I've followed the story in the news and it looks like the business community is lobbying hard for a veto.  My impression is that Arizona is like many states, having some real social conservatives and some real social liberals.  

The only reason I would avoid retiring there is the price of water which is only going to get worse over the foreseeable future.  

I've followed the story in the news and it looks like the business community is lobbying hard for a veto.  My impression is that Arizona is like many states, having some real social conservatives and some real social liberals.  

 

The only reason I would avoid retiring there is the price of water which is only going to get worse over the foreseeable future.

I don't seriously see myself reconsidering my retirement plans, but this just boggles the mind. And you're right about water prices. Thanks for being the first to comment, Dave!

I've quit trying to guess what our politicians are thinking if they do think   Surely, they'll veto.

I am thinking this is one of those cases where more laws are not what is needed, proper enforcement of the existing laws is.

WL also discussed this in his blog and I took the time to read it before responding here. If I am understanding things correctly it is giving carte blanche to business owners to revert to the sort of open prejudices that were fought so hard against in the south right up into the 70's and 80's, banning individuals from service in their establishments based this time on sexual orientation rather than race, and excusing it on the basis of freedom of religion.

I don't see as passing legislation protecting a business for exhibiting prejudicial attitudes will be helpful. Legally protected or not, if a gay couple is turned away from a restaurant or refused the services of a particular bakery, it will make waves in the community. Perhaps it would prevent some lawsuits, but beyond that I see no benefit to legislation of this nature.

One response in WL's blog was that the writer did not have a right to buy a cake at a particular bakery, and if turned away he would simply go elsewhere. I would like to think we have advanced enough that this would work nicely. After seeing this foolishness I am not so sure. Another comment asked what would happen if other businesses that supply raw materials decided not to supply a particular establishment on the basis that the customer sat on the other side of that moral fence. I see a huge snowball effect on the horizon, in which more and more tax dollars are wasted in debate and passing of more and more laws trying to correct what this one law could set in motion. Just as correcting the prejudices against black people ( is that the currently pc term? if not I apologize) resulted in reverse discrimination for a while, I can see it happening again here. Laws passed to protect the rights of the gay community resulting in laws like this one to protect the rights of the business owners, and so on and so on.

It seems to me that we are seeing a sort of pendulum effect, in which opinions are swinging from one extreme to another. Some day the pendulum will lose its momentum and we will all settle down to a peaceful co-existence, but unfortunately we have yet to reach that point.

This is bad bad bad The law CANNOT be allowed to cow tow to religious beliefs when it affects other people's rights to go about in society, to live their lives and transact normal business and be employed without unfair discrimination. Those are the only freedoms that matter in a healthy society.

The reasons are obvious. This creates division. It fosters and fuels sectarianism. History shows that religious sectarianism rips communities and society apart, and - in the worst case - the state itself. And discrimination against LGBTs gives a licence to create unhappiness and misery.

I'm afraid the Arizona State Legislature has shown itself to be incompetent, ignorant of history and possibly corrupt - unduly "influenced" by business through lobbying or cash. Whatever, this bill shows it is not fit for purpose.

And you get right to the heart of it, Mickey. Where does this end? As Kitt points out did the US learn nothing from the segregation laws? Seems to me Federal Law to protect the only freedoms that matter is urgently needed. A key function of government is to strengthen the ties that bind the society it governs - NOT do its damnedest to pull them apart - and to promote happiness and wellbeing. Stoking up and supporting hate is truly a waste of everyone's time, effort and lives. Shame on them. They are a disgrace to your country.
 

This is bad bad bad The law CANNOT be allowed to cow tow to religious beliefs when it affects other people's rights to go about in society, to live their lives and transact normal business and be employed without unfair discrimination. Those are the only freedoms that matter in a healthy society.

The reasons are obvious. This creates division. It fosters and fuels sectarianism. History shows that religious sectarianism rips communities and society apart, and - in the worst case - the state itself. And discrimination against LGBTs gives a licence to create unhappiness and misery.

I'm afraid the Arizona State Legislature has shown itself to be incompetent, ignorant of history and possibly corrupt - unduly "influenced" by business through lobbying or cash. Whatever, this bill shows it is not fit for purpose.

And you get right to the heart of it, Mickey. Where does this end? As Kitt points out did the US learn nothing from the segregation laws? Seems to me Federal Law to protect the only freedoms that matter is urgently needed. A key function of government is to strengthen the ties that bind the society it governs - NOT do its damnedest to pull them apart - and to promote happiness and wellbeing. Stoking up and supporting hate is truly a waste of everyone's time, effort and lives. Shame on them. They are a disgrace to your country.

Thanks for the input, Zom! Just imagine if, in your country, they discriminated against you because you like to eat brains?!

My point exactly!

When people aren't active in their government's business this is the kind of stuff that eventually happens.  Look at the feds.  They now only enforce laws they want to enforce and ignore the ones they don't like.  Yet they keep telling us that this is a country of laws.  The supreme law is the Constitution, yet thay ignore that and pass laws to suit their own wishes.  It's only going to get worse as people refuse to get involved. 

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who lives in this country has a responsibility to get involved.  Otherwise they are going to lose them.  Most people have probably heard that freedom isn't free, and that statement doesn't refer exclusively to the military services.  Citizens need to accept the burden of maintaining the country politically too.  It's part of the price and there isn't any substitute for it.  The alternative is tyranny, and those who choose to ignore these facts are not patriots, nor are they deserving of the benefits of a free society.

Well said - "use it or lose it".
The problem is the political class is more distanced from the people they serve than ever before in terms of access. At the same time the people they serve are probably more disillusioned in the whole political process than ever before. Seeing your elected representatives bring government to a crashing halt - and still trousering their fat paychecks - can't have helped. Nor is it helped when you get dickhead "celebrities" like Russel Brand proudly proclaiming that they never vote because "there's no point".
We are where we are - not a good place. Question is how to turn it around and get people actively engaged so there is genuine and intelligent debate on political issues - not shock-jock slanging matches that just give everyone a headache - and then properly hold these f---ers to account.
Practical suggestions?
 

I find it rather amazing when reading about this, that I have yet to read about the constitutionality of the bill. It most certainly will not pass muster even considering the current makeup of our supreme court. What Arizonans should be more concerned about, is finding replacements for their elected legislators. Because it is clear that those who voted in favor of the bill, have lost their ability to think rationally and any further legislation, of any ilk, is now suspect to their inability to think ahead.

On another note - two of the four representative samples of correspondence received by the Governor's office have expounded on the "attacks on religion". Hmm, let's ponder this, shall we. Time after time after time, 'religion' has butted its nose into places it has no right to be, and when folks fight back, suddenly religion is under attack. A quote from Michelle Cruz to Governor, Jan Brewer, "Our Constitution guarantees that in America, people are free to live and work according to their faith", she goes on to say, "No one should be forced to forfeit their religious beliefs simply because they go to work or start a business." - On the face of it, what she says is agreeable, our constitution guarantees 'freedom of religion' and no one should be forced to give up their faith in their day to day lives or while at work, or furthermore, start a business. But this isn't what she means, is it? We can only guess, but I am sure it is easy enough to surmise that she doesn't want the young high school gay boy to bag her groceries, or have to sit in her cubicle across from the lesbian at work. This is pure speculation but the meaning behind her words is clear and it makes me sick.

The saving grace today, yet another judge as struck down a gay marriage ban. This time in Texas.

I've followed the story in the news and it looks like the business community is lobbying hard for a veto.  My impression is that Arizona is like many states, having some real social conservatives and some real social liberals.  

 

The only reason I would avoid retiring there is the price of water which is only going to get worse over the foreseeable future.  

The Arizona bill has been vetoed, but legislation like this has been introduced here in Missouri too.  It won't make it past our governor, but it may have a shot at getting to his desk. 

I hate living in a red state. 

The Arizona bill has been vetoed, but legislation like this has been introduced here in Missouri too.  It won't make it past our governor, but it may have a shot at getting to his desk. 

 

I hate living in a red state. 

I love Missouri especially its parks and lakes, but too many of the people are way too red for me!

I don't like rednecks much either, they're too liberal and think everyone owes them something.  It's time they start paying their own bills and stop mooching off the taxpayers.

The problem with bills like this is that the authors think they can limit "discrimination"to the specific category that the authors choose: gay, black, female, religous, non religious, specific religion, outsiders, recent arrivals, the list of possibilities is endless. However, times have changed, there is no one group that has a monopoly on political or e onomic power. Back in the day when WASPs controlled all it was somewhat easier (if you were a member of that elite), now power is spread further (not far enough, but definately futher than it was) 1)society is a better place for all of us, and 2) the bizarre legislation proposed by Arizona et al is less likely to get implemented. This is in part because people realise that if we agree to discriminate against one group its is just as easy to discriminate against another.