February 27, 2014

"So Brewer’s veto was no surprise. What was a surprise..."

"... was the powerful, profoundly un-weaselly nature of her statement."

167 comments:

Scott said...

It was a surprise to The New Yorker. Republicans are supposed to be evil.

Inga said...

Kudos to Jan Brwer are in order. I think her response was a sane one. That she was so clear about the fact that no one's religious freedoms had been violated was amazingly brave of her.

Revenant said...

It is refreshing to hear a politician admit that a problem doesn't actually exist. They normally spend so much effort on inventing problems to solve.

Henry said...

Excellent.

Bob Ellison said...

For her next trick, Brewer will ban the sale of blenders with a "Puppy" setting.

Simon said...

As was said last night, it was a political move that was intended to boost her career but which has instead ended it. RC Ocean got it exactly right: "Democrats [and gays] won't give her any credit, … [because] after all, all she did was the 'decent thing,' … [and] social conservatives will note how she betrayed them, and won't [come to her aid] the next time she's attacked by the Left" or seeks election.

Revenant said...

social conservatives will note how she betrayed them, and won't [come to her aid] the next time she's attacked by the Left" or seeks election.

The moral of that story is that social conservatives are as dumb as a bag of hammers. She did nothing to hurt them and nothing to help gays.

Simon said...

Revenant said...
"It is refreshing to hear a politician admit that a problem doesn't actually exist. They normally spend so much effort on inventing problems to solve."

It would be, except that the problem does exist. Pretending that the gay community has no interest in using pliant courts to force businesses to serve them is outright counterfactual—it's happening—and even if there were no evidence that they have yet moved onto that step, you can't be naive about this stuff. This is the tactic that the left uses at every step of the game—when they're lobbying for step J, they insist that this is about step J and step J alone, and they deny outright that step K is coming and feigning outrage that you'd even suggest that they want to take step such as K, L, or M. And then, once people fall for it, not only do they secure step J, they have quite often ensured that step K is undefended. So they move on to step K and feign outrage that you'd eevn suggest that we can't take step K, and how dare you deny this basic human right notwithstanding its total novelty and the total novelty of the ad hoc theories used to justify it that are, of course, presented as eternal verities to which all good people subscribe.

sunsong said...

But it was a damn good speech—unequivocal, ungrudging, and stern. That it was delivered by a Republican governor in a Republican state—and delivered with every sign of sincerity, even passion—is simply the latest astonishment in an astonishing American revolution. The change is, as Governor Brewer says, dramatic. It is tectonic. It is unstoppable. In an otherwise foreboding political landscape, it’s a blazing sunrise.

Also:

Survey: majority of Americans, including Catholics, support same-sex marriage

53% of Americans-- including 58% of white Catholics and 56% of Latino Catholics-- now support same-sex marriage, according to a survey conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute.


Catholic Culture.org

Inga said...

Simon, I proved rcocean wrong. I gave Brewer credit for being brave about the fact that no actual religious freedoms have been violated. She did the right thing and she IS getting credit for doing so by Democrats. Rightists can now throw her under the bus, that's their choice, but it won't help their image with independents.

Simon said...

Revenant said...
"The moral of that story is that social conservatives are as dumb as a bag of hammers. She did nothing to hurt them and nothing to help gays."

They may be, but so is Brewer, it would seem, and after the next election, those social conservatives will be bags of hammers who still have jobs. Brewer? Not so much.

You've heard me say this before, during the Madison protests if at no other time: If you're a politician and you make certain promises, you'd better get them done, because the people who hated you for those promises won't forgive you now and the people who voted for you for those promises will never forgive you for betraying them. Mutatis mutandis, the same applies here.

Revenant said...

t would be, except that the problem does exist.

Simon, I'm tired of the bait-and-switch tactic.

Yes, OTHER states have a problem in this area. Arizona does not. You can't repeal Washington's asinine laws by fag-bashing in Arizona.

SteveR said...

I think it was about the bill's supporters staking a claim, not that a real or potential threat existed. Folks on both sides were happy to have huffed and puffed. Brewer did the hard work of being a leader, in spite of her personal cost.

Bob Ellison said...

Simon, Revenant is correct: the problem doesn't exist. Some suit against a baker somewhere and some suit against a photographer elsewhere do not demonstrate a real problem. I wish this were the least of problems businesses face.

bandmeeting said...

So things turn out well in AZ.

Isn't Andrew Cuomo rounding up the Republicans in NY?

Marshal said...

Revenant said...
Simon, I'm tired of the bait-and-switch tactic.

fag-bashing in Arizona.


Funny, you don't seem concerned about tactics.

Rae said...

I can't believe any of you think this was about wedding cakes. It's about jockeying for position for inevitable federal lawsuit against churches for not marrying homosexuals. Which will occur 5 to 10 years, sooner if Clinton wins the presidency.

Revenant said...

They may be, but so is Brewer, it would seem, and after the next election, those social conservatives will be bags of hammers who still have jobs. Brewer? Not so much.

Oh, please. I'd love to live in a world where ex-governors weren't guaranteed lucrative jobs after leaving office, but this ain't that world.

No, what'll happen is Brewer will go on to some cushy six or seven-figure job and social conservatives will experience the pleasure of a pro-abortion Democratic governor who loves illegal immigrants.

All because she vetoed a law that did precisely fuck-all to protect social conservative interests.

Bob Ellison said...

Uh, should have said "I wish this was the greatest..."

Oh, well.

gerry said...

53% of Americans-- including 58% of white Catholics and 56% of Latino Catholics-- now support same-sex marriage, according to a survey conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute.

That still does not make same-sex marriage moral. Or even real, except as an artificial postmodern construct.

I am confused, however, by how, for instance, baking a cake for a so-called gay wedding is implicitly condoning the so-called gay marriage. The customer picks up the cake (or you deliver it to the customer) and that's pretty much it. It's a business transaction.

How is doing business with someone who is doing something immoral creating a moral dilemma for the business person?

If that was the standard, no one could sell ME anything!

Simon said...

Ingasaid...
"Simon, I proved rcocean wrong."

Where? I see no comments on that thread from you.

"She did the right thing and she IS getting credit for doing so by Democrats."

No she isn't. She's getting some praise, but do you really think that Democrats are going to vote for her in the next election? That they would give her the Democratic nomination or vote against their own candidate? Of course they won't. You're right that conservatives and libertarians won't vote for her now, and perhaps you're right that independents will—but you're wrong that Democrats will. And any other kind of "credit" is worthless.

chickenlittle said...

The linked story could have done better without the snarky fisting.

Revenant said...

Washington passed a law making it illegal for businesses to discriminate against gays. Thus, a florist is being sued for discriminating against gays. Whether it will hold up on appeal is an open question, but at this point it isn't a problem caused by the courts or applicable to other states. It is a problem -- and yes, as a libertarian obviously I think it is a problem -- that is caused, as problems so often are, by legislators passing dumb legislation without thinking of the consequences.

You know, kinda like they were doing in Arizona.

The same holds true for the baker being sued in Oregon. Oregon *also* has a broad ban on business discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The lawsuit is, so far as Oregon state law is concerned, completely in the right. That doesn't make it moral or constitutional, but again you can't fault the state for obeying state law.

Arizona has no such laws. Businesses, religious or otherwise, are free to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, at least so far as state law is concerned. What federal courts think is another matter -- but Arizona can't overrule federal courts.

Sam L. said...

Tell that to those forced to violate their religious convictions.

Simon said...

Revenant said...
"All because she vetoed a law that did precisely fuck-all to protect social conservative interests."

It protected them from being sued if they should make the unwise choice to refuse service to people who have a sense of entitlement and no sense of proportion. You are incredibly naive if you don't see that the only two possibilities are (1) that lawsuit, or (2) for fear of that lawsuit, people give in to the bullies and swallow their objections. That would be an obnoxious enough position for a progressive, but for a libertarian, it's just weird. I've never before met a libertarian who argued against protecting individual freedom from government bureacrats, whether berobed or not!

Bob Ellison said...
"Simon, Revenant is correct: the problem doesn't exist. Some suit against a baker somewhere and some suit against a photographer elsewhere do not demonstrate a real problem. I wish this were the least of problems businesses face."

That is precisely the naivete on which the tactic I described above relies. It only works if people believe that this time, this really is the very last step on our agenda, and we’re not going one step farther, so don’t worry, you don’t have to do anything to prevent us trying to take that step because we won’t. Honest. Really. We are NOT going to take that step. How dare you accuse us of taking that step? This step is a fundamental human right! How dare you oppose us taking that step! They deny that the next step is coming right up until the moment they accuse you of being a jackbooted fascist for lacking sufficient enthusiasm for taking that step.

Everyone knows that Kim Jong Un recently executed his uncle for failing to clap with sufficient enthusiasm, but what's not so well known is that the entire incident was actually a parody of the American left.

Inga said...

Simon, I don't think Democrats would vote for her and I didn't imply any such thing. What I said was independents may change their minds and vote Democrat if socons keep up this anti gay legislation. Also, you don't think the Log Cabin Republicans were in favor of this bill, do you?

Henry said...

If it were a real problem, the law would have a name, like "Nigella's Law" or "Cartier-Bresson's Law".

But even that wouldn't make it a real problem. P.J. O'Rourke had it right. Americans would throw out the bill of rights for those kids on milk boxes.

Luckily, Brewer knew better.

As for the political fallout, whether or not Brewer can (legally) or does (successfully) run for another term as governor is besides the point. If you're on the conservative side of national politics, Brewer just defused a bomb for you.

Focus on economics and good governance and you have a chance to make a national difference. Focus on social issues and you can nobly maintain your losing margins.

RecChief said...

what's interesting is that Arizona already has an RFRA on the books, so it cost her nothing to veto it.

m stone said...

Simon: Pretending that the gay community has no interest in using pliant courts to force businesses to serve them is outright counterfactual—it's happening—and even if there were no evidence that they have yet moved onto that step, you can't be naive about this stuff.

It used to be "AIDS is our banner". Now it is the courts. The gay community is courted by liberals and fully energized.

1stamdevotee said...

The left continues its disingenuous approach to the gay marriage steamroller. Sure, no Arizona photographer has yet been sued into shooting a gay wedding she doesn't want to shoot. That was in New Mexico. Sure, no Arizona baker has been sued into making a cake for a gay wedding he doesn't want to support. That was in Oregon (where, by the way, the baker was happy to bake the same people a cake for another purpose). The thought that because no such thing has yet happened in Arizona, none ever will, is laughable. The whole and entire point of the gay marriage movement is to force the law and society into acceptance and official approval. That is precisely what makes the movement so odious.

From the HHS mandate on birth control to the gay marriage issue, religious freedom is under attack in America. And it's under attack from people who claim to believe in tolerance, but who in fact are trying to drive religion out of the public altogether and keep it closeted in houses of worship.

The gay rights movement has been absolutely masterful in managing to equate opposition to gay marriage (you know, like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both expressed a year ago) with discrimination against gays. You have to tip your cap to them as a propaganda machine.

But disagreeing with gay marriage is NOT the same as discriminating against gays, any more than disagreeing with divorce and remarriage (as the Catholic Church officially does) discriminates against remarried people. What is objected to is not the person, but the definition of marriage. Disagree if you want — but if you insist on equating the two, frankly *you* are the one being intolerant. Don't kid yourself. You're saying that anybody who disagrees with you on a public policy issue is a bigot. But saying it doesn't make it so, and our laws shouldn't be based on that fiction.

I have no expectation that this will happen, but I would like to see a simple common-sense approach to these clashes of rights. Call it the lower burden standard. You want my company to provide you with free birth control; my religion believes that birth control is inherently contrary to God's will. Who has the lower burden? You, having to pay $10 a month for birth control? Or me, having to act counter to my religious beliefs? You want a cake for your gay wedding; I feel that supporting a gay wedding in any way will put my in conflict with my religious beliefs. Who has the lower burden? You, in finding another cake vendor? Or me, in going against my sincerely held religious beliefs under threat of fines or worse?

These should not be hard cases. The gay rights movement would like to think that their plight necessitates government protection to the same level that the status of African Americans under Jim Crow required special government intrusion. But they are nowhere near the same league, and leveraging the force of government against individual consciences is unwarranted, and un-American.

Alex said...

Inga - it is hilarious to see the bigots come out in full regalia the last 24 hours on this site. Especially Shouting Thomas. I think he might have a stroke the way he's going.

Alex said...

you bigots miss the point. This is not about celebrating gays, it's about fairness under the law. It's about applying logic and reason, not religion to our civil laws. Of course Evangelical Christianity got dealt a MAJOR blow yesterday and it's only the start.

Gird yer loins fundies, it's gonna be a LONG winter.

Bob Ellison said...

Usually, the "Slippery Slope Fallacy" argument is weak, because there are slippery slopes, and you're right, Simon, that proponents of one policy usually have other, more ambitious policies in mind.

But in this case, it applies. Don't try the fanatical anti-SB-1062 folks for what they're doing here. It's a reasonable step, asking for the veto. They aren't lynching people yet.

I'll be in line with you when it becomes a real problem.

Marshal said...

Henry said...
Focus on economics and good governance and you have a chance to make a national difference.


It's always bizarre when people say things like this, especially when considered in light with the left's insanity over the Tea Parties.

garage mahal said...

Yes, OTHER states have a problem in this area.

I'm aware of two cases. Are there a host of others?

Simon said...

Inga said...
"Simon, I don't think Democrats would vote for her and I didn't imply any such thing. What I said was independents may change their minds and vote Democrat if socons keep up this anti gay legislation. Also, you don't think the Log Cabin Republicans were in favor of this bill, do you?"

That's sort of right and sort of not. You said that "she is getting credit … [from] Democrats" (emphasis deleted), but as you surely know, the only kind of credit that matters is voting for her, so they aren't giving her credit. That is so as a general principle, but it applies a fortiori here in the context of an attempt to rejoin RCocean's comment which was explicitly about whether her action would win her votes. Thus, even if votes =/= credit generally, votes = credit in this context.

Independents, you know, there's no such thing. They don't exist. Most of the people who call themselves independents are democrats who are kidding themselves because they want to think of themselves as good, open-minded peopel who are persuaded by the evidence, even though the last Republican they even considered supporting was Lincoln Chafee. And the residuum are unprincipled vacillating "pragmatists" à la Tony Kennedy, people who have no coherent principles, choose candidates on an entirely ad hoc basis of what seems nice in the given moment, and then complain that the resulting public policy is incoherent. I'm with The West Wing's Josh Lyman on this.

I don't know what the LCRs thought, but I hope that they took the same view that I do—that the problems with these bills lies in the narrowness with which they target objections to homosexuality and objections that are reilgiously-based, when the correct principle is that anyone should be able to refuse to contract with anyone (whether for goods or services, including employment) for any reason they please. Anything less than that is forcing people to engage in unwanted commercial transactions against their will, which may or may not be constitutional but is certainly not moral.

Revenant said...

It protected them from being sued if they should make the unwise choice to refuse service to people who have a sense of entitlement and no sense of proportion.

Cite the Arizona state law under which gay people are allowed to sue businesses for not serving them.

Alex said...

Revenant - the 14th amendment.

The Equal Protection Clause is located at the end of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Notice it doesn't say black person, it simply says person.

Revenant said...

I'm aware of two cases. Are there a host of others?

I have no idea how many cases there are. There are more than two states with the kind of laws that caused the problem, though.

Arizona isn't one of them, which is part of what made this law so idiotic.

The Crack Emcee said...

"You know the worst thing about niggas? Niggas always want credit for some shit they supposed to do. A nigga will brag about some shit a normal man just does. A nigga will say some shit like '[insert Jan Brewer comments here].' You're supposed to, you dumb motherfucker! What kind of ignorant shit is that?"

Shanna said...

Of course Evangelical Christianity got dealt a MAJOR blow yesterday

Nonsense. Christianity is not about cake baking. You should read the anchoress on this mess.

Now when we do get to the point of trying to force ministers to marry people outside their faith, that will be a different story.

Simon said...

1stamdevotee said...
"The left continues its disingenuous approach to the gay marriage steamroller. Sure, no Arizona photographer has yet been sued into shooting a gay wedding she doesn't want to shoot."

And what's often missed is that it doesn't even matter whether the litigation is likely to succeed—the mere threat of cripplingly-expensive litigation is itself a concern, as Bell Atlantic v. Twombly recognized. No Arizona photographer in her right mind is going to refuse service to a gay couple today for fear that her business will be sued into the ground. It's incomprehensible to me that Revenant, a libertarian, doesn't recognize that the threat of government force now hangs over every contracting decision that an Arizonan makes and will force them to act against their will, even if one doesn't agree with what they will.

"From the HHS mandate on birth control to the gay marriage issue, religious freedom is under attack in America."

It's not about religious freedom. That's trivial. It doesn't matter why someone wants to refuse to contract; it doesn't matter who they are or what they believe. And whatever utility there may be in using makeweight "religious freedom" arguments to sell the bills, it is by far outweighed by the opposition stoked and the risk engendered of a first amendment suit going the other way to overturn it. What matters is that they have the right to contract vel non as they please, except to the extent that right is abrogated by law. And like all rights, it should only be abrogated by law in the face of an important need and then only to the extent ad for the duration necessary.

Revenant said...

Revenant - the 14th amendment.

Alex -- I said "Arizona state law", which the 14th amendment is not. If state governments could make 14th-based lawsuits go away by passing a state law, the 14th amendment wouldn't actually do anything. :)

1stamdevotee said...

@Simon — I'm entirely with you that any business should be able to refuse to do business with anyone as it sees fit. Let customers react accordingly.

But have you read SB1062? Nothing in there about gays at all. http://www.prescottenews.com/index.php/news/current-news/item/23134-sb1062-everything-you-wanted-to-know-but-didn-t-bother-to-ask

@Alex It's clear that you're the bigot here. Your hatred of "fundies" shines through loud and clear.

Alex said...

nah, I'm just laughing at you fundies flailing about trying to find a silver lining in all this. This is the Apocalypse for you.

MadisonMan said...

No Arizona photographer in her right mind is going to refuse service to a gay couple today for fear that her business will be sued into the ground.

As I've said elsewhere, the solution is to say No, and when asked why, cite time constraints/family obligations.

Honesty is not always the best policy in business.

sunsong said...

Apparently a judge just ruled that Kentucky must recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states and refused to stay his order.

Alex said...

The point is individual states do not have the right to pass laws allowing violation of the Equal Protection clause.

Alex said...

Point is if a Christian baker wants to discriminate let them do so without the state passing a Jim Crow law.

RecChief said...

Alex- so the WEst Hollywood bar that has a "deny service" list with people who vote against gay marriage is owned by bigots?

Since you are so concerned about fairness under the law and all

Alex said...

It's ok to discriminate on individual traits - not class.

So "no shirt, not shoes, no service" is still acceptable.

Simon said...

Alex said...
"individual states do not have the right to pass laws allowing violation of the Equal Protection clause. "

That's true, but private action, ipso facto, cannot violate the equal protection clause.

Rae said...

What about nudists?

Shouting Thomas said...

@Alex

Every liberal in America calls everybody who disagrees with them about anything a bigot. It's a stupid tactic. Expected from you. It's meaningless twaddle.

I'm in fine shape.

You folks are headed for a war that will shock you. And, I'm not saying that I'm going to be the prosecutor of this war. I'm too buy with other things.

It is always amusing to observe crusaders who think they are solving a problem, when they are in fact creating a problem that will mushroom beyond their imaginations. You think you are solving a problem of discrimination and violence, kiddies. You are creating one that will explode on you in the future.

You are busy making real your own nightmares.

Henry said...

Marshall wrote: It's always bizarre when people say things like this, especially when considered in light with the left's insanity over the Tea Parties.

The way the left attempts to minimize the tea party movement is to lump it in with the crazy social conservatives. The entire thrust of the smear job is to use hot-button social issues to distract from the economic issues that can attract a wider audience and fairer hearing.

Social-issue politics is regional and visceral. Economics politics is national and fluid.

RecChief said...

"Anything less than that is forcing people to engage in unwanted commercial transactions against their will, which may or may not be constitutional but is certainly not moral."

hmmm what landmark law forces people into unwanted commercial transactions? The left has no problem with forcing people into any kind of unwanted action.

mccullough said...

Rev is right. The Arizona senate passed this law as pure symbolism to placate the paranoia of some religious people. And of course some of those on the other side reacted to this symbolic claptrap with their own paranoia. And the interest groups on both sides who make their living off this bullshit were able to raise some money on another donnybrook in the culture wars.

As governor of Arizona, Brewer's job is to make sure the state runs well fiscally and to attract and retain businesses. She is doing her job by vetoing this nonsense and saying Arizona is open for business to everyone. Contrast the growth of Arizona with the decline of New England, New York, and the Midwest.

Revenant said...

No Arizona photographer in her right mind is going to refuse service to a gay couple today for fear that her business will be sued into the ground.

You suffer from the mistaken belief that a law can protect you from being sued. Not so.

What the law does is enable you to WIN the lawsuit. Arizona law already sides with the business on this issue -- gays aren't a protected class under state law. So the law would have done jack shit to protect businesses from vindictive homosexuals.

What it would have done, of course, is to make it harder for anyone to sue a business for any reason, since there were no limits placed on the owner's right to assert religious privilege. The burden would, instead, fall on the plaintiff to prove that the "violation" was acceptable.

Landlord pissed because you blare load music all the time and annoy the other businesses in the building? Hey, just claim you're making a joyful noise unto the lord and make him pay a lawyer to prove you're full of it. For bonus points: if you win, he gets stuck with all the court costs.

Simon said...

Alex said...
"Point is if a Christian baker wants to discriminate let them do so without the state passing a Jim Crow law."

Congratulations on your de facto confession that you have absolutely no idea what Jim Crow laws did.

RecChief said...

"It's ok to discriminate on individual traits - not class.

So "no shirt, not shoes, no service" is still acceptable."

And what individual trait has put them on a deny service list? presumably they are wearing shoes and shirts.

WestVirginiaRebel said...

Translation: This is not a winning issue for social conservatives.

1stamdevotee said...

@Alex, I'm not a fundamentalist but thanks for trying.

So it's okay to discriminate based on individual traits, but not on class. When the baker in Oregon was willing to sell cakes to homosexuals, but not for a gay wedding, what kind of discrimination was that? It clearly wasn't based on the class of individual he was selling to, since he was willing to sell them a cake for other purposes. You might say he's splitting hairs -- but what you or I think about his religious reasoning doesn't matter.

I love how some leftists are perfectly fine throwing out the first amendment protections of religion without a care in the world, as though there aren't serious legal and constitutional implications in doing so. You see only one side of the argument and are unwilling to admit that there's another compelling interest involved in these cases.

Here's hoping the USSC that smacked down the Obama administration 9-0 in the Hosanna Tabor case feels differently.

Revenant said...

Contrast the growth of Arizona with the decline of New England, New York, and the Midwest.

To be fair, the growth in Arizona is largely from people who want to get the heck out of California but still live someplace dry.

"The government here isn't as bad as California's" is a low bar to jump.

Shouting Thomas said...

The campaign to drive discrimination and bigotry out of the universe long ago ceased to be anything except group hysteria, halo preening and egregious stupidity.

Althouse is embarrassingly, comically stupid when she delves into this shit. She's clearly entranced by her Suze Retolo fantasies.

The bigot hunters are our problem, and they have been for a couple of decades.

You all need to go home, cease fixing the world and shut up. This is the best way for you to make the world a better place. Cease imagining that you are marching across the bridge at Selma.

Take my advice. Shut up about this incredibly, hilariously, stupid shit.

In the future, when the Holodeck becomes a commercially available appliance, you morons can load up the Selma Bridge program and head off to star in yet another episode of "In the Heat of the Night."

Against stupidity we are helpless.

Birches said...

Gosh, you people are still so uninformed about that nothing burger of a law.

Jan Brewer's veto was not unexpected, because she already vetoed a law almost exactly like it last year (but for some reason, the media didn't shout from the rooftops about "Jim Crow Gay laws" back then). The business backlash would not have meant nothing (see SB1070 for example) if she felt like there was an honest need for this law.

But, as I may remind people for the 14 million time, sexual orientation is not a protected class in AZ. So the bigots could and should be discriminating left and right if the State is really as backasswards as portrayed (yet somehow they're not).

So what have we learned? The AZ legislature often wastes its time on symbolic legislation. Jan Brewer enjoys calling them on it. And you can't trust anyone in the major news media to honest report the facts without alarmism, inaccuracy and bloviation.

madisonfella said...

It's about jockeying for position for inevitable federal lawsuit against churches for not marrying homosexuals.

Remember all the federal lawsuits against the churches that refused (and still refuse) to perform inter-racial marriages? And do you recall all those cases brought against churches that wouldn't marry couples that were of a different religion?

Exact same thing will happen with churches that refuse to marry homosexual couples.

Birches said...

Revenant,

Your analysis is spot on. Thank you.

gerry said...

when the correct principle is that anyone should be able to refuse to contract with anyone (whether for goods or services, including employment) for any reason they please. Anything less than that is forcing people to engage in unwanted commercial transactions against their will, which may or may not be constitutional but is certainly not moral.

One should be able to refuse transactions for any reason, even if the refusal involves a public accommodation, like a bus, a restaurant, a hotel, or an airplane?

Simon, I hope I misunderstand you.

mccullough said...

Rev,

Point taken. But it's pretty well run fiscally, unlike Big Blue (California, New York, Illinois, etc.). Most gays don't want to pay for the oversized underfunded pensions of government workers anymore than most straights. Lot of former Midwesterners in Arizona.

Simon said...

Revenant said...
"You suffer from the mistaken belief that a law can protect you from being sued. Not so."

Effectively so. If this law had been signed, the state-sanctioned intimidation would go the other way: No attorney would bring a case for actions explicitly protected by statute because he knows that he would face sanctions. And if the case were brought pro se, it would be subject to an immediate motion to dismiss.

Revenant said...

Effectively so. If this law had been signed, the state-sanctioned intimidation would go the other way: No attorney would bring a case for actions explicitly protected by statute because he knows that he would face sanctions.

Simon, it is becoming increasingly obvious that you have neither read the proposed law not bothered reading anything about the existing Arizona laws.

Your comments are ignorant and insipid, and I'm done responding to them.

RecChief said...

Personally, if I was gay and getting married, and a cake baker refused to bake a wedding cake, I would calmly walk outside, take a picture of the storefront, caption it with "This guy refused to bake our wedding cake, forewarned is forearmed". Then I would send it to all my friends. Then go down the street to the next cake baker. Why dick around with the courts? And who besides a dick, wants something that is coerced from someone else?

Shouting Thomas said...

Back to work.

Enough time wasted on idiot lawyers.

We need to get rid of you guys. Althouse, too.

I worked for asshole lawyers for two decades. Everybody's got to eat shit to make a living. Eating lawyer shit is about as bad as it gets, but at least it pays.

I'm not a political activist of any kind. But, if there were a way to drive you folks out of biz, I'd be happy to join that movement.

You folks are a serious breed of parasites.

Shouting Thomas said...

Off to rehearsal, but before I leave, one question...

What would you dumb fucks do without the great bigot hunt?

Shouting Thomas said...

Any I am including Althouse in my dumb fucks category.

Rae said...

madisonfella said...
It's about jockeying for position for inevitable federal lawsuit against churches for not marrying homosexuals.

Remember all the federal lawsuits against the churches that refused (and still refuse) to perform inter-racial marriages? And do you recall all those cases brought against churches that wouldn't marry couples that were of a different religion?

Exact same thing will happen with churches that refuse to marry homosexual couples.


Different times, and different people in charge now.

Revenant said...

And who besides a dick, wants something that is coerced from someone else?

There's a reason why the "zomg the sky is falling" crowd has managed to come up with only a handful of examples, all from states that passed legislation explicitly allowing the lawsuits.

hombre said...

Three cities in Arizona have anti-discrimination ordinances that protect LGBT: Phoenix, Tucson and Flagstaff, accounting for roughly half the population.

What was it you were saying about existing Arizona laws, Revenant?

Revenant said...

Different times, and different people in charge no

Uh-huh. And the name of the judge who has ruled in favor of such lawsuits would be...?

Oh, I see. Nobody. It has never happened. Nothing even so much as hints in that direction; religions are free to limit their rituals to those whom they see fit, and no court has ever held otherwise.

But by god, we know there is a secret leftist conspiracy just *waiting* to spring into action. They're just... biding their time, for some odd reason. And the proof of the power of this judicial conspiracy is that it has managed to suppress all evidence of its existence.

Birches said...

The actual city of Phoenix only has about 1.5 million people in it; the surrounding metro area is about 4.3, so it really is a fraction of the State that would be negatively affected by the veto of this law.

And just so you know a little bit about the area, most of the Christian businesses that would be refusing gay wedding services would most likely not be in Phoenix city proper. That's just the way it is.

The Cracker Emcee said...

I have no dog in the Gay fight but can't help feeling a certain hilarity that the burning civil rights issues of the day are all about affluent, white males. Imagine a world where only Blacks were gay. You'd never hear about them.

Revenant said...

Three cities in Arizona have anti-discrimination ordinances that protect LGBT

They protect access to public accommodations, government services, housing, and employment. There is no blanket ban on discrimination; the baker/florist/etc lawsuits wouldn't pass muster under the law.

The law Brewer vetoed also wouldn't have overturned them, as it contained the usual exception that areas where the state has a compelling interest -- as it does with housing, jobs, and government services -- still trump religion.

hombre said...

Revenant: "To be fair, the growth in Arizona is largely from people who want to get the heck out of California but still live someplace dry."

Prior to the recession and several times since, Arizona has been a national leader in population and job growth. It has very little, if anything, to do with people simply escaping from California. Much of our growth is attributable to midwesterners.

Anything else you'd like to make up?

Illuninati said...

"53% of Americans-- including 58% of white Catholics and 56% of Latino Catholics-- now support same-sex marriage, according to a survey conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute."

Those statistics show that the mimetic process is the dominant arbiter of morality in the USA.
The repercussions from changing the meaning of the word "marriage" are still future. The social fabric is so complex that no one can know the ultimate outcome when they make such large changes.

WestVirginiaRebel said...
"Translation: This is not a winning issue for social conservatives."

In the long run this may turn out to be a losing issue for everyone not just social conservatives. If it affected only social conservatives, I personally wouldn't worry much, but I fear the long term consequences may be much different than those promoting gay marriage expect.





Simon said...

gerry said...
"One should be able to refuse transactions for any reason, even if the refusal involves a public accommodation, like a bus, a restaurant, a hotel, or an airplane?"

