Arizona Governor’s Veto Aimed at Own Party’s Right

Bob Christie, AP, February 27, 2014

Republican Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer slapped down the right wing of her own party, vetoing a bill pushed by social conservatives that would have allowed people with sincerely held religious beliefs to refuse to serve gays.

The conservative governor said she could not sign a bill that was not only unneeded but would damage the state’s improving business environment and divide its citizens.

Senate Bill 1062 had set off a national debate over gay rights, religion and discrimination and subjected Arizona to blistering criticism from major corporations and political leaders from both parties.

{snip}

Brewer pushed back hard against the GOP conservatives who forced the bill forward by citing examples of religious rights infringements in other states.

“I have not heard one example in Arizona where a business owner’s religious liberty has been violated,” Brewer said. “The bill is broadly worded and could result in unintended and negative consequences.”

{snip}

In a reference to the gay marriage debate that has expanded across the nation, she reached out to the religious right with sympathy but said 1062 was not the solution.

“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 nobody could ever want.”

The bill was designed to give added protection from lawsuits to people who assert their religious beliefs in refusing service to gays or others who offend their beliefs. But opponents called it an open attack on gays that invited discrimination.

Arizona was thrust into the national spotlight last week after both chambers of the state legislature approved it. {snip}

Prominent business groups said it would be another black eye for the state that saw a national backlash over its 2010 immigration-crackdown law, SB1070, and warned that businesses looking to expand into the state may not do so if bill became law.

Companies such as Apple Inc. and American Airlines and politicians including GOP Sen. John McCain and former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney were among those who urged Brewer to veto the legislation. The Hispanic National Bar Association cancelled its 2015 convention in Phoenix.

In addition, three Republicans who had voted for the bill reversed course and two said it was a mistake. They said in a letter to Brewer that while the intent of their vote “was to create a shield for all citizens’ religious liberties, the bill has been mischaracterized by its opponents as a sword for religious intolerance.”

Enough lawmakers have said they’re against the bill to ensure there will be no override of the governor’s veto.

SB 1062 allows people to claim their religious beliefs as a defense against claims of discrimination. Backers cite a New Mexico Supreme Court decision that allowed a gay couple to sue a photographer who refused to document their wedding, even though the law that allowed that suit doesn’t exist in Arizona.

{snip}

The Center for Arizona Policy helped write the bill and argued it was needed to protect against increasingly activist federal courts and simply clarifies existing state law. It accused opponents of mischaracterizing the bill and threatening boycotts of Arizona.

“It is truly a disappointing day in our state and nation when lies and personal attacks can overshadow the truth,” said Cathi Herrod, the leader of the group.

Similar religious-protection legislation has been introduced in Ohio, Mississippi, Idaho, South Dakota, Tennessee and Oklahoma, but Arizona’s plan is the only one that has been passed by a state legislature. The efforts are stalled in Idaho and Kansas, and was withdrawn in Ohio Wednesday among concerns it would have unintended consequences.

{snip}

Topics:

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Anglokraut

    Told you she would veto it. I’m just annoyed that the gay-stapo act like they’re the only people who experience discrimination. The arrogance is oddly familiar.

    • Charles W.

      The mass media had her under so much scrutiny, of course she vetoed it. They basically promised to end her political career if she didn’t.

      Don’t forget, this is the same ‘free press’ that printed a cover of two men making out on Time Magazine with the caption “GAY MARRIAGE HAS READY WON: THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE DECIDED,” which was hilarious, since the whole reason gay “marriage” was in the Supreme Court to begin with was because it kept losing state referendums.

      • Anglokraut

        The whole situation was no-win for the Governor, and for Arizona. We and our governor would either be smeared as hate-filled racist bigots, who secretly must be Naziswhowanttokillsixmillionjews, or as weak, effete progrssive-Marxists who fold faster than Superman on laundry day.

        • http://saboteur365.wordpress.com/ bigone4u

          Sorry, but Arizona has already been smeared as you describe. Now, the establishment and the governer are also going to be seen as weak, which invites more garbage to be dumped on the state.

        • 1stworlder

          I agree with big. The leftists already consider AZ as haters but now as weak willed push overs as well. Remember all this over their immigration enforcement and they tried the same stuff, but it worked and illegals moved.

        • teaisstronger

          SO WHAT HER GoP support would not say that. Democrats are not going to vote for her and lets hope the GOP shuns here. These RINOs think GOPers are stupid idiots. Are your?

        • DonReynolds

          I remember when the governor of Arizona refused to declare MLK birthday as a state holiday. One would think that was his decision to make but the Liberals squealed like stuck pigs, even though there were very few blacks in Arizona at the time.

      • Mergatroyd

        Because the media labeled the bill ANTI-gay.

    • Mergatroyd

      The caving-in of politicians is ever more familiar.

    • striket3

      Gays are like blacks. They seldom vote republican no matter what you do for them.

  • http://countenance.wordpress.com/ Question Diversity

    In other words, a lot of people and businesses bullied her.

    If they don’t know a single case from Arizona, then all they need to do is to look to neighboring states New Mexico and Colorado for some.

    What surprises me is that Brewer’s official statement after the veto was so blunt and politically loaded. I was just assuming that she would eventually veto the bill, but only after either she or someone on her staff came up with some nice non-offense middle of the road technobabble as a rationale to veto.

    • Anglokraut

      That’s not Gov. Brewer’s style; she’s a throwback to the “give ‘em Hell” politicians.

      We haven’t even had 24 hours to catch our breaths, and already we have another “controversial” bill in the legislature–this one is regarding the training and arming of teachers in public schools.

    • Pelagian

      That’s a great point QD. Brewer’s defiant veto broadcasts loud and clear that one loses NO political capital by being as pro-Gay as one can dream. You can ban heterosexuality outright and make homosexuality mandatory and still get a “that was courageous” from the chattering classes.

    • Oil Can Harry

      The involvement of Apple, Inc highlights a disturbing trend: Silicon Valley is more and more becoming a lobby for liberal causes like open-borders, gay “marriage”, man-made Global Warming, etc.

      • newscomments70

        If you look at their website, the advertisements are full of black male/ white female couples.

  • Pelagian

    “The efforts are stalled in Idaho and Kansas, and was withdrawn in Ohio Wednesday among concerns it would have unintended consequences.”

    I’ll tell you what has unintended consequences: the generous, magnanimous process of trying to have compassion for gays that began in the 60s. In fact, off the top of my head, I cant think of a single incidence in history where so-called “tolerance” has ended in anything other than disaster.

  • thomas edward

    We’re getting to the point where we’ll be settling accounts with all these anti-Americans.

  • Enoch_Power

    “The Hispanic National Bar Association” cancelled its convention in Phoenix.

    We all know that if we swap the word “Hispanic” for “Whiite” then they would be regarded as a “hate group” and “neo Nazi”. Also any such cancellation would be welcome in the interests of community cohesion and diversity.

    • Pelagian

      You know, those “deeply conservative”, “pro-Family” would-be-but-for-immigration Republican voters.

    • bilderbuster

      I’ll give anyone 20 to 1 odds that the NFL was going to be one of the leaders of the boycott had she signed the bill.
      I know…
      It’s a safe bet.

      • DonReynolds

        I have heard that the NFL will likely move the Superbowl ANYWAY, so the veto did not work……now the NFL will say, the bill alone was enough to prompt the move. Football needs to stay out of politics.

        • bilderbuster

          The NFL & team owners have been in politics forever. How do you think they get their stadiums built & paid for with tax dollars? They also give away sky box seats, free food & liquor to everyone from the city council to governors & senators.
          The NFL pulled this on LA when David Duke was running for office & they pulled it on AZ over the MLK holiday (or lack of one).
          They have their new gay boy on the cover of SI now so their only going to continue to get worse.

      • Mergatroyd

        Who watches the NFL? It’s become the pansy league where players are punished harshly for hurting someone’s feelings and locker rooms are wide open to openly homosexual men.

        If whites would boycott the NFL it would go out of business tomorrow. I’m on board. Ditto for NBA.

        • bilderbuster

          “The Pansy League”. I like that.
          From now on I’m going to refer to it as that & when football fan friends of mine want to watch a game I’m going to tease them.
          The homo jokes are endless with that sport.

    • DonReynolds

      Arizona should be glad the Hispanic National Bar Association cancelled its convention in Phoenix. Brewer should send them a thank you note.

  • http://saboteur365.wordpress.com/ bigone4u

    Time after time after time the will of decent people is thwarted so that some mentally ill degenrate gays in jock straps can parade around performing simulated anal intercourse in the streets on Gay Pride Day. Wanna bet that Gay Pride Day doesn’t become a national holiday like MLK day?

    If the law had been signed, the courts would have struck it down anyway. Until we begin to sabotage the system so that it decays at an even more rapid rate than it is, we’ll have to live with this bull and hold our noses. But every dog has his day and mine and yours is coming. Bet on it.

    • disqus_Xz3UA6obwj

      Is it not mentally ill to think an invisible sky fairy is watching you 24/7 and that you will live after you are dead and no longer exist? THINK about who you call mentally ill.

      • Fighting_Northern_Spirit

        I’m an atheist and I consider homosexuality a mental illness. All my years in the music industry brought me into contact with them, and without exception they were the most dysfunctional, unhappiest, and amoral bunch of people I ever saw up close. What they do shouldn’t be illegal per se, but they sure as heck should be nowhere around children, and no special rights granted to them.

        • jeffaral

          People in the music industry are generally amoral, wether they are gay or not. Homosexualism is a genetic issue.

          • Fighting_Northern_Spirit

            Homosexualism is a genetic issue.
            .
            There’s evidence that schizophrenia and many other mental illnesses are also genetic issues.

          • disqus_Xz3UA6obwj

            Low IQ is a genetic issue. Lets refuse them service too!

          • Fighting_Northern_Spirit

            What part of freedom of association do you not understand?

          • Anglokraut

            …so says anyone who has ever worked retail!

        • disqus_Xz3UA6obwj

          And in the industry I am in it is just the opposite in my experience. Ones sexual orientation does not imply a danger to children unless you are a pedophile. Gays are no more a danger than heterosexual to children for like heteros they are attracted to other adults, not children.

          • Mergatroyd

            No issue, except stop shoving it down my throat, and it’s being shoved down our throats, and, worse, our impressionable children’s throats.

      • So CAL Snowman

        While I agree with your sentiment I should remind you that mentally ill people that believe in an invisible sky fairy brought us the Industrial Revolution and the Renaissance.

    • DonReynolds

      Defiance is the beginning of Freedom.

  • sbuffalonative

    Unfortunately it was business groups that pushed for the veto. They thought they’d lose their 30 pieces of silver.

  • je suis paganisme

    What if a Jewish baker declined to make a birthday cake to commemorate Adolf Hitler?

    Or if a Muslim caterer declined to provide wine to a French fête?

    I think that these events would not even be brought to public attention.

