Thursday, February 27, 2014

The Constitution Wins in Arizona --On this One.

Arizona Republican Governor Jan Brewer vetoed the anti-gay bill passed by both houses of the Arizona legislature.

The crazies in the TeaPublican Party, quick to accuse President Obama of "shredding the Constitution," propose outrageously unConstitutional legislation every chance they get.  Their latest unAmerican, unConstitutional bill would have allowed businesses to refuse service to Americans whom they believe would injure their religious sensibilities.  Their target was, of course, the LGBT community, but the legislation was so poorly written that it would have allowed discrimination against any group of Arizonans for any religious reason. It was a bill that codified bigotry.  And the amazing thing is that a majority of Arizona Republican law makers passed it.

And they're not the only anti-Americans trying their best to "shred the Constitution."  Some idiot in another state wants to make it illegal for gay athletes to play football. As long as these morons are voted into office, we'll see more attempts made to enact laws based on religious bigotry.  Think about that when these hate-based zealots and bigots want your vote. 

And think about what they'd do should they gain the power of the presidency.

(CNN) -- Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed a bill Wednesday that would have allowed businesses that asserted their religious beliefs the right to deny service to gay and lesbian customers. 

The controversial measure faced a surge of opposition in recent days from large corporations and athletic organizations, including Delta Air Lines, the Super Bowl host committee and Major League Baseball. 

Fiercely divided supporters and opponents of the bill ramped up pressure on Brewer after the state's Republican-led Legislature approved it last week. 

On Wednesday, the governor said she made the decision she knew was right for Arizona. "I call them as I see them, despite the cheers or the boos from the crowd," Brewer said, criticizing what she described as a "broadly worded" bill that "could result in unintended and negative consequences." 

Brewer said she'd weighed the arguments on both sides before vetoing the measure, which is known as SB 1062."

So the governor weighed the arguments on both sides? Why it took this long for Brewer to veto this repulsive bill should be frightening to any American who believes in liberty and justice for all and who entertains the idea of putting more TeaPublicans in charge of government.

The proposed bill passed by the two legislative houses in Arizona was not about religious liberty.  

All one has to do is look for any proposed legislation crafted by religious zealots that would have allowed people to refuse to serve divorced Americans, or Americans who took the Lord's name in vain (that's against the Ten Commandments and these people claim the Constitution and this country is based on those ten prohibitions), or people who bore false witness, or people who committed adultery.

(Imagine a business in Arizona refusing to serve Newt Gingrich or any other serially divorced American?)  

Adultery is prohibited by the Ten Commandments, so any God-fearing, God-obeying Christian would have to find a state forcing him or her to serve adulterers a state that practices fascism!

Of course no laws were ever proposed to protect Christians from having to serve or do business with people who broke those particular Commandments. That's why it is so disgustingly obvious that the Arizona "Hate The Gays" bill was nothing more than an attempt to shred the Constitution and encourage hatred against a minority.

Governor Brewer did the right thing for the wrong reasons. Faced with the loss of millions and millions of dollars in revenue for Arizona from businesses and the NFL, she vetoed the bill. Had she warned the Arizona legislature against passing the bill at the start, I'd believe she did this for the right reason.  She didn't.  So I'm not waving the flag for her.

Let it be a warning to the other red states that would use "religious freedom" to denigrate and marginalize minority Americans.  Your religion does not give you the right to institutionalize what Jim Wright of Stonekettle Station aptly calls religious apartheid.


  1. The Constitution won a stay of execution, hardly an acquittal. As things stand now, the poor thing is barely on life support - no thanks to GOP legislators.

  2. Well, good news for now anyway out of Kentucky and Mississippi.

    The walls will eventually compltely crumble.

  3. If religion conveyed any rights at all, it would put the Federal government in the strange position of having to certify or reject religions which of course is difficult to differentiate from establishing one or more as "official." Certainly the men who wrote the Bill of Rights had no expectation of the often bizarre variety of extreme organizations that call themselves religions, from Scientology to the metastatic mega-churches to the televangelists, but I think they were thinking more along the lines of making sure people could form and adhere to sects and denominations without hindrance rather than allowing one to persecute others. As 18th century people, they had fresh memories of such things.

    We don't seem to have memories of the 1960's. We don't seem to have enough imagination to envision communities who won't allow Christians, or Jews or Muslims safe passage much less residency and the Arizona madness was a giant step in that direction because one can claim anything to be the result of religious conviction and put the government in a bind if it wants to grant the equal protection it's supposed to grant. Hell, I can claim that paying taxes is against my religion and for many Arizonites it just may be.

    But as I mentioned with a failed local initiative to ban 'foreign' languages in retail establishments locally, business leaders simply stomped all over it, particularly those leaders who would suffer if people began to shun Arizona. Perhaps the motivation was only financial, but who cares?

    I almost wish it had gone a little further so as to increase the obviousness of how despicable these anarchists really are, how shameful the pseudo-libertarian rejection of basic civilization is because the public so easily buys their appeals to "freedom." The same bozos who so decried A&E's brief suspension of the Suck Dynasty guy as an offense to liberty are quite happy to disenfranchise a large chunk of America and call it a defense of liberty.

    And yes, I hope somebody tears down those stupid walls

  4. Anarcho-capitalists?

    It seems a lot of people who advocate capitalism and liberty have misplaced their sense of responsibilty.

    I seriously doubt they represent the majority of libertarians or conservatives.

    1. Misplaced more than that, I think. It's kind of icing on the cake that excluding people from the pool of consumers hog ties Capitalism.

  5. Totally called it on Beale's weblog last week.

    Flying Junior
    February 24, 2014 at 8:19 pm

    Jan Brewer may be evil, but she is not particularly stupid. This idea is a non-starter. The Super Bowl thing only brings it into sharp focus.

    No fucking way!

    Oh well. Everyone is right once in a blue moon!

  6. True and a watched clock boils twice a day. She could be a poster girl for the American Society of Dermatologists' warning to stay out of the Arizona sun as well, but there's a lesson in this: all these Libertarian "principles" boil down to a rejection of Capitalism, Liberty and Justice.. Too bad all lessons are lost on stupid people. I wish she'd signed it and that Arizona would wither away to a cranky voice dying of thirst in the desert.

  7. My daughter lived in Arizona. I think that is what started her move towards a more liberal view. As well as playing a part in her move to Washington State. My birthplace.


We welcome civil discourse from all people but express no obligation to allow contributors and readers to be trolled. Any comment that sinks to the level of bigotry, defamation, personal insults, off-topic rants, and profanity will be deleted without notice.