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 2 3 8

When it comes to private contracts people have the natural law right to discriminate for any reason they want. Laws that punish such private conduct are unconstitutional regardless what the courts have said. And before anyone brings up segregation that was government sanctioned discrimination that treated people unequally under the law, not private contracts.

NotCoach on February 25, 2014 at 10:48 AM

“You will serve us involuntarily!”

Akzed on February 25, 2014 at 10:49 AM

If the gay mafia would live and let live, this kind of crap wouldn’t be necessary. Seriously, drive down the street to another bakery or florist and give them your business. That’s how you punish these allegedly intolerant Christians. But if you continue dragging them to court just to make their lives a living hell and stroke your own ego, this type of legislation will be the end result.

Doughboy on February 25, 2014 at 10:50 AM

The GOP is utterly useless in defending liberty.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 10:52 AM

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.

What about those whose “personal religious beliefs” make them opposed to providing services to racially mixed couples? Who is standing up for their rights!

MJBrutus on February 25, 2014 at 10:52 AM

The intolerance of “tolerance.”

Who is meant by this?

Funny that Fox and many other RINOs are meddling in AZ.

Schadenfreude on February 25, 2014 at 10:52 AM

Flake ‘n McVain show is on.

Schadenfreude on February 25, 2014 at 10:52 AM

If the gay mafia would live and let live, this kind of crap wouldn’t be necessary. Seriously, drive down the street to another bakery or florist and give them your business. That’s how you punish these allegedly intolerant Christians. But if you continue dragging them to court just to make their lives a living hell and stroke your own ego, this type of legislation will be the end result.

Doughboy on February 25, 2014 at 10:50 AM

The point for the gay mafia – like the other identity politics warriors on the left – is to push everyone out of the public square who doesn’t agree with them and celebrate them.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 10:53 AM

But if you continue dragging them to court just to make their lives a living hell and stroke your own ego, this type of legislation will be the end result.

Doughboy on February 25, 2014 at 10:50 AM

Yep. And it should be.

All of these so-called Republicans should be branded as people who support antireligious bigotry and hate and who think people should be forced to serve against their will.

northdallasthirty on February 25, 2014 at 10:53 AM

I find it kind of ironic that those who want the NFL to move the super bowl because they can and have that right to refuse service so to speak, won’t allow those other folks the right to refuse service….

cmsinaz on February 25, 2014 at 10:54 AM

What about those whose “personal religious beliefs” make them opposed to providing services to racially mixed couples? Who is standing up for their rights!

MJBrutus on February 25, 2014 at 10:52 AM

They stand up for their own rights by frequenting those establishments that will be happy to serve them. Why is it you think people should provide services against their will?

NotCoach on February 25, 2014 at 10:54 AM

…from the frying pan…into the fire?

KOOLAID2 on February 25, 2014 at 10:55 AM

Bake the cake, with toothpaste.

The First Amendment is always for the few, the thugs who’d rule all the others.

Why did it even have to come to this in AZ?

Schadenfreude on February 25, 2014 at 10:55 AM

If this were an issue that spoke to tolerance of all that would be one thing. But this essentially is a response to gays being hateful intolerant bigots. The bill is bad public policy but so are laws that force people with legitimately held views forced into supporting sodomites.

Gays will not be happy until churches are forced to marry them or shutter entirely. There really is no such thing as reasonable middle ground thanks to the gay’s demands and utter lack of respect for dissenting views.

Happy Nomad on February 25, 2014 at 10:55 AM

To quote Lincoln from his Cooper Union speech (he’s talking about slavery here, but the sentiment also applies to conservative disapproval of gay marriage:)

The question recurs, what will satisfy them? Simply this: We must not only let them alone, but we must somehow, convince them that we do let them alone. This, we know by experience, is no easy task. We have been so trying to convince them from the very beginning of our organization, but with no success. In all our platforms and speeches we have constantly protested our purpose to let them alone; but this has had no tendency to convince them. Alike unavailing to convince them, is the fact that they have never detected a man of us in any attempt to disturb them.

These natural, and apparently adequate means all failing, what will convince them? This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly – done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated – we must place ourselves avowedly with them … The whole atmosphere must be disinfected from all taint of opposition to slavery, before they will cease to believe that all their troubles proceed from us.

I am quite aware they do not state their case precisely in this way. Most of them would probably say to us, “Let us alone, do nothing to us, and say what you please about slavery.” But we do let them alone – have never disturbed them – so that, after all, it is what we say, which dissatisfies them. They will continue to accuse us of doing, until we cease saying.

PackerBronco on February 25, 2014 at 10:55 AM

So I take it this means that establishments must also rent out their facilities to the Westboro Babtist Church for their annual G*d hates **** gathering?

Or that the ACLU must now represent the Westboro Baptist Church?

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 10:55 AM

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 10:53 AM

It looks to me as though it is the GOP pushing gays out of public accommodation. Perhaps if the GOP actually stood for positions that actually advance liberty they would win once in a while.

Here we have yet another shameful, unnecessary and disastrous move to marginalize the GOP as the party of hate. Dear GOP, leave the social issues alone and try to do something useful for our nation, for once.

MJBrutus on February 25, 2014 at 10:56 AM

Or do you not know that a little leaven, leaveneth the whole loaf?

oscarwilde on February 25, 2014 at 10:57 AM

Has anyone asked the Butcher, the Baker, and the
Candlestick maker??

ToddPA on February 25, 2014 at 10:57 AM

What about those whose “personal religious beliefs” make them opposed to providing services to racially mixed couples? Who is standing up for their rights!

MJBrutus on February 25, 2014 at 10:52 AM

LOL.

So their skin color empowers them to force other people to do things?

Do you liberal bigots even recognize how much you project your own racism every time you open your mouths?

northdallasthirty on February 25, 2014 at 10:58 AM

So, if a Catholic-owned bakery can be forced to bake a cake for a gay marriage (marriage being on of 7 sacred sacrament in the Catholic Church), does that mean that a gay-owned bakery can be forced to bake a wedding cake for a Westboro Baptist wedding?

Just trying to understand the rules here.

cww on February 25, 2014 at 10:58 AM

PackerBronco on February 25, 2014 at 10:55 AM

Bullshiite on a stick. Slavery and gay marriage are in no way comparable. Gays are not treated unequally under the law, and they certainly aren’t denied their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And furthermore this issue is about private citizens choosing who they associate with, not government sanctioned discrimination.

NotCoach on February 25, 2014 at 10:58 AM

If the gay mafia would live and let live, this kind of crap wouldn’t be necessary. Seriously, drive down the street to another bakery or florist and give them your business. That’s how you punish these allegedly intolerant Christians. But if you continue dragging them to court just to make their lives a living hell and stroke your own ego, this type of legislation will be the end result.

Doughboy on February 25, 2014 at 10:50 AM

This has never been about “live and let live”.

Micah68 on February 25, 2014 at 10:58 AM

The GOP is utterly useless in defending liberty.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 10:52 AM

Not in Texas it ain’t.
My Congressman has been voting correctly-but refuses to stand up for anything.
He’s now dropped below 50%.
If he ends up in a run-off w/ May…he’ll lose.
May has a spine.
That’s how we do things in Texas.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 25, 2014 at 10:58 AM

Christians behave as selfish cowards; they profess to love their mythical god more than they love their own children, all in some self-serving, futile effort to achieve a supernatural afterlife that was conceived and concocted by ancient humans. Christians dwell in a world of myth and fantasy, where they are forced to condemn science and reality in order to validate their false beliefs and superstitions. Religion is a mental illness, passed from one cursed generation to the next, condemning offspring to live a life of false promises where critical thinking is discouraged in lieu of dogmatic servitude. Manufacturing and maintaining your own false reality is one thing, but destroying your children’s minds before they achieve the ability to think critically for themselves is nothing less than an evil and insidious form of child abuse.

Bandit13 on February 25, 2014 at 10:58 AM

In one more complicated case, a court held that a cemetery could exclude “punk rockers” from a private funeral service. A mother requested that the funeral service for her 17-year-old daughter be private and that admission to the service be limited to family and invited guests only. The cemetery failed to exclude punk rockers from the service. The punk rockers arrived in unconventional dress, wearing makeup and sporting various hair colors. One was wearing a dress decorated with live rats. Others wore leather and chains, some were twirling baton-like weapons, drinking, and using cocaine. The punk rockers made rude comments to family members and were generally disruptive of the service.

The Muslims will fix all this, pro and con, just watch. It will be bigger than AZ. At that point I’d love to see some heads roll.

Schadenfreude on February 25, 2014 at 10:59 AM

MJBrutus on February 25, 2014 at 10:52 AM

You don’t choose your race.
Behavior is a CHOICE.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 25, 2014 at 11:00 AM

What about those whose “personal religious beliefs” make them opposed to providing services to racially mixed couples? Who is standing up for their rights!

MJBrutus on February 25, 2014 at 10:52 AM

Arizonans should find a black-owned bakery and demand a cake honoring the KKK complete with the Confederate flag. They should go to some liberal anti-gun area and demand a cake that says “happiness is a warm .22″ They should find a Hispanic bakery to make them an anti-amnesty cake.

Make this all about forcing these bastard to recognize that there is no tolerance in what gays are demanding.

Happy Nomad on February 25, 2014 at 11:00 AM

What about those whose “personal religious beliefs” make them opposed to providing services to racially mixed couples? Who is standing up for their rights!

MJBrutus on February 25, 2014 at 10:52 AM

The problem is where do you draw the dividing line. I think most of us will agree that an apartment owner should not be allowed discriminate based marriage status but at the other end of the spectrum is a person who is offering a service that can be easily found elsewhere and involves active participation such as baking wedding cakes or wedding photography. Can that person be compelled to take an active role that violates his or her religious beliefs?

PackerBronco on February 25, 2014 at 11:00 AM

It looks to me as though it is the GOP pushing gays out of public accommodation. Perhaps if the GOP actually stood for positions that actually advance liberty they would win once in a while.

Here we have yet another shameful, unnecessary and disastrous move to marginalize the GOP as the party of hate. Dear GOP, leave the social issues alone and try to do something useful for our nation, for once.

MJBrutus on February 25, 2014 at 10:56 AM

I’m pretty sure you have no idea what liberty means if you think compelling private citizens to associate with who the government deems privileged classes is OK with you.

NotCoach on February 25, 2014 at 11:00 AM

Can a vegan caterer be compelled to cook and serve meat?

PackerBronco on February 25, 2014 at 11:01 AM

Christians behave as selfish cowards; they profess to love their mythical god more than they love their own children, all in some self-serving, futile effort to achieve a supernatural afterlife that was conceived and concocted by ancient humans. Christians dwell in a world of myth and fantasy, where they are forced to condemn science and reality in order to validate their false beliefs and superstitions. Religion is a mental illness, passed from one cursed generation to the next, condemning offspring to live a life of false promises where critical thinking is discouraged in lieu of dogmatic servitude. Manufacturing and maintaining your own false reality is one thing, but destroying your children’s minds before they achieve the ability to think critically for themselves is nothing less than an evil and insidious form of child abuse.

Bandit13 on February 25, 2014 at 10:58 AM

What does this childish rant have to do with individual liberty and freedom of association?

NotCoach on February 25, 2014 at 11:01 AM

It looks to me as though it is the GOP pushing gays out of public accommodation. Perhaps if the GOP actually stood for positions that actually advance liberty they would win once in a while.

MJBrutus on February 25, 2014 at 10:56 AM

Wrong.

What the GOP did here is to say that individual conscience trumps everything else. People cannot force you to do something that you do not want to do, and that applies BOTH directions.

Someone put up a sign of a pizza place that thought they were being all edgy by banning Arizona legislators. My response: that’s how it works, and that’s how it SHOULD work. If you don’t want to serve legislators, that’s your business, and I can choose whether I want to eat your pizza or not.

What you are asking for is for religious believers to start playing lawfare with gays and lesbians. You will end up bankrupting gay and lesbian-owned businesses with litigation because people are sick of being pushed around and denied their First Amendment rights.

northdallasthirty on February 25, 2014 at 11:01 AM

You don’t choose your race.
Behavior is a CHOICE.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 25, 2014 at 11:00 AM

KEEP POSTING THIS FOREVAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

ToddPA on February 25, 2014 at 11:02 AM

Christians behave as selfish cowards; they profess to love their mythical god

Bandit13 on February 25, 2014 at 10:58 AM

That’s where anybody should stop reading your crap. No need to go further since there is no tolerance or respect.

Happy Nomad on February 25, 2014 at 11:02 AM

Tolerance does not mean acceptance or participation.

Which is why it is now considered by many on the left and especially those that support the gay agenda as another form of hate.

Lucy43 on February 25, 2014 at 11:03 AM

What about those whose “personal religious beliefs” make them opposed to providing services to racially mixed couples? Who is standing up for their rights!

MJBrutus on February 25, 2014 at 10:52 AM

Happy Nomad on February 25, 2014 at 11:00 AM covered the response perfectly. I’d like to add one thing – please don’t diminish slavery and racial discrimination by equating it to gayness. You really, really, really do a big disservice to incredible injustice and real suffering. Don’t fall for the gays’ propaganda in this regard.

Schadenfreude on February 25, 2014 at 11:03 AM

Tolerance does not mean acceptance or participation.

You forgot “by force”.

Schadenfreude on February 25, 2014 at 11:03 AM

NotCoach on February 25, 2014 at 11:00 AM

I am certain that you are ignorant of American history and why such laws are necessary to fulfill the promise of our Constitution for all citizens.

MJBrutus on February 25, 2014 at 11:04 AM

Christians behave as selfish cowards; they profess to love their mythical god

Bandit13 on February 25, 2014 at 10:58 AM

Whenever you bring this up, you lost the argument of your tyranny.

Schadenfreude on February 25, 2014 at 11:04 AM

Hopefully Bandit13 posted and ran, like the snivelling antitheist he is.

22044 on February 25, 2014 at 11:04 AM

“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.”

The primary problem is that no protections exist for small businesses who want to freely exercise their religion.

These cases have been drummed up by “gay rights” supporters and are intended to financially damage or usurp the rights of businesses by attempting to trump their right to freely exercise their religion. Their lawyers are attempting to get case law or statutes to work in their favor to further a political cause. Not correctly interpret the law.

That, by thew way, would be a constitutionally articulated right of “free exercise. As oppose something else imagined or invented.

Courts have not provided relief as they are not interpreting the law in a constitutional or meaningful way. Village Idiots like McCain are not helping because, well, he’s an idiot who is playing demographic politics. He’s abandoned any semblance of leadership or support for the state’s small businesses. Congratulations Arizona.

Marcus Traianus on February 25, 2014 at 11:04 AM

It looks to me as though it is the GOP pushing gays out of public accommodation. Perhaps if the GOP actually stood for positions that actually advance liberty they would win once in a while.

Here we have yet another shameful, unnecessary and disastrous move to marginalize the GOP as the party of hate. Dear GOP, leave the social issues alone and try to do something useful for our nation, for once.

MJBrutus on February 25, 2014 at 10:56 AM

This is nonsense. It doesn’t make sense.
The GOP is pushign gays out of public accommodation? So now the GOP is responsible for what individual citizens do? Really?

But it’s good to know that you and the GOP apparently agree with the liberals that in order to be part of the public square and in civil society you have to agree to be a defacto arm of the the government and implement government policy in a whole range of areas.

This whole accommodation debate is silly and anyone who gives it one minute thought knows this. The ludicrous assumption is that society is rife with people who will start denying services to gays once this law is enacted – as if such deeply held beliefs and feelings are currently being totally constrained by anti-discrimination laws which don’t even exist in a lot of states.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 11:05 AM

So, first it was controversial that Arizona wanted to copy and codify federal immigration law. Now it’s controversial that they want to codify 1st Amendment protections. This is pretty insane. And clear evidence that our constitutional republic is no more.

besser tot als rot on February 25, 2014 at 11:05 AM

“Religious freedom,” said Daniel Mach of the ACLU to the Times, is “not a blank check to … impose our faith on our neighbors.”

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

True. But who is imposing whose beliefs here?

The baker who says he’s not making your wedding cake? Or those who want Arizona law to declare that either he provides that wedding cake and those flowers for that same-sex ceremony, or we see to it that he is arrested, prosecuted and put out of business?

roflmmfao

donabernathy on February 25, 2014 at 11:05 AM

Christians behave as selfish cowards; they profess to love their mythical god more than they love their own children, all in some self-serving, futile effort to achieve a supernatural afterlife that was conceived and concocted by ancient humans. Christians dwell in a world of myth and fantasy, where they are forced to condemn science and reality in order to validate their false beliefs and superstitions. Religion is a mental illness, passed from one cursed generation to the next, condemning offspring to live a life of false promises where critical thinking is discouraged in lieu of dogmatic servitude. Manufacturing and maintaining your own false reality is one thing, but destroying your children’s minds before they achieve the ability to think critically for themselves is nothing less than an evil and insidious form of child abuse.

Bandit13 on February 25, 2014 at 10:58 AM

The interesting thing is that you could pretty much replace Christian with any other group including liberals and it would hold.

Lucy43 on February 25, 2014 at 11:05 AM

You have a better argument comparing the gay-whatever to obama’care’.

You diminish slavery, otherwise.

Schadenfreude on February 25, 2014 at 11:05 AM

The 1st Amendment has been effectively nullified.

Ricard on February 25, 2014 at 11:06 AM

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.

‘Impose forced participation’ is, frankly, music to the ears of those who support increased government power and control over thoughts and behaviors. It’s all about their definition of ‘fairness’ and ensuring ‘social justice’. To the statists, the concept is never about real tolerance despite how often they use / abuse that word. It’s also not about ‘adults’ because to the statists, everyone is basically a child who needs government to define for them what they should be thinking and doing.

If those who desire society to change and accept them, their choices, their beliefs – using a sledgehammer and forcing views and opinions into one’s face is the wrong approach. They are demanding respect and recognition, but refuse to respect or recognize that someone else also has rights. Handled differently, they will, for the majority, likely achieve what they seek and probably even do so faster as their actions don’t mobilize resistance from those who see their rights trampled. Embracing tyranny to advance one’s cause is never the right choice.

Athos on February 25, 2014 at 11:06 AM

The gay-this-and-that are mandates, like obama’care’.

NO other land on Earth mandates obama’care’.

Schadenfreude on February 25, 2014 at 11:06 AM

Christians behave as selfish cowards; they profess to love their mythical god more than they love their own children, all in some self-serving, futile effort to achieve a supernatural afterlife that was conceived and concocted by ancient humans. Christians dwell in a world of myth and fantasy, where they are forced to condemn science and reality in order to validate their false beliefs and superstitions. Religion is a mental illness, passed from one cursed generation to the next, condemning offspring to live a life of false promises where critical thinking is discouraged in lieu of dogmatic servitude. Manufacturing and maintaining your own false reality is one thing, but destroying your children’s minds before they achieve the ability to think critically for themselves is nothing less than an evil and insidious form of child abuse.

Bandit13 on February 25, 2014 at 10:58 AM

Let me help you understand Christian beliefs.

We strive to have a relationship with God through Jesus Christ in this world. If we do, it will continue into the next life. If not, well, then we won’t. It is not self-serving to love God and love your neighbor as yourself. It is actually the opposite. Christians do not condemn science and reality. There is some so-called science we disagree with. Perhaps you can explain the evolution of the eye? Darwin couldn’t but someone such as yourself might be able to.

What in our public schools…run by wonderful liberals…is helping our children think critically?

Micah68 on February 25, 2014 at 11:07 AM

By design. This movement was never about marriage – it was always about using the state to attack the western tradition of basing our laws on Judeo-Christian concepts of morality.

The state must deny religious freedom to the individual in order to be supreme.

kcewa on February 25, 2014 at 11:07 AM

I am certain that you are ignorant of American history and why such laws are necessary to fulfill the promise of our Constitution for all citizens.

MJBrutus on February 25, 2014 at 11:04 AM

Says the guy who doesn’t understand the Founders promotion of an armed citizenry.

You need to explain to us how forcing people to associate with those they normally wouldn’t promotes liberty. You also need to explain the promise of our Constitution, because I already see glaring flaws in your understanding of it.

NotCoach on February 25, 2014 at 11:07 AM

By design. This movement was never about marriage – it was always about using the state to attack the western tradition of basing our laws on Judeo-Christian concepts of morality.

The state must deny religious freedom to the individual in order to be supreme.

kcewa on February 25, 2014 at 11:07 AM

Like I typed above, the Muslims will fix all of it, world-wide. Then, they will think back of now, with heads chopped off.

Schadenfreude on February 25, 2014 at 11:08 AM

It looks to me as though it is the GOP pushing gays out of public accommodation. Perhaps if the GOP actually stood for positions that actually advance liberty they would win once in a while.

Weddings are private events, not public accommodations. That you make this error is unsurprising as you also insist than ‘imposing involuntary servitude’ is ‘promoting liberty.’

Ricard on February 25, 2014 at 11:08 AM

I am certain that you are ignorant of American history and why such laws are necessary to fulfill the promise of our Constitution for all citizens.

MJBrutus on February 25, 2014 at 11:04 AM

Ah, yes, we’re all victims just like blacks were for the last 300 years.

The founders envisioned people fulfilling the promise of the Constitution by government getting out of the way of peoples efforts – not mandating that private citizens use their property and labor in government approved ways.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 11:08 AM

So now the Muslim owner of a print shop has no choice but to print my Horrors Of Islam pamphlet?

JohnBrown on February 25, 2014 at 11:08 AM

I am certain that you are ignorant of American history and why such laws are necessary to fulfill the promise of our Constitution for all citizens.

MJBrutus on February 25, 2014 at 11:04 AM

You are the ignorant on what you typed.

Schadenfreude on February 25, 2014 at 11:09 AM

Here’s the thing. There are plenty of Christians whose bakeries would gladly provide sodomite wedding cakes. But, instead of seeking out one of those, the gays go shopping to be “victimized.” Which is why that bakery in Oregon was forced to close- a couple of gays going bakery to bakery until they found something to be offened about.

Happy Nomad on February 25, 2014 at 11:09 AM

Bandit13 on February 25, 2014 at 10:58 AM

Wow. if you believe all that anti-theist dogma then you have more faith than any Christian I know.

kcewa on February 25, 2014 at 11:09 AM

Market forces.

“We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.”

If a business chooses poorly regarding to whom they refuse service, they will suffer. Any attempt by government to force service is tyranny.

End of story.

Freelancer on February 25, 2014 at 11:10 AM

By design. This movement was never about marriage – it was always about using the state to attack the western tradition of basing our laws on Judeo-Christian concepts of morality.

The state must deny religious freedom to the individual in order to be supreme.

kcewa on February 25, 2014 at 11:07 AM

Just a question for you, when Slavery was going on in America were there Christians here in this country?

If that’s the case, Christianity has failed the moral test and must be disregarded when it comes to matters of morality in this country.

This sponsors of this bill must bow their heads in shame.
what a disgrace.

liberalrules on February 25, 2014 at 11:10 AM

And now I resume despising my home state.

Newsflash for those who cheer this:
Freedom of Association necessitates that bigots must be free to be bigots.

nobar on February 25, 2014 at 11:10 AM

Arizonans should find a black-owned bakery and demand a cake honoring the KKK complete with the Confederate flag. They should go to some liberal anti-gun area and demand a cake that says “happiness is a warm .22″ They should find a Hispanic bakery to make them an anti-amnesty cake.

Make this all about forcing these bastard to recognize that there is no tolerance in what gays are demanding.

Happy Nomad on February 25, 2014 at 11:00 AM

The Westboro Baptist Church should relocate to San Francisco and start demanding equal treatment from all the establishments there for rental for their biweekly G*d Hates F*** meetings.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 11:11 AM

Christians behave as selfish cowards; they profess to love their mythical god more than they love their own children, all in some self-serving, futile effort to achieve a supernatural afterlife that was conceived and concocted by ancient humans. Christians dwell in a world of myth and fantasy, where they are forced to condemn science and reality in order to validate their false beliefs and superstitions. Religion is a mental illness, passed from one cursed generation to the next, condemning offspring to live a life of false promises where critical thinking is discouraged in lieu of dogmatic servitude. Manufacturing and maintaining your own false reality is one thing, but destroying your children’s minds before they achieve the ability to think critically for themselves is nothing less than an evil and insidious form of child abuse.

Bandit13 on February 25, 2014 at 10:58 AM

And Christians laugh at you, because you’ve displayed in that single paragraph that you are fully as paranoid, irrational, and hate-filled as you accuse them of being.

Would your life be less valuable if you didn’t hate Christians? Is your whole identity and self-worth tied up in the fact that you hate Christians?

northdallasthirty on February 25, 2014 at 11:11 AM

Update: NBC says Brewer likely to veto

Schadenfreude on February 25, 2014 at 11:11 AM

liberalrules on February 25, 2014 at 11:10 AM

Gayness is NOT slavery. Stop diminishing the travesty of slavery, which you and yours continue to not denounce all over the world today.

Schadenfreude on February 25, 2014 at 11:12 AM

I am certain that you are ignorant of American history and why such laws are necessary to fulfill the promise of our Constitution for all citizens.

MJBrutus on February 25, 2014 at 11:04 AM

The constitution promises that gay couples can force anyone to make a cake for them under color of law? Wow. I missed that part.

gryphon202 on February 25, 2014 at 11:13 AM

liberaldrools

Christians were involved in the abolitionist and civil rights movements.

#historyepicfail

22044 on February 25, 2014 at 11:13 AM

Christians helped the slaves, historical ignorant hacks.

Schadenfreude on February 25, 2014 at 11:13 AM

Just a question for you, when Slavery was going on in America were there Christians here in this country?

If that’s the case, Christianity has failed the moral test and must be disregarded when it comes to matters of morality in this country.

This sponsors of this bill must bow their heads in shame.
what a disgrace.

liberalrules on February 25, 2014 at 11:10 AM

You are a troll in the purest sense.
You repeat this lie day in day out despite being confronted on it everytime and are shown to know absolutely nothing about which you’re talking.

The Abolitionists in America were Christians you moron.
It was a Christian movement in England which ended slavery in the British Empire and across much of the world.

And you cheapen the experience of blacks form the past 400 years by comparing their suffering and struggles to gays not getting a wedding cake from a baker.

It is you who should be ashamed both for your ignorance (or willful lies) and belittling black civil rights.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 11:14 AM

Just a question for you, when Slavery was going on in America were there Christians here in this country?

If that’s the case, Christianity has failed the moral test and must be disregarded when it comes to matters of morality in this country.

This sponsors of this bill must bow their heads in shame.
what a disgrace.

liberalrules on February 25, 2014 at 11:10 AM

I see…so only democrats were lynching and discriminating/segregating against black people in America during those days?

liberalrules on February 19, 2014 at 10:55 AM

Yep. Perhaps you should do some research on the origins of the KKK. Spouting off like an arrogant SOB when you have so little knowledge of history makes you look the fool 100% of the time. I know you’re young, most likely a minor, so plenty of time to still learn. Stop spouting and start learning.

Some other things for you to look up as well:

Relativity. Not the theory of, but the concept. All things are relative. Please find another nation that has done more for liberty, prosperity, and charity. When you can find such a nation I’ll take your ignorance seriously.

Human nature. Man is inherently flawed. Man does evil as well as good in the name of all things imaginable, but this takes us back to relativity. Please point to a system of belief that has done more good than Christianity.

Humility. Find some.

NotCoach on February 19, 2014 at 11:03 AM

NotCoach on February 25, 2014 at 11:14 AM

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.

Aside from religious protests, supporters of the “event” are asking rational people to believe that, say, up is down… changing words to accommodate their particular lifestyle. You don’t have to be religious to see how absurd it is. But political correctness is the master now, so that’s how it’s going to be.

Dongemaharu on February 25, 2014 at 11:14 AM

NotCoach on February 25, 2014 at 11:07 AM

I know you haven’t read past number 2, but there’s more in there than just the right to shoot off your mouth and the right to shoot off you guns.

MJBrutus on February 25, 2014 at 11:14 AM

It is perhaps unfortunate that it has come to this, but organized homosexuality, a phenomenon that is more about progressive pieties than gay rights per se, remains on the permanent offensive in the culture wars. Live-and-let-live is a creed that the gay lobby specifically rejects: The owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado was threatened with a year in jail for declining to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. New Mexico photographer Elaine Huguenin was similarly threatened for declining to photograph a same-sex wedding. It is worth noting that neither the baker nor the photographer categorically refuses services to homosexuals; birthday cakes and portrait photography were both on the menu. The business owners specifically objected to participating in a civic/religious ceremony that violated their own consciences.

And the so-called liberals answer: “To hell with your consciences.”

Schadenfreude on February 25, 2014 at 11:15 AM

Just a question for you, when Slavery was going on in America were there Christians here in this country?

If that’s the case, Christianity has failed the moral test and must be disregarded when it comes to matters of morality in this country.

Your sequence doesn’t even make sense, not to mention your knowledge of history. The abolition movement was Christian-driven.

Ricard on February 25, 2014 at 11:15 AM

What about those whose “personal religious beliefs” make them opposed to providing services to racially mixed couples? Who is standing up for their rights!

MJBrutus on February 25, 2014 at 10:52 AM

Strawman.

Mimzey on February 25, 2014 at 11:15 AM

What in our public schools…run by wonderful liberals…is helping our children think critically?

Micah68 on February 25, 2014 at 11:07 AM

For an atheist just the belief in God proves beyond any doubt that you do not think critically. If you did you would not believe in God. For many liberals not taking the word of a “real” scientist is being anti-science. By “real” I mean one that supports the beliefs of the liberal.

