Arizona Gov. Brewer vetoes so-called anti-gay bill

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    March 1, 2014 9:27 p.m.

    @techpubs: 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.

    Schools CAN have reference to Christianity as long as they also allow other religions to have access and protect the rights of non-Christian students. If you want Christian stuff on the walls of schools you also must support the rights of Jews, Muslims, Pagans, Wiccans, Mormons and others to display their symbols, too. Most Christians only want public religious displays that exclude all other religions. That then becomes government endorsement of one religion.

  • Willem Los Angeles, CA
    March 1, 2014 6:55 a.m.

    Fellow Mormons lets stamp out Homophobia now!

  • Janet Ontario, OR
    Feb. 28, 2014 3:21 p.m.

    The idea of subcontracting to avoid participation in something objectionable isn't a bad one. Another might be to discourage the potential client from wanting to use your business. "I don't know much about fondant sculpture (if that's true, of course), but XYZ Bakery does some beautiful work." "I've already booked a wedding for that day (again, if true), but I can recommend another excellent photographer." I don't see why refusing to bake a cake, arrange flowers, or take photos or video at a gay wedding is making a positive difference in the world. The couple is still getting married. If I were a printer, I'd hate printing flyers for a pro-choice rally, but if I did or not, they'd still get printed. I am deeply religious and agree that religion is under attack by certain voices in America, but that is partly because of the "culture wars" mentality of religious people who try to bully rather than follow Jesus' example of meekness and quiet strength. Granny used to say, "You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar."

  • dLange Los Gatos, CA
    Feb. 27, 2014 4:38 p.m.

    the headline calling this a "so-called anti-gay" bill shows editorialization of the headlines. There is no question that the bill would have allowed discrimination, for better or worse, against gays.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    Feb. 27, 2014 3:28 p.m.

    Calling this bill "anti-gay" is a lie. This bill protects to freedom of all people to implement their religion in all aspects of their life without the government penalizing them for it. This is a good thing. Sadly, the liberal media has told never ending laws about the bill.

  • Eliyahu Pleasant Grove, UT
    Feb. 27, 2014 3:08 p.m.

    "But asking for a gay marriage cake or photographing a gay marriage is something different."

    Is it different from, let's say, making a cake for a Mormon marrying a gentile, or for someone entering any other marriage that isn't approved by your church? Should a baker be asking for all the details of the relationship and their background, or do they have different standards for one particular "sin" rather than another? If his church believes that divorce is forbidden, should he be demanding to know if this is a second marriage for either partner before agreeing to bake a cake?

    In any case, bakers and photographers aren't asked to approve or endorse the wedding. Rather, they're asked to provide food or a service. If the baker's religion teaches that gluttony is a sin, can he refuse to sell to obese people on religious grounds? What if he thinks drinking alcohol is a sin and there might be booze at the wedding? Or are some "sins" okay?

  • cavetroll SANDY, UT
    Feb. 27, 2014 1:29 p.m.


    @ 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."

  • Eliyahu Pleasant Grove, UT
    Feb. 27, 2014 11:57 a.m.

    @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.

  • RG Buena Vista, VA
    Feb. 27, 2014 11:47 a.m.

    @ 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?

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Feb. 27, 2014 11:16 a.m.

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

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

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Feb. 27, 2014 9:50 a.m.

    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.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Feb. 27, 2014 9:49 a.m.

    @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)

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 27, 2014 9:22 a.m.

    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.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Feb. 27, 2014 8:52 a.m.

    "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.

  • intervention slc, UT
    Feb. 27, 2014 8:29 a.m.


    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.

  • techpubs Sioux City, IA
    Feb. 27, 2014 8:00 a.m.

    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?

  • TheTrueVoice West Richland, WA
    Feb. 27, 2014 7:50 a.m.

    @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."

  • TheTrueVoice West Richland, WA
    Feb. 27, 2014 7:35 a.m.

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


  • JNA Layton, UT
    Feb. 27, 2014 7:30 a.m.

    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.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Feb. 27, 2014 6:57 a.m.

    @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:

    " 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.

  • JBQ Saint Louis, MO
    Feb. 27, 2014 6:31 a.m.

    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.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Feb. 27, 2014 5:31 a.m.

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

  • freedomingood provo, Utah
    Feb. 26, 2014 11:49 p.m.

