http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/2/26/brewer-gay-law.html
Al-Jazeera America; no author listed

Gov. Jan Brewer on Wednesday vetoed a Republican bill that set off a national debate over gay rights, religion and discrimination and subjected Arizona to blistering criticism from major corporations and political leaders from both parties.

Brewer was under intense pressure to veto the bill, including from three Republicans who had voted for the bill last week.

I was just reading that Major League Baseball, a major player in the AZ economy due to spring training games, told Brewer that they opposed it, citing Jackie Robinson and tolerance.  I didn't believe a word of it.  I'm sure it had more to do with their bottom line being affected by any kind of boycott. 

Brewer did the right thing, but most likely for the wrong reasons.

The NFL also said they would move the superbowl out of AZ.

Wrong reasons or right reasons, a bill like that should have never even been thought of. What self righteous AZ politician  would even come up with something like this. This is really scary that it even got that far as to have to be vetoed.

Quote from: Jill F on February 26, 2014, 07:38:12 PM
Brewer did the right thing, but most likely for the wrong reasons.

To me the reasons don't matter. The important thing is that there was such a firestorm that other places will think twice before heading down that same road.

I'm going to take an opposing view here: if we get gay marriage, it cannot be at the expense of religious freedom. No Christian should be required to take part in, in any way, a gay marriage. That way everyone can peacefully coexist.

We have a habit of thinking our right is more important than their right. It's not. And it should not have legal superiority - but legal equality - to theirs.

Quote from: ZoeM on February 27, 2014, 09:53:38 AM
I'm going to take an opposing view here: if we get gay marriage, it cannot be at the expense of religious freedom. No Christian should be required to take part in, in any way, a gay marriage. That way everyone can peacefully coexist.

We have a habit of thinking our right is more important than their right. It's not. And it should not have legal superiority - but legal equality - to theirs.

I agree.

I'm glad the bill was vetoed though. As Governor Brewer said, it 'solved' a problem that doesn't exist. Which is what really bothers me about these debates.

It's also ironic these bills have begun to turn up primarily due to intolerance of religious views.

Quote from: ZoeM on February 27, 2014, 09:53:38 AM
I'm going to take an opposing view here: if we get gay marriage, it cannot be at the expense of religious freedom. No Christian should be required to take part in, in any way, a gay marriage.

I'm missing something here. How does allowing same sex marriage come at the expense of religious freedom? People are always free to practice their own beliefs, but nobody should be permitted to use their own freedoms as an excuse to restrict the freedoms of others.

And how would Christians be "required" to take part in a gay marriage?  Surely you're not falling for that toxic line of nonsense that claims that somehow clergy will be forced to perform marriages they might not otherwise be required to perform, right?

A slave is forced to do many things that a brother or sister will do from love and without the cost of the slave. 

Quote from: Michelle-G on February 27, 2014, 11:13:28 AM
I'm missing something here. How does allowing same sex marriage come at the expense of religious freedom? People are always free to practice their own beliefs, but nobody should be permitted to use their own freedoms as an excuse to restrict the freedoms of others.

And how would Christians be "required" to take part in a gay marriage?  Surely you're not falling for that toxic line of nonsense that claims that somehow clergy will be forced to perform marriages they might not otherwise be required to perform, right?

I think she's referring to small business owners who reject a service based on religious beliefs.

http://news.msn.com/us/wash-florist-sued-for-refusing-wedding-service-to-gay-couple

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/07/gay-colorado-couple-sues-bakery-for-allegedly-refusing-them-wedding-cake/

The US Supreme Court decided to take a "freedom of religion/conscience" case when they accepted the Little Sisters of the Poor challenge to the contraception requirements of Obamacare.

The principle is the same.  Can the government coerce a person, or group of people, against their deeply held and constitutionally-guaranteed religious beliefs?

Quote from: Nikko on February 27, 2014, 11:37:28 AM

I think she's referring to small business owners who reject a service based on religious beliefs.

http://news.msn.com/us/wash-florist-sued-for-refusing-wedding-service-to-gay-couple

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/07/gay-colorado-couple-sues-bakery-for-allegedly-refusing-them-wedding-cake/

Well, in neither of those cases were the business owners being asked to take part in a gay wedding. They were being asked to sell merchandise.

Quote from: Jamie de la Rosa on February 27, 2014, 11:50:20 AM
The US Supreme Court decided to take a "freedom of religion/conscience" case when they accepted the Little Sisters of the Poor challenge to the contraception requirements of Obamacare.

The principle is the same.  Can the government coerce a person, or group of people, against their deeply held and constitutionally-guaranteed religious beliefs?

If my religious beliefs tell me that I must strike with stones anyone I know to be an adulterer until I've killed them, can the government punish me for bludgeoning my wife to death with a large rock if she sleeps around ?

(Incidentally, the bible commands its believers to do exactly that.)

On one hand the feds are saying religious rights can't be a basis to refuse performing a duty, while at the same time they're involved in cases like the one below...

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/5-29-13.cfm

Quote from: suzifrommd on February 27, 2014, 11:55:49 AM
If my religious beliefs tell me that I must strike with stones anyone I know to be an adulterer until I've killed them, can the government punish me for bludgeoning my wife to death with a large rock if she sleeps around ?

(Incidentally, the bible commands its believers to do exactly that.)

  It's funny because a number of high-profile politicians would have been toast already for this very reason if we'd felt so inclined.  (For some reason Bill Clinton is now a public superstar these days though.)

Quote from: suzifrommd on February 27, 2014, 11:55:49 AM
If my religious beliefs tell me that I must strike with stones anyone I know to be an adulterer until I've killed them, can the government punish me for bludgeoning my wife to death with a large rock if she sleeps around ?

(Incidentally, the bible commands its believers to do exactly that.)

Give it a shot, let us know how it goes.... 

The bill was about religious owners of businesses choosing not to do business with LGBTs. The Hell's Angels and Banditos and other outlaw biker clubs are pretty much hard core "sinners" yet would these same business owners do business with them? Somehow I bet the answer would be yes, they would out of genuine fear. Not to mention intimidated by these groups. I could respect the supporters of the bill a whole lot more if they chose to not do business with anyone that they consider "sinners".

Kia Ora,

I'm somewhat at a loss... What is religious freedom ? Is there really such a thing in the "21st" century ?


Metta Zenda

Quote from: suzifrommd on February 27, 2014, 11:52:38 AM
Well, in neither of those cases were the business owners being asked to take part in a gay wedding. They were being asked to sell merchandise.

Exactly.  When you have a business and you flip over the sign on the door so that it says "OPEN", that's just what it means. Private clubs and associations can, and do, discriminate.  That's their issue and their own problem. But if those private organizations open their doors for public business then they become subject to the same standards of public access in the conduct of that business that any other business is subject to.

Here's a good commentary on what religious freedom to discriminate actually means:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/erica-keppler/religious-discrimination-macys-transgender-woman_b_1137472.html

Quote from: Jamie de la Rosa on February 27, 2014, 11:50:20 AMThe principle is the same.  Can the government coerce a person, or group of people, against their deeply held and constitutionally-guaranteed religious beliefs?

That is not the principle at stake here, despite what the religious right would like people to believe. That's like saying that the government "coerced" business owners into allowing African-Americans to eat at the lunch counter against their deeply-held and constitutionally-guaranteed beliefs.

Nobody has a constitutional right to exercise discrimination on the basis of ethnicity, religion, country of origin, sex, age, physical limitations, sexual orientation or gender identity (and probably several other things I can't recall at this moment). The notion that someone's religious mandate to do so does not trump the Constitution.

And as disappointing as it may seem to the religious right it's the Constitution that is the law of the land and not the Bible, the Koran, the Gita, the Book of Mormon nor any other religious text.

Quote from: suzifrommd on February 27, 2014, 11:55:49 AM
If my religious beliefs tell me that I must strike with stones anyone I know to be an adulterer until I've killed them, can the government punish me for bludgeoning my wife to death with a large rock if she sleeps around ?

(Incidentally, the bible commands its believers to do exactly that.)

It doesn't, actually. The mosaic law, maybe, but with some specific exceptions that has been superseded, and only folks ignorant of actual Biblical study and looking for easy putdown-points claim nonsense like that.

What most folk seem to miss is that making people take part in activities they disagree with does go against the freedoms ensconced in our founding documents. It's why doctors can't be forced to perform abortions; why the birth control mandate is unconstitutional; and why this current debate is so very disappointing - it's essentially the LGBT (and allies) saying "Ok, we got gay marriage. But that's not enough. So now you have to agree or shut up - your religious freedom is less important than our civil freedoms."
Which, I believe, was the very reason the right so strongly opposed gay marriage in the first place - the inevitable march of 'progress' at their expense, part equality and straight towards one-sided dominance.

Put another way, not forcing Christian wedding businesses to take part in gay marriage hurts nothing but the claim that sexuality/gender identity is equivalent to race - a human right, immutable and undeniable. (Having had a sexuality change myself, I'm VERY skeptical on this - not to mention at best it's a theory, unproven and poorly documented). It doesn't even slow down the cause of marriage - it just leaves Christian beliefs on an equal sociopolitical standing to our own. And I'm kinda ashamed that's viewed as a bad thing by so many here.