Lucy43 on February 25, 2014 at 11:15 AM

So now the Muslim owner of a print shop has no choice but to print my Horrors Of Islam pamphlet?

JohnBrown on February 25, 2014 at 11:08 AM

Somebody should find a Muslim bakery in Dearbornistan and demand a cake with the image of Muhommad on it. Wonder how that’d go over with these same Christ-hating liberals.

In short, if you’re going to be offended that a couple of gays are refused service for their wedding cake; then you’d better be offended when others are refused service due to the personal beliefs of the owners.

And in all circumstances the gays plight is nothing like the civil rights movement. It is an insult to those involved with that movement whenever a gay makes that comparison. Segregation and snarling dogs have nothing to do with a lifestyle choice.

Happy Nomad on February 25, 2014 at 11:16 AM

I really wouldn’t want to force someone to do business with me. What happens if one of these conscientious objectors is required to bake a cake and does a crappy job?

myiq2xu on February 25, 2014 at 11:16 AM

I know you haven’t read past number 2, but there’s more in there than just the right to shoot off your mouth and the right to shoot off you guns.

MJBrutus on February 25, 2014 at 11:14 AM

Such as? Why don’t you edumacate me.

NotCoach on February 25, 2014 at 11:16 AM

Bandit13 on February 25, 2014 at 10:58 AM

What does this childish rant have to do with individual liberty and freedom of association?

NotCoach on February 25, 2014 at 11:01 AM

He’s a fanny bandit. You either accept his deviance or he will call you stupid/mental/deranged and anything else he can think of.

Lanceman on February 25, 2014 at 11:16 AM

Just a question for you, when Slavery was going on in America were there Christians here in this country?

liberalrules on February 25, 2014 at 11:10 AM

Yes. Check out the songs that the armies of the north sang as they marched to war. It was Christianity that ended slavery – it took a lot longer than it should have because of the corruption of human nature but it did happen.

kcewa on February 25, 2014 at 11:17 AM

Ha, the three Republican Senators who voted for it before they were against it. Let this be a warning to the Santorum Huckabee nationwide troglodytes still infesting the Republican Party. You’re over.

Marcus on February 25, 2014 at 11:17 AM

Here we have yet another shameful, unnecessary and disastrous move to marginalize the GOP as the party of hate. Dear GOP, leave the social issues alone and try to do something useful for our nation, for once.

MJBrutus on February 25, 2014 at 10:56 AM

By all means, the GOP should avoid all that icky First Amendment stuff, because let’s face it, compared to the minimum wage debate, freedom of religion is small potatoes.

Athanasius on February 25, 2014 at 11:18 AM

If you choose to open a business and deal with the public, you have to deal with the public.

Meanwhile, I don’t know why any sane person would choose to do business with someone they know doesn’t want their business. Only a liberal would want the government to force someone to bake them a cake and take their picture.

Take your business where it is appreciated.

Moesart on February 25, 2014 at 11:18 AM

What about those whose “personal religious beliefs” make them opposed to providing services to racially mixed couples? Who is standing up for their rights!

MJBrutus on February 25, 2014 at 10:52 AM

Well, if you weren’t a moron, you’d know that their right to freely associate is the same right that was denied by the businesses that were sued.

nobar on February 25, 2014 at 11:18 AM

I know you haven’t read past number 2, but there’s more in there than just the right to shoot off your mouth and the right to shoot off you guns.

MJBrutus on February 25, 2014 at 11:14 AM

There’s also freedom of religion and freedom of association and freedom of speech.

All of which are violated when the state forces private citizens to give their property and labor to a special protected group.

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 11:19 AM

I really wouldn’t want to force someone to do business with me. What happens if one of these conscientious objectors is required to bake a cake and does a crappy job?

myiq2xu on February 25, 2014 at 11:16 AM

You sue them for doing substandard work because you are gay. It’s really a win win for the gays because they get to sue no matter what happens. If I remember correctly, I couldn’t find the story, this very thing happen to a wedding photographer a few years ago.

Lucy43 on February 25, 2014 at 11:19 AM

What about those whose “personal religious beliefs” make them opposed to providing services to racially mixed couples? Who is standing up for their rights!

MJBrutus on February 25, 2014 at 10:52 AM

Yes, there are always “what-ifs, aren’t there?”

Well, what if Fred Phelps went into a bakery owned by homosexuals, and ordered a cake that said “God Hates Fags?” Then, when they refused to bake it for him, he sued them and boycotted them and put them out of business?

That’s what happened in this case of the baker. He didn’t refuse to sell the “gay” couple a bag of bagels. They demanded that he bake a gay themed cake. A specific product.

Now, I suspect Jan Brewer will veto this bill, but the fact that the state legislature recognized a need for it, to protect the right of religious freedom, ought to make everyone stop and think about what the homonazis are trying so hard to accomplish.

This was never about wedding cakes or pictures. It was about creating a specially protected class of people and making religious objections to homosexuality illegal. We are well on our way to that, and I’m finding a lot of people are fine with it…simply because they approve of the homosexuals and their behavior.

JannyMae on February 25, 2014 at 11:19 AM

I know you haven’t read past number 2, but there’s more in there than just the right to shoot off your mouth and the right to shoot off you guns.

MJBrutus on February 25, 2014 at 11:14 AM

Have an answer for this?

Arizonans should find a black-owned bakery and demand a cake honoring the KKK complete with the Confederate flag. They should go to some liberal anti-gun area and demand a cake that says “happiness is a warm .22″ They should find a Hispanic bakery to make them an anti-amnesty cake.

Make this all about forcing these bastard to recognize that there is no tolerance in what gays are demanding.

Happy Nomad on February 25, 2014 at 11:00 AM

Or are some citizens more equal than others?

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 11:19 AM

It looks to me as though it is the GOP pushing gays out of public accommodation. Perhaps if the GOP actually stood for positions that actually advance liberty they would win once in a while.
Here we have yet another shameful, unnecessary and disastrous move to marginalize the GOP as the party of hate. Dear GOP, leave the social issues alone and try to do something useful for our nation, for once.
MJBrutus on February 25, 2014 at 10:56 AM

This is nonsense. It doesn’t make sense…

gwelf on February 25, 2014 at 11:05 AM

Could have stopped right there. This guy’s not going to listen to you.

Cleombrotus on February 25, 2014 at 11:20 AM

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.

Based on His actions from the Bible, Jesus would have baked the cake and then iced on it the words “Go and sin no more”.

dominigan on February 25, 2014 at 11:20 AM

If you choose to open a business and deal with the public, you have to deal with the public.

Meanwhile, I don’t know why any sane person would choose to do business with someone they know doesn’t want their business. Only a liberal would want the government to force someone to bake them a cake and take their picture.

Take your business where it is appreciated.

Moesart on February 25, 2014 at 11:18 AM

what if you choose to open a business and deal with the people you want to deal with?

davidk on February 25, 2014 at 11:21 AM

Just a question for you, when Slavery was going on in America were there Christians here in this country?

liberalrules on February 25, 2014 at 11:10 AM

There is nothing in the same-sex marriage efforts that compares to the Civil Rights Movement. Schadenfreude is right. It demeans the sacrifice, courage, and efforts of civil rights pioneers when their work is compared to a couple of lesbians unable to buy a damn cake. When one of those lewd “gay pride” orgy/parade events is stopped on a bridge by snarling police dogs, you may have a case but, until then, STFU.

Happy Nomad on February 25, 2014 at 11:21 AM

Based on His actions from the Bible, Jesus would have baked the cake and then iced on it the words “Go and sin no more”.

dominigan on February 25, 2014 at 11:20 AM

And today’s fascists would throw him in prison for doing that.

NotCoach on February 25, 2014 at 11:22 AM

By design. This movement was never about marriage – it was always about using the state to attack the western tradition of basing our laws on Judeo-Christian concepts of morality.

The state must deny religious freedom to the individual in order to be supreme.

kcewa on February 25, 2014 at 11:07 AM


The belief in a perfect future inevitably inspires a passionate (and otherwise inexplicable) hatred towards the imperfect present. The first agenda of social redeemers is to dismantle the existing social order, which means their intellectual and political energies are focused on the work of destruction.

The justifications being used in order to destroy the existing social order, to rip down and discredit the core values of this country which are founded on Judeo-Christian values, are the calls for ‘social justice’ and ‘fairness’. Yet, the delivery of justice or fairness is by choice entirely one-sided.

The social redeemers have as a goal a false utopia based on social justice and fairness – and to achieve this goal, the progressive fascists have granted themselves permission to commit any crime, including lie, because the end’s always justifies the means. This is why they have no hesitation to use a legal and legislative sledgehammers and violate the rights of others in order to promote their agenda…only to whinge and complain when those whose rights are being trampled are forced to employ a similar tool in their defense. Their contempt is such that ‘we’ are just supposed to take it and surrender our rights in the false name of social justice and fairness.

Once we surrender our rights – we no longer have rights…and the statists have exactly what they covet and desire.

Athos on February 25, 2014 at 11:22 AM

Rise of the Pink Shirts

http://minx.cc/?post=347408

workingclass artist on February 25, 2014 at 11:22 AM

personally I think a business owner should be free to server or not serve anyone they want, if an owner does not want to serve vets then they shouldn’t.
and the people should be free to complain about it and the business should be free to fail.
the laws to force people to do stuff they don’t believe in are stupid.
if an idiot doesn’t want to serve someone due to skin color then they lost money, its their choice.

dmacleo on February 25, 2014 at 11:23 AM

If you choose to open a business and deal with the public, you have to deal with the public.
Meanwhile, I don’t know why any sane person would choose to do business with someone they know doesn’t want their business. Only a liberal would want the government to force someone to bake them a cake and take their picture.
Take your business where it is appreciated.
Moesart on February 25, 2014 at 11:18 AM

There’s the problem, right there.

Cleombrotus on February 25, 2014 at 11:23 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 8