Governor Brewer: Veto the Bill

I know I am in the minority here on this issue, but I believe that equal protection under the law means (especially means) equal access to trade and commerce. This bill reeks of Jim Crow.

Governor Brewer should veto this bill.

Prominent Republicans are calling for Ariz. Gov. Jan Brewer to veto a controversial bill that would allow businesses to deny service over religious beliefs.

The Republican governor returned home Tuesday afternoon to a political climate that is much different from just a week ago when she left for Washington the last five days for a governor’s conference.

The Arizona Legislature passed a bill last week allowing businesses whose owners cite sincerely held religious beliefs to deny service to gays. It allows any business, church or person to cite the law as a defense in any action brought by the government or individual claiming discrimination.

The legislation has caused a national uproar. The chorus of opposition has grown each day, with the business community, the state’s Super Bowl Committee and both Republican U.S. senators calling for a veto. Former GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney was the latest prominent voice to weigh in and urge Brewer to veto the bill.

Bookmark the permalink.

122 Responses to Governor Brewer: Veto the Bill

  1. Tatersalad says:

    Should the government send someone (the store owner) to prison for not baking a cake for a gay couple?

    Does the gay couple have the right to demand that the store owner bake this cake or them regardless of their religious beliefs?

    Why did the Fort Hood killer get to keep his beard on religious beliefs defying the military’s code of Justice?

    Why did the Supreme Court rule that the Westboro Baptist church whack jobs get equal protection during military funerals to harasses the grieving families of the dead military member?

    There has to be equal protections for both parties – for the owner of the bakery and also the gay couple. How is that done is the question.

    • R.D. Walker says:

      Been through it all before. If you are in the business of baking cakes, you shouldn’t be allowed to exclude a class of people from purchasing your cakes. That is Jim Crow to the core.

      I know of no common Christian principal that requires merchants to ensure the goods they peddle be used only in a manner that matches their interpretation of scripture.

      Should Christian bakers be allowed to put up signs that say “No Jews”? After all, they don’t believe in a Christ centered marriage either.

      If you don’t want to serve the public, don’t open your doors to the public.

      This is just very, very bad public policy.

      • notamobster says:

        Denying a standard cake to the exclusion of an entire class of people is wrong. Denying a dick-shaped cake to a couple is well within their conscientious objection rights.

        • R.D. Walker says:

          Absolutely.

          • notamobster says:

            Apparently, there’s a larger dick cake market than anyone knew.

            Might be a viable business opportunity there, if anyone’s interested…

        • Z says:

          Yes it’s wrong, but should it be illegal? On the other hand I would say that a law such as this is nearing obsoletion due to the public’s communication and coordination capabilities in advanced society. In a similar vein, I think private unions are obsolete.

          But I would say in this case the bakers have the right to be assholes. Just like I have the right to let everyone know why I think they are assholes.

          • R.D. Walker says:

            Z: I agree. As Nota said, as a practical matter, the issue is moot.

            If it were legal today and a restaurant had a “No Negroes” policy, it would be out of business almost immediately. At the rate of social acceptance of gays, this will be no different in the very near future. Refusing to serve gays will be effectively the same as putting up a “going out of business” sign.

        • dukka says:

          woops clicked the red link you included in your response…big mistake. Didn’t know their was such a market for dick shaped cakes. Funny thing…it also showed a picture of Miley Cyrus. :)

  2. notamobster says:

    I agree with you that they shouldn’t be allowed to deny service, as a whole, because they are opposed to gayness (?). They should reserve the right to deny specific services which violate their conscience.

    Churches shouldn’t have to perform gay weddings.
    Bakers shouldn’t have to bake a wedding cake with 2 dudes on it.
    Drug stores shouldn’t be forced to sell contraceptives.
    Muslims shouldn’t be forced to sell bacon or alcohol.
    Christian campgrounds shouldn’t be forced to accommodate homosexual gatherings.

    If two dudes, however, come in and say I want a 3-tier cake with glitter and roses on it – they should not be able to deny service. Likewise, a motel should not be able to turn away a gay couple.

    I don’t think it matters much anyway. The market will have it’s say. Anyone who denies service based on opposition to homosexuality will go out of business. It’s too main stream these days to get away with denying service.

    If people aren’t allowed to say no based upon their convictions – leftists f-kheads will deliberately incite problems. It’s what they do. They will demand that a Baptist Retreat rent the property for a gay pride convention or some other horseshit, just to provoke people.

    • R.D. Walker says:

      As I have said many times, a kosher deli cannot be made to serve ham. That deli must, however, sell liverwurst to the Goyim on the same terms it sells it to Jews.

      • notamobster says:

        I agree completely.

      • Ben says:

        The point is that they would make a birthday cake for the gay couple just not a wedding cake. The wedding cake is unkosher so to speak its the wedding part that is the “ham” in your example.

        What does a Kosher deli get to do If i carry a ham in and plan to add it to my sandwiches?

        The law does not forbid anyone from serving anyone it protects those who deny service for any religious reason from lawsuits.

        The objection is to the violation of the religous term marriage.

        Personally I don’t give a crap who does what with whom or who gets married. If it were up to me the government would not recognize any marriage and it would be purely a religious and social institution with not govt backing whatsoever. Then nobody can bitch.

        • R.D. Walker says:

          A baker doesn’t have to print “Happy Gay Wedding” on his cake. If it is, as Nota says, a dick cake, it is ham. If it is his standard fare, however, it is the same as liverwurst is standard fare in a kosher deli.

          If he has a cake in the window that is for sale and he refuses to sell it to a gay couple, he is wrong. That should not be legal.

          • Ben says:

            Wedding cakes are in my experience all custom and take hours of planning and work. Its not just a cake in the window. If they want a cake in the window then sure go ahead buy it use it for whatever I agree, wedding cakes are not sold like that.

            Its a custom cake made with input and design requests for a specific couple that is the issue.

            What about a photographer/dj/venue/wedding planner/food services company?
            They are all service related and dont just have “stock” in the window you just take. Your buying that persons time and they have the right to not spend their time in service to something they do not agree with.
            Gay wedding ? Abortion rally? Devil worshipers convention? Mormon something? La Raza meeting KKK Black panthers. Whatever the “class of people” you can choose to not serve them.

            • R.D. Walker says:

              Again, no baker has to make a special cake that he doesn’t want to make. If a gay couple comes in, looks at his catalog and says, “I would like to buy Number 14″, the baker cannot say that he won’t sell it to him because he doesn’t approve of how it will be used.

