Posted on 02/27/2014 2:11:52 PM PST by SeekAndFind
The Arizona governors decision Wednesday to veto a bill widely seen as pitting religious protections against gay rights puts an end to two controversial amendments proposed by lawmakers.
But it leaves standing the states Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which continues to empower individuals to sue when they believe state or local laws including antidiscrimination laws are violating their religious rights.
In announcing her decision to veto the amendments, known as SB 1062, Gov. Jan Brewer (R) said that religious liberty is valued in Arizona. She added that the state also values the principle of nondiscrimination.
How those two goals coexist in Arizona in the future remains unclear. But it is clear from the governors veto that the potential downside of following through with the amendments outweighed the advantages.
I sincerely believe that SB 1062 has the potential to create more problems than it purports to solve, she said in a brief statement.
While the Brewer veto ends the current dispute in a way that appears to deliver a clear victory to gay rights advocates and their supporters, the underlying causes of the conflict remain unresolved.
On one side are Arizona residents seeking to live their lives in accord with traditional moral positions embraced in the Bibles Old Testament positions that condemn homosexuality. On the other side are gay men, lesbians, bisexual, and transsexual individuals fighting for equal rights and equal dignity in communities they also call home.
The Arizona Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) seeks to protect religious faith from coercive laws. That protection continues to exist throughout Arizona.
What is changing is a growing recognition of civil rights for gay Americans that is clashing with traditional religious teachings.
(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...
I think Gov Jan Brewer fell for the Willard is a Conservative and qualified leader of the TEA Party and Conservatives sham..
Since Willard was for the veto it had to be kosher errr cool...
I mean Willard wouldn’t steer her wrong would he ???
As indicated in related threads, civil rights in our constitutional republic are established by the states amending the Constitution to expressly protect specific rights. This is evidenced by the Bill of Rights. And the states have not amended the Constitution to protect so-called gay rights.
The bottom line is that gay activists, in cahoots with the corrupt media, are taking advantage of the fact that parents have not been making sure that their children are being taught how our constitutional rights work. Consequently, citizens don't understand that civil rights not based on constitutionally enumerated rights, corrupt politicians supporting such rights to win votes, activist judges also wrongly legislating such rights from the bench, are constitutionally indefensible.
So the ability to sue to have a judge compel someone else to provide a service to you against that person's will and in violation of that person's religious belief is now included in the definition of civil rights?
Is providing a sinner a business service a sin? Is that against the Christian faith?
If that service forces a Christian to provide a "wedding" cake for a ceremony of a union of sodomy when that Christian holds to the Scriptural teaching that marriage is a union of one man and one woman, then it violates the Christian's beliefs. And in a free society, no judge should have the power to compel anyone to perform that service.
Do you believe that a judge should have the power to compel a Jewish deli owner to cater a Neo Nazi rally on a Saturday afternoon and force him serve bacon cheeseburgers?
Do you believe that the courts should be able to compel a Muslim photographer to take photographs at a Bar Mitzvah and provide a nice album of the photos to the proud Jewish family?
Do you believe that Adam and Steve should be able to sue and get a judge to force Fred Phelps to officiate their very stylish wedding ceremony in the sanctuary at Westboro Baptist Church?
If a guy comes into the bakery and asks the bakery to make him a cake celebrating the fact that he is cheating on his wife, then the bakery should have the right to refuse to make the cake. If the same guy comes in and asks the bakery to make him a birthday cake, then the bakery should not have the right to refuse to make him the cake,at least based on religious reasons.
In the first example the guys is asking the bakery to make him a cake celebrating his sin. In the second example he is not.
I don’t why this is so hard to understand.
n one side are Arizona residents seeking to live their lives in accord with traditional moral positions embraced in the Bibles Old Testament positions that condemn homosexuality
Stopped right there. The Old & New Testament condemns homosexuality.
Next, are we going to force doctors and nurses to perform abortions because otherwise they are discriminating against a woman's right to choose and she also chooses the doctor's business service?
Brewer = COWARD.
A snag comes into play if the man asking for a birthday cake says the cake is for a homo friend. I believe a homo should have the right and opportunity to have a birthday cake but that right is not a proper action for someone else i.e. government to force another person to make the cake. For me the issue/matter is between two individuals each with their own free choice of action/resolution. The cake is just a ‘thing’ that forces a choice between two people.
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.
[ A snag comes into play if the man asking for a birthday cake says the cake is for a homo friend. I believe a homo should have the right and opportunity to have a birthday cake but that right is not a proper action for someone else i.e. government to force another person to make the cake. ]
Agree, However, A simple Generic Cake wioth Happy Birthday on it shouldn’t be an issue. The Baker would have no idea the guy is gay NOR would need to tell the baker he is gay UNLESS he makes a point to say so....
But if you are forcing a baker to make a Cake that looks like rear end or a giant set of “parts” then that crosses the line and there are specialty shops that would glaadly make that just not your friendly charistian or Jewish Custom Cake shop....
The Liberals are for “Art Censorship” as the Baker is an artist and forcing an artist to make something they would not mormally make under rule of law is CENSORSHIP.....
I am just wondering what happened to the “reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” that so many businesses used to do. I think if a business does not want to make cakes for a gay wedding, that should be their choice. If gays and those that support them wish to boycott a business that won’t make a wedding cake for a gay couple that should be fine too. What I do have a problem with is a lawsuit for not baking a cake for a gay wedding...or some government entity saying they must...
Correct, another good example is what if someone came in and they wanted a cake to celebrate having multiple spouses, iow polygamy. That would definitely be against my beliefs as well.
Why should the government force someone to make a cake for ANYONE!?
“I don’t like your haircut - No cake for you!!!”
RE: I am just wondering what happened to the reserve the right to refuse service to anyone that so many businesses used to do.
It has morphed into reserve the right to refuse service to anyone except minorities and LGBT’s”
EDIT TO ADD... however, Muslims still have that right.
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.