Arizona governor holding meetings over rights bill

Legislation would allow businesses to refuse service to gays.
Associated Press
Feb 26, 2014


Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer was holding a series of private meetings Wednesday with opponents and proponents of legislation adding protections for people who assert their religious beliefs in refusing service to gays, a proposal that has focused national attention on the state as business groups, gay rights supporters and even many fellow Republicans urged her to use her veto power.

The governor faces a Saturday deadline to either sign Senate Bill 1062 or use her veto stamp. In a tweet from her official twitter account late Tuesday, the governor said: "I assure you, as always, I will do the right thing for the State of Arizona."

Brewer has been under increasing pressure to veto the proposal passed by the Republican-controlled Legislature. The proposal passed with support from all but three House Republicans and all 17 GOP state senators. Three of those senators, however, reversed course Monday and called for the governor to veto the SB1062.

"We were uncomfortable with it to start with and went along with it thinking it was good for the caucus," said Sen. Steve Pierce, R-Prescott. "We really didn't want to vote for it. But we made a mistake, and now we're trying to do what's right and correct it."

Their letter to Brewer, however, said the proposal had fallen victim to inaccuracies. Though their intent, they wrote, "was to create a shield for all citizens' religious liberties, the bill has been mischaracterized by its opponents as a sword for religious intolerance."

Democrats said they warned Republicans who voted for the bill that it was destined for trouble.

"We said this is exactly what is going to happen," said Sen. Steve Gallardo, D-Phoenix. "You have a bill here that's so toxic it's going to divide this Legislature. It's going to be polarizing the entire state. And that's exactly what happened."

The bill allows any business, church or person to cite the law as a defense in any action brought by the government or individual claiming discrimination. Supporters call the bill a slight tweak to the state's existing religious freedom law, which does not extend protections to people based on sexual orientation.

The Senate sponsor, Sen. Steve Yarbrough, R-Chandler, defended the proposal and said his efforts were intended to extend the state's religious freedom law's reach to corporations and allow those sued for discrimination to cite the law even when the government isn't a party. He said a veto would be disappointing.

"I don't think it's a good thing for the state in the sense that I believe the First Amendment means what is says about the free exercise of religion. It's the first freedom in the First Amendment. It's there for a reason," Yarbrough said Tuesday. "And I think we need to take steps to implement that in a meaningful fashion."

Lawyers from across the political spectrum say much of the opponents' arguments that the bill opens the door to discrimination are overblown, but that has not eased the pressure on Brewer to act decisively.

The bill was pushed by the Center for Arizona Policy, a social conservative group that opposes abortion and gay marriage. The group says the proposal simply clarifies existing state law and is needed to protect against increasingly activist federal courts.

"What's happened is our opponents have employed a new political tactic, and it's working," said Cathi Herrod, the group's president. "Throw out the threat of a boycott to attempt to defeat a bill, and you might just be able to be successful."

With the business community lining up against the proposal, Brewer could be hard-pressed to sign 1062. She has worked hard to return Arizona's economy to pre-recession levels with business-friendly incentives and tax cuts.

Meanwhile, the bill has brought increasing talk of economic damage to the state, and on Wednesday, the Hispanic National Bar Association said it was cancelling its 2015 convention in Phoenix because of the proposal, becoming one of the first groups to pull an event from that state.

President Miguel Alexander Pozo said the group's board of governors voted unanimously to withdraw, saying "it is imperative that we speak up and take immediate action in the presence of injustice." Last year, the Hispanic National Bar Association's convention drew about 2,000 people to Denver.

Among the businesses urging a veto are Apple Inc., which is opening a manufacturing plant in Mesa, American Airlines, Marriott and GoDaddy. Arizona U.S. Sens. John McCain and Jeff Flake and former GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney are also calling for a veto.

As Brewer held her meetings Wednesday, a federal judge declared Texas' ban on gay marriage unconstitutional, but he left it in place until an appeals court can rule on the case.

Judge Orlando Garcia issued the preliminary injunction after two gay couples challenged a state constitutional amendment and a longstanding law. He said the couples are likely to win their case and the ban should be lifted, but said he would give the state time to appeal to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals before do so

The ruling in Texas follows a string of rulings that have struck down gay-marriage bans in Utah, Oklahoma and Virginia.

In Utah, attorneys for three gay and lesbian couples filed their opening brief late Tuesday with a federal appeals court, saying the state's same-sex marriage ban has "cemented discrimination" in the state against gays and their children.

The 118-page argument comes in response to the opening brief filed earlier this month by Utah state attorneys who argued the 2004-voter approved ban should stand because the optimal environment for raising children is with a mother and father.


Associated Press reporter Brady McCombs in Salt Lake City and Jesse Holland in Washington contributed.


Follow Bob Christie at



Darwin's choice

She vetoed the bill......
Gays can continue to hold everyone hostage...


Its on the news she did veto the bill ergo some persons will lose their rights so the sodomites can have their rights.


The bigots are here I see.


```~~~ Start working at home with Google! Just work for few hours and have more time with friends and family. I earn up to $500 per week. It's a great work at home opportunity. I can't believe how easy it was once I tried it out. Linked here


Sodomites? I thought this had to do with gay people. As you know straight people also engage in sodomy. So is it the gays you're referring to or all sodomites? And lesbians are they not included in your tantrum either? This happened in Arizona so how does that affect you? The media is only reporting it as being a law that could affect the LGBT community. In case you didn't know, it would affect a lot of people. It could allow discrimination against, Jewish, Muslims, Catholics, and any other religion that frequented a business that didn't want them there. So before you start on the gay bashing educate yourself on the bills entirety.


You can't educate right wing wacko's !!!!


It's funny to hear conservatives try to reframe this discussion, as if it's THEIR rights that are being trampled upon, simply because they aren't being allowed to discriminate against another group of Americans. It's a mindset built on equal amounts of arrogance and ignorance.

Darwin's choice

I knew the sodomy story would get your attention, you practice it right?


You must be looking for a date if your asking.

Darwin's choice

Nope! So you're a practicer too??

You and coaster should hook up!


That's the best come back you have? Ha take some time and try again. Be sure leave your helmet on so you don't hurt yourself.


Hey, if it's good enough for Pres. "Low Down Club" Obama it's gotta be good right? :)

The Big Dog's back

Only on you durwood.


Re: "as if it's THEIR rights that are being trampled upon,"

So a business owner should be required to render service to anyone and everyone who comes into their establishment?

Central planners telling everyone how to live:

"a mindset built on equal amounts of arrogance and ignorance."


If that business is open to the public, then yes, unless that person actually does something in your business or during the transaction that would justify you not serving him/her.


Contango: we already had the exact same discussion in the 1960's over equal rights for minorities. Didn't you get the memo? You're using the same weak arguments that white racists in the South used against blacks to justify discrimination. No, a store owner shouldn't be able to bar someone from their establishment for discriminatory reasons.

A mindset built on equal amounts of arrogance and ignorance, indeed. I suggest you go back to the 1950's where you belong, dude. There is no place in 2014 for Neanderthal thinking of your particular brand. Please take Ted Nugent with you, if you don't mind.


Re: "No, a store owner shouldn't be able to bar someone from their establishment for discriminatory reasons."


So Comrade, when are you starting that profitable totally non-discriminatory business , paying top-notch wages along with high quality health and welfare benefits?

Nutty progressive-socialist red-lining legislation worked out well for the housing bubble didn't it?

Force lenders to give mortgages to people of color who couldn't pay and then accuse them of greed when the socialist mess blew up. :)


Re: "Please take Ted Nugent with you, if you don't mind."

You obviously watch too much TV.

I caught The Amboy Dukes in Hollywood, FL in the early 70s.

Semi-free country; he can say what he wants. Don't much care.


cfan says: "You're using the same weak arguments that white racists in the South used against blacks to justify discrimination."

Coaster you and the dog tell us many times that if we disagree with Obama's policies or actions that we are just racists. I was wondering that in the news there is a group of black pastors that are in the process of collecting 1 million signatures to have Eric Holder impeached because of his stance on gay marriage ergo are the black pastors racists?
For some of the conservatives you can go to "
you can sign the petition or donate to a worthy cause


Can't they just hang a sign that says "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" and send them packing?


That's funny coming from someone who everyone knows supported Clinton who signed a bill that outlawed Gay marriage. Talk about funny.


Arizonia really should move into the current century and not have their heads stuck in the sand 100 years past.

