Tagged: Arizona Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • just a conservative girl 1:45 PM on 02/22/2014 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Arizona, ,   

    The Arizona Bill Doesn’t Say What You Think It Says 

    Not that it should be a surprise, but the media is calling Arizona’s 1062 Bill “Anti-Gay”, discrimination, a return back to Jim Crow and other such nonsense.  The bill isn’t any such thing.  The legislation that passed does one thing and one thing only.  It expands who gets covered under religious liberty claims under the law in terms of lawsuits.

    Today the law in Arizona the law only covers you if somehow the government is involved in the preceding.  This expands it so if a private business or a church gets sued they can claim they are exercising their religious free will.

    Section 41-1493 of the Arizona Revised Statutes regulates who can claim religious freedom or exercise thereof as a defense in a lawsuit.

    Senate bill 1062 revises that law by expanding the definition of who is a person to “any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution, estate, trust, foundation or other legal entity”, and allows for religious-freedom lawsuits “regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceeding.

    Nowhere in this legislation does it say that you can hang a sign in your storefront refusing service.  It simply allows a business owner or a church to claim that they are exercising their right to their religious beliefs and a judge can’t throw that out as a non-defense.  It will be allowed to be heard by a jury and they get to decide if that defense has merit or not.

    People behave as if somehow the rights of one person automatically trumps the rights of another.  They don’t.  Rights are given to all people.  There is no doubt that gay marriage is a topic that is virtually impossible to bridge the deep divides.  But lets say for instance a person who is divorced by no desire of their own.  Their spouse packed up and left after deciding they didn’t want to be married anymore.  Most states today have no fault divorces so it is very likely that can just file and be divorced in relatively short order.  The spouse that was left is a practicing Catholic.  Over time they rebuild their lives and meet someone new.  They decide they want to get married again.  By Catholic doctrine they cannot be married in the church.  Should they be able to sue under the grounds they are being discriminated against because they are divorced?  Shouldn’t the Catholic Church be able to walk into a courtroom and say this goes against their teaching and doctrines without being labeled bigot?

    I, for the life of me, can’t figure out why a couple would want to force a business to work with them when they don’t want to.  Especially for something as important as a wedding.  This is a day that to a Christian is a sacrosanct covenant with God.  You are not just making that vow to each other, but you are making that vow to God himself.  You can disagree with that premise all you like.  It doesn’t make it less relevant or real to a person who takes that seriously.

    We have already seen a business taken to court for not wanting to participate in something they view as sinful.  A lawsuit is being filed in England right now to force the Church of England to perform Gay Marriages even the law has put in protections to guard that from happening.  We all know all too clearly what happens when a person speaks up about their religious beliefs that gay marriage is sinful.  They get called a bigot.  It never occurs to the person doing that name calling that they may be the ones who are bigots.  That they are the ones forcing another to go against deeply held beliefs and trying to force them to accept their choice to get married to someone of the same-sex.  No it is just the other way around.  It is just the Christian who is the bigot.  It is never anyone else.

    I am not saying that the whole “agree to disagree” is something that is simple.  But it isn’t as complicated as some make it sound when it comes to a baker, a photographer, a florist, or any other vendor that someone may use to celebrate their wedding day.  It is going to be a rare case indeed that another vendor that is more than happy to work with the couple isn’t available and the only option is the one that feels this strongly about it.  Why would want to give your money to someone who is being forced to work with you?  Have you ever thought about what they could put in that cake?  I say that jokingly of course, but it could happen.

    A business in a free market society should be allowed to decide for themselves who they work with and who they don’t.  The consumers can then make their choices and decide if they want to give their money to a business who adheres to certain practices.  I certainly would never go to restaurant that hung a sign saying they wouldn’t do business with a group of people for reasons such as skin color, religious background, or heritage.  I will take my money elsewhere.  That is the power that I possess.  Nor is that even a relevant issue when it comes to this piece of legislation.

    A jury will get decide.  This law doesn’t guarantee they will win, only that they will be heard.  One would think that gay activists would be happy to put this into a court of law.  They have done so many, many times over the past decade to force their will onto others.  Why are they upset about this?  This piece of legislation just took a page out of their playbook.

     
  • just a conservative girl 10:12 AM on 06/18/2013 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Arizona, motor voter law, , , voter registration   

    Federal Law, State Law, and the Constitution 

    I have seen much going around on social media on the SCOTUS ruling on Arizona and the motor voter laws.  Yesterday, the court came out with a 7-2 ruling that Arizona couldn’t add additional requirements to the federal forms for voter registration.  Arizona wanted to require additional paperwork proving American citizenship.

    On the face it seems silly that the court would come out against this.  But it isn’t silly.  It is completely Constitutional.  The federal government gives states money to cover the costs of all seats that are held in the federal government.  The Constitution says:

    The Elections Clause, Art. I, §4, cl. 1, provides:

    “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections
    for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed
    in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the
    Congress may at any time by Law make or alter
    such Regulations, except as to the places of chusing
    Senators.”

    Now that sentence about Senators is no longer valid since the 17th amendment made senators also subject to direct elections.  But the point is the federal government absolutely has the right to decide how registration is done for federal elections.

    The court also has given Arizona a pathway to make changes to the Motor Voter form.  Arizona can, if they so choose, go to the Elections Assistance Commission and ask them to make changes to the federal form.  While that is highly unlikely under the current administration, if they don’t like the result, they then can take it to court.