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

  • Bingham Student South Jordan, UT
    Feb. 26, 2014 11:00 p.m.

    @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.

  • Utefan60 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 26, 2014 10:50 p.m.

    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!

  • A Run South Jordan, UT
    Feb. 26, 2014 10:48 p.m.

    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.

  • A Run South Jordan, UT
    Feb. 26, 2014 10:45 p.m.

    You know, people say that they are just trying to do what the constitution states, giving everyone freedom of religion, speech, etc.., as well as following the 14th amendment. This is true completely. Everyone should be able to have as many rights as they want.

    However, as in the recent bill in Arizona... The constitution does say that no state shall deny equal protection of law. It does not say that the citizens can't refuse service to other citizens

    That last sentence sounds bad, and probably reminds people of oppression of the blacks during the 1960s. Many of you are probably going to say Blah Blah Blah Civil Rights Act Blah Blah Blah. This still sounds terrible. The civil rights act of 1964 says that you can't discriminate based of of Gender, race, religion, color, origin. Last time I checked, Homosexual isn't a religion. Also, because the companies in Arizona sold to both male and female, just not to gays, it is legal to do so. It may not be right, and it is not my position to decide, but it is LEGAL

  • AZ-Byu fan gilbert, AZ
    Feb. 26, 2014 10:41 p.m.

    @the truth

    Well Said!! There is so much difference between selling a product and a personal service. You should have the right to sell a personal service under the paramaters that you establish. You basically have people making an argument that you must provide servitude to every request as long as it is legal. This argument is crazy! Basically commenters are arguing that a photographer would be forced to shoot nude photographs if that is what his client requested. Let's have some common sense here. Selling a pair of shoes is so much different than photographing a wedding.

    @Tolstoy, @Kilindra - your arguments are ridiculous. You are basically saying that you have no right to ever say no if you decide to run your own business.

  • intervention slc, UT
    Feb. 26, 2014 9:58 p.m.


    Yes we have so much evidance of people being sued all the time with all the other groups of people that ready have protections from discrimination (religion, race, gender) oh wait no we don't. I almost bought I tithe dooms day there for a minute.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    Feb. 26, 2014 9:52 p.m.

    This is a HUFE blow to individual freedom and liberty.

    Apparently homosexuals can now force another into forced servitude.

    Where does the public end and personal or special labor and personal or special service begin?

    I believe no one is entitled to another service or labor when becomes personal or special service or personal labor.

    Onsite photography requires a person's person and therefore personal labor and service.

    Making a special cake require special service and therefore personal labor.

    Please explain where the public ends and the personal begins?

    What state law requires special and/or personal service and labor?

    It is not discrimination when it becomes personal or special.

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 26, 2014 9:42 p.m.

    Operating a business is a privilege.
    Freedom of religion is a right.
    A privilege does not become a right, just because the privilege holder is religious.

  • samhill Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 26, 2014 8:56 p.m.

    I wonder how long it will be before someone is sued for providing a service in what they feel is contrary to their religious conviction and doesn't exhibit the "proper" enthusiasm, or simply because they don't smile as broadly as the offended claimant thinks is their due?

    All of this kind of political correctness is just a short step away from the kind of coerced devotion to the "Dear Leader" in N. Korea.

    Freedom of expression and thought includes the right NOT to express.

  • Kings Court Alpine, UT
    Feb. 26, 2014 8:38 p.m.

    I like how the headline says "so-called" as if it meant something else. Lol.

  • The Rock Federal Way, WA
    Feb. 26, 2014 8:01 p.m.

    We all enjoy freedom of the press but nobody is required to read what you or I write.
    We have freedom of speech. Nobody is required to listen.

    Rights do not place obligations on others.

    Gay activists seek to place obligations on others simply because they disagree with them.

    For the record, this has nothing in common with the civil rights struggles of the 1960s.

  • Jim Cobabe Provo, UT
    Feb. 26, 2014 7:57 p.m.

    The intended purpose for the "Religious Rights" bill seems to be an attempt to provide the same basic protections found in the First Amendment. Presumably it would be cited in lawsuits where such issues are argued. The passage or veto will not change the nature of this conflict. The much maligned "NO GAYS ALLOWED" signs will continue to be just as much on display in Arizona as they ever were.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Feb. 26, 2014 7:38 p.m.