We talk about and decry bulling in schools but what else are these gay haters doing. This is 2014 folks and some people need to fully embrace the rights and freedoms of all people not just the ones they like.


Awesome comment, Gardenman! You actually described the Republican mindset to a T. Rather than becoming inclusive, they circle the wagons and cultivate an "us vs. them" attitude with constant attacks and legislation aimed at anyone "not like them".

Result: they are an increasingly angry, and increasingly shrinking minority that can't win national elections. The only way they can garner any power is at the state level through gerrymandering and new laws to curb voting rights, in order to disenfranchise voters who typically vote Democrat. If you can't win fair and square by attracting enough voters to your cause, your only choice is to find ways to keep the opposition from voting...

Hatred and discrimination help Fox's ratings and really fires up their core audience of septegenarians, but that mindset doesn't help them much in the real world. They keep trying to force their conservative agenda, but, in state after state, courts and governors continue to push back by (correctly) ruling in favor of non-discrimination.


Having lived in California and Arizonia, I can tell you from EXPERIENCE, trying to tell an Arizonain to move to the 21st Century is impossible. They don't know they are IN the 21st Century and they do not care. They live how THEY want to live and are proud of it. You should hear their radio ads on not moving their clocks for daylight savings time. They are PROUD of it, too.

This piece of legislature was for one thing and one thing only, to give the rich business people the way to discriminate against whom they saw fit....not just gays, but ANY ONE they saw fit...blacks, mexicans (those in particular because they are overflowing the state), and anyone imported from other countries.

Arizona doesn't like interlopers. They will use anything they can to get around the law and if they can use religion to do so they will. They only had to say it was for "religious reasons" and prove that it was in court and they are home free. Try proving it wasn't. A negative is very hard to prove.


. . . . NO SHIRT, NO SHOES, NO SERVICE . . . .

Makes perfect sense to me. I have a right, as a businessman to serve whom I please. If I have to make an exception for one group, then I'm stuck making the exception for all.


Re: ". . . . NO SHIRT, NO SHOES, NO SERVICE . . . ."

Obviously the sign of a bigoted business owner.

To the progressive-socialists, you're discriminating against poor people who cannot afford shirts and shoes.

The central planning socialists like to tell business how to operate, even though the vast majority of them couldn't operate a child's corner lemonade stand (remember the business license & health dept inspection) profitably.


Nope. Stupid comparison. "No shirt, no shoes, no service" is a health/safety issue. At some point, our society decided that it's not a good idea to mix dirty feet and bad hygiene with our food supply and in places where people eat together in close quarters.

The only reason to not serve gays is that you wish to discriminate. Nice try. So far, your argument has no legs to stand upon, because there is no moral way to justify your discrimination.


Re: "health/safety issue."

But it's not uniformly enforced: beach cabanas, drive-thrus, et. al..

Accusing someone of discrimination involves knowing another's intentions.

Enjoy your totalitarian-authoritarian world where thought-crime is punishable, Brother.


Your example is about something a customer is doing in your business and has nothing to do with who they are.


Um, no you don't. Not if your business is used by and open to the public, unless that person has done something in your business or during the transaction that would justify you doing so.

From the Grave

Religion should have no influence on law making. However, I also am uncomfortable with government telling people that they HAVE to believe a certain way, or run their business a certain way. What really is the basis of that? How would it be any different if the government did that FROM a certain religious perspective? It's a fine line for sure.


I believe that some people just don't understand a central issue: we all have rights, but our rights end at the point that they infringe upon the rights of others. No one person should be able to enjoy more than 50% of the pie, if it means that others get to enjoy less than 50% as a result.

That's it in a nutshell. People like Contango think they deserve 60% of the pie, even though that means others only get 40%, and when we call them on that, they accuse US of discriminating against them. A basic understanding of "fairness" and "equal" is completely missing from their thought process. Don't fall for it, people.


Re: "our rights end at the point that they infringe upon the rights of others."


And the State demanding that a business owner serve someone, infringes on his or her rights.


No, when you open a business, there are certain laws that have to be followed. This isn't about personal rights. The rights of a business and the rights of a person are two different things.
Again, when you open a business that provides good and services to the public, you cannot choose to not do business with an entire group of people.


Re: "you cannot choose to not do business with an entire group of people."

Why not?

Trouble with socialists, is: They don't trust a free and open market to sort thing out.

They want the State to control everything.


Winnie, so you would be fine with not serving blacks if the owner chooses not too? Your true colors are showing. Are you a bigot?


Re: "so you would be fine not serving blacks if the owner chooses not too?"


The free market would undoubtedly put the enterprise outa business, Zippy.


Not everywhere Winnie, and that still wouldn't make it right.


Re: "Not everywhere,"

Trying to make the world socialistically "perfect" is costly and fool hearty, Zippy.

The market could do the job less expensively and much of the same effect.

Trust the mkt.


Yeah, that worked great until the 1960's (sarcastic eye roll).


Re: "Again, when you open a business that provides good and services to the public, you cannot choose to not do business with an entire group of people."

David Cooley, the founder of The Abbey Food & Bar located at 692 North Robertson Blvd., has announced the popular gay bar will add any legislator in any state who votes for “bills to allow for discrimination against LGBT people” to a “Deny Entry List.”

Any legislator in any state who votes for certain bills might be considered a group of people. Maybe you should inform the bar that they cannot deny their entry.


The state didn't demand anything. They didn't pass the law.

Stop It

Nobody was 'telling' anyone what to do, they were just 'letting' them do as they chose.

I've heard it put like this: A gay couple walk into a well known cake shop and want a cake made for their wedding. The baker says," no way am I making a wedding cake for gays. It's against my religion and I refuse."

Edit to add: I personally could care at all about it. Find another baker or do your own or nah, it's just better to take this one to court.


Okay, since this bill wasn't about gays in particular, I'll give you another example, albeit hypothetical. A divorced woman needs a loan. She qualifies for the loan financially. But the lending institution owner has the belief that divorce is wrong and therefore a sin, and denies her.
Another example: An unwed mother has a car that breaks down and is able to push it to a local car repair shop. It is against the owner's religious beliefs to have children out of wedlock, so he refuses to help her.
Now for another: An interracial couple go into a pharmacy to get a prescription filled for one of them. Interracial relationships are against the pharmacist's beliefs and he refuses them. It's a rural area and this is the only pharmacy around for 30 miles.
I could go on and on. If you have a business that is used by the public and open to the public, then you have to serve the public, unless that person is doing something while in your business that would necessitate being asked to leave. This bill allowed for the same type of discrimination that occurred before the Civil Rights era. Many of those people back then also tried to use religion as a basis to discriminate against anyone not white.

Dr. Information

Comparing a lending company that is more likely to be publically owned through stock vs a private small business with no board, and one owner is apples to oranges. Fail


There are lenders that are not publicly owned.


And what if that was the only bakery for fifty miles?


Re: "only bakery,"

No one in the local gay community knows how to bake?


And per this article,, the bakery in Gresham, OR that I'm guessing your story might be linked to, was "pranked" by a local reporter, with the result being the bakery clearly displaying their hypocrisy. The Gresham bakery and its "I will not refuse business based on all the sins of my religion" is the issue that clearly shows the homophobic hatred behind so many if not all of those who espouse the "I have the right to refuse business based on my religious beliefs" stance.


Here's an idea: if you don't want to serve an entire group of people, don't open a business open to the public!


Re: "don't open a business open to the public!"

Great idea! It's working.

Business start-ups and entrepreneurship is down in the U.S.

Just let the govt. provide for all your needs and wants.

Soon it'll all be free anyway. Right coasterfan?


So, I should instead ascribe to the completely debunked Republican economic principles? No, thanks, Contango. I remember what Reaganomics did to the middle class, and I certainly remember the economic disaster that occurred the last time a Republican was in the White House.

It would help your argument "just a bit", if you actually were advocating a better alternative to the path America is currently on.



Re: "I remember what Reaganomics did to the middle class,"

Yea, Pres. "Malaise" Carter's stagflation, gas lines and Iran hostages was SO much better.

Pres. Reagan had a Democrat controlled Congress – NEXT fantasy. lol

H*ll, you want the State to control all means of production anyway don't you?


Re: " I remember what Reaganomics did to the middle class"

I remember what double digit inflation, double digit interest rates, and double digit unemployment under Carter did to the middle class. That was when he had a super majority of dims in the Senate, and majority of dims in the House. Those were the good old days that you must be wanting a return to. When dims were in control of the federal gov't and the pain index was invented to describe how wonderfully the dims were doing when in total control of gov't. Obama finally broke carter's low of lowest percentage of workers in the labor force. Carter sent a thank you note and had a party.


Re: "I remember what Reaganomics did to the middle class,"

With Obama the gap continues to widen especially with young black males. Of course Obama's friends and bundle rs continue to do well also.


Hahahaha. Business start-ups and entrepreneurship is done because of this? Now that's funny! I'm sure it has nothing to do with the economy. (eyeroll)


Re: "Hahahaha."

It's been a decades long trend, due to onerous fed & state rules and regs.

thinkagain's picture

Wow! I think that was a record for the SR…they went a whole week without posting an article about homosexuals.

The true model of a family was taught by Our Savior Jesus Christ: “From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife.” (Mark 10:6-7).

There is no parallel between race/skin color, which is fixed, and the choice to be homosexual, which is not fixed.


Wrong, thinkagain. Scientific research over the past 20+ years has provided a lot of new information on the subject. The vast majority of the scientific community now advocates that sexual orientation is hardwired, and is not "chosen". Just as you didn't choose to be heterosexual, gays don't choose to be gay. Being ignorant, however, IS a choice.

The Bible was written by 2000 years ago by men who had absolutely no understanding of how the natural world works. They were well-meaning people, but they thought the world was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, that Methuselah actually lived to be 900+ years old, and a ton of other things we now know not to be true. They certainly didn't have any understanding of the science behind sexuality, either. If Jesus were here today, I'd guess that he would be 100% against discrimination of anyone for any reason.


Re: "If Jesus were here today, I'd guess that he would be 100% against discrimination of anyone for any reason."

Morally to the Jews, His forgiveness of the adulterous woman was the modern day equivalent of forgiving a child rapist.

He also told her not to do it again.

"Guess" again.


You need to think first before you thinkagain and it may not be necessary to overload your so called brain.


This law wasn't about gays. It was about anyone that could have been against anyone else's "sincerely held" religious beliefs. That could mean gays, divorced people, unwed mothers, people who drink alcohol, people who drink coffee, people who watch tv, people who wear jewelry, people who eat meat, people who engage in premarital sex, people who use birth-control, people who listen to secular music, people who cut their hair, etc. I could go on and on, as someone's religious beliefs could be anything.
What is boils down to is what other people do outside of your business is none of your business, and a business owner cannot discriminate against people and not serve them because of those reasons.


The bigot speaks!


How could anyone support this legislation? It really does legalize discrimination and not just against gays. Lots of people could be discriminated against because of one's so called religious beliefs. We can't go backwards plus SCOTUS would have most certainly shot it down. In the end, money ruled the day as always!

Pooh, you disagree and argue just to argue. You really make yourself look terrible. Not one word from you on this topic makes any sense. You should be ashamed.


"How, (snip)"

It's obvious that central planning one-size-fits-all Statists such as yourself will NEVER understand the basic American concepts of personal freedom and individual responsibility.

Socialists ALWAYS need someone else to pay for the fruition of their ideology. Therein lies the major fallacy.


"For religious reasons" Hmmm. I wonder, "What WOULD Jesus do?"


HA! Exactly! Racists have used the Bible to justify discrimination for centuries. The current attacks from the Right and the Religious Right are nothing new. Why is it that Christians are often the least Christian-like among us?


Re: "Racists have used the Bible to justify discrimination for centuries,"

Humanists and ignorant atheists (obviously) cherry-pick as well.


Re:"Why is it that Christians are often the least Christian-like among us?"

I think you must be confused as the Christians that I associate with act like Christians. There are some persons that are imposters, Christian in name only like Pelosi, Biden, Obama, Kerry just to name a few.


Re: "What WOULD Jesus do?"

Answer: Read “Revelations.”

I think it's pretty much spelled out in there.


It's pretty sad that after the civil rights movement of the 1960s that certain groups of people still try to exercise blatantly discriminatory practices while claiming religion or the constitution as a justification for their bigotry


Exactly. Some of these people sound just like KKK members that think only whites can be Christians, and that it is their Godly duty to keep their race pure.

thinkagain's picture

What is boils down to is the government usurping constitutional rights to freedom of religion. Forcing religious business owners to choose between their beliefs or livelihood.

Like Obamacare, this is just another ploy in their attempt to rid faith from America. Our government has become the new religion that its subjects must serve, or else.


No one is asking anyone to change their beliefs, their religion, or anything else. People can believe and worship any way they want. Providing a service or good to someone in which it is your business to do so in no way violates someone's religious beliefs.
You don't want to do business with the public, don't open a business to the public. It's that simple.


"I ain't a Christian," Contango. What you really are won't be mentioned here.......though we laugh & shake our heads after your comments.


Re: "'I ain't (snip)"

Keep blowin' your nonsense kookie kurt. lol


These business owners claim they don't endorse certain behaviors and thus don't want anything to do with those behaviors. Fair enough. But here's the thing: Since when is providing flowers or a cake for a wedding an endorsement of the marriage?

Catholics don't recognize marriages that aren't Catholic. The religious don't recognize marriages that don't involve religious ceremonies. Some couples (obviously) shouldn't even THINK about marriage, let alone go ahead and GET married! I'm sure no outsider would have approved of me marrying my ex-husband (we were too young, and he had several major issues I won't describe but which were obvious to pretty much everybody who wasn't head-over-heels in infatuation). "Approval" or "endorsement" doesn't enter in when it involves the provision of basic services.

Could a minister refuse to perform a ceremony? Sure, and I'll bet none of us would quibble about that. But a florist? REALLY? Get over yourselves. It's just another sale, no endorsement or even congratulations required. Take the money and call yourself successful. Sheesh!

thinkagain's picture

Re: “Get over yourselves.“

Libtards and other moral relativists like SamAdams, are utter and complete control freaks.

One person’s utopia can be another’s dystopia, but their beliefs always trump Christian beliefs.

I’m always so interested in how the “free thinkers” never tire of telling everyone else how they are to think and what they should believe.

Their so called "Utopian" visions of the world are the exact opposite of a free society and a free enterprise system.


Moral relativist? Really? I don't think it's okay to discriminate because you don't like black people or can't relate to black culture. And I don't think it's okay to discriminate against homosexuals because you disapprove of homosexuality.

Your religion is your own business. Your refusal to actively PARTICIPATE in one lifestyle or another is your own business. But refusing to provide a service that's available to everybody else? That's NOT okay. Or do you suggest that, if a restaurant owner has Biblical reasons not to associate with black people, he can put up a "whites only" sign? The restaurant owner doesn't have to have black friends. He doesn't have to like black people. And the bakery owner doesn't have to hang out with gay couples. They just need to provide equal service.


Re: "Catholics don't recognize marriages that aren't Catholic."

Sam would you or any other person cite a source of information advising that The Catholic Church does not recognize a marriage that is not Catholic.


Remember the restaurant in Milan with the "Obama for President" sign in the window?

Many refused to patronize his business.

Was THAT discrimination practiced by certain people?

Personally, I thought the guy was an idiot even if he would have put up a "McCain for President" sign.

A business that refused service to blacks wouldn't remain in business very long because many (including me) wouldn't patronize it.

Socialists are just afraid of the free market and want the State to control all the means of production.


Unfortunately, you are wrong. There are probably certain areas where such a business would thrive. Does that make it okay?


Re: "Does that make it okay?"

NO, but trying to make the world "perfect" is a fool's errand.


Here we go again! If we cast one single person aside because we "just don't like them" and based upon whatever "reason" (ie. excuse)we want to use then...we are ALL at risk. Racism, bias, bigotry and prejudice have a slippery (and demonic)way of creeping into society and know no boundaries. If left unchecked it becomes an uncontrollable monster that swallows everyone. "THAT'S WHY" laws need to be created and enforced. The basic human psyche (greed) and temperament (anger)are too powerful without checks and balances.
It really is quite simple folks.


Re: "laws need to be created and enforced."

But WHO gets to decide what is and what is not discrimination and WHOM to do business with; the State or the individual?


How would a straight, white, Lutheran (or whatever Christian sect) person feel if a lesbian shop owner kicked that person out of her establishment because, "She doesn't believe in their way of life"?

"Holy Wars" also comes to mind ( know what I am referencing to, about and why.)


Re: "How would, (snip)"

Good question.

IMO, what's fair is fair.

I enjoy talking to my two old lesbian neighbors, but they've never asked me to 'join their team.'

Dr. Information

Unless they have a business in California or the short North side of Columbus, my guess is they would be broke in about 2 months and close up shop.

A normal person would just take their business elsewhere. Only the intolerant left have to take everything to court.


Nor does a patron to a Christian held business ask them to "join their team". They just want to be treated equally. period


Re: "Christian held business ask them to 'join their team'."

You've never been proselyted to in a Christian shop?


The Far Right "Christian Coalition" (read organized zealots) have obviously either forgotten the Bible's teachings or have prostituted them to their own skewed misconceptions. Any simply moral person has enough common sense, common courtesy and common decency to allow for some one else's point of view. Maybe...the gay community should strive for their own "religious status". Then they too could "ban" whomever they would like from their circles based upon some archaic script from the Bible.
Segregation is segregation no matter how you try to dress it.


To the dismay of some in this country...there is more tolerance for different ethnics, genders, thought processes and ways of life. That to them is threatening and frightening reality. The opposing point of view is, "the opportunity to capitalize on the strengths of every person". There IS strength in unity.

thinkagain's picture

Many people do not want to believe in a God who demands righteousness and morality, so they invent a God who makes no such requirements.


What exactly is morally wrong about homosexuality? Give us an actual reason not a bible quote

thinkagain's picture

What’s the difference between a moral relativist and a person who admits they have no morality at all? None.

How could one make sense of an alleged morality that functions the same as not having any morality at all?

What reason could a moral absolutist with a theistic worldview give to someone who doesn’t believe in right and wrong?


You can't give me a reason because there is none. Intelligent people don't need a self proclaimed book of absolute truth to develop a sense of morality.


Point well taken thinkagain.

"Diversity" is a strength. This country was founded on the diversity of many country's immigrants. Diversity in the plant and animal kingdom is also a strength.

Can we imagine...if all people thought exactly, felt exactly, looked exactly and reacted exactly the same as every other person? The key is find each others strengths and help with their weaknesses for everyone's benefit and growth.


Re: "This country was founded on the diversity,"

No it wasn't.

It was founded on: "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (property)".

My choice to use my property and conduct my business how I see fit as long as I am not infringing on the rights of another.

Someone demanding (forcing) a business owner to do business with them is onerous.


Denying to do business with someone because of discrimination does infringe on the rights of another.


Re: "rights of another."

Demanding or forcing service is not a "right."

See: "inalienable rights."

Dr. Information

What many people have done is read the Bible and made their own set of rules based on their own lifestyle. Being gay, in the bible is a sin. We all sin, but keeping on with the same daily sin is not how we are suppose to live. repentance, asking for forgiveness and changing ones life to not repeat the sin over and over again.


Well...I'm glad to see everyone is in agreement here!

The Big Dog's back

If only Lincoln wouldn't have stopped at the end of the Civil War. He should have just marched them Rebs into the Gulf of Mexico so we wouldn't have to deal with this again.

Darwin's choice

Yep, then your worthless azz wouldn'tbe here!

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

Attention religious-based businesses!

I respect and understand your dedication to your religion.

That said I will offer you the B2B service of accepting any customers that don't align to your ideals. I won't ask you for a fee, just send all that business my way and I'll take care of that moral problem for you.

If you'd like the deluxe package, I will freely advertise both around town and on the Internet your business name, location, and necessary qualifications in order to conduct civil, private transactions with legal tender.

Everyone wins! I'll take care of your problem, you don't have to be exposed to those who don't think the same things as you, and the customer gets the service they seek (with a ton of free advertising for everyone). Who needs laws to dictate such minutiae when communities can come together and solve their own problems like this?


Re: "Attention religious-based businesses!"

There ya go! A market based solution.

(golf clap)

There's only one single, lonely & solitary thought in the skull of a hare brained progressive-socialist:

Let government do it.


Although I've made it clear that I believe discrimination is wrong (immoral, if you choose to use the word), perhaps I haven't made it ENTIRELY clear: Discrimination is pretty much your own choice. A bad one, I agree, but your choice. The only stopping point is really when the exercising of your rights infringes on those of another. And last time I checked, you can go to another bakery or another florist who'll be HAPPY to have your business. No rights lost. Just a sale or two, and if that's a price you're willing to pay, well, that really is your right.

Unfortunately, the government is already well involved here. Non-discrimination laws (including those advocated by the rapidly growing PC police) are, in my opinion, infringing the rights of those who it is claimed are infringing the rights of others. It's a vicious circle that won't end until we're MANDATED to think a certain way, or until we fight off these new chains.


In the U.S., churches have the right to religious freedom. So do individuals. The AZ bill had language making only a couple of changes to existing law. For one thing, it extended the definition of "person" from "a religious assembly or institution" to "any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution, estate, trust, foundation, or other legal entity." In essence the Arizona senate had said that businesses are also people, therefore if the Bill had been passed by Governor Brewer, freedom of religion would them mean in AZ you couldn't compel someone - or some business - to do something against their religious beliefs. And isn't that just an extension of what the US Supreme Court did a few years ago with a ruling that basically recognized Corporations as People?

As a good friend of mine wrote, "The gay community felt the AZ law was written to allow discrimination against them. You want a gay wedding at a lovely venue in Scottsdale? The owner of that venue could say "No" based on their religious belief that gay weddings are wrong. I suppose that gays are right that this was targeted at them but I don't see how - given how the law was written - it would have prohibited a business from doing the same to someone wanting a Muslim wedding or inter-racial wedding or a wedding featuring a divorced Catholic ... or for that matter someone wanting to eat BBQ while wearing a Star of David.

For some people, the issue was not about the exclusion of other people but instead, the right not to associate with those other people, whether they're gay or black or female. But for the most part, laws have evolved to the point that the minority's right for inclusion has greater power than the majority's right to exclude them.

But don't religious fundamentalists who feel they're under attack for being forced to associate with publicans and sinners have a right to appeal to the government for laws that protect their right to exclude?

Our founding fathers wrestled with the question of when religious beliefs stopped and laws began. Being very much intelligent and thoughtful men, they weren't exactly of one accord on the question. Some were traditional Episcopalians. Some were theists. Jefferson once spent time in the White House carving up the New Testament, expunging it of all instances of what he called magic - supernatural miracles that couldn't be explained by modern science. They of course each had their own opinions, but they also didn't want their new country torn by battles over religious claims that were impossible to prove. They saw what that had done to Europe. They didn't believe that religion could be codified by laws. Jefferson and Franklin - admittedly two of our least traditionally religious founding fathers - felt that it wouldn't be much of a God to need the aid of a state.

Thomas Jefferson said, "Truth can stand by itself." Whether it was the golden rule or the law of gravity, for him truth was something that could be proven by observation. He didn't want a declaration about what was true; he wanted proof.

Ben Franklin shared his sentiments. "When a religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself; and when it cannot support itself, and God does not take care to support it, so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."

A business owner doesn't like Jews coming into their restaurant and wants the government to support their exclusion of them from their lunch counter? I highly doubt you'd find much support from Jefferson or Franklin, or the government they helped establish. Instead of appealing to the government, maybe the business owner could just ask their God to strike these people dead. If one can call down lightning to strike dead those they find morally reprehensible even a few times, I'm sure that eventually the community would agree to pass whatever laws these business owners define. It worked for Moses. And of course that sort of thing is evidence that even Thomas Jefferson would acknowledge, and not just based on someone's declaration about who is and who is not deserving of brisket."


The key to business success:

Find a need and fill it.

If there's such a hard-pressed (pun intended) desire in the area for a LGBT bakery - open one.


Why not open it up to all forms of prejudice? A simple app could inform you of businesses that are friendly to your "way of thinking" and which ones to steer way clear of. Less fighting, more pooling of "schools of thought", and someone gets to make millions from yet another app. Economy boost. Win-win!!


How many of you know that there are gay business owners right here in Erie county? Do you think any of your arguments hold water from the other side of the counter, so to speak. Get over yourselves already, will you please. You weren't born with your predjudice and hatred, you learned it. We are human beings of whatever make and model. I like Buicks but I won't tell you not to buy your choice because it's NONE of my business! Move on.


Just read that Susana Martinez the governor of New Mexico has lost her hair dresser because she is opposed to gay marriage. Seems her hair dresser is gay and he now refuses to do her hair because of her views.


instant karma for her!