Pressure mounts on Arizona governor to veto bill dubbed anti-gay

Comments (24)
4825 wrote:

A large part of our country’s founding was due to a desire for religious freedom. We should not force any citizen to violate their religious beliefs for any group or any reason. A mans religion is very important to him and is part of his being. There is separation of church and state for a reason. Our forefathers had insight into the issues that you can have when a government starts to impose on religious beliefs. We must be careful in this regard, it is a double edged sword that can cut from both sides.

Feb 25, 2014 8:51pm EST  --  Report as abuse
manVSfood wrote:

Tell me exactly how this violates someone’s religious beliefs. If this bill is vetoed, restaurant owners will now have to be forced to serve the LGBT community. A car dealership can’t turn away anyone from the LGBT community. Besides, how can you be sure that someone is gay or not gay if they’re a stranger? I could see a well-dressed man walking into a restaurant and the conversation going something like this:

Restaurant owner: “I’m sorry, but I don’t want to serve you because you’re gay.”

Customer: “I’m not gay, I just dress well.”

Restaurant owner: “Well, I think you’re gay, so I’m not going to serve you.”

Customer: “Uh, I’m not gay, how can I prove it to you?”

Restaurant owner: “Have sex with a woman and show me proof.”

Customer: “Goodbye.”

Feb 25, 2014 9:23pm EST  --  Report as abuse
AtypicalMale wrote:

I’m in pretty strong disagreement with the above comment. “Religious freedom” is a convenient “wink wink” methodology being used more and more often nowadays in an attempt to force Conservative mindsets upon all, from issues such as this one to attempts to put religious teachings back into public schools. An individual’s freedom to pursue their ‘religion’ is fine as long as it doesn’t directly negatively affect others, but once that line is crossed it oversteps what should be its bounds.

This is legislated allowance of bias which utilizes religion to attempt to permit / justify it, plain and simple.

Feb 25, 2014 9:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
f00 wrote:

A last flicker of freedom of association, all but dead, is going to be sacrificed on the altar of economic expedience. And “image,” of course.

Feb 25, 2014 9:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Davage wrote:

“Supporters of the Arizona measure argue that business owners, however, remain vulnerable to lawsuits should they refuse for religious reasons to provide services to gay couples.”

Replace “gay couples” with “black,” “female,” “Jewish,” or likewise.

Stupid bill is stupid.

Feb 25, 2014 10:01pm EST  --  Report as abuse
crod526 wrote:

These are NOT religious centers like churches. What about when someone decides to refuse service to someone of a different religion?. Its discrimination plain and simple just like in he old days they use to hide behind religious beliefs to deny services to mixed race couples.
It’s 2014 time to move on America.

Feb 25, 2014 10:13pm EST  --  Report as abuse
f00 wrote:

Anti-discrimination laws = destruction of freedom of association.

Sure, they’re the law of the land. Well then, said land has become a tyranny.

If someone wants to deny me service because of my ethnic group, etc., so be it. That should be his/her prerogative. I’ll simply take my business elsewhere.

Someone doesn’t like me, OMFG, the world is coming to an end. We’ve become a society of women, of both sexes.

Feb 25, 2014 10:25pm EST  --  Report as abuse
f00 wrote:

It wasn’t religious beliefs that led people to oppose miscegenation, it was the desire to preserve their kind and heritage.

Christianity may be a religion of submission, but it’s not racialist. It’s universalist to the core, so if a Christian is a “racist,” it’s despite their religion, not because of it. Christianity is used much more often to oppose racialism than to support it.

And to be fair, most “racists” in the world aren’t even Christian, they’re Buddhist/Confucian/Hindu Asians. Would you blame their racialism on their faiths?

Feb 25, 2014 10:37pm EST  --  Report as abuse
4825 wrote:

@f00- To answer your question above, no they would not because it does not fit their agenda.

Feb 25, 2014 11:05pm EST  --  Report as abuse
theovulator wrote:

It doesn’t matter. The governor will veto it. And if she doesn’t, it will be ruled unconstitutional. So the whole subject is moot.

