Quantcast
U.S. & World

Arizona Gov. Brewer criticizes so-called anti-gay bill, vetoes it

Comments

Return To Article
  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    March 3, 2014 2:09 p.m.

    To "Lagomorph" the scenario that you paint only exists is a pessimistic world. When the free market has been able to work, outside of political interference, things like the Jim Crow laws never exist. For example, in the early colonial days of the US, the free market was alive and very strong. Ironically, people did not discriminate during that time. It wasn't until people thought that the government knew best, and deferred to government for decisions that they should make that problems arose.

    Yes the blacks could have voted away the Jim Crow laws, but the Southern Democrats enacted laws that prevented most blacks from voting, thus securing their plower. The free market was not allowed to work there because the Democrats did not want to lose their power.

    You are now getting to the point of insanity. The fact remains that the US is filled with good people, and the small towns even more so. I would not worry about the LDS family in a small town because that situation would never exist.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    March 3, 2014 11:19 a.m.

    @RedShirt: Again, mostly agreed. I agree that an entrepreneur can capitalize on the market niche of an underserved customer base in your example. However, you continue to discount the power relationships I cited that can create market failure and perpetuate discriminatory conditions. It's the difference between theoretical ideals (rosy) and real world practicalities (not always so rosy). The free market may prevail in the long run, but locally and in the short term may not produce the ideal outcome without some external political nudging.

    I'm reminded of another thread in months past where a commenter noted that many southern states had African-American majority populations and simply could have voted away Jim Crow laws, ignoring the practical reality that whites held all of the political and economic power. Blacks couldn't even register to vote, let alone vote or hold office. Democracy, the "free market" of political power, fails when the customers (voters) have no options.

    Same applies here. In a town of 2000, say, is there sufficient customer base to support a second grocery? What if there is a single Mormon family and all the other 1993 people in town hate Mormons? Who will open the nondiscriminating competitor store?

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    March 3, 2014 8:18 a.m.

    To "Lagomorph" lets imagine that the situation you describe actually occurs. Now, you have a business opportunity. Any enterprising person can see that there is a group that is not being served. If you are a smart businessman, you start a business that delivers groceries or start your own competing grocery store and take business away from the discriminating businesses.

    Only in a pessimistic "mankind is all evil" world would any lasting problem exist if people were allowed to pick and choose customers.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    March 1, 2014 12:39 p.m.

    RedShirt: "To 'Lagomorph' ok, lets visualise a grocery store wanting to discriminate against LDS people. How are they going to do that?"

    The same way that people discriminate against homosexuals, through observation and reasoned inferences and playing on stereotypes. Ever hear of "gaydar"? It's not hard for a grocer to pick LDS people out of a crowd of customers. The van in the lot with lots of kids, a "Families are forever" bumper sticker, BYU sweatshirts, buy tons of groceries but never coffee or beer, clean-cut and wholesome. Also, in a small town, say, everyone knows everyone else's business. There are bound to be false positives and false negatives, but the percentages are good.

    RedShirt: "The point is, the free market would play out, and the really bad businesses will eventually go away."

    Mostly agreed, but you completely missed my point about minority/majority power relationships. The market only works if there are options. There may not be alternative businesses available for an aggrieved minority customer to patronize if 1) there is only one grocer in town or 2) ALL the grocers in town are part of the discriminating majority group. Either could be the case in some places.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Feb. 28, 2014 1:52 p.m.

    To "Happy Valley Heretic" we already have businesses and regions that discriminate, and nobody cares. You realize that there are "gay bars" where non-gays are not accepted and are intimidated. There are neighborhoods in the big cities where if you are not a member of that neighborhoods ethnic group you will be beat up or killed. Colleges are allowed to discriminate based on race. So are scholarships. Have you ever heard of a white kid receiving a scholarship from the Negro College Fund? The government enacted all sorts of laws requiring businesses hire people based on ethnicity. Even within the government purchasing system they discriminate based on skin color, veteran status, and disabled status.

    The fact is there are many racist businesses and government entities. Why not let the rest of the population have the same freedom to discriminate based on whatever they want?

    If the government can discriminate, why can't I?

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Feb. 28, 2014 12:23 p.m.

    RedShirt said: To "Schnee" the idea of businesses being able to deny services to anybody for any reason should be restored. If some racist doesn't want to serve minorities, that is fine. Let him do that, and eventually his business will fail. At the same time, a minority member can open up a business and say that whites are not allowed. If a gay wants to start a gay only wedding cake business, that is great. If a hetersexual wants to only cater to hetersexuals, that is great too.

