Arizona governor Brewer vetoes Religious Freedom Restoration Act: SB 1062

“Gov. Jan Brewer on Wednesday vetoed a Republican bill that set off a national debate over gay rights, religion and discrimination and subjected Arizona to blistering criticism from major corporations and political leaders from both parties,” Bob Christie reports for The Associated Press. “‘My agenda is to sign into law legislation that advances Arizona,’ Brewer said at a news conference. ‘I call them like I see them despite the tears or the boos from the crowd. After weighing all the arguments, I have vetoed Senate Bill 1062 moments ago.'”

“The bill backed by Republicans in the Legislature was designed to give added protection from lawsuits to people who assert their religious beliefs in refusing service to gays. But opponents called it an open attack on gays that invited discrimination,” Christie reports. “Companies such as Apple Inc. and American Airlines and politicians including GOP Sen. John McCain and former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney were among those who urged Brewer to veto the legislation. The Arizona Super Bowl Host Committee, which is overseeing preparations for the 2015 Super Bowl in Glendale, Ariz., came out with a statement against the legislation. The Hispanic National Bar Association on Wednesday said it cancelled its 2015 convention in Phoenix over the legislation.”

“In addition, three Republicans who had voted for the bill reversed course and said it was a mistake. They said in a letter to Brewer that while the intent of their vote ‘was to create a shield for all citizens’ religious liberties, the bill has been mischaracterized by its opponents as a sword for religious intolerance,'” Christie reports. “SB 1062 allows people to claim their religious beliefs as a defense against claims of discrimination. Backers cite a New Mexico Supreme Court decision that allowed a gay couple to sue a photographer who refused to document their wedding, even though the law that allowed that suit doesn’t exist in Arizona.”

“Sen. Al Melvin, a Republican who is running for governor and voted for the bill, said he is disappointed by the veto. ‘I am sorry to hear that Governor Brewer has vetoed this bill. I’m sure it was a difficult choice for her, but it is a sad day when protecting liberty is considered controversial,'” Christie reports. “The Center for Arizona Policy helped write the bill and argued it was needed to protect against increasingly activist federal courts and simply clarifies existing state law. ‘It is truly a disappointing day in our state and nation when lies and personal attacks can over shadow the truth,’ said Cathi Herrod, the leader of the group.”

Read more in the full article here.

Related articles:
Apple, prominent Republicans ratchet up pressure on Arizona governor to veto SB1062 – February 26, 2014
Apple asks Arizona Governor Brewer to veto religious freedom bill SB1062 – February 25, 2014

291 Comments

  1. This, to me, is nothing like the No Blacks Served of the fifties, it’s more akin to Ali’s refusal to be inducted into the draft to kill Vietcong. Both are based on religious and moral convictions, as guaranteed under the First Amendment.

            1. Get your ass to Russia. Or Iran. In this country, we believe in basic human equality. That includes the right to live free from discrimination. If someone does not want to serve homosexual citizens, they shouldn’t be soliciting commerce from consumers. Religious freedom does *not* give you the right to discriminate against customers.

            2. 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.

              Maybe Ed Snowden and I can have coffee during my Russian exile.

            3. How does stating that you are not allowed to hate/discriminate against gay people hurt that. Actually by passing a law that is specific to a few religions while disrespecting more tolerant ones would seem to go against the constitution. I realize I am no lawyer, but it sure does seem to be logical to judges across the US.

            4. If it is against my religious beliefs to condone or support homosexual marriage by how I earn a living, then those beliefs are protected by the First Amendment. It doesn’t require Melvin Belli to understand. Likewise, if it is against my religious beliefs to condone or support undeclared wars, that is also protected under the First Amendment. This would also include taxation coerced by the government to finance such wars.

            5. Stupid, huh? You seem so certain of your opinions…

              From Wikipedia:

              Re-use of text
              Attribution
              “To re-distribute text on Wikipedia in any form, provide credit to the authors either by including a) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the page or pages you are re-using, b) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to an alternative, stable online copy which is freely accessible, which conforms with the license, and which provides credit to the authors in a manner equivalent to the credit given on this website, or c) a list of all authors. (Any list of authors may be filtered to exclude very small or irrelevant contributions.) This applies to text developed by the Wikipedia community.”

              Dumbass buttvinik.

            6. The Amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law . . . “. It has been incorporated against the state governments via the Fourteenth Amendment. That Amendment applies directly to the states. It protects you from government power, not gay people.

            7. How is Arizona “impeding the free exercise of religion” **by vetoing a law**? Arizona isn’t doing anything. Are you high? There is no state action here.

            8. This text:

              “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.”

              Is different than this text:

              “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.”

              The former is partially copyrighted.

            9. Oh, great civics class. I can feel the IQ leaking from the back of my head. Is this normal?

              *turns into mindless conservative gay-hating robot*

              OMGGGG ITS RIGHT THERE IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT! GOSH GUYS AND THIS WHOLE TIME I THOUGHT “CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW” MEANT THE GOVERNMENT BE REALLY IS ABOUT GAY PEOPLE. WOW GUYS I FEEL SO ENLIGHTENED.

          1. I don’t think you’ve ever opened one.

            sodomy |ˈsädəmē|
            noun
            sexual intercourse involving anal copulation.
            DERIVATIVES
            sodomize |ˈsädəˌmīz|verb
            ORIGIN Middle English: from medieval Latin sodomia, from late Latin peccatum Sodomiticum ‘sin of Sodom’ (after Gen. 19:5, which implies that the men of Sodom practiced homosexual rape) (see Sodom) .

            1. There are a lot of people here that hate Christians so maybe it is best to turn to other sources. What does the Muslim religion, favored by our President, say about homosexuality? How are homosexuals treated in countries where the Koran applies? Let’s use their practices as they are much more respected than backward American Christians.

            2. Right. And it is wrong to force a Christian to do things that are sinful according to his religion. Would it be OK to force a gay person to have heterosexual sex to satisfy the Christian. Of course not. And it is in the same way wrong to force a Christian baker to participate in a gay wedding that her religion finds to be immoral. And using the power of the government to force a person to commit an act against their religion is beyond wrong – it is evil.

            3. Oh so you also advocate that heterosexual customers be questioned as to whether they had engaged in anal sex with their partners before they can be served? News flash: If only 5% of straight people had had anal sex there would be more straight “sinners” in the world than gay ones. Homosexuality is not about anal sex – especially for lesbians – it’s about who someone is attracted to physically and/or emotionally. Who am I to question someone else’s love as long as they’re not hurting anyone?

            4. Pretty disgusting no matter who does it. I don’t think animals even would think to use the anus for sex. Man, and people get upset if you don’t wash your hands after go to the restroom.

            5. Wow, that dictionary definition really hit a nerve. It seems like such a swell idea, until someone actually explains what is involved. Then, it is so repulsive that people start attacking the person who dared define the act. It is information that is not supposed to be given any attention. Understandably. The cool factor sort of goes up in flames when the bizarre oddness of the act is fully explained.

            1. Every single time, someone gets super crazy like you are about other people’s private lives, it’s because they were “taught” to be ashamed of their urges. Just come out of the closet already. Once the self loathing stops, the anger will too. And you’ll be happier. Or shall we say, happily gay? EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

            2. botvijerk

              It doesn’t matter if everyone here is a complete bonehead… it provides NO excuse for your incessant pissy nastiness.

              And if actually you want to convince anyone of anything, you are just shooting yourself in the foot, over and over and over. There’s a good reason why King didn’t say, “Now listen up you stupid fucks”.

            3. deja vu all over again:

              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.’

            4. Please try to be logical, botvijerk.

              I’m not claiming to “have” anything at all including to “have moral standards or beliefs”. I AM making statements about your actions, and simply describing them for what they are… pissy, inexcusable nastiness.

        1. “wholesale destruction of the Bill Of Rights”

          You people live in a fantasyland. You probably also think this is ‘tyranny’ and the result of living in a ‘dictatorship’.

          Try reality.

          1. Speaking of “fantasyland” you live in a world where you get your news from Comedy Central, so you are not aware that Obama has and still is using the IRS to attack political opponents. Those who openly oppose him suddenly are audited. And so are their families. And they have to spend tens of thousands of dollars simply defending against Obama’s goons in the IRS. Somehow they don’t see this as a fantasy. Neither do the families of the Mexicans who were killed dead by automatic weapons Obama gave the drug cartels so they could kill people so he could push an “anti-gun” agenda. Two hundred innocents at least are dead by Obama’s action. More fantasyland. Except it is all documented fact. And of course there are the people now facing cancer and just got their good affordable insurance cancelled by the brilliant Obamacare and the insurance no longer can, under Obama’s rules, pay for their life saving drugs. So they are trying to survive, where a year ago evil insurance companies actually provided effective insurance at a reasonable cost and these people were taken care of. Now, the government is killing them, and in the case of a Michigan mom cancer victim the Democrat Party is using goon tactics to prevent her from even telling her story. Now, go back to your serious sources – Comedy Central, Ben Affleck, Al Gore, Michael Moore and Kanye West.

            1. You don’t know me. Therefore, you don’t know where I get my news or how I always vote. Today’s conservatives love to project and often distort other’s views. Based on your comments, I’d say you buy the far right propaganda hook, line and sinker. So far, NO evidence linking the white house to any wrongdoing at the IRS, NO evidence of white house wrongdoing in the fast and furious case, NO evidence Obama is ‘coming for you guns’, and your ACA observations of distorted. Spend a little more time fact-checking instread of bouncing around the far-right echo-chamber.

            2. You just proved my point. What does it mean when Obama’s IRS official “pleads the Fifth”? I know these are complicated concepts and Jon Stewart only takes you so far, but when you say “no evidence”, according to who? I think you mean according to Obama, because there is vast evidence including the exposed lies of the original denials which led to the taking the “Fifth”. The evidence is concrete. The denials are what tyrants and good liars do. Bill Clinton denied sex with Monica till he learned she saved souvenirs. Then he shifted to developing his own definitions of what constitutes sex, which many wives would have a difference of opinion with, but which you, getting your news from Hollywood celebs, TMZ and Jon Stewart, you probably like his definition. Head is not sex. And audits of entire families of conservative people who just the day before turned int their petitions to run for office are facts. So are the intentional leaking of IRS documents to media sources for political purposes. Fact. Dead Mexicans. Fact. Dead US Ambassador killed while Obama was manufacturing the lie he repeated for months about the cause of the deaths. FACT. Obama lives higher at taxpayer expense than any Wall Street FAT CAT, while attacking middle class people for their greed because they don’t want higher taxes. FACT. You can’t keep your health plan- you won’t save $2500 per year and you can’t keep your doctor – all Obama promises ALL LIES. FACT.

            3. In the far-right echo-chamber of misinformation, accusations = FACTS. Here’s a REAL FACT for you: Darrell Issa has produced ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF of criminal wrongdoing in the IRS scandal, Fast and Furious, Benghazi or ANY of the other politicized witch hunts Republicans have become known for. However, it’s a FACT that he’s wasted a tremendous amount of taxpayer money playing politics with his Senate position.

              Regarding the ACA, it’s true not ALL Americans are able to keep their insurance or doctor, however the VAST MAJORITY will have NO problems. Republicans have spun an unprecedented amount of misinformation trying to kill an idea that was first introduced by Republicans, executed by a Republican governor, and upheld by the SCOTUS which has a Republican majority. They don’t like the idea now, because Obama made it happen.

              As for where I get my news… I don’t watch much TV. I’m not a fan of MSNBC, TMZ, Kanye West or some of the others you’ve projected. I get most my political news from various sources, but mostly I fact-check (PolitiFact, Fact Check, Snopes, etc) and follow the money (OpenSecrets). Those of us who fact-check and follow the money-trail, know what’s really going on in US politics.

            4. How about this. I kill you. Then I say nobody has proven that I killled you even though all the evidence says I did. There is no real trial, just hearings like we have in politics. And my people all say I didn’t do it, because my supporters are all groupies, like Hitler had. Of course they would not admit that Obama, the guy who promised everyone $2500 in savings and protection for all their existing health care (all proven lies) that he would lie. Would Obama lie? Would Bill Clinton lie? Would Dianne Feinstein actually have a husband who made billions off of federal connections over his wife’s career? That is not possible. Is it? It is all fact.

            5. Yes, Obama did sit idly playing cards with Reggie Love while his gay ambassador, Chris Stevens, was raped then murdered by terrorists. Obama did nothing to even try to aid Stevens and the others who were killed. All he did was spend a few minutes concocting the lie he and Hillary then told for months about the cause of the attack. Obama is a artful liar. So good he cannot tell the truth on anything. But his supporters are Ok with lies because they believe the ends justify the means. As Hitler and Stalin did. So these useful idiots now enable Obama to piece by piece destroy the greatest free country the world has ever known. That of course is his goal.

            6. “That of course is his goal.”

              Oh yes. Suuuurrre it is Kent. He wants to destroy the country that he lives in. Of course he does. That’s it. Breathe. Big breaths. Now take this little pill.

            7. Yes, Marxists want to destroy America. He said he wanted to radically “transform” America. His words. America as founded was not good according to him. His Chicago mentor and revolutionary buddy Bill Ayers, was a founder of the Weather Underground and he blew up building and tried to kill people in his youth. He still says today he didn’t blow up enough. His lovely wife Bernadine Dohrn had an orgasm when she heard how the Manson women killed actress Sharon Tate, who was about 7 months pregnant, with a fork. She praised them and said how cool it was. Bill Ayers and the lovely bitch Bernadine are Obama’s earliest trainers. Except his grandfather, who was active in the Communist party. All this is fact. Obama bragged about his Communist connections at Columbia. Of course he wants to destroy America. The private capital parts. Like Apple. He wants all power in the government. Or aren’t you watching. The intellectual laziness of the left is stunning. Everyone voted for this bozo without even wanting to know his background. Well his background is that he hates America. And he likes leaders like Fidel and Chavez and Mao. If you people spent one tenth the time understanding the people who are currently in office and their policies (like passing bills they don’t read that take over 1/6 of the economy) that you spend playing with your iPhones you might have a clue about the incredible disaster coming our way soon due to this corrupt shithead.

      1. Brewer backed down due to political pressure, not because the law wasn’t right. Forcing people to play along with your little “progressive” worldview is quite different than having them believe in it. Someday, hopefully sooner than later, you’ll find that out with stark and utter clarity.

        1. Я согласен с вами! Приезжайте в России, чтобы мы могли ненавидеть гомосексуалистов вместе.

          Идиот.

        2. Brewer backed down due to political pressure, not because the law wasn’t right. Forcing people to play along with your little “conservative” worldview is quite different than having them believe in it. Someday, hopefully sooner than later, you’ll find that out with stark and utter clarity.

            1. A “pogrom” is a riot or persecution – most especially against the Jews in Russia. It was also part of the process of the killing of over 30 million Ukrainians by Russia during WW2 by starvation. Hmm, I wonder why the people of Western Ukraine don’t like Russia.

              That is another story for discussion.

            2. The jewish holocaust deserves all its attention. But then there was the Russian holocaust. Who was the bigger psychopath? Hitler or Stalin? I vote the latter. So let’s grab a gun, get in our time machine and…

            3. pogrom |ˈpōgrəm, pəˈgräm|
              noun
              an organized massacre of a particular ethnic group, in particular that of Jews in Russia or eastern Europe.
              ORIGIN early 20th cent.: from Russian, literally ‘devastation,’ from gromit’ ‘destroy by the use of violence.’

        3. As a new super-hero on the scene, I will fight for this law. My friends will then exercise their “sincerely held religious belief” to strap on explosive vests with nails and ball bearings and blow up crowds of women and children.

          Please don’t protest — we are very, very, very sincere in our religious belief that we fight for the great sky fairy and that this is his will.

        4. She backed down because they were afraid of a big backlash. They were going to lose the NFL backing and afraid of Apple pulling out of Arizona. Plus from what I’ve heard the hotels there have been already getting cancelations and they were freaking out. She doesn’t give two shits about anyones rights.She was looking to save her sorry ass

          1. Sounds like she was finally representing the people of her state.

            It seems “the market” was gearing up to “correct” the wrongs of this law. She had to try and save commerce and face.

            It amuses me greatly that the party that uses “the market” for everything from justifying the raping and destroying of the land and deregulation to destroying education funding just got smacked by it. LOL

            1. No – the law was passed by the elected representatives of the state. Then Big Hollywood and Big Government lobbying groups pressured the governor to overturn the will of the people, which was simply to respect religious freedom, something the “tolerant of the left” won’t tolerate. The Democrat Party is the New Fascist Party, telling us what we are allowed to do and think and requiring compliance with government dictated opinions and beliefs. The New Hitler Youth of the Democrat Party use their goons in media and politics to browbeat all into submission.

    1. Just exactly how are business owners going to identify the “gays” in order to refuse service. Is it enough to “look” gay? Or do you have to “act” gay? Perhaps you have to declare your LGBT status on a T-shirt…

      Why not give businesses the right to deny service to atheists? That would seem to make more sense in this context. Perhaps businesses want to deny service to women who have had abortions? Would that be OK? Why don’t we just write bills supporting those exemptions?

      From Wikipedia:
      “he 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.”

      Corporations and businesses are not people. I really don’t see how business owners in Arizona are being denied the establishment of religion or impeding the free exercise of religion. The people who wrote and support this bill are the ones twisting the U.S. Constitution.

        1. That is just one specific example, buttvinik. There are just as many in which the context would not be so clear cut.

          As I posted above, the Bill of Rights already guarantees your religious rights. There is no need for a state law to do the same thing. But that is the dirty little secret, isn’t it? Because this so-called “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” is really just a ruse to legalize religious discrimination. I am damn glad that Brewer vetoed it and defeated yet another offensive by the radical right in Arizona. Someday this religious insanity will pass.

          1. yes, I thought the state law was redundant also, as the First Amendment already guarantees this. But I think the law is similar to state laws being passed to protect the Second Amendment from a criminal Federal administration that is bent on destroying the foundation of liberty in this country: The Bill Of Rights.

            1. Scary to realise that the Bill of Rights was essentially AN AFTERTHOUGHT to the U.S. constitution. Amendments. Why, we might all be living in a North Koreanesque paradise had it not been for the amendment process and the political will to employ it.

            2. Please give Dear Leader just a little bit more time, he’s working as hard as he can out on the golf course…so that one day soon, we here in the United States might also enjoy the utopia that is North Korea.

      1. A law should be passed to allow Arizona businesses the right to refuse serving women with hideous faces like that of the Arizona governer. There is bound to be a religion claiming such a prejudice (sarcasm).

      2. As a constitutional libertarian, reading most of these discussions makes me sad for America. Have each of you read or really assessed the constitution? The first clause of the First Amendment states “Congress shall pass no law which …” Which means any restrictions on free speech can only come from an individual state and not from the Federal Government. AG Holder has no standing on any issue dealing with the freedom of speech, religion or the press since he merely enforces the laws passed by Congress. Since Congress can pass no law per our Constitution, Holder has no say, period. Now, I personally believe in gay marriage. But I also believe in free speech as a pillar of freedom and abhor coercion. Tell me how forcing a person under the threat of jail or fine to serve someone they disagree with follows our Constitution and the spirit of free speech. A Muslim has as much a right to not serve a gay, as a gay has a right to ridicule Allah. While I personally think both positions are lame, if I value the Constitution, I must defend their rights! If you defend the federal government using its power to squash one person’s rights for a cause you believe in, then read the book “We the Living”. You may find that you are a closet Fascist or a Communist.

        1. “Which means any restrictions on free speech can only come from an individual state and not from the Federal Government.”

          uh, no. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and trumps all state laws that contradict or conflict with it. Only those rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, are retained by the people (the states).

          1. Uh no? Really? Did you read the preamble – Congress shall pass no law. It doesn’t state “no one will ever infringe your free speech” or “no government at any level will infringe…” It is one sentence with several clauses. Can’t your read clean, simple English? The first amendment applies only to the Federal government. Because this preamble doesn’t exist in the Second Amendment, you can (and I do) it applies to all governments at all levels – Federal, State and local.

      3. “Just exactly how are business owners going to identify the “gays”
        My thoughts exactly. I work in South Beach and it turns out a large portion of the people working in my office are gay, but in many cases, I was unaware of this for many years. It was never brought up, and they certainly didn’t act “gay”. I mean if Johnny Weir came skating in to their business, it would be pretty easy to figure out, but most gay people are just not that flamboyant .

        1. Religious belief in that sense is nothing more than indoctrinated childhood conditioning. Even if there is a god what you’ve been told about him or her is a load of human-written nonsense. Give it up, learn to smile, and love your neighbours.

    2. I agree with the Bot.

      There are many cases where the balance between someone’s religious freedom vs. others’ rights is a tough judgement call.

      For instance, childhood inoculations are a necessary thing. Time was, children often died before age three from preventable diseases like measles. Nonetheless, some states allow parents to send their children to school without “mandated” inoculations based on “religious freedom,” which is often just a sentiment of ignorant people fretting about a “gummint conspiracy” who know absolutely nothing about what it was like before inoculations.

      In the case of Arizona, it was again a tough call. But I’d say a very religious wedding photographer’s right to not take photographs of a gay wedding reasonably trumps the gay couple’s inconvenience of finding another photographer to their take pictures, when they could insist on a closeup photo of two men sticking their tongues in each other’s mouth during a passionate kiss.

      What gays really want is to be respected and accepted for who they are. Getting laws like this turned down is a battle won for the gay-rights folks, but is really a setback in their war because—while they can now call up the most religious photographer they can find in the telephone book and cheerfully announce that they want their pictures taken—it does pretty much nothing to promote true respect.

      1. What gays really want is to be respected and accepted for who they are.

        That’s all it is. That is the reality. But what you wrote following that statement was pure caca.

        You don’t understand it at all, especially when you keep saying, “a tough call”.

        These issues aren’t tough at all. YOU make it tough when you struggle with your own morals and inner monologue trying to inject yourself into what your perceive as a birthright of this group versus this group.

        People are in business to make money and wedding photographers take intimate photos of these couples, in order to tell the story of new beginnings.

        These photographers need only decline in a polite & courteous manner and stop judging their customers, or making a public scene, or writing sarcastic messages on their receipts.

        Decline politely and don’t make an ass of yourself in saying no and it’s almost guaranteed the LGBT will find a wedding photographer brave enough to tell their story.

        There won’t be any lawsuits! Unless you attack a potential customer in a denigrating manner.

    3. What do you think Jesus would do? Would he refuse to baptize a gay person and reject him because he’s a sinner? I’d really like to know what you religious people believe. If you are following the teachings of Christ, would do you believe he would do?

      1. I got one down vote, yet nobody has stepped up to answer the question. Will one of you religious people please step up to the plate and answer the question. Do you believe Jesus would refuse to baptize a gay person or not? I’d like to know what you really believe, and if you are using religion to justify hate and going AGAINST your religion. It is a simple question. Would Jesus refuse to baptize (serve) a gay person or not? What do you believe? It’s easy. –especially you @botvinnik

          1. @botvinnik

            You interpret the bible against gays, yet you don’t have the courage to even guess what your Jesus would do? I knew you wouldn’t answer the question because you know you are being a hypocrite against your own beliefs. So I guess we will have to accept your lack of response as your admission that you know this has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with your right to practice hate.

            1. @Botvinnik

              Once again, my question is simple. I didn’t ask you to explain to me the first amendment. You have been giving your opinion all over the place. I am asking you for your opinion on your own beliefs. Just answer yes or no. Do you believe Jesus would refuse to baptize a person because he is gay?

            2. And there you pretty much have it in a nutshell:
              – botvijerk is asked a simple question that focuses on a specific, clear point
              – and he replies ‘fuck off’.

              He’s REALLY good at pontificating and shitting on people, ol’ botvijerk messiah… not so good at engaging in an actual exchange.

            3. What a fine and noble person you are, botvijerk. It adds so much to the credibility of your points of view.

              If only we could have YOU leading the country instead of the president you hate so much. What a paradise it could be.

        1. Would the gay person agree to do his utmost to follow God’s commandments? Including those about sexual morality. Would the gay person agree to follow Biblical teaching about the purposes of love and how it is to be expressed? And with whom? Baptism is something that is done when a person decides to follow Biblical instruction.

            1. Let me step in here for a second.

              I really do not give a tinker’s damn who somebody decides to shack up with, or have some fun with. You righteous lot — you really should see what your “faith leaders” get up to in the bedroom… or the kitchen… or the brothel. Dad and I reeeeeaally don’t care, but it would freak you right out!

              By the way, while I’m here (and dad, and the holy woo-woo guy, since we’re all actually the same being) — yes, we/I gave you “dominion over”, etc. etc. But it’s like parents giving the teenage dominion over the house for the weekend… doesn’t mean it’s okay to have a party and trash the place. Similarly, I’ll be back soon, and we/I are/am REALLY pissed off with what a fucking mess you’re making of the place. Yes, we’re omnipotent, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t take a lot of thought and effort to set up one of these planetary system thingees.

              Oh, yeh… one more thing. Some atheist joked that if there is a god, he sure has an inordinate love of beetles… with their being about 60,000 species, and all. SO!? He loves beetles! What of it!? You got something against beetles?

              Over and out.
              I’ll let you know through Michele Bachmann when I’m on my way.

            2. In response to the retard above, pretty good work for a public school product with a two digit IQ. Divine beings do a lot better. God and Jesus spoke for themselves and it is all in writing. For those who can actually read, and have working brains, it is good and challenging reading. The hard part is the Creator may lay down laws that sub creatures don’t like. Tough – but that is the lot of a sub creature. Still there is good news for sub creatures who can read and behave reasonably well.

            3. On your statement of, “God and Jesus spoke for themselves and it is all in writing.”

              How do you know the bible is our Word?
              ……. The bible says so.

              How do you know all those other books that say they’re the Word of dad and me aren’t true?
              ……. The bible says so.

              Hooooo, BOY! Ummm. You do realize that as far as logic goes, the bible has more more standing that the Norse tales, Aztec mythology, the Koran, and many, many more. In fact, some moral codes such as the Jain’s are far superior to the fragmentary good bits the sheep-herders got down?
              ……. But they are all wrong. Only the bible is true.

              How do you know that?
              ……. The bible says so.

              Why would dad and myself want to confine ourselves to a particular book and particular names and particular incantations?
              ……. I certainly don’t know. Thy ways are mysterious.

              And you really think that all the rule making and monitoring and ‘torture in hellfire for eternity’ you suppose we care about — which, frankly, makes all your secret police look like tiny babies — is fitting for thy lord who supposedly loves EVERYONE?
              ……. Yes. The bible says so.

              Oookay. Hmmm. Well, thou baffle-est the lord, thy god. This has really gone haywire. I’ll have to get back to you.

            4. Hmmm. I make a whole bunch of clear logical points (although I know, of course, you lot aren’t big into logic). Thought I did rather well in the limited space.

              Your replies, on the other hand, are all of a level with, “You’re stupid poo-poo head” plus, admittedly, “god and jesus spoke for themselves”. Is that REALLY all you’ve got?

          1. Ohh, sorry about the thunder, everybody. It’s me again, your Lord.

            kent, kent, kent — have you actually read this book that’s supposed to be what dad and I want? Yeh, sure. There are a few good spots. They got the stuff about loving one-another spot on. (And, by the way, there are no exceptions to that, such as people being gay or furenners or poor.)

            But REALLY! Come on! If you’re going to be following “our” supposed biblical instruction… have you stoned your children lately, or carried out a genocide of some other tribe that doesn’t have the groveling and incantations exactly how you think is right? Why not? When was the last time you gave you daughters to the crowd “so that they might know them”? Never!? Why not?

            Stop cherry-picking the nice stuff. Either go full bore on it all, or lighten up. Actually, don’t take that as an actual choice. We don’t want you to full-bore on the psycho stuff. That’s all from a bunch of batshit, illiterate sheep herders, hallucinating their way through the dark scary nights. So just lighten up. So sayeth the lord thy god.

    4. Exactly. But logic and respect of religion are uncommon commodities these days. Except in a few cases. Muslims in Minneapolis and other places have convinced the taxpayers, whatever their religion, to supply them with foot washing basins in public airports and other spaces at taxpayer expense, so they can do their Koranic hygiene. Somehow that is cool, but a private business person is subject to being told they must engage in sinful behavior or the government will take away their possessions. The country has become oddly intolerant as it is more and more under the control of those who unceasingly lecture about the need for “tolerance”. Why don’t these people simply agree to “COEXIST”?

    1. I’m for religious freedom, but I tend to value sanity even more.

      Let us only pray that that ‘sanity’ does not become subject to microscopic examination and dissection by social psychologists, neurophilosophers, and politically motivated social engineers. Which would open a case book for the real villains, the lawyers.

      1. I’m for religious freedom, too.
        I am also for the Right to Privacy (not as ‘interpreted’ in Roe vs. Wade, but that’s a different battle).

        The issue here (and to me) is who is over-riding what.
        If a gay couple DEMANDS that a baker or photographer do business with them, then that is trying to over-ride a person’s religious belief.

        If a preacher goes into a gay bar and tries to annoy them into changing their ways, that is over-riding their right to privacy (OK, so what if it’s a bar….)

        The point is, why SHOULD a Christian be forced to service a so-called ‘marriage’ between a same sex couple (there is no such thing, but we’re pretending…) and on the other hand, if a gay couple walks into a bakery to buy some cookies, how does THAT affect the Christian’s beliefs? I have yet to hear of anyone wanting to use the law for extremes of simply refusing ANYONE service on the basis of religion (but the media isn’t interested in the law’s intent here, just ‘righteous indignation’ for ratings).

        Now, what if a Jew gets into a cab driven by a Muslim and ask to go to a bar? Or a Christian to ride to a (cow) butcher?

        The intent behind this law was NOT to discriminate AGAINST a culture, but to SAVE a culture from being required to go against it’s beliefs.

        Yes, that is hard to define, but as long as courts require an individual to go against their beliefs, as with certain bakers, florist or photographers, then more laws like this will be attempted.

        So, for those who want to blame the Religious Right, remember it was the Secular Left’s court rulings that started this mess.

          1. I’ll have to get that wording flesshed-out and pinned down for liability reasons, but other than that, I see no reason not to agree with you.

            (ATTENTION: This agreement is non-binding and may be retracted, redacted, refracted or un-inacted as needed according to whim of interpretation, instigation, altercation, or investigation)

  2. Two gays walk into a wedding photographer’s shop who believes traditional heterosexual marriage is the only real marriage.

    Gays: “We’d like you to shoot our wedding!”
    Photog: “Sorry, I’m booked that day.”

    Net effect: Exactly the same as if SB1062 was law.

    The End.

        1. Obamanation? What’s he got to do with the far right Republicans in Arizona that wanted to legalize discrimination. Nothing. Vetoing that law took away no religious freedom at all. Those guys knew exactly what that law would have provided: a precedent for right wingers in every state to launch a similar bill making it no longer illegal to discriminate against gays in the workplace.

      1. Or just civility. The photographers convictions are his own and he is free to apply them to HIS life. You say he needs to be free to rub them into the faces of those who do not share them. Better for him to just put a little fishie on his door and business cards, maybe with a statement “Homos, Jews and Muslims will be berated”.

        1. No, he just needs to be free not to be a slave to people his religion teaches him are disgusting perverts. Of course, his sales volume will decline if he does reject on principle the pervert business, but on the other hand the free market system will create an opportunity for those individuals who might want to specialize in this clientele. So, freedom and free enterprise if left alone will solve the problem without the need for the Fascist approaches seemingly preferred by many of the leftist goon squad on this board.

          1. If he is basing his life and world view on a few words in Leviticus, he should read more. Start with Matthew.

            Like I said, just making himself unavailable for work with peole he does not condone takes care the problem. If he needs to bash people in the face with his beliefs he has greater problems than being an alleged Christian. I find it offensive that he co-opts and demeans the name of my religion (I’m a real Christian) with his intolerance and rudeness. But I’ll just turn another cheek. He can kiss cheek number three.

            OBTW, Ellen Degeneres had a brilliant episode on her sitcom regarding the Gay Yellow Pages. The lesson was that it is far more important to be a good photographer than it is to be a straight photographer.

            1. The law does not mention face bashing but simply says that people should be free to exercise their individual religious beliefs and no be coerced into doing things that contradict their beliefs. Simple – no physical or verbal assaults. Just the freedom to make decisions about how their labor is used so that it does not force them to violate their beliefs. I am pretty sure you would expect the same respect for your beliefs.

            2. But why was the legislation needed? It served no purpose that I can see, other than enabling bigotry. Why would we use the powers of Government to do that?

            3. Because now people like the Denver cake maker are being coerced by militant homosexuals into providing services for homosexual weddings when they simply want to decline to participate in events that are opposed to their religious beliefs. For some reason, we have annoying homosexuals who seek out Christian baker and photographers and then purposefully attempt to use the power of the state to compel these people to perform services they do not want to perform. The odious militant gay people do not simply want a cake – they want to force people out of business for simply following their religion. Oddly, they target Christians who simply politely decline, but they do not ask Muslim bakers who come from a religious perspective that advocates stoning and death for homosexual acts. Oddly these gay militants seem to have an alliance with Muslims who in their home countries are happy to kill gay people. Ask Chris Stephens, the openly gay ambassador to Libya who was raped and murdered by Muslim terrorists while Obama played Hearts with his close personal trainer, Reggie Love.

            4. You are out of brains, morals and anything resembling virtue. You are one of Lenin’s “useful idiots”. Standing around, drinking the Kool Aid, helping the Brown Shirts round up dissenters and those who reject the evil government policies. You are out of everything useful. We didn’t used to have your useless sort in America in the days when hard work and initiative and self reliance and integrity were expected of everyone. Now, for the good liberal, snark, a good day of doing nothing, some Starbucks time, screw some people, don’t read anything except maybe TMZ, stay up on what Beyonce and Kanye are doing, and that is a full day. Useless. It used to be a criticism. Now, it is a liberal virtue.

            5. “being coerced by militant homosexuals into providing services for homosexual weddings”

              There may be a few gay people who are raving dingbats. Sure. No group of people is immune to stupidity or fanaticism.

              But the idea that there are any appreciable number who are going around a making a point of forcing reluctant, resentful photographers, bakers, etc. to participate this incredibly important day is laughable.

              The supposed danger of “the gay menace” is no excuse to institutionalize prejudice. It’s not so long since it was legal to segregate, to refuse service to the Irish, for blacks and whites to marry and for anyone (include the “properly” married couples) to engage in any sexual practice except the missionary position. (I’m not so sure that last one doesn’t still apply in some states.)

              Equality is equality.

            6. So your point is that slavery is OK, as long as it is only applied to a relatively small number of people.

              When God passed out the brains, were you downstairs watching Comedy Central and you didn’t get yours?

            7. The strange thing is, I can’t imagine why anyone would want an unwilling participant in their wedding. Shotgun grooms didn’t work out well, and I’m pretty sure a shotgun photographer or baker would not be a good thing. Given the Rights penchant for creating theatrics based on outright falsehoods (Recall Andrew Breitbart, the right wing media provocateur. James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles, the daughter of a conservative Christian minister, who disguised themselves as a pimp and prostitute) I doubt and factual basis for militant gay attacks on photographers and bakers.

              It lessens both the First Amendment and Religion to use them as cover for bigotry and hatred. To use falsehoods to justify that cover is reprehensible.

            8. The Left is the master of deception. Bill Clinton is the one who had his law license revoked for committing serial perjury to hide his sexual harassment of a teenage intern. Obama is the one who sold Obamacare on a complete pack of lies – you can keep your doctor and your insurance plan and you will save $2500 per year. All pure lies designed to fool stupid people – which it did. Dumbass Democrats bought the lies and now we all have a government run health system that will make VA hospitals look like the Mayo Clinic by comparison. And you must buy the plan at the point of the Federal Gun or the IRS will come after you. The left – it always talks about choice and then it brings out the brown shirt union government goons to herd the sheep. What a pack of disgusting vile creatures Democrats are.

            1. I know these are hard concepts for you but skin color and sexual identity (male or female) are not moral actions but are details of birth. The act of having anal intercourse (sex among men) or whatever women do together or humans and animals are conscious moral decisions. These are things that are fair basis for an individual to make decisions on. Such as, “I do not want to take part in a homosexual marriage because I believe it is an immoral act.” That does not mean the homosexuals cannot have some ceremony it just means they should not under any circumstance be able to “compel” others to take part in an act that these others find contradictory to their religious beliefs. No “coercion”. What is so bad about freedom? I thought homosexuals were for freedom.

            1. Discriminatory behavior is just that. No matter what a persons excuse. Wrap in in the flag or pile it on you (mistaken) interpretation of the Bible, makes no difference.

              I fail to see why a simple “I’m not available to photograph your wedding doesn’t suffice”? No legislation required.