And if there is a business, or other service entity, that harbors qualms about doing business with “certain others”, based on the former’s religious beliefs . . . Why wouldn’t they want to help deplete the assets of those that they disagree with, in providing goods and services at a profit?

Oh and f00. When you say “Christianity may be a religion of submission”, I think you accidentally or mistakenly meant to say “Islam”.

Feb 26, 2014 12:05am EST  --  Report as abuse
Speaker2 wrote:

@4825, bad logic, you cannot discrimination. Religion does not have carte blanch rights over everything. You cannot have multiple wives or smoke dope or sacrifice people among other thing, in the name of your religion.

The law is unconstitutional, plain and simple, just dumb lawmakers playing to their base, a number who voted for the law have reverse themselves.

Feb 26, 2014 1:16am EST  --  Report as abuse
mrnukem wrote:

Here is why I think the right wing of the Republican party has really messed up with this bill and done themselves more harm than they know. I am an American, straight man, 47 years old, been married 25 years, live outside of Arizona, not over religious, typical middle aged, white guy. I am pretty neutral on gay activism and think I share the opinion of a lot of heterosexual people in not really caring much if someone is gay, who am I to tell someone who they can and can not love, it’s not my business and I don’t give it much thought. Then a law like this comes up and in my gut I know it’s wrong, un-american, also being my age I am mindful of mid 20th century history where something like this law passes, then the door is opened for similar laws targeting other groups based on gender, religion ect and now they have taken me from a neutral party to gay rights and made me uncomfortable and a bit fearful and so here I am very concerned, very much opposed to a law like this and willing to be active in any way I can, by signing online petitions, e-mailing Arizona law makers and until this law gets overturned making sure I boycott anything I can that has to do with Arizona and finances. Do the actions of one old, straight, typical white guy make much of a difference? Not really, but you get thousands or tens of thousands of people like me involved and concerned then yes a difference can be made. At our core most of us know what is right and wrong and want to be on the side of what is right.

Feb 26, 2014 2:26am EST  --  Report as abuse
AlessandraRef wrote:

Watch liberals throw the 1st Amendment down the toilet live this week in Arizona. My prediction is that Brewer will cave in to the gay/liberal-stapo. This is the future – that is, the future is here and it’s homosexuality shoved down your throats through legislation and informal actions destroying any right to freedom of conscience or religion.

The 1st Amendment has been buried. It exists only as a joke and as a reminder of a bygone era where it once was taken seriously and had any real meaning.

Predictably, all the CINOs jumped on the opportunity to kiss the gaystapo’s behind to get them some pink/center votes for upcoming elections (Gingrich, Romney, both Arizona senators: John McCain (R) and Jeff Flake (R) – with Republicans like these, who needs liberals?)

Predictably as well, and equally disgusting, were the usual gaystapo corporations
trying to twist Brewer’s arm to veto the bill with all kinds of threats (Apple, Delta, the NFL – the NFL? Talk about the power of homosexuals to corrupt institutions). I do not want Apple deciding what is religious freedom in this country – and who can and cannot have it – or any other entity that thinks they can dictate law (and trample on the most fundamental freedom rights) simply because they have a pile of money.

I still don’t understand why people don’t grasp that refusing to serve or work with people who have a destructive sexuality agenda is a refusal to support a political ideology – a right which can never be banned and which can never be equated to refusing service to a person because they have dark skin. Conditioned people simply can’t think outside what they have been conditioned to think.

Feb 26, 2014 5:10am EST  --  Report as abuse
Rick0312 wrote:

mrnukem I was about to sit and expound as you have, but you have basically done it for me.I AGREE WITH THAT GUY!!!!! We are middle class white guys who could give a sh!@ about this and agree that this is not religious freedom, but just discrimination plain and simple. Arizona, do the right thing!! (as in correct)

Feb 26, 2014 7:58am EST  --  Report as abuse
Rick0312 wrote:

mrnukem I was about to sit and expound as you have, but you have basically done it for me.I AGREE WITH THAT GUY!!!!! We are middle class white guys who could give a sh!@ about this and agree that this is not religious freedom, but just discrimination plain and simple. Arizona, do the right thing!! (as in correct)

Feb 26, 2014 7:58am EST  --  Report as abuse
Rick0312 wrote:

mrnukem I was about to sit and expound as you have, but you have basically done it for me.I AGREE WITH THAT GUY!!!!! We are middle class white guys who could give a sh!@ about this and agree that this is not religious freedom, but just discrimination plain and simple. Arizona, do the right thing!! (as in correct)

Feb 26, 2014 7:58am EST  --  Report as abuse
sabrefencer wrote:

horrible , disgusting, bill…a blight on this country…anyone can be discriminated against..tall, short, fat, skinny, wheelchair, gay, homophobic, jews,catholics, Baptists…it is endless…we spent hundreds of years, abolishing, stupid dividing laws like this..now Arizona, wants to go backwards..shame on them….

Feb 26, 2014 9:51am EST  --  Report as abuse
digressor wrote:

Arizona – it’s really not that hot in summer – it’s a dry hate.

Feb 26, 2014 10:47am EST  --  Report as abuse

Homosexuality should be criminalized. Homosexuality is a crime against God and against the Holy Bible. After reading this story I know why God wrote:
Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Romans 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: :26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: :27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Feb 26, 2014 11:13am EST  --  Report as abuse
Speaker2 wrote:

The constitution gives you the freedom to practice your religion, not shove your religious beliefs on others. Worship as you believe at home or your church, leave it out of the public and business domain. Remember, not everyone practices the same religion and some none at all.

Feb 26, 2014 11:14am EST  --  Report as abuse
SunnyDaySam wrote:

Senator John McCain, said earlier on CNN that passage of the bill “hurts the image of the state.”

I got news for ya, John: AZ doesn’t have much image left, thanks to the cons. The fallout from this and other ‘conservative’ policies is going to bankrupt the state.

Feb 26, 2014 12:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse
SunnyDaySam wrote:

digressor wrote:
Arizona – it’s really not that hot in summer – it’s a dry hate.

thanks for the LOL digressor. gotta remember that one.

Feb 26, 2014 12:23pm EST  --  Report as abuse
SunnyDaySam wrote:

This bill is nothing about ‘religious freedom’ and everything about AZ bigotry. Period.

Feb 26, 2014 12:25pm EST  --  Report as abuse
AtypicalMale wrote:

@AlessandraRef – Holding the belief that the wish of gay people to simply be accepted by society as a whole for who they are without prejudice equates to their attempting to have their “homosexuality shoved down your throats” utterly reeks of a deeply-rooted, angry bias… which the whole of your post certainly confirms you as possessing. People who are gay, who simply want to live their lives devoid of ridicule and descrimination as do those who are straight, are possessive of “a destructive sexuality agenda”? Really?!??

“Conditioned people simply can’t think outside what they have been conditioned to think”, you say. As far as that statement goes, in terms of those who adhere to religious thought with unquestioning belief… I’m in full agreement with you.

@RevDonaldSpitz – While you’re quoting your religious scripture which you utilize to support your bias as being some sort of ‘fact’ or ‘law’, please feel free to continue onward with other statements from this text which you’re proclaiming as being factual in basis… you know, the ones about women having their bodies transformed into salt pillars, the waters of a sea being parted by the waving of one’s arms, an individual returning to life from death after having been dead for three days (and without medical intervention, mind you), the females of our species having all been originally gleaned from a male’s rib… please, feel free to shower upon us other such absurdities.

It’s people who hold viewpoints such as those which you espouse who are what’s wrong with religion, organized or not.

Oh, and to ‘head off at the pass’ anyone who might try to portray me as “one of the gaes trying to justify their lifestyle”, chalk me up as a ‘+1′ to ‘mrnukem’s analysis of being a straight, middle-aged male who holds a significant degree of disdain for holier-than-thou legislators across our nation who push their own agendas on hot-button topics while ignoring the truly important issues which face our communities, states, and country.

Feb 26, 2014 1:58pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.