Skip to comments.Arizona Lawmaker Defends Controversial Religious Freedom Law: 'Pillars of Society Are Under Attack'
Posted on 02/26/2014 10:10:52 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
For anyone dismayed that a small band of conservative politicians have yet again hijacked Arizona's image and cast the state as a place of intolerance and bigotry, Monday night didn't help.
In an interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper, Arizona State Sen. Al Melvin, a Republican, spent more than 10 minutes defending the law recently passed by both chambers of the Legislature that would make it legal for businesses, under the auspices of "sincerely held" religious freedom, to discriminate against others, which most observers see as an attack on the LGBT community. The back-and-forth verbal sparring between Cooper and Melvin is a baffling case study of how to duck difficult questions, even for cable-news standards.
It featured, among other things, an amusing discussion of what Jesus would have discriminated against, whether society judges divorce, and to what extent the "media frenzy" is to blame for Arizona's once-again tarnished reputation.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationaljournal.com ...
The young man, supposedly from Phoenix, COULD have given both sides, but instead chose to spew out some puff piece on Anderson Cooper.
Here is a pic of little Dustin...looks to be about 16 years old.
State laws requiring segregation of blacks from whites are another matter and are unconstitutional (14th Amendment). The feds have a Constitutional right to interfere with state laws that require segregation of blacks form whites.
However, the feds have no other Constitutional authority to interfere with any other form of discrimination on the state level and the feds have no Constitutional authority to interfere with the God given right of individuals and businesses to exercise their freedom of discrimination (freedom to choose) as they see fit.
Just a few minutes ago a posted on another thread on the same topic and quested why at all a Gay Journalist, like Anderson Cooper should at all be permitted to work on a story that concerns an effort to grant Extra Constitutional Rights to Gays.
It is likely that there are even more gay journalists who are working on this very same Arizona story and by their very nature cannot present the story in a fair manner.
They should be excluded from any news-story that may promote an expansion of gay rights and should also be excluded from any judicial case or electoral process which could lead to their very own Constitutional Rights being expanded.
This is absolutely true. For the Marxist transformation to be completely successful, they must break-down the traditional family unit. The children must belong to the state.
This society is being torn to shreds.
I really do not see it surviving at this point.
The passage of this bill will undoubtedly stimulate business for competition that accepts same-sex customers. So I don’t see what problem with bill is other than gay attack on Christians; I haven’t heard any problems concerning Christian-owned business in AZ.
As mentioned in related threads, Christians need to be careful about being a stumbling block for people struggling with same-sex temptation, but would nonetheless be receptive to the good news of Jesus. (Are you listening Westboro Baptist Church?)
In fact, Apostle Paul had indicated in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 that certain members of that church had been involved in same-sex issues, but had evidently repented and accepted God’s grace to turn their lives around.
Cooper should have recused himself. Imagine what was once a crime is now a right. We’ve come a long way toward Gomorrah, baby.
A known Klan Wizard walks into a black bakery to buy a birthday cake for his wife. Why cant the baker refuse him?
An atheist wants a cake for a Freedom from Religion party with God crossed out on the cake....a Christian bakery still has to bake it?
A prostitution business (where its legal) or a porn shop wants to celebrate 20th anniversary of the business with a cake....a Christian bakery still has to bake it?
Someone wants “Keep Abortion Legal” cake from a Christian baker......same?
They were constitutional for almost 60 years under Supreme Court precedence until another Supreme Court ruled otherwise on very specious legal grounds. Sort of the same way the Robert's court found Obamacare constitutional.
Hmm, that is THE rhetorical question here.
Of course, homosexuals intentionally choose businesses they know would be offended, then they can rush to court, get a ruling and force the "offending" business to comply and/or face fines or close down!
This isn't a our discrimination, it's about homosexuals forcing anyone that believes sex between two men or two women is against their faith in holy scripture, to submit to their will.
It is the same! Absolutely. The bakers being cited in most articles on this are in the right. To bake a wedding cake, or for that matter the photographer taking pictures, at a same sex wedding, are PARTICIPATING in that wedding. No person or business should be forced to participate, or forced to “contract” in any event or project that goes against their deeply held religious values.
Add Barack and Michelle Obama to the list - it doesn't matter. We are fundamentally free to choose whatever we wish as long as we don't interfere with someone else's freedom. That means we as individuals and businesses may exclude whomever we wish. Discrimination, our freedom to choose, is our God-given right and duty.
The individual moral question of whether I should or how I should discriminate, or freely choose, is between myself and my God and no one else. In America, and with the Constitution, the INDIVIDUAL is king.
A free society is a healthy, peaceful, and happy society. A free society is by definition one of limited government. A society that puts freedom over equality will have a great deal of both. A society that puts equality above freedom will have neither because government is allowed to interfere with people's freedoms and rights to coerce and enforce its idea of equality.
The Post-Civil War Fourteenth Amendment was badly and apparently hastily written, but the intent of this amendment was clearly aimed at former slaves and construed as such in the famous "Slaughterhouse" cases in 1873. Later in the 20th century, activist courts sought to expand the meaning of the Amendment to include all kinds of "classes" of people. But the original intent of the Amendment, passed during Post Civil-War Reconstruction, was to put former slaves on equal legal footing with the rest of American citizens.
However, again, this amendment targets state law, not individual action. Individuals may chose to discriminate however they please. The only valid interference by the feds upon an individual comes from the Thirteenth Amendment (in the same series of Post-War Amendments) which forbids an individual from owning a slave. Other than that, the federal government has no valid authority to interfere with our rights and freedoms to choose or exclude whomever and however we wish.