Harry Reid are suffering from short term thinking. Obama needs to remember that in 2016 or 2020 we will have a Republican president and that anything he does the Republican may do as well. Same with Harry Reid. If he doesn't lose the Senate this fall, he will sooner or later. Now that he has exercised the "nuclear option" (changing Senate rules to make it easier for Obama appointees to get approved), he needs to realize that Republicans will use that power in their favor when it is their turn.

Obama and to a lesser extent Reid strike me as ideologues. They seem to truly believe in their liberal ideology. As such I suspect they will regret this when future Republican leaders use the same tactics to push a conservative ideology.

Current polling indicates that Republicans are heavy favorites to take control of the Senate and retain control of the House.

I will believe that the Republicans are going to take the Senate when it happens. The Democrats will just resort to previous senate race tactics that allowed them to win the Senate! Sorry, this old dance routine is getting old because the news pundits were predicting this result last election cycle. Personally, my faith in the American publis is at an all time low. This reminds me of the time when Barbara Walters was said that our President was their incarnation of Jesus. Right then I understood that politically speaking that America would be in for a long 8 years.

biochem wrote:Current polling indicates that Republicans are heavy favorites to take control of the Senate and retain control of the House.