Busses excepted, in principle, yes, but with an important caveat. An owner has every right to refuse service. An employee has no general right to refuse service, because he is simply a cat's paw, the wetware through whom the employer's decisions are effectuated. If you work for Whole Foods and Whole Foods adopts a policy that it won't serve Republicans, any lawsuit arising from the policy would be filed against Whole Foods, not you as the individual employee through whom the policy might be discharged. Conversely, if you work for Gander Mountain and you refuse to serve a Democrat, Gander Mountain is likely to fire you.

Busses are a likely exception because they are often operated by a governmental entity or under circumstances that make them state actors; they are then directly-regulated by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Moreover, just as state governments that take federal money must accept any strings that come with the money, South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987), so also a privately-owned business such as a bus company, restaurant, or hotel that takes government money must accept any strings that government chooses to impose. Nor would I necessarily reject the conditioning of the issuance of licenses to businesses traditionally subject to licensing requirements on their adopting any-comer-served policies.

It should go without saying, although perhaps I ought to say so, that I do not support anyone actually exercising the freedom to turn down service to any particular group. Moreover, I think that the market will excise companies that discriminate. Rather, I am skeptical of the argument that the government should forbid people from doing things simply because they are obnoxious, and I think that outside of the kind of company town scenario that no longer exists outside of law school hypotheticals, the market disfavors that kind of bias.

Hagar said...

Any Moslem bakers care to chime in on this?

Illuninati said...

Simon said:
" An owner has every right to refuse service."

From a libertarian perspective this sounds good, but in actual practice giving business owners the unlimited right to refuse service would cause problems. Over time one could expect the free market to correct these problems, but in actual practice some regulations about who an owner can refuse are probably necessary.

Simon said...

Revenant said...
"Your comments are ignorant and insipid, and I'm done responding to them."

And your comments have revealed that for all your libertarian posturing, you have no interest in anyone's liberty but your own. When it's the liberty of people other than yourself to do things that you don't want to do, you have not the silghtest concern, and that is far more discrediting to you and your faux philosophy than anything I have said here is to me or mine.

garage mahal said...

Much of our growth is attributable to midwesterners.

I lived in Phoenix [Ahwatukee] for a short while and I could not believe how many people from Wisconsin lived there. Most of the people I met had lived there for a long time, fwiw.

Birches said...

There are a lot of midwesterners in AZ. I find them troublesome because of their knee jerk negative reactions towards brown people. I've heard more than one transplanted midwesterner comment that the only place they felt safe living was in Scottsdale or Gilbert (the horror of having a brown person as your neighbor!) They don't understand that brown people come in middle class too.

Birches said...

Most of the Californians that move to AZ are more red state than a typical Los Angeleno. And if they aren't when they move, they turn fairly quickly. The CA hippies have all seemed to turn up in Colorado.

hombre said...

Revenant: "They (ordinances) protect access to public accommodations, government services, housing, and employment."

Actually, the Tucson ordinance, for example, covers: "Places of public accommodation, facilities, services, commodities or use offered to or enjoyed by the general public, operated within the City limits of Tucson" and businesses employing 100 or more people.

That covers pretty much everything, doesn't it? Private Clubs and non-profit religious organizations are exempted.

Nice try though. Anything else you'd like to make up?

hombre said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Revenant said...

Prior to the recession and several times since, Arizona has been a national leader in population and job growth. It has very little, if anything, to do with people simply escaping from California. Much of our growth is attributable to midwesterners.

When I say that immigration to Arizona "is" something, calling me a liar because it "was" something back before the housing bubble burst is pretty damned silly.

The most popular state-to-state moves, according to the US Census:

1. California to Texas
4. California to Arizona
7. California to Washington
8. Texas to California
10. California to Nevada

(I cut the ones that didn't mention AZ or CA).

Net CA-to-AZ migration also exceeds net AZ immigration. In other words, if Californians weren't moving there, Arizona's American population would be shrinking. So yes, I feel comfortable attributing Arizona's CURRENT growth to people fleeing California.

And it wasn't meant as an insult to your state, Mr. Crankypants.

Illuninati said...

Birches said:
"I've heard more than one transplanted midwesterner comment that the only place they felt safe living was in Scottsdale or Gilbert (the horror of having a brown person as your neighbor!)"

I lived in New Mexico for many years and I never experienced that type of racism. Could their attitude be because the crime rate in Phoenix is so high rather than racism? Phoenix is listed as one of the ten most dangerous cities in the country.
http://phoenix.about.com/od/crime/a/dangerous.htm

Birches said...

So we had to pass a bill for Tucson, hombre?

Why the heck is any decent, half brained human being still living in Tucson?

Look, the bill didn't irk me one way or the other, the sky wouldn't have fallen either way. But the segments of the population that are negatively affected are almost miniscule -- whereas the backlash (because the media misinformed everyone about the nuts and bolts) was enormous. Brewer already vetoed this same bill last year and no one gave a crap. This is not Custer's Last Stand. If the bill was truly necessary, she would have signed it, just like she signed SB 1070.

Simon said...

Birches said...
"There are a lot of midwesterners in AZ. I find them troublesome because of their knee jerk negative reactions towards brown people."

I find that hard to believe.

Revenant said...

Actually, the Tucson ordinance, for example, covers:

I stand corrected, then; Tucson does indeed have a general ban on anti-gay discrimination. So only 92% of the state is free to so discriminate. :)

Even in Tucson's case, though, the existing RFRA from 1999 protects businesses with religious objections.

paul a'barge said...

Hendrik Hertzberg attempts the Fisk. One should in turn fisk the living crap out of Hertzberg.

Forest. Falling tree. Moving on.

Paul Zrimsek said...

Birches, did the transplanted Midwesterners actually say the part about the brown people, or did you provide that for them?

Birches said...

Illuminati,

I don't know, but does NM have a lot of midwestern transplants? To me, its a matter of thinking that things are going to be like they were "back home," but since the neighborhood demographics are a lot more brown than they're used to, it kind of freaks them out, and they think that maybe the neighborhood (or the school) isn't as great as advertised. I don't think it's racism per se.

Honestly, I didn't understand the thinking until I left AZ and moved to CO (which to me is very midwestern). Things here are just so segregated (by choice) and the demographics are so much whiter on the whole that here the bad parts of town are a lot more diverse than the good. That's just because most of the brown people are recent immigrants. In AZ, they've been there for 50 years...

We live in a very white neighborhood. It bothered me at first, the way the Midwesterners in AZ were bothered by the diversity. But I got used to it and when I go back to AZ, I fall back into my old patterns pretty well.

RecChief said...

In addition to reading Elizabeth Scalia's writing on this, ben Domenech at Federalist points out something I haven't articulated very well.
http://thefederalist.com/2014/02/27/religious-liberty-after-arizona/

Revenant said...

I was discussing this with a friend at lunch, and he raised what I thought was an interesting point -- a law protecting the right to deny service for religious reasons wouldn't actually help in the "florist" and "baker" examples.

The reason being, the religions of the merchants involved don't actually prohibit -- or even discourage -- selling goods and services to homosexuals. The merchants don't have a bona-fide religious objection to the sale; they just find the customer distasteful. They can't even argue that they're facilitating an immoral marriage, since neither cake nor flowers are actually required for the ceremony itself.

What would be needed is general protection for freedom of association rights, but social conservatives are unfortunately not much interested in that.

Birches said...

Oh, I've heard it, my whole family has. The problem is that we look white enough that people don't think we'll get offended when they whisper these things amongst friends.

And there is not left or right divide. I've heard it from liberals about as much as I've heard it from conservatives.

And Illuminati, crime is a problem, but not in the suburbs. Most of that is due to the drug trade, illegal immigration and the gang wars that pop up because of the two. So if you're not involved in that, then I find things fairly safe. However, your car better be insured to the hilt, because car theft is rampant everywhere.

cubanbob said...

Birches said...
Revenant,

Your analysis is spot on. Thank you.

2/27/14, 1:24 PM"

While I almost never agree with Revenant on this he is on target. We can argue the principles ad naseum but lets stick to probable reality. It costs money to sue. It costs money to defend. Odds are the plaintiffs are going to spend a relatively large sum of money to sue for very little if any actual damages while even the poor humble baker probably has some kind of liability insurance- and the carrier will be fronting the defense costs (less the retention). So unless there is a provision in AZ law that let's the plaintiff be awarded their attorney's fees and costs what exactly is suit for? Aggrieved feelings? How is that going to be quantified? And how many juries are actually going to award any serious money if there aren't any serious money damages? And at the fee hearing its very hard to justify serious money in legal fees for bupkis in actual damages.

Nobody likes to see a politician cave on an issue they believe in but honestly Brewer's decision saved the state a bit coin in potentially lost revenues and in the world of legal realities amounts to pretty much nothing.

Birches said...

That's a good article, RecChief.

And now you've lost me with your last point, Revenant. You don't get to decide what counts as participating in a religious ceremony. Let the person decide for themselves.

As for a complete freedom of association bill, well, I think most on the right would be ok with that. But it won't happen because the caricatures and alarmism trumped up for something like that by the media would be DEFCON 5.

RecChief said...

"what exactly is suit for? Aggrieved feelings?"


apparently so. Or, just to rub the noses of those bigots in it.

Michael said...

Headline is that Republican female Govenor vetoes law designed to discriminate against the LGBT community.

Dont know of any female Democrat govenors who have done the same. But then there is only one of them.

Michael said...

Headline is that Republican female Govenor vetoes law designed to discriminate against the LGBT community.

Dont know of any female Democrat govenors who have done the same. But then there is only one of them.

mccullough said...

Birches,

I think you mean DEFCON 1. 5 means all's well. 1 means the jets are in the air.

One thing that seems interesting about the RFRA type laws is who determines if the act is a substantial burden on the religious objector. Seems to me unless you want judges examining religion, that it's up to the objector. Judge Posner's angry decision indicated that he is the judge of what constitutes a burden to Notre Dame's religious objection to signing a form to facilitate the provision of free birth control to ND's employees and students. While I'm sure Judge Posner likes to tell people what their beliefs don't require, it seems more consistent with the Constituion to say the objector gets to decide.

eric said...

Putting Alex's igorance of what Jim Crow laws were aside....

Rev wrote;

"Washington passed a law making it illegal for businesses to discriminate against gays. Thus, a florist is being sued for discriminating against gays."

This is incorrect on so many levels.

The florist wasn't discriminating against gays. The florist sold to gays for years, this gay couple in particular.

The florist was discriminating against an activity. A wedding. A wedding for which the florist does not agree with.

Regardless, I'm surprised anyone would call themselves libertarian and support these bullies and thugs. The reason the florist is being sued isn't because she discriminated against gays. It's because she must be made to accept their chosen activities, otherwise, face the courts.

I don't consider myself a libertarian, however, I do believe in the right of everyone to choose their associations. We should be free to associate with who we choose.

Contrary to Alex, this puts me at odds with Jim Crow laws. Why? Because Jim Crow laws mandated discrimination. It didn't allow people to choose.

Today, we've gone the other way. Now we mandate people not to discrimate. We are, once again, not allowing people to choose.

And it's all the same people, Democrats, doing the mandating.

Birches said...

Thank you, Mccullough.

Obviously, I have no military experience and haven't read a Tom Clancy book in awhile.

Illuninati said...

Birchers said:
"I don't know, but does NM have a lot of midwestern transplants? To me, its a matter of thinking that things are going to be like they were "back home,""

New Mexico has quite a few white transplants, but if they don't want to live with Hispanics they would probably choose a different state. Many of the Hispanics in New Mexico are from old Hispanic families who can trace their roots in New Mexico for many generations. Because the Hispanic culture in New Mexico is so strong, Hispanics are the natives and anglos are generally the new comers.

Civilis said...

The reason being, the religions of the merchants involved don't actually prohibit -- or even discourage -- selling goods and services to homosexuals. The merchants don't have a bona-fide religious objection to the sale; they just find the customer distasteful. They can't even argue that they're facilitating an immoral marriage, since neither cake nor flowers are actually required for the ceremony itself.

I see it differently; both the baker and the florist are (presumably) being asked to create a piece of art (unique cake or floral arrangement)dedicated to this event, to which they have a religious objection. It would be different if the plaintiff went into the store and asked to buy a pre-made cake or a pre-made flower arrangement and was told 'you can't buy that, you're gay'.

Freder Frederson said...

I think that outside of the kind of company town scenario that no longer exists outside of law school hypotheticals, the market disfavors that kind of bias.

Well you are incredibly naive. And you have also apparently forgotten that the civil rights act bans just the type of action by private actors you feel should be allowed. And it has been around for fifty years.

Illuninati said...

There have been cases where Muslim Taxi cab drivers refuse service to blind people with dogs or patrons who have purchased alcohol and are carrying it home. If the lefties who are so eager to force Christians to design cakes for gay marriages etc. are not totally hypocrites, then they will be sure to force Muslims to serve kaffirs even when it goes against their religion.

Hagar said...

When I first came to New Mexico, every third Anglo I met had come from New York or Illinois, so I concluded that those must be very good states to be from.
It was rare then, in Albuquerque at least, to meet an Anglo adult who was born here.
Albuquerque had a population of about 35,000 in 1940, 100,000+ in 1950, 201,000 in 1960, and is now at about 750,000 for the metropolitan area.

Birches said...

@ Illuninati

The Muslim truck drivers who refuse to transport alcohol are being represented on behalf of the EEOC.

Revenant said...

And you have also apparently forgotten that the civil rights act bans just the type of action by private actors you feel should be allowed. And it has been around for fifty years.

And you've made the mistake of equating "the law bans that" with "if the law didn't ban that, it would be common".

The law bans marrying your sister, too -- doesn't mean there's be an epidemic of siblings getting married if the law went away. Social pressure and self-interest are powerful motivators.

Illuninati said...

Hagar said:
"It was rare then, in Albuquerque at least, to meet an Anglo adult who was born here"

Nice to hear from someone from New Mexico. It is a great state.
I'm not so sure about Albuquerque though. It has it's own crime problem.

Revenant said...

The florist wasn't discriminating against gays. The florist sold to gays for years, this gay couple in particular. The florist was discriminating against an activity. A wedding. A wedding for which the florist does not agree with.

Word games. The wedding wasn't trying to buy anything; the gay couple were.

Regardless, I'm surprised anyone would call themselves libertarian and support these bullies and thugs.

I *don't* support them, you dumb son of a bitch. I just pointed out why the law in Washington both permits and requires such lawsuits.

Being aware of reality isn't the same as liking the way things are.

Illuninati said...

Birches said...
"@ Illuninati

The Muslim truck drivers who refuse to transport alcohol are being represented on behalf of the EEOC."

Do you have a link? Provided you are serious, then this whole thing is nothing but an attack by the left against Christians.

Revenant said...

Oh, I've heard it, my whole family has. The problem is that we look white enough that people don't think we'll get offended when they whisper these things amongst friends. And there is not left or right divide. I've heard it from liberals about as much as I've heard it from conservatives.

I had sort of the reverse experience. I grew up in the south in a city that was basically 50/50 white/black, then moved to a place (San Diego county) with no racial majority at all. The first time I visited the rural midwest, it kind of weirded me out that there was nothing but white people around. Like if you visited a city and it had no women in it at all.

Hagar said...

It is notable that the Democrats do not mention Moslems much in connection with these issues.
My understanding is that there are very high-level fatwas issued on the "wrong" side of these issues, and Moslems are strictly admonished to pay attention to sharia laws and orders or else be damned for eternity.
Could it be because Moslems are also thought to be mostly poor recent immigrants and good Democrat voting prospects?

Illuninati said...

Birches, I googled the Muslim drivers. The EEOC is suing a company who insists that Muslim drivers haul alcohol at times when needed. Did the EEOC come in on the side of the Muslim cabbies?

Titus said...

I don't know why anyone is talking about her political career. She's not running again and she most certainly isn't running for president.

She will be working as a lobbyist or public policy organization....but not one that has the word Family in it.

She hates families.

Birches said...

Here's the link. Yes, they are asserting it's religious discrimination to not accommodate their desire to not carry alcohol on their trucks.

Illuninati said...

Hagar, my view of lefties is much darker than yours. I believe the top lefties are extremely cynical power hungry people who think that Islam is more compatible with their quest for power than Christianity.

Illuninati said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Illuninati said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Illuninati said...

Birches, That situation is slightly different, but I still think the lefties are totally hypocritical in their opposition to Christians and their support for Islam.

Sorry for the typo.

Birches said...

But the cabbies (in Minnesota) it appears did not win their case. The last court case was in 2008.

Revenant said...

And now you've lost me with your last point, Revenant. You don't get to decide what counts as participating in a religious ceremony. Let the person decide for themselves.

That's not actually how the law works, though. If it was then it wouldn't be religious freedom, it would be freedom to refuse to do anything you objected to doing.

Which, you know, I'm all for. But the law doesn't recognize that right.

Historically there has been a requirement, when requesting a religious exemption from laws affecting the population at large, to demonstrate that there is a bona fida religious belief involved. You can't just say (for example) "noise ordinances don't apply to me because I worship the god of Rock and Roll himself, Jimi Hendrix".

Revenant said...

Birches, That situation is slightly different, but I still think the lefties are totally hypocritical in their opposition to Christians and their support for Islam.

You're looking at it wrong. You're thinking of one case as pro-Muslim and the other as anti-Christian, but have missed the fact that what BOTH cases are is anti-business.

Illuninati said...

Revenant said:
"You're looking at it wrong. You're thinking of one case as pro-Muslim and the other as anti-Christian, but have missed the fact that what BOTH cases are is anti-business."

I don't disagree with your statement. Many of these issues are distractions meant to weaken the Judeo-Christian culture. If you look at the broader picture you will find that many leftie dominated societies are rapidly becoming Islamicized. For example, according to one report by a former member of Tony Blaire's administration, he deliberately flooded England with people from the third world just to spite his political opposition because they were against integration into the EU.

David said...

Of course the New Yorker can't praise her without trotting out some other conduct that is (in their opinion) "unbelievably cruel."

To say something nice about a Republican without an over the top criticism to balance would damage the liberal street creed.

Liberalism is a fashion statement.

Hagar said...

Illuninati,
Someone has said: "Democrats think Republicans are evil; Republicans think Democrats are stupid."

I think that should have read" Democrats think Republicans are very stupid and evil; Republicans think Deomocrats are exceedingly foolish and crooked."

And I should not let that pass: Albuquerque does not have a particular crime problem, and I don't know where you get that from.
Possibly from watching old "Cops" re-runs on TV, and I regret to say our present sheriff has invited the producers back in. And he is a Republican, so stupid to that extent anyway.

Illuninati said...

Hagar said:
"And I should not let that pass: Albuquerque does not have a particular crime problem, and I don't know where you get that from."

We used to get the Albuquerque news over TV. The crime rate is hard to hide. I'm not why you are so offended when the statistics are available for anyone who wishes to check. http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Albuquerque-New-Mexico.html

"I think that should have read" Democrats think Republicans are very stupid and evil; Republicans think Deomocrats are exceedingly foolish and crooked.""

I suspect you are ramping up the badness of the Republicans because you are offended by my statement. Personally I don't think the top lefties are foolish at all, I think they know exactly what they are doing.

I don't know if Tony Blaire is evil or not but I do know that the Islamization of England took off under his administration. Flooding a country with unassimilated foreigners many of whom are hostile to the native population is not looking out for the people who voted for him. Incidentally, I forgot to provide the link about the reason Tony Blaire flooded England with Islamists.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html

Sweden a nation well known for socialism is also being overwhelmed. Sweden has become the country of rapes.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=096_1267472543

OK now you can call me very very very evil for pointing out those things.


Revenant said...

Many of these issues are distractions meant to weaken the Judeo-Christian culture.

"Side with the minority against the business" is the formula applied.

You don't need to cook up a conspiracy theory to explain it. There is no secret evil agenda in play, and nobody in power gives a shit about weakening "Judeo-Christian culture" (whatever that's supposed to mean).

Revenant said...

Someone has said: "Democrats think Republicans are evil; Republicans think Democrats are stupid."

The reality is more like "Democrats think Republicans are evil and stupid, Republicans think Democrats are evil and cunning".

This thread alone offers plenty of evidence of that.

Revenant said...

We used to get the Albuquerque news over TV. The crime rate is hard to hide. I'm not why you are so offended when the statistics are available for anyone who wishes to check.

According to this, Albequerque's crime rate is towards the middle of the pack among US cities with more than 250,000 people.

Michael K said...

"it was a political move that was intended to boost her career but which has instead ended it. RC Ocean got it exactly right:"

That was her political career. That's over. This was about her lobbyist career. Those corporations were watching. Let's see where she is a year or two from now.

Michael K said...

"I can't believe any of you think this was about wedding cakes. It's about jockeying for position for inevitable federal lawsuit against churches for not marrying homosexuals."

Yup. My lawyer son a couple of years ago ridiculed the idea but I wonder if he still does. That's what this is all about. Frankly, the Catholic Church has been busy demolishing their defense against this sort of thing.

Michael K said...

"Of course Evangelical Christianity got dealt a MAJOR blow yesterday and it's only the start."

Exactly. I don;t give a damn about gay marriage although I think they would have avoided all this controversy by accepting civil unions as the equivalent. THAT is the point ! They want to force the gay agenda down the throats of the religious people in this country, except of course the Muslims because they will cut their throats.

I find the alliance between the left, the gas and the Muslims hilarious.

I would donate to see them all meet in a locked room and "discus" their differences.

hombre said...

Revenant: "So yes, I feel comfortable attributing Arizona's CURRENT growth to people fleeing California."

Of course. There would have been no point in referring to a time when Arizona's growth was actually significant. LOL.

You do realize that even your recently researched data doesn't support your claim since it is likely that the other 48 states contributed more to Arizona's current growth than California.

Michael K said...

"Your hatred of "fundies" shines through loud and clear.

2/27/14, 1:03 PM
Blogger Alex said...
nah, I'm just laughing at you fundies flailing about trying to find a silver lining in all this. This is the Apocalypse for you."

Nice of you to so quickly confirm his comment.

hombre said...

Birches: "So we had to pass a bill for Tucson, hombre?"

I don't give a rat's ass for the bill or for Tucson (I left there 18 years ago).

I just got tired of Revenant's bullshit.

Phil 3:14 said...

it was a political move that was intended to boost her career but which has instead ended it.

You must not be familiar with Jan Brewer. She is of modest ambition. She became Governor when Napolitano left for the Obama cabinet. She was re-elected based on a weak opponent and the momentum of SB 1070. She's governed as a moderate-conservative with her key focus on getting the fiscal house in order (which fits her history).

I don't see her aspiring to any higher office. She's been the target of so much liberal wrath really meant for the stereotypic view of "crazy racist Arizona". (Crack you can chime in a anytime)

Marshal said...

Henry said...
The way the left attempts to minimize the tea party movement is to lump it in with the crazy social conservatives. The entire thrust of the smear job is to use hot-button social issues to distract from the economic issues that can attract a wider audience and fairer hearing.

Social-issue politics is regional and visceral. Economics politics is national and fluid.


You claim this because you want it to be true, but this is a pipe dream unsupported by reality. There is no material Democratic voting constituency which would change their votes if the social issues were no different between parties. Meanwhile the right would suffer significant defections as those pro-life among othe things organized around other priorities.

