Home > Gay/Lesbian > Jan Brewer vetoes denial of service anti-gay bill

Jan Brewer vetoes denial of service anti-gay bill

February 27th, 2014

For whatever reason, Jan Brewer did the right thing.  Was she motivated by principle or was she motivated by money?  Does it really matter?  She vetoed a discriminatory bill.

Will this kind of bill take hold in other states?  It already has.  Many states have similar bills that are sneaking their way through various legislatures.   It is up to people of conscience to say no.  It is up to corporations who might be doing business in the state to let their feelings be known.  Apple, American Airlines, Marriott and Super Bowl XLIX all spoke up stating that those types of values did not represent their brand.  Both U. S. Senators also lobbied against the state bill.

I am sure there are disappointed rednecks and bigots in Arizona today.

Categories: Gay/Lesbian Tags:
  1. George S. Harris
    February 27th, 2014 at 09:48 | #1

    My guess is it’s all about $$$$$. Scratch her and you might just find a bigot underneath.

  2. punchak
    February 27th, 2014 at 10:04 | #2

    I heard her speak. Whoever wrote the speech for her did a good job.
    For whatever reason – she did the right thing.
    Of course $$$$$ play a big roll. After all, Arizona’s tourist business is BIG!
    I suggest that we don’t scratch her. :)

  3. punchak
    February 27th, 2014 at 10:32 | #4

    Me neither!!! That time it wasn’t a question of $$$$ / Hey, she’s a politician, isn’t she?

  4. Rick Bentley
    February 27th, 2014 at 12:37 | #5

    Well I’ll be the contrarian here and say : I liked it when she put her finger up to Obama. The Federal Government is a tyrant on immigration, and her state bears the brunt.

    • February 27th, 2014 at 13:11 | #6

      Rick, I am not denying that AZ has immigration problems. They would have to. Having said that, I don’t think there should be any laws where ‘papers please’ is standard behavior. Additionally, I don’t think any president of the United States should be addressed that way, even those presidents I don’t much care for. I have never forgiven Jim Webb for refusing to shake President George Bush’s hand at a White House ceremony. That’s just impolite and bad manners. Bad manners = low class behavior. There is definitely protocol how we treat the president and she violated it, as the CEO of her state. She should have set a better example.

  5. Andyh
    February 27th, 2014 at 13:29 | #7

    I don’t understand why she waited so long. It was, even for AZ, a pretty nutty bill.

    • February 27th, 2014 at 16:17 | #8

      Hi Andy!

      She probably wanted to soak up all the attention first and to soften up her base.

  6. middleman
    February 27th, 2014 at 17:29 | #9

    America is being made a laughing stock by these religious idiots. What they don’t seem to realize is that they are trying to move the U.S. toward a sharia-law type of society. Koran or Bible, take your pick- it’s the same thing.

  7. Wolverine
    February 27th, 2014 at 19:13 | #10

    Interesting clash between faith beliefs and those seeking forced recognition of a lifestyle contrary to those faith beliefs.

    Hypothetical. You are a commercial artist and owner of a sign shop. A man comes in and tells you he would like you to make 100 signs for him. Certainly. What does he want on those signs? He pulls out a rough sketch of a sign. The large letters spell “God hates Fags.” At the bottom is a notice: “Property of the Westboro Baptist Church.”

    Will you take the assignment?

    • February 27th, 2014 at 20:30 | #11

      No. I wouldn’t take any work that and I don’t think it is religious.

      Where I would draw the line: I certainly don’t think ministers should be forced to marry people that their faith teaches them should not be married, whether it is a divorced person, same sex, or whatever. I feel differently about a justice of the peace. They should have to marry whoever comes in because a JP is representing the state, not a religion, primarily.

  8. blue
    February 27th, 2014 at 20:03 | #12


    Since the non religious have made this as much about race as religious freedom, can a black caterer or jewish deli refuse to provide food or music to a KKK clan meeting? Seriously, can they with out the threat of a lawsuit.

    Also, since gay rights are now effectively protected by the 14th amendment, it seems reasonable to assert that gay life style rights through the 14th amendment trump the first amendment. Now, in the venacular, you do know what that means.

  9. Scout
    February 27th, 2014 at 21:04 | #14

    Gay rights aren’t protected by the XIVth Amendment, Blue. Citizens are protected by the Amendment against arbitrary government classifications and irrationally different treatment. The states (and the federal government, through the application of the Due Process clause of the Vth Amendment) simply cannot favor or disadvantage citizens without some compelling articulation of a valid and rational state interest. Seems pretty fair and fundamental, wouldn’t you say? Would you really want it any other way?

  10. punchak
    February 27th, 2014 at 23:02 | #15

    This reminds me of long ago, 30 yrs or so, when I did temp work.
    I was sent to type for a man who wanted me to type up some of
    his writings. They were so far away – extremly evangelistic in a
    bad way – from anything I believe in and also attacked certain
    people. I told him that he would have to hire someone else
    to they typing for him. I also told him why.

    • February 27th, 2014 at 23:24 | #16


      I think its all behavior and that you were in your rights not to assist he guy.

  11. Rick Bentley
    February 28th, 2014 at 10:07 | #17

    blue, I see your point about the KKK. But the line does have to be drawn somewhere, doesn’t it? Somewhere in between the KKK and “being gay”?

  12. blue
    February 28th, 2014 at 10:20 | #18


    Good response Scout. Who would have thought that sodomy was a constitutionally protected activity and that it supercedes an individual’s religious right to not support such activity.

    And lets be clear here, I have no objection to the gay lifestyle. I have friends, as they say, who are gay. The issue here is not their protection but the right of another to refuse to engage in an activity that justifies, normalizes or lead creedance to such an activity. Its not about resturants or access to public services – that is just a self serving political lie, any more than it does with religious or racial persecution/discrimination. And, and this would not have come up if several somebodies had not sued over the decision to withhold professional services – just to make a point. Today Punchak, your refusal would have put you and your family at serious financial risk. It has already happened to others.
    Just my view.

    • February 28th, 2014 at 10:41 | #19

      I believe at issue is how much one is required to participate.

      For instance, a favorite outfit in gay bars might arguably be chaps. Nothing more. I am not going to allow someone to come into my bar in just chaps. Not even close. Someone can howl all they want about gay discrimination. Not all gays wear chaps any more than all cowboys wear chaps.

      It’s all about discrimination. It isn’t legal to discriminate. It has nothing to do with sodomy, for God’s sake.

      I also believe that there might be a constitutional right to sodomy under the prenumbra of privacy.

  13. blue
    February 28th, 2014 at 10:23 | #20


    Welcome back Moon? I continue to be concerned that I am not the only conservative that is directed to moderation. Please remove that if a contrary view to the majority on this site is in fact welcome.

    • February 28th, 2014 at 10:43 | #21

      It had nothing to do with conservative point of view. Plenty of people here have a conservative point of view.

    • February 28th, 2014 at 10:46 | #22

      Blue, I removed the moderation default from your name and also from Peterson’s name. Peterson has been polite and has been contributing some good ideas for about a month. I will see how it works out. No problems, we will just consider it a permanent situation.

      Please don’t let me down, guys.

  14. February 28th, 2014 at 20:08 | #23

    How did sodomy become a part of the conversation? Good lord Blue, get your mind out of what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home. Its none of your damn business. Period. Are you so shallow that a relationship is only about sex? How sad for you and your empty relationships. Only someone obsessed with sex would not be able to see the totality of not discriminating against based on their consenting adult relationship.

  15. February 28th, 2014 at 20:11 | #24

    I loved the Jon Stewart episode where it showed the contrite republican who had voted for this offensive law saying he was uninformed when he voted yes.

  16. Rick Bentley
    February 28th, 2014 at 22:23 | #26

    “justifies, normalizes or lead creedance to such an activity”

    A. Homosexuality is an inborn trait, not an activity.
    B. The whole idea that we live in a world where people have to care what you think of them is quaint.

Comments are closed.