Posted on 02/26/2014 6:25:31 AM PST by SeekAndFind
All signs indicate Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer will likely veto politically-charged legislation that supporters say promotes religious freedom and opponents contend discriminates against gays and lesbians.
Brewer did not signal her intention either way in an exclusive interview with CNN on Monday at the National Governors Association meeting in Washington.
"I can assure you, as always, I will do the right thing for the state of Arizona," she said.
But some Arizona Republicans who know her well say they are confident those comments mean Brewer will almost surely reject the bill that is generating nationwide controversy.
The Republican-led measure would allow Arizona business owners to deny service to gay and lesbian customers as long as they assert their religious beliefs.
Brewer is scheduled to return to Arizona on Tuesday, and a source tells CNN those familiar with her thinking say she will likely spend at least one full business day in the state before acting.
"I'm going to go home, and when I receive the bill, I'm going to read it and I'm going to be briefed on it. We have been following it. And I will make my decision in the near future," Brewer told CNN.
She has until Saturday to sign or veto the bill. If she does nothing, it automatically becomes law.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Agree
so many parts I disagree with.
just one off the top of my head is you talk about discrimination as if that were a major problem of the USA. discrimination is the MAIN thing the liberal news media talks about to further the socialist agenda. look at the many news stories always about some discrimination supposedely going on as in Trayvon, the gay wedding cake etc. they get us to focus on this crap. we should be focused on stopping Amnesty and all the crimes the Obama criminal has done including sicking the IRS on conservatives( how about that discrimination?)
government has no right to tell any private business what they can do nor what they can think .agree or not?
agree again with papanew
RE: just one off the top of my head is you talk about discrimination as if that were a major problem of the USA.
I never said it was the MAJOR ( your words not mine ) problem with the USA. In fact, i would argue that the USA is one of the LEAST discriminative countries in the world.
I did argue that IF ( and only IF ) someone were to discriminate based on RACE ( and such people still exist ), it is MORALLY WRONG. Based on what? Based on the objective truth of God’s law.
Having said that, knowing that such people do exist, do we then FORCE this racist to serve a person of a race he refuses to do business with? NO WE CANNOT.
If freedom means anything it means freedom to associate with whomever one wishes to associate with. The government has no business coercing people to do things against their will.
Let GOD ( and society ) do the judging and ostracizing.
Given how well the left's previous "Arizona boycott" worked out, I really wouldn't give them the time of day no matter how much they foam at the mouth over this one and get the media to scream about how "bigoted" AZ is. For whatever reason, people will still visit and relocate to AZ in droves ("it's a dry heat", apparently. Whatever. I'd prefer a state with nice beaches and golf courses like South Carolina over barren dessert).
I agree with Impy that I'd sign the bill without a moment's hesitation and I'm surprised Brewer is feeling pressured by them. I'll be very disappointed if she caves on this.
you think discrimination is important enough to keep posting a lot about . it isn’t important to me and is no problem and nothing to be focused about or even to debate so i won’t engage you in a debate on that
it is the news media’s main issue .
If the main issue is whether or not this current Arizona law passes constitutional muster, we both agree that it does.
I do take issue with saying that discriminating against a person purely based on his race or ethnicity is not a big deal. It is in my book. It is objectively, really MORALLY WRONG. I will be very surprised if you disagreed with me on this.
But I don’t want government involved in it.
I’d sign in a heartbeat too
As I recall, one part of 1070 was upheld, the rest was overturned.
Its amazing how Morality as defined by the homosexual community has evolved over time:
1) first it was immoral unless you tolerated the Gay-lifestyle,
2) then it was immoral unless you accepted it,
3) and then it was immoral unless you approved it,
4) and now it seems, it is immoral unless you endorse it,
5) what will be next, it will be considered immoral unless you practice it?
“....would it not also let muslim business owners refuse service to, say, military veterans with service dogs, uncovered women, or in general “infidels”?”
So what if it does? If a “muslim” doesn’t want to do business with non-muslims...let him. It will just be that much more business going to non-muslims. The “muslim” will put himself out of business.
However, the very few “Christian” businesses that would refuse to have homosexuals as clients are small, and the number of homosexuals is very small. No significant loss to the “Christian” business. Also, this law is only going to help “small” businesses where the apparent homosexuality of the client is very evident....as in a photographer that will not work a homosexual marriage or a cake baker that will not.
IMO Brewer will be a worthless coward if she vetoes this legislation.
Leftists smell blood in the water.
Sounds like the pro-gays got the corporations on their side, and NFL threatening to punish the state, Brewer is not going to stand against them over this.
From what I understand this law would only affect the businesses in cities in AZ who currently have anti-discrimination laws regarding sexual preference, there is no state law that does that.
The Federal courts have not yet created that law out of the constitution, except in some cases marriage itself.
If I had to bet I would bet she veto's it.
I heard that she said that this bill was not part of her ‘agenda’ (Chuck Coughlin is claiming this)
Once again our good capitalist ‘job creators’ the corporations and C of C are threatening AZ.
Ironically a lib called CSPAN this morning complaining about how elected Republicans are owned by the corporations, and the Dem guest replied ‘Its not the corporations, its those rich guys....”
They are doing the gays bidding.
Interestingly enough, I read an article that says the bill automatically becomes law after five days if she takes no action on it. (doesn't that result in a pocket veto at the federal level instead of the bill being enacted?)
So if she really wanted to, she could divorce herself of being associated with the bill and still let it pass anyway, by saying something like she personally wouldn't have voted for such legislation and won't sign this bill, but its her job to enforce the laws, not write them, so this is the law that the AZ legislature wants, it will remain in effect unless its found to be unconstitutional, blah blah blah.
Weasely solution, but it would take the heat off her.
She absolutely should veto the bill - today its gays, tomorrow, who knows ...
You know, its been tried before - in Nazi Germany ...
I don’t agree with same-sex marriage, but when you operate a “fee for service” business, you gotta take on all comers or close up shop ...
RE: I don’t agree with same-sex marriage, but when you operate a “fee for service” business, you gotta take on all comers or close up shop ...
So, you agree that black bakers should bake cakes for KKK ceremonies...
And since you mentioned Nazis, Jews should provide services for Nazi meetings...
A Muslim taxi driver refuses to take blind passenger with a seeing-eye pig?
RE: The news reporting is comparing this directly to when AZ refused to recognize MLK day and lost a lot of business with boycotts
How did that affect their economy? Did it suffer?
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.