    Just as the blacks were used as a battering ram to crack traditional values, now the gays are being used as a ballpeen hammer to finely chip away at the few remaining solid structures.
    They are being used. All things used are eventually thrown away for something else.

    • Pelagian

      Gays marched in constitutionally under the Protected Class category forged in constitutional law. If you were a Protected Class, the courts would have to give “strict scrutiny” to any law passed by a legislative body that was likely to have a disparate impact on the Protected Class. Race was expanded to sex (as in females) and the word “sex” was transformed into “who you like to have sex with”. Scrict scrutiny almost always means the law is shot down. (Age, disability, religion and country of origin are sometimes treated as protected classes on a state by state, circuit by circuit, or remedy by remedy basis). Some people thought that the Free Exercise clause might trump the Protected Class idea if it were ever tested in the courts. But Gov. Brewer robbed us of that chance. Personally, I don’t think anything is going to stop this freight train. If you choose to tolerate a vice or an evil, you are by logic favoring it. And one favor inexorably leads to another. Someday it will be the officially-preferred way to have sex, mark my words. Reparations will have to be paid for 3000 years of homophobia. Of course test tube babies will help alleviate the burdens of that policy. Just like finding a way to keep whites working in South Africa saves S.A. from a total collapse.

      • Mergatroyd

        who knows what the future will bring? Laws that are pro-gay now could be easily overturned tomorrow. At the moment, gays are being used as an in-your-face tool to destroy any remnant of White America. When the economy collapses and we are left as warring tribes fighting over scarce resources, who is or isn’t gay won’t matter and you can bet that flamboyant lifestyle will end in a heartbeat with the gay lifestyle going deep underground.

        At that point it won’t matter who will bake a wedding cake for a gay marriage or not.

        We are in end times.

    • Romulus

      “THEY” will take your children away. Just like the NJ couple.

      • Pelagian

        That’s right. Once the gays and liberals break a pencil and realize a) that liberal feminists and gays dont replace themselves very well and b) that the traditionalists, though small in number now, are regularly having 10-kid families … you’ll start to see every horror story that the diabolical brain can think up.

    • Charles W.

      Bingo. You nailed it. They are being used as a battering ram to smash all existing order–specifically everything white heterosexual Christian and male. First it was women, then blacks, now gays and illegal third world immigrants. A succession of ‘minorities’ being used one after another.

      Many here will probably disagree and call it nonsense, but this all traces back to the biggest conspiracy of all–the first conspiracy–that of Satan against God. Those behind the promotion of this gay filth are literally in concert with Satan. And like him, they are liars to the core of their being.

    • DonReynolds

      Have the same Muslim caterer a church bar-b-q…..pork only. Don’t like churches? OK……bring the pork to a dog show.

      • M&S

        You’re missing the point.
        While a Muslim might back-room own a catering service or a bakery, they would not be someone you would intentionally interact with, nor they you, if you both knew the reality of each other’s position, race as alcohol etc.
        Hence the chance of religious justification of non-service is small.
        What is being done here is to force upon whites the ‘acceptance’ of gays as an unsuppressed minority of our own race. Nowhere else are whites so explicitly fighting themselves because every other racial or ethnic group’s homosexuals stay _well below_ radar. If not actually surviving outside their own endogroup.
        And here’s what’s telling: Whites have to deal with this because if gays brought their choice to a Hispanic, Black or Allah help them, /Muslim/ photographer/caterer/baker, they would likely end up with broken teeth.
        Denial of service is another way to say in-house exile. For your behavior, while you may live amongst us, you will never benefit from being one of us.
        This is how whites contain the problem of bad genes as broken white male hetero behavior. This is how we fight back against a 1.83 crashing TFR.
        It’s how we reward those who remain true to our cultural values, no matter what outsider group may do to impose upon or afflict us, that so long as you are ONE OF US, you are eligible for white privileges which are and should remain very much the proud benefits of being part of our endogroup.
        Gays are outliers and by breaking them away from the Protected Class Mass, _because they don’t want them either_ we could have had an inroad to those very ‘unintended consequences’ (freedom to associate with whom we wish) that Governor Brewer so feared.
        She made a strategic policy error and has further intimidated the brave souls in the Arizona Legislature who now know they have no friend in their Governor as well as the rest of the Nation in crafting unpopular legislation.
        This is sad. Because someone has to do it. Someone has to say: “If freedom is so important, then let us be free to choose whom we deal with too.”

        • Mergatroyd

          People have long memories. You can bet when the economy finally implodes, which is in the process of doing as I write this, gays will go back underground so fast it will be as if they never existed. Whites will start to band together for protection, it is inevitable and fight back against our enemies who have degraded our values and wrested our homelands from us.

          It will be fight or die at some point and gays will have a choice to go with “their people,” be it Whites, Jews, blacks, Asians or Hispanics because as a group gays will be small and weak.

          Everything will divide up along racial lines and that is why our enemies are so hell-bent on keeping us atomized because when we DO band together we are a formidable fighting force and they know it.

          But, it’s extremely important that we target the correct enemy otherwise we are just clipping the branches and not destroying the root.

          “This is how we fight back against a 1.83 crashing TFR.”

          I have no idea what this means.

          • M&S

            Mergatroyd,
            What you said about gays ‘disappearing into the woodwork’ again is suggestive. Implying as it does that gays have always been with us, which history seems to support.
            If homosexuality has always been here, then it has to either have an actual benefit or be /correlated/ with something that is useful.
            Awhile back there was a study which showed that higher fertility women often had gay children but the loss of one man was compensated for by the two or more other, hetero children a mother did have as sustaining the genetic base. I believe the effector was argued as excess estrogen at an early point (first trimester?) of a fetus’ development.
            I would suggest that this offers that possibility that homosexuality is not a carried genetic factor in the males and that it’s activation is not necessarily something which is innate to the person so much as society or environment.
            And prenatal factors may not be the only effector.
            In Rome, towards the end, homosexuality was rampant. Why?
            Could it be that life was so easy and/or intellectual, especially among the upper classes, that it didn’t pay to push those epigen processes which made a man male because it interfered with other brain and/or social functions?
            What is the equivalence of that to the immature and introverted ‘metrosexualism’ we see today? Is there a connection between what we would call sissy or effeminate male behavior and latent homosexualism?
            Could it be this, as much as ‘liberation’ that is causing females to also not have a gendered response to males and child rearing in general?
            It is interesting that the periods when ‘Men were Men, harrrh!’ correlate with times of barbarism and great physical stress upon the population. And so I wonder…
            Is it myth or is it a reflection of epigen activation in the presence of driving environmental and social agencies acting as a push on testosterone which in turn masculinizes male behaviors and provides an instinctive (deeper voice, more masculine features, hair growth) early cue to women in response?
            Whatever the cause, our people are having kids at sub replacement levels of 1.83 children per mother and we are losing entire bloodlines to nothing less than willed genetic suicide. Not to ineptitude because these are often some of our most capable workers and SES successful people. But simply are refusal to try the whole family gig.
            But if I am right, creating masculinized enclaves may well bring on sanctuary seeking from women who recognize strong family-safe environments and so can perhaps ‘turn on’ that desire to be partnered with an effective hetero male.
            And the easiest way to get there is by making it clear, ‘no gay pride on our side’.
            Such may indeed act to suppress homosexualism, not because the ‘gay gene’ is eliminated from the gene pool but because whatever triggering mechanism is present to support a latent potential in all males is socially removed or disadvantaged as being unacceptable.
            But the important thing is that TFRs have a chance to rebound to at least sustainment levels.
            Again, LGBT is the weakest link in the multicult because it is the one whose revulsion is shared across races and genders as ‘something’s not right’ social discomfort.
            Attack that, force them to fragment, ‘by setting standards’ (success, stability, home ownership) which pulls people away from the enemy ranks and you begin to regain a degree of social dominance from which other positions of concern may be argued.
            I think center-left women are secretly aware that what they are enabling is suicide for them as well as us. I think it hurts them to be part of this because the drive to have children and know the happiness as security they felt when young themselves is much stronger than they like to admit to.
            Create traditional model males, backed by strong in-group social protections (help buy a house, make sure that they always have job security as transitional employment when fired from X, provide HMO equivalents in essential services from legal to financial planning as a ‘whites only’ network). And watch women abandon their ’cause’ to come to what reflects what their instincts know as being essential to the furtherance of female interest.
            For a white woman in a brown society has no power. Because the alternative for Hispanic or Black patriarchal male is what he would have gone with anyway if she had not been available. And so a woman may either submit or have nothing at all.
            I think this terrifies white women to the point of paralysis.
            We must work _hard_ to create a system of comfort and respect so that if they come to us, they will at least not have to endure the least lowering of their social position possible.
            The alternative is exogenics. And we don’t have a lot of time.

    • Mergatroyd

      The correct term is useful idiot and you make a great point. Blacks are already being tossed aside with Hispanic useful idiots as the replacements. They make great government drones with their low IQs, ability to work hard and do what they’re told for government benefits.

      I can only imagine what will happen to those open gays who flaunt their lifestyles in public when we Whites are gone. The Muslims will kill them outright when they take over the political system of Britain and impose Sharia law.

  • DaveMed

    “It is truly a disappointing day in our state and nation when lies and personal attacks can overshadow the truth,” said Cathi Herrod, the leader of the group.”
    ________________________________________________________

    Um, that’s been happening for quite some time now, Ms. Herrod. Perhaps it’s time you realized the nation you thought you were a citizen of is dead.

  • Romulus

    Brewer was obviously coerced into signing. This should come as a surprise to none of us!

    “WHAT DOES IT BENEFIT A MAN TO GAIN THE WHOLE WORLD, BUT LOSE HIS COUNTRY”

    Money wins again. The nation sells it’s soul (us) to damn- nation for the almighty dollar.
    It’s so perfectly obvious to any that have eyes, that the goal of the left is to destroy us “by any means necessary”

    What are we prepared to do? What will it take until we’ve had enough?

    • Germanicus

      Well, I am ready Romulus.

    • Mergatroyd

      It’s John Roberts all over again.

      It will take us Whites lined up against a wall for mass killings and even then some idiot Whites will say we deserve our fate at the hands of non-Whites for “past bad acts.”

      It’s time to stop thinking about what they want to do to us and think about what we’re going to do to them when the time comes and it’s coming.

  • Anglokraut

    #2 is a non-issue; Arizona has term-limits on the governor’s seat. She’s ineligible for re-election. She is fairly popular though, though I think she’s getting a little old. I suppose that makes her the perfect candidate for the U.S. Senate, eh?

  • dd121

    See, Republicans never do anything that is in the interest of anybody on AmRen.

    • Eagle_Eyed

      Except passing the religious freedom bill.

      Brewer wants to run for national office so she ultimately takes her marching orders from the NY/DC media elite. Ordinary Arizonans, those represented by the state legislature, are quite sane and in line with us on immigration and homo “rights.”

      • Mergatroyd

        Check out who funds her war chest and there you’ll find the answers. Also, if she doesn’t bow down to the demands of AIPAC, her political career is kaput.

    • So CAL Snowman

      Jeff Sessions seems to have a moderately functioning spine

  • Spartacus

    They’re all the same, they just look different… Stop voting, start seceding .

    • Mergatroyd

      Thread winner from Spartacus.

  • Sick of it

    Gov. Brewer’s next step will be to declare Arizona a sanctuary state, most assuredly. In the name of “business” of course.

  • Nancy Thomas

    Not sure why she did this….but I still like her because of her stance on immigration.

  • Dave4088

    Darn. Of course, if Jan Brewer signed the legislation it would have been struck down by a gay loving and Marxist federal judge. And if not a federal judge then Obama would have gone Mugabe and used his pen and his phone.

    But the old gal knows which side her political bread is buttered, so did the “right thing” and vetoed a bill which merely and partially re-instituted freedom of association which used to be guaranteed under the Bill of Rights.

    • Germanicus

      Let them strike it down or circumvent it. That merely draws them into the field of political battle where I want them to be.

  • Lada Belyy

    She did the right thing. It was a stupid bill.
    If I don’t want to serve anyone, whether queer or normal, whom I find offensive, I don’t need permission from legislators to say, “GTFO”.
    And, who gets to determine which beliefs are “sincerely held religious beliefs”?
    Would pagan beliefs be respected by the state? Or, does it have to be part of a “recognized” religious organization? Which religions have the state’s bureaucrats recognized, as sincere and acceptable?
    In other words, which religions has the state established?

    • Egbert, King of Wessex

      You’re right, anchoring the legislation in religious beliefs undermined it even if she hadn’t vetoed. It would have worsened things by tying non-acceptance or mere preference not to associate to religion. There are better free association, first amendment and property rights arguments. But I don’t know of any politician capable of articulating those anymore; they can only introduce confused bills like this one that get the frustration right but aid the totalitarian left.

      • M&S

        Religion is a blanket that is unidentifiable even as it is shared.
        Call Christianity bigoted and racist and see how far you get.
        You use the weapons you are given.

    • Germanicus

      Well, you’ll get sued, that i s the problem. And I do not want to see you sued. Read my other comment, maybe. I deal with these issues.

    • Nathanwartooth

      I agree.

      Which is why I would support a businesses right to discriminate but the language in the bill was just ridiculous.

      It shouldn’t have been tied into religion. But allowing businesses to discriminate against anyone they wanted to would send the media into a bigger frenzy than they already were. All of the headlines would be about Jim Crow and there would be pictures of white only drinking fountains under every headline.

    • M&S

      If a lesbian or gay couple kissing in a restaurant is an offense against public decency then so is a hetero one.
      If you say get out and do so on the basis of personal offense at their sexual orientation, they can sue you, because you are using that personal belief as political baton to deny service through your business.
      A religious belief is amorphous because it can only be judged by those who ‘vote’ for it as a function of membership in the congregation. Yet because it can be measured as a statistic, for which majority-rule is possible, it cannot be denied outright as a personal bigotry evoked through refusal of service.
      Just as a single man may not refuse call up to military service because of personal convictions (though he may ask to serve in a non-combatant role) while a group like the Amish can and do avoid all such service because their God forbids them, enmasse, from enjoining in such behavior.
      The chink in the armor was there. To start breaking up the mass victim entitlement psychology that is race/sexual orientation/gender grievances. By essentially saying: “No. These people are not ‘special’. They have no beef with us because it is their _behavior_ which we find unacceptable.
      Which is the first step towards saying: “And we don’t feel responsible for black psycho pathologies either because it is their present _behavior_, not their past enslavement which matters to us.”
      And moving towards: “No, we don’t dislike Hispanics because of their skin color. We dislike Hispanics because their dependence on welfare and high crime as birth rates makes us poor in our lands.”
      What makes The Gay precedent ‘dangerous’ is that it speaks to a common aversion to seeing men or women displaying same sex passionate behavior by all heteros. As something so deeply discomforting that we will not be challenged in our instinctive revulsion of it.
      Even more than this, it speaks to the underlying beliefs of blacks and Hispanics and certainly Muslims, in being equally unacceptable among those groups.
      And that is a weakness. Whites should use to divide and conquer.

      • Lada Belyy

        I would tell them to get out and not give them a reason. If it is offending my customers, it is affecting my business. FWIW, I would tell any couple that acts indecently the same thing whether they are queer or normal. It’s my business and they are trespassing. That is a privilege, not a Right.

        • M&S

          We share the same opinion madam. The difference is that I can recognize a weapon just lying there, why can’t you?
          If you make a group affiliation callout, then the lawyer has to prove that it’s wrong for Church-X to hold that opinion when religion is already an exercise in adult fantasy that is accepted as truth.
          If it’s just you, stating that your business might suffer based on your perception of what you think your customers find offensive, then you have given that lawyer the opportunity to say: “But how can you claim to know…” as an excuse for insinuating that you are using your economic motive as a reason to hide a deeper disgust with LGBT which you cannot use as a justification for denial of services. Just as you can’t with a Black, Hispanic, or name-the-prefer-not-to group.
          Because the law guarantees that that sale of service -is- a right, not a privilege, for the protected classes.
          That’s the funny thing about weapons. They don’t just sit there. You either pick them up. Or the other side does.
          And right now, the other side has more allies than we have.
          Divide Et Impera.

  • kjh64

    I personally do not agree with this bill as it could open up a whole can of worms, it’s too vague. For one thing, people already do have the right to be whatever religion they want. Secondly, what if someone’s religious beliefs violate someone else’s rights. For example, a Muslim cab driver refused to take a man with a seeing eye dog because of his religion. What about the blind man’s rights? The law stated that cab drivers must make allowances for seeing eye dogs. What if a Muslim says his four wives must be recognized as wives even though American law only allows for one spouse? On one hand, I can understand someone not wanting to do something that violates their religious beliefs however, on the other hand, where does one’s right to practice their religion end if it violates someone else’s rights.

    • Lada Belyy

      If I don’t want a dog in my car, then too bad, find another car. You don’t have any “Right” to ride in someone’s car. That’s his property.

      Your refusal to do something for me does not impinge on my freedom. Government forcing you to serve me does impinge on your freedom.

      • kjh64

        “If I don’t want a dog in my car, then too bad, find another car. You don’t have any “Right” to ride in someone’s car. That’s his property.”
        Yes, a blind man has “the right” under American law to ride in a cab with a seeing eye dog. If the Muslim cab driver can’t abide by American law and culture that states that cab drivers must make allowance for seeing eye dogs, then he shouldn’t be a cab driver or in America. He doesn’t have the right to take a job and come to a country knowing what the rules are and then break them because of his religion. Most cab driver’s don’t own the cab they drive but even if they do, they don’t have the right to refuse a seeing eye dog under the law while they are driving their car as a cab. Now if one is not working as a cabbie or something else and it’s their private car in their private life, then yes, they have the right to refuse to have a dog in their car. Refusal of services, depending upon the situation, can violated one’s freedom. It’s a fine line we have to walk.

        • Germanicus

          Well there you go! With regard to the Muslim that does not own the cab, then toss his behind out into the street and make him hail a cab! You and I share the same anger, it is that I believe your principles need to be straightened out. Maybe there is some disabilities law that could “force” the cabbie to pick up the blind guy. This us just one more reasonn that such leftie laws should not exist. They sound nice. But in a Christian , White, civil society such laws are unnecessary and they invite further comic actions. Too many laws are written because of isolated cases anyway. Bill 1062, however, is a necessary law and is meant to stem a future ugly tide. There was never a serious threat of Christian cabbies not picking up guys with seeing eye does. Oh, but the cabbies are all Muslim. There is where the dogs should never have been picked up.

          • kjh64

            “Maybe there is some disabilities law that could “force” the cabbie to pick up the blind guy. This us just one more reasonn that such leftie laws should not exist”

            I don’t consider it a “leftie law”. There is a need for certain laws to uphold people’s rights or what society considers people’s right. This bill was vague and would have been a bad law that could easily backfire. However, if a society is racially and culturally mostly homogeneous, it’s much easier to determine what rights should be protected because people are on the same wavelength about beliefs… This is why racially and culturally homogenous societies are much more easily governed.

          • Germanicus

            Regarding homogeneity, I agree. Please give an example of what might be an unintended consequence. Blind people do not, or should not, have a Right, to a cab. Positive civil law cannot replace Christian charity. This is at the heart of the dispute that you a d I are having.

          • kjh64

            I disagree. I think that blind people absolutely have the right to a cab. An unintended consequence would be that, say a Muslim man demands the state recognize his four wives, even though polygamy is illegal. An atheist refuses service to anyone wearing a cross necklace etc. There have to be regulations In business or it could cause a lot of problems.

          • Germanicus

            Who says we let Muslims in? For those here already, who has to patronize them? All the more impetus for Americans to fill these entrepreneurial niches. I say, “Let them be bad economic actors, it will be their loss economically and politically.

      • Germanicus

        Correct! And it is about time White, Christian Americans start filling in the niches of the our economy and not letting Islamicist cabbies come here and set up shop and burrow into our society with their hegemonic designs that have spread like a cancer since the beginning of this cultural tumor.

    • http://countenance.wordpress.com/ Question Diversity

      When I can get to it, I’ll read the actual text of the legislation that she vetoed. But I bet it applied only to private firms that are not public accommodations.

    • Max

      Yours and the collectivist federal gummint’s error here is that you believe that you have a fundamental right to buy something from me that I may not want to sell to you. This is a contractual agreement to which both parties must agree in every other rational sense of contract law. For millenia no one entertained such a ridiculous notion including the framers. Since about Johnson’s time, every “oppressed” group has now claimed a fundamental right to food, housing, medical care, abortions and services of every type. Compelling another to provide a service which he would not voluntarily provide is slavery. This is not the same class as a fundamental right to retain one’s person or property. You have no fundamental right to receive anything but remain unmolested by another.

      • kjh64

        Max, for a society to function, there has to be an agreement on what “rights” are and what rights are to be upheld and what laws to have. If you didn’t have this, we’d have anarchy. It’s about walking a fine line between how far can one go in one’s own beliefs without stepping on someone else’s. If other’s beliefs deprive you of something, you’re not remaining unmolested. This bill would have opened up a huge can of worms as I’ve said and could backfire big time. I also said that in a racially and culturally homogenous society, it’s much easier for everyone to be in agreement with what “rights” are or should be.

        • Max

          So then, does your neighbor have a right to sleep in your bed and use your toothbrush? Denying him something which he desires, in your calculus, is “molesting him” Apparently you believe that active rights, or engaging in some activity supercedes passive rights to NOT engage in some activity, like sharing my bed, toothbrush or SERVICES with you. The law disagrees in every other way except the historically novel idea of protected “minority” classes.

    • Germanicus

      I am deeply disappointed that Governor Brewer vetoed 1062. I will have to reassess my view of her as s politician. I was not concerned about this law being in anyway overly broad. True religious belief is something that is inviolable. Let the Muslims be provoked to start refusing to pick up blind passengers with seeing eye dogs. People will start seeing things Sas they truly are. What, you want to craft things so that Islamicists can make it in our economy, flying under our already weakened cultural and religious immune system, until they have amassed even more strength? “No!” I say. The law was jurisprudentially correct. People need to be protected from this insidious disease of homo-Marxism. The sexual disorders are some of the mist destructive to White conciousness–or any racial consciousness for that matter. The Blacks in California understood that and supported Prop 8. The Mexicans were big supporters of Prop 23 before that. Quit, please, indulging in this avoidance and escape behavior. This is what is already killing us on the racial front. Gentle vectoring has not worked on the political front. Reagan’s formula of tacking against the wind by trying to form alliances with those with whom one is in at least 51% agreement has not worked against the strong currents that Leftism has created. The only thing that can turn the tide of battle now are precipitous, catalytic events. The might be substantive or even only symbolic. This are the meteoric events that appear and look like miracles (and they are miracles, b.t.w.). One must provoke, agitate, push the envelope, explore and activate. This is how the seminal events will take place. The bean counting legislative days are over. We are fighting an asymmetrical war against packed courts where rare-event judicial anarchy happens, none-the-less daily given the number of judges that can individually commandeer our Constitutional integrity and twist it to there ends. The provocative events–and we must use them differently be our fight is a morally right one–are the way to bring the evil of the enemies ways to the fore. This is a long way of saying, “Bring it on already.”. Quit leaving me with my hands tied behind my back while I am beaten. Provoke the gays and the malcontents to do their next twisted thing in response and so on! Let it happen. Let them reveal themselves and let them put themselves at a strategic disadvantage. Quit protecting your enemy because you do not have the fortitude to fight like a man.

  • Conrad

    “…with sincerely held religious beliefs to refuse to serve gays.”
    Try for a law that protects normal people from law suits.

  • 1stworlder

    They would make it bad and you would get sick.

  • teaisstronger

    WELL SHE HOPES DEMOCRATS WILL RE-ELECT HER GOVERNOR

    Being loyal to Democrats and spitting in the face of Republicans earn her a big RINO button. When Democrats need a vote or veto they cash in their RINO chips.

  • teaisstronger

    BITE THE BULLET AND DUMP HER, DO NOT VOTE FOR HER

    Let the Democrats win this one, better a Democrat than a GOP RINO. You at least have a chance for a recall.

  • DonReynolds

    No business is required by law to serve any and every customer who walks in the door. I have refused to do business with some customers. In the same way, I am not required to hire everyone who comes in looking for a job.
    What I have the good sense to do, is NEVER give them any reason for why I refuse their business. No reason is required. A polite NO is sufficient in all cases. I do not use that as an occasion to pull a rant against someone who just walked in as a prospective customer. No sense in being rude or rubbing their nose in your personal beliefs. The answer is NO, end of story, thanks for coming by. Have a great week.

  • DonReynolds

    The entire controversy was a set-up. There is no shortage of homo cake decorators (or sign painters, or flower arrangers, etc), who would be tickled pink to do the cake….maybe even for free. This was just a way to remove some of the local bakery competition and shake them down for some money. The fact that it advances the gay agenda just means they had a cheap gay attorney to make it stink and some gay journalists to make it into a national story.

    • Mergatroyd

      Yes. And if there were, that would present a perfect business opportunity to open a pro-gay friendly wedding cake business. Someone could make billions the way the lefties presented Arizona as having millions of gays who had nowhere to go to get a wedding cake.

  • CalMark

    I’m a gay male, but I do believe businesses should have a right to refuse service to anyone they choose. Freedom of association should apply to everyone, including businesses – especially small businesses.

  • Uncle Bob

    The fatigue of gays and their constant demands, grandstanding, and overall malcontent is going to cause a backlash someday. Many would now love to have a leader like Vladimir Putin who promotes and encourages the growth of Russian Families and punishes the radical flamers who seem to delight in offending others with their crude behavior.
    Gays need to understand that they will never be fully accepted by everyone and it’s best that they just keep their perversions or dysfunctions in the closet. Some people may be born gay but their lifestyle should not be encouraged, for it kills off genetic lines and removes whole generations of children from existence. And what will gays do when they get old and their sex drive goes away and they find themselves becoming lonely, alienated, weirdos that never had children while their friends and family slip away. For the sake of sexual stimulation many gay men die without the love of a wife and children, and make themselves and the world poorer because of it. Most won’t regret it until the end. Morals are not just arbitrary rules, they are code of wisdom passed on over many generations which too many people ignore at their own peril.

    • Anglokraut

      If homosexual behavior is indeed a genetic trait, I’m not sure I see the advantage of their collective breeding.

      • Germanicus

        Most likely, it is not a genetic trait.

        • Uncle Bob

          It could be substances in the environment or food supply effecting hormones or development in the womb. He/shes/ Hermaphrodites
          or Girls born with dongs are certainly born gay. And what about Tomboys and Boys that identify themselves with girls at a young age. In a healthy society these things would be rare, but in a world full of toxins and radiation from nuclear weapons and power plants – who knows how much damage we endure at the cellular and sub atomic level?

