AZ Legislature turns back clock, resumes segregation, but this time for gays

[Miles]

Rick freakin' Scott would veto any FL version of this bill.

[ZonedOut]

Governor Cryptkeeper is set to make a statement at 5:45 our time (in 45 min).
No word on what said statement will be.

[SteveRogers]

Vetoed

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Vetoed

Thank God!

[ElectionsGuy]

Vetoed

Thank God!

[SWE]

Brewer vetoed it

[seanNJ9]

So if MSNBC were the only ones covering this story what are the chances Gov. Brewer signs it in to law?

[LeBron]

It was apparently only a two page bill and Brewer needed more time on it while the 3 regretful Republican State Senators say it moved too quickly. What the Kansas?! Even ignoring the reading comprehension here for how long they think two pages of reading takes, I still feel Brewer is in the wrong-doing for taking so long to veto a bill even Jeff Flake and Mitt Romney felt was unjust. Considering her political future as Governor which lays in the hands of the AZ Supreme Court, I can't say I'm shocked the veto queen vetoed it.

Thank God though. This would have given businesses way too much power and is of course very homophobic and very, very hateful. I'm a bit scared myself to see if the extreme Ohio GOP considers this. Kasich would veto it considering it's a re-election year for him as will Nixon in MO and an override is highly unlikely in either state, but if Kasich is re-elected and a Republican succeeds Nixon in 2016, then there's nothing stopping them.

[Miles]

Well, as usual, props to Fox for being fair. Who better to have a good discussion about this with than Tony Perkins?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

It was apparently only a two page bill

Which is why it is so astonishing that it could be so misinterpreted by the media and by most of the posters in this thread.  SB 1062 is not segregation. It does not even mention gays or sexual orientation and it does not mention discrimination.  It is not specific to a certain religion or religious viewpoint.   Those who that are screaming about how this bill is the reinstatement of the Spanish Inquisition should read this open letter from several law professors:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The national discussion over this bill has been a sick joke, but at least now we know how few people truly value religious liberty, when push comes to shove. 

[SteveRogers]

It was apparently only a two page bill

Which is why it is so astonishing that it could be so misinterpreted by the media and by most of the posters in this thread.  SB 1062 is not segregation. It does not even mention gays or sexual orientation and it does not mention discrimination.  It is not specific to a certain religion or religious viewpoint.   Those who that are screaming about how this bill is the reinstatement of the Spanish Inquisition should read this open letter from several law professors:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The national discussion over this bill has been a sick joke, but at least now we know how few people truly value religious liberty, when push comes to shove. 

Yep you're right. The word "gay" isn't technically mentioned in the bill at all. What the text of the bill literally allows is for individuals to claim a burden on their religious liberties as a defense to literally any lawsuit. And this is good because???

[Brittain33]

It was apparently only a two page bill

Which is why it is so astonishing that it could be so misinterpreted by the media and by most of the posters in this thread.  SB 1062 is not segregation. It does not even mention gays or sexual orientation and it does not mention discrimination.

Neither DOMA nor any of the state DOMAs mention gays or sexual orientation and do not mention discrimination. Would you say that they have nothing to do with gay rights? I trust not.

[bedstuy]

It was apparently only a two page bill

Which is why it is so astonishing that it could be so misinterpreted by the media and by most of the posters in this thread.  SB 1062 is not segregation. It does not even mention gays or sexual orientation and it does not mention discrimination.  It is not specific to a certain religion or religious viewpoint.   Those who that are screaming about how this bill is the reinstatement of the Spanish Inquisition should read this open letter from several law professors:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The national discussion over this bill has been a sick joke, but at least now we know how few people truly value religious liberty, when push comes to shove. 

When would this bill come into play then?  Could a religious person decide not to honor a contract they made, because they discover that the other party is gay?  Could you negligently injure someone and not have to pay any damages because the victim is gay?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

When would this bill come into play then?  Could a religious person decide not to honor a contract they made, because they discover that the other party is gay?  Could you negligently injure someone and not have to pay any damages because the victim is gay?

It would come into play when a service provider refuses to enter into a contract.  Conceivably it might also come into play in an existing contract if one side made a misrepresentation of what the service was to be for, but that would be the exception rather than the usual rule.  Certainly it would never come into play for physical damages.

[bedstuy]

When would this bill come into play then?  Could a religious person decide not to honor a contract they made, because they discover that the other party is gay?  Could you negligently injure someone and not have to pay any damages because the victim is gay?

It would come into play when a service provider refuses to enter into a contract.  Conceivably it might also come into play in an existing contract if one side made a misrepresentation of what the service was to be for, but that would be the exception rather than the usual rule.  Certainly it would never come into play for physical damages.

I just read the bill so I think I sort of understand this. 

Generally, refusing to enter into a contract does not give rise to a cause of action, unless we're talking about employment discrimination or housing discrimination.  Arizona has no protections statewide for homosexuals so it's really ineffectual on that front.

It's pretty rare that the plaintiff is going to be a private party and the defense is going to involve state action which is what the bill covers.  I can hardly think of a case for this besides employment or housing discrimination laws protecting gays.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

It was apparently only a two page bill

Which is why it is so astonishing that it could be so misinterpreted by the media and by most of the posters in this thread.  SB 1062 is not segregation. It does not even mention gays or sexual orientation and it does not mention discrimination.  It is not specific to a certain religion or religious viewpoint.   Those who that are screaming about how this bill is the reinstatement of the Spanish Inquisition should read this open letter from several law professors:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The national discussion over this bill has been a sick joke, but at least now we know how few people truly value religious liberty, when push comes to shove. 

Yep you're right. The word "gay" isn't technically mentioned in the bill at all. What the text of the bill literally allows is for individuals to claim a burden on their religious liberties as a defense to literally any lawsuit. And this is good because???

It is good if you value religious liberty. If you think that religious liberty is completely irrelevant to the law and the state should be able to compel people to go against their religious beliefs without being challenged or questioned, then it is not good, but I would not want to live in the society you are advocating.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

It was apparently only a two page bill

Which is why it is so astonishing that it could be so misinterpreted by the media and by most of the posters in this thread.  SB 1062 is not segregation. It does not even mention gays or sexual orientation and it does not mention discrimination.  It is not specific to a certain religion or religious viewpoint.   Those who that are screaming about how this bill is the reinstatement of the Spanish Inquisition should read this open letter from several law professors:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The national discussion over this bill has been a sick joke, but at least now we know how few people truly value religious liberty, when push comes to shove. 

Yep you're right. The word "gay" isn't technically mentioned in the bill at all. What the text of the bill literally allows is for individuals to claim a burden on their religious liberties as a defense to literally any lawsuit. And this is good because???

It is good if you value religious liberty. If you think that religious liberty is completely irrelevant to the law and the state should be able to compel people to go against their religious beliefs without being challenged or questioned, then it is not good, but I would not want to live in the society you are advocating.

Can you give a specific case, in Arizona, where the state forced a person to act against their religious beliefs that this bill would have prevented?

[MaxQue]

It was apparently only a two page bill

Which is why it is so astonishing that it could be so misinterpreted by the media and by most of the posters in this thread.  SB 1062 is not segregation. It does not even mention gays or sexual orientation and it does not mention discrimination.  It is not specific to a certain religion or religious viewpoint.   Those who that are screaming about how this bill is the reinstatement of the Spanish Inquisition should read this open letter from several law professors:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The national discussion over this bill has been a sick joke, but at least now we know how few people truly value religious liberty, when push comes to shove. 

Yep you're right. The word "gay" isn't technically mentioned in the bill at all. What the text of the bill literally allows is for individuals to claim a burden on their religious liberties as a defense to literally any lawsuit. And this is good because???

It is good if you value religious liberty. If you think that religious liberty is completely irrelevant to the law and the state should be able to compel people to go against their religious beliefs without being challenged or questioned, then it is not good, but I would not want to live in the society you are advocating.

So, religious liberty trumps all other liberties?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

It was apparently only a two page bill

Which is why it is so astonishing that it could be so misinterpreted by the media and by most of the posters in this thread.  SB 1062 is not segregation. It does not even mention gays or sexual orientation and it does not mention discrimination.  It is not specific to a certain religion or religious viewpoint.   Those who that are screaming about how this bill is the reinstatement of the Spanish Inquisition should read this open letter from several law professors:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The national discussion over this bill has been a sick joke, but at least now we know how few people truly value religious liberty, when push comes to shove. 

Yep you're right. The word "gay" isn't technically mentioned in the bill at all. What the text of the bill literally allows is for individuals to claim a burden on their religious liberties as a defense to literally any lawsuit. And this is good because???

It is good if you value religious liberty. If you think that religious liberty is completely irrelevant to the law and the state should be able to compel people to go against their religious beliefs without being challenged or questioned, then it is not good, but I would not want to live in the society you are advocating.

So, religious liberty trumps all other liberties?

I don't know where you are getting that from.

Scott, I don't know if there has been a case like that in Arizona. I think there probably has been at some point, but even if not that doesn't mean it's irrelevant to what may happen in the future.

[bedstuy]

I think once you start defining your religious liberty as a right to tell other people how live their lives and a right to only associate with people of the same religious practices, you turn the idea of individual liberty on its head.  If you want personal freedom, you need to accept the exercise of personal freedom from other people. 

[Deus Naturae]

I think once you start defining your religious liberty as a right to tell other people how live their lives and a right to only associate with people of the same religious practices, you turn the idea of individual liberty on its head.  If you want personal freedom, you need to accept the exercise of personal freedom from other people. 

This is all true, but it goes both ways. People shouldn't be able to tell homophobic businessmen how to live their lives anymore than they should be able to tell gays how to live theirs'.

[bedstuy]

I think once you start defining your religious liberty as a right to tell other people how live their lives and a right to only associate with people of the same religious practices, you turn the idea of individual liberty on its head.  If you want personal freedom, you need to accept the exercise of personal freedom from other people. 

This is all true, but it goes both ways. People shouldn't be able to tell homophobic businessmen how to live their lives anymore than they should be able to tell gays how to live theirs'.

I agree to a point, but it's a disingenuous comparison.  Being tolerant of other types of people is not equivalent to being tolerant of other people's intolerance.  Homophobia is wrong and is a set of beliefs, not a group of people who immigrated to this country for Homophobiavania. 

[SteveRogers]

I think once you start defining your religious liberty as a right to tell other people how live their lives and a right to only associate with people of the same religious practices, you turn the idea of individual liberty on its head.  If you want personal freedom, you need to accept the exercise of personal freedom from other people. 

This is all true, but it goes both ways. People shouldn't be able to tell homophobic businessmen how to live their lives anymore than they should be able to tell gays how to live theirs'.

I agree to a point, but it's a disingenuous comparison.  Being tolerant of other types of people is not equivalent to being tolerant of other people's intolerance.  Homophobia is wrong and is a set of beliefs, not a group of people who immigrated to this country for Homophobiavania. 

This. Tolerance doesn't mean pretending that horrible people aren't horrible.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I, for the record, read the whole bill a few days before Brewer vetoed it, and I'm not a legal expert by any means, but it's clear to me that the language is too vague, at least, from a layman's point of view.  That, and the fact that we haven't heard of a real situation in Arizona that would warrant such a law, is why I was opposed to its passage.  It's not because I don't value religious liberty.  That's just ridiculous.

[DC Al Fine]

I, for the record, read the whole bill a few days before Brewer vetoed it, and I'm not a legal expert by any means, but it's clear to me that the language is too vague, at least, from a layman's point of view.  That, and the fact that we haven't heard of a real situation in Arizona that would warrant such a law, is why I was opposed to its passage.  It's not because I don't value religious liberty.  That's just ridiculous.

Fair point, but I could rattle off a couple Canadian examples. Given that other places further along the progressive road have had these issues, it makes sense for socons to play defense while they still can... even if there hasn't been a problem in AZ yet.