Arizona SB-1062

[AquaMan]

The reason I thought the law was a "tempest in a teapot" and has indeed turned out to be, is that in the larger scheme of the world outside of states like Arizona, Ok, WV etc., these are non issues. The world has already changed. Most large companies know that and being totally into business, not politics and religion, they will be the enforcers of reality for these misguided, extremist influenced states.

Arizona stood to lose huge amounts of money from events like the Superbowl, companies looking for hospitable climates for their employees and the ability to do business without religious zealots interfering (remember, Arizona refused to recognize MLK day in '93 and lost that superbowl). Brewer feigned interest in listening to the extremist views but in the end bowed to her real masters. In fact she said she knew of no small businesses that were suffering from this made up malady. Apparently she doesn't think the photographer was damaged.

Can you imagine what would happen to OK if our idiot legislators were convinced by their extremist supporters that oil exploration and fracking was a sin against their religion and was damaging their rights to worship? Assuming they don't worship oil that is....

[rebound]

You can discriminate against people who wear clothing.  It isn't illegal so your statement is false.  But it is the same argument the segregationists used.

Interesting...   OK, first, I'm an engineer and not a Lawyer, and I realize that logical and legal aren't always the same thing.     So any actual lawyers out there, I welcome your contribution in clarifying or contradicting any position or argument I make.  With that, here goes...

The difference in the arguments is one of reacting  to a specific individual action, versus discriminating against a segment of the populace due to a "state of being".   DolfanBob had an earlier and similar entry to your example above (that I think is tongue-in-cheek) where he said that "So I'm going to assume that No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service does not apply anymore either".   Of course those type restrictions and service-denial rights are valid, as they are directed to a specific action (and one, in this case, that might violate health ordinances or otherwise have direct negative affect on the establishment).  Along the same lines,  a "coat and tie required" requirement at an upper-end restaurant is OK (I assume, as I have not heard of this ever being challenged) because this requirement does not discriminate unequally among any subset of the populace. (And in the few places I have ever encountered this actual restriction, the establishment has always provide loaner ties for those not having one, so again there is no inherent discrimination even for those that might not currently own a tie.)

Compare these actionable-type restrictions with "state of being" restrictions.  I.e.  "no blacks", "no Jews", "no old people", "no gays", "no women", etc.  It is this type of discrimination that was used by the segregationists and is being used now by those wishing to not provide services to homosexuals, and is not allowed.  As far as  I know (and again, I welcome a lawyer's input here) this type of state-of-being restrictions have always been struck down as unlawful when offering services to the general public.

Note that the discussion here is related to providing services to the general public.  There is some leeway when considering private clubs and other type associations.  But for a public business, discrimination against a specific segment of the populace is simply not allowed.

There are nuance arguments to this discussion that I find interesting related to when an aspect or attribute of the affected group becomes an action that is a viable point of discrimination.   As part of the POTUS radio show I referenced earlier, one of the discussion points related to a large group of transexuals that frequented a specific bar.  The bar owner asked them to find another place, as he felt that their presence was driving away other customers and changing the nature of his bar.  There were not enough details provided in that example, such as whether the group was unreasonably large, loud, or otherwise disruptive, but the owner's argument was related to actions rather the simple fact that the group was transexual.  It's still a difficult position to defend, but at least it's more interesting than simply "I don't like those kind of people in my place".

(Update - dbacks, I just saw your earlier link to the Oregon transgender bar case.  Man, you beat me to a point again!  I had not seen the link and only heard about it on the radio.  Good read.  Thanks for posting.)

[Gaspar]

How on earth can you make a living in this state?

You'd be amazed.  Sometimes the most brilliant analytical business people are the biggest hicks you've ever met, and they guy with the most letters behind his name is usually the least capable of grasping or accepting business logic or the realities that drive his business.  That seems to be the case all over the country, not just Oklahoma.

I've got a client in VA who, when you talk with him, sounds like he just came down out of the mountains on a donkey.  Looks like it too, but when you start to discuss accounting, production, costing, and inventory strategies you realize that you are the student.  Probably why he owns 8 wildly successful companies.

For some reason in Oklahoma, the smartest one in the room is usually the guy wearing the cowboy boots.

[Red Arrow]

For some reason in Oklahoma, the smartest one in the room is usually the guy wearing the cowboy boots.

Fancy boots or $hit kickers?

[dbacksfan 2.0]

Fancy boots or $hit kickers?

$10.00 says it's the $hit kickers.

[Gaspar]

$10.00 says it's the $hit kickers.

the more $hit the better.