Another Republican Rolls Over

[Flanders]

Arizona governor, Jan Brewer, vetoed the First Amendment when she put a political definition of discrimination above these 16 words:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . .

Result: Homosexuals get what they want, while the rest of us lose another chunk of religious freedom. Brewer is either a fool, or she is lying like a Democrat:

At her news conference, Ms. Brewer acknowledged the qualms that many people have about same-sex marriage and noted that society was undergoing many dramatic changes. “Religious liberty is a core American and Arizona value,” she said, but added, “so is no discrimination.”

Arizona Governor Vetoes Bill on Refusal of Service to Gays
By FERNANDA SANTOSFEB. 26, 2014

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/27/us/Brewer-arizona-gay-service-bill.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1​

Freedom of religion is set in cement. Brewer chose to ignore the First Amendment for obvious reasons. The real issue is the government forcing law-abiding Americans to work against their will. Brewer turned out to be no different than dirty little Socialist moralists using the law to impose their sick religion on the country. In this case it took the form of a veto, but I believe it all began with a case in the New Mexico Supreme Court.

See permalinks #2 & #3 & #5 in this thread for background on the topic:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/history/226959-lawyers-and-bankers.html

Cut through Brewer’s idiotic justification and you’ll see that her veto is nothing more than reaffirming the government’s authority to tell law-abiding Americans what they must do.

Finally, show me one federal, state, or local law that gives judges the authority to tell Americans who they must work for.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Brewer made the right decision. All this was going to do is open her state up to lawsuits that the state would lose, wasting taxpayer dollars.

 

[Flanders]

Brewer made the right decision. All this was going to do is open her state up to lawsuits that the state would lose, wasting taxpayer dollars.

To Dont Taz Me Bro: Unless you’re saying a state can be sued for passing a law that a few consider unjust how can the state be sued? If states can be sued for passing laws Arizona should be liable for not defending freedom of religion not to mention forcing individuals to work against their will.

Incidentally, is refusing to work for someone the same thing as persecution?

Catholic League Pres Challenges Chris Cuomo: Where Are ‘Examples of Gay People Being Persecuted?’
by Noah Rothman | 8:47 am, February 27th, 2014

Catholic League Pres Challenges Chris Cuomo: Where Are ?Examples of Gay People Being Persecuted?? | Mediaite

 

[WorldWatcher]

Result: Homosexuals get what they want, while the rest of us lose another chunk of religious freedom. Brewer is either a fool, or she is lying like a Democrat:

Why do you single out homosexuals?

You realize that there is nothing in the bill that limits the religous exemption to homosexuals right? The law would have allowed a business owner to discriminate against blacks, Jews, Asians, Muslims, etc. But claiming a religous exemption.

Freedom of religion is set in cement. Brewer chose to ignore the First Amendment for obvious reasons.

Really?

Take a Bible, walk back and forth across the highway stopping taffic and preach a sermon. Then claim the cops can't stop you because you have a Freedom of Religoin right to interfer with traffic.

The real issue is the government forcing law-abiding Americans to work against their will.

Last I checked no one is forced to work against their will. People voluntarily open business, and the voluntary take jobs that are offered.

A bakery voluntarily determines it's menu, if they don't want to produce wedding cakes for the public - they don't have to. A photographer does not need to offer wedding services. Same with a Florist.

Finally, show me one federal, state, or local law that gives judges the authority to tell Americans who they must work for.

Amendment X United States Constitution
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Arizona Revised Statutes
41-1442. Discrimination in places of public accommodation; exceptions
A. Discrimination in places of public accommodation against any person because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin or ancestry is contrary to the policy of this state and shall be deemed unlawful.

Tenth Amendment | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
Arizona Revised Statutes - Public Accommodation
​

Under the 10th Amendment the power to regulate commerce within the various States resides with that States. Arizona has passed a law called a Public Accommodation law that limits the reasons that a business can refuse to provide equal goods and services to its customers.

Under your premise then, Arizona law requires the sale of goods and services to blacks, Jews, Muslims, and Chinese. This law was passed by the legislature and the Judges of the State of Arizona enforce the laws.

But even then business are not "forced to work for" anyone. A business can not offer those services equally to everyone and there is no problem. However a business that does offer wedding services (cakes, flowers, photography) can't - since this law was vetoed - hide behind their religion to facilitate their discrimination.



********************************


So, now if you are going to claim this law applied only to homosexuals then follow the link below to the actual bill and point out where the ability to discriminate is limited to decisions based on sexual orientation.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.pdf



>>>>

 

[Flanders]

Why do you single out homosexuals?

To WorldWatcher: Talking about court decisions involving homosexuals is not singling out anyone. The principle would be the same if a non-homosexual went to the courts demanding that a specific person be punished for refusing to work for him.

You realize that there is nothing in the bill that limits the religous exemption to homosexuals right? The law would have allowed a business owner to discriminate against blacks, Jews, Asians, Muslims, etc. But claiming a religous exemption.

To WorldWatcher: Discrimination is an invented crime deserving of a patent. It did not exist until early in the twentieth century. More to the point, it makes no distinction between actually harming another person physically and simply not associating with him or her.

In truth, liberals invent crimes in order to give one group or another special privileges. Racial discrimination is Socialism’s crowning achievement. Hate crime legislation is a work in progress.

Prohibiting murder is not complicated. Prohibiting hate crimes is another ball game. Punishing either is where the fun begins.

The rule that liberals live by says go easy on murderers because they are all innocent anyway, but by all means apply the death penalty to anyone judged guilty of a hate crime.

Hate crime legislation boggles the mind because it assigns a psychological motive to selected criminals. Socialists are incapable of drafting any law that is aimed at criminal behavior only. Knowing how they do things it’s possible that hate crime laws will eventually require decent-people to take an angry nutcase to lunch, or do something else that is equally socialistic.

NOTE: I often use decent-people as a compound word. That should not be taken as a moral judgement. It is simply a way to identify individuals who don’t want to control anyone’s life and resources except their own.

The fact that killing a homosexual is always a hate crime tells me that the Left’s attempt to legislate love has gone off the deep end. Liberals are so sick they believe that by attaching the word hate to a crime the worst criminals will become so repulsed by the label they will love everyone.

I don’t know who is the sicker, the criminals, the characters who promote hate crime legislation, or the do-gooders who will destroy this country with their attempts to legislate love?

Needless to say, race riots, civil unrest, and raucous behavior in general, do not qualify as hate crimes, while the occasional church bombing does meet the test.

In effect, homophiles claim that killing a straight person is less of a crime than killing a homosexual. And please don't respond with "All killing is wrong." Homosexuals probably believe that all killing is wrong, but murdering a homosexual is more wrong. They want special punishment for anyone that kills a homosexual which is a form of special protection.

Most crimes come under state and local jurisdictions. Federal laws are not necessary in those cases. Homophiles want a federal “Hate Crime Law” that will essentially take away double jeopardy protection from a defendant who is acquitted in a local court, or even if a guilty murderer is not given the punishment the homosexual community thinks is appropriate. Here again we have an example of extraordinary privileges in the form of special protection for homosexuals.

Take a Bible, walk back and forth across the highway stopping taffic and preach a sermon. Then claim the cops can't stop you because you have a Freedom of Religoin right to interfer with traffic.

To WorldWatcher: That’s an absurd example. Preachers cannot break the law.

Last I checked no one is forced to work against their will. People voluntarily open business, and the voluntary take jobs that are offered.

To WorldWatcher: Selling retail products is not the same as forcing a person to create something. Simply put, creating a weeding cake, or a wedding album, requires more protection than the garbage government-funded artists over at the National Endowments for the Arts “create.”

Interestingly, it was liberals who claimed photography is an art form. I touched on the topic in this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/history/340570-pelosi-s-job-lock-gobbledegook.html

A bakery voluntarily determines it's menu, if they don't want to produce wedding cakes for the public - they don't have to. A photographer does not need to offer wedding services. Same with a Florist.

To WorldWatcher: Of course they can refuse to serve customers they find offensive and lose income. But court decisions are saying they must work for whoever comes in to buy. See this thread for more:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/333989-socialism-and-strangers.html

 

[Victory67]

Frightening when Christians sum up their religious freedom as "the right to discriminate against Gays".

 

[American Horse]

Arizona is a small state on the verge of turning blue. She understood the tenacity with which the primary actors were going to work this bone - no pun intended. Several big money interests were lining up threateningly, and this poorly understood and maybe unnecessary bill was at the fault line.

She pulled back from the crevasse.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Flanders, as a the descendent of Jacksonian majoritarian democracy, does not understand the 14th Amendment invalidates of all his arguments.

Let's move on.

 

[HenryBHough]

Sometimes when you see someone doing something stupid the best course is to stand back - way back - and let them do it. Then let them stew in their own juices for a while. Sometimes they'll figure out what they did to themselves and fix it. Other times they just drown in their own filth.

If you have the time, the latter is more fun to watch than the former.

 

[Zander]

I think Brewer made the right decision. NEXT!!!


Obamacare? Health insurance?? HappY??

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

To Dont Taz Me Bro: Unless you’re saying a state can be sued for passing a law that a few consider unjust how can the state be sued?

I'm fairly certain it was the majority who found it unjust, not a few.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Arizona is a small state on the verge of turning blue. She understood the tenacity with which the primary actors were going to work this bone - no pun intended. Several big money interests were lining up threateningly, and this poorly understood and maybe unnecessary bill was at the fault line.

She pulled back from the crevasse.

Arizona is not a small state and it is not on the verge of turning blue (although it will if the GOP keep doing stupid shit like this). That has nothing do with any of this. It was simply a bad law and a legal conundrum.

 

[Flanders]

She pulled back from the crevasse.

To American Horse: That a polite way of saying she vetoed the First Amendment.

Incidentally, governors are not elected to make decisions based on their personal morality, yet Brewer has shown herself to be a dirty little moralist. She has a record on a few big issues a Democrat would die for.

Let's move on.

To JakeStarkey: How about you moving on out of my threads.

I'm fairly certain it was the majority who found it unjust, not a few.

To Dont Taz Me Bro: SB 1062 was written by the legislature because the majority wanted it.

Even if Brewer had signed the bill liberals would have found an activist judge to overturn the law. That’s the way it’s done. California’s Prop 8, and Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage are two well-publicized examples.

Whenever a vocal minority cannot get a court to overturn a specific law they fall back on not enforcing it as this Administration did with DOMA.

Note that 7 lawyers on the SCOTUS overturned countless laws when they decriminalized abortion. To date 55 million babies have been slaughtered in the womb. A cynic might say the courts hate babies, while they love marriages that cannot produce babies. Conversely, the courts love the children of illegal aliens, while the infanticide crowd always invoke the “children” when they demand money for this or that welfare state program.

 

[Flanders]

To WorldWatcher: Discrimination is an invented crime deserving of a patent.

Matthew Vadum’s great analysis gives my invented crime a better name:

Brewer's decision to nix the measure in the current political and cultural climate emboldens radicals to treat opposition to same-sex marriage as a thought crime.

Vadum also reminds us:

Although freedom of association has been under attack by the Left for decades, Arizona law already acknowledged that residents retain the right to discriminate in at least a few aspects of their private lives.

XXXXX​

It is no longer enough for left-wingers to be winning the nationwide battle over same-sex marriage (and at lightning speed).

Now they want to compel their opponents to approve of same-sex marriage. They want same-sex marriage opponents to be forced to participate in the celebration of same-sex marriage. It is a new, creepy, ritualized form of torture in our litigious society.

XXXXX​

You ought to be able to discriminate against anybody for any reason and without having to explain yourself.

You shouldn't have the right to force a homosexual-owned print shop to make "God hates fags" signs for the Westboro Baptist Church to hoist at the funerals of dead American soldiers.

You shouldn't have the right to compel a Muslim-owned copy shop to print images of Mohammed.

You shouldn't have the right to make a delicatessen owned by Kosher-observant Jews serve you a bacon cheeseburger.

You shouldn't have the right to commandeer the ovens of religious bakers opposed to same-sex marriage and force them to make a cake for a gay wedding. Similarly, you shouldn't have the right to coerce a traditional marriage-supporting photographer to take pictures at a gay wedding ceremony.

The final sentence sums it up nicely:

Just go somewhere else for your cake and photos.

March 1, 2014
If the Left knew Christians were coming they'd've baked a cake
By Matthew Vadum

Articles: If the Left knew Christians were coming they'd've baked a cake​

Dennis Miller gets it right. Move the cursor to 2:40 to hear his take:

The O'Reilly Factor | Bill O'Reilly | Fox News

Finally, I’m pretty sure Governor Brewer was singing this oldie to the Constitution-haters when she vetoed the First Amendment:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1gfZwejPv8&feature=player_detailpage]If I Knew You Were Comin' I'd've Baked a Cake Eileen Barton - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

To Dont Taz Me Bro: SB 1062 was written by the legislature because the majority wanted it.

Link?

 

[Flanders]

To Dont Taz Me Bro: SB 1062 was written by the legislature because the majority wanted it.

Link?

To Dont Taz Me Bro: It was passed by Arizona’s legislators who were elected by the majority. Res ipsa loquitur. If you have a poll that says the majority opposed SB 1062 post your link for examination.

Incidentally, Brewer was not alone in her contempt for the majority that elected her. This excerpt is from the article I linked in #14 permalink:

The state-level civil rights bill that Brewer mothballed Feb. 26 was killed by a media-led propaganda campaign that falsely characterized it as "anti-gay." To no one's surprise, both of the GOP's last two RINO losers, Mitt Romney and John McCain, urged a veto.

 

[Flanders]

Arizona governor, Jan Brewer, vetoed the First Amendment when she put a political definition of discrimination above these 16 words:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . .

This is as good as conservatives winning an election.

Mar 12, 3:04 PM EDT
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer won't seek third term
By BOB CHRISTIE and ASTRID GALVAN
Associated Press

News from The Associated Press

The only fear is that she might run for the US Senate.