• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Arizona anti-gay bill vetoed by governor

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
80,422
Reaction score
29,075
Location
Pittsburgh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Arizona anti-gay bill vetoed by governor - chicagotribune.com


[h=1]Arizona anti-gay bill vetoed by governor[/h]Arizona Governor Jan Brewer vetoed a bill that would have allowed business owners to refuse service to gays or others on religious grounds.
She made the announcement Wednesday evening hours after Major League Baseball and the National Football League joined a growing chorus of business organizations denouncing or expressing strong reservations about the legislation.

back up links:

Arizona governor vetoes anti-gay bill
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer Vetoes Anti-Gay Bill - NBC News
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoes so-called anti-gay bill - latimes.com
Arizona governor vetoes controversial bill allowing denial of service to gays
Arizona Governor Vetoes Bill Seen Discriminating Against Gays - Businessweek
Jan Brewer Announces Veto Of Arizona Anti-Gay Bill SB 1062
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoes anti-gay bill | MSNBC
Arizona governor vetoes anti-gay bill - Chicago Sun-Times


vetoed just like i thought and said it would be


equality wins again


again it shows the panic and fear of the bigots and those that support discrimination and are against equal rights. They see the writing on the wall, they know equal rights is winning and is going to win the war so they are getting desperate.

The best part is, even if they win some of these little battles its things like this that are actually HELPING equal rights. The majority of the public eye judges it as wrong and see how nuts it is. But it establishes something that can be challenged in courts just like the state bannings. The vast majority of the lawsuits exist BECAUSE of state bannings lol. The bannings HELPED, its sweet poetic justice.

THeres some other state trying these i hope they get some momentum behind them to draw more of the public eye on this insanity.
 
Last edited:
Do you have a link to that?
 
Inb4 the crocodile tears begin to flow like crazy in this thread.

Go ahead, those of you who want to legally deny LGBT rights. See how far that gets you these days. Let me give you a little piece of advice: If the party which you vote for--which is significantly more likely to be Republican than Democratic--continues to run against LGBT rights, then you (plural) are going to be FINISHED as a national party. :) So go ahead and let your hate flow. The only place it's going to flow forever is on the pages of the history books. :)
 
I have heard that there are plenty of LGBT groups that would love to be a part of drafting new versions of these bills so that religious liberties can be protected and incidents like the Cake Shop Owner and Wedding Photographer will not happen in other states. Instead of being adversarial, why not include gay rights folks so that we can have legislation that genuinely seeks to secure religious liberty rather than just trying to strip gay rights under the guise of religion? Freedom of association should be a public discussion, not a partisan issue.
 
I have to admit, I'm torn on this one. On one hand, I think businesses should have the right to refuse on any basis, on the other hand, if we allow people to refuse service because of religion, where does it stop?
 
Inb4 the crocodile tears begin to flow like crazy in this thread.

Go ahead, those of you who want to legally deny LGBT rights. See how far that gets you these days. Let me give you a little piece of advice: If the party which you vote for--which is significantly more likely to be Republican than Democratic--continues to run against LGBT rights, then you (plural) are going to be FINISHED as a national party. :) So go ahead and let your hate flow. The only place it's going to flow forever is on the pages of the history books. :)

its a shame to because i the super vast majority of republicans i know and religious people HATE this crap.
they do not support it in the least

there are MILLIONS of republicans that support equal rights for gays and totally appalled by this nonsense
 
We kiss our rights good bye more and more, everyday.
 
Yet you're pro choice and pro human rights.. oh and pro equal rights.. Isn't an unborn baby a human, what makes it less worthy of equal protection that you so vehemently crusade for?


Tim-
 
Yet you're pro choice and pro human rights.. oh and pro equal rights.. Isn't an unborn baby a human, what makes it less worthy of equal protection that you so vehemently crusade for?


Tim-

I tend to oppose abortion on principle. The politics are just hard to work out.
 
its a shame to because i the super vast majority of republicans i know and religious people HATE this crap.
they do not support it in the least

there are MILLIONS of republicans that support equal rights for gays and totally appalled by this nonsense

You must have found the sane ones. A clear majority of Republicans, even in the year 2014, oppose gay marriage rights.
 
You must have found the sane ones. A clear majority of Republicans, even in the year 2014, oppose gay marriage rights.

now that may very well be true, i have to admit i dont know, cant remember if ive ever seen polling on it


but millions support equal rights and in my personal life they either dont talk about it or are for it

probably ashamed and embarrassed
 
Discrimination is not a right, welcome to the 18 ****ing 60s

Before we know it, churches will be forced, by law to perform gay marriages. You can bet your butt that religious freedom is a right.

Discromination is very much a right, especially on private property.
 
Arizona anti-gay bill vetoed by governor - chicagotribune.com




back up links:

Arizona governor vetoes anti-gay bill
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer Vetoes Anti-Gay Bill - NBC News
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoes so-called anti-gay bill - latimes.com
Arizona governor vetoes controversial bill allowing denial of service to gays
Arizona Governor Vetoes Bill Seen Discriminating Against Gays - Businessweek
Jan Brewer Announces Veto Of Arizona Anti-Gay Bill SB 1062
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoes anti-gay bill | MSNBC
Arizona governor vetoes anti-gay bill - Chicago Sun-Times


vetoed just like i thought and said it would be


equality wins again


again it shows the panic and fear of the bigots and those that support discrimination and are against equal rights. They see the writing on the wall, they know equal rights is winning and is going to win the war so they are getting desperate.

