Skip to main content

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer

The bill allowing Arizona businesses to discriminate against gay customers as a matter of religious freedom is likely to hit Republican Gov. Jan Brewer's desk on Monday; once Brewer has the bill, she has five days to act on it. Brewer previously vetoed a similar bill, but its backers are hoping they've changed it enough to gain her support.

Since Brewer hasn't said what she'll do, there's a lot of tea leaf-reading and lobbying going on:

Chuck Coughlin, a public affairs consultant who led Ms. Brewer’s transition team after she was elected governor in 2009 and has remained a close ally, said he was doubtful that she would sign the bill into law, saying, “We already have laws to sufficiently protect people’s religion freedoms in this country, and this bill could actually empower people to discriminate.” [...]

In a letter to Ms. Brewer on Friday, Gonzalo A. de la Melena Jr., president and chief executive of the Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, said the bill, if it becomes law, would “ultimately have the effect of casting Arizona in a negative light that stands to damage our reputation nationwide and globally, and significantly harm our fiscal future.”

No kidding it could damage Arizona's reputation—a reputation already damaged by the state's viciously anti-immigrant law. But I guess if Brewer signed this bill, she and the president of Uganda would really have something to bond over.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 07:32 AM PST.

Also republished by Baja Arizona Kossacks.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I predict, NO. (where is the poll?) (16+ / 0-)

    "The poor can never be made to suffer enough." Jimmy Breslin

    by merrywidow on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 07:36:01 AM PST

  •  At least she's thinking about a veto, and (9+ / 0-)

    I think she has vetoed such nonsense in the past.

    The dossier on my DKos activities during the Bush administration will be presented on February 3, 2014, with an appendix consisting an adjudication, dated "a long time ago", that I am Wrong.

    by Inland on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 07:37:48 AM PST

  •  She's hateful enough, so yes she will sign. (6+ / 0-)
    •  I'm not so sure. (0+ / 0-)

      Gov. Brewer has caught a lot more flack for her past stances and actions than the state Legislature.

      I believe there is a pretty good possibility she has learned the potential for disaster much better than the state Representatives and Senators, and it's obviously to her advantage to get tough now and veto, as she will be the first to reap the rewards that will follow.

      She is tough enough. And she's also smart enough.

      After all, who has 'gaydar' acute enough these days to reliably discern who is gay or straight? Straight folks now sometimes look, sound, and act like gays, even at the extremes. And most gay folks don't appear to be gay any more than us average straight folks.

      There will be some individual businesses that will soon feel the pain of this folly. Some will not survive. Others will wither. There is no sure defense for discrimination, and personal accountability will be found for those who choose to discriminate.

      And God help Arizona's hospitality industry. This law will hit even the old white folks the state is now so dependent on at a time when Arizona is in deep trouble with Hispanics and other minorities. Since this is the second or third losing go-round in a row, this one will stick, and cut deep for as long as the law lasts, and will take much longer for recovery and healing for Arizona's economy.

      Nevada is more than willing to take up the slack, as are Florida and other snowbird states. Brwer knows this, even if the fools in their Capital do not.

      Right many are called, and damn few are chosen.

      by Idaho07 on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 08:53:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I think only the religious wingnuts want this (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aunt Pat, DaveDC, dewtx, tardis10, Matt Z

    bill or the bigots who are hoping they can find a reason to refuse service to minorities too.

    I think there are Republicans in the state who do not want this bill for financial reasons, because their business would suffer and this is not good PR for the state.  Chances are businesses would suffer in AZ, particularly hotels and restaurants that are often booked for conventions, conferences, vacations and more.  As people will find another state to have their convention or go on vacation. Or the Super Bowl could be moved to another state and so much more.

    Keystone Liberals on Twitter @ KeystoneLibs , Join PA Liberals at

    by wishingwell on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 07:39:21 AM PST

  •  Gov. better hurry to ger enacted before Spring (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aunt Pat, GrindtheHills, annieli, Ellid, Matt Z

    Training.  All those Baseball players and fans coming to town may want to buy a hamburger. Businesses won't know who to hate.

  •  Glad we took our kids to the Grand Canyon (9+ / 0-)

    about 8 years ago because I never want to set foot in that state again.

    •  Don't use a big tar brush. (0+ / 0-)

      Not all of the state thinks or acts like the Phoenix area. I know several Arizonans, and the state is far from being uniformly conservative or evangelical.

      Phoenix is the hotbed for most of Arizona's troubles, and even Phoenix is far from united in it's beliefs. The further one gets away from the Sun Valley, the different the rest of the state becomes in all things.

      Don't tar the entire state with big generalizations. That's the way Republicans do things, not Democrats.
      Use some wisdom and keep a sense of humanity in your opposition. You don't want to hurt the innocent along with the guilty.

      Right many are called, and damn few are chosen.

      by Idaho07 on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 09:05:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Ah, yes, Turn the gay away! and our money, too (5+ / 0-)

    Brilliant move of economic self-destruction, as well, as moral derangement on the part of the "We Hate The Gays, so We Will Legislate Homosexuality Away" crowd.

    Turn Arizona 100% Blue.

    "Out of Many, One Nation." This is the great promise of the United States of America -9.75 -6.87

    by Uncle Moji on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 07:40:39 AM PST

    •  Jan will exempt "White Gayz with Money" n/t (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      •  Well, that applies to a small group, what about (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        rest of us?  Who aren't white, rich, or (my sisters) not men.

        Deny us service at restaurants, or hotels, or police or ambulance or hospitals, or let our houses burn down...

        This is the most antediluvian law since, well, pre-arkaic.  

        "Out of Many, One Nation." This is the great promise of the United States of America -9.75 -6.87

        by Uncle Moji on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 08:41:12 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not only that, if AridZona cabbies are anything (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          like the ones here, they'll be invitin a whole can of Sharia Law whupass to be unleashed on passengers. Especially the ladies.
          (I think archaic is the word youre going for.)

        •  My Question about all this (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          is HOW will a business owner, (or a worker in the business) decide who is gay and who is not? Is there some litmus test that will expose a gay couple, or will my friend (a widow) and I, (also a widow) who used to travel to AZ yearly be mistaken for a gay couple and denied service at a hotel or restaurant, particularly since we always share a room.?
            It is for this reason that neither of us want to return to AZ until saner minds prevail, and maybe not even then, since the clowns who voted for this insane law are still there and so are their followers.

  •  and how will AZ businesses "know" their customers (11+ / 0-)

    are LGBT in order to deny them service

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013 (@eState4Column5).

    by annieli on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 07:41:00 AM PST

    •  "My religious requires me to discriminate (12+ / 0-)

      against anyone who looks like they might be one of those people."

      As a woman who often wears slacks, and has fairly short hair, I'd probably be at risk of being mistaken for gay.

      Frankly, that's fine with me -- I wouldn't want to patronize a store or restaurant where my lesbian friends wouldn't be welcome.

      •  It is not really "fine," though. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dewtx, swampyankee

        Such discrimination needs to be stamped out, no matter where it comes from.  If that happened to me, I would insist, and then file a grievance against the establishment.  Online review sites are also a good place to tell others about it.  Once they get hurt in the pocket book, these racists/homophobes might be shamed into closeting their views again and issuing half-hearted apologies "to those I have hurt with my thoughtless comments."

      •  *I've* been taken for a lesbian (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        annieli, swampyankee

        solely because I went to Smith and occasionally go shopping in downtown Northampton with female friends.  It's ludicrous.

        This isn't freedom. This is fear - Captain America

        by Ellid on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 08:49:50 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  doesn't this law allow more than just LGBT (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      discrimination?   I thought the law didn't even mention gay... so it is wholesale discrimination being allowed...I could say my religion doesn't allow me to serve veterans or military  because I am a strict pacifist  who doesn't approve of violence ... or I am a strict Jew and I won't service people wearing cotton and wool together ..or some equally ridiculous piece of nonsense ... (I realize this would be bad business but so is trying to guess which customers are gay so you can refuse to serve them)

      This law is just like the Stand your Ground law .. it makes a person the absolute authority on whether another person can be treated like a constitutionally protected citizen

      Give your heart a real workout! Love your enemies!

      by moonbatlulu on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 12:06:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  OTOH (0+ / 0-)

        I have been in a women's bookstore where a clerk refused to serve a man and one of her colleagues had to step in to ring up the sale

        Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013 (@eState4Column5).

        by annieli on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 12:11:23 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  And I think the Gov knows it would paint AZ as (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aunt Pat, GrindtheHills, AJayne, dewtx, TofG, Jay C

    being even more extreme, unwelcoming and hostile than it all ready is with their " show me your papers" policies.

