Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pressure mounts over Arizona bill opposed by gays
AP ^ | February 24, 2014 | Bob Christie

Posted on 02/25/2014 5:49:57 AM PST by C19fan

Republican Gov. Jan Brewer faced intensifying pressure Monday from CEOs, politicians in Washington and state lawmakers in her own party to veto a bill that would allow business owners with strongly held religious beliefs to deny service to gays and lesbians.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: Arizona
KEYWORDS: gay; homosexualagenda; marriage; religion
This is an example of why I think the reality is these conscience laws are going nowhere. Also a reminder that SoCons are all alone on this and will receive no support from the GOPe politicians and their pay masters.
1 posted on 02/25/2014 5:49:57 AM PST by C19fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: C19fan
Queers: "We are the 3.5%."
2 posted on 02/25/2014 5:51:39 AM PST by upchuck (South Carolina Representative Trey Gowdy for Speaker of the House!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan
The gay obsessed media creates, then reports, pressure.

What else is new?

3 posted on 02/25/2014 5:52:19 AM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan
Our rights are being eroded by perverts over their sexual preferences
and their inability to control their sexual addiction. And please don't forget
that they are coming for our Children in the name of sexual freedom. All Pedophiles.
4 posted on 02/25/2014 5:56:18 AM PST by MaxMax (Pay Attention and you'll be pissed off too! FIRE BOEHNER, NOW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

What pressure? The 2 percenters?


5 posted on 02/25/2014 5:59:06 AM PST by Mechanicos (When did we amend the Constitution for a 2nd Federal Prohibition?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan
This is an example of why I think the reality is these conscience laws are going nowhere.

Becuase they're poorly written. Under the Arizona law as passed, any person can deny any services to anyone for any reason so long as they claim it violates their religious beliefs.

6 posted on 02/25/2014 6:00:16 AM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan
NO FREEDOM OF RELIGION IN THE UNITED STATES!
7 posted on 02/25/2014 6:00:28 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

Since this is a “bill”, if Brewer signs it, the courts will overturn it.

Count on it. They always do.


8 posted on 02/25/2014 6:00:56 AM PST by dforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mechanicos

Listening to Imus this AM and the clips they choose from late night TV, the push in pop culture for this, including the studio, and wide audiences of the Late Night circuit, is huge.

The applause for the openly gay basketball player is huge. It’s as if a SEAL team had come back to base without getting questionably shot down, such applause.

The men are whipped into this position by liberal wives and/or studio execs. Are they really applauding this?

The only thing to imagine about any of this if one is to live an honest life is the behavior they engage in. How is that healthy for our culture?

I don’t want this, nor do I want my family subjected to all of this.

In my religion, we treat everyone like God’s children, and we lay people don’t consider what people do in private. Likewise, we don’t want to hear about it.

I know people for 25, 40 years. Friends. I patronize businesses whose proprietors are most likely gay. I never talk about sex with these people, nor anyone else.

I do not bombard myself with sex images through Hollywood films. I keep in the house, on t=TV only things a middle schooler could watch.

I don’t want to think of all this.

If I were a baker in AZ and someone told me they wanted a cake, I’d make it. I don’t want to nor need to know the details. That’s their business.

so these people have the right to say shh I don’t want to hear any details?

You want a cake, here’s a cake. That’s my business. If they ask me if I think they are on the right path in life, I’lll tell them what my religion says, if they would like to know.

Are they asking me to put weird things on the cake? I’ll say no, If I don’t have the right to do that, that’s a problem.


9 posted on 02/25/2014 6:12:17 AM PST by stanne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

Some years back, it was not unusual to see a sign posted near or in the entry of food establishments that read:” We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.”
Also : “No shirt, no shoes, no service.Those days have been swept into the dustbin of PCness.


10 posted on 02/25/2014 6:12:23 AM PST by Straight8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

No, the bill does not “allow them to refuse service to gays” it just does not “FORCE THEM to give service” to anyone they don’t want to serve.

If I don’t want your business how can the government FORCE me to give you service? (and would you really want what I give you if I am forced?)


11 posted on 02/25/2014 6:12:53 AM PST by Mr. K (If you like your constitution, you can keep it...Period.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

When forced to give service to gays tell them you used HOLY WATER in the cake instead of regular water, in an attempt to ‘cure’ them...

I bet hilarity ensues!

