Az gov vetoes bill

[AmericanFirst]

Corporate America played a big part in forcing Az to do the right thing. It really seems like the GOP has a learning disability.

The threat of pulling money out of AZ. was probably the deciding factor.

 

[J.E.D]

You guys should run her against Hillary.

You could spout your fake bullshit about Vince Foster.

We could spout reality..

Arizona Death Panel Claims Another Victim - Forbes

Tucson University Medical Center has confirmed that a patient who was refused a liver transplant due to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s decision to cut the state benefit that would have made the transplant possible, has died. The patient had been scheduled for the needed transplant but was dropped from the waiting list on October 1st when the cuts went into effect.

Please allow the preceding paragraph to sink into your consciousness for a moment.

The Arizona budget that previously provided transplants to people in need was $1.4 million. As there were 99 people on the waiting list for transplants at the time the cuts went into effect, the net result is that the State of Arizona valued each of these lives at something less than $14,000 a person.

Today, there are only 97 on the waiting list as two have passed away.

Can this really be happening in the United States?

Arizona Death Panel Claims Another Victim - Forbes

Until Obama atones for the malfeasance that caused the death of four people in Benghazi, you are unable to claim the high ground on this issue.

Right. Because a random attack on an American facility in a foreign, hostile country resulting in the deaths of four people fully aware that their jobs could lead to their own lives being in danger is exactly the same as an American governor cutting funding for an organ transplant program resulting in the deaths of two American citizens whose lives could have been saved had the governor just approved a relatively small amount of funding.

 

[Rocko]

There are not bigger issues. There are other issues.
AZ was not about gay marriage. AZ was about gays suing their way into having society force their values on others. When a society gives up its values, it's pretty well done. We're almost there. I see nothing more important than insuring American values. Without those, what's the point?

Let's get real here Rabbi. This is a litigious society. Everyone sues for everything. Passing legislation that opens the door to discriminate is not the answer.

You understand the bill would have gone some way to decreasing litigation, right? You don't make something better by making it worse.

I'm not in favor of allowing discrimination because there would be less lawsuits. A lot of black people sue for discrimination. Do you suggest we bring back Jim Crow to stop that?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Oh yeah...

Amendment I (1): Freedom of religion, speech, and the press; rights of assembly and petition
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, including the First Amendment:

Respondents in the present case, however, seek to carry the meaning of "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" one large step further. They contend that their religious motivation for using peyote places them beyond the reach of a criminal law that is not specifically directed at their religious practice, and that is concededly constitutional as applied to those who use the drug for other reasons. They assert, in other words, that "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" includes requiring any individual to observe a generally applicable law that requires (or forbids) the performance of an act that his religious belief forbids (or requires). As a textual matter, we do not think the words must be given that meaning. It is no more necessary to regard the collection of a general tax, for example, as "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" by those citizens who believe support of organized government to be sinful than it is to regard the same tax as "abridging the freedom . . . of the press" of those publishing companies that must pay the tax as a condition of staying in business. It is a permissible reading of the text, in the one case as in the other, to say that, if prohibiting the exercise of religion (or burdening the activity of printing) is not the object of the tax, but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended.

Our decisions reveal that the latter reading is the correct one. We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition. As described succinctly by Justice Frankfurter in Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 594-595 (1940):

"Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities."

Employment Division v. Smith | LII / Legal Information Institute

Public accommodations laws, therefore, do no ‘violate’ any person’s religious liberty, as such laws are “not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs,” they seek only to preserve the integrity and efficiency of the markets, where it "is not the object of [public accommodations laws to violate religious liberty], but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision."

 

[Howey]

I'm not surprised. The gay pocketbook is very large and influential.

Maybe Arizona would be better off taking their bigotry out on the Mexicans.

 

[JakeStarkey]

TK, no person if engaged in a business that involves public accommodation can discriminate against others because of personal religious beliefs.

In no way is that business owner prevented to privately associate with those with whom he wishes to associate.

Perhaps we can apply the 9th Amendment here. We are using the constitutional rights of one group (and subsequently the Constitution itself) to disparage others of their rights.

9th Amendment to the United States Constitution:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The 14th Amendment effectively removes that power to the federal government from the states.

