She is a battered shell but I kept hoping she would hold. She got pummeled by her own party including Mitt Romney.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
As Governor Brewer correctly pointed out, there is no instance - not one - of any Christian businesses in Arizona being “forced to participate in an event morally repugnant to them.” Nor, for that matter, are homosexuals a ‘protected class’ under the State of Arizona’s law, so there are better odds of seeing pigs fly than see gay mafia go after Christian business in Arizona. Not gonna happen. Ever. Ever, ever, ever. Ever. The fact of the matter of is there are plenty of non-Catholic Protestants and other non-Christian who find Catholic rituals and ceremonies to be “morally repugnant” - the bill would have given bigots license to refuse catering or baking a cake for quincaneras (which are a huge deal at many Catholic parishes here) not to mention photographers hating on receptions held at Catholic parishes because it’s against their conscience. (Sola scripture, anyone? ‘whore of babylon?’ shari’a law? Muslim business refusing service to you if you’re not wearing a burqua? ring a bell?) I don’t think the premise of the law’s objection was twisted at all: much of the economic harm was already done, and had the bill passed Phoenix would have been in worse shape than Detroit. Nothing twisted or inaccurate about that. Thank goodness Governor Brewer did the right thing-!
What about Muslim-owned businesses and Christian Science-owned business who would refuse service to Catholics because it’s against their conscience? Catholic Christians are not the only ones with consideration for conscience. There’s a ton of hoopla about Muslims taking over the U.S. with Shari’a Law, and then a bill comes along which would let Muslims defend their conscience, at the expense of Christians claiming they’re the beneficiaries such legislation, when it actuality the bill would do more to defend Muslim businesses and pagan businesses and even Quaker businesses who would refuse service to our nation’s veterans because they many of them don’t believe in war. In short, I think it’s terribly simplistic to claim Catholics would have been the only ones to have benefited from the legislation - nobody wants to talk about how Muslims and non-Catholic Protestant businesses would have gained a lot more from this misguided legislation than Catholics would have. Muslim-owned business must have been chomping at the bits for this one - *“finally-! we can now get state-sanctioned shari’a law for our business-!” * It was a pro-shari’a-law piece legislation, which of course you won’t see mentioned in “Crisis Magazine” or by CAP (Center for Arizona Policy) because those are Christian, not Muslim, groups.
Strange how our families lived in this nation for hundreds of years without having to worry about such things. Catholics bake and took photos for protestant wedding and protestants did the same. I don’t recall this even being brought up as an issue until now.
The number of Muslims in this country has doubled since 9/11. Not that I am implying that is bad; like most Catholics, most Muslims are not rabid extremists. However, the law in Arizona would have given those who operate at the extremes a license to discriminate. Muslim men who drive cabs could legitimately refuse to transport unaccompanied women. Landlords could refuse to rent to unwed mothers, Christian Scientist employers could refuse to provide health care benefits.
Right, because society used to have shared morals and ethics, predominantly Christian. We sued to be responsible for our own actions, acting with courtesy, manners and decency. God blessed us abundantly and gave us a beautiful country with food, shelter and peace. But now that secular-atheism has infested government, media and big business, what with all its garbage about political correctness, social engineering and conditioning, it’s injected chaos into society, as it does in every nation it seeks to gain traction. By the time they’re through wrecking havoc, our republic will have become a full-blown communist nightmare.
Yeah, it’s a little curious that nobody wants to talk about the conscience rights of Muslims (who also regard homosexuality as a grave sin) and the conscience rights of other non-Catholics who may not wish to be “forced to participate” in a quincanera being held at a Catholic parish. Very, very curious that pro-bill opinion assumes the only religion being “protected” is Christianity. Still waiting for someone to cite an example of a Christian business that was ‘persecuted’ in Arizona…
And we still are that beacon. Handing Muslims the freedom to impose shari’a law over our laws, in the name of their conscience, would fast track that slippery slope. Giving anti-Catholic bigots license to discriminate against Catholics in the name of their conscience, would fast track that slippery slope. Thankfully, everyone in Arizona is as free to practice and exercise their Catholic faith - every day of the week - as they ever were. It’s all good here.
Controlling one’s own business is not related in the least to this mythical concept of imposing sharia law. That is fear-mongering using an impossibility.
The first challenge is demonstrating why this law is even needed. It isn’t and here’s why: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.
Now that might be the first valid argument I have heard here for rejecting this law, not all this comparison to race and religion. If the law is simply unnecessary because it addresses a problem that does not exist. We do not need more gunk that is nothing but political posturing and symbolism. Now not that I said the argument is valid, not the point. I guess it might be debatable whether there is any need for this law.
Can you point out exactly what in the bill would have restricted anyone’s rights?YAY! Thank you Gov. Brewer for protecting the rights of ALL citizens and all God’s children, regardless of whether they like the same sex or the opposite.
I apologize, but I am still not sure how this is even related to the topic of the thread.
If other religious groups discriminate against Catholics,that is not necessarily so important that it calls for an anti-discrimination law. It depends on what is being denied to Catholics.