Brewer Vetoes “Refusal Of Service” Bill

You could see this coming a mile away once the liberal pundit and media finger-wagging, reality challenged fools became involved

(NY Times) Ending a day that cast a glaring national spotlight on Arizona, Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, vetoed a bill on Wednesday that would have given business owners the right to refuse service to gay men, lesbians and other people on religious grounds.

Her action came amid mounting pressure from Arizona business leaders, who said the bill would be a financial disaster for the state and would harm its reputation. Prominent members of the Republican establishment, including Mitt Romney and Gov. Rick Scott of Florida, also sided with the bill’s opponents, who argued that the measure would have allowed people to use religion as a fig leaf for prejudice.

Ms. Brewer announced her veto at a hastily called news conference after spending the day holed up in the Capitol in private meetings with opponents and supporters. “I call them like I see them, despite the cheers or the boos from the crowd,” she said. She added that the legislation “does not address a specific or present concern related to religious liberty in Arizona,” and that it was “broadly worded and could result in unintended and negative consequences.”

Perhaps they should have actually read the massive two page legislation. It’s not Jim Crow, it’s not anti-gay…heck, it doesn’t even mention gays

(Rich Lowry) It was jarring to read the coverage of the new “anti-gay bill” passed by the Arizona Legislature and then look up the text of the instantly notorious SB 1062. The bill was roughly 998 pages shorter than much of legislation that passes in Washington, so reading it didn’t take much of a commitment. Clocking in at barely two pages, it was easy to scan for disparaging references to homosexuality, for veiled references to homosexuality, for any references to homosexuality at all.

They weren’t there. A headline from The Week declared, “There is nothing Christian about Arizona’s anti-gay bill.” It would be more accurate to say that there was nothing anti-gay about Arizona’s anti-gay bill.

See if you can find any of the LBGT words in the text of the bill.

Eleven legal experts on religious freedom statutes — who represent a variety of views on gay marriage — wrote a letter to Gov. Brewer prior to her veto explaining how the bill “has been egregiously misrepresented by many of its critics.”

Store owners are allowed to deny service to people with no shoes and shirts, who come in drunk, many have signs telling people to take their hoodies off or don’t come in, and for other reasons. But, if someone doesn’t believe in gay marriage and refuses to bake a cake, they will be vilified and sued. That’s much of what the Arizona law was about.

In addition to the federal government, 18 states have such statutes and about a dozen other states interpret their state constitutions as extending the same protections, according to the letter. The statutes, the scholars write, “say that before government can burden a person’s religious exercise, the government has to show a compelling justification.”

Ted Kennedy once championed this same type of legislation.

The question isn’t whether businesses run by people opposed to gay marriage on religious grounds should provide their services for gay weddings; it is whether they should be compelled to by government. The critics of the much-maligned Arizona bill pride themselves on their live-and-let-live open-mindedness, but they are highly moralistic in their support of gay marriage, judgmental of those who oppose it and tolerant of only one point of view on the issue — their own.

If a private entity wants to deny service, that’s their right. And the denyed can, shockingly, go elsewhere. Plenty of places bake cakes. Instead, they are sued. Government gets involved. The law would stop this. Interestingly, liberals who hate “anti-gay” laws are….denying service

(NBC4) A West Hollywood bar is refusing service to a select group of state legislators, in response to anti-gay legislation that has been proposed in eight states.

The Abbey Food & Bar has established a “Deny Entry List.” On it are headshots of each state representative that supports bills that allows for the discrimination of LGBT people. As of last Monday, anyone on this list will not be allowed to enter the establishment.

The bar has the right to do that, or, at least they should. Being California, no one can be denied

According to California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, businesses cannot deny entry based on race, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, disability, medical condition, or marital status. Political persuasion is not on that list.

Perhaps, but this would be about religion, not politics. But, they should have the power to deny service. They own it. Government shouldn’t threaten them. But, the hypocrisy is, I’d like to say astounding, but, no, not with liberals. It is expected.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

8 Responses to “Brewer Vetoes “Refusal Of Service” Bill”

  1. Trish Mac says:

    Not one word about gays in the bill.
    http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.pdf

    And yes, the hypocrites are out in plain sight.
    “(NBC4) A West Hollywood bar is refusing service to a select group of state legislators, in response to anti-gay legislation that has been proposed in eight states.

    The Abbey Food & Bar has established a “Deny Entry List.” On it are headshots of each state representative that supports bills that allows for the discrimination of LGBT people. As of last Monday, anyone on this list will not be allowed to enter the establishment.”

    It is all about control. They want it, and by golly they will get it- with the full support of a mainstream media who is so agenda driven it smells like crap on a hot summer’s day.

  2. gitarcarver says:

    I actually think the veto was a good idea.

    The bill is far too broad.

    If I sell pencils, there is no reason to deny anyone the right to buy my pencils. The pencils are an inanimate object that neither support or advocate a position.

    However, businesses should be able to deny service when forced to promote, support, or advocate causes or ideas with which they disagree.

    When someone creates a wedding cake for a gay couple, they are supporting an idea with which they may not agree for whatever reason.

    Looking at this from other angles, should a printing company run by a member of the LGBT community be forced to print posters and flyers for the nuts at Westboro Baptist Church? Should an atheist be forced to create a statue for a church? Should a Jewish owned auditorium be forced to rent to and promote a gathering of the Nazi party?

    Compelled speech and expression is anathema to the freedoms upon which this country was founded.

    If the Arizona bill had stopped at being able to deny expressive works because of views, I would have supported it. As it is, I think the bill went too far.

  3. Jeffery says:

    Trish,

    The bar is agreeing with you. They feel that a private business should be able to serve whomever they want.

    My company is developing an anti-cancer drug that will help lung cancer and brain cancer patients. Since I find several tenets of the Roman Catholicism objectionable, do you agree that I’m within my rights to withhold the drug from Catholics?

  4. Trish Mac says:

    Jeffy-You are f’n bizarre. Unbelievable that you would make such a disgusting comparison. If I need flowers/cakes/catering, I have many options, and if I do not, I can pretty much go without those services. A gay couple who needs a wedding service has to be desperate or vindictive, to want a business to provide to them while disagreeing religiously with their beliefs. You pronounce a typical hypocritical alternative comparison to real health issues, over superfluous unnecessary accoutrements to a ceremony.
    Jeffrey, don’t act like you have any true compassion, when clearly you do not.

  5. Jeffery says:

    Trishy,

    I am at a loss to understand your anger, Trishy. If your principle is that businesses should be able to discriminate based on their religion than how could you possibly object to me only selling my wonder drug to people whose religions don’t offend me? Certainly you don’t mean to suggest that the state should force me to sell my wares to someone just because they think they need it. That would actually be Fascism, I believe.

    It’s OK for those that agree with Trishy’s bigotries to discriminate but not me. Or it’s OK to discriminate over what Trishy considers unimportant issues but not over what you consider important.

    Would it be OK for a diner owner to refuse to serve Evangelicals?

  6. Trish Mac says:

    Jeffy, I am not a bigot, but you are.

  7. Jeffery says:

    Trishy-poo,

    I’m just trying to extract some thread of reason and principle from your stance.

    How are you going to decide what service is suitable for discrimination (maybe florists, bakers) and what service in unsuitable for discrimination (drug suppliers, physicians)?

    Can a physician refuse to treat a patient because the patient is gay, and the physician’s religion teaches him to hate gay people? After all, there are other doctors around.

    Can a restaurateur refuse to serve a couple who wear mixed fiber clothing (Leviticus 19:19)? Ugh! Cotton/polyester! There are other places to eat.

    Can a ticket taker at the ballpark not allow tattooed people in (Leviticus 19:28)?

    Or is your hatred restricted to homosexuals?

  8. gitarcarver says:

    As usual, Jeffery fails to understand the arguments.

    Can a restaurateur refuse to serve a couple who wear mixed fiber clothing (Leviticus 19:19)?

    You mean can a restauranteur impose a dress code at their establishment?

    Absolutely.

    What would make you think otherwise?

    Can a bar hold a “ladies’ night” during which males are discriminated against because of their gender?

    Absolutely.

    Can giveaways at public sporting events be limited to gender?

    Absolutely.

    As I believe Jeffery is saying, lawyers can refuse people and cases with which they disagree.

    But here is an instance that shows the problem:

    Assume that Jeffery is an atheist vegan plumber who is called to fix a drain pipe in meat processing plant. Can Jeffery refuse that job because of his deeply held convictions?

    Absolutely.

    Assume that I am a religious person who religious tenants preclude the killing of animals. Could I refuse to fix the same pipe in the meat processing plant?

    Not according to Jeffery I couldn’t.

    Jeffery and others seem to believe that secular reasons for denying service are acceptable but religious reasons for denying the same services are not.

    People should have the right to refuse service if providing that service endorses, promotes or enhances a belief or action which is contrary to the moral convictions of the owner of a company or service provider.

    I would no more support the idea that a Christian should be able to force an atheist printer to print up flyers proclaiming the existence of God any more than I would support a Christian printer being forced to print atheistic flyers proclaiming that there is no God.

    Jeffery, on the other hand, would force the Christian printer to print the atheist flyer and then turn around and say the atheist should not have to print the religious flyer.

    Such are the beliefs of a bigot.

Bad Behavior has blocked 7899 access attempts in the last 7 days.