Skip to comments.Brewer veto not best part of anti-gay billís demise
Posted on 03/02/2014 12:01:36 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
It took her a few (maddening) days, but Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) did the right thing. She vetoed that horrible bill that would have made it legal to discriminate against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people by claiming that doing so violated their sincerely held religious beliefs. But this sensible and just end isnt the best part of all this.
Never before have I seen such full-throated tri-partisan opposition to a piece of anti-gay legislation. By tri-partisan I mean Democrats, Republicans and corporations. That Democrats were against the measure was a no-brainer. That Republicans and businesses joined them to not only decry the bills passage bill but to also demand that Brewer veto it was remarkable.
Arizonas two U.S. Senators, John McCain (R) and Jeff Flake (R), urged Brewer to veto the bill. Mitt Romney, the 2012 Republican presidential nominee, did the same. Three state Senators who voted for the noxious statute changed their minds. In a letter to Brewer last Friday, the head of the Greater Phoenix Economic Council warned that the legislation will likely have profound, negative effects on our business community for years to come.(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I want Christians to go into all the gay-owned businesses and start making unreasonable demands for service.
How much decorating, floristry and steam baths do we need?
” By tri-partisan I mean Democrats, Republicans and corporations.”
Hmmm a partnership between business and government. We should come up with a handy word to describe that. Something about how we are strong when we are all bound together,,,, like how its hard to break a handful of arrows held together.
Its right on the tip of my tongue,,,,,
Rethuglican? Oh, and saying “tip of my tongue” to Jonathan is a dog whistle, just ask Chris Matthews.
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil...
Tri party? LOL. We’re under one party rule. McCain, McFlake, McRomney, et al, are no better than dimmiecrats. We definitely need a second party.
While I’m convinced that gay fascism is one of our generation’s greatest threats to freedom, I’m not sure this veto was bad. Having a law that codifies the First Amendment is a bad thing if that law is a lightning rod for court challenges and leads to further encroachments from a lawless Supreme Court. Simply leaving the silly question to natural law and human ingenuity may be the best option until the far left fringe loses their obsession with homosexuality. We have the power today to refuse service - we need only be creative.
A baker/photographer/artist cannot refuse service and give an honest reason, which is a shame, but decent people who refuse to endorse perversion by participating can still refuse service. They need only write the contract carefully to specify no penalty for non-performace if given a 24 hour notice and then gracefully and regretfully apologize at the last minute due to an unspecified but unanticipated problem.
The opposition to this Bill have committed themselves spiritually, and will be culpable before the Lord for their stances until such time that they publicly renounce their actions and seek absolution from sin. Until then, they are no more than pieces of coal in the box, waiting to feed the fires of HELL!
What a surprise... Unfortunately, he happens to be right as well. This bill was a stupid idea. You can’t codify moral behavior in this way - it always backfires.
The bill said nothing about homosexuals. It was simply an amendment to a 15 year old law.
It would protect gay business owners from having to cater to those they dislike intensely as well. Would you want the law to force a jewish baker to produce cakes for a neo-nazi rally?
You do realize that business people in several states have been forced by the courts to provide goods and services for homosexual marriages, despite their religious beliefs, right?
A perfect description of the uniparty. Democrats, GOPe, and large corporations...
All conspiring together against the people.
>> You cant codify moral behavior in this way - it always backfires.
I generally agree that change is a slow process, but yet the depravity was forced on us virtually overnight.
Incidentally, a bill to protect private property, as this bill seemed to do, is not a bad idea. It is a reaffirmation of property rights. Jan Brewer, afraid of PC nonsense and pressure, does not seem to understand that. This is the state that once had Barry Goldwater as its Senator who was principled enough to oppose the rotten Civil Rights law? How far that state has fallen. Maybe they’ll elect McCain for another term. The rino is running for one.
Anti-sodomy law is endemic to western civilization as well as laws prohibiting adultery. All of this was a result of the revelation at Sinai: That there is an infinite and personal G-d who created the universe and everything in it, including people. As such He has the wisdom, and the right to tell man when to have sex, how to have sex, and who to have it with. Until Sinai men did whatever they wanted at any point in time. The result was chaos and misery. It was the Sexual Revolution of the Torah that made an enduring and life giving culture possible. Before Torah the Romans would stuff themselves with gourmet food and then head to the vomitorium to throw up and run back to the table for more. Today’s sexual libertines engage sexually for maximum pleasure and utilize aboritoriums to throw the “product of conception” in a garbage can. The abuse of little children is absolutely inevitable once you leave the sex ethic of Torah behind. The “Progressive” movement is a conspiracy of ideas to forge a Global Culture in direct opposition to the G-d of Israel and His Law. That is why Israel must be destroyed. She stands in the way of their utopian dream of great economic progress and unbridled lust.
There is a practical solution. Salt looks just like sugar. Enjoy your cake!
“I want Christians to go into all the gay-owned businesses and start making unreasonable demands for service.”
This is an unfairness that only works in one direction.
“until the far left fringe loses their obsession with homosexuality. “
The left is only for and about identity politics. Since this is a recognizable identity they will never lose their obsession. It’s not an obsession. It’s politics. As long as they can use gayness as a rallying point they will.
And equally likely, Apple would have immediately terminated its plans to buy sapphire crystal display screens from GT Advanced Technologies in Mesa, AZ, which would have resulted in the loss of several hundred jobs and a very visible public relations fiasco in terms of business.
Sorry, I won’t set foot in any of those dens of filth.
And I want a NewYorker to jump in a cab with a visible bottle of Jack Daniels & a dog under his other arm & see what happens.
You can’t codify moral behavior. Exactly,and that is why we should immediately repeal all laws against murder, theft, robbery, and rape.
When a people or a nation tolerate sin more then valuing God’s commandments and His Word it has never ended well. This nation is provoking the Lord’s anger. If there isn’t a massive national repentance and show of humility we could be in for much more than just our current evil leadership and shame being brought on us from other nations.:(
As for the reverse situation - How often have gay business owners complained about having to cater to those they dislike? The primary response of people who dislike gays (or jews for that matter) is to avoid them and their businesses, not try to force them to act against conviction.
Yes I do. I still believe a bill like this is the wrong response.
Then let us point that out, continously, as a response. It puts the gays and the liberals on the defensive, not us. They’re the ones seeking to enforce their “rights” at the expense of others. Writing bills like this makes them out to be victims instead.
Oh great plan. A Christian/republican/conservative baker brought up on poisoning charges. Just the publicity we need.
This law was passed because militant fags are using existing anti discrimination laws to attack religious business owners. As things stand, their perversion trumps our religious convictions.
Also anti-discrimination works both ways. If militant gay organisations can be proven to be deliberately targeting religously inclined business owners in order to enrich themselves and/or advance some pro-gay agenda, then I would suggest they are vulnerable to a counter-suit.
See post #38