Skip to comments.3 GOP lawmakers reverse support of Arizona bill criticized as anti-gay
Posted on 02/25/2014 9:18:45 AM PST by Olog-hai
Three Republicans who supported a bill bolstering the rights of business owners to refuse service to gays and others on the basis of religion reversed course Monday and asked the governor to veto the controversial measure.
Republican state Sens. Adam Driggs, Steve Pierce and Bob Worsley wrote a letter to Gov. Jan Brewer pleading for her to reject SB 1062. The measure is intended to support business owners who refuse service to gays and others because they believe serving them violates the practice and observance of their religion.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Weak kneed RINOs. Can’t see that when Christian businesses are under attack the next attack will be on the churches and I’m not saying it will be only on the Christian ones.
The Gaystapo can be exceedingly ugly. Worse than the Mafia.
Somebody needs to find out who the Grand Kleagle of the klan is and when his birthday is.
Next go out and find a black owned bakery.......
It just isn’t fair that a muslim deli should deny me a ham sandwich.
The implied converse of this law is that the Gaystapo CAN force businesses to violate their religious beliefs.
This fact needs to be hammered home.
“wrote a letter to Gov. Jan Brewer pleading for her to reject SB 1062.”
You do NOT BEG you effing’ limp wrist RINOS.
What was the vote count? Were these three votes crucial for passage? Because it could influence the governor there.
Corporatist bullying that overwhelmed the Boy Scouts seems to be in play here.
WHY did they vote for the bill? Pathetic. What caused them to suddenly HATE religious freedom?
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Whatever is wrong with a business being able to decide whether or not they want to serve you? Do these Republicans support smaller government and fewer regulations and more freedom?
Why do they not, instead, support gay businesses for gay people? Let the marketplace decide.
Queers stop asking them to parties.
It is annoying how the media misleads. The law does not allow people to refuse to serve "gays" and "others". It allows people to refuse to participate in ACTIVITIES which the people feel violate their religion.
The law would not allow a baker to refuse to sell a loaf of bread to a gay person, or a black person, or a woman, or a muslim.
It would allow a baker to refuse to provide a wedding cake for a wedding they objected to.
We need more laws like this. It is time people had the right for example to rent out a room in their house and discriminate against unmarried couples. I should not have to offer a rental to a couple I know is going to commit a sin (thereby helping them actively commit sin) -- in many states the only way you avoid this is by giving up the opportunity to rent at all.
If religious tolerance was easy, we would not need laws.
It doesn’t matter if this Bill is signed into law. Two days later a Judge would declare it unconstitutional and strike it down. After that, the State would have to appeal the ruling and the long legal march would go on until everyone just gives up on it.
As evidenced by Sen. McCain, Arizona’s left hand doesn’t know what its right hand is doing.
Most interesting is that this was exactly why Barry Goldwater opposed the second version of the civil rights act.
They voted for a bill upholding religious freedom because they hate religious freedom? That doesn’t make sense.
That was construed in the sense of performing righteous acts. More like we don’t know which hand is right or left until it’s shown by the politicians.
I would never refuse service to homosexuals in a business.
Ex. If I was a baker and one came in and wanted to buy a pie and some cookies. No problem. Welcome to buy as many as they want. If a homosexual came in and wanted me to participate or validate his/her perversion by baking and delivering a cake to a homosexual wedding I would refuse. They could sue, they could close my business. I would NEVER be a participant in validating their perversion....
Spineless turncoats. They’ll get what’s coming to them.
Of course these coward are State "Senators," were they "State Representatives," they wouldn't dare!
Just like our U.S. Senators, feel removed from their voters when they only have to face those whose votes they count on, every 6 years!
"The hell with the religious beliefs of Christians!!
It's more important to pander for the homo vote."
That’s exactly what this bill is about.
May they reap what they sow.
I feel the same way.
As far as I’m concerned a business should be allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason. It doesn’t mean that I would refuse service to blacks but if someone did it presents an opportunity for someone else to open a blacks only restaurant and another businessman to open an everyone welcome restaurant.
There are plenty of blacks only businesses in Detroit and it doesn’t bother me a bit.
WWJD? Would he condemn them and refuse them service? Or would he correct them and serve them?
They’re worse than the mob.
Wrong! Both houses in AZ are voted every 2 years.
Why does there need to be a law in the first place? These businesses should be able to decide who they serve or not serve period.
They didn’t refuse to do business; they refused to participate in same sex marriage
Yet AZ has no law against discrimination based of sexual preference on orientation, so this bill above is symbolic anyway.
Which makes me wonder what the point is if it is vetoed.
Another gay victory?
Dumb law for the wrong reason.
What did Jesus do to the people in the temple in Jerusalem on the Sabbath . . . ?
What was the “wrong reason”?
The Gaystapo ought to be free to practice “lawfare” on whomever they please?
Unless these businesses are a church, then they are not selling “religion”. Not serving some of the public for a product which you sell regularly under state licensing is wrong.
So you support the Gaystapo then.
Homosexual activists have been busy since the 1990s from educating our children to despise "intolerance" and are now voting adults, seeming to believe that to adhere to God's laws is somehow "intolerant," plus many religious denominations have now determined homosexuality is not only no longer a sin, but not to embrace them and their activities is "Christian."
Many, if not most of those denominations are simply sliding in to irrelevance and their memberships have disappeared, left only with gray haired women and gays.
AI don’t think that driving the money changers from the Temple quite applies here.
How about his criticism of Pharisees and Sadducees?
No, but in this they are right. Otherwise, where does it end? You get that business license and you are subject to the rules.
Criticism of the Pharisees and Sadducees had more to do with pointing out the corruption of religious and government figures.
I meant they hate religious freedom NOW, since they are asking Brewer to veto the bill.
There’s a defined end in the law.
And a church is its members.
Merely saying “you get the business license and you’re subject to the rules” is a justification of any type of market, even communism.
Next if you don’t vote for a gay person, that’s discrimination.
I understand and agree with your position as it applies to NON-emergency businesses like catering services, restaurants, retail stores, gas stations, banks, etc. However, would 1062 apply also to emergency service providers, such as paramedics at the scene of a major accident or a doctor in a hospital emergency ward? Would the paramedic/doctor be protected by 1062 to refuse to provide essential medical services to someone with life-threatening injuries if he or she believes the person is gay?
No, were not talking about going into a halal butcher and demanding they sell you some ham.
They simply wouldn't have that product in stock, and I hope you'd agree that they shouldn't be FORCED to. Notice, though that pharmacies HAVE been forced to stock abortofacients.
Nor is it the case of a baker refusing to sell cakes to a gay person, or gay couple.
However if said couple (or anyone) came in and requested say a penis-shaped cake for a bachelorette party, would that be considered "discrimination" if the baker refuses to make it on religious grounds?
After all, it's a bakery, and they have the equipment to make such a cake.
Sure the people wanting the penis cake COULD go to the erotic bakery, but they want to FORCE the religious cake maker to obey.
Do you not see the difference?
Not quite the same thing unless penis shaped cakes are in your inventory. Like I said earlier, it's a dumb law and will accomplish nothing except to cause more trouble. If a "religious" person limits their wares to acceptable products and they are sold in the normal course of their business how are they violating their conscience? God will judge everything ultimately.