“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
I live in Arizona, and you all need to get one thing very clear: This bill was did NOT have anything in it regarding gay rights or discrimination against gays. The bill stated that a business owner could decline to service any person if that person in some way offended the business owner’s religious beliefs, and the person could not sue the business owner.
Now the purpose in drafting the bill may have been to be able to permit discrimination against LGBTs, but that’s not what is in the bill. The LGBT community was the first to noisily and in numbers protest against the bill, although many other people protested as well. I debated about writing a sign that said “Straight, Conservative, SB 1062 SUCKS” and joining them.
FYI, I think the bill was horrible. It was a double-wide open barn door that could permit people to discriminate against anyone they didn’t like and claim it was for “religious beliefs”. People could have discriminated based on race, gender, sexual preference, age (old or young), religious affiliation, hair color, dress code, whatever. I still can’t believe it actually made it to the Governor’s desk. And then to have 3 representative want to change their vote and ask the speaker for a new vote after the fallout started was just moronic. Tells me that some of our representatives didn’t read the bill, didn’t think about intended or unintended consequences, or are just plain stupid.
Gov. Brewer did the right thing vetoing that monstrosity.
Actually, the bill essentially provided state protection for religious liberties similar to a bill Ted Kennedy championed and had passed at the Federal level years ago. There is nothing controversial in the bill in a society that respects religious freedom. It is only controversial to people who like to use government power in a fascistic manner to force people to do things their religion finds odious – like supporting men having sex with men via anal copulation. That one is even hard to type. Religions and philosophers such as Aristotle historically over thousands of years have found such behavior wrong, against nature, and bad for society. There is more documentation that homosexual lifestyles harm society and the individual than there is that using incandescent light bulbs harms the environment. The latter is now no longer permitted to be manufactured.
Sir, what part of free speech and religious freedom don’t you understand? Free speech is uncomfortable, obnoxious and often times discriminatory. Should a person give up their strongly held beliefs to appease your idea of tolerance? Is there anything in the Constitution which enshrines tolerance? Does forcing one into your definition of tolerance violate their freedoms? Let’s, for a moment, put the shoe on the other foot. Should you be forced to serve a person with a swastika tattooed on their forehead? Does your idea of tolerance extend to this? So in the name of consistency, please give me a rule which could consistently apply to both forcing a persons to serve gays and to you being forced to serve a neo-NAZI.
I think you miss the point. They only want to “COEXIST” with people who have the exact same opinions. Everyone else must be made to think properly or they will use the force of the government to “reeducate” these people. Maybe electric shock treatment for the non-conformers.
I am not Jewish but a year and a half ago I got married to my wife who is Jewish. If I had contacted a person to work at my wedding and they had not wished to be a part of it because of it being a mixed marriage then I would have been glad to know it in advance. I would not have wanted a person involved with my wedding that had a problem with it.
I do not support SB1062 in any way but I do think that in the service business a person should be honest with their potential customers if they foresee an issue.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title II, makes it illegal for public accommodations (businesses) to discriminate in offering services to the public. At the end of March, the U.S. Supreme Court will be hearing oral arguments in the Hobby Lobby case wherein the business wants to be able to discriminate based on their religious beliefs, so this issue will be back in the news soon, with a ruling later this year.
This AZ bill would attempt to allow any public accommodation to deny services based upon the owner’s personal religious belief, a test which could be never resolved in court, and would essentially result in businesses operating in the public discriminating against anyone for anything as acceptable under this law, in much the same way Florida’s stand-your-ground law forces the courts to accept the murderer’s claim of fear for their life making their murders permissible. There’s no way to look into a person’s mind to see what the truth is.
Laws must be clear and based in secular objective tests to be enforceable. Allowing anyone to pull the personal belief card out to permit them to perform heinous acts makes a mockery of our legal system, and denies everyone equal justice under those laws.
We’ll seen what the U.S. Supreme Court thinks of this approach later this year.
Should a business, like the NFL, be allowed to deny a service to a state, like Arizona, because the NFL does not like the lifestyle choices of the citizens of Arizona? Or would that be intolerant of the NFL?
I would expect business to business transactions to operate differently. Quid Pro Quo transactions are common in business, and perfectly legal. Otherwise, the marketplace wouldn’t function efficiently.
I understand the argument others are making that if a business doesn’t want your business, take it elsewhere, but what if that option isn’t available? This is a very slippery slope that would deny many people protections under the law, making their enforcement moot.
I get it. I big business can trample all over the people of the state working legally through their elected representatives who simply want to protect the freedom of individuals to follow their religious beliefs without government interference, like the country was originally established. Freedom. Big business and big obnoxious lobbying groups can be intolerant.
Hmmm…Kent and botvinnik, I was tempted to believe you are just bigoted, but upon further reflection I think I know what’s really going on here… http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/homophobes-might-be-hidden-homosexuals/
That theory is not exactly new! Whenever I hear someone nothing off on an anti-gay rant, I ask them why they care so much, and what does it have to do with them?
Self-hatred is a very common emotion with closet dwellers.
As a male, personally I agree with Phil Robertson, I just don’t find another man’s anus an attractive place to focus my attention. Just my view.
So don’t focus on it. What others do is of no concern to you, if it neither breaks your back nor picks your pocket! (to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson)
I don’t any more than I focus on people having sex with animals. When the topic is raised it does make me wonder what motivates people to do certain very odd things.
mouthing off that is. **why is there no edit button?*
Maximum bollocks on this thread, why? Testosterone war?
1. It’s about gays
2. And, usually the right-wing stays away from religion. But this one has religion all through it. That’s going to crank everything way up.
Put those two together…..
It is about “freedom of individual religious liberty” and prohibiting the government from compelling people to do things that are sins according to their religious beliefs. The Democrats like government coercion. They like to put the government “into every bakery and every photography shop” and order the owners to do what the government dictates. This is fascist or simply totalitarian. Like Stalin and Lenin would like. And Obama and his little puppets. That is what it is about. Not about homosexuals and their preference for a man’s anus as a docking station.
You cannot legislate morality.
Sure can’t. But you can legislate against discrimination and for equality. “You can’t eat in my restaurant because you are black, a woman, handicapped, gay, vegetarian, an atheist, a teenager, have a buzz cut, Jewish.” No – not acceptable for any of them… and the born that way or not supposed debate is irrelevant.
But the government can force into servitude a baker who does not want to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding because she finds anal sex among men repulsive. So the government can force her to act against her will and her religious beliefs. Wow. Why do the anal sex practitioners not find a baker who engages in anal sex to bake their cake?
Some people find uppity women, inter-racial sex, poor people or non-whites repulsive. “Find repulsive” doesn’t qualify as a reason to discriminate.
Also, you keep talking about wedding cakes. Laws like this would allow far more than simply declining to provide a cake to a wedding.
Yes, like the NFL should not be permitted to discriminate against Arizona if it implemented this law, lawfully passed by its representatives, right?
Given your insistence that intolerance be wiped out you will agree with me that from now on you should be required to spend 15% of you dining out budge at Chik-FilA, right? Your money is your possession just like the bakers labor. So your money should be forcibly taken and given to those you find repugnant. Obviously what is fair for the baker is fair for you. Government force used to steal what you will not give voluntarily.