Arizona is populated largely by warty, crooked-fingered Christians who were waiting excitedly to eject LGBT people from their restaurants, flower shops, and laundromats until Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed SB 1062.

This is the only conclusion one can draw from the hysterical claims peddled by LGBT activists, business leaders, and several prominent Republicans about the infamous religious liberty bill. If the bill were to have been signed into law, we were led to believe that Arizona’s economic competitiveness and international reputation would have been disastrously diminished.

LINK

In Arizona, GOP Showed It Will Stand Tall And Pass Religious Liberty Legislation

And then they failed. Brewer, and the three who voted for it asked to kill it.

The GOP passed the bill.

Next time (probably in a different state) maybe a silmilar bill will be signed into law.

And if it is it will undoubtably be a Republican Governor who signs it.

Sure, but the point is three of them caved and Brewer was weak.

I see no reason to think there will ever have a different outcome elswhere. They had a golden opporunity and blew it.

Quote: Justme wrote in post #5

---

Sure, but the point is three of them caved and Brewer was weak.

I see no reason to think there will ever have a different outcome elswhere. They had a golden opporunity and blew it.

---

SB 1062

I see no problem with the wording. It's an amendment to their Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which does not discriminate against homosexuals, and calls for solid evidence of religious conviction

It was misrepresented by the left and failed because many on the right have no backbone, brains or both

Quote: Polybius wrote in post #9

---

Quote: Justme wrote in post #8

---

SB 1062
I see no problem with the wording. It's an amendment to their Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which does not discriminate against homosexuals, and calls for solid evidence of religious conviction

It was misrepresented by the left and failed because many on the right have no backbone, brains or both

---

Citizen A: "I regularly attend the North Phoenix Baptist Church. I have solid evidence of my religious convictions. I do not want to be forced to cater and thereby participate in the celebration of a gay wedding which I believe is a sin."

Citizen B: "I regularly attend the South Phoenix Baptist Church. I have solid evidence of my religious convictions. I believe all gays are sinners. I believe the Pope is the Anti-Christ. I believe that Mormons are a cult. As a business owner, based upon my solid religious convictions, I do not want gays or Catholics or Mormons in my restaurants or in my flower shops or in my laundromats or in my motels."

The law needs to say what it means and mean what it says.

Show me how the wording of the proposed Arizona law specifically protects Citizen A while making it clear that it cannot be used by Citizen B to deny entry to gays, Catholics and Mormons to his restaurants, flower shops, laundromats and motels.

If it is not possible to demonstrate that, then the law is either:

1.) A meaningless platitude that would never have protected Citizen A.
2.) A law that is so broad that it is guaranteed to be declared unconstitutional by the Courts and serves no purpose other than to paint the GOP as desiring the religious equivalent of Jim Crow laws.

---