Bipartisan group of attorneys ask Brewer to sign SB 1062

posted at 12:41 pm on February 26, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Yesterday, I wrote about the effort by the Arizona legislature to amend their state constitution to expand religious-liberty protection in the wake of lawsuits attempting to force participation in same-sex weddings by private businesses. The reaction of some to the bill described it as the next Jim Crow, without apparently knowing that Jim Crow mandated segregation rather than allow for private decisions on commerce. That hyperbolic and uninformed reaction doesn’t mean that the bill is good, though, and the retreat by Arizona politicians that once supported it — including one of its sponsors — sends a pretty big signal that it would create a lot of unintended consequences, either legal, commercial, political, or all three.

Governor Jan Brewer is still mulling over her options, although NBC reported yesterday that she was leaning toward a veto. Brewer vetoed a similar bill earlier, with less fanfare. My friend Paul Mirengoff at Power Line has received a letter from a bipartisan group of noted legal scholars sent to Brewer today arguing that, far from a return to Jim Crow, SB 1062 simply uses a familiar statutory framework for codifying religious liberty in order to require courts to prioritize sincerely-held religious beliefs over weaker state interests. The signatories are not just a mix of Republicans and Democrats, but also a mix of same-sex marriage supporters and opponents:

Some of us are Republicans; some of us are Democrats. Some of us are religious; some of us are not. Some of us oppose same-sex marriage; some of us support it. Nine of the eleven signers of this letter believe that you should sign the bill; two are unsure. But all of us believe that many criticisms of the Arizona bill are deeply misleading.

The federal government and eighteen states have Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRAs). Another twelve or thirteen states interpret their state constitutions to provide similar protections. These laws enact a uniform standard to be interpreted and applied to individual cases by courts. They say that before the government can burden a person’s religious exercise, the government has to show a compelling justification.

That standard makes sense. We should not punish people for practicing their religions unless we have a very good reason. Arizona has had a RFRA for nearly fifteen years now; the federal government has had one since 1993; and RFRA’s standard was the constitutional standard for the entire country from 1963 to 1990. …

SB1062 would amend the Arizona RFRA to address two ambiguities that have been the subject of litigation under other RFRAs. It would provide that people are covered when state or local government requires them to violate their religion in the conduct of their business, and it would provide that people are covered when sued by a private citizen invoking state or local law to demand that they violate their religion.

But nothing in the amendment would say who wins in either of these cases. The person invoking RFRA would still have to prove that he had a sincere religious belief and that state or local government was imposing a substantial burden on his exercise of that religious belief. And the government, or the person on the other side of the lawsuit, could still show that compliance with the law was necessary to serve a compelling government interest.

In an earlier post, Paul offered conditional support unless the language was poorly written to allow abuses in discrimination.  These legal scholars are satisfied that none exists. If this is accurate — and I’m hardly in a position to challenge a constitutional scholar like Michael McConnell or Douglas Laycock, who come down on opposite sides of the same-sex marriage argument in all other contexts– then it appears that those worries about the legal impact are misplaced. That still doesn’t necessarily address the commercial and political impact to Arizona if Brewer signs this bill, and there isn’t a politician who doesn’t take those issues in account when making decisions like these.

It would be far better if courts just took this as a common-sense application of the freedom to religious expression, without the potential backfire of using an expansion of statutes and the potential for unintended consequences that result from them. Common sense, in this case, would recognize that the right to religious liberty trumps the extremely weak state interests in the commercial industries surrounding weddings. Unfortunately, the Obama administration has been undermining that application of common sense with the HHS contraception mandate for the last two years, and courts haven’t entirely embraced the common-sense conclusion that business owners shouldn’t be compelled to provide free contraception and sterilization services when it opposes their religious principles. As I noted yesterday, if everyone took the same approach as Andrew Sullivan, there wouldn’t be a need (real or perceived) for this bill at all:

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’.

That is the definition of tolerance — not enforced participation, but allowing people to make their own personal choices free of government-imposed mandates of acceptance and participation. Speaking of which, this test case in the UK is making the e-mail rounds today, and seems on point:

Britain’s most famous surrogate gay dads have hired lawyers to sue the Church of England for the right to a full-blown religious wedding.

Barrie and Tony Drewitt-Barlow told Gay Star News it was important for them as Christians to marry in church and for their kids to see they were equal.

Under the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act for England and Wales, which has been signed into law but won’t be implemented until 2014, religious groups can opt in to marrying same-sex couples but don’t have to if they don’t want to.

The Church of England, the state religion, is protected by a quadruple lock to protect it from being forced to wed gay couples.

But the Drewitt-Barlows, from Essex, southeast England, attend their local parish church in the village of Danbury with their five children and want to marry there.

They told GSN: ‘We actually feel that the government has done all it can do right now to push equality for same sex marriage in the right direction.

‘However, there is still discrimination towards same-sex couples in terms of being allowed to marry in a church.["]

Before scoffing that this can’t happen here, let’s remember that ministers occupy a quasi-official state role in certifying marriages — a much more significant state interest than in bakers or photographers. It’s certainly food for thought, and don’t be surprised to see test-case lawsuits filed here in the US for the same purpose.


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

Holy crap. I agree with Andrew Sullivan.

I picked a bad week to stop drinking.

tree hugging sister on February 26, 2014 at 12:50 PM

How do you think I feel? I just gave up sniffing glue!!

