Jan Brewer may be an old hag, but at least she knows when to use common sense!

[The Other Side]

SB1062 is DEAD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_SB_1062

This ridiculous bill, created by christian right wing hate groups passed the arizona legislature, but fortunately got vetoed by the states governor, the wretch-ed Jan Brewer.

Brewer was under pressure from many people in her own party nationally to veto the bill or face the prospects of hurting the GOP in mid term elections. Further, the super bowl committee hinted that if this bill was signed into law, they would pull the game out of Arizona next year.

What I find amazing is the extremists of this country trying to pull crap like this in the first place.

Kudos to the old hag for the veto.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/26/politics/arizona-brewer-bill/index.html

Religious freedoms, such as "hey jew, get out of my business, your violating my religious beliefs"...

Im sure Hitler would be proud of Arizonans if this passed.

TOS.

 

[Nimnim]

You know there's still no law on the books keeping businesses from denying service to people. The law that was vetoed only allowed a business to refuse service because it conflicts with the values the owner of the business holds the business to without potential legal repercussions.

Personally I didn't think the law should have been an issue, but it's not like there aren't multiple businesses out there that provide the same services.

 

[oldngray]

The law was poorly written was the main problem. It was too broad in its effects I think. If it was a more simply written law Brewer may not have vetoed it. And RINOs like McCain were urging her to veto it also.

 

[MAKAVELI]

The law was poorly written was the main problem. It was too broad in its effects I think. If it was a more simply written law Brewer may not have vetoed it. And RINOs like McCain were urging her to veto it also.

I think she understood that it makes more businesses sense to veto any such law that would ultimately have a negative effect on the Arizona economy. Wether conservative s want to admit or not, excluding the gay community would not be good for business. They like $ more than their so called religious beliefs.

 

[The Other Side]

Ya, like any of you would like to see "jews" denied service or services because they were jewish, right?

OR christians denied service by muslim businesses, or all religious people denied services because they entered an atheists business.

By poorly worded, what exactly do you mean?

TOS.

 

[The Other Side]

You know there's still no law on the books keeping businesses from denying service to people. The law that was vetoed only allowed a business to refuse service because it conflicts with the values the owner of the business holds the business to without potential legal repercussions.

Personally I didn't think the law should have been an issue, but it's not like there aren't multiple businesses out there that provide the same services.

The protection or shield against lawsuits is UNNECCESSARY.

You cant discriminate in this country, and to attempt shield a certain group of people ( christians ) from lawsuits for that discrimination was extremely foolish.

Two right wing extremist Christian groups were responsible for the creation of this bill and its funding.

What I find even more hilarious amidst the stupidity of it all, is the walking back of some of the republicans who voted for this bill in the first place because..... and yes, they admitted it...

"WE VOTED FOR THE BILL WITHOUT READING IT".

Classic.

TOS.

 

[The Other Side]

Morons is arizona...


2/25/2014:
ANDERSON COOPER: Why do you regret your vote?

STATE SEN. STEVE PIERCE, R-AZ: It went through really quick. No one really had anything telling me don't do it. We, ah, several of us talked. We thought, you know, this isn't good. It's not good for the state. But, um, no one had said anything. And we thought well, we'll just vote for it. ... We made a mistake.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/...oking-Arizona-homophobes-fear?detail=facebook#

TOS

 

[Nimnim]

The protection or shield against lawsuits is UNNECCESSARY.

You cant discriminate in this country, and to attempt shield a certain group of people ( christians ) from lawsuits for that discrimination was extremely foolish.

Two right wing extremist Christian groups were responsible for the creation of this bill and its funding.

What I find even more hilarious amidst the stupidity of it all, is the walking back of some of the republicans who voted for this bill in the first place because..... and yes, they admitted it...

"WE VOTED FOR THE BILL WITHOUT READING IT".

Classic.

TOS.

You can certainly discriminate in this country, there just usually isn't a public outcry or laws highlighting it. There's also not always legal ramifications that would occur on many discriminations, too many loopholes out there. Most businesses understand that upsetting part of the population might be disastrous for them and choose not to.

Also you seem to be forgetting there are other religions out there that by their religious doctrine do not support homosexuality. Hint hint, for many it's obvious that the Muslim religion is reported to be more extreme when they object to homosexuals as compared to saying possible hurtful things or denying them service. All of which is silly to me, but if it's peaceful I don't really mind.

I won't argue that two Christian groups may have been responsible for it, I don't care enough to research it.

I'll agree it's hilarious that there are politicians, possibly all republican, who voted for it and now regret it and say they never read it, but I'll add that in most political environments, state or federal, these days you can say most of them don't read what they vote on. You'd agree with me that it's very wrong that someone votes on something they never read right?

 

[island1fox]

"Old Hag" ??

--Sounds very clearly like a War on Women and also another example of hateful Age Discrimination !

Those sweet liberals --Bless their hate filled little hearts !!

 

[The Other Side]

"Old Hag" ??

--Sounds very clearly like a War on Women and also another example of hateful Age Discrimination !

Those sweet liberals --Bless their hate filled little hearts !!

You dont like when the "fox narrative" is used against Republicans, eh?

TOS.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

She did exercise common sense by vetoing this bill; however, I expect we will see a redrafted version put on her desk to sign very shortly.

 

[av8torntn]

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/misled-arizonas-bill/#axzz2uNENlbmz

 

[The Other Side]

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/misled-arizonas-bill/#axzz2uNENlbmz

Dude, dont even try to legitimize this bill. The photographer is a goof, a pawn for two religious wackjobs who thought they could end run around discrimination.

These two groups are largely anti gay groups who spend millions of dollars campaigning for such bills. They used this photographer and her husband, a couple of self righteous people to use to discriminate against gay couples. They were sued and the plaintiffs won against them both.

The couple appealed and LOST in the new mexico supreme court and from there, the religious wackos took over.

This bill is being attempted to be passed in other RED STATES considered friendly to these religious wackos.

Unfortunately, with this VETO, this effort should be DEAD in its tracks no matter how you word it.

When people start discriminating against other people because of faith, then this country is doomed to fail.

Hitler discriminated against the JEWS because of a religious belief and everyone hated that idea, now, in this country, some want to do the same.

This is one reason why organized religion is losing membership.

TOS.

 

[upschuck]

Either way, it would of got shot down in supreme court. Saved Arizona a lot of money.

 

[The Other Side]

The original case was a joke to begin with.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/08/22/photographers-discriminated-against-gay-couple-court-rules/

I for one, am glad that the photographer in AV8's post has to pay THOUSANDS of dollars in penalties and fines for her stupid actions.

"THE ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM" group put this couple up to this action that got them FINED and then defended them unsuccessfully in court. They got what they deserved.

TOS.

 

[av8torntn]

Dude, dont even try to legitimize this bill. The photographer is a goof, a pawn for two religious wackjobs who thought they could end run around discrimination.


TOS.

Dude if you didn't read the article why comment on it?

 

[Babagounj]

So TOS , if I choose to wear a ski mask & dark glasses into a bank and they refuse me service because they think I might be there to rob them , can I also sue them claiming sexual discrimination ?

 

[MAKAVELI]

So TOS , if I choose to wear a ski mask & dark glasses into a bank and they refuse me service because they think I might be there to rob them , can I also sue them claiming sexual discrimination ?

You can try and sue anybody for anything but your scenario would get thrown out very quickly.

 

[oldngray]

You can try and sue anybody for anything but your scenario would get thrown out very quickly.

Not quite true. You can usually only sue the government with the government's permission.

 

[roadrunner2012]

Not quite true. You can usually only sue the government with the government's permission.

You may have missed the word 'try' in sph's post.

Reading comprehension is important.