Apple, prominent Republicans ratchet up pressure on Arizona governor to veto SB1062

“Arizona Governor Jan Brewer came under mounting pressure on Tuesday from other prominent Republicans and consultants to veto a controversial bill described by critics as a license to discriminate against gays and others in the name of religion,” David Schwartz reports for Reuters. “Brewer has yet to say publicly whether she will sign or veto the bill, which would allow business owners to cite their personal religious beliefs as legal justification for refusing to serve same-sex couples or any other prospective customers.”

“The measure passed the Republican-controlled state legislature last week, putting Brewer in the crosshairs of a contentious political debate at a time when she has sought to ease partisan discord while focusing on efforts to revive Arizona’s economy,” Schwartz reports. “Two outside political consultants to Brewer told Reuters they had each urged her to veto the measure, with one saying her track record on such issues made him think she was leaning in that direction. But both stressed no decision had been taken by Brewer.”

“Supporters of the Arizona measure argue that business owners, however, remain vulnerable to lawsuits should they refuse for religious reasons to provide services to gay couples,” Schwartz reports. “Under the legislation, a business would be immune to a discrimination lawsuit if a decision to deny service was motivated by a ‘sincerely held’ religious faith and if providing service would substantially burden the exercise of those belief.”

“In a sign of the growing unease over the measure, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, the 2012 Republican nominee for president, weighed into the debate via Twitter on Tuesday: ‘veto of #SB1062 is right,'” Schwartz reports. “Another former Republican candidate for president, Arizona Senator John McCain, said earlier on CNN that passage of the bill ‘hurts the image of the state… This is going to hurt the state of Arizona’s economy, and frankly, our image. So, I hope that the governor of Arizona will veto this and we move on,’ he said, adding that he has not talked directly with Brewer about the proposal… Brewer spokesman Andrew Wilder said Apple Inc had also requested a veto in a conversation with the governor over the weekend. Three Republican state senators said on Monday they had reconsidered their support for the bill, and urged a veto.”

Read more in the full article here.


  1. I’m guessing Brewer agrees with the Republicans who passed this ridiculous, hateful legislation, but will veto the bill based on fears of the economic ramifications should she sign it.

    1. Gays, etc.,

      Do you really want to do business with someone who’s being forced by the government to do business with you? Do you think that will be an enjoyable experience?

      First Amendment to the United States Constitution:
      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

      This also means that forcing Catholic institutions, for example, to provide birth control, against their religious beliefs, is unconstitutional.

      Again, I ask: Do you really want to do business with someone who’s being forced by the government to do business with you?

      1. “Do you really want to do business with someone who’s being forced by the government to do business with you?”

        Ask that same question about blacks, or women, or anyone from another country, etc. Equality means equality. If they have to be forced to act in ways contrary to their bigotry, then so be it.

        1. Nope, not the same. Not at all.

          A Catholic, for example, believes that black people exist. The Catholic religion does not believe in same sex “marriage.” That is the difference. Being compelled to serve all races does not infringe on religious beliefs. Being compelled to aid and abet same sex “marriage” does. Just like being compelled to pay for aiding and abetting the prevention of life (contraceptives) prohibits the free exercise of religion and is therefore unconstitutional (Obamacare fiasco).

          First Amendment to the United States Constitution:

          Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

          1. You couldn’t be more mis-guided if you tried.

            Nice propaganda trick you tried again: “Aiding and abetting”, way to use a term commonly associated with criminal activity in an attempt to prejudice the reader towards your negative stereotype.

            If you sell wedding cake, you sell cake. Who eats it, should be on no concern. Quote me the scripture that requires you to deny cake. PROVE it. Cake is served AFTER a wedding, it does not enable, nor aid the process of being married, nor does it consummate it. Your argument is horse shit.

