Quantcast

Comments about ‘Arizona Gov. Brewer vetoes so-called anti-gay bill’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Feb. 26 2014 6:29 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
A Run
South Jordan, UT

Also, by refusing the owners of companies to refuse Homosexuals, you take away some of their rights in return for the rights of those benefited. In large corporations, this should be illegal, because they have a charter from the federal government in order to operate as a corporation. However, Sol Proprietorship, and partnerships, should still have this right should they choose to exercise it.

Utefan60
Salt Lake City, UT

Not a single lawsuit in Arizona by someone who was sued due to their religious beliefs. Not a single one and even their Governor admitted that tonight in her veto speech. Yet if the Baptist church goes to the gay printer and is refused service, they can now under current law sue that gay printer. There are no state protections for LBGT people in Arizona. So you can say all you want that LBGT people are attacking religion. I would have to say by sheer evidence that is not the case. In fact I know more religious LBGT people who are more Christian than most of these so called religious conservatives. If you want to see how our Bible is used to discriminate go see the movie "12 Years a Slave". Slave owners used religion and Biblical verses to rationalize their detestable behavior towards their fellow men, including murder.

to: the truth, Your logic was used to discriminate and separate Blacks, Jews, Catholics and yes even Mormons during certain era's in our history. It wasn't right then and it isn't right for the LBGT community now!

Bingham Student
South Jordan, UT

@joeblow, we have had the same issues in the blacks, however those laws didn't say anything about homosexuals, so there needs to be a new piece of national legislation. Until then, discriminating against homosexuals is legal.

@I know it i live it i love it, I see where you are coming from, but from the most recent General conference, one of the apostles essentially said that Gods standards will not change, even if the law does, and that whatever society deems right isn't necessarily right. Let the world do what they want, and people like us will continue to do what we believe is correct. When these come in conflict, we try to work it out peacefully, and without drawing attention to ourselves.

@the truth, Servitude? Other than that I basically agree that there needs to be a line between public and personal. I like the argument/idea.

freedomingood
provo, Utah

If you don't want a particular job, just bid higher than everyone else.

Furry1993
Ogden, UT

The governor vetoed a very bad bill. Good for her.

JBQ
Saint Louis, MO

I believe that this issue is before the Supreme Court. It really would do no good to pass a law which would immediately be challenged in court. I believe that businesses have a right to refuse service to anyone for any reason with such as "no shirt, no shoes, no service". However, the Supreme Court may think otherwise. Governor Brewer now may live to fight another day. Contrary to what liberals believe, not everyone is equal. There is a group of people who work and pay the taxes. If you take away their right to form and order society and place it in the hands of the entitled who do no work, then you are preparing for a violent collision. Hopefully, this will be solved with the November election and the turning over of the Senate to the Republicans. This would allow the Democrats to reform their agenda into a more common sense approach.

Ranch
Here, UT

@The Rock;

The business owner took that "obligation" upon him/herself when s/he chose to open a business that served the public.

A Run says:

"...by refusing the owners of companies to refuse Homosexuals, you take away some of their rights..."

--- Not true. They exercised their right by agreeing to obey the laws when they chose to open the business. When they open that business they know they will be required to operate as a business and serve ALL customers.

JNA
Layton, UT

Because of Delta, American Airline, Marriotts and others economic threats, I can tell you I will do everything I can to not use their products and services. This bill should have passed and I am very disappointed in Governor Brewer. The only unintended consequences will be when the Gay and Lesbian Community get all the power, they will not rest until Churches are forced to marry them or lose their tax exempt status. Mark my words this will happen, regardless of all the lies we have been told, this is not about equality, this is about the acquisition of power.

TheTrueVoice
West Richland, WA

A "so-called" anti-gay bill.... really, DN? Seriously?

Please....

TheTrueVoice
West Richland, WA

@JNA: "The only unintended consequences will be when the Gay and Lesbian Community get all the power, they will not rest until Churches are forced to marry them or lose their tax exempt status"

Where to begin...

I invite you to consider the definition of xenophobia:

"Xenophobia can manifest itself in many ways involving the relations and perceptions of an ingroup towards an outgroup, including a fear of losing identity, suspicion of its activities, aggression, and desire to eliminate its presence to secure a presumed purity."

techpubs
Sioux City, IA

Can someone please explain this to me?
1. A public school cannot have any references to God or a Christian religion displayed on their walls or property because it is considered to be an endorsement by the school of that religion which violates the Separation Clause.
2. A photographer who must attend and be present during a same-sex wedding ceremony as an active participant by photographing various parts of the ceremony cannot refuse to do this even though it also is considered an endorsement by him/her of that ceremony which is contrary to his/her religious beliefs.
What exactly is the difference that allows the photographer to be forced to endorse an action that violates personal religious convictions?

intervention
slc, UT

@techpups

Again it's not complicated, they are both a form of business. Schools are restricted due to their role as a government) which. Cannotendorse a religion over others) run entity that serves the public. The photographer is running a business that serves the public and is bound by public accomadation laws. The school staff and photographer still have the right to believe what ever they choose and express those views ow ever they wish, short of insighting violence, to the hearts content outside the work place. When you make the choose to start a business you agree to abide by the laws that govern them.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

"A public school cannot have any references to God or a Christian religion displayed on their walls or property because it is considered to be an endorsement by the school of that religion which violates the Separation Clause"

Of course they can. As long as they are willing to allow any and every religion to display their religious symbols. And there becomes the rub.

Why is it so hard to see that it is much easier in the long run, and much more conducive to a learning environment, to just keep religion out of schools? A kid can pray anytime he wants, be it before, during or after school.

But, that is not what some want. They want to make a big production of it. They want the kid to be able to pray over the loudspeaker, or in front of the class or football stadium.

How about we keep schools for learning and practice your religion silently, or outside of school.

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. I know in my history classes we only ever seemed to get to the Vietnam war before running out of time in the semester. Did some of you not manage to make it to the 60s and the Civil Rights movement? I'm just wondering because some of you seem to be just cool with the equivalent of signs in restaurants saying they won't serve black people.

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

@Bingham Student said: "one of the apostles essentially said that Gods standards will not change, even if the law does, and that whatever society deems right isn't necessarily right."

But theirs evidence that God (Man) does change his mind…
"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." (Journal of Discourses, Vol.10, p.109)

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

People are very confused as to what individuals rights are versus businesses. The Idea that a business is a member of a religious organization and should be able to use their business to treat others poorly is an interesting ideal.

Then again the knights of the klu klux klan were/are a very religious organization who use their religious beliefs as a base for all sorts of evil based on what the Bible allowed them to justify. I would expect a jump in membership from the same folks who believe they should be able to treat others poorly because of their "Beliefs."

Let move forward folks, devolution isn't a good look.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

horribly misleading headline. It is not an anti-gay bill.

a better headline would be "Brewer vetoes pro-first amendment bill"

RG
Buena Vista, VA

@ Tolstoy "let me ask you this, should evangelical business owners be allowed to deny services to an LDS person because they believe their religion is a cult? " This is a totally different question. You're comparing apples and oranges. Christian Cake bakers and wedding photographers usually have no problem baking birthday cakes or photographing birthday parties for gay people, because they don't believe that birthdays are sins. But asking for a gay marriage cake or photographing a gay marriage is something different. Remember the role of the market: businesses that discriminate too much will just go out of business. Problem solved.

@Joeblow: Some of your scenarios (the hotel and restaurant ones) are also comparing apples to oranges. And yes a Catholic Dr. should not be forced to prescribe birth control. But that dr. should refer the patient to a different dr.

@ Tolstoy and Kalindra and Joeblow: do you REALLY believe that a Jewish photographer must be forced to photograph a NeoNazi meeting? Or a black baker must be forced to create a cake for the KKK with terrible words on it?

Eliyahu
Pleasant Grove, UT

@the truth
"This is a HUFE [sic] blow to individual freedom and liberty.

Apparently homosexuals can now force another into forced servitude."

I heard exactly the same argument when lunch counters were "forced" to serve meals to blacks back in the early '60s. When you open any sort of business that comes under the classification of being a "public accommodation," you take on an obligation to serve the general public regardless of who they are. You still have the right to refuse service to individuals, but that refusal must be based on what they do; not on who they are. In other words, you can deny service to someone who is drunk, belligerent, naked, so filthy they stink, or if they've stolen from you in the past or threatened you with physical harm, but not because of innate characteristics such as race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or the color of their hair.

cavetroll
SANDY, UT

@RG

@ Tolstoy "let me ask you this, should evangelical business owners be allowed to deny services to an LDS person because they believe their religion is a cult? " This is a totally different question. You're comparing apples and oranges."

No, it's the same quesiton. If a person believes that the LDS church and its members are simply cultists and believe that providing a service or product to them would violate their religious convictions, should they be allowed to ddeny said service or product? According to this law, the answer is "Yes."

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments