What the Arizona Bill is really about.

[Kilgore Trout]

Thinking about this more, it is hard to praise any politician.

It's definitely an act that is rarely warranted.

I'm just getting tired of being accused of being a racist and a homophobe because I am a Conservative.

That's understandable. First, I think everyone needs to keep in mind that taking overgeneralizations too personally is a recipe for constantly feeling attacked or offended. Secondly, whatever you do, think, say, or believe, there's always going to be a whole host of people out there who are going to insult you for it, and probably for the wrong reasons. I've no doubt you learned this some time ago.

 

[McBell]

It seems there are at least about 10 to 14 of these bills in various stages of passage through-out the country. For instance, there's one that has passed one branch of the Georgia legislature, and other very similar bills in Kansas, Tennessee, and Utah -- to name just a few of the states where these bills are suddenly cropping up.

the ones I know of:

• Missouri Senate Bill 916
• Illinois House Bill 4263
• South Dakota Senate Bill 66
• Tennessee House Bill 2467
• Tennessee Senate Bill 2566
• Oregon Ballot Initiative #52
• Hawaii House Bill 2493

Source​

 

[Ingledsva]

the ones I know of:

• Missouri Senate Bill 916
• Illinois House Bill 4263
• South Dakota Senate Bill 66
• Tennessee House Bill 2467
• Tennessee Senate Bill 2566
• Oregon Ballot Initiative #52
• Hawaii House Bill 2493

Source​

Not Oregon! Noooooo! :faint:


I love vacationing along the Oregon coast every year.


I'm going to hate it if I have to avoid Oregon, and spend my money elsewhere, in protest, if such a bill passes there. But I will definitely do so.



*

 

[ChristineES]

Last I heard, Mr. Brewer vetoed the bill.

 

[ChristineES]

Last I heard, Ms. Brewer vetoed the bill.

 

[Mycroft]

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

Not really. I'm British, so not bias to either American party. But experience teaches me that the world of politics rarely turns on Just Cause, Good Intention and Righteousness. There always seems to be an ulterior motive. I am not suggesting this is the case here, but I am not dismissing it either.

 

[Ingledsva]

Last I heard, Ms. Brewer vetoed the bill.

Yes, the Arizona one.


Now we have the bill in Oregon.


Hopefully it will also fail, and I can vacation in peace on the Oregon coast. :yes:


*

 

[Revoltingest]

Not really. I'm British, so not bias to either American party. But experience teaches me that the world of politics rarely turns on Just Cause, Good Intention and Righteousness. There always seems to be an ulterior motive. I am not suggesting this is the case here, but I am not dismissing it either.

You are relatively wise (typical of Walruses).

 

[Reverend Rick]

I have a good idea, let's all quit trying to tell others how to live? What is wrong with mutual respect and live and let live? I thought that is what real freedom was all about.

 

[Reverend Rick]

You are relatively wise (typical of Walruses).

Koo, Koo, Kachoo.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have a good idea, let's all quit trying to tell others how to live? What is wrong with mutual respect and live and let live? I thought that is what real freedom was all about.

I'm up for it!

 

[Sunstone]

My guess is Brewer vetoed the bill because of what the media is calling the "political pressure" placed on her by folks both within and without her own party. If that's so, then she's basically listening to at least some of her constituents, which I've long thought was at least somewhat desirable in a politician.

 

[Nakosis]

Not really. I'm British, so not bias to either American party. But experience teaches me that the world of politics rarely turns on Just Cause, Good Intention and Righteousness. There always seems to be an ulterior motive. I am not suggesting this is the case here, but I am not dismissing it either.

From what I've read the proponents thought they were supporting religious freedom as well as the state senators who passed it. They didn't think it through to see how it could be used to discriminate against a particular group.

Once this was pointed out even some of the state senators who originally voted for the bill, thinking they were voting to support religious freedom, ask that it be vetoed.

