Posted on 02/27/2014 7:42:15 AM PST by cleghornboy
Writing for the Associated Press, Bob Christie reports that, "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. Loud cheers erupted outside the Capitol building immediately after Brewer made her announcement Wednesday night.
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.'
And she chastised the GOP-controlled state Legislature for sending her a divisive bill instead of working on a state budget that continues her economic expansion policies or an overhaul of Arizona's broken child welfare system, her top priorities.
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.'
(Excerpt) Read more at lasalettejourney.blogspot.com ...
Could a business like a wedding photographer simply lie and say they were not available on the date of a gay couple trying to book a wedding photo shoot?
I don’t even see why it has to be about religion at all.
The more important point is why should the government be telling people who they should work for? A person should not be forced to work for anyone, for any reason at all, doesn’t have to be a religious reason.
I feel this very important point is being missed by everyone.
I’m actually very disturbed that my company, which has offices in Phoenix, recently sent out an email stating that they supported Brewer’s decision to veto the bill as it was “a direct violation of our commitment to diversity and inclusion.”
Freaking barf.
How different is this, really, than when a nurse who works in a hospital obstetrical unit refuses to participate in an abortion? I am in a state where this is protected, so a nurse cannot be fired for having to partipate in something she considers sinful.
Here’s hoping they override her.
They could, but they still might get sued.
Under this new regime, even if you don’t know someone is gay and you really are booked up on that date or don’t have the staff to take on a particular project and decline the work, you can be sued for discrimination!
That is what is so perverse about all this. There is ZERO discretion left to the business owner. We are all now slaves.
Unfortunately most large companies seem to be thinking there will be long term control by “progressive” forces in the US and are attempt to buy “protection” and/or join the crony capitalist ranks.
The list of contributors to Podesta’s Center for American Progress looks like a Who’s Who of US business.
I am still very curious as to whether any of these anti-freedom gay couples actually got their cake or photographs through this kind of coercion. Have there been any reports on the photographers or bakers who were ordered by the court to provide their services? Were the customers satisfied with the results? Who wants a wedding cake from an evil Christian baker any how? If actually purchased, was the cake thrown in the trash because there was a back-up cake baked by someone who didn’t care about this issue? How about the photographers? Everything in focus and framed well?
Jan just said the State can force you to provide services to someone you don’t want to, and further, your religious beliefs don’t matter.
Wait til they go after the churches for refusing to marry them. That is the endgame.
Pray America wakes up
This makes me sick to my stomach. What a sad day this is.
Has Jan Brewer just amended the First Amendment of the Constitution without a convention? Not only on the free exercise of one's religion; but, also the free speech of a citizen.
Are we now not allowed to say "no" to something that offends our religious beliefs; are we no longer allowed to speak out on this particular subject?
Would you trust a baker who didn’t want to bake your cake or a photographer who didn’t want to take your pictures?
Why would you want to do business with them if you knew they were reluctant to handle your work request?
It’s already happening in the UK
Often times the decision to pass a law has more to do with it's likelihood of surviving a supreme court challenge than it's intention. This may not be the best bill for that purpose even though on the surface it seems that the first amendment right would trump the fears of gays.
When we lose the freedom of association-—which is a guaranteed in our Constitution-—we are not free. It is that simple. No one should be able to “force” people to “serve” anyone-—and when we don’t have the choice-—it is fascism.
We should be able to turn anyone away for whatever reason from our business/personal property-—anything else ends in “thought crime” type material and meddling from the State (unconstitutional).
We should be responsible for our own decisions-—that there is the problem-—we do not allow people true freedom. They have EVERY RIGHT TO DISCRIMINATE. If we are immoral/racist/whatever-—then, people (if virtuous) would avoid that business and it would fail.
As Socrates stated.....Without Virtue, people can not be Free. Either we are Free and are moral.
Or we are so immoral, that we have to be controlled by the State-—in even the basic freedoms like who we associate with.
The ‘inclusive’ crowd have no idea...this law would actually have protected their own delicate self interests.
I’m forecasting skinhead themed weddings, where they force a Jewish caterer to work it.
How about the Phelps group having a wedding, where they force a lesbian cake decorator to write a pejorative statement about gays on the cake.
Maybe the Klan can stop that black barbershop that Obama made famous, take off their hoods, and demand a haircut.
Hey, I guess its ‘ok’ to force people to go against their beliefs. Turn the tables on them.
We already have the Bill Of Rights in the Constitution. If those are gone no amount of legislation will bring them back.
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.