Arizona SB-1062

[Conan71]

I think you could probably summarize it as "refuse service at your own risk".

[BKDotCom]

wouldn't it make more business sense to tack on an "I don't like you" surcharge than to refuse service?

[dbacksfan 2.0]

wouldn't it make more business sense to tack on an "I don't like you" surcharge than to refuse service?

That could cost you $400,000.00 in Oregon.

A Portland bar owner was ordered to pay $400,000 in damages to a group of transgender customers after telling them they weren't welcome in his bar, according to the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries.

http://www.katu.com/news/local/Bar-has-to-pay-400000-for-telling-transgendered-patrons-to-stay-away-221799421.html

[dbacksfan 2.0]

You understand that logic was exactly what was attempted by segregationists, right?  It has already been decided that discrimination based on a general segment of the populace is illegal.  

Yes, that's why you don't see the "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" any more. It's a relic that I remember from my youth.

I don't think anyone should be discriminated against in general. I sometimes think that if you have certain religious beliefs, and I'll use gay marriage here, and you want to run a business, you better make sure that you won't violate your beliefs in dealing with the public in your business.

[Townsend]

I don't think anyone should be discriminated against in general. I sometimes think that if you have certain religious beliefs, and I'll use gay marriage here, and you want to run a business, you better make sure that you won't violate your beliefs in dealing with the public in your business.

Well that makes some sense.

[Cats Cats Cats]

If a state has sexual orientation as a protected class then you can be sued for refusing service or telling them to get out.  You can probably also be sued if they find out you add a "I don't like you" fee.  Arizona doesn't have sexual orientation as a protected class.  I'm not sure how this bill changes anything.  

You can already "discriminate" and refuse service to people based on car, makeup, high school affiliation, college affiliation, what kind of shoes they have on, which way they put the toilet paper roll on or the beer they drink. Basically the law is just to reiterate that Arizona hates gay people and doesn't do anything except if somebody sues a business for violating a law that doesn't exist.

[Cats Cats Cats]

The thing that most everybody is missing is that no matter what happens to this bill you can still refuse service to same sex couples.  Everything in orange you can be fired based on sexual orientation and there isn't a law against it.
That doesn't mean somebody won't sue you.

[Townsend]

The thing that most everybody is missing is that no matter what happens to this bill you can still refuse service to same sex couples.  Everything in orange you can be fired based on sexual orientation and there isn't a law against it.
That doesn't mean somebody won't sue you.

I can shoot you in the face no matter what some bill says.  There would most likely be repercussions and a lawsuit.

[BKDotCom]

That could cost you $400,000.00 in Oregon.

http://www.katu.com/news/local/Bar-has-to-pay-400000-for-telling-transgendered-patrons-to-stay-away-221799421.html

Not the same thing.
The bartender told them to leave  (which would be protected by the AZ law)
I suggest that the bartender should let them stay...  just charge them extra.
Why turn away business when you could profit extra!

[TheArtist]

  There are two ways I could look at it if someone refused me a service.  I could get angry at them and try to "force" them to.  But then I would think "I am forcing them to take my money?".   So my thought would then be "I don't want to give these people my money, I will give it to someone who doesn't "hate me have prejudice against me, etc.""  I can understand the anger or hurt it can cause, but I don't think anything will be changed by forcing someone to work for me/take my money (their opinion of you is not going to change one iota)... however now this "bad person" will have my money when it could have gone to some other business that could use my money and that respects me.  Frustrating as it may be, your giving your money to someone who does not want or deserve it, and and who is against you or what you believe in, and are not giving it to someone who does want, deserve or need it.   The tough part might be if your in a small town and there are only so many services, and or now the person who served you is also ostracized because they did so and thus their business is hurt, and so on, so things could get ugly.

[Townsend]

  There are two ways I could look at it if someone refused me a service.  I could get angry at them and try to "force" them to.  But then I would think "I am forcing them to take my money?".   So my thought would then be "I don't want to give these people my money, I will give it to someone who doesn't "hate me have prejudice against me, etc.""  I can understand the anger or hurt it can cause, but I don't think anything will be changed by forcing someone to work for me/take my money (their opinion of you is not going to change one iota)... however now this "bad person" will have my money when it could have gone to some other business that could use my money and that respects me.  Frustrating as it may be, your not giving your money to someone else who would want, deserve, or need it, and are instead giving it to someone who is against you or what you believe in.

My opinion, right or wrong, is that they shouldn't be told that it's okay.

[Cats Cats Cats]

I can shoot you in the face no matter what some bill says.  There would most likely be repercussions and a lawsuit.

But if there were a law saying shooting people in the face is legal. Then they could point to that in their defense.

[TheArtist]

My opinion, right or wrong, is that they shouldn't be told that it's okay.

Guess that does add a whole other dimension to it when it's sanctioned by your own government.

[Cats Cats Cats]

 There are two ways I could look at it if someone refused me a service.  I could get angry at them and try to "force" them to.  But then I would think "I am forcing them to take my money?".   So my thought would then be "I don't want to give these people my money, I will give it to someone who doesn't "hate me have prejudice against me, etc.""  I can understand the anger or hurt it can cause, but I don't think anything will be changed by forcing someone to work for me/take my money (their opinion of you is not going to change one iota)... however now this "bad person" will have my money when it could have gone to some other business that could use my money and that respects me.  Frustrating as it may be, your giving your money to someone who does not want or deserve it, and and who is against you or what you believe in, and are not giving it to someone who does want, deserve or need it.   The tough part might be if your in a small town and there are only so many services, and or now the person who served you is also ostracized because they did so and thus their business is hurt, and so on, so things could get ugly.

I agree with what you said.  Some things are almost like laws against price gouging.  For example tow truck drivers who won't pick you up.  No gas stations for miles around selling you gas.  Things like that is where I see a "problem" arising from the law.  Otherwise you have a choice where you spend your money.  All they need to do is put up a no equality sign and let people know to stay away.

[RecycleMichael]

No Dominoes Pizza for me.

I wasn't aware of any controversy involving Domino's Pizza. I had to google it to learn the owner gives large sums of money to anti-abortion groups. I don't go to Papa John's pizza because of his very public stance against offering healthcare to his employees while living in a 40,000 square foot mansion. Pizza hut fired a store manager after he refused to make his workers work on Thanksgiving. Last year Mazzio's Pizza workers was arrested after having stolen $22,000 from his store.

There must be something about pizza restaurants. I am just glad I get my pizzas from Joe Momma's. I can't imagine any controversy about their ownership.

edit. Just found out the owner is a politician.