Looks like the ***** Jan Brewer begrudgingly saw the writing on the wall. 
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoes anti-gay bill | MSNBC
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoes anti-gay bill | MSNBC
Arizona anti-gay bill dies
- Thread starter kidrocks
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #3
- Thread starter
- #4
TakeAStepBack
Gold Member
- Mar 29, 2011
- 13,935
- 1,742
- 245
I see you fell hook, line and sinker for the prevailiing meme regarding sb 1062 Arizona. 
Shocking, that.
Shocking, that.
It's too bad she had to do it after the bill was so distorted and lied about.
It was very wise of her to do it.
The left would have used this lie all across the country with vicious attacks in order to deflect on their harmful heath care bill.
It was very wise of her to do it.
The left would have used this lie all across the country with vicious attacks in order to deflect on their harmful heath care bill.
TakeAStepBack
Gold Member
- Mar 29, 2011
- 13,935
- 1,742
- 245
The best part about this whole affair is that it truly exposes liberals for the hypocritical bigots that they are. You wouldn't believe the amount of bigotry I've seen on parade over this between my friends. Nothing says "don't hate!" like hate speech, and there is no better why to go full hypocrite than to expose yourself as a bigot while you attempt to fight bigotry.
But, that is the default positon for liberals; hypocrisy.
But, that is the default positon for liberals; hypocrisy.
PaintMyHouse
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #8
Our tolerance doesn't go all the way to intolerance. You can run the KKK, you just can't run the KK Kake Shop. Sorry, but not really.
Last edited:
Unkotare
Diamond Member
- Aug 16, 2011
- 145,626
- 32,677
- 2,180
So, the decision she made as governor was the one you wanted and you still call her a *****? Sounds like you are the *****, and you need to get yourself into rehab for partisanship addiction right away.
SmedlyButler
Gold Member
Looks like the ***** Jan Brewer begrudgingly saw the writing on the wall.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoes anti-gay bill | MSNBC
Tesla is going to buld a 5 billion dollar battery factory somewhere in the southwest. It will potentially employ 6,500. Maybe she felt a little Musk armtwisting?
LINK:Money Talks=Bullshit Walks
"Four southwestern states are in the running to land a new multi-billion dollar factory producing batteries for electric cars, a competition that could bring more than 6,000 jobs to the winner.
Tesla, the electric car manufacturer, is evaluating sites in Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and Texas, it said in a statement released Wednesday. The company hopes to break ground on what it calls the “Gigafactory” this year and begin production by 2017."
bendog
Diamond Member
Looks like the ***** Jan Brewer begrudgingly saw the writing on the wall.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoes anti-gay bill | MSNBC
Tesla is going to buld a 5 billion dollar battery factory somewhere in the southwest. It will potentially employ 6,500. Maybe she felt a little Musk armtwisting?
LINK:Money Talks=Bullshit Walks
"Four southwestern states are in the running to land a new multi-billion dollar factory producing batteries for electric cars, a competition that could bring more than 6,000 jobs to the winner.
Tesla, the electric car manufacturer, is evaluating sites in Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and Texas, it said in a statement released Wednesday. The company hopes to break ground on what it calls the “Gigafactory” this year and begin production by 2017."
Not only that, but with the gop poised to take the senate, the party needs fundy nuts like the NE needs snow.
boilermaker55
Gold Member
- Aug 12, 2011
- 6,960
- 798
- 155
Take a look a the corporations and businesses that persuaded the governor to veto the bill.
They see bottom dollar.
They see bottom dollar.
PaintMyHouse
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #13
That's what business is all about. For serving God we have churches.
RDD_1210
Forms his own opinions
- May 13, 2010
- 18,981
- 1,817
- 265
Zzzzzzzz. Words usually have meaning. On the other hand, yours usually don't.
You all on the left was just fine with the RFRA Bill when it was singed by President Clinton.
Now that several States are going through and passing bills in order to apply the RFRA law after the court ruling, it is now being lied about and totally distorted just to stir things up.
It had nothing to do with anti gay rights.
It's disgusting and despicable how the left has so distorted it.
What this AZ bill really was about;
RFRA was first a federal law, passed by Congress in 1993, in response to a U.S. Supreme Court decision, Employment Division vs. Smith (1989). In that case, the Court did not protect the religious freedom of a member of the Native American Church who used peyote, a hallucinogenic, as part of a religious ceremony. The state did not violate Smith's religious freedom, the Court concluded in an opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, because the law making illegal the use of the hallucinogenic applied to people of all faiths, not just the Native American Church.
Many were deeply concerned about what that decision would mean for religious freedom in the United States. In practice the decision meant that if a government policy interferes with a person's right to freely practice their religion, that is acceptable as long as the policy was not specifically designed to do so.
A broad coalition of both conservatives and liberals came together, therefore, in support of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This law would tell the courts that the state may only violate someone's religious freedom under certain conditions, and it is up to the government to show those conditions are met. Plus, having a law that is generally applicable (applies to all faiths and those with no faith), is not sufficient reason to deny someone religious freedom.
The law was passed by an overwhelming majority, a unanimous vote in the House and a 97 to three vote in the Senate, and signed by a Democratic president - Bill Clinton.
Later, though, the U.S. Supreme Court would rule, in Boerne vs. Flores (1996), that RFRA cannot be applied to state laws. States would have to pass their own RFRA if they wanted it to apply to their state and local laws, the Court said. So, many states did exactly that. Arizona was one of those states
Several other States are doing it also so that RFRA will apply to their States. The Left are going after them also.
The left are almost always against States Rights.
Explanation of the Bill
The left are all up in arms about it having applied to a business organization.
It just made it harder to sue.
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/adopted/1062yarbrough1042.pdf
Now that several States are going through and passing bills in order to apply the RFRA law after the court ruling, it is now being lied about and totally distorted just to stir things up.
It had nothing to do with anti gay rights.
It's disgusting and despicable how the left has so distorted it.
What this AZ bill really was about;
RFRA was first a federal law, passed by Congress in 1993, in response to a U.S. Supreme Court decision, Employment Division vs. Smith (1989). In that case, the Court did not protect the religious freedom of a member of the Native American Church who used peyote, a hallucinogenic, as part of a religious ceremony. The state did not violate Smith's religious freedom, the Court concluded in an opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, because the law making illegal the use of the hallucinogenic applied to people of all faiths, not just the Native American Church.
Many were deeply concerned about what that decision would mean for religious freedom in the United States. In practice the decision meant that if a government policy interferes with a person's right to freely practice their religion, that is acceptable as long as the policy was not specifically designed to do so.
A broad coalition of both conservatives and liberals came together, therefore, in support of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This law would tell the courts that the state may only violate someone's religious freedom under certain conditions, and it is up to the government to show those conditions are met. Plus, having a law that is generally applicable (applies to all faiths and those with no faith), is not sufficient reason to deny someone religious freedom.
The law was passed by an overwhelming majority, a unanimous vote in the House and a 97 to three vote in the Senate, and signed by a Democratic president - Bill Clinton.
Later, though, the U.S. Supreme Court would rule, in Boerne vs. Flores (1996), that RFRA cannot be applied to state laws. States would have to pass their own RFRA if they wanted it to apply to their state and local laws, the Court said. So, many states did exactly that. Arizona was one of those states
Several other States are doing it also so that RFRA will apply to their States. The Left are going after them also.
The left are almost always against States Rights.
Explanation of the Bill
The left are all up in arms about it having applied to a business organization.
It just made it harder to sue.
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/adopted/1062yarbrough1042.pdf
Last edited:
SmedlyButler
Gold Member
is the best. You could be right.
boilermaker55
Gold Member
- Aug 12, 2011
- 6,960
- 798
- 155
And that is exactly where this bill went all wrong. Religion belongs in the house of worship.
bendog
Diamond Member
At best it was ... premature. (_:
Disir
Platinum Member
- Sep 30, 2011
- 28,003
- 9,622
- 910
If that's what it takes, so be it.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Michigan Republicans Attempt to Reduce Property Tax Spikes- Started by Carl in Michigan
- Replies: 0
-
-
So the FCC chair is threatening networks that broadcast unfavorable news- Started by Crepitus
- Replies: 5
-
Global warming alert: historic heat wave coming to the South West- Started by Conservative from Georgia
- Replies: 2
Latest Discussions
-
-
Without The Save Act, We are Living in a Slave State and Our Labor Is Harvested by Crooks.
- Latest: Conservative from Georgia