Arizona Gov. Brewer says she has vetoed bill that allows businesses to discriminate against gays

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gilliam

Guest
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has vetoed a hot-button measure that would have permitted businesses in the state to deny service to gay and lesbians for religious beliefs.

At a news conference at the state capitol just after 7:45 p.m. ET, Brewer said the bill “could result in unintended and negative consequences.”

“I sincerely believe that Senate Bill 1062 could create more problems than it purports to solve,” Brewer said.

nbcnews.com/storyline/arizona-bill-controversy/arizona-governor-brewer-vetoes-anti-gay-bill-n39666
 
Thank God!!

This kind of discriminatory behaviour that the bill intended to advance reminds me of Jim Crow against blacks in the South, “for whites only”.

And it would have been a disaster for Arizona’s economy.

This entirely discriminatory and uncharitable bill was not the way to advance any moral values or ‘religious freedom’, or ‘speak out against sinners’. No Catholics should delude themselves about that fact.

Bravo, Governor Brewer!
 
Al_Moritz said:
Thank God!!

This kind of discriminatory behaviour that the bill intended to advance reminds me of Jim Crow against blacks in the South, “for whites only”.

And it would have been a disaster for Arizona’s economy.

This entirely discriminatory and uncharitable bill was not the way to advance any moral values or ‘religious freedom’, or ‘speak out against sinners’. No Catholics should delude themselves about that fact.

Bravo, Governor Brewer!
Click to expand...
Ditto!!!

:clapping:
 
I completely support people’s right to exercise religious liberty. However, I think individual people would’ve used this bill to go way too far.
 
I really wonder how many people who are crying “Jim Crow” from the rooftops about this bill, the Kansas bill, and now Missouri SB916 have ever read them. In each case, it’s almost a direct cut-and-paste from existing federal law. Look up the “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” of 1996. Signed into law by Bill Clinton. The language is almost word-for-word identical.
 
My understanding was that the bill would make it clear that business owners should not be forced to participate in events that violated their consciences. It had nothing to do with not serving gays as people. IOW, the businessperson would sell them a cake, but could decline to show 2 men embracing as “married” people. Without the freedom to be true to one’s conscience, what good is talking about religious freedom anyway?
 
The opening post, which no doubt innocently changed the headline of the actual news article posted, uses the word “discrimination,” a word which presumes the bills would have discriminated against practicing gay people. However, if a Christian business refuses to help a gay person implement his gay practices, as in the case of the Christian baker who would not bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding, I don’t see this as “discrimination.”
I appreciate the opening post by the way for the way it does provide the information about her veto, since I had wondered what would happen,
 
Great News. Sad that the new Jim Crow law even had to come to a veto though.
 
She was having a lot of economic pressure from big corporations…(the following from a journalist in AZ)

–Brewer has received letters from the NFL, Marriott and Apple (the latter which is threatening to pull its planned facility out the Phoenix East Valley if the bill becomes law). The NFL has also warned that it will move the 2015 Super Bowl out of Phoenix if the bill becomes law.

–Permitting the bill to become law will kill jobs faster in Arizona than anything else conceivable. The bill is a disaster on the employment front.

–Brewer is allowing all sides to be heard before she vetoes the bill–particularly the side that wishes her to sign it.

–Brewer should have vetoed the bill earlier but has promised to hear out the “wackos.”

–The fatal flaw of the bill is permitting people to decide in their own minds what is a violation of religious liberty that justifies discrimination against others. Good legislation cannot be built around such a notion.
 
katy said:
My understanding was that the bill would make it clear that business owners should not be forced to participate in events that violated their consciences. It had nothing to do with not serving gays as people. IOW, the businessperson would sell them a cake, but could decline to show 2 men embracing as “married” people. Without the freedom to be true to one’s conscience, what good is talking about religious freedom anyway?
Click to expand...
Right wing commentators, legislators, and even the owners themselves must have a very poor understanding of business law. This has never been an issue of religious freedom. There is no law stating that a person cannot discriminate against x, y, or z. Public accommodation laws apply to businesses not to people. The people involved in these lawsuits, a baker in your example, were named because they are the owners of an unincorporated business. Under the law, the owners of an unincorporated business and the business itself are the same legal entity in terms of liability. This means that the owners are legally liable for everything that goes on with/in their business including violations of public accommodation law and especially if they are the ones breaking the law in their official capacity as the owner of the business. They are not required under the law to personally provide services which they find objectionable, but the business is. The owner of a business is already protected so what these people are really asking for is either to declare businesses persons and grant them the enumerated rights in the Constitution or pass legislation to expressly allow businesses to discriminate against gay people.
 