              If they want him to put two brides or two grooms on the top, he doesn’t have to do it because that isn’t a service he offers.

              Again, merchants open to the general public must serve the general public in the same manner.

              We are going to get in big trouble in this country if we let people say, “My white supremacist religion prevents me from selling cakes to be used in nigger weddings.”

              This is no different.

              • Ben says:

                We are going to get in big trouble in this country if we let people say, “My white supremacist religion prevents me from selling cakes to be used in nigger weddings.”
                That religion may be retarded and wrong but if that is the sincerely held beliefs of its imaginary followers I support their right to practice business in accordance with their religion. Few “non believers” would likely shop there for long and they would loose money. Free market wins.

                Unless free practice of religion is not a right?

                In Your view customers have the right to choose where they do business but you do not have the right to turn away business as a provider.

              • R.D. Walker says:

                “In Your view customers have the right to choose where they do business but you do not have the right to turn away business as a provider.”

                Close. Not serving customers is easy. Businesses do it by default.

                I support laws that say that, if you open a business to the public, you must serve the public in an equitable manner.

  3. R.D. Walker says:

    “They will demand that a Baptist Retreat rent the property for a gay pride convention or some other horseshit, just to provoke people.”

    No doubt. The world is full of assholes who do stuff like that. That sort of shit must be dealt with but we probably shouldn’t swat that fly with a legislative atom bomb.

  4. jct says:

    You guys are uninformed.
    1. The amendment says that the government does not have to be a party for bill to be applied. That was the legislative intent until altered by New Mexico judicial decision.
    2. The amendment anticipates the abortion issues now before the Supreme Court (Hobby Lobby) and sets forth that the government must have cause of making a business violate their religious convictions.
    3. The amendment sets a “bar” for religious beliefs, a three part test that, if not met, does not provide shelter for discrimination.

    As of right now, businesses can refuse (or not refuse) service to a non-protected class. Most businesses prefer to provide service to get revenue. There are NOT any active lawsuits pertaining to this matter.

    The cake maker and wedding photographer that are always referenced did not refuse service to gays. They refused service to a “same sex MARRIAGE” because it violated their religious beliefs. Up to them and the people getting married can go to the next store.

    You fellas ought to read the actual amendment or the legal analysis as to why the amendment is being advanced. If you have already done so, your deciding logic must be associated with the “appearance” of things. Like a John McCain flyover…a former hero of magnificent proportions who no longer focuses on the details and is sometimes considerably lacking as a result.

    You can call me names back…I’m just surprised that this august group wouldn’t look at the substance and the reasons for the amendment.

    • notamobster says:

      Ouch. I never even bothered to look at it. I just got hooked into the same debate we’ve been having for quite some time.

      Thanks, JCT.

    • R.D. Walker says:

      “The cake maker and wedding photographer that are always referenced did not refuse service to gays. They refused service to a “same sex MARRIAGE” because it violated their religious beliefs.”

      Please. That is just semantics. If a gay couple walked in and said, “I would like to purchase cake #14 from your catalog” and they said, “Nope, you aren’t going to use it right because you are gay” that is refusing service to gays and it is bullshit.

      There is NOTHING in Catholic or mainline Protestantism that demands that a merchant ensure that his goods only be used for scripturally sound purposes. Nothing.

      They are refusing service to a class of people.

      • Ben says:

        So if they wanted a Priest to preform the wedding in their back yard he would have to?

        Do Mazarratti dealers deny service to a class of people by not allowing test drives with out a credit check?

        What if a tattoo artist refused to tattoo skulls on people under the age of 20 because he felt they were to stupid to know what they really want?

        Willing to do any other tattoo but just not skulls its part of his beliefs. The law just prevents lawsuits.

        If he needs the money bad enough eh can choose to compromise his beliefs but they should not be allowed to force him to via court order.

        Like I said it doesn’t have to be right but the courts have no place forcing people to violate whatever belief they hold. I can hate what they do and why they do it but they have the right to refuse service.

        • R.D. Walker says:

          Priests don’t have the power to perform gay weddings because God won’t sanctify a gay wedding according to Catholic canon. Therefore, it isn’t possible for a Catholic priest to perform such a wedding. He would just be going through the motions.

          Car dealers can’t refuse to sell cars to anyone based on his race, religion or creed. Nobody has to sell anything to anyone who can’t or won’t pay.

          That minors can be refused various services is a well established and non-controversial aspect of the law. Children are denied all manner of Constitutional rights that inviolable in adults.

    • R.D. Walker says:

      As for the Hobby Lobby example, they aren’t refusing service to a class of people. They are refusing to offer a product they have never offered. Forcing them to supply abortion inducing drugs is tantamount to forcing a kosher deli to serve ham. It has nothing to do with this case.

  5. jct says:

    Just suppose…
    Catholic school rents out gymnasium to groups that want to play basketball. Catholic school says the group is responsible to keep things clean, not break stuff, turn out the lights and lock up.
    Catholic school refuses to rent gymnasium to Planned Parenthood for an abortion education session for the general public. Catholic school would be protected by the Arizona amendment.

    To me, you guys are advocating that the Catholic school must rent the gym to Planned Parenthood.

    I’m not smart enough to get it. Or maybe I am.

    • R.D. Walker says:

      I am not saying that at all. I am saying that if you serve the general public, you cannot exclude services to a class of people.

      If you have a restaurant you cannot put up a sign that says “No [Fill in the Blank*] Allowed.

      *Gays
      *Negroes
      *Catholics
      *Jews
      *Mormons
      *Irish

      • Ben says:

        And your correct but that is not the issue here. They are putting up a sign that says No Gay wedding cakes. Or no Contraceptives/plan B provided.

        If you run a small pharmacy you have the right to not stock Plan B right?

        Or I don’t photograph/dj/whatever Gay weddings

        They would do Birthdays new years whatever.

        And all the law does is prevent lawsuits based on religious refusal.