    I was boycotting AZ before this for their discrminatory policies and laws.

    Keystone Liberals on Twitter @ KeystoneLibs , Join PA Liberals at

    by wishingwell on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 07:41:15 AM PST

  •  I don't think she wants a national boycott (10+ / 0-)

    of her state to be unleashed so I think she will not sign it.
    She is a wingnut, but she has a practical streak.

    It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

    by Radiowalla on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 07:41:28 AM PST

  •  Understand that this bill as written, (14+ / 0-)

    if signed into law, will give businesses license to discriminate against ANYONE, not just our LGBT brothers and sisters, under the guise of religious freedom.  For example:  if a jewish customer walks into a shop and the shopkeeper's "religion" views jewish people as evil, well then, no soup for you!  Or if a woman goes to a restaurant unescorted by a man, and the owner's "religion" believes such behavior is sinful, well then, just turn around and get out, trollop!

    You get my point.  It's Jim Crow, 21st century style, and we need to call it what it is:  an attempt to legalize discrimination.

    The older I get and the more I learn, the more ready I will be to fucking trash your bullshit position.

    by TigerMom on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 07:42:18 AM PST

    •  I imagine a lot of Arizona shopkeepers (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aunt Pat, AJayne, TigerMom, dewtx, Jay C

      ...will find some religious reason why they shouldn't serve Hispanics.

      America, we can do better than this...

      by Randomfactor on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 07:59:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not so much Jim Crow (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TigerMom, tardis10

      as it is American Taliban.

      The most violent element in society is ignorance.

      by Mr MadAsHell on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 08:45:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Might as well rename Phoenix to New Salem. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TigerMom, AJayne

      We've gone through periods of religious hypermania at various locations in our country before, with usually bad results--the Salem witch trials in 1692-93 being one of the most infamous. Suppose some religious group in Arizona says it's their religious duty to burn witches and other religious undesirables (using their own religious criteria of course). The authorities would probably prevent that, but not the religious dogma, hatred and bigotry behind it all. If Gov. Brewer doesn't veto this it will be a disaster for Arizona.

      But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, ... there are few die well that die in a battle; ... Now, if these men do not die well, it will be a black matter for the king that led them to it; — Shakespeare, ‘Henry V’

      by dewtx on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 08:52:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Even worse, it applies to individual employees (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Laurel in CA

      regardless of any company's policies to the contrary.  Yes, that means that an employee at CVS/walgreens/etc could not only legally discriminate but sue the company and win if they were fired for violating the company's strict anti-discrimination policies.

      You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

      by Throw The Bums Out on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 09:39:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Go ahead and sign it.....I dare ya. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aunt Pat, chicago minx, FrugalWorld
  •  Send the Gov an email (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aunt Pat, deh

    Gov. Brewer's email

    If you don't live in Arizona you can always mention not spending any tourist dollars in her state if she signs the bill.

  •  The fact (9+ / 0-)

    that this POS bill was even passed is a giant stain on Arizona.
    I hope this has a huge negative impact.

    Maybe then the people in Arizona will wake up and elect non-evil people.

    However, I doubt it.

    In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move. - Douglas Adams

    by warlock on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 07:44:05 AM PST

  •  The witch. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aunt Pat

    “I’ll give you my broom when you take it from my cold, dead bony fingers!”

    Jan Brewer

  •  in a high scoring no defense game (3+ / 0-)

    the last team with the ball wins

    so I predict that the last person who talks to her is the advice she will follow.

    if she hears from the wingnuts last, the bill will be signed

    i can't trust Bonefinger to do the right thing on her own.  she'll bounce back and forth like a ping pong ball between the RWNJs and the business interests

    Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
    Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights to talk about grief.

    by TrueBlueMajority on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 07:47:41 AM PST

  •  Arizona: The Nutty Professor in the laboratory (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aunt Pat, ebohlman

    of democracy.