(I love it when hilarity ensues)


12 posted on 02/25/2014 6:14:27 AM PST by Mr. K (If you like your constitution, you can keep it...Period.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

I gues AZ will be a “laughingstock” again


13 posted on 02/25/2014 6:16:19 AM PST by Mr. K (If you like your constitution, you can keep it...Period.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

She should sign it and say she’s doing it to appease Muslims who oppose homosexuality...there wouldn’t be a peep out of any politician!


14 posted on 02/25/2014 6:17:20 AM PST by lonestar (It takes a village of idiots to elect a village idiot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stanne

“Listening to Imus this AM”

And I will bet that goofy looking Imus and the rest of the Faux News “conservatives” are all for the bill being vetoed.
Hopefully Brewer will show some nerve and sign it and say in a press conference that everything in this country has a right to religious liberty! Day in and day all you read about is more sodomy crap. It makes me sick to my stomach.


15 posted on 02/25/2014 6:21:09 AM PST by NKP_Vet (“From man’s sweat and God’s love, beer came into the world.” – St. Arnold of Metz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: dforest
Since this is a “bill”, if Brewer signs it, the courts will overturn it.

This is why our Republic is gone. Law is now subject to a cabaal (heh) of elitist lawyers who pick and choose which laws they like, and which they do not. The people are no longer in control. Any law, or even amendment to a states' constitution that the elites dislike, is stripped away by the black robed avant-garde.

I am not represented, I have no say. It is tyranny.

16 posted on 02/25/2014 6:23:40 AM PST by ecomcon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

So? Why shouldn’t a private business be able to serve those they want?


17 posted on 02/25/2014 6:24:44 AM PST by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: C19fan
I see some Republicans who voted for this are calling for its veto.

And a number of corporations are calling for a veto too

I had to read till the end but I found this :
Arizona has no such law protecting people based on sexual orientation.”

And neither does the federal government. So it looks like a symbolic bill.

18 posted on 02/25/2014 6:30:59 AM PST by sickoflibs (Obama : 'You can keep your doctor ')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

Yes.

They have Juansie on, as well. Almost ready to unpause the DVR to witness the “Ooh! you maverick” smooching.

Last week they had Monica Crowley on. Imus commented, nastily, that O’Reilley was right to berate her for her claim that Zero is out to wreck things.

So, Imus interrogated her, with the premise of, gee you look great today, and I like you that’s why I have you on for all these years and You are always wrong and How can you possibly think the president is out to hurt the country, and Do not expect me to back up my accusations with any facts!

He has a self deprecation, and at least he has her on, and lets her talk, more than O’Rielley and more than any liberal MSM guy.

She answered all his questions, and put up with his turning off his mike with great class.

And she non-castratingly presented him with her sound, calm reasonable case.

The whole lot of the guys in the room were so quiet and Imus ended up with his nose (literally) against the mike. He didn’t want to know the truth, but he heard it.

He was funny about it and then changed the subject. His entire audience heard her case, uninterrupted. So, It was good. He and the guys knew she had a very good point, and if they don’t agree, they let her talk to the audience.

Which makes him better than all the other MSM dopes and good on Fox, as his NY radio audience is not conservative


19 posted on 02/25/2014 6:35:41 AM PST by stanne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

But he’s a crabby old whipped man in most ways and a portrayal of his wide audience of the same type.

It’s hard to witness but it is what’s going on.

It is not our only source of news, trust me.


20 posted on 02/25/2014 6:38:35 AM PST by stanne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: skeeter
Just the normal "news" cycle:

Monday: Black, black, black, black, black, black, black ...
Tuesday: Gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay ...
Wednesday thru Sunday: Repeat cycle

How two groups which together comprise less than 15% of the population of the United States get so much attention from the other 85% percent is mind-boggling!

21 posted on 02/25/2014 6:45:09 AM PST by glennaro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012
So? Why shouldn’t a private business be able to serve those they want?

You own a grocery store and your Jewish employee says they won't ring up pork because it violates their religious beliefs, and oh by the way forget them coming in on the Sabbath. Under this law you can't do anything to them. A government clerk refuses to give a marriage certificate to a couple where one was divorced before claiming it violates their religious beliefs. Under the law they're free to do so. A Muslim cab driver refuses to pick up a blind person with a seeing-eye dog. Legal under this act. That's what I said, it's a poorly written law that leaves it open for all kinds of questionable actions.

