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

Skip to comments.

Brewer Likely to Veto Anti-Gay Measure
NBCNews.com ^ | 02/25/2014 | Vaughn Hillyard

Posted on 02/25/2014 10:53:24 AM PST by GIdget2004

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer is likely to veto the state’s controversial measure that could allow businesses to refuse service to gay and lesbians due to religious beliefs, according to three people close to the governor and familiar with her thinking.

One of those is longtime Brewer political adviser Chuck Coughlin, who told NBC News: “It’s been her proclivity in the past to focus on the priorities she wants them [the legislature] to accomplish, and this was clearly not part of her agenda.”

“She doesn’t want to take any actions that could jeopardize the economic momentum we’ve seen here in Arizona,” said another person close to the governor.

The Republican governor is flying back to Phoenix on Tuesday after attending National Governors Association meetings this last week. Coughlin said she will meet with stakeholders on both sides on Wednesday and likely make her decision on Thursday or Friday. She has until Saturday morning to sign or veto the bill.

(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: Arizona
KEYWORDS: arizona; az; brewer; cakebaking; gay; gayweddings; homosexualagenda; sodomy; veto
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

1 posted on 02/25/2014 10:53:24 AM PST by GIdget2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004
There the media goes again. Shaping opinion with their false narrative headline. This is a 'RELIGIOUS FREEDOM' law, not an 'ANTI-GAY' law.

FU NBC.

2 posted on 02/25/2014 10:56:13 AM PST by CivilWarBrewing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

She caved on 0DeathCare, why wouldn’t she cave on this?


3 posted on 02/25/2014 10:57:31 AM PST by Jane Long (While Marxists continue the fundamental transformation of the USA, progressive RINOs assist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

Brewer is not only going against the people of her state, but she is violating the principles of her faith and the Republican Party.

While not an impeachable offense, she could be expelled from the GOP.


4 posted on 02/25/2014 10:58:42 AM PST by Oliviaforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

“Anti-gay” my foot! Merchants have explained repeatedly that they aren’t against serving gays; they are against serving gay weddings. A merchant would be crazy to turn away business just because the customer is gay.


5 posted on 02/25/2014 11:02:56 AM PST by Genoa (Starve the beast.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever

we can’t even ‘expel” Boner, what chance do we have with this troll RINO?


6 posted on 02/25/2014 11:04:19 AM PST by max americana (fired liberals in our company last election, and I laughed while they cried (true story))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

Good. Not only is this statute absurdly unconstitutional, it WILL come back to bit we Christians in our collective a**es as it will be used against us in time.

There are ways to write statutes that protect religious liberties but in the rush to be the “first” we end up with these unconstitutional laws, COPA being a perfect example.

This law would end up in hardcore discrimination against Christians. To think otherwise is to actually believe that RICO is just used against drug Kingpins as it was originally intended and touted.

But what DOES upset me are the cowardly RINOs who voted for it and are running from it. At least be a man and stand up for your beliefs regardless of the consequences.


7 posted on 02/25/2014 11:04:35 AM PST by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever
While not an impeachable offense, she could be expelled from the GOP.

If only the nsGOP had the testicular fortitude for such a move. But then again, the Rhinos are in the majority. Like many older (post-retirement) democrats didn't realize years ago that their party had left them behind, too many of us are failing to see that the GOP has changed fundamentally, has left us behind. New parties have emerged in the past--the GOP is one of them. It is time for a new party, but I think we will have to be more unified first for a viable party to emerge.

8 posted on 02/25/2014 11:07:03 AM PST by MWFsFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

I’m curious as to how many homosexually owned businesses refuse to serve straight people.


9 posted on 02/25/2014 11:07:10 AM PST by NRA1995 (I'd rather be a living "gun culture" member than a dead anti-gun candy-ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

She does not have enough spine to stand up against the sodomists.
Freegards
LEX


10 posted on 02/25/2014 11:10:48 AM PST by lexington minuteman 1775
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

time for another constitutional amendment.


11 posted on 02/25/2014 11:11:55 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NRA1995

This is not about serving gay customers. It’s about merchants who have religious scruples about being forced into getting involved in a gay wedding (so-called). This absolutely is a matter of religious freedom.


12 posted on 02/25/2014 11:12:09 AM PST by Genoa (Starve the beast.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano says this proposed law is unconstitutional.


13 posted on 02/25/2014 11:13:18 AM PST by Retired Chemist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Genoa

so now an attorney can be forced to draft a homosexual based pre-marriage contract?


14 posted on 02/25/2014 11:13:23 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Retired Chemist

Napolitano supports homosexual marriage. (said so on air)


15 posted on 02/25/2014 11:14:06 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

Can her veto be overridden?


16 posted on 02/25/2014 11:14:46 AM PST by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

The leftist fascists have been putting on the pressure, of course.


17 posted on 02/25/2014 11:14:59 AM PST by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NRA1995

I have seen signs in shop windows in Greenwich Village and the Lower East Side that make it clear that anyone who doesn’t support the gay agenda will not be allowed to purchase anything in the store. I have seen these signs.

