Posted on 02/26/2014 6:25:31 AM PST by SeekAndFind
All signs indicate Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer will likely veto politically-charged legislation that supporters say promotes religious freedom and opponents contend discriminates against gays and lesbians.
Brewer did not signal her intention either way in an exclusive interview with CNN on Monday at the National Governors Association meeting in Washington.
"I can assure you, as always, I will do the right thing for the state of Arizona," she said.
But some Arizona Republicans who know her well say they are confident those comments mean Brewer will almost surely reject the bill that is generating nationwide controversy.
The Republican-led measure would allow Arizona business owners to deny service to gay and lesbian customers as long as they assert their religious beliefs.
Brewer is scheduled to return to Arizona on Tuesday, and a source tells CNN those familiar with her thinking say she will likely spend at least one full business day in the state before acting.
"I'm going to go home, and when I receive the bill, I'm going to read it and I'm going to be briefed on it. We have been following it. And I will make my decision in the near future," Brewer told CNN.
She has until Saturday to sign or veto the bill. If she does nothing, it automatically becomes law.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
There is something i really don’t like about this bill.
We really don’t need to pass laws which re-affirm other laws.
Right of association is all we should need.
The only exception (So Far) to right of association is racial discrimination which has been written into our laws for many decades.
The premise or precedence this new bill would establish (I think) would be that homosexuality and homosexual rights are on equal footing under the law with racial status.
This of course has already been going on for some time now, with non-discrimination phrases in law which include terms like sexual orientation in the same sentence with race/age/sex. However, Now it looks like we are attempting to give religious beliefs SPECIAL rights... and once you start doing that, then everyone else will demand equal opportunities.
Brewer should veto this, and expressly state why.
People simply do not understand what they are asking for with new (preventative) laws like this.
IN a nutshell, I see it as a redundant law that can ONLY confuse the application of existing law.
The legislative branch needs to STOP reacting to bad judges with BAD law... get rid of the bad judges instead.
If she signs it, some judge will overturn it.
Mob rule
Romney is weighing in? I thought he was out after last Monty’s trial balloon after Christie’s fail. These people are stupid
Dunno. Could be, They had enough of a majority to get it passed it in the first place, though.
Maybe some Arizona Freepers could elaborate on it.
While sad, this is also funny.
If the GOP said they agree with the rats on abortion and gay marriage, the rats would never win another election.
It would force rats to run on things like illegal immigration and Obamacare, issues which have overwhelming GOP support.
That’s fine.
I say she should take a stand on this.
Big time.
Homosexuality trumps religious freedom. Here come the lawsuits against the churches.
Pray America wakes up
State laws requiring segregation of blacks from whites are another matter and are unconstitutional (14th Amendment). The feds have a Constitutional right to interfere with state laws that require segregation of blacks form whites.
However, the feds have no other Constitutional authority to interfere with any other form of discrimination on the state level and the feds have no Constitutional authority to interfere with the God given right of individuals and businesses to exercise their freedom of discrimination (freedom to choose) as they see fit.
Did read it (it’s the lawyer in me lol). Absolutely that will be the case. Like I said, it’s like RICO which was passed ONLY to catch drug kingpins. Now, that is about 2% of the RICO prosecutions.
If there ever was a case of “be careful what you wish for”.
Don’t misunderstand me, I am all aboard something being done. But this will be a disaster in time.
Of course the media, anti-gay, we’ll lose business thing moves me not at all. The coming “Christian pogrom” ... well, that’s another matter.
And why is that a problem? In a truly free country, a private business owner should be able to turn away anybody they want for ANY reason they want, don't like ugly people? don't like fat people? don't like people with green eyes? It's your business, if you would rather lose the business from those people, that's your choice, you should be able to run it as you see fit.
honestly. if a Muslim doctor does not want to care for me in the ER, I don’t think I’d want him forced to. Go find a doctor that wants my money. Because if I die, it’s gonna be REALLY hard for me to write the check.
NO ONE should be forced to do work for someone they don’t want to (unless they are convicted and sent to prison/jail)
Muslim doctor does not want to work on Christians? ok. fire him and find someone who will.
Baker does not want to make a cake with 2 dudes on top, no problem. They can go find someone who will.
I went to a shop to have the plow repaired on my truck. First shop said “we don’t work on that brand” now I could have ran to a judge to force them too, or I could take it to the next place who gladly accepted my money.
it’s not really that hard to figure out.
The votes are not there for an override. Traitor Brewer’s word will be the last.
They said the same about Obama.. (good speaker) your point is?
Muslim Doctor refuses to give emergency treatment to Christian.
Neither the generality nor the specific case of a state licensed doctor has been substantiated sufficiently against the The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, S.B. 1062.
Cruz? Give it a break
A couple of lesbians Harris a NM business owner and take him to court, Arizona tries to preempt and provide harassment protection and lose because the tax exempt, loaded, NFL threatens Brewer pullout from the az Super Bowl. And you’re looking for Cruz to weigh in?!
There’s no winner here. The news media is misrepresenting this and Romney’s weighing in
It’s a circus
And it’s petty
Though it codifies the right of business owners to refuse service to homosexuals on religious grounds, would it not also let muslim business owners refuse service to, say, military veterans with service dogs, uncovered women, or in general “infidels”? Has that been addressed?
Just trying to look at the whole of the ramifications here.
RE: Individuals and businesses have every right to discriminate however they want. There’s nothing wrong with personal discrimination.
Actually, I have to disagree. Personal discrimination is sometimes MORALLY WRONG.
For instance, refusing to serve a person simply because he is black is MORALLY WRONG.
The issue however is this — in America and our constitution, is it the government’s job to tell you what is and is not moral?
If you are mean to others, should there be a law that outlaws meanness?
If the answer is no, then based on the fundamental law of this country, we’ll just have to live with the person’s meanness and ostracize him/her PERSONALLY. Why should the bureaucracy insert itself in the situation?
Yeah, real winners, both of them.
Somebody tell me why invented rights (such as the "right" to stick your pecker in somebody else's poop chute) should trump real constitutional rights such as the first amendment.
Pat Buchanan has it right here: repeal all civil rights legislation and fire the bureaucratic army of enforcers. It served a purpose in the 1960s, maybe even into the 1970s, but the concerns which spawned it no longer exist.
RE: Though it codifies the right of business owners to refuse service to homosexuals on religious grounds, would it not also let muslim business owners refuse service to, say, military veterans with service dogs, uncovered women, or in general “infidels”?
Yes it does. But again, so what?
If a Muslim refuses to service an infidel like me, then so be it. I don’t have to patronize his business.
He has the freedom to associate with whoever he wishes as long as he does not do me personal harm.
I’ll do business with someone else.
He’s not a democrat.
I believe Paul Ryan is unfairly clumped in with whatshisname, the nominee last time around.
That’s all.
He’s got a good head on his shoulders, and he primarily seems very smart.
He needs to stand for the right things (not sure yet whether he does) but he seems on balance on the right side of things, and he’s very electable.
That counts for a lot.
I’m just saying he seems very much on the ball.
I like him, and could (maybe) support him, depends on how he develops. That’s all I’m saying.
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.