Classic Richard. Bahahaha.
You know Cale, if you really wanted to be a just kind person here, you would have been kind enough to not make fun of their name. Tsk-Tsk
“I think I require the servicces of a healer” naw ya think XD
i can see it now… “she was a good judge of character… it got her killed”
Never Fails, I always think Little Dick is cute
He’s tricky that Little DIck.
Incoming “Why is this strip getting into politics” statements.
I laughed, hard.
The bill is pretty much a non-issue. Won’t pass, but if it did, you’d be hard pressed to find any gays in places that think it a good idea. There’s a reason why Jim Crow laws existed in the past – businesses refused to discriminate on the basis of race, so the laws forced them to (who, for example, would want the capital investment just to build two separate restroom facilities as required by state law?). What business owner in their right mind would turn down money?
Makes for great discussion, but practically, nothing will come of it. Just reflects that certain individuals shouldn’t be in public office. Or reflects that the kinds of people attracted to being in public office are questionable at best considering how different the intellectual makeup is compared to the general public.
well, also, it’s much harder to prove someone’s gay and thus refuse them service. If a black man walks in to a bar then the owner may very well look at him and be like “he’s black, I don’t wanna serve him”. But unless I’m flat out getting it on with a guy, you /probably/ can’t tell what my sexuality is. Although saying that, the folks who support this bill seem to be so obsessed/ anal about sexuality that they’d probably ask you on entrance what your sexuality is >.>
Now I’m gonna go weep over that awful pun I just made x.x
Actually, Jim Crow was also heavily reinforced by boycotts from the
local (prejudiced) populous. One example I heard: A white waitress was
dating a black man. Word gets around town, and people start boycotting
the restaurant she works at, until she is let go. Yes, she was let go.
When was this? It was also illegal in those states to engage in interracial marriage, so the business was likely removing someone that could have brought down significant legal pressure on the premises. Bigotry in public is not so, to keep with the theme, black and white as it appears to be. Many times people and businesses are forced into engaging in questionable activities through some kind of legal entity calling the shots.
Of course, it also doesn’t help that, to paraphrase the first MIB film, people are intelligent but masses are panicky and stupid. Existing laws can easily shape a population even though each individual separately may not like it. What Jim Crow possibly showed was a mass version of the Abilene Paradox. You would be hard pressed to find many people that supported the laws or discrimination, but with the large scale perception that others did, people would engage as bigots themselves just to avoid potential social outcast. Perception shapes action. The fact that the laws were overturned despite apparent large scale social support (if America was really as racist as the NAACP portrays it then Jim Crow would still be on the books) shows that, underneath, people really aren’t that bigoted. Additionally, it’s not been all that long since the Civil Rights Act and such individuals are already viewed upon as a parody. Whether this is just the Abilene Paradox working in the other direction or legitimate individual behavior is still a big question. What’s missing in Arizona is the perception of wide-scale bigotry and dislike of gays in society, which is what will ultimately lead the law to fail, whether it is passed or not. People don’t believe they need to be bigoted to continue group membership and since open acceptance isn’t necessary either, raw practicality will take over, which is “don’t turn away business”.
It’s good to understand behavioral psychology. We’re daily manipulated by things, most of it unintentional. Understanding group mechanics gives us good insight on to why things happen and to come to grips that in many cases horrible things happen when 100% of the people are good, but just scared everyone else isn’t. Breaking this cycle is tough, but once it’s broken, starting it again is even harder.
It’s a complete non-issue for most of the world (most of us are not homophobic). Disappointed to see this comic turn into US-centric politics. I want to see Richard being Richard!
Sadly, I’m from a state that does things like that, and I’m pretty sure that “ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief” is worded that way specifically so they can justify discriminating against homosexuals.
Though it could be an anti-abortion bill.
The governor of Arizona vetoed the bill. Thankfully this won’t come to pass.
George Takei was leading the charge on a boycott of Arizona and, along with a lot of large companies, put pressure on AZ with their wallets.
It should not have come to that, it was morally wrong to even have that bill created.
I agree that the bill was vile, but you need to remember that, ostensibly, the people who presented the bill did so on their own moral grounds.
Its more that they felt uncomfortable with encountering these other people, despite their religion teaching love one another and treating people like people, even their deity treated “morally wrong” people better than what humans who currently proclaim to believe in this deity do.
“even their deity treated “morally wrong” people better than what humans who currently proclaim to believe in this deity do.”
Yes, death and eternal damnation on a massive scale are much better than “I don’t wanna bake you a cake”.
Probably won’t stop that situation from happening periodically as it probably already has been in some restaurants.
Which is probably the base point. It doesn’t matter that the bill was vetoed. There could be a waitress out there that still did the same thing Richard praised the evilness of.
At least those who are discriminated against have legal recourse if they so choose. This bill would have removed that.
Richard likes evil people, she proved she was evil. He’s being friendly by offering to put something on her tombstone.
~snirks at the comic and some of the comments~ Wow. Some of the comments are just as funny as the comic itself. I am honestly surprised there are still people with ethics in business…because I thought for sure the only thing businesses cared about was money.
I knew a Business Ethics teacher who said the first day of his class “These days Business Ethics is a paradox on par with Military Intelligence, But by heaven you’ll learn them anyway!”
the way it was worded allows a business owner to refuse service to anyone as long as it’s a “Sincerely held belief” so while a lot of them would use it as a anti-LGBT tool I could refuse to serve someone for pretty much any reason I could think of.
Religious freedoms end when they are used to abuse or discriminate other people. Especially in public institutions.
I live in AZ, and I do have to admit the bill has its flaws. However, there are issues on both sides here. There have been business owners that have been targeted by gay rights activists with the sole intent to harm the business owners. If someone owns a christian bookstore, bakery, etc. they shouldn’t be forced to give up their constitutional right to stand by their beliefs either. That’s why it’s a constitutional right. The law should’ve been open to “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”. This would not have targeted any specific group, and allowed more freedom to small business owners.
The law already allows businesses to refuse service to anyone. All this law does is specify a religious belief that’s more protected than other religious beliefs – the religious beliefs of people who oppose marriage equality are held up above those of people who support it or want it.
Anti-discrimination laws are important, otherwise there would still be businesses with ‘no blacks’ signs in the windows.
But that’s the thing, you already do have that right. As a business you can remove any “undesirables” from property, all that bill did was target a specific group of people.
“you already do have that right”
No you don’t. Try refusing service to somebody because of their skin color, sex, gender, or age. See how that goes for you. Even if it’s in your religion to hate on grandma.
Spoiler: things won’t end well for you.
Tell that to the place I work then, if I dont like the way you smell I can have you removed from property. At the end of the day it is private property and if we don’t want you there… you won’t be there.
As he said it, you’re right. As can be done however… some companies have it down to an art about how they remove from the premises or ban someone with full witnesses, thereby removing any chance of a successful lawsuit. You don’t have to give the real reason why someone is being tossed, as long as the reason you do give can be backed up.
Also. I know one restaurant that couldn’t find a way to block a party they disagreed with from arriving for their reserved section.
So the owner told his employees not to come in, including the cook. Left a note on the door. Stuck a waiter who couldn’t possibly cook anything at the counter then left for the day to another city. The waiter got overtime for dealing with an irate party who wanted to know why the heck all the staff called in sick.
It resulted in an inspection of the facilities due to someone in the group calling about the possibility of all the employees being sick from something in the restaurant, of course.
edit: restaurant shut down a few years later simply due to the owner being bored. So I can tell the tale now.
From what I understand about the law in question, it was made to protect business owners from being targeted unfairly then sued or forced to do something that they didn’t want to do. As recent law suits have shown, the existing laws actually are not protecting the business owners’ right to refuse service to anyone they choose. This law was supposed to protect them. One example case is that there was a person that owned a flower shop and they had repeatedly made arrangements for a homosexual man to give his partner. When the man came in and asked that the florist provide arrangements for his wedding, the florist apologized and told him that they could not in good conscious provide the arrangements because a homosexual marriage was not in their belief system. Instead of going to another florist, the homosexual man sued the florist, his apparent friend, because he wanted arrangements from that shop. That seems pretty counter intuitive. I can understand what he wanted but he either significantly harms this business owner by dragging him through a trial or of the owner relents, the arrangements are likely not going to be as good because they are producing them against their will.
As for the argument that compares the homosexual community to the black community… Honestly? Seriously? The two situations are very different. There never was a question of religion when segregation was rampant. It was “Separate but Equal” in whatever form “white” people that didn’t like “non white” people thought they could get away with. Those people thought that if your skin wasn’t light colored, you were inferior to them, something that many hundreds of years before was pretty much true culturally because Europeans were generally much lighter in skin tones than Africans. I’m not saying that in terms of being human that Africans were any less than Europeans, just not as advanced culturally. The central issue with giving “black” people equal rights was that people had a prejudice against the people that were descendants of uneducated slaves being equal to them. In the situation with homosexuals, more often than not it seems like they are putting themselves into an unfavorable position then crying when they don’t get their way. When segregation was the “law” the people it affected tended to protest it nonviolently but for the most part, they still followed the law. When they didn’t follow the law, it was passive and they participated in civil disobedience. African Americans didn’t walk into a designated “whites only” section of a restaurant and then when they were refused service turn around and sue the restaurant. They pretty much either left on their own or were removed by police and generally arrested.
Anyway this is getting to be a long post so I’ll end it for now by saying that I support homosexuals having the same rights as heterosexuals and think every law has its good and bad points. The AZ law might not have been the right one to enact but at least it was addressing an issue that really should be considered and that there needs to be a clear decision on whose rights trump whose in some situations.
Are you guys trying to have a face off to see who can type more in one box? Just sayin’
The lawsuit in the case you mentioned, florist suing shop owner, was specifically in Washington, not Arizona. There have been NO cases in Arizona.
The reason that this is important is because the lawsuit was only possible because Washington state has a law on the books that made it ILLEGAL to refuse service to someone due to sexual orientation.
Since Arizona lacks a similar law, that lawsuit is not possible in Arizona.
There’s no sense in passing a law to protect yourself from the impossible. Should we pass a law to protect ALL of our rights to not be sued for laws that MAY get passed in the future? It would be impossible.
But using religion as a cover for ignorant prejudice isn’t constitutional. Yes there is a part of the bible that calls homosexuality an abomination but there is also a part of the bible that states you should be killed for wearing two different fabrics together. And another that states incest is fine. And another that says you should kill your newly wed wife if shes not a virgin. And another that says selling your children, especially daughters, into slavery is A-ok. It seems ironic that they would simply pick out just the part about homosexuality rather than adopt the whole thing into their beliefs, mainly because its obviously not about religion. The simple fact is homosexuality is different to them, and people become uncomfortable and scared of things that are different, so rather than learning about it and trying to accept it, they look for an excuse to condemn it because that is more comfortable. And what better way to do that then using the oldest tool for persecution we know of ‘Religion’. If they are truly religious enough to mistreat another human being, simply because their religion says so, then they should be religious enough to follow ALL the rules their book tells them rather than just that one about gays. If history shows us anything, its that nothing good EVER comes from prejudice (African-americans and slavery, Jews and the holocaust, Muslims and the crusades). This battle against gays is just gonna be another disgusting, hateful page in our long history of ignorance, its just sad that we as a people couldn’t learn from hundreds of years of prejudice mistakes and skip by this one.
Tell me what store owners were SUED because they refused to bake a cake or perform any OTHER service by ANYONE regardless of circumstance. I have yet to hear an actual lawsuit being raised against someone for refusing service.
Now, there’s a difference if you’ve already AGREED to perform a service, there you may enter into contract law. That’s a different matter, and this law would be unlikely to protect you from breaking a contract. If it did, there would be an instant way to defeat it. All I’d have to do is provide adequate documentation that my religion forbid charging of interest, as it was considered “usury and a sin.” Poof, entities larger than the state of Arizona would suddenly finance every district’s challenger in the next election… or at least some serious lobbying would happen to convince people otherwise. (and the religion I’d pick is Christianity, and I’m pretty sure I could find a lot of people to follow me in that regard.)
BUT refusing to sign a contract is something you’re free to do. There’s no law mandating you sign a contract.
Now, boycotts are different. You are not safe from boycott, with or without the horrible law. Boycotting a company is not about being sued, it’s about a group of people taking issue with something you’ve done, be it illegal, immoral, or unethical. (in your mind or not).
*Flashy thing* You will give Dick all the pie he wants.
So, as much as the Arizona bill was touted as an anti-gay bill, and everyone was outraged by it, I have a question. The governor of New Mexico was refused service by her hair stylist based on her beliefs. I have not seen anyone (other than some right-wing wing-nuts that are too tightly wound to actually represent conservatives) discuss this. How are people so upset about a bill that COULD have been used against the LGBT community, but no one comes to the defense of the governor.
Hair stylists are actually notorious for being allowed to choose not to have someone as a customer anymore. There are usually 3 or 4 of them in the shop or more. Not every tv stereotype is fiction. As long as somebody in the shop takes the governor on, the shop isn’t in trouble.