22 posted on 02/25/2014 6:50:48 AM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: stanne

“Last week they had Monica Crowley on”

Crowley should take a cue from Michele Malkin and refuse to go on O’Reilly. Malkin got sick and tired of him berating her for attacking King Obama (telling the truth). He would of course always try to talk over her. He does the same with Crowley and everyone else. Many times you want to hear these real conservatives talk and loudmouth will not let them. He actually thinks liberals are watching his show and he wants to be seen as an “independent”. No doubt in my mind if MSNBC had hired O’Reilly years ago he would be a skinny version of Ed Shultz. He’s about as conservative as my St. Bernard when she’s hungry. By the way Malkin refuses to go on is show now. Crowley should do the same.


23 posted on 02/25/2014 6:51:21 AM PST by NKP_Vet (“From man’s sweat and God’s love, beer came into the world.” – St. Arnold of Metz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

I believe private busineses shoild be allowed to run their business as they choose.


24 posted on 02/25/2014 6:57:04 AM PST by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

The very fact of the screeching vitriol by the homosexists is solid proof that this bill is desperately needed.


25 posted on 02/25/2014 7:20:41 AM PST by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stanne

You want a cake, here’s a cake.
+++++++
The baker may bake the cake but it doesn’t have to be good one. If it ‘turns out’ to taste like crap, he can politely offer their money back if they complain.


26 posted on 02/25/2014 7:28:11 AM PST by RetSignman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

Let’s be honest, anyone can refuse service to anyone if they come up with a legal reason, e.g., “I didn’t like his attitude.”

What these bills do is help religious people avoid lawsuits by homosexual activists who are trying to outlaw religion.


27 posted on 02/25/2014 7:43:45 AM PST by MikeyB806
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg
Becuase they're poorly written. Under the Arizona law as passed, any person can deny any services to anyone for any reason so long as they claim it violates their religious beliefs.

It's worse that that. An employee could make up a cockamamie "relgious" excuse for goofing off all day and nobody would be able to do anything about it.

28 posted on 02/25/2014 7:43:45 AM PST by Aqua Buddhist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: stanne
Are they asking me to put weird things on the cake? I’ll say no, If I don’t have the right to do that, that’s a problem.

What if they ask you to put two guys wearing tuxedos on the top of the cake? Would you do that?

29 posted on 02/25/2014 7:47:14 AM PST by Cyber Liberty (H.L. Mencken: "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: C19fan
The great Jan Brewer will fold like a cheap suit and Veto this. Sher hasn't the stomach nor the motivation to stand up to the gays.

I have to laugh, because of all the singing of her praises on FR a couple years back. Photo shops were done with her as a tough Rosie the Riveter.

Remember this one? The only reason she stood tall was because she was pandering. I hate pandering, even if it's to us, because they always revert to form when you need them the most.

30 posted on 02/25/2014 7:53:07 AM PST by Cyber Liberty (H.L. Mencken: "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K
If I don’t want your business how can the government FORCE me to give you service?

Easy, civil rights laws. Those statues created to force businesses to serve blacks in the 1960’s opened the door to what we have now. Rather than use economics and shame to end racist practices we gave the government the power to decide what discrimination is appropriate and now we get “human rights commissions” forcing Christians at gunpoint to serve homosexuals.

That is why this Arizona bill is a bad idea. We do not need to further enshrine civil rights legislation with band-aide fixes. We need to rip out the problem at the root and do away with the original freedom violating laws.

31 posted on 02/25/2014 8:26:29 AM PST by RightOnTheBorder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

Why shouldn’t any private citizen be allowed the freedom of association, including those he does business with?


32 posted on 02/25/2014 8:28:02 AM PST by PTBAA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Aqua Buddhist; DoodleDawg
"It's worse that that. An employee could make up a cockamamie "relgious" excuse for goofing off all day and nobody would be able to do anything about it."

This is incorrect and pretty ignorant coming from someone on these forums.

Here is an article that has a really good overview of the bill and why it came about. It does not allow for any person, to deny any service, for any religious reason. It does not allow for cockamamie religious excuses to goof off all day. It simply protects individuals from participating in events that violate their conscience and this protection must pass certain legal hurdles in order to be upheld:

1) They must be a sincerely held religious belief (annihilates the cockamamie religious excuse talking point)

2) There is no compelling government interest, which pretty much annihilates denying anyone for any reason argument.