Now, how they enforce that, is beyond me. But you’re definitely on to something.


18 posted on 02/25/2014 11:16:00 AM PST by miss marmelstein (Richard Lives Yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Genoa

I understand what you’re saying, was just raising another question.


19 posted on 02/25/2014 11:16:48 AM PST by NRA1995 (I'd rather be a living "gun culture" member than a dead anti-gun candy-ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Retired Chemist

freedom of association is not unconstitutional


20 posted on 02/25/2014 11:17:43 AM PST by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
so now an attorney can be forced to draft a homosexual based pre-marriage contract?

Dunno. I can't say what sort of leeway attorneys have. As a Christian, I can think of a lot of problematical situations I could face as someone else's attorney. Glad I'm not one!
21 posted on 02/25/2014 11:19:23 AM PST by Genoa (Starve the beast.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein

there are who appartment bldgs which make it clear “normal not welcome”.

This is about forced participation in endorsing a BEHAVIOR.

It is not just about religion, it is also about conscience.

What if an atheist objects to homosexual conduct? Their conscience should not be violated either.


22 posted on 02/25/2014 11:19:25 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

He also said he wishes gays would stop going after businesses who do not want to deal with them because of religious beliefs.


23 posted on 02/25/2014 11:21:41 AM PST by Retired Chemist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: FReepers

Click The Pic To Donate

Support FR, Donate Monthly If You Can

24 posted on 02/25/2014 11:25:07 AM PST by DJ MacWoW (The Fed Gov is not one ring to rule them all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

“Good. Not only is this statute absurdly unconstitutional, it WILL come back to bit we Christians in our collective a**es as it will be used against us in time.”

Explain what is unconstitutional about it? Nowhere in the Bill of Rights are sodomites protected against discrimination.


25 posted on 02/25/2014 11:27:32 AM PST by Beagle8U (Unions are an Affirmative Action program for Slackers! .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

Any veto will be construed by the homosexual left as tantamount as a statewide non-discrimination law enabling homosexuals to trample rights.


26 posted on 02/25/2014 11:27:40 AM PST by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

Remember these so-called anti discrimination laws works both ways, Christian groups should start marching into gay bars, order a glass of water so they can’t be accused of loitering and hold a prayer meeting for a couple hours....


27 posted on 02/25/2014 11:32:42 AM PST by apillar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

Brewer always talked the talk but never walked the walk. Typically RINO.


28 posted on 02/25/2014 11:36:31 AM PST by Count of Monte Fisto (The foundation of modern society is the denial of reality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004
Now that I've read the bill, I think it's a bad idea. As the law stands, businesses are permitted to refuse service for any reason that doesn't include race, religion and other categories protected by the civil rights laws. Under federal law and the laws of most states, sexual orientation is not one of the "forbidden grounds," so businesses should continue to take the position -- which I know is being challenged and recently was rejected by the New Mexico Supreme Court -- that refusal to provide services for gay weddings is within their rights.

The Arizona bill makes the exercise of this fundamental right contingent upon proving that a refusal to serve is based upon a sincerely held religious belief. This seems to limit, rather than expand, the rights that businesses already have.

Unfortunately, what we're seeing with the "you must serve gays" uproar is the culmination of the principle established in the 1964 civil rights act -- i.e., that private businesses may refuse service only when the State allows it.

29 posted on 02/25/2014 11:37:08 AM PST by jumpingcholla34
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
freedom of association is not unconstitutional

But it is illegal in most places.

30 posted on 02/25/2014 11:38:36 AM PST by Count of Monte Fisto (The foundation of modern society is the denial of reality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Count of Monte Fisto

is this real news or is it NBC making up to push the story and give cover? or is it homosexuals in government trying to push their worldview onto voters?


31 posted on 02/25/2014 11:40:56 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: NRA1995

It happens
I bought some fancy chocolates at a small chi chi type store.....and wrote a check
One week later, my check was returned because it had a verse of scripture printed on the check, and the owners (Gay.....but i didn’t know this at the time) didn’t want transactions of that type......
This was in my little hometown........the checks are lovely, pastels.....you have to take time to read them to see the verses.——I’ve been using them for years
Go figure


32 posted on 02/25/2014 11:40:57 AM PST by Guenevere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: NRA1995

It happens
I bought some fancy chocolates at a small chi chi type store.....and wrote a check
One week later, my check was returned because it had a verse of scripture printed on the check, and the owners (Gay.....but i didn’t know this at the time) didn’t want transactions of that type......
This was in my little hometown........the checks are lovely, pastels.....you have to take time to read them to see the verses.——I’ve been using them for years
Go figure


33 posted on 02/25/2014 11:40:57 AM PST by Guenevere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: jumpingcholla34

serving is far different than participate in their activities.

A baker will sell a generic cake. homosexuals want the baker to create a cake endorsing their sexual recreation.


34 posted on 02/25/2014 11:42:22 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

Why is this “anti-gay?”


35 posted on 02/25/2014 11:44:24 AM PST by I want the USA back (Media: completely irresponsible traitors. Complicit in the destruction of our country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever
...she is violating the principles of her faith and the Republican Party.

The GOP has principles? I know they used to but they still do? Funny, I haven't seen any evidence of that in years.

36 posted on 02/25/2014 11:47:18 AM PST by pepsi_junkie (Who is John Galt?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

Amen


37 posted on 02/25/2014 11:53:09 AM PST by petitfour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: I want the USA back
Why is this “anti-gay?”

The gays are against it.

38 posted on 02/25/2014 11:53:32 AM PST by Genoa (Starve the beast.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein

It doesn’t surprise me at all, I figured it was happening.


39 posted on 02/25/2014 11:59:27 AM PST by NRA1995 (I'd rather be a living "gun culture" member than a dead anti-gun candy-ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever
she could be expelled from the GOP

LOL. The RINOs are more likely to expel the conservatives than vice versa.

40 posted on 02/25/2014 12:06:20 PM PST by Aqua Buddhist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: CivilWarBrewing
It's all in the marketing.

The Arizona legislature should have called it a "tolerance" law, and said that diverse opinions opposing or supporting gay marriage have to be tolerated and accepted.

Instead, the MSM is running with a narrative that disguises the religious intolerance of the left.

41 posted on 02/25/2014 12:13:41 PM PST by Repealthe17thAmendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

Goldwater warned us this would happen courtesy of the ‘public accomodations’ clause of the Voting Rights Act.

You either have private property or you don’t.


42 posted on 02/25/2014 12:15:19 PM PST by TurboZamboni (Marx smelled bad and lived with his parents .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

Sorry. not the “Voting Rights Act”. I meant the Civil Rights Act of 1965.


43 posted on 02/25/2014 12:28:00 PM PST by TurboZamboni (Marx smelled bad and lived with his parents .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NRA1995

They don’t. They take the money and donate it to homosexual advocacy groups.


44 posted on 02/25/2014 12:46:48 PM PST by MikeyB806
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U

> Explain what is unconstitutional about it? Nowhere in the Bill of Rights are sodomites protected against discrimination.

There’s a line where an action goes from being an expression of religious independence and into being just plain inhumane, though. I mean, can a doctor refuse to treat a lesbian’s injuries, citing religious beliefs? If a tow truck driver gets a call for service and sees two guys holding hands as they wait by their broken-down vehicle, can he say “sorry” and drive off?

Condemn the act, don’t let them sully marriage or adopt kids, and protest every time your public tax dollars go to some LGB-whatever Awareness Week, that’s all well and good expressions of your personal religious liberty. I don’t like it all any more than you do.

But this bill in AZ just leaves an awful feeling behind. These are people that have chosen a path away from God, but it isn’t up to us to punish them this severely.


45 posted on 02/25/2014 12:49:24 PM PST by mquinn (Obama's supporters: a deliberate drowning of consciousness by means of rhythmic noise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

Maybe we should be thinking about hiring a muslim party planner and demanding pork-chops be served. Or catching a cab with a muslim driver with a pet dog in tow. Why are only the Christians getting pushed around? We've had our bellies to the sky for too long. Perhaps it's time to push back.


46 posted on 02/25/2014 12:55:11 PM PST by so_real ( "The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mquinn
it isn’t up to us to punish them this severely.

Not so. The doctor and the tow-truck operator can just do their job with neutrality and detachment. It's not the same thing as being drawn into an activity that in and of itself constitutes a violation of conscience, such as baking and decorating a celebratory cake for a homosexual "wedding."

47 posted on 02/25/2014 1:25:35 PM PST by Genoa (Starve the beast.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: mquinn

You may not like it, but it isn’t unconstitutional.

If you have a room for rent nobody should be able to tell you who you have to rent it to.

Should Jews be forced to cater a Nazi skinhead wedding?

Should the VFW be forced to rent their hall to those same Nazi skinheads?

How about forcing the NAACP to rent a hall to the Aryan Brotherhood? That would be fun to watch!

Queers are even less of a protected group that those others.


48 posted on 02/25/2014 1:29:52 PM PST by Beagle8U (Unions are an Affirmative Action program for Slackers! .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo
. Not only is this statute absurdly unconstitutional, it WILL come back to bit we Christians in our collective a**es as it will be used against us in time.

Nonsense. In truly free nation, businesses should be able to choose to serve or not serve anyone for any reason. A nation can't be truly free if it eliminates freedom of association.

The response to unjust discrimination is soliciting businesses that don't discriminate, which MLK Jr. and others did.

49 posted on 02/25/2014 1:39:17 PM PST by Kazan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Retired Chemist
Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano says this proposed law is unconstitutional.

Then, what was the point of passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

50 posted on 02/25/2014 1:40:36 PM PST by Kazan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

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