The best part is, even if they win some of these little battles its things like this that are actually HELPING equal rights. The majority of the public eye judges it as wrong and see how nuts it is. But it establishes something that can be challenged in courts just like the state bannings. The vast majority of the lawsuits exist BECAUSE of state bannings lol. The bannings HELPED, its sweet poetic justice.

THeres some other state trying these i hope they get some momentum behind them to draw more of the public eye on this insanity.

Imagine, a GOP Governor did that.

hmmmm

Thom Paine
 
I have heard that there are plenty of LGBT groups that would love to be a part of drafting new versions of these bills so that religious liberties can be protected and incidents like the Cake Shop Owner and Wedding Photographer will not happen in other states. Instead of being adversarial, why not include gay rights folks so that we can have legislation that genuinely seeks to secure religious liberty rather than just trying to strip gay rights under the guise of religion? Freedom of association should be a public discussion, not a partisan issue.

Until you can find a reason to allow that cake shop owner and wedding photographer refusing to serve someone on the basis of race, then you cannot permit someone to do so on the basis of religious ideas. If you pick and choose, then you're picking and choosing one "deeply held idea" over another, and that is very very unconstitutional. How can you enshrine the idea that a god hates homosexuality but condemn the idea that a god hates dark skin? Isn't that just as much religious discrimination?

I'm being a bit facetious, but the reality is that no matter why someone wants to discriminate against gay people, it's not alright. If discrimination is wrong, then adding a loophole for people with particularly regressive and cruel religious beliefs isn't protecting anyone's religious freedoms. It's giving special treatment to some religions by exempting them from the law against discrimination. The cake shop owner and the wedding photographer were WRONG. They are bad people who are doing cruel things to their neighbors, and no matter which authority they appeal to as an excuse, it's not alright.

That's not religious liberty. That's enshrining one religious idea over others. That's oppressing religious liberty.
 
its a shame to because i the super vast majority of republicans i know and religious people HATE this crap.
they do not support it in the least

there are MILLIONS of republicans that support equal rights for gays and totally appalled by this nonsense

And I know Democrats who are against same sex marriage and a business owner's religious freedoms being violated. So what's your point? Everyone knew Brewer was going to veto this bill and before you do a victory lap it wasn't over gay rights but over threats from corporations like Apple and Microsoft that threatened to pull out of deals if she signed it. It was the pressure from the NFL who threatened to pull the Super Bowl from Arizona next year if she signed the bill. It was two moderate Republicans Romney and McCain that didn't want Brewer to make any waves during an election year. So business owners with religious convictions found favor in the state legislature of AZ but a governor who didn't see protecting their freedoms as important than making deals and appeasing the GOP establishment.
 
We kiss our rights good bye more and more, everyday.

I think Brewer did the right thing in this case.

The idea that this bill was intended to serve is a worthwhile one but the bill itself was bound to create more problems than it fixed.

Arizona public accommodations law doesn't protect homosexuals now and we haven't had any problems because of that. We also haven't had any cases where the problem that this bill sought to solve has come up. In essence, it was a solution in search of a problem.

Furthermore, a law such as this simply BEGS the 'crusaders' on both sides of the fence to come out and we really don't need that either. In fact this bill would have created a situation where any exercise of the option to refuse service would result in a conflict with our state constitution.

Article 2, Section 12 of the Arizona Constitution states:

Section 12. The liberty of conscience secured by the provisions of this constitution shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state. No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise, or instruction, or to the support of any religious establishment. No religious qualification shall be required for any public office or employment, nor shall any person be incompetent as a witness or juror in consequence of his opinion on matters of religion, nor be questioned touching his religious belief in any court of justice to affect the weight of his testimony.

To my admittedly lay reading of the bill and the Constitution I don't see how any court could make a determination in any case that came before them without addressing the religious beliefs of at least one of the parties when protections under SB 1062 were claimed.
 
Imagine, a GOP Governor did that.

hmmmm

Thom Paine

like i said earlier there are milling of GOPers that support equal rights

youll never hear or read me saying otherwise

in fact i correct people when the make blanket statements like that

stereotypically GOPers are against it, maybe even the majority are but most certainly not all of them :)
 
like i said earlier there are milling of GOPers that support equal rights

youll never hear or read me saying otherwise

in fact i correct people when the make blanket statements like that

stereotypically GOPers are against it, maybe even the majority are but most certainly not all of them :)

Perhaps, as a Republican, Ms. Brewer didn't want to spend millions of taxpayer dollars fighting a hopeless battle.

I posted this in another thread. It my seem like humor, but it isn't exactly so.

My concern with laws of this nature, is that they can be abused.

Anybody can start a religion. They will be tax-exempt. They can write in the rules of their religion. They can open as many as they like. They can sell memberships.

So, I will open a series of religions. Speckleanity forbids my interaction with dark skinned people since a dark skin is the color of evil. So, buy a membership and get those pesky negroes out of your restaurant to avoid their demonic contamination. Maybe I can just package in Jews, Arabs, Heterosexuals and Homosexuals. After all, you don't have to follow your own religion all the time.

I expect to be joining the 1% once I get this going. I'm offering a special for just $499.95 for a membership. It will take a while, that darn IRS will no doubt try o thwart me, but I can not be refused. Church and State separation is a basic tenet of the constitution, isn't it?

Am I not correct?
 
Back
Top Bottom