Here is the actual text of the bill, so that you may look for yourself.

JM
33 posted on 02/25/2014 8:29:43 AM PST by JohnnyM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: C19fan
Another frequently cited example is a suit brought against an Oregon baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. (see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3113856/posts )

Fact. That State's own constitution (rightly) discriminates against homosexuals by refusing to recognize gay marriage, which is what the baker refused to do. The judge thus indicted the States constitution as violating the law, because a subsequent law added sexual orientation (south) to the an nondiscrimination law.

Fact: The baker offered to sell them other things but not a custom work of art specifically celebrating a moral abomination.

Fact: If a black baker, sign-maker or artist refused to make a custom sign celebrating a KKK convention,

or a Muslim for the birth of Israel, or refused to make hot dog rolls,

or if a liberal musician refused to make a song for Republicans,

or a homosexual hardware store owner refused to do business with the AFA,

then it is very unlikely the bakers/sign makers/artists/owners would be found guilty of violating discrimination laws, unless there was no one else to obtain services from.

And a liberal rock band threatened Romney with a lawsuit for playing one of their songs on ideological grounds, even though they had a license.

Suppose Jim Robinson sold bandwidth. Then he would be forced to sell to clearly liberal sites. Maybe the baker needs to "rent" the cakes with a license they must agree to.

Fact: The homosexual lobby has duped the willing into believing the same rights as belong to non moral aspects race and skin color are given also belongs to a behavior have.

34 posted on 02/25/2014 8:48:49 AM PST by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MikeyB806

I find it very interesting to read the comments here while remembering many of the comments on the story of MN cabbies refusing to carry passengers with alcohol, from way back in 2006.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1622917/posts?q=1&;page=1


35 posted on 02/25/2014 8:52:08 AM PST by Carlucci
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyM

But you will agree that the bill applies to individual employees as well as businesses, and could be used by just about anyone claiming religious reasons for their actions? If I truly, honestly believe that those who divorce and remarry are committing adultery, and feel that as a Christian I cannot in good conscience aid and abet such sin by issuing them a marriage license then where does the law say I can’t do it? If a Muslim feels that a person or activity is unclean, and God knows just about everything seems to be unclean to them, then under the law couldn’t they refuse service to any woman not wearing a headscarf?


36 posted on 02/25/2014 8:57:30 AM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012
So? Why shouldn’t a private business be able to serve those they want?

They should as regards ideology and behavior, but not based amoral aspects such as race, skin color, country, etc. A Jewish or black business should not be forced to serve a KKK convention, but no business should refuse to serve Jews or blacks simply because they are.

Being compelled to take pictures of a homomarriage or sell a special cake for them is not the same as racism, but having cast off the Word of God then they are deceived.

Israel hath cast off the thing that is good: the enemy shall pursue him. They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not: of their silver and their gold have they made them idols, that they may be cut off. (Hosea 8:3-4)

37 posted on 02/25/2014 9:00:42 AM PST by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

“Under the Arizona law as passed, any person can deny any services to anyone for any reason so long as they claim it violates their religious beliefs. “

No. The religious objection has to be founded in some genuine religious belief. Someone cannot say, “I belong to the “Hate Blacks Church” and deny service to blacks.

Furthermore, it expressly allows:

“C. State action may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it the opposing party demonstrates that application of the burden to the person’s exercise of religion in this particular instance is both:

1. In furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.

2. The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”

http://legiscan.com/AZ/text/SB1062/id/912244

“Section 41-1493 of the Arizona Revised Statutes regulates who can claim religious freedom or exercise thereof as a defense in a lawsuit. AB 1062 revises that law by expanding the definition of who is a person to “any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution, estate, trust, foundation or other legal entity”,[4] and allows for religious-freedom lawsuits “regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceeding.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_SB_1062


38 posted on 02/25/2014 9:15:52 AM PST by Mr Rogers (Liberals are like locusts...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Carlucci
I find it very interesting to read the comments here while remembering many of the comments on the story of MN cabbies refusing to carry passengers with alcohol, from way back in 2006.

Good point. Do we want a law that allows a Muslim cab driver to strand a blind man with a guide dog at the curb?

