Gov. Jan Brewer speaks to press, vetoes controversial ‘anti-gay’ bill

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer announced her veto late Wednesday night of the controversial “religious freedom” Senate Bill 1062.

Taking no questions from reporters at the press conference, Brewer said she “calls them as she sees them,” so after days of “careful evaluation and deliberate consideration,” she vetoed the bill that had her under attack from members in her own party, to airlines, and even the National Football League who threated to pull the 2015 Super Bowl from Arizona if the bill passed.

Senate Bill 1062, which would have allowed business owners to deny service based on religious beliefs, particularly to gay and lesbian customers, “does not address a specific or present concern related to religious liberty in Arizona,” Brewer told reporters. “I have not heard of one example in Arizona where a business owner’s religious liberty has been violated. The bill is broadly worded and could result in unintended and negative consequences.”
She told supporters of the bill that she understood that “long held norms about marriage and family were being challenged as never before,” but said she believed the legislation “had the potential to create more problems than it purports to solve [and] could divide Arizona in ways we cannot even imagine and no one would ever want.”

“Religious liberty is a core American and Arizona value, so is non discrimination,” Brewer said.

Watch her short statement here via Politico:

Also read: Trey Gowdy: I get tougher questions at a Bojangles drive-thru than NBC asked of Susan Rice

Janeen Capizola

"And though she be but little, she is fierce." And fun! This conservative-minded political junkie, mom of three, dancer and one-time NFL cheerleader holds a bachelor of arts degree in political science. [email protected] Twitter: @JaneenBPR

Comments

60 thoughts on “Gov. Jan Brewer speaks to press, vetoes controversial ‘anti-gay’ bill

  1. John says:

    Blackmail at it’s finest.

  2. Mamatex says:

    It appears the concept of equal rights is losing to those who want special rights.

    1. TravisJSays says:

      The error is demanding ‘equality’. The ideology of equality has for the past two centuries been a threat to freedom. Equal rights should be about equal opportunity and equal freedoms, not about forcing equality of result or forced conformity to moral egalitarianism, both of which are anathema to moral-based liberty.

  3. EliseR says:

    Never fear, you can still legally discriminate against gay people in Arizona. Unlike some other states, AZ does not have any legislation that protects homosexuals from discrimination.

    1. Eric G says:

      Never fear, federal law trumps state law, and if Holder feels homosexuals have been unjustly discriminated against in AZ, he is free to bring federal charges.

      1. Kyle Roberts says:

        Good.

    2. TravisJSays says:

      AZ also does not have any legislation that protects redheads, golfers, people with long toenails, rodeo clowns, short people, and athiests from discrimination. Thus putting short, redheaded athiest rodeo clowns in particular danger of not getting photographs from a pro when they want it. Maybe,

      Never fear, the administration that stood by and did nothing while Russia swallowed the Crimea, let the NSA collect all our phone records, and forced millions of Americans onto inferior health insurance will be ON THE CASE. Our constitution would be safe, except they were busy burning the Constitution.

    3. Arden Hale says:

      I’m curious as to how not baking a wedding cake is an act of discrimination. If a Muslim caterer refuses to provide services for a Jewish Bar Mitzvah that isn’t an act of discrimination. Gays don’t have the right to force their views on others.

  4. Alessandra says:

    Freedom of conscience means that no one has to support a rapist, or porn0grapher, or a sexual molester, or a swinger, or a person with a homosexual problem, etc., when they are being “themselves” – that is, when they want to push their deformed sexuality agenda and coerce me to push it too.

    This is what this bill would have protected – and which is what the 1st Amendment is written to protect. But liberals have thrown the 1st Amendment in the trash. When we have freedom of conscience, we have the choice not to provide services to destructive or immoral people of any kind. This is why the concept of sexual orientation discrimination is a fraud.

    Liberals also wrongly claim that Jesus commands people to push perverted sexuality agendas in society directly or indirectly, because some sexuality pig demands that they do. This is where you separate the true Christians from the chaff. True Christians do not put themselves at the service of evil or immorality. They don’t endorse it or cave in to it simply because other people try to twist their arm. In other words, Christians don’t follow pigs of people on Earth. Either they set their own course, or they’ve forsaken their own religion – and especially Jesus.

    This is just one more episode showing that many politicians are for sale and some sell out for nothing more than a couple of bucks.