Are Catholic bakers against baking cakes for Jewish BahMitzvahs? Doesn’t it go against their faith as Jews deny the divinity of Jesus?

A cake is for a reception, not a wedding. No one is asking their cake baker to be an “active participant” in their wedding, they just want them to combine flour, water, sugar, etc. and bake. It’s just a cake, in my opinion.
 
gilliam said:
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has vetoed a hot-button measure that would have permitted businesses in the state to deny service to gay and lesbians for religious beliefs.

At a news conference at the state capitol just after 7:45 p.m. ET, Brewer said the bill “could result in unintended and negative consequences.”

“I sincerely believe that Senate Bill 1062 could create more problems than it purports to solve,” Brewer said.

nbcnews.com/storyline/arizona-bill-controversy/arizona-governor-brewer-vetoes-anti-gay-bill-n39666
Click to expand...
Well, it’s what you’d call a prudential measure.

I personally feel that the bill made a good point, but I can see how its practical application might lead to problems.
 
Meanwhile, over on the Cultural Marxist sites there is much rejoicing and merriment. :rolleyes:
 
Al_Moritz said:
This entirely discriminatory and uncharitable bill was not the way to advance any moral values or ‘religious freedom’, or 'speak out against sinners
Click to expand...
So, what would you propose? What legislation would meet your criteria?
katy said:
My understanding was that the bill would make it clear that business owners should not be forced to participate in events that violated their consciences. It had nothing to do with not serving gays as people. IOW, the businessperson would sell them a cake, but could decline to show 2 men embracing as “married” people. Without the freedom to be true to one’s conscience, what good is talking about religious freedom anyway?
Click to expand...
This is correct. The bill also provided for protection against discrimination that was based on sexual orientation not tied to an activity such as SS"M". Arizona does not have that protection now. So it’s much more likely that an* individual *homosexual person will face discrimination now that the law has been vetoed than if it had passed.

But the people screaming loudest weren’t really concerned with protecting anyone - not the homosexual OR religious business owners. They just wanted to make political noise. 😦
 
Parts of anti-discrimination laws are currently not compatible with religious liberty in the areas with businesses and homosexual weddings and civil unions. Likewise, bed and breakfasts and hotels shouldn’t be forced to admit a homosexual couple anymore than they should be forced to admit an unmarried hetrosexual couple.

How many anti discrimination laws were created before the expanse of homosexual marriage and civil unions? For example, an anti-discrimination law was passed in New Mexico in 2003, long before many states legalised homosexual ‘marriage,’ and that law was used in the case of Elaine photography.
 
Just for some clarification since a lot of people who don’t live in AZ are commenting on this.

I live in AZ and around me I don’t know anyone who thought this law was a good idea.
 
cloistered said:
Are Catholic bakers against baking cakes for Jewish BahMitzvahs?
Click to expand...
Of course not.
Doesn’t it go against their faith as Jews deny the divinity of Jesus?
Click to expand...
Not at all. Catholics do not have any issue with any of the practices of the Old Testament.

Now, if a Catholic baker was asked to make a cake under kosher conditions for the Bar Mitzvah, he should be able to decline since that would require too much change to the kitchen and the process.
A cake is for a reception, not a wedding.
Click to expand...
Well a wedding cake is for a wedding reception.
No one is asking their cake baker to be an “active participant” in their wedding, they just want them to combine flour, water, sugar, etc. and bake. It’s just a cake, in my opinion
Click to expand...
Sometimes that the case. A couple, even a same-sex couple should be able to walk into the bakery and purchase any cake being offered for sale from the bakery case. That would be “just cake.” But often, the couple meets with the baker/cake designer and wants **collaboration **on the design, decorations, etc. Most wedding cake bakers also deliver and set up the cake and some even provide servers for the cake. That is very much “active participation”.
 
Corki said:
Of course not.

Not at all. Catholics do not have any issue with any of the practices of the Old Testament.

Now, if a Catholic baker was asked to make a cake under kosher conditions for the Bar Mitzvah, he should be able to decline since that would require too much change to the kitchen and the process.

Well a wedding cake is for a wedding reception.

Sometimes that the case. A couple, even a same-sex couple should be able to walk into the bakery and purchase any cake being offered for sale from the bakery case. That would be “just cake.” But often, the couple meets with the baker/cake designer and wants **collaboration **on the design, decorations, etc. Most wedding cake bakers also deliver and set up the cake and some even provide servers for the cake. That is very much “active participation”.
Click to expand...
So you don’t have any qualms about all the Leviticus stuff involving killing people for eating shellfish, wearing the wrong clothing?
 
Gov. Brewer would make for a good Presidential candidate, don’t you think?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top