The Student News Site of University of Arizona

The Daily Wildcat

74° Tucson, AZ

The Daily Wildcat

The Daily Wildcat


    Your views

    Online comments

    From “Arizona bill met with public outrage” (by Galina Swords, Feb. 23)

    All the bakeries and photographers and caterers that people think are being so horribly put-upon? They aren’t in the business of providing spiritual guidance or enforcing moral doctrines. They are there to turn a profit. As such, they are obligated to abide by prevailing civil rights laws, whether those laws protect people from discrimination based on race, religion or sexual orientation.
    Should a restaurant owner be able to refuse service to Blacks because he has “moral objections” to race-mixing? Should an employer be able to fire a Muslim employee because he wants to run ‘a nice Christian workplace?’
    If they answer to both questions is NO, what justification is there refusing service to a gay couple who wish to get a wedding cake or celebrate their anniversary in a restaurant? Does this bill allow people to use ‘religious freedom’ as a justification for discriminating against ANY customer, or does it simply single out gay citizens?
    Either way, it’s going to do WONDERS for tourism.

    I do not know where it specifies that gays or minorities will be the subject of discrimination because of this bill. I think there’s a major slippery slope here.
    And herein lies your slippery slope argument. You think that businesses are going to stop serving gays and unleash a new era of Jim Crow Laws?
    However, it’s also the right of the business to refuse service or sale. Unless a transaction has occurred, the business does not have any obligation to provide a said service or merchandise to the consumer.
    Businesses won’t refuse service because it doesn’t sell to alienate minorities or gays. The thing is that freedom of religion is for everyone. Just like a Christian bakery can refuse service to gay couples, a Muslim grocery can refuse to sell non-Halal products to pork-eaters. A business should have the right to refuse service for any reason, but these businesses should be wary that they shouldn’t ask the government for a bailout if their business falls under.
    DoYouEvenLogicBro? (in response to PolishBear)

    Unless every florist, every baker and every photographer asked every customer whether or not they were divorced or had fornicated before their wedding night, trust me, they have already “participated” in a wedding that goes against their beliefs.
    This was never about religious freedom. This was about sticking it to the gays. But we all knew that.

    It’s just funny how you think you have the right, in your elitist mind, to dictate what other people should do when you have no clear respect for their position.
    LibertarianTroll (in response to JoeNCA)

    From “Protestors fight back against bill” (by Kevin Reagan, Feb. 23)
    She [Gov. Jan Brewer] better hurry and veto that bill. The damage has been done and is getting worse every minute. The zealot Catholics who embraced this bill have totally forgotten that they were considered vermin in most of this country just 60 or 70 years ago. They faced intolerable discrimination and now are paying it forward. What a pathetic act of stupidity.

    I’m still awaiting people to tell me which verse of the Bible calls upon Christians to discriminate against anyone.

    More to Discover
    Activate Search