    1. EliseR says:

      The AZ bill would have also allowed Muslims to refuse to serve Christians. For example, a Muslim cab driver could refuse to pick up a woman who he thought was not properly dressed. You OK with that?

      1. Alessandra says:

        OK with the bill, yes. OK with what the Muslim would be doing in your example, no.

        A Muslim can refuse to pick up any person today and there is nothing you can do – and this bill was vetoed and doesn’t change that. Not only a Muslim. You can’t force a taxi driver to pick you up if he doesn’t want to.
        Do you think you should be able to force every taxi driver to pick up people they don’t want to pick up? Do you believe they don’t have the right to choose which people they pick up?

        1. Cris Bessette says:

          You are missing the point- the way that bill was worded, ANYONE could refuse service to ANYONE based on ANY religious belief.
          Commerce would fall apart if anyone could arbitrarily post a list on their door of “undesirables”

          1. Alessandra says:

            Cris – Muslims can refuse to pick up anyone today, for religious or non religious reasons, and you can you too if you work as a taxi driver. Has commerce fallen apart? No. And if the bill had passed, commerce wouldn’t change either. Your ideas about this bill and how commerce works simply have no bearing with reality.
            The bill would simply protect people from making others violate their religious beliefs. The bill would have had no impact on commerce in general. And that means, contrary to your hyperventilated claims, commerce would continue just as it is today.

          2. Cris Bessette says:

            Are arguing that taxi discrimination is a good business practice?, are you saying you think this is right? I don’t see your point.
            AGAIN, ANYBODY for ANY religious reason is what THIS bill would allow.

            The same reason people can’t put up signs in their windows saying “No Christians” or “No negros” is the reason you can’t put up “no gays” signs.

            “Religious beliefs” were used many times to support racial discrimination, and many good “Christians” were the ones fighting hardest to keep it that way.

          3. Alessandra says:

            Yes, I am saying that every business needs to choose who they do business with, with the exception of a few criteria which certainly doesn’t include sexuality ideologies, attitudes, and behaviors.

            “The same reason people can’t put up signs in their windows saying “No
            Christians” or “No negros” is the reason you can’t put up “no gays”
            signs. ”

            No, it’s not the same reason. Having a deformed and perverted mind about sex is not equal to having a dark skin pigment.

            “”Religious beliefs” were used many times to support racial discrimination, ”

            – Another false claim about this bill. No one supporting this bill wants it to pass in order to practice racial discrimination. The present has nothing to do with the past. But what you display are anti-religious feelings – exactly the feelings that have been used in the past and in the present to persecute religious people and to deny them basic rights. There is less freedom in society without this bill.

          4. Cris Bessette says:

            40 years ago you would be talking about “negros” and how immoral it would be to let them hang around with white women or going on about the “children of Ham” and other things preachers used back then.

            http://0.tqn.com/d/atheism/1/0/L/z/2/WhiteAmerica-e.jpg

            You are doing nothing but saying your feelings are more important than the rights of others.

          5. Alessandra says:

            No, that is not true. People who want religious freedom and freedom of conscience were being persecuted 40 years ago, 100 years ago, 500 years ago, and now by people like you.
            40 years ago I wouldn’t have talked about negros. Once again you are out of touch with reality. 40 years ago, I would have fought for civil rights for blacks.

            “You are doing nothing but saying your feelings are more important than the rights of others.”

            Actually if you read what I wrote, you will see that I am saying that your feelings are not more important than the rights of others. You think other people should not have freedom of conscience or religion. You are against people having the most fundamental right of all. And don’t you want to deny other people their rights simply because of your feelings?

            Everything you write about me serves to describe you very well.

          6. Cris Bessette says:

            You still are not saying anything different than Christians that used the Bible to support racism.
            I’ve had KKK rallys go through my rural little Southern town with preachers yelling Bible verses to support their racism.

            (And GOOD Christians yelling back THEIR Bible verses in opposition. It’s all in how you interpret it I guess.)

            You may not agree with those racist Christians, but you are using the same technique to disguise your discrimination against the particular sliver of the population that you don’t like.

          7. Alessandra says:

            “You still are not saying anything different than Christians that used the Bible to support racism.”

