NFL may pull the plug on AZ Super Bowl if anti-gay bill passes

[SciFiAuthor]

Of course. The question was: should a black business owner have the right to refuse service to a Klansman. The answer to that is no. And there is no way a white supremacist would deign to support a business owned by a black person, so the question is basically pointless. The only correlation between what is happening in AZ and your proposed scenario is discrimination and denial of free speech/thought.

You can change the nature of the question then, should an atheist artist be able to refuse a commission for a painting of Jesus? Or a gay artist asked to paint a heterosexual sex scene? There's all sorts of implications here for anyone doing any kind of business. It's simpler to just let the black business owner refuse to do business with the Klansman, or the baker to refuse the cake. And let's face it, white supremacists would do business with the black business owner just to screw with them and society. 

Considering my family has lived in the DC Metro area for over 50 years moves in political circles, I am very well acquainted with special interest groups and how they operate. I even happen to know some real, live lobbyists! Gasp! I have seen and heard some very interesting things in my time and I am pretty sure I have a firm grasp on how complicated the world is, especially the world of politics. But thanks for the tip.

Well, then you know how they act. Quite a few of them are just out to screw with everyone else and they'll use whatever they can to do it. Especially extremist ones like the Klan.

Although, I still don't see how the single, hypothetical klansman trying to do some shopping morphed into a special interest group and protests, considering the simplicity of the question.

I think it's because the legal world never ends up simple. It turns into this huge mess where prosecutors try to bend laws to fit cases and the court system has to weed through all the grey areas and maybes to make such a law work. Look at anti-terrorism laws, they were intended to be anti-terrorism laws. Yet the FBI is out using those laws to bust pot smugglers. New laws are not the answer for everything, and about all a law intended to force the baker to make the cake will do is make the baker say "When's the wedding? Saturday? oh, I'm full up until next Wednesday, sorry," and then seethe in resentment over both the law and the gay people. All while the FBI twists some provision of the law to bust some pet shop owner for stocking a restricted chinchilla.

That's no solution. That's just a reason for social activists to pat themselves on the back in the coffee shop and pretend they accomplished something. It doesn't do anything in the real world except make the baker choose different words to do the same thing.

[SciFiAuthor]

Klansmen are a special interest group? Your true stripes are showing, sir.

It's not 1964. I doubt you'd have police breaking up a picket line.

And yes, the Klan is a special interest group. I guess you could also call it an advocacy group because that's what they do, distasteful as it is, and were in fact once one of the most powerful political lobbies in the United States via the Democratic Party. As far as the stripes thing, that's just silly bullshit.

[SciFiAuthor]

White male hegemony is coming to an end; you have two choices - withdraw (take your ball and go home)

Sales of gay cakes would skyrocket.

[albrecht]

One of the (many) problems is the over-use of statutory law and regulations not allowing juries and local judges judgement, too much "super court" oversight (I use to mean that "everything" needs to go to some unelected Federal Court), and lack of juries taking up their own duties (to both judge the facts, and the law, and acquit people on a case-by-case basis own their own) and common sense and decency (what type of "homo" wants to buy a cake from a business that hates them, what type of "Christian" wants to tell a "homo" they can't eat a cake" anywhere or do whatever they wish in their own room. Why not just go to where you want to go and let other live their own lives. And keep stuff out of the public view, not because "it is wrong" but because, maybe, sex should not be done in public and common decency says people can disagree on politics, religion(s), or race and- if can't- avoid confrontation?)

[WhiteCrow]

Sales of gay cakes would skyrocket.

I just assume that all Bakers are gay.

[SciFiAuthor]

I just assume that all Bakers are gay.

I assume that all baked goods are gay.

I can't wait until this thread evolves into questions like:

1. What happens when someone asks a Muslim baker to make a Prophet Muhammad cake?

2. What happens when the erotic gay cake specialist puts a protest dick on the Jesus cake he was forced to bake? Does he go to jail?

[Bart Ell]

What would Johnny Cash think?

[RealCool Daddio]

It's not 1964. I doubt you'd have police breaking up a picket line.

And yes, the Klan is a special interest group. I guess you could also call it an advocacy group because that's what they do, distasteful as it is, and were in fact once one of the most powerful political lobbies in the United States via the Democratic Party. As far as the stripes thing, that's just silly bullshit.

By your definition, aren't religions nothing but special interest groups as well?

[SciFiAuthor]

By your definition, aren't religions nothing but special interest groups as well?

If they lobby, then yes.

[Birdie]

The thing I don't understand is why people think gay marriage is being 'foisted' upon them. Really? How, in any way, does gay marriage affect you, or your own marriage, personally? It does not, unless you have a family member who is gay or you choose to let it bother you. What it really boils down to is nothing to do with marriage, it is bigotry against gays in general. Opposition to gay marriage is simply a flimsy shield homophobic bigots think they are hiding behind. But no one, other than those doing the 'hiding,' is dumb enough to not see this for what it really is.

If marriage is so sacrosanct to there people, why are they not out there protesting divorce? There is the real root moral decay: broken families accompanied by absentee parenting. And If you think a gay marriage somehow devalues your own marriage, obviously, you don't take your commitment very seriously or comprehend the real meaning of marriage. Why are these supposed champions of 'true marriage' not speaking out against forced or arranged marriages? Because they don't truly believe any of this, they just hate faggots and are trying to pretend it is not reprehensible conduct.  Ahh, hating your neighbor is such a good, wholesome Christian value. Look at John 4:20- 'Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen.' That is real Christianity, along with loving your neighbor, taking care of the poor, and believing only god can judge others.

I also find it ironic that the people against gay marriage are usually the same ones talking about defending constitutional freedoms and keeping the government out of private citizens' lives. Next time I hear that claptrap, I am calling Bullshit. When you are supposedly a champion of constitutional rights, you do not have the luxury of picking and choosing which issues suit you and you personal shortcomings.

[RealCool Daddio]

If they lobby, then yes.

There are lobby groups for pretty much every cause, hobby, vocation, industry, religious group, charity, etc.  to reduce the entire political arena - in fact, the whole country - to nothing more than a random collection of "special interest groups" makes the term meaningless, along with your original post on the matter.

[The General]

The thing I don't understand is why people think gay marriage is being 'foisted' upon them. Really? How, in any way, does gay marriage affect you, or your own marriage, personally?

Because, in order to allow same sex marriage, the definition of marriage is changed from male/female to any two people.  Christ, is it that hard to understand?  No one's civil rights were being violated by marriage being between people of the opposite sex.  Any male can marry any female and vice versa.  It really is a monumental, experimental seismic shift in the concept of marriage, and it's something that has never been tried before in the history of civilization.  It baffles me that people see it as anything but radical.  In fact, in order to believe that same sex marriage is a civil right, you must believe that every great civil rights leader since the beginning of recorded history and up until about 2010 was a shortsighted "homophobe."

[SciFiAuthor]

There are lobby groups for pretty much every cause, hobby, vocation, industry, religious group, charity, etc.  to reduce the entire political arena - in fact, the whole country - to nothing more than a random collection of "special interest groups" makes the term meaningless, along with your original post on the matter.

I didn't invent the term nor do I dictate its common usage. If you're so against terms with broad definitions, you'll have to stop using the word 'American'. It clearly reduces the whole country to a nothing more than a meaningless blanket term that fails to reflect the nation's diversity. Of course advocating against the term's use would be more silly bullshit, but silly bullshit does seem to float your boat.

[SciFiAuthor]

There are lobby groups for pretty much every cause, hobby, vocation, industry, religious group, charity, etc.  to reduce the entire political arena - in fact, the whole country - to nothing more than a random collection of "special interest groups" makes the term meaningless, along with your original post on the matter.

Oh and you know, my original point on that when we decided to fly off into semantics land was that the Klan, being insidious as is it is, would simply seek to use that law to screw with society. They'd just go into black bakeries and behave like asses with legal impunity. They already do that, they've been using the free speech mantra for decades to march and demonstrate in front of schools and god knows where. They're not doing that for protest reasons or anything constructive, they're just out to fuck with society.

Now, you claim that's incorrect. Kindly tell me why.

[albrecht]

Now, you claim that's incorrect. Kindly tell me why.

Because unless the offending group seeking to undermine society (or pass their weird agenda) has backing in high places, particularly in the judiciary, who for the most part are not elected, their antics, protests, or disruptions will not gain them any victory. But when ones has a situation of a  politically appointed judiciary seeking more aggrandizement of their power and an administration willing to "look the other way" and a Congress divided and a Federal system without balance of power so that the people, individual states, or even Congress have no say, effectively, you will get whatever that powerful Judicial system dictates. Jefferson was spot-on.

[RealCool Daddio]

Because, in order to allow same sex marriage, the definition of marriage is changed from male/female to any two people.  Christ, is it that hard to understand?  No one's civil rights were being violated by marriage being between people of the opposite sex.  Any male can marry any female and vice versa.  It really is a monumental, experimental seismic shift in the concept of marriage, and it's something that has never been tried before in the history of civilization.  It baffles me that people see it as anything but radical.  In fact, in order to believe that same sex marriage is a civil right, you must believe that every great civil rights leader since the beginning of recorded history and up until about 2010 was a shortsighted "homophobe."

The problem is not with the definition of marriage, but with the societal benefits that a spousal union carries with it - shared assets, tax status, legal protections such as not having to testify against a spouse in court, etc. That special status is indeed denied to homosexual partnerships (and until not that long ago, interracial ones), and is therefore discriminatory.

[RealCool Daddio]

Oh and you know, my original point on that when we decided to fly off into semantics land was that the Klan, being insidious as is it is, would simply seek to use that law to screw with society. They'd just go into black bakeries and behave like asses with legal impunity. They already do that, they've been using the free speech mantra for decades to march and demonstrate in front of schools and god knows where. They're not doing that for protest reasons or anything constructive, they're just out to fuck with society.

Now, you claim that's incorrect. Kindly tell me why.

No, your original point was that someone standing up for equal treatment under the law was nothing but a rabble rousing member of a special interest group, akin to to a Klansman.

You live in a more complicated world than that. I think they'd patronize the hell out of a business that refuses them just to draw attention to the matter. All special interest groups do.

[SciFiAuthor]

No, your original point was that someone standing up for equal treatment under the law was nothing but a rabble rousing member of a special interest group, akin to to a Klansman.

I never made any such point:


Quote from: Birdie on Yesterday at 02:24:48 AM

Nope. It is still discrimination. I doubt a Klansman would choose to patronize a black person's business, anyway.

Me:
You live in a more complicated world than that. I think they'd patronize the hell out of a business that refuses them just to draw attention to the matter. All special interest groups do.

That does not equate to what you claim I said.

I will clarify again. I believe absolutely that the Klan would patronize a black business under such an anti-discrimination law just to thumb their nose at everyone because the law would protect them and the black business owner couldn't tell them to get lost, he'd be forced to do business with them against his will. Hell, might as well put a provision in that he has to call the Klansman master because you're forcing him to serve someone against his will.

Since we obviously can't allow that, you'd have to start making exceptions. And exceptions mean that you are no longer compliant with the spirit of equal treatment under the law.

Fuck that, keep it simple. Picket the fucking baker and do some damage to his business through exposure and word of mouth.

[PB the Deplorable]

So what's the fight, then?  Not for nothing but I made the argument I wanted to make and I made it well.  Obviously, since it has drawn another professorial lecture from you.

As usual, your premise is flawed by your fear of change and your idea of the way things ought to be.  Change is happening; people who comprise our nation are no longer White Anglo Saxon Protestants. As I said to the General earlier, life is giving you two choices: jump in or jump off.  As I said to him, and I mean this to you, I hope you jump in.  Please don't keep crapping all over it because the good ol' days of white men calling all the shots is fading into the sunset.

Our President has a contempt for the same old Good Ol' Boys club that rules America through economic power and he likes to stick his thumb in their eye whenever he can.  The fundamental flaw with conservatives is you believe your wealth gives some sort of primacy in societal decision making or some keen insight into the true nature of human relations. (Hint: this is why you lose Presidential elections.)

Truth is, judges disagree with your narrow, protectionist view of America.  They see what's happening all around and realize that people wanted to be treated like people, not subordinated into subclasses as conservatives would have them do. In the end, isn't that really the most important American principle, equal treatment under the law?

Do you agree with this person?  If not, how is what she's saying really any different from your post

http://www.examiner.com/article/harvard-student-free-speech-hurts-liberalism-must-be-stopped

[SciFiAuthor]

Because unless the offending group seeking to undermine society (or pass their weird agenda) has backing in high places, particularly in the judiciary, who for the most part are not elected, their antics, protests, or disruptions will not gain them any victory. But when ones has a situation of a  politically appointed judiciary seeking more aggrandizement of their power and an administration willing to "look the other way" and a Congress divided and a Federal system without balance of power so that the people, individual states, or even Congress have no say, effectively, you will get whatever that powerful Judicial system dictates. Jefferson was spot-on.

I agree, though I'm not sure how to deal with the judiciary. Political appointees are clearly just going to result in politics undermining the fairness and objectivity of a judge. That results in activist judges. But I'm not sure electing them works that much better, again, because the people themselves are just as political. That results in hanging judges who wish to appear tough on crime for reelection. That's one I have no solution for thus far, other than maybe some effective system of judicial accountability to keep them in line along with a one term only rule if we're going to elect them.

[Yorkshire pud]

The thing I don't understand is why people think gay marriage is being 'foisted' upon them. Really? How, in any way, does gay marriage affect you, or your own marriage, personally? It does not, unless you have a family member who is gay or you choose to let it bother you. What it really boils down to is nothing to do with marriage, it is bigotry against gays in general. Opposition to gay marriage is simply a flimsy shield homophobic bigots think they are hiding behind. But no one, other than those doing the 'hiding,' is dumb enough to not see this for what it really is.

If marriage is so sacrosanct to there people, why are they not out there protesting divorce? There is the real root moral decay: broken families accompanied by absentee parenting. And If you think a gay marriage somehow devalues your own marriage, obviously, you don't take your commitment very seriously or comprehend the real meaning of marriage. Why are these supposed champions of 'true marriage' not speaking out against forced or arranged marriages? Because they don't truly believe any of this, they just hate faggots and are trying to pretend it is not reprehensible conduct.  Ahh, hating your neighbor is such a good, wholesome Christian value. Look at John 4:20- 'Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen.' That is real Christianity, along with loving your neighbor, taking care of the poor, and believing only god can judge others.

I also find it ironic that the people against gay marriage are usually the same ones talking about defending constitutional freedoms and keeping the government out of private citizens' lives. Next time I hear that claptrap, I am calling Bullshit. When you are supposedly a champion of constitutional rights, you do not have the luxury of picking and choosing which issues suit you and you personal shortcomings.

^^^Bang on.

I think there's an element of self loathing by some of those who shout the loudest against (insert group). As you say though, if the bigots were so wrapped up in the sanctity of marriage, they'd be finding ways to ensure couples stayed together in rocky times, and offering practical help. Maybe even offer to take the kids away for a week in a camp so the parents could work out their problems.

As for 'seismic shifts', well it was a seismic shift when women were allowed to vote, allowed to decide who they married without their fathers 'permission', allowed to divorce their husbands, allowed to decide when they conceived. Move on. If Lesbians and Gays want to marry, whose business is it of anyone but the couple? Who else does it effect? 

[SciFiAuthor]

^^^Bang on.

I think there's an element of self loathing by some of those who shout the loudest against (insert group). As you say though, if the bigots were so wrapped up in the sanctity of marriage, they'd be finding ways to ensure couples stayed together in rocky times, and offering practical help. Maybe even offer to take the kids away for a week in a camp so the parents could work out their problems.

As for 'seismic shifts', well it was a seismic shift when women were allowed to vote, allowed to decide who they married without their fathers 'permission', allowed to divorce their husbands, allowed to decide when they conceived. Move on. If Lesbians and Gays want to marry, whose business is it of anyone but the couple? Who else does it effect?

Why don't we ask why a government should be involved in dictating to everyone what two adults can choose to get married? Why do you need a license or permission at all? But that's how we're framing it, isn't it? Make it legal or make it illegal. Fuck that, how about we inform the government that we've married and wish to inform it for legal purposes. As long as the law is confined to preventing people from marrying goats or ten-year-olds, you tell me what's wrong with that.

[Yorkshire pud]

Why don't we ask why a government should be involved in dictating to everyone what two adults can choose to get married? Why do you need a license or permission at all? But that's how we're framing it, isn't it? Make it legal or make it illegal. Fuck that, how about we inform the government that we've married and wish to inform it for legal purposes. As long as the law is confined to preventing people from marrying goats or ten-year-olds, you tell me what's wrong with that.

Didn't Jerry Lee Lewis marry a 13 year old? Wasn't Jesus' mother Mary the same age when she gave birth? Neither is my cup of bath water. The government passes the laws. In some cases it's seen as sacrosanct, and the means to live by to have a wholesome and fulfilling existence.. But as  Birdie said above:

I also find it ironic that the people against gay marriage are usually the same ones talking about defending constitutional freedoms and keeping the government out of private citizens' lives. Next time I hear that claptrap, I am calling Bullshit. When you are supposedly a champion of constitutional rights, you do not have the luxury of picking and choosing which issues suit you and you personal shortcomings.

You can't have it both ways. You (as in the USA) has a constitution that is intractable or you don't.

My own view is although I wouldn't marry a man if I was gay, I wouldn't see it as impinging on me if two gay guys did marry, and why should it? FWIW, I know a couple of gay blokes and both say they disagree with the concept of gay marriage, but they understand why some support it. But I'm sure you'd find straight people who disagree with the concept of heterosexual marriage too. Both are entitled to have their view.

[Ben Shockley]

Okay, you paragons of Almighty Individualism and Laissez-Faire Market Dominance:
If anyone mentioned this already in here, I didn't see it.
I think this sort of thing was hashed out in the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1950s, regarding interstate commerce.  I know that you'll say "but what if it's not interstate, but local?" to which I respond thus:

What if you run a totally-private hospital in Desert Ass, Nevada (or Arizona)?  Ninety miles from the other nearest tiny town.  You have fairly good basic trauma-care ability.  Your entire staff is composed of members of your private church, the Temple Of The Sacrosanct Right.  There is a notorious rockslide area near you; cars are always running into rocks in the road at night, or even getting hit by them.  You are the nearest hospital.  You can save a lot of these accident victims.  But you are private.  Your sect happens to believe that only members of The Temple deserve any medical care.  You refuse care to any victims who are not known members of the Temple.  In many accident cases, the extra 2 or 3 hours to get the victims to another hospital will spell their death anyway.
Should you be somehow compelled to provide care?  BE CAREFUL!!  Remember that "slippery slope!"

Oh, as for "let the market take care of it?"  Yeah, like you as consumers can decide to not buy GMO foods IF THE MANUFACTURERS (including local, non-interstate ones) GET LAWS PASSED SO THAT GMO STUFF WON'T BE LABELED??

In the case of the proverbial "cake shop" -- in a situation of total ownership pre-eminence and the presumption of laissez-faire dominance: the shop could state a policy of "full payment due in advance / all sales are final / no refunds," BUT ALSO not tell about their "no service to whomever" policy!"  They collect money from gays or anyone else they hate, then fall back on "religious freedom" to refuse the services which were already paid for.
Now, to really bring it home: imagine it's you being similarly taken by someone with a "deeply-held religious aversion" to Fundamentalist "Christians" and Laissez-Faire Capitalists.
Then what?  Sue / prosecute for "fraud?"  Probably not, because 1) they stated their PAYMENT POLICY, and 2) you allowed them their BIGOTRY POLICY.  SO BE CAREFUL!!  "Slippery slope," right, boys??  Can't let the government get involved at all, right, boys?  If the goddamned government can make a business do anything, like "provide service already paid for," then they can make them do anything, like "provide service, period" -- right, boys??

[onan]

Do you agree with this person?  If not, how is what she's saying really any different from your post

http://www.examiner.com/article/harvard-student-free-speech-hurts-liberalism-must-be-stopped

http://www.thecrimson.com/column/the-red-line/article/2014/2/18/academic-freedom-justice/?page=single#

In an academic classroom I completely agree with that person.

I am fucking ready to shoot assholes that disrupt education with idiotic misconceptions.

It would have been better for you to post the actual article rather than someone else's perspective. Somehow I think your take would have been different.

[Ben Shockley]

I am fucking ready to shoot assholes that disrupt education with idiotic misconceptions.

Reason #3 why I quit "teaching."

[Birdie]

I never made any such point:


Quote from: Birdie on Yesterday at 02:24:48 AM

Nope. It is still discrimination. I doubt a Klansman would choose to patronize a black person's business, anyway.

Me:
You live in a more complicated world than that. I think they'd patronize the hell out of a business that refuses them just to draw attention to the matter. All special interest groups do.

That does not equate to what you claim I said.

I will clarify again. I believe absolutely that the Klan would patronize a black business under such an anti-discrimination law just to thumb their nose at everyone because the law would protect them and the black business owner couldn't tell them to get lost, he'd be forced to do business with them against his will. Hell, might as well put a provision in that he has to call the Klansman master because you're forcing him to serve someone against his will.

I think you may have not ever had the extreme displeasure of meeting a member if the Klan (as far as you are aware, that is). They do not operate like other groups united around a common idea do, nor do they want to. That is why they are such a horrible choice to use for comparison to any other group. They would not hang around like gadflies. The approach would be far more insidious.

Anonymity is paramount to the Klan and no one is entering a bakery wearing their white hood. New-ish anti-terrorism laws make it legal for police to demand masks or other face coverings be removed. It is reasonable for a shopkeeper to fear robbery when someone enters a business with their face covered. It is illegal in some states, not sure about Arizona. Public exposure of identity is too risky a proposition for cowards like the Klan.

