Arizona bill sponsor, supporters reverse course; Update: NBC says Brewer likely to veto

posted at 10:41 am on February 25, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Thanks to the attempt to force same-sex marriage into the civil-rights paradigm, businesses in the wedding industry are increasingly faced with a choice between their personal religious beliefs and public-accommodation laws that could force them out of their livelihoods. Arizona’s legislature tried amending the state’s protection of religious belief, but the effort may end up backfiring. With Governor Jan Brewer contemplating whether to sign or veto the bill, a number of Republicans now want the latter — including one of the original sponsors of the legislation:

The chorus of opposition has grown each day, and on Monday, three state senators who voted in favor of the bill changed course and said they oppose it. U.S. Sen. John McCain asked Brewer to veto the measure, as did Apple Inc. and the CEO of American Airlines Group Inc.

State Sens. Bob Worsley, Adam Driggs and Steve Pierce sent their letter urging a veto just days after they joined the entire 17-member Senate GOP caucus in voting for the bill.

“I think laws are (already) on the books that we need, and have now seen the ramifications of my vote,” Worsley told The Associated Press. “I feel very bad, and it was a mistake.”

With the three GOP senators joining all 13 Senate Democrats in opposition, there would be enough votes to defeat the measure in a re-vote. But too much time has passed to allow for reconsideration, and the bill was sent to Brewer in a routine transmittal Monday that was accompanied by “boos” from Senate Democrats.

Worsely’s name is on the bill as a sponsor. Both US Senators from the state, Republicans John McCain and Jeff Flake, want a veto. So does the Arizona Chamber of Commerce, which nominally represents the business interests this bill is supposed to support, because of the fear that the legislation will result in broad discrimination not just against participation in same-sex weddings but gays and lesbians in all businesses — and result in a backlash against the state’s tourism industry. At the same time, though, Georgia’s legislature is now considering a similar bill.

In essence, what we have is a legislative sledgehammer coming in response to the abuse of another legislative sledgehammer, thanks to the redefinition of “tolerance” to “forced acceptance and participation.” In my column for The Week today, I prescribe a lot more old-school tolerance and a healthy respect for personal choice as the antidote:

Most people, including faithful Christians, would and should object to refusing service to gays and lesbians simply on the basis of their orientation and lifestyle. But there is a difference between baking a birthday cake and baking a wedding cake, or photographing a birthday party and a wedding. The latter involves participation in an event that very clearly cuts across the religious beliefs of a great number of Americans, and hardly seems unreasonable for a demurral on that basis. …

The passage of the bill has stoked hyperbolic and amusing commentary on all sides, including debates over whether Jesus would have baked a cake for a gay person. All of this misses the point by a mile, which is the need for tolerance. The religious beliefs of these vendors can and should be assumed to be sincerely held, and under the law the government is required to assume that about religious beliefs. Wedding cakes and photographers are not exactly scarce commodities, nor are they an overriding state interest in the same sense that housing might be in discrimination claims. Both sides have used the legal and legislative systems like sledgehammers, and states have been too eager to impose forced participation rather than foster tolerance and let adults figure out their options.

Tolerance does not mean acceptance or participation. It means allowing people to make their own choices about what they choose to do, and to respect the ability of their fellow citizens to do the same as long as it does no injury to them. What this contretemps shows is that America is getting a lot more intolerant the more “tolerant” we become.

Matt Lewis is on the same page at The Daily Caller:

Opponents of these bills score points when they argue that florists and bakers aren’t exactly granting their imprimatur when they make a cake or put together a flower arrangement for a gay wedding. Additionally, they are correct in assuming that most Christians, whether they agree with same-sex marriage, or not, would still bake the cake. In fact, this could be seen as an example of Christian love.

But this is another example of how this schism cannot be easily brushed aside like so many wedding cake crumbs. In recent years, libertarian-leaning conservatives have largely sided with the gay rights argument. Proud members of the “leave us alone” coalition were apt to side with a group of people who just wanted to be left alone to love the person they love (and what happens in the bedroom is nobody’s business).

At some point, however, “leave us alone” became “bake us a cake. Or else!”

And that’s a very different thing, altogether.

I’m going to avoid getting into a theological debate over the issue of participating in same-sex weddings, because it’s an unresolvable topic. Some Christians might see it as Christian love, while others who read Corinthians might see a parallel to Paul’s ruling on eating meat sacrificed to idols, or even Jesus’ forgiveness of the adulterer with the proviso to “sin no more.” The point is that Christians and those of other religions on that spectrum of belief hold those beliefs sincerely, and that should be enough to allow them to choose when and whether to participate in such events. The right of religious expression takes precedence over the state interest in forcing bakers to produce cakes for same-sex weddings, or photographers to attend them.

David Harsanyi argues that this is why social conservatives should embrace libertarianism:

Should social conservatives “commit themselves” to a political philosophy that not only strives for gay equality, but one that seeks to impel others to participate in these new norms despite religious objections? Should they commit to a philosophy that impels them to fund contraception coverage and abortions — either through direct funding or fungible dollars? A philosophy that continues to force them to send their kids to crappy public educational systems that often undermine their faith-based beliefs? A philosophy that attacks parents who seek alternative means of education, like homeschooling? Or should they be more interested in wedding themselves to a political philosophy that downgrades the importance of politics in everyday life and  allows citizens to structure their communities without interference?

The growing state, after all, not the atheist, is religion’s biggest rival. And, intentionally or not, government is crowding out parts of community life that have traditionally been taken care of by civil society. It’s draining resources once used by communities to implement services and take care of their own. And even more destructive, perhaps, is that government is becoming a source of moral authority for so many.

Admittedly, it seems counterintuitive to suggest that social conservatives embrace a laissez-faire political philosophy.  And I’m definitely not Pollyannaish about my fellow human beings. Paul is right to advocate for sentencing reform and a more judicious foreign policy, but he’s also right when he says that libertarianism doesn’t mean “do whatever you want. There is a role for government, there’s a role for family, there’s a role for marriage, there’s a role for the protection of life.” (Abortion is a debate about when life is worth protecting. Despite the misconception by many in the media, there is no single libertarian position.) As is often pointed out, Adam Smith wrote The Theory of Moral Sentiments before he wrote Wealth of Nations. One does well with the other. There is no conflict between political freedom and faith.

Leave us alone, indeed.

Update: NBC now reports that Brewer is likely to veto the bill:

She vetoed a similar bill earlier, so this would not be a surprise, especially with Republicans switching sides now.

Update: I like this take from my very good friend Elizabeth “The Anchoress” Scalia:

Writing in USA Today, last week, Fox News contributor Kirsten Powers compared what some call the “anti-gay marriage” bills to “homosexual Jim Crow laws.” That may be a rhetorical bridge too far. More worth consideration is her claim that “Whether Christians have the legal right to discriminate should be a moot point because Christianity doesn’t prohibit serving a gay couple getting married. Jesus calls his followers to be servants to all. Nor does the Bible call service to another an affirmation.”

Well, yes and no. While Jesus socialized with those the temple priests would condemn, and healed the “unclean” lepers, he used those opportunities to teach about the love of God and the wideness of God’s mercy. A soul opened to God’s love begins to love God in return, and—for the sake of that love, and in honor of that mercy—eventually conforms life and manner to God’s will. …

Jesus is the source of articulated doctrine on both marriage and divorce. The world may disagree—it clearly stopped listening about divorce some decades ago—but the churches are and will remain bound to his teachings.

Meanwhile, if we lose the ability to respect that people can only go as far as their consciences will allow, we risk becoming mired in a muck of illusion, imagining hate where none exists, equating compelled behavior with authentic love, and losing sight of the fact that traveling together sometimes means that we walk the extra mile on one challenging road, and they walk it on the next. Everyone spares a bit of shoe-leather for the sake of the other. This is how love travels.

