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

[Monkey1976]

I would say that when the sponsors and supporters of such bills publicly state that their purpose is to deny service to gay people then it is anti-gay legislation and the intent is to discriminate against gay people.

First, can you give a source for the sponsor’s public statements as to the purpose of the bill? Second, would you say that a law containing the text I quoted is “anti-gay” or not?

 

[Laurent_LUG]

Part 1: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11751617&postcount=79
Part 2: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11751687&postcount=81

I think the owner is pointing out the hypocrisy of the opposition. The gay community, which sponsored the boycott, claims the moral high ground by professing tolerance. That is, a position of tolerance should cause the baker not to refuse service. Yet they do the opposite by refusing to tolerate the baker’s position.

OK , the revenge attack (gay-society) was indeed a bit dirty !!
Looking for another bakery to buy a cake , would be the best solution !!

Maybe a bit cruel to ask , but for the baker , was it all that worth ??

 

[gam197]

The governor caved in to financial pressure from the NFL and Apple Computer who said they would not build a new complex there.

Why did Mitt Romney tweet to “veto it” - don’t get that.

 

[Momofmyangels]

Part 1: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11751617&postcount=79
Part 2: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11751687&postcount=81

OK , the revenge attack (gay-society) was indeed a bit dirty !!
Looking for another bakery to buy a cake , would be the best solution !!

Maybe a bit cruel to ask , but for the baker , was it all that worth ??

At the particular judgement, when we all have to account for our actions, I would think the baker will say, “Yes, it was worth it, I did not compromise my faith.”

 

[gam197]

The Marriott Hotels, Delta and American Airlines and the Chamber of Commerce wanted the bill vetoed also.

washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/02/27/how-apple-the-nfl-and-other-big-businesses-helped-kill-the-arizona-bill/

There were also misgivings among people who had initially supported the bill, with three Republican state senators who voted for it turning around and calling for a veto.
“There were some second thoughts among even those who voted for it,” Castner said. “My guess is that same feeling may be going through the minds of folks who have at least up until now supported these types of measures in other states.”
Hamer also has this simple advice for any other states considering such a bill: “Don’t do it.”

 

[Havard]

I would say that when the sponsors and supporters of such bills publicly state that their purpose is to deny service to gay people then it is anti-gay legislation and the intent is to discriminate against gay people.

In previous posts, I have specifically linked the comments of the sponsoring/drafting legislator, who said the exact opposite of which you claim. And I have also cited several of its major and most respected supporters who also explicitly rejected your claim, such as former Ambassador to the Holy See and Harvard law professor, Mary Ann Glendon. So it’s probably no surprise that I find your suggestion to the contrary to be incredibly misleading. If you want to make a valid case against it, point to the brilliant minds who support it and tell us why they are wrong.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

In previous posts, I have specifically linked the comments of the sponsoring/drafting legislator, who said the exact opposite of which you claim. And I have also cited several of its major and most respected supporters who also explicitly rejected your claim, such as former Ambassador to the Holy See and Harvard law professor, Mary Ann Glendon. So it’s probably no surprise that I find your suggestion to the contrary to be incredibly misleading. If you want to make a valid case against it, point to the brilliant minds who support it and tell us why they are wrong.

To my knowledge there are no brilliant minds who support it.

 

[Monkey1976]

To my knowledge there are no brilliant minds who support it.

So can you provide a source of the sponsors or major supporters stating that the purpose of the bill was to deny service to homosexuals, or are we just going to go with name-calling at this point?

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

So can you provide a source of the sponsors or major supporters stating that the purpose of the bill was to deny service to homosexuals, or are we just going to go with name-calling at this point?

I don’t need to provide a source, but you can search for it if you wish. Check out some of the interviews done by these people.

 

[Monkey1976]

I don’t need to provide a source, but you can search for it if you wish. Check out some of the interviews done by these people.

You have claimed that this law was specifically targeted against homosexual persons. As you have made the positive claim, it falls to you to either support that claim with evidence, or withdraw it.

 

[Havard]

To my knowledge there are no brilliant minds who support it.

So now people who disagree with you have a maximum IQ? Why don’t you rebut that letter then? Tell us where they’re wrong. It’s laughable anyone would presume themselves competent to determine that top legal scholars must not be brilliant, but you won’t directly address the substance of what they say. By the way, I’m not being flip about calling them top scholars, either. After law school, I had the privilege of working in policy at the Hoover Institution, and have met a few of these folks. And one of the signors is an old professor of mine. It’s cute that anyone has the chutzpah to act like they can dismiss someone like Rick Garnett when it comes to Constitutional Law, especially on the subject of Free Exercise.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

So now people who disagree with you have a maximum IQ? Why don’t you rebut that letter then? Tell us where they’re wrong. It’s laughable anyone would presume themselves competent to determine that top legal scholars must not be brilliant, but you won’t directly address the substance of what they say. By the way, I’m not being flip about calling them top scholars, either. After law school, I had the privilege of working in policy at the Hoover Institution, and have met a few of these folks. And one of the signors is an old professor of mine. It’s cute that anyone has the chutzpah to act like they can dismiss someone like Rick Garnett when it comes to Constitutional Law, especially on the subject of Free Exercise.

And what I think OP fails to ignore is that this bill was an attempt to codify Religious Freedom Restoration Act at a state level.