 

[The Rabbi]

Let's get real here Rabbi. This is a litigious society. Everyone sues for everything. Passing legislation that opens the door to discriminate is not the answer.

You understand the bill would have gone some way to decreasing litigation, right? You don't make something better by making it worse.

I'm not in favor of allowing discrimination because there would be less lawsuits. A lot of black people sue for discrimination. Do you suggest we bring back Jim Crow to stop that?

So your solution is to make things worse? I dont get it.

 

[Kosh]

Oh my the far left continues to show they have no clue about the US constitution.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You understand the bill would have gone some way to decreasing litigation, right? You don't make something better by making it worse.

I'm not in favor of allowing discrimination because there would be less lawsuits. A lot of black people sue for discrimination. Do you suggest we bring back Jim Crow to stop that?

So your solution is to make things worse? I dont get it.

Only in your topsy turvy world.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Now will you stfu?

I'll "stfu" when Brewer brings the three Americans she killed back from the dead.

Till then?

Blah blah fucking blah.

Are you going to say the same thing before you vote for Hilary in 2016?

Swallowshard is a moroon, ignore him and life is good.

 

[Wildman]

Now will you stfu?

How does one veto a "hill"?

who said anything about a fucking "HILL" ??

 

[Rocko]

You understand the bill would have gone some way to decreasing litigation, right? You don't make something better by making it worse.

I'm not in favor of allowing discrimination because there would be less lawsuits. A lot of black people sue for discrimination. Do you suggest we bring back Jim Crow to stop that?

So your solution is to make things worse? I dont get it.

How does keeping the status quo make things worse?

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm not in favor of allowing discrimination because there would be less lawsuits. A lot of black people sue for discrimination. Do you suggest we bring back Jim Crow to stop that?

So your solution is to make things worse? I dont get it.

How does keeping the status quo make things worse?

Because it allows fags to sue any business because they feel they just weren't accepted for who they are. That puts a real damper on business. If I were a conservative Christian I would ex Arizona off my list of places I'd open a business in. Even if I had no intention to turning away gay business. Just the mere fact of my beliefs would open me up to lawsuits and constitute prima facie evidence for some judge or jury.

 

[Kosh]

I'm not in favor of allowing discrimination because there would be less lawsuits. A lot of black people sue for discrimination. Do you suggest we bring back Jim Crow to stop that?

So your solution is to make things worse? I dont get it.

How does keeping the status quo make things worse?

Oh my did you really ask that question in regards to politics?

Just look at Washington, Next?

 

[Wildman]

Whole lot of buggery goin' on tonite...

and that's just in the RW households!

did your 9 y.o. prompt you to post that ?

 

[RandallFlagg]

Now will you stfu?

No. I. Will. Not.


I'm surprised at the governor. I thought she had more balls than that. I dunno, I'm no baker by any means - but I believe that I still tell the "gays" to go to hell. Tell 'em to bake their own damned cake. So much for "freedom".

 

[RandallFlagg]

Geez, you know it just hit me... all that arguing I did was pointless. I've come to the conclusion that there are bigger issues that gay marriage out there. Why are we so easily distracted by social issues? Same goes for legalizing pot. While I want that legalized, there are simply more serious issues on the table than these. Seriously folks, lets get our priorities straight here.

Actually no, there are not - at least to the limp-wristed left. 17 Trillion in debt - Who cares!?!?

Unemployment is at a breaking point - Who cares!?!?! Worst economic recovery in the last 100 years - Who cares!?!?! 47 MILLION on food stamps - Who cares!?!?! Country is coming apart at the seams - Who cares!?!?!


As long as the fags are happy......

This country is doomed. I'm relatively sure now that there is no saving the republic.

 

[Wildman]

Now will you stfu?

I'll "stfu" when Brewer brings the three Americans she killed back from the dead.

Till then?

Blah blah fucking blah.

i must have missed that event, did she use a shotgun, rifle, pistol, or revolver ? ooooh hell i should have known it had to be with a i did hear a loud boom last week, so she could have done a


yaa, right !! blah blah fucking blah and more blah blah fucking blah

 

[Vandalshandle]

The whole thing makes me so mad that I am going to boycott the closest gay bar...as soon as I figure out where it is.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Now will you stfu?

Wise move Jan. The bill was a loser, like many here in support of it.