    @ RG: The simple answer to your questions is "yes". If you have a business it is your obligation as part of your business license to follow the laws of the state and community in which you operate - you do not get to cast judgement on your customers and decide if they are worthy of receiving your services.

    If you do not want to treat all people equally, don't own a business - or limit the scope of your business such that you will not be required to provide services you find questionable.

    It really is not a difficult situation after all and has been addressed before.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Feb. 26, 2014 7:32 p.m.

    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? Would such actions not be a violation of the LDS persons religious freedoms? this law, the way it was written, would have allowed for such actions.

  • I know it. I Live it. I Love it. Provo, UT
    Feb. 26, 2014 7:28 p.m.

    Someday, someone with more power and more authority will veto her ability to govern.

    You can write up whatever you want and call it a law. But writing a law saying 'gravity doesn't exist' doesn't change the anything but your own wisdom and intelligence. Most people don't realize how serious their actions are. That's the point in this life, to learn what is true. But the number of those who wish to learn nothing but dictate their own morality... it's growing.


    Imagine trying to jump from an airplane then re-write the laws of gravity mid flight.

    Imagine trying to jump from the most functional human system in existence and re-write the consequences.

    The sad part is that we're not even preventing people from jumping. We just don't want people to tear down the recognized plaque of value for the system we already have. Push comes to shove... this issue was never about freedom or equality, but forcing your opinions on social institutions, your choices on business owners, and forcing your way into defining what privilege and right are to overthrow reason in favor of self-denial about morality and consequences.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Feb. 26, 2014 7:21 p.m.


    the simple answer is yes, if they choose to do business in the public square and the work they are asked to do does not violate the law (including discrimination laws) then they should not be allowed to discriminate. We may find what these organizations stand for distatsteful but it is the price of living in a free society.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Feb. 26, 2014 7:19 p.m.

    Our differences are prolific and vast, but it's comforting to see common sense and common ground.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Feb. 26, 2014 7:16 p.m.

    "And of course we could come up with a dozen more."

    Yes we could.

    Could a Jehovahs Witness Surgeon refuse to give a blood transfusion during an operation?
    Could an Evangelical employer refuse to hire a Mormon because he felt they were not Christian?
    Could a hotel refuse to rent a hotel room to someone wearing a Muslim headscarf?
    Could a restaurant refuse to serve a bi-racial couple?
    Could a Catholic Doctor refuse to write a prescription for birth control?
    Could a LDS businessman refuse to hire someone who drinks coffee?

    This is a complex issue. The discrimination can cut both ways.

    Didn't we have the exact same issues concerning black people in the past?

  • Outside-View Federal Way, WA
    Feb. 26, 2014 7:16 p.m.

    I think this was best. I support a persons right to not to be forced to "participate" in gay weddings and similar activties that go against a persons religious beliefs. However, I am not sure that right can be worded properly.

    Going forward, I suggest that those businesses who offer those type of personal services simply hire a "subcontractor" to go do the wedding pictures, bake the cake, or whatever "service" they dont want to do themselves.

    This wont validate the persons religious "right" but it should help prevent them for actually participating in the objectionable activity.

  • omahahusker Modesto, CA
    Feb. 26, 2014 7:12 p.m.

    it is good to see common sense prevailed in uncommon legislation. As for business owners, if they offer a service either follow through with the commitment to serve or at least recommend another vendor to serve the customer. However the offended party needs to spend their money elsewhere if the business refuses service. Running to the courts because you are offended seems to have gotten all too common.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 26, 2014 7:00 p.m.

    The radical right is moving to a very small corner by choice.

  • Ophelia Bountiful, UT
    Feb. 26, 2014 6:59 p.m.

    Wise decision, Governor Brewer. History doesn't look kindly on those who stand against equality.

  • RG Buena Vista, VA
    Feb. 26, 2014 6:45 p.m.

    In her column today, Kellie Fiedorek poses some interesting questions: "Do you believe a photographer who identifies as homosexual should be punished for refusing to photograph an event celebrating the Westboro Baptist Church’s hateful ideas? Do you believe a Jewish printer should be threatened for declining to promote a conference criticizing Israel? Do you believe a pacifist should be coerced to paint pro-war posters for a rally?"

    These are the kind of questions that all the detractors of Arizona's bill must ask themselves. And of course we could come up with a dozen more.