            I don’t think you understand. I’m not saying anything different than consciencious objectors who refused to fight wars, or people who refused to work for the Nazis based on their religious convictions. Or people who refused to serve slavery. They were all discriminating and making choices based on religious convictions. Religion has a much more complex past than you may be aware of.

            You’ve seen KKK rallies, OK. Have you ever seen Martin Luther King? He used religion and bible verses just as much.
            You see, contrary to your claims, lots of religious people are very justified in defending their religious views. Many religions have many good principles.

            I object to people who are doing harm in society and I have the right not to support them. If I don’t have this right, then society has become just like in the Nazi era – you are not free at all. What I’m trying to explain is that unless you discriminate against many people, you will end up serving the worst people in the world.
            And that’s not good at all. Discrimination works in many good ways, and history is full of examples of that.

          8. Cris Bessette says:

            The point I’m trying to make is that religion is not a good basis for deciding secular law because everyone can interpret it to say whatever they feel.

            “Conscientious” white old men fought for segregation per their sincerely held religious beliefs against mixing with the evil black people of the “curse of Ham”.

          9. Alessandra says:

            “The point I’m trying to make is that religion is not a good basis for
            deciding secular law because everyone can interpret it to say whatever
            they feel.”

            Sure, if we consider “religion” as anything, that’s true. And I don’t defend that. On the other hand, religions offer many good bases for laws and in those cases, the interpretation isn’t left open in any which way.

            As you might know as well, the Nazis were secular and they based their laws all on secularism. So secularism can go and be intrepreted any which way as well.

            I think you are painting all religions as bad and all secularism as good and the world is nothing like that.

          10. Cris Bessette says:

            Morality in religion is like picking things out on a buffet.
            For instance, picking one “abomination” of the long list in Leviticus, and saying “this one applies to modern life, the one about lobsters or working on the Sabbath, not so much”

            That is why secular law is not based on religious beliefs. (unless you live in Saudi Arabia or Iran, and who wants Sharia law in the USA? not me!)

            Oh, yeah, the Nazis were mostly Catholic, because Germany is a Catholic country.

          11. Alessandra says:

            Cris Bessette said: “Morality in religion is like picking things out on a buffet.”

            And you never noticed that with secularism it’s the same thing?

            I guess you prefer to see the world as all white and all black, all good and all bad. Don’t tell me, the people who think like you are all good, and the others are all bad…

          12. Cris Bessette says:

            99% of the people I know are Christians or “spiritual” and only a tiny percentage of them have problems with gay people having the same rights as they do.

            There, are you happy I said something positive about the vast majority of religious people I know?

            Humans, secular or religious, are imperfect and make mistakes and bad decisions.

          13. Alessandra says:

            I think the problem is that all these people you know probably have no information about how much harm and violence LGBTs do in society. And I wonder if they’d care, even if they were well informed. I don’t think many would because that’s the society we live in.

            While the “equality” discourse sounds nice, underneath it is nothing but self-serving irresponsibility and indifference to all the sexual and relationship degradation and perversions that LGBTs are pushing, along with other liberals, and a cowardice to face the profound problems in the area of sexuality in society today.

            “Humans, secular or religious, are imperfect and make mistakes and bad decisions.”

            Yes, indeed.

          14. Cris Bessette says:

            There, I switched out “LGBT” for the word “BLACKS” in your last reply.

            Just two words and suddenly most people, probably even you, would be offended by what it says. >>>

            “I think the problem is that all these people you know probably have
            no information about how much harm and violence BLACKS do in society. And
            I wonder if they’d care, even if they were well informed. I don’t think
            many would because that’s the society we live in.

            While the “equality” discourse sounds nice, underneath it is nothing
            but self-serving irresponsibility and indifference to all the sexual and
            relationship degradation and perversions that BLACKS are pushing, along
            with other liberals, and a cowardice to face the profound problems in
            the area of sexuality in society today.”

          15. Alessandra says:

            You switched words but you made no sense. No black person is pushing any sexual and relationship degradation and perversion because of the color of their skin.

            You have no idea there are profound problems of harm and violence in the area of sexuality, right? You have no idea about sexual harassment, promiscuity, STDs, having sexually perverted attitudes, rape, molestation, porn, S&M, adultery – all of this meaningless to you. You have no idea that LGBTs perpetrate much more harm and violence today than in the past, right? Nor do you care in the least. Just as I described. You talk about equality yet you promote and push for a sexually violent and harmful society.

            You see how it is, you are just as indifferent and irresponsible to all kinds of harm and violence in the area of sexuality as the KKK people in your area are about violence and harm towards blacks.

            You’re two sides of the same coin. They use religion, you use liberalism – yet you do just as much harm as they do. On top of it, they think they know it all; and so do you. You also have that in common with them.

          16. Cris Bessette says:

            what the heck are you talking about? I’m talking about gay people being treated like human beings, and you are talking about rape and S&M, can we stick to one subject?

          17. TravisJSays says:

            “I’m talking about gay people being treated like human beings”
            Nobody here is against that, or even against complete freedom for gays, so stop with the strawmen.

          18. TravisJSays says:

            And if you use “PEDOPHILES” it makes a lot more sense…

            “I think the problem is that all these people you know probably have
            no information about how much harm and violence PEDOPHILES do in society. And I wonder if they’d care, even if they were well informed. I don’t think
            many would because that’s the society we live in.

            While the “equality” discourse sounds nice, underneath it is nothing
            but self-serving irresponsibility and indifference to all the sexual and
            relationship degradation and perversions that PEDOPHILES are pushing, along
            with other liberals, and a cowardice to face the profound problems in
            the area of sexuality in society today.”

            … proving that word matter. But not much else.

          19. TravisJSays says:

            “Morality in religion is like picking things out on a buffet.”

            Not at all. Clear guidance from a long-established tradition and writing have given all religions far more stability than you see in eg modern law, etc.
            Post-modern secular morality has the flightiness of an ADHD teen on a 6 pack of red bull.

            “Oh, yeah, the Nazis were mostly Catholic, because Germany is a Catholic country.”

            Idiot.

            1. Hitler thought Christianity was a ‘weak religion’ and used Christianity when he could but sought to displace it with his more favored pagan/aryan beliefs and a totalitarian ethic.
            Similarly, communist totalitarians hated christianity. Christianity has defeated many oppressions.
            2. Germany is mostly protestant, Lutheran.

          20. TravisJSays says:

            Stop being a racist bigot Cris.

            Deep down you have your prejudices and you are spewing them inappropriately in attacking people personally.

            you are using the same technique that Hitler and Stalin used to divide people. the ad hominem used to demonize and de-humanize others … you think the OTHER side is dong that. Look in the mirror. you are doing it.

          21. Cris Bessette says:

            Now you are just trolling…. great..

          22. TravisJSays says:

            nope. seriously want you to look in the mirror and ask yourself if you’ve become the enemy you are describing.

            nothing remotely racist about being for freedom.

          23. TravisJSays says:

            Groan, pathetic lying attack you made, very marxist of you to do it … 40 years ago you were joining in Mao’s cultural revolution and killing millions of dissidents opposed to the cultural revoluation and its brave message of equality. You are doing nothing but saying your feelings are more important than the rights of others.

          24. Cris Bessette says:

            I’M the one thats arguing for anti-discrimination, remember? lol

          25. TravisJSays says:

            You are for discrimination against people of faith by forcing them to choose their beliefs or their business. You should support RFRA principles which are that sincerely held beliefs do not need to be violated just because you have a business. Nobody is harmed by such freedom. You are doing nothing but saying your feelings are more important than the rights of others.

          26. Cris Bessette says:

            “You are doing nothing but saying your feelings are more important than the rights of others.”

            LOL oh the irony.

          27. TravisJSays says:

            That is the irony. My feeling are unimportant. *YOUR* feelings are driving your desire to discriminate against people of faith and deny them the right to live as they wish. all in the name of ‘equality’. Nobody is harmed by letting businesses decide who and how they serve others, but you want to take away their liberty …

            cause letting them be hurts your feelings.

            Irony indeed.

          28. TravisJSays says:

            “arguing that taxi discrimination is a good business practice?”

            It’s a lousy business practice, but the free market would solve it even better than laws against it.

            The US Civil Rights Law that put anti-discrimination in place is justified by the history of segregation, but that exception in mind, in general this ‘non-service’ is a ‘problem’ only in your head and those who want to impose conformity where it isnt needed. The free market SOLVES this problem. If one baker wont do it, there is another who will.

            Gays should stopping suing Christian wedding service providers and simply move on to those willing to provide such services. Forcing Govt down people’s throats is bad for commerce and our freedoms both.

          29. TravisJSays says:

            “ANYONE could refuse service to ANYONE based on ANY religious belief. ”

            Wow, that is so tame, normal, non-threatening and rational … of COURSE people should be able to do that and not be forced to do things against their will. Nothing wrong with that at all. It’s called freedom.

            “Commerce would fall apart if anyone could arbitrarily post a list on their door of “undesirables””

            That is an idiotic statement. How can ‘commerce fall apart’? one business says ‘we dont serve X or do Y’ and instantly the competition has an advantage and displaces them, creating a disincentive for such things – IN THE MARKETPLACE.

            You cant get meat from a vegan restaurant. ok, so find a steak house for your steak dinner. Same point here.

            Forcing people to violate their principles as the ‘price’ of being open for business is anti-freedom and is a form of slavery.

          30. Cris Bessette says:

            If this was how it worked in the USA, then there would still be segregated schools here where I live.

            “Equality” is the American way, the Bill of Rights would be meaningless if the whole country was allowed to split up into insular groups that don’t accept outsiders.

            Be careful what you wish for, if you want the right to discriminate against others, don’t be surprised when you are discriminated against.

          31. TravisJSays says:

            “Be careful what you wish for, if you want the right to discriminate
            against others, don’t be surprised when you are discriminated against.”

            People already are discriminated against. Happened to me because I was a white male and they wanted more women and minorities in the university scholarship programs reserved for them but not for me.

            The gay hairdresser of Gov Martinez is discriminating against her because of her politics. So should we force the hairdresser to take the business? If not, why is that discrimination ok but not someone who is prolife and doesnt want to provide abortificant prescriptions?

            “if the whole country was allowed to split up into insular groups that don’t accept outsiders”
            – THENS IT TIME YOU ACCEPTED PEOPLE OF FAITH AND ALLOWED THEM TO CONDUCT BUSINESS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THEIR FAITH. Thats the first amendment and the American way!

      2. JKGusicas says:

        You mean like Muslim cabbies in Michigan already have the right of refusal? Didn’t hear you chirping about that.

      3. TravisJSays says:

        So are you okay with forcing a black printer to print signs for a KKK rally? Sounds like you are.

        I’m ok with taxi drivers who want to willingly lose customers to other drivers. it happens anyway.

  5. CHARLES says:

    The only ones who don’t have rights are Christians, you can be a murderer and get more rights than a christian. The bible is true, its evil still trying to be accepted, no forced upon people who still have enough sense to know that same sex marriage is out of the pits of hell. And will not bow the knee to evil governments, or powers. The bible states that all who live godly shall suffer persecution, JESUS allowed himself to be nailed to a cross to save people from the judgement of GOD, and cast into a devils hell. But the LORD JESUS CHRIST, arose triumphant over death hell and the grave, and He will soon deliver the church out of the hands of the enemies of GOD, the LORD JESUS CHRIST and will judge all nations who have rebelled, and laughed, and made light of the Word of GOD. The wickedness of man is almost complete, and the patience of GOD with sinful man is coming to an end. America prepare to meet thy GOD!!!! Now like the bible says, there will come a time when men call evil good and good evil. America, now protects, honors, and gives special rights to sodomites. And GOD, calls it an abomination, meaning He hates it, and burnt Sodom and Gomorrah to the ground. Now you can follow men who lie. But l’m going to follow JESUS, who is truth. thats why liars don’t like the truth. THE BIBLE’S prophecy told some 2000 yrs. ago is being fulfilled literally before our very eyes. America, go ahead with your bad self and help usher in the apocalypse thats what you are helping to bring in on yourself. Go on with your proud, and boastful self, why your the baddest thing around can’t no GOD tell you what to do because you told him that He don’t exist and besides you are god. Say tuned for the rest of the story or should l say the ending of the story

    1. Kyle Roberts says:

      It doesnt matter if being gay is evil, its no one’s business what gay people do with other gay people. They have the right to not be persecuted just like anyone else.

      1. CHARLES says:

        All evil matters, but the problem is gay people don’t stay with gay people, they want to force their life style on people who consider it vile and of the devil. If you want to be gay help your self. But don’t come force your sodomite life style on me and think you gone make me like it or accept it or them that do. It is not going to happen. Straight people are not going into sodomites businesses trying to force them to accept the straight way of living, and then try and place a law suit on them. Why doesn’t the gay community go to gay businesses and leave people alone who despise that life style alone. Because they can play the politically correct game and try to bully straight people, and christians who they hate, and bring a law suit. The straight and christians, just want to be left alone too, and want the same rights, you see the victims are the straights and christians, who are bullied by the government who says its liberty for all, but are liars because they are trying to intimidate us still to this day. We have a dictator in office and right now he is doing and making rules as he pleases. We don’t have a president who goes by the constitution, nor did he ever plan to. If you want to be gay help yourself, but don’t come to my house, and don’t expect me to like it. You live your life, and l will live mine, leave me alone, and l promise to leave you alone, and l will do that to any man straight or gay, its not just gay people. Its not just about gays, its anybody, If I don’t like their ways I don’t have to like or be around them period. Quit making it just a gay issue, where they receive special rights over everybody else. Other people can choose to be straight and proud of it too!!! And be around people they choose to, its their right.

      2. JKGusicas says:

        It becomes someone’s business when they force it to become their business. Through the force of lawsuits and the threat of lawsuits. The fact that in some states, businesses are under force of law to provide services against their faith is what this is.

        The fact of the matter, tolerance is not the end goal. It is full acceptance by any and all means. Forced acceptance forces it to be everyone’s business. If you think otherwise, then I suggest you take it to the LGBT activist lobby to reduce the ongoing threats and lawsuits that have been marching through the courts. Only when and if that happens does this problem go away.

      3. TravisJSays says:

        True but not pertinent. Nobody is persecuting gays. It’s Christian businesses being sued etc.

  6. doximom says:

    The United States USED TO BE a free country. I remember as a kid growing up, restaurants frequently had signs posted: The management reserves the right to refuse service….and nobody was bringing lawsuits and protesting. Why should they not have that right? It’s their business, one they likely worked hard to start and build. Granted that argument can be used to discriminate and that’s wrong but it seems the gay/lesbian community figures if you blink wrong, it’s discrimination. Here’s my question: why don’t they just live their lives and let others live their lives as each choose to do and stop all this ridiculous discrimination nonsense.

    1. EliseR says:

      Do you remember the signs that said, “No Italians”? Or “No Negros”? Do you remember when it was OK to refuse blacks a seat at a lunch counter? Do you think they should have just lived their lives and stopped all the ridiculous discrimination nonsense?

      1. JKGusicas says:

        Do you remember when those Italians or Negros forced Christians under the threat of lawsuits or loss of their business to accept and take part in acts that were clearly contradictory to the word of God? Right, neither do I.

        You bring nothing but false comparatives here.

      2. JKGusicas says:

        If the black man is a Christian and the white man is gay, a court can forcibly order the black man to serve the white man or drive the black man from business.

        And yet you are somehow comparing religious freedom laws to Jim Crow or other racial discrimination but you can’t see that you are actually advocating the same thing.

  7. Hello Dolly says:

    I think she is right. There is no threat to Arizona business owners. You risk more by opening up this law. Just leave it as it is. If someone comes into your business and asks you to bake a cake, just say you are not available. No reason given.

    1. TravisJSays says:

      We keep hearing the same lies from the same crowd. We heard that “DOMA is not necessary because gay marriage is unthinkable” to “DOMA is now wrong because it is an obstacle to gay marriage”.

      No threat to AZ business owners … yet, but business owners in other states are getting sued.

      “If someone comes into your business and asks you to bake a cake, just say you are not available.”
      … and get sued for discrimination.

  8. Ronald R. Johnson says:

    Brewer was scared of the threats! Why should any business who operates with out any government funds not be allowed to serve who ever they want! Why should so few sick Things be allowed to force Christians to turn on God as they have? The real America needs to get rid of Obama and all in our Government who think like him before there is no America left. We better get God back in our schools and government before closes the world down!

  9. Plow Comms says:

    The notion that liberty implies “freedom from obstacles” and the “freedom to do what one wants” is perhaps the most dangerous confusion regarding the meaning of the word.

  10. Arden Hale says:

    Okay, quick question what does the bill actually say?

Comments are closed.

Related Posts