Keep Free Republic Alive with YOUR Donations!
Make a difference.
PLEASE Contribute Today!
Less than 2 full days until March.
The new quarter starts beginning April.
Woo hoo!! Less than $7.3k to go!! Thank you all very much!!
We can do this.
Posted on 02/26/2014 6:50:47 PM PST by lbryce
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed a bill Wednesday that would have allowed businesses that asserted their religious beliefs the right to deny service to gay and lesbian customers.
Opinions have been sharply divided over the politically charged measure, with both sides ramping up pressure on Brewer after the state's Republican-led Legislature approved the bill last week.
Brewer said she made the decision she knew was right for Arizona.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
That is fine. They don’t do charitable work now. They mostly do ‘political’ work.
I personally don’t think that there should be a tax exemption for either type of institution
**************************
It seems obvious, but apparently not everyone realizes it.
she said it was too broad so make it more specific and “inclusive” of non-religious objections.
No person shall be required to participate or endorse sexual conduct which they find offensive to their conscience.
IOW narrow on just behavior. Homosexuality is ONLY about recreational sex. This also includes polygamists, animal sex people, wife swappers, fetish people etc...
Politicials, particularly female politicians, activly court money from homossexuals. Hillary does it because they are “her people” as a welsly womayn.
Some posters just like to argue.
********************************
Wrong. Owning a business does not make one a slave.
“No person shall be required to participate or endorse sexual conduct which they find offensive to their conscience.”
That I think would be an interesting way to write the law. The left will still yell and scream but this is concise and specific. Still may not do the trick but it would be interesting
Yes, and some have a liberal agenda.
Being in business means you exchange goods or products for services. You apparently don’t understand the point of being in business.
the language would include atheists which negates the “religious fanatics” left wing talking point.
I’m not surprised at your response, given the weak argument you’ve offered.
Nothing weak in my response. You apparently do not understand what a slave is.
Go read about all of the other cases being brought and see what the left is doing. Your polemic helps no one.
The largest problem lies within the state constitutions themselves many of which include sexual orientation in the language involving discrimination.
A business is already a government regulated device. The person running the business has already given over their ‘authority’ to the state and local government.
Go read some on business regulations. You apparently have never done so before
Free exercise of religion is a fundamental right that applies in this state even if laws, rules or other government actions are facially neutral.
B. Except as provided in subsection C OF THIS SECTION, STATE ACTION shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.
C. STATE ACTION may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if THE OPPOSING PARTY demonstrates that application of the burden to the PERSON'S EXERCISE OF RELIGION IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE is both:
1. In furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.
2. The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
D. A person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT IS A PARTY TO THE PROCEEDING. THE PERSON ASSERTING SUCH A CLAIM OR DEFENSE MAY OBTAIN APPROPRIATE RELIEF. A party who prevails in any action to enforce this article against a government shall recover attorney fees and costs.
E. FOR THE PURPOSES OF this section, the term substantially burden is intended solely to ensure that this article is not triggered by trivial, technical or de minimis infractions.
F. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, "STATE ACTION" MEANS ANY ACTION BY THE GOVERNMENT OR THE IMPLEMENTATION OR APPLICATION OF ANY LAW, INCLUDING STATE AND LOCAL LAWS, ORDINANCES, RULES, REGULATIONS AND POLICIES, WHETHER STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE, AND WHETHER THE IMPLEMENTATION OR APPLICATION IS MADE OR ATTEMPTED TO BE MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT OR NONGOVERNMENTAL PERSONS.
---------------------------------------------------
I took the liberty of editing out the line numbers and the words that had been struck through to make it readable, though I left in the words in bold that signify the changes that would have been made in the bill.
The bill that amends sections 41-1493 and 41-1493.01 only states that religious freedom will be protected. If anyone can imagine a discrimination against homosexuality in it, they can imagine discrimination against anything that involves the belief of any religion - that includes cults.
> 2% of the population running rough shod over the other 98%....
Don’t equate homosexuals with progressives. Advocacy of the normalization and celebration of homosexuality is not necessarily spearheaded by gays, and the mass of the movement is certainly not comprised mostly of homosexuals.
It is a progressive movement. The core is perhaps 10% of the population, not the one percent or less figure of activist homosexuals.
The movement is supported, or not, by a middle America of, say, 70 percent of the population, which is driven by feelings of compassion and human decency plus natural conservatism plus low information and little analysis, and therefore swings somewhat back and forth in the wind. The MSM owns this 70 percent. Cut the power to the Associated Press and Middle America would swing 20 points to the right overnight. Take away the perpetuity broadcast monopoly from the big three airwave broadcasters and it would swing another 10 points to the right and toward healthy good sense.
We aren’t at war with gays. We are at war with Progressives.
Right.
A major issue is, because of the constant brainwashing against the freedom to discriminate, people's consciences have been trained to believe there's something wrong with the choice to exclude a person or a group. So a major hurdle is to correct and mend this evil (guilty) conscience individually and collectively, as a society.
Martin Luther King (MLK) was a strong influence to forward this evil conscience about discrimination - an individual's right to choose associations. MLK confused the individual morality issue of choosing to exclude blacks with the legal and constitutional issue of the federal government's power and authority to interfere with an individual's choices. (MLK has become some sort of "untouchable" - "Oh, how could you say that about MLK?")
So now, discrimination is generally thought of as a bad word. In American consciousness and lexicon, discrimination is a "bad" thing, making no distinction between an individual's legal right to discriminate and his private moral decision about whether it is "right" to do so. This evil conscience needs to be countered and corrected whenever and wherever possible because an individual has every legal right and duty to discriminate. This is not to be confused with an individual’s moral right and duty to examine how and where they exercise their right which is an issue between that person and his God and no one else. And the federal government has no constitutional power to interfere with either an individual’s legal right or moral right.
So an important step to in taking back our freedoms is changing the consciousness of as many people as possible in the country from thinking that discrimination is "bad" to realizing that discrimination is our God-given right of freedom of choice. Not a five-minute job and may very well require God himself to do that. But people like me will shout it from the mountaintops every chance we get.
What are the chances of the AZ legislature overriding the veto? If not, what about generating a proposition to amend the AZ constitution?
What are the chances of the AZ legislature overriding the veto? If not, what about generating a proposition to amend the AZ constitution?
I never said you made that claim, and I agree that it’s coming. Actually, it’s already here. You cannot refuse service to someone, so they have a “right” to your service. The baker should be free to refuse service to anyone for any reason.
If you think an business owner should be forced to provide service to whoever wants it, no you don’t. Far from it.
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.