Originally Posted By: IvyLeague
Saw this coming. She has no backbone.

Arizona governor vetoes bill on denying services to gays
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a...d08b_story.html



It calls to mind the standard line gay marriage supporters routinely use. The one about how gay marriage doesn't have any affect on those who don't agree with it. Yet, for example, we've seen florists, bakers, photographers, and other businesses who didn't want to provide services for gay weddings because it went against their religious beliefs sued in several states. But don't expect gay marriage supporters to condemn this or retract their previous argument. They never cared about so called gay rights infringing on people's first Amendment rights related to their religion one bit. In fact, they likely take pleasure and satisfaction in all this. It's why the gays in those lawsuits didn't just go find another florist, baker, photographer, etc. Oh no, they have to make a statement. Much like when gay marriage supporters printed names of Prop 8 donors and even went to their homes. The people who are pushing and supporting this agenda are among the lowest of the low.



This proposed legislation was one of the most offensive, unchristian, unamerican pieces of garbage ever regurgitated by a legislative body. What made it especially hideous was that it was nothing more than attempt to legitimize hatred and prejudice through legislation that pretended to be promoting religious (and when Arizona says :religious," it means only right wingChristian) concerns and values.

This just proves the hypocricy of the right wing Christian lie, "We love the sinner, but hate the sin." Notice how the legislation pretends to aim at the universal concern of not forcing religious people to conduct business with those whose beliefs and practices offend their beliefs, but it then narrowly limits its application to gays. Religious people may have beliefs that they should also be offended by thieves, whoremongers, etc., but you can only discriminate against gays.

Moreover, I'm still trying to find that passage in the New Testament where Christ, who broke bread with prostitutes and all kinds of sinners, said that it was okay for merchants to deny gays, or for that matter, lepers, harlots, Roman tax collectors, etc., food, clothing, medical care, which the proposed legislation would have allowed merchants to do.

The religious right, which was the architect of this bigotry, as it coincidentally and contemporaneously arose in other state houses, withot there being a public call for it, seems unable to understand their Jesuss warning, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." This proposed legislation not only pisses all over that sentiment, but it was an attempt to pass out the stones.