Summations Only

So, this recent Bill that is awaiting the signature of Gov. Jan Brewer is yet another shining example of the legislators in Arizona not understanding...pretty much anything that is occuring in the world.Al Melvin was on Anderson Cooper defending the bill and its ability to protect religious freedom, but had no answer for why this bill was even necessary in a state that does not view homsexuals as a protected class. In fact, our "esteemed" state senator/Governor candidate did not even admit that if someone was fired simply for being gay or lesbian this would constitute discrimination. Cooper did not even ask if it was discrimination in Arizona, but just if he considered someone being fired for this reason an example of discrimination. SourceAnother shining example of the intelligence currently in residence in our State Senate is the fact that three Republicans have come forward saying they just voted yes because of limited time and explanation about the scope of the Bill. Had these three voted how they now, less than one week later, say they should have, the measure would have lost in the Senate 16-14. Instead, because of the strong right in AZ, they bowed to the party and now have to try and save face before upcoming elections. SourceIs there a possible purpose to this bill, in a state that says it is okay to discriminate on the basis of sexuality anyways. Would an atheist have the freedom to refuse a Christian because their presence puts an undue burden on the atheist to be respectful because so much of what atheists say has a tendency to offend the religious? Could a Muslim refuse service to a Christian because of the historical animosity between the two groups?How about if I were a Christian who truly believed in the verse, Timothy 2:12, "I do not permit a women to teach or have authority over a man, she must be quiet." Am I allowed to operate a business and refuse to offer qualified women managerial positions because of my religious beliefs?This law is, in my opinion, an exercise in futility (similar to 1070), that will eventually be crushed as unconstitutional and I think for this reason, and the massive loss of business (possibly the Super Bowl as well), that Jan Brewer will veto this legialation and may have a little sit down with the Repubs in the Senate and try and tone them down slightly. Any other thoughts on the Bassackwardsness of my state with this current legislation? Does anyone think that it has any qualities that would allow it to stand up to constitutional scrutiny?

Well that is the question they will never outright answer. To go one further, what if you are a Muslim man that wishes to deny service to Jewish patrons? Or women?This reminds me of the asinine discussions that occurred at the beginning of the civil rights movement, when people attempted to claim 'persecution' of their freedom to do business because they were 'forced' to cater to African Americans and could not discriminate against them.Same logic (or lack thereof) applies here. Which is why I also get irked when they attempt to use their notion of religious freedom to denote which medical procedures they will disallow because it violates their 'faith'. i.e. deny birth control because they are Catholic.By that logic, a Jehovah Witness running a business should be able to state that their medical insurance should not have to cover blood transfusions. It's moronic. Arizona is making a fool of itself. Notice however that the two senators are actually against this bill. Probably because they are looking at the poll numbers and realizing it will backfire on them. Not unlike the government shutdown.

"limited time and explanation"That's state legislature speak for "perhaps I miscalculated the effect on my reelection possibilities". If the senators did not understand the bill given all the publicity it got, then they are idiots.Even though some minorities are notoriously homophobic, many will remember the state dragging its heels on the MLK holiday. I think they'll see this bill for what it is. State approval of bigotry.

The same bill is being considered by the legislators in my state. It is a direct reaction to the "Add the Words" campaign that is trying to get LGBT added to the protected classes list. They are trying to negate what is quickly becoming an inevitable extension of long derserved rights to the gay community.I do find that Republicans tend to lack a sense of irony. They are trying to push through a religious freedom act that actually allows public places to discriminate against people based on their religious beliefs. In a state that has a relatively large Mormon population, it could actually lead to people putting up signs that Mormons can not enter their place of business.

The Kansas Senate decided not to consider a similar bill after it passed in the house chamber. Tennessee abandoned a similar bill. So far North Carolina has done nothing with their religious freedom act.So be counted AZ. You are in territory even TN, NC, and KS won't blunder into.Next up, Illinois.

Nah, we even allow gay marriage now.

My neck of the woods (Florida) doesn't seem to be pushing anything either. And we have medical ganja on the ballot in November!

You WILL BE CHECKED for magic underwear!!!

Nice to see that others use the same humor I do.

Nothing there a little pair of scissors couldn't fix.Wait. I'm already circumcised! I'm in the wrong thread again!

It's funny. I spend quite a bit of time in Utah and I have often seen Mormon women wearing pants low enough to show off their special undies. It is so common, that I am starting to wonder if it's some sort of mating call or something.

The governor has announced that she is vetoing the bill. AZ steps away from the abyss.Meanwhile here in NC, every one of the Republican candidates vying for Kay Hagan's Senate seat has taken the position that the state ought to be able to outlaw birth control. Only three of the five are on record as saying that the state should not actually do it.McCain would be a progressive here.

Do I have this wrong or didn't this proposed law come about to protect Christian business owners such as bakers who refused on moral grounds to make a wedding cake for homosexuals or photographers who refused on moral grounds to photograph a gay wedding ceremony? And if this is its basis, apparently you are all in favor of forcing these business people to act against their conscience? Really? isn't this tyranny? Whatever happened to freedom? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.