Thursday, February 27, 2014

Gov. Brewer recently in the News ...

Do you agree with Gov Brewer of Arizona or not?




77 comments:

Constitutional Insurgent said...

I do agree with her. Arizona law already provided a means for business owners to discriminate against people based on the owners religious beliefs. Even the laws sponsors and advocates, when pressed, admitted that SB 1062 wouldn't really change anything. It was a vaguely worded redjndancy of an already hypocritical law.

The faithful conduct business with those they percieve as 'sinners' every day. What they want is to have protections for those instances that they choose to discriminate, irrespective of the instances where they do not.

I fully support being able to conduct private business transactions in accordance with the owners desires, but this means an owner can also refuse business based on the customers religious status. A society where a subset has preferential treatment based on a personal belief system, is not one of liberty.

Ed Bonderenka said...

Hmmmm. I'd think the libertarian mindset would be that anyone should be free to refuse service to whoever they want.
Gay guy comes in to buy a pop, big deal, who cares.
Gay guy comes in and "help me celebrate the activity you find offensive by baking me a cake or photographing the ceremony".
Forcing my approval, shoving it down my throat.
Not enough gay photogs or cake bakers?
Next, we'll force people to vote for Romney (which I did BTW) because they might not, due to his Mormonism. Can't discriminate on religious preferences.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Ed - I'd say that you're generally correct on the Libertarian mindset.

But it's word games to differentiate the two examples you posted, as 'celebrating', 'forcing your approval' or 'shoving it down your throat'.

None of those is true unless you allow it to be the case. And then , it's an internal problem.

Rational Nation USSR said...

I agree with this bill that if you are a business owner and believe in and live by your faith that you should be able to refuse service to whoever you want.
Who I DON'T agree with is
The stupid
The ignorant
The politically comatose
The emotionally crippled
The mentally handicapped
The deceitful
The ill-intended
The bimbo
The Butcher of Benghazi!
Miss Hillary Clinton.

The fact that we even have a law, or debate the legailty of freedom of association is pathetic in a supposedly free country. A business owner, in any state, for any reason, should be allowed to determine who they will provide services to.

But, the "Progressive's" just love the idea of forcing people to do what they believe is right.

Anonymous said...

A Lesson To The Simple Minded Repyblicans! *

And That Means All Of You)

Socialism and Communism are two completely things, that’s what people fail to understand! Some people ( especially Republicans) are really stupid. they obviously haven't even understood that socialism and communism are NOT at all the same, but they’d rather just sit there behind their computer’s and throw out all the nasty terms and words that their week little minds can muster up.

Under communism, all people are considered equal and are provided for equally, regardless of their contributions to the economy or to society. This is different from Under communism, all people are considered equal and are provided for equally, regardless of their contributions to the economy or to society. This is different from socialism The word alone seems to send shivers down the spine of the American people, but for no reason. It’s because these idiots fail to understand what it really means. They imagine America turning into China or the USSR. NOT TRUE! Well I hate to be the one to tell you, but Socialism has been alive and well in America and it has been here for a very long time, in fact since the days of the GOP’S Hero Ronnie Reagan.

The Teebaggers would love socialism if they knew that! War would not be possible without socialism. Your tax dollars are used to fight wars for your country. You pay a tax to help ensure that our grandparents and senior citizens of America have money to live off of when they are retired or too elderly to work. I love hearing rich people bitch about this one because the truth is that they do not pay a social security tax, like most payroll taxes. This little piece of socialism helps prevent our senior citizens from sinking into poverty and starving to death. We live in a mixed economy- get over it and get on with it already.

On another note: Is the modern Republican Party really “the party of Lincoln,” and responsible for freeing the slaves? I don’t think so. But the GOP regularly, routinely, and with a straight face makes that claim.."

Silverfiddle said...

It was a stupid bill. Asking a court, under the law, to determine if someone's religious beliefs are "sincerely held" is statist foolishness.

The progressives have already rammed a hole in the constitution via a great and historic righting of a horrible wrong (Codifying in law the natural law fact that all people, including minorities, have equal rights under the law).

But like they always do, they sneaked in a pernicious liberty grab, declaring any private property used to conduct business a "public accommodation."

So, it's the government's world (and property, business, land, everything) we just live in it.

sue hanes said...

Z - I agree with Gov. Brewer although I'm not real fond of her.

Thersites said...

No shoes, no shirt, no service!

Duckys here said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Duckys here said...

I remember when Muslim cab drivers were refusing to carry passenger transporting alcohol at the Minneapolis airport and my right wing brethren went mental.

Well, that silliness was stopped.

We we had the zealots who refused to fill legal prescriptions for contraception.

The right wasn't quite as united in their opposition.

Now they're hatin' on the homos and many on the right are showing that they don't so much mind discrimination as who's being discriminated against.


Also frame this as a public health issue ad you might get somewhere, Farmer.

Impertinent said...

@CI:

"'celebrating', 'forcing your approval' or 'shoving it down your throat'...:

Well, that certainly was the case for the poor little Colorado ( and a photog in NM ) baker whom the gays sued to death, wasn't it?

A woman who never gave up her beliefs that she couldn't provide them that service. Why didn't they just walk away, go to a gay baker ( I'm sure they advertise as such and network and support their own ).

No...they had to sue her, kill her business...tolerance right? Is what none of them are.

Arizona is the only state that has balls to proceed with what the other 49 are cowards for not doing. And that is doing what their citizens want them to do.

Immigration is one of them and look at how the feds treat them for wanting to enforce the law. Our states are become 3rd world countries because we won't defend them from invasion. We've just abdicated from enforcing our laws all together.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Imp - I don't agree with a suit against the business.....what I'm saying is in response to Ed's assertion...there is no tangible difference between 'selling a gay guy a pop' and buying a wedding cake. The only difference is in the emotional response by the business owner.

I think all anti-discrimination laws should be scrapped. Freedom is untidy, but we as a society can deal with the fraction of bigotry that would arise is we did such.

You won't find me disagreeing with you at all on immigration.

Sam Huntington said...

We seem to have lost our facility for rational thought in this country. The purpose of opening a business is to make money, not proselytize about one’s faith. Anyone who hasn’t figure this out shouldn’t be in business to begin with.

skudrunner said...

If you don't want to serve someone you have every right to say no.
No matter what, the republicans are going to shoot their foot off and the "progressives" are going to load the gun.

Impertinent said...

@CI:

Thanks CI...but that's little comfort or consolation to those who have been crucified and their business' ruined, is it?

Who could even begin to disagree on the immigration fiasco where invaders have rights and benefits anyway. It's pure national suicide.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

"Thanks CI...but that's little comfort or consolation to those who have been crucified and their business' ruined, is it?"

True, but similar consolation to that experienced by fellow citizens who have been denied basic civil liberties.

"It's pure national suicide."

It will be our undoing.

Impertinent said...

@CI:

OK..then why is sodomy a "basic civil right"? Cause that's what it is pure and simple CI.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Imp - We're not talking sodomy. We're talking about the access to the same basic legal protections and priviliges that you and I enjoy.

If you want to define down the legal contract of marriage between same sex to sodomy, then you logically have to do likewise for hetero's.

Anonymous said...

From Z of GeeeZ:

What seems very obvious is the point that "Who would WANT someone who didn't admire or want me around to make my WEDDING CAKE, or TAKE MY WEDDING PICTURES?"
If forcing this issue isn't about agenda, I'm not sure what would be.
I have gay friends and they give their business to friends who are gay and have bakeries or gay photographers or gay caterers or gay restaurants...it's just DONE.

Is that prejudice like the store owners of being accused of for not wanting to do work and get paid for things that run against their faith?

Anonymous said...

From Z:

My last sentence should read "Is that prejudice like the store owners ARE being accused of for...?"

Thersites said...

frame this as a public health issue ad you might get somewhere, Farmer.

"Stop AIDS... quarantine homos!"

Framing the homosexuality issue as a public health issue led us to Obamacare.

Nothing squeels like a homo without someone else's genitals in his/her face.

Duckys here said...

@Skudrunner -- If you don't want to serve someone you have every right to say no.
---
Incorrect.

We have public accommodation laws. We've worked through the "separate but equal" debacle.

Now it is time for folks in the Libertarian sandbox to understand that.

Thersites said...

We have public accommodation laws.

The homo's need wedding cakes to take on trains with them? Who knew?

Silverfiddle said...

@ Ducky: We have public accommodation laws.

Leftwing Duck states a de jure fact.

It is the federal government's world (and house, and store, and property...) We The People just live in it as renters.

Thersites said...

Public accomodation laws only affect people engaged in interstate commerce. Commerce conducted wholly within the state of Arizona would be "exempt"

from the 1964 law:

For purposes of this section, "commerce" means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any State or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country

Anonymous said...

From Z:

Please consider telling me why anybody'd want to frequent an establishment where they could feel uncomfortable.
There's no point in discussing if store owners are prejudice; I'm pretty sure no liberal baker would have made a cake requested to say on top GEORGE BUSH IS A FABULOUS PRESIDENT. TRUST me.

I'm trying to visualize a gay couple wanting their precious wedding photos to be snapped by someone who doesn't have their very best interests at heart.
I wouldn't even pick a friend who was angry at me let alone a person whose faith tells him what that couple is doing is a sin.

By the way, if you haven't seen anybody on the Climate Change talking circuit who doesn't come 1" from saying "And anybody who doesn't believe US is a sinner", you're not listening enough.

Anonymous said...

From Z:

Thers; good one on the train :-)

Anonymous...great rant! I'm leaving it up so you can be read and people can see how uninformed you are. By the way...about the party of Lincoln? Yes. Check out who finally passed the Civil Rights Act and who was against it for YEARS. (SURPRISE!!! :-))

Duckys here said...

Well, z, why not think about it a bit.

There have been many movements to combat bigotry and discrimination in America.
Most feel this is a good thing but those who wish to continue discriminating need an object lesson.

When you allow bigotry and discrimination to not just exist (as it will to some extent) but become a tenet of your so called democracy then you really need to rethink things.



Sam Huntington said...

The left loves to impose object lessons on people. They did it in Stalinist Russia for a very long time; they imposed object lessons on American blacks in the south for a very long time. Now they want to impose even more object lessons on the political right. But the problem is, we’re all armed. Careful there, Treyvon Ducky … your object lessons might blow up in your face.

Anonymous said...

The GOP and Conservatives have a way to shoot themselves in the foot. This or things like posing for pictures with the Duck Dynasty guy are the best way to make sure they'll lose elections instead of focusing on the economy.

I am done with them officially because of such events. They actually irritate not only for the dumbo moves but also for what's behind those moves. Both parties are hopeless for the country.

And Ducky, can you stop using the H-word? Thanks

FrogBurger

Duckys here said...

Post of the day by Sammy the Gun Loon.

Silverfiddle said...

@ Thersites: "Public accomodation laws only affect people engaged in interstate commerce. Commerce conducted wholly within the state of Arizona would be "exempt"

Careful! The law means whatever the emperor and his bureaucratic army says it means, depending on what day it is, whose ox is being gored, etc.

Find yourself on the wrong side, and you could end up fighting federal charges...

Sam Huntington said...

So Treyvon Ducky, why am I a gun loon? Is it because I refuse to allow a POS fascist like you to push me around?

Duckys here said...


And Ducky, can you stop using the H-word? Thanks

----
No Froggy, it's sarcasm which I feel accurately reflects the attitudes of quite a few here.

Duckys here said...

Why, Sam?

Because you make an asinine childish statement like, "the problem is, we're all armed".

Grow the bleep up.

Anonymous said...

From Z:

Ducky, your loathsome comments show you're JUST NOT READING, at least not my comments.
THINK....consider; don't just race headlong into your hackneyed attacks suggesting anybody who isn't a Democrat is a racist and bigot. It doesn't do much for your intelligence.

Tell me, why do YOU think gays would want to hire a person who doesn't champion their cause for their wedding photos or cake? Odd, isn't it? Or IS this just about agenda?
And Ducky, this isn't your blog; you don't just come, insult, and expect not to get questioned back tho you never respond to anything that throws you off (all my comments, kid's, Sam's, etc etc)...doesn't show much thought process there, Ducky. Sorry, but...let's face it.

Why CAN'T Leftwingers allow for all sorts of people with all kinds of behaviors? We've constantly got to put up with theirs.

I'm starting to see that the Democrats are the most close-minded, fascist folks on the planet. How's about Harry Reed accusing those who have had horrid problems with ObamaCare "LIARS"...
nice group of people there, Lefties.
Swine.

Duckys here said...

@z --- Ducky, your loathsome comments show you're JUST NOT READING, at least not my comments.
THINK....consider; don't just race headlong into your hackneyed attacks suggesting anybody who isn't a Democrat is a racist and bigot
---
I didn't say that.

I am saying that anyone supporting this ridiculous law is supporting bigotry. Simple.

Frieda Van Wiener said...


All the person has to do is claim "a sincerely held religious belief", and as the law is written it doesn't even need to be dogma within a major religion - it is the individuals belief. From the law ""Exercise of religion" means the practice or observance of religion, including the ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief." And Service can be refused to races, religions, interracial couples, service can be refused basically to anyone.

Shaw Keewee said...

In Arizona, if an African-American sits at a lunch counter anywhere in America, the proprietor has the right to refuse him or her service?

If a Jew hails a taxi driven by a Muslim, that Muslim has the right to refuse him or her?

If a gay couple wants to buy a ticket to attend the theater, they can be turned away?

That is the sort of country the Taliban dreams of.

It's always good to see a con show his true colors. And in your own words, those colors are NOT red, white, and blue.
And so, when it came right down to it in Arizona today, rather than do what was right because it was the right thing to do, rather than strike down the bill because it would have legalized religious segregation as if Arizona was a state in Russia instead of America, Brewer at the behest of her oh so smug religion and her oh so morally superior political party vetoed SB 1062 not because it was blatantly counter to everything the United States stands for but rather because it would have cost Arizona money.

When Brewer was forced onto the global stage to very publicly choose between state sanctioned Apartheid and the almighty American dollar, not to mention political power, Brewer did the predictable thing.
She did what these people always do when forced to chose between conviction and profit.
She took the money.
So much for republicans’ vaunted ideals.
So much for the superior morality of CONSERVATIVE religious conviction.

Ed Bonderenka said...

@CI: Late reply.
"there is no tangible difference between 'selling a gay guy a pop' and buying a wedding cake. "
There is a difference between commodities and services.
A service is provided by a craftsman.
As Z pointed out, why would you want service from someone who doesn't have their heart in it?
To make a political point.
To shove it in someone's face.

Ed Bonderenka said...

And marriage is between a man and a woman.
Redefine the word all you want.
Doesn't make you right.
Tab A into Slot B.
Go around calling a Ford a Chevy, GM's not gonna cover the warranty.

Thersites said...

In Arizona, if an African-American sits at a lunch counter anywhere in America, the proprietor has the right to refuse him or her service?

No shoes, no shirt, no service! I don't care if you're a martian!

Ed Bonderenka said...

No matter how you feel about the Civil Rights Movement (I believe it was a good thing):
The wrong road taken began when the Feds started telling people they they had to engage in commerce with people they didn't want to.
It's one thing for the Government to rightly legislate that IT won't discriminate against a class of people, another to order a private concern to conduct business it does not want to.
Now it's come to this.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

"And marriage is between a man and a woman.
Redefine the word all you want."

And, no. Marriage between the two parties is whatever they desire it to mean. But marriage in the eyes of the law, is a legal contract. To validate the Constitutionality of the current restriction of gender, warrants a legal justification. To date, no advocate or supporter of "traditional marriage" has been able to defend the restriction on the most basic legal threshold, that of the rational basis test. Even in the Prop 8 case, the legal team admitted such.

In order for government to legally restrict a contract between consenting adults, it must proffer a defense that passes the rational basis test, and then must show harm or undue burden upon other citizens.

It cannot, and there is none. Restricting the civil liberties of your fellow citizens based either on a religious belief, or simply because you don't like it, is not the hallmark of a free society. It is a hallmark of tyranny. And the left attempts that course often enough......

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Ed - "It's one thing for the Government to rightly legislate that IT won't discriminate against a class of people, another to order a private concern to conduct business it does not want to."

I agree with this completely. But just remember, it means that it would rightly be applied to all parties, irrespective of religious faith.

Anonymous said...

From Z of Geeeez:

Thankfully, most people would never ever refuse to service to anyone, anywhere.

This was about a very few people who believed that gay marriage isn't right according to their religious interpretation, which they're entitled to, and a HUGE fuss was made so all the WORLD could ALL SEE that "CHristian Conservatives HATE" (as IF). Don't forget, midterms are coming...we ain't seen NUTHIN' from the hate machine yet...

Thinking Americans know this. This is about AGENDA.

I'll just mention again the hateful Harry Reid declaring people who are very sick and have had horrid experiences with Obama care as "LIARS"...what a swine. Or how about the Democrat who trounced over to a TV station to have that ad SHUT DOWN!? SHE HAS NO RIGHT BECAUSE SHE DOESN'T BELIEVE WHAT I BELIEVE...AND SHE MIGHT EVEN BE TELLING THE TRUTH! horrors :-)

Re the AZ BILL: As I already said, my gay friends frequent gay establishments for cakes, drinks, photographers; they're in their circle of friends; they use THEM. ARe they bigots for only using gay purveyors of goods?
I don't think so. But, let's compare how the few Christians who didn't want to make a cake (2, from last count): ya, I guess those gays ARE bigots...how can they not be considered bigots?
And how many gays do YOU know who'd want someone he thinks can't stand him to take his/her wedding photos?

Do I think anybody who refuses to provide services to anyone who's clean and appropriate and can pay for those services wrong? Yes, I do. And I defend their right to do so, though I hate it.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

"...we ain't seen NUTHIN' from the hate machine yet..."

Yep, from both parties.

"Thinking Americans know this. This is about AGENDA."

Again, yep...from both parties.

Anonymous said...

From Z:

CI, you suggesting we need to all be real scared that gays won't sell to Christians or Jews? :-)

How do you feel about Holder telling AGs across the country that if a law bugs them not to defend it? It's THE single biggest scandal in the Obama nightmare....not many talking about it. Oh, FOX is, but you know...they're just all about their agenda :-) (Sarcasm, of course)
Maybe if we all just ignore it on MSNBC, CNN, and the networks, Holder didn't really MEAN it : )

Anonymous said...

From Z:

CI, FOCUS: Not 'both parties'...I was clearly referring to gays IN THIS SITUATION so happy to have their wedding photos taken by people THEY think hate them.
YOU might think that's a 'both parties' issue, this isn't a thing about parties.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

How is it not about parties when you introduced the coming midterms?

There is an entire victim industry [supported and supporting a single party] basing their agenda on the myth that gays getting married is destroying their religious liberty.

We surely have not seen the last of it.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

We'll have to disagree about what THE biggest scandal of the Obama Administration is. The current situation with marriage is depriving the access to legal contract protections and privileges to our fellow citizens, based on nothing more than the religious beliefs of some.

Kid said...

The only thing I object to in this context is the government telling Christian hospitals to perform abortions-commit murder, or for Christian and other churches to marry gays.

Where are all the libtards crying about "separation of church and state" now? Just more proof they don't care about anything. Probably don't understand it either. They watch wolfey blitzer's romper room, then march out to the internet the next day to bleet nonsense.

They don't reply back to intelligent debate because wolfey hasn't given them the answers yet.

And when is the government going to deal with all the muslim human rights abuses and stop recognizing them as a 'religion' and expose them as the cult they actually are.? Hmmm?

Kid said...

CI, for the record, I don't care if gays get 'married'. Like the framers, I wouldn't put anything about it in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence or other national documents.

I reject the government forcing any religion to do something which goes against their core beliefs. With the exception of heading off human rights abuses. (Gay marriage ain't one. Plenty of places to get that done.)

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Kid, where is government telling churches who to marry? I would oppose that.right beside you.....but churches.have complete discretion on who can even recieve the sacraments.......so I do not see any attempt on this.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Thats what I dont understand about wanting the State to regulate marriage. Once you let them in....you have given them precedent.

Kid said...

CI, I was thinking more Christian hospitals and abortion. But give it a little time. Churches that refuse to marry gays will be denied tax exempt status so long as the dem-commies remain in control. It's part of the communist agenda which they've made great strides accomplishing since 1963.

Kid said...

The federal government should only be involved with National Defense (Their #1 mandate and #1 failure currently), and Interstate roads and crime. Period.

Anonymous said...

From Z;

CI...I'm micro on this particular point; not macro.
Yes, the point of supposedly exposing conservative CHristian 'hate' (ridiculous) is macro and does involve the midterms.
Bringing it down as I did in my comment, I'm referring to a gay man or woman deciding that he or she would just love having someone who doesn't like them take their pictures. MICRO. One little incident.
MACRO: the way the media's run with this and made it a huge point, when the bill truly isn't much about what the news has portrayed anyway.

And, yes..when an Attorney General explicitly tells State AGs that they should just defend laws THEY like, that's about as bad as it gets......this is momentous.

CI, there has been talk about how churches can turn away gays for a marriage; they've already had gay folks in San Francisco, dressed in black and dripping pretend blood breaking into church services...etc.

The state must be involved in marriage; it applies to too many legal things like insurance, home buying, banking, etc. If you're a couple or not can very definitely be a legal thing.

My gay friends tell me they can get ALL the rights they want (visitation in hospitals, inheritance, etc.) from any lawyer; another agenda point. They laugh at the BS going on today.

Kid; I believe you're onto something; how can this AZ bill be far from applying to churches?
Think about it. I said it's agenda, and this could be the reason.

I'm going home to no computer.

see y'all tomorrow.

z

Sam Huntington said...

@ Duck

You are an interesting study. You first of all make the rounds to blogs where you are not welcome, you criticize people for daring to have a different view than your own (which is pathetically infantile), you dare to lecture anyone out of your false sense of superiority, and when you are informed of these many shortcomings, you tell people to grow up. What this suggests, from a purely clinical standpoint, is someone possessing serious psychosis—and I have indicated on more than one occasion that you are in need of immediate mental health intervention.

Ed Bonderenka said...

The State historically has an interest in "marriage", not because of religious beliefs.
The state has an interest in the enforcement of property rights and the transfer of such through family.
Protection of children and the transfer of inheritance contributing to a stable society.
Children are a product of procreation.
Please don't let your anti-religious bias blind you to what is a commonly recognized fact.

Kid said...

Sam "Duck...... and I have indicated on more than one occasion that you are in need of immediate mental health intervention."


Aren't all libtards? No emotion here, just pure clinical analysis. They simply refuse to acknowledge facts in favor of their own fantasies.

One could say they are This far away from being felonious criminals. In my mind they are though. They support a 'reality' that consists of a failing societal structure which will bring so much pain to so many people, not just here but around the world.

They punish excellence and reward failure with the ever sparse resources we find ourselves with.

Impertinent said...

Hey Buckwheat Shaw:

If a Jew hails a taxi driven by a Muslim, that Muslim has the right to refuse him or her?

If a gay couple wants to buy a ticket to attend the theater, they can be turned away?



Are you serious? Jews and Gays aren't wearing yellow stars on their clothing so a stupid muslim can ID them or drive over them.

So the muslim is going to make them fill out a questionnaire when they get into the cab?

Ridiculous.

Impertinent said...

@CI:

Show me where in the constitution a guarantee of marriage rights?

It's a states right to accept or decline what their constituents define a marriage as.

Impertinent said...

@Kid:


23 thru 30...√.

Done, accomplished right before our stupid faces.

Kid said...

IMP. and so much progress with other items so as to make one concede to the soon to be check mark.

Impertinent said...

@Kid:


Like I said...we're fubar and phooked.

Whimpering all the way to the cattle cars that are inevitable.

Look at the so called "Constitution" state of Cant-connecticut. Shameful and I'm hoping the next revolt starts right there.

Kid said...

IMP, Yes, the Nor'Eastern states deserve it don't they. They've been voting in homicidal vermin for decades.

Impertinent said...

@Kid:

And to think that these fookers signed the Declaration of Independence and were of the original 13 colonies? I mean....holy sheet...they've completely trashed it, crapped on it, spit on it and their citizens are slaves...pure and simple.

I'd be happy and relieved if they all formed their own 'country'...issued their own passports and aligned themselves with NK, China or Russia. Then we could invade.

Duckys here said...

Imp. you do understand that the veto didn't ave squat to do with brewers support of any rights whatsoever.

The NFL threatened to pull the Super Bowl and the Chamber of Commerce started barking. Game-set-match.

Now the bill is bigoted but the veto had nothing to do with brewer giving a damn about that bigotry.

Impertinent said...

@Ducky:

I got that...really. They did it to AZ with the MLK stuff too.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Ed - You're both right and wrong. You are correct in that the State "interest in the enforcement of property rights and the transfer of such through family."

Where that fails to defend a restriction on same sex marriage, is that there is no legal incumbancy on marriage to procreate. And since same sex marriage does not cause harm or burden upon anyone desiring to marry or procreate, the State [admittedly] fails to pass the rational basis test in such a defense.

You're incorrect in assertiing that I have an anti-religious bias. I consider religious liberty to be sacrosanct. But the guise of religious liberty is exactly the defense employed by the victim/martyr industry in defending a restriction on marriage. What I oppose, and what this industry has as it's goal...is the paradigm of special treatment and preferential status for some Americans, based on a personal belief system, at the expense of the liberty of other American citizens.

But ironically, at least the religious arugment has something specific to base their agenda on. A purely secular argument against liberty fails to base their agenda on anything.

Ed Bonderenka said...

@CI: The redefinition of marriage from a union of one man/one woman is part of the "Orwellian" bastardization of the language, Newspeak.
A linguistic tool of the left.
I am not saying YOU are a tool of the left, but it's odd that you don't see this.
"argument against liberty"?
That equates the societal sanction of the union of two same sex (or multiple partners, or siblings) as "liberty".

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Ed - It's no more newspeak than when marriage was redefined from poly-, intra- and arrainged. It's Orwellian because you don't agree with it. Many of our common terms have been 'redefined'. Such as voter, when it used to be defined as white, male landowner. That common definition changed because we as a society saw the unfounded inequity forced upon our fellow citizens.

If there were a viable, rational argument in which to restrict the legal contract of marriage, based on gender and/or sexual orientation, it would have been made by now. But these cases coming before the judiciary, and in many states, are failing to meet that most basic legal hurdle. Tradition alone cannot form a rational basis for a law, and still pretend to uphold the tenets for liberty.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Even Scalia notes this when he wrote "What justification could there possibly be, for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising the liberty protected by the Constitution?"

Anonymous said...

From Z:

Ducky, thanks for reading Brewer's mind; she has more integrity than you allow her....it's a kind of integrity you probably won't understand, but she's no puppet.

Ed; the Constitution's clear on liberty and allowing ANYTHING to marry, I suppose today, is going to be okay. I can't imagine any of our founders thinking "We'd better make sure we say 'marriage between who or WHAT'"..they didn't have to.
I'm going to enjoy when some ass wants to marry a fire hydrant or his sister.....or his brother. Who can ever say they're not free to do so now?
Do I equate those things with gay marriage? Of course not, but to take the argument farther, ...it can't be denied that it'll come up.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

"I'm going to enjoy when some ass wants to marry a fire hydrant or his sister....."

Why would you enjoy it? Not that it's going to come to pass. Your first reference isn't a consenting adult, and assuming your second reference is, medical research strongly indicates that incest dramatically increases the likelihood of major birth defects.

Of course, incest was quite popular among noble Christians of yore, bcd when marriage was more..."traditional"......

Leticia said...

Absolutely not! She was wrong. She ignored the will of the people and caved in.

A great disappointment.