            2. Well, how about if you were required to attend Tea Party meetings or required to sell your labor to Nazis?

              Second, discriminatory behavior today includes the Obama IRS targeting conservatives groups and individuals and using audits to harm them financially? Obama’s IRA goon plead the Fifth rather than incriminate herself. Obama stated in a press conference the behavior was reprehensible but has since protected all those criminals in the IRS who did the illegal targeting from any firings or other punishment. Because he wants to use the IRS to attack his opponents. This is real odious discrimination, not like the type you refer to where a woman who owns a bakery is forced to supply a product for an event she understandably finds odious. Homosexuals have the ability to get cakes from sources other than those who do not support the practice of male anal sex and the accompanying recruitment of young children to service these odd behaviors. This unnatural and unhealthy practice of putting the thing in the wrong place does after all cause AIDS.

            3. Well as a Democrat you worship horseshit with your votes for Clinton the sexual predator, Obama the dope smoking bathhouse Marxist, Castro (hero to the left), Che (murdering thug low life darling of the left) and Al Gore and Joe Biden – senior Democrats who make Rodney Dangerfield’s Caddyshack character seem like Aristotle by comparison.

              Some of us here don’t like Marxist thugs, especially now that they have destroyed our once excellent health system and we now have friends denied cancer treatments by the dipsshits you voted for who passed this law they bragged they did not read. Well we despise incompetents who brag about doing things without a clue of as to what they are doing. You are in that group.

            4. “the accompanying recruitment of young children to service these odd behaviors”

              You have NO idea what you are talking about. I worked in the field for a couple of decades. The rape of young children by adults is an epidemic that infests every racial group in America and every level of socio-economic status… and is almost always carried out by a HETEROSEXUAL family member, friend of the family or someone in a position of community trust.

            5. Well, recruiting and molesting children is evil whether done by heterosexuals or homosexuals. Obviously you did not get the marketing materials from NAMBLA, the North American Man Boy Love Association, a group created by a well known and revered San Francisco homosexual. If you say you have been in the field for decades and were not aware that homosexuals like to recruit young boys you are clearly a slow learner. Or are you just pretending to be stupid?

            6. Try to read.

              I didn’t write that gays don’t do it.

              I wrote
              *** and is almost always carried out by a HETEROSEXUAL*** family member, friend of the family or someone in a position of community trust.

            7. At no time during the discourse on this page did I make any “interpretation of the bible.” Those words, like “rub your face in it” are yours, not mine. My argument consists only of defending the First Amendment. In your paranoid-driven fervor, you attempt to link opinions to others that have no basis in any responses they have submitted. Some call this disingenuous, I like to simply distill it down to what they truly are: liars.

            8. My point was “The photographer could say no.” He does not have to say, “No, I won’t photograph you because you are sinners according to my interpretation of Gods Laws”. He can just say “No”.

            9. But that is not what you typed. You intentionally attempted to malign me and my defense of the First Amendment through obfuscation and unsubstantiated innuendo. You remain a liar, and until you apologize, an unrepentant one.

            10. Wowee-Zowee! A liar!!! A pretty minor offense (even if true) compared to your incessant putrid nastiness. And you want him to apologize!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and !!!!!!!!!!!!!

    1. This photographer of whom you write had just hung up, for the third time that day, after professing undying love to his mistress and promising for the umpteenth time that he would in fact be leaving his wife, just as soon as he could find a way to let her down in a Christian-like manner. Just as he was about to head to the john to masturbate with thoughts of his mistress floating through his mind, these two faggots came in to his studio and had the unmitigated gall to ask him, a God-fearing Christian, to take pictures of their wedding. And now he had had to lie, something he almost never does, and tell these two cream puffs that he had an engagement on that day and was unavailable. All because his government couldn’t see fit to preserve his right to practice his preju-oops, faith.

  3. I love the Obama haters. The ARIZONA STATE governor vetoed and ARIZONA STATE bill. Obviously Obama is at fault for the governor deciding that perhaps being an old fashioned bigot was not in the best interest of anyone. Shocking I know. I still can not believe Obama did this… Serious Sarcasm through out this.

    Just as an FYI, my husband and I (the happy husband) just adopted a wonderful new born. I realize that we have only been together for 10 years so we should have no rights. Heck if someone doesn’t want to sell us food, gas, utilities, etc. they should have a right to.

  4. This bill was a mistake, because it was WAY to specific about religious belief and gay/lesbian rights. However, just as customers can choose to go to any vendor for products and services, vendors should be able choose their customers without fear of accusations and lawsuits. If I’m a photographer, and I decide to pass on a wedding FOR ANY REASON, that is my right as the vendor. I don’t have to justify it. Someone else can benefit from being paid to do that job that I didn’t want.

    Obviously, if the “vendor” is a government agency, service MUST be rendered without bias. And THAT does not seem to apply to the iRS and Department of Justice these days…

    1. If I’m a photographer, and I decide to pass on a wedding FOR ANY REASON, that is my right as the vendor.

      Funny, but that’s the spirit of the law here in Arizona.

      Businesspeople can politely decline anyone’s business without fear of retribution. The problem is, when business people inject their religious and/or political beliefs into a business deal, something that really has no place in Sales.

      Steve Pierce, the author of SB 1062, said he made mistakes and they will be fixed; meaning he’s not done pursuing this law. My sense is, it will become a ballot issue, after which we Arizonan’s will defeat it again.

      In their haste to get their religious foot in the market, the zealots are pushing our limits and buttons to carve out Christian-only business establishments.

      My sense is, Mr. Pierce believes the LGBT community is flaunting their lifestyle and it makes his teeth itch so badly he wants them abolished or perhaps contained. He wants Arizona business people to be able to put up signage saying, your lifestyle is not welcome in here!

      This is purely a market issue and I believe it involves a tiny conclave of white Arizona businessmen who think they can afford to pick and choose customers. Idiots!

      1. So, a photographer or baker should be able to be sued by homosexuals if that baker or photographer indicates politely they prefer not to do gay weddings due to religious beliefs? So, if the homosexual demanded service at the wedding and the wedding was going to be a nude homosexual wedding, with consummation at the end of the ceremony, the Christian photographer or baker would be required by law to provide their services at this wedding because the government does not permit them to choose not to offer their services when they don’t want to? I can see it. New frontiers in behavior advancements every day here in America. Even the animals are not safe from the new Left.

        1. So, if the homosexual demanded service at the wedding and the wedding was going to be a nude homosexual wedding,

          Let me stop you right there. First and foremost there is no law, k? So you’re just speculating, which doesn’t advance the conversation.

          If an Arizona businessman declines a customers business, there is no law suit, EVER!

          However, if the businessperson becomes disrespectful and attacks a customer’s lifestyle. Then YES!, there is a window of opportunity to call out a bigot doing business in the public market. Let the facts of the case fall where they may.

          The old axiom, The Customer Is Always Right., is no longer meaningful in America.

          I still see signs proclaiming, No Shirt. No Shoes. No Service! No one is getting sued.

  5. ‘Religious Freedom Restoration Act’?
    Newspeak at its finest! Thank you, George Orwell!
    Was there some legislation passed that removed religious freedom?
    One has to admire the success of a business that can afford to turn away business. Last time I was in Arizona, I saw plenty of business premises vacant!

    1. The law that was passed in Hawaii (before it was amended) would have stripped a religious body of the right to practice their religion in Hawaii if they refused to perform a ceremony for a same sex couple. It was amended, even though the State Attorney General said that the original law as written was constitutional.

      We now have a man in Washington DC telling the Judiciary that they can ignore laws that have been enacted by the states. Holder, if you are wondering who.

      Maybe some of you don’t see the bigger picture of what is happening, so I’ll share a couple of salient thoughts:

      1) The United States of America is a Republic that is formed by 50 free and independent countries called “states”. Each state has certain rights that cannot be impeded by the “Federal” government. One of those rights is that Federal law cannot impose laws upon a state or number of states unless there is a Constitutional Amendment passed by all of the States. The States have to agree first. Otherwise, the law has no binding power over the State, except for rules of interstate commerce and the transport of goods from State to State. Most especially upon Federally funded highways. (Hmmm)

      2) The use of same sex marriage as a legal issue to strip the States of their individual rights is what this is all about. If you don’t see that, start reading more and pay attention. Before you get all pithy, go study the Constitution of the United States of America.

      Or if you’re lazy, you can ask President Obama. I hear he has a profound knowledge of the Constitution. Even taught it somewhere one time.

      I really don’t care what two people want to do and how they want to live. I do start caring when it is imposed upon me or my business or my family or my religion. Then, I get a bit miffed.

      Cheers.

      1. If you’re going to blame anyone for the proliferation of same-sex marriage laws in the US, you should be blaming the Supreme Court. Particularly the Republican appointee, Justice Anthony Kennedy. He wrote Lawrence v Texas. And the recent DOMA decision. Obama has had little to do with same sex marriage in the states. That’s the beauty of federalism. It cuts both ways.

        1. Did I mention Obama in my comment? Except to seek instruction on his proclaimed forte: The Constitution of The United States of America.

          I recognise that the Supreme Court is the one to look. However, we used to have a government that with checks and balances. That is no longer the case. Is it?

          Your freedoms are being striped away and you don’t get it.
          It has nothing to do with who you love or marry. It is an us against them game. Used to divide a nation, state, city, people.

          Who wins – figure it out. Who loses? All of us.

          1. BTW: if you have never lived in a totalitarian regime, then you don’t see it. You just feel safer with all the SWAT teams in your neighbourhood and soon to be drones “protecting” you from the air.

            I hope people wake up before it is too late…

          2. The Supreme Court strikes down federal laws all the time. I admit, I’m disappointed that Bush and Obama have assumed far too much power in the name of counterterrorism. But that’s a different issue than equal rights for members of my family.

          3. You really sound emotional in a drama queen sort of way…

            Adjust your tin foil hat, k cupcake?

            Are you saying Arizona has “imposed upon me or my business or my family or my religion.” and that’s why you’re miffed?

            Or are you just proffering a scenario of how this affects your feelings in case this comes to pass in your state?

    1. I’d make him remove the hood and show his face, for sure. If he refused he wouldn’t be served, just as I wouldn’t serve anyone refusing to show their face. That’s for security reasons. If he took the hood off, then yes I would serve him, before heading off into the back to upload the security camera footage onto YouTube 😀

      (And yes, the showing your face bit includes women wearing any form of veil)

    1. Tim Cook called the Arizona Governor and reminded her that Apple was building a large facility there that would employ at least 200 people. No pressure, Gov. Just thought I’d remind you kind of call.

      It just so happens that Tim Cook has a vested interest because he wouldn’t want someone not serve him if he came to visit.

      Kind of shonky to me.

      Integrity would have been: Excuse me, Governor, I am gay and I really don’t like this bill because I may not be able to by a hamburger at Sonic while I’m on holiday in Phoenix.

      One of the Gov’s major reason for vetoing the bill has nothing to do with gay rights. It has to do with establishing a firm foundation for the economic recovery of Arizona.

      Read her speech.

      1. I missed much of her speech on my television unit today. Tnx.

        Is ‘shonky’ ozzy slang? New to me.

        shonky

        1) Of poor or low quality.

        That work he did was so shonky, I can’t believe he actually put his name on it.

        Not to be confused with “Wonky”, which means much the same thing, but typically refers to structures, such as buildings, walls, etc.

        2) A compound word from the two terms ‘shocking’ and ‘wonky’ meaning that something is so bad or precarious that it is actually shocking. Can also be changed into the adverb chunkily

        That is a really shonky piece of construction.
        He did that plastering chunkily.

        http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=shonky

        1. It can also apply to how someone behaves with another. It is usually attributed to the “white shoes and white belt” crowd of sales people who lie and cheat to get a sale. People who are out of integrity in their dealing with others. There are other uses. Shonky work is only one application.

      2. Integrity would have been: Excuse me, Governor, I am gay and I really don’t like this bill because I may not be able to by a hamburger at Sonic while I’m on holiday in Phoenix.

        God, you’re so full of shit. Does it make you feel superior to bash the LGBT lifestyle, or Tim Cook?

        Mizu frumunda
        my balls bounces off my toes
        in the land of OZ

        Haiku for Shonky MizuinOz

    1. 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.’

  6. More illogic. (And it’s interesting that you don’t even attempt to contradict my criticism of your behavior…) Even if I were utterly hypocritical, it does nothing to change that you are “a vomiting pile of nastiness”, “a cancer on this forum”, “a pissy vitriolic little shit”… or whatever other way someone may like to summarize it.

    1. I’d rather put up with anything Bottvinik posts than the repetitive whining of a little butt wipe like you. If it wasn’t for him you’d have no reason to come here, or probably even to live. Get a life, even if it will probably be a gay life.

Reader Feedback

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