Forum Thread

Will Governor Brewer veto Arizona's new anti-gay law?

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 - 15 of 47 1 2 3 4 Next
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Huffington Post, February 22, 2014: Arizona Anti-Gay Bill Prompts LGBT Advocate Protests

    "Hundreds of activists rallied in Arizona on Friday to protest the passage of a bill that would let vendors deny service to gay customers on religious grounds.

    "The measure grants legal protection to business owners who want to refuse service to gays and others because doing so would violate his or her religious beliefs."


    Governor Brewer has not decided if she will veto it?

    I guess right wing Republicans just have to do what they have to do. Lessons not learned.
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Denton, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I was reading the same article this morning. Apparently she vetoed it last time around. So, hopefully this is just a headline story grab that goes no where. But with AZ, nothing surprises me.
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Central, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I would bet that most customers approach a vendor and don't announce their sexual preferences. So is it ok for vendors to guess who's gay and who's not ? If vendors participate in this activity I would not support them by choice. Maybe if they find they're only selling to their church members they'll start to fear going out of business. That would only be fair. Choices - you decided who to sell to and we decided who to buy from.
  • Center Left Democrat
    Democrat
    Flagstaff, AZ
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    This one hits pretty close to home.

    I just sent an email to Governor Brewer a few minutes ago, asking her to veto the bill.

    As of this morning, 4 companies have contacted the Greater Phoenix Economic Council to advise that they were no longer interested in considering the Phoenix area for new locations, specifically due to the bill.

    Arizona's SB 1070 cost the state of Arizona a minimum of $132 million in lost revenue from tourism:

    http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/20121217phoenix-convention-slump-tied-sb-1070.html

    The "elephant in the room", of course, is the 2015 Super Bowl, which is scheduled to take place in the University of Arizona stadium in Glendale. If the NFL decides to move the Super Bowl to a less bigoted state (which they have every right to do), Arizona would lost $600,000,000 in economic activity:

    http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2014/01/super_bowl_xlviiis_economic_im.html

    That's just plain stupid ....

    A pizza restaurant owner in Tucson has posted a sign on his establishment that deserves to be a lot more wide spread:

  • Independent
    Widefield, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Great, its Jim Crowe laws all over again. I would agree with this bill ONLY if it applied ONLY to religious institutions. (i.e. a Catholic school should have the right to refuse homosexual students) However, a regular business should not have the right. In fact the wording of the law goes against the Constitution and MANY US Supreme Court cases. It won't take long before it is struck down if the Governor does not Veto it.
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    RanmaMOJ Wrote: Great, its Jim Crowe laws all over again. I would agree with this bill ONLY if it applied ONLY to religious institutions. (i.e. a Catholic school should have the right to refuse homosexual students) However, a regular business should not have the right. In fact the wording of the law goes against the Constitution and MANY US Supreme Court cases. It won't take long before it is struck down if the Governor does not Veto it.
    RanmaMoJo --Is Notre Dame a religious institution? If you say yes, then let me pose some questions to ponder. Of course Notre Dame is in Indiana, but for the sake of this argument regarding the Arizona law, assume they are located in Phoenix.

    Should Notre Dame be allowed to expel any teacher, coach or student that is found out to be gay?

    Should Notre Dame be allowed to expel any woman who is found to be using contraceptives, as that goes against their religious beliefs?

    Should Notre Dame be allowed to expel any woman that has had an abortion, whether before or after enrollment? Remember life in their minds begins at conception, and the morning after pill is considered a form of abortion.

    Should the Notre Dame football team refuse to play another team that has an openly gay player? The football team is making money for the school with their football program...isn't it a "regular business"...engaged in commerce by playing other teams in other states. It makes huge profits for the school.

    If you agree that at least the football team is a business, then should not the whole institution be bound by discrimination laws against women and the gay community?

    Is that any different than the case of a restaurant owner refusing or not to serve gays?

    Where do you draw the line?

    Just asking...
  • Center Left Democrat
    Democrat
    Flagstaff, AZ
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    The Kansas House passed a similar bill last week, but the Senate (fortunately) had enough wisdom to kill it:

    http://www.kansascity.com/2014/02/13/4822324/senate-balks-at-kansas-religious.html

    What I wasn't aware of, until this morning, is that similar "religious protection" bills have also been introduced in Ohio, Mississippi, Idaho, South Dakota, Tennessee and Oklahoma. Officially, ALEC denies any involvement, but when similar bills get introduced into several states at about the same time, I strongly suspect that they HAVE to be involved at some level.

    As Joe McCarthy once said, "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and talks like a duck - then it's a duck".

    http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/2/21/arizona-house-passescontroversialreligiousfreedombill.html

    Is anyone aware of any other group (besides ALEC) that's behind this lunacy ?