I love those old Airplane movies ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmW-ScmGRMA

ZeusGoose on February 26, 2014 at 2:15 PM

Anyone who claims “settled science” in any court is a fool.

Slavery was once “settled science”.

Schadenfreude on February 26, 2014 at 2:15 PM

AZ needs to take a stand.

Taka a stand against this political correctness that is insidiously eating away at our culture. We are being bullied without compare, and it is those that appease or acquiesce to bullies that find no end to their grief. It not AZ, then who? Take a stand AZ.

Who cares about the “Super” Bowl. And the Super Bowl itself represents a kind of glitzy crass emptiness that is the antithesis of enduring long-established culture. Take a stand, and like ChickFilA, people will rise in a movement en masse to support you Arizona.

But just like ChicklFilA, don’t expect the squish Romney to support you. Arguably, Romney was a huge mistake that had hidden pro-gay marriage agenda (he was for gays in the military, and again, while Republicans and Independents everywhere rose to support ChickFilA, Romney arrogantly said only 7 words: “[ChickFilA] is not part of my campaign”). Don’t let our losing and inept presidential candidate dictate our policy. Take a stand AZ and go with conservative, not the liberals!!!

You know what, AZ will probably get the Super Bowl anyways. Because people will rise up in support of AZ, and the Super Bowl committee will say that there is nothing wrong with being gay, but there’s nothing wrong for sticking up for heterosexuals or religious freedom either. When they give AZ the Super Bowl, we have won, it will mark the turning point against this political correctness run amok. Go for this fight!

anotherJoe on February 26, 2014 at 2:15 PM

Emancipation Proclamation: Arizona Bill Outlaws Forced Enslavement Of Christians By Gays

http://patdollard.com/2014/01/a-new-proposed-bill-in-arizona-would-allow-religious-people-to-refuse-service-to-gays/

Oh, that’s not what you meant?

davidk on February 26, 2014 at 2:17 PM

Arizona Bill Makes It Easier To Prosecute For Human Trafficking

You’d think it would be simple to prosecute someone for enslaving another human being. You’d be wrong.

http://stopchildslavery.com/2010/04/20/arizona-bill-makes-it-easier-to-prosecute-for-human-trafficking/

No?

davidk on February 26, 2014 at 2:18 PM

eski502 on February 26, 2014 at 2:15 PM

That’s not what the bill says!

annoyinglittletwerp on February 26, 2014 at 2:22 PM

Bring the fight.

Let them go after religious institutions.

Clairfy what this is really about, so the braindead can stop muttering “people can love who day want”, or “privacy of your home”.

Old cliche’s from the 90′s that are way past expired.

I want this fight. The LGB advocates are going to freak when black liberal Christians don’t them, when latinos think they’re nuts.

It’s going to lead to a massive discussion as to how the F we ended up in this place.

And then, we can start debating media’s culpability. It’s disproportionate representation of LGB within its work ranks and how that dictates the message of its product.

And the science. The lack of science behind this, and why that is.

Let them go full aggressive, and we eliminate the sentimentality that got the movement ahead of the curve.

budfox on February 26, 2014 at 2:22 PM

I cannot believe that I agree with a far left radical like Sullivan. This is probably the only comment that he has made that I agree with 100%.
The stupidity of the liberal media and the gay right group’s argument defies logic and common sense. Has anyone in either of those groups even bothered to read the document in question? I rather doubt it. The government has no right to tell you what is acceptable and what is not when dealing with your religious convictions. The gays still have all the protections that the laws of America demand, the idea that a politician can decide your believes are not part of the American makeup.
This is little better than a power grab by the most radical of those organizations, the media has the responsibility to report and even provide information on concerns not try and impose their ideas on the people.
The gay rights groups lack any intelligent or coherent argument on the bill. They may on occasions be inconvenienced by an individual’s beliefs but it would in no way infringe on their rights. Their whole argument is that they want business “A” to provide their needs and it is unfair to them to be told to go to business “B”.
This happens every day in every society on the planet, why is this any differant?

John21 on February 26, 2014 at 2:22 PM

Arizona anti-gay bill
5m
Hispanic law group pulls conference from Arizona over bill allowing denial of service to gays – @AP
read more on bigstory.ap.org
=============================

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/hispanic-lawyers-pull-conference-arizona

canopfor on February 26, 2014 at 2:22 PM

Without this bill, just probation: http://www.azfamily.com/news/Flagstaff-woman-gets-probation-in-modern-day-slavery-operation-235627761.html

Where’s Revrund Jaxsun, Bruhtha Al?

Name that race.

davidk on February 26, 2014 at 2:23 PM

Arizona anti-gay bill
7h
Arizona’s Gov. Brewer tweets ‘I assure you, as always, I will do the right thing for the State of Arizona’ on anti-gay bill – @GovBrewer
end of alert

canopfor on February 26, 2014 at 2:24 PM

Why can’t the find a middle ground here? Of course you should not be forced to hold same sex weddings at your venue if you do not believe in them. The bill though should not be written in a manner that goes so far as to say someone can deny homosexuals from eating at their diner or restaurant on the basis that they are gay. You don’t solve a problem by enacting an extreme.

eski502 on February 26, 2014 at 2:15 PM

The bill does not allow for discrimination to diners. It merely states that people do not have to assist in acts or events that are contrary to their religious beliefs. And they must PROVE this. I would suggest that you fully read the bill.

