The gay rights debate is over

[Dylan]

[Aaron]

Yeah, having Apple set up primary glass operations in Mesa...sort of makes permanent the f**k crew with regards to social concerns. Amongst other business with rudimentary understanding of survival.

[Spider]

Is the governor literally holding a veto stamp in her hand?



Funny. I never imagined they was literally a VETO rubber stamp. For some reason this is worth a wee hours giggle.

[Mr.Bill]

Yeah this veto was done purely because of money, NOT because vetoing it was the right thing to do. There's a bunch of other red states (Mississippi, S. Dakota, Kansas, etc.) that have similar legislation in the works, and the money initiative to back away in these other states isn't there.

The NFL said they were watching the situation in Arizona, which means if this passed the NFL was pulling next year's SB out of Arizona. IMO that alone was a BIG reason this was vetoed.

Other red states like Mississippi, S. Dakota, Kansas, etc. aren't having a SB in their state anytime soon... This issue and type of legislation is far from over.

[Dylan]

Bill, of course we will have to drag the deep red states along kicking and screaming, just like with the civil rights movement in the 20th century. This will take a while, but the reactionaries always lose on these types of issues eventually. And now that equality is mainstream it really is only a matter of time.

[eynon81]

I was leaning towards the "live and let live camp" but the Kansas and Arizona laws have pushed me into the "we must make people be nice" camp. bet I'm not the only one.

[Dylan]

[John Galt]

The thing is... this legislation just made existing laws clearer (including making the requirement more stringent). I would have thought the existing religious freedom act of the feds and individual states wouldn't have needed this. That is to say, I think that 38 states + the feds already CAN do whatever supposed evils that the people against this were claiming would happen... yet they do not. how strange!!!!

[eynon81]

[Spider]

Thing that interests me is...where does the line get drawn at hiding discrimination behind religion? Its not at all a stretch to point out that religion can be very subjective and can be used to justify just about anything at all... so what what rubric do we use to actually squeeze out a set legal bounds for claiming "Because religion!" in discrimination/hate cases such as this?

So far it seems to be a free for all.