    In Arizona, the bill was promoted by the ultra conservative Center for Arizona Policy, and their argument for the bill can be read at the link below:

    http://www.azpolicy.org/bill-tracker/religious-freedom-restoration-act-sb-1062

    It's interesting to note that the United States Supreme Court, in 1990, ruled (in Employment Division v. Smith) that a law that burdened the free exercise of religion was not unconstitutional if it was a neutral law of general applicability. Not serving same sex couples would NOT be a "neutral law of general applicability".
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Arizona --

    Thanks for the links. It really shows to what length these organizations will go to protect what they see as their first amendment "religious freedom" right, which effectively means that they can practice intolerance of others that do not share or practice their religious beliefs.

    I lifted a few quotes from the legislative members quoted in the Aljazeera article..

    Arizona House passes controversial ‘religious freedom’ bill:

    "This bill is not about allowing discrimination," Yarbrough said. "This bill is about preventing discrimination against people who are clearly living out their faith."

    "Please, I will accept you because you are a child of God, I love you because you are a child of God," said GOP Rep. Steve Montenegro. "But please don't ask me to go against my religious beliefs."

    "The Arizona Legislature sent a clear message today: In our state everyone is free to live and work according to their faith," said CAP President Cathi Herrod."


    I have only one word to describe those statements: hypocrisy!

    I don't know if ALEC was behind it, but yes it's strange that several states are considering the same thing. And they don't give a damn about the majority of Arizonans that would likely not support this bill, and they don't give a damn about how it would hurt the economy of Arizona if Governor Brewer signs it. All they care about is themselves.
  • Independent
    Widefield, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Yes Notre Dame should be allowed to expel gays or those who violate the precepts of the religion that runs the school. (Most American Cardinals disagree with the Vatican on the contraception issue BTW, so I doubt they'd expel people for using contraception. The Catholic Church has even talked about ending that restriction several times in the past, its the more conservative Cardinals in Europe that block it from changing) It is a CATHOLIC COLLEGE. To force them to allow openly gay students is just as much a violation of separation of Church and State as forcing an Atheist to pray at a public (secular) school. Or would you force everyone to believe Atheism? Do you not realize that would be establishing a federal religion, a direct violation of the 1st Amendment? Freedom of religion is one of the founding principles of this country, that also means that religious institutions should not be forced (they can choose to and some do) to act in a way directly opposed to that religion. However non-religious businesses (the pizzeria for example) are established as secular businesses and should be subject to secular law. Schmidt, I know you don't like the Bible, but in this case I think Jesus said it best... "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God's"
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Ranmamoj -- I won't argue or disagree with you. I've learned long time ago not to argue religion with religious people. I'm glad though that not all religious institutions view the first amendment the way you do. Notre Dame has seen the light:

    Huffington Post, December 5, 2012: Notre Dame Announces Plans For LGBT Student Organization After Extensive Push

    "Great news for Notre Dame's lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender student body: officials have announced plans for university-recognized LGBT student organization.

    "The South Bend Tribune reports that the group was announced as part of a "comprehensive pastoral plan" that includes more support and services for LGBT students and allies. That university-wide plan also includes an array of initiatives based on the University of Notre Dame's Catholic mission, the publication notes."


    I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that Notre Dame, especially their football program is big business.

    Notre Dame No. 2 in ranking of football riches, IU tops Purdue

    "Florida State may be the BCS national champion, but when it comes to cash flow and valuation, the Seminoles can’t touch Texas and Notre Dame.

    "Those two college football programs are head-and-shoulders—financially speaking—above the rest according to a recent study released by Indiana University finance professor Ryan Brewer."


    So Arizona will go the way that Notre Dame did in 2012. They will have to embrace the LGBT community or see the revenue from tourism drop like a rock.

    Money trumps religious beliefs and those bishops are not going to jeopardize a major source of income over some religious doctrine. And neither will Governor Brewer.
  • Independent
    Widefield, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt, I never said that they couldn't allow LGBT students, just that they should not be forced to allow since they are a religious institution.
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Denton, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    RanmaMOJ Wrote: Schmidt, I never said that they couldn't allow LGBT students, just that they should not be forced to allow since they are a religious institution.
    So you are saying that we should be allow people to discriminate based on some sort of superstition? Let's say that the Mormon church still recognized dark skin as a punishment from God. Now let's say that there is a school that would be Mormon church version of Notre Dame. Should that school be allowed to exclude all dark skin people from it's walls? What sort of measures should be in place to prevent people from claiming they are allowed to discriminate other races based on religious beliefs? Or should there be none at all?

    Better question still, why should someone's religious affiliation grant them some sort of legal immunity or give them special legal priviledges over other people? Shouldn't all people have to obey the same laws as other people?

    The First Amendment allows freedom of religion. This means that people are allowed practice their own religion.... to an extent. The point where religious practice starts to violate someone else's rights is the point were religious freedom stops. But this is essentially true for most actions and is not a special clause which is limited to just religion. For example, I am legally allowed to swing my fists around all I want, whether it's part of my religion or not. But my right to swing my fists freely stops at another person's face (technically well before that, but the point is clear).

    Polygamy is currently outlawed. There are legal grey areas for animal sacrifice. Burnt offerings must adhere to fire codes. Human sacrifice is clearly outlawed. Marrying children and/or sex with minors is outlawed. People need to remember that freedom of religion does not mean freedom from laws or consequences. Religious people should be expected to obey the same rules as everyone else and not expect special treatment.

    Essentially, if you let Notre Dame exclude certain people for religious reasons, then you should let every other private establishment, business, school, etc exclude people for whatever reason they want.
  • Independent
    Widefield, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Zach, I am not going to get into a theological discussion. I've already provided a limit to it, and that is places that are defined as Religious institutions. Or shall we force Catholic Priests to perform same sex marriages?

    As for your legal grey area's, lets look at that... Polygamy is currently outlawed for purely religious reasons and I feel polygamy should be allowed provided all involved are of age and in agreement. Animal sacrifice, regardless of purpose, is illegal (and no current religion uses it, only cults). Burnt offerings ended centuries ago, before the laws changed. Care to name one actual religion that ALLOWS marrying children and/or having sex with minors?

    Separation of Church and State works both ways. The 'Church' should stay out of what is clearly secular business just as the secular should stay out of what is clearly 'Church' business. (By 'Church' I mean religions in general) One last thing Zach, would you support telling Native American's they can no longer use peyote?


  • Center Left
    Independent
    Denton, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    RanmaMOJ Wrote: Zach, I am not going to get into a theological discussion. I've already provided a limit to it, and that is places that are defined as Religious institutions. Or shall we force Catholic Priests to perform same sex marriages?

    As for your legal grey area's, lets look at that... Polygamy is currently outlawed for purely religious reasons and I feel polygamy should be allowed provided all involved are of age and in agreement. Animal sacrifice, regardless of purpose, is illegal (and no current religion uses it, only cults). Burnt offerings ended centuries ago, before the laws changed. Care to name one actual religion that ALLOWS marrying children and/or having sex with minors?

    Separation of Church and State works both ways. The 'Church' should stay out of what is clearly secular business just as the secular should stay out of what is clearly 'Church' business. (By 'Church' I mean religions in general) One last thing Zach, would you support telling Native American's they can no longer use peyote?


    The Bible has many instances of men marrying young girls, trading young girls into the sex industry and is completely fine with it. The ideas of age of consent and minors is extremely new. Very few religions still practice this. The Mormon church would be one, though they do it in secret for obvious reasons. Additionally, I'm fine with polygamy. What a bunch of consenting adults do is not of my business as long as they are not infringing on the rights of other people. I just used it because it is still part of the list of illegal things in the U.S. that tend to belong to religious practices.

    Also, there really isn't much of a difference between a religion and a cult. The only major differences are how many people follow it and if it is recognized by the state.

    The thing with Notre Dame is that education is not strictly "church business." It is a public good. Something that benefits society as a whole. If a Church doesn't want to recognize gay marriage, then they don't have to. If they don't want to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples, then they don't have to. The state however, should not be able to deny people in this way. But what does sexual orientation have anything to do with education?

    As for the peyote question. My answer is this, either everyone should be able to use it or no one should. Equal under the law. No bias nor preferential treatment from the state. I imagine Notre Dame receives government funding for their services, so they would not be strictly non-religious
  • Independent
    Widefield, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    You'll have to tell me where in the Bible that is, because I don't recall sex trade being in there. As for the Mormons, outside of when the FLDS was controlled by Warren Jeffs (one man who went against the established law of the FLDS) I doubt you can name a time when the Mormon church has allowed it. Let me ask you this... What real science is there to the theory of Evolution as it is taught in school? That Humans evolved from apes. Microevolution (adaptation especially on a microscopic level) has been proven, but Macroevolution (the changing of one species to another) has never been proven. There are gaps in the fossil records so those who believe in evolution INFER what the evidence means. How is that any different than looking at the limited evidence and inferring that a higher power created something? And yet you support teaching one RELIGION's view of how life came about and feel it violates your rights to be taught Creationism (despite the actual evidence for either being scant and based on inference) because it would force you to act (listening being the act) in a way contrary to your beliefs. Would I be wrong on my inference on why you would be against creationism being taught in schools?