bimmcorp on February 26, 2014 at 2:24 PM

Results for #SB1062

https://twitter.com/search?q=%23SB1062&src=hash

canopfor on February 26, 2014 at 2:24 PM

Well,….ImmigrationGoons allying with Same-Sex Activists,
I’m GobSmacked!
(sarc)
==========

AZ Democratic Party ‏@azdemparty 5m

BREAKING: in response to #SB1062 @HNBANews has pulled their 40th Annual Convention from Phx scheduled for Sept. 2015 http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/?u=df9a27c10b6d6ba38ba001440&id=992e67d80f

http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/?u=df9a27c10b6d6ba38ba001440&id=992e67d80f

canopfor on February 26, 2014 at 2:28 PM

This is the full text of Arizona SB 1062

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

bimmcorp on February 26, 2014 at 2:28 PM

The Arizona House yesterday passed a bill that would allow anyone to discriminate against anyone for any reason, especially on the grounds of religious liberty. The bill, designed to allow private businesses the legal right to discriminate against LGBT people by citing their personal religious objections to homosexuality, overrules Arizona’s current anti-discrimination statutes. The bill, whose chief sponsor is Rep. Steve Yarbrough (image, above,) passed the House by a 32-24 vote, and has been transmitted to the Arizona Senate. All House Democrats voted against the bill.

The bill could be considered the religious liberties version of a “stand your ground” law, allowing an automatic “out” to defend anyone’s “practice or observance of religion.” In other words, it would give Arizona residents and businesses the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, including because they are LGBT.

Not only does the bill allow lawsuits for real or perceived violations of the law, but it “would allow people to sue over potential violations of religious liberty,” as the AP reported today:

Civil liberties groups say the bill would be a nightmare for businesses because it could prompt a wave of lawsuits over alleged First Amendment violations.

Arizona Central notes “opponents say the bill could protect people who discriminate.”

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/arizona-house-passes-religious-freedom-pro-discrimination-bill-by-wide-margin/politics/2013/05/16/66993#.Uw5AEIWymsA

OK.

davidk on February 26, 2014 at 2:30 PM

Texas same-sex marriage
3m
Texas’ ban on gay marriage ruled unconstitutional – @mySA, @chucklindell
read more on mysanantonio.com

canopfor on February 26, 2014 at 2:31 PM

exaggerating a bill or law and claiming it will “take us back to…” seems to be the standard argument for left wingers.

at this point, they looking for fights, just to fight.

jetch on February 26, 2014 at 2:32 PM

Hey.. can we force a Muslim photographer to take pictures of my bacon celebration?

JellyToast on February 26, 2014 at 2:33 PM

This is one of those problems when people use religion as a way to, sort of, enforce discriminatory practices. People used religion back in the 1860s — when they used religion to defend slavery. We’ve used religion to go to war. People have criticized Islam because they use religion to fight people and kill people. This is the problem with that.

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/abcs-dowd-likens-az-religious-freedom-bill-radical-islam

davidk on February 26, 2014 at 2:34 PM

From the headline link on Hot Air right now, Kirsten Powers, one of the left’s useful idiots has this hypothetical:

Say the only pharmacy in town is owned by a conservative Muslim. He believes that women should be covered. A mother comes in to get antibiotics for her sick child. He refuses service unless she covers herself. Will the religious right defend this?

As is usual for the left, she’s using a false premise. I live in a town that’s so small you could spit from one end to the other (almost), and we have 2 pharmacies, 2 florists, 2 bakeries, 2 groceries, 3 banks, 3 hardware stores, 2 auto parts stores, etc., etc.

Using a fabricated extreme of only one “critical need” business in a small town is at its best uninformed, and at worst dishonest. (I’m going with the latter.)

LooseCannon on February 26, 2014 at 2:34 PM

Texas same-sex marriage
2m
More: Federal judge postpones action pending appeal after striking down Texas ban on gay marriage – @AP
end of alert
=================

canopfor on February 26, 2014 at 2:36 PM

exaggerating a bill or law and claiming it will “take us back to…” seems to be the standard argument for left wingers.

at this point, they looking for fights, just to fight.

jetch on February 26, 2014 at 2:32 PM

Yep. That is why I don’t understand why they aren’t supporting this “terrible” “poorly written” “homophobic” bill.

They can go to the courts and get it knocked down and score a big victory.

Unless it’s not really “terrible” “poorly written” and “homophobic.” Sounds like they are scared of it.

davidk on February 26, 2014 at 2:37 PM

Wake up or perish

Schadenfreude on February 26, 2014 at 2:38 PM

I want my annual Mardi Gras pork BBQ blowout to be catered by the local Muslim restaurant and fully expect all judges to protect me from any anti-porcine bigots.

viking01 on February 26, 2014 at 2:39 PM

There they go

Schadenfreude on February 26, 2014 at 2:39 PM

So they can’t be right in the legal opinion they hold?

And if John McCain joining Dems can be billed as bipartisan, then this is a bipartisan group. But most importantly- the offensive part is this idea that just because you don’t think they are moderate enough that their opinions hold no merit. Put another way, show where their thinking is wrong instead of attacking their associations.

Happy Nomad on February 26, 2014 at 1:39 PM

I could care less either way. It’s not like what they think is going to change a Governors mind who does not want to lose every business in the country. She’s going to listen to business and no one else.

stingray9813 on February 26, 2014 at 2:39 PM

She’s going to listen to business and no one else.

stingray9813 on February 26, 2014 at 2:39 PM

That kind of thinking got Krupp into lots of trouble when they coddled Adolf… and that company that made Xyklon-B as well…

viking01 on February 26, 2014 at 2:42 PM

The bill does not allow for discrimination to diners. It merely states that people do not have to assist in acts or events that are contrary to their religious beliefs. And they must PROVE this. I would suggest that you fully read the bill.

bimmcorp on February 26, 2014 at 2:24 PM

Thanks for the above.

