Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 02/25/2014 4:49:35 AM PST by iowamark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: iowamark

If she vetoes this law (I hope she doesn’t), does this mean that Christian churches, as well as synagogues, will not be able to refuse to perform a pretend wedding for two mixed-up people of the same gender?

I am surprised that the homosexual mafia has not yet started coming after the Bible-believing churches. I suppose that will be next. God help us.


2 posted on 02/25/2014 4:54:29 AM PST by JudyinCanada
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: iowamark

Shame on the cowardly GOP members in the legislature now urging her to veto it. If Brewer does that, it’s the final nail in her political coffin. Sign the damn bill and protect Christians from the insane judiciary.


3 posted on 02/25/2014 4:55:34 AM PST by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: iowamark

If it gets vetoed, does that mean I can go to any women-only group/school/gym, tell them I am gay and they have to admit me?


6 posted on 02/25/2014 5:18:45 AM PST by AppyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: iowamark

A much better column than yesterday’s Jesus Baking a Cake nonsense!


8 posted on 02/25/2014 5:26:41 AM PST by miss marmelstein (Richard Lives Yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: iowamark

Is this the legislation we’re talking about? http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.pdf . If so, I don’t see how it could be controversial. It doesn’t grant any new rights, or rescind any existing rights.


9 posted on 02/25/2014 5:29:31 AM PST by BykrBayb (Somewhere, my flower is there. ~ Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: iowamark
Queers: "We are the 3.5%."
13 posted on 02/25/2014 5:48:12 AM PST by upchuck (South Carolina Representative Trey Gowdy for Speaker of the House!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: iowamark

I actually feel sorry for her. She is in a tough place right now. She is getting so much pressure from both sides. I think if it was just the gays that were pressuring her, it would not be a big deal. The straight’s are coming for her to not veto this. What is wrong with the “normal” people today?


17 posted on 02/25/2014 6:12:10 AM PST by napscoordinator ( Santorum-Bachmann 2016 for the future of the country!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: iowamark
The Constitution grants Religious freedom. Why are we going through all this BS?
It's like the Constitution is only being used as a guideline!
18 posted on 02/25/2014 6:16:21 AM PST by MaxMax (Pay Attention and you'll be pissed off too! FIRE BOEHNER, NOW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: iowamark

Looked at strategically, arguments can be made in either direction.

On the surface, Brewer should sign the bill. However, it will be immediately challenged in court, and so many federal judges now worship at the homosexual altar that it will likely be overturned and set a precedent. Remember that AZ falls under the millstone of the 9th Circuit.

Right now, we do not want this challenge to go before the US Supreme Court, because the duplicitous Justice Kennedy is almost guaranteed to vote in favor of homosexuality, making it a 5-4 liberal decision.

Right now, it is not easy to sue for such discrimination in AZ, but if this law is overturned, it may make it much easier to challenge the morality of businesses.

All told, federal judges will dictate to AZ’s elected leaders what they can and cannot do, so it is probably best that they are not given the opportunity.


21 posted on 02/25/2014 7:01:09 AM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy (WoT News: Rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson