3 Arizona Republican senators urge veto of bill

Intelligent use of votes. They wanted just a tea party tantrum and it passed!

@lost in dc
what exactly does the Edmond tuck act have to do with current public accommodation laws that apply to private business's, you seem to wish to ignore the very distinct difference between religions that have had and continue to have immunity from such laws as long as it is within their ecclesiastical duties and private sector commerce and religions acting outside their ecclesiastical duties which has not had such protections since the public accommodation laws were passed.

If something is wrong or immoral (such as discrimination based on race) it should be discouraged by men but punished by God. When an act is criminal (violence against another, based on race or otherwise) it should be discouraged and punished by men (government)

This is standard political theory taught as the very reason that government has a right to exist in the first place. The study of Ezra Taft Bensons "the proper role of government" helps to shed light on this issue (his discourse was Given as a statesman not a prophet but is filled with truth none the less)

Lost in DC good thoughts. I aggree

Wanted to add it is a constitutional right to be a bigoted jerk. If a lunch counter wants to discriminate against any religious or racial class or sex or age they have the freedom of conscience under the original intent of the 1st amendment to do so.

"But meddle not with any man for his religion: all governments ought to permit every man to enjoy his religion unmolested. No man is authorized to take away life in consequence of difference of religion, which all laws and governments ought to tolerate and protect, right or wrong. Every man has a natural, and, in our country, a constitutional right to be a false prophet, as well as a true prophet. If I show, verily, that I have the truth of God, and show that ninety-nine out of every hundred professing religious ministers are false teachers, having no authority, while they pretend to hold the keys of God’s kingdom on earth, and was to kill them because they are false teachers, it would deluge the whole world with blood."- Joseph Smith

@ lost in DC: I find it interesting that in order to defend your position you have to conflate the 2 distinct definitions of discriminate.

Are you unable to discriminate between discriminable forms of discrimination?

Utefan60
the purpose of the 1st amendment is to prevent requirements such as those you lay out from infringing on religious freedoms and matters of conscience. Your argument is with the constitution and the first amendment, not with people of conscience.

Intolerance and bigotry against people of conscience cloaked in support of gay rights is a lie and is still intolerance and bigotry.

Karen,
what you are saying, then, is there is no right or wrong. there is no up or down, there is no left or right, there is no black or white, because what one person believes may differ from what another person believes. you may believe that if you want, but I am obligated to speak out against it if I feel it is harmful.

If you choose Pepsi over Coke, you are discriminating against Coke, that simple. Discrimination exists everywhere and in everything.

you say some discriminate between sins? should there not be distinction between murder and jaywalking? they are both sins if you want to define breaking a law as committing a sin. Should both have the same punishment. Of COURSE there is discriminations between sins. Your inability to see that only weakens your argument.

@ lost in DC

"EVERY religion should be for discrimination. discriminaiton against wrong and sin..."

What undermines the credibility of your position is that those who believe as you do also "discriminate" between sins. Consider the source of the belief that homosexuality is an "abomination." Do you also adhere to all other proscriptions found in this or other similar texts? Why not? What is your basis for determining which ones are valid and which are not?

"And I see you want to eradicate the protections of the 1st amendment."

I am obligated to respect your right to believe whatever you like (and to express it as hyperbolically as you like). I am not obligated to respect the belief or to remain silent about it if I believe it's harmful.

Lost in DC

The day a business acquires a business license they are required to follow the law. That includes serving Black people, single people, Mormons, Jews and yes even LBGT people. This bill in Arizona is nothing more than bigotry and hatred similar to what the Nazi's did to the Jewish Community in Germany.

The use of religion to deny business services is a falsification and lie. Bigotry cloaked in religion is still bigotry!

Maudine,

PRIVATE enterprise is NOT a public accomodation

please research the Edmunds-Tucker laws, then come talk to me again about how government does not interfere in religion.

The intolerance of those demanding tolerance is mind-boggling.

Karen,
EVERY religion should be for discrimination. discriminaiton against wrong and sin - don't they preach against sin? Don't they preach against hate? Preaching against anything is preaching discrimination. Preaching FOR something is preaching discrimination against the opposite.

And I see you want to eradicate the protections of the 1st amendment.

The photo accompanying this story shows a man wearing a priest's collar holding a sign that reads, "No religion should be for discrimination." I don't know if that man is actually a priest, but I hope so. I would really like to see America's religions be at least as moral as the secular world.

Meanwhile, the homophobia fomented by religion in African countries is having dire effects. See stories on Uganda today.

This religious-based belief has and will continue to get people killed until it is eradicated.

Sorry that should be public

@lost in DC

So please tell us exactly when "the religious" were immune to pubc accomadation laws. Religions when acting within thier ecclesiastical duties have been immune and continue to be even with recent anti discrimination laws.

the protections of the 1st amendment are waning. The day of governmental non-interference in matters of consience has passed. The religious will be stripped of their constitutional protections.

The power of the so called "religious" is waning. The day that the so called "religious" could dictate how a secular democratic representative republic functions has passed. The so called "religious" will be challenged and rightfully so on all of their the anti-constitutionalist positions.