Skip to comments.How business went 'DEFCON 1' in Arizona
Posted on 02/28/2014 8:13:35 AM PST by C19fan
As Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer prepared to make a career-defining decision whether to veto a bill that would free business owners to discriminate on the basis of their religious preferences a letter arrived at her office early this week with a stern warning from some of the biggest names in the local business community. Signed by the heads of four Arizona business consortiums, with board members including officers of Bank of America, Intel and the Arizona Cardinals football franchise, the letter urged Brewer to strike down the measure known as S.B. 1062. The letter raised the prospect that the legislation could stain Arizonas national reputation and touch off a wave of unpredictable litigation thanks to the bills broad, vague wording.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Told you all
No one cares about homos
EVERYONE cares about money
I guess what I don’t understand is that if those businesses want to cater to homosexuals they still could. What does it matter to them if another business doesn’t want to? If it is such a great idea to do so, wouldn’t they make more money? If nothing else, what’s it to them what other businesses do?
What needs to happen is a change must be made in the boardrooms of these companies. Christ followers need to start LIVING their faith.
Additionally, education needs to be focusing on REAL freedom and tolerance, not the perversion being touted today.
Warning to C of C Members:
When the Tea Party comes to power (and sooner or later, we will) it won’t be nearly as “business friendly” as it would have been four or five years ago.
A lawyer friend of mine pointed out that the REAL problem is how to force homos to self-identify. Force them to wear pink triangles? That’s been tried.
Since demanding someone’s papers in Arizona has already been struck down by the courts, this opens up the state—and the active business—for expensive discrimination lawsuits.
Not to mention the loss of tourist dollars.
I don’t know that the law would have “allowed” business owners to discriminate. So far as I know, there is no general non-discrimination law covering other than defined protected categories, and sexual orientation isn’t one of those.
Free to be a homosexual but not a conservative....
In modern times, the Republican Party has been composed of a fusion of social conservatives, businessmen, and defense hawks. Social conservatives are the useful idiots in this troika.
The problem is the large number of businesses threatening to pull out of the state or at least drastically reduce their presence. When you put up a big “don’t do business in AZ” flag a lot of money stops coming in.
No wonder the economy is in the toilet when its being run by these clowns.
The lavender mafia strikes again. Thanks for the list of companies that I will refuse to do business with in the future, along with any business residing in Arizona. The governor you elected caved to intimidation tactics, and the voters there now get to pay the price. Maybe the 2% of the population who are gay will pick up the slack, but I highly doubt it. Trading your constitutional right in for profits and acceptance by hostile groups will only lead you to ruin.
Pretty arrogant, considering that it's the represenatives of the state of Arizona who created and passed the legislation.
It is EASY to spot a fag: Mention Fox News. They will instinctively turn up their nose.
"And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord."
They chose the Sodomites.:(
The truth about homosexual behavior.
Warning: very graphic-
Male Homosexual Behavior
1 Timothy 6:10
“Fag” is so crass.
I prefer “Buttbuddy.”
A more sophisticated ring.
Big business is afraid of small business. Crony capitalists protecting their own.
“...And that no man might buy or sell,
save he that had the mark,
or the name of the beast,
or the number of his name.”
They talk about the ‘vague wording’ inviting lawsuits, but when the SAME LAW was passed by Congress (INCLUDING DEMOCRATS) and signed by President CLINTON, nothing like this happened.
Hypocrisy, plain and simple.
I prefer Queer or Fudge Packers.
I am not going to be nice to them nor treat them as harmless.
My only problem with vague wording was that the bill did seem to put the government and/or courts in charge of deciding what was a “sincerely held” religious belief.
“A lawyer friend of mine pointed out that the REAL problem is how to force homos to self-identify.”
Lawyer friend doesn’t sound too bright. The law simply required no one to ever discuss their sex life or anything else. The law was to protect business owners from being FORCED to celebrate homo events. That’s all. That if homos came in to a photographer, and said we want to hire you to attend our gay wedding, and make beautiful photos of our perversion, the photographer couldn’t be sure for politely refusing.
So ‘Turd Burglar’ won’t work either, hmmm, maybe ‘Rump Ranger’ for those in the military.
I’m done with the NFL. It’s become a freak show. It just occurred to me I can live without the hour and 15 minutes worh of commercials I have to watch during every game.
The NFL where rape, murder, drank driving and hedonistic excess are the cultural norms, but Chritians are REQUIREd to cater to the gay lobby.
Yeah, it’s about money, all right, and I’ll keep mine away from them.
“Turd Burglar” is vulgar.
A friend of mine from London prefers “Nancy Boy.”
That has a delicate, Continental influence.
Much better than the chav “pooftie.”
My lawyer friend graduated from Duke with a 4.00.
He currently makes 250,000 plus.
“Dumb,” I don’t think so.
However, book-learnin’, he’s got lots of, and that makes him suspect on this forum.
/The Right of Association has long since been eliminated by Federal Courts, and is NOT a Constitutional right. Not saying that’s right, but it is reality.
“Nancy boy” is as misleading as “gay”. It brings to mind a nice, clean, neat, well-dressed hairstylist or interior decorator.
The filthy, coprophilic practice of homosexuality can only be described accurately by “crass” terms.
They're certainly appropriate. If the folks celebrating "gay" had to think about the reality of what the homosexuals are doing, it would immediately become much less attractive.
They never ask for tax cuts. They get tax loopholes written whenever they need them. They are an arm of government, and should not in any way be confused with free market capitalist entities.
The CoC is actually against tax cuts. The loopholes you mentioned are just another way of getting the upper hand on the competition. It’s like regulations...CoC types *love* regulations.