Americans have been convinced they can be rich if only those evil "others" weren't hoarding all the money.

Illuninati said...

Revenant said:
"You don't need to cook up a conspiracy theory to explain it. There is no secret evil agenda in play, and nobody in power gives a shit about weakening "Judeo-Christian culture" (whatever that's supposed to mean)."

I assume that means that Mr. Revenant doesn't accept that there is an alliance between the left and the Islamists. You don't need to create "conspiracy theories" to observe what is going on.

In Holland Pim Fortuyn was murdered. Later his friend Theodoor van Gogh a film maker who worked on the film Submission was murdered by one of the immigrants. The response by the left was to try to silence folks like Geert Wilders who have argued against unassimilated immigration. He was put on trial by lefties who didn't respect his right of freedom of speech. He won in court. Now his party is rapidly gaining in popularity and may soon be the largest party in Holland.

Incidentally, thank-you for the information on the crime rate in Albuquerque vs. other cities. I was comparing it to the rest of New Mexico.


Illuninati said...

The only country that I'm aware of where a leftie is resisting the Islamization is in France. Instead of demonizing those who are warning of the danger, François Hollande is actually responding to the threat to French society. So I can say that there is one leftie who does not side with the Islamization of his country.

somefeller said...

Illiuninati says:Hagar, my view of lefties is much darker than yours. I believe the top lefties are extremely cynical power hungry people who think that Islam is more compatible with their quest for power than Christianity.

And people wonder why ridicule, snark and condescension are common responses from liberals. If the shoe fits...

Illuninati said...

somefeller said:
"And people wonder why ridicule, snark and condescension are common responses from liberals."

In my lexicon, lefties are not liberals they are statists. So yes, if the shoe fits wear it.



Illuninati said...

Incidentally, I have no problem with "ridicule, snark and condescension". Two sides can play that game. Allowing speech which some people find offensive is what free speech is all about. It is when the left goes the next step and shuts down free speech like they did to Geert Wilders that I have a problem with them.

gerry said...

It is when the left goes the next step and shuts down free speech like they did to Geert Wilders that I have a problem with them.

Like an FCC inspector visiting TV and Radio Stations to test whether they are meeting federal minimum information guidelines?

I know that has been shelved (for now) but why do they (the Obama administration) even propose such chilling possibilities?

Fen said...

And people wonder why ridicule, snark and condescension are common responses from liberals.

No, illuminati is on to something. I've met some of the Lefties he's referring to - they think they can ride the tiger.

Jason said...

Revenant: Yes, OTHER states have a problem in this area. Arizona does not. You can't repeal Washington's asinine laws by fag-bashing in Arizona

This is why you cannot deal with progressives and gay issues activists as if they were adults. Even the smart ones who should know better, like Revenant, become totally unhinged from reality.

Asserting that merchants have freedom of association rights not to enter into contracts with those they find objectionable, or for events they find objectionable, is not "fag bashing."

Revenant said...

Of course. There would have been no point in referring to a time when Arizona's growth was actually significant. LOL.

Hombre, let me introduce you to a little thing called "verb tense".

Present tense, e.g. "Arizona's growth is largely due to people fleeing California", indicates a statement about something happening now.

When discussing something which happened in the past, we use what is called "past tense", e.g. "In the early 20th century, Arizona's growth was driven by a large influx of people from around the United States".

If want to discuss past Arizona growth, go for it. But don't act like such a little bitch because I said something about current growth.

Revenant said...

That should have been "early 21st century"... although it was true for the early 20th century too, I'd suppose.

Revenant said...

I assume that means that Mr. Revenant doesn't accept that there is an alliance between the left and the Islamists. You don't need to create "conspiracy theories" to observe what is going on.

In Holland Pim Fortuyn was murdered [...] Later his friend Theodoor van Gogh

Yawn. American references, please.

Should I point to Africa as proof that there is an alliance between Islamists and opponents of gay marriage? Or between opponents of gay marriage and people who want to murder gay people?

If you look across the whole planet you can find "alliances" all over the place.

Revenant said...

Asserting that merchants have freedom of association rights not to enter into contracts with those they find objectionable, or for events they find objectionable, is not "fag bashing."

That would be more convincing if the people angry the law didn't pass weren't shitting themselves inside-out with rage about homosexuals.

Anyhoo, the law didn't protect freedom of association rights. It granted religious people the power to exempt themselves from the lawsuits on religious grounds. If the law had stated "businesses shall have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason they please" this would be a very different conversation.

Of course, *that* law wouldn't have passed the legislature in the first place. Neither Republicans nor Democrats give a crap about freedom of association rights as a general principle.

Fen said...

Asserting that merchants have freedom of association rights not to enter into contracts with those they find objectionable, or for events they find objectionable, is not "fag bashing."

Gay-owned print shop forced to make "God Hates Fags" signs for Westboro.

Jewish-owned costumer forced to make Nazi uniform for KKK ceremony.

The pro-gay side is simply hysterical and off the rails. Again. I haven't seen this much misinformation and ignorance since the shooting of Trayvon Martin.

Fen said...

It granted religious people the power to exempt themselves from the lawsuits on religious grounds.

And the stupidity continues.

"A RFRA law, either state or federal, does not give anyone the license to do anything they want based upon their religious beliefs. Rather, it says what needs to happen for the government to take away someone's religious freedom."

http://www.christianpost.com/news/issue-analysis-arizona-bill-does-not-give-businesses-license-to-discriminate-against-gays-115093/

RecChief said...

here is what 12 law professors (some of whom support gay marriage) had to say about the bill:

"
SB1062 would amend the Arizona RFRA to address two ambiguities that have been the subject of litigation under other RFRAs. It would provide that people are covered when state or local government requires them to violate their religion in the conduct of their business, and it would provide that people are covered when sued by a private citizen invoking state or local law to demand that they violate their religion."


Iasked if anyone here had actually read the bill. Apparently, no one had.

Here is Molly Hemingway's take on the tempest in a teacup over this bill:

http://thefederalist.com/2014/02/28/dumb-uneducated-and-eager-to-deceive-media-coverage-of-religious-liberty-in-a-nutshell/

Jason said...

Revenant: That would be more convincing if the people angry the law didn't pass weren't shitting themselves inside-out with rage about homosexuals.

1. That is not relevant in the slightest. The fact that some people you don't name and exist mostly in your own fevered paranoid imagination may express objection toward being forced to participate in gay marriage ceremonies does not make them fag bashers, and even if they did fag bash, that does not make the assertion of freedom of association rights fag bashing, in the slightest.

2. They SHOULD be expressing rage. Some of the homosexuals in question, and their enablers on this particular legal front, are willing to throw a baker in jail for not giving into their demands. It's not the homosexuality that's objectionable. That's incidental. It's their fascism.

I object to Christians bullying homosexuals. I object just as strenuously to homosexuals bullying Christians and that's precisely what's occurring here.

chickenlittle said...

I object to Christians bullying homosexuals. I object just as strenuously to homosexuals bullying Christians and that's precisely what's occurring here.

I think that's the majority opinion, Jason. Well said.

Jane the Actuary said...

So this question percolated around in my brainfor a bit (as you can tell by the fact that this particular post of Althouse's is now several days old), and now it's a bit late to write, except just to get this out there:

there's one key difference between marriage-related service providers declining to provide their services for gay weddings, and Jim Crow laws:

Jim Crow laws caused significant harm to blacks. A photographer declining to photograph a gay wedding does little to no harm to the couple in question, because there are so many willing providers of this service. (The only way to find and prosecute such cases, really, is by using "testers.") Requiring businesses to provide services to all comers is a matter of balancing rights and determining that the potential harm caused to one group outweighs the harm by the other. The so-called "Gay Jim Crow" laws don't pass this test.

"http://janetheactuary.blogspot.com/2014/03/why-religious-freedom-restoration-is.html