  •  Will Ariz. be 1st to institute Sharia Law? (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    drmah, Aunt Pat, AJayne, Mr MadAsHell, dewtx

    We'll soon find out!

  •  Probably shouldn't give them any ideas but.. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Caniac41, Aunt Pat

    Brewer/Haley 2016

    If you're going to go down in flames - Do it spectacularly

    Dear future generations: Please accept our apologies, We were roaring drunk on petroleum -Kurt Vonnegut

    by Anthony Page aka SecondComing on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 07:49:47 AM PST

  •  Another UNConstitutional NeoNazi Teabagger Law (7+ / 0-)

    just waitng to be struck down by the courts as UNConstitutional.

    Teabaggers dont belong in a representative democracy where the Constitution and the Rule of Law have been embraced by most -- they claim they believe in liberty, but they clearly want people of color, gays, women, the poor, and other citizens to have NO rights.

  •  NFL would have to move the Super Bowl (7+ / 0-)

    Business community in Arizona will go insane if she doesn't veto.

    Is it true this is an ALEC project? Very bizarre if so.

    •  No not ALEC (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AJayne, Aunt Pat, dewtx

      more like Family Research Council or one of their brethren.. the bill in Kansas is very similar and other RWNJ states are writing these bills with the help of these RWNJ Groups.

      Why do Republicans Hate Americans?

      by Caniac41 on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 08:08:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  So was the Idaho bill. (0+ / 0-)

        It was killed in the Senate here, but it passed the House.
        For more practical reasons. Idahoans are sick and tired of paying for failed lawsuit defense. Our wing nuts were wing nuts before Arizona had many, and we racked up more millions due to their follies before Arizona did.

        It's a big financial deal in this year's primaries right now, along with some other Republican financial hanky-panky. Some Repubs will be replaced by other Repubs with cleaner hands and reputations come the general election in the fall.

        Right many are called, and damn few are chosen.

        by Idaho07 on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 09:15:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  It blows my mind (4+ / 0-)

    that this is even debatable.  I know, however, that with Republicans, all bets are pretty much off.   If she signs it, maybe some people can exercise their "religious freedom" to turn away and refuse service to backers of this law?

  •  Notice how they're concerned about the fiscal (9+ / 0-)

    repercussions on the state, but not it's soul?

    Ted Cruz president? Pardon my Vietnamese, but Ngo Pho King Way.

    by ZedMont on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 07:57:43 AM PST

  •  she will veto it. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Paul Ferguson, Aunt Pat, Mr MadAsHell

    she has a practical side.  i think it gets the veto.  

  •  "We Don't Take Too Kindly to Your Kind!" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aunt Pat

    Time to return Arizona to Mexico and let the white, rich, ultra- conservative, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynistic bigots and assholes live as a racial minority among people they despise and exploit.

    •  Mexico wouldn't have them (0+ / 0-)

      Mexico has enough problems without taking our crazies off our hands.

      "Education is the key to unlock the golden door of freedom." -- G.W.Carver

      by northbronx on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 08:54:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Don't fall victim to generalities. (0+ / 0-)

      Arizona lives and dies with it's dependence on snowbirds in much of the state. When the geezers are bigots, they bring their bigotry with them when they fill the winter retirement spots, and take it back home when summer arrives.

      Many Arizona citizens have to accommodate them out of necessity more than their personal beliefs. Arizona has been getting increasingly hot, so they are already feeling the effects of too early, too hot spring weather; Florida is already getting too many former Arizona snowbirds, and the trend of choosing Florida has spread throughout the west for some time now.

      Arizona can ill afford more desertions of any sexuality. It's all economics now, even if the native's hearts are in the right (or wrong) place. Gadzillions of dollars of heavy investments make it so.

      Right many are called, and damn few are chosen.

      by Idaho07 on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 09:24:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  She'll veto (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dave in Northridge

    But it does bring up some interesting issues, though, at least for me. I'm Jewish, and if I walked into baker's, asking him or her to bake me a cake for my Jewish wedding, and the baker says, "Look, I only bake wedding cakes for Christian marriages. It's my thing. But you're welcome to buy one of these nice cakes I have in the store," I think I'd actually be ok with that. It's the artisan/artist part of me that says I shouldn't have to create for something I'm not into. That said, as a business, I need to be open to all, and sell my wares to whomever wants to buy them. Can I sell what's in the store? Can I refuse to provide creative expressions to people I don't like? Some people are members of a protected class, so I can turn away one group, but not another? For example, I wouldn't want to bake a cake for some white supremacist's marriage, who happens to be part of a white supremacist church. Is it religious discrimination if I don't bake him a cake? Since white supremacists aren't a protected class, can I turn him away?

    I realize this is tricky territory. Is there a line? Where is it?

    •  If your business is baking cakes (0+ / 0-)

      How does the ideology of your customer even enter into it? A couple comes to you, says, "We want a wedding cake for 200 people. The colors are black and white, and we will pick it up on ___ date. Oh, and by the way, we're white supremacist bigots."


      You bake a cake and take their payment and move on to the cake for the next customer.

      How would that violate you in any way?

    •  I think if what you have to put on the cake (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CPT Doom, Peace Missile

      violates standards of decency, you should not be made to participate.  So, for instance, if a known KKK or neo Nazi group asks for a wedding cake and they want to have you put swastikas on it, or a noose,  you should not be made to go along with it.  At that point local laws will protect your stance.   But, if the cake is a typical wedding cake (bride and groom, hearts) then, as a business, there should be no cause to deny service, even to those we disagree with politically, on the basis of humanitarian issues.  

      •  Response to a specific is not discriminatory (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Cali Scribe

        The key distinction in your example, and it is important for anti-discrimination laws, is that the owner would be responding to a specific request by a specific customer. Such a response cannot be "discrimination" because it is not about refusing service to anyone from a certain category, but a specific individual, who has taken specific actions.

        You also wouldn't need to bake a cake for your ex-wife's wedding to her new husband, the one who was having the affair with her when you divorced.

        OTOH, if a business owner really doesn't want to serve "those kinds" and doesn't want to run afoul of anti-discrimination laws, there are myriad ways to accomplish that. The problem the cake bakers and photogs, etc., who have been subject to anti-discrimination complaints is that they felt the need to broadcast their hate and prove their "righteousness." Idiots.

        Cruelty might be very human, and it might be very cultural, but it's not acceptable.- Jodie Foster

        by CPT Doom on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 08:51:18 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I love your thinking! (0+ / 0-)

      Are you a rabbi, perhaps? The artist in me also would not be happy with baking a cake, or planning a wedding, or a christening party for a member of the KKK or a paramilitary group. Would I turn them away? I don't know. I would probably suggest that I had too much other work and would refer them to someone else, preferably someone I knew that might not mind doing a job for a person that I couldn't serve in good conscience.

  •  Can she really sign this in the absence of Gaydar (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dave in Northridge, dewtx

    calibration stations?

    Wouldn't want people turning away run-of-the-mill hedonists, aldulterers, pedophiles, lawyers and politicians.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 08:09:03 AM PST

  •  I expect she'll veto this (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aunt Pat, Mr MadAsHell

    She knows it'll never stand in court and will be an economic and P.R. disaster for the state.

    She is a frightening looking woman, though. She looks like the Crypt Keeper in drag.

  •  I suggest Brewer read editorial in Sun Indpls STAR (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aunt Pat, a2nite

    Reaction about Indiana Legislature's attempt to push prohibiting Gay Marriage into a Constitutional Amendment is that the LBGT issue will be the thing that splits the Republican Party was the general conscience of several writers.

    Go ahead, Brewer, sign this bill so the moderate Republicans who wish their state to be business friendly can get support for finally splitting from the crazies running the GOP party.

  •  I hope she doesn't veto it (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AJayne, Aunt Pat, oldmaestro

    That way, we'd get to identity ALL the bigots who write for op-ed pages by how they react to the signing of the bill.

    It might also do wonders for Democratic GOTV efforts. Let your tea party flag fly, Jan.

    (yes, I signed the petition - this is a "what-if" comment)

  •  Let her sign it (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AJayne, Aunt Pat, BluejayRN

    It will only speed up the process of adding perceived sexual orientation and/or gender identity as a protected class.

  •  I saw (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aunt Pat

    her on TV last night. I thought my wallet had grown a mouth.

  •  No, she will not. Next question?/ (0+ / 0-)

    There is no existence without doubt.

    by Mark Lippman on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 08:24:28 AM PST

  •  I think she will veto it (0+ / 0-)

    This seems like a law that will be overturned quickly by a federal court on constitutional basis, so why stick your neck out when it doesn't stick anyway?

    Unfortunately, she will probably say that she vetoes it because the language of the loose bill makes discrimination against anyone possible, which will then prompt the bill writers to come up with yet another version of it soon enough, this time narrowing the target.    

  •  The fact that this "Gorgon of the Desert" (0+ / 0-)

    (as my friend and former AZ resident Don calls her) hasn't already registered even one word of comment about this bill is a HUGE FAIL for her.  She obviously believes that there are two sides to the "should there be genocide against the LGBT community" question and, in order to be fair, she has to carefully weigh both sides.  What a total waste of humanity.

    "One of the boss' hangers-on sometimes comes to call, at times you least expect. Tryin' to bully you, strongarm you, inspire you with fear--it has the opposite effect."--Bob Dylan, "Floater"

    by oldmaestro on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 08:43:01 AM PST

  •  Arizona has taken a beating (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, crankypatriot, tardis10, The Marti

    financially in recent years by people like me not spending tourist dollars there AND corporations avoiding the joint for conventions and the like.

    I cannot say what Brewer will do (hell, she might endorse Obama for all I know), but she has made a move or two lately that suggests that she's insane but not absolutely crazy.

    Suspecting Brewer is looking forward to political office after Governor of AZ, I expect she'll veto the bill.

    Suddenly, it dawns on me, Earnest T. Bass is the intellectual and philosophical inspiration of the TeaParty.

    by Nebraska68847Dem on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 08:44:35 AM PST

  •  Hope she signs it (3+ / 0-)

    Jan Brewer should sign the bill as it would benefit Colorado.

  •  She will Veto the gay away (nt) (0+ / 0-)

    "Woe unto ye beetles of South America." -- Charles Darwin, about to sail on The Beagle, 1831

    by Katakana on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 08:51:48 AM PST

  •  I Dare Her To Sign That Piece of Crap! (0+ / 0-)

    To end your political career (no big loss there) sign right here.

  •  Brewer has already missed her moment (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hazel Flagg, tardis10

    to make this right.  As I think about it more, I realize that all this waiting around is giving out the message that the bill is something worth consideration.  She should have vetoed it instantly, with a forceful message to the state's legislature to get back to tending to the state's real business.

    It's too late to fully reclaim any honor for Arizona.  

    It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

    by Radiowalla on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 08:57:28 AM PST

  •  it's okay if they sign this. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dave Barnes, Jay C

    The business Arizona will lose (Conventions, tourists,
    conferences) will go to states that aren't bigoted jerks.

    Also, as painful as it is to be discriminated against,
    I think it will not last very long.

    Arizona has done a lot of stupid stuff, they will reverse this.

    I don't want to in any way endorse their actions, i just
    think it will politically drive change because it will
    make it obvious how backwards and wrong this kind
    of discrimination is.

    I think once Arizona starts getting squeezed they will dump
    this stupidity or it will drive political change even in Arizona.

  •  Jim Crow (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Why doesn't the AZ legislature just put African Americans in the back of the bus and make Jewish citizens wear gold stars while they're at it?  At least they'd be honest about it and not cloak themselves in "freedom."

  •  A true leader leads (0+ / 0-)

    If Jan Brewer were a true leader, she would have been out in front of this arguing against it as unnecessary and divisive.  She isn't, so I fear that she might let it become law by not acting on it.  

  •  Guess it all depends on (0+ / 0-)

    whether or not she'll get clearance to land her broom before the deadline.

  •  The Negro Motorist Green Book (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    African-American travelers faced a variety of dangers and inconveniences, ranging from white-owned businesses refusing to serve them or repair their vehicles, to being refused accommodation or food by white-owned hotels

    "I think that gay marriage is something that should be between a man and a woman.” - Arnold Schwarzenegger 2003

    by kerplunk on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 12:19:41 PM PST

  •  3 Republicans who voted for it, want a veto. (0+ / 0-)

    Yes, you read that right. Three of the state Senators who voted for SB 1062 want Brewer to veto the bill.

    "We feel it was a solution in search of a problem," Sen. Bob Worsley, R-Mesa, said in an impromptu news conference outside the state Senate. He was joined by Sen. Steve Pierce, R-Prescott.

    The two, along with Senate Majority Whip Adam Driggs, R-Phoenix, sent Brewer a letter this morning asking for a veto. [...]

    Pierce and Worsley said the bill was moved along very quickly, not giving them enough time to convince fellow lawmakers to vote against it.

    (Remind anyone of the Patriot Act???)

    But just when you think Republicans have come to their senses, the next sentence says otherwise:

    Besides, Pierce said, they didn’t want to “tear apart” the GOP caucus, which was sharply divided last year over Brewer’s push for Medicaid expansion.
    More at

    [More at:

    •  So according to Pierce, Worsley and Driggs (0+ / 0-)

      they were for it before they were against it. Humm.. and Brewer's refusal to comment either way says that she's secretly for it, but knows it would be bad for AZ business. Humm..Guess I'll avoid travel to AZ regardless of how Jan Brewer votes. Who wants to spend money in a state where legislators second-guess themselves and are too stupid to realize how damaging a law is likely to be before voting in favor of it. The entire state can do without my money or my presence.

  •  Brewer Must Know This Bill Is Unconstitutional (0+ / 0-)

    Gov. Brewer must know that there is no way that this bill will survive a constitutional challenge in federal court if she signs it into law.

    The Supreme Court ruled in Romer v. Evans (1996) that states cannot single out LGBT citizens for exclusion from the constitutionally protected rights and privileges enjoyed by all other Americans.


  •  Ouch (0+ / 0-)

    I have bleeding retinas.


    We'll see how much political courage she has. I'm betting she'll fold to prevent conservative losses during future elections.

  •  My comment to Governor Brewer on a petition (0+ / 0-)

    Governor Brewer, please reject this bill outright.

    I don't understand how this bill was considered, let alone passed. First and foremost, it legalizes inequality. There is no question, regardless of opinion, that we do not allow or promote inequality of any kind in the United States. This basic fundamental principle outweighs any and every attempt to promote or permit legislated inequality.

    Second, the implementation and consequences of the bill were clearly not considered, and as such the reason for the bill is plain and simple bigotry and homophobia.

    1) How does a person refusing service to another prove he or she is refusing the service based on religious belief and not simple bigotry and dislike?

    2) If a person refused service wants to question the validity of religion being the reason for rejection, can it be done? If so, how? If not, discrimination without basis has been established by law.

    3) How does a person refusing service to another determine the person(s) refused service is gay?

    4) Is the person refusing service required to inform the person being refused service the reason for refusal?

    5) How does a person who has been refused service prove he or she is not gay?

    6) If a person refused service denies he or she is gay, must the service be provided?

    7) Does the legislation only apply to Christians or to all religions, or even specific other religions, excluding others?

    From these questions and the inability to provide acceptable answers to them I believe it is impossible to execute the bill's intent without it permitting indiscriminate discrimination. The precedent set is without question illegal. If passed, the bill opens the door to increasingly radical measures that allow discrimination by Americans of other Americans and rejects our constitutional guarantee of equality to all.

    I cannot imagine the amount of blind hatred required to make a representative of the people believe this legislation is even allowable for consideration.

    I hope that you, Governor Brewer, are not as indifferent to the repulsiveness of and dangerous precedents set by SB 1062 as other representatives in Arizona have proven themselves to be.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site