Jesus observed the law and fulfilled the law. He did not throw the law away, for the sake of love. For the sake of love, he threw himself away. That’s another counterintuitive lesson he gave to us, as we all proceed together, slouching toward “tolerance” and carrying our consciences along the way.

While the Arizona bill has potentially bad and unintended effects, it’s not “Jim Crow.” The Jim Crow laws required businesses to segregate, rather than allow them to do so. It was a system of state-enforced segregation, which pointedly did not allow for individual conscience on the issue. This may well be a bad bill, but Kirsten Powers is off base on that comparison.

Update: Andrew Sullivan finds common ground with Erick Erickson:

That’s my feeling too. I would never want to coerce any fundamentalist to provide services for my wedding – or anything else for that matter – if it made them in any way uncomfortable. The idea of suing these businesses to force them to provide services they are clearly uncomfortable providing is anathema to me. I think it should be repellent to the gay rights movement as well.

The truth is: we’re winning this argument. We’ve made the compelling moral case that gay citizens should be treated no differently by their government than straight citizens. And the world has shifted dramatically in our direction. Inevitably, many fundamentalist Christians and Orthodox Jews and many Muslims feel threatened and bewildered by such change and feel that it inchoately affects their religious convictions. I think they’re mistaken – but we’re not talking logic here. We’re talking religious conviction. My view is that in a free and live-and-let-live society, we should give them space. As long as our government is not discriminating against us, we should be tolerant of prejudice as long as it does not truly hurt us. And finding another florist may be a bother, and even upsetting, as one reader expressed so well. But we can surely handle it. And should.

Leave the fundamentalists and bigots alone. In any marketplace in a diverse society, they will suffer economically by refusing and alienating some customers, their families and their friends. By all means stop patronizing them in both senses of the word. Let them embrace discrimination and lose revenue. Let us let them be in the name of their freedom – and ours’.

Indeed.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8

Huh?

Bmore on February 25, 2014 at 6:45 PM

Someone actually read the bill? We can’t have that.

slickwillie2001 on February 25, 2014 at 6:59 PM

Jan Brewer should sign the bill, and thumb her nose at the media. – Stoic Patriot on February 25, 2014 at 6:38 PM

I would suggest that you read Ed Morrissey’s article. Even one of the original sponsors of the bill says he would now not vote for the bill. And, If the bill was again could be voted on again in the Arizona legislature, the bill would not pass. The bill was badly written and should be vetoed. Gays and Lesbians should patronize gay friendly business for gay weddings and functions. Radical gays and lesbians who demand service from those that do not wish to provide them service, for religious reasons or any other reason, are doing the Gay Rights Movement absolutely no good. All they want is to claim victim status. They are not going to get any support or sympathy from me.

SC.Charlie on February 25, 2014 at 7:04 PM

Because you disagree with him or because of his manners?

Bmore on February 25, 2014 at 6:19 PM

In case you didn’t see this SC.Charlie.

Bmore on February 25, 2014 at 6:46 PM

SC.Charlie on February 25, 2014 at 7:07 PM

Because you disagree with him or because of his manners? – Bmore on February 25, 2014 at 6:19 PM

ND30 far too often says that all gays and lebians are one great monolithic group. That they all agree with the statements of Dan Savage or some other long dead gay activist. Both he and myself are prime examples homosexuals don’t march in lockstep with the Gay Left which sadly is the dominant force of the Gay Rights Movement. I will point out to you that 30 percent of gays and lesbians voted Republican in 2008. I also don’t approve of his style of making personal attacks against other gay posters on this board, twisting their statements to make them appear part of the Gay Left.

SC.Charlie on February 25, 2014 at 7:16 PM

I would suggest that you read Ed Morrissey’s article. Even one of the original sponsors of the bill says he would now not vote for the bill. And, If the bill was again could be voted on again in the Arizona legislature, the bill would not pass. The bill was badly written and should be vetoed.
SC.Charlie on February 25, 2014 at 7:04 PM

Alternatively, they could pass the bill into law and then amend it afterwards. If it’s that unpopular, surely it shouldn’t be difficult to cobble together the support for changing it.

