Skip to comments.Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer expected to veto 'religious freedom' bill
Posted on 02/26/2014 6:25:31 AM PST by SeekAndFind
All signs indicate Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer will likely veto politically-charged legislation that supporters say promotes religious freedom and opponents contend discriminates against gays and lesbians.
Brewer did not signal her intention either way in an exclusive interview with CNN on Monday at the National Governors Association meeting in Washington.
"I can assure you, as always, I will do the right thing for the state of Arizona," she said.
But some Arizona Republicans who know her well say they are confident those comments mean Brewer will almost surely reject the bill that is generating nationwide controversy.
The Republican-led measure would allow Arizona business owners to deny service to gay and lesbian customers as long as they assert their religious beliefs.
Brewer is scheduled to return to Arizona on Tuesday, and a source tells CNN those familiar with her thinking say she will likely spend at least one full business day in the state before acting.
"I'm going to go home, and when I receive the bill, I'm going to read it and I'm going to be briefed on it. We have been following it. And I will make my decision in the near future," Brewer told CNN.
She has until Saturday to sign or veto the bill. If she does nothing, it automatically becomes law.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
John McCain, Other Republicans, Break With Party Over Controversial Religious Freedom Bill Slammed as Discriminatory Against Gays
And more here:
Mitt Romney Surprisingly Urges Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer to Veto Controversial Religious Freedom Bill; Republicans Think She Will
Any word from Cruz?
I saw Paul Ryan this morning, he would not comment one way or the other.
Good. Horrible bill for Christians. Just horrible.
Muslim Doctor refuses to give emergency treatment to Christian. Do I really need to go on and on and on with a list. Constitutional rights are NOT absolute. This is like giving people a First Amendment right to yell “fire” in a crowded theater. It’s like giving Second amendment rights permitting someone to walk into my home with a gun.
Hey GOP. Ya know it’s actually OK to give us some people that are, I dunno ... smart.
Conservatives need to ID the nitwits that came up with this idiocy and Primary them. (if they have Primaries in State elections there)
Of course she will.
The GOP wants to deny the Democrat talking points which will surely follow - in an ELECTION year - about how awful Republicans are to yet another protected victim class.
And besides, even if she does veto it, a 2/3 majority of the state legislature can override the veto.
Our nation is falling ever faster - we will not make it to the 2016 elections - God has given us plenty of time (and reason) to turn back to Him - we have chosen our path, and it is the way of death.
Yeah ... that’s Paul all over.
Cruz should come out HARD against this “carte blanche to discriminate against Christians Act. I am getting really tired of our “leaders” waiting to see which way the wind blows.
Someone needs to lead. So far, no one is.
Absolutely correct, except not at all.
Ignore that the media is saying about the bill and read this excellent piece about what it actually is: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3127170/posts
It has nothing to do with “gays””.” Or homosexuals either for that matter. Has anyone actually read it?
I’m not as anti-Ryan as some here.
He said he wasn’t familiar with the issue, and I sort of believed him.
I think Ryan got off to a bad start, but am willing to keep him in mind for now.
He’s a good public speaker.
True. And world-famous gay guy George Takai is threatening to destroy the State of Arizona with his awesome economic power. Knowing Brewer, none of that is necessary because she planned on vetoing it the instant she heard that "Freedom" was in the title.
With friends like these who needs enemies?
RE: And besides, even if she does veto it, a 2/3 majority of the state legislature can override the veto.
OK, next question, does the Arizona legislature have the 2/3 needed?
RE: It has nothing to do with gays. Or homosexuals either for that matter. Has anyone actually read it?
And that my friend is the problem right there... it does not explicitly mention gays, therefore, it is SO GENERAL that it could allow discrimination based on race or ethnicity simply because it violates a person’s religion ( whatever it is ).
RE: Ignore that the media is saying about the bill and read this excellent piece about what it actually is: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3127170/posts
And that my friend is the problem right there... it does not explicitly mention gays, therefore, it is SO GENERAL that it could allow discrimination based on race or ethnicity simply because it violates a persons religion or conscience ( whatever it is ).
Read it, then tell us if you really believe it is a substantial burden for a muslim doctor to provide emergency care to a Christian, and that there is no compelling state interest in the matter.
I do wish people would read it before trying to instruct others about what it says.
RE: Muslim Doctor refuses to give emergency treatment to Christian.
OK, let’s argue that.... SO WHAT?
The Christian has no recourse to see other doctors?
Let’s say an idiotic, cruel, racist businessman refuses to service a Vietnamese because he hates Vietnamese, the Vietnamese then has no recourse to do business with others?
What about freedom of association?
The fundamental question then is this — DO PEOPLE HAVE RIGHTS NOT TO ASSOCIATE WITH OTHERS REGARDLESS OF REASON?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.