Posted on 02/28/2014 8:21:26 AM PST by Sioux-san
Perhaps Arizona governor Jan Brewer was sincere when saying that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (SB 1062) she vetoed yesterday could “create more problems than it purports to solve.” After all, observers such as Napp Nazworth at The Christian Post contend that SB 1062 might actually — contrary to all the hysteria — have made it harder for most business owners to refuse service to homosexuals. This analysis may have merit and can be read here, but it’s irrelevant to a larger point:
The GOP’s handling of this matter was a good illustration of conservatism’s fatal flaw.
Whatever the legal realities, about something we can be sure: many conservatives believed in SB 1062. And as with the three GOP lawmakers who voted for the bill but turned against it after the heat was turned up, many of those conservatives caved under great pressure from greedy businesses, limp-wristed neo-con artists (John McCain) and that great leftist public-relations team (the media).
I’ve long lamented that conservatives are conservative; that is to say, they play defense and just try to protect the status quo, which was, though conservatives generally appear oblivious to the fact, created by yesterday’s liberals.
So they never actually try to rescind those efforts at thought control called hate-crime laws, but just hope to limit the scope of new proposals for them. They never really endeavor to eliminate government programs and bureaucracies; they just aim to slow down their metastasizing.....
...Some will balk at my argument, saying that my position on freedom of association would allow businesses to discriminate even on the basis of race or sex. The answer to this is illustrated with a simple analogy: does freedom of speech mean anything if only extended to popular speech?
(Excerpt) Read more at stubbornthings.org ...
Republicans losing to the lone biker of the apocalypse?
Arizona has a Repub Gov & Senator...and we still lost?
Gee there must be a template for the 1000 articles that repeat the same leftist propaganda.
She could have neither signed nor vetoed. It would have automatically become law without her ‘complicity’.
She is a lame duck leaving office in less than a year. Her motivations escape me. She had better not run for a house or senate seat.
Like most of the GOP she is pro-homo.
I think the Law while good intentioned concerning religious freedom and government overreach it was just plainly worded wrong. Here is a few things I would have changed.
1. Remove the word Religion - Religion is a hotword that causes all the MSM and weak spined RINO-crats to get all worked up in a tizzy dizzy. (I hate doing it, but it removes whole invalid as it may be sepration of church and state weasel words the libs like to use to get bills killed intheir tilted courts.)
2. Replace the word “Business” with “Artisan”
3. Rename the bill to “Artistic Expression Protection Act”
4. Re-word the bill to emphasize “Commissioned Work or individualized Consumer Products” are a product of an Artist and you cannot legally compel an Artist under force of law to produce something using their own artistic talent that is against their own personal beliefs or customs or if they are are uncomfortable with the subject matter.
5. Make sure the Bill also defines that any occupation involving an artistic services like Photography, Disc Jockey, Gourmet Catering, Entertainment, or Cultural Ceremonies are also covered by the “Artistan Rights” as well.
This would be how you write a bill that could easily pass even in a blue state that would prevent the bullying abuse that we see when a caterer or photographer is bullied by a group that wishes to make a point by bullying.
It is not just about Religion, but about protecting the occupation of an artist as well as their artistic expression.
I ask you, how would a conservative feel if they were forced to cater a luncheon for a bunch of commies against their will? How would a Stanist Sculptor feel about beign forced to sculpt a sculpture or Jesus (not that I actually give a damn).
This would protect Poltical groups as well as Religious groups as well.
That’s an excellent approach that might work. Of course, with all stepping-stone assaults by the Left, I would have to agree with Bill Donahue who believes that the ultimate goal is to force gay marriage into the churches that dare to resist.
I think she is mostly pro “how she looks to the media”
[ That’s an excellent approach that might work. Of course, with all stepping-stone assaults by the Left, I would have to agree with Bill Donahue who believes that the ultimate goal is to force gay marriage into the churches that dare to resist. ]
That is why i thought that using artisan as the primary focus of the bill would work great because then you could logically use it to cover the BOTH the religious and poltical beliefs of the artisan. I mean imagine this scenario.
A Liberal goes into Conservative printshop and orders up 100,000 flyers that are pro communist, he says no, the Liberal forces them to print the flyers and there is a spelling mistake etc... Now since the covservative was forced into doing this (by government decree)... The Liberal would be justified (under the law precedent and past history) to sue the conservative print shop for “sabotaging a product with malicious intent” even if the mistake was unintentional...
No one has thought of this scenario.... but it could lead to this...
There. I fixed it.
They keep getting gang banged, lied to, robbed and kicked in the teeth, but they keep voting for those in the entrenched Republican party club...
It's amazing...
Also, big business said they'll move out of Arizona. I think Jan did the right thing, because I think if you don't want to do business with any group, you should have the right to REFUSE SERVICE.
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.