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

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Feb. 27 2014 7:19 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
xert
Santa Monica, CA

Common sense rules the day! I used to say "you can't spell crazy without AZ" but this is inspiring. Utahn's who are thinking the "religious freedom" thing is going to fly. Take notes son.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

Your government is meddling in your religion folks! Liberals demand that we keep religion out of their government but quite eager to force their government into your religion.

Utefan4Lyf
West Jordan, UT

@Mountanman: How is government entering into your religion exactly? They are simply stating that you can't discriminate based on sexual orientation. Sounds like legislation that was denied in the '60s. It was a bad idea and Brewer has been very clear that there have been absolutely zero incidences where religious freedoms have been threatened. In fact, it was one of her major points. That, and the fact that her legislature has refused to work on more pressing matters, such as child safety, which should be a religious and secular priority.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

Religion keeps trying to meddle in your freedom, folks. It's refreshing to seed that the arizona governor saw this push for what it was.

Jamescmeyer
Midwest City, USA, OK

No instance of persecution against people's religious beliefs by gays?

"A climate of attacks against the LGBT community"?

These people live in the United States, right? They're not blind or deaf, right? I can understand if they are-but if they're not, then they're not paying very close attention to their surroundings. That's why this bill was crafted.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

@ Utefan. How about the government forcing the Little Sisters of the Poor to pay for other people's birth control/abortions? How about forcing Christian ministers to perform gay "marriages"? How about the Catholic Church in Illinois run out of town for refusing to provide adoptions to same sex couples? How about forcing photographers and all others who support traditional marriages to provide their services that contradict their religious liberties? A society that subverts its own moral immunities sows the seeds of its own destruction. In ANY free society there must be moral immunities! And that is the precisely the point! Otherwise we have no freedom FROM immoral behavior of others, period! Think about it! If individuals can not define morality for themselves no one will and nothing will be immoral, just like the Nazis.

Baccus0902
Leesburg, VA

The article inform us that :
"Brewer said in televised remarks from Phoenix. “I have not heard of one example in Arizona where a business owner’s religious liberty has been violated.”

She said she worried that the bill had “the potential to create more problems than it purports to solve.”

This is not only a victory for LGBT people. This is a victory for common sense against paranoia and the threat of religious zealotry upon anyone.

I hope soon certain so called Christians start acting like true Christians, so secured in their faiths and convictions that they will stop seeing the boogey man in everything and everyone that is different.

A great day for Arizona and the nation!!!

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

@Mountanman
"How about the government forcing the Little Sisters of the Poor to pay for other people's birth control/abortions? "

They just need to sign an exemption form...

"How about forcing Christian ministers to perform gay "marriages"?"

That doesn't happen.

" How about the Catholic Church in Illinois run out of town for refusing to provide adoptions to same sex couples?"

Pretty sure they had the same option they had in Massachusetts, use private money and they can set their own guidelines.

"How about forcing photographers and all others who support traditional marriages to provide their services that contradict their religious liberties?"

A few decades ago we decided segregation was wrong.

killpack
Sandy, UT

When did we become Iran and adopt Sharia law in this country? Unbelievable. It's one thing when the police come to your house or business and detain you for committing an actual crime like murder, rape, theft, fraud, etc. (and it's a good thing at that). But when ayatollahs send moral police to trespass on private property (an ACTUAL crime) to harass and bully the owner for thinking a certain way, that is just corrupt and appalling. I would bake a cake for a gay couple. More money for me. But I would NEVER advocate sending mafiosi with badges to someone's PRIVATE PROPERTY unless they committed an actual crime, negligence or breach of contract. MORAL infractions are NOT the responsibility of the state! Save it for church! Sheesh!

Utefan4Lyf
West Jordan, UT

@Mountanman: The Little Sisters of the Poor case relates directly to ObamaCare, not to homosexuals. The Catholic Church CHOSE to shut down facilities in lieu of the decision to "consider" same sex parents when reviewing adoptions in order to obtain state funds. As for those who choose not to serve somebody simply because of their partner, the question is, if you open a public business, why would you? There are very few cases of people actually refusing service because, in this free market, loss of one customer due to this reason equates to large loss of revenue as a whole. If you feel you cannot serve the people of your community as a whole, perhaps you should not be in business.

Lagomorph
Salt Lake City, UT

Just curious-- have any of the legions of wedding bakers and photographers who are so concerned about serving same sex couples ever denied their services to hetero couples because the groom's tux was a wool-silk blend fabric, the reception served shrimp, or because the happy couple was marrying for the second time? There seems to be a selective application of religious principle at work here.

@Mountanman: How is requiring an employer to pay premiums into an insurance pool that includes contraception coverage any different than requiring Quakers to pay for weapons and wars with their federal income taxes that go into a pooled general fund? At what point does the commingling of fungible money break the connection of causality between the payer and the end use? Can you trace any dollar spent on an abortion directly back to a Catholic sister any more (or less) than a dollar spent on a cruise missile can be traced back to a Friend?

my_two_cents_worth
university place, WA

@ Mountanman

"How about the government forcing the Little Sisters of the Poor to pay for other people's birth control/abortions?"

Hasn't happened.

"How about forcing Christian ministers to perform gay "marriages"?"

Hasn't happened and won't happen.

"How about the Catholic Church in Illinois run out of town for refusing to provide adoptions to same sex couples?"

They likely chose to close up shop rather than comply with the law but that was their choice.

"How about forcing photographers and all others who support traditional marriages to provide their services that contradict their religious liberties?"

What would Jesus do? He tells you in Mark 12:13-17.

"In ANY free society there must be moral immunities!"

As defined by whom. You?

"Otherwise we have no freedom FROM immoral behavior of others, period!"

Morality is subjective. When you trumpet as loudly for the legal backing to discriminate against adulterers, single mothers, divorce's, people who eat lobster or wear mixed fibers, get back to us.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

@ Schnee.
•Vermont 2005: The Christian owners of the Wildflower Inn were sued for refusing to host a homosexual wedding. In a settlement, owners ended up paying the homosexual couple $30,000 and agreeing to no longer host any weddings at their inn.
•New Mexico 2006: Elane Photography declined to photograph a homosexual civil union ceremony. The company was sued under the state’s anti-discrimination laws. A judge held the company in violation. The New Mexico Supreme Court upheld this ruling last month.
•Kentucky 2012: A T-shirt company, Hands On Originals, was approached by the Gay and Lesbian Services Organization about printing shirts for the group. When they politely declined, referring the organization to another t-shirt company instead, they were promptly sued by the group under Lexington’s anti-discriminatory laws.
•New Jersey 2008: A Methodist church was sued for not offering its facility for use during same-sex weddings. A judge ruled against the church.
•Washington 2013: A lawsuit was brought against a florist by the state for refusing to provide flowers for a same-sex marriage. The florist, Barronelle Stutzman, simply said “I could not do it because of my relationship with Jesus Christ.”

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

•Oregon 2013: A bakery owned by a Christian couple recently shut its doors after it was threatened with a lawsuit for refusing to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple. Melissa and Aaron Klein, owners of “Sweet Cakes” bakery were the victims of an economic war when homosexual activists harassed and badgered their business for months. The business also came under investigation by Oregon state officials for violating the Equality Act of 2007 which states that people cannot be denied services due to their sexual orientation.

@ My Two Cents. I decide what is moral for myself but you and others don't want me to have that freedom! You and others insist your morality be forced upon me and others as the above examples point out!

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

@Mountanman
An inn that hosts weddings is a business, not a church.

The Jersey one involved a space with a public land tax status that is rented out. Lesson to churches: keep your assets privately owned and don't go lending them out to others like a business.

As for the photographer, t-shirt company, florist, and baker, I don't need you to convince me those things happen, you need to convince me that business owners should be able to do the equivalent of "no blacks allowed" signs.

Baccus0902
Leesburg, VA

Mountanman:

Did you notice that all your examples showed someone breaking a law and the law being enforced.

If the judgment in all or any of the cases you mentioned would have been contrary to the law in what you call "the victims" opinion, they would have been able to appeal. Did they? if not, why not?

You are making the LGBT movement appear bigger that what we are. Don't you think that if we had the power your claim we have. Chances are we wouldn't need to be posting these comments here in the DN.

I try to live my life according to the precepts of Christ. I surmise you are in the same quest. If you are, I can promise to you as my brother that we mean no harm to you or anyone. We are just asking for equality and fairness under the law. We are fighting to gain and uphold our dignity as human beings. Can you blame us for that? Wouldn't you do the same?

You may like to study the meaning of "The Social Contract".

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

Schnee, my_two_cents
nuns should not HAVE to sign a form. you are admitting congress made a law concerning the establishment of religion by saying they need to sign a form to comply.

"How about forcing Christian ministers to perform gay "marriages"?"

That doesn't happen.

Research Edmonds-Tacker Acts, then come back and say the goverment does not force itself into religious marriages.

Shiria law arguments are foolish and out of place. Predominantly islamic countries do not have a first amendment.

Business owners are PEOPLE. PEOPLE can have religious convictions and those PEOPLES' rights should be protiected by the first amendment, which you so callaously are apparently trying to destroy. If business license requirementsw force the business owner to violate conscience, those business license requirement violate the first amendment.

Utefan4Lyf
West Jordan, UT

lost in DC: The first amendment has absolutely nothing to do with business licenses. However, if you want to compare. Compare getting a drivers license. There are rules associated with that as well.

Baccus0902
Leesburg, VA

lost in DC
You wrote: " Business owners are PEOPLE. PEOPLE can have religious convictions and those PEOPLES' rights should be protiected by the first amendment, which you so callaously are apparently trying to destroy".

Business owners are people: Correct
People can have religious convictions: Correct
Those people rights should be protected: Correct

We are 100% in agreement.

However, you are (perhaps choosing) confusing People's rights vs. Business rights and responsibilities. The laws against discrimination apply to businesses.

These laws were created long before the LGBT movement to protect ALL citizens. Sorry if in your opinion we don't qualify as citizens.

patriot
Cedar Hills, UT

So because this bill was vetoed a gay couple could FORCE a Christian photographer to photograph their wedding or face all sorts of law suits and boycotts against their business. A gay couple could FORCE a Wedding Hall owned by a Christian to host their wedding or again face all sorts of law suits and boycotts. What about the religious rights of people ? They don't matter anymore. When a group can FORCE you to violate your religious beliefs then there is NO religious liberty in America anymore. My understanding was that militant gays were targeting Christian wedding planners just because they knew what would happen.

to comment

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