          • Germanicus

            Interesting examples. The Tomboys I knew and know are still 100% heterosexual, they just like runnin’, jumpin’ and playin’ in the woods and not having tea parties. I suspect that most of the psychosexual mal-development is coming from disordered family life (divorce, working mothers, immature parental behavior causing children to have early core issues) plus the bombardment of the vulnerable psyches of children with androgynous propaganda, feminism, widespread failure to prepare a social environment into which teens can mature into the married state, hypersexualized advertisements with double-bind rules that prevent the healthy expression of sexuality in childrearing and home building. Okay, only then I might consider the long-shot possible environmental effects that you mention. My vote for primary cause of homosexual addictions: habit formation subsequent to frustrations stemming in most cases from divorce of the parents.

          • Uncle Bob

            It could be atrazine – a herbicide banned in Europe but in common use in the US. There are claims it alters the endocrine system and causes a loss of testosterone and and an increase in estrogen production.

          • Germanicus

            An interesting comment regarding atrazine.

          • NoMosqueHere

            I think it’s mostly genetic and/or biologically based. A childhood friend of mine turned gay. No one knew back in the day, and his socialization was not different from that of anyone else. Hopefully, science will find a real cure for homosexuality one day.

          • Germanicus

            How do know that his socialization was no different? Also, there are the triple factors of sin, error and frailty. These emerge from a place in the soul where causal explanation may forever remain elusive.

          • Anglokraut

            How many hermaphrodites do you know? I know one. He was assigned female parts, raised as a girl, but quelle suprise! was attracted to girls. Lived as a lesbian until he could afford a sex change in Mexico.

            And now he’s a man who dates women.

          • Uncle Bob

            I knew of one that hung out in a bar and would try to grab the junk of unsuspecting male patrons until one day the secret was revealed and She / It was put in the hospital while running away from the potential beating of a freaked out boyfriend that discovered the surprise.

      • Uncle Bob

        I have noticed that there are three types of gay men.
        1. Born gay or Gender challenged- in their nature and just the cards they were dealt.
        2. Sexual degenerates that use sexual stimulation as a drug and resort homosexuality or even pedophilia in order to satisfy their obsessive fixation.
        3. Victims molested by #2 as a child that never got a chance to naturally develop their sexuality and may repeat repeat the cycle if they feel it is normal.

        • Pelagian

          Yep. Exactly. But whichever it is, you dont encourage it any more than you would encourage alcoholism, pedophilia or anything else.

    • http://www.presstitutes.org/ ms_anthro

      This sums up the mentality to me. I hope they realize the magnitude of the ill will they’re creating among otherwise neutral people every time they throw one of their legal tantrums.

  • jeffaral

    What would you expect from a jewish governor??!!

    • KevinPhillipsBong

      I’ve been unable to verify this claim. What is your source? Or are you just kidding?

      • jeffaral

        I read somewhere she was. After a quick research I found out she is of English and Norwegian background. Apologies.

      • NoMosqueHere

        If all the jews in the world disappeared overnight, nazis would re-invent them.

  • Pro_Whitey

    You pegged it. The homos will also run away from islamists who won’t meet their demands.

  • Mergatroyd

    Looks like the threat of losing the Super Bowl was too great for old Jan.

    • Germanicus

      Another reason not to let ourselves get caught up in addictive mass actions (e.g. Hollywood, sports, etc.) where big interests can leverage absolute or undue power. It is best to channel our activities into those areas where firewalls (locality, ownership, subsidiarity, etc.) protect us and our money from aggregation and its subsequent deployment in the service of what always comes to be hijacked for bad causes. I love doing sports. I never watch that brain rot. They will not get my money. Same with Hollywood. I only patronize good movies. I do not make going to the movies an expected or habitual event regardless of what is showing. We have to press forward on multiple levels. This will help check these big forces that rise up and subvert the will of the people, as happened through the cowardly capitulation of Gov. Brewer.

  • Earl Turner

    This is great! Oh sure, it got vetoed. That was to be expected. What counts, what is important, is that some legislator had the courage to get it out there in the first place. Not only that, but the bill actually passed!

    The idea is out there now for the world to see. Could it actually be a state’s right to say “our businesses don’t have to serve gays”? What about blacks? Somewhere out there right now, some business owner just got done enduring a particularly nasty incident of “Shaniqua Theatre” and then tonight he’ll go online and read the above article and the light bulb will go DING! above his head.

    It’s only a matter of time before the concept goes from gays to blacks.

  • jackryanvb

    We reserve the right to discriminate against homosexual Nazi thugs like Ernst Rohm. If you are going to be homosexual, don’t be a homosexual Nazi and if you are going to be a Nazi, don’t be a Homosexual Nazi. Let’s see the SPLC give us grief over that.

  • Bobbala

    I fear that the window for a peaceful resolution has long past

    Bondage
    Spiritual Faith
    Courage
    Liberty
    Abundance
    Selfishness
    Complacency
    Apathy
    Dependence
    Then starting over with Bondage

  • Uncle Bob

    What’s sad is her only legacy will be bunch of spoiled rotten foo foo dogs. Feminism has created career women who never find time for motherhood and end up having a bunch of dogs and cats as a surrogate family.

  • John K

    And again, they cower and bow to homosexuals and their deviant ways. America is lost.

  • Brandon

    Just another example of the proof that women do not belong in positions of authority except for the home. The curse of 1920 rolls on….

  • Pelagian

    Very intelligent and sensitive, Germanicus. Please open up your comments on Disqus to followers, if you please, so we wont miss your thoughts.

  • Pelagian

    Look at that picture! Confirms my stereotype of Arizona as a bunch of old bags with a lot of money.