Pressure mounts over Arizona bill opposed by gays

AP ^ | February 24, 2014 | Bob Christie

[C19fan]

Republican Gov. Jan Brewer faced intensifying pressure Monday from CEOs, politicians in Washington and state lawmakers in her own party to veto a bill that would allow business owners with strongly held religious beliefs to deny service to gays and lesbians.

[what's up]

If I were a baker in AZ and someone told me they wanted a cake, I’d make it. I don’t want to nor need to know the details. That’s their business

Gay marriage keeps us from opening a cottage rental business. There would be a lot of gay clients around here; we can't in good conscience enable that.

The ones who are the worst effected by all this are the kids in our society who are being damaged by hearing that homosexuality is a some kind of civil right. They are going to be deprived of normal relations later and a happy home life because of the perversions being promoted.

And BTW I lay all this junk largely at the feet of Bill Clinton who taught kids that BJ's with interns was OK.

[Mr. K]

The arizona bill says the opposite, doesn’t it?

[stanne]

What people are stupidly ignoring is the evidence that kids learning about sex before puberty is messing them up never mind perverted or abnormal sex

It is extremely abusive and will certainly mess them up

[stanne]

Nope

I would get out of the business of selling figurines.

They are relentless in their push for acceptance, however and it won’t stop there.

[JohnnyM]

So the answer to all these problems is to allow business owners to handle their property in any way they decide. Now, given the current cultural and political climate, that is an impossibility, so we have to work with what we got.

Now I see no problem with Muslim cab drivers refusing passengers with dogs or who are possessing alcohol, whether the reason is religious or not. A plumber can refuse to fix the plumbing at an abortion clinic or a lawyer can refuse clientele that he would feel uncomfortable defending. And they can do this legally, so why refuse these same privileges to the cab driver.

Now, what all these actors currently cannot do, by law, is discriminate solely based on race, sex, and in some states sexual orientation. So the cabbie could not refuse a fare because they are black, and the plumber could not refuse to fix a Christian's plumbing, and the lawyer could not refuse clientele because they are gay.

Now what the Arizona bill does is allow for individuals to be protected from state coercion to do things that violate their conscience as long as it passes a certain threshold of scrutiny. This is a step in the right direction, which is people being free to do with their property as they choose, and should be applauded.

So it will not protect a business owner who refuses to serve someone because of their orientation, assuming the state has laws against such discrimination, but it will allow them to refuse to participate in such events that go against their faith.

The Hobby Lobby case is in the same vein. The Arizona law would protect Hobby Lobby from having to provide and pay for abortifacient health care coverage, because it violates their conscience.

-JM

[what's up]

that kids learning about sex before puberty is messing them up

Correct.

We all know that socialists have always had a thing about indoctrinating the you.

Well, they are now doing it in the most perverse way possible.

[ZULU]

Sorry. I think the Butt bangers will loose out in the long run.

[Cyber Liberty]

It’s not just “acceptance,” they’ve moved into “forced commerce.”

[MikeyB806]

Interesting indeed. So what would the comments be if Muslim cab drivers refused to carry homosexual passengers?

[RightOnTheBorder]

It does but that is why I call it a band-aid or a fix to the current civil rights legislation which is based on the deeply flawed notion that government should determine what discrimination is legitimate and what is illegal.