Andrew Cuomo, if not God, carries out the law to enforce his religious calendar over the beliefs of ALL OTHERs. Andrew Cuomo is THE GREATEST?
HI-
Thanks for
the help. The item’s below. I’d be happy to mail you a copy,
if you give me a mailing address.
Claude Solnik
(631) 913-4244
Long
Island Business News
2150
Smithtown Ave.
Ronkonkoma,
NY 11779-7348
Home >
LI Confidential > Stop
scratching on holidays
Stop scratching on holidays
Published: June 1, 2012
Off Track Betting in New York State has been racing into a crisis called shrinking revenue. Some people have spitballed a solution: Don’t close on holidays.
New York State Racing Law bars racing on Christmas, Easter and Palm Sunday, and the state has ruled OTBs can’t handle action on those days, even though they could easily broadcast races from out of state.
“You should be able to bet whenever you want,” said Jackson Leeds, a Nassau OTB employee who makes an occasional bet. He added some irrefutable logic: “How is the business going to make money if you’re not open to take people’s bets?”
Elias Tsekerides, president of the Federation of Hellenic Societies of Greater New York, said OTB is open on Greek Orthodox Easter and Palm Sunday.
“I don’t want discrimination,” Tsekerides said. “They close for the Catholics, but open for the Greek Orthodox? It’s either open for all or not open.”
OTB officials have said they lose millions by closing on Palm Sunday alone, with tracks such as Gulfstream, Santa Anita, Turf Paradise and Hawthorne running.
One option: OTBs could just stay open and face the consequences. New York City OTB did just that back in 2003. The handle was about $1.5 million – and OTB was fined $5,000.
Easy money.
Religious Right in Arizona Cheers Bill Allowing Businesses to Refuse to Serve Gays
In New Mexico, a photographer declined to take pictures of a lesbian couple’s commitment ceremony. In Washington State, a florist would not provide flowers for a same-sex wedding. And in Colorado, a baker refused to make a cake for a party celebrating the wedding of two men.
The
business owners cited religious beliefs in declining to provide
services celebrating same-sex relationships. And in each case, they were
sued.
Now,
as states around the nation weigh how to balance the rights of same-sex
couples with those of conservative religious business owners, Gov. Jan
Brewer of Arizona must decide whether to sign legislation that would allow business owners to cite religious beliefs as a legal justification for denying service to same-sex couples.
The legislation, approved by lawmakers on Thursday,
immediately attracted national attention, with conservative religious
groups welcoming it as a necessary form of protection for objectors to same-sex marriage,
and gay rights groups denouncing it as a license for discrimination.
The measure comes at a time when the courts are grappling with how to
define the religious rights of private businesses: The Supreme Court is
to hear two cases next month in which businesses are seeking exemptions from providing insurance coverage for contraception to their employees, citing the religious beliefs of the companies’ owners.
“In
America, people should be free to live and work according to their
faith, and the government shouldn’t be able to tell us we can’t do
that,” said Joseph E. La Rue, the legal counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom,
a Christian legal organization based in Scottsdale, Ariz., that
advocates religious liberty and supports the measure passed by the State
Legislature. “Faith shouldn’t be something we have to leave inside our
house.”
But
civil libertarians and gay rights advocates say there is a difference
between protections for clergy and houses of worship that do not want to
participate in same-sex marriage and the obligations of business owners
that serve the general public.
“Religious
freedom is a fundamental right, but it’s not a blank check to harm
others or impose our faith on our neighbors,” said Daniel Mach, who
directs a program on freedom of religion and belief
for the American Civil Liberties Union, which opposes the Arizona
legislation. “Over the years, we as a nation have rejected efforts to
invoke religion to justify discrimination in the marketplace, and
there’s no reason to turn back the clock now.”
Ms.
Brewer, who has taken no public position on the legislation that will
reach her desk next week, is a Republican whose tenure has been
punctuated by controversy and political discord over a tough measure on illegal immigrants, which was denounced from the left, and a Medicaid expansion, which was criticized by the right.
Last
year she vetoed a similar religious freedom bill, arguing that it was a
distraction from priorities lawmakers had yet to address, including the
state budget. And there are similar circumstances this year, as
legislators have yet to act on a package of proposed changes to the
state’s child welfare system, which has been plagued by a slow response
to complaints of abuse and neglect.
Chuck
Coughlin, a public affairs consultant who led Ms. Brewer’s transition
team after she was elected governor in 2009 and has remained a close
ally, said he was doubtful that she would sign the bill into law,
saying, “We already have laws to sufficiently protect people’s religion
freedoms in this country, and this bill could actually empower people to
discriminate.”
The
bill comes at an awkward time for Ms. Brewer, who has been eager to
move beyond controversy in her last year in office (term limits prevent
her from running for re-election.)
She
has tried to focus on revitalizing the state’s economy, which is
struggling in spite of a rebound of the housing market. The state, which
was boycotted by some over the immigration measure, is preparing to host next year’s Super Bowl, and some residents worry that the religious freedom measure could again spur a backlash.
In
a letter to Ms. Brewer on Friday, Gonzalo A. de la Melena Jr.,
president and chief executive of the Arizona Hispanic Chamber of
Commerce, said the bill, if it becomes law, would “ultimately have the
effect of casting Arizona in a negative light that stands to damage our
reputation nationwide and globally, and significantly harm our fiscal
future.”
It was just one in a chorus of pleas that the governor to veto the legislation.
“It sounds like it’s opening the door to hate and bigotry of all stripes,” said Rocco DiGrazia, a Tucson pizzeria owner, who on Friday attracted national attention via social media
because he had posted signs on the restaurant’s doors declaring, “We
Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Arizona Legislators.”
“I
make dinner for a living — I’m not a social activist,” Mr. DiGrazia
said in a telephone interview. “But I do have a lot of gay customers and
employees, and why are you trying to alienate these people?”
But
supporters of the legislation said they would also work hard to
persuade Ms. Brewer to sign the measure, in part by disputing much of
the criticism it has faced.
Most
states where same-sex marriage is legal have exemptions for religious
organizations, but not for private businesses or individuals, according
to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The Arizona measure comes as multiple states are considering such exemptions, with considerable controversy. In Tennessee, the legislature is considering an exemption for wedding vendors; in Kansas, a similar measure was set aside when conservative senators raised concerns about discrimination. In Oregon, opponents of same-sex marriage are seeking to place an initiative on this year’s ballot that would allow individuals or businesses to opt out of participating in same-sex wedding ceremonies.
Supporters
and opponents of the Arizona legislation do not agree on its potential
impact. The supporters say it would simply tweak an existing religious
freedom law in Arizona to make it clear that private individuals can use
religious freedom as a defense in civil litigation; the opponents say
it would allow business owners to discriminate against anyone they do
not like, citing religious freedom.
“There
is significant fear it will undermine local nondiscrimination laws,”
said Sarah Warbelow, the state legislative director for the Human Rights Campaign,
a gay rights advocacy organization. “This is not about the freedom of
individuals to practice their religion, this is about a license to
discriminate against individuals.”
But Josh Kredit, legal counsel of the Center for Arizona Policy,
a conservative group that supported the bill, said that Arizona has for
years had a religious freedom law that has not been used to justify
discrimination, and that the changes to that law made by the new measure
are “vitally needed to ensure that in America people are free to live
and work according to their faith.”
“Arizona
should be known as a state that welcomes people of faith and protects
them,” he said. “These are intentional, purposeful distractions to try
to kill this bill.”
Advertising
No comments:
Post a Comment