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 ...
RE: The exercise of a particular instance of discrimination may be morally wrong as far as YOU’RE concerned. But the freedom to choose is a God-given and right or wrong, it is the exercise of God-given liberty, as long as it doesn’t interfere with the life and liberty of another. You’re standard of morality is not necessarily the same as another’s standard pf morality. The morality issue is debatable.
____________________________________________
I agree with the second paragraph of your post:
“What isn’t debatable is the Constitution gives the federal government NO AUTHORITY to interfere with an individual or a business in their freedom of choice.”
However I take issue with the sentence: “The moral issue is debatable”
If so, it begs the question -— is it REALLY OBJECTIVELY, MORALLY WRONG to discriminate against a person based solely on his race or ethnicity?
You mentioned God.... well, is it an offense against the moral law of God to be a racist?
I say it is. What say you?
Got it... but if that muslim is a doctor and you’re the patient, your choices may be a bit more limited.
Just have to watch the Pandora’s Box possibilities, that’s all.
RE: but if that muslim is a doctor and you’re the patient, your choices may be a bit more limited.
Is the muslim the only doctor in America?
Last time I check, Muslims are only 0.8% of America’s population. There are better doctors I can go to.
Besides, if he hates me as an infidel, why would I want him treating me? He might even do a bad job deliberately.
Let him limit his patients to Muslims. Let’s see how long his business survives.
NFL can now be referred to as the National Flamer’s League.
Probabaly not. As it is. three state senators who voted yes have changed their minds.
It also doesn’t allow anything like what you’ve describing.
And even if it did, why is that a bad thing? Isn’t it the flip side of the Obamacare coin, in where we argue that the government has no right to compel an individual to buy a service? How can you make that case and also believe that the government can compel a service provider to provide a specific service to a specific person?
Not everything that is morally or ethically wrong needs to be illegal. Remember that government’s only tool is force, and you have to ask yourself the question: “am I willing to authorize the use of violence against people who violate this law?” The fact that we have so many laws where the answer is “no” is frankly a condemnation of our society.
So, what about the case where, say, a Mulsim doctor in an ER refuses to provide life-saving care to a patient because he’s Jewish? Well, from a purist sense, one could make the argument that it is a civil liability issue for the hospital/clinic for failing to ensure that all patients can be treated and possibly for the doctor himself if (s)he failed to let the hospital/clinic know of these objections.
But in practice, this is why the “religious freedom” law also specifies when the state CAN infringe on religious liberty. It requires that the state show that the law/regulation has a compelling government interest and uses the least infringing method reasonably possible to achieve that objective.
I think we can all agree that providing emergency medical treatment to anyone who rehires it is a compelling state interest.
A law or regulation that requires the FACILITY to provide such services certainly meets the test of minimal intrusion - it would not require a specific doctor to provide treatment if another is available, but would only so compel if that was the only doctor available. That places the absolute minimum burden on the doctor’s religious beliefs necessary to ensure the compelling government interest.
Now, to the issue at hand over why these laws are needed... is there a compelling government interest that a baker provide a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding? Of course not, and therefore, there’s no need to even bring the minimum intrusion argument to the table. Ditto for asking a Jewish or Muslim butcher to provide pork. Or a homosexual-owned print shop making “God hates fags” banners for the Westboro idiots.
Thanks for the info. It is what it is, unfortunately.
“Mitt Romney Surprisingly Urges Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer to Veto Controversial Religious Freedom Bill; Republicans Think She Will”
You mean the father of homo “marriage” in America? Or is there another Mitt Romney.
This particular case, however, is a state's issue, but the shadow of the feds looms large. States should be able to generally do what the majority of the people of that state wish. I don't agree with Brewer's decision if she vetoes this bill, but it's up to the people of the state to change this by election or state constitutional amendment if necessary. The people have great leverage at the state and local level. Ultimately, if necessary, one can move to another state that lines up closer to one's preferences. Far and away the biggest threat to our country is the federal government as when they try to muscle in on what a state is choosing to do.
In general, I would say that the healthiest of all societies is one that respects the life and liberty of each individual and that each adult individual has the (legal) right to exercise his freedoms and choices as long as it doesn't harm or interfere with another's freedom. A society like that fosters a culture where individuals have a high regard and respect for one another. It fosters a peaceable and happy society not unlike the first century or so of America.
Individuals and businesses have every right to discriminate however they want. There’s nothing wrong with personal discrimination. Discrimination (freedom to choose) is our God-given right.
Totally agree with papanew there.
If government forces a private business(like a doctor) to give service to some one that’s socialism/totalitarianism . a private business is like your home as it is your property (just as this site is) . you have a right to not let anyone into your home even if you advertise for a garage sale. you can kick out anyone out of your home . what you are advocating is empowering government to take over our individual rights . you trust government to make the right decision over a private business owner.
the key battle is between individual rights(right to ownership) and between the growth of government power. if you empower government in any area you lessen our rights and freedom and weaken the right to ownership: that is you advance socialist/government and tilt the balance to government over the individual. see the key battle we face is between collectivism/socialism and individualism/capitalism/freedom. if you own your property then you can self government. private property ownersship is the key . any lessening of that right with all these laws and regs chips away at that right to ownership(capitalism) and that is their goal( the socialists/democrasts/collectivists).
government just needs to leave us , our kids etc. alone
only military and border control for the federal gov
local govs can deal only with laws that prevent the use of force (assault, murder, kidnapping, stealing) etc. and just courts to act as referees where individuals can settle disputes of contracts , land, etc. courts with jury’s of your peers not gov morons deciding what’s right at any level. gov schools are an abomination, so is the EPA,IRS etc. No one can be deprived of their right to freedom,privacy , property with out the due process of law in a court of law and judged by a jury of your peers. government morons can NEVER make any law that doesn’t deal with protecting property rights or preventing force. government education? no way, gov healthcare and charity ? by what right do these democrat/government goons have to deprive us of our rights and property (half our income) to do fake global warming studies? so yes patents , property rights, no stealing , no murder, no harrassment etc. those can be written in a few laws, a few pages. everything else is not the province nor business of government.instead there are room fulls of laws that impose tyranny on us .
and i don’t agree with you on that post seekandfind . never. give me liberty or give me death
RE: and i don’t agree with you on that post seekandfind . never. give me liberty or give me death
I said a lot of things on my post, some of which I never disagreed with you. Which part do you disagree with?
Do you want the government to force a black-owned bakery to bake a cake for the KKK?
RE: Do you want the government to force a black-owned bakery to bake a cake for the KKK?
I actually would like to see that TESTED by a KKK member just for the heck of it...
There went her national ambitions.
Any word from Cruz?
(I’m serious)
Now that is funny.
She has until Saturday to sign or veto the bill. If she does nothing, it automatically becomes law.
BINGO
RE: BINGO
So, you’re saying she’ll just do nothing?
If so, this is one of the few times I hope she goes on vacation for a weekend.
If TRUE, then Jan "I ran the other way" Brewer is in essence a RINO/RINO Appeaser.
TanJan also signed AZ up for the 0Care exchanges, didn’t she? “RINO appeaser” is right.
No chance at override, some Republicans who voted for it have already flip flopped and I doubt it passed veto proof in the first place.
One flat out said “perception is all that matters”. They are worried about losing the Superbowl and major corporations. Can’t watch ESPN till this is over, the bastards are preaching on gay rights, one POS complained he’s “concerned” she’s poised to veto the bill because it could hurt the state’s image rather than because “it’s the right thing”. The right thing for a bakery to get sued to death if they won’t make a wedding cake for a couple of dykes.
I would have signed bill as soon as it crossed my desk.
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.