Stoic Patriot on February 25, 2014 at 7:25 PM

Admittedly, it seems counterintuitive to suggest that social conservatives embrace a laissez-faire political philosophy.

It’s not counter-intuitive. It’s anathema. Social conservatives demand that the law be used to promote virtue and establish justice. Laissez-faire does neither. At best, it can only remove government-perpetuated injustice, yet that is but a small sliver of the scope of human action.

Stoic Patriot on February 25, 2014 at 7:28 PM

The following is from Ed Morrissey’s article, which is the topic of this thread. It is a statement from Andrew Sullivan, someone with whom I don’t necessarily always agree:

That’s my feeling too. I would never want to coerce any fundamentalist to provide services for my wedding – or anything else for that matter – if it made them in any way uncomfortable. The idea of suing these businesses to force them to provide services they are clearly uncomfortable providing is anathema to me. I think it should be repellent to the gay rights movement as well.

The truth is: we’re winning this argument. We’ve made the compelling moral case that gay citizens should be treated no differently by their government than straight citizens. And the world has shifted dramatically in our direction. Inevitably, many fundamentalist Christians and Orthodox Jews and many Muslims feel threatened and bewildered by such change and feel that it inchoately affects their religious convictions. I think they’re mistaken – but we’re not talking logic here. We’re talking religious conviction. My view is that in a free and live-and-let-live society, we should give them space. As long as our government is not discriminating against us, we should be tolerant of prejudice as long as it does not truly hurt us. And finding another florist may be a bother, and even upsetting, as one reader expressed so well. But we can surely handle it. And should.

Leave the fundamentalists and bigots alone. In any marketplace in a diverse society, they will suffer economically by refusing and alienating some customers, their families and their friends. By all means stop patronizing them in both senses of the word. Let them embrace discrimination and lose revenue. Let us let them be in the name of their freedom – and ours’. – Andrew Sullivan

Ed Morrissey concludes the entire by writing, “Indeed”. As I have said, I agree with Ed Morrissey.

SC.Charlie on February 25, 2014 at 7:37 PM

Hi, I’m a Wiccan and need some raisin cakes to use in my pagan ritual, so be a good little baker and run along and make them, or I’ll report you to the State and to the press and they’ll ruin your business.

claudius on February 25, 2014 at 8:16 PM

Does anyone here believe the threat by the NFL against Arizona, as well as the new “15 yard penalty for on-field use of the ‘N‘ word” will cause a significant number of fans to stay home, next year ?

listens2glenn on February 25, 2014 at 8:18 PM

Now that the lefties have the NFL pushing their policies I expect a name change can’t be far off for the Redskins —and women players!

claudius on February 25, 2014 at 8:40 PM

SC.Charlie on February 25, 2014 at 7:16 PM

So, substance not delivery. Thanks.

Bmore on February 25, 2014 at 8:41 PM

Moral cowards, every last one of them.

How do you vote for a bill and then suddenly realize, “Ooops!”

Kick them all out.

Baggi on February 25, 2014 at 9:13 PM

So, substance not delivery. Thanks. – Bmore on February 25, 2014 at 8:41 PM

Incorrect, substance and delivery, reread my post. I will add that sometimes I disagree with Ed Morrissey, Allahpundit and many others. I have far more interests than just gay issues. I post on many threads on HotAir. Have you noticed that far too many HotAir posters only post on gay threads? Sadly, it appears to be their one any only obsession.

SC.Charlie on February 25, 2014 at 9:16 PM

Hi, I’m a Wiccan and need some raisin cakes to use in my pagan ritual, so be a good little baker and run along and make them, or I’ll report you to the State and to the press and they’ll ruin your business.

claudius on February 25, 2014 at 8:16 PM

That’s your job, baking cakes for a living, so start baking. sheesh, I’ve never heard of such ridiculous whining in all my born days.

cimbri on February 25, 2014 at 9:30 PM

Leave the fundamentalists and bigots alone. In any marketplace in a diverse society, they will suffer economically by refusing and alienating some customers, their families and their friends. By all means stop patronizing them in both senses of the word. Let them embrace discrimination and lose revenue. Let us let them be in the name of their freedom – and ours’.

This statement encompasses a large portion of the argument being ignored. Instead of legislating behavior and mistaking that for universal love and acceptance, give businesses the choice to make a mistake and expose themselves to the public. Then, and only then, can the public exercise their greatest freedom of all which is to vote with their wallet.

What interests me is the double standard of proposed boycotts in response to this legislation. Labor, like money, is property and belongs to the individual who wields it. Forcing a business to serve a customer against their will is forcing them into labor and the ability to pay shouldn’t be the deciding factor of whether that labor is exercised or not.

That said, if a person can choose to NOT spend money at a business because of political or religious differences, why is it that a business cannot do the same? Why is it a business MUST labor for a customer regardless of political or religious differences? If labor isn’t property, then why do we expect compensation for it? How does one get compensated for something that doesn’t belong to them?

I think going at this from a religious context, while Constitutionally sound IMO, clouds the issue. Arizona would be better served to push legislation giving business the legal means to refuse service to anyone, for any reason and at any time. Give businesses the choice to make a mistake and suffer the consequences. Social media’s power is large, and customers could easily close someone’s doors with Facebook, Twitter or Youtube.

Give people the choice to make the right or wrong decision instead of legislating them into compliance.

Flashwing on February 25, 2014 at 10:12 PM

Hi, I’m a Wiccan and need some raisin cakes to use in my pagan ritual, so be a good little baker and run along and make them, or I’ll report you to the State and to the press and they’ll ruin your business.

claudius on February 25, 2014 at 8:16 PM

That’s your job, baking cakes for a living, so start baking. sheesh, I’ve never heard of such ridiculous whining in all my born days.

cimbri on February 25, 2014 at 9:30 PM

And you’re going to force them to bake it, you fascist?

8 weight on February 25, 2014 at 10:39 PM

alchemist19 on February 25, 2014 at 6:33 PM

You’re claiming that the legal link and sameness or similarity between gays and blacks has been established but it hasn’t. In fact many states – including AZ – don’t have laws that offer the same anti-discrimination protections to gays as they do to blacks.

It’s a farce to pretend as you do that these matters are settled legally and that despite the real yearnings of your straight down the middle conservative/libertarian heart there’s only one way to interpret this.

Your imposing your own liberal structure and interpretation on the situation. It’s not the facts that demand this of you but your own inclinations.

The Civil Rights Act doesn’t establish protections for gays. And it’s utter nonsense to insist that they must because of the Civil Rights Act. This has not been established. And you engage in your typical rhetorical dance. You claim that you MUST come to the conclusions you have because they are set in stone legally. But you also offer up explanations and reasons why these conclusions should be reached anyway – all while protesting you’re really a conservative libertarian.

Dude, your hands aren’t tied and no one is forcing you to make the arguments you’re making or coming to the conclusions you come to.

In this very thread you are saying that the religious shouldn’t or don’t enjoy protections from discrimination yet are demanding they be extended to gays.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 10:39 PM

I keep seeing rhetoric claiming that the law “may lead” to discrimination against the LGBT community, but so far no one can prove it will because obviously the legislation has yet to be passed.

Oddly enough, the 1st Amendment of the Constitution gives every American the ability to express their opinions openly and without oppression. One could say, that the 1st Amendment gives people the ability to make negative, discriminatory statements, against a group of people.

If we followed the same logic where we refused to offer choice on the basis that it “might” result in a few individuals discriminating against a group of people, then we should outlaw any and all speech that has anything to do with race, creed, gender or sexual orientation. After all, we can’t have people spewing discriminatory speech like that of the KKK, New Black Panthers, Westboro Baptist Church etc.

The assumption is that opening up the ability for a business to refuse service would result in widespread discrimination when I believe exactly the opposite. Any business that acted this way would quickly be exposed in the media and patrons would cease doing business with them. Society, not the courts, would become the enforcement mechanism.

Flashwing on February 25, 2014 at 10:51 PM

It’s not counter-intuitive. It’s anathema. Social conservatives demand that the law be used to promote virtue and establish justice.

I am a social conservative, and your full of crap.

captnjoe on February 26, 2014 at 12:43 AM

Hi, I’m a Wiccan and need some raisin cakes to use in my pagan ritual, so be a good little baker and run along and make them, or I’ll report you to the State and to the press and they’ll ruin your business.

claudius on February 25, 2014 at 8:16 PM

That’s your job, baking cakes for a living, so start baking. sheesh, I’ve never heard of such ridiculous whining in all my born days.

cimbri on February 25, 2014 at 9:30 PM

That you see no problem with the State telling an citizen what to make and who to make it for is telling. This is the impasse we’ve come to, that there are now a couple of generations of so called Americans that can’t really see a problem as long as the thing coerced seems reasonable and desirable to them. No critical thinking and certainly no troublesome principles need be applied.

claudius on February 26, 2014 at 1:10 AM

After all, we can’t have people spewing discriminatory speech like that of the KKK, New Black Panthers, Westboro Baptist Church etc.

But apparently we can have the NFL attempting by threat to influence a state legislative action which has nothing to do with football as such.

claudius on February 26, 2014 at 1:20 AM

But apparently we can have the NFL attempting by threat to influence a state legislative action which has nothing to do with football as such.

claudius on February 26, 2014 at 1:20 AM

Hey, that’s fine! No really! The NFL is totally free to decide where to host their events and they are within their rights to take their money somewhere else.

I just wish that they would support the right for everyone to control their property (labor) in the same manner.

How about Arizona makes a state law making it illegal to withhold spending money for the purposes of discrimination? Hell, we’ve already gotten federal legislation passed stating interstate commerce is fair game if you choose NOT to participate in the market so I’m sure we can find legal grounds.

If X is true, then the inverse of X is also true.

Flashwing on February 26, 2014 at 2:41 AM

Hi, I’m a Wiccan and need some raisin cakes to use in my pagan ritual, so be a good little baker and run along and make them, or I’ll report you to the State and to the press and they’ll ruin your business.
claudius on February 25, 2014 at 8:16 PM
That’s your job, baking cakes for a living, so start baking. sheesh, I’ve never heard of such ridiculous whining in all my born days.
cimbri on February 25, 2014 at 9:30 PM
And you’re going to force them to bake it, you fascist?
8 weight on February 25, 2014 at 10:39 PM

If they are a public business that operate under normal business state laws like JC Pennys I sure as hell am. If it’s a lady down the street who likes to bake for everybody (but the gays) no I’m not.
Jeez where’s the love for us docs who have to get up in the middle of the night to head to the ER for some deadbeat and we don’t even get to inquire ahead who they sleep with or what turns them on .

Marcus on February 26, 2014 at 5:39 AM

Is there anyone out there who has actually read the law?

Is there anyone who knows the actual history of the law? Are you aware of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act?

HERE IS THE LAW:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/issue-analysis-arizona-bill-does-not-give-businesses-license-to-discriminate-against-gays-115093/

mountainaires on February 26, 2014 at 6:14 AM

I respond to serious questions and statements but I try not to feed the obvious trolls, that’s all.
 
alchemist19 on February 25, 2014 at 3:09 PM

 
I like you, alchemist19, but you know that’s not true. You admitted outright that the only acceptable answers were ones that confirm your belief system:
 

So yes, I suspect we’re all still on the same data-driven “homosexuality is inborn” discussion.
 
Shall we continue?
 
rogerb on January 14, 2014 at 9:35 PM

 
Is it your position that sexual orientation a matter of personal choice?
 