    The Court did not rule on anything other than could a state require additional information on a mail in federal form for registration.  Arizona is free to require additional information on state forms.  Those registration rolls can be cross checked if they so choose to do it.

    The main point of this ruling is that the court did exactly what it was supposed to do, follow the constitution.  You may not necessarily like the outcome, but the federal government has the right and the responsibility to set rules for how federal elections are set up.  If we want changes made to include more safeguards for proof of citizenship, the avenue to do that is there.  The State of Arizona doesn’t seem to be shy about pursuing their options, so let them lead the charge to put more safeguards into place.

    If you don’t like judicial activism, then this ruling is exactly what you want.

    You can read Scalia’s opinion here.

     

     
  • Jill 9:55 AM on 06/26/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Arizona,   

    Video: Outrage in AZ 

    80 miles from the border? This would amount to criminal negligence in any sphere except government.

    H/t: Right Scoop

     
  • backyardconservative 10:01 AM on 05/29/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Arizona,   

    No Escaping Arizona 

    Chicago aldermen are in a quandary, the city’s red-light cameras come from Arizona. While they’re not popular with the public, the money-hungry, cash-strapped city needs the revenue–and they have a contract until 2013.

    Usually politics trumps common sense but high-taxed voters are mad this year, even in all blue Chicago.

     
    • fuzislippers 10:05 AM on 05/29/2010 Permalink | Reply

      Oh, but they’re on high moral ground, just like San Francisco. I’m *sure* they’ll not give in to any financial consideration. Nah,that wouldn’t happen. Only racists are greedy and driven by the almighty dollar. (hmph)

  • backyardconservative 2:13 PM on 05/24/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Arizona, ,   

    The Reality Rubber Hits the Road in a Sanctuary State 

    Illegal injures state rep in Mass, laughs that ‘nothing is going to happen to me’

    Talk about a liberal mugged by reality–I guess we’ll see what his stance his. We wish him a swift recovery.

    Other Arizona links:

    ‘Shameful’: Rep. Kennedy Likens Arizona Law to ‘Slave Trade’

    Crowd Boos Commencement Speaker Who Criticized Arizona Law

    And Andrew McCarthy, NRO, The House Divided.

    P.S. I see Nice Deb was on the case too. Bread Upon the Waters bigtime.

    …Chicago is a sanctuary city, Illinois de facto. We haven’t seen too much Arizona-bashing except for the liberal Highland Park school district, perhaps because people remember the subtext of the trial of our last impeached governor. A big family died in a fireball on the highway with only the parents able to free themselves. The cause–a driver with a license bought illegally. He couldn’t understand English when other truckers were trying to tell him he had a heavy part dangling dangerously from the rear of his truck.

     
  • Pat Austin 6:53 PM on 05/11/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Arizona, ,   

    Who is Really Coming Across the Southwest Border? 

    Over at And So it Goes in Shreveport I’ve posted a video from Justin Farmer at WSB Atlanta in which he looks at the folks “other than Mexicans” coming across the border.  It’s a real eye opener.  Pop on over there and watch it, then come back.  It’s only 3 minutes long.

    Mr. Farmer says thousands cross who are from places like Yemen, Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, and Iraq among others.

    One Arizona rancher found a Muslim prayer rug on his ranch.  Justin Farmer examined a Congressional report from 2006 entitled “A Line in the Sand:  Confronting the Threat at the Southwest Border” (PDF – 39 pages) which confirmed members of Hezbollah have crossed the border.  It also contains photos of military jackets found on the border, one in Jim Hogg County, with Arab insignia praising martyrdom and depicting pictures of planes flying into the Twin Towers.

    In 2005, Border Patrol apprehended about 1.2 million illegals and of those about 165,000 were from “countries other than Mexico.”  All of this traffic includes human smuggling, drug smuggling, and “special interest” individuals coming into the country and creating a threat to not just those border communities but to the nation as a whole.

    The report also reveals the route taken by the Middle Easterners from Europe to the tri-border region in South America.  Then they learn Spanish, trel to Mexico,  blend in with other illegals and come on in.

    Farmer reports on several terrorists seen in the U.S., in the Atlanta area, who likely came in from the southwest border, it is believed.

    If the problem was this bad in 2006, I can hardly imagine how much worse it is now.

    Meanwhile, we’ve got John McCain tromping around down there saying “Complete the danged fence!” and the U.N. is worrying about the human rights of illegals.  The U.N. issued a statement today criticizing Arizona’s new immigration bill saying  it could lead to racial profiling and also laments, “It also makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally.”

    The world is truly upside down.

     
    • Obi's Sister 7:46 PM on 05/11/2010 Permalink | Reply

      I bet that estimate is a bit low. If memory serves me, didn’t some of the 9/11 murderers come over the the border in the same way? And don’t forget that one of them took flight lessons just outside of Atlanta.

      John McCain didn’t give one lick about that fence, until it was election time. Blech.

      • Pat Austin 8:00 PM on 05/11/2010 Permalink | Reply

        Yes, I think he mentions the 9/11 connection in the video, but it might have been in the report; I’m getting them confused now.

    • Obi's Sister 8:36 PM on 05/11/2010 Permalink | Reply

      So many interlopers, so little time…

      • nicedeb 12:42 PM on 05/12/2010 Permalink | Reply

        It was once widely believed that the 9/11 hijackers crossed the Canadian border into the USA, but they were all here on visas.

c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel