Arizona Gov. Vetoes Anti-gay Bill

The Arizona Governor was in a no win situation and with heavy hitters like the NFL threatening to pull out the 2014/2015 SuperBowl and Apple Computer which was or is building a huge building there and potentially more then any Politician or Governor would have no choice than make the decision that was made.    

Interesting though that the Homosexual community or many activist which was so down on Arizona for that bill had no problem and have no problem with a Gay Bar in LA telling any politician (from Arizona or anywhere else) that votes for legislation that is considered anti-gay that they are not welcome or won't be served in their establishment and therefore not to come.   

Essentially that is exactly the same thing that the Bill was attempting to protect ( only from a legal standpoint ) in Arizona.  Also you have to consider it was a very small few that was targeted and had to do with services associated with a gay wedding and not because someone was gay.   In other words if a homosexual person was to have ordered a cake or a service then they would not have been refused or rejected but when it was specifically for a homosexual marriage, something that the person felt was against their personal conviction, then they were just saying they didn't want to sanction it or be a part of it.   

I could be wrong but the way I saw it it wasn't a case of a person being denied service on the fact that they were gay but rather the (religious) person didn't want to be forced to be a part of the ceremony that they considered wrong and the Arizona bill (as I understood it) was just applied to protecting them from litigation in courts account of that stand of following through on their convictions.

Hobby Lobby and Chick Fil A are both very large Christian owned companies and there are many more and none of them, to my knowledge, have refused service or refused to sell to someone because they were Gay yet from the response of the media and many others across the Nation it seems the way it was represented that it was every Christian seeking to somehow get Victorian on homosexuals and as you allude to it extend that to all sinners.  Frankly I think it's been overblown and certainly with that Gay Bar in LA telling anyone that was for the bill to take a hike and that they weren't welcome is exactly the same as the Christian was doing with the gay marriage party.  So why the pass for the gay bar?

As a Christian, past post verifying that, I have never promoted treating Homosexuals any different than anyone else.  I had no problem with them having benefits the same as a married couple but only stated that when it came to the term Marriage as from a Biblical position and standpoint that I was not in agreement with that and making or forcing a priest or minister to perform such a ceremony when it was certainly against their belief and their Ministry's principals.  As long as it wasn't forced down my throat and in  my face I never cared to give it a thought or care for it's not my place to go judging others as to whether they are a sinner or not but rather judge my own self.   More and more though it seems that some, in the Homosexual community, aren't content with being treated equal or being respected they want to push it on others and frankly it's turning my thoughts on the whole issue around and if put on the ballot I'm far more inclined to vote anti-gay issues today than at any time in the past where I would have been more inclined to vote for acceptance and it's all because of the great hypocrisy that is being done as well as the "in your face" attitude being advanced more today.

This was terrible legislation that would have opened the doors to all types of discrimination and not just against gays.  And it wasn't just about refusing a wedding cake or flowers!

Grbk, if I'm not mistaken, that was a pizza parlor in Arizona who posted the sign about not serving legislators. Also, most people in the gay community are not trying to shove it in your face. I think the media does a lot more harm by constantly putting the stories out there. Even I get tired of it.

However, if the media ignored it and  were silent, most people would never know that there is a problem with equal rights and discrimination. As the great writer Flannery O'Connor once said, sometimes you have to hit people over the head with something to get them to see it.                                              

I remember when cab drivers in New York said they would not pickup people who were carrying booze they bought at the airport customs free store. Said it was against their religion. But of course they were from India and of course they were given the right not to do that. Can a Muslim store now be forced to sell pork due to this ruling? Will Doctors have to perform abortions no matter what their religion says? And where in the AZ bill did it say it was Anti-gay?

Your statement about the pizza restaurant owner is correct but happened a while back, I think.  The incident I as speaking of is much more contemporary and in fact coincides with the Arizona Law.  The Hypocrisy about it all is that the media would never have you know or hear about the bar in LA but have no problem reporting about someone in a pizza restaurant, a baker, or whatever that happens to not want to be a part of a Homosexual wedding.  

Here is the link for the bar:  http://www.latimes.com/local/l....story#axzz2uanqFXNF

As for the Arizona legislation I really, to this date, don't know what exactly the bill was for or said.  I do though doubt that anyone here has the full story and there certainly has been precedent of even a major News Network manufacturing a story or adding something that wasn't there, such as NBC's reporting of Rodney King and the constructive editing of the 911 call and piecing it together to make it seem that Zimmerman was racist.   

Lest folks get the impression that only NBC distorts the news to attract viewers, let's not forget Faux News Network (FOX)....

I don't doubt that there are employees at all stations that would potentially attempt to make news conform to a predetermined agenda but NBC was one of the most blatant examples.  In this Bills case take the URL/link source that Semi cited.  CNN labeled the bill, as many other outlets did, an anti-gay bill.  That's not only misleading and not factual but attempts to steer the viewer and/or reader into a conclusion that the station wants them to have.  

The intent of the bill was to protect a person's Religious rights or protect a person who is making a decision based on a very personal belief based upon their Religious beliefs.  It was announced as an anti-gay bill because one of the most recent happenings dealt with a Christian who didn't want to be involved in a gay marriage event due to their personal belief that gay marriage is wrong.  There is a basis, from Scripture, to define gay marriage or the acts of homosexuality as being sinful.  This, though, is viewed and defined by Gay advocates and our news media outlets as "Hateful" toward gays or anti-gay.  It's not the individual that the scriptures condemns but the act being performed.  

The point is that the bill was NOT anti-gay as defined by CNN, an obviously biased news network, in their reporting.  It was to protect people from litigation that could be brought on by people who are offended that another person denied them service due to their Religious principals.  The same bill would have protected the Bar who excluded people based upon perception that they were against homosexuality.  

Consider this as well.  The same mentality as used to stop this bill or overturn it, to veto it, could be in play to force a person, a Christian believer, into accepting a mark on their forehead or arm in order to shop or do business at some point in the future.   There will be many (right or wrong) who because of their Religious beliefs, beliefs in scriptures about the "Mark of the Beast" that Christians are forewarned will come in latter days, that whoever takes it will bring ****ation upon themselves.  People will thus refuse, on religious grounds, to accept that mark.  It's not a far reach to extend Government control over people to force them into accepting that type a mark even though it violate s their Religious principals.  This bill was similar in that it was to protect people who were practicing their Religious principals into not being in legal jeopardy for acting on those principals.

The media and CNN just makes it as if it's a solely anti-gay bill and CNN and most other outlets, sold the public and everyone else on that very emphasis.  

As always I could be wrong but if there is someone that believes I am wrong please cite exact wording or link to the exact bills wording that proves it anti-gay or even specifically targeting gays and homosexuals?    I don't think you will find the wording although if you go by the media and the way it's been presented to America in general you would think it was all about targeting Gays.

this bill was about nothing short of segregation. you can call it 'religious freedom' all you want, but it took away rights from a section of the people based on religion. something expressly forbidden in our CONSTITUTION. you remember.. that document the regressives are always talking about. the one they say 'obama's destroying'. yea, that one!

A Harley rider is passing the National Zoo in Washington, DC when he sees a little girl leaning into the lion’s cage.

Suddenly, a huge, hungry lion reaches out and grabs her by the cuff of her jacket and tries to pull her inside his cage.

The biker jumps off his Harley, sprints past the little girl’s screaming parents to the cage and punches the lion square on the nose.

The stunned lion releases the little girl and staggers backward, whimpering in pain. The biker snatches the little girl back to safety and returns her to her terrified parents who thank him endlessly.

A reporter for the Washington Post witnessed the whole event. “Sir,” he says to the Harley rider, “that was the bravest, most gallant thing I’ve seen a man do in my entire life.’

“Why, it was nothing, really,” says the Harley rider modestly. “The lion was behind bars. I saw this little girl in danger and I just reacted instinctively.”

“Well, I’ll make sure your heroism won’t go unnoticed,” the reporter responds. “I’m a reporter for the Washington Post and I’ll make sure this story is on the front page of tomorrow’s paper. Tell me what do you do for a living and what political affiliation is.”

“I’m a U.S. Marine,” the biker says proudly, “and a Republican.”

The journalist leaves.

The following morning the biker buys the Washington Post to see news of his actions and sees this headline on the front page:

US MARINE ASSAULTS AFRICAN IMMIGRANT AND STEALS HIS LUNCH

I have seen that story before Best, an all too accurate description of todays new outlets.

We don't hear ONE word from the lefties on this forum when msnbc and the other leftist outlets,(can't really call them news outlets) just makes up/distorts/outright lies and calls it news. Why is that? Really curious about it. 

because you're too blinded by your hatred to see? that's my guess!

=====================

Just like when msnbc altered those tapes. That should have brought down a firestorm of investigations, fines, firings, and charges on them. They went on their merry way, and then called the woman that shot the intruder that had her backed into a closet IN HER OWN HOME, "trigger happy". They jerked that off the net pretty fast, but they weren't fast enough. Again, nothing said to them and they're still doing business at the same old stand. She should sue their ***** off. 

The intent of the bill was to protect a person's Religious rights or protect a person who is making a decision based on a very personal belief based upon their Religious beliefs.  It was announced as an anti-gay bill because one of the most recent happenings dealt with a Christian who didn't want to be involved in a gay marriage event due to their personal belief that gay marriage is wrong.  There is a basis, from Scripture, to define gay marriage or the acts of homosexuality as being sinful.  This, though, is viewed and defined by Gay advocates and our news media outlets as "Hateful" toward gays or anti-gay.  It's not the individual that the scriptures condemns but the act being performed. 

===================

This is beyond stupid, on both sides. It's not like there aren't a hundred places to get a wedding cake that don't give a flip about who is getting married as long as it is two consenting adults. On the other side, how do these places, that are so afraid of gay people, know who they're selling cakes to when a "straight" couple walks in? Is she a stripper? Is she a prostitute? Is he her pimp? Is he a drug dealer? Is she knocked up outside of wedlock? Have they been "living in sin" and/or popped out kids without being married? Are they divorced from other people and therefore, according to their bible, committing adultery by getting married to each other? Is it that some "sins" are acceptable but others aren't?  Maybe they need a "sin questionnaire" that people have to fill out before they order their cake. But, if they lie on the questionnaire who will know?

Hobby Lobby and Chick Fil A are both very large Christian owned companies 

================================

http://www.wisebread.com/hobby...e-you-trying-to-fool

Exactly - how do they know who they are selling to?

Let the consumer decide if they want to spend their money at your business. I don't go to Hobby Lobby or Chick-Fil-A anymore because of statements they have made. (And sometimes I do get a craving for Chick-Fil-A but I get over it). I would not want to get my wedding cake at a business that I felt was hostile to me either.

But to have a law that says a company can turn away people at the door because of who they are - Absolutely NO!

I find it pathetic that they are professing to follow their Christian beliefs. Since when is treating someone that way considered "Christian"?

_______

If Heaven/Hell/God/Jesus/ truly exist, & if the Bible is THE book to live by, there's a whole bunch of people turning those scriptures into what they want them to mean. That's why that book says there will be more people in Hell than Heaven.

________________

Bad analogy and fallacious logic.  There is a difference between  serving someone a product that you produce and sell to others, and forcing someone to produce a product they don't otherwise produce.  So no, Muslims will not have to sell pork, nor will doctors have to perform abortions. 

And whether this bill was anti-gay or pro freedom of religion depends on which agenda you support.

Substitute the adjective "black" for the adjective "gay" and we have 1962 all over again. Same arguments, same discrimination.  If we refuse to learn from the past, we are doomed to repeat it until we do.
Personally, I lived thru the '60s , and there were some very good things happened then, but I do not have any desire to repeat the "segregation" part of those years rehashing a Constitutional issue that has already been decided.  Everyone will loose, but those who are trying to push segregation again, will loose more.

_____________

please explain how this bill stopped anyone from practicing their religion?

If any of you passed a man or woman on the street that had fallen, hurt & in need of help, but you knew said person was gay, would you stop to help or keep walking?

I would stop and help, that's what people do, or should do. ( of course I would

want money)

There is no scripture that can justify racism.  Also there is no place that states being black or any race is an abomination to God.   

______________

Scripture was used for a very long time to prop up and justify racism. Just as it is being used today to discriminate against homosexuals. 

=======

We've never met that I am aware of, but just to ask you a personal question:

Do you wear your hair short or down to your shoulders ?

Do you eat ham, bacon, shrimp, oysters, or lobster ?

Do you do anything other than sit on your butt sundown Friday, to sundown SAt. ?

All these things are in the same area of scripture that are an "abomination" to God.

Additionally, does a pretty girl walking by turn your head ?

Personally, I am a Christian, and believe the "Law" was given to show us that we are in need of a savoir. I believe that I am a son of God, not a servant , as are those of the Islam faith,

I believe that Jesus told us to Love God, and Love one another and that "in that the entire "law" is fulfilled. That is called faith, and it is faith that pleases God. 

I don't believe in a host of "shall nots" where every thing seems to be wrong to somebody, and you have to not do all these things to be worthy.  That's religion and it is religion that pleases man. My 'dreathers are to be concerned with pleasing God, and I frankly don't care whether that pleases "man" or you or not.

gbrk, you posted this:

"I could be wrong but the way I saw it it wasn't a case of a person being denied service on the fact that they were gay but rather the (religious) person didn't want to be forced to be a part of the ceremony that they considered wrong and the Arizona bill (as I understood it) was just applied to protecting them from litigation in courts account of that stand of following through on their convictions."

The Arizona bill, as written, is by no means exclusively  targeted to the issue of service to gay-related patrons of businesses.  It is hugely broader than that and would enable denial of service on just about any "religious" reason anyone could gin up. You should google up the actual bill and read it.  You will see that my characterization of it is correct.

seeweed, I have a question & do not mean to be disrespectful by asking.

You say you're a Christian, so that must mean you believe what the Bible says. In regarding prayer, Matthew 7:7 says, "Ask, and it shall be given you".

Doesn't say might be given, it says shall be. There's no misunderstanding what it says. People change scriptures around to mean what they want them to. I prefer to see them for what they say.

When a person prays for something, they ask, as scripture says for them to do. Why was it not given to them?

_________________

All through the OT God has the Israelites and others kill and punish people just because they are of different ethnicity.  Don't make me pull out the stories, they aren't pretty.

I don't think I've said I was for or against the bill and haven't read it in detail basically because it was in Arizona and not Alabama, although yes there could be future implications.  My main point and argument was that so much was being made about this "anti-gay" legislation as if it was targeted solely for gays and very little if any mention regarding protection of religious rights or liberties.  There were those against it that purposely misrepresented it.   I still believe that if a person, in business has good reason to not want to serve or do business with an individual then they should have rights to protect them from doing so provided that it was proven or there was a "benefit of doubt" as to being non-discriminory.   

None of us know the real background behind this or the events that took place.  Who is to say that the homosexual persons knew that the service provider was a devout Christian and wanted to make a stink about it and force their hand or attempt to punish the business person.  No one here knows for sure, I don't.  There are plenty of other cake makers, pizza places, wedding business places, I'm sure, why did they want to specifically have THIS ONE and in this case FORCE this person to cater to them?  If I know a business doesn't want me in there because I'm a Christian or any other reason I turn away and find another business.  Some Homosexuals are not that way but they want to be "In Your Face" and curse anyone that believes differently than they do.  In fact punish them!

I see this law as set up to protect the rights of people on who, on the grounds of religion (as religion was specified from what I have been led to believe and no other justification).  Could it be used as a precedent for others?  Possibly.  The Governor vetoed the bill but the Democrats are now printing bumper stickers to use against her as if she signed it thus politicizing the issue that is now over.  

There was no animosity or condemnation against the LA Bar that refused any lawmaker or person perceived to be anti-gay (this having an opinion that differs with them) from coming into there establishment so is that not silent acquiescence?  I guess then in the Liberal circles it's discrimination and OK Discrimination defined only by  which side (Conservative/Liberal, Homosexual/Christian, whatever you want to put there) you fall on.   People have rights unless they believe a different way than is in vogue at the time.   Christians should have tolerance of homosexuals yet the reverse no way holds true.  

As a Christian I do believe homosexuality is a sin but then so is anger, lying, and many other things that people do each day.  Most Christians (and I include myself in that number) do not look at the person in judgment but rather look at the sin to despise.  Everyone, myself included, sins daily in some way or another but I am to answer for that and atone for that and ask forgiveness for that.  If I were in business I'd have no problem doing business with a homosexual person but if that business was say ministry (which could apply)  then I would want full right to refuse to marry the two.   I would not be refusing to marry two people on the basis of who they were but because I would not want to violate my oath and pledge to God and could not approve something that I know was an abomination in God's eyes lest I be just as guilty of the sin as those who participate in it.

Most people against this law are against something they've been worked up against and have no real idea what it  says or would do.  They are going on fear mongering and stereotypes and a wealth of information coming from people WITH an Agenda to put forth.  There are many people I see interviewed or have actually observed personally, who decry Christians judging them and label Christians as hate filled people or full of hatred yet when the camera is off or behind the person interviewing you see real anger and hatred toward anyone claiming to be a Christian.  They hate them to the point they wish they were dead.  Not all but some have and do.  They make general judgments, themselves, against Christians putting them all in one corner and classifying them with negative connotations yet are just as guilty of doing the same thing they accuse others of doing even when they don't have proof or evidence only in doing so they are evidence of the hypocrisy of their on actions.  It is that which I oppose and that bothers me in this whole issue.

The latter portion of you post, I have no problem with, except where  it tends to indicate that I might judge you.  I've been very clear in my post and hopefully have never judged anyone as to what my perceptions of their acts were as far as sin is concerned.  I have admonished, in words, before where I thought God was misrepresented or Christians I believe Christians, fellow believers, were in error but I have no right to judge another and that wasn't Christ example for us to follow.  There are many moral things within Islam but I disagree with what Islam teaches as with regard to just who Christ is and God and other issues but that's another topic.  

John 3:16 is used most often when people talk about Jesus and being saved and while John 3:16 is truthful regarding God's Love and our need to be saved and Jesus being sent because of God's love but John 3:17 is often neglected and is far more telling as far as Christ purpose here.  HE didn't come to Condemn but to save.  Mankind, with mankind's bias and own imperfections and misinterpretations often condemns and judges (wrongly) others and often never is concerned about the person they should be, which is their own self and their own witness to others.  

My post represent my own opinion, as a Christian, and not all other Christians and on the other hand all other Christians or more specifically any other Christian doesn't represent me either.  WE may all share the same Holy Spirit (if they are truly saved) but other than that we are all different and have different views and opinions and actions and shouldn't be labeled under one roof for that is just as judgmental as someone shouting, in your or anyone else's face, the shalt nots.  

Frankly, as a Christian it's more my responsibility to BE A WITNESS by and through actions, BY EXAMPLE, rather than making judgments and condemnations from my own perceptions.  The only person's responsibility for judging you is YOU and God and God's conviction and ministry comes by and through God's Holy Spirit, unto man, and mankind.  God's Holy Spirit came as Christ departed for the Spiritual realm to prepare for His return.  I hope that cleared up some of the questions and concerns.

---------------------------------------

I might help them up, but any serious first aid I'd pass on, because in this day and age no good deed goes unpunished and I don't feel like getting sued. That has nothing to do with whether or not they're gay. I would dial 911 and try to find medical help that might be in the area.

Well, Semi, you have ask a question that has puzzled a lot of people , for a long , long time.  I  don't have any short answer, and I do not wish to write a sermonette, not that I am qualified, but here are some the things I believe should be considered. First, before I get started on that, I would like to state my view of God . Jesus portrays him to be our Heavenly Father, who loves us and guides us. Scripture also refers to Jesus as the "firstborn of many" and that as Christians we are children of God, ie: brothers and sisters of Jesus, and airs to the promise God made Abraham.  I could go on , but I hope you get the picture.

There is another view of God, that I do not hold, but many seem to , and that is the picture of a God who sits on a throne with a long rod with a big hard knot on the end, and if you do something he dosen't approve, he's going to reach out with it , and knock you on the head - maybe with some sickness, or maybe some other kind of punishment. Basically, this is kinda the Calvinist viewpoint.

Now, back to the question;

With the former viewpoint in mind, think of how you would address a young child who wants candy , maybe at 3PM , and again at 5:30 (right before supper) with that same request. In the first case, you may oblige and reward the kid, in the second you would not because something much better for him is just around the corner.

Then there are the cases where what you are praying for may be something you could do yourself , like if you were praying for the "demon of fat" to be cast out of you, whereas we know that kind goes only by" prayer and fasting" :-).

Then there are the cases of people praying for things that would be harmful to them, kinda like the kid wanting to eat the entire box of chocolates.

I believe that you get things you ask for if you are praying foro things that are in the will of God, but to ask for example "great wealth"  when we are told how hard it is for a rich man to get into Heaven, may just be counter productive from God's will.
Basically, I really don't know, but those are my thoughts. I have has a lot of prayers unanswered, like asking God to restore health to my grandmother, and later my mother when they had started going downhill, but I also know that Scripture says "Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints". But, on the other hand when my daughter was just a little girl, she came down with JRA, supposedly an incurable form or arthritis, but thru prayer, whe was cured to the astonishment of her specalist. Also, when I lost my job at the bank during the Reagan recession, I prayed and prayed for the job that I had interviewed for with TVA , and although it took about a year, the Lord gave it to me . In fact, I was riffed 3 different times, but for all the trying I managed to say on and retire. I believe that God gave me that job, and even Marvin Runyon couldn't take it away.

There is one other factor involved in answered prayer, and that is the concept of faith, because Faith pleases God we are told.

Finding faith is not like finding a green Easter egg in tall grass, faith is just the concept of knowing what God has said and promised, and believing he will do what he said. Simple as that, but it does require you to know what He said (and I would highly recommend you learn that by reading the Scripture and NOT by listening to some preacher or so-called preacher).

There is another thing I try to avoid personally, and that is religion , which I define as "what leases man". Jesus gave several examples of religion vs faith, one of which seems to always come up in the subject of prayer in school.
Jesus told us NOT to pray loudly on the street corners , which I also interpret as over a microphone in an intercom) , but to go into a closet and pray quietly to God , which I think means just go be by yourself , at least in your mind, and issue your prayers to God.

Sorry, didn't mean to try to outdo BG, but complicated issues deserve more than a one or two line response.

So, that's my take on it, I hope it gives you something to consider.

I will make a suggestion, it is something I did and I learned so much for doing it.

Read the Bible to see what it has to say, not to look for some hook, not to try to prove or disprove a point of view. You will find that for the most part, the entire Bible basically goes back to when God made a covenant with Abraham and split the cow in two halves and walked between them. He made promises to Abraham, and much of the rest of it is what those promises are , and how they have been fulfilled. If you are a Christian , you are the "seed" of Abraham , and all those promises are yours as well.

____________

Thank you for taking the time to answer. You answered the way I thought you might.

I've read the Bible, a few times, but I've come to the conclusion it's just a book, as is any other & has no special value.

I was a Christian, many years ago, but I also found that Christianity has no value.