  6. messup says:

    Moral Equivilancy arguments! “LGBT’ers are just like anybody else.” So goes the Leftist’s mantra. Illegal Aliens are just like anybody else. Putin used “The Pink Revolution” as his tool, now they’re under the bus.” Hugo Chavez, used the LGBT community as his tool, now they, too are under the bus. Greece, France, Kiev the song is the same…these are but tools masking a socialst’s true agenda. Wake-up America. Brazil is going through the very same That’s what America’s Left encourages, and is happy to see all this waffling taking place.
    One has to understand, historically, American Progressive movement began in 1900 with Woodrow Wilson, imported from Europe. From 1900 to 2014, American Progressives have had enough time, patience and fortitude to hone their strategy and game plan. This became super evident during the lead-up to evolving “dot.com” fiasco and subsequent “Y2K” misinformation and later all IT bubble bursting. Today, Progressives literally “own” data mining, all forms of programming, hacking, data warehousing, you name it if it’s Information Technology one can be rest assured it will have a “Fabian Socialist’s” (ex:Google, Microsoft) name all over it. Politically, this “weaponization” of Information Technology by American Progressives and Far Left Activists propelled a languishing American Left (ex: the 70′s) campaign into “warp speed.” USA’s Progressive New Left Activists literally “own” every aspect of political discourse in the USA. While average, God Fearing Americans were busy making a living and raising families, Progressives were busy creating entitlement societies across these fruited plains as well as overseas. Today, a Fabian Socialist, savvy in Information Technology will find an “angel investor,” create an “app” and later sell it for millions. With this fortune in hand, that newly minted millionaire will join the Fabian Socialist club of “uber rich.” In order for this to have taken place, these Progressive New Left Activists were Title IX applicants, Student loan applicants, WICS, SEC(8), welfare and who knows, even EBT card users…in other words they were gaming the system while their God Fearing American family counterparts were busy raising families and working their hind ends off to make ends meet and feed today’s entitlement society.
    In other words, 1900′s Progressive Society, as envisioned by Fabian Socialist’s (with FDR as their leader) enabled their cadre of loyalists to “game-the-system,” focus their energies on political activism while receiving regular handouts from UNCLE SAM. Not a one of these never-do-wells ever, never fought for their USA…but YES, they sure fought AGAINST the USA. While on the other hand, hardworking American, Religious families were busy on day-to-day efforts, applying for employment, working to make a better living and planning to retire with a small nest egg.
    Early on, from 1900 to 2014, America was divided into two types of individuals:1) the “taker” and 2) the “giver!” Sadly, today, WE The People of Tea Party Faith have to be both “giver,” “activist,” “politically savvy,” and “information Technology” adept…while working full time. If We are to keep America the way Our Founding Fathers designed it, savvy Information TECHNOLOGY Tea Partiers MUST step up to the plate. SB1062 PROTECTION is but one symptom of this culmination of Constitutional erosion by every Progressive New Left Activist and Fabian Socialist in all America. “The Pink Revolution,” exported from Russia, is on America’s doorstep. Wake-up, fellow Americans. This fight to save Our Constitution is very real, very, very dire. Purity vs. Strategy is what Progressive New Left Activists like to hear…not one Progressive would ever be caught dead admitting this type of decision-making. Set a 1)Mission, 2)Vision, 3) Motivation, 4)Goals and lastly 5)Objectives. Be clear, focus and razor sharp…mealy mouthed approaches to this saving of America will merely doom Tea Party to defeat.

  7. jct says:

    I suggest that the amendment to the bill does not line up with the simplification that is being suggested by you, RD. You keep using an example that is MEANINGLESS to the actual amendment and dismiss my examples that are point on with the amendment. The amendment does NOT deal with classes of people (which is not covered in any law beyond specification of protected classes). The amendment is not about LGBT, although that is the concern that is being elevated. It is about the State doing three things:
    1. Government does not have to be a party to the action for it to be reviewable.
    2. Government has to have cause for overriding a religious freedom.
    3. Any religious freedom argument has to pass a three part test.

    You are a very smart guy. You’ve read the legal analysis and still have this strongly held view? I don’t want LGBT necks under the government boot, or my own!

    • R.D. Walker says:

      The law will preclude legal remedy for a person who is refused a merchant’s services based on his sexual orientation if the merchant cites religious reasons for hios refusal. I get it.

      It is, in my opinion, very bad social policy.

  8. notamobster says:

    State of Arizona
    Senate
    Fifty-first Legislature
    Second Regular Session
    2014

    SB 1062
    Introduced by
    Senators Yarbrough: Barto, Worsley

    AN ACT

    AMENDING SECTIONS 41-1493 AND 41-1493.01, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES; RELATING
    TO THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION.

    (TEXT OF BILL BEGINS ON NEXT PAGE)

    State of Arizona
    Senate
    Fifty-first Legislature
    Second Regular Session
    2014

    SB 1062
    Introduced by
    Senators Yarbrough: Barto, Worsley

    AN ACT

    AMENDING SECTIONS 41-1493 AND 41-1493.01, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES; RELATING
    TO THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION.

    (TEXT OF BILL BEGINS ON NEXT PAGE)

    PAGE 2
    1 Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
    2 Section 1. Section 41-1493, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to
    3 read:
    4 41-1493. Definitions
    5 In this article, unless the context otherwise requires:
    6 1. “Demonstrates” means meets the burdens of going forward with the
    7 evidence and of persuasion.
    8 2. “Exercise of religion” means the PRACTICE OR OBSERVANCE OF
    9 RELIGION, INCLUDING THE ability to act or refusal to act in a manner
    10 substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the exercise is
    11 compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief.
    12 3. “Government” includes this state and any agency or political
    13 subdivision of this state.
    14 4. “Nonreligious assembly or institution” includes all membership
    15 organizations, theaters, cultural centers, dance halls, fraternal orders,
    16 amphitheaters and places of public assembly regardless of size that a
    17 government or political subdivision allows to meet in a zoning district by
    18 code or ordinance or by practice.
    19 5. “Person” includes a religious assembly or institution ANY
    20 INDIVIDUAL, ASSOCIATION, PARTNERSHIP, CORPORATION, CHURCH, RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY
    21 OR INSTITUTION, ESTATE, TRUST, FOUNDATION OR OTHER LEGAL ENTITY.
    22 6. “Political subdivision” includes any county, city, including a
    23 charter city, town, school district, municipal corporation or special
    24 district, any board, commission or agency of a county, city, including a
    25 charter city, town, school district, municipal corporation or special
    26 district or any other local public agency.
    27 7. “Religion-neutral zoning standards”:
    28 (a) Means numerically definable standards such as maximum occupancy
    29 codes, height restrictions, setbacks, fire codes, parking space requirements,
    30 sewer capacity limitations and traffic congestion limitations.
    31 (b) Does not include:
    32 (i) Synergy with uses that a government holds as more desirable.
    33 (ii) The ability to raise tax revenues.
    34 8. “Suitable alternate property” means a financially feasible property
    35 considering the person’s revenue sources and other financial obligations with
    36 respect to the person’s exercise of religion and with relation to spending
    37 that is in the same zoning district or in a contiguous area that the person
    38 finds acceptable for conducting the person’s religious mission and that is
    39 large enough to fully accommodate the current and projected seating capacity
    40 requirements of the person in a manner that the person deems suitable for the
    41 person’s religious mission.
    42 9. “Unreasonable burden” means that a person is prevented from using
    43 the person’s property in a manner that the person finds satisfactory to
    44 fulfill the person’s religious mission.

    PAGE 3
    1 Sec. 2. Section 41-1493.01, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to
    2 read:
    3 41-1493.01. Free exercise of religion protected; definition
    4 A. Free exercise of religion is a fundamental right that applies in
    5 this state even if laws, rules or other government actions are facially
    6 neutral.
    7 B. Except as provided in subsection C, government OF THIS SECTION,
    8 STATE ACTION shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion
    9 even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.
    10 C. Government STATE ACTION may substantially burden a person’s
    11 exercise of religion only if it THE OPPOSING PARTY demonstrates that
    12 application of the burden to the person PERSON’S EXERCISE OF RELIGION IN THIS
    13 PARTICULAR INSTANCE is both:
    14 1. In furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.
    15 2. The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling
    16 governmental interest.
    17 D. A person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of this
    18 section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial
    19 proceeding, and obtain appropriate relief against a government REGARDLESS OF
    20 WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT IS A PARTY TO THE PROCEEDING. THE PERSON ASSERTING
    21 SUCH A CLAIM OR DEFENSE MAY OBTAIN APPROPRIATE RELIEF. A party who prevails
    22 in any action to enforce this article against a government shall recover
    23 attorney fees and costs.
    24 E. In FOR THE PURPOSES OF this section, the term substantially burden
    25 is intended solely to ensure that this article is not triggered by trivial,
    26 technical or de minimis infractions.
    27 F. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, “STATE ACTION” MEANS ANY ACTION
    28 BY THE GOVERNMENT OR THE IMPLEMENTATION OR APPLICATION OF ANY LAW, INCLUDING
    29 STATE AND LOCAL LAWS, ORDINANCES, RULES, REGULATIONS AND POLICIES, WHETHER
    30 STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE, AND WHETHER THE IMPLEMENTATION OR APPLICATION IS MADE
    31 OR ATTEMPTED TO BE MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT OR NONGOVERNMENTAL PERSONS.

  9. Ben says:

    R.D I just want to say I have read this blog for a long time and never commented because I have agreed by and large with what most everyone has contributed and felt no need to add. I respect you and all that everyone has done here.

    My wife is an opera singer and thus most of her friends are LGBT so we often end up in conversations about what really are Rights and what equal rights really are.

    As goes with out saying this issue and the media interpretation of it (same as you) have caused a bit of a fire storm lately. I try to explain to them and you that its not about a diner counter or taxi cab its about services directly related to something that violates your beliefs and if anyone (with governemt support) has the ability to force you to violate those sincerely held beliefs via lawsuit and court order or intimidation of that action.

    I say they do not have that right.

    • R.D. Walker says:

      This is nothing new. Access to trade and commerce are really the practical foundation of our freedom in modern society. We understand that. That is why Jim Crow is deader than a door nail.

      I remember reading Black Like Me years ago. It was the true story of a white man who disguised himself as black and traveled across the pre-civil rights South. The man sometimes couldn’t find a place to get food. He could almost never find a place to stay. In cities he couldn’t even find a place to take a piss.

      That was the reality for blacks in the Jim Crow era. They were shut out of active participation in the economy. They were second class citizens because of it.

      The Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. If you don’t have access to the economy, you are a second class citizen.

      That is why, those who open a business to serve the public, must serve the public. They cannot refuse service to classes of people. To allow that, is to create exactly the sort of nightmare that we saw in the Jim Crow South.

      You don’t have to make gay wedding cakes, but you have to sell the same wedding cakes to all classes of people.

    • R.D. Walker says:

      I am glad you are here, Ben. People I agree with 80% of the time are good friends; not 20% enemies. You are a good friend.

      • Ben says:

        Personally I would never want to give somebody business if I had to force them via lawsuit. The fact that dozens of these lawsuits exist baffles me.

        Why do they feel the need to force somebody to not only accept but participate in something they do not approve of.

        If they make a shitty cake and deliver it late do they get sued again?

        Nobody IMO has the right to force you to serve them. What your saying is that a class of people has the right to demand service and nobody can ever say no to them even if they just don’t want the contract cause they have enough business.

        Kids birthday that weekend and didn’t want to make any cakes all night Friday. Tough Gay couple came in if you say No they will sue you even if you do other gay weddings.

        Its Intimidation by a class of people against everyone.

        • R.D. Walker says:

          These lawsuits are showboating and they represent a infinitesimally small portion of the actual trade in wedding cakes and so forth in this country.

          The Arizona law is like swatting a gnat with a sledgehammer.

          “Nobody IMO has the right to force you to serve them.”

          That’s why the baker is an idiot. There are a million ways to not serve a customer. It is done tens of millions of times a day. We have been trying to get a particular kitchen cabinet guy out to our house for six months. He is just too busy and disorganized. We wanted him but will probably move on to another.

          The baker was a dumb ass for saying “I don’t serve gay weddings” rather than just doing what the cabinet guy is doing.

          That is a particularly galling part of this whole thing. The bakers are just as guilty of political showboating as are those suing them.

  10. jacksonsdad says:

    I prefer pie.

  11. fasttimes says:

    protecting a “class” is discrimination.

    • R.D. Walker says:

      Is providing equal protection to all classes of people discrimination?

      • Z says:

        In a sense, yes, I guess. But I’m cool with my right to kill a charging boar or pesky mosquito.

        I would say that the constitution provides all protection people need.

        • R.D. Walker says:

          The Equal Protection Clause is located at the end of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution:

            All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
      • fasttimes says:

        well, if we want to get philosophical about it, putting people into classes is by definition discrimination. however, no, equal protection to ALL classes would not be. But commerce is a two way street. providing patrons one protection and merchants none is not equal.

        • R.D. Walker says:

          We balance rights all the time. I may have the right to own a hog lot, but not in a residential neighborhood.

          This one is easy to balance. People absolutely, positively MUST have access to commerce and trade to survive in the modern world. No one MUST open a business and then deny service to certain classes of people.

          The former right greatly outweighs the latter.

          • Z says:

            In the examples we have been discussing, who needs protection, in what form, and from whom or what?

          • fasttimes says:

            who is denying anyone access to commerce?

          • Z says:

            I’m having trouble following the logic here, because I normally agree with you in lock step.

            But it seems to me the balance is a certain “class’” right to survive (they must have access to commerce) vs the certain corruption of the government law to be used against business owners.

            And the risk of the former is minimal whereas the latter is certain and costly.

            • R.D. Walker says:

              I am not an anarchist. I am a libertarian. I do not believe in the elimination of all government. I believe legitimate roles of the government include enforcing contracts and providing equal protection under the law.

              Again, if you think it is okay for a business to refuse service to gays, you must believe it is okay for a business to refuse service to blacks and that the government has no role in that.

              I don’t. You may not agree with my balance of rights but there is nothing wrong with my logic.

              • fasttimes says:

                again, the photographer and cake maker were not denying services to gays, but a same sex marriage, unless my understanding is wrong.

              • Ben says:

                Refusal to serve Blacks would be motivated by hatred in your examples.

                Refusal to participate in a Gay wedding ceremony by designing making and delivering a wedding cake would be on religious grounds. You can like Gays have friends that are Gay and still be unwilling to participate in the wedding or condone it through your service for legitimate religious reasons.

                Like having friends who have drug problems but not being willing to support them getting High. Can a Bar refuse to serve known alcoholics?

                I mean most of the time you don’t know who is gay or not or who is an alcoholic or not , but if they told you and you had a conviction against participating in that are you not allowed to deny service?

                What about Bars I have been to a bar that had a sign “show you have a thong on and your drinks a buck” or “Cowbot hats pay 10% extra” or “no service to assholes”
                Are not each of those descriminating against classes of people?

                Modest girls that will not show their underwear or others that don’t wear thongs. Clowns in cowboy hats. Assholes.

                Im mixing arguments but trying to work at the same time…might be time to stop for a while.

                Right to commerce is correct that does not mean they need to have access to every service offered if some would violate the religious principals of the provider.

              • Z says:

                I wasn’t claiming you logic was faulty, I’m saying I don’t understand it. But then again, I’m not very bright.

              • R.D. Walker says:

                Yeah, there are no religious grounds that says a cake maker must ensure that the cakes he makes are used in a non-sinful manner. That is bullshit.

                Refusing to sell a cake to a gay couple is no more or less religiously justified than refusing to sell a cake to, say, a mixed race couple.

                I seriously don’t get your logic. The idea that a bakers right to not sell a cake to one person that he would happily sell to the next outweighs the right of people to have full access to the economy is really stunning. I just don’t get it.

  12. fasttimes says:

    the group of people for or against SSM are not a class but those who are born male but identify as female are? i mean, this is the problem i have. either human is a class or none are. can’t pick and choose, that is discrimination. im not trying to trip you up on sematics, but you should not get to protect one “class” and not another. I am with Z on this, i am usually in almost full agreement one most issues with you, but this position is bizarre to me.

    your example of the catholic preist and the SSM. you say he can’t actually marry to people of the same sex due to church doctrine, but what if a same sex couple came to him and insisted, under your position does he have to “go through the motions” by law?

    • R.D. Walker says:

      My logic isn’t bizarre. Every day in every way we weigh rights against each other. I have a right to free speech but I can be punished for slander. I have a right to shoot a gun but I can’t shoot it down the highway. I have a right to swing my fists, but that right ends were your nose begins.

      The idea that gays are going to force hostile priests to perform sham weddings in any significant numbers is ludicrous.

      • fasttimes says:

        that is not what i asked RD. we are talking about the gov’t forcing people to do certain things. i asked if under your position (never used the word logic) would the priest by law be required to go through the motions to perform a same sex marriage?

        • R.D. Walker says:

          Nobody is forcing anyone to sell wedding cakes. The baker decided to make wedding cakes. The baker decided not to make wedding cakes, not for just friends and family, but for the public at large.

          The Constitution of the United States of America guarantees equal protection under the law. If you open a business to the public in the United States, then you must serve the public.

          Again, nobody is forcing anyone to make wedding cakes.

          There are a hundred reasons why the clergy is not the same as a business. There are a hundred reasons why virtually no one would force a religious ceremony that would be an obvious sham. There are a hundred ways the law treats churches differently than businesses. I don’t have time to enumerate them.

    • Ben says:

      That’s what it sounds like RD is saying to me aswell. You have to serve them even if you feel participating in the act is against your religion.

      • R.D. Walker says:

        Try saying that human sacrifice is part of your religion. Or heroin use. Or celebratory gunfire in town. The fact is, that any claim of religious exemption to the law cannot just be pulled out of your ass.

        There is NOTHING in any mainstream Christian canon that says that a merchant must police the use of the goods he sells to make sure they aren’t used in a manner inconsistent with his interpretation of scripture.

        It isn’t scriptural, it is hate based and no different than saying I don’t serve darkies. That’s the way I see it.

        • fasttimes says:

          then they have you RD. if you think people having a difference of opinion and running their lives/business/organization in accordance with those opinions or beliefs is hate, then they have you. that is a disappointing response for sure.

          • R.D. Walker says:

            hen they have you RD. if you think people having a difference of opinion and running their lives/business/organization in accordance with those opinions or beliefs is hate, then they have you.”

            Oh bullshit! If you think that rights aren’t put in the balance and the winner chosen everyday, you don’t get how the world works.

            See? You really piss me off there. Suddenly I am a sell out. Suddenly I am no longer a conservative or a libertarian. You deem me no longer “pure” and I am no longer a crusader for liberty. They have me.

            You are perfectly willing to deny millions equal access to the economy so a baker can say yes, yes, no, yes to who he sells to.

            You know what? Fuck you. We can disagree but you come on my fucking forum and judge me a sell out because I am trying to balance different rights?

            So I disappoint you. I don’t care. I never said we all had to agree here but maybe you should find a blog where you agree with the principal writer 100% of the time as opposed to this one where 1% disagreement means “they have me.”

  13. Ben says:

    RD its not the use of the cake or the photos or flowers or whatever that matters. Its the participation in an even that you feel is inappropriate for somebody of your religion to support.

    Lets try this
    Your a photographer.
    Your strictly Mormon
    Somebody Highers you to take pictures.
    They tell you they want nude pictures of them engaging in mild sex acts with their (Sister/Brother/Mother/Dog/bicycle/whatever)

    You feel that participating and condoning this act would be sinful and refuse for that reason even though its perfectly legal.

    Your refusing to take part in a specific event beacuse of how it effects your religious views NOT because of who asked.

    They can sue you and make you take the pictures. Forcing you to violate your interpretation of your religion. Get it?

    It doesn’t have to be a formal tenet of a faith its individual practice like some Catholics do or don’t eat Meat on Fridays in Lent for some its an issue others don’t care.

    • R.D. Walker says:

      A photographer can easily say “I don’t do nude photography” without refusing equal service to an entire class of people. This really isn’t that difficult.

      Again, I have said 100 times that the baker doesn’t have to put two little grooms on the top of any cake. He can’t sell a standard cake to Jack and Diane and then, five minutes later, refuse to sell an identical cake to George and Kevin.

      Why is this so difficult?

      • Ben says:

        There is no such thing as a standard wedding cake sold in 5 minutes.

        If that were true you would be correct.
        Why is that so difficult?

        Our baker spent 3 hours with my wife planning what they cake would look like. We had 6 Tasting sessions trying different cakes and icing combinations on small cakes. They delivered set up the cake and decorated the table at the wedding and oversaw getting the cake properly cut and plated to be given to guests.

        It took over 12 hours to decorate. He probably spent 60 hours on our wedding cake over a couple months.

        • R.D. Walker says:

          How long it takes is irrelevant. If he happily sells a cake to a hetero couple he has no right to refuse an identical cake to a gay couple under the same terms.

          Again, there is no general tenant of Christianity that says a merchant must insure that the goods he sells are used in accordance with scripture. There is no tenant of Christianity that says a cake is a part of the sacrament of marriage. There is no tenant of Christianity in play here at all.

      • Ben says:

        By the way “I dont do nude photography” is denying service to a class of people called nudists. Who are denied access to the economy unless they hide their identity as a nudist.

        Ok I’m done

        • R.D. Walker says:

          Yeah, and signs that say “No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service” are denying service to a class of people who are shirtless and shoeless.

          Big sigh…. So exhausting.

  14. jct says:

    Thanks for posting the amendment, Nota. I think my comments were appropriate.

    Who would’ve thought that so many comments would be generated?

    I think the LBGT points are a strawman or paper tiger. I don’t say that out of hate or animus. I think that any such discrimination should not be supported or accepted by society.

    However, I do think that the government should need to be a party to such a dispute (that gets fixed). I think that the government should not be able to dictate a business offer insurance for health activities that are outside the scope of their beliefs (that gets fixed) and that any entity that claims a religious reason for failure to comply be challenged to robustly support that view (that gets fixed).

    People are wrapped up in a strawman while the real rights are abridged.

  15. Ben says:

    I guess what it comes down to is deciding which is the trump “right to access” or “right to practice your religion freely” I feel there is always another service provider available that has different beliefs and scruples.

    So IMO why force somebody to violate their beliefs no matter what they are.

    You imply forget your beliefs I want your service even if you think its a sin to help me do what I’m doing you agreed to not have any personal standards when you went into business to serve the public.

    I guess anyone with a potential conflict between business and beliefs should put up a “XYZ service to members only sign” then the full “menu” of services available to the public is available to all classes.

    Special services that you want to be more particular about who/what/when/where you do them you can have $0.05 membership fee charge.

    • R.D. Walker says:

      “I feel there is always another service provider available that has different beliefs and scruples.”

      But there wasn’t. Not in the Jim Crow South.

      • Ben says:

        That’s a straw man lol this isnt the Jim crow south and half the bakers photographers and dj’s I know are gay so clearly that’s not likely to be an issue in this case.

      • Z says:

        Weren’t Jim Crow laws laws that forced segregation?

        • R.D. Walker says:

          Jim Crow laws, among other things, allowed business owners to decide for themselves whether or not they served black people.

            • R.D. Walker says:

              That is fucked up and that is what denying service to classes of people looks like. Ugly.

              ebcb6f8b76cdfcf5dda84b4b2e3526ab

              • fasttimes says:

                the point of that link is that this is not “jim crow to the core”. actually it is the opposite of jim crow. you have your facts about jim crow laws wrong. Mandatory vs. free to choose. this is not about gays as much as people want to make it about that. it is about people being free to choose. just like the obamacare debate wasn’t about healthcare, it was about whether or not the gov’t can compel you into commerce. some folks lose the forest for the trees. to conduct commerce you must have a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither should be compelled into the deal unwillingly. if someone chooses not to do business with an individual or a group of individuals that should be their prerogative. they should be free to choose. they should also be free to incur the backlash of groups that they alienate. notice i was able to state that without cursing, cursing at you, name calling, etc.

  16. R.D. Walker says:

    I am done. I can’t make this any clearer. You don’t have to agree with me. As I said in the post itself, I know I am in the minority on this.

    There are two different rights in the balance.

    1) The right of people to equal access to commerce and trade.

    2) The right of business owners to serve whomever they want.

    As is often the case, these rights are in conflict. I am of the strong opinion that right #1 greatly outweighs right #2.

    I have made a strong case why I believe that.

    Reasonable people can disagree on this, however.

    As I have told the co-bloggers here, the only thing that really, really pisses me off is the accusation that I am a sell out or “they have me”.

    I have spent the last seven years on this forum working my ass off in the defense of liberty, rights and freedom. My credentials are rock solid. Nobody here is qualified to call me a sell out. You can disagree with me all day and I won’t get pissed. You can bail out if you want. But to come on here and impune my character and my bona fides, well, that is just wrong.

    • rj says:

      agree with the exception that in this case the right 1 in this case barely outweighs right 2 due to the very personalized nature of the product.

  17. jct says:

    My note should have read NOT in regards to discrimination in our society. Such discrimination should NOT be tolerated.

    What a horrible typo! My bad.

  18. jct says:

    I hope my comments about a paper tiger or strawman aren’t interpreted as RD “selling out”.
    I have had a fundamental religious right denied, personally. It was justified on the basis of the Doe vs. Santa Fe School District decision. The folks who developed the policy know that it is not in alignment with the decision. But they are in the majority and, quite simply, can do what they want.
    Thusly, I don’t want to have others denied their rights, especially those in the minority. Proper application of the amendment, perhaps that is too much to expect, would provide recourse for an LBGT person unjustly access to services. Currently, the government has to be a party and there is no definition of a legitimate religious belief. Again…I think the aim of the elected representatives of the State of Arizona was to respond to the New Mexico decision, to put a marker down on the Hobby Lobby type Supreme Court decision and to establish a definition for religious objection…as a very high bar.

    But…none of that is meant to label RD as a sellout, as I have been and continue to be appreciative of the forum he provides. If my writings caused such an offense, then my effusive apology is extended.

  19. notamobster says:

    This debate always goes the same way…

  20. R.D. Walker says:

    Funny. I don’t recall any right wing outrage over this ruling.

    ST. PAUL, Minnesota (AP) — Muslim cab drivers whose religious beliefs go against driving passengers who carry alcohol have lost another round in court.

    The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday against the cab drivers’ attempt to block penalties for refusing service.

    An ordinance adopted by the Metropolitan Airports Commission last year revokes a cab driver’s license for 30 days for refusing a fare at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. A second refusal brings a two-year revocation.

    A large share of the cabbies who serve the airport are Somali Muslims, and many of them believe that Islamic law prohibits them from giving rides to people carrying alcohol.

    • R.D. Walker says:

      Representative comments from the conservative Free Republic:

      BS!!! They should have done this in the beginning. SEND THESE IDIOTS BACK TO SOMALIA! They do not belong in America.

      Cabs are “Public Accommodation” the same as restaurants and hotels. Since the Civil Rights Act they can not refuse service to any paying customer.

      • jacksonsdad says:

        I remember something similar with muslim checkout clerks at grocery stores refusing to touch pork. The general sentiment that I remember from the right was…

        “Either get over it or find another job. Nobody is forcing you to be a checkout clerk at a store where they sell pork (lots and LOTS of pork)!”

        To me, this is no different.

        What keeps coming to my mind is… would they also refuse to serve a known adulterer? What about someone who takes the Lord’s name in vain? What about someone who is mean to their Mom and Dad? That one is #4 and my bet is the bakers themselves have probably broken it. In fact I’d be willing to bet that some of those “fabulous” couples are better Christians than many of the folks who went to my hometown Church. Trust me, the bar isn’t very high.

        We’re all sinners and we all love cake. Let’s eat.

        My 2 cents.

        • Bman says:

          I remember the pork thing and muslim check-out clerks. My solution was quite simple; give muslim check-out clerks a “bacon stick” where they could pull it out anytime a pork product comes along, and use the stick to slide the product over the scanner. They would never have to touch it.

          • jacksonsdad says:

            Prolly have to be tongs (so they can manipulate the offensive products barcode effectively) but I get the point. Not much difference between that and wearing gloves IMO and if that’s sufficient then perhaps the bakers in question could do the same.

        • R.D. Walker says:

          Wedding cakes aren’t really Christian anyway; they have pagan origins. From a standpoint of scripture, the cake has about as much significance to the sacrament of marriage as does the paper products at the reception all.

          Janitorial Services Company: “I’m sorry, we don’t provide toilet paper to gay wedding receptions. It is against our religion.”

        • R.D. Walker says:

          You make a good point, JD.

          We all agree that the gay couple suing is showboating to make a political point. They could have just shrugged their shoulders and moved on to the next baker.

          The reality is that the baker is just as guilty of showboating. The easiest thing in the world is to not do business. Hell, we looked for a dog groomer for weeks before we found one that would accommodate us. Any baker would have a thousand easy reasons why they would have to decline the business starting with, “Darn, I am booked solid. Sorry.”

          They didn’t do that, however. They said, “No, I am sorry, you are sinful people and my religion prohibits me baking you a cake.”

          Don’t tell me that isn’t showboating to make a political point. Of course it is. You said it: If they were as pure as all that, they wouldn’t bake cakes for people who break the Commandment against coveting their cakes.

          • jacksonsdad says:

            Indeed. Like I was implying about my Church… lots of judgement coming from lots of sinful bakers up in there!

            • R.D. Walker says:

              3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

              But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”

  21. jacksonsdad says:

    And btw… even at my very conservative southern First Baptist Church we welcomed everyone. One could say the very folks whose eternal souls are in peril should be the first ones to hear our testimony and be shown acceptance/ forgiveness.

    • Ben says:

      Its not about the “sinfulness” of the couple or even thier own lives its that contributing to something you feel is wrong would be in your eyes sinning.

      Think of it as the receptionist at an abortion clinic is complicit in abortion. That to some is silently condoning an act that is a sin. To some people making a wedding cake for a union that they feel is an aboration of a holy sacrament would be approval of that act.

      Its about not wanting to commit an extra “sin” by helping them sin. They are welcome to do as they please don’t ask others to participate.

      By the way I would have said the muslim employees can find another job but a muslim store owner would not have to sell pork. Employees and Owners have different responsibilities in this situation.

      • R.D. Walker says:

        “…a muslim store owner would not have to sell pork.”

        Wedding cake bakers don’t have to sell pork either.

        I am sick of this topic.

        I am sick of bakers who are so confused about the Christian faith that they believe that refusing serve their fellow man is less sinful than providing one of their pagan cakes for a party that comes after a ceremony that, by definition, they believe is a meaningless sham.

        Here is the deal. My religious views are irrelevant. Everybody is entitled to their own view of the faith and my opinions of the faith of the baker in question do not matter.

        Still, I pay the bills here so I get to have my say. Here is my say.

        If you are a mainstream Christian, you don’t believe that there is any such thing as gay marriage. At least not from a scriptural standpoint. What the courts and legislatures say is irrelevant. Gay marriage doesn’t exist.

        Therefore, the cake sold to that gay couple will be used for a ‘simulated’ marriage ceremony. Is a simulated marriage ceremony sinful? I doubt it.

        Wait, scratch that. The cake won’t be used in a simulated marriage ceremony. It won’t be used in a ceremony at all. It will be used in the party that follows the simulated and, therefore, meaningless ceremony.

        It is a party. That’s it. Just a party. A cake was sold to people who are using it for a party that has no scriptural significance and is no more or less sinful than a birthday party. After all, there is no role of cake in the sacrament of marriage or even in a civil marriage ceremony. It is a cake for a party.