I’m not really arguing the legal aspect of this. I’m just really tired of 1 side going on and everyone just cow towing to it. I will admit that my views on this matter are not generally liked by my peer group, as a Christain I fully support marriage equality. But when someone stands up and publicly says they will not serve someone based on their beliefs, and because said person is holding to a religious belief, that is somehow bad. However, when we look at the opposite side, and this stylist (who actually is the shop owner, by the way) says he will not serve someone based on her beliefs, everyone seems generally ok because the other person is speaking about their religious beliefs. I understand that we as a country have a long way to go for everyone to be happy, but this double standard is not the way to do it.
Well it kind of depends on the beliefs doesn’t it? If I believed that we should work children like slaves from ages 6-12 would you be upset that someone wouldn’t let me in to Chucky Cheeses?
1st, it’s easy to take something to the point of lunacy to debate something fairly straight forward. Bringing up child labor laws and slavery into a discussion about a belief system that isn’t against the law is just dumb. 2nd, the stylist is specifically refusing to provide a service (which he has done 3 times before) based on her belief of what defines a “marriage”. This is being applauded by many for standing up for what he believes is right. On the contrary, the baker in Colorado who refused to make a wedding cake for a couple because they were both men (also note that the baker told them he would make any kind of cake for them besides a wedding cake) was taken to court for discrimination and lost. If you can honestly argue that both of these results are just and fair, then we are rightly and truly screwed. What is fair for one MUST be fair for all. Period.
Well, there is a double standard. As it stands right now, at my business I can refuse to service a Christian because of their beliefs and go unnoticed or applauded. However, if I refuse most any other religion because of their beliefs or if I refuse a homosexual, I would get publicly denounced in the news at the least of it… with being sued a good possibility, jailed a bit of a chance and a thin chance of being lynch mobbed (depends on if the threats on me were legit or not, I’ll hope they were just idle threats).
For all of this ‘free speech’ and ‘freedom’ we have these days, I’m not allowed to have an opinion unless it is against Christians and for homosexuality. What I am saying now I have been told that I’m ‘straddling the fence’ and to ‘get off my high horse’ and let homosexuals have their way.
There’s no issue with refusing service because of the sexuality of a person, it makes you ignorant, but you’re permitted to do so in Arizona all that you wish.
What was an issue is making it specifically LEGAL to refuse someone based on religion.
One other issue that makes the law ridiculous is that it could have been challenged nearly instantly. All it would take is one person to use the law to protect an “unusual” religious belief and suddenly the state would have to admit, “That’s not what we meant.”
I love how these bakeries make anti christian cakes for straight people though. You can’t refuse to bake for black people, or jews either. These tea bagger crybabies need to grow up.
And thank you, once again, for missing the entire point. Instead, let’s only focus on one group being the “crybabies” as you put it. To be as sine with this as I can, this is exactly the problem we have. BOTH sides are full of “crybabies”. You want equality, great! Just make sure it goes both ways. You want to be treated fairly? I absolutely understand that, and agree with you! Just treat me the same way in return. It was this last point which was completely missing from your reply.
As far as I see it, discrimination is discrimination. And oddly enough, discrimination doesn’t discriminate. Also fighting discrimination by being discriminating, is like fighting fire with fire. Or an eye for an eye if you like, in a future where everyone is blind. Is it the future already?
I admit its disappointing to see a comic like this here. If I want political issues in my comic I would go read political cartoons so I won’t be reading this anymore.
So, go back to reading the normal lfg and leave the sidetrack comics alone?
It’s quite literally just fun with the character of Richard. It’s only political if you make it political by looking for absurd connections that no one else sees because they’re reading the funnies.
Politics? please. The guys weren’t wearing shoes. No shoes no service.
So that comic made me laugh…….anyone else?…….hello?
It’s a comic…. it has Richard… The person will be dead next episode so stop arguing about gay rights and what-not.
This is something Richard would notice?
Anyway, I wonder if ‘humble pie’ is on the menu…..
so,we jump from the very moment of creation (ahem), right into more-or-less present day?0-0 will this even have a storyline,or will it be 3-panel jokes,like a LFG-garfield comic?
I believe it was stated that this would be just a simple strip-style comic featuring Richard and was not directly related to the main story line in any way.
You are all making assumptions, they are not gay simply because they happen to be with each other at that moment. There is something called “friends.” Come on guys.
HA-HA i’m from Arizona, and i defiantly would have noticed if Richard was here
I’m not sure I’d be defiant with Richard at all. Just sayin’
But the strip got it wrong. The law was not about refusing to serve someone at all but not be forced to serve at a function that violates their beliefs. I would say the issue is not eating in the restaurant but if the two men had asked the restaurant to cater their wedding. We’ve had a series of lawsuits where there business did not want to participate in an activity the business owners did not believe were morally right on religious grounds (i.e. gay weddings in almost all cases). These businesses had sold products/services to these individuals many times before in ways unconnected with that issue. Upon refusing to want to take part in said activity (gay weddings) they were sued by the gay couples. And in almost all cases they lost, paid fines and in some cases served jail time. How is that different than someone coming and saying “I’m having a human sacrifice and I want you to cater/provide flowers/cake/DJ/etc.” and then be sued for not wanting to have anything to do with it and having to pay a fine, legal fees and possibly jail time and still having to provide service/goods to said event? Ok, human sacrifice is an extreme and possibly absurd example but I wanted to pick something that most people in general (in Western culture) would abhore.
I find it sad that the strip creators chose to go with the lgbt side of the arguement and not give it the fair shake it deserves. I would prefer that the strip hadn’t been done but it has and the comment section has been interesting to read and a lot of misinformation given and several attempts to explane what it was really about not what was protayed in the media.
What kind of mind turns baking a cake into human sacrifice? We went through this before. You don’t get to decide who sits at the lunch counters,
The issue isn’t, “who can decide who sits at the lunch counter”. The proposed law does not allow business to refuse service at an individual level based on sexual preference. The intention was to protect the business from willfully refusing service for an event. Instead of human sacrifice, what about the Klu Klux Klan? The business may not refuse service to the individual, but the KKK has no right to force a business to serve at a KKK rally, based on the businesses moral principles. Performing a service for said individual is typically only seen as providing a service at the point of sale. Performing a service for an entire event can be construed as supporting said cause. In this case, a catering company who services a KKK rally may be seen as agreeing with the Klan’s point of view (guilty through association). Whether or not you believe in their principles, being forced to serve a group (or risk litigation) is a lose/lose situation for some businesses.
Respect for other’s decisions is a two way street. This is no different than a LGBT food service business owner refusing to serve an event whose motto is: “We believe that abortions should be mandatory – all babies should be bred in test-tubes/Matrix style”, if said business owner feels that morally opposed to the cause and does not wish to be associated with its message. Its not about spreading bigotry, its about protecting the individual’s choices (the right to perform/refuse service based on personal moral obligation).
I can see how this may provoke a sexism reaction from some, though the original intent of the proposed law did not have that in mind. The purpose was misinterpreted by citizens. The language is ambiguous at times as well.
A lot of us are non too happy with them either, but just now they don’t run the government. The Christians do. And for the 100,000 time Obama is NOT a “stealth Muslim”
Refusing service on petty grounds just means that business goes to someone who is willing to provide the same service, who can advertise that they don’t discriminate. In short, if you want to shoot your business in the foot with buckshot, please don’t ask for a bailout, because it’s your own fault you got into a financial pickle.
That being said, you can have a conversation with the customer if you feel that their request is in bad taste. Mature human beings should be able to come to some sort of an agreement without starting a lawsuit.
I didn’t even consider that the guys leaving in panel 1 were gay, I just figured that they were abusive toward the staff and were shown the door, which sets up panel 2. Then I saw the comments bit. Oh well.
So while people are talking about this I would like to clear a few things up.
1. Christians should not hate people who are homosexual. The Bible states that ACTS of homosexuality are a sin, NOT BEING homosexual. Love the sinner, hate the sin.
2. In defense of the cake maker he would bake for the couple regularly. He just didn’t want to cater their wedding. You wouldn’t force a Homosexual business owner to cater a Westboro Baptist Church protest would you?
3. @jesseleonhenson:disqus The Bible says nothing about the rich being evil or that Christians should hate the rich. The quote you used was Jesus explaining that it is harder to focus on God when you are wealthy.
Because we’re not seeing any gays killed by Muslims within a country where we have the power to enact laws.
In fact, you can soundly see a lot of the same folks that criticize Arizona’s law will ALSO criticize countries which put gays to death.
However, the presence of a greater wrong doesn’t make it incorrect to fight the lesser wrong.
We have laws against shoplifting, even though we still have murders in this country. We don’t have to solve the “murder problem” before we can stop the theft of property.
who said that i wouldn’t fight back? id use my super fists of punchiness, my head of buting, feets of ass kicking, and my knees of groin slapping
And then you’re a little pile of ash asking for the services of a healer.