UPDATE BELOW
Arizona Republican Governor Jan Brewer vetoed the anti-gay bill passed by both houses of the Arizona legislature.
The crazies in the TeaPublican Party, quick to accuse President Obama of "shredding the Constitution," propose outrageously unConstitutional legislation every chance they get. Their latest unAmerican, unConstitutional bill would have allowed businesses to refuse service to Americans whom they believe would injure their religious sensibilities. Their target was, of course, the LGBT community, but the legislation was so poorly written that it would have allowed discrimination against any group of Arizonans for any religious reason. It was a bill that codified bigotry. And the amazing thing is that a majority of Arizona Republican law makers passed it.
And they're not the only anti-Americans trying their best to "shred the Constitution." Some idiot in another state wants to make it illegal for gay athletes to play football. As long as these morons are voted into office, we'll see more attempts made to enact laws based on religious bigotry. Think about that when these hate-based zealots and bigots want your vote.
And think about what they'd do should they gain the power of the presidency.
(CNN) -- Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed a bill Wednesday that would have allowed businesses that asserted their religious beliefs the right to deny service to gay and lesbian customers.
The controversial measure faced a surge of opposition in recent days from large corporations and athletic organizations, including Delta Air Lines, the Super Bowl host committee and Major League Baseball.
Fiercely divided supporters and opponents of the bill ramped up pressure on Brewer after the state's Republican-led Legislature approved it last week.
On Wednesday, the governor said she made the decision she knew was right for Arizona. "I call them as I see them, despite the cheers or the boos from the crowd," Brewer said, criticizing what she described as a "broadly worded" bill that "could result in unintended and negative consequences."
Brewer said she'd weighed the arguments on both sides before vetoing the measure, which is known as SB 1062."
So the governor weighed the arguments on both sides? Why it took this long for Brewer to veto this repulsive bill should be frightening to any American who believes in liberty and justice for all and who entertains the idea of putting more TeaPublicans in charge of government.
MORE HERE.
UPDATE:
The proposed bill passed by the two legislative houses in Arizona was not about religious liberty.
All one has to do is look for any proposed legislation crafted by religious zealots that would have allowed people to refuse to serve divorced Americans, or Americans who took the Lord's name in vain (that's against the Ten Commandments and these people claim the Constitution and this country is based on those ten prohibitions), or people who bore false witness, or people who committed adultery.
(Imagine a business in Arizona refusing to serve Newt Gingrich or any other serial divorced American?)
Adultery is prohibited by the Ten Commandments, so any God-fearing, God-obeying Christian would have to find a state FORCING him or her to serve adulterers a state that practices fascism!
Of course no laws were ever proposed to protect Christians from having to serve or do business with people who broke those particular Commandents. That's why it is so disgustingly obvious that the Arizona "Hate The Gays" bill was nothing more than an attempt to shred the Constitution and encourage hatred against a minority.
Governor Brewer did the right thing for the wrong reasons. Faced with the loss of millions and millions of dollars in revenue for Arizona from businesses and the NFL, she vetoed the bill. Had she warned the Arizona legislature against passing the bill at the start, I'd believe she did this for the right reason. She didn't. So I'm not waving the flag for her.
Let this be a warning to the other red states that would use "religious freedom" to denigrate and marginalize minority Americans. Your religion does not give you the right to institutionalize what Jim Wright of Stonekettle Station aptly calls religious apartheid.
25 comments:
So the governor weighed the arguments on both sides? Why it took this long for Brewer to veto this repulsive bill
The "arguments on both sides" were "fags are yucky, eww" vs. the rising tide of threatened economic consequences -- a national Hispanic lawyers' group canceled its convention in Arizona, the state's tourism department was inundated with people saying they were canceling trips, the NFL hinted at moving the Superbowl elsewhere, etc. By the time Brewer had gotten her act together after returning from the Governors' meeting in Washington, the latter had grown daunting enough to outweigh the former.
The most important story here is how many groups which are not identified with gays or even liberalism spoke out against the law. When the NFL gets turned off over homophobia, it's not a center-right country any more. Gay acceptance is now mainstream, and the fundie bigots are the shameful weirdos who have to skulk in the shadows.
The bottom line is Brewer took the time, acted as a judicious stat executive should, and made the right decision. That is at the end of the day all that matters.
Certainly there will be other battles to wage for liberty and equality on other battlegrounds. This on, on the Arizona political battlefield has been won. Thank you Governor Brewer.
On to the next...
Jim Wright at Stonekettle Station has a good take on the veto.
"Right won out only because these people worship power and money far more than they love their small and hateful God."
Stupid law to begin with.
Now we have sports organizations determining laws and it is not a gay issue it was a religious issue.
Regardless it is dumb and she did the right thing.
Jerry, thanks for the link. Jim Wright is on fire and what he wrote is righteous. I don't agree that Gov. Brewer did the "right thing" for liberty and justice for the LGBT community. She did it for the money:
Jim Wright of Stonekettle Station:
Brewer vetoed SB 1062 for a number of reasons:
- because it could have cost Arizona the 2015 Super Bowl.
- because it could have significantly harmed Arizona’s tourist industry.
- because it could have cost Arizona business, particularly from Marriott Hotels, Apple, American Airlines and Yelp, in addition to hundreds of conferences, seminars, and retreats.
- because it would have inevitably resulted in endless lawsuits, costing Arizona millions upon millions of dollars in litigation.
- because it would likely have cost Republicans their majority in the Arizona state government.
- because it would have negatively affected Republican prospects in the 2014 midterm national elections.
- and because it would have had an impact on the 2016 presidential race.
- and most especially since it might have directly resulted in unintended discrimination against Christians.
And so, when it came right down to it in Arizona today, rather than do what was right because it was the right thing to do, rather than strike down the bill because it would have legalized religious segregation as if Arizona was a state in Russia instead of America, Brewer at the behest of her oh so smug religion and her oh so morally superior political party vetoed SB 1062 not because it was blatantly counter to everything the United States stands for but rather because it would have cost Arizona money.
When Brewer was forced onto the global stage to very publicly choose between state sanctioned Apartheid and the almighty American dollar, not to mention political power, Brewer did the predictable thing.
She did what these people always do when forced to chose between conviction and profit.
She took the money.
So much for republicans’ vaunted ideals.
So much for the superior morality of conservative religious conviction.
skud, you wrote this on a conservative blog:
skudrunner said...
If you don't want to serve someone you have every right to say no.
So if an African-American sits at a lunch counter anywhere in America, the proprietor has the right to refuse him or her service?
If a Jew hails a taxi driven by a Muslim, that Muslim has the right to refuse him or her?
If a gay couple wants to buy a ticket to attend the theater, they can be turned away?
That is the sort of country the Taliban dreams of.
It's always good to see a con show his true colors. And in your own words, those colors are NOT red, white, and blue.
see, Skud maybe on to something.
This has been passed around on FB...and I wrote this....
"ok...just doing a little thinking....see, about these new 'I can discriminate against gays' laws that seem to be cropping up like weeds in a June cornfield. Gosh, my first impression was, "boy that is some stupid stuff" and then, well it occurred to me that there may be something to this.
see, I read this on the Atlanta Journal Constitution page...it said,
"Last week, the Arizona House and Senate passed a bill intended to give individuals, businesses and other entities, including government employees, the right to discriminate against gay people. If you claim that treating gay people like anybody else -- hiring them, serving them in your restaurant, renting a hotel room to them -- is against your religious beliefs, the bill excuses you from any legal consequences of that discrimination."
well, it went on to say that Georgia was getting ready to try the same kind of bill and that it was not a good idea, and then, I thought...well maybe it is !!! BUT...if you think that your business is YOUR BUSINESS.... AND IT IS ALL ON ACCOUNT OF WHAT JESUS would do....then....you shouldn't have a problem putting up a big old sign in the front of your business that says... NO GAYS, LESBIANS OR TRANSGENDERED ALLOWED ......IN GREAT BIG LETTERS say about about a four foot by six foot sign in bright red letters..and it has to have your name on it, and the name of your church and the name of the minister of your church and a detailed explanation of where in your church's doctrine in says that gay folks are so evil you do not want to do business with them. I think that would be a swell idea...if Mr. or Mrs Business person wants to exercise some good old religion freedom.... I lthink I have the same Freedom to NOT DO BUSINESS WITH ASSHOLES...and I think I should be able to walk into a business knowing that. Kind of takes the sting out of walking out if I don't have to walk in in the first place. Just a humble thought, is all."
ok...maybe it is time for a little Jon Swift ....go ahead and pass the laws...BUT, if you plan on discriminating...YOU MUST post it...in BIG LETTERS...and post in all your ads,on your website and FB pages and on your menus, in your church bulletin boards....
..I HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW WHO I AM DOING BUSINESS WITH!!!! I want my freedom back!!!
You do have the right not to serve someone Skud... 1) if they are disrespectful or extremely rude in your place of business to your other customers, your staff, or you. 2) they come to your home uninvited for dinner.
That clear it up for you?
The Constitution won a stay of execution, hardly an acquittal. As things stand now, the poor thing is barely on life support - no thanks to GOP legislators.
Without the law Arizona is able to treat Christians like second class citizens by not allowing them to discriminate.
That seems to be the basis of the fringe right objection. It eventually makes your head hurt.
skudrunner said...
"If you don't want to serve someone you have every right to say no."
By the same logic, the Lady of Manor has the same right to boot you outa here. On second thought, it might even be a good idea. No more taunts! No more abominable comments! And no more time wasted!
Did Skudrunner delete a comment? Must have, because Shaw appears to be replying to something Skuddy didn't say. Anyway, I agree about the money angle. It's the same reason Arizona accepted the Medicaid expansion. Yet some politician's hatred of Obama won't even allow them to grab the money (which the hospitals want).
No Mr. Sanders the deletion was all mine. Why? Because it was a double post. Something that occurs occasionally due to blogger and their duplicity idiocy. Won't get into t.
Things are not always as they seem to the Mr. Sanders...
fake Xtians wailing about the homos...but the law was never about gay-hating. Noooooooooo!
Texas pastor Jeffress: ‘Godless, immoral infidels who hate God’ are turning America all gay
I love the sound of rightwing butthurt in the morning.
As a capitalist myself, I am ashamed at the pussification of capitalists nowadays. Why, in Marx's day, he correctly noted that a capitalist would sell rope to his own hangman. Now, capitalists really want to not do business with someone they "disagree" with?
Shaw
Oh the supposed indignation by a comment. I didn't say it is the correct thing to do, all I said is you have the right. Does an establishment have a right to not allow dogs, cats or monkeys. Doesn't that discriminate against pet owners.
Does an establishment have the right to not allow guns carried by permit holders. Doesn't that discriminate against lawful gun owners.
Now climb off you moral soapbox.
skud,
You do realize, don't you, that there is a difference between legal discrimination and illegal discrimination. Not all discrimination is created equal.
It doesn't appear as though Skud does understand, Jerry. He keeps saying business owners have a "right" to discriminate, when they most certainly do NOT have that right. When you're granted a business license one of the conditions is that you have to follow the rules. The rules say you can't discriminate against people - not animals (unless they are service animals) or guns.
Skud seems to be struggling with the concept Jerry. It takes longer for some.
Derv,
A business license in your universe may state that but not any I am familiar with.
Ever hear of no shirt, shoes no service. Guess thats discriminating against our bare footed inhabitants.
I am not surprised that you would interpret the laws the way you want, so does your leader.
Jer and Les
Goading does not work and you both know what I am saying.
Dervish is talking about discriminating against PEOPLE. Having dress codes at your establishment is different from barring people from service at your establishment because of race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation.
You just don't get the distinction, do you.
The closest scud will ever get to a brainstorm is a slight drizzle.
I guess to Skuddy being barefoot or shirtless is as immutable a quality as being being African American, handicapped or gay.
Post a Comment