Breaking: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoes religious freedom bill

posted at 8:31 pm on February 26, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

As was increasingly expected, this evening Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer nixed Senate bill 1062, which would have allowed for a religious exemption to the state’s public accommodation laws — i.e., businesses and individuals would have had legal protection in demurring from providing goods and services to certain customers on the basis of religious objections. A.k.a., gays and lesbians. Via CNN:

Brewer said she made the decision she knew was right for her state.

“I call them as I see them, despite the cheers or the boos from the crowd,” she said, calling the bill “broadly worded” and saying it could have unintended consequences.

Brewer said she’d weighed the arguments on both sides.

“To the supporters of the legislation, I want you to know that I understand that long-held norms about marriage and family are being challenged as never before. Our society is undergoing many dramatic changes,” she said. “However, I sincerely believe that Senate Bill 1062 has the potential to create more problems than it purports to solve. It could divide Arizona in ways we cannot even imagine and no one would ever want.

“Religious liberty is a core American and Arizona value, so is non-discrimination.”

Update: Allahpundit has more coming in the QOTD, but here’s another snippet from Brewer’s rationale for the veto: Let’s get back to our priorities, shall we?

Update: Aaaaand the vid:


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 3 4 5 6 7

I’ll keep an eye out.
“‘Troll’ fight!”

verbaluce on February 27, 2014 at 11:16 AM

That’s the spirit!

HumpBot Salvation on February 27, 2014 at 11:31 AM

Amazing how seemlesly some go from arguing for a right to discriminate against gays based upon religious conviction when running a business – to arguing that it should also be perfectly OK to discriminate against people for their religion or race for any reason when running a business.

Mordaukar on February 27, 2014 at 11:28 AM

You could say exactly the same thing for Freedom of Speech (ie: supporting one kind of speech means supporting all kinds). The question is, is that a good thing or bad thing in your opinion?

LancerDL on February 27, 2014 at 11:36 AM

Strange how history plays out. The Puritans came to America to excape prosecution and to obtain religious freedom.

“He was of Puritan descent, and prided himself not a little on being derived from that stern old stock of people, who had left their country and home for the sake of having freedom on a foreign shore, to enjoy their own religion, and, at the same time, to prevent other folks from enjoying theirs.” Mark Twain

“your ancestors had forsaken the homes they loved, and braved the perils of the sea, the implacable climate, and the savage wilderness, to acquire that highest and most precious of boons – freedom for every man on this broad continent to worship according to the dictates of his own conscience; and they were not going to allow a lot of pestiferous Quakers to interfere with it. Your ancestors broke forever the chains of political slavery, and gave the vote to every man in this wide land, excluding none! None except those who did not belong to the orthodox church. Your ancestors – yes, they were a hard lot; but, nevertheless, they gave us religious liberty to worship as they required us to worship, and political liberty to vote as the church required” Mark Twain

Mordaukar on February 27, 2014 at 11:36 AM

hawkdriver on February 27, 2014 at 11:20 AM

You don’t need to me to cover your six. Hey, you are the only one I sorta know on this site so I will tell you on this party-line……got great news from the Doctor yesterday. CAVU for now!

HonestLib on February 27, 2014 at 11:38 AM

Fine if you wanna twist logic in a knot to rationalize that their sincere Christian faith

verbaluce on February 27, 2014 at 11:28 AM

Of which you are claiming total knowledge…

I don’t divine anything at all.

Except the specifics of their beliefs as it relates to their business practice.

There’s no “twist” or “rationalization” going on here. Private parties may enter or decline private contracts for private reasons. By citing other instances and claiming hypocrisy, you are specifically claiming knowledge of their private reasons for accepting and declining private contracts.

The Schaef on February 27, 2014 at 11:42 AM

You could say exactly the same thing for Freedom of Speech (ie: supporting one kind of speech means supporting all kinds). The question is, is that a good thing or bad thing in your opinion?

LancerDL on February 27, 2014 at 11:36 AM

I support absolutely the freedom of speech – and the baker would have been well served – and Christ would have been better served (in my opinion) if she exercised her right to free speech to give witness at every opportunity – to those she saw as clearly in need of it.

Supporting the right to free speech doesn’t mean I agree with WHAT they say – just their right to say it.

Engaging in commerce with someone doesn’t in any way mean that I endorse who they are, what they believe, or what they do.

If you open a business to the public – well the public are sinners. Are you going to declare yourself and your business more pure than Jesus – and not go among the sinners?

Mordaukar on February 27, 2014 at 11:43 AM

The refusal should be legal – unless you’re in favor of enslaving people. blink on February 27, 2014 at 11:40 AM

So slavery didn’t exist in the USA when businesses were free to not serve black people – and black athletes had to sleep on the bus when out of urban areas that didn’t offer ANY lodging or food to black people – but slavery DID exist as soon as businesses were not allowed to discriminate against black people. La Jolla had no slavery when it was “judenfrei”; but slavery existed as soon as they were no longer allowed to exclude Jewish people from buying property in La Jolla.

Very interesting – Aside from the justice or injustice of your ideals of freedom; do you wonder why the Republican party has difficulty making inroads into any non-white or non-Christian segment of the population?

Mordaukar on February 27, 2014 at 11:48 AM

Amazing how seemlesly [sic] some go from arguing for a right to discriminate against gays based upon religious conviction when running a business – to arguing that it should also be perfectly OK to discriminate against people for their religion or race for any reason when running a business.

Mordaukar on February 27, 2014 at 11:28 AM

Another straw man. Amazing how some still refuse to see what this is really all about.

As such it is hardly a strawman [sic] argument – logicaly [sic] either one has the absolute right to discriminate when running a business open to the public or they do not.

Mordaukar on February 27, 2014 at 11:28 AM

To say that these are the only two ‘choices’ is itself, illogical.

Ricard on February 27, 2014 at 11:50 AM

“He was of Puritan descent, and prided himself not a little on being derived from that stern old stock of people, who had left their country and home for the sake of having freedom on a foreign shore, to enjoy their own religion, and, at the same time, to prevent other folks from enjoying theirs.” Mark Twain

“your ancestors had forsaken the homes they loved, and braved the perils of the sea, the implacable climate, and the savage wilderness, to acquire that highest and most precious of boons – freedom for every man on this broad continent to worship according to the dictates of his own conscience; and they were not going to allow a lot of pestiferous Quakers to interfere with it. Your ancestors broke forever the chains of political slavery, and gave the vote to every man in this wide land, excluding none! None except those who did not belong to the orthodox church. Your ancestors – yes, they were a hard lot; but, nevertheless, they gave us religious liberty to worship as they required us to worship, and political liberty to vote as the church required” Mark Twain

Mordaukar on February 27, 2014 at 11:36 AM

Looks like Mark Twain ‘had the number’ of those who are suing bakers and photographers.

Ricard on February 27, 2014 at 11:53 AM

northdallasthirty on February 27, 2014 at 10:35 AM

Read the parable of “The Unforgiving Servant”, and “The Two Debtors”.

In your desperation to pervert Christianity to your own ends by making it a faith of pushovers and moral relativity, you have inadvertently destroyed the whole point of the Crucifixion — that there IS a right and wrong, that there IS a penalty, and that God through His love redeemed us.

Of course there is right and wrong, and of course there is a penalty. Who’s saying anything different? More importantly, there is sin. We are all sinners. Hopefully, by developing a relationship with Jesus Christ, we can resist the temptation to sin as much as possible, although we will never be perfect. Jesus ministered to the worst sinners. He showed them love and kindness. As His disciples, we are supposed to do the same. That does not mean we have to condone their lifestyle, or their sins.

Do you believe that a Christian has a duty to help others find Christ? Does God love everyone, or just those who profess to believe in Him? If we refuse to show kindness to those who are loved by God, aren’t we going against God? By sacrificing Himself on the cross, Jesus has shown us mercy for our sins. How can anyone justify not showing the same mercy for others?

HarryBackside on February 27, 2014 at 11:55 AM

It’s a wonder you can even leave your house.

Does it ever get too cold and too dark for you?
(And there’s nothing Christian at all about what you offer here…I mean that both literally and figuratively. Most Christians would agree with me on that point.)
verbaluce on February 27, 2014 at 11:11 AM

Lol.

You hate Christians, call for discrimination against them, and endorse people who call for them to be murdered.

None of which are Christian values, but then you presume to lecture Christians on theirs.

Of course, Christians are better than you are. That’s why you attempt to turn their superior moral values against them.

But since you are bigoted trash who mocks and spits on Scripture and Jesus Christ, no Christian need treat you with anything other than contempt.

northdallasthirty on February 27, 2014 at 11:57 AM

Mordaukar on February 27, 2014 at 11:48 AM

Could it be that we have mush for candidates? Could it be that ethnic identification, where people vote for candidates who share their skin color, and drew their own conclusions on what they stand for? Reagan had no problem winning landslide elections even without winning a majority of Hispanics, or African Americans, so your argument is kind of irrelevant

Brock Robamney on February 27, 2014 at 11:58 AM

There’s no “twist” or “rationalization” going on here. Private parties may enter or decline private contracts for private reasons. By citing other instances and claiming hypocrisy, you are specifically claiming knowledge of their private reasons for accepting and declining private contracts.

The Schaef on February 27, 2014 at 11:42 AM

I’m simply calling ‘bullsh*t’ (IMHO) on their rationale and reasoning, that’s all.
You are free to view it as admirable and decent, if you want.

verbaluce on February 27, 2014 at 11:58 AM

Isn’t it amazing that more and more Republicans are moving away from the Constitution? They are Neostatists, and all they care about is power and money, and not individual rights

Brock Robamney on February 27, 2014 at 12:00 PM

Amazing how seemlesly some go from arguing for a right to discriminate against gays based upon religious conviction when running a business – to arguing that it should also be perfectly OK to discriminate against people for their religion or race for any reason when running a business.

As such it is hardly a strawman argument – logicaly either one has the absolute right to discriminate when running a business open to the public or they do not.

And yes, absolute freedom IS ugly. Amazing how many forget that when it comes to their desire to have laws against private behavior they disagree with.

And some may wonder why the Republican party has such difficulty making inroads into populations that SHOULD be a natural constituency – like Asian Americans. It seems that some want the party of Lincoln to be the party ‘Of white Christians, By white Christians, and for white Christians’.

Mordaukar on February 27, 2014 at 11:28 AM

As deeply religious as blacks are, you would think they could make inroads there even. This party is on the road to irrelevance. It’s unfortunate because personal responsibility and accountability is a message that would benefit us all.

mazer9 on February 27, 2014 at 12:00 PM

I think it should be perfectly legal for someone to decline having me as a customer for whatever reason they want.

blink on February 27, 2014 at 11:56 AM

And would you consider yourself a free and equal citizen with a natural right allegiance to a nation where, because of your race and/or religion – you could not recieve food or lodgings or purchase property in the vast majority of the territory of that nation (all due to private discrimination that was legal in that nation) – but only in a few ‘ghettos’ that had been set aside for ‘your kind’ to live and do business?

Mordaukar on February 27, 2014 at 12:01 PM

I think it should be perfectly legal for someone to decline having me as a customer for whatever reason they want.

blink on February 27, 2014 at 11:56 AM

“blink” is obviously a white male. Lol.

mazer9 on February 27, 2014 at 12:03 PM

I think it’s obvious that Mordaukar HATES freedom of speech – because freedom is ugly. Someone might say something bad about someone else!

blink on February 27, 2014 at 11:58 AM

I think it is obvious that you are trolling.

The baker was free to say something “bad” about and to her prospective clients, and I would fully support that she witness to them that she finds their life sinful and that they should give their life to Christ and go forth and sin no more: both in the content of her message AND in her absolute right to say so.

Mordaukar on February 27, 2014 at 12:05 PM

I support someone’s right to declare themselves and their business more pure than Jesus if they want to. I support someone’s right to NOT do business with sinners if they want to.

blink on February 27, 2014 at 12:02 PM

Could you imagine having to take confession before being able to buy alligator tails?

mazer9 on February 27, 2014 at 12:05 PM

If we refuse to show kindness to those who are loved by God, aren’t we going against God?
HarryBackside on February 27, 2014 at 11:55 AM

How is facilitating sin and enabling unrepentant sin which will send someone to hell an act of “kindness”?

tommyboy on February 27, 2014 at 12:06 PM

She could save her image if she did one thing: implore activists of both sides to come together and have a big conference, off the record, where they could meet each other and talk.

Let’s see the gay movement dialogue instead of make war. Isn’t that what the left is all about? :)

PattyJ on February 27, 2014 at 12:06 PM

I’m not a believer, but I have much bigger arguments with atheists than with people of faith. When I hear an atheist being dismissive of or patronizing/mocking of folks going to church or praying, I let them know they’re being much more dogmatic and fundamentalist than any of the faiths or believers that they mock.
 
verbaluce on February 27, 2014 at 10:42 AM

 

Maybe they can even create a mythology around coupons…ponder the possibility of some higher force who decides who get’s the 2-for-1′s…and who doesn’t.
 
verbaluce on June 10, 2013 at 2:25 PM

rogerb on February 27, 2014 at 12:06 PM

Bought and paid for by the illegal alien and Demoncrat lobby. Homosexuals are 3.5% of the population. Who cares about them? They have no power, only the power we give them to intimidate us.

federale86 on February 27, 2014 at 12:08 PM

I’m not a believer, but I have much bigger arguments with atheists than with people of faith. When I hear an atheist being dismissive of or patronizing/mocking of folks going to church or praying, I let them know they’re being much more dogmatic and fundamentalist than any of the faiths or believers that they mock.

verbaluce on February 27, 2014 at 10:42 AM

Are atheists indoctrinated to believe that anyone who isn’t an atheist is an “abomination”?

This type of hateful rhetoric is written in the book these people take as the infallible word of God. They believe they need to “save us” from ourselves.

There’s the difference.

mazer9 on February 27, 2014 at 12:10 PM

Of course I would, because I have the SAME freedoms that they do. Are you really this stupid?

blink on February 27, 2014 at 12:03 PM

Sorry troll – but it is YOU who are THAT stupid to think you would have any natural allegiance TO and be a free and equal citizen OF a nation where you were NOT free to puchase any goods and services outside of a ‘ghetto’ set aside for you.

That really IS stupid. Ungodly stupid. Ugly stupid. Stupid to the power of stupid.

But keep on arguing FOR religious and racial discrimination – I fully support your freedom of speech to say STUPID things – one of the truly beautiful things about freedom of speech is that it doesn’t drive underground hateful ugly and ignorant ideas; but brings them forth into the light where they can receive the mocking and derision they so richly deserve.

Stupid troll.

Mordaukar on February 27, 2014 at 12:10 PM

No reason to associate with people who murder Christians for their beliefs.

And no need to provide services to people who openly mock and spit on as harmful the core value and reason for marriage.

northdallasthirty on February 27, 2014 at 10:43 AM

The early disciples went out and preached the Gospel to people who wanted them imprisoned, or ever killed for their beliefs. But, you can’t sell a purse to a gay guy?

HarryBackside on February 27, 2014 at 12:12 PM

Sorry troll – but it is YOU who are THAT stupid to think you would have any natural allegiance TO and be a free and equal citizen OF a nation where you were NOT free to puchase any goods and services outside of a ‘ghetto’ set aside for you.

That really IS stupid. Ungodly stupid. Ugly stupid. Stupid to the power of stupid.

But keep on arguing FOR religious and racial discrimination – I fully support your freedom of speech to say STUPID things – one of the truly beautiful things about freedom of speech is that it doesn’t drive underground hateful ugly and ignorant ideas; but brings them forth into the light where they can receive the mocking and derision they so richly deserve.

Stupid troll.

Mordaukar on February 27, 2014 at 12:10 PM

clean up on aisle 6

workingclass artist on February 27, 2014 at 12:15 PM

So slavery didn’t exist in the USA when businesses were free to not serve black people

Mordaukar on February 27, 2014 at 11:48 AM

Well… right.

You may not like some of the circumstances of life in the first half of the 20th – not a lot of people living do, to be frank – but I think you may be taking “slavery” to mean something other than what it means.

I’m simply calling ‘bullsh*t’ (IMHO) on their rationale and reasoning, that’s all.
You are free to view it as admirable and decent, if you want.

verbaluce on February 27, 2014 at 11:58 AM

I’m not calling it “admirable and decent”. I’m saying I don’t know, and it’s not my business.

For you to claim that you DO know and it IS your business is the BS in this whole mess.

This type of hateful rhetoric [that all non-Christians are an abomination] is written in the book these people take as the infallible word of God.

mazer9 on February 27, 2014 at 12:10 PM

Well, that’s just a complete load of crap.

The Schaef on February 27, 2014 at 12:20 PM

The early disciples went out and preached the Gospel to people who wanted them imprisoned, or ever killed for their beliefs.

Yet they refused to facilitate the sinful behavior of those same people and went to their death rather than doing so.

tommyboy on February 27, 2014 at 12:23 PM

one of the truly beautiful things about freedom of speech is that it doesn’t drive underground hateful ugly and ignorant ideas; but brings them forth into the light where they can receive the mocking and derision they so richly deserve.

Mordaukar on February 27, 2014 at 12:10 PM

Except you don’t seem to think the market of society would benefit from having people’s business practices freely engaged, but brought into the light in order to be similarly rejected by society.

The Schaef on February 27, 2014 at 12:23 PM

How is facilitating sin and enabling unrepentant sin which will send someone to hell an act of “kindness”?

tommyboy on February 27, 2014 at 12:06 PM

Why does showing someone kindness mean facilitating or enabling sin? Was Jesus enabling sin when he went to the Mount of Olives, and encountered the adulterous woman?

HarryBackside on February 27, 2014 at 12:25 PM

Was Jesus enabling sin when he went to the Mount of Olives, and encountered the adulterous woman?

HarryBackside on February 27, 2014 at 12:25 PM

Oh, right, that time he told her to go and sin no more.

The Schaef on February 27, 2014 at 12:26 PM

2 things:

1. Here’s the text of the law:http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.pdf
Read it for yourself. It’s only a couple of pages (literally)

2. Just happened to hear about a trucking company in Illinois that the government went after for firing two muslim employees who refused to deliver alchohol as part of the shipment they were to carry. The muslims refused on religious grounds: http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20130530/NEWS07/130539986

It’s very interesting how the SB1062 has been portrayed in the media, especially given the story out of Illinois.

RI_Red on February 27, 2014 at 12:28 PM

Except you don’t seem to think the market of society would benefit from having people’s business practices freely engaged, but brought into the light in order to be similarly rejected by society.

The Schaef on February 27, 2014 at 12:23 PM

I don’t think a free society where there is equality and liberty under the law is at all compatible with massive wholesale discrimination against a subset of people where they are NOT free to engage in commerce, recieve food or lodgings, or purchase property outside of a few ‘ghettos’ where people have determined they should be confined to.

Do you think the “market of society would benefit from having people’s business practices freely engaged” and “brought into the light in order to be similary rejected by society”

-in selling snake oil cure-alls that promised everything but delivered nothing?

- in selling shoddy products that were dangerous to the user due to cheap manufacture?

- for selling irradiated metal in chairs and cooking pots?

- for selling nearly rancid meat?

Or are there limits you are willing to recongize in the freedom of private businesses open and selling to the public, in the way they conduct their business?

Mordaukar on February 27, 2014 at 12:33 PM

Why does showing someone kindness mean facilitating or enabling sin? Was Jesus enabling sin when he went to the Mount of Olives, and encountered the adulterous woman?

HarryBackside on February 27, 2014 at 12:25 PM

Providing goods or services to a gay wedding is most certainly facilitating sin. It would be like selling bullets to someone who wanted to commit suicide only worse. Far from an act of kindness.

tommyboy on February 27, 2014 at 12:37 PM

compatible with massive wholesale discrimination against a subset of people

A single cake shop refusing business to a specific small subset is hardly “massive wholesale discrimination”.

If you don’t like their business practices, don’t shop there and tell all your buddies not to shop there.

Do you think… Or are there limits…

I can’t help but notice that three of your examples are harmful to other persons, and inflicting harm on another person violates their rights.

How does one inflict harm by declining to sell a wedding cake?

And if you have a problem with snake-oil sales, then you should join the rest of us in condemning the ever-increasing expansion of federal intrusion. Beyond that, you exhibit the curious behavior of a man who has never bought something that did not work in the way you expected from the advertising. I envy all those hot chicks that attack you whenever you apply your Axe body spray.

The Schaef on February 27, 2014 at 12:37 PM

This type of hateful rhetoric [that all non-Christians are an abomination] is written in the book these people take as the infallible word of God.

mazer9 on February 27, 2014 at 12:10 PM

Congratulations. You just proved yourself to be a bigot of the first order, and either a shameless liar or wholly ignorant in terms of what ‘the book’ actually says. All in one astonishingly vapid little sentence!

Midas on February 27, 2014 at 12:39 PM

Oh, right, that time he told her to go and sin no more.

The Schaef on February 27, 2014 at 12:26 PM

Exactly. Right after He saved her from being stoned, and said that He did not condemn her.

Since when is telling someone to sin no more is an act of unkindness?

HarryBackside on February 27, 2014 at 12:40 PM

Exactly. Right after He saved her from being stoned, and said that He did not condemn her.

Since when is telling someone to sin no more is an act of unkindness?

HarryBackside on February 27, 2014 at 12:40 PM

So you’re saying that, if I don’t sell wedding cakes to someone, that’s the same as them being stoned to death?

What if I were to save their life from an attacker, and then tell them I wasn’t going to sell something to them? Would that be okay for you, or would you consider that a wash?

The Schaef on February 27, 2014 at 12:46 PM

Providing goods or services to a gay wedding is most certainly facilitating sin. It would be like selling bullets to someone who wanted to commit suicide only worse. Far from an act of kindness.

tommyboy on February 27, 2014 at 12:37 PM

My original comment spoke of using the opportunity to share the Gospel.

Selling a wedding cake to someone who is about to get married for the second time (in most cases), is facilitating sin too.

HarryBackside on February 27, 2014 at 12:47 PM

Congratulations. You just proved yourself to be a bigot of the first order, and either a shameless liar or wholly ignorant in terms of what ‘the book’ actually says. All in one astonishingly vapid little sentence!

Midas on February 27, 2014 at 12:39 PM

2 Corinthians 6:14
King James Version (KJV)
14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

Psalm 14:1
King James Version (KJV)
14 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

mazer9 on February 27, 2014 at 12:47 PM

My original comment spoke of using the opportunity to share the Gospel.

HarryBackside on February 27, 2014 at 12:47 PM

That is still their choice.

Do you intend to constrain them by law because they do not practice the Gospel in the way you consider most effective?

The Schaef on February 27, 2014 at 12:49 PM

Amazing how the argument that there is “a right” to discriminate against gays (and the congruent argument that it should also be OK to discriminate against those of different races and religions that many are ALSO making) brings out the little LIBERTARIAN that otherwise does NOT live in the heart of social conservatives.

“Taking away my “right” to discriminate in my business open to the public is discriminatory!”

“Refusing to allow me to legally enforce my morals is enforcing YOUR morals!”

So my social conservative friends – is there a compelling government interest in regulating the sexual behavior of private citizens in private homes or not?

There seemed to be much whailing and gnashing of teeth when anti-sodomy laws were struck down (including ones that made it illegal to engage in oral or anal sex between married heterosexual couples).

Mordaukar on February 27, 2014 at 12:51 PM

There seemed to be much whailing and gnashing of teeth when anti-sodomy laws were struck down (including ones that made it illegal to engage in oral or anal sex between married heterosexual couples).

Mordaukar on February 27, 2014 at 12:51 PM

Not on my part.

Your quest for hypocrisy rather than engaging on the merits is tiresome.

The Schaef on February 27, 2014 at 12:52 PM

rogerb on February 27, 2014 at 12:06 PM

You work so hard.

This was a looooong ago thread about the kid who had his mic cut during his valedictorian speech. He had the awesome and memorable name of Remington River.

In the comments, I objected to his mic being cut.
I also offered this – which doesn’t comport to rogerb edit tactics.
(He’d likely just post the first line as my quote.)

I find what this kid did to be obnoxious.
And if someone professed their atheism I’d find that obnoxious as well.
verbaluce on June 10, 2013 at 2:07 PM

Thanks, rb!

verbaluce on February 27, 2014 at 12:54 PM

So my social conservative friends – is there a compelling government interest in regulating the sexual behavior of private citizens in private homes or not?

Mordaukar on February 27, 2014 at 12:51 PM

Is there a compelling government interest in forcing unwilling individuals into private contracts to provide services to private religious events?

Ricard on February 27, 2014 at 12:55 PM

Is there a compelling government interest…

Ricard on February 27, 2014 at 12:55 PM

Fairness, of course!

Fairness for all! Except for those who are treated unfairly in the process. But they had it coming!

Fair is the new Equal!

The Schaef on February 27, 2014 at 12:59 PM

So my social conservative friends – is there a compelling government interest in regulating the sexual behavior of private citizens in private homes or not?

There seemed to be much whailing and gnashing of teeth when anti-sodomy laws were struck down (including ones that made it illegal to engage in oral or anal sex between married heterosexual couples).

Mordaukar on February 27, 2014 at 12:51 PM

You won’t find any wailing from me (Lawrence was struck down before I was politically gnostic).

No, there isn’t. Government out of marriage.

And I am an absolutionist on rights.

nobar on February 27, 2014 at 1:00 PM

Your quest for hypocrisy rather than engaging on the merits is tiresome.

The Schaef on February 27, 2014 at 12:52 PM

I think I have engaged the subject on it’s merits as well as wondering at the sudden libertarian streak of otherwise social conservatives, and speaking of the principles invovled.

You correctly pointed out that one cake shop refusing to sell one cake is hardly massive wholesale discrimination.

But there is a principle involved.

There was, within living memory, such massive and wholesale discrimination that is (in my opinion) not compatible with a free and equal society of liberty and equality under the law.

Massive pervasive and wholesale private discrimintion against a Jewish minority is not justice freedom or equality; because the Jewish minority has an equal right to discriminate against the majority.

If one agrees that there needed to be a legal remedy to massive and wholesale discrimination – then there is a principle involved that there should be public access to businesses open to the public, licensed by the public, and regulated by the public.

If one disagrees that there needed to be a legal remedy then one finds themselves defending an absolute principle that businesses should be free to engage in the massive wholesale and pervasive discrimination that happened in the past (and may well happen in the future) that reduces a subset of the citizens of this nation to being not free to purchase food and lodgings, goods and services, or property in the majority of the area of an otherwise free nation.

Mordaukar on February 27, 2014 at 1:03 PM

Read the parable of “The Unforgiving Servant”, and “The Two Debtors”.

Both of which involve how one treats repentant sinners.

Where do anti-Christian bigot gays fall into that category?

Of course there is right and wrong, and of course there is a penalty. Who’s saying anything different? More importantly, there is sin. We are all sinners. Hopefully, by developing a relationship with Jesus Christ, we can resist the temptation to sin as much as possible, although we will never be perfect. Jesus ministered to the worst sinners. He showed them love and kindness. As His disciples, we are supposed to do the same. That does not mean we have to condone their lifestyle, or their sins.

Do you believe that a Christian has a duty to help others find Christ? Does God love everyone, or just those who profess to believe in Him? If we refuse to show kindness to those who are loved by God, aren’t we going against God? By sacrificing Himself on the cross, Jesus has shown us mercy for our sins. How can anyone justify not showing the same mercy for others?

HarryBackside on February 27, 2014 at 11:55 AM

LOL.

Why don’t we start with a better set of questions.

Do you think forcing someone who doesn’t want to to bake a cake or arrange flowers for you is Christlike behavior?

Do you think that encouraging people to go to the Family Research Council and shoot people is Christlike behavior?

Do you think arguing that monogamy is hurtful and that straight couples should be more promiscuous like gay couples are is Christlike behavior?

If you don’t, then why are you not berating these people and pointing out their sin? Why are you not demanding they act better? Why are you not demanding the same of them that you are of Christians?

Answer: Because you are an Alinsky bigot, not a Christian. You have no interest in or any sort of objective principles regarding behavior; you simply are attempting to pervert and twist Christians’ morality, patience, and virtues to silence them. You are the equivalent of a con man, taking advantage of peoples’ trust and good nature to rob them.

Christians owe bigots like you nothing. You berate us for following the word of the Lord and you support and endorse the behavior of those who spit on and mock Christ.

northdallasthirty on February 27, 2014 at 1:03 PM

I think I have engaged the subject on it’s merits as well as wondering at the sudden libertarian streak of otherwise social conservatives, and speaking of the principles invovled.

You said it was slavery to refuse someone hotel service. When I questioned your use of the term slavery you (wrongly) criticized me for (supposedly) not wanting anti-sodomy laws struck down. I therefore also question your application of the term “engage”.

Your accusation of “sudden” with regards to the political philosophies of persons like myself is ill-informed and unwarranted.

such massive and wholesale discrimination that is (in my opinion) not compatible

Neither is it slavery.

one finds themselves defending an absolute principle that businesses should be free to engage in the massive wholesale and pervasive discrimination

I am one person. Were I running my own business, nothing I do could be construed as “massive”, or “wholesale”, or “pervasive”. Nothing I do could possibly deprive any one person of food AND lodging AND goods AND services AND property simultaneously, let alone millions.

You argue that people should be forced to sell food. Should people be forced to BUY food?

The Schaef on February 27, 2014 at 1:11 PM

2 things:

1. Here’s the text of the law:http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.pdf
Read it for yourself. It’s only a couple of pages (literally)

2. Just happened to hear about a trucking company in Illinois that the government went after for firing two muslim employees who refused to deliver alchohol as part of the shipment they were to carry. The muslims refused on religious grounds: http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20130530/NEWS07/130539986

It’s very interesting how the SB1062 has been portrayed in the media, especially given the story out of Illinois.

RI_Red on February 27, 2014 at 12:28 PM

Thanks for posting the link…

workingclass artist on February 27, 2014 at 1:15 PM

I also offered this – which doesn’t comport to rogerb edit tactics.
(He’d likely just post the first line as my quote.)
 

I find what this kid did to be obnoxious.
And if someone professed their atheism I’d find that obnoxious as well.
verbaluce on June 10, 2013 at 2:07 PM

 
Thanks, rb!
 
verbaluce on February 27, 2014 at 12:54 PM

 
Which not only doesn’t negate your hypocrisy re: joking about faith in this thread, but draws even more attention to what you haven’t joked about.
 
Weren’t you attempting to counter my post?
 
Thanks, verby!

rogerb on February 27, 2014 at 1:16 PM

So my social conservative friends – is there a compelling government interest in regulating the sexual behavior of private citizens in private homes or not?

Mordaukar on February 27, 2014 at 12:51 PM

Yes there is. Or do you think that adults should be able to have sex with children, that a man should be able to hold a woman captive to have sex with, that a parent or guardian should be allowed to molest their children…as long as it is in their own home, are these sexual behaviors okay for you?

Sexual behavior in one’s own home is regulated by the government and should be. Please don’t use that stupid analogy. That isn’t even the issue here. The Gay community wants rights not afforded to others. Do you think that a black baker should be forced to make a cake for the KKK or that a Jewish deli owner should be forced to serve a person wearing swastikas and espousing anti Jewish rhetoric?

fight like a girl on February 27, 2014 at 1:21 PM

When I hear an atheist being dismissive of or patronizing/mocking of folks going to church or praying…
 
verbaluce on February 27, 2014 at 10:42 AM

 
Are atheists…
 
mazer9 on February 27, 2014 at 12:10 PM

 
Don’t worry. He’s still on your side. He’s just saying whatever he thinks he needs to for this thread. Come back tomorrow (or next administration) to hear something different.

rogerb on February 27, 2014 at 1:24 PM

So my social conservative friends – is there a compelling government interest in regulating the sexual behavior of private citizens in private homes or not?

Mordaukar on February 27, 2014 at 12:51 PM

Is there a compelling government interest in regulating the health practices of private citizens in private homes or not? In CA they want to make it illegal for people to smoke in their own homes. I wouldn’t exactly call CA a bastion of conservatism.

bandutski on February 27, 2014 at 1:32 PM

.

Do you think that a black baker should be forced to make a cake for the KKK or that a Jewish deli owner should be forced to serve a person wearing swastikas and espousing anti Jewish rhetoric?

fight like a girl on February 27, 2014 at 1:21 PM

Really? In your mind gays are equivalent to the KKK and Nazi’s?
Good to know.

bazil9 on February 27, 2014 at 1:33 PM

Weren’t you attempting to counter my post?

rogerb on February 27, 2014 at 1:16 PM

It was a successful attempt.
I’m sure you’re working hard again.
But it’d be nice if you could just once be a little more honest.
If you were, you’d admit that you actually pointed to me being quite consistent.
If you dig harder…sorry, when you dig harder through years of comments, no doubt you can find something where I’ve been too strident.
Unlike you, I don’t have a bunch of back slappers here who are going to jump in and say ‘rogerb got owned by verby!’ But…
Anyway, I shouldn’t poke the bear, right?
Ha.

verbaluce on February 27, 2014 at 1:34 PM

Lynch Mob Media (LMM) and Ruling Class exerted their power yet again.

Fear the LMM is the message once again.

But WHO or WHAT will be their next target?

Jan Brewer has just been a game player from the beginning. On big issues, she’s only been good on the border that I know of. That and she stuck with Palin.

PappyD61 on February 27, 2014 at 1:38 PM

Supporting the right to free speech doesn’t mean I agree with WHAT they say – just their right to say it.

Mordaukar on February 27, 2014 at 11:43 AM

Right, nor does it mean you are compelled to repeat what they say. As an analogy, one can support the right of same-sex people to marry, but one can nevertheless disagree with the nature of the union and should feel no compulsion to encourage or participate in it.

It should be acknowledged that the same right to decline participation might be used differently by other people, just as the freedom of speech might be used differently. That doesn’t mean you implicitly agree with them. In other words, just because one doesn’t want to work for a same-sex wedding, doesn’t mean you agree with those who don’t want to work for an inter-racial wedding. As you said, freedom is ugly, but sometimes you have to defend crap in order to protect what you believe is right.

Engaging in commerce with someone doesn’t in any way mean that I endorse who they are, what they believe, or what they do.

Mordaukar on February 27, 2014 at 11:43 AM

I mostly agree with you on this, except that there are cases where retailers might be held responsible for the actions of their clients. Eg: Should bartenders be allowed to cut-off a drunk client? Should gun store owners be allowed to perform background checks? Depending on where you are, this is acceptable because it is not discriminating against the person, but on what they’re going to do with your product. I think this is a relevant distinction.

LancerDL on February 27, 2014 at 1:39 PM

I’m not a believer, but I have much bigger arguments with atheists than with people of faith. When I hear an atheist being dismissive of or patronizing/mocking of folks going to church or praying, I let them know they’re being much more dogmatic and fundamentalist than any of the faiths or believers that they mock.

verbaluce on February 27, 2014 at 10:42 AM

Are atheists indoctrinated to believe that anyone who isn’t an atheist is an “abomination”?

This type of hateful rhetoric is written in the book these people take as the infallible word of God. They believe they need to “save us” from ourselves.

There’s the difference.

mazer9 on February 27, 2014 at 12:10 PM

Have you never seen/heard a reasonable and friendly debate between a believer and an atheist? Whenever this issue has come up between me and someone of faith, I’ve yet to be called an ‘abomination’.
I’d say mutually respectful debates/discussions are much more common than ‘you’ll burn in hell!’ vs a ‘you fairy tale believing idiot!’ spats.

verbaluce on February 27, 2014 at 1:40 PM

Really? In your mind gays are equivalent to the KKK and Nazi’s?
Good to know.

bazil9 on February 27, 2014 at 1:33 PM

What if the homosexuals were part of NAMBLA?

sentinelrules on February 27, 2014 at 1:40 PM

What’s next? A kosher deli being forced to serve pork?

Kuffar on February 27, 2014 at 1:45 PM

What if the homosexuals were part of NAMBLA?

sentinelrules on February 27, 2014 at 1:40 PM

Not what I asked…
You wanna play what if now. What if they aren’t?

bazil9 on February 27, 2014 at 1:48 PM

Not what I asked…
You wanna play what if now. What if they aren’t?

bazil9 on February 27, 2014 at 1:48 PM

You already have homosexual bars barring heterosexuals.

Now, what if they are members of NAMBLA?

sentinelrules on February 27, 2014 at 1:49 PM

Anyway, I shouldn’t poke the bear, right?
 
verbaluce on February 27, 2014 at 1:34 PM

 
I don’t care. Just find someone else to bake the cake.

rogerb on February 27, 2014 at 1:49 PM

Have you never seen/heard a reasonable and friendly debate between a believer and an atheist? Whenever this issue has come up between me and someone of faith, I’ve yet to be called an ‘abomination’.
I’d say mutually respectful debates/discussions are much more common than ‘you’ll burn in hell!’ vs a ‘you fairy tale believing idiot!’ spats.

verbaluce on February 27, 2014 at 1:40 PM

Sure there are friendly debates, but exactly why are religous folks trying to discriminate against gay people again?

mazer9 on February 27, 2014 at 1:51 PM

sentinelrules on February 27, 2014 at 1:49 PM

Listen dude, I am on the side of religious freedom-and back the business owners that were sued- I am also not for ssm.

Sorry..I don’t enjoy being compared to the KKK or a Nazi. Getting disgusted on both sides here.

bazil9 on February 27, 2014 at 1:53 PM

Religious freedom had nothing to do with that ill-fated, nasty piece of repressive, unconstitutional legislation. If a gay couple wants to get married and they wish to buy a wedding cake from a bakery open to the public, they have every right in the United States to be served. Period!

SFChutzpah on February 27, 2014 at 1:54 PM

Sorry..I don’t enjoy being compared to the KKK or a Nazi. Getting disgusted on both sides here.

bazil9 on February 27, 2014 at 1:53 PM

Citing examples is not the same as comparing gays to the KKK or Nazis.

sentinelrules on February 27, 2014 at 1:57 PM

mazer9 on February 27, 2014 at 1:51 PM

The answer to that question lies in the definition of the word “discriminate”. The homosexual lobby defines it to mean ” to persecute” while we “religious folk” define it to mean ” to distinguish between”.

That is the real issue for most of us. The gay lobby has hijacked the language and are twisting it to allow only their point of view.

Cleombrotus on February 27, 2014 at 1:58 PM

I still don’t understand why anyone needs to even know that you are gay, or Christian, or Muslim, or an atheist or anything else for that matter. Just be a good person, treat others as you wish to be treated.

argusx2002 on February 27, 2014 at 2:01 PM

Are atheists indoctrinated to believe that anyone who isn’t an atheist is an “abomination”?

This type of hateful rhetoric is written in the book these people take as the infallible word of God. They believe they need to “save us” from ourselves.

There’s the difference.

mazer9 on February 27, 2014 at 12:10 PM

Have you never seen/heard a reasonable and friendly debate between a believer and an atheist? Whenever this issue has come up between me and someone of faith, I’ve yet to be called an ‘abomination’.
I’d say mutually respectful debates/discussions are much more common than ‘you’ll burn in hell!’ vs a ‘you fairy tale believing idiot!’ spats.

verbaluce on February 27, 2014 at 1:40 PM

I think some people here are definitely giving you (verbaluce) short-shrift. Frankly, we could use more Atheists/Agnostics like you, if you can say that despite how some have been responding to you here.

So, in defense of mazer9, there are indeed Christians who react almost reflexively to contrary positions, as if indoctrinated. Yet, one has only to read Richard Dawkins or PZ Myers to see that some Atheists are also indoctrinated/encouraged to think less of their believing neighbours.

Christians and Atheists are not all cut from their same respective cloths. Deeply held beliefs can be discussed/challenged in a civil fashion. It would be nice if it more often turned out that way, and it would help if we weren’t so suspicious of each other (this applies to me, too).

LancerDL on February 27, 2014 at 2:03 PM

Atheists are so positive about their belief that there is no God it’s almost like they have faith in their beliefs.

Buttercup on February 27, 2014 at 2:09 PM

I’d say mutually respectful debates/discussions are much more common than ‘you’ll burn in hell!’ vs a ‘you fairy tale believing idiot!’ spats.

verbaluce on February 27, 2014 at 1:40 PM

I’d venture to say that assessment is half-true. Guess which half of the latter I end up hearing much more often than the other.

exactly why are religous folks trying to discriminate against gay people again?

mazer9 on February 27, 2014 at 1:51 PM

Exactly why is it your business who they sell cakes to, again?

The Schaef on February 27, 2014 at 2:16 PM

Sure there are friendly debates, but exactly why are religous folks trying to discriminate against gay people again?

mazer9 on February 27, 2014 at 1:51 PM

I’d say for a lot of different reasons.
But for sure there are religious folks who do not share the same views as other religious folks on this issue.
And I imagine there are some homophobic atheists out there.
But to be clear, I was against the bill. I think it was badly written and unnecessary. I also think it was fueled/motivated by more than a concern about ‘religious liberty’.
I support the right of people to hold bigoted views.
I would also support someone who holds religious beliefs from being called a bigot because they choose to live their life how they wish to. I’m not convinced that includes refusing to serve a customer based on that view, and I question and challenge the sincerity when it’s only directed at gay citizens – and not the myriad other issues they should find equally objectionable, based on their reasoning.
I would encourage them to reconsider – and I would encourage gay couples not to insist they bake them a cake.

verbaluce on February 27, 2014 at 2:21 PM

Religious freedom had nothing to do with that ill-fated, nasty piece of repressive, unconstitutional legislation. If a gay couple wants to get married and they wish to buy a wedding cake from a bakery open to the public, they have every right in the United States to be served. Period!

SFChutzpah on February 27, 2014 at 1:54 PM

Can you identify the language of the bill that intends to repress a person?

Suppose a gay couple wants me to make them a wedding cake. Do they have the right to compel me to do it?

Suppose I have a religious conviction against using government-issued money. Do I have a right to demand they make the cake without payment from me? In lieu of that, can I sue them if they refuse to barter for some material good or service?

The Schaef on February 27, 2014 at 2:24 PM

I’d say mutually respectful debates/discussions are much more common than ‘you’ll burn in hell!’ vs a ‘you fairy tale believing idiot!’ spats.

verbaluce on February 27, 2014 at 1:40 PM

I’d venture to say that assessment is half-true. Guess which half of the latter I end up hearing much more often than the other.

The Schaef on February 27, 2014 at 2:16 PM

Well, how about you endeavor to keep your house clean –
and I’ll try the same on my end?

verbaluce on February 27, 2014 at 2:25 PM

You said it was slavery to refuse someone hotel service.

No I did not. I questioned the ‘reasoning’ that it was “slavery” to not allow people to discriminate against blacks in goods and services they offer to the public. Do you think it is “slavery” to make laws against businesses that offers goods or services to the public declining to make those goods or services available to black people or Jewish people – thereby ‘forcing them’ to provide the business they offer to the public to parts of the public they would rather like to discriminate against?

You argue that people should be forced to sell food. Should people be forced to BUY food?

The Schaef on February 27, 2014 at 1:11 PM

No. I argued that businesses that sell food open to the public do not have an absolute license to decide what members of the public they will and will not sell food to.

I think the best argument (almost) made so far is that there is no compelling government interest in regulating against discrimination so long as the discrimination is not pervasive, wide-spread, and wholesale.

Thus when there WAS such discrimination – there was a compelling government interest in ensuring that a subset of the population was not forbidden (via the decisions of private businesses open to the public) to purchase goods and services, travel through, or purchase property in a large part of any region, municipality, state or nation.

If the only thing a paying customer who faces discrimination has to do is go to any one of several OTHER bakeries, flower arrangers, wedding planners, photographers (or whatever) that are of similar quality and equally accessable – I would argue there is less of a copellng government interest in regulating the discriminatory practices of this business than when the effect of the discrimination is widespread, pervasive, and wholesale.

Mordaukar on February 27, 2014 at 2:27 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6 7