Yes they made a mistake and should have carefully thought it through but they did move to stop it passing into laws once they understood how the law could be abused. No reason to demonize them over it.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

From what I've read the proponents thought they were supporting religious freedom as well as the state senators who passed it. They didn't think it through to see how it could be used to discriminate against a particular group.

I'm not sure that's a plausible defense; the implications of these bills were rather obvious from the get-go, and rather than an unforeseen side-effect, I think providing a basis for discrimination (of a particular kind) was precisely the motivation for these bills in the first place.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

I'm not sure that's a plausible defense; the implications of these bills were rather obvious from the get-go, and rather than an unforeseen side-effect, I think providing a basis for discrimination (of a particular kind) was precisely the motivation for these bills in the first place.

Regardless of whether they could foresee the obvious...
Plausible deniability isn't really a great strategy for people who's job is to sign bills into laws either way...

"Sorry, I don't really know the law, or what I sign, they just give me an awesome desk to sit at?"

I really do think they were trying to pander to the conservative wing, and assumed they had some hidden "silent majority" that would stand up with them, once it hit the news, and then found out... not so much.

 

[shawn001]

From what I've read the proponents thought they were supporting religious freedom as well as the state senators who passed it. They didn't think it through to see how it could be used to discriminate against a particular group.

Once this was pointed out even some of the state senators who originally voted for the bill, thinking they were voting to support religious freedom, ask that it be vetoed.

Yes they made a mistake and should have carefully thought it through but they did move to stop it passing into laws once they understood how the law could be abused. No reason to demonize them over it.

Looks like they thought it through for a reason.


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

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

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

 

[Revoltingest]

I can't help it, I don't think the government is the solution, I see it as the problem.

Tis interesting that we saw government trying to pass a law harmful to gay folk. But even MSNBC credits the 1% (Fortune 500 companies) for the governor's veto, because they threatened economic sanctions is she signed the law. Perhaps our progressive friends should credit big business for advancing social justice, eh?

And just to remind all, David Koch is pro-gay marriage & anti-war.

 

[Nakosis]

I'm not sure that's a plausible defense; the implications of these bills were rather obvious from the get-go, and rather than an unforeseen side-effect, I think providing a basis for discrimination (of a particular kind) was precisely the motivation for these bills in the first place.

I'm depending on these individuals own words as I can't read minds. You are of course free to believe otherwise. Problem is I can imagine many different motivations for them. Any of them may or may not be true.

I can never be certain of another's motivation. I can assume a lot of things though depending on my personal agenda. So barring their own claims, I no particular reason to say you are right or wrong.

 

[Nakosis]

Looks like they thought it through for a reason.


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

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.co...ith-anti-gay-groups/politics/2012/08/29/47725

I've no doubt the are groups out their that latch on to a particular bill for nefarious reasons. Still don't see that as any reason to paint all the individuals involved with one broad brush.

In reading the bill itself, I could have easily thought that this was not specifically targeting gays. However once the scenario was introduce I can now easily see how the bill could be used as proscribe by the civil rights groups.

I am for freedom of religion which is how this bill was originally presented. However I am neutral with regards to Gay rights. So I could see myself making the same mistake of signing the bill.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I'm depending on these individuals own words as I can't read minds.

Ok, but especially with politicians, you realize you usually can't take what they say at face value, particularly in a case like this where they have alot to gain by lying/being deceptive and alot to lose by telling the truth? You have to consider what they say within context, including other things they've said in the past as well as things they've done. And in this case, I see no particular reason to believe them, since them being unaware of the obvious consequences of this bill would entail that they are essentially professionally incompetent- this is their job, after all (so basically, its a bad result either way- either they knew what they were doing and are dishonest bigots, or they didn't know what they're doing and they're incompetent morons).

Moreover, when we consider that most of the legislators that we're talking about are avowed conservatives who are, in many cases, explicitly opposed to gay rights, its hardly a stretch to imagine that the most obvious answer is the correct one in this instance- they knew what they were doing, but are now trying to distance themselves from what turned out to be a highly unpopular piece of legislation.