If your answer is “No,” then we’ve got a starting point where we can have a discussion. If your answer is “Yes,” then you’re an idiot and I’m not going to bother.
 
alchemist19 on January 14, 2014 at 9:52 PM

rogerb on February 26, 2014 at 7:06 AM

But apparently we can have the NFL attempting by threat to influence a state legislative action which has nothing to do with football as such.

claudius on February 26, 2014 at 1:20 AM

Hey, that’s fine! No really! The NFL is totally free to decide where to host their events and they are within their rights to take their money somewhere else.

Flashwing on February 26, 2014 at 2:41 AM

So, if the NFL starts campaigning for gun bans, Obamacare, or “immigration reform”, you’d be good with that. My point is once they’ve gone political there’s really no limit

claudius on February 26, 2014 at 9:16 AM

If they are a public business that operate under normal business state laws like JC Pennys I sure as hell am. If it’s a lady down the street who likes to bake for everybody (but the gays) no I’m not.
Jeez where’s the love for us docs who have to get up in the middle of the night to head to the ER for some deadbeat and we don’t even get to inquire ahead who they sleep with or what turns them on .

Marcus on February 26, 2014 at 5:39 AM

The problem is what is a “normal business state law”? The progressives like stretching definitions. If the minimum wage can be regulated why not all the wages? If regulating handguns to 7 rounds is within the Constitution why not 2 rounds or 1 round?

claudius on February 26, 2014 at 9:24 AM

SC.Charlie on February 25, 2014 at 9:16 PM

Got it, thanks.

Have you noticed that far too many HotAir posters only post on gay threads?

No I hadn’t noticed that. I generally stay away from race or gay threads. Sometimes I might have a little fun on a gay thread. Seldom to never on a race thread.

Bmore on February 26, 2014 at 9:38 AM

And so now our morality is to be dictated by the greedy business community,a la the Chamber of Commerce’s embracing open borders to fill their need for heap labor.Threaten and intimdate the state of Arizona and the Republican legislators throw morality under the bus.Christians should boycott any business with a Chamber of Commerce sticker on it’s premises.

redware on February 26, 2014 at 9:40 AM

These fake controversies are going to happen every week or two to distract the people from Obamacare folks…don’t take the bait.

moo on February 26, 2014 at 12:10 PM

1. Still, no one has read the law or has any real idea of what it says, what its background is, or what legal analysis has gone into it. On both sides of the issue there’s just a bunch of ignorant, screaming hysteria. Get a grip and get a clue people. It’s not what the hysterics on either side are saying it is. Have you not at least learned that pols and “activists” are natural liars?

2. In reply to: Jeez where’s the love for us docs who have to get up in the middle of the night to head to the ER for some deadbeat and we don’t even get to inquire ahead who they sleep with or what turns them on. Marcus on February 26, 2014 at 5:39 AM

Thanks, Doc for being a Doc. I’m sure you don’t do it because some law tells you you have to. You do it and do it the way you do it because you’re committed to your profession and those are fundamental tenets of your profession. As a lawyer, I’ve been there, too–even the guilty need representation for our system to work.

But here’s the real rub: In the Constitutional sense, private businesses are still “private” even though they cater to some or all of the people who make up the “public.” They are not, in the Constitutional sense, “public” entities. Public entities are government or government controlled entities and they are subject to the restrictions on their power and requirements for equal treatment of all. Individual people and their businesses, on the other hand, are legally within their Constitutional rights, absent state/local laws to do whatever they damn-well please with their businesses. The interference by the federal government in our local and personal lives and especially in the exercise of our specifically enumerated rights has no real justification. As we’ve seen, the Commerce Clause and interstate commerce cases have been nothing but a Trojan Horse for an imperial federal government.

Whether AZ’s law is good or bad is something AZ needs to decide on its own, with its own citizen input. If it winds up costing them bunches of money or making them miserable, they can change it. If it makes their lives better, they can show that to the rest of us. If we allow the feds to dictate every jot and tittle of our lives, public and private, that can’t happen in any state and the mistakes and unintended consequences of imperial federal action have proven extremely difficult to change, no matter how bad the results.

Ay Uaxe on February 26, 2014 at 12:54 PM

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8