I have countered some who argue against the bill thusly: “If you have a restaurant/catering business, I assume you would have no problem serving Robert Byrd at your lunch counter, or catering for his family’s holiday meal, but would you have a problem providing catering services for one of his Klan rallies?”

I read the full text of the bill yesterday, and the attacks being made by the agitators, and the weak defenses provided by the uninformed are aggravating. One would think that some of the commentators who are ostensibly on the side of individual liberty would make a greater effort to get out the truth about this bill and refute the exaggerated claims being made by the professional offendee contingent.

LooseCannon on February 26, 2014 at 2:43 PM

Fools of HA, those who claim the same, when was a gay owned, mistreated, exploited, bought and sold by a master?

Schadenfreude on February 26, 2014 at 12:53 PM

Or rounded up, beaten and sold by their fellow gheys?

Nutstuyu on February 26, 2014 at 2:48 PM

Why can’t the find a middle ground here? Of course you should not be forced to hold same sex weddings at your venue if you do not believe in them. The bill though should not be written in a manner that goes so far as to say someone can deny homosexuals from eating at their diner or restaurant on the basis that they are gay. You don’t solve a problem by enacting an extreme.

eski502 on February 26, 2014 at 2:15 PM

Go read the actual text of the bill, and then come back and maybe we can discuss this in an intelligent manner.

LooseCannon on February 26, 2014 at 2:49 PM

If a pair of posturing homosexuals are openly swapping spit etc. in a restaurant thus encouraging diners to regurgitate into their plates I fully support the owner’s right to propel them out the door.

viking01 on February 26, 2014 at 2:52 PM

gay-sex bigots intend to force churches to marry gay people, THAT will be what pushes through a constitutional amendment that marriage is not a right.

northdallasthirty on February 26, 2014 at 1:12 PM

I know you’re “gay” but that you usually post against the gheystapo. I wonder if you would also help us reclaim the proper use of the word gay?

No more “gay-sex”, because who actually has sad-sex?

No more “gay marriage”, because who actually wants a sad marriage?

No more “gay rights”, because we already have a right to pursuit of happiness, so that’s just redundant.

Etc., etc.

Nutstuyu on February 26, 2014 at 2:53 PM

The Left loves to stereotype conservatives as racists, bigots and homophobes. I consider that to be self-serving, hyperbolic noise. However, there is a nugget of truth to be found when one looks past the wild exaggerations.

What I see here at H/A is a profound ignorance of history and a cruel callousness towards those who are not orthodox Christians. I see an intentional, most times, unwillingness to consider the consequences of their entrenched positions. I see a denial of the past, as though the world as we know it sprung fully formed, yesterday, from the brow of Ted Cruz or whoever the favorite du jour happens to be.

H/A is often a depressing window on the psyche of the far right.

MJBrutus on February 26, 2014 at 2:59 PM

44Magnum on February 26, 2014 at 1:38 PM

Love it. I’m a music director at a mainline church and while we don’t allow ghey marriages yet, it’s certainly coming soon. Fortunately, all weddings at my church are required to pay all the fees, including the musicians, in advance; so yeah I might just get a little creative with the ceremony music.

Nutstuyu on February 26, 2014 at 3:02 PM

so yeah I might just get a little creative with the ceremony music.

Nutstuyu on February 26, 2014 at 3:02 PM

Every song by The Village People?

viking01 on February 26, 2014 at 3:05 PM

H/A is often a depressing window on the psyche of the far right.

MJBrutus on February 26, 2014 at 2:59 PM

Got a problem? Get in line.

viking01 on February 26, 2014 at 3:11 PM

You know what, AZ will probably get the Super Bowl anyways. Because people will rise up in support of AZ, and the Super Bowl committee will say that there is nothing wrong with being gay, but there’s nothing wrong for sticking up for heterosexuals or religious freedom either. When they give AZ the Super Bowl, we have won, it will mark the turning point against this political correctness run amok. Go for this fight!

anotherJoe on February 26, 2014 at 2:15 PM

Not to mention AZ (or the planned venue) would have all kinds of contractual things to sue on. I remember when MLB tried to get rid of the MN Twins, and the company that ran the HHH Metrodome (may it rest in peace) successfully sued to stop MLB because it would breach/interfere with contracts already in place.

Nutstuyu on February 26, 2014 at 3:11 PM

viking01 on February 26, 2014 at 3:11 PM

No problems. Just stating my opinion.

MJBrutus on February 26, 2014 at 3:12 PM

Every song by The Village People?

viking01 on February 26, 2014 at 3:05 PM

Or the Oscar Meyer Wiener song.

Nutstuyu on February 26, 2014 at 3:12 PM

H/A is often a depressing window on the psyche of the far right.

MJBrutus on February 26, 2014 at 2:59 PM

Grab your meds, pronto.

Schadenfreude on February 26, 2014 at 3:13 PM

Every song by The Village People?

viking01 on February 26, 2014 at 3:05 PM

Or the Oscar Meyer Wiener song.

Nutstuyu on February 26, 2014 at 3:12 PM

One congregant to the other:

“I’ve never heard In the Navy on pipe organ before…”

“Now it’s show tunes again…”

“Harold, do you take this man…”

♫Memory, when the kitties are sleeeee-ping…..♫

viking01 on February 26, 2014 at 3:19 PM

From the headline link on Hot Air right now, Kirsten Powers, one of the left’s useful idiots has this hypothetical:

Say the only pharmacy in town is owned by a conservative Muslim. He believes that women should be covered. A mother comes in to get antibiotics for her sick child. He refuses service unless she covers herself. Will the religious right defend this?

As is usual for the left, she’s using a false premise. I live in a town that’s so small you could spit from one end to the other (almost), and we have 2 pharmacies, 2 florists, 2 bakeries, 2 groceries, 3 banks, 3 hardware stores, 2 auto parts stores, etc., etc.

Using a fabricated extreme of only one “critical need” business in a small town is at its best uninformed, and at worst dishonest. (I’m going with the latter.)

LooseCannon on February 26, 2014 at 2:34 PM

Yes, the “religious right” may defend. But more importantly, the word will get around in this incredibly small town about the weird Muslim pharmacist and everyone will take their business to the next town over. Big woop.

Nutstuyu on February 26, 2014 at 3:20 PM

H/A is often a depressing window on the psyche of the far right.

MJBrutus on February 26, 2014 at 2:59 PM

You mean that people actually believe in limits on state power?

I suppose that today that does indeed qualify as far right, but in context of American history, hardly “far” at all.

nobar on February 26, 2014 at 3:20 PM

H/A is often a depressing window on the psyche of the far right.

MJBrutus on February 26, 2014 at 2:59 PM

Define “far right”.

Nutstuyu on February 26, 2014 at 3:20 PM

H/A is often a depressing window on the psyche of the far right.

MJBrutus on February 26, 2014 at 2:59 PM

It is much more often a depressing view of the psyche of those who mischaracterize any genuinely conservative positions as ‘far right.’

For instance, freedom is the right to discriminate. Fanatical efforts to prevent discrimination against protected classes is, in fact, suppression of freedom. Does recognizing that fact make me a member of the ‘far right,’ or does it make me a truth teller?

What if I am pointing to the truth solely for the purpose of clarification of language, and I actually think sometimes freedom does need to be suppressed to some degree in order to protect the political liberty of minorities? Am I still a member of the ‘far right?’

I hate in when anyone fxxxs with the language on purpose the way those of you on the left do all the time.

fadetogray on February 26, 2014 at 3:21 PM

Oh but there’s no bigotry in Andrew Sullivan’s statement, right?

Cleombrotus on February 26, 2014 at 3:23 PM

Barrie and Tony Drewitt-Barlow told Gay Star News it was important for them as Christians to marry in church and for their kids to see they were equal.

I don’t think “Christian” means what they think it means.

Cleombrotus on February 26, 2014 at 3:28 PM

It would be far better if courts just took this as a common-sense application of the freedom to religious expression, without the potential backfire of using an expansion of statutes and the potential for unintended consequences that result from them. Common sense, in this case, would recognize that the right to religious liberty trumps the extremely weak state interests in the commercial industries surrounding weddings. Unfortunately, the Obama administration has been undermining that application of common sense with the HHS contraception mandate for the last two years, and courts haven’t entirely embraced the common-sense conclusion that business owners shouldn’t be compelled to provide free contraception and sterilization services when it opposes their religious principles.

I don’t think there’s any real doubt that laws like this should not be necessary.

I also don’t think there’s any doubt left that such laws are necessary now.

But I have a feeling that a federal judge is going to try to rule the law unconstitutional even if signed.

In the future, if things continue as they are now, there will be an attempt to punish anyone of faith who describes homosexuality as sinful. Not in the church pulpits, at first. But anything said outside of the church pulpit will be considered fair game.

The first goal, though, is to establish that anyone who declines to participate in SSM, even by providing a cake or flowers for a ‘wedding,’ is therefore guilty of bigotry.

Once that’s established firmly for the culture as a whole, and for private citizens with religious convictions to the contrary, then the same principles will be established for any church ministry, on the assumption that if you’re giving food or charitable help to the general public, then you’re in the public sphere.

Charitable ministries that help people adopt will be prohibited from doing so unless they help homosexuals adopt. Oh wait, that’s already happening.

All educational ministries will undergo scrutiny of whether they are “teaching bigotry and homophobia.” Claiming that your faith teaches that homosexuality is wrong will just be proof that your faith is not fit to be teaching children.

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 26, 2014 at 3:30 PM

What I see here at H/A is a profound ignorance of history and a cruel callousness towards those who are not orthodox Christians. I see an intentional, most times, unwillingness to consider the consequences of their entrenched positions. I see a denial of the past, as though the world as we know it sprung fully formed, yesterday, from the brow of Ted Cruz or whoever the favorite du jour happens to be.

H/A is often a depressing window on the psyche of the far right.

MJBrutus on February 26, 2014 at 2:59 PM

I am agnostic. I could care less if you are Christian, Muslim, green, black, or blue OR GASP gay. I DON’T CARE! If you own private property and are a private individual, you should be able to pick how you use that property and who you associate with- PERIOD! CAPICE?

melle1228 on February 26, 2014 at 3:34 PM

exaggerating a bill or law and claiming it will “take us back to…” seems to be the standard argument for left wingers.

at this point, they looking for fights, just to fight.

jetch on February 26, 2014 at 2:32 PM

No, the left doesn’t fight just to fight. (Though they do enjoy it.)

EVERYTHING has an ulterior motive. The media are playing this and other homosexual themed stories because it distracts from the massive failure that Obamacare is and the utter incompetence it displays.

The power of the media is still very hard to counter. If only someone in the 2012 election had made pushing back against the media a theme…

makattak on February 26, 2014 at 3:37 PM

melle1228 on February 26, 2014 at 3:34 PM

I see an intentional, most times, unwillingness to consider the consequences of their entrenched positions.

Capisce?

MJBrutus on February 26, 2014 at 3:38 PM

H/A is often a depressing window on the psyche of the far right.

MJBrutus

And yet you’re still here pretending you aren’t on the left, lol…an act no one is buying btw, so come out of the closet already.

xblade on February 26, 2014 at 3:40 PM

I see an intentional, most times, unwillingness to consider the consequences of their entrenched positions.

Capisce?

MJBrutus on February 26, 2014 at 3:38 PM

*snort*

That’s just too much. I hope Spiderman thinks you’re pretty MaryJane, because he certainly isn’t with you for your smarts.

NotCoach on February 26, 2014 at 3:44 PM

xblade on February 26, 2014 at 3:40 PM

You don’t read so good. I’ve made it quite clear, for years, that I am independant. I take each issue as it comes. I most frequently find myself in agreement with conservatism on fiscal issues which are also the most important to me. On social issues, I agree with the right some times, but far less frequently.

Sorry, no masks, no games, no closets. To quote the moral philosopher Popeye, “I yam what I yam.”

MJBrutus on February 26, 2014 at 3:44 PM

I am agnostic. I could couldn’t care less if you are Christian, Muslim, green, black, or blue OR GASP gay. I DON’T CARE! If you own private property and are a private individual, you should be able to pick how you use that property and who you associate with- PERIOD! CAPICE?

melle1228 on February 26, 2014 at 3:34 PM

Capisce?

MJBrutus on February 26, 2014 at 3:38 PM

Capisci is more like it, unless you’re as important as obama, formal and in the third person…not that it makes any difference at this point.

Schadenfreude on February 26, 2014 at 3:55 PM

Schadenfreude on February 26, 2014 at 3:55 PM

I’m sure you’re right. I don’t speak Italian.

MJBrutus on February 26, 2014 at 3:56 PM

H/A is often a depressing window on the psyche of the far right.

MJBrutus on February 26, 2014 at 2:59 PM

So notes an advocate for tyranny.

Athos on February 26, 2014 at 4:05 PM

Athos on February 26, 2014 at 4:05 PM

I allowed myself to be annoyed yesterday. The fault is mine. I know better than to give even a mild amount of concern about what anyone here has to say.

MJBrutus on February 26, 2014 at 4:08 PM

God, she’s one ugly broad.

lostmotherland on February 26, 2014 at 4:09 PM

Say the only pharmacy in town is owned by a conservative Muslim. He believes that women should be covered. A mother comes in to get antibiotics for her sick child. He refuses service unless she covers herself. Will the religious right defend this?

LooseCannon on February 26, 2014 at 2:34 PM

Powers fails to understand the law. Yes, the Muslim pharmacy owner could refuse the woman the antibiotics unless she covered herself, and then the woman could sue the Muslim pharmacy owner for doing so. At trial, the judge would determine that the state clearly has a compelling interest in ensuring that sick people are able to obtain antibiotics in a timely manner from the town’s only pharmacy, and the Muslim pharmacist would lose his shirt (and probably his pharmacy too) to the woman customer.

Contrary to Powers’ and other leftist demagogues’ arguments, the law is a careful balancing of competing rights. It does not create a free pass for AZ business owners to use their religious beliefs to discriminate against customers of different faiths (or no faith) in any way that suits their fancy.

AZCoyote on February 26, 2014 at 4:09 PM

Jan Brewer should sign the bill, and consider other bills to amend it later.

Stoic Patriot on February 26, 2014 at 4:10 PM

I allowed myself to be annoyed yesterday. The fault is mine. I know better than to give even a mild amount of concern about what anyone here has to say.

MJBrutus on February 26, 2014 at 4:08 PM

Much better. You worried me a tad :)

Schadenfreude on February 26, 2014 at 4:10 PM

This is the full text of Arizona SB 1062

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

bimmcorp on February 26, 2014 at 2:28 PM

The bill is short. The lies and propaganda about it are out in full force.

INC on February 26, 2014 at 4:11 PM

God, she’s one ugly broad.

lostmotherland on February 26, 2014 at 4:09 PM

The ‘erudite’ and ‘enlightened’ left on full display. But, never say anything about Hillary.

Oh, for f*cks sake, STFU. You don’t have any principle, unless it’s the principle that has to see Obama defeated at all costs. You people are holding the rest of the country hostage with your antics. Go find a ditch to die in.

lostmotherland on December 21, 2012 at 6:49 PM

And my favorite

How do you think Ted Cruz became a Senator?

Gerrymandering.

lostmotherland on October 17, 2013 at 1:39 PM

Schadenfreude on February 26, 2014 at 4:13 PM

Schadenfreude on February 26, 2014 at 4:10 PM

Thanks. We all have our bad days :-)

MJBrutus on February 26, 2014 at 4:20 PM

God, she’s one ugly broad. Hillary is MUCH HOTTER.

toure on February 26, 2014 at 4:09 PM

How’s the ditch to Pyongyang coming?

Del Dolemonte on February 26, 2014 at 4:20 PM

SO SO SICK of the radical gay lobby.

The funny thing is this bill would have never come to light if they didn’t start suing people for expressing their religious beliefs. They are responsible for the very bill they are having a heart attack over.

gophergirl on February 26, 2014 at 1:32 PM

Time is NOT on their side. Within a generation there will be tests to determine if a fetus is homosexual and drugs to block homosexuality in the womb. We may even have drugs to turn homosexuals into normal people. It’s coming, like it or not.

slickwillie2001 on February 26, 2014 at 4:27 PM

God, she’s one ugly broad.

lostmotherland on February 26, 2014 at 4:09 PM

Yeah, she only became Governor by gerrymandering.

slickwillie2001 on February 26, 2014 at 4:32 PM

Powers fails to understand the law. Yes, the Muslim pharmacy owner could refuse the woman the antibiotics unless she covered herself, and then the woman could sue the Muslim pharmacy owner for doing so. At trial, the judge would determine that the state clearly has a compelling interest in ensuring that sick people are able to obtain antibiotics in a timely manner from the town’s only pharmacy, and the Muslim pharmacist would lose his shirt (and probably his pharmacy too) to the woman customer.

Contrary to Powers’ and other leftist demagogues’ arguments, the law is a careful balancing of competing rights. It does not create a free pass for AZ business owners to use their religious beliefs to discriminate against customers of different faiths (or no faith) in any way that suits their fancy.

AZCoyote on February 26, 2014 at 4:09 PM

She’s a progressive. She doesn’t have to understand anything, she just has to feel right.

You would think writing a column and being a pundit would be exceptions to the rule above, but you would be wrong. The rule above is an exception to expecting a writer to know what he or she is talking about.

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 26, 2014 at 4:33 PM

Time is NOT on their side. Within a generation there will be tests to determine if a fetus is homosexual and drugs to block homosexuality in the womb. We may even have drugs to turn homosexuals into normal people. It’s coming, like it or not.

slickwillie2001 on February 26, 2014 at 4:27 PM

Time is clearly against you. You see, a lot sooner than medicine comes up with a “cure” for gay, attitudes will have changed all across this country. It is happening rapidly and right before your eyes, which you would know if you considered removing the blinders for a moment or two.

Why, even in TX, a judge has ruled against their ban on gay marriage. While I disapprove of such change coming from the bench, the fact is that however it comes about people soon realize that it’s no big deal. Gawd doesn’t send locusts and frogs and “normal” people still get to wed and divorce just like they did before.

MJBrutus on February 26, 2014 at 4:38 PM

God, she’s one ugly broad.
 
lostmotherland on February 26, 2014 at 4:09 PM

 
Gerry!
 
Glad to see you’re still fighting the good fight in the War on Women, btw.

rogerb on February 26, 2014 at 4:45 PM

H/A is often a depressing window on the psyche of the far right.

MJBrutus on February 26, 2014 at 2:59 PM

Thanks for being here to add balance.

Bmore on February 26, 2014 at 5:03 PM

Sweat Boy! Sweat!

Bmore on February 26, 2014 at 5:04 PM

The Lynch Mob Media is after their next target!!!

How dare she offended our media driven cultural vales!!

GET HER GET HER THEY SCREAM…..from The ED show, to CNN, to the other networks. Jan Brewer must be destroyed!

PappyD61 on February 26, 2014 at 5:07 PM

Sebastian on February 26, 2014 at 2:03 PM

Pajama Boy?

Bmore on February 26, 2014 at 5:08 PM

For all I know, this Arizona bill is bad law and should be killed. But let’s remember one thing. The only reason this controversy is coming up in the first place is that militant gay activists are shopping around for Christian bakers and florists so that they can ruin their lives for sport.

damage done on February 26, 2014 at 5:08 PM

LOL, we are far past the point where what the law actually says or what the law will actually do matters one bit. It has now become a symbol, and anyone who supports it labeled a bigot. Yay gay rights?

mbs on February 26, 2014 at 5:14 PM

I am agnostic. I could care less if you are Christian, Muslim, green, black, or blue OR GASP gay. I DON’T CARE! If you own private property and are a private individual, you should be able to pick how you use that property and who you associate with- PERIOD! CAPICE?

melle1228 on February 26, 2014 at 3:34 PM

Why would the Fascists stop there?

The concept of private property is bourgeois…capitalistic.

workingclass artist on February 26, 2014 at 5:14 PM

Say the only pharmacy in town is owned by a conservative Muslim. He believes that women should be covered. A mother comes in to get antibiotics for her sick child. He refuses service unless she covers herself. Will the religious right defend this?

LooseCannon on February 26, 2014 at 2:34 PM

Nope. The interest of the state becomes compelling when there are no other options available, especially with regard to life-saving medicine. Which has been shown not to be the case with regard to florists, photographers and bakers sued for refusing to participate in gay weddings. When there many choices, I don’t think a business should be forced to provide services to a wedding that seriously offends their sincerely held religious beliefs. Now if it’s the only florist in town? I might feel differently. But, you’re still weighing flowers against religious beliefs, so maybe not.

mbs on February 26, 2014 at 5:19 PM

****Heads UP:

Arizona anti-gay bill
3m
Sources say Gov. Jan Brewer will be announcing her decision to veto SB1062 at 4:45 today – @KVOA
see original on twitter.com

canopfor on February 26, 2014 at 5:20 PM

canopfor on February 26, 2014 at 5:26 PM

not that it makes any difference at this point.

Schadenfreude on February 26, 2014 at 3:55 PM

.
Good one!

ExpressoBold on February 26, 2014 at 5:34 PM

Why don’t we just get rid of the religious freedom thingy in our constitution and then we won’t have to worry about upsetting the gays if they can’t find a baker on wedding day.

I was wondering what the next logical step would be down this black hole to hell so I came up with this.

I’m thinking that once the gays get to demand all religious business owners (except Islamic ones, of course) must service their weddings they are going to get bored with that and next.. demand religious business owners (except Islamic ones, of course) must verbally state their acceptance of gay marriage and all things homosexual throughout the course of the business day. Perhaps place a written notice on their walls that state “Although this business is owned by a Christian.. I support gay marriage”

Yeah.. the outward act of acceptance of submission is eventually not going to be enough. They will eventually demand inward acceptance as well… and an outward rejection of their Bible and faith.

This is not about cakes being baked. It is about forcing people of faith (except Islamic ones, of course) to reject their faith.

But they will not succeed. And although they may still win battles… this war has already been won. It is a done deal. Jesus is returning.

JellyToast on February 26, 2014 at 5:35 PM

Capisci is more like it, unless you’re as important as obama, formal and in the third person…not that it makes any difference at this point.

Schadenfreude on February 26, 2014 at 3:55 PM

LOL– Thank you for correcting my Italian. For my next trick, I will go mangle some Spanish.

Donde esta el bano :)

melle1228 on February 26, 2014 at 5:41 PM

God, she’s one ugly broad.

lostmotherland on February 26, 2014 at 4:09 PM

.
That visceral reaction didn’t seem to phase public acceptance of Eleanor Roosevelt one bit. And have you seen Rosie O’Donnell lately? BTW, when we affectionately talk about “cankles” everybody knows who we mean, you know what I mean?

ExpressoBold on February 26, 2014 at 5:42 PM

Religion is nothing more than institutionalized superstition. 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 26, 2014 at 5:52 PM

H/A is often a depressing window on the psyche of the far right.

MJBrutus on February 26, 2014 at 2:59 PM

You mean that people actually believe in limits on state power?

I suppose that today that does indeed qualify as far right, but in context of American history, hardly “far” at all.

nobar on February 26, 2014 at 3:20 PM

Freedom is depressing to those who suck at the nanny-state’s teet.

Sterling Holobyte on February 26, 2014 at 6:00 PM

Bandit13 on February 26, 2014 at 5:52 PM

Troll alert.. Troll Alert.. Danger Troll Alert…

melle1228 on February 26, 2014 at 6:00 PM

H/A is often a depressing window on the psyche of the far right.

MJBrutus on February 26, 2014 at 2:59 PM

Thats not a window..it’s a mirror.
Just sayin.

Mimzey on February 26, 2014 at 6:04 PM

Bandit13 on February 26, 2014 at 5:52 PM

Delusional.
Seek help.

Mimzey on February 26, 2014 at 6:06 PM

Bandit13 on February 26, 2014 at 5:52 PM

If you had any semblance of knowledge about Christianity, you would know that Christians love their children as God loves His(meaning, all of us).

He also give us pretty sensible rules to live by, just as any father would give his children to keep them on the right path and out of things that could harm them. While you flounder following the world’s ways, which only lead to despair, sickness, and moral depravation, thinking good things are bad and bad things are good as you travel the road to your own destruction, spiritually, morally, and physically.

And you call Christians the mentally ill ones.

Sterling Holobyte on February 26, 2014 at 6:10 PM

Most of the Christians I’ve talked to in the last day or so have expressed a sense of being duped. You know…the LGBT community kept saying that pursuing gay rights wouldn’t threaten religious freedoms….Christians gave them the benefit of the doubt in being sincere…and then these lawsuits and the hoopla come to light. MY impression is that they see the need to be less trusting and more cautious of the LGBT community than they have been. (And I agree with them on that point)

Question: What kind of business models could business owners use to protect themselves from LGBT misuse/abuse of discrimination laws? We’ve gathered a few ideas but looking for more

lineholder on February 26, 2014 at 6:12 PM

Arizona anti-gay bill
2m
Arizona GOP state Sen. Steve Yarborough says he defended his anti-gay bill in a meeting with Gov. Jan Brewer – @abc15
read more on abc15.com

https://twitter.com/abc15

canopfor on February 26, 2014 at 6:13 PM

Most of the Christians I’ve talked to in the last day or so have expressed a sense of being duped. You know…the LGBT community kept saying that pursuing gay rights wouldn’t threaten religious freedoms….Christians gave them the benefit of the doubt in being sincere…and then these lawsuits and the hoopla come to light. MY impression is that they see the need to be less trusting and more cautious of the LGBT community than they have been. (And I agree with them on that point)

Question: What kind of business models could business owners use to protect themselves from LGBT misuse/abuse of discrimination laws? We’ve gathered a few ideas but looking for more

lineholder on February 26, 2014 at 6:12 PM

They are after any religion that does not CHEERFULLY endorse homosexuality. Marriage now, next comes ideology and the banning of any religious writings or books that not only condemns homosexuality, but does not endorse it as wonderful and healthy.

MARK MY WORDS.

slickwillie2001 on February 26, 2014 at 6:23 PM

Bandit13, I think you may be on the wrong thread. Here.

Bmore on February 26, 2014 at 6:23 PM

Schadenfreude

Bmore on February 26, 2014 at 6:23 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3