Groups attempted to pass legislation in multiple states at the same time in favor of same sex marriage too. Who's behind that? Sounds like the same scenario to me.Originally Posted by FORD
Groups attempted to pass legislation in multiple states at the same time in favor of same sex marriage too. Who's behind that? Sounds like the same scenario to me.
I don't know of any billionaire funded lobbyist group handing out cookie cutter "model legislation" bills in favor of marriage equality. As far as I know, these are local actions usually taking the form of a legal challenge in the courts, or a citizen ballot measure brought about by residents of that state. They may well cite a judicial decision in another state as a legal precedent (or other things, such as the 14th amendment) but that's still the polar opposite of the KKKoch/ALEC blueprint.
Eat Us And Smile
Cenk For America 2024!!
Justice Democrats
"If the American people had ever known the truth about what we (the BCE) have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched." - Poppy Bush, 1992
Jan Brewer Announces Veto Of Arizona Anti-Gay Bill SB 1062
Posted: 02/26/2014 7:50 pm EST Updated: 02/26/2014 7:59 pm EST
WASHINGTON -- Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) announced her decision to veto legislation on Wednesday that would have allowed businesses to legally refuse service to anyone on "religious freedom" grounds, effectively allowing them to discriminate against same-sex couples.
Brewer said the bill had "the potential to create more problems than it purports to solve."
"Senate Bill 1062 does not address a specific or present concern related to religious liberty in Arizona," she said. "I have not heard one example where business owners' religious liberty has been violated."
The state legislature passed the bill, known as SB 1062, last week. But in recent days, it has come under intense criticism from activists, lawmakers and business interests both in Arizona and nationally. The state's two Republican senators, Jeff Flake and John McCain, called on Brewer to veto it, and major corporations like Marriott, Apple and American Airlines all wrote to the governor and expressed their opposition.
Businesses in the Phoenix area were also especially worried, with the Super Bowl set to be held in nearby Tempe in 2015. On Monday, the Arizona Super Bowl Host Committee came out against SB 1062, stating, "[W]e have heard loud and clear from our various stakeholders that adoption of this legislation would not only run contrary to that goal but deal a significant blow to the state's economic growth potential. We do not support this legislation."
Arizona hasn't been the only state pushing a bill that would allow open discrimination against same-sex couples; similar bills have been popping up in states including Tennessee, Kansas, South Dakota and Maine.
Oh geezus.... the teabagging imbeciles over at RimJob's Digital Trailer Park are going absolutely INSANE over Jan Brewer's "betrayal".
Hell.... they're even making up entirely new names for her........
RINO HOMOSEXUALIST.
Time to boycott Arizona.
1 posted on Wednesday, February 26, 2014 4:57:14 PM by markomalleyTo: markomalley
Jan Brewer will go down as a spineless homosexual ganglia. What a joke she was. They will not TRUMP GOD. Leviticus tells us what to do in the face of abomination.
3 posted on Wednesday, February 26, 2014 4:59:05 PM by SADMILLIEReally?? DP? Doesn't that stand for "double penetration"? Now, that's not possible without two male sex organs present, so isn't that kinda "gay", dumb teabagging Freeper??To: markomalley
Brewer shows that she opposes the First Amendment in her veto of this bill. The next stage of this slippery slope is to force a God-fearing doctor to perform an abortion. The bill was a stand for freedom and liberty and was based upon the Eternal, Inerrant Word of God.
7 posted on Wednesday, February 26, 2014 5:00:06 PM by re_nortex (DP - that's what I like about Texas)
To: markomalley
What Brewer doesn't realize that is it is never enough with these people. Already, they're plotting and scheming to force AZ churches to recognize homosexual weddings.
And I'm done with the NFL. They can go piss up a rope.
16 posted on Wednesday, February 26, 2014 5:03:27 PM by Extremely Extreme Extremist (15 years of FReeping! Congratulations EEE!!)Hmmm..... "sagar"? shorthand for S. Hagar, perhaps? He IS a BCE loving, Dana Rohrbacher funding Repuke, after all......To: markomalley
All you little people must make cakes for homosexuals, or else you will be shipped to the concentration camp... where you will make cakes for homosexuals.
32 posted on Wednesday, February 26, 2014 5:08:37 PM by sagar
More bigoted nonsense hysteria at -------->http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3127393/posts
Honestly. Most gay people you aren't even going to know they are gay unless they are really flaming it or holding hands or something. I mean there is a proper time and place for everything. It's rude for anyone to sit there and make out in a restaurant in front of everyone and having open sex on the lunch counter will probably land you in jail in most parts of the country.
No! You can't have the keys to the wine cellar!
Using religion as a way to attack gays leaves the door open to anything.
What's to stop someone starting a Nazi religion which worships Hitler as a god? Under this legislation they would be able to ban Jews from their bars or restaurants.
Or an anti black religion like Mormonism was until quite recently?
You don't even need to invent a religion you can just cherry pick pretty much any shit from the bible which is of course what they are doing with the gay thing - something so crucial to the religion that the Jesus character doesn't even bother mentioning it.
The market forces argument is flawed because who wants to have the threat hanging over them that some dickhead can throw you out because you are gay, black, jewish etc.
Last edited by Seshmeister; 02-27-2014 at 06:56 AM.
Senator Assclown is running to become Governor Assclown this year.
^^ That guy makes Gerald Ford look like Abraham Lincoln in comparison...
what type of business owner would do that?
Another one of those classic genius posts, sure to generate responses. You log on the next day to see what your witty gem has produced to find no one gets it and 2 knotheads want to stick their dicks in it... Well played, sir!!
It's a bit of a stretch but imagine ELVIS was a business owner.
you think he would turn away money from a transsexual that was buyin' jambalaya from his food cart?It's a bit of a stretch but imagine ELVIS was a business owner.
Transexual? No. Black or jewish transexual? Hmmmm.
blewish?
By David Ferguson
Thursday, February 27, 2014 15:48 EST
Tea Party Nation president Judson Phillips said that Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R)’s veto on the state’s “Turn Away the Gays” law means Christian workers will be forced into “slavery” for same-sex couples because they dare not refuse to work for them.
Right Wing Watch reported that Phillips published a column on Tea Party Nation’s website on Thursday in which he fretted that Christian bakers will be forced to make penis-shaped cakes and that religious wedding photographers will be forced to stand by and helplessly take pictures of naked revelers performing lewd acts.
“The left and the homosexual lobby are both pushing slavery using the Orwellian concepts of ‘tolerance’ and ‘inclusiveness,’” wrote Phillips.
Brewer’s veto of SB 1062, he said, will have hellish consequences that will shock and horrify the righteous people of that state.
“Should a devote [sic] baker be required to create a cake for a homosexual wedding that has a giant phallic symbol on it or should a baker be required to create pastries for a homosexual wedding in the shape of genitallia [sic]?” he fumed.
“Or should a photographer be required to photograph a homosexual wedding where the participants decide they want to be nude or engage in sexual behavior?” he asked. “Would they force a Jewish photographer to work a Klan or Nazi event? How about forcing a Muslim caterer to work a pork barbecue dinner?”
“SB 1062 is a bigger story than simply the story of a cowardly governor who has no core beliefs,” he wrote. “SB 1062 is the story of liberalism at work in America.”
“Liberalism is the paranoid belief that leftists have that somewhere, someone may be thinking for themselves,” he went on. “It is tyranny on the march.”
Yeah, because "Liberalism" is so fucking huge in Arizona, the home of Bony Brewer, Sheriff Joey Hitler, Jeff Flakey, and "Bomb Iran" McCain.
Some judge would just declare it unconstitutional if this legislation passed anyway. Several states passed laws against same sex marriage by a vote of the people and one by one some judge overruled them.
Which was the correct decision, according to the Constitution.
There's no laws on the books as far as I know making it illegal for members of the same sex to live together so other than the legal ramifications why do they need to be legally married anyway? Pass a law that says any two people can form a legal partnership reguardless of sex or sexual orientation and take the morality out of it altogether. Two hetero men or women living together and sharing assets should have the same rights as everbody else.
According to one persons interpretation of the constitution is the real reality.
A law could pass with a unanimous vote of the people and one judge can overturn it if it doesn't fit their agenda. That should be ruled unconstitutional.
91% of the American people supposedly "approved" of the Chimp in a poll taken in late September 2001. All 91% of them were wrong.
There's a poll right now claiming 80% of Democrats support Hillary Clinton for President, yet I live in a solid Democratic neighborhood in a Blue state, and I cannot find a single person who would vote for her in a primary. Most of them probably would in November, but only in the "lesser of two evils" sense. Certainly not in a primary or caucus though.
So you can throw numbers around all you want, but that's not what matters.
What matters is the rule of law. And the supreme law of this land is the Constitution. Which reads......
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I guess for the people by the people means nothing anymore. You overturn a law voted for by the people and accuse them of discrimination if they don't like it. I'm sure that's what the writers of the constitution were shooting for.
Uhhh.... what do you think a marriage license IS?
There is no "morality" involved in marriage licenses. You can choose to have a judge marry you, or a priest, or a rabbi, or a buddhist monk, or an African witch doctor, or Captain Stupid on the Love Boat, but that's all just for show. You still get the same piece of paper.
But you cannot have one piece of paper for hetero couples and a different piece of paper for homo couples, because then you're right back to separate drinking fountains and all that kind of bullshit. Churches should be free to do whatever ceremonies they want, but legally there should be no difference between a straight marriage and a gay one.
Who says you need a piece of paper to get married? you need a piece of paper to get legally married not married. What about polygamists? Where's their rights?
I think that stat on Hillary is rigged. Most the Democrats (Working for a living wage union types) I know seem to view the party as selling them out and Hillary as a big fat thighed fake. I think you are right. Nobody wants that psychotic bitch in power. I mean look, you have the Obama Administration trying to sneak onto that pacific trade treaty. The even have the Teamsters Union unhappy and fighting them on it. The current Democrat party will sell your job out as bad as a Koch Brother Republican will. There is no current difference.
Last edited by Nitro Express; 02-27-2014 at 06:13 PM.
If civil rights were put up for popular vote, most of the Confederate states would still be segregated. Most of the fools going crazy over same sex marriage would be fine with that too, of course
That's something I will agree on. Bitch couldn't even control her husband's penis how the hell's she going to run this country?
I tell people if they want to legalize non-traditional marriage they better get ready for more polygamy. It only works if you have more females than males. Unless you have the males killed off in a war or something male and female populations tend to be equal. What happens is the guys with the power and money keep getting younger trophy wives and the poor young guys have the young women stollen from them. Then they often get booted from the pack. You end up with a Colorado City type situation or what you often see in some middle east countries. The rich sugar daddies steal the prime women. Who wants to open the door to that bullshit?
Congtatulations, you just stereotyped the entire south to fit your agenda. People in the south are all racists that hate homos. It's been that way since the first cracker moved south.If civil rights were put up for popular vote, most of the Confederate states would still be segregated. Most of the fools going crazy over same sex marriage would be fine with that too, of course
How many of these states immediately moved to disrupt voting after Fat Tony Scalia and his 4 BCE pals gutted the Voting Rights act of 1964?
Now stop trying to derail the thread, Socky.
Open a door that's already open? Gold diggers dig gold that's why they're called gold diggers.
I'm talking about the situation in Kansas and you're talking about the BCE again but I'm derailing the thread?
If you can't win an argument by debating the issue try calling people cute little names like socky or claim they're derailing the thread that always works real good.
A friend of mine used to work with a Mormon guy who got around the polygamy laws his own way. He would marry one woman at a time, then divorce her and marry another one, and kept doing this until he had married several women. Legally, he was only married to one, but he still considered all of them to be his wives, and since he was a rich insurance executive, he could afford to support all of them, and was convinced that they would be one big happy family when he became God of his own planet.
OK..... whatever. At least he was technically within the law. He can argue the rest of it with Elohim, his Heavenly Father, I guess.
It's not for me, and I don't think I'd want multiple mothers in law, but as long as he's supporting the "wives" and kids and not asking for multiple married tax privileges, I don't have any reason to worry about it.
If the only way you can be happy is to post biased political commentary 24/7 on a site where nobody gives a hairy rat's ass about it enough to do anything other than talk about it keep on truckin'. You can rant and rave till the cows come home and nothing's going to change because you do it. I can also see I'm fueling you're obsession by debating your observations too. Post whatever you want. I'll just have to try and ignore it no matter how much I disagree.
Because they own shit, have children, sometimes get in serious accidents and go on life-support or die and might want to decide who gets their shit before that happens, etc. So, with life's messy financial, legal, and family issues, some people might just want the same legal standing to decide who gets to do what with their lives or some shit like that. you know? like basic civil liberties?
That's the same thing I think everytime I see one of your unbiased political commentaries. Keep telling yourself you're making the world a better place. Maybe you can convince yourself you're not just rambling on about the same old shit day after day year after year to a bunch of people who aren't going to even attempt to do a damn thing about it anyway.
That's why I suggested a legal partnership. That way any two people same sex or not gay or straight can form a legal union without having to get married. If two straight men or women want equal rights that married people have they should have them too.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
