Further Proof the GOP is a Freakshow

There is just something very wrong with these people. Go ahead and defend this RW'ers.

The Republican-controlled Arizona state Senate voted along party lines Wednesday to pass Senate Bill 1062, a measure that would allow businesses to reject service to any customer based on the owners’ religious beliefs.
The bill reads:

"Exercise of religion" means the PRACTICE OR OBSERVANCE OF RELIGION, INCLUDING THE ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially motivated by a religious belief whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief.​

Arizona Democrats, who argue the legislation is a way to legalize discrimination against LGBT individuals, sponsored eight amendments in an attempt to thwart the legislation -- all of which were rejected by Senate Republicans.
"SB 1062 permits discrimination under the guise of religious freedom," state Senate Democratic Leader Anna Tovar said in a statement Wednesday. "With the express consent of Republicans in this Legislature, many Arizonans will find themselves members of a separate and unequal class under this law because of their sexual orientation. This bill may also open the door to discriminate based on race, familial status, religion, sex, national origin, age or disability."
As testament to the bill’s mission, state Sen. Steve Yarbrough (R), one of three lawmakers sponsoring the bill, cited a 2013 New Mexico Supreme Court ruling that banned wedding photographers from refusing to shoot same-sex ceremonies, according to the Associated Press.
"This bill is not about allowing discrimination," Yarbrough said during a nearly two-hour debate on Wednesday. "This bill is about preventing discrimination against people who are clearly living out their faith."

Arizona Sen. Steve Farley (D), another opponent of the controversial bill, said the legislation could have a negative economic impact if it became law.
"I think this bill makes a statement ... that we don't welcome people here," Farley said. "This bill gets in the way, this bill sends the wrong message around the country and around the world."
“I believe our economy is strengthened by different people, and different backgrounds, and different beliefs, and different motivations, coming in and working together in our economy to make this state and this country stronger," he also said. "Discrimination hurts that. It hurts that in so many different ways."
Similar religious liberty bills, which have popped up in response to a series of federal court rulings overturning same-sex marriage bans, were recently quashed in Idaho, Kansas, South Dakota and Tennessee.
Arizona’s SB 1062 now heads to the Republican-majority state House, where it is expected to pass.

 

If a private businesses doesn't want certain customers, so be it.

That said, if potential customers are forbidden entry and service, for whatever reason, they can picket the place (assuming the law allows them to, not always a guarantee), write letters to the local, regional and national newspapers, as well as online forums (assuming the newspapers and forums are unbiased about it, not always a guarantee), and shame them mercilessly in any other way they choose...using their religious freedom (not always guaranteed, even with law saying it is a legal right to do so) to raise awareness on just what the business is doing.

It works both ways.

 

Not real bright.

 

I don't care what some diner decides to discriminate against. That is their problem and they can go out of existence sooner than later. The problem I have is the State sanctioning their behavior.

 

Why is the Right-wing in this country constantly looking for ways to restrict rights for people and using religion as a rationale to do so? I think it comes down to their obsession with anything having to do with sex. The common thread, whether it be the rights of the LGBT community, women's rights, or religion, is sex. They just have a sexual hang up that they can't seem to get over. Puritans!

 

What could go wrong with this? ""Exercise of religion" means the PRACTICE OR OBSERVANCE OF RELIGION, INCLUDING THE ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially motivated by a religious belief whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief."

My religious belief is to kill religionists and this law specifically allows me to act, amen.

 

Playing the "freedom of religion" card is a really massive can of worms.

That law isn't going to last, whether the governor there signs it or not. The feds will step in immediately and stop it from being used.

 

Oh, no. Yet another violent liberal. That's all this forum needs. Well, you'll be right at home with some of the other violent liberals here.

 

Liberals are never violent, they only want what's good for you........
COMPLY

View attachment 2310

 

Doesn't that silly Right-wing meme ever get old for you guys considering it was Republicans that forced women to have medically unnecessary ultrasounds, it is Republicans that want the government to say who can and who can't get married, it is republicans want government to restrict birth control... Oh what the heck, you only want government to control the things you want government to control. Let a more articulate and thoughtful poster put it this way:



They are in an uproar that the government might LIMIT THEIR FREEDOMS!!

They are up in arms about the government intrusion into our PRIVATE LIVES!!

How dare the government think it knows better than WE do what's best for US?!!


Well, except for medical decisions about life and death. Families shouldn't be able to decide these things. Congress needs to come back from vacations when it comes to cases like Terry Schiavo's to make these decisions, because they know best.

And except for things that things they need to protect us from, like marijuana. Their job is to make sure we can't make decisions like that for ourselves.

And except for sex. The government knows better than we do what kind of sex we should have and with whom -- otherwise, consenting adults could do all sorts of things the government knows shouldn't be done.

And exchanges of sex and money. Again, who knows best -- two consenting adults, or the government? Why, the government, of course!

And women's uteruses. Where would this country be if women had control of their own bodies? These are decisions for the government to make.

And we must elect more Republicans to make sure the government supports freedom of religion for all Christian conservatives, including their freedom to discriminate against other religions.

And a few other things -- freedom to slander, freedom to commit war crimes, freedom to threaten the president, freedom to carry assault weapons on playgrounds, freedom to stalk 9/11 widows, murder doctors, bomb clinics, use "second amendment remedies," etc. -- but other than that, Republicans are the party against government intrusion into our private lives!!


So vote Republican or suffer the Democratic big-government intruders who want to FORCE you to pay for socialized fire departments, socialized police forces, socialized military forces, socialized schools, even socialized government-run government, against your will!! Where will they stop?!?

 

Put simply, "We Republicans want government control over the things important to us but if the things are important to Democrats then we scream Government intrusion." That just never gets old.

 

They seem to be frustrated with women, I wonder why.

 

Some of them fail to "comply"...when a man says "comply".

 

Does it seem odd to anyone that the party of Abe Lincoln is the party pushing for liberty and freedom, yet the party of Jimmy Carter and Bubba Clinton are pushing for more and more regulations and restrictions?

No, it doesn't seem odd at all. That's the way it's been for a very long time.

For example, conservatives advocate for less homicide committed in the name of "women's rights" (abortion) while the liberals advocate for regulations and restrictions guarding the option to commit homicide. The "less regulation" stance would simply be one of "do not kill".

Additionally, liberals want more regulations on firearms. They would like to regulate the Second Amendment out of existence. Sorry, liberals but the Constitution has one simple statement that says we have the right to bear firearms. No more regulation is required.

Liberals have also created legislation (Obamacare) that mandates a tax on every individual to buy something that he or she may not want. This is a terrible regulation and sets the precedent for even worse (if that's possible) regulation from the liberals in the future.

Liberals have created very restrictive legislation that gives a president the power to detain American citizens indefinitely and without trial under the guise of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Boy, talk about regulation!

Recently, it's been revealed that the FCC (ultimately overseen by a liberal president) wanted to regulate the airwaves. Just how much more regulation do the liberals want? Lots more, certainly.

No one is advocating for no government. Having no government equals chaos. Conservatives desire limited government in the form of less abuse, less regulations, more freedom and more liberty. Of course, laws preventing things such as homicide should be outlawed; I believe conservatives and even some liberals would agree with that.

But, an obtrusive and overbearing government that the liberals would like to see instituted has already been tried. It failed miserably in the USSR. It failed in Nazi Germany. It's failing in Cuba. It's failing in Venezuela.

Freedom-loving individuals in the US belong to the party of Lincoln, Eisenhower and Reagan; not Carter, Clinton and Obama.

 

So dishonest that it doesn't even merit a response.

 

Just look at what's happening in socialist-controlled Venezuela to give you an idea what liberal regulations are doing to the people there. People there are crying for freedom against the oppressive socialist regime. There are reports that the government is taking away their rights and even killing people. More regulations. More restrictions. More socialism. Is that what you want?

 

Why go past Cuba? Or go back in history to Rome?

 

Hum? I guess when you can't defend the policies of your own party in this country, you have to resort to comparing the other party to a 3rd rate banana republic in South America. When you can't even to talk about the lack of regulations in red states that have caused untold damage to drinking water supplies, air quality, and general environmental devastation, you have to go off-shore to find political policies nowhere near the actual policies of your opposition to whine about. I'm no fan of either extreme Right or extreme Left governments but in this country it is the corporate state that is the problem not some dead dictator is South America. Get real.

 

It's not "some dead dictator". It's a very real problem going on right now with very LIVE people. The problem is a form of government that you support that's causing all the problems in that country. Repression, financial instability, lack of freedom, etc. It is the mentality of the socialists to which I'm so opposed. It leads to nothing but ruin and is manifesting itself quite well in Venezuela as we speak. I pity the suffering people in Venezuela who are rising up against their government. Their socialist rulers are showing they have no compassion for their own people. This is a lesson that seems to be lost on you and the Democrats in our own country. Socialism and liberalism lead to naught but decay and destruction.

Honestly, how many countries have to fail before pie-in-sky liberals learn that their oppressive form of governance is the cause of so much harm? Was the USSR not enough? Now they're dragging Venezuela down, too.

America's flirtation with socialism has been going on too long. It's leading our nation to financial ruin and social collapse. Social Security is going broke. Medicare is going broke. Our nation is in more debt than ever. Businesses are fleeing America for more inviting shores that don't have the repressive policies of unions or other tenets of liberalism. Thankfully, Volkswagen saw the light and voted down the unionization of the plant in Tennessee. That's a glimmer of hope even though the union is fighting back to get their way however they have to do it. It's that type of mentality that is ruining this country and you're simply too blind to see it. Either that or you have a personal financial stake in liberalism. Either way, you don't seem to care that liberals are ruining this great nation.

 

Come on Joe!

Fracking is great unless it's in YOUR neighborhood.