Michele Bachmann: Jan Brewer wrong to veto Arizona's 'anti-gay' bill

[jimnyc]

First off, people need to really read this bill - http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.pdf

I had no issue with this bill. It simply codified the rights of someone and their religious beliefs. I think its a 2 way street as well. It seems like they are demanding rights for one group while denying another or stomping on their rights.


Rep. Michele Bachmann is “sorry” that Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed a controversial bill in Arizona that would have allowed businesses to legally refuse service to same-sex couples because of religious objections.

“I believe that tolerance is a two-way street, and we need to respect everyone's rights, including the rights of people who have sincerely held religious beliefs,” Bachmann, a Minnesota Republican told “The Fine Print.”

Many prominent Republicans, including former Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Sen. John McCain of Arizona have backed Brewer’s decision to veto the bill, but the tea party leader said they are wrong on this issue.

“Religious liberties and the protection of our religious liberties is right,” she said. “Right now, there's a terrible intolerance afoot in the United States, and it's against people who hold sincerely held religious beliefs.”

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/michele-bachmann-jan-brewer-wrong-to-veto-arizonas-anti-gay-bill-232117632.html?vp=1

[fj1200]

Is homosexuality a protected class in Arizona? If not then I'm not sure why the bill was necessary.


Called out for the gay-bashing at the heart of Arizona's controversial SB 1062 (http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.pdf), advocates of the bill feign outrage and insist that all they want is the freedom to associate or not associate based on their religious beliefs. According to social conservative Bill McMorris, libertarians embrace big government and make him "participate in these new norms" by pointing out that Arizona businessesalready have the right to refuse service to gays and lesbians and don't require the assurance of a "we really mean it" legislative backstop. I'm apparently especially awful for referring to Arizona lawmakers as "homophobic pricks" and praising a pizzeria that responded to the controversy by banning legislators from its premises (a protection-worthy exercise of the right to freedom of association, you might think).
http://reason.com/blog/2014/02/26/arizonas-sb-1062-is-a-homophobic-stunt-n

[jimnyc]

Yep, it would only have re-affirmed what was there already. But of course this is just the beginning of likely protecting them, and further diminishing the rights of one and their religious beliefs.

[fj1200]

Yep, it would only have re-affirmed what was there already.

Then it was a pointless stunt that completely fed into their "victimhood." Bad Arizona, bad.

[jimnyc]

Then it was a pointless stunt that completely fed into their "victimhood." Bad Arizona, bad.

But only the sexual orientation thing you speak of was codified. This was primarily the same, but went as far as to codify the rights of ones religious beliefs. This would protect the business owner slightly different, by offering additional protection to them and their beliefs, while leaving the law the same.