Summations Only

"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 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.

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.

Except that gays are already unprotected in Arizona. The law came about as a reaction to stuff going on in other states.And really. Refused to bake a cake on moral grounds? That should be taken seriously over another person's rights to be treated as a member of a human society?Substitute blacks for gays in that sentence and you are describing the apartheid like condition that existed under Jim Crow up until the early 1960s. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

No, but can you use the force of law to allow people to be excluded from the community? Because that's what state approved discrimination amounts to.Suppose we let it work like this? You need to discriminate, fine. But don't expect the police to help you throw me and my crew out of your restaurant. Don't expect the state to enforce your trespass suit when you decide that gays cannot be on your property that is otherwise open to the public.Neocons and their free market approach to discrimination make me barf. Fifty years later and they are still fighting against the civil rights act of 1964.Not sayin' that's you Coyote, but you have certainly expressed their sentiment.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

person A is tired hungry and out of gas and wants a place to eat, sleep, or to just move on. I am suggesting that the state does not help person A be denied basic human dignity by a homophobe, racist xenophobe.I'm not even going so far as to have the state help A, but at least they are not on the wrong side of a moral question if they help A rather than B. That seems to be what you advocate. No, the state should not aid discrimination. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Well no. Why are you talking about anyone going to prison? The bill simply protects you from civil suit.

No, it does not imply that as there are plenty of other possibilities.First, there is no excuse for not reading the bill. Second, AZ voters have gone for discriminatory laws time and time again. Plenty of voters love this crap and people like you apparently have no problem with it.The problem for those AZ senators is that the business people who fork out the money they need to campaign did not like the bill and were vocal in their displeasure. Thoughts of losing out on the Super bowl danced before their eyes.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

You are diving into the shallow end of the pool here. Let's put these events into perspective.Tyranny would be the government telling you to bake a cake you don't want to bake. But tyranny would also be an official word from the government that your neighbor cannot buy cakes in this town.The failure of the AZ 'religious freedom' bill is not a government order to bake cakes. It simply means that there is no state endorsed right to discriminate. If you get sued in AZ, you can still make the attempt to argue your first amendment rights, but there is no AZ endorsed, slam dunk guarantee that you will win. In this case the law is so badly worded that it indemnifies way too much hatred. I could decide, for example, to evict a childless couple because they were not being fruitful and multiplying, but were in fact using birth control, and the statue would back me up.But what do you really think will happen when a gay man wants a wedding cake with two grooms on it? If the man cannot get the best baker in town to do it, will he sue or will he just have his sister go in, order the cake, and then change out the figurines?Seriously. Get some perspective. And then get a grip. The failure of the state to pass this law does not remove the first amendment from the Constitution. What it likely does is save the state a bunch of money from defending a likely un-Constitutional law.And it's not like your hatred makes you Joan d'Arc. Nobody wants to kill you. Sheesh..Edited by NoNukes, : Grrr.

Sigh...http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.pdfEdited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

That is decidedly not true. I've offered corrections and so have others.But not reading, not bothering to learn is your standard approach in most discussions here. Everything requiring ordinary effort is too hard, too much trouble, and beneath you. At least you are honest about your attitude. I don't understand why you are so proud of it though. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

It is no accident that Conservapedia leaves out the 'cast the first stone story' from their Bible 'translation'.http://conservapedia.com/Essay:Adulteress_Story

quote:

---

In the story a mob surrounds a woman to stone her for adultery, and ask Jesus what they should do. Jesus is describing as writing in the ground, and eventually beseeches those who have not sinned to cast the first stone. The crowd then disperses, beginning with the eldest first. This apocryphal passage is a favorite of liberals who oppose those who stand up for Christian values, as when the left-leaning Bill O'Reilly cited this passage to criticize the star of Duck Dynasty for standing up against homosexual conduct.

---

There is no point in telling zealots like Andy and Faith what Jesus actually said, because haters just hate. Citing the red words in the Bible either causes them to cite the Torah like Elihayu or inspires them into dispensationalism cult talk.'Left leaning Bill O'Reilly.' Lol. 'Duck Dynasty'??Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Faith actually takes it one step further.You are an intolerant heathen if you are against a law that would have eliminated discrimination against Faith which does not allow her to punish people for not following her religious beliefs.And now for an opposing view point ...Fox Responds To Veto Of AZ Anti-Gay Bill By Hosting Anti-Gay Hate Group Leader | Media Matters for America

quote:

---

Fox Responds To Veto Of AZ Anti-Gay Bill By Hosting Anti-Gay Hate Group Leader

---

From the minority opinion:

quote:

---

Nonetheless, as the concurrence explains, that right to stay out of things, in the manner that plaintiff seeks, in a context in which a business otherwise operates as a public accommodation, is simply too harmful to the excluded parties to be tolerable

---

This essentially the reasoning behind Brown vs. Board of education, and is, in my mind, the reason for choosing sides in this battle of rights.Because there is no question in my mind that the New Mexico Supreme Court decision does put limits on the First Amendment Rights of faux Christians. But the state sanctioned discrimination that results from taking the opposite path is far more harmful to society.And I don't expect the aggrieved haters to accept that truth any more than did Lester Maddox, the Georgia Governor who defended his restaurant against desegregation by passing out ax handles to his patrons.No, I don't have nearly the empathy some suggest we ought to feel for "the sincerely held beliefs" of those who were against inter-racial marriage. Sorry, but that idea is just plain repulsive to me.

It was probably legal to do so in AZ before this attempt to enshrine discrimination into law occurred, and I'm not so sure it isn't legal despite the veto.