            If that wasn’t enough you went full-stupid with this:

            “Just like being compelled to pay for aiding and abetting the prevention of life (contraceptives) prohibits the free exercise of religion and is therefore unconstitutional ”

            WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. If you are a member of a religion and your beliefs are that you should not use contraception, NO_ONE, NO_ONE is telling you you must use it. Now if you employ people, you become and employer, and refusing to allow contraceptive as part of your group coverage, because it is YOUR faith, should be alright? Hello Taliban, no, no it isn’t alright for you to force your PRIVATE religious VIEWS on me.

        2. “Equality means equality.” But, if you’re not served equally (proprietors are not going to go out of their way to help those they are being forced to service vs. customers they actually want), then are you really getting “equal treatment?”

          I’d be wary of eating that “wedding” cake. You never know what’s in it. 😉

          1. Have it your way First & Then, but you’ll have to admit you believe you have Gaydar.

            But all religious establishments who value this law will put signs in their store windows, so that the secular (majority) people will have a clear idea of who the bigots are in our neighborhoods.

            If the religious right wants to play this game, fine. But let’s see just how powerful a boycott can truly be. Imagine Phoenix having the Superbowl taken away from them over a STUPID law like this one.

            I expected you to come down on the wrong side of history. You’re even attempting to rationalize the application of this law and as just as a fear monger would do, your using the wedding cake as a threat.


          2. If a law like this were enacted then the only fair thing to do is that it apply equally to ALL people of ALL religions.

            And in the world there are many actions done by people in the name of their religion that are completely against the laws of the US – including murder.

  2. This is so blatantly anti-constitutional it’s Onion territory. And, if it’s of any note- I’ve seen strong prejudice and hatred in many areas for many peoples- blacks, hispanics, republicans, etc. but never have I ever seen the sheer unbridled hatred and vitriol for others that I experienced in Arizona and the racial antagonism towards amer-indians. There’s something deep about the bias in AZ.

  3. i hope she doesn’t veto it

    because at that point, the consequences of allowing that act to become law will come down on arizona like a ton of bricks. bye-bye superbowl will be just the beginning. even bigots understand economic loss. they will reverse themselves in a hurry once they see they have done more to injure themselves that those they hate.

    then, maybe, those intolerant idiots will finally get the message that intolerance does not only not pay, but that they are badly out of synch with the growing consensus of americans.

    1. This legislation doesn’t make everyone in Arizona an intolerant idiot as you would have everyone here believe.

      ARIZONA’S CITIZENS DIDN’T VOTE FOR THIS LAW, nor are we so stupid we’d have to enact this law before realizing we’d be on the wrong side of history.

      Phoenix area citizen’s began picketing the day this law passed the senate. Governor Brewer returned from DC to tens-of-hundred’s of picketers at the airport and outside her office, so the message was well received.

      What everyone should be asking is, who is the entity behind this legislation. My sense is, they aren’t even from Arizona!

    2. So, by your “logic,” it’s NOT OK for a business (wedding photographer) to decline to shoot a “wedding” in Arizona over beliefs about gay “marriage,” but it IS OK for a business (the NFL) to decline to hold the Super Bowl in Arizona over beliefs about gay “marriage.”

  4. You really think the passing of this legislation will make a big difference? If so, how? I only know of a wedding photographers that did not want to do the job. I am sure there was another photographer that would have been happy to do the shoot. I don’t see what the fear regarding this legislation is all about.

        1. No, not at all funnily enough. Every follower compromises the doctrines of their religion every single day without worrying about it.

          This is nothing more than allowing people to express their bigotry against a minority, then hide behind the Bible when challenged on it.

          1. Every follower compromises their doctrines everyday? Probably.

            Not worrying about it? Don’t know about that. That’s why there are these ancient practices called confession, repentance and restitution.

            And you saying it’s bigotry doesn’t actually mean it’s so.

            1. Have you actually read the Bible Sam? Everything it says people aren’t supposed to do? There’s an extremely long list, and virtually every single bit of it is ignored by Christians. They come up with excuses to try and justify why they eat pork, or don’t circumcise their children etc., mostly by twisting the words of “Saint” Paul, a man who came several generations after the supposed founder of their faith and whose entire claim to authority was that he had a vision. Jesus said that his followers had to obey the law, meaning everything set out in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, yet virtually all of that gets ignored. That’s why I say they don’t worry about it, and it’s exactly why they don’t go to confession about transgressing it, because they’ve been told from birth that they don’t have to.

            2. Maybe you guys can help me…

              I’m having A LOT of trouble following the inerrant word of god as laid out “the book of all truth”.

              I keep having children and then having to stone them to death because they disobey and talk back to me.

              And – sheesh – don’t even get me started on how many fornicators, adulterers and others I’ve had to dispatch to the pits of hell. Let’s just say my record makes Ted Bundy look like a sunday school amateur.

              Whew! Hard work, I’ll tell ya!

          2. “..then hide behind the Bible..” Is that similar to “hiding behind the Constitution?”

            The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights.

          3. Dave H, you still aren’t thinking. Or reading.

            The operative word here is “compel.” Yes, everyone decides to compromise their doctrines, though whether they worry about it or not is really (a) something you can’t know, and (b) not germane to the discussion.

            And your bigoted opinions as to the motivations of other people are (a) laughable, and (b) completely destroy any credibility that an anonymous poster might have had. Thanks for playing.

  5. I have never discriminated against a gay person in action or word. But I don’t agree same-sex marriage based on my faith. And if I had a wedding cake business, if I knew my products or services went toward this type of event, I would probably politely decline, explain why, and offer some recommendations of other fine places to the customer. Here are my questions, based on the above scenario:

    1. Did I discriminate against a person, or an event? What if it was a straight person ordering for a SSM and I still declined. Did I still discriminate against a person, or an event?

    2. Is it fair for businesses to be fined or be forced to close because they exercised their faith, which is a constitutional right? Again we live in a pluralistic, capitalistic society. Why not let the market decide?

    3. Did the above scenario seem respectful and reasonable to you? Did I seem homophobic or hateful? Would a homophobe refer the client to other competing businesses?

    And just to let you know, this scenario actually happened a few times in the news, and the clients decided to get them in trouble by having them fine, or inevitably have their business close down. Do these actions seem ‘tolerant’ and ‘inclusive’ to you? Or does tolerance and inclusiveness only go one way?

    4. I’ll ask the question again – does one have to support the idea of SSM in order not to be a bigot, or at least labelled as one? Who decides?

      1. With all due respect, what you’re saying is ridiculous.

        SSM is a type of event. The other is skin colour.

        Skin colour is genetically predetermined, innate, heritable and immutable.

        Same-sex marriage is based on a type of attraction that has never been proven to be any of the above.

        They are completely different categories, my dear, and it’s the reason my so many in the black community get upset by your type of fuzzy logic try to convince them otherwise. Your premise is flawed.

        And you using the word ‘bigot’ as a billy club to try to attempt public shaming to prevent real discussion shows how ‘tolerant’ and ‘inclusive’ you are.

        Now, how about try again real hard and answer the questions I posed, if it’s not too hard for you.

        1. Sam, whether or not homosexual orientation is innate or not is not the issue. Let’s accept for the moment that homosexual orientation is as much a part of the person as is skin color; it’s STILL not the same thing, because it is not the PERSON that is being denied, but the EVENT that makes a STATEMENT contrary to the service provider’s religious beliefs, which means he can’t provide support for it and remain true to his religion – in other, it denies him the free exercise of his religion. If a gay person wants his/her computer fixed, well and good; if they want ME to program it to provide background music at a same-sex “wedding,” I’ll politely decline, not because the PERSON is gay, but because the EVENT promotes something which directly conflicts with the teachings of my religion, and which I therefore cannot support or facilitate.

        2. Interesting that the party of no will use any excuse to discredit science and malign those who do not fit the mold of the flock, isn’t it.

          At any rate bigot, there is PLENTY of scientific evidence that sexuality is not a choice. Tell me, since animals do not have free will, how is that your good book explains the number of animal species that also exhibit homosexuality?

          Scientific researchers specializing in human sexuality have repeatedly shown that homosexuality is genetic.

          A 2005 study reported genetic scans showing a clustering of the same genetic pattern among gay men on three chromosomes – chromosomes 7, 8, and 10. The regions on chromosome 7 and 8 were associated with male sexual orientation regardless of whether the man got them from his mother or father. The regions on chromosome 10 were only associated with male sexual orientation if they were inherited from the mother.

          Anthony F. Bogaert, Ph.D., professor at Brock University, said “The research suggests that the development of sexual orientation is influenced before birth.”

          other researchers have said:

          “Potential for homosexual response is prevalent and genetic,” Santtila P et. al.; Department of Psychology, Abo Akademi University.

          “Genetic investigations provide strong evidence for a heritable component to male and female sexual orientation,” Rahman Q et. al.; School of Psychology, University of East London.

          “Genetic research using family and twin methodologies has produced consistent evidence that genes influence sexual orientation,” Mustanski BS et. al.; Department of Psychology, Indiana University.

          “The survival of a human predisposition for homosexuality can be explained by sexual orientation being a polygenetic trait that is influenced by a number of genes,” Miller EM.; University of New Orleans.

          “Human sexual orientation has a heritable component,” Pillard RC et. al.; Department of Psychiatry, Boston University School of Medicine.

            1. When your NAME is an ad hominem attack, what follows doesn’t matter.

              My sense is, if we go down this road, which group is next for exclusion? Pedophile priests? Adulterers? Fornicators? Non church members?

          1. ‘Council for Responsible Genetics:

            “The scientific argument for a biological basis for sexual orientation remains weak. The political argument that it will bolster gay pride or prevent homophobic bigotry runs counter to experience. The lesbian, gay, and bisexual community does not need to have its “deviance” tolerated because its members were born “that way” and “cannot help it.”‘

            You, my friend need to learn the difference between genetic predisposition and genetic predetermination.

      2. Replace “Black” with “pro-NAMBLA rally,” or “anti-welfare rally,” and see if you’re still in favor of it. We all have our hot buttons; do you really want to be compelled to support with your actions something you can’t abide?

            1. Now I get you, all your misguided rage and hatred is fueled by your own self-loathing. Still trying to come to grips with the fact that you are gay and do not know how to come out.

              It’s OK Suzy-Bot, you will get through this. Maybe you just need a nice older man to show you the ropes?

              I hear Tom Delay is outta jail these days….

            2. Sean, you will be flattered to know I use you as a reverse moral barometer: if you’re constantly whining about me, that’s how I know I am on the right track. Thank you so much for your guidance.

            3. Why can’t you make all your actual points, and just leave off the all too frequent name-calling and insulting?

              There’s no good answer. There’s certainly no POSITIVE justification. The only answers would seem to be variations on that you’re just a nasty, pissy-minded little shit – as one person put it, “a cancer on this forum”.

            4. once again, with feeling:

              hypocrisy |hiˈpäkrisē|
              noun ( pl. hypocrisies )
              the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform; pretense.
              ORIGIN Middle English: from Old French ypocrisie, via ecclesiastical Latin, from Greek hupokrisis ‘acting of a theatrical part,’ from hupokrinesthai ‘play a part, pretend,’ from hupo ‘under’ + krinein ‘decide, judge.’

    1. Think of this scenario…
      What if…
      I belong to a not so small religion that operates in all 50 U.S. states and many other countries.

      That religion actively puts forth that all peoples of African decent are direct descendants of Cain (the personage in the “standard” Christian Bible) and thus are inherently “unclean” and “sinful”. Therefore, in order for me lead as pure a life as possible I must not be associated with or have any dealings with them in any way, shape or form. Therefore I must not allow them to be served in my establishment or even be allowed to come into it.

      Can I, under the guise of this law — or at least a very simple extrapolation to it — refuse service and even entrance into my establishment to persons of African decent because of my strong religious beliefs with such beliefs clearly codified by my religion?

      How far do you think that will get you today? Why do you think that LGBT issues should be any different?

      (((And, before anyone says this is a purely hypothetical scenario this WAS the case with a not so small religion in the U.S. up until about 35 years ago with regard to people of African decent. Why would anyone think it cannot happen with regard to fit the LGBT groups?)))

      1. I will say your example is purely hypothetical because the religion you speak of has had members of African descent since it was established in 1830. Well maybe the first Black member joined a few years later, but your characterization about “leading as pure a life as possible by not associating with Blacks” is purely hypothetical, untrue, and misleading. As I recall, the State of Utah never had segregated wash rooms, either.

        However, the point you and others are trying to make is good. Will this law lead to segregated washrooms for straights and LGBT’s? I hope so.

        1. We have a bold bigot here, no hiding behind religion for this one, he just plain hates and hopes for segregation. Duly noted.

          BTW there is a country in Africa that thinks just like you do, maybe you would be happier there?

          1. BTW, I don’t mind segregated washrooms for boys and girls. Maybe you have different feelings about that. Is there is a word for people with those kinds of feelings? Pervert comes to mind.

      2. Several points to make here.

        First, the fact that that “dogma” of that religion was changed speaks very loudly about the validity, or lack thereof, of that religion.

        Second, it is currently the law in the USA that there is compelling public interest which would override public behavior matching what this religion would mandate. I don’t necessarily think that this is an unmitigated good thing, but when such discrimination is institutionalized to the point where a person of the class being discriminated against cannot get services ANYWHERE without unreasonable burden, the public interest becomes involved. One cannot simultaneously hold “All men are created equal before God,” and “blacks are inherently evil” as truths; and the same goes for homosexuals.

        This does not mean that I am required to support Klan rallies (or lynchings), Black Panther rallies (or arson parties), or gay rallies, or gay “weddings” (or violent gay acts, for that matter). If I believe that my services would be supporting or facilitating something which I believe to be immoral, I have an obligation to decline to provide those services, and Caesar has no right to compel me to provide them.

  6. I work at American Express which has 6,000 employees in Phoenix. They also sent Brewer a letter asking her to veto the bill.
    Apple should just pull ther new factory out of Phoenix now and be done with it.

  7. Congress is to pass “no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” … and that rule is made applicable to the States by the 14th Amendment. To deny someone access to commerce based upon religious objections of the commerce operator respects an establishment of religion.

    1. No, it doesn’t, because it’s not the government mandating the denial. In fact, it’s denial of free exercise of religion because the provider of the services is bound by the rules of his religious beliefs to refrain from providing services to events which promote something contrary to his religion. This is the problem with ChrissyOne’s quibble – I would happily provide services to a black person, but not to a Black Panther rally; I would happily provide (and have provided) services to gay people, but not to a same-sex “wedding.”

      1. Providing a service for hire, AKA selling a wedding cake is NOT promoting something, nor does it implicitly imply approval for how the product is used.

        You are twisting words and logic in a pitiful attempt to defend your bigotry and unfair treatment of others. PERIOD.

        Selling a cake is selling a cake is selling a cake, it implies you make and sell CAKE. Got it? Why do you care how the cake is used?

        Face it, you are just a bigot, without the balls to be who you are without hiding behind religion. It’s fine if you want to be a bigot, just don’t get mad and make shit up when we a point out what a narrow minded asshole that makes you.

        1. First, your moniker is wrong. You should fix it.

          Second, if I am providing a service – as opposed to selling someone a pre-baked cake, which I agree should not be covered here; if it’s on the shelf and for sale, I should sell it to anyone who wants to buy it – then it is not a commodity, but something personal; I have a right to refuse SERVICE, though not PRODUCTS.

          Third, you should get familiar with the definition of “for hire.” This doesn’t mean that I am obligated to provide these services to anyone, but that I am willing to entertain requests for those services; nothing obligates me to accept such requests.

          Fourth, you apparently wouldn’t know logic if it bit you.

    2. You missed the part about “…prohibiting the free exercise of”.

      One’s refusal to support same-sex marriage as a part of my religion is just such an exercise.

      And ‘an establishment of religion’…meant no government supported state church.

      You completely have no idea what you’re talking about.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.