Posted on 02/21/2014 7:25:04 PM PST by SeekAndFind
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Stick it to their lobby and the New York Slimes!
If Arizona can do it, why can’t Kansas, Oklahoma, Mississippi, South Carolina, etc?
Time after time, we have acted too late. We should have called a Mark Levin style constitutional convention in the 1990s to define marriage as a man and a woman in the constitution, effectively bypassing any judicial rulings. Heck, Clinton might have been on board!
We should have gotten the state constitutional marriage amendments done a DECADE before we started. If we had gotten all the states when there was still broad support, we might have stopped them in their tracks.
NOW IS THE TIME to protect Christians and other sincere people of moral conviction from this outright fascism being perpetrated by a mob no different from the people who used to march around with Ernst Roehm, neither in their views of freedom nor their sexual proclivities.
These freedoms are couched in the 1st Amendment. They cannot be struck down by the Supreme Court without affirming that we no longer have a 1st Amendment, and if they do that, then the time will have come to ‘disband those ties that bind’.
There is no excuse for red states where we control both chambers not to pass similar bills. No excuse whatsoever.
It’s not just the “religious right” that is cheering in Arizona. We love pissing off that criminal thug, Holder.
It’s not “refuse to serve gays”. It is “refuse to participate in a marriage they consider fake and immoral”.
They WANT to say “refuse to serve gays” because then it is like “refuse to serve blacks”. But the correct comparison would be “refuse to drive blacks to a drug deal”.
I’m not “religious” at all ... and I’m cheering
What’s the religion of the taxi drivers at the Phoenix airport? If it’s like the Minneapolis airport, a good number are Muslim. So be aware that their religious beliefs, if protected by this new law, will allow them to leave you at the curbside if you are traveling with a dog (pet or guide dog). Also, brought home duty free liquor? If the cabbie sees it, you’ll remain curbside. I haven’t heard of Muslim cabbies refusing to carry women traveling alone, but I can certainly see that happening. Won’t that make traveling fun?
Oh, it would. It happened to a relative of mine. Bought a nice spread with a second cabin they rented out as a vacation B&B. A 'couple' rented it, the first morning they were frolicking around the yard in their underwear. That was the last time they rented it. To anybody!
You two guys need a cake when? No, we’re already booked for that date. Next!
a legal right to “be” “gay” is not a legal commandment that someone MUST sell you flowers, take your picture or bake you a cake
if people cannot chose, for religious or moral reasons, who they will serve or associate with then there is no Liberty to speak of.
‘We reserve the right to refuse service to the McCains.’
I wouldn’t count on Brewer.
Homosexuals don’t care about Christianity, except in the fevered imaginations of low-information Christians who watch too much television.
I do think they don’t want to end up wearing pink triangles.
Look it up
/for the record, I’m don’t feel threatened by homos, and really don’t care about them
//And before you quote the Bible at me; Lev 15 19-30
I think people better be careful what they wish for. This could backfire on those who are in favor of this bill.
In what way?
It is ridiculous but if the shoe were on the other foot, would those on the right be crying foul, too?
Personally, I’d just take my business elsewhere. No need to make a fuss.
rino wusses backed downed on religious liberty in ks, idaho, ohio. utah is trying to pass religious liberty. these rinos will claim to support traditional marriage, while opposing discrimination. very dishonest of them. the silver lining is that enda (pro-gay rights laws) will stall in congress and other states. only 21 states have enda laws.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.