        Now, maybe after the party, that couple is going to go fornicate. There is a good chance of it. Of course, maybe the birthday boy is going to go fornicate with a girl to whom he isn’t married after his birthday party too. Who is to know? It isn’t the job of bakers to police who does and doesn’t fornicate after eating cake.

        Nope. The baker who wouldn’t sell the cake – in my opinion – doesn’t get Christianity, doesn’t get his role in what is and isn’t sinful, doesn’t get the golden rule and is kind of a dick.

        That and he is a showboater. There are a thousand ways for a business to not sell product that do not include telling the customer that he is a sinner that must be shunned. Is the gay couple bringing suit showboating? Sure. But so is the baker.

        Now, as I said, all of this is irrelevant to the law but I get to have my say.

        The idea that this baker is some pristine, sinless, halo sporting, Christian saint set upon by the evil Sodomites is just BS. There is sin enough to go around here.

      • jacksonsdad says:

        Abortion is murder and IMO conflating this “cake baking” issue with a mortal sin is ridiculous. There are lost of positions that we Christian Soldiers should take a stand on but… this is not one of them.

        “contributing to something you feel is wrong would be in your eyes sinning”
        ——–
        I hear what you’re saying but you would agree that’s one BIG ass can-o-worms, right? Right off the top of my head I think of the pharmacist selling condoms to a boy. Motel clerks certainly have a lot to answer for (and don’t dismiss the staff that works at those 2 fornication-enabling establishments).

        I shudder to consider the channels that “guilt” could use to connect the dots between SIN and MY EVERY ACTION. Life’s too short. Hate the sin, embrace the sinner. Dick Cheney knows all about that.

  22. Z says:

    I see this as an issue of freedom/natural rights, and nothing to do with religion. I see the seller’s right to deny sale vs the buyer’s right to purchase. In my view, it’s hard for me to even write the buyer’s “right” to purchase. It seems to me a more accurate description is the buyer’s right to force a purchase.

    I think the bakers should be allowed to deny service to anyone for any reason at their own risk, be it a loss of business or a broken nose (or worse).

    But dividing people into any classes seems like a bad idea to me. I would argue that having any “protected” classes at all does more harm than good.

    My proposed policies seem to be viewed as a slippery slope into Jim Crow, but I would argue that the equal commerce clause proposal is the slope toward J Crow because it is legally segregating people.

    Codifying laws classifying people into groups, to me, is opening a hole in the tent for the figurative camel’s nose in terms of government control.

    To be clear, I’ve met too many wonderful people from too many walks of life to support any person or business that just makes blanket decisions about “classes” of people, but as I said before, I fully support their right to be assholes and do so, as well as our right to call them out on it.

    • R.D. Walker says:

      If all people are treated the same, there are no classes of customers. That’s the point.

      • Z says:

        I don’t follow. If left to the market, the market would classify customers based on their protected class, so we need laws to prevent that?

        It seems to me that the free market doesn’t care what anyone looks like or believes.

        • R.D. Walker says:

          Evidently it does because some baker erroneously thinks it is his Christian duty to make sure certain individuals don’t use his products in a manner that contradicts his extremely narrow and, in my opinion, misguided reading of scripture.

          • Z says:

            I think that the risk is almost nil that any class of people can effectively be denied large swaths of commerce, but the risks for legally segregating people are dangerously high.

  23. R.D. Walker says:

    Regarding: http://therealrevo.com/blog/?p=113337#comment-173866

    I got angry for one reason: You sad “then they have you.” That means that I am not thinking for myself. That means that the people I have spent almost 11,000 posts arguing against are now controlling me. That is a complete disparagement of every point I made with a single wave of the hand.

    You can call me an idiot, and I won’t get mad. You can debate me until kingdom come and I won’t curse you. If you tell me that I have been co-opted by the left and that you are the judge of my worthiness as a conservative, I will get very, very angry. As far as I am concerned, it is the greatest disrespect to which I can be subjected on this forum.

    Still, I shouldn’t have cursed you. I am sorry.

  24. MadBrad says:

    Speaking of discrimination…

    There’s a really entertaining movie lined up for Friday night.

    The Man has been trying to keep me down in my pursuit of a suitable movie but I have defied him.

  25. Slaphappypap says:

    Yes! I’m the 115th comment on this thread. Is anyone making my church perform a gay wedding or are they making my church an agent of the government? No.

    I could care less.

  26. messup says:

    Analysis of what happened in Arizona. RE: SB1062
    Folks, It’s called “STANDING!” See, LGBT community hasn’t any LEGAL ARGUMENT upon which to hang their agenda(s),i.e., civil rights, discrimination, etc.
    Try as they may, time and time again, JUDICIALLY their demands, law suits and chicanery have met with defeat. All this 0.05% of America’s LGBT population has left is economic pressure. Example: Chick-Fil-A, boycott one or another store, bus in “Rent-A-Crowds” for so-called show of force to have one company or another succumb to their empty demands, threaten Super Bowl loss of revenue, economic sanctions upon the state, etc. etc. But a valid argument…NOPE, not there. NADA!
    So, if the LGBT’ERS “Civil Rights” argument hasn’t won any favors with US Judicial Branches (because they don’t have STANDING) and its proven time-and-time again their platform for “social justice” is devoid of arguments…then what is it LGBT’ers are trying to accomplish? From what source(s) do these ineffectual, disparate groups get their funds from, where do these large numbers of rabble rousers get bussed from? Who prints their placards, organizes chants and has CNN/ABC/NBC/CBS – MSM coverages? Who is the “PRIME MOVER” BEHIND THIS LBGT MOVEMENT? Upon closer analysis, we learn the funds are from several upper class (uber rich) donors! We also learn the LGBT movement is one of several “front activist” organizations Progressive New Left Activists have employed to foist off on all America a strictly socialist agenda. This is Francis-Fox-Pivens “incremental Socialism” tactic often talked about in her lectures. Gov. Jan Brewers, John McCains, Jeff Flakes support of vetoing SB1062 is tied to all three’s crony capitalism…sad, that’s the truth. Our US Constitution is being sold to the highest bidder and all the: 1)greedy, 2)power hungry and 3)corrupt ELITES are in WashingtonDC organizing this “selling.”. God Bless America that was. Arizona now benefits from every California Leftist having migrated to a neighboring state.Wake-up America, you’re being played like a violin.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Current day month ye@r *