What the Arizona Bill is really about.

[McBell]

Give it a sec, it's just hitting everywhere now. if you can't find on google, refresh.
Yay breaking news!

YEah.
Well...
um....


I forgot to hit refresh when I posted asking for the source.

my bad.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

"has the potential to create more problems than it purports to solve.”

Like both people and money running rapidly away from the GOP and AZ?

 

[Awkward Fingers]

I forgot to hit refresh when I posted asking for the source.

my bad.

LOL no worries..
..Actually, the first source I saw, was George Takai's FB.. and NOTHING on google..
..took about 3 more min before they started popping up on the search engines.

by the time I made the post here, only CNN had covered it (other than George T,) now everyone's getting it out.

 

[Sunstone]

Gov. Jan Brewer has vetoed the bill.

 

[Sunstone]

Christianity has come under fire for a new bill that was introduced allowing "business owners to refuse to sell or provide services to gays and “others” on religious beliefs."

But is it really about that? I don't think so. I don't find evidence of a mass protest by the religious sector against gay people even in America.
What I do find, however, is a group of right-wing politicians hijacking religion in order to secure their own homophobic and, ultimately, totalitarian agendas.

Would you agree or disagree?

It hasn't been very long since Karl Rove got gay marriage rights placed on the ballot in eleven states in order to mobilize the Republican base. That is, the issue was used to alarm the Republican voters and get them to come out to vote against it. That was just ten years ago. Today, it's highly doubtful the same tactic would work.

Rove was an atheist. He was using the Evangelicals of the Religious Right, rather than he himself being a member of that group.

It seems to me that some Republican leaders are religious, and some, like Rove, are not, but that both kinds of Republican leaders have at times used or tried to use the anti-gay sensibilities of Evangelicals to win elections.

 

[Sees]

So glad to hear it was vetoed :clap

Have to keep marching forward, not rolling backwards.

 

[shawn001]

"Can only be streamed within the United States".

Unfair discrimination against Canadians!

Oh well, one step at a time.

That is too bad, because you would have liked how he used that quote.

If I can find it somewhere else I will post it.

 

[shawn001]

It hasn't been very long since Karl Rove got gay marriage rights placed on the ballot in eleven states in order to mobilize the Republican base. That is, the issue was used to alarm the Republican voters and get them to come out to vote against it. That was just ten years ago. Today, it's highly doubtful the same tactic would work.

Rove was an atheist. He was using the Evangelicals of the Religious Right, rather than he himself being a member of that group.

It seems to me that some Republican leaders are religious, and some, like Rove, are not, but that both kinds of Republican leaders have at times used or tried to use the anti-gay sensibilities of Evangelicals to win elections.

You know she vetoed it, not because it was the right thing to do for her personally and morally.

The Family Research Council is behind a lot of this

Family Research Council | Southern Poverty Law Center

Koch Brothers, Karl Rove, Tea Party ‘Coming Together’ With Anti-Gay Groups

Exposed: Koch Brothers, Karl Rove, Tea Party ‘Coming Together’ With Anti-Gay Groups | The New Civil Rights Movement

and

U.S. eyes push against anti-gay laws worldwide

U.S. eyes push against anti-gay laws worldwide

 

[SkylarHunter]

And that is just the point. If we leave the matter up to each person to decide we could get "straight only lunch counters".

You are right, but at the same time business owners need to keep in mind that they depend on their customers, if they let bigoted fantasies (I'm not serving you because I don't like your shirt, you have a piercing, your voice is annoying, etc...) their doors will be closed within a week.

Looks like this one was vetoed so no worries

 

[Revoltingest]

You know she vetoed it, not because it was the right thing to do for her personally and morally.
The Family Research Council is behind a lot of this
Family Research Council | Southern Poverty Law Center
Koch Brothers, Karl Rove, Tea Party ‘Coming Together’ With Anti-Gay Groups
Exposed: Koch Brothers, Karl Rove, Tea Party ‘Coming Together’ With Anti-Gay Groups | The New Civil Rights Movement
and
U.S. eyes push against anti-gay laws worldwide
U.S. eyes push against anti-gay laws worldwide

And then we have this....
http://www.mediaite.com/online/davi...nd-ending-wars-and-you-shouldnt-be-surprised/

Thursday afternoon, POLITICO reported that billionaire industrialist David Koch, the oft-vilified bankroller of groups aimed at electing Mitt Romney and many Republican congressman, supports many libertarian positions that are antithetical to the Republican Party. While this may come as a surprise to many, it’s actually quite well-known that the Kochs are socially liberal and fiscally conservative — a.k.a., “libertarian”. Koch was the 1980 vice presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party who campaigned on things like drug legalization and a non-interventionist foreign policy.
“I believe in gay marriage,” Koch told POLITICO. When reminded that Romney and the GOP oppose gay marriage, Koch said, “Well, I disagree with that.”
Koch also said that he believes the U.S. military should withdraw from the Middle East and that Congress should cut defense spending and weigh some possible tax increases as a means to balancing the budget — stances that are distinct from the Republican Party line.

David Koch favors gay marriage & getting out of mid-east wars?
This man must be stopped!

 

[Revoltingest]

It hasn't been very long since Karl Rove got gay marriage rights placed on the ballot in eleven states in order to mobilize the Republican base. That is, the issue was used to alarm the Republican voters and get them to come out to vote against it. That was just ten years ago. Today, it's highly doubtful the same tactic would work.
Rove was an atheist. He was using the Evangelicals of the Religious Right, rather than he himself being a member of that group.
It seems to me that some Republican leaders are religious, and some, like Rove, are not, but that both kinds of Republican leaders have at times used or tried to use the anti-gay sensibilities of Evangelicals to win elections.

How do we know that Rove is an atheist, other than an unsupported claim by Christopher Hitchens?
Doesn't it seem odd that a man would be involved in religious causes, claim to be religious, but reveal
his secret atheism to a single very outspoken fellow atheist, only to be outed? We heathens have enuf
trouble being blamed for Hitler, Pol Pot, & Stalin...we don't need Karl Rove being held against us too!

 

[Sunstone]

How do we know that Rove is an atheist, other than an unsupported claim by Christopher Hitchens?
Doesn't it seem odd that a man would be involved in religious causes, claim to be religious, but reveal
his secret atheism to a single very outspoken fellow atheist, only to be outed? We heathens have enuf
trouble being blamed for Hitler, Pol Pot, & Stalin...we don't need Karl Rove being held against us too!

If it does indeed come down to Hitchens said versus Rove said, then I'll go with Hitchens word on it. Hitchens, so far as I know, doesn't quite have the reputation of being a liar that Rove has earned for himself.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Gov. Jan Brewer has vetoed the bill.

And not one post saying anything good about her personally doing the right thing.

No good deed goes unpunished, because we can never shine a light on a Republican doing the right thing.

I am pretty naive thinking any differently that we all could come together.

This thread would be full of pages condemning her had she signed it.

It was a stupid and unnecessary bill in the first place.

What it was not however a bill that would refuse service to anyone in a resturant or any other public service place.

If someone did not want to take pictures of a gay couple for religious reasons, they don't need a law to protect them. THE PROPOSED LAW WAS STUPID.

That said, if a Jew does not want to take photos of a skinhead wedding or a gay photographer does not want to photograph a wedding that crazy church that protests funerals would have, good for them. They don't need a law to protect them.

This is just a bunch of B.S. politics. I despise religious folks trying to make stupid laws just about as much as I do Progressives ignoring when a Conservative does the right thing. It is no wonder Washington can't get anything done.

It would not kill either side to be more accepting of each other but Hey, that would give some legitimacy to the other side and be counter productive to the constant demonisation of each other.

 

[Mycroft]

And not one post saying anything good about her personally doing the right thing.

There is no evidence to suggest that it was done out of the goodness of her heart. While it was the right thing to do, we cannot simply assume that was the reason for doing it.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

It was the obvious choice; the bill wouldn't have survived appeals in the first place, so allowing it to pass would just be a token gesture, it would've harmed the Republican party in upcoming elections, and would've threatened Arizona's economy (for instance, there are rumors that NFL commish Roger Goodell insinuated to the Arizona gov and Cardinals team owner that passing this bill could lead to the NFL considered moving the site of Super Bowl 49 out of Arizona, costing the city/state LOADS of money). Was it the right move? Obviously- it was a no-brainer. But lets not give more credit than is due.

 

[Revoltingest]

There is no evidence to suggest that it was done out of the goodness of her heart. While it was the right thing to do, we cannot simply assume that was the reason for doing it.

There cannot be a good Republican.
If one acts morally, it is just pragmatic pretense.
Did I suss it correctly?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Someone doesn't need to accept gay marriage to realize how discriminatory this bill was.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

And not one post saying anything good about her personally doing the right thing.

It might be easier to praise her for making a morally laudable decision if it didn't take so much deliberation and outside pressure for her to come to it. If she had come out from the beginning letting everyone know that it was her intention to veto the bill, then that would have merited some praise. As it stands, it appears that pragmatism and economic pressure were the primary motivations for her decision - hardly attributes that are personally praiseworthy in a politican.

 

[Revoltingest]

It might be easier to praise her for making a morally laudable decision if it didn't take so much deliberation and outside pressure for her to come to it. If she had come out from the beginning letting everyone know that it was her intention to veto the bill, then that would have merited some praise. As it stands, it appears that pragmatism and economic pressure were the primary motivations for her decision - hardly attributes that are personally praiseworthy in a politican.

There is merit in your criticism of the gov'r. It's similar to Obama coming around to
supporting gay marriage for political reasons, despite his religiously based opposition.
But still, I'll laud the win for gay folk in both cases. The people spoke, & the result is good.

 

[Reverend Rick]

It might be easier to praise her for making a morally laudable decision if it didn't take so much deliberation and outside pressure for her to come to it. If she had come out from the beginning letting everyone know that it was her intention to veto the bill, then that would have merited some praise. As it stands, it appears that pragmatism and economic pressure were the primary motivations for her decision - hardly attributes that are personally praiseworthy in a politican.

Thinking about this more, it is hard to praise any politician. I'm just getting tired of being accused of being a racist and a homophobe because I am a Conservative.

For me, it is about less government. Less government in my gun safe and bank account, less government in a womans uterus as well. I would say something about alcohol and pot, but I don't want to discuss currently illegal things. I may vacation in Denver this year...... Visit Sunstone in C.S. perhaps.

I can't help it, I don't think the government is the solution, I see it as the problem. Yes we need bridges and roads, but less government is better than more government.

I sure as hell don't think the government is the solution to everything. :no: