Quotes of the day

posted at 10:41 pm on February 25, 2014 by Allahpundit

Republican Gov. Jan Brewer faced intensifying pressure Monday from CEOs, politicians in Washington and state lawmakers in her own party to veto a bill that would allow business owners with strongly held religious beliefs to deny service to gays and lesbians

Opponents call it a license to discriminate against gays.

Similar religious protection legislation has been introduced in Ohio, Mississippi, Idaho, South Dakota, Tennessee and Oklahoma, but Arizona’s plan is the only one that has passed. The efforts are stalled in Idaho, Ohio and Kansas.

Republicans stressed that the bill is not about discrimination but protecting religious freedom. They frequently cite the case of a New Mexico photographer who was sued after refusing to take wedding pictures of a gay couple. They said Arizona needs a law to protect people in the state from heavy-handed actions by courts.

***

Call it what you want — anti-gay or religious rights — but if Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signs a controversial bill, you might not be calling Arizona the home of the 2015 Super Bowl.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, S.B. 1062, is the current controversy du jour out of Arizona, and the National Football League is with the opposition.

“Our policies emphasize tolerance and inclusiveness and prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation or any other improper standard,” NFL spokesman Greg Aiello told USA Today. “We are following the issue in Arizona and will continue to do so should the bill be signed into law, but will decline further comment at this time.”

***

A personal call was placed by Apple to Arizona governor Jan Brewer, urging her to veto the state’s SB 1062 bill, which would allow Arizonans to discriminate against LGBT people (among other groups) on the basis of a religious objection. Businesses would have to uphold the state’s ruling, meaning employees of Apple’s factory as well as its retail stores there could refuse to hire or work alongside gays for personal beliefs, which probably flies in the face of Apple’s own anti-discrimination policies.

No fewer than 83 companies, inluding American Airlines and Marriott, have signed a letter supporting a veto of the bill saying that anti-gay legislation will hurt business.

***

Proponents of the legislation – which Brewer has until Saturday to sign or veto and is reportedly leaning against – say the bill is designed to protect religious liberty. But many Washington Republicans see it as a political loser, giving the left another cudgel to attack conservatives as intolerant, while motivating liberals and younger voters ahead of the midterm elections. It also threatens to widen the chasm between social conservatives and GOP operatives, who have become increasingly public in their support for gay marriage.

“There are lots of economic and fiscal issues that people care pretty deeply about. I think those are good issues for us to focus on,” Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) said Tuesday when asked about the bill, SB 1062. “We’ll stay focused on Obamacare. Those are the issues we want to talk about.”…

If Brewer signs the legislation, the major concern of party strategists is that opponents would launch an initiative drive to overturn it. A referendum in November would allow the debate about whether denying services to gays is discriminatory to simmer through November, drawing global attention and increasing turnout among younger, liberal voters. This could complicate GOP hopes of holding the open governorship and picking up targeted House seats.

***

She has surprised us before, but Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer is likely going to veto the state’s controversial bill that would let businesses refuse service to gay and lesbian customers on religious grounds, a move that again shows how much national politics have moved on social issues.

The determination, first reported Tuesday by NBC News, will bolster the unconventional governor’s image as a politician escaping neat, partisan definitions. But it also reaffirms her status as a stateswoman keenly aware of the politics of the moment, both in her state and around the country…

Beyond the political calculations, Brewer, who has until Saturday to make a decision on the bill, has also proved she is not nearly as conservative as her state Legislature, or her common caricatures, would lead us to believe. She has frequently confounded her own party by standing as a bulwark against her Republican state House’s agenda, including its opposition to Medicaid expansion under Obamacare, which she embraced, or a push to allow guns on college campuses.

***

Under current Arizona law, if a business wanted to discriminate against gays, they would not need this bill to be passed to do so. It is not currently illegal for a business to deny service to someone because they are gay. Some cities in Arizona have ordinances against it but there is no state law against it. If business owners in Arizona wanted to deny service to gays, they could do so in most of the state under current law.

Even though business owners across most of Arizona (and much of the United States) have the right to deny service to gays, they are not doing so. Opponents of the bill claim it would usher in an era of “Jim Crow for gays,” in which gays would be denied service at businesses across the state. If business owners really wanted to do this, though, they could already be doing it. The bill does not make that more or less likely. Business owners do not want to deny service to gays. This is not because they fear government sanction. Rather, it is because: 1) Their religious, ethical or moral beliefs tell them it is wrong to deny service; and/or, 2) the profit motive – turning away customers is no way to run a business.

***

Arizona’s RFRA, as it currently stands, does not contain the necessary specificity regarding who can use RFRA for protection if the government discriminates against them because of their religious faith. Contrary to the voices that oppose protecting religious freedom for all Arizonans, Senate Bill 1062 and House Bill 2153, which were approved last week, will not allow people to do “whatever they want” in the name of religion.

The use of the amended RFRA will only come into play when the government’s law inhibits someone from freely acting in accordance with his or her faith, as has always been the case. And even then, sincerely held religious beliefs will continue to be balanced against state interests. So, Arizona will always be able to make certain things — like murder — crimes even if someone says that his religious beliefs require him to kill someone…

No Arizonan should be forced to choose between making a living and living free. An amended bill that provides a safeguard from laws that violate our First Amendment freedoms — while still letting government enact laws necessary to the common good — is a sensible one.

No court in Arizona should be able to tell you that a violation of those freedoms is just the “price of citizenship.”

***

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!”

The reason conservative Christians are fighting this fight today is because it’s a firewall. The real danger, of course, is that Christian pastors and preachers will eventually be coerced into performing same-sex marriages…

Gay rights and religious liberty are on a collision course.

***

In T. H. White’s The Once and Future King, the nature of totalitarianism is captured in the motto “Everything not forbidden is compulsory.” Gay marriage has made the sprint from forbidden to compulsory in record time; the day before yesterday, a homosexual marriage was a legal impossibility — and today it is a crime to sit one out.

Gay Americans, like many members of minority groups, are poorly served by their self-styled leadership. Like feminists and union bosses, the leaders of the nation’s gay organizations suffer from oppression envy, likening their situation to that of black Americans — as though having to find a gay-friendly wedding planner (pro tip: try swinging a dead cat) were the moral equivalent of having spent centuries in slavery and systematic oppression under Jim Crow. Their goal is not toleration or even equal rights but official victim-group status under law and in civil society, allowing them to use the courts and other means of official coercion to impose their own values upon those who hold different values…

One of the defects of our civil-rights law is the overly broad concept of “public accommodation,” which has been expanded to include virtually every business that is open to the public. But a business is not public property; it is private property. People of good will ought to allow fairly broad leeway for how people conduct their own lives and their own business — private autonomy is, after all, a large part of the case for gay rights. If gay leaders were willing to extend to those who do not share their views the same tolerance to which they feel themselves entitled, then a modus vivendi could emerge through the healthful operations of civil society. Those who do not wish to participate in gay weddings or other events could decline to do so — and those who believe them to be bigots could take their business elsewhere. In fact, one protester of the Arizona law has precisely the right idea: Outraged by the passage of this bill, a pizza-shop operator hung a sign in his door announcing that members of the state legislature were personae non gratae in his establishment. That, and not the micromanagement of secular divines in black robes, is the way to sort out this kind of social controversy.

***

***


***

Via the Daily Rushbo.


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

hawkdriver on February 26, 2014 at 11:20 AM

Well, we are mighty close, I think they would worry about their children and pets rather than the sound.

Cindy Munford on February 26, 2014 at 11:26 AM

Emailing Mr. Munford plans for my patented firing-range backstop as we speak.

hawkdriver on February 26, 2014 at 11:42 AM

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 26, 2014 at 11:38 AM

Either or.

Cindy Munford on February 26, 2014 at 11:42 AM

Too expensive to do it anymore on any kind of regualar basis.

HonestLib on February 26, 2014 at 11:35 AM

Thought of reloading? Small calibre stuff like Luger 9mm I can do for pennies a round. I shoot my brass till it cracks though.

hawkdriver on February 26, 2014 at 11:47 AM

My take: Obama to “Organizing For Action” Worshipers : “You’re Doing God’s Work.”

kingsjester on February 26, 2014 at 6:54 AM

…oh that was good!

KOOLAID2 on February 26, 2014 at 11:51 AM

HonestLib on February 26, 2014 at 11:41 AM

I think we’ve passed the crisis point here.

hawkdriver on February 26, 2014 at 11:51 AM

Would you support a bill that allowed businesses to refuses services based on, say, someone being pregnant and unwed, or divorced, or a Muslim or Mormon, or a someone serving in the Marines?

verbaluce on February 26, 2014 at 10:38 AM

Because they’re all a “choice”, in your mind? Okay.

I would ask to be excused from any request made to a company I might own that was contrary to a religious tenet, or in your hypothetical, my patriotic inclinations.

hawkdriver on February 26, 2014 at 11:03 AM

I’m not asking what you would object to and how you would deal with it.
I’m asking if you would support a bill that allowed anyone to discriminate based on what they find objectionable.
But it seems I can’t get this point across.

Just to be more flippant for a sec, the bill is stupid.
It’s going to be a rare occurrence – despite the fantasies of some AZ politicians – for example, that a bakery/gay couple will find themselves in this situation. Most bakeries are in biz to make money and are run by good folks who wouldn’t bother to be bothered.
And most gay couples wouldn’t want a cake baked for them by anyone who found their mere existence objectionable.
For many, if not most, conservatives and Christians, the whole thing is an embarrassing face-palm.
Even Fox News is giving it a big eye roll.

The bill will get vetoed.
And there’ll be a brief groan from small circles.

But everyone will be just fine.

verbaluce on February 26, 2014 at 12:03 PM

I think we’ve passed the crisis point here.

hawkdriver on February 26, 2014 at 11:51 AM

Oldie, but so true……

How many jet jocks does in take to screw in a light bulb? One, the world revolves around him.

HonestLib on February 26, 2014 at 12:04 PM

I’m not asking what you would object to and how you would deal with it.
I’m asking if you would support a bill that allowed anyone to discriminate based on what they find objectionable.

What?

Ok. Please clarify your position and your reasoning.

But it seems I can’t get this point across.

I answered your question more directly and concisely than you ever answered any question posed to you here on Hot Air. Sorry if you didn’t like the answer of didn’t support you biases.

Just to be more flippant for a sec, the bill is stupid.

Without elaboration. I see.

It’s going to be a rare occurrence – despite the fantasies of some AZ politicians – for example, that a bakery/gay couple will find themselves in this situation. Most bakeries are in biz to make money and are run by good folks who wouldn’t bother to be bothered.

It’s the very reason the discussion is being made.

And most gay couples wouldn’t want a cake baked for them by anyone who found their mere existence objectionable.

Again, yet here we are. We’re not talking about Christians suing people for being refused services, we’re talking about actual news headlines being made by gays.

For many, if not most, conservatives and Christians, the whole thing is an embarrassing face-palm.
Even Fox News is giving it a big eye roll.

The bill will get vetoed.
And there’ll be a brief groan from small circles.

But everyone will be just fine.

verbaluce on February 26, 2014 at 12:03 PM

No one is arguing you’re not winning. Look at my first comment. But you’re winning for the very reasons that occurred in this exchange. You guys win by emotions and misrepresenting facts. My bet is you have no clue what’s in the bill other than the fact it failing under brewers pen is a victory for gays and a defeat for Religious rights. Your compliant media and rich backers like Dick Geffen make it near impossible for anyone to defy your social issue objectives. You gut and destroy anything in your way ruthlessly and have so since Anita Bryant. You don’t seek tolerance, you seek domination.

Why do you even argue with someone like me when you’re winning? Other than to stick a thumb in the eye of a person of faith that you despise.

hawkdriver on February 26, 2014 at 12:18 PM

“or it didn’t support” your biases.

hawkdriver on February 26, 2014 at 12:18 PM

Verbie, I think I understand Hawk’s position and I think I understand your position. Can I ask you one question. Do you think this bill was written on the basis of discrimination against gays?

HonestLib on February 26, 2014 at 12:28 PM

Verbaluce. The fact that you will not admit that you are gay makes your entire presence here a mischaracterization of the truth. So much of your commentary and advocacy is based on misleading people. That and your thinly veiled hatred towards Christianity. It still makes for entertaining and often humor exchanges with folks like rogerb who owns you, but still it’s a pointless exercise. You will never change anyone’s mind here and no one will change yours. We will live under your oppressive laws and hate it. You can laugh this off though because you guys think this is what was done to you. For a while anyway.

I said it prior in this thread. I hope you folks from the gay community like what will follow on the heels of your destruction of Christianity.

hawkdriver on February 26, 2014 at 12:30 PM

Verbie, I think I understand Hawk’s position and I think I understand your position. Can I ask you one question. Do you think this bill was written on the basis of discrimination against gays?

HonestLib on February 26, 2014 at 12:28 PM

Give him a minute to actually read it first.

I’m out of here, HL. Nice to talk with you.

hawkdriver on February 26, 2014 at 12:32 PM

Why do you even argue with someone like me when you’re winning? Other than to stick a thumb in the eye of a person of faith that you despise.

hawkdriver on February 26, 2014 at 12:18 PM

I do not despise you at all.

verbaluce on February 26, 2014 at 12:58 PM

Verbaluce. The fact that you will not admit that you are gay makes your entire presence here a mischaracterization of the truth. So much of your commentary and advocacy is based on misleading people. That and your thinly veiled hatred towards Christianity. It still makes for entertaining and often humor exchanges with folks like rogerb who owns you, but still it’s a pointless exercise. You will never change anyone’s mind here and no one will change yours. We will live under your oppressive laws and hate it. You can laugh this off though because you guys think this is what was done to you. For a while anyway.

I said it prior in this thread. I hope you folks from the gay community like what will follow on the heels of your destruction of Christianity.

hawkdriver on February 26, 2014 at 12:30 PM

Wow.
Um…are you asking me if I’m gay…or telling me?
You assume I am based on what exactly – my views on this and other issues?

(Lanceman wants to know if I’m black.)

verbaluce on February 26, 2014 at 1:04 PM

(Lanceman wants to know if I’m black.)

verbaluce on February 26, 2014 at 1:04 PM

It [verbaluce] just sounds black. Like lostmuthaland or panther.

I can’t find existence of the word.

Lanceman on February 26, 2014 at 4:42 PM

hawkdriver on February 26, 2014 at 12:30 PM

Wow.
Um…are you asking me if I’m gay…or telling me?
You assume I am based on what exactly – my views on this and other issues?

(Lanceman wants to know if I’m black.)

verbaluce on February 26, 2014 at 1:04 PM

I’m deducing it as you deduce our most inner secrets.

hawkdriver on February 26, 2014 at 12:18 PM

I do not despise you at all.

verbaluce on February 26, 2014 at 12:58 PM

I deduced it from your comments. I’m correct. Even though I was actually talking about people of faith in general. You hate Christians.

hawkdriver on February 26, 2014 at 6:36 PM

They called the F4 (The 3Twos).

2 ulgy/2 many engines/2 many pilots.

They liked to be alone!!!!

HonestLib on February 26, 2014 at 11:41 AM

Hey now, I’m not that old. More than a couple of hours in J/N/S, so don’t bag on the Phlyers.

2 ugly? Sure. Also truthfully known as the “World’s leading distributor of MiG parts”.

2 many engines? When you’re afloat, ya gotta have two to have one. Fly a single-engine bird at sea, you lose a plant and you get wet.

2 many pilots? That Pherret in the back ain’t no pilot, he’s playing video games, I’m the nut behind the stick, and the one pushing the Lunch button.

Freelancer on February 27, 2014 at 5:43 AM

hawkdriver on February 26, 2014 at 6:36 PM

I’m not and I don’t – and feel no need to convince you.
I enjoy the banter with you. But that you dismiss me because you’ve determined that I’m ‘gay’ and that I ‘hate Christians, it’s disappointing to know it’s all been pointless banter.
Best of luck to you.

verbaluce on February 27, 2014 at 9:19 AM

Keep It Simple

NO SHOES

NO SHIRT

NO SERVICE

I MAY REFUSE TO SERVE ANYONE IN MY ESTABLISHMENT!

Scrumpy on February 28, 2014 at 3:38 AM

I enjoy the banter with you.

verbaluce on February 27, 2014 at 9:19 AM

No you don’t. You get your ass kicked. Always.

hawkdriver on March 4, 2014 at 11:27 PM

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8