    Talk about a bad Idea, sure most civilized places in the USA would gladly allow a racist business to fail but their are places like Hayden Lake Idaho, home to the Arian brotherhood where they might thrive. Now your a person who isn't white and christian and your low on gas, well they don't serve your type round theses parts, so no gas, you ask, is there someplace we can stay nope no room at the inn for your type, no food, no service and come dark it could get worse.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Feb. 28, 2014 8:58 a.m.

    To "Lagomorph" ok, lets visualise a grocery store wanting to discriminate against LDS people. How are they going to do that? Do they keep a list of known LDS members at their register, do they pay somebody to stand at the door and tell LDS people to go away? No matter what, their is no way they can discriminate against LDS people without it costing them money. Only a really bad businessman would discriminate in a way that cut into their bottom line. If they are that determined to discriminate they will probably destroy their business soon. Plus, think of the community. Do you think that southerners would shop at a store they knew was intentionally discriminating against their neighbors?

    The point is, the free market would play out, and the really bad businesses will eventually go away.

  • Avenue Vernal, UT
    Feb. 27, 2014 5:05 p.m.

    The bill was not anti-gay, but simply pro-religion. A business has the right to refuse service to anyone, no matter the reason. This is especially true when it would violate the personal religious of the owner to provide service.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 27, 2014 4:25 p.m.

    RedShirt: "Think of it this way, how long would a business last in Utah that denied services to LDS people?"

    That's a legitimate, but weak, example. The real issue is a minority group facing discrimination by the majority. A more relevant example would be a business in, say, Texas or Mississippi or Florida, with a predominantly fundamentalist evangelical Christian population that denied services to LDS people (on the basis of their deeply held religious beliefs that Mormons were non-Christian). The free market doesn't function nearly as efficiently in weeding out the bad actors in this case because there are likely to be multiple discriminating businesses. The aggrieved minority LDS person might not have any alternative nondiscriminating businesses to patronize (especially in a small town). The market calculus changes when the power relationship is reversed.

    Your point about Jim Crow being government, not private, discrimination, is well taken, but remember that it was a symptom of an ingrained cultural attitude. De facto racial segregation (i.e. discrimination) survived long after de jure segregation was abolished.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Feb. 27, 2014 3:47 p.m.

    To "Utefan4Lyf" what is more unacceptable, allowing people to make choices, for good or bad or allowing government to force you to serve others?

    You are wrong. Their will be reprecussions. Either their business will suffer because people don't want to be associated with people that discriminate or else their business will prosper because people with similar ideals will buy from them. But that is just a side issue.

    The fact is, you have to decide what you can live with. Somebody making bad choices, or government forcing you to serve others.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    Feb. 27, 2014 3:31 p.m.

    It is sad that people give into the pressure of that statists who want the state to control more of our lives. Individuals should have the right to live their religion, and not be penalized for doing so.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    Feb. 27, 2014 3:24 p.m.

    @lost in DC

    "nuns should not HAVE to sign a form."

    Why not? Are they above the law?

    "Research Edmonds-Tacker Acts"

    Marriage is a function of the state with the state allowing and authorizing churches to act on the state's behalf in performing weddings. Edmonds-Tacker defined what was a legal marriage not who could or could not perform the wedding. No church will have to perform a wedding ceremony for anyone whose beliefs goes against the teachings of that church.

    "Business owners are PEOPLE."

    Businesses, however, are not. They are licensed by the state with the expectation that they will conduct their business in accordance with the laws and regulations of the state. But, I'll make a compromise. I'll support legislation that allows businesses to discriminate on religious beliefs of the owners as long as the same law requires that business owner to prominently display a disclaimer stating they "reserve the right to refuse service and/or employment based on their religious beliefs." This will allow reasonable people to skip by those shops and take their business elsewhere. Deal?

  • Utefan4Lyf West Jordan, UT
    Feb. 27, 2014 2:57 p.m.

    @RedShirt: You're right. This isn't government forced segregation, it is government approved segregation. They are telling business owners they can discriminate with no reprecussions. It's still an unacceptable act.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    Feb. 27, 2014 1:46 p.m.

    @ Mountanman

    "I decide what is moral for myself but you and others don't want me to have that freedom!"

    Not true at all. You have always had the right to decide what is or is not moral for yourself as long as it is within the confines of the law. What has you in a snit is we are no longer going to stand still and allow you to force your "morality" on us. Equal rights under the law means equal rights for all, even those you disagree with.

    "You and others insist your morality be forced upon me and others "

    First, you have been forcing your "morality" om us for a couple of hundred years; we're tired of it. Second, if you are going to seek profit in Caesar's market place you must obey Caesar's rules. You don't have to open a business but if you want to there are rules and laws in place that must be followed.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Feb. 27, 2014 12:52 p.m.

    To "Well.ok" I would support a bill that allowed businesses to deny services to anybody they wanted to. Think of it this way, how long would a business last in Utah that denied services to LDS people? Better yet, how much would it cost a business to pay somebody to stand at their door and ask if that person is LDS? That business wouldn't last long, so why not let them try to make a name for themselves.

    Lets look at it logically. Would you hire a lawn service that discriminated against any racial group? Would you hire a lawn service that didn't care if you were black, white, red, yellow, purple, or blue?

    Let the market decide.

    This isn't a return to the Jim Crow era, because that was GOVERNMENT enforced segregation. This is letting people shoot themselves in the foot and suffer the consequences.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    Feb. 27, 2014 12:49 p.m.

    Patriot, re-read your letter and substitute “Mormon wedding” or “interracial wedding” and see if your logic holds. Then imagine a Catholic wedding hall owner refusing to rent the space to a Christian couple where one of them had been divorced--and claiming a sincerely held belief in the sanctity of marriage as an excuse.

    Laws regarding businesses take the approach that you cannot offer a service (host a reception, make a cake, take pictures) for some people but not for others. I doubt that you would be happy to have some business refuse to serve you and then claim “religious freedom” as an excuse.

  • Well.ok Lehi, UT
    Feb. 27, 2014 12:35 p.m.

    I wonder how many supporters of the bill "protecting religious freedoms" would support a similar bill allowing businesses to deny services to LDS?

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    Feb. 27, 2014 12:15 p.m.

    I have a hard time believing that Jan Brewer wasn't intimately involved in a bill that all or practically all of the GOP legislators voted for. I think she saw it as possibly having repercussions but feigned lack of interest / lack of knowledge in its existence until she saw the handwriting on the wall (in the form of criticism from business) and then claimed she had only now read it and decided to put the kibbash on it. Read her statement as to why she did veto it--nothing about the wrongness of legitimizing discrimination, but rather some vague statement about how the legislation was unnecessary.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Feb. 27, 2014 12:09 p.m.

    To "killpack" the sharia law came to the US the day that the courts decided that Secular Humanism/Athiesim is the state religion. If you don't believe me, try an erect a cross or a 10 commandments monument on public property. Better yet, try and have a prayer listed as a prayer at a public meeting.

    To "Schnee" the idea of businesses being able to deny services to anybody for any reason should be restored. If some racist doesn't want to serve minorities, that is fine. Let him do that, and eventually his business will fail. At the same time, a minority member can open up a business and say that whites are not allowed. If a gay wants to start a gay only wedding cake business, that is great. If a hetersexual wants to only cater to hetersexuals, that is great too. By suing those businesses to serve them, they are pushing people into slavery. Didn't we have a big war to end slavery?

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Feb. 27, 2014 12:01 p.m.

    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.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Feb. 27, 2014 11:48 a.m.

    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.

  • Utefan4Lyf West Jordan, UT
    Feb. 27, 2014 11:27 a.m.

    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.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Feb. 27, 2014 11:06 a.m.

    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.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Feb. 27, 2014 10:56 a.m.

    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".

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 27, 2014 10:43 a.m.

    @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.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Feb. 27, 2014 10:05 a.m.

    •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!

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Feb. 27, 2014 9:47 a.m.

    @ 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.”

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    Feb. 27, 2014 9:33 a.m.

    @ 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.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 27, 2014 9:21 a.m.

    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?

  • Utefan4Lyf West Jordan, UT
    Feb. 27, 2014 9:18 a.m.

    @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.

  • killpack Sandy, UT
    Feb. 27, 2014 9:13 a.m.

    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!

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 27, 2014 9:10 a.m.

    @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.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Feb. 27, 2014 8:40 a.m.

    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!!!

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Feb. 27, 2014 8:39 a.m.

    @ 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.

  • Jamescmeyer Midwest City, USA, OK
    Feb. 27, 2014 8:35 a.m.

    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.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Feb. 27, 2014 8:23 a.m.

    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.

  • Utefan4Lyf West Jordan, UT
    Feb. 27, 2014 8:21 a.m.

    @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.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Feb. 27, 2014 7:28 a.m.

    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.

  • xert Santa Monica, CA
    Feb. 27, 2014 7:25 a.m.

    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.