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 ...
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.
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.
Sorry. not the “Voting Rights Act”. I meant the Civil Rights Act of 1965.
They don’t. They take the money and donate it to homosexual advocacy groups.
> 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.
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.
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.
Then, what was the point of passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
Just what do they all want, what is the problem? Just open your own effing gay bakery and don’t serve heterosexuals. I am so sick and tired of our society being cannibalized by every ridiculous activist group and every minority. Rights, rights, and more rights.
Well, freedom of association went out the window when the civil rights laws were passed. It was the camel’s nose under the tent, regardless of good intentions.
The libs are portraying this law as anti-gay, which it is not. I doubt that any business asks about or cares about a person’s sexual identity when conducting every day business. This is specifically aimed at forcing Christians to participate in homosexual weddings. If it were just about doing business with homosexuals, the business owner could easily come up with an excuse to refuse the customer.
If the governor does veto this law, there is an alternative way for Christians to deal with it. After this, homosexuals will go out of their way to target Christian businesses in an attempt to destroy them, so Christians need a plan of action. They can either engage in civil disobedience and accept the consequences, which is a perfectly good option, or...
Christans could accept the business offer, but contract it out to people who do not object. If there is any profit, it could be donated to the business owner’s church or Christian charity of his or her choice. Finally, the business owner should pray for the people who wanted to ruin the business. That way, the business owner is not directly involved nor is he profiting from the sinful event, and he is doing what God commands in praying for his enemies.
What do you mean? What is the correct way to write a law that protects people’s religious liberties so that sodomy isn’t forced down their throats?
Me thinks the good judge is a little light in the loafers himself. He professes to be a “devout” Catholic but was also jumping for joy when the Supreme Court overturned DOMA. It said it was about time that all Americans are treated the same. He has also said queers wanting to get “married” is theeir civil right and has compared it to blacks not being able to marry whites and queers not being allowed to openly serve in the Armed Forces. He was a happy camper when Obama lifted Congressional ban DADT. Made no difference to him that Congress passed it. He said it was the right thing to do when King Obama lifted it.
> Should Jews be forced to cater a Nazi skinhead wedding?
Is an antisemite allowed to refuse to cater a Jewish wedding?
Why not? Why would Jews want one to start with?
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.