The anonymity of members is Priority No. 1. Real members will never be acknowledged for who they are in a public place. The people giving quotes on the news or being indiscreet are looked down on by the group. Those speakers are fakers, shills created by the press, or hangers-on to the group who will not ever be inducted. They are considered fools, almost as lowly as those the group hates. The Klan is kind of like Fight Club, members MUST remain anonymous or the whole thing falls apart.

[Ben Shockley]

I have to add this because I know that most of the readers that I'm describing and wish I could reach are too thick to have "got it" already:

Regarding private businesses' conduct: you assume a "marketplace" that is somehow magically regulated just enough that "the Big Boys" (who most of y'all seem to espouse hating) won't collude to run over everybody, and/or the "little players" won't connive to fuck you personally-- BUT your ideology won't allow anyone to do the regulating.

Ultimately, if you follow your desperate, willful laissez-faire / "Libertarian" / Ayn-Randian ideology, it comes down to who has the bigger / more-loyal kinship group with more guns or even clubs and rocks and bare hands.  Whoever can beat-up or kill the other guy is "right."  My friends: you had better consider long and hard whether that is the kind of "society" you want to live in.
And if so, you don't belong in "society" and I honestly suggest your moving to the highlands of Somalia.
Just get used to Islam and all the thin-nosed Blacks.

[SciFiAuthor]

Didn't Jerry Lee Lewis marry a 13 year old? Wasn't Jesus' mother Mary the same age when she gave birth? Neither is my cup of bath water. The government passes the laws. In some cases it's seen as sacrosanct, and the means to live by to have a wholesome and fulfilling existence.. But as  Birdie said above:

Yes, he did, which is why I said you'd need a law to keep people from marrying goats and ten year-olds. But why on earth do you need one for consenting adults? Get the government out of it, and then the gay people can get married by sympathetic clergy, sea captains, etc. and the right gets a nod with the government being removed from an aspect of life.

You can't have it both ways. You (as in the USA) has a constitution that is intractable or you don't.

My own view is although I wouldn't marry a man if I was gay, I wouldn't see it as impinging on me if two gay guys did marry, and why should it? FWIW, I know a couple of gay blokes and both say they disagree with the concept of gay marriage, but they understand why some support it. But I'm sure you'd find straight people who disagree with the concept of heterosexual marriage too. Both are entitled to have their view.

I don't see a problem with it either. Marriage is a private matter between two adults. It's no one else's business, especially the government, to frivolously get in their way and impede their pursuit of happiness and trample on their liberty.

[SciFiAuthor]

I think you may have not ever had the extreme displeasure of meeting a member if the Klan (as far as you are aware, that is). They do not operate like other groups united around a common idea do, nor do they want to. That is why they are such a horrible choice to use for comparison to any other group. They would not hang around like gadflies. The approach would be far more insidious.

Pfft, they protested outside my school in full robes when I was 16. They've learned what all political special interest groups know: use imperfections in the system to effect change. They may be splintered, I wouldn't know, but I'm sure they do know what all the other white supremacist groups do and they've all been registering to lobby in Washington for several years now.

http://www.examiner.com/article/pro-white-christian-identity-hate-group-registers-to-lobby-washington-dc

Anonymity is paramount to the Klan and no one is entering a bakery wearing their white hood. New-ish anti-terrorism laws make it legal for police to demand masks or other face coverings be removed. It is reasonable for a shopkeeper to fear robbery when someone enters a business with their face covered. It is illegal in some states, not sure about Arizona. Public exposure of identity is too risky a proposition for cowards like the Klan.

I dunno, every time I see them marching or holding a rally on the news they've got their faces uncovered.

The anonymity of members is Priority No. 1. Real members will never be acknowledged for who they are in a public place. The people giving quotes on the news or being indiscreet are looked down on by the group. Those speakers are fakers, shills created by the press, or hangers-on to the group who will not ever be inducted. They are considered fools, almost as lowly as those the group hates. The Klan is kind of like Fight Club, members MUST remain anonymous or the whole thing falls apart.

It seems to me that it's such a small group that if everyone you see without a mask is a shill, then the real klan must have five members with little hope of effectiveness (which is a good thing). But if you say so, simply replace Klan with (insert white supremacist group here) and my point remains the same. Someone's going to use such a law to screw with the baker and society.