Several Arizona lawmakers backtrack on bill critics dub as anti-gay

Comments (9)
sabrefencer wrote:

never stand pat, on a bad hand…fold em, as soon as you can…it costs less….at least, those politicians, that are changing their opinions, to get rid of a law, that does the state ,country, harm…. are smart enough to do so….CONGRATS. not like our president and the likes of Nancy Pelosi…….they hold, till all around the country, lose everything….”you have to vote for it, to see what is in it” says it all…ughhhhhhhhhh

Feb 24, 2014 5:35pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Raelyn wrote:

You can find something on every subject in the Old Testament of the Bible, but you cannot find one word spoken by Jesus condemning homosexuality. When He said to love everybody, He meant everybody. The Christian religion has no bearing on homosexuality if you believe Jesus. Arizona looks a lot like Putin’s Russia these days.

Feb 24, 2014 8:12pm EST  --  Report as abuse
euro-yank wrote:

If I believe that my imaginary friend wants me to hate Republicans and refuse to do business with them… if I name him “god” can I get away with it in Arizona?

Feb 25, 2014 12:07am EST  --  Report as abuse
unicornhearts wrote:

Cathi Herrod is right, because she’s one of the ones who are harming and punishing US citizens for being how God made them. Hypocrite. Especially as a woman and fellow minority, she should be sympathizing with gays’ plight.

Sabrefencer, bush started 2 illegal wars, Obama ended them. There is nothing Obama or Pelosi think that they need to change their position. It’s the republicans who are out of touch with reality and they are slowly realizing it.

Feb 25, 2014 1:04am EST  --  Report as abuse
smitisan wrote:

Actually, the bill says nothing about businesses, but rather extends such “religious liberties” to persons. And if, as it states, the ‘”Exercise of religion” means the ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief,’ that would I suppose make the killing of witches legal in Arizona, and likewise killings BY witches. Interesting times.

Feb 25, 2014 11:40am EST  --  Report as abuse
DickMorrow wrote:

So these three Republicans are making an excuse that their vote should be negated because of a perceived mis-characterization of the law. Why not just stand up and admit you made a mistake, OR, are caving to pressure to do the right thing?

Feb 25, 2014 1:22pm EST  --  Report as abuse
KimBorland wrote:

“immeasurable harm” to Arizona’s national image. – TRANSLATION: Has hurt my chances of reelection.

Feb 25, 2014 2:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse
mugopine wrote:

The modern name for religion–almost any religion–is terrorism. Religion operates by convincing people that if they don’t follow the arbitrary rules, something horrible will happen to them. And religions do their best to carry out these threats. Since we do fight both domestic and international terrorism in the US, why don’t we go after these ‘religions’ who take so much pleasure in making life miserable for those people they don’t like, mostly because they are ‘different?

Feb 25, 2014 3:04pm EST  --  Report as abuse
MarkMann wrote:

The statement by the president of the conservative Center for Arizona Policy (which is pushing the bill), “But growing hostility against freedom in our nation, and the increasing use of government to threaten and punish its own citizens, has made it necessary,” could just as easily be applied to the disallowed freedom of gay Americans to marry. Double standard here? Passing this bill would “threaten and punish its own citizens” by preventing those who seek same-sex marriage. And what defines “sincere religious belief”? I sincerely and religously beieve that people who use drinking water to keep their lawns green during drought are “sinning.” Why can’t I refuse to do business with people who water their lawns because it is against my “religion”???

Feb 26, 2014 2:51pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.