 

[Al_Moritz]

The Marriott Hotels, Delta and American Airlines and the Chamber of Commerce wanted the bill vetoed also.

washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/02/27/how-apple-the-nfl-and-other-big-businesses-helped-kill-the-arizona-bill/

From How business went ‘DEFCON 1’ in Arizona:

The corporate community’s engagement in the fight over S.B. 1062 was overpowering: American Express wrote to Brewer on Tuesday asking her to veto the law, according to a spokesman for the credit card company, which has a large presence in the state. JPMorgan, with its 11,000-odd employees in Arizona, said on Wednesday that the legislation “does not reflect the values of our country or the State of Arizona and should be vetoed.” The national bank Wells Fargo also opposed it, along with Apple, Marriott and other big corporations with significant Arizona-based investments.

…]

Markell, a former Nextel executive who caused a national stir earlier this week by calling for the Super Bowl to be moved out of Arizona if S.B. 1062 became law, said any major business would be handicapped by even the perception of intolerance.

“These companies don’t care whether the talent is white or black or Hispanic or Asian or gay or straight. They just want to get talented people,” Markell said. “I think these businesses score big points when their employees see they’re willing to step up and speak out.”

…]

American Bankers Association President Frank Keating, the former Republican governor of Oklahoma, said refusing service to consumers based on their sexual orientation is simply a nonstarter at this point for big companies. He likened the arguments for S.B. 1062 — that a religious conservative florist, for example, shouldn’t have to provide flowers for a gay wedding — to the mindset of racial segregation.

“If you’re in the public accommodations space, you take all commerce. If you don’t want to be in it, you don’t have to be,” said Keating, himself an opponent of same-sex marriage. “As a Catholic, I think marriage is between a man and a woman. But that doesn’t mean in the public accommodations space that if you disagree with me, that you can’t be served lunch.”

 

[katy]

It wasn’t about serving lunch; it was about being forced to participate in an event morally repugnant to them. Big difference. Nobody in this has desired to refuse lunch to anybody. This whole premise of this is being twisted.

 

[stevegravy]

American Bankers Association President Frank Keating, the former Republican governor of Oklahoma, said refusing service to consumers based on their sexual orientation is simply a nonstarter at this point for big companies. He likened the arguments for S.B. 1062 — that a religious conservative florist, for example, shouldn’t have to provide flowers for a gay wedding — to the mindset of racial segregation.

”

In other words, you have the freedom to worship but not freedom of religion. The only religion allowed is the secular one. You get a couple hours in your closet on whatever day is important to you. That is it.

Oh well, I thnk this is the way it starts.

 

[RACJ]

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!

Brewer stood up for justice on one issue, criminal immigration, and she has been beaten to a pulp. Now, she is a battered shell of her old self. You can count on her to cave on everything henceforth. There aren’t too many politicians with steadfast courage as exemplified by Sens. Ted Cruz and Mike Lee. Rob

 

[RACJ]

In other words, you have the freedom to worship but not freedom of religion. The only religion allowed is the secular one. You get a couple hours in your closet on whatever day is important to you. That is it.

Oh well, I thnk this is the way it starts.

Yes, Steve, and the way it inevitably must END is with shuttered churches, all those who refuse to refrain from what the radical statists regard as “hate speech” against homosexual relations. :sad_yes:

 

[Laurent_LUG]

At the particular judgement, when we all have to account for our actions, I would think the baker will say, “Yes, it was worth it, I did not compromise my faith.”

Fine , he has the right to do it so , meaning that he has to live with the consequences !!

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

So now people who disagree with you have a maximum IQ? Why don’t you rebut that letter then? Tell us where they’re wrong. It’s laughable anyone would presume themselves competent to determine that top legal scholars must not be brilliant, but you won’t directly address the substance of what they say. By the way, I’m not being flip about calling them top scholars, either. After law school, I had the privilege of working in policy at the Hoover Institution, and have met a few of these folks. And one of the signors is an old professor of mine. It’s cute that anyone has the chutzpah to act like they can dismiss someone like Rick Garnett when it comes to Constitutional Law, especially on the subject of Free Exercise.

If Mr. Garnett is the massive legal mind you seem to think he is then he would know that this issue has absolutely nothing to do with Free Exercise. I will give Mr. Garnett the benefit of the doubt and assume that he has not thoroughly researched the issue for the following reasons:

The only reason why discrimination cases were successful in other States is because those states included sexual orientation as a protected class under public accommodation law. Arizona does not so why is this law even necessary? Sponsors and supporters claim it is pre-emptive, but pre-emptive to what exactly? Is the Arizona legislature planning on incorporating sexual orientation as a protected class under Arizona public accommodation law? I doubt it.

• As noted above, this isn’t even an issue of Free Exercise. Even if the Arizona legislature incorporated sexual orientation as a protected class under Arizona public accommodation law; these laws apply to businesses not to individual people. They are not compelled to personally serve anyone, but the Constitution does not grant Free Exercise to businesses and neither does any other law in the country. The only reason why the owners of the businesses were personally named is because their businesses are unincorporated; which means they are legally liable for the failure of their business to comply with public accommodation law.

 

[Momofmyangels]

Fine , he has the right to do it so , meaning that he has to live with the consequences !!

Spending eternity in Heaven as your eternal reward is a consequence that surpasses no other.