39 posted on 02/25/2014 10:37:15 AM PST by Aqua Buddhist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyM
The law theoretically prevents made-up-on-the-spot "religious" rules (though given that it boils down to a judgment call, it opens the door to clogging the courts with frivolous claims).

That still leaves problems about acts which are clearly contrary to public policy and can be defended as established religious practice (e.g. the Minnesota cases mentioned earlier in the thread where Muslim cab drivers refused to carry blind passengers with guide dogs or passengers with alcohol in their possession).

40 posted on 02/25/2014 10:38:03 AM PST by Aqua Buddhist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: stanne
If I were a baker in AZ and someone told me they wanted a cake, I’d make it. I don’t want to nor need to know the details. That’s their business

Gay marriage keeps us from opening a cottage rental business. There would be a lot of gay clients around here; we can't in good conscience enable that.

The ones who are the worst effected by all this are the kids in our society who are being damaged by hearing that homosexuality is a some kind of civil right. They are going to be deprived of normal relations later and a happy home life because of the perversions being promoted.

And BTW I lay all this junk largely at the feet of Bill Clinton who taught kids that BJ's with interns was OK.

41 posted on 02/25/2014 10:45:39 AM PST by what's up (su)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: RightOnTheBorder

The arizona bill says the opposite, doesn’t it?


42 posted on 02/25/2014 11:02:31 AM PST by Mr. K (If you like your constitution, you can keep it...Period.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: what's up

What people are stupidly ignoring is the evidence that kids learning about sex before puberty is messing them up never mind perverted or abnormal sex

It is extremely abusive and will certainly mess them up


43 posted on 02/25/2014 11:12:23 AM PST by stanne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty

Nope

I would get out of the business of selling figurines.

They are relentless in their push for acceptance, however and it won’t stop there.


44 posted on 02/25/2014 11:14:16 AM PST by stanne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Aqua Buddhist
So the answer to all these problems is to allow business owners to handle their property in any way they decide. Now, given the current cultural and political climate, that is an impossibility, so we have to work with what we got.

Now I see no problem with Muslim cab drivers refusing passengers with dogs or who are possessing alcohol, whether the reason is religious or not. A plumber can refuse to fix the plumbing at an abortion clinic or a lawyer can refuse clientele that he would feel uncomfortable defending. And they can do this legally, so why refuse these same privileges to the cab driver.

Now, what all these actors currently cannot do, by law, is discriminate solely based on race, sex, and in some states sexual orientation. So the cabbie could not refuse a fare because they are black, and the plumber could not refuse to fix a Christian's plumbing, and the lawyer could not refuse clientele because they are gay.

Now what the Arizona bill does is allow for individuals to be protected from state coercion to do things that violate their conscience as long as it passes a certain threshold of scrutiny. This is a step in the right direction, which is people being free to do with their property as they choose, and should be applauded.

So it will not protect a business owner who refuses to serve someone because of their orientation, assuming the state has laws against such discrimination, but it will allow them to refuse to participate in such events that go against their faith.

The Hobby Lobby case is in the same vein. The Arizona law would protect Hobby Lobby from having to provide and pay for abortifacient health care coverage, because it violates their conscience.

-JM
45 posted on 02/25/2014 11:27:52 AM PST by JohnnyM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: stanne
that kids learning about sex before puberty is messing them up

Correct.

We all know that socialists have always had a thing about indoctrinating the you.

Well, they are now doing it in the most perverse way possible.

46 posted on 02/25/2014 11:30:47 AM PST by what's up (su)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

Sorry. I think the Butt bangers will loose out in the long run.


47 posted on 02/25/2014 11:31:53 AM PST by ZULU (Magua is sitting in the Oval Office. Ted Cruz/Phil Robertson in 2016.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stanne

It’s not just “acceptance,” they’ve moved into “forced commerce.”


48 posted on 02/25/2014 12:09:56 PM PST by Cyber Liberty (H.L. Mencken: "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Carlucci

Interesting indeed. So what would the comments be if Muslim cab drivers refused to carry homosexual passengers?


49 posted on 02/25/2014 12:46:48 PM PST by MikeyB806
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

It does but that is why I call it a band-aid or a fix to the current civil rights legislation which is based on the deeply flawed notion that government should determine what discrimination is legitimate and what is illegal.


50 posted on 02/25/2014 3:11:14 PM PST by RightOnTheBorder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson