Arizona's bigots in the GOP want to allow biz not to serve LGBTers
- Thread starter Lovehobby
- Start date
Link? Is that too much work for you to do?What part of this won't survive 10 minutes at the Supremes do these ignorant bigots not get?
None.What part of this won't survive 10 minutes at the Supremes do these ignorant bigots not get?
Gov gives $ to straight couples, not gay => discrimination. SCOTUS agrees.
Biz covered by Civil Rights Act (says nothing about sexual orientation). No gov $.
http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/could-arizona-businesses-deny-services-gays-n36396
Not a serious lawyer in the USA who thinks it would survive at SCOTUS
Not a serious lawyer in the USA who thinks it would survive at SCOTUS
Legal experts also said SB 1062 is redundant because, under Arizona law, gays have no special protections at businesses and public accommodations. In other words, businesses don't need protection for something they can't be sued for.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-arizona-gays-sb-1062-20140222,0,2958198.story?page=2
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-arizona-gays-sb-1062-20140222,0,2958198.story?page=2
Looks like corporation are telling the Governor, no way José, it will cost you busy. The Super Bowl Committee have hinted maybe even the Super Bowl. The pocket book will trump almost everything.
"Eleven renowned law professors from around the country have sent a letter to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R) warning that SB1062—the bill "which amends Arizona's Religious Freedom Restoration Act" (RFRA)—has been "egregiously misrepresented by many of its critics."
The mix of eleven professors consists of Republicans and Democrats, religious and non-religious, "some...[who] oppose same-sex marriage [and] some... who support it."
Their letter focuses on the important role RFRA plays in "[enacting] a uniform standard to be interpreted and applied to individual cases." And the professors said such a "standard makes sense" as "we should not punish people for practicing their religions unless we have very good reason."
SB1062 amends Arizona's RFRA in two ways:
1. "It provides that people are covered when state or local government requires them to violate their religion in the conduct of their business."
2. "It would provide that people are covered when sued by a private citizen invoking state or local law to demand that they violate their religion."
Countering misrepresentations, the professors pointed out that "SB1062 does not say that businesses can discriminate for religious reasons."
In concluding, they urged Gov. Brewer to be sure SB1062 is "accurately considered," so that in passing judgment on it she is not "misled by uniformed critics."
Prof. Douglas Laycock, University of Virginia School of Law
Prof. Helen M. Alvare, George Mason University School of Law
Prof. Carl H. Esbeck, University of Missouri School of Law
Prof. Christopher C. Lund, Wayne State University Law School
Prof. Gregory C. Sisk, University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minnesota)
Prof. Mary Ann Glendon, Harvard Law School
Prof. Michael W. McConnell, Stanford Law School
Prof. Thomas C. Berg, University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minnesota)
Prof. Richard W. Garnett, Notre Dame Law School
Prof. Mark S. Scarberry, Pepperdine University School of Law
Robert Fretwell Wilson, University of Illinois College of Law
("Institutional affiliations are for identification only. [The] institutions take no positions on these bills.")"
The mix of eleven professors consists of Republicans and Democrats, religious and non-religious, "some...[who] oppose same-sex marriage [and] some... who support it."
Their letter focuses on the important role RFRA plays in "[enacting] a uniform standard to be interpreted and applied to individual cases." And the professors said such a "standard makes sense" as "we should not punish people for practicing their religions unless we have very good reason."
SB1062 amends Arizona's RFRA in two ways:
1. "It provides that people are covered when state or local government requires them to violate their religion in the conduct of their business."
2. "It would provide that people are covered when sued by a private citizen invoking state or local law to demand that they violate their religion."
Countering misrepresentations, the professors pointed out that "SB1062 does not say that businesses can discriminate for religious reasons."
In concluding, they urged Gov. Brewer to be sure SB1062 is "accurately considered," so that in passing judgment on it she is not "misled by uniformed critics."
Prof. Douglas Laycock, University of Virginia School of Law
Prof. Helen M. Alvare, George Mason University School of Law
Prof. Carl H. Esbeck, University of Missouri School of Law
Prof. Christopher C. Lund, Wayne State University Law School
Prof. Gregory C. Sisk, University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minnesota)
Prof. Mary Ann Glendon, Harvard Law School
Prof. Michael W. McConnell, Stanford Law School
Prof. Thomas C. Berg, University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minnesota)
Prof. Richard W. Garnett, Notre Dame Law School
Prof. Mark S. Scarberry, Pepperdine University School of Law
Robert Fretwell Wilson, University of Illinois College of Law
("Institutional affiliations are for identification only. [The] institutions take no positions on these bills.")"
The right wing of the GOP is not much different then the Taliban. Of course they are not as brutal and don't kill people but their efforts to enforce their brand of Christianity is really quite the same.
They killed way more then the Taliban if you include their push for the attack on Iraq.The right wing of the GOP is not much different then the Taliban. Of course they are not as brutal and don't kill people but their efforts to enforce their brand of Christianity is really quite the same.
Correct. That is a really Bad idea notwithstanding."Eleven renowned law professors from around the country have sent a letter to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R) warning that SB1062—the bill "which amends Arizona's Religious Freedom Restoration Act" (RFRA)—has been "egregiously misrepresented by many of its critics."
The mix of eleven professors consists of Republicans and Democrats, religious and non-religious, "some...[who] oppose same-sex marriage [and] some... who support it."
Their letter focuses on the important role RFRA plays in "[enacting] a uniform standard to be interpreted and applied to individual cases." And the professors said such a "standard makes sense" as "we should not punish people for practicing their religions unless we have very good reason."
SB1062 amends Arizona's RFRA in two ways:
1. "It provides that people are covered when state or local government requires them to violate their religion in the conduct of their business."
2. "It would provide that people are covered when sued by a private citizen invoking state or local law to demand that they violate their religion."
Countering misrepresentations, the professors pointed out that "SB1062 does not say that businesses can discriminate for religious reasons."
In concluding, they urged Gov. Brewer to be sure SB1062 is "accurately considered," so that in passing judgment on it she is not "misled by uniformed critics."
Prof. Douglas Laycock, University of Virginia School of Law
Prof. Helen M. Alvare, George Mason University School of Law
Prof. Carl H. Esbeck, University of Missouri School of Law
Prof. Christopher C. Lund, Wayne State University Law School
Prof. Gregory C. Sisk, University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minnesota)
Prof. Mary Ann Glendon, Harvard Law School
Prof. Michael W. McConnell, Stanford Law School
Prof. Thomas C. Berg, University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minnesota)
Prof. Richard W. Garnett, Notre Dame Law School
Prof. Mark S. Scarberry, Pepperdine University School of Law
Robert Fretwell Wilson, University of Illinois College of Law
("Institutional affiliations are for identification only. [The] institutions take no positions on these bills.")"
It was almost a given, especially when they started hearing about the revenues they'd loose. Nothin' like the pocketbook to sway a vote.I think she did the 'right' thing.
Sure no one Democratic side voted to go.:frusty:They killed way more then the Taliban if you include their push for the attack on Iraq.
The GOP can't seem to get the fact that for parochial political concerns in right wing states they keep doing things that make them very unpopular across the nation. Stupid politics. Big biz considerations will always trump the 'culture wars' nonsense from the religious nut bars.
No those Dems that supported Iraq war are just as stupid/evil as the GOP. Dumb is dumb. The region would be far better off if Saddam were still in power.Sure no one Democratic side voted to go.:frusty:
Whether or not it was valid was not GROGGY's point. He claim the 'righties' killed more than the Taliban.No those Dems that supported Iraq war are just as stupid/evil as the GOP. Dumb is dumb. The region would be far better off if Saddam were still in power.
1 million dead Iraqi's is way more then died at 9/11.Whether or not it was valid was not GROGGY's point. He claim the 'righties' killed more than the Taliban.
Seems pretty obvious, and that doesn't even count the dead children from sanctions.
