Skip to comments.Arizona governor's veto aimed at own party's right
Posted on 02/27/2014 4:16:00 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
epublican Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer slapped down the right wing of her own party, vetoing a bill pushed by social conservatives that would have allowed people with sincerely held religious beliefs to refuse to serve gays....
(Excerpt) Read more at wsvn.com ...
Clearly, the Miami media has an agenda in playing up the homosexual friendly side of the story.....
Doesn’t Sarah Palin have a residence in Arizona? Hmmmmm...
The reaction of the right in Arizona should be simple. Do not vote for her Republican successor, because we know this wasn’t just the airhead. It was the GOP establishment in Arizona. Time to punish these people.
Hey brewski... I know where you are going when you pass on.
it’s like a law that the sun must come up in the east, stupid, states what already is
business owners just have to figure out how to do it
example, I wanted a tree cut down, tree company looks at job, size of tree, difficulty of getting equipment to tree and bids it out of the realm of reality. I pick some other tree company.
Just another restriction on choice forced upon by the radical lefts social agenda along with their allies in the media.
Those of us in reality know when someone says “sorry, can’t do it” we should move on to the next guy. The gay agenda types on the other had hear “sorry can’t do it” and run to a judge to force them to.
The idea has been floated here on FR for people in services businesses who don’t feel comfortable providing their products for samesex marriages to tell the “customers” that every penny of their payments will be given to a non-profit group that works and speaks out against homosexuality and gay marriage. Maybe if businesses made this known, ie. a sign on their window, they would see fewer and fewer of these types of customers wishing to force their lifestyle on them.
Would this tactic be legally acceptable, or would it be considered discriminatory?
That really is an excellent idea. You could print up stickers for the Freedom Defense Fund, with a rainbow and a cross, and put them in the windows of businesses that pledge to donate every dollar of homo money to causes that defend religious freedom. Then the fags can either patronize you and contribute to their own demise, or refuse to patronize you, which is what you wanted in the first place.
Belonging to an organization and displaying that membership proudly isn’t discriminatory. It wouldn’t be illegal for a restaurant to prominently display a sticker proclaiming its support of the KKK Benevolence Society, even though that sticker might alienate some people.
Good idea. Maybe some signs indicating the fact, too.....I like that very much.
Actually, that tactic would have the ADDED BENEFIT of giving the business owner a tax deductible activity. Not as immediately beneficial as a material profit, but the eternal rewards are real.
Gotta be perfectly legal
I like it! They could say (like the French are doing) FIGHTING FAMILY PHOBIA
I know I tend to oversimplify but it seems to me that a private enterprise (not affiliated with a government entity) should be able to refuse service or sale of merchandise to anyone for any reason and without having to specify a reason. In other words, “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.”
what little respect I had for her is now gone. Coward
Or how about just a sign in the window that says:
Rom 1: 26-27
An added benefit would be that if the poofter blowhards DID decide to patronize your establishment where they were not wanted, they would have to keep their mouths shut about their perversion. It would be the only way of keeping their money out of the enemy’s hands.
I go with your idea as one step.
Before our Federal Politicians in “both” political parties stuck a PC Left Fork into our Constitution, the sign in the window that read: The owner of this establishment reserves the right to refuse service to anyone. was held to be the Owners Fair Notice of his protected Freedom of Choice.
“I go with your idea as one step.”
I just want to be clear that this isn’t my original idea. Another poster on a thread a while back had the idea. I thought it was a great idea at the time, and I still do. Now the question is—where do we take the idea from here?