Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

6 Proposals Denying Service to Gays You Havenít Heard About
TIME ^ | 02/27/2014 | By Katy Steinmetz

Posted on 02/27/2014 9:54:54 AM PST by SeekAndFind

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer sent cheers rippling through a group of protesters gathered outside the state capitol on Wednesday evening when she vetoed a controversial bill that would have protected business owners who cited their religious views in denying service to gays. Ohio spiked a similar measure on Wednesday. Kansas lawmakers created the same kind of firestorm earlier this month when the House passed a bill allowing private and public employees to refuse to serve same-sex couples (the state Senate later killed that measure).

And this could still be just the beginning.

These two high-profile legislative debates are just part of a budding trend across the nation, with states pushing measures that proponents call religious freedom bills but opponents label state-sanctioned discrimination.

Here are six related proposals getting less attention than the battles in Kansas and Arizona.

(Excerpt) Read more at nation.time.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: boycotttimewarner; constitution; culturewar; dnctalkingpoints; gaymarriage; gaynewsrooms; gays; homosexuality; pinkjournalism; pravdamedia; sexpositiveagenda; timedeclaredgoddead; timelies; waronmarriage

1 posted on 02/27/2014 9:54:54 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
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.

Having said that, what will it take to either override the veto or generate a proposition to amend the AZ constitution? If neither, consider moving to a state that will uphold your right to discriminate.

2 posted on 02/27/2014 10:01:18 AM PST by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew
what will it take to either override the veto or generate a proposition to amend the AZ constitution?

Politicians with spines.
They will be found with the unicorns and flying pigs.

3 posted on 02/27/2014 10:06:31 AM PST by grobdriver (Where is Wilson Blair when you need him?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All

A boycott the Super Bowl would be just. And defunding of NFL fascist funded playgrounds. Taxpayers shouldn’t be paying the tab for a billion dollar gaming industry.


4 posted on 02/27/2014 10:07:46 AM PST by a fool in paradise ("Health care is too important to be left to the government.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

This has nothing do do with homosexuals. It’s is about personal freedom.

This attitude I have comes about from my faith in free markets. If a business owner refuses to serve a paying customer, for whatever reason, someone else is going to serve that person. The refuser cannot stay in business long if he turns away paying customers.

Laws forbidding the owner from refusing service are SUPERFLUOUS.


5 posted on 02/27/2014 10:08:28 AM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

In the 50’s/60’s it was Government LAW to specificially discriminate against Blacks and Whites.

Private Buisinesses could actually be charged with breaking the law for NOT discriminating.

The Left forgets that 99% the civil rights struggle was to make illegal not the actions of private businessmen, but to make illgal the states and city writing LAWS that ACTIVELY discriminated against Tax payer provided or subsidized services like public parks, schools, drinking fountains and city busses and the like.

The same oppresive government force that discriminated against the blacks in the south is now seen as the savior by the left to force people into doing things they don;t want to do.


6 posted on 02/27/2014 10:10:50 AM PST by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

If you asked a College Student who studied “Race Studies” about who owned the “Whites only” Restrooms and Drinking fountains in the south inthe 1950’s and 1960’s they would tell you that it was private businesses....

The truth is those places 99% of the time owned by the CITY or STATE GOVERMENTS!!!!

History has been re-written...


7 posted on 02/27/2014 10:13:48 AM PST by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: grobdriver

You don’t need politicians at all to pass a proposition to amend a state constitution. You need a minority of citizens with fierce determination who can pursuade the majority of voters.


8 posted on 02/27/2014 10:15:45 AM PST by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

BTTT!

I have been saying for a long time that TRUE freedom is UGLY! It means that there may well be a store with a sign that says, “Blacks not allowed.” And you know what, that is his right to limit his business and his customers to whomever he so chooses.

It is also my right to simply go to another store that doesn’t blatantly discriminate. Soon enough, he will be out of business because his customer base will wilt and die.

THAT is true freedom; ugly in every way, but freedom.

Of course, there are those that would say, “We need to go petition him and get the government to shut him down!” And I say, “Why?” I would rather that person learn the lesson about being a blatant racist AFTER he looses all his money and time in a failed business - the lesson will be more personal and deeply engrained!


9 posted on 02/27/2014 10:19:10 AM PST by ExTxMarine (PRAYER: It's the only HOPE for real CHANGE in America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All
 photo Vegetarian.jpg

Help FR Continue the Conservative Fight!
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!


10 posted on 02/27/2014 10:20:05 AM PST by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

About time. We should not be forced to participate in their perversion.


11 posted on 02/27/2014 10:20:46 AM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

But how many of those proposals will survive with Arizona as a precedent and Eric Holder as Atty. General?


12 posted on 02/27/2014 10:22:58 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer”

Despicable traitor to the human race.


13 posted on 02/27/2014 10:26:17 AM PST by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
The problem is/was attaching it more or less to religion. rather than "Freedom of Association".

If they legalize prostitution in our state, will I have to invite them to my Tupperware party?

14 posted on 02/27/2014 10:28:13 AM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: DManA

“The refuser cannot stay in business long if he turns away paying customers.”

He can when those customers constitute only 2% of the population.


15 posted on 02/27/2014 10:29:29 AM PST by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

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 Owner’s Fair Notice of his protected Freedom of Choice.


16 posted on 02/27/2014 10:31:34 AM PST by Graewoulf (Democrats' Obamacare Socialist Health Insur. Tax violates U.S. Constitution AND Anti-Trust Law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: dsc
There was a time I thought Jan Brewer was a true conservative. Here's a picture of her castigating Obama for not supporting Arizona's tough immigration laws...


Then, came Obamacare and the promise of Federal largesse. So what did she do? The money became too tempting so she took it by expanding Medicaid in Arizona...

It's been downhill from there.
17 posted on 02/27/2014 10:32:30 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: dsc; DManA

RE: He can when those customers constitute only 2% of the population.

And only a handful of them choose to “marry”.


18 posted on 02/27/2014 10:33:41 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: dsc

When you add the friends, relatives, and colleagues of the 2% you rapidly get into business threatening range.


19 posted on 02/27/2014 10:41:19 AM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: DManA

You are correct!

The bill that Brewer vetoed was never about the deviant behavior crowd!

It was about the Right of Christian’s to practice what they believe!

Religious belief’s that seem to matter only matter when you are [b]Muslim[/b] !

Things turn out differently when non Christian [b]Muslims[/b] are involved!

[b]Obama Inc. Sues Trucking Company for Firing Muslim Drivers Who Refused to Deliver Alcohol[/b]

[quote]Considering the sheer number of things that Islam bans (pork, alcohol, movies, music, chess, kites, etc…) a Muslim driver who refuses to drive a truck containing them is mostly useless.

When Muslim taxi drivers refused to drive passengers with seeing eye dogs or who carried bottles of alcohol, there was an uproar. But now Obama Inc. is claiming that Muslim discrimination is a civil right that employers must accommodate.[/quote].

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/obama-inc-sues-trucking-company-for-firing-muslim-drivers-who-refused-to-deliver-alcohol/]Obama Inc. Sues Trucking Company for Firing Muslim Drivers Who Refused to Deliver Alcohol | FrontPage Magazine


20 posted on 02/27/2014 10:45:34 AM PST by stirrinthepuddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GraceG
Agreed. Here's some more constitutional and historical perspective on this.

The only exception to federal government not constitutionally allowed to interfere with a state's choices is the Fourteenth Amendment. It states, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The badly and hastily written Post-Civil-War 14th Amendment was aimed at doing away with “Jim Crow laws,” state-forced segregation of former slaves - blacks. 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. This original intent was confirmed by SCOTUS in the 1873 Slaughterhouse cases.

However, in the 20th Century, activist courts seeking to enlarge government power have sought to continually expand the original intent of the amendment. But there are no constitutional grounds for these later decisions to break the Slaughterhouse precedent. The correct thing to do is overturn these later decisions on the basis of the Constitution and the stare decisis of Slaughterhouse. Until then, I think nullification on constitutional grounds is in order.

Therefore, the feds may interfere only if a state law (not individual action) requires racial (not gender or sodomite) segregation (not integration). There NOTHING in the Constitution to allow the federal government to force integration or to interfere with an individual's freedom to discriminate or choose.

21 posted on 02/27/2014 11:00:51 AM PST by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: stirrinthepuddin

I apologize for the ‘bracketing’ in my post!

Being new to the forum, I mistakenly used the common php way of quoting and highlighting.

I can find no way to edit after submitting?


22 posted on 02/27/2014 11:02:27 AM PST by stirrinthepuddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Graewoulf

BTW, if discrimination against a gay wedding because of religious convictions are not allowed, how do you explain this:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/obama-inc-sues-trucking-company-for-firing-muslim-drivers-who-refused-to-deliver-alcohol/

Obama Inc. Sues Trucking Company for Firing Muslim Drivers Who Refused to Deliver Alcohol

Why is the Muslim’s religious convictions more worthy of protection by the Obama administration than the Christian’s?


23 posted on 02/27/2014 11:08:19 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ExTxMarine

“It means that there may well be a store with a sign that says, “Blacks not allowed.” And you know what, that is his right to limit his business and his customers to whomever he so chooses.”

You have as much, if not more, chance of re-instituting human slavery as ever having that happen.

You would be hard [ressed to find 50,000 people in the entire USA who would go along with that, and 10x than number who would burn such an entity to the ground.


24 posted on 02/27/2014 11:08:58 AM PST by RedStateRocker (Nuke Mecca, deport all illegal aliens, abolish the IRS, DEA and ATF.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: GraceG
History has been re-written...

Well, we must do what we can to counter that and trust the rest to the Lord who has been our guardian over the centuries.

25 posted on 02/27/2014 11:15:20 AM PST by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: dsc

far from it


26 posted on 02/27/2014 11:51:45 AM PST by SgtHooper (If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: DManA

“When you add the friends, relatives, and colleagues of the 2% you rapidly get into business threatening range.”

You don’t get all of those people. I’m not sure it should be business-threatening, particularly when you think of all the new business they will get from decent people.


27 posted on 02/27/2014 3:25:58 PM PST by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: RedStateRocker
"You would be hard pressed to find 50,000 people in the entire USA who would go along with that, and 10x than number who would burn such an entity to the ground."

I agree, but THAT is what true freedom is all about. It is ugly, it might even be insane at times, but that is their right to be insane or ugly or biased or whatever.

The real problem is that people have been using the government to solve every petty little issue with which one group does or doesn't agree. And our schools are teaching our children that this is a correct and proper function of government - it is NOT!
28 posted on 02/28/2014 8:36:29 AM PST by ExTxMarine (PRAYER: It's the only HOPE for real CHANGE in America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson