Brewer veto not best part of anti-gay bill’s demise

The Washington Post's Post Partisan ^ | February 26, 2014 | Jonathan Capehart, editorial board member & columnist

[2ndDivisionVet]

(VIDEO-AT-LINK)

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 isn’t 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 bill’s passage bill but to also demand that Brewer veto it was remarkable.

Arizona’s 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)

[Gen.Blather]

“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.

[Gen.Blather]

“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.

[RayChuang88]

The real reason why SB 1062 was vetoed: the very possibility the NFL was going to move the next Super Bowl to Raymond James Stadium in Tampa, FL. That would have cost the state of Arizona maybe $700 million in revenue from Super Bowl Week activities.

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.

[Mouton]

Sorry, I won’t set foot in any of those dens of filth.

[FES0844]

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.

[freedomfiter2]

You can’t codify moral behavior. Exactly,and that is why we should immediately repeal all laws against murder, theft, robbery, and rape.

[Travis McGee]

I'd like to insert a few items like SAYGAMIC into the internet memestream.

[VRW Conspirator]

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.

Bump.

[444Flyer]

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.:(

[Vanders9]

I've heard this point about the bill saying nothing about homosexuality. Its a nonsense argument. Repeating it makes conservatives look manipulative and stupid. We all know that this bill was intoduced primarily to protect religious folk from bullying by the gay lobby.

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.

[Vanders9]

Yes I do. I still believe a bill like this is the wrong response.

[Vanders9]

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.

[Vanders9]

Oh great plan. A Christian/republican/conservative baker brought up on poisoning charges. Just the publicity we need.

[Vanders9]

I said you cannot codify moral behavior in this way There's a difference between personal behavior and behavior that directly affects another person.

[Vanders9]

Agreed.

[2ndDivisionVet]

Your suggestion?

[freedomfiter2]

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.

[Vanders9]

I understand. Presumably when these anti-discrimination laws were passed this consequence was forseen. The answer therefore is to highlight the result with "We told you so", which is proving very effective in the Obamacare fiasco, not so?

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.

[Vanders9]

Agreed.

[Vanders9]

See post #38