Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has vetoed SB1062, The Religious Freedom Restoration Act in Arizona. No one has ever accused Governor Brewer of being the most courageous Republican around. Come to think of it, the word courageous and Jan Brewer have probably never been uttered in the same sentence.
The left and the homosexual lobby in America went into overdrive to kill this bill. Conservatives rallied for this bill and Governor Brewer opted for cowardice instead of courage.
Why is this bill so important and what did it mean for not only Arizona but America?
The issue can be boiled down to one word: Freedom.
A free man or woman controls their labor. A slave has no control over their labor. A free man or woman decides who they will work for and under what conditions. The slave cannot.
The left and the homosexual lobby are both pushing slavery using the Orwellian concepts of “tolerance” and “inclusiveness.”
The law began as a response to a case in neighboring New Mexico. There, the state of New Mexico allowed a lawsuit against a Christian photographer who declined to photograph a homosexual commitment ceremony. There have been similar cases with bakers in Oregon and Colorado.
The Arizona legislature acted to preempt that happening in Arizona.
Immediately the left and the homosexual lobby went into high dudgeon. Arizona’s SB1062 must be defeated because Americans really are no longer free and must be forced to serve the great liberal state, regardless of their beliefs.
The storm rose against Arizona and Jan Brewer proved she was no Ronald Reagan. She has an honored place in the ranks of the French Republicans. Corporations and business interests, many of whom support far left wing causes, like Apple demanded this bill be vetoed. Apple gives 96% of its political giving to Democrats. Why a Republican listens to a word from Apple or lifts a finger to help them is beyond comprehension. The NFL threatened to pull the Super Bowl from Arizona in 2015.
Someone with courage would have called their bluff. Arizona has Jan Brewer.
The left came up with bizarre and insane arguments against SB1062. They tried to equate sexual preference with race. Unfortunately few will stand up against that grossly inaccurate analogy. The left believes that it has the right to dictate what religious beliefs are allowed.
They need to be reminded what our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution say. Our rights are given to us by a higher power than the government and cannot be taken away.
The left loves to come up with absurd hypotheticals to scream that there must be compliance with their fascism, so how about a couple from our side.
Should a devout baker be required to create a cake for a homosexual wedding that has a giant phallic symbol on it or should a baker be required to create pastries for a homosexual wedding in the shape of genitallia? Or should a photographer be required to photograph a homosexual wedding where the participants decide they want to be nude or engage in sexual behavior? Would they force a Jewish photographer to work a Klan or Nazi event? How about forcing a Muslim caterer to work a pork barbeque dinner?
SB1062 was never about discrimination. It was about the left imposing its will on Americans who disagree.
The most common victims of the left wing homosexual assault on freedom have been Christian bakers and photographers. These are not uncommon skills. In even the most rural areas you can find them.
Does anyone really believe these cases of Christian bakers or photographers being sued over their refusal to provide services. Over the last couple of years, a number of articles have been published in professional photography magazines about how to cater to homosexual weddings. For many photographers, this is a growth industry.
If a photographer or baker doesn’t want to take a particular job, liberty says they have the right to decide how their labor is used. Slavery is when the state tells them their labor will be used whether they like it or not.
SB1062 is a bigger story than simply the story of a cowardly governor who has no core beliefs.
SB1062 is the story of liberalism at work in America.
Liberalism is the paranoid belief that leftists have that somewhere, someone may be thinking for themselves. It is the tyrannical belief that no deviation in belief is allowed from the decreed orthodoxy.
It is the antithesis of liberty.
It is tyranny on the march.
Oh but Judson! They threatened to take away the Super Bowl!! Tyranny? Pfffft.
Wonder if there are enough votes to override her veto?
Absolutely. Amazing how that whole 'separation of church and state' thing just comes and goes............
Yes! Your comment prompts me to spin off in about five different directions.
But in short, Yes Kristin, it is truly staggering.
"Meek" and "cowed" are different things.
"... the state should be able to force people to recognize as normal that which most Christians view as sinful. What is staggering is the number of Christians who apparently think the State has the right to decide and enforce this issue."
Matthew 22:36-38 (KJ21)
"36 “Master, which is the great commandment in the law?” 37 Jesus said unto him, “‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.’ 38 This is the first and great commandment."
Jesus himself declared that the first commandment is the most important law. Anyone who violates the first commandment by worshipping a God other than the God of Abraham is in the deepest state of sin according to Jesus himself.
By your logic, a business should be able to deny service to anyone they feel is not in enough compliance with their religion. So, christians should be able to deny any business service to any non-christain (i.e. - per Jesus' statement above) or maybe even a christian they feel is in too great a state of sin (e.g. - a sodomite). Muslims can deny service to any non-muslim. Heathens can deny service to anyone who doesn't pay homage to their pagan gods. Pastafarians can deny service to anyone who doesn't believe in their noodley master. And on and on ...
Now, what happens when a community dominated by a particular religion (e.g. - mormons) collectively decides to deny business services to another group of people (e.g. - evangelical christians) that they feel aren't compliant enough with their religion?
Well, it basically becomes impossible for the minority group to survive in that locality. It's hard to survive when no grocer will sell you any goods because you are a sinner.
Religion should not be a test that anyone has to pass just to survive and be treated decently in public in our society. That is why the Civil Rights Act correctly disallows entities that provide public services to discriminate based on religion, race / color, sex or national origin.
The state should obviously have the ability to enforce non-discrimination against certain minority groups, including the ones I just listed. The only real question is whether gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people deserve to be such a protected class or not. A law written to specifically allow people to discriminate against others based on their own religion would likely run afoul of the Civil Rights Act.
John, there is a persistent and willful misrepresentation of what has been happening and what Christians are asking for.
The florist had been serving her gay customers for a long time before they asked for wedding arrangements.
The Colorado baker said he could sell them anything off the rack.
The photographer had no trouble with taking portrait shots.
This has never been about turning away homosexual customers because they're gay; but the self-righteous kick from claiming that has been too satisfying to resist.
I'm not going to have a conversation with you because you're deliberately misrepresenting the situation to make your case look stronger and more righteous than it is.
But if you ever decide you're willing to discuss the actual situation. I'm here.
Lizzie, I was responding directly to what Kristin wrote. She seems to think that the state should not have "the right to decide and enforce ... people to recognize as normal that which most Christians view as sinful."
First, Kristin's framing misrepresents the issue. None of the gay couples asked their baker, florist, etc. to "recognize [them or their actions] as normal." No, they were asking those businesses to sell them their business services as they would any other customer of the public. Two quite different things.
Second, Kristin is implying that businesses should have the right to discriminate against their customers based on their religious beliefs. As I demonstrated with Jesus' own words, probably the greatest sin in Christianity is to violate the first commandment. Given that, it seems logical that she is arguing that a business owned / run by christians should have the legal right to deny service to any non-christian or maybe even any christian who they feel is in too deep a state of sin (e.g. - a sodomite). As I pointed out above, such a notion takes us to a crazy place where your religion is potentially a test in everyday life just to survive. Many of the people who first colonized this country and wrote our founding documents were specifically trying to escape religion being used as a test against them in everyday life!
Third, where is it written or even implied in the Bible that being hired to bake a cake, or take photographs, or arrange flowers, etc., even at a wedding your religion does not sanction (e.g. - a hindu wedding, a gay wedding, etc.) is even remotely possibly a sin???
I could maybe, possibly begin to see the argument if by hiring you I was somehow forcing you to actually directly transgress against your religion's teachings, but we are a far cry from that here. Even that line of thought though opens up all sorts of cans of worms such as "how do we decide what your religion actually teaches," "whose interpretation of your religion's teachings do we believe," "what if your religious beliefs violate the civil rights of others," etc.
John, in addition to Lizzie's reply, you need to understand AZ already has a law on the books re: religious freedom which was initiated so a business didn't have to sell contraception if it was against their religion. This bill (look at my other post in the replies) is just adding to that already existent AZ law that a business cannot be sued for participating in something which is against the owner's religion. The bill had nothing at